I always say that “The most beautiful thing about film is the pure subjectivity of it”. That ultimately means that while we can argue and debate and discuss our points of view on a movie, when it comes down to it there really is no absolute right or wrong. Film is art, and as art every person who sees it will experience it and have it effect them in a slightly different way. 10 people can stand around a work of art and yet see 10 different things. It’s the most amazing thing about the movies and makes our debates about them just that much more fun.

With that being said, I can accept that some people find “Meet the Spartans” funny even though I didn’t (and I think they’re crazy). I can accept that some people thought the story of “Avatar” was really good even when I didn’t, and we can debate the merits thereof.

But one of the things I don’t accept is when someone tries to use the INTENT of the filmmakers as an argument for a movie’s quality. That somehow, what a director was “going for” can be seen as a replacement for actual results.

I don’t care if a director was trying to show the struggle of single mothers living in a male dominated society making it almost impossible to move ahead while caring for their families at the same time. Yes, that’s a noble subject matter to tackle. Yes, that’s a great starting point… but it doesn’t negate the fact that the movie was slow, had bad dialog, terrible characters and no emotional triggers. No matter what the director was TRYING TO SAY with his/her movie, they still didn’t say it well, and it’s a bad movie.

This always frustrates me when people I’m talking with try to portray a films weakness as if it were a strength. Like “Meet the Spartans”. The film was just pure stupidity in its most undiluted form. Yet some people have argued with me that since “stupidity” is what the director was going for, it should be seen as a success. WHAT?!?!?!

Here’s an Olympic analogy I like to use:

Picture this scene. It’s the Olympic games in China and we’re at the diving competition. A German diver stands majestically at the base of the diving board as cameras flash around him in a dance of light like an indoors arora borealis. The crowd starts to quite down and the flashes die off. The arena is now calm and quite and the German diver extends up onto his toes, bounces, and then quickly strides up the diving board… gives one giant bounce… flies up into the air…. and then when in the air he inexplicably starts flailing around like an injured bird with his arms and legs kicking everywhere and eventually comes crashing down onto the water in a smaking belly flop. The majestic diver looked more like an 8 year old fat kid making his very first jump off a board than a world class olympic diver and the results were horrible. The judges show their scores that average out to be about 0.5 out of 10. The German finishes in last place.

The German diver and his coach angrily run up to the judges podium and protest! “Why did you give me such a low score?” the German demands. “Because your dive was terrible with no form, no grace, no technique and it all resulted in a terrible belly flop. That’s why.” respond the judges. “But…” the German shoots back at them, “That’s exactly what I was TRYING to do. That’s what I was going for!”

So the question is… since a horrible, graceless, ugly and awful dive is exactly what the diver was going for… should the judges re-evaluate their scores and give him a 10? Or should the judges stick with their score because regardless of intent, a bad dive is a bad dive and should be scored as such?

To me, the answer to that question is obvious. If a dive was ugly and awful to watch with little to no merit to it, then regardless of intent, it was still an ugly, awful to watch dive with little to no merit. Period.

Even today some people defend the film “Step Up 3D”. Because I believe all film is subjective I can completely accept if someone found the story solid even when I did not. I can accept someone finding the characters interesting even when I did not. I can accept someone thinking the movie is “good” while I think it’s a steaming pile of shit. That’s all totally fair…. but the funny thing is that most of the people who defend this movie aren’t actually claiming it’s any good. They’re just saying the dancing is great.

The Motocross in “Supercross” was great too… does that mean it was a good movie? No.

Here’s another analogy. Let’s say you have a movie with some of the worst acting in history, a terrible script, no pace, and we’re pretty sure the camera was out of focus half the time. BUT… the movie was about a young girl trying to make it in New York in the fashion industry, and the clothes in the film were some of the best designed clothes you’ve ever seen! Is it ok to give the movie a passing grade just because the director was trying to make a movie about fashion and the fashion in the film was great? NO!!!!! The movie still sucked no matter how good the clothes in it were.

Again, I have no problem with someone disagreeing over the quality of a movie. I just hate it when “but that’s what they were going for” is used an excuse.

/RANT.