tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post111970157341237011..comments2024-03-24T13:26:57.317-07:00Comments on Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule: NOTES ON SUMMER ACTION CINEMA Part Three: THE MICHAEL BAY PROBLEMDennis Cozzaliohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-1119732733457709322005-06-25T13:52:00.000-07:002005-06-25T13:52:00.000-07:00If all that quick cutting worked for me, to create...If all that quick cutting worked for me, to create excitement or suspense, I wouldn't have any objection to it--but it just gives me a headache and annoys me. If the way it's edited is noticeable, not to mention irritating, to a viewer, then it's not good editing, in my humble opinion. (Unless you buy into the suggestion that he's creating some new kind of bold art by deliberately challenging your way of watching movies, which is one of the least believable suggestions I've heard in some time). And yes, as you point out, in "The Rock" and "Armageddon," the credibility factor is so low that I find myself losing all involvement in the thing. I finally watched "Pearl Harbor" about a year ago, desperate for something to see while my wife was off at school, and I thought it had some decent stuff, as far as the staging of the action goes--and some not-bad work by the actors. It's plenty corny and silly, though, and drove me crazy with how modern and untrue to the period much of the dialog and behavior were. It'll take some convincing to get me to bother with another Michael Bay movie...and I LOVE summer movies in general.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com