 |
On more than one occasion I’ve been in a conversation about movies and a person will ask, “Hey, what is the worst movie ever made?” Immediately I wonder, how does he mean exactly? Is he talking about a movie that’s so poorly made that it’s not even entertaining in any way? That the only people who would give it any merit are perhaps a few of the filmmakers who gave birth to it? Or is he talking about something in the laughably bad or cringe-worthy variety. Either in the “so bad it’s good” category, where the badness is laugh-out loud funny, or the bad car accident type. You want to look away and just drive on...but there’s something about a movie like Batman and Robin that just draws you in, to gaze upon the horrendous spectacle of it all. What I’m getting at is that bad is a subjective judgement, especially in an entertainment medium as diverse as movies.
It is difficult to talk about the ways that bad is subjective without first discussing how noticing the good qualities in film also varies from person to person. The more movies a person sees, the more they are able to recognize the value that achievements in different criteria give a film. I watch a lot of movies, and I’ll admit that even I miss things from time to time, both bad and good, that would figure into my evaluation of a film. It is as one develops better taste that they are able to notice these things, and use them to be able to make good arguments supporting their opinion.
Now the adjective "subjective" means that something is dependent on a person’s taste and the kinds of things they are pre-disposed to like. For instance, is often said that comedy is subjective because what individuals find funny varies so much. This is not just between target demographics, but between different people within demographic groups. We all know comedies where we’re in the minority in thinking it is either funny or unfunny. I would never argue (at least for long) with someone who disagrees with me about the humor level about a comedy. Such an argument is pointless. But I think it’s a good idea to, early on, share your favorite comedy movies with your new love interest. If my wife, before we were married, didn’t laugh during The Big Lebowski, she wouldn’t be my wife today.
Now there are films where, sure subjectively you say it's bad using your own surface-level personal preferences, but if one uses a checklist on the artistic and enjoyment factors of the film it might not score low for every factor. People often overreact on 1 or 2 middling or minor elements that ruin it for their personal enjoyment. I think you have to figure in both enjoyment and artistic values. For instance, the cinematography (an artistic value) in Cool as Ice gives it a point or two in my ten point scale, and keeps it from the lowest rating. So out of five stars it gets one, instead of a half star.
Eventually, as my tastes refined, the lines between artistic and enjoyment values are blurred for certain criteria in certain films. But when you throw. When the artful becomes fun - that’s when a movie is on the right track. When failed storytelling or movie-making is fun despite itself - that's just an accident.
I'm going to introduce a pair of terms here that I use: "objectively bad" and "subjectively bad." "Objectively bad" here is when critics, reviewers, and much of the general public agree that the movie is of low quality. You can use that hypothetical checklist of quality film criteria while watching these movies, and being honest, not many things would be checked if it’s objectively bad (things like acting, story, humor, soundtrack, realism, originality, cinematography, sets, special effects, and wardrobe/costume design). Of course, when used in this phrase, the word objective doesn't have the same meaning as it does when used on its own.
“Subjectively bad” means that opinions vary widely and critics and general audiences alike disagree. Something that is subjectively bad is also therefore, subjectively good; as in is the glass half full or half empty...with positive reviews? In reality, or objectively, it is probably somewhere in-between good or bad - a mediocre film i.e., of middle-range or ordinary quality. The less enthusiastic the positive and negative reviews are, the more “objectively mediocre” the film can be considered. (Yes, the same film can be subjectively bad, subjectivly good, and objectively mediocre.) There are those movies, however, about which reviewers will say “most people either will love this or hate it- there is no middle ground.” Strangely enough, it seems that whenever I hear this, I myself think the movie is a 5 to a 7 (the middle ground) on my scale of 1-10.
Tom Green's 2001 exercise in career-suicide, Freddy Got Fingered, is a much maligned debacle, often called an unfunny attempt at shock comedy. It still has its merits with viewers who appreciate its particular sense of humor. The actor/director attempted a form of comedy that rarely pays off when, from the other side of screen he seemed to laughed at, not with, his own audience. This turned off a great many critics and viewers, and so it’s known as being a bad movie, even though there are a minority who still appreciate it’s satirical subtleties. I'd say it is definitely an objectively bad movie, but there are two kinds of people who would throw it a few more rating stars than the average person: those with a juvenile sense of humor who laughed at loud throughout the movie, or those with more infrequent laughter who smiled and nodded at the cleverness and thought "I see what he's doing there."The Room (2003), is a drama universally considered one of the worst movies of all time. Some have wondered whether this stagey drama about a dumb, but loyal, boyfriend who's bored live-in girlfriend runs around on him with his best friend, tearing him apart. The director and star Tommy Wiseau claims that he believed he was making a serious film, but the end product has developed a large following of fans who find it hilarious. Reason being, because it is so bad in it's script, acting, camera work, etc., that it is easy to laugh at. There's a recently coined name for movies like this, which is "so bad it's good." Other movies with this distinction and cult following include Troll 2 (1990) and Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2008). Troll 2 even had a terrific documentary made about it called "Best Worst Movie." It was directed by Michael Stephenson, the child actor who played Joshua in Troll 2.
From my experience, to be able to spot objectively bad movies, one should keep in mind the following types of movies with major problems, or combinations thereof. Many of these could be the subject of their own entire blog post (and I might do that in the future), but I'll try to keep it brief here.
- Comedies that just aren’t funny. True, comedy is subjective but some are just widely agreed upon as unfunny and poorly made, employing bad acting and a bad story concept. This can also occur in the sub-genres of horror-comedy, action-comedy, sci-fi-comedy, and romantic-comedy. In other words, bad comedy can ruin anything.
- Sequels that shouldn't have been made. A sequel is green-lit just because the first one made a ton of money. The thinking is that people will pay again no matter what, just to see what happens next. key stars don't return for whatever reason. Maybe the first one said everything interesting that could be said about the characters. The writer and director might have to improvise and make risky decisions. Some prime examples are Speed 2, Dumb and Dumberer, Son of the Mask, Home Alone 3, Highlander 2, Caddyshack II, and Robocop 2.
- Modern direct-to-video horror or science fiction. Here I don’t mean low budget horror, because low production costs have produced cult-classics, or films that are well-made and well-received despite budget constraints. The direct to video variety can look slick (as opposed to homemade), as if they're backed by a Hollywood studio, but they often employ rip-off storylines with low-rent actors speaking lazily-written dialogue. In addition, this type usually has cheesy special effects as well. Examples include Mega Shark versus Giant Octopus (2009), Creature of Darkness (2009), Alien Lockdown (2004), and Exterminator City (2005).
- Films with a convoluted story or script that were their filmmakers' "pet project" or "labor of love." This kind of bad movie may have worked in the filmmaker's mind but he forgot to check if it would make sense when it's all assembled and up on the screen. Many times they are surrounded by a crew of yes-men who woldn't dare question their boss's opus. Trust in their vision lets major flaws go unchecked and left in the film past the point of no return. Examples of this type include Southland Tales, Battlefield Earth, and, if you ask any Star Wars geek, all three films in the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
- Bloated budget, bad script, bad filmmaking decisions. Sometimes too much money and the freedom to do anything just can produce a big mess if the filmmakers have no restraint combined with a sub-par screenplay. A lot of expensive parts can add up to a bad product if they don't fit together or just rub the audiences the wrong way. Con Air, Transformers, Waterworld, Cutthroat Island. But sometimes unfair early reviews or word of mouth and bad marketing decisions can lead a good to mediocre film to be piled upon and labeled "bad." To some extent Waterworld had this fate, and, from what I've heard, so did 2012's John Carter.
- Bad adaptations of video games, kids television shows, or toys. When Dennis Hopper passed away everyone was remembering him by referencing Easy Rider, Blue Velvet, and Speed, but not many people brought up Super Mario Brothers, the big budget loose adaptation of Nintendo's flagship video game. Not only was the movie's fantasy universe nothing like the game, the visuals were ugly and the plot and action were indecipherable and unintelligent. I bet you can't make it through the trailer below without convulsing. Other examples include Masters of the Universe and the Transformers trilogy.
- Acting, screenwriting, style (visual and directorial), and meeting the expectations of the genre. I think if a movie fails at at least two of those things, it's going to bring down the other two at least somewhat as well. One example is a crime thriller I watched called The Alphabet Killer (2008), just because the description sounded intriguing. The best thing about it was the visual style, but even that seemed overdone sometimes because of the bad script. It was a thriller that didn't thrill with some bad actors and some good actors trying to perform but failing due to the filmmaker's convoluted vision.
- The "Mystery Science Theater 3000" type of film. "Mystery Science Theater 3000" was a show that may have taught a lot of budding film enthusiasts how to enjoy watching a bad movie. Most of the movies that were featured as "experiments" on this show are films with such poor writing, acting or a dated kitsch factor, that they just made you laugh or want to make snide and sarcastic comments to the screen. And that's exactly what a man and his robot friends did as they were forced to watched these "cheesy movies" every episode. Most, but not all of them were sci-fi movies, probably because through much of movie history they were the easiest to screw up in hilarious ways. Many episodes are available to view on Netflix Instant Watch or YouTube. Some of the worst (most enjoyable) movies to view in their MST3K form are Cave Dwellers, the Gamera movies, Pod People, Zombie Nightmare, The Brain that Wouldn't Die, Eeegah!, Manos: The Hands of Fate, and Mitchell.
As viewers we all have our own favorite things. We can say that movie is right down my alley or is right in my wheelhouse. You could be a script guy or a cinematography guy (or gal). Not that you have to be any one thing, but those are two of the main things. There are a minority of people who think The Dark Knight is mediocre or even bad. These are not cinematography guys - since that was a dark, but very attractive film to look at. They are more likely to be viewers geared towards nit-picking the story and script and how it may have been edited for the final cut.
There are so many gray areas. One person’s unwatchable bad movie is another person’s cult classic or highly enjoyable b-movie. It’s okay to enjoy "bad" or mediocre movies, but it’s a lot less sad when you know that they are bad. We all have our guilty pleasures - movies we know are bad, but we like anyway. It can be a lot of fun to discuss and argue the merits and faults of the subjectively good or bad ones that divide audiences and critics alike. It’s just not okay to fail to recognize that a movie is objectively somewhere on the good end of the scale, even though it’s just not for you.
Keep an eye out for an upcoming post, in which I will take my thoughts on evaluating film quality in another direction.
Two good bad movie lists:
No comments:
Post a Comment