My 2005 Interview with Chris Hughes, Mark Zuckerberg's roommate and co-founder of Facebook

I was reorganizing the old files in my computer, and I came across the following transcript from eight years ago. I interviewed Chris Hughes, Zuckerberg's roommate and Facebook co-founder, approximately a year after the site launched (for those of you who watched The Social Network, it was prior to Saverin's lawsuit, and after the Winklevoss lawsuit).

A few things stand out to me as fascinating. 

- It was still called The Facebook, not Facebook. There were only 1.8 Million users at the time, and they were only on two continents.

- At this early date, not even the founders of Facebook knew what it would eventually be capable of. They only saw the site as a college networking tool, and were reluctant to branch into areas they were uncomfortable with. 

-They were excited about a Party RSVP feature they were developing, which seems quaint by today's standards, but was groundbreaking at the time.

The transcript (unedited) is copied below.

Interview with Chris Hughes

Interviewed and transcribed by Kevin Wong

Q: How did The Facebook start and what was the primary inspiration?

A: It was originally just an idea that came out of our dorm room.  Mark and I were roommates last year, and he had the idea to make a personal Facebook online for Harvard students.  At the time, we all had books for each dorm, but they were usually just produced on paper and they were separated from dorm to dorm, so the idea was to put it all online and the same time give the students themselves a little more control over what information they wanted to give to their peers.  So that was the basic idea and then we added social networking and messaging and other frills onto that grounding.

Q:  At what point did you decide to branch out to the other colleges?

A: Well we released it at Harvard in February 4^th of 2004 and within a couple of weeks, just a ridiculous number of people had signed up and really quickly and so we said chances are this isn’t just something Harvard would be interested in using. And so we added Yale, Columbia, and Stanford onto the network after that and then we just expanded from there.

Q: When you originally started The Facebook and starting expanding out, I noticed that at the very beginning, it kind of focused around schools like Yale, Columbia, Ivy league type schools Southern Ivy league type schools… was it something where you were trying to create kind of a like a high academia network and then eventually where you decided to branch off further than that?

A: No, not at all.  The reason why we expanded to the schools that we chose was more of a practical reason than anything...because we had never really done any promotion of the site like never done any advertising or postering or anything like that.  We invite our users to invite other students at other schools to join the network and so the idea was, “Well where does every Harvard student know at least one person,” and we figured that if we added Columbia, Yale, and Stanford that we would come up with schools where each Harvard student would have a connection.  And so then the idea was to fill out around those schools and sort of so the next one we added on the West Coast after Stanford was Berkley.  Why? Because we felt that those schools had a pretty significant relationship between the student bodies and so it filled out like that, but we never had any like desire to keep the network elitist or to start it out that way.

Q: How many colleges are currently on The Facebook, and can you give me an approximation of how many people are wired into it?

A: Sure, there are 370 colleges and there’s 1.8 million users.

Q: How many continents does it stretch across?

A: Uh, two.

Q: Europe and North America?

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you have plans of maybe including Tokyo University and going to Asia and Australia?

A: Recently, we just launched the schools in Europe a few weeks ago, and so we’re waiting to see how they play out…I mean we know that universities work differently in different countries and in different cultures and what might work in one might not work in another and so we’re still feeling out the territory.

Q:  Do you have a strategy in branching out?  I know that you have on your website where you can suggest a school where you can branch out to.  Do you follow those?

A: Yes that’s the way that we decide what schools to add.  We pretty much have a list...not pretty much we DO have a list of those schools that students are requesting be added to the network and whenever we decide to add schools we pretty much just start at the top of the list and then work down so we’ll probably be adding another 40 schools within the next week or so and the way we’ve been choosing what schools to add is like that list and cutting it off after number 40…so those 40 are the next 40 up.

Q: This issue is probably going to run around June/ July…by then what is the projected number of school you’re going to be wired in?

A: Um…there will be over 500... It should be up towards.

Q: We were hoping that you could give us any anecdotes or interesting things that you’ve seen that people have done with The Facebook creatively… like is there anything where you’ve gone on The Facebook or you’ve heard through word of mouth of things that people have done with it….like “We didn’t think that someone would do something like that” or someone that just went against convention?

A: Well I mean…the problem with of anecdotes that we hear is that they’re actually using the network in ways that they’re not supposed to and so I…don’t really like to talk about a lot of the anecdotes because they’re not quite within the terms of agreement of the site…but some of the more relaxed anecdotes are stuff like people who start dating because of the site or we’ve had a couple of couples who’ve emailed and said that they’re getting married....and….I don’t think any of them have ever met originally on The Facebook….but they only briefly knew each other before having access to the site and then got to know each other through the site.  So those are always fun anecdotes to hear about or to listen to.

Q: Has there only been one marriage?

A: Well there have two or three couples I don’t know if it’s two or three I know you want to be precise, but it’s been less than 5…have emailed in just to say that they’re either planning to get married or have gotten married but I mean a lot probably don’t email in as well.

Q: Do you know anything about The Facebook as a hookup network?  Just because you always see the ‘random play’ option…’whatever I can get’…have you heard any successes of The Facebook as a hookup network for college students?

A: Yes, yes absolutely.

Q: Ok…can you give me any anecdotes to that?

A: I mean…what I’m sort of struggling with is your anecdote question and I’m not sure you’re gonna mine out very good quality ones from me in this conversation.  I can tell you a lot about how the site works and what we’re trying to do. But the anecdotes we do get…there are a lot of them and some of them are more interesting than others…but just in general I know that people have used the site to find other people to hang out with to go on a date with, to hook up with, to do a variety of things.  Whether or not that happens or to what degree that happens frequently oftentimes depends one each branch of The Facebook, because you have to remember that students at Harvard don’t use the site the same way that you know a completely different school in a completely different region of a completely different size might use The Facebook like UCLA or a more urban campus like NYU. So it’s hard to make the network wide generalizations except to say that yes this does happen, often or not so often, but we hear about it fairly often.  So as far as the site being used for hookups, we hear about it from time to time but again, what we hear is not necessarily what’s actually happening, so I would encourage you to talk to the kids who are using the site so you can maybe get a more balanced idea of how it’s being used at UVa or other schools on the network.

Q: Where do you see The Facebook heading? Do you see it having more of an academic impact in the way that it’s gonna help people network through classes or do you see it having more of a social impact in the future?

A: I think it has some role academically but not a very prominent one I think it’s used mostly as a social tool these days... so as a way to encourage acquaintanceships or friendships that are being forged…so I think it has a much more social emphasis than an academic one…but there are...sometimes people do make study groups and are better aware of who other individuals are within any given classes the person is taking because of the site.

Q:  Do you see it as ever moving beyond college use?  Do you ever see yourself creating branches that aren’t colleges on The Facebook or are just to strictly remain in the realm of just college campuses?

A: We’ve thought about that some.  We’re most interested in staying in and working with the stuff that we know… we’re all college students who made the site.  Originally, most of the people who are working on the site now are college students, and it’s easier to sorta take care of colleges in the states particularly and more internationally before we start thinking about where to go after that.

Q: Do you think you can tell me any new ideas or innovations or overhauls that you have planned for the Facebook in the future?

A: We’re gonna continue to grow and add more schools but on top of that we’re gonna add a couple of features…the newest one that we’re probably gonna be adding in the next few weeks is a party invitation and organization feature that’ll allow users to announce parties and send out invitations to their friends or members of a given group and give RSVPs if the users would like to RSVP.  So that’s the newest feature.  And there’s this other thing actually that we’re gonna be doing is partnering the site with another project called Wirehog which you can get more information about at wirehog.com but it’s basically a file sharing program that allows individuals to share music, photos, videos with friends.

Q: What do you think makes The Facebook so appealing?

A: I think for the most part it’s because the site is really versatile and people log on and do a variety of things.  You can log on to just have fun and look at other individual’s profiles and you’re connected to them or you can log on to get a variety of information that can be really helpful.  Whether it’s building a study group for a class or finding someone’s phone number or screename or just trying to find people who are interested in the same topic as you are, The Facebook can serve that useful function along with the recreational fun.

Film Review - True Grit

Rough and Ready

By Kevin Wong

Toward the end of “True Grit,” after deliberate delays, we finally get a look at Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), the low down man who murdered 14-year-old Mattie’s (Hailee Steinfeld) father. He’s muddy, inebriated, and bleary eyed. He speaks with an absent-minded slur. He stumbles with the determination of a wino attempting to walk a straight line. And suddenly, it occurs to me that I am watching a portrayal of a ‘real drunk,’ sans any sort of irony or artistry. He’s not glamorized, Hollywood style, as a wayward rogue for his addictions, nor is his alcoholism used as a vicarious glimpse into his inner, evil devil. He is merely a pathetic, sad, little man, and the first thing that crossed my mind was “what a waste,” of his life and of Mattie’s father’s.

It's an insightful, inspired characterization in a film that is strangely careful. I say strangely, because it is decidedly against type for the Coen brothers to write and direct a film that fits so comfortably into its Western genre. Gone are the sly winks at the camera, the hyperbolized accents, the race-laden dialects, and the comedy of errors that make a Coens film a drama and a farce in equal measures.

The film is a classic tale of revenge. Mattie Ross is a tough as nails, morally rigid 14-year-old. She seeks justice for the murder of her father, and she hires Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), the meanest, drunkest U.S. Marshal she can find, to help her bring down Tom Chaney, the man who killed him. Joining this unlikely pair is LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), an ‘in over his head’ Texas Ranger who has been tracking Chaney for quite some time.

As the plot develops, the viewer gains a real sympathy for Mattie. Steinfeld gives a carefully wrought, award-worthy performance; she depicts Mattie as spunky and precocious without making her cloying and manipulative. Mattie is never anyone’s victim, even at her lowest moments. Her ethos is established very early on; she haggles with and threatens a man five times her age with nothing but words, and their 4-minute exchange, filmed in uncomfortable close-up, had me in stitches.

Bridges, Damon, and Brolin, all acting veterans, have the self-confidence and judiciousness to step back and allow Steinfeld to steal the show. Their performances are perfect support. Bridges, similar to Brolin, also plays his alcoholism for its realism rather than its dramatic qualities. Damon disappears into his role, playing his character as an understated, insecure man who talks bigger than he’s capable of.

Technically, “True Grit” is flawless, and it’s one of the better films this year. The acting is solid, the camera work is solid, the editing is solid (though the narrative lags slightly in the middle), and the plot, while stock, is well played. The photography is beautiful, depicting the West as both grimy and gorgeous. Is this enough, however, to make it a ‘great’ film?

In the past, the Coens have dealt with common, retread themes about the American heartland. They experimented, however, with tone to keep their films relevant and fresh. A couple of years ago, I was having a conversation with a friend about “No Country for Old Men” (2006), and he pointed out that thematically, it had a lot in common with “Fargo” (1996); both films dealt with the corrupting influence of ill gotten money, both include portrayals of capable law enforcers over their heads in trouble, and both have an atmosphere of pervasive dread. In “Fargo,” it’s the wide-angle shots of snow, and in “No Country for Old Men,” it’s the wide-angle shots of red dirt that make the viewer think, “Wow. This place is physically and spiritually dead.”

The two films, however, take different approaches to dealing with that sense of rural alienation. “Fargo” plays it for laughs, ramping up the ‘Minnesota nice’ and cloistered naivete of the characters to comedic effect. “No Country for Old Men” wallows in it, using silence for its soundtrack and painting its characters and settings as apocalyptic, complete with the long, black shadows that they cast. Neither approach is more effective than the other; both make these films modern classics in their own right.

“True Grit” deserves most of the accolades it has been receiving. It is not, however, a modern classic like its predecessors; its comparative lack of eccentricity has a way of holding it back from greatness. There are glimpses of transcendence; Chaney's characterization is unique, and Rooster’s tear jerking, midnight ride to save Mattie’s life takes place underneath an eerie blanket of stars. The epilogue, depressing in its lack of resolution, is appropriate, though thoroughly aggravating. The film’s score is variations on the gospel hymn “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms,” a bold choice that complements the violent, rugged action perfectly.

Ultimately, however, “True Grit” does not add something new to the Western genre. The viewer never sees the characters’ quirks and eccentricities, for better or for worse; the film is overly earnest and forthright in its motives, and the characters are a little too safe and a little too static. Some critics have lauded this simpler, back-to-basics approach, which is a throwback to Old Hollywood storytelling, but I disagree. It’s 2011, and the tropes of the West have been overly established. The Coens have made a ‘perfect Western,’ but ironically (and contextually), this is the very thing that also makes it flawed.

Rating: 7.5

To see my ratings system, click here

White Supremacists Annoy Me

Read the following link from the Wall Street Journal: "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior." It will give you the appropriate context:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

When I read this article, the first thing I thought was that the mother is emotionally abusive; I don't personally know anyone who has been raised in such a limited manner (although she might be hyperbolizing for the sake of publicity).

I forgot all about the article until a friend from college emailed me the article, and one of his friends mass replied with the following bizarre, xenophobic response:

From: [Name redacted]

Sent: Wed, January 26, 2011 4:53:23 PM
Subject: Re: Why Chinese mothers are superior

Whilst I appreciate any discussion that emphasises differences across cultures, this article does little to explain the general success of the Chinese. The Chinese are generally successful because they are generally very intelligent. This woman's horrible model for rearing children might have worked in making rigid piano players or straight A-students, but has little or nothing to do with actual success in life. The prohibition from watching television or playing video games is good, as are some of her other ideas. But in the end, she gives herself far too much credit for her children's intellectual capacity. Finally, she makes the great blunder of assuming that good ways to raise Orientals will also work with Westerners.

Let the Chinese show one tenth of the ingenuity of the West and then I'll listen to her diatribes about not allowing her children to make decisions of their own. Yes, the Chinese produce kids who can solve Rubik's cubes in thirty seconds, score high on standardised tests, and play Bach inventions at perfect speed (and zero style) - the perfect results of forced learning by rote. No, in the West we do not pat ourselves on the back for such useless achievements.Thomas Edison, Leonard Euler, Wolfgang Mozart, Thomas Aquinas, and the Wright Brothers - these are the jewels of the West upon whose backs the entirety of China will be indebted forever. No, the Wright Brothers probably could not play the piano very well. But they had the insatiable drive to tinker and explore until they got to the bottom of the answer - something that was allowed to them in their youth by their father, Bishop Martin Wright.

Good for you, Chinese mother. You go, girlfriend. As for me, I'll raise my children as Vikings - always curious as to what lays beyond and never willing to stick to what is known. You can go right ahead and spend all your time forcing your children (who are being raised in a European country) to play European compositions on European instruments and perform in European plays at the local public school. And using European-invented lighting the whole way, of course.

There may have been a time in my life where I would have responded to him with aggressive, angry invective. Instead, I decided to mass reply to him and all his friends with the following:

Wed, January 26, 2011 5:37:22 PM

Re: Why Chinese mothers are superior

I'm afraid that you're making the mistake of assuming that the Chinese are generally very intelligent. As a teacher in a culturally diverse area, the ratio of dumb to smart across cultures is pretty consistent; a few losers, a few winners, and a lot of C students in the middle. Unfortunately, the Chinese are stereotyped from the out start by unrealistic expectations. A good way of thinking about how this stereotype developed is that most Americans only see the intelligent Chinese people that made it out of Chinatown (immigrant communities) and live next to them; they don't see the thousands of kids that failed to get out of Chinatown because they were not as ambitious or intelligent.

It's a logical fallacy to cherry pick four Western innovators across 400 years to prove your point of Western innovation. The people you named are uniquely gifted and curious, and they exist in every culture. Are you really going to say that there are not Chinese who have not made technological, philosophical, and academic advances comparative to the West? And aren't you comparing the combined innovations all of America and Europe to a single country in Asia? It's also worth noting that the people of Chinese descent mentioned in the article ARE American. Are you making a ethnic point or a cultural point about the Chinese?

I disliked the article, because this woman (and by proxy the journalist who wrote this article) is implicitly speaking on behalf of all Chinese, as if saying that this is a "Chinese" model of raising children. It's a strange extension of the 'inscrutable' Chinese stereotype, where we are seen as a mindless, inscrutable mass of people. I was never raised like that, and my parents allowed me to pursue my interests while also emphasizing academic success (as good parents tend to do!) I also see the "Chinese" model among other cultures. Colleagues who are Nigerian, Jewish, and Irish all told me they had a "Chinese" manner of being raised. I don't see this authoritarian approach to child rearing as being exclusively Asian. The writer makes the mistake of taking an abusive, controlling parent, and using this parent to reinforce a common generalization about the Chinese at large. I suppose there may be cultural values that the Chinese raise their kids with, but this, by my estimate, is extreme.

The article, from beginning to end, is flawed, and what this woman describes is awful and is not "Chinese." No culture should be defined so strongly by one loud, voice. This would be the same as taking a self-proclaimed, patriotic 'American' mother who coddled her kids to be entitled, lazy brats, and discussing this as raising the child in an 'American' way. It's a simplistic, stupid approach. It's alarming that anyone would view such a misinformed article as truthful and use it to make a vague point about Western superiority in ingenuity.

This Oriental is still waiting to hear back. Punk.

My Trip to Hershey Park

Barbara and I just got back from Hershey Park.

One of the characteristics that makes me contradictory is that I am obsessed with both high and low culture in equal, enthusiastic measures. On one extreme, I love Woody Allen, Beethoven's 7th Symphony, and sushi. On the other extreme, I love professional wrestling, violent horror films, and White Castle. Theme parks are definitely one of my favorite, low end pleasures, and they have a mushy, nostalgic value for me.

I think one of the toughest things a couple (or a family for that matter) can do is take a trip together. I was worried about it at first, because I didn't want to stress during a time that I was supposed to relax, nor did I want to be stuck in the middle of Pennsylvania fighting with someone I love.

I'm happy to report that the weekend has been the highlight of my summer thus far. It was restful, romantic, and fun, and we could not have asked for better timing; whenever we were outside having fun, it was sunny, and when it rained, we were indoors on rides.

I've been to the park three times (including this time), and every time I go, it keeps getting better. The first time I went in elementary school there were only a few roller coasters. Now, there are 11 roller coasters and entire section dedicated to water rides , my favorite roller coaster was the Great Bear, an inverted roller coaster with one loop and two corkscrews.

I also did really well at the carnival games this time. I won Barbara two stuffed dogs and a little, blue monkey.

The worst part of the trip was the food. I lost close to 10 pounds over the past two weeks, and I certainly undid my progress with two days of s'mores, french fries, Hershey's chocolate, and gallons of iced tea.

This weekend was my last respite before going back into the trenches; I start preparing for the upcoming school year on Wednesday. The trip was a perfect, romantic way to end the summer.

Aspiring Chef

I'm learning how to cook, and today was one of those days that I felt more inspired than most. Barbara had a tough day at work, and I really wanted to treat her to something nice.

So I went to the Hippie Store (that's what I call the organic food store down the street), and I put this together:

It's a seasoned New York strip steak (cooked medium rare), asparagus flavored with prosciutto, and marinated mushrooms fried with shallots and white wine vinegar.

This is probably the most ambitious thing, cooking wise, that I have attempted thus far. It tasted delicious, and Barbara thought so too. We were both a little immobile after finishing our respective plates.

I've tried cooking a lot of other things before, but here are the things I have pictures of (all made from scratch):

A scrambled egg breakfast, with sausages and toast.

Spaghetti carbonara.

Fresh Maine lobster stir fried in pork and egg sauce.

Other things that I have cooked successfully from scratch are: curry chicken and potatoes over rice, grilled hamburgers, Sriracha chicken wings, and pork & egg fried rice. I'm excited to see what else I can come up with.

Inception - Film Review

Twist in Time

By Kevin Wong

Usually, I write my film review right after I watch the film. This is when it is freshest in my mind, and I can remember all the details I need to write a comprehensive review. I also like to capture my visceral, emotional reaction to the film, which might dissipate if I wait too long to commit fingers to keyboard. I'll then reflect over the next couple of days and edit the draft accordingly.

After I watched Inception, however, I went straight to bed.

Christopher Nolan's latest, strangest, science fiction film is difficult to pin down. It unfolds in layers, both literally and figuratively, and it's hard to determine what is meant to be deliberately confusing and what is the result of poor screenwriting choices. Nolan's first film, Memento, did not have this effect on me. That film, an interesting exercise in jumbled chronology, had a single, simple plot line that could be followed. I admire a lot of things in Inception, including its ambition, but Nolan has bitten off a bit more than he can chew in this latest outing. The film wants to be two different things, and this compromises what could have been a more direct, and thus more effective, film.

The first thing that it wants to be is an Ocean's 11-esque heist caper. Don Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the Danny Ocean of sorts - the leader of professional 'extractors' who enter people's unconscious minds to root out otherwise unattainable information. And like Danny Ocean, Cobb has also assembled a crew of professional, multicultural thieves for hire: Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a right hand wiseass who's the closest thing Cobb has to a colleague; and Adriadne (Ellen Page), a student and 'architect,' whose job it is to construct the setting of the dream through which they can access their victim's mind. The crew is rounded out by Eames (Tom Hardy), a 'forger' who roleplays necessary roles in the dream; and Yusuf (Dileep Rao) a 'chemist' who tranquilizes the victim with enough sedatives to keep them under while the crew performs their mental heist.

They've been asked by Saito (Ken Watanabe), a businessman with shady interests, to perform a nigh impossible task; rather than extracting a thought or fact from someone's mind, Saito wants the crew to plant one in the mind of a rival businessman.

This, however, proves difficult. In order to plant the thought well and not arouse suspicion, they have have to dig very deeply into their subject's mind. Have you ever had a dream within a dream? Where you have a dream, and then wake up and are still in a dream? Cobb and his crew have to go one more level down, and dig into a dream within a dream within a dream, to do their job effectively.

The intricacies of doing this is the great part of the film. There are visual sequences that adhere to a wonderful sort of dream logic: zero gravity enclosures, upside down cities, bridges being constructed out of spare parts, and time slowed to a jellied crawl. All of this, and the extended, expositional dialogue that explains how it all works, was grin-inducing and engaging in the fullest; I watched these sequences with the interest of a student, wanting to know more about the complexities of this strange, futuristic world.

The 'heist' itself was really enjoyable too. Apparently, time slows down the deeper one pushes into a person's mind, and this makes for some action sequences that were wonderfully edited and visually rich. From a rain-soaked urban backdrop, to a gaudily modern hotel, to a snow-covered, militarized landscape, the film's dreams get more and more compelling the further down they dig.

The best heist films in Hollywood, from The Killing to A Fish Called Wanda, focused on the process of the heist itself, because the filmmakers knew what was most fascinating to focus on. Characterization, in other words, took a backseat to process. And this is how I wish the film had remained: as a science fiction heist film. It's when Nolan turns the film into a thesis about the difference between reality and make believe, between forgiveness and carrying guilt, that the film goes off the rails. DiCaprio plays Cobb as a tortured, mentally unbalanced fellow who, unfortunately, is identical to the same tortured, mentally unbalanced fellow he played in Shutter Island, which was released earlier this year. Just as in that film, he's pining incessantly over a dead woman, and it's an unnecessary complication to what we're really interested in: the intricacies of dream travel.

Come awards season, I can definitely see this film snagging a nomination or two; the first half is done expertly well. Inception has a great look and a clever premise, but it aims to be transcendent, and in this attempt, falls short of its goals. Cobb's psychological problems come to dominate the film, both literally and thematically, and the issues are merely grazed, not delved into deeply enough to make us sympathize with Cobb or any of the associated characters. What could have been a clean, well-drawn plot thread becomes unnecessarily twisted, and I left the theater more puzzled than I ought to have been and more emotionally disconnected than I wanted to be. Inception's audience receives melodrama instead of drama, and is ultimately left out in the cold, wondering what happened to the slick, fun movie they were watching.

Rating: 6.5

To see my ratings system, click here

My Film Rating System

I'm seeing Inception tonight with Barbara, and I'm really looking forward to it!

One of the main reasons I started this blog a couple of days ago is because I missed writing. From 2004-2007, I wrote constantly. I wrote poetry, I was working on a screenplay about Asian men in America, I was freelancing for three culture magazines, and I was doing online journalism for free. I wrote so much that I gave myself a wrist condition (I still have a faded scar from the surgery).

I stopped writing because I was focused, to the point of isolation, on attaining my Master's degree and learning to be a good teacher. This blog is my first step in reclaiming my status as a writer, and this time, in an environment where I don't have to adhere to word limits and style sheets.

I plan on reviewing a lot of films, because I love films. Below is my rating system for films on a scale of 0 - 10. Like most film critics, I struggle with how to rate films; does a film that aims high and falls short deserve a lower rating than a film with low aims that perfectly achieves its goals? It's the sort of thing that's probably garnered more words amongst film nerds (myself included) than it's worth, and I try not to over think it too much. Without further ado:

0 - Irredeemable: Just as most films don't deserve a 10, most films don't deserve a 0 either. This is a film that is not only poorly written, acted, directed, and edited, but it also lowers the general discourse.

1 - Poor: A disaster. Basically the same as a 0, except perhaps the acting is slightly better, or it's harmless in its content despite its ineptitude. The Hollywood system usually axes 0s and 1s before they get filmed, but there are exceptions.

2 - Bad: A film is bad if it sets low aims of achievement, and it mostly fails in achieving the mediocrity it expects of itself. It may have one or two laughs or some interesting camera work, but it's mostly a disaster.

3 - Mediocre: A mediocre film doesn't distinguish itself; there's nothing offensively bad, but it's dull. A general lack of ambition or creativity can result in a rating of 3.

4 - Flawed: This is a milquetoast film that is slightly below average. Maybe there are some good scenes or funny bits, but the bad ultimately outweighs the good. It could also be an ambitious film that falls short of its aims.

5 - Average: An average film is fun or meaningful during the time that you spend in the theater, but it is forgotten the moment you leave your seat. You don't feel like you wasted your money by renting it or purchasing a ticket, but it made no impact beyond entertaining you for the moments you were watching it.

6 - Enjoyable: This is when I would start recommending the film to a friend. An enjoyable film is fun, and I might watch it again if I saw it on TV. It may contain basic flaws, like awkward editing or a predictable ending, but I can overlook these because I was entertained. Many films fall into the midrange of 4 to 6.

7 - Wonderful In Its Genre: A film that is solid on all counts would deserve a 7. There are few discernible weaknesses in a 7 film. However, the film is not transcendent and does not say anything profound about the human condition. The film does not emotionally 'stay' with the viewer after having been viewed. Many lowbrow comedies and melodramas, no matter how well conceived and executed, hover at a 7.

8 - Transcendently Good: This is where we start getting into "Best of the Year" discussions. A transcendently good film either leaves a lasting impact on its viewer, or it contains a single element (a stellar acting performance, beautiful cinematography) that is truly noteworthy. Flaws in the film are minor.

9 - Memorable: Nearly flawless in its execution. A great film that resonates with its viewer. Creative and ambitious. A 9 film can be perfect, but it may lack that extra 'oomph' that would push it to the last level.

10 - Golden: Hopefully, this needs little explanation; you know it when you see it. A 10 film often redefines film and is pervasive in its influence. It resonates deeply, and it gives true pause for thought.

I plan on writing reviews of current films as well as past films. Included among these will be films that I consider to be 10s.

I will post my review of Inception late tonight or tomorrow morning.