Who are you, and why did you make this site?
My name is Phil Calabro, I'm a native Washingtonian but am a freshman at Stonehill College in Massachusetts. I made this website for a bunch of reasons - I simply love film, I enjoy writing about it, and it gives me an opportunity to beef up my writing skills. I am also currently a member of the Washington DC Film Society.
Why do you love film?
People have thousands of mediums to express themselves - through the canvas, through the microphone, and some through the camera. I respect all forms of expression, yet I find film to be the most interesting of them all. Its influence in the world is staggering. Although a common practice, the impression it has left from the past has still carried through the generations. It can be used to control fashion, popularity, and culture as a whole. The effect is astounding.
Film, in today's perspective, has no boundaries. With the help of modern technology, anything imagined can be created. Many people make films for monetary value. Others for possible fame. And others because they know their imagination is the greatest gift they can give to the people. A passion of film for the sake of film is not what I base a review on, but it does count for merit. So to sum up my incredibly pretentious monologue, I love film because it's the most creative way to express one's self.
What are some of your film favorites?
My favorite movie is the ever-popular 'Casablanca', George C. Scott is probably the best actor who ever lived, but followed close by Gregory Peck. My favorite actresses include Bette Davis and Faye Dunaway. And Hitchcock has remained prominently as my favorite (and best) director of all time.
Where did you get the credentials to be a film critic?
To be quite honest, I don't. I'm minoring in film - since there is no major at my college - if that's any consolation. No fancy writing classes, no recommendations. Like the idiom rephrases, everyone's a critic.
What other critics do you pay attention to?
My favorite critic is my longtime colleague and incredible friend, Jack Moore. He's been writing reviews longer than I have, and has become part of the inspiration of this site in itself. With his wit and wisdom of cinema, his site MooreMovies.com remains my number one source today. Not to mention he's a better writer than me...ah, humility.
Three of my other favorites are the guru of film and Sun-Times columnist Roger Ebert, who remains the expert on cinema. The others are Internet-based critics, including fellow Washingtonian critic Willy Waffle, a great film enthusiast, and Jersey-based reviewer James Berardinelli.
Other great sites that span movies from gossip to reviews to previews are ones such as the incredible Movie Insider, a well-founded preview-and-review website that syndicates my reviews, the newly-coined and popular review site Metacritic, as well as the everlasting critic base at RottenTomatoes.
Another great site for all those Bostonians out there is WildAboutMovies.com, a great preview website with great opportunities to win local screening passes and DVDs.
And for those who not only appreciate the fine art of film, but a general range of humanities, I turn to my former sensei and pianist extraordinaire - the king guru of the performance arts, Dr. Charles Downey at his blog ionarts.
I don't understand your ratings system. Could you explain it to me?
Films are rated on a four star limit.
4 Stars: The film shows a very high level of artistic-entertainment value. It's a great example of what moviemaking stands for. It has excellent writing, execution, acting - the whole shebang.
3.5 Stars: The film's just an inch away from perfect. It has most everything right with many one or two flaws.
3 Stars: It's an enjoyable film with its flaws, but people should be able to get a kick out of it anyway and surpass the problems.
2.5 Stars: Pretty much equal with its pros and cons. As me and my friend Jack call it, "a judgment call". It will interest some, it will detract a few.
2 Stars: The movie's looking a bit blah. A tad too many flaws, but with many two or three compromising characteristics.
1.5 Stars: The final product is way too shoddy, with a good amount of flaws to weight it down.
1 Star: Improbable and implausible. Worth waiting in the theater till it's over, but you'll still consider getting your money back.
0.5 Star: Just a step away from crap.
0 Stars: Total garbage. A sign of overexpression, underexpression, and the trash left inbetween.
You do know how to whistle, don't you?
Yes, if I'm not mistaken, you just put your lips together and blow. Now never send me another message again.
