Are movies better now?

Hey, I think both "Kill Bills" were campy, but classic, too.

I didn't think he went a little too far in that regard until "Grindhouse," which I still found entertaining.

 

Amazing movie.

It instantly became one of my favorites when I saw it for the first time about a year ago.

 

To threadjack just a bit, take a look at Deathproof by QT. Has Jeff Bridges as a creepy, aging movie stuntman who stalks women and kill them in his car. Not a classic by any means, but good stuff.

 

Tarantino is the "Stars on 45" of film directors.

 

YES ...
IB is nowhere near the movie of Pulp Fiction or Resevoir Dogs.
Please explain the love of IB? 'Cause I don't feel it.

I think Taratnino has gotten progressively worse - or kookier - as a director. Like Kubrick.

 

Not as long as George Lucas is still around.

 

"Are movies better now" approaches movies like they're some sort of commodity.

It's like asking "Are books better now?" or "Is architecture better now?|

If you want to structure a debate it should be more like "How has the movie industry changed in the last 20/30/40/50 years?"

 

I think that's a better way of putting it.

But I'm more trying to get at things like how the narrative is structured or how dialogue is written rather than just the fact, for example, that comic book movies get made now.

 

*Hated* the three of those I've seen.

Watched "Bridge on the River Quai" and "The Great Escape" this week. I'd take those any day.

 

Sopranos, The Wire and Dexter are better than any movies I've seen this year by leaps and bounds. Hell, those three are probably better than any movie I've seen in the last five years. And I liked Bonnie and Clyde, which I watched last night.

Joe

 

Well, narrative and dialogue are a reflection of their era.

A good movie, like the ones Michael Gee cited, are objectively good movies. The narrative and dialogue stand up today.

Casablanca, a bomb at the box office when it was released, is still considered-- rightly so--one of the great American movies.

The fact that some modern viewers don't "get it" or find it a period piece is a bit like saying Hamlet sucks because the language is confusing.

With every piece of art--film, fiction, theatre--there should be some sort of intelligent engagement on the part of the viewer or reader.

Otherwise, you just dumb down the art form

Oh, wait, that's where we are now.

 

The problem with the comparison to books is that technology doesn't have the impact on books that it does on movies. Writing is writing. The influences and philosophies may have changed. Certainly writing can be a faster process now, but that's about it.

Technology has dramatically changed what filmmakers can do.