Boiling Point: Since When is Fun a Bad Thing?

Posted by Robert Fure (robert@filmschoolrejects.com) on August 24, 2009

bp-joefun

By now you may know me. If you’ve read Boiling Point frequently or have read a few of my reviews, you’ve probably picked up that I can enjoy a straight to DVD horror movie as much as a summer blockbuster and that in turn as much as any Academy Award winning film. Hell, sometimes, no, oft times, I’ll enjoy some entertaining cheeseball slasher or shoot ‘em up more than all of the Best Picture Nominees. You might go as far as to say I’m a fan of fun – and when did that become a bad thing?

The other day I was talking a friend about going to see the movie GI Joe, something I’ve managed to put off again and again, possibly out of an immense fear of suckage, despite fairly positive reviews from my online colleagues. When I asked for his recommendation, he said I shouldn’t see it because it was “light PG-13 action bullshit, just some fun explosions” type deal. Normally I think I would phrase something like that along the lines of “action, fun and explosions” which is pretty much an A grade right of the bat. Why was “fun” listed as if it were a bad thing? It’s like fun has become a looked down upon genre. Maybe The Dark Knight ruined “fun” for everyone. Sure, it was a good movie, but I don’t think one would ever call it fun. In this new online world, everything is seemingly compared to The Dark Knight. Do we want a dark vision of the GI Joe universe? Should Megatron and Optimus Prime teach us life lessons about good and evil and the price we pay for living? Or should they blow shit up and jump across the screen swinging future laser swords? Call me nutty, but I’m leaning towards the latter.

I’m all for dramas and Nolan’s Bat-universe and whatever else. I like all movies. I’ll give anything a chance. One thing I won’t do is write a film off for not being too serious. Well, unless it was trying to be. If you try to make a scary movie or a dramatic one and it’s silly, then you blew it and it sucked. But if you want to make something that is light and fun and full of fireballs, then hell yeah, let’s check that out. If you see a movie and the word “fun” comes into your mind, it’s probably good. There is no need to censor yourself. Don’t feel guilty for enjoying a movie that was specifically written, filmed, and designed to be enjoyable. Some films want to change your lives, others want to brighten your day. That’s awesome. You can walk out of a movie and talk about it and think about it or you can walk and pump your fists and then want to go kick some ass. Why can’t I get excited by entertaining movies?

You can like whatever movies you want. You can hate what you want. But don’t change your expressed opinion based on what others think. It’s alright to think Slumdog Millionaire sucks or that Schindler’s List isn’t worth watching a second time. It’s ok to want to watch GI Joe or Transformers or I Love You, Man every weekend. I think a lot of people are forgetting that movies, while they can be art, are primarily entertainment. Entertainment that’s supposed to make us feel good or be entertained or whatever. If fun is a genre, fucking sign me up. So go watch what you will and say what you must, but if I hear one more person use “fun” as some sort of derogatory word, I’m going to go past my boiling point.

Do you prefer “fun” movies or “serious” ones?

Related Reading:

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

chille

I think people still like fun movies, they just expect more from them than just fun. You can't really say people don't like fun despite the generally good reception from 300, Sin City, Grindhouse etc. Hell, even most critics who hated ROTF acknowledged its fun factor.

Reebee7

I absolutely agree, but I'd like to give a bit of my thoughts. I'm all for rather mindless, fun entertainment. I think the movie I've seen the most would be Dumb and Dumber. I find something new to laugh at almost every time (I most recently got the 'salmon of Capastrano' joke). But I most certainly wouldn't consider it the best movie I've ever seen; not even close. So there's something to say about enjoying Live Free and Die Hard, an action movie nowhere near its predecessor in quality but a very fun ride. Fun movies are great.

What bothers me is the mindlessness that has been going into supposed 'fun' entertainment lately, and the masses that go to see it. Just because a product is, by all accounts, just 'fun entertainment' doesn't mean it should be stupid. But it bothers me that Transformers II made so much money. The movie was critically panned, and people went to see it multiple times. Granted, I'm sure most were males age 11-16.

Now, most people defend the film as, as you've stated, just dumb fun entertainment. But this film was a 'dumb, fun' movie made, well, dumbly. It takes intelligence to make a dumb movie work, and I think many films claiming to be dumb fun have forgotten that. People defend Transformers by saying 'can't I shut my brain off and be entertained by big explosions?' Perhaps, but is that really all it takes to entertain you? Senseless violence and explosions? If I showed you a slideshow of explosions would you be able to sit through it and have 'dumb fun?' That's some Brave New World shit right there, where people are entertained by the absolute, most basic, mindless forms of enjoyment. Aldous Huxley predicted the future far better than George Orwell did, and though I respect both of their novels, it was Huxley that saw the dumbing down of entertainment that brought the viewers immense happiness.

silent_jay

I agree with Reebee7 100%, GIJoe was "a 'dumb, fun' movie made, well, dumbly"

Fun is not the dirty word, most people, including myself, love a film thats fun. the problem is how the "fun" is written/filmed.

The fun in, say, Wall-E, was great, because the fun was well written, aimed at kids but adults could enjoy it also.

The "fun" in GIJoe, or transformers was rubbish because it was aimed at kids, yet also felt as if it was written by kids, covered in cheese..............not the good kind,

but speaking more specifically about GIJoe and transformers, and why people wanted dark is simple. The *main* people that were waiting for these movies were fans of the original shows 1st time round, and yes while the shows themselves were in reality light-hearted, and goofy 'splosion fun, thats not how they were remembered. they were remembered as ninja/spy/robots gritty ass kicking fun......dark

we got junk

(oh, and where i live, GIJoe isn't being advertised as fun, its being advertised as bad ass ninja action, this would add to the bad taste in peoples mouth after seeing it ,no doubt)

ERoBB

Call me a snob, but when "fun" is used to be the saving grace of a shitty movie, I get off the bus.

Matt

I posted a similar rant in 2007 when everyone was whining about 300, Transformers, etc. despite them being big blockbusters with decent starting reviews. It's too bad that a bunch of wannabe "film buffs" with sticks up their butts have ruined "fun" cinema, but as always: f*ck 'em.

ilkazapata

I love dramas, but I also like comedy, but good comedy. I like good cinema: good dramas, good comedies. I expect something else, not just an empty movie filled with CGI. I expect something more: a good story. It does not matter if it makes me screen, laugh or cry. I also think comedy is overrated. I was disappointed by the fact that "In Bruges" was taken lightly by the Oscars. It was a very good movie. So funny and dramatic at the same time.

Cole_Abaius

My new favorite hobby: reading 35-year olds complain when movies are aimed at kids.

silent_jay

good point, but all the same, the 1st time round fans aint kids, most kids dont even know what the hell GIJoe is, apart from this film

so in a way, they missed the mark,

justadude

*tear* Rob, you speak the gospel. 'Transformers' rocked my world and blew the panties off my girlfriend. Fun does not come any more entertaining than that.

But I cannot believe this discussion section. 'Fun isn't fun unless it is done smart.' What the hell does that even mean? You guys are really trying to argue that 'Transformers' and 'GI joe' are just sacks of CGI with no plot. Bull. Every movie has some sort of plot, even if it just serves as a scaffold for the action. And even then, these movies aren't the worst culprits. Do you want to know the worst plot ever, that you guys cream over: Lord of the Rings. Talk about a scaffold for epic action sequences. (Hold up, I'm a huge LOTR fan, so haters just sit down.) Fan or no fan, it is very easy to admit that the story of LOTR was simply the journey of two hobbits throwing a ring into a volcano with a ton of action in between. It took them 3 movies and 12 hours to put a ring into Mount Doom and save the world. At least 'GI Joe' had the decency to keep thier weak plot to just 2 hours. 'Oh but Dude, there were so many human elements and messages about right and wrong weaved into the story.' Oh, blow yourself. One, that's no excuse for a weak plot, and two, I don't want messages or drama in my fun, I want awesome and entertaining.

Okay, let's step away from LOTR before someone has a heart attack. How about 'District 9'? Do you remember the part when there was 30 minutes of people blowing up and robots owning things? No where in that 30 minutes was there a plot. Sure the action was part of a whole, but isolated it was just fun and exlposions. When you put the action back into context it's a lot less fun. After all, 'District 9' wasn't a particularly fun movie; it was a drama. But everyone is willing to forgive 'mindless fun' when it's in the middle of something oscar worthy. Is that what you mean by 'intelligent fun', mindless action that is plopped into the middle of something with substance? I want someone to give me an example of something that they thought was fun, that wasn't oscar worthy? (aka the fun that isn't 'mindless') 'Live Free or Die Hard' is my jam, but you can't tell me just becuase there were hackers in it that the movie was sophistocated. The entirety of that plot was ridiculous and obviously served as a scaffold for the action. The only difference I can see between 'GI joe' and 'Die Hard' are the kid's jokes (which were intentional).

your_kidding

i am utterly speechless. you used LOTR and District 9 to defend GI Joe and Transformers on the subject of plot. im trying to wrap my mind around this. you used four really great films to defend two really awful films. next time you are arguing your point try and use other examples that drive your point home. not create more controversy with what could only be called rabid stupidity.

to answer your question in paragraph two, yes, people will always forgive mindless action when its in the middle of something oscar worthy, because something oscar worthy may have that little something called a story. believe it or not films can actually be bolstered with great action instead of babbling nonsense built around explosions and running (Michael Bay filmography for examples.) speaking of Michael Bay and an example of something that was mindless fun, BAD BOYS!!! i love that movie and it's beautifully awful and mindless, but im not going to defend Bad Boys by saying it had an equally silly plot like Citizen Kane because that movie was just about a kid longing for his sled. im not going to say that because that makes me an idiot and well lets face it, the movie is about much more than that. some food for thought. good day sir.

Boiling Point: Since When is Fun a Bad Thing?

Related Topics:

Related Reading: