Your opinion on new movies

Better Old Or New?

Well my personal opinion is that some of these new movies, are just not great. For example you know when in a movie, ur like "No dont go down stairs hes there!!!" and stuff like that? I hate that because if it was you in that position you would most likely high tail it out of that house you know? I wouldnt mind a movie where the deicisons you would make are being made by the characters and still have it scary as heck and a lot more realistic. But thats just my opinion.

What Horror movie fan has never said: "Omg if it were me I would be gone or would never go in there!" However if they (the character) did leave the movie would probably be over. I think that would be funny. Where a movie has this like hot girl entering a building that has no lights and has just saw her boyfriend cut to pieces by a jigsaw...she says no way in Hell I am going in there and then it ends I want to see that I do.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Haha, thats what im saying it would be a challenge, but what if the killer follows her? And ya i agree with you that would be kinda funny lol.

__________________
Its not about how many hits you make, its about how many hits you can take, and still move forward! Its about moving forward!!

There are a lot of **** 'new' films. However there have been some excellent ones. I think Sin City will be a classic such as Taxi Driver in the future. I think the trouble now is that a lot of the mainstream movies are awful. A ton of cash ins, sequels, franchises and naff comedies. Also there are a ton of horror flicks coming out one after another. I think this is an effort to grab ticket sales from teens who go to see these crappy 15 rated (UK) movies.

There are a lot of movies that are good but usually the lesser advertised ones. However we must remember that for every Taxi Driver there are a heap of **** films. In the 80s not every film was great ^^

A few of my favourite recent (new) films:

Sin City
Kill Bill Vol.1
Lord of War
Little Miss Sunshine
Enduring Love
Fearless
Shortbus
The Squid and the Whale
Kung Fu Hustle
OldBoy
Million Dollar Baby
Bubba Ho Tep
Ichi the Killer
28 Days Later
Tsotsi
Gangs of New York
Clerks 2


What are we talking about when we say 'new' films? 2000 onwards?

I don't know, I find since the late 90's the movies have been getting weaker and weaker. Mind you there are quite a few good ones, but I am kinda getting tired of the remake thing and the sequals that go on too long. I like the old ones better, 1990 down to the classics of the 50's and 60's.

__________________
"I'm melting...I'm melting"

It's hard to say. There have always been some very good and very bad movies. CG has made some movies very good, but made most of them very bad. For me, the Golden Age was from about 1977 to about 1988. There were a few good films during the mid-90's, then a constant barrage of huge, over-the-top CG and explosion fests in the past decade (Star Wars, Lord or the Rings, Matrix, Harry Potter, Pirates, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc). I think a return to smaller, more intimate films that focus on acting, story and drama is coming.

I think your right, but then once in a while there will be a big boom and there will be an amazing coming out. I think like this Live Free or Die Hard. I think that is going to be one **** of an amazing movie.

Old movies ( 80's ) is what I like.. old but that old .. not black and white old

But the Black And White Comedy gets me once in a while i must admit haha

I think the quality of films is generally on an upswing right now. The surviving old stuff has survived because it had something that kept it going, so comparing it to everything that is churned out today is not fair - the wheat hasn't separated from the chaff yet. But I think that in the last 3 years or so, there's been a swing toward making films that have some meaning. I'd cite the influx of scripts like the following:
Lost in Translation
Eternal Sunshine...
Crash
Babel
3 Burials of Melquiades Estrada

Even many of the silly comedies have had a deeper meaning if you care to look. Same with horror (Session 9 is about vengeance... The Machinist is about guilt... American Psycho is about the dangers of superficiality).

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

There is a lot of crap being churned out these days...but when was that ever not the case? There are just as many crappy old films as crappy new films. It's the new remakes of old films that weren't all that good the first time round that bugs me.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Like?

They seem to be either really good, or really bad. Except for recent horror movies, they seem to be all poop and no piss - that's bad.

I've also been thinking...

Recent movies are being cranked out under ridiculous conditions (time, money, etc.). So, when a script calls for a bar scene, a cafeteria scene, a club scene, a garage scene, a hospital scene, park scene, party scene, etc., etc., they seem to have this preplanned scenario that could work within any script. All you'd have to do to have your movie made would be to plug your characters into these ready-made environments. For example, Norbit seemed to do this. Everything was generic.

Does anyone understand what I'm talking about?

__________________

Originally Posted by DVDGUY

There are a lot of **** 'new' films. However there have been some excellent ones. . . .a lot of the mainstream movies are awful. A ton of cash ins, sequels, franchises and naff comedies. Also there are a ton of horror flicks coming out one after another. I think this is an effort to grab ticket sales from teens who go to see these crappy 15 rated (UK) movies.

I agree with you on the poor quality of many of the new mainstream movies, especially the repetitive horror flicks. A lot of that seems to be aimed at pre-teens, with a lot of remakes of old TV series for the baby-boomers. I also find some of the better films are the ones that don't get the big advertisement push.

Of course, I peg my version of "old" films back a few decades earlier than the 1980s--My favorites are the classics from the 1930s, the 1940s, and the 1950s. But for every Maltese Falcon there were several forgetable mysteries in the "Boston Blackie," "Charlie Chan," and "The Saint" series. For each comedy like "Pat and Mike" there were many less-than-funny features starring Lucille Ball and Martha Raye. Even some of the classics weren't that popular with everyone; I myself have never been a fan of "Bringing Up Baby." Still, there's something to be said about movies that launched the careers of stars like Chaplin, Keaton, Cagney, Bogart, Wayne, Bacall, Fonda, and the Hepburns (Kate and Audrey), especially when those films still entertain new fans 50-70 years after they were made. It would be interesting to see how many films from the 1980s-2010 will still be popular in 2060.

You're right, of course. Comparing the best of an age with the bulk of poorly made movies in recent years isn't really fair. And there are things they can do with new technology that couldn't be done years ago--a film like the Lord of the Rings series couldn't have been made in the pre-computer years, not even with the fabled "cast of thousands" that is no longer affordable. Plus people are trained in movie making now in colleges and places like the Sundance institute, so they should know more about acting and directing at a younger age than Raoul Walsh and John Huston and folks who started out as dancers, musicians, rodeo riders, stuntmen, and secretaries and became stars by being in the right place at the right time. The biggest weakness that I see in modern Hollywood is that the accountants have more say than ever about the cast and direction of multi-million dollar films and the lack of really good writers to produce scripts, compared with the many famous novelists who once wrote Hollywood scripts.

Maybe we have a greater capacity to make movies than like 50 years ago, and there's SO many more production companies, they can just churn out as much junk as they please. I think that percentage-wise, there is a higher percentage that an old movie would be good merely because there weren't as many movies made back then. I'm not talking 90s, but in the classic years of 1950s. But there's still more than enough "good" films to choose from each year and the number of good films probably has stayed relatively constant.

For me it doesn't matter whether the movie are new or old. It depends on the quality of movie and the story that inspired the viewers.

I'm not sure that's true. I've seen statistics (none that I actually quote at the moment) that indicated many more people regularly went to the movies in, say, the 1930s-1950s than do today. What's more, people would go to 2-4 different films per week. I remember in the 1950s that a film would play 2-3 days at a theater and then would be replaced by another film; now the same film plays for weeks at a time. Think about the numbers involved--there were more individual movie theaters back then--even the smallest towns would have at least one theater. And there was a whole element of movie theaters that are virtually non-existent today--the drive-in movies! So you have more theaters, each showing 3-4 different films per week, some of which were double features, which no longer exist, so that would jump the number of films up to 4-5 per week per theater. Plus the studio system back then had thousands of actors, writers, directors, photographers and others under contract and instantly available to crank out films within a matter of weeks or days, shot on existing back lots and sound stages at minimal costs. Plus there was virtually no competition from television in the 1930s-1940s and well into the 1950s. So the studio system could crank out a lot of films back then. Some were A Horn Blows at Midnight and some were Casablanca.