A year with Toy Story 3 and Scott Pilgrim (directed by Edgar Wright) can’t be bad.
Hollywood has always produced those movies that make me queasy – over the top visuals, artificial sound, mindless story. The solution to the problem is to just not watch them.
I can't speak for true film buffs--I like the "mindless" Hollywood junk... but only when it's not mindless and not junk, if you get my drift. This year has been absolutely terrible. Months of mediocrity punctuated by the occasional standout. Other than Inception and Toy Story 3, there haven't been any great blockbusters. Oh yeah, How to Train Your Dragon. Almost everything else has been a wait-for-DVD. If that.
Of course opinions are subjective. So let's agree to disagree. :-)
Hey, "Scott Pilgrim" isn't actually out yet; let's not herald it as a year-saving success yet, no matter how good the trailers look.
Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but whereas Toy Story 3 has broad appeal, Scott Pilgrim looks more like something destined to be a cult classic. A lot of "bad movie years" generate a fair crop of movies with cult appeal, we still call them bad movie years by most standards.
Yeah, you are right. Got a bit too enthusiastic about Scott Pilgrim, there. Looks to be an awesome movie, though.
As far as I am concerned there are only four or five movies worth watching (in the cinema, anyway) any year, as far as I am concerned there aren’t good movie years and bad movie years, rather just good movies and bad movies.
Aren't they suppose to compare this year with some of the other years to show this is the "Worst Movie Year Ever"
The infographic shows what happens every year, some of the highly anticipated movies don't work (Sex and the city, Prince of Persia) , some of them work (Toy story) and then there are a few surprises(Inception, which released 2 weeks back so the $ figure will go up)
Aren't they suppose to compare this year with some of the other years
Of course not. That would be mindful. This is a mindless nostalgia piece, right out of central casting.
The fun thing to do when one of these articles arrives on the radar is to see which cherry-picked "classics" are being name-checked:
"The Godfather," "Jurassic Park," "Casablanca," "Gone with the Wind," "My Fair Lady" and "The Matrix,"
These lists are always carefully constructed. In this case we have two extremely popular classics from the 1930s, generally regarded as among the best films ever made. That's to establish your street cred as someone who has actually seen some great movies. Then one film each from the 60s, 70s, early 90s, and late 90s, to ensure that every one of your readers over the age of thirty has something to be nostalgic about, and that they believe that the author is sufficiently "hip". (No sense in listing too many films from the 2000s; twentysomethings don't read newspapers.)
Then I got as far as this line:
Where once there was "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," there is now "Robin Hood," prince of duds.
This line is a dead giveaway, because "Prince of Thieves" was not a good movie, let alone among the best Robin Hood movies; it was redeemed only by the presence of Alan Rickman. Why, then, is the movie praised here? Because the writer really needed to write a cute sentence, reality be damned.
That's about all you need to read. The rest just wrote itself. It can read itself as well.
> In this case we have two extremely popular classics from the 1930s, generally regarded as among the best films ever made.
Just to beat a dead horse, the two films you reference were from the same year; 1939, the best year Hollywood ever had. Ever.
Other films of that year included Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Wizard of Oz, Ninotchka, Dark Victory, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Gunga Din, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Stagecoach, Of Mice and Men, and Young Mr. Lincoln. It was the peak of the "studio system" and Hollywood never again came close to it in terms of the sheer quantity of quality that was produced that year.
Why is the author so hung up on "Dinner For Schmucks"? It didn't seem like he's seen it yet and so far its RottenTomatoes score is a bad but not horrible 56% while Grown Ups is just at 10%. Unless he's seen it I don't think it's fair to call it the likely worst film of the year.
Is it just because no one is allowed to remake French movies?
As I understand it, his point isn't that these movies are bad, but that they're all thoroughly mediocre. I reckon he'd rather have a good movie and three bad movies than four mediocre movies.
I've to second that, although I haven't watched Toy Story 3 yet, how to Train Your Dragon was really good. I've actually the feeling that this year is better than last year. I really liked Kick Ass and I'm eager to watch despicable me.
But yes, Grown Ups was absolutely terrible.
Does the article's author's misuse of "installation" instead of "installment" bother anyone else?
I mean, I hate to be a Usage Nazi as much as the next guy, but an "installation" is just not the same as an "installment". Those two words just don't mean the same thing.
I do, however, agree with the author's sentiments about Shia LeBeouf, and what DiCaprio should do with his Inception Technology.
All Hollywood needs are some new writer-directors breaking into the scene. Imagine this decade producing new well known names like Tarantino, the Coen brothers, and the Wachowski brothers. They all got to be well known by doing something totally different, and that can only happen if everyone is doing the same thing. The time is nigh...
The studios feel the need to constantly up production values to avoid small-fry competition and spend truckloads on marketing. While this effectively creates barriers to entry at least as fast as technology is tearing them down, it also forces the studios to go bigger. As you go bigger, you become more risk averse and lose creativity.
In fact, Hollywood movie studios have exactly the same problem as most large companies - how do scale agility and risk-willingness and creativity up to billion-dollar companies?
If not the 'worst evar', this has been a summer when supposedly safe "pre-sold" properties like Robin Hood and Prince of Persia fell flat - critically and commercially. With so many licensed films coming down the pipe, that has to put the fear of god into a few movie executives.
19 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 56.3 ms ] threadHollywood has always produced those movies that make me queasy – over the top visuals, artificial sound, mindless story. The solution to the problem is to just not watch them.
Of course opinions are subjective. So let's agree to disagree. :-)
Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but whereas Toy Story 3 has broad appeal, Scott Pilgrim looks more like something destined to be a cult classic. A lot of "bad movie years" generate a fair crop of movies with cult appeal, we still call them bad movie years by most standards.
As far as I am concerned there are only four or five movies worth watching (in the cinema, anyway) any year, as far as I am concerned there aren’t good movie years and bad movie years, rather just good movies and bad movies.
Gimmie a break.
The infographic shows what happens every year, some of the highly anticipated movies don't work (Sex and the city, Prince of Persia) , some of them work (Toy story) and then there are a few surprises(Inception, which released 2 weeks back so the $ figure will go up)
Of course not. That would be mindful. This is a mindless nostalgia piece, right out of central casting.
The fun thing to do when one of these articles arrives on the radar is to see which cherry-picked "classics" are being name-checked:
"The Godfather," "Jurassic Park," "Casablanca," "Gone with the Wind," "My Fair Lady" and "The Matrix,"
These lists are always carefully constructed. In this case we have two extremely popular classics from the 1930s, generally regarded as among the best films ever made. That's to establish your street cred as someone who has actually seen some great movies. Then one film each from the 60s, 70s, early 90s, and late 90s, to ensure that every one of your readers over the age of thirty has something to be nostalgic about, and that they believe that the author is sufficiently "hip". (No sense in listing too many films from the 2000s; twentysomethings don't read newspapers.)
Then I got as far as this line:
Where once there was "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," there is now "Robin Hood," prince of duds.
This line is a dead giveaway, because "Prince of Thieves" was not a good movie, let alone among the best Robin Hood movies; it was redeemed only by the presence of Alan Rickman. Why, then, is the movie praised here? Because the writer really needed to write a cute sentence, reality be damned.
That's about all you need to read. The rest just wrote itself. It can read itself as well.
Just to beat a dead horse, the two films you reference were from the same year; 1939, the best year Hollywood ever had. Ever.
Other films of that year included Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Wizard of Oz, Ninotchka, Dark Victory, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Gunga Din, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Stagecoach, Of Mice and Men, and Young Mr. Lincoln. It was the peak of the "studio system" and Hollywood never again came close to it in terms of the sheer quantity of quality that was produced that year.
Is it just because no one is allowed to remake French movies?
1) How to Train Your Dragon (it's just magical for some weird reason)
2) Inception (finally something new)
3) Toy Story 3 (don't need to explain)
I mean, I hate to be a Usage Nazi as much as the next guy, but an "installation" is just not the same as an "installment". Those two words just don't mean the same thing.
I do, however, agree with the author's sentiments about Shia LeBeouf, and what DiCaprio should do with his Inception Technology.
In fact, Hollywood movie studios have exactly the same problem as most large companies - how do scale agility and risk-willingness and creativity up to billion-dollar companies?