Here, for your edification and/or irritation, are my capsule reviews of the 1996 films I've seen to date. These began in mid-1995 as ludicrously brief analysis-free opinions, but have steadily lengthened over the course of the past several months, jumping from an average of 75-100 words to an average of 300-400. The analysis quotient has risen concurrently, to the point where these reviews now might conceivably be of interest to people who don't happen to be close personal friends of mine. I wish that I had time to write proper reviews and really tackle things in detail, but, sadly, I don't. (However, I did write longer reviews of Exotica and Kiss of Death, if you're interested.)

In addition to my brief comments, I have given each film a rating, using the four-star rating system popularized by Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide. These ratings are not intended to indicate how "good" or "bad" a particular film is; rather, they indicate how much I personally liked or disliked it. As a general rule, I only see films that are well-received by professional critics, so almost every film reviewed here is admired by a lot of other people, regardless of what I thought. Just because I don't like a film doesn't mean that I don't recommend it.

The key to my ratings is as follows:

****	I loved it.  I want to own it on laserdisc and watch it repeatedly.
***1/2	I liked it very much, and would happily see it again.
***	I liked it, either mildly or with some major reservations.
**1/2	I wanted to like it, and liked some aspects of it, but it didn't 
	really work for me overall.
**	I didn't really like it, but it wasn't painful to sit through.
*1/2	It was painful to sit through.
*	I seriously considered walking out before it ended.
zero	I walked out before it ended.

Four-star ratings are pretty rare; in 1995, I allotted four stars to only three films, out of 123 seen. (For the record, those films were Exotica, Se7en, and Toy Story; I would probably retroactively upgrade the ratings for Safe and Wild Reeds from 3.5 to 4.0, after seeing them again.) The vast majority of my ratings are in the two-to-three-star range, with 2.5 being the most common. Because I tend to skip films that are lambasted by professional critics, ratings below two stars are also rare; a 1.5 will often mean not that a film is bad, but merely that its narrative is sketchy or nonexistent, as my disdain for non-narrative film remains my major aesthetic blind spot. The "zero" rating has only been given once in my entire moviegoing life, to a 1988 adaptation of Isaac Asimov's short story "Nightfall," called, appropriately, Nightfall. I left after five minutes and snuck into another theater to see Midnight Run for the third time. Yes, it was that bad.

New reviews will be added regularly; I generally see one to two new films each week, and I frequently see advance screenings through NYU.