Ebert and Roeper got nothin' on me...

So I've been thinking more and more about what to do with this blog. Sure, it's a handy way for me to expound upon the frivolous thoughts that come and go through my head, but how can I make it more interesting? How can I make it be somewhat useful to you, the reader, who clearly is looking to kill a few minutes?

I've decided that I'll offer up a bit of a service occasionally. No, don't worry, it'll be free of charge. What I'm offering you isn't all that valuable, but it just may save you some time, sanity, or even save your life. (Not likely, though.)

I've decided that I'm going to, every now and then, write up some movie reviews. I love movies. Good movies, bad movies, just-so-long-as-they're-not-forgettable-movies...I enjoy them all in their own way. I suppose it's the escapist in me who just wants to slip away from my chaos-riddled brain and focus on something that is, so completely, not me.

Before I do this, however, I need to explain how I rate movies. Some people will give a movie between zero and five stars. Some refer to a number of "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." Rottentomatoes.com gives a percentage of positive reviews and calls them either "fresh" or "rotten."

I've got something better. (At least, I like it, anyway.)

My system was developed after seeing the epic pseudo-historical movie "300." Many people loved and doted upon the greatness of this movie. It made a killing at the box office. Sure, it had lots of action (blood) and fighting. However, I also felt it had lots of boredom-producing moments.

For starters, dude...what's with all the slow-motion? Every time an "action" scene was about to begin, the rock music kicked in and things slowed to a crawl so that we could see copious amounts of blood spurts as people were slain left and right. This carries on for the entire movie. I'm pretty convinced that if the movie had not had so much slow motion in it, it would've been five minutes long, and probably much more enjoyable, to boot.

Next, the yelling was an issue. Nobody just speaks in this movie. Everyone yells. All the time. Ok, so I exaggerate a bit, but it certainly felt that way. We get your point. You're a big, angry warrior. We don't need to hear you yelling "SPAARRRTTTAAA!!!!" every five minutes.

All in all, the movie was just not a pleasant experience. Former roommate and current Italian Nick said it best when we finished watching the movie as the over-the-top rock music played and the credits began to roll:

"Man, even the credits are annoying."

Well said, Nick. Well said.

It's not all negative, though. Remember how I said "300" helped develop my movie rating system? (You should, it was just a few paragraphs ago.) I've lately rated movies by, what I affectionately call, The Spartan Scale.

Here's how it works. I hated "300." So on The Spartan Scale, it gets a score of 300 Spartans. 300 Spartans = As bad as the movie "300." Movies that are worse than "300" will get more Spartans on The Spartan Scale. Better movies will get less. (It's like golf scores or the number of times you stub your toe...lower numbers are better.)

For instance, "Borat," one of my least favorite movies, I've rated at 500 Spartans. (My worst rating ever.) "Bio-Dome" comes in at #2 on my worst list and scores 490 Spartans. "Fight Club" nets 8 Spartans, because it is so awesome.

Make sense? Sure, it's not a perfect system, but I like it and think it's quite funny.

And you know there are certain factors that can influence the Spartan Scale. If a movie features Bruce Campbell...that's minus 20 Spartans right off the top. Tom Arnold? Add 20 Spartans.

You get the idea.

So there you have it. That's The Spartan Scale. I think it's awesome. I give it 6 Spartans.

Much luv,
Rob
________________________________________________
Song of the Day: "Hard Sun" by Eddie Vedder