Sunday, July 20, 2008

Latte, Jasper, Fitzroy

I can't help but notice that there are currently more than three movies out at the cinemas that I am more than vaguely interested in seeing. This hasn't happened since the 90s. Movie studios keep lamenting the death of the cinema - if one can lament something that hasn't quite happened yet - blaming file-sharing, affordability of DVDs and the popularity of home cinema. Many believe it is the combination of the three (man buys movie for cheap on DVD only months after its release, uploads it to bittorrent, millions download it and watch it on a big screen with surround sound without ever leaving their home or going into overdraft trying to buy popcorn). If the exorbitant markup on the popcorn and post-mix beverages is really where the cinemas make their money, they're in trouble. Nobody's dropping in via the cinemas to visit the snackbar on their way home to watch pirated movies all night.
The internet is not the real bogeyman here though. I can't help but point out, "You may have more patrons if you stop making so many shit movies!" Hollywood big wigs have stopped calling me for advice as a result.
But I yelled it loud enough that it would echo around in their heads long enough to green-light the following movies:
  • Hancock - yep, I'll see that.
  • Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - I liked it, saw it twice.
  • The Dark Knight - it actually looks kinda dark, which is what I dug about the first Batman movie. I'll see that.
  • X-Files - wtf? A new X-Files movie? It seems about five years too late to be relevant to the last movie, and about three years too early to make any blips on the retrometer. Ah what the hell, I'll see that.
Unfortunately I've made a pact to go see Hancock first. It's a long story.

1 comment:

  1. Yep, the discussion here has been that finally Batman has returned to "gothic". As it should be. It is set in Gotham City after all.
    Dr J.

    ReplyDelete