Yes, it is so true that we all have different tastes. Schindlers List may be critically loved as one of the great films of all time, and I do think it's good, but it only moved me in a way that I wouldn't care to see it again. Fantastic Four, in my opinion, might be fun for others but I think it's a complete disaster and typical, cornball super hero genre. That film has too much cheese and I'm not a big fan of cheese unless it's on a hamburger. Now Butterfly Effect is a film I totally got into. I love a film that is daring enough to take on certain challenges, and dealing with the Chaos Theory, the Butterfly Effect is a hands down original twist on time travel. The film was meant to be completely distorted, and that’s exactly what I loved about it. By no means would I have placed Butterfly Effect in the mainstream category.

I've actually seen--and reviewed--American Psycho about a million years ago in a former life. :) I don't want to say "enjoyable" but very different and unique, no doubt diluted now by the stupid sequels I have no interest in watching.

Be warned: I have not seen Transamerica yet, but have heard it's excellent.

I will be posting a listing of the movies I've watched in 2005 thus far for everyone's comment tomorrow. A little bit of everything, I'm sure you'll agree (good, bad, what the heck was I thinking...).

Never, ever be shy about throwing me an e-mail or posting a comment here. The whole idea of DJ, as I've said before, is being interactive with everyone. ;)

That's just fine that you want to make this a topic of your next article - I will certainly read it. I actually often find it more interesting to read the opinions of people I tend to disagree with sometimes - I have a stronger reaction, which makes it more interesting. I'm not sure exactly what "this" is, though. I certainly don't expect you to justify yourself to me - I'm just a member who loves movies, and took a little offense (maybe a little too much, admittedly) to the idea that mainstream movies are all bad. Looking forward to seeing the article (and maybe responding to it!):)

BTW, you asked for recommendations:
For thinking and good character study - Lifeboat
For campy fun - Land of the Dead
Unique and Powerful - American Psycho (Killer Uncut Edition)
In theatres - V For Vendetta
(These are just some movies I've watched recently. I'll return the favor by giving Transamerica a shot, though I'm a little skeptical that I'll like it.)

You seem to forget that "mainstream" is not a word I use in a negative context. I like mainstream movies. I like big budget movies. I'm not biased against something because it is "mainstream". I never said it's bad because it was mainstream, because that's exactly what I'm arguing against - that's what started this whole thread. I disagreed with DJ that all major studio films are bad. This one, mainstream or not, just wasn't good. As for studios making more remakes, obviously that's not what anyone wants, BUT that doesn't mean that all remakes are bad. That's the whole point of my side of the discussion - every movie should be judged on its merits, and whether it was entertaining, not on the budget, not on the marketing, and not on any biases against "mainstream" movies. Not all remakes are bad (I loved Dawn Of The Dead, and so did the majority of critics), and originality is always a good thing, but an original premise doesn't always make a good movie.

Re: laughing...the entire theater I was at opening night for X2 howled with laughter every time the shaved head guy in the wheelchair came on screen. I, nor the five people I was with, found a thing funny about that scene. I still don't find anything funny about it. I didn't find anything funny about the amputee scene in BE, either.

Re: All major studio films are bad...never really said that. I might have said a lot of them are, but never said all. There are some excellent movies out there from the likes of Paramount, Fox, et al. I can't think of one off the top of my head (it's 9 am, give me a break), but that doesn't mean anything.

I LOVED the remake of Dawn of the Dead with Ving Rhames and Sarah Polley. It was funny, creepy and just violent enough for me. That being said, did it really need to be made? Not really. And that's the point I was trying to get across with The Wolf Man example. Why remake a classic just to butcher it up and have a CGI-fest like the horrible, no good, very bad Van Helsing?

Just out of curiosity: is Brokeback Mountain a mainstream movie? It certainly has a high enough profile and the marketing muscle behind it. I'd argue it's not because mainstream, to me, implies it appeals to a wide audience. BM doesn't. Mainstream films would be Julia Roberts vehicles, most summer action movies, franchise flicks, etc.

I would have to agree that “mainstream” would be categorized by its virtue of big dollars and cookie-cutter actors. However, I too am not using the term in negative value, as I also happen to enjoy some mainstream trash. Even the snobbiest of critics have a mainstream, guilty pleasure in their collection. All I am saying is that “Butterfly Effect” does not fit into the category of a mainstream film. I think what throws people off is that Ashton’s in it and we immediately assume “mainstream” just because of his name. And granted a person’s name can always have a great affect on how people accept a film. I think if “Butterfly Effect” had been directed by David Lynch or Kubric, if he were still alive, the film may have been more accepted based on the merits of some big name. Nevertheless, we get unknown directors and Ashton in the lead, so it’s only natural that people are not going to hold back any punches. It may be a long way to the top if you want to rock-n’-roll, but I like it when films at least make an effort at it.

As far as remakes go, I mentioned “TV” remakes. What I’m tired of is wasted thinking, talent and money spent on TV shows we all grew up watching in the 60’ and 70’s. Most of those shows were trash then and they make for big-budget trash on film. Some of the worst offenders are “Dukes of Hazard”, “Bewitched” and “Charlie’s Angels”. What next? Are we going to get a remake of “Love Boat”, “I Dream of Jeannie” or “Fantasy Island”? From what I hear, Hollywood is already getting set to shoot “Dallas” staring John Travolta as J.R. When will the freaking madness end! I just don’t see the point in making a film into something you can easily watch on cable TV. If people really need to see old relics then check out the “TV Land” channel and get it out of your system.

I don’t have as much of a problem with remakes of old movies and have rather enjoyed a few. I will say I prefer film makers to come up with something new and original but I won’t scoff at a movie-remake if it is done well. I, too, enjoyed “Dawn of the Dead” as a remake and have it in my collection. At the same time, I admire an original twist on the genre and also enjoy and own “Shaun of the Dead”. Of course, there are those remakes that are a complete disaster, but in my opinion, the worst offenders are sequels that really don’t need to be made. I mean come on; do we really need to see “Basic Instinct II”? Mind you, I’m not coming down on sequels that bind together such as, “Star Wars” or “Indiana Jones”, I’m talking about films that had an ending the first time but are back on screen by popular (money) demand. And the franchise sequels are among the worst offenders out there. Do we really need to see another Freddie or Jason flick? Is Tom Cruise the American version of James Bond with his superimposed Mission Impossible films? I could rant on all day about this crap but the bottom line is I grow tired of Hollywood constantly coping out and being completely lazy when it comes to originality. When you think about it, this is the reason why 80% of the films out there are garbage and barely worth their weight in rental.

Firstly, I agree - Shaun of the Dead was brilliant. I have a lot of movies sitting on my shelf that I've only watched once, simply because I always buy more, but SOTD is an exception. I could watch that every week.

Brokeback is a difficult call, in terms of whether or not it's mainstream. (BTW, I'm responding to two posts at once here, in case this seems disjointed.) It certainly had big name actors, money, and marketing. Of course, the story is very outside the realm of many people's tastes, or comfort level. If we are classifying based on it having "cookie-cutter" actors, than I think Heath would have fallen into that category before this movie. Can one performance change the status of an actor, and therefore prevent the movie from being labelled "mainstream"?

You could say that many horror movies could not be mainstream, as I know many people who won't go and see any movie if they think it will frighten them too much. Therefore, it doesn't appeal to a number of people.

Well, I'd have to agree that, with the exception of Starsky & Hutch (which I found very funny), TV movies are pretty weak. But, while it may not be necessary to make them, much like video game movies, it is possible I'm sure to make some of them good. Actually, I kind of like the M:I movies.

Unnecessary sequels are one of my biggest pet peeves, because they taint everyone's view of the original. Blair Witch was a very interesting and creepy movie, but Book of Shadows was so bad, that many people have forgotten how good the first was.

As for Butterfly Effect, if it was made by Kubrick or Lynch, it might be more widely accepted, but it would also likely be good.

:D

I have nothing to add to this pissing contest about anyone's particular movie preferences as mine are all over the spectrum. I just have one suggestion about Digital Joe. I think it would be nice to be able to leave comments on each Digital Joe article, much like any dvd title.