Training Services Evaluation Form Please Be As Frank As: Fill & Download for Free

Quite frankly, these MOUs have no real substance in them (except for the MOU with ICSI wherein students can qualify some useful exemptions).You will notice that about 60–65% Course contents (and the depth of paper-checking) in CA and CMA are the same… but the two Institutes have a perpetual territorial wars. So no MOU. So much so, that the CA Institute does not extend any exemptions to qualified CMAs…. even in IPCC. And, as a counter the ICMAI does not extend any exemptions whatsoever even to qualified CAs. Both ICAI and ICMAI are under the same Ministry of India (MCA) but they do not see eye-to-eye. So, that’s about the ‘merits’ or ‘rational’ behind these MOU.And, the students are victims.Institute has MOUs with some n many Indian Universities. These are in place for years now. Although it is treated as a qualification, CMA, ACMA, FCMA are not academic qualifications. It’s just a membership of a professional Institute. An Institute formed under an act of the Parliament, and the members have special statutorily assigned role(s). Passing the exam is just an entry criteria for this membership… and has a rigour that no academic qualification has. So, to allow the qualified Members…. to make their time pursuing the exam (2.5+ years) worthy in an academic sense…. the Institute had forged MOUs with various Indian Universities (like IG Open University), Indian academic bodies…. and has obtained parity with their Graduates or Post-graduates (depending on the seniority of the membership). Those MOUs are definitely useful…. IF you wanted to pursue any of those courses (or even the PhD). But, quite frankly, passing the CMA takes all the energy (and time) out of you…. so much so, that rarely anyone would want to study any further. Plus CMA is a GOLD Standard qualification in Accounting (as much as CA is). So, once you pass CMA…. and have the basic employ-ability attributes (like English speaking, computer proficiency, soft skills, general awareness in Economy, taxation and decent practical exposure)… you don’t need ANY MORE qualifications. Unless, of course, you are looking for a long list of academic credentials against your name.In the recent times our Institute forged MOUs with many CMA bodies world over, pretty aggressively. These MOUs are reciprocative in nature, and offer mutual recognition to their Membership in the each-other’s country. These MOUs do not necessarily mean that… our course contents, evaluation methodology or worthiness of qualified students… was ACTUALLY bench-marked carefully. But, may be… there is some discussion on this. For example, CIMA still requires a qualified ICMA to pass their final exam. So, let me give the Institute a benefit of doubt here.These MOUs are forged between Institutes that otherwise have no territorial overlaps. That means unless the professional qualified in one Country (say India) migrates to the MOU Country and start demanding parity in professional privileges… there is no much risk in signing MOUs. More of a goodwill gesture between the two Institutes.In India, CMAs have a statutorily defined role. Not many countries have this. Anyway, please read the fine script of the MOU. You would notice that the MOU bars the Members of any Institute to undertake any statutory roles in the MOU Country ….. unless they have qualified certain add-on local exam. That means, even after the MOU, no CMA from Australia can sign a Cost Audit in India. Quite natural, isn’t it?So, why are all these MOUs signed?They are signed because that’s in vogue. It’s in vogue… because each Institute is in turn seeking an international parity with professionals with similar training and experience. So, if any qualified professional indeed migrates to another Country, then he can apply for the professional Membership of the CMA body there (with membership fees… in U$D…. year-after-year). Not likely to happen unless in some random cases. So, its more of a feel good factor. More like an insurance (that you will pay for, but very rarely claim).The other motivation for the recent pace of MOUs, to me, is the overall failure of the Institute’s top leadership to stop shrinkage in the statutory role of CMA (Cost Audit n Records). GST has come in as a big savior. Or else our profession’s market appeal was steep downhill. So, it was incumbent on OUR top guys to keep creating an illusion of ‘progress’, ‘growth’, ‘achievement’, ‘recognition’.Besides, arriving at these MOUs is a long-drawn process… and can justify all the foreign travel of the elected representatives (that seem to change Chairs every year). Our Institute has barely any voice or standing in the corridors of power (New Delhi, MCA). So, they will have to keep celebrating as many events as possible to get some media attention. And, poor students have no clue of any of this. They think, that they have suddenly become MORE INTERNATIONAL.Now, let me address your question. How to use this to your benefit.The secrete is that… hardly anyone in the Industry knows that these MOUs are worthless. So, if you may please like, once you qualify CMA in India…. and have some 3 years of experience (qualifying criteria)… you can apply for the Membership of CMA Body in the USA, Australia and others. Our Institute has some certifying procedure for the same. It typically costs about Rs 20–25,000 per year, per country. If you can afford to spend this money…. then you can add many more qualification to your resume. Mind well, the membership fees is to be paid EVERY year.So, it is just a PAID membership. But, hardly anyone knows. It looks more like ONE MORE Qualification. Even if you were not contemplating migrating to USA or Australia NZ, you can just pay up and decorate your CV. It will also make you feel good about yourself.I have not known of any CMA professional who ACTUALLY migrated to any of these MOU countries… and ever tried to claim parity with local CMA professionals…. in job or in private practice. So, I have no data on how seriously this membership ACQUIRED under the MOU is respected in the Industry of respective countries. If any Quora reader has experience, then they are welcome to share it here.You had asked me this question on FB first. Hope, this answer dispels all mis-givings about these MOUs (2–3 every year?) and all the hype around it. In sum-n-substance… it means very little. Institute would do a far bigger service to the profession (and the students) if they were to focus on… the Course delivery, quality of the entrants, mentoring during the Course and insisting on hands-on work-experience… as in the CA course. But, that’s not on the agenda for their good reasons.Putting stickers on a shabby wrapper is not going to make the ‘chocolate’ inside taste any better. So, the Institute has to get its priorities right. And, we students ought to focus on what matters the most…. our professional competence…. rather than get carried away with these media events.My views are personal and brutally frank. They are based on my sweating-out with the Institute for 3 years. I am ready to change them if anyone was provide evidence to the contrary.Best wishes!!

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story -- or just Rogue One, if you will -- is the eighth feature film in the Star Wars franchise, and is chronologically fourth. It takes place after Revenge of the Sith and before A New Hope, though admittedly it takes place about five freaking minutes before A New Hope. It is a self contained one off story and will not be part of an ongoing story arc.Walking out of the theater, I was mostly pleased and would have ranked the movie a 7.5 or 8 out of 10.However, you can never trust your opinion right after coming out of movies like this anymore. Frequently, you feel like what you just witnessed was an entertaining movie, but then a week later you realize that you don’t even remember going to it, you took absolutely nothing from the movie with you, and would rank it much lower now that you’ve had time to sleep on it.This is because Hollywood is not to be trusted anymore. Writing is embarrassingly bad, directing is lazy, characterization is non-existent, and an orgy of CGI has replaced actual storytelling. Yet movies give you enough shameless fan service, colorful imagery and mindless action to fool your brain into thinking you have been entertained, even if you haven’t been.But like gorging yourself on Chinese food, the feelings of fullness were all an illusion and you will be hungry again in an hour.Sadly, this is true of Rogue One. I left the theater convinced that I had liked the movie, but have since somewhat soured on it.Having now reflected on Rogue One with a clear mind, I give it a GagnonScore of 6 out of 10. It was an incredibly flawed movie that failed at so much that it tried to accomplish, but, in fairness, it did also succeed in some areas.Why 6 out of 10? Well, let’s examine it, shall we? Everything bselow will contain spoilers, so read at your own risk.The Hollywoodization of Star WarsBefore I start to analyze the film itself, let’s start with a larger criticism of the Star Wars franchise, now that it is under the control of Disney and the dreaded big movie studio conglomerate.Star Wars is, now that it is (much to my chagrin) part of that system, falling victim to everything I hate about Hollywood. In particular, I have been criticizing the movie industry for several years now, with most of my vitriol reserved for its complete inability to tell a coherent, well written story.We could spend years analyzing why. The growth of the Asian market and the intentional lack of depth in movies, so as to be as broadly marketable as possible. The complete abandonment of originality in favor of remakes and sequels, so as to maximize brand recognition to limit financial risk. Constant interference by studio executives that manages to completely destroy otherwise promising scripts. The increased investment in and reliance on CGI, replacing real actors, sets, props and environments with artificiality. I could, of course, go on.Ultimately, though, the why is unimportant. What is important is that virtually every big budget movie produced by Hollywood today fails to tell a compelling story. Complexity exists where there should be simplicity. Simplicity exists where there should be complexity. Character development is never properly achieved, leaving us protagonists that we don’t care about undertaking adventures that we are uninterested in.Ironically, the more up its own ass Hollywood becomes, hiring shitty writers to come up with God awful scripts that serve to do little more than get us from one tired, soulless computer generated action sequence to the next, the worse their movies get. It is, in my opinion, a death spiral.As a result, quality writers have abandoned blockbuster Hollywood films in favor of the creative goldmine of television. There, writers, directors and producers have the freedom to take chances, tell unique stories, and spend time developing characters.Yet Hollywood, despite losing virtually all of its quality writing and development to television, somehow continues to make money, which obscures their ultimate failure, and guarantees that this problem never gets solved.But wait! If they make money, than Hollywood is giving the people what they want, you might say. Capitalism!Wait again! Movies in previous decades were awful too. You’re just nostalgic, Matt. Have you ever actually sat and thought about the plot to some of the movies you grew up on?First of all, yes they make money. But they make less than you think they do, when marketing is taken into account, and profitability today is almost entirely dictated by whether or not a big budget film is successful in foreign markets. And success in foreign markets has a lot less to do with quality of a film, and more to do with brand awareness and accessibility to the audience.And yes, you’re right. Movies from the past were often of questionable quality. Yet even films with silly plots contained quality character development, and a simple, easily relatable story that could drive emotional investment in what was happening on screen. The original Star Wars was nothing more than a hacked up retelling of every hero quest story ever written, in a completely absurd setting with foolishly silly story elements. A space princess? A wookie? Everything in the Cantina?Yet so many of those old movies with silly plots contained things that grounded the story. In that absurd Star Wars universe, you had three charming, accessible, relatable lead actors, who had clear motivations and characterization, who drove the rather simple story forward.It was successful because things as preposterous as a 7 foot tall Bigfoot with a crossbow laser gun were less foreign and strange to your brain, due to the presence of characters you actually cared about doing things that you clearly understood. You rooted for them in their little adventure, no matter how stupid their surroundings were, because in 1977, even George Lucas understood that a movie -- especially one set in a strange, fantastical universe -- needed an emotional core to make it a relatable, effective story.And that is what almost every single Hollywood movie today lacks. It is why everyone hated the prequel trilogy. It is why as fun as they seem, the Marvel movies are ultimately forgettable and repetitive. It is why even “successful” movies, like Jurassic World feel like cheap, empty shells of forgettable shlock compared to movies they directly copied, like Jurassic Park.Speaking of that movie, think of the awe and wonder you experienced in 1993 when you saw the original Jurassic Park. Think of the emotions you experienced -- fear, the need to escape, an overwhelming sense of grandeur -- and how important the characters were to you. Jurassic World was a nice movie and all, but had none of those characteristics.Like the awkward guy doing “The Sprinkler” on the dance floor at the office Christmas party, Hollywood has only one real trick, and it doesn’t know how to do anything else anymore. That trick is rehashed, unoriginal plots driven by CGI action, with slapped together scripts that contain characters devoid of any depth, who only exist to provide a mechanism through which more CGI action can be shoved at the audience.Sometimes, the occasional movie will break the mold and actually surprise you. Rogue One was not that movie. It fell prey, unfortunately, to that single Hollywood trick. So when you left the theater, you said things as stupid as “this was the best Star Wars movie since The Empire Strikes Back,” even though you won’t be able to realistically describe much of the movie at all a month from now.So finally, let’s get to dissecting the movie.The CharactersQuick -- close your eyes and try to name the characters in Rogue One.Here is how I have been referring to them since seeing the movie:The main chick... uh... Jyn? Jen? Jinn?Dude who I can’t understandGuy who kinda looks like the dude I can’t understand who was captured by Drunk Forrest WhitakerDrunk Forrest WhitakerDIRECTOR KRENNICLe Chiffre from Casino RoyaleBlind dude who is kind of a Jedi but not reallyAngry guy with a gun who hangs out with the blind guyThe funny robotI wish I was kidding, but that is actually how I have been referring to all of these characters. I am an avid Star Wars fan, and I can correctly name (maybe) two of the characters from the movie. The rest were entirely forgettable. That’s a problem.You might be thinking this is because they have strange names like “Chirrut Îmwe” -- and you would have a point. Except that the original Star Wars films had names like Grand Moff Tarkin and Obi-wan Kenobi.A moviegoer’s ability to recall key facts about a movie, like character names, is directly tied to emotional investment in those characters. For a good example of this, look no further than to television and Game of Thrones, which has some truly bizarre names. Yet I and millions of others have no trouble recalling those names at all, because we feel an actual connection to their characters.Tyrion and Cersei Lannister. Daenerys Targaryan. Kal Drogo. Jorah Mormont. Jaqen H'ghar. These names are absurd, and the list is endless. Again, even the craziest name is memorable if you are in some way emotionally invested in the character.Now, perhaps you are a fanboy and desperately want Rogue One to be the greatest movie in cinematic history. But if you are being honest with yourself, you would admit that the characters in this movie were undeveloped, wooden, lacked any depth, behaved irrationally, and you didn’t really care about them at all.If you disagree, tell me... what was the emotional core of the relationship between Jyn and her father? What was Cassian Andor’s role in the rebellion, and what was his general story? Was the blind monk a force user, a former Jedi, just sensitive to the force, and what exactly was his daily life like before being sucked into this story? Exactly who was Saw Gerrera to the Erso family? Why did Jyn’s father trust him? Who was he, really? What exactly was he in the rebellion? What did he want?What did any of them want? Why did they want it? What was ANYONE’S motivation for doing anything?The honest answer is that you can’t do it. Not unless you read up on the story before or after the movie, and if you have to do that to understand the characters than your movie has failed.Go ahead and run a little experiment, I dare you. Ask ten random moviegoers who left that movie -- hell, ask 100 -- those same questions I just posed to you. Ask them immediately after they leave the theater. You will be treated to blank stares to all those questions. I guarantee it.This problem is made worse by two things. Horrible writing, and awful casting.Felicity Jones is actually a wonderful actress. She has some range and acting ability, can emote powerfully on screen, and has the capability of being a magnetic personality in the right movie. The problem is, when you hand her an obtusely plotted script of dry, emotionally dead dialogue and direct her like a stationary 2-by-4, she isn’t going to come off well. And the writing in this movie is atrocious.Even good writing, though, couldn’t save a movie like this from its casting. There were some good choices, I suppose. There are good actors in this movie. But there are some very bad casting decisions in this movie as well.Diego Luna, for instance, was awful. I can’t tell if it was the writing, as it was with Jones, or if he is just a bad actor. But his emotionless, brooding, wooden portrayal of Cassian meant that I didn’t care at all about his character. Not even a little bit.When he ended up in danger, I felt no tension, because I actually wanted him to die just to get him off screen. When he ends up getting the girl at the end (before finally dying), I felt no emotional satisfaction or release, because I didn’t like him and he had no chemistry with Jones.And God his accent was distracting. I understood maybe fifty percent of the lines he delivered.His horrendous unlikeability wasn’t all his fault, of course. The writers didn’t do him any favors. I mean, our introduction to him as a character isn’t exactly a save the cat moment -- the guy straight up murders a scared, innocent man to save his own skin.This demonstrates the amateurish writing. When introducing a character with such a blatantly evil act, that person needs to be set up as an inherently bad person. If he is to end up being a hero, that person must then develop a moral conscience to begin to transition him toward a noble arc. That needs to be driven by clear events that provide a well defined motivation for changing who he is.Cassian is supposed to be a morally ambiguous, but generally heroic, rebel freedom fighter. But that moral ambiguity looks less like an internal struggle by a conflicted man evolving as a person, and more like a series of incoherent, confused choices by a sociopath. His arc does not follow a clear, linear path.His motivations for “becoming good” basically boiled down to “because the plot needed him to be” rather than any logical, rational reason seen on screen. It was a complete and total failure.And then there is Forrest Whitaker.Look, the man is an Academy Award winning actor, so I can’t accuse him of having poor acting ability. But what he did with the character he was given was... well, not good. Frankly, it was strange.For some reason, he decided to develop an accent that was thicker and harder to understand than Luna’s was. I felt like I was watching an intoxicated version of his character from The Last King of Scotland, and have no idea why he decided to go in that direction. He also had some kind of strange, unexplained breathing issue that Whitaker treated almost as a comical drug addiction. And his delivery was the antithesis of compelling.Again, crummy writing is probably responsible for a lot of this. He, like everyone else in this movie, did things that made no sense at all -- like inexplicably staying on the planet rather than trying to escape with Jyn and the others. Why, exactly did he do that? He wasn’t bravely making a last stand against an overwhelming enemy to heroically delay them long enough for his friends to get away. He was literally just staying to get blown up.Then again, he may have explained why, but Whitaker’s crazy old man accent meant I didn’t hear what he said.And again, what was his core motivation? Who was this character? He seemed to have been built up in the movie as some kind of galactic Osama Bin Laden -- with a heart of gold? What I gathered suggested that he was a freedom fighter for a splinter rebel group that was more violent in its tactics. Was that it? I honestly don’t know.Was he an underground terrorist in the opening when he saved Jyn and took her off to raise her? Was he radicalized at some point? If he was, what radicalized him? When Jyn was with him, was he like this? She seemed shocked he had turned into an extremist. What was this character’s story?And frankly, if he was truly a violent extremist, why was he shouting “save the rebellion!” in his final moments? Would he not have viewed the main Alliance as unwilling to “do what it takes” to destroy the Empire?I simply do not understand why this character was in the movie at all.You see, that is the problem with this movie. No characterization. People I don’t care about doing things I don’t ultimately understand for reasons that make no sense.But hey, as long as pretty bright colors flash on the screen and Darth Vader kicks somebody’s ass, it is a great movie, amiright?The PlotThere are so many things wrong with the plot, I barely know where to begin.First maybe it might make sense to evaluate the Rogue One story by critiquing this movie’s predecessor, The Force Awakens, for its plot. You see, the problems with that movie -- which, despite its plot problems, I did like -- were exacerbated in Rogue One.The Force Awakens should have had a very simple story, but instead built a ridiculously convoluted, illogical, painfully forced narrative universe that drove a needlessly stupid plot. The movie was only saved by the very thing that made Rogue One fail -- the characters.Where Rogue One had unlikeable protagonists with unclear motivations, taking irrational actions just to move the plot along, The Force Awakens had charismatic performances by actors playing likable characters with clear motives that you actually understood.That one difference obscured so many problems with the plot, ultimately making for a good movie.But obscured or not, those problems did exist. Why did the Empire, now defeated, change its name to the First Order? Where did that come from? Why was the Resistance a separate entity from the New Republic? Why were they called the Resistance?Resistance movements are always small groups of scrappy underdogs fighting against a massive, powerful, established status quo -- but in The Force Awakens, the Republic is the established power in the galaxy and the First Order was a ragtag band of ultimately weak former imperials isolated and exiled from the New Republic.Things that illogical and ultimately avoidable from a screenwriting standpoint bug the hell out of me.The political orientation of the galaxy in The Force Awakens made about as much sense (none) as it would make for, say, the post Civil War United States to authorize a splinter paramilitary organization called “the Resistance” to fight against the defeated Confederacy, if a bunch of Confederate loyalists had fled to Mexico. Does that sound logical to you?Why wouldn’t the United States government just send in its military to end the threat like every other government in the world would? Again, the simpler story architecture is the more realistic and makes the most sense.In The Force Awakens, why wouldn’t the new Republic government just pursue a military campaign to stop the imperial remnants? The First Order didn’t hold any power. They were clearly loyalists to the Empire that were interested in destroying the Republic.So the members of the far more powerful and expansive Galactic Republic were “resisting” a small band of fascist military terrorists? Eh.And please don’t tell me “it was explained in a book” -- I am aware that many of these questions have answers in expanded materials. But when evaluating the quality of a film, the film has to be judged on its own merit. If it isn’t apparent from the film itself, the film’s narrative structure has failed.And honestly, even having looked up the answers to these same questions, the plot is still a convoluted mess that makes no sense.I don't know, guys... he seems nice. Let's just ignore him and his screaming Nazi rallies on the giant planet with a huge gun port in the center of it.This is the kind of unnecessary idiocy that drives me absolutely crazy in filmmaking. This is a simple universe that should make rational sense. Scriptwriters in Hollywood spend so little time logically thinking through the plots the draft, and make such feeble attempts to make the stories make rational sense, that we end up with incomprehensible drivel like this.What would have been coherent? How about something like this:In the aftermath of the events of The Return of the Jedi, the Galactic Empire crumbles in the vacuum of leadership left by the death of the emperor and Darth Vader. Some prominent generals attempt to fill that vacuum, only to ultimately fail as the forces of the Rebellion consolidate control over more and more of the galaxy.The New Republic is established. Luke Skywalker founds a new Jedi Academy to train the next generation of Jedi. The remnants of the defeated empire, now under the control of a prominent imperial general, consolidate themselves and flee to the far corners of the galaxy to form a resistance movement against the New Republic, with the aim of restoring the Empire.Suddenly, the empire is the scrappy band of rebels fighting against those in control of the galaxy. See how much sense that makes? See how it subverts and reverses the original plot from the first Star Wars films?Now, the New Republic, much like the United States government in 2016, finds itself fighting a guerrilla war against a band of terrorist cells operating from a small, mobile geographic headquarters.These former imperials are now trying to hurt and destabilize the free and democratic Republic, hoping to weaken it enough to later destroy. See how such a story could serve as an allegory and would make rational sense to any general audience?Leia Organa, who by this time rose to be the Chancellor of the New Republic, decides to wage a newfound war on the Imperial Remnants -- though they themselves still call themselves The Empire -- and orders military campaigns to pursue and root out the imperials.Much like in the real world, such a goal is almost entirely unachievable, and the moral clarity of the rebellion turned Republic begins to gray as the galaxy tires of endless years of war and violence.Meanwhile, neither Han nor Leia had time for their children, and neither noticed as their son Ben slipped into angry isolation. Frustrated and craving the love and attention he never got, he turned toward the very thing his parents fought against -- the Empire -- finding it a more romantic concept than it actually was, and relishing in the contrarian rebelliousness of what he was doing.Having previously idolized his uncle, Luke Skywalker, craving the power he saw, he was easily manipulated by a sinister force user who he encountered. Promising to train the boy -- whereas Luke had refused to do so, fearing he could turn to the dark side -- this figure would twist Ben into a dark acolyte who worshipped his grandfather, Darth Vader. Ben Solo goes missing, and Leia’s marriage to Han Solo crumbles as they blame each other for his disappearance.The Republic is dealt a blow when Luke Skywalker’s new Jedi Academy is destroyed by a masked figure named Kylo Ren -- who is actually Ben Solo -- and his new band of dark side force users. The dark master of Ben Solo turns out to be a close advisor to the imperial general who has declared himself the new emperor. Do you see how this breaks original ground, making the cloaked evil the power behind the throne, rather than the ruler of an Empire?After Luke Skywalker disappears, Leia, devastated, ends up resigning, her family destroyed, and her hope and idealism extinguished. Han Solo, despondent, returns to military service as a general, and hopes to pour his grief into revenge, seeking out his son and ultimately punishing those who turned him to the dark side.The movie could begin with a reverse of the original Star Wars, with a Republic ship capturing a smaller imperial ship manned by a group of storm troopers who wanted to defect, being disillusioned with the desperately violent tactics of the imperials. One of these troopers could be Finn. These troopers could offer up the location of the renegade criminal Kylo Ren, who the Republic believes to be plotting a major attack, as proof of their genuine defection.This could then lead to a search for Ren on the planet Jakku, where the Republic troops -- under the command of General Solo -- could encounter Rey. An ambush could ensue, with the Republic ground troops being wiped out, but with Rey and Finn surviving, having acquired knowledge of the place and time of Ren’s attack. Rey and Finn look for a way off the planet and encounter a disillusioned AWOL Republic pilot named Poe Dameron who agrees (for a price) to take them to Coruscant, the capital of the Republic, to warn them of the impending attack.I could keep going, but I think you get my point. Building The Force Awakens universe in this way would have been far more logical, far more rational, and would have given us an opportunity for a much more relatable plot that was more original and easier to follow.Rather than a retelling of A New Hope with a plot entirely driven by a McGuffin -- a map to Luke Skywalker -- and an even bigger and more absurd doomsday weapon, we could have a relatable, logical plot that drove the action in a more rational way.Ren’s attack against the Republic could end up being a successful terrorist attack on the new Senate rather than having to groan through a planet gobbling up a sun and shooting a giant unstoppable laser over lightyears in mere seconds. The impact of the resulting, much more limited destruction, would have far more emotional resonance.In other words, sometimes (most of the time) less is more.I went through the trouble of rewriting the plot to The Force Awakens to demonstrate the point I am making. Hollywood is incapable of telling simple, relatable stories with quality, understandable plots.And the problems I just identified with The Force Awakens were doubly true of Rogue One.What was the plot of Rogue One? Oh yes, I know, steal the plans to the Death Star. But that’s just the main point of the movie. What was the actual plot that brought us to that point? I bet you can’t really describe it without thinking very hard.Ask yourself the plot of the original Star Wars. A young farmboy inherits the plans to a destructive weapon that is about to be used by an evil empire. After his family is killed by those looking for the plans, he joins a new mentor and a roguish pilot to take those plans to the rebellion. Captured, they rescue a princess, take the plans to the rebellion and then embark on an epic battle to destroy the Death Star before it destroys the rebellion.You could recite that plot easily, I’m sure.Rogue One? Not so much. Empire randomly kidnaps a scientist to work on the Death Star, but his daughter escapes with drunk Forrest Whitaker. She grows up to be a perpetually pissed off looking, depressed, emo criminal who was captured for some reason or another, but then broken out of bondage by some group of random people for some reason or another, to use her to get to drunk Forrest Whitaker so that drunk Forrest Whitaker could somehow bring them to her father, who they want to... kill? Because that would stop the Death Star? Something something something... random fight... suddenly they are at rebel headquarters and they don’t want to do anything... they go try to do something on their own anyway... more fighting... epic space battle... victory!Why wasn’t this movie the Star Wars equivalent of Ocean’s Eleven? At the end of the day, this is really just a heist film. I would have found this entire thing far more believable and satisfying if the story featured a rebellion strike team being intentionally assembled to infiltrate the Death Star, get to its computer core, download its schematics, and then return them to the rebellion to be analyzed for a weakness.That way you could have assembled an ensemble of characters with different talents that are dynamic and interesting, all on a common mission that would provide tension and be interesting to watch. And if you must have a giant space battle, I’m sure the Empire could realize it had been infiltrated, pursue the strike team, and then run into the rebellion fleet covering the team’s escape.But no. Hollywood had to do what it always does now, and make it way more complicated and stupid than it needs to be.The ScoreThis was the first movie not scored by John Williams. Instead, director Gareth Edwards had Michael Giacchino do the score. The result was... not good.I was hopeful. I really was. I really loved the remix of the main Star Wars theme that they used for the teaser trailers. It was brooding, but recognizable, and the use of the piano was great.Removeclick to add a captionSadly, the actual score of the film itself was uninspired, pedestrian garbage.There were no memorable themes that you will remember after the movie is over. There was no emotional depth that was added to the film by the music. The themes produced by Giacchino didn’t manipulate your mood, or communicate key moments in the movie. The entire score felt like it was filler music, simply there because it was expected to be there.If you doubt the importance of the music to the emotional core of a movie, listen to this theme written by John Williams for the character of Princess Leia. It is a beautifully emotional piece that immediately communicates the characterization of Leia, and provides the audience with guidance for the mood of a scene. Almost any theme by Williams for Star Wars fits that description.The fact that such a score -- even a halfway decent one -- is missing from this movie simply highlights all its other flaws.Not everything in this movie was awful, however.Reanimated Zombie CGI Tarkin and LeiaI won’t spend too much time on this, but is clearly something that fans have been obsessing over. Indeed, it is probably the criticism that is most common, even from fanboys.I’m actually kind of conflicted over this. I both hate the resurrection of these characters, and I kind of loved them at the same time.Obviously, I’m very critical of the use of CGI in modern film. As I’ve said already, I believe very strongly that it has become a debilitating crutch by lazy filmmakers obsessed with visuals over storytelling. I also believe that CGI is nowhere near as good as Hollywood thinks it is -- the rubber faces, the dead eyes, the soulless, substanceless feel -- and their reliance on it actually makes films look less authentic, and harms the suspension of disbelief.Even things as simple as CGI spaceships are, in my opinion, a mistake. Yes, it gives more creative freedom for designers and allows the special effects team to show you more. Yet the camera pans feel unnaturally smooth, with directors forgetting that the viewer is looking at the movie through their own eyes, and the camera movements feel unnatural. The texture of the ships feels artificial. Their movements seem like video game sprites -- because they more or less are.Go back and watch an old episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Even though that show was produced in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the establishing shots of the Enterprise look much more tangibly realistic than the ships you see in later iterations like Voyager and Enterprise, which used CGI ships rather than models.The reason it looks better, despite being much older, is that the Enterprise was a full sized model, being shot by a camera filming from a natural angle. Your eye can detect that tangible realness, from the implied “realness” of the camera -- which serves as your eye -- looking at the ship, to the subtleties of lighting and shadow, to the unevenness of texture, to the hints of wear. You see these things, even if you don’t know it.Going back to Jurassic Park versus Jurassic World, this is exactly why the Tyrannosaurus Rex in Jurassic Park -- a tangible animatronic model in a movie more than twenty years prior -- is a terrifying thing to experience, while the rubbery CGI Indominus Rex in Jurassic World is hardly frightening at all.So, I hate the use of CGI, broadly.That said, I think I kind of appreciated the attempt to bring Tarkin back, and the final shot of Leia.Yes, you could tell it was fake. Yes, it is true that CGI, as advanced as it is, can’t truly fool an audience. Yes, they technically could have written around both characters.But at the end of the day, it was actually fun to see them on screen again, and I kind of appreciated that they gave it a shot. So while it didn’t look that great, and while I hate the use of CGI... I was still basically fine with this.The Final ActAs I watched Rogue One, I grew very worried. During the first half of the film, the criticisms that I have mentioned so far overwhelmed my impression of the movie, and I was concerned that I would leave the theater unentertained, hating a Star Wars movie.Fortunately, there was the final act.This movie had some well documented problems during production. One writer drafted a script, then another took over. There were reshoots and studio interference.You can actually tell -- I think -- the moment in the movie where one writer’s work ends, and another (more talented) writer took over.Suddenly the film had better dialogue, a bit more emotional maturity, depth, and some logical, sequential action with clear cause and effect. In short, the movie got a lot better.From the moment the team hijacks the ship that they themselves dub Rogue One to the end of the movie, Rogue One (finally) ends up becoming a hell of a lot of fun.I still have many criticisms, of course. But generally speaking the action was fast moving, interesting, and fun.One thing I should highlight is the space battle. While it was done entirely with CGI, which I just spent significant time criticizing, it was actually very well done. Unlike so many other films, the direction of the action in space was noteworthy in that you could actually follow it.Too often, directors believe that intentionally difficult to follow action creates a sense of chaos and uncertainty, which is why so many misguided filmmakers make use of frustrating, gimmicky tools like shaky cam.The other thing directors do too often -- particularly in space battles -- is cram the screen with as much shit as possible in each frame, operating under the theory that special effects are good, audiences love them, and as a result “more is better.” This was a problem particularly present in George Lucas’ prequel trilogy.Lucas fell victim to the addictive narcotic of CGI, unchaining his imagination with absolutely nothing to restrain him. The incomprehensible idiocy of the above frame was the result.This was thankfully not a problem in Rogue One. The various players in the battle were able to be followed with relative ease. Beyond that, it was innovative and interesting. The hammerhead ships ramming the Star Destroyer was incredibly cool.Inside the facility was also great. There was tension, there were stakes, and the action moved along nicely.Now, while I am being complimentary, it is important to highlight just how much better the entire thing would have been if the plot made any sense or if I gave a damn about any of the characters. If I had that connection to the story and the people in the story, it would have been absolutely incredible.As it is, though, it was still amazing and redeemed a lot of the movie for me. Without the last third of the movie, my GagnonRating would have been a 3 out of 10.And then, of course, there was...Darth freaking VaderHe wasn’t perfect, but he was badass, and a hell of a lot better than the last time we saw him.I will say this, though. Something felt off about him. His dialogue was strange, and he sounded... different. Maybe it was James Earl Jones being older. Maybe, as I suspect, it was the sub-par writers not understanding the established use of language that Vader has used in previous appearances. Maybe it was just the strangeness of new dialogue for the first time in like thirty years.But whatever the cause, it was weird.Ultimately, though, who cares? The first shot of him in the tank was awesome. Vader being in the movie at all was awesome. And, obviously, his pursuit of the rebels with the plans at the end of the movie was freaking awesome. Yes, it was fan service, but I don’t care. Sometimes fan service is justified.That scene was payoff for forty years of wanting to see Vader go postal. And it was glorious. The final sequence, coupled with the ending action in general, basically saved the movie.In ConclusionThis was a lot of words for a mediocre movie that I only kind of liked. Yet, I believe this movie encapsulated so much of what is wrong in modern filmmaking, and it deserved to be discussed.Yet, even representing so much of what is wrong with Hollywood, this movie still ended up being worth the movie ticket. Sure, it could be a lot better, but it was good enough to enjoy.Now, we have to hope someday, someone will learn some of these lessons and make a truly perfect Star Wars film again. Rogue One could have been that movie, but wasn’t. Our next opportunity will be episode VIII. Here’s hoping.

Thanks for A2A. I was going to decline, but, on the reading the current answers they, at best, reveal only the partial truth.Whilst I hope my response will answer the question, as it is asked, I have also expanded it (a LOT!!) to counter some of the answers that have already been given. The following is therefore the WHOLE truth ... you have been warned!The process of diagnosing mental health problems is fairly similar, but not identical, to the process of diagnosing physical health problems. I know this is pedantic, but I have deliberately used the words "diagnosing mental health problems", rather than 'evaluating mental health' as is used in the question, because I want to stress that doctors don't usually assess people out of habit or curiosity - instead we actively seek health problems so that we can recommend solutions. Everything we do - from the questions we ask, to where we poke you in the tummy, to the blood tests we order - are done in an attempt to reach a diagnosis. In short, we're not usually worried about your mental state - unless you have a problem with it.How we assess mental health is intimately associated with how mental health diseases are defined. Each mental health disease gets a set of criteria. If you meet sufficient criteria then you score the diagnosis. If not, you've either got a milder form of the disorder or else a different disease is causing your symptoms.One collection of such criteria for Mental Health Disorders is the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). If we use the example of the most common mental health disease, Depression, the DSM5 (Edition 5) diagnositc criteria for 'Major Depression' is the prescence of the following symptoms, on most days of the week, for at least 2 weeks.You need to have both:Depressed moodLoss of interest or pleasureAs well as 3 of the following symptoms:Significant change in appetite and weightInsomnia or hypersomniaPsychomotor agitation or retardationFatigue or loss of energyFeelings of worthlessness or excessive guiltImpaired thinking or concentration; indecisivenessSuicidal thoughts/thoughts of deathIf you meet these criteria then you score a diagnosis of 'Major Depression'. If you just miss you could have 'Minor Depression' or you may have a different mental health disease that shares features with Depression ... such as 'Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood', 'Bipoar Disorder', 'Substance Induced Mood Disorder' , 'Generalised Anxiety Disorder', 'Post-traumatic Stress Disorder', or even 'Schizophrenia'. Each of these diseases shares criteria with depression but will have slightly different criteria that better fits your symptoms. This means we cannot just ask questions about the criteria for depression - we need to ensure you also don't have criteria for other disorders.A doctor who is assessing your mental health is therefore probing you about diagnostic criteria. To do this we use the same "tools" that we do for physical health problems - history, examination and investigations. Sometimes the patient's response to treatment can also assist with diagnosis."History" refers to the story the patient volunteers and all those questions the doctor asks you. History begins by a doctor listening to the patient's complaint, then asking questions to clarify any statements that are not clear and, lastly, by asking direct (yes or no) questions to narrow down the likely diagnoses. The history forms the major bulk of diagnosis with mental health problems - because most of the criteria require asking the patient a question.This history is not just a friendly chat - the doctor is not asking you questions because they are fascinated by you and your life story. In their head, they are thinking about a list of possible diseases that could explain your symptoms (called "differential diagnoses") and their questions are attempts to make these diagnoses more or less likely.If we return to depression - let's just suppose you volunteer that you feel "flat" and are lying awake at night unable to sleep. If the doctor suspects depression as a possibile diagnosis, it provides them with very little information if they spend a long time discussing your flat-ness. "How flat are you on a scale from 1 to 10?", "Is it like you've lifted a bag of sand a hundred times or like you've lifted an elephant once?", "Would you say you're flat like a straight line or a little bit wavy like rolling hills?". So, instead of exploring your degree of flat, they will instead fire strange questions at you that have nothing to do with what you've complained of - like whether your appetite has changed, whether you still enjoy hobbies and interests that you used to, whether you feel worthless and whether you've had any thoughts of harming yourself. These questions are to determine which criteria you do, and do not, meet.However, we don't JUST ask the criteria for depression. Could you have Bipolar Disorder ("Have there been times when you were hugely energetic and gets lots done?"), Substance Induced Mood Disorder ("How much alcohol do you drink? Do you take use recreational drugs?) or Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood ("Was there an event or stress that triggered these symptoms?").Once the doctor has gathered sufficient evidence from questioning they move onto the "examination" part of the consultation. The examination" is a search for objective clues that would make one of their differential diagnoses more or less likely. Examination clues include things like noises in your chest, a red throat, a lump, weakness in your arm. In mental health examinations (called a Mental State Exam) it is usually performed concurrently with the history - you probably won't notice the doctor examining you. When examining your mental state the doctor is looking for objective evidence that you are behaving like someone with the mental health problem that you meet criteria for. If you present with criteria that match depression - we would NOT expect you to be laughing, highly energic, talking very quickly or jumping from topic to topic. If you did then we'd start to consider alternate mental health diagnoses - Bipolar disorder or Schizophrenia for example.The third step in our diagnostic armory is investigations. In general, there are no blood tests to confirm or refute a mental health diagnosis. That said, there are physical diseases - like the notorious Hypothyroidism - that can manifest with symptoms that mimic depression. Before you commence an anti-depressant or launch into counselling, we check that your symptoms are not being driven by a physical disease.Finally, I mentioned that sometimes your response to treatment can cause us to modify the diagnosis. Starting an anti-depressant in someone with Bipolar Disorder - because we misdiagnose that person as having Major Depression - can trigger mania. Therefore, excluding Bipolar Disorder before commencing anti-depressants is important.Other answers have made mention of screening tools for mental health disorders. These are questionaires that a person can complete, on their own, to give an indication of whether a particular mental health disorder is likely to be present. There are a myriad of them - Screening Tools.There's nothing particularly amazing about these questionaires. Basically, the questions resemble the DSM5 criteria - so, if you have a high score on the questionaire it means you are likely to meet a lot of the DSM5 criteria and, therefore, likely to have the disorder ... amazing!For example, the following is the PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE (PHQ-9) screening tool for depression.Over the past 2 weeks rate yourself from not having the symptom at all (0) up to having the symptom every day (3)1. Little interest or pleasure in doing things2. Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless3. Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much4. Feeling tired or having litle energy5. Poor appetite or overeating6. Feeling bad about yourself or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down7. Trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television8. Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed. Or the opposite being so restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual9. Thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself or others.The astute will have noticed that these are nothing but questions, in the exact order, about the DSM5 criteria for Major Depression.However, it is important to remember that these tools are designed for screening - identifying problems in someone who hasn't volunteered them or recognised that they symptoms of a mental health disorder. They can also serve the purpose of demonstrating an objective improvement in response to treatment - to demonstrate that your counselling has improved your mental health. What they do NOT do, however, is replace the need for the history, examination and investigations as described above. You can get a high score on a screening tool for reasons other than having that diagnosis - having Bipolar Disorder instead of Depression for example.Now that I hope I've answered the question about tools for assessing mental health I would like to turn my attention to an implication made in other answers - that your Primary Care Physician isn't the place to go if you have a Mental Health problem. There have been statements that Primary Care doctors do not have time to do an adequate assessment, and instead rely upon screening tools, and even a statement that they won't know who to refer you to if you have a disorder that is beyond their expertise.However, before I leap to the defence of my colleagues in Primary Care I would like to volunteer a full and frank confession. Mental Health Care is embarassingly inadequate in almost any country you care to look at. Completely broken. $%#%ed! The system is not necessarily beyond repair but it requires major work that no politician, or taxpayer, is interested in paying for. I therefore do not want my following statements to imply, in any way, that I believe Mental Health Care is done well. My purpose of explaining the following is that I believe that there are ways for you - the powerless, individual patient - to approach this imperfect system that will increase your chances of obtaining good mental health care.I am going to begin with a rant about the current system and then a whinge about how every problem in healthcare is placed at the feet of Primary Care Physicians. However, the point of all this complaining is to, at the end, inform you about how to navigate this system to your benefit.The first fact I would like to point out is that Mental Health Care is overwhelmingly provided by Primary Care Physicians. I know this will seem incomprehensible to Psychiatrists - who believe every sad patient is passed to them - but according to their own college, 90% of mental health disorders are managed in Primary Care (rcpsych.ac.uk).Now, because Primary Care Physicians manage 90% of mental health care - and I've already admitted Mental Health Care is embarassingly poor - it is logical to conclude that Primary Care doctors are extremely poor at managing Mental Health.And, a brief look at statistics will support this argument ... rounded off, mental health statistics approximately fall into the rule of halves. 50% of people will have a mental health disorder at some point in their life. Half of those (25% of the population) will meet criteria for a mental health disorder within the next 12 months. Think about that for a second ... in the next 12 months 25% of the entire population will meet criteria for a mental health disorder!! Of the people with a current mental health disorder, half of them will have it diagnosed. And, of those who get a diagnosis, only half will receive proper treatment (taken from here).These statistics are pretty woeful ... BUT, the problem with them is with the way that they are calculated - which limits the conclusions that can be drawn. Doctors like having papers published, because it looks good on their CV, and one of the easiest ways to get a paper published is to trawl through statistics - you look up the incidence of a disease (how many new cases of a disease occur in the community each year based on a random survey (e.g. this one)) and then you trawl through Health Care statistics to see how many cases were diagnosed by Primary Health doctors. If 10% of people have symptoms of depression in the survey, and Primary Care Doctor's records indicate that only 5% of the population has been diagnosed, then obviously 5% of the population with depression are being missed.This type of "study" is done in every speciality - Cardiologists look at blood pressure and cholesterol statistics, Renal doctors look at Chronic Kidney Disease, Endocrinologists look at Diabetes and Psychiatrists evaluate Mental Illness statistics. It's a simple way to get a paper to your name without having to worry about the time and cost associated with doing actual research. And, for whatever disease you choose, there are huge numbers of people in the community walking around with a medical problem undiagnosed and undertreated. The conclusion drawn at the end of these papers is, inevitably, that the cause of the problem is that Primary Care Physicians are failing to recognise the importance of the disease, inadequately testing the community for it and improperly managing the condition when it is found.This was certainly my understanding of the world before I became a General Practitioner. When training in hospitals to become a medical specialist, every study I read showed disease wasn't being detected often enough and, when it was, it was being mismanaged. It was therefore a shock when I entered General Practice and discovered that the opposite seemed to be true!?! In my most recent location I have taken over the care of a lot of patients from a recently retired GP who, somehow, over the years has managed to accumulate a collection of extremely impressive patients. His patients on blood pressure and cholesterol medication always seem to return with blood pressure and cholesterol inside the recommended guidelines. His patients with Diabetes get their eyes and feet checked and have blood glucose levels within the target range. People turn up and request their second yearly blood tests and other recommended health screening (Pap smears and mammograms etc). And, whenever a problem is detected in these tests, they understand the importance of adding or adjusting their treatment to prevent the consequences of disease. In short, this retired GP has created a group of patients who defy every "study" on population health that I've read.This phenomenon caused me to question what I'd learned inside the hospital training system. I started to wonder whether the reason that there is so much undiagnosed and untreated disease in the population is NOT, as concluded by these studies, because Primary Care doctors and woeful at managing these diseases. Maybe, instead, it is because human beings often don't turn up for health screening and don't want to take the recommended treatments. This is not meant as a criticism or value judgement of those people - it is my firm belief that a doctor's role is merely to provide health advice and the individual has every right to follow or ignore that advice as they see fit. However, I don't think it is fair that Primary Care doctors get blamed for health statistics that result from people either not attending a doctor or choosing to ignore that doctor's advice.So, what the population studies do not bother to look at - because it is too hard and too expensive - is WHY these people are not being diagnosed and taking treatment for their condition. The person who copied and pasted these statistics into their paper did not interview a single person to ask questions. The statistics are twisted to imply that 100% of people with depression walked into their General Practitioners office and complained of the criteria for Major Depression but only 25% walked out with proper treatment. However, the statistics mean nothing of the sort. Of the 5% of the population with undiagnosed depression nobody knows whether they have actually seen a Primary Care Doctor or not, whether their doctor suggested they have mental health symptoms but the person disagreed, whether the doctor recommended treatment but they refused or whether their doctor missed their diagnosis or diagnosed them incorrectly. We have no idea what percentage of the people not receiving proper treatment for their mental disorder simply refused their doctor's sugestion of counselling or an anti-depressant and elected to try St John's Wort instead. We simply don't know.To argue that the blame for undiagnosed disease lies at the feet of Primary Care Physicians implies that their job is to march out into the community and track down every person with a medical problem, spend as long as it takes to convince that person that they have a specific diagnosis, convince that person that they MUST go onto treatment for that condition and then regularly confront and test that person to ensure their dose of medication is sufficient. Only once every single person with a disease has been found and diagnosed, AND is taking medication AND the medications is controlling the disease within recommended guidelines will these "studies" show that Primary Care Doctors are doing a good job.Until that moment arrives, these reports on the statistics of the general population will continue to lump the responsibility for improving the statistics onto the Primary Care Physician. Why? Simply because it's the cheapest option. Rather than actually do something to change the statistics - it's cheaper and easier just to blame Primary Care doctors and suggest the solution is that they work harder.If mental health disorders will affect 50% of people at some point in their lives it would be reasonable to presume that 50% of the health care budget is spent on mental health. You would expect every town to have Multidisciplenary Mental Health Units - a building for patients with a mental illness to pop in for several hours and see a Psychiatrist to adjust their medications, Nurses to give any injectible (depot) medications, a Psychologist to attend to the counselling, a Pharmacist to discuss and supply their medications and a Social Worker to offer solutions to the socioeconomic disadvantages associated with having a mental health disorder. Kind of like Diabetic Clinics that we already have - except you'd expect a lot more, because 50% of people will require this service at some time of their life. Alternatively, of course, you could save money and simply "educate" Primary Care Doctors about how badly they're managing the disease and how they need to perform the roles of all these health professionals.Given the overwhelming numbers of people suffering with mental health disorders you may also expect to see Psychiatrists and Psychologists attempting to alleviate the burden by seeing patients in 15 minute appointments. Reducing their appointment times from 1 hour to 15 minutes will quadruple the number of patients who can access quality mental health care!! Of course, Psychiatrists and Psychologists will argue that it is "impossible" to adequately assess, diagnose and recommend treatment for mental health disorders in less than one hour - but this doesn't prevent them from expecting Primary Care Physicians do it.The argument may be that Primary Care Physicians need to start offering longer appointments to cater for mental health problems. This would no doubt increase the detection of mental health disorders, give us more time to arrive at the exact diagnosis and more adequately discuss and provide treatment. I have actually worked with a General Practitioner who does this exact thing - she joined a practice I used to work at. She has an interest, and extra training, in mental health disorders and would offer 1 hour appointments for mental health consulations. After one week we noticed she was fully booked with nothing other than mental health consultations - 4 patients in the morning and 4 patients in the afternoon. The wait for these hour long appointments gradually lengthened - out to 2 months by the time I left. What this meant was that every issue that was not mental health related for "her" patients needed to be sorted out by another doctor at the practice. The reason she had joined a group practice was to surround herself with Primary Care doctors who could provide her patients with Primary Care whilst she focused on counselling. In my humble opinion, this defeats the purpose of becoming a Primary Care Physician. I enjoy the variety of catering to a wide variety of health care needs for my patients. I actually have a degree in Psychology, and have worked as a counsellor, so if I wanted to be a Psychologist or Psychiatrist I would have become one. Instead, when one of my patients needs counselling or Psychiatric evaluation I refer them to someone else to provide this service so that I am able to offer Primary Care services to other patients.In conclusion, I would urge people away from the argument that the blame for the current state of Mental Health Care lies with Primary Care Physicians or that the solution is as simple as Primary Care Physicians "doing Mental Health better". I would also stress - the point of my rant - that if you want treatment for your mental health problems then your Primary Care doctor is the place to start. The poor statistics do not indicate that your doctor is mismanaging 75% of their patients with mental health complaints.Now, with that rant out of the way I'll now turn my attention onto how, as a powerless, health-care consumer, you can navigate this substandard system to improve your own Mental Health Care.My first suggestion is that you, right now, open your mind to the possibility that you could suffer with a Mental Health disorder - maybe you're not at the moment - but "one day". You've got a 50/50 chance. A flip of a coin. The reason for this plea is because it is extremely disheartening to see a patient who meets all criteria for a Mental Health disorder but who refuses to accept the diagnosis. This usually results in an ongoing futile search for physical explanations or, at the very least, the rejection of treatments that could help with their symptoms. If your doctor suggests a mental health problem could be explaining your symptoms please do not take this as a sign that we don't believe your symptoms, that it's "all in your head" or that we're saying you're inventing or imagining the symptoms.Take another look at the DSM5 criteria for depression - there are a lot of physical symptoms in there (tiredness, difficulty concentrating, problems with sleep, loss of appetite and weight, physically slowing down). Please try to accept the possibility that psychological diseases can cause physical symptoms.Notice also that there's nothing in the criteria for depression that says you have to "feel sad" or be "crying all the time". Again, people refuse to consider that they could have depression because "I'm not sad. I'm just tired and can't be bothered doing things" or they'll argue they "have nothing to be depressed about" - which is the whole point of depression.The good news, if you do happen to fall into half the population who will suffer with a Mental Health disorder, is that you can be reassured that we do have treatments that actually help. So, if you attend your Primary Care doctor with a Mental Health problem, and are open to receiving treatment, there is a good chance we can help. For depression, the options generally start with a choice between either counselling or antidepressant medications - that offer largely similar response rates (see here) - and there is even some evidence that whichever one you prefer is more likely to be successful for you. The morale of the story is - if you suffer with a Mental Health Disorder there is something that your doctor will be able to do to assist.So, let's say you are worried about your Mental Health and decide to do something about it. Given that the statistics say that only 25% of people with a Mental Health Disorder are receiving proper treatment, then what can you do to get into that 25%? And, try to remember that this 25% statistic does not mean that if you attend your Primary Care Physician to discuss your mental health you only have a 25% chance of being treated properly. It could mean that 75% of people are yet to talk to their doctor about their mental health.The problem with mental health is that it gets hidden. Psychological symptoms carry stigma in society, humans generally have difficulty opening up about their emotions and admitting they are struggling with life. Also, people often don't like being told that a physical symptom is being caused by a Psychiatric disease.Because psychological symptoms can be difficult to talk about, many people with mental health conditions present to their General Practitioner complaining about a physical symptom - tiredness or insomnia for example - rather than admitting they're worried about depression. Unfortunately, there are a myriad of both physical and psychological causes for tiredness and insomnia so having to rule out all of the physical causes costs a lot of time that could be devoted to the Psychological.Often people will ask for a consultation for something completedly unrelated - the pain in their arthritic knee - and only unleash the real reason they came in after the doctor has performed a history and examination, and discussed treatment options, for the knee pain. We are trained to try and drag every reason for the consultation from you at the beginning but, nevertheless, it occurs on an almost daily basis and dooms the remaining appointments to run late. It is also a recipe for being asked to come back on another day, for a longer appointment, to give us adequate time to deal with the mental health problem properly.The above is not meant as criticism of people who do raise mental health concerns in this way - it is brave of them to raise the problem at all. However, imagine how far ahead you would be if you walked into your doctor's office and said "I'm worried I may have depression".So the first piece of advice is - if you are worried about your mental health then be brave, make an appointment to discuss it and raise your concern as the reason for the appointment. You will already be miles ahead of most people suffering with a mental health problem.Then, try to understand that a proper evaluation of your mental health is going to take time. To get an accurate diagnosis, and a measure of the severity of your disease, we need to ask a lot of questions. Experts in the field - Psychiatrists and Psychologists - refuse to attempt it in less than an hour so why expect a General Practitioner to be more efficient.General Practitioners sell appointments in 15 (sometimes 10 or 20 minute) slots - and we are quite happy to sell you more than one. There is no rule that says you can only see your doctor for 15 minutes - we frequently sell double appointments. If you are attending for a mental health complaint then tell the receptionist you'll need a double appointment. Expect also, that you will need to return for another double appointment, to complete the assessment. Again, imagine how far ahead you will be than the patient who tried to squeeze their depression in after having their painful knee properly sorted.I mentioned in the beginning that the diagnosis of mental health diseases resembles, but is not identical to, physical diseases. One of the big differences is that the diagnosis of mental health relies far more heavily on the history - you need to be in the room for us to ask you questions. Physical problems have a natural interuption to the consultation - history and examination during the first consultation, then we send you away to have some blood tests or X-rays to confirm our diagnostic suspicions, and then you return to discuss the diagnosis and management. Two fifteen minute consultations and problem solved.Mental health problems don't have tests to do to confirm the diagnosis, so the initial consultation is far more prolonged. The diagnosis depends on the questions. There will be an interuption between consultations - to get some basic blood tests to prove your symptoms are not related to a physical disease - so you should still expect to be asked to return for a second visit to discuss the same issue.My final suggestion is to have a think about what treatment you would consider if the doctor agreed you meet criteria for a mental health disorder. Broadly this will fall into 'talking to someone' or 'taking a pill'. People will often have a strong preference one way or another and, as I said previously, for a lot of mental health disorders (with exceptions) there's no strong evidence that one choice is vastly superior to another - but both are better than doing nothing or self-medicating with alcohol and drugs. If you have no interest in either then really there is little point seeing your Primary Care doctor and you will continue to turn up in the statistics of the people "missed by Primary Care doctors".I will conclude with a short spiel about counselling - firstly, because it's something I tell to my patients but, secondly, it addresses a previous answer that suggested "you're on your own" if your particular disorder is beyond the expertise of your Primary Care doctor.The first point, that I make to my patients, is that modern counselling (at least the types that have evidence that they work) isn't like the couch sessions that you see in the movies. The counsellor doesn't passively listen to you cry about how your mother never loved you. Counselling is far more directive and provides you with strategies and techniques that you employ in everyday life to alter the way you experience and react to the world. It is an active rather than passive experience and is certainly not just "getting your problems off your chest".My second point is that a large part of the success of counselling depends on what is called the "therapeutic relationship" between the counsellor and patient. Basically, the counsellor needs to be someone you feel comfortable divulging your worries to and someone you respect enough to listen to their advice. If you dislike your counsellor it doesn't matter how good they are at applying Psychological techniques, you will not benefit from the therapy. For this reason I ask ALL of my patients to be actively involved in the choice of a counsellor. Between appointments 1 and 2 I provide them with resources about local counsellors and ask them to pick one that seems reasonable to them. This is not because I have no idea about where to refer challenging cases - but merely because the patient is more likely than I am to select someone with which they will develop a therapeutic relationship. If you cannot make a decision then, be assured, the doctor will make one for you.It is also worth noting that, in a lot of countries, you don't need a doctor's permission or referral to see a Psychologist. If you're worried about mental health symptoms, would prefer counselling over medication, and locate a counsellor that you like the look of, it is perfectly reasonable to take yourself off to talk to them instead of a doctor. Like Primary Care doctors, they will refer you on if they feel your diagnosis is beyond their expertise.And that's it ...Accept the possibility that you too, like every second person, could suffer with a mental illness.Don't interpret the doctor's suggestion of a mental health diagnosis as a personal attack or as minimising your symptoms.Be bold in voicing your concerns about your mental health. Do your best to avoid hiding them behind a "proper reason" for seeing a doctor. Primary Care doctors look after a lot (and most) mental health problems and it is refreshing, and much easier, when the problem is volunteered from the onset.Grant your doctor the luxury of sufficient time to devote to a proper mental health assessment - by booking a double appointment and understanding you'll need to be seen at least twice.Have a think about what treatments you'd be willing to try and those you wouldn't.For advanced patients - if you are interested in counselling you could even have a look around at local counsellors to see if any sound suitable for you.Can I please close by highlighting that my suggestions are not a guarantee that you will receive good care - they are merely things that a lot of people DON'T do and things that would increase your chance of being in the 25% of people receiving proper treatment.Every time I post an answer on ways patients can improve the way they interact with the health care jugganaut (things that I, and my family, do when utilising the same health care services) I inevitably receive personal stories about individual patients and doctors and how my suggestions didn't work despite them doing everything I suggested.For the record, I acknowledge that some people will have had very bad experiences with their mental health treatment despite following all of the above recommendations. I accept that there are bad doctors. I acknowledge the current system is terrible. I empathise and apologise that you have had such a terrible experience. I sincerely hope that by seeking a new doctor you will find better care. And I do not require convincing with evidence from your particular circumstances. Thanks.