Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
Any reaction to a film is personal, surely. Because I refrain from the first person doesn't mean I'm speaking for anybody else but myself. Whether or not my résumés are dull is up to whomever reads them, I suppose, but they're not merely synopses. Are they?

My last five Proviews were as follows:

[b]Irréversible (four stars out of four)
What begins as a brutally, disturbingly violent film turns out to be a calmly, gently uplifting one - but for the fact the narrative order is reversed (or is it?). Noé films in long-takes, with a swirling camera constantly, and frustratingly, always moving; the pivotal moment is the rape scene, for which the camera finally settles on one axis, and shows us the shocking incident with an unflinching gaze, the one time we'd prefer to move elsewhere. The use of sound is fantastic.

Top Gun (one star)
Cruise has developed drastically as an actor, but here he plays the familiar role of his early career: the arrogant rebel destined for success, with his biggest adversity being his own ego. Formulaic stuff, not to mention one of the cheesiest films ever made, but there are some impressive shots of distant planes against sunsets. It probably boasts the most dangerous level of testosterone ever produced in a man's action film (the oily flesh on show in the volleyball scene being a notable example), and the line which comes from an angry higher-up at one point, "I want some butts!" rings alarming bells.

The Shining (one star)
Popular horror film; many call it the best. Its most effective element are the long, screeching drones, at their most atmospheric when Kubrick cuts between silent screaming faces and the best shot of the film: an elevator hallway filling up with blood.

Pride and Prejudice (2005) (two stars)
Often brilliant to look at - some of the early establishing shots are very impressive, and Darcy's final emergence through the fog is irresistible. The dance scenes are a treat, with the camera tracking over several separate conversations at once, interweaving as the participants move around. As a contemporary adaptation of a classic novel already famous as a BBC TV series, its aesthetic comes as a pleasant surprise.

Pulp Fiction (three stars)
Responsible, so far, for an endless list of imitations, though this clever, verbose and thoroughly self-indulgent piece remains incomparable. It is a confident mix of written wit and complimentary visuals; first viewings offer laughs and pleasure in the script, but it's Tarantino's camera, perhaps overlooked at first, which cranks up the aesthetic.

I try, wherever possible, to make the critique exclusive to the film. I read many film reviews (even ones I've written in the past) and what is written could have applied to any film. I'm against adjectives, negative or positive, without elaboration, the same way that I'm against star ratings without further elaboration (and aren't star ratings merely just another adjective?).

If anything, I'm trying to use words (which are inadequate enough) to enhance my own understanding of a film. I don't mean understanding its narrative or story, but valuing its cinematic aspects. And that's why in my Proviews you find that "impersonality" (that is, they're precisely personal to the individual film).

I love Duck Soup, and I love Tarkovsky's Stalker. But "Fantastic, I love it" would be a pretty reductive response to either if I was to place the two reviews together for comparison, no? [/b]