NOW WATCHING

My main problem with recent franchise movies (and in particular I'm talking about Marvel) is that that there is overall too much main-plot repetition; several films have literally the same plot. That aside, there is just too much action & uninteresting one-dimensional characters. I'm sounded like a total foggy here, but some of these have whole sections that are phenomenally dull. I just have no interest in watching another US city being destroyed &/or endless fight scenes; and I question why others find this interesting or of any merit. Imaginatively there is nothing new being shown in these films. And, from a personal point of view, atmosphere & mood are almost entirely absent; these films make me think nothing. I appreciate people enjoy the immersion in the whole secondary world, but the secondary world(s) seems, to me, to be full of things which bring me no enjoyment in the real world; action, bravado, violence, casual misogyny, etc. These films seem to want to reinforce ideas that in the real world I'm turning away from.
 
Brigantium said:
The plot in a lot of older films develops in a different way that would probably be considered too slow by today's standards.
Click to expand...
That sounds like an often heard prejudice. Of course, there are slow films, in any age. But they don't feel slow when there's something good about it. And they feel slow when there's not enough going on. Happened then, happens now.

Today's standards. Pfff. So many of today's standards are not today's standards. The action is faster as technique has progressed. Makes action scenes exciting. But it can also compensate (hide) a lack of creativity.

In Torn Curtain from 1966, there's a long scene of two people fighting a third, to the death. A long scene, not very quick. But still very good. It is not always that easy to kill a man. It does take time. Looking at that, the way it is presented (how it is made), you don't need speed.

For every good recent film I discover in the present, I can point out 30 or 40 in the past. There's so much out there. Also crap. The question is: how to avoid crap. It's not that difficult. At some point you get to learn the genres, the makes, the actors. Of course, sometimes you still get so so, or bad films. But that happens now as well. How many films in today's cinema do we skip? A lot.

Some genres had their heyday in the past. The Western, the Film Noir. Today, there are still good crime films, but that's different. There are still good westerns, but not that many.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
My main problem with recent franchise movies (and in particular I'm talking about Marvel) is that that there is overall too much main-plot repetition; several films have literally the same plot. That aside, there is just too much action & uninteresting one-dimensional characters. I'm sounded like a total foggy here, but some of these have whole sections that are phenomenally dull. I just have no interest in watching another US city being destroyed &/or endless fight scenes; and I question why others find this interesting or of any merit. Imaginatively there is nothing new being shown in these films. And, from a personal point of view, atmosphere & mood are almost entirely absent; these films make me think nothing. I appreciate people enjoy the immersion in the whole secondary world, but the secondary world(s) seems, to me, to be full of things which bring me no enjoyment in the real world; action, bravado, violence, casual misogyny, etc. These films seem to want to reinforce ideas that in the real world I'm turning away from.
Click to expand...

I wish I could unsee every Marvel film bar the second Cap America (because it was a cute throwback to the 70's, including Redford), Guardians of the Galaxy (because it was genuinely funny and pleasantly lightweight) and the first and the third Iron Man (the first because it's a cool workoholic movie that reminds me of the old sci-fi by Asimov and others, the third because it's a Shane Black movie through and through. Plus, Downey surely is charismatic).

By the way, after being blown away by Nolan's Batman trilogy, I am absolutely disinclined to watch any new Batman movies, especially with Affleck.

Forostar said:
Today, there are still good crime films, but that's different.
Click to expand...

Is L. A. Confidential in any way "today"? :) Probably not.
 
JudasMyGuide said:
I wish I could unsee every Marvel film bar the second Cap America (because it was a cute throwback to the 70's, including Redford), Guardians of the Galaxy (because it was genuinely funny and pleasantly lightweight) and the first and the third Iron Man (the first because it's a cool workoholic movie that reminds me of the old sci-fi by Asimov and others, the third because it's a Shane Black movie through and through. Plus, Downey surely is charismatic).
Click to expand...
I've seen all the Marvel releases (some of them several times), but I honestly can't remember which ones were decent. I quite like the X-Men movies, I suppose because they're more fantastic & amusing; but again, several of them have the same plot line e.g. the Magneto story arc is identical in each movie.
JudasMyGuide said:
By the way, after being blown away by Nolan's Batman trilogy, I am absolutely disinclined to watch any new Batman movies, especially with Affleck.
Click to expand...
Same. I liked the Nolan films & I quite like Bale; possibly because he was swaying towards American Psycho as Wayne. They were a bit serious & pompous I suppose. But, yeh, I see no need for more Batman films so soon. Don't really like Affleck either.
JudasMyGuide said:
Is L. A. Confidential in any way "today"? :) Probably not.
Click to expand...
Not.
 
Last edited:
Did either you see Batman vs Superman? Horrible movie but I was pleasantly surprised with Ben Affleck. I thought Christian Bale was easily the weakest part of the Nolan movies.
 
Forostar said:
I miss a visionary "author" who consistently makes many strong films with an own signature. These signature people, people with own style.
Click to expand...

To drop a few names from the top of my head... Lars von Trier, David Fincher, Terrence Malick, Jim Jarmush, David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, M. Night Shyamalan, Alex Garland, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Ridley Scott. Despite the rise of corporate moviemaking, these people exist, and they make their own films. A lot of these guys are famous and controversial because they make films based on their own vision and to express their own ideas of artistry and storytelling. Even the big ones. Even Jackson, Cameron and Spielberg.
 
Forostar said:
For every good recent film I discover in the present, I can point out 30 or 40 in the past. There's so much out there.
Click to expand...

I swear I'm not targeting you Foro, but I just have to reply to this too. If by "discover in the present" you mean watching a current one in the cinema, and "in the past" you mean the time frame from, let's say, 1920 to 1980, then we have a ratio of one good film in the present to 40 in a time frame of 60 years. That... doesn't actually speak poorly for present-day cinema.
 
Mosh said:
Did either you see Batman vs Superman? Horrible movie but I was pleasantly surprised with Ben Affleck. I thought Christian Bale was easily the weakest part of the Nolan movies.
Click to expand...
Yeh, I saw it. Not actually as bad as I thought it was going to be; still totally forgettable. I can also see why people might like Affleck as Batman.
Perun said:
To drop a few names from the top of my head... Lars von Trier, David Fincher, Terrence Malick, Jim Jarmush, David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, M. Night Shyamalan, Alex Garland, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Ridley Scott. Despite the rise of corporate moviemaking, these people exist, and they make their own films. A lot of these guys are famous and controversial because they make films based on their own vision and to express their own ideas of artistry and storytelling. Even the big ones. Even Jackson, Cameron and Spielberg.
Click to expand...
Yip, I'd have to agree with some/most of that list. Most of these guys have done their own thing and basically made their own films. You could probably add del Toro to that category until he totally sold out & started making total trash.
Perun said:
I swear I'm not targeting you Foro, but I just have to reply to this too. If by "discover in the present" you mean watching a current one in the cinema, and "in the past" you mean the time frame from, let's say, 1920 to 1980, then we have a ratio of one good film in the present to 40 in a time frame of 60 years. That... doesn't actually speak poorly for present-day cinema.
Click to expand...
I agree; in the sense that I agree the past is full of films that are total crap too & cherry picking a few "classics" & holding them up to today's releases isn't really that fair.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I agree; in the sense that I agree the past is full of films that are total crap too & cherry picking a few "classics" & holding them up to today's releases isn't really that fair.
Click to expand...

I don't want to go that far. The sentiment certainly is real, and I'm not blaming Foro for it, and I'm not accusing him of cherry picking. I'm just inviting him to look closely and investigate the question if it's really all that bad. E.g. instead of holding the film output of, let's say, 2012-2016 against all that came before, hold it against the output of 1952 to 1956, for instance, and see what happens.
 
Perun said:
I swear I'm not targeting you Foro, but I just have to reply to this too. If by "discover in the present" you mean watching a current one in the cinema, and "in the past" you mean the time frame from, let's say, 1920 to 1980, then we have a ratio of one good film in the present to 40 in a time frame of 60 years. That... doesn't actually speak poorly for present-day cinema.
Click to expand...
You're right. I should say this differently. I find way more films in some older decades, (e.g. the 1950s) stronger than in the current decade. Perhaps not 40 times as much. ;)
Perun said:
To drop a few names from the top of my head... Lars von Trier, David Fincher, Terrence Malick, Jim Jarmush, David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, M. Night Shyamalan, Alex Garland, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Ridley Scott. Despite the rise of corporate moviemaking, these people exist, and they make their own films. A lot of these guys are famous and controversial because they make films based on their own vision and to express their own ideas of artistry and storytelling. Even the big ones. Even Jackson, Cameron and Spielberg.
Click to expand...
I don't think I know Terrence Mallick and Alex Garland. I also don't know Jarmush well, only heard of. Mallick is pretty old, so perhaps we could (also) see him as an old-era director.

David Lynch I surely see as an old era director. Yes, of course people can still be active, but he's not the most contemporary example out there, is he?

Jarmusch and Von Trier. Maybe, we'll see how influential they become. Ingmar Bergman has done the same sort of things before them (minimalistic, play-like films, which are focused on intense emotions). These days and in the future, maybe directors are/will be rather influenced by him, we'll see.

Night Shyamalan and Fincher took from Hitchcock. Ridley Scott.. I see him has old era as well. Not meaning he doesn't make good films anymore, but he started out a long time ago.

Spielberg, Cameron and Lucas. I see these people as highly talented craftsmen rather than artists or visionary people. Lucas took lots of ideas from others (old Sci-Fi / Kurosawa). Alright, Cameron innovatively used 3D. But how consistently innovative was he throughout his whole career? And, this man had already success in the eighties.

Tarantino is the example of a director who is among the figures who copy the most. He constantly watches films by others to base his films on. He adds own recognizable stylistic ingredients so you can say he expresses himself, e.g. we get to see his kind of black humour, but I wouldn't say that is a very groundbreaking or influential thing. I'm not saying his films are not good. They are very entertaining.

Peter Jackson (sorry Cried), Del Torro and Tim Burton, these people are not too old names who I consider to be visionaries.


Who started lately, e.g. in this century, and consistently made strong films with an own style?



Perun said:
2012-2016 against the output of 1952 to 1956, for instance, and see what happens.
Click to expand...
From 2012-2016 I've seen 20 films. That isn't much I'm afraid... so I'm sure I still need to see some very good ones.

From 1952-1956 I've seen 147 films (I hand counted these from a database I can't easily copy from)
Overview:
1952: 21
1953: 32
1954: 33
1955: 33
1956: 28

And I still hope to see at least 170 other films from these years.

Alright, I know, ridiculous difference. And I'm not saying that all these 147 were phenomenal.

Some of my favourites that come to mind:

The Narrow Margin (1952)
Sudden Fear (1952)
High Noon (1952)
Bend of the River (1952)
The Black Castle (1952)
The Quiet Man (1952)

The Wages of Fear (1953)
The Big Heat (1953)
Roman Holiday (1953)
The Hitch-Hiker (1953)
Island in the Sky (1953)
Hondo (1953)
Stalag 17 (1953)
The Desert Rats (1953)
Shane (1953)
Pickup on South Street (1953)

Dial M for Murder (1954)
The Far Country (1954)
Godzilla (1954)
Rear Window (1954)
Seven Samurai (1954)
Touchez Pas au Grisbi (1954)
The Caine Mutiny (1954)
Suddenly (1954)
Witness to Murder (1954)
Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto (1954)

Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple (1955)
Diabolique (1955)
Blackboard Jungle (1955)
The Man from Laramie (1955)
The Quatermass Xperiment (1955)
The Desperate Hours (1955)
The Ladykillers (1955)
Du rififi chez les hommes (1955)
The Dam Busters (1955)
Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)

The Wrong Man (1956)
Samurai III: Duel at Ganryu Island (1956)
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (1956)
The Killing (1956)
A Kiss Before Dying (1956)
While the City Sleeps (1956)
Bob le Flambeur (1956)
Friendly Persuasion (1956)
Seven Men from Now (1956)

From 2012-2016 I might have liked Interstellar, The Force Awakens, Whiplash, Room and Guardians of the Galaxy the best. I'm also one of the few people who liked the last of the Hobbit trilogy a lot (The Battle of the Five Armies). Some of the others were very good, but I wouldn't like to see one of the 1952-1956 favourites (list above) be replaced by any of them.
 
Last edited:
Perun said:
I don't want to go that far. The sentiment certainly is real, and I'm not blaming Foro for it, and I'm not accusing him of cherry picking. I'm just inviting him to look closely and investigate the question if it's really all that bad. E.g. instead of holding the film output of, let's say, 2012-2016 against all that came before, hold it against the output of 1952 to 1956, for instance, and see what happens.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. I'm just framing this the opposite way around; more negatively.
Forostar said:
Tarantino is the example of a director who is among the figures who copy the most. He constantly watches films by others to base his films on. He adds own recognizable stylistic ingredients so you can say he expresses himself, e.g. we get to see his kind of black humour, but I wouldn't say that is a very groundbreaking or influential thing. I'm not saying his films are not good. They are very entertaining.
Click to expand...
I think Tarantino is the best example Perun gave of the complete director who is working today & basically making what he wants. He has his own style that is distinctly his own while paying homage, sympathetically, to older eras that he clearly enjoys & admires. I can't think of anyone else who has done this so consistently in the modern era.
Forostar said:
Peter Jackson (sorry Cried)...
Click to expand...
Don't know how he's not in the Cameron club you describe above.
Forostar said:
Del Torro...
Click to expand...
Definitely. But he's really, really, fallen off the rails.
Forostar said:
Tim Burton...
Click to expand...
Yes, good call. Like Tarantino, has his own style, is making what he wants, etc.
Forostar said:
(I hand counted these from a database I can't easily copy from)
Click to expand...
::)
 
Last edited:
Look, I know you and a lot of other people (especially in the whole UK, where he is the most studied director!) hold the man very high in regard, but I just can't be very enthusiastic about a man who takes so often so literally from other films. Paying homage to older eras is fine with me. Making a tribute to film makers, films or even scenes is also perfectly alright. Using older techniques is fine. Especially when you don't have clue to do anything new yourself. But don't be surprised that I am not very impressed, when someone does it as blatantly as he does. What does an own style mean, when he steals from others? It can be very entertaining sure. I just don't find it very impressive.
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
Look, I know you and a lot of other people (especially in the whole UK, where he is the most studied director!) hold the man very high in regard, but I just can't be very enthusiastic about a man who takes so often so literally from other films. Paying homage to older eras is fine with me. Making a tribute to film makers, films or even scenes is also perfectly alright. Using older techniques is fine. Especially when you don't have clue to do anything new yourself. But don't be surprised that I am not very impressed, when someone does it as blatantly as he does. What does an own style mean, when he steals from others? It can be very entertaining sure. I just don't find it very impressive.
Click to expand...
I don't personally hold him in "very high regard"; I understand your criticism. You could argue it's pastiche & with very little originality. Nobody makes film or music in a vacuum though. That aside, not really sure how you can be so critical of Tarantino & call Peter Jackson a visionary...
Ariana said:
Not exactly this century, but close - Guy Ritchie.
Click to expand...
Guy Ritchie, visionary? Early films certainly had his own style, that's for sure. Think his output (which is small) has been pretty inconsistent though.
 
I didn't call him visionary. I was just replying to Foro's question about modern directors with their own style.
 
Forostar said:
What does an own style mean, when he steals from others?
Click to expand...

It's very difficult to ask a present-day director to create something without basing it on work by previous directors. People like Hitchock or Fritz Lang had a unique position. They pioneered filming. They had to find ways to make narrative storytelling work in a new medium. That's why they could include so much of their own handwriting and didn't have to stand through the comparison with what came before. Asking the same from current directors is not only unfair, it's impossible. They can't do it. All they can do is develop further what already exists. Tarantino chooses to do so by blending established visual techniques with a new vision for storytelling. I'm not a fan of his, but I have to admit that's the most creative you can get while still making a watchable product.
And, much more, it's what people like Hitchock and Lang also did. They used established techniques from other media, like theatre, opera, literature and visual arts, and combined them with the possibilities of the new medium film. Nobody creates something out of nothing. Everyone, especially the most ingenious mind, uses the sum of what exists to create something new.
 
You're defending the average modern day film maker with good arguments. But I'm specifically pointing out Tarantino for he's different. He doesn't just blend techniques. I would find that perfectly acceptable. He often copies (moments in) scenes, very literally.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/entertain...ntino-stole-from-other-movies.html/?a=viewall

Kill Bill is the ultimate example:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/apr/06/features.dvdreviews
http://wiki.tarantino.info/index.php/Kill_Bill_References_Guide
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top