@arsaib4
City of Angels was one of my favorite Films, when i was younger. Saw it four times in the cinema in 1997 
I hadn't seen it in a long time since, and thought it might have "aged" ungracefully. Quite the opposite was the case. Though I don't love it as muh as i did, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. It seemed perfect on its own, that's why the **** star rating.
Same goes for Forrest Gump, whih I saw for the umpteenth time. Zemekis just has a golden touch sometimes. I thought it was a totally honest film. What I notied though, was that it would have been even better to end the film with Tom Hanks looking in the distance and a fade out. The feather again after it was a bit too much in-the-face symbolism cause we had already seen it at the beginning

@wpqx
Elephant was perfet in what it did, that's why I gave it a four star rating. But it isn't a personal favorite. Strange, as this hasn't happened yet with any four-star-film...
What do you mean with easier in my ratings? Just curious.
The cataloguing is something I'm also doing for years now, But due to my new rating system, I've started new ones from November 2004 onwards. The cataloguing is by diretor, cinematographer, year (in order of preferene), ountry and alphabetical. Lots of stupitd task work, and due to my laziness I have to catch up with quite a number of films. 
I'd also like to ome up with Top Tens from 1895 onwards, but haven't seen enough great films in one year so this list will have to wait a few years.

Oh, and what I've already said above, a film with a ***1/2 star rating an be far superior to a **** star film. It's just that it isn't a "perfect" film overall. But its qualities exceed the perfet one's.
For example my initial ***1/2 star rating of The Mother and The Whore. The Film is in my Top Ten, while Forrest Gump, and City Of Angels are only in my Top 200.