quote:

---

algy wrote:

Fair dos, but perhaps a harsh dismissal of Night Watch? Yes it was formulaic but it did it very nicely.

---

quote:

---

Like the matrix comparison; its sequels more than dodgy too

---

quote:

---

Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:

quote:

---

algy wrote:

I probably had a similar reaction to NIGHT WATCH as you've had towards DAY WATCH, in that from what other people had said I was expecting something eye-opening and different from what I had seen before. What I got was a Hollywood movie made by a Russian cast and crew. I only saw the film once, but when you have a very bad reaction to a film on your first viewing sometimes your feelings towards it sour over time, like bad milk

Sometimes that sour reaction can come from the context in which you view the film or your personal circumstances at the time. But in the case of NIGHT WATCH, I was simply expecting something other than a formulaic imitation of a Hollywood blockbuster. It did that formulaic shtick very well, but I lost patience with Hollywood's formula around the time of the release of GHOSTBUSTERS 2 or thereabouts

Very true. I suppose that one could argue that Night Watch is to be lauded due to the fact it has taken another culture's format and done a better job with it. While we are soaked by this current deluge of generic films, movies like Night Watch can be clinged to like a life belt to keep us afloat until the waters subside. Maybe in a year or three when the smell has left your nostrils it might be worth another visit. If you do then leave it at that and don't bother with Day Watch

Mmm... Ghostbusters

---
This is why we come
So we know their names
When those Spurs are done

quote:

---

algy wrote:

quote:

---

Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:

quote:

---

algy wrote:

I probably had a similar reaction to NIGHT WATCH as you've had towards DAY WATCH, in that from what other people had said I was expecting something eye-opening and different from what I had seen before. What I got was a Hollywood movie made by a Russian cast and crew. I only saw the film once, but when you have a very bad reaction to a film on your first viewing sometimes your feelings towards it sour over time, like bad milk

Sometimes that sour reaction can come from the context in which you view the film or your personal circumstances at the time. But in the case of NIGHT WATCH, I was simply expecting something other than a formulaic imitation of a Hollywood blockbuster. It did that formulaic shtick very well, but I lost patience with Hollywood's formula around the time of the release of GHOSTBUSTERS 2 or thereabouts

---

Very true. I suppose that one could argue that Night Watch is to be lauded due to the fact it has taken another culture's format and done a better job with it. While we are soaked by this current deluge of generic films, movies like Night Watch can be clinged to like a life belt to keep us afloat until the waters subside. Maybe in a year or three when the smell has left your nostrils it might be worth another visit. If you do then leave it at that and don't bother with Day Watch

Mmm... Ghostbusters

---

---

quote:

---

Edge44 wrote:

Yippeee, we're deriding the Hollywood Machine, are we? If Hollywood didn't exist, which films would we all be flocking to see (a little devil's advocate doesn't hurt...)

---

quote:

---

What the Matrix and Night Watch have in common with each other, as you have already pointed out, is that they both utilise the Hollywood structure and formula - boooo! What they also have in common is that they use that structure and formula quite brilliantly, and when I say brilliantly, I mean in vastly different and non cliched ways in contrast to many other Hollywood productions. The plot points / reversals are perfectly executed - for instance, the midpoint of the Matrix when Neo takes the red pill and wakes is simply a genius plot point.

---

quote:

---

The main issue with Hollywood is that most movies that come out of there simply copy the formula and structure without trying to do anything different. The greatest Hollywood movies are those that, even if they do nothing different with the form, at least hide the structure behind great storytelling. Watch Shawshank Redemption to understand my point.

---

quote:

---

Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:

quote:

---

Edge44 wrote:

Yippeee, we're deriding the Hollywood Machine, are we? If Hollywood didn't exist, which films would we all be flocking to see (a little devil's advocate doesn't hurt...)

---

Well, that argument only holds water inasmuch as Hollywood has come to dominate film distribution and exhibition to such an extent that movies produced outside Hollywood (or those which, unlike NIGHT WATCH, don't copy a Hollywood formula) are squeezed out of the chain of distribution. For example, I'm a huge fan of Patrice Leconte and I wanted to see his comedy MY BEST FRIEND at the cinema; but did it get widespread cinema distribution in this country? You can guess the answer to that question. Do people go to see the films that given the choice and information they want to see, or the ones that are simply heavily promoted and easily accessible? If more cinemas chose to show Hong Kong movies, let's say, would we see a rise in the popularity of Hong Kong cinema amongst the British public? Although popular these days, the 'bottom up' model (i.e. that Hollywood trends are refined and directed by the tastes of their audience) is reactionary and as reductive as the 'top down' model (i.e. that Hollywood completely imposes its taste on audiences and leads them like sheep in particular directions).

No offence, Mark; but I don't appreciate the sarcasm

---

quote:

---

Fitzgerald Fortune wrote:

quote:

---

Edge44 wrote:
What the Matrix and Night Watch have in common with each other, as you have already pointed out, is that they both utilise the Hollywood structure and formula - boooo! What they also have in common is that they use that structure and formula quite brilliantly, and when I say brilliantly, I mean in vastly different and non cliched ways in contrast to many other Hollywood productions. The plot points / reversals are perfectly executed - for instance, the midpoint of the Matrix when Neo takes the red pill and wakes is simply a genius plot point.

---

But it's not unique or original, is it? Think of Cocteau or Philip K. ****, which is where most of the ideas within THE MATRIX came from. (****'s estate should have taken the Wachowski's to court for their wholesale pilfering of ideas from the novel TIME OUT OF JOINT, in my view.) Hollywood does what Hollywood does, and with a few exceptions I don't want it in my home, thank you very much. I'm fine with it existing, but when every other form of cinema feels the need to conform to its templates and its monopoly on distribution means that I can't get access to movies that aren't either partly Hollywood-financed or faux-Hollywood in style, that's a very sorry state of affairs.

Film and literature are the only things that I'm really passionate about; I've dedicated the best part of twelve years of my life to studying both in an HE context (my two degrees, my PhD and my seven years spent teaching both subjects), and over the last ten years the retrenchment into conservative structures and approaches has begun to wear down even my passion for both cinema and the state of modern literature. That's a pretty telling situation. I've got a couple of friends who teach film and literature elsewhere and feel the exact same way; my PhD supervisor has the same feelings; and I could lay my hands on numerous people that I studied with who feel the same way, and quite a few of them moved to the UK from other countries--which is telling in how conservative English-language culture is as compared with other cultures.

---

quote:

---

algy wrote:

Well, I might give Hollywood a reprieve for now; I've finally caught up with the Assassination of Jessue James by the Coward Robert Ford and No Country for Old Men. I'm a happy bunny now.

---

quote:

---

algy wrote:

Not just teenagers. Most of the young lads at my work are well into their twenties and their steady diet of popcorn led me to an argument with one recently because of his assertion that Transformers was the best film of last year. I don't like to tell people that they're wrong but there are limits.

---

quote:

---

Edge44 wrote:
In retrospect this comment does read with heavy sarcasm, although that was not my intention, and for that I am very sorry

---

quote:

---

Take away the 12 and 12a rating and Hollywood will become a lot more sophisticated at making movies.

---

quote:

---

And I thought it was just me. Seriously, I used to go to the cinema every week without fail. Most of that can be put down to inexperienced youth, but since I've been studying literature and film, the focus of what I'll watch or read has become extremely narrow.

---