Daily Archives: March 30, 2014

I have no plans to see _Noah_ in the theater

Or _Son of God_, for that matter, or _God isn’t Dead_.  Or _Muppets Most Wanted_.

At least not till one is at the Masters Cinema (Oh, man!  Masters’ week is coming up!)

In all the back and forth about whether Noah is or is not appropriate for Catholics, from Barbara Niccolosi’s negative review that’s so popular it’s apparently crashed Patheos, to Steven Greydanus’s praise, all of which is probably more interesting than the movie itself, the debates all stem on whether a movie is worth seeing in the theater.  Catholic critics never seem to address the difference between “in the theater” and “at all.”

With a few exceptions, I’ve always been the “one or two movies a year” type, following my parents–indeed, my Mom hadn’t seen a movie in the cinema between the original X-Files movie in 1998 and Les Miserables in 2012.  That week, she ended up seeing three (The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey and something else) and had to close her eyes during the latter two.  My wife and I have only been to the movies by ourselves a few times, and the last one we walked out of.  We had a “date night” and a certificate for *that* movie theater, and of the ones currently playing, it looked the best.  It was so horrible we walked out and would have demanded our money back if it hadn’t been free.  The last one we went to together at all was Les Mis, and that was with her siblings.

Our rule for the kids is usually that we have to prescreen films, or watch them with them, and taking 4 kids to the vies gets pretty expensive unless it’s $1 a ticket or a good sale.

Plus, in addition to the disappointment so bad that I don’t even want to mention its name, the first time I’d ever gone to a movie just for the sake of seeing one, most of the other movies I’ve gone to recently have been disappointments: the entire Transformers franchise (after eagerly awaiting the first two, I saw the third on home video), for example.  Before Les Miserablesthe last truly enjoyable experience I had in the movie theater was The Phantom of the Opera at Royal Albert Hall.

And in spite of all that, even if I were to go by myself, as I used to do for anticipated franchise movies, I still wouldn’t be able to sit through a movie.  I know the intensity would get to me–it gets to me on TV–and I can’t sit anywhere for very long these days without needing to lay down.

So, between cost, quality, family logistics and health, I have no desire to see any movie in the theater, and it really surprises me that in “this economy,” people have the money to do so.  I’m glad that the last one I did see is, as far as I’m concerned, the best movie I’ve ever seen, but it just doesn’t seem worth it to spend upwards of $10 per person for anything, no matter how worthy, when even if one desires the “experience,” one can wait a few months and watch it at home in HD for a fraction of the cost, using the TV and service(s) justified as saving money on trips to the movie theater (or the regular theater).

I just don’t understand why reviewers don’t write reviews with that under consideration.  If you think a movie is a waste of $10 a person, is it also a waste of $1 or less a person?   That’s the kind of a review I’d like to read.