Wednesday, January 5, 2011

This Movie Ain't Worth $10!

To paraphrase a brilliant man, the movie rent is too damn high! As films get bigger and (supposedly) better and Thrust into the third dimension more and more I find myself often wondering if the film is even worth the money I'm paying to see it. A lot of the time I can easily justify the money, it's a night out on the town with friends enjoying a film and popcorn and snackies. Who wouldn't love that, an asshole...that's who!

So for the last year or so when I go to the movies I often discuss with my cohorts if the movie was worth what you paid for it. Obviously a $10 dollar movie needs to justify $10 spent, what criteria was used? Would you watch it again? Should it have even made it to the big screen in the first place? I can't even begin to tell you how many "straight to video" films I've seen on the big screen. And lastly how much would you pay to see it a second time. My local theater does a $5 movie night on Tuesdays so it's very realistic that we could see a new release on friday and then watch it again at the cheap movie night the following Tuesday.

This cinematic speculation is fascinating sometimes to see what people thought made the film worth it. Usually this involves lines like "Well it had Ray Stevenson and he destroys" or "Eva Mendes has a great ass" (AKA the perfect ass defense and is also an immediate justification), but every now and again someone will bust out with some minute detail that adds another quarter of worth to the flick. It's rare for me to give a movie a 0 out of 5 stars, but it's even more rare for me to give a film the ever dreaded $0 out of $10. Even the most notorious of my film reviews, Bride Wars, was probably worth a dime or 2 (though would likely take a lot of convincing).

Worth like...$.05?

Some of my favorite post film discussions are the ones where we try to decide if it should have even been made for the big screen in the first place. The Book of Eli is an amazing example of a farm league film being called up to the majors because it had a particularly good short stop. Sorry Denzel, but you have one character you play in different situations and maybe it's time you took your proper place in the minors and let some quality B listers take the reins. I'm sure Bosh could make a list of 50 STV action stars that would have done a better job in Book of Eli. I'm not gonna just make fun of the bad films, The Expendables is the biggest budget, most badass straight to video film I'm ever seen. It was amazing to see it on the big screen, but that could have come out 2 decades ago in an awesome Media designed box. From Paris with Love could have gone straight to video; Wolfman, Brooklyn's Finest, Cop Out? All are fine examples of movies that probably shouldn't have seen a big screen. In a few of those cases I have to admit that I'm glad they made it to the big show and now that I've exhausted my knowledge of baseball expressions, I'll digress.
...of ideas

How much would pay to see it a second time? Usually posed as a means to see how long you'd be willing to wait for a second viewing. $5 means you'd like to see it again soon, 2009 was my year for $5 films. I saw Distrist 9 and Inglourious Basterds in theaters twice, 2 may not sound like much, but at the time I was dead broke and saving every penny to try and see a new movie every week in theaters. $3.50 means you'd be willing to wait till it comes to video stores, though the rising of netflix means the $3.50 answer doesn't really happen anymore. and obviously there's free, which now means netflix, but used to mean you'd wait till it was available in the library for free or on cable.

A 2 Sitter
So what are some films you thought were totally worth the money? Or films you felt should have been straight to video? What are you typically willing to spend to see a movie a second time?



  1. Interesting question. Armored, Death At A Funeral, Gamer, and especially Takers should have gone straight to dvd.

  2. straight to fucking library rental