-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/michael-bay-has-simple-instructions-for-megan-fox.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Vic
You just have to read between the lines with an auteur like Michael Bay, or as I like to call him - The Thinking Man's Ang Lee.
Do you guys just run rewritten press releases? Because that sort of eliminates you from the possibility of objectivity. I mean, if you're in it for the money and freebies and to be ad whores, that's fine, but maybe you should just have IMDB comments or AICN trackbacks in place of reviews.
And I thought copying press releases was the answer.
Thanks Joe... You are a lifesaver. Now I can go back to catching up on my afternoon naps..
The AICN trackbacks can be kinda funny at times. No way near as funny as reddit comments though.
In other news... Megan fox is perdy.
Yeah! Anyone who doesn't fall in line is a troll! Sorry, I didn't think this place was called Film School Sycophants. Tell me, Neil et. al, when you guys came up with the name, was it about not kowtowing to the Hollywood system and using the internet to say what you want in the way you wanted? Or were you like, "hey, someday I'm going to run a site where I can kiss the ass of Peter Segal!" Peter Segal? He's like the very reason one would attempt to run a site independently of the system. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he is the least interesting filmmaker working consistently, and all you guys did was lob softball questions at him. When you get a chance to interview James McAvoy about Wanted, why don't you ask him how hard it was to keep up his American accent? Or you could ask Angelina about how hard it is to maintain household with so many kids. I guess you could change the name to The Three Junketeers.com.
If you guys interview actors, you know most of them are dopes, and when you ask canned questions, you bore them, and you make them feel smarter than they should be led on to believe. You ask them tough questions, perhaps about their craft, and you don't let them get away with you "I loved working with Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay/Will Smith, he's such a maverick." When they have to think you'll either amusingly find out if the person is an idiot, or if they are in fact really smart, in which case they love being challenged and will warm you to right away, and want to talk to you, and say interesting things that don't show up on the press packet. I'm sure you'd prefer this, as opposed them feeling obligated to talk to you, gritting their teeth as they smile.
Let me know when you start formulating your own opinions.
The reason I asked if this is about the money in a comment above, is because I doubt you guys wanted to start a site derived from so much fanboy nonsense. You love film, otherwise you wouldn't put so much effort into updating and maintaining the site. What would more depressing is if you were movie lovers who ended up with this on purpose, sucking the soul out of your interests, to the point where it becomes like any other mindless job. Wouldn't it be less of a downer if you did the rote and monotonous stuff as part of an uninteresting, but reasonably well paying office job, as opposed to what should be your hobby?
What sort of opinions would you prefer we have there, Joe? It appears that it isn't a lack of opinion that bothers you, but rather the fact that you don't agree with our opinions.
And as for your entire second paragraph, I'm just not sure how to respond, as I'm not sure what you are trying to say there...
See, the thing about sweatbands is that they're pragmatic garments. It's tough to make sense of that, especially in a culture where the things we wear are usually arbitrarily stylish instead of useful - in the classic sense of the word. Clothing that does a job is normally unattractive. Not that the two situations are mutually exclusive, but it's more often than not the case.
I think we all know what I'm getting at here.
Actually, I could care less if you agree with my opinion, but surely if you saw enough movies every year (and not just the mainstream releases, I think I remember seeing something about someone going to Sundance for this site) the first thing that happens is that the traditional Hollywood product becomes really stale and boring, and even more obvious as a cynical cash-in. So when I see a half-hearted, example free review of Get Smart, the only think that comes to mind is that you want to make sure you can maintain a relationship with the studios by praising their product. Hollywood plucks people out of film schools and sends them to read scripts and make copies before they either burn out or slowly move up the ladder by being a yes man. If you perceive as Film School Rejects, you are saying you don't give in to soulless retreads (like Get Smart, which I've seen and could hardly have been more bored with, it was simply so thrown together and test marketed to death as to delete any sense of wit or individuality, and I say that understanding the fact that it is a lowbrow comedy), and you are proud of your ability to parse the crap from the brilliant, drudging through the system, not supporting it with brownosing. If all you're doing is quoting MTV.com, you're mostly worried about the 13 year olds who populate places like IMDB and AICN, and who Hollywood they will solely cater to. Maybe I was wrong, but I assumed you were adults, not teenagers with braces and acne.
I'm not suggesting you hate every single movie to come out of the system, it is often a miracle with the all the script changes and watering down studio movies go through that one even manages to be halfway coherent. But have some backbone, please. What would be worse is if you weren't even aware you were being a shill.
"And as for your entire second paragraph, I’m just not sure how to respond, as I’m not sure what you are trying to say there…"
I was saying that if this is your passion, why is it so littered with what you think the everyone wants to read, as opposed to what you want to read. If this is how you make your money and you could care less about anything other than pleasing the sponsors, fine. But I assumed that this was a hobby, and your passion, that you just happened to have developed into a largish site. If you want to do boring, soulless work, it could easily be done in the safe confines of any corporate office, living the Office Space life. There's very little worse than hating something you used to love. You don't want to be the main contributer in your own misery.
"
See, the thing about sweatbands is that they’re pragmatic garments. It’s tough to make sense of that, especially in a culture where the things we wear are usually arbitrarily stylish instead of useful - in the classic sense of the word. Clothing that does a job is normally unattractive. Not that the two situations are mutually exclusive, but it’s more often than not the case.
I think we all know what I’m getting at here."
The internet has completely ruined legit film criticism. It has entirely contributed to the conversion of newspapers to entertainment magazines that occasionally throw in things that are actually important. The reason is because the internet allows all sorts of yahoos to write a paragraph or two describing the plot and then conclude with, "this sucks because it sucks." or "this was awesome m8!" Not that that sort of retarded claptrap would disappear if you went back to the era where the critic had gravitas. But when you are given the opportunity to see every movie that comes around the pike, for free or even better, get paid to do it, don't become a celebrity whore or gossip monger. You have a rare opportunity and you have to distinguish yourself from the masses. Otherwise, you're just Harry Knowles without his Jazzy, someone who decides that drug induced, poorly written, incoherent reviews, should count as criticism.
Film critic.
Which is why I'm bothering in the first place.
I've been saying the same thing for years on various forums, critical thinking is not bias, and it doesn't make you a contrarian. But calling yourself a Film School Reject and then sucking up to people like Peter Segal, who stands for everything film criticism does not, is hypocrisy at its most unfortunate. The point of running a website such as this is not answering to anyone, not worrying about what the Fox or Sony rep might think about you, and whether or not they hold meetings telling the star's agents to avoid you. Film criticism has disappeared because of a lack of accountability to one's own words, but here you are, not taking advantage of the ability to have no accountability.
Just trying to clarify, here...
Just trying to clarify, here…"
Actually, I think it is worse. I think you don't even know you're pandering.
I will say this -- you have a point when you say that if we should not just be writing what we think people want to read. You also have a point about Harry Knowles and his Jazzy -- no one wants to go down as just another web fanboy that who loves up every movie that is screened for him ahead of time.
So I thank you, for the feedback. We're working on it...
And in my defense, I did enjoy the simplistic nature of "Get Smart" and I found that the cast carried it quite well. Then again, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I will say this — you have a point when you say that if we should not just be writing what we think people want to read. You also have a point about Harry Knowles and his Jazzy — no one wants to go down as just another web fanboy that who loves up every movie that is screened for him ahead of time. "
So they why all the studio news and notes and reviews of everything that gets a $60 million marketing budget? Why not review what you want the public to know about, some small movie that gets no attention, some film that isn't getting a US release, even on DVD, because of some stupid Weinsteinism (cutting it then shelving it in favor of a remake)? Your enthusiasm should not be in line with the studios. They are a corporation solely interested in money. The entertainment, let alone artistic value, is 9th or 10th on their list of concerns. They don't even care if the audience likes the movie, as long as they buy the ticket. A person should never be completely in tow with a corporation because it means your thought process is so middlebrow that you have watered it down to please thousands of shareholders without offending anyone. Not much of a loft goal for a lark website, is it?
I don't know. My spyware protection is blocking that particular picture.
You are missing out, Joe -- the picture is the best part of the article. :)
It's breathtaking, my friend. Like wiping sleepy eyes on Christmas morning only to see a bounty of presents left overnight. Like the first sunrise a man sees after being wrongfully imprisoned. Like the smell of mom's cookies and dad's pipe filling the house you grew up in.
Plus, she has a tattoo near her no-no spot, which makes me think she's a little dirty.
It’s breathtaking, my friend. Like wiping sleepy eyes on Christmas morning only to see a bounty of presents left overnight. Like the first sunrise a man sees after being wrongfully imprisoned. Like the smell of mom’s cookies and dad’s pipe filling the house you grew up in.
Plus, she has a tattoo near her no-no spot, which makes me think she’s a little dirty."
Megan Fox is a plastic doll of blandness. Pretty in theory, boring in practice. Try having a conversation with the "beautiful people" and you'll understand what dullards they are, and how the reason they crave the spotlight is because they can't think of any other way to validate their non-existence.
Is there anything that you do enjoy? Better yet, can you see any upside to our little website here, or should I just go get my revolver and have myself some steel for lunch?
Maybe I'm reaching for a compliment here or maybe I just need to be talked down off the ledge -- either way, everything you have to say is soo bloody disappointing that it is soiling my otherwise beautiful afternoon...
What I don't understand is why critics think that "the public" wants indie stuff they've never heard of instead of the big blockbuster they'll talk about with everyone. I mean, come on, there's a reason why indie stuff is indie -- and it's not always about the money. Some people just aren't down with films that they "can't understand" or find boring.
I think the Onion AV Club does a good job of diversifying their content (no, I don't write for them). Sure, some of the writing is sloppy and rushed, but they put out so much material, that has to be expected. I like the way they go back and look at classics they missed, mediocrity they can't believe they watched, wonderfully terrible films of the past, and thoughts we've all had, how does a director or actor in a truly wasteful movie justify the film on a commentary? You don't have to be like them, but Transformer sequel news is for people with short attention spans and mouthbreathers. You wouldn't engage them in a conversation for very long, at least I hope not, if not for the sake of simply being nice. People don't like to be challenged, but you have to force them to consider alternate avenues of thought, otherwise the status quo will remain.
Studios, no. But we do pander to the crowds that you describe in this sentence. That is, as Jonah Hill would say, "fo sho."
Judging by your hatred of Get Smart, Transformers, studio films, and "mouth breathers" (I have a deviated septum!), I'm sure you're much more at home watching obscure French flicks or documentaries on global warming. (Fight Universal Cooling! Heat Death will kill the Universe!)
But for example, I can personally attest that we've reviewed a lot of independent and DVD release films. Check out the coverage of the entirely Independently produced After Dark Horrorfest, our review of the shorts of the, again, Independently released Shriekfest Films, and stay tuned for an interview with a writer/director who has secured distribution on films that are budgeted in the hundreds, that are still worth watching. And that's just me. I know we've covered tons of film festivals and given voices to a lot of smaller films - and we've panned big films. What you're getting here is honesty. Paramount could never give me enough to make me say I loved "Crystal Skull."
It's easy to attack a film based on its perceived artistic quality. Transformers is not about changing the world, its about getting away from it. Movies have always been about escapism. Get Smart makes someone laugh. Transformers makes me squeal like a school girl. And whatever you watch pleases you. I used to have a dumb quote that basically said a critic needs to realize that some movies are good because they're fun and others are good because they're well done.
I'd rather watch Terminator 3 than Schindler's List on any given day.
Studios don't need critics to inform the public of films like Get Smart, which have been promoted to death for the better part of a year. However, indie films do need it, and that's why the critic's status is important, to tell you what you're missing. Besides how long can you talk about blockbuster garbage in depth? The problem with the movement towards video game and comic book adaptations is that the public is now focused of the minutiae of the original design and whether or not it retained whatever incidental detail that they grew to love. Or rather, told to love.
May, are you saying that you don't like discovering new films that you would have never normally heard of? Have you ever had an invigorating conversation with someone about film that wasn't focused on how many things blew up and how much the movie cost, but rather detailing the characters' various struggle to deal with (not necessarily overcome) whatever realistic issue, and what you might have done in that situation? If you haven't, you're missing out. But if you just want to watch noisy garbage, that is produced with toys in mind, it is your loss.
Why? Was that your goal all along? Couldn't you provide material that can't be found in 100 other places? You're already admitting it by quoting MTV.com, which is why I asked the various questions above.
to add to fure's response above... if you spent more time actually browsing FSR you'd find columns and tags such as Old Ass Movies, Foreign Objects, Indie Spotlight, etc... all of which are dealing with films outside the big budget Hollywood bubble. Neil himself won't shut up about "The Wackness", a small film he's been pushing since Sundance. The fact that he can love that and "Transformers" just shows his bad movie taste isn't bound by budget or studio promotion.
Joe,
I would love to visit your website and give my opinion of it ...
You should really step back and read what you're writing, because you're coming off as someone who hates things just because they're popular - and when I make that critique of you, you've possibly gone too far as I'm "the angry hateful guy" around here.
My point remains: I don't know of anyone in "the public," besides those already interested in indie movies, who goes to a critic looking for indie movie suggestions. And I don't understand why you, as a critic, would think that most people want that information, when the trends show remarkably otherwise.
"dIsInFoTaInMeNt ToDaY consists of information from dozens of sources, cut up, thrown in the air, and recycled randomly. It is sent all over the place, so I apologize if you're seeing the same thing twice. If you see a joke, graphic, or news item that came from or through you, thanks, send more, and please accept the fact that much of dIsInFoTaInMeNt ToDaY is unacknowledgeable, and if I sought permission from everyone whose bastardized material showed up here, I'd never get anything else done. Please note that I don't even put my own name on it. If you're still pissed off, hey, it's fair use."
Thanks,
Joe Kizanu
Boring and sloppy
Does anyone know a way to revoke a web hit ... I don't want Joe thinking somebody visited his website today
I think that there's always the "danger" of becoming less edgy in one's opinions as a site of this type grows and one wants to actually get access to productions as far as visiting the set, edit bay, actor & director access, etc.
I think there is a sliding scale when it comes to film: You have those who look at it as pure entertainment on one side and the opposite end (where I believe you fall) where people think it should be pure art. I'm in the grey area myself - I go to movies to be entertained, but I want them to engage me as well (for example, I thought "Transformers" was crap, but I really enjoyed "Iron Man"). I've also given my small share of good reviews to a few films from Sundance that I thought were excellent.
If someone is going to make a movie without mainstream appeal, they shouldn't expect it to earn mainstream dollars. Look at the wave of anti-American war movies that have come out in the last year that people have stayed away from in droves.
Me, I try to review movies for the the average person while trying to educate them a little bit to improve their discernment. On the other hand I can just enjoy a movie even if it's not "high art." For example I found "Get Smart" to be a very enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. It's a comedy and it achieved its goal by making the audience laugh throughout the film, myself included. No, it's not biting satire, but so what? It was funny.
On the other hand, I'm sure I'm going to take tons of heat for the rather less than positive review I'm going to give to "Wanted," but so be it.
As I've told more than one person on my site in the past: It doesn't cost anything to start up your own blog.
Vic
Does anyone know a way to revoke a web hit … I don’t want Joe thinking somebody visited his website today"
"Not to be a dick or anything, but I googled you and couldn’t find anything that resembled actual articles or reviews written by you, which I find surprising considering your apparent passion for film."
You two should google Bill Brasky and see what you come up with. I don't see any legit film commentary or reviews under his name either. Hell, when I googled May, all I got was a bunch of calendars.
"if you spent more time actually browsing FSR you’d find columns and tags such as Old Ass Movies, Foreign Objects, Indie Spotlight, etc… all of which are dealing with films outside the big budget Hollywood bubble."
Why do I have to browse into your archives and randomly across a review or news note from 3 months ago? Isn't the fact that when I last looked a few hours ago, of the first 30 stories or so, the only one that referred to something that was a big studio film was the one that linked to the trailer of The Wackness.
"And I don’t understand why you, as a critic, would think that most people want that information, when the trends show remarkably otherwise."
Man, that is just too cynical and defeatist for me. Don't write about something because not everyone wants it? Who cares what everyone wants? Film criticism has drifted into a niche market, and worrying about trends is an abhorrent thought, especially, when if you write about interesting things and do it well, people will find you. Why try to appease the majority of the public? Despite the fact that nothing he did has benefited them at all, half of the US voted for Bush... Twice. This just proves that people often act against their own interests, and there's nothing you can do about that stubborness.
"I enjoy FSR as more of a USA Today giving me a lot of information without overloading my brain."
USA Today is not a flattering comparison to anything.
"What’s with the personal remarks when I’m making a general observation about 'the public' as you called them? Didn’t make you feel good enough to just respond about something? What’s with trying to 1) pretend you know me and what I like or desire and 2) try to insult me based on what you pretend to know about me and what I like or desire?"
It was based on the fact that you kept using the words my and I. Maybe I was overreaching by thinking that you were referring to your own views and opinions.
"I’m sure you’re much more at home watching obscure French flicks or documentaries on global warming. (Fight Universal Cooling! Heat Death will kill the Universe!)"
That's right, I must be an elitist snob [and French!] because I don't think covering every little detail about the Transformers sequels is even worthy of being copied and pasted. Personally, I'm not into many of the environmental/political documentaries, because they all have the same issue. They are films from liberal perspectives on conservative subjects. What that means is that the audience who needs to see it, won't, especially because they won't play it in rural areas (did you know that Marjoe never opened in the south because the distributors were afraid it would upset the locals to find out their preacher was a fraud? Why even bother making the movie if you're not prepared to reveal that?). I said the same thing to Harvey Weinstein when he was testing Shut Up and Sing, which is even worse, because if the liberal audience doesn't like country music and the conservative side doesn't watch documentaries, who is going to see it? He scoffed and told me he was the expert on these things. Of course it never did find an audience, and the movie itself is rather tragic, because these girls the chance to speak and all they do is make further fools of themselves.
While I love the documentary genre, I tend to prefer the more provocative carelessness and insight of someone like Errol Morris and to a lesser extent, Michael Moore, because as loose he is with the facts, he brings up important issues and makes you do your own research, even if he himself doesn't have the answers. Neither of them seem to be preaching to the converted.
While I do like some French films, my true passion is trash. As Pauline Kael said, if you can't enjoy great trash, you can't enjoy good movies either. Transfomers doesn't qualify because it has no ingenuity and is completely soulless, just a lot of random money thrown at the screen, recycled jokes, and no individual passion or perspective. Cloverfield was magnificent garbage, and it had a point of view, even if you think the characters are shallow (they are), and the world they created completely empty (which it is). The director doesn't have to agree with the character's plight in order to be successful or genuine.
I know I already responded to this quote but this is just so, so sad. If someone gives you an endorsement like your material is "not too taxing on my brain," you should rethink what you're doing.
and you are by far a better internet editor than Neil Miller ... look at how much attention to detail you posess ...
"dIsInFoTaInMeNt ToDaY consists of information from dozens of sources, cut up, thrown in the air, and recycled randomly."
I'm not away of any site out there that rides 1,000 word in depth reviews into only obscure things or that reports the news according to the scientific method.
And if someone compares FSR to USA Today, thats great. USA Today outsells the Wall Street journal by 500,000 prints a day and outsells the NY Times by a million.
It becomes more and more apparent you are out of touch with just about everything.
endorsement. If you liked My Left Foot, then you will surely enjoy Transformers
It's really disgusting.
And as of this moment, I'm boycotting Film School Rejects.
Transformers.
Have you and I ever met in person? Your affection for Pauline Kael makes you oddly familiar...
Just curious.