Bad Movie Ratio

If my blogs were transferred into an infograph, I would be totally unsurprised to find out that my subjects follow decreasing cycles. I seem to have a burst of focus on a subject that gradually decreases before I head over to another subject. Ok, so the subjects are generally pretty similar, but take my current focus, bad movies.

I don’t know why but, at the moment, I seem to be on bad movie kick. I can’t seem to watch a good movie. I don’t feel like I am self-destructively watching bad movies and yet here I am not able to remember the last really good movie I watched. I know I have watched good movies, but as I begin to recall them I find my bad movie focus makes me pick out the less effective elements.

So, first of all, a big sorry for the bad movie focus.

That being said, I am interested in the bad movie ratio. How many bad movies do we end up watching before we stumble into that great movie? I know that different people enjoy different movies for different reasons. I personally liked Howard the Duck and a movie version of the British TV Show The Avengers and I know someone who loved Showgirls, I can’t think why they might like a film about Vegas showgirls.

So what do you reckon, how many bad movies do we watch before we get to a good one? Is it 10 to 1? Less? More? Or is it possible that our mind just gives in and after so many movies we just think the movie is good regardless just so we won’t give up on movies altogether?


Netflix: art vs. expectation

I start off watching a film called Assault on Wall Street thinking it is a heist film. Two security guards, two cops. A family man, a young cop, a guy having trouble with his wife, a guy having lost a lot of money on a hedge fund. The something happened and I don’t know what it was. One of the reasons I don’t know is because I started fast forwarding. It was getting boring. When I stopped fast forwarding the one guy’s wife has committed suicide, he has lost his job and his house. Suffice to say it wasn’t a heist movie. I thought about rewinding and rewatching the missed sections, but it was too late. I had already got the sense that this was a film with a message and apparently that message was kill lots of guys in suits. A pretty harsh message if you ask me.

It wouldn’t be an understatement to say I lost the plot.

I watched a film called Cherry, I think it is also known as About Cherry. It claimed to be a female version of Boogie Nights. Now Boogie Nights was a highly entertaining film. Cherry was not. The biggest problem was I was expecting Boogie Nights, a film with some humour, interesting characters, dramatic moments and the rise (yes, pun intended) of a man. Cherry had none of those things.

Would I have liked Cherry or Assault on Wall Street if my expectations had been different? Probably not, but the important point is I wouldn’t have watched them.

Drive Hard

I got the sense that the movie was never meant to leave Australia. It made me think of Will Farrell’s Talladega Nights when Ricky Bobby is doing foreign market adverts for prune candy.

John Cusack and Thomas Jane star in an Australian set film about a thief and an ex-racing driver and I don’t think either of them want you to know it was them.

Cusack is Simon Keller, the thief out for a little revenge after spending five years in prison and Jane is Peter Roberts, the ex-racing driver who is having relationship issues until he becomes Keller’s reluctant wheelman. Nothing too outlandish about the premise.

In actually, it seems like Cusack and Jane take pains to go undetected as actors. At no point, and I am not over-exaggerating, does Cusack take off his dark glasses. Maybe once or twice does he remove a black baseball cap. As for Jane, he couldn’t disguise his voice and general appearance, but used long hair to make himself look as different as possible.

And what of the film? It was ok. A narrative oddity when the Australian Hells Angels were brought in seemingly just because. Otherwise it was a vengeance plot with an emasculated man’s rise to dominance in his house. The police sub-plot was unusually irrelevant. It was almost like the actors had been brought in to pad out the plot. Never once did the two American actors share screen time with the Australian police. I would believe that Cusack and Jane were brought in as an afterthought, or, even better, the film was originally focused on the Australian police and it was considered so terrible Cusack and Jane were brought in.

I wouldn’t bother watching it again and if I had a time machine, I wouldn’t waste the trip into the past to stop myself watching it.