Why This is Good

It seems counter-intuitive to watch terrible movies to try to learn about screenwriting, but often, they can teach you things that are hard to understand when you limit yourself to only the best. Sometimes it’s difficult to pinpoint why something is good until you see a counter-example that is bad. I’ve always felt this way about acting. To someone that’s never done it, acting seems easy. All you do is stand there and do and say what someone else told you to do. Actors in films don’t even have to overcome stage fright or project their voices the way stage actors do. When you watch actors on screen, they seem to be having a good time, acting naturally, and the whole process seems pretty simple. But if you’ve ever seen bad acting you suddenly realize how different it is from good acting, and the reasons why become clear. Bad acting is easy to find in many, but not all, made-for-TV movies, documentaries or reality TV shows that feature reenactments, and sadly, even some big-budget Hollywood films.

In the same way that bad acting reveals what it takes to act well, bad screenwriting can reveal what it takes to write well. Watching a poorly reviewed film can be a chore, but if you approach it as an intellectual exercise, you’ll learn a lot about how to make your film or screenplay better. Instead of angrily walking out of the theater or stopping the DVD in frustration, continue watching the film, no matter how awful it is. But analyze it instead of just hating it. Note what you don’t like and why. Ask yourself these questions both during and after the film:

At what point did you want to stop watching? Why? Is it irritating, emotionally draining, boring, trying too hard, not funny, not believable, or just not your type of movie?

Are you the target demographic for this genre and type of story?

Do you normally enjoy the genre of this film?

Do you normally like the movies this actor/writer/director/studio does? What makes this one different?

Do you like the characters? Why or why not?

Are the situations presented believable? If not, why is this a problem in this particular film? Many stories present fantastical situations that are obviously made up and you are able to suspend your disbelief enough to enjoy the film. What about this story makes you dislike it?

Is the hero someone you would want to spend time with as a friend or partner in real life?

Can you understand why the characters make the decisions they do?

What did you hear about this movie from other people? What about critics and reviews? Did it do well at the box office?

What made you want to see this movie?

If you’re watching it with other people, ask for their opinions on the same questions and compare notes. Do they have the same ideas about the film as you? If not, where do you differ?

When you can learn to pinpoint what about bad movies bothers you, you can use this knowledge to avoid the things you hate in your own screenplays, and be more likely to produce something that will appeal to a wide audience.

On Friday I gave my take on Dear John, and I hope it helped guide some of your movie-watching choices over the weekend. I’d like to give a quick update on the other movies I watched over the past two weeks in keeping with my New Year’s resolution. For the first six movies I watched this year, see my post from Jan. 21.

The next set were: Inglorious Basterds, When in Rome, A Clockwork Orange and Dear John.

Inglorious Basterds-As is becoming my habit, I’m embarrassed that it took me so long to see this amazing film. I had it on my list to rush out and see the day it came out but somehow didn’t manage until recently. I’m so pleased to see such a great example of Quentin Tarentino’s brilliance on display once again. I sometimes think he is overrated and is idolized too much by film buffs and students, but when he puts out something this good, his genius is undeniable. The story is fascinating, the acting superb and the use of dramatic irony to create intense tension and suspense is incredible. Check out my post on Talking Heads for more on this.

When in Rome-I love a good romantic comedy, but this was just an adequate romantic comedy. It tried hard, but suffered from a silly premise and clichéd rom-com devices that bordered on corny. Once again we have an over-worked, cynical, ridiculously successful ingénue (so successful that, to my utter horror, she could afford to toss aside her beautiful cerulean blue satin Christian Louboutin’s as if they were some cheap Payless knock-offs) who can’t and doesn’t even want to find love until her baby sister marries.

I was amused by the antics of the men under the spell of the fountain fawning over, stalking, and harassing poor Kristen Bell (especially Danny DeVito) but I didn’t feel quite enough chemistry between her and Josh Duhamel to really enjoy the story. They try hard, but fall short of creating a truly memorable love story. It’s good for a few laughs, and the reunion cameo of Napoleon Dynamite and Pedro is a cute touch, but this movie overall will be remembered (or forgotten) as another mediocre romantic comedy.

A Clockwork Orange-Sometimes I think Stanley Kubrick is just a pervert who we’ve all mistakenly dubbed a genius. There are parts of this film that fully support my theory, and other parts that hold him up as a great. Of course, we can’t blame Stanley for all of the perversions in this adaptation, but we can give him credit for crafting such an intriguing, if utterly disturbing film. The direction certainly helps make this film great, but the story is also a huge part of its success. Considering how avant-garde this film is supposed to be, it does use a fairly traditional plot and story structure that presents a fascinating moral question and an interesting examination of a possible future dilemma.

I’ll admit it, I’m a sucker for a good tear-jerking Nicholas Sparks adaptation. A Walk to Remember and The Notebook will have me bawling no matter how many times I’ve watched them.  And although the Oscar-nominated Crazy Heart was playing at the same time and I knew it would probably be a better film, the teenage girl in me opted for Dear John. I was fully prepared to fall in love along with the beautiful Amanda Seyfried and equally gorgeous Channing Tatum, and bawl my eyes out when some tragedy tore them apart. While some might fault Sparks for being sentimental and melodramatic, I appreciate that he is not afraid to examine the illnesses that are a reality for many people. His works can be a little formulaic, and Dear John was no exception. As Walk to Remember dealt with cancer and The Notebook with Alzheimer’s, Dear John focused on Autism. The bravery and honesty with which it was portrayed, notably by Richard Jenkins as John’s aging father, was the best part of the movie, but it didn’t save the film overall from its major flaws.

As with his other adaptations, Dear John presented us with another pair of attractive young people torn apart by outside forces bent on destroying their pure, amazing, incredible love. In this case it was the war that took dear John away from Savannah’s loving embrace.  The story was less predictable than I predicted, but sadly the acting was so horrible that I couldn’t bring myself to shed a single tear. Channing Tatum is gorgeous but he can hardly speak, his acting so wooden he could give Pinocchio splinters. While Amanda Seyfried is stunningly gorgeous and possesses possibly the most beautiful pair of blue eyes ever made, I couldn’t help but see a bit of the vacancy she displayed in Mean Girls poking through in this performance. I won’t go so far as to say they had no chemistry, but I will say their passion fell flat and I didn’t feel the love in the way I was expecting to, and because of that, this film failed to draw out a single tear from someone who can tear up after viewing a mere commercial featuring a soldier returning home to a loving family. This is Nicholas Sparks, it should have left me bawling. And it wasn’t just me. I heard more snickers than sniffling from the teenage through sixty-something women in the audience around me, and for that reason alone Dear John was quite a disappointing failure.

I realize this post comes a little late,  but I resisted the Twilight phenomenon for as long as I could. Partially because I tend to be a bit of a literature snob and didn’t want to get involved in such a trendy book series, and partially, because I’m at least 12 years older than the target demographic of the series. But, like Edward, I could only resist temptation for so long, I really wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I ordered the books on Amazon (so I wouldn’t have to face the checker at Barnes and Noble judging me for my immature purchase), and started reading.

(If you took even longer than I did to get involved and don’t want the ending spoiled, please stop reading now!)

I finished Twilight quickly, and while my sarcastic side was rolling it’s eyes at all the angsty-teenage romance that is like crack for teenage girls, I also had to admit it was a good story, full of suspense and romance. That, along with the fact that it was at about a fifth-grade reading level, meant that I finished the 400-odd page novel very quickly.

Now it was time to get to the movie. It’s a shame that I waited so long, because while reading, I wasn’t able to envision my own versions of Bella and Edward, but instead had to picture Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, who were well cast, I guess, I just wish I could have judged that for myself. It’s one of my favorite parts of watching adaptations-analyzing casting. I was curious how the screenwriters would be able to adapt such a dialogue-heavy, melodramatic book into a movie and keep it dynamic and visually interesting, when the bulk of the book involved Bella and Edward talking to each other in rather boring locations-her bedroom, a meadow, and their cars.

I was pleasantly surprised with how good the adaptation was. First off, a defense of adaptations. No real fan of a novel ever thinks the movie was as good as the book. It’s a given. Because no movie can ever get as far inside the character’s thoughts and minds as a well-written book. Reading a book is personal, it’s just you and the page, you create the story in your mind and therefore feel deeply connected to your version. The mediums are drastically different, and it’s important to realize this and judge an adaptation differently, not expecting it to move you in the same ways as the book.

This movie, however, was adapted very well. It changed a few small details, but they only served to make the story more exciting. The book completely lacks conflict during what would be the second act. The two get together so soon and are instantly professing their love. The only conflict is the tension created by ever-present danger that Edward might kill Bella at any moment. But, like Bella, we trust he won’t. With nothing else hindering their love, and Edwards super-human abilities making it much easier for them to sneak around and spend time together, they are able to lounge around and bask in the glow of their love endlessly-in the book.

The movie upped the stakes right away, by introducing the danger and the conflict early on. The three evil vampires that show up much too late in the book-causing the central conflict and the exciting climax of that story-are out and about very early in the film. This creates anticipation, a sense of danger, and gives Bella’s father something to do besides watch baseball. Most of the endless pillow-talk scenes were shortened, combined, and moved outside, giving the film a dynamic, visually stunning look that the book didn’t have, or need. Scenes, revelations, and events were combined, allowing the adaptation to progress quickly enough so that it wouldn’t have to be a seven hour saga that it would have been if they had remained completely faithful to the book. These changes did not take anything away from the story but enhanced it, and made it more visually impactful, a better fit for the screen.

Small changes, such as giving Bella the goal of going to the bookstore to find a book on vampire legends in Port Angeles, not just aimlessly wandering, made the scene in which Edward rescues her from the gang of would-be rapists much more interesting, and puts Bella in charge as an active hero. Taking the dinner scenes out of their home and into the diner worked well to show-since the film couldn’t tell as the book did-how painfully strained Bella’s relationship with her father was, and it gave them a chance to interact with the townspeople so that we could see (rather than be told) how big of a deal it was to have a newcomer in Forks, and how scared everyone was over the “animal attacks.”

Overall I’m quite impressed with the adaptation. Certainly this wasn’t the best film ever made, and it’s success is due mainly to the popularity of the books, but I always give writers enormous credit for a successful adaptation of a book, and in this case, a very challenging book. If you think adaptation is easy, try writing one, and watch the film Adaptation, to give you a glimpse into how difficult successfully translating one medium into another can be.

With the holidays looming in the near future and 2009 coming to a dreary close, the political and economic climate seems to be reflected in the abundance of dark, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic movies coming out by the end of this year or the beginning of next. 2012, The Road, Daybreakers, The Book of Eli, and Legion all present different scenarios for the world coming to an end or what life will be like for the few survivors.

Movies about the end of the world, or, in turn, a bizarre world after what we know has ended, have always been around and always been popular. If you believe, as I do, that we watch movies to experience emotion, then it is easy to understand why these movies prevail. They play into one of our most primal emotions-fear-in a realistic and terrifying way that cuts deeper than any monster or slasher movie ever could. A crazed serial killer is something a few unlucky teenagers may have to deal with, but if the world ends and civilization is wiped out, we are all affected, either killed or forced to adapt to a horrifying and unknown new reality.

At the same time, these movies offer a sense of relief to people who feel overwhelmed and burdened by the current state of their personal lives, or the world at large. A catastrophe would wipe out all of the petty problems and issues we all deal with in our normal lives. No one will care about your credit card debt, your missed mortgage payment, that promotion you didn’t get, or that speeding ticket if aliens, God, a virus, a natural disaster or some self-aware computer system destroyed everything. If aliens decided to attack, we would no longer be at war with other nations, but united as humans fighting a common enemy. And since when watching a well-made film, we identify with the hero and not the masses of sacrificed extras, most of us feel deep down that we would survive, as the hero inevitably does, and make the best of this new reality. All of our personal as well as our society’s problems would be wiped away, with the promise that eventually something better could be created.

The best of these movies present logical scenarios for the destruction of civilization, or at least are so well told that we are able to suspend our disbelief and feel that the events portrayed are actually happening. Often times it is man-made events that lead to the apocalypse-computers or robots who turn on us, viruses or vaccines going wrong, natural disasters brought on by our activities, or war and mass use of nuclear weapons.

With the current unrest in the world, as well as the turmoil we’re facing domestically with the economy and divisive political battles being waged on all sides, people are eager to watch the worst possible outcome played out on screen. In addition to allowing us the catharsis of feeling these emotions in a safe way, and getting a subconscious sense of relief at the possibility that we may be offered a clean slate, these films help us deal with our fears about the possibility of a nuclear war or some other horrible disaster, but putting these very real potential futures on screen, they are made less terrifying, as we can reassure ourselves that it is only a story, it’s not real.

Like The Box, I had high hopes for The Fourth Kind. The trailer intrigued me enough to make me Google the so-called “facts” surrounding the movie. There is a lot of controversy out there as to whether the film is truly based on real events and video footage, as it claims to be. The final verdict seems to be that no, it was all invented for the movie, which is clearly the most logical explanation. Conspiracy theorists abound, and there are gullible people out there eager to believe this actually happened.

The dramatization of the events was presented in a combination of split screens, featuring the footage of interviews with the victims of alien abduction, while the actors simultaneously portrayed the events going on in the “real” footage. This added to the tension, keeping your eyes and your mind darting back and forth between both versions of the events. It was also, at times, disorienting and drew attention to the fact that we were watching a film, almost a documentary, which prevented the complete emotional involvement in the story that is necessary for a truly successful film.

It was hard to completely suspend my disbelief and buy the gimmick that these events really happened, because they were trying so hard to make you believe. This drew attention to the fact that the story alone wasn’t good enough to stand on its own. There’s no need to pretend events unfolding on screen are real in order to get audiences to enjoy a movie. Nearly every movie we see is a made up story, and if it is told well, it doesn’t matter because we become emotionally engaged in watching the characters experience the imagined events.

The story meanders, the heroine is hard to sympathize with, and the events are never really explained or resolved. If this was a documentary based on true events, it would be a poor retelling, but nonetheless fascinating because it had actually happened. If the writers merely wanted to entertain us, they should have stuck to good storytelling, sans gimmicks, and we wouldn’t have cared whether or not it was based on true events.

What was good:

The wallpaper-I know that sounds odd but see the movie and you’ll know exactly what I mean. The film is set in 1976 and the décor and clothes make the 70s look a lot more chic than they really were. The visuals throughout were quite stunning, and the intense patterns of the wallpaper framed the actors and added to the uncomfortable tension.

James Marsden-I think James Marsden is adorable, and the poor guy always plays the boyfriend of the leading lady who is really in love with someone else (see The Notebook, X-Men, and Superman Returns). I was excited to see him in a leading role, and I think he proved he’s leading man material, finally.

The story-Much of the story worked well, there were constant twists, turns, scares, and surprises. Going in we all knew the intriguing Twilight Zone worthy premise-press the button and get a million dollars, but someone you don’t know will die (incidentally this story was used in a Twilight Zone episode in 1986).  The ever unfolding story behind this weird experiment went places I did not expect or predict, and kept me guessing until the end. It also made me want to read the short story on which the film was based, as I’m sure it’s even better. The story was a little big for two hours, and might have worked better as a mini-series, but overall I give the writer credit for asking a question in each scene, and following each answer with another question leading down another bizarre path.

What wasn’t so good:

The dialogue-it was clunky, repetitive, and often on-the-nose. Cheesy and melodramatic, the story would have benefited from less of it, and a rewrite to take out all of the first draft lines that read like a bad play.

The complexity of the story-I’m all for a challenging, engaging, multifaceted story, and this certainly was one. But, as I said, it was a bit too big to be contained in two hours. The twists and turns sometimes went way too far, taking us in a direction that seemed important, only to end up meaning nothing, or remain unexplained. It hinted at grander, more exciting ideas (sequels, perhaps?) that it failed to address.

There were subplots that didn’t need to be there that bogged down the thrill and the pacing, and there were levels of corruption and conspiracy that were never fully explained. A suspense thriller is necessarily complex, but it needs to be streamlined enough to keep us engaged in the forward momentum of the main story, and not distracted by subplots and unexplained details and phenomena that leave us asking what that was all about, rather than focusing on the main story.

And while a million dollars is still a lot of money and was even more so in 1976, I found it hard to believe that this well-dressed couple residing in a beautiful home (please, that designer wallpaper is not cheap!) in a quaint suburb were so hard up that they would really be tempted to kill someone for money. (Spoiler Alert) The biggest monetary woe presented in the film was that the fancy private academy at which Cameron Diaz’s character worked would no longer allow their son to attend for free. Life is rough. Given that her husband drove a beautiful brand new Corvette Stingray to his job as a rocket scientist at NASA, I wasn’t too worried about them being out on the streets had they decided to forego the million dollars. Of course, that was part of the gimmick, that we humans are so awful we would sacrifice our fellow man just to have an easier time for ourselves. It just made me resent the characters, whereas if I had truly believed they were going to lose their house, or needed some sort of life-saving operation, I would have understood their choice.

The acting-Okay I know I said I liked James Marsden, and he did well with what he was given, but it wasn’t awesome. I can see why Allie, Jean Grey, and Lois Lane all had the hots for someone else. He was a little flat.  Cameron was a bit too weepy eyed and had the same facial expression throughout the whole film. Though I was also happy to see that she’s back to her voluptuous, natural-looking state. I personally prefer the curvy Cameron of The Mask to the emaciated teenage boy look she thought was attractive a few years back.

A big part of the plot hinged on how deeply this couple loved their son. And I knew they did because they were his parents and because they said so. But I didn’t feel this love, it wasn’t authentic. Nor was their love for each other. They had no chemistry, and a sad lack of sexual tension. They seemed to have an admiration, and a brother-sister fondness for one another, and like their love for their son, their love for each other was rooted in the fact that it was written in the script and to be expected, not because they really felt it.

Overall, I would say this film was good. I was literally on the edge of my seat throughout most of it, and intrigued enough that I may go see it again. If nothing else, it accomplished what all films should-it elicited an emotional response in its viewers-I wasn’t the only one who jumped out of my seat in shock at least once. Definitely worth seeing, but if you’re also facing hardships like having to take your son out of private school in these tough economic times, maybe wait until it comes out on dvd.

I hope you already make it a habit to get to the theater early enough to watch the trailers. I find the previews interesting as a study of marketing, not only how well the trailers are made, but which film previews they choose to show prior to each movie. Most of the time it’s consistent-go to see Paranormal Activity and you’ll surely see a preview for The Fourth Kind. See Astro Boy and you’ll get previews for A Christmas Carol and Planet 51. Every now and then they’ll throw an oddball in there, but usually the theaters are aware of what demographics they want to target. Watching the trailers is also a practical way to get a glimpse of new releases and to start making a list of what you’ll see next.

But the next time you go keep track of how many you see, jot down what movies they are for, and note which ones made you really want to go see the particular movie they were advertising. Thanks to the internet, you can easily find your favorites and watch them again at home to analyze how they work and what they did to make you want to watch. The best trailers work like the best pitches-they give you just enough to make you desperate to see the film-or, in the case of a pitch, to read the script.

Study several trailers and you’ll see that they almost always feature the protagonist. This is partially due to the fact that for mainstream movies these are often big stars who have their own draw, but also because it is difficult to tell the story without the protagonist featured. We get a glimpse-though brief-of their everyday life, the setting of the story and where they are at the beginning of their journey. We are introduced to the problem that will be the focus of their story. All of this is wrapped up in a short, visually stunning and emotionally involving teaser that, if done well, makes you not just want to watch but need to watch to see what is going to happen. Incorporating these same elements into your pitch effectively will make the person you’re pitching to want to read your script. Effective trailers tell the story, without giving everything away. Ineffective ones rely on flashy images and quotes from critics. Seeing that some random no-name movie reviewer who writes for a paper in Portland, Oregon doesn’t make anyone desperate to see a movie. Seeing a fascinating premise, and characters presented with a problem that makes you curious as to how they’re going to solve it does make you want to go see a movie. Similarly, telling a producer that your mom and best friend think your script is better than anything they’ve ever read is not very tempting. Presenting your hero and the seemingly insurmountable obstacles they will face does tempt said producer to want to read your story.

Some of the best trailers I’ve seen recently include those for The Box, The Fourth Kind, and Daybreakers. I have no idea if the movies will be any good, but the trailers were good enough to make me want to watch, because they incorporated these aspects of good pitching into an emotionally involving commercial that made me desperate to find out how the heroes will deal with the problems they’re facing. IFC.com has a list of the 50 Greatest Trailers of All Time, along with links to watch them. Check them out, take notes of what works and what doesn’t, and use this to create a more compelling pitch.

Despite reading a few negative reviews, I had high hopes for Amelia. Of course, the critics were right and it was not good. The best thing about this film was the cinematography. With grand, sweeping aerial shots of all the gorgeous land and sea Amelia flew over, there’s no denying it was stunning visually. That and the fact that Hilary Swank looked just like Amelia Earhart are the two things I could say were done well. The rest was a mess.

There were little things that were irritating about the film. Hilary Swank’s weird accent bothered me. I don’t know anyone from Kansas, so I’m not sure what women from Kansas in the 1920s and 30s would have sounded like, but if they truly sounded as irritating and awful as Hilary Swank did, then the acting coaches should have taken poetic license and allowed her to speak normally. Her accent was so odd, it was distracting. It was also inconsistent and drew attention to itself, taking me out of the experience of the film.

The chemistry between Amelia and George Putnam, played by Richard Gere, was entirely lacking. While Richard tried his best to feign love, and said all the right things, I just didn’t buy it. And Amelia was cold and completely unlovable towards him, which I assumed was just part of her character, since when he proposed marriage she responded with a grimace and a promise that she would not be faithful nor would she expect him to be. Because she was so honest, it was not dramatic, interesting or exciting when she began her passionless, short-lived affair with Gene Vidal.

The only thing keeping me awake through most of the film was my popcorn, but I perked up slightly when I thought perhaps they were hinting at Amelia being gay. This at least, was a new take on her life that I hadn’t heard of yet.  While at a bar, she pointed out that a woman nearby was very attractive. That, her masculine appearance, and her support of other female pilots, particularly the mentoring of an attractive young competitor combined to make me wonder if maybe the filmmakers were going to explore that side of her story. But no, it was just an idle comment used to explain why Amelia always wore pants, she admired the other woman’s legs and thought her own were inadequate. Yawn.

The primary problem with this film goes back to the script at its very basic level. There was an utter lack of conflict that made the story incredibly dull. Biographies are hard to do well, as most people’s lives are meandering and episodic by nature.  We all know the fascinating story surrounding Amelia Earhart’s disappearance. This story should have brought us into her life, engaged us so thoroughly that we were on the edge of our seats and calling out “No Amelia-don’t get on that plane!” as we watched her take the fateful voyage. Because if we had cared more about her and been brought into her world by an exciting, conflict-driven look at her life, we would have been emotionally attached and deeply moved at the thought of her demise. We all knew how Titanic would end, but were nonetheless moved to tears when we watched Jack sink to his watery grave, because the writers of Titanic did what the writers of Amelia did not-they got the audience emotionally involved with the characters so that we cared whether they lived or died. Watching Amelia was like watching a historically accurate documentary which included all the dull parts of a real person’s life. There was little focus on the obstacles and conflicts Amelia Earhart no doubt faced in doing what she did at that time in American history. Instead, everything seemed relatively easy for her. The main conflict arose from her feeling like a sell-out while endorsing product after product, but this too was explained and accepted as necessary, and didn’t create any real drama or conflict for the hero.

When the ending we all saw coming finally arrived, it was just that, the end of a story we already know, no less exciting after watching this uninspired portrayal of a woman who truly was groundbreaking and inspirational. It’s a shame that the writers did not craft a more engaging Amelia for Hilary Swank to embody. The real woman was a passionate pioneer whose life was interesting, dramatic and groundbreaking. This bravery and zeal could have been captured by an actress as talented as Hilary Swank if the writers had given her a story to work with, rather than this dull retelling of facts.

As a screenwriter, it’s important that you watch movies as often as possible. You can learn things from good, bad, and mediocre films, as long as you watch them critically and pay attention.

If you have the time, ideally you should watch a movie twice. The first time should be watching it like any other viewer-purely for the entertainment value. Don’t look at it analytically, just watch, be moved, or not. Experience it as your future audiences will, pay attention to how it makes you feel. Did you laugh, cry, get bored or fidgety? Jot down notes on your emotional reaction only after you’ve watched the entire film once.

The second viewing will be the one where you analyze. If you’re watching from home, keep a remote nearby so you can pause as needed to write notes. I keep a stopwatch near me so that when turning points occur, I can jot down at what time in the movie they happen. This helps me analyze the plot structure, and generally the successful films have their plot points at 10%, 25%, 50%, and 75%. In addition to writing down these major turning points and when they occur, I write down notes about the characters. How are they introduced? What do we know about them? Does the hero garner sympathy using one of the techniques I discussed in my post on 9/17/09? If not, what do they do that makes us like them, or do we dislike them? What genre is this film? Is the tone consistent and appropriate for this genre? Are the other characters believable? Does the hero face opposition that creates conflict? If so, is this conflict, and therefore suspense, sustained throughout the movie? If not, when does it falter and why? If you were bored and restless in the initial viewing, what moments made the film boring? What could the screenwriter have done to improve these scenes? Does the dialogue sound realistic or artificial? Why? Are there holes in the story? Is the problem solved in a realistic way, given the parameters of the world of the story? Are you happy for the hero when they accomplish their goal (or sad for them if they don’t), or do you not care? If you don’t care, is it because the hero was unsympathetic and you couldn’t relate to him or her, or is it because they got what they wanted too easily, so you didn’t empathize with their struggle and feel they earned it.

The answers to those questions will tell you a lot about what makes a film successful or not. You can examine the films that are successful-both the ones you like, and the ones that are successful at the box office, and you will see a pattern of the best films having certain things in common. Equally important is analyzing why the films that don’t work and don’t resonate with you are unsuccessful. Keep a notebook or file of your movie reviews, and refer back to it often, your writing will improve greatly if you can learn to distinguish why you liked a particular film and how the writer made it good.