Critique: Film> Articles.

I do ask people politely not to take the star-ratings of my movie reviews quite so seriously. This is used only as an overall rating; it does not necessarily mean that by one film having more stars than another that it is actually better; it is not an absolute rating.

For example, I have rated Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando at five-stars, despite how preposterous it is. The overall rating was based upon how well the film entertained me at the time of watching, and how high I rank it within its particular genre (i.e. I consider it to be one of the best action films I have seen).

However, this star rating doesn't necessarily mean that I consider it a better movie than, say... Thief, starring James Caan, which I rated at four-stars. Thief, I'll admit, is a technically superior movie to Commando, if one must feel they have to compare, but my honesty at the time told me that I enjoyed the absurdity of Commando more than I did the realism of Thief. 

The truth is, I do sometimes enjoy the ridiculousness of some movies more than I do the critically-acclaimed-Oscar-winners; I consider what my senses are telling me, and I go with it. No one should respect a dishonest opinion.

I consider myself a movie fan more so than a movie critic. I hate when people say oh the movie “Such and Such is a guilty pleasure” because it has no apparent depth and its sole purpose is to entertain. Really, if it entertains, it entertains. One shouldn’t feel guilty about stating their admiration for such a film if it connects with them in such a manner.

However, do not misunderstand me: I do not dismiss a film because it lacks an “in-your-face” attitude, which is a trademark of the action genre. Thief, as already stated, is technically superior to Commando and happens to be one of the most engaging movies I have seen; it still entertains me, but in a different manner. The film industry is just so broad that critics are fighting a losing battle with the people that have a tendency to rank anything and everything. If people must compare then all I ask is that they compare the films within a particular franchise; i.e. the Rockys with the Rockys; or the films within their given genre.

All fans and critics tend to favour particular genres; I, for one, have already said that I tend to favour the Action genre, with Crime-Thrillers and Science-Fiction being a close second.

I also have a strong admiration (and dislike) for particular actors. Will this alter my opinion of a movie? Well, let’s just say if I had to choose between seeing a movie starring Edward Norton or Mark Wahlberg then I would not choose the latter. Do you consider this biased? I consider it going with my gut instinct; my preference for seeing a particular actor over another is down to how well they have impressed me in previous movies. So, naturally, I am going to develop a respect for the actor who has impressed me considerably more than the actor who I felt wasted my time. Only will it be biased if I give into ignorance and choose not to see any future movies purely because they star a particular actor that I did not enjoy. I’ll admit, I was never the biggest Matt Wahlberg fan in the world, but he did impress me in The Departed.

I use stars (*) as a vague conclusion to whether or not I, the writer, would recommend the viewer to go see the movie. The body of the review is the in-depth explanation of what I liked liked/disliked and should be taken into consideration the most. I do not expect (or want, for that matter) people to say “Oh, he gave So and So five-stars so we must go see it!” I write the criteria in hope that people will read it and take into consideration the film’s good and bad points, and then develop an opinion for themselves.

You may be thinking why do I bother using the star-rating system when I consider it is so vague? Famous critic Roger Ebert once said "Often, people will cite my stars who obviously have not read my review." This has become the common problem, not just within the film industry, but also within the music and food and drink industries. Critics tend to use stars, or any other rating system, such as a mark out of ten, or a percentage out of one hundred, to rank a particular review.

Well, I tend to think of the star as just a tool. Together as an overall rating, they’re imperfect, but give an opinion of the movie at face value. Compare this methid to how you would judge the opposite sex on a night out. Say, you saw a rather attractive member of the opposite sex stood to the right of you at the bar. Would you be a lot more willing to go chat them up, rather than the miserable, smelly slob choking on their own vomit to the left of you? Course you would (unless you’re desperate, that is).

I’ll conclude by saying this: Think of the star-rating as visual shorthand. It is there to draw people’s attention to the review, in hope that they will be more willing to delve deeper into the analysis of the film. The whole concept of cinema is to “entertain”, and if I feel a movie has entertained me then I’m going to brag about it. No one wants to go see a boring movie, do they?

(C) Andy Carrington, 2008.