Why do we need to be "wow"ed?

[Hijinks]

Over the weekend I watched Troy on DVD. I hadn't rented it before because a.) I don't watch movies just because beautiful people are in it (although HELLO Eric Bana!!), b.) I'm not that into historical battle movies, and c.) I managed to avoid reading any Homer in high school or college, and figured I'd be better off reading that before watching the movie. But then I decided what the hey, it's just a movie for entertainment purposes. So I watched it.

Now, I had remembered people saying it was horrible, and nasty bad, and all sorts of things, but I didn't hate it (the only movie I specifically thought was mule puke in recent memory was "Dungeons and Dragons"). It was entertaining, as Hollywood films are meant to be. Granted, I didn't have the basis of the literature to be going by, so I just watched it and enjoyed it and mailed it back to Netflix when it was done.

Then because I was bored at work (shh!) I went to Netflix to read the reviews written by other viewers of this movie, because I was wondering why people thought it was so bad. It just seemed odd to me that people posted such reviews, as though the movie personally affronted them individually as human beings. One person posted that they didn't like it because it didn't fit the literature, which I can understand; if you enjoy a piece of literature, you want the film version to at least follow along.

However, some reviewers seemed so, well, angry at the movie. They said it was horrible and the acting was bad (I'm paraphrasing; they were much more effluent than this). I didn't think it was that bad for what it was: a Hollywood film designed to make money for the stars and the studio.

So now I wonder: why do we need to be "wow"ed by a movie to consider it a good movie? Why can't a movie just entertain? Why do folks get so bent out of shape about a movie? I mean, if I went to the theater (which I rarely do), I might perhaps get angrier if I went to see a movie that failed to entertain. But I rent through Netflix most of the time, and if I don't feel entertained by a flick, I turn it off. I guess I just see it as a symptom of modern American society that we feel that if a movie didn't "wow" us with its actors/actresses, its special effects, and its plot, that we get angry about it. I've seen reviews on this board as well where people seemed personally affronted by films, and it always made me wonder.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Well, keep in mind that the nature of reviews online is a more public, easily-displayed version of the classic customer service maxim: Someone who dislikes something will go out of their way to tell people that, while if they like it, they're much less likely to tell people that it was good. Take a film like Troy, that was OK, and the number of people proselityzing for it will be fewer, and the same number of people will hate it. For better or worse, it's human nature - amplified through the megaphone that is the internet.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, if you're not "wowed" by a movie, why bother to see it? Is "it was okay." enough to get the $9-$10 bucks out of the pocket, not to mention driving, parking, and food expense? If they want my money, they damn well better entertain me.

Doesn't have to be a "wow" as in best film either. I loved March of the Penguins and Winged Migration and silly stuff like Kung Fu Hustle. If it's no good, it's no good.

 

[Desdichado]

I agree; I thought the movie was surprisingly under-rated. It wasn't remarkable, but it certainly wasn't bad. In many ways I liked it better than Gladiator, which I always thought was overrated.

And I also tire of the penchant of many to rip every movie that comes out a new one just for not living up to some personal standard they set for it. Why watch movies if so many of them suck so badly? Are you a masochist?

My wife and I consider ourselves movie buffs to some extent--at least in the sense that we watch a lot of movies, and enjoy watching movies together, or with friends, or even on our own. But we tend to like most movies, and even movies that we recognize aren't very good, we can at least find some reason to let ourselves be entertained by them unless they are truly horrendous.

Which, IMO, Troy most certainly was not.

 

[takyris]

Maybe it's just me, but my personal pet peeve, which is sort of related to this, is the Internet Guy who says, "I saw the trailer, and this is going to suck, but I'll probably go see it anyway because I have to see any comic-book movie/ghost-horror movie/zombie-carnage movie that comes out."

While I am apparently better than the average person at gauging whether a movie is going to suck based on its trailers and commercials (rarely get false positives, have not yet gotten a false negative), I don't begrudge somebody who saw the ads, thought, "Dang, this is my kinda thing!", showed up, and was disappointed. I might disagree with whether their expectations were reasonable, but it's fine to feel disappointed. But knowing a movie is going to suck and then going to see it anyway just boggles my mind. Maybe these folks have a ton more disposable income than I do, but come on... if nothing else, vote with your dollar.

(I have a co-worker who complains loudly about all the "stupid chicks" he goes out with. He can tell that they're idiots after the first three sentences, but he goes out with them anyway, and then comes into the office to complain Monday morning about how stupid they were. It's annoying in much the same way.)

About a week ago, friends came up from California (to Canada, where my wife and son and I recently moved). On Saturday night, they volunteered to watch our son (eight months old -- we're still leery of not-personally-known sitters) so that we could have a rare night out. My wife and I were exhausted (just having returned from a massively stressful and sleep-depriving event with her family (Native American spiritual ritual involving doing a crapload of manual labor outside in the sun in Oklahoma in July)) and cranky and stress-crashing and thought that "Wedding Crashers" might help us rekindle a little romance in a humorous way. We showed up at the theater to find that it was sold out. The other movies that were playing included "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Batman Begins".

I said, "I wouldn't mind seeing Batman, but it's pretty dark and violent, and I don't know that I'm feeling like that right now."

She said, "We could see Charlie, but it looks weird and disturbing, and I don't know that I'm feeling like that right now."

Not a judgment on the movies. They're both doing well. But rather than do the "We're at the theater, we have to see SOMETHING" stuff, we acknowledged that we were in a place where a light but intelligently written comedy was what we needed, and if we couldn't get that, we weren't going to push it.

So we walked out of the theater and across the street and got a late dinner at a trendy and only slightly overpriced bistro, ordering two of the three vegetarian things on the menu. I even got a non-alcoholic dacquiri, which is always nice for me, since as a non-drinker, I'm usually stuck with soda.

You are not required to see movies you know you aren't going to like. Vote with your dollar.

 

[Hijinks]

Is "it was okay." enough to get the $9-$10 bucks out of the pocket, not to mention driving, parking, and food expense? If they want my money, they damn well better entertain me.

Yeah. I'm thinking most of the people who post the "angry" reviews about movies probably saw it in the theater and feel gypped out of their money. But I guess I, while not being the most negative person on the planet, typically expect movies to just be entertaining, and so I tend to rent rather than go see them in the theater. The only time I really go to the theater is if it's something that I really want to see, like a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, or something that looks like it's really good.

When I *do* go to the theater, I know that there's a chance it's going to not be as good as I think it's going to be. But some films, such as The Island, may look good in previews, but I'm just not that into seeing it, and so I'll wait until it's out on DVD.

As for the food expense, just do what I do and have your woman sneak in a 20 oz pop and bag of twizzlers in an oversize handbag.

I guess, in my mind, going to see films in the theater just encourages Hollywood studios to spend more and more money on movies; I feel like I encourage actors to request a $20 million salary per movie when I go to see a movie just because Soandso is in it. That's primarily why I rent films. And as such, I don't get mad if I'm not "damn well entertained." I shrug and say "meh, 2 stars" and mail it back.

EDIT: For the record, the last movie that "wow"ed me was Constantine. After the opening exorcism scene, I turned to my bf and said "That kicked ass!" Even one good scene in a movie makes it worth watching, imho.

 

[Einan]

In many ways I liked it better than Gladiator, which I always thought was overrated.

AMEN!

I fell asleep watching Gladiator. Thought it was horrible. Then I watched it again. Still thought it was terrible, but at least I managed to stay awake that time.

Worst Gladiator Movie Ever.

Einan

 

[Henry]

A lot of negative commentary in the General Internet Cloud is based on the idea that it's cooler and more individualistic to hate something, rather than to simply dislike it. Most don't stop at "eh, wasn't my thing, I found it moves too slow, etc." - instead, they go straight to "OMG Brad Pitt is so horrible he should be bashed in the kneecaps with a chariot and run over by an Elephant!"

Having watched Troy, i found it vaguely entertaining, not very engrossing or deep, and not worth my owning on a permanent basis nor re-renting. Commentators who stoop to crude expletives and satirical threats however do get on my nerves. Same thing with Sky Captain - it wasn't terrible, but it had a hard time holding my attention, too. I even fell asleep during it. Contrast that to a friend of mine, who I forewarned, but he got a very different feeling out of the movie, and thought it wasn't bad.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I remember when that came out the title of the review in the local paper was, "Brad Pitt is ripped and the Illiad is shredded".

I thought it was ok myself, but I would have loved to have seen the mythological aspect added in.

 

[takyris]

Heh. Henry, your Sky Captain post reminded me of a defense mechanism I have for when I do end up watching something lame: critique it, not out loud, but from a "If I were a film-maker, here's what I'd learn from this" perspective in your head.

I didn't hate [i}Sky Captain[/i], but it wasn't my thing, and I really felt like it should have been. I chalked it up to the director being so eager to recreate the conventions of the old pulps that he brought the lame stuff over as well, as well as the stuff that wasn't exactly lame but which wouldn't appeal as much to today's average viewer -- which is why we end up spending the movie with Polly when the average viewer would rather have seen Frankie get more screen time, since Frankie doesn't toss off naive one-liners or spitfire-gal retorts like 1930s-era Lois Lane and has less of a tendency to trip while wearing high heels. (Note I'm saying Polly v Frankie and not Gwyneth v Angelina, since there are all kinds of Jolie haters out there.) Sky Captain was a great exercise in genre recreation, and it had great effects, but it's a genre that isn't popular anymore at least in part because audiences want something else, and the good parts of the genre have already been co-opted by action movies and thrillers.

Sorry, hijack over.