08.28.06
Bad movies
Leon has introduced me to a crazy new entertainment culture. He’s been at it for years apparently. But I’m hooked now. We go to bad movies. It’s great. You expect nothing. The worst bits are the funniest. And there are so many more options. When I wanted to see good movies I hardly ever went to the cinema. There was never anything good on. But there’s loads of bad stuff on. Snakes on a Plane was hilarious (and scary). Miami Vice was appalling for the most part. Colin Farrell was terrible. The Omen was great crack. (although again scary). I can thoroughly recommend the practice.
Pete said,
August 29, 2006 at 12:02 am
Do you check the reviews to avoid accidentally seeing a good film, or do you just toss a coin and trust to the fact that the odds are heavily stacked in your favour?
If this practise spread, it could send all the wrong signals to the film industry. It could even spawn a whole new genre, “Trying to be so bad it’s good, but trying too hard and just ending up bad, but if it’s really, really bad it might still be good”.
I couldn’t do it. Once I realise that I don’t care what happens to the characters, or find myself looking at my watch, it’s time to leave.
gerry said,
August 29, 2006 at 10:05 am
I think Pete the whole point of Snakes on a Plane was to make a movie in the so bad it’s good genre and it worked; it’s good (or bad, not sure which). The title alone began as an insider joke; it was considered the worst possible title for a movie. It was originally called Venom. so there is nothing so bad in Christendom that it hasn’t been thought of already.
Ann said,
August 29, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I love so-bad-they’re-good movies. I really enjoyed Miami Vice, purely because the dialogue was so, so bad. I also enjoyed The Break-Up even though it got poor reviews. I’m considering “You, Me, and Dupree” for the same reason. (Although I do have a sinking feeling that I’ve seen the best bits in the previews.)
We haven’t been to the cinema in a month and were shocked yesterday when we couldn’t find a single film we both wanted to see. Seems like in all that time, something watchable must have come out and still been in the cinema.
Donagh said,
August 29, 2006 at 11:17 pm
I always liked the idea of the so-bad-they’re-good movies. It’s entirely guilt free because its inevitable badness brought you there in the first place. Also, if your expectations are low enough then all the film needs is one good line or one good scene to be considered a good movie (or a not-as-bad-as-you-thought movie). But its risky. Sometimes, cliched dialogue and wooden acting are just irritating and remind you that you really should have held out until a decent movie turned up in IFI. There’s also the worry that you’ll spend the entire time in the cinema thinking more about the increasing numbness in your arse.
Kevin said,
August 30, 2006 at 3:46 am
Three words: Failure to Launch.
Sarah said,
August 30, 2006 at 9:13 am
ooooh. That was out before I adopted the new policy. I didn’t go cos it looked REALLY bad…
Daniel K. said,
August 30, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Didn’t everyone discover these pleasures when videos came out? That is partially how we ended up with the direct to Video (DTV) market.
‘The Stuff’ is a classic of the genre of so bad it’s good.
kc said,
September 10, 2006 at 10:23 am
Thank god there’s someone left in the country who can spell “crack”.