First of all, The Pittsburgh Steelers managed to remind us all again exactly why it is that we hate the Pittsburgh Steelers last night. They also managed to send us back to a simpler time, a time when a man named John Kitna made plays that defied logic, tripped over his own feet and generally dropped the ball. Ahhh memories...
But you still gotta love the Bengals.
Now, some of you may be regular readers of Aaron Saylor's website (www.aaronsaylor.com), some may not. If you missed his most recent piece on big budget film vs. old-timey flicks and little arthouse projects I'd suggest you check it out.
Of course, I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Saylor. It's clear to any one that Steven Spielberg has only made one quality film (Amistad)... and of course that would be the one picture that Mr. Saylor admits to having never actually seen. Giant, big budget pictures are a complete waste of time. Oooh, let's put some shiny bells and whistles in, let's put a big alien right here, now get a hot body with no talent and slap her naked breasts on the screen! Hooray for cinema!
The truth is simple. Is a picture made better with a Criterion release? Absolutely. Let's face it, The Criterion Collection is yet to release a bad picture. Even if said film doesn't exactly mesh with your taste, it should still be purchased, viewed and filed away... for educational purposes if nothing else. The good people at Criterion have given us a chance to see brilliant pictures like "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie," "La Commare Secca," and "The Beastie Boys Video Anthology." In a show of good faith to the "big budget" crowd, Criterion even released what is certainly the finest Hollywood film of a generation, if not ever in "Armageddon."
Mr. Saylor may think that he knows movies, and I might think that too if I was as diluted as he is. Should we take Mr. Saylor's critique seriously? Well, in the same way that you would listen to Fred Sanford at a wine tasting... he's certainly had "wine" in his day, but he'll have trouble distinguishing the difference between a Chateau Lafite-Rothschild and a bottle of Ripple. So, Mr. Saylor, you keep your Spielberg (and your Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich) films. Personally I'll stick to people with talent and an unblemished catalogue of films... like Darren Aronofsky.
But you still gotta love the Bengals.
Now, some of you may be regular readers of Aaron Saylor's website (www.aaronsaylor.com), some may not. If you missed his most recent piece on big budget film vs. old-timey flicks and little arthouse projects I'd suggest you check it out.
Of course, I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Saylor. It's clear to any one that Steven Spielberg has only made one quality film (Amistad)... and of course that would be the one picture that Mr. Saylor admits to having never actually seen. Giant, big budget pictures are a complete waste of time. Oooh, let's put some shiny bells and whistles in, let's put a big alien right here, now get a hot body with no talent and slap her naked breasts on the screen! Hooray for cinema!
The truth is simple. Is a picture made better with a Criterion release? Absolutely. Let's face it, The Criterion Collection is yet to release a bad picture. Even if said film doesn't exactly mesh with your taste, it should still be purchased, viewed and filed away... for educational purposes if nothing else. The good people at Criterion have given us a chance to see brilliant pictures like "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie," "La Commare Secca," and "The Beastie Boys Video Anthology." In a show of good faith to the "big budget" crowd, Criterion even released what is certainly the finest Hollywood film of a generation, if not ever in "Armageddon."
Mr. Saylor may think that he knows movies, and I might think that too if I was as diluted as he is. Should we take Mr. Saylor's critique seriously? Well, in the same way that you would listen to Fred Sanford at a wine tasting... he's certainly had "wine" in his day, but he'll have trouble distinguishing the difference between a Chateau Lafite-Rothschild and a bottle of Ripple. So, Mr. Saylor, you keep your Spielberg (and your Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich) films. Personally I'll stick to people with talent and an unblemished catalogue of films... like Darren Aronofsky.
posted by Cory | 5:42 AM
4 Comments:
For a man who doesn't like photographs in color, it isn't surprising that your taste in film falls toward the pretentious. I don't think anyone expected you to jump on this particular bandwagon. Most of us really like our big-budget Hollywood extravaganzas pretty well, as opposed to the average art house fare. There are a whole lot more bad movies bade for under fifty grand than there are good ones. The percentage goes up a little when you have to convince somebody to front you a few million bucks. The reason there are any decent indie films at all is because there are so damned many of them. By the way, I think Spielberg is great, and I think Ron Howard is great, hell, I even think Eastwood is great. As for all your artsy Italian directors, just give me the Coppolas, and leave the rest at home.
Aaron hates quailty, which is evident by his love affair with the Bad Boys films.
Cory also loves Bad Boys - I AND II. I really only Bad Boys II.
Other movies I deeply love that artsy folks like Cory hate:
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter
Deep Blue Sea
Con Air
The Rock
Pirates of the Caribbean
Event Horizon
The Patriot (Mel Gibson, not Steven Seagal, dammit)
Braveheart
Most Jim Carrey movies
Happy Gilmore
-----
Pause - oh my god Cory -- "Against All Odds" is on the radio and one of my underlings is humming it; unbeknownst to her, I AM ALWAYS ALERT)
-----
Anchorman
The Lasr Samurai
The ALIEN series... Alien 3 being my favorite
Hamburger Hill
Not Another Teen Movie
... to name just a very, very few
SCREW YOU, SUNDANCE!
Against all odds, now there's a piece of art. If your taste in movies was as good as your taste in Phil Collins jams then you'd be on to something.
Post a Comment
<< Home