Evaluation and Classification

I begin this blog as a forum where I can opine (gotta love the word and our right to it) on today's movies and movie industry in today's world. A place where I can discuss, within the context of current events and the coming-of-age of the Millennials (of which I am one), the films released in the modern market. It is for my own amusement I admit, the amusement of others I hope, and for my own agenda as well. For if we can disperse our opinions, who knows what outcomes can be witnessed--just look at Snakes on a Plane. I also look forward to hearing the reception of my ideas about movies and the business.

Let me first clarify the system by which I evaluate movies. It isn't the best, and it's been the subject of several arguments. Some say, “Appreciate the movies as they are.” But with any art (or any work in general), there must be a mode of classifying and rating. If everything is great, nothing is.

I start with a separation by genre. Obviously a comedy isn't a drama, and therefore, it should not be treated as such. Then there are movies that aren't worth grading (See: M. Night Shyamalan's recent pics). Finally there is the scale of rankings:

Decent Movie: one which has at least one of four things:

1) a choice made by the creators that contributes to evolution of the genre (see: The Matrix)

2) a memorable feature that surpasses the movie's initial fame to become an intrinsic part of the times (see: Titanic)

3) a concept that challenges currently held beliefs enough to cause a reevaluation of some kind amongst its viewers (see: Crash)

4) at least a piece that carries historical importance (see: Bowling For Columbine) – it should be pointed out that this is the rarest quality and, perhaps because of that, the most transcendent, far-reaching, and lasting

Good Movie: one which has at least two of those things and proficiency in multiple areas of the film making process, for example the direction, acting, writing, music, sets, etc. (see: Juno).

Great Film: one that has at least two, but most likely more, of the original four things and has proficiency in almost, if not, all of the areas of the film making process (see--an obvious choice--: The Godfather). A Great Film will not have any aspect of the movie that is completely lacking in any area either.

A category unto itself is the Entertaining Movie. This can be defined as any movie, usually in the action genre, that doesn't have me glancing at my watch in an attempt to convince myself I can make it to the end (see: various works of Michael Bay). The Entertaining Movie is an experience that keeps my interest and satisfies, if not pleases, a moviegoer with the return on his/her $10 movie ticket, $3.99 Netflix, or $1 Red Box rental. There are also a series of other distinctions which are broad, and can not be broken down in further analysis: “alright”, “OK”, “not bad”, “didn't hate it”, and the always versatile “Eh. . .”

When I look at comedies in a critical light, the only criteria which I can think to judge them by is laugh measurement, future quotability/refer-ability, and, an important one, second watch (or ability to provoke a second watch). The latter must be considered as there were many comedies that I did not appreciate until they settled in my mind (see: Zoolander). It should be noted that comedies are not excluded from becoming Great Films (see: Animal House).

Some say my criteria is harsh, and limits the title of Great Film to very few, if any, movies each year. Some may say it's pretty lenient, allowing for the inclusion of Hollywood blockbusters instead of sticking to the “true art” of the Indie scene. Let me know what you think of my system. Can you think of better evaluation methods? Also, are there better examples than the ones I chose? Next week I promise to follow up with a post on a specific movie.