 |
| Maybe "Die Hard" is on again. |
It's finally
happened...movies have actually gotten too big. Don't believe me? Try
checking out this summer's Man Of Steel.
The entire last act has to do with buildings being destroyed. That's
an entire act I'm talking about here - not a few effective scenes, a
la Independence Day - an
entire act. After a certain point I just wanted the flick to end. It
kept on going, though, building after computer generated building.
Still,
the public at large seems to love it. The movie is a huge hit, after
all, just like all the insanely destructive Transformers
flicks are. That doesn't mean
these over the top movies are any good, though. It just means they're
popular. The question, of course, is why?
One
brave soul actually wrote online recently that he (or she) likes
to pay to see garbage in the
theater. What's more, this particular movie fan apparently accepts
nothing less (or in this case, more) than over-the-top imagery, loud
noises, and zero story. And you can pound sand if you don't like it.
Is
this person, you may ask yourself, really in the majority?
Sadly
enough, the answer may well be "yes." The fact of the matter is I have
no idea why people prefer unending destruction in their movies these days.
I myself was weaned on the likes of Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis,
two dudes who knew what it meant to destroy. Yet, big as they were,
the action scenes of the 80s and 90s were scenes, not entire acts –
and rarely were they presented as cataclysmic incidents.
And
that's the point. The apocalypse is supposed to be a once in a
universe event, not something which occurs two-to-four times in most every
film. Excessiveness drains impact. Everyone used to know know that.
Now only those of us who pretty much avoid the cinema seem to be aware of the
truth.
Looks
like I'll be watching cable again this weekend.
