Killing Michael Bay (1 Viewer)

[Ron-P]

You know, I've owned this movie on DVD for what, about a year now. The first copy that was supposed to street and never did. I've got one and I have yet to watch it. The only reason I have it was it was given to me. This is one of TB's films I just do not like...at all. It will probably never see my HT room.

 

[Ted Lee]

john put together a great list of films. i just saw triplettes of belleville last night - loved it!

but ... that list isn't for everyone ... and it *certainly* isn't for the ron p's (no offense) of this world.

but that doesn't make john's list of movies "superior" and bb movies "inferior". it's just diff strokes for diff folks.

question: why do folks feel the need to discount one type of movie over another? i guess that's why i generally don't hang out in this forum....

 

[Seth Paxton]

I just lost almost an entire post on the subject and don't have the time or temperment to put it back together now, but briefly let me say that in contradiction to not liking the GENRE that B&B work in some of my favorite films are action films.

2 that I mention most often are Raiders and Road Warrior. Raiders is my #3 film of all-time, Road Warrior flits about the top 30 someplace most of the time.

My lost post discussed the differences between that kind of action and what Bay does, as well as how the choices of Connery and Harris do elevate The Rock to a higher level of quality. I'll be back later to talk about why I think Bay still undermines those efforts and the script.

But B&B DO TARGET ME, they just miss, often badly. I enjoyed Enemy of the State and if Bay could at least reach Tony Scott's current level I would find his film's much more enjoyable, if not quite superb art.

 

[Adam Portrais]

I'd buy that. A great action DVD so I can show off my setup and not worry about some silly story? Count me in.

 

[Seth Paxton]

That's funny, these films ARE one of the reasons I have such a setup.

First of all, ALL FILMS are shown on screens hella bigger than 85 inches, including Chaplin films, so I'm sure what that point is. Second of all, not all films do feature big sound so naturally they didn't require you to max out a big sub, get 5.1, etc, but with modern films you can find all sorts of quality audio even among "arty" films.

Irreversible is a film that made great use of SOUND. Heck, so did PI and it was even B&W. Both films carry more weight on a good HT than on a small TV setup.

And Technicolor spectacles definitely were meant to be seen big and colorful, including films like Black Narcissus or Richard III (just got a great Criterion release).

Not a lot blows up in 2001, but it is clearly a film that benefits from the big screen.

 

[chris winters]

while some of bad boys 2 was exciting, much of it was also very tasteless. The corpses, the language, the swagger, and just the overall tone was offputting. I dont have a squeemish stomach or sensability, but bad boys 2 was often rude in all the wrong ways. I felt like I needed a bath and an antibiotic after watching it. Maybe it doesnt help that I also lost my digital camera at the showing I saw it at. I left it in the theater, and it was stolen. DOH!

 

[Lew Crippen]

Actually Ted, I’d think that a good many of us like movies regardless of genre.

It is not inconsistent to dislike specific movies while not disliking the genre. For the most part, Michael Bay’s directorial style (and a good bit of the editing I normally associate with his movies) don’t do it for me.

This does not mean that I don’t like a good many ‘action’ movies—only that I find many of the same defects in Bay’s that Seth details.

For those who don’t consider these items to be defects or like the action more than the issues bother them—I’d not criticize that view at all. But if asked for specifics as to the basis for my dislike (or perhaps why I think the movie is not all that good—as opposed to an active dislike), I’d be as specific as Seth.

 

[Paul.S]

Raiders is my #3 also, Seth.

But I think its problematic to expect other directors' stars to align in such a way that they can deliver a picture at that level. Even Steven arguably has not gotten lightning to strike in that same place again, either with the other two films of the trilogy or his subsequent work.

Glad you dig Enemy Of the State--I think it kicks arse ("Do they know me?! Do they know me!!?" "I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!"). I'm still gnashing my teeth about Di$ney's having announced an anamorphic remaster of that (and the outstanding Crimson Tide) for May 4, only to then cancel w/ no new street date.

But, analogous to my comments above, I don't want Mikey B. to "at least reach Tony Scott's current level." Both bring their own respective mojo to the party and I don't hold it against either for their not being more like some other filmmaker they're not. (Incidentally, I think Tony went a little too far with the on-screen, all caps transcriptions of what Denzel was sometimes screaming in Man On Fire. Easy, Tony, easy.)

-p

 

[JohnRice]

Robert, when you make a statement like...Ted, I never said that list was superior. I just made it in response to someone who seemed to be claiming there was no interest in the movie industry for original and unconventional stories. I don't even like all the movies I listed, I just think they are unconventional. I also specifically said there are many good, original action movies. You are accusing people on this forum of looking down their noses at the tastes of others, but in truth, you seem to be doing it as much, if not more than anyone.

 

[JohnRice]

But anyway, everyone go blissfully back to trashing Bay. It is kind of an unofficial past time of HTF after all. :p)

 

[Ted Lee]

sheesh, now i remember why i don't hang out here.

i didn't say you were calling them superior. i put them in quotes for a reason. nor did i say *anywhere* that one persons tastes should be considered superior. if anything, i feel the exact opposite.

you did see that part about different strokes for different folks ... i mean you put it in your quote...

 

[chris winters]

imagine van helsing as made by michael bay. Oh the excess!

 

[Tim_Stack]

That movie goes to prove that Bay kicks ass. Come on, he's no David Lean but the guy knows action. Are his movies masterpieces? No. Are they fun? Yeah. All those who hate Bay, give it up, he's rich and famous and you still live in your parent's basement; To me it sounds like you're the ones that need help. *************************************************
************

Ahh - the wonderous "he has more money" or "More Money = Better Than" argument. Is there anything more American (our worship of cash as the arbiter of success) and dumb than that argument?

 

[Paul.S]

Some would argue that academic pillorying of someone who uses the financial cachet gained by entertaining large numbers of people to help others (e.g., Marcus Nispel) become successful too would be on the list.

-p

 

[RobertR]

I said I didn't express myself very well. I meant to say "Michael Bay and others like him". I didn't mean to say everyone in the industry shares that attitude.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I have heard about this, but not yet seen the film myself.


I don't expect everyone to do a Raiders or even a Road Warrior, they are just the top examples of the fact that action films can be popcorn films and yet still maintain artistic quality. It's still the art of filmmaking.

Heck, what about Hitchcock. It wasn't quite action but it was thrillers and spy films and they did feature dramatic action scenes like the crop duster in NxNW.

Sure Hitch is ALSO a hard target to reach, but cripes we could start to throw in people like Ford, Kurosawa, Cameron, etc and find ourselves listing many great action-based films done with a much more deft touch.

Not only could Bay not make Raiders, Road Warrior, or The Birds, he also couldn't make She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Seven Samurai, or Aliens...or Star Wars, Blade Runner, or LOTR. This is not a short list. Bay is on the outside of a fairly large group of directors/producers, though I don't think he is even bothering to look in.


Writers write, and great writers write better. Genre is not the limiting factor, talent is. The same is true for directors. Perhaps some genres get less RESPECT, but that doesn't diminish the fact that a genre can be done well or not well depending on the artist.




The tricky thing with tastes is this - there is a difference between seeing an act for the first time and for the 20th time. The first time a person sees ANY FILM, especially if it is in color and 5.1 sound, that person is likely to be impressed.

The more you watch the more you recognize similarities and perhaps are far less impressed simply with the idea of moving images. Now you find yourself wanting more, something new. Not only do stories become important, but also the presentation.

Well this remains true for cinephiles who see hella films per year, many of which are films outside the modern American mainstream (ie, classics, foreign, alternative, or any combo of those). Because of this a viewer might find themselves seeing what are to them cliches, but to a less experienced viewer remain new.


SO, you can ENJOY such a film, but that doesn't make it good, at least from the stance of "was this original, was it done better than others have done it, does this film do something that other films don't, or does it at least follow a template with such a crafty hand as to be a masterpiece of perfection of the form?"

I think mixing those 2 concepts is a HUGE MISTAKE. It's fine for Ron to enjoy anything he wants to, but if we are going to start saying that dog shit tastes like steak I think we need to try to establish some judgement guidelines first...and "because I say so" will not be allowed on either side of things, and that is what "hey, good enough for me" is.


I generally DO NOT hear counter arguments defending a director like Bay in the same manner as the critiques. No one says "his choice to take the standard shakey-cam but to pan with it between protagonists to enhance the difficulty of their choice sets his work above the directors that came before him and utilized the style with far less ambition".

Instead I hear "I love his films" or at least "like".

If we all went that way, that thread would be a string of one-line posts - "I love his films", "I hate his films", ad infinum. There's not a lot getting done in a thread like that.


The topic of "good" or "quality" is still debatable, but that debate must extend far beyond "I liked it".

 

[JohnRice]

Bottom line, "fun" movies don't have to go quite to the level of formula that people like Bay generally use. For instance, Reign of Fire is an absolute blast, and it at least isn't quite on the formula level of the Bay stuff. Yes, The Rock is also pretty good. Far above average for Bay.

I would also like to address some of these blanket assaults on some directors, while we're on the topic of Bay. The one that always bothers me is Schumacher, who Seth even included once (tsk, tsk on you Seth.) Yes, he has made some pretty poor movies, but I also see people, who definitely should know better, label something like Veronica Guerin as "the worst movie of the year." You know who you are. There is no doubt Guerin is not the film it should have been. The subject matter deserved more, but the worst movie of the year? Gimme a break. Let's not forget, Schumacher made Falling Down, which many people, including me, think is a great film. That alone earns him some respect, even if the guy, by his own admission, is often just taking work.

Another is Paul W. S. Anderson. OK, I've never actually seen the Mortal Kombat stuff, and Event Horizon really fell flat, but that's because the story chickened out, not because of the direction. I'm also not trying to imply he is as skilled as Schumacher, but Resident Evil is an absolute blast. I swear a lot of people decided it sucked before they ever saw it, and were unwilling to change their mind. Thanks to Scott Weinberg for getting me to see it.

Bay is a severely formula director, but you want to know what? He's not that much more formula than Spielberg, he just mostly has better dialog.

 

[Nick Sievers]

But at least Spielberg ventures into other genres and mixes up his style compare something like Catch Me If You Can to Schindler's List, heck even Minority Report and A.I are totally different films. But Bay has made about 5 films now and has pretty much stuck with the same genre and never changes his gloss style with super fast cuts. To me it is just getting monotonous and i'm at the point where I don't want to see another Bay film again despite my love of getting to the cinema every week.

 

[Stevan Lay]

Or an even better comparison would be to imagine Troy as made by Michael Bay.

 

[JohnRice]

I disagree that A.I. and Minority Report are totally different films. There are so many aspects which are basically the same. Every single film Spielberg has ever made, including Schindler's List, has one significant similarity. A decidedly pedestrian narrative. He is a highly polished story teller, but far from an original one.

If staying in the same genre is a liability, then let's start knocking Shyamalan, and for that matter, Hitchcock. Now I realize their movies are significantly better than anything Bay ever has or probably ever will make. I'm just making a point.