The "bad" are those generic-ass movies we have to endure most of the time, since they are purposely made to be either uncreative or as typical as possible to get as many demographics to go see the damn movie.
The "Good" popcorn pictures are those that Hollywood try to rip-off endlessly. I mean, dear lord we still have movies trying to be the next STAR WARS not only popularity, but as well in making a shitload of money. If anything, its rare that after STAR WARS for Hollywood to produce a pure sci-fi picture that isn't simply using the futuristic fantasy element to make for an excuse for mindless action sequences.
Though I hate to use the defense that a movie "entertains" me as simply a reason why its good or whatever. It may be enjoyable on a friday night, beer/pizza binge, but besides that, is it a good film on its own mechanics?
THE ITALIAN JOB remake I enjoyed in a mindless way, but its average as hell. Nothing incredibly lame in it, just nothing worth a special shit in it. Worth watching again? Not really. Would I watch it on say TNT on friday night at 10 PM and I've got a six-pack and some greasy-ass pizza? Ya sure, why not.
There seems to be two special types of people at IMDB.com, much as I see here at BB.Net as well. Those that think film buffs and critics are pretentious arty fruity pricks who hate anything "fun", and those others who are true film lovers, and despise anything that is "popcorn".
I love good popcorn when I eat it, but I hate either stale or rotten or worse, pissed-on popcorn. I think absolutes is almost never a good mindset to have when reviewing films.
