The UBER Film Critic

 

One of the things that is very important for a critic to maintain is a social life.  This may not sound very difficult, but let me assure you that being a critic full time is one of the loneliest professions on the planet.  It is VERY hard to maintain an active social life!  This is such a huge draw back to the job I write about so much that I'm surprised I haven't tackled it yet.  I will write a future blog post about why this is the case, but for the sake of today's article we need to acknowledge that if you do this job, you are going to need to find something to do that forces you to interact with people.  Going to church certainly helps (but that usually just covers Sunday... maybe Wednesday if you join a small group).  A book club would be nice if you can find people who will dedicate time to reading one book a month (not an easy task I assure you).  Online gaming and Facebook doesn't really count as far as I'm concerned because there is still that digital wall between you and the other person.

Sports is also a great way to socialize with other people... too bad I don't like to play sports.  When I sat down and decided what would be a good way to socialize with other people, a unique opportunity arrived: UBER!  The money you make from UBER is certainly not going to afford you the right to retire anytime soon (something that has been played out in the media for a good portion of the past year), but it does get you out of the house and driving real people around town.  Most of the people you pick up will be friendly and want to talk.  If this person wants to go a long distance it is even better.  One of the most common questions you will get asked is if UBER is something you do full time.  I always tell them "no, I'm a film critic." This is a great line if you want to spark a conversation with a complete stranger in a car.  Most people immediately have questions concerning this new bit of information you have just provided.

How does someone get that job?  Is it cool?  What is the bet movie currently in theaters (for the record, this usually translates to "is the latest superhero movie any good")?  What is your favorite movie?  Can you please turn the A/C up?  The trick to answering all these questions is to answer them in a friendly way that is not confrontation.  If your passenger likes "The Waterboy" (and those people do exist) you politely disagree with them but let them know that you are happy someone enjoyed it.  Rarely will these conversations get testy though, and sometimes the movie conversation will be a segway into another topic.  Sometimes you will have passengers who don't really watch movies.  Ask them what some of their interests are and take it from there.  Feel free to even discuss the lack of a tip feature on UBER (this is something that NEEDS to change).

I picked up a couple tonight who were heading home after catching up with some friends they went on a vacation with.  I can't remember his name, but her name was Lynn (hi Lynn!), and the conversation went from the pictures they looked at, the vacation, to what I do, to her Googling me (and yes, I do come up if you search my full name), to finding out what her son does for a living, to a goodbye that went something along the lines of "we should all have lunch sometimes." Now, most of the time you will never see these people again.  While it would be nice to have the aforementioned lunch I acknowledge the reality of it happening is low.  Most people simply need a ride home and you will never see them again.  This isn't something you do to form new, lasting friendships.  If you want that go to church.

If you want social interaction then there are worse ways to get it than driving for UBER.  Again, the amount of income you get isn't going to be very much (although during surge times it can certainly be worth your while and can help pay for a new car).  The idea is that you have something to do to speak to people.  Again, this could be playing sports, a book club... whatever.  For me this is how I get the bulk of my social interaction.  And if you plan to do this for a living you will need to find a social outlet as well.  It's not anyone's fault, but this is one of those professions where talking to human beings is largely not in the cards.  We'll discuss why later this week.  For now though, start exploring your social options.  Oh, and if you DO want to give UBER a try, sign up with it using my referral code!

Are Critics Wrong About "Batman v Superman?"

 

It's been a few weeks since Warner Bros. unleashed "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" to great critical scorn and big box office.  I've written that sentence more times than I care to, but I must write it once more because we need to tackle the subject of whether or not critics are out of touch with the real world.  I've written about this before (when talking about "Transformers") and I'll likely have to tackle it again (when... well, the next 'Transformers' movie comes out).  I've stressed before that big box office is not an indicator of a quality film (or visa versa).  Yet every time a studio farts out a multi-million dollar film that features beloved characters the critics are the bad guys for wanted to "destroy fans dreams of a massive franchise."  No, we don't want to crush any dreams or crap on your beloved franchises; we just want to watch good movies.

And honestly, if that means being out of touch with the rest of the world than maybe that's a good thing.  I rarely take the time of day to take a shot at my readers, but how many of you went to see this movie despite the negative reviews it got?  How many of you went to see it despite the fact that your friends said it was a waste of time?  Heck, how many of you are STILL planning to see it despite the negative things you've heard from BOTH groups?!  How on Earth is it WE'RE the ones who are out of touch with the real world?!  This is a world where a vast majority of women are feminists yet they make "Fifty Shades of Grey" a worldwide hit.  This is a world where animation is considered "not real film making" even though it's a much more difficult kind of movie to make (and requires far more imagination).  This is a world where everything has to come to a grinding halt because a new Star Wars movie has been released.

Yet somehow the critics are out of touch in this situation... because we want to see a superhero movie that is about something other than two heroes beating the snot out of a giant brown booger for almost a full hour.  Yet the general public will go see a movie they know is terrible - sometimes twice - and they are the ones who are sane?  Remember how as kids we hated school?  We all thought we knew how the world worked and that school wasn't needed.  How wrong we were back then.  We had a lot to learn. We still have a lot to learn.  In fact, I don't know about you, but I hope I'm always learning because learning is fun and keeps my mind working.  That's why as a film critic I want better movies.  Because movies, like most things in life, are experiences.  I want to keep having new experiences because I grow when I have them.

I don't grow when I watch a movie like "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice." Remember "The Dark Knight" though?  Remember how that movie made you think and feel about the world?!  I remember when my sister-in-law was trying to get out of seeing that movie with my brother several years ago.  She trusted my opinion on movies, and she normally used me as a way to get out of seeing movies with my brother she had a strong feeling were going to be terrible.  After I assured her she would like this one she came back later that night and told me how much she loved Batman.  She never thought that was possible before.  She watched the other Batman movies as well as other superhero movies. And you know what?  While she enjoyed some of them, she was constantly disappointed because she knew how good this genre could be.

She didn't like to settle for less than she deserved.  She knew her value as a human being.  And she projected that knowledge in how she spent her money, what movies she saw, and the family she decided to marry into.  If she could see "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" she would feel insulted by how little this movie thought of her.  Of the characters she had no idea she would eventually come to love.  The strange thing is, people should feel that way now.  The public has seen "The Dark Knight," "Superman: The Movie," "Spider-Man 2," Guardians of the Galaxy," and "Iron Man."  They know what a movie that treats them like thinking human beings looks and sounds like, and this isn't it.  Yet somehow the critics are the bad guys in all this.  Because we clearly just don't understand the world... no, I don't buy that.  In fact, I'm going to say that you need us more than we need you.

Alright, in all fairness we do need you to read our reviews, because that gives us traffic, which shows our sponsors we're worth investing in, which helps us pay out bills... yeah, should probably make that very clear.  That said, because you do pay our bills, we have a responsibility to steer you towards good movies. Towards good experiences.  We're not trying to tell you what to like: We're trying to share what is great with you!  We know you'll see "Captain America: Civil War" because Spider-Man is in it - ah heck, I'm going to see that movie because Spider-Man is in it - but what about those movies you might not see if we didn't push?  What about movies like "Hugo," "Spotlight," "The Iron Giant," or "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon?"  What about these movies you might never have seen if we didn't push you?  Were those experiences really so bad that you have to dismiss us because we feel the new Batman movie is beneath you?

Listen to me loud and clear: From where I'm sitting, it's not the critics who are out of touch with the world, it's the ticket buying public that is.  And the sooner you all realize that the sooner things like the Rotten Tomatoes scores won't matter as much as you think they do.

Writing for YouTube

If you've subscribed to my YouTube channel, you are aware that I've been pretty busy making content for that site.  More so than I have been when it comes to writing print reviews (though I AM redesigning my website in the background, so that takes up a lot of time).  Most of the time I don't write my YouTube rants.  I simple turn on the microphone, say my peace, edit out parts of the argument that don't fit or get too much off topic, and then add some pictures and videos to the audio before posting it for the world to see.  On occasion though I will need to sit down and write a script for a video.  This is when I want to tackle a subject that requires many points to be made and has lots of little details I can't mess up on or else the comment trolls will jump all over you.  These videos I need to write down so I have a frame of reference when I record.  If I'm on camera I need to put them on the computer screen and move my head in a way that doesn't give off the impression I'm reading a script.

Here's the thing though... I'm not a screenplay writer.  For all the skills I have in writing, editing, and forming a proper sentence, screenplays have always given me trouble because they are too vague and brief.  You don't spend a lot of time detailing scenarios because that's what the director will be doing.  Dialog can't go on too long because there are other characters on screen.  I have written screenplays for unproduced shorts, but they were by far the most difficult things I had to write.  Yet I now find myself in a situation where writing scripts are necessary sometimes.  So how do I write them?  How do I recommend you write them?  Honestly, this is the one subject that you are on your own with.  There is no proper way to write a script for a YouTube video.  No one is going to see what you write (unless there is a cast).  The formatting doesn't matter because no one will be able to pick it out when the final video is produced and uploaded.

The way I write my scripts are very much like I would write any other blog post.  This makes sense because I write reviews and columns, and my videos consist mostly of rants and editorials.  With very few exceptions, I am simply writing a blog post that I will be reading out load.  On some pages I will make a note of certain images I need to have on screen at the time or certain sound effects I want to edit in for a humorous effect.  I don't edit them to the extent I do with my print material because I know no one will ever read them.  The thing is, I really don't like writing scripts because they are so much like blog posts that I am usually tempted to just clean them up and upload them as is.  I can sometimes forget the reason these are being written for YouTube is because a visual element is required to really drive the point home.

As much as I love the written word, we live in a generation of people who get their information visually and on little mobile devices.  I don't like to encourage that (which is why The Movie Wizard.com has not been mobile friendly up to this point), but I do have to follow the audience to a certain extent because that's where the money is.  I still update these crusty old blogs and websites because I do believe words have meaning.  Plus, when I have to write a script, I feel bad because I know the thing is just going to get tossed in the garbage once the video has been filmed.  Maybe this is an unjustified phobia, but it almost feels like I'm throwing away hard work when I do that (I wonder if that makes me a writing hoarder...).  Ultimately for me the process of writing a review and a YouTube script isn't much different, but depending on the type of video content you produce, your mileage may vary.

Religion and Reviews

Last night my parents and I went to a private screening of "The Young Messiah." While we all agreed that it was a good movie, there was much debate on the accuracy of the holy text and why certain known facts were changed when they didn't have to be (my mom took particular offense to James being a few years older than Jesus when they were the same age in the Bible).  She also mentioned that in the Bible Jesus didn't perform his first miracle until he was an adult and changed water into wine at a wedding (though, if you REALLY wanted to argue this point, I suppose you could say that was the first RECORDED miracle.... never mind, playing with fire on that one).  I commented that she was correct in this, but to make a movie about a young Jesus who didn't perform miracles wouldn't make for an interesting story.  Besides, the film was based on a novel from atheist-turned-Catholic Anne Rice, who is most famous for writing "The Vampire Chronicles" novels (which in turn inspired the short lived Elton John Broadway musical "Lestat"), so we should consider ourselves lucky it was as blasphemous as it could have been.

My family has civil conversations about these sort of things, but the bottom line is that when you go to see a religious movie - or, at the very least, a movie that uses religious writings as the foundation of the story - there is a good chance something is going to come into conflict with personal beliefs you may have.  As a Christian I am asked frequently (mostly by other church goers) whether or not I'm "writing reviews from a Christian standpoint or a secularist standpoint?" I admit to a certain extent I have no idea why this is even a question sometimes.  Critics are writing from their own standpoint.  They are writing the reviews how they view them, how the films affect them, and how they would discuss the film to the world.  Reviews are one of the most personal forms of journalism on the market.  Next to columnists, critics are the most personal writers in an industry that (in theory) largely distances personal feelings from the story at hand.

Critics have the wonderful freedom to say things like "I feel" and "this bothers me" and not get in trouble with the editors for using such terms.  If the critic is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Atheist, or Jedi (a real religion by the way), then chances are their views will affect how they approach the film and what they take away from it.  If you need an example of this, look no further than the reviews for "The Passion of the Christ." Most people who had some belief or personal connection to the story found the movie to be deeply moving and spiritual.  Most people who had no personal connection with the story found the film to be nothing more than two hours of Jesus being tortured.  In some rare cases the feelings were reversed.  It was a great movie in my opinion, but one that was going to have to go through a filter between the person watching the film and what they believed or didn't believe.  Likewise, a movie like "American Beauty" was praised much more by people who weren't religious than by people who were.

Most of the time a critic will mention his religion (or lack therefor) when the time is appropriate.  Yes, you CAN put aside your beliefs and watch a movie about a religious subject as a way to be objective (and in cases like "Noah" it might be required), but most of the time the subject needs to be brought up so that the readers have an understanding of where you're coming from.  Obviously this doesn't mean that you need to be religious to enjoy a movie about Jesus or non-religious to enjoy a movie that is against the idea.  Certainly "Spotlight" proved that the believers and unbelievers can come together and agree that a good movie is a good movie regardless how sensitive the subject matter is.  As a critic it is best to bring up your personal views when it is appropriate.  Roger Ebert won the Pulitzer Prize but only brought it up in his reviews when the subject called for it.  Likewise, if you are reviewing a movie like "The Young Messiah," then chances are you will at least note your belief system just so that your readers have a better idea of where you are coming from.

To answer the original question that was posed though, if you are a Christian or Atheist writing reviews, then yes, you will automatically be writing reviews from those perspectives.  Those beliefs have helped mold and define your points of view over the years on every facet of your life, and that includes what you take away from film.  To emphasize your beliefs occasionally will be helpful to the reader, but if you write your reviews with enough skill, bringing this information up on a daily basis will not be necessary.  Your readers will get a sense of who you are based on what you write, how you word things, and even be able to measure who you are based on how much or how little you curse.  Reviews are a personally reflection of yourself, and that includes any religious belief you may or may not have.

Is Watching the Oscars Pointless?

I read all the time that the Oscars are pointless.  That all award shows are pointless.  That no group can safely tell people what is and isn’t the best film of the year (that’s certainly true; one year one of my cousins felt “Joe Dirt” was the best film he saw that year).  They wonder why people watch a show that is boring on so many different levels (and more often than not nominate films you have never even heard of [much less seen]).  I understand where these people are coming from on some level, but not completely.  I understand that the show is a little tedious and rarely does it make for great entertainment.  On the other hand, aren’t there other events that are just as pointless?  Events that, despite not amounting to much of anything in the long term of things, get just as much (if not more) attention as the Oscars do?  I believe there is.

It’s called the Super Bowl.

I know, I know, many of you are screaming at you’re screens right now, ready to tear me a new one and tell me why the Super Bowl matters.  I’m sure you are all thinking of making points like football is fun to watch, it’s the most important sporting event of the year (except during years where the Olympics take over the tube), and that it gets far more viewers to tune in.  I understand all of these points…and yet I don’t understand any of them at the same time.  I want to say upfront that I find no fault in you if you like sports.  At the end of the day we all have passions that are little more than glorious time wasters, and in that regard there is really no difference from movies, to sports, to video games, to sewing.  We just pick what we enjoy most and run with it.
For me, the Super Bowl is no big deal.  I don’t see how a sports team winning contributes to the world’s problems.  It certainly won’t solve any major humanity problem if your favorite team wins.  It doesn’t help you to see year favorite team winning a statue that you will likely never win yourself.  In fact, just like the Oscars, the Super Bowl isn’t important one bit when you put them up to your life.  Your marriage, religion, and career choices will affect your life much more than either of these two television events ever will.  I know it, you know it, and I’m sure deep down the people who sell the shows know it.  The only people who walk away with their life changed are the people who win, and even then they just gain some additional financial support.

In the end all games and trophies are self-worshiping things made by man.  They won’t do any good to you.  Yet people watch football because they find it fun.  I watch the Oscars because I find them fun.  Alright, the show itself is kind of boring, but it is exciting to see a movie you think genuinely deserves to be honored win an award.  The Oscars have never changed my life any more than the Super Bowl has changed yours.  Life isn’t simple enough for that to happen.  I will watch the shows that entertain me just like you will watch the shows that entertain you.  I think that is once stance we can all agree on in this crazy world.  Personally, I’m glad these things don’t depress me, as I met a Panthers fan shortly after the Big Game ended, and it didn’t look like taking these things so seriously was any fun.

What's the Deal with Shorts in Theaters?

I have had yet another sleepiness night.  I should be trying to at least sleep during the day, but the last round of Oscar nominated shorts are showing today, and I need to do my civic duty as a critic to go see them.  I was in this situation last week when my mom pointed out that many of the shorts could be streamed online for free, so why bother going to the theaters to see them.  My response is the same one I have for feature length films: Because they look better in theaters.  Look, I know shorts aren't the big deal they used to be, so let me clue you all in on why they were a mainstay in cinemas in the Golden Age of Hollywood.  See, shorts, despite their lack of big budgets, served several very practical functions.  It was a good way to discover potential stars in the making.  You could test out new directors and get an idea of how they managed a small project before putting them to work on a bigger project (AKA: Movie).

They were a great way to test new visual techniques and figure out how they could work before using them in a feature film.  In the case of animation, shorts was a way to create new cartoon characters that could be spun off into TV and merchandise later on down the road.  In some cases, certain characters were so poplar, that putting the right short before an uncertain movie could help raise the interest of it to millions of people who otherwise wouldn't have paid to see it.  There are probably a few other advantages to shorts, but I think you get my point.  So the first question that is raised is why discontinue the shorts?  Well, shorts have never had a way to be financially successful on their own terms, so there was always a question mark attached to whether or not these things were financially stable.  Also the more popular TV got, the more companies realized that making shorts for compilation programs would be much cheaper on a TV budget than a theater budget.

So then the second question that this brings up is why do you need to see them in theaters?  Again, I like to point to theatrical movies as a prime example.  You can see "The Departed," "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," "Frozen," and... alright, to be frank you can see anything that comes to theaters on home video (with the exception of "Song of the South").  Yes, these movies can be entertaining on a small screen, but they were made for the big screen and lose something when you take that away.  The same can be said for shorts.  While some are being made for the internet, the vast majority of them are still made with a big screen in mind.  The creators know that they won't spread very far in terms of how many people they will reach, but for the people who do see them they want an impression to be made.

Again, shorts are largely elaborate resumes for studios.  They are being made to prove that they have visual, acting, or writing talents to offer the big studios.  They may not be able to afford a feature film, but they may just be able to make a short.  Studio executives screen everything on a theater screen.  EVERYTHING!  If the short looks terrible on a blown up screen, the purpose behind it is completely meaningless.  So they make them with the big screen in mind.  Now that they are making these for a big screen, they figure they may as well go all out with them.  So they start to film/animate the short to be most effective when seen on the big screen.  Soon little details that are difficult to spot on a regular TV get put into the picture.  There may not be any money to be had in these things, but they are given the same amount of care and attention that the more profitable feature films receive.

For these reasons I am going to take every chance I get to see shorts on the big screen.  I would much rather lose half the previews we get for a short before every movie.  I think studios do themselves no favors by largely ignoring these (you'd think the success Pixar has had with shorts would prove just how valuable they can be).  And in a way, shorts CAN make big money!  In 1990 Disney released a movie called "Dick Tracy," which become a $100 million dollar grossing film (a much more impressive cum in those days).  The movie (which I want to mention I like) fell out of peoples memories pretty fast.  With mixed reviews the movie was targeted to lose a lot of money.  However...

...thanks to a Roger Rabbit short that was placed before the film, some industry experts believed a lot of people went to see the movie just because of the short before the feature film, and without it the movie might have struggled much more at the box office.  There are other examples like this.  Maybe we'll discuss them in a future article.

How MoviePass Can Help the Aspiring Film Critic

 

A note about the following post before we being: This is a post where I will be extensively discussing a product/service.  While at times it may seem like a paid advertisement, I don't believe in writing articles that are bought and paid for.  If you are a film critic for a living it is against your interest to do commercials, shopping network programs, or paid advertisements,  I may elaborate more in a future post, but the key thing to take away from this is that by doing this it undermines not only the reviews you write, but of any recommendation you might have for anything.  So while a post of the ethics of writing articles that are really product placement is likely needed somewhere down the line, I wanted to write about this product first, so just be assured that I'm writing this of my own free will and not being paid by the company who makes the product/service in any way.

Alright, let's get on with the show.

One of the questions I get a lot is how does one become a film critic.  Honestly, the answer is WAY too complex for just one post (that's why we have this blog here)!  Obviously to become one involves lots of writing, time, and usually more than one rejection letter to join the Online Film Critics Association (or whatever guild you attempt to join).  Graduating from college is a bonus, but speaking as a college dropout I can assure you it's not the end of the world if you don't.  One thing that is pretty obvious though is that if you are going to do this job you need to see a LOT of movie!  Not only that, you have to see as much as you can.  There is no picking and choosing specific genres to only review (unless your site is dedicated to that genre), you have to see a little bit of everything.  Another thing that is pretty obvious is that this is going to cost money, as you don't just break onto the movie scene being invited to critics screenings.

No, you have to pay for the movies yourselves.  This is where the whole "self made writer" thing becomes tricky, as it becomes much harder to justify paying for bad movies when you are doing this for free and trying to make a name for yourself.  Tickets are expensive and there are more movies than ever being released each week.  What is the solution?  Well aspiring critics, I have found a service that may not solve all your problems, but it will help with this dilemma a lot.  It's called MoviePass, and it is pretty much the Netflix for movie theaters.  It's not available everywhere, but for those who live in areas it is I can assure you it is will worth the investment.  The cost of the monthly membership varies from city to city, so we're going to use my $45 a month cost as the starting point.

While have been gifted in the sense that I do get invited to many critics screenings, there are times movies aren't screened, or I simply want to see the movie again with some friends, and thus buying a movie ticket in both these situations becomes a requirement.  In the past month I had to actually buy tickets for the following films for one of these two reasons:

Kung fu Panda 3 - $11.99
Youth - $7.50
Son of Saul - $12.99
Norm of the North - $12.99
The Forest - $6.50
45 Years - $7.99
The Hateful Eight - $13.99
The Repentant - $12.99
The Danish Girl - $7.50

Altogether it would have cost me $94.44 to see all these movies, but thanks to MoviePass it only cost me $45 to see them and I saved $49.44.  Some months I save more, others I save less.  Some months all the movies are free for me through screenings, and MoviePass finally makes some money off me. It should be noted the service does not grant you access to 3D, IMAX, XD, RPX, or D-BOX screenings, so for those you are on your own.  As you can see, if you want to be a film critic this is a logical service to sign up for.  You will need to see lots of movies.  You will have to see movies you don't want to see.  You have to put yourself in front of things you never dreamed you would ever watch, and while you can't be expected to see everything at first, eventually the public will expect that of you if you are to make a dent in this business.

I get invited to so many free screenings that sometimes I can't even remember when the last time I paid for a ticket was.  I hold onto my MoviePass though because it provides a great service for me, and if you are just getting started this is a great idea for you too.  Now, that said, I do want to mention that if you do decide to get it, you are hooked for the long term.  While I haven't heard of too many people canceling their subscription due to dissatisfaction, it should be noted that once you've been subscribed for a couple of months, you are on the hook for a whole year whether you realize it or not.  In the user agreement you will find that if you terminate the subscription before the year is up, you will pay some hearty cancellation fees, so find out what those fees are before you sign up and decide if this is something you really want to be committing to for the next year.

Even so, for me this would be a pretty easy choice if given the option years ago.  If you want to do this for a living its most likely because you love movies.  You'd probably be going to the movies once or twice a week even if you weren't thinking of getting into this business.  So on a personal level this would be a great deal since you only need to see four prime time films to break even.  If you want to do this professionally and are starting out with a personal blog or website (ha!), this may be one of the most important tools you'll have to getting your career off the ground in a stress free way!