Qualitative Film Review Scheme
I appreciate movie reviews. I’ll read them before, after, and occasionally — never a good sign — during the show.
But I don’t find the reviewers’ quantitative ratings — stars, thumbs, reels, fruit — helpful in choosing something worthwhile.
Instead, I’ve devised my own qualitative review scheme based upon how the film deserves to be viewed:
- Theatre. This film merits nothing less than the spectacle afforded by the Big Screen. The audience demographic for the performance is such that the probability of a biker shouting “Take it off!” to an onscreen Frances McDormand thankfully approaches nil.
- Video. You’ll enjoy this, but only at home when not surrounded by cell-wielding adolescents. Visit the Colonel, snag a half-dozen of Tim’s crullers, and then tuck in with your sweetie on the couch cushions for an evening of escape.
- Broadcast. Your two hours will not have been wasted if you were otherwise planning on tuning in to televised golf. Also, thirty-two minutes of commercial interruption will not significantly diminish the art on display.
- No. There are no circumstances under which you should pollute your eyes with this gawdawful tripe. Do not be deceived into thinking “it’s so bad that it’s good.” It ain’t.
I would adopt this system, but I’m not a film critic — I lack the Pauline Kael factor. So I offer it to anyone else out there who is gripped with a burning desire to tell me what to watch.
December 6th, 2007 3:57pm
With respect to the comment that “it’s so bad that it’s good,” maybe you should consider adding a special rating and icon for that. It could be a red eye–in honour of the film “Red Eye,” which certainly qualifies, especially when you reconsider the film in light of the grandiose “Making Of” special feature of the DVD.
I think you might also want to consider a special rating and icon for movies that are so bad (and not bad in a good way) that you should actually rent them–but only to play in some sort of device that is known to cause irreparable harm to discs or tapes. Sure, it might cost you a few bucks in penalties, but it would be for the greater good. If you need any inspriation for icons etc, I suggest watching Robert Duvall’s “Assassination Tango.”
December 6th, 2007 4:39pm
You gave me an idea: wealthy film enthusiasts should continuously rent all of the crap at the video store so that others would be forced to watch only good stuff. Sort of a Denial of Service attack. Do you suppose Rogers would object to a single customer renting all 25 copies of “I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry”?
I also wonder if the bad = good movies shouldn’t really be rated as such, but secretly known to only a few trusted, responsible cinephiles. I count “Evil Dead II”, “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension”, and “Dark Star” among my illicit collection.
December 7th, 2007 3:31am
Hi…Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..holy Friday
December 7th, 2007 7:27am
Thanks, Jessica. Now to the real question of whether you are flesh & blood, or assembled from many lines of code. I’m just saying that there’s a lot of blog spam that looks like your comment. But, since yours doesn’t link to anything nasty and is also ego-inflating, I went ahead and approved it.
By the way, is there a word out there for blog spam yet? I’ve heard that a blog that is nothing but spam is called a “splog” but what is a single spam comment on a normal blog called? “Blam”?
Update: Looks like “Jessica” isn’t quite legit, but still may not be spam. A quick googling reveals the commenter’s e-mail and IP address popping up with other celebrity names elsewhere (apparently this Jessica is some superduper heroin chic model). And all of the comments mysteriously sign off with a day of the week. I think it’s intriguing enough to leave it where it is.