The movies you don't have to see

Coming right out of college, I'm definitely in that stage of needing to see as many movies as possible. This desire has led me to such recent films as Transformers: ROTFL, Monsters vs. Aliens, Indiana Jones 4, Hamlet 2, Eagle Eye, and Leatherheads.

I'm not sure I totally regret all those decisions, as they at least satiated some sort of craving, but I would say I really, really hope I move past this stage as well so I don't have to watch any more movies like the ones listed.

Though I absolutely agree that a person should carefully consider the target audience both before seeing and while reviewing a movie, I also think that it is dangerous to simply pigeon hole movies. The reason not to go see Transformers2 is not necessarily because it's based on a line of toys, but because it is a very poorly made movie. There are examples to the contrary.

A friend of mine refuses to see any animated movie. If this was because he simply had no interest in the medium, that would be fine. Instead, it is because he believes them ALL to be juvenile and beneath him. I personally believe that there exist some fantastic animated movies, especially those offered by Pixar, that are just as valid as cinema as any winner from Sundance.

All this is to say that, if “Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus” had a truly compelling story, well developed characters, and well drawn animation (and didn’t simply rely on its viewers thinking ‘YAY, BARBIE!’) then I would hope people would get past its girly toy beginnings and be able to appreciate it as a movie.

I saw Bad Boys(1995) when I was 7 with my family, I remember it as one of the best movie experiences I've ever had. It's up there with Terminator 2 and Star Wars as being some cultural celebration. Where everyone in the theater was in unison in their enjoyment. At least this is what I felt when I was 7. I rewatch it now and it's a cartoon. Turns out, what I liked about the movie was not so much the movie, but its impression on my family sitting next to me. Yes I thought the movie was cool and epic but what really sent my head flying was that both I and my family understood, appreciated, and enjoyed the jokes and explosions on the same level. For once no patronizing from them, no pretending to enjoy it, no forced half-laughs, no even understanding it on a high level than me, just in unison. The same way TDK has this empty self-seriousness that teens devour, same the the epic R-ratedness of Bad Boys, and seeing something that I wasn't supposed to be seeing but still enjoying it like it was a film for me, and that the people next to me were laughing their ass off on their own without having to look down over at me to remind themselves why they're there, is what really made the experience a great one. To be able to simultaneously think of the same joke or event from the movie with friends is what makes it a great experience. An unforgettable experience that I wouldn't give up for the world. The "cheapness" is what made that movie, it's what my family and the others in the theater enjoyed, it's why we were all in unison. Bad Boys is basically what Bay has been trying to remake with all his films. This is what I'm sure kids feel when they walk out of Transformers 2. And I'm sure they wouldn't give it up for the world.

Also, man you need to do a complete analysis of Zodiac(2007), or point me to one!

"When people ask me why I don't particularly feel the desire to keep up with, say, the new "Transformers" movie"

You *did* write about ten articles on the movie, you know.

But your post is dead-on. As a guy once wrote, the medium is the message. The fact that a person pays to see a Transformers movie (or listens to Jonas Brothers concerts, or plays Grand Theft Auto, or reads Harry Potter book) says more about them than what they think of the movie/music/game/book.

Or as another guy wrote, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

I'd definitely have to go with Magic of Pegasus. It's got the most character development, and who doesn't love unicorns? They're second only to rainbows as the stickers I'm most likely to put on my notebook.

Thanks for introducing me to the world of Barbie movies - I guess I will give "Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus" a try. The first line of "wakemans25" IMDB user review won me over: "Normally I try to avoid Barbie films, but this one was unmistakably awesome."

JE: I have only the reports of my four-year-old friend Suzy to go by. She likes "Island Princess," but has not offered an opinion about the direction. She says she also loves something she calls "High School Magical 3," although she hasn't seen 1 or 2.

We caught the new Potter over the weekend, which meant going early enough to get a decent seat, which meant subjecting ourselves to the bloated steaming pile of ads and extra trailers. The trailer for "2012" did not get the reception I think the marketing department was hoping for. You can tell when a trailer sets off a positive vibe in a theater audience, but in this case there were a number of audible groans and grumbles of the "oh no, not again" variety. I'm not sure exactly when Global Annihilation via CGI replaced Western as the deafult film genre, but when we get a dozen huge-budget versions of this schtick each year it seems like maybe we've crossed a line somewhere here.

You're the expert, Jim... can you tell me why the pitches for these films don't set off an alarm (perhaps accompanied by a trap door opening in the floor...)? It's like all studio execs are required to go through an extensive conditioning regimen so the words "We assemble an all-star cast and the follow them as they struggle to survive the catastrophic end of the world..." set off an involuntary pavlovian drool of $200 million dollar production budgets.

I suppose it's all about the money - it seems that even when the Apocalypse doesn't sell well, with worldwide gross and DVD the costs usually get recovered. I suppose if there's still that much demand, there will continue to be a supply. Hell, it would seem that Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay can crank out the same movie of mass destruction every other year indefinitely. They barely even bother to pretend that there's a different "twist" this time.

It's just frustrating. Whenever the "next big bang" rolls out, I can't help but think about the hundreds of 1, or 2, or even half-million dollar movies that could have been made instead. If popular taste has really degenerated to the point where pretty much any random 90-minute fireworks show can recoup a quarter-billion dollar investment, then maybe The End Really Is Nigh. Luckily for us, most folks won't notice anything different - they'll have seen it a thousand times before.

They say critics are inclined to overpraise the novel or the unusual. That's why. The blandness and homogeneity of the vast majority of movies gets to be mind-numbing if you have to not only pay attention to them, but write something about them afterwards.

For me that used to be true up until a few years ago, as the cinephiles took to the internet and the magazines and papers filled up with reviewers, not critics. Now I am amazed by the blandness that is considered good or great by so many Rotten Tomato drones. Even the "Cream of the Crop" offers little in the way of intelligent discussion anymore.

I'm old enough now to see what I want to see, put up archival photos on Facebook, and talk about Paul Verhoeven at a film club gathering. But if I did want to see everything released, I still wouldn't pay any attention to those easily bowled-over newbies now calling themselves critics.

Didn't some scientific study find that the brain was less active watching television than sleeping? Either way, it's clear some movies try to stimulate the brain...but most are designed to do the opposite.

After a hard day, with a tired brain, I suppose a CGI blockbuster is like a nap, since there's nothing for your brain to do. (I mean, c'mon, who's anti-nap?) But if that's not what you're looking for, it's great to have critics warn you ahead of time. Critics are the new early warning system, warning about incoming bombs just like radars during the Cold War did...

JE: It's true. Your brain is much, much more active in REM sleep. (Your eyeballs too, for that matter.) Dreams are some of the most intense, creative, imaginative experiences we humans are capable of having. We get some of our best ideas (and sometimes find solutions to problems that elude us when we're distracted by the mundanity of everyday life) while we're asleep. I can close my eyes and sleep through the loudest, most frenetically monotonous action movie because, when it's done ineptly, there is nothing duller. (Anybody remember Rob Petrie sleeping through "The Guns of Navarone" after a fight with Laura?)

@George G.

No offense, but do you see the irony of seeing previews for juvenile CGI fests in front of Harry Potter? Did you really think you were going to see previews for smart films in front of a big-budget fantasy kids movie?

Funny, I was just having this conversation by e-mail last night when looking at the yearly box office totals.

I see a lot of movies, thought not as many as I would see if I was: 1) healthier, and 2) lived in New York instead of Philly. I have seen more than 60 2009 releases this year and I'll probably see twice as many, if not more, from now until the end of the year (the pace always picks up much more at the end of the year, esp. with Toronto.)

But looking through the Top Box Office performers this year, I note that I have seen only 1 film in the Top 10 (Wolverine). I will see Harry Potter some time soon. I have seen 3 of the films from 11-20. Only 1 from 21-30. And only 1 from 31-40. And I liked precisely 1 of them - Coraline.

A total of 5 of the 40 films "the people" want to see. I look through the list and I'm hard pressed to find anything that I wish I had seen or plan to see on DVD. Out of sheer curiosity, perhaps I'll check in on the Pelham remake. That's about it. Gun to my head, I'd watch Terminator Salvation.

I don't know the staff critics can sit through so much trash and then try to come up with something intelligent to say about these movies. I would love a steady paycheck and a larger audience, don't get me wrong, but having to sit through about 30 more of those top 40 movies and write about them - that's a stiff price to pay.

Right now, I'll settle for picking and choosing what I review. But I have to admit... I'd probably take the paycheck. But I'd probably hate myself in the morning. Or at least any evening when I had to sit through Year One or 17 Again and then waste more of my life writing about them.

It's a shame newspapers view critics as consumer reporters, and insist that they waste all that column space on silly movies that are important for no other reason than that they cost a lot of money to make and have a lot of money promoting them.

Jim, what do you think would be the result of Michael Bay shooting a great script? One that not one director in a million could screw up.
Let's say for instance that Bay was given the script for Becket or Network or something. And those movies had never actually been shot. He was given responsibility for casting, and authority to change things if he thinks something isn't going to work -- in the script I mean.
Do you think it would end up as great as the real version, or do you think it would end up being "Transformers 3: Becket's Revenge"? in which Becket is saved at the last by magic transforming space robots?

Mr. L,

I have not only read "Harry Potter book," I have bought -- and read -- seven of them, with my own money to boot. I have also played the third installment of the Grand Theft Auto series and subscribe to HBO, a channel on which I have watched the first Transformers film. So, technically, I have paid to see that. In your words, this "says more about" me than my feelings on those things, which I have declined to state so that you may back up your assertion by demonstrating your inferential prowess. So what, pray tell, Mr. L, does all of this say bout me?

While Transformers 2 sucked hard, this kind of elitism, especially the kind expressed by John L. above, makes me about as uncomfortable as the racially insensitive robot twins of ROTFL. I don't think you should have to see the film, Jim, but you probably should stop writing about it so much. One might use the old adage, put up or shut up.

JE: That's interesting. What kind of "elitism" do you mean, and what makes you uncomfortable? Although I've mentioned "Transformers: ROTFL" in four posts (I think), none of them have been specifically about that movie. One was about "review-proof" movies, using this as the obvious current example. Another used an exchange between Megan Fox and Michael Bay to illustrate the way a reply to criticism ignored the nature of the criticism itself. And in this post I merely mentioned the title (along with Hannah Montana and Barbie movies) as an example of movies that aren't targeted at an adult audience.

A successful movie or novel can be "important" without being any good, because its success determines what will get to the multiplex or published afterwards.

That's why I defend "Armaggedon" as part of the Criterion Collection, "Top Gun" in "1001 Movies to See Before You Die," and "The Da Vinci Code" in "1001 Books to Read Before You Die."

None of those works are any good, but they're part of a complete artistic education.

To understand the CGI disaster genre, one should watch one of "Independence Day," "2012," and "The Day After Tomorrow," but, good Lord, there's no need to watch all of them.

To keep abreast of cinematic trends, it's important to watch one of the overlong, self-serious PG13 and R epics that have been coming out ever since "Titanic" ("Lord of the Rings," "The Dark Knight," "Gladiator," etc.), but you don't have to see every one of them. So go ahead and skip "Transformers 2."

Brandon,
Bay could never and would never be able to take serious literary work and adapt it. He's admitted on more than one interview that he wants to make movie "experiences" rather than traditional films. Look what he did to an historical event - Pearl Harbor. If I were a veteran from that event I would pull a Buzz Aldrin on him and knock him flat on his ass. He's surrounded by the best technicians in Hollywood and gets some of the biggest budgets, but he's just a glorified commercial director, interested only in money shots.

@Nick

"I have not only read "Harry Potter book," I have bought -- and read -- seven of them, with my own money to boot. I have also played the third installment of the Grand Theft Auto series and subscribe to HBO, a channel on which I have watched the first Transformers film. So, technically, I have paid to see that. In your words, this "says more about" me than my feelings on those things, which I have declined to state so that you may back up your assertion by demonstrating your inferential prowess. So what, pray tell, Mr. L, does all of this say bout me?"

My father is Mr. L. Please call me John.

Transformers on HBO was pretty obviously not about which I was writing. I was writing about paying to see the movie in the theater, not catching it on television or going to free screening.

A person who pays to see Transformers in the theater chooses to spend his or her (I'll assume you're a "his") recreational time and money on a PG-13 movie about children's toys directed by Michael Bay. Harry Potter books and Harry Potter movies are fanatsy books written for pre-teens. Grand Theft Auto is a violent video game meant for people who enjoy vicariously killing and blowing up things.

Some people are outliers. Someone obsessed with movies might see every movie out in theaters. However, the fact that an adult paid to see Transformers 2 to the exclusion of other movies means that they sought to entertain themselves with entertainment based on children's toys. Teachers and parents might read Harry Potter to better connect to their students or children, but someone who reads them for pleasure does so knowing that they're children's entertainment. And except for some hardcore gamers that play every game, the vast majority of the millions of people who buy Grand Theft Auto do so to exclusion of games of equal or greater gaming difficulty.

The common thread of all three entertainments is infantilism. All three entertainments were intended for children. One might be an outlier. All three is indicative of a person who had not progressed past childish entertainments.

I'm not claiming (or even implying) that you or anyone else is dumb for watching/liking/etc. Tranformers, Harry Potter, or GTA. Just that your tastes tend towards childish things. Adults shouldn't try to be entertained by media designed for children. There's only so much space between people's ears - an adult brain shouldn't be filled with childish trivia.

@zetes

I wasn't trying to seem elitist. Really. I've always thought of elitism as a synonym for snobbery. Someone who thinks that he or she is better for reasons of status, not for actual reasons.

For example if Person A thinks he's better than Person B because he drives a nicer car, that's elitist.

However, if Person A believes in slavery and Person B believes in civil rights, you wouldn't think Person B elitist for thinking his opinions are better. If Person A believes in burning books and Person B doesn't, you wouldn't think Person B elitist for thinking his position superior. If Person A loves dogfighting and Person B doesn't, is there elitism?

What about the 40-year-old who thinks Transformers 2 the greatest movie in the world, versus the 40-year-old who thinks Citizen Kane is? What about the adult whose favorite book is Harry Potter versus the one whose favorite book is 100 Years of Solitude? Or the adult that chooses a dinner of potato chips and ice cream over dinner at Galatoire's in New Orleans? Is it really elitism to rank one over the other in terms of taste?

This discussion caught my interest. There are a lot of different points of departure, so I might leave multiple comments:

So, if I find that I don't particularly enjoy sitting through dumbed-down remakes of old TV shows, even dumber feature-length "movies" based on dolls, or action pictures that show no understanding of spatial relationships (perhaps because they're programmed to resemble 2-D simulations to begin with), there's a darned good reason for that.

A few days ago, I was thinking about Buster Keaton's The General, a movie that I had the pleasure of watching for the first time last month. I also think you could make the following statements about it:

(1) The movie is essentially a live-action cartoon. (The Chaplin and Keaton variety of silent films no doubt taught the creators of Bugs Bunny and the Wile E. Coyote everything they know.)

(2) The fantastic action sequences are barely even two-dimensional, but the movement takes place on one-dimensional train tracks.

(3) The movie is widely and accurately regarded as one of the greatest American films (and action films) ever made.

The third statement would seem like a non-sequitur in relation to the first two, but I think all three statements are true. It can be a harmful exercise to put films into a box. In abstract, I think it would be possible for a person put The General into one of two boxes: either a cartoonish action movie, or a silent classic beloved by film scholars. Today, I think more people tend to put it in the second box than the first. However, the best thing to do would be not to pre-judge the film either way before seeing it.

The line of thinking expressed here: "The fact that a person pays to see a Transformers movie (or listens to Jonas Brothers concerts, or plays Grand Theft Auto, or reads Harry Potter book) says more about them than what they think of the movie/music/game/book." can be a very dangerous one. I would say that the exact opposite statement is true: What people tend to think and say about a work of art says much more about them than any sample size of their tastes could possibly say.

Suppose a man meets two women and strikes up a conversation about books. Both women say that their favorite book is Crime and Punishment. When asked why they chose the book, the first one responds: "I like Russia", and says nothing further. The second responds by analyzing its characters, themes, and language, with considerable insight. They both read the same book, and liked the same book, for completely different reasons. It's a terrible mistake to treat what a person likes as a measure of their intelligence, maturity, creativity, or insight.

Or, suppose you met two different people and struck up a conversation about favorite films. The first person says that Fellini's 8 1/2 is their favorite movie, and the second person selects Scream. When probed further, the first one can offer nothing original or insightful to say about the movie, but simply parrots back what she has heard from others. The second person offers an in-depth analysis of postmodernism, American culture, and sexuality as seen through Scream. Without hesitation, I would prefer to continue conversing with the second person. Go to the forums on IMDB any day of the week, and you will find examples of the first person (the intellectual poser) and the second person (the true intellectual filmgoer).

Intelligence is not something that can be measured by a person's tastes. There are countless reasons to appreciate or not to appreciate a work of art. There is no such thing as good taste, but there are only good reasons/arguments and bad reasons/arguments.

Watchmen is "relatively advanced sophomoric."

Please, pleeaasse!! Just ignore Transformers: ROTFL and maybe it will go away. Let's not even mention it by name. In fact let's refer to it "The movie which shall not be named".

The infantile, the juvenile, or even the relatively advanced sophomoric, do not automatically translate into "fun" for me. On the other hand, put me in a room with a toddler or a dog and I can engage in mindless play for hours and I'll have a blast. It's not as though I've lost my capacity for childlike play, it's that I don't necessarily seek it at movies that require no imagination and do all the playing for me (or at me) -- whether they're rated G, R, or something in-between.

Mr. Emerson: While I agree with the general position expressed throughout this post (that a film buff has no obligation to watch every movie released), I take issue with some of your reasoning. I think your argument moves too close to endorsing blanket pre-judgments not only of certain films, but of the people who watch certain films.

Your article seems to endorse an unstated assumption that there is some precise quantifiable spectrum of intelligence/maturity upon which films can be judged (and by extension the people who watch them). I do not think that you are alone in this belief, but it is a common one expressed by both amateur and professional film critics. Not coincidentally, you will also find that a person judges a film's level of intelligence/maturity precisely by their own personal tastes. It is not enough for people to appreciate that there are plenty of valid reactions to a film, but they require that different reactions to a film are evidence of intelligence and maturity. I believe that this tactic is a quasi-ad-hominem attack. Instead of saying that I did not like a film X for reasons A, B, and C, it's simply easier for me to say/imply that film X is stupid and immature, and so are all the people that like it. I think that this line of argument has no merit in any serious film criticism. It's a cheap, underhanded, and ultimately meritless way of trying to win an argument. If you possess true insight and intelligence, you will not need to resort to such tactics.

Take an example like Fight Club from David Fincher. Fight Club is one of my personal favorites, and I consider it to be one of the best-directed films I've ever watched. I probably could write volumes of analysis on the movie, scene-by-scene, and interpret it from a hundred different angles. If you were to discuss Fight Club among some intelligent film buffs, you would probably get two different reactions. One side would use the very same adjectives you used to describe Transformers (infantile, juvenile, sophomoric, targeted at teenagers). The other side would praise it, and say that the other side 'just doesn't get it,' thus implying that their opponents lack sophistication and intelligence. This type of conversation goes on every single day on film forums, not only about Fight Club but about countless other movies.

In actuality, I believe that both sides of that hypothetical argument are wrong. Both sides make the fatal mistake of equating intelligence and maturity with personal taste. Art is extremely complex human phenomenon. A person's response to a work of art depends upon his own psychological and biological makeup. Two equally intelligent people can hold two opposite opinions on the same film, for equally good reasons. If the debate did not devolve into a discussion about brain power, but if the two sides took the time to argue and analyze their reactions, they probably would discover the effect of things like emotions, personal experience, assumptions, and conflicting personal views on the core essence of art and filmmaking. Rarely does such a discussion approach that level, because people are so locked into equating (erroneously) their own tastes with their own mental sophistication.

On another note, I have a friend who writes movie reviews frequently. He's a smart guy, but he does have one annoying habit in his writing. For about a year now, every review includes some assessment of the film's relative level of maturity and intelligence. These comments never add anything of substance to the review. They really serve no other purpose than to try to make himself feel (and persuade others) that he himself is smart and sophisticated. It almost amounts to a form of bullying on the reader, in the same manner as the hypothetical argument above. If you want people to respect your opinion, then do not give lip service to your own brain, but instead embody your own intelligence and maturity within your writing. A well-written analysis should speak for itself. There will never be a need to self-appoint your arguments as superior, unless of course your arguments are weak.

On a personal note:
*I love The Godfather, Vertigo, Lawrence of Arabia, The Grapes of Wrath, Sunset Blvd., Taxi Driver, Blade Runner, On the Waterfront, The Conversation, Dr. Strangelove, Once Upon a Time in the West (nearly universally undeniable classics).
*I also love JFK, Fight Club, Oldboy, Memento, The Exorcist, The Wild Bunch, DePalma's Scarface, Requiem for a Dream, Star Wars, and Nolan's Batman movies (which all have more divisive reputations).
*I don't like Woody Allen, Judd Appatow, Kevin Smith, Michael Bay, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Superman, James Bond, Iron-Man, or anything with Seth Rogen. I have no desire to see any of those movies, and I will not waste my time.
*I am not going to pass judgment on people who like those things, and I'm not going to pretend that my taste is superior to anyone else's. I also hope that other people would show me the same respect.
*I am not going to argue which films are more intelligent that other films. Instead, I would gladly listen to any relevant arguments for or against the merits of any particular film. I will do my best to judge the quality of the analysis and argument rather than the object of the argument. I also hope that other people would do the same.
*If I wanted to, I could list a bunch of degrees and credentials to try to convince you that I am a mature and intelligent adult. It's just as easy to judge and to insult as it is to self-promote. Instead, I would prefer to let my writing speak for itself. True intelligence cannot be defined by a group of likes/dislikes or even opinions, but it must be utilized in order to have any significance.

JE: I'm not advocating pre-judging films -- I'm advocating doing your research (in part by reading critics you admire) to help you determine if you want to spend your limited time, energy and money on a movie you're not sure you want to see. I'm not typing the audiences these films attract, but the films themselves, due to the studio mentality that attempts to tailor the movies for what the studio execs think those audiences want. (And, too often, the box office suggests they're right.) That's a distinction I think is important and I'm sorry if it didn't come across. Here's a great item in Roger Ebert's Answer Man column this week from a 14-year-old, who writes:

I am a junior in high school. I would have walked out on “Transformers” had I not gone with a group who was willing to drive me home. As we exited the cinema, my friends were describing their favorite scenes, like “the car rammed into the building” or “that big-ass explosion.” As I tried to figure out not only why I was hanging around with these people, the words “that movie sucked” unfortunately slipped out of my mouth.

My friends stopped discussing “Transformers” (the only positive outcome of my comment) and looked at me the same way that Quayle looked at Bentsen. After a heated one-on-six debate, I walked home....

Hi John L. -

No offense taken - that irony was definitely not lost on me. In my own defense, I plead custodial duty - my daughter is a big Potter fan and couldn't wait to see it.

As a matter of fact, my earlier rant was motivated by exactly the juxtaposition you mention: This was not an art house Bergman retrospective audience here. Obviously the "2021" trailer was on this screen at this time precisely because the Marketing Types wanted to put it in front of millions of captive eyeballs that had self-selected themselves as big-budget CGI destruction epic enthusiasts by virtue of purchasing a "Potter" ticket on opening weekend. That such a mockingly negative reaction came from what (at least according to conventional wisdom) should have been a sympathetic crowd was what got my attention. It wasn't just the cinephiles saying "When you've seen one, you've seen 'em all..."

The title on Jim's post is "The Movies You Don't Have to See" and the fact that I was there somewhat by obligation helped contribute to my aagitation on this subject. Parents (like movie critics) often end up at movies they wouldn't have chosen to see if it was strictly up to them. The "Family" movie tag is often a misnomer, not because the film is inappropriate for kids, but because it's borderline abusive to adult sensibilities. This despite the fact that the filmakers know the kiddies generally can't get themselves to the cinemas or pay $20 for tickets and popcorn on their own.

I think a lot of parents (with kids of all ages) would appreciate Jim's proposed rating system, and we do turn to critics in the hope of being able to determind in advance what it is we're getting ourselves into. Many movies that appeal to young people may be dreadful, but they're at least honest and obvious - you know what you're getting with a lot of the animated kiddie pics, assorted movies about supernatural pets, and things like High Schoool Musical, Hanna Montana, etc. Parents of younger kids who see commercials or trailers for one of these at least know it's time to start dodging. At the very least you're ready to play "1...2...3...Not It!" - while someone is likely ending up in the theater with the younguns, there's no sense in paying for two adult tickets just because misery loves company.

Some "Family" films (Pixar produces some of the best and most consistent examples) you actually get an interesting, entertaining, well-made movie that can play as well to adults as it does to kids. Sometimes it's hard to tease these films out from the pile of commercials on the Disney Channel, and this is where critics (and Jims rating system, if it existed) can come in handt.

What gets my dander up about these allegedly live-action films (the assorted ComicBookTransformersGIJoeBayEmmerichDestruction pics) is that they deliberately obfuscate. Not only is it very tough to tell on the front end if you're going to get a decent movie or just a lot of light and noise, but they're deliberately shot and edited with enough intense violence and sexual suggestion to insure at least a PG if not a PG13 rating, even as they're marketed to the elementary school set (lots of toys, happy meal tie-ins, etc.) to maximize the "beg factor".

I know I came off pretty snooty and wound up in the last post, but I like a good adolescent entertainment flick as much as the next guy. ( I enjoyed the latest Potter as a fun popcorn movie. Shh... don't tell anybody...) I suppose what I'm banging on about here is not the difference between "Transformers X (Insert Wrestlemania Tag Line Here)" and the French New Wave. I'm really more interested in the difference between "Spiderman 2" and "Spiderman 3". I'm much less bored/annoyed by the presence of general mayhem than I am by the absence of any decent storytelling. If theres some clever dialouge, interesting premises and ideas, quality acting, engaging character development, striking visual style, etc., then it doesn't much bother me if the main characters happen to spend some of their time wearing tights in public, flying through the air, and reducing world landmarks to rubble.

Brandon's post cracked me up, and hit the nail pretty much on the head. Now I can't wait for "Transformers 4: The Lion in Winter" Starring Peter O'Toole as Optimus Prime.

"Suppose a man meets two women and strikes up a conversation about books. Both women say that their favorite book is Crime and Punishment. When asked why they chose the book, the first one responds: "I like Russia", and says nothing further. The second responds by analyzing its characters, themes, and language, with considerable insight. They both read the same book, and liked the same book, for completely different reasons. It's a terrible mistake to treat what a person likes as a measure of their intelligence, maturity, creativity, or insight."

I would agree with your point, except that I don't think that first type of person exists. I've heard of people loving Transformers 2 for the special effects and Citizen Kane for its complex characters - but I've never heard the reverse.

The problem with your Scream example, as it relates to this discussion, is that Scream was intended for an adult (well, late-teen at least) audience. Imagine instead, a person who loves Transformers 2 and provides an in-depth analysis of postmodernism, American culture, and sexuality of the same. Do you really want to talk at length with that person? If an English professor was teaching all the Twilight novels in a literary criticism course, would you want to take that class? If you attended Julliard, should you play Campdown Races at your recitals?

If someone's favorite book is Crime and Punishment, it isn't just because they like Russia. Has anyone ever met a person for whom it's so? Someone that shallow doesn't have what it takes to read and understand the book. Am I wrong? Is there a seven-year-old whose favorite movie is Synecdoche, NY?

Or to put it another way: is there a *better* measure of a person's intelligence, maturity, creativity, or insight than his or her taste?

@George G.

"I'm really more interested in the difference between "Spiderman 2" and "Spiderman 3". I'm much less bored/annoyed by the presence of general mayhem than I am by the absence of any decent storytelling. If theres some clever dialouge, interesting premises and ideas, quality acting, engaging character development, striking visual style, etc., then it doesn't much bother me if the main characters happen to spend some of their time wearing tights in public, flying through the air, and reducing world landmarks to rubble."

Yeah, what I've been trying to do (and probably failing) is to differentiate between (1) what we like; and (2) what we think is good. They aren't always the same. And I'm not trying to say there's anything *wrong* with liking Harry Potter, just that it is kid's entertainment. There's a difference between liking a movie and saying it's a good movie. The reverse is true too. I didn't like Slumdog Millionaire very much, but I'll admit it's a good movie.

To put my point the best way I can: if an adult regularly seeks out childish entertainments in lieu of adult ones, simply because he or she likes the childish ones more, that person has bad taste.

"Brandon's post cracked me up, and hit the nail pretty much on the head. Now I can't wait for "Transformers 4: The Lion in Winter" Starring Peter O'Toole as Optimus Prime."

Point of order. The movie will obviously be called "Trans4mers."

"They say critics are inclined to overpraise the novel or the unusual. That's why. The blandness and homogeneity of the vast majority of movies gets to be mind-numbing if you have to not only pay attention to them, but write something about them afterwards."

Try being a music critic! It's incredible how much music comes out every single week (that most don't know about), and how similar 90% of it is.

My movie tastes tend to the unusual as well, as a result of seeing and reviewing too many. I don't even care if a movie is bad, as long it is bad in a way that is different.

JE: Amen! That's why I had to stop being a daily newspaper critic -- it wasn't the general badness that got to me (you expect that), it was the sameness. That's hard to explain to people who don't actually have to spend time thinking and writing about the experience afterwards. A music critic friend once told me, when I said I had to go to a screening: "Oh. Well, at least you don't have to worry about somebody vomiting on your shoes." Good point.

Bravo! This is the essay in your repertoire that really strikes at the heart of what criticism is all about. The number of movies they have to see, and the maturity level. Thanks for this one.

Or to put it another way: is there a *better* measure of a person's intelligence, maturity, creativity, or insight than his or her taste?

If you were teaching film studies, would your final assessment be to ask for a list of favorites, or to ask for an in-depth examination of a single film?

Yes, I believe there is, and I have already identified it. It's a much higher standard than taste, and it requires a greater deal of effort. Talk to the person and listen to the person. Have a discussion about interpretation, and see what type of understanding, creativity, and insight they can apply to the work of art. There are plenty of people who like movies that show 'good taste' for shallow reasons, and plenty of people who like movies that show 'bad taste' for deeper reasons. Listing Citizen Kane as a person's favorite film (a generic choice if there ever was one) reveals next to nothing about the way the person's mind works. Comparing two different people's thoughts on Citizen Kane (regardless of how much they liked the movie, reveals a great deal about the way the person's mind works. Ultimately, what you watch and what you like is meaningless. What matters is how you watch it, why you like the things that you like, and what thoughts go through your head. It's a mistake to equate the experience of watching the film itself with a person's intellectual capacity.

(By the way, I actually do know people who appreciate Citizen Kane more for the visual effects, in a broad and literal sense of the phrase, than for the characters.)

JE: Well said. It doesn't matter what you "like" or "dislike" -- those terms could mean anything. What matters is what you see and what you make of it. That's why, as I say, I may have preconceptions about the next Hannah Montana film, but if critics I respect make it sound interesting -- confounding my expectations -- I may well check it out. I am not holding my breath, but stranger things have happened. Above, somebody brought up the example of someone who says they love "Crive and Punishment" because it's Russian. Which also could mean almost anything. My first question would be something like: "What about its 'Russian-ness' do you like so much?" Then, depending on the response, a real conversation might be possible.

Almost than 30 years ago, Isaac Asimov reviewed Battlestar Galactica. Unusually, he started talking about Star Wars. He said something like...

because it was a relative departure and therefore seen as different from what had gone before, it was expected that the makers would lose their reputations, their prospects, and worse of all, money. But, surprise! It made money. It made buckets of money. And studio executives looked at this and said, "Something different makes money!" and so they decided to make something different too. The same something different. (not an exact quote)

How else can you explain "Impact" and "Armageddon" coming out within 3 months of each other?

So, yeah, I don't blame you for getting down on the sameness of studio movies.

John L and Nick.

John, have you actually read the Harry Potter books?

I don't see many movies in theatres, and most of those I see, I see because the whole family goes. So I see a lot of animated family fare.

However, I have read probably over 1500 books in my life; and Roger Ebert's comment about movies - it's not what they're about, but how they are about it - applies to books as well. When a book is well written, it doesn't matter if it's a children's book or a pre-teen book, or whatever. It's good, and I'll be willing to read it.

The Potter series being 'good reading' does not make it 'good writing'.

For the record, I enjoy the series, and think it's fine children's literature. But it's not well-written. Read William James. Or Huxley. Or Forster. That's good writing.

I think it's unfair to Rowling to judge her books by that standard, though, as I don't believe they try to be more than they are - it's just that, due to the age we live in, the books became favorites for adults, as well, the vast majority of whom are not readers, and so were very happy to find big books they could read and enjoy without having to look up too many words.

I am not so quick to run out and see the latest blockbuster as I once was and this is a definite sign that I have matured. When I was a teenager, disaster films were the rage and nothing could keep me from the opening day of Earthquake or The Towering Inferno.

Today, when super-hero films are popular, I had no desire to see Watchmen and only did so because my film discussion group was going to talk about it.

On the other hand, I gladly went to see Iron Man and will see Iron Man II because I am always happy to see Robert Downey Jr. perform. No matter what the role, Downey will add some fillip of character or nuance of humor that will elevate the performance.

On another front, having recently turned fifty, I know I don't have as much time ahead of me as I once did and I am more loathe to waste it watching a crappy movie than I was as a younger man.

Indeed, I have become harder in my judgments of films, especially if they are mindless wastes of time. I really resent that now.

In fact, I often invoke Roger Ebert's oft stated Brotman's Law (sic) and if I am not interested in a film's story by the first reel change (about fifteen minutes or so into the film), I will walk out and demand my money back or a replacement ticket for another film.

And, believe it or not, I almost always get my money back or a free pass to another film. I do this without any shame either. At this point in my life, my time is most valuable to me.

Besides, I think I could live happily without ever seeing Transformers II: The Dragon Revenges The Empire in 3D or whatever implausible sentence fragment follows the colon.

It's important to remember that a person who watches one movie a month isn't actively developing taste. That person rarely has any interest in discovering something new or profound. They don't care if the movie expands the form, or give a new twist on a familiar genre.

Talking about movies with my friends and co-workers isn't very difficult, but talking about them with my family members is. My parents might go see a movie once every month, if that. I tend to watch about 5-10 a week. We'll sit down and watch something when I go home, and, if I don't like it, I always get some rap about how I don't like anything anymore. And it's a bad rap. I don't have any problem with their viewing habits, but I wish the fundamental difference in those habits from my own could be factored into the discussion more.

It's easy to be pleased with mediocre, or even bad art when you aren't familiar with the form. After years of listening to music with my father every other weekend, I tried to give up on "secular" music when I became a Christian. That lasted about two years. I couldn't stand it any longer. By the time I went to college, I had gone the complete opposite direction, and rid myself of "Christian" music. But, friends of mine have been able to stay the course, if you will, because they never cared that much about music in the first place. I guess it's their loss, but what am I going to say?

JE: Yes. There's always the matter of how much you have invested in the form. People who devote their lives to the love and study of an art (even a commercial art/industry), who have absorbed its history and a broad range of styles and influences, are simply more likely to CARE deeply about what they see. Something somebody else might shrug off as OK may strike a nerve with me because it violates what I hold dear about a medium I love. A gourmand is understandably offended when tasting a dish in which the ingredients are of poor quality, or have been badly assembled or cooked improperly. A cinephile or cinephiliac may feel the same way about an indifferently put-together movie -- because he/she notices what others less familiar with the medium wouldn't, and feels disappointed or even insulted by shoddy work, especially when it's passed off as art (or state-of-the-art).

P.S. The Rev. Al Green once made the same mistake regarding Christian music. (What makes it "Christian"? The lyrics alone? Historically, there's no uniquely "Christian" style or sound. The music of Jesus's time would have been Hebrew and Arabic, wouldn't it?) Anyway, Rev. Al finally saw the light, just as you did, so you're in very good company.

I can not stand this argument. I bet, if Metacritic or Rottentomatos was around 30-60 years ago, one would see many films now considered classic being destroyed by all the adult, mature critics. What was once revolutionary often becomes cliche and older generations trash often is championed. This arguement is way beyond whether or not people like Transformers, or Michael Bey.

When Oliver took the camera directly into Hamlet's brain for a psychadelic "To be or not to be..." was it bold or stupidly obvious?

Wasn't the original "Scarface", from the 1930's, deemed almost pornographic because of it's violense. Today is stands as an amazingly powerful example of the Rise Of The B Movie!

Natural Born Killers was some kind of misunderstood mastepiece, cutting too close to it's targets of satire for the mainstream to accept. It seemed destined to be refered by the next generation, yet no one talks about it. It is still the same bloated, unfunny mess it always was.

Maybe I am arguing themes more than style or substance, and I agree that an action movie with no sense of space can be frustrating to unwatchable. Blade Trinity and Tomb Raider jump right to mind in terms of inept film making.

But sometimes a film can rise above it's own problems, and those very issues become charming or even inspiration for new styles of film making. The first Transformers made no sense in plot or physics, yet it held charm enough for me to over look it and will still lead me to seeing it's sequel.

Toy Story was about toys from an older generation and I still maintain it is the most boring and sappy of Pixars films. Would I still feel that way it I grew up with cowboys and spacemen instead of robots and video games? Honestly, who knows? I hold by the theory that art is no longer in the creators hands once the audience gets it, and that opions and reviews say as much about the critic as the film itself.

Michael Bey works in cliches and salesman ship. But he does it with more ambition than nearly any other director of his ilk, and occasionally there is joyful and fun filmaking that results from it. The Speilburg like first hour of Transformers or the blender of cop movie cliches that is Bad Boys. So often critics and more thoughtful audience members concentrate only on what they expect to love and what the expect to hate. I love to read when Mr. Ebert is suprised by a genre film, it is a reminder of the humanity behind film and art in general. Suprise and revelation.

The Hurt Locker is getting wonderful reviews and is the reviving the career of Ms. Bigelow. Did Point Break or Near Dark get good reviews when released? Doubt it. But each are considered cult classics in their genre and Point Break might be the best dissertation on the nature of actions movies ever made. Where were all the supporters when she made that turd submarine movie or her ambitious Strange Days?

I'm sorry for being all over the place Ms. Emmerson and I do like your writing and value your opinions. Your point about the Barbie movies may be hard to argue, but remember, at one point whole genres and the film makers that loved them where dismissed as worthless and unfurtile ground also. Maybe the next Pizar wizard is testing his or her newest moves and tricks while making Bratz or Barbie DVD's. You'll never know unless you watch!

Thanks.

JE: You're arguing way past what I was saying, but you're right that when a filmmaker "breaks through" we can always go back and revisit their earlier, formative work. As you say, critics like Roger Ebert, who see hundreds of movies a year, are good sources of information about movies that unexpectedly rise above the mediocre. What I said was that I no longer feel the need to see everything myself because there are other ways I need or prefer to spend my time and money. I could still go to all the advance screenings of new openings, but I'd rather use that time to read or write or listen to music or watch television or DVDs of movies I feel are more worthwhile. For decades I saw somewhere between one and five movies per day -- often between 200 and 500+ NEW movies (i.e., new releases and older films I was seeing for the first time) a year. And I didn't just see them, I wrote about them. For many of those years, reviewing most of those movies was my job. Now it isn't, and I have other things to do. How many movies do you see per year, and how many do you review? With experience comes perspective. As I concluded, I no longer see everything myself, but I read about nearly everything in hopes that critics will point me to something surprising or unexpected that I may have overlooked. Today we also have the option of seeing films after their (greatly shortened) theatrical release, on cable/satellite or DVD/Blu-ray. There are plenty of opportunities to catch up with movies -- I don't need to be "first" to see EVERYTHING myself anymore.

While I agree with your article, you lost me at your revised rating system. In one case an "A" stands for "All are welcome" and in the other case it stands for "No kids allowed"? You can't have the same letter have different meanings based on which context it's used in. A rating system has to be simple if it's to have any practical use.

I never understood how a movie could be both "bad" and "fun." Even as a graduate student in a top-ranked film program, I hear my classmates describing movies in this way. We don't go to a restaurant and afterwards say, "Well, the food wasn't much good, but it was fun." To me, if it's bad, then it's bad. If it's bad I would have rather not wasted my time.

However, I'm starting to think that I should go see Transformers as an educational experience, to see what a truly poorly made movie looks like.

A movie is "bad" yet "fun" if you like it for a reason that isn't intellectual. Whether that be because of your mockery (e.g. Battlefield Earth), because of its action (e.g. Crank), or because of some other reason.

And sometimes bad food can be fun. Turkey is much better if sliced, but it's fun eating a drumstick on Thanksgiving. Much of the candy industry is built around the premise that people will eat medicore candy if they have fun doing it. So are corn dogs, Slurpees, and most food bought at ballparks.

No offense, but do you see the irony of seeing previews for juvenile CGI fests in front of Harry Potter? Did you really think you were going to see previews for smart films in front of a big-budget fantasy kids movie?

If you think Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a kids movie, you obviously haven't seen it. It's easily the most adult and sophisticated Hollywood studio movie of the year.

"Yeah, what I've been trying to do (and probably failing) is to differentiate between (1) what we like; and (2) what we think is good. They aren't always the same. And I'm not trying to say there's anything *wrong* with liking Harry Potter, just that it is kid's entertainment. There's a difference between liking a movie and saying it's a good movie. The reverse is true too. I didn't like Slumdog Millionaire very much, but I'll admit it's a good movie."

So kid's entertainment can't be good? See, this is where accusations of elitism come in. This statement implies that Slumdog Millionaire is a more worthwhile artistic achievement than Harry Potter simply because it's about a kid from the slums of Mumbai rather than a kid with a magic wand and a pet owl, as if the quality of the movie depends on the loftiness of the subject matter and the ages of the target audience. But as Ebert likes to say, "It's not what a movie is about, but about how it is about it." What does it matter if it's "kid's entertainment" (although, as I said before, the Harry Potter movies no longer qualify as such) versus "adult entertainment", as long as it's well-made kid's entertainment? Really, what's a better movie, The Wizard of Oz or The Reader? The former may be a kid's movie, but anyone who thinks the latter is a better movie is, I'd argue, perhaps someone with immature tastes.

That seems to be the general sense I'm gathering from comments on here, that movies can't be both "art" and "entertainment." To me, a movie is a movie, whether it's a Hollywood movie about superheroes or a Turkish film about Kurdish peasants. When David Yates achieves an impressive artistic feat like the latest Harry Potter in the same year that Nuri Bilge-Ceylan fumbled the ball with the awful Three Monkeys, I've learned not to question where I get my quality movie experiences from.

And Slumdog Millionaire is not a good movie. Every single Harry Potter movie is a better film than Slumdog Millionaire (yes, even the Chris Columbus ones, which aren't very good at all).

Oh, and Sean Luhks: bravo. Your post (the one in which you talk about Fight Club) should be posted at the top of every movie message board.

Irony isn't seeing previews of juvenile CGI fests in front of Harry Potter, it's being surprised by seeing them. I have to assume that's what was meant when John L.'s original comment was posted. It might also be considered ironic that a comment in this space referred to a Harry Potter movie as adult and sophisticated. It may be sophisticated - for a kids' movie, but the only adult thing about it is the number of them fantasizing about Emma Watson now that she's of legal age. Miss Watson is to nerdy sorts of varying ages yet equally childish mindsets what Megan Fox is to more mainstream tastes. And John, please don't lump video games, even (or perhaps especially) Grand Theft Auto in with examples of such tastes from other mediums, as they offer multiple ways to play and the particular way an individual chooses is more indicative of their personality than the game itself, unless Barbie is getting picked on again. Many video games, the GTA series in particular, are made by people who clearly have a great deal of affection for cinema and care about the story as much as the action. Having played a good deal of adult themed games though, I'll admit it's very difficult to maintain story continuity throughout a 20-50+ hour gameplay experience as compared to a 2 hour movie and in almost all cases the action is left to stand on its own for long stretches. Let's just say there are many games out there which contain story, writing, direction, themes, etc. that are far less juvenile than any Harry Potter movie, which you could consider isn't saying much, but if you don't play video games it won't matter to you anyway. I also don't believe there is anything inherently juvenile about experiencing violence vicariously through games, as it's just as legitimate a way to get such feelings out of one's system as discussing or writing about them, or whatever other thing a person could come up with that does no actual harm to people or property, yet perhaps less potentially positive than working out or chopping wood or some other similar activity. I find myself playing fewer games and watching more (mature) movies when I'm at calmer, more positive points in my life, however, so maybe I'm exploding my point like Michael Bay.

@Robert Fuller

"So kid's entertainment can't be good?"

Kids' entertainment can be trancendantly great. For kids. Goodnight Moon to my four-year-old self the greatest book ever written. And it's a fantastic children's book. But an adult choosing it for entertainment for any reason except nostalgia is a sign of massive immaturity, no?

I don't remember writing that Harry Potter wasn't a good movie, or worse in some way than Slumdog Millionaire. If anything, all I implied is that they're pitched to different audiences. That Harry Potter is pitched to pre-teens and Slumdog Millionaire to adults. As far as pre-teen entertainments, I'm certain that Harry Potter vastly outstrips Transformers 2 in terms of quality. I'd be certain that Wizard of Oz outstrips Harry Potter.

Just as in terms of adult entertainments, Slumdog Millionaire outstrips The Hangover in terms of quality. Even though I enjoyed The Hangover more than Slumdog Millionaire. Both of those movies outstrip the pandering dreck known as The Reader. Don't you see the difference beween what you wrote and what I'm writing?

"But as Ebert likes to say, 'It's not what a movie is about, but about how it is about it.'"

Ebert does like to say that. He doesn't exactly hold to it - see his reviews of Team America and The Girl Next Door - but that is immaterial to what we are discussing. I'm not saying that Harry Potter is bad because it deals with wizards and fantasy (or for any other reason, really). I'm just saying that its children's entertainment. On your advice, I read the first couple hundred pages of the first book. I stopped, because it's very clearly a child's book. There's no dressing it up as something more sophisticated.

"If you think Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a kids movie, you obviously haven't seen it. It's easily the most adult and sophisticated Hollywood studio movie of the year."

You could very well be right. That says more about the studio movies released so far in 2009 than it does Harry Potter.

@Sean

"Irony isn't seeing previews of juvenile CGI fests in front of Harry Potter, it's being surprised by seeing them."

I believe I covered that when I wrote: "Did you really think you were going to see previews for smart films in front of a big-budget fantasy kids movie?"

Read what I write before you try to start an argument based on semantics.

"I also don't believe there is anything inherently juvenile about experiencing violence vicariously through games, as it's just as legitimate a way to get such feelings out of one's system as discussing or writing about them, or whatever other thing a person could come up with that does no actual harm to people or property, yet perhaps less potentially positive than working out or chopping wood or some other similar activity. I find myself playing fewer games and watching more (mature) movies when I'm at calmer, more positive points in my life, however, so maybe I'm exploding my point like Michael Bay."

A sign of maturity, I think you'd agree, is that you don't get angry so easily. Time and experience are supposed to separate what you should throw fits over an what you shouldn't. If the general pressures of being an adult make you want to commit violence, then your maturity probably isn't where it should be. If you lose your job, a loved one dies, your wife leaves you, or your kid's a mess, and video games are your only release, then you have even bigger problems.

The latest Harry Potter movie is sophisticated and mature in its themes and aesthetics (such as having among the best cinematography of the year, not the "prettiest" but the most artful). What about it is so childish? The fantasy element alone? Gee, that's an asinine blanket statement. That's like saying that all animated and sci-fi fare are for kiddies because they don't deal with "the real world."

As I was watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I had a difficult time imagining why any kids younger than teenagers would want to watch it or why parents would want such young children to watch it. It's gothic horror that touches on themes such as the destructiveness of addiction and the fear of death. Even the moments of teenage angst have an air of chilly, existential despair. Nothing about it is fun and games, unlike the first half of the series.

You are free to dispute my arguments and defend your own, but please make an effort to explain what you mean instead of stating unsupported assertions.

"Childish" and "infantile" works are only judged so when they specifically appeal to base and immature interests. You can almost literally see/hear/feel them getting in touch with the "child inside of you." That's what makes Transformers, Hannah Montana, and the Barbie movies infantile. In many ways, an R-rated "adults only" action blockbuster like Wanted is far less mature than the latest Harry Potter. Something like Slumdog Millionaire is also quite juvenile, since it's a breezy fairy tale with childish conceptions of romance, optimism, and fate/faith. Its examinations of Indian poverty are rather superficial and slapdash.

Or what about the latest Pixar? It has many elements designed to appeal to children and "inner children," but the main story is about an old man's desire to fulfill his lifelong dreams as an act of love for his dead wife and about a boy's need for a strong, reliable father figure. Should it be dismissed as a "kids' movie" just because it's Disney/Pixar/animated/kid-friendly?

"I don't remember writing that Harry Potter wasn't a good movie, or worse in some way than Slumdog Millionaire."

Not directly, no. But you dismissed it as "kid's entertainment," and then said there's a difference between liking a movie and saying it's a good movie. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

"If anything, all I implied is that they're pitched to different audiences. That Harry Potter is pitched to pre-teens and Slumdog Millionaire to adults. As far as pre-teen entertainments, I'm certain that Harry Potter vastly outstrips Transformers 2 in terms of quality. I'd be certain that Wizard of Oz outstrips Harry Potter."

I still don't see what the target audience has to do with the quality of the actual movie. I mean, true, there are kids movies that don't aspire to anything more or even attempt to appeal to older audiences. But just because a movie is something marketed for kids does not mean it's strictly for kids, or that it can't aspire to be a great work of art.

"I'm not saying that Harry Potter is bad because it deals with wizards and fantasy (or for any other reason, really). I'm just saying that its children's entertainment. On your advice, I read the first couple hundred pages of the first book. I stopped, because it's very clearly a child's book. There's no dressing it up as something more sophisticated."

Well, yes, the first book is very much a child's book, but they grow more mature with each book (and each movie), just as the character does. But, wait, on my advice? When did I advise you to read the book? I've only been talking about the movies (the latest movie, specifically).

@John L.
I wasn't arguing based on semantics, just tired of seeing that incomplete sentence quoted by others. It was their re-posting of it that irked me, not your original post. Typos, etc. I can excuse, but not quoting them for no good reason. On the subject of video games, I don't advocate them, or any other form of entertainment, as one's only form of release, just stating that they are as valid a form of release as any other and don't deserve to be labeled juvenile on a level equal to Transformers, the Jonas Brothers, or Harry Potter. I think the average player of GTA probably has about as much use for Harry Potter and the Jonas Brothers as you do, and if you label it juvenile, you may as well label all video games in general as juvenile. I'm sure we could come up with some, perhaps many, movies or books that are celebrated as classic, or artistic triumphs that are in a large part about experiencing violence vicariously, and at least a few video games that contain as much intelligence and artistic value as the most admired movies and books.

@Robert Fuller

I am writing that the Harry Potter books and movies were written and filmed for a 12-year-old audience. As such, an adult who entertains himself with Harry Potter must regress to the mentality of a 12-year-old. That an adult who regularly does such engages in infantilism.

Calling a movie superior children's entertainment is not an insult in any way to the movie, the children who love it, or the overall aesthetical value of the movie. However, to denigrate Transformers 2 and praise Harry Potter seems ridiculous, as they are intended for, and enjoyed by, most of the same audience.

I will have to take your word that they get much more complex than the 1st book, although I find it unlikely. I'm not wasting any more of my time with them.

@Sean

I wasn't denigrating all video games. I have no doubt there are video games of immense intelligence and difficulty. I was using GTA as an example of a a video game that exists on an adolescent level. That GTA is designed for 15-year-old, not 50-year olds.

"On the other hand, put me in a room with a toddler or a dog ..."

NO!

Also: "not intended for anyone over 30"

that would be like someone who was 35 saying "well us over 20 year olds sometimes get back pain"

Oh, and Jim, don't knock Chia Pets. They're not toys (you don't "play" with a Chia Pet), they're definitely not for kids, and, being a big fan of kitsch, I think they're awesome. At least in theory (they're not really worth the effort it takes to maintain them).

@ John L.

"Just as in terms of adult entertainments, Slumdog Millionaire outstrips The Hangover in terms of quality. Even though I enjoyed The Hangover more than Slumdog Millionaire."

What do you mean by quality? Except for its rating, there is nothing adult about The Hangover. The latest Harry Potter film is a superior adult entertainment as is Up when compared to The Hangover.

Thanks for the reply!

You wrote: "For decades I saw somewhere between one and five movies per day -- often between 200 and 500+ NEW movies (i.e., new releases and older films I was seeing for the first time) a year. And I didn't just see them, I wrote about them. For many of those years, reviewing most of those movies was my job. Now it isn't, and I have other things to do. How many movies do you see per year, and how many do you review? With experience comes perspective."

I can only respond with this: I studied film in college and have a degree in Media Arts. I would never claim to 200-500 movies a year, but I do have some cred I think. I was raised having high art shoved down my throat by a Shakespere/Lit loving mother and perhaps as a result have gravitated towards the impressively dumn and visceral in film art. But also, perhaps as a twist on the last sentence quoted above I would say "With experience comes resentment."

I would give anything to have the hours spent watching such art fare as "Slum Dog..." or "Breach" or "Saving Private Ryan" returned to me. But I do lie! How would I ever understand how to find joy in and art (intentional or accidental) in "Rock N Rolla" or "Crank" unless I knew what bloated, smary audience manipulation was. Danny Boyle's best movie was about zombies and Speilburg's made at least a dozen movies more exciting and less obvious than "Ryan". Hell, I thought "Rambo" (2007) was a more thoughtful and understanding study of the hell of war than "Ryan" and it's flag waving, sappy, Ed Burns starring tom foolery.

Kitsch, spectacle and general over the topness are not for everyone, but they are no worse criteria than smarts or craft. Sometime, simply, smarts and craft can stangle the life out of a movie. Even Speilburg tripped over himself slightly in the otherwise perfect "Munich".

I am a huge fan of both Godard and the movie "Pootie Tang" and having just learned in an otherwise lousy Onion article that the DP on "Pooite Tang" worked with Godard for years, helping the great French master deconstruct his films as they where being made. I already loved the movie, and knew that it was smarter than it was given, and this knowledge did nothing to change or add to that love. It just gave me some more ammo against general snobbery and elitism. So thhhhhhhhhppppppppttttthhhhhhhh!

Sa da tay my Damie!

John L., I recommend actually knowing what you're talking about before discussing it. Reading Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, the book, does not prepare you for a discussion of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the movie, anymore than watching Disney's Alice in Wonderland prepares you for a discussion of Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass. One is one thing, and the other is another thing. Grouping them together under the banner "Harry Potter," just because they both concern the same fictional characters (although even the phrase "same fictional characters" is debatable... is Roger Moore's James Bond the same character as Ian Fleming's James Bond?) is absurd and meaningless.

"However, to denigrate Transformers 2 and praise Harry Potter seems ridiculous, as they are intended for, and enjoyed by, most of the same audience."

And again with equating the target audience with the quality of the movie. By this argument, to denigrate The Reader and praise Schindler's List is ridiculous.

The world is a much more interesting place than the black and white one you live in.

John L.: "I wasn't trying to seem elitist."

Congratulations, John-- you are able to succeed brilliantly at something without even trying!

@John L.

Not to belabor the point, but the assumption that art directed towards children entails the mental regression of its audience is simple minded. "Babe 2" is, technically, a filmed aimed at a younger audience, but it's infinitely more mature than "adult" garbage like "Crash" or "Mystic River." Seriousness doesn't always equal maturity.

Oh, and "Grand Theft Auto 4" was a hell of a lot more complex and plot-driven than half of the movies released last year. People get what they want from that game; if they play for simple-minded carnage, then that's what they'll get. If they play it because they enjoy being immersed in a fully interactive, highly detailed enviroment, then that's what they'll get.

"Grouping them together under the banner "Harry Potter," just because they both concern the same fictional characters (although even the phrase "same fictional characters" is debatable... is Roger Moore's James Bond the same character as Ian Fleming's James Bond?) is absurd and meaningless."

Make sure you post after you see Transformers 3. Apparently, it would unfair of you to prejudge the movie just because it has the same author/director, same premise, and same characters.

"Congratulations, John-- you are able to succeed brilliantly at something without even trying!"

If we've gotten to the point that to say Harry Potter and Transformers 2 are for pre-teens, not adults, is somehow elitism, then we've gotten to the point that the merely mature are the new elite.

I could understand if people were defending Harry Potter as superior children's entertainment. But adults defending it as some sort of intellectual exercise aren't adults at all.

"The world is a much more interesting place than the black and white one you live in."

And it's much more interesting than the fantasy world you live in.

Can someone please explain why Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, book or movie, is intended for children up to the age of pre-teens? I don't particularly recall anything childish or juvenile about it. Is a story with a scene in which a character forces a substance down the throat of a close friend, who begs for reprieve and death, intended for young children? Is a story with a scene in which a character's loved one is killed by an authority figure in front of his/her very eyes, while he/she is powerless to stop it, intended for young children? Is a story in which a character is commanded to commit assassination, under pain of death, intended for young children? How about a story in which a character who becomes so obsessed (i.e. addicted) to a powerful and seductive object that he/she fails to recognize how dangerous it is, to the point that it makes him/her inflict grave physical injury against one of his/her peers?

Yes, the first Harry Potter book and movie are clearly intended for children. Nobody is disputing that. But to characterize the entire series the same way is ludicrous without strong supporting arguments and examples. If you make the positive assertion that a story's content is overwhelmingly childish/infantile/immature/juvenile, then the burden of proof is on you. If I say that it lacks such content, then the burden of proof is not on me. There are some stories that lack both extremes and are thus truly "universal" and intended for people of "all ages," which means that you cannot claim that they are "for children" or "for adults" only, since to do so would be to make a positive assertion.

I do not need to revert to my "12-year-old mind" to enjoy the last two or three Harry Potter movies. My adult mind can appreciate them just fine.

"Make sure you post after you see Transformers 3. Apparently, it would unfair of you to prejudge the movie just because it has the same author/director, same premise, and same characters."

Same as what? The other two Transformers movies? I haven't seen either of them, so I couldn't very well prejudge the third movie based on them. I can, however, prejudge whether I want to see the Transformers movies based on having seen The Rock and Armageddon and determining that Michael Bay is not for me; that and my general disinterest with the premise. Just like you could prejudge whether you want to see HP and the Half-Blood Prince based on having seen HP and the Order of the Phoenix. But that's not what you're doing. You're prejudging the movie itself, claiming a movie you haven't seen requires the mentality of a 12-year-old to enjoy, even in the face of repeated assurances that it is not a movie for pre-teens. But apparently you refuse to believe this for whatever reason.

"I could understand if people were defending Harry Potter as superior children's entertainment. But adults defending it as some sort of intellectual exercise aren't adults at all."

Blue's Clues is superior children's entertainment. It keeps kids entertained, which is what its job is, but adults have no use for it. So calling something like the Harry Potter movies "superior children's entertainment," IS an insult, especially when millions of adults around the world are entertained by them. And yes, the movies are intellectual exercises, in the sense that all art is an intellectual exercise. I didn't love HP and the HBP the way a child would love it, I loved it for its crisp directing, beautiful cinematography and art direction, exceptional acting (Jim Broadbent in particular was brilliant), clever dialogue and sexual innuendos (yes, in a "kid's film"), and a subtle and elegant musical score, all of which was at the service of a very dark and compelling story. So, no, it is not children's entertainment.

@John L
You wrote, in various comments (and not in any specific order):
...to denigrate Transformers 2 and praise Harry Potter seems ridiculous, as they are intended for, and enjoyed by, most of the same audience.

I will have to take your word that they get much more complex than the 1st book, although I find it unlikely. I'm not wasting any more of my time with them.

I could understand if people were defending Harry Potter as superior children's entertainment. But adults defending it as some sort of intellectual exercise aren't adults at all.

If we've gotten to the point that to say Harry Potter and Transformers 2 are for pre-teens, not adults, is somehow elitism, then we've gotten to the point that the merely mature are the new elite.

Actually, the point we've gotten to is a realization of your awe-inspiring arrogance and condescension.

One can't praise Harry Potter if one denigrates Transformers 2? Simply because they're aimed at the same audience? Without any consideration of the relative merits of the two films?

Actually, the books do get more complicated. Rowling has, in my humble opinion, written each book at a level that can be appreciated by someone of Harry's age in each book. As he ages 1 year over the course of each book, the 1st book is written to be accessible to 11 year olds; the second for 12 year olds, etc. The last, for 17 year olds. Are they perfect? No; but as they are better written than most of the what is published these days, I can certainly understand how adults can enjoy them.

Event then, just because one is an adult does not mean one is incapable of appreciating art that is aimed at or accessible to children or pre-teens. Have you ever heard of art that functions at more than one level? Else, how could (e.g.) Roger Ebert provide positive reviews of movies such as Whale Rider, Bend it Like Beckham, etc., etc? In any event, having a piece of art, be it a movie or a book, take one out of one's own mind-set is all to the good.

Certainly your mind set could use some expansion. To equate every single adult who has read and/or watched Harry Potter stories as infantile, as not really adults, is incredibly arrogant. And lest you think that I am infantile, allow me to cite at least one person who might meet your lofty standards for maturity, Goethe:

To learn effectively, we need to rediscover the seriousness of a child at play.

John L, please address what I was saying. All that you seem to be doing here is saying the same things over and over without actually engaging anybody's points. Are so afraid to admit that you're wrong? Come on now, don't let us have the last word. It just makes you look bad.

I don't care if John L. dismisses Harry Potter 6 as being childish, or with more substantial criticisms such as citing a bad script, sloppy plotting, or a lack of imagination (opinions I don't personally hold, but for which a case could be made). I just wish his dismissal was based on the movie itself, or at least on one of the other comparable late installments (rather than on the first book), and that he did not insult the maturity level of its entire collective adult audience.

Regarding the Transformers 3 comparison, I might give it a chance if it weren't directed by Michael Bay. Maybe if it were directed by someone like Peter Jackson or James Cameron, who know how to direct a spectacle, it could be something worthwhile.
Even without someone like Cameron or Jackson, it might at least be bad in a different way, and bear little resemblence to its predecessors. Harry Potter 6 might not be better than the first one, but it is certainly different.

Nice comment on not bringing little kids to Watchmen. I saw Watchmen at 1:00 on Saturday afternoon and a couple brought in something like five kids with them (I'm under the impression they organized some sort of outing for some of their neighbors kids as well as their own). Their complete and utter stony silence at the film was actually palpable in the theater. How they missed the large letter R next to the title on the theater's marquee, I'm not sure. Perhaps they confused Watchmen with some sort of Justice League clone they just happened to have never heard of before, and just assumed it was PG-13.

Of course, PG-13 can still be inappropriate for kids and certain people, I thought, as I was leaving the showing room and bumped into ANOTHER couple bringing in a couple of three-to-four year olds and their GRANDMOTHER to see Watchmen. But R? Isn't that completely obvious?

When I first dismissed Harry Potter, I didn't realize that it was so controversial to say that they're children's books It seemed evident to me based around those I knew who read them, and what I knew of the content (boy wizard and friends fight evil sorceror). Because of your objections (most centered around "you haven't seen it so you can't judge!"), I bit the bullet and saw the movie.

I am big enough to admit when I'm wrong. I wasn't wrong. Harry Potter 6 is a movie for children and (maybe) early teens. To try to dress it up more than that is ludicrous. Just as a twelve-year-old watching Sesame Street would give you pause, so does a twenty-year-old watching Harry Potter.

What is adult about it? For all those who write that the books and movies must be adult because of poisonings, murders, "clever" dialogue, sexual innuendos, etc. - most pre-teen fantasy books and/or movies have things like that. See the Brothers Grimm, Golden Compass, Chronicles of Narnia, most Disney movies, the Wizard of Oz (books especially), most comic books, and countless others.

Harry Potter's cinematography was great. So were it's special effects. The acting was good. I appreciate that. It doesn't transform a movie about three teengers using magic to battle wizards to find potions and magic items any more adult. The emotions expressed by the characters are facile, the dialogue never approaches adult, and the plot is easy enough for a ten-year-old to follow with ease. All in all, it's a great kid's movie.

An adult can appreciate books and movies intended for children. If I were a movie critic, that would be part of my job. I'm not a movie critic, and I have no reason to watch them.

My brief foray into the world of Harry Potter is over. I've spent too much of my time writing and thinking about it. My opinion of those of you who are over the age of twenty and who are defending it as adult entertainment has not improved.

Why is it you, Mr. L, who gets to decide what is and is not for "adults"? Can "adults" still be struck in their imagination, and feel awe, regardless of how intellectually whatever a movie is? I haven't seen many of the Potter films or read any of the books and so can't speak about them, but I've got a nice collection of graphic novels/comics that I enjoy reading between thirty pages or so of "Notes from Underground" (or Suttree or Felicia's Journey or whatever I'm reading at the time). It's not because they're intellectually stimulating, it's because of the colours, the innocence and the excitement. The idealism of it. I feed my imagination, because no matter how great a [insert "adult" director's name] movie is, sometimes, you gotta see Daredevil save himself from a deadly fall with only his billy club and his wits. Can't that be beautiful, and isn't it being beautiful enough? And I'm a pretty mature guy - which I can't prove at all, but, I am, and I can say it. Who cares if it's aimed at a child? Don't you remember what it was like to be one?

And, Jim - I forgot the original reason I was coming here - I get what you're saying to a point, but I think that kind of attitude can keep people from seeing a lot of great movies. People might not see "Funny People" because it's stock full of pee-pee jokes, which I guess are intrinsically immature. But there's joy in it (and it's a great movie, even better than Ebert thinks). Tarantino's just an exploitation director, and Kill Bill 1 & 2 are just exploitation movies, but they're still the best genre fare since Leone. Geez, even the first "Hostel" is really well-made (which is hard for me to admit). These kids' movies are still made by adults, adults who probably aren't simpleminded man-children in real life. Shoot, I'm sure I could sit through a Barbie movie and find something to like - as long as whoever's making it was trying, with some modicum of skill, to make something they'd like. I think that's usually all that counts.

JE: Yes, and I addressed that explicitly in the post when I talked about the role of critics and friends in alerting you to good work in unexpected places. But Apatow, Tarantino and Eli Roth get more publicity than Michael Bay -- they're hardly "undiscovered." The reality is that moviegoers have lives to lead, and if you have the time and resources and patience to spend countless hours sitting through all the dreck to find the occasional surprise, that's great. Then you can perform the great service of letting us know how surprisingly terrific the new Barbie movie is -- something we would not have anticipated. Until then, most of us are going to spend our time elsewhere because the odds of simply watching everything in hopes of finding something worthwhile are not terribly good.

But what is "adult entertainment?" If a movie is entertaining for kids, does it automatically mean that it's not entertaining for adults? When I was a little kid, my favorite movies were Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark. They still rank among my favorites. I wouldn't call them kids movies, though. So how do you define "kids movie?" If all it takes to be a kids movie is facile emotions and dialogue and plots that kids can understand, you're talking about a large portion of noted film greats. Buster Keaton movies are kids movies by that definition. A movie doesn't have to be thematically or narratively complex or contain adult subject matter in order to be great. Your arguments simply make me think that you don't understand what a movie is.

But I think the main problem people are having with you is not that you label Harry Potter as kids entertainment, but that you look down on those who love it. I mean, I consider the Pixar movies to be basically kids movies, but if I looked down on all adults who loved them, I'd be looking down on just about every adult I've ever known, met, or heard of. So why label them as such at all? A movie is for anyone who enjoys them, regardless of age or any other delineation.

Heh. I was going to bring up the films of Buster Keaton (which I've often watched with my 11-year-old niece), but Mr. Fuller beat me to it. Not so much as a defense of the latest Harry Potter flick (which I also saw with my niece), but just to get a better sense of the, uh, appropriate framework and standards by which "children's entertainment" exists, according to John L. At any rate, methinks the comedians of the silent era are pretty much screwed here. ;)

Carry on.

John L, I am really wondering about two things:

1) What specifically defines entertainment "for children" and entertainment "for adults" in your mind? Don't use tautologies like "children's entertainment is entertainment suitable for children." That's meaningless. I'd like to see some specific examples and accompanied by explanations about why only an immature mind would be able to appreciate them.

2) Why do you seem to categorically and insultingly disparage those adults who disagree with you on what the target audience for a piece of entertainment is? (Example: You said, "Just as a twelve-year-old watching Sesame Street would give you pause, so does a twenty-year-old watching Harry Potter.")

There were so many things wrong with your most recent post. Let's go point by point:

1) "What is adult about it? For all those who write that the books and movies must be adult because of poisonings, murders, "clever" dialogue, sexual innuendos, etc. - most pre-teen fantasy books and/or movies have things like that."
First of all, I never said that those things automatically make a story "adult." And my examples in my last post did not even fall under any of the narrative devices that you named. You have once again failed to address what I actually said. All of those things that you named can be found in abundance in Shakespeare's most well-known work. Is Shakespeare intended for children? Why even bring up this point? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the story did not contain anything specifically "adult," why should it be automatically considered "for children only"?

2) Are you actually familiar with the original Brothers Grimm fairy tales? The earliest editions were widely deemed unsuitable for children and had to be watered-down. Here is more evidence of your ignorant self-righteousness.

3) "The emotions expressed by the characters are facile, the dialogue never approaches adult, and the plot is easy enough for a ten-year-old to follow with ease."
There are countless examples of narrative entertainment not aimed at children that can be characterized in the exact same way. Hollywood specializes in stories like that, even when the ratings are PG-13 or R. Are these automatically examples of children's entertainment? The average romantic comedy is like that. So are most horror movies and westerns. Not to mention sitcoms on TV. I could even make the argument that There Will Be Blood is like that. Or, I dunno, even Atonement.

Atonement allows me to bring up another point of discussion: What about stories that "told from a child's perspective"? Is To Kill a Mockingbird a children's book (meaning that adults who read it would "give you pause") because Harper Lee wrote from the perspective of a little girl and therefore should be accessible to young children? What about something that was intended for adults but has somehow been widely embraced by children, such as Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? Would an adult reading that book give you pause?

There also seems to be a troubling subtext underlying the quote above: Are you saying that children's entertainment can't feature complex/difficult/profound emotions and plots and "adult" dialogue? If so, then why not? Do you insist on limiting the possibilities of children's entertainment and patronizing/pandering to children?

And is there any sort of content that automatically makes a work "adult"? A lot of people, especially in the U.S.A., would say explicit sex and violence. Yet the certification boards in France and the Netherlands deemed the uncut theatrical version of Y Tu Mama Tambien to be suitable for 12-year-olds (so according to you, every adult who saw that movie had to revert to their 12-year-old minds in order to enjoy it, right?). There were plenty of parents, right here in America, who encouraged their young children to watch The Passion of the Christ (yet another movie with facile emotions, unsophisticated dialogue, and super easy-to-follow plot).

I only focus on Harry Potter because it illuminates the problems with your arguments and with your thinking. So please allow me to come back to it for a moment. One more time, what exactly makes it inherently childish? I am asking about this because I really don't understand how you're thinking. What I can only discern, through all of your posts, is that it is because the story features a child protagonist in a magic-driven plot.

First of all, just because a story features a child protagonist does not actually make the story a children's story. For example, consider a narrative about sexual molestation told from the point-of-view of a child victim. And how are stories about people who practice magic inherently infantile? What do you have to say about a particularly popular piece of literature called the New Testament, in which a character known as "Jesus" goes around performing such acts of magic as supernaturally healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine? And what's worse is that hundreds of millions of adults, including some of the most intelligent, influential, and serious adults in the world, actually believe in this character and even occasionally utter magical incantations ("prayers") to him in hopes of inducing some supernatural improvement in their lives. There is even a field of study, in some institutions of higher education, that is entirely devoted to the understanding and defense of this Jesus character and the stories about him, which is called "theology."

What's clear is that you have taken an oversimplification of the premise ("boy wizard battles evil wizard") as the basis for your bias against the story. So even though there is not one thing else remotely childish about it, you still refuse to see it as suitable or intended for anyone other than young children. How reasonable is that? For the record, let me just say that "warring factions of giant robots from space who take Earth as their battlefield" does not mean that a story will be inherently childish either.

One last thing: I don't think that either Roger Ebert or Jim ever disparaged or insulted the maturity and intelligence of the kinds of people who enjoyed Transformers 2, even after writing articles characterizing the movie as immature entertainment. They only said that people who like that kind of stuff have low standards for their escapist entertainment. What's so wrong with that?

So stop pretending that you're not an elitist. Your words have already done such a good job of giving you away as one.

I dunno why you put the word "undiscovered" in quotes, as I didn't use it. And many critics have railed on "Funny People" for it's immaturity (among other things), so, a mature man who looks to the critics might think there's no need to see it and miss out on a great movie. Or, look at "Kill Bill" and think, "just violent trash." You don't have to sit through "all the dreck," that's not what I'm saying, you don't have to do anything. I see movies because they might be good, there's always a risk buying a ticket for any movie, and, in my experience, critical consensus is almost always pretty distant from what's really important - my own opinion.

If I listened to the critics about what I didn't "have" to see, I wouldn't have seen "The Limits of Control", one of my favorite movies of this year, or, if I lived in 1955, "The Night of the Hunter." I see "Crank 2" because it might be good, and I'd rather see a good "Crank 2" than a good "Frost/Nixon." I saw "Transformers 2" because I saw and liked the first one, and it was directed by the same guy, written by the same guys and starring most of the same actors. It wasn't a very good movie. I can say that, because I've seen it - even though I knew beforehand I didn't "have to."

Andrew: Why would you rather see a good Crank 2 than a good Frost/Nixon?

John L.: This is going back a bit, but I really don't understand your claim that Slumdog Millionaire is "good". Besides the "wizards" aspect, your criticisms of Harry Potter (facile emotions, simple plot, etc.) describe SM. While I'd agree that Slumdog Millionaire isn't for children, because of the violence, etc., I don't see any other essential reason why the film is "adult"--the love story is simplistic, the good guys look good and the bad guys look bad, and the whole film relies on some conception of "fate" ("it was written") to solve a person's problems--which is another form of magic, after all. What is it about Slumdog Millionaire that is "better" than the children's entertainment you mention (not just Potter but also The Wizard of Oz)? In what way are the emotions less facile, the plot more complex, besides perhaps just the subject matter, and the graphic nature of the violence?

In response to William B (admittedly a little too late...)

I'd rather see a good Crank 2 than a good Frost/Nixon because I like a good action exploitation comedy more than a good Oscar-baiting play-based period piece "important" drama. I'll like either, if either is done well, but my tastes lean more toward the former.

I guess that's what I was trying to say with my comments here, that individuals' tastes might take them somewhere a critic wouldn't. I mean, "Crank 2" wasn't even reviewed by critics, which I could've taken to mean it was bad, but I took the risk anyway in case I thought it was good (and it turned out to be really, really good). I look at some negative reviews of some of my favorite recent movies - "Slipstream," "The Limits of Control," "Watchmen" - and it seems to me like the reviewer wasn't really engaging the movie on its own terms.

I don't think that's necessarily a fault - it just means some people don't have the time to care to find something unique or worth taking from certain kinds of movies. I've read Jim say, "I don't like kung fu movies" (somewhere around here). Wouldn't that mean he's not the right person to review one? You know what I mean?