Can a movie be "unsuccessful" and still be effective? (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

A movie I watched this weekend had me asking this question. I know it might seem like a strange question, because of course, an unsuccessful movie (By this, I mean a movie that is too flawed to be considered successfully done. On a personal note, I consider commercial success to be meaningless. There's a lot of highly profitable garbage) can't be effective. Or can it? I'm at work and can't post more about the particular movie at the moment, but I'm curious about input from others who have found any movie to be unsuccessful, but still effective.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Well, if you mean unsuccessful at the box office, but still successful as an influence, and something affecting other movies decades later, I say Blade Runner is one example.
I guess many other 'cult' movies are similar, not sure how many people saw the Rocky Horror Picture Show on its orginal run, but it is still shown ...

 

[JQuintana]

Like This is Spinal Tap perhaps?

 

[Richard V]

Depends. If you call cult movies "effective" then there are plenty of examples, Donnie Darko, Carnivale of Souls, Barton Fink, many, many more.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

Ed Wood and it only made 6 million. Saw it in the theater and what a great film.

 

[JQuintana]

I'm still confused about this whole "effective" idea.

I mean was a movie effective in bringing the masses to the theater, case in point Spinal Tap. The answer is no. But was it effective in standing the test of time and in becoming a cult movie? Yes, it was.

 

[David Weicker]

I suppose we need two definitions before this question can be answered properly

“Unsuccessful” - are we referring to box office, or profitability (not the same thing), or achieving its artistic intent (whatever that is).

“Effective” - achieving the creators goal, or satisfying the critics, or meeting the audience’s goals, or having lasting prominence.

 

[JohnRice]

I should have used a different word than "unsuccessful". What I mean is, can a movie be poorly made, as in too flawed to be considered a good movie, and still be effective? Sometimes a poorly executed great idea is good enough to take the effort to appreciate what it was trying to do, without completely condemning it for its failures.

I edited my original post.

 

[JohnRice]

I suppose we need two definitions before this question can be answered properly

“Unsuccessful” - are we referring to box office, or profitability (not the same thing), or achieving its artistic intent (whatever that is).

“Effective” - achieving the creators goal, or satisfying the critics, or meeting the audience’s goals, or having lasting prominence.

I completely agree. My mistake, which I've tried to clarify.

 

[Tino]

What’s the film you’re referring to??

A movie I watched this weekend had me asking this question

 

[JohnRice]

What’s the film you’re referring to??

The one which specifically made me wonder this was The Life Before Her Eyes.

 

[Tino]

The one which specifically made me wonder this was The Life Before Her Eyes.

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $303,439 4.2%
+ Foreign: $6,945,051 95.8%
= Worldwide: $7,248,490

Budget was $13 million.

 

[JohnRice]

Not what I'm talking about...

 

[JQuintana]

Like Plan 9 From Outer Space?

 

[Tino]

Not what I'm talking about...

Didn’t say it was. Just providing some box office information.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I should have used a different word than "unsuccessful". What I mean is, can a movie be poorly made, as in too flawed to be considered a good movie, and still be effective? Sometimes a poorly executed great idea is good enough to take the effort to appreciate what it was trying to do, without completely condemning it for its failures.

I edited my original post.

I think so.

For me, there are two different categories a film can call into that I think would meet your definition above.

The first is what I’d call “noble failures” - everyone involved is trying to make a good movie, and may even take some risks or chances in doing so - but the finished film ultimately doesn’t work as well as it should. For me, these are movies like “The Ninth Gate” and “Star Trek V” which each have a great premise to which there is no conclusion that could possibly be satisfying. But even though they fall apart at the end, I enjoy the journeys that those films take enough that I keep revisiting them.

The second category might be films that just aren’t particularly good, but that are entertaining to me despite (or sometimes because) of their failures. A movie like “Timecop” might fit into this category for me. Wasn’t a critically acclaimed film, wasn’t the best execution of its concept, but I still have as much fun watching it as if it were a genuinely great film.

 

[JohnRice]

I think so.

For me, there are two different categories a film can call into that I think would meet your definition above.

The first is what I’d call “noble failures” - everyone involved is trying to make a good movie, and may even take some risks or chances in doing so - but the finished film ultimately doesn’t work as well as it should. For me, these are movies like “The Ninth Gate” and “Star Trek V” which each have a great premise to which there is no conclusion that could possibly be satisfying. But even though they fall apart at the end, I enjoy the journeys that those films take enough that I keep revisiting them.

The second category might be films that just aren’t particularly good, but that are entertaining to me despite (or sometimes because) of their failures. A movie like “Timecop” might fit into this category for me. Wasn’t a critically acclaimed film, wasn’t the best execution of its concept, but I still have as much fun watching it as if it were a genuinely great film.

I think that boils down a lot of it. With The Life Before Her Eyes the failure was more severe than with most movies I see as noble failures, but I came away wishing so much it had worked the way I was expecting in the middle of the movie.

 

[Jeffrey D]

On the subject of a film that is technically flawed, but still effective, my first answer to this is the film Repo Man. That film was not well done, but still is memorable for certain scenes, bits of dialog, and the craziness.

 

[Tommy R]

Star Trek V is definitely something I would put in this sort of category, if I’m interpreting the topic of this thread correctly. It’s just not a well done film and is very flawed. I see and cannot argue with the wide-spread criticism it’s been given for the last 30 years. But I find myself saying “You know, I REALLY like that movie!” whenever I think of it. It still has a LOT going for it that I enjoy and the flaws simply cannot stop my enthusiasm for the rest of it.

I feel a flawed film that was going for something that I really like (AND has enough actively going for it) is something I would come back to more often than a well-made film that just didn’t do anything for me. For instance I’ve never been super huge on the Harry Potter films, even though I see how “well-made” they are. I’ve seen them and enjoyed them to an extent, but they wouldn’t ever feel a special to me as the flawed films I just can’t seem to stop coming back to.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I should have used a different word than "unsuccessful". What I mean is, can a movie be poorly made, as in too flawed to be considered a good movie, and still be effective? Sometimes a poorly executed great idea is good enough to take the effort to appreciate what it was trying to do, without completely condemning it for its failures.

Yeah, I believe that films can achieve 'effectiveness' in spite of themselves. I'll submit The Siege of Firebase Gloria as an example of a film that fits that criteria. It is a low budget effort with a mostly 'B' cast, but it utilizes the strengths of its leading actor, R. Lee Ermey to good effect. The film also does something that many more prestigious Vietnam War films either do not attempt or fail at; putting a human face on the adversary. A guilty pleasure of mine that delivers a strong experience.

- Walter.