"I make movies for teenage boys. Oh, dear, what a crime."--Michael Bay
Snobby movie critics need to relax. Either that or Newspapers need to hire several critics which generate a more appropriate view of how a movie is received demographically. Like, hire a teenager who isn't a huge stiff to review a movie....or at least try to give me an accurate representation of whether or not my age group will like the film. I'm tired of listening to crabby old men who graduated with dual majors in English and Journalism bash films which pander to younger audiences.
When I can't get a conclusive review on a film, and I'm unsure whether or not I want to pay money to see it---I have a system.
Chances are, if the New York Times says the movie isn't sophisticated enough for the minds of Shakespearian stiffs who have nothing better to do then sit around and sift through bland 'classical' literature while admiring their framed Master's Degree in English and sampling the "1787 Chateau Lafitte" at their Wine Tasting Event-----I'm going to like the film.
I mean really. I'm looking at the review to see if the plot interests me, not to listen to your opinions on how the whole thing is apparently subconsciously racist and filled to the brim with militaristic propaganda.
Newspapers as a whole don't do a good job of reviewing movies for younger generations. We don't care that you're in the middle of your mid-life crisis and you try to make yourself feel important by bashing films with any ounce of patriotism or over the top action. We aren't pruning raisins with your heavily influenced political outlook on the world.
If you took the time to look at the finer points of general characteristics of young men, as outlined throughout the halls of history and your 'classical' literature, you might realize that we want action, crude jokes, and BAMFness in our films. I've already gotten my spoonful of Olde Victorian Drama thank you. Being forced to watch the "Critically Acclaimed" Jane Austen films or some other incredibly dull and boring crap during my High-School's English Satire class was a mind-numbing experience--I'm pretty sure no matter how glorious you make "Amazing Grace" out to be I'm still going to find it as boring as sh**.
I can certainly agree that I have been deeply moved by some dramatic films over the years, but if we're looking at making a sweeping generalization of what Teenagers-to Young Men want to watch---it's Action.
Say what you will about how action movies making our society breed violence and alpha-male attitudes in young men, or how it gives them a rather cavalier sense of death. I don't need to be told who I am by a narrow minded philosopher whose preaches tolerance but does not practice it. It's either your ideology, or the highway. I'd like to think that a wide number of Americans actually don't all like films that bash America over the head repeatedly with underlying tones of the 19th century Indian (Oh my goodness...pardon me, Native American) forcible removals....or films that portray the troops in a bad light.
On a side tangent, it is beyond annoying when News Media outlets make generalizations about our members of the military as war-mongering baby-killers, but all that talk is put aside when it comes around to our National Holidays--everything stated before that they oversaw and condoned is now irrelevant, and they try to blend into the crowds of just yet more patriotic Americans waving the flag.
I don't like the flip-flopping. I see through the veil, and you're not tricking me. Either support the troops full time, or at least don't try to two-face everyone. Just because one asshole decided to commit a war-crime doesn't mean that the entire military is like said-individual. Don't utilize the military as a pawn that you can bash when politicians you favor find that behavior acceptable. I have a lot more respect for people who stand their ground then jump on and off the bandwagon of conform.
Like Fox News. Is it ridiculously bias and incredibly sided towards conservatives? I'd have to be an idiot to try to defend them there--yes, they are bias and clearly conservative. But it's a nice change in pace to hear a news station not bash our country every 3 seconds. And at least they're open about their political motivations. They don't try to pretend to be something their not, they have views (sometimes extreme ones that I don't agree with) and they stick to them. They don't flip-flop their support for the military or attribute the mistakes of a few to the whole.
Anyway, this somewhat ties into what I was talking about---snobby movie critics. Good films, whether they're produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, or directed by Michael Bay, are made for young men. I'd say that a lot of them are made for patriotic young men. They're made for a specific demographic. This is why its a Pet Peeve of mine that only old farts with an anti-American bias (or anti-Troop/anti-Law Enforcement bias) do movie reviews---in all newspapers, not just the NY Times. Stop whining about how the plot isn't complex enough for you because you logged a ga-zillion credit hours in a useless major that just made you a literary jackass.
Some movies are supposed to have simplistic plots, you don't need to constantly create the next Hamlet.
Take "Law Abiding Citizen" with Gerald Butler and Jaime Foxx for example.
Most of my peers agree that they liked the film. The critics?
"Revenge never seemed so bland" states the Boston Globe. The critics spend more time over-analyzing how Jaime Foxx is "cashing in" on his previous Oscar by playing a part in such an example of "desperate movie making", then they do actually looking at the movie.
Who cares it was simplistic? It had Gerald Butler in it being a bamf...that's all we care about. And that's exactly whats pisses these self-proclaimed intellectuals off so much. How can a movie that isn't seen as a work of art in their eyes make millions of dollars upon opening?
What about other films?
How about the famous "Black Hawk Down"? That must have been received well right?
"The producer Jerry Bruckheimer seems to have been making Ridley Scott movies his entire career, but this is the first time he and Mr. Scott have collaborated. Tony Scott, Mr. Ridley's twin brother, teamed with Mr. Bruckheimer on movies like ''Top Gun,'' the gold -- or rather gold-filled -- standard for incoherent militaristic propaganda."--Elvis Mitchell, NY Times
Because the tale of Black Hawk Down illustrates militaristic propaganda so well....doesn't it? Nothing says join the military more than "watch this 2 hour long extravaganza about a mission that went totally FUBAR".
Or how about this gem of a quote.
"In 'Black Hawk Down,' the lack of characterization converts the Somalis into a pack of snarling dark-skinned beasts, gleefully pulling the Americans from their downed aircraft and stripping them. Intended or not, it reeks of glumly staged racism. The only African-American with lines, Specialist Kurth (Gabriel Casseus), is one of the American soldiers who want to get into the middle of the action; his lines communicate his simplistic gung-ho spirit. His presence in this military action raises questions of racial imbalance that ''Black Hawk Down'' couldn't even be bothered to acknowledge, let alone answer."--Elvis Mitchell, NY Times
Are you serious. Really. The race card? Just because they decided not to characterize A MOB OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. Hey I have a good idea, let's create a back story into 500 people, including artsy flash-backs and flash-forwards into points in their lives...before they dance on top of a downed BlackHawk.
You'd be looking at a 10-hour long film. This is of course "if we bother to acknowledge, let alone answer."
Mr. Mitchell, pull the race card where its warranted, like in a Civil War film or something, not in a movie about a military engagement that had nothing to do with racial conflict. We aren't looking at the race wars of South Africa pal. With Mr. Mitchell's mindset, we should all get upset over how a proper back story wasn't provided for every single member of a mob or riot from any scene in any movie having anything to do with any type of riot.
Alright what about Bad Boys II? That's an awesome action film and has two Black protagonists...
"'Bad Boys II,' in which Mr. Smith and Mr. Lawrence once again play a pair of Miami police detectives named Mike and Marcus, is the latest collaboration between Jerry Bruckheimer, who produced it, and Michael Bay, who directed. (Ron Shelton, director of the much better ''Hollywood Homicide,'' helped write the screenplay.) This one follows in the tradition of the earlier Bruckheimer-Bay pictures -- the first ''Bad Boys,'' ''The Rock,'' ''Armageddon'' and ''Pearl Harbor'' -- all of which made a lot of money and were otherwise pretty much worthless."--A.O. Scott, New York Times
I'll admit that Pearl Harbor sucked. But Hollywood Homicide? That movie SUCKED. "Bad Boys," The Rock" and "Armageddon" were all good films.
What else?
"Quite a bit was clearly spent on the assaultive, bombastic, and occasionally funny spectacle that is ''Bad Boys II.'' Mr. Bay may lack restraint (also taste, wit and shame), but he does have an undeniable flair for sleaze, noise and vulgarity. One of his most impressive feats is to film a nightclub rave scene so that the camera glides under the skirts and between the legs of the women. There is something leering and nasty about this that makes the more pervasive ogling in ''Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle'' seem downright wholesome."--A.O. Scott, New York Times
I've seen the movie. It's night club "rave" scene isn't offensive unless your a feminist. Find me a movie that doesn't have that stuff in it nowadays. There's nothing "nasty" about the club scene. Its about 2 minutes long, unlike your other example, in which success of the film was banking on young guys "ogling" the 3 actresses throughout the entire movie.
You say that Bay lacks taste. Well I guess by association I lack taste as well. As does everyone else who bought a ticket. Which is a lot of people...the movie made millions. Shit....looks like there's a whole lot of tasteless Americans out there.
As long as we're on the subject of "taste", why don't we look at some of the films the New York Times actually enjoyed. (Hint...it's not "Thor")
Wow. Doesn't that seem like a film where the political motivations are obviously clear. Anti-Bush perhaps?
Oh no! It's totally fair says the New York Times.
"Given the tenor of political discussion these days, it is inevitable that someone with a loud voice and a small mind will label 'Rendition' anti-American. (But look! A quick Internet search reveals that some people already have, many of them without even bothering to see the movie.) It is, after all, much easier to rant and rave about treacherous Hollywood liberals than to think through the moral and strategic questions raised by some of the policies of the American government. But it is just these questions that 'Rendition' tries to address, in a manner that, while hardly neutral it may not shock you to learn that the filmmakers come out against torture, kidnapping and other abuses nonetheless tries to be evenhanded and thoughtful."--A.O. Scott, New York Times
So you've started out your article by defending it against the obvious disgust that most Americans had for this film. Okay, not a good start. I've actually seen the film, and it's not fair. It's not a work of art that deserves a good movie rating. What do you know, its a bunch of Hollywood actors jumping on a bandwagon because its a popular thing to do....that's really all it is.
"Rendition may be earnest, but it is hardly naive. Rather, it tries to be thoughtful and respectful of complexity while at the same time honoring the imperatives of commercial entertainment. It has timely issues and serious ambitions, and it also has movie stars Reese Witherspoon with a huge pregnant belly! Meryl Streep with a Southern accent! Jake Gyllenhaal with sad, sleepy eyes! As well as young romance, breathless chases and violent explosions. Honestly, what could be more American than that?"--A.O. Scott, New York Times
What could be more American? Gee I don't know....the movies you hate? Transformers is chalk full of pro-military images, I think every Bay film is. It instills pride in your country, seeing all the cool angles on the fighter jets, or an amphibious landing. But that's not "American" apparently, its war-mongering and barbaric. Naturally the most patriotic Americans are the ones you identify the most with, the Americans who exercise their right to the freedom of speech.
Ugh..major part of the pet peeve. If you have such a problem with everything we do in this country why don't you just move? Side Tangent: People that continuously allude to our country's history with the Native Americans (Avatar) complain continuously. No...I'm not saying it was "right". But I don't think (if given the chance) half of the people who have such a vehement stance on it would be willing to move to a reservation themselves and give the land back.
"Taste" it seems, is only valid when it actively criticizes a political faction or policy.
Like this bowl of crap...
Yeah let me tell ya, that looks really American. Much more so than any of Michael Bay's movies.
NOT
I don't care if you don't think I'm sophisticated for watching Michael Bay films. Live life a little! Relax! Stop being a snob! The whole point of going to the movies is to sit down and veg out. If I'm a barbarian for wanting to watch some action that an Ivy League Journalist thinks is too simplistic, so be it.
But seriously.
Pet.
Peeve.
Of.
All.
Time.
--Fin--
