I always check a movie’s critical reviews before committing two-plus hours of my life to it. This method of movie filtering does not work because movie reviewers are sick bastards who enjoy misery as long as it is well crafted.
My second filter is based on the actors and directors. If it’s a movie by Mel Gibson or Steven Spielberg, I know there will be too much realistic gut-splattering for my tastes. I skip those. If Steve Martin is in a movie, it will be witty and poignant and I’ll probably like it. But actors and directors are unpredictable. I need a more reliable warning system for movies.
That’s why I invented the Downer Ratio. It’s a simple measurement of how much of the movie is a downer. So, for example, Brokeback Mountain would be a 90% downer whereas Click would be a 2% downer at most. I hated Brokeback Mountain and loved Click. Guess which one got the critical acclaim and Academy Awards?
The Downer Ratio would be an almost perfect movie entertainment indicator for me. I can’t handle a movie that’s over 25% misery no matter how many awards it wins.
The only other thing I’d want to know in advance is whether the ending was upbeat or downbeat. Once in a while you see a movie that doesn’t have too many downer scenes until the end when the puppy gets crushed by a bulldozer. I don’t want to watch happy movies with downbeat endings. When you don’t see it coming, it feels like getting mugged by your own grandmother.
I also like franchise movies such as Spiderman and James Bond. That way I know in advance that the hero won’t get killed. The extras and relatives get whacked, but I’m not invested in them. With franchise movies, the downer scenes aren’t so bad because you know the hero wins in the end.
All I want is mostly happy movies with happy endings. Am I alone here?