I don't get the criticism.

Agree.
I think what really fascinates people isn't exactly Cannon's business model, but the eccentric personalities of its founders.

If any studio finds a formula that works, understandably they'll do it over and over again. Summit Entertainment does the same with teen book adaptations. Studios do what they need to remain profitable.

Cannon found success in low-budget silly action, they kept doing it. It's when they wanted to go bigger that things went south.

I was a teenager when these movies were coming out, and even then, me and my friends used to watch them to goof on them, they were so silly and cheesy, but in an earnest way. I'm trying to think of one I liked in a non ironic way, Runaway Train would probably be one, but I never got around to seeing that one. I guess Lifeforce is the closest I come to it, and even that wasn't that good.

I hate this documentary so much... how dismissive everyone is about the films, insulting Michael Winner and Charles Bronson

I agree with you, but I do understand the criticism. Can you imagine what it was like to work with these guys? As an adult, I would have flipped almost everyday, and lived in a large amount of shame if this is what I did for a living. That's where I think alot of the criticism lies, Golan especially. When you're that over the top, haha no pun intended, it becomes comical and sad.
This documentary really hit home with me. I grew up watching this stuff, and have alot of these movies on dvd today.
Hell, I threw in Cobra a couple of months ago and watched it. Absolutely love it.
Over the top on Blu Ray gets played alot in my house. My son loves it, he's 10. I was Bull Hurley for halloween last year, everyone knew who I was. Blaster shirt and all.
I watched my tapes of all the missing in action flicks and delta force til they didn't work anymore.
I guess what I'm saying is if you're in the right age group, this documentary was very nostalgic, and I enjoyed it alot.
But after watching it, I can certainly understand that these dudes weren't all there, and how if you had to work for them, it was probably a low point in your life.

The main problem I have with the documentary is that it misrepresents what it is to be an exploitation filmmaker by acting as though these guys were out of the ordinary as exploitation filmmakers go. Exploitation filmmakers make bad movies that make them money, good movies that make them money, bad movies that don't make them money, and good movies that don't make them money, and they don't know in advance which movies will make money or which ones will be good. That is all NORMAL if you are an exploitation filmmaker.

For starters, look at Cannon itself: what these two Israelis showed up and did with Cannon was almost exactly what Cannon had already been into before they acquired it anyway. (Guess What We Learned In School Today is at least as far out as Bolero.)

And if you compare Hammer, for instance, if you narrow in and look at whether Michael Carreras personally had virtually any taste or vision: no, his baby The Lost Continent is as horrible and incompetent as The Apple is. And Hammer sold films based only on posters, and didn't bother to then match the films' content to the posters, before this. Sometimes Hammer hired people with talent, as it happened, and a good movie resulted. But how many Hammer films are _better_ than Cannon's Runaway Train? Maybe one, Curse Of Frankenstein? (Hammer's first Dracula, with Lee starring, is about as good as Cannon's Barfly.)

Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo was made for eleven-year-olds and eleven-year-olds enjoy it even today; Golan and Globus did what they were trying to do. Given that Quinones wasn't a great actor, Dickey wasn't a great actor, and Chambers wasn't a great actor, who cares whether any of them are embarrassed that that film (with the pastels and saving the community center and Chambers' new Latina love interest and the hospital shenanigans and everything) is a PG kids' movie? _It was meant to be a PG kids' movie._ To include those actors complaining about that movie seems like artificially stacking the deck against Golan and Globus. Also, Chambers really was a great dancer (who influenced e.g. Michael Jackson) -- and you know who put him in an '80s movie other than Golan and Globus? Nobody.

Cannon movies are fun, but they *are* pretty brain-dead, you have to admit. I mean, I love Death Wish 3 beyond reason, but it's a ridiculous, dumbass movie. Same with Invasion USA and Cobra. They're highly-entertaining trash, but they are trash.

But, I agree, Cannon was nowhere near as bad as Troma. Troma's just garbage... they've never even turned out anything entertaining, and I don't think they even try. Cannon was at least sincere, if misguided. They weren't trying to make bad movies. Troma is. Troma even seems to have contempt for their own audience. I know they think it's "funny" to stick a generic "introduction" where they fill in the name of the movie on all their DVDs (and make it where you can't skip past it and avoid wasting five minutes of your life sitting through it), but it's basically just a big "f-you for being dumb enough to buy one of our DVDs." Which is why most Troma DVDs sell for about $3 now... and I usually pass them up even at that price because they're unwatchable garbage that aren't worth taking up space in my house.

Cannon made dumb movies, but they were likeably dumb, and were usually entertaining, at least. There's nothing wrong with having a fondness for them.

The documentary makes it pretty clear that the Cannon action films with Norris and Dudikoff in particular were actually quite effective and not as criticized. You didn't hear much complaints aimed at them.

Unlike some of the earlier Cannon films, the Death Wish sequels, Superman 4 and Masters of the Universe.


========================
"You don't watch Michael Bay films. They happen to you."