A good ‘bad film’ vs a bad ‘good film’
Judging film can be quite difficult. If I’m just watching casually, each viewing can be an isolated experience and I can love or hate it in it’s own right. However, being a host of a film enthusiast podcast, I feel more of an obligation to justify every opinion I have and judge each film within the context of every film that I’ve seen before it. I mean, I really struggle with the fact that I enjoyed Push and Crank High Voltage, but thought Seven Pounds was a terrible film. The more I think about it, the more I feel that there really is a difference between a good ‘bad film’ and a bad ‘good film’.
When it comes down to it, how good a film really depends on what it’s trying to do and how well it succeeds at that. For example, It’s not really fair to judge something like Hacker’s based on something like The Shawshank Redemption. One is a silly movie about teenagers button mashing their keyboards to take down a big scary corporation and the other is actually an amazing piece of cinema. Hackers has to be judge as a popcorn movie because that is what it is.
Likewise, you can’t really go easy on a legitimate film just because you’ve seen far worse before it. Look at my opening example. I thought poorly of Seven Pounds, not because Push and Crank High Voltage are better films, but because it is unbelievable, predictable, contrived, and overly sentimental. It was an attempt at a serious film that supposedly had something profound to say with it’s main character. I believe it failed in it’s objectives and thus, failed as a film.
I’m not really sure whether I should consider this post an apologetic, or a self-realization. On the one hand, I decided two write it as justification for some of the crappy films I love. On the other hand, reading over my own words makes me feel like I may have been overly harsh to films I’ve seen in the past. Or, for that mater, film’s I’ve skipped because of preconceived notions about them.
My name is Christopher Schnese
and this has been my reel perspective
Related Posts
No related posts.
View Comments
I think a lot of it is less about the film and more about the filmmaker. A movie doesn't just exist in a vacuum, it was made by someone, for a particular reason. When we judge a movie, we judge a) is good in its own right, but b) what was the filmmaker intending to do with it? Plenty of movies pass with flying colors in both criteria (see: Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, etc.) The ones you are apologizing for are all B.
Movies that are knowingly terrible and thrive in their terribleness, can be hilarious to watch. It's as if you were friends with the director, and he told you "watch, I made this movie purposely bad. The producers are going to be pissed, but they can't do a thing." You'd laugh your ass off, because you're not viewing it just as a movie, but as a means to an end for the creator. Without that aspect, it's like trying to judge a joke by only listening to the punchline; even though the punchline is what brings the laughs, the context is what makes it funny.
I know what you mean. When you watch Push or Crank High Voltage you kinda get in a mood for something not too serious and you get exactly that. But when you watch Seven Pounds you kinda get in the mood for something profound and when it fails to deliver it sucks. I think this is what you mean!