But to spend all your time reading means you are either not very creative or you are very disciplined. I think the guy at 'Dumbass and the Fag' is very creative. He writes:What's really interesting here, beyond how simplistic everyone is, is that all these types of movie-goers typically defend their opinions with unrelenting passion. When a film falls outside of their little filter above, they've all got something to say. The Me-Geek says the movie ain't a-keepin' it 'real' (amazing! a movie not representing reality!). The Art Fag says a movie isn't an epic, profound, and life-changing experience. The Story/Plot Freak says a movie is too simple and pointless. Even The Dumbass—no, ESPECIALLY The Dumbass—will go into great detail about how the film fails as entertainment. And it's "just entertainment!", don't forget! "ART AS ENTERTAINMENT", of course, is a point that gets avoided by all of us humans, time and time again. Which is strange, because it's really the crux of the DUMBASS/ART FAG dichotomy. "What's wrong with just having fun?" is an interesting, earnest question... and it's that exact ambiguity that marketing executives and Hollywood types are counting on you having. It also allows for movies to be judged like some superficial icon—letting generic, mass-appeal be the real judge. That's convenient for demographics. If a heavy-handed poll (ignoring distribution) was made of the American public, it would probably conclude that most people do not prefer movies requiring slightly more thought. Are you surprised?But there is a way to get all of these people in bed together yet. In order for the Art Fag to enjoy Keanu Reeves without enlisting the help of at least one of the approved exogenous substances, he need only believe two things. One, that there can be greatness in things that are not altogether great. Two, that such greatness can be absorbed sub-consciously or with minimal effort. Even if it's as simple as being exposed to great color schemes and interior design. The Cockateer, though just shy of the AFI top 100 spermcount, did have some of the finest examples of lay-back interior design in film. So it's okay to watch Me-Geek or Story/Plot or even a Dumbass film as long as you take something meritorious from it. Or wait—that may be wrong—as I read more of his essay. It looks like my counterargument was anticipated. I told you this guy was the smartest guy on the internet: The opposite of the angsty "YOU SUCK, YOU SUCK!" guy above is the LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL guy—which is basically an exaggerated DUMBASS-type, who unconsciously plays the "look on the bright side!" game constantly. When a movie contains even one or two "clever" elements, it apparently validates the entire movie as being at least watchable—sometimes even good! Watching Half-Baked just to hear Bob Saget say "I sucked dick for coke," contrary to popular opinion, is not actually worth the two hour viewing experience. I wouldn't ask even my greatest enemy (Jay Leno) to watch Sleepless In Seattle simply because I like one of Meg Ryan's hats, no matter how much I hate him.
Okay, so could it just be a matter of how much? Perhaps there's a threshold at which there's enough good to make it worth it. If Bob Saget had said he 'I sucked dick' twice or had sucked 'two dicks' for coke, then I think we would all agree it was worth it.I have nothing to add to this.
People like Harry Knowles attend these shitty movies as a JOB, and somehow, time and time again, he's still shocked and aghast by how bad they are. What the fuck does he expect? (And why does anybody listen?) Simply put: critics that aren't jaded are either playing dumb or are actually dumb. Take your pick.