My kid didn’t like ‘The Outsiders’?! Maybe it’s a generational thing

Movies are largely subjective, and said subjectivity was reinforced last week as my husband and I sat down to watch “The Outsiders” with our daughter.

As young teenagers, we’d both read and re-read S.E. Hinton’s account of early ’60s good vs. evil countless times. The book was our version of “Twilight,” and the movie was something of a must-see when it was released back in 1983.

“The Outsiders” helped create stars out of relatively unknown actors such as Tom Cruise, Ralph Macchio, Rob Lowe and Patrick Swayze.

As we sat down to watch this classic, we told our daughter what a great movie it was. When the ending credits started rolling, our daughter gave us her thumbs-down review. “That was the worst movie I’ve ever seen in my life.”

What?!

Instead of grounding her (just kidding), it moved me to think of movies and their subjectivity.

Have you ever watched a movie on TV, or even worse, paid exorbitant amounts to see it at a theater, solely based on a friend’s raving review, only to be disappointed? Such was my experience watching “No Country for Old Men.” Not only was I disappointed, but greatly confused. It may take a “re-watch” for me to understand it.

The above issue is probably the reason I’m hesitant to see “Avatar” — overhype. First of all, I’m not a sci-fi junkie at all. In fact, I’m probably one of the only people on the planet who doesn’t like “Star Wars” — my husband and daughter, however, are huge fans.

“Avatar” has just surpassed “Titanic” to become the highest-grossing film worldwide. I didn’t see “Titanic” until it had come out on DVD, and I liked it — but I wasn’t nutso about it like the rest of the world.

But what can I say? James Cameron has truly set the bar for writer/director/producer/marketing genius.

My brother told me what a motion picture masterpiece “The Big Lebowski” was. After watching it, I could only muster a Bronx cheer, and my husband agreed. We normally enjoy movies by the Coen brothers, who wrote “Lebowski” as well as “No Country for Old Men.” It just goes to show you, opinions are like ... well, I’m just going to leave that one alone.

A couple of months ago, at my daughter’s urging, we watched “A Haunting in Connecticut,” an allegedly true story of “a paranormal event” at a home in, you guessed it, Connecticut. I wasn’t expecting much from a PG-13 horror flick. I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised and was so excited about my surprise, recommended it to a friend.

He had some friends over and rented it. He promptly told me it stunk. How could I argue with that? I committed a subjective offense — I overhyped it.

There are many “classic” movies that have been the victims of such buildup. Where classic movies are concerned, you really have to put yourself in the time period in which they were made.

“Psycho” was more of a psychological thriller than horror movie. The only “special effect” used was that of chocolate syrup, used to imitate blood in the black and white classic. The original “King Kong” was the “king” of special effects ... in 1933.

Treat yourself to a movie without the hype — there are many independent films out there that aren’t breaking box office records, but they’re spawning new classics.

Smith’s column runs every Friday. She is a resident of Orange County.