I loved Babylon. It was absolutely incredible. The frenetic pacing. The excess. The music was incredible. Margot Robbie was amazing. I loved the incredibly elaborate set pieces. The first opening scene was madness. The scene with Tobey McGuire's character was one of the more memorable I have seen in a theatre in a long time.
It's about Hollywood in it's early primitive years, though not much different from today where it swallows up and spits people out. Essentially a foil to Chazelle's La La Land's ode to the sweetness and magic of Hollywood, where this is a nod to the dirty, grimy, insanity of it all. I thought it was highly original and incredibly ambitious. Give me more movies like this rather than green screened avengers multiverse tripe.
I liked it as well, worth seeing for one scene alone. The first "talkie" shoot on the soundstage, absolutely brilliant and hilarious.
I can see how it could be too much for some viewers but I agree we need more films like this instead of the usual comic book stuff.
Couple of movies I've watched recently that are worth mentioning:
"Portrait of a Lady on Fire" Strong recommendation. If you've watched a lot of certain type of cinema, "period drama lesbians" can sound like a movie you've seen before (or at least it sounded like that to me), but this was well worth watching. Looks great, excellent directing, great acting, very well written, just a pleasure to watch. (Low on titillation, which I think was a strength here.) Also, if you have a friend who complains how men dominate movies, this should be a pleasing experience, as this is very much a movie about women. (But not like in an obnoxious way, it's just very naturally that kind of a story.)
"Moonage Daydream"" is a biopic of sorts, although it's really more a montage of live footage, music, and David Bowie talking about his personal history and philosophy. It's the kind of movie that's not for everyone, but I absolutely loved it and it's got a lot going for it that I think make it a much easier watch than a movie like this normally would be. That "a lot" being David Bowie, who has probably never seemed more charismatic and interesting as he does here. The music selections are also great, there's plenty of rare or even previously unseen footage, including consistently great cuts from live concerts.
If you're even a little bit a Bowie fan, this is just an absolute must see, and I think if you're not, this movie will probably help you understand what made David Bowie such an icon. If you have a chance to catch it at some art house theater or festival, it's well worth the price of a ticket. It's an art piece in itself, and definitely a better experience in a theater.
Last edited by Itse; 01-10-2023 at 01:21 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I recently watched this on Tubi and I can't recommend it enough if you're a fan of the following things: mystery fiction and thrillers that often contains slasher, crime fiction, psychological thriller, psychological horror, sexploitation (which are all elements of Giallo which is a genre of Italian film(Blood and Black Lace
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
I loved Babylon. It was absolutely incredible. The frenetic pacing. The excess. The music was incredible. Margot Robbie was amazing. I loved the incredibly elaborate set pieces. The first opening scene was madness. The scene with Tobey McGuire's character was one of the more memorable I have seen in a theatre in a long time.
It's about Hollywood in it's early primitive years, though not much different from today where it swallows up and spits people out. Essentially a foil to Chazelle's La La Land's ode to the sweetness and magic of Hollywood, where this is a nod to the dirty, grimy, insanity of it all. I thought it was highly original and incredibly ambitious. Give me more movies like this rather than green screened avengers multiverse tripe.
Babylon took home the Golden Globe for best score well deserved. Would love this to pick up the Oscar as well, this movie deserves more love and attention.
Back in the olden days this is the kind of movie that would have killed it at Blockbuster and DVD and taken on a second life of revenue to make it more profitable.
Babylon took home the Golden Globe for best score well deserved. Would love this to pick up the Oscar as well, this movie deserves more love and attention.
Back in the olden days this is the kind of movie that would have killed it at Blockbuster and DVD and taken on a second life of revenue to make it more profitable.
You're saying the revenue streams post cinematic release are less lucrative than in "olden days'? I don't know about that.
You're saying the revenue streams post cinematic release are less lucrative than in "olden days'? I don't know about that.
It depends on the movie. It's why we see more big budget/action/adventure movies being pushed by studios because they're accessible to a wider audience and will make most of their money up front.
In the old days, you could get movies that would "flop" in the theatre and have a huge VHS/DVD boom and make their money back and more.
For example, The Shawshank Redemption made $16 million ($25-28 million budget) on it's initial run in the theatre (it was competing with Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump). But it received multiple award nominations and ended up being one of the top video rentals of the year. Then, of course, Turner bought the TV rights in the late 90s and it played on TNT virtually non-stop for years and increased the sales of DVDs.
Same thing with Fight Club, The Big Lebowski, Blade Runner, Dazed and Confused and Office Space.
This is a clip from Hot Ones and Matt Damon explains it really well.
Last edited by KTrain; 01-11-2023 at 10:20 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to KTrain For This Useful Post:
Jim Cummings is one of my new favourite directors. 'Thunder Road (2018) is amazing, and then he made one called 'the beta test' which is kind of like american psycho, but done on a 350k budget. Look forward to what he comes up with next
It depends on the movie. It's why we see more big budget/action/adventure movies being pushed by studios because they're accessible to a wider audience and will make most of their money up front.
In the old days, you could get movies that would "flop" in the theatre and have a huge VHS/DVD boom and make their money back and more.
For example, The Shawshank Redemption made $16 million ($25-28 million budget) on it's initial run in the theatre (it was competing with Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump). But it received multiple award nominations and ended up being one of the top video rentals of the year. Then, of course, Turner bought the TV rights in the late 90s and it played on TNT virtually non-stop for years and increased the sales of DVDs.
Same thing with Fight Club, The Big Lebowski, Blade Runner, Dazed and Confused and Office Space.
This is a clip from Hot Ones and Matt Damon explains it really well.
Yeah lots of people in the movie business are talking about how the loss of DVD and video markets really hurt a lot of movies.
Streaming is a new source of revenue, but streaming is more about the series than it's about the movies, so that's where all the prestige drama has gone for example. They might not make movies like they used to, but the quality and quantity of TV has gone up tremendously, so I think it kind of evens out. In fact I would argue that the audience is mostly a winner, as there's a lot more really good stuff available.
It's also worth remembering that there have also always been trends in what the audience wants from movies. Things go in and out of fashion for various mostly unknown reasons, so it's a little simplistic to say that this or that type of movie died because of streaming. The amount of fantasy themed stuff for example is way up from what it was in the pre-streaming years and pre-GoT.
It depends on the movie. It's why we see more big budget/action/adventure movies being pushed by studios because they're accessible to a wider audience and will make most of their money up front.
In the old days, you could get movies that would "flop" in the theatre and have a huge VHS/DVD boom and make their money back and more.
It's also a about the home theatre experience having gotten a lot better relative to the theatre. There used to be a massive difference, your "big screen" TV at home was maybe 40 inches at most, 480p at most and the sound quality was basically garbage. Now, outside of the most blockbustery blockbusters, there's hardly an advantage to seeing something in a theatre, and that's without considering that you can sit comfortably on your couch and not pay $15 for a bag of popcorn.
I mean, I like movies. By the time Oscars roll around I suspect I'll have seen nearly all of the BP nominees. I will likely have watched none in theatres (unless Avatar or Top Gun get nominated; neither deserves it but the "new" Oscars might dictate they get a nod). It's really just not necessary to see Tar on a big screen.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
It's also a about the home theatre experience having gotten a lot better relative to the theatre. There used to be a massive difference, your "big screen" TV at home was maybe 40 inches at most, 480p at most and the sound quality was basically garbage. Now, outside of the most blockbustery blockbusters, there's hardly an advantage to seeing something in a theatre, and that's without considering that you can sit comfortably on your couch and not pay $15 for a bag of popcorn.
I mean, I like movies. By the time Oscars roll around I suspect I'll have seen nearly all of the BP nominees. I will likely have watched none in theatres (unless Avatar or Top Gun get nominated; neither deserves it but the "new" Oscars might dictate they get a nod). It's really just not necessary to see Tar on a big screen.
I know.
For my family of 3 going to the movies and getting snacks, that would pay for a streaming service for a minimum of 6 months. It makes no sense for me to go to the theatre. 2 hours of entertainment vs months of even better programming.
It depends on the movie. It's why we see more big budget/action/adventure movies being pushed by studios because they're accessible to a wider audience and will make most of their money up front.
In the old days, you could get movies that would "flop" in the theatre and have a huge VHS/DVD boom and make their money back and more.
For example, The Shawshank Redemption made $16 million ($25-28 million budget) on it's initial run in the theatre (it was competing with Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump). But it received multiple award nominations and ended up being one of the top video rentals of the year. Then, of course, Turner bought the TV rights in the late 90s and it played on TNT virtually non-stop for years and increased the sales of DVDs.
Same thing with Fight Club, The Big Lebowski, Blade Runner, Dazed and Confused and Office Space.
This is a clip from Hot Ones and Matt Damon explains it really well.
Adapt or Die Matt. Adapt or Die.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Damon clip ends with a still from The Rainmaker. That's the kind of 90s film that is missing these days - the John Grisham thriller, the cops hunting a serial killer movie, the mid budgeted action thrillers with Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis, Wesley Snipes, Mel Gibson, etc. I've seen them referred to affectionately online these days as Dad Movies. They're the type of film that we as teenagers enjoyed but our 50 year old dads did too and would often go to the cinema to see. Those films aren't getting made today, at least not budgeted similarly and rarely getting theatre releases.
There's probably a bunch of factors rather than just streaming, although that may be the biggest one. Certainly from a financial standpoint as Damon points out. You've also got the narrowing of theatrical windows to blame too. In the 90s a movie would take months to hit home video, so audiences would flock to the theatres if they were interested in watching it. The window now is down to about 45 days before a film hits streaming so you have lots of would be viewers saying "Meh, I'll wait"
Another factor mentioned by Itse is that tastes change. The 35-50 year old man of today (as an example) is not the same as our dad's generation. Compared to them, as a whole we're in a state of almost permanent adolescence, being hugely invested in superhero movies, sci fi, fantasy, video game stuff. That's what makes money today so that's what movie studios serve up to us. The middlebrow dramas of yesteryear rarely get a look in.
CHL mentioned not seeing Tar in a cinema hinting that it's because it's not the thrill ride spectacle type film you would need to see on the big screen. That's fine (and I think the same way too sometimes when deciding what to spend my money on at the theatre), but if we're not supporting smaller fare at the cinema, then all that's going to get released there are CGI blockbusters while everything else gets lower budgets allocated to them and sent straight to streaming.
__________________ "We are no longer living. We are empty of substance, and our head devours us. Our ancestors were more alive. Nothing separated them from themselves."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Swift For This Useful Post:
You're saying the revenue streams post cinematic release are less lucrative than in "olden days'? I don't know about that.
100% it is, for example The Batman made only $11 mill in home video sales while a comparable movie The Dark Knight Rises made $160 mill in home video sales.....I don't see how The Batman could make WB over $150 mill from streaming or other revenue.
The Damon clip ends with a still from The Rainmaker. That's the kind of 90s film that is missing these days - the John Grisham thriller, the cops hunting a serial killer movie, the mid budgeted action thrillers with Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis, Wesley Snipes, Mel Gibson, etc. I've seen them referred to affectionately online these days as Dad Movies. They're the type of film that we as teenagers enjoyed but our 50 year old dads did too and would often go to the cinema to see. Those films aren't getting made today, at least not budgeted similarly and rarely getting theatre releases.-snip-
I dunno if that is true. John Wick series comes to mind, and I just watched Bullet Train and The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, both of which seem to fit well. Fast and the Furious? Top Gun? I think superhero movies have sucked much of the oxygen out of that room for the past decade, hopefully that changes.
CHL mentioned not seeing Tar in a cinema hinting that it's because it's not the thrill ride spectacle type film you would need to see on the big screen. That's fine (and I think the same way too sometimes when deciding what to spend my money on at the theatre), but if we're not supporting smaller fare at the cinema, then all that's going to get released there are CGI blockbusters while everything else gets lower budgets allocated to them and sent straight to streaming.
I'm with you, but I'm just not willing to make it a mission to support films of the type I want to see succeed by going out of my way to see them in a theatre. Hell, it's hard enough to find time to watch all the stuff I'm interested in seeing in the comfort of my house. The only stuff I see in theatres these days is the stuff I either know I will absolutely love or have some connection to the source material or director (like Arrival), the stuff I know I want to see and that won't be anywhere near as good on a home TV (i.e. the spectacle films you mentioned, like Avatar) or a combination of both (like Dune or BR 2049).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 01-11-2023 at 04:01 PM.
I dunno if that is true. John Wick series comes to mind, and I just watched Bullet Train and The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, both of which seem to fit well. Fast and the Furious? Top Gun? I think superhero movies have sucked much of the oxygen out of that room for the past decade, hopefully that changes.
I did think about Top Gun, and yeah it probably fits. Cruise may be the only guy making those types of movies really with the MI and Jack Reacher series. I don't think the others you mentioned fit into the category, at least the one I have in my head. I'm thinking of films like The Fugitive, In the Line of Fire, Seven, Ransom, Copycat, Silence of the Lambs - films which play out in a generally serious tone, where comedy isn't at the forefront. Much of the action thriller type films of today are very heavy on comic banter or the funny kills aspect. It's a very different kind of movie IMO.
__________________ "We are no longer living. We are empty of substance, and our head devours us. Our ancestors were more alive. Nothing separated them from themselves."
The Following User Says Thank You to Swift For This Useful Post:
Even John Wick would be more comparable to something like a 90s Steven Segal movie imo than it would top gun. It has almost nothing in common with an 90s adult drama/action thriller like the fugitive etc.
I don’t see MI fitting either. Those are tentpoles. The 90s movies that are missing are the ones like swift listed above. Also those adult dramas like Basic Instinct, Witness, or something like A Time to Kill, The Firm etc. R rated adult dramas. They were marketed to 35+ adults going out to a movie without their kids.
Then studios realized they could make more money if all four family members, parents and kids, went to the theatre so everything got reduced to PG and generic so that it has as broad appeal as possible.
Add in the proliferation of massive CGI spectacle and production costs and it’s no wonder those movies are so rare.
I swear all of those 90s movies would be limited series or straight to streaming movies nowadays, let alone big successes.
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 01-11-2023 at 04:42 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
