An Immediate Follow-up

As I was typing out my rant about Avatar, some of my co-workers started discussing it. I took a break to explain to them why it is the cinematic equivalent of a root canal, after which one of my co-workers turned to me and said "are there any movies you DO like?" This is, of course, a very silly question, but it is one that I feel deserves addressing. Why do I forgive some movies being shitty while others are given a much more hard line stance? So here is a run-down of what makes a movie in a genre GOOD.

Action Movies

The Good: The Die Hard Series (All 4), The Matrix, Desperado (or just about anything by Robert Rodriguez for that matter), Aliens, Terminator 2, Taken

The Bad: The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions, Alien 3/Resurrection, Terminator 3 etc.

The Difference: I watch action movies for mindless bullshit. Now this may make me sound like a hypocrite in the post below, but fuck you, keep reading. I watch them for self-aware mindless bullshit. What makes the Die Hard movies great is their awareness that they are simply vehicles for pure testosterone. You don't name a sequel Die Hard 2: Die Harder without absolute certainty that what you are producing should be taken at face value and not a degree beneath. There is no depth, but they acknowledge that, thus removing my expectation of depth and making it OK. Where these movies falter is when the first film succeeds and the makers mistake that success for appreciation of nonexistent depth and make more. Almost every action movie I hate is a sequel where they try to take a simple and fun idea and try to puff it up to contain both ball shattering action and depth (nowhere is this clearer than The Matrix sequels). The result is generally a mish-mash of pseudo-philosophical bullshit peppered with explosions, making the movies neither all fun, nor all thought provoking, and leaving the viewer annoyed and confused as to what the hell the filmmaker is looking to get out of them.

Comedies

The Good: Anything by Judd Apatow with the exception of Knocked Up, Anchorman, Zoolander, Dr Strangelove, most Kevin Smith movies, Super Troopers.

The Bad: Knocked Up, The (Adjective) Movie movies, Napoleon Dynamite, The Girl Next Door, Talladega Nights, Any romantic comedy except Down With Love.

The Difference: Honestly, the way I view comedies is very similar to how I view action movies in that I am looking for an opportunity to not have to think too hard and just be amused. What makes or breaks it for me is whether or not the jokes have staying power. Napoleon Dynamite had about 3 funny lines, all of which were immediately driven into the ground in weeks and lingered like the last guy at a party who won't take the fucking hint for YEARS. The (Adjective) Movie formula seems to have finally petered out, but they are another example. Congratulations, you mocked every media darling of the current year in your movie, but forgot to make it about anything. Family Guy does this all the time, sure, but given that it is a half-hour weekly show that I can see for free, my standards are lower. If I'm going to pay to laugh, I want them to be LASTING laughs. Every movie on my good list is something that has held up to sometimes dozens of viewings (Anchorman, Super Troopers, Clerks) and while they lose some of the initial riotous hilarity of the first viewing, they always make me chuckle. What's not OK is taking the same formula, same actors, and repeatedly changing the backdrop. This is why Will Ferrell movies after Anchorman fell apart so quickly and why romantic comedies will always suck. Hell Down With Love only made the list because it is an indictment of everything that is wrong with the genre.

Science Fiction

The Good: Blade Runner, A Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien, Star Trek: First Contact, Anything by Andrey Tarkovsky

The Bad: Avatar, Avatar, Avatar, Fucking Avatar, Equilibrium, The Battlefield: Earth (of course), and also Avatar.

The Difference: Notice anything about my "good" list? That's right, all but one (Alien) are based on books, and are about as faithful renditions as one can get to the source material. And actually, with the exception of 2001 and Tarkovsky movies, they're all Phillip K. Dick books. My sci-fi absolutely positively MUST make me think. That's why I count things like Terminator and AlienS as action movies. The point is, the characters must be believable, have clear motivations, and it must be clear how we got from the present to the circumstances of the film. Even if there are flying cars or deus ex machinae that magically predict a future that doesn't technically happen, I will forgive it as long as what is being examined is a relevant and relatively constant facet of human nature. It also has to be something I haven't seen the exact plot of elsewhere (which come on, should not be difficult since your setting is literally any fucking thing you can think of). If the characters are too future-y, I can't relate to their problems, stop caring, and it goes in the Avatar file. The exception to my stringent requirements is First Contact, because fuck you that movie is too good, and in spite of standard Star Trek camp, comes way closer to meeting all of my criteria than fucking Shmavafuck (I can't even type it's stupid, shitty, now apparently meaningless name).

Horror

The Good: Nightmare on Elm St 1 and 3, The Exorcist, Dawn of the Dead (both versions), Shaun of the Dead, 28 Days/Weeks Later

The Bad: Every other horror movie in existence

The Difference: The above movies have a few special features: I find the concept behind the Nightmare on Elm St. movies fucking terrifying, as I am not prone to having or remembering dreams, and when I do, they always freak me the fuck out, so they play to my personal fears. I can laugh at the camp and stuff, but when it's time for shuteye, I really hate myself for ever watching those movies, which is the sign of successful application of horror. Exorcist gets points because the first time I saw it it scared me shitless and I have never been able to extricate myself from that association with me as a frightened kid. Again, effective. The Dead and 28 (blanks) later movies are judged on different criteria. George Romero started the trend of, well zombies, but also the trend of using zombies as social or political commentary. So while there are many zombie movies in existence that I didn't mention (some by Romero himself) these are the ones that utilize the awesome power of the undead to convey the better points one can make with such a medium. Every other movie relies on cheap shocks, overuse of gore, or "tributes" to B-movies that fall flat on their asses (Rob Zombie, I am looking squarely, decidedly, and eternally at you). Generally though, fuck horror.

There is a whole swath of movies I have failed to mention here, and that is because they are less distinctly categorizable, and therefore tougher to make broad generalizations about what makes them great or terrible (A prime example of a missing film is my all time favorite, American Psycho). But I feel that this is a respectable summation.

So in conclusion, yes, there are PLENTY of movies I like.