So I wanted to talk about something called the ‘Dad Film’ Genre, but I’ve been having a hard time lately. So rather than slogging through a half-baked film discussion, I thought I’d weave that discussion into explaining a change in the way I’m thinking about movies.
The ‘out of ten’ scale I’ve been using is a bit of a dart’s throw in terms of an opinion. I’ve got some weird films that all got the same rating, and if you compared those films side by side based on just the numerical rating, you’d doubt my credibility. But then again, I never said I had any credibility, I’m just a little guy, y’know? A wee lad. A petite monsieur.
So say you looked at The Woman King, Shang-Chi: Legend of the Ten Rings, and Black Widow, all of which I scored at 6/10. You may find yourself scratching your head. Was Widow really just as good at Ten Rings? Was Woman King no better than Widow? Of course, you could read the reviews, they’re really great and really funny bro. Super intelligent analysis too. But you’d also find that I’m basing this rating on whether or not the film succeeds at being itself. Widow is summer blockbuster slugfest without much depth. King is a historical adaptation of a sensitive, violent time period. The former is what it promised to be, dragged by an uninspiring story, and saved by interesting characters (and Lorne Balfe’s OST). The latter romanticized and glossed over the atrocities and introduced a convoluted, dramatic, unsuccessful twist to keep audiences engaged. One delivered on its promises, the other one fell short of its relatively loftier goals.
There’s an added complexity to this rating system when you begin to consider different audiences and their perceptions and enjoyment of the films- and this is where I felt I could talk about the ‘Dad Film’ genre. I recently saw Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny with my own dad. Jones is old, and we get a rehash of the dad/offspring relationship that was present in Crystal Skull, and some forgettable action sets. I thought the film was thematically timid and overlong. It played by the numbers, and relied on its quantity over quality. It wasn’t an offensively bad film, but there were certainly some illogical, unintelligent choices made as to which direction to take the characters in. They also relied too heavily on us knowing and caring about Jones already, and didn’t take any time to round him out to get us to care about him again. Then I asked my dad what he thought.
He fucking loved it.
My 60 year old dad, who grew up watching Indiana Jones and Star Wars in the theaters, loved this film. He didn’t like Crystal Skull, but he was gushing about this film. He hummed the theme song all the way home, and found a way to watch it again on a shady website that night. He talked about it at breakfast. He saw some friends the next evening and told them to watch it. He loved the film.
My Gen Z younger brother detested this film. At multiple points during the screening, he would scoff and grumble as the film asked us to suspend our disbelief, or someone doled out a cheese one-liner. He hated it.
badum-tiss!
There’s this phenomenon with my dad, and with many men from his generation, where they actively enjoy and pursue watching films that have a certain ‘flavor’. Films like John Wick, Heat, Dirty Harry, No Time to Die, Mission Impossible, Top Gun: Maverick. Films with action and stakes grounded in reality. A hero without super powers or technology that doesn’t actually exist. A story based on events on the news, or real events, or events that could conceivably happen. No magic, no aliens, no weird crap that couldn’t exist no matter what. Of course, there’s also the Americanized hero, the ultimate victory over foreigners, the exceptionalism, the casual misogyny, or the institutionalized racism- after all, there’s no reason to complicate things. Idris Elba can’t be the new James Bond. He just cannot. Cops cannot lose. They just cannot. Americans cannot lose a war. They just cannot. Ana de Armas can’t be the next John Wick. She just cannot. No complex subjects. Clearcut good guys and bad guys. Bing, bang, boom. No repercussions.
And if you frame Dial in this way, then… yeah. It makes sense why my dad loved it so much. I mean, sure, there’s this weird time travel shit- but it’s Indiana Jones. He’s not magic, the dial is magic. He’s just an American guy, running around in foreign countries doing things that no one else can and no one else is brave enough to do. He’s got a female sidekick now, but she’s no Jones. He’s Jones. And he wins the day and beats the Nazis. Yay! Who cares about logic, growth, blocking, or themes?
No seriously. Who cares?
So now I’m thinking that this ten point rating system, which is as objective as it gets, probably needs reworking. I’m still keeping in mind the fact that there’s some fundamental questions that need to be asked when assessing a film:
- Is the story being told worth being told?
- How is the story being told?
- What is the style of how the story is told?
Then, based on the answers, I think that we can slot any given film into three categories. A film is either good, bad, or YMMV. If the film is mostly interesting and entertaining and intelligent, then it is good. If a film is largely boring, bland, and illogical, then it is bad. But if there is a controversial answer to this mix of questions, then I’d say that your mileage may vary: YMMV. If some people will find the film interesting and others find it boring, or if some people think the film was thought provoking and others think it was superficial, then YMMV. I don’t know you bro. Go make your own decision, I guess.
So I’ll judge Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny comfortably into the YMMV category. But After Earth, a film with an actual dad and son in it, gets yeeted into the BAD category. It was really bad dude my god. And if we loop back to the films I mentioned earlier, all of which received a 6/10, I can apply a far more descriptive and understandable rating, I think. The Woman King is now a YMMV, Shang-Chi: Legend of the Ten Rings, GOOD, Black Widow, BAD.
But as I wrote this article, I also took a break to watch a video called “Why Critics Get It Wrong” by YouTuber The Closer Look. In it, he discusses why critic ratings and reviews don’t always match up with audience expectations because us ‘critics’ watch so many movies, we’re far more susceptible to being frustrated with the mediocre and unimpressed with the subpar. Further, he suggests that the audience seek out and attach themselves to reviewers whose opinions they can agree with. Now, it’s usually not a good idea for people to only listen to those they agree with- this leads to a stagnation of ideas and an echochamber of opinions; a validation loop which only strengthens an ego. But there is validity to this statement when we’re talking about something as inane as a fucking movie. Because it’s a fucking movie. Don’t take it too seriously.
So now I’m further emboldened to stick to this 3-tier rating system. A movie can be well made, have something interesting to say, and can be worth your time, and I won’t care if you see it or not- it’s still good. But if I can recognize that a film still has some merits to it, and there may be some people who can connect with the film, your mileage may vary. But if the film is objectively and subjectively bad: poorly thought out, technically insufficient, tone deaf, or unoriginal and unentertaining- then please trust me when I say that a film is bad. I have enough respect for the audience to recognize that a film may be enjoyed by someone, and I feel that I’m also capable of saving you time by keeping you from watching films that are truly unworthy of your time.
The Closer Look alludes to a few films in this video of his, and touches on The Menu. My review for the film is as pretentious as a review can be- but by design. The film examines the relationship between the artist and their audience, and the critical role an opinion can play. I ultimately felt that the film did not fulfill its potential, but according to the general vibe in various film communities, the film was excellent. I’m not saying everyone else is wrong, but I’m also not changing my opinion. The film was decent, but its execution left something to be desired. What received a numerical 5/10 rating back then will now receive a YMMV. I know that a lot of people liked the film- you may as well. But I had higher expectations. And I talk about what the film could have been very, very briefly in the review, when I compare the film to Whiplash and Black Swan, two films that also examine the relationship of an artist to people in their worlds. Except those movies actually work and do something interesting and say something worthwhile and are crafted with intelligence.
That said, I’m not expecting to write a film blog that will make splashy waves and be plagiarized by Buzzfeed. I have no delusions that Anya Taylor-Joy or Emma Watson will read this thing and sneak into my DMs offering to sleep with me. I know that this is just a quiet hobby that I’m using to justify how much I’m dissociating. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not paying attention.
I saw Agnes. It was boring. BAD.
I saw After Earth. It was a bad idea. BAD.
I saw Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. It was too long. YMMV.
I saw Transformers: Rise of the Beasts. It was a decent adventure movie that didn’t get too racist. YMMV.
I saw Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. It’s sequel bait and the umpteenth movie to talk about the multiverse, but it was fun. GOOD.
I saw The Flash. Big budget studios are braindead, multiverse and time travel is lazy. The film was fine. YMMV.
I think that this rating system is more informative than:
Agnes: 3/10
After Earth: 1/10
Indian Jones and the Dial of Destiny: 5/10
Transformers: Rise of the Beasts: 5/10
Spiderman: 7/10
Flash: 4/10
The ratings still more or less fall under the same scale. 1-4 is BAD, 5-6 is YMMV, 7-10 is GOOD. More or less.
Anyways I’m really depressed this is a cry for help thanks for reading!
85scenes Reviews 
Leave a comment