[quote] I remember when blockbusters made money because they were really good movies, not because they were prefab marketing coups. [/B]<hr></blockquote>
Um.. like "The Posiedon Adventure" or, "ET" or what "The Towering Inferno" or "10"
are these what you call good blocbusters?
There is a difference, a very very big difference between your average film and a film that works in the realms of art:
Films entertain.
Art Films are about experience and understanding ... a true art film will make you mature as a human, will give you insights as to what it is to be and to live and to die.
There are very very few "art Films" that come out of Hollwood.
I can name only a few off the top of my head:
Bladerunner
Apocalypse Now
The Thin Red Line
Brazil
some of the Coens movies
Parts of Fight Club, but that film is deeply problematic because it panders to exactly the kind of evil human impulse that it works to point out --it makes fascism fun.
but this is a small list while there are many really good films that are truly an experience to watch: that truly ARE ART.
Many of them are only available on the art film cirquit or even at experimantal festivals.... . . .but I say.... go out there and find that stuff... its out there . . . and watch it with an open mind (much of it demands one)
[quote] Well, of course you're absolutely wrong. <hr></blockquote>
About Kevin "hollow man" Bacon? well, he can act but not very well,... but maybe that's because he always has crap Hollywood roles to play . . .he is no longer an experimental off-Broadway actor.
Sigourney weaver? name a movie where she does a seriouus job of acting.....and succeeds. Certainly not "Death And The Maiden" great story line, heavy drama, great great co-star: Ben Kingsly. . . and why does the movie fail? because that kind of film lives and dies on the skill of its actors... and she failed. Certainly not the Aliens films.... heehee.
If you want to see amazing acting, see the British film "Sexy Beast" all the actors are absolutely amazing... and Ben Kingsly will blow you away. It will leave you wondering about what you used to think was acting.
Oh, and I certainly am not wrong about Traffic. Its one cliche after another told in color-filters and grainy over exposed film. Just think about the last shot: aahh you see he was just risking his life so the little kids could get a baseball diamond --schlock!!! It's a pretetious film that tries to be like a real film by slowing its pacing down and tweaking its camera angles and color --but what commercial doesn't do that these days
I mean just think of the overwrought cliche - the drug czar's daughter gets mixed up with the wrong crowd, on the wrong side of the tracks... and... of course "moment of author's note" the savvy boy points out that maybe he is acting racist.... wow heavy maan.. cliched crap! And that's only two cliches when the whole movie was one after another.
--the mixed race cop partners --one is jovial and somewhat fumbling, the other is ernest, tragic and likable... one dies, and then "it gets personal" --come on -the Simpson's aught to do a spoof.
Face it I was not wrong
That's why Hollywood makes crap because people believe that it isn't
Sexy Beast! FINALLY someone else who has seen that amazing movie! I think it's one of Ben Kingsly's best performances ever. You just hate him so much!
Also, I'd never heard of Ray Winstone but after seeing him in that movie I'd certainly be interested in seeing what other movies he's done.
I was really impressed with Sexy Beast one for it's bitter, sarcastic and satirical comedic script and also for the above-and-beyond acting jobs by the leads. Definitely the kind of movie I could watch a few times and still enjoy.
I think most of you are trying to pick one or the other. There are great movies and entertaining movies. Both types are enjoyable. Sometimes there are even movies that are both.
pfflam, although I agree somewhat with what you said about Traffic. I would have agreed with you 100% if you were using the same critique to describe Thin Red Line. G'aw what a horrible flick that was. Slow-mo's and flowers. Foreshadowing and no wonderment....ugh.
Some movies I've seen (somewhat recently) that I enjoyed:
AI (totatally misunderstood by most fans - will be considered "great" in 10 years, IMO)
Requiem for a Dream - saw opening weekend in 2000, but still...
Battlefield Earth - just kidding (sucked). ;p
I can't think of any more. Heck I love movies though, even the bad ones. I just like going to the movies and sitting around the fire with the other cavemen while the story is being told. Even though often times the story being told can be a little disappointing. I guess it's a primal thing that gets us to go in the first place.
As a matter of fact, I'm a fan of over-the-top cheese as much as the next guy (I mean, for crying out loud, my all-time favorite guilty-pleasure movie is "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man", so...).
But it's when a movie KNOWS its place and what it is that I can forgive and enjoy. But the heavy-handed, self-important and "hey, aren't we nailing it?" stuff from people like Michael Bay ("Pearl Harbor" sucked more than Jenna Jameson in a popsicle-eating contest).
I don't know.
"Ocean's 11" just had that "vibe" and gave me that feeling of "oh no...here we go...". It's hard to put an exact finger on (more than I've already attempted).
Some movies just ring true and good for me (even when they suck...but at least they KNOW they suck) and some just strike me IMMEDIATELY as over-tested, focus-grouped-to-death, tacked-on happy ending, excuses to sell soundtracks, etc.
I know 'em when I see 'em.
Regarding Kevin Bacon: I always thought he was a solid, well-rounded character actor. Something about him keeps him from probably ever attaining Cruise/Hanks/Ford status, but he's made TONS of mediocre, so-so movies way more interesting and enjoyable by his mere presence in them ("A Few Good Men", "JFK", "Wild Things", "Tremors", etc.).
Plus, by all accounts, he seems like a fairly grounded, normal guy. That's cool to see.
I never did call it a Kubrick film. It wasn't supposed to be.
That's what I mean by it's misunderstood... people think just because...oh, never mind. It pays homage to Kubrick, how's that? (Did ya see the milk bars in the background? Kubrick wouldn't have done that. Spielberg would/did).
To me, it was a great piece of film. I think the way the humans created the robot (david) to make themselves feel better, then the way it was flipped around at the end where the robots made the human to make the robot feel better was great. There was a lot of duality and subtle things like that in the film that most people just didn't look for. So what if Kubrick wanted to remake Pinocchio in his dark way, never got to, and his friend finished it in his own style. So what?
If you expected Spielberg to make a 'Kubrick film', chuckles on you.
Eh, that's my opinion. Other people have theirs. Fine. Opinions on movies rarely change. Mine won't.
<strong>Get yer asses away from the Metro Plex and go see some real movies. You expect those bloated movie theatres to give you good movies? Forget it.
I have the sheer luck of living in the city and have five great movie theatres that show real movies...for example:
Amelie - French film by Jean-Peirre Jeunet (Delicatessen). A beautiful movie. Actress Audrey Tautou is fantastic, too.
The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antartic Expedition - Amazing documentary film based on the true story of this ill-fated expedition.
The Man Who wasn't There - The Coen Brother's new film, nuff said.
Waking Life - Richard Linklater's (Slacker) digitally enhanced fim is groundbreaking. Amazing work.
Honestly, the good movies are out there...just got to find them. They aren't at the malls...</strong><hr></blockquote>This is the kind of attitude that really rubs me the wrong way. I'm the first to admit that 99% of what come out of Hollywood is trash, but they do fairly regularly put out a movie that is at least enjoyable, if not a great piece of art. I watch my share of indie flicks and have seen some really crappy ones in that scene as well. Just remember this: all generalizations are wrong.
Trust me: I've argued this point in overly verbose threads before, indisputably making my point, as always -- namely: THe Thin Red Line is a masterpiece: it is unusual and it takes risks such as showing the world of the imagination of a soldier when that imagination is itself cliche and sacchrine-romantic --but believe me, it does not indulge in these romantic cliches without an ironic (or should I say self-consiouse) distance. . it uses these cliched imaginings to make us feel how naive the soldier truly is.
Its cliches are used by the film, within the film, it does not, itself, become the cliche.
Also, as far as the odd interspersing of nature scenery: this is a major theme throughout the film, how large scale human activities, such as war may very well be part of larger motions such as those of the Will or the blind strivings of Nature.
It is also difficult because its pacing in no way panders to the typical Hollywood time frame. It's long and takes its time, and dares not to have a typical (Aristotilian) plot curve: not the overwrought dramatic finally that seems requisite in any other film.
The man who wasnt there was a brilliant movie. AMAZING cinematography. Up there with Kurosawa and Arnofski.
Here in Vancouver we have this theater called 5th avenue, GREAT place, but latley its kinda gone to hell. However it did have American History X playing before the ads for it came out.
But why are movies bad? Pop culture sucks, it plays its self out by trying too hard to be good. By trying so hard it becomes wannabe art, and not art.
Examples? Snatch, it was trying so hard to be a Arnofski/Fincher style flick that it just lost it. Of course not having a plot kinda killed it too.
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
Comments
Um.. like "The Posiedon Adventure" or, "ET" or what "The Towering Inferno" or "10"
are these what you call good blocbusters?
There is a difference, a very very big difference between your average film and a film that works in the realms of art:
Films entertain.
Art Films are about experience and understanding ... a true art film will make you mature as a human, will give you insights as to what it is to be and to live and to die.
There are very very few "art Films" that come out of Hollwood.
I can name only a few off the top of my head:
Bladerunner
Apocalypse Now
The Thin Red Line
Brazil
some of the Coens movies
Parts of Fight Club, but that film is deeply problematic because it panders to exactly the kind of evil human impulse that it works to point out --it makes fascism fun.
but this is a small list while there are many really good films that are truly an experience to watch: that truly ARE ART.
Many of them are only available on the art film cirquit or even at experimantal festivals.... . . .but I say.... go out there and find that stuff... its out there . . . and watch it with an open mind (much of it demands one)
Traffic was a decent movie?not great, but certainly not crap. I've seen it once and I had no desire to watch it again.
For my money, Sigourney Weaver is a fine actress.
About Kevin "hollow man" Bacon? well, he can act but not very well,... but maybe that's because he always has crap Hollywood roles to play . . .he is no longer an experimental off-Broadway actor.
Sigourney weaver? name a movie where she does a seriouus job of acting.....and succeeds. Certainly not "Death And The Maiden" great story line, heavy drama, great great co-star: Ben Kingsly. . . and why does the movie fail? because that kind of film lives and dies on the skill of its actors... and she failed. Certainly not the Aliens films.... heehee.
If you want to see amazing acting, see the British film "Sexy Beast" all the actors are absolutely amazing... and Ben Kingsly will blow you away. It will leave you wondering about what you used to think was acting.
Oh, and I certainly am not wrong about Traffic. Its one cliche after another told in color-filters and grainy over exposed film. Just think about the last shot: aahh you see he was just risking his life so the little kids could get a baseball diamond --schlock!!! It's a pretetious film that tries to be like a real film by slowing its pacing down and tweaking its camera angles and color --but what commercial doesn't do that these days
I mean just think of the overwrought cliche - the drug czar's daughter gets mixed up with the wrong crowd, on the wrong side of the tracks... and... of course "moment of author's note" the savvy boy points out that maybe he is acting racist.... wow heavy maan.. cliched crap! And that's only two cliches when the whole movie was one after another.
--the mixed race cop partners --one is jovial and somewhat fumbling, the other is ernest, tragic and likable... one dies, and then "it gets personal" --come on -the Simpson's aught to do a spoof.
Face it I was not wrong
That's why Hollywood makes crap because people believe that it isn't
Also, I'd never heard of Ray Winstone but after seeing him in that movie I'd certainly be interested in seeing what other movies he's done.
I was really impressed with Sexy Beast one for it's bitter, sarcastic and satirical comedic script and also for the above-and-beyond acting jobs by the leads. Definitely the kind of movie I could watch a few times and still enjoy.
Examples of movies I love:
Top Gun (entertaining)
Gladiator (entertaining)
Shakespeare in Love (great and entertaining)
Saving Private Ryan (great)
Shawshank Redemption (great)
Memento (great)
Amelie (great and entertaining)
Monsters, Inc. (entertaining)
Was it just cheesy or badly done or what?
Some movies I've seen (somewhat recently) that I enjoyed:
AI (totatally misunderstood by most fans - will be considered "great" in 10 years, IMO)
Requiem for a Dream - saw opening weekend in 2000, but still...
Battlefield Earth - just kidding (sucked). ;p
I can't think of any more. Heck I love movies though, even the bad ones. I just like going to the movies and sitting around the fire with the other cavemen while the story is being told. Even though often times the story being told can be a little disappointing. I guess it's a primal thing that gets us to go in the first place.
As a matter of fact, I'm a fan of over-the-top cheese as much as the next guy (I mean, for crying out loud, my all-time favorite guilty-pleasure movie is "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man", so...).
But it's when a movie KNOWS its place and what it is that I can forgive and enjoy. But the heavy-handed, self-important and "hey, aren't we nailing it?" stuff from people like Michael Bay ("Pearl Harbor" sucked more than Jenna Jameson in a popsicle-eating contest).
I don't know.
"Ocean's 11" just had that "vibe" and gave me that feeling of "oh no...here we go...". It's hard to put an exact finger on (more than I've already attempted).
Some movies just ring true and good for me (even when they suck...but at least they KNOW they suck) and some just strike me IMMEDIATELY as over-tested, focus-grouped-to-death, tacked-on happy ending, excuses to sell soundtracks, etc.
I know 'em when I see 'em.
Regarding Kevin Bacon: I always thought he was a solid, well-rounded character actor. Something about him keeps him from probably ever attaining Cruise/Hanks/Ford status, but he's made TONS of mediocre, so-so movies way more interesting and enjoyable by his mere presence in them ("A Few Good Men", "JFK", "Wild Things", "Tremors", etc.).
Plus, by all accounts, he seems like a fairly grounded, normal guy. That's cool to see.
<strong>
AI (totatally misunderstood by most fans - will be considered "great" in 10 years, IMO)</strong><hr></blockquote>
AI was horrible and will be forgotten in 10 years. Please don't call it a "Kubrick" film. It wasn't.
That's what I mean by it's misunderstood... people think just because...oh, never mind. It pays homage to Kubrick, how's that? (Did ya see the milk bars in the background? Kubrick wouldn't have done that. Spielberg would/did).
To me, it was a great piece of film. I think the way the humans created the robot (david) to make themselves feel better, then the way it was flipped around at the end where the robots made the human to make the robot feel better was great. There was a lot of duality and subtle things like that in the film that most people just didn't look for. So what if Kubrick wanted to remake Pinocchio in his dark way, never got to, and his friend finished it in his own style. So what?
If you expected Spielberg to make a 'Kubrick film', chuckles on you.
Eh, that's my opinion. Other people have theirs. Fine. Opinions on movies rarely change. Mine won't.
I have the sheer luck of living in the city and have five great movie theatres that show real movies...for example:
Amelie - French film by Jean-Peirre Jeunet (Delicatessen). A beautiful movie. Actress Audrey Tautou is fantastic, too.
The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antartic Expedition - Amazing documentary film based on the true story of this ill-fated expedition.
The Man Who wasn't There - The Coen Brother's new film, nuff said.
Waking Life - Richard Linklater's (Slacker) digitally enhanced fim is groundbreaking. Amazing work.
Honestly, the good movies are out there...just got to find them. They aren't at the malls...
<strong>Get yer asses away from the Metro Plex and go see some real movies. You expect those bloated movie theatres to give you good movies? Forget it.
I have the sheer luck of living in the city and have five great movie theatres that show real movies...for example:
Amelie - French film by Jean-Peirre Jeunet (Delicatessen). A beautiful movie. Actress Audrey Tautou is fantastic, too.
The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antartic Expedition - Amazing documentary film based on the true story of this ill-fated expedition.
The Man Who wasn't There - The Coen Brother's new film, nuff said.
Waking Life - Richard Linklater's (Slacker) digitally enhanced fim is groundbreaking. Amazing work.
Honestly, the good movies are out there...just got to find them. They aren't at the malls...</strong><hr></blockquote>This is the kind of attitude that really rubs me the wrong way. I'm the first to admit that 99% of what come out of Hollywood is trash, but they do fairly regularly put out a movie that is at least enjoyable, if not a great piece of art. I watch my share of indie flicks and have seen some really crappy ones in that scene as well. Just remember this: all generalizations are wrong.
<strong>Just remember this: all generalizations are wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Including that one?
Its cliches are used by the film, within the film, it does not, itself, become the cliche.
Also, as far as the odd interspersing of nature scenery: this is a major theme throughout the film, how large scale human activities, such as war may very well be part of larger motions such as those of the Will or the blind strivings of Nature.
It is also difficult because its pacing in no way panders to the typical Hollywood time frame. It's long and takes its time, and dares not to have a typical (Aristotilian) plot curve: not the overwrought dramatic finally that seems requisite in any other film.
Here in Vancouver we have this theater called 5th avenue, GREAT place, but latley its kinda gone to hell. However it did have American History X playing before the ads for it came out.
But why are movies bad? Pop culture sucks, it plays its self out by trying too hard to be good. By trying so hard it becomes wannabe art, and not art.
Examples? Snatch, it was trying so hard to be a Arnofski/Fincher style flick that it just lost it. Of course not having a plot kinda killed it too.
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>