By Benji Tunnell
Globe Columnist
JOPLIN, Mo. —
My first year of writing this column was 2008, a 365-day span that saw the release of a lousy Will Ferrell/Adam McKay collaboration (“Step Brothers”), an even worse M. Night Shyamalan directed bomb (“The Happening”) and a washed-up Sylvester Stallone clutching to the last vestiges of his fame (“Rambo”).
It had not one but two entries in the already decomposing spoof-movie genre (“Superhero Movie,” “Disaster Movie”), the increasingly self-parodying Adam Sandler trying to convince his ever graying and maturing audience that he can still be funny (“You Don’t Mess with the Zohan”) and a quartet of menopausal women looking to continue to satisfy disturbingly ravenous sexual appetites (“Sex and the City”).
Jump forward two years and you’ll see a worrisome trend.
Ferrell and McKay again assaulted an unsuspecting public with “The Other Guys.” Shyamalan was inexplicably given more work with “The Last Airbender,” and Stallone continued to defy career obsolescence with “The Expendables.”
“Vampires Suck” continued to bleed the spoof genre dry, Sandler upped his quotient of buffoonery by adding the overrated Chris Rock, the painful Rob Schneider and the increasingly sad Kevin James. And the foursome from “Sex and the City” made their return, presumably blowing most of their Social Security checks on penicillin and escorts.
These are just a few of the parallels between the two years, and it doesn’t bode well for the direction of American cinema.
Entertainment and culture critic and all-around curmudgeon Joe Queenan recently wrote a piece for The Wall Street Journal lamenting 2010 as the worst year in the history of film. While I do think that Queenan might not be giving enough credit to this year (or too much credit to years past), it has been a disappointing 2010, and it is reflective of an overall downward slide of good filmmaking.
Not coincidentally, ticket sales have decreased. It goes little noticed, because theaters have increased ticket prices annually to offset the fewer numbers of bodies in the seats. That skews the box office grosses to distract from the dwindling audiences. Throw in the 3-D surcharges to pad the revenue and it all looks healthy.
There was a point in my life where I had a genuine excitement for movies. Summer was anticipated more for the blockbusters at the theater than the time away from school.
Now, for most, there is no real incentive to make it out to the theater when I can get the same content in a more controlled environment for a fraction of the cost. All I have to do is wait a couple of months for the DVD or Blu-ray release.
I want to be able to get excited again. I’m not saying that I dislike what I do. After all, for every “Bounty Hunter” there’s a “Slumdog Millionaire.”
But I want to look forward to a movie’s opening and not just hope for surprises. And the key to that is for Hollywood to start making them like they used to.
Big explosions and pretty special effects are nice, but if they don’t complement a good story they are empty and meaningless. As nice as “Avatar” was to look at, it felt stale before it was over.
I’ve made my case before in this column that the surest way to help improve the quality of what we are given is to stop supporting the lousy movies. Just think of a world where Ben Affleck, Ashton Kutcher, Robin Williams, Tim Allen or Martin Lawrence couldn’t even open a Dairy Queen, let alone a movie ÑÊa world where Brett Ratner and Michael Bay wouldn’t be able to find jobs directing traffic. Where it would be good night for M. Night, and Dianne Warren would have the pen wrenched from her saccharine dripping fingers before she could unleash another treacly ballad.
Last year, we had some good signs. The latest in the “Saw” franchise was all but ignored, while an innovative, psychological film called “Paranormal Activity” broke through to the mainstream. This summer featured the utter rejection of the latest two films from the Jerry Bruckheimer factory. All steps in the right direction.
Unfortunately, for every step we’ve taken forward, we’ve taken at least one back. Whose idea was it to allow Gerard Butler to be a leading man in what passes for romantic comedy these days? Purveyor of pabulum Nicholas Sparks saw two more of his simplistic works brought to the big screen. And, if someone has the time, please explain to me how Nicholas Cage continues to get work. I’ll be over here waiting.
We embraced “Toy Story 3” and “Despicable Me” while ignoring forced cash-ins such as “Marmaduke” and the latest “Cats & Dogs,” yet a second “Alvin and the Chipmunks” still made over $200 million. We welcomed back one of the saving graces of 2008 in Christopher Nolan, making his cerebral “Inception” an unlikely summertime breakout, but “The Expendables” is on its way to $100 million.
After yet another mediocre summer of lackadaisical moviemaking and half-baked results, its time to make a stand for quality. Let’s be consistent, and maybe we’ll finally get the entertainment we’ve been yearning for.
After all, lessons can be learned. 2008 may have subjected us to a double dose of Keanu Reeves, but it was washed down with two helpings of Clint Eastwood’s directorial offerings. Embrace the good, and leave the bad for the trash heap.
If not, I guess I’ll see you at “Jackass 3-D.”
