A few weeks ago I shared an idea I believe is obvious: Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged is not the Sermon on the Mount. Yes, Joe Six-Pack, USMC is the master of the obvious (if anything at all). Guess what else? He's cheap too. Or frugal, depending on your frame of reference. The bottom-line? I filter my possible movie viewing choices through a trusted source before deciding to commit my limited amount of entertainment dollars to seeing a movie.
My tool of choice for vetting films is a website called Metacritic. And unlike some of my friends recommendations, Metacritic has never let me down. Here's how they scored The Love Guru. Um, yes, I passed on that one.
What's the Metacritic story?
It began as a simple idea back in the summer of 1999: a single score could summarize the many entertainment reviews available for a movie or a video game. Metacritic's three founding members—all former attorneys who were happy to find a more constructive but less profitable use of their time—launched the site in January 2001 and Metacritic has evolved over the last decade to reflect their experience distilling many critics' voices into the single Metascore, a weighted average of the most respected critics writing reviews online and in print.
Metacritic's mission is to help consumers make an informed decision about how to spend their time and money on entertainment. We believe that multiple opinions are better than one, user voices can be as important as critics, and opinions must be scored to be easy to use.
|Gary Cooper died a Catholic,|
so he's forgiven!
So why am I blathering on about Ayn Rand at the same time I am trying to help you save both your money and your time from being wasted on seeing bad films? Lenten alms giving again? No. Because a movie based on one of her novels came out last Friday and the Metacritic jury is "in."
The verdict? Save your hard-earned hard currency folks, because this film is not only in the "red light" column, but it is also bumping along the bottom of the list of films in current limited (whew!) release. It is tied for next to last place (with Peep World?!), wedged between a film titled Cat Run, and another called The Butcher, the Chef, and the Swordsman. Out of a possible score of 100, Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 earns a whopping 27. Better than The Love Guru, but not much.
Perhaps the filmakers shot parts 2 & 3 already so they can go straight to video? I have no idea (but I kinda hope not). Many of the Rand fans are quick to point out that the major reviewers hate the film because, you know, they are liberal, pinko, commies.
But that is doubtful, because Metacritic could care less about any one reviewer's opinion about a film. Come to think of it, they are kind of like the Vatican in this way. The liberal, pinko, commies loved, for example, The King's Speech (Green, 88/100), Of Gods and Men (Green, 86/100), and even Vision: From the Life of Hildegard of Bingen (Green, 68/100). Other great calls include WALL-E (Green, 94/100), the Lord of the Rings series (All Green, 92, 88, and 94/100) LA Confidential (Green, 90/100), and on and on.
Now, it's disclaimer time. I'm not saying that every movie they rank highly is the right movie for you. Do you love the comedy of Rowan Atkinson? Many of his films will be solidly in the Yellow area, for example. If you like his stuff, go with your instinct.
I'm also not saying that every movie ranked highly by Metacritic will meet your personal moral requirements. Caveat emptor on that front too. All I'm saying is that Metacritic will probably help your happiness quotient if you run your latest "must see film" idea through it's "noise to signal" enhancement filter. You'll be glad you did.
Did I mention I like Rowan Atkinson?
****Now, in the "kind of related" news column, see the following
First Things reviews Atlas Shrugged, Part 1.
More reviews by Salon and P.J. O'Rourke from the Proof of the Pudding post.
Roger Ebert? Happy to obilge you.
And Metacritic happily supplies you the rest.
Added bonus: Metacritic's Top movie list of all time.