A Night Unremembered
13 years ago
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Flicking about
As I was perusing the channels the other day in a vain hope for some entertaining or educational substance, I came across a movie I hadn't seen for some years. (This is what I am reduced to... watching movies I have seen several times in the past.)
The movie was "The Appaloosa" [Link] starring Marlon Brando, John Savage, and Annjanette Comer. I am not a fan of Marlon Brando, preferring any number of other lead actors over him. I never went to movies because he was in them nor do I make sure I watch them on the various movie channels. He never struck me as that great an actor. However, he did have the leads in two westerns which I rate very high on my Favorite Westerns list (we all have those, don't we?). "The Appaloosa" is one and the other is "One Eyed Jacks" [Link]. Both use the familiar themes of revenge and retribution. And both do justice to them... no pun intended.
We all have favorite movies and favorite actors. I lean toward character actors more than stars. This may reflect on my self esteem since I value the sidekicks, the villains, and the minor players much more than the Big Names. But I have always been this way. Oh, I still liked Jimmy Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, and the like but I can't think of any modern super stars that drew me to the cinema. Redford, Clooney, Hoffman (though I did like him in "Straight Time"), Pitt, et al, don't entice me to spend the outrageous amount of money it costs to go to a movie these days.
Or maybe it's the movies themselves. They seem to have little substance, pushing special effects, car (and other things) chases, and blowing up just about everything instead of good dialogue and strong plots. And now, of course, a big push of 3D.
Speaking of 3D, I have seen it all before. I don't see where it adds to any movie. Most of the time it's about seeing knives, arrows, spears, and all sorts of objects come right at your face. Just a gimmick that adds nothing to the story. And, often, distracts. Even though the technology today is much better than it was in the 50's and 60's, when it was tried before), the end result is the same.... I don't want to pay for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thought Avatar was extremely immersive with its usage of 3D, so much so that I went 3 times. It was understated and mostly just helped make you feel like you were there.
I do have bad vision in one eye, though, which might change things for me...but I don't think by too much.I enjoyed toy story 1 & 2 in 3d when I saw it for a cheap double feature (hooray for big purses), but I think that's a special case since its "real" form is actually 3d...they weren't hacking on some cheap effects to a 2d movie, they re-rendered for more immersion.how to train your dragon I saw in 3d...the movie was cute, but the 3d wasn't done well.anyway, almost nothing gets me to the theatre, I have a small living room with surround sound, 55" tv, and a massive library of HD movies...but avatar was one that I don't regret at all.
People don't have the patience for a lot of dialog.
I think the 3D fad will wear out eventually. It has in the past but they keep reviving it. The animated films and the heavy CGI will keep it going longer than previous versions but I think it will still die out. It's the glasses. No one likes wearing them. When they have 3D without having to wear glasses, it will last.
I liked Avatar but I waited until it hit the movie channels. The story wasn't much but the CGI was excellent and was quite effective even in 2D. BTW, when the CGI gets perfected, they won't need live actors at all, just voices... (and even that may end up computer generated)
Post a Comment