Quick Ratings Update

Well, it's been a month since I last posted a review, and this is still not a review. However, I have a few movies in the pipeline -- as in I have watched them, and I am going to review them -- but first I felt I should explain my rating system and possibly re-evaluate the movies I have reviewed using said system.

Yes, I am sticking to the 10 point system, but I've given myself some guidelines for choosing the appropriate value to best reflect how I feel about a movie.

10

I have never given out a ten because this means the movie is completely and utterly flawless. So far, I have yet to find that movie.

9 to 9.9

An excellent movie with great cinematography, story, acting soundtrack, everything. What holds it back from being a perfect ten will usually be continuity errors and minor plot holes. (I'll usually become obsessed with the movies in this category)

8 to 8.9

A very good movie with all the major elements done well, though a couple could possibly be improved. The fact that not all of the elements are outstanding is what holds it back from a 9.

7 to 7.9

An entertaining movie that excels in only one or two of the major elements, but it still works as a whole and is worth the money.

6 to 6.9

A fun movie, but there is really nothing special or outstanding about it. A movie you should consider waiting to see as a rental. It is enjoyable as a whole but you wouldn't die over missing it.

5 to 5.9

An unimpressive movie with a few good points that save it from failure. Even then, the "good points" will often be sub-par.

1 to 4.9

I group these together because everything between 1 and 4.9 is a failure, and 1 being a complete and utter failure.

And now, a quick re-rate of my previous reviews using the above guide.

Sweeney Todd: 9.7 out of 10. I still believe this to be an excellent movie, and best of 2007.

Pan's Labyrinth: 8.8 out of 10. It is a great movie with many, many great assets.

Be Kind Rewind: 8.2 out of 10. A well done movie with some great moments.

Now that I have a solid rating system in place (ok, maybe it isn't so solid, but it's good for now), I intend on writing my review for Cloverfield, Horton Hears a Who, and 21. Watch for one each week for the next three weeks.

Perspectives: Cloverfield

In just under two week's time, Cloverfield will make its way into theatres. It is the next big monster movie shot entirely as if it were a collection of videos taken from people's cell phones and video cameras or news reports, etc. So expect a lot of shaky camera movements. The big question is, what is this monster destroying New York? Some people have been saying Cloverfield is basically "Godzilla in New York", but somehow, I doubt that. In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if the monster is never actually shown, which would enrage many, but would work best. That way, the inrtigue of what the thing is will not be destroyed. It would be more fun to interpret the movie the way one wants by only showing slight glimpses of the creature and not the entire creature itself. Then the people can think what they want.

The real question, the business question, is will Cloverfield live up the self-generated hype? It does look very promising, but I've seen movies in the past that had spectacular trailers and the movie was a lemon (Spider-man 3). I know of movies that have used their advertising to create a hype that it could not live up to (Snakes On A Plane). Will Cloverfield be one of those movies that out-hyped itself? Or will it truly deliver on what it promises in the trailer? It can go both ways.

With all the hype (yes, the 'H' word again) Cloverfield has garnered, it will perform well financially. But financial success does not mean the same as film success. If a movie makes more money than it costs to make, it is a financial success. A film success is much harder to achieve. It has to achieve financial success, then it has to be a quality film, and still is exciting even after repeated viewings.

This brings me back to the monster. The way the monster is handled will be the life or death of Cloverfield. Those who are excited for this film are wanting to know one thing: what is this monster? If the monster is completely and utterly revealed, which could very much happen, that would kill all the intrigue created in the trailers. Then it is simply a question of will these people get out of New York alive? A much less intriguing situation, but still can be quite intense...once again depending on the nature of the monster. However, if they choose to let the monster remain a mystery, the intrigue will not be destroyed and will leave it to the interpretation of the viewers. When it comes to repeated viewings, the first option will not offer any new insight as you already know what the monster is, and who will survive. The second option, leaving the monster shrouded in mystery, would make the repeated viewings still just as interesting, assuming the clue dropping as to what the monster truly is done right. If done right, on the second, possibly third viewings, the viewer may notice new information about the monster they didn't notice before and thereby change their hypothesis, making the subsequent viewings just as interesting as the first. However, leaving the monster a mystery will outrage many.

So, to me, Cloverfield's success comes down to which poison the producers chose: show the monster, or leave it in the fog. My question to you...which would you prefer?