Why are movies so...well, bad?

pscates

Okay, maybe not all-out "bad", but certainly lacking in any sort of true grip and impact.



Just got back from seeing "Ocean's 11" and was COMPLETELY disappointed.



I watch movies like this and simply feel toyed with and jerked around and insulted. I honestly feel like every scene exists ONLY to elicit an over-the-top response, be it a laugh or a "whew!" or whatever.



Nothing seems real and nothing rings true.



Second weekend in a row I've gone to see a big hyped movie with some impressive star caliber (saw "Behind Enemy Lines" last weekend) and just walked out feeling dumber than I did when I went in.







Somewhere between typical big-budget Hollywood schlock that banks on big names and FX to do the job AND artsy-fartsy, "made with $112" low-budget stuff that the vast majority of us simply "don't get" HAS to be a nice middle ground of movies that are exciting, gripping, emotional, make you believe and let you leave the theater not feeling like you just flung $8.75 out of an open window.



I swear, I say this everytime, but I'm going to quit going to movies. It's just becoming a mind-numbing endeavor.



I honestly cannot remember the last time I went to see a movie and when the credits rolled and the lights came up, I didn't feel completely ripped off or lied to.







In case any of you are Hollywood bigshots, slumming incognito on a Macintosh message board, allow me to dole out a bit of advice:



1. We don't give two damns WHO is in the movie, okay? Jesus H. Christ, you have a movie with George Clooney, Brad Pitt (Brad ****ing Pitt, okay?), Julia Roberts (JULIA ROBERTS), Don Cheadle, Carl Reiner, Matt Damon, Elliot Gould, Andy Garcia, etc. and it STILL SUCKED. Stars don't make movies...good stories and writing do. Got that? And don't say you need a "big star" to pull in the crowds either, because people aren't THAT gullible and easily pleased. And if they ARE, then they're too ****ing stupid and simple-minded to be allowed to go see movies.



2. Not every shot has to be a meticulously choreographed "money shot" with bitchin' music and perfect clothes and makeup. Just turn on the camera and film people acting like people and pull back on the wild-ass camera moves, MTV-esque quick cuts and music video vibe and just MAKE A MOVIE THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.



Thank you for your time and attention.

pscates

Oh yeah...just so you know: your warped perception of what constitutes your "A list" star roster absolutely sucks.



I know more people who AVOID movies that star Julia, Tom, Meg, etc.



Wanna impress me? How about flinging us a little more Gary Oldman, Gary Sinise, Jeff Bridges, Joan Allen, Sigourney Weaver, Kevin Kline, Kevin Bacon and Jodie Foster? You know, people with some TRUE talent and skills?

anders

I´m danish so it is mandatory for me to love the "low budget"-handheld-no-artificial-sound-movies. If any of you have heard about Dogme 95/dogma 95 or Lars von Trier you know what I mean. Its fantastic what can be made in this format. Everything from big dramas to comedies. Anyone seens "The Celebration/Festen"? It is probably my favorite film and I actually know a handful of the actors. The last five to eight years half of the greatest films I have seen have been danish and most of them are first or second film of the director.



But also a lot of middle range films are great. Films like the sixth sence and Traffic are great because they are told in an honest way. The story and the persons are the main thing, not looks or special effects. Off course I have some favorite films that was made about 20 years ago (Kubrick, Apocalypse Now, Excalibur) but I think now is also great time for films.

pscates

There's certainly nothing wrong with "Traffic" and "Sixth Sense". They're two of the better movies I've seen in the past few years.



They both held my attention and stayed with me long after I left the theater. And neither of them made me feel like a gullible idiot.



But, sadly, they're the exception more than the rule.

solishu

There's a very delicate balance, IMHO between going to a movie because of the great stars in it, and going to a good movie that is enhanced by the talented actors that play the roles. To name a couple stars that have been in truely great movies:



Brad Pitt - Fight Club

Julia Roberts - Conspiracy Theory

Tom Cruise - Magnolia

Meg Ryan - Courage Under Fire

Keanu Reeves - The Matrix

Denzel Washington - Crimson Tide

Bruce Willis - tons. Sixth Sense, 12 Monkeys, 5th Element, Die Hard



The same actors have also been in some terrible stinkers. And even good, non-superstar actors have been in crappy movies Sigourney Weaver and Winona Ryder were *both* in Alien Ressurection (blech). DeNiro was in 15 Minutes. Angelina Jolie was in frickin Tombraider and Donald Sutherland lended his voice to Final Fantasy. Haley Joel Osmond and Kevin Spacey were in in Pay it Forward. Edward Norton was in Keeping the Faith.



Simply put, you cannot judge the quality of a movie by the quality of the actors. X-Men stared two models and a pro-wrestler and it still rocked. For me to see a movie it has to have a balance of intriguing premise, good actors, great director, and extremely impressive preview. If the summation of these factors doesn't reach critical mass (and it is very rare that any one of those factors could singularly cause a movie to do so) I don't go see it.



As an aside, that is partly why I am so frickin stoked about LOTR. Great director, great cast, the most intriguing premise in existence, and the previews have been perfect.



[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: Solishu ]</p>

ryanthegreat

heh.. sorry Solishu, but I find it funny that you put the 5th element under "great movies"

solishu

Oh hell yea it was a great movie Sure it was totally ridiculous from head to toe, but it was so much frickin fun.

rick1138

I know how people feel,I just saw the Matrix for the first time and was very dissapointed,what began as a great sci-fi movie turned into a cartoonish smash-em up movie Where I live there is an independent film festival every year,it's pretty damn good,I saw three movies that I really enjoyed.One was called Riders,it was shot in this area,a story about a girl and her mothers montstrous live-in boyfriend,at one point she sets his pick-up on fire,a very powerful movie.Another was called Tortilla Soup,it featured Hector Elizondo as a man who was trying to control his three grown daughters,which he of course can't-a very funny movie,and Raquel Welch was in it as well.The last one was Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries,slow moving,very little violence,a movie that would never get made today.If you have a chance to see any of these I recommend them.

eugene

You expected Behind Enemy Lines to be a good movie after watching the trailers?



I think Ocean's Eleven lives up to the original Rat Pack version...which was also over-the-top. I don't see anything wrong with a movie being over-the-top. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was over-the-top. So are most other good movies listed here.



If movies really felt like everyday life, would you watch them? If Fight Club wasn't cleverly absurd, would it have been good? What about Magnolia? Crimson Tide? The Sixth Sense?

mark

The harsh reality is that Hollywood movies stink because people consistently support stinkers. The studios crank out dozens of dumb movies every year in an attempt to duplicate the box office success of past dumb movies; it's silly how people complain about the lack of decent films even while opening their wallets for the mediocre.



Is there really such a dearth of good stuff? It may not be in the multiplex at the mall, but it's around. The trick to finding something that doesn't insult your intelligence is to remember this: the majority of the filmgoing public does not recognize film as an artform - only as a passing diversion or media-generated spectacle. That's the target market. So if you're looking for something really good, don't expect to find it simply by sitting through the new big budget releases. Do we not expend a little bit of effort in seeking out the musicians, writers, or artists who truly engage us - yet aren't household names? I quickly named at least two dozen worthwhile films to watch in the "Top 5 Films" thread, but you'd be hard-pressed to find people at the cineplex tonight who'd be interested in their ilk. "We're here to see the new Julia Roberts/George Clooney..." And then they're somehow surprised that it leaves them wanting.



There's nothing wrong with star vehicles or light entertainment, but if you're looking for something challenging you'll frequently have to look beyond the Hollywood machine. That's a generalization; there are exceptions, but the reality is that the system is stacked against quality in favor of making big bucks.



That sound you hear is the Truth Train coming through - MadTool or no.





Cheers,



Mark.



The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing you've always done and expecting different results - Einstein.



[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Mark ]</p>

alcimedes

nah, harsh reality is that most movies have always sucked. there, i said it.



thing is, 10 years later you look back and say, wow, there were some great movies ten years ago, why is there all this crap out today? thing is that time is doing the work for you. you forget all those crap movies you saw ten years ago, that deserved forgetting. you remember the good ones. over time it seems as if there were a high ratio of good to crap movies in the past. i really don't think that's the case though.



give 2001 10 years, and you'll be looking back saying, "man, there were some great movies back then, why do they all suck now?"



-alcimedes

fran441

I moved in July and live closer to a movie theatre than I have in my life, and I haven't been once. Why? The movies DO suck. I can't believe what they are trying to pass off as a good movie.



I don't want to see anything that's out now, and I'm not particularly looking forward to LOtR either. Why? It's too long. Maybe it will be good, but I'll probably skip it at the theatres.



With the cost of a ticket being $7-8, and popcorn and soda being another $8-9, you could go broke just by going to the movies by yourself, never mind bringing a friend or your significant other.



Call me crazy, but if I have to pay that much, I want to see a GOOD MOVIE. I don't want to know the whole plot when I go to see it, so don't give away the entire plot in the movie's trailer or commercials. I don't neccesarily have to even see big name actors either.



I want to see a movie that has a GOOD PLOT. It doesn't have to be the greatest plot in the world, but at least make it ORIGINAL. Why do people think that all movies have to have similar plots to be big hits? Want to know why I don't want to see 'Not another Teen Movie'? I've seen it in too many movies! Scary Movie wasn't even that great to begin with. Why do I need to see another farce?



Give me a good action/adventure movie like Indiana Jones with some humor thrown in there. Give me a thriller or a comedy which doesn't have to be completely horrifying every minute, or completely funny every minute.



I guess the Hollywood 'big wigs' don't get it, but the same thing that applies to movies applies to television: Don't give us Cheap Knockoffs. I don't want to see another show based on Friends or Seinfeld. I don't need to see another Survivor knockoff. I can live with ONE primetime gameshow. How many Police/Hospital shows do we need anyway?



Just give me an original show or movie, and maybe I'll watch it, because not every movie has to have the same predictable, crummy plot. Movies and tv shows have gone WAY downhill from where they were. If you watch some of the old TV shows or movies, there is no denying that they are better than what's coming out now.



Oh and alcimedes, I'd agree with you about remembering the good movies of 2001 in 10 years and saying 'Wow, what great movies there were back then', but I can't even REMEMBER a good movie that I've seen this year.

doctorgonzo

[quote]thing is, 10 years later you look back and say, wow, there were some great movies ten years ago, why is there all this crap out today?<hr></blockquote>



Then you watch Comedy Central and realize how many shitty movies came out in the '80s and early '90s.

samantha joanne ollendale

[quote]There's nothing wrong with star vehicles or light entertainment, but if you're looking for something challenging you'll frequently have to look beyond the Hollywood machine. That's a generalization; there are exceptions, but the reality is that the system is stacked against quality in favor of making big bucks.<hr></blockquote>



Ditto with the music industry...the most heavily promoted mass-culture (excuse the oxymoron) material is little more than schlock, wallpaper for the masses, baby formula, muzak-with-electric- guitars, bland, safe, generic, instant and forgettable....with a few exceptions of course.

Many people go to see a movie, or buy an album because thats whats 'now', or 'cool' or'current' or 'hip'. It has absolutely squat to do with any notion of artistic 'quality' or merit.



[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>

daver

I can't remember who said it first, but the 1970's were the last great years for Hollywood movies.



It makes me sad to see movies like The Mummy Returns and Rush Hour 2 shatter box office records. I remember when blockbusters made money because they were really good movies, not because they were prefab marketing coups.



I must say that I'm really looking forward to the Lord of the Rings movies, though. Kudos to Peter Jackson and New Line for making the effort to create something better.

solishu

[quote]OMFG I can't believe how many people thought the Matrix was good. IT SUCKED! The reason it sucked is simple: Keanu Reeves is the worst actor in the history of movies. Period. Wood. Pure dull, uninteresting, lifeless piece of frigging wood. I've seen grade school plays without a single actor worse than Keanu.<hr></blockquote>Humbug. Matrix is on the top 20 list of 90's movies in my opinion. It had a breakthrough dark/slick style, brought techno-punk into the mainstream, cool as hell plot, and brought Hong Kong wire-fu into the mainstream. So what if Keanu couldn't act his way out of a paper bag? He's about twice the actor Mark Hammil was, and no one is going to argue that the Star Wars saga wasn't a landmark in cinema.

tmp

[quote]Originally posted by Solishu:

<strong>Humbug. Matrix is on the top 20 list of 90's movies in my opinion. It had a breakthrough dark/slick style, brought techno-punk into the mainstream, cool as hell plot, and brought Hong Kong wire-fu into the mainstream.</strong><hr></blockquote>



And it had an impact upon films that followed that became cliched in record time. I guess I needed to see it when it came out, rather than last night on TNT. All I could think of watching it was "wonder where he got that shirt" and "since they have shot out every column and wall in that lobby, what's holding the building up?". Not to mention, "Does Keanu have a facial expression that doesn't say 'duh'?"

ghost_user_name

Some of you people sound like a bunch of old grumps, "Back in my day movie were good. The movies today aint worth it".



Also note that people have a wide variance in what they consider good. The list Solishu typed in above have some movies that I would call mediocre at best. Although he's listing the stars as being great and not the movie per se.



Also remember that a lot of crap that was shown back in the day, everyone's forgotten about. How many musicals did Hollywood make? Those were the "block busters" of the day. They just cranked them out. Same thing with the Westerns. How many old Westerns are there where the "indians" are white guys with shoe polish on their face? Over time the crap gets forgotten.



I don't think there's a lot of support to say that movies were once all good and now they all suck.

hmurchison

The Matrix far from sucked. Keanu didn't add much to the movie as to make you say "This would have been as good without Keanu" but the movie was intriguing. Sure there have been plenty of copycat movies with Bullet Time effects but that's not what defines the Matrix. Movie heads like myself wheren't drawn to the plot( I mean how much information can you add to an action movie for a decent plot...very difficult) we loved the cinematography. I loved the "way" the Matrix was filmed with overhead shots and the fluidity of Trinity running on roof tops(Run Lola Run anyone?). Like Terminator you wondered just how this villian(the Agents) could be beat. I just hope they can make the next two installments even better. The Phantom Menace didn't have ONE character as appealing as Hugo Weavings Agent Smith IMO.

groverat

5th Element was a great movie.



There are good movies coming up, the only problem is an overly rosy view of the past. People have been saving "there aren't any good movies coming out anymore" for the past 40 years.

pfflam

Traffic was crap dressed up like art. crap crap crap.



sigourney weaver cannot act -- see her try to act in a serious movie (Death and the Maiden) and destroy a serious drama.

Kevin Bacon cannot act...



"The Celebration" now that is agood film!!!!!



(skipped here after reading the first three posts sorry..I'll backtrack)