MetaChat - Um, Michael Bay? Really?

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

16 July 2007

Um, Michael Bay? Really? I'm not getting the appeal of the Transformers movie. Can someone as'plain it to me?

→[More:]Warning: IMO, the man has never made a good film.

Let's just have a butcher's at his body of work, shall we?

# Transformers (2007)

56% on Rotten Tomatoes. "Whatever chance Transformers might have been a decent movie disappeared the moment Bay was hired to direct."

# The Island (2005)

40% on RT. "An intelligent, provocative premise wrapped in a bone-chillingly stupid action movie."

# The Lionel Richie Collection (2003) (video "Do It to Me")

No comment required.

# Bad Boys II (2003)

25%. "An appalling, spirit-sapping grind of a movie."

# Pearl Harbor (2001)

24%. "A cheerfully offensive rape of history."

# Armageddon (1998/I)

41%. "Resolute on violating every law of dramatic unity and physics, Armageddon makes Deep Impact look like a documentary."

# The Rock (1996)

62%. "The movie deteriorates into a long commercial for the home-game version of itself."

# Bad Boys (1995)

44%. "Competent yet asinine."

# Shadows and Light: From a Different View (1992)

I have no idea.

# Great White: My... My... My... the Video Collection (1991) (video "Call It Rock N' Roll")

He made a Great White video. I think I'll give that a 0%.

# Playboy Video Centerfold: Kerri Kendall (1990)

This is definitely his best project. He should've stayed in soft core porn.

post by: chuckdarwin at: 06:34 | 29 comments

I've only ever seen Armageddon and it was a painful enough experience that I've avoided ever seeing another one. Wife loved Transformers though, she went on a company outing to see it last week.

posted by octothorpe 16 July | 07:29

Basically, it's Transformers. If you're a certain kind of dude who came of age in the 80's, it's not really a decision if you're going to see it or not, you just are. The movie could be a white table and Micheal Bay's hands playing with Transformers toys for 90 minutes, you'd still go see it.

posted by Capn 16 July | 07:43

Bay sure likes minstrel-show portrayals of blacks. Movies suck such shit these days that this kind of ordure goes to the top of the list when it should go straight to video. Then again, it's a movieization of a line of toys.

I wanna see Talk to Me. Cheadle's the closest thing we have to an actor up in this.

posted by Hugh Janus 16 July | 08:02

Hugh, I want to see No Country For Old Men.

posted by chuckdarwin 16 July | 08:07

It's fun. Sometimes I just like to see a fun movie. You ignore the gaping plot holes and groan-worthy cheesy dialog because OMG ROBOTS AND EXPLOSIONS. I apologize for nothing.

posted by mike9322 16 July | 08:15

Oh, yeah, for sure, chuckdarwin. The Coen brothers can do no wrong. What gets me is that, with all the talent they get to work on their films, all these creative minds, and the extremely tight shooting schedules they keep, the scripts they write almost never change from the pre-production to release. It's genius.

I mean, they've got these extremely creative casts who, in a short time, convincingly deliver every line verbatim, with feeling; they get career-best work time and again out of guys like Goodman and Buscemi, not to mention Turturro; Clooney was delightful in the Odyssey, and hell, was Albert Finney better in Miller's Crossing or Tom Jones? The Hugh Janus Jury of One is out on that one.

Anyway, yeah, I can't wait for the new Coen Bros movie. They're all so good.

posted by Hugh Janus 16 July | 08:27

The first half of The Island convinced me that Michael Bay could make what we'd all consider to be a good movie; the second half convinced me that, for whatever reason, he actively chooses not to. The Island does have gorgeous production design, though.

And Bad Boys II is so incredibly, deliberately offensive on all levels that one could argue that Bay was trying for his version of a Paul Verhoeven movie--it isn't nearly as clever as Verhoeven when he's at his best, but still.

As for Transformers--I didn't like that one too much. However, I did spend a short time this weekend in the company of an aggressively unlikable person who claimed that the movie was "fucking awesome," and that anyone who claimed it "sucked" was a "fucking idiot." "There is this hot girl in it!" he said. "She is so fucking hot, and there's this one shot where the camera is pointing right at her ass. Can you imagine what it would be like to be that cameraman? It would be fucking awesome. You would be all like, I didn't quite get that shot, let's try that again! Ha ha! God she was so fucking hot."

This person was in his late twenties, by the way.

posted by Prospero 16 July | 08:53

At risk of a total derail (hey, it's a thread about movies, right?) I should point out that anyone who hasn't seen Verhoeven's Soldier of Orange should, as it's one of the four or five best movies about WWII Europe and the Nazi menace, along with Casablance,Das Boot, Europa, Europa, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. There's an IMDB review that cautions you to get the right subtitled version; this is important advice.

It makes Starship Troopers, his embrace of fascism, a bit puzzling.

posted by Hugh Janus 16 July | 09:01

Saw the movie, liked the big robots and splosions. Mindless fun. I couldn't help but think Megan Fox, who is quite pretty, should really try to stay out of the sun more, as she'll end up all wrinkled. Malignant melanoma is nothing to really be sexy with.
John Turturro, I'm guessing, was paying rent.

posted by Zack_Replica 16 July | 09:04

It makes Starship Troopers, his embrace of fascism, a bit puzzling.

I didn't think Starship Troopers was an embrace of fascism, so much as an attempt to show how war can force a nation that isn't fascist to unwittingly tend in that direction. Starship Troopers (the entire film, not just the newsreels within the film) is like a propaganda film from a future society that's somehow fallen back through time--since we have the benefit of being aware that it's propaganda, we can deduce certain characteristics of the society in which it was created by observing what is thought to motivate its citizens to patriotic behavior.

It's my favorite Verhoeven movie (with the possible exception of Black Book), and I don't particularly care that it insults the intention of Heinlein's original work, etc. Heinlein's legacy is robust enough to survive a bit of parody.

posted by Prospero 16 July | 09:28

I agree, Prosepero, that Verhoeven is playing with ideas more than actually "embracing" anything (my poor choice of words) but he seems enamored of the trappings of European fascism, the Gestapo coats, the grey uniforms, the crisp drill. I can see that it's all a warning, but like Spielberg in Schindler's List, sometimes his lens loves his subject too much (which is why I think Raiders was Spielberg's best movie on the subject. It lacks the tawdry exploitation and moral equivocation of List; Raiders takes the quasi-mystical sources of this society of goons, reveals the course of history as divine retribution, renders villains as villains, eventually dead and hellbound; but I digress).

I suspect Verhoeven's Dutchness is partly to blame for his strangeness on the subject. Nobody mixes admiration and fear of Germany the way the Dutch can: just watch international soccer, where team after team of Netherlandish superstars falters before mere reputation and inferior German teams take the day. Some say it's because soccer is fun for the Dutch, and work for the German. Most of my Dutch friends say, "Look, it's Germany. We fear them, but we like them, too. Germany's like an older cousin from the big city who rides a motorcycle. We want them to think we're cool, and that takes our minds off the game."

I digress again.

posted by Hugh Janus 16 July | 09:51

I mean, they've got these extremely creative casts who, in a short time, convincingly deliver every line verbatim, with feeling; they get career-best work time and again out of guys like Goodman and Buscemi, not to mention Turturro; Clooney was delightful in the Odyssey, and hell, was Albert Finney better in Miller's Crossing or Tom Jones? The Hugh Janus Jury of One is out on that one.

What is even more impressive is how good Frances is in all the films. Normally, people get lambasted for casting their wives, but she's always perfect. Fargo couldn't have HAD anyone else in her role... nor Blood Simple.

You're all right, Mr Janus.

posted by chuckdarwin 16 July | 09:57

This person was in his late twenties, by the way.

He sounds like a genius.

posted by chuckdarwin 16 July | 10:04

I seriously think John Goodman is one of our most under-apprected actors. His girth and sitcom background taint perception, I think. Only the Coens seem to really realize how talented he is.

posted by jrossi4r 16 July | 10:07

I guess I need to watch Black Book.

posted by chuckdarwin 16 July | 10:09

Oh, absolutely, Frances McDormand is fantastic. It's no wonder she has an Oscar and a stack of other awards and nominations, as she's been great in a heap of good movies.

Also, she looks quite a bit like my sister-in-law, which is neither here nor there, but just is. Increases my natural inclination to think she's cool, I guess.

I like the tilt of your tam, too, chuckdarwin.

It's like we're onstage, delivering stage-whispered asides.

On preview, yeah, Goodman lights up every role he takes.

posted by Hugh Janus 16 July | 10:13

I seriously think John Goodman is one of our most under-apprected actors.

Agreed, jrossi.

posted by BoringPostcards 16 July | 10:15

Now what mystifies me about Transformers is this: these robots are CG characters. Every frame of them has to be planned out carefully, including backgrounds and camera moves and stuff.

Given that, why are the fight scenes so craptacular?

posted by Capn 16 July | 10:17

Every frame of them has to be planned out carefully, including backgrounds and camera moves and stuff.

Indeed, Capn. They use a pre-vis process (electronic storyboard) that mocks the entire film up before they even start these days. So, the fights must've sucked in the pre-vis as well...

posted by chuckdarwin 16 July | 10:27

I wanted to see them transform. I wanted to see a cassette tape change, in the space of six awkward movements, into a robot who can only walk from side to side because his knees don't bend the right way. Or, since they had such fancy CGI to work with, I wanted to see the dozens of movements required to change an airplane into a 30-foot robot. Instead, it was all just a blur of gray CGI, and I couldn't separate one robot from the one he was fighting. And this:

Megatron: These humans deserve to be destroyed!
Optimus Prime: They have the right to choose!

Excuse me, what? Is the "choice" between being destroyed by giant robots from outer space and not being destroyed by giant robots from outer space really a choice? Or is the movie secretly about abortion?

For the first 30 minutes or so, I thought it was really good, easily Bay's best film (not that that's saying much). Bay seemed to grasp the necessary balance of testosterone-infused action and tongue in cheek mocking. But then it just kept spinning its wheels: the same shots of guys jogging in slo-mo toward airplanes silhouetted against a hazy sunset, the same incomprehensible action sequences, and the same genuinely terrible dialog.

posted by goatdog 16 July | 10:33

The people at Disney and Pixar know exactly how good John Goodman is, apparently. Unforgettable characters: Walter Sobchak and Big Dan Teague & Charlie Meadows.

posted by chuckdarwin 16 July | 10:34

(not that those are Disney/Pixar characters... having said that, Monsters Inc and Emporer's New Groove would've been much poorer efforts without him)

posted by chuckdarwin 16 July | 10:39

Prospero, your aquaintance sounds like quite the charmer.

posted by iconomy 16 July | 10:42

Oh, if only the Transformers movie were about abortion. If only.

posted by chuckdarwin 16 July | 10:53

If it were about abortion, there'd be no dialogue at all. The vehicles would just sport conflicting bumper stickers and Jesus fish variations.

posted by jrossi4r 16 July | 11:16

Given that, why are the fight scenes so craptacular?

1. The robots aren't smooth enough. Many of the shots are either in close quarters or at high speed. This causes a lot of visual static, blurring details.
Also, the lack of definition in faces and bodies doesn't give enough visual anchors for the viewer to figure out what part of the body one is looking at.

2. The shakey cam. This is why Battlestar Galactica gives me headaches. It's the cinema verite thing for extra! added! drama! The robots are so big they shake the viewing field. The drama is so intense in BG that it's hard to focus. When I look at things, my eyes compensate for any movement, so the extra movement makes me want to smack someone.

posted by Zack_Replica 16 July | 12:53

I hope I haven't arrived too late to pile affection on John Goodman.

posted by box 16 July | 13:20

Not bothering to count, I'm hoping that Box was the seventh person to praise John Goodman, so that I may say:

Mark me eight, Dude.

posted by Triode 16 July | 14:18

- Starship Troopers, clearly parody and still very funny (it was on HBO a few days ago).
- John Goodman, excellent
- Michael Bay hasn't done anything worth looking at, BUT, I saw Transformers and I loved it. Great big robots doing big stupid robot stuff, with no plot to get in the way. It's NOT an intellectual movie, if you spend more than three seconds thinking about it, you're over-analyzing. If you don't want to watch big robots tearing up the scenery while spouting lame comic book dialog, this is not your movie.

posted by doctor_negative 18 July | 02:04

← Dudley Zoological Gardens - an amateur review || Stack attack! →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN