I’ve never liked Fellini. There are just too many circuses, midgets and clowns for my taste. He relied on them in the lazy way Jud Apatow falls back on a dick joke. Sure, I understand that Fellini was trying to invoke a certain moodiness—conjure the grotesque—in films like La Dolce Vita and La Strada. But when I think of circuses, I think of fat-fingered kids shoving fried dough into their mouths by the fistful.
It’s obviously impossible to ignore the influence of Fellini as a director, however deep my anti-circus animus may lie. That’s why I have no issue with his films being included in the Criterion Collection. As their literature states, Criterion is in the business of canonizing “important classic and contemporary films.” To be released by Criterion is the benchmark of excellence. Their 25-year-old catalog includes indispensable work from masters including Cocteau, Renoir, Maysles, Kubrick, Cronenberg, Godard, Kurosawa, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Hitchcock, Sturges, and, of course, Fellini.
It’s an impressive list of talent, which is why you can imagine my surprise when I arrived at the director responsible for film #40 in their catalog. Michael Bay. That’s right, Michael Bay, the dung beetle of cinematic vapidity, best known for his unparalleled skill at rolling oversized balls of shit into our nation’s cineplexes. If you’re not familiar with his work—is this possible?—Bay is responsible for Bad Boys I & II, Pearl Harbor, and Transformers, not to mention the career of Megan Fox. (She hates him too). Currently, Bay is remaking The Birds, which I’m assuming will be re-imagined to include a bikini-clad Maxim covergirl who blows away blood-sucking zombie pigeons with a grenade launcher.
Bay’s end-of-times explosion porno, Armageddon, is the aforementioned #40, and thank your lucky stars because its been digitally remastered for all of posterity. Now you can appreciate the full scope of Bay’s inanity while partially losing your hearing—and your will to live—in ear-shattering Dolby surround sound. What’s more, Criterion’s Armageddon comes equipped with all those bonuses that cinephiles and academics have come to expect including previously unreleased footage, “Michael Bay’s gag reel,” and the Aerosmith music video “I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing.” Could there be more fitting a film than Armageddon to be bookended by Criterion’s #39 and #41, Tokyo Drifter and Henry V?
Assuming that the inclusion must be a mix-up of some sort, I went through their entire catalog and with the exception of a couple of oddities—Robinson Crusoe on Mars comes to mind—most of Criterion’s selections are solid. You just can’t argue, after all, with The Third Man, Wild Strawberries or Seven Samurai. But as you jump forward in time, many of Criterion’s contemporary picks become much more dubious. And now, here are The Ten Most Dubious Films included in the Criterion Collection:
10. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou – Director Wes Anderson, 2004
Wes Anderson doesn’t make movies anymore. He creates overly precious paintings inhabited by emasculated man-children who knit sweater vests to the accompaniment of Belle & Sebastian while fantasizing that they’re macho enough to skin a caribou with a pocketknife. The set pieces to The Life Aquatic are stunning, but watching this film is like visiting the Natural History Museum. It’s a beautiful building, but most of its pleasures are filled with lifeless things.
9. Night on Earth – Director Jim Jarmusch, 1991
Where Stranger than Paradise and Down by Law have found a well-deserved place on the collection, should Criterion really canonize every constipated misstep Jarmusch makes just because, well, he’s Jim Jarmusch? It’s like including Mel Brooks’ Robin Hood—Men in Tights out of respect for Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein. They should have called this overly-stylized snoozefest Two Hours and Eight Excruciatingly Pointless Minutes on Earth. In the end, it takes longer to get through Night on Earth than it does for Jarmusch to blow-dry his 15 pounds of hair.
8. The Man Who Fell to Earth – Director Nicolas Roeg, 1976
Would anybody really have noticed this movie were it not for its star, David Bowie? Sure, Bowie looks amazing, basking in the glory of his androgynous peak, but this film embodies the goofy excesses of the 1970s. LSD-inspired montages. Gratuitous nudity. Enough cheesy synths to fill two albums by Emerson Lake and Palmer. Roger Ebert says The Man Who Fell to Earth is “preposterous and posturing” and for once let’s give him credit. As the screenwriter of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Ebert knows a thing or two about the preposterous.
7. Man Bites Dog – Director Remy Belvaux, 1993
This Belgium mockumentary tells the story of a serial killer and the demented film crew that assists him in his crimes. Though it intends to be a clever satire on the media’s obsession with violence, you’ll be begging for mercy—more desperately than the film’s victims—after sitting through an hour and 36 minutes of over-top-top gore, disembowelment, and murder. It’s like Saw for gaffers and film school geeks. You get the point 20 minutes and two gang rapes into the film and will walk away wondering why people keep trying to out-shock A Clockwork Orange.
6. The Last Days of Disco – Director Whit Stillman, 1998
Really? This thing? All of Stillman’s films revolve around the “urban haute bourgeoisie,” AKA self-absorbed cokeheads in pleated khakis who are afraid of black people and never shut the fuck up. Stillman directed three films and this one differs from his others (Metropolitan and Barcelona) as being the one where the protagonists dance to Sister Sledge and get herpes. It takes place in 1981, roughly two years after the actual last days of disco, but that’s a minor quibble in a film whose script includes lines like “I think Scrooge McDuck is sexy.”
5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Director David Fincher, 2008
It’s appropriate that this film is about a man who is aging backwards since you’d need to regress to the mentality of a nine-year-old who’s feeling emotionally vulnerable because he lost his Pooh bear to appreciate it. The special effects are certainly impressive, but who thought it was a good idea to base a three-hour film on a gimmicky short story penned by F. Scott Fitzgerald? It’s so melodramatic and heavy-handed you’ll swear it was written by the same hack responsible for Forrest Gump. And of course it was.
4. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas – Director Terry Gilliam, 1998
Johnny Depp mumbles his way through this incomprehensible and depressing mess of a film. Halfway through your head will begin to pound, like one of those nights when the hangover hits before you’ve stopped drinking. Some of the film’s camera trickery—not to mention Ralph Steadman’s artwork—are things to behold. But ultimately, Thompson’s trademark wit is somewhere miles off screen getting its stomach pumped. Gilliam, who was so brilliant with Brazil and Time Bandits, seems to capture the essence of an older, more angry Gonzo (the one who liked to throw hand grenades on his ranch) as opposed to the wide-eyed cynic found in Hunter’s classic novel.
3. The Rock – Director Michael Bay, 1996
Ugh. That’s right. I failed to mention up top that there are not one, but two Michael Bay films in the Criterion Collection. It’s the kind of shock-inducing information you need delivered in increments. If they wanted to include an Alcatraz movie, uh, why not Escape from Alcatraz? Perhaps Criterion felt they needed a couple of signature “explosion” films to represent the genre. But given that logic, why not throw in Every Which Way but Loose to represent the “truck driver with an orangutan sidekick” genre too?
2. Chasing Amy – Director Kevin Smith, 1997
Even if you’re grading on a Kevin Smith curve, Chasing Amy is a doozy. Let’s be honest, Clerks and Dogma were far from being works of art either, but at least they didn’t feature gratuitous pouting by Joey Lauren Adams. For film historians, Criterion has been kind enough to include some bonus “Bluntman & Chronic” artwork as an extra.
1. Armageddon – Director Michael Bay, 1998
Et tu, Criterion? Wikipedia informs us that Michael Bay “donated his Bar Mitzvah money to an animal shelter” when he was a kid. I’m willing to bet he added this autobiographical footnote himself, perhaps during a lull on the set of Armageddon while waiting to blow up a helicopter. I don’t buy it either. It’s the type of line I picture him using to pick up women, right after applying Chapstick to make sure his lips are glistening. “That’s right baby, I’m a successful director, but I’m an activist too. I donated my Bar Mitzvah money to an animal shelter.” Maybe it’s the line he used to get two of his films included on the Criterion Collection too. I love you Criterion. You have impeccable taste. But if you add Transformers to your catalog you’re going to lose all credibility.
i love criterion. i love renting them on netflix, ripping them, burning them, and not spending $44 per film. thanks, criterion!
i disagree with fear and loathing. it is a good representation of the book and a man who is a falsely revered wasteoid hack. but the rest are pure rubbish.
i must be the only person on earth that actually enjoyed the life aquatic. it’s no tenenbaums, no question about that, but it’s still a great film. sure, the end was kind of cheesy and all, but fuck, bill murray was great. same goes for huston.
I was disappointed in Man Bites Dog. Premise sounded promising but goddamn if it was booooooooooooooring. It has moments where the camerawork is really amazing but it could have been cut to a good 30 minutes and been so much better.
agreed. i like the film although it leaves me feeling down. i remember when it was released and writers came down on it as a “drug film” and gilliam said something to the effect of “once you watch it, you’ll see it’s an anti-drug film.” well said.
You’re completely insane for putting The Man Who Fell to Earth on here, but I love the way you eviscerated Wes Anderson with the flick of a wrist. Also, Last Days of Disco might not be Citizen Kane, but Chloe Sevigny’s scrooge mcduck line was easily the best part of the movie.
safe targets because nobody likes your magazine anymore?
don’t dismiss the genius of michael bay
the life aquatic is a great movie if you’re not a douchebag.
It’s all a money grab - they get paid by Bay & us.
Wow, you’re not a pretentious hipster piece of shit at all. Really? Really? Everything has to be some moving art house film? Please, spare me the drivel. I love how you people think you’re the most educated and knowledgeable sources on everything. I went to film school too, and unlike the “cool to hate” culture time warp you idiots are stuck in, real film fans can appreciate a movie for what it is. Oh no! Armageddon! It’s not Citizen Cane or some obscure art house piece of dog shit that you can throw out in a conversation with a 17 year old girl to make yourself look cool! Then she’ll really suck on your coke boner. You people disgust me. Here’s a news flash: if every movie were up to your “expectations”, the world would be a boring, depressing place. People watch movies to escape reality. Some of us actually like to get lost in an “unintelligent” action film every once in a while. It’s called SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF you fucking chode. If you really think these films are terrible, how about you get up off of your ass, leave your computer, and make something better. Oh, I forgot…Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach try to provide constructive criticism. And those who can’t provide constructive criticism are annoying hipsters. You’re about as worthless as Hitler. You’re the disgrace of our generation. Go fuck yourselves.
^^^^
Get a load of this guy. Hey retard, the point was that an archival edition of Armageddon is a waste of effort and energy on the part of Criterion because 1.) it’s dogshit and 2.) who cares. It doesn’t have to be “art house” or anything gay like that to be good, but if you’re seriously trying to argue that Michael Bay’s “talent” is in any way analogous to that of Pasolini or anyone else at all ever, you should definitely consider fucking yourself.
laugh, laugh, LAUGH at ‘Bad Mother fucker’.
Look, hipsters DO NOT EXIST. It’s some kind of mass delusion from envious people who, for whatever reason, have some bone to pick with some perceived party they were not invited to.
You think I like the ‘hipster’ shit I have loved my entire life to be cool? If anything, I’ve had nothing but grief and had to justify why I like “faggy”, “bizarre” shit. Now that same stuff has attained credibility, I’m some kind of trend-chasing poser? Fuck off.
Plus, you used pretty much every moronic, cliched argument in the book. ‘If you’re so smart, why don’t YOU make a film? ‘ ‘You’re Hitler’. ‘Some people like trash because they want to be entertained.’ blah blah blah, you’re a moron. Probably a Kevin Smith fan.
btw, this article was spot on.
Are you shitting me? You are just like every other Michael Bay hater I’ve ever heard ramble on about how his films are pure shit while I’m sitting in a coffee shop. Skinny jean/wool cap/macbook fag. Yet, once again, you feel no need to explain why he sucks. Is it his camera work? Of course it’s jumpy, it’s an action film. Too many explosions? I fail to see how you can hate The Rock or Armageddon. They are his best films, true, pure action. I’m sure if John Woo would have made the exact same films, you would suck their dicks. Grow up. Not every film has to break new grounds in terms of dialogue or topicality. They can also just break ground in popularity and pure entertainment. You take Bay films for what they are, which is a 100% action fantasy sci-fi man movies, and they are quite good and always fun, save for Pearl Harbor.
And then you shit on Kevin Smith too? The polar opposite of Bay. Everything you obviously hate about Bay is what Smith is, and you hate him as well. He doesn’t have the best camera work, and he will be the first to admit that. But his dialogue is sharp, and the actors always deliver. He is a great actor’s director, and has built a cult following by balancing foul mouthed humor with great character development and heartfelt relationships. But what’s wrong with Smith? Too foul mouthed? Too popular? Who knows. Yet again, you fail to explain.
I’m not even going to get started on asking why you hate Wes Anderson.
Just go jack off to Harmony Korine and Paul Thomas Anderson.
Agree with you about Bay, and his inclusion is definitely deserving of some criticism, but sorry, i loved Life Aquatic… Wes Anderson has his own artistic style that is just ‘fun’ to enjoy…
Finally someone agrees with me that Forest Gump sucks donkey chode. I don’t care what anyone else thinks. That movie made me want to cut my corneas off.
Criterion generally annoys me because director’s commentary and all that other crap bores the hell out of me. I have no idea why people watch it.
Dear lolgasm,
Why does Michael Bay suck? Because his films are stupid. If you can’t recognize that, you are also stupid.
Sorry if that makes me a ‘hater’ or a ‘hipster’ or whatever bullshit you use to justify your inferior intellect.
Yours,
F Parker
“…but at least they didn’t feature gratuitous pouting by Joey Lauren Adams.” Hahahaha. Chasing Amy was awful, as well as Armageddon. Michael Bay is boring, fucking boring. Those films aren’t suspending my disbelief, they’re putting me to sleep. But I love Fellini, Anderson, and Jarmusch (because of their movies, not because it’s them), and I love art house, and I don’t talk to girls or have coke boners. I totally disagree with your take on Wes Anderson. And John Woo sucks now as well.
The Life Aquatic rocks
I couldn’t agree more with this guy on The Life Aquatic, just a terrible piece of shit. I loved Bejamin Button but it really should’ve just been a Paramount special edition like Zodiac. I disagree with The Last Days of Disco, that is an awesome movie. Boy was he wrong when it came to The Man Who Fell to Earth and especially Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, I mean I was pretty shocked to see Fear and Loathing on here. The top ten criterion Fuck Ups for me would have to be…
1.The Life Aquatic
2.The Rock
3.The Blob
4.I am Curious
5.Night on Earth
6.Martha Graham:Dance on Film
7.Flesh for Frankenstein
8.Variety Lights
9.Chasing Amy
10.Tunes of Glory
You have got to be kidding me!
Life Aquatic is visual poetry.
Fear and Loathing is the only movie I ever thought captured a book spot on… not to mention one of the coolest experiences you can have without scoring some ether and the adrenal gland of a living human being.
I hate Michael Bay’s movies, but you have to show some respect for the only two movies he made that were at least fun to watch….. just close your eyes during those damn lame-ass Kodak commercial scenes…. Wow, on further reflection I couldn’t imagine sitting through a commentary of either of those movies with Michael Bay and Bruckheimer…. even if they were alongside Bruce and Ben or Nick and Ed…. They could have made the Armageddon commentary worthwhile if they threw out the two lame-o’s and added Steve Buscemi, Michael Clarke Duncan, and Owen Wilson…. Now that sounds like something fun to watch.
View points, view points, view points.. I really love reading what everyone has to say about this ranking and each other.. I will list my favorites in order!
10. LOWBROW says, “i love criterion. i love renting them on netflix, ripping them, burning them, and not spending $44 per film. thanks, criterion!”
9. FRANCIS PARKER says,”hipsters DO NOT EXIST”
(get a cup at my coffee shop and look, listen and enjoy the asshole pouring it.)
8.LOLGASM says, “Skinny jean/wool cap/macbook fag”
7. DOCTORGRES says, “the life aquatic is a great movie if you’re not a douchebag.”
(Sooo, you’re saying you’re not a douche bag if you like it….right?)
6.To E says, “They could have made the Armageddon commentary worthwhile …”
5.FRANCIS PARKER says,”Probably a Kevin Smith fan.”
4.Vincent C > “I loved Bejamin Button but it really should’ve just been a Paramount special edition like Zodiac.” (!)
3. LOLGASM says, “I’m not even going to get started on asking why you hate Wes Anderson.
Just go jack off to Harmony Korine and Paul Thomas Anderson.”
(’Cause Paul Thomas Anderson and Wes Anderson are apparently polar opposites. Sir, you’ve went from building up Michael Bay, to defending Wes Anderson then to using Paul Thomas Anderson as an insult? Poor and Contradictory Insulting on your behalf!)
2.Bad Mother Fucker says, “I went to film school too, and unlike the “cool to hate” culture time warp you idiots are stuck in”
AND BY FAR THE BEST THING SAID SO FAR!
1. Andy > “I don’t talk to girls or have coke boners.”
You are all great…oh, and Fear and Loathing is the truth by the way! “Yeah, they cut her god damn head off, right there in the parking lot!”
Oh, I meant to say that Bad MFER’s, “the cool to hate culture warp” comment was great! I like it man.. makes a whole lot of sense, really.
Sure, the “cool to hate” culture is real and it’s immature and boring. That said, Fellini, Godard, Begman, Antonioni, Cassavettes, Fuller etc. made some really amazing movies (not all their movies but some ), while Chasing Amy sucked a hairy ass, and as for Michael Bay, I haven’t bothered because I simply cannot relate to exploding helicopters.
And by the way, I’m not hip at all.
Criterion edish of Robocop was the shit. I bought it at Sam Goody for $9000. It has 2 more seconds of that guy getting shot up by ED209 in the beginning. Plus storyboard samples!
http://www.criterion.com/help#q3
3. How does Criterion decide which films receive the “Criterion treatment”?
We aim to reflect the breadth of filmed expression. We try not to be restrictive or snobby about what kinds of films are appropriate. An auteur classic, a Hollywood blockbuster or an independent B horror film has to be taken on its own terms. All we ask is that each film in the collection be an exemplary film of its kind. Of course we can’t just pick movies and put them out. The process of getting the rights to release a film can take years. Even if we want a film, we can’t work on it unless the film’s owners grant us the rights.
Can the author respond to this? Are these films you are taking issue with not “an exemplary film of its kind?”
i agree with everything on this list.
I agree with most of your list. I think the list is solid.
But I disagree with Fear and Loathing in las Vegas. What does Gilliam’s failure to “capture the essence of the wide-eyed cynic found in Hunter’s classic novel” have to do with it not being worthy of being in the Criterion Collection??
It’s like saying: “Okay, I see that you consider this movie to be an incredible piece of work and an important contemporary film, but since I read the novel it was adapted from, and this film fails to capture essential parts of the novel, then it’s not an important piece of film”.
If a movie fails to adapt essential parts of a novel, so what?? …
If the final product works and the film is great, then, who cares?
Oops. http://www.viceland.com/int/v13n2/htdocs/literary.php
pretty much anything nicolas roeg directed deserves the criterion treatment. that includes “the man who fell to earth.”
like everyone else i agree with fear and loathing. as much as it has, in a lot of ways, blown up the gimmicky aspect of the whole thing into a new kind of funny-jock stratosphere it is just generally a very well crafted adaptation of a book that seemed impossible to adapt in the first place.
I thought I read something a few years ago that Disney had a deal with Criterion, hence why Wes Anderson and Michael Bay had their movies printed on their catalog. Also, I remember the head of Criterion defending these inclusions (esp. the latter) as more of a business decision than an artistic one.
Uh-oh. They’re trying to get explanations for jokes. The author should bail.
Wow! Such vitriol from Bay lovers. Good list. Funny. I agree.
The concept of creating a list of Criterion’s fuck-ups is brilliant because they have gotten so sloppy and pretentious, you really have to be a film student or an asshole to appreciate a lot of these films. Overall, a good fuck-up list. However, including Man Bites Dog was a bit low. I kind of understand this dude’s point, but the film was groundbreaking — just NOT in the way you explained. I’m not so sure it was supposed to be a comment on the media, I think that’s a rather obvious explanation that you could give to any movie. “Oh yes, um, Rushmore, totally a critique on modern media, yes, yes.” Whatever. I own Man Bites Dog, I’ve seen it many many times. It’s a crazy good film, and it’s not ridiculously violent like Saw or Hostel. It’s actually quite moving in some parts, I kinda think of it as a sister or brother to Blair Witch, which is another film that was pretty fucking cool and earned it’s place in 90’s cinema. I’m just saying, take another look at Man Bites Dog. Those filmmakers were pretty insane and awesome to make a film like that, and it’s really a beautiful movie too. Little things like when the audio drops out because the sound guy is across the room, that’s really good stuff. Everything else on the list is pretty much dead-on accurate, although Criterion does have so much garbage you easily could’ve made that list 40 or 50.
JEEEZUS! The pretense of this entire site is soooooo predictable and mind numbing. (unsubscribe) L8
I’ve got nothing against explosions or action movies (I prefer them to most art-house fair, really) but Armageddon is just such shit. Boring, sappy and uninspired. I liked The Rock quite a bit more, but don’t know if I’d consider it a classic, action or otherwise.
Have to disagree with “Last Days of Disco.” Stillman is the real deal; the things you criticize Anderson for–the lifelessness–is what Stillman’s movies seem to be on the surface, but underneath there’s a lot of emotion and generosity. “The Last Days of Disco” manages to be an American approximation of both Eric Rohmer and Jacques Demy. He’s a wonderful filmmaker.
Also, to the person who picked “Flesh for Frankenstein” as a fuck-up, it’s also kind of misunderstood. I’m surprised Criterion would pick it–they tend to specialize in “lecture” movies rather than independent/experimental cinema–but it’s certainly an interesting work. Not the most important stuff that Paul Morrissey did–his “Flesh,” “Trash,” and “Heat” trilogy would get that title (and his later ’80s work is up there too, but criminally unavailable).
I thought this article was funny but when i read the comments of people defending Armageddon, it took this from an 8 to a 80. People are hilarious!
I loved “Last Days of Disco.” The fact that you put that on the same list with Michael Bay is a joke. However much I disagree with that choice, man, am I relieved that someone out there hates Michael Bay as much as I do. I don’t understand people who defend that talentless douchebag. Not only that they use him as some kind of symbol for the working classes like Che Guevera. Here’s a piece of advice for those who use Michael Bay as the defender of the masses, Michael Bay thinks you’re nothing, he thinks you’re shit, and that’s why he rams it in your throat and eyes. Get a fucking brain and stop blaming hipsters for your terrible taste.
Chasing Amy is a gift that keeps on giving. Were you born in the 80’s?
Agree for the most part… except the life aquatic is downright wonderful and fear and loathing is great as well. my mother is in the man who fell to earth, but i agree it is pretty bad.
I feel like the poster combined Man Bites Dog and Straw Dogs in his head.
And is wrong anyway.
WOWkids is a comment aggregater. I would sign up for a service that provided this function.
I own the Criterion Armageddon release and the commentary track with Bay, Bruce Willis, and Ben Affleck (separately) is funny as hell.
night on earth is a great movie.
m.
Oh no! Someone’s opinion of movies differs to yours. You poor thing.
I guess the point is that Michael Bay movies are “exemplary” of bombastic, mindless, moronic Hollywood films aimed at LCDs. Sadly, do any Michael Bay movies need the Criterion treatment? Boy, if only I could see all those awesome extras that go along with “The Rock”! I’m sure I will learn all about the genius of Bay, and it will change my life for the better.
“The Man Who Fell to Earth” though is very representative of independent filmmaking of the time period. It may not be the author’s cup of tea but at least it’s not a Bay movie.
Hi,
my name is dickweed 3000 and I work for vice magazine where I write articles about movies. If you’re not aware, I’m a filmic genius (obviously, from the extensive films I’ve made) which gives me the right to bash movies that don’t meet my ideological/intellectual requirements. In fact, my genius is so huge that I totally miss the significance of huge blockbuster movies and modern Hollywood filmstyle. I also use my genius to judge the work of people who want to share their ideas or their fantasies with us because I AM BETTER THAN THEM! I enjoy the fact that I would rather persecute movies than be intelligent enough to defend or critique movies I love. Instead, I’ll spend all my time making myself feel better by bashing movies I don’t like, because if I didn’t fail as a filmmaker myself, I would surely make better pictures than these assholes! garrrrr, dickweed 3000 wants to feel superior to people who accomplished more than myself by bashing their work. aaargh. i don’t know my own tastes! I hate anything popular except for those five movies that I love but won’t openly admit!
I think there weren’t any clowns or any other circus thing in “La Dolce Vita”.
As for the list, I’d argue about “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” and “Night on Earth”. Especially the latter - come on, criticizing this movie is very not “Vice”
Oh come on, Michael Bay can pull off some amazingly adolescent shit like noone else.
In the words of Martin Lawrence’s character in Bad Boys 2: *This shit just got real*
Couldn’t you have scoured the Collection for some more original picks? people have been complaining about Armageddon in the collection for, like, 10 years or something. Though not many, there are far worthier targets that these requisite “I can’t believe Criterion put out Hollywood action movies!” faux shocking statements.
Wow, I agree with almost every statement in this article. It is a bit harsh on “Chasing Amy,” though, which although fun in a “Friday” stoners/losers flick kind of way, is definitely not Criterion material–but that’s because it IS essentially a “Friday”-type stoners/losers flick, despite the last-reel attempt to make a serious statement about love and possessiveness and whatnot. Which could have been Criterion’s justification for including it, although it was like Craig lecturing Debo about the moral imperative not to beat on women, even if they did do through your pockets while you was ’sleep. Or to look at it from another perspective, maybe “Friday” can make Criterion if the title is changed to “Chasing Felicia.”
Ha! I could have written this post. Thank you.
It’s a list of ten movies I started to watch, but stopped midway (or usually 20 minutes) in.
I think I lasted 12 minutes on The Incurious Banality of Benjamin Boring.
Wow. Vice really is cutting edge.
And Michael is correct: he COULD have written it. So could any uninformed reader of Vice. Sorry, I meant ANY reader of Vice.
Epic troll?
Though most of the rest of these entries are spot-on, The Last Days of Disco is pretty damn good. Lanham was, I believe, ten years old in ‘81, so I’m more inclined to trust Whit Stillman about when disco truly died. More disingenuously, “I think Scrooge McDuck is sexy” is a line that *other characters in the film* attack Chloe Sevigny for saying.
Pretty decent article. I’ve always wondered why Robocop was including in the Criterion Collection, although it seems to be out of print now.
Your opinion matters so much. Tell your estranged father you’ve made something out of your life, with your website…oh right, websites are 1 in a billion. NOBODY WILL REMEMBER YOU <3
Okay, the Michael Bay flicks and Benjamin Button are dubious, but you gotta be f@cking kidding about the rest on the list. The Man Who Fell To Earth? Fear and Loathing? Not On Earth? Last Days of Disco?!
This is yet another “look at my terrible taste” list that makes the author’s opinions regarding many films invalid.
Life Aquatic is damn good movie as is Last Days of Disco. Just because the the blogger didn’t like them doesn’t mean they aren’t deserving of the Criterion treatment.
Man… To bad people need an outside organization to tell them what movies are “important classic and contemporary films” and slap a fancy cover on the front so they can put them on their shelves and look artsy. Maybe you should make up your own damn mind what movies you care about and stop knocking somebody else for liking something different. Yeah…there actually are people who would rather watch Chasing Amy while you’re busy jerking it to Seven Samurai.
…smug asshole.
Criterion sees themselves as film historians, not elitists. Like it or not, Michael Bay and Kevin Smith are a part of film history, something Criterion recognizes, and they agreed to release these films under their banner.
In fact, some of the films in their library are in there due to a film’s importance, a film’s controversy, a film’s impact or a film’s capturing of a zeitgeist… sometimes in spite of a movie’s quality. And besides, in regards to a film’s quality, let’s face it: a movie’s worth varies from person to person. For a blogger to argue that one movie is more deserving of Criterion’s label than another is a narcissistic exercise.
Why are you writing articles about movies when you obviously have no taste in them? FUCK YOU!
You do know that Man Bites Dog was a satire? :O
Bodies, Rest & Motion is just about the only film I ever walked out of in the theater, and Criterion put it out on laserdisc. Nearly cost me all my faith in the justness of the world.