Here's a question that's come up more than a few times this week, and one I feel is pretty easy to answer: Is a film automatically better when you can relate to it? When you can relate to its setting, its characters, its story? The film that sparked this debate was The Wackness; a film, I feel, is better when you can relate to it. When you happen to be a product of the '90s or, perhaps, someone who grew up in New York City. Fellow Cinematical writer Scott Weinberg ventured to argue that a film with a weak story and forced dialogue is still a film with a weak story and forced dialogue no matter how much you can relate to it and its world.

Then again, if you can easily relate to the film, you might not notice things like dialogue and (maybe) story because you're so caught up in feeling the film, versus watching the film. Immediately after attending a screening of The Wackness, I asked a few friends what they thought of the film and every single one of them began with the same statement: "I loved it because I remember growing up at that time, listening to that music and hanging out with those types of kids." After pausing for a moment, I realized I felt the same exact way they did. Yes, I noticed the film's flaws (which I pointed out in my review), but because I could easily relate, those flaws didn't bother me as much.

Have you ever found yourself in a similar situation? Where, despite the film's flaws, you liked it a whole lot more because you could easily relate to it? And is a film automatically better when you can relate to it? Sound off below ...
categories Movies, Cinematical