Modern Movies - Yawn

[Deano!]

Saw most of The Magnificent Seven on TV last night with Yul Brinner and Steve McQueen ( they were in it, not with me watching ) and I was captivated. Such a watchable movie and the tough guys were just so cool I wanted a cowboy outfit and a cap gun by the end of it.

But modern movies are such a wank. Its all bloody slow motion explosions with blokes in suits running down corridoors with guns drawn shouting " Oh my God. Get me the President NOW !!! " Even the trailers piss me off with that constant over-used sound effect like a huge metal door being slammed each time the loud whispery voiced announcer tells us " Only one man can save you..."

Well I rather watch cheerleaders stick things up each others fannies.

[Deuce Bigolo]

We've been through it numerous times and the one constant is that a good story to make it on film doesn't need special effects just good acting

Would be interesting to see a comparison of the top 20 actors/actresses
from say 1970 v 2004

cheers
B....OZ

[IdolDroog]

>the loud whispery voiced announcer tells us " Only one man can save
> you..."


lol reminds me of the ITV2 advert on tv at the moment for Speed 2 where the voiceover says "only one man can save them, and one woman.....and them...and a dog....and UB40" ....love it when channels take the piss outta their own scheduling, although begs the question "u kno its shit, we know its shit...so why are u showing it" hehe

[Pervert]

Things evolve. The likes of The Magnificent Seven probably couldn't be done today, due to the various egos involved. In fact, it almost wasn't made itself in that McQueen was so ridiculously jealous of the screentime Brynner was getting.

Good acting is vital, but so is a good storyline, snappy or believable dialogue and either gobsmacking or unobtrusive camerwork. No amount of special effects will disguise the utter crap that is the dialogue in any Star Wars film.

The moneymen in Hollywood tend to aim their products at the same audience---16 to 25 year old males who get bored if there isn't an explosion every few minutes.

[The Last Word]

Not so remote from modern mores, I'm afraid - take a vastly superior foreign film (here Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai) and turn it into pompous, overlong Hollywood sludge. And I'm sure if you went back to 1960 you'd see as much dreadful tosh being churned out as we have today.

Mind you, at least they just about still had B-films in those days, where, as Clive James once pointed out, the distaster felt merely local. These days the B-films are the A-films. They cost $100m, play in every theatre, and stink out the whole world.

[Ace]

I saw 'The Day After' last week because Shrek 2 had opened, so I was able to get good seats at prime time. The film was wank, utter wank. The effects were good, but there was only 3 worthwhile ones............where LA was reduced to rubble by a tornedo, Manhatten getting tidal waved and later getting froze at -10 degrees per second. It was crap, so unless theres great FX, avoid 'big budget' movies

[IdolDroog]

I can enjoy pretty much any movie to an extent and sit through most to the end if needs be. But i really hate just dismissing a film as "shit" because of the horrendous amount of work, effort and money that goes into any production by the people off screen.

HAVING SAID THAT....I recently only just saw The Fast and the Furious and I have to say ive not felt that a film was so technically bad in ages...for example EVERY SINGLE hollywood cliche was in there....the "car i would never drive" comes out at the end to avenge his friends death.....the falling for the bad girls sister.....rookie cliches, in fact every fucking single cliche was in there!

Not to mention how ridiculously unbelievable it was...im pretty sure that hitting the front of a truck at over 100mph andflipping twice in the air wouldnt mean "even" Vin Diesel and his bingo wings couldnt just climb out slightly limp off.....even so, kinda liked the cars and i wanna know what was under the hood of the Jetta

[Ace]

I see your point ID, but someone gets paid a LOT of money to come up with half-arsed lame scripts and the continuity editor needs sacking for LOTS of errors in many films.
That said, many films are so far fetched, it makes them crap viewing. I can tolerate bollocks like Independance Day and Jurassic Park because its aimed at kids who want action and don't care for shit scripts or the like.
But when a 'Big Budget' flick comes out promising everything and delivers little, then thats what grips my shit.

[Officer Dibble]

"The moneymen in Hollywood tend to aim their products at the same audience---16 to 25 year old males who get bored if there isn't an explosion every few minutes"

Yes, but you could be a little more precise with you definition of today's target audience and say 'Chav' males and their counterparts in the US. I can see the commercial logic, but what is puzzling me is why wasn?t this so in the 60's and 70's when producers and directors seemingly had a freer hand to produce great works like Chinatown, The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. These films weren?t produced with Chavs, morons and idiots in mind. The assumption was that, in general, cinemagoers had at least half a brain. That they would appreciate characterisation, plot, message and meaning, as well as sumptuous cinematography. That they would empathise with a great film?s emotional power and feel affected after the screening.

So, why are almost all movies today constructed to appeal to 20 year old, baseball cap wearing, white Vauxhall Astra driving divs, when that was not the case back in the 60's and 70's? And could it also be the case that by today?s almost universal production and promotion of the kind of bilge aimed at Chavs that society in general is being emotionally and intellectually crippled?


Officer Dibble

[steve56]

im bored with disater movies they are so long and dragged out.