Topic: Directors Best Poll #8 - Michael Bay

[Antares]

Bad Boys
The Rock
Armageddon

Pearl Harbor
Bad Boys II

He really should work for the Scotts Company, because his formulas make for great fertilizer.

[KinkyCyborg]

Pearl Harbor
The Rock
Armageddon

Bad Boys

Bad Boy II

One obviously is not looking for deep meaning from a Michael Bay film but if you treat them for what they are... popcorn action flicks, then it can be translated into some success. Criterion  felt strongly enough about him to issue 2 of his movies to the CC (Armageddon & The Rock). I actually like Pearl Harbor, despite the unneeded love triangle thingy thrown in there.

Haven't watched The Island or either of the Transformer movies which automatically have strikes against them with the inclusions of both Shia LaBeouf & Megan Fox. 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One obviously is not looking for deep meaning from a Michael Bay film but if you treat them for what they are... popcorn action flicks, then it can be translated into some success.

Agreed, and within this genre they might even be considered as "good".
Compared to the great directors Bay's movies fall off a bit, but this is correct for for classics like "Die Hard" and "Lethal Weapon" too.

[Najemikon]

For Pearl Harbour (because that's how it should be spelt! ) to appear at the top of any list is shameful. Just sayin'.

I kind of understood why Criterion highlighted two of his films, because if Bay is good at anything, it's timing. Armageddon and The Rock were easy sellers with huge budgets and so epitomised the modern action tent-pole blockbuster film. What he is no good at is directing.

One obviously is not looking for deep meaning from a Michael Bay film but if you treat them for what they are... popcorn action flicks, then it can be translated into some success.

Agreed, and within this genre they might even be considered as "good".
Compared to the great directors Bay's movies fall off a bit, but this is correct for for classics like "Die Hard" and "Lethal Weapon" too.

Wash your mouth out!  John "Predator" McTiernan's Die Hard? Richard "I did the sequel to Superman" Donner's Lethal Weapon? The one written by Shane "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" Black? Good Grief, man. Bay would hand over valuable body parts to be a tenth of how good they are.

Something I've never found the opportunity to explore properly on here apart from occasional reviews, is my love of the action film. And I don't mean a nerdy excuse to talk about Peckinpah or Friedkin, I mean the balls to the wall, shit getting 'blowed' up, kick ass macho bullshit with awesome dialogue written in crayon. The Expendables? Saw it the other night. Fan-bloody-tastic.

I genuinely love 'em, even when they are inherently rubbish. I'm like Butterman in Hot Fuzz!   It's how -before Matthias has a chance to mention it... again- I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...

To me, Bay only just scrapes into this category, because somehow he keeps getting money to make films like a soufle. You can't ignore them, they are big, they are fun, but there's nothing to them and when you dig a little, all evidence proves he is useless. The editing in The Rock is just woeful, for instance. He's like a child, bumbling in the dark, while James Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow, Paul Greengrass and even Stallone, are just doing it properly. They understand what they are doing.

All Bay can do is point a camera at stuff other people have paid for and sometimes, he can't even get that much right. He's kind of making films for himself and forgetting to make them comprehensible.

But, "like a child" is a perfect description, because I think by some considerable margin his best film is Transformers, because he directed it in the same way a kid would play with the toys: one in each hand and bash 'em together until bits fall off, while making explosion noises with his mouth. Perfect. Just what it needed and I have no problem recommending it to anyone who wants to have some great fun.

If there is one thing Bay is worse at than directing, it's understanding how to make a sequel. The only action, supposedly switch-your-brain-off genre films of this kind I have ever come close to being offended by (you know, not just "stop watching, this is so bad it hurts") are Bad Boys... 2 and Transformers... 2. They are horrendously bad and downright insulting. How he strayed so far from even his simple opening films in those genres, I didn't think was feasible! He barely has a grasp of his own abilities.

The real talent behind Bay is Bruckheimer and his best work is with Tony Scott. Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State, etc, are easily films that Bayhem could have done, but they are actually good because someone who knows which end of a camera does what directed them instead.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Probably you got me wrong, I too love this classic No-Brain Action Genre where things blow up just because they are there and look like they could.
Exactly for this reason I found "The Expendables" to be extremely average (Hell, the visual effects in the airplane scenes looked like shot in the "Blue-Box" from the early Eighties) and looooved "RED". And exactly for this reason I love some of the Bay flicks too (to be precise: 3: Bad Boys / The Rock / The Island). I don't expect a plausible plot or extraordinary directing in an action-flick. A fast, dirty, honestly entertaining flick completely suffices to make me happy.

I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...

Yupp,
and understanding the audience Bay is aiming at would actually mean that you'd have to award 5 stars to all of them (except "Transformers", maybe). Because, whether you like this cineastic junk-food or not, Bay's audiences, which actually change from movie to movie do love his work. The only problem he might have is that he has a different target group for almost every "movie", and because of this almost no fanbase that goes into a movie because he made it. I for one would prefer to have my right arm cut off before watching any of "The Transformers" ... but coming to think of it, this is correct for most of the Woody Allen stuff too.

EDIT:
Or in other words: Bay may not know which end of the camera to point in which direction (Which BTW he doesn't have to, cause that's what the DoP is for), but he has a great feeling for blockbusting scripts, timing and customer's needs.
The rest is like comparing McDonald's to Paul Bocuse. Of course Bocuse is the better cook, but still McDonald's is selling more meals per hour than Bocuse will in his whole lifetime.

[goodguy]

The Expendables? Saw it the other night. Fan-bloody-tastic.

I genuinely love 'em, even when they are inherently rubbish. I'm like Butterman in Hot Fuzz!   It's how -before Matthias has a chance to mention it... again- I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...

I do like action films every now and then, just not the crappy ones like Eagle Eye. Haven't seen The Expendables and I suspect it falls into that rubbish category, but of last year's offerings, I greatly enjoyed RED and Salt.

[DJ Doena]

I like Michael Bay. I know exactly what I'm going to get when watching one of his movies and when I decide to watch it I'm in the mood for exactly that kind.

"That is no salesman. That is your daddy." The characters are often caricatures but they are still very lovable as they are often caught in situations they weren't really trained for and just make it up as they go along.

"I said you should pull the lever!" - "This IS the lever!!!"

I just have fun when watching Armageddon

[m.cellophane]

Pearl Harbor
The Rock
Armageddon

[Achim]

What an awkward poll . I agree with those comments, that you have to see his films in context of the target audience. Only films of his I really enjoyed was Transfomers (I actually upgraded from DVD to Blu-ray ); in a toy-smashing kind-of way as decribed by Jon .

Transformers

The Rock

The Island

Armageddon
Bad Boys II
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

[Najemikon]

I like Michael Bay. I know exactly what I'm going to get when watching one of his movies and when I decide to watch it I'm in the mood for exactly that kind.

"That is no salesman. That is your daddy." The characters are often caricatures but they are still very lovable as they are often caught in situations they weren't really trained for and just make it up as they go along.

"I said you should pull the lever!" - "This IS the lever!!!"

I just have fun when watching Armageddon

But all of that, you'd still have got if Tony Scott had turned up! What you just described is typical of Bruckheimer, surely.

Probably you got me wrong, I too love this classic No-Brain Action Genre where things blow up just because they are there and look like they could.
Exactly for this reason I found "The Expendables" to be extremely average (Hell, the visual effects in the airplane scenes looked like shot in the "Blue-Box" from the early Eighties) and looooved "RED". And exactly for this reason I love some of the Bay flicks too (to be precise: 3: Bad Boys / The Rock / The Island). I don't expect a plausible plot or extraordinary directing in an action-flick. A fast, dirty, honestly entertaining flick completely suffices to make me happy.

I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...

Yupp,
and understanding the audience Bay is aiming at would actually mean that you'd have to award 5 stars to all of them (except "Transformers", maybe). Because, whether you like this cineastic junk-food or not, Bay's audiences, which actually change from movie to movie do love his work. The only problem he might have is that he has a different target group for almost every "movie", and because of this almost no fanbase that goes into a movie because he made it. I for one would prefer to have my right arm cut off before watching any of "The Transformers" ... but coming to think of it, this is correct for most of the Woody Allen stuff too.

EDIT:
Or in other words: Bay may not know which end of the camera to point in which direction (Which BTW he doesn't have to, cause that's what the DoP is for), but he has a great feeling for blockbusting scripts, timing and customer's needs.
The rest is like comparing McDonald's to Paul Bocuse. Of course Bocuse is the better cook, but still McDonald's is selling more meals per hour than Bocuse will in his whole lifetime.

Well, I was being factitious, but therein lies the point. Take out the script, the characters, the stunt work and what you are left with is Bay's contribution. And what I normally find is that he is distracting rather than directing! Tony Scott has a much stronger sense of style that has evolved into something quite decent.

And The Expendables is still better directed. The effects lack something because it was low budget, but importantly, Stallone knows when to keep his mouth shut.

"There's no action without danger", Howard Hawks once said and I often think of that when a director like Bay can't keep the f***ing camera still for a second!

Oh...

The Expendables? Saw it the other night. Fan-bloody-tastic.

I genuinely love 'em, even when they are inherently rubbish. I'm like Butterman in Hot Fuzz!  It's how -before Matthias has a chance to mention it... again- I could give Eagle Eye four stars. Understand the audience it's aimed at, it makes sense...

I do like action films every now and then, just not the crappy ones like Eagle Eye. Haven't seen The Expendables and I suspect it falls into that rubbish category, but of last year's offerings, I greatly enjoyed RED and Salt.

Simply because it's more of a thriller, Eagle Eye edges The Expendables because it has at least distinct stages to its script and has to work harder. The Expendables is little more than astonishing cartoon violence with very loud bangs! I enjoyed it more than Eagle Eye, but it's a steady three stars...

[goodguy]

But all of that, you'd still have got if Tony Scott had turned up!

But in Tony Scott's case you can't be sure. He might surprise you with something like Domino - which I absolutely loved, btw. (and I swear I don't try just to be different  ).

[Najemikon]

But all of that, you'd still have got if Tony Scott had turned up!

But in Tony Scott's case you can't be sure. He might surprise you with something like Domino - which I absolutely loved, btw. (and I swear I don't try just to be different  ).

That's exactly what I mean. Scott can find a way to enhance the material. Even crap like the Pelham 123 remake has some style. Bay can't do that.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's exactly what I mean. Scott can find a way to enhance the material. Even crap like the Pelham 123 remake has some style. Bay can't do that.

Not quite. Correct would have been: Bay doesn't have to do that. Because first of all Bay wouldn't have made such a "crap like the Pelham 123 remake".
Don't get me wrong, I like most of Tony Scott's work, even though quite often you can see the influence of the big brother. But he has an astonishing record of barely watchable or unwatchable flicks too. Just take the last three as examples (Déjà Vu, Pelham 123, Unstoppable), sorry, but this junk is in no way better than any Bay flick.

Take out the script, the characters, the stunt work and what you are left with is Bay's contribution.

And to remain within my cooking example: take out the meat, the salad, the spices, the bread and the potatoes and what you are left with are the contributions of Bocuse and McDonald's. It's basically the same: Hot Air.

Now really Jon, you can't tear apart a piece of work and say what's left is the actual work. The ingredients and their combination is exactly what defines the product. In some very lucky cases you'll be able to recognize the handwriting of the producer, but this will only be correct for handcrafted products. For mass-productions (and this is what Bay, Scott and Emmerich are doing nowadays) this is not even wanted. In this regard Bay is actually doing the "better" job.
The job of a director is it to combine all elements of the production in a way that in the end (when all is said and done) you have a product. I know that there are many people that celebrate this as arts, but mainly it's accounting.

[Najemikon]

Hold on, what are we talking about here? "High-octane" action movies are largely just throw everything at the screen, blow it all up and have fun. No real art involved, no artists required, you're quite right. But please don't tell me you consider Akira Kurosawa an accountant! He and many other directors responsible for milestones in action as well as definitive entries, are absolutely artists.

I wouldn't consider Tony Scott an artist (although he does have more of signature style now than he ever did before) and Michael Bay certainly isn't either. How well a film is made is not directly reflective on how enjoyable it is and there really is nothing quite like Armageddon! All I'm saying is that Bay does more that disappoints me than any other director, which leads me to believe he doesn't understand what the hell he is doing.

Take this famous scene from The Rock:



Fairly exciting stuff! But an absolute mess. Hardly any shots over a second and when they are, he's just waving the bloody camera around. The shots of the guy on the radio are awful. It's like Bay was on set yelling, "Guys! I just found a zooooom button! It's awesome!". Just because it's high-octane action didn't mean he couldn't have aspired to:



All it takes is slightly longer shots and no need to zoomy-zoomy-zoom-zoomity-zoom-zoom-PAN!

BTW, Tony Scott did Top Gun. Cheesy as hell, but the aerial stuff at least is better than anything Bay could even think of doing! In all seriousness though, Unstoppable? Junk? Really? I liked it. It was almost a perfect action film because it had no plot and no villain, just one huge set-piece. If they'd managed to keep out the ridiculous back stories that almost made me throw up and the predictable, out of place job insecurity, it would have been stunning.

[snowcat]

Bad Boys 2

Bad Boys

Transformers (longest advert for a toy ever!)