reviews that distinguish most critics, unfortunately, are those slambang pans which are easy to write and fun to write and absolutely useless

Starting with this set, the reviews are on a 10- rather than 5-point scale, in an effort to find greater statistical relevance. I've also added another element to consider in the ranking. (For that matter, I've also begun entering my ratings on IMDB, though that has no effect here.)

The Dark Knight (2008) - "When the menace known as the Joker wreaks havoc and chaos on the people of Gotham, Batman must accept one of the greatest psychological and physical tests of his ability to fight injustice."
Source: I own the DVD
I watched it because: I watched the first one at the urge of a high school friend, and had gotten this one at the same time.
IMDB: 9.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 94% Audience: 94%
story: 5.5/10--I don't know ... I'm sitting here clueless, not even sure how to answer this. I really do not like comic book movies.
visuals: 6/10--so dark! I understand dark, but this is unrelenting, to the point where it can be hard to tell where the movie leaves off and the dark begins.
costumes, hair & makeup: 8.5/10
acting: 5/10--a big, solid Feh. And if a film with Christian Bale and Morgan Freeman cannot rouse more than a "feh" in me, there is really something wrong.
intangibles: 5/10--I get it, there's all kinds of Deeper Meaning here. Literary allusions, metaphor, series continuity, etc. I just don't understand why I should care, and so I don't.
Academy Award winner:
• Best Supporting Actor--Heath Ledger
• Best Sound Editing
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Cinematography
• Best Film Editing
• Best Art Direction
• Best Makeup
• Best Sound Mixing
• Best Visual Effects
overall: 6/10

Big Eyes (2014) - "A drama about the awakening of painter Margaret Keane, her phenomenal success in the 1950s, and the subsequent legal difficulties she had with her husband, who claimed credit for her works in the 1960s."
Source: I got the DVD from Amazon at a bargain.
I watched it because: I like art.
IMDB: 7.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 72% Audience: 68%
story: 6/10
visuals: 9/10
costumes, hair & makeup: 6/10--vintage, but very limited in scope
acting: 5.5/10--standout: this was some pretty basic stuff. Good guy, bad guy, wiseguy, sidekick, "the one who knew it all along."
intangibles: 6/10--if you like the art, then it is cool to see. If not, then those big-eyed waifs might creep you the F out before a third of the movie is over.
overall: 6.5/10

Pulp Fiction (1994) - "The lives of two mob hitmen, a boxer, a gangster and his wife, and a pair of diner bandits intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption."
Source: I own the DVD (Amazon)
I watched it because: I'd seen it before - it was a Nick thing - and it was time to see it again, to take some time and think about
IMDB: 8.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 91% Audience: 96%
AFI: 100 Years..100 Movies (1998)--#95
          100 Years...100 Movies - 10th ann. ed. (2007)--#94
story: 7/10--wild & bizarre but entrancing
visuals: 8/10
costumes, hair & makeup: 8.5/10
acting: 5.5/10--standouts: Uma Thurman (Mia Wallace) is a marvel here, and far better looking after her ... misfortune, than all dolled up beforehand. Bruce Willis (Butch Coolidge) is a thinking man's thug. The better performances here cannot make up for the weaker, though. Amanda Plummer (Honey Bunny) and Maria de Medeiros (Fabienne) are almost impossible to watch - ugh.
intangibles: 7/10--there is just something about it. Clever, different, strange.
Academy Award winner:
• Best Writing, screenplay written directly for the screen
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Picture
• Best Actor--John Travolta
• Best Supporting Actress--Uma Thurman
• Best Director--Quentin Tarantino
• Best Film Editing
overall: 7.2/10

Hell or High Water (2016) - "A divorced father and his ex-con older brother resort to a desperate scheme in order to save their family's ranch in West Texas."
Source: I picked up the DVD from Amazon after previewing it on something else that I watched recently
I watched it because: I've been on a Jeff Bridges kick lately.
IMDB: 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 97% Audience: 88%
story: 8.5/10--intricate and bold, both
visuals: 8/10--there is some delicate stuff here, if you can look for it. Signs.
costumes, hair & makeup: 6.5/10
acting: 9/10--standouts: Bridges is wonderful. His character, Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton, is a grating, testosterone-fueled, [sexy] throwback. Chris Pine (Toby Howard) is better here than in anything else he has done, plagued by doubts and trying to be a better man.
intangibles: 8/10--this is right up there with the best westerns ever made. I loved it
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Picture
• Best Supporting Actor--Bridges
• Best Original Screenplay
• Best Film Editing
overall: 8/10--it is a date movie.

Men of Honor (2000) - "The story of Carl Brashear, the first African-American U.S. Navy Diver, and the man who trained him."
Source: I own the DVD
I watched it because: last time I saw this was at the theater when it came out. I liked it then, but didn't recall much of the specifics. I'm on a Robert De Niro kick and it was available for a good price from Amazon, so here goes.
IMDB: 7.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 42% Audience: 81%
story: 6/10--great story, but a disjointed screenplay
visuals: 8.5/10
costumes, hair & makeup: 8/10
acting: 7.5/10--standouts: De Niro makes great work of messy, confused Master Chief Billy Sunday. Charlize Theron is a wonder as his adoring, complex, codependent wife Gwen.
intangibles: 5.5/10
overall: 7.1/10

Gangs of New York (2002) - "In 1862, Amsterdam Vallon returns to the Five Points area of New York City seeking revenge against Bill the Butcher, his father's killer."
Source: I have owned the DVD for a while, but could not commit to watching anything quite so danged long. This is almost 3 hours!
I watched it because: it had been a strange day at work, I was feeling a little growly - and I have decided to plow my way through all the DVDs that I own
IMDB: 7.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes: Tomatometer: 73% Audience: 81%
story: 5/10--good lord, who would know? Way too long.
visuals: 5/10--it almost hurts to say this about a Martin Scorsese film, but there are moments where it seems cheaply made. Some of the sets feel flat, some of the props appear to be props, and some of the lightning looks like stage lighting.
costumes, hair & makeup: 8/10--OK, yeah, some of the "street urchins" look like they wandered over from the set of Great Expectations or Annie, and a couple of times what was supposed to be blood looked suspiciously colored or textured. (It does not really stay orangey-red and drippy for an hour!) However, overall the costumes and makeup were really good, and the hair especially was spot-on. I cannot imagine what it was like for Daniel Day-Lewis to deal with that f'ing horrible mustache during filming, either. {{{shudder}}}
acting: 5/10--this is one of Leonardo DiCaprio's "chunkier" roles, Trying Very Hard. He is still the best of the bunch, though, in my estimation, carrying Amsterdam Vallon through the ages (and various stages of injury). I am not a fan of Cameron Diaz, and she is not great here. She has fire but lacks pathos.
intangibles: 3/10--this was such a slog, it was difficult to remember, toward the end, why I should care what was happening.
Academy Award nominee:
• Best Picture
• Best Actor--Day-Lewis
• Best Director--Martin Scorsese
• Best Writing, original screenplay
• Best Cinematography
• Best Art Direction - Set Decoration
• Best Costume Design
• Best Film Editing
• Best Sound
• Best Music, original song
overall: 5.2/10

[the title quotation is by Stanley Kubrick]