What irks you the most with today's movies ( 2000 - present )???

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Any single year in the 70's produced more great movies than most of the 00's, IMO.

Let's say that's true (and while it's a little hyperbolic I agree the general thrust is true) is that really where we're setting the bar?

Didn't the 70s also produce more great movies than the 50s, the 60s, the 80s and the 90s? I agree that there were Golden Ages and I agree the 70s were one of them. But I don't think that in and of itself justifies all the 'they don't make 'em like they used to' grumbling.

They pretty much do make 'em like they used to: some are really good, some are really dreadful and most are in between.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by octagon

Let's say that's true (and while it's a little hyperbolic I agree the general thrust is true) is that really where we're setting the bar?

Didn't the 70s also produce more great movies than the 50s, the 60s, the 80s and the 90s? I agree that there were Golden Ages and I agree the 70s were one of them. But I don't think that in and of itself justifies all the 'they don't make 'em like they used to' grumbling.

They pretty much do make 'em like they used to: some are really good, some are really dreadful and most are in between.

For most years of the 50's and 60's I'd still say that holds true. I would concede that the 60's was probably a tad weaker than than either. The 80's wasn't that great, but still better than the 00's. I used to think the 90's was a great decade, and in some ways I still think so but a lot of the films I used to think highly of from that decade haven't really aged well.

I really do try to step back and look at each decade objectively. But no matter how many angles I approach it, the 00's look like shit.

[Atreyu]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Even in R-rated movies, it's still implied. You have to go one step up the rating grade to actually see what people are doing.

Some you see a bit of what is going on. Examples include Boogie Nights and Dressed To Kill. Another prime example is in The Godfather with Sonny at the wedding, now it could have just been implied without showing it and the same effect would have been ahieved.
I guess what I mean is sex is not needed in every film. I have nothing against it if the story needs it, but in most cases you could take out the scenes, and thr movie would still be effective and make sense.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by octagon

They pretty much do make 'em like they used to: some are really good, some are really dreadful and most are in between.

I'd also add that the 00's was an unprecedented decade for movies aimed at 15 year old boys. In budget, promotion, and quantity of films produced. The number of serious films aimed at adults from major studios given a wide release has declined in a serious way. And before you say "but what about all of those independent films?" I mean actual films by actual talent aimed at actual adults and not some zero budget indy piece of crap aimed at the 20-something pretentious hipster market that only played at Sundance or some other "film" festival.

[Fighter]

Cinematography is a dying art in today's films....

[Steelmaker]

Casts that aren't a good representation of the common person. There are wayyyyy too many pretty faces in movies now.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by octagon

They pretty much do make 'em like they used to: some are really good, some are really dreadful and most are in between.

The way I see it, when people complain about that, they're comparing the breezy 50s musical vs. the modern cheesy action movie. In my opinion, there have been such truly awful films made 30, 40, 50 years ago that have become obscure, and those same people remember the popular, much-loved films..which is what everyone compares to everything bad released today. Today however, just about any kind of film that interests someone is around, maybe not as easy to find, and that cheesy action movie or immature comedy doesn't represent what's really out there. It just represents what everyone knows about/goes to see.

Originally Posted by Fighter

Cinematography is a dying art in today's films....

What I said above applies here too. I think today there's a much wider range of style when it comes to film (often borrowing pieces of influence that came from before), and they've never been as individual as they used to be.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Casts that aren't a good representation of the common person. There are wayyyyy too many pretty faces in movies now.

I make this complaint about American network television all the time. That really irks me.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

I make this complaint about American network television all the time. That really irks me.

Yep! Pretty much every show could be titled "Young and Hot."

[wormraper]

freaking 10 million cuts per second and shaky cam work for fight scenes. seriously, we need more guys who can fight on screen rather than make it a blur of motion to "intimate" that a fight scene happens. it's especially annoying when you KNOW you have a couple of good stage fighters on screen and everything is blurred out anyways through unnecessary cuts and shaky cam

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

People complaining that films used to be better than they are these days always annoys me.

YES!

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Any single year in the 70's produced more great movies than most of the 00's, IMO.

HELL no.

Putting aside the fact that I think most of the considered-"great" films of the 70's are HIGHLY overrated...

The 70's produced a few great films, but a whole lot of crap as well. The fact is, any era in the past produced just as much crap as current years, but we tend to look back with rose-colored glasses. We only remember the great, memorable ones and forget about the other 90% that were unmemorable or downright bad. Whereas in recent years, the films are fresher in our minds and we remember the good and the bad.

Stop romanticizing the 70's people. It was no better or worse than today.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

The way I see it, when people complain about that, they're comparing the breezy 50s musical vs. the modern cheesy action movie. In my opinion, there have been such truly awful films made 30, 40, 50 years ago that have become obscure, and those same people remember the popular, much-loved films..which is what everyone compares to everything bad released today. Today however, just about any kind of film that interests someone is around, maybe not as easy to find, and that cheesy action movie or immature comedy doesn't represent what's really out there. It just represents what everyone knows about/goes to see.

Umm...

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Any single year in the 70's produced more great movies than most of the 00's, IMO.

Originally Posted by Strevlac

For most years of the 50's and 60's I'd still say that holds true. I would concede that the 60's was probably a tad weaker than than either. The 80's wasn't that great, but still better than the 00's. I used to think the 90's was a great decade, and in some ways I still think so but a lot of the films I used to think highly of from that decade haven't really aged well.

I really do try to step back and look at each decade objectively. But no matter how many angles I approach it, the 00's look like shit.

Originally Posted by Strevlac

I'd also add that the 00's was an unprecedented decade for movies aimed at 15 year old boys. In budget, promotion, and quantity of films produced. The number of serious films aimed at adults from major studios given a wide release has declined in a serious way. And before you say "but what about all of those independent films?" I mean actual films by actual talent aimed at actual adults and not some zero budget indy piece of crap aimed at the 20-something pretentious hipster market that only played at Sundance or some other "film" festival.

[Al_The_Strange]

Remakes definitely. That's not to say that a given remake can't be good, but with such titles as Red Dawn and Footloose being targeted, I sometimes have to ask WHY GOD WHY?!! Or, as another poster mentioned, originality seems to be dead.

Shakey-cam irritates me when it's taken to excess.

Stupid characters. They're everywhere, and they seem to be multiplying.

The overall stigma that movies are either brainless blockbusters with all style and no action, or pretentious arthouse pieces with no real plots and no real entertainment value. Is it too hard to have a movie that's both entertaining AND artistic? Style AND substance? Why make us choose between one or another?

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

what irks me is how lots of people feel the need to rip a movie to shreds....people can't enjoy ANYTHING anymore it seems!!

Yes, it bothers me too. It seems as though people in general are getting harder and harder to please. Granted that a lot of films may deserve it, but the hate often spreads to decent movies too, and people tend to bash movies for dumb reasons.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

YES!


HELL no.

Putting aside the fact that I think most of the considered-"great" films of the 70's are HIGHLY overrated...

The 70's produced a few great films, but a whole lot of crap as well. The fact is, any era in the past produced just as much crap as current years, but we tend to look back with rose-colored glasses. We only remember the great, memorable ones and forget about the other 90% that were unmemorable or downright bad. Whereas in recent years, the films are fresher in our minds and we remember the good and the bad.

Stop romanticizing the 70's people. It was no better or worse than today.

I'm not looking at anything through rose colored glasses. If you think the 70's are no better and no worse than today, you either haven't seen enough films from the 70's or you and I are just plain on different wavelengths.

Why don't you list the movies from the 70's you've seen, then identify the ones you think are overrated and why.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

I'd also add that the 00's was an unprecedented decade for movies aimed at 15 year old boys. In budget, promotion, and quantity of films produced. The number of serious films aimed at adults from major studios given a wide release has declined in a serious way.

How does something like The Town compare to something like The Asphalt Jungle? Are they both serious films aimed at adults? Both just gangster/caper movies? Or is one a serious film aimed at adults and the other just a gangster/caper movie?

Originally Posted by Strevlac

And before you say "but what about all of those independent films?" I mean actual films by actual talent aimed at actual adults and not some zero budget indy piece of crap aimed at the 20-something pretentious hipster market that only played at Sundance or some other "film" festival.

Two thoughts about indy crap...

How would you categorize something like The King's Speech or Melancholia or The Wrestler? There's a very significant production/finance tier between 'major Hollywood studio' and 'indy crap' that's cranked out some very good films over the past several years.

Some of that zero budget indy crap is pretty freaking good. I wouldn't hesitate to put Chronicle up against The Day the Earth Stood Still or Invasion of the Body Snatchers or Village of the Damned or Planet of the Apes or any of the genre stuff we revere from the 50s and the 60s and I would give it a fighting chance against stuff like Frankenstein/Bride. Bellflower impressed the hell out of me too.

Are those exceptions? Sure. But the good ones always are.

[Strevlac]

Mike Nichol's minor film Catch-22 is better than anything produced in the 00's.

And it's not even close to the best film of the 70's.

[Flatnate]

I too am tired of the remakes. None of the major studios seem to want to take any chance on a new franchise. This is part of the reason I'm stoked about Guillermo del Toro doing Pacific Rim. At least it should be some epic action sci-fi fun that isn't a rehash.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by octagon

How does something like The Town compare to something like The Asphalt Jungle? Are they both serious films aimed at adults? Both just gangster/caper movies? Or is one a serious film aimed at adults and the other just a gangster/caper movie?

Yes. I'd also add that The Asphalt Jungle is aesthetically way beyond the HBO TV movie dynamics of The Town. I mean...are you seriously going to compare Ben Affleck to John Huston and Sterling Hayden?

Originally Posted by octagon

Two thoughts about indy crap...

How would you categorize something like The King's Speech or Melancholia or The Wrestler? There's a very significant production/finance tier between 'major Hollywood studio' and 'indy crap' that's cranked out some very good films over the past several years.

Some of that zero budget indy crap is pretty freaking good. I wouldn't hesitate to put Chronicle up against The Day the Earth Stood Still or Invasion of the Body Snatchers or Village of the Damned or Planet of the Apes or any of the genre stuff we revere from the 50s and the 60s and I would give it a fighting chance against stuff like Frankenstein/Bride. Bellflower impressed the hell out of me too.

Are those exceptions? Sure. But the good ones always are.

The King's Speech was OK...rather like one of those "prestige" films from the 80's like Out Of Africa.

Melancholia and Chronicle....I don't really have words. I will say Von Trier represents the worst of what I hate about the indy movement or dogme or whatever you want to call it.

The Wrestler is simply another one of Aronofski's poseur flicks whose entire reason for existence is his desire to be seen as some kind of artiste. I don't consider it a genuine, sincere effort in the vein of a Bergman or Cassavetes. I don't even really dig Cassavetes, but at least he believed in what he was doing.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by octagon

How does something like The Town compare to something like The Asphalt Jungle? Are they both serious films aimed at adults? Both just gangster/caper movies? Or is one a serious film aimed at adults and the other just a gangster/caper movie?

Two thoughts about indy crap...

How would you categorize something like The King's Speech or Melancholia or The Wrestler? There's a very significant production/finance tier between 'major Hollywood studio' and 'indy crap' that's cranked out some very good films over the past several years.

Some of that zero budget indy crap is pretty freaking good. I wouldn't hesitate to put Chronicle up against The Day the Earth Stood Still or Invasion of the Body Snatchers or Village of the Damned or Planet of the Apes or any of the genre stuff we revere from the 50s and the 60s and I would give it a fighting chance against stuff like Frankenstein/Bride. Bellflower impressed the hell out of me too.

Are those exceptions? Sure. But the good ones always are.

All of This.

Maybe we should have made a separate thread...

Obviously everyone has different opinions on what they like. The point is that, for the most part, you can make any film you want today... and that was nowhere near as easy 60 years ago. I feel that alone makes it better to be a film fan today than back then. Although that whole pointless 'indy crap' argument makes me certain this conversation is a waste of time..

And once again, I love that you loved Bellflower because it's one of my favorites from the last decade.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Yes. I'd also add that The Asphalt Jungle is aesthetically way beyond the HBO TV movie dynamics of The Town. I mean...are you seriously going to compare Ben Affleck to John Huston and Sterling Hayden?

I would absolutely compare them. On an emotional level it's hard to seriously compare Sterling Hayden to the douche from Jersey Girl. Trust me, as much as I've turned around on Affleck since Gone Baby Gone I definitely still get that.

But if we're trying to be objective - and you say we are - I don't see how we declare one a serious film for adults and the other a mere shoot em up.