Film Junk » Open Forum Friday

Open Forum Friday: Is Twilight Setting a Bad Example for Young Women?

Sean — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:47:39 +0000

Alright, bear with me on this one. I know most of our readers are guys and probably don't have a lot of interest in The Twilight Saga, but like it or not, it's here, it's successful, and it's not going away anytime soon. Some guys seem to feel it is their manly duty to disparage the franchise at every turn, even if they know nothing about it. Personally I think that women deserve the opportunity to fawn over their own movie franchises just as fanboys geek out over comic book movies. But are there genuinely good reasons to rally against Twilight, based on the messages it sends to young women? There's no question that teens are the target demographic for Twilight, and as such, a lot of people have been considering the many ways that the books and movies could influence some of the young girls who buy them. Sure, there are some possibly dangerous ideas being thrown around here, in particular, New Moon romanticizes the idea of suicide, and also Bella's obsession over a borderline abusive boyfriend. (Serena Whitney provides a handful of other criticisms in her Reel Truth column over at Killer Film.) On the other hand, some make note of the fact that the movie preaches abstinence, and that is probably a positive thing. Ultimately, you could also view the series is as nothing more than harmless escapist fantasy as well, something that is neither good nor bad (most guys would argue the same about violent action movies). What do you think? Is Twilight bombarding teenage girls with bad advice on love and relationships, or are there worthwhile life lessons here as well? Is it unlikely to significantly influence its fans, or does the young age of its target audience make them more susceptible? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Do You Ever Watch Movies Just for the Special Effects?

Sean — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:31:23 +0000

We all have our reasons for wanting to watch movies, but when it comes to filling seats in multiplexes, there are few things better at attracting crowds than cutting edge special effects. People want to escape reality and they want to see things they haven't seen before, thus the appeal of comic book movies, along with the action, sci-fi and fantasy genres. Common sense dictates that you need something more than that to make a successful movie (ie. a compelling story with characters that you care about) but the numbers speak otherwise. Bigger isn't always better, but it usually makes the most money. How many times have you heard the excuse, "I know it's a terrible movie, but I just wanted to see it for the FX"? Film is a visual medium, so obviously eye candy plays an important role in our enjoyment of it. But are we putting too much stock in cool visuals and earth-shattering sound? Most of us agree that Transformers 2 sucked, but we all still paid to see it. Is there anything wrong with that? Did the movie succeed as long as it showed us something awe-inspiring and new? Some say we should demand more from our blockbusters, but on the other hand, maybe there's nothing wrong with plain old spectacle. What do you think? Do you feel ripped off by movies with expensive budgets but terrible stories? How much of a role do special effects play in determining what movies you see? Can you think of any movies that are enjoyable on the basis of visuals alone? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Richard Kelly… Visionary Director or Flash in the Pan?

Sean — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:00:18 +0000

Richard Kelly's new film The Box hits theatres this weekend, and although I have yet to see it, I will probably check it out based on his name alone (okay, and maybe because of the Twilight Zone connection). It's hard to believe, but this is only his third feature film, and his first to get a wide release. As the director of the cult favourite Donnie Darko, you might assume that his name would hold some serious weight with a certain audience, but there doesn't seem to be a ton of excitement surrounding the movie right now. Are people still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, or have they finally moved on and forgotten about him? I don't know if I'll ever fully understand why Donnie Darko became such a big underground hit; it got a very minor theatrical release, but when it hit DVD, things really took off. It became so popular that it eventually spawned a sequel, although Kelly was not involved in it. He was busy recovering from the relative failure of his second film, Southland Tales, which I don't think many of the Donnie Darko fans ever saw. It's clear that Kelly is a director who thinks big, and is not afraid to take on some ambitious ideas with his movies. That being said, I still feel like he needs to do something more than Donnie Darko to prove himself as a true artistic genius. What do you think? Is Richard Kelly the real deal or did he just get lucky with his first film? Was Southland Tales a disaster or was it just misunderstood? Will The Box be the movie that redeems him? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Is it Better to Watch Horror Movies at Home or in a Theatre?

Sean — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:49:10 +0000

"Don't see it alone." This tagline for Paranormal Activity has been repeated over and over again on posters and commercials, and has apparently been very successful at getting audiences out to see this movie. When you think about it, it's kind of brilliant because it discourages people from downloading a leaked screener and watching it on their own, and it also encourages them to bring plenty of friends with them out to the theatre. But is this movie really more enjoyable to see with a large group of strangers, or would it actually be more effective in the privacy of your own home? My own theatrical experience for Paranormal Activity was ruined by an unruly crowd who refused to allow themselves or anyone around them to be fully immersed in the film. Although this can be a problem with just about any movie, I've noticed it becoming a bigger problem for horror movies in general. I think certain viewers don't want to let their friends see them get scared, so they avoid it by being loud and obnoxious. That's just a theory I have, but it seems to be true. It's a shame because I think that the nervous energy in a theatre can definitely enhance a scary movie, along with screams or gasps (at appropriate times). However, when audience members steadfastly refuse to buy into the movie because they're "too cool" to get scared, it simply brings everyone else down. Have you had any bad experiences with crowds at horror films? What do you think is the best way to see a scary movie? Is it too hard for movies to genuinely frighten people nowadays? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Should Film Critics Be Allowed to Accept Free Stuff?

Sean — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:50:40 +0000

There's an interesting debate that's been raging across the blogosphere this week that has to do with the ethics of reviewing movies and attending press junkets. It's a debate that's been around for quite a while, but with blogs becoming such a big influence as of late, the situation has become even more complex. Earlier this week, the Federal Trade Commission passed new guidelines for posting product reviews online that would require writers to make it clear if they received payments or free promotional items from advertisers in exchange for their words. Full disclosure seems only fair and logical, but what does this mean for movie blogs, where the vast majority of reviewers get into free screenings or receive review copies of the films that they write about? The ethical dilemma was further demonstrated by the recent press junket for Couples Retreat, where Universal Pictures paid to fly media folks out to the tropical island of Bora Bora for interviews and "activities". The argument is often made that junkets exist primarily for the glossy Entertainment Tonight puff pieces, but plenty of people involved in these will also write reviews. Could all this V.I.P. treatment possibly sway their impression of a film? Nah, of course not, they're professional journalists and this is their job. But what about all these bloggers? Do they have any sort of obligation to be honest and maintain their integrity? I'm sure some would rather keep the studio folks happy so that they can, in turn, keep on living the dream... and to be honest, that's all part of the game. What do you think, can press junkets and celebrity schmoozing influence the opinions of bloggers and film critics? Is it dishonest if they do not disclose all of the free stuff they receive? Do you trust bloggers more or less than professional journalists? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Should Comedy and Horror Ever Mix?

Sean — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:04:50 +0000

There once was a time when comedy and horror were successful and entertaining bedfellows. During the '80s, movies like Gremlins and Ghostbusters mixed the two genres to create major blockbuster hits, and some of the bigger horror movie franchises at the time also incorporated more and more humour as time went on. Throughout the '90s, each of the Scream movies made over $150 million worldwide. In general, it seemed like people had no problem experiencing both laughter and scares during the course of the same film. Fast-forward to today, and sadly it seems that just about any combination of comedy and horror on the big screen is now met with box office disappointment. What's the deal? Technically speaking, I can see that, in a sense, comedy is the complete opposite of horror. You can't be immersed in fear and suspense when a movie is constantly goofing around and making self-referential jokes. However, when a talented director finds just the right balance, it is a delight to behold. Drag Me To Hell, Shaun of the Dead, and Slither are proof of that, and yet all three underperformed on some level. Snakes on a Plane, Grindhouse and Jennifer's Body also seem to be victims of the same problem, although they each have other possible reasons for their commercial failure as well. The Scary Movie series could be the one exception, but I don't really think it counts because it is a comedy series that parodies horror -- it doesn't actually try to scare you. While it's possible that Zombieland may very well break the slump this weekend, it does feel like the cards are stacked against it a little. What do you think? Is there a reason why these recent movies didn't connect with audiences? Can horror-comedies actually have broad appeal, or are they always destined to have little more than a cult following? Do you dislike horror films with a sense of humour? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Is Bruce Willis Officially Washed Up?

Sean — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:35:07 +0000

There once was a time when Bruce Willis was considered one of the biggest action stars in Hollywood, but like many other action stars, as he left his bread and butter behind (the Die Hard franchise), he began to lose some of his box office pull. After making some questionable career choices throughout the '90s, his age also began to play a factor, yet still he remained a big enough name to be considered for some high profile projects. To this day, he continues to carry a certain amount of clout, and yet I find myself forced to ask, what was the last truly good Bruce Willis movie? I liked Live Free or Die Hard more than many, but it hardly seems to have revitalized his career. Fortunately for Bruce, he has more acting talent than most of the muscle-bound male stars to come out of the '80s, which allowed him to branch out into other more dramatic films as well as comedy. He had a couple of great performances in M. Night Shyamalan's The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, but other than that, I don't think he's been given many other opportunities to showcase his true skills. I'm sure he could still do more, but after watching him sleepwalk his way through Surrogates, I am starting to think he is officially past his prime. What do you think? Do you still look forward to new projects from Bruce Willis or is his output too inconsistent to count on? Does he choose bad projects or is he simply not being offered anything worthwhile? Is Bruno well on his way to irrelevance? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Is it Wrong to Walk Out of a Movie?

Sean — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:00:55 +0000

When you spend a lot of time at a film festival, one of the things you start to notice is that a lot more people walk out of screenings at a festival than they do at a regular theatre. One of the main reasons for this is probably the controversial and/or unproven nature of the movies that play at a film fest. There's also the fact that for hardcore festival participants, time wasted at a bad movie could be better spent at another potentially awesome movie that you may never get another chance to see. Sometimes though I have to wonder... can people be a little too quick to ditch a film without giving it a chance to win them over? I guess when you see a lot of movies you can usually tell by about the halfway point if a particular flick is working for you or not. Still, there is always the possibility that it could turn around and surprise you by the end. I rarely walk out of movies, and try to give them the benefit of the doubt where possible. At least that way if I don't like it, I can be prepared to offer a fair criticism. But I guess if you're sitting at your local multiplex and you don't like what you see, you can't very well stay until the end and then ask for your money back either. So what do you think? Is it disrespectful or presumptuous to walk out on a film? What kinds of things push you to take an early exit? Is it fair to ask for your money back if a movie is not what you expected? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Do Animated Movies Really Need Big Name Voice Actors?

Sean — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:39:49 +0000

There once was a time when voice acting was something that A-list Hollywood actors would rarely ever waste their talent on. Whenever you needed someone to provide a voice for an animated movie, you would go to someone who specialized in such things, because let's face it, they were cheaper and probably much more versatile too. But things have been slowly changing ever since the '90s, with Robin Williams having a prominent role in Aladdin, and then blockbuster CG films like Toy Story and Antz featuring star-studded casts (the latter of which even modeled its characters to subtly resemble its stars). Nowadays it's pretty much a given that any feature-length animated CG movie will secure big name talent in order to better their chances for box office success. But is this actually a good thing? One of the concerns here is that the A-list actors are taking away jobs from the real voice actors -- people who don't get paid nearly as much and who, in some cases, are already struggling to make a living. But there's also a question of whether or not the big name actors are actually providing a better performance. In a lot of cases I think the answer is no. Voice acting is an art form with its own subtle differences, and just because you can act on screen doesn't necessarily mean you can give a decent vocal performance. For proof of this, just look at the despicable studio practice of having voice actors read for a role, only to give the recording to a Hollywood actor to use as a guide for their own performance. Pixar seems to be one of the few animation studios that still tries to cast a part based on the actual voice work rather than star power. What do you think? Do A-list actors help or hurt animated movies? Are you more likely to see an animated movie if one of your favourite stars provides a voice for it? Is voice acting itself in danger of becoming a lost art form? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Would You Rent Movies from YouTube?

Sean — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:07:51 +0000

Last week we posted about the sudden popularity of DVD rental kiosks like Redbox, and how they are just another one of the many alternatives putting the final nail in the coffin of traditional video rental stores. Now this week it looks like we may have another competitor preparing to enter the fray, with Variety reporting that Google-owned YouTube is currently in negotiations to offer streaming movies from major Hollywood studios. While there's no debating that YouTube is one of the biggest entertainment destinations on the web, the question remains... are they already too late to the party? There are plenty of digital video rental services out there right now including Netflix, Xbox Live, Amazon and iTunes (not all of which currently offer streaming and/or HD capability). Each of these providers typically offer a 24-hour rental within the $1.99 to $3.99 price range, with titles becoming available about a month after the DVD has been released. What would YouTube be able to offer that the others don't already have? Well I can tell you one thing: you can watch YouTube from a lot of web-enabled devices like the iPhone and the Nintendo Wii. The other thing is that YouTube is known as a place to go for convenience and instant gratification. If people need to see something right this second, but don't care so much about quality, they go to YouTube. If Google can leverage some of those advantages, they may be able to steal a piece of the rental market. What do you think? Would this conflict with YouTube's other free, ad-supported content? Can you see yourself renting movies from YouTube? Do you use any other video-on-demand services? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Was the 2009 Summer Movie Season a Success or Failure?

Sean — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:45:57 +0000

As another summer movie season draws to a close, and the final weekend offers up low budget leftovers to pry just a few more dollars out of reluctant moviegoers' hands, there's only one thing left to do: look back and reflect on the past few months' worth of film. As much as we all love to pick on the emptiness of big budget blockbusters, it's hard to deny that there's a sense of excitement surrounding some of these event movies. When a few of them finally manage to deliver the goods, somehow it makes all the whining and complaining totally worthwhile. For me personally, the one-two punch of District 9 and Inglourious Basterds ended the summer on a high note, with two amazing cinematic experiences that I won't soon forget. Putting these aside, however, I still think the 2009 summer season was surprisingly solid. Star Trek, The Hangover, Up... a lot of the highest grossing movies of the summer were also fairly well-regarded critically. There were even some great indie films to round things out including The Hurt Locker and (500) Days of Summer. What is your final judgment on the 2009 summer movie season? Was it all that you had hoped for? What were the highlights and lowlights? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!

Open Forum Friday: Should Genre Films Ever Be Able to Earn a Perfect Four Star Rating?

Sean — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:14:11 +0000

Over the past week or so I've noticed some discussion over whether or not certain movies are overrated (ie. District 9), in the sense that the ratings and reviews for them are beyond what should typically apply to a movie within its genre. I remember a similar debate popping up back when Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell came out, and at the time, here at Film Junk we gave it a glowing 4-star review. Were we being overly enthusiastic, or was that a fair score for a movie that offers up top notch entertainment? The idea of assigning a numbered score to a film is a pretty awkward and arbitrary one, and it's made even more difficult by the fact that everyone uses different scales and different criteria. We decided to go with a 4-star system not only because it's the defacto standard of top critics like Roger Ebert, but also because it's not so ridiculously precise that you start to argue over minor mathematical differences. However, the question I want to bring up is not one about rating systems, but rather the idea of judging the best movies in a given year. Should a 4-star rating only be awarded to a film that is actually 100% perfect? On top of that, are there certain types of films that should not ever receive a 4-star rating because they are of a lower pedigree, intended solely for cheap thrills and adhering to an established formula? Personally I think each movie should be judged against other similar fare. Thus, a horror movie that is at the top of its class is a 4-star horror movie. What do you think? Do 4-star movies only come along once every few years? Is it harder for a genre movie to get top marks? Is there even such a thing as a "perfect" film? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.

FOR MORE DAILY MOVIE GOODNESS, VISIT FILMJUNK.COM!