 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Good Hollywood movies/what happened? posted by Corbu on March 15, 2004 at 17:25:40:
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
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 ]
