dude is stuck at a toddler level
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
719 points (95.9% liked)
me_irl
6317 readers
1508 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I was about to say, I remember watching movies in childhood that I enjoyed the experience of, but did not take on board. It was a series of lights and sounds. I rate those films Stimuli/10.
I'm exactly like that, but the other way around. 90 % of the movies I watch I don't enjoy. Mayhap it's just not my medium. Makes the 10 % I did enjoy realy worth it tough.
I 100% get this and I think a lot of people are missing the point. It's like going to a football game without knowing the rules, which team is better, or who is winning and having fun anyway. It's not having fun watching people suck because shitty football can be funny.
Some movies (Marvel, Fast and Furious, Transformers) are Pepperoni Pizza. They are not a 7 course dining experience because THEY DIDNT SET OUT TO BE!
If you sit down to a pizza and tell me its the worst soup you ever had, you're a dumbass.
I don't think this is proving the point that the people who say this want it to make. If you're trying to champion what the movie is trying to be, then that's one thing. (i.e. Marvel movies want to be fun, fast paced, action packed, and humorous)
But championing what a movie is not trying to be doesn't really work. For example, saying that a movie isn't trying have the traits that make a movie good (pacing, plot, framing, blocking, cut speed, color grading, etc), especially when all those elements are present simply by virtue of the medium.
That's like saying a watch isn't broken just because it doesn't tell time. You can like a broken watch. It can be a fun fashion accessory. It can have a pleasing design or be comfortable on the wrist. But it still doesn't tell time. And thats not a dig on those who like it, it's just a true statement about the watch.
And that's awesome!
But please, don't rate the movies you watch 9/10. For those of us who watch most movies, an average of 90% is inarguable insane.
I'm so moved by this post that it consider writing a review of 5/10. Fortunately, I don't have enough to say to reach that IMDb character limit so 7/10 and no comment.
Oh and tv shows...if you're giving every episode 9/10, please stop, some of us are watching these things a decade later and it's best to know if it's actually worthy a 9.
That's also when reviews come in handy, because the reviews become our research. We don't write review for you, don't take it personally.
It's ok to be baffled. Some of us are used to seeing out the answer rather than post our brain droppings.
Turns out I had more to say than I thought.
✅ No spoilers.
Movies can be fun bad tbh. They can have cheap budgets, horribly low quality CGI, but still be a fun watch.
Yea but this is telling the difference beyween a good and bad movie
Modern comedies have nothing on movies like asteroid-a-geddon, the shark side of the moon, or even the velocipastor.
Those movies slaps and are a guaranteed laugh!
Sharknado is also an all time classic
Valocipastor is a bona fide masterpiece. Quietly confident that the sequel will also be fun.
Oh hi Mark
Mario Bros. Dune.
Good movie: the one you enjoy
Bad movie: the one you don't
Simple as that, my metric of scoring isn't good or bad, it's whether i enjoy it or whether it annoy me. I pick what i watch and will go through review and score so most of the time i know i gonna enjoy it, but sometime an outlier will pops up. I'm still not over how annoyed i am for 28 Weeks Later.
That assumes that enjoyment is the only metric, which is common, but not universal.
Some people can think the movie is of high quality, but the subject matter isn't for them, as an example.
Think of it like food:
Good food: the food you enjoy
Bad food: the food you don’t
Unless you're basing good and bad on how "healthy" the food is (for whatever given metric of health you want to use)
What you're saying makes sense except that's not what OOP was talking about. They weren't asking what definition of "quality" to use.
And that assuming "enjoyment" is a single metric, because in the matter of fact, it's an overall score with the combination of everything the critics use. If i like it i like it, figuring it out why and justify it is part of the critics job.
If you wanna translate that into food, then the good food will taste good and bad food will taste horrible.
Yeah. Nobody enjoys watching Requiem for a Dream or Schindler’s List, they’re still top films.
I mean hey, if you have low standards, and you're completely honest about it, nothing wrong with that... and it also puts the onus on the people with higher standards to actually explain why they do or do not like any given movie, easier to suss out the people who don't actually have consistent standards, but instead just have an amalgamation of their favorite influencers opinions.
Win win win as I see it. I'm a bit of a movie snob, and I can explain why I do or don't like a movie...
But I am also self-aware enough to realize that other people have other standards, and 90% of the time, if there isn't some utterly reprehnsible trope or caricature or very very misleading depiction of real events in a 'based on a true story' type thing... eh, whatever, we have different tastes, wanna get pizza?
I have a friend who can rant for hours about why he hates Rian Johnson and what he did go starters. I think all the movies are good, the first 6 for sure huge nostalgia but I like the newer ones too.
Knives Out is a great movie
Brick is a masterpiece
Sounds like 10% of the time you did not have fun watching a movie. That's a bad movie.
Sometimes bad movies are fun to watch.
Yes if you change the definition of "bad", but there's a name for that logical fallacy.
Madame Web was actually so fun to hate watch. Take a shot every time she opens a soda.
Spoiler
There are two scenes where she holds a can of soda but doesn't open them. She keeps almost opening them but never quite does. It's hilarious.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Me enjoying a movie does in no way exclude it from being a bad movie.
Seeing as I do enjoy watching bad movies. Terrible acting, bad cuts, awful dialog. I love it.
This is why I love Nicolas Cage films. But they're intentionally bad, campy and corny as an anti style.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Must be nice to be able to just completely switch off your brain like that.
what
Dude just watch the room and you will get it
Whether you had fun and the quality of the movie are not entirely related.
load more comments
(28 replies)
I did a Final Destination marathon recently to prep for Bloodlines.
While all the movies have their flaws and weaknesses, FD4 was garbage. Even as a easy to please person I couldn't handle it.
Genuinely terrible, I am shocked they wanted it to be the last one in the franchise, to the point they called it "The Final Destination"
Good movies are self-aware. Not everything needs to be a masterpiece of acting and cinematography, or have the best effects, or the best writing. But they have to know what they are. I don't mean breaking the fourth wall or self-deprecating humor. More like understanding their limits.
The people making Sharknado knew they were doing a campy action film (series) with sharks in tornadoes. Fun Movie. Would watch again.
M. Night Shyamalan is a great writer and director, but a lot of his films have a feeling of over-dramatized self-importance, where it seems like he really wants you to know how clever he is. So they get panned.
Chrisopher Nolan (I think) puts similar importance on symbols and archetypes with a dramatic and artistic style, but his movies have a feel of like "I don't give a shit if you get it, just enjoy the ride." He makes good films.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next ›