My film "reviews", however brief, assume that the reader is in fact myself. It's the only way I can assign star ratings with confidence, and the only way I can feel comfortable in saying what is good and what is bad.

But I guess that I'm not primarily interested in loving or hating a film. I can enjoy anything, given the right context; what you're reading is, I suppose, a very concise textual analysis, wherever possible. I'm interested in how cinematic a film is. Which is why I am frustrated and disappointed by people who love films "because it had a great story". What the hell is cinematic about a story?

I don't use first-person because I don't have to. It's a given (or should be) that what I am saying is coming from me, from my mind, from my personal reaction to what I've just witnessed.

What is the purpose of writing these "Proviews", anyway? To recommend, or dissuade, to other film lovers. But I don't believe in "taste", good or bad. I could never say with full confidence, for instance, whether or not you'll absolutely love a film. I never hype films like that up. And likewise, I would never say, "Never see this film; avoid it at all costs". I believe my way of reviewing is more effective, at least to me,as regards recommendation: you can read my response to a film and say whether or not it sounds like something you might be interested in. But at the same time, if it happens to be something you might consider watching yourself, you're not going to go into it with too high or too low an expectation.

What's the point in saying, "I love the film" when it's clear that I do, giving it four stars? My words should compliment the star rating, not repeat it.