It doesn't have to be a GOOD movie to be fun to watch.

I've seen it debated over and over again, and I don't feel like posting at the end of some long arse thread, so here's my view of movies like Mean Guns.

To me, there are two types of rating for a movie. The "Good Movie" rating. And the "Fun" rating. A movie can be a crappy movie and still be fun to watch. The term "Good Movie" has to do with the effects, the casting, the director, etc (All the things that make a movie critically good by magazine standards). Then there's the "Fun" rating, which is pretty much, "Did I enjoy this movie?".

Mean Guns is by no account a "Good Movie". It has it's moments. I happen to love the lighting, and some of the lines made me quite happy. The premise isn't entirely original, but it works for the kind of movie this is. I happen to love the casting, but I could see people having a problem with it. On my "Good Movie" scale of 1 to 10: a 5, by my standards.

It IS, however, a "Fun" movie. When I first saw this movie, I just sat back with a bucket of popcorn and laughed my arse off with a buddy. We loved the hell out of it. It was fun, had good action, actors we loved (Ice-T and Christopher Lambert), and was an overall good time. There's just nothin' better than sittin' back and watching two happy guys stroll around and beat the crap out of "bad hair dude" with metal baseball bats.

I'm tired of people rating movies just on whose name appears on the cover, and whether or not it has good effects, and original and quotable lines. It can still be a fun movie to watch without those things.