Can you tell if a movie will suck?

[madd1]

I have just read a bad review of the movie "The Perfect Storm". The ads for the movie looked rather good and I thought the movie might be good.

Any way here is my question.
Can one tell the quality of a movie by the media blitz that precedes it? It seems to me that when a studio realizes that a film is a dog; we see an increase of the films stars on talk shows and increased advertising.
Some examples would be films such as Dogzilla and Water-world, both heavily hyped and both rather lame.
Of course, this theory does not hold for a guaranteed blockbuster film such as Star Wars.

On a side note: Why do some movies go straight-to-video?
Are films that go straight-to-video necessarily poor films?

[jayron 32]

The quality of a film is indirectly proportional to the ammount of advertising that goes into promoting it. Shitty films are hoping to cash in on a first weekend rush to make all of their money. Good films play strong and long for a while. They may never make the best opening weekend, but word-of-mouth is usually enough to build a good film into a success. Compare "Wild Wild West" to "American Beauty" for a concrete example of this. You saw http://www.stuff everywhere for months before the film came out. It was probably a month before anyone really noticed American Beauty. Which was a better film?

On a side note: Why do some movies go straight-to-video?
Are films that go straight-to-video necessarily poor films?

Most do suck, but a few have been VERY good movies. For an example of a great STV release, rent "The Last Seduction." It went straight to video, and got such good press from the video it was later released in theatres. It even received Oscar buzz, but was ineligible because it appeared on video in wide release before going to the Big Screen.

[John Corrado]

Generally, it costs a great deal of money to release a movie to theaters; renting space, placing ads, making copies, etc. When the producers don't feel that a movie will make enough money in the theatres, they'll send it straight to video (where it *still* won't make much money, but it won't be facing nearly as many costs, either). Generally, most movies that go straight to video are either:

A) Lame ass suck-fests where the producers *knew* no one would go to the theatres to see it;
B) Great, but esoteric movies where only about one in five theatre goers would 'get it', meaning that a theatre release would likely be a flop despite being a good movie;
C) Absolutely incredible movies that just didn't have the money left over to be able to afford a theatre release.

I'd say the ratio is about 99:1:.00000001 between those three.

As for quality of movie relation to media blitz- one of the best ways to tell how good/bad a movie it is (IMHO) is to see who gets quoted in talking about the movie. Major reviewers or industry rags saying good things? Good movie. Quoting Lenny from the North Hampton New Hampshire Free Union Press? Not good movie. In addition, check out the number of "..." in each blurb. The more ellipses, the more likely that in was a mixed (or even bad) review they've done a hatchet job to. Conversely, if there aren't many ellipses in the blurb, then the reviewer likely had *some* sort of praise for the movie.

[Yarster]

I really don't see any mathematic proportionality between quality of film versus pre-hype it receives. Some that get a lot of hype are good (anyone remember Independence Day? I thought that lived up to its hype.) Others get loads of hype and suck (both Armageddon and Deep Impact).

What I'd like to know is...in years when a big blockbuster is planned, inevitably TWO movies come out in close proximity that have similar story lines ala Armageddon and Deep Impact, or The Arrival and Independence Day. Usually one is the 'real' one and one is a knockoff, although I wasn't sure which was supposed to be which with Deep Impact/ Armageddon. In these cases, is it a given that the first one out is always the shittier one? I'd say that's the case IMHO with both of these examples (i.e. obviously The Arrival sucked, and I personally thought Deep Impact blew big time primate penis)

I agree with the earlier posts about the quality of the reviewers in the ads. Interestingly enough though, when Mission Impossible 2 came out in San Diego, the ads here had all no-name reviewers the first week. The week afterwards, however, they had the usual Roger Ebert/ Jeffrey Lyons/ Peter Travers real reviewer comments. I refused to see it until the second week because of that...

[RickJay]

There's really no relationship between advertising dollars and film quality. It's noticeable when hyped films suck bad, but many unnoticed films ALSO suck bad, and many hyped films do not suck at all. It's funny, but I thought "American Beauty" was the most irritatingly hyped film of 1999; maybe Jayron doesn't live near any billboards, but here they actually had ads up with text that talked about what a wonderful movie it was months before it opened.

If you want to know whether or not a movie will suck, you need to pay careful attention to the CONTENT of the advertising, not the volume. Look for these six warning signs:

1. POP MUSIC CREDITS. If anywhere in the trailer, TV ads or posters, you see "With Songs By" followed by a list of half-assed popular music acts, e.g. "Teen Beach Party, with songs by Limp Bizkit, Jesus Lizard, Chantal Krevaizuk and Busta Rhymes," the movie is an absolute, complete dog.

2. EFFECTS OVEREXPOSURE. If the trailer or ad shows just enough special effects, stunts, or car chases to seem interesting, the movie might be cool. However, if the trailer or ad shows ALL the very best effects, monsters etc., the movie probably sucks.

3. JONES'S LAW OF CAST DEJA VU. If you notice that there's a coterie of actors all playing the same roles they played in a previous film that was not a prequel, watch out. Typecasting one actor (e.g. Jim Carrey as a nut) is okay, but if you can say to yourself "You know, I'd swear to Christ I saw Freddie Prinze Jr., Jason Biggs, and Jennifer Love Hewitt play those exact same roles just three months ago," run away as fast as you can. Merchant-Ivory films are (in)famous for this.

4. STAR BAIT AND SWITCH. If the trailer or ad features a reasonably famous actor, but it is obvious that that actor plays a minor role and all the real lead roles are staffed by nobodies, the movie will be atrocious.

5. LOW PRODUCTION VALUES. If the trailer seems slapped together and disjointed, can you expect anything different from the feature it's promoting?

6. PEDOPHILE RULE. If the trailer features an offensively sexual shot of a teenager (e.g. "Snow Day") the movie will be horrible.

[Duck Duck Goose]

FWIW, I've found one absolutely sure-fire way, that works for me, of telling whether I'm going to like a movie or not.

I look at the newspaper ad--if the quotes saying things like, "The Best Movie of the Year", "One of the year's 10 best movies", "The funniest movie ever!" are all by people you absolutely NEVER heard of, from obscure media outlets, like "Mary-Jane Smith, KXYZ Radio Syndicate" (who the heck are THEY?), then that's a dead giveaway. If it were any good, and it had gotten good reviews from anybody whose opinion really mattered, you can bet they'd have those ads plastered all over the place.

[Bucky]

Actually, I think that "The Last Seduction" was made for cable, not a STV.

"The Perfect Storm" actually looks like shit to me, the newest "Star Wars" was shit. "Coyote Ugly" will be shit.

Any Jerry Bruckheinmer (sic) film will suck, anything where N. Cage plays an action hero probably will suck, any film with "mismatched partners" (except for Jackie Chan ones) will suck.

The presence of any of the following actors is a warning sign: Kevin Bacon, John Travolta, Pauly Shore, Oprah Winfrey, most of the cast from "Friends" (too bad), Bette Midler, Harvey Keitel in a lead role, Chrisitan Slater, wow there's a whole lot of them.

If the trailer tries to get you to turn off your brain, either by lots of eye candy or by lots of sentiment, it will suck. If the movie features women dancing together to celebrate being women, it will suck. If the movie features men fighting each other and then becoming best buds, it will suck.

Arggh!

[xizor]

I agree with all Bucky's points and would like to add two more:
If the movie is based on an old TV show (Avengers, Mod Squad) - it will suck.
If the trailer show big flashing words spliced in with really quick shots of the actually film, it will suck. ("PREPARE" <1 second of car chase> "YOURSELF" <1 second of explosion> "FOR THE" <1 second of guy jumping off building> "ULTIMATE" <1 second of gunfight> "THRILL-RIDE" <character delivers 1 liner> <up-tempo rock music kicks in>)

[Me!! Joe!!!]

I read this in a news article a long time ago, so I'm not taking credit for it, but there are ways to read a newspaper ad for a movie to tell if it will be good or bad. Some of rules mentioned were:

1. (Similar to what Duck Duck Goose mentioned above) if the ad has numerous "quotes" from reviewers, but they are all one-word blurbs (such as "Awesome -- says Entertainment Weekly") it is a safe bet that the single word was taken out of context. (the review might have read "an AWESOME amount of talent is wasted in this horrible movie...")

2. Writer credits: if there is more than one "screenplay by"
credit, it generally means a script has gone through rewrite
after rewrite after rewrite, etc. An ad with many "screenplay by" credits indicates a movie with an incoherent, worked over and spotty plot, mainly because to many writers have been forcing their ideas into the script.

3. The copy for the ad is written by either an associate or executive producer. Of course, whoever is writing the copy for the ad will definitely want his/her name in the as, unless they've seen rushes for the movie and decided it was a turkey. If the producer isn't listed, it's because they don't want their name associated with the movie -- obviously a bad sign.

4. No big stars. Of course this has to be taken with a grain of salt since lots of low budget indies out there have great but unknown casts. But any big summer blockbuster that can't attract even a single marquee name is a dud. (the newspaper I read gave "Congo" as an example, a multimillion dollar production based on a John Grisham book couldn't get a single recognizable name to star in it--because it was so excretable.)

5. The well-known Directed by Alan Smithee, which is a pseudonym name adopted by any director who wants to disown the movie he just made. "Directed by Alan Smithee" movies are below the level of STV. They are movies that should be dumped in barrels marked "toxic" and stored away in the farthest regions of the earth away from all mankind.

[Perderabo]

I pay attention to the films I have watched and who was involved. Once I notice a pattern, I stick with it. I will see any James Cameron film, but no Olivier stone films. I recently watched "Valley of the Gwangi" because the fx were by Ray Harryhausen, and I wasn't disappointed. If I don't know anyone involved in the film, then I tend to go by word of mouth.

[Guy Propski]

Video rental has caused a slight change in how theatrical films are promoted. Studios now really pump a lot of cash into pre-theatrical release advertising, in the hopes that the vague memory of said advertising will affect your video rentals several months down the line. As you have rightly expected, studios do the most hyping for the films they think will not do as well in the theatre. They realize, however, that what you may not want to see in the theatre, you might be willing to rent.

My personal way of evaluating a film is from the poster. The more quotes, goofy graphics, and other nonsense on it, the worse the film. The best films have very simple, dramatic posters.

[diamud]

When I see commercials with audience members being interviewed (It was really funny, It's great, etc.), I know that movie will really suck

[SuaSponte]

I think a simple test of whether a movie is going to be bad is the trailer. Remember - the trailer has the best scenes/lines from the film. If the trailer sucks, the movie's gonna suck. The reverse isn't always true - a bad movie can have one or two good scenes/lines which make it into the trailer, but the rest of the film could just bite.

V.

[Odieman]

If all the promo quotes come from one source it will suck too. If they could only find one source for quotes that is not a good sign is it? If the quotes say a laugh riot or laugh fest run away ...fast. If the ads say from the producer of..... flee also. The producer doesn't have much to do with the success of the movie. If the ad mentions the screenwriter in big letters that isn't a good sign, especially if it's Joe Esterhaus.

Finally avoid any movies with Adam Sandler, Pauley Shore or any Kevin Kline movie where he has facial hair.
Keith

[ReservoirDog]

Regarding The Perfect Storm:

I still have high hopes for this film. This may be sentimental at this point, considering how much I truly enjoyed reading the book.

But, I do think it has one thing going for it:

Directed by Wolfgang Peterson.

This guy knows how to make quality films. Granted, this is no guarantee that it will not be a stinker, but consider his past work:

Air Force One - jeez, right off the bat, not the best example, but actually well-crafted in terms of story telling

Outbreak - again, a little cheese, but a good story with good performances

In the Line of Fire - decent suspense

Das Boot - perhaps you have heard of it?

Preceded by 20 years of making films in Germany.

Okay, after re-reading the list, I haven't even convinced myself. But I can hope, can't I?

[Sofa King]

Here's how I can tell if a movie is a dog:

* Reviews. My tastes don't closely coincide with any film reviewer I have ever seen or read. But if a film (like say, Super Mario Brothers) goes straight to the theatre without a pre-screening, you know it's a stinker. And reviewers are good about mentioning that.

* There are other tricks reviewers pull, too. Recently, the Washington Post defecated a four-column screed trashing Gladiator. I had to ask myself, "why is this reviewer working so hard to spike this film?" I still don't know why, but I went and saw it largely based on the hunch that the reviewer was a pompous ass who was trying very hard to remain above what I considered to be an entertaining film.

* Trailers. Get to the movies early instead of finishing off that fifth of Scotch in the parking lot. Grit your teeth and watch the trailers. Watch out for:

--Trailers that reveal the entire plot of the film, complete with denouement. This type of trailer is made for, um, your average filmgoer. You know, the same people for whom the "don't shake the Pepsi Machine because it could fall over and squish you" warning stickers are made.

--Trailers that show the same shot twice. You just saw the best parts of the film in three minutes, and they had to recycle footage to get that much. Not good.

--Special-made trailers. In other words, a trailer that is designed in such a way that while it incorporates footage of the film, it is presented in such a way that it is not merely showing you scenes from the film. This usually tips me off to the fact that the director had enough influence over his project to "direct" the trailer as well. That's a good thing to me, but not for everyone. I cite the trailers for "The Big Lebowski" as an example.

[Derleth]

My short list:

Science fiction: Sad but true, anyone who cut his teeth on Bradbury and Asimov will be sorely disappointed by Hollywood SF. It seems that Hollywood is incapable of making a film that really is science fiction, as opposed to using semi-SF plots and backgrounds to move along/spice up/disguise tired old stories. Good science fiction does not depend on a love interest or an evil mastermind to work. Good science fiction moves along by examining the implications of either scientific advance or nonhuman settings, with many doing both. Apparently, that is too cerebral for the average screenwriter (aka Zippy the Pinhead).
Romance: Read Shakespeare and the classic Greek myths. You'll find every plot that's ever been used in romantic fiction. And they've never been used better since.
Action: Watching steroid junkies survive the unsurvivable cuts no mustard here. These films are so formulaic people act them in their sleep (see Terminator for proof). Writing one of these is akin to getting your name printed in BASIC: Very nice, Billy, now go do your homework.
Drama: The Ancient Greeks have everyone beat hands-down. This should be a rather difficult genre to master, as it requires at least some understanding of the human psyche. Not so in Hollywood: Recycle a few ancient plots with 'twists' that would be shot if they hadn't died of old age already.
Comedy: Don't make me laugh. No, wait, you couldn't if you tried. Thanks for playing, Hollywood.
Western: The liberties taken with this genre are atrocious. Did everyone jack off through history?
War: Grow up. I sold my toy soldiers ages ago. Nothing new can be said about war.

OK, what's left? Nothing? This brings me to my rule of thumb: If Hollywood hypes it, it's crap. Hope that helped.

[Smeghead]

--Trailers that reveal the entire plot of the film, complete with denouement. This type of trailer is made for, um, your average filmgoer. You know, the same people for whom the "don't shake the Pepsi Machine because it could fall over and squish you" warning stickers are made.


A good example of this is Rocky and Bullwinkle. In the trailer I saw, they make a big deal over Rocky not being able to fly in the real world. Then, towards the end, it shows Rocky saying, "I have to fly to save Bullwinkle!" and he takes off. Oh. Well, thanks. There goes that little bit of non-suspense.

[jrepka]

My instinct is to stay far away from any flick whose trailer depends on explosions and guns and a loud sound track. I'm not always right, but it's a good general rule.

Another is to read the critics every week. I like to look at reviews in the major papers and magazines, especially after I've seen the film in question. After a while I get an idea of which critics I generally agree with, and which ones are always sucking up to the studios or just hate a particular artist.

I was pleasantly surprised by Independence Day, mostly cuz I expected to be repulsed. There was, imho, a significant qualitative difference between Deep Impact and Armageddon. Both were quite poor from a dramatic standpoint, but DI at least got some of the science right. In Armageddon, the only thing they got right was that the Earth is, indeed, spherical.

[Ike Witt]

Nobody has mentioned sequals yet. Generally, they are going to be weaker than the original. There are some notable exceptions however, such as The Empire Strikes Back and The Silence of the Lambs.

Also, you have to realize that movies are always going to be a crapshoot. My theory for moviegoing is simple. If you like a director, go see the movie. If you like the subject matter, go see the movie. If you don't like the genre, don't see the movie.

[Cervaise]

As a movie reviewer myself (see sig), I figure I should weigh in here.

The caution from several respondents about "who is the quoted reviewer?" is quite valid. I've got a long essay about this on my site, in the Features section, if you care to check it out.

Shitty films are hoping to cash in on a first weekend rush to make all of their money.

Also a very valid point. And, humorously enough, also the subject of an essay on my site. ("Why is my popcorn so expensive?")

An ad with many "screenplay by" credits indicates a movie with an incoherent, worked over and spotty plot

Mostly true, but it isn't quite that simple. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Hollywood movies last year that were written by one writer. If there's only one writer credit, it may mean that writer is the only one; or, more likely, that writer wrote most of it, and the other writers didn't write enough to get screen credit. John Sayles wrote some of Apollo 13, for example, but isn't listed. And there were almost fifteen writers on Armageddon, even though only seven (I believe) were listed in the credits.

The rules behind this are quite complicated, but here's one useful tidbit. According to WGA rules (that's the writer's union), the wording of the screenplay credit is very specific. If two writers are separated by an ampersand (Joe & Bob), they co-wrote the script together. If they're separated by the word "and," they wrote it separately, i.e. one of them did the first draft and the second one rewrote it. If it says "story by" one guy and "screenplay by" another guy, the first guy probably wrote the first script, and the second guy threw out everything but the broad outline and started over. Obviously, it gets really complicated when you see something like this: "Story by Joe and Bob & Steve, Screenplay by Bob & Steve and Mary & Bill."

The producer doesn't have much to do with the success of the movie.

I would disagree strongly with this. See below:

I pay attention to the films I have watched and who was involved.

This is absolutely the best barometer for a film's quality. The two most influential people on a film are the producer (the actual on-set producer, not the "executive" or "line" producers) and the director. I know people like to go see the latest Adam Sandler movie, or the new Julia Roberts film, but they end up getting stuck with Big Daddy or Mary Reilly. If there's a big-name movie star, like Harrison Ford or Kevin Costner, often they will make "contributions" to the script; Ford flirted with the currently-in-production Traffic (directed by Steven Soderbergh) for a month or so, and had the script rewritten, before losing interest in the project. (Michael Douglas eventually took the role. I'm looking forward to the film, FYI, largely because of Soderbergh's involvement.) And if there's a high-powered writer, like Ron Bass or Robert Towne, that's worth taking into consideration also.

If you want to know whether a movie will suck, the best bet is to check the poster, and note the director, producer(s), and writer(s). Then go to the Internet Movie Database and look up their previous credits. Average together all of their work, and you should get a pretty bang-on idea of the movie's probable quality. Also, go to a movie-review collection site, like Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rotten-tomatoes.com); they collect and excerpt reviews from all over the web. Best of all, they summarize and provide pointers to test-screening advance reviews for all the major films coming out. The Perfect Storm, for what it's worth, is getting great buzz from the advance screenings.

However...

movies are always going to be a crapshoot

Seconded. No method will be foolproof. Movie enjoyment is highly subjective, and impossible to narrow down. Careful review of the artistic staff, and a quick browse through some advance reviews, should give the lay viewer everything they need to know, and after that, you just have to roll the dice.

To paraphrase a certain Jedi: Congratulations! You've just taken your first step into the world of the film geek.

[RealityChuck]

Some great points so far, so forgive me if I reiterate something already said.

1. As far as I'm concerned, it's the director and, to a lesser extent, the writer that determines whether a film is any good. Actors only matter if they have a good sense of what makes a good script; and that can fail at any time. The producer usually just puts up the money (not counting producer-directors). While producers (like Bruckheimer) can have a similar "look and feel" for their film, it's the director/writer who make it good.

2. Everyone makes a bad movie sooner or later. The best manage to bounce back after a fiasco.

3. Liking an actor isn't enough. I love Robin Williams, but all his starring vehicles are tripe. If he plays a small role, it could be a good film (and it's even more likely if he's uncredited), but when he stars . . . :rolleyes:

For me, the first sign of a bad movie nowadays are the words "thrill ride" in the blurbs.

[handy]

Sure, watch the credits when the tv ad comes around. If they flash them real quick, cheap flick. Too quick fo ryou to read who the actors are.

Those flicks that have alot of character foils in the beginning are going to suck.

[Jeannie]

Well, I generally read what Roger Ebert says, as I agree with him 8 or 9 times out of 10. But here's some other things I go by:

1) There is a "Sneak Preview" the week before the movie comes out. My theory on this is that not only will they make extra money off the movie, but it's there before the critics slam it (most critics print reviews the day the movie comes out--well, the critics I read, anyway).

2) Some movies have radio commercials that have the star of the film being "interviewed" and there's sound clips of the star talking about how much they loved making the movie. That movie will usually suck.

3) If there's a commercial for the movie that shows members of the audience talking about how much they loved the movie, run like hell! It will be a huge waste of time and money.

4) Adam Sandler is the star.


Keep in mind, these are just MHO, and I have misjudged a film once or twice based on these guidelines. But in general, they work for me.

[Beruang]

Diamund got it exactly right. An ad featuring interviews with audience members who've just come out of the theater is almost always an act of utter desperation. Think about it -- it means the film not only has no good scenes they can show, but also no critics -- not even obscure no-names -- they can quote.

I'm with Derleth. I think I see one or two movies a year. Just not enough pay-off for the time, effort and expense. (A personal opinion; I don't ask or expect anyone to agree.)

Movie advertising has changed greatly over the years. The producers now get the lion's share of the profits from the first week of release; the theater gets the profits afterwards. Which is why there is so much hype before a movie opens and for the first weekend, and then it drops off dramatically.

What I find most interesting is when an advertising campaign changes in mid-stream. A film is advertised as an action flick. Then preview audiences or early reviews indicate that the action plot isn't working, so the campaign suddenly changes and promotes the flick as a buddy movie. I remember one movie (damned if I can remember the name) that ran ads during sporting events advertising it as an action flick, and ads during TV dramas that advertised the same movie as a relationship flick. Far more interesting than the actual film.

[matt_mcl]

excretable

Fat angel, the word is "execrable"... but now that I think of it, I like your word better.

[zev_steinhardt]

Another good tip off that the movie stinks is when the producers won't screen it for the critics in advance. In fact, the New York Post (if I remember correctly) will usually put a message that says to the effect


The producers of this movie wouldn't screen this movie for the critics in advance. This is usually done when they feel the movie will get bad reviews and hurt the box office. We will review this movie in tomorrow's paper


I have yet to see that they are wrong.

Zev Steinhardt

[aramis]

This is only valid for comedy but it works for TV shows as well as movies -- if you hear the words "zany" or "wacky" in reference to any production, it's complete and utter crap.

[kasuo]

I usually do a couple things to make a prediction as to a movie's "suck" level:

1) I get as much information possible about a movie such as the actors in it, the director, the production crew especially the best key grip and of course the most important crewmember - the foley artist.

2) I hire an assassin who goes to the foley artist's house and repeatedly fire on the FA but intentionally missing him/her.

3) The FA would become highly paranoid, not knowing what to do with an assassin who has seemingly lousy aim.

4) Eventually the FA would either go to the police or try to bribe the assassin into killing me instead.

5) To make a long story short, after doing all of the above, I would flip a coin and if it's heads then the movie will suck.

FIN.

[gotpasswords]

5. The well-known Directed by Alan Smithee, which is a pseudonym name adopted by any director who wants to disown the movie he just made. "Directed by Alan Smithee" movies are below the level of STV. They are movies that should be dumped in barrels marked "toxic" and stored away in the farthest regions of the earth away from all mankind.

Sadly, the DGA is no longer using that pseudonym to hide bad movies. I can only guess that he public caught on to Mr. Smithee's lack of talent.

[zuma]

Janeane Garafalo addressed this in one of her HBO specials, and i've found it to be true almost all the time...

If a trailer/ad starts with the words "In a world...", the film will suck.

[astorian]

As was mentioned earlier, if the TV commercials feature quotes from ANY of the following critics, you can be sure it will suck:

Guy Flatley of Cosmopolitan Magazine
"Sixty Second PReviews"
Joanna Langfield of WMCA Radio

THOSE "critics" give rave reviews to absolutely EVERYTHING. I'm not saying that I always (or even USUALLY) agree with ROger Ebert or any of the "mainstream" critics, but i ALL Of them agree that a movie stinks, the producers will be forced to turn to one of the 3 sources I just mentioned, for a rave review. Because Flatley, Langfield and "Previews" NEVER give bad reviews to anything.

[jrepka]

THOSE "critics" give rave reviews to absolutely EVERYTHING.

Studios routinely invite critics (especially small market and tabloid critics) to all-expenses-paid preview weekends. On these junkets these "critics" see an advance preview of the flick, meet some of the stars and production people, attend preview night parties, stay at four-star hotels and eat at four-star restaurants, all on the studio's dime. They are not required to give the product a favorable print review; they are asked, however, to supply a short "blurb" that can be used in advance ads. In principle, the junketer is not required to supply a quote -- of course, those not willing to play along do not get invited to subsequent previews.

If you're a small-market radio critic or a $100/week part-time reviewer for a weekly paper, it's a tough deal to turn down. A chance to meet the stars, get your quote and name appearing in national papers. I guess it has the same career-boosing appeal for them that a photo spread in Playboy has for a post-15 minutes actress.

[Saint Zero]

5. The well-known Directed by Alan Smithee, which is a pseudonym name adopted by any director who wants to disown the movie he just made. "Directed by Alan Smithee" movies are below the level of STV. They are movies that should be dumped in barrels marked "toxic" and stored away in the farthest regions of the earth away from all mankind.


be on the look out for "Thomas Lee" also. That's a directorial nom de plume.

[jrepka]

The well-known Directed by Alan Smithee, which is a pseudonym name adopted by any director who wants to disown the movie he just made.

--Leathermaker

be on the look out for "Thomas Lee" also. That's a directorial nom de plume.

--Saint Zero


I believe that the Directors Guild has unofficially "retired" Smithee in favor of Lee, who is credited with taking over the reigns of Supernova from Walter Hill. This is Lee's first film, and it remains to be seen whether his career can match that of Smithee in length and lack of quality.

Smithee, after a career spanning close to three decades, had gained too high a profile in and out of Hollywood, especially after the release of Burn Hollywood Burn: An Alan Smithee film in 1998.

You can check out Smithee's filmography at Alan Smithee (http://smithee.com/alan).

[Altair_8800]

Well, based on my experience, there are several extremely reliable ways to determine whether or not a movie sucks.

1-- Anything labeled a "chick flick" will always suck. (Then again, I'm probably the only female on the planet who can't stand such films.)

2-- Even-numbered "Star Trek" movies don't suck.

3-- Any movie involving the Mafia is almost guaranteed to be a great movie, even if it's a parody.

4-- Disaster movies suck.

5-- If the movie is labeled "Romance" but contains no nudity etc., it's going to suck.

6-- If the movie title is preceded by "Monty Python", then it doesn't suck.

7-- If nothing else, pick an action movie and find out how large its budget was. The more money, the more cool explosions.

[Sofa King]

I have to agree with Altair here.

Big-ass explosions are cool, and more importantly, important.

If you want to put together a napalm-scene to rival Apocalypse Now, you need some trained professionals, a whole lot of money, and a certain degree of artistic control. (Coppola, as it turns out, had his napalm scene relegated to the ending credits. But many would agree with me that somehow that film turned out a winner, despite the innumerable and well-documented mishaps in production.) The bigger the explosion (not computer-animated), the better your chances are of finding a good flick.

As an obnoxious, testosterone-driven male, I would also agree with Altair's theory that "chick-flicks" generally suck. However, the animus side of me feels compelled to point out that there is an equally bad, male-tageted type of film that is virtually the same as far as gold-plated suckness goes: anything starring Jean Claude van Damme not directed by John Woo. The same assumption can be accorded to Dolf Lundgren, that prissy white guy who claims he can do karate, an overweight Steven Segall, and even Kurt Russell, if not carefully watched over by a good director or if his wife is also in the picture. None of these films have "real good explosions," either (see above).

Caveat: while camping in West Virginia, I met a gentleman whose first reasonable comment was, "that damned John Clod va'Damn ain't never made a bad movie." He kept us entertained, or at least alert, by pouring gasoline on our campfire at unpredictable times. This is an example of a student of film who knows that a little bit of gasoline can go a long way toward making a memorable experience.

[Mustapha]

For God's sake, stop pandering to the critics! You'll only encourage them.

I've got a radical idea: if you wanna find out whether a movie sucks or not - go and see the damn movie!

Critics are no adequate yardstick for a good film. All the critics said American Beauty was a great flick. I saw the movie and thought it was rather ordinary and, well, phony.

Checking out who's involved is no use either (with the very plausible exception of Adam Sandler). Look at the wildly hit-or-miss career of Brian de Palma (and boy, was Mission To Mars an absolute stinker!).

If you see a movie and think it sucks - then great! You've just created an informed opinion, formed empirically from direct personal experience.

Critics' reviews are just opinions, even if they happen to be Roger Ebert, Rita Kempley or Kenneth Turan.

[Homer]

Now, just because it's an Alan Smithee film doesn't GUARANTEE it's going to be bad. It's just that it USUALLY is bad.

Remember that awesome little film called "American History X"? The director wanted his name removed after Edward Norton recut the film. It was GOING to be an Alan Smithee film, but the director made the faux pas of talking about his reasons for wanting his credit removed on screen, which apparently means you CAN'T get your credit removed.

Just one Alan Smithee near miss that was incredible.

Oh, and the Mafia movie = good doesn't hold. Remember "Jane Austen's Mafia!"?

--Tim