The toy that does all the playing for/at you

How funny you should mention Dr. Uwe Boll. When the story hit the other day about Bay allegedly wanting to take time off from blockbusters to direct more personal films, I had happy thoughts of a world in which Bay and Dr. Boll could combine to become the new Merchant-Ivory. It's a pleasant thought, really.

I do think Michael Bay gets singled out too often. By now, I think Tony Scott has earned just as much scorn for his mindless ADD-flash frame brand of cinema. Brett Ratner has taken some heat, but nowhere near what Bay has had to endure and he's every bit as wretched. Bay just happens to be the most visible of the bunch.

I think it's fair to say that Bay succeeds at a brand of filmmaking that, let's be honest, is very difficult to accomplish. I love Jim Jarmusch dearly but I don't think he'd have the slightest idea what to do with a $200 million budget and CGI characters. You might quip that Bay doesn't either but he clearly does. Bay can't simply be interchanged with hundreds of other directors; he's got a valuable and fairly rare skill. That what he makes stinks is barely relevant, particularly in an industry in which only the first 3 days (or 5 days) of business matters.

It does raise a fair question though. Why do newspapers make their critics review movies like this, and why do critics do it? I know the answers are economic: to get advertisement dollars and to keep their jobs, respectively. But do you contribute anything useful by reviewing movies like this?

People who wanted to see it are going to see it anyway. I mean, let's face it. If that trailer actually looks good to you, you're not going to be persuaded by rational counter-arguments. And how much do you really have to say about a movie like this? Is it satisfying simply to vent your spleen?

I think the most useful review, in terms of being customer friendly, would simply be to tick off the number of explosions, fights, etc. in the movie, much like Joe Bob Briggs used to offer a breast count. It would give fans the only information they really want, and it would save creative energy that reviewers could use to write something useful.

JE: Good point. Tony Scott directed "Top Gun." Nobody except Alan Parker has made a more atrociously vapid movie in the decades since. How easily we forget. But why not write about these (often influential) feature-length prefab TV ads? Truth is, there's still an element of supply and demand at work. People are curious, even if they've already decided whether they're going to consume or avoid a given product. I can tell you the traffic for Roger Ebert's one-star review of "ROTFL" is through the roof. Filmmakers have their reasons for making movies, and financiers for investing in them. Marketers have their reasons for selling them. Critics, the first to see the finished products, have their reasons for writing about them. Those who read reviews have their reasons for doing so. And audiences have theirs for handing over their money or not. Everybody comes at the "product" from a different angle. Only silly people think it would be desirable for all of them to always be in alignment. That's rarely going to happen, except under the most fortuitous circumstances. How many movies are popular, critically acclaimed AND hold up over time? Not so many.

Jim, you need to see Scott's Man on Fire and Domino to truly get a sense of how bad his direction can be. Top Gun is like an Ozu film by comparison.

Those word clouds are always fun, but I'm surprised "vomit" isn't on there. I just finished my review and went to read Ebert's, and we both compare the robot character design to vomit. (I can see others commenting that the film made them want to vomit.) I guess Ebert said "throw-up," though, so the word cloud wouldn't know to associate the two. Nuts.

Say what you will about Bay, "The Rock" is still a great action movie and the first "Transformers" is visually stunning. I haven't seen "Revenge" yet but I assume I'll at least enjoy *some* of the Giant Robots (although Aint-it-cool's tearing the movie apart, and if they don't like it...). I don't see anything wrong with that. It may be dumb but at least it's livelier than your usual soulless studio product (Bride Wars seems like the best recent example). I mean, I saw TWO Speilberg movies just for the dinosaurs. It's not that I have a moronic teenage boy inside me, it's that I like to see sensational images I'll never see again.

What baffles me is all the hatred for any given Bay film, and all the love for The Dark Knight (well, okay, maybe not so much love on this blog, but you know what I mean.)

I still feel TDK is twelve Michael Bay movies condensed into five minute episodes and played back to back. Now, I love the occassional mindless Michael Bay romp, but I can only stomach one at a time.

"...how much do you really have to say about a movie like this? Is it satisfying simply to vent your spleen?"

Yes.

The greatest criticism ever written about Michael Bay was not written by a critic. It was the song "The End of an Era," written by Matt Stone and Trey Parker for their film Team America. Some excerpts:

I miss you more than 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.

and

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

Honestly, what else needs to be said?

The reviews have been fun, despite the fact that someone could say the film praises Hitler and it would still make a zillion dollars. So what's the point of another one? Who knows. But I played a little game in my review where I attempted to meet Transformers on its own turf, as a giant spectacle, but still found it failing there. At least I tried to engage it, eh? Anyone interested...

http://www.out1filmjournal.com/2009/06/transformers-revenge-of-attractions.html

I think you hit on something in this article which I do not recall reading from any other article. You wrote:

No, wait, it's "Godardian," right? Bay is cleverly deconstructing conventional movie constructs? To paraphrase Rocchi: Can a reasonably intelligent person tell the difference?

I have only seen one Godard film (Persona), but since I know you like deconstructing films sequences (like your articles about the Bark Knight bank heist scene), I think you should deconstruct a sequence from Transformers (or even a fight scene from one of the Bourne movies would work) and a chosen sequence from a Godard film. Again.... "Can a reasonably intelligent person tell the difference?"

Funny, I was just about to e-mail you asking if you would like to start discussing this film. There's lots of discussion to be had, and I couldn't decide which topic would be more fruitful. I can't say I was surprised that Armond White found it to be sort of life affirming since most people (myself included) saw a really vile, mean spirited movie. It was one of the most high profile examples of truly cynical movie making that I've seen a very long time. And then there's the uncomfortable social implications of the film. The "twin" robots named Mudflap and Skids have already been called racist by many: they have big "ears", talk jive and are illiterate.

President Obama is mentioned as having been taken safely away from any danger, I guess because Michael Bay thinks a sissy President like Obama wouldn't stand tall with the Autobots and go to war with the bad guys when it's "necessary". Women are depicted as nothing more than eye candy and are photographed so hyper sexually that they don't even look human. They're borderline grotesque representations of what every horny 12 year old boy considers the ideal woman. Hell, the first shot of Megan Fox prominently displays her admittedly nice behind. Her boobs are usually front and center too.

And let's not forget that she gets her leg humped by a robo-dog on multiple occassions. John Tuturro's - ostensibly - Jewish character is described as having a "pubic hair afro". Oh, and the kicker? The Decepticon called Devestator has gigantic, 2,000 robo-testicles. There's even a line in the movie that goes something like "Robot testicles dead ahead!". I don't remember exactly because by that point I was too depressed and shocked to be fully engaged with the movie. Rainn Wilson also has a cameo as a sleazy college professor who uses not so subtle sexual innuendos towards his female students.

Now let's keep in mind that this movie is being marketed on Slurpee cups, at Burger King, on t-shirts, in video games, and obviously with kids toys. With that information we can safely assume that 75% of the audience is going to consist of children between 6 and 11. Is this the movie that the next generation will look back on with a sense of childlike wonder? It's mean and vulgar and cheap but it's packaged as "popcorn fun for everyone!". Bay's supporters characterized him as some sort of doe-eyed Spielgergian dreamweaver who's just out to entertain. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I think the critics must have watching a different movie from the rest of the people that saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. It was non-stop action. The movie is about ROBOTS!!! It is no some drama, or deep store about the Holocost. It is about Alien Robots. It was a cartoon for kids in the 80's. Do you think they watched the cartoons and said "The story makes no sense.". No I don't think they did. I have yet to watch a movie that Ebert has watch and agreed with him. I think all the movement in the movie probably made him dizzy and that is why he gave it a bad review.

But you gotta see where White is coming from--- music videos are important to him. And Bay, if nothing else, has a music video sensibility. I kind of agree with him, in the sense that I don't think Bay deserves anywhere near the scorn he gets. But just because Bay's films are the most distinct kind of noise in terms of summer blockbusters doesn't mean it's anything but noise. I say this as someone who moderately enjoyed the first Transformers, but I honestly can't see myself sitting through 2 1/2 hours of Bay's sensory assaulting.

But it's funny that the same critics who overwhelmingly gave Star Trek a pass could cite any other blockbuster as being loud, dumb, and incoherent. A Michael Bay movie is just an excuse for critics to show how clever they can be, how many clever-puns they can make to rip the movie apart. "Look at how many ways we can tear this movie to pieces!". Can't say this really appeals to me, probably for the same reason public executions don't.

Why waste spleen on Michael Bay?

Because it was 2.5 hours of interminable badness. I'm not being facetious or cute when I say I thought it was much longer than it was.

I explained it this way to a friend last night: A critic vents after a bad movie because they feel like they have to retaliate. Imagine you're at a dinner party and you hear some blowhard hold forth on a subject he knows VERY LITTLE about, one you happen to know A LOT about it. Imagine the rising urge to chime in with "Well, actually..." every time the guy says something even more stupid and outrageous than the last thing.

Now imagine that guy got the floor for 2.5 hours before you got a chance to speak. THAT'S why critics write angry.

There are, indeed, some over-the-top responses and a lot of dogpiling invective. But there are a lot of legitimate complaints about this very stupid (and terribly uninteresting) movie, and any halfway smart person can suss out which is which.

Christopher:

I think Brett Ratner is the absolute worst mainstream director today.

Bay's ability to harness that much tech and that much money is indeed impressive. But as Ebert points out, that's absolutely nothing without the chops to tell a story. Bay had that at one time (I still think The Rock is a blast, and Bad Boys is also enjoyable to a lesser degree)), but he appears to be losing it.

As for why critics review it... well at this point it would seem like a major oversight not to. Why did I review it? Because I try to review a movie a week and that filled the gap. This is a job as much as anything else.

I love Jim Jarmusch dearly but I don't think he'd have the slightest idea what to do with a $200 million budget and CGI characters. You might quip that Bay doesn't either but he clearly does

Well, I know Chris is probably expecting some people to disagree with him anyway but I want to assure him that I mean this disagreement sincerely and not flippantly. That is to say, no, I don't think Michael Bay knows what to do with it. I find his visuals choppy and confusing and utterly without a feel for visual consistency or simplicity, the two things that can make an action sequence soar. He has become famous for what he does but others too have become famous for something while being famously bad at it (see Thomas Kinkade). Again, I'm not being flippant when I say that I believe absolutely that Jim Jarmusch would do a better job because he has an eye and a feel for the beauty of cinema. Bay does not. Bay is truly awful with this kind of thing. He actually should try to do something with no action sequences, he might be better at it because despite all of his fame at the hands of the action genre, I truly believe with all my heart that Bay is an absolutely rotten action director.

As for why people talk about movies like this and spew such venom at them I believe it is the price tag. At 10 million, who cares? But 300 million and you can't help but think of all the good movies that got passed on for this turkey. I mean really, how many young talented filmmakers out there could put together a winner for 10? That's thirty terrific movies that don't get made because the studio pumped all it had into this dud.

I have been having a blast reading as many negative reviews for ROTFL as I can. Ebert's was a complete delight. I imagine

Yes! The small, ragged band of reviewers that came out with a positive opinion take great pains to show how the film's bar was low, and that it must be met more than halfway in some dreadful pact that one must "turn off your brains" and soak up the explosions and low-comedy as some kind of vehicle to experience air conditioning, nachos, and subwoofers.

We can only hope that "Incoherent Racist Robot Fight" will under-perform. Box office numbers being king, perhaps Michael Bay will slink off to his office to rework The Formula. (Jokes and Fireballs cut to the rhythm of a spastic metronome.)

If the movie pulls coin, I'm convinced McCain/Palin will be retroactively sworn in. America needs better blockbusters. At least the reviews are poetic and righteous!

This is the kind of film that makes reviewers superfluous. Everyone who pays money to see this knows what kind of movie they're going to see. And lots of money will be paid to see it.

Which is a shame.

I think there should be what I call the $7000.00 movie challenge. When Robert Rodriguez made "El Mariachi" in 1991 he used creativity instead of money to achieve success. And I know in interviews with him since then that he believes the less a movie costs, the more creative he can get. So, here's a challenge to Michael Bay, Tony Scott, Brett Radner, and Uwe Boll: Go make a feature length movie for $7000.00. The rules of the challenge are this: You can shoot the movie any way you like, but the film has to be a minimum of 79 minutes in length. If you use more than $7,000 for any step in making the film; planning, production, casting, editing, etc, you have failed!!! The idea is that this challenge will show everyone just how creative any of you really are.

Every now and then a critic will trot out the OMG its the end of narrative cinema! canard in response to some recent atrocity or another, and it's never not been a canard. I think Pauline Kael's got one in I LOST IT AT THE MOVIES - her culprit was THE HAUNTING, IIRC. Whatever other defects you can find in T:ROTF, it *is* a narrative - there's goal oriented-characters, dangling causes, appointments, deadlines, etc. The problem with a lot of recent action films - the first TRANSFORMERS being a notable offender - isn't that it's unintelligible on the macro level, but on the *micro* level - the "action" (i.e., the ostensible reason for the movie, the thing we named the whole genre for) is impossible to follow. Most of the 2007 movie has left my memory, but I'm pretty sure I could've told you WHY Optimus Prime had to fight Megatron at the end, but I doubt I could've told you HOW (spoiler alert!) O.P. was able to prevail - their battle is just a blur of movement and color and sound. A lot of wiseacres have attributed this style to the influence of 90's Hong Kong movies, but that's just wrong. The average Jackie Chan or Tsui Hark or Ringo Lam or Stephen Chow -directed movie is exciting because its so easy to follow; these directors, y'know, DIRECT your attention. Many martial arts films even go out of their way to draw a yellow-highlighter circle around the particular fighting styles being used - "Oh no! The LOTUS TECHNIQUE!" - whereas these days I can hardly tell if a bad guy's been dispatched by a punch, kick or gunshot.

Anyway, as for T:ROTF. I will say that the action is actually marginally easy to follow, so: improvement! Armond White's a bit of a goof, but I don't think he's totally wrong about Bay. His films almost always feature some striking images and artfully-composed shots (the shot of Megan Fox and the helicopter that he mentions in his review is indeed swell; it stuck out for me at last night's screening, and I hadn't read AW's review yet), and I've always kind of liked the general look of his films. I don't think that any of his films are particularly successful or good, but I can't deny that the guy does have a style. So I don't get the Michael Bay hate, particularly since (as someone pointed out above) you've got JJ Abrams and Chris Nolan out there doing the same thing (minus the "striking image" and "artfully composed shot" part) and getting nothing but cheers, whoops, slaps on the back, ticker-tape parades, etc.

Oh, and Anthony: I would definitely pay to see THE BARK NIGHT.

Anthony,

Persona's not Godard's best film, try "Bad Day at Black Rock" with Spencer Tracy

I don't understand the hatred being thrown at Bay here. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to be disappointed in this movie. Everyone knows exactly what the movie will be going in. It will be bad jokes, big robots, hot girls, and lots of things getting blowed up real good. Did people really think Transformers 2 *wasn't* going to be loud, dumb, and obnoxious? Anyone dumb enough to be tricked into seeing this movie expecting more is probably dumb enough to enjoy the movie.

I'm not going to see Transformers 2. I didn't see Transformers 1. I know I wouldn't like them. But I don't hold it against the director or its supporters.

I'll save my hatred for the supporters and directors of dumb movies with pretentions of intelligence. Like Crash, Minority Report, Dark City, and Revolutionary Road. Low entertainment has always existed. It worries me more when lowbrow or middlebrow entertainment is called genius.

As for why people talk about movies like this and spew such venom at them I believe it is the price tag. At 10 million, who cares? But 300 million and you can't help but think of all the good movies that got passed on for this turkey.

No good movies got passed on for this turkey. This line of thinking, that you ought to care about this film because its high-price tag cost many other, better films a chance of being made, is wrong. It's simply not true. The money that went towards the production of this movie was always only going to go towards making this kind of movie. Maybe not one THIS awful, but still one that would be almost intentionally meaningless and ephemeral and loud and cold - and profitable. Where filmmaking is strictly a business, it is strictly a business, and your filmmakers that could have 'put together a winner' for 10mil would not have put together a winner of the sort the studio is looking for - or if they did, odds are the lot of them, each given a share of the money given to Bay to make this turd, would still have failed to make the money Bay will make.

So again I see no justification for anyone who is serious about movies to pay attention to this film. It has nothing to do with good movies. It's not costing any good filmmakers the chance to make good films. It's not taking the spot of some better film, or of a hundred better films. As Hollywood is now, this film does not really exist in the same universe as, say, Jim Jarmusch films. Not the same critical universe, and not really the same financial universe. There should have been a disclaimer: No Jim Jarmusch films were harmed in the making of this movie. The only thing that was hurt was your life, two hours of which you just spent in a particularly disagreeable way.

Anthony mentioned seeing Godard's Persona. But Godard didn't make Persona. Bergman did.

I'll save my hatred for the supporters and directors of dumb movies with pretentions of intelligence. Like Crash, Minority Report, Dark City, and Revolutionary Road. Low entertainment has always existed. It worries me more when lowbrow or middlebrow entertainment is called genius.

Says the guy who was quoting Rand and Palahniuk as authorities in another thread.

I'm tired of the excuse "you know what you're getting into when you watch a Michael Bay movie." If Bay has $200 million and all the toys at his disposal and he is still incapable of telling a story properly, then yes we have a reason to complain. I rented the first Transformers film recently - my first Bay film since my most-hated-film Armageddon - and loathed it. Bay structures his films as sequences. Two-minute segments leading to money shots. In a perverse way, I feel like I got a glimpse of Bay's sex life - all porn, no intimacy.
What boggles my mind is that Steven Spielberg's name is on these films. Take any sequence from Jurassic Park or Saving Private Ryan and see how clear, efficient and memorable they are. Does he ever take Michael Bay aside and give him a little advice? I wish he would. With all the toys at his disposal, with all the brilliant people he surrounds himself with, it's amazing that Mr. Bay still can't get it together story-wise and at least try to make it better. Is it possible he's that incompetent? Does he care? After making so many big, loud stupid movies, is he ever going to grow out of it, or is he interested in going down in film history as disposable?
The point is, it is possible to make a big dumb action flick and still have engaging characters and some semblance of story. Way at the other end of the spectrum you have Pixar (yes, I'm bringing it up again) which can make brilliant, well-told action films that make truckloads of money and remain classics. If for Bay and his cohorts, it's all about the money, then why not consider how much longevity he'd get if his films were made to last?
At this point, I'm not sure Mr. Bay is a good enough filmmaker or storyteller to ever aspire to anything more, which is a sad state of affairs, considering how many people invest blood sweat and tears to bring these anti-classics to the screen.

Everyone knows exactly what the movie will be going in. It will be bad jokes, big robots, hot girls, and lots of things getting blowed up real good. Did people really think Transformers 2 *wasn't* going to be loud, dumb, and obnoxious?

Except it's not any GOOD at being those things. I said it in my review: it's not only dumb, it's interminably dull. The action sucks, is very infrequent, and the ENDLESS plot chatter just goes ON and ON. There's such a thing as "good dumb," and this movie is not that. It fails to even be interesting.

JE: Excellent point, Ken. "Loud," "dumb" -- even "obnoxious" -- are not necessarily pejoratives. "CE3K" (and "Stop Making Sense"!) are loud; lots of very funny comedies are dumb and/or obnoxious. Doesn't make them bad movies. To paraphrase RE, it's HOW they are those things that makes all the difference in the world.

Saw Tansformers:Revenge of the Fallen on opening night. Had to rush the wife home, was late to work and all I had for dinner was a half a bucket of movie popcorn.
-
-
-
So worth it. I am once again stunned and perplexed by critics responses to some of my favorite movies. I swear they are watching a different movie. Some bad thoghts by critics, one saw the street slang used by Jazz in the first movie and The Twins in the Fallen were racist, robots in blackface. What? robots personalities when translated to our language can only be white? Some found the plot confusing while I had absolutely no problem following it. I was in fact sucked into the story and saddened when it was over. I don't know, mabey it's a generational thing, I'm 37 and found the plot engaging, the characters, both human and robot, fascinating and believable. The action and efects? It's a Michael Bay film, 'nuff said. i can't wait for three.

Roll out,
Stephen Seeling

People who think that just because a movie's existence means quality sure won't want to read the Transformers 2 review in most outlets. Critics have not been giving a favorable Transformers 2 review. The film has been pilloried in the press as having a labyrinthine plot that is ultimately lacking depth, and it received a 20% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, the film review site, and it appears a fast payday loan isn't going to reverse the tide. Director Michael Bay is frequently lambasted by critics as a hack that relies on effects rather than plot, and the Transformers 2 review stream seems to reflect this view, but it likely won't stop people from getting fast cash to watch it.

I agree very much with what Handsome Dan wrote. I think there are plenty of entertaining action movies with paper-thin plots and characters. One of my favorite genres (sub-genres?) is the tournament martial arts film in which a bunch of fighters with different styles just get together and fight. It's time to watch "Master of the Flying Guillotine" again.

But like Dan wrote, the pleasure in these films is the ability to see the actual events being filmed. I would also add that having real people instead of CG characters performing the action is crucial, but that's probably for another discussion. The medium and long shots that take in the entire scene and establish a sense of spatial orientation add so much to the film.

My problem with many action films today, especially the CG ones, is not the story or characters, but the action. And for all the reasons Dan wrote and I won't repeat. Some directors are gifted enough to make it work (Peter Jackson) but I can't think of too many blockbuster directors today who are particularly good at what they do.

I wonder what a John Ford war movie would look like today. Do you think he'd give in to the "intensified continuity" trend or would he stick to his cinematic guns and actually create something coherent and tangible?

Personally, I think it's sad that a film like this, which everyone agrees is at best two hours of distracting pap, is getting so much attention. Meanwhile, actual good films that deserve some air-time in blogs such as this one get left out.
I wrote a piece on it here: http://notfilmschool.com/?p=48

This is why I'll never be a film critic: you have to waste time watching and writing about movies like this. As you're well aware, Jim, such reviews are like religious sermons: they either preach to the choir or fall on deaf ears. No one, I'll wager, has ever attended a Transformers film (or declined to do so) on the basis of a film review. So it's a meaningless exercise, that review, painful to all involved, and I don't envy any critic who has to do it. I wonder, then: have you ever been tempted, in such cases, to write the review and not see the film? (You can trust me. I won't tell anyone.)

JE: No, I've never been tempted to write a review without seeing a film. (Though I do recall one time, as an exercise, writing part of a review, then seeing the film, and pointing out that it was the sort of film that was so formulaic that you could write a fairly accurate description of it before you even saw it. I offered the first part of the review, then mentioned that it was written before seeing the film, and went on from there. I wish I could remember what movie it was -- but, obviously, it was exactly the kind of movie that would not stick in the memory because it was so generic and characterless.)

What's interesting to me about your comment is that you assume reviews are written and published in order to influence consumer behavior. I've never seen it that way. I always assume that people have probably already decided if they're going to see a movie and are looking for more information or an interpretation of it; or they've already seen it and want to compare their experience and insights with someone else's. I've always said I would never, ever come right out and say: "Don't see this movie" -- even if I thought it should be boycotted for moral reasons. People can make up their own minds about that sort of thing. But I always write from the assumption that I have no influence whatsoever over anyone's actual behavior. That's why it's immaterial to me whether a particular critical observation can be classified as "positive" or "negative." All that matters is whether it's accurate or inaccurate, and why. The review is the beginning of the discussion, not the end.

@Paul

I now have my own personal troll. How delightful.

I understand how losing an argument must upset you. But why don't we talk about the issues in this part of the blog? If you want to talk politics or books (and my guess is you don't, simply because you don't know much about them), you can respond elsewhere.

Personally, I think it's sad that a film like this, which everyone agrees is at best two hours of distracting pap, is getting so much attention. Meanwhile, actual good films that deserve some air-time in blogs such as this one get left out.

Fraser, I wrote a lengthy post about this that either Jim didn't approve because it insulted too many people here, or else it just got eaten by the internet. But I pretty much said that people who claim to be real film fans, fans of film as an art, seem to feel obligated to care about and discuss movies like this, simply because they cost so much money to make and are marketed so heavily - and I speculated it's part marketing-driven mass media stuff that causes them to care, and part their wanting to fit in with everyone else in the country and be able to discuss the same new film - regardless of its quality. I was disgusted that Ebert decided this merited a blog entry after his initial review, and also that Jim decided to write about it (although Jim's post is more about the reaction to the film than the film itself, it still fans the flames of the thing).

Spyke: I'm 28, grew up on the show, and I hated this movie. So did my friends and peers, who loved the first one. It's not a generational or a disconnect thing; you don't get to dismiss the criticism that easily.

Fraser Orr: There is merit to your argument. Transformers is to the Hurt Locker as Michael Jackson's death is to the Iranian protests/crackdown ... in the sense of substance.

Paul, I get what you're saying completely. Perhaps I shouldn't have made it sound so literal. So to make it less literal, forget about other movies being made altogether. What I meant by my statement was basically people see the budget and think, "300 million dollars for this?!" It's the price tag that makes folks think about how else the money could have been spent. In other words, I know the money is for this movie specifically, it's just that when an obscene amount gets spent on something that blows as hard as this thing seems to people get mad about it, considering most of us are saving our change for the coinstar machine at the grocery store.

And again, I was trying to answer the question as to why this is getting so much attention. I think that's it. A 20 million dollar budget and no one would be saying any more than they said about MEGASHARK.

Give me a break. When will people stop treating Bay as if he is the devil? Is he a good film director? No, but several of his films are fun and he did direct The Rock, one of the greatest action films of all time. Personally, I think he's a lot better than someone like Lars Von Trier or Jim Jarmusch. Bay's films may not be all that intelligent (The Rock aside) but I would take his 'vapid' films over the psuedo-intellectual films of Jarmusch and Von Trier. I'm personally not going to see Transformer 2 as it doesn't interest me, but I still long for the two hours that I spent watching Stranger Than Paradise and Dead Man as well as Dancer in the Dark.

Oh, and Top Gun achieved exactly what it set out to do. You can't judge it on what it isn't; you can only judge it on what it is, and I think it brilliantly succeeded. By that I mean, Top Gun was all surface but that was all it was intended to be.

@Ken Lowery

"Except it's not any GOOD at being those things. I said it in my review: it's not only dumb, it's interminably dull. The action sucks, is very infrequent, and the ENDLESS plot chatter just goes ON and ON. There's such a thing as "good dumb," and this movie is not that. It fails to even be interesting."

You missed my point. Are their good, dumb action movies? Sure. Pirates of the Carribean, Crank, Matrix, Dark Knight, Bourne Supremacy, etc. are pretty dumb movies that are fun, atmospheric, well-paced, well-acted, and with good action scenes. But an eight year old can follow them (although they probably all aren't appropriate for a eight-year-old).

Did anyone think Transformers 2 was really going to be as smart as those? Transformers 2 is a movie based on a kid's cartoon, directed by Michael Bay, and starring Shia LaBouf and Megan Fox. Its target audience is pre-teens. Everyone knew this going in.

This is like adults complaining that the latest Shrek movie isn't funny. Or men complaining that the latest Kate Hudson/Matthew McConaughey movie is too sappy. Or conservatives complaining that Michael Moore's newest film is too liberal politically.

Michael Bay's movies will always be loud and an insult to the intellignce of people over 14-years-old. If you go to the theater expecting more, you have no one else to blame.

And to all those wondering why Spielberg put his name on the movie? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Michael Bay's movies will always be loud and an insult to the intellignce of people over 14-years-old. If you go to the theater expecting more, you have no one else to blame.

Except it failed on even that measure. That's what you don't seem to be comprehending. Even as a Michael Bay movie, it is exceptionally bad.

"That's what you don't seem to be comprehending. Even as a Michael Bay movie, it is exceptionally bad."

Of course it's bad. So what? Are you really complaining because you expected a movie to be bad and it was worse? Do you eat out of dumpsters and then complain to the restaraunt?

I mean, of all the worthless things to whine about. To complain that a Michael frickin' Bay movie is dumber than you thought it would be.

I'll let you in on a secret. Transformers 3 will be louder and dumber. And Trans4mers will be the dumbest and loudest movie ever made. Look, I saved you $10 bucks.

I went a saw ROTF last night, and while I enjoyed it, I could see how others could not. Admittedly I went to see it expecting Giant Robot Porn - which is what the movie delivered - but to paraphrase the Great One's review of 1999's The Mummy: "I cannot argue for the script, the direction, the acting ... but I can say that I was not bored and sometimes I was unreasonably pleased."

I tend to divide Hollywood blockbusters into three categories: Dumb Films for Smart People (Iron Man, Pirates of the Caribbean); Smart Films for Dumb People (Dark Knight, The Matrix) and Dumb Films for Dumb People (Paul Blart). ROTF definitely falls into the last category, but it is certainly no worse than many others (the sterile, jokey Star Trek for one), and Bay at least knows how to film kinetic action, even if he cannot tell a complex, well-paced story.

I have to take exception to claims that "The Dark Knight" was just another Big, Dumb, Action Movie. Sure, it was loud in places. Sure, it had action. But it was also about something. For example, what it meant to be a "hero" (through the characters of Wayne and Dent), the corruptibility of the pure (Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face), the notion that a spark of dignity exists even within the meanest of us (exemplified by the convict casting away the Joker's detonator toward the end), and so on.

A movie is defined by its stakes. A decent movie puts the fictional lives of characters on the line. A good movie goes a step further and makes us care, embodying in those characters conflicts and ideas that affect us all. By making that connection, a good movie tricks you into putting yourself on the line: your values, your perception of the world - not just your money. For good movies and especially great movies, you, and your world, are the stakes. "The Dark Knight" accomplished this. That no one seems to expect this of a film these days is a great tragedy. A greater tragedy is that no one can recognize a film that does such a thing, even if it shot them in the gut with a 44 magnum.

I can't help but be reminded of that old Mr. Show sketch Worthington's law where if the more money you have the better a person you are ("As a person Gandhi wasn't worth very much at all"). By the same logic Michael Bay is a better director than orson welles and woody allen combined since his movies have made more money than all their movies combined.

I'm not the Dan from above.

To give Bay his due, he's shown in The Island and the better parts of The Rock that he can direct in a more disciplined manner when he wants to. Actually, I thought that the first Transformers wasn't that bad (the insufferable clanging sound effects aside), and it continued his improvement with The Island a more focused straightforward narrative by his standards. It was reasonably paced and leavened with moments of good humor, and any film that can manage a double homage to Three Kings and Dr. Strangelove can't be all bad. But ROTF is in the same vein as Bad Boys II, not even enjoyable as a guilty pleasure (too nasty and mean spirited for that), or as over-the-top filmmaking (in both films there's not a single shot that stands out in memory). Bay doesn't even have his ADD nature working for him in ROTF, dragging and bloating the climax in the desert well past the point of tedium with all the plot he tries to tie up at the last minute (after weighing the movie down with a dozen redundant subplots earlier in the film).

I have to admit that I enjoyed Revenge of the Fallen, for reasons that have very little to do with its merits as a film. The opening sequence was filmed not too far from where I grew up. It was exciting to see giant robots fight in the same place where I played with toy robots as a kid. A good deal of the rest of the movie was filmed where I currently live. There's just something irresistible about seeing places I pass every day of my life on a movie screen.

Fun with numbers:

Since I mentioned Jarmusch earlier in the discussion, I just thought I'd share the fact that on Wednesday alone Transformers 2 earned more than twice as much in box office all of Jim Jarmusch's films have earned in total. I'm talking domestic only for ROTFL, of course. Worldwide, it would be more than triple.

Ain't movies great?

JE: Woo hoo! Does that mean Michael Bay will someday be as famous as Adrian Lyne?