The MKFS Film Rating System

Most film rating systems have proven unsuitable for assessing the merits of a wide range of cinema; they tend to be either uninformative, measuring a subjective impression of overall quality, or elitist, measuring the quality of the film's technical aspects (cinematography, set design, script, direction, acting). Rarely are they subtle enough to reflect the nuances that make a film stand out from the crowd.

A set of criteria are proposed here for identifying and judging the salient traits of a film, grouped in the following categories: Visceral Response, or how the body reacts to the film; Viewing Conditions, the prerequisites required to obtain, enjoy, and evangelize the film; and Lasting Impressions, a digest of what emotional trauma one is likely to carry away from the film.


Visceral Response
Note: Higher rankings indicate psychotronic films, lower rankings indicate mainstream films. It is left to the reader to determine which is better; our choice is made.

Wince (0-5)
Truly bad dialog can cause discomfort and even pain in the viewer. o indicates good acting and a solid script, for example Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead; 5 guarantees the squirming-in-your-seat opposite, ala Doom Generation or Pearls Before Swine (my current cinematic punching-bag).

Flinch (0-5)
On-screen violence can be so vicious or unexpected that the viewer's body twitches in sympathy. Note that shock and brutality are being measured, rather than gore and obscenity (see Retch, below); City of Violence, for example, cemented its Flinch : 5 rating early on with the baseball/hockey puck scene.

Retch (0-5)
Graphic depictions of gore, deformity, and perversion tend to inspire dry heaves or the thought "Oh, so that's what that looks like". 0 indicates an innocent, perhaps naive world view as demonstrated by Disney films; 5 ventures down the dank, putrid alley of German scat and snuff films.

Gape (0-5)
Many fringe and cult films fill the viewer with incredulity at the audacity or creativity of the filmmakers, a sense of "I've never seen that before, and I'm not likely to see it anywhere else". A 0 rating would suggest a safe, predictable Merchant Ivory film; a film with a 5 rating is the next Lizstomania.


Viewing Conditions
Note: Median rankings are generally better, though higher rankings tend to prove notable one way or another.

Beerequisite (0-5)
Some, nay most, movies require 2 or more potent beverages to endure. While the tolerance of the viewer and the strength of the brew will vary, empirical studies show that 5 beers is about the upper limit for a movie -- more than that, and the film is watched solely for its Pornability merits (see below). 0 for documentaries, 5 for surreal or absurdist films.

Pornability (0-5)
Imagine you are trapped at sea, or worse, at a relative's house, and this film is the only inspirational material at hand. In a pinch, could it serve as a skin flick? 0 for Mary Poppins (well, maybe a 1 if you take "chimney sweep" as a backdoor reference), 5 for any Tinto Brass film (and most Ken Russell films).

Obscurity (0-5)
The "street cred" of a film: the less distribution a film has, the more obscure it is. If the average cinemaphile hasn't heard of it, let alone seen it, chances are it's a pretty obscure film. 0 for Eraserhead, 5 for that movie your neighbor made in his garage involving his dog, the maid, and a kiddie pool filled with urine.

Explicability (0-5)
Much like obscurity, an inexplicable film is no guarantee of quality or talent. It is easy to create a film that makes no sense, using a Dadaist approach at the very least; a film that defies explanation, but that still retains meaning and entertainment value, is another matter entirely. This scale measures how easy it is to explain a movie, with higher values (for once) indicating normalcy: a 0 is more cryptic than El Topo and Funky Forest: First Contact, while a 5 is the buddy-cop movie that everyone has seen a hundred variations of.


Lasting Impressions
Note: This category will be different for each film, due to the wide (some might even say extreme) range in quality of the works reviewed. Some generally-applicable impressions follow.

Reality Check (Freeform response)
Let's face it, scriptwriters spend all of their time watching Hollywood movies, not interacting with the real world, and eager directors will settle for the first remotely plausible set they encounter. This section lists moments of ludicrous implausibility, whether they be broken laws of physics, improbable character behavior, unconvincing sets/props, hitting like a girl (and winning), or naive representions of the criminal underworld.

Scene I'd watch on endless loop (Freeform response)
Many otherwise poor movies contain scenes that are quite striking, which would be better off as standalone reels used for atmospheric effect (or porn). Any scene which rises far above the rest of the movie it is mired in, regardless of the mood it inspires, deserves to be recognized.

Memories I want to erase (Freeform response)
This could be considered an extension of the Gape and Retch indexes, but it is actually more general than that. A special mention should be made of any scene which is so disturbingly bad, whether through gore, perversion, script, or acting, that the viewer decides to fund research into mind-wiping technology.

What I would do different (Freeform response)
One of the pleasures of watching films of less than top-notch writing quality is the sense of dissatisfaction at the way the plot played out, and the subsequent smugness one feels at devising a much better version. After all, didn't we all want Jar-Jar to die? Horrifically? For 180 or so minutes?