28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Watashi]

I randomly watched True Lies which I don't think I've ever seen from beginning to end. Maybe this was enjoyable fluff in the 90's, but jesus, this was a sexist piece of shit. This film would never get made today.

Also, remember when Tom Arnold was big? The 90's were weird.

[Dukefrukem]

True Lies is still enjoyable and it's probably Arnold's third best movie.

[Grouchy]

This film would never get made today.

Yeah, I know, and I find that depressing.

[Ezee E]

I randomly watched True Lies which I don't think I've ever seen from beginning to end. Maybe this was enjoyable fluff in the 90's, but jesus, this was a sexist piece of shit. This film would never get made today.

Also, remember when Tom Arnold was big? The 90's were weird.

Great action sequences though.

[Yxklyx]

I always mix that one up with True Romance. That one's still good isn't it?

[Skitch]

I always mix that one up with True Romance. That one's still good isn't it?

Hell yes it is.

[Spinal]

This is a public service announcement that this Polish mermaid horror-musical (and my favorite film of the year) gets a Criterion release today. Hopefully more of you get a chance to check it out.

[Irish]

Scorsese on Rotten Tomatoes, "mother!", & the current climate. Love this.

When I was young, box office reports were confined to industry journals like The Hollywood Reporter. Now, I'm afraid that they've become…everything. Box office is the undercurrent in almost all discussions of cinema, and frequently it’s more than just an undercurrent. The brutal judgmentalism that has made opening-weekend grosses into a bloodthirsty spectator sport seems to have encouraged an even more brutal approach to film reviewing. I’m talking about market research firms like Cinemascore, which started in the late '70s, and online “aggregators” like Rotten Tomatoes, which have absolutely nothing to do with real film criticism. They rate a picture the way you'd rate a horse at the racetrack, a restaurant in a Zagat's guide, or a household appliance in Consumer Reports. They have everything to do with the movie business and absolutely nothing to do with either the creation or the intelligent viewing of film. The filmmaker is reduced to a content manufacturer and the viewer to an unadventurous consumer.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...column-1047286

[Spinal]

This actually became a news story — mother! had been “slapped” with the “dreaded” Cinemascore F rating, a terrible distinction that it shares with pictures directed by Robert Altman, Jane Campion, William Friedkin and Steven Soderbergh.

Boom! Great article.

[baby doll]

To be fair, all of those directors have made some pretty dreadful movies.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I liked Bug and The Box and don't think Feardotcom deserves to be the punchline it is (it's bad, don't get me wrong).

[Spinal]

I really like In the Cut as well. Now if it had been Portrait of a Lady, that would be a different story.

[Dukefrukem]

Loved Bug.

[Mr. McGibblets]

Is the Altman movie Quintet? I remember that being really bad.

[Spinal]

Is the Altman movie Quintet? I remember that being really bad.

Dr T and the Women

[Grouchy]

Bug has an F on Metacritic? That film is fucking great.

[baby doll]

Dr T and the Women

I actually like this film a lot, but then, how can anyone not like a movie where Richard Gere drives directly into a tornado?

My least favourite Altman is A Wedding, but there are still a whole lot I haven't seen that might be even worse. And yes, Quintet is really bad.

[Spinal]

how can anyone not like a movie where Richard Gere drives directly into a tornado?

This is a really good question. You got me sold.

[Idioteque Stalker]

True Romance I watched this year and it is horrible. True Lies I watched in middle school and it is good.

[Peng]

I feel like it's weird to lump Cinemascore in with RT. The former actually reflects how the audience feels about the film, and used more to measure the degree to which a film pleases, disappoints, or matches up with expectation with the general public. Like, it's much more an "after the fact" thing than RT, and I don't think I ever see anyone uses it as a quality measure (it's used more as expecting how strong word-of-mouth or how much leg it will have, etc). So the F isn't indicative of the film's quality as much as how the general audience feels about the film.

[Spinal]

I think Scorsese's basic point is that a film's value shouldn't lie in how a general audience responds to it within minutes of leaving the theater, or how easily it's appeal can be reduced to a marketing campaign. Even the Tomatometer these days is filled with people who have significantly less insight and experience than the typical poster on this very site. And yet they are a part of that dreaded percentage that carries so much weight. (I realize the irony in me saying this, as a frequent movie 'rater' and someone who plays a 'guess the box office returns' game.)

Scorsese's right to say that a film (made by a capable artist) is made to be experienced, absorbed and discussed. And he's probably right in insinuating that this grading/box-office obsessed mentality has a lot to do with safe crowd-pleasers like Marvel, Pixar and Disney dominating the landscape.

Like mother! or don't, but regardless, I think it's pathetic that this is a film that many are characterizing as incomprehensible, and suggests that the majority of the film-going audience is functionally illiterate when it comes to being able to read metaphor and allegory.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I've always wondered what people did when they left the theater for a movie like Last Year in Marienbad back in the day.

[Irish]

Like mother! or don't, but regardless, I think it's pathetic that this is a film that many are characterizing as incomprehensible, and suggests that the majority of the film-going audience is functionally illiterate when it comes to being able to read metaphor and allegory.

On one hand, I agree totally.

On the other, I can't blame a general audience weaned on shitty blockbusters and junk TV when they freak out over that film. The industry spent the last 25 years lowering expectations and teaching people to be dumber. Almost everything nowadays plays on the surface, every moment contains a single idea, and every line is meant to be taken literally.

The critics got dumber too, because you can't write and interpret a work when there's nothing to write about and nothing to interpret. The only thing you can do is talk about movie stars and special effects. Do that month after month, year over year and you'll get hacky.

The only thing that's really surprised me is how much the language of marketers --- Cinemascore, Rotten Tomatoes, box office reports, toy sales --- has permeated fan culture. (I'm at the point where I actively resent that I know what "Cinemascore" is, and I have a background in marketing.)

Anyway, releasing a non-commercial film, like "mother!", that's the antithesis of that --- into 2,000 theaters simultaneously --- seems outright insane.

[baby doll]

Yeah, I've always wondered what people did when they left the theater for a movie like Last Year in Marienbad back in the day.

It was pretty controversial, both in France and the United States, but the debates tended to be framed in terms of how accessible the film was rather than how profitable.

[Grouchy]

mother! has 68% on RT. That's not so bad for a divisive film.