 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
There was a time when Hollywood was capable of making terrific movies for example; Bogart, film noir,some westerns, Kill a Mockingbird; Coming to Dinner, Virginia Wolff, etc; What happened ? My guess is big corporation mass media conglomerates,Computerized special effects, Recording industry,decline of education,etc. Can it be as simple as that?
Follow Ups:
Anotherwords, people (writers, audiences, directors) read less and less literature. The written word lost its power and influence over people as our society became less dependent on reading for pleasure. As pop culture further developed, with the aid of broadcast media, our collective attention span shortened to the point of needing immediate punch-lines for gratification. Developing characters, atmosphere, and worthwhile plots became too tedious for writers and directors to deliver to an easily distracted audience.
The advent of commercial television had a big impact on the movie industry. Like you say people began being exposed to 30 minute entertainment bites, that effected there watching habits.
I would say they are still capable of and do put out about 10 great films a year. A small percntage, however, of the roughly 700 that are made annually.
are by definition hobbled. The reason Hollywood was able to make great movies more regularly in the past was due to the individuals at the helm---and their absolute power---of the major studios. These guys loved film---as well as a good profit.
Still, modern corporations can occasionally put out a great product, just don't expect it very often.
Hence the decline.A very similar thing has occurred in popular music.
a
I think you might have an interesting point. Thanks.
...that Lucas and Spielberg began that way as well.clark
Ed Burns?!?!?!?
...he got us to laugh at the line, "F*uck God" and cringe at the line, "Luck o' the Irish". Not bad for a day's work.clark
all of them. Say, didn't you forget the Coen bros?
And....ain't some of these guys Miramax regulars? Not exactly mainstream Hollywood?
nt
Escapism has always been Hollywood's forte dating back to the dawn of film. It's always been a business and business is about the bottom line. Today, the numbers are bigger so the risks taken are fewer.As already mentioned in this thread and also by me several times on this board in the past, Hollywood makes a ton of films every year. A lot of them stink. A few don't. This is no different in 2004 than in 1934 or 1964. It's just that the old movies that sucked disappeared. They were shown on TV in the middle of the night on UHF and if they ever actually made it to VHS, they will never make it to DVD. Just like "Bad Boys 2" which will disappear without a trace in about 25-35 years. Time has a way of weeding out the crap.
And also, you think the studio knew that those old Capra flicks or Bogart noir movies and other things you're talking about were going to be the classics of the future? What about the fact that classics like Fantasia, Touch of Evil and Wizard of Oz were all roundly panned by the critics of the times? No, for every Casablanca, Laura or Thin Man there were 300 movies of the same exact formula made on the Hwood assembly-line using different combinations of whoever needed work that week. A few combinations worked, most didn't. Again, time weeded out the bad ones.
It's a different world today. If you want smart American movies, look to the indie scene. That's where most of the good stuff is coming from. The Lauras and Casablancas of this generation will come from the indie world while Hwood cranks out flashy and loud bubblegum movies that will be completely forgotten in a few years.
I think it's really easy and cheap to bellyache and whine about how bad or lost Hwood is today. But the fact is, it's pretty much the same as it ever was.
1981 (54th)
BEST PICTURE
Atlantic City -- Denis Heroux and John Kemeny, Producers
* Chariots of Fire -- David Puttnam, Producer
On Golden Pond -- Bruce Gilbert, Producer
Raiders of the Lost Ark -- Frank Marshall, Producer
Reds -- Warren Beatty, Producer
1982 (55th)
BEST PICTURE
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial -- Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, Producers
* Gandhi -- Richard Attenborough, Producer
Missing -- Edward Lewis and Mildred Lewis, Producers
Tootsie -- Sydney Pollack and Dick Richards, Producers
The Verdict -- Richard D. Zanuck and David Brown, Producers
1983 (56th)
BEST PICTURE
The Big Chill -- Michael Shamberg, Producer
The Dresser -- Peter Yates, Producer
The Right Stuff -- Irwin Winkler and Robert Chartoff, Producers
Tender Mercies -- Philip S. Hobel, Producer
* Terms of Endearment -- James L. Brooks, Producer
1984 (57th)
BEST PICTURE
* Amadeus -- Saul Zaentz, Producer
The Killing Fields -- David Puttnam, Producer
A Passage to India -- John Brabourne and Richard Goodwin, Producers
Places in the Heart -- Arlene Donovan, Producer
A Soldier's Story -- Norman Jewison, Ronald L. Schwary and Patrick Palmer, Producers
1985 (58th)
BEST PICTURE
The Color Purple -- Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall and Quincy Jones, Producers
Kiss of the Spider Woman -- David Weisman, Producer
* Out of Africa -- Sydney Pollack, Producer
Prizzi's Honor -- John Foreman, Producer
Witness -- Edward S. Feldman, Producer
1986 (59th)
BEST PICTURE
Children of a Lesser God -- Burt Sugarman and Patrick Palmer, Producers
Hannah and Her Sisters -- Robert Greenhut, Producer
The Mission -- Fernando Ghia and David Puttnam, Producers
* Platoon -- Arnold Kopelson, Producer
A Room with a View -- Ismail Merchant, Producer
1987 (60th)
BEST PICTURE
Broadcast News -- James L. Brooks, Producer
Fatal Attraction -- Stanley R. Jaffe and Sherry Lansing, Producers
Hope and Glory -- John Boorman, Producer
* The Last Emperor -- Jeremy Thomas, Producer
Moonstruck -- Patrick Palmer and Norman Jewison, Producers
1988 (61st)
BEST PICTURE
The Accidental Tourist -- Lawrence Kasdan, Charles Okun and Michael Grillo, Producers
Dangerous Liaisons -- Norma Heyman and Hank Moonjean, Producers
Mississippi Burning -- Frederick Zollo and Robert F. Colesberry, Producers
* Rain Man -- Mark Johnson, Producer
Working Girl -- Douglas Wick, Producer
1989 (62nd)
BEST PICTURE
Born on the Fourth of July -- A. Kitman Ho and Oliver Stone, Producers
Dead Poets Society -- Steven Haft, Paul Junger Witt and Tony Thomas, Producers
* Driving Miss Daisy -- Richard D. Zanuck and Lili Fini Zanuck, Producers
Field of Dreams -- Lawrence Gordon and Charles Gordon, Producers
My Left Foot -- Noel Pearson, Producer
1990 (63rd)
BEST PICTURE
Awakenings -- Walter F. Parkes and Lawrence Lasker, Producers
* Dances With Wolves -- Jim Wilson and Kevin Costner, Producers
Ghost -- Lisa Weinstein, Producer
The Godfather, Part III -- Francis Ford Coppola, Producer
Good Fellas -- Irwin Winkler, Producer
1991 (64th)
BEST PICTURE
Beauty and the Beast -- Don Hahn, Producer
Bugsy -- Mark Johnson, Barry Levinson and Warren Beatty, Producers
JFK -- A. Kitman Ho and Oliver Stone, Producers
The Prince of Tides -- Barbra Streisand and Andrew Karsch, Producers
* The Silence of the Lambs -- Edward Saxon, Kenneth Utt and Ron Bozman, Producers
1992 (65th)
BEST PICTURE
The Crying Game -- Stephen Woolley, Producer
A Few Good Men -- David Brown, Rob Reiner and Andrew Scheinman, Producers
Howards End -- Ismail Merchant, Producer
Scent of a Woman -- Martin Brest, Producer
* Unforgiven -- Clint Eastwood, Producer
1993 (66th)
BEST PICTURE
The Fugitive -- Arnold Kopelson, Producer
In the Name of the Father -- Jim Sheridan, Producer
The Piano -- Jan Chapman, Producer
The Remains of the Day -- Mike Nichols, John Calley and Ismail Merchant, Producers
* Schindler's List -- Steven Spielberg, Gerald R. Molen and Branko Lustig, Producers
1994 (67th)
BEST PICTURE
* Forrest Gump -- Wendy Finerman, Steve Tisch and Steve Starkey, Producers
Four Weddings and a Funeral -- Duncan Kenworthy, Producer
Pulp Fiction -- Lawrence Bender, Producer
Quiz Show -- Robert Redford, Michael Jacobs, Julian Krainin and Michael Nozik, Producers
The Shawshank Redemption -- Niki Marvin, Producer
1995 (68th)
BEST PICTURE
Apollo 13 -- Brian Grazer, Producer
Babe -- George Miller, Doug Mitchell and Bill Miller, Producers
* Braveheart -- Mel Gibson, Alan Ladd, Jr. and Bruce Davey, Producers
The Postman (Il Postino) -- Mario Cecchi Gori, Vittorio Cecchi Gori and Gaetano Daniele, Producers
Sense and Sensibility -- Lindsay Doran, Producer
1996 (69th)
BEST PICTURE
* The English Patient -- Saul Zaentz, Producer
Fargo -- Ethan Coen, Producer
Jerry Maguire -- James L. Brooks, Laurence Mark, Richard Sakai and Cameron Crowe, Producers
Secrets & Lies -- Simon Channing-Williams, Producer
Shine -- Jane Scott, Producer
1997 (70th)
BEST PICTURE
As Good As It Gets -- James L. Brooks, Bridget Johnson and Kristi Zea, Producers
The Full Monty -- Uberto Pasolini, Producer
Good Will Hunting -- Lawrence Bender, Producer
L.A. Confidential -- Arnon Milchan, Curtis Hanson and Michael Nathanson, Producers
* Titanic -- James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
1998 (71st)
BEST PICTURE
Elizabeth -- Alison Owen, Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan, Producers
Life Is Beautiful -- Elda Ferri and Gianluigi Braschi, Producers
Saving Private Ryan -- Steven Spielberg, Ian Bryce, Mark Gordon and Gary Levinsohn, Producers
* Shakespeare in Love -- David Parfitt, Donna Gigliotti, Harvey Weinstein, Edward Zwick and Marc Norman, Producers
The Thin Red Line -- Robert Michael Geisler, John Roberdeau and Grant Hill, Producers
1999 (72nd)
BEST PICTURE
* American Beauty -- Bruce Cohen and Dan Jinks, Producers
The Cider House Rules -- Richard N. Gladstein, Producer
The Green Mile -- David Valdes and Frank Darabont, Producers
The Insider -- Michael Mann and Pieter Jan Brugge, Producers
The Sixth Sense -- Frank Marshall, Kathleen Kennedy and Barry Mendel, Producers
2000 (73rd)
BEST PICTURE
Chocolat -- David Brown, Kit Golden and Leslie Holleran, Producers
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon -- Bill Kong, Hsu Li Kong and Ang Lee, Producers
Erin Brockovich -- Danny DeVito, Michael Shamberg and Stacey Sher, Producers
* Gladiator -- Douglas Wick, David Franzoni and Branko Lustig, Producers
Traffic -- Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz and Laura Bickford, Producers
2001 (74th)
BEST PICTURE
* A Beautiful Mind -- Brian Grazer and Ron Howard, Producers
Gosford Park -- Robert Altman, Bob Balaban and David Levy, Producers
In the Bedroom -- Graham Leader, Ross Katz and Todd Field, Producers
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring -- Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Barrie M. Osborne, Producers
Moulin Rouge -- Martin Brown, Baz Luhrmann and Fred Baron, Producers
2002 (75th)
BEST PICTURE
* Chicago -- Martin Richards, Producer
Gangs of New York -- Alberto Grimaldi and Harvey Weinstein, Producers
The Hours -- Scott Rudin and Robert Fox, Producers
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers -- Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson, Producers
The Pianist -- Roman Polanski, Robert Benmussa and Alain Sarde, Producers
2003 (76th)
BEST PICTURE
* The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King -- Barrie M. Osborne, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, Producers
Lost in Translation -- Ross Katz and Sofia Coppola, Producers
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World -- Samuel Goldwyn, Jr., Peter Weir and Duncan Henderson, Producers
Mystic River -- Robert Lorenz, Judie G. Hoyt and Clint Eastwood, Producers
Seabiscuit -- Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall and Gary Ross, Producers
What a telling post! Almost (almost) every winner was the worst of the contenders, particularly "Chariots of Fire".
Of that bunch:Atlantic City -- Denis Heroux and John Kemeny, Producers
* Chariots of Fire -- David Puttnam, Producer
On Golden Pond -- Bruce Gilbert, Producer
Raiders of the Lost Ark -- Frank Marshall, Producer
Reds -- Warren Beatty, ProducerI think Chariots is the least offensive. Let's face it - Atlantic City had boobs and great Norma aria (was it Callas? I think so...), but it was an ultra-sentimental kaka. On Golden Pond was I thought so silly and corny I had syrup all over my pants. Raiders? Pass on. Reds? Oh, boy...
The Chariots might not be a great film, but that company did make it stand out.
I don't recall that year - what else was out there then? Could it have been as lean as this list indicates?
" Chariots "was a good film! I have always fun, which I do regulary, at watching it. Very British.
I like it much.I wonder what Rico do find wrong with it and with such pugnacity as it is not the first time that he state his unpleasure.
rico just made an example..If you take almost any post-1981 Oscar best picture winner, they almost uniformly SUCK.
Forest Gump. I will be forever baffled by Forest Gump.Forest Gump, Braveheart, the English Patient, Titanic.... Even the nominees from which these films were chosen pale next to previous years.
Not that the Academy Awards are a reliable guage, but the list here does present a decline, and while it doesn't begin with Forest Gump, with it the game has finally and definitively changed.
I blame Forest Gump.
I hate Forest Gump the movie too. It's the diametric opposite of Shawshank Redemption.
Exatcly what I wrote a few days ago, you just have to look at the chronology of the past" oscars " as you did to the " fall of the Roman Empire.
And I think that the great mogules of the past, did want of course makes money in the first but they had ambitions too, and that was to make good films, for the posterity. Look at the biography of the famous among them!
I think very few try to do that now.
Aprés moi, le deluge......
When was Marthy? 1955? The decay was already in full bloom.
Yes, after you could count the " good films ", but still some strong did make it till the Seventies.PS : Did you get " the first reunion pictures?
Pictures? No. Email?
Yes on Email !
No... let me send you one so you could reply again.But give me twenty minutes - I need to clean our mail area some. When it is full, some large files, like pictures, might make email bounce.
Actually Spamfire updated and since three days I have problems getting my post!
The first signs of trouble might have been the early-70's Irwin Allen disaster movies. Then came "Jaws" in 1975 - a fine movie, but also the first genuine Hollywood summer blockbuster. But it's 1977's "Star Wars" that once and for all changed the mentality of Hollywood toward producing big-budget special effects driven summer blockbusters that appeal to a broad youth audience at the expense of smaller films that appealed to niche older audiences. Reinforcing the trend around this time, production costs started becoming so high that producers, writers and directors had to answer to studio accountants and marketing consultants instead of relying solely on their own artistic vision and hope that a small, "quality" film would naturally find its audience.
What did improve in others part of life? Quality is sinking, just look around.....
--What did improve in others part of life?Healthcare.
How about the rise of computers and the Internet?
You know that the reason number one to die are medicaments, a stay in hospital may be lethal too.
It seems obvious from your post that what you consider "good" films are the ones that tend to create deep human impact and emotions. Uplift a person, really.Those should be contrasted with ones creating pleasurable motor reactions. And good cash flow.
The first category was destined to produce negative cash flow - hence the chopping block for it.
The second meant riches unheard of before - hence the shift.
I kinda agree with the guys below that there are some good films in the second category being produced. I have watched every Die Hard film more than once - I too love that motor reactions.
But don't look at Hollywood for deep, insighful, human movies - that part is gone, gone, gone...
The tradition of that sort of films is still alive, however, in many other countries, and in the indy films.
Die Hard? Fun kaka but for me only the first one, degrading till the very bad third of the tryptic.
One more " merde " film that I do like is " Executive Desision ".
You are right of course about the degradation of the series, but I have to confess - I like Bruce, and was able to make it through even the third one. He is a Hollywood conservative, you know...
Get free from etiquette ( you are anyway, that is just the rest of something still" gluing" to you.)
Bruce I had fun to see him, but not anymore, he is always the same, got some kind of weary.
PS: Did you got the pictures*? I did not get your Email!* Send them 3x
Yes! Got them all three times, thank you! They look great, nice reminder! Already showed them to Anya.
He wonīt bother me anymore with my orthography failure....
There was still one month worth of his income still left in the bottle at that stage.
Jupp said that it did taste as good the very next day.
No there are still excellent films being made. Problem is that there are SO many more films being made each year. Just like the dreadful junk they made in the 50's we now get four times the dreadful junk. The B monster movies today are certainly better than the B monster movies of yester-year.There is no question that money plays a part but Ben Hur versus the Gladiator. Personally neither is particularly great...or even good. The fact that the Academy Awards don't help matters by picking Gladiator, Titanic, LOTR, A Beautiful Mind --- don't help. Though I respect the attempt in Titanic and the visuals(for the most part) and the attempted idea of having an invented story to follow.
The effects often overshadow the story. Frankly there are only about 7 core stories available. All movies sprout from those 7 stories. Tey've been done. You get mix and matches today and some like Pulp Fiction rise above what it copied. Then again Pulp wasn't Hollywood. I would say Goodfellas but it wasn't Hollywood either really.
Depends on your definition of great. Perhaps Platoon or JFK. And of course Spielberg is a separate ball game. Jaws, Raiders, E.T., Schindler's List, are all masterpieces. Star Wars could be viewed as revolutionary I suppose.
Just because the topics are not all heavy drama doesn't mean they aren't great. Philisophical depth is better in books - Hollywood prefers making masterful entertainments not film art. There is room for both at the cineplex.
A resounding yes. From pop corn to the haunted trains that is all what is left, even a childish fun movie like " Le Pirates des Caraibes " was well made and somehow funny till the strange digital effects ruin it. We should ban the over use of this.
just look at American Werewolf in London versus the one in Paris. Aside from the first one being rather geared as dark humour the EFFECT look better to boot.I'm not a huge fan of CGI. Occasionally it is done well...but some technicians are simply better than others. I actually prefer the stop motion and blue screen work and actual set construction of Empire Strikes back than the new Lucas Shlock cashing in on the Star Wars name.
I'm not against CGI if it's done well but theat last Bond movie was atrocious for effects.
The reason you go to a Bond movie is to have a laugh at the ridicuolous impossible stunts and the hero. Nothing is expected from those films than Bond beating up some bad guys to save the world in the most ridiculous plots imaginable. BUT, Bond movies were supposed to be the best action films visually - now it's just another video-game McMovie.
I totally agree. My favorite, arguably the best Bond ever, "Goldfinger", actually takes time for a golf game. Also, the begining scenes (the electocution of the would be assissin, the diver doing a flip off the high dive) are morrored at the end.
I have only seen the Werewolf* / London and the effects were ( for the time ) amazing, in fact it was fascinating! Such a degree of perfection! You would have wanted them too on films like Stephensonīs Mr. Hyde or Wideīs Dorian Gray! But it is a dangerous path as they left less over to your own fantasy, look at the German films of the impresionism time, no SE but all art in the visual and imagination of the director and skills of the cameraman.
The two last Star Wars ( actually the last of the first batch was already a cash / toys / Puppies cash in) were SO weak and boring after all this years of hoping for better sequels as the first " Matrix " realised ( The two others...terrible...like the Stars War three & four & five-not in the Lucas chronology- but as they actually came out.
Again the same scheme. the first two or three Bond were erotic ansd sensual, animalistic and sadistic..the right mixed..Some of the later had some times more humor, but were more self destructives and more a pastiche as of the rendition intend in Flemingīs books.
And that is the general tendancy world wide, starting from Hollywood it reach now every enchors, world wide.
Look at the French Films! The same shit, heve you seen " Le Pact des Loups " ?
The hollywood copy less the utterly American professionalism!
We should put some of our money where fantasy and art is still alive.
As cinema is a wonderful experience, it brings you in another world withtout danger ,in the cosyness of a theater or of your own four walls.
I think you're overdoing it a bit on special effects however.2001 is one of the greatest science fiction films IMO the best Science Fiction film ever made that actually had something relevant to say about mankind the universe our reliance on technology. The medium itself is a rather ironic to boot.
But there is a film that WITHOUT special effects would not have worked - the effects were integral to the story telling.
Now i certainly agree for the MOST part that filmakers rely on the effects over the screenwriter.
jar jar ruined Star Wars phantom menace. All CGI.
Yoda looked real in the 77 Star Wars. The difference was not effects...effects don't ruin the movie - the original didn't take itself seriously...it had serious elements and a huge larger than life story but it was funny. The Phantom Menace was a morbid bore.
Well, Ido not want to go all my critics on " 2001 " as often done here on this forum suffice is to say that I never like this film and certainly never will ( I try a little piece recently again ) I do find it artificial with pseudo deeph and glued to the 60īs LSD experiences irrevocably over done.
Well the text and pseudo religious terminalogy on all Star Wars were ridiculous as they were in the second Matrix ( the first one was actually clever made ) .
Never the less, I still did in a certain way enjoy the first two ( not really any more ) when they came out, the sound ...the picture dimension....
Lucas last remake, ruined them.
I can't recall a case when the effects made a good movie bad. Usually the films they are used in are bad to begin with, so the effects don't really hurt them.I mean - remove those dreaded garrish effects from the Gladiator - what's left would not be a good film by any stretch of imagination.
By the same token, no good director making a good film would use what we would normally call "effects" for effects sake. There might be subtle enhancements, embelishments here and there, but nothing that calls attention to itself.
Ridley Scott set the goal for himself to impress everyone with effects - and it became his downfall. In his interview about the film all he talked about was the effects... can you imagine Bergman talk about stuff like that?
As always, the taste and subtlety rule here as well.
No wonder! Good movies donīt have this " over kill " effects! In the " Ten Commandements " they were a sensation at the time, in the meantime they are the cause for making a film and not the other way around.
"A resounding yes. From pop corn to the haunted trains that is all what is left, even a childish fun movie like " Le Pirates des Caraibes " was well made and somehow funny till the strange digital effects ruin it. We should ban the over use of this."Sure. Starting with the original King Kong we should ban all movies with any special effects. Give me a break. Most of them are so good now you miss them.
nt
"There is no question that money plays a part but Ben Hur versus the Gladiator. Personally neither is particularly great...or even good."I have to disagree with you there. IMO they were both great.
" The fact that the Academy Awards don't help matters by picking Gladiator, Titanic, LOTR, A Beautiful Mind --- don't help. Though I respect the attempt in Titanic and the visuals(for the most part) and the attempted idea of having an invented story to follow."
You support the one stinker in the group. Titanic was a classic case of Jim Cameron not being able to get away from his one favorite plot line. Am I the only one who noticed it was the same exact story as The Terminator? At least that story works in that context.
Depends on your definition of great. Perhaps Platoon or JFK. And of course Spielberg is a separate ball game. Jaws, Raiders, E.T., Schindler's List, are all masterpieces. Star Wars could be viewed as revolutionary I suppose.
Those were all "Hollywood" movies. All funded and produced by major studios. I thought Platoon stank. It was painfully heavy handed. The characters were cartoons. The deliberate attempts to push buttons were laughable.
A) Hollywood doesn't like Spielberg
B) Hollywood doesn't finance Spielberg - Spielberg does
C) Hollywood has no impact on the films Spielberg makes - they can't force him to change scripts cast etc unlike many poorer directors. Spielberg runs his own studio.
D) Platoon was made for 1.5 million by Stone a first time director about his OWN story while a grunt in Vietnam.
What was heavy handed about it? Pretty tough arguement since he was just showing what happened. Sorry if you believe any film that induces emototion is heavy handed. Welles was heavy handed with the camera unecessarily in Kane and people love it...a minority of people thankfully.The Terminator was a better movie than Titanic - The Terminator was one of if not the best Romance film of the 1980s. Considering the budget and the fact that Arnold isn't an actor I think Cameron did an outstanding job with the Terminator. A raw at the time scary, well paced action film with a very strong Romance at its core. Despite some issues with the time line logic(which happens in sci-fi) it was one of the best films of the 1980s.
Titanic requires ignoring the lines to a large degree and the overly sappy sequences. It's a harlequin romance novel pumped up like a Tolstoy novel. Best picture most certainly not deserved but It was pretty good overall and certainly better than Gladiator - a total mind numbing waste of space.
What was worse was the Crowe not only got NOMINATED???? But that he actually WON??? Ralph Fiennes in Sunshine(the film had some problems but not the performance) or Javier Bardem were robbed as were every other nominee.
You want to see something on Rome watch I, Claudius - nothing compares.
But one who clearly help to understand what happended back then, from this view it is masterful.
Oh I liked Sunshine...it has problems. For one we dodn't need the third romance...or needed to see most of the second romance.Basically it needed to be re-edited and some of the melodrama taken out. that said it was still better than most of the films that came out that year and it was IMO miles better than the film that WON best picture -- Gladiator.
Another one I liked out of Canada was Felicia's Journey which for a film about a Serial killer dwarfs Silence of the Lambs.
***I have to disagree with you there. IMO they were both great.The Gladiator is a "great" movie?
I think I am beginning to understand where you are coming from.
I think it was a pathetic piece, so bad I could barely stand it to the end - and I am a sucker for weapons and fights... it was perhaps one notch above the LOTR, but man, what a horrible, horrible, horrible picture from many perspectives.
Ben Hur? Nothing but the product of its time. Has right to exist, unlike the Gladiator.
"Gladiator" is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I've seen a lot...
I like history and ancient Rome in particular, but this one beats them all. Such a piece of you know what.
nt
Normally I disagree with Victor, but this time he is right (though I hate to admit this). :)
How can you? Only because he comes from Russia?
He is an old guy (Victor, are you reading) and just doeasn't get it. :)
Seriously - our tastes differ a lot, which is normal I guess. We also have very different political views (as you probably noticed already) which makes comparing our opinions even more interesting for me, considering that we are coming from VERY similar background.
Old? Then there must be TWO Victorīs here!
I wonīt never adhere to a party but only to my ever learning own opinion. I donīt need leaders.
Every problem should be discussed from case to case.
And gentlemenīs always tries to understand the other. One may not agree with the otherīs view but still respect him as a person AND for his view, which afford a little more humanism and love to each other.
I knew him before I meet him, and it just confirm what I knew.
With victor you can not go wrong.
He is a man of honour, and thatīs baby is a blessing, and rare as a black pearl.
No disagreement from me here.
It leaves bad taste in the mouth to be constantly dragged into discussing dreck, while there are so many wonderful films no one talks about.I shall gladly let Scott continue this pointless discussion all by himself - he seems to be a true student of that "marvel".
I donīt give up easily. That is what I wrote him down below too. But how can you speak with a deaf?
Gladiator has at least a good opening scene, after that...it went all wrong.
The same applies for Titanic, the moment that the camera go through the dead ship and every thing come alive a gain...A few seconds....
"Gladiator has at least a good opening scene, after that...it went all wrong."How so?
"The same applies for Titanic, the moment that the camera go through the dead ship and every thing come alive a gain...A few seconds...."IMO it went wrong when it started to follow the plot of the Terminator. That was much later in the movie.
How so? Ok.
The movie start with some kind of bravour, but after a while it fails to develop any characters it just has no deeph, you know from start on till the end what direction it will takes, just like on a trail, no sub plot, just straight on.
A little of " Ben Hur " ( the love / hate relationship ) and " Braveheart " ( loss of familly )
Short but I think, precise.PS: And the terrible Digital artifacts!!!!! ( colosseum ) Like the ship " Titanic this kind of images will grow older more that you think, and will definitvely spoil the few good parts of both of them.
"How so? Ok.
The movie start with some kind of bravour, but after a while it fails to develop any characters"You couldn't be furhter from the truth. The arc that Russel Crowe's character takes is epic. He goes from victorious general and favorite of the king to a slave to a favorite of the crowds in the games to the tragic hero. There was trmendous character development there. Lets look at Juaquine Phoenix's character. A very complex character that unfolds as a simple evil child of the king to a shrewd leader with a successful plan to bulster Romes self esteem to a complex intelegent person who was damaged beyond repair by his fathers expressions of dissatisfatcion. Lets look at Oliver Reed's character. A common slave owner at first glance with a rich history as a gladiator who won his freedom and a very human place in his heart for the plight of Russel Crow's character. So much so that he is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.
"it just has no deeph,"
It is rich with depth as these characters stories are unfolded as they interact in the plot.
" you know from start on till the end what direction it will takes, just like on a trail,"
That is the nature of tragedies. Would you make the same complaint of Hamlet?
" no sub plot, just straight on."
Plenty of sub plots. The relationship between Juaquine Phoenix and his sister, The revelation of his relationship to his father. The revelation of the life Russel Crowe's character lived before the Empire took his own home country. That is just to name a few of them.
"A little of " Ben Hur " ( the love / hate relationship ) and " Braveheart " ( loss of familly )'You make these things sound trivial.
"Short but I think, precise.
PS: And the terrible Digital artifacts!!!!! ( colosseum ) Like the ship " Titanic this kind of images will grow older more that you think, and will definitvely spoil the few good parts of both of them."
I agree with this but many films have suffered the shortcomings of poor visual effects.
To Maximus dog?
Was it killed ( must have been is it not ) but no scene on it...Oh poor movie goers that would not be able to cope with the death of.
Hollywood just lack any kind of integrity.
This example show us the way it concept was. A video clip. Thousand of different things and in the end..a bucket of rain.
So far between you and Victor we have a wrong sword and a missing dog as evidence that this movie is terrible. No discussion of any points I have made on character development and story structure. I can see why you guys would rather just say movies are kaka. That seems to be the best you can offer.
It was only meant as a symbol. And in the case of the dog it just shows what the intention of the director is.
Even the most missguided ones. I therefore applaud you on your deep study of that completely insignificant item - I presume it took far more effort that delving into something good.Would it be right to assume that only a severe hunger for "character development" thingy would cause one seek it in the Gladiator?
Did you know there were other, a bit more, shall we say, advanced, films that might offer even more interesting case studies than the Maximus?
"Even the most missguided ones. I therefore applaud you on your deep study of that completely insignificant item - I presume it took far more effort that delving into something good."Isn't it ironic that you now find your only critique of the movie of substance to be insignificant in the end. I agree. Did you rrealize you were commenting on your own critique?
"Would it be right to assume that only a severe hunger for "character development" thingy would cause one seek it in the Gladiator?"You have yet to be right about anything so far with the possible exception of the sword. Which, as you now seem to see, is trivial.
"Did you know there were other, a bit more, shall we say, advanced, films that might offer even more interesting case studies than the Maximus?"
Sure. But it isn't all or nothing propostion. Patrick suggested that there was no character development in Gladiator. when I pointed out several examples of character development in the movie (by the way that is what is known as arguing about something of substance. I actually talked about the content of the movie. You might want to try it sometime) Patrick dismised it as lacking meat. Rhetoric without support at best. In fact it was a case of backpeddling when caught in an obvious objective error. More back peddling followed. No, I don't think Gladfiator is the last word in character development but it isn't lacking either.
Well thatīs a poor man development of character. And that is THE problem, people get used to be satisfy than less than nothing. It is just flesh without real meat, only a layout.
Look forward to discuss some Italian films from Sica to Fellini or Bergman, take your pick!
Next you'll tell me Guido in 8 et 1/2 was fully developed. I've seen tits on Penguins more developed than Fellini's Guido...and hell it was about himself.
Very shortly I wrote on this film that at the moment it did come out I did NOT like it ( Too young I was, I may think ) I will have to have a second view at it.
You see one of the problem is nobody knows each other very well, and on the short comment one may do on a theme a lot of miss... may happen.
You don't need to be older. Certainly, to appreciate the life of Bill Murray's character in Lost in Translation it would help if you had life experiences.You don't need to be convinced by other people as to what is good or not. Occasionally I see a film a second time and I like it a lot more. Sometimes like the movie Crash it's crap the first time and crap the second time.
Of course you do ( need to be older ) at the time I may have been 18 or so, I did not have the maturity of a man and even so not the experiences to understand .
For Lost in... yes and for 8 1/2 not?
The only personn that can convince me is..me. But if someone that I respect told me "worth a second though"..I damn will.
Well thatīs a poor man development of character. And that is THE problem, people get used to be satisfy than less than nothing.First you say there was no character development then when I point out that there is a substantial amount of character develoment you now call it "poor man's character development." What was wrong with the character development in the context of the story arc in Gladiator. I thought it was complex, human and revealed in an artistic and telling manner within the unfolding of the plot lines.
" It is just flesh without real meat, only a layout."
How so? What was lacking? Real meat is just a metaphor but for what?
Look forward to discuss some Italian films from Sica to Fellini or Bergman, take your pick!That may be intersting.
No contradiction! A poor man development IS actually no character develoment!
You thought because you may have been abused from all this pseudo glamour of the last thirty years of movie decadence.
But let get us concrete.
Buy or steal " The bicycle Thief " if you have not seen it already, and let us discuss it.
You will see what has been concealed and what has been revealed to you.
I am waiting to hear forward from you.Patrick
"No contradiction! A poor man development IS actually no character develoment!"Given the fact that i cited the development of several characters in that movie you are simply objectively wrong.
"You thought because you may have been abused from all this pseudo glamour of the last thirty years of movie decadence."I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it looks like you think you can read my mind. You can't. Care to cite any objective arguments against any of my points rather than waving your hands about psuedo glamour? So far your arguments have been nothing but posturing. How about a little of that "meat" you claim is so lacking in the movies you trash?
"But let get us concrete."That would be a breath of fresh air.
"Buy or steal " The bicycle Thief " if you have not seen it already, and let us discuss it.
You will see what has been concealed and what has been revealed to you."I'm sorry but movies stand or fall on their own merits. So far you have not actually discussed the merits of Gladiator.
"I am waiting to hear forward from you."OK
This film is empty and ridiculous ( beside note that the pictures can be fascinating ) the spoken words are to make you cry, or laughing, that was the case for me.
And you donīt see that, I am at pain to be able to do more.
I mean I did see this film long ago and it is not worse to be a never ending story.
I did my best to explain my view and why, but to understand you have to have a certain base that you seems to lack.
I have seen Alex comment above, maybe you should respond to him, and he will be able to bring some clarity in your mind about the why and how.
***So far you have not actually discussed the merits of Gladiator.Funny part is - he has, but you haven't. Yet you keep repeating this kaka - this is an unfortunately common practice, and it is not a fair practice.
Instead of trying to put others on spot, why don't YOU tell us something. So far you haven't.
So far you have been playing a "smart" NKVD interrogator. When an answer is given to another of your questions, you make a smart face and pronounce the answer is not up to your expectation. Well, my dog can do that. I am sure you will find some who love that game, I suspect most will simply tell you go climb a tree. Rightly so.
Listen, it makes sense to have a dialogue. But you are not a psychologist, not an interrogator, not even someone who has established his right to be critical of others' opinions.
Why don't you do a RESET, and start by writing about movies you like and don't, and if your reviews spark some interest then people will be willing to talk to you.
As it is, this is silly - you traps, your pulling, your prying...
Boring is the word that comes to mind at your "discussion" technique.
"***So far you have not actually discussed the merits of Gladiator.
Funny part is - he has, but you haven't. Yet you keep repeating this kaka - this is an unfortunately common practice, and it is not a fair practice."You are just plain delusional here. The facts are there in the thread for anyone to see or as you have ignore.
"Instead of trying to put others on spot, why don't YOU tell us something. So far you haven't."
Apparently my posts get the same treatment you as did LOTRs. You dismiss them as kaka without an actual viewing. That is kaka.
"So far you have been playing a "smart" NKVD interrogator."
Utter rubbish. I am the only one who has talked about the content of the movie. Open your eyes." When an answer is given to another of your questions, you make a smart face and pronounce the answer is not up to your expectation."
Objectively wrong answers are not up to my expectations. Excues me for expecting answers of substance. I guess this bothers you since you are clearly devoid of such answers when questioned. Too bad.
" Well, my dog can do that."
Sticks and stones. Get back to me when you have something of substance to say. So far you are all wind. Wind that smells of kaka.
" I am sure you will find some who love that game, I suspect most will simply tell you go climb a tree. Rightly so. "
No only you so far. Maybe because you are full of kaka.
"Listen, it makes sense to have a dialogue. But you are not a psychologist, not an interrogator, not even someone who has established his right to be critical of others' opinions."
Oh, rights to opinions on this message board have to be "established? Tell us what gives you the right? So far all I see is a pretrentuos ass standing on a soap box calling every "Hollywood" film kaka. That is just plain pathetic. On what grounds do you claim the exclusive right to be critical of others?
"Why don't you do a RESET, and start by writing about movies you like and don't,"
I have been but you seem to be ignoring what I write. You can lead a horse to water but....
" and if your reviews spark some interest then people will be willing to talk to you."
People have been talking to me.
"As it is, this is silly - you traps, your pulling, your prying...
Boring is the word that comes to mind at your "discussion" technique."
It figures that any discussion of the substance of a movie you call kaka would appear to be what you describe above. Maybe if you had the wits and knowledge to agrue the merits of my posts you wouldn't have to posture so much.
Only mounted Romans used it. Infantry used gladius.For a movie that was supposed to be an accurate depiction of whatever, that was a deadly sin!
Early part was OK for a while, but then it all turned to Roman hell.
What happened was the stakes were raised after the invention of the planned blockbuster after the original Star Wars release. The studios wanted to get in on that money. They resorted to formulas and test screenings to finish their movies. The costs of movies went through the roof with the rise in A list actors' salaries. That drove the stakes of box office success even higher. the result was a higher percentage of formula blocjbusters being produced. The mistaken assumption I see here and on this forum is that all Hollywood movies have been afflicted by this movement in hollywood film making. That just isn't so.
Don't get me wrong ,there are a lot of (foreign) films tht stink also. A lot of them are excruciatingly boring or depressing, true to life I guess ,but who needs that all the time. Escape is wonderful sometime. Maybe that is the Hollywood concept?
Of course, the same shit everywhere! But " escapism " with intelligence, THAT is the whole point!
Or do you thing that the effect of reading & seeing only trash make you a better person?
I prefer to go up than down, intellectually speaking. Or else.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
