I guess it's sometimes easy to pile on Ridley Scott Zen, but that's more perhaps
a case of disappointment of
a guy who used to be the best, but has slipped considerably (imo) in his later age - I guess you can't be as good as you were at 40 when you are 79 or 80, to be fair. It's more of
a disappointment that his talents are usually wasted in my eyes.
Some people can cope with old age. For example, I know you don't like David Lynch but his Twin Peaks The Return was easily as good as anything else he's done - take that as you will!
Zen wrote:
The Dark Crystal (1982) - Henson, Oz; is a masterpiece!
Ha, I agree. Even if the main characters are the least interesting thing about the movie, the real star is the fantasy world and how it is realized onscreen.
The
Gelfing concept art sadly doesn't quite match their execution. But that's
a small foible in the larger scheme of things.
To answer Vex, I agree that The
Dark Crystal isn't too scary, though the scene with the life-draining is definitely creepy. I think if you are
a 6-year old though, there is enough to be scared of (note: I didn't' watch it until I was in my 20s). Seeing something ugly and threatening is enough to be scared as
a kid. Coincidentally my sis got me
a blu-ray of the
Dark Crystal for christmas, which gives me ample reason to rewatch, again!
BryanM wrote:
This is possibly the best example of the "rule of two", where you repeat a subject or location only twice, occasionally thrice, and that serves to create familiarity without things getting old. It's extremely rigid about it to the point where every scene has something in it that comes back later - Roger freaks out about his wife cheating on him > Eddie broods about the better times he had with his girlfriend and brother. Roger performs to Merry-Go-Round Broke Down > Eddie does the same. It's a reward for actually paying attention instead of napping through the film.
I never heard of this; I'll have to see if I notice it in good movies from here on out.
I kind of assume the audience that'd be more open to that kind of stuff have moved on to niche cable TV shows and the like. That movies as a medium are largely dead thanks to the more even amount of money put into them. ("A limerick wrapped in an eternity" is my negative description of the format.) In fact a smaller budget probably makes them better at this point - every single scene isn't a CGI cartoon'd up greenscreen.
Of course a Disney more open to the darkness is one who'd have been willing to make that Roger Rabbit 2 flick. It's just not gonna happen, so we'll have to make it ourselves. Paper maché is better than CGI anyways.
re: niche tv: I think so, though there is
a bit of despair in that you really have to dig into the mud to find something worthwhile (like, is that Sabrina show actually interesting, or is it just clever marketing: "Sabrina, BUT WITH SATANISM!?!?). It is too bad that for
a brief period, all too brief,
a lot of money was pumped into studio movies to make things strange and off-kilter. Maybe they were
a victim of their own successes. Or failures - think Heaven's Gate.
I've been coming around to your "youtube is actually the platform of choice" opinion these days. I mean, what does
a hollywood CGI cartoon offer me that
Alan Resnick can't with 1/100th of the budget?