The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The other I heard 2001 was to be re-release at the Cirzon Mayfair and so promtly I hurried to see Kubrick's masterpiece. When the film ended it left me wondering. Wow! Kubrick has showed the world the true potential of film.
So I began to reminisce, when was the last time I've seen a film that has rejected the Hollywood good feel straight forward movies? Apart from Godard and other Kubrick films I was left with only a handful. The popularity of 2001 has influenced films such as Star Wars, Star Trek and even the Kellogges Cornflakes adverts (the dawn of man 6:45 BC). But nowadays the film industry seems to so up their elbow that they would only produce films that would make it to Blockbusters. In the 90's there have been few films that has been as inspirational as the 2001 or even any Kubrick film. I know Kubrick is sure to be a one off but surely someone can try. Not to completely copy Kubrick but to try something new, fresh and original.
Few films has captured my eye in the 90's, Goodfellas and Magnolia, Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, Shawshank Redemption and American History X.
Goodfellas had it all, magnifiscant performance by De Niro, Pesci and Ray Liotta. The dialogue was funny and the direction by Scorsese was again a masterpiece. The movie flowed like a strawberry smoothie and films was very watchable.
Magnolia was just as good, the performance as great and Mr Cruise defied all expectations. The film was very very funny and the direct was again a masterpiece.
Pulp Fiction would always be remembered for it's dialogue and the cop anal throbbing Mr Wallace. Funny, funny an very funny.
Dogs. Tarantino's directorial debut shocked all. Surely a first time director shoot gorilla style cannot shoot a film that is endlessly in the Top 10 polls of best films. Again the dialogue from Tarantino is something you would never forget. His comments on Maddonna's Like a Virgin still makes me laugh.
Shawshank Redemption was shocking. The screenplay was sold for $1 I do believe. Simply magnifiscent the pinnical of story telling. Morgan Freeman was simply magnifiscent as was Tim Robbins. The character of Brooks would melt all hearts. As for the Sister, they would make you cringe and laugh at the same time.
American History X scared the pant off of me. Whilst watching the film I was truely scared. I believed that I'll turn over to the D.O.C views like all the characters did, luckily, I'm ok. The films was so powerful. The scene with the basketball match nearly made me jump up and cheer for the racist gang, you would really want them to kbeat the black players. This film would truely scare your conscience.
Anyway, back to my point, produer seem to be concentrating on which class A star to hire. For example The Beach was sup[pose to be a Ewan Mc Gregore film the producers was so afraid that the film would not appeal to the American audience they hired Leo Di C. Thus the Richard character had to change his whole background. The director seems to be the last manon the film priorty list even though he/she is probably no, definatley the most important player in the production. If a producer, nowadays had a chance to make a film, A, an adaptation of Arthur C. Clarks 2001, and B, a film about a muscle clad male who saves the world from an evil dictor and meets a women of his dreams? I bet my glutious mAximus the producer will pick B.
Your views?
So I began to reminisce, when was the last time I've seen a film that has rejected the Hollywood good feel straight forward movies? Apart from Godard and other Kubrick films I was left with only a handful. The popularity of 2001 has influenced films such as Star Wars, Star Trek and even the Kellogges Cornflakes adverts (the dawn of man 6:45 BC). But nowadays the film industry seems to so up their elbow that they would only produce films that would make it to Blockbusters. In the 90's there have been few films that has been as inspirational as the 2001 or even any Kubrick film. I know Kubrick is sure to be a one off but surely someone can try. Not to completely copy Kubrick but to try something new, fresh and original.
Few films has captured my eye in the 90's, Goodfellas and Magnolia, Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, Shawshank Redemption and American History X.
Goodfellas had it all, magnifiscant performance by De Niro, Pesci and Ray Liotta. The dialogue was funny and the direction by Scorsese was again a masterpiece. The movie flowed like a strawberry smoothie and films was very watchable.
Magnolia was just as good, the performance as great and Mr Cruise defied all expectations. The film was very very funny and the direct was again a masterpiece.
Pulp Fiction would always be remembered for it's dialogue and the cop anal throbbing Mr Wallace. Funny, funny an very funny.
Dogs. Tarantino's directorial debut shocked all. Surely a first time director shoot gorilla style cannot shoot a film that is endlessly in the Top 10 polls of best films. Again the dialogue from Tarantino is something you would never forget. His comments on Maddonna's Like a Virgin still makes me laugh.
Shawshank Redemption was shocking. The screenplay was sold for $1 I do believe. Simply magnifiscent the pinnical of story telling. Morgan Freeman was simply magnifiscent as was Tim Robbins. The character of Brooks would melt all hearts. As for the Sister, they would make you cringe and laugh at the same time.
American History X scared the pant off of me. Whilst watching the film I was truely scared. I believed that I'll turn over to the D.O.C views like all the characters did, luckily, I'm ok. The films was so powerful. The scene with the basketball match nearly made me jump up and cheer for the racist gang, you would really want them to kbeat the black players. This film would truely scare your conscience.
Anyway, back to my point, produer seem to be concentrating on which class A star to hire. For example The Beach was sup[pose to be a Ewan Mc Gregore film the producers was so afraid that the film would not appeal to the American audience they hired Leo Di C. Thus the Richard character had to change his whole background. The director seems to be the last manon the film priorty list even though he/she is probably no, definatley the most important player in the production. If a producer, nowadays had a chance to make a film, A, an adaptation of Arthur C. Clarks 2001, and B, a film about a muscle clad male who saves the world from an evil dictor and meets a women of his dreams? I bet my glutious mAximus the producer will pick B.
Your views?
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Spot on I think with that initial post. There is the Hollywood side
> of the film industry which is nowadays run purely as a business i.e.
> to make money.
I dont mean to sound rude... well, not too rude anyway :)... but ALL of Hollywoods movies are made to make money... There isnt a Hoolywood movie that you've ever seen that wasnt made for the accumulation of cash... as it is, as it has been, as it always will be...
Indeed the validity of the moving image as a true art form is still very much in debate... (although that kinda takes things a little further than I was intending to)
> Spot on I think with that initial post. There is the Hollywood side
> of the film industry which is nowadays run purely as a business i.e.
> to make money.
I dont mean to sound rude... well, not too rude anyway :)... but ALL of Hollywoods movies are made to make money... There isnt a Hoolywood movie that you've ever seen that wasnt made for the accumulation of cash... as it is, as it has been, as it always will be...
Indeed the validity of the moving image as a true art form is still very much in debate... (although that kinda takes things a little further than I was intending to)
Spot on I think with that initial post. There is the Hollywood side of the film industry which is nowadays run purely as a business i.e. to make money.
Then there's the 'Film is an art' side of the industry, that pushes the boundaries of filmmaking and produces, often with a very low budget, some amazing pieces of work.
Both sides of the film industry benefit from each other, but the flow of talent usually seems to go one way, from the art filmmakers to the big bucks side of the industry, but luckily the film schools keep churning out fresh talent to refill the art/experimental side of the industry.
As long as there are artists with vision around, I think that this trend will continue for as long as film continues.
What gets me nowadays is why they still use 'celluloid' to actually make films with in the first place. With the advent of DVD-R technology, and therefore pretty soon DVD-RW technology, how come they still use the plastic stuff to record movies on.
Can't they just invent a camera that burns images straight to a DVD-R that can then be edited and spliced a lot more quickly than the film itself?
Then we could have DVD quality images projected at our cinemas instead of the sometimes grainy film images that even today we still get.
Then there's the 'Film is an art' side of the industry, that pushes the boundaries of filmmaking and produces, often with a very low budget, some amazing pieces of work.
Both sides of the film industry benefit from each other, but the flow of talent usually seems to go one way, from the art filmmakers to the big bucks side of the industry, but luckily the film schools keep churning out fresh talent to refill the art/experimental side of the industry.
As long as there are artists with vision around, I think that this trend will continue for as long as film continues.
What gets me nowadays is why they still use 'celluloid' to actually make films with in the first place. With the advent of DVD-R technology, and therefore pretty soon DVD-RW technology, how come they still use the plastic stuff to record movies on.
Can't they just invent a camera that burns images straight to a DVD-R that can then be edited and spliced a lot more quickly than the film itself?
Then we could have DVD quality images projected at our cinemas instead of the sometimes grainy film images that even today we still get.
Goodfellas, Magnolia, Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, Shawshank Redemption and American History X are all great films. The Shawshank Redemption being my favourite of those.
As for films not being as good as they used to be, Ild say your right. Mass communication now means stars (like Leo) are now often bigger than the movies they act in. This is sad, and often means that good scripts cant be made into great movies unless someone shells out millions to second rate actors (in Leos case third rate).
Until Hollywood stops paying actors Megabucks, Im afraid the usual amount of rubbish will continue to be produced.
As for films not being as good as they used to be, Ild say your right. Mass communication now means stars (like Leo) are now often bigger than the movies they act in. This is sad, and often means that good scripts cant be made into great movies unless someone shells out millions to second rate actors (in Leos case third rate).
Until Hollywood stops paying actors Megabucks, Im afraid the usual amount of rubbish will continue to be produced.
The other I heard 2001 was to be re-release at the Cirzon Mayfair and so promtly I hurried to see Kubrick's masterpiece. When the film ended it left me wondering. Wow! Kubrick has showed the world the true potential of film.
So I began to reminisce, when was the last time I've seen a film that has rejected the Hollywood good feel straight forward movies? Apart from Godard and other Kubrick films I was left with only a handful. The popularity of 2001 has influenced films such as Star Wars, Star Trek and even the Kellogges Cornflakes adverts (the dawn of man 6:45 BC). But nowadays the film industry seems to so up their elbow that they would only produce films that would make it to Blockbusters. In the 90's there have been few films that has been as inspirational as the 2001 or even any Kubrick film. I know Kubrick is sure to be a one off but surely someone can try. Not to completely copy Kubrick but to try something new, fresh and original.
Few films has captured my eye in the 90's, Goodfellas and Magnolia, Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, Shawshank Redemption and American History X.
Goodfellas had it all, magnifiscant performance by De Niro, Pesci and Ray Liotta. The dialogue was funny and the direction by Scorsese was again a masterpiece. The movie flowed like a strawberry smoothie and films was very watchable.
Magnolia was just as good, the performance as great and Mr Cruise defied all expectations. The film was very very funny and the direct was again a masterpiece.
Pulp Fiction would always be remembered for it's dialogue and the cop anal throbbing Mr Wallace. Funny, funny an very funny.
Dogs. Tarantino's directorial debut shocked all. Surely a first time director shoot gorilla style cannot shoot a film that is endlessly in the Top 10 polls of best films. Again the dialogue from Tarantino is something you would never forget. His comments on Maddonna's Like a Virgin still makes me laugh.
Shawshank Redemption was shocking. The screenplay was sold for $1 I do believe. Simply magnifiscent the pinnical of story telling. Morgan Freeman was simply magnifiscent as was Tim Robbins. The character of Brooks would melt all hearts. As for the Sister, they would make you cringe and laugh at the same time.
American History X scared the pant off of me. Whilst watching the film I was truely scared. I believed that I'll turn over to the D.O.C views like all the characters did, luckily, I'm ok. The films was so powerful. The scene with the basketball match nearly made me jump up and cheer for the racist gang, you would really want them to kbeat the black players. This film would truely scare your conscience.
Anyway, back to my point, produer seem to be concentrating on which class A star to hire. For example The Beach was sup[pose to be a Ewan Mc Gregore film the producers was so afraid that the film would not appeal to the American audience they hired Leo Di C. Thus the Richard character had to change his whole background. The director seems to be the last manon the film priorty list even though he/she is probably no, definatley the most important player in the production. If a producer, nowadays had a chance to make a film, A, an adaptation of Arthur C. Clarks 2001, and B, a film about a muscle clad male who saves the world from an evil dictor and meets a women of his dreams? I bet my glutious mAximus the producer will pick B.
Your views?
So I began to reminisce, when was the last time I've seen a film that has rejected the Hollywood good feel straight forward movies? Apart from Godard and other Kubrick films I was left with only a handful. The popularity of 2001 has influenced films such as Star Wars, Star Trek and even the Kellogges Cornflakes adverts (the dawn of man 6:45 BC). But nowadays the film industry seems to so up their elbow that they would only produce films that would make it to Blockbusters. In the 90's there have been few films that has been as inspirational as the 2001 or even any Kubrick film. I know Kubrick is sure to be a one off but surely someone can try. Not to completely copy Kubrick but to try something new, fresh and original.
Few films has captured my eye in the 90's, Goodfellas and Magnolia, Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, Shawshank Redemption and American History X.
Goodfellas had it all, magnifiscant performance by De Niro, Pesci and Ray Liotta. The dialogue was funny and the direction by Scorsese was again a masterpiece. The movie flowed like a strawberry smoothie and films was very watchable.
Magnolia was just as good, the performance as great and Mr Cruise defied all expectations. The film was very very funny and the direct was again a masterpiece.
Pulp Fiction would always be remembered for it's dialogue and the cop anal throbbing Mr Wallace. Funny, funny an very funny.
Dogs. Tarantino's directorial debut shocked all. Surely a first time director shoot gorilla style cannot shoot a film that is endlessly in the Top 10 polls of best films. Again the dialogue from Tarantino is something you would never forget. His comments on Maddonna's Like a Virgin still makes me laugh.
Shawshank Redemption was shocking. The screenplay was sold for $1 I do believe. Simply magnifiscent the pinnical of story telling. Morgan Freeman was simply magnifiscent as was Tim Robbins. The character of Brooks would melt all hearts. As for the Sister, they would make you cringe and laugh at the same time.
American History X scared the pant off of me. Whilst watching the film I was truely scared. I believed that I'll turn over to the D.O.C views like all the characters did, luckily, I'm ok. The films was so powerful. The scene with the basketball match nearly made me jump up and cheer for the racist gang, you would really want them to kbeat the black players. This film would truely scare your conscience.
Anyway, back to my point, produer seem to be concentrating on which class A star to hire. For example The Beach was sup[pose to be a Ewan Mc Gregore film the producers was so afraid that the film would not appeal to the American audience they hired Leo Di C. Thus the Richard character had to change his whole background. The director seems to be the last manon the film priorty list even though he/she is probably no, definatley the most important player in the production. If a producer, nowadays had a chance to make a film, A, an adaptation of Arthur C. Clarks 2001, and B, a film about a muscle clad male who saves the world from an evil dictor and meets a women of his dreams? I bet my glutious mAximus the producer will pick B.
Your views?