I think I've become desensitized...

[Rev. Powell]

But not to violence.  (That happened a long time ago).

Now, I'm afraid that I'm becoming desensitized to quality. 

Recently, I've watched three movies that most of the critics & public loved--DON'T LOOK NOW, OLDBOY and THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE--and I've given each of them a relatively ho-hum four out of five stars. 

Their fans passionately defend each of these movies, but I can't seem to find any passion, only to see the flaws that hold them back from being masterpieces in my mind.  DON'T LOOK NOW--too slow in the beginning.  OLDBOY--too stylized, implausible, and confused.  THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE--solid, but pales beside PAN'S LABYRINTH.  I can imagine sharing the same enthusiasm as these film's younger fans if I had seen them 10 or 20 years ago, but not now.

In fact, the last movie I've seen that I would consider giving five stars to is PAN'S LABYRINTH, which was made 2 years ago.  Surely, five star movies should come around more than once every 2 years.

After all the movies I've watched over the years, I feel like the movies can't show me anything new.  No matter what they try to do, I've seen it before.  A guy eating a live octopus?  I'm not shocked at much of anything after the chicken scene from PINK FLAMINGOES.

Maybe I'll see something soon that will knock my socks off and restore my faith in movies.  I haven't seen all the classics yet, but even when I view an older classic that I like, I often come away with a feeling of cold admiration rather than that fiery ardor I used to have for the best movies.

Anyone else ever feel the same way?

[Doc Daneeka]

Don't lose the faith Reverend , not a lot of people are as discerning about movies coming out. Not a lot of big movies nowadays are that good (The biggest part of it I think is the modern style of cinematography; mindless quick-cut editing and the tinted digital interlay do not dit well with me), and quite a few old ones don't age well or don't live up to their hype. I admire people who don't throw out the term "flawless" carelessly the same as I dislike those who nitpick at enjoyable films that aren't high-expectation to begin with. I can even pick out flaws with the films I consider my favorites. 4 out of 5 is great, proves you're discerning enough not to let something into such a high spot that doesn't belong among better things!

There are those who say "everything's been done", and they have a bit of a point there, you can find shades of ideas past in many films, even those that aren't among the many remakes today. Don't let stuff like seeing similar things in older and newer movies ruin your experience, everyone takes inspiration from what they see. I myself am a very derivative writer, but I don't think anyone would mind connecting one of my screenplay ideas, concerning a group of vagrants taking revenge on those who harmed their leader, with "Theatre of Blood". If something is blatanly a rip, then it deserves criticism, if it simply expands from an earlier idea, then see how it stacks up to that!

And believe it or not, there are new ideas out there, I'm pretty sure there always will be. You just have to wait for something innovative, eventually studios will need new and different ideas! heck, maybe I could make it eventually, I'm trying to make it into the biz early, if I think I make something good, this message board will be the first one I inform.

EDIT to respond to more points since I have more time now:
@ The Devil's Backbone comment: It's not always a good idea to judge a film based on a director's other works: The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, and Dementia 13 were all directed by Francis Ford Coppola, but they are very different films and often equally admired for different reasons!
@ "Cold admiration": Maybe you just need to watch more new stuff, if only so you can appreciate what you already have... Or perhaps make a new favorites list from your 2nd tier choices? ...This is unless, of course, you've lost your exuberance over all films in general, in which case maybe you just need to look at them from a different perspective. Maybe "cold admiration" can be just as good as fiery ardor in some cases, and you can eventually move on to another view of your favorites once you've run out of that, hopefully something better like "renewed interest"? :P Look at me, talking like a new-ager...

[Yaddo 42]

Maybe it's age. I've felt a cooling of my enthusiasm over the past few years even when I've seen good or great films, although it has picked up a bit with some of the films I saw this summer. I think some of my focus has shifted in my interest as life's priorities change. Also there can be a bit of burnout factor.

I wouldn't worry about the number of stars you give films or how many get your top rating. Mentally I tend to give few top of the scale (4 stars in my case, but I also give half stars as marks of distinction) rankings to films. Maybe it's the wannabe film critic in me, but I will point out the things I didn't like about even films I enjoy. My top rating goes to films I consider classics or that are just damn good at what they set out to do (an awesome popcorn movie, samurai movie, best example of its genre, or whatever). I have tons of 3 and half star films, but not as many 4 star films if I were to do a count. To pull random films out of a hat: Cool Hand Luke is a 4 star film, the original The Wicker Man is a 4 star film, the original Sabrina gets 4 stars, The Bourne Supremacy, etc. My Name is Nobody gets 3 1/2 stars, The Dark Knight and Iron Man both get 3 1/2 stars, and so on.

Pan's Labyrinth probably gets 4 stars from me (I give it the edge over The Devil's Backbone but that doesn't make TDB a lesser film in my opinion, just that both films are better than most other films I would compare them to); my favorite comedies of the past few years Tristam Shandy and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang both get 3 1/2 stars, I love them but they don't quite cross that line to 4 star territory as much as I wish they did.

Besides maybe you're just adhering to Sturgeon's Law a bit more these days. I know that seems to be the case for me when it comes to books and TV. If I don't love the great stuff as much as I used to, I do tend to really hate the bad stuff even more than usual.

[Trevor]

Me too: I might be hitting 41 next year but I think I still like any kinds of movies that come my way.

That said: I have a very controversial opinion about South African films, past and present. That is: we made better films under apartheid than we do now, because back then, the filmmakers had to sneak the message in and almost sugarcoat it in a way.

But the new SA filmmakers have nothing more to rebel against and no hidden messages to fit in, so our films have become, as Cheezeflix would say, as dry as mummy farts. 

[peter johnson]

I take it none of you have seen "In Bruges" . . . ?

* * *

Sure, I think we all get overloaded, but this year I saw not one but 2 new films that I consider 5-star masterpieces each in their own way:  "Persepolis" and "In Bruges".  I've now seen "In Bruges" 4 times & still love it so much it inspired me to find the writer/director's other works for the stage & start reading those.  Some of the best writing in the English language ever . . . I hope someone (himself?) does a film version of "A Skull in Connemara" someday . . .

Quality is always just around the corner --

peter johnson/denny hell no I'm not jaded!

[Rev. Powell]

I'm not specifically complaining that new movies don't stack up to old ones, or that there are no original ideas or quality movies coming out.  When I watch am old classic today, I can tell I just don't have the same enthusiastic reaction that I would have had if I saw it when I was younger.  When I watch a new classic, it seems that I'm simply not capable of being "blown away" by it anymore.

It's more that I've been overexposed to movies... that I'm too analytical when I watch them now.  I take apart every scene and pick up on what doesn't work about it, rather than letting myself be swept along by the story.  It's true that when I watch a movie now, I have a deeper appreciation for what the director was trying to do, because I understand film better.  But I miss those days when I could become a passionate defender of some film just because it intensely moved me on an artistic level.

The same thing happens when I read novels or listen to music... it is a sign of advancing age, and of experience. 

I don't think that there's any help for this syndrome, I just wondered if others felt the same. 

IN BRUGES and PERSEPOLIS are definitely on my list to see... but somehow I fear I will be able to find fault with them. 

[peter johnson]

Oh, fault away!
I still want to hear your take on them -- Myself, I WAS "Blown away" by "In Bruges", something that hadn't happened to me in years --
I can't say I don't want to oversell it, because I already HAVE "oversold" it due to my raving about it -- I'm also not saying it is an example of that elusive "perfection" in a film . . . simply that it contains some of the best writing I've heard come off of a cinema screen in decades & I'm still in awe of the magic of that fact.
peter johnson/denny crane

[Yaddo 42]

Actually Peter, I did see it about a month ago on DVD, finally. I enjoyed it quite a lot. It's not perfect, but it did stick with me for a long time afterward. Always a good sign, especially since it was not a case of me picking the movie or the writing apart after the fact and finding fault with it, like I did with Juno. It has been a hard film for me to recommend to others, not because of any fault with the film, just I find it hard to do the story justice with a description. I tend to wind up going with, "You just have to see it for yourself....."

Rather it was an appreciation of the little shining moments that make up the film. Colin Farrell playing a weak, damaged, guilty and fragile man hiding behind his bluster and his boredom with Bruges. He should seek out more roles that require that much nuance. The very un-PC laughs all through the film, Billy was a hoot. The romance between two people who weren't all that nice but you still wanted to root for them, not because you're supposed to, but because they seem right for each other.  Brendan Gleason's performance was awesome because it wasn't showy, and his anguish felt more real for it. This was a man who had suffered a great loss years ago, and it still affected him, but there was more to him than than. I'm so glad the flashbacks included in the deleted scenes didn't make it into the finished film.

Ralph Feinnes came off as a little too over the top at times, not enough to ruin the film but still not quite right. Some things in the climax were a little too neat, but I can't find fault with the actual ending, just the right note.

[peter johnson]

Yaddo --
I strongly reccommend that you try to find the plays that are published/available by the author, Martin McDonagh -- these will curl your nose-hair.  He takes the business of "people you don't like but root for anyway" to heights a lesser author could not.  I definitely want to perform at least one of his shows, preferably "A Skull in Connemara".  This is brutal theatre.
I like your remarks about "In Bruges", but I'm not clear on Gleason's character having suffered a great loss years before, and that this is what colors his actions.  Was that in the deleted scenes?  I do agree with you that it's best that they left the flashbacks out of the finished film, but I did enjoy watching them anyway!
I wasn't bothered by Fiennes' performance, as there are men in the British underworld who are more theatrical and showy than that -- It's part of their ouvre.  And, yes, the ending is quite sublime.
Colin Farrell is one of today's best actors, but he needs a proper director/writer to bring it out -- If you haven't, track down and see a small Irish art-film called "Intermission".  Farrell's performance will startle you --
peter johnson/denny fanboy

[Yaddo 42]

I may have read too much about the death of Gleason's wife, years before, into his action in the story. I saw the film a month ago, and it definitely warrents repeat viewings.

I'll have to seek out McDonagh's other work, it certainly sounds interesting and not typical storytelling, which I'm always glad to find.

I've seen less of Farrell's work than I thought I had, after checking IMDB. Intermission will get an add to the Netflix queue. I liked the part of Tigerland that I saw, never seem to see all of it on TV. In Miami Vice, he and the cast were stuck playing Michael Mann's typical ultra-macho, humorless, men of few words and many clenched jaws, decent film but not much there for the actors to work with. Most everything else I've seen him in has been big-budget Hollywood fodder like Hart's War (which was watchable but nothing special), Daredevil, or Minority Report (neither of which I can remember much about beyond being bored, except for Jennifer Garner in leather in DD).  Phonebooth would have made a good episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents or a good cheap Sam Fuller b-picture decades ago, no reflection on Farrell though. He was the best thing in the guest shot he did on an episode of Scrubs, fun, goofy dialogue to play with but he really made it work, paraphrasing from memory:

Billy (Farrell's character): It been fun fellas, but I 've got to go. I've got to be in Florence by midnight.

Turk: You'll never make it. It'll take twelve hours to get there.

Billy: No it won't, her apartment's six blocks away from here.

[CheezeFlixz]

I have to have a break at times, from movies, from news, from forums, from the internet, from everything. Not necessarily at the same time, but sometimes I achieve burn out and I might go a month or so with out what ever the current burn out is ... currently it's movies, I haven't made it threw a complete movie in the last 3 weeks. 15 or 20 minutes and I'll say, this sucks and turn it off.

[HarlotBug3]

I can empathize Rev. Powell, and simply recommend you just give movies a break for a while. Read some books, TV is online as easy as it is on dvd these days. It is frustrating to know that 1% of all movies is still more than you have time to watch, but don't overhype yourself with uncessary nostalgia any more than the ranting of a reviewer trading enthusiasm for detail.

[peter johnson]

Ah, books!
I remember those . . .
Just finished "The Lonesome West" by . . . Martin McDonogh!  One really needs to read all 3 plays:  "The Beauty Queen of Leenaugh", "A Skull in Connemara", and "The Lonesome West" together, as each one cross-references the other.
* * *
Speaking of books, if you haven't read "The Lovely Bones" yet, get to it quickly, as once the Peter Jackson film version comes out, copies will be in short supply --
peter johnson/denny crane