What makes a 'movie' a 'film'?

I wear two hats when it comes to watching films. I am a movie reviewer and I am a film critic. Many might think these are the same things, but there are many differences indeed. I am a "movie reviewer" for the IDS Weekend, but I am a "film critic" in my film studies classes. They do have their similarities in that both examine film to translate for an audience whether it is good to watch, but the two have more differences than similarities and these are sometimes easy to confuse.\nI am first and foremost a movie reviewer, having a job here telling you what films to go see and what to skip, like "Saving Silverman." It wasn't until I had a full semester's experience reviewing that I took film studies classes offered here at IU so at least I would have some clue of what makes a movie good or bad, and not just make readers listen to my uneducated opinion. When I changed my minor to film studies, I learned that these two sides of what seems to be the same coin look at films in completely different ways to criticize them.\nA common myth is that film students enjoy movies less because so many movies are just popcorn-munching-big-budget-blockbusters. We do enjoy films more, but movies less. Now how to tell the two apart: movies rely more on big budgets, above-the-title stars and about as much plot as "The Return of the Cheerleading Nurses" starring Ron Jeremy. Films, on the other hand, care more about storyline, acting (not actors) and the cinematography/editing/lighting combination. Which ones are better you might ask? In my movie reviewer mind, if all you want to do is enjoy a great spectacle that doesn't require much thinking, then go see something with Mel Gibson, a great "movie star." If you want to be impressed with a great story, acting and something that you have to think about, watch anything with Steve Buscemi, a great "film star." But the best are the ones that combine the two. Any film like "Gladiator," "Terminator 2" and of course "Star Wars" take movie and film to the next level. All have great stories, great acting and great special effects. \nThe point is I have a new respect for films that I do not think everyone would understand. I worked at a local video rental store and many people would ask me if so-and-so movie was good, and many times I would answer, "Some will love it, some will hate it." Take a movie like "Bedazzled" with Brendan Fraser for example. I hated this movie because I hate Fraser (besides his role in "Airheads"), but many people who like him (why?) will love the movie because he plays seven different parts. If you don't like him, stay as far away as possible, even if you think Liz Hurley is hot. Different people like different things, and now that I have film knowledge, not just opinions, I feel comfortable telling you what is good and what is a bomb. \nThe hard part comes when I have to remind myself what audience I am writing for. If I'm writing a 400-word article for you to read I just write about the top layer -- the story, acting and a thumbs up or down. If I'm writing a nine-page paper on a two-minute scene in "Goodfellas," I can talk about exposition, mise-en-scene and what kind of dramatic purpose the director has for putting the scene in long take form with a rack focus and an eventual stretch. I have to remind myself that these terms are great for a nerd film student, but aren't as meaningful to someone who just wants to see Joe Pesci stomp on Frank Vincent's head (reminiscent of the taxi door slammed on his head by Pesci in "Raging Bull") and eat popcorn.\nThat is what this column is about; I will continue to write movie reviews because I know how much you all love my opinions, but they will be on the pages earlier on in the Weekend. This section is about film, and everything that has to do with film. Actor/director criticism will be here, movie poster/advertisements will be laughed at and I will tell you weeks in advance who will win the Oscars. Maybe you won't like my opinion, and everyone has their own -- it's just that mine is right.