I agree with you Brad..It seems that movies these days are made to make money..The artistic quality has been neglected over and over again..For instance, I was suprised that Public Enemies didn't do well in the box-office eventhough it was one hell of a movie

I think that it isn't about how dumb or smart a film is but how a film engages the viewer and if the viewer would invest himself/herself in the characters.

It wasn't that Public Enemies was a "cerebral" type of film, it was that Mann was so involved in the myth of Dillinger he forgot to create an emotional connection between Depp's character and the audience. Everyone knows that Dillinger dies at the end but are you, the viewer, still caring about the character until his final breath?

In contrast to Public Enemies is Mann's own Heat. Mann created characters so intricate that you even cared for Dennis Haysbert's Donald character and he's only in the film for 10 minutes.

I blame the studios for not having faith in 'smart' movies to give them a run in more than a few hundred theaters. They make enough money from their CGI blockbusters so they should be able to support movies that can be appreciated for their artistic value.

I would also like to give a lot of credit to critics. I rely on them for guidance for movies that dont make it to my small town theater. That way I can make a note of supposedly 'smart' movies and make sure to rent them. If I like them I go on to purchase them. Hence I feel like I do my part to appreciate and reward 'smart' movies.

I have made a note of In the Loop and The Hurt Locker.

you don't need your brain to see Bay movies.
Transformers is for 14 old years kids and Public Enemies is a very good stylish adult drama (but not perfect)!

This is all fine and dandy, and I don't disagree with any of these points.
studios are pussies
people are morons
etc., etc., etc..
sorry for my bluntness, but the thing that we are not talking about is how lazy filmmakers have been in the last ten years. for some reason Judd Apatow's new film cost 70 million dollars, which should not be the case for a small movie about comedians. JFK cost 70 million dollars, that fits. You know what Woody Allen's BROADWAY DANNY ROSE cost? 5 million. That's the best movie about live-acts I have ever seen. I am considering the fact that this cast is high priced when i say this film should not have cost more than 35 million at most, and if that was the case, it would not be a problem that it only made 23 million this weekend. 90% of our prominent hollywood filmmakers get stuck doing the same type of scoring, cinematography, art direction, set design, etc.. that everyone else does; even the great ones, even the great films. why a must every other serious film feel the need to push the emotion of a scene with a heavy handed score.

getting back on topic a little bit more though.
The real reason for all this is that the average Joe's film literacy isn't very high anymore because a studio won't respect any audience and because filmmakers are lazy, for the most part. When i say that, it doesn't mean that person is stupid, they just don't get film as the perfect combination of art and entertainment. some of the smartest people i know like these heavy handed oscar films, not to name names, or these melodramatic films like seven pounds and reign on me which are awful or awful comedies and action movies; Bruno and michael bay. Public enemies falls into some of the problems I talked about, but then it seems that Mann feels like he is being original when he uses digital, which he isn't. That doesn't make your movie better unless you have a true vision. Like the movie or not INLAND EMPIRE is a much more original and better use for digital and it does it for a legitament reason and commits to it fully. I think Mann is a very good filmmaker; especially Heat, Insider, Thief, and Manhunter; but lately I think he has lost his level of cool in his movies and his dramatic pulse just isn't good enough to be great filmmaking.

Studios definitely treat audiences like they are stupid and no, there can never be a good reason even if for the most part, it does feel like audiences are stupid.

There are many causes but chief amongst them in my opinion is the infantilizing of entertainment. Since the tween market was discovered, entertainment writers decided that to cater to them, they too must act and sound like tweens hence the advent of 'OMG' and 'totally gorjuzz' type of reporting and blogging by adults that should know better. Studios decided that to 'reach' this tween market, everything had to be dumbed down and society reduced to its lowest common denominator. Transient populism not art is celebrated and hyped and after a while, it becomes set in stone.

Taste is developed by habit and you feed a society rubbish for a while, they forget the difference between that and the good stuff or worse, the good stuff becomes too bland and demanding to be bothered with.

And so the tweens control what society feeds on because they control their parents purses. Horrifyingly, they grow up to become parents with undeveloped artistic taste and the mass-dumbing down continues. This just suits the studios as catering to a society with undeveloped taste takes less effort.

I'm more of a reader than a movie goer. I've observed this phenomenon in publishing. I've only just begun to really get into movies and it's worse.

Its not that audiences are too stupid to watch a decent film in all aspects but the simple fact is that genreal audiences just do not appreciate good well thought of films. They don't want character depth or subtexts in the films mainly because they either dont like it or just don't care.
In the end it all comes down to what the mass public wants, and unfortunatly they want the huge CGI explosions but its the suimmer and people expect these kinds of movies now. When an entire year of films becomes some big CGI wet dream that when were in trouble.

Both are to be blamed.
The studios don't try hard enough to promote better the more mature/smart movies. But audience also don't try to watch then when they do.

Let's just compare the box-office of Transformers against, I don't know, Juno or Little Miss Sunshine. Once in a while a smarter feature becomes succesful, but never on the same level of god-awful dumb movies like Michael Bay or Rolland Emmerich's bullshits.

Sometimes comes along something like The Dark Knight, but let's be honest here: it didn't made one billion dollars because people 'got it'; most people probably loved it so much because of the 'totally awesome' action sequences and Heath Ledger was 'so cool, dude'! You know what I mean?

People are really not used in seeing more complex movies, that's why even though Woody Allen is a extremely well known director, people never actually go out to see his movies. But you open another Pirates of the Caribbean and the audiences flock to it!

You can't blame just the studio for not trying to make even less money with smarter movies. The audience actually don't want to watch them! So… Why bother?

In a nutshell: studios need shining lights to brag about in terms of money. They spend all their money on a chosen few. In between they allow one or two idiosyncrasies what we call artistic movements of the body (Coen-brothers etc). Sometimes they make it, sometimes they don´t. But by spending all this money on a single franchise is the studio´s way of proofing their own method. In some quarters it´s called self-esteem.

(Just remember the background story of The Godfather 1-2 and The Conversation by Coppola back in 1972-1974. That´s the way studios work).

Hey, hey! Let's not go rabid, everyone. Let's avoid terms like "lazy," "stupid," and "moron." I like intelligent films. Therefore I go to see them. I have friends who do likewise. However, look at the lines at the cinema. There's alot of teenagers and what can be called young adults, basically people technically out of their teens but still living through their teenage selves. They not only go to ALOT of films but they go multiple times. "Last week I went with Brian and Aisha. This week I going with Brandon and Maria." They will even go to see the same film more than once in the same weekend following that changing group of friends scenerio. They enjoy low brow comedy, shoot 'em ups, and blow 'em ups. I say that with no intended criticism. Just stating the facts. Box office that is targeted to this group will have disproportionate success.

So an intelligent film has to jump two hurdles. It has to find it's audience and then it has to please that audience. (Can I say that "Public Enemies" never appealed to me, being basically the grandification of a murderous criminal? From what I've read, it fell a little flat in the entertainment factor too.) This is such a tough field to succeed in, in a tough economic time, that many creative suits will retire from the field. You've got to question their committment to being truly in the entertainment business and not just in business.

"Funny People" tried to straddle two audiences. It will be successful, just not wildly successful. There are many reasons for that, none of which because audiences are "morons."

Ever thought the directors are a problem? They make "smart" movies like "Public" and "Funny" which just are flat out not as entertaining as others they made before.

I tried to search out In The Loop on its release date, as I had seen the trailer and it looked hilarious. Couldn't find it within 150 miles of me. I searched again after reading your review, to no avail. Clearly the film is not being supported by the studio, if its only in 35 theaters. I haven't seen a single TV ad for it either. Same with The Hurt Locker. Not a single TV spot. I did manage to find it at a theater about 40 miles away, and my wife and I did go see it. Now, in order to get her to go see it, I had to compromise and take her to see The Ugly Truth the night before, which she laughed the whole way through. She loved it. So last night we go to see Hurt Locker, and I would say there were maybe 30 others in the theater. After we got out I asked her if she enjoyed it, and shrugged her shoulders and said "Yeah, it was good." My wife is not a stupid woman, but it just wasn't her thing I guess, even though she typically likes independent films. I was riveted the whole way through the film and can't recommend it highly enough. I don't know if that whole scenario speaks for the moviegoing public in general, but I think that it says something. Maybe its only about male and female perceptions, or maybe the majority of people don't want to go see smart films because they go to movies to escape reality and want to go see something that isn't going to make them think too much, something where they can sit back and enjoy the pretty lights and explosions and special fx and a pair of tits. Maybe its subject matter that people can easily relate to, like your run of the mill romantic comedies. I don't know.
I do know that it's hard to support films that I want to go see and I can't find them in a theater within 150 miles of me. I don't live in the middle of nowhere either. I'm in West Palm Beach, Florida. I looked in Orlando, Miami, Ft Lauderdale…nothing. Just sayin'.

I'm fairly certain Moneyball failed because Spodenburg wanted it to basically be a glorified Documentary which on the budget it was requiring would never make profit.

Hooray for Steve and the ever-on-target Patricia!

I think that Funny People failed dismally in its attempt to 'straddle', and although I do not require action to entertain me, and although I thoroughly enjoy character studies, I found Public Enemies… thoroughly boring. As with Steve, I blame that on Apatow and Mann.

And with Patricia… well, I agreed with everything she said, but in particular, I wish we would avoid terms like 'rabid' and 'stupid'. Some of my friends are those 'morons', and their taste in movies is not mutually exclusive with the fact that they are good people. Funny people, even.

And finally…. I have to drive over an hour to see "In The Loop"…. but I guess I'll do it anyways. I can't wait.

I totally agree with you Brad. Sometimes the quality of the movies out there get overlooked because they simply aren't released as wide nor as promoted.

On the other hand, it's not like Transformers 2 or GI Joe would ever get 350 theaters either. In the end, it's a business and the studios know 4000+ theaters of Transformers 2 will bring in more money than 4000 theathers of Whatever Works or The Hurt Locker, regardless of how good they are.

I find a perfect example to the whole article is Public Enemies because not only was it more of a "serious" or "smarter" movie when it was released, it did not perform nearly as well as expected, and that movie had Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. So when you get The Hurt Locker with relatively less known actors, it's no surprise that it's getting a small release.

I also believe that audiences have been conditioned to sorta overlook movies like Whatever Works or The Hurt Locker. I find that the general audience's reaction would be (for example): "The Hurt Locker? A war drama in the middle of summer? No thanks, I'm gonna see The Hangover again."

The more serious movies will continue to be released, but let's be honest, they will never get the promotion or hype as a summer blockbuster because it will never make as much money, regardless of how good word of mouth is. That's just basic business.

Yes they are stupid. And I'll admit I'm guilty of using the term "you just won't get it" because I know that I'm right. Audiences have become dumbed down by a number of other things that they take in, that it has made them to stupid to enjoy a reasonably intelligent movie. It has also affected there perception of what a smart movie is.

I know so many people who've seen the trailers and repviews for District and called it a Transformers knock-off. Yeah, that's how inept audiences are becoming.

"Because it's only going to get tougher for smart movies for adults to get made, moviemakers who land a chance at bat need to hit these films out of the park–and connect with audiences. Now is not the time for navel-gazing and experimentation at big-budget levels. That's the deal."

WHAT? Now is the perfect time for experimentation, compared to the crap I've been spoon-fed by the studio system all this year. Out of all the movies that have come out in 2009, I've only been impressed by three of them.

As for the question, I think both the studios and the audiences are to blame. Audiences are too stupid to get a movie, so the studio won't gamble on another just like it, and the only alternative is to watch Transformers. Even though I wasn't alive then, I consider the 80s to be the last decade that Hollywood actually took chances with their movies instead of offering loads of dumbed-down crap. Think about it: The Right Stuff, Airplane, The Breakfast Club, Raging Bull, The Thing, The Blues Brothers, Blade Runner, Dune, E.T., The Terminator, Scarface, the Untouchables, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and you know all of these are a whole lot better than what we have had to offer this decade. Why do you think that there was a boom of independent films in the 90s? Because Hollywood started to care more about money over quality.

Bottom line, every movie in the theater I work in needs to be taken out, and replaced with all of the limited release ones Brad mentioned in this article, and kept there for a few months. I guarantee you, the audiences there would no longer accept Wolverine and a thousand mutants and Bayiformers.

.@Roger:

CRASH

Domestic Total Gross: $54,580,300
Distributor: Lions Gate Release Date: May 6, 2005
Genre: Drama Running Time: 1 hrs. 40 min.
MPAA Rating: R Production Budget: $6.5 million

Domestic: $54,580,300 55.5%
+ Foreign: $43,829,761 44.5%

——————————————————————————–

= Worldwide: $98,410,061

DOMESTIC SUMMARY
Opening Weekend: $9,107,071
(#4 rank, 1,864 theaters, $4,885 average)
% of Total Gross: 16.7%

Widest Release: 1,905 theaters

Close Date: April 6, 2006

In Release: 315 days / 45 weeks

Now here's a film I greatly admire for its complexity and intelligence. Won a Best Picture Oscar too, although I am surely not getting into that debate where people go out of their mind accusing it of being "the worst film to win an Oscar" etc. Let's just say I was on my feet applauding when it won.

As I recall Crash was a slow mo. Opened in limited release and took off by word of mouth and came back for more. It was in theatres 315 days. And every year since it won the Oscar it's been the #1 rental at Netflix. So DVD sales must have been lucrative.

Maybe "Hurt Locker" can come around too.

Sigh. Ultimately, it comes down to: Why does one go to a movie? Entertainment or enlightenment? I've met, in my lifetime, probably a half dozen (there are assuredly more) people with Masters Degrees in computer engineering, psychology, and mathematics who NEVER watch movies. Are they "too dumb?" What's the likelihood that anyone reading this even has the IQ to make that determination? IQ has nothing to do with the motivation to watch a movie. I think what's really behind this article is TRANSFORMERS 2. It showcased perfectly the difference between "the peasants" and "the elite," and what they expect from a movie. Us "peasants" just wanna be entertained. That entertainment doesn't have to be written by a Special Olympics advisory panel, but this is Hollywood: the same people who write those transsexual heroin addict movies? They also write these movies most on this page consider "lesser." Most are equally preposterous, and abandon reason and realism with nary a cry from critics. So, get over yourselves, and quit trying to give yourselves the consolation prize of: "I'm smarter than them. They're just jealous." Like a fourth grader who just experienced a humiliating wedgie. I'm out.

BTW: The Hurt Locker? Lame. Finally broke down and watched it. Guess all you critics saying "It's not preachy," didn't think us "peasants" could follow metaphorical stereotypes used to hide the message. wow. Never seen those before! PPFFFTT!! All masked with action ripped from 90's action movies. To my fellow peasants: wait for Redbox for that one.

Great piece, Brad. One point I'd like to sharpen:

"Is it the public's fault they don't cross state lines to seek out one of the 35 art house theaters…"

um, not everybody who doesn't live in New York lives in New Jersey ;-)

For the vast majority of audiences who find themselves in flyover states with an appetite for coastal sophistication, it's not a matter of hopping in the car and driving 60 minutes to find a decent movie with brains. It's more like a road-trip of 600 miles or more. Pack a suitcase, kids, we're going to the movies!

Like the standard line Letterman uses when he mentions a movie is opening in "selected cities" — "we just pray to God your city has been selected." Well, pray all you want, it's not going to move the state of Arkansas next door to Chicago. And believe it or not, there are dozens — perhaps hundreds! — of really smart people in Arkansas ;-)

Stranger than a British import like In the Loop being considered too PBS for American Idol viewers, try explaining how a perfect slice of small-town charm like Waitress never made it to rural or even mid-size-city theaters.

It's as if the distributor decided, hey, here's a terrific look at sweet-natured middle-America values for all our jaded metropolitan audiences to say 'aww' over. Pity the type of people most familiar with the lifestyle portrayed in that film had to wait a year to Netflix it.

@Ryan Adams: Bravo, Ryan Adams, bravo. Well said. (I live in metropolitan Chicago and believe me, a film showing in a small theatre downtown Chicago is a road trip and a half from my burg. A long commute and limited show hours make it only theorically accessable but really less so.)

To me it seems that people don't seem to want to watch films like Public Enemies, In the Loop and other such films in the cinema because to them it's not the "cinema experience" in the same way that GI joe or Transformers would be. I feel that films like In the Loop just don't warrant a social gathering to go and see a film in the same way that it would be for Transformers 2, which disappoints me. I saw In the Loop by myself when it came out in the UK and thoroughly enjoyed it and when i tried to tell any friends and used the words political comedy to describe it, there was a lack of interest.

I don't think it's down to audience apathy to "smart films" i just don't think they feel it warrants watching it in the cinema, there's just a division opening between what people consider as the theatrical experience and home viewing one.

Wait… "Harvey" is standard Oscar-bait? What? I know the Jimmy Stewart version got a Supporting Actress win and an Actor nom, but is it really Osar-bait? I'd more consider it an actor's showcase.

And "Lincoln" ISN'T considered Oscar-bait? Biopics and War Epics are generally loved by the Academy. I mean, I want to see it made as much as the next guy, but your comparison here is pretty silly.

In case you didn't notice, I don't believe in "Oscar-bait". I know some types of movies are more likely to get nominations than others, but then again, some types of movies are more likely to be GOOD than others. I'm excited for Spielberg to be directing "Harvey". A smaller, simpler project might help him clear his mind a little before he moves on to "Lincoln", "Indy 5", and "Oldboy".

Kubrick is dead but the Coen Brothers and Cuaron and Del Toro are alive and working. Soderbergh is facile and clever, but if he thinks there's a market for "Moneyball", I would question his intelligence. Few baseball fans outside of Oakland want to relive the limited success of the A's, and the idea of modernizing a sports franchise is at least as old as America's Team and Ole Departed Tom Landry. Before you declare Soderbergh to be too smart for the room, recall how he infantalized "Solaris". He had some genuinely interesting variations on the mood and tone of Tarkovsky's masterpiece, but ruined it by engrafting a sappy. mawkish love story over everything. Not too bright.

Mann is another extremely talented, facile but shallow director. Mann is a master stylist, but point me to an isntance when his films or television work has been "too smart". If audiences don't sufficiently cue up for his (or Soderbergh's) self-declared, vanity, "deep" projects, it likely reflects on the preachy, self-congratulatory high-flown indulgences of such films, rather than on some intellectual colony failure among movie goers.

It is possible, of course, to confuse the collective intellectual capacity of "general" movie audiences with the dependable, paying loyalties of smaller segments of the audience, as in those willing to subject themselves to Judd Aptow's embarassing juvenilia, in an apparently infinitely repeating series, or to endless permutations of slash and gore.

I see it as more a product of talented directors who lack the discipline or thoughtfullness or gravity to find and fulfill material as deep as their visual gifts

@k-dogg
What was the hidden message behind Hurt Locker because friends of mine who are fairly conservative seem to enjoy the movie and didn't complain about it being to preachy.

Moneyball is a joke. How many playoff series did they win under Beane? Zero, and with the recent history, I would not be surprised if he got fired before the movie came out.

@Ryan Adams:

I agree. Fortunately where my home is and where I go to school, I have quite a few "specialty" theaters near by, so if I want to see something out of the ordinary, I don't have to hitchhike to the next state over.

Real quick point: Some movies I just don't want to see in theaters. Even though I'm now dying to see "In the Loop" after Brad's rave, I feel that I'll have a better movie-going experience at "Harry Potter". It feels more like an event to me.

I had this debate (or a similar one) when "Watchmen" opened a few months back. As soon as I saw that first trailer attached to "The Dark Knight" I said to myself "This will backfire- everyone will complain that they 'didn't get it' when all is said and done". Regardless of whether you liked the movie or not, you had to admit that what the trailers promised- an R-rated, violent, bloody "Batman" directed by the guy who made "300"- was far different than the drawn out, talky, contemplative tale that the film truly was. I feel that is why the film burned out quickly at the box office- when people found out that the movie was completely different than what they expected, they spread the news.

I'm not saying that general audiences are "Stupid" but that we should all try and give movies a chance sometimes- broaden our horizons a bit.

Oh and for the record, I thought the talking penis was hilarious.

@Patricia:

Ahh Crash. The exception, but not the rule.

Nostalgia much? If this is a time of 'stupid' movies succeeding, when exactly were the 'smart' years?

Studios make movies, distributors distribute, theatres buy. In fact, studios budget films based on how many theatre buys are projected. I film that looks like it'll show on 3000+ screens will have a larger budget than one tracking at the 1000 screen mark. Chicken and egg type stuff.

I bet the Moneyball issue has less to do with subject matter and more about the facts that both Ben Button and Girlfriend Experience underperformed.

sadly, this is the case.. I was convinced of the fact when some friends of mine looked at ME as if I was stupid, when I said that Transformers 1 & 2 ain´t very good movies.. and most people are the same, they want the spectacle and beautiful stars and they´re happy

The demographic going to the movies is much younger than it used to be (home entertainment has improved substantially over the past decade) – Not to say movies should be "dumbed down" but think about the sophistication of the "regular moviegoing audiences" these days. That's why Transformers made a ton of dough. That's just a fact.

K Monney I agree

People just want to enjoy watching movies, when a person works hard and wants to escape reality they want to watch an exciting movie, they dont want to watch a movie that they have to think and just listen to characters talking for 25 mins straight, thats too boring for them when there looking for a good time in the cinema(why sleep in the theater while they can do that at home)

I like both movies from great movies to just pop corn flick and I just dont care if the plot aint that good but just give me something entertaining without thinking about the plot twist etc.

So if this is true doesn't that mean District 9 won't do well ? Since it has been described in early reviews as a deep social commentary with a powerful narrative behind it. I don't know about you guys, but that movie sounds pretty damn intellegent to me and while it does look AMAZING from the trailers I'm concerned that it just won't click with moviegoers. I really wan't it to do well at the B.O because we need more creative original films making money, but I fear it won't. What do yo guys think ?

I am really excited for District 9, esp since it is an original and seems creative.

My problem is that no one thinks anymore, the studio only wants to make money so they hire the actors/actreses that have a good fanbase even if they cant' act to save their lives to star in the films.

The Directors/screen writers are also guilty, as they have really put out some crap, hence we have so man sequels and movies being remade that don't need to be remade, e.g. My fair Lady, I mean seriously does that need to be remade! Nothing will be a classic in Hollywood at the rate these remakes are going. To me, it seems every other day, I am hearing about another remake. They don't even wait until a movie is like 20 years old, I am hearing of movies that are only 5 years old being remade. Why can't people at least try and be original anymore.

Foreign directors who have pushed the envelope and put out great foreign films that are really different see their movies, being remade into English as American Directors are taking them over to make money. I know that some people are lazy and they don't want to read subtitles, but many of us don't mind it and prefer they be left alone. Watching a good little foreign film won't hurt anyone and not all foreign films need to be remade.

There are some moviegoers though that want to go to the movies, just for entertainment to take their minds off things. However, that doesn't mean the studios should only be making films that have no damn plot.

I love you Beth Cooper, – I mean that storyline is overused, why would they make that movie. Aliens in the attic (I read it cost 78 million, I mean for what??)
– some saying it is a kids film , but it doesn't have to look so dumb, kids like fun things but they are pretty smart also. How about making a good movie, that is fun and even has a nice message for the kids in the end, liek some of the Pixar movies.

I think Studios and Directors/Screewriters are underestimating audiences, yeah they like to see fun things, but many also would love to see something original that is really intriguing and doesn't have the same plot being repeated continuously.

Yes most of the moviegoing public are stupid. The fact that they vehemently defend Transformers 2 as the greatest thing ever put on screen says it all.

@GregM: The smart years would be the late sixties, early seventies, where films like Godfather Part I and II, The Sting, Butch Cassidy, Bonnie and Clyde were giant box office hits, artistic achievements and pretty intelligent films. Jaws is a smart film, but it sort of turned the tide a bit as it returned to spectacle as important, then we got Star Wars which with the help of Jaws created the summer movie. Then, it went down hill. Michael Cimino's costly bomb Heaven's Gate took movies out of the film school director's hands and they started to make the big decisions. The 80's had plenty of dumb films that had huge box office, but the idea of story and characters were certainly there. Style took over for substance, and we've never really gotten over that. Not to say the sixties were free of this, what with Cleopatra costing a lot of money and people a nightmare of a movie. But commerce and art have drifted away from each other. Occasionally we get the smart film but alas it's more about the spectacle now. I don't think audiences are too stupid to "get" movies. TV shows that there is an audience for smart series (The Simpsons in the golden era, The Sopranos, Dexter). Not saying TV is smart (see just about every reality series on Fox), but clearly there is an audience for these films. I think we should be more upset that this is how we are perceived as a society.

I think that a little of it could be what can be described as a Fast Food generation. We want it now. An explosion and a strong story are equally interesting and entertaining. But the explosion gets there quicker, so why wait for the story to develop. 2001 couldn't be made now, unless we had a lot of explosions. But if the time is taken, 2001 can be seen as entertaining. We need it now, we want it now. Again, you look at a movie like the Godfather, which is about story and character, and it is quite the entertaining movie. The plot turns with The Sting are highly entertaining but again, the film takes its time. And in the 70's audiences were entertained. It would be an interesting study to see how pop culture has changed as more and more things become quicker and easier to satisfy. I mean, back in my day, I had to watch a movie uphill both ways in the snow to get anything out of it. I recommend watching this documentary called the Century of the Self, long movie that gets into how Freud's psychoanalysis has led us into the society of instant gratification and how our egos have been manipulated by advertising to create this fast food nation that we are with not just the food but our pop culture.

The Pixar films, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Casino Royale are examples of movies you can make for "general audiences" that don't dumb things down.

hmm, I would say no. You just have to give the average moviegoer a chance to watch a film like In the Loop. I recommended Children of Men to my co-workers and almost everyone loved it. But they don't really market these types of films, unless it's Oscar season. To be honest, I really haven't seen any tv spots or Posters for In the Loop. Fortunately I live in Chicago, so a lot of the smaller films play downtown.

I'd love to see some of these movies you're talking about. From here in Billings, Montana, the biggest city in the state, I'd have to drive more than 500 miles to Salt Lake City, Denver or Calgary to see them. Even "(500) Days of Summer" hasn't made it here yet, while "Bruno" is still showing. It makes no sense.

I think it might be laziness. Watching a film is a chance to wind down and it's so much easier to let the movie take you on a ride rather than watching a film that requires deeper concentration and pondering over themes etc..

It is sad that wonderful films don't get enough recognition.

Maybe it is laziness since I was lazy and didn't read all the comments.
Simpson, Homer Simpson, ta-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-dah…

Now, seriously. It's the egg-or-the-chicken question, do audiences "need" un-smart films or did the studios make them (us) only absorb the un-smartness.
I am 14 and I live in a small European country. I didn't go and see transformers and I'm not seeing GI Joe. Looking at what's on in the theaters around here, it's not optimistic, but every now and then I'm quite satisfied – I saw Public Enemies on it's opening day and even Harry Potter and Hangover were better than what's on TV or the now-playing stupidness (perhaps?) of guinea pigs and wow, movies with Beyonce. That's all I've seen in July, actually. I'm planning on renting something nice and maybe even classic from my local video store (last thing I saw was Lawrence of Arabia).

So if you want to see "smart" you'll do it. But when there is so much not-smart to chose from, why bother? My friends and classmates don't bother with Oscars and box-office numbers. They see what's on and say – oh, Megan Fox is topless or, hey, Keira Knightley's hot (or Zac Effron or Bradley Cooper or Sam Worthington or Brad Pitt or whoever) and that's when they go and see it. Studios know that and use it. And when I say "Marlon Brando/Stanley Kubrick/Alfred Hitchcock", they say "Who?"

It's a lack of culture, and I think it's the studios that made it that way. I mean, the ignorance of the young is serious but if only there would be education and not CGI… I have friends who kept talking about Dustin Lance Black's sex tape (wow! so awesome! ":X") for a month and all that time thought he was the director of Milk even though I corrected them like 100 times. And they didn't even see Milk (I did and loved it). If they were supposed to be seeing good films they would love them too. Our teacher played In the Wild and everyone enjoyed it.

I believe there will be a time (or maybe even now it's like that, in a different universe…) when high-school kids, university "kids", and all the graduates will talk about the cinematography of the next films by Alfonso Cuaron and Chris Nolan, and the good acting, and "oh, this guy deserves an Oscar more than this guy," and "the dialogue of this movie is way better than the one in this one" but only if everybody stops reading the tabloids and GETS OFF THEIR ARSE. Even Michael Bay can be a good director if he can do it (the getting-off thing), as I thought the beginning of the Island was indeed good. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any other M. Bay film and only saw Island because my teacher played in in class this year so I'm not really a source on that one.

And because this is getting too long of a post and I will probably not be able to submit it, I will say one last thing:
If studios, and all directors, all screenwriters, producers, actors, etc. start paying a lot of attention to each movie they release, then all movies will be at least good and audiences will have nothing else to see – they will get used to it in 3 or 4 years (or even sooner) and will pay the money to see An Education, Bright Star, The Hurt Locker, of 2020 (for example).

But, hey, then there won't be much use of Oscars and awards and Brad's grades, will there?

@The Check Spot: That's what I mean by nostalgia. Godfather 2 (regarded as one of the best/smartest movies every made) only grossed about a 1/3 of what Godfather pulled in. The top movies of '74 were by far Blazing Saddles and Towering Inferno (R-rated comedy and disaster movie).

I would argue that while Star Wars is entertaining, it's hardly intelligent. Close Encounters made less than half of what Star Wars pulled in but was still third behind, what for it, Smokey and the Bandit! (All quantitative data taken from BoxOfficeMoJo)

2001 was made with a lot of explosions, kind of. It has a crazy long sequence of the most amazing and advanced visual effects ever seen on film (at the time it was released).

Besides, with the exception of Kubrick, a lot of those film makers are still alive and working and have a certain level of financial and creative freedom that they didn't necessarily have back then. So where exactly are their 'smart' films?

@Damon: I agree with your idea but I do want to point out that Casino Royale used poker instead of baccarat due to the popularity and general knowledge of the game.

How Ironic. Someone didn't get Bruno. The fact the Paula Abdul actually sat on the mexican is the point. talk about not getting the "social subtext." I'm afraid most people "didn't get" Bruno. And it's obvious that the filmmakers considered this as well, hence the dancing Penis. I wish they could've made the movie without having to cater to the slapstick humor that Americans seem to eat up.

@scott: Are you saying that "Bruno" was an intelligent film? And by the way, Sacha Baron Cohen created that film based on a running character he did in England. Don't blame America for this one.

@scott: Bruno's "social subtext" was limited at best, especially compared to Borat, which if you had read my review before trying to pull meaning out of the sentence or two above you would have realized was one of my sticking points. There is very little in Burno to "get" so I'm not sure what you are talking about. It would seem your search for irony is lost.

I had been waiting for this Bruno movie for about five years. Bruno was always my favorite Cohen character. If you're familiar with the Bruno from the British series then you'll recognize that movie Bruno is a bit difference, and that difference being he relies a bit too heavily on shock and slapstick humor (this I blame for their attempt to target some of the "dumb" Americans.) As I said, I didn't appreciate those aspects, and I didn't find them funny in Borat either.

On the other side, Bruno elicits sexism and homophobia from those in the film and those in the audience. Take the Richard Bey show for example. The instant Bruno comes out and says that he is gay, he is booed by the audience and told he is crazy (this is before any crazy Bruno antics), yet the audience goes on to attack Bruno for what they think is racism. Talk about hypocrisy! This subtext is rampant in the film:

The swingers who appear to be very open sexually yet freak out at Bruno's homosexuality; The gay church converts who clearly hate women try to tell Bruno that we need women even though they annoy us and don't seem to be useful. It's been a few weeks since I saw the film, but there are more examples like this.

Or how about his critique on the quest for fame in Western culture. Remember what those parents were willing to do to their children just for the chance of being in a commercial? That was horrible.

I enjoyed this article but felt Bruno was unfairly put in here as bad comedy, which thus recycles the entire argument of this piece. I felt that was ironic.

@scott: "(this I blame for their attempt to target some of the "dumb" Americans.) "

Thank god for the US of A. If it wasn't for this nation, where would alll the "dumb" people live in such vast numbers? And thank god for the rest of the sophisticated, intelligent world who can only shake their heads at our clear inferiority. Pity us, please.

Pardon me while I brush my tooth.

People, as much as I hate to admit it, aren't really that stupid. I mean, sure, you tell your friends about The Hurt Locker or something and they won't know what it's about or anything. But if you show them, then they'd most likely be able to understand it and appreciate it. Film is an art, and sadly it's an art form that is dying out. It's dying out because money is key. That's all the studios want from a film. And audiences want to be taken away from their lives and their problems with big robotic things fighting each other, not have to see a movie that delves into why a person would do one thing or another. Audiences aren't dumb, no. They just aren't getting the right stream.

well, I loved transformers… okay it's not a smart move to admit that but hey it's an unchangeable fact. and so I guess that makes me a stupid person… seriously what's the point in calling someone stupid cuz he/she liked this/that movie? All I can say is that I see movies as entertainment, not something you have to study it to appreciate it. Or pretend to like it just to look smart or whatever. What I'm saying is that there's no accounting for taste. Other day I watched citizen kane on tv and I thought it was boring, no matter as classic as it can be. But I'm not saying it's a bad movie, just didn't like it. and I fully respect who likes it.

I just wanted to add my thoughts. I like all kinds of movies but I reserve going to the movie theatre for big loud action/sci fi movies. Once in a wile i will see a comedy or a family movie. I guess my point is that even though I like arthouse movies I dont really feel like seeing them on the big screen. I think that many moviegoers feel the same way, making it hard for studios to push an arthouse movie into a large amount of theatres.

In my opinion, a smart movie that is boring sucks.
A dumb movie with tons of actions is at least entertaining.
Movies with both intelligence and action are my favorite movies, movies with strong plots and lots of action, like Underworld Evolution, or Pirates Of The Carribean; At World's End.

@Zack Solomon: dick

Smart movies don't mean boring; but my definition of "Smart Movies" tend to be difficult to find in a theater. It tends to mean traveling, planning, and hunting. I was very much looking forward to The Hurt Locker…but it never came. Is Brick smart? Memento? Where they appear, there seem to be a solid per-site average…but when there's only double-digit movie theaters…

Dumb movies are easier to make and don't raise audience expectations. If you lure an adutl audience in with a quality piece of filmmaking then you're only going to have to do it again. The only way to sustain that is to hand some power and influence back to the creative people. There's no way in hell studios execs are ever going to do that. Besides, they are making enough of the teen/tween market. Screw the adults, as of now their money is only needed in the form of their kids' pocket money. So the people in the business who bemoan the current state of affairis are going to have to step up to the plate. Either admit that cinema is lost to them as a viable outlet or attack the studios outright. Taking on the powe brokers, however, is always insanely difficult. The pioneers have to be happy with laying the groundwork so that those who come after them will make a profit. Tough call when you need to make a living.

What dismays me is when I see movies that I think would do well at major theatres – "500 Days of Summer", for instance, or "Hot Fuzz", which in my mind only went to our local indy theatre because it was a British film – opening only in indy theatres. It's not a bad thing other than art house theatres simply don't draw the crowds because they're not large enough to do so. At least not in my neck of the woods (Kansas). And even though I generally enjoy the movies that wind up at our local indy, I rarely ever think to check their listings when I'm looking for a movie to go see.

But on the "the audience is stupid" side of the argument, when indy-type movies have opened at larger theatres – both here and when I was living in California where one might assume the people for whom the high-brow films are intended live – the films have typically still drawn small crowds, or people have walked out of them. I was shocked when I went to see "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and nearly 1/3rd of the audience got up and left when they found out there were subtitles. I went to see that at a theatre in the SF Bay area, so I can't chalk it up to midwestern stubborness about such things.

There's no good answer for me to the question because both sides of the argument appear to be valid. All I can say is thank goodness for movie rentals because a lot of the films I want to see slip through the theatres before I even know they've been there.