This was all I was hoping for in the film. Definitely in the top five for the year. Another contender I saw this week, but later to that film.
Clint Eastwood is at the top of his form as an actor and director. Plus composer. What an amazing guy! And he's in his 70s.
He plays a retired man who's just lost his wife and is alienated from his family, church and neighbors. The neighbors are the bain of his existence since the etnic background of the neighborhood has completely changed from Caucasian to Asian. He hates them and doesn't trust them. Walt Kowalski is a bigot, a patriot and a Korean War veteran. In someways he could be my Dad. I understand this fifties kind of man. Think Bud White from LA Confidential as an older man.
Walt built cars for Ford in their heyday of the muscle cars in the 1970s. He assembled the Gran Torino that sits in his driveway in perfect mint condition.
Despite his not wanting anything to do with them, the humanity in Walt comes out when he gets drawn into the lives of the teenaged boy and girl who live next door.
I won't give anymore plot away. That's plenty.
See this film. It's exciting, edge of your seat as well as makes you care for the characters and story. Eastwood gets the most out of his young untested cast. I really liked the performance of the sister, Sue, played by Ahney Her and the young parish priest, Father Janovich, played by Christopher Carley.
But, then Eastwood knows how to work with actors to get the best they can give. Think of Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and Marcia Gay Harden in Mystic River. Angelina Jolie in Changeling, Hillary Swank and Morgan Freeman in Million Dollar Baby. And the example I always use, Kevin Costner. Yep, Kevin Costner. Not exactly the best actor in film, but if you ever saw him in Eastwood's A Perfect World, he was wonderful as Butch.
Gran Torino gets and A. This is a top notch film. See it! Make my day...okay, I couldn't resist.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Australia
Ok, for starters....YAWN!
This film is 2 hrs and 45 minutes which can fly by on a great film, but was agonizing for this film.
Most people who watch movies know the premise. Hugh Jackman plays a drover named "The Drover" and Nicole Kidman is a British aristocrat traveling to Australia to get her husband in line to sell their property in New South Wales to have some cash infusion into their British lands and holdings. She gets there and her supposedly cheating and ingoring husband is very dead.
I've seen plenty of films that build slowly that don't seem 'slow,' but this is NOT one of them. This is a beautiful film to look at that highlights the harsh land of this portion of (Darwin) of Australia, but I wasn't going to the theater for a travel film. And that was mostly what I did enjoy of the film.
Like another war film (though this is as much an Aussie cowboy movie with cattle drive and all) named Pearl Harbor it seems to have all look and little substance. Obviously I didn't like that film either.
I'd fit the blame for this lackluster film firmly in the lap of Baz Luhrmann. He was the director and cowrote the screenplay and that's where the problems are. Come on, Baz...EDIT! This film would have been better if at least 20 minutes were cut and tightened up. Seriously I didn't care about the characters either (very different from the previous film The Boy in the Striped Pajamas). The half Aboriginal boy and his grandfather were the most interesting characters in the film. A much better film on the subject of what was done to the half Aboriginal and half white children of Australia is Rabbit Proof Fence.
Ack, enough said on this film. I don't recommend it. Average at best. C+ and only the plus because of the cinematography. Originally the buzz was this film would star Russell Crowe with Nicole Kidman. He'd have brought more gravitas to the role of the drover, but I think it was good for him that it didn't work out.
I'll try to get to some thoughts on the Golden Globe nominations later. I was pleased with the Slumdog Millionaire and In Bruges nominations, but was sad there was no nominations for Richard Jenkins from The Visitor. I want to see a few more of the films in the next few weeks like Frost/Nixon, Doubt and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
imdb's got the nominations of course: imdb: Golden Globe nominations
This film is 2 hrs and 45 minutes which can fly by on a great film, but was agonizing for this film.
Most people who watch movies know the premise. Hugh Jackman plays a drover named "The Drover" and Nicole Kidman is a British aristocrat traveling to Australia to get her husband in line to sell their property in New South Wales to have some cash infusion into their British lands and holdings. She gets there and her supposedly cheating and ingoring husband is very dead.
I've seen plenty of films that build slowly that don't seem 'slow,' but this is NOT one of them. This is a beautiful film to look at that highlights the harsh land of this portion of (Darwin) of Australia, but I wasn't going to the theater for a travel film. And that was mostly what I did enjoy of the film.
Like another war film (though this is as much an Aussie cowboy movie with cattle drive and all) named Pearl Harbor it seems to have all look and little substance. Obviously I didn't like that film either.
I'd fit the blame for this lackluster film firmly in the lap of Baz Luhrmann. He was the director and cowrote the screenplay and that's where the problems are. Come on, Baz...EDIT! This film would have been better if at least 20 minutes were cut and tightened up. Seriously I didn't care about the characters either (very different from the previous film The Boy in the Striped Pajamas). The half Aboriginal boy and his grandfather were the most interesting characters in the film. A much better film on the subject of what was done to the half Aboriginal and half white children of Australia is Rabbit Proof Fence.
Ack, enough said on this film. I don't recommend it. Average at best. C+ and only the plus because of the cinematography. Originally the buzz was this film would star Russell Crowe with Nicole Kidman. He'd have brought more gravitas to the role of the drover, but I think it was good for him that it didn't work out.
I'll try to get to some thoughts on the Golden Globe nominations later. I was pleased with the Slumdog Millionaire and In Bruges nominations, but was sad there was no nominations for Richard Jenkins from The Visitor. I want to see a few more of the films in the next few weeks like Frost/Nixon, Doubt and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
imdb's got the nominations of course: imdb: Golden Globe nominations
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas
A bit under the weather and didn't want to subject other movie goers to my cough this weekend so...this is last weekend's films I didn't get to yet.
Friday night saw a trip to the theaters for a small film that has had a lot of acclaim. I found it a very engrossing film dealing with the subject of the holocaust through the eyes of a German child whose life was completely untouched by war and sorrow in the beginning of the film.
The film is in English and stars David Thewlis (Father) and Vera Farmiga (Mother) as the two main actors I'd recognized from other films. Also Rupert Friend who I'd seen in Pride and Prejudice. Given these two films he hopefully won't be typecast as a heavy like Sean Bean has spent much of his career on film.
The film follows a boy who is the son of a decorated German soldier who gets a 'promotion' to commandant of a concentration camp and moves his family there. His wife, daughter and son are unaware of the nature of the camp or his work. They are told the camp is a 'farm.'
The boy is lonely having left all his friends behind in the city and befriends a a boy who he thinks works at the farm and not is imprisoned in the concentration camp.
This is a very good film. Striking and devastating at the ending. Not for the faint of heart. Certainly worth seeing. I'd give it an A-.
Friday night saw a trip to the theaters for a small film that has had a lot of acclaim. I found it a very engrossing film dealing with the subject of the holocaust through the eyes of a German child whose life was completely untouched by war and sorrow in the beginning of the film.
The film is in English and stars David Thewlis (Father) and Vera Farmiga (Mother) as the two main actors I'd recognized from other films. Also Rupert Friend who I'd seen in Pride and Prejudice. Given these two films he hopefully won't be typecast as a heavy like Sean Bean has spent much of his career on film.
The film follows a boy who is the son of a decorated German soldier who gets a 'promotion' to commandant of a concentration camp and moves his family there. His wife, daughter and son are unaware of the nature of the camp or his work. They are told the camp is a 'farm.'
The boy is lonely having left all his friends behind in the city and befriends a a boy who he thinks works at the farm and not is imprisoned in the concentration camp.
This is a very good film. Striking and devastating at the ending. Not for the faint of heart. Certainly worth seeing. I'd give it an A-.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Twilight
I saw Twilight last night. I really wasn't expecting much. I thought it would only play well to the tween girls. I do like vampire films if they're done well. This was not bad. It had enough vampire lore to make it interesting. Added some new ideas like vampires being outside during daylight hours which would make them more formidable and invincible.
Since the story really revolves around a romance the chemistry between the two leads is very important. Edward and Bella had a definite pull to one another. I wanted to know more about the other vampires in the 'Cullen' family and the rogue vampires, but there wasn't too much character development there. I don't know if there was more in the book or not. I haven't read any in the Twilight series. Let's just say it intrigued me enough to perhaps read it.
Beautiful settings and scenery from the Pacific Northwest. And it helped the vampires hide in the open. I'd give the film a B or B-. Slightly above average.
If you want to see a vampire film more intriguing in theaters right now Let the Right One In is a Swedish film about a 12 year old vampire and a neighbor boy who is subjected to school bullies and becomes her friend. Most definitely more violent and bloody than Twilight too. I'd give it the same B or B- rating but you remember it far longer than the beauty of the vampires in Twilight. It is in Swedish with subtitles.
BTW, last post for Slumdog Millionaire I knew there was one more film I wanted to mention as a must see this year. It was The Visitor with Richard Jenkins. Another great small movie. Completely character driven. So if the Academy members haven't seen them...Slumdog Millionaire, The Visitor, In Bruges and Iron Man. Those were the four best I've seen this year so far...
Since the story really revolves around a romance the chemistry between the two leads is very important. Edward and Bella had a definite pull to one another. I wanted to know more about the other vampires in the 'Cullen' family and the rogue vampires, but there wasn't too much character development there. I don't know if there was more in the book or not. I haven't read any in the Twilight series. Let's just say it intrigued me enough to perhaps read it.
Beautiful settings and scenery from the Pacific Northwest. And it helped the vampires hide in the open. I'd give the film a B or B-. Slightly above average.
If you want to see a vampire film more intriguing in theaters right now Let the Right One In is a Swedish film about a 12 year old vampire and a neighbor boy who is subjected to school bullies and becomes her friend. Most definitely more violent and bloody than Twilight too. I'd give it the same B or B- rating but you remember it far longer than the beauty of the vampires in Twilight. It is in Swedish with subtitles.
BTW, last post for Slumdog Millionaire I knew there was one more film I wanted to mention as a must see this year. It was The Visitor with Richard Jenkins. Another great small movie. Completely character driven. So if the Academy members haven't seen them...Slumdog Millionaire, The Visitor, In Bruges and Iron Man. Those were the four best I've seen this year so far...
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Slumdog Millionaire
It's been a million years since I posted.
I saw a film last night that was terrific. Slumdog Millionaire. One of the best films I've seen this year. Up there with Iron Man and In Bruges.
An Indian film, but directed by Danny Boyle of Trainspotting. If you are put off by subtitles as a friend of mine is, there is no need to worry as this is mostly in English. She thought it was great too. Revolves around a chance at the Millionaire game show and a young man growing up in the slums of India with his brother with only each other to survive. They follow very different courses in their life by the time they're teens.
I'd give the film an A rating. I don't want to give too much of the story away and spoil it. There are three different actors who play the brothers and a girl at different phases in their life. It is always gripping and draws you into the story and the characters. Go see this one! You won't be disappointed.
I saw a film last night that was terrific. Slumdog Millionaire. One of the best films I've seen this year. Up there with Iron Man and In Bruges.
An Indian film, but directed by Danny Boyle of Trainspotting. If you are put off by subtitles as a friend of mine is, there is no need to worry as this is mostly in English. She thought it was great too. Revolves around a chance at the Millionaire game show and a young man growing up in the slums of India with his brother with only each other to survive. They follow very different courses in their life by the time they're teens.
I'd give the film an A rating. I don't want to give too much of the story away and spoil it. There are three different actors who play the brothers and a girl at different phases in their life. It is always gripping and draws you into the story and the characters. Go see this one! You won't be disappointed.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Eight Below: An Antarctic Dog Sled Adventure for the Whole Family
This is a live action-adventure film unusual because it’s entertaining for adults and kids alike. It is distributed by Walt Disney Studios. It brings to mind the tradition of films such as Old Yeller. It’s an exciting film that will keep you involved for the duration.
Set in Antarctica, it follows the adventures of guide Jerry Shepard, played by Paul Walker, and his team of sled dogs. Jerry Shepard is sent on one last trip into the frozen land of Antarctica before the scientific team is pulled from the station for the 6 months of winter. Jerry has doubts as to the safety of the undertaking and his instincts prove right with disastrous results. The dogs get left behind to attempt survival through Antarctica’s brutal winter.
The animals are smart, fearless, loyal and lovable as well as fallible at times. They show growth and change. They are as important a part of the cast as the human actors. The dogs have such personality that you will find yourself cheering through their adventure and opening your heart to leader Maya and young dog in training Max. This film is rated PG for two scenes that had tears in our eyes and one scene that is scary enough to elevate you a couple of inches out of your seat. The adults had tears, the nine year old cheerfully reminded us later that we cried and he didn’t.
The cinematography is breathtaking. Antarctica is a land that is shown in all its cold beauty and harshness. The scene during an aurora borealis is worth the price of admission. You will grin and sigh at the same time.
This is not a perfect film. There are a couple of slow moments during the human scenes when they are separated from the dogs. Paul Walker is likeable as a man who loves his dogs as much if not more than any humans. The sidekick, played by Jason Biggs, is too goofy and quirky, but younger children may enjoy him. Bruce Greenwood is excellent as usual as a scientist trying to make his mark in his field with an exciting discovery. His character could be one dimensional, but his portrayal makes you see there is more than you first believe to this man.
Grab the kids, the popcorn and drinks and settle in your local theater seats for a fun family adventure opening February 17.
Set in Antarctica, it follows the adventures of guide Jerry Shepard, played by Paul Walker, and his team of sled dogs. Jerry Shepard is sent on one last trip into the frozen land of Antarctica before the scientific team is pulled from the station for the 6 months of winter. Jerry has doubts as to the safety of the undertaking and his instincts prove right with disastrous results. The dogs get left behind to attempt survival through Antarctica’s brutal winter.
The animals are smart, fearless, loyal and lovable as well as fallible at times. They show growth and change. They are as important a part of the cast as the human actors. The dogs have such personality that you will find yourself cheering through their adventure and opening your heart to leader Maya and young dog in training Max. This film is rated PG for two scenes that had tears in our eyes and one scene that is scary enough to elevate you a couple of inches out of your seat. The adults had tears, the nine year old cheerfully reminded us later that we cried and he didn’t.
The cinematography is breathtaking. Antarctica is a land that is shown in all its cold beauty and harshness. The scene during an aurora borealis is worth the price of admission. You will grin and sigh at the same time.
This is not a perfect film. There are a couple of slow moments during the human scenes when they are separated from the dogs. Paul Walker is likeable as a man who loves his dogs as much if not more than any humans. The sidekick, played by Jason Biggs, is too goofy and quirky, but younger children may enjoy him. Bruce Greenwood is excellent as usual as a scientist trying to make his mark in his field with an exciting discovery. His character could be one dimensional, but his portrayal makes you see there is more than you first believe to this man.
Grab the kids, the popcorn and drinks and settle in your local theater seats for a fun family adventure opening February 17.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Oscar Nominations; Major Misses
Tuesday morning pinching myself in front of the TV to stay awake at 5:30 AM while waiting for the Academy Award nominations. The annual wait is about to be over. Which films, actors, directors, and screenplays are about to be nominated? Are they the best in film from 2005?
There were some mild surprises in the nominations. Capote being nominated in the Best Picture and Directing categories was a surprise to me. Munich didn’t seem to have the buzz going in to receive those same nominations. Crash was the most satisfying of the nominations personally since I feel that is truly the Best Picture of 2005.
In the acting categories there were not a lot of surprises in the nominations except perhaps William Hurt’s Supporting Actor nomination for his memorable but very small role in A History of Violence and Keira Knightley’s Best Actress performance in Pride and Prejudice. Both are worthy performances, but were not favored by many critics as a pick going into the nominations.
The real surprises seemed to come in the missed nominations much more than those that were nominated by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. For the film and directing category, I wondered where the Academy members were toward the end of 2005? It seems not in the theaters seeing and enjoying Walk the Line like a lot of the movie going public since that film was not nominated. This was certainly one of the best five films of the year and how could it have been overlooked except in the acting categories? As said in a line uttered in Shakespeare in Love, “It’s a mystery!”
And what happened to Cinderella Man this year? Did it’s poorly timed June 2005 release as well as the title doom the very excellent and successful combinations of Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Russell Crowe and Akiva Goldsman from Oscar glory? It was a wonderful film that should have had all the elements of success, yet garnered nominations only for Paul Giamatti in the Best Supporting Actor category and Best Editing.
Which brings me to the acting category misses. There seems to be a big problem for lead actors or actresses this year to be nominated if their film came out too early in the year. In the actress category Joan Allen should not have been ignored for The Upside of Anger. Hers was a terrific performance. Keira Knightley gave a good likable performance in Pride and Prejudice, but she should not have been nominated over Joan Allen. The young actress’ turn should have waited for another year and performance.
Anyone who has seen Cinderella Man must feel that Russell Crowe deserved a nomination for his role as fighter Jim Braddock. It is one of the most amazing dramatic performances ever given and certainly in the top 2 of the year in film. Was it a snub to the best actor in film today because of a phone he aimed at the head of NYC concierge earlier this year? Aren’t the Oscar’s supposed to be about best performances, not pitching ability or popularity? Who exactly was Paul Giamatti playing opposite in his best supporting actor turn? I challenge anyone to watch the scene where Crowe as Braddock begs for money from boxing promoters to turn back on the electricity so he can get his kids back home and not declare it is one of the best scenes an actor has ever put on film. Brilliant. Sadly ignored by Academy members.
On March 5th I’ll once again be before the TV eagerly awaiting the winners. I recommend film fans to go to the theaters or rent DVD’s to see as many nominated films as possible before the ceremonies. Also don’t miss a trip to the theater to see Walk the Line and a run to the video store to rent Cinderella Man and The Upside of Anger.
Marie
There were some mild surprises in the nominations. Capote being nominated in the Best Picture and Directing categories was a surprise to me. Munich didn’t seem to have the buzz going in to receive those same nominations. Crash was the most satisfying of the nominations personally since I feel that is truly the Best Picture of 2005.
In the acting categories there were not a lot of surprises in the nominations except perhaps William Hurt’s Supporting Actor nomination for his memorable but very small role in A History of Violence and Keira Knightley’s Best Actress performance in Pride and Prejudice. Both are worthy performances, but were not favored by many critics as a pick going into the nominations.
The real surprises seemed to come in the missed nominations much more than those that were nominated by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. For the film and directing category, I wondered where the Academy members were toward the end of 2005? It seems not in the theaters seeing and enjoying Walk the Line like a lot of the movie going public since that film was not nominated. This was certainly one of the best five films of the year and how could it have been overlooked except in the acting categories? As said in a line uttered in Shakespeare in Love, “It’s a mystery!”
And what happened to Cinderella Man this year? Did it’s poorly timed June 2005 release as well as the title doom the very excellent and successful combinations of Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Russell Crowe and Akiva Goldsman from Oscar glory? It was a wonderful film that should have had all the elements of success, yet garnered nominations only for Paul Giamatti in the Best Supporting Actor category and Best Editing.
Which brings me to the acting category misses. There seems to be a big problem for lead actors or actresses this year to be nominated if their film came out too early in the year. In the actress category Joan Allen should not have been ignored for The Upside of Anger. Hers was a terrific performance. Keira Knightley gave a good likable performance in Pride and Prejudice, but she should not have been nominated over Joan Allen. The young actress’ turn should have waited for another year and performance.
Anyone who has seen Cinderella Man must feel that Russell Crowe deserved a nomination for his role as fighter Jim Braddock. It is one of the most amazing dramatic performances ever given and certainly in the top 2 of the year in film. Was it a snub to the best actor in film today because of a phone he aimed at the head of NYC concierge earlier this year? Aren’t the Oscar’s supposed to be about best performances, not pitching ability or popularity? Who exactly was Paul Giamatti playing opposite in his best supporting actor turn? I challenge anyone to watch the scene where Crowe as Braddock begs for money from boxing promoters to turn back on the electricity so he can get his kids back home and not declare it is one of the best scenes an actor has ever put on film. Brilliant. Sadly ignored by Academy members.
On March 5th I’ll once again be before the TV eagerly awaiting the winners. I recommend film fans to go to the theaters or rent DVD’s to see as many nominated films as possible before the ceremonies. Also don’t miss a trip to the theater to see Walk the Line and a run to the video store to rent Cinderella Man and The Upside of Anger.
Marie
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Somebody there is insane if I came out closest to Gwyneth Paltrow.
Gwyneth Paltrow  You've got pedigree and class, that's for sure. But despite your distinguished upbringing, you've built your adult life around proving yourself to doubters while tossing in surprises, such as marrying a rock star and naming your kid after a fruit. You might have settled down a bit, but you can still stir up some buzz. |
Friday, January 27, 2006
$9.75 for a Ticket, $4.00 to Park and $3.50 for a Drink; was this movie worth it?
Are new trends in the movie theater experience over the last couple of years driving movie patrons to watch from their living room couches? Spiraling costs, commercials before films and increasingly rude behavior by patrons with cell phones are three good reasons for some to stay home instead of stepping into your local movie house. How do you want to watch a film?
I’m a film lover. I enjoy movies in the theater at a rate of one to three every week. I don’t believe that you can beat seeing a film in a theater such as the Paseo in Pasadena, California. Nice big curved screens. Comfortable seats in a stadium seating format. Good sound. Good quality prints most of the time. Cherry or Coke Icee available at the concession stand. And the fun of meeting a friend for a night out. These are the things that make me go to a movie theater.
The payoff is seeing a really good film. I’ve seen some great films lately such as Memoirs of a Geisha, Brokeback Mountain, Match Point and last weekend Munich. The answer in the title question above would have been yes. The answer to the question as I thought of it in reference to the film King Kong would have been no. Why are more people answering no to that question now? Hollywood has been asking that question all 2005 with the declining box office receipts.
Costs have become prohibitive for many. The total of $17.25 for one person (with no popcorn) is likely to keep most families at home in front of the TV instead with a film from Netflix or Blockbuster. You can rent a film for the cost of the parking and view with the number of persons you choose with some cheap microwave popcorn and a few sodas. A family of four could watch a film with popcorn and soda for about $10.00. To enjoy the same film in the theater with soda alone could easily run $51.00 for that same family of four. Is Hollywood ever going to lull that family back into the theater? Probably not. They’ll have to wait till the kids are older and the parents can drop them off at the theater on a Saturday afternoon with a group of their friends.
Other factors have soured some on the theater experience. I know that one of my pet peeves in the last few years have been the increasing number of commercials before the previews (which are commercials themselves). I’m in there paying for the film, paying to park and for the food, why am I seeing commercials for products other than film? If I’m home and paying for premium channels, I’m paying not to watch commercials so why am I seeing them in a theater before the film. Last time at the Paseo there were 5 before the previews. Come on Hollywood and theater owners, give us a break. Ditch the commercials!
Kids and adults on cells phones. What part of the word rude do these people not understand? Talking on cell phones in a theater during a film or in the next bathroom stall is incredibly rude to others. This includes being rude to the person you’re talking to on the phone as they listen to you or someone else go to the bathroom or flush the toilet. Knock it off! Parents, teach your kids to knock it off. It’s called respect for others. The same goes for talking and yelling across the theater to your friends during a film. Don’t do it! They’ll be there after the film to talk to. I promise (unless I’ve clobbered them with my turned off cell phone).
The cost of seeing a film will never go down and only up in the future. Hopefully the other factors are something that can be worked on, but maybe the reality is the future of movie watching is changing forever or even evolving. It’s still a huge industry, but perhaps the home industry needs to have as much consideration as the theater when it comes to releases. Steven Soderbergh is one filmmaker who is actually doing a dual theatrical and TV Friday release then DVD release Tuesday of his film Bubble. The industry will be watching. The future may be a balancing act between those who want to watch films in a movie theater and those who prefer a home theater experience. There certainly is room for both.
Thanks, Marie (that was a writing class assignment)
I’m a film lover. I enjoy movies in the theater at a rate of one to three every week. I don’t believe that you can beat seeing a film in a theater such as the Paseo in Pasadena, California. Nice big curved screens. Comfortable seats in a stadium seating format. Good sound. Good quality prints most of the time. Cherry or Coke Icee available at the concession stand. And the fun of meeting a friend for a night out. These are the things that make me go to a movie theater.
The payoff is seeing a really good film. I’ve seen some great films lately such as Memoirs of a Geisha, Brokeback Mountain, Match Point and last weekend Munich. The answer in the title question above would have been yes. The answer to the question as I thought of it in reference to the film King Kong would have been no. Why are more people answering no to that question now? Hollywood has been asking that question all 2005 with the declining box office receipts.
Costs have become prohibitive for many. The total of $17.25 for one person (with no popcorn) is likely to keep most families at home in front of the TV instead with a film from Netflix or Blockbuster. You can rent a film for the cost of the parking and view with the number of persons you choose with some cheap microwave popcorn and a few sodas. A family of four could watch a film with popcorn and soda for about $10.00. To enjoy the same film in the theater with soda alone could easily run $51.00 for that same family of four. Is Hollywood ever going to lull that family back into the theater? Probably not. They’ll have to wait till the kids are older and the parents can drop them off at the theater on a Saturday afternoon with a group of their friends.
Other factors have soured some on the theater experience. I know that one of my pet peeves in the last few years have been the increasing number of commercials before the previews (which are commercials themselves). I’m in there paying for the film, paying to park and for the food, why am I seeing commercials for products other than film? If I’m home and paying for premium channels, I’m paying not to watch commercials so why am I seeing them in a theater before the film. Last time at the Paseo there were 5 before the previews. Come on Hollywood and theater owners, give us a break. Ditch the commercials!
Kids and adults on cells phones. What part of the word rude do these people not understand? Talking on cell phones in a theater during a film or in the next bathroom stall is incredibly rude to others. This includes being rude to the person you’re talking to on the phone as they listen to you or someone else go to the bathroom or flush the toilet. Knock it off! Parents, teach your kids to knock it off. It’s called respect for others. The same goes for talking and yelling across the theater to your friends during a film. Don’t do it! They’ll be there after the film to talk to. I promise (unless I’ve clobbered them with my turned off cell phone).
The cost of seeing a film will never go down and only up in the future. Hopefully the other factors are something that can be worked on, but maybe the reality is the future of movie watching is changing forever or even evolving. It’s still a huge industry, but perhaps the home industry needs to have as much consideration as the theater when it comes to releases. Steven Soderbergh is one filmmaker who is actually doing a dual theatrical and TV Friday release then DVD release Tuesday of his film Bubble. The industry will be watching. The future may be a balancing act between those who want to watch films in a movie theater and those who prefer a home theater experience. There certainly is room for both.
Thanks, Marie (that was a writing class assignment)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)