VoVat Prejudges the Movies
Dec. 16th, 2010 11:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatI was just thinking last night that I'm not really a movie person. Not that I don't LIKE movies, just that they're probably the type of media in which I find it most difficult to invest. I think a lot of it has to do with the time commitment. Books usually have convenient stopping points, and there are always bookmarks if I can't make it to one. (FINDING bookmarks is a different matter, but that's another issue.) You can save most video games these days. I can listen to music and do other simple tasks at the same time. I don't watch a whole lot of TV either, but at least you get that in manageable chunks. Movies, though? You really have to put aside time for those. Sure, you can pause a movie you're watching on DVD, but I don't like to. It just doesn't seem right to start a movie and not watch the whole thing at once (provided you WANT to see the film, that is), and that's time you really can't do anything else. I realize that this is all based on my personal hang-ups, but I'm just wondering if it explains why I've never really been a film buff. In fact, most of the movies I see totally of my volition are based on books I've read. I guess I'm mostly into fantasy and absurdist comedy, which are somewhat underrepresented in the theaters these days anyway. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bethje likes horror and disturbing movies (Requiem for a Dream is one of her favorites), so I've watched a fair number of those with her. It sometimes seems like I prefer things that are better than real life while she likes things that are worse, but that's oversimplifying. It's not that everything I watch has to be happy (and indeed, things that go too far in that direction come off as saccharine, and I'm not too fond of that), but I like movies (and books, TV shows, etc.) that provide an escape from reality. Anyway, it doesn't help that most of the movies that come out look like crap. That doesn't mean they necessarily ARE crap. Some of them could be awesome, but the commercials and descriptions I've seen do nothing to reflect that. Let's look at what's currently playing in my area, and what I might actually want to see:
Burlesque - Everything I've heard about this movie makes it sound terrible.
Due Date - I know practically nothing about this, but the description says it's a race against time. Okay, that's not necessarily bad, but it doesn't sell it for me either. Besides, ever since I've heard of Robert Downey Jr. falling asleep in the neighbor's kid's bed, I've had a hard time differentiating him from the Bogeyman.
Faster - Okay, can we stop with these generic-sounding titles? I know you can't judge a movie by its title, but that name does nothing to differentiate your movie from any other. It's apparently about The Rock trying to get revenge on his brother's killer. Yeah, the description sounds just as generic as the name. I have a feeling I won't even remember this movie exists next time I see a commercial for it.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 - Now here's a movie I actually want to see, but, well, I've read the book and seen the other movies. I can't understand why one of the slower-paced books in the series is the one they decided to split into two films, but maybe it'll make sense once I see both of them. I just wish this had come out back when the Harry Potter series was still fresh in my mind.
Megamind - Wow, a Dreamworks film that's NOT about talking animals with celebrity voices! Well, the celebrity voices are still there, but they're not talking animals, so that's something. Still not interested, though.
Morning Glory - Romantic comedies in general tend to rub me the wrong way. Rachel McAdams is cute, but that doesn't make me want to see everything she's in.
Skyline - A movie about invading aliens? They should have called this Clichéline!
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - Definitely want to see it, although I'm still kind of bummed out that Prince Caspian left out my favorite part of the book, and I hope this one doesn't do the same. It should be worth it for the visuals even if nothing else, though.
Black Swan - I've already seen Suspiria, so I figure I don't need to watch any more movies about ballerinas. By the way, isn't there a Tori Amos song with that title?
Love and Other Drugs - Hey, another romantic comedy! I'll pass.
Red - Hey, another action movie with a generic title! Again, I'll pass.
Tangled - I feel I really should see this, but I'm not so keen on the computer animation. Is it just because it's not what I'm used to? I don't know.
The Next Three Days - The only thing I want to see Russell Crowe in is a phone-throwing contest with Naomi Campbell.
The Social Network - This movie bugs me for some reason. Maybe because I don't think Facebook is anything worth making a movie about, or maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction against what's popular. I don't know. I understand that it paints Mark Zuckerberg as unlikeable, though, so that could be a point in its favor.
The Tourist - The tourist in question isn't Twoflower, so who cares?
The Warrior's Way - I've never gotten into the whole martial arts scene, even though I did do Tae Kwon Do for a little while in my high school years.
TRON: Legacy - The original movie came out when I was a kid, but I didn't see it then, so it doesn't have the nostalgia factor for me that it does for some of my peers. I did watch it a few months ago, but it doesn't really hold up, seeing as how it focuses on computer effects that were state-of-the-art at the time, but that now look like they were made by a ten-year-old with access to Flash. So, yeah, no desire to see the sequel.
Unstoppable - How many action movies do they need at one time?
Actually, two movies I definitely want to see and one I might is a pretty good showing. Two of them are based on fantasies I've read and the other on a classic fairy tale, however, so it's not like I'd be leaving my comfort zone with any those.
bethje likes horror and disturbing movies (Requiem for a Dream is one of her favorites), so I've watched a fair number of those with her. It sometimes seems like I prefer things that are better than real life while she likes things that are worse, but that's oversimplifying. It's not that everything I watch has to be happy (and indeed, things that go too far in that direction come off as saccharine, and I'm not too fond of that), but I like movies (and books, TV shows, etc.) that provide an escape from reality. Anyway, it doesn't help that most of the movies that come out look like crap. That doesn't mean they necessarily ARE crap. Some of them could be awesome, but the commercials and descriptions I've seen do nothing to reflect that. Let's look at what's currently playing in my area, and what I might actually want to see:Burlesque - Everything I've heard about this movie makes it sound terrible.
Due Date - I know practically nothing about this, but the description says it's a race against time. Okay, that's not necessarily bad, but it doesn't sell it for me either. Besides, ever since I've heard of Robert Downey Jr. falling asleep in the neighbor's kid's bed, I've had a hard time differentiating him from the Bogeyman.
Faster - Okay, can we stop with these generic-sounding titles? I know you can't judge a movie by its title, but that name does nothing to differentiate your movie from any other. It's apparently about The Rock trying to get revenge on his brother's killer. Yeah, the description sounds just as generic as the name. I have a feeling I won't even remember this movie exists next time I see a commercial for it.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 - Now here's a movie I actually want to see, but, well, I've read the book and seen the other movies. I can't understand why one of the slower-paced books in the series is the one they decided to split into two films, but maybe it'll make sense once I see both of them. I just wish this had come out back when the Harry Potter series was still fresh in my mind.
Megamind - Wow, a Dreamworks film that's NOT about talking animals with celebrity voices! Well, the celebrity voices are still there, but they're not talking animals, so that's something. Still not interested, though.
Morning Glory - Romantic comedies in general tend to rub me the wrong way. Rachel McAdams is cute, but that doesn't make me want to see everything she's in.
Skyline - A movie about invading aliens? They should have called this Clichéline!
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - Definitely want to see it, although I'm still kind of bummed out that Prince Caspian left out my favorite part of the book, and I hope this one doesn't do the same. It should be worth it for the visuals even if nothing else, though.
Black Swan - I've already seen Suspiria, so I figure I don't need to watch any more movies about ballerinas. By the way, isn't there a Tori Amos song with that title?
Love and Other Drugs - Hey, another romantic comedy! I'll pass.
Red - Hey, another action movie with a generic title! Again, I'll pass.
Tangled - I feel I really should see this, but I'm not so keen on the computer animation. Is it just because it's not what I'm used to? I don't know.
The Next Three Days - The only thing I want to see Russell Crowe in is a phone-throwing contest with Naomi Campbell.
The Social Network - This movie bugs me for some reason. Maybe because I don't think Facebook is anything worth making a movie about, or maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction against what's popular. I don't know. I understand that it paints Mark Zuckerberg as unlikeable, though, so that could be a point in its favor.
The Tourist - The tourist in question isn't Twoflower, so who cares?
The Warrior's Way - I've never gotten into the whole martial arts scene, even though I did do Tae Kwon Do for a little while in my high school years.
TRON: Legacy - The original movie came out when I was a kid, but I didn't see it then, so it doesn't have the nostalgia factor for me that it does for some of my peers. I did watch it a few months ago, but it doesn't really hold up, seeing as how it focuses on computer effects that were state-of-the-art at the time, but that now look like they were made by a ten-year-old with access to Flash. So, yeah, no desire to see the sequel.
Unstoppable - How many action movies do they need at one time?
Actually, two movies I definitely want to see and one I might is a pretty good showing. Two of them are based on fantasies I've read and the other on a classic fairy tale, however, so it's not like I'd be leaving my comfort zone with any those.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-12-17 11:32 am (UTC)I also agree about the time investment--I often don't get enough time between work, supper, and other stuff to watch a movie before bed, and I don't want to have to watch the second half the next day. I got Coraline from Netflix and it's been sitting here for a month. I gotta learn how to rip this stuff to my HD so I can keep them coming, and just watch the ones I want when I want...
no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 05:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-17 11:48 am (UTC)We went to see the facebook movie when it first came out, I am told it's not very true to the actual story, but I enjoyed it none the less. It makes Mark Zuckerburg look like he has Aspergers, although that may just be how Hollywood likes to portray smart, socially awkward billionaires.
I want to see Tangled (but I am a sucker for kids animation, still- there is a theater in Central Jersey that does pizza and a movie and we love to go there when we are visiting Tom's family. Last time we saw How to Train Your Dragon and it was also really funny and good.) We will probably wait for Netflix on this one, though.
We will probably see the Narnia movie while we have babysitting after Christmas. Just because we saw the other two, and it is the sort of movie that will probably benefit from the big screen.
I am not really a movie buff, but it seems like we still manage to see a fair amount. I am with you on the time committment, our daughter is almost never asleep before 830-9, and at that point we pretty much have to stay up past our bedtime if we want to watch a movie. So we mostly end up playing on the internet or watching shorter things on TV (well, on Hulu mostly.)
no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 05:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-17 02:34 pm (UTC)I think the real reason they split Harry Potter into 2 movies, is because it's a HUGE cash cow for Warner Bros., and since they haven't been able to get their shit together on their superhero films, they've realized that "Oh shit, this is our last guarenteed big-budget money-maker!" It's all about stretching it out to make more money. They don't have anything else coming out soon that a guarentee like Harry Potter.
I want to see Tangled so badly - and Narnia. I just don't know when I can do it. :(
no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 05:32 am (UTC)Obviously what Warner Bros. needs to do is get J.K. Rowling to write some more books! {g}
no subject
Date: 2010-12-17 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 05:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-20 07:01 pm (UTC)I also don't understand why there needs to be a movie about Facebook. It has something ridiculous like 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, so apparently it's awesome, but... meh.
I enjoyed the Deathly Hallows movie. I thought it was pretty faithful and it actually makes sense where they decide to stop it. They included a fair amount of the camping and teenage bickering, so that alone explains why it had to be 2 movies. I think (apart from the obvious money-making issue) they wanted to build up suspense, and it would have felt very rushed in a single 2-hour movie - all the others had lots of stuff cut out of them to make it fit in a film, and maybe they didn't want to do that with the last adventure (plus, again, the money).
Tangled was cute and funny and even had some good songs in it. It didn't feel like a 3D movie too much, either. It reminded me more of the Disney movies from the 90s. It was probably my favorite non-Pixar Disney since Aladdin.
So, I've seen a few lately, but overall, I'd have to agree with you about movies in general. I can sit down and watch an entire disc of a TV show in an evening with no problem, but rarely feel up to watching a "whole movie" (even though that's shorter). I think you're right, it feels wrong to start one if you can't finish it. Watching at home helps some since you can pause it and everything - I usually hate seeing things in the theater unless it's something that will be really worth it (amazing graphics, just can't wait till DVD, etc) because it's too expensive and my butt gets sore in theater chairs.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-22 06:13 pm (UTC)