Though I agree with Mr. Smith that reviews are to an integral aspect of this blog, I wish to avoid the risk of developing a reputation as one-trick ponies. In addition to the reviews (provided according to the system designated in the previous entry, with the slight caveat that I claim to be all but unbiased in my reviews), I hope that we can provide additional content that will be of interest to fellow movie buffs. A few ideas that will almost certainly come to light in the coming months are various top ten lists (with justifications for our picks, and bottom ten lists as well), essays on a variety of subjects, and reviews of actors and/or directors. I believe it is fair to say that when choosing a movie, the best information to have is the track record of its director. That has always been true, but in recent years the value of this information has risen as the number of bad films by bad directors continues to increase. In the early days of cinema, directors were, if nor uniformly great, at least uniformly serviceable. This is no longer the case. We are very open to other ideas concern content desired by both those who love us and those who hate us. Generally, we would like to foster a dialogue about the merits of the films that are being considered, because it is too simple and too common for people to formulate beliefs (or at least espouse them) without proper consideration.
William A. Bazzell, Co-author
The Massimo Dallamano Memorial Film Society
09 September 2007
05 September 2007
Programme Thesis One
This blog features the combined efforts of two film enthusiasts to review established and new films, paying little regard to what is commonly considered schlock or high art, but placing both on an equal footing, and examining the several merits and failings of any and all film, despite its genre or popular designation.
The blog will consist of a series of entries and responses. One of us will review a film which we both have seen, and the other will respond with his own review of the film.
Neither of us claims to be unbiased in our views. A review is always colored by the ideas and experience of the reviewer. So it is, and so it should be. It is our hope that our ideas and experience differ enough that the resulting reviews will be truly, or at least apparently, enlightening.
All movies will be rated by each of us on the classic four-star scale. Films will be rated according to how well they fulfill their intended purpose, or at least what we feel their purpose should be. A 0 star movie is unwatchable under normal circumstances, while a 4 star movie sets a standard of excellence within its own realm of existence. We challenge ourselves to a minimum of 500 words per review. This ensures that no film, no matter how awful, is cast off without due consideration or justification, and that no film, no matter how great, is allowed to rest on its laurels without due consideration and justification.
We reject the nonsensical phrase "It's so bad it's good!" with the utmost abhorrence. If a film's merits outweigh its faults, it is good. If its faults outweigh its merits, it is bad. However, an element that is a fault in one film may be a merit in another. Every film is considered on its own terms, and every merit and fault judged to be such on those terms.
Also, we take requests. If you would like to see a film reviewed by us, just ask. We're both willing to watch pretty much anything. Please give us a month to fill a request to review any film that is readily available on DVD. Requests for reviews of films that are not readily available will be kept in mind, and filled at our earliest convenience.
Clayton J. Smith, Co-Author
The Massimo Dallamano Memorial Film Society
Postscript -- This post will be followed shortly by an acceptance or revision of the terms of this blog by William A. Bazzell, Co-Author.
The blog will consist of a series of entries and responses. One of us will review a film which we both have seen, and the other will respond with his own review of the film.
Neither of us claims to be unbiased in our views. A review is always colored by the ideas and experience of the reviewer. So it is, and so it should be. It is our hope that our ideas and experience differ enough that the resulting reviews will be truly, or at least apparently, enlightening.
All movies will be rated by each of us on the classic four-star scale. Films will be rated according to how well they fulfill their intended purpose, or at least what we feel their purpose should be. A 0 star movie is unwatchable under normal circumstances, while a 4 star movie sets a standard of excellence within its own realm of existence. We challenge ourselves to a minimum of 500 words per review. This ensures that no film, no matter how awful, is cast off without due consideration or justification, and that no film, no matter how great, is allowed to rest on its laurels without due consideration and justification.
We reject the nonsensical phrase "It's so bad it's good!" with the utmost abhorrence. If a film's merits outweigh its faults, it is good. If its faults outweigh its merits, it is bad. However, an element that is a fault in one film may be a merit in another. Every film is considered on its own terms, and every merit and fault judged to be such on those terms.
Also, we take requests. If you would like to see a film reviewed by us, just ask. We're both willing to watch pretty much anything. Please give us a month to fill a request to review any film that is readily available on DVD. Requests for reviews of films that are not readily available will be kept in mind, and filled at our earliest convenience.
Clayton J. Smith, Co-Author
The Massimo Dallamano Memorial Film Society
Postscript -- This post will be followed shortly by an acceptance or revision of the terms of this blog by William A. Bazzell, Co-Author.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)