STEPPING INTO THE SHOES OF A CRITIC

There’s an old adage that all film critics simply are made up of failed filmmakers, and that by having this career is as close as they will ever get to great art. Although I certainly believe that this is true for certain critics, take that as you will with a pinch of salt.

Say you are also a filmmaker. This ability to review films, critically, with an un-biased and keen eye will only add to your tool belt as a filmmaker. With this extra added knowledge, and wealth of cinema - to understand what one does and does not “do” in creating their picture - It can only help when you do finally come to write and then shoot your movie. Pushing that even further, receiving a positive or even negative review of a film that you have made can be understood even better with this ability to critique work.

The Critic: Episode 1 "Pilot"

A film review is pretty straightforward to be honest with you. And you don’t need an education to accurately analyse film medium either (although it may help, simply to analyse angles and certain camera terms, say). The simple fact of it is to pick apart what does and does not work, and then forming it in to a short essay that can come across to an audience excited to see it. In previous years a review from a big critic could make or break a film’s opening weekend, but with pictures like Batman Vs Superman drawing in over 870 million dollars worldwide whilst being universally panned by every critic across the globe before its release, production companies have recognised a change of late, simply assuming that an audience goes and sees what it wants nowadays. While we’re not going to go in to this further right now, I certainly believe that an audience that entirely ignores a critic’s voice is both wonderfully refreshing and at times dangerous.

UNLIKE MIKE

I think the most obvious advice on this is to simply remain neutral - by that I mean that although I love Space Jam, critically it is not a good movie.

This is the fine line. Why is Space Jam not a good movie, critically? In a quick sum up, there isn’t a huge drive from the characters, not much is learnt and the acting from the human cast is wonky.

Like that, we’ve reviewed something. But “why?” I hear you shriek - would you say something like that against Space Jam? Why, Jon? Why? This is to prove a point. It hurts me too. Michael Jordan saved the world, I understand that as well as the next man, believe me. I went to the cinema to see Space Jam no less. And to clarify, I really love the 1996 animated classic, but as a film critic, I have to note that it isn’t a wonderful piece of filmmaking. That’s the balance of this. Compare Space Jam, to say, The Lego Movie - both based on pre-existing materials, both aimed at a young audience but appealing to an older one where it can and both - let’s face it - glorified elongated commercials for a brand, but The Lego Movie says so much more - about consumerism, characters, and growing up and looking back at things that we loved through generations.

This is an example. I’m so sorry, Michael.

EVERYONE’S A CRITIC

But study who you like too - both in terms of films themselves (who are the artists you appreciate? Now tell me why exactly.), and the film critics who are critiquing. I am a huge fan of Robbie Collin and Danny Leigh myself and would always make sure to watch the Film Show on BBC when it was on, making sure to catch it live too. Empire Magazine has had excellent features for many years, including heavy insight and an in-depth behind the scenes look at filming processes, with an array of different film reviews to boot. Robbie Collin taught me that one should enhance their reviews through language. He sat on the FilmShow and wrote for The Daily Telegraph while describing films in comparison to delicious desserts - comparisons that always brought his review to life. It showed me personally that reviews could have their own specific language if done well. A review itself doesn’t have to look like it’s a four star review on Amazon of a new shelving unit, but rather a thing that uses language and comparisons to real life and situations. If done correctly, a good review is just as much a piece of art as the piece that it is talking about in the first place.

DOMINIC CONNORS: 12 Year Old Film Critic

On a twist on that, why not review something so bad purely for the Hell of it. I assure you that this will help you become a better critic, if not filmmaker in general. I’m a firm believer of all levels of education; and studying the How Not To as well. The Room is cited as one of the worst films ever made (again, to be clear I love it - but you have to separate yourself from this when reviewing critically). The Room is comically awful, and that can be seen not only from its acting - but its inability to line up shots, its self indulgent story that leads nowhere, and its poor use of green screen… to name a few items. But by surrounding yourself with this, and embracing it, it gives way to the times that you will arrive at the masterpieces.

THREE ACTS - (INTRO) GOOD, BAD, CONCLUSION

Since writing reviews I have followed a very simple formula - continuing even more so with the film vs film critics comparison. I believe in a three act structure to reviews. Chalked up as simply as this: Introduce the film that you are reviewing. Your background going in to it (a new movie about sharks! Tell us why you love JAWS so much.), or the filmmakers involved (perhaps the director of this new film about sharks notes Jaws as being his favourite movie in a previous interview, for example)

You then want to note it’s good points and it’s bad. This will not ever be even. A duff movie will continue to do so into your review, and you shouldn’t feel you have to search for its favourable points whatsoever - and vice versa.

And then finally, your outro. Sum it up for us.

I would use this as a pretty straightforward guide and it has done me well in terms of reviewing from the start, but won’t always work purely based on films (or TV, or theatre for that matter) in general being so wildly varied. In the below review I have highlighted the colours to clearly note the bad points, good points, and the sum up. I have intentionally included a review that is negative, for that matter for a flat and uninteresting film, but with a small amount of good points purely to show how much a review and a film being reviewed can vary. I purposely chose a movie that I disliked and feel had so little going for it, purely to show that your review does not have to echo that. Yes, this is based on an existing piece of work that is not your own, but this is your piece of writing. Rise above the shitty films, and praise the good ones. Interestingly, looking back on my previous reviews I saw that I still use this rule of thumb today, as seen here in a spoof review of Aquaman for FinalBoss.io. I thought it intriguing that even when I’m not taking something serious that byline has remained the same.

EVIL DEAD, 2013. Dir. Fede Álvarez - A Review Examples

Let me start by saying that I am a massive Evil Dead fan, and believe that Evil Dead II is one of the greatest sequels ever. With that said, I went in to the Evil Dead Remake, boomstick in hand ready to shoot myself when I sensed a bad movie.

Review

BAD POINTS

Evil Dead 2013 continues Hollywood's sluggish attempt to bring back every horror movie you ever loved and squash it, taking as much joy and charm away from its original film that it actually pains you. Surely, they would have learned from My Bloody Valentine 3D, right? Wrong.

The story here is pretty much the same, and actually probably more coherent to begin with than ED 1 & 2 - as five teens go to a Cabin In The Woods to support their drug addicted member through the next few days as she tries to go cold turkey. Unfortunately for her and the rest of Scooby Doo-esque gang of friends, an evil book is discovered...

The main problem with this film is its lack of charisma. All of the fresh faced leads are useless and stereotypical to the genre. Gone is the amazing/terrible acting display of the brilliant/awful Bruce Campbell, replaced instead with "Shiloh Fernandez". I'm fine with bad acting (look back at any of your favourite horror films - they will all have someone with the facial expressions of a tree, or "Lacktors" if you will), but apart from looking pretty, Fernandez has literally nothing otherwise that stops you from wanting to see him killed by something horrible in these evil woods.

Gone too is literally any kind of humour. While ED2 had this bizarre twisted funny bone running through it, this movie doesn't even attempt it. No lines, no puppets, no deer head, nothing. This isn't a bad thing, because I'd argue that Army of Darkness (the third in the Evil Dead series) went a little too over the top. But not even a line? A sly reference to the original? Nope. Nothing. Going back to other bad horror remakes, I can remember that even Friday the 13th 2009 had a few stabs (!) at it.

On saying that, I did laugh twice at unintentionally hysterical parts, both involving Jane Levy. Our addicted heroine of sorts, while becoming possessed, she witnesses lots of strange things, and just look out for her reflection... it's stupidly hilarious.

GOOD POINTS

Which leads me on to the deaths. This film was given an 18 certificate in the UK, something so rare these days, which'll be a result of this being actually a mash up of both ED part 1 and 2, pilfering the best bits from both of them. With that comes lots of the makeshift weapons used in both, tweaked ever so slightly. Like the originals, this movie's best moments come from the practical effects: lots of blood, tongues, hands, etc, with one scene involving a razor blade standing out, and giving you your only scene where you stop and go "Wow, that's not terrible and looks actually quite good". Unfortunately, that is the only highlight. Otherwise, each death is really rather flat, dull even.

SUM UP

If you want to do a remake involve George Romero (Dawn of the Dead 2004 and The Crazies 2010 were both inferior but great), otherwise please please stay away, as films like this are straight up painful to sit through.

In the Evil Dead movies the characters are possessed by evil spirits and turned in to monsters. It's just a shame Evil Dead 2013 has been taken over by something so unscary, lifeless and frankly boring that it makes you want to cut off your own hand and chase yourself out of the cinema with it.