Posted on 11/17/2009 8:05:59 AM PST by EveningStar
Hollywood studios are now thinking twice about splurging on A-list movie stars and costly productions in reaction to the poor economy, but also because of the surprising success of recent films with unknown actors.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I avoid Julia Roberts movies, movies with Matt Damon now too. Gweneth Paltrow as well. Clooney too.
My kingdom for a John Wayne type.
It seems like a lot of movies are shooting for well known character actors or up and coming stars these days. I haven’t seen Will Smith in much and I think he is considered the most sure thing actor out there.
I do have to say of all the movies I’m planning to see for the rest of the year, I’m probably most excited about The Godfather. The AMC in town does a fall movie classics thing where they....show classic movies in the fall. The Godfather is next week. Pretty excited to see it on the big screen. Couple that with their $4 before noon price and it’s a good deal.
The one near us uses an FM tuner for the sound now, rather than those clunky speakers that hook on your car window, so if you have decent car speakers, it’s actually not bad.
We saw Pirates of the Carribbean 3 there a couple years ago and sound quality seemed the same as a home theater. We actually had to turn it down a little because the neighboring cars had there’s pretty loud.
I’d pay to listen to Sam Elliott read the phone book before I’d give Clooney any money.
Fine ... but in any real world you care to name, a first-year f***-up doesn't even make it onto the bridge of a starship, much less being given command of the flagship of Starfleet before he even reaches his second year at the Academy.
That part of the plot could have been written by a 13 year old boy; it has no contact with how real people and military organizations behave. Well, I take that back.... we did elect Obama to be president.
It was witty, exciting and moving.
It was witty insofar as it successfully played on the characters' long-established cliches. It was not witty otherwise.
It was "exciting," but not believably so. It was a long string of adventure moments, unrelieved by plot.
And it was "moving" in the same way that a high-fiber diet is moving.
The Oscars are generally quite good at picking films that capture the Zeitgiest. Schindler’s List, Forrest Gumpy, Braveheart, Titanic, Shakespeare in Love...
He didn’t take over after his 2nd year at the Academy. It jumped ahead to after he had graduated. I should mention that I am not a fan of the original series and couldn’t really care less about how this relates to it. I just thought it stood on its own.
As painfully stupid as 2012 is it hauled in 225 million bucks worldwide last weekend. Since the goal of movies is to make money not art it’s kind of hard to say 2012 would be “better”. I don’t think more script and less FX would have resulted in more cash.
Lots of Hollywood films have been great Art.
I don't think so....
I just looked it up and it was during his third year. Hey he was a prodigy...
That’s true, but that’s generally not the goal, especially not with the intended blockbusters like 2012. It’s a business, it’s about making money, if somehow or another they manage to make something really nice too that’s a happy coincidence. Nobody spends $200 million making a movie because they’re hoping for the cinematic Mona Lisa, they’re hoping for the cinematic Pet Rock.
Well almost all Art has been a business. Beethoven sold his music to the highest bidder. John Ford made his Westerns with the general audience in mind. But they stand up as great Art.
It’s canon from the early days of Trek that Kirk is a wunderkind that shot up the ranks and became the youngest ship captain in Star Fleet history, and achieved that captain-ship in a big ship too, didn’t even have to go through the normal tonnage march of captains.
As for the overall movie it was fun. It was a return to the original action adventure mentality of the series and a throwing away UN style “let’s talk about it” mentality that has killed the franchise. It was refreshing to have a captain in ST again that believes “find the bad guy, kill the bad” is as much plan as you need.
Classic line. You should be paid to do movie reviews.
True, those would be the happy accidents I mentioned. It’s just good to remember when saying a movie that made a ton of money could be “better” that by the thinking of everybody responsible for making that movie it’s pretty fine just the way it is. Nobody making 2012 was trying to make art, great or otherwise, not that they’d be upset if it came out art, but the important part is that it needs to make back the 200 million bucks Sony spent on the thing.
Everyone is a capitalist when it comes to their own money.
Moreso when money is harder to come by.
I understand the ‘getting out of the house’ part. We do it by going for dinner or over to friends. Especially since there’s nothing we care to see at a theater, that $30 is a wasted expense for us. But I understand where you’re coming from.
My point that ‘entertainment per dollar is the pits’ is just that. If the entertainment were worth it, then the cost while the same could be more easily justified. My problem is, I’ll spend the same $ for a decent meal at a good family restaurant and come away with the feeling I’ve been well served. There’s no way I would get that same feeling at a theater, what with today’s fare.
I have it on DVD. Tombstone, along with Open Range, are my two favorite newer Westerns. They’re not The Searchers, but they’re fine productions. And, yes, Val Kilmer is Doc Holliday. Though something else seems to go unnoticed a lot. Kurt Russell is the epitome of Wyatt Earp. He looks like Earp, and has the commanding presence that Earp is said to have had.
As for Open Range, Robert Duvall is his usual, understated self. Costner has one of his better performances, and the gunfight at the end is superb. I find it hard to compare the two, however. Tombstone is a part of history brought to life, and as well and accurately told as it’s likely possible coming from cinema. OTOH, Open Range is a story, realistic, gritty and tragic. Did I say realistic? Both are. Frankly, they both stand on their own, and trying to compare the two is a trivial pursuit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.