ha ha!!

Many people will have many different on what the root cause of this is, but we've succumbed to the degredation of quality film. We've been force-fed a steady stream of films with bad writing, bad acting, no heart, no plot, and no development. But put in some flashy effects and a lot of explosions, and people will be lining up around the block to throw down 8 bucks to watch it.

Once upon a time, I would have done the same. But I've found that as I've gotten older, I've become more critical of film. Perhaps it was because of exposure to the older, classic films. You know, when movies were done right. And I'm not saying that I don't patronize the modern cinema anymore; I'm just more discriminating as I do. There are still some pretty good movies being made.

Of course, I voted for Ronald Reagan (twice), and I LOVED Gladiator!

quote:

---

Many people will have many different on what the root cause of this is, but we've succumbed to the degredation of quality film. We've been force-fed a steady stream of films with bad writing, bad acting, no heart, no plot, and no development. But put in some flashy effects and a lot of explosions, and people will be lining up around the block to throw down 8 bucks to watch it.

---

I have to agree with S. Smith. Film quality and film art has significantly degraded over the past 10 to 15 years. Lately, I assign this to the advent of new technologies in film, especially digital technology. Film has come to the place where all they think about anymore are what digital special effects can they create? The question I ask, is what can digital special effects do in service of the story? I've only seen one digital special effect that enhanced the story. That would be last year's Fight Club, where the narrator's apartment is turned into an advertisement from a "Sharper Image" catalog, in order to highlight the crass commercialism and deadness the character feels. Beyond that digital special effects have done nothing for me, and I've tended to shy away from films that are all digital special effects. Star Wars (A New Hope) certainly had more heart (with now more primitive effects) than Episode One had with all the new digital effects.

There needs to be a story in there, but their also needs to be purpose, meaning and life. Today's films are so dead, designed only to take viewers on a rollercoaster ride.

Some films go beyond just story and entertainment. A few become art (just about any Kubrick), some are social commentary (Clockwork Orange, 12 Angry Men), and so on. It doesn't have to be every film, I still want my fun films, but a few should enlighten us. Up to the early 90's, American films for the most part were not, but at least I could rely on independent and foreign films to do that. Unfortunately, those films either don't get made or don't get picked up by distrbutors. Now the distributors look for the annual Sundance darling, like Blair Witch, which isn't very socially redeeming, just a lot of gimmicks. A film has been floating around for about two years call Dream Catcher, which deals with the social disconnection and aimlessness of youth, but it can't get picked up by a distributor (in spite of winning a slew of film festival awards).

I don't think movies are all about social commentary--if most films were like "Fight Club" and "Clockwork Orange", I estimate that most audience would stay home. Not every movie that comes along is going to be made like "Magnolia" or "American Beauty"....Movies are primarily about storytelling and often involve (what they call in the theater) "the willing suspension of disbelief."

I will conceed that some films are made for the wrong reason...when the full essence isn't about telling the story as much as trying to piece together some cinematic event that producers (who don't go to movies--who don't love movies) think the audience will want to see....then you end up with a shoddy patchwork job like "The Avengers", or 50-75% of those "teeny bopper" films, that all are driven by the influce of "Scream" (Notice a trend of horror/thriller films lately?)

Now, once in a while, you get a diamond in the rough, true--there are always exceptions.
But on the whole, yes, I think most people can be *too* critical of a film, for the wrong reasons. I wonder how many people have fun at the movies any more, than those who sit and nitpick apart the script, the actors, the special effects, until all you've got left are the crumbs of something that was never about more than an entertaining story.

I neither expect nor want heavy social commentary out of every film. I emphasize *heavy*....films can say something about us, and still remain enjoyable.

Films like "Rules of Engagement", "Enemy of the State"--sold under the impact of attached names, but really provocative on a deep level. "Jerry Maguire"--what do we want out of life, and what are we worth when no one is behind us?

Basicaly, if the trailor flashes a bunch of one liners, has cheesy music playing in the background, and does nothing but show one or two main characters in the advertized movie...it's simply not going to live up to your expectations. My suggestion is this: If the trailor doesn't make you go "Wholy Sh*t, I really gotta see this movie!!" then don't see it.

Are we too critical of movies? I've known people for whom one bad thing condemns a movie for them. No matter how good other elements are, the bad matte work in say Hitchcock films ruins the experience for them. And then there are people who take it all in stride and either a like a film or not based on other factors.

Personally, I'd like to be the latter but am usually the former---badly accomplished aspects can throw me out of the experience and I can understand others being like that about movies too.

Actually, in current cinema, the technical side of things is better than it has ever been. However, the mythic side has lost ground. CGI can produce these massive spectacle vistas that no one can afford to produce otherwise, but the story and characters, the real heart and human dramatic situations have in some cases suffered. But the public sometimes gets a sense of this and rejects films like Battlefield Earth that are all explosions and no content.

Trying to please people is a tough business especially when so many people have different tastes and standards and things they expect from a movie. Hollywood product aims at the lowest common demoninator--it's strategy for appealling to as many as possible. Now that's not such a bad thing. Take my favorite metaphor--Coca-Cola or Pepsi. Here is a simple soft drink, a basic formula, made to appeal to billions of people worldwide. Pleasant but Prole, no gourmet concoction for refined tastes, the lowest common demoninator--and yet, it's good, it doesn't answer your big questions but it pleases you at some basic level. Well Hollywood movies are like that. The problem is that with movies, to continue the pop metaphor, more attention seems to be paid to the can design or the ads than to the product. It's like your cheapest local generic pop is trying to pass for Coke and the industry is hoping no one will notice.

Given that state of things, I don't see the problem in being "too" critical of movies. As I have been saying lately in post after post, people have the right to come down hard on what they dislike and also on who's responsible even if that leads to slamming and name-calling instead of better arguments and supports. Sometimes emotional anger communicates more articulately than a book. And like it or not, violence solves conflicts. Anyone watching movies should realize this is basic to human life. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if all the people who've been on me for being Holier-Than-Thou or impolite love films with characters who are totally like that.

I like to have fun and be entertained and I suppose if my own taste buds were less picky, I'd have a better time digesting the stuff that gets put out there. I'd be a happier person if things didn't get me or displease me. I have a lot of beefs that I wish I could turn into steaks. But there is enough great films, great music, great art and experience out there that I can spend the rest of my life chasing after it without the well running dry. So basically I'm happy. The problem is some weeks when I want to go to the movies I see 14-16 films playing and none I would pay a dollar to go see. So I hit the tube or video store for something. But films at home isn't film on a huge theater screen. Less and less is that experience becoming available to me as more and more generic pop tries to pass itself as Coke or better. And you could see it the other way around. It's not that nitpicking ruins the film experience, it's that the films aren't really that good that they can stand up to scrutiny. What am I supposed to do. I'm already suspending my disbelief, I'm I also supposed to leave my brain at the door too. Oh well, there's always The Big Sleep and To Have and Have Not to watch for the 40th time--nothing new but they seem to work no matter how often I watch them.

However, just because I want to be entertained doesn't mean I'm going to be swayed by a bunch of flashy effects and fast edits. If you're going to do entertainment, you may as well put some thought and planning into it and do it right.

I think the problem here is the question what do people find entertaining?

The simple fact is that there are some people who would rather have a film illuminating in some way, and some that don't care.

Personally, while I have no problem with a large-budget spectacle, I think that it gives a film a resonance to be about something. And I find that more "entertaining" than simply a mindless mess.

Am I saying all films need to have social commentary? No. What I am saying is that films can and have been made that have been enormously satisfying on both levels. An example would be, say, Gladiator's direct antecendant, Spartacus. There is an interesting story, a startling array of great characters, each with their own motivations and reasons for their participation in the plot, excellent technical values including marvelous 70 millimeter photography by Russell Metty, and one of Alex North's greatest scores.

Don't get me wrong. I was entertained by Gladiator. I enjoyed the film enough to see it twice. The second time, however, the film rang quite a bit more hollow than it did the first. On the other hand, I have seen Spartacus more times than I care to count, and I will again soon (I am waiting for, with particular relish, Criterion's DVD of the title with a new picture transfer and all the features from the laser). I do not intend to see Gladiator again anytime soon.

What is the difference between the two films (not counting my extreme dislike of the score and battle sequence editing)? Well, there are plenty. For one thing, Gladiator has a much more limited dramatis personae, and their motivations are much more straightforward. As a result, much of the film depends on intrigue scenes that don't go anywhere. In Spartacus, there is a variety of characters, and each of them have conflicts and obstacles to overcome. Some of them are good guys, some of them are bad guys. Some of them are bad guys that become good guys over the course of the film. Intrigue scenes in this film crackle with wit and intelligence (even Peter Ustinov's hamming is appropriate).

Gladiator has one plot, while Spartacus has many, and part of the interest the latter film has is how each storyline impacts the other. While I certainly don't mind a focused, single minded film, Gladiator sends out too many red herrings about its intellectual level, filling its running time with slow moving sequences that don't have anything really happening (look at Spartacus, and you'll find that every sequence has a purpose in the grand scheme of the film).

Both films are spectacles, but while Spartacus uses its arresting imagery to heighten the emotional impact of the story (the panoramas of Rome behind Crassus as he attempts to compare his prospective sexual conquest of Antoninus to Rome's imperialist conquest of the rest of the world; the huge Roman army marching into various formations before the climactic battle contrasted against the ragtag, but determined slave army), one finds similar imagery in Gladiator used as window dressing, backgrounds and "Hey, look at this!"

Most importantly, Spartacus has subtext. It is not only about the struggle for freedom, it is about dignity. It is about hope. It is about finding that part withing yourself brave enough to stand up for your beliefs. It asks you, "What part of you is Spartacus?" Gladiator is, when scrutinized, merely a revenge film set in Rome. It's Death Wish 50 A.D. The film constantly asks the question "What is Rome," or "What is Marcus Aurellius' idea of Rome," and consistently fails to answer them (it even alters the historical basis of the story to avoid answering the question to well beyond that which is acceptable in a historical fiction; if you're going to depart so much changing, make it an original story).

Therefore, I say to you that the these two films are a perfect example of how the concept of quality cinema has declined, as demonstrated by two films of the same genre from different eras.

Why did I just waste all your time doing this?

Because I think that Spartacus is a damn entertaining film on many levels. It can be watched purely as an action/adventure spectacle, as a wrenchingly tragic love story, as a political thriller and so on.

But, beyond that, there is more. While both films are technically proficient (as I indicated before on this board, I'm glad Ridley Scott is still around to remind everyone that Panavision is a widescreen format), Spartacus is the one that resonates. Spartacus is greater than the sum of its parts, while Gladiator is pretty much "what you see is what you get."

Both films were produced as top-of-the-line, big budget, Hollywood epics, using some of the best talent available in the business. Spartacus, however, satisfies all the surface requirements of its genre without sacrificing the resonance, subtext and intelligence that Gladiator does the same without.

Why should anybody defend this dumbing-down of what is, in essence, our most visible modern art/entertainment form? If every film that had these attributes was a ponderous viewing, I could understand the objection. However, one finds many films that are entertaining and mean something.

Look at the Mad Max trilogy. Each film, taken on its own, has its own separate meaning, and, when taken as a whole, has a greater purpose. But they are damn wild rides, ain't they?

I apologize to everyone for this Daniel2-esque tirade, but I really don't see how, if it can be done, we need to accept works of lesser quality. And if it sounds a bit bitchy, than so be it. I can no longer watch a film and just accept what I see.

I believe that one should always question authority. A strong system can withstand this scrutiny. One that is flawed, however, will show its cracks. And if it neccesary for me to pick apart two films like I did above for me to explain why I think that today's product is somewhat lacking, then I will.

Am I too critical? I don't think so. I want something for my $8.50. And a good film will be worth much more than that. One that stays with you forever, like Spartacus, well, that's what cinema as an art form and as an entertainment form should aspire to.

...and don't get me started on Casablanca, truly one of the greatest films ever... and one that would never get made today...

As always these are just my humble thoughts.

Big Momma's House sold out it's 5:05 screening. It's on 2 screens.

While films like Being John Malkovich and the Straight story were here for like a week, if that, AND in the crappy theater, not the stadium-seating, good, surround sound digital theater googleplex. These films go unnoticed until they get their Oscar. Then everyone's like "Hey we can watch it now, it got an Oscar. It must be good."

In fact, one can be forgiven for thinking Stanley Kubrick WAS Mr Magoo, judging by that director’s comically short-sighted world-view that is manifest in his catalogue of miserably simplistic and puerile movie failure.

quote:

---

I don't think movies are all about social commentary--if most films were like "Fight Club" and "Clockwork Orange", I estimate that most audience would stay home. Not every movie that comes along is going to be made like "Magnolia" or "American Beauty"....Movies are primarily about storytelling and often involve (what they call in the theater) "the willing suspension of disbelief."

---

And I agree...if ALL films had social commentary or social relevance, then I would probably stay home too. What I am looking for is the occassional film of social relevance that informs me about the world around me, perhaps makes an attempt to improve the world around me (like American Beuaty, Fight Club, Three Kings, and Magnolia).

I am also looking for good solid quality entertainment, one that relys on good storytelling, interesting characters with some depth to them. Over the last three days, I've been spending some time with those movies. Friday was The Birds, Saturday was The Boys From Brazil, and Sunday was Coma. Are these great films? Noooooo. (Except for The Birds). But did they make some attempt at telling a decent story and giving some decent characters? Absolutely YES! Was there depth in them? Yes. Was there an over reliance on special effects that did nothing to advance or inform the story or characters? Absolutely NOT!

I've always enjoyed a good taut thriller. Each of these met that requirement (and in the case of one, "soared" beyond it). Just give me decent characters, storytelling and the occassional social relevance, and I'll be happy. But to be honest, I am not happy with the current crop (extending back over the last 6-8 years). And given what I read in the rags (such as Premiere) that is not going to change in the forseeable future.

That's okay. I've been reading about the classics and making a list. There are a lot of older films I have not seen that I can devote my time to, and I doubt I'll be lacking for films for a long while. By the time I do get done with those, the classic enduring films from the 80's and 90's will have identified themselves, and the crap will have withered away to dust.

quote:

---

Trying to please people is a tough business especially when so many people have different tastes and standards and things they expect from a movie. Hollywood product aims at the lowest common demoninator--it's strategy for appealling to as many as possible.

---

I just wish ALL of Hollywood wasn't aiming toward the same common denominator. During the studio era, each studio had a particular signature film and did them well. MGM did lavish musicals, Warner Bros. did great detective, gangster and social commentary, Universal did the horror films. I just wish there was some variety.

quote:

---

I apologize to everyone for this tirade, but I really don't see how, if it can be done, we need to accept works of lesser quality. And if it sounds a bit bitchy, than so be it. I can no longer watch a film and just accept what I see.

---

Swashbuckler:
Got no problem with what you said. Everything you said makes absolutely perfect sense.

I think you hit it right on the nose when you noticed that a second viewing of Gladiator was significantly diminished from the first (and comparing that to no loss of impact over multiple viewings of Spartacus). The significant point is the amount of power that a good film maintains and that rekindles you everytime you see it.

I think I sensed in Gladiator right away (having not seen it and no real intention of seeing it) that it had little depth, little to make it a great film. I could not help to compare it to Spartacus (at least a description of the storylines). When I found that at 150 minutes verses 197 for Spartacus, there was little of depth in Gladiator of the kind you described in Spartacus, I decided there were other better ways to spend my precious minutes (like re-watch Spartacus).

It's kind of funny because at the beginning of the year (near Oscar time), me and some friends go through the list of movies eligible for consideration and check off what we've seen (in the theater). 1998 for me personally, provided quite a few excellent movies, and some O.K. I saw a LOT of movies that year. Last year, I saw considerably less, and going down the list, I was somewhat shocked and embarrased by what I'd paid good money to see. Sometimes a mood catches me and I'm up for something mindless, but goodness. And this year looks to be a repeat of last year.

quote:

---

Critics are people who, after the battle has been fought, go into the field and shoot the wounded.

---

quote:

---

Critic. A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him.

---

I absolutely refuse to believe that every director working in films today makes their films for the sole purpose of pleasing an audience. What happened to making art for art's sake?

For instance, I frequently write poetry and short stories, and even though I do post some of them on the Internet, what I let people read is less than 5% of what I write. I write because I feel like writing, because it's something I feel an unexplainable, incomparable longing to do. I have never written with the intention that people will read it and shower me with compliments.

I know this kind of thing occurs very often in history. Kafka is a good example of this, as very little of his work was published in his lifetime. (Although I do admit that at times great writers have yielded to their audiences.)

I cannot and will not accept that there aren't directors out there who could not possibly care less about the response of the audience or the critics! It's their movie, not yours, and if you don't like, they shouldn't care.

In the case of film makers who actually do make movies for the audience, then by all means be as critical as you want... after all, that's why they made it.

quote:

---

anyhoo i belive that 99 was the best year of movies of the 90s

---

F'ck that passive stance idiocy that says if the hype machine is expensive enough we have to believe it is true. Everything deserves criticism, ruthless criticism. Even innocuous failed Ridley Scott movies I just bring up because someone always gets p'ssed. Besides, no one reads the positive reviews unless they thought of them first. The movies that generate the most hatred and spleen incidentally are the ones by Spielberg, Stone, Verhoeven, and maybe Lynch, that take the format and challenge it from within.

Quoting, Altman said "most major studios would balk at making M*A*S*H or Nashville today, because of the films' sprawling narratives, huge casts and satiric treatment of human tragedy. Hollywood is now more interested in "toy films" than adult-oriented fare. They are appealing to 13-year-olds straight across. And they don't even do them well. There is no reason why this recent Tom Cruise film Mission:Impossible 2 can't be good as well as have all the action they need. They are making stuff that won't endure."

I think the description "toy films" hits it right on the head.