Alex writes about how the way we watch a movie affects our opinion of it, with a focus on Colmbiana because Zoe Saldana is cool.<\/em><\/p>\n When I really like a movie and a friend doesn\u2019t, I don\u2019t immediately accept their review as their true, objective opinion. Generally, when the movie in question is something I loved, I will try to find out what type of situation they were watching the film in. Were you watching Blue Valentine with an ex*? Were you watching Deer Hunter while you were hung over**? Did you look up from your laptop more than every five minutes?<\/p>\n *Why would you do that?<\/em><\/p>\n **This never helps anything, ever.<\/em><\/p>\n Or perhaps you were watching a movie while trying to hold the pose Ms. Saldana is making to the left. Which seems like a ridiculous idea, but there’s probably some sort of weird contest like this somewhere in the southern United States. Probably Alabama. And if you can watch all 89 minutes of Larry the Cable the Guy: Health Inspector like this, you deserve a prize.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n These inquiries are all probably fairly elitist things for a movie watcher to think about; I recognize this reads like I\u2019m writing while drinking a dram of $3600 scotch out of a gold-plated snifter. But I\u2019m continually surprised by how few people realize how important these factors are to how you feel about an actual movie. When directors like Michael Bay and Terrence Malick compose letters to projectionists about how to properly project their films, they are implicitly acknowledging how important outside factors are to how their films get remembered. None of the points I\u2019m making would be a surprise to either of them; I assume they would explicitly agree with them*. That such dramatically different directors each feel their films need to be presented in what they deem the proper way to view each film shows that directors want the viewers to give their movie its rightful chance. Of course, this rarely happens.<\/p>\n *Drop me a line, Terry!<\/em><\/p>\n I went to see Colombiana last night with a friend, and we each generally enjoyed it. It was totally absurd, but it was absurd in a way that encouraged my friend and I to sporadically look at each other and make fun of the movie; the magical FBI database that apparently exists in all action movies being the main culprit*. But the thing about it was that there were elements of the movie I genuinely thought were good: Zoe Saldana was trying really hard to get this movie taken somewhat seriously, and her dramatic scenes were occasionally vaguely emotional**. I also thought that it was interesting how the movie appeared to be a quasi-sequel to The Professional, with Saldana replacing the Natalie Portman character, now named Cataleya instead of Mathilda. The Professional sequel is a movie I will always want to happen, but likely never will***, so I was happy to sort of see it here. And for the first half of the movie, I was taking Colombiana kind of seriously. But then an FBI mail-carrier happened to be a flower expert at just the right moment, and then an FBI agent hit one button to find all the information on said flower, and then my friend and I were laughing. It\u2019s hard to win viewers back once that happens.<\/p>\n