Obviously this is a silly exercise, as liking movies is more
or less subjective, but the points I make about the films on this list are more
about qualities a viewer should have.
The films discussed here are all excellent (with one possible exception),
and liking them may require appreciating certain aspects of them, or not focusing
on certain aspect.
This isn’t a list of obvious classics, especially since I
can understand not enjoying some of those critically acclaimed works. Citizen Kane may have had groundbreaking
cinematography and a story structure that broke the old mold, but it isn’t the
most enjoyable film I’ve ever seen, and those innovations have become less
noticeable as cinema has used them and even improved upon them. Schindler’s List is beautiful and pulls you
in emotionally, but I couldn’t blame anyone who found the film to be too
depressing for them to enjoy, since it is so emotionally draining. And plenty of highly regarded films
(especially comedies) simply don’t age well, either due to societal changes,
technological advancements, or cinematic tastes evolving over time.
Avatar
If we’re having a pleasant discussion and Avatar happens to
come up, leading to you spouting the idiotic oversimplification that Avatar is
Pocahontas in space, I’m going to know that your movie opinions largely consist
of clickbait Buzzfeed articles rather than independent thoughts based on
knowledgeable observations. And there
are two main reasons for this.
First, just because a film’s plot is familiar (and Avatar’s
surely is, with the noble savage/white messiah archetype, and the life being
about more than capitalism message), that doesn’t mean it can’t be done
incredibly well. The world in which
Avatar takes place is unbelievably fleshed out and visually detailed. The culture of the Na’vi is portrayed with
in-depth details most films don’t bother giving to real cultures, and the
Na’vi’s mannerisms feel both authentic and creative.
As a side note, it’d be pretty easy to dismiss many classic
films if all we needed to do was summarize their familiar plot/themes into a
sentence. Casablanca is just a film
about a love triangle. Citizen Kane is a
film about money not buying happiness. Seven
Samurai is about people selflessly helping others. Either all those movies were awful, or the
Buzzfeed logic doesn’t hold up.
The second and most obvious reason why you need to like
Avatar to gain my respect is that it is undeniably one of the most visually
impressive films ever made. If you had
asked anyone what they thought of the film after first seeing it in theaters,
you would have received glowing reports of a breathtaking film. The shots of Pandora are beautiful, the
details put into every shot make the film’s universe seem living, and it has
the perfect balance of the world being fantastical and realistic. If you can’t appreciate how beautiful this
film is, you are completely missing out on the visual aspect of the movie, and
I will find your ability to recognize one of the biggest aspects of cinema, the
visual aspect, to be completely unreliable.
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
This one is a bit tougher.
I can respect if a casual movie watcher finds the film to be slow. Any movie that starts with about 15 minutes
of scenery and characters staring before including dialogue can indeed be
considered slow. But, unfortunately, if
you’re seeking my approval, you’ll need the ability to not only power through a
snail’s pace, but enjoy the hell out of every single second of it.
Getting through a slow opening shouldn’t be too difficult
with this film, however. The opening
scenes are incredibly beautiful, as are nearly every scene from all of Sergio
Leone Westerns. Ennio Morricone’s timeless
soundtrack combined with perfectly placed diegetic sound that can be as simple
as a wheel repeatedly squeaking help create the perfect mood. And the characters give perfectly cold stares
and cautious performances which put the cherry on top of this tension pie that
you’ll need a knife to cut through (that was awful).
After the thrilling opening scenes that introduce the
characters, the pace rarely picks up (the final scene includes about 5 minutes
of staring, and I absolutely love it), but you’re treated to more cinematic
glory. Beautiful shots of terrain, the
back and forth between Tuco and Blondie forming a great friend/enemy
relationship, and the constant reminder of the horrors of war capped off with Tuco
running around a seemingly endless graveyard looking for a specific grave
hidden among the dead. And to enjoy it,
you simply need a little patience when watching the film. Not too much to ask, for this or any other
slow paced masterpiece.
Con Air
No, this isn’t about how Con Air’s story was revolutionary
and had a much deeper meaning than you realize.
No, I won’t name this on my list of best films ever. And no, this isn’t one of those times where
Nicolas Cage gave a surprisingly great performance.
The reason that I require liking this film is that it has none of the qualities we’d look for in a thought provoking, well made, critically acclaimed film. It’s a shitty action movie that isn’t particularly exciting, doesn’t have any great performances outside of Malkovich’s, and shouldn’t give you any sort of emotional reaction.
And yet, it’s ridiculously entertaining.
Everything Nicolas Cage says or does. Steve Buscemi providing an unnecessary yet
undeniably creepy character. John
Malkovich destroying a role that should have gone to any shitty actor that
looks somewhat scary, yet went to a phenomenal actor instead. Putting the bunny back in the box. Dave Chappelle lighting a guy on fire. The whole subplot of trying to get a guy
insulin. Landing the plane on the Vegas
Strip, then escaping via fire truck. So
many awful, yet undeniably entertaining moments.
The point I’m making is that sometimes you need to be able
to take off your film critic hat, stop analyzing the movie critically and
pointing out every obvious flaw, and just enjoy the ride. Sure, Thor is a shitty Marvel movie, but
laughing at Natalie Portman running over Chris Hemsworth in a car multiple
times is still enjoyable. Most kung fu
films with Jean Claude Van Damne have a shitty plot and terrible acting, but
rooting for JCVD when he does splits and kicks people in the face is a great
way to spend a lazy Sunday morning. And if
we’re branching out to television, Empire has a plot that is way too dramatic
and self-important, yet the ridiculous moments accompanied by Terrance Howard
somehow overacting during already over-the-top scenes leads to hilarity if you
can just accept it sucks and then focus on how you’ll find enjoyment while
watching it.
This applies not only to shitty films, but to films that
range from respectable to flat out impressive.
Hellraisers has a lot of cheesy, melodramatic moments, but it also has
unbelievable effects and a really cool, geeky story. Mad Max 2 has tons of unrealistic characters
wearing outfits that are significantly more homoerotic than practical, and may
not feature a single line of dialogue that I’d be proud to have written, yet is
one of the greatest action films ever and is the ultimate car fighting film. And writing You’ve Got Mail off as a silly
romantic comedy, which it is, robs you of truly charismatic performances by Tom
Hanks and Meg Ryan that make the movie enjoyable for anyone willing to put
aside their snoody cynicism.
Point being, you need to be able to enjoy a film that isn’t
perfect. Films can’t always be judged
against greatness, sometimes they need to be appreciating for perfectly
executing a lower grade of art, or succeeding in certain ways despite failing
miserably in others.
Annie Hall
This one is cheating a bit, especially since comedy rarely
ages well (except for physical comedy, like Charlie Chaplin’s work). It happens to be my favorite movie of all time,
and I’ll irrationally write off anything else you say about cinema if you don’t
like it. Deal with it, I’m too stubborn
to change.
There’s a deeper reason for including it on this list
though. Many people don’t like Woody
Allen films simply because Woody Allen makes them. I won’t go into a commentary of what he did
or did not do, you can form an opinion of that on your own. Those people quick to condemn any of his work
may have actually loved Annie Hall, Manhattan, or Crimes and Misdemeanors if
they gave them a chance, but won’t ever be able to appreciate them due to their
thoughts on the creator. My point is
that you need to see the film as just the film, and not a reflection of who
made it or who was in it.
Martin Scorsese almost killed himself abusing cocaine, and
the excessive drug use may have ruined his first marriage. He’s also the greatest American director of
all time and has made several of the greatest films of all time, some while
using cocaine and some while not. During
The Shining, Kubrick more or less psychologically tortured Shelley Duvall, yet
the film is considered one of the greatest horror films ever and Duvall’s
performance was magnificent (if unfortunately authentic). Hitchcock was by many accounts a mean, sexist
drunk, yet his films are amazing and he’s still considered the master of
suspense. And say what you want about
Tom Cruise (I surely won’t, since potential lawsuits scare me), but he’s been a
remarkably bankable A-List actor that’s been great in a huge variety of roles
for the past three decades.
Point being, films are made by humans who are never perfect
and usually have serious flaws. But
basing your opinion of a film on something that has nothing to do with the film
itself means that you aren’t actually analyzing the film, and are instead basing
your thoughts on what news surrounds a film, even when that information doesn’t
affect the film at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment