I love movies but not sure I'd use the term cinephile. Anyhoozle, I'm game for a good blockbuster but I must admit that I haven't been able to trust Will Smith since
Independence Day. Harsh life lesson, that one, to learn to pace my expectations and to approach each movie on its own merit and efforts. Might as well throw Jurassic Park and its spawn into that group. I try to reflect on what I want vs expect vs what's actually being presented and whether what is GIVEN aligns with what was marketed. Or something like that. With the example of ID4, I (think) I was marketed a dark sci-fi alien invasion and got.... a lot of camp, IMO. Similar vibe with Jurassic Park, for me. No aliens of course
Side note tangent thingy: I think the MCU run and maybe the Batman reboot with Bale are mixed bags and probably deserve more criticism than my rant on ID4. The only real problem with ID4 was what I expected based on its marketing at the time. Had I known it was going to be what it was, I would have likely enjoyed it more (though I still probably wouldn't watch it again) in that it at least was
consistent with itself throughout. Completely implausible action and death-defying escapes? Eh, that's goofy as hell but whatever. That's this fiction so I can deal with it. I just didn't
expect that. I mean, didn't I see the White House friggin explode!? Death was EVERYWHERE!!!! But it wasn't. MCU/BM stuff, in contrast, presented ridiculousness in a somewhat serious tone. I could buy it and it felt anchored and approachable and reasonable---at least for what it presented itself to be. I think both did a pretty good job of that, but in doing so I think the
contrast of that consistency
against spikes of at times awkward character motivation, plot devices, or whatever made those moments stand out more from the movie's average. I felt that with Nolan's Dunkirk and (OMG I don't even want to type this word) Annihilation. dfgafga gfjanfhg a....
Rough edges become more apparent, IMO, when the product is generally so well made. If I buy a coffee table from Walmart and it's kind rough in structure and finish, eh, fine. It's Walmart and I went in with realistic expectations. I mean, table leg mounts don't align with the metal bracketing, bolts are too short, and there's a massive gouge on the side where a loading lift rubbed against the packaging in a warehouse. Whatever. Its average is pretty low quality to begin with so none of these issues stand out as major problems, to me. If I buy a similar table from a local custom, hand-made furniture store where attention to such details are important and
marketed, then finding a subtle rough edge (even if that edge is far better of a defect than the multitude of defects found in the previous table, and then only just the ONE defect at that) would stir much more frustration in me and would hold my attention much longer in comparison simply for my level of expectation and the original presentation of quality.
Now don't go off shouting I'm saying Nolan's Batman is like custom, hand-built sculpted work of furniture art. It's not. I'm only using that as example to reinforce what I am actually trying to say: Batman is a well-packaged movie. As such, and because I perceive a level of professionalism in its acting, directing, staging, etc., I then begin to expect a consistent level of standard throughout. When it misses that bar, I notice it more and call it out for presenting itself
as more. Sort of. I have a more difficult time finding those inconsistencies with other movies that people might consider to be more
cinephiley. It's just a different level.
Those movies seem to already start at that "other" movies' bar (shh, I don't want them to hear me talking smack about them) and only go up from there. For me, it's harder to find fault at that level as the measures I then use are more philosophical in nature. Not that there is a gouge in the wood, but why this particular wood was selected. Is it a statement on our environment? Is it symbolic of a capitalist society?? Are the legs representations of our mental stability (or lack thereof)? Those would be better suited for conversation than criticism, relative to my objective criticism of say my earlier custom built table. Or worse, the Walmart surfboard.
Hey. None of this is really an active thought process. It's more gut level I guess. I don't want you thinking I'm a nut, sitting in the back row of a theater drawing graphs searching for some S-curve level of balance. Well. I am KINDA doing that, but not quite that bad. Too, it's hard to see the graphing paper and most people frown on flashlights during a movie. hm... I just think all this sort of shows how I approach different movie types. Or at least how I
try to.
And maybe why you think there's more criticism to one set than another. If a movie is bad, I'll say it's bad. If a movie is good, well, it should have been to begin with I think, so no real need to draw attention to it in criticism? That could be part of it too, iderno.
OK, so I did warn you that that was a tangent. Like that one kid on the news, about turtles? Well, "I like movies." Classics, arthouse, blockbuster, B, straight to DVD, whatever. It's all good. I'd LIKE to think I measure each within its own limitations vs how it is marketed. Loosely speaking. See above, else I have to start in again and repeat it all.
Reply to Topic
.
Check out my podcast: 
