|
Can a Film Be So Good It's Bad
| |
|
| |
|
Released
|
July 25, 2016
|
|
Duration
|
12:09
|
|
Previous Review
|
|
|
Next Review
|
|
|
Link
|
|
(The shortened opening)
NC: Hello, I'm the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don't have to. We all know about movies that are so bad, they're good.
(Cut to a montage of posters of the following: The Happening, Birdemic: Shock and Terror, The Room, Troll 2, and Sharknado)
NC (vo): Your Happenings, your Birdemics, your Rooms. It seems everybody has a film that is so incredibly awful that they can't help but laugh at it, making it enjoyably good.
NC: But this got me thinking: if it can work so well one way, why can't it work so well another way? Can a film be so good that it's bad?
(Cut to a shot of a roll of film)
NC (vo): How would that be possible? What does it even mean?
(Cut to a shot of a fancy dish consisting of bacon-wrapped shrimp, zucchini, and sushi, garnished with a lime on top)
NC (vo): You don't have an incredible meal and say it's so delicious it tastes awful. So how could this work for film?
(Cut to a shot of a movie projector)
NC (vo): How can a movie have so many positive things that it could ultimately equal something negative?
NC: I didn't really know which examples to pick, seeing how this was kind of a different idea, so I decided to look at films that everybody seemed to love, but just never seemed to grab me.
(Cut to a montage of clips of Bram Stoker's Dracula and Cinema Paradiso)
NC (vo): Not bad, by any means, but something about them just didn't move me like I think they were meant to.
NC: As a critic, it's kind of embarrassing when you find a film that either does or doesn't work for you, but you can't really explain why.
(Cut to a montage of images of movie theaters: film projectors, audiences seated, etc.)
NC (vo): That's your job, to point out strengths and weaknesses and what we can learn from them. But I think everybody, critic or not, has several films they just can't get into and don't really know how to explain why. Because... they themselves don't know. You can't say it's bad; you can't even really find anything wrong with it, but there's a strong disconnect that shouldn't be there. Yet, for some reason, it is.
NC: Could this "so good it's bad" idea be the reason?
(Cut to another montage of more movie theater images)
NC (vo): Was something so great at hitting so many people that it fails to have a personal touch with you? Is it just difference of opinion, or could it be something more? I started putting together a list of movies that left this kind of impact on me. And keep in mind, this is my list. If you have strong opinions on these movies, great. This is just to give you examples of the idea I'm talking about; what should technically be great, but doesn't feel that great for some reason.
NC: The first one I could think of was The Truman Show.
(Cut to footage of The Truman Show)
NC (vo): Everyone said this was a phenomenal, clever comedy/drama way ahead of its time. And... it was! When I saw the movie, I didn't really see anything wrong with it; [Jim] Carrey was fine, the direction was smart, the writing hit all the right notes. So how come I wasn't crying at the same time Jim Carrey was crying? How come, even though I wanted to know what was going to happen at the end, I wasn't quite at the edge of my seat?
NC: Could it be the style was too good, creating too much of a disconnect from the character?
(Cut back to more footage of The Truman Show)
NC (vo): Well, even if so, that distance would help me see him as an average Joe, still making me feel sorry for him. In a strange way, distance in this kind of movie could actually help me feel more for him. Was it too much talking and not enough visual emotion? Doesn't seem like it. The visuals are stunning and very strongly emulate what the characters are going through. Everything seems right for a great movie. So how come I don't feel the same thing that I felt in other great movies? Why am I only slightly invested, but not incredibly invested?
NC: (crossing his arms) Let's try another one with a powerhouse of great actors, based on one of the greatest plays ever written, The Crucible.
(Cut to footage and still shots of The Crucible)
NC (vo): Based on the Arthur Miller classic, this movie about one of the darkest times in American history not only works as its own disturbing tale, but also as an allegory to the then-prominent McCarthy trials, as well as a gathering place for some of our best actors, like Daniel Day-Lewis, Joan Allen and Winona Ryder. Again, everything seemed perfect: the text is perfect, the actors are perfect, the direction seemed perfect. So why wasn't I seeing it as one of the greatest things ever made? It was suspenseful, it was emotional, but it wasn't... great. Everybody talks about the power of the play, but nobody talks about the power of the movie, which is almost line-for-line from the play. Again, I don't know anybody who hated it, but it's hard to find a person nowadays who says they love it. What was missing? What could possibly be missing? Everything needed seems to be right there!
NC: (looking puzzled) Maybe they're too safe to leave that big an impact?
(Cut to footage of Bram Stoker's Dracula)
NC (vo): Well, that wasn't the case in Bram Stoker's Dracula. This, by any means, is an amazing film, combining old school effects with new technology, telling the story of Dracula, the closest to the book, while also having one of the most amazing visual styles ever put to cinema. It was faithful, it was smart, it was clever, it was amazing, absolutely amazing! And yet, the reaction from everybody is always the same:
NC: (shrugs) "Eh?"
NC (vo): These are, again, great performances... Eh, for the most part. ...amazing visuals, and even clever storytelling. But still, a lot of people, including myself, can't quite get that sucked into it, despite it being very different and unique from any other telling of Dracula, while also strangely enough being the most faithful.
NC: Maybe some of it has to deal with the element of surprise.
(Cut to alternating footage of In the Bedroom and Cinema Paradiso)
NC (vo): Films like In the Bedroom and Cinema Paradiso were nominated for Oscars when they came out, and you can clearly see why: they delivered the good movie you think you're going to get... and... that's about it. You watch a little bit of the film, and you can figure out very quickly what kind of movie it's going to be. And it does it with a lot of skill and passion, but nevertheless, you're aware of what you're going to get, so nothing really catches you off-guard.
NC: I don't know if it's unpopular to say or not, but you can kinda say the same thing about E.T..
(Cut to footage of E.T.)
NC (vo): Everyone thinks this invented the "hiding a cute something" story. But this has been done many times in movies prior; E.T. just made it the most popular and inspired the most ripoffs. With that said, even though it's done well, don't you know every step it's going to take? Even though it does it beautifully and with great patience, can't you predict every moment before it happens? Now, this isn't always a bad thing; we've seen lots of other movies we could predict beginning to end, and we still love them.
(Cut to alternating footage of the films the Critic mentioned)
NC (vo): All these films I've listed add their own uniqueness to make them stand out, even if we can kind of predict them. So why is it so hard for so many to get behind them nowadays?
(Back to E.T.)
NC (vo): E.T. was huge when it first came out, and we still remember it, but... admitted, it's not as celebrated now as it was back then.
(Cut to a shot of the original How the Grinch Stole Christmas cartoon, showing the Grinch having had a change of heart)
NC (vo): Unlike some other children's classics that get more and more popular with time.