Why Am I Uninterested?

The movie world is disparaging at times of lulls in creativity. Most movies nowadays seem to be based on comic books or derived from another similar movie. In other words, I've seen it all before.
Take Kick Ass for example. Critics seem to think it's "overly violent" and lacking on the plot side. What can I say since I haven't seen it? I can assume they're right, because the truth is no one wants plot anymore. I may sound too pessimistic but the general audience will always reaffirm this. If Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time then what does this say about what movies we choose to see (and then see again)?
Then there's Date Night, probably a very funny movie. But is there anything rewarding to it? Do you get anything out of viewing the film? Probably not. You may say "but Luke, it's a comedy, why do I need to get anything out of it?" This may be so, but think about some great comedies such as Knocked Up, Back to School, and Ghostbusters. All of these films showed real depth of wit and writing, sometimes giving us a life lesson or two. And I say why not? Why not work in something real and meaningful, if only for a fleeting frame?
Still, none of these reasons explain why I am so sadly uninterested in the current choice of movies. The main reason is that what I really want is a truly great movie experience. A great story, engaging characters who are acted masterfully by veteran actors or promising newcomers. I want a story to follow and characters to build a relationship with, not blue people who have sex by locking ponytails and fly around on horses. I hate it.
Not to be so cynical, because there is a lot of promise out there. Pixar will soon grace us with a masterpiece (I'm actually not being sarcastic) and I'm sure Iron Man 2 will impress. Still, I'm waiting for that next great thing. Something like Synecdoche, New York to come along and truly blow me away. Not that it has to be that artistic, but still just as imaginative.
If movies aren't the stories we tell then they are not part of our culture. What kind of stories do we want to tell? How do we want to be viewed 500 years from now by future Americans? (A better question may be what will they be watching). More to be said on this, but for now I'll end with this. If we keep sliding into careless film making, driven mostly by profit potential, what will that do to us as human beings? Will our lives still be meaningful, and if not what will give them meaning? Movies are still art, and I think we need to reexamine what art is and what purpose it has in society.

Why Don't People Like Movie Critics?

Typical moviegoers don't care for film critics. Well, a more accurate statement would be that moviegoers don't like dissenting critics. If they think a movie will be good then a reviewer who agrees will earn their praise, the opposite for a critic who takes too critical of a stance. People would like to believe that they are all experts on movies and in the end will never yield to the opinion of someone who probably knows more than them. This isn't always the case however. Sometimes film critics are wrong, even when they're right.
Roger Ebert basically revolutionized the art of film criticism, bringing to light the idea of reviewing films relative to their likely audiences and expectations. So for example, the Hangover could get 4 stars (the highest rating) not because it's as good as Casablanca, but because it's an excellent comedy. See the difference here? Whereas some more "traditional" critics review all movies as if their audience is the Academy, Ebert has chosen a more relative (and therefore relevant) style that makes sense to readers.
Not to say that there's not some disagreement even still, but in general you can take his reviews with much less a grain of salt than most others.
So taking Roger Ebert's approach seems like the obvious choice right? As it turns out...no.
Movie critics like to maintain an air of superiority because they're quite simply exclusionary and arrogant. They want you to believe that they know better than you, so some will even go so far as to trash a movie that probably doesn't deserve it. Then there are critics that buy into hype, like with Avatar, and ignore all of the important things they are supposed to reinforce. Things like plot, story, and acting. These are the type of critics that make us hate reading reviews. I strive not to fall into those categories but sometimes you can't avoid it.
In any case, give critics a chance and trust that they DO know better than you, although they may not be reviewing the film correctly as I described above. Of course, when you're not sure what to believe, check Ebert.
And if you disagree with all those sources, then become a critic yourself. Of course, make sure you know something before hand. For example, don't think you can know anything about film if you haven't seen the Godfather. Seems obvious but people who have seen a lot of modern films have an extremely incomplete definition of the art of film and are not fit to review.
So trust the reviews, but don't take them to heart. If there's an actor/director that you like and know won't let you down, then just go. Do what you like with movies because in the end art is subjective.

What's there to look forward to Nowadays?

For a critic there's always a pessimistic thought that creeps into your head whenever you see a trailer for a new movie. After all, you've seen it all before if you've seen enough movies. Chick flicks are assuredly going to be bad, sci-fi movies rarely turn out impressive, and horror movies generally disappoint as well. Of course, there are some exciting filmmakers nowadays who are, if not guaranteed to, expected to deliver an enjoyable film experience or just maybe one that's smart at the same time.
Whoa! Imagine that...
Of course, there's always Judd Apatow, who you can expect to deliver something hilarious and heartfelt, and yes intelligent as well. If he doesn't exactly hit the mark every time (see Funny People) you are at least getting something fresh.
Then there's the not so newcomer Tim Burton. Alice in Wonderland was a let down, but Nine was not. This is a visionary filmmaker at work and someone who's previous films shouldn't be overlooked, no matter how obscure the subject matter.
If you're looking for sci-fi, look no further than the producer of my least favorite tv show of all time, JJ Abrams. I may not be a Lost fan, and Cloverfield didn't exactly do it for me, but Star Trek was one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. I expect great things from him (sequel?) and hope he eventually abandons Lost and moves full-time to Hollywood.
Do I need to say anything about Pixar? I guess I will point out that Toy Story 3 has about a .000001 percent chance of being even as good as the original two. Big mistake as far as I'm concerned, while trilogies can be great, in this case two was enough.  Still, they are one of the best group of filmmakers ever.
The last group I'd like to point out is the duo of Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright. Shaun of the Dead was of course pure genius and then Hot Fuzz surpassed it in my mind. Spaced (their now 10 year old t.v. show) was a delight for the senses (and brain) and anyone who is a fan of the former two movies should definitely give it a viewing. It's on DVD in the U.S. now.  These two (along with Nick Frost) will be collaborating for the last movie in the three flavors cornetto trilogy, which refers to the references in Shaun and Fuzz to a certain flavor of Cornetto Ice Cream (think Nestle Drumstick). Surely this is the most anticipated movie of the decade so far.
With so much out there NOT to look forward to, that's hopefully a list that will improve the discerning movie fan's spirits. As of right now Kick Ass and Hot Tub Time Machine are my upcoming favorites. The former is sure to please, the latter I'm still uneasy about but willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Happy movie going everybody!

First of all, I'm not a movie expert. By this I mean I don't go to film school. If film school is anything like business school, you don't actually have to go to be a successful businessman, although it would be tough to be an expert in securities valuation without taking Investments. In any case, my only credentials are that I read reviews fanatically and watch every movie I can in the 24 hours in a day. Roger Ebert is my idol and in my opinion a revolutionary in the field of criticism. I thought this was a necessary disclaimer for anyone who likes to "check their sources."  Take my opinion then, if you choose, with a grain of salt. Here we go.
I think it's ironic that the largest distributors of independent films are subdivisions of large companies, take Fox Searchlight for example. As a business person I think this is great, you get independently made films being distributed by companies with a ton of resources and power which translates into more widespread distribution. I will admit to not being the biggest follower of independent films, but only because I think a movie benefits from an experienced director. I'll take one example that underscores my point there, and then present a contradiction.
Paranormal Activity is one of the worst movies I remember seeing in a long time, that was mostly praised by critics. I've never been a fan of horror films in general. People say they play on our fears, but how can I be afraid of something that is so moronic and unrealistic. Movies should inspire real emotion. Paranormal Activity gave us a movie that had no plot, acting, characters, or realism. It was a series of stunts performed cheaply that were designed to shock the audience. I'm feeling a reference to a Victorian Freakshow is in order. But what I'm trying to say is that Paranormal Activity was just a show, and not a film.
On the other hand, look at Clerks, Kevin Smith's first film and in my mind a masterpiece of low budget film making. Clerks had a lot of things that Paranormal Activity did not. The most extraordinary thing about it was the dialogue, filled with social and sexual commentary, humorous and yet insightful observations, and overall extremely witty and creative. It showed a different way of life, a different way of thinking about things, exactly what a movie should do. If Kevin Smith's brand of humor may not appeal to everyone, try and see past the jokes and into the writing. The acting was where it should have been and special effects were budget prohibited, but the writing was pure and simple genius.
So what does this say about my point on independent film? I think it emphasizes that it's mostly hit or miss. You may have a rising prodigy (Smith) or someone who knows how to hustle us with the camera (Peli).
Classifying films as independent is also tricky because some of them may have a big name director involved (Steven Speilberg in the case of Paranormal Activity) but still be called independent.. Sure it refers to the funding and studios involved, but if Wal-Mart provided the funding could a film still evoke the same feelings as a really independent one?  A change in the definition of independent needs to happen and it has to do with just that.  

Hello
This is a very odd experience to be writing to (at the time) no one. Hopefully in the future, someday, someone will come across my blog and find it just barely interesting enough to read. I can only dream. In any case...
This blog mainly will concern topics in the entertainment industry, the film industry mostly. I occasionally may comment on music but I don't feel like enough of an expert to have a blog about that subject. I am a movie critic for my school's newspaper and have seen too many films to admit to. Just a little bio there, so let's get down to it. Here's a quandary...what to write about.
I'll post my reviews on this blog, so you can check those out, but I suppose this will be more of an arena for me to talk about issues related to film making, the industry, etc.
One thing that has interested me recently is the issue of censorship. I should be clear that inherently, or fundamentally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the MPAA (the organization that appointed itself the standards board for movie ratings). An organization that tries to tell parents what movies to watch out for is an idea that cannot be debated. It's absolutely necessary when you think of the implications that could come with a 4 year old seeing the movie Eraser or American Psycho. The MPAA however is a bunch of self-righteous and arrogant know nothings who are ruining everything that is good about the art of film.
Sound like an exaggeration?
The MPAA is the only accepted organization for rating films. A movie theater chain won't play a film that is unrated. Not to get into it too much but this monopoly position means movies literally live and die by their ratings. For example, a movie rated R that was intended for large audiences will now do terribly in comparison to projected earnings. Why? Because every 16 year old (and below) that doesn't want to go to the movies with their parents is basically SOL. Similar logic applies to PG-13 movies...albeit to less an extent. Basically what I am trying to underscore here is that because money drives...everything, and movies can't make money without ticket sales, and movie theaters won't show movies that aren't rated, the MPAA has complete control over you and your movie.
But why does this matter?
Well let me ask you this. What if there was a board who decided on what paintings were allowed to be shown at museums. What if the last supper came up and the board was comprised of Atheists who didn't want anything to do with religion. Most likely, they'd ban the painting. In many ways this example simply underscores the issue of art censorship in general, but more importantly it shows the arbitrariness of it. A group of people (the MPAA professes that it is made up of everyday individuals) that decide what an age group can and can't see.
To sum up, my main issues boil down to these. First that there is a private group of individuals that decide, for the whole country, what movies should be allowed to contain and who can see them. Second, that these people are absolutely secretive for their entire lives. We will never know who they are or what their criteria are.
Sounds like an organization run by Karl Rove..not one that should decide on art.