What Is The Last Film You Watched?

[Andy 4,147]

Sorry, but I can't see the Omen as a comedy either. It was neither marketed or received that way. I've never heard anyone suggest that. And if Goldsmith had wanted to suggest it was comedic, he would have added some antique car horn and cartoon sound effects. Seriously, to suggest this is a comedy is, I think, digging a bit too deep. Devilishly fun? Yes. Comedic? Fraid not.

[Morlock 11]

That depends on your definintion of film comedy. It is a comedy in the way that early Spielberg and DePalma films are comedies. Playing with audience's hopes and expectations. Not as well, and with less personality, but still.

[Andy 4,147]

Well, I'm afraid my definition of comedy is quite pedestrian, then... A movie intended to illicit laughing from the audience.

[Marian Schedenig 8,211]

That depends on your definintion of film comedy.

It certainly isn't a comedy in the original sense. Star Wars, Jurassic Park, CE3K and I suppose Jaws would be comedies in that sense; The Omen would be a tragedy.

[Jay 37,374]

Just back from seeing a sneak preview of DRAG ME TO HELL. I won't spoil it but I have to say as being an immune horror fan, this is one of THE best horror comedy movies I've seen in years. Welcome back, Sam Raimi.....to where you really belong. Trademark Raimi camera tilting and close ups aplenty and EVIL DEAD fans will not be disappointed by the nods he gives to his famous E D trilogy in this movie. The evil gypsy bitch Mrs. Ganush (played brilliantly by Lorna Raver) is worth the price of admission alone. The false teeth scene is a real hoot. Sound effects are very, very loud and Christopher Young's main titles are heavily influenced by JAWS and Jerry's THE MUMMY. Go, enjoy, laugh and be scared. ****/*****

Did you say horror comedy??

[AzOutcast 122]

Just back from seeing a sneak preview of DRAG ME TO HELL. I won't spoil it but I have to say as being an immune horror fan, this is one of THE best horror comedy movies I've seen in years. Welcome back, Sam Raimi.....to where you really belong. Trademark Raimi camera tilting and close ups aplenty and EVIL DEAD fans will not be disappointed by the nods he gives to his famous E D trilogy in this movie. The evil gypsy bitch Mrs. Ganush (played brilliantly by Lorna Raver) is worth the price of admission alone. The false teeth scene is a real hoot. Sound effects are very, very loud and Christopher Young's main titles are heavily influenced by JAWS and Jerry's THE MUMMY. Go, enjoy, laugh and be scared. ****/*****

Did you say horror comedy??

Very much in line with the Evil Dead flicks from what I hear (although they're not really marketing it that way). I'm looking forward to catching it tomorrow evening.

Also, just curious if you've listened to the new DT album yet, or if you're waiting for the "release."

[Jay 37,374]

Every commercial I've seen for Drag Me To Hell makes it look like a serious horror flick and not a comedy. Weird

And yep, I've listened to the new DT album many times I like it, its loads better than Systematic Chaos. And The Shattered Fotress ROCKS

[Hitch 57]

The gypsy woman will remind you of the old woman in the cabin in EVIL DEAD 2. You'll know what I mean then when I say there are a lot of comedic moments featuring her and equally scary moments as well. I wasn't scared though. Immune.

[King Mark 3,631]

Terminator Salvation

I actually kinda liked it.

[AzOutcast 122]

Every commercial I've seen for Drag Me To Hell makes it look like a serious horror flick and not a comedy. Weird

And yep, I've listened to the new DT album many times I like it, its loads better than Systematic Chaos. And The Shattered Fotress ROCKS

I enjoyed SC plenty but I think it's fair to say I like this album more. The only song I'm not into is The Count of Tuscany, and that sucks because it's 20 minutes long (I do like the last 9 or so minutes of it though)! Shattered Fortress is one I'm looking forward to seeing live, you know the audience will go nuts. The Best of Times is one of DT's greatest and most emotional tracks IMO. My favorite since Octavarium. Glad to hear you're diggin' it though.

The last movie I saw was Terminator Salvation and while I enjoyed it, and the action sequences were pretty great, you don't really give a shit about any of the characters, especially John Connor. Ah well. Worth it just to hear the audience cheer for the "cameo."

[Jay 37,374]

Yea my favorite tracks are The Best Of Times and The Count of Tuscany. And of course TSF. The second 3 tracks are MUCH stronger than the first 3. And of those first 3, I like Wither the best. Something about Rite of Passage rubs me the wrong way, and A Nightmare to Remember is just.. kind of there.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Up

I enjoyed it, but I always hate watching family films in a theater. Dumbass kid in the row behind was making stupid comments and asking questions he should know the answers to, cause he was like 15. The guy to my left had an insane and loud laugh, and there was a baby that would not shut up.

This is something I would enjoy more in my home set-up.

[Jay 37,374]

Twilight Zone: The Movie

I thought this was pretty bad. Even worse than I was expecting. Which is surprising given the talent involved. But each segment was a misfire, to different degrees.

The opening sequence was just silly and too tongue-in-cheek, and the payoff was lame. Time Out was fine for a while... the first act was a good set up. Then the second act is good as he leaves the bar and deals with nazis, the kkk, and the vietnam war..... but then they just had no idea how to end the segment! So he goes back to nazi occupied poland, gets captured by nazis again, and gets to scream for help as he sees his friends from the beginning leave the bar... Why/how? Who knows. Segment needed a better pay off.

Kick The Can was just too smaltzy and sentimental. Its a great message but with only 20-30 minutes to tell it, everything just has to be blunt and straightforward. If it was at feature length, and we had time to know the characters better, I think it would have been a lot better. And Spielberg HAD to get his father-issues into the story somehow, of course. It's A Good Life seemed like it was going to be the strongest so far for a while... it was creepy and suspenseful as you try to figure out what's going on. But then they again had no idea how to end it. Where is the blue realm Anthony and Helen go to? Why does she agree to help Anthony at the end? Where are they driving off to? I also didn't like the creature effects, either the rabbit or the tazmanian devil. The only funny part was seeing Nancy Cartwright get stuck in a cartoon world, which is exactly where her entire career ended up eventually

Nightmare at 20,000 Feet was probably the best. I loved Lithgow's performance, I loved the opening in the bathroom with the camera angle, I loved the no smoking sequence and his first time seeing the monster as the whole plane looks out the window... the second time he sees the monster right outside the window was great, etc. But then it got kind of weird when he shot a hole into the window and went outside and interacting with the monster. Seeing the monster fly away was bizarre too. And I thought they were going to leave the ending ambiguous, where you don't know if it was in his head or not.... but no, they find the claw marks on the plane.... so then I was expecting the monster to attack his ambulance... but instead it was just Dan Aykroyd again. Kind of a lame ending.

The one thing not lame at all was Jerry Goldsmith's score. It was perfect. Time Out's score carried the sequence along, echoing everything the main character was going through. Kick The Can was just as emotional as the segment was. The theme is catchy as hell too. It's A Good Life kind of weaves in and out among the stock cartoon music, but punctuates the action nicely. And Nightmare at 20,000 Feet is just amazing suspense music, elevating the segment to a higher level than it ever could have been without. The End Credits is of course a nice overture of the main themes from 3 of the segments. Great stuff.

[A24 4,347]

Up

I enjoyed it, but I always hate watching family films in a theater. Dumbass kid in the row behind was making stupid comments and asking questions he should know the answers to, cause he was like 15. The guy to my left had an insane and loud laugh, and there was a baby that would not shut up.

This is something I would enjoy more in my home set-up.

I too am very sensitive for noise during a film. I even hate loud breathing.

[Marian Schedenig 8,211]

Twilight Zone: The Movie

I thought this was pretty bad. Even worse than I was expecting. Which is surprising given the talent involved. But each segment was a misfire, to different degrees.

I believe I told you so. I still want to see it again someday, just for Lithgow's performance.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I too am very sensitive for noise during a film. I even hate loud breathing.

I prefer to watch my films in total seclusion. When I was growing up my mother and sister had the annoying habbit of commenting on things happening in a film.

[Henry B 50]

Time Out was fine for a while... the first act was a good set up. Then the second act is good as he leaves the bar and deals with nazis, the kkk, and the vietnam war..... but then they just had no idea how to end the segment! So he goes back to nazi occupied poland, gets captured by nazis again, and gets to scream for help as he sees his friends from the beginning leave the bar... Why/how? Who knows. Segment needed a better pay off.

The ending written for the segment was that Bill would redeem himself by rescuing a pair of Vietnamese kids from a burning village. Unfortunately, there was a shot in which Morrow and the children were pursued by a helicopter, and, well.

[Jay 37,374]

Right, I read that in the liner notes of the FSM CD.... but if that was the original ending, and the actor died, then how did they get the footage of him re-captured by the nazis and carried away on the train?

[Henry B 50]

Maybe that was the full ending to the Vichy segment, and it was switched to follow the unfinished Vietnam segment.

[Wycket 36]

Yeah, I always assumed that it was just a part of the story that would lead to his eventual redemption.

Still a tragic thing that happened to those three individuals. A complete waste. John Hughes should have been jailed.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

John Hughes should have been jailed.

You're right, PRETTY IN PINK was terrible.

[Jeshopk 8]

Any fans of Army of Darkness or Evil Dead must see Drag Me To Hell. If you have a wicked sense of humor, just go see it even if you have no previous Sam Raimi love. Ah, I love it when a good plan comes together. Chris Young's score was surprisingly tangible.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Yeah, I always assumed that it was just a part of the story that would lead to his eventual redemption.

There are several stories for how the first episode was original scripted, most recently John Landis wrote about it in a book. As it exists, I think the bigot story is a bit too Landis and not enough Twilight Zone. That's me. The last episode is generally considered the best, if not the only genuinely good one.

Anyway, IJ and the Last Crusade. I want hair like River Phoenix in this.

[Trent B 337]

I'm surprised Marc (Breathmask) has let this past 100 pages.

[Datameister 2,044]

Kill Bill: Vol. 1. Pretty fun, I suppose, though the DVD annoyingly refused to display subtitles in the Japanese scenes. Looking up scripts online (and hence English translations) without spoiling the events to come was interesting.

[Delorean90 42]

Twilight Zone: The Movie

I thought this was pretty bad. Even worse than I was expecting. Which is surprising given the talent involved. But each segment was a misfire, to different degrees.

Nightmare at 20,000 Feet was probably the best. I loved Lithgow's performance, I loved the opening in the bathroom with the camera angle, I loved the no smoking sequence and his first time seeing the monster as the whole plane looks out the window... the second time he sees the monster right outside the window was great, etc. But then it got kind of weird when he shot a hole into the window and went outside and interacting with the monster. Seeing the monster fly away was bizarre too. And I thought they were going to leave the ending ambiguous, where you don't know if it was in his head or not.... but no, they find the claw marks on the plane.... so then I was expecting the monster to attack his ambulance... but instead it was just Dan Aykroyd again. Kind of a lame ending.

That's more or less how it ends in the original episode from the show, with the main difference being that in the original episode

he actually kills the gremlin

. I'm not sure why they changed it. I'd like to see the film again; it's been years since I saw it, and that was on TV.

The one thing not lame at all was Jerry Goldsmith's score. It was perfect. Time Out's score carried the sequence along, echoing everything the main character was going through. Kick The Can was just as emotional as the segment was. The theme is catchy as hell too. It's A Good Life kind of weaves in and out among the stock cartoon music, but punctuates the action nicely. And Nightmare at 20,000 Feet is just amazing suspense music, elevating the segment to a higher level than it ever could have been without. The End Credits is of course a nice overture of the main themes from 3 of the segments. Great stuff.

Yeah, it's a terrific score. In addition to your comments, I'll say that I really enjoyed the theme from It's a Good Life. And in Kick the Can, I just love that big string passage in "Weekend Visit." Its resolution is pretty Williamsesque, but I say that not as a knock against Goldsmith, but rather that he made an original moment in that vein while still make it true to his sound and his sound world.

In the Heat of the Night SPOILERS!!

This was a really excellent film. I absolutely want to see it again; the first viewing my mind was balancing both the character interactions and the mystery, and now that I know what happened, it'll be good to get all of the details and layers. The actors were all terrific--not a weak performance in this bunch. Sidney Poitier did a fine job as Tibbs, and Rod Steiger was an absolute treat as Gillespie--his Oscar was deserved. "Oh, yeah!" It is a credit to both the script and the performers that neither character fits into a neat mold of "superior, intellectual black man" or "stupid, ignorant white racist hick." They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and seeing the characters grapple with them even as they grapple with each other is intriguing. A great detail is that Tibbs initially doesn't want to stay and help any more than the residents want him to--and not just because he wants to get home, but because of his impressions of them!

It's interesting to follow one of the threads of the film, which is one that illustrates the stupidity of racism not by showing the black man as the great superman or the townspeople as evil fools, but showing that all people, regardless of color, deal with common issues, both positive and negative. Almost nothing is as it appears, from the initial presumptions about Tibbs and Gillespie, to presumed killer, to the roles of the townspeople.

The ending is also rather satisfying. The development of the relationship between Tibbs and Gillespie is never settled during the brunt of the film; there's always a tension, as the two men are working out their own issues and trying to work together at the same time. Even down to the climax, the scene preceding it has a big step of understanding between the men, cut off by a burst of pride from Gillespie, with Tibbs running off to follow his lead and having to remind the sheriff that he had given him time through the next day. Finally, as Tibbs is leaving, after all the men have worked through, they are still learning and growing, but they have come to a point where each man can acknowledge the other with humanity and respect. It's not a nice, neat, clean cut resolution, but it is satisfying, and encouraging--a terrific ending.

I found myself also pleasantly surprised at one of the less-spoken about actors, and that is Scott Wilson. I really enjoyed his performance as Harvey, and it was fun to watch the relationship between him and Tibbs develop through the film. One of my favorite bits is their first meeting when Virgil says, "Keep cool, Harvey...I'm on your side." That's also got some of my favorite shots of the film--the ones of Virgil sitting on the cell bunk. And that brings me to the cinematography. I initially wasn't sure about it, but it's quite good. It's interesting how it shifts in certain degrees, from feeling kind of sweaty and dingy in different parts of town, to seeming downright cool and refined at Endicott's mansion, and lying somewhere in the middle at the police station. Nicely done.

Again, I'll absolutely be watching this again before I take it back to the library, and I'm hoping to get through the commentary before then. I highly recommend this. 5/5

[Morlock 11]

Swingers (1996). It's good. Not great, not classic, but I thought I'd be seeing a relic of the 90's, yet it worked well enough. Favreau is a far more convincing actor than he is a director.

Swing Vote (2008). Much better than I would have expected. It's corny as hell, and as someone who doesn't care for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, it's goals of being Capra-esque were both dubious and unsuccessfully translated to the 21st century. But Costner is fun, and not terribly annoying. The actress playing his daughter is good. A whole bunch of fun supporting characters in there, played by guys like Nathan Lane, Stanley Tucci, Dennis Hopper, Kelsey Grammer, Judge Reinhold. And it has some absolutely inspired material in there, in the form of campaign promos created for the two candidates. They are really funny concepts, perfectly executed.

Debney's score was bland as usual. I would have liked it if the director would have had the balls to have less music. The corny scenes would have been so much better without the corny music.

Religulous (2008). Saw it a few weeks back, but I wanted to see it with a couple of my more argumentative friends. Had a good discussion about it. An entertaining and thought-provoking film that is quite annoying in how little it achieves.

The Foot-Fist Way (2008). Hated it. I didn't get the humor, although I did get what I was supposed to get. I found it annoying that such misanthropy is basically supposed to be funny on its own. If this is the kind of dead-pan humor that Napolean Dynamite is full of, I'm glad I've never bothered to check that one out. And there's no way in hell I'm ever seeing Observe and Report.

Bad Lieutenant (1992). I've been wanting to see this for a while, and I figured I should get it in before seeing Werner Herzog's take on the character (the trailer of which looked rather terrible, unfortunately). Never seen an Abel Ferrarra film before, so I didn't really know what to expect. It is still plenty shocking. I believe Ebert said in his review that the film is like the kind of film that Scorsese would have made if he had remained a B-movie director, and that's right on the money. It reminded me of Look who's Knocking at my door.

The movie is sleazy as hell and just as grungy. They're lucky they knew how to film Manhatten- the avenues provide a grandeur that the film sorely needed. Keitel gives the kind of performance that is probably a bit too 'fearless'. He's got a whole lot of amazing scenes, yet there is too much self-flagellation (metaphorically speaking) for me to be able to take it entirely seriously. And the power some of the more contemplative elements of the movie is very much eroded by the cheapness of it all...I don't know that we needed the raping of the nun to be so explicit.

[A24 4,347]

I've seen Bad Lieutenant in theater and King Of New York on DVD and believe me, Scorsese is way classier than Abel Ferrarra, even with no budget. So no, Ebert's comment is not right on the money, for Ferrara is just a louzy Scorsese wannabee.

Alex

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Ferrara does make a lot of B-movie nonsense and dress it up in ponderous art-movie clothing. My favourite movie of his is when he dropped the pretense and just made a good B-movie (BODY SNATCHERS). It doesn't hurt it that it also has Meg Tilly naked.

[Morlock 11]

I've seen Bad Lieutenant in theater and King Of New York on DVD and believe me, Scorsese is way classier than Abel Ferrarra, even with no budget. So no, Ebert's comment is not right on the money, for Ferrara is just a louzy Scorsese wannabee.

There might be less sleaze...but this is tonally so similar to Scorsese in a lot of ways...of course Scorsese is classier. But I think the point stands. No, Scorsese would not have made a film as grungy. But he deals with the exact same material as Ferrarra does. If he never got the budgets, he might have made a film very similiar to this one. Ferrarra is saying his own thing about Catholic guilt, something Scorsese would never bring himself to say in a film, which is what keeps it from being just a Scorsese wannaba.

Ferrara does make a lot of B-movie nonsense and dress it up in ponderous art-movie clothing. My favourite movie of his is when he dropped the pretense and just made a good B-movie (BODY SNATCHERS). It doesn't hurt it that it also has Meg Tilly naked.

That means alot, coming from Paul Verhoven.

[A24 4,347]

It's precisely because he moves on Scorsese territory that makes him an obvious admirer but he sorely lacks Scorsese's vision and intelligence and no budget is going to change that. I find Ebert's comment way off base.

Alex

[Morlock 11]

Rented the Criterion DVD of Benjamin Button. I'm still puzzled as to why Criterion took this one on...there's nothing really uniquely criterion about it. It's a classic Fincher ultimate DVD. Doc clocks in at 175 minutes. It's pretty damn good, as usual. Prior's access makes for some priceless footage. The visual effects stuff got a bit tiresome after a while...but the music segement, 14 minutes of Desplat, is terrific. Not boring talking heads- you see Desplat walk Fincher through the demos, working with the orchestra, a bit in the control room, and you see a whole cue being performed.

Looking forward to watching the film again...I loved a lot of it's moments and ideas the first time around, and found it very touching, but I was at the same time left kinda cold by the experienc of watching it. I wonder if another viewing might bridge the gap.

[Delorean90 42]

The Birds

Screw it, I'm gonna use spoiler tags. Sue me, Joey.

This is a film that you cannot begin to judge until it is over. A large majority of films you can get a pretty good feel for by the middle of it--sometimes even earlier--and have a fair idea of whether you'll end up liking it or not. This one left me groping up until the end--and it paid off. By the middle of the film, I was thinking I'd probably end up thinking there were good elements, but relative to the Hitchcock library...meh. Not so.

Let's start with the technical elements, which struck me positively from the start. The cinematography is terrific. It especially shone in the last fifteen-twenty minutes of the film when they're holed up inside the house, but in a different way from the early--still fine--more traditional Hitch looking cinematography of the opening scenes. Some of the coolest shots I've seen are those following the big attack on the house, when the camera focuses on the ceiling in multiple shots, revealing the adults standing up, and then finally cutting to a long shot pulling out to reveal them all in the same upward angle. Awesome.

Hitchcock is indeed the master of suspense. On two particular occasions I got that kind of visceral tension that I get in the scene with Lisa in Thorwald's apartment in Rear Window. In the chase from the school, even as I found myself cringing a bit at some of the effects along with the child actors, I still found myself sort of moving my head and neck sympathetically, as if trying to help the kids to get the birds away. The other scene is the incredible

attic attack

scene. Logic be damned; I don't care that what she did was stupid, the whole time my I was cringing in suspense, again almost as if trying to help. It wasn't a "Get outta there, stupid!" feeling, it was a "Come on, come on, get out! You can make it!" It takes major talent and skill to pull those kinds of solid reactions out even in the middle of circumstances or details that would fight against it.

The lack of musical score worked suprisingly well, and although I don\'t know for a fact what contribution Herrmann made to the sound, I\'m sure it helped. The sounds of the birds range from unpleasant to downright eerie, and lend terrific ambience.

As I was saying in the first paragraph, The Birds is a tough film to get a solid grip on right away. Like the much earlier Hitchcock outing Suspicion, the film, despite the title and any trailers or pre-release/viewing information, starts out like a romantic comedy, with a fairly light flair, and only a small drizzle of foreshadowing. I had seen a good chunk of this first part years ago, all the way up to the start of the scene with the birds

flying through the chimney

, and from that along with the film's reputation I disappointedly assumed that this was going to degenerate into a simple shocker that gets a chuckle at teasing the audience with the withholding of any explanations about the attacks and going no further with the characters. Silly me! Did I forget that this is Hitch we're talking about? Throughout the middle portion of the film with the scattered attacks, as I held on, hoping to get more out of this than simply the horror of the situation, I still had this lingering "WTF?" feeling--where are we going with this, Hitch? Tell me you\'re going to give us some kind of payoff with the characters? Oh, yes indeed.

Two shots:

Melanie gripping Lydia's arm, and Lydia holding her closer and comforting her.

I saw those two shots and smiled. The payoff. This is what I needed. Those who criticize the "abruptness" of the ending just don't get it. As with most of Hitch's films, there are multiple themes and layers of symbolism, but the core of the story is

the gathering of this family unit. Lydia wanted so much to be strong, and she found her strength when Melanie needed her to have it; Lydia gained her daughter. At the end, there are many possiblities. Those billions of birds could unite to attack the planet, or it may have been an isolated case in Bodega Bay, but none of that matters at this moment--for the first time, they\'re all really together.

And that makes me smile at the end of the film.

The final shot is indeed loaded. The massive swarm of birds in the foreground and the darkness lend an eerie atmosphere certainly, and one could see a certain degree of triumph for the birds here, or even see it from an "It's not over, they're still doomed" angle. And yet what we've just seen happen to these people, combined with the sunlight in the distance cracking through the clouds...what can I say? I like happy endings. I find a hopeful touch in this. I'm actually torn, because upon reading the original ending, I liked it a lot: it gave a more specific climax, with Cathy's prayer and her cry at the birds followed by the clearing up and Mitch's last line...well, what can I say? I like happy endings!

But at the same time I think there's something to be said for the poetic efficiency of the ending in the final cut. I don't think I'll ever be fully settled on one ending or the other as a preference, but they're both strong endings IMO, and I'm certainly not saddened by what we got, I think it's great--it just might've been nice to see the original scripted ending make it to celluloid.

There's a lot more I could probably say. I will say that I think that the film's reputation doesn't do it justice. It seems like it gets stuck as the Hitchcock horror film with no explanation, completely leaving out the heart that's present. I'm glad the film has its slower beginning--I think it would've been a much, much weaker film without the seemingly-out-of-place first act. Some rough effects work and a couple of cringey moments drag the film ever so slightly, but I can't really come up with much of anything to complain about. Good stuff! 4.5/5

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'm still puzzled as to why Criterion took this one on...there's nothing really uniquely criterion about it.

It's a technical masterpiece, with IMO unparalleled visual effects. After watching a good portion of that documentary you mentioned, I forgot how much of each shot was actually CGI.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I'm still puzzled as to why Criterion took this one on...there's nothing really uniquely criterion about it.

It's a technical masterpiece, with IMO unparalleled visual effects. After watching a good portion of that documentary you mentioned, I forgot how much of each shot was actually CGI.

I think's Criterion's criteria went out of the window with the Michael Bay films.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'm still puzzled as to why Criterion took this one on...there's nothing really uniquely criterion about it.

It's a technical masterpiece, with IMO unparalleled visual effects. After watching a good portion of that documentary you mentioned, I forgot how much of each shot was actually CGI.

I think's Criterion's criteria went out of the window with the Michael Bay films.

Armageddon and The Rock both deal with current events/issues, that's why they got the Criterion treatment.

[Morlock 11]

I believe they were chosen because of their cultural importance and significance, which I believe is Criterion's major goal.

I don't know what it means for a movie to be a technical masterpiece, by the way.

[A24 4,347]

Armageddon and The Rock both deal with current events/issues, that's why they got the Criterion treatment.

+

I believe they were chosen because of their cultural importance and significance, which I believe is Criterion's major goal.

=

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I believe they were chosen because of their cultural importance and significance, which I believe is Criterion's major goal.

Yeah that's it. I couldn't remember exactly.

I don't know what it means for a movie to be a technical masterpiece, by the way.

Visual and sound effects, mostly. At least to me. I don't know if editing and cinematography would fall into that.

[A24 4,347]

Criterion's mission is to treat and release important classic and contemporary films, but in the case of Michael Bay, Criterion's goal is commerce, people.

Alex

[Datameister 2,044]

I would most definitely include cinematography under technical mastery, too. Editing...to a certain degree, yes.

[Morlock 11]

Criterion's mission is to treat and release important classic and contemporary films, but in the case of Michael Bay, Criterion's goal is commerce, people.

Are you saying that Bays films are not important cultural artifacts? They're essential to understanding today's film culture (or lack there of). Of course, I'm not putting monetary reasons beyond them (Benjamin Button would seem to fall into that category)...but Bay films were stylistically unique and were a big part of film-culture in the mid to late 90's. That they're crap doesn't change that. Having a Bay film in a series that prides itself on quality seems so wrong, yet, in a weird way, so right as well. I'm fascinated in the Criterion edition Armageddon.

Saw Miyazaki's Porco Rosso (1992) over the weekend. I liked it a lot, but the first half was so much better than the second half. A lot of excitement was building, and then it kinda dissipated (Aside from Spirited Away -my first and still my favorite Miyazaki- all his other films had endings that to me felt either abrupt, or like they came out of left field).

I don't know what it means for a movie to be a technical masterpiece, by the way.

Visual and sound effects, mostly. At least to me. I don't know if editing and cinematography would fall into that.

My question was more about how a film could be specifically a masterpiece as a piece of technique. It could be a good film that is a brilliant technical achievment, but a film is a masterpiece as a whole, or it isn't.

[Wojo 2,453]

Armageddon and The Rock both deal with current events/issues, that's why they got the Criterion treatment.

Yet strangely, Criterion does not honor every film concern global apocalypse, catastrophe via meteor, noble suicide of a father to save the world, terrorism, bioweapons, military treason, or hostile takeover of a prison-turned-tourist attraction with a spot in their lineup. So I'm wondering what "other" current events/issues these films deal with that deem them worthy...

Or perhaps in order to appreciate really good or noteworthy movies, you must benchmark them against the not-so-good, popcorn-for-the-masses flicks as well.

[A24 4,347]

Criterion's mission is to treat and release important classic and contemporary films, but in the case of Michael Bay, Criterion's goal is commerce, people.

Are you saying that Bays films are not important cultural artifacts? They're essential to understanding today's film culture (or lack there of). Of course, I'm not putting monetary reasons beyond them (Benjamin Button would seem to fall into that category)...but Bay films were stylistically unique and were a big part of film-culture in the mid to late 90's. That they're crap doesn't change that. Having a Bay film in a series that prides itself on quality seems so wrong, yet, in a weird way, so right as well. I'm fascinated in the Criterion edition Armageddon.

"Cultural importance" aren't the words they are using. Criterion simply claims to release "important classic and contemporary films". Good for them! Personally, I don't think there is anything important about Armageddon, not in a positive way, that is. And Criterion isn't releasing it for "today's lack of film culture" either. No, they think Armageddon is a work of art! What a joke!

I'm baffled that you are fascinated in a Criterion edition of Armageddon, Morlock. Why the sudden interest? I would actually pay money not to see it. To me, Armageddon is one bad nightmare of an MTV cliché and far from "stylistically unique". It's just fast editing, lots of special effects and explosions. Is that so special?

Alex

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Infernal Affairs III - Oh dear, there is so much wrong with this movie. Attempts to be poetic which fall flat and too many dead characters brought back onscreen thanks to a nonlinear timeline which jumps all over the place multiple times are just some of them. In the end its just a whole bunch of mostly well made (if slightly confusing if you aren't familiar with the first movie pretty well) scenes which just don't add up to anything. This is the movie The Godfather III needed to be to deserve its ill reputation.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

To me, Armageddon is one bad nightmare of an MTV cliché and far from "stylistically unique". It's just fast editing, lots of special effects and explosions. Is that so special?

That's not what's special about it.

[A24 4,347]

Don't keep us in suspense here, KS.

[Morlock 11]

I'm baffled that you are fascinated in a Criterion edition of Armageddon, Morlock. Why the sudden interest? I would actually pay money not to see it. To me, Armageddon is one bad nightmare of an MTV cliché and far from "stylistically unique". It's just fast editing, lots of special effects and explosions. Is that so special?

I'm very interested in how a format that values quality treats something that has none. I mean, who would write an essay for the liner notes saying how brilliant and underrated it is? and how would they refer to the movie in the documentary- "We knew we were on to something special when we thought of the animal crackers goodbye scene?"

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

If you check your brain and the door, and drink something with a really large amount of sugar in it, then of a very basic level...one can find enjoyment out of that film. But it's in no way, shape or form significant.

[Wojo 2,453]

I think it's time for a poll...Armageddon vs Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.

Because people who watch either movie hoping to learn something or be intellectually stimulated, seriously need to have their cracker jack Phd in film studies rescinded.