"EXCUSE ME, MA'AM; JUST THE FACTS..."

Brett Chase. LA Confidential (1997).

So I got to thinking a while back (before the fucking computer went down and took about 5 years of writing with it) 'is it possible to have a completely unprejudiced way inwhich to measure a film?' After all, even the best critics (myself included, obviously) are never going to be impartial judges.

I knocked this thought around in the ol' noggin for a while and formulated a plan: what if all the seperate components used to judge a film were taken into consideration and given equal weight? Then a score could be allocated to each. What could be simpler than a 3 rank system; poor, average, good? Ask someone to answer a simple question, and they'll usually give a varient on these 3 replies.

This, my friends, is the result: CARLISLE'S FINAL WORD.

Fair, accurate and undeniable... Hopefully.

Here's how it works.

Choose a film. Got one? Good. Now, try to be fair with yourself or this will fall-flat.

Let's look at the script's internal logic. Did the story make sense within the confines of the world the film is set? Another way to look at that is 'was it full of stupid plot-holes?' Now we give the film a score between 0 and 2 (‘poor’, 'average' or 'good').

• Did the film make perfect sense? 2 points.
• Sort of worked, a little logic is disregarded to reach a satisfying climax? 1 point.
• The film had more holes than a net? 0 points.

Now the pacing...

• Were you on the edge of your seat the whole while? 2 points.
• Glanced at your watch a few times, getting a numb bum, drawn into a conversation? 1 point.
• Bored? 0 points.

Budget. Was it all up there on the screen for you to admire and ogle, or did the film feel a little 'made for TV'? It's a fair question, presentation matters. You may be thinking this puts small budget films at a disadvantage? Yes, it does. But bear in mind, that's only going to make a very small difference, it just won't be a perfect film, and you may even love it more for this.

• Were the sets and effects completely believable, given the constraints of the time it was made? Yes? 2 points.

• Workmanlike. They did the job, nothing more. Not a 'game changer'. 1 point.

• Laughable, distracting, lazy- even for a no-budget film. 0 points.

Alright, almost done. How about the acting?

• Was it all completely believable, did it serve the nature of the film (if it was a comedy, were the stars actually funny)? Yes? 2 points.

• Most of it held up, a few duff performances but nothing that ruined the film. 1 point.

• Bad. All bad. Transformers bad. 0 points.

This is the last question now, and it's possibly the most subversive. Did the film set out what it intended to achieve? This is the question most open to public debate. If the film was meant to be thought provoking, or funny, or exciting, or action packed, was it? I've seen too many action films that had no action, to many thrillers that didn't thrill, too many horrors that didn't scare, and too many 'thought provoking' films that just said the same bullshit over and over again (yes, war is bad. I know that). Otherwise, was it original?

• The film did exactly what it intended to do in a fresh and inventive way. 2 points.

• Yeah, but it's nothing you havn't seen a 100 times before. 1 point.

• Completely missed the mark. 0 points.

You should now be left with a total, and rather handily the total (or mark) will be out of 10- see what I did there? Looks like a lot, but it's actually idiotically simple.

A score of 0 is a total abomination.
1-3 is crap, avoid it.
4-6 is worth catching if it's on TV, or you have nothing better to do.
7-9 is excellent, worth the price of cinema admission.
A score of 10 is a perfect film, a very very rare thing.

You can't argue with the facts!

So, I'll be using this format, and on occasion a more in depth analysis (particually newer releases), to churn out reviews in a speedy fashion. Enjoy either reluctantly agreeing or disagreeing with the results, but it has to be said that at least it's more impartial than most reviews.

It's worth pointing out I'd tried and tested this theory on over 100 films, and the results weren't always obvious. Hell, some of my favourite films come off at worse than I'd hoped, but the sad truth is it's a fair (if brutal) assessment. That says something for individual tastes.

"It's much easier to win an argument when you start out by being right"

Irish wisdom.