My father has always said I grade films on a harsh scale. I suppose he’s right because it takes a lot to impress me. But I’ve always been that way – this, I owe to Dad. Much like me, he is a perfectionist in a good way.
Since I will be doing some film grading for my College Avenue blog, I suppose it’s best if I graze the surface on how I critique films. Generally speaking, I don’t like cheese. I define cheese as blatantly obvious remarks that could be called cliché or corny. Some might argue that cheese is in the eye of the beholder. I say, “to-may-to, to-mah-to.”
Going back to the origination of my perfectionist self, my dad asked me once why I like certain movies.
“There has to be a common theme between your favorites and the failures,” he told me. I can still remember his thunderous voice booming off the walls, mainly because it happened just last month.
I have to admit, it took me a while to answer. Dad, if you’re reading this, then here it is: I like creativity. Give me something in a movie I haven’t seen before (with no cheese) and I’ll most likely love it. That’s the main reason why I like “The Ring,” the 2003 blockbuster hit that made people want to give their television sets away.
The Ring, unlike many horror films – namely the recent release “Paranormal Activity” – had originality. We had never seen anything like it before. Even the original Japanese version, Ringu, lacked something. The American remake was eerie and disturbing.
Paranormal Activity, on the other hand, lacked so many things. Like a good plot line.
You got me why people like this movie. I guess it was the impression that this “really happened.” And if it could happen to these folks, then it could happen to them. Man, I hate to burst their personal bubble, but this was a production with a script, actors and a director.
Some might argue, “’Paranormal’ was original and creative. Nobody has pulled off a demon haunting/possession story before.” Here’s my problem with that statement: Nobody has ever pulled off a good demon haunting story, unless you count “Ghostbusters,” in which case I do not. It’s a comedy.
I remember my ethics professor showing a trailer to “Paranormal Activity” in class. The whole class watched in awe in the darkness and collectively shrieked when air gets blown under the sheet and makes ripples across her side of the bed. Please.
On the contrary, and you may laugh when I state this: I liked “Twilight.” Not only did I think it was a decent movie, but I also think Kristin Stuart did a decent job as Bella. Critics were too hard on the actress. They were probably comparing the book to the movie. I learned to never do that, and I learned the hard way when “Forrest Gump” came out on the big screen. (Yes, “Forrest Gump” was a book first. And it was brilliant).
Maybe I liked Stuart’s portrayal because I wasn’t too excitable when I was in high school either. I could relate to her lack of emotion throughout the movie. Now, “Twilight” wasn’t the absolute best film of the year, but it provoked the romantic in me, which is sincerely hard to do.
Stay tuned, kids. The next blog will be great: the top five movies that skipped the box office. These movies aren’t rejects by any means, but a compilation of great films that have gone largely unrecognized. So if you’re a film buff like me, it’ll be a list that you won’t want to miss.
Before you go, leave me some feedback. Are you a movie buff? If so, why do you like certain movies and dislike others?
As for me, come back and see me sometime.
Tags: film review, paranormal activity, twilight
These are good points that Stacey made.
I think that films appeal to personal taste and experience. Different viewers can have radically different responses to the same movie. And this has always struck me as surprising.
I have always thought that movies were an expression of style and substance combined. We can appreciate a movie that isnt necessarily outstanding in substance-but the style of the movie makes up for it. Or substance can make up for style .
I suspect that Hollywood is making a mistake with most of today’s movies–too much money thrown at the big name actors-and too little money offered to the writers. The writer is the soul of the movie-the actors are just tools to express this soul.
And by the way-that Father of Stacey’s sure sounds like a “character”.