Don't Even Read This, It's Not Even Insightful.

Another rant about blockbuster cinema, I think (we'll see what happens), but I want to shift away the focus from the studios who churn homogeneous yogurt out to people who are fine with that, to one group who I think can get away with turning this art form (not entertainment medium, motherfuckers) to a higher standard.

I mean, I understand why people went to see the Evil Dead remake, but why the fuck did it get good reviews? 

Seriously, I have no idea why anybody liked that movie. If the characters aren't likable, and the plot's been formula since before the original Evil Dead subverted it, and it's shot like a Rob Zombie movie, and it slogs along for the first hour(s), and all the energy and humor of the original are completely gone, I'd say it's a shit movie. 

But I digress. Let me get to what my point: it's called film criticism for a reason, dammit. And, frankly, movies like Evil Dead and Iron Man 3 or even Pain and Gain or Scary Movie 5 aren't gonna give a good goddamn about their reviews, because they're gonna make their money back (and then some) regardless. And they're always by-the-numbers crowd pleasers that make a point to not show us anything new, or to make us question anything, or have anything whatsoever to say. Those things make it harder to make a hundred million dollars in a weekend, which is the goal.

So why are most of the articles on movie websites I read about how excited people are for the new Star Wars, or how the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the best thing that's happened to movies since the combined efforts of Michael Cimino and Steven Spielberg fucked over New Hollywood?

Why are there glowing reviews for Iron Man 3 and none for Spring Breakers or Upstream Color or movies that actually need articles and reviews to get people to see them? 

I'm tired of fanboyism taking over American cinemas and publications devoted to them. 

Fuck it, this is rough and I forget what my original point was and life isn't really as bad as I say it is, but I'm so tired of seeing people giving better notices to the goddamn shitting moneygrabbing fucking hobbit than to films made by people who wanted to make art, not money.,

I'm a little drunk. More on that later.

A Certain Trend In American Cinema

It's snowing outside my window. I don't want to go outside and play in it, or catch it on my tongue, or really have anything to do with it. But it's important that it's there. Both to my general demeanor (which is rather sour at the moment, thank god) and to the general feeling of isolation I have from the outside world. And I might be shivering a little bit. But occasionally, I'll find myself staring out into it, those big fucking flakes fucking up all my potential plans, mesmerized.

It's seriously messing up my concentration.

Anyway, I'll start by pointing out the obvious: The top ten highest grossing films of 2012 were either sequels or extensions of established franchises. Four of them made over a billion. Eight of them are in the top fifty highest grossers of all time. And most of them were pretty good.

Fuck all that.

2012 marked the fiftieth year of the James Bond film series. Skyfall is, in my mind, without a doubt the best film in the series. Sam Mendes, John Logan, Roger Deakins and Daniel Craig are all immensely talented people.  Way too good to be working on a movie celebrating 50 years of a misogynist, fascist character. Sure, the character and films have changed over time to reflect the tastes of the times, but it's still riddled with the same cliches that have come to be seen as the rules of the franchise. Thanks to Skyfall's revenue, we might have to face 50 more years of Jimmy B having sex with women he doesn't respect or care about, order drinks like a dick and kill people for jingoistic notions of Queen and Country.

I know, I know, Bond is British, and the title of the post is about the good old US of A. I feel that Bond films fall in the same category as the dreck put out by the Hollywood establishment, but considering its country of origin (also that I think it's the best of the lot), I'll try to be even more damning to the others.

The Dark Knight Rises. Or falls. Falls quite far, in fact, because aside from Tom Hardy's performance as Bane and all the money up there on the screen, I'd say it was actually terrible. It was just shitty storytelling. The Talia reveal, besides being predictable from the day Marion Cotillard was cast, was so undercooked that all it did was illegitimatize a villian just as compelling as the late Heath Ledger's celebrated Joker. Bane could have been a lovely foil to Batman, one that addressed how a self-appointed white billionaire playboy savior might not be the best thing for Gotham, or the world. It wouldn't have been easy to pull off, but it could have been a remarkable achievement, and certainly more tasteful than the embodiment of white privilege punching the 99% in the face. I was having horrible flashbacks to the War on Terror metaphors of The Dark Knight, which I've tried so hard to overlook for all these years.

Then you have Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway, who were serviceable in a film that was too muddled to have any idea where to put them. And the final shot seemed like Nolan giving in to the people who complained that they didn't "get" Inception.

But as bad as The Dark Knight was, at least it was just one movie.

Breaking Dawn had two. Which is a pretty canny way to get the parents of your target audience to shell out twice the cash. And the Twilight shitheads didn't even think of that, it was a ploy lifted from the success of the Harry Potter finales. The new kid on the Young-Adult-Novel-Turned-Box-Office-Smash, The Hunger Games, learned quickly enough; before the sequel is even out, it's been announced the conclusion to the trilogy of books will be another two-parter. But whatever, those things were designed to be cash cows, and the target audience seems to enjoy the waiting and spending involved. It's a "cultural event" for these kids, and let them have their licensed videogames and lunchboxes and breakfast cereal for as long as they can get it with their parents' money. 

But, Peter Jackson, I thought better of you.

The Lord of the Rings, in novel form, ran about 1008 pages without appendices. The Hobbit, in book form, was 310.

I think it's fucking disgusting they're getting the same amount of screen time. New Line thinks they can triple their money by padding out a novel shorter than any individual installment of the former series with cameos that have no place in the story (Frodo, Legolas) and no doubt molasses-slow plot development. And it's working, as the first film in The Hobbit Trilogy (ugh) grossed over a billion dollars, more than The Fellowship of The Ring or The Two Towers.

Fuck all that.

I'm done paying to see studios churn out megafranchises to an adoring public while Charlie Kaufman can't find financing for his next directorial feature.

I'm done supporting a creatively bankrupt Hollywood.

I'll pay to see films that offer something new. Gladly. But from now on, the franchise films that I do see, I'll pirate.

The directors, writers, cast and crew of those films have all been paid. The only ones getting hurt are the executives who think it's good business to pacify us with the familiar than dazzle us with something we haven't seen before.

Don't pay to see Catching Fire, the ridiculously subtitled Hobbit films, Avengers 2, Star trek 2, Star Wars 7, the Avatar sequels, The Wolverine, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Transformers 4, Toy Story 4, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, the next James Bond, or anything Barnes and Noble has cardboard cut-outs for.

See Spring Breakers, for fuck's sake.