I don't know what's happening in Hollywood, but these days all we see is Begins that, Returns this, reboot another one...

Nothing new, only adaptations from comics, new versions for classics...

Where are the creative heads? Are all they in Bollywood or in Nollywood?

I know what you are saying Leonardo. I don't know what's up. I think the idea is that movies cost a zillion $ now so they don't want to take any chances so they make the same thing over and over - ex. Spiderman I, II, III, Batman I, II... etc. I agree though, so uncreative.

Body Double: Still the best "Peeping Tom witnesses murder" movie out there.

There are many good and original movies every year. The problem as i see it is that the big hollywood promotion only goes out to the big blockbusters (franchises, remakes, sequels etc.) But you can still find good there and a lot more if you go for the indies.

It isn't just a lack of creativity. It is a lack of character. There are no characters in movies. The directors have gone almost completely visual.

I remember when critics went absolutely ape (Johnny Wright-style) over Diane Lane's emotional expressions on a subway train in an otherwise forgettable Lifetime-style movie. Her performance in that three-minute scene was spectacular, but it also used to be the norm.

I think of sort of run of the mill movies from the last century: Red Sun, The Woman on Pier 13, Force 10 from Navarrone (not its classic predecessor, Guns of Navarrone), The Old Dark House, Enemy Mine or, heck, even Spacehunter in the Forbidden Zone, and these fairly pedestrian films all had (or attempted to have) substantive, memorable characters. That was an object of filmaking.

It just isn't anymore (generally speaking.) This is much more easily exposed in the run-of-the-mill film than in the blockbuster. The Dark Knight, for example, broods on character (even if Maggie Muggenhall does act as a zip-drag on every scene she's in), and Captain Jack Sparrow almost singlehandedly makes the Pirates franchise.

But in the movies that are stripped of budget, and either employ no special effects or ones so dreary that the viewer is forced to focus on the characters, you'll find that they are long on plot and a lot of photography that doesn't include a bit of acting.

Most movies coming out Hollywood today are glorified PowerPoint presentations. Acting has been sucked almost entirely out of the process.

Hollywood doesn't get it. Films like Dark Knight, 300, Iron Man, weren't blockbusters because they were shiny. They are blockbusters because they have characters, the stories are holistic (though straightforward) and they all say something that engages the audience. The same can't be said for most of the crap retreads and clueless spinoffs (Oh Dark Knight was edgy, so our Superman should be edgy!)

The James Cagneys of today are relegated to "character actors" in supporting roles. William H. Macy would have been a conventional leading man in the 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s. So would Chris Cooper. Or Robert Davi. Or Bruce Freaking Campbell in something other than an "independent" movie.

The actors with the heft to carry a big role in a big movie have their parts handed to the latest metrosexual of the week, who can't carry the convoluted plot, and have nothing to say when they are on camera anyway.

Jump-cut to the explosion.

So that's it: no characters, overburdened plots, cinematographers in love with everything but the acting, and no men.

Solve those four things, and you save Hollywood.

etantao - Yes, I know it, but what they put on display are just the blockbusters, and those less "dollariseds", from that director you've never heard of, with no famous actors, which end up being good movies, sometimes the best you've ever seen until then, goes underground, because they don't expect it to return a good amount of money as Batman IX - Re-Begins or StarWars Episode XV - The Luke Skywalker's lost son.

Nothing against the blockbusters, but sometimes we need something different. And as the good movies don't get the same publicity as the bb's we sometimes never get to know them. Sadly.

It's a good point Jeem.
There are lots of movies that we watch and in the end you keep thinking of how many times have you seen that same thing?

Like those awful J-Lo kind of movie where a poor/ugly/underestimated girl ends up to be the oh-so-loved last cookie in the box has been filmed through since I was wearing my diaper. Sometimes the plot is ridiculously identical to some 20 years before story. Hate this shit.

All this American Pie shit came from Porky's and Fast Times at Ridgemont High and other movies like those (roughly, of course), but the general idea is the same.

Not forgetting the action movies, which are almost all the same stuff too. The badass soldier/cop/firefighter/whatever, for whom no one gives a shit is the final scene hero, who knew the only way to save the day. How many of those have you watched?

In fact we are watching the same shit year after year, and why does it happen? Because we go to the theathers and watch 'em...

It's another discussion of the film clichés, like in the other post here weeks ago. Looks like the film industry has a cycle between the core of the movies for the season.
"Oh-Kay, this is the superhero season, but in two years we'll have to vote between the choices of what genre will return for the new season: space disaster, time travelling, epic romances or war movies."

Of course, there are lots of good original movies being made everyday, but most of them are independent movies, and don't hit the great circuit. And some of them don't even arrive here in DVD, tell me about theathers.

And there are great blockbusters that aren't adaptations (cough - COPY - cough) of past successes. Kudos for them!

Leonardo, I like the phrase Last Cookie in the Box. That's a new one on me.

hahahah... it's a local expression here, E... usually, the last cookie in the box is used for people who feel like they are the most desirable person, but you know it's not true.