02-17-2016, 06:34 PM
(02-17-2016, 01:44 PM)McC Wrote: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4763168/
Really? They're reaching back almost thirty years for movies to sequel-ize. It was an okay movie, but come on. Hardly worth repeating. I bring this movie up because it is symptomatic of the sorry state of the industry.
Well, you started strong then went completely down hill. One small portion of your remaining post shows how the sorry state of movies at this time distorts what people call good these days.
Quote:What do you have? Comic books, Adam Sandler and his buddies, Will Ferrell and his buddies, Pixar and pretty much nothing else.
Some number of years ago I came across a list. It was compiled by critics and meant to be "The top 100 movies of the first 100 years". As the name indicates, The American Film Institute thought it would be a good idea to make this list 100 years after the birth of the industry.
I made a decision to at least try watching the entire list (at the time I read the list I think I had already seen maybe 30 of the movies of the original list and about 40 of the revised list a few years later).
To keep the cost and effort down I ended up seeing a large portion of the list on Turner Classic Movies. I still watch that network a lot.
Watching those really old movies a person can't help but to notice how little originality and good story telling today's movie industry has. You'd possibly be surprised to know how many "truly original" movies the past few years are either direct remakes from that era or seem to be based on the movies of the "golden era of movies".
As the main host on the network said before what would be considered an action movie of the time, "Back then they couldn't afford to blow up buildings so they had to rely on good story telling".
