Action movies.
What's wrong with "stupid" action movies? Why can't an action movie be good for the (gasp) actionn? There will never be another Matrix. The two sequels proved that.
Get off of your intellectual high-horses, critics, I say. The second and third Matrix movies had some of the greatest special effects in movie history. Sure, they lacked some of the "philosophical underpinnings" of the parent film, but so what? Was the title of either movie, "The Matrix Academic: Get Your Philosophy Here"? No. There is a great place to get one's philosophy, if issues of human freedom and moral agency are one's cup of tea. They're called philosophy books.
Sure, some films get philosophical. That's fine. That's a very good thing, I think.
But why fault an action movie for not being a banquet of state-of-the-art special effects, as well as philosophically rigorous pieces? What was Neo supposed to do? Seriously contribute to the store the Western philosophical debate on free will and fate? Was Morpheus expected to give an oral defense for his dissertation on control?
Anyway, there was no more "philosophy" in the first than the sequels anyway, to be honest. Look closer.
This brings me to King Arthur. Several critics (I don't feel like coding the links, really, sue me) don't like it because it's just an action movie.
So the hell what?
Does one go to a summer blockbuster to learn about history, to hear debates on philosophical issues or to be entertained? Calling the movie unentertaining is a good criticism of a movie. But getting all over an action movie for not being historically accurate or philosophically rigorous is like faulting a philosophy book for being...dry.
For pete's sake, if you want philosophy, read Sartre. If you want to be entertained, go to the movies. If you want both, don't expect big-budget action movies to all be like The Matrix.
Seriously, though, the worst part about King Arthur was the lack of banjos and unicycles. There.
Get off of your intellectual high-horses, critics, I say. The second and third Matrix movies had some of the greatest special effects in movie history. Sure, they lacked some of the "philosophical underpinnings" of the parent film, but so what? Was the title of either movie, "The Matrix Academic: Get Your Philosophy Here"? No. There is a great place to get one's philosophy, if issues of human freedom and moral agency are one's cup of tea. They're called philosophy books.
Sure, some films get philosophical. That's fine. That's a very good thing, I think.
But why fault an action movie for not being a banquet of state-of-the-art special effects, as well as philosophically rigorous pieces? What was Neo supposed to do? Seriously contribute to the store the Western philosophical debate on free will and fate? Was Morpheus expected to give an oral defense for his dissertation on control?
Anyway, there was no more "philosophy" in the first than the sequels anyway, to be honest. Look closer.
This brings me to King Arthur. Several critics (I don't feel like coding the links, really, sue me) don't like it because it's just an action movie.
So the hell what?
Does one go to a summer blockbuster to learn about history, to hear debates on philosophical issues or to be entertained? Calling the movie unentertaining is a good criticism of a movie. But getting all over an action movie for not being historically accurate or philosophically rigorous is like faulting a philosophy book for being...dry.
For pete's sake, if you want philosophy, read Sartre. If you want to be entertained, go to the movies. If you want both, don't expect big-budget action movies to all be like The Matrix.
Seriously, though, the worst part about King Arthur was the lack of banjos and unicycles. There.
put here by Pragmatik at 6:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home