# The HTS Reviewers



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

While I love reading the reviews by our beloved HTS Staff, I must admit a recent 'concern' after seeing so many 4 and 5 star ratings of late, dare I say it? onder:

Are these movies really that good, or are these guys getting soft? :unbelievable:

:rofl:


----------



## Dave Upton (Aug 4, 2009)

You may notice that we don't review as many titles, we generally only review titles that are "worth watching". There are a lot of two star movies we watch and choose not to write a full review on simply because they're not worth the time. 


I'd be interested to find out if those reviews really matter to our readers. The films themselves get generally good ratings because we aren't "film" critics with snooty opinions, we approach with an open mind and try to look for the best. PQ wise, I don't review many stinkers. 

Feedback is always welcome, but please try to understand our reasoning as well


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

The only thing I would add is that our system of scoring is based on a 5 point rating. Giving a Bluray review a total score of 4 stars equates to 80 out of 100 which is barely a B- and I wouldn't really call that good, I would call a B- 'OK'.


----------



## Dave Upton (Aug 4, 2009)

Also please remember that likewise, a :3.5stars: score is equivalent to saying "passable, but barely". It may just be a matter of perception.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

Hey Guys! Well, you're BOTH correct on several points. I was probably skewed a bit as I see some reviews using a 4 star rating scale, and those gold stars are quite flashy, so even a 3.5 rating looks, well, pretty nice!

Has Cory been kind of busy as I haven't seen many of his reviews lately? I've been missing those reviews of released-on-bluray older titles, many of which I've been revisiting and viewing for the first time with my wife.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

You know what I suggest is that if a movie that has been seen by one of our reviewers is really bad that they dont spend the time writing up a long review however still post a mini review, maybe three lines? Because it still is good to know if its a bad movie as well.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> You know what I suggest is that if a movie that has been seen by one of our reviewers is really bad that they dont spend the time writing up a long review however still post a mini review, maybe three lines? Because it still is good to know if its a bad movie as well.


Hey Tony, that would be nice: help weed out some of the mis-hits, so to speak. Sometimes it sure seems that Hollywood has too much money on their hands judging by some of the resultant films.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

ironglen said:


> it sure seems that Hollywood has too much money on their hands judging by some of the resultant films.


Oh I so agree, I would say that 70% of movies released are a complete waste of money.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

Unfortunately Cory quit a little while back due to some commitments at work and he didn't feel he could dedicate the proper time to reviewing. Dave and I have discussed a couple of ideas around the lesser titles, just trying to put something together that makes sense before moving forward.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

That's too bad- and partly the reason I didn't follow through trying to become a reviewer. Perhaps sometime down the road...


----------

