The cinema of Jerry Bruckheimer

Critics tend to hate his films while audiences can't seem to get enough. So what is Jerry Bruckheimer, producer of films such as Pirates of the Carribean and National Treasure to modern cinema. Is he just a hack or is a showman of the highest order?

Personally I enjoy the man's films. I know I'm always going to see attractive people, lots of action and the ability to accept an implausiblities in his films and just enjoy the ride.

 

He knows what the masses want to see, and he feeds it to them. The movies he produces tend to be glitzy, sparkly, expensive brainless entertainment, catered to the lowest common denominator. They are style without substance, generally the same stuff repeated time and again. They are the McDonald's of cinema.

Often they're entertaining if you just want a couple hours of stupidity and explosions. Occasionally one even comes out that halfway decent. Mostly they're just colorful crap.

 

His movies occasionally make the pulse race, but for the most part it is just very good looking crap.

 

Mostly they're just colorful crap

Gotta agree there.

Jerry Bruckheimer(and Michael Bay's) movies are enjoyable but they don`t really have anything going for them except for tension and action sequences,I mean he`s produced good summer popcorn movies but never a movie on the line of cinematic excellence

 

"but never a movie on the line of cinematic excellence"

I don't know, Blackhawk Down was as good a war movie that I've seen in a long time. Certainly better than Pearl Harbor.

 

He was involved with Black Hawk Down I may have to reconsider...

 

I just found out not to long ago myself that BHD was produce by him.

 

His films were alot better when he collaborated with the late Don Simpson. In fact I was just watching some cool behind-the-scenes featurettes on the Top Gun Special Edition DVD that I picked up today for $8.99 at Fry's. The stuff they made together was pretty solid. I've found much of Jerry's solo-producing movies to be horrible.

 

You have to remember with Black Hawk Down, you're mostly seeing Ridley Scott. In fact, the only part of the film that sucks is the saccarine, flag-waving, we-have-to-redress-the-arse-kicking-the-US-soldiers-got- without-some-contrived-crap-about-going-back-and-being-teh-win!!1! ending, which stinks of Schmuckheimer.

I find his films crass, lowest common denominator crap-fests, in case you couldn't tell, and lament the fact he's involved with Black Hawk Down.

 

For reference, a list of his productions...

Deja Vu (2006)
G-Force (2006)
"The Evolution of Man" (2005) TV Series
Pirates of the Caribbean 3 (2007)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) Glory Road (2006)
National Treasure (2004)
C.S.I.: NY TV Series
King Arthur (2004)
Fearless (2004/I) (TV)
"Skin" (2003) TV Series
"Cold Case" (2003) TV Series (executive producer)
Bad Boys II (2003)
Veronica Guerin (2003)
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) (producer)
"Profiles from the Front Line" (2003) TV Series (executive producer)
Kangaroo Jack (2003) (producer)
"Without a Trace" (2002) TV Series (executive producer)
"CSI: Miami" (2002) TV Series (executive producer)
Bad Company (2002) (producer)
Black Hawk Down (2001) (producer)
"The Amazing Race" (2001) TV Series (executive producer)
Pearl Harbor (2001) (producer)
"CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" (2000) TV Series (executive producer)
Remember the Titans (2000) (producer)
Coyote Ugly (2000) (producer)
Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000) (producer)
Swing Vote (1999) (TV) (executive producer)
Max Q (1998) (TV) (executive producer)
Enemy of the State (1998) (producer)
Armageddon (1998) (producer)
"Soldier of Fortune, Inc." (1997) TV Series (executive producer)
Con Air (1997) (producer)
The Rock (1996) (producer)
Dangerous Minds (1995) (producer)
Crimson Tide (1995) (producer)
Bad Boys (1995) (producer)
The Ref (1994) (executive producer)
Days of Thunder (1990) (producer)
Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) (producer)
Top Gun (1986) (producer)
Beverly Hills Cop (1984) (producer)
Thief of Hearts (1984) (producer)
Flashdance (1983) (producer)
Young Doctors in Love (1982) (producer)
Cat People (1982) (executive producer)
Thief (1981) (producer)
Defiance (1980) (producer)
American Gigolo (1980) (producer)
March or Die (1977) (producer)
Rafferty and the Gold Dust Twins (1975) (associate producer)
... aka Rafferty and the Highway Hustlers (USA: reissue title)
Farewell, My Lovely (1975) (producer)
The Culpepper Cattle Company (1972) (associate producer)
... aka Dust, Sweat and Gunpowder (Australia)

 

Look at all that crap. I cannot call what he does "cinema." The man makes popcorn flicks for the most part.

 

Thief, now there's a good movie. Michael Mann's first film. James Caan starring. Anyone who's a fan of Heat should see this movie. So many similarities. I didn't even remember that Jerry produced that.

 

Jerry Bruckheimer is somewhat akin to a wealthier, but less artistically inclined, David O. Selznick of modern times, at least in his more recent ventures - he has perfected the "art" of making glossy, assembly-line pieces of manufactured audience manipulation. Bruckheimer makes "popular entertainment" that is often popular, but not always entertaining; he will court gifted filmmakers, such as Dominic Sena, Tony Scott, Simon West, and others, known mostly for their over-produced music videos (Sena has directed a great film, though, "Kalifornia," starring Brad Pitt), and hire them to craft over-produced feature length extrusions. Sometimes these films will be good examples of escapist entertainment (such as "The Rock," "Crimson Tide," "Con Air," and "Pirates of the Caribbean," to name a few), whereas in other cases, the pictures themselves become tiresome entities which terrorize audiences with their cacophonous array of sound and chaos - movies such as "Armageddon" are so furiously kinetic that any semblance of coherent storytelling technique is altogether lost.

"Bad Boys II" represents perhaps the low point on the current Bruckheimer filmography. A bloated attempt to pander to the "middle-America" demographic, the film is both gratuitous and offensive, and in its shameless exploitation of homophobic and sexist behavior as a means for humor, it is almost beneath contempt - a turgid mainstream spectacle that insults its audience's intelligence by offering tasteless material as fodder for entertainment. Yes, I am someone who believes that subject matter is neutral, and must be properly shaped by the actors, filmmakers, etc. into a creative form which contains perspective and tonal qualities that both specify and contextualize its material; therefore, my comments regarding the aforementioned picture are made with the understanding that homophobic and sexist behavior (regarding comedic endeavors) could, in theory, be successfully integrated into a film (indeed, it already has, but often much less overtly than is the case with "Bad Boys II," at least in contemporary motion pictures). In his defense, I will submit that Bruckheimer is not as sleazy in some of his productions as an individual such as Joel Silver might be, but their goals are very similar; create mind-numbing sensory "delights" that will pass off as entertainment.

Bruckheimer has made some good pictures. In addition to the ones that I have already mentioned, there is "Top Gun," "Days of Thunder," "Enemy of the State," "Veronica Guerin," "Black Hawk Down," "Beverly Hills Cop," "Cat People," "American Gigolo," "Remember the Titans," and "Farewell, My Lovely." The said producer usually has a visual schematic, plot and story structure, character design, and so forth, intricately mapped out and conveniently positioned so that all of these elements will conform to a pre-determined formula. Some of the effective popcorn films that I cited are occasions in which the production values, story, acting, etc., are nicely realized in terms of an acceptable commercial product. The other, more artistic pictures are harder to gauge; "American Gigolo" banked on Richard Gere's considerable sex appeal, but director Paul Schrader had other things in mind - he brilliantly used the parameters of his movie in order to create an elaborate homage to one of his idols, Robert Bresson. "Gigolo" is structured, thematically and visually, in a fashion that resembles Bresson's great film, "Pickpocket," which itself was inspired by Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment." Schrader's "Cat People," which Bruckheimer also produced, was a significantly less personal film, and while efficient, primarily existed as a more daring remake of Jacques Tourneur's 1942 classic, featuring gore and abundant nudity; the movie is actually rather poetic, in its way, something I attribute more to Schrader, than to the film's executive producer. Likewise, "Black Hawk Down" was well-produced, but achieved greatness through Ridley Scott's masterful direction and technical acuity; "Farewell

 

Cinema and Jerry Bruckheimer don't belong in the same sentence.

 

Crap after crap, with the occasional picture worth it for sheer entertainment value (such as Pirates and The Rock. Generally not worth the effort.

 

`Pirates of the Caribbean 3 (2007)'

If you made that up to annoy people, then I don't think you should be allowed to post here anymore.

Worse, I believe you.

I think he's a good showman. but I can't believe he'll ever intentionally make an `arty' film.

 

He`s made a few good popcorn films(Rock,Con Air,Pirates) but yeah they can`t be considered a great cinematic exiperence

 

Bruckheimer films are great... as rollercoaster escapism.

 

He makes entertaining films; not art.

If popcorn films are your thing, great...if not, then don't watch them.

Some people go to the movies to escape life for a few hours, and want to enjoy something. Sometimes people don't want to sit in a theater and watch a slow moving, black and white epic about the struggle of a handicapped, homosexual, left-handed, Italian grape farmer.

I think that as soon as people accept that there is a market and a place for these type of movies, the better off we all are. At least better off than the handicapped, homosexual, left-handed, Italian grape farmer.

 

Obviously when he's coupled with a gifted director like Scott ( Ridley, not Tony ) or Michael Mann his large budgets and advanced technology are going to be used to a better end. To be fair, every Michael Mann film has that slick, glossy look that is evident in nearly every film that Bruuckheimer has had some fiscal control over - but Mann also fuses that with high ( almost over the top ) human drama and it becomes something totally different than " Armageddon " or " Days of Thunder ". The point Im trying to make is that Bruckheimer - just like Roger Corman but with alot more money - is quite capable of attracting talented directors. Corman is responsible for rearing some of the great directors and actors of our times. Im sure if you scour Bruckheimers films you'll find that he gave some huge talents their big break, but for the most part, also just like Corman but with alot more money, he just entertains in the venacular that he is familiar with - and in Jerrys' case thats glossy, mindless action films starring beautiful people.

 

...meh, Bruckheimer movies are a guilty pleasure. I've seen more films on that list above then i'd like to admit, and have found enjoyment in pretty much everyone..

 

I'd just like to speak briefly of three directors:

1) Michael Bay. The ultimate Bruckheimer director. And I will admit his movies are guilty pleasures of mine (though I haven't seen Bad Boys II, and The Island looks pretty bad, despite a fun cast). I enjoyed Bad Boys and The Rock as dumb entertainment. Armageddon sucked, but I will admit to enjoying Pearl Harbor, mostly for the spectacle. The problem is, Bay should simply not be a director. A DP, maybe. He knows how to frame an exciting or beautiful shot, he knows how to set up awesome visual effects, all that kind of thing. But he doesn't know squat about putting humans into a movie.

2) Ridley Scott. He hasn't been produced by Bruckheimer often, I think, but he too is very much an example of style winning over substance. His movies are certainly very substantial compared to other directors on this list, but his gift, right from the beginning, has been with atmosphere and visuals. His movies LOOK stunning every time, the scenes project into each other well -- but often he'll get actors that look the part, but can't ACT the part, or carry the role, and that will help his movies fall apart.

3) Tony Scott. What the heck is with this guy's popularity? I have yet to see a single movie of his that hasn't been a waste of my time, from Top Gun all the way down through Man on Fire, and Domino looks crappy, too. Granted, I haven't seen True Romance, about which I've heard good things. . .but why the heck is this guy so popular?

 

...eh, like it or not, "Top Gun" *IS* considered a modern-day classic..

That flick right there pretty much explains Scott's popularity...

 

I personally never wanted to have too much of a pretentious attitude when it came to movies. I enjoy many different kinds of movies and have had guilty pleasures that are technically much worse than most Bruckheimer flicks. I don't really try to be a critic, so I'm usually looking for reasons to like a movie rather than reasons to dislike it. However, just like everyone else, there are always gonna be movies that you simply can't stand for one reason or another.

Although there are many art house movies that are amongst some of my favorites, sometimes, there is nothing that I want more than to watch some eye candy. I'd like to think that I have the flexibility to enjoy whatever.

Now, when it comes to Bruckheimer productions, there are some that I like and some that I don't. I've seen better, but I've certainly also seen worse.

 

Some people go to the movies to escape life for a few hours, and want to enjoy something. Sometimes people don't want to sit in a theater and watch a slow moving, black and white epic about the struggle of a handicapped, homosexual, left-handed, Italian grape farmer.

You make a good point, AlanSmitheeIII, and I don't think that many would reasonably dispute the position of popular entertainment in contemporary culture, but the matter regarding Jerry Bruckheimer pertains to his output of some very banal and decidedly lacklustre efforts in this "genre." Personally, I enjoy all sorts of movies, from esoteric art films, to foreign-language fare, underground/experimental pictures, to documentaries, animation, big-budget blockbusters, and so on, and I will submit without reservation that I have throroughly enjoyed several films that have been produced by Bruckheimer (I mentioned some of them in my previous post). I think that one of the issues being explored in this thread has to do with the fact that while Bruckheimer is more than capable of crafting a fine studio picture, he has also made some soulless and vile, perhaps even repugnant, mainstream films which are very much indicative of the arid moral landscape of the Hollywood community. A film like "Bad Boys II," which I excoriated previously, is so manifestly nasty and cynical that its ugly traits become offensive to the viewer - if it were offensive in an entertaining manner, then I might have enjoyed it (ie. "Booty Call"), but as it stands the movie is a creative dead-zone which does little else but suck the audience into a state of intellectual bankruptcy. Conversely, when the Bruckheimer formula is done correctly, we get a very satisfying "meat and potatoes" entertainment such as "The Rock." You will find few people willing to defend the aesthetic beauty of Michael Bay's film, and indeed, it is big, loud, dumb, glossy, and bloated, but exists within that framework in a manner that is vicariously transporting and energetic. If the film's art is in question, its craft is not.

Michael Bay. The ultimate Bruckheimer director.

Yes, quite so. Bruckheimer has developed a perfect minion to exact his pro forma schematics into something that is big, slick, and hastily edited in order to not only present the illusion that a great deal of important activity is beginning to transpire, even when it clearly isn't, but also to satiate the MTV generation, the collective attention span of which will not tolerate individual shots whose duration exceeds that of five seconds.

And I will admit his movies are guilty pleasures of mine (though I haven't seen Bad Boys II, and The Island looks pretty bad, despite a fun cast). I enjoyed Bad Boys and The Rock as dumb entertainment. Armageddon sucked, but I will admit to enjoying Pearl Harbor, mostly for the spectacle. The problem is, Bay should simply not be a director. A DP, maybe. He knows how to frame an exciting or beautiful shot, he knows how to set up awesome visual effects, all that kind of thing. But he doesn't know squat about putting humans into a movie.

Many of the filmmakers that Bruckheimer pursues are former music video directors; Bay is no exception. Since Bruckheimer's films are often based on the same principles which make music videos so successful, it is only logical to hire someone who has mastered that particular medium. "Armageddon" would have been fine had it not been nearly two and a half hours in length - the film is not bad, per se, but it isn't exactly good, either. Rarely has such an extensive assembly of images and sounds concealed so little thought - it is a vapid enterprise which does not entertain and delight, so much as it numbs and bores. Less frenetic zig-zagging, more character and plot, and they might really have had something; alas, one gets the sense that Bruckheimer spent too much time watching Bigas Luna's "Golden Balls," extracting not the movie's artistry, but instead the blatant psychoanalytical implications pertaining to men and their