I’ve given a few examples of comedies I’ve enjoyed in this thread…
Oh, and what John Harrison said. 
Now here’s a reviewer after my own heart:
So “having good taste in movies” = “liking certain movies”?
Yep. Liking certain or most movies which happen to also receive critical acclaim, which is why I’m baffled by this box office phenomenon, since IMO it pretty much sucked.
“Having good taste in movies” = “agreeing with crtical consensus”?
That’s a bit too self-referential for my taste. YMMV.
It’s not the fact that some people don’t like MBFGW – I’ve never seen it myself. It’s the raw hubris and arrogance on display in this thread … that’s what’s grating.
Big Fat had a few laughs, made you feel good and was sort of a “secret” tip among friends at the beginning. It was nothing more than a 90 minute sitcom pilot - but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Likeable characters and no one dies at the end. Just proves that a lot of older people (and quite a few younger folks as well) do still like to go to movies - even if they are considered low-brow flicks.
Now if you want to talk truly horrible, cheapo, word of mouth success stories: BLAIR WITCH.
How that piece of crap ever became a hit and made money is mind-boggling.
You are right. Different people like different things about movies.
I ask rhetorically to no one in particular: who can say that there is some battery of “correct things” people must like about movies to have a valid opinion? That if you aren’t looking for those “correct things”, your opinion is worth less?
This is Cafe Society where movies are often discussed and critiqued. Not everyone always agrees and that’s a good thing.
Now, I may be wrong, but if you have personality issues with certain individuals, I don’t believe this is the forum for it.
:o
<shrug>
I’m making more of a big deal of it than it really is.
…
BTW, here’s something I found telling. Check out the viewer reviews of MBFGW here. The higher-numbered entries are older … the ones from #460 or so are from when the movie first came out.
Notice that back last spring & summer almost every viewer review was positive … some WAY positive. Now scroll up to the last two months or so of reviews. They progressively get worse and worse.
If that’s not (undue, IMHO) backlash in action, I don’t know what is. Must every movie that somehow makes big money justify itself to the critics as high art?
That’s not really the issue. Disagreement is A-OK. But, I haven’t seen any real critiques in this thread – nothing above the level of “I think it sucks”, anyway. Rather, people are appealing to themselves as movie authorities while not explaining why they feel the movie is so bad.
It may be backlash. It may also be that those people who REALLY REALLY wanted to see it were predisposed to like it because if its subject matter. They recommended it enthusiastically to people who were on the fence or who didn’t really want to see it. Those people perhaps were more likely to dislike it, and were disappointed with the movie, considering the overwhelmingly positive word-of-mouth.
hrh
I came from a large family, but am Episcopalian, of English/Dutch descent. I therefore identify more with Chris from Northern Exposure’s family than the loud Greek one.
It was just a ‘nice’ movie. Nothing spectacular, but I’ve paid for movies that were much worse.
The linked review I posted earlier in this thread pretty much somes up my feelings about this movie:
http://cmoore.com/peeps/chris/movies/reviews/60s.mbfgw.php
I’m amused by the fact that you’re defending a movie YOU HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN!
errr…“sums up”, rather.
It’s been said that comedies are the bane of movie critics. For as much as they would like to dismiss the plot holes or stereotypes or contrived situations, the bottom line is: Did people laugh? Few critics mention this in their reviews.
There are tons of great comedies which aren’t real critical masterpieces when it comes to structure or story telling. Like Office Space, or Stripes, or Hot Wet American Summer. None of these movies demonstrate amazing story telling, but they’re damn funny. Or at least they’re funny to enough people to make them a success.
For the record, I was dead set against seeing MYBFW, but eventually went to see it out of morbid curiosity. Against all odds, I loved it. Laughed out loud- a lot. Something I don’t do in many movies.
What made it funny? I dunno… Sharp observational writing, combined with great comic timing from a very affable, flawed, main character? Sure her beau was a one dimensional prop, but he was, in the larger scheme, a fairly small part of the movie.
Sorry you didn’t like it. But nowadays, if something as simple as a little independant movie can make so many millions of people happy (if only for 90 minutes), I’m all for it.
Oops… make that MBFGW (MYBFW?), and fix all that crappy punctuation, too.
I’m not defending the movie – and I advanced that I had not seen the movie to make that clear. I’ve pointed out my bones of contention previously in this thread.
How on earth would you know it’s “undue backlash” if you haven’t even seen the movie?
Tell ya what, go rent it, come back and then share your insight.
And some of us are baffled by your contention that there must be something wrong with either us or our tastes if we <gasp> enjoyed this movie. Hell, I’m equally baffled by the critical acclaim afforded (what I consider to be) crap like Pulp Fiction. So what’s your point?
That’s exactly my point. I’m baffled by a movie which I perceive not to be great at all breaking box office records, much like you were.
Ain’t life grand?
Because backlash against raw popularity is always undue, IMHO. To me, “backlash” means that people are holding a movie’s (song, TV show, band, etc.) popularity against it. It’s illegitimate to evaluate a movie while marking off points in advance because it’s popular (not saying you specifically are doing it, but some in IMDB are).
The way I look at it, even if I personally don’t enjoy MBFGW, the backlash is still bogus. I can recognize that my mere opinion is in a minority, and be happy with that.