[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

Maybe that's because they make more movies? It's like saying America has more fat people than Holland. Well, yeah, America has more people.

I'm talking percentages here. Heh.

Originally Posted by Ninth

Next time I see a bullet-time effect, I'll probably scream.

You and me both. Also, that "Michael Bay shot" where the heroes line up and move toward the camera in slow mo... Please, never again...

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

I'm talking percentages here. Heh.



You and me both. Also, that "Michael Bay shot" where the heroes line up and move toward the camera in slow mo... Please, never again...

You forgot the explosions in the background.

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by Ninth

I'm confused. What's being american has to do with it? Most of my favorite movies are american, just not hollywoodian, like Requiem for a Dream, which you strangely used as an example.

Hollywoodian movies have shitty characters, shitty endings, shitty values, with some extremely rare exceptions. And don't give me the "hero has flaws" argument, the "I look and behave like a badass but really deep inside I'm a good guy" hero is as old a cliche as the righteous hero.

I have no idea what "I stand alone is", by the way. In any case, french movies are more often than not trying to be something more than pretty and shiny dumb things (although it's more and more the case these days). They end up shitty as often as hollywoodian movies, but at least, like I said, they're interesting.

Here's a review of "I Stand Alone."

I'm obviously not going to change your mind, so I won't try. I still think it has more to do with your image than you just allowing yourself to enjoy a movie.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

Here's a review of "I Stand Alone."

I'm obviously not going to change your mind, so I won't try. I still think it has more to do with your image than you just allowing yourself to enjoy a movie.

Gaspard Noe, uh? I'm not really interested in what he does. I've skimmed through Irreversible, but found it tiring and empty.

As for enjoying, well, I won't enjoy a movie I feel like I've seen a hundred time before. Like Matrix. Or Lord of the Rings. Or the immense majority of the other hollywoodian movies. It's been ages since I've last seen an action movie I liked, for example.
I find most of the hollywoodian production lacking in term of quality, if quality means interesting plot, character, and originality, rather than merely pretty images with dolby surround gunfights.

If you'd rather see it as me trying to be cool, then so be it. You're missing a lot.

[Tobbe]

I watched A History Of Violence yesterday, I really liked it, the beginning is so shocking and cold, Viggo does a great job in it, I recommend it!

[natalia]

Hm..don't know if I should step into this fray, but okay I will. A bad movie is a bad movie, whether it's a big-budget air-headed blockbuster or a completely misguided, self-involved indie. There are bad American movies and bad international movies (and vice versa).

I personally can't dismiss a movie that's too "Hollywood". I'm not sure what that term even means. I love old Hollywood movies that were churned out of a the old studio film factory system. Sure, nowadays hollywood execs that make creative decisions for financial reasons can screw up a movie, but I have to admit that I do love some big-budget extravaganzas just for the sheer spectacle of it. Of course, the reason I like those types of movies isn't the same reason that I like a quiet low-budget movie, but why would you compare apples to oranges?

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by t_manelius

I watched A History Of Violence yesterday, I really liked it, the beginning is so shocking and cold, Viggo does a great job in it, I recommend it!

Oooh I wanted to see that when it came out, but I keep getting dragged to all these dumb movies that my gf wants to see...hmm...maybe Ninth was right! Saw II anyone?

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by natalia

Hm..don't know if I should step into this fray, but okay I will. A bad movie is a bad movie, whether it's a big-budget air-headed blockbuster or a completely misguided, self-involved indie. There are bad American movies and bad international movies (and vice versa).

I personally can't dismiss a movie that's too "Hollywood". I'm not sure what that term even means. I love old Hollywood movies that were churned out of a the old studio film factory system. Sure, nowadays hollywood execs that make creative decisions for financial reasons can screw up a movie, but I have to admit that I do love some big-budget extravaganzas just for the sheer spectacle of it. Of course, the reason I like those types of movies isn't the same reason that I like a quiet low-budget movie, but why would you compare apples to oranges?

That's kinda how I see it. I can't dismiss a movie just because it's made by Hollywood. If it's good it's good, if not, then it's not.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

That's kinda how I see it. I can't dismiss a movie just because it's made by Hollywood. If it's good it's good, if not, then it's not.

Well, sure. I won't dismiss a movie because it's made in Hollywood either. I've seen plenty, and will see plenty more, even though most of them are bad. I'm optimistic that way.

And I need to see History of violence too, by the way.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Corpse Bride

Awesome! Just awesome. I loved it. There's really not much more to say

Loaded with fun and technically brilliant - yes, but, unfortunately, I was half-expecting second Nightmare before Christmas, which - realistically - would be impossible to top, as my favourite animation ever. Me = spoiled bastard.

I found Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be definitely better, what do you think?

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

I don't get people who shun Hollywood movies because they're a nice and shiny package. You all try so hard to be cool and "indie" by watching films from like...friggin Siberia or awful French films like Amalie...ya know, films that are odd for the sake of being odd.

It's a very shallow point of view. I know quite a few people who indeed would watch "artsy" movies only to increase their self-esteem, true. But it's annoying, or at least oddly Americano-cetric of you, to assume that Hollywood is somehow the default option, and if someone prefers other films, he does so just for the sake of being different than the rest.

Thing that annoys me most, unintiresting film from friggin Siberia would usually never leave its region (along with much of the good stuff). And 90% of Hollywood is sure to get released in every corner of the World, no matter how hopelessly bad it ends up.

And, come-on, Amélie? You could hardly bring a less suitable example. I don't know about the States, but it was a tremendous commercial success in most countries worldwide, so it seems to have some crowd-pleasing qualities. I could easily interpret your criticizing it as "shunning because it's a nice and shiny package".

EDIT: Rereading the last part, I decided to add that, personally, I love Amélie, in case someone suspected the opposite. For me it's easily a Top 20 material.

[AFGNCAAP]

And on topic:

Constant Gardener - this film is talked about much much much less than it should! From the director of Cidade de Deus (City of God), which frankly I thought was one of those aforementioned unnecessary non-American-but-wannabe-Hollywood movies, I'd never expected such a gritty and humane combination of drama, thriller and romance. Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz gave the best performances I've ever seen them in. Outstanding cinematography (I'm not a fan of free roaming camera, but here it was utillised perfectly, especially in suggesting main character's feeling of suspicion and paranoia). Touching, memorable and very up-to-date (especially in political/social sense) story, adapted from John le Carré's novel. Perfect ending, too - unnerving but satisfying (my eyes were damp). Highly recommended!

For those of you who were misled by the word "thriller", though, a warning: this is not for viewers with short attention span, and is at least as much about clash of worldviews, subtle love story, and geopolitical critique as about investigation into one woman's death.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

And on topic:

Constant Gardener - this film is talked about much much much less than it should! From the director of Cidade de Deus (City of God), which frankly I thought was one of those aforementioned unnecessary non-American-but-wannabe-Hollywood movies, I'd never expected such a gritty and humane combination of drama, thriller and romance. Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz gave the best performances I've ever seen them in. Outstanding cinematography (I'm not a fan of free roaming camera, but here it was utillised perfectly, especially in suggesting main character's feeling of suspicion and paranoia). Touching, memorable and very up-to-date (especially in political/social sense) story, adapted from John le Carré's novel. Perfect ending, too - unnerving but satisfying (my eyes were damp). Highly recommended!

For those of you who were misled by the word "thriller", though, a warning: this is not for viewers with short attention span, and is at least as much about clash of worldviews, subtle love story, and geopolitical critique as about investigation into one woman's death.

Sounds like The Tailor of Panama, which I loved.

[SakSquash]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Loaded with fun and technically brilliant - yes, but, unfortunately, I was half-expecting second Nightmare before Christmas, which - realistically - would be impossible to top, as my favourite animation ever. Me = spoiled bastard.

I found Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be definitely better, what do you think?

It's a very shallow point of view. I know quite a few people who indeed would watch "artsy" movies only to increase their self-esteem, true. But it's annoying, or at least oddly Americano-cetric of you, to assume that Hollywood is somehow the default option, and if someone prefers other films, he does so just for the sake of being different than the rest.

Thing that annoys me most, unintiresting film from friggin Siberia would usually never leave its region (along with much of the good stuff). And 90% of Hollywood is sure to get released in every corner of the World, no matter how hopelessly bad it ends up.

And, come-on, Amélie? You could hardly bring a less suitable example. I don't know about the States, but it was a tremendous commercial success in most countries worldwide, so it seems to have some crowd-pleasing qualities. I could easily interpret your criticizing it as "shunning because it's a nice and shiny package".

EDIT: Rereading the last part, I decided to add that, personally, I love Amélie, in case someone suspected the opposite. For me it's easily a Top 20 material.

When did I say it's the only option? There are a ton of cool movies that come out of other countries. I was just defending hollywood because it was under fire. I picked Amelie because it was just a weird movie that used a lot of flashy camera tricks to wow an audience. Oh, and by the way, just because something is a commerical success, doesn't make it good. Freddy vs. Jason was a commerical success, but I wouldn't dare call it a good movie.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

When did I say it's the only option? There are a ton of cool movies that come out of other countries. I was just defending hollywood because it was under fire.

It's under fire because it's invading the movie theaters all over the wold.

And Amélie is weird?

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

I picked Amelie because it was just a weird movie that used a lot of flashy camera tricks to wow an audience.

I pick Matrix because it was just a weird movie that used a lot of flashy camera tricks to wow an audience.

Oh, and by the way, just because something is a commerical success, doesn't make it good. Freddy vs. Jason was a commerical success, but I wouldn't dare call it a good movie.

I got the impression that you think people criticize Hollywood just because it's popular and they want to stand out from the crowd. I mentioned commercial succes only to show such people should shun Amelie just as well.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Loaded with fun and technically brilliant - yes, but, unfortunately, I was half-expecting second Nightmare before Christmas, which - realistically - would be impossible to top, as my favourite animation ever. Me = spoiled bastard.

As much as I love Nightmare Before Christmas... I prefer Corpse Bride. But I'll admit that might be because I'm not generally too fond of musicals, and former movie is just that much more full of songs, whereas there are, what? Five or so scenes in Corpse Bride that are singy? So that might be it.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

I found Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to be definitely better, what do you think?

Equal footing at least. But I'd have to think about this first and for a long while to know for sure which movie is ahead. Probably Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but I really can't say right now

[TangentBlack]

I didn't know this forum had people that replied so quick.

I am not going to write an article on my opinion like I did on noir, I just have alot to say about that. However, temporaryscar, you misinterprited my meaning and put words into my mouth. I never said foriegn film is better. In fact, my testomony to American film is quite powerful. Russia has films you will never hear of, Germany does, China does, Britian does, and,yes, America does to. However, the leader in film has for a long while been America because of its amazing industry. I am not complaining about the "shiny package", in fact I prefer it to a "dull one". It seems like America and some European countries for that matter, are selling out to technology and special effects more than plot and technique. The old movies, and I don't mean just from the 30's-50's were limited in their ability to perform these acts because of a number of different restrictions such as censorship, technology, and experience. They had to work around their limitations and developed films that were not only creative, cleverly written (which has now been downsized as a priority i.e. the new Star Wars, Fantastic Four, Saw 2 and many others. Now, do not get me wrong, I am amazed at some of the things that we are able to do with film. I think that computer animation is an incrediblely useful technique to be used to COMPLIMENT a film and make it more realistic. When a movie is based soley on a new technology that is to be imployed, the film turns to shit. Not that that does not happen in Europe or Asia, but the world looks to America for film advice, and America is coming up with some pretty damn bad advice. America will always be the hub of film, no one will forget that, but it has to do so in a style that is classy, so that it can CONTINUE to produce movies that will rival the ones before it.

[TangentBlack]

By the way, I have a whole library at home with shitty movies in it. I don't shun movies because they aren't clever, because they are sometimes a hell of a lot more enertaining than the smart films. I daresay I have Freddy vs. Jason in my closet as well. I laugh every time Jason massacres the teenage party!

[Once A Villain]

Where the hell did this "I don't dismiss films because they were made in Hollywood" stuff come from? I don't either. I'm simply stating the fact that the vast majority of modern (80's to the present) Hollywood films are pretty damn lousy. I'm not saying there isn't the occasional great one or, at the very least, an entertaining one. If it makes people feel any better, I would also say that Japanese cinema has gone to hell post-70's with the exception of Miyazaki and one last masterpiece from Kurosawa... France, Sweden, and some others have managed ok during this time. Sure some of their films still suck and very few of them are masterpieces, but the percentage of truly bad films doesn't seem as great as it does in Hollywood or the Japanese film industry.

This is all because of the loss of the real creative forces. One could say that France has suffered dearly from this as well, and it would be hard to argue. No more Jean Renoir, no more Robert Bresson, no more Francois Truffaut, no more Alain Resnais (at least not of the quality he set in the late 50's and early 60's), no more Carne & Prevert, no more Rene Claire, no more Clouzot, etc. I never said French cinema wasn't weaker today than it used to be, but at least some creative forces have risen in the attempt to take the place of those I mentioned.

No such luck in Hollywood. In the last 25 years, no one has come close to replacing Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock (who was actually British anyway), Sam Peckinpah, John Ford, Buster Keaton, Stanley Kubrick, Charles Chaplin (another Brit), Billy Wilder, William Wyler, Howard Hawks, etc. Even Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola aren't what they used to be, though the former did have Raging Bull in 1980 and Goodfellas in 1990 (each ranking among his best). Spielberg gave us Schindler's List in 1993, but he's always hit and miss. Hollywood has no creative consistency anymore. Nor can we give Hollywood any credit for some of their biggest recent successes. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a New Zealand creation, through and through. Anyway, I'm not saying I want the films as a whole to be as good or better than they used to be. I'm simply saying that I wish I could leave a mainstream American theater less disappointed, far more often.

I'm hoping Terrence Malick can provide this for me when The New World comes out. The man has only made three films since 1973 (four including The New World), and each has been wonderful. Malick...don't fail me now.

[TangentBlack]

Thanks for backing me up Villain, I seemed not to have an ally in this whole bit. It is good to see that someone sees the way I do.