Saturday, June 21, 2003

To follow up on my Hulk comments from yesterday: Last night at Borders, I heard some people talking about it, referring to it as an "art-house" movie. This morning, I read a review from the New York Post describing it as "artsy." What, just because it's not balls-to-the-walls action? I mean, come on, we're not talking Chien Andalou here. This isn't the Babette's Feast of Hulk movies, for God's sake. Is this what we've come to? Is any movie that isn't just plain stupid now an "art-house picture?" You can't have a movie that appeals to mainstream audiences that isn't dumb as a bag of hammers?

No comments: