If that bothers you, you must not realize they have also released a few old low-budget science fiction movies like Robinson Crusoe On Mars and Equinox over the years. Armageddeon isn’t the kind of movie I’d like to see Criterion release on a regular basis but I can forgive them one or two oddball choices. Anyway that came out years ago.
Who cares, take the good over the bad.
There should be some sort of feature in these forums that alerts anyone before they post a new thread about how Armageddon, The Rock, Chasing Amy, and so on and so on shouldn’t be in the Criterion Collection.
Also, these films were released by Criterion over five years ago. Why is it such a shock to some people, or some kind of personal offense.
I have no qualms with Robinson Crusoe or Equinox. For what they are, they’re good. Armageddon and The Rock are just run of the mill crap. And I know they were released years ago, but it still baffles me. They may as well have released Independence Day or Speed. Just my opinion.
Christopher Queen is pissed! Criterion has some serious gall disappointing him like this.
It’s not a shock. It’s bothered me since day one. I just couldn’t think of anything else to post here. It’s not like we can discuss the artistic merit of Armageddon.
I love criterion, always have. Just thought I was starting the obvious discussion with this post.
Oh, Christopher, I think we CAN discuss the artistic merits of Armageddon!
No… we can’t. Though we can discuss the many levels of incest found in Aerosmith’s music video for this movie. I mean, Steven Tyler is literally singing a love song to his daughter’s face.
I just think it encourages people to take Michael Bay and his ilk seriously…. that’s the worry. Then he’ll start taking himself seriously and he’ll make something like ‘The Island’….. whoops!
There’s a thread for this already. Actually, two.
LOL @ Shotzi…and OMG.. i loved Crusoe On Mars.. and I love anyone named QUEEN. k bye ;-)
What’s with all the hate for The Rock? I liked that movie.
I remember Kent Jones wrote an article in Film Comment a few years back defending Michael Bay. I’m not completely won over, but it’s an interesting argument. Here’s the link: http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/7-8-2001/bay.htm
Christopher, I think it may be worth your while to get Armageddon and The Rock and just watch them with an open mind, read the inserts, listen to the commentaries and watch the special features and see for yourself how the Criterion treatment helps raise the experience of watching these films to a new level. I think they combine to provide a decent rationale for why these films were selected for the Collection at the time. It wouldn’t happen that way these days but as a guy who mainly focuses on acquiring and watching Criterion titles these days, I’m glad to have some fairly obvious crowd pleasing low-brow entertainment in the stack. Have a laugh at the absurdity of it all even though there is also a lot of talent and dare I say artistry that goes into the production of, say, the destructive blast wave that destroys Paris or the “Evel Kneivel on asteroida” stunts… And you can get them for cheap on eBay, like under 10 bucks, pretty easily!
Honestly, I didn’t dislike those two movies…
I like to imagine that Criterion threw ‘em in to generate a little scratch to keep fighting the good fight. I also like to tell myself and others that Criterion had a more academic motivation behind these choices. Take the case of Equinox. That movie stinks and Dennis Muren, the director, admits as much. But! Dennis Muren is a god of the effects industry and Equinox not only showcases the first major work of a movie giant/artist, but is also a perfect capsule of dozens of in-camera effects which Mr. Muren is very generous in discussing on the commentary track. It is a terrific sign post in that regard for burgeoning filmmakers, particularly for its DIY spirit and as a beginner’s handbook to in-camera film effects and illusion. That said, ‘The Rock and ’Armageddon’ are great additions in that they serve as points of deep contrast between art and commerce (read: crap-ola). To quote Jerry Bruckheimer, “One man’s trash is another man’s cash.” Michael Bay is not a master turd-shiner, he just puts that turd on a silver platter and tells you it’s steak. Bon appetit!
The Rock is good mindless escapism, well done for what it is…. If Criterion want to be associated with that then that’s their perogative I guess. I don’t mind a film that knows what it is, the ones with pretentions other than what they are bug me… that’ll be The Island and Armageddon to start with….. and half of Pearl Harbour.
In regards to Bay’s “The Island” I clap for anyone that tries to market sci-fi, as I believe that it is the hardest type of film to market. I believe that it would have been better had it been darker in tone but it worked decently well.
Plus I like the inclusion of said films as it shows the far reaching effects that cinema can have plus; how else are you going to convince someone to watch a film from your shelf if there are none that they know?
In regards to Bay’s “The Island” I clap for anyone that tries to market sci-fi, as I believe that it is the hardest type of film to market. I believe that it would have been better had it been darker in tone but it worked decently well.
Plus I like the inclusion of said films as it shows the far reaching effects that cinema can have plus; how else are you going to convince someone to watch a film from your shelf if there are none that they know?
I didn’t see either of those, not enough intelligence or substance for me. So Criterion released them?? You do have the choice to not watch them, so why bother bitching about it?
Ms Mouth, Some people get upset that Criterion isn’t strictly an Art House imprint, I think. Personally, I like what the various “anomalies” bring to the Collection – the inclusion of both mega-blockbusters and oddball lo-budget indie stuff establishes a broad spectrum of possibilities and keeps the discussion lively. Armageddon and The Rock have been part of the CC for so long that debate about their inclusion ought to be fairly moot by now but they continue to generate friction!
The fact that these two movies are in the collection point to exactly why Criterion is so great. These films are completely owned by Michael Bay, not Sean Connery, not Bruce Willis, Bay himself, the man IS an Auteur, and why should someone who owns his films so completely be seen as of lesser import than any other director in the Criterion collection? Personally I’d like to see The Island up for inclusion also.
Good point, Nick.
I have always felt that the inclusion of these two films are helping to finance all of the Bresson, Ozu, Tarkovsky, Rohmer, Antonioni, Melville, Eisenstein and Truffaut titles for the rest of us!
Now if they can only get THE DARK KNIGHT …
;+)
deleted
thanks for the link to the kent jones’ article, but he wasn’t defending bay. he was being sarcastic. and trying too hard at that, which ruined the critical intent of his piece.
The beauty of it all is that you don’t have to buy them. Ahhhh, how satisfying.
by the way, did someone just equate financial ownership in a film as the mark of an auteur, and complete financial ownership as a level of quality?? hope i read that comment wrong.
Michael Bay thats why. He is a great director. I’m not that into his films, but I can’t deny talent.
I think he means “owns” as in makes them his own, like he puts the Michael Bay stamp on them. They aren’t Sean Connery movies, they aren’t Bruce Willis movies, they’re Michael Bay movies.
christopher queen
Is it just me or is it completely baffling that Criterion released Armagedon (as well as The Rock)? Last time I checked, both films were utter Hollywood garbage. Am I missing something here?