Lean Left

• home

10 Comments »

1. J. R. Matteson writes:

   Sportsman Park, St. Louis c. 1966 opener.

   Gibson vs. Bunning (Philly).
   Rainout after two innings. Muy strikeouts, no hits. Man, I wish the game had been completed. Gibson would have crushed his republican hounddog ass.

   Comment 6/25/2008

   ---

2. Dan M. writes:

   Glancing through your list, I see three movies where I would say you’re actually missing something:

   La Vita e Bella. A good story about a father sheltering his child from evil. Depressing. Well-done.

   Michael Clayton. Clooney actually acts, as well as being a pretty face, and he’s actually quite good. Excellent surprise ending, with an upbeat.

   Ratatouille. Mostly fluffy silliness, predictable children’s pabulum, but all worth it, in my opinion, for one fantastic depiction of the emotion that food can bring.

   Comment 6/26/2008

   ---

3. Dan M. writes:

   Oh, and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is just plain beautiful.

   Comment 6/26/2008

   ---

4. SayUncle writes:

   I don’t see many either. Last movie I saw in the theater was Bad Santa.

   I do catch them on PPV on occasion.

   Comment 6/26/2008

   ---

5. tgirsch writes:

   Dan M:

   I TiVoed Ratatouille off pay-per-view several months ago, but still haven’t watched it.

   Uncle:

   Haven’t seen Bad Santa, either.

   Comment 6/26/2008

   ---

6. Janusz writes:

   I think the relationship between the commercial successes and the critical (best picture) successes is interesting…there is absolutely no correlation.

   What does that say about our collective taste level?

   Comment 6/26/2008

   ---

7. tgirsch writes:

   Janusz:

   I think it’s a disconnect in why people go to the movies. The movies that get critical acclaim generally do so because of the message they’re conveying, the way in which they challenge us to think about things (or rethink things), etc. But that’s not why most people go to the movies. They go to be entertained, often mindlessly so. I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with that (and, indeed, even the great Isaac Asimov used to praise the virtues of a good mindless action film).

   People often want an escape from reality, not a reminder of it, and that’s why mindless movies do so much better than the substantive, “important” films. This isn’t to say that there aren’t a lot of bad-but-popular films; of course there are. But you’re really still looking at an entertainment versus substance divide, and entertainment wins that battle hands down.

   Comment 6/26/2008

   ---

8. Janusz writes:

   Tgirsch, I agree with you. A great deal has to do with consumer demand, but conversely, alot has to do with movie producers who fall into easy formulaic patterns.

   As you pointed out, Iron Man isn’t bad for that genre of film…it’s fun, techy, good visuals, updates the story to Afghanistan for relevance, displays a rudimentary social conscience (wealthy industrialist weapons monger reforms his selfish ways) etc. It’s not Godard, and doesn’t want to be, but is able to break-out of the X-men/Superman/Batman formula to become a better film. I just hope they use a little more thought when production of “Rex Mundi” starts…I would hate to see such a potentially good story fall victim to the usual comic book becomes film mediocrity…

   Comment 6/26/2008

   ---

9. tgirsch writes:

   I actually rather liked the first X-Men film, certainly a lot more than the Batman/Superman films (though I haven’t seen the latest incarnations of any of these).

   And you’re right about the laziness of producers. “Mindless entertainment” doesn’t have to mean “crap,” but usually does. But movies like Dogma only come around so often…

   Comment 6/26/2008

   ---

10. digglahhh writes:

    But movies like Dogma only come around so often…

    Come for the weed and sex jokes, stay for some decent discourse on organized religion.

    Clerks was an ingenuous film; almost certainly my favorite comedy of all time. Yet, the legacy of its creator is built on the back of the lowest common denominators of his first work of genius. So, yeah, Dogma’s got it’s moments - but that identity was smuggled in by a Trojan Horse, (pardon the dick joke pun).

    That being said, the reverse is kind of true too. The critics’/industry’s self-consciousness about being high minded (and often elitist) contribute to the disconnect between what wins and what’s popular too. Additionally, with the movies being so expensive nowadays, a lot of people only go to see movies to which the huge screen, loud sound moviegoing experience actually adds something. I think the last movie I saw in the theatre was Sicko, but I wouldn’t have lost anything waiting to Nextflix it.

    So, there’s a few things at play here.

    As far as predicting success of movies, here’s a LONG but interesting article (coulda just said it was written by Malcolm Gladwell - means the same thing).

    http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_10_16_a_formula.html

    Comment 6/26/2008

    ---

Leave a comment

Name (required)

e-Mail (required - will not be published)

Website

The View From the Sinister Side of Life

     Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again.

     It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.
            -- Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

Site info

close to attraction
WordPress adaptation by Tara Aukerman | Original design by Andreas Viklund