BREAKING NEWS
It is with my unfortunate responsibility to inform you that as of a few days ago, I have officially sworn to never see a new American film again. So every movie review I do from now on will now feature foreign films exclusively.
This development came about when I saw Click because I had free passes to a movie and decided to see a crappy one with this free ticket. During Click, a woman behind me began crying, and this is when it dawned on me. Have american films been so bad that a terrible movie like this can get its viewer to become emotional. Does all it take is a teaspoon of humanity to be put into a film for someone to be touched. I mean seriously, the man has a remote control that runs his life, you can not in anyway feel any connection to him. I do not blame the gullible woman behind me, I blame Hollywood. They give us so little, and it is what we are used to.
Now you may have already deemed this the most elitist post ever, but hear me out. Name one movie to come out in the new millenium that is truly “timeless.” A movie that is captivating and universally agreed upon as a true work of art. I would obviously argue Magnolia to be the last, but realistically, the general public would say American Beauty and I would agree as long as it came out after Magnolia ( they both came out in 1999 and I dont feel like looking up the month)
While you will be puzzled to think of a great American movie since 2000, foreign films have been nothing short of superb. While my base of foreign film knowledge is limited obviously, everything I have seen is excellent. From what I have seen, the French can not make a bad film. Just look at anything like Godard especially In Praise Of Love. Or heres another great example look at Ingmar Bergmans Saraband. While Hollywood loves sequels, the fact that they only make them if a movie is successful and the fact that they completely rush them just shows that they consider cinema only from a business standpoint. Now look at Saraband, yes it may be a sequel but not a sequel by what we know it as. The movie contains the same main actors as its original film Scenes From A Marriage. The only catch is it came out in 2003, while Scenes From A Marriage came out in 1973. The sequel however is part of Ingmar Bergmans grand idea. The 1973 movie alone I do not believe would fully accomplish all that he set out to do. Watch both and you will get a better understanding of what I mean. I know some sequels you have seen are planned before the movie gets out, and those sequels are usually better but this is just one example I am offering.
Now to ruin everything I have just argued….the only post 2000 american film I will allow myself to watch is Team America: World Police, and The Girl Next Door (which if you ask me was 10 times better than it had any right to be)
THANK YOU
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:20 am
Define "timeless."
June 29th, 2006 at 2:24 am
A film that is not only generally accepted as a good film, but was popular as well, a film that people try to imitate, or a film student would watch for ideas. you can have a great film that is pointless if nobody sees it. a timeless film is groundbreaking, yet approachable. Citizen Kane would be another example
June 29th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Kill Bill!
Although, I suppose you could always just rip-off the same movies Quentin borrowed from.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Rudy is the most timeless move if you ask me.
As far as Click goes I have not seen it. So, I can’t really relate to what you are saying. However, I don’t think Hollywood is getting any worse. I think they give us plenty. Hollywood is a business that wants to make a lot of money. So, they try an appeal to the masses. You are not part of the masses because you didn’t enjoy a movie with Adam Sandler in it. Most people would go just because he is in it. I also don’t think Hollywood rushes sequels. We had to wait a long time for Meet The Fockers and the upcoming Old School 2 has been in the works for quite some time. I think you are very wrong. If you made this argument in regards to musicians "selling out" I would have to agree with you, because I consider them artists. Movies on the other hand are not an art and most people are in it just for the money.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Rudy is a corny popcorn movie
Furthermore cinema is art. You should give your argument to Paul Thomas Anderson, he would punch you in the face.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Movies are art. Don’t let Hollywood try to convince you otherwise.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
There are a lot more people in movies for the money then there are in music.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
are you kidding me, name one band that is not in it for money
the only person you can really argue for is Van Morrison, although he already is a millionaire….i would of argued Jack White, but that friggin Coca-Cola commercial really got rid of that claim.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Center Stage, duh, so the best movie ever.
No I’m kidding. Though I admit to having seen it…uh…way too many times.
This is a really difficult question. About the whole "timeless" thing, I’d say the lord of the rings movies will be pretty timeless just because they’re so ridiculously epic and popular and will be remembered and all. But I don’t think that’s the kind of timeless you mean since it could be argued that they aren’t artsy or whatever. But who knows what that means anyway. Oh, so many things that can’t be defined. I do agree the French make good movies. I watched Le Samourai the other day and it was pretty amazing.
Related note, so watched The Lion King tonight with my cousin for the first time in 10 years. I think anyone who grew up in the 90s is a child of disney and nickelodeon. Mildly disturbing.