Fan Rant: Movies Are Not Fun

Of course, according to the reader-response theory of literary criticism, the reader (or, in this case, viewer) creates the work anew as he/she reads/watches it. So in a way, when we watch a movie, we are creating our own impression of it--one that is different from everyone else's. So if that's true, then it can be fun to watch a movie.

Sadly, few movies are truly fun to watch--most are just painful.

Reply

What is the point of this post? You're trying to inform the public about the proper usage of the word "fun"? How is this relevant?

While we're at it, should we dissect the grammar in your post? You should have used a semicolon in the sentence, "A movie can not be fun, it can only be entertaining." Does that matter? I don't think so, but I'd say it's equally relevant.

Anyway, dictionary.com defines "fun" as "something that provides mirth or amusement." If a movie provides mirth or amusement, then it's fun.

Reply

Pomposity in search of profundity. The result being absurdity draped in pseudo intellectualism which reads like an Onion article. It reads like the kind of Onion article where they are making fun of the critic who would do well to get over him or herself. I blame the education system myself.

In reference to the movie Hancock - it looked like a turkey from the start in my opinion but there is a cadre of people who like to latch onto 'stars' and somehow think those stars only fart perfume and who can do no wrong. Shock - horror - it takes more than Will Smith to make a good movie, oh I don't know, perhaps writers/directors/cast/etc ???

Reply

I grade movies on if they entertain. That's the job of the film - hold my interest. Scare me, make me laugh, make me cringe but above all else MAKE ME CARE. A good storyteller makes you care about the plights of the characters/themes. Not many good storytellers are left...

Reply

w/e

Reply

Dan's right. This was a ridiculous post. And totally wrong.

Reply

I agree with the above posters. This piece is possibly the lowest point in Cinematical history.

Reply

I didn't have any fun reading this.

Reply

I thought grindhouse was pretty fun to watch, although I have to admit, it was funner in the theatre.

Reply

I have no idea what the claimed authority for this post's usage of "fun" is. Clearly the author is a linguistic prescriptivist, rather than a descriptivist. This is fine, as far as it goes, but it comes with an obligation to explain why the author's prescriptions should be taken seriously.

Is the restrictive usage of "fun" advocated in this post currently standard? Obviously not, as evidenced by the film-critical usage the post itself complains about. Indeed, it has long been standard to refer to successful entertainments as being "fun." In the Oxford English Dictionary, the second meaning for "fun" is given as: "Diversion, amusement, sport; also, boisterous jocularity or gaiety, drollery. Also, a source or cause of amusement or pleasure. " Clearly, a film can be a source or cause of amusement and pleasure -- so a film can definitely be fun.

Perhaps the author of this post is an unreconstructed follower of Samuel Johnson, whose 1755 dictionary warns against the use of fun in this sense as "a low cant word." However, in more recent decades and centuries, this stigma has fallen away from the usage. Consider this example, provided by the OED, from a 1954 book review in the Economist (not a particularly lowbrow publication by most lights): "His book has all the charm of science fiction; it is enormous fun." This usage is clearly identical to the usage objected to in this post, yet it is an example of standard English and comes from a respected exemplar of educated British discourse. So social snobbery will not resolve the question in the poster's favor; even snobs use "fun" this way.

I've had a riot funning with this post, but I do hope no reader will take the ideas discussed here as anything but inanity. The writer has not yet mastered his material.

Reply

This is the most pointless post I've ever read on a serious, professional blog.

Reply

Several months ago, one of Cinematical's 'authors' wrote an article about animation, with a preface stating that she had never seen a Pixar film. It was at that point that I said, "Goodbye, Cinematical! Your amateurish site will no longer get these eyes." Today was the first time since that moment that I checked in, to see if anything had changed. And things have changed.

There are a lot more advertisements, that's for sure. But what
hasn't changed is the amateurish level of quality of the original
writing on the site-- I say "original writing" to distinguish between the posts that merely echo another movie site's news story and these silly bits like "Fan Rant: Blah Blah Blah."

In any respect, this 'Movies Are Not Fun' post further solidifies the amateurish nature of this site. For example, are you saying that in 2008, none of the following films could possibly be considered 'fun'? "Ironman," "Kung Fu Panda," "Wall-E," "Indiana Jones IV," "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," just to name a few?

The people who run this site need to take a long look at heir writing staff and decide if they want to create a site that contains interesting ideas and perspectives, or a wannabe site full of mindless chatter and pablum.

Adios, Cinematical!

Reply