I'll tell you what Michael Bay did to me.

He peed on my fucking rug. That rug really tied the room together.

That and Pearl Harbor sucked.

Nonetheless, in memory of Michael Bay's cinematic achievement...

"I miss you more then Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that’s an awful lot girl
And now, now you’ve gone away
And all I’m trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you

I need u like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need u like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He’s way better than Ben Affleck
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that shitty movie too
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you

Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little bit more than I miss you"

I'm going to have a real problem with him if he doesn't stay true to the source material for the Transformers movie.

It's simple: Bay's chaotic, clusterfuck visual ideas and whiplash editing rhythms spawned countless imitators and convinced Hollywood "that's what we wanted" from action cinema.

Now, every young director is forced (or willing) to head into the direction of empty calorie cinema that is all abrasive sheen and no fun, and eventually edited into mush.

Bay doesn't make the worst movies around, but he's my least favorite director simply because his successes have ruined Hollywood for years now.

Now, honestly I dont know if Bay said this or Bruckheimer. They were talking about their philosophy behind moviemaking.

Basically they wanted to, above all things, give the moviegoer their '9 bucks worth'.

If they want nothing to do with art in film thats their money-making business. But in my eyes thats disgusting. I dont bash Bay or Bruckheimer directly, but its that philosophy I'll always hate.

i don't love or hate michael bay's films. i'm completely indifferent. his films have not had a lasting impact on me in any way. they are vacuous, frivilous, and depthless. they are neither provocative nor affirming. and they offer nothing to take with you as you leave the theater. i've forgotten them in as much time as it took to watch them because they are completely inconsequential to anything outside of their own running time.

I really don't know where Bruckheimer ends and Bay begins. But anything I've seen from these two, either in collaboration or just Bruckheimer producing with someone else directing, is just the same masturbatory pubescent-male fantasy of empowerment.

Paper-thin themes are overstated. The extreme becomes the norm. Subtlety is lost. The bludgeoning becomes so constant that it's like a white noise filter. Any subsequent moments of counterpoint or drama or even irony are drowned out in the 'moment' of the action. And with the prevalence of CGI, these massive action centerpieces are quickly diminishing in quality. It's all just another formula.

But my ire is not raised by these types of films being made. Hell, I like the typical Bruckheimer dialogue. It can almost be tuneful.

What made me angry really only happened in Armageddon (I haven't seen Pearl Harbor). I found it macabre and unsettling to see such gleeful destruction of cities, only to have the film shed crocodile tears upon the death of one character.

But that doesn't make me angry, I find it interesting. Not worthwhile, just interesting in passing.

What REALLY pissed me off was Bay's reference to Dr. Strangelove. You have Steve Buscemi sit on the warhead just like Slim Pickens. But that's not enough. Bay has to wink even harder and have Buscemi's character reference the movie. But he doesn't mention the title or the director! If you're going to hammer a reference into someone's head, don't stop short! There's all these 'teenage boys' watching this that could possibly be educated about something besides pseudo-comet-exploding-science. For those that get the reference, the added dialogue is superfluous. For those that don't get the reference, the added dialogue is lacking.

Pick a lane dammit!

I actually love The Rock. But Michael Bay's directing style is like using a sledge hammer to manicure a fingernail. Bad Boys II basically represents the worst of Bay's "artistry."

I love all of Michael Bay's movies (especially The Rock and Bad Boys II).

movie snobs are funny. I love what I love - popular or unpopular, indie and obscure or overhyped hollywood blockbuster. I think people single Michael Bay out because his movies make so much money and saying you hate something can project an image of who you present yourself to be just as much as saying you like something - it's like with music... people who want to present themselves a certain way will say they like Rage Against the Machine and Tool and that they hate Enya, but they'll leave out that they have Avril Levine's albums or a Britney Spears poster in their room.

I just see this sort of stuff as people trying too hard when they go over the top and out of their way to bash Michael Bay. Peter Hyams's last two films were way worse than anything Michael Bay has created, but nobody goes apeshit about him being teh suckekekeke. Same with Roland Emmerich... I don't think I've seen anyone but me mention him by name, but he tends to suck worse as well (IMO).

Remember the Titans? Pirates of the Carribean? Enemy of the State? Dangerous Minds? Crimson Tide? Days of Thunder? Top Gun? Flashdance? Beverly Hills Cop? Ever hear of a little show called C.S.I? Cold Case? Any of these ring a bell? Obviously you don't know much about Bay or Bruckheimer. Either that or all these must fall into the same group as Bad Boys 2 and Pearl Harbor in your mind.

I think all your pent up angst is with Bay b/c Bruckheimer has pumped out a lot of great films.

Carry on...

Michael Bay raped my childhood!

I don't mind his films too much. They're pretty shallow yes but they've got some decent visuals. The problem though is, I don't think Michael Bay has even ever filmed a great action scene. When you think of great action scenes in mindless movies none of them seem to ever come from Michael Bay. If Michael Bay prides himself as a great action director, well he's wrong. He should start watching some James Cameron films.

I own all of his films on DVD, but not because I think he's a great director. Truth be told, his films are usually melodramatic and brainless at the same time...rarely a good pairing. If you want drama, add some depth. If you want to create a popcorn film, check the Animal Cracker conversations at the door.

Still, his films are worth a watch if ever you're in the mood for a movie that isn't at all involving. I can see where the hatred stems from, though.

-JP

yet, i thinkarmageddon had like 6 writers. (including jj abrams now of lost and alias fame)

I have seen enough from Bruckheimer to know what to expect. My expectations have yet to be exceeded.

Bay has amazingly added even more urgency to the Bruckheimer product, making the Bay works I've seen at least visceral enough to keep me interested. But they're overall impact is as fleeting as quicksilver, transparent as glass.

You beat me to it. Okay then, I'll say that he is the AntiChrist.

This seems to be about right. People save the world, get the chick, become famous, and say cool things while doing it. The wannabe hero's dream.

I don't mind his movies. I don't go to the theater to watch them, but I'll check them out at home. Bruckheimer has had a better success rate with me than Bay, but that's neither here or there.

You can't really compare Bruckheimer to Bay. That's apples and oranges. But if were compare Bruckheimer to Brian Gazer well I give all up props to Bruckheimer because he seems like a decent guy and Gazer is a dick.

He kicked my grandmother down the stairs.

Do I hate Michael Bay movies? No.

Would I want Michael Bay to helm a project I'm excited about? Hell no.

Reasons I dislike Michael Bay:

Pearl Harbor
Armageddon (which I own)

Reasons I love Michael Bay:
Bad Boys II
Bad Boys
The Rock

Pearl Harbor proved that Michael Bay fell apart at handling anything beyond male bonding scenes, and the movie was too long by about 2½ hours. The man, bless his heart, cannot direct anything beyond action. This is not to fault him, for I would love him to become a sort of Woo-ping Yuen of explosion and car chase sequences.

You know what, Michael Bay just can't direct much of anything above 2 hours, with Armageddon as my proof.

And to those that say he's a "great action director" there are huge dents and holes in his armor, which are smartly concealed by only the faintest psychological tricks. For example, let's talk about the car chase scene in The Rock. For years, as an adolescent, I was convinced that it was one of the greatest chase scenes in history, marred only by (and here I joke) the fact that we didn't have a pair of men taking a sheet of glass across the street.

But, then, as I slowly expanded my film vocabulary, I took a look at the scene in the The Rock, and saw it for what it was: The outside shots are great, but do you realize he's creating suspense by quickly zooming into faces and actually tilting the camera sideways? I was furious at myself for falling for such a simple parlor trick, but still had hope. Overall, The Rock is still a great movie for what it is... nothing else.

My friend describes Michael Bay's work not as action, but as actionation, which I think perfectly describes it. In terms of sheer adrenaline, Michael Bay's ranks with a lot of greater, better directors. With anything else, the story falls flat.

Mind you, a lot of the "Bay look" (or the "Bruckheimer look") falls on their DPs and Cinematographers, who deliver the goods in impossibly bright hues glowing over a glossy, over-contrasted picture that still looks breathtaking.

Great post and it sums up my thoughts. I do not hate Bay, as with many other things in life I choose not to view his movies, imagine that someone not agreeing/likeing something and choosing not to partake of said subject instead of trying to get it banned. However, I do hate that now all action films feel like they have to be so OVER THE TOP to make any money.

Interesting. Did you like "Sin City"?

All I ask for is action films with heart, and solid physical effects. They are far and in between these days. Bad Boys I, II, The Rock, and Armageddon all qualify. It's just good, solid filmmaking that everyone can love. Michael Bay said that he makes movies for the audience, not himself.

He should hold his shots longer than he does. It's kind of like watching *ahem* MTV's Cribs or Pimp My Ride ... it's like I want to marvel at the good looking house or car. But they just don't let you. They cut all around, with flash cuts and crap. It's sometimes infuriating. Like they're covering something up. Not everything in life needs to move to a beat, like a music video.

On the producing side, Texas Chainsaw Massacre was alright. There were a few things that really didn't fit, though. But I'll blame the director for that.

So does it all boil down to the editing/quick cuts for those that dislike him? That is the vibe I'm getting.