Rather, they've been all there was to watch in the dead of night on TV, and I thought I'd take up my old sport again... There was a time when I'd watch so many movies in a given week that I'd half-forget what part was where, which actor whom!
In any case, that last couple of days' "harvest" has been moderate - all from local television, non-cable, without much choice.
Firstly "The Rock" - Sean Connery the old SAS agent-cum-Alkatraz-escapee managed to produce a grin or two, though for the second or third time now. Entertaining still. (Edit.)
Then the next day, a couple of TV series' episodes of the new style I've mostly not followed (apart from the first season of 24, and a few seasons of CSI), including another repeat of the "mad cultists sacrifice innocents to appease village deities" motif immortalised for me in the abominable remake of "The Wicker Man", Nicholas Cage and all.
Did I mention my stomach churns every time that theme comes up?
It could be my reservations about the concept of "one for the good of the many, no choice involved": but there is still something deeply disturbing about how, contrary to movies with one "villain", the malign village-people in these sort of movies or series almost always seem to (mostly) get away with it.
Surely a betrayal of the hollywood spirit itself; bad faith?
And along this line of thought, the other series involved a desperate man who'd taken a hostage to escape returning to prison getting shot in the head unarmed by a sniper, and the "noble cop" character who was negotiating being told that "he did his job"; and not at all tongue-in-cheek. Insert further stomach-churning.
But the TV-watching night was saved by a ghastly (as in "horrible") movie about a certain fellow called the "Daemonicus" coming to signal the end of the world, which was a disgrace to whoever made it, but which also included Chopin's Nocturne No. 2 (his op. 9, no. 2 to be exact), likely my favourite of the set.
And at any rate, it was not ghastlier, nor more of a disgrace, than the movie I suffered through last night, one "Dungeons & Dragons [2]: Wrath of the Dragon God". I dare say it was even worst than the first D&D movie; while in case they intended it to appeal to the fan crowd, speaking as a long-time player and Dungeon Master, avid fan of the game, I'd call it an even greater failure.
It was barely the right kind of "bad" to be funny, but borderline so.
However, my patience was rewarded with today's catch, Cameron Crowe's "Elizabethtown" out of all things.
I did not expect much from this movie, I admit (despite my being known to enjoy even such un-male things as The Notebook). Yet it managed to win me over, maybe even make me smile...
Of course, don't think too deep. But it was a sweet and somehow unusual (for the feel-good genre) effort, complete with a nigh-perfectly cast Kirsten Dunst, for once, and a surprisingly appealing Orlando Bloom, far less wooden than usual. I kid you not.
Thus, the tally is "a bunch of horrible flicks/series episodes, a re-run of an enjoyable older blockbuster, and a new feel-good movie for the (proverbial) collection". Not bad, I'd say.
Though I'm now looking forward for "The Dark Night" on the big screen, and seeing if Heath Ledger's Joker really is as good as I'd hope. Who knows, maybe I'll even throw in some Kubrick from the private stock (i.e. my DVD collection), to liven the weekend up...
So to speak.
And that concludes my obsessive editing, for this post. You may comment freely.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you have Netflix or a similar rent-by-mail service in your nick o' th' whodes, but you need it ASAP! Stop putting yourself through bad movies! :D
ReplyDeleteIt's all part of the exercise, worry not.
ReplyDeleteThere have been occasions when I've watched a number of good movies in a similar "streak".
Yet how many people can claim to have seen these horrid, awful, abominable flicks?
It's almost art!
I think my entire list of "bad movies" were seen in the period of maybe 1997-1999, when I still had no priorities and watched a lot of TV. I think my favorite movie at that time was Gladiator.
ReplyDeleteNow with Netflix nearly everything I watch is great. I often wonder if it's *too* much of a good thing, but I am too miserly with my time to take a chance on something I might not like, i.e. movies in the theater.
I am interested in seeing the Dark Knight, if only because it is so fantastically rated by nearly everyone regardless of their other respective tastes. It's kind of ridiculous. I think the Batman movies are good for that genre. The first is my favorite — it has great atmosphere, and Jack Nicholson before he became a stock character (the crusty old, deteriorating jerk). It's also probably the only Tim Burton movie I can watch without cringing.
Though, I have a strong aversion to anything that smells of the herd, and probably won't see it until it comes out on DVD (when I can rent for free at work). Of course, as soon as a friend invites me to see it, all philosophy goes out the door. Whichever requires the least amount of effort on my part. :D
P.S. I mentioned in my last comment that I'd added you to my blogroll. What I meant was that I'd added you to my RSS subscriptions, but not as a link on my blog, which is really just a semi-private thing for me to externalize things and not really meant to be read by others (but it's fine if you do). :)
Tim Burton: I knew there was something odd about those early Batman films...
ReplyDelete(The first also being my favourite, to date.)
And fret not, my expectations of this blog's audience-size are practically nonexistent.
I am more than happy for anyone to have it on their RSS feed, alone; I hope it's worth it!