Chopin – the first thing that sprung to mind when reading your post is how do you have time to sit through four Tremors movies?? I mean, it’s a Monday.
But then I thought, is this Quentin Tarentino?
In all seriousness, there are definitely times when I love just stuffing my face with crappy movies. After all the heavy dramas, and subtitled foreign films, and indie angst, sometimes you need a good dose of ridiculousness. I’m not sure I could make it through four Tremors films but I know where you’re coming from. I think they just help to balance the Tarkovsky and Von Trier that we all seem to love on this site.
I finally saw Pineapple Express and Tropic Thunder back to back. Silly, dumb and fun.
I see pretty much whatever it seems likely I’ll like. My tastes lean toward “art house,” but there are some pretty talented filmmakers in the mainstream too.
The first Tremors is awesome. I can’t vouch for the others, though. You will have long blonde hair, big green eyes, world class breasts, ass that won’t quit and legs that go all the way up!
I once watched my life flash before my eyes. It was depressing.
No. Can you justify a “Tremors” marathon when you have likely not seen all of Antonioni’s films? We should not embrace the temporary shut down of our brains. Watch films that make you better. At the end of your life, you will have eight less hours thanks to “Tremors” films. Think about it.
Watch what you want.
You’re worse off if you fake it.
Erik, I think the real crime would be to watch an Antonioni film when you are in the mood for Tremors. I’m not always in the mood for a great film, and the times where I force myself to watch one anyways, the only thing this does is make my opinion of the film more negative than it would have been.
Fake it?
I suppose when one feels like Taco Bell, they should have Taco Bell, even though it’s you know, killing them. We can better ourselves by not giving our money and our lives to morally and artistically corrupt entities.
But having Taco Bell once in awhile when you are craving it does no harm. Life is about balance, and so is film watching.
I wasn’t specifically addressing you, Erick, but I do think that people should be able to do what they like, no matter how dumb it is. I’ve said a number of times on here that one of my favorite movies is Caddyshack. I also love the Dziga Vertov Group, Shohei Imamura, Chris Cunningham music videos, Spike Lee, William Klein, Derek Jarman, blah blah blah. But when I want Caddyshack, I’ll watch Caddyshack, and I’ll have a good time.
If someone’s heart isn’t in the art house, then they shouldn’t have to feel like they should fake like it is, if they really just want Ted Knight and Rodney Dangerfield squaring off in the pro shop.
“No. Can you justify a “Tremors” marathon when you have likely not seen all of Antonioni’s films?” No I haven’t watched all of his films because after watching “Blow-Up” I said to myself, “I really fucking doubt I will like this guy if this is his best.”
Why do I need to justify it? Art is not something where you sit and go, let me research the most inspirational films and watch them, so I can “justify” my complete snobbery, even if 10 minutes in I want to pull my hair out. You should just want to watch it and then watch it. I have yet to watch a Fellini film because after 20 minutes of “8 1/2” I was not enjoying myself, then I watched “Andrei Rublev” because I was enjoying myself.
My heart is in the art house but that is not all I want to watch, where is the contrast and appreciation if someone just sits around and only watches something if it got nomed for a Palm D’or or a Golden Lion. People that do this go to create the most generic art house piece of reiterated crap I have ever seen, they have no inspiration to create a style, they sit there and watch every film by Parajanov and then spit him out onto film. I watch shorts all the time which are so obviously copy and pasted from great art house directors it makes me sick. Like I said, there is something to be gained from watching any film, no matter how insanely bad. There is just as much to gain from watching the remake of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” then “Citizen Kane” why? Because there is nothing to gain but inspiration. After watching “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” I developed a plot which I may think more about, and possibly make a short out of, is it going to be a depthless piece of gore? No, but I still was inspire by that piece of shit movie because it got me thinking about stuff.
And your metaphor of Taco Bell is completely ridiculous, you are comparing something with an objective downfall to something that is entirely subjective.
I think if you love film, you love ALL kinds of film. If you only watch Art House and make others feel bad for not watching the same movies, then you just become a miserable prick that no one likes.
Think about someone that takes themselves too seriously and can’t laugh at themselves. They usually don’t have many friends. It’s the same thing when talking about something that you love. If you’re an elitist prick, then no one will respect you. Besides, if every movie was well made, then it would become trite and bland. Sometimes that bad stuff makes you appreciate the good.
Anyway, Erick needs to get over himself and enjoy life.
I love Back To The Future, Logan’s Run, Soylent Green, and all those Japanese Lupin III movies. I even like Dune sorta. Sticking to art house, prestigious as it may be, would be pretty depressing. Not that I don’t like art films. Fellini’s Roma is great as is Satyricon. I need Fellini but I also need the Marx Brothers and Marty McFly
I also watch ze plane!
For you to embrace the things that are wrong with cinema neglects your love of the things that are right. How can you champion films of quality if you are able to reduce your artistic criteria to the point in which it includes “Tremors” as a valuable film watching experience?
Your artistic consensus regarding “Blow-Up”, is “I really fucking doubt I will like this guy if he is trying his best”? This confirms my suspicion… you lack any artistic criteria by which to judge films, and are able to derive greater pleasure from Tremors than the great works of cinema. “Blow-Up”, along with “L’eclisse”, only happens to be one of the finest works of cinema, one of just a few films that actually justifies itself in the entire universe of art.
This isn’t about me, or my ego. You asked a question, and I have a firm belief that as a student of the cinema I should fully immerse myself in the best of it whenever possible. At a certain point, the true greats become your guilty pleasures. I watched L’avventura yesterday (available for free!) for the first time in years. At no point was I pretending, or forcing anything on myself. The film is a complete pleasure to watch. Beyond the intellectual stimulation, it offers complete cinematic bliss to the keen watcher. What would not be honest, on the other hand, would be for me to pretend to enjoy Tremors.
I would suggest, Chopin, that you are the one pretending, every time you attempt to speak about the artistic merits of a great film, every time you attempt to stay awake through those stuffy european films. To eat Taco Bell is to watch Tremors: to turn off one’s mind in order to engage in an activity completely devoid of substance or value.
Now, I reject your label of “the art house”, as it seems to suggest a firm misunderstanding of the films we are even talking about.
Not that all films have to exist on the same plane that “Blow-Up” does. There are countless films of particular genres which, while not great cinema, can provide fascinating insights to the cultural conditions in which they were created. A film like “Fantastic Planet”, which might appear to only have camp value, is actually an incredibly dark look into the capacity for evil within the human nature, a true product of a generation afraid of atomic holocaust. Carpenter’s “The Thing” is an incredibly well crafted piece of horror cinema that seems to suggest a kind of elemental darkness to the universe. A piece like Cronenberg’s wildly indulgent “eXistenZ” is particularly revelatory in its suggestion that we have crossed a cultural boundary in which we have created so many false levels of reality, that we are no longer able to tell what is real. These are purely enjoyable films that, nevertheless, contain complex thematic elements. But “Tremors” is a work of complete escapism and male aggression, and one that I have no interest in taking part in.
Chopin – I don’t know what your overall viewing habits are, and I won’t pretend to. I probably couldn’t stomach a “Tremors” marathon, but I don’t think theirs anything inherently wrong with it.
It seems to me that what is not being emphasized on this thread so far is that a persons interest in cinema need not be primarily concerned with “great films” or “art house”, or anything for that matter. The history of movies is big enough to welcome all sorts of people. If your interests lie in action films, then watch action films freely.
I would never suggest that anyone limit their viewing to any one specific thing, but rather to view a wide variety of movies – both high and low brow. We can learn from anything. If all you ever watch is action films, then I may suggest broadening your horizons a little. If you don’t like Antonioni, fine. You don’t have to. I haven’t particularly cared for his films either. But there are many many great directors and films from around the world throughout history that you might explore.
Of course I don’t, but I generally like art house films better. I love blockbuster films like Watchmen, Crank 2, Drag Me To Hell, Star Trek, ect.
the first “tremors” is a great film. well made and effective. i wont equate it to taco bell, or call it devoid of substance or value. its an extremely pleasurable experience. the film has a certain charm and wit to it. thats the reason they tried to recapture it with multiple sequels.
and i agree with those who think that one should watch and enjoy a wide variety of cinema without any pretense. a true cineaste can appreciate (and seek to understand) the contributions of an ed wood and an antonioni, and everybody in between.
Of course I don’t stick just to arthouse – the idea of any cinephile sticking just to one genre or collection of directors or wave is rediculous. In my opinion a true cinephile should be able to approach any film with an open mind whether it be The Godfather or Surfing Nazis Must Die and will never refuse to watch a film based on past experiences – when a self proclaimed cinephile watches two of a director’s films, doesn’t like them and then refuses to watch any more of the director’s films it sickens me.
As cinephiles watching film is for us a constant learning process. Every film whether brilliant or dire has something to bring to our pool of experience, our appreciation of technique and our understanding of the artform and though stuff like Tremors 4, Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle and Son of the Mask may not seem very effective in this regard they still have some effect.
Ahahahahaahahahaha! This Erick guy is HILARIOUS! I’m going to start following him right now. Seriously, comedy gold.
Why ISN’T “Surf Nazis Must Die” on The Auteurs yet—?!
@Shotzi
I suspect that this Erick is one of the old Brahmins christened anew.
pretty weak if you ask me.
Even Andrew Sarris (I’m going to have to paraphrase here) that if you can’t love bad movies, you don’t really love movies.
I don’t find anything wrong with a purely entertaining film if it’s well-made. I like TREMORS; I also like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and THE SEVENTH SEAL and BRIDES OF DRACULA and JULIET OF THE SPIRITS and RETURN OF THE APE MAN* and THRONE OF BLOOD … I’m not saying I rank them all equally as “art” but a well made film is a well-made film. Period.
Conversely I’ve not seen any Antonioni that I don’t find a bore and I don’t like Dario Argento at the other end of the scale.
My likes/dislikes are catholic (possibly eclectic).
*OK, not even all that well-made, but just so batshit crazy it’s irresistable.
I watch both although there is less in mainstream cinema that’s interesting. The thing with arthouse is that often it requires knowledge of film as art to understand. That’s not an aloof statement just an observation from how my learning has developed by reading about cinema and learning about it. With arthouse cinema even an average film usually has something about it to make it worth your while and there tends to be less emphasis on basic good versus evil, which is what you tend to get in a lot of mainstream films.
Watch whatever you want to watch. For me, film watching, in theaters or on DVD, is too expensive to justify seeing whatever crap the cineplex serves up. There are so many acclaimed films, books, graphic novels, etc. that i haven’t seen that i can’t justify the waste of time I would experience going to see Dance Flick. Also, if I do want to shut my brain off I can simply turn on the old boob tube and find countless brain numbing experiences for free. Why would anyone spend the gas, admission, and exorbitant food prices to experience the latest Will Ferrell crapfest on the silver screen when you can just watch the latest idiotic offerings on network and much of cable TV?
Also, I think sometimes people who say they get tired of watching serious films and sometimes need a break don’t really like serious films to begin with. I don’t watch Antonioni because I feel I have to, I watch these kinds of films because i actually find them entertaining. I don’t think anyone needs to have any kind of balance between the serious and the lighthearted. Even with all the outstanding films available most of us are bombarded with nonsense so often in this country that you would have to lock yourself in a room for years with the criterion collection before you could claim to be tired of serious works of art. Between the reality shows, so -called news programs, radio, magazines. and the mainstream pictures we all inevitably get dragged to see, any serious work of art is a refreshing alternative to the fantasy world we are surrounded by.
I’m not sure about that Mike. There are plenty of times when I’ve not been in the mood to watch a particular film. Sometimes I need to be in the right frame of mind because I believe that I’m more open to trying to interpret the film than normal e.g. on a big film night I tend to try and ease myself into watching films by taking on something lighter, such as a comedy or action/crime/thriller type. After watching one or two of those my mind is ready for watching something a bit more challenging. I couldn’t easily drop into watching a Godard film straight after work because my mind won’t be able to give it it’s full concentration, which some films demand.
I’d like to second Mike….Leigh. There are definite times when I want to watch a silly Will Ferrell crapfest, and it has nothing to do with how I value “serious” movies. There is a time and a place for everything. There are other times when a Will Ferrell crapfest is the last thing I want to watch.
Why not just watch Famiy Guy if you want to wind down? It’s like ten times funnier than any Will Ferrell movie and it’s on all day. I guess I have some lofty expectations whenever I pop in a DVD or sit in a darkened theater that something special is going to happen and when I get something less sophisticated than any episode of Cheers, I’m saddened.
“In my opinion, the first problem–the most important problem in our world—is the problem of dissemination, and it’s the conception of this dissemination that may lead to catastrophe. . . . The way it’s used now, the influence of the masses leads to nothing but the scattering of material. For example, think of a liter of wine: it’s certainly sufficient when shared by three or four people. But if we want this same liter of wine to be shared by one thousand people, we have to put water in it, and then it’s useless. We have to wonder whether something like this doesn’t happen in the process of dissemination”. —Jean Renoir, 1957
This quote kinda sums up what i want from movies and wine. I want them to be strong and not watered down for the masses.
Chopin
I have always watched movies no matter how bad I know they are going to be. I can find redeeming qualities in just about anything ever made. I just got finished watching a “Tremors” marathon, all 4, just after finishing “Lake Placid 2” and I don’t regret it, although I realize most of these films are absolute tripe, I just love to watch them. I think there is something to be gained by experiences any film, no matter how insanely bad.
How do you stand on this?
Will you only watch something if it has an art house name in the credits?
I just love em’ all!