Bad Movies?
There are no bad movies, just bad attitudes.
OK, I know that's pretty strong. But I have developed the expectations theory of movie loving.
My hypothesis is as follows: Whatever you expect, if the movie exceeds those expectations, it is "good" and if it is not, it is "bad".
I worked in the movie theater business for quite a while, and became immune to the hype of the ubiquitous trailer. In fact sometimes I even expected a movie with a good trailer to be worse and vice versa. Teasers were my favorite. But on with the theory.
A long time ago, there was a horror movie with the directing debut of a notorious horror fiction writer. My boyfriend and I went with the expectation of absolute dregs. nada. expectation zip. We enjoyed it immensely. It was unique, it was surprising. All in all, we recommended it. Next stage, base on our recommendation 2 friends went, and hated it. In fact they recommended against it to 2 more friends. They went anyway, despite the negative review, but with the same attitude we had going in. zip. They loved it too. There was an inverse relationship to what you expected and how much you enjoyed this movie.
The movie in question? Hellraiser - hehe.
My mom used to go to very few movies. When she would go, it was only after thinking about it as the next Gone With The Wind, or Love Story. OK, maybe those examples were extreme. But she looked forward to the movie like it was a once in a life time opportunity for enjoyment. No film can live up to that. Needless to say, she was almost always disappointed. Sometime later, she and my father started going to more movies. Sometimes just to pass time. I mentioned my expectations theory, and she started going with a more open mind. I noticed an increase in movies she liked. Sure the sheer volume would bring up that number, but also, by not putting all your enjoyment eggs in the basket of one movie, you can enjoy things more. Less pressure that way. I secretly think the movies were experiencing performance anxiety as well, but I publicly know that anthropomorphising films is weirder than talking to your dogs.
It's an interesting theory, but I don't think it holds up all the time. I've seen plenty of movies that have been worse than my expectations but I still didn't think were bad. Disappointing, maybe, but not bad. One example was "Kill Bill Vol. 2."
Conversely, I'm sure I've seen some plenty of movies that were better than my expectations but still sucked. Can't think of any examples right now though.
Hmmm. Maybe I need to add a variable measuring "intensity of apathy" or "intensity of opinion" As little sense as Intesity of Apathy makes, I like the peculiar way it makes my face, when I ponder what it means.
I don't agree, from my point of view anyway. I generally watch movie that have been critically lavished with praise, but I tend to use that as a divining rod to avoid the stinky ones. i.e.: Reindeer Games or Hannibal.
I saw "Reindeer" about a year later (for free) and let me tell, knowing that it was going to stink didn't make it any better. S**t would be to nice a word for that cinematic hiccup.
I watched Hannibal in the theatre (I couldn't help myself) and I liked it. I actually expected it to be as good as it was. The bad reviews didn't sway me because it was a bad movie. Badly edited, lacking tension, silly. I enjoyed the silly sleazy quality, which I find in most of my guilty pleasures.
I think whether people like a movie relies more on taste than anything else.
I hope that makes sense since I am holding my dog on my lap and typing...as well as talking to him.
Tallyho
:?)
Ironically I am a big believer in self fulfilling expectations. I just could not understand the way the back and forth happened with HellRaiser. I am sure taste has a lot to do with it. I can see a formula evolve out of this with upteen variables all canceling each other out, and have negative corelation with one another wso it all boils down to some people like some movies and other people like other movies :-) LMAO
But in defense of my theory, all the people in question were people I would suspect would and could have enjoyed it. My mom for example would not have been able to on any level, great expectations or not.
I've thought about it and here's what I believe in regards to said theory.
Theory bad, j/k.
Anyway, I have seen enough films (I should hope) to have formed a basis of what I like and dislike. Because of a large exposure to cinema other people's opinion's generally don't sway me very much, if at all. I know what I like and have become set in my cinema-watching ways. For me to be swayed by other peoples expectations would seem weird...they're them and not me.
But let's say a young person with a light exposure to cinema decides to watch Full Contact because I just told them it was an incredible Hong Kong action movie. They would either think I'm a nutty semi-old twit or go into the movie with very high expectations. Either way I'm sure their emotions would have a lot to do with the outcome of their watching experience. I got my brother to watch The Seven Samurai by telling him it was an OK samurai flick and he freaking loved it. I recommended him to watch Yojimbo after that telling him it was a masterpiece and he was OK about it. I'm sure that had something to do with it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is for a reccomendation to work on some level you would have to have (bad grammar) some expectation that the film you were watching would be as good as another film. After a certain point you realize that each film is a serperate entity that needs to be seperated from the pack and enjoyed for it's own accomplishments.
I have however been guilty of expecting too much from a film. However this generally has to do with where the film is going after an excellent beginning. Take In America for example: The first 20 minutes are spectacular, then it has disturbingly bland scenes that are juxtaposed by highly emotional family scenes and then sinks into some kind of flabby whimsical story-telling toward the ending. I basically wanted a more satiating film.
Please respond, there was a question in there somewhere that got lost in my blabbering.
Tallyho
:?)
The example of your brother, is an illustration of the point I am trying to make. Not that other people are swaying a viewer though. I was going for more like for whatever reason a person expects a movie to be more than it is or less than it is. I advocate trying to keep expectations neutral. That way a film can be what it is.
With 30 hours of DVR in my backlog, I have been very serious about my time, and am very quick to turn off a movie and delete. But this is not much different than changing a channel anymore.
"I advocate trying to keep expectations neutral. That way a film can be what it is." <--- My motto when it comes to films.
I guess your point does makes sense. But let me ask. Have you ever reccomended "First Blood" to someone by saying, This is one of finest cinematic masterpieces of our time. It's an unheralded gem of exquisite moviemaking? And would that be nice?
Tallyho
:?)
I have led people astray on purpose. But that is also outside the confines of the point I am trying to make. I used to manage a movie theater, and someone came out of a movie and asked for their money back, because the movie "sucked". An act of unmitigated gaul in my book, but we had a time policy of if within the first x minutes, we'd refund, usually in the form of a pass. But in this case, I had a point to make. I actually said to them "It's House 2, honestly did you expect it to be good? its the sequel to a stupid movie". But in a direct answer to your question. I would never use the phrase "cinematic masterpiece" for any film, much less for "First Blood" or as I like to think of it "Rambo -1." Well, I may have used the CM phrase for the "Fat Boys in Disorderlies" or "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo". Neither of which I have seen by the way.
I remember once, as we were leaving the theatre after viewing a film. My friend and I simultaneously said "That was the best film I have ever seen" and "That was the worst film I have ever seen". You can imagine that was an eventful trip to Arby's afterwards.
I have seen "Disorderlies" and it's amazing, stupendous, one of the finest films I have had the privelege of seing. Well...other than being a total piece of crap. However, it has a certain weird entertainment value.
What I actually enjoy is being told "Highlander is the best film I've ever seen!" and then looking at them as if they should be embarrased of themselves. Then again every critic could be wrong and have devoted their entire lives pondering the perfection of Citizen Kane pointlessly since Ice Pirates is actually the masterpiece of our age. Makes you wonder whether generations from now will Adam Sandler be an god-like icon?
Tallyho
:?)
What was the film referred to in your last paragraph, if you don't mind me asking?
I have mellowed my opinion of that movie. But I still like it. It was Dune. I worked in the theatre that played it. I saw all the confusing parts over and over again, out of sequence. When I finally sat down to see it chronologically, it all made sense.