Whether you had fun and the quality of the movie are not entirely related.
Says who? Is the whole point of movies not for you to have fun?
Evolution (2001) is an objectively bad movie.
It is also one of my all time favorites because it’s fun and doesn’t take itself too seriously.
Schindler’s List is an objectively good movie. It is decidedly not fun.
Yo, I completely forgot about Evolution! Definitely putting that on the rewatch list.
Some movies are intentionally not fun, because their message isn’t about fun things.
Leaving Las Vegas isn’t fun.
Children of Men, good movie, not fun
Also Pig, too autheur for me, not fun, but i still like it.
What makes it good to you?
Schindler’s List is not a fun movie.
I think you should read my previous comment again.
One can have fun watching a bad movie. One can have no fun watching a good movie.
One can have no fun watching a good movie
Requiem for a Dream
Leaving Las Vegas
I had a lot of fun watching that. I played a drinking game where every time he took a drink, so did I.
How are you posting if you’re dead?
Such a perfect example. I had the opposite of fun watching that the first time but it’s still one of my favorite movies.
Dancer in the Dark
Nah movies are ranked on a set of objective criteria such variety and use of color, the use of varied angles, runtime:budget ratio, and so on. Technically speaking the best movies are usually produced by accidentally dropping a cellphone from a hot air balloon
And sticking the landing in a pig sty.
Thank you for this; best thing I’ve seen all week.
In the same sense the point of food is to get you full. There’s more nuance to it.
I’m sick of these elitists telling me it’s gross to eat nothing but five cans of refried beans, like, let people enjoy things!
I mean, nobody wants to admit they ate nine cans of ravioli, but I did. I’m ashamed of myself… The first doesn’t count. Then you get to the second, then the third. And the fourth, and the fifth I think I burned with a blowtorch. And then I just kept eating…
That’s why I find myself staring at a half eaten jar of green olives or an empty sleeve of crackers during the wee hours. Sometimes we just want to get to the point and not bother with the journey.
Sure, but if I enjoyed eating the food it was good food.
junk food is still junk food, even if you enjoyed it.
that was the point of the comparison in the previous comment.
the nutritional quality of food has little to do with your enjoyment of it.
Great analogy. I’m going to use this next time someone tells me I should just ignore the shitty writing in self published books and have fun reading it.
Fuck you, I paid money for this, I get to bitch about why it sucks.
No idea why you’re getting downvoted. Did all the lemmings forget how to experience joy? If you like the art, it’s good art. That’s the whole point.
Dancer in the Dark
Movies are art, the point of art is to elicit emotion. If a movie does that, it’s probably a good movie.
Having fun is always a valid reason to watch a movie. And making a fun movie is a valid pursuit.
Buuuut at the same time movies can be more than just fun and some people really want that.
Expecting a movie to be more than just fun can lead to let downs.
Tl;Dr people take movies too seriously
Often times I find that highly rated movies aren’t fun to watch. They follow the ‘good movie’ formula and it shows. I really only like comedy and action movies, personally, but don’t want every movie to follow the hero’s journey. I don’t need them all to be the tale of an underdog who really has the greatest power. I don’t need the camera framing to hint at who the antagonist is.
I just want to see the girl and her dog defeat Predator or James MacAvoy’s beastly terror in Split. If they happen to also include some of the formula, that’s okay but it certainly isn’t what made the movie good to me.
Hey, one of my cringe memories that randomly pops up when I try to go to sleep!
“So what did you think, pretty good right?”
“Ahahah what??? No, it was shit!”
It was Wild Things, feel free to confirm that it was indeed shit.
Prime Neve Campbell and Denise Richard’s topless.
It was objectively great.
Unless, for some reason, you don’t like boobs.
Also, if memory serves its actually a modernized version of Shakespeare or someone like that, so there’s a hilariously high brow joke of “yeah, people thought his plays were trashy when they first came out too” thing going on with that one, but you don’t actually need to get that to be entertained by it
e; I misremembered so I’ll just quote the wiki page
Literary scholar John Thorburn notes that Wild Things is loosely based on several figures in Greek tragedies, namely Medea, whom he describes the character of Suzie as a “modern-day version of.”[5] He also notes that Kelly functions as a Phaedra-like figure, while Sam exemplifies both Jason and Hippolytus.[6] Thorburn suggests that the film’s "most under-appreciated element is screenwriter Stephen Peters’s obvious debt to classical mythology, tragedy and, especially, two Euripidean plays, Medea (431 BC) and Hippolytus (428 BC).[7] Suzie is met by police, Duquette and Perez, while reading Death on the Installment Plan.
I was 15 when it came out so yeah that checks out :)
Good movies are self-aware. Not everything needs to be a masterpiece of acting and cinematography, or have the best effects, or the best writing. But they have to know what they are. I don’t mean breaking the fourth wall or self-deprecating humor. More like understanding their limits.
The people making Sharknado knew they were doing a campy action film (series) with sharks in tornadoes. Fun Movie. Would watch again.
M. Night Shyamalan is a great writer and director, but a lot of his films have a feeling of over-dramatized self-importance, where it seems like he really wants you to know how clever he is. So they get panned.
Chrisopher Nolan (I think) puts similar importance on symbols and archetypes with a dramatic and artistic style, but his movies have a feel of like “I don’t give a shit if you get it, just enjoy the ride.” He makes good films.
The movie itself doesn’t even have to be aware of it. You just need some link back to it.
Take Street Fighter, The Three Musketeers, or Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. Absolute dog shit, all three of them. But then an actor appears who knows exactly what he’s in. All villains in these cases. They know it’s bad. It’s a pantomime. Amateur hour all over the place. The script is awful, the leads can’t act, half of them are snorting coke between takes, or getting drunk. They’ve been here before.
But they’ve decided that they’re going to enjoy it anyway, and now, so can you.
That’s absolutely true.
And one of the many reasons Hotel was the greatest season of American Horror Story. Everyone, but especially Evan Peters, seemed to be having the best time. It felt like good theater.
And, of course, every muppet movie.
the leads can’t act
Hey! I’ll have you know that Jean-Claude Camille François Van Varenberg (better known as Jean-Claude Van Damme) CAN act!
He was just too humble to show anyone until 2008!
Zak Snyder makes AMAZING visuals and set pieces.
He can kinda string together the main bits of a plot, but the dude can’t write to save his life.
Rebel Moon had the ingredients for a decent 7 samurai sci-fi thing. But holy fuck did he go so far style over substance with it that all the substance was left out 😆
Same with JJ Abrams, dude makes good visuals and can start a mystery box plot like very few can.
But for the love of all that’s holy, don’t let him decide what’s in the box.
Zak Snyder makes AMAZING visuals and set pieces.
I have never been able to set the brightness high enough to see them though.
George Lucas can do world building that’s a kilometre wide and a millimetre deep.
So many things that hint at depth: space ship models that are dirty, droids that are both futuristic but also somehow junky. Quick turns of phrase that make something seem both alien and familiar, like “moisture farming”. But, it seems like in all his world building he’s never once asked himself “Why?”
but his movies have a feel of like “I don’t give a shit if you get it, just enjoy the ride.” He makes good films.
This is very clear when he made Tenet, which i quite like it but a confusing maze. Heck i’m pretty sure 80% of the people doesn’t really understand what the heck is that even about.
I’m convinced he’s trying to see if there’s a limit to how many mental backflips an audience can take before they start to reign him in.
But before Tenet there was Primer, and it was a cult hit.
Imo most movies are kind of bad and I usually regret watching them.
But I kinda feel like this is because I can easily think of other things I would have had more fun spending that time on. So it’s a tangible loss to me.
FWIW I keep watching movies because I have seen a few that makes the pursuit worth it.
Must be nice to be able to just completely switch off your brain like that.
what
Sounds like 10% of the time you did not have fun watching a movie. That’s a bad movie.
Sometimes bad movies are fun to watch.
‘So bad it’s good’ is one of my favorites. But you have to be prepared going into it. If you start a ‘so bad it’s good’ film wanting something decent, you’ll be disappointed. If you go in planning to enjoy the terrible, ridiculous, and ridiculous and/or banality, you’ll probably enjoy it. If that’s your thing.
My favorites of this genre are ‘Hobo with a shotgun’, ‘Dead Snow’ (sequel is actually good), and ‘rubber’.
It’s not so much “so bad it’s good” because there are equally bad movies that aren’t fun to watch
Wasn’t Hobo with a Shotgun deliberately made as a “bad” film?
I had an idea to go to events that you believe will be disappointing.
If it is disappointing you were mentally prepared for it and can have a (respectful) laugh about it.
But whenever something mildly exciting does happen it will hit multiple fold.
Never convinced anyone to come with.
You’ve got a gambler’s spirit lol
Oh Rubber, what a wonderfully introduction to weirdness. Tubo kid, psychogorman, kooties, even the fortuitous one. It’s nice to see movie get made that aren’t made with an cookie cutter
Madame Web was actually so fun to hate watch. Take a shot every time she opens a soda.
Spoiler
There are two scenes where she holds a can of soda but doesn’t open them. She keeps almost opening them but never quite does. It’s hilarious.
They implied that they had no fun though.
Yes if you change the definition of “bad”, but there’s a name for that logical fallacy.
Yeah, there are good bad movies and bad bad movies.
Where are you getting your movies? Very few people are just raw-dogging random titles off a database. You mean you kinda enjoyed the movie that the Netflix algorithm showed you? Funny enough, I had almost this exact same argument with a friend the other day about how she “doesn’t believe there’s any bad movies.”
Man that hypothesis should be pretty easy to find a provide a counterexample for.
Velocipastor, The Brain From Planet Arous, Nude Nuns With Big Guns were all truly atrocious movies that were at one time part of the netflix catalog. Highly recommend all three for bad movie lovers.
And if they hate their friend, the star wars holiday special. That shit is just truly unwatchable.
Velocipastor is truly the Mona Lisa of awful movies.
Update: certified hilarious 😄
Bookmarked for future reference 😁
The king of shitty video game movies.
I go to my favorite piracy source and look at new releases. Its like sorting by New+All on Lemmy :)
Mortal Kombat Annihilation close up shots flips into your tv. The Director: More flips! Tighter shots! Flip! No continuity on haircuts or story or even muddy clothes. Just flip. Somersault! Get some ninjas in here with the flipping!
Good movie: the one you enjoy
Bad movie: the one you don’t
Simple as that, my metric of scoring isn’t good or bad, it’s whether i enjoy it or whether it annoy me. I pick what i watch and will go through review and score so most of the time i know i gonna enjoy it, but sometime an outlier will pops up. I’m still not over how annoyed i am for 28 Weeks Later.
That assumes that enjoyment is the only metric, which is common, but not universal.
Some people can think the movie is of high quality, but the subject matter isn’t for them, as an example.
Think of it like food:
Good food: the food you enjoy
Bad food: the food you don’t
Unless you’re basing good and bad on how “healthy” the food is (for whatever given metric of health you want to use)
And that assuming “enjoyment” is a single metric, because in the matter of fact, it’s an overall score with the combination of everything the critics use. If i like it i like it, figuring it out why and justify it is part of the critics job.
If you wanna translate that into food, then the good food will taste good and bad food will taste horrible.
Yeah. Nobody enjoys watching Requiem for a Dream or Schindler’s List, they’re still top films.
And somebody who includes health in their metric of enjoyment will have a different threshold
Those aren’t “enjoyable”, but they are entertaining.
And imagine that, judging entertainment on how much they entertained you.
What you’re saying makes sense except that’s not what OOP was talking about. They weren’t asking what definition of “quality” to use.
Indeed, but my comment was a reply to another poster who was implying a specific metric.
I was just trying to point out that metric isn’t the same for everyone, even a composite metric will differ person to person
Watch both Judge Dress films to understand the difference between a good film and a bad one.
Judge Dress
Say “yes” to Judge Dress
I want crossover movie with Judge Dress and Miss Congeniality.
Your dress is not pretty, you are under arrest.
And they’re both tremendously enjoyable.
Huh. 90% of the time I’m like “this is a bad movie”
I mean hey, if you have low standards, and you’re completely honest about it, nothing wrong with that… and it also puts the onus on the people with higher standards to actually explain why they do or do not like any given movie, easier to suss out the people who don’t actually have consistent standards, but instead just have an amalgamation of their favorite influencers opinions.
Win win win as I see it. I’m a bit of a movie snob, and I can explain why I do or don’t like a movie…
But I am also self-aware enough to realize that other people have other standards, and 90% of the time, if there isn’t some utterly reprehnsible trope or caricature or very very misleading depiction of real events in a ‘based on a true story’ type thing… eh, whatever, we have different tastes, wanna get pizza?
I have a friend who can rant for hours about why he hates Rian Johnson and what he did go starters. I think all the movies are good, the first 6 for sure huge nostalgia but I like the newer ones too.
Knives Out is a great movie
Brick is a masterpiece
This is exactly why we mainly get dogshit by people with nothing to say or any life experience.
This is why I hardly ever recommend movies.
My criteria pretty much boils down to “did it hold my attention” during the runtime?"
A “good” movie holds my attention An “ok” movie doesn’t hold my atttention 100% A “bad” movie ‘pushes’ my attention away
By that metric, 2001 is an “atrocious” movie. 🥴
Did u have fun is one part of good. So is did it make u think deeply about something, was it pretty, was the dialogue good, did it give u a new perspective, did it make u feel something. Etc etc
Movies can be fun bad tbh. They can have cheap budgets, horribly low quality CGI, but still be a fun watch.
Yea but this is telling the difference beyween a good and bad movie
Modern comedies have nothing on movies like asteroid-a-geddon, the shark side of the moon, or even the velocipastor.
Those movies slaps and are a guaranteed laugh!
Valocipastor is a bona fide masterpiece. Quietly confident that the sequel will also be fun.
Sharknado is also an all time classic
