I can't stand people my age.
-
CmdrCody — 17 years ago(August 01, 2008 07:13 AM)
You bring up a good point. Times and tastes change.
On the IMDb thread, "For Whom The Bell Tolls," contributors comment that the movie is boring ("Zzzz"). They think Sean Connery in "Thunderball" is dull. And they don't like "The Sand Pebbles."
A pity. All three movies showcased great cast chemistry, exotic locales, and sweeping action scenes. There was complex character interaction and development. AND NO STUPID, OVERARCING (SMOTHERING) CGI EFFECTS !!!!
There were many more movies made back then for adults to watch. Now, a new movie plot cannot exceed a 13 year-old's comprehension (and attention span) or else it won't get made.
CmdrCody -
coxm-1 — 16 years ago(December 03, 2009 06:24 AM)
"I know that very well. That's the point I'm trying to make. There are very few people my age who aren't morons. Especially in Alaska. We're the dumbest state in the country."
You all proved that when Alaska elected Sarah Palin Governor. Of course, as a matter of home state pride I submit that Tennessee is the dumbest state in the lower 48. -
jawebster2000 — 10 years ago(May 25, 2015 10:43 PM)
I don't like it when people put Sarah Palin down. She is a solid Conservative and what this country needs right now (May 2015) are people like Palin in charge. I think we can equate the people who don't like Sarah Palin with the same people who don't like this movie and who call it boring. They just don't understand what's good and what's bad and because of people like them, Obama is our president. It is a sad state of affairs!
-
Hancock_the_Superb — 16 years ago(October 25, 2009 12:42 PM)
I think the point has to be made that not all older/"classic" movies hold up well today. For Whom the Bell Tolls is way too long, perhaps out of screenwriter's decision to be slavishly faithful to the novel, and the really fake sets (contrasting with the occasional real landscape shots) and oddball casting definitely hurt it. A Hollywood backlot is not an exotic locale, and if Akim Tamiroff and Ingrid Bergman are Spaniards then I'm Mao Tse-Tung.
For that matter, I like Thunderball, but bringing a Bond movie into the discussion isn't really helping your case either.
That being said, though I prefer classic movies over the modern, most of my friends and associates have at least a few older movies they like, even if it's limited in number or genre. Of course they're going to like movies that have come out in their life time. That's a factor, as is personal taste and preference. Someone might like musicals but hate Westerns, and certainly vice versa. And not everyone is going to enjoy every classic movie ever made, though this point seems lost on a lot of holier-than-thou snobs.
Further, let's not forget the mountains of trash that came out in the "good old days". We have Transformers, you had Beach Party films. The main reason that older movies are held in so high a regard is that most of the drek has been forgotten, and the good (or at least acclaimed) movies remembered.
The inability of many people in my generation to appreciate anything more sophisticated baffles and frustrates me a great deal. But the snobbery of short-sighted, arrogant older people (and a few youngsters who desperately wish to be superior to their peers) towards those who don't share their taste tends to annoy me more.
"I do NOT want your tawdry tales of office lust infecting my newsroom!" -
clash77 — 14 years ago(May 22, 2011 03:47 PM)
"Further, let's not forget the mountains of trash that came out in the "good old days". We have Transformers, you had Beach Party films."
Very true. On the other hand, look at how many more movies are released each year as opposed to the "good old days." I swear it seems like 5 to 10 crappy movies come out EVERY SINGLE WEEK. It's sad to think that on any given month, there might be 2 to 3 movies released that are worth seeing. And that's being generous.
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
D'you know that you can use it? -
rwsmith29456 — 17 years ago(August 19, 2008 10:21 PM)
Glad you got a chance to see a really good movie. You are abviously more mature than your so-called 'friends' and their complete lack of manners. Don't let them influence you. Happy Gilmore is ok when you want to see Happy Gilmore. But if you want to see a movie with a lot of depth, HG isn't going to cut it. Watch "Sand Pebbles".
-
Polaris01313-1 — 17 years ago(November 11, 2008 11:51 PM)
"I think that our nation's youth has lost all of it's good taste and intelligence. I don't think that there's a way out of it."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Just look at the lack of respect the youth have for their elders. It is definately not a pretty picture.
Even as I approach my forties, I still have to deal with punks and teenage smarta**es almost on a daily basis. -
RevertingToType — 17 years ago(December 26, 2008 12:58 PM)
Yeah, sadly it's something you see on internet forums also - the inability to read even a fairly long post, or the suspicion why anyone would even care that much to write a detailed argument. This is largely popular culture being the only influence and setting an increasingly stupid 'consensus', which each generation generally just accepts.
Unfortunately, even before the 'errr, riiight, whatever' culture, films were becoming more trivial and dismissive, but it's accelerated now, since filmmakers cynically pander to viewer's increasingly shallow expectations. -
Memories-Of-Murder — 17 years ago(February 24, 2009 03:30 AM)
huggin_possums, thouhg the probem seems to be getting worst today, i ahve tot ell you that is not just a problem of your generation. It also happend with mine, with the folks born in the 70s and who were teens in the 80s. And for a moment, i was like one of those, when i though that movies like RAMBO II were the best stuff that cinema could bring. Then i saw BLADE RUNNER and everything changed.
Maybe it's a question of oportunity, that they haven't seen the really great movie that will click their minds to better movies. Maybe it's because your freinds came asa pack and thus created that mood for goofying around. Maybe if there was only one of your freidns with you, and he noticed how absorved you were with the moie, he payed attention to it. Much of our behavior is imitation, right? Your interest in THE SAND PEEBLES might had contaged him. If he was alone with you.
"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?" -
Nosferatu6979 — 17 years ago(March 04, 2009 04:57 AM)
Yeah, sadly, the ADD thing seems to be affecting just about everyone these days. I'm approaching 38 years old, and luckily I can still kick back and absorb a slow, well-made, character-driven type movie. A couple of my freinds are both in their 40's, and unfortunately they've both gotten to the point where they can't keep focused on any particular subject for more than a minute or two. 10 years ago, I could carry on a deep conversation with either of them, but not anymore. Even my mother, who's in her 60's now, has gotten to the point where she only wants to watch movies full of explosions and non-stop action. Btw, in reference to an earlier post, I absolutely detested Cloverfield! It needs to die a quick death and be buried in a shallow grave along with the rest of the movies that are filmed shaky-cam style and CGI'd to death! The dialog in that turd of a movie had me completely beside myself! Like when the helicopter is going to crash, and they're screaming bloody murder, then all of a sudden the camera guy is saying "I'm sorry, I'm sorry". WTF??? Or when he's gonna attempt to stop his buddy from going after his GF and he says "You're going to force me to tackle you and try to stop you, which will put us both in a very uncomfortable situation". That sounded so PC and un-ballsy, I felt like throwing up! LOL. I simply would've told the dude "suit yourself" and worry more about saving my own neck. But in this day and age, I guess nothing is more important than making sure to have a video recording of the whole ordeal, even though it cost the dumb schmuck his life! Oh yeah, one last thing. When he's getting ready to leap to the other building, and he says into the camera, "If this is the last thing you see, that means I didn't make the leap and I died". No sh*t Sherlock! LMFAO. That show was laughably pathetic! OK, rant over now. ;o)
-
acmilan03c1 — 17 years ago(March 09, 2009 02:33 AM)
"Maybe it's because your freinds came asa pack and thus created that mood for goofying around. Maybe if there was only one of your freidns with you, and he noticed how absorved you were with the moie, he payed attention to it. Much of our behavior is imitation, right?"
That's quite possibly true. I had the same thing happen to me one day, a few years back, when I was trying to watch Rebecca on TV and some of my friends happened to be in the room. I never made that mistake again They kept bitching about how boring it was and making wisecrack comments, and it was really annoying. And, of course, Rebecca is NOT a boring movie, nor is it too dated. Anyway, at least one of them I know is a guy who knows how to appreciate a good movie (he's even a big fan of Ingmar Bergman's pictures) and yet he too was behaving just like the other two then, joining in the wisecracks. So yeah, group mentality was probably the reason. -
TOMASBBloodhound — 16 years ago(April 19, 2009 07:22 PM)
Come on, people! As we all know if you go into a video store, the best film they have is the one with the most copies available. For that means the film is the newest, and probably a "big hit" and therefore the best thing you could possibly see. Pay no attention to any films that are older than you are, as the values depicted in them have long been outdated. And any humor or the attitudes of any character in an "old" film have long been obsolete.
Can't we all agree that The Dark Knight is the greatest film ever made? Obvioulsy it has to be look at all the money it made. And it's barely a year old! At least until the new Wolverine movie comes out, The Dark Knight must be considered the best film ever made. Or maybe that master thespian Will Smith has something coming out soon..
Oh, and unless its rated PG-13, no film can possibly be considered for "great" status. -
rcvincelli — 16 years ago(July 26, 2009 07:08 PM)
Wow, what a nice post. Its refreshing to know young people such as yourself can appreciate a masterpiece like The Sand Pebbles.
I saw it in the theaters at the tender age of eight with my cousin when it came out in 1966. We were totally engrossed by it and loved Steve McQueen. We even had the good fortune of meeting Steve several times as he used to ride his motorcycle in the same area as we did (Phelan, Ca).
The Sand Pebbles is an epic film that needs to be experienced. All the performances are top notch, especially Steve, Richard Attenborough, Richard Crenna, and Mako. As for Candice Bergenwow, was she hot in this one.
As far as your friends are concernedsighwhat can you say? Its a shame that they do not have the attention span that you do; they missed out on a killer movie. But its not just young people that have no taste or patiencemany of my friends didnt get the movie or thought it was boring. I dont get them. I found it to be thoroughly effective as an action film, a drama, a character study and a love story. The power of the storytelling and emotional resonance is second to none. I have seen this film many timesmore than any other movieonly 2001: A Space Odyssey, Pink Floyd: The Wall and Jacobs Ladder come close.
Anyway, great post. Its wonderful to know that there are young people like you in this world.
Thanks for renewing my faith in our future.
Rich -
CactusHazretleri — 16 years ago(August 20, 2009 01:21 AM)
This movie was very good, and a very interesting theme; I'm a bit older I guess, at about 25, and I have to say that while I really liked the movie, there were a lot of places in which I felt the plot could have moved faster without losing anything. Yes, I'm sure people on here will criticize me for saying that (if they ever read this) but they really could have shaved of at least a half hour of this and maybe closer to forty five minutes and not left anything important out. Perhaps it's a function of people having more to do these days, but we have come to expect that if we haven't received a tremendous psychological blow in the previous scene - and we need to recharge from it - something new and important should be happening in the scene we're watching.
The whole point with a movie is to create an emotional reaction in the viewer and in that sense it's a lot like music - if you play it too quickly or too slowly the effect either changes or you lose it. This movie builds into a fascinating crescendo at the end, but I think it might have done a bit better to keep up the interest in the space before that.
Furthermore, to some extent, yes, movies do get better with every generation of movie makers - it doesn't mean they're all equal or equally original, but it does mean that they're standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak, and therefore might be able to see just a tad farther - without any of that diminishing the accomplishments of their predecessors. Ever since Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, we as audiences have come to take a bit more to turn our stomachs - the element of indescribable horror related to war has to be made explicit either through dialogue about how horrible it is or through a visceral reaction triggered by seeing something awful. That kind of jarring experience has worked its way into the more serious dramas of what can still be considered mainstream cinema today in a way I don't think it had at the time this movie was made. If the movie were made today, for example, the psychological effects on Frank of seeing his friend tortured to death might be explored more fully.
Having said all of that, it's still a phenomenal piece, a very refreshing look at an interesting time and place, which resonates with us now that the lessons of our neocolonial empire and its negative aftereffects start to sink in after 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
On an unrelated note, I'm kind of surprized the Taiwanese allowed a movie that critical of Chiang Kai Shek to be filmed on their island at that time. -
rcvincelli — 16 years ago(September 02, 2009 09:04 PM)
For starters, that was a very nice post!
Twenty-five? You are still a young person!
Glad you enjoyed itand yesthe movie proceeds at a very deliberate pace, but it has a story to tell, and it tells it well.
I loved Full Metal Jacket (all of Stan's work, for that matter), and Apocalypse Now (saw it on a hit of acid!) and The Sand Pebbles is far from shocking today.
But the emotional resonance of this film is second to none. While the shock value is low compared to more modern works, including those war films mentioned above, it has a way of getting under one's skin, simply by virtue of the fact you are inherently involved on an emotional level with the films characters. I wish more movies today had the ability to involve the viewer so acutely with what's happening on the screen.
My initial reply to the OP addressed these issues. With today's short attention span crowdwho are desperate for the instant payoff, this film will probably bore them to deathwhich is very sad.
I absolutely love your music analogy. Well doneand spot on.
I am a huge Pink Floyd fan. I remember trying to play 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' for friends back in 1975, when I was in the US Navy. They made me turn it offbefore the bass and drums even began. I was forced to listen to Foghat instead (I actually like Foghat).
The point is, the payoff here takes timeyou have to invest a bit more of your life in this filmbut the payoff is huge. The hand-to-hand combat at the boom in the finale is, or rather was, gut-wrenching at the time. Which only added to the tension, which was already peaking.
Steve McQueen, one of the greatest athlete's in the world (if you don't think riding a primitive, ill-handling motorcycle at high speeds through the desert terrain is easytry it sometime), but I believe his acting skills were greatly underappreciated. And this IS his best film.
Thanks again for the nice post.
Rich