Well, we're one hundred movies in and I think it's fair to say that the success rate, of C+ or higher, is the worst on any of my blogs. Breaking it down, there are four F+s, nine D-s, 14 D's, and 19 D+s, which is almost half of the total. Then there's a whopping 27 C-s, almost a quarter! Things taper off to 15 C's before we get to the four C+s, four B-s, and three Bs that I could actually sit through.
The breakdown on decades is also very different than my other blogs, with one from the 1920s, six from the '30s, two from the '40s, and then eleven from the '50s, before falling off again for four from the '60s, and two from the '70s. Then there's a rise, with eleven for the '80s, sixteen for the '90s, and 27 for the 2000s, before dropping some for the 20 from the 2010s. I expect these stats at least to morph over time.
As for the genres, 17 were "action movies," although watching an "action collection" early on obviously skewed this. Seventeen movies were also "comedies," but 25 were "dramas," not counting the 16 "historical dramas" and so on. Bear in mind that many movies fit in more than one genre.
Other noteworthy things: Warner Bros. easily had the most movies, 16, although classifying what studio is responsible for a film gets more complicated in the modern era, when more than one can be responsible for production and/or distribution. Alec Guinness was in more movies than anyone, four, but the "Alec Guinness collection" obviously affected that, as did Hitchcock directing four movies on the "Alfred Hitchcock collection." Eight of the films were British, which seems a little low. And nineteen movies were based on books, but I don't know if this is typical.
I did notice a higher percentage of movies with the director writing or at least co-writing, more than on my "movies I own" blog and more than on my "TV shows from the library" blog. I expect that to continue.
.jpg)
