A few quick words

Boy, has it been an underwhelming year for movies so far.

Actually, every year begins this way, with Oscar buzz dying down and the studios dumping its most unanticipated fare into multiplexes nationwide. But considering the weak offerings, January and February have been impressive in terms of box office intake, which is due more to the recession than the overall quality of films playing (apparently, people flock to the theater during times of economic distress).

Of the twenty wide releases in the last two months, I have seen only five. Of those five, I liked one: “Coraline.” My local theater is only a ten-minute walk away, but such a journey hardly seemed worthy of anything involving Kate Hudson, Tyler Perry, shopaholics or male cheerleaders.

I plan on catching up with Tom Tykwer’s “The International” this weekend, but neither of tomorrow’s new releases (a “Street Fighter” picture and a 3-D Jonas Brothers concert) are on my to-see list. Things will pick up again in March, with “Watchmen,” “I Love You, Man,” “Adventureland” and “Monsters vs. Aliens” all piquing my interest. So expect the volume of writing to pick up in the next few weeks.

I’m also going to abandon my ratings system, assigning letter grades to films based on their quality. Not only do I find it to be a simplistic approach to criticism, it’s also a redundant one: The enthusiasm (or lack thereof) expressed in a written review should speak for itself, without being accompanied by a rating.

I have contemplated using the standard star rating, but I feel there’s too much dissent when it comes to stars and how to apply them. Even Roger Ebert gets flack for it. “The star rating system is relative, not absolute,” he wrote. “When you ask a friend if ‘Hellboy’ is any good, you’re not asking if it’s any good compared to ‘Mystic River,’ you're asking if it’s any good compared to ‘The Punisher.’”

So that’s that. If you read one of my reviews, sans rating, and can’t tell how I feel about the film, then I’m not doing my job.