Do Movies Pervert the Definition of Art . . . or Do They Offer a Magic That Saves Us?

Having watched TV coverage of this summer’s “blockbuster” movies, I sit shaking my head at how simple-minded the moviegoing public has become. Each summer we get several sequels to the box office hits of summers past--the same plot in a new setting with supposedly bigger and better blowouts.

Last summer it was “Lethal Weapon 2” featuring the same scenes (Mel jumps off a building again, Mel acts crazy again, Mel destroys a house with his pickup--new but stupid).

This summer it was “Another 48 HRS.,” “Die Hard 2,” etc.--same plot, new settings . . . perhaps fun with your brain in reverse but beyond belief.

Years ago, at least in the first three James Bond pictures, the plots were different and the villains interesting. Everyone who has ever seen “Goldfinger” remembers Auric Goldfinger and Oddjob. But over the years who remembers the villains of “For Your Eyes Only” or “Octopussy”?

Sequels merely rehash what we found out in the original (the exception being “Godfather II”).

With the X-rating problem, which is hurting many small creative films and prompting the mind-set of having to spend megabucks on making a film, I see fewer and fewer “little” films and less creative and risky projects. I’m not sure that a Woody Allen could break into Hollywood today. And wouldn’t that be a loss?

STEVE BROWN

Highland