|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Mates,Having made the mistake of trying HBO/Showtime/Etc., I end up seeing a lot of movies that I would never bother with if I had to take any kind of action to do so- like renting a DVD or paying.
That and having friends in the biz exposes me to many things I would never know about- and unfortunately also the constant cliche syndrome. I see the same techniques and sequences so many times, I am close to over stimulation and now want to only sit down and listen to 2 channel sound.
My New Year's resolution is to avoid any movies in the future that contain any part of:
1. A young man or older boy aquires special powers- by training, a robot, angels, or aliens. Things are going to be different now!
1A. This person is always a nerd with glasses and outsider. Someone I'd usually good with computers.
1B. This person is "chosen" from all humanity for no particular reason- perhaps sometimes for skill at video games.
1C. When nerds are made hip- it always reads as idiotic. "Hackers"
1D. The nerd gets notices by the most desirable person in the hight school.
2. A person acquires special powers and/or skills and immediately beats up the bully that has tormented him for years. I usually start to cheer for the bully in these cases. This has been done thousands of times. "Spiderman" is a recent one. Nerds are often shown getting revenfge on the football team.
3. Some guy comes into town just when the town needs someone to save it. After "Seven Samurai" all use of this are stupidly pale repeats.
4. The "relunctant" criminal. Do we realize how often the plot line of a criminal being "forced" into "one last" hiest is used? Called out of retirement, coerced, a final big haul. This is to create sympathy for the thief, but this "unwilling" robber still does the illegal thing.
5. Sequels in which all the memorable scenes with any catch-phrases or slightly memorable scenes are expanded into larger sequences or whole movies. I have to say the second Harry Potter's Chamber of Secrets- which I call "Harry's Chamber Pot of Sucrets", is the worst shite in this regard I've ever seen half of. "The Klumps" taking the dnner scene in "Nutty" and adds more farting.
6. "Preparation movies". I"m just sick of movies in which the first 80% is the preparation/training for the task and the last 20% is the event almost as an afterthought. This can be good, but overdone. "
7. The rebellious member of a force: The cop that always gets into trouble by doing his job "too well". The Lt. has to always hand over his badge and gun- reinstate him for a heinous job that the governor and the newspapers want solved by any means necessary. Or, The pilot that wants to teach the enemy of the month (dtermined by Tom Clancy) a lesson - his own way. These are glamourous loners that can't fit into a disciplined, hierachical force- just bursting with resourceful energy. The "Die Hard" series.
8. Love: The situation in which a person is brought into a company to organize it- the old worker hates this new person, but they fall in love in Act 3.
9. The most important women character will always have the largest breasts of any woman- with a speaking role. There can be decorative extras with larger breasts- but silent.
10. Musicals: I have never been able to tolerate musicals almost at all- perhaps Wizard of O." and "Singing in the R" every ten years. The rest are too generally annoying for words.
11. Angels or ghosts come back to advise the living, show the true meaning and value of life. I'm sick to death of it. It was a good one orginally, but aren't "Canterville Ghost" and "Ghost and Mrs. Muir" already 400 years old?
12. Stupid internal logic: I thought "Starship Troopers" was a parody of sc fi- look at the idiotic means of fighting the giant "bugs"- by standing in one place a few feet away with a rifle. Two WWII tanks and a P-51 could have destroyed the lot of them in 5 minutes. There is a lot of choices shown in film that people would never make, but are done to make the story progress. I liked "Hunt for Red October" but the super secret silent drive of the $2billion submarine is detected by the US sonar man in the first 8 minutes of it's operation- so much for any Soviet technological threat. "Fantastic Voyage"- the elaborate miniaturization process disregards the fact that the mass of the ship would stay constant though microscopic, plus what happened to the 60 gallons of miniaturized fluid injected that would also enlarge to full size at the end of the hour? Why wasn't there any training for this mission? As in the sapce programme, the ship and tools would have to be designed by the future users. You see what I mean.
So, for 2004 I intend to avoid the above at first sight. Where's that copy of "The Idiot" I was reading?
And, I've hardly started. Any other additions to the hall of shame?
Cheers,
Bambi B
Follow Ups:
Oops, I guess I've probably disqualified myself from any movie going at all this coming year...
Lousy movies based on lousy TV shows ("Charlie's Angels").
Lousy movies based on great TV shows ("The Avengers").
Martial arts movies.
No more Joel Schumacher garbage.
No more Michael Bay garbage, either.
I love Star Trek but, please, no more.
No more movies based on Saturday Night Live characters/skits (these should have their own warning labels).
No prequels ("Dumb and Dumberer").
No more Julia Roberts.
and most of all...NO MORE GEORGE LUCAS!!!
sheesh...or movies in which people interact with cartoon-style animated characters.
YRY,I saw part of the first "Lara Croft" movie and didn't know at the time that it was based on a video game. While there were some good effects and production values were top notch, the Croft character was a dull automaton that made the Terminator look like Robin Williams- I couldn't understand how a character could get around so well but be so completely devoid of personality. And yes, even though the entire cinematogrphy was centered on Jolie's breasts- the character was completely sexless!
I must disagree to a point for live action/animated, because it can be fun when the technique is basic to the story. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was really a delight. That one was an integrated concept of the parallel live and cartoon worlds. How about the jump into the sidewalk chalk drawing in "Mary Poppins"? I didn't care for "Cool World" particularily, but it was again essential to the story.
But here in the future, we are going to see a greater and greater proportion of "animated" characters- that is CG images interacting with people. "Star Wars" has become so boringly arch and lifeless it may as well be all computer characters. I think in a few years we will see all-CG movies. A friend is an editor on the upcoming "Spiderman II" and appprently, with 700+ CG F/X shots, Spiderman is rarely a live actor except for dialougue/close ups. All acting in the future will be voice dubbing.
Cheers,
Am I the only one that's been sick of this guy since Good Morning, Vietnam ?
His stock-in-trade childlike figure who's really wiser than the rest of us and can tell us all we need to know about life really makes me puke.
od55,I have to agree on the modern Robin Williams. I enjoyed much of his work years ago- and "G.M. Vietnam" was about his best thing- , but his energetic cuteness, desperate coyness, and hyperactive flopping around today can be very annoying.
Cheers,
It's Robin Williams doing his manic standup crap only as Adrian Cronauer.
Williams lands at Tan Son Nhut, steps into the door of the plane, and Forrest Whitaker starts laughing...its like, we're supposed to believe that he's that freaking funny?
BTW, the real Cronauer was pro-war.
where someone DIDN'T produce "sidewalk pizza?"
Just ONCE I'd like to see them all land safely in an action movie. Better yet, why not use them at all? (My guess is that they're used because the small scale models fly and explode so convincingly at relatively little expense.)In general, I vow to avoid these broad Hollywood cliches:
- Any movie involving time travel.
- Body-switching movies.
- Any movies involving cloning and/or genetic mutation.
- Future dystopias where one large evil (conservative) corporation supplants Liberal democracy. Is there any doubt that the evil fascist regime that has controlled millions for decades will be overthrown in two hours by a single individual? Probably by a nerd with special powers or a time traveler?
- Future dystopia after an environmental disaster (usually brought about by capitalist excess). Usually these stories are just an excuse to keep cgi programmers employed, and after 9/11 I'm no longer impressed by a fuzzy computer image of New York under water.
- Fictional love stories set against the spectacle of historic tragedy. I'm fully expecting to see, some day, the 1871 story of Rose O'Leary and Jack D'arson and the trouble they cause as they retreat to her mother's barn and knock over a lantern while rolling in the hay...- Animated movies with flatulent anthropomorphic wildlife.
- Any movie featuring Kung Fu or other Asian martial arts, especially where the fight scenes are too well choreographed and generally-accepted laws of physics are ignored. If I want this type of "realism" I'll watch West Side Story.
I'm expecting to save a lot of money by not going to the movies this year. Too much good music coming out on SACD anyway...
Dalton,A very good list- I think I will join your moratorium on these items also!
Especially:
Exploding helicopters: I enjoy helicopters and haven't yet been in an exploding one. Have you noticed also how often the movie pilots are shown flying from the left seat? Is this to correspond to popular concept?
Time travel: This has become too easy and everyone is popping back and forth. I like the "Terminator" concept- naked and one way only a bit better, but overall it's an easy technique.
Evil corporations: I agree again here as fiction will never match the dull reality of how big companies work- hierarchy, blame passing, marketing angst, and dogged number crunching.
NY under water: Notice the WTC towers projecting out of the frozen sea in "A.I." 2000 years.
Love Stories in tough places: Yes, we haven't seen the Chicago fire one, nor has anyone done the last hour of the WTC towers- admirable restraint for once. Most unfortunate love story in a disaster setting: "Titanic".
Martial Arts: I enjoyed "Crouching Tiger"- until they were just running over the tree tops. This made sense in the "Matrix", but this leads me to:
Over-editing: I hate the idiotic change of angle/POV every 1/8th second. This was so ridiculous for the second "Batman" it was unwatchable on that ground only. A mask for lower production values- if we were allowed to focus on anything we's see the fromage?
And another:
Anti-gravity: I am sick of just about everything floating around without any apparent fuss or expenditure of energy. Most stupid example: Robin Williams' version of "Absent-Minded Professor", called "Flubber" after the compound that makes "anti-gravity", but all along Williams is accompanied by the gabby robot that just floats silently next to him. Why did he need to invent flubber if he had this floating robot? Wouldn't this sentient, conversational robot playing the film clips and floating in the air be a more fabulous invention than the flying Thunderbird? Interesting that Williams takes flubber to sell to the Ford Co. instead of giving it free to the US Gov't. as did Fred McMurray- a change of priorities between 1963 and 1999?
Yes, with the current movie crop, I'll be spending more time with the LPs.
Cheers,
I forgot to mention "Frequency" which, despite its confusing ending, does hold interest.
The CONCEPT is fascinating but I agree they just don't do them well, the best being the original "The Time Machine" (although "Time After Time" is a guilty pleasure of mine).I believe Robert Redford owns the rights to what could be the all time best if done right, "Time After Time", Jack Finney's 1972 novel with pictures. For 30 years I been afraid that someone would do a shitty TV movie version but so far, so good. Let's hope for the best from Redford.
FWIW: Yes, Verhoven's Starship Troopers was pure parody. None the less, If you've ever lived through an insect infestation, you'll know how easy is is to get over-run.In Fantastic Voyage, the vehicle was reduced and THEN added to the fluid. I can suyspend disbelief on the vehicles weight/mass. The entire concept is dubious. It's like the old gag; if you rub that fluid on your penis that is supposed to make it bigger, won't it make your hands bigger too?
Yes, the Ghost and Mrs Muir is going on 60, but ghosts have been a plot device since long before Billy Shakespere. Ghost stories are as old as mankind. It's OK to not like ghost movies, but as already stated, clever and innovative films like "6th Sense" prove that the concept has NOT run it's course.
Yes, the sub in "Red October" was found easily, but it's well known that Soviet tech is not that great and that rarely invent technology themselves. Wasn't their Space Shuttle diesel powered?
However, I am sick to death of the entire Submarine genre. Every submarine movie is the same. Gee, do you think they'll go too deep? Think there will be an attempted mutiny? Think there will be those dramatic red lights? Lots of sweaty actors? As predictable as the phases of the moon.
I also have zero tolerance for musicals. I watched sections of "Sound of Music" over the holidays and found it intolerable.
I'm tired of comedies that use the device of the badguy getting hit in the nuts to get a big laugh.
...musical films, like "Cabaret" or "All that Jazz", and from anything with any kind of ghosts coming back to give advice, like in "The Sixth Sense"...Well, itīs your choice, even if you will be missing some interesting films.
How about a dumb in his way to the Presidency of the United States, being backed by strong financial interests...? It was a very good film indeed, and somehow it made that phrase about "Reality imitating Art" become a solid truth...
Did you like it?
...as far as I'm concerned, STARSHIP TROOPERS *is* a sci-fi parody. Like many of Verhoeven's other films--think BASIC INSTINCT, ROBOCOP and especially SHOWGIRLS--the delicious irony is that it treads the fine line between superficial, low-brow fare for the masses and a parody of same. I am reminded of the following quote from John Kenrick's excellent Musicals101.com web site (in reference to British music halls of the mid-1800s):[conventional tastes] were pandered to and at the same time subtly ridiculed; the rednecks were kept happy and, for those with the wit to see it, the satire was there.
Verhoeven is a master at this kind of balancing act.
djprobed
nt
n
It used to be that a film was conceived as a one-shot, self-contained story. If it was a long story, there was an intermission. And if a movie became a "surprise hit", only then would the producers scramble to script a sequel.At first, everyone knew and admitted that a sequel was simply an attempt to squeeze more money out of a successful movie. You could see The Poseidon Adventure and feel satisfied that Beyond the Poseidon Adventure was going to be a blatant exploitation that had nothing to do with the original "classic". One could accept that Jaws II would have a shark, but not much else to do with the original.
Then, with Star Wars, Lucas introduced the pretense (after the movie was a hit) that he originally conceived of a multipart series. You had to see The Empire Strikes Back (and the later sequels) to get the "whole" story.
It wasn't long after that we began to get original movies that were purposely made - and left open-ended - with the idea of a sequel in mind if they hit at the B.O. The most ridiculous example of this sort of presumption was the bomb "Remo Williams - The Adventure Begins" in the early 80's. Needless to say, the adventure ended there.
Now we're seeing long stories purposely shot in two or more parts (LOTR), pairs of sequels being shot together to form a trilogy (started by Back to the Future II and III and most recently seen in the mind-numbingly awful Matrix II and III), the two sequel movies being shown months apart when the story could have been presented as a single movie.
Worst of all, now we get an example of a single two-hour story, Kill Bill, being padded to three hours and then split in the middle to get suckers to pay twice to see the whole story.
Now , with the popularity of DVD, we see the release of a theatrical version on DVD followed only months later by a "director's cut" with additional footage to get impatient fans to buy it twice. I am really beginning to HATE the Hollywood system, especially when it purports to be creating "art".
the longer "Cinema Paradiso" and "Apocalypse Now Redux" and also the (shorter) "Blood Simple". I also look forward to a five hour "Titanic" from Cameron.
My favorite - the underdog who is badly abused and beaten, but who always glances at someone in the audience and uncorks the new power reserve... whereby proceeding to beat the living crap out of his opponent.
In the last Lord Of The Ring there must be at least three to four coming miraculously back....
It drives us towards the lowest denominator fast.Learning requires straining.
Hehe..But I have the stong suspicion that the director did want to pack all the things he could not realise during the three hours film in the last 15 minutes..a never ending story after 2 3/4....
The sad side is that people do find this failure good. I think the fantasies they did develop reading the book may have help them to transform a piece of merde in something that the alchimists would call gold.
Shit it is shit it will remain for all centuries.
Did you see it?
To paraphrase old Stradford-upon-Avon..much noise for nothing....
You know, there are different kinds of dreck, or merde as you put it.There is the kind that I can and will and have watched, and either laughed along (The Dumb and Dumber, for instance... sorry to admit), or cheered along (things like Death Wish or some Eastwood films), or enjoyed - in the short term, of course - for the miriad of other reasons. I dunno... some female beauty... some humor... whatever. Should I mention the Clueless? He-he...
There are many trashy films that I have watched more than once - several Stalone and Bruce Willis films, for instance. I know they are trashy and do not contribute one iota to the world of art, but there had something in them that made them entertaining.
But there is another kind of shit that is put simply, so boring I refuse to watch it even if I have nothing better to do and it is the only film on the cable.
The Star War is one such example. The LOTR is another.
Having seen the clips I knew I would not like it so I never saught it. But when a friend stopped by to watch it, I tried to watch along... well, I wanted to leave the room after a minute.
My wife stepped into the room, watched for ten seconds, then shrugged her shoulders, made a face to me and left. I stayed a bit longer.
So given that experience I will not see the last - who knows, maybe indeed the last... can we hope? - film in the series.
As I always say - I probably have only see about 10% or less of all good and great films in the world - so why should I waste my time on stuff like LOTR?
Everyone has the right ( almost said the duty! ) to be stupid once in a while..so looking at stupid films and having fun is like forbidden sex in the chidhood....I really enjoy " Le Diner des Cons " or " Le placard " not corrifees among the film world.
Or when it came out I did like " Star Wars " obviously an inept show.( I respond phrase to phrase to your post..so I did not read your mention of the later! )
Stalone the first of his boxing film was ok but then his face was so stupid and selfish that I could not but having a urge to vomit at it...I did enjoy to see Willis until his " only one range face " did hit my nerves...the first " Die Hard " was fun, back then.
I always try to ( from time to time ) for staying in touch with what do move the kids today, to look at all kind of films...but with more and more wearyness...I long ago stopped with books...I just mostly reread MY books.
That is certainly not a good evolution..or better said no evolutation at all.
But with the firm feeling that 90% of todays output is just " kaka " what else could I do?
The Dinner Game I missed... I remember seeing it many times on the shelf, but never picking it up. I think I will now.I just LOVED that one comment by a viewer called Varlaam... hmmm... bet my dollar he is a Russian emigre'... or a Georgian, perhaps.
Anyways, sez Varlaam:
"France's most popular film of the past 52-week period, according to a recent issue of Studio magazine. That's based on the number of admissions in France, over 9 million.
What is wrong here? Why have the French been flocking to see a movie which is very funny, very well-acted, and very un-American? LBJ's old hatchetman, Jack Valenti of the MPAA, is trying to figure out ways right now to force the French to watch more bloody idiotic American asteroid movies. How dare they try to have a film industry of their own."
Bummer...
The dinner is FABULOUS! Certainly one of the best " French arrogant comedy of the last 10 years!
I look at it...to my ( false ) shame three times..and I am not coming to an halt...
The closet is very funny but do not have thit intensity.
One word.
Go BUY it and your whole family will like it..It just call the bad things burried in us to the surface....
In the end the moralīs morale is of course saved.
Get it.
Saw it. It was a minor sitcom of a movie. As clever and dynamic as an episode of "Cheers".
As I do not knows " Cheers "...
But if the translation is not I fault, our opinions it seems diverse widely.
The assholes dinner is a gem.
Of course you need a certain kind of French arrogant humor...
Yes, it could be that much of the subtlty was lost in translation. Subtitles leave out the sarcasm and the tone of speach.Of course, this goes both ways . . . perhaps this is why so much in American movies fails for you too.
That is a BIG problem, but you can still recognise the quality of one film.
I look as often I can to the original copy.
Don't know "Cheers"? Believe me, you haven't missed much.
No, I donīt ...mieux vaut une tete bien faite qīune bien pleine....
Victor,Or: Второй ветер в ломается третьем акте..
I agree, the idea of "apparent defeat" in which the hero appears to have lost- but then makes a miraculous return to win the battle- is insanely over-done.
There are times when someone makes these kind of recoveries and it seems pluasible, but not the way shown. I notice that in videos of real fights, one or two punches and the fights are usually done, but in the movies these guys go at it for ten minutes and-
Cliche 35: The hero is in a big fight and the hero is not cut, swollen, or bruised in a way that makes them unattractive- if at all. An "hour" later there is often hardly a mark on them.
Cheers,
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: