(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)
(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)
SW SCORE: 40
4 out of 5 🐙
True story: I saw Ghost in 2003 at eth Arclight Cinema in Hollywood, California and there was a Q&A with Bruce Joel Rubin (the screenwriter who won the Oscar for this screenplay) afterward. Someone asked him for advice on how to come up with ideas for stories. He said that before he came up with the idea for Ghost, he went camping for two weeks and tripped like crazy on mushrooms. I can’t remember if he said he came up with the idea during the two weeks or just immediately afterward. But he clearly said, sometimes drugs can generate ideas. In my history of attending Q&A’s, this was the best answer I’ve ever heard. The movie? Great romantic fantasy crime movie! What the hell? How is that even possible? It is. I promise. Check it out.
Review process: (this is always evolving, I’m sad to say. I’m more of a watcher who makes mostly unhelpful observations about things I have absorbed. I am not unlike a pop culture blob.)
Two scores are assigned: (I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me)
(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.
(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)
(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so
(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)