LBPCentral Archive

Home

General Stuff

General Media

Crappy movies everywhere!

Archive: 39 posts

I considered doing a thread for "The Lovely Bones", but I figured it'd get 2 replies, nobody would watch that movie anyway, and really, what's the point? I'd be complaining about another crappy movie and a few folks would nod and that'd be that.

So instead.

Why is every single movie right now CRAP? Is anyone else frustrated by how BAD movies are right now? And by right now, I mean... seemingly ALL THE TIME?

The box office still has Avatar on top, and everything underneath it is not only bad, but laughably bad. I like to think of Avatar as a tank and these other movies as slight farts on a gentle breeze that are TRYING REALLY HARD.

The sad thing about this is that Peter Jackson CREATED Weta. Here he is, having finally finished and released The Lovely Bones, and it's going up against Avatar, the biggest movie in... forever? Also with effects by Weta.
But The Lovely Bones is so bad, so bland, the effects so goofy... It's just sad to me! It makes me actually sad.

There were a few times when I got a bit choked up watching The Lovely Bones: When I thought back on the book and how tragic and poignant it was; and when I thought of what the Weta folks who worked on Avatar must have thought of what was coming out of the pipeline on Lovely Bones.

Meanwhile, the Oscars have opened up their nominees to 10 per major category in the hopes that more mainstream movies will make for a race that will bring in better ratings. It's got a lot of people expecting a "Star Trek" nominee for best picture.

Sony Pictures decided not to put Moon anywhere in its Oscar campaign. I don't even know if it SUBMITTED the thing to any major categories. So I'm going into this thing expecting a Star Trek nomination and no Moon nomination, and that makes me want to crap my face.

It's so hard right now to find a good new movie. This last year was really, really, astoundingly weak. I had to strain to come up with even 3 or 4 movies that I really really liked, and I saw quite a few movies.

I learned recently that Guillermo del Toro is doing The Hobbit and one of his chief reasons for this is so that the movie will do major business, netting him a chance to direct his dream project: At the Mountains of Madness by HP Lovecraft. You know what? Sign me up. Sign me up right now, for the love of God. We had GI Joe and Transformers 2 this last year. Upcoming movies? A Spider-man REBOOT, another Superman REBOOT, Transformers 3, and a whole lot more crap unspeakable.

Why not dig into literary classics that are mostly unplumbed in cinema? Why not a new Moby ****? I know that Frank Darabont is doing a new Fahrenheit 451, one of my favorite books, and this MIGHT be good, but if there was ever a mixed bag of a filmmaker, it was Frank Darabont. He might give you a classic, but it's more likely he'll give you an unlabelled sack, and you won't know what's in it until you open it and get a whiff, before chucking it into the nearest bottomless pit and trying hard to forget about it.

Normally the beginning of the year is a slow time for movies, I understand that - the year-end awards season rush is over, and you generally get a bunch of crappy horror movies and romantic comedies leading up to the end of February, date movies for the cold season. But the years are getting worse - the number of good movies is dwindling - and in the middle of this, the Academy has the balls to EXPAND its nominee list to TEN. TEN movies for best picture? I couldn't even list 10 GOOD MOVIES!!

Expect the oscars to be a gong show. I'm willing to bet that Avatar will win best picture. You know what? I had a great time at Avatar. But they invented the technical awards for exactly this type of movie. It's not best picture of the year material. Most progressive visual effects of the DECADE. Give it every technical award in the books, it's a major achievement. But it's probably going to win best picture, and truthfully, it's not going to be up against very stiff competition.

I'm not going anywhere with this, it's a classic aimless ramble from front to back. If anyone's seen a piece of crap lately and wants to complain and moan about the state of movies, please join my whiney ranks. There's going to be tea and cookies. The tea's going to be bitter though, and the cookies are going to be way too dry. It helps loosen up the whine-bone for our complaint sessions.

2010-01-26 10:21:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

Are you done now? lol

2010-01-26 10:26:00

Author:
BasketSnake

Posts: 2391

i have to agree, i only liked three of the movies that came out the past few months. The Book of Eli, District 9 and Inglorious Basterds. best movies ive seen all year

2010-01-26 10:34:00

Author:
Charlemagne

Posts: 513

I highly recommend "The Boat That Rocked". I loved it. I'll watch it again one day.

2010-01-26 10:37:00

Author:
BasketSnake

Posts: 2391

Transformers 2 was utter rubbish. It was like the garbage man picked it up, put it in his van, threw it in a sewer, at which point it got eaten by a rat. The rat ran to Michael Bay, who was at a resturant, and vomited into his face. Michael Bay thought it would then be a good idea to make an entire film around this concept. Complete rubbish.

2010-01-26 12:52:00

Author:
FlipMeister

Posts: 631

I can't say I disagree... but you pretty much took all of the good points! I don't know what you want me to say now...

I'm still dumbfounded that Sony didn't submit Moon for consideration. I read an article some weeks back that put forth the idea that Sony hadn't put any screeners of the film out because they were worried about piracy. How ironic is that?! Worried about piracy for a film that barely was given a limited release! They robbed the film of a Best Picture nomination and they robbed Sam Rockwell of a Best Actor nod. Is he better than Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart? I don't know because I haven't seen that film. Crazy Heart: I could be wrong, but I think I liked that film better when it starred Mickey Rourke and was about a broken down wrestler. Or maybe it was better when it was called Walk the Line... and was a [roughly] true story... Again, what do I know; I may end up liking that film.

Well - since you're still around - here's what I know. I don't remember ever seeing Hollywood in a more uninspired state. Films I loved this past year:

Up
Moon
The Hurt Locker
Avatar

There are a few more that almost make that list, but they manage to fall short for one reason or another. Films that I'm hopeful for looking ahead:

Wolfman
Shutter Island
Alice in Wonderland
Iron Man 2
Robin Hood
The Expendables
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
True Grit

Okay, so that's really guilty pleasures and everything that are slated for 2010. There are others that I'll probably see, but only out of obligation. Do I expect even half of those films to be decent? Cross off the ones that are obvious guilty pleasures and you have your answer.

Teebonesy's right, but we already knew that. Is he ever wrong? It remains to be seen.

Either way, Teebonesy, I'd like your opinion on my list of upcoming films; I know you have your guilty pleasures too, dude. Calling it now though: The Coens will look to clean up again with their adaptation (not remake, mind you) of True Grit.

PS - I was extremely disheartened to find out that The Hobbit isn't expected before 2012 now...

2010-01-26 13:29:00

Author:
supersickie

Posts: 1366

Films I loved this past year:

Up
Moon
The Hurt Locker
Avatar

Isn't that one from 2008?

also

Gonna watch Moon soon.

But yes... they try to make good movies. But they don't...

that's all

2010-01-26 15:08:00

Author:
Yarbone

Posts: 3036

Isn't that one from 2008?

also

Gonna watch Moon soon.

But yes... they try to make good movies. But they don't...

that's all

The Hurt Locker made its theatrical debut June 26, 2009.

2010-01-26 16:06:00

Author:
supersickie

Posts: 1366

it made its debut on usene.....TOAOGLABLABTOMATO!!!

2010-01-26 18:46:00

Author:
BasketSnake

Posts: 2391

I'm still dumbfounded that Sony didn't submit Moon for consideration. I read an article some weeks back that put forth the idea that Sony hadn't put any screeners of the film out because they were worried about piracy. How ironic is that?! Worried about piracy for a film that barely was given a limited release! They robbed the film of a Best Picture nomination and they robbed Sam Rockwell of a Best Actor nod. Is he better than Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart? I don't know because I haven't seen that film. Crazy Heart: I could be wrong, but I think I liked that film better when it starred Mickey Rourke and was about a broken down wrestler. Or maybe it was better when it was called Walk the Line... and was a [roughly] true story... Again, what do I know; I may end up liking that film.

Yeah, I'm with you... I think Jeff Bridges is great, and I'm sure Crazy Heart's a fine movie. But holy crap am I SICK of best actor oscars always going to biopics. What the hell. You could win an oscar basically by "getting by" on an impersonation. You meet someone, learn their mannerisms, maybe watch some film of them in their younger years, and do your bestest impersonation. Even if you're up against someone who put together an amazing, original character, you've got an automatic advantage by portraying a real person in a biopic.

Wolfman
Shutter Island
Alice in Wonderland
Iron Man 2
Robin Hood
The Expendables
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
True Grit

PS - I was extremely disheartened to find out that The Hobbit isn't expected before 2012 now...

Interestingly, I'll probably end up going to see a lot of the movies on your list, though I can't say I'm expecting much out of many of them. There are high expectations for Iron Man 2, but I'm just such NOT a comic book guy that I can't get myself excited for it. I wasn't too keen on the first one. Which I know is blasphemy.

Shutter Island should be a very fun bit of stylish classy horror, definitely looking forward to it.

Wolfman, what to do with that? I love the Victorian period and the visuals. Hopkins seems to be reprising his Van Helsing role. I have NO IDEA what to expect out of this. But I might just see it purely for the Victorian-London-at-night prettiness.

Alice in Wonderland: Brutally honest, I expect this movie will be doodoo. I think Tim Burton's become a parody of himself. Years ago I think I joked about "Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland", but here we go, and all I can do is shrug. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before he finally starts adapting Dr. Seuss books and gets it all out of his system. But yeah, I'm definitely going to see this for myself. Partially to confirm my own predictions, and partially out of the old rubbernecker curiosity of watching a train wreck in action.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - you know what? I really didn't like the first two Narnia movies, but this was one of my favorite narnia books, I absolutely loved it. And after Disney dumped this Narnia series just before making my favorite one (and seriously, who cares about Prince Caspian? Who ever remembers THAT one??)... I feel for them, and I hope this comes out really good and does some real business. I want the series to hold out at least until The Magician's Nephew.

Robin Hood - Ridley Scott is reminding me of Tim Burton a little bit. Ridley Scott's Robin Hood? I can picture the trailer now: Russell Crowe rises up out of shallow waters in slow motion, screaming, wielding a sword, while a heavy guitar score pumps you up for sweet archery action while a voice over spouts a flowery bit of poetry. Oh, wait, that's what the trailer actually is! Ridley Scott's still making obvious Ridley Scott movies. He's a mixed bag. I don't know what to expect here, but I'm sure it'll at least be plenty entertaining.

True Grit - A gritty western about a one-eyed marshall named Rooster Cogburn played by Jeff Bridges and directed by the Coens? Sounds like a match made in heaven! I've already decided to have two of these.

I have to be honest, I haven't heard of The Expendables and know nothings about it.

The Hobbit - 2012? Ouch. Can't be too surprised considering the size of this project. To be really blunt, I don't care too much about this... I just want Guillermo to do well so he can start properly blowing the lid off HP Lovecraft movies. That's my stake in The Hobbit. To me, The Hobbit's success means we start seeing proper Lovecraft movies at sweet, long last. Not culty low-budget ones, but the royal treatment like he deserves. It's about **** times!

Nah if anything, this year might be a good time to start catching up on some classics. I wish Canada had netflix. Bah.

We should start a "movie club" thread where we pick a movie to watch each week and then all watch it and blabber about it. There's an idear!

2010-01-26 18:53:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

So what is your opinion on the teen scream sensation "twilight"?

2010-01-26 19:01:00

Author:
Kern

Posts: 5078

So what is your opinion on the teen scream sensation "twilight"?

You really want his opinion on the Twilight series?! Oh, I'm going to grab popcorn and soda for this one!

The Expendables includes Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts, *takes breath* Steve Austin, Randy Couture, and Mickey Rourke. Among others. It's just going to be a unapologetic action fest. Can't wait!

I'll admit that I'm stoked for The Hobbit. One of my favorite books over the years. That said, I think the movie sells itself and your bigger budget Lovecraft adaptations should come to pass.

2010-01-26 19:26:00

Author:
supersickie

Posts: 1366

Yeah I want his opinion I want someone who doesn't like it

2010-01-26 19:36:00

Author:
Kern

Posts: 5078

If you want the opinion of someone who doesn't like Twilight just walk down the street and ask any random strasnger.

2010-01-26 20:23:00

Author:
ARD

Posts: 4291

fine I just want teeb to answer

2010-01-26 20:28:00

Author:
Kern

Posts: 5078

fine I just want teeb to answer

This both fair and viable; his answer should be nothing short of entertaining.

2010-01-26 21:22:00

Author:
supersickie

Posts: 1366

I'm sorry, but Avatar just didn't do anything for me.

Yea, good effects, but story-line that's been done, and done and done.

If you're a tree-hugging, granola eating, bleeding-heart type, you'll love the save the forest story.

Overall I'd have to give it a thumbs-down

Only movie I've seen recently that I liked: Star Trek.

BoomerET

2010-01-26 21:35:00

Author:
BoomerET

Posts: 41

*get down!!!*

2010-01-26 21:37:00

Author:
Kern

Posts: 5078

My favourite films of 09 were:

Gran Torino (I saw it in 09 and its worldwide release was in 2009)
Inglourious Basterds. I love it. I don't care what anyone says, it is brilliant. The acting was superb, I've seen it at least 5 times now.
The Hangover, possibly one of the funniest films I've seen in a long time.
District 9.

2010-01-26 22:21:00

Author:
creelers

Posts: 275

You just have to look at the "Recommend me a movie" thread,very few are from 2009, and those I honestly can't agree with.
Honestly, how could anybody think 2012 was a good movie? I suppose if your 10 you might get "visually busy" confused with "good" due to lack of movie going experience.

I have to agree with TeenBonesy ,it's been a dire year for movies.
Next year isn't looking much better unfortunately.
The Lovely Bones was awful, it was like a cross between a midday TV movie melodrama and a advert for Mattels "My Little Pony" in the fantasy scenes.
I wanted to punch the main character, all she did was start crying in every scene, her acting was so forced and expression vacuous.
The whole movie appeared to be a "one take, let's move on to the next scene" ,type of shoot.
Even this years best were average in a true sense, the irony is the best ones got very little attention in comparison to these hopeless "special effect blockbusters"

The Time Travellers Wife was a good movie, even the remake of the Bad Lieutenant [port of call] with Nicholas Cage was,IMHO actually better than the Harvey Kietel original, I bet not many people saw either of these movies though.
I could list a few good [well reasonable I suppose] movies from this year, but that's not this threads topic,it's Bad Movies,and boy there were a LOT of those.

No ,the movies that grabbed all the attention were the worse
2012, Terminator Salvation,Star Trek [sorry guys it wasn't good],Transformers 2 ,GI Joe [ hurts just thinking about this stinker], The Lovely Bones,Twilight-New moon [same cr@p, but new worse formula] etc etc etc
If the lack of plots, or totally nonsensical plots didn't numb your brain,then the pathetically banal scripts enacted for your viewing pleasure from actors who know that they have landed themselves in a turkey of a movie, so have given up the will to live and act will have you glaring into space like a lobotomized gibbon with any of the above films
Don't forget to give a huge round of applause around Oscar time, before you walk over the edge of the bridge,to the Dept of continuity errors, previously known in professional circles as as Film Editing.
These guys make sure the movie is brain dead enough for the general public before it leaves the studio,they make sure that what little plot there is telegraphed to the audience [sometimes on numerous occasions] well before the actual event happens,[ it seems the audience is deemed to dumb to comprehend surprises or plot twists,so everything has to be explained to them]usually done at the bequest of producers who believe a "Focus Group" to be the final arbitrator of what any particular movie should & will end up as.
No risk taking here, nice and safe please with lashings of predictability, ah that's better.
THE BIG MISTAKE I call it, and the major reason why today's movies are garbage.

I suppose they will blame it all on the writers strike at the beginning of the year,where in fact it's the studios total lack of backbone in investing in an original idea and letting it go through the creative process without interference.

Somebody grow some and sort this ,it's gone on too long and getting worse.

2010-01-27 08:42:00

Author:
blackwiggle

Posts: 84

you know how the cool pages levels suck? and they're starting to suck more and more?

same thing is happening to movies and music, what was cool and new back then is now harder to keep up it's excitement, knawmean? in the 80's there were TONS of artists we'll remember for a long time, mainly because of the change of taste in their music, but this last decade there were none. will we be talking about lil wayne 40 years from now? hell no.

movies are starting to run out of good ideas to sustain their impact on people. the stories need to be more complex and that than it was before. avatar, being one of the only good movie right now, got that way because of its special effects, but the story is no different than pochahontis [spelling check] lol.

change will happen soon, i think.

2010-01-27 12:46:00

Author:
Voodeedoo

Posts: 724

Who's Ill wayne? Never heard of him,but I'll bet he should be on this list below

Please gather together in one place the following.
Adam Sandler,Ben Stiller,Will Ferrell,Jim Carey,Jack Black, Rob Schnider,Eddy Murphy,Chevy Chase,Steve Martin,Robin Wiliams,John Travolta,Martin Short,Mike Meyers...Tom cruise has been penciled in.....that will do for a start and that's only the guys
These are some of the main offenders who's consistency in making a inanely BAD movies is legend, Even Bollywood wouldn't want them.
If only we could have them black listed from making further movies at least 35% of the problem would of been solved.

It's US based studios & producers who think of movies as "Product" that perpetuate this continuation of bad movies.
Their contribution to the US cinema is similar to the USA's contribution to the making of cheese, tasteless, colourless and wrapped in plastic or comes out of a can
In other words , a travesty .
These are the guys that think in movie product placement is a good thing.
They care little about story ,script or the actual intelligibility of the "Product" they are responsible for churning out.
They hire actors from the list above.
They decide to make movies where a script isn't even written yet [ Pirates of the Caribbean script was written ON LOCATION ] and didn't the last one show it and to think there is another being made, god help us.
They lose control of their own projects by being blinded by the insertion of more & more special effects ...last two Matrix movies for instance, what happened there?

These are Quantity over Quality type people.
They would rather listen to their accountant than their director.

2010-01-27 19:31:00

Author:
blackwiggle

Posts: 84

ROB SCHNEIDER....until one day.. ..deerrrrrp!! Rob Schneider is...A CARROT!! DEERP

2010-01-27 21:52:00

Author:
BasketSnake

Posts: 2391

What do I think of TWILIGHT? Well I only saw the first one. Based on my experience watching that one, I'm DEFINITELY putting the sequels on my agenda. I wouldn't dare buy a ticket, but for a download, these are practically must-watches.
And, for the record, team Jacob.

Seriously, though. I'm serious. Check this out:

"You want to know what I REALLY AM??"
*runs helter skelter through the woods to show her how much of a monster he is*
*stands at a cliffside with the sun shining, and opens his shirt*
*magical pixie sparkles emanate from his manly chest, including a sparkly tinkerbell sound*
"See? I'm a monster."
"I think you're beautiful."

..... YES.
*slow clap*
The vampire baseball scene. This is where they have their showdown with the "bad vampires", who are quite built up but then turn out to be little more than regular dudes when it comes down to a fight. Bella also is a completely hopeless and useless excuse for a human being, and for that matter, so are all the friendly neighborhood vampires, especially Edward. The fantasy of these books involves what I guess is a mormon mom's dream scenario: to relive high school over and over and over. See, to me, this would be hell on earth and I'd drive a wooden stake through my heart halfway through High School: round 2.
This is a world where PROM NIGHT, gasp! is built up to be a profoundly important event. If I were Edward I'd make myself a freaking garlic smoothie and end it all.
This is a world where Bella can't even LIVE without Edward's protecting her every little tiny vulnerable THING. She's useless. Unfortunately for her, so's he. They're all jokes.
And then there's Jacob, who seems normal except that he's a werewolf and is played by a terrible actor.

And then there's the stuff that happens later in the series.

Edward and Bella have a little tumble in the sack, much against his wishes, which ends up knocking her out conscious and bruising her terribly because of the sheer force of his vampiric manliness in bed. He impregnates her, HARD, and the growing super-baby nearly rips its way through her, Alien-style. So Edward does the only sane thing he can do - he gives her a c-section with his TEETH. Yes, he bites his way through her body to get the baby out. And then when Jacob the werewolf lays eyes on it, he "imprints" on it, instantly and irrevocably falling in love with it. With the baby.

The author, Stephenie Meyer, is completely and totally bat-**** insane and there can be no more denying it. She also can't write. She never even TRIED before writing Twilight. Even STEPHEN KING thinks her writing his abominable. Stephen King!!

But for a story that's so utterly NON-threatening, so hopelessly straight-laced and abstinence-harping, it's hilarious to me that it takes a decidedly Cronenbergian twist in its messed-up later chapters.

To me, Twilight isn't just an eye-rolling piece of tween pop. No, not at all. That would be nothing new or special. No, Twilight is a special kind of crazy. VERY special. It's not just "bad", it's unBELIEVABLY bad, to the extent that I have to watch it. I can't believe what I'm watching. It's not "2012" bad, it's not even "Ed Wood" bad, it's "Twilight" bad. In my book, that's more than enough to recommend it.

2010-01-27 22:43:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

2010-01-27 23:18:00

Author:
creelers

Posts: 275

Ever since I watched The Illusionist I became a huge fan of Paul Giamatti. I can't remember noticing him in previous movies. Anyways there's a new movie coming out where he's playing himself. I just know I'm in for a real treat. It's called "Cold Souls". MMmmmuust seee..

2010-01-28 20:14:00

Author:
BasketSnake

Posts: 2391

The title of this article is crappy movies everywhere, and near the very beginning you say that everything now is laughably bad... except Avatar, that Avatar is a tank and that the other movies are slight farts on a gentle breeze that are TRYING REALLY HARD. I've been really ****** off lately because of the ammount of attention Avatar is getting. It's reminded me how much I despise mainstream audiences, reminded me of every single time the majority have made an undeserving song No 1, an undeserving film No 1, an undeserving lbp level No 1...
You've just made me feel a lot worse

I was going to recommend a truly magnificent film, that came out around the same time as Avatar but went almost completely unnoticed, but i think i'd be just wasting my time.

This. ^

Honestly, I didn't see the fuss about Avatar. It looked pretty but the story was fairly predictable and had a not-so-original plot.

As for other movies, yes there are a lot of crappy ones coming out. I suppose film makers are trying to match the profit of Avatar although that is highly unlikely.

And anposteller, what was that movie you were going to recommend?

2010-02-06 22:17:00

Author:
iGotFancyPants

Posts: 1355

I was going to recommend a truly magnificent film, that came out around the same time as Avatar but went almost completely unnoticed, but i think i'd be just wasting my time.

Oh, dear! No, no; I wouldn't DARE compare low-budget non-Hollywood movies, particularly ones without a lot of fanfare, to Avatar. I wouldn't DARE. What I absolutely DESPISE is the vast majority of big-budget slop. Avatar is a breath of fresh air contrasted with the kind of undigestable bigtime hollywood sludge that's been constantly shoveled into theaters lately. You completely mis-read what I meant as "EVERYTHING THAT CAME OUT" being poor fodder for the big boy, when really I was referring to the top box office only.

And even then, that was at the time I wrote this a week ago. It was a VERY SPECIFIC statement that had not only to do with quality, but more about financial winnings. It took only a glance at the top box office around the time - Avatar easily stomping on every major studio's newcomer in the ring, which all happened to be terrible movies to begin with. I would be shocked, frankly, if you disagreed with it. Amongst these movies was Legion; The Tooth Fairy; Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel; When in Rome; other creations I'd dare not approach without a cyanide capsule in-mouth. Actual GOOD MOVIES, like Up in the Air, were not even in the top 10. I wouldn't DARE compare Up in the Air to Avatar at all - and certainly wouldn't refer to it as a "fart on the breeze" trying really hard. I don't know if that's the movie you were referring to, but I wouldn't worry about our friend Jason Reitman. He's a very talented young guy, he's made a good movie that is being recognized, and he's incredibly successful a director and at such a young age. Avatar is a storm, it's hard to put anything up against it; but the really talented filmmakers, the really good movies, will do okay.

I follow box office news, because it matters, and lately this is a very sad thing. The box office decides the continuing future of movies. It's nothing less than a list of what movies people are seeing. One thing is evident clearly: People go to see a lot of crap. Can you blame them for going back to Avatar? People who enjoy a spectacle - and who doesn't? - might go back and see Avatar a second or third time if they'd rather not sit through something like Legion or The Book of Eli, post-apocalyptic action flicks that got to the party more than a few years too late. If we have to have a giant action spectacle hold number 1, at least let it be a GOOD action spectacle.

One of my favorite movies of 2008 was a little movie called Sugar. You really don't get a whole lot smaller than that movie. Few people saw it or even heard of it. It comes from a different world, a different universe than Avatar. There's room for the tiny movie that gives a slice of life, that tells the truth, that's honest and heart-felt and means something; but there's also room for the spectacle, the magic of experiencing some impossible fantasy. Cameron is following in the shoes of Georges Milies, the pioneering magician-filmmaker. You go to Avatar for the same reason you might go to a magic show. You go to Sugar (or more recently, Precious, or The White Ribbon) for a completely different reason altogether.

And if you want to use the Oscars as some kind of benchmark, consider that The Hurt Locker got just as many nominations as Avatar.

Yes, I praise Avatar, because in a way I feel like there are very few filmmakers that can put together a huge-budget action spectacle and actually come out with a good movie - James Cameron is one, and I think Chris Nolan is one. Thankfully, these movies do the BEST BUSINESS. Isn't that amazing? That of all the wretched crap people go to see in droves, the ones they go to see THE MOST, the absolute top of the box office heap over years happen to be good movies? I can't get over that. A good big-budget movie shouldn't be a lightning strike. It shouldn't be an occasional treat, they should most be good for christ's sake. But instead we're left with the top 2% being worthwhile. Most of the rest is wretched, festering crap. You'd think that studios can learn from all this, but on and on we go, waiting for the occasional lightning strike. Most of the time I avoid the big movies. Looking back this year, The Road and Moon were two of the better new films I saw. Both got practically buried by their studios (Weinstein and Sony, respectively). But even then there's good news. Duncan Jones for example is already working on his follow-up to Moon.

EDIT: And speaking of the oscars, I'm hoping Avatar doesn't win Best Picture - because I honestly believe that if you took out the visually spectacular element, you're not left with a whole lot to work with. Avatar is exactly the kind of movie they invented the technical categories for. Hell, it should sweep up the tech awards. But it shouldn't win best picture. I don't know what to expect. I don't know what I would call the best movie of the year. It's ridiculous to me, a joke even, that the likes of Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, and freaking District 9 (UUUUGH), are all up for BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR. And what's all this Blind Side crap?? So yes, the oscars: still a joke, maybe moreso now than ever with TEN nominations in a very weak year. They had room for freaking TEN nominations, yet we didn't see The Road OR Moon in there. And Sam Rockwell didn't get a best actor nom. It's a joke. It's absolutely ridiculous. They're doing it for obvious reasons - they want ratings. You need a race with movies people actually went to see. So naturally Avatar has to be on there. Okay, I'll give you that, the Academy obviously adores James Cameron. But to pad it out with all this other crap (DISTRICT 9???) and leave out The Road and Moon, that hurts.

2010-02-06 22:26:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

Harry Brown was an absolute powerful dosage, nothing in the film let up, it was just such a neatly packaged punch in the face. So tense, so violent, and it just escalated out of nowhere.

Fantastic Mr Fox really plucked my heartstrings. Just felt it was a great way of capturing the magic of the original book. And I was really impressed by the stop motion and the puppets they'd built. I'm studying model making for film in college, so it just jumped out at me.

Avatar, a pretty thrilling enjoyable movie... but when people go on and on about how the visuals were what delivered... I just think about how many shoddy design flaws were in that film. I really didn't like the look of half the creatures in that movie. The environments were pretty stunning, but some of the creatures were just so dull and silly. The six legged "horses", the six legged monkeys, the pterodactyl bird things, hell even the Na'vi themselves... Everything was just all too familiar, and not fresh. I couldn't imagine myself being on the concept design team, and thinking...... what would make a horse look cooler??? OH I'LL GIVE IT AN EXTRA PAIR OF LEGS..........

... but where am I gonna put them???..... I'LL JUST SLAP THEM IN RIGHT BEHIND THE FRONT LEGS!!!!1111!1

looking through the full list of 09 movies, there's a few I really should have seen, I'll definitely keep my eye out for them when they're on dvd/tv...
Watchmen
Moon
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man
The Messenger
Bad Lieutenant (no idea if I'd like it or not, I've heard people say polar extremes about this film)
Crazy Heart
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Now looking back through the list... it wasn't all that bad was it :d
One thing I really do feel is that directors/producers are really being pressure by the whole industry around them these days. Everything has to be pitched in such a way, and filmed in such a format, and CG'd to bits... No one's really doing it for themselves anymore

Theres none of that freedom and individuality that used to be so special in cinema.
Example of this: Werner Herzog directing Bad Lieutenant (honestly I couldn't really believe what I was reading when I first saw the wiki page)... its a remake of an old crime drama, and its got a host of holidwood celebs and rappers (Xzibit???? OH NO YOU DI'IN)
This is Herzog we're talking about right.....

2010-02-07 00:29:00

Author:
Pitcard

Posts: 779

You know.... I'm absolutely FURIOUS with this thread. I mean, glorifying slop like Avatar... and at the same time belittling wonderful, beautifully written, and incredibly profound pictures such as Transformers II. There was a moment when Megan Fox is on the phone with that guy.... ummmm... you know, the lead actor.... that really great actor who virtually MADE Indiana Jones IV...... oh well, can't think of his name.... anyhoo, she's on the phone with him and she's SAYING she's breaking up with that guy, but yet.... you can FEEL that she isn't really. And her body language as they focus the camera on her while she walks across the garage.... beautiful. I bought TWO COPIES of the Transformers II Bluray disc just because I thought the studio deserved the extra money. They do great work - the explosions ALONE were worth the price of admission (plus $10.00 for popcorn)!

So, watch what you say! Hollywood has NEVER been better!

Gotta go.... rented "All About Steve" to watch with the wife tonight - Sandra Bullock is a can't miss!

2010-02-07 00:32:00

Author:
CCubbage

Posts: 4430

Sherlock Holmes was a great movie. Now, I'll keep in mind that I'm not a huge movie connoisseur, but I do know at least a semi-good movie when I see it. Sherlock Holmes was great, and was one of the few movies from 2009 I was excited to see, and made time with friends to see. Idk.

continue on.

2010-02-07 01:07:00

Author:
Ragfell

Posts: 729

Woah... a lot to read here... I skimmed through some rants, eyed over a couple of lists, just to get the jist. I guess I wasn't hugely bothered about this ebbing in the movie industry to actually notice. But now that you point it out... yeh, its a bit sad really.

At the same time, I'm here ranting, with full knowledge that my exact complaints have been a daily standard for decades. I think the 70s were a time in which almost anyone would agree that film was in pretty good shape. Those were good days, you could expect good, even great films to come out of major studios. It was art-driven, and artful, well-made films also made money. The 80s and the invention of the blockbuster by the likes of Spielberg and Lucas changed the game so much that the industry would never be the same. Movies are dumbed down compared to what they used to be, and sometimes you've got to hunt to find the gems. So, I do want to mention that I'm sitting here complaining and whining (doing my thing), but really this complaint has been a standard for decades. "why do movies suck?" Well... It's not exactly like they were much better half a decade ago.

Avatar, a pretty thrilling enjoyable movie... but when people go on and on about how the visuals were what delivered... I just think about how many shoddy design flaws were in that film. I really didn't like the look of half the creatures in that movie. The environments were pretty stunning, but some of the creatures were just so dull and silly. The six legged "horses", the six legged monkeys, the pterodactyl bird things, hell even the Na'vi themselves... Everything was just all too familiar, and not fresh. I couldn't imagine myself being on the concept design team, and thinking...... what would make a horse look cooler??? OH I'LL GIVE IT AN EXTRA PAIR OF LEGS..........

... but where am I gonna put them???..... I'LL JUST SLAP THEM IN RIGHT BEHIND THE FRONT LEGS!!!!1111!1

I know exactly what you mean. Pandora isn't much of an "alien" planet - it's earth, but moreso. It's EXTREEEM Earth. I always wished and hoped that Avatar would be more visionary. More like a Myazaki movie. But I think a big part of this is that Cameron and the studio knew better than to make the subject matter too much of a risk. It had to be accessible to achieve at least Cameron's goal, which was to bring 3D filmmaking out of adolescence, so to speak. But yeah, I'm with you 100%. So much money and so much effort and detail was spent on these non-existent creatures and places, but all of it is somehow familiar. We recognize leemurs, and hairless cat-dog creatures. "There were some notable giant creatures, but considering the size of Pandora's features, and considering the size of some of EARTH'S biggest things throughout time, I think there's room for some more out-there, and much bigger creatures. Carl Sagan envisioned a possible life form that could exist in the atmosphere of Jupiter - "floaters", giant balloon-like aliens that are as big as cities. Now we're talking.

Example of this: Werner Herzog directing Bad Lieutenant (honestly I couldn't really believe what I was reading when I first saw the wiki page)... its a remake of an old crime drama, and its got a host of holidwood celebs and rappers (Xzibit???? OH NO YOU DI'IN)
This is Herzog we're talking about right.....

It is weird, isn't it? Herzog, you never know what this guy's going to do though. And it's a weird situation, in interviews he's been adamant that his movie has little to do with the original, that he didn't try to make it even remotely like it - but from what I hear, the similarities are too much to be coincidence. At the same time, I've heard this movie is great - I haven't gotten around to seeing it yet, but definitely on my list.

But the lack of true originality in film right now is startling. The endless slew of comic book adaptations, sequels, re-boots, remakes, old toy franchises turned into movies... I mean, holy crap. HOLY crap is it getting exhausting. We just got a steampunk action-packed explosion-ridden Sherlock Holmes movie for god's sake. Yep, I just said "explosion-ridden Sherlock Holmes movie". Compared to all this stuff, Avatar seems positively original. And, the truth is, there is very little original from a design standpoint and certainly from a story standpoint in Avatar. But I feel like I should defend it, because there's a certain accomplishment that's worth noting here.

Avatar is in the spirit of Le Voyage dans la Lunes. Milies, in the ripe old year of 1902, created the first magical, transporting epic in cinema. It was fun - it was a magic show - it was spectacular - it showed audiences something they had never seen before - it explored new technology and pioneered special effects - it was not an original story (Verne wrote a far more realistic sci-fi novel about going to the moon half a century earlier, and Milies' version was a pseudo-adaptation also incorporating elements from an HG Wells story) - but it transported people, it struck a chord and became a sensation. There's this primal drive people have to explore and to witness new, wonderful things. Fantasizing is one thing, but to witness is another altogether, and Milies knew the power of this, and I think Cameron does too. Avatar is, in so many senses, "Le Voyage dans la Lunes" for the 21st century. I don't give very many movies a pass just for their "special effects". But I think Avatar does something more than that - it's not just eye candy. It really has the capacity to strike that ancient chord in people to witness, to even vicariously experience something spectacular and new. This is what I loved about Avatar, and this is why I think every other "big budget extravaganza" (I'm looking at you, Alice in Wonderland) is a bug on the windshield in comparison.

2010-02-07 02:00:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

I was drawn here by the words attractive blonde

2010-02-07 14:29:00

Author:
Kern

Posts: 5078

Do you work for 20th Century Fox, or are you just having a laugh, seriously, I'm not trying to be smart, I'm just starting to think that this thread is a joke, that you're messing

Obviously Avatar is the polar opposite to originality, so you must be trying to get a reaction out of us?
Now this movie is original...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HilwtqaN4Gs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3XzUYd6nrU

Heh - I'm glad you're all fired up, but it's not rocket science I'm trying to get across! I'm not one to give a movie a "pass" just for being visually splendid, I'm really not. Plenty of movies over the years have had hopelessly unoriginal stories and yet have been visually spectacular. Plenty are coming out left, right, and center all the time. A movie needs something more than that for me. Avatar has it, and it's a result of the first real pioneering effort I've seen in 3D "immersion". The filmmakers had to invent new ways to make the movie, and feel free to hate the movie for its lack of originality in story, but on the set and in the making, it was one of a kind, a movie made in a completely new way. Avatar's a pioneer, and there's no doubt that in the future, the most immersive film experiences available to us will owe SOMETHING to this movie. Interestingly, one of the only other times I've seen a movie and felt like I was experiencing something eye-opening and almost totally new (purely from a technical/immersion standpoint), was the Imax sequences of The Dark Knight. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I wish more people would take the lead on that and develop Imax as a shooting format.

Meanwhile, you can have the opposite problem - originality in spades and still fail miserably in creating a good movie - to me this is District 9. 20, maybe 30 minutes of an interesting concept, turned into a series of disconnected pastiches and genres that spiral further and further into senseless absurdity. By the 50th corpse-explosion, and the Michael-Bay-esque run and gun action ender, I pretty much figured I might have been watching the ****dest movie I'd ever seen, and I've seen Brotherhood of the Wolf and everything David Lynch ever made.

As for Inglorious Basterds, I actually loved Christoph Waltz, and Brad Pitt was hilarious, but aside from that it gave me the impression that Tarantino has lost it and really, desperately needs to stop watching movies - maybe then he can start making movies that are about something (that is, aside from movies). At least Pulp Fiction was a series of classic pulp stories, the kind that have been told a million times, and he put them to film in a way that felt new. But Basterds? I've found myself almost entirely alone in this, but aside from a few great scenes and an amazing show by Christoph Waltz (I hope he wins the Oscar), the movie has a whole I have no love for.

Oh, as for Inception... Didn't I mention that Chris Nolan is one of the few big-budget directors who consistently turns in great stuff? I'm sure I did. I'm thrilled as hell for Inception. In the trailers it reminds me of the first glimpses I got of The Matrix and Dark City, and it certainly seems to belong to a similar category of "existential action".

2010-02-08 12:03:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

I disagree... bye!

2010-02-08 16:12:00

Author:
Tawarf

Posts: 457

I felt, as I watched District 9, as though the movie theater staff had installed some new device to create a new way of watching movies, more immersive than ever before. It took me a while to pinpoint it, as it ramped up stronger and stronger as the movie went along. It was, at first, only slightly unpleasant, and I would frown and look to the people beside me, as if to ask, "do you taste that?!", but nobody seemed to share my sensitivity to this mystery. As it became more pronounced, I determined the sensation. I could feel, as I watched it, that I was in the midst of a liquid poopy drizzle, like a mist of fine feces, that I couldn't escape from. Could they have had rain towers that they were utilizing, perhaps? Eventually I realized that there was no such thing in effect, but it was merely Neil Blompkamp and Peter Jackson pooping all over me. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying that I felt pooped on.

2010-02-08 21:52:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

Meanwhile, you can have the opposite problem - originality in spades and still fail miserably in creating a good movie - to me this is District 9. 20, maybe 30 minutes of an interesting concept, turned into a series of disconnected pastiches and genres that spiral further and further into senseless absurdity. By the 50th corpse-explosion, and the Michael-Bay-esque run and gun action ender, I pretty much figured I might have been watching the ****dest movie I'd ever seen, and I've seen Brotherhood of the Wolf and everything David Lynch ever made.

I actually thought about you and this criticism of District 9 as I sat and watch Avatar. Didn't you think that Avatar followed a similar formula? Just like District 9, it ends with run and gun action, an over the top villain, and in my opinion the mec sequence is more outrageous (a giant mec bowie knife?) and not nearly as well done as the one in District 9.

2010-02-09 04:00:00

Author:
mrsupercomputer

Posts: 1335

I'm gonna call in the trump card over all of you yet again.

V for Vendetta is the greatest movie in modern history.

Endgame.

2010-02-09 05:04:00

Author:
Ragfell

Posts: 729

I actually thought about you and this criticism of District 9 as I sat and watch Avatar. Didn't you think that Avatar followed a similar formula? Just like District 9, it ends with run and gun action, an over the top villain, and in my opinion the mec sequence is more outrageous (a giant mec bowie knife?) and not nearly as well done as the one in District 9.

I'm no fan of the mech-knife-fight at the end of Avatar, in fact I think it's downright dumb. It's a classic hollywood idea to distill the big battle into some kind of one-on-one. You gotta have the good guy fight the bad guy, right? So here we are, it all comes down to a dude in a mech versus a dude in an avatar. It was completely ridiculous, and amounts to a big budget action-figure fight. But the rest of the big battle sequence in Avatar seemed appropriate to its narrative, and didn't have any of the feeling of a Michael Bay sequence. Cameron and Bay both do absolutely massive-scale action sequences, but one happens to be nearly the undisputed champion of the action genre, and the other made Transformers 2 (this is where I admit I actually really like The Rock, I have to give him that one).

But that aside, I'm not really talking about Bay, I'm talking about Blompkamp and District 9... Maybe it was that the action sequences at the end of District 9 were so ridiculously out of style with most of the rest of the movie (at that point it was probably the 5th major style change of the movie). But somehow it felt really, really out of place and ridiculous, even compared to the stupid mech knife fight in Avatar, which at least didn't feel out-of-place. Narratively, Avatar absolutely follows the rules. The fact that they would boil the confrontation down to this good guy vs bad guy confrontation is no real surprise when it happens.

Part of me wants to praise District 9 for NOT following the rules, but I can't, I just can't. Because I was so crushingly disappointed in what District 9 ends up doing. I feel especially that it squanders every opportunity to do something original and new and seems to deliberately CHOOSE this over-the-top cartoon style in the end instead of delivering on its early promise of being realistically relevant. Avatar's a Saturday morning cartoon from beginning to end. It actually manages to be fun in that old classic serial style. District 9 is five different movies in one, and from mockumentary to satire to gross-out body horror to over the top action, I didn't find ANY of these five different movies to be effective, so for me it failed 5 times in one sitting (I had high hopes for it). To me, it was a long series of increasing disappointments.

It's one thing to say right up front, "Okay, I'm an old-school Saturday Morning Cartoon. It's going to be a ride." and then deliver on that.
It's another one to say, "I am NOT going to be an over-the-top action flick at all. I am going to be a thinking-man's science fiction film. Get ready to THINK." and then it turns out to give up on that after 20 minutes and then try different things until credits roll, including, of all things, an over-the-top action flick.

2010-02-09 09:59:00

Author:
Teebonesy

Posts: 1937

LBPCentral Archive Statistics

Posts: 1077139 Threads: 69970 Members: 9661 Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.