The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Foreign films are having a bit of a rough time at the moment. Aside from the usual mixture of people either being too dumb to read subtitles or (often rightly) accusing the films of being pretentious, there is a new threat. This comes from Hollywood, which keeps its eyes peeled for a successful or interesting foreign film and then completely re-makes it badly and pretends that it's an original idea.
Yes, believe it or not, Vanilla Sky was a fairly shoddy re-make of a Spanish film called "Abre los Ojos", which was not only better but featured Penelope Cruz topless for much longer. And with this I will start my defence of foreign films. French and Spanish people aren't afraid of nudity; they don't have a Mary Whitehouse mob who believe that flesh is sinful and set up rigorous barriers to letting anyone under the age of 18 see a bit of nudity. Admittedly the standards are falling over here, mean 12 year olds could watch Kate Winslet's baps in Titanic, but the thing about foreigners is that they really don't care about it at all. Adverts on French daytime TV regularly feature naked women and no-one bats an eyelid. I think this is a fairly strong point to start on. If you watch a foreign film that's been rated above a 12 you're pretty much guaranteed a lot of nudity. And everyone knows that the best films feature fit women naked :-)
But it's not just that. See foreign films can get away with more. More sex, more violence, you name it, and they can be excessive because there's no studio pressure to make the films commercial, and because the ratings aren't greatly affected. This is carried over into our own rating system; partly because if French children are deemed old enough to watch naked people, then British children should be too, but also because nobody watches foreign films. This means that films like "Battle Royale", which would be slaughtered by the Daily Mail brigade if they were made over here get through the BBFC with little problem (pfft Japanese film with subtitles - no-one's going to watch it anyway). This means that in comparison to American films, foreign films rock.
The other reason that they're better than most American films is that not all foreigners speak English, which is a blessing. You see because we speak English, the British film industry is pounded into submission due to everyone watching American-made films. The last good Brit-flic I saw was "The Lawless Heart", which nearly didn't get made because it couldn't get funding. In France they don't suffer the same problem. Their attitude to American films is the same as ours is to French films ("ooh subtitles I don't want to watch that") and what's worse is that the subtitles are done very quickly and very badly rendering many films completely different. I saw Armageddon in France a week after it came out in Britain. At one point someone, possibly brucey-boy, said "That asteroid is a million miles away yadda yadda yadda" - the subtitler had given an exact figure in kilometres for the "million miles" part. So instead of watching dumb American movies they make their own - same thing in Spain and Germany and Denmark and Sweden. All over the world. Because these films are on smaller budgets and more indepedently funded, most of them actually turn out very well indeed. Sure you get incomprehensibly poncy films (stand up Dogme '95 directors and "Y tu mama tambien") but you also get films that rock a lot.
Many of these films are now under threat from Hollywood, which has decided to let them be re-made my plebs and morons for a mass commercial audience. And we all know what commercialism means...
*waves bye bye to Steve Lamacq*
Take a danish TV series called "The Kingdom". It was made by Lars von Trier, who was a director of some considerable talent before he decided that Dogme was the way to go ("You can see the boom mike and I'm shooting on handheld and all that means my film is free of over-the-top direction and concentrates only on human emotions. Ohh ohh aahh I think I'm having an orgasm from my own brilliance." - No Lars the films suck. A lot.) "The Kingdom" was basically a "Twin Peaks" for Danish TV - a soap that was self-consciously a soap and played on the fact directed by a surrealist auteur-director with just the right amount of pretentiousness. It was set in a hospital filled with weird and wonderful characters but was a ghost story at the same time and it featured a Swedish doctor who hated Danes, a hypochondriac clairvoyant patient, a female doctor pregnant with a full grown man, and a greek chorus effect involving two children with Downs Syndrome who comment on the action while washing dishes in the hospital basement. And it rocked.
Now Stephen King saw this and thought righty-o then I'm having that one. And as I write "Kingdom Hospital" is slated in for a 2003 release as a TV series. If King has any grasp of irony he will probably remove the storyline about the consultant neurosurgeon who steals other doctors' research and publishes it under his own name. I'm pretty sure that King's version will stink. Not because I dislike Stephen King, but because he's got some jumped up ex-stuntman to direct it; a jumped up stuntman who transformed from Craig Baxley to Craig R. Baxley when he decided to be a director. Now isn't that pretentious? Well, no, not by Lars von Trier standards and that's the problem. Baxley will probably look at the jaundiced colouring and the shaky camera and think that he can do it much better with a good ol' steadycam, and he'll have missed the point. He'll Americanize the series and so crap it up. As to americanize is to dumb down and homogenize something until it appeals to as many people as possible.
Von Trier isn't the only one who's about to get bum-raped by the Hollywood moguls. A guy called Gilles Mimouni is really in for it, not only is his baby of a film "L'Appartement" being re-made as an American blockbuster called "Wicker Park", but Vincent Cassel's role has been taken up by Josh Harnett - a 'no-talent ass-clown' to borrow an insult from "Office Space". The French version wasn't in the least bit poncy; it was just a satisfyingly twistily plotted thriller which featured fit women with their baps on show. Think the Coen brothers with more nudity in French and you're there. The French version was a great film and no mistake, but however you play it, the American version just isn't going to work. Someone as spectacularly ugly as Vincent Cassel can be can't rely on his looks to get him a role, which tends to lead to his being cast on acting merit rather than looks. Josh Harnett is a pretty boy, and while it is more plausible to believe that a pretty boy like Josh would become embroiled in three relationships simultaneously with three attractive women - he's going to muck it up by being crap just as he has done in every single film I've seen him in.
And to top it off Hollywood producers announced that they were going to re-make an Argentinian film - "Nine Queens" - before it had even been released over there. Why? Because it was an intelligent heist movie in a Guy Ritch-ish-ish way (more like Mamet actually but how many people have heard of him?) and because no-one would watch such a film unless it was in English they could do so.
My problem is one of respect. Time and time again foreign directors have their films bastardised by some talentless Hollywood hack, who gets kudos for doing so and the foreign director - often the author of the film as well - gets no credit at all. In fact he gets shafted every which way. Cameron Crowe pretended in interviews that "Vanilla Sky" was his baby and even had the audacity to give himself prominence as the scriptwriter. "Vanilla Sky" sucked. "Wicker Park" will suck. "Kingdom Hospital" will suck. "Nine Queens Remake" will suck. For me, that is, because I have seen the originals. For other people they will be fair to middling, maybe even good because they will have no basis for comparison. So do yourself a favour and have the individuality to go and watch "L'Appartement" or "the Kingdom" before the trashy American versions come out. I'll promise you more nudity, more flair and more individuality.
The problem with current cinema releases is that anyone whose films will not pull in audiences is suffering. David Lynch couldn't get "Mulholland Dr." commissioned as a TV series, despite the success of "Twin Peaks", Sam Raimi had to fight tooth and nail to make "Spider-man" his way and not the studio's. Instead films with Vin Diesel grunting and blowing things up get ludicrous budgets at the expense of more worthwhile films. So do what I do and take solace in the dusty foreign section of blockbuster, or the awkwardly-placed world cinema section in MVC. Because there, along with the poncy films, you'll find some damn good films which you would only watch otherwise when they get re-made.
Yes, believe it or not, Vanilla Sky was a fairly shoddy re-make of a Spanish film called "Abre los Ojos", which was not only better but featured Penelope Cruz topless for much longer. And with this I will start my defence of foreign films. French and Spanish people aren't afraid of nudity; they don't have a Mary Whitehouse mob who believe that flesh is sinful and set up rigorous barriers to letting anyone under the age of 18 see a bit of nudity. Admittedly the standards are falling over here, mean 12 year olds could watch Kate Winslet's baps in Titanic, but the thing about foreigners is that they really don't care about it at all. Adverts on French daytime TV regularly feature naked women and no-one bats an eyelid. I think this is a fairly strong point to start on. If you watch a foreign film that's been rated above a 12 you're pretty much guaranteed a lot of nudity. And everyone knows that the best films feature fit women naked :-)
But it's not just that. See foreign films can get away with more. More sex, more violence, you name it, and they can be excessive because there's no studio pressure to make the films commercial, and because the ratings aren't greatly affected. This is carried over into our own rating system; partly because if French children are deemed old enough to watch naked people, then British children should be too, but also because nobody watches foreign films. This means that films like "Battle Royale", which would be slaughtered by the Daily Mail brigade if they were made over here get through the BBFC with little problem (pfft Japanese film with subtitles - no-one's going to watch it anyway). This means that in comparison to American films, foreign films rock.
The other reason that they're better than most American films is that not all foreigners speak English, which is a blessing. You see because we speak English, the British film industry is pounded into submission due to everyone watching American-made films. The last good Brit-flic I saw was "The Lawless Heart", which nearly didn't get made because it couldn't get funding. In France they don't suffer the same problem. Their attitude to American films is the same as ours is to French films ("ooh subtitles I don't want to watch that") and what's worse is that the subtitles are done very quickly and very badly rendering many films completely different. I saw Armageddon in France a week after it came out in Britain. At one point someone, possibly brucey-boy, said "That asteroid is a million miles away yadda yadda yadda" - the subtitler had given an exact figure in kilometres for the "million miles" part. So instead of watching dumb American movies they make their own - same thing in Spain and Germany and Denmark and Sweden. All over the world. Because these films are on smaller budgets and more indepedently funded, most of them actually turn out very well indeed. Sure you get incomprehensibly poncy films (stand up Dogme '95 directors and "Y tu mama tambien") but you also get films that rock a lot.
Many of these films are now under threat from Hollywood, which has decided to let them be re-made my plebs and morons for a mass commercial audience. And we all know what commercialism means...
*waves bye bye to Steve Lamacq*
Take a danish TV series called "The Kingdom". It was made by Lars von Trier, who was a director of some considerable talent before he decided that Dogme was the way to go ("You can see the boom mike and I'm shooting on handheld and all that means my film is free of over-the-top direction and concentrates only on human emotions. Ohh ohh aahh I think I'm having an orgasm from my own brilliance." - No Lars the films suck. A lot.) "The Kingdom" was basically a "Twin Peaks" for Danish TV - a soap that was self-consciously a soap and played on the fact directed by a surrealist auteur-director with just the right amount of pretentiousness. It was set in a hospital filled with weird and wonderful characters but was a ghost story at the same time and it featured a Swedish doctor who hated Danes, a hypochondriac clairvoyant patient, a female doctor pregnant with a full grown man, and a greek chorus effect involving two children with Downs Syndrome who comment on the action while washing dishes in the hospital basement. And it rocked.
Now Stephen King saw this and thought righty-o then I'm having that one. And as I write "Kingdom Hospital" is slated in for a 2003 release as a TV series. If King has any grasp of irony he will probably remove the storyline about the consultant neurosurgeon who steals other doctors' research and publishes it under his own name. I'm pretty sure that King's version will stink. Not because I dislike Stephen King, but because he's got some jumped up ex-stuntman to direct it; a jumped up stuntman who transformed from Craig Baxley to Craig R. Baxley when he decided to be a director. Now isn't that pretentious? Well, no, not by Lars von Trier standards and that's the problem. Baxley will probably look at the jaundiced colouring and the shaky camera and think that he can do it much better with a good ol' steadycam, and he'll have missed the point. He'll Americanize the series and so crap it up. As to americanize is to dumb down and homogenize something until it appeals to as many people as possible.
Von Trier isn't the only one who's about to get bum-raped by the Hollywood moguls. A guy called Gilles Mimouni is really in for it, not only is his baby of a film "L'Appartement" being re-made as an American blockbuster called "Wicker Park", but Vincent Cassel's role has been taken up by Josh Harnett - a 'no-talent ass-clown' to borrow an insult from "Office Space". The French version wasn't in the least bit poncy; it was just a satisfyingly twistily plotted thriller which featured fit women with their baps on show. Think the Coen brothers with more nudity in French and you're there. The French version was a great film and no mistake, but however you play it, the American version just isn't going to work. Someone as spectacularly ugly as Vincent Cassel can be can't rely on his looks to get him a role, which tends to lead to his being cast on acting merit rather than looks. Josh Harnett is a pretty boy, and while it is more plausible to believe that a pretty boy like Josh would become embroiled in three relationships simultaneously with three attractive women - he's going to muck it up by being crap just as he has done in every single film I've seen him in.
And to top it off Hollywood producers announced that they were going to re-make an Argentinian film - "Nine Queens" - before it had even been released over there. Why? Because it was an intelligent heist movie in a Guy Ritch-ish-ish way (more like Mamet actually but how many people have heard of him?) and because no-one would watch such a film unless it was in English they could do so.
My problem is one of respect. Time and time again foreign directors have their films bastardised by some talentless Hollywood hack, who gets kudos for doing so and the foreign director - often the author of the film as well - gets no credit at all. In fact he gets shafted every which way. Cameron Crowe pretended in interviews that "Vanilla Sky" was his baby and even had the audacity to give himself prominence as the scriptwriter. "Vanilla Sky" sucked. "Wicker Park" will suck. "Kingdom Hospital" will suck. "Nine Queens Remake" will suck. For me, that is, because I have seen the originals. For other people they will be fair to middling, maybe even good because they will have no basis for comparison. So do yourself a favour and have the individuality to go and watch "L'Appartement" or "the Kingdom" before the trashy American versions come out. I'll promise you more nudity, more flair and more individuality.
The problem with current cinema releases is that anyone whose films will not pull in audiences is suffering. David Lynch couldn't get "Mulholland Dr." commissioned as a TV series, despite the success of "Twin Peaks", Sam Raimi had to fight tooth and nail to make "Spider-man" his way and not the studio's. Instead films with Vin Diesel grunting and blowing things up get ludicrous budgets at the expense of more worthwhile films. So do what I do and take solace in the dusty foreign section of blockbuster, or the awkwardly-placed world cinema section in MVC. Because there, along with the poncy films, you'll find some damn good films which you would only watch otherwise when they get re-made.
Page:
Sexy Beast is quite a good case in point actually; it's why the british film industry is going down the pan. There you have an excellent film that received nothing but praise from the critics, even the Daily Mail liked it, and won a stack of prizes, and still nobody went to see it.
A few years on and Filmfour has announced that it's packing in film funding and just funding TV stuff. Johnathan Glazer, the Sexy Beast director, has moved across the atlantic where he's working on a film called Chaos, starring Benicio del Toro and Robert de Niro. And the British film has been relegated to the only type that stands any chance of bringing in dollares: the foppish upper-class "comedy" (I use the term loosely) usually starring Hugh Grant, Rupert Everett, Judi Dench, Jim Broadbent and chums.
I don't want to watch The Importance of Four Weddings in Notting Hill. But Americans do. And that's what's left. Sure you get the odd independant film fighting the cause, but now Filmfour's stopped funding stuff, they're going to trail out.
I know that you get intelligent films out of Hollywood, but they are incredibly rare, and usually it's because the studio wants a prestige picture. They know that it won't make them money directly, but if it wins awards then they'll make money another way. Because that's what it's al about. Money.
From my experience foreign films don't seem as obsessed with money, because people in other countries are limited as to what they can see in their own language; so most films do relatively well. I'm not saying that there are never any absolutely terrible films, because there will be, though they'll probably stay in their country of origin because only the successful films get releases abroad. And foreign cinema is alive and well. Take a look at British cinema. It's descended to the level of an American cinema genre.
A few years on and Filmfour has announced that it's packing in film funding and just funding TV stuff. Johnathan Glazer, the Sexy Beast director, has moved across the atlantic where he's working on a film called Chaos, starring Benicio del Toro and Robert de Niro. And the British film has been relegated to the only type that stands any chance of bringing in dollares: the foppish upper-class "comedy" (I use the term loosely) usually starring Hugh Grant, Rupert Everett, Judi Dench, Jim Broadbent and chums.
I don't want to watch The Importance of Four Weddings in Notting Hill. But Americans do. And that's what's left. Sure you get the odd independant film fighting the cause, but now Filmfour's stopped funding stuff, they're going to trail out.
I know that you get intelligent films out of Hollywood, but they are incredibly rare, and usually it's because the studio wants a prestige picture. They know that it won't make them money directly, but if it wins awards then they'll make money another way. Because that's what it's al about. Money.
From my experience foreign films don't seem as obsessed with money, because people in other countries are limited as to what they can see in their own language; so most films do relatively well. I'm not saying that there are never any absolutely terrible films, because there will be, though they'll probably stay in their country of origin because only the successful films get releases abroad. And foreign cinema is alive and well. Take a look at British cinema. It's descended to the level of an American cinema genre.
Theres no reason why a film can't be big and mainstream and yet retain an indie feel. Classic example - L.A. Confidential. And I once read somewhere that Peter Jackson once said that Lord of the Rings is "the most expensive independent film ever." Hm, don't know about that one, but I will admit some of the filters he uses in the film are a bit strange.
Also, while we're on the subject, I don't see why a mainstream Hollywood film can't be good. I'm looking forward muchly to The Bourne Identity, and thats a big-budget full on mainstream as they come. I go to my local Cineworld about once or twice a month on average, and I see a mixture of films, seeing as it shows indie films as well. I saw Ghost World there, for example, and the semi-indie Quills. Which both were excellent, incidentally.
(Note: I think Waterworld is an epic classic and I rate Dragonheart. I don't have a clue what I'm talking about)
Also, while we're on the subject, I don't see why a mainstream Hollywood film can't be good. I'm looking forward muchly to The Bourne Identity, and thats a big-budget full on mainstream as they come. I go to my local Cineworld about once or twice a month on average, and I see a mixture of films, seeing as it shows indie films as well. I saw Ghost World there, for example, and the semi-indie Quills. Which both were excellent, incidentally.
(Note: I think Waterworld is an epic classic and I rate Dragonheart. I don't have a clue what I'm talking about)
Good discussion that I want to get in on, but my head no work this morning good.
Watch Sexy Beast for a classy Brit movie that tried to be different.
It tanked, despite Oscar nom for Ben Kingsley.
Watch Sexy Beast for a classy Brit movie that tried to be different.
It tanked, despite Oscar nom for Ben Kingsley.
Hmm just read what I wrote and it didn't really my point across that well, my head hurst though and I'm not gonna go back and change it now.
Independent movies are the way forward people, don't ignore them.
Independent movies are the way forward people, don't ignore them.
I know what you're saying. But to clarify for everyone; I'm not saying that all blockbusters are crap, not by any means. But it tends to grate when there's no spectrum. It's blockbuster films or nothing. The last time I went to see a film at a multiplex was Spiderman, and that's once in 2 years. Because the multiplexes around me show nothing that interests me. Instead I have to go to the local university's crappy screen to watch decent films. And they only show 2 films a day, for about 3 weeks each. Which isn't really a lot of variety.
I just want to have the choice to see an intelligent/original film. Instead of being forced to wait for the blockbusters to get intelligent or original, as Spider-man was. But when I have to wait to see a Coens film or a Lynch film at the Uni cinema I get annoyed. My multiplex is still showing "the Grinch", and the gimp on the telephone line said that they didn't think there would be enough demand for Mulholland Dr. or for the Man Who Wasn't There. Pleb.
Indie film-makers are the only people doing this, and I can't see their films anywhere. Which means I have to buy them on DVD. It just so happens that the foreigners are getting their act together and producing these films too.
I just want to have the choice to see an intelligent/original film. Instead of being forced to wait for the blockbusters to get intelligent or original, as Spider-man was. But when I have to wait to see a Coens film or a Lynch film at the Uni cinema I get annoyed. My multiplex is still showing "the Grinch", and the gimp on the telephone line said that they didn't think there would be enough demand for Mulholland Dr. or for the Man Who Wasn't There. Pleb.
Indie film-makers are the only people doing this, and I can't see their films anywhere. Which means I have to buy them on DVD. It just so happens that the foreigners are getting their act together and producing these films too.
I guess I beterI totally agree with you about Independent film. I'm sure they're not your kind of films but there's a company in America called Troma, they're the longest running independant film studio. They've made cult classics like The Toxic Avenger, Class of Nuke'em High and Tromeo and Juliet. They inspired a lot of well known directors like Quentin Tarentino, Kevin Smith, Trey Parker have all admitted to being fans. Their balls out approach to film making is a massive breath of fresh air in a world that caters for the popcorn munching masses by slinging countless brainless big budget trash at film goers. They aren't bothered about what's gonna sell, they make films cause they want to make films, there's actual emotion bhind what they do.
Anyway every year they hold a Festival called Tromadance, it's held at the same time as the Sundance film festival (big festival for supposedly independent films but it's a big feck off farce). Basically any upcoming directors can come along and show their work to an audience, there's no fee (unlike the sundance film festival) no one's treated differently it's a just day for upcoming directors to come and show their films.
Anyway I'm not really sure where this is going and I'm not sure what relevance this has to do with the topic but anyway. I guess what I'm trying to say is independant films are the way forward, I'm fed up with watching all this emotionless big budget crap coming out Hollywood. The way the film market is going though Inpendent films are getting less and less noticed, it's practically imposssible fo them to get recognition at the cinemas so only a select group of people will get to see them.
I guess I better end this strange rant of mine, basically next time you go to the video shop to rent out the latest air head Gwyneth Paltro flick, think about getting something that's less well known and probably is a hell of a lot better.
Anyway every year they hold a Festival called Tromadance, it's held at the same time as the Sundance film festival (big festival for supposedly independent films but it's a big feck off farce). Basically any upcoming directors can come along and show their work to an audience, there's no fee (unlike the sundance film festival) no one's treated differently it's a just day for upcoming directors to come and show their films.
Anyway I'm not really sure where this is going and I'm not sure what relevance this has to do with the topic but anyway. I guess what I'm trying to say is independant films are the way forward, I'm fed up with watching all this emotionless big budget crap coming out Hollywood. The way the film market is going though Inpendent films are getting less and less noticed, it's practically imposssible fo them to get recognition at the cinemas so only a select group of people will get to see them.
I guess I better end this strange rant of mine, basically next time you go to the video shop to rent out the latest air head Gwyneth Paltro flick, think about getting something that's less well known and probably is a hell of a lot better.
Two other things about Hollywood remakes:
1.) They're remaking Fever Pitch into a film (even though there was one not long ago) but get this - it'll take place in America, and based on baseball, not football. High Fidelity-esque.
2.) They're remaking the Italian Job. Ya just don't remake the Italian Job.
1.) They're remaking Fever Pitch into a film (even though there was one not long ago) but get this - it'll take place in America, and based on baseball, not football. High Fidelity-esque.
2.) They're remaking the Italian Job. Ya just don't remake the Italian Job.
I thought American Beauty was great, but Perdition looks a bit rubbish.
You can also relate it to Brit actors. Ewan Mcgregor went from Trainspotting to Star Wars. Hugh Grant went from British-y things to being directed by Americans (About A Boy) and rom coms about a Brit ho lives in America (Nine Months, and he's starring with Sandra Bullock in some new film in the next few months..). Even Michael Caine went from The Italian Job 30 years ago to Austin Powers 3.
British film should be ashamed of losing these guys. Except for Hugh Grant. They should be proud of that :D
You can also relate it to Brit actors. Ewan Mcgregor went from Trainspotting to Star Wars. Hugh Grant went from British-y things to being directed by Americans (About A Boy) and rom coms about a Brit ho lives in America (Nine Months, and he's starring with Sandra Bullock in some new film in the next few months..). Even Michael Caine went from The Italian Job 30 years ago to Austin Powers 3.
British film should be ashamed of losing these guys. Except for Hugh Grant. They should be proud of that :D
Mr. Happy wrote:
I'll
> promise you more nudity,
Well, I'm sold... who's with me...?
I'll
> promise you more nudity,
Well, I'm sold... who's with me...?
Ah but Road to Perdition does has a reverse zoom in it apparently, and all the very very best films have one; Vertigo, goodfellas, La Haine.
Allardini does make a valid point as well. In order to succeed Nolan had to emigrate to America, which just goes to show how backwards the british film industry is. Whatever your opinion of Memento was, I think everyone can agree that it knocked the socks off every british film released at the same time. Nolan is a brit making films in America, which is something of which our film industry should be ashamed, not proud.
Allardini does make a valid point as well. In order to succeed Nolan had to emigrate to America, which just goes to show how backwards the british film industry is. Whatever your opinion of Memento was, I think everyone can agree that it knocked the socks off every british film released at the same time. Nolan is a brit making films in America, which is something of which our film industry should be ashamed, not proud.
Page: