Gary (must find a picture) writes to compliment and chastise me for writing movie reviews of a movie that I should have known in advance what to expect. And I did. And I’m not sorry I did.

All in all, I’m not sure I am cut out to watch movies anymore. Not at 9euros a pop anyway. And this just isn’t because I am becoming a grumpy crank!

Generally my first thought is “I could have spent 9 euros on a book, but I am here instead” and that on its own can be quite a high standard to live up to (even in the case of crap novels). More damning for SF and Fantasy movies in particular “The book was better than this” or “he stole that bit from this book”. One of the reasons I never liked the first Matrix movie was I thought the whole thing was just completely derivative of a number of very good SF books, and a number of not so good ones as well. As well of course as being badly acted, scripted, directed and being internally inconsistent and nonsensical – I am willing to suspend belief not logic,

Further, not having a TV at the moment (1 year TV free in the apartment) also means I am not exposed to bad quality viusal entertaiment on a dauly basis (coffe time excepted) so I have also lost the “no matter how bad this is, it can’t be as bad as TV” instinct.

I can’t say what I am looking for in a movie, because generally I don’t know myself. More and more I find myself asking what the movie is about before making a judgement to go see it. And I mean whats it about in a detailed sense, action, plot, acting, etc – one of the reasons I didn’t go see 28 days later was it sounded like it was going to be crap, and I haven’t heard anything since then to make we want to get/rent it on DVD either. It means I don’t go to the movies much, don’t expect much from the movies I do see and am generally right in not expecting much. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

That a movie should be well directed and acted and wide in scope, yet providing an intimate and revealing character viewpoint goers without saying. As well as that stories should be strong and innovative; in a good way not innvotave in a “I saw this in the matrix lets do it for an hour and a half way”, or “wouldn’t it be cool to do star wars in the 17th Century way” or even a “lets take a theme ride from disney and make it a movie” way! Characters need motivations to do stuff, stuff should not just happen becaus the plot depends on it (Star Wars is a really bad example of this, Annakin and Obi Wan need to fight so Obi Wan needs to talk to Padame and her reaction has to be to run to Annakin (who conveniently told her where he was going, even though he told her NOTHING ELSE IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE!!!) so Obi Wan follows her and Voila! we have a fight scene. Movie over. next!). Stuff should happens because of earlier stuff that happened (that was in charcter and consistent with the setting), or beacuse of random crap that happens, people die all the time from accidents in real life, why not in the movies! And then the characters need to grow (or not) in reacting to all this, causing more stuff to happen and so on.

Gosford Park is a good example of a movie I liked, so is The Ninth Gate, so is Eye of the Beholder, and of is South Park, Shrek and the Addams Family. Like everyone else I enjoy a wide range of movies. I just like mine to be good!

2 Responses to “”

  1. Dan Sullivan Says:

    Surely Eye of the Beholder must be some sort of guilty pleasure movie!

  2. Anonymous Says:

    1) No you mustn’t find a picture
    2) Cinematography is generally deemed to be entertainment – ergo (I know, words are falling out of my butt these days!!), you should be entertained which is another way of just saying; please yourself.
    3) Nothing further occurs at this time
    4) Stop threatening the picture thing, you know I’m on the lamb (not in the nicest way, but not in a murder nor any contravention of human rights or offences against the state act but the last one could be tricky to prove)

    Is mise le meas

Leave a Reply