5 Hollywood Secrets That Explain Why So Many Movies Suck

[kiwi_2005]

Sherlock Holmes is a great movie. That Downey is a fab actor imo

Movie I just seen recently 'The Warriors Way' was a really bad movie. Kinda disappointing as the main actor is a good actor he just had a bad script or director or both. I just about fell to sleep in some parts. Don't even bother.

One of my all time favourite movie is Primer. No hollywood stunts, made on a low budget and yet is a real superb movie. About four friends who at night get together in their garage and play around with their inventions one night they realize they have created a time machine. Not an action flick just a good story. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Thanks for the suggestion, i mean that, but i'll pass.
Seen too many of these types of movies churned out by Hollywood to even go near it.

You miss out! Epic movie and quite contrary to most Hollywood Flicks in their stereotypes. In fact I was mighty impressed by Tarantino as he got the 08/15 German more authentic then any other US movie I have seen so far.

But I dunno, the American movie industry in general is like Fast Food, easy to consume, good tasting in it's own ways and so predictable you always know what you get. However, with some noteworthy exceptions.

My only real critique would be those constant remakes of movies in ever shorter circles. Even Jurassic Parks gets a remake now! Then those never ending series and relaunches(Spiderman IV anyone?). And finally remakes of foreign movies isntead of releasing the originals.

[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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

I'm also pointing at you, Star Trek the movie.
Man oh man, Chris Pine as Kirk, Aaaaaaargggggghhhhhh.

ACK! One simply does not mention that movie. For the sake of our society, that movie (whose name shall never be said) needs to be quickly forgotten.

Concerning these "alternate universe" crap.. well in my universe the 2009 version of "that movie" simply does not and should not exist.

[MaddogK]

Sor-ry
Didn't think how important Sherlock Holmes would become in film history until I saw the response here. Me not being impressed with such a milestone film likely explains why I wasn't particularly impressed Inglorious Basterds, The Road, Avatar, Youth in Revolt, Titanic, Public enemies, Star Trek, Tron Legacy, Transformers, The Dark Knight.

I agree with cracks reasons why so many movies suck, Hollywood isn't making very many 'new' movies as the cookie-cutter formula works for the masses, thankfully the indy's still make some fresh movies, tho sometimes the big studios do make really good films (by accident)- Alice in wonderland, Up.

I'll be ripping 'Sucker punch' in a couple weeks if you want to check back.

[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.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

I really wish I had some witty retort for this.

But there ain't, cause you're right. Thanks, Michael Bay and Uwe Boll.