and here with some commentary is a grumpy old man

[rone]

You know, there was this dumb gorefest film in a claustrophic setting that counted Samuel L. Jackson among its stars and scary animals as the nemesis.  It was called "Deep Blue Sea".  It sucked and it did poorly.  Now we have "Pacific Air 121", with all the same core qualities, except this time it's been hyped to death, given a stupid yet catchy title, and somehow you people think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  It isn't.  It's still a stupid movie.  The whole "so dumb it's fun" thing has been done to death by pro wrestling, Norm McDonald, and the Bush Administration.  So if that's what you like, sure, go watch the movie.  But let's not pretend that somehow this dumb movie is better than other dumb movies.  I didn't see you people lining up to go watch "Dungeons & Dragons", after all.

Comments

[nothings.livejournal.com]

You just have to have the right value of "you people" (http://users.livejournal.com/sunyata__/1163547.html)! I really wanted to post a snarky reply about how many other shitty movies she could have done this with, but what's the point. The only shitty movie to do this at is the one everyone else has agreed to do it with. Having _everybody_ pick the _same_ shitty movie is moronic because it'll give the movie studios the wrong idea, but oh well.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Eh, the studios will make their own wrong ideas anyway. But, yes, seeing people wetting themselves with glee at the badness of SoaP but not, say, a Pauly Shore movie makes no sense to me. Maybe what we need is to have this become some USC film student's thesis: why are some bad movies "entertaining" to a non-trivial amount of people?

Hey.

[vardissakheli.livejournal.com]

I liked Encino Man.