There's hardly anyone here. *sighs* The younger generation needs to watch older movies.
-
tripperM — 20 years ago(September 29, 2005 10:38 AM)
Untitled Transformers Film (2007) AKA: YET ANOTHER TOY MOVIE
The Island (2005) AKA: 6TH DAY REDUX
The Lionel Richie Collection (2003) AKA: NICOLE'S DADDY'S COMEBACK
Bad Boys II (2003) AKA: BAD BOYS, MORE OF THE SAME ONLY LOUD
Pearl Harbor (2001) AKA: BEN DOES AN "A" FLICK
Armageddon (1998) AKA: BRUCE TRIES ACTING
The Rock (1996) AKA: WHAT A HUGE ROCK OF CRAP.
Bad Boys (1995) AKA: DRAGNET, LEATHAL WEPON, STARSKY & HUTCH (AD INFINITUM)
OK. HERES MICHAEL'S LIST. HE AND CECIL ARE THE SAME IN ONE WAY, THEY BOTH LIKE BIG, LOUD PRODUCTIONS WITH THE FEEL OF AN EPIC. I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THAT MICHAEL BAY SHOULD BE ON THE SAME LIST AS PECKINPAH, DEMILLE, CAMERON, SCORSESE, AND KUBRICK, THOUGH. IT WILL TAKE TIME TO GET TO THE "A" LIST. PETER JACKSON GOT A BOOST TO THE TOP OF THE NEWBIE LIST BECAUSE HE TOOK CHANCES OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM WITH A NEW IDEA (NEW TO THE SCREEN - AND I DON'T COUNT THE ANIMATED MOVIES)AND AN EPIC PORPORTIONED PRODUCTION. MICHAEL BRAY IS A SYSTEM CAT USING THE STANDARDS TO CONVEY A SUBPAR STORY TO AN UNSUSPECTING AUDIENCE THAT GLADLY ACCEPTS THIS TRIPE WRAPPED IN PRETTY FACES AND PLENTY OF PYROTECHNICS.
I GOTTA AGREE THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH IN THE WAY OF NEW MOVIES THAT I'VE BEEN IMPRESSED WITH. I HAVEN'T BEEN TAKEN IN BY A MOVIE IN A LONG WHILE. AND I HATE THE FACT THAT THERE IS SO MUCH RE-HASHING. WE'VE LOST THE ART OF FILM MAKING AND HAVE TURNED IT INTO A MARKETING TOOL AGAIN LIKE IT WAS IN THE 30s WHEN THE STUDIO PICKED, GROOMED, AND MARKETED STARS.
IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TO MAKE A MOVIE ANYMORE. ANY MORON W/ A CAMERA CAN "MAKE A MOVIE" BUT DISPLAYING AN ART FORM IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I BETCHA! NAME A RECENT MOVIE AND IT HAS A COUNTERPART IN EARLY HOLLYWOOD (AND PROBABLY BETTER DONE)
THE LAST GREAT MOVIES I SAW WAS THE LOR TRILOGY AND BIG FISH. HELL, THERE'S BETTER STUFF BEING PRODUCED ON THE TELLE!
live the life you love, use the god you trust,
and don't take it all too seriously -
-
xerses13 — 18 years ago(June 08, 2007 05:54 PM)
After Dr. STRANGELOVE Kubrick did not make a good movie. Starting with that bore 2001 it was all downhill. 2001 was just a bunch of 'Chariots of the Gods' nonsense. If you need to take drugs (for the 'trip') or be drunk to enjoy a movie it must be crap. As for Peckinpah if he had not the perfect cast (all pros) in THE WILD BUNCH he would'nt be remembered at all. Except for expending more ammunition then this country did during the Spanish-American War. We saw both films upon there original release, they have not improved with time.
-
Phalanx666 — 19 years ago(April 12, 2006 12:24 PM)
Indeed Heavely Creatures is great. Yes there are great movies in every decade, but they rarely are a hit in the theaters nowadays. 5 years after release people start discovering said movies and tout them as great. There's enough examples of that.
-
LLink2411 — 19 years ago(April 14, 2006 11:09 AM)
I was going to post my view here, then I remembered why I stopped coming here a few years back (you should be able to understand that as I meant it with no explanation).
Seriously now, we need more directors; we cannot wait on old men to change their ways. There will always be the undesirables, but there will also always be change.
"To wish to live, and deny another that luxury is a sin that can 111cnever be forgiven." -
vinidici — 17 years ago(August 05, 2008 02:47 AM)
marcin_kukuczka: "I am 26 years old and admire DeMille's movies. He was the man that started everything that is powerful in world cinema. Since his productions, every movie that is successful nowadays has SOME source in Cecil B DeMille."
Actually, it would be more correct to attribute "starting everything that is powerful in world cinema" to D.W. Griffith. Every filmmaker since Griffith owes something to this great motion picture pioneer, including C.B. DeMille. -
vinidici — 17 years ago(August 07, 2008 01:52 AM)
Well, of course DeMille deserves his spot in the pantheon of great filmmakers, and I care even more about what I just flushed down "the john" than all the ugly talk hurled at DeMille by his detractors, because I very much like most of his pictures.
Wonder why none of the people on the C.B. DeMille "hate bandwagon" ever mention that he readily agreed, at Charlton Heston's behest, to include the blackballed liberal Edward G. Robinson in the cast of "The Ten Commandments?" DeMille was a more complex human being than he's usually credited for having been, and probably saved Robinson's career on account of that (benign) complexity.
That being said, it was D.W. Griffith who was the true, prime trailblazer of American cinema. DeMille came along when Griffith, by the former's arrival in 1914 with "The Squaw Man," had already mastered most of his cinematic technique several years prior. I would have to say that, were it not for what Griffith contributed to the making of motion pictures, DeMille himself would probably not have had much of a career, if at all, in the industry and would (as I see it) have been largely forgotten decades ago. -
cwente2 — 17 years ago(August 08, 2008 04:39 PM)
I like your post, but I'll stick with the idea that others, besides Griffith, contributed mightily to the beginnings of the film industry. Griffith, no doubt, was a big contributor, but I think it's overstating his influence to relegate DeMille and, derivatively, others to ended careers were it not for him. Griffith was important, certainly, but not indispensable (few people are in any field). Films as a popular medium were inevitable, I think, with or without any one particular contributer. . . Have you read "A Million and One Nights" (a history of films through 1925)? If not, I think you would enjoy it immensely. It gives a lot of credit to Griffith but, to others as well. It's been so long since I read it, though, I'm weak on the particulars.
-
vinidici — 17 years ago(August 09, 2008 03:44 AM)
Thanks for the book recommendation, cwenteI shall order it from my local public library after I finish the one I'm currently reading.
I might have misconveyed what I intended to say about D.W. Griffith's impo16d0rtance to filmmaking. It's WHAT HE BROUGHT to motion pictures. You're probably right to imply that someone else, in lieu of Griffith, would have developed much the same, much-celebrated techniques that Griffith specialized in; but, for the sake of argument, if Griffith had never joined the industry and if NO ONE had discovered those techniques, then it seems likely to me that there would be no motion picture industry as we know it and DeMille wouldn't have had a very long career, nor would anyone else in the industry.
Up until Griffith's arrival, the novelty of movies (mostly one-reelers) was beginning to wear thin with the public. Without all the things he brought to the making of films, the motion picture industry would have foundered while still in its infancy, except for its (most likely) continuance in newsreels, documentaries/educational films, and propaganda.
If the truth be known, Griffith himself is indebted to Edison employee and director Edwin S. Porter, who, of course, directed 1903's "The Great Train Robbery." Porter taught everything he knew to Griffith and Griffith went on to further develop Porter's techniques and possibly those of other filmmakers (Georges Milies, of "A Trip to the Moon" (1902) fame, comes to mind) and combined them with his own innovative discoveries to create the film narrative as we know it today.
I will even go so far as to say that Cecil B. DeMille would go on to exceed the work done by Griffith, which is really obvious enough, when you think of it; Griffith went stagnant and couldn't overcome the dead ends he'd reached in his career; despite the financial success of "Birth of a Nation," Griffith would never overcome the cloud that formed over his head in the wake of all the controversy and civil unrest that that film generated. That's why, when you compare the money earned by DeMille and his entire filmography with what Griffith and all of his pictures earned, DeMille comes out way ahead.
Well, I'm just rambling now and it's in the wee hours of the morning and I'll just have to hope that I made my point convincingly enough. But I must sum it all up (with all due respect to one of cinema's greatest showmen, Cecil B. DeMille) by again stating that Griffith was, at least in a historical sense, of higher significance than DeMille or, for that matter, any other director that has risen in Hollywood during the past 100 years. -
PublicDomain — 18 years ago(August 23, 2007 07:08 PM)
"There's hardly anyone here. sighs The younger generation needs to watch older movies."
It's sad that you blame this on the "younger generation". If he was one of the greats, why are his movies rated so low? I don't think it has to do with the younger generation, I'm pretty sure it has to do with the quality of his films. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 15, 2007 04:14 PM)
PublicDomain,
Uh huh. But . . . what, exactly, do you mean by "quality"? It's been my experience that quality in art is a subjective matter (except, perhaps, in areas strictly technical). It's always been the view of the NY film school types that DeMille's pictures fall short in virtually every case. I think this is due as much to the themes and messages of DeMille's pictures as to his technique as a producer/director. Often, the raves and "boos" of the elites are at odds with the movie-going public who are, by and large, looking for entertainment. An interesting question, and one which has been asked repeatedly since Melies took his trip to the moon: Which of these two groups is a film maker most obliged to satisfy in a medium often referred to as "the 'public' art"? There was no doubt, I am sure, in Cecil B. DeMille's mind as to whom he owed the debt. -
lostinaction — 18 years ago(December 05, 2007 10:15 PM)
Please don't always complain about younger generations. Some of these old Movie are historical artifacts. They are silent, have no coulor it's not easy to watch. This days you have so many videogames, movies, books, etc to discover even the younger generation has to seperate what they want to watch or not. It's not easier for them it's more difficult.
Of course it is said that today nobody knows anymore about DeMille (John Ford who?) or any great directors and producers of the last century, but thats the way it is.
Don't complain if it is important for you than talk to younger people about these movies. Why you like them, what was your emotions when you watched them first and so on. Then you can help few young people (and more with the time) to open their heart for the old movies. -
pete36 — 17 years ago(April 20, 2008 05:32 AM)
The big problem with Hollywood movies these days that they are all aimed at 15-year old (American) kids, with lots of CGI,explosions, crude crummy jokes and lots of bad acting. There are exceptions but they are too few.
Older movies were made primaraly with an adult audience in mind. I recently saw Demille's "North West Mounted Police" wich is an extremely well made piece of cinema. It looks so good (thanks to great Technicolor) and is so intelligently directed by Demille that there is nothing to compare it with modernday cinema (maybe with the notable exception of LOR).