"Even when it's bad (film), it's good (film)."

The world of unemployment and job-hunting has left me with way too much time on my hands. I find myself fluent in cat, taking my time to match my socks, and revisit many films (especially those that make you question whether or not you are a true masochist for enduring them).  Sitting through a bad film (especially one you paid an arm and a leg for to see in theatres) is frustrating.  Even though the investment of time was small, you can’t get it back. What only exacerbates the situation is if you take a date with you and they subtweet about the uncultured swine (YOU) that dragged them to see The Hangover Part III.  

(Small anecdote, I did go see that on a date, but got IHOP after which balanced things out).

A couple weeks back, I rewatched American Hustle (which I had picked for a date when it first came out, because it was Oscar Season and I really liked Bradley Cooper’s hair in the film) because I could not stop raving about how bad it was to my boyfriend (and he kept asking “why should I see it then if it’s so bad?”).  So, we watched it, laughed at the science oven lighting on fire, and went on with our lives.  So, I started to wonder, why do we watch bad movies?

Actual pic of me reacting to Christian Bale's hairpiece

Why do we knowingly put ourselves through watching them? Is it because we like to critique them over how awful they were, and pull them apart and piece them back together in our own imagination?  Because, let’s be real.  Anyone and everyone who has sat through Baz Luhrmann's Gatsby has wanted to do their own remake.  But I'll muse about that another day.

Or is it because it’s a coping mechanism, like eating a tub of Ben & Jerry’s, or running seven miles after a bad day. You can sit back, point at the screen, and say “well at least I didn't make THAT.” Or, are some movies so bad we declare that they are good simply because of Uses and Gratifications theory, which states that as long as a certain media fulfills a need, they have a satisfactory impact.  Entertainment in several forms can do this, and mindless films can fill the niche of unwinding after a long day, or satisfy an audience we didn't even know existed.  Sharknado, anyone?

Part of watching and trying to appreciate bad movies also comes from studying films and trying to become a better filmmaker. “Films of questionable quality, on the other hand, usually make it incredibly easy to pick apart the individual elements and determine what is and isn't working” writes Robert Hardy. “More importantly, these films make it easier to understand why those specific elements aren't working within the larger context of the film.” Instead of always focusing on well-crafted cinematography, onscreen chemistry, and the way a soundtrack reflects the narrative in, say, The Godfather, it is important to be critical of bad films and think about what you can do as a filmmaker in order to improve.

Maybe there is a subconscious anatomy to film that we are so aware of, that watching a bad film fascinates us, whether it is from bad acting to a nonlinear plot-line.  Even though some bad movies make us turn off our minds, we also turn them on to see other sides never before considered.  

People who will put themselves through bad movies need to have a good sense of humor and an overall appreciation for film. Those who only like the biggest Hollywood blockbusters are undeserving of a bad movie. Paradoxical yet incredibly true. We need bad movies not to set a standard as filmmakers and filmgoers, but we also need to feel superior to what we are watching.

Here are some movies that are so bad but somehow still deserve a rewatch every now and again.

AMERICAN HUSTLE.  Yes, it was a total wash at the Academy Awards after receiving ten (ONLY. TEN.) nominations and winning none.  And it left people leaving the theater unsure of how to tell their date that the two hours they sat through was absolute crap.  The plot was confusing, Christian Bale’s comb-over didn’t get a proper end credit and not even the Robert De Niro cameo could lift my spirits. When brought up in casual conversation, everyone would wince and avoid saying how much they hated it because of the high anticipation it received.  However, I’ve argued that the film is not so bad if broken down and looked at wholistically at an aesthetic level.

Its saving grace? When you break down the movie scene by scene it's not awful. The  vignettes and banter always pull me back with the banter and improv dialogue. I loved every minute between Bradley Cooper and Louis C.K. Plus, Jennifer Lawrence is hysterical and the soundtrack is pretty amazing.  Who DOES start a song like that, Duke Ellington?

ROMEO + JULIET. Throwback to high school English class when the VHS player didn’t work so instead of Zeffirelli's masterpiece, you had to suffer through this version on DVD since that wasn’t outdated yet.  My condolences because you missed out on a beautifully adapted Shakespeare tragedy. There are ways to make modernized versions of classics, but the way Baz Luhrmann went about this particular play (Shakespearean tragedy, no less) was awful. I don't want to go into the costumes, the fool of Mercutio that was made (a plague o' all your films, Baz), or the gunfight that happened on Venice Beach. I cried at the end only because the credits were rolling and the film was over.

Its saving grace? Not for nothing, Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio shine as the titular leads. They bring Shakespeare's words to life with such an eloquence. Their performances alone make you forget about the Venice beach setting and the rave Romeo and his friends crash to meet Juliet in the first place.

NATIONAL TREASURE (both of them).  First, I think that the correct pronunciation of treasure would be “tray-sure” as far as Nic Cage is concerned.  Second, his melodramatic personality lends itself to this film, but not enough.  Did anyone else get lost in the second him by the way that proved Nic Cages family didn't help kill Lincoln? I got a 4 on the AP US History exam and I still don't understand the connection. I would also like to add that I am still waiting for the next film so I can find out what's on page 47 of the President’s secret book.

Totally unreal pic bc he's not melodramatic enough here for National Treasure.

Its saving grace? There is no denying that the film pulls at your curiosity with all the possibilities of an undiscovered treasure out there.  Disney did a solid job in making a live action film of the genre, but it's no Indiana Jones by any means. If I find it, I’m definitely using the money for grad school. Shout-out to Riley (Justin Bartha) who has given me aspirations to open up a jam and jelly shop, calling it the “Preservation Room.”

THE GREAT GATSBY.  There are so many arguments for why this movie is so bad.  However, there are so many arguments for why it's so good and worth another watch. When I originally reviewed the movie, I was unsure of what to make of it. The soundtrack in particular threw me off since I was hoping for music that was more aligned with how The Aviator sounded, but I guess that's what you get when Jay Z is your music producer.

Its saving grace? Once again, Leo makes us not hate the movie, along with the rest of the cast.  Pretty spot-on representation of what I would hope for in a Gatsby adaptation.  There is also so much going on in the party scenes, along with the grandeur all the homes in East and West Egg have.  The soundtrack does give jazz a modernized spin; I particularly appreciated the 1920esque Crazy in Love track.

I'll end with this regarding Gatsby: when the film came out I grabbed coffee with a couple film buffs and we all commiserated about how much we didn't like the remake (have I mentioned that I hate him as a filmmaker?) One of my friends, however, posed this question: if there was no source material, how bad would the film really have been? Just some food for thought.