Things Film Nerds Like That I Don't
If the world of cinema entertainment was a high school cafeteria I wouldn't be allowed at the cool kids table, where everybody is gathered around a Quentin Tarantino shrine chanting lines from The Departed. This is mostly because I don't like a lot of things that the general film nerd inteligencia seems to be obsessed with. It's not that I don't understand how somebody could like these things (well with a few exceptions at least), it's just that I myself don't find them very enjoyable for various reasons. My only hope for listing these reasons and explaining why is that you might find this interesting and hopefully I can find out that I'm not alone in my dislike of what many film nerds consider to be the holy grails of cinema. Mind you, this will also include some TV shows because more often than not a fondness for film goes hand in hand with a fondness for television. You may not agree with me, but this isn't your list.
Quentin Tarantino (except Pulp Fiction)
There are a couple of reasons why I don't care for the films of a man who is essentially the film-school bro god. For one thing, all of his characters are completely unlikable; they're all hateful, murderous and just plain unkind for no reason most of the time. The second reason is that I don't think Tarantino is a good filmmaker. When I think of a good filmmaker I think of somebody who uses the full potential of film: using edited images and sound to tell a visual story, with dialogue being used only when necessary like the title cards in films from the silent era. Tarantino, however, bases his entire screenplay around dialogue, preferring to let talking tell the story rather than visuals which are the entire point of a movie. Why not just have the entire film be a bunch of text being projected on a wall? It'd have around the same effect. His screenplays are better suited for stage plays than films, so maybe he could find a great career in writing really bloody parodies of Grease, Les Miserables and Anne Frank.
Any action movie made before 1991
I always cock an eyebrow when anybody says with straight-faced sincerity that any action movie that came out before Terminator 2 actually holds up at all. Have you even gone back to watch films like True Lies, First Blood Pt 2, The Predator or every single one of Bruce Lee's movies? They're completely unwatchable on their own and compared to modern action masterpieces like Mad Max: Fury Road, The Raid or Casino Royale they might as well be microwaved leftover roadkill. The stunts are laughably unconvincing and the special effects even more so. The characters are hardly worth caring about because a lot of the leads of these films aren't characters. They're just action movie stereotypes portrayed by body builders and insignificant politicians who can't act. The major problem, however, is that the action is always really slow. It takes forever for Bruce Lee to actually throw a punch and during that time Jason Bourne has been busy cleaning out the entire room. I admit that the reason so many of these films don't hold up is because of the technology. Action films are heavily restricted as to what they can do by what kind of cameras, lighting and stunt equipment are available, so anything that wasn't filmed with a moving camera or fast editing is going to look and feel slow because they couldn't keep the kinetic energy up (I'm going to clarify that statement by saying that I don't believe that shaky cam and fast editing, something that less talented action directors use as a crutch, are the be all end all of action filmmaking. However, in the hands of seasoned action filmmakers they have become invaluable tools which have risen the genre above and beyond what it has been in the past). However, this lack of suffiencient technology doesn't make them not suck anymore. Saying that these are still good action movies would be like taking the smoking remains of the Challenger to NASA and telling them with a straight face that it was still a perfectly good space shuttle. Maybe these films bring out a feeling of nostalgia for older audiences, but since I was born into the ADHD afflicted millennial generation these hold no such warm feelings for me so I'm free to see them as the ridiculous piles of crap they are.
Making fun of bad movies
The reasoning for this one is simple: in order to make fun of a bad movie I would have to watch a bad movie and I hate watching bad movies. I get the appeal in taking the piss out of something terrible, but I watch Nostalgia Critic or Jontron or hundreds of other reviewers on YouTube for that. I'd rather have somebody else watch a terrible movie and make fun of it for me than watch the movie myself.
Edgar Wright movies
Unlike Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright actually has talent as a filmmaker and I really admire him for it. He uses all the facets of the film medium at his disposal (editing, sound, visuals etc) to deliver a completely unique comedy experience unlike anything anybody else is doing. With that said, my dislike of his films comes from purely subjective tastes in comedy. I know this is going to sound odd or make me sound thick, but his movies are just too involved for me. The protagonists are way too invested in their goals and the stakes of the film that it's a bit hard not to take it all a bit too seriously. My taste for comedy runs within the vein of Wayne's World or the Deadpool video game; the characters so obviously don't care about the stakes of the film, so you're allowed to just lean back, relax and enjoy the 4th Wall humor at a slower, relaxing pace rather than the rapid fire pace of the jokes in Wright's movies. Wright might be one of the most unique comic talents to show up in years, but that doesn't mean I have to like him.
The Simpsons
The Simpsons, on the other hand, is one of the most boring comedy shows I've ever seen. I'll never understand people who unironically say that The Simpsons was, at any point in their history, a smart skewering of the standard sitcom family. The jokes have never seemed that clever to me. It just constantly seems like they're hitting the lowest common denominator in terms of humor about this famous person or that socially relevant thing. And maybe they started out as a subversion of the sitcom family, but since then the sitcom family has come to mean many different things. "Which sitcom family are you talking about?" somebody might ask. "Modern Family, The Cosby Show, Blackish?" I think that's the problem with the Simpsons as a whole: both its humor and characters were very much products of the time and now that the world has moved on the show just seems quaint now, like a 23 year old that just got up the courage to get into the kiddy pool and for some reason everybody is extremely proud of it for doing so. Even now after the 23 year old is still in the kiddy pool people talk about the first time it jumped in like it was some giant milestone in the progression of their lives. I don't get it and I never will.
South Park
I have the same problem with South Park as I do with the Simpsons: it may have been ahead of its time when it premiered, but the world has since surpassed it. South Park humor feels a lot like Reddit humor and with the invention of Reddit the existence of South Park was rendered kind of mute, since I can go online and find a much funnier version of whatever joke I just heard. It's actually kind of sad when a website for people who have no life (not discounting myself here) has supplanted and surpassed an established cable show.
Game of Thrones
You want a fantastical, smart subversion of the traditional fairy tale, with intrigue, political scheming and engaging, well fleshed out characters? Well if that's the case read the damn book because all this show has is gratuitous nudity and equally copious amounts of blood as poor replacements. Ok, that's not fair. It does have some of those shining elements, but they're definitely less engaging than when they were in the book and covered up by a massive, toilet paper-thin wall of boobs and violence and that can only hold my attention for so long before I begin to think, "Wow, that was done so much better in the book. I hope George RR Martin doesn't eat himself to death before he finishes the series."
Ridley Scott
I don't get what the big bloody deal is about Ridley Scott. So far as I've seen the man has made only one good movie: Alien and that's only because Alien had solid atmosphere and set design provided by the late surrealist HR Giger. Other than that it's all pretty terrible. Blade Runner was basically every other AI rights sci-fi story except 100% more boring. Gladiator was basically Ben-Hur only not as exciting or interesting. And Robin Hood had some potential, but was too pretentious to be any fun. The problem I have with almost all of his films is that I can never get invested in any of his characters and I think that's because there's nothing that stands out about them. Everybody goes on about how the connection to the crew in Alien is why it works so well, but the characters are so flat and indistinguishable from one another that I didn't care at all whether or not they died. Same thing could be said for all of his characters, which is a shame, because you get the sense that Scott at least tries to give his films a character-driven narrative. Too bad all his characters are crap.
Kaiju movies
Somewhere in the lost recesses of my childhood I loved the idea of giant monsters beating the crap out of each other. However, I have long since taken my childhood out back, shot it in the head and buried it in the river. Therefore, I have made the astute observation that most kaiju movies are just monsters with no personality beating the snot out of each other for no well defined reason while paper thin characters watch from the sidelines. Yes, I am completely aware that the characters aren't the point and the point is to see giant monsters fighting one another, but personally I require at least 2 dimensions to my characters and a reason as to why the monsters are fighting. I don't think a reason to get invested in the battle is too much to ask. I've really tried my hardest to like these movies more than anything, because I remember in my now dead childhood I really liked Transformers and it only makes sense that I should like the grown up versions of Transformers. But alas I have not been able to kindle that youthful spark that used to come with Saturday mornings, so I shall forever be that one guy who doesn't like giant monster movies. Oh well.
Martin Scorsese movies
Just like Edgar Wright movies, this comes down to personal taste and not criticism of the filmmaker. Martin Scorsese is truly a master behind the camera: able to get strong performances out of his actors and use visual storytelling to its fullest effect. My big issue is that I just don't like the characters in any of his movies and how are you supposed to enjoy a movie which has no likable characters? The protagonists of both Goodfellas and Wolf of Wall Street are wife-beating, drug abusing twats who commit unspeakable atrocities with the same casual ease one might scratch their butt. In The Departed there are at least "good guys", but they're not at all likable. Most of them are shouty, needlessly cruel and have serious anger management issues. Hugo was an interesting concept for a kid's movie that kind of went off the rails around the halfway point. The last couple minutes of Taxi Driver were pretty cool, but the whole concept of watching a creep go about his business and being creepy to other people was done so much better in Nightcrawler, which I'd seen only the previous year. And the ending to Shutter Island... HOW DID MORE PEOPLE NOT SEE THAT COMING A MILE AWAY?? However, I haven't yet seen Silence, which I've heard is pretty good, so I can't write off this deservingly acclaimed director of overrated movies quite yet.
Grindhouse films
It's the same issue I have with making fun of bad movies: why would you want to watch a bad movie? I get that some people see some sort of morbid pleasure to be wrung out of these "exploitation" movies, but I don't see it at all. If I wanted to watch a movie filled with copious amounts of gore and nudity... actually, I can't think of a scenario where I would ever want to watch that.
I'm actually really curious to see the comments on this one, which will be completely understanding of my controversial opinions, I'm sure. :| Anyway, I'd like to know why people who like these things find them genuinely enjoyable. What draws you to these things and what keeps you coming back for more? I'd really like to hear your explanations.
Quentin Tarantino (except Pulp Fiction)
There are a couple of reasons why I don't care for the films of a man who is essentially the film-school bro god. For one thing, all of his characters are completely unlikable; they're all hateful, murderous and just plain unkind for no reason most of the time. The second reason is that I don't think Tarantino is a good filmmaker. When I think of a good filmmaker I think of somebody who uses the full potential of film: using edited images and sound to tell a visual story, with dialogue being used only when necessary like the title cards in films from the silent era. Tarantino, however, bases his entire screenplay around dialogue, preferring to let talking tell the story rather than visuals which are the entire point of a movie. Why not just have the entire film be a bunch of text being projected on a wall? It'd have around the same effect. His screenplays are better suited for stage plays than films, so maybe he could find a great career in writing really bloody parodies of Grease, Les Miserables and Anne Frank.
Any action movie made before 1991
I always cock an eyebrow when anybody says with straight-faced sincerity that any action movie that came out before Terminator 2 actually holds up at all. Have you even gone back to watch films like True Lies, First Blood Pt 2, The Predator or every single one of Bruce Lee's movies? They're completely unwatchable on their own and compared to modern action masterpieces like Mad Max: Fury Road, The Raid or Casino Royale they might as well be microwaved leftover roadkill. The stunts are laughably unconvincing and the special effects even more so. The characters are hardly worth caring about because a lot of the leads of these films aren't characters. They're just action movie stereotypes portrayed by body builders and insignificant politicians who can't act. The major problem, however, is that the action is always really slow. It takes forever for Bruce Lee to actually throw a punch and during that time Jason Bourne has been busy cleaning out the entire room. I admit that the reason so many of these films don't hold up is because of the technology. Action films are heavily restricted as to what they can do by what kind of cameras, lighting and stunt equipment are available, so anything that wasn't filmed with a moving camera or fast editing is going to look and feel slow because they couldn't keep the kinetic energy up (I'm going to clarify that statement by saying that I don't believe that shaky cam and fast editing, something that less talented action directors use as a crutch, are the be all end all of action filmmaking. However, in the hands of seasoned action filmmakers they have become invaluable tools which have risen the genre above and beyond what it has been in the past). However, this lack of suffiencient technology doesn't make them not suck anymore. Saying that these are still good action movies would be like taking the smoking remains of the Challenger to NASA and telling them with a straight face that it was still a perfectly good space shuttle. Maybe these films bring out a feeling of nostalgia for older audiences, but since I was born into the ADHD afflicted millennial generation these hold no such warm feelings for me so I'm free to see them as the ridiculous piles of crap they are.
Making fun of bad movies
The reasoning for this one is simple: in order to make fun of a bad movie I would have to watch a bad movie and I hate watching bad movies. I get the appeal in taking the piss out of something terrible, but I watch Nostalgia Critic or Jontron or hundreds of other reviewers on YouTube for that. I'd rather have somebody else watch a terrible movie and make fun of it for me than watch the movie myself.
Edgar Wright movies
Unlike Quentin Tarantino, Edgar Wright actually has talent as a filmmaker and I really admire him for it. He uses all the facets of the film medium at his disposal (editing, sound, visuals etc) to deliver a completely unique comedy experience unlike anything anybody else is doing. With that said, my dislike of his films comes from purely subjective tastes in comedy. I know this is going to sound odd or make me sound thick, but his movies are just too involved for me. The protagonists are way too invested in their goals and the stakes of the film that it's a bit hard not to take it all a bit too seriously. My taste for comedy runs within the vein of Wayne's World or the Deadpool video game; the characters so obviously don't care about the stakes of the film, so you're allowed to just lean back, relax and enjoy the 4th Wall humor at a slower, relaxing pace rather than the rapid fire pace of the jokes in Wright's movies. Wright might be one of the most unique comic talents to show up in years, but that doesn't mean I have to like him.
The Simpsons
The Simpsons, on the other hand, is one of the most boring comedy shows I've ever seen. I'll never understand people who unironically say that The Simpsons was, at any point in their history, a smart skewering of the standard sitcom family. The jokes have never seemed that clever to me. It just constantly seems like they're hitting the lowest common denominator in terms of humor about this famous person or that socially relevant thing. And maybe they started out as a subversion of the sitcom family, but since then the sitcom family has come to mean many different things. "Which sitcom family are you talking about?" somebody might ask. "Modern Family, The Cosby Show, Blackish?" I think that's the problem with the Simpsons as a whole: both its humor and characters were very much products of the time and now that the world has moved on the show just seems quaint now, like a 23 year old that just got up the courage to get into the kiddy pool and for some reason everybody is extremely proud of it for doing so. Even now after the 23 year old is still in the kiddy pool people talk about the first time it jumped in like it was some giant milestone in the progression of their lives. I don't get it and I never will.
South Park
I have the same problem with South Park as I do with the Simpsons: it may have been ahead of its time when it premiered, but the world has since surpassed it. South Park humor feels a lot like Reddit humor and with the invention of Reddit the existence of South Park was rendered kind of mute, since I can go online and find a much funnier version of whatever joke I just heard. It's actually kind of sad when a website for people who have no life (not discounting myself here) has supplanted and surpassed an established cable show.
Game of Thrones
You want a fantastical, smart subversion of the traditional fairy tale, with intrigue, political scheming and engaging, well fleshed out characters? Well if that's the case read the damn book because all this show has is gratuitous nudity and equally copious amounts of blood as poor replacements. Ok, that's not fair. It does have some of those shining elements, but they're definitely less engaging than when they were in the book and covered up by a massive, toilet paper-thin wall of boobs and violence and that can only hold my attention for so long before I begin to think, "Wow, that was done so much better in the book. I hope George RR Martin doesn't eat himself to death before he finishes the series."
Ridley Scott
I don't get what the big bloody deal is about Ridley Scott. So far as I've seen the man has made only one good movie: Alien and that's only because Alien had solid atmosphere and set design provided by the late surrealist HR Giger. Other than that it's all pretty terrible. Blade Runner was basically every other AI rights sci-fi story except 100% more boring. Gladiator was basically Ben-Hur only not as exciting or interesting. And Robin Hood had some potential, but was too pretentious to be any fun. The problem I have with almost all of his films is that I can never get invested in any of his characters and I think that's because there's nothing that stands out about them. Everybody goes on about how the connection to the crew in Alien is why it works so well, but the characters are so flat and indistinguishable from one another that I didn't care at all whether or not they died. Same thing could be said for all of his characters, which is a shame, because you get the sense that Scott at least tries to give his films a character-driven narrative. Too bad all his characters are crap.
Kaiju movies
Somewhere in the lost recesses of my childhood I loved the idea of giant monsters beating the crap out of each other. However, I have long since taken my childhood out back, shot it in the head and buried it in the river. Therefore, I have made the astute observation that most kaiju movies are just monsters with no personality beating the snot out of each other for no well defined reason while paper thin characters watch from the sidelines. Yes, I am completely aware that the characters aren't the point and the point is to see giant monsters fighting one another, but personally I require at least 2 dimensions to my characters and a reason as to why the monsters are fighting. I don't think a reason to get invested in the battle is too much to ask. I've really tried my hardest to like these movies more than anything, because I remember in my now dead childhood I really liked Transformers and it only makes sense that I should like the grown up versions of Transformers. But alas I have not been able to kindle that youthful spark that used to come with Saturday mornings, so I shall forever be that one guy who doesn't like giant monster movies. Oh well.
Martin Scorsese movies
Just like Edgar Wright movies, this comes down to personal taste and not criticism of the filmmaker. Martin Scorsese is truly a master behind the camera: able to get strong performances out of his actors and use visual storytelling to its fullest effect. My big issue is that I just don't like the characters in any of his movies and how are you supposed to enjoy a movie which has no likable characters? The protagonists of both Goodfellas and Wolf of Wall Street are wife-beating, drug abusing twats who commit unspeakable atrocities with the same casual ease one might scratch their butt. In The Departed there are at least "good guys", but they're not at all likable. Most of them are shouty, needlessly cruel and have serious anger management issues. Hugo was an interesting concept for a kid's movie that kind of went off the rails around the halfway point. The last couple minutes of Taxi Driver were pretty cool, but the whole concept of watching a creep go about his business and being creepy to other people was done so much better in Nightcrawler, which I'd seen only the previous year. And the ending to Shutter Island... HOW DID MORE PEOPLE NOT SEE THAT COMING A MILE AWAY?? However, I haven't yet seen Silence, which I've heard is pretty good, so I can't write off this deservingly acclaimed director of overrated movies quite yet.
Grindhouse films
It's the same issue I have with making fun of bad movies: why would you want to watch a bad movie? I get that some people see some sort of morbid pleasure to be wrung out of these "exploitation" movies, but I don't see it at all. If I wanted to watch a movie filled with copious amounts of gore and nudity... actually, I can't think of a scenario where I would ever want to watch that.
I'm actually really curious to see the comments on this one, which will be completely understanding of my controversial opinions, I'm sure. :| Anyway, I'd like to know why people who like these things find them genuinely enjoyable. What draws you to these things and what keeps you coming back for more? I'd really like to hear your explanations.
Comments
Post a Comment