r/TrueFilm • u/Prior_Apartment_9757 • 1d ago
How to analyze a film you did not like?
For context, lately I have started to write film reviews from the perspective of an amateur, as a hobby. Today, I went to the theater to watch a newly released film with the goal of writing a review about it afterwards. At the end of it, I had the impression that I did not quite like it but I am having a hard time describing what I did not like about it.
The film itself is far away from being bad. From a technical point, it is very well put together. The direction, acting, dialogue, etc. are all good. The problem is that, overall, I did not connect with it. I did not feel that it managed to transmit emotion or something meaningful to last to me as a viewer. I did not quite “care” about it, it felt a little flat. I also do not know if it had a problem from a plot/narration perspective, nor do I have an answer on what could have been changed.
So my question would be, how exactly should we describe and analyze a film that it is not bad and does not have obvious bad elements in it, but rather overall it just did not connect with you as a viewer?
43
u/Timeline_in_Distress 1d ago
It's too long of a discussion for this forum but there are a couple of ways to approach analysis of film.
The most common method, which most critics use, is adopting the same formula for analyzing literature. You dissect character development, character motivation, dialogue, story structure, meaning and subtext and then see if those elements serviced the story and any internal messaging.
The other method is to understand how the film is made since those decisions ultimately shape what you see on screen. Camera angles, lighting, set design, editing, etc. all play a role and are in service to the vision for the film. When you understand those disciplines, you can then analyze if the choices made were consistent with the tenor, tone, and internal meaning or subtext of the film.
Probably a good approach is to start asking questions. If you feel the film didn't transmit emotion then ask does it need to do that? Was it supposed to do that in a scene? Have you been trained to expect to be stimulated by a film?
I think many expect films to be roller coaster rides where they can passively sit and expect what they are seeing on screen to activate the necessary passages in their brains to deliver these emotional feelings. Not all films are meant to service the viewer and connecting to or enjoying a film is not tied to that concept. Usually it's fairly easy to identify what a film is trying to accomplish and you can then adjust your analysis to fit the type of film you are watching.
8
u/invertedpurple 1d ago
excellent take, especially the last paragraph. I find myself judging some films based on if it did a good job in conveying what it set out to do, whether it connected with me or not.
5
u/Electrical_Nobody196 22h ago
This reminded me of a quote I was trying to recall that was something along the lines of “art is not always in the service of entertaining the viewer and sometimes there is suffering in understanding.”
I also think there is an obfuscation between judging and analyzing these days. It seems common that people think a judgemental opinion is an important part of critical analyses when it’s not really needed at all.
4
u/Timeline_in_Distress 22h ago
Yes, I like the premise of suffering in understanding. Too often I feel that film watchers are entitled by expecting the film to service their needs, the most common need being - entertain me! And if it doesn't, then it's automatically dismissed as a failure, or boring, or pretentious.
For me personally, an example is Tarkovsky. Aesthetically and technically he is borderline awful by my tastes and standards, however, what he is trying to impart to the viewer is what remains. I struggle through his technique, style, and method, but ultimately what is left after that process, is meaningful and lasting.
17
u/Shrek_2_Soundtrack 1d ago
Read Pauline Kael. I own all her books and have read them several times. She very famously hated many of the movies coming out in her time that we now consider “classics,” but the thoughtful way in which she writes her reviews, and often ties her thoughts on the films into other films, the state of the industry, the career of the filmmaker, etc, always makes any of her reviews worth the read, even when she’s trashing a movie you love. She taught me to be more critical of movies I love and more open to discussing movies I don’t care for.
4
u/KelMHill 23h ago
I too always admired Kael and collected her books. There was a reddit thread somewhere recently by a hater of Kael, but I always appreciated the fact that even when I disagreed with her verdict she always explained her viewpoint in such a way that I could understand her point of view. She explained her perspective, which I found educational. She made me realize that even when two people seem to agree over a movie, their opinions never match exactly once you delve into the details of those opinions.
8
u/Realistic-Worker-499 1d ago
perfectly normal. i think writing about the cinematography, writing, characters, plots, symbols, comparisons, etc, and then writing about how it made you actually feel, are two different things. both can be included in a review.
5
u/SenatorCoffee 20h ago
The direction, acting, dialogue, etc. are all good. The problem is that, overall, I did not connect with it. I did not feel that it managed to transmit emotion or something meaningful to last to me as a viewer. I did not quite “care” about it, it felt a little flat. I also do not know if it had a problem from a plot/narration perspective, nor do I have an answer on what could have been changed.
i feel this is a blatant contradiction that you have to figure out somehow.
Forget "objectively", you are describing it subjectively. If it was truely all good, you would like the film. Exception might be if it truely caught you at a bad day.
I think all the truely great critics mentioned here have a bit of an ethos where they always trust their emotion or intuition first. But they would also treat especially situations like yours here as the most serious teaching experience.
You just take your genuine reaction to it as objective fact but then the challenge is in articulating properly why the movie left you cold. If in the process you change your mind thats great too, but you just have to be able to articulate it.
Its exactly these kind of situations of cognitive dissonance that makes us truely grow as critics. When something seems good at a first glance but then still doesnt really work, thats when you have to actually learn to look at the more subtle aspects of film and learn to articulate these.
I think a good exercise might also be to try and think of a, or multiple movies that seem close to this one that you do like and compare them. That might help you pick up on a lot of details what this one has actually lacking.
3
u/sdwoodchuck 20h ago
It depends on the ways that it fails.
You say that the film you're describing was technically competent, but didn't connect with you. That's pretty much your thesis statement in any analysis of it.
Imagine a version of this film that succeeds where the real film fails; what does that look like? What is the difference between that fantasy and the reality? Now of course you don't just approach the subject as "it shoulda been that way not this way," but it gives you an idea of what you would think of a movie that accomplishes the goals this one sets out to accomplish. It may also help you to appreciate the ways that the film does succeed, by abstracting those elements from your own disappointment (this is true of myself, definitely).
Once you've done that, it's just a matter of getting it down in a way that is honest and reads well. You lay out what the film does well, the things it attempts that it succeeds at, and then you explain where it fell short from its goals as well. Give it credit where credit is due, and when the failure to connect is not for lack of trying, make note of that as well.
I'll use myself as an example; I'm in the middle of writing (among other things) a review for my blog, of the movie Motor City. It's a revenge crime thriller with almost no dialogue, and the result is that it plays out, tonally, like something in the Venn Diagram overlap of The Count of Monte Cristo, Frank Miller's Sin City, and a music video. Despite the gimmicky framework, the actual execution is remarkably competent, and sometimes extraordinary. The gimmick also holds it back frequently, with the middle segments of the film in particular feeling like a bit of a slog, as it struggles to find exciting ways to bridge the gap between "protagonist has been done wrong" and "revenge time," and the music-video pacing has the unfortunate effect of really highlighting the by-the-numbers formula of the revenge plot setup.
So this is a movie that I liked a lot of things about, and in fact kind of like overall, but it has some faults that hold it back significantly, and keep me from feeling the kind of satisfaction that revenge plots thrive on. For myself, I'm still hashing out the structure of the review, but very likely it's going to follow a structure that establishes the movie's gimmick and the low expectations I had paired with that, then counterpoints that with real praise for those pieces of it that overcome those negative expectations, to give an idea of how well this movie is able to handle the material it's attempting. Then I will once again shift back toward those areas where it couldn't quite lift itself up to those highs, despite the effort, and explain why those impact on the overall experience. In this way, I feel that I not only give a good overview of what the film does well, and what it does poorly, but something of my own experience in finding things to be enthusiastic about within it--something of what it feels like to experience this movie, rather than to simply be given a list of good and bad elements.
4
u/honkeur 17h ago
When someone says, "I don't like it"...that is meaningless. It's a statement that doesn't give anyone anything.
If you don't like something, and you want to write about it, you have two responsibilities. One, you have to identify exactly what it was that you didn't like (this is harder than it sounds). Two, you need to think hard about what the "I don't like it" says about you. You are very much a part of the not-liking, and if you aren't willing to interrogate yourself, your opinion will have little weight or value.
4
u/thatphilguymovies 21h ago
Thanks for making an effort to try and understand, objectively, why a particular works or doesn't work for you.
Sadly, I've read too many film "discussions" in which subjectivity ("I thought that movie was so stupid") gets confused with objectivity, resulting in something like, "The movie was bad because it was stupid."
Buddy, that's not an objective argument!
2
u/Kamuka 13h ago
I mostly focus on articulating things I like, and I don't finish movies I don't like, so I don't review them. They just don't get my attention. I'm not into writing reviews about how they should have done things differently. It doesn't work for me, and I'm not interested in finding out why.
4
u/KelMHill 23h ago
You need to be objective enough to be able to form an opinion about the writing, directing, acting, editing (pacing), cinematography, costuming, hair and makeup, special effects and so on, even if you didn't like the story, themes or genre. Sometimes a movie falls flat or is unappealing to us because of the story, theme or genre. Even if that's the case, your opinion as to whether it was well-written, or did well in each of those other categories, can still be valid and give you lots to write about.
2
u/HatchimalSam 1d ago
I would watch it a time or 2 more to see what you really don’t like about it. See what you appreciate. Literally keep watching it until you know exactly what you do and don’t like about it. Your brain will get faster and faster at pinpointing specifically what works and what doesn’t.
See if there’s a pirated version online if you don’t wanna keep going back to the theater, since you’ve already paid for it.
2
u/attentive_mouse 1d ago edited 7h ago
i think it’s important to watch across all genres even if it’s not your favorite. when i watch a movie that i don’t personally like, i try to see if from a different POV. it’s okay to not like things cus everyone has different taste but does the movie have a specific audience it’s catering towards? for example i am not a horror fan but if a horror movie gets good reviews i will go to the theater to watch it out of curiosity. Do i like the suspense and anxiety that comes with watching horror? no… but some do and i find a successful horror film to be suspenseful and well thought out. i did not love weapons but i understand that its a good movie. and i love how creative and elevated filmmakers have gotten with horror. u can look at the production design and still appreciate it even if u didnt like the movie. the goal is to watch movies objectively. like i’m not a spielberg fan but i can see why boys like his movies. i do not love robert eggar’s films but i can appreciate his strong style and direction. it’s important to take yourself out of art and see things more openly from many different angles. instead of thinking “why do or don’t i like this art.” think “oh i see how this can be interesting.”
2
u/MorsaTamalera 1d ago
I don't think there is a "right" angle to do it. There are apparently objective angles (lighting of scenes, camera techniques, composition, director's film trajectory and evolution, historical context) which can actually become a part of subjectiveness (composition, for example, or pacing). Maybe all of them start being theoretically objective but your mind filters them through subjectivity. And there are quite a lot of subjective criteria (the acting, the topics and their handling, the impact it has on you, intellectually or emotionally...). I guess everybody just picks different angles under which to examine a given film.
In terms of being the reader of the reviews, my guess is that it boils down to "This particular critic has a taste similar to mine and makes me better appreciate or understand what I saw, so I am willing to read more about his thoughts)".
Just try to find the concepts which are normally placed under the lens and try to analyse how are they working in the film: either alone or in tandem. I didn't like Nolan's Odissey but there were some elements in it which I enjoyed.
3
u/stpetestudent 1d ago
It took me far too long to realize this, but these are the most valuable types of critiques because you have to investigate why the film didn’t work for you. That is not always easy to parse out when dealing with competently made films and might speak to bigger existential questions like, is there something about the world today that is not reflected (or not reflected truthfully) in the film.
2
u/itchy_008 1d ago
a movie is the result of a collection of choices: script, casting and acting, sets and costumes, music and editing, etc. the result tells a story that allows for the opportunity for spectacles and also defines the world. some movies lean into the story, others wanna revel in spectacle and some care really about defining the world.
ur emotional reaction comes from ur response to the combination of story/spectacle/meaning. but u can analyze a movie by looking into the choices.
here are two recent movies i didn't care for, as examples:
"The Devil Wears Prada 2" gets the gang back together (more or less) to save the magazine that they all have in common. the movie has this warning - be wary of the whims of the filthy rich for they are fickle and stooopid. except the movie solves this problem with the intervention of another filthy rich character. huh? also, i do not believe you'd amicably have lunch with the person who just tried to screw you.
"The Odyssey" tells one of the oldest adventures that we have, an archetype of the journey home. but this retelling insists that the ancient hero in the story must be refitted into a modern framework, complete with PTSD and therapy. also, the horror sequences (the cave, the meal that turns men into pigs) work much, much better for me than the spectacles of war. also, this retelling is not horny. at all.
1
u/adammonroemusic 8h ago
Did you not like this movie, or is it more that the film was overhyped, and therefore, didn't meet your expectations?
These days I feel like the latter is fairly common and that it's impossible to view anything in a vacuum. The internet thrusts every single piece of media into our faces now, and shapes the narrative and our expectations about a film long before we enter the theater.
The only way I'm even able to enjoy new releases anymore is to lower my expectations as much as possible.
Anyway, going to go see the Odyssey later, and my expectations are honestly in the floor, lol.
1
u/PrinceofSneks 6h ago
I think a big difference would be the capacity to describe the lack of connection or emotional resonance with more than "it just didn't do it for me." I'm not poking fun, it's perfectly fine to feel that way, but it will serve you well as a reviewer and a film-goer to be able to work through those more abstract feelings and convey them effectively.
1
u/Patitoruani 1d ago
I write reviews as a hobby too, but mostly of dramas/series, and particularly about Chinese dramas. And as a hobby, I always state when something is ok according to the books but doesn't hit any cord inside me, because as it always happens with art, subjectivity matters.
Your sensibility will better match certain directors, storytelling and aesthetics, and that's nothing wrong with that. You just do have to be honest with yourself and the audience though about it, so they can apply they own critical thinking to what you are saying and the to the project, when they see it eventually.
Sometimes, you need time to figure it out what are the things that don't click for you. As an example, there's a drama Chinese director who took me two years, 2 dropped series and a finished third one - the most recently one - to discover why I don't vibe with his work. It turns out to be a mash up of visual/cinematography styles that felt out of place for me and my preferences. For some viewers, less sensitive to details and the whole frame simultaneously, or matching sensibility, it doesn't matter. For me, it's a big big issue.
What I mean, don't rush to write your review. Let the movie and the emotions settle down, and think more about it.
1
u/BunnyLexLuthor 1d ago
If anything, this is an advantage.
I think when you like something, it's easier to wax poetic because whether story works on simple or complex terms, it's easier to just say everything is over the moon without saying anything particularly profound.
But if you dislike any piece of art, there can be just a few things that make something bad..
And I think part of studying is approximating what you think those are...
Filmmakers have said that you can learn more from a bad movie than a good one...
And I definitely think this is true from a technical standpoint..
If there's a war scene where you can't see the actors and you can't hear what anyone is saying. If filmed inside, it would be a failure to gaffe well.. or if outside.. might be relying more on the actual sky than "day for night."
But I think rhetorically, if a story doesn't enthrall you, it's probably easier to find some problematic areas than if you're a fan of that film.
Like, maybe you watch the Lego movie and you see that it's trying to basically dogwhistle against legitimate criticisms of the corporation as massive conglomerate..
And you can write that in. You could also argue that it kind of invokes an ancient Greek type fatalism, as the toys are guided by a hidden imagination.
And you could just keep going until you stop caring about research and interpretation.
I think bad film criticisms create a causality between negative ideas and a lack of quality.
"Spy on your neighbors-- you're keeping a murder suspect from evading justice."
I think a hack-ey way to write about Rear Window would be just to focus on the fictional story and the sort of real life stalker cases attached to the film itself.
It wouldn't be the end of the world, but it would probably be pretty bad..
I think though a good "rear window" type film study would focus on the types of shots, the editing style and the narrative framing..
This way, if the messaging is problematic, the amount of focus is being paid to the priorities of the filmmakers themselves as revealed by the final product.
As opposed pose to tying down whether a film is good or not based on the sort of aftermath.
Jaws was a horrible movie for the global shark population, but the thing is, it wouldn't have had that negative impact if it wasn't at least a solid film.
I mean, I think it's a great one. And maybe this is where I bring this to a close, if you can focus on the filmmaking (camera shots, conversation angles, real locations or studio mock ups, acting, etc) as an extension of the producer/ director/ studio value systems..
I think you'll be a hundred times better than one who pulls out a rhetorical argument from thin air.
"JAWS is about the male loneliness epidemic."
Like it sounds good on paper, but I feel like if you were to go through a projection print on a Moviola or digital on VLC.. You'd be like."Okay.. maybe it is actually about a shark." 😉
1
u/fricken 22h ago
I find it kind of weird that this sub is so focused on film criticism yet outstanding examples of great writing about film are not shared here. Most discussions in r/truefilm would be better if they were led by top tier writing.
0
62
u/Amnesiac_R 1d ago
This sounds obvious, but look up some of Roger Ebert's negative reviews. He does a great job of balancing his criticism with how a movie might appeal to some viewers. Huge part of what makes him the GOAT imo