BUY Veronal ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION

Last spring, Ross Douthat wrote: “Let me clarify, then: My problem is not with the existence of superhero movies, but with their proliferation, which the success – both artistic and commercial – of Iron Man is likely to further dramatically. I love genre films as much as the next cultural populist, but it's possible to have too much of a given genre even when the movies in question are good. And having Iron Man and The Dark Knight and The Incredible Hulk (did we really need another one so soon?) as summer tentpoles, with quasi-superhero movies like Hancock and Hellboy 2 thrown in, feels to me like the equivalent of having three James Bond movies coming out at more or less the same time. Or, more aptly – since superhero films are more dissimilar from one another than than Bond movies are – it's like having a Narnia movie and a Lord of the Rings movie and, say, an Ursula K. Le Guin adaptation all being released in the same movie season, with countless more adaptations of lesser fantasy works in the pipeline for the next few years. Which is to say, it feels like too much of a good thing even if all the movies turn out to be good (which they won't), and I'd like to see some of the talent involved turn their attention to other genres for a while.”

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/200...

That X-Men trailer made me think much the same thing. It looks like the movie will have some new characters and Hugh Jackman will get a chance to fillet various baddies, but it seems like we're gradually lowering our standards if all it takes for an action blockbuster to fill the seats is familiar characters and a little kiss-kiss-bang-bang panache.

2007 was a phenomenal year for movies. No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, The Lives of Others, The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days will all stand the test time as classics. But I think most people agree that 2008 was fairly lackluster. Now, would things have turned out differently if Edward Norton, Daniel Craig, etc. had tried on more ambitious, psychologically realistic roles? Maybe, maybe not. But I would much rather see a film that tries to stir my heart and fails than one that shoots for the title of Most Indecipherable Fight Scenes and succeeds.

Agree, and I'll reserve judgment until I see it. I'm also planning to watch Ironman this week (finally), which received almost universal praise. But I would push back a little when you say:

“I would much rather see a film that tries to stir my heart and fails than one that shoots for the title of Most Indecipherable Fight Scenes and succeeds.”

I think part of why these movies succeed is that it's always going to be more entertaining to watch Quantum of Solace–piss-poor as it was–than a movie that “tries to stir your heart” but falls flat on its face. I would wholeheartedly agree that successful heart-stirring movies beat the hell out of even good superhero films, but the fact is that it's simply easier for studios and actors to make sub-par superhero movies profitably. I'm not defending this practice so much as understanding it: when a critically acclaimed, brilliant drama still plummets at the box office, we wind up with another Hulk movie.

Slight revision…I should have said: “It looks like the movie will have some new characters and Hugh Jackman will get a chance to fillet various baddies, but it seems like we're gradually lowering our standards if all it takes for an action blockbuster to fill the seats is a familiar premise and a little kiss-kiss-bang-bang panache.”

Also, it occurs to me that the point about action movies keeping actors in crowd-pleasing but none too bold roles works more-or-less symetrically for screwball/romantic comedies and actresses. Take Anne Hathaway. She's shown flashes of brilliance, most notably in Brokeback Mountain and this year's Rachel Getting Married. But she's following up on her latest succcess with…Bride Wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdHJnPC_Uvo

Last spring, Ross Douthat wrote: “Let me clarify, then: My problem is not with the existence of superhero movies, but with their proliferation, which the success – both artistic and commercial – of Iron Man is likely to further dramatically. I love genre films as much as the next cultural populist, but it's possible to have too much of a given genre even when the movies in question are good. And having Iron Man and The Dark Knight and The Incredible Hulk (did we really need another one so soon?) as summer tentpoles, with quasi-superhero movies like Hancock and Hellboy 2 thrown in, feels to me like the equivalent of having three James Bond movies coming out at more or less the same time. Or, more aptly – since superhero films are more dissimilar from one another than than Bond movies are – it's like having a Narnia movie and a Lord of the Rings movie and, say, an Ursula K. Le Guin adaptation all being released in the same movie season, with countless more adaptations of lesser fantasy works in the pipeline for the next few years. Which is to say, it feels like too much of a good thing even if all the movies turn out to be good (which they won't), and I'd like to see some of the talent involved turn their attention to other genres for a while.”

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/200...

That X-Men trailer made me think much the same thing. It looks like the movie will have some new characters and Hugh Jackman will get a chance to fillet various baddies, but it seems like we're gradually lowering our standards if all it takes for an action blockbuster to fill the seats is familiar characters and a little kiss-kiss-bang-bang panache.

2007 was a phenomenal year for movies. No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, The Lives of Others, The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days will all stand the test time as classics. But I think most people agree that 2008 was fairly lackluster. Now, would things have turned out differently if Edward Norton, Daniel Craig, etc. had tried on more ambitious, psychologically realistic roles? Maybe, maybe not. But I would much rather see a film that tries to stir my heart and fails than one that shoots for the title of Most Indecipherable Fight Scenes and succeeds.

Agree, and I'll reserve judgment until I see it. I'm also planning to watch Ironman this week (finally), which received almost universal praise. But I would push back a little when you say:

“I would much rather see a film that tries to stir my heart and fails than one that shoots for the title of Most Indecipherable Fight Scenes and succeeds.”

I think part of why these movies succeed is that it's always going to be more entertaining to watch Quantum of Solace–piss-poor as it was–than a movie that “tries to stir your heart” but falls flat on its face. I would wholeheartedly agree that successful heart-stirring movies beat the hell out of even good superhero films, but the fact is that it's simply easier for studios and actors to make sub-par superhero movies profitably. I'm not defending this practice so much as understanding it: when a critically acclaimed, brilliant drama still plummets at the box office, we wind up with another Hulk movie.

Slight revision…I should have said: “It looks like the movie will have some new characters and Hugh Jackman will get a chance to fillet various baddies, but it seems like we're gradually lowering our standards if all it takes for an action blockbuster to fill the seats is a familiar premise and a little kiss-kiss-bang-bang panache.”

Also, it occurs to me that the point about action movies keeping actors in crowd-pleasing but none too bold roles works more-or-less symetrically for screwball/romantic comedies and actresses. Take Anne Hathaway. She's shown flashes of brilliance, most notably in Brokeback Mountain and this year's Rachel Getting Married. But she's following up on her latest succcess with…Bride Wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdHJnPC_Uvo