His last movie, Pain & Gain, wasn't half bad.

And if you like Michael Bay movies you must be a brainless mouth breather that only likes movies with big explosions.

I think Bad Boys is one of the best action flicks of recent years. The Rock is also great. He has gone downhill ever since and seems to be getting worse with every movie. That's why I "look down" on him - he's way past his prime but doesn't seem to know it.

And I think the current comic book movie directors are making more entertaining action films.

I'll take Michael Bay's worst film over Iron Man 2 or Green Lantern any day.

Generally not a fan of Mr. Bay, but I loved three of his movies of the 21st century: PEARL HARBOR (a bonafide WWII propaganda film 60 years after the fact), TRANSFORMERS (an action comedy that delivered on both counts) and TRANSFORMERS III (only good IMAX experience I've ever had and best 3-D experience for me).

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.

With the exception of the useless crap with John Malkovich and Ken Jeong at the beginning, Transformers 3 is so balls-to-the-wall action packed it borders on insanity! I just gotta admire an action flick that goes for it that much.

Yes, but it takes forever to get to the action and it seems to go on forever when it does. I'd be a lot more tolerant of Bay's films as simple light entertainment if they would get the "light" part right. They're glorified B-movies, their 150+ minute lengths are what eventually wear me down, they're just grotesquely overlong. If Transformers had been 100 minutes, cut out all of the toilet humor, and moved more briskly, I might've had more fun with it. Bay is loud and noisy, but at least he's unpretentious. I just wish he'd lean his movies out.

As I said earlier in this thread, Bay's movies would definitely be improved if they were edited to a more streamlined pace. He needs to learn self control when it comes to pacing and run time. Just because you can make a 150+ minute action movie doesn't mean you should.

Any of Bay's films past Bad Boys would greatly improve with tighter editing. Even The Rock, which IMO, is his best film still runs overly long. It takes them over an hour before they even get to Alcatraz.

I agree. Michael Bay is essentially a svelte Peter Jackson. Both of them could benefit from having a judicious editor given free reign over their movies.

The Rock? is that the one where the highly regarded British secret agent goes to the trouble of escaping from prison with a specific and urgent goal, and then proceeds to work towards that goal in as obtrusive and attention getting a way as possible?

That's the one. I love that movie and that ridiculous action sequence but it really doesn't make much sense that the character would carry out his plan in that particular manner.

Yeah ... and that place is not big enough to hold the typical DVDTalker's 15 inch cock.

Yeah, but I think even at his most excessive, Jackson is a better filmmaker than Bay on his best day. I find Bay's movies so crass that even when they are sometimes entertaining in places, I find them difficult to go with. The endless leering up women's skirts, rampant misogyny, crass commercialism, loud noise, tasteless jokes, car commercial aesthetics, rampant jingoism, and sometimes incompressible editing just wear me down. Jackson could really use an editor, but at least there are enough good things to justify the viewing-good performances, design elements, and lots of things among the "too much" to enjoy. Bay is a distinctive artist, but I find his art largely vulgar and tasteless, and too much of an at best mediocre thing, largely driven solely by commercialism with little with or artistry. But as I've seen his interviews, he really doesn't care what anyone thinks, and since he's a billionaire dating a supermodel and I'm a retail cashier who has $400 worth of stuff stolen out of his car last night and lives with my parents, maybe he has a point . I suppose there is a kind of purity to what Michael Bay does, an alpha male testosterone high.