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.

Archived Comments

  1. Login Firth on 20071206.Thursday:
    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."
  2. Dave on 20071206.Thursday:
    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.
  3. Jessica Stam on 20071207.Friday:
    Hi...Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..holy Friday
  4. Dave on 20071207.Friday:
    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.