George robbed me/the FUG Score
Right at the end of Ocean’s Thirteen, George Clooney’s character bids Brad Pitt goodbye and quips, “Settle down and have a couple of kids or something.” Pitt grins and the audience laughs knowingly at the Brangelina gag.
Except for me. I wanted to puke.
Ocean’s Thirteen is a smug, plotless, nonsensical, boring dog turd of a movie. It’s not Ocean’s thirteen on screen, it’s George Clooney, Brad Pitt et. al. playing themselves on screen. The movie sucked and represents the worse kind of shallow celebrity worship. (I’m one of those Puritans who thinks that celebrity worship is the Great Evil of Our Time.)
But worse than that, it was an immoral suckitude that cost me 8.50 Euros. I felt robbed, as if Steven Soderbergh had broken into my home and nicked the family silver. “Here’s a thought,” he said to his mates, “we’ll make another lazy film with rich and famous people lolling around making inside jokes and people will just LOVE IT.” Queue rich people getting richer and stupid ol’ me wasting 12 bucks which I could have given instead to save some little kid in, I dunno, Darfur or somewhere.
I hereby vow to never spend money to see a crappy movie ever again. Why did I watch Ocean’s Thirteen in the first place? It was that or Zodiac, and even though I thought the serial killer movie would be good, I hoped against hope that Thirteen might be like Eleven. Besides that, it sounded like a fun summer movie.
Have I told you I hated it yet?
So, anyway, here’s my new paradigm for avoiding crapiness at the movies:
Average the Metacritic score and the IMDB user rating, and if it’s more than 75, consider seeing it. +80 is a must-see.
This rule relies on both the critics and the wisdom of the type of people who bother to register at IMDB (because sometimes critics are wrong). Here’s how the current US top ten would pan out (IMDB first, converted to a percentage; rounded up; winners in bold):
Ocean’s Thirteen 75 + 62 = 69
Pirates 74 + 50 = 62
Knocked Up 83 + 85 = 84
Surf’s Up 72 + 64 = 68
Shrek 65 + 58 = 62
Hostel 56 + 46 = 51
Mr Brooks 76 + 44 = 60
Spiderman 69 + 60 = 65
Waitress 81 + 74 = 78
Disturbia 73 + 62 = 68
I’m calling this the FUG Score (F-U George). Zodiac scores 79, a full 10 FUG points ahead of O13. Pan’s Labyrinth scores a massive 92 FUGs, btw, possibly FUG of the year.
One potential flaw: Metacritic isn’t great at scoring international movies.
George’s finest hour — Good Night and Good Luck — is a 79 point FUG-er.
Empire: 83 FUGS
Menace: 58 FUGS
Crossroads: FUG=28
Comment by Ronan — June 16, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
It also means you have to wait a week or so for there to be a meaningful score. I would say this is wise anyway. The only movies I’ve seen on opening night and with no thought of the critics are the Star Wars prequels. This behaviour, of course, means I am crying out to be hit in the nose for feeding the Beast.
Comment by The Brit — June 16, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
P.S.
Someone with computer savvy, please write me a script so I can easily pull the FUG score into one place.
Yes, I am now obsessed with defeating Hollywood mediocrity. This all began, actually, with the daylight thievery that was Spiderman 3.
Comment by The Brit — June 16, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Next time just ask me. I could’ve told you a 3rd Oceans movie would be a waste of money. And I’d only charge you 5 bucks.
Comment by Susan M — June 16, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Zodiac is pretty good. You made the wrong choice, my friend.
Waitress, though, is a bit overrated. I think probably because of sympathy for the director’s tragic murder.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — June 16, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
How well does Metacritic stack up against Rotten Tomatoes - or if that’s the wrong question to ask - vice versa. Just curious.
I generally read a lot of reviews before I go to a movie. I do this for a number of reasons:
1 - I just like to read movie reviews.
2 - It often spares me from seeing horrible movies in a theater that I might have initially wanted to see.
3 - It often spares me from having to see a horrible movie in a theater that my wife initially wanted to see.
I’m curious - maybe this should be a post of it’s own - what sites/resources do people rely on most for movie reviews? I’d be interested to see.
Comment by danithew — June 16, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Metacritic aggregates intensity of reviews, while Rotten Tomatoes only aggregates direction. So a film that everybody likes but nobody loves will get 100% on Rotten Tomatoes but something like 60% on Metacritic.
Also, Metacritic rates books, television, music, and video games as well as films.
For movie reviews, I read Slate, New York Magazine (David Edelstein’s a good read), Ebert when he’s well enough to write, the New Yorker sometimes, and Metacritic in general. And I listen to Filmspotting while doing chores around the house.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — June 16, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Wow. I saw this last night and was about to write up a review. Couldn’t disagree more with you.
Yes, it is the weakest of the series. Yes what little plot there is tends to be far less important than in the prior films (where arguably the plot wasn’t that important) Further the plot devices for the heists are even more eye rollingly unbelievable than in the prior film.
But the movie primarily is about moments and scenes. Yes most don’t quite make it whereas in prior films most of the scenes “hit it.” There’s nothing quite as divisive as Julia Roberts playing someone being mistook as Julia Roberts. (Which I thought was quite funny but which I know bugged the hell out of many people)
I enjoyed it although there were quite a few misses in it. But it was better than the other two “part three” movies I saw this summer (Pirates and Spiderman)
Comment by clark — June 16, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
I’d just like to point out:
Once = 88 + 86 = 87 on the FUG scale!
It’s so good, I’m going to see it again tonight.
Comment by BTD Greg — June 16, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
I’m with Clark on this one. This was a fun movie exactly because it is what it is. What, Ronan, did you think it was going to be anything else? That’s your fault, not the movie’s.
Comment by Rusty — June 16, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
That’s true RT, about metacritic and rottentomatoes, so one would think that metacritic would offer a better number. Strangely enough, however, I have often found that rottentomatoes number has generally been a more accurate number than metacritic – that is to say, for me at least. I don’t know why that is, because it doesn’t make sense that it should, but it does. In any case, that’s why I rely more on rottentomatoes than on metacritic. Then again, the numbers alone don’t work. I always scan the quips and a few trusted reviewers to round out the picture.
By the way, I just got back from a pre screening of Ratatouille and holy cow – Pixar has done it again. Brad Bird has managed to make a movie even more incredible than his previous The Incredibles. Possibly the best movie of the year so far.
Comment by Eric Russell — June 16, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
I’m confused. Where are you getting the IMDB ratings from? I see 7.5 out of 10 on Oceans 13.
Comment by Geoff J — June 16, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Oh — nevermind. The 75 is IMDB and the 62 is Metacritic. Gotcha.
Comment by Geoff J — June 16, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
Good stuff, Brit. I love the idea.
Comment by Supergenius — June 16, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
I’m looking forward to Ratatouille. Although I hope his next is a sequel to The Incredibles.
Comment by clark — June 16, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
I can’t help but ask what you were expecting to find when you went to see “13.” After seeing the mockery of Oceans 12 and seeing the trailer for 13 where they wear cheesy mustaches, mug at the camera and laugh at each other…were you expecting a good film?
Comment by John K. — June 17, 2007 @ 4:18 am
John,
I was naive. Never again. Hence the idea for the FUG Score.
Rusty and Clark,
O11 was fun. O13 was a smug yawnfest.
Swapping Metacritic for Rotten Tomahhhhhtoes, we get FUGed thusly:
Ocean’s Thirteen 75 + 68 = 72
Pirates 74 + 47 = 61
Knocked Up 83 + 91 = 87
Surf’s Up 72 + 77 = 75
Shrek 65 + 41 = 53
Hostel 56 + 51 = 54
Mr Brooks 76 + 55 = 66
Spiderman 69 + 61 = 65
Waitress 81 + 90 = 86
Disturbia 73 + 66 = 70
Looks to me that Metacritic offers a higher standard, because with RT, Waitress becomes a “must-see” (rather than a “maybe-see”), and Surf’s Up moves into contention (nein danke).
Comment by The Brit — June 17, 2007 @ 5:10 am
The Brit is right. 13 sucks real bad, and is little more than a vehicle for the ego gratification of under-employed horses’ asses. I should have stayed home and watched poker games on TeeVee.
Comment by Mark IV — June 17, 2007 @ 6:26 am
Oh, but Waitress has Nathan Fillion in it. Worth the money right there…
Comment by gabby — June 17, 2007 @ 7:47 am
I’m very suspicious of “Waitress” because of the sympathy being shown by movie reviewers due to the director’s murder. Thematically, it sounds suspiciously like “Chocolat,” which I hated. (I did see where one person has described it as “a steaming pile of man hate.”) So I’m going to pass on that one.
This has been a summer of mediocrity so far. I’m glad to be hearing good things about “Ratatouille.” For some reason, critics turned on Pixar a little bit after “Cars.” Pixar is still clearly the best animation studio by several miles.
Comment by BTD Greg — June 17, 2007 @ 8:03 am
“Waitress” lights up whenever Keri Russell and Nathan Fillion are on the screen together. But the script is a bit underdone, the direction is sort of pedestrian, and several of the supporting performances are shaky. But, BTD Greg, I can at least tell you that the generations-removed magical-realist ideas from “Like Water for Chocolate” via “Chocolat” aren’t really developed in the script. It really only goes as far as the names of pies.
It is a sweet, oddball film. At the same time, it has substantial flaws. I guess the thing to see instead is “Once.”
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — June 17, 2007 @ 9:29 am
I actually liked Waitress. It’s both highly feminine and feminist at the same time – something you don’t see too often. And the ending is kind of interesting: female empowerment via maternity. But it is indeed pretty harsh on men. It could have been stronger if it were a bit more evenhanded.
Comment by Eric Russell — June 17, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
How about adding all three together (there is some value to the Rotten Tomatoes meter after all so I think it might add rather than detract).
It would look like this (IMDB + RT + MC):
Ocean’s Thirteen 75 + 68 + 62 = 68.3
Pirates 74 + 47 + 50 = 57
Knocked Up 83 + 91 + 85 = 86.3
Surf’s Up 72 + 77 + 64 = 71
Shrek 65 + 41 + 58 = 54.7
Hostel 56 + 51 + 46 = 51
Mr Brooks 76 + 55 + 44 = 58.3
Spiderman 69 + 61 + 60 = 63.3
Waitress 81 + 90 + 74 = 81
Disturbia 73 + 66 + 62 = 70
Same two were over 80 as the original suggestion. But Disturbia and Surf’s up ended up barely cracking 70 this time which could help if those movies look interesting to begin with. But four movies ended up in the 50’s instead of just one so it might help better in deciding what to avoid.
The only thing is that this method gives critics 2 votes to the 1 vote the audience gets so if you don’t generally agree with critics this is not an upgrade I guess.
Comment by Geoff J — June 17, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
Oops. One correction:
Disturbia 73 + 66 + 62 = 67
So only one movie was in the 70s in this version.
Comment by Geoff J — June 17, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Oceans 13 was worth it if only to see Matt Damon doing his Cyrano impersonation while seducing Ellen Barkin. Best line (that cracked me up) “Did you feel that too?” Then being unable to drink the glass. Cracked me up.
Comment by clark — June 17, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Geoff,
Trust you to complicate things!
Comment by The Brit — June 18, 2007 @ 5:13 am
Is Thirteen better than Twelve? I thought Ocean’s Twelve was quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in recent years. Seriously. It was just awful.
Comment by Tim J — June 18, 2007 @ 6:58 am
Thirteen isn’t better than Twelve in my opinion. If you hated Twelve you’ll despite Thirteen because it tends to be what folks hated about it, only more so.
Comment by clark — June 18, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Greg,
I thought Cars was the weakest of Pixar’s masterpieces. Of course, it is better than much else out there. I really look forward to Ratatouille. I watched the 9 minute preview online and was very impressed. Brad Bird is a very impressive storyteller.
The Brit,
I think your idea is great. I’ve been doing the very same thing for the past several years, reviewing the ratings at IMDB and at Metacritic. I only watched few movies that had a low rating, ones I was just interested in how the story would play out, and of course the Star Wars movies, regardless of how bad they really were.
And in regards to sequels, you should know off hand that they would be of a sub-par quality compared to the original. How many sequels actually have worked?
Comment by Dan — June 18, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Godfather Part II. Spiderman II. Batman Returns. Dawn of the Dead (Romero). X-Men II. The Empire Strikes Back.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — June 18, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Army of Darkness!
Sorry Dan, you lose the “sequels suck” argument.
Comment by Supergenius — June 18, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Toy Story II. And I can’t wait for Ratatouille. My favorite things: haute cuisine and Pixar!
Comment by Sam B — June 18, 2007 @ 10:18 am
For the “sequels can be great” argument: Aliens.
Comment by danithew — June 18, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Camilla Parker Bowles…
Comment by The Brit — June 18, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Um, let me rephrase my point, because I obviously knew there were many sequels that worked.
Generally speaking, I have been disappointed by most sequels, outside of those select few masterpieces. For example, can anyone here tell me why any writer even decided to write Miss Congeniality 2?
Comment by Dan — June 18, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Whoops. In #28. Despise not despite. Heh.
I haven’t seen Cars yet. Bug’s Life was, for me, weakest. After which I’d put Finding Nemo even though lots of people (including my son) love that one. I just found it drug in the middle.
What’s interesting about Ratatouille is that Bird was brought in halfway through production to take over and save it. Reportedly you can sometimes tell that the story was significantly tweaked but that it still is a fantastic film.
Regarding sequels, Batman Retruns was way weaker than the original. Although hopefully the second of the new Batman won’t.
Other good sequels were Temple of Doom. (Not as good as the original, but surprisingly good especially upon a recent viewing) Star Trek: Wrath of Kahn is arguably the best of the series and far superior to the first film. (Which largely sucked)
Comment by Clark Goble — June 18, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Terminator II.
Dan’s right though, great sequels are the exception, not the rule.
Comment by Susan M — June 18, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
I thought Batman Begins was up to par with the Tim Burton Batmans. Better in some ways.
Comment by Tom — June 18, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Clark, I continue to think that Batman Returns was far superior to Burton’s first Batman. And a surprisingly wide range of people agree with me on that — even though plenty agree with you.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — June 18, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Batman Begins was better than the Tim Burton movies. (So says I.) But I don’t think it counts as a sequel, or even as a prequel. It doesn’t bear much relation at all to the Tim Burton movies.
Sequels generally suck because they are usually an excuse by a movie studio to franchise a successful movie, regardless of merit. Anything else is just the exception to the rule.
Comment by BTD Greg — June 18, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
I’ll vote that sequels do, generally, suck. And as we’ve seen from this year, threequels really suck.
Comment by Eric Russell — June 18, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Diane and I watched this movie last night. We didn’t think it was that good.
We’ve both heard a number of people say that it was better than the second Ocean’s movie. We disagree on that one. We both liked the first two movies and thought this was one just kind of blah.
Comment by danithew — July 7, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
[...] for fun, I ran the current US box office top ten through the Fug-o-meter. Here are the [...]
Pingback by Kulturblog » Fug-o-meter — August 24, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Where is the imdb user rating that is out of 100? I find a 6.7 for Kenneth Branagh’s “As You Like It” … but I don’t see the score that I would average with the rating from Metacritic.
Comment by danithew — September 1, 2007 @ 8:35 am
Danithew, Danithew, Danithew.
Comment by Ronan — September 2, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Um, 6.7 out of 10 = 67 out of 100, I’m thinkin’.
Comment by MCQ — September 2, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Ah, I see. You’re just doing some math … my bad.
Comment by danithew — September 3, 2007 @ 5:54 am
LOL. I just have to laugh that I didn’t think of that … sometimes I amaze even myself.
Comment by danithew — September 3, 2007 @ 5:56 am