108 The Rock

[Martha]

The Rock



A highly decorated, retired U.S. Marine general (Ed Harris) seizes a stockpile of chemical weapons and takes over Alcatraz, with 81 tourists as hostages on the San Francisco Bay isle. His demand: Restitution to families of soldiers who died in covert operations. The response: An elite Navy SEAL team, with support from an FBI chemical-warfare expert (Nicolas Cage) and a former Alcatraz escapee (Sean Connery), is assembled to penetrate the terrorists' defenses on the island and neutralize the threat before time runs out. The result: A fast-paced, edge-of-your-seat thriller with a first-rate cast, directed by Michael Bay and produced by Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer.

SPECIAL EDITION DOUBLE-DISC SET

- New widescreen digital transfer, approved by Michael Bay and enhanced for 16×9 televisions
- Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 surround soundtracks
- Audio commentary by Michael Bay, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, actors Nicolas Cage and Ed Harris, and technical advisor Harry Humphries
- Video interview with Jerry Bruckheimer
- Analysis of the dive sequence’s special effects, by Hoyt Yeatman of Dream Quest Images
- Movie Magic episode on the film’s special effects
- Dos and don’ts of Hollywood gunplay, with Harry Humphries and Marshall Teague
- Excerpts from Secrets of Alcatraz, a documentary by À la Carte Communications
- Storyboards, production design drawings, and production stills
- Theatrical trailer and TV spots
- Outtakes selected by Michael Bay
- The Rock world premiere on Alcatraz
- English subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired
- Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer edition


Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

[bcsparker]

You know, a lot of people pick on the Bay movies in the Collection. Yeah, Armageddon was a red, white, and blue shovelful. This one isn't. I think this is about the last GREAT Hollywood action film. It manages to mix humor, action set pieces, and some great suspense very well, I think.
And having been in the service for 8 years, I can really appreciate Ed Harris' performance. He's one of the only other men - Sam Elliot in The Hulk is another - who can portray a military man convincingly onscreen. It's good that he's not reduced to a stock maniac character.
Sean Connery is great as well. It's cool to see him kind of play off of the Bond image. And the scene where he tosses whatshisface from The West Wing off the balcony is classic.
This was the disc that drew me into The Collection. Eons ago, I was looking for a copy of this film, and I came across this awesome 2 disc version - I'm always a sucker for supplements.
And this, along with Face Off, is one of Nicholas Cage's only good action roles. I'm not saying he was terrible, really, it's just the movies themselves were horrible.
So I say pick this one up.

[chaddoli]

You know, I agree. I own both Armageddon and The Rock (along with the real classics of the collection, so don't judge) and while I am the first to admit that Armageddon is a fun bad movie, I will argue against that pigeonholing for The Rock. It has some very good performances and some great suspense.

[jcelwin]

I was just reading the review on the dvdbeaver site and it says:
"I seem to recall reading something Jon Mulvaney said in his defense of this for the Criterion label. It stated that Michael Bay would be recognized decades later for his contribution to cinema... or something to that effect. I guess only time will prove this right or wrong."

I think this is a good point. Like it or not I think Michael Bay will have left his mark on cinema. The Rock is probably a good movie to include in the collection (in my opinion) but Armageddon deviates more into drama instead of the action that will probably be what Bay is remembered (unfortunately?) for. I think the best Bay movie for the collection would probably have been Bad Boys, which is very quintessentially Bay and possibly had the largest impact on the genre.

The Criterion Collection doesn't seem to branch out enough with its releases. I wouldn't mind seeing more films that have actually had a major influence on cinema (good or bad), than many films by certain directors, many of which films may have only contributed in a small way (depending on your opinion) to cinema as a whole.

[oldsheperd]

I didn't mind the Rock too much. I expecially enjoyed the Samuel Johnson, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", quote. I think it's a pretty relevent quote even more so today. Also, being such a big fan of The Conversation, I really enjoyed Enemy of the State.

[oldsheperd]

Whoops! I thought Enemy of the State was Michael Bay. I mean Bay and Scott's films are almost identical. Plus, they got the Bruckheimermeister behind them.

[oldsheperd]

Now Andy Sidaris, that's a non-suquitur. Bullets, bombs and playmates. Now there's an auteur!

[cdnchris]

I hated Bad Boys (and the second one more) and lately I'm getting softer on Armageddon. I like The Rock, though. It's one of the few action movies I can watch repeatedly (Die Hard being another) I think it has more to do with Connery, Harris, Morse and so on, than Bay, though.

[swingo]

I, for one, don't like Michael Bay's movies, or any action mostly...

But, I think that Michael Bay pushed way ahead the action movies to boundaries that not existed before.

Axel.

[jcelwin]

I'm not saying that Bay makes good movies either (because he doesn't, in my opinion). But he has left a mark on cinema and including a movie of his in the criterion collection isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I just wish criterion would look outside of the 'great directors' that they usually release movies from. Just because the director is highly acclaimed doesn't mean that all his/her movie left a huge mark on cinema or need to be included. There are possibly many other films from around the would that are more worthy of inclusion and release.

[swingo]

I just wish criterion would look outside of the 'great directors' that they usually release movies from. Just because the director is highly acclaimed doesn't mean that all his/her movie left a huge mark on cinema or need to be included. There are possibly many other films from around the would that are more worthy of inclusion and release.

My thoughts exactly, I wonder which directors and/or movies are on his wanted list...

[Cinesimilitude]

can someone who owns this that bought it at a reputable store, sealed, provide me with the correct serial numbers on the back of the discs?

[blindside8zao]

I'm having problems finding this at online stores and looked on criteriondvd. They link it to the oop section. Is this film out of print?

[Lemdog]

Amazon.com and Buy.com still has it. Besides that ... I couldn't find it anywhere else.

[Cinesimilitude]

There is most-likely an HD edition planned. I can totally see Bay pimping his action films as pioneers of HD.

[ChristianN2]

I just wish criterion would look outside of the 'great directors' that they usually release movies from. Just because the director is highly acclaimed doesn't mean that all his/her movie left a huge mark on cinema or need to be included. There are possibly many other films from around the would that are more worthy of inclusion and release.

My thoughts exactly, I wonder which directors and/or movies are on his wanted list...

Both well said. I would like to hear some of his ideas on which directors, films should possibly be included.

I'm having problems finding this at online stores and looked on criteriondvd. They link it to the oop section. Is this film out of print?

Nope; according to the Criterion website, this specific title is still in print and going for the price of $31.99. m

Whoops, just noticed those post dates.

I just happened to come across a very well maintained used copy at my local Hastings Entertainment store. Hastings are typically only located in the MidSouthern portion of the US.

I feel that this is Bay's strongest film, followed by The Island. I'm glad Criterion chose to go outside of their typical box and pick a more mainstream film. I believe that Bay has pushed the boundaries of the action genre, and therefore should be recognized as an important addition to the library of cinema. Not to mention the noteworthy performances by Connery and Harris.

[Binker]

Other than simply placing the technological advances in CGI and special effects (of which he is in no way responsible) at the heart of his movies, how exactly has he "pushed the boundaries of the action genre"?

I don't want to be the guy on the criterionforum telling everyone "Michael Bay sucks" but with how this thread progressed it almost seems necessary. Just because his films are exceedingly popular does not mean he's "left a mark on cinema." He's operating within trends, not creating them. Listening to his commentary on Armageddon is actually fascinating. There's a part where he talks about how much he values cliches, both in language and images, because they allow him to inform his audience everything they need to know about his characters within seconds. "Look at Owen Wilson up on that horse, riding out of the sunset... Right away, you know he's a rebel and you know he's a cowboy. Good to go." Back to not killing dogs, I guess.

It really isn't so much that Bay sucks as it is that he's unimportant. Artistically (sorry), there's nothing noteworthy. That isn't to say there aren't things to enjoy in his films, only that they aren't worthy of this particular collection.

[Minkin]

Criterion Contraption

[matrixschmatrix]

Haha, that one took him long enough. The comment about how depersonalized Bay's sense of action is in the Rock- and how much further that's been taken by CGI and a cast of primarily non-human characters- makes me wonder what would happen if you cut the strings entirely and got rid of all those damn people they keep putting in Bay's movies.

[knives]

Technically he had that opportunity with Transformers and decided to put people in it anyways. That's probably an other element of the marketing. People feel more comfortable when seeing real people, same logic as with a live action superhero movie. Also, not to defend him, the man still does primarily practical effects with surprisingly little CGI.

[swo17]

Robots don't have sexy midriffs.

[Drucker]

"When they start to jump up to the bathroom a lot, you know that there's a problem in the movie right about there."

Michael Bay: making movies that cater to an audience that can hold it in. That's his demo.

[cdnchris]

It's weird how I agree with a lot of what he says yet I still love this movie. Along with Die Hard and a few others it's one of the few action movies I can watch over and over again.

Plus, on his comment about critics who praised The Rock but dismissed Armageddon (like Ebert did) even though they're the same, I'll say that for me I'll take The Rock over Armageddon any day of the week because it doesn't feel like it's 7 hours long and I can actually follow the action sequences. Plus I still find the characters surprisingly strong and intriguing for this type of film (though I've sort of had to ignore the logic behind Harris' motivations, but since I can easily ignore all other logical sense in these types of movies that's not too hard.)

[Drucker]

I have to say I was actually impressed when I caught that Dave Holmes show where they show you DVD extras about Armageddon. THOUGH the Aerosmith song is one of the worst songs by one of the worst bands ever and I hate Owen Wilson almost as much as I hate Ben Stiller...I think I actually prefer Armageddon. If just for the "we don't ever want to pay taxes again...ever" scene.

[matrixschmatrix]

It's weird how I agree with a lot of what he says yet I still love this movie. Along with Die Hard and a few others it's one of the few action movies I can watch over and over again.

Plus, on his comment about critics who praised The Rock but dismissed Armageddon (like Ebert did) even though they're the same, I'll say that for me I'll take The Rock over Armageddon any day of the week because it doesn't feel like it's 7 hours long and I can actually follow the action sequences. Plus I still find the characters surprisingly strong and intriguing for this type of film (though I've sort of had to ignore the logic behind Harris' motivations, but since I can easily ignore all other logical sense in these types of movies that's not too hard.)

Well, I think he says the distinguishing factor between the two is Nick Cage- I think there's more to it than that, but I do think Cage's unhinged performance is a huge part of why the Rock is so watchable.