The popular argument nowadays is that the movie business is tanking because the majority of movies suck. But that’s not really true. Sure, many big, Hollywood movies suck. But for each of those, there are a few smaller, independent movies which are great. In fact, as a whole, I might argue that quality is better than it ever has been thanks to technology greatly driving down the cost to make a film.
As Ebert lays out, the actual problem is with the distribution model. That is, most movie theaters in the U.S. are set up to play only the big ticket items — and again, a good percentage of that is crap. Massive films like Avatar and The Dark Knight disguise this — but only temporarily. This year there wasn’t a film of that magnitude, so we’re seeing it.
Here’s a shocker: the theaters showing actual good movies are doing quite well.
I see a healthy number of movies myself — at least one a week, sometimes two. But I rarely go to the AMCs of the world (in fact, the only time I’ve been to one recently was to see an IMAX). I go to theaters like Sundance which pride themselves on the quality of the experience and the quality of the films they show. You buy a reserved seat and you can buy a drink for the showing. Because it’s a bit more expensive, the audience tends to be better behaved as well. It’s well worth the money.
Ebert has this exactly right and the theater industry would be wise to listen to him. But they won’t. Because next year, we’ll get The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit and a few other massive films. And they’ll think everything is just fine again. And they’ll keep on thinking that until they go out of business. Which will happen.
Reading over them now, a few of the reviews of The Tree of Life are excellent. But if you haven’t yet, go see the film before you read them.
There are films that works of entertainment and films that are works of art. Many try to be a combination of both, and fall short of either. The Tree of Life is a pure work of art.
The first Wolverine spin-off pretty much sucked. Aronofsky was the only reason I was lookingforward to this one. Hard to imagine who they could replace him with that would keep me excited.
Like just about everyone else on the planet, I saw Inception last week when it opened. Then I saw it again two days later. I love that movie. But one of the main reasons I love it isn’t so conventional.
Sure, I love the writing, which manages to make an almost impossibly complex story (at least somewhat) understandable for mainstream appeal. And the acting is good, the action is good, the directing is good, etc. But what I really love is the score and the sound.
“Inception could very well be Nolan’s masterpiece.”
“Inception is a masterpiece. Making a huge film with big ambitions, Christopher Nolan never missteps and manages to create a movie that, at times, feels like a miracle.”
“A wildly entertaining and dazzling mind-trip not to be missed. Kubrick would have been proud.”
“a stunning achievement and the most completely entertaining film I’ve seen in years.”
Yeah, I’d say the reviews of Inception are pretty good so far.
3 early reviews:
“In terms of sheer originality, ambition and achievement, Inception is the movie of the summer, the movie of the year and the movie of our dreams.”
“With physics-defying, thunderous action, heart-wringing emotion and an astonishing performance from DiCaprio, Nolan delivers another true original: welcome to an undiscovered country.”
“In a summer of remakes, reboots and sequels comes Inception, easily the most original movie idea in ages.”
“Due to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the future of MGM and the failure to close a sale of the studio, we have suspended development of ‘Bond 23’ indefinitely”
So with the sequel, over $25 million is going to the main three cast members and director/producer alone, and lets not forger 20% of the first dollar gross. The first film was made for $34 million, all in.
