jump to navigation

a guide to the posts

The format of each film’s entry should be fairly clear, but in case it isn’t here’s a quick explanation:

Post title
Each post begins with the number of the film in that year’s quest. For example, Atonement was the 7th new film I saw in 2008, and so its post begins with “#7″. Following this number is, of course, the film’s title. After that there’s the year of production/release, usually sourced from IMDb.

Categories
Following the title are a selection of keywords about the film — the sort of things that are likely to crop up across multiple movies, thus providing a handy list of categories to browse by (to be found on the right). The keywords will usually include genres, decades of production, the rating, and which year I viewed the film in, as well as attributes such as “adaptations” or “British films”. I’ll generally be avoiding names, because there’d be hundreds of actors and directors making the list of categories uselessly long; however, especially famous or beloved ones may make the cut anyway.

The ‘info line’
Moving to the main text of the review, each entry begins with a few pieces of relatively pertinent information. This was changed in September 2011 to makw it more useful, but not updated on the 500+ reviews that existed at that point, so each article includes a selection from the following:
- the year of the film’s production (fairly pointlessly repeated from the title)
- the film’s director (usually as credited on the film itself)
- the running time (if on DVD, the length on the disc (so, usually with PAL speed-up); if at the cinema or on TV, taken from the BBFC, or failing that IMDb)
- the format viewed on (usually one of cinema, DVD, TV, VHS, or download)
- the aspect ratio (as quoted on the packaging, unless obviously different; if TV, cinema, etc, then it’s my nearest best-guess)
- country of production and primary language (for non-English films please assume I watched it with English subtitles; for mixed-language films the primary or country-of-production language will be cited (I intend to avoid listing multiple languages unless absolutely necessary))
- and the classifications as given by the BBFC and MPAA.

The post itself
Following this there is the review itself. There was a vague fixed length in 2007 (which increased as the year went on), but from 2008 this more depends how much I feel I have to say at the time of writing.

The score
The review ends with a score out of 5, now handily indicated by shiny gold stars. And equally handy blank ones, in case you forget it’s out of 5. God only knows how consistent I am with ratings, and some I would rethink in retrospect, but I leave them all be.

Comments»

no comments yet - be the first?


Login     Film Journal Home     Support Forums           Journal Rating: 4/5 (9)