Aren't there quite a lot of apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic things around these days? In both films and books. Maybe I've just been reading a lot of that kind of thing but it seems like it.
Aren't there quite a lot of apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic things around these days? In both films and books. Maybe I've just been reading a lot of that kind of thing but it seems like it.
Dark City was early 1998.
I feel like it's a big theme in YA writing at the moment?Originally Posted by Boydy
I suppose a Bond film could be not technically a sequel (although Spectre definitely was) but it's still essentially banking on a tried and tested franchise. They know it'll make loads because it's James Bond.
Yeah, which seem to get made into films a lot.
But also in 'adult' SF. There's quite a few in the shortlists of the Arthur C Clarke award in recent years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke_Award
But then maybe it's always big in SF and I've only noticed because I've gone looking for it.
Point taken, I've never viewed them as such, though.
No sexy tables from me, but: Highest-grossing films of 2005[1]
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Warner Bros. $895,911,078
2. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith 20th Century Fox / Lucasfilm $848,754,768
3. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Walt Disney Pictures $745,013,115
4. War of the Worlds Paramount / DreamWorks $591,745,540
5. King Kong Universal $550,517,357
6. Madagascar DreamWorks $532,680,671
7. Mr. & Mrs. Smith 20th Century Fox $478,207,520
8. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Warner Bros $474,968,763
9. Batman Begins Warner Bros / Legendary $374,218,673
10. Hitch Columbia $368,100,420
Then compare Oscar Best Picture nominees:
2005
Crash - $98.4 million
Brokeback Mountain - $178.1 million
Capote - $49.2 million
Good Night and Good Luck - $56.5 million
Munich - $130.4 million
2015
The Big Short - $87.1 million
Bridge of Spies - $160.9 million
Brooklyn - $36.5 million
Mad Max: Fury Road - $375.8 million
The Martian - $598.2 million
The Revenant - $225 million
Room - $9.1 million
Spotlight - $34.3 million
Okay, so we can all sigh at Room's performance, but other than that it looks like an upward trend in the takings of the critically acclaimed films too, while the top grossing ones are much the same mass appeal action type.
The marketing on Room has been terrible, literally the only places I've heard about it are on here and in buzzy Oscars articles. And while I've been told that it's good I've not seen anything that makes me particularly want to see it.
I've often had the thought that this is somewhat of a golden age of filmmaking. I feel like more great films have been over the past decade than in any similar time period. That's also the time period where I began to watch films though, so it could just be that a lot of great films are lost from the public memory as the years go by.
Really? I almost see it as the exact opposite.
I mean, if we pick the Best Picture winners from the 1970s, and some notable runners-up, we have:
Patton
The French Connection (beaten: Clockwork Orange)
The Godfather
The Sting (beaten: American Graffiti, The Exorcist)
The Godfather Part II (beaten: Chinatown)
One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (beaten: Jaws, Dog Day Afternoon)
Rocky (beaten: Network, Taxi Driver)
Annie Hall (beaten: Star Wars)
The Deer Hunter
Kramer vs Kramer (beaten: Apocalypse Now)
Now take the last ten
Crash
The Departed
No Country for Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire
The Hurt Locker
The King's Speech
The Artist
Argo
12 Years a Slave
Birdman
I mean, they aren't especially bad, but aside from perhaps No Country for Old Men and 12 Years a Slave, none of those films would look like anything other than a remote outlier in the first list.
The quantity/quality has probably changed.
I often wonder how shit the shit was when Casablanca and Hitchcock's stuff was out. How did the public view them? Were they retrospective classics?
Birdman and The Artist the only true 'great' films of that bunch. Even The Artist is a stretch. The exclusion of foreign films means most quality films are not considered though, not surprising that Hollywood produces mostly shite.
Birdman.
Also The Oscars is probably not the place to judge is it given its a self congratulatory wankfest.
You'd have to go through a list of films released that year. Hi Wiki.
You.Birdman.
Not No Country For Old Men and The Departed?
The latter remains the best film I've actually seen in a cinema.
Film makers have too many toys nowadays.
I did not think No Country For Old Men was that good, The Departed is definitely better than some of those 70s films. No Country For Old Men might be too, actually.
Casablanca wasn't even in the top 20 grossing films in 1942. Neither was Bambi. Scum generation.
Many directors will openly say that too many films are getting made today hence why everything seems shitter.
Ridley Scott said that 500 films a year is 200 too many. This is a great round table if you're interested in the medium.
P.S. Top tweet there.
No one forces us to watch all the shit tbf.
I think the quantity/regularity of very good films is extremely high at the moment, relative to what I've known in the past. That isn't necessarily to say loads of great films are being made, but the average standard is very high.
That said some of my all time favourite films have been released in the past 5-10 years, so I can't say I care much about Oscars shortlists.
I would say that the average standard is as low as it gets, but with more films being made there are also more good films being made. There is also much better availability, so it is more likely that you'll hear of some 'hidden gem.' If you stick to watching films once or twice a month then you never have to bother with the shit.
By average standard I mean more that if you go to the cinema you're likely to find something very good to watch. At least within certain windows of the year. Summer is a total write off.
Agreed, the summer is absolutely horrifying. I'm guessing in the UK it is much better, but it is not easy to find a decent film here year-round. But the summer, wtf.
Why is the summer so shit btw? Makes no sense to me.
People are out doing other things, going on holiday, and don't have to stay indoors I guess.
People do stuff outside so less people go to the cinema meaning films put on during those months have to be mainstream as fuck. They don't even release video games June - August for the same reason.
World of Warcraft at it's peak would lose 3 million customers during said time only for most of them to reactivate come September.
Interesting. I'm often more into going to the cinema during the summer. Many times we thought of going but decided not to since we couldn't find a single decent film. During the winter it is usually too fucking cold and I can't be arsed.
I liked The Artist, but are people really going to remember it in ten years? There didn't seem to be that much to it.
It's still comparing like against like within a representative subcategory (Oscar-winning films). Short of looking at every single film, there needed to be a way to break it into a smaller comparison size.
It's not like I'm comparing Blockbusters against Oscar winners, or anything like that.
I don't know if they will, but people seem to remember things that are much, much shitter. I have no idea what will be remembered or not.
Fucking WHAT?
I aw that in abridged GIF form the other day and that was weird enough. What's fascinating is that it presumably took a fair bit of editing talent to put together.
Mistress America is nothing like I thought it would be, and is a bit weird in places, but it's pretty great.
The Big Short is good. The last five minutes are pointlessly preachy, but everybody except Ryan Gosling dons it.
Creed is properly good in a way that the Rocky series hasn't been arguably since the very first one.
It's the first film I've heard of since the new Mad Max that completely divides opinion between great and steaming.
Who said it was steaming?
Personally, I was in no mood for another rehash, and the last one (Rocky Balboa) which a lot of people loved, just pissed me off. But this one manages to live in its own established universe without flagrantly cribbing from (or disrespecting) the previous movies as it did. There are a handful of very emotional, very well-acted scenes, which if you'll pardon the pun, pack a punch.
The guys behind it are apparently now in talks with an unnamed TV studio to do a similar thing to some of their old properties and make a sort of 'remix' series out of it. What a hateful idea.
After a second viewing I reckon I'm comfortable saying Room is the best film in years.
That "Come Play With Us Danny" bit could make a cracking track if it was fleshed out some though.
The opening scene of The Revenant is magnificent, but it's a bit downhill from there. It's very good, and there are some of the best shots I've ever seen in a theater (although crucially they never have much to do with the narrative itself), but christ is it a slog. 'Leo' is not interesting enough to justify at least a solid hour of cumulative close-ups on his face; it's more impressive as a physical feat than a piece of acting, and in fact Tom Hardy is the better performance. Probably not one to rewatch, ever. The high points are not high enough to carry you through the long parts in between.
Films I have to choose from today:
Seven Years in Tibet
Straight Outta Compton
Following
Bad Day at Black Rock
Taxi
Someone pick for me.
Saw it last night. Great film. I think the preachy part was necessary.
What was your problem with Gosling?
He's just rubbish.
I thought it was one of his better performances, largely because it a) involved him actually doing something and b) there was no romantic involvement.
...or squeaky voice, like in Gangsta Squad.
I watched Legend earlier, and I'm no closer to getting all the Tom Hardy praise. I think the one with Spandau Ballet in was better.
Yeah, the old one's better.
Thought Hardy was very good in Bronson and The Warrior. Other than that he's just a safe pair of hands. Likeable enough, though.
I really enjoyed The Revenant - a lot more than it seems some in here did. As others have said the cinematography is astounding.
Toggle Spoiler
Hardy is good in it but Fitzgerald isn't a particularly interesting character. There's certainly not enough about him to warrant significant extra screen time.
I watched Steve Jobs last night. It wasn't particularly good. Nobody is doing anything specifically wrong, there just isn't a lot to it. I remember thinking when it was announced that he isn't really an interesting enough man to have a biopic made about him, and that's pretty much proved to be the case upon watching it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote