The Surya-o-meter Explained

Writer : Surya Turaga 

Date : 5th July, 2023 

Introduction 

I critique a lot of different movies and shows on the Surya-o-meter. I definitely think about a lot of different things before giving a rating. I don’t just go by instinct alone. This article is to give you some clarity on how I decide the rating. 

Firstly, yes this rating is a little biased to my preferences. But it’s never too biased. When I watch something that doesn’t go with my preferences, I give it a Surya-o-meter and an Unbiased Verdict to account for this. In other situations, the bias is very small. Second, the Surya-o-meter is not a linear scale. It’s a bit different. Some percent ranges are easier to overcome than others. 

By the end of this article, I hope to provide some insight on my thought process. That being said, it is ok to have disagreements with the verdicts. Not all the time, of course. Only sometimes. 

The Process 

The first thing I look at in the film is the plot. That’s not because I value it the most, it’s because I find it useful to pay attention to the plot more when watching something for the first time. The plot quality helps me analyze the script and character development, both of which I make mental notes of. 

When I watch the film for the second time, I pay closer attention to the cinematography, music and acting. I see whether everything was just done with shortcuts or ‘cookie cutter recipes’, or if the film actually put effort into the film outlook. I see how well the atmosphere of the film compliments the actual plot and context. 

For shows, I do pretty much the same thing, except I don’t rewatch a show. Show pacing is usually comfortable to do everything at once. Unless it’s an anthology. For anthologies, a lot of standard film rules apply. 

Lastly, I remember to enjoy what I’m watching. Spending all my watching time analyzing is no fun. I just let some of the work happen in the back of my head, and do the rest with shower thoughts. 

My Bias 

My main preferences in genre is towards sci-fi, dark thrillers, and some fantasy adventure that has a well developed lore. I am not a fan of too much drama, especially teen drama. I’m not fond of romance either. But if I have to, I can tolerate such films, like Mean Girls, for the sake of reviewing in an unbiased manner. 

That said, I would really prefer it if elements like drama and romance were taken seriously and woven properly into a meaningful story. That makes for a more cohesive work, which I can very much stand by. Some examples of this are Top Gun : Maverick, Blood Diamond, and maybe even Inception. A movie shouldn’t just be about showing one singular thing like action or a love story. It should be about narrating a real story in a very detailed world. 

Other biases I may have are towards certain actors and directors, just because I adore them. For example, I tend to always like films by Chirstopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino. I also enjoy a film more when it has Leonardo DiCaprio in it. I can stay objective, though, and review them in a fair manner by putting aside their presence, and critiquing the work alone. However, factors like directors and actors shouldn’t be ignored. They should be taken into account and compared to their previous works and general styles. 

My Preference 

While I look at the plot first, I certainly value cinematography more than story. A film with a potentially good plot, but bad cinematography, badly timed music, or bad acting, is a film ruined. On the other hand, it’s harder for a plot to be bad. Whether it’s because of the message, the character arcs, or just the story, plots are often weak rather than bad. A film with such a weak plot can still pull it off with strong and relevant cinematography, music, and good acting. 

For example, take most Netflix sci-fi films of the last couple of years. Their plot summaries all suggest extremely creative concepts and storylines. Creativity has clearly not died out. Then why are most of these films rated below 40%, you ask? It’s because of everything else. Modern cinema is just looking to make quick money, so they pull back on costs for special effects, cameras, and more. The final result is one that looks good on paper, but comes out badly. The camera movements are far too standard, there is virtually no relevant music, and the acting is bland. 

On the other hand, take a film like Extraction 2. At its core, there is nothing special about the plot. The plot synopsis itself shows it as a near redo of Part 1. In spite of this, it’s a good movie. It’s not amazing by many standards, sure. But it certainly did better than movies with good plots and bad finishing. That’s because of how the plot of Extraction 2 was presented. Action sequences were financially backed up, expensive cameras were used to shoot practical one take fights, and the whole film is just made more entertaining by need based music and acting. 

A more useful example is Memento. The plot is good, but not great. It’s fairly simple. In spite of that, I consider it to be a masterpiece simply because of the way the movie was structured. I won’t spoil it. Ignore my Nolan bias, because I make a valid point here. The directing trick in Memento was a gimmick of sorts, sure. But it was backed up by proper cinematography. That’s what made Memento more than a confusing blur of scenes. 

There is a limit, of course. I’m not going to value a film with good cinematography, music and acting in spite of a downright terrible plot. It’s just a preference. 

The Scale 

Finally, the scale itself. Keeping everything in mind, I put what I watch into one of the ranges. This isn’t a scale set in stone, I can vary a couple of things. In general, though, this is what I go by. The reason all these reviews will never reach the lowest numbers is due to a self selection bias. I’d never watch a film rated 1% critically, so I would never give something that low a verdict. 

0 - 4 : I pray no movie ever stoops this low. It has to be mind blowingly bad to be here. 

5 - 19 : Nothing has come here, but it may. The films here are not only awful to watch, but also just have the wrong message entirely. It’s as if they weren’t even trying. 

20 - 39 : This is for those films that try something potentially interesting, but just fall flat in most, if not all, aspects. This is also the region for badly made rip-offs. 

40 - 59 : Highly mediocre. There was something good in there, along with moments of occasional enjoyment, but not great work. It either needs a complete plot redo, or a very different finish with music and visual elements. 

60 - 79 : Ok, not bad at all. It’s not great by any means, but some people might enjoy this kind of stuff. Most people would either find it boring or just not like the finished product. This is usually for movies and shows that had good potential but messed up a crucial element like pacing, acting, or dialogue. These usually have very average cinematography. 

80 - 89 : The movie / show is really good for those who enjoy the genre. It’s no masterpiece, but viewers who watch similar things would very much like it, maybe even love it. The only issue with a movie in such an area is that it couldn’t appeal to its entire target audience. This could be due to something like the visuals or the dialogue. 

90 - 96 : Absolutely amazing. Films and shows don’t make it here easily. They were either so strong in their message that they appealed to a very wide audience, or they used a narrow audience and absolutely stunned them. Both strategies are used, and I respect both as long as they are made properly. The works in this range have great acting, music, dialogue, and even amazing cinematography, which is hard to come by today. However, small bumps here and there cause some demerit. 

97 - 99 : Very few works make it this far. To be in this range, a film had to have every little detail in the perfect place. I mean perfectly timed music to deliver emotion, a stellar cast delivering impactful dialogue, and a gripping plot with more to analyze. This is very difficult to do. It doesn’t necessarily need to have a deep message. It just needs to take its initial idea to absolute completion. The Matrix, Gladiator, and Shawshank Redemption are some of the few works that can make it this high. Films here are basically immortalized as they change the course of cinema. 

100 : Receiving 100% on the Surya-o-meter is like getting full marks on an English essay, but way harder. It just doesn’t happen. I don’t know if any work is capable of getting here, especially since we don’t know how good things can TRULY get. 100% means you’re done, there is no room for improvement. I don’t know if I will ever be able to say that about a film. 

There was a short film that I watched on YouTube, though. It’s a fascinating one that I think gets very close. Here’s the link. 

(Link)