I believe that movies, maybe more than any other medium, are affected by what people bring to the table in the way of both expectations and "needs." Many folks on opinion boards, newsgroups, etc. harp on the notion that movies are only for "entertainment" and as long as one is entertained, that is enough...Of course, entertainment itself is subjective, too, but I think their theory is that a movie can suck (art-wise) and yet entertain. Sadly, some of these folks also think that any artistic film sucks simply because it is artistic. I'll admit that I enjoy popcorn flicks as much as art flicks, e.g. I own copies of both The Fountain
(LOVE the soundtrack and bought it the same day I saw the film) and crap like Underworld
and the updated version of The Italian Job
. Sometimes I just like to park my brain and watch bad guys get the crap kicked out of them and shit get blown up real good. Other times, I want to be pushed and have my intellect really pummelled by a WTF movie like The Fountain
. Not everyone has this duality when it comes to their taste in films, which is not meant to infer I'm better than those folks, just stating a difference.
I also agree that some people simply cannot enjoy a film because of subject matter. Kathryn, who really loves movies, HATES almost all science fiction...but she loved LOTR
and Narnia. Go figure.
For me, the only genre/type of film I hate enough to rarely ever watch despite how EVERYONE, even critics seem to love, are these recent silly comedies by folks like the Farrellys and crap like Superbad, etc. I tried watching Superbad
and lasted 10 minutes. I was shocked at how, IMO, offensive it is and I hardly EVER get offended at anything in a movie. I would rather rewatch a cult film like the original Vanishing Point
than something like Anchorman
or just about any comedy along those lines. And I love comedies...when they are funny (haha...subjective taste joke
For every person who considers 2001
to be a nonsensical acid-fueled pretentious bunch of crap, there is a person who thinks The Rock
is the nadir of cinema (I happen to like both of them, although obviously for different reasons). I can understand why seem people think 2001
is pretentious and I also can understand how a Michael Bay fillm is usually considered to be as brain-dead as Governor Walker of Wisconsin. For me, I don't watch The Rock
for anything but to see Sean Connery kick ass and Ed Harris do his usual madman schtick. Sometimes I want a greasy cheeseburger and sometimes I want haute cuisine.
Bringing it back to Battle: Los Angeles
, I am seeing it (hopefully this weekend) because (a) I like Aaron Eckhart (hell, he even made The Core
watchable) and (b) to me, it looks enough like Blackhawk Down
, which I loved, to make it worthwhile investing 2 hours and 6 bucks (matinee prices) and (c) hey. it's gotta be better than the current version of "V" and if I'm stupid enough to watch that every week - and I am - I may as well give this a shot.
PS Thanks to everyone who ha scontributed on this topic as I am REALLY
enjoying this discussion...