All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
This is why I hardly ever recommend movies.
My criteria pretty much boils down to "did it hold my attention" during the runtime?"
A "good" movie holds my attention An "ok" movie doesn't hold my atttention 100% A "bad" movie 'pushes' my attention away
By that metric, 2001 is an "atrocious" movie. ๐ฅด
That's why I watch video essays that are longer than the actual movie and explain why it's bad instead of watching the movie
Watch both Judge Dress films to understand the difference between a good film and a bad one.
And they're both tremendously enjoyable.
Sometimes, it's more important that you enjoy the thing than the thing being objectively good. There is merit to objectively analyzing things, and there can be enjoyment found in doing so. There is also merit to just enjoying the thing you like. Both are valid.
Enjoying a movie, having fun watching it, is not an indication of its quality. It is acceptable to enjoy bad movies, nothing wrong with that, I've watched plenty of movies I consider as bad but still had fun and a nice time watching them.
Defining the quality of a movie by the enjoyment you had is like defining the quality of a painting by how realistic it is. A painting might be good even if it is surreal, unrealistic or abstract, and a realistic painting might be crap, so the quality of the painting is not tied to simply how realistic it is. The same way there are movies that are fun and enjoyable but not "good", and there are movies that bore most people and are a master piece.
While with a painting defining the quality is simpler (simpler yes, but not simple) as it is the creation of one person normally, for movies it gets incredibly complex as there's so much to measure and its the work of so many people; the script, the acting, the photography, the score, the directing, the stunts, makeup and dressing, FX, ... There's a lot that can be good and a lot that can be bad in the same movie.
At least that has always been my perspective, I have no issues admitting to not liking something despite how good it was, and loving something that I knew was not good. Some examples that come to mind: I love the matrix movies, love watching them, yes, in plural, that doesn't mean the second and third are good. It feels like there were too many issues in them to make them good, but I still had a good time watching them. On the other hand, I feel like a movie like 2001 is of unquestionable quality, yet I always feel somewhat bored watching it and would rather do something else.
Don't have fun = bad movie.
The Room is considered a movie so bad it's good, but if it turned out that Tommy knew what he was doing the whole time, would that make it just a good movie?
No, I don't think so. Whether it happened by accident or on purpose is a different measure, but the end result is the same, a movie that is so lacking in qualities that would normally be associated with a "good" movie that it is remarkable. I have heard of plenty of people that don't like it when movie makers intentionally try to make a movie that is "so bad it's good", but I've never heard anyone accuse those movies of being regular old "good".