Your Rules for Movie-Going

[James]

So I was wondering: what are your rules for movies?  Which actors/directors/etc. create similar rules for going or staying away?

Not too many rules, I'm game for anything .. HOWEVER I've never been drawn to the notion of celebrity, or performers, and have never be drawn to see a film based on who is in it, the performers, NEVER .. I'm more interested in the behind the scenes stuff, who made the film (certain directors attract me, as they are often the center point of film realization & given their track record, i.e. Scorsese, del Toro, Fincher, Nolan, Scott, Tarantino etc.) and most importantly what is the movie about, the concept/set-up .. ultimately, I  see a movie if it intrigues me coupled with the general buzz in the air about it. Sometimes if the concept intrigues so strongly, then I just ignore the buzz and see it anyway.

[Todd]

Reminds me, has anyone seen Inherent Vice?

Yes.  Meh.

[Mirror Image]

I am in broad sympathy with all that . . . still, we had a lovely time watching The King's Speech on the big screen in Arlington.

Very nice. I believe the last movie I saw in the theater was The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which was released 13 years ago. Man, time files!

[Cato]

Very nice. I believe the last movie I saw in the theater was The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which was released 13 years ago. Man, time files!

13 years!  Wow! 

Concerning Inherent Vice:

Forgive me linking elsewhere, but yes! http://bgreinhart.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/top-ten-2014-movies-i-saw/

Yes.  Meh.

Quite different opinions!       Thomas Pynchon novels would seem unlikely candidates for movie treatment.  In fact, from what I can find, outside of a German documentary on Nazi rockets, this is the only movie based on one of his books.

As mentioned earlier, Alfred Hitchcock's rule on turning books into movies was to stay clear of "great novels," for the movie would never be able to match the book.  Using a good or mediocre book for a movie, which could improve the story, was the way to go.

I am not sure Inherent Vice qualifies as a great book, but perhaps I am wrong.  And I assume Hitchcock's rule did not apply to plays: Shakespeare on film, The Iceman Cometh, etc.

[James]

As mentioned earlier, Alfred Hitchcock's rule on turning books into movies was to stay clear of "great novels," for the movie would never be able to match the book.  Using a good or mediocre book for a movie, which could improve the story, was the way to go.

I'm sure if we do some digging into the truth of such a statement, he'd be proved wrong.

[Cato]

I'm sure if we do some digging into the truth of such a statement, he'd be proved wrong.

I do not believe he meant it as an absolute rule, but as a general one which could allow exceptions.

One possible exception to the rule:

Sergei Bondarchuk's c. 8-hour version of War and Peace.

A reflection on the movie:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-macafee/tolstoy-war-and-peace-_b_848440.html

[Karl Henning]

I do not believe he meant it as an absolute rule, but as a general one which could allow exceptions.

Much like the rule (non-absolute) that bland melodies are best selected for the purpose of composing a set of variations.

[James]

I do not believe he meant it as an absolute rule, but as a general one which could allow exceptions.

Absolute rule? Of course not, that would be idiotic. But even as just a general statement or 'rule' .. once we starting diggin' around, it is quite flimsy and short-sighted. Imo, the statement isn't worth even mentioning.

[vandermolen]

Alistair Sim.

+1

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Once upon a time, my wife and I would see a film a week, sometimes more, usually foreign or independent, though not invariably so.  We were once advocates of that 50's era billboard: "Enjoy Life! Go to the Movies!"   Now it's a mere handful of films per annum, usually titles we've judged to be inherently "cinematographic," ones we'll best appreciate seeing on the big screen (eg: Terrence Malick; Wong Kar-wai) vs. the little one at home. But there are also several directors whose work we'll go see no matter what, eg:  Mike Leigh.  I can pinpoint the very day our cinema-going slowed nearly to a complete halt.  We scheduled a day off together and decided to "live it up" by seeing two films in one day.  We'd both looked forward to these :  the Royal Tenenbaums and Gosford Park; both were so disappointing to us - all the more devastating for being a double whammy - that, while we laugh about it now, I estimate that since then those two films have cost local cinemas roughly $5K of our formerly spendthrift movie-going ways (not counting popcorn!) 

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Alistair Sim.

A consummate character actor of the old school that should be the current school.  Alastair Sim - yes, he's not just for Scrooge anymore.  See his Green for Danger

[Brian]

Yes.  Meh.

In fairness, I did see Inherent Vice with two friends, and while I loved it and laughed throughout, their reactions were mostly "what the f--- did I just watch?" Cato, none of us had read the book - or indeed any Pynchon novels. But I at least knew what to expect, and am aware of Pynchon's style in the most general way. Maybe that was an advantage.

[Ken B]

I never finished Rushmore and haven't seen Darjeeling but Life Aquatic is brilliant and I was charmed by both Moonrise Kingdom, Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Grand Budapest Hotel. If you ever feel like giving Anderson one more chance, I'd heartily recommend one of these. Maybe Moonrise, if you're partial to Britten.

The other Anderson who draws me to the theatre is Paul Thomas Anderson - even though I'm on the fence with most of his movies. Along with Jonathan Glazer, these two are the most 'kubrickian' directors of our time.

Yes. PTA is the most immense talent working, but he can't quite get it to gel since his first. Two hours into Magnolia I thought I was watching the greatest movie since Vertigo. And then ...

[Rinaldo]

Yes. PTA is the most immense talent working, but he can't quite get it to gel since his first. Two hours into Magnolia I thought I was watching the greatest movie since Vertigo. And then ...

I had a similar experience with The Master. The only PTA movie I thought was solid from start to finish was There Will Be Blood.

[Bogey]

Here are a few locked in-isms

My wife and I have seen every nominated Best Picture since 1993 (though she has opted out of a few of the more violent ones and I have only missed one due to it not being in the area).

My son and I have a pact to catch every super hero movie, no matter how bad it looks.  At least the bad ones gives us a chance to roll our eyes in tandem.

We try to find films that our entire family can hit.  Our daughter is 12 and son almost 17.  This is a bit difficult, but we find a few each year. 

My wife and I always get the largest bucket of popcorn they have and always have it refilled on the way out.  I know I am getting gouged,but love it!  Our daughter goes for the Slurpee and our son the Sour Patch Kids.  We eat pretty healthy as a family, but when it is movie time, we enjoy what we enjoy.

We love seeing films at the movies.  Though I have to say that I have been not overly wowed in recent times by most of what we have seen, I love going and plan on continuing to go.    I watch plenty at home, but love the trek.

[TheGSMoeller]

Here are a few locked in-isms

My wife and I have seen every nominated Best Picture since 1993 (though she has opted out of a few of the more violent ones and I have only missed one due to it not being in the area).

My son and I have a pact to catch every super hero movie, no matter how bad it looks.  At least the bad ones gives us a chance to roll our eyes in tandem.

We try to find films that our entire family can hit.  Our daughter is 12 and son almost 17.  This is a bit difficult, but we find a few each year. 

My wife and I always get the largest bucket of popcorn they have and always have it refilled on the way out.  I know I am getting gouged,but love it!  Our daughter goes for the Slurpee and our son the Sour Patch Kids.  We eat pretty healthy as a family, but when it is movie time, we enjoy what we enjoy.

We love seeing films at the movies.  Though I have to say that I have been not overly wowed in recent times by most of what we have seen, I love going and plan on continuing to go.    I watch plenty at home, but love the trek.

+1 This is great! Thanks for sharing. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

My rules are to avoid most Hollywood blockbusters and watch movies (often from the Criterion Collection) at home, and I'm happy to do so lying in bed using my little portable DVD/BluRay player. One of my key guides are the kinds of film Roger Ebert added to his Great Movies list, but I suspect he would have enlarged that list had he survived, as many great titles including North by Northwest and Wild Strawberries aren't on it. No doubt I'll come across as a snob, not that I care, but I make a distinction between movies and film: movies to me are entertainment, and films are art. Not that I have anything against entertainment, and I don't think the line can be drawn all that sharply, but I'm closing in on age 67 and I don't want to go before having experienced as many classic art films as I can, and I still have lots to see on my list. There was a time not so long ago just after I retired that I was viewing a good film each day, and I estimate I've seen about 200-250 of the major classics. I'm taking a break from this extensive film-viewing now, but with Criterion having its annual 50% sale, I'm back to buying again and I've got some enticing titles coming up.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

A few general principles:

In most cases, the Best Picture winner at the Academy Awards, and sometimes at Cannes, is nowhere near the best film of its respective year, and is likely to be a disappointment.

Any film purposely made in black & white after color became the norm probably deserves a look. As does any film that eschews complex special effects, or those horrible CGI effects.

Any film which played in only a few art house cinemas and didn't make it out to the mass-market-plex is probably worth seeing.

With regard to actors, only one rule: any film with Catherine Keener in it is likely to be the sort of offbeat, quirky, thoughtful production that I generally like.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Absolute rule? Of course not, that would be idiotic. But even as just a general statement or 'rule' .. once we starting diggin' around, it is quite flimsy and short-sighted. Imo, the statement isn't worth even mentioning.

The problem is that the novel tends to be a highly expansive form, often with multiple subplots and using literary techniques like narration and description that don't lend themselves well to filming. I think for a novel to work well as film it needs some kind of transformation (e.g., not those heavy-handed overly reverential treatments of Henry James or E.M. Forster that Merchant-Ivory specialized in). "Bicycle Thieves," for instance, supposedly has little to do with the novel De Sica based it on.

But I hesitate to make that statement as a generalization: Visconti had a total dud when he filmed "Death in Venice," which certainly transformed the Thomas Mann original; but his "Senso" and "The Leopard," supposedly fairly close to their sources, both seem to me great successes. ("Senso," btw, is probably the most striking use ever of a Bruckner symphony - #7 - as a movie soundtrack.)

[(poco) Sforzando]

A few general principles:

In most cases, the Best Picture winner at the Academy Awards, and sometimes at Cannes, is nowhere near the best film of its respective year, and is likely to be a disappointment.

Any film purposely made in black & white after color became the norm probably deserves a look. As does any film that eschews complex special effects, or those horrible CGI effects.

Any film which played in only a few art house cinemas and didn't make it out to the mass-market-plex is probably worth seeing.

With regard to actors, only one rule: any film with Catherine Keener in it is likely to be the sort of offbeat, quirky, thoughtful production that I generally like.

Case in point to principle 1: Ordinary People took the Oscar in 1981 rather than Raging Bull.

Principle 2: Special effects have their place, but perhaps only if they don't overwhelm the movie and call attention to themselves as effects for their own sakes. The "Wizard of Oz" was full of special effects for its time. One of my favorite short films of all time, "The Red Balloon" from 1955, could not exist without its dominant special effect of the red balloon following the little boy all around Paris, and the final tableau of the kid flying above the city buoyed by literally dozens of balloons of all colors. I wonder how they managed all that in 1955, before CGI.

But what I hate most are the typical current movies that are nothing but CGI effects, with cartoon characters having nothing to do with real people, phony sci-fi situations, and ear-deafening scores that would make even the Gothic Symphony seem restrained by comparison.