It was a good way for me to clean up movies that I'd meant to see earlier in the year, but never gotten around to. It felt like a cinephile life hack. These movies would ordinarily rent for around $4.99, but on these special weeks of the year, I could knock them out for $4 less than that.
Over time, I adjusted a bit so that even if I hadn't heard of the movie in question, I'd rent it as long as I recognized some of the stars or the director. I figured, also a good way to learn about movies that hadn't been on my radar, but maybe should have been.
That's changed.
I came to this realization last night while watching On the Count of Three, a movie starring Christopher Abbott and Jerrod Carmichael, and directed by Carmichael. I know Abbott's work, of course, and Carmichael's was a face I recognized. (As it turns out, it's produced by none other than legendary TV producer Tom Werner, who I've actually met, though this was only something I discovered in the end credits and not a factor in my purchase.)
The movie was okay. Actually, I liked it less than okay, but even sort of okay was a good place for it to have reached after I started out hating it. It redeemed itself in the second half, a bit. And there are some big name actors who each have one scene, most notably Tiffany Haddish, but also JB Smoove and Henry Winkler.
But there is no doubt that I did not need to see this movie, and that 99 cents no longer seems like a bargain.
It is reasonable to make the argument that it might be worth spending 99 cents on any movie. But when you decide to watch a movie, you are not just spending those 99 cents -- you are also spending the two hours of your life. On the Count of Three was, fortunately, only 86 minutes, but given pauses and naps -- yes, I was pretty sleepy on Monday night -- it actually took more like two-and-a-half hours for me to watch it.
Another reasonable argument is that because I'm a person who assembles a year-end list of movies and ranks them from best to worst, there's a value to seeing movies that are going to end up on the "worst" end of the spectrum. Because I like to get good coverage, I don't only watch movies I think I'll like. I want some real stinkers to find their way in there as well.
But On the Count of Three was less a stinker and more of a "so what?" movie. And that's not because it was frivolous. Actually quite the contrary. The two main characters have a suicide pact. They begin the movie aiming guns at each other's faces, hoping to simultaneously pull the trigger so they will succeed in killing each other, but at the last minute decide to take one more day. This is the story of that day. And on this day, one of the guys considers killing the therapist who molested him when he was a kid.
But even with the heavy themes, it didn't feel like a film that I "needed" to see. In fact, I just sat there wondering why I had allowed its 99 cent price tag to convince me to rent it, when there are dozens of films just on the streaming services I subscribe to that I should probably see, that will actually be free. To say nothing of the streaming services where I don't currently have a subscription.
I think I actually came to this conclusion after I'd rented On the Count of Three but before I'd watched it. The following week's 99 cent movie on iTunes was Infinite Storm, starring Naomi Watts. My finger hovered over the button to rent this one as well, but I hesitated and ultimately aborted. I should rather watch a movie starring Naomi Watts, a bigger name than any of the actors mentioned so far, but I'd already crossed over an imaginary line in my head.
With the changes in the film landscape, there are enough movies I should see that I don't have time for, that I don't need to complicate my viewing schedule by picking up new movies that I don't even know about. Sometimes, they rent movies for 99 cents for a reason.
On the Count of Three is not, probably, the best example of this I could come up with. As I said, it was okay. But when I write posts is a function of when my brain gets the idea to write them, and I got that idea last night.
Besides, I don't really need an okay movie. Give me good or give me terrible. Otherwise you are just wasting my time.
There's always a "that said," so here it is: That said, my #1 movie of 2021 was a 99 cent rental. I can't remember now if I'd heard of Our Friend before I rented it, but given that it starred Jason Segal, Casey Affleck and Dakota Johnson, it easily met my standard of having stars I recognized. In that case I aslo recognized Gabriela Cowperthwaite as the director of the documentary Blackfish, and was curious about what she'd do with a feature film.
Maybe I don't need to be making absolute rules. Maybe I do want to find the next Our Friend, and since I had so little expectations for that when I watched it, maybe On the Count of Three could have been it. It wasn't, but do I really want to prevent myself from ever having that sort of wonderful surprise again?
I do know that in the current year, I don't yet have a film that I've seen that I feel is a real candidate to end the year as my #1. If my current #1 ends up there, so be it -- it's a great movie. But it doesn't feel like #1.
Maybe Infinite Storm would have been it.
No comments:
Post a Comment