I’m not necessarily a fan of brainless films, you’re right, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like them. John Woo is great, and I enjoy most of what I’ve seen from him, although it’s not as much as it should be. At the same time Woo plays into action film conventions he reinvents them, or maybe alters them is a better way of putting it. It’s a small way of not forcing me to think, and just letting me enjoy what’s going on, but still respecting my intelligence. I suppose our disagreement is more of a difference on what determines an auteur then anything else, really. I would disagree about not having a anything specific to sell, though, the product placement in the majority of his films is rather gratuitous.
Yes, maybe that’s it. We sure have differing opinions of what makes an auteur. ;-)
I don’t know exactly why this goes for me, but somehow the three films I’ve seen by him so far (Bad Boys, The Rock, and Armageddon) all had something unique to them. And watching Armageddon was a pure accident, as I was totally absorbed in my “art”-films by that time (Makhmalbaf, Kiarostami, Doillon, Eustache, Starewycz, Dasgupta and dozens of other obscure directors) and I had always avoided the film since its initial theatrical run because I thought I would hate it. But when I finally saw it, I enjoyed it immensly.
That reminds me I need to see more of Bays films!
But first i have to decide what to watch this evening: 300 or Brokeback Mountain – two acclaimed films with hopefully unique stylistics (though I’ve so far only been impressed by Lee’s “Ice Storm” and have heard awful things about Snyder).
It is what it is: a Hollywood “popcorn” action-film. And Bays does it very well. Is he the best at what he does? Certainly not. Did he invent the Hollywood action-film? Of course not. But he has crafted that genre into a unique niche for himself that time and time again proves totally successful. If you really look at a film like Armageddon, you can begin to appreciate every shot, every explosion, effect – whether it’s practical or CG. His films are a technician’s dream come true and nightmare all rolled into one. The coordination, the man-power, the artisans it takes to assemble a picture like this is quite a feet. And rarely do we understand or appreciate that. But it’s undeniable.
Sure, Michael Bay films aren’t for everyone. It may not be your cup of tea – but you have to look at why Criterion releases these types of films objectively and not necessarily compare it with other releases. Each film should be judged on its own merits. I for one, really enjoy Armageddon – it’s pure entertainment, eye-candy, fun to watch.
I was wondering when this thread would resurface, and on a Sunday, too.
Well, from the business aspect of it, it is smart to sell some of the “Hollywood” films (armageddon, the rock, chasing amy, and even Wes Anderson’s films – though his are awesome). But I could be debated by the fact that all of those films have cheaper versions for people to buy, but I just always used that as there excuse.
They did it for the money I mean, I realize now I didn’t actually make my point. They sell Hollywood film for the income so they can put out other “unknown” (to the common movie-goer) films for the cult followers. Again, that’s just my personal excuse for them.
You can deny him being an influential director, but he certainly is. It may not be on an elder audience, but for young teens his movies strike pure gold. For the most part, people love them because they make people feel like children. Sure, his movies may not be intellectually stimulating, but sometimes it’s great to go to the movies to laugh, jump, cry, etc. And not at the movie, I mean with the movie. His films, despite all the organized chaos, do this.
I love his filmmaking, for it is so much fun to watch/experience. It may not have an impact on cinema in general, but it has an impact on people in general. And it is that exact concept in which makes filmmaking, filmmaking.
Young teens may think his movies are gold, but they don’t know who he is (for the most part).
AUSTIN: You are correct. Also, people need to remember that just years prior, Criterion Collection had plenty of commercial films on LD that many people purchased. And the sales for these commercial titles did help in the company gaining some foothold and getting the licenses for many films.
There will always be films that people may find questionable from Criterion, may it be the Michael Bay films, Kevin Smith films, “The Blob” and many other titles but the fact is that with each monthly release from the company, there are going to be titles that you like or dislike. (for example, reading the various forums from people debating if “Antichrist” should be a Criterion release and people debating if more Wes Anderson films should be released form Criterion especially re-released on Blu).
I think that The Rock gets a bad rap that it doesn’t deserve. There are certainly a lot of problems with it, but I can understand its place in the collection. I’d like to start off by saying that I am in no way a Michael Bay fan, and although I’ve seen almost all of his movies, theres only one other that I would not call a complete waste of time (I enjoyed The Island quite a bit. Stop looking at me like that.). In fact, I’d go as far as to say that I absolutely despise most of his work, but its impossible to deny his influence. For better or for worse, Michael Bay’s work completely changed the playing field of action movies in the mid-ninties, and The Rock is his best of the period, if not the best by any director. His visuals were unparalleled at the time, filling every shot with energy and urgency, and sucking as much as he possibly could out of every moment. In fact this is the only Bay film where I find it hard to fault him for any of its problems. The number of imitators that followed him are only rivaled by Quentin Tarantino’s.
So yeah, the leads aren’t really relatable, Nick Cage’s girlfriend was pointless at best, and there are numerous plot holes and unnecessary scenes, but there are a lot of positives to it too. The action is both coherent and exciting, the acting is for the most part far above average for this type of film (with a few notable exceptions), but for me the biggest surprise was the villain. As a big fan of the post Die-Hard action scene (along with blaxploitation classics like Shaft and Cleopatra Jones, these are my ultimate guilty pleasure films) I can honestly say that The Rock is the only film I’ve seen of the era where the main villain not only has a cause that the audience can sympathize with, but we are given a chance to actually connect and sympathize with the character himself. All these things combine to make The Rock one of the best films of a notable chapter of action cinema, and making it a film worthy of preservation.
-This is taken from a post I made in the worst Criterions thread. I’d just like to mention that for as much as I can find positive about the Rock, I can find nothing of worth in Armageddon.
ULI CAIN NEEDS TO REWRITE: The director’s personal life and their movies are completely separate. Just as one’s personal life shouldn’t affect their business life, the same goes here. He may not be the nicest person, but he makes pop culture movies. Look at Quintin Tarantino. He’s just as arrogant, if not more, but it doesn’t mean you cannot enjoy his movies.
Curious Case of Benjamin Button is also on Criterion.
^If that’s real, I blame Bay:)
Yeah, it is real. And yes, Michael Bay is to blame
Drew Gregory
It would be one thing if Bay invented the action movie, but he didn’t. All he did was make the action movie go from mindless entertainment to just mindless. I don’t know the “classical” definition of auteur but to me that doesn’t make him an auteur.
I will put it this way. I saw Armageddon when I was 9 and hated it. When I was 9 I also begged my dad to take me to Alien vs. Predator. If that isn’t an insult to the movie then I don’t know what is. In defense of my 9 year old self I only wanted to see the movie because Alien and Predator were rated R (so I couldn’t see it) but AVP was rated PG-13.