1. 
   jordan I can't believe you only gave this a 77! What more could it have possibly done?

   November 13, 2012
2. 
   ross Is 77 low? In the general sense I mean.

   November 13, 2012
3. 
   jordan 77 isn't low in general, but it is for this movie. I would think the vast majority of movies would be happy with a 75+.

   November 13, 2012
4. 
   ross You're probably right. 75+ is a watchable, recommendable movie and this was well above average. I'm not going to up my score without seeing it again, but I'm likely to give it another go very soon. This review is also 9 months old. Who knows what kinds of numbers were being thrown around back then.

   November 13, 2012
5. 
   jordan 70's were all the rage back in February. 90 is the new 70.

   November 13, 2012
6. 
   ross Exactly. Inflation.

   November 13, 2012
7. 
   ross So I want to re-review this movie, but I don't want to lose the record of this first one.

   December 14, 2012
8. 
   jordan Yeah, that's definitely something to consider. What's your new review?

   December 14, 2012
9. 
   ross I'm going to up the rating to the mid 80s and actually say something about the film.

   December 14, 2012
10. 
    jordan hahahaha I know what you mean (glad to see you come around on the score) but there has to be a place for reviews like this (the text part of the review, not the score part, the score is a travesty).

    December 14, 2012
11. 
    brock perhaps a "review history" feature?

    December 14, 2012
12. 
    ross Yeah, or just enable multi-reviews per film.

    December 14, 2012