Comments on: A good ‘bad film’ vs a bad ‘good film’ http://www.reelperspectives.com/archives/a-good-bad-film-vs-a-bad-good-film/ real thoughts on reel experiences Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:34:00 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Hammy http://www.reelperspectives.com/archives/a-good-bad-film-vs-a-bad-good-film/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Hammy Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:43:29 +0000 http://www.reelperspectives.com/?p=20#comment-7 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! 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!

]]> By: Stephen http://www.reelperspectives.com/archives/a-good-bad-film-vs-a-bad-good-film/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Stephen Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:20:07 +0000 http://www.reelperspectives.com/?p=20#comment-6 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 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.

]]>