THE ROCK/HAPPINESS?/A CIVIL ACTION
Ashley, Mark
though that Ed Harris seems to be in a completely different kind of film to
the rest. And anyway, I've never really rates Connery and Cage as "great",
although some of their films have been close.
As for the HAPPINESS/Shari/Rolando thing, I must admit it surprised me. (a)
It wasn't funny (to me anyway, but I could have missed the joke), and (b) it
didn't seem necessary (I'm sure Shari is *perfectly* capable of defending
herself (probably my most accurate use of the word "perfect"), that is of
course if she could be bothered).
Anyway, I saw A CIVIL ACTION last night, and, although it was OK, it doesn't
inspire me to write anything - one word review - flaccid.
Mark Ashley
-----Original Message-----
From: Sasha Stone [mailto:sst...@PRIMENET.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 12:52 AM
To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: Re: HAPPINESS: Review (Repost) -Reply
>Since you are unwilling to exercise the slightest consideration for others,
>including the courtesy of an accurate subject line to warn someone of your
>offensive posts, I will be deleting your posts without opening from here on
>in. May you learn something from the world of film but, frankly, I doubt
it.
But, see, the funny part is, Carol, Rolando's posts are almost always
obscene or offensive. That's what makes them so great.
He's been here longer than I have and that's a long time. It would be
ill-advised to delete his posts as they often the most entertaining of all.
He's mostly kidding but he refuses to use smileys so sometimes he enrages
people. But, though this is an annoying thing to hear, you might want to
A) lighten up...B) Rethink your position in a few days, C) read some of
Rolando's posts in the archives. You'll find him to be a funny, brilliant
satirist.
OCC-God, is THE ROCK the worst movie ever or what? I tried to watch it the
other night but couldn't bear to see those great actors in such a
ridiculous movie.
Sasha
Ed Owens
> I thought it was quite good (in a tongue in cheek kind of way). Strange
> though that Ed Harris seems to be in a completely different kind of film to
> the rest. And anyway, I've never really rates Connery and Cage as "great",
> although some of their films have been close.
It wasn't teh genre or even the performances in The Rock that bothered me...it
was the goddamned bad direction and editing. The constant zooming in and out
on Connery's face as he drives through San Fran; the quick cuts that make some
of the action sequences incoherent; the abuse of slow-mo and stylistic lighting
to add weight to otherwise banal goings-on. Bay's an amalgam of cliched
Hollywood styles and techniques rather than a director.
> As for the HAPPINESS/Shari/Rolando thing, I must admit it surprised me. (a)
> It wasn't funny (to me anyway, but I could have missed the joke), and (b) it
> didn't seem necessary (I'm sure Shari is *perfectly* capable of defending
> herself (probably my most accurate use of the word "perfect"), that is of
> course if she could be bothered).
Is this response a) to the movie, or b) to Rolando's response?
Ed
Ashley, Mark
vogue for "action" movies. I think I first noticed this choppy, hand held
technique in Lethal Weapon 3. So, I don't think it's fair to criticise the
director for using it - except to say how unoriginal - but then it isn't
exactly a genre that can cope with too much originality.
HAPPINESS etc: I haven't seen the movie so I can only comment on the
response (to the criticism of Shari... etc). It just struck me that
Rolando's post was pointless (and almost out of character - he may be
"offensive by default", but not usually abusive).
Mark Ashley
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Owens [mailto:eow...@GROUPZ.NET]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 4:23 AM
To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
dsod...@csc.com
> It wasn't teh genre or even the performances in The Rock that bothered
me...it
> was the goddamned bad direction and editing. The constant zooming in and
out
> on Connery's face as he drives through San Fran; the quick cuts that make
some
> of the action sequences incoherent; the abuse of slow-mo and stylistic
lighting
> to add weight to otherwise banal goings-on. Bay's an amalgam of cliched
> Hollywood styles and techniques rather than a director.
I haven't seen this film, but others of the same type. It is a new type of
action film, acknowledging that this type of story will be silly anyway so
it just dispenses with most of the story. Instead, the quick cuts is meant
to dazzle the audience, make a rollercoaster of film form, a display of
pure technique, much like, for example, Terminator II. It may not be art,
but in a good cinema it certainly is fun. I think you have taken the film
too seriously.
Regards,
Dag
Shari L. Rosenblum
>Though it is *meant* to be ridiculous, and succeeds admirably. Just the
>sort of brainless cheese that is great, once in a while. Just stow your
>mind under your chair along with your jacket.
>
>And it's perfect as an in-flight movie, when one's brain tends towards
>being Velveeta in any case.
I agree. I think it's engaging and fun. Many flaws, but nothing to
jar the suspense of disbelief. Cage, Connery and Harris are
all in on the joke, and they are deliciously over-the-top, each in
turn.
>Ditto Con-Air, from the same team.
Even better. Cusack and Cage. Even Malkovich and Buscemi become
engaging. (And this one has special meaning for me: it was my first
salvation from home in my first hot months in Hong Kong).
Shari
Ed Owens
> THE ROCK: The direction/camera work etc seems fairly normal in the current
> vogue for "action" movies. I think I first noticed this choppy, hand held
> technique in Lethal Weapon 3. So, I don't think it's fair to criticise the
> director for using it - except to say how unoriginal - but then it isn't
> exactly a genre that can cope with too much originality.
I'll agree with you on both the history of the choppy handheld camera in action
films and the fact that it's the current vogue. However, Bay's direction in
The Rock (and more recently in
Armagoddamnit-I-can't-believe-I-paid-to-see-this) isn't merely the annoying
handheld look that fans of the genre have come to know and love--it's all of
those things exaggerated to ridiculous levels (and not in the interest of
self-deprecation). The driving sequence is perhaps the most annoying with the
zooms in and out of the frame. It's hard to take in the widescreen version;
panned and scanned, it's enough to give an epileptic seizures.
Ed
Ed Owens
Put together a trailer that consists of little more than fistfights and
shootouts with the occasional car chase that climazes in a forty-three-car
pileup and a fireball the size of a small city while words zoom out of the
screen (accompanied by that swish sound that words apparently make when they
zoom out of theater screens) and house music played so loud I rise up out of
my chair with each thunderous clap of bass (which is the only thing I can hear
over the deafining explosions)....and I'm there opening day. Stop looking at
me like that...you know the trailer I'm talking about. Now, I consider myself
a man of some intelligence. I like the quiet art film just as much as the
next snob. But there's a button somewhere inside me that can only be pushed
by a trailer like the one I describe above. It's not rational. It's not even
sane in some cases (Immortal Combat with Roddy Piper and Sonny Chiba? I was
there...). But it happens.
So, when I comment about a particular action film, I am not entirely devoid of
any referent. Now, on to the issue...
dsod...@CSC.COM wrote:
> I haven't seen this film, but others of the same type. It is a new type of
> action film, acknowledging that this type of story will be silly anyway so
> it just dispenses with most of the story.
Agreed.
> Instead, the quick cuts is meant
> to dazzle the audience, make a rollercoaster of film form, a display of
> pure technique, much like, for example, Terminator II.
I understand all that. But my argument is that The Rock is excessive (nay,
even abusive) in its use of said technique. Bay takes the quick cutting to an
extreme, ignoring things like visual coherence (not narrative coherence, which
few action films bother with anyway) and common sense. The comparison to T2
in this sense is unfounded, as T2, and most other action films in general,
manage to employ the quick cut while maintaining a sense of cohesiveness (I
would argue that T2 is something more than just a rollercoaster of film form).
> It may not be art,
> but in a good cinema it certainly is fun. I think you have taken the film
> too seriously.
>
> Regards,
> Dag
Again, don't misunderstand me--I love mindless entertainment. Blade is one
of my top five films of last year. I totally agree that movies can and should
be fun. However, in the case of The Rock, both the director and the movie
itself have given every indication that the film is to be taken no other way.
Ed
Liquo...@aol.com
mark....@ESSENTIAL.CO.UK writes:
<< Anyway, I saw A CIVIL ACTION last night, and, although it was OK, it
doesn't
inspire me to write anything - one word review - flaccid. >>
I agree. I loved Robert Duvall's character, and generally love most anything
he's in, but I was even surprised he got an Oscar nomination out of it.
Though William H Macy was wonderful as usual.
-Robert
Sasha Stone
>The Rock (and
>Bay) are meant to be taken seriously, not as mindless, self-deprecating fun.
>
I agree totally, Ed. I can spot a movie that's supposed to be fun. (Hey,
I can "do" fun!) But you're right. Michael Bay *wishes* he was Scorsese.
I like good action movies, or even silly action movies, as much as the next
guy, but this one was just so sickeningly predictable, so badly acted, so
embarrassing to watch that I bailed out. 'Course, with the edited curse
words, that might have made it less "funny."
Sasha
Liquo...@aol.com
p.j.c...@DUNDEE.AC.UK writes:
<< Not with you Ed. From the first paragraph I read that the movie is fun,
and insist it be taken "no other way". Hence my remark on clarity of
purpose.
>>
I agree. I don't know how anyone could think they weren't playing CON AIR
for laughs. Especially in the closing credits when all of these cold blooded
killers are shown in a montage of smiling and laughing shot, yukking it up.
Liquo...@aol.com
sst...@PRIMENET.COM writes:
<<
I like good action movies, or even silly action movies, as much as the next
guy, but this one was just so sickeningly predictable, so badly acted, so
embarrassing to watch that I bailed out. 'Course, with the edited curse
words, that might have made it less "funny." >>
One of THE ROCK's funniest moments couldn't possibly play well on TV. When
Harris and the crew first locks all the tourists up in the Alcatraz cell, and
one of the guests shouts, "What kind of FUCKED UP TOUR IS THIS???" was
classic.
-Robert
ating
> "Ashley, Mark" wrote:
>
> > THE ROCK: The direction/camera work etc seems fairly normal in the current
> > vogue for "action" movies. I think I first noticed this choppy, hand held
> > technique in Lethal Weapon 3.
> The driving sequence is perhaps the most annoying with the
> zooms in and out of the frame. It's hard to take in the widescreen version;
> panned and scanned, it's enough to give an epileptic seizures.
This isn't meant to defend Michael Bay or Simon West (or Tony Scott,
probably the original sinner), but trying to watch one of their movies
non-letterboxed is like looking at a Monet through 3-D glasses. If
anything, their movies are about visual pizzazz and all three of them
really do take full advantage of the widescreen format.
I mean, would you even try to watch Breaking the Waves panned and scanned?
Too many movies shot in Panavision/widescreen underutilize its
compositional advantages (off the top of my head, The Parent Trap, for
one), so count me in among the admirers of Bay/West/T. Scott.
Andy T.
Ed Owens
Actually, I hadn't yet addressed Con Air. My comments were mostly about The
Rock. I agree that Con Air was largely for laughs...I just didn't think it was
funny.
Ed