![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
inulroDear me, I've got behind with this again.
21. The Good, the Bad and the Multiplex: What's wrong with modern movies? by Mark Kermode
Kermode is one of the few British film critics who's not up against the wall come the revolution.
I thought I was going to manage to read it all in one sitting but sleep overtook me and I had to continue on a second evening.
Though there are a few things I don't agree with him on (I don't think the Exorcist is all that great and I did truly enjoy Johnny Depp's performance in the first POTC film), but for the most part he hits the nail squarely on the head. He shows how modern blockbusters can't lose money, no matter how bad they are (If you want to lose money, make a mid-budget film). He argues that the lack of money-losing capacity should mean studios try to make better blockbusters (Inception is the example he uses, which which I totally agree), but by and large they don't.
I adored his rants about 3D - admittedly part of my problem with 3D is that I physically probably can't see it given that I see two of everything most of the time without 3D glasses, but mostly, like Kermode, I'm aware of the history, and nobody can name a film where 3D enhances the plot or characterisation. The history? Every time the studios are trying to manufacture a "we're losing money and nobody's going to the movies" scare (I say manufacture because it is not and never has been true), they wheel out 3D again. This has been going on since the invention of moving pictures.
If you have more than a passing interest in film at all, do read this book! It does not take long.
He has a previous effort. I'll be looking into that at some point.
21. The Good, the Bad and the Multiplex: What's wrong with modern movies? by Mark Kermode
Kermode is one of the few British film critics who's not up against the wall come the revolution.
I thought I was going to manage to read it all in one sitting but sleep overtook me and I had to continue on a second evening.
Though there are a few things I don't agree with him on (I don't think the Exorcist is all that great and I did truly enjoy Johnny Depp's performance in the first POTC film), but for the most part he hits the nail squarely on the head. He shows how modern blockbusters can't lose money, no matter how bad they are (If you want to lose money, make a mid-budget film). He argues that the lack of money-losing capacity should mean studios try to make better blockbusters (Inception is the example he uses, which which I totally agree), but by and large they don't.
I adored his rants about 3D - admittedly part of my problem with 3D is that I physically probably can't see it given that I see two of everything most of the time without 3D glasses, but mostly, like Kermode, I'm aware of the history, and nobody can name a film where 3D enhances the plot or characterisation. The history? Every time the studios are trying to manufacture a "we're losing money and nobody's going to the movies" scare (I say manufacture because it is not and never has been true), they wheel out 3D again. This has been going on since the invention of moving pictures.
If you have more than a passing interest in film at all, do read this book! It does not take long.
He has a previous effort. I'll be looking into that at some point.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-04-29 10:23 am (UTC)I feel an echo of his anti-3D rant every time someone on FB (usually my sister or cousin) bang on about how great 3D is - no it isn't! It's a scam to get more money out of the public by convincing them that a)they want to see 3D so they should get off their arses & go to the cinema 'cos you can't get 3D with a pirate download, and b) then charging them more for the privilege.