The DeCarlo Movie Guide

Introduction

Film criticism is a highly subjective medium. It is in the nature of film to compel the audience to identify with the story and its characters. As each person has a different wealth of life experiences, each moviegoer will identify with different movies and even different elements within a particular movie.

This creates a series of hurdles when attempting to create a movie guide. First, as the author, I will identify with (or "understand") some movies better than others. Despite considering myself very open-minded, there are some situations or themes which I find great difficulty to identify with. At the same time, I have experienced certain things in my life that make a number of themes and characters resonate particularly well with me.

The first problem this creates is an immediate prejudice (or perhaps we should call it "taste") in movies. Through analysis and reflection, I have made a strong attempt to look past my tastes and to see what a movie really is: a vessel from which we build meaning. Some movies are extremely rich, providing the viewer with a vast amount of material with which to form a deep understanding of the story and its characters. It is my hope that I have accurately identified rich films, whether I personally relate to the story or not.

The second huge problem is the wide range of viewpoints which my readers will bring to this guide. One could say that by creating a movie guide, I have thrust my opinion/view against that of everyone else. After much deliberation, I decided that it is impossible to create either an all-encompassing review, or a completely objective one. With great reluctance, I had to accept that all I have to offer is my sheer opinion of these movies.

Still, I have tried to make the most of the situation, focusing on the idea of creating a "guide", not an assertion of my views upon my readers. I have written each review in a way as to summarize the film, its style, and its accomplishments or pitfalls. Often, I pick specific words, like "slow" or "rich" to describe a certain quality about the movie. I present all of these hints so that the reader may decide for him or herself if the movie will appeal to them. For example, many moviegoers do not enjoy "slow" films: films that, through slow pacing and simple plots, attempt to show the beauty or emotional significance of an otherwise insignificant event.

I often entertain the idea of removing the rating system in this guide entirely. More often than not, a reader will glance at the rating I have given a movie, and on its merit alone, decide how good of a critic I am (or, more accurately, how well my tastes match their own). It is neither possible nor my intention to tell my readers how much they will like a movie (nor how "good" it is). The ratings are merely intended as a shorthand reference tool for the reviews themselves. Under no circumstance should someone take the rating at face value; one person's four-star movie is another person's one-star. The readers must take it upon themselves to read the review and, from my description of the movie, determine whether they are likely to agree with my rating. If I describe the cinematography as a certain movie's strength, and you are uninterested in stylized cinematography, then my rating will probably not coincide with what you will get out of the movie.

Many film buffs and theorists believe in a single definition of what the "art" of film is. Not coincidentally, they often believe that their definition is the "true definition" and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong (like so many other things in life). I am not one of those people. After my brief readings into the study of aesthetics, I believe that the "art" of film is just as subjective as our tastes for particular movies or genres. Because I do not ascribe to any particular theory of art, my opinions of some critically acclaimed movies may be upsetting to certain groups. I also do not judge movies to their release date, which means that I judge a film from 1930 just as I do a new release.

This can cause two dilemmas. First, I understand that the social and technological situation is a very significant factor in a film's creation. As young as I am, I do not have the time or knowledge to correctly assess older films in this way, I will leave that up to the film scholars. If this type of critical review is important to you, I suggest looking elsewhere. Instead, I have catered this guidebook to those looking for new movies to watch. For a film lover, I have seen an exceptionally small number of films (hence, my inspiration to start this guide). As I struggle to expand my viewing experience, I am becoming exposed to older films alongside the new ones. I have therefore reviewed such films in the same manner as anyone else who, like myself, was raised on modern films. So, for those sensitive to film history, the mere importance of a film, however monumental in the advence of the cinema it was, bears little to no meaning in my modern critique of the film as it is today.