Courtesy of the New York Times, here is a meandering but good and interesting collection of thoughts on summer blockbusters, which are generally panned by critics. I don't think I'm as nearly as pretentious as many highbrow critcs, but then again, my Top Ten of last year only contained one or two big releases: M:I-3 in the ten spot and maybe Lady in the Water at number six. I'd like to think I reside in the cinematic mean between art and pop, capable of enjoying both.
There is definitely a place for what I call summertainment. I'm excited that the summer movie season has begun. I don't mind spending a couple hours watching cinematic eye candy like Spider-Man 3. But I have reasonable expectations; I don't anticipate being taken to new heights by any of the sequels in the next few months, but I would like to see good filmmaking. It's like going to a sporting event. I don't always expect phenomenal accomplishments, but I do expect to be diverted for a while, and I want to see teams and individuals play well. For me, good filmmaking or athleticism are part of being entertained. Just because my rating isn't high doesn't mean I didn't enjoy my time. Keep in mind though that like the author mentions, spectacle at its finest is buttressed by substance, as exemplified by films like The Matrix and Batman Begins. Movies like that are too few and far between. That is a shame.
A couple other movie notes: Shrek 3 will be my next movie. Apparently the running length is only 87 minutes. That will almost certainly be its strong point. Conversely, Pirates 3 is nearly twice as long, TWO HOURS AND FORTY-SEVEN MINUTES! Looks like a classic situation of the-trailer-is-better-than-the-movie. That may need to be one of my miscellaneous awards next year. I just need a namesake.
There is definitely a place for what I call summertainment. I'm excited that the summer movie season has begun. I don't mind spending a couple hours watching cinematic eye candy like Spider-Man 3. But I have reasonable expectations; I don't anticipate being taken to new heights by any of the sequels in the next few months, but I would like to see good filmmaking. It's like going to a sporting event. I don't always expect phenomenal accomplishments, but I do expect to be diverted for a while, and I want to see teams and individuals play well. For me, good filmmaking or athleticism are part of being entertained. Just because my rating isn't high doesn't mean I didn't enjoy my time. Keep in mind though that like the author mentions, spectacle at its finest is buttressed by substance, as exemplified by films like The Matrix and Batman Begins. Movies like that are too few and far between. That is a shame.
A couple other movie notes: Shrek 3 will be my next movie. Apparently the running length is only 87 minutes. That will almost certainly be its strong point. Conversely, Pirates 3 is nearly twice as long, TWO HOURS AND FORTY-SEVEN MINUTES! Looks like a classic situation of the-trailer-is-better-than-the-movie. That may need to be one of my miscellaneous awards next year. I just need a namesake.
4 comments:
Why are you going to see shrek 3? I wouldn't touch it with a dead body that I am poking with a stick.
That is...unless you can get me in.
Two words: free ticket.
You know, I read in the Wall Street Journal that they're already planning on making the next two Shrek sequels, which would round the series out to FIVE.
Is Dreamworks that desperate/pitiful?
yay free tickets. i'd say making two more shrek sequels would be kind of like roger clemens annual return to baseball. if you make enough money, why the heck not?
where do you draw the line? somewhere between shrek 4 and the porn industry i suppose...
Post a Comment