Can you tell if a movie will suck?

Factual Questions
21

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.

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

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.”

I would disagree strongly with this. See below:

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; 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…

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.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

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.

26

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

27

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

I have yet to see that they are wrong.

Zev Steinhardt

28

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.

29

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.

30

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.

31

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.

32

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.

33

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.

34

be on the look out for “Thomas Lee” also. That’s a directorial nom de plume.

35

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.

36

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.

37

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.

38

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.

39

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