Gregg Easterbrook often comes off as the angry old man of blogging, but this time he's right: "special effects themselves have become boring." Gregg pinpoints his problem with them -- the aren't just impossible to film, they depict the impossible. I don't mind that so much, what I mind is that too often they are substituted for plot, dialogue, character development, even engaging action. I know I'm an old fogey myself, but I strongly believe just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something (Bill Clinton and I agree about something -- imagine that!).
And while he's endlessly complaining about the "endless fall", he notes that Spy Hard spoofed this very gimmick. And that's another problem I have - once somebody spoofs a particular movie cliche, no self respecting auteur should ever include it in one of their films. But they do. And not just in Charlie's Angels 2, but in films by real auteurs. My favorite example is Galaxy Quest, a non-stop laugh riot for SF lovers, where our intrepid heroes have to make their way through the "chompers", huge smashing devices with a flame thrower at the end. The Sigourney Weaver character complains bitterly about how lousy the writers were to include them in a star ship and mocks the whole cliche. Yet a few years later George Lucas uses the cliche in Star Wars II (really 5 but when you're an auteur, you can number them how you like) when our intrepid heroes have to avoid being smashed etc. on a robot construction conveyer belt. Here it's a supposed to be a high tension moment, but I can't help but laugh remembering Galaxy Quest.
Speaking of laughing, his bonus complaint is also pretty funny. Expeciting truth and accuracy from a movie or its marketing? What's next, thinking Michael Moore makes documentaries?
Easterbrook link that set me off via Ace of Spades
