There's the reverse to Mott's Law, though, in that I don't want to analyze a movie (or TV show) and I resent Hubby when he insists on taking something I quite enjoyed and saying, "You know, it really wouldn't have worked that way, they should have done thus-and-so."

We call that, "pissing in the cornflakes." Basically just being a buzzkill.

Most of the time I can keep my knowledge to myself but sometimes the movie is so wrong I have to ruin it for everyone else. Kate & Leopold comes to mind. (he named the elevator after his butler? Way to belittle the real Mr. Otis, filmmakers.)

Typo, that's interesting, and I can totally see it in the original Wolfman stuff ("Even a man who is pure of heart.."). It slightly scares me that Stephanie Meyers is more in line with tradition tradition, though.

THIS THIS THIS:

First of all, when we analyze art, when we look for deeper meaning in it, we are enjoying it for what it is. Because that is one of the things about art, be it highbrow, lowbrow, mainstream, or avant-garde: Some sort of thought went into its making — even if the thought was, “I’m going to do this as thoughtlessly as possible”! — and as a result, some sort of thought can be gotten from its reception.

The post-film nitpicking is part of the experience for me. If I'm not going to analyze a film and pick it apart, why see it at all?

If I am not thinking critically about afilm (or book or TV show or whatever) it cleary didn't engage me at any worthwhile level.

But I agree that pissing on someone's Cheerios is bad form also.

But I agree that pissing on someone's Cheerios is bad form also.

My friends and I agreed on a half hour to hour grace period where those who enjoyed the movie could have an afterglow before those who disdained were allowed to pick it apart.

Basically not just railing about it as soon as you walk out the door, but coming back to the conversation when you were back home or out eating.

If I am not thinking critically about a film (or book or TV show or whatever) it cleary didn't engage me at any worthwhile level.

YES YES YES YES YES. Not to mention the tremendous pleasure of rolling even the very shiniest of shiny things over and over and around and looking at it from different angles that make you squint and refocus and go "huh! a whole other facet of shiny!"

What I get all the time and hate is, "What did you think of (let's say District 9 for example), Raq?"

Raq: "Great effects."

"I know! And it really made you think!"

Raq: "I guess. I thought it was Lethal Weapon. I mean, one of the "unlikely partner guys" is even working on his boat."

(long pause) "Wow, you really think about these things, don't you?"

My friends and I agreed on a half hour to hour grace period where those who enjoyed the movie could have an afterglow before those who disdained were allowed to pick it apart.

But it's a false dichotomy - I pick apart movies I love just as much as I do movies I hate (if not moreso), and I almost always have something I want to say the second the end credits roll to make sure I don't forget about it later.

Mostly I try not to see movies with people unless I know they'll enjoy tearing them apart with me afterwards. Having to hold my tongue to respect someone else's desire to "just enjoy it for what it is" will almost invariably lead to my hating the film because of the bad mood that not being able to talk about it puts me in.

But it's a false dichotomy

It's more of a compromise. Besides, it's not something you're beholden to. Just an agreement among my college circle of friends.

Also, I think some people just like to sit with their reaction after the end of the movie. Sometimes you walk out of a movie feeling one way, and when you've distanced yourself from that immediate, often visceral, experience, you might pick it apart and feel (for example) that it was too manipulative and got that emotional charge from you based on some cheap tearjerking (children in jeopardy! Soaring string section!) instead of earning it narratively.