Roger Ebert has a feature on his site called Answer Man, where he – wait for it – answers reader questions.
One reader asked (in part):
Q. I love the new “At The Movies” with Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott (good riddance to you know who), but I must say that I still don’t get the “See It/Rent It” distinction. Either a movie is worth seeing, or it’s not, right? I mean, I think it does work on the show as a sort of “thumbs sideways” to deal with the two-and-a-half star movies that can’t quite be recommended, but still have some value that deserves to be recognized.
Ebert’s response:
A. Amen. I’ve been against “rent it” from the first time I was exposed to the concept. It makes no sense. Either a film is good enough to see, or not good enough to see. Here’s my theory about the invention of this ersatz category: It’s an attempt to pander to those who would rather die than rent a great film like, say, Hitchcock’s “North by Northwest” rather than a “rent it”-style dim bulb like “Couples Retreat.” I think some editors, not mine, are terrified that readers might get the idea a critic is stuck up. If you’d rather rent “Couples Retreat” than the new restored “North by Northwest,” “Bonnie and Clyde” or “Cool Hand Luke,” that’s what I am, stuck up, and happy to be.
Roger Ebert is missing the point here, I think. When people use a phrase like “Rent It/See It,” they are comparing the experience (and hassle) of watching a movie in the theater (See It) to watching it at home (Rent It).
Some movies just play much better in the theater, don’t they? Epics, space movies, war movies, anything with a sweeping vista or two. Westerns. Big, bigger, biggest movies. Not necessarily foreign documentaries about gay cowboys eating pudding, to borrow from South Park.
2001: A Space Odyssey is a See It movie. You’re better off seeing it in the theater, despite the cost and the complications of getting out to the theater
to doing so. (If you’re going to watch it at all, of course.) It’s a big movie.
Conversely, you can watch a film like Sleepless in Seattle at home, making it a Rent It. Certainly, you can also See It in the theater (it’s a damn good movie), so let’s think of a better one. Okay, how about The Santa Clause, with Tim Allen? Not a bad movie, but by no means is it a great, must-see-in-the-theater movie, either. Isn’t it, maybe, worth the chump change to rent it at home but not worth the $10 to see on the big screen? I say it is.
(Of course, more and more people have those giant 55-inch screens, so watching a movie at home is almost as grand as watching it in a real theater. Except you’re more likely to get those around to to shaddup when you’re watching your movie at home.)
#1 by Ray on December 17, 2009 - 9:30 am
I say that to people all the time. Some movies are worth renting at what… $4 a rental? I don’t know what it is these days. But that same movie might not be worth taking a group to see and paying $60 when you add in the cost of the popcorn.