Don't know what to call this...movies and pop culture? Or knock knock, anyone still reading this?

[shadowkat]

Not a bad day. Got a lot done. And saw The Bourne Ultimatitum, which I enjoyed more than I expected. Will you? Depends on what you like. It's a spy caper - about a black ops operative who has lost his memory and is trying to unravel who he is while being tracked down by the intelligence organization that turned him into what he is. Based on Robert Ludlum's best-selling series - the Bourne films closely follow the gist of the novels, but change a lot in the translation. The film contains some of the best chase sequences I've seen including one - that can best be described as a four-way chase sequence. We have a girl being chased by a bad guy, Bourne chasing the bad guy, and the police chasing Bourne. It's gripping, scarey, and suspenseful. Possibly the best chase sequence I've seen in a while. I'm usually bored by chase sequences - because most of them don't tell me anything new about the character or move the plot forward. This one did both.

It always annoys me when people say - that film was deeply stupid or deeply boring or dumb, (yes, I've done it too) - but don't state why. They don't get to the root of why they didn't like it. Making it impossible for someone who's never seen the film to know whether or not they'd like it or want to see it. Something that bores person A, might thrill person B after all.

An example - V for Vendetta - know of three women who really did not like this film. While numerous people online including myself found it not only memorable but haunting. The three who hated it never explained why they hated it. They just said it was dumb. They couldn't get into it. Found it silly. Stupid. Boring. I remember trying to talk to Wales about it and not getting anywhere. The ones who enjoyed it on the other hand? Explained why and made others want to see it.

Of course the reason for this may be that you don't always know. I tried Mad Men and Saving Grace recently - found both incredibly dull and ended up deleting them from DVR. The characters just didn't interest me. They were too self-involved. And the dialogue just did not pull me into the story. It was style over substance in my opinion. But mostly? I just couldn't get into them. Mad MEn? I couldn't hear most of the dialogue, we kept rewinding and finally gave up. But I Felt basically the same way about both shows. Yet, critics love both. And they are doing well - they are POPULAR. (Shrugs). Maybe I gave up too soon?? Or maybe it was my mood.

I wonder if it is harder to explain why you dislike something or don't enjoy it than it is why you love it? No. I think it's harder to explain ambivalence.

One quibble about the movie I just saw - a woman in the audience actually brought her child to it in a stroller. Oookay. The kid chortled, talked, squealed and laughed throughout. Luckily the film was loud enough to blot out most of it. I agree with Ken Levine who recently posted a great list of Movie Theater Don't's on his blog.

The two I remember - I'll repost here, because they bare repeating.

1. Children under the age of 6 should not be permitted in a movie theater unless Care Bears or a clearly age appropriate film is being shown. Children under the age of 10 should not be permitted into an R-rated, NC-rated, or PG-13 rated film regardless of whether or not parents are with them. Parents who bring their kids to these films need to be slapped.(That said, I think my parents accidently brought my brother and me to Excaliber when we were 10 and 13 respectively - but we were at least over the age of 10!) If you can't find a babysitter? Stay home. The audience does not deserve to suffer your screaming kids. Proof positive that having children does not make people less selfish. Also proof that some people should not have children.

2.Do not check your cell phone in a movie theater. Turn it off and leave it in your bag. If you are expecting an important call or are worried about your kids? Stay home or somewhere else. Netflix is a great way to watch movies! Turning it on is like turning on a flashlight. People who do this should be banned from going to movie theaters, they don't know how to behave.

Finally - I just read a really cool bit about John Barrowman from Torchwood that I want to share - it's from TV Guide interview with Benji Wilson, this week's issue:"I know a lot of gay leading men in Hollywood. I'm not one for outing people- they might have personal issues they need to overcome - but if they are not speaking up because they're afraid it's going to affect their careers, that pisses me off. Take the risk! I took that risk and the public rewarded me. I still play straight leading characters in theater, TV and film, so it doesn't matter." Very true. Anyone with half a brain knows the actor is acting and that whatever is shown on screen is not what the actor truly feels or desires. That's why they call it ACTING. Heck some of the best romantic chemistry onscreen is between two actors who despise one another and would rather kill one another than kiss. And some of the worste? Between married couples who adore each other.

He is openly gay and just married his partner - British architect Scott Grill last year.
Apparently he was turned down for the Will part in Will & Grace, - because producers felt he was "too straight". (Ugh - when will people stop stereotyping each other?? I repeat you can't tell who is gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, etc just by looking at them or watching them. I've known men who acted "the gay stereotype" who are "straight" and women who acted the "lesbian butch" stereotype who are "straight" - just as I've known men and women who act like the "straight stereotype" who are *very* gay. You can't tell unless they tell you. It's as silly as the old saying if you have just one earring in your left ear that means you are gay. Gimme a break.)

Comments

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

Those movie rules should be posted outside the entrance to every cineplex in the country.

And Barrowman is completely right about actors and their sexuality and Hollywood's jumpy behavior about homosexuality. Get over it already people! A good actor is a good actor - period.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

I honestly have no idea why Hollywood keeps catering to stereotypes. Particularly when good directors such as Ang Lee with Broken Mountain, have done a good job of showing how silly they are.
And why people care what someone else's sexual orientation is. The fact that there are people pretending to be straight out of fear, bugs me to no end.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

Well, I didn't like V for Vendetta much and I said why when I wrote a quick review on LJ in April 2006 but you probably didn't see it. It was quick because I prefer to elaborate on films I liked but I think that I explained why I didn't like the movie.

http://frenchani.livejournal.com/99494.html#cutid1

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yep, missed it.

There does seem to be a trend - everyone who isn't into graphic novels and comics - really didn't like V or 300. While people who do love art form and have read quite a bit of it, enjoyed V and 300 because it fit the art form and they analyzed in within that framework. It was like - oh that wasn't a bad translation of the comic and the artistry is a nice commentary on it.

I rarely say much about films or tv shows I don't like or that bore me for a lot of reasons. So can't fault others for not doing it. It's harder to write a negative review - you have a tendency to tell the reader more about yourself than the film. The best reviews are actually objective - with an open ended question - "Would you like it? Or hate it? I wouldn't know." The trick is not to put down or be critical of those who loved it or hated it. (Ex: You loved that? Ghod you have no taste! You must be a dimwit! - which is silly really. But hard not to do.)

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean, and it may be true for many viewers but actually I like art form and I have read many graphic novels and comics (even if not this one, and not many American comics)but it was a film not a comic book, not even an animated feature so I watched it and "judged" it as a film not as a comic turned into a movie. It isn't that different than films based on written books or on plays. A good adaptation doesn't guarantee a good film even if being a good adpatation is a plus. Cinema is another language, it's about a good story but also a good scenario, good cinematography, good acting, good pace etc. For instance I don't like films that relie only on good dialogues and good acting because there are based on a play and don't have cinematographical (?) qualities.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I was just trying to figure out why some people hated it and others liked it. Thought comics might be a reason. It's not of course. Because people like different types of comic books. Some prefer comics that are more abstract in style or more dialogue/language focused than graphic/art focused. Others prefer a more realistic style - paintings such as the one's Alex Ross does. Or Jae Lee. As opposed to the more abstract style of Persepolis, Maus, and R. Crumb. One is NOT better than the other no matter what you may think. You just happen to prefer one to the other.

RE V is for Vendetta - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I liked the film far more than you did and went in with very low expectations, felt that it did do a good job with visuals and had some startlingly good metaphors going on. I also felt that it did a good job of poking fun at and twisting the Bush administrations views regarding terrorism - that we need to fight it by any means necessary, even if that means becoming facist. I wrote a lengthy review on it in my lj - but have no idea where nor have the patience at the moment to hunt it down, I tagged it so you can probably find it if you look. (smile)

I think that how we view film or books or tv shows is subjective. We see it through our own lense - and it is difficult sometimes to understand how anyone can see it differently. How can you like this when I know it is horrid! Citizen Kane is considered to be one of the best movies ever for example - highly touted. I've seen it twice all the way through, studied it, and I still find it deeply boring and stupid and somewhat silly in places. (Shrugs). But I rarely say that, because you know, it's considered amazing. Sigh. Same with The Departed - a film that was too long, used film shots I'd seen before, fell into cop drama cliches, and had characters jump out of nowhere - but hey, it got an academy award.

Then of course there are people who for example think Buffy was little more than a campy teen show and others who think it was bloody brilliant. Both are right. They are seeing it through their own perspective.

I think it is impossible for all human beings to agree on anything in this world because we are individuals, we see things through our own lense, our own perspective, our own buttons, kinks, desires, lusts, pains, hopes, and regrets.

[thepackrat741.livejournal.com]

I actually carry a cell phone " jammer " when I go to a theater.
Anytime I PAY for an experience I carry the thingie.
Blocks out all the social " noise " ..
" sorry kids "

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

There is such a thing? Can it keep cell phones from turning on? Because that's the worste - having the flashlight go on in the theater.

Didn't know cell phone jammer's existed. And where can I find one? I can think of all sorts of evil things I can do with it. Hee Hee.