I didn't get around to seeing T:G when it was still in theaters in my town of residence (which,btw,houses the biggest theater in the area; driving 1.5 hrs to St. Louis would maybe gain me a shot, but with no car or driver's license (I might be capable of getting a license, but I'd be surprised if I was able to use it for any length of time before it got taken away for repeated traffic violations) and very little $, that's a tough feat). It's also not out on video 'til November, so I don't know how good the movie is. Critics seem to hate it. One guy I saw posting online said he enjoyed the film, but was annoyed by its very existence (possibly not the exact words he used, but close...unless my memory's f***ed me over...) I really don't know how someone can feel so negatively passionate about a movie that they enjoyed...SO WHAT if it was planned by the current copyright holders? It's not like it's guaranteed to suck just because of that. If the producers aren't too blinded by money to know the difference between a good movie and a just-OK one, then how can you blame a production company for hiring a screenwriter (presumably one that's good at his/her job) and accepting it?
Yes, I know studios put out crap all the time. That's not only true with franchise properties, all kinds of movies that could have been a lot better end up getting put in theaters with the hopes that the public isn't "too picky" to care how crappy the movie is. There've been exceptions, albeit not many. (500) Days Of Summer (2008) was good, THE DARK KNIGHT Trilogy (2005-2012) was freakin' awesome (TDK was a little too depressing IMO but DKR more than made up for it)...I personally thoroughly enjoyed SHORT TERM 12 (2014) (being a victim of mental illness, the film resonated with me more than it probably did for a lot of other people), THE SPECTACULAR NOW (2013)...there was a stand-alone superhero film released in 2010 called SUPER, with Raain Wilson and Ellen Page...I was very moved by it. Jodie Foster's THE BEAVER (2011) was also very moving and very funny. Martin Scorsese's THE DEPARTED (2006) was amazing, but that's kind of to be expected...Martin Scorsese's career far predates the stagnation that Hollywood is currently in. THE EXTRA-MAN with Kevin Kline was OK, not great, but good. There's probably several more I can think of if I gave it enough time. I just thought of one a moment ago and now I don't remember what it was I was thinking of..
That movie THE INTERN, with Robert De Niro and Anne Hathaway looks good. I don't know if it's half as good as it plays out in the trailer that I saw on YouTube. Hopefully it is. It probably isn't.
I personally am not impressed by the trend in comedy these days to be offense and/or vulgar. Those traits don't make a movie funny. Generic action films have existed since the '80's, if not before...roaming jeeps in the desert driven by people with machine guns...etc...martial arts films were big in the '70's but they kinda went out of style at some point in the '80's. When it came to Hollywood, action films had to have something special about them to set them apart. Now that "something special" seems to be nothing more than Arnold Schwartzennegger's presence. The Governator used to be the king of action films. And when I say that, I mean he was always in very good action films, not movies that existed solely to show off artillery and motor vehicles. Arnold S.'s movies, from THE TERMINATOR (1984) up through END OF DAYS (1999) were a feast for the senses. He even did a few successful comedies with the director of GHOSTBUSTERS. JINGLE ALL THE WAY (1996) was good, even though it was a little too adult oriented to really be something the whole family can watch...not that it's crude or anything, it just seems more targeted to adults than to kids. I was 14 when I saw it and laughed my ass off much of the running time.
And since Eli Roth's HOSTEL (2005), so many movies had tried to cash in on that formula. I haven't seen HOSTEL, so I can't verify how good or bad it is, but if I had the stomach to watch it and not faint or throw up, I could probably tell you that despite how utterly disgusting it is, it was a well made film. TURISTAS (2006) was just pathetic. I saw a TV spot around late 2005/early 2006 and figured I'd rent it. The gore is not realistic enough to take seriously. What a joke! I should have rented HOSTEL instead, but I guess I was confused by the title...idk...it took me a rediculously long time to realize how intense that movie apparently is...many/most of the less glowing reviews on Amazon for the DVD are simply stating how sick and disgusting the film is. If those people had read the customer reviews instead of merely writing one of their own, they would have spared themselves the agony. It's possible all these other films that have been populating the video store have some artistic merit, but...browsing through the horror aisle these days has become an R rated experience. A lot of the ones available for rental nowadays should be cut off from the rest of the video store...like they do with the XXX films.
Hmmm...anyway...movies generally suck these days. I tried watching THE FAULT IN OUR STARS and the film was just way too flippant on every level. You got the sense that the cancer patient was not happy. Then two minutes later she's attracted her soul mate. WTH? That film is to drama what a porn film is to erotica. I would expect a GOOD film (drama) to breathe a little more. The film moved way too fast. Sure, the story is easy to relate to, for most people, but the story for most movies, including good ones, can be experienced in the same flat presentation of THE FAULT IN OUR STARS by reading a 2 page summation of the movie. A 90+ minute movie of that caliber is not needed! I felt similarly about another recent teen melodrama titled IF I STAY. The film would have been good if it didn't spend so much time telling the backstory that lead up to the main character being in a coma. A film like this is not a declaration of life's joys. The entire idea of the book it was based on was not "LET ME LIVE!"; that's why it's titled ***IF**** I STAY -- before the film begins the celebration of life aspect is already ambiguous. The scenes that make up the first half hour of the movie are completely out of context. If they existed in flash backs, it would have made more sense and been more resonating. The whole "get to the point" element would have been removed.
And I realize a lot of these movies are based on books. They sell well and some movie studio wants to replicate the book's success. That didn't stop them from being well liked by your average sap and making tons of money in the USA. TERMINATOR: GENISYS on the other hand is considered an artistic failure even if it was enjoyable...simply because James Cameron didn't make it himself? Aside from the fact that the ideas that make up THE TERMINATOR are not that freakin' original, why not critizise DC Comics for publishing BATMAN 20 years after Bob Kane died? He obviously isn't writing those himself. He created the series, did he not? What are all these other dudes adding on to Bob Kane's original story? You know damn well they didn't get hired by DC Comics by submitting their own BATMAN story idea. They were hired on the strength of their story telling abilities. As I said already, a movie is more than just an able story. It does take a lot of people to get any movie made and if the movie is to be good, it's gonna take cooperation on the part of all of them. Which is why movies have a director, or at least that's one reason...I don't know if the critics low opinion of the movie is justified or not. Rolling Stone magazine's Peter Travers is usually a good judge of movies. According to him, it's a great movie. It's not like I always agree with everything he says. Peter Jackson's KING KONG was dumb, IMO. Peter Travers liked it a lot. I don't know...guess I'll find out for sure when it comes to video. Maybe my local theater will do an encore?
No comments:
Post a Comment