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.
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........
Posted by: Jonathan Kelly | April 23, 2008 at 05:18 AM
Sounds like a good idea for a website. I suggest calling it MovieSpoilers.com
Posted by: Simon Jester | April 23, 2008 at 04:56 AM
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.
Posted by: Paul Dove | April 23, 2008 at 04:45 AM
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.
Posted by: Paul Dove | April 23, 2008 at 04:33 AM
As a rule, the quality of a movie is inversely correlated to the number of awards it has won.
Posted by: hbm | April 23, 2008 at 04:06 AM
That movie makes you feel depressed, like the world is leaving you behind.
It made me feel old, too
Posted by: niCk(MemBeth) | April 23, 2008 at 03:45 AM
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.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2008 at 03:00 AM
"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.
Posted by: Bob | April 23, 2008 at 02:45 AM
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.
Posted by: Arthur | April 23, 2008 at 02:03 AM
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
Posted by: simon | April 23, 2008 at 01:50 AM
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.
Posted by: ray | April 23, 2008 at 01:37 AM
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. =)
Posted by: Thatdudeyouknow | April 23, 2008 at 01:27 AM
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.
Posted by: Indian Stallion | April 23, 2008 at 01:15 AM
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.
Posted by: ShaunL | April 23, 2008 at 01:13 AM
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.
Posted by: Elisa | April 23, 2008 at 01:03 AM
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)
Posted by: Jeffus | April 23, 2008 at 12:40 AM
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.
Posted by: Randolf | April 23, 2008 at 12:28 AM
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.
Posted by: Piotr | April 23, 2008 at 12:05 AM
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.
Posted by: SlowMovingTarget | April 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Yeah, sadism is something I'd like to be warned about too.
Posted by: Nomi | April 22, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I felt like my money was more well-spent on the trailers than on the actual film.
Posted by: Annie | April 22, 2008 at 10:19 PM
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.
Posted by: Jaime Bakulic | April 22, 2008 at 10:12 PM
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.
Posted by: G | April 22, 2008 at 10:12 PM
"I am a legend" is a good movie. Even I saw it a few weeks back and enjoyed it very much.
Posted by: Vijay | April 22, 2008 at 10:04 PM
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/
Posted by: Luke | April 22, 2008 at 09:49 PM