Overall, I think Cinema is better then it ever was. (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

Peter, we actually don't disagree so much. I do definitely agree that there are annoying techinques taken to an extreme in big movies. It kind of goes back to the same argument over general movie quality of blockbusters. I find movies like Gladiator and, the worst I remember, that army movie with Demi Moore by tony Scott, I forget the name, to be almost unbearable to watch due to exactly the same things you mention. Where I am impressed is with the same smaller films I mentioned before.

 

[Eric Peterson]

I think my statements are summed up by your next statement. Personally, I find the 70s to be the decade that I like the least. You enjoy the period for it's grittiness and realism, which are the same reasons that I don't. I like a bit more of a fantasy world when I watch a movie (Fantasy, not meaning D&D). If I want realism, I'll go outside. Plus, those fashions are so horrendous - I can spot a film made in the 70s from a mile away!!

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I haven't seen either 21 Grams or Eternal Sunshine yet, so I'll be certain to check them out based on your comments.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Even at only 24, I'd hate to be the age I was ten years ago when I was going to see 200+ movies at the theater each year. I think Hollywood went downhill right after JAWS and STAR WARS because the money factor became a bigger issue than actually delivering a quality movie. Of course each decade has great and bad films but I do question those who constantly put down older films. I'd guess they are either spoiled by current effects or simply don't want to open their minds to anything made before MTV was created.

There's certainly nothing wrong with this because we all enjoy what we want to but I'd take a close look at those who considering something great or bad. If you watch KANE and think it's horrid, that's fine. However, if you don't like B&W films then I'm going to have a hard time taking what you say seriously.

As for today's films, I really don't see as much today as I use to. I've seen around 25 films from 2004 and I've loved quite a few of them but most of them were art house films are indies. I certainly wouldn't put many of these films (LOTR, MATRIX, SPIDER-MAN) as any kind of classics.

If people really think CGI offers better effects then perhaps they should watch some Keaton and see how those guys did things. They weren't sitting behind a computer to make a dangerous effect look real. They were actually doing the stunts.

 

[Haggai]

Michael, I think a more accurate take on this is that Jaws and Star Wars had their greatest effects on the marketing and distribution of major movies. To say that they actually increased the "money factor" in Hollywood over "quality" is over-simplifying quite greatly, since Hollywood has always been (and always will be) about making money, first and foremost. The moguls who established the studios, and essentially built the modern American film industry from the ground up, did not sit around saying "let's just make quality movies, and who cares whether they flop or not." They were businessmen through and through.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Of course they were and I don't blame them for making money. I blame them for what they're feeding the sheep so to speak. The public will eat up whatever the media tells them is cool so if Hollywood decided to start making quality films then the public would come along. There's nothing wrong with people getting their heads blown off, dirty sex or loud explosions but why not spend a couple extra thousand putting a good story around it?

There are very few actors or directors who I really respect these days. I think DiCaprio would be my top pick because he selected to try and make quality films over films that are going to be hits. DiCaprio was on Larry King the other night and he said he wanted to make films that people would talk about fifty years from now. I'm sure there were many "cool" films in the 1930's but we certainly don't remember all of them today. There are cool films in 2004 that will be forgotten this time next year when the next cool film is released.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to make money but they should certainly take some pride in their work.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"I haven't seen either 21 Grams or Eternal Sunshine yet, so I'll be certain to check them out based on your comments."

That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much terrific work being being done these days that it makes me think I'm living in some sort of parallel universe when I hear people talk down the film industry. I can only chalk such statements up to people who only go to see garbage in the first place. It should be no surprise that every year has its fair share of garbage - even the mysteriously magic years of 1939 and 1993 had some dogs among the embarassment of riches. But this year has been a fantastic year for film, as was last year, and if you're not seeing it, I have to ask what movies are you watching?

 

[JohnRice]

After my exchange with Peter, I realized I should probably explain how I tend to look at these things, and that is that there will always be crap. There always has been and it will never change. So, I have a problem with the logic that pointing out the crap there is proves there is nothing good. all it proves is, there will always be crap.

Peter, you use Spartacus, El Cid, Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, etc as examples, but those are the cream of the crop, plus most of them were Dye Transfer Technicolor, which simply had different capabilities. Don't forget that at the same time you have movies like Talk to Her, Heaven, Unforgiven, The Elephant Man and so on. I personally think they can be held in pretty much the same regard as many of the greats. Yeah, G.I. Jane, Gladiator and, for my money, the LOTR movies look like monochrome or video games, but they aren't the only game in town.

BTW, you will probably like the cinematography in Eternal Sunshine. It is unadorned, but uses some clever camera tricks. They claim there is not a single special effect, but there are 2 scenes I can't figure out without SFX, which are a scene involving Joel in a sink and Joel and Clementine running through a train station.

As far as 21 Grams, it may be exactly what you are complaining about. If you have seen 25th Hour, then you know pretty much what it looks like. It is shot by the same DP (Rodrigo Prieto) and he uses many of the same techniques. Subtle it is not.


Yes, but again, there is this thriving independent industry which barely even existed then. There is also a fabulous multinational film industry where money and creativity are consolidated from many countries to produce some great stuff.

And Haggai, Jaws and Star Wars are pretty much credited (or blamed) for the creation of the summer blockbuster, which causes studios to invest their entire existence in one movie, which causes them to have too many cooks in the kitchen, stifle creativity and so on. I think it's a fair and accurate assesment.

 

[JohnRice]

And BTW guys, I don't recommend 21 Grams and Eternal Sunshine based on their cinematography. I just think they are fabulous movies. If you want to see some of the best recent cinematography, check out Talk to Her or Far from Heaven and even Heaven and Princess and the Warrior though the imagery created by Tom Tykwer and Frank Griebe on the last two can be so staggering as to detract from the film.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Very true and I agree when you said people always look at the cream of the crop. If I enjoy an actor/director then I try to watch every film they've ever done. When people speak of an actor, they usually discuss their great work or their worst work. They rarely talk about those simply good gems that just aren't remembered. When talking Tracy they can say BOYS TOWN, SAN FRAN or ADAM'S RIB. They might talk about something bad yet they don't discuss the "good" but non-classics like THE MURDER MAN for example. When people say Cagney they think of YANKEE DOODLE, ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES or ONE TWO THREE. They might overlook or not see something like TAXI!, which is a good film but not a classic.

For most people, they see what is considered popular and that's why they'll watch YANKEE DOODLE without bothering with TAXI. TAXI just doesn't have the reputation to make anyone but film buffs want to see it. I don't blame people for this because not everyone makes movies their #1 priority in life. I love movies and make them my top priority so I'm going to watch everything I can. If people watch GODSEND and say movies from 2004 "suck" then perhaps they should see films that don't even get that much attention like DOGVILLE, BAADASSSSS! or THE DREAMERS. If people hate CGI stuff like SPIDER MAN then watch one of the above movies.

 

[JohnRice]

Dogville took lack of special effects to a new extreme, didn't it?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I definitely prefer older films from the 1920s through to around the mid-1980s. It's a personal preference, and of course the argument is always going to be presented about people only looking at the "cream of the crop" of past movies and so forth. But I don't care; I truly think the past industry was better, and there was more talent, better writing, less emphasis on the almighty dollar and special effects, and more freshness and originality.

I'm glad I was born 42 years ago and not in the last couple of decades or so; because no offense to younger viewers, but with the occasional exception of the rare modern sophisticated 18 year old that has a true appreciation for classics and is not turned off by black and white films, many are missing a lot.

This is not to say I don't own films in my own private library from the 1990s or 00's... I do. But they're still few and far between IMO, and even the best of those seem to be of fleeting interest in the grand scheme of things. It just seems that films today are like eating a tasty burger -- it's good going down, but it's quickly passed and we move onto the next current subject.

 

[TheLongshot]

As others have said, the studios have always been about making money. Art was almost always secondary.

The 70s was a unique time in hollywood, when the studio system was falling apart, the Hayes Code went by the wayside, and people's attitudes in this country were getting more cynical. Hollywood was struggling to find a new identity, which enabled a lot of people to be able to make films where before they couldn't. There were some great films, there were some crap films. I think the age of the blockbuster was inevitable. If it wasn't Lucas and Spielberg, it would have been someone else.

Jason


Jason

 

[Ernest Rister]

It is so much fun watching film history made right before your very eyes. You just have to be looking for it in the first place to notice it.

Consider --- This has been an important year in animation history -- for the very first time, a CGI film using character animation (not motion capture) was used for a cast comprised completely of human beings, and the human characters were as believable as those in Disney's 101 Dalmatians. I speak of course of [iThe Incredibles[/i], a milestone in CGI character animation. Compare the work here to the mannequins in Shrek 2, Finding Nemo, the Toy Story films. Wow! Breakthrough! Anyone talking about this? Nope. Is it history? Yep.

There are cinema wonders and great examples of expression all around us. We just have to have our eyes open in order to see.

 

[Michael Elliott]

But the film could be forgotten when the next big thing happens. The early Disney films haven't been forgotten just because things are better today. Chaney's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA hasn't been forgotten even with the countless remakes. While the effects in LOTR might look better, no one is going to forget KING KONG, BEN HUR or the work of Griffith, DeMille or Ford.

 

[MarcusUdeh]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, enough said. The movie is G.I. Jane. A film directed by Ridley Scott and I have a very special place in my heart for this diamond in the rough.

On the topic at hand, I am 22 years old and I miss the 80s and early 90s because I do not get excited over new movies as I use to. I think because I hate most of today’s actors, CGI –in a non-James Cameron movie, over priced movie tickets, too many multiplexes, and finally DVD.

 

[SteveCallas]

No way - Nowadays there are only 1 or 2 good movies a year. The early 80's was by far the best time for movies in my opinion.

Look at 1985:

Back to the Future
The Breakfast Club
Commando
D.A.R.Y.L
National Lampoon's European Vacation
Goonies
Mischief
Rambo: First Blood II
Real Genius
Rocky IV
Teen Wolf
Vision Quest
Weird Science

Sure, you may make fun of some of these movies, but I bet when you're watching tv and one of these comes on, you don't change the channel and you end up being quite entertained by the time it's over. How many good movies came out this year? Kill Bill Volume 2 and Incredibles.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

You wouldn't win that bet.

I've already seen those losers (well, BttF was pretty good) and have no desire to see them ever again.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Are you sure you wanna bet?

But I do enjoy Tarantino, and I loved KILL BILL (the whole epic). But then again, that's mainly because Quentin also loves older film and knows how to use that to make a good one himself.

 

[Ernest Rister]

But [The Incredibles] could be forgotten when the next big thing happens.

No -- not at all. This wasn't a technology upgrade, this was a human achievement using technology. The Incredibles was a film of sensational human entertainment, using today's tech to show things no live action film ever could. It may just be the best "comic book" movie ever made, because it pulls off its stunts better than even Spider Man 2. By the end of The incredibles, I realized my face was aching from smiling and grinning for such an extended period time. Spider Man 2 was also amazing -- who would have thought a superhero "comic book" movie could inspire genuine tears of happiness?

And these are just two of our mainstream films. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the wealth of films we've been given in 2004.

Don't try and pass on that "movies suck now" garbage to me. You'll find no takers.