George Clooney in confident the 'golden age' of cinema has passed - and current movies fail to live up to the greatness of their predecessors.

The actor-turned-director believes the works of directors like Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick between 1964 and 1976 will never be matched by modern-day film.

He tells British magazine the Radio Times, "It's 12 years and you could find 10 films a year that are masterpieces. They don't make those films anymore. You couldn't come near to making those films."


http://www.radiotimes.com/content/magflash/

I noticed he ends at 1976, is he one of those who thinks Star Wars murdered cinema in 1977?

hmmm I agree with his statement about the golden age of cinema being passed, but, it passed long before 1976....try somewhere around 1955 (imho)

I noticed he ends at 1976, is he one of those who thinks Star Wars murdered cinema in 1977?
He's a nut if he does. lol

He's a nut if he does. lol
well, I like Star Wars (but not a fanatic), but I agree with the mentality a bit. After that, movies started being more about special effects and big bang for the buck instead of great storytelling. I remember someone pointed out in a debate that Star Wars should've won the Oscar in 1977, not Annie Hall, that "if it wasn't for Star Wars, you would actually understand Annie Hall", and I do agree to an extent. The companies would rather invest in disposable popcorn fluff than great films that will hold up in fifteen or twenty years.

:yeahthat Star Wars was all bells & whistles with little (if any) substance; since that time, most big budget movies try to emulate that formula; which is why I'd rather watch Chinese or European cinema over 90% of what comes out of Hollywood these days! (I love Hollywood films from the silent era to the early 60s though)

well, I like Star Wars (but not a fanatic), but I agree with the mentality a bit. After that, movies started being more about special effects and big bang for the buck instead of great storytelling. I remember someone pointed out in a debate that Star Wars should've won the Oscar in 1977, not Annie Hall, that "if it wasn't for Star Wars, you would actually understand Annie Hall", and I do agree to an extent. The companies would rather invest in disposable popcorn fluff than great films that will hold up in fifteen or twenty years.
I think that SW should have won over Annie Hall. SW was a phenomenon that is still popular even today. I liked Annie Hall but it wasn't even my favorite Woody Allen movie. In fact their are 4 or 5 of his other movies that I like better.

yes, there are a lot of great movies from other countries and I think fed up moviegoers are beginning to realize it. Pan's Labyrinth was very successful and made a lot of money from people who don't even speak Spanish because it was such a great story and if it had been produced in America (even tho Guillermo del Toro has made a lot of Hollywood movies), they would've overdone the fantasy sequences to where it was unbelievable, and the script would've been terrible.

Just look at the Fantastic Four movies, which has tons of shirtless Chris Evans and "as close to naked as we can make her" Jessica Alba, hoping that can take the place of a script.

They don't make those films anymore. You couldn't come near to making those films."

Is this why he continues to make the sequels to Ocean's Eleven?

Is this why he continues to make the sequels to Ocean's Eleven?
:lol:

i disagree with george when he mentioned 1964- 1976 was the best period for cinema. what about the 80s? there were some good films out at that time

Technically, Jaws (1975) is considered the first big "blockbuster" type film.

;)

that is true. I think Star Wars gets the brunt of criticism over Jaws since SW was the first one to really be a special effects orgy.

Personally I enjoy the SW movies, but I do think every studio has tried too hard at trying to create their own Star Wars type blockbuster that they've lost touch with what the movies are supposed to be about. Movies like Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, etc... are done with no heart, just money in mind. Making a profit is always a good thing but I think that sometimes it's better to have a modest movie that tells a great story, has wonderful acting and the sort, over a huge extravaganza. Granted, the big budget epics have huge frontloaded opening weeks, but they usually drop off really fast. On the other hand, movies like Juno and Atonement have been playing wide since Christmas and people are still going to see them. Maybe they weren't as flashy or had a $70 million opening weekend, but they're the movies that people are continuing to go see more than six weeks after their openings.

I think in many ways Hollywood films in the period 1964-76 were egregious. Hollywood movies had always been escapist before, and they became escapist after; pieces like Casablanca were exceptions that proved the rule. During those twelve years, Hollywood was serious to some extent -- as though influenced by non-American cinema and period politics. Oh well. Star Wars was the movie that reaffirmed the fantasy, so to speak.

For my part, though I watch very few of the contemporary CGI extravaganzas, I still find them preferable to the insufferably serious junk emanating from the rest of the world. European cinema is especially unpalatable: endless variations on men, women, and the mental perversions they play out with each other. While the stuff from the developing world that gets shown in North America is unrequited politics: tedious, predictable, and certainly not worthy of cinematography, no matter how essentially correct the politics might be; entirely unworthy of being called entertainment.

Of course, most Bollywood and HK movies are, as I understand, entertainment in the Hollywood sense. But the only way to get that stuff is to explore the little ethnic diasporas in the major cities, and that is probably not something most of the homegrown population cares to do.

So I salute Star Wars. I have no need for serious statements from the movies. If I want those, I can always read a book -- or just keep my eyes open as I go about my daily business.

Technically, Jaws (1975) is considered the first big "blockbuster" type film.

;)


Yes it is. It is one of the first movies I seen in a theatre. Here is what I found regarding blockbusters and the change in direction of movies:

If any one film can be so designated, Jaws marked the turning point in the fortunes of the American film industry. So-called blockbuster films had always been part of the Hollywood production mix, but Jaws rewrote the blockbuster formula and, above all, proved that in conjunction with new marketing strategies a single motion picture could produce unprecedented revenues. Jaws was the first film to earn more than $100 million for its studio and earned a place in the Guiness Book of World Records.

Although it was based on a best-selling novel—in conformity with the earlier blockbuster formula—Jaws lacked big-name stars, but it did offer a fabulous, frightening special-effects mechanical monster shark. The waning significance of stars and the growing importance of special effects were aspects of the new blockbuster phenomenon that developed in the aftermath of Jaws. These changes also indicated the studios’ intent to capture the attention of young adults and children, the most important segment of the movie audience. These trends were confirmed by the film that surpassed Jaws at the box office, George Lucas’s Star Wars (1977), a science-fantasy film that displayed the most spectacular special effects of space flight ever seen in cinema up to that time.

Star Wars shaped the blockbuster phenomenon over the next two decades. Blockbuster films tended to be fantasies based on comic-book characters or adventure heroes. Lucas and Steven Spielberg, the director of Jaws, were involved in most of the biggest box-office draws. In the 1980s Lucas produced the next two films in the Star Wars series: The Empire Strikes Back (1980), directed by Irvin Kershner, and Return of the Jedi (1983), directed by Richard Marquand. During the same time Spielberg directed and Lucas produced three films concerning an intrepid archaeologist named Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989). Spielberg’s other blockbusters included E.T.—The Extra-Terrestrial (1982), concerning an alien left behind on Earth by his spaceship, and Jurassic Park (1993), a work combining computer-generated animation of dinosaurs with human action.

The Poseiden Adventure was a blockbuster (1972). Same for The Towering Inferno (1974) and The Exorcist (1973). Beyond that, as usual, Clooney's being his usual babbling self. :mumble: