Wasted movie weekend.

[Bront]

Sad. I love Mel Brooks movies, including Blazing Saddles. I didn't know Brooks had anything to do with this movie. Had I known that, I would have rented it long ago.

But, it just wasn't funny. Just nothing about it elicited even a slight guffaw. It was just dead.

I just love my time too much to give a boring/bad movie so much of it. I won't continue watching a boring/bad movie just on the hopes that it will get good -- plenty of movies get my interest in the first 20 minutes (or the first 20 seconds), so it's not like my expectations are too high.

Quasqueton

That's part of the point of the producers is that it's initialy slow. It gets better when he quits his job, and is hilarious after that. But admitedly, part of it is to lampoon musicals in general, and part of it lampoons critics.

I might suggest the origional, with Gene Wilder. Might be more palitable to you.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Gotta agree on the first 20 minutes of the Producers being slow. It gets pretty good after that, though.

 

[Umbran]

Of course I could merely be misunderstanding you (Mel Brooks did contribute to the screenplay of the 2005 remake).

Brooks has writing credit on the original movie. He has credit on the book and lyrics of the stage musical. He has writing and (ironically enough) producer credits on the new movie. That sounds like it is a Mel Brooks work to me.

Folks are, of course, allowed to stop watching a film whenever they wish. I personally feel that our collective need for instant gratification is doing bad things to our media, in general. While it is true that time is valuable, it is also true that good things come to those who wait, and that patience is a virtue. That may not save this film for anyone in particular, but it might make for better films and television, in general.

 

[RangerWickett]

My roommate rented Catwoman. He has sort of a personal belief that you should never give up on a movie by turning it off, so about twenty minutes in he started watching the movie in fast forward. That apparently was still so distasteful that for the first time in years he actually turned off a movie in disgust.

 

[Mallus]

I personally feel that our collective need for instant gratification is doing bad things to our media, in general. While it is true that time is valuable, it is also true that good things come to those who wait, and that patience is a virtue.

And just maybe that slow/boring/bad first 20 minutes is absolutely neccessary to set up the payoff farther down the line. That's its integral to the film's structure. That without it the whole piece collapses. That starting with a bang makes it impossible to tell many kinds of stories.

Of course, you might not like those kinds of stories. But I agree with Unbram, too many contemporary media products have the feel of being force-fed candybars.

And for my money, the original Producers with Zero Mostel as Bialystock and Gene Wilder as Blume is one of the best comedies of all time.

 

[Quasqueton]

I personally feel that our collective need for instant gratification is doing bad things to our media, in general. While it is true that time is valuable, it is also true that good things come to those who wait, and that patience is a virtue.

It is not true that good things come to those who wait. There is no guarantee of any kind of good things for waiting, regardless of how long you wait. Think of all the times you’ve waited for something, and found no good result or payoff for the patience.

I’ll agree that patience is a virtue, but sitting through a bad movie in the hope that it will get better is not.

And since we’re talking about Hollywood, here, it is quite probable that the movie will continue to be boring, and may even get worse. It’s a crap shoot. If after 20 minutes, I’m not entertained (the sole purpose of a Hollywood movie), there is no logical or historical proof that things are going to suddenly get better. Best to just cut my time loss and forget it.

And just maybe that slow/boring/bad first 20 minutes is absolutely neccessary to set up the payoff farther down the line. That's its integral to the film's structure. That without it the whole piece collapses. That starting with a bang makes it impossible to tell many kinds of stories.

United 93. The first 45 minutes of this movie is completely mundane – seeing travelers, the air traffic controllers, etc. The pay off is huge, and well worth it. But this movie also has the benefit of everyone knowing what’s going to happen, so it can afford to be slow in the beginning to set up for the big event.

But otherwise, it is quite possible to have a mundane beginning and not be boring or unentertaining. Many movies do this. Just as there are many movies that continue to be boring and unentertaining even past the 20 minute mark.

Quasqueton

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I’ll agree that patience is a virtue, but sitting through a bad movie in the hope that it will get better is not.

You can't know its a bad movie unless you've seen the whole movie. The most you can say is 'I didn't like the first 20 minutes.' And since a movie (like a book, or a play) is intended to be taken in a 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts' kinda way, dismissing something after 20 minutes shows a lack of maturity. Sure, it's your time to spend as you see fit, but AFAIC you have as much standing to bitch about a movie after watching 20 minutes as you do if you just saw the trailer -- in other words, none.

 

[Quasqueton]

You can't know its a bad movie unless you've seen the whole movie. . .blah, blah, blah

Telling someone they should put up with something they don’t like or enjoy for longer than it takes for them to identify that they don’t like or enjoy it is a sign of ignorance.

Quasqueton

 

[barsoomcore]

Like I said, I just couldn't hear or understand the dialogue. Either the background music was drowning it out, or they actors were mumbling. We were both just lost -- had no idea what was being said.

Weird. Maybe a problem with that specific disk. I certainly found I had to listen very carefully, but then, knowing Terrence Malick, I wasn't too worried about it, since I knew that this movie wasn't going to depend on the specifics of each utterance.

That said, if a movie hasn't given me ANYTHING in the first 20 minutes, I'm prone to passing on it. If there's SOMETHING. ANYTHING. I'll stick around.

But I couldn't watch past the first 20 minutes of Red Dragon, and I saw that in the theatre. Both Mrs. Barsoom and I had to get up and walk out. So I understand your pain, if I don't share it in this particular case (The New World, at least -- haven't seen The Producers).

 

[buzzard]

Brooks has writing credit on the original movie. He has credit on the book and lyrics of the stage musical. He has writing and (ironically enough) producer credits on the new movie. That sounds like it is a Mel Brooks work to me.

Fair enough, but I think of a Mel Brooks movie as one he directed and did the screenplay for. You know, Blazing Saddles, The Producers (68), High Anxiety, Young Frankenstein, etc. I've come to really attach more importance to directors in recent years.

buzzard