Yuku free message boards

MikeTheMook wrote:

---

EVRYBODY loves Star Wars! I got caught up in the hype back in '77. Had to see it. It did nothing for me. EVERYBODY loves Pulp Fiction. Saw that one too because of all the positive hype. Hated it. Just two examples, and I could go on and on. Just because someone else says something is such and such holds very little weight with me anymore, be it about movies or whatever. I like what I like, dislike what I dislike and base it on my own feelings about it. And make no apologies about speaking thus. I will never miss a movie just because it gets alot of bad press, if I really want to see it. I make my own decisions, and don't let others make them for me. Just like I would never let anyone else pick my car, house, or woman. But they are sure free to offer their opinions.

Are there movies that 'everybody hates' that you love? Other than classic bad movies that some of us love because of how bad they are. I'm asking for some examples of recent releases that received overwhelmingly bad reviews that you think are great movies.

Joe Karlosi wrote:

---

vctrnsfgwee wrote:

---

Are there movies that 'everybody hates' that you love? Other than classic bad movies that some of us love because of how bad they are. I'm asking for some examples of recent releases that received overwhelmingly bad reviews that you think are great movies.

I mentioned THE HAPPENING ... just about everyone (fans and critics) panned it. I liked it very much.
THE ODD COUPLE II often gets bashed, I like it very much (or are you now going to try and insist that I use the word "love"...?).

I think you're trying to back out of your claim now by stipulating: "Other than classic bad movies that some of us love because of how bad they are." You initially made a statement that, if something is universally said to be bad, it makes no sense for a person to see it because the person wouldn't enjoy it. At first you made no such rigid rules such as "bad films you love because they're bad movies do not count".

It's all about having a good time and being entertained, isn't it? Whatever that means. I like DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN and FRANKENSTEIN 1970, and both films are always considered "bad movies" and they routinely get trashed. Now, please don't start trying to say "well, you don't consider them "great" movies, though, do you?..." Because it's all about enjoying a film or not, period. I just think the idea that "everyone says this movie is awful so I shouldn't see it myself because I'll also think it's awful and it will have no entertainment value for me, so why even bother" is a stubborn one, and unfair. The odds may be very likely that you'll join the majority and think it stinks too, but you never know 100%.

I'm not trying to back out of a claim. I made no claim. What I said was, "I just don't see the logic in wasting time on a movie that, by all indications is going to suck, when there are so many movies I haven't seen yet that, by all indications, are going to be good." That's the philosophy that works for me.

The classic bad movies that I love, like "Plan Nine" and other MST3K fodder are fun because of their badness. I've already seen plenty of the classic bad movies. I'm talking here about my future movie-going choices.

By asking for examples of badly reviewed movies that you enjoyed, I'm trying to understand the taste of other people. If you tell me you think that "Glitter" was a good movie, I can conclude that your taste and mine are so different that I can't really relate to your definition of a 'good movie'.

My philosophy may be stubborn, but I've gotten to an age where I feel like I've suffered through my quota of bad films. With the easy availability of so many movies I've never seen, it makes good sense to me to make a choice that I have confidence will yield the most satisfying experience. Seeing a new bad movie might be a satisfying experience for some people, although the consensus in this thread seems to be that "The Fourth Kind" provides a disappointing experience. A disappointment that could have been avoided if those who went to see it had trusted the critical consensus, which is what I was saying in the first place.

Bill Warren wrote:

---

Apparently you are unwilling to accept the fact that sometimes people see movies for reasons having nothing to do with the probable quality of the films.

Obviously they do. The critic who is obligated to sit through it and take it on the chin in order to warn the rest of us would be one good reason. I'm trying to understand what other reasons people would have, when making a choice between new releases, for choosing to sit through a film which those brave critics have warned them against.

For me, I might take a risk on a film if the reviews were very mixed but still largely positive. Or if it starred a favorite actor or was made by a favorite director. Or if its theme was of personal interest to me. But even with mitigating circumstances, I'd never waste my time on something like "The Fourth Kind" which, even though I like sci-fi and horror, is clearly, by overwhelming tally, a rotten movie.

Bill Warren wrote:

---

vctrnsfgwee wrote:

---

I'm trying to understand what other reasons people would have, when making a choice between new releases, for choosing to sit through a film which those brave critics have warned them against.

People have been offering you reasons, but you seem to disregard them. You seem to be saying that everyone should be guided by reviews, and never ever choose to see a negatively reviewed film, no matter what. I am not referring to critics (though that's why I saw the movie), but to others who choose to see movies despite the negative reviews. Perhaps they're very interested in the subject matter (I'm reasonably sure that's why Charles Thaxton, for one, saw it), perhaps they like this particular director, or writer, or actor, or production company. Perhaps they're a genre historian, which is a hard row to hoe these days. I'm dreading the time when I might have to catch up on all those Sci-Fi Channel movies, or other straight-to-video fare. I wouldn't be seeing the movies because (God knows) I thought they'd be good, but for other reasons. You seem to be addressing this subject as if there ARE no other reasons than quality to see a movie.
2010 has gotten very bad reviews (for the most part), but I'm definitely going to see it, probably before the week's out, for several reasons. One is that I like to keep up to date on SF movies. Another reason is that I'll probably be on a panel on SF movies of 2009 Thanksgiving weekend, and feel I need to be informed on them. (I may even see THE BOX for that reason, and that one had far worse reviews than 2010--maybe even than THE FOURTH KIND.).

I certainly understand if there are professional reasons one has to see a rotten movie. I would just never choose to do so. This weekend when many are leaving the theater after watching "2012" thinking, "Well that was a waste of time and money", I'll be walking out of a well-reviewed film and hopefully uplifted for the experience. To each his own.

Something else to consider, if people keep buying garbage, guess what'll keep being delivered to them?