zero’s comment:
Master & Commander is good in that it didn’t suck they way you’d expect a Russel Crowe film to suck.
reminded me of something that roo and i have been bandying about for some time now. when did being just ok become the standard for acceptability? you see this all the time, people recommending things saying, “well, it’s not bad” or “it’s not terrible” or “it doesn’t suck”. what? are you kidding me? i can continue doing whatever i’m doing and have the same level of not being exposed to things that don’t suck by not watching/reading/listening to whatever you’re talking about, much less subject myself to something that’s just artistically tepid.
when did just not being bad start being the threshold for viewing? if you ask me, you shouldn’t watch a movie unless it’s actually good in some way, however you want to define it (acting, plot, direction, effects, action, whatever). why waste time watching things that don’t suck when you can watch things that are not only not just not sucky, but actually good, or even great? i just watched buster keaton in the general the other day, and it was fantastic. a little silent movie in black and white which could mop the floor with most crap out today.
i’m not trying to make this a rant on how things were better in the old days when we walked to school uphill and wrote on boulders, etc. but just don’t sell yourself or your time short.
mediocrity is a virus. don’t let it spread.
Posted at February 10, 2004 4:46 PMwell, sure…
just sometimes you don’t know until you see. and others you don’t want to watch something good. you want to watch solarbabies.
but in this case, i said it didn’t suck. it didn’t suck in a specific way. much in the way die hard doesn’t suck in the way you’d expect a film about some rebel cop running around fighting terrorists to suck. or egg rolls don’t suck in the way you’d expect deep fried cabbage to suck.
master and commander is better than russel crowe. but it isn’t city of god or triplets of belleville or even lost in translation.
yeah, but then again, they’re doing things like making a sequel to the *remake* of ocean’s eleven. calling it ocean’s twelve.
Posted by: e at February 11, 2004 7:29 AMocean’s twelve?
sigh. is soderburgh involved?
i mean, you saw the obvious sequel setup in the first(remake)…
and what can you say about that film? it’s not bad for a fun-night-out film. soderburgh does have style even if it’s better suited to The Limey or Schitzopolis.
but, sigh, why won’t hollywood just fall into the sea?
Posted by: zero at February 11, 2004 12:14 PMComments are now closed for this entry. Thank you for playing.