To distinguish what is considered a bad movie, I will be using three very useful websites: www.imdb.com, www.rottentomatoes.com, and www.metacritic.com. In order for a film to be considered a bad movie for the purpose of the project, the movie has to have scored in the lower 50^th percentile of all submitted reviews on at least one of these sites.

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic use scores assigned and averaged out by a collection of professional film critics (for the most part, a group of equally snobbish movie fans with bad attitudes on par with my own).

IMDB, on the other hand, relies on user-submitted scores, offering up a somewhat reliable litmus test of public reaction.

By using the three sites, I feel fairly certain I can find movies to watch that are considered “bad” — even if I personally don’t share that particular judgment.

Now on to the first movies:

Tips for organizing your collection.

A glance in any retailer’s entertainment section will show that the average price of a DVD is steadily dropping. Ten years ago, it wouldn’t be uncommon to spend $35 on a single-disk DVD whose extra features consisted only of a theatrical trailer and an “innovative animated menu.” Nowadays, though, consumers can dive Scrooge McDuck-style into the various DVD bargain bins that litter the landscape of every big box retailer — doing the breast-stroke in a sea of $5 copies of last year’s summer blockbuster.

With the increased affordability of DVDs, it shouldn’t be a surprise that people own more and more movies. As the size of America’s DVD library continues to increase, there comes a very important question: How does one organize their movies?

While sorting your movies alphabetically may seem like a safe and easy choice, it’s also really, really boring. Just like one’s movie collection is an extension of their personality, the way a person organizes their DVDs says as much about who they are as the way they pronounce “caramel.”

Instead of just arranging your movies from Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid to Zorba the Greek, here are a few organizational choices that can spice up your collection and offer a glimpse into your inner film geek’s soul.

Chronological

There are two ways to sort your movies chronologically. The first way, organizing your movies by the year they were released, isn’t much better then sorting them alphabetically. The second method of chronologically sorting films is a little trickier then just looking up the film’s release date on IMDB.com, it involves sorting films by the year they take place.

From The Flintstones to Jetsons: the Movie, your collection would track mankind’s mastery of dinosaurs to its mastery of flying cars.

The only problem with sorting your DVDs by their place in history is reconciling conflicting views of the past and future. Which version of dinosaurs are you going to begin with: the happy-go-lucky antics of The Land Before Time or the Married with Children-esque lifestyle that was described in the first season of Jim Henson’s Dinosaurs.

Do you include Disney’s reassuringly quaint version of Pocahontas or do you go with Terrance Malick’s complex interpretation of the events in The New World. Or do you forgo both versions for the 1995 film, Pocahontas: The Legend?

Even more difficult of a question to answer, though, is what apocalyptic future will you choose to give your DVD collection. Will the world be overrun by monkeys, robots or road warring Australians?

The best way to settle these lingering questions is simple: parallel DVD collection universes.

Genre

Sorting your DVD by genre can make it easy when it comes time to choose what film you are going to watch on a Friday night. In the mood for a non-stop, pulse-pounding adrenaline ride? Sick with the action genre in your collection.

For increased effect, you can even narrow down your genres into tinier sub-genres. Instead of having an action film section in your collection, you can have a whole smorgasbord of sub-sections that each includes a particular type of action film.

In the mood for a non-stop, pulse-pounding adrenaline ride that has nudity? Try the “TNT and T&A” section.

When organizing your collection into subgenres, the possibilities are limitless. You can have an entire section dedicated to Films That Feature Nazi Monkeys (population: Raiders of the Lost Ark). Other possible subgenres to sort movies into include “Mobster Films that Steal Shamelessly from The Godfather,” “Cop Movies that Feature Multiethnic Partners Who Just Don’t Understand Each Other,” “Horror Movies that Use Credence Clearwater Revival Songs in an Ironic Way” and “Murder Mysteries Where the Husband Did It.”

Appropriateness for Children

This method of organization is perfect for couples who have recently had children. It involves buying a really, really tall bookshelf and sorting your movies from the ground up by their suitability for children.

The bottom shelf would house the tamest of children’s movies – those that encourage either education or respecting parents. As you went further up the bookshelf, the movies would become less and less appropriate for showing your children (probably eventually ending with Todd Solondz’s ode to sexual deviants, Happiness). As the child developed and grew in size, the films that you did not want your kid to watch would always be a shelf out of reach.

This plan is an almost flawless way of regulating and maintaining your children’s innocence. In fact, the plan has only has one weakness: stepstools.

Read more movie related articles

A moment of silence for Christian Slater’s career — taken before it’s time.

Julian Po, a 1997 film from writer/director Alan Wade, is a simple story that not only serves as a crest in actor Christian Slater’s career, but also harkens back to an earlier era of filmmaking.

Julian Po (Slater) is on his way to the ocean when his car breaks down. After he walks into a small town carrying nothing but a suitcase, the locals become obsessed with discovering Po’s secrets. After a day and night of having his every move monitored by nosey neighbors convinced that they have a drug dealer in their small town, Po confesses that he has come to their small town in order to take his own life. Word quickly spreads and soon the entire town knows Po’s intentions. What follows is a series of increasingly quirky encounters between Po and a town full of strangers who want nothing more then to help him on his way to the afterlife.

Based on a story by Branimir Scepanovic, Julian Po resembles a classic episode of The Twilight Zone with its bizarre premise and brisk 84-minute running length. Director Wade set out to tell a quiet story about one man’s journey to life through death and he succeeded beautifully. The movie radiates tragic melancholy though every aspect of production. While it is obvious that a lot of attention went into the film’s production details, the attention to plot details is thankfully sparse.

The film works as well as it does because of the realistic lack of details. In life, not everybody has all the answers. Likewise, in Julian Po audiences are presented with a portrait of a man in the present. Viewers are never given a fleshed-out back-story for Po and they don’t need one. The story is not about why Po wants to commit suicide, but instead is focused on how a small town so desperate for drama deals with Po’s odd announcement.

From the opening narration to the closing shot, nothing in the film seems forced or wasted. Everything about the awkwardness of Po’s quest is presented to perfection. Po records his thoughts down on a voice recorder, often stumbling over his ideas along the way. When he begins to encounter the locals, he gradually shifts from a desperate need for isolation to a newfound desire for human interaction. The story is obviously a fantasy, but the human emotions and insecurities presented along the way could not be truer.

The acting in Julian Po remains wonderfully rich without an inch of scene chewing. Slater utilizes his bad boy persona to catch audiences off guard. Those expecting typical Slater fare will be left surprised at the vulnerability he shows in the film.

The actors portraying the town locals have each developed a library of eccentricities. Michael Parks steals every scene he is in with his performance as Vern, the town’s inn keep who manages to be both a slime ball creep and a truly caring individual. Robin Tunney co-stars as the token love interest who is handled in a decidedly non-cliché way. A local girl who approached Po with proclamations of fate and destiny, Sarah (Tunnery) inadvertently convinces Po not to take his life. It’s too bad, she is five gallons of crazy in a eight ounce cup and saving Po from suicide was not in her plans.

The film always chooses to show instead of tell. Details, while not as omnipresent as in other films, are there for those who pay attention. Sub-plots that seemingly are ignored are wrapped up and answered in a glance between two people or a silent sob hidden from view.

Music by Patrick Williams helps sell the film’s emotions with haunting ballads and strings. As the film builds to a bittersweet ending, audiences will realize watching Julian Po is like watching a clown slip on a banana peal and fall into the path of a moving bus, you don’t know if you should laugh or cry.

Read more movie reviews