The RRS: Evaluating The Appreciation of Movies

In my efforts to understand and further analyze what I value in the movies that I watch, I have created what I call the Rosmer Ranking System (RRS). There are three reasons I wanted to develop a system:

1. To accurately represent how much or how little I like a particular film.

2. To reflect why I like the movie as much or as little as I do.

3. To employ a consistent standard when judging films.

I wanted to create an easy, consistent way to evaluate and compare the movies I watch, and so the RRS is intended to do just that.

The system is fairly simple. There are ten categories that reflect aspects of any movie that are most important to me. I emphasis ME because of course not all of these categories are of particular importance to a lot of people. The presence of an element from one of these categories ('Imaginative Elements' for example) could even be a turn off for certain people. There are some audiences who specifically dislike stories with monsters or magic or fantastical things, and so naturally, their ranking of a movie that has these elements present (eg: Star Wars, Pan's Labyrinth, Poltergeist) would be different than mine. So the system doesn't necessarily reflect how good a movie should be to the majority of people, but it should reflect how and why I feel as I do toward a movie with a high degree of accuracy. I love a film most when all of these categories are present and working well together.

Each category is ranked on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being about as present or as good as it could possibly be, and 0 being about as absent or as bad as it could possibly be, making the total score out of 100. One could also easily round up or down in order to get a more general idea of how well the movie fares. A 72 could be called 'a seven' or an 89 could be called 'a nine' depending how specific you want to get.

It's pretty easy for a film to get points in several of the categories. For example, in the 'Performances' category, as long as the roles were reasonably well cast and the acting was not distractingly bad or even noticably bad, I would probably give it a 7 for 'Good'. I would probably give the performances for The Lord of the Rings trilogy a 10, because even though they weren't all necessarily to the standard of Daniel-Day Lewis, the entire cast was very well chosen, they were believable in their respective roles, and each actor brought something unique to their character that was enjoyable to watch.

Here is a breakdown of what each category really means and what questions I ask myself as I go over them one by one: 1. Story

I'm generally looking at three main pillars: Concept/Ideas, plot, and theme. However, not all stories really have a plot, and that doesn't necessarily hurt them. Suffice to say, some movies are better off without one. Goodfellas, for instance, or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button are both examples of movies that don't really have much in the way of a plot.

Questions I ask myself when going over this category are: Was it interesting? Did it successfully suspend disbelief? Did you understand it? Was there an overarching theme present, one which you cared about? Was it predictable and cliché, or did it keep you guessing? Did it surprise you? Did it draw you in at the beginning and blow you away at the end? 2. Performances

This refers to the actors and their performances of the characters. As mentioned earlier, I don't need to be particularly blown away for this category to garner some points, but casting is a big part of it. I'll ask myself, were the parts well cast? Was the acting believable/appropriate? Did the actor evoke a strong emotional response? Did they evoke empathy for the character? Were they enjoyable to watch? 3. Visual Design

This goes beyond simply "I liked the way the images looked" but refers entirely to the way the story is told visually. I will use Hitchcock's Rear Window as an example. The entire movie (almost) is intelligently shot from the main character's apartment window as he watches some suspicious events unfold throughout the rest of the apartment complex. It's a very clever and creative visual design that has nothing to do with lighting or composition or color or VFX or anything like that, but rather it is the perspective that is key.

With that said, I'll ask myself, was the camera used to communicate the story effectively? Did they create appealing images? Was the cinematography suitably expressive? Was the style suitable for the film, or was it inappropriate? (An example of this going wrong might be Earth To Echo, which I don't think really benefitted from being made into a found footage film. In fact it would have been better were it done in a more traditional style. Chronicle or Paranormal Activity on the other hand really worked well and even benefitted from that style). Did it have effective use of color? Were the costumes and sets well designed? Did the overall look benefit the story? 4. Soundtrack/Music

Music weighs more heavily for me in this category, although I do appreciate creative uses of sound and give it my serious consideration.

Questions I'll ask are, did it effectively tell the story musically? Were there identifiable musical themes to help characterize places, characters and events? Was it memorable? Was the music appealling to listen to? Did it evoke the right emotions? Was it irritating or unsuitable? Did the sound design heighten the visual experience, or was it bothersome? Was the soundtrack generic or did it add character to the film? Think about how big a contribution the sound design makes in Star Wars; an outstanding soundtrack. It adds a whole dimension of character to the picture to make the franchise more iconic. Imagine Darth Vader without his breathing, or the lightsabers without their unique buzz, or wookies talking like people, or tie-fighters that don't make any sound at all because they're in space. The impact is tremendous and makes the experience of watching the film just that much more memorable. And speaking of Star Wars... the score is also a prime example of storytelling done effectively through music, and John Williams is perhaps one of the best at communicating this way. 5. Atmosphere

I would describe this as the dramatic tone, or the mood perhaps. It's sort of defined by a combination of other elements like the lighting, production design, music, sound, and so on, but is still a little hard to define and I find it to be very specific so I am giving it it's own category. For me, the atmosphere can really affect how well I enjoy the film. For example, I think No Country For Old Men is a good, well-made movie with great cinematography, but I don't like the atmosphere at all. I don't like the atmosphere of Pulp Fiction or Traffic either for example, or most drug related films for that matter. On the other hand, I love the atmosphere of Sleepy Hollow, or The Woman In Black, or Interview With The Vampire. Even though they're not necessarily better movies, I find myself much more enthused to watch them. So, atmosphere is huge.

Anyway, I usually ask myself one simple question: If I were to be transported inside the movie, would it fill me with vibes that I can appreciate? And relatively, how good? This does not necessarily mean "positive" vibes, because sometimes I like to feel all gloomy and spooked for instance. But just, do I LIKE the vibes?

6. Characters

There are a few things to consider. For starters, ideally, characters will be "multi-dimensional" meaning that they are more than they appear to be at face value. So, is the nice woman really just a sweet lady, or is she secretly a witch? Is the kind man really a wolf in sheeps clothing? Something along those lines. However, a character can still be good even if they aren't exactly multi-dimensional. Sometimes fairly flat characters are appealling in their own way. A flat character might be very iconic for instance. Shredder from Ninja Turtles (though probably not the greatest example) is not overly complex, but still in many ways a good character because he is iconic, memorable, and also has a bit of a back story.

I'll tend to ask myself, were the characters clichéd? Were their motives believable? Were their struggles relatable? Could you care about their problems? Did they have depth with a rich backstory? Were they iconic or characterized by unique traits? What about the character dynamic? Did you care about the relationships between the characters? I remember watching Brokeback Mountain with reluctance and uncertainty (because I'm a straight man I guess, that's just how it is). But despite my not being gay or not knowing what it's like to be gay, the movie makes those characters easy to care about and there's a lot of compelling dynamic present, not just between Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, but between them and the other characters as well, like their wives. It is an example of well depicted relationships, filled with conflictions and struggles that are easy to appreciate because they are universal to most people... or so I imagine. Compare that to Jurassic World (which I saw watched recently) in which the relationships feel hollow and meaningless. I didn't feel I got to know much about any of the characters or feel anything for them. I didn't care about the relationship between the Aunt and the kids, the Aunt and Chris Pratt's character, I didn't feel the conflict in those relationships... They were poorly established and I just wasn't invested. 7. Imaginative Elements For me, this could be a lot of things and 'imaginative' is probably not the most accurate word, but I'm going with it for now. To clarify, any time I watch a period piece I will give points to this category. Essentially what I'm looking for is a movie that takes the audience beyond the mundane problems of a domestic life. I don't care to watch a movie about typical people in the real world dealing with familiar problems. Any film with some kind of imagination will always be more interesting to me. I'll compare The Devil's Advocate and The Firm as an example. For starters, I really like both films. The Firm would even get at least a couple points here for me because he is dealing with criminals in a pretty unusual case. It's a great thriller film. But The Devil's Advocate is so much more interesting to me, purely because of the fact that Al Pacino's character is none other than... the devil. It's an out of this world scenario and that's what makes me tick. And there's a whole bunch of neat stuff that happens based around that.

So I ask myself, were you transported to an unfamiliar world? Did it take place in a different time period, past or future? Did it show a side of life rarely seen? Was it a domestic drama (if so, God help it...)? Was it science-fiction or fantasy? Did it take you beyond the regular, mundane aspects of life? Did it show you anything you hadn't seen before? Did it go beyond regular people in the regular world doing regular things? Did it present things that are impossible in our reality as being possible?

8. Entertainment Value

Pretty much speaks for itself. Of course, most people watch a movie first and foremost to be entertained. That's usually the number one priority. And you might be thinking, "but if a movie has a good story with interesting characters, isn't it pretty much guaranteed to be entertaining?" To that I would say 'no' and here is my example: The Age of Innocence, a movie that I actually have really learned to love... despite it being dreadfully slow and kind of boring. There is a ton of character conflict and the story is quite rich really. It's all extremely subtle, however, and so much of the conflict takes place in the subtext. It doesn't make for a piece of high entertainment value, but nevertheless is a movie with a good story and solid characters that can certainly be appreciated... albeit maybe only after 4 or 5 viewings, as in my case.

So the question is, how engaged were you from start to finish? Did it hold your attention? Did you care about the events that were taking place? Was it easy to follow? Was it boring? Would you watch it again? 9. Emotional Impact

This is a very important one for me, as I like to think it is for most people. The best movies, for me, are ones that leave you feeling moved. That could mean inspired, heart-broken, melancholy, uplifted, or thoughtful, or scarred for life. Whatever it is though, I hope to feel moved in some way. American History X is very moving... not really in a positive way, but certainly in a thoughtful way. Chinatown is moving in a kind of depressing, melancholy way. Braveheart is very inspiring. The Shawshank Redemption leaves me completely free and high on life. Into The Woods was the most recent picture to have moved me profoundly, and in the best way too: bittersweetly. Regardless of what it is though that moves you, whether a sappy romance or a depressing drug addict movie, it plays heavily into how well a film is appreciated. It's fairly obvious whether the film moves you or not, so I don't think it's worth asking a lot of questions. One would just have to consider relatively to what extent they were moved by the picture in order to give it a fair rating.

10. X-Factor

This is an opportunity to tip the scales in one direction or the other based on anything you did or didn't like that doesn't really fit into the other categories. It is an opportunity to penalize a movie for anything it may have done poorly, or credit it for anything extra it may have done well. My colleague and close friend, Jesse Boldt, helped me figure out the best way for this to work. So it works like this: You begin at a median ranking of 5, and whether your X-Factor decision is positive or negative, you can either doc it points or add points from the median of 5.

Eg: In the movie The Host... well, there are a lot of things that I didn't like about The Host, but because I found the narration to be especially annoying, and there were a lot of moments that were just really lame, I feel like I have to punish it. Those criticisms don't really fit in anywhere amongst the rest of the categories, so for good measure I will give it a score of 0 for X-Factor. It just made the film that much less enjoyable for me. Similarly, I really love Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. However, I really hate overly scripted and dramatic battle speeches, and I find the battle speech delivered by Elizabeth Swan to just be so cringe worthy, I feel like it should be punished. It wasn't SO detrimental that it deserves a 0 though, so I'll only give it a 3 or 4. On the contrary, in Mad Max: Fury Road there was a guy featured who stands on the front of a truck wailing on a guitar. Maybe that could fit somewhere into characters, but it's just a small element that really made the movie more extraordinary... so I'll give it a full 10 points for X-Factor!! Okay, maybe 10, but maybe only 8 or 9. So anyway, that's how it works. These are like my wild points to either give out or take away from the movie for anything that isn't covered by the previous nine categories.

So that's how it works. Quite simple.

If you would like to download your own RRS template, click HERE.