As great as some movies can be, there is always something that can go wrong. These ten things have been going on for far too long and show no signs of stopping, much to the detriment of the industry. I realize that much of this isn't that original, but some of these things have really been bothering me. I will detail some of these things below. They are in sort-of order and sort-of not order so as to group similar problems.
10. Will Ferrell is not in movies that are very funny or showcase his acting ability.
While I haven't seen very many of Ferrell's movies, I usually find him instantly irritating, which is why I was so surprised to absolutely love "Stranger Than Fiction." Ferrell completely plays against type here, and he does so well that I wanted to see him perform in other roles like this. It's still a comedic role--just watch the movie--but it was more subdued and didn't rely on a constant barrage of dumb, crude humor and annoying personality traits. Also, I thought I should include that I want to see Will Arnett in a funny movie. Most of his movies since Arrested Development have been reviewed as stinkers.
9. Movie trailers give away plot points/best parts in movies.
I'm in good company here; in a recent interview (I'll try to find the link later), Steven Spielberg agreed with me. While I was enthralled with "Wall-E," I wished that I hadn't seen as many trailers for it. While the original teasers did just enough to whet my appetite, further trailers began giving away what I would see. I didn't want to know. I would rather have been surprised. Also, while I know it's necessary to show some of the jokes when you are advertising comedies, trailers sometimes go too far with this and show the best jokes in a movie. If you show us the best joke in a trailer, no one will laugh when we actually watch the film. Example? I bet that the whale bit in "Hancock" would have been much better received had it not been in the trailer. It wouldn't even have been necessary to show it, either. Just have a screen that says "Hancock! Starring Will Smith!" Badabing. Instant money-maker.
8. There are a lot of movies that have completely unnecessary sequels.
I know everyone harps on this, but it's true. While you can occasionally come up with a good sequel to a standalone movie (see Toy Story 2), most of the time (see Pirates 2 and 3, National Treasure 2, Shrek 2 and 3 and basically every other movie that was sequelized and your first reaction was, "wait, what?") you end up getting a mediocre movie, except with more money to spend. Even some movies that were left open to sequels have this problem. One element of these types of movies that make them more annoying is...
7. In many sequels, much of the characters' dialogue is taken up by self-referential jokes about the previous movie.
Remember the first "Pirates" movie, when Johnny Depp asked incredulously where all the rum had gone, and it was funny? Now do you remember "Pirates 2," in which nearly every character talked about rum all of the time all the while mugging the camera as if to say "Rum! Haha! It's funny! Remember? In that last movie all of us were in? That was pretty good, huh? Please, someone. Love me." Similarly, those who watched National Treasure 2 surely got fed up with all of the jokes about the first film and how great it was. Originality falls by the wayside. This leads us to...
6. There are too many movies that are based on something else, and not enough big original releases.
Think about the blockbuster hits so far this year. First there was a movie based on a comic book, then one based on a children's book, then a sequel, then another one based on a comic book, then one based on a TV show, then an original animated movie, then a mostly original idea, although one that parodies a comic book. Soon to come is a sequel based on a comic book (The Dark Knight), then another sequel (The Mummy 3), then a movie based on a cartoon set in between 2 other movies (Star Wars: The Clone Wars). Last year, out of the top ten movies, two were based on comic books, one was based on a TV show, one was based on a TV show/toy line/comic book, three were based on books (albeit loosely with I Am Legend and the Bourne Ultimatum), one was (sort of) based on a theme park ride and six of them were sequels. In 2006 (sorry, this is fun), two were based on comic books, three were based on books (one of the books on a true story), one was based on a theme park ride and four of the movies were sequels.
I don't necessarily have a problem with movies of this nature, but there aren't enough anticipated, promoted movies that are based on an original idea anymore.
5. There are very few 2D movies anymore. Almost all animation is computer generated.
As much love as I have showered on them, I still blame Pixar. Toy Story was so darn good that everyone got on board with the 3D train. The problems?
5a. Many studios seem to believe that making a movie with 3D animation automatically makes it good. This is not true. Good dialogue and story are still required (Disney and Dreamworks, this means you).
5b. Since everything now is a game of technological catch up, the stories are doing the same thing. Dreamworks is the big culprit here. While you can argue about who copied who with "A Bug's Life"/"Antz," Dreamworks later came out with a fish movie close in proximity to "Finding Nemo," (it should be noted that "Flushed Away" also has a few odd Nemo parallels) and they've also copied themselves incessantly (the studio, which has been computer animating for 10 years, already has produced three sequels, Flushed Away is ripping off of "Chicken Run," and three more Shrek movies, a "Kung Fu Panda" sequel and an "Over the Hedge" sequel are in the works or in talks). Disney, meanwhile, has been attempting to ape Pixar's digital whimsy for years, and they also produced "The Wild," which has been acknowledged by pretty much everyone as being a rip-off of Dreamworks' "Madagascar."
5c. While many 3D animated movies look cool, there is a certain whimsy and a certain way of portraying characters and stories that only 2D movies can accomplish. "The Emperor's New Groove" wouldn't have been what it was without the cartoony, slapstick animation. "Mulan" would have probably ended up being a really cruddy faux-3D-anime flick. It just wouldn't have been the same.
Alas, most studios show no sign of going back to the classic format. Ever. "The Jungle Book," anyone?
4. Special effects by themselves do not the movie make.
I am talking to YOU, "Transformers"! While the gargantuan special effects budget managed to distract plenty of the people from the fact that the acting, story, dialogue and pretty much everything in the movie was completely annoying/dumb/both, I am not fooled. "Special effects" in the above statement can also amended to "Special effects and Johnny Depp acting strangely," "Special effects and menacingly glaring young men," "Special effects and Elijah Wood" and...
3. Sex symbols just hanging around for no reason.
While I am not in support of objectifying the female body in any case, I especially hate it when this happens in a movie where it is not in context with the rest of the film (or at least the way the film should be) or when the sex symbol is introduced in a completely contrived way in which everyone (including, but not limited to, the actress) is aware that lust is the only reason that the sex symbol is there. See "Get Smart's" Anne-check-out-my-legs-and-butt-did-you-miss-it-here-is-again-Hathaway, "Transformers'" Megan-dude-I-am-totally-hot-AND-I-can-fix-cars-everyone-watching-this-HAS-to-want-to-sleep-with-me-Fox and "Star Wars: Episode II's" Natalie-wow-this-monster-totally-clawed-at-me-in-just-the-right-way-as-to-not-actually-mar-my-tummy-but-still-show-it-off-to-everyone-Portman for prime examples of this.
2. Movies are not true to the spirit/events of their works.
I know, I know. Everyone whines about this too. But it's true. While no adaptation of a work, be it movie, book, TV show, whatever, will be as good as the source (ie, while "Lord of the Rings" is better in book form, "Star Wars" movies will always best the books made out of them), it is possible to make a good movie out of something else. "The Princess Bride" is a great movie and a great book, the movie does well by adhering the many of the oddball elements that make the book so good. "Batman Begins" is the best of the Batman films because it is the only one that shows Batman as he is the comics. Batman's dark visage is what makes him, and why it took four movies to recognize this is beyond me. One book that should have had its spirit maintained is "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Alas, neither the spirit nor the events of the work were kept, resulting in a jumbled mess.
On the other side of the spectrum, while "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is a bit dry at parts, it succeeds largely because of its reliance on the events of the source material. This is one of the things that Hollywood screws up a lot. Movies that should have had their events followed more closely include "Prince Caspian" and (I know, I know) the Lord of the Rings (especially "The Two Towers").
1. Filmmakers think that they are oh-so-clever, and thus insert awful and out-of-place political commentary and "satire."
I put this one at number one partly because it's where it fit, partly because this has been an issue in the last two movies I've seen in theatres and partly because it really really bothers me. While the two instances I've criticized in this blog are related to President Bush, I would say the same thing about a joke with Kerry and flip-flopping, Clinton and sex and probably Obama with change (or, if McCain gets elected, McCain and being really old).
While some of these jokes were funny the first time, they are not only dated (in 20 years, if these things are still considered relevant, then it will be historical humor and much easier to digest), they are also the political equivalent of a junior higher who has seen "Napoleon Dynamite" or the Knights Who Say "Ni!": you know, deep down, that the source material had some merit, but it's been lost in a swarm of annoying people who have beaten the joke to death, resurrected it to a creepy zombie and then killed it again.
However, I don't really expect any of these things to change, because the movies that contain them make money.
The End, thank you, goodnight. I'll be watching "Juno" if you need me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment