You know it's a sad day when you change your home page from imdb.com to barnesandnoble.com. I saw my second
Inception headline in a week....I thought about changing it to a news-y site, like Yahoo or MSN, but I needed something more generic. So Barnes & Noble it is! (Until after
Inception, at least.)
Anyway....
Totally non-movie related, but The National's newest CD is in stores now, and I want it badly! High Violet! High Violet! High Violet!
Okay, seriously. The point of today's post is discussing what makes movies relevant versus irrelevant. Without any background, you probably are going, What on earth is this chick talking about?
But if you think about it, there's a fine line between watching Gran Torino and watching Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Right? I mean, which is cooler: saying you're going to the movies to see Robin Hood, or going to see MacGruber? Both movies have their target audiences and will probably earn review pages in Entertainment Magazine.
However, have you ever stopped and realized that both relevant movies (and these are all in my humble opinion) like The Godfather, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, many of the movies nominated for Best Picture (Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, Schindler's List, Shakespeare in Love, just to name a few) and irrelevant movies, like (again, in my humble opinion) Righteous Kill, Legion, that Ethan Hawke one about the vampires, or even the remake of Flight of the Phoenix.
Now, you might see that list and think that none of those "irrelevant" movies belongs on there. Or you see it and can instantly add ten other titles. Whatever the case, let me prove mine.
Does it bother anyone that money is spent to make movies like Mirrors and The Dark Knight, both released in 2008? Huh? Because it bothers me.
Basically, my problem is this: why spend so much money and time on these movies that no one is going to watch, or, possibly more importantly, no one even cares about? I mean, let's be serious: Which trailer are you going to lean towards watching more: a movie called Piranha 3D or Toy Story 3? Depending on age group and genre preferences, both movies have a possibility of becoming irrelevant. However, I have asked many people around my age and most of them said they have interest in the third Toy Story movie. Asked about Piranha in 3D...well, people are getting sick of 3D. And the fish are ugly.
So what's the main problem? I don't think being forgettable is what's wrong here. Hot Rod, for example, is a great movie and therefore not irrelevant to me. It has great quotes and opportunities to do random stuff in real life, straight out of the movie (like high-fiving two of your friends for no apparent reason.).
But now, let's consider where Hot Rod came from: The minds of Andy Samberg, Akiva Schaffer, and Jorma Taccone, SNL castmembers and writers. Plus, it was produced by Lorne Michaels and Will Ferrell. Enough said?
However, back to Righteous Kill -- which for some reason I have a problem with. It stars two of the biggest film actors of all time, and yet I never saw it, nor do I remember what it's about. But Al Pacino and Robert de Niro still make movies. What makes Righteous Kill different from another de Niro or Pacino vehicle, like Raging Bull or The Godfather or Dog Day Afternoon?
Now, here is where things get a little dicey. I've been discussing the big-name actors in irrelevant movies, but what happens when irrelevant movies are backed by big-name directors and producers? Classic example: The DaVinci Code. Directed by Ron Howard, produced by Brian Grazer, it sounds like it would be a hit and a great companion to the book. But, if I remember correctly, it bombed. And yet garnered enough profit to make the sequel....
Maybe the case of relevant movies versus irrelevant has to do with their replay values. I know, I sound like a writer from Game Informer magazine, but for some folks, trashy movies are the best. Maybe the writers of Ghosts of Girlfriends Past aren't entirely wrong.
But if that's really the case, then something has to be done. Because otherwise, there will no longer be a point in making movies that only a handful of people will like. Movie theatre choices are going to come down to this: choose between the Joe Wright, Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg, Coen brothers, Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, and Kathryn Bigelow (and all right, maybe James Cameron) matinees.
So, where do you stand, blog-readers? Have any movie favorites that you think I would classify as irrelevant? One of my favorite movies of all time is The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen; I will never forget the time my babysitter proclaimed it "boring." Have any movies that have been deemed relevant, but should really be irrelevant? Do you have any idea what I'm talking about???
The middle of May is almost upon us. Inception, I can't wait!!