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

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Zero_Cool

Guns that never run out of ammo.

I wouldn't mind having one of those

[Atreyu]

IMO, remakes show lack of originality and that the filmmakers cannot think of anything else to do.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

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.

Ooh, the editing in the last half hour of Bellflower is inspired.

I think we're diving too deep into vague generalities. Great movies come out each and every year, however few and far between, keeping an open mind is key. I know I haven't been too enthralled with films this year but This month should be something special:
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
The Hobbit
Zero Dark Thirty
Silver Linings Playbook
This is 40
The Impossible
Amour
Rust & Bone

They may not all be successful, but I'll positively anticipate them nonetheless.

[mastadge]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

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.

Good thing we're not in the 00s anymore! But really I think the 00s only look like shit if one doesn't consider what's been going on outside of Hollywood. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure if I spent a few minutes I could come up with more examples: Korean cinema has taken off in the last decade or so (Joon-ho Bong is one of my favorite working directors, and Chan-wook Park is no slouch either), and we've gotten some solid-to-great films from China and Japan as well. Throughout Europe we've got people like Jacques Audiard, Pedro Almodóvar, Fatih Akin, Götz Spielmann, Michael Haneke and plenty of others making great movies. Mexico's film industry has started to take off. There are people in the Middle East like Jafar Panahi making great films. Even if the US we've got people like Ramin Bahrani making consistently above-average-to-great films, not to mention people like the Coen Brothers and David Fincher who manage to consistently make excellent movies (with, yes, the occasional dud) with mainstream appeal. Yes, the 00s are crap if you look mainly at the preponderance of Bruckheimer- and Emmerich-inspired crapola and the tired and tiresome competition of boring, predictable and safe Oscar bait each year, but there's no shortage of great filmmaking to be had since the turn of the millennium, either.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by octagon

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.

Yeah there shouldn't be a boundary. That is why I've really dug the Tony Scott series at Mubi.com. Reevaluating this frequently dismissed auteur's career has been kind of eye opening.

A piece from "Smearing the Senses":

"More often than not, innovation resembles deficiency. Jean-Luc Godard couldn't tell a story, Yasujiro Ozu never learned the 180 degree rule, Robert Bresson didn't know how to direct actors, D.W. Griffith first didn't understand that the audience wanted to see the whole actress and not just her face and then didn't understand how you were supposed to make a talkie—and, toward the end of his career, Tony Scott made movies the wrong way, never letting an image hold long enough for the viewer to figure out just exactly what was going on."

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by mastadge

Good thing we're not in the 00s anymore! But really I think the 00s only look like shit if one doesn't consider what's been going on outside of Hollywood. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure if I spent a few minutes I could come up with more examples: Korean cinema has taken off in the last decade or so (Joon-ho Bong is one of my favorite working directors, and Chan-wook Park is no slouch either), and we've gotten some solid-to-great films from China and Japan as well. Throughout Europe we've got people like Jacques Audiard, Pedro Almodóvar, Fatih Akin, Götz Spielmann, Michael Haneke and plenty of others making great movies. Mexico's film industry has started to take off. There are people in the Middle East like Jafar Panahi making great films. Even if the US we've got people like Ramin Bahrani making consistently above-average-to-great films, not to mention people like the Coen Brothers and David Fincher who manage to consistently make excellent movies (with, yes, the occasional dud) with mainstream appeal. Yes, the 00s are crap if you look mainly at the preponderance of Bruckheimer- and Emmerich-inspired crapola and the tired and tiresome competition of boring, predictable and safe Oscar bait each year, but there's no shortage of great filmmaking to be had since the turn of the millennium, either.

THIS. (plus many more auteurs)

[xander]

The continuing death of practical effects and sets in exchange for MOAR CGI. I read that story where Ian Mckellan broke into tears on the set of The Hobbit when he was so frustrated from acting in a giant green room against styrofoam balls meant to represent other characters.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by octagon

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.

Don't get me wrong. The Town was an admirable effort but it's like a fart in a hurricane when one looks at the big picture of the 00's.

And even then....I wish it were better somehow. It's been a while since I have seen either film but Hayden's monologue reminiscing about the town where he grew up, and hoping to get back there someday so he could bathe in the "crik" and wash away the grime and ugliness of the city will always stick with me. Is there anything in the characterization and dialogue of The Town that even approaches the poetic imagery of that that scene. It's almost like trying to compare Hemingway to whatever hack writer wrote The Town.

[legendarymatt92]

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?

It doesn't matter when the films were released. I really hate it when people dismiss the films of today in favour of the ones from the Golden Age because they look back on them with rose-tinted glasses. The Asphalt Jungle is a brilliant film but I wouldn't hesitate to argue that The Town is an updated version that is better for our modern sensibilities. Audiences, whether rightly or wrongly, don't want films like The Asphalt Jungle released in cinemas any more.

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.

Aronofski is nowhere near as influential or world-renowned as either Bergman or Cassavetes, but that doesn't make him any less of a film-maker -- Bergman, for me, is an over-rated "artiste" who made as many ambiguous films as he could and people bowed to his feet to praise him. He was a great director, but damn could he play audiences like fools. The Wrestler has an air of poseur about it, but actually has something to say, which means it's not a waste of time - I personally loved it simply for its deep sincerity and emotion, but I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by mastadge

Good thing we're not in the 00s anymore! But really I think the 00s only look like shit if one doesn't consider what's been going on outside of Hollywood. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure if I spent a few minutes I could come up with more examples: Korean cinema has taken off in the last decade or so (Joon-ho Bong is one of my favorite working directors, and Chan-wook Park is no slouch either), and we've gotten some solid-to-great films from China and Japan as well. Throughout Europe we've got people like Jacques Audiard, Pedro Almodóvar, Fatih Akin, Götz Spielmann, Michael Haneke and plenty of others making great movies. Mexico's film industry has started to take off. There are people in the Middle East like Jafar Panahi making great films. Even if the US we've got people like Ramin Bahrani making consistently above-average-to-great films, not to mention people like the Coen Brothers and David Fincher who manage to consistently make excellent movies (with, yes, the occasional dud) with mainstream appeal. Yes, the 00s are crap if you look mainly at the preponderance of Bruckheimer- and Emmerich-inspired crapola and the tired and tiresome competition of boring, predictable and safe Oscar bait each year, but there's no shortage of great filmmaking to be had since the turn of the millennium, either.

You may be right in some ways but I think you're overstating the impact and quality of these filmmakers. Yes, the likes of Almodovar, Cuaron, hell even Guillermo Del Toro have distinct voices and are doing interesting things but the rest that I've seen (admittedly I haven't seen all their work) is pretty mediocre. Haneke? No. Korean cinema? OK I guess but still can't see why they're any better than Ozu or Inagaki, much less Kurosawa who has them all smoked.

Unique is one thing, but out of everyone you mention I can only really see Almodovar as truly "great"

As subjective as that is.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

It doesn't matter when the films were released. I really hate it when people dismiss the films of today in favour of the ones from the Golden Age because they look back on them with rose-tinted glasses. The Asphalt Jungle is a brilliant film but I wouldn't hesitate to argue that The Town is an updated version that is better for our modern sensibilities. Audiences, whether rightly or wrongly, don't want films like The Asphalt Jungle released in cinemas any more.



Aronofski is nowhere near as influential or world-renowned as either Bergman or Cassavetes, but that doesn't make him any less of a film-maker -- Bergman, for me, is an over-rated "artiste" who made as many ambiguous films as he could and people bowed to his feet to praise him. He was a great director, but damn could he play audiences like fools. The Wrestler has an air of poseur about it, but actually has something to say, which means it's not a waste of time - I personally loved it simply for its deep sincerity and emotion, but I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea.

Bergman was a narcissist with mommy/daddy issues who carried his adolescent Lutheran traumas with him wherever he went. That kind of baggage makes for a great filmmaker.

And a magnitude more interesting than a banal twerp like Aronofski.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

You may be right in some ways but I think you're overstating the impact and quality of these filmmakers. Yes, the likes of Almodovar, Cuaron, hell even Guillermo Del Toro have distinct voices and are doing interesting things but the rest that I've seen (admittedly I haven't seen all their work) is pretty mediocre. Haneke? No. Korean cinema? OK I guess but still can't see why they're any better than Ozu or Inagaki, much less Kurosawa who has them all smoked.

Unique is one thing, but out of everyone you mention I can only really see Almodovar as truly "great"

As subjective as that is.

So, out of his list, Social Network, Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, Chop Shop, White Ribbon, Hidden (Cache), The Prophet & Revanche don't make the cut for you?

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Bergman was a narcissist with mommy/daddy issues who carried his adolescent Lutheran traumas with him wherever he went. That kind of baggage makes for a great filmmaker.

And a magnitude more interesting than a banal twerp like Aronofski.

So his background makes him more interesting as a film-maker than another director who doesn't have those issues? I agree that obviously your home life shapes how you are in your creative endeavours, but just because Aronofski doesn't have the same baggage doesn't mean he shouldn't be taken seriously as a director.

Maybe move it on from Aronofski and apply it to someone like Luis Bunuel - he had problems with the Church, but nothing as complex as what Bergman had. Does that make him less of an influential film-maker?

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

So his background makes him more interesting as a film-maker than another director who doesn't have those issues? I agree that obviously your home life shapes how you are in your creative endeavours, but just because Aronofski doesn't have the same baggage doesn't mean he shouldn't be taken seriously as a director.

If we take that information in tandem with what actually shows up on the screen, yes.

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Maybe move it on from Aronofski and apply it to someone like Luis Bunuel - he had problems with the Church, but nothing as complex as what Bergman had. Does that make him less of an influential film-maker?

No. Bunuel had genuine beliefs about about the mainstream value system of the time, sometimes in an overtly political way. Plus he hung around with Dali. I'd say that makes it a wash.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Don't get me wrong. The Town was an admirable effort but it's like a fart in a hurricane when one looks at the big picture of the 00's.

And even then....I wish it were better somehow. It's been a while since I have seen either film but Hayden's monologue reminiscing about the town where he grew up, and hoping to get back there someday so he could bathe in the "crik" and wash away the grime and ugliness of the city will always stick with me. Is there anything in the characterization and dialogue of The Town that even approaches the poetic imagery of that that scene. It's almost like trying to compare Hemingway to whatever hack writer wrote The Town.

I'm not sure whether I'm getting you wrong because I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying.

Was The Town a serious film aimed at adults or not?

It seems to me the (granted, not exactly uncommon) notion that current films are all geared to fifteen year old boys is predicated in large measure on simply ignoring the existence of film after film after film that isn't geared to fifteen year old boys.

It's one thing to say this film isn't as good as that film or this filmmaker isn't as interesting as that filmmaker. It's another thing entirely to pretend that an entire class of film and filmmakers simply doesn't exist.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

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.

I'm not going to hijack this thread any more than it already has been by going movie-by-movie to give my opinions, but suffice it to say I have seen hundreds of films from the 70's - many of them good, even more of them bad.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Guess my opinions not welcomed here, seeing how the post was deleted.

Whatever.

[Bytor2112]

Originally Posted by wormraper

freaking 10 million cuts per second

+1 oh hell ya! drives me nuts

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm not sure whether I'm getting you wrong because I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying.

Was The Town a serious film aimed at adults or not?

It seems to me the (granted, not exactly uncommon) notion that current films are all geared to fifteen year old boys is predicated in large measure on simply ignoring the existence of film after film after film that isn't geared to fifteen year old boys.

It's one thing to say this film isn't as good as that film or this filmmaker isn't as interesting as that filmmaker. It's another thing entirely to pretend that an entire class of film and filmmakers simply doesn't exist.

The Town is a serious film aimed at adults in the sense that it's rated R, violent, and isn't filled with a bunch of cartoon superheroes. But it's still filled with TV level sensationalism that is aimed squarely at the late teen/twenty something market. It's like saying Drive is a film for adults when it is really just as juvenile in it's sensiblities as the latest Hulk movie or whatever.

The whole comment regarding a fart in a hurricane is meant to convey that yeah, films like it exist, but they are overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of adolescent garbage that's getting released. And even if it weren't, is it really the kind of quality that we should settle for?

No one is pretending movies aimed at adults don't exist, but I don't know how you can say with a straight face that the current paradigm is how it's always been. That's completely disengenuous rubbish. All you have to do is go look up the top yearly moneymakers of prior decades and compare them to today. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

So, out of his list, Social Network, Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, Chop Shop, White Ribbon, Hidden (Cache), The Prophet & Revanche don't make the cut for you?

Both of those Fincher films and Revanche are OK but not what I would call great cinema in the likes of what Sidney Lumet or Alan Pakula or Henri Clouzout used to put out. No Country is a genuinely great movie miraculously lacking the Coens trademark contemptuous, too-cool-for-the-room attitude which has ruined most of their work. White Ribbon is worthless. I haven't seen Chop Shop or Hidden.