@ Hollywood can still surprise.
Indeed
It always could. Now as then.
Yes, but they used to do more back then than they do it now (sounds like a Monty Python sentence)
I donāt think so.
Old films are often comparatively overrated cause people are concentrating more on their merits while bravely ignoring their weaknesses.
The other way round modern films are often blamed for the same things which are ignored in the āclassicsā. Modern films need their time to build their reputation.
Indeed, I agree with Stanton: time and critical retrospect sorts the proverbial wheat from the chaff for us, the present day viewer, while with the modern day films we have to do it ourselves. The statement reflected how this is the only film this year Iāve seen so far that really impressed and surprised me and that didnāt conform to expectations of what it should be.
Judex (1963)
-Remake film of the silent series. It starts as a promising mystery film and the masquearade scene in the beginning is very beautiful, almost surreal scene. But the film soon turns to episodic and ridiculous, Iāve never seen the original but it looks like they tried to get the whole plot of the original series into one film. Only thing which made it watchable was super sexy villain played by Francine Berge. Most imdb reviewers have given this 8-10 rating, 4/10 would be more realistic.
EVIL DEAD 2013, bore most of the time and nothing in gore and horror like the original
Old films are often comparatively overrated cause people are concentrating more on their merits while bravely ignoring their weaknesses.
time and critical retrospect sorts the proverbial wheat from the chaff for us, the present day viewer, while with the modern day films we have to do it ourselves.
I agree with both statements, but not with the idea that todayās film makers (novelists, painters, etc.) are on a level with the masters from the past. The regression is better visible in literature and arts, because we have a better overview, but the situation in cinema is not different: weāre experiencing a period of stagnation or even decline.
I donāt think so.
I donāt care about arts and literature, but there are so much great films in the last 15 years, which are so immensely original, well ā¦ if that is decline, than letās decline every day.
There are a lot of films in the new millennium which belong to the most fascinating I have ever seen, and Iām sure there is still a lot to discover from the past years.
Of course there was a great explosion of quality in the 60s and 70s, and that will be hard to top in any decade which has followed and which will follow. But stagnation was maybe in the 80s, but since the mid 90s things are developing very satisfying for me. In all directions. But we had this discussion before.
I know what you mean, but I think that modern film directors are generally better than older film directors, those which we now call classics.
On average, films are not better, nor are they worse these days. Just different.
Donāt think the eighties was a bad movie decade either. Some nice stuff came out, classics even.
Well, we clearly have a different opinion about this.
Maybe in artisitc or aesthetic terms we are near or already there in Francis Fukuyama theory - The end of historyā¦ the end of inovation
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
Iāll never look into your eyesā¦again
Can you picture what will be
So limitless and free
Desperately in needā¦of someā¦strangerās hand
In aā¦desperate land
I have realised their is some not bad stuff from the 80ās, where as in the past I have tended to dismiss the decade re films to a degree.
Of course we do.
One reason is that I like all the modish modern stuff like rapid cuts, shaky cams and CGI efffects. And like the complicated storytelling in so many modern films. Of course most is based on older films, but art is always based on former art. And modern films do work with the patterns they are build on, not only repeating them.
Different yes, but also better imo. The average film of today is much better directed than the average film of the 80s, the 60s or the 40s.
Just look at action scenes. Even the cheapest films know how to do them on a technical level. I rarely (or never) see the stiff and lame stuff which ruins so many older action scenes.
I see a lot of angles, rapid cutting and of course more technological possibilities, but I donāt think action scenes (in general) have improved much since the eighties. This is also a subjective matter.
Regarding the directors, a lot of them have little to no vision. Just as in any decade. There are merely a few that rise above. But the medium film itself is more accessible today, and thatās good for enthusiasts. But maybe not so good for the average movie quality.
The action scenes today are different as so much CGI is used for one thing. These scenes can sometimes look to polished.
Some things in movies got better, some got worse. Best CGI wonāt replace great practical special effects for me. Ohā¦ and of courseā¦
one thing for me is that modern films just tend to have too much money involved which ends up resulting in crappy films without much character. too many beautiful people and too much reliance on things that cost money instead of interesting filmmaking.
i dont mind cgi however it is less impressive to look at and too many films use it as a pass to do anything on the table.