New Movie Reviews

Recently I got tricked into seeing a movie that won the Oscar for Best Picture. It left me feeling confused, anxious, and pissed off. By the closing credits I hated everyone involved with it. I actually paid good money for that experience.

As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated with how long it takes to explain the entire plot. That’s why I stay away from movies with titles like Volcano, Inferno, Titanic, and Snakes on a Plane. I feel I have a sense of where those plots are heading.

The award-winning film I just watched could be described as “A bad guy chases another bad guy and kills him.” There were other elements of the movie, but I’m pretty sure they were irrelevant. Admittedly, there was great artistry in this movie, on many levels. But I don’t think it is fair that no one warned me how it would make me feel. That’s why I think movie reviews should have more elements.

For example, I want to know if a movie has a happy ending, even at the risk of ruining the surprise. Is the arc of happiness something that starts high, dips for dramatic impact then ends on a high note? Or does it start high and just keep dropping until the movie ends and you want to swallow a bottle of sleeping pills? So I recommend an arc description, such as this example:

Arc: High – Low – High

I also want to know the star power. Recently I watched I Am Legend with Will Smith. I enjoyed it only because Will Smith has star power. Even some unknowns have star power. So show me the star power rating, maybe like this:

Star Power: 9

Next, I need to know the mumbling quotient. How many times do you have to turn to the person next to you and ask “What did he say?”

Mumbling Quotient: 7

And how long is this movie? Can my bladder make it all the way or is this a two-pisser?

Bladder: 8

Artistry is important too. How’s the writing, acting, directing, and so forth?

Artistry: 8

I don’t mind violence per se. I can watch hundreds of zombies or henchman get mowed down and still enjoy my popcorn. What I object to is any scene where someone enjoys torturing someone else.

Sadism: 8

A good story is important. Mostly the story needs to be original and make sense. I don’t care about much else.

Originality: 6

I have a hard time with any movie with a plot so complicated I can’t understand it. I have a right to know ahead of time whether I will be able to decipher the story I am paying to see.

Incomprensibility: 4

You also need rankings for humor, scariness, and suspense.

Humor: 7

Scariness: 8

Suspense: 3

That’s all I want to know. Don’t tell me a movie is some particular actor’s best work yet, or the director is at the peak of his powers. That gives me nothing.

Comments

[Dinu2008D]

I would like to add an entry for ending. Does the movie roll credits with some yammering old retired Sheriff?

..........................

Dineshani

Wow, check out this site called http://www.fluc.com%3c/a>
com. Free SMS and free mobile ads!! Its fantastic

[evilbunnytoo]

My comment is way late in the game

If Scott went into the movie not expecting a coen brother movie, it could come as a serious unhappy surprise. A lot of people I talked to who hated the movie had a "click" moment when I asked them if they like other serious coen brother movies they had seen.

However, something I am seeing more and more is that people I encounter are finding anything not exceedingly linear, simple, and uncomplicated "incomprehensible."

If the movie contains any symbolism, multiple plot lines, or asks to you infer something they don't get it. To the point that "lord of the rings" is a complicated movie for some of them. I get that the ending of "the prestige" required you to remember stuff that happened earlier in the movie that seemed like a random scene at the time, and so that's somewhat complicated, I guess (I had to explain the ending to someone I was watching it with). But "lord of the rings," the first movie (not even the second one), seriously?

[E]

Scott,

I think No Country is about nihilism. Ultimately that life has no meaning and is disturbing in that it doesn't, finally make sense.

I don't share that view and was very encouraged when the unwashed masses (which I would include myself in) really responded negatively to the ending.

Lots of groans and a loud, well placed, "what the hell?" pretty much captured the feel of the room. A+ for the crowd.

There's hope for us yet.

On an unrelated note, you should consider watching and blogging about the movie Expelled. Would be excellent fodder for us monkeys dying to cha-cha and the blog brain.

I would be interested in your take.

Toward the end, Ben Stein basically gets Richard Dawkins to take off his pants and spank himself.

Hey, with some popcorn, that's a good time.

It was delicious and definitely worth the $8.50.

[lyn]

I totally agree.
In fact, I want to start a new petition to get your money back after watching a sh*t movie...I'm calling it the Campaign Against Sh*t Movies, or GASM for short.
Who's with me?
This way Hollywood will stop making bad movies and we'll all be better off. Also, Cinemas will start giving honest reviews, ever noticed how at Vue or Cineworld all the movies get a good review?

[Leora]

Try a hearing aid and Depends.

Otherwise just RENT the damn things.

[sen]

Best to go sight unseen
Saw Old Men as I see all the directors' pics
Saw Juno as I had seen the writer on Letterman[as a stripper not a writer]
Saw Run Fat Boy Run as I see all of Pegg's pics and added bonus of Thandie.
Enjoyed all immensely, though Old men did have me going 'wtf?' for a few minutes
And then the next day dig up the review and find out what the hack thought of the flick

works for me almost all the time

[Kevin]

I agree with you there. Can't be bothered watching some terrible piece of brutal crap like Hostel, and often wonder at the reason of people who actually paid to see this shit. It's yet another hint that society is crumbling around us when watching torture passes as entertainment.

[Dean]

I like the "Motion Sickness" and "Flesh" categories...makes good sense to know how green I'm going to be at the end of the movie or exactly how much flesh that "R" or "NC17" is really referring to.

I'd also like to suggest another category...the "Drama/Overacting" category - specifically for the those actors/actresses who firmly believe in the "Captain Kirk School of Drama" type of acting.

Even someone with "Star Power" can inadvertently throw in a few overacted lines for dramatic purposes.

[Tanya G]

Interesting comments - all of them. Here's how I use critics to determine which movies I would really like to see... if Ebert & Roeper give a movie Two Thumbs Up, I know that I will generally give it one thumb down, so I don't go. I realize that two thumbs is not really enough to accurately judge a movie. If they threw a couple of toes in there, maybe I'd reconsider?

http://lostandloster.blogspot.com/

[Tanya G]

Interesting comments - all of them. Here's how I use critics to determine which movies I would really like to see... if Ebert & Roeper give a movie Two Thumbs Up, I know that I will generally give it one thumb down, so I don't go. I realize that two thumbs is not really enough to accurately judge a movie. If they threw a couple of toes in there, maybe I'd reconsider?

http://lostandloster.blogspot.com/

[Greg M.]

Dear Scott--
Oh dear. I don't know if we'd get along. I like being surprised by movies, and I feel like some movies earn their ambiguous/downbeat endings, and "No Country" for me was one of those.
The key word is "tricked." Were you *actually* tricked? Or did you just not do due diligence? I see a lot of movies, and only twice in the past five years have I found myself trapped in a movie I hated (Across the Universe and one of the less-than-stellar Adam Sandler movies), and one of the reasons for that is that I read reviews. (Yeah, yeah, spare me whatever complaints you may have about "the critics"--there's no such thing. Each critic is an individual.) The trick is to find 4-5 critics whose tastes are clear, even if you don't agree with them. Clearly, you need to find a critic who's good at capturing the tone of a movie. Although, if you had known going in that this was a Coen brothers movie, and, more importantly, a Coen brothers non-comedy, you could immediately have placed it with "Blood Simple," "Miller's Crossing," "Barton Fink," "Fargo," and "The Man Who Wasn't There"--all of which could be said to have downbeat endings, many of which are confusing.
The movie didn't fail. You failed to find out who the writer/director was in advance and note their previous work. Do your research & you won't be disappointed.

[Tomas Liubinas]

Still thinking about it, eh?

A keyword for you: Yeats.

Greetings from Lithuania
http://tomas.liubinas.com/

[RPK]

There should be a rating or warning about meaningless scenes of sex, violence, or song-and-dance. I have nothing against sex and violence that is really part of the story, (the song and dance numbers are pretty sickening regardless), but when the filmmakers toss in a quickie bedroom scene, or slash someone's throat, just to appeal to the teenage male demographic, it's insulting to those of us who might want to follow the plot.

[Random pedant]

If you think the title of Dario Argento's "Inferno" indicates anything about that movie, then are you going to be in for a surprise.

[steve schiwetz]

Don't read The Odyssey or go see The Third Man.

U might get depwessed

[John Reedy]

I like to rate movies on what they make me want to do afterwards...Do I feel like chopping off my arm, saving the world, or doing my girlfriend?

http://awritersblock.com

[Ashley]

Any films that wins a Oscar should be boycotted.

[Diana W]

Yes, when No Country for Old Men ended, my immediate reaction was "What the Hell??!!" I wanted to slap everyone who made the film and everyone who voted for it for Best Picture because the ending sucked. Why didn't I see that in any reviews? "Good shoot-em-up story with a sucky ending". The same weekend I rented Atonement. That had a good beginning and end, but a dragged-out, pointless section in the middle. Still, I preferred that to NCfOM.

[Matt]

What are you, 79?

[Boris]

I was not terribly surprised by the way the movie of "No Country for Old Men" turned out, since I'd read another Cormac McCarthy novel "Blood Meridian". I was pretty sure that it wouldn't end in a way that would make me happy.

Considering the strong tradition of a happy ending, it's good to see some movies that disappoint this expectation, particularly if they're this well done.

It's also good sometimes to be totally thrown off by the way a story develops. If I want security going into a movie, I'll watch one that I've seen before.

[JimmyF]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, so you are talking about "No Country For Old Men", ehhh?? This is similar to my reaction. I say, YES, it is a great movie, but is it what America needs right now?? I feel more like we need something to help lift us up right now...to lift our spirits. A movie where the good guys win...or something like that. Anyway here is a good article on "No Country For Old Men" and some other movies of a similar tone that have been captivating movie audiences of late:
http://jviz.blogspot.com/2008/04/dark-movies.html

[Jason Wiener]

Interesting post, Scott.

I'm not a professional reviewer, but I do watch hundreds of movies--in theaters--every year (and blog about them at jasonwatchesmovies.blogspot.com), so I think my perspective is closer to the critics than to ordinary filmgoers (not that I agree with the critics, it's just that I understand their perspective).

For the record, I liked "No Country for Old Men" but I understand how most casual moviegoers wouldn't. It's a cruel, cruel movie--cruel to its characters, and cruel to its audience (I think most people's frustration with the ending is not just that it's a downer, but because it doesn't give you anything to grasp as a resolution).

I think critics (and I) liked it because it's not something we've seen before. It's very easy when you watch hundreds of movies to become very jaded and dismiss a solid crowd-pleaser as something you've seen many times before. It's hard for them to remember (or sympathize with) the fact that most people see a movie maybe once a month, once a week if they're fans, and so they haven't seen (or don't remember) the dozens of movies they've seen that make their current movie look bad.

So a suggestion, how about a movie review site where the "critics" can't be professional film critics, they can only submit a review once a month, and they can't watch more that one movie a week. Get professional writers (like yourself) to submit the reviews, since I hate all the poorly written amateur reviews on IMDb. Perhaps critics of other forms (sports writers, food critics, culture critics, etc.) can once a month see a movie and write a review of it. I suspect the reviews will be less jaded and closer to true popular opinion. If nothing else, it could add a valuable extra voice.

BTW, speaking of movies where you know what you'll get just from the title, check out "Zombie Strippers". Like you'd expect, you get a profound philosophical deconstruction of the work of Nietzsche.

[Natural Colon Cleanse]

Haha, another funny post here. Bladder...that's really very clever.

Thanks,

George

[murgadroid]

I saw the French movie Jean de Florette about 20 years ago. I have never been so depressed by a movie as by that one. I kept waiting for something good to happen, or at least neutral. But no. The drought gets worse. The crops die. The livestock dies. The main character dies. Then the bad guy gets the land. The wife and daughter are driven off to the poor house as the bad guy unplugs the spring that he plugged up at the beginning of the film. Ugh!

[Brian]

"Recently I got tricked into seeing a movie ..."

You stumbled upon the key to it right there. Hollywood has a choice: be more forthcoming in informing viewers what to expect, or have viewers who pay to see their movies. Unfortunately they can't have both anymore.

[Jonathan Kelly]

Regarding your arc description a film magazine from the UK (orignally called Film I think!) has something similar. It has a line graph representing excitment levels showing where the peaks and dips are with a brief description of what happens at that point. And I must say it's pretty accurate.

I feel some of your options could be used to standardise reviews. Maybe not all of them as they might not apply, eg. Scariness in "Meet the Spartans". Unless the fact that somebody thought it would be a good idea to make this crap scares you that is........

[Simon Jester]

Sounds like a good idea for a website. I suggest calling it MovieSpoilers.com

[Paul Dove]

As usual I checked out your blog and then went to look at today's dilbert strip. Why has http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/ been changed to re-direct to dilbert.com when it's still only a beta. You do realise that many of us can't see the cartoons there!

All I get is a brief flash of the cartoon before it's replaced by "loading strip...", but it never does load the strip. So I have to go backwards and forwards many times, each time getting just a glimpse of today's strip. Please, bring back to old archive until you have the bugs fixed in the new flash based one.

[Paul Dove]

The index that I'd like to see is the smoking/goodness correlation index. A zero indicating no smoking in the movie, 1 - only the evil characters smoke, 5 - many characters of all types smoke, 9 - only the good characters smoke.

I need this because often movies are spoilt because my wife frequently makes comments like "Don't they know that it looks bad when the hero is shown smoking", or "I'm surprised that he smokes, he's being portrayed as clever so I can't believe that he would be stupid enough to smoke".

She's ok with movies were only the bad guys smoke because that's now an accepted cinematic cliché, and she doesn't care if they give themselves cancer, but if anyone else smokes then we need to be warned of that in advance.

[hbm]

As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated to the number of awards it has won.

[niCk(MemBeth)]

That movie makes you feel depressed, like the world is leaving you behind.

It made me feel old, too

[Chris]

Seriously - no-one has yet pointed out that the summary isn't even correct:

1) The main character is not a 'bad guy'
2) The bad guy doesn't kill him

Sounds like you didn't like a film you didn't pay attention to - hardly a shocker. I guess that could be a class of reviewing in itself.

Ability to not pay attention and still follow plot: 1

If you're purely interested in the plot and don't care about the other 'irrelevant' detail, then just read the synopsis in Sight & Sound - save yourself 2 hours.

[Bob]

"As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated with how long it takes to explain the entire plot. That’s why I stay away from movies with titles like Volcano, Inferno, Titanic, and Snakes on a Plane. I feel I have a sense of where those plots are heading."

It took me a minute to decipher this paragraph, until I realized you just didn't think it through. You basically said that movies with simple plots are higher quality, and you prefer movies with less quality.

[Arthur]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the chance of winning an Oscar is very closely related to how soon before the awards the movie was released.

In theaters in May the year before? Not a chance of winning.

In theaters January/February just before the Oscar awards? Can win even if it's terrible.

[simon]

Ok I'll try this out

House of flying daggers
Arc: High – Low – High – Low
Star Power: 0 – I had never heard of anyone in this before
Mumbling Quotient: 10 or 0 Has subtitles, so depends if you can read
Bladder: 5
Artistry: 10 The most beautiful film I have ever seen
Sadism: 0 Lots of killing though
Originality: 10 It’s a kung fu love story, with colour codes scenes
Incomprensibility: 6 Plenty of twists, all explained at the end
Humor: 2
Scariness: 2
Suspense: 10
On the SAM (Scott Adams movie) scale this scores low, but is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever watched

[ray]

Bladder should not be a numeric value. Usually you'll find the length of the movie somewhere. Also, most people do well even through two and a half hour. I think it's a rather negligible value.

Further, I don't think you should know if there's a happy ending or not. That really takes some joy out of watching. Cause, you know, it's all about surprises and so..
Nevertheless, I would recommend a speed-value. How awake your mind has to be throughout the movie.

Anyway, nice conciderations,
Regards.

[Thatdudeyouknow]

Mumbling thing is easily dealt with by using subtitles. You either watch a movie from the 50s when they knew how to articulate or you watch a new movie with subtitles.

As to incomprensibility that's a quite individual thing - it depends on how stupid you are. Or how used you have been to the Hollywood movies throwing the explanation in your face. Or how capable you are of imaginative thinking. But that shouldn't be a problem for a cartoonist, right? Unless you're watching the movie to relax, not to think...

On a further note I wanted to ask you - is it legal to publish a Dilbert cartoon on my blog that I like? I'm figuring it's basically promotion for you, but since it won't dissapear from the archive as it does on Dilbert.com I wanted to ask you if that's ok or not.

I started to read Dilbert in 1995. I loved it. Then you started with office related and I totally didn't get it anymore. Then I grew up to be an office worker and now I love it again. =)

[Indian Stallion]

I am guessing it's No Country. I loved that movie.

I would recommend one more rating. Sleaze. How sleazy is it? Cos I like..err I mean don't like watching sleazy movies which are demeaning to women.

[ShaunL]

Come now Scott, you need a little uncertainty about what you're going to get when you watch a film, otherwise the whole experience is kind of pointless. You run a restaurant, yes? When you go to an unfamiliar city do you eat in a chain restaurant or try something local? The one-offs give the best (and admittedly, sometimes worst) experiences.

[Elisa]

Great ideas, Scott.

Now could you please apply these ratings to the design of your new flashy website?

And can you please bring the old website back??

P.S. A reader suggested adding a motion sickness rating, too. This category in view of the new dilbert.com would be particularly useful/revealing.

[Jeffus]

The bladder factor is a good one but it isn't always equated to film length. If the film can grip you at the right parts you can forget about any physical discomfort (even the guy behind you sticking his knees into the back of your seat)

[Randolf]

Congratulations on the new web site - take all the things you are not supposed to do on web sites - put them all on yours. Great inverse reference site for new programmers - ‘Go look at this site and if you do any of these things you are a crap web designer and programmer’. Excellent finally giving something back to the industry.

[Piotr]

I have a very simple guideline to movies - average IMDB.com rating.
I don't bother with movies rated below 6.0 unless it's some specific gender I like. Movies rated 6.0-7.0 are ok, but nothing spectacular. I usually pass on those. 7.0+ rating justifies buying a ticket and I am rarely disappointed.

I found out that the correlation between the imdb rating and my enjoyment/perception of the movie is actually quite high.

Obviously, this won't work for everyone. Specifically you, Scott, as "No Country for Old Men" has an exceptionally high rating of 8.5 (#59 in the Top100). And it was well worth my money, thank you.

[SlowMovingTarget]

Funny, I'd have thought you would've liked this one, Scott: No Country For Old Men was about how no one has free will. The baddest bad guy in the film goes around trying to explain this to everyone else.

[Nomi]

Yeah, sadism is something I'd like to be warned about too.

[Annie]

I felt like my money was more well-spent on the trailers than on the actual film.

[Jaime Bakulic]

Hey, I'm a movie critic! I work at cinematografia.cl, and today I watched the premiere of Charlie Wilson's War (some movies can be really late in countries like mine, this movie will feature in May here). So I'm here, thinking... what the hell, let's do it!

(hope you haven't watched this movie yet, so this review becomes actually useful)

arc: low(ish) - reaaaally high - reaally low.

Star Power: Tom Hanks-10; Julia Roberts-5; Philip Seymour Hoffman-5

Mumbling Quotient: 3

Bladder: 10 (you can make it all the way)

Artistry: 9 (specially with colours)

Sadism: 2 (it's only implied)

Originality: 5 (since it's based on a true story, this category is kind of tricky)

Incomprensibility: 5 (not very, not slightly)

Humor: 9

Scariness: 2 (Giulani generates some fear, but that'd be it)

Suspense: 1 (very little, then again, unnecesary)

This was fun to do!

OK, now I'm going to bed.

[G]

I watched a movie just like that last night. I saw the beginning, and then napped until the part where he killed the guy, thus improving the quality of the story.

[Vijay]

"I am a legend" is a good movie. Even I saw it a few weeks back and enjoyed it very much.

[Luke]

You could've just said:

"Unless it's the biggest blockbuster hit of the year with the biggest star of the month, I DON'T WANNA KNOW ABOUT IT". Lucky for you, that's exactly what studios aim for.

I take it you're not much of a fan of indie-cinema or anything with subtitles?

http://thisdevilsworkday.wordpress.com/

[nola]

This type of movie review would have been quite useful were I a moviegoer. Truth be said, in the last fifteen years, I have been to the movies about five times. This not counting Cremaster, which would make ten, altogether. You'd be surprised how much aggrevation this has saved me, let alone time and money.

[nola]

I must say that the type of movie rating you suggest would have been quite useful, were I a moviegoer. Truth be said, in the last fifteen yers I have been to about five movies. Well, not counting Cremaster that is, which would make it ten altogether. You'd be surprised how much aggrevation this saves me, let alone time and money.

[Voshy.com]

"As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated with how long it takes to explain the entire plot."... Beautiful statement.

[Jason]

Probably watch no country for old me, thats how i felt after watching the movie pissed and wanted my dollar back for the rental. Not sure how it won so many oscars.

[Christine]

There's a really good book called "Animals in Translation" by Temple Grandin, who has a PhD, designs slaughterhouses, and happens to be autistic. Anyways, she talks about keeping things simple by ranking things with as few metrics as possible... for example, some government agency had pages upon pages of checklists for keeping things "humane" at the slaughterhouses, but she got the metrics down to... oh, I forget... but it was something like seven. You pass the seven tests, and you have a sane slaughter house.

What I'm getting at is that you've got a lot of metrics there.

So, ever since I read that book, I try to rate things with as few metrics as possible. For example, I've got my movie questions down to two. This is what I want to know about a movie review from a friend:

(1) On a scale of 1 to 10, how much did you enjoy the movie?

(2) Off the top of your head, tell me 3-10 movies you really enjoyed.

If my friend likes movies I liked, I'll probably have the same "enjoyment" experience.

If my friend likes way different movies, I ignore the ranking and ask another friend.

I got the idea from Amazon.com and Netflix.

[Fabio FZero]

This is not really related to this post, but I thought it would be nice to let you know that EVERYBODY absolutely hates the new Dilbert site. If there's anyone that can do anything to go back to the old layout - or to a new one that makes any sense - that is you. Please do something. Your readers will thank you.

[reeverse]

Oh Dear! this is why american movies are usually so boring. They cater for an audience like you. Why does everything have to be so cut and dried??!! going to the movies is an adventure.
That said you must be getting your reviews from a dodgy source. http://au.rottentomatoes.com/movie/ try this website for peer reviews.
Or check out this website from an Australian movie review TV program. David and Margaret are probably considered the best movie critics in Oz.
http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/review/
But remember it is Australian so they may not have all the latest US releases!!
One thing I do agree on is the mumbling rating tho.. Brokeback Mountain would score 100... out of 10

[Ric]

I wanted to make an intelligent sort of comment, maybe discussing the very valid point that an actor's "Star Power" can save an otherwise lame movie. Or maybe discuss whether art should be distilled down in a fast food menu of its qualities.

But instead, I will opt for...

Awww poor diddums, did the nasty Old Country for Old Men scare you? Aawww, bless.

Sorry.

[realityisfiction.webs.com]

realityisfiction.webs.com

Here are some answers to your questions. You guys need to look at the food section first. Start putting people onto it. Get passionate.

[dontbother]

When you're old enough -- a different age for everyone -- it becomes clear what is and is not important enough to worry about, if only because you realize that you don't have enough living-time left to waste on the unimportant stuff -- different stuff for everyone. Most movies have entered that "Unimportant" category for me. Most are crap, so take a nap instead.

[RavenBlack]

I would like to suggest *not* watching Juno, just to counterbalance someone else's suggesting you should.

[Tara]

Best. Idea. Ever.

Your movie reviewing system is brilliant! I would wholeheartedly support the implementation of a review system like that.

[Ankit]

Yeah i had the same experiance with the movie... It was just confusing and didn't really make any sense. I mean to win the most oscars i expected a lot more.

[Ankit]

Yeah i ad the same experiance with the movie... It was just confusing and didn't really make any sense. I mean to win the most oscars i expected a lot more.

[Yan Carlomagno]

Hey Scott, check out what happened with a priest here in my state down south of Brazil. Apparently he tied himself to a bunch of party balloons in order to "fly" from the south thousands of miles up to a northern state in the country. He ended up heading the other way towards the sea and is now missing! How stupid/crazy can that be? lol

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-priest22apr22,0,7662330.story

look for "priest balloons Brazil" at google and you´ll find more news about the case in different sources than LA Times

I´ve heard he did it successfully once and got all the way to Argentina. But this time his last words before departing was "can anyone teach me how to use a GPS?".
I guess he took the words "in God´s hands" too seriously! lol

Congrats for the greatest blog on the web!

[Luciana]

Thank you, bitguru - I was scratching my head after reading Scott's inverted logic :-).
bitguru wrote:

"As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated with how long it takes to explain the entire plot. That’s why I stay away from movies with titles like Volcano, Inferno, Titanic, and Snakes on a Plane."

If they are inversely correlated, then I would think you would _want_ to see Volcano, Inferno, etc. Perhaps you meant to say they are directly correlated??

[burt]

hahaha i like going to boring movies with a date. usually neither of us watch much of the **ahem** movie

[Hate the new site]

The new site is crappy and clunky.

Most importantly I don't like the strip in color on regular days. Especially the new bright ones.

Save it for Sundays. It also provides nice change of pace.
Come monday Dilbert has to be Black an white.

[jeff]

Yes. A nudity/boobie factor. Not just for perverts, but also for prevents....I still have a desire to scrub my eyeballs after Kathy Bates shocker in About Schmidt.

Also, I saw Little Miss Sunshine over the weekend. What a dissappointing rental.

**********SPOILER********

Did anyone else find it disturbing that the grandfather was teaching the little girl to strip tease? Peddie?

[Douglas]

Piss-pants: http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/ now redirects to dilbert.com too! A web site with the audacity to show you a 1/10 of a second flash of a cartoon, then spend half an hour loading adverts until it really shows you the cartoon!

[Sevastian]

Possible category: Likelihood of reviewers using the words "quirky" or "indie" to describe either the movie in general or the female lead. I know I'm not going to enjoy anything approaching 10. Could possibly be expanded to a larger Aggravation category covering the presence of child actors, flaky Manhattanites, Jar Jar Binks, et cetera.

(Full disclosure: the last two things Netflix sent me were a Czech documentary on male prostitution and a three-hour-long religious parable filmed in Swedish by a Soviet director, so my taste in entertainment is pretty demented by most people's standards.)

[Matt M.]

Try putting this into an algorithm and submitting it for the Netflix 10% better movie recommendation challenge. http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/17587/page1/

[GL HOFFMAN]

I agree but the star power is dicey. I just saw THE assignation of jesse james starring brad pitt, with ridley scott involved, brad gray, three hollywood studs. Seriously, I feel like writing someone to get my $2 back, it was that bad.

[patbert]

Sheesh, I guess some people want all movies to have fairytale, happy endings.

Not all surprises feel good.

[bob]

Scott: I was right there with you until you claim to have the right to know in advance that you will understand the movie. You may have the right to remain silent, but where do you get off claiming a right to know what you will understand BEFORE you purchase?

How would you do this? Maybe you can have different levels of reviewers, separated by IQ levels, say whether they undertood it or not, and then compare yourself to them. Since you would not believe them anyway, there would be no point to the exercise.

So, there you go. You can't take all the risk out of life, investments, or Hollywood. Just get some milk duds and enjoy what you can.

bb

[Harsh]

There are two ways you can solve your problem. one is become a member of netflix, rate a lot of movies you have watched, and then see netflix's recommendations. In my experience netflix is pretty good at recommending movies that I like. Another way is join a social networking site that allows you to rate movies (like listal.com), and the site will give you a list of people that have similar tastes based on their own ratings. You can watch movies that these people have watched but you haven't. There is a good chance that you will enjoy the movie and perhaps find new genres/styles that you like.

[Matthew Kovich]

That's actually very close to the system I use to rank sexual experiences.

Originality, Sadism, and Bladder are the key ratings.

[Bloodboiler]

And the Oscar in category "suitable for small bladdered, hard of hearing, simpletons who like numeric measuring of subjective attributes and short complex movies that are easy to understand" goes to...

But seriously, 'No Country for Old Men' and 'There Will Be Blood' should have been marked as "suitable only for artsy film freaks and critics".

[MiaMiaPantsonFia]

It sounds like you don't like films, you just like movies. Here's a hint for you: you can just avoid anything that isn't mainstream blockbuster faire. The problem with movies these days is they just feed everything to you. You don't ever have to use your imagination and think about what is happening, they just tell you. I saw "No Country for Old Men" and while yes, it did scare me, and it was intense, it was an Excellent film. It left you thinking about what you saw, and what it meant. Film here was used as an art form. (ps: most of the reason you were uneasy during this film was the fact that there are only about 4 musical cues in the whole thing, so you never are told exactly how to feel).

[Dave]

>The award-winning film I just watched could be
>described as “A bad guy chases another bad guy
>and kills him.”

Come on... Driving Miss Daisy wasn't THAT bad.

Actually I find it hysterical that you are afraid to name the movie you watched. I can only assume that it might cost you money, and you are a cheap gutless weasel.

[John]

I'm guessing it was "No Country for Old Men"? I thought it was the best picture to get oscar in years.

If you knew beforehand it was based on the Cormack McCarthy novel and didn't want an existentialist themed downer movie I can easily see why you didn't like it. I think downer endings are probably much more memorable and make a more tremendous impact on the audience. Regardless of if you feel like crap, the ending was beautiful and artistic.

I like your rating system though, and if sites like Netflix ran a recommendation system based on what levels of each category you prefer it would work out great. You would have established levels of each category and could say "I'm in the mood for something a little less violent and more of a happy ending than what I'm used to" and it could recommend accordingly.

[spike17]

What about foreign films with subtitles?

I watched "Lust, Caution" last night.......well, I tried to, but the subtitles kicked my a$$.....then the NC-17 sex scene woke me up.......hey.....you don't have a Sex factor? What are you, some kinda,,,,,..OK, I won't ask if you won't tell.....

[dantezcoman]

If you know all that, why go to the movie at all? You have the whole movie in that description, except for those neato-torpedo quotes that end up in IMDB anyways.

[san antone rose]

Scott, I'm disappointed that you hated my favorite movie from last year. I saw it four times in the theater AND read the damn book. The movie and book compliment each other perfectly, by the way, so I encourage you to give the printed version a chance.

And for those of you who were confused by this film, Chigurh was the hero. So there.

[Fuzznsmoo]

That's the magic of netflix. Going to a theater doesn't seem worth the risk any more. You give that movie a bad rating and it will warn you about other similar movies, along the lines of, "if you hated this movie, you'll really hate...".

[charlie]

I like it. Maybe you can add movie reviews to the new site.

[Alex]

hey nice blog!
would nice if you message me:
alex.rothirsch@googlemail.com

[D. Mented]

Watch the trailers;
works for me.
D. Mented

[Ryan]

I agree with Billy Arvia
This needs a motion sickness and a T&A meter
but you also need a calibration scale
T&A: The Whole Nine Yard (I believe the neighbor girl spends 1 hour out of the 1:30 movie topless) = 10, Saving Private Ryan = 1 (was there even any woman in that movie?)
MS: Bliar Witch = 10, Casablanca = 1
Bladder:(do you want to make this meter 10 = good or bad) Lord of the Ring; Fellowship of the Ring extended edition = 1 ...

[Sam Davis]

Many, maybe most, movies are "much ado about nothing" as Scott has implied fairly directly. Particularly egregious, in my opinion, Stephen King horror flicks, which are nothing but neurotic nightmares scripted, filmed and sold to whoever likes to spend money seeing neurotic nightmares.

[Cathy]

Scott, you're over-engineering this. You need to subscribe to my husband's method of movie rating:

Is it funny? (see it if yes, skip it if no)
Does it have a baseball, football, basketball, or puck in it? (see it if yes, skip it if no)
Is there sex (or suggestion of) in it? (see it if yes, skip it if no).

This simple matrix serves him well and keeps him from seeing anything he's not interested in (or, anything very good, but there you go).

[Cathy]

Scott, you're over-engineering this. You need to subscribe to my husband's method of movie rating:

Is it funny? (see it if yes, skip it if no)
Does it have a baseball, football, basketball, or puck in it? (see it if yes, skip it if no)
Is there sex (or suggestion of) in it? (see it if yes, skip it if no).

This simple matrix serves him well and keeps him from seeing anything he's not interested in (or, anything very good, but there you go).

[Joshua Ungerleider]

I felt the same way. I explained the movie to my friend this way, "Man finds, money. Other man tries to catch the first and kill him, does."

I thought I missed something. I don't like leaving movies thinking I'm not that smart.

[PJ]

Who says he was watching No Country for Old Men? The one-sentence description he gives is inaccurate on a very key point, if that's the movie to which he was referring.

What if he was watching Unforgiven?

[Dave (not that Dave)]

I think there should also be a rating for gore content. I don't enjoy seeing other people's guts.

Gore: 6

It could also do double duty to warn you that Al Gore is in it.

You know that you can ask for your money back if you don't like the movie, don't you?

[Raman VikramAdith]

I agree about the violence. Watching something cartoonish like Kill Bill or even 300 is one thing. Watching a sadistic scene with torture is quite an unpleasant experience.

[Benny]

For somebody that wrote a book about awareness, and write quite often about fate, circumstance and free-will, I'm quite surprised you didn't like this movie.

Also Wikipedia is your friend to tell you about the themes of a movie and to clarify complicated plot.

[K]

Wow, I'm really surprised. All these comments and no one mentioned nudity. I mean if you know Monica Bellucci is taking a skinny dip wouldn't that affect your rating.

I'd say chick presence is definitely a factor for me.

[Fletch]

It's worse with Ballet.

Apparently, you're supposed to know the whole "plot" of the ballet before you actually watch it. So basically, you know how it ends.

I just can't enjoy something that way. I found myself with the urge to yell "get on with it!" with a Scottish accent.

[Alan]

In the version No Country for Old Men that I watched the bad guy chases another bad guy and doesn't kill him (it was the bad bunch of Mexicans that didn't get killed by the other bad bunch of Mexicans). I couldn't work out whether that was pathos or bathos - probably because there was too much mumbling.

[tenassian]

I agree completely.

Reviews are almost entirely useless now. There isn't a reviewer out there I agree with on a regular basis.

Sometimes I read a review AFTER a movie to see what "this was about" or how critics reacted to it. But they've lost all predictive value for me.

[Michael Casey]

I agree that many movie reviews suck about providing useful consumer information. I recommend finding critics with similar tastes as yours; your strategy of trusting the vague opinions of strangers is not one that is likely to breed success. If you can't find someone with similar tastes as you, then you're shit out of luck. But definitely don't take entertainment advice from people who like stuff you don't. Have you been doing this your whole life?

[Yuriy]

Heh I didn't like Million Dollar Baby and Lost in Translation for similar reason. Gimme more Spiderman, Pirates, and Stardust, and I'll be happy.

[bbuddha]

A new system would be helpful. ever since Pulp Fiction I tend to stay away from what the "critics" love. after that movie I wanted my time back, my money back and compensation for pain and suffering. What a useless piece of crap. Scott, Sorry you had to endure a similar experience.

[Doug]

The real trick to movie reviews is finding a reviewer who has more or less the same tastes as you, and ignore pretty much everybody else. Rottentomatoes.com has a nice feature where you can see at a glance what movies a particular reviewer liked and disliked. I find that the Onion's AVClub as a whole more or less mirrors my tastes, so that's the first place I look. If they tell me it's good, I'll probably like it. If they say it's a stinker, I avoid it. If it's somewhere in between, they usually do a good job of laying out what's good versus what sucks, and I might then compare against other reviewer's opinions. But really, it's all about having some sort of reference point to your personal tastes.

[ashley]

there are movies that i never want to see again (and shouldn't have watched in the first place), and i am legend is one of those films. its like cast away; to use your scale:
mid-low (sucks to be them)
very low (lose their non-human (thus heartstring-tugging) "best friend")
mid-low (more stuff happens)
high (oh yay! success!)
very low (haha just kidding, now you want to kill yourself)

although basically any movie that makes me cry is not considered a good movie, and considered i'm overly empathetic, that pretty much leaves comedy and action.

[WATYF]

Assuming you saw No Country for Old Men, then your synopsis is incorrect.

"A bad guy chases another bad guy and kills him."

should be...

"A really bad guy chases a mostly OK but kind of unscrupulous at times guy who is also wanted by a bunch of mexicans and the mexicans get to him before the really bad guy does, which spoils all of the built-up suspense of the 'bad guy chasing OK guy' chase that you just watched for two freaking hours."

What a freaking let-down. Seriously... they don't even show it. A whole entire movie about a chase between two guys and 1) some entirely different barely mentioned group catches him instead and to top it all off 2) they don't even show what happens.

Artsy movies suck balls.

:o)

[Slap D. Monkey]

Nice idea, but I don't like to have a movie ending spoiled. I like to be surprised at the end, like I was in the movie Titanic. Who would have thought that large ocean liner would sink? Wow. Someone is very creative.

I disagree with you about movies with short titles (assuming you actually meant directly correlated). Sometimes I like to rest my brain and watch something predictible and easy to comprehend like Volcano. Tommy Lee Jones typecasted? No way.

[Dave]

I don't think originality has much to do with the quality of a movie. Consider super hero genre we've seen over the last decade. Some are good (Spiderman), some are bad (LXG), and some are so-so (Superman returns).

Movies are about storytelling. I can hear the same story over and over and be entertained if its being told by a master storyteller.

[chuck]

Actually, in No Country For Old Men, it's not “A bad guy chases another bad guy and kills him.”

What happens is, "A bad guy chases another bad guy, who gets killed by some completely different people, so then the first bad guy kills the wife of the second bad guy for no good reason. And then Tommy Lee Jones mumbles something that doesn't really make sense."

I liked it.

[Geek in Texas]

Wow, I haven't been to a movie theater in several months. I don't need to watch the latest releases as soon as they hit the theater, I can (and do) wait until they come out on DVD. Maybe I'm cheap, but buying a DVD is usually less expensive than two movie tickets, popcorn, Coke, and Milk Duds. And after you've watched it, you can give it to someone else or save it to watch again later.

Not only that, but you get to take advantage of that expensive big screen TV and surround sound system you've got. You get to watch it lying on your couch in your underwear if you want. You can drink an adult beverage of your choice during the movie. Turn on closed captioning, and the Mumbling Quotient is not an issue. Hit the pause button and the Bladder problem goes away too.

By the time a movie comes out on DVD, there have been plenty of suckers\h\h\h\h\h\h\h other people that have seen it in the theater and written reviews, so you know if you'll probably like it, and what to expect.

[Roberto (mexico)]

I didn't like 'I am a Legend' because I don't like to pay to see someone playing "a video game".

[argenbert]

*Short people look for a ring

lol

[Bob C]

I love how enraged people seem to get when the Academy, or critics, or people in general disagree with their bad opinion.

Someone above tried to make the point that every movie that wins the academy award gets "low" ratings by normal people on IMDb. Really? The last five Oscar winners :

No Country For Old Men - 8.5/10 (VERY good for IMDb ratings)
The Departed - 8.6/10
Crash - 8.1/10
Million Dollar Baby - 8.2/10
Return of the King - 8.8/10

Wow, those are some low ratings. All completely comprised of votes from normal viewers who visit IMDb.

I think the real problem is movie tastes are diverse, and people can't stand it when their taste differs from the majority - no one likes to be an outcast.

[HALiverpool]

I like to visit rottentomatoes.com before viewing a new (to me) movie.

I'd like to see movie ratings by demographic. Before entering your rating you would have to put in things like your sex, age at time of viewing, education level etc. When one is looking for a movie to watch one can enter one's own demographics or one's date's. One could use multiple demographics or a single one. One could also look for a certain movie and choose how to look at the ratings.

Oscars are irrelevant to movie viewers.

-HAL

[friskybeaver]

"As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated with how long it takes to explain the entire plot."

Doesn't that mean shorter explanation = better movie? Cause that's how it reads to me. Which leaves me thinking the movies you listed should all be great, according to your logic, and yet your avoiding them?

[Mike Shaffer]

I dig your system Scott, I think the mumble factor is totally overlooked in this day & age. In my house we have a simpler system. We (wife & two teenage daughters) rarely see movie theater movies, but we hit the DVD market hard. And we rate movies very simply:
Red Light - Dad fell asleep
Yellow Light - Dad got laptop and did work while watching
Green Light - Stayed awake and off the web.

I am Legend was a Yellow, but I do agree with the Will Smith star power index. I still prefer the Heston version though....

[Kevin N]

I am betting you watched Departed. That was a painfully horrible movie, but since it won, it makes sense that No Country For Old Men would win. No Country took "painfully horrible" to new levels that no one new existed. I think that culture as we know it will cease to exist if someone does not stop this trend. First there was...Crash... then Departed and now No Country For Old Men. Clearly the people choosing the Oscar winners are deranged sociopaths that enjoy inflicting pain on our society.

By the way... if you have not watched No Country yet, please, please do something else with your time... go have A Saw movie weekend... watch the complete Friday the 13th series... go watch the complete works of Burt reynolds... Battlefield Earth would be a better use of your time.. reruns of the Dukes of Hazard would also be better... ANYTHING besides that horrible movie...

[Dr Dzoe]

I also want to know if it's a cancer movie - one of those movies where everyone is having a good time until - bang - someone gets cancer.

I've thought about setting up a website only for that. But I got lazy.

[~Matthew]

Yeah, I felt the same way after watching this movie, which I can only assume is "The Departed".

[Sn]

How much xes does the movie have?
Stimulant:?

Sanjay.

[Matt]

I've learned over the years that the more critically acclaimed the movie is, the less interesting it's likely to be. I recently watched the same movie you were talking about, and became less and less interested as it went on. I didn't pay for it, though, so the only thing I lost was time.

[TheNeverMind]

IMHO, "they" bumbled the marketing of "Snakes on a Plane"... Think of it as "Airplane" meets "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" with star power (not at all in the same league as "Volcano", etc.). With the advent of NetFlix and respectable A/V systems, I don't understand why anyone bothers being gouged by theaters these days (at least, not for the primary purpose of quality cinematic entertainment).
For the most part, I enjoyed the movie that you're complaining about - except for the one "Dune"-like quirk of why one of the bad guys wouldn't cross the border (guess I'll have to read the book).

[Smokefoot]

I can't understand the concept of "Star Power" - what the heck is it? Happy memories from other, better movies improve the quality of this one? A certain number of National Enquirer covers? If it was acting quality I would think it would be called something else - maybe "Acting".

[Glen]

Point-rating systems for movies make about as much sense as point-rating employee evaluations. Such scales are often subjective and mood-dependent. And they say little about how I might evaluate them.

[Tom]

Sounds like you're just not really a movie fan Scott. The whole point is that you don't really know what you're gonna get!.... unless its an architypal Hollywood production following many of the 'requirements' you outline. Arc: High, low, high..... dear god... you might as well just watch your favourite movie over and over.

[Dave]

For single folks I’d add in a date factor for how much your date is likely to enjoy the movie.

If your date is male :8
If your date is female: 3

Note: quite often there is likely to be a huge divergence in these numbers.

[Gabe B.]

Great ideas Scott. All of this would have been very useful before watching No Country For Old Men.

[Dave]

So you like a plot that takes a long time to explain, but not one that's complicated?

[Adrmarlaz]

Mumbling quotient is fantastic.
I also want to know if the movie has been marketed to people with children under the age of 10. I don't like knowing there's a 7-year old a row behind me being traumatized by Javier Bardem or Forrest Whittaker.

Scott,you should do movie reviews. Because I generally like what you like. You're very funny--plus you draw well. Such dinosaurs! Such HR cats!!

[Romeo Vitelli]

Eh, do what I do. I just go to http://www.themoviespoiler.com and read the spoilers there. If I still want to see the movie afterwards then I can. Otherwise I've saved myself a few bucks.

[bitguru]

"As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated with how long it takes to explain the entire plot. That’s why I stay away from movies with titles like Volcano, Inferno, Titanic, and Snakes on a Plane."

If they are inversely correlated, then I would think you would _want_ to see Volcano, Inferno, etc. Perhaps you meant to say they are directly correlated??

[Hari]

At this point in your life, should you also have a rating for wife/child friendly? Some may say the MPAA rating system does that, but I find it to be rather inaccurate sometimes.

[Michael Arndorfer]

This is truly a world-saving idea.

[Peter]

I just try to avoid most movies. That's easier.

[rita mae]

Yeah! I'm with you, Scott! Take that you Oscar awarding, Hollywood full-of-yourselves-parading-genre-important wannabes. Give us another Clockwork Orange. That's all we want.

Oh, wait. Scott doesn't like that kind. No torture?

Hey, one of my favorites is What's Eating Gilbert Grape. Is that okay? Even if the house burns down?

Waiting with bated breath for your answer.

Rita Mae

[E. Wong]

Regarding the story arc:
I once saw Kurt Vonnegut speak once, and he described his new "scientific method" for charting stories. This involved charting the happiness arc, so to speak. He picked Cinderella, and charted how Cinderella starts off basically ok (living with cruel stepsisters but having an ok life) then proceeds to really bad (being imprisoned by stepmother, losing the slipper), and then shoots up very very high at the end (marrying the prince and living happily ever after.) Vonnegut pointed out that this is the same arc as Jesus, and may have a resonance in western culture. In contrast, Hamlet stays pretty much at a medium-low level the entire story.

[Mr. Wampus]

For the last few years, the movies that have won the Academy Award for "Best Picture" have pissed me off when I finished watching them. Usually because I completely disagree with the Best Picture designation. I haven't seen this year's best picture, but last year was "The Departed." I was disappointed after I watched that one. It was pretty good and pretty well made, but it was almost like the director looked at his watch after the movie had run about 2.5 hours and said, "Uh-oh, this is running a little long. I better just kill everyone instead of trying to come up with a satisfying ending."

I like your rating scale, even if it is a little confusing itself.

[Steven]

"No Country for Old Men" huh?

Good, but in a disturbing way.

[Irishman]

As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated with how long it takes to explain the entire plot. That’s why I stay away from movies with titles like Volcano, Inferno, Titanic, and Snakes on a Plane. I feel I have a sense of where those plots are heading.

So what you're saying is that you stay away from the really great movies like the ones you listed? Or did you in fact mean that the quality of the movie is directly correlated to the time it takes to explain the plot?

You're also trying to objectively rate subjective evaluations. Such as length by bladder rating. How large is your bladder? Are you a 240 lb man, or a 50 lb girl? Did you plan to watch the movie, or down a 64 oz Big Gulp before walking into the theater? Movie reviews do have a time rating - it's called "running time", in minutes. You can rate your own bladder accordingly.

Another problem with your system is undefined terms. What is "Star Power"? The ability to emit light and fuse hydrogen? You state that unknown actors can have star power, so it's not a count of the number of well-known actors in the film.

[Nolan]

There also needs to be a rating for the quality of nudity in a film. I'd watch alot more movies for certain.

[JJ]

Lame.

[Grant]

You forgot replay value. For example, movies like "The Sting" require that they be watched more than once to understand everything. You want a movie to be worth watching again.

[Terry Ulven]

Based on your description (A bad guy chases another bad guy and kills him.), I bet you watched "No Country for Old Men". I saw it too and really wish I could get those couple hours of my life back! Thank God someone else paid for the rental.

[letra]

Yes. That one sucked.

Juno was the best film of 2007. Try to watch that one.

Good idea for the reviews. That way we wouldn't need to go through all those elaborate textes envyous frustrated filmmakers called critics write.

[Leslie]

Usually the best movies I see are the ones where I have low expectations. So the graph goes like this:

low - high - high

If I have high expectations, at best I'm usually left at a medium by the end. Kind of like with "I Am Legend." I thought it would be great, but it was only so-so.

But really, I think the worst case scenario is when you really think the movie will be lame, and you watch it anyway, and it is lame. In the other scenarios, you have something to react to. In that case, you can only look at yourself in the mirror and wonder why you just paid for that purposefully.

[johno]

Total Film magazine over here in the UK has a 'predicted interest curve' with its reviews, which is at least a start...

[aegix]

Yeah, I didn't understand if Paul Sunday was actually Eli, but only like, a split personality or something, either.

[Everett]

LOL! Your inclination to assign numbers to things suggests you might have been an engineer in a previous life!

Maybe you could assign a numerical weighting to all the numbers you suggested, so a review would only need to provide a bottom-line number between 1 and 10. That would save lots of time!

[Kent McManigal]

It's funny, but I can usually predict all of those things (except for the bladder factor) pretty well from the advertisements. When I have gone against my "movie sense" I have almost always regretted it. Sometimes I can tell a crappy movie just by the title (such as the one I think you were talking about).

[J. Clark]

How did you not like "No Country For Old Men"? Bah!

[Everett]

LOL! Your inclination to assign numbers to things suggests you might have been an engineer in a previous life!

Maybe you could assign a numerical weighting to all the numbers you suggested, so a review would only need to provide a bottom-line number between 1 and 10. That would save lots of time!

[Jen]

I want to know the darkness of the film. In terms of lack of light not a moral decision. Some films today seem to be filmed under a box in a room with blackout curtains at night....oh and the cameraman cant hold his hands steady...
jen

[Jen]

I want to know the darkness of the film. Not in terms of emotional darkness but in terms of lack of light. Some films today seem to be filmed under a box in a room with blackout curtains at night....
jen

The one thing I'm worried about is that if the High-Low-High thing is clarified in the review, I mig