The Ultimate Movie Review Scheme
A good friend of mine has a very detailed way of reviewing movies. I like the system a lot, although I have to admit that I'm usually too lazy to put this much effort into a movie review. It would be cool if it caught on though.
Read on for Ben's Movie Review Method (the rest of this is copyright Ben Kite and is not covered by my CC license but is covered by his. So if you use it, make sure you attribute it. Thanks.):
I don't consider a 1-5 scale or even a 1-10 scale adequate for rating movies, largely because people tend to use different criteria to assess whether a movie is "enjoyable" or "worth watching".
The system I came up with was to employ elements from Aristotle's "Poetics". Aristotle uses 6 elements one of which-- the music-- I leave out, mainly because I think it's reflected in terms of another element, "Spectacle".
The 6 elements are:
Spectacle, Character, Fable, Diction, Melody, and Thought.
I refer to "Plot" instead of "Fable" and I refer to "Extension" instead of "Thought", but the essence is, in the end, quite similar.
Plot is an assessment of the story itself-- If it is a new story: Was it compelling? Was it interesting? Was it predictable? Did it broaden the way I see the world? If it is an old story: Was it novel? Was it done well? Did it resonate? It is postulated that there are only 10-30 plots and that everything else is built on one of those. While I'm not sure I agree with this, I do believe that if one is going to revive an old plot, one should try to add to it or at least change it in some way. "The Bird Cage" is a modernization of "La Cage aux Folles" but it is new and different that it is a departure and an improvement on the original.
Diction is the script and the interchange between characters. David Mamet and the brothers Coen have dialogue that might keep some audiences completely happy without any support from any of the other elements. Jackie Chan movies and James Bond movies are somewhat lacking. Is it witty? Is it fresh? Is it wise? Are there lines you want to quote to your friends because they are so funny or so true? Do words from the movie stay with you? Haunt you?
Character is, of course, the makeup of the characters. Are they multidimensional or realistic? Are they supposed to be? Sometimes characters do not develop because they are pieces in a chess game and serve symbolic roles. Sometimes characters are so unrealistically quirky they remind you of someone you know. I tend to like characters who are multifaceted but consistent, which falls between being cardboard and stereotypical and being completely erratic and beyond empathy.
Extension is the most difficult to judge for me. It is, in a sense, a combination of the preceding three: Does what the characters do or say make sense, given the circumstances? Does fate react realistically? Does the plot go in a realistic way or does it just go the way the script writer thought it should?
Finally, there is Spectacle. If there is atmosphere music, is it invisible and yet tangible? If there is plotwise music, does it make sense, is it emotionally appropriate, are the words appropriate? If there is fighting, chasing, explosions, are they realistic and/or fun and exciting, or are they distracting and annoying? As tfsmiles said about Kill Bill, do you watch the scene and go WOW or do you go, "There they go on their wires again!".
Here are most of the reviews I completed-- but then sort of gave up as though nobody cared:
I think this system lets me be fair to movies that don't aim for certain things and also appropriately praise movies that do all of these things well. Movies like "Run Lola Run" and "Moulin Rouge!" get good scores in all areas partly because they intend to, partly because they innovate, but also because they are so well done. I wouldn't expect Jackie Chan movies to run far above 7, simply because there's only so much scripting you can do to make the fighting consistently interesting... but to give the movie a pat "5" would be an insult in many ways-- it usually deserves an 8 or 9 for spectacle because Jackie is a dedicated and pioneering figure in stunts, choreography and action.
Now, my system is far from perfect-- especially in the modern age of movies. When a movie is a true story or documentary, many of these criteria go out the window, and should-- after all, Aristotle meant this system for tragedy, not even for drama as a whole.
Still, I wish more reviewers used my scale so I could judge based on my own tastes and expectations what I was going to see. As it is, there is so little to go on.
