Joe Carnahan Asks "What Is Wrong With American Moviegoers?"

Define irony:

A director of popcorn action flicks (Narc, Smokin Aces) with silly premises complains that americans won't embrace a remake of bad 1970s films:

"What is wrong with American moviegoers? Is there nothing new that they're willing to embrace? Jesus it's the worst kind of erosion. We're making dumber and dumber films and they're becoming cash cows."

Uh, Joe, there's nothing NEW about Grindhouse. It's a rehash of a style that died and should stay dead. Yes, Americans embrace crap films; but Grindhouse is not an example of a good film Americans ignored. Try The Lookout for that.

Reply

I am astounded by the arrogance of the people writing for this blog. Why can't you simply admit that taste in movies is a matter of perception, not intelligence? You point out this obvious point in your own argument by bringing up 300. Some people think this movie was incredible, while others say it speaks only to the dumbest and basest of human emotions. Carnahan loves it, you yourself are on the fence about it; if the very people who you are championing because you agree with them happen to also disagree with you then mustn't you admit that the pendulum of "art" in cinema runs far wider than your own personal beliefs?

Reply

@1 : I did not see Smoking Aces, but Narc definitely was not a popcorn action flick - did you see it? Not the best movie I ever saw, but I doubt it would appeal to most film-goers, with it's conflicted characters, depressing plot points, etc.

And yeah, film taste is subjective. There are lots of successful "by the numbers" films, that's true, but look at the success of films like Pan's Labyrinth. There is still an audience for more offbeat pictures, if they are good.

And I think that Carnahan is right in regards to 300 having "something going for it artistically". Regardless of any political/philosophical discussion, the movie is visually interesting and artistically made...

Reply

The more I read this site, the more I realize it's contributers are freakin morons.

Reply

"The more I read this site, the more I realize it's contributers are freakin morons."

Some contributors post funny little bits without realizing the obvious errors within their posts.

Reply

It's an entire trend in America. You have American Idol and Dancing With the Stars sweeping airwaves. Cable news no longer deal with real news and now spend weeks leading off with Anna Nicole's baby, Britney's haircut or Imus' quasi-racist statement.

There seems to be a general movement to ignorance over intelligence. Ignorance has become more respected and more "cool." It's easier to obtain than intelligence. It's sad, really.

And this is a manifestation of that.

Reply

Grindhouse and Smokin Aces are examples of intelligent movie watching?? What the hell is wrong with you guys at TVSquard?? What could you possibly gain by watching those two over-the-top violent unoriginal films. These are two stellar examples of American film-making???

Reply

Guys, if you define "crap film" relative not to your personal taste but to the plethora of other movies out there, "Grindhouse" is definitely not a "crap film." Neither, for that matter, was "Narc." ("Smokin' Aces" kinda sucked.) What would you rather be watching? "Wild Hogs?" The latest shitty horror movie of the week?

The fact is "Grindhouse," good or not, was DIFFERENT, and the inability of the general audience to investigate something different (even if it may not be all that good) in favor of formulaic crap is what Johnson, and this poster, and I am talking about. If moviegoers flock to formula, formula is all the studios will give them. Period. End of story.

Reply

300 is exactly the type of trash that is ruining American cinema. The next time I want to watch a video game for two hours, I'll fire up the Xbox.

Reply

Ya, I often go to the 'guy who almost directed Mission Impossible III' card when I find my baseless and insulting argument not being greeted with universal adoration. Sixty five responses to your last insulting rant and no response from you other than to stand behind this guy and his questionable opinion. I don't find myself surprised that you've seen 300 but 'are on the fence' over it. I think I see the problem here. You didn't like 300, this guy you like liked 300 so you are now on the fence and waiting for somebody else you like to decide for you whether or not you liked the movie. See, here's the problem. You and I and everyone else who pays money to go see movies mostly decide for ourselves whether to see a movie or not. We base that decision on what we like. You seem to decide based on what other people think. Most of us don't look over in the other line and call the people going to see other movies- 'idiots' or 'ignorant.' We've got your undefended rants to show what you think of people who don't share your opinions and views.

In the words of Kevin
"I am astounded by the arrogance of the people writing for this blog. Why can't you simply admit that taste in movies is a matter of perception, not intelligence?
In the words of Dickens
"The more I read this site, the more I realize it's contributers are freakin morons."

Reply

Ya, I often go to the 'guy who almost directed Mission Impossible III' card when I find my baseless and insulting argument not being greeted with universal adoration. Sixty five responses to your last insulting rant and no response from you other than to stand behind this guy and his questionable opinion. I don't find myself surprised that you've seen 300 but 'are on the fence' over it. I think I see the problem here. You didn't like 300, this guy you like liked 300 so you are now on the fence and waiting for somebody else you like to decide for you whether or not you liked the movie. See, here's the problem. You and I and everyone else who pays money to go see movies mostly decide for ourselves whether to see a movie or not. We base that decision on what we like. You seem to decide based on what other people think. Most of us don't look over in the other line and call the people going to see other movies- 'idiots' or 'ignorant.' We've got your undefended rants to show what you think of people who don't share your opinions and views.

In the words of Kevin
"I am astounded by the arrogance of the people writing for this blog. Why can't you simply admit that taste in movies is a matter of perception, not intelligence?
In the words of Dickens
"The more I read this site, the more I realize it's contributers are freakin morons."

Reply

Ya, I often go to the 'guy who almost directed Mission Impossible III' card when I find my baseless and insulting argument not being greeted with universal adoration. Sixty five responses to your last insulting rant and no response from you other than to stand behind this guy and his questionable opinion. I don't find myself surprised that you've seen 300 but 'are on the fence' over it. I think I see the problem here. You didn't like 300, this guy you like liked 300 so you are now on the fence and waiting for somebody else you like to decide for you whether or not you liked the movie. See, here's the problem. You and I and everyone else who pays money to go see movies mostly decide for ourselves whether to see a movie or not. We base that decision on what we like. You seem to decide based on what other people think. Most of us don't look over in the other line and call the people going to see other movies- 'idiots' or 'ignorant.' We've got your undefended rants to show what you think of people who don't share your opinions and views.

In the words of Kevin
"I am astounded by the arrogance of the people writing for this blog. Why can't you simply admit that taste in movies is a matter of perception, not intelligence?
In the words of Dickens
"The more I read this site, the more I realize it's contributers are freakin morons."

Reply

Yikes, didn't mean to do that. Someone delete a couple of those please.

Reply

Prof. reviews, user reviews that are high can be a likely hood of you liking a movie. I know when a movie is going to suck or not usually based off of signs.

That sounds funny.. signs??? WTF??? Well, I've been going to rotten tomatoes for years and if a movie doesn't get any reviews before the day it's released, then the movie is going to probably suck.. these movies I've found out usually end up getting around a 15 % or under when the reviews start rolling in. I could of kept track of stats to prove this but I didn't.

One example of a movie that didn't get reviews till the day it came out is Epic Movie(It's average is 2%)

You don't have to believe me.. just keep track of movies coming out there and you'll end up seeing a connection.

I research sh** before I buy, rent or go to the movies. Most people don't seem to do this and the evidence is in the box office hit movies sucking. Check the history of top box office movies. They are usually movies that had appealing commercials, trailers, actors, and just a sh** load of ads thrown in peoples faces. Maybe half or more top box office hits that come out have horrible prof. and user reviews for them.

So people need to learn about this thing called "research". And for those people who always go to openings, get some prescription for ocd. I know you lack things to make you feel special, so this is your pathetic attempt to be more significant. What is up with that? I care to be first in a race, a board game and a video game.. but to be first in something that doesn't take effort?? Get a life. You guys lack patience.

Reply

It's not just movies. Look at the politics, the arts, schools, food. Homogenization has killed the soul of America.

Reply

For the love of God...how the f^ck can Grindhouse be called original when it's entire concept is copied from an outdated and dead genre of filmmaking? The entire point of Grindhouse was to call back grindhouse films! That's not original. If someone makes a silent movie will that be called original too? There's nothing original about copying something that already exists.

Reply

How long has it been since a double-feature was released wide, or even limited-release, in the US? Twenty years ago? That's 'fresh' at least, if not original. It's something the film-going public isn't exposed to week after week.

And when you add in playful touches like the strategically placed 'missing reels' and the fake ads and fake trailers... I would say that all adds up to originality. It's original presentation, perhaps, and not original subject matter... but that's okay by me, most wide release horror movies these days aren't original in their subject matter OR their presentation.

Reply

I don't feel that GASP american movies have suddenly plummeted into idiocy, i mean ten years back Godzilla was one of the biggest money makers of the year, 9 years back Armageddon was a big hit, these were both completely idiotic films, and ten years before that bad films were made as well.

But I can say that the 70s provided america with some of the best cinema, I mean the guys that rose up during the seventies (mainly Scorsese and Speilberg) are still running the show, no one has come along to rival them because no one as talented has appeared in the past 30+ years.

On the other hand, "dumber" films like Road Hogs or whatever else make money because people some times just like to go to the movies to chill out without having to worry about getting some kind of "DEEP MESSAGE" that will change there life. Sure Wild Hogs and Blades of Glory are pointless films but people want pointless films, its a matter of supply and demand.

Reply

I think that you are right, Panther, that sometimes people like going to see a simple film. Nothing too provocative, just something to escape into for awhile. The problem, as I perceive it, is that there are far two many of these lightweight films and precious few of quality.

At least in the 70s and 80s and prior to that, there was a choice. Decent movies were released at a predictable rate; there were still duds, but a good film or two was always waiting to make up for the box-office bombs.

In the seventies there were, "The French Connection," "China Town," "Midnight Express," and so many others I can't count that kept you on the edge of your seat but without the often-unnecessary abundance of special effects and other fill-ins and distractions.

I am probably older than the average moviegoer and am probably older than many who write for Hollywood and pick the "talent;" I have seen quality and I have seen the reverse. Which begs the question: Why is the quality of films these days so lacking? The acting is mediocre, lacks spontaneity and is often unconvincing and unnatural, (where are the good actors and why aren't they being discovered?), the scripts are terribly written, and the directing is equally abysmal. I guess that's what happens when actors turn to directing before they've become good actors.
I have decided that Documentaries are the only currently-made films that I will view.

Reply