5 Hollywood Secrets That Explain Why So Many Movies Suck

[nikimcbee]

I blame CGI. More fluff, less substance

[Platapus]

And the fact that the producers seem to feel that every movie has to be 2.5 hours + .

Not every move needs 2 1/2 hours. I would opine that most of the movies I see could be done and done well in about an hour.

[papa_smurf]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I blame CGI. More fluff, less substance

Just look at Star Wars: Episodes 1 to 3

[Feuer Frei!]

I'll tell you what IS a great movie though, a movie with depth, real character, great acting, great story and a legendary director:
Sergio Leone's
Once Upon a Time in America


Now that's a movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087843/

[Penguin]

well folks, there are tons of non-Hollywood movies out there, or as the Germans say: "Other mothers also have beautiful daughters!"

CGI is nothing bad, it's just a tool, helping to create immersion if used right. However the use of it in today's movuies reminds me of a woman not just painting her eyes (I'm a sucker for kohl, kajal) but jumping into a pool of paint.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Penguin

woman not just painting her eyes but jumping into a pool of paint.

Übertrieben. I agree.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

I'll tell you what IS a great movie though, a movie with depth, real character, great acting, great story and a legendary director:
Sergio Leone's
Once Upon a Time in America


Now that's a movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087843/

Sergio Leone is one of my all time favorite directors. He only made a few movies, but his influence is still felt throughout the popular culture.

That said, I am not a big fan of Once upon a time in America which I found overly drawn out. I much preferred Once upon a time in the West and my personal favorite For a Few Dollars more which struck the right balance between crisp story telling and the Leone style.

Incidentally, much of Inglorious Basterds is structured as a spaghetti western, with much of the first chapter being a obvious homage to Once Upon a Time in the West. The first chapter of IG is even called Once Upon a Time in Nazi occupied France.

[Bilge_Rat]

On Sherlock Holmes: it is a studio film; the producer is Joel Silver who specializes in big budget action movies; it is a retread of an idea; it includes the obligatory action scenes to draw in the teenage/young adult crowd. It could easily have been your standard pablum fare.

Yet it is recognizably a Guy Ritchie film, albeit toned down from his normal British gangster flicks. Many of the plot elements, characters and even lines spoken by the actors are taken directly from the original novels, including the fact that Holmes was an expert in martial arts and engaged in bare knuckle boxing:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/trivia

Downey and Law were perfectly cast as Holmes and Watson. On the whole, it is a worthy successor to the old Jeremy Brett tv series which to me set the gold standard of what Sherlock Holmes should be.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

On Sherlock Holmes: it is a studio film; the producer is Joel Silver who specializes in big budget action movies; it is a retread of an idea; it includes the obligatory action scenes to draw in the teenage/young adult crowd. It could easily have been your standard pablum fare.

Yet it is recognizably a Guy Ritchie film, albeit toned down from his normal British gangster flicks. Many of the plot elements, characters and even lines spoken by the actors are taken directly from the original novels, including the fact that Holmes was an expert in martial arts and engaged in bare knuckle boxing:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/trivia

Downey and Law were perfectly cast as Holmes and Watson. On the whole, it is a worthy successor to the old Jeremy Brett tv series which to me set the gold standard of what Sherlock Holmes should be.

It's actually becoming regarded as the most true-to-the-books Homes movie made. If the keep the quality up, I can easily see this being a well done franchise, ala Bond.

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

On Sherlock Holmes: it is a studio film; the producer is Joel Silver who specializes in big budget action movies; it is a retread of an idea; it includes the obligatory action scenes to draw in the teenage/young adult crowd. It could easily have been your standard pablum fare.

Yet it is recognizably a Guy Ritchie film, albeit toned down from his normal British gangster flicks. Many of the plot elements, characters and even lines spoken by the actors are taken directly from the original novels, including the fact that Holmes was an expert in martial arts and engaged in bare knuckle boxing:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/trivia

Downey and Law were perfectly cast as Holmes and Watson. On the whole, it is a worthy successor to the old Jeremy Brett tv series which to me set the gold standard of what Sherlock Holmes should be.

I liked the film and the downy jnr/law leads, a little grudgingly it must be said, as I too have a great affection for Messrs Brett and Hardwicke.


Another film that appears to have taken an age to come to fruition: Solomon Kane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Kane_%28film%29
Being familiar with the R E Howard character, it was at least as pleasing as Conan the Barbarian in it's reproduction of the original concept. Hopefully there will be two more SK instalments. With any luck they will be better than the two conan the barbarian sequels: conan the destroyer, and red sonja

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

I'll tell you what IS a great movie though, a movie with depth, real character, great acting, great story and a legendary director:
Sergio Leone's
Once Upon a Time in America


Now that's a movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087843/

Yep that was a great movie Good Fellas is another one.

[vienna]

On PBS' new Roger Ebert movie review show last week, he had a bit commenting on the differences between films now and films of the past in terms of writng. It compared the depth of writing, use of language and character development with films now; older films by Capra, etc. that glorified writing and language as opposed to films now that are all special effects and, particularly, explosions. It ended with a clip of the ols SCTV skit of the redneck movie reviewers who liked films because '"they blew up real good". In this vein, compare the big screen "Sherlock Holmes" with the recent BBC series "Sherlock". Sometimes you don't need to blow things up if you have great writing and film making.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by vienna

On PBS' new Roger Ebert movie review show last week, he had a bit commenting on the differences between films now and films of the past in terms of writng. It compared the depth of writing, use of language and character development with films now; older films by Capra, etc. that glorified writing and language as opposed to films now that are all special effects and, particularly, explosions. It ended with a clip of the ols SCTV skit of the redneck movie reviewers who liked films because '"they blew up real good". In this vein, compare the big screen "Sherlock Holmes" with the recent BBC series "Sherlock". Sometimes you don't need to blow things up if you have great writing and film making.

To which, I offer:

12 Angry Men (the Original, starring Henry Fonda, EG Marshall, Jack Klugman, Lee Cobb)

Perhaps one of the greatest film-making masterpieces I've ever watched over and over and over again, filmed on three locations, with two of them appearing for a few moments and the third being a jury room set. The entire film is tightly written and beautifully directed.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Growler

To which, I offer:

12 Angry Men (the Original, starring Henry Fonda, EG Marshall, Jack Klugman, Lee Cobb)

Perhaps one of the greatest film-making masterpieces I've ever watched over and over and over again, filmed on three locations, with two of them appearing for a few moments and the third being a jury room set. The entire film is tightly written and beautifully directed.

I doubt Hollywood would be able to make such a movie these days. 12 angry men had a plot, good writing, and actors with talent.

Today's audience would be bored watching it.

Why do movies suck these days? Because the movie industry recognized that casting pearls before swine is economically non profitable.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I blame CGI. More fluff, less substance

Agreed, plus there are actors who just can not act. Hollywood loves to churn out big CGI, big bang crash wallop explosion films with poor story lines.