So the big winners were Chicago, a musical, and The Hours, a depressing womens-issues film about suicide. Not traditional “chick-flics”, but female-oriented all the same.
Does this mean that the smart and edgy films that have had a chance the last few years at the Oscars are finally going to be edged out by either a MoulinRouge-clone or a thick, depressing borefest?
HAW HAW HAW.
Oh… what were you saying?
Yes, because only male-oriented films are worth awards.
And you’re right - films made “for” and by women are inherently stupid. Really. They are.
:rolleyes:
Now now, let’s not be sloppy with the language.
It is quite wrong to call The Hours a “Chick Flick.” It only received a low B Cinemascore grade with women, which is the kiss of death commercially. (By contrast, women rated Martin Lawrence’s National Security an A-, and you wouldn’t call that a chick flick.)
The Hours is something quite different, an Artsy Fartsy Flick. That means nobody likes it, except for the reviewers at your local independent weekly newspaper.
Now, Two Weeks Notice–that’s a Chick Flick!
Yeah, and frickin’ Chicago. I mean, all we’ve seen recently are Musicals Musicals Musicals. Crikey. I wish film makers would take a chance every once in a while…
So - making a musical isn’t taking a chance? The genre was not only dead. It wasn’t just history, it was ancient history when Baz Luhrman made Moulin Rouge. Oh, so we get five musicals in a year, or whatever. How many testosteron driven stupid action films hit the theatres? How many English period peices made from classical and loved books, how many stupid teen comedies, how many boring dramas made and marketed for the Oscars?
Is LOTR taking a chance? Spider-Man? Yeah, right.
Taking a chance might be to let Arnold star in yet another $100 million super action/adventure which leaves the theatres and starts collecting dust at Blockbuster, faster than you can say Schwarzenegger.
But I doubt it’s that kind of risk taking that gets awarded by the Golden Globe jury.
To be fair, after Southpark: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, I’d say that the musical was only “normal history”, not “ancient history” when Moulin Rouge came around.
Gaspode! Check your batteries!
South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. The only musical I’ve ever truly loved.
Hmmm. We are so over-whelmed with chick flicks, right? This has gone on for entirely too long!! Bring back the real people – men!
If you grow up, you may find that women are as interesting as men. Most movies about women are not meant only for women and therefore can’t be catagorized as “chick flicks.”
A majority of the moving-going public doesn’t seem to enjoy artsy-fartsy (intelligent) cinema. I will give you that. Do you really want to be as limited as most people out there?
If testosterone is really what you crave, I think that you might still be able to find one or two movies about men available for rental. Something with explosions and a naked woman or two might be just the thing. :rolleyes: :dubious: 
ummm Evita?
Yes, both of these films took huge chances, especially LotR. When was the last time you heard of anyone making three films at once when the lot of them are fantasy films. (how many sword and socery films are made a year?)
Yes Spiderman is a risk. They sunk a ton of money into something that may not have worked out. The fans might not have liked what they did to the character or a hundred other things may have gone wrong. (think Spawn)
I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. Exactly what constitutes a Chick Flick was discussed in this thread about six weeks ago. IMHO, The Hours (which I haven’t seen) is a “boutique film”–a sub-category of Chick Flick. In contrast, Two Weeks Notice is a mainstream Hollywood Chick Flick. Still, they’re both Chick Flicks nonetheless.
I guess. Cuz only penises are smart and edgy.
Mind if I slap ya upside the head now?
remember, these are not the people’s choice awards. that happened already. this is when the people in hollywood vote for each other. and then anything goes…
I’m not saying I only want stuff-blowing-up movies. In fact, I almost never see those, and can’t stand Jerry Bruckheimer. Rejecting a moody, depressing film like The Hours doesn’t mean I want to avoid “intelligent” cinema. IMHO, movies like The Usual Suspects, Memento, Fight Club, and films by the Coen brothers, p.t. anderson, and Wes Anderson are among the best of the last 10 years, and I consider all to be intelligent, thought-provoking, cleverly written, and anything but boring.
I suppose that, in theory, a movie with female protagonists could be edgy and smart. But from what I saw from The Hours clips on Larry King, and the accompanying interview with two of its stars, it looks like it’s just another moody, depressing, journey through the mind of the classically boring “introspective woman”. Gimme women doing things, developing their character through actions and encountering stimulating, original and cleverly written situations, and then maybe you’ll have something.
The tired cliche of female characters emotionally wading in their own self-pity over their own limitations is so old it’s got whiskers on it. That the ladies in The Hours succumb and kill themselves rather than have a “You Go Girl” moment doesn’t make it any more enjoyable.
Frankly, I think filmmakers are simply reluctant to do with a female protagonist the things they will do with a male one. Female characters in dramas tend to sit around looking serious, whining about their lives. That’s pretty boring stuff for a character of either gender, but it seems to be all that female characters are written to do.
And contrary to what you suggest, Zoe, movies about women tend to pigeonhole themselves so much that they become only for women. There are some things unique to the female experience as there are to the male experience. Movies about women do tend to be almost exclusively about the sort of issues that are relevant and interesting only to women.
What ruined the Golden Globes= Everything. No one has cared about them since 1907!
Gangs is lame. Chicago is lame. but i do find it funny everytime there is a musical the critics have orgams declaring the musical back, ignoring the previous films they did that for last year.
IIRC, I heard on the radio this morning that only about 90-something people voted for the Golden Globes this year (sorry, no cite). That’s a very small group of people to vote for anything that supposedly shows the best in any industry.
Sorry, NDP, but The Hours is not Chick Flick, even by the definition of the other thead (which is quite good, BTW.) There, people were saying a Guy Flick is about achieving a goal, while a Chick Flick is about winning over a person.
An Artsy Fartsy Flick isn’t about either, it’s about how we’re all going to die without achieving our goals, oh woe, oh woe. You can have more male or female versions of this, but the point is, the gloomy attitude of the Artsy Fartsy Flick is the polar opposite of the can-do attitude found in both the true Guy Flick and the true Chick Flick.
Mind you, back in the 40s and 50s there was the Women’s Film. That was about Nobly Sacrificing All For The Good Of Others, not achieving one’s selfish desires. However, the Women’s Film is a dead genre, and any attempt to revive it normally turns into an Artsy Fartsy film about failure to achieve one’s desires. (See Far From Heaven.)
Challenge:
List 5 “things to do” that you would enjoy watching in movies that do not involve violence or extreme sports (jumping off cliffs with skis, etc.)
GO!