Your observations are pretty much true.
However, some movies are not meant to function the same as other movies. Some movies are just 'entertainment to pass the time', some movies are basically just 'turn your brains off and enjoy the cartoonish fantasy' (people can't accept this for some reason), and some movies are like this one - maybe not enjoyable as a story as much as enjoyable as an 'experience that can provoke a bit of thought sometimes'.
If you change your perspective, the criticism changes. You may appreciate even an Adam Sandler movie, if you view it from the right perspective. Not every movie means to be a genius-story masterpiece, just like not every car has the same function.
There are many cars for different purposes, it would be wrong to expect every car to be a Ferrari. There are even non-car vehicles, that are more useful for certain purposes than a car would be.
You can see these cars and vehicles as complementary instead of competitive, if you so choose. A van is good for moving, a truck is good for transporting heavy objects, a small, electric car is good for casual city driving, a bicycle is good for exercize, fresh air, silence, viewing sceneries, traveling through tight and narrow pathways, etc.
Movies can be the same - if a movie doesn't impress with the usual 'movie' stuff (story, directing, acting performances, etc.), it may fulfill another type of function. A movie may be something to put on background to pass the time, or perhaps make you think and feel, even if the story is bad, and acting sucks. Perhaps it can offer you a viewpoint or perspective that you normally don't use.
Of course there are movies that I can't muster appreciation for, but this movie is surprisingly appreciatable, if you take it the right way.
reply
share