Criteria for movie assessment

I love movies because I think they show human emotions more accurately than any other other art form. I believe that although art is by nature subjective, cinema can to a certain extent be analysed objectively.

The most important thing in a movie to me is the script. Unfortunately a great number of movies appear to have been written by chimpanzees.

If the script is sub par, that isn't disastrous as long as the movie can make me care about its characters. Characters should have desires and weaknesses and I should understand something of their motivations. Hopefully the performances of the actors (ability to display believable emotions, chemistry between leads), and the skill of the director (pace, overall message) will make an audience empathise with and care about the characters. If it gets half way through and I don't care whether anyone lives or dies, that's usually a bad sign.

Genre is irrelevant to me. A movie should also stand on its own. I don't care if it's a sequel, prequel or real story, based on a book, play or TV show, I judge movies on their own merits.

I like a movie to have some meaning with a bit of depth to it (allegory, metaphor, satire?). It's important that the audience is left to determine what's going on on their own, and not have it patronisingly explained in excruciating detail (eg Vanilla Sky).

Other important aspects are the photography, casting, and music. It's usually good to have a bit of romance. If a movie has a bit of sex, violence, excitement, energy, action, dazzling set pieces then these are bonuses. I can't decide whether a happy ending is important.


Explanation of star ratings:


I believe there are certain factors which can decide whether a movie is great or not. Being a great movie and being a popular movie is a completely different thing. Movies which are both are quite rare, especially at the time of release, and many popular movies are barely artistically competent. Some people would argue that such popular movies are only meant to be a bit of fun and should not be condemned just because they don't have any deeper meaning. Film critics are often themselves critised in this way. The argument goes that cinema is purely a form of entertainment and escapism for the masses; the source of a laugh, a good night out, in which case why look for flaws, why analyse at all? People who make this sort of comment are idiots and can safely be ignored for the rest of their lives.

Unfortunately though they are responsible for the general low quality of movies coming out of Hollywood in particular. Hollywood has occasionally demonstrated over the years that it is perfectly capable of making masterpieces by paying for talented artists and allowing them to work unrestricted - however why bother to do this when the majority of the cinema-going audience just doesn't care, as long as their favourite actor is on screen and there are a few token explosions and car chases. We must demand higher quality product from the studios. Boycott shitty movies now. Yes!
Amusingly, most people I talk to about movies are left with the impression that I hate all of them. This is because I set my standards high, and regrettably, the vast majority of movies are crap.
After all, if I want entertainment I can play a computer game or (God forbid) watch television. Cinema has more to offer than this, it has the power to move people and leave them with some emotion, some feeling in their heads which they didn't have before. It's much like looking at an outstanding art work: you relate to it and you get something out of it - it ultimately teaches you something about human nature or even about yourself. At times of course you can watch crap movies just for entertainment purposes but ultimately cinema is an artform.


Annoying clichés:

Anyone can pick up and use a gun
Children never get hurt (except in Assault on Precinct 13- she'll have a headache in the morning)

I really dislike the way guns are portrayed in Hollywood movies. Shooting people is seen as a 'cool' thing to do, a case in point being The Peacemaker. In this movie, time and time again if a person doesn't get what they want they shoot or threaten to shoot their opponent. Bullet wounds are horrific, and killing a person is the worst crime you can commit. Movies should not glorify murderers or encourage gun play as a positive way of resolving disputes. God, I sound so fucking tedious. It's true though - I'd rather rather enjoy the naked female form on screen than stupid stylised violence.


Back to my reviews

My favourites