There Are No Bad Movies (Only Bad Audiences) (2010) Written by Dr. W.E.B Sarcofiguy & John Dimes

One of my co-workers marveled that I wasn't entertained by John Travolta in the role of Edna Turnblad. My argument was, of course, Devine. Fucking Devine, goddamnit. My co-workers' responses were either looks of disgust from those familiar with Devine or puzzlement from those who weren't.

This brings me to the subject of this review, the book There Are No Bad Movies (Only Bad Audiences) by Dr. W.E.B Sarcofiguy, who as far as I know isn't really a doctor, and John Dimes, who is Dr. Sarcofiguy's alter ego. A non-fiction book, this is one man's very personal crusade against blind hatred towards movies, critics and personal opinions about movies. Dr. Sarcofiguy is of the thought that, as the title implies, movies themselves aren't bad, it's our opinions and attitudes towards movies that stink.

Don't take any implied negativity from my above paragraph, which upon review implies a sort of negativity. The Doc has some legitimate points. He rails against the smug and cynical who approach movies with negative attitudes, and he's perfectly justified in doing so. There are millions of people out there, whether critics, bloggers, or elitist cubical neighbors who seem to derive a feeling of superiority out of running down someone else's creative pursuits. The Doc (yes, that's how I'm going to refer to him for the rest of this review) recognizes this and also recognizes that for whatever reason, these people no longer approach movies with the intention of being entertained, they approach movies as an excuse to critique and deride.

On this point I agree with him. When I watch a movie I want to be entertained. I want to be swept away like I was when I was a kid. I want to sit wide-eyed and dazzled by the things I see on the screen. I've honestly never entered a movie not wanting to be entertained. Have I been disappointed? Of course, we all have (I'm looking at you Cabin Fever). But if you're going into a movie thinking you're not going to be delighted, you might as well stay home because you're almost guaranteed to be disappointed. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What I am at odds with is that at times it feels like he's implying that we aren't allowed to have an opinion on movies. His thesis seems to be that the movies we're watching aren't bad, it's the way we approach them that make them bad and, consequently, unentertaining. To a certain degree, as I stated above, I agree. Preconceived notions about a movie can keep us from enjoying it. However, some movies just aren't entertaining. I'm not talking about bad movies; some of my favorite movies are unarguably bad. Recently I watched Hard to Die (aka Sorority House Massacre 3), a bad movie on just about every level. Was I entertained? Fuck yeah! It was one of the most entertaining movies I've seen in a long time. I was what the Doc would call "an extremely good audience" for it. However, if I go to the theater and plunk down my hard earned $20 for admission and some snacks, and the movie sucks, I have the God given right as a citizen of the U.S. of A. to express my opinions. Okay, I'm not a U.S. citizen but you get my point.

Therein lies my main problem with the book. It seems to say that we don't have the right to have an opinion, which is odd because he submitted his book to a site that deals in opinions. I love reading other people's opinions on movies. I was a huge fan of Siskel & Ebert. I find it interesting to read what other people's opinions are compared to mine. Do I let them effect how I view a movie? Of course not, it's an opinion and opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one and it's usually full of shit.

The Doc's crusade is very personal and it's reflected in his writing style; it's very personal. Reading it is probably what it would feel like if you and the Doc went to a bar, had a couple of drives and started talking about movies. It feels like he probably writes like he talks. Perhaps casual and relaxed are better descriptives for his style. My only complaint is that sometimes his thoughts are all over the place. He'll start a chapter with a clear and defined topic and suddenly a page later he's talking about something completely different. At points I felt like the book should have been titled "The Schizoid Ravings of a Mad Cinephile." He would have done himself a great service if he would have reigned in his horses a bit; there are half finished thoughts and underdeveloped ideas, but he usually manages to wrangle it all back together by the end of the chapter. Usually.

Don't take me as saying it's not a worthwhile read. The Doc knows his movies and is clearly very schooled and experienced in all genres of cinema; he's able to make cinematic references that had me scrambling for IMDB. More importantly, he's obviously very passionate about films, both good and bad. While I don't necessarily agree with all of his opinions, I at least respect them. He's made me reevaluate how I view movies and my attitudes towards movies, which isn't an easy task to do.

So, was the remake of Hairspray a bad movie or was I just a bad audience?