All film critics, professional and otherwise, represent a variety of styles in writing and discussing a film. A film scholar, for instance, would describe all elements of a film in detail. Others may summarize half of the plot and say whether it's good or not. Then there are those critics who just give you the bottom line about a movie.
For me, my style of film criticism involves more of the bottom line. I don't necessarily go into detail of every element of a film. Rather, I focus on the parts that stand out. For example, a movie may be best described as one with plenty of character development but barely any plot to stir up interest, or another movie that is meant to be a comedy spends too much time with lame unoriginal jokes. My reviews are at least five paragraphs long and focus on the one or two things from the movie that stand out. Then I seal it with a bottom-line 1-through-10 rating.
In my opinion, there really is no wrong way to review a movie. The important thing is to find a style that works for you and stick with it. That way, the reader recognizes your style and identifies you with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Anthony,
I think that's a great approach -- focus on what sticks out. I sometimes adopt that in my reviews, focusing on a few key elements that seem most interesting. How does your 1 - 10 rating break down? What equals what?
-David
After doing plenty of reviews, I would sort of describe my scale like this...
10 - Very moved emotionally with at least nearly perfect filmmaking (I'm a bit generous with the highest rating)
9 - Very good with a thing or two missing that prevents a 10 rating
8 - Very good and feels somewhere between a 7 and 9
7 - Pretty good movie, though likely a movie I would only watch once
6 - Good enough with expectations for a good movie met marginally
5 - Expectations for a good movie not met marginally and would be a 6 if it just had one extra good thing in it
4 - Not a good movie, and it just feels in between a 3 and a 5
3 - Not a good movie, but at least some effort is put into the minor elements
2 - Terrible in so many ways except for one or two things I like
1 - Little to no value to be found in the movie
Keep in mind that my rating is still very subjective, but the descriptions still help me pinpoint the rating better.
Also, my ratings are weighted averages of how well the film elements are presented. I'm not like many critics who slam a film for one thing as much as a totally awful movie. Instead, I may give the former a 4 and the latter a 1. It's not all black and white, you know.
The last thing I want to note about my site specifically is how I'm mainly a retrospective critic. I don't focus entirely on every single new release. Rather, I review whatever new release I am able to see and review past movies. After all, a movie can be enjoyed upon release or a hundred years later. :-)
Great info. Both of my sites are based on a 1 to 5 rating. With Film Gecko, it's 1 to 5 Geckos, and Reel Life With Jane, 1 to 5 Reels. I use half-markers, too.
The breakdown on Reels (I like to have fun with it :-):
One Reel: Even the Force can't save it.
Two Reels: Coulda been a contender.
Three Reels: Something to talk about.
Four Reels: You want the truth? Great flick!
Five Reels: Wow! The stuff dreams are made of
If you think about it, a 10-point scale is no different from a 5-point scale with half marks, because good movies occupy the upper five slots on the scale and the bad ones occupy the lower five. :)
Anthony that's a good point. I guess when I think about it with my letter grade system I basically have a 13-point system ranging from A+ to F.
Post a Comment