Is it just me, or the late 2000s/early 2010s were the worst years for Hollywood movies ever?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

On 3/3/2020 at 8:42 AM, Thor said:

 

Not at all. One of the most common diseases in 'fan communities' is the inability to judge a work on its own terms; or the inability to see what the film's project really is. I don't go into a film like, say, PREDATORS, expecting Ingmar Bergman (or quality criteria thereof). Rather, it's a great, tight monster movie that ticks off all the boxes that makes this particular genre film successful; visceral, intense, claustophobic and with gorgeous, "earthly" cinematography. Vice versa, the more recent THE PREDATOR (2018) was a terrible affair, but I'm again using the same applicable criteria.

 

I don't like everything. I like good films IN everything, whether it's bizarre arthouse cinema or fluffy Hollywood genre material. Ultimately, what matters is how well it succeeds in what it is.

 

I could just as easily have rattled off a great many Hollywood films from this particular era that were BAD, but Edmilson seems to have mentioned several of those already. Plus, one can always argue about the merits of individual films. My point is rather that you can't make sweeping 'period generalizations' like this. It's a fallacy and dishonest. There is good and bad stuff every year, and within every period.

 

So under what criteria does Prometheus succeed?

 

-Nick, who loved the movie but severely disliked it

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I too liked Prometheus perfectly fine. Great atmosphere thanks to the cinematography, score, and art direction. Narrative isn’t particularly great, but after reading the original script and watching ~40 minutes of deleted scenes, I gained a greater understanding of the potential the film had, while still enjoying what it ended up being.

[Quintus 5,399]

On 3/3/2020 at 2:11 PM, Thor said:

 

That's why premises such as these don't make sense. Packing up a whole bunch of years, and claiming that an entire industry's output in the period have been less or more than before or after. It un-nuanced at best, stupid at worst. There are great and bad movies coming out of Hollywood every year, just as with any other film industry.

 

The premise of the thread is just a regular logical fallacy not worth paying much attention to, which is why I didn't bother to get into the debate. 

 

But anyway, a worrying chunk of the movies you listed on the other page are plain bad, yet I don't see this as a slight on the era in question, but rather your individual tastes - same as OP's, albeit in an inverse manner.

 

Nevertheless, it really wouldn't be too hard for me to make up my own list in answer to the thread topic, and there would be plenty of quality on it. Because every "era" in film has greatness dotted through it, here and there.

 

As always with these things, what OP is really complaining about is a lack of nostalgic sensation whenever he watches newer movies, but he just hasn't realised he grew up a few years ago.

[Thor 7,495]

2 hours ago, Quintus said:

As always with these things, what OP is really complaining about is a lack of nostalgic sensation whenever he watches newer movies, but he just hasn't realised he grew up a few years ago.

 

Not necessarily drawing any conclusions about any specific persons here, but YES -- that is another of fan communities' most prevalent diseases.

 

7 hours ago, Nick Parker said:

So under what criteria does Prometheus succeed?

 

The film is pure blockbuster art. If you want to put it through Google Translate, here's an article I wrote a few years ago, where I go into that:

 

https://montages.no/2012/05/ren-blockbuster-kunst-i-prometheus/

 

I have a similar one for COVENANT, which I also found absolutely brilliant.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Oh my god, I thought Alien Covenant was decent space monster fare, but "absolutely brilliant"? What, like Bergman, Fellini, Traffaut, Tati, etc?

 

I wouldn't even dare call Godzilla: King of the Monsters "absolutely brilliant", and I loved the fuck out of that movie.

[Thor 7,495]

3 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

Oh my god, I thought Alien Covenant was decent space monster fare, but "absolutely brilliant"? What, like Bergman, Fellini, Traffaut, Tati, etc?

 

You see, that's what I'm talking about. In what universe are criteria for judging COVENANT applicable with judging Bergman, Fellini, Truffaut, Tati etc.?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

18 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

You see, that's what I'm talking about. In what universe are criteria for judging COVENANT applicable with judging Bergman, Fellini, Truffaut, Tati etc.?

 

Because to maintain any sort of credibility in film/art criticism, it's important to apply statements of high praise like "absolutely brilliant" where they're actually deserved, rather than dilute them by applying it to works like Prometheus or Alien: Covenant, which are really just mediocre sci-fi flicks featuring some excellent production value, some decent performances, a few intriguing but ultimately muddled and unresolved ideas on existentialism, plus a couple of good thrills. But "brilliant"? Let alone "absolutely"? Come on, I don't doubt you enjoyed them, but I enjoy shitty movies too.

[Quintus 5,399]

Can't disagree with that.

[A24 4,331]

8 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

I too liked Prometheus perfectly fine. Great atmosphere thanks to the cinematography, score, and art direction. Narrative isn’t particularly great, but after reading the original script and watching ~40 minutes of deleted scenes, I gained a greater understanding of the potential the film had, while still enjoying what it ended up being.

 

Kinda baffled with calling it "great atmosphere". With so many counteracting forces going on in the movie (non-chemistry between characters, cringy dialog, silly situations, ...) , I don't see how it can accomplish that. I just want to throw brick at the screen. OTOH, I don't think you ever said Alien (a movie that highly focused on atmosphere) had great atmosphere ...

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's appropriately moody. Not great.

[Thor 7,495]

45 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

 

Because to maintain any sort of credibility in film/art criticism, 

 

And the only way to have that is to use criteria that actually apply to the type of film you're evaluating. If you're evaluating a blockbuster sci fi film by using the criteria for an art film by Bergman, you've immediately lost all credibility.

 

In the article I mentioned earlier, I go into detail as to why I think PROMETHEUS is pure blockbuster art, a hybrid form that Ridley Scott frequently excels at. Obviously, you're free to disagree, but 'absolutely brilliant' is very appropriate for the type of excellence on display, within the genre and project that it is. I will defend that film vehemently untill the day I die.

[A24 4,331]

3 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

It's appropriately moody. Not great.

 

I don't see how that is possible, unless you have no problem with the characters, the dialog, the story, ...

[Holko 9,525]

Watching braindead morons being braindead morons is what blockbusters are all about! Apparently.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

7 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

And the only way to have that is to use criteria that actually apply to the type of film you're evaluating. If you're evaluating a blockbuster sci fi film by using the criteria for an art film by Bergman, you've immediately lost all credibility.

 

In the article I mentioned earlier, I go into detail as to why I think PROMETHEUS is pure blockbuster art, a hybrid form that Ridley Scott frequently excels at.

 

Incorrect!

 

If you're calling Alien: Covenant "absolutely brilliant", which I suppose is the highest level of praise you could you could bestow a film, then to you, what is Alien? What is Aliens? I mean, Alien: Covenant can't possibly feature the same level of quality that the '79 and '86 films have? You'd have to be kidding! What kind of bizarro-world scale would you be using there? I'd have to conclude you were simply won over by the glossy high-tech aesthetic appeal of the newer Scott films.

[Thor 7,495]

1 hour ago, Þekþiþm said:

If you're calling Alien: Covenant "absolutely brilliant", which I suppose is the highest level of praise you could you could bestow a film, then to you, what is Alien? What is Aliens?

 

Masterpieces.

 

Just because you use strong, positive adjectives on a film, doesn't mean it automatically is equal to other established classics in film history. In other words, the phrase 'absolutely brilliant' is not just reserved for undisputed classics. If it were, we would have a terribly boring and limited set of words to use at any given time.

 

What you're making here, is faulty connections.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

7 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

Masterpieces.

 

Just because you use strong, positive adjectives on a film, doesn't mean it automatically is equal to other established classics in film history. In other words, the phrase 'absolutely brilliant' is not just reserved for undisputed classics. If it were, we would have a terribly boring and limited set of words to use at any given time.

 

What you're making here, is faulty connections.

 

So you've just proven that you don't know what "absolutely" means. Rather you routinely resort to hyperbole to describe every film you like and double down when called out on it.

[Holko 9,525]

Because why should words have actual meanings, let's throw anything around for anyhing.

[Thor 7,495]

Quote

So you've just proven that you don't know what "absolutely" means. Rather routinely resort to hyperbole to describe every film you like and double down when called out on it.

 

No, I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning, and your seeming inability to understand context.

 

If I say I don't have a lot of money, hence a "poor guy", a counter-argument of your kind would be: "oh yeah? You can't use the word 'poor' because you live in Norway. You're only poor if you live in the slums of Johannesburg!"

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

4 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

No, I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning, and your seeming inability to understand context.

 

If I say I don't have a lot of money, hence a "poor guy", a counter-argument of your kind would be: "oh yeah? You can't use the word 'poor' because you live in Norway. You're only poor if you live in the slums of Johannesburg!"

 

I don't even know what this means since I don't know the first thing about Norway. Plus it's irrelevant to what we're talking about, which is essentially your knack for applying hyperbolic praise to mediocre films, and their relation to a limited number of films that would might really qualify as "absolutely brilliant" (but no film in existence really is).

[Thor 7,495]

Just now, Þekþiþm said:

 

I don't even know what this means since I don't know the first thing about Norway. Plus it's irrelevant to what we're talking about, which is essentially your knack for applying hyperbolic praise to mediocre films, and their relation to a limited number of films that would might really qualify as "absolutely brilliant" (but no film in existence really is).

 

No, it's VERY relevant to what we're discussing. You seem to have the bizarre notion that you can only use strong, positive adjectives on established classics in film history, not some new film you've just seen and loved.

 

Ultimately, I don't really give a fuck what you or anyone else thinks. If I'm enthusiastic about a film, deserving of high praise, I'm going to give it high praise.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Sure, but never mind those who'll see a film based on your glowering recommendation, feel disappointed and underwhelmed by it, feel misled by your assertions of its supposed "brilliance", and ultimately dismiss you as a credible critic.

[Thor 7,495]

2 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

Sure, but never mind those who'll see a film based on your glowering recommendation, feel disappointed and underwhelmed by it, feel misled by your assertions of its supposed "brilliance", and ultimately dismiss you as a credible critic.

 

What, so one is less 'credible' because the evaluations of a critic doesn't correspond to one's own? How does credibility figure into it? At most, it will mean that the tastes, preferences and evaluations of a critic is one that doesn't generally correspond to one's own. Might be useful, actually.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

4 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

What, so one is less 'credible' because the evaluations of a critic doesn't correspond to one's own? How does credibility figure into it? At most, it will mean that the tastes, preferences and evaluations of a critic is one that doesn't generally correspond to one's own. Might be useful, actually.

 

If you continually praise mediocre films to astronomically high levels on a regular basis, more people will recognise your patterns of taste and ultimately approach those particular films with caution, even the actual good ones!

[Thor 7,495]

1 hour ago, Þekþiþm said:

 

If you continually praise mediocre films to astronomically high levels on a regular basis, more people will recognise your patterns of taste and ultimately approach those particular films with caution, even the actual good ones!

 

First of all, you seem to think there is some 'general consensus' that these are mediocre films, which is not the case. PROMETHEUS, for example, received mixed to positive reviews. Most of my colleagues praised it.

 

Consensus isn't important anyway. The important thing is to make informed arguments as to why you think something is great. Then it isn't so important if the actual value judgement corresponds to your own or not.

 

Second, I have a couple of critic colleagues here in Norway with whom I almost always disagree. They are very consistent that way, so they become CREDIBLE anti-recommendations. That is just as valuable as having a critic with whom you almost always agree. So if there are readers who continually disagree with my assessments, I wear that as a badge of honour!

[Jurassic Shark 12,070]

I disagree about that.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

31 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

First of all, you seem to think there is some 'common truth' that these are established as mediocre films, which is not the case. PROMETHEUS, for example, received mixed to positive reviews.

 

However you feel about the newer Scott films, whether you genuinely like them or not, it's hard to deny they're significantly inferior works to their earlier predecessors in the 70s and 80s, and in relation to science fiction thrillers in general. Don't get me wrong, Prometheus and Alien: Covenant are ambitious films and aren't without their merits, as I've listed above, but their scripts are pseudo intellectual rubbish and it's hard to ignore their poor characterisations that continually exhibit poor judgment and critical decision-making skills. Back in the day, you really cared about what happened to these movie people, but now they're just disposable alien food. When these problems are clearly evident in each film, it's hard to take your assertive evaluation seriously that they're "absolutely brilliant".

 

 

31 minutes ago, Thor said:

Most of my colleagues praised it.

 

Yeesh, were they that scared they'd lose future invitations from Fox?

[Thor 7,495]

41 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

 

However you feel about the newer Scott films, whether you genuinely like them or not, it's hard to deny they're significantly inferior works to their earlier predecessors in the 70s and 80s, and in relation to science fiction thrillers in general. Don't get me wrong, Prometheus and Alien: Covenant are ambitious films and aren't without their merits, as I've listed above, but their scripts are pseudo intellectual rubbish and it's hard to ignore their poor characterisations that continually exhibit poor judgment and critical decision-making skills. Back in the day, you really cared about what happened to these movie people, but now they're just disposable alien food. When these problems are clearly evident in each film, it's hard to take your assertive evaluation seriously that they're "absolutely brilliant".

 

Your criticisms are among the most common I've encountered over the years. Some of them have (semi)-merit, some of them don't, all of them completely miss the TRUE values that the film has and the priorities it makes. I'm not really interested in debating these films again here now, but I go into all of these in my two articles:

 

https://montages.no/2012/05/ren-blockbuster-kunst-i-prometheus/

https://montages.no/2017/05/hybrid-og-hybris-i-ridley-scotts-alien-covenant/

 

They are fairly intelligible in Google Translate.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

9 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

Your criticisms are among the most common I've encountered over the years. Some of them have (semi)-merit, some of them don't, all of them completely miss the TRUE values that the film has and the priorities it makes. I'm not really interested in debating these films again here now, but I go into all of these in my two articles:

 

https://montages.no/2012/05/ren-blockbuster-kunst-i-prometheus/

https://montages.no/2017/05/hybrid-og-hybris-i-ridley-scotts-alien-covenant/

 

They are fairly intelligible in Google Translate.

 

They're common criticisms because they're from people with common sense.

[Thor 7,495]

4 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

 

They're common criticisms because in this case, common sense prevails.

No, rather because certain people are bad at reading a film’s intention and execution. Especially with ambitious audiovisual directors like Scott, where half of the communication lies in visuals.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Just now, Thor said:

No, rather because people are bad at reading a film’s intention and execution. Especially with ambitious audiovisual directors like Scott.

 

Never mind when those sorts of directors land a dodgy script.

[Thor 7,495]

1 minute ago, Þekþiþm said:

 

Never mind when those sorts of directors land a dodgy script.

 

Fortunately, Scott usually transcends scripts.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

2 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

Fortunately, Scott usually transcends scripts.

 

No director can.

[Thor 7,495]

1 minute ago, Þekþiþm said:

 

No director can.

Many directors can, and do. Throughout all of film history. It’s what the auteur theory is based on.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

If the script is a dud, so will the movie. Regardless of the director's knack for making pretty pictures and slick edits.

[Thor 7,495]

16 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

If the script is a dud, so will the movie. Regardless of the director's knack for making pretty pictures and slick edits.

 

Wrong. Script is of lesser importance in a Godard or Resnais film than the play with the film medium itself. As for Scott, perhaps the ultimate example in all of film history is the original ALIEN, where a pretty straightforward genre script is transformed into a deeply complex artpiece through Scott, Giger, Goldsmith & co. Film history is FULL of examples where a film transcends its script, or -- indeed -- where the script plays a lesser role than other aspects of the artform.

 

Same goes for a film like PROMETHEUS or COVENANT too. If you're judging that solely on the basic of the characters and their occasional questionable choices, you're missing out out on 75% of what the film tries to do.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

5 hours ago, Þekþiþm said:

Because to maintain any sort of credibility in film/art criticism, it's important to apply statements of high praise like "absolutely brilliant" where they're actually deserved, rather than dilute them by applying it to works like Prometheus or Alien: Covenant, which are really just mediocre sci-fi flicks featuring some excellent production value, some decent performances, a few intriguing but ultimately muddled and unresolved ideas on existentialism, plus a couple of good thrills. But "brilliant"? Let alone "absolutely"? Come on, I don't doubt you enjoyed them, but I enjoy shitty movies too.

Quality post!

 

1 hour ago, Thor said:

The important thing is to make informed arguments as to why you think something is great.

Yeah, and dodging the aspects that would argue against that greatness.

[Thor 7,495]

13 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

Yeah, and dodging the aspects that would argue against that greatness.

 

Not at all. I acknowledge several issues in the two articles. I just don't think they're that important or relevant for what the films are and try to do, especially not as far as a value judgement is concerned.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

38 minutes ago, Thor said:

Same goes for a film like PROMETHEUS or COVENANT too. If you're judging that solely on the basic of the characters and their occasional questionable choices, you're missing out out on 75% of what the film tries to do.

 

And I've already mentioned their merits to you, but a few decent aspects don't make a great film.

 

Alien is a great film because all of the collaborative elements gel, and all that starts with a good script. Prometheus 1&2 are far more plotty than Alien, therefore their story problems are far more pronounced and apparent, even a gee-wiz-viz director like Scott can't hide them.

[Glóin the Dark 1,220]

On 3/3/2020 at 4:42 PM, Thor said:

One of the most common diseases in 'fan communities' is the inability to judge a work on its own terms; or the inability to see what the film's project really is.

 

Not only among fan communities; this is a common enough problem among people paid for their judgements as well! Nevertheless, I think there is a significant gap in the argument that you've been making, in that the value of a film comes not only from how successfully it fulfills its intentions but also from what those intentions are. For example, The Expendables is the worst film of the last decade that I've seen. That assessment isn't due to me erroneously judging it as though it were supposed to be a Michael Haneke film; indeed, I could well believe that The Expendables turned out to be precisely the film that its makers intended. My problem is that the film they intended it to be is utterly excremental, and their success in achieving that goal doesn't make the experience any more rewarding for me. Evidently you have a different opinion about the value of this type of film, so it's in this area that our disagreement lies. I suspect the same is true for a lot of the other disputes that people have with your list...

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Expendables wanted to tap into that 80's machismo style but apparently didn't want to go all the way, given stuff like joykill Brian Tyler's score. Huh, maybe I did get the point but just thought it sucked and failed at its goals.

 

 

[Edmilson 7,436]

Everything Brian Tyler touches becomes as fun as class at 7 a.m. on a Tuesday.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Expendables doesn't feel 80s, though. It feels like trashy 2000s. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I remember when Brittany Murphy was meant to be in it.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

6 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

Kinda baffled with calling it "great atmosphere". With so many counteracting forces going on in the movie (non-chemistry between characters, cringy dialog, silly situations, ...) , I don't see how it can accomplish that. I just want to throw brick at the screen. OTOH, I don't think you ever said Alien (a movie that highly focused on atmosphere) had great atmosphere ...

I think Scott nailed the audiovisual aspect.  The dialogue and plot don’t have to be great for it to succeed on a technical level. That’s all I was trying to say. 
 

And I don’t particularly care for the Alien franchise in general. Alien is a fine film, as is Aliens, but neither of them are high up on my personal favorites of sci-fi/action films. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

[Edmilson 7,436]

14 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

Expendables doesn't feel 80s, though. It feels like trashy 2000s. 

 

Indeed, specially the horrid third movie.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

There are three of them?

[Thor 7,495]

1 hour ago, Þekþiþm said:

And I've already mentioned their merits to you, but a few decent aspects don't make a great film.

 

Except that to me, they are not just 'a few decent aspects'. It's an overall, visionary quality to the whole film.

 

Quote

Alien is a great film because all of the collaborative elements gel, and all that starts with a good script. Prometheus 1&2 are far more plotty than Alien, therefore their story problems are far more pronounced and apparent, even a gee-wiz-viz director like Scott can't hide them.

 

And I don't really care about story in cases such as these (or marginally, at best). There is an all-too-prevalent reliance on story and story content in most people's film evaluation. If that was all there was to it, we would be reading books instead. Auteurs like Scott communicate a great deal through visuals and sound; they are not just secondary, supportive elements. So one would need to take that into consideration as well.

 

Quote

Not only among fan communities; this is a common enough problem among people paid for their judgements as well! Nevertheless, I think there is a significant gap in the argument that you've been making, in that the value of a film comes not only from how successfully it fulfills its intentions but also from what those intentions are. For example, The Expendables is the worst film of the last decade that I've seen. That assessment isn't due to me erroneously judging it as though it were supposed to be a Michael Haneke film; indeed, I could well believe that The Expendables turned out to be precisely the film that its makers intended. My problem is that the film they intended it to be is utterly excremental, and their success in achieving that goal doesn't make the experience any more rewarding for me. Evidently you have a different opinion about the value of this type of film, so it's in this area that our disagreement lies. I suspect the same is true for a lot of the other disputes that people have with your list...

 

My point wasn't really to debate the titles I mentioned, even though we're going in that direction now. We can agree or disagree about their merits. The point was to adress the faulty premise of this thread.

 

But in the case of THE EXPENDABLES, it wasn't so much that they were trying to make an 80s action film, but that it was a more self-aware CELEBRATION of that particular aesthetic. And it succeeded marvelously; beautifully overblown, saturated and saluting the clichées which it references. In fact, I'm reminded of Umberto Eco's wonderful assessment of CASABLANCA: 

 

When all the archetypes burst out shamlessly, we plumb Homeric profundity. Two clichés make us laugh, but a hundred clichés move us because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion (Eco 1987: 209)

[Chen G. 3,949]

32 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

I think Scott nailed the audiovisual aspect.  The dialogue and plot don’t have to be great for it to succeed on a technical level.

 

He always does. Being that he doesn't write, Scott is really dependant upon his writers for his films to hold together narratively, and indeed many of them do not.

 

However, even if the script's a dud, a Ridley Scott film always looks and sounds great, and he usually manages to draw great performances from his casts, too.

 

Sadly, I'm personally not too drawn to good visuals if they're not in service of a strong human story. But I can stil applaud Scott for doing what he does.

 

[Fabulin 3,511]

.