Transformers (Michael Bay, 2007)

[Mr Sausage]

I think if you forget it's michael bay and pretend that the director is some no-name you'll have a lot of fun watching this...

You'll also be a complete tosser. Honestly, talk about disappearing up the sphincter of cinephilia.

It's very amusing to see the people on this board who can't quite bring themselves to admit Michael Bay has made a (reportedly) very enjoyable film and have to make all sorts of silly excuses for it.

I don't think he meant it that way. It seems more like he's saying that if you ignore the whole cinephile backlash against Michael Bay, or your own intellectual pride, and go in looking for a fun time, you might actually find one. Which is as much to say it's the name and not the movie that is guiding opinions.

[montgomery]

I think it's a very vocal group of Bay supporters like myself that keep up appearances at this forum. If you go to Google and type in "The Rock" and "Criterion" I'm sure you'll find a very large majority of folk at all kinds of boards hating on the film and the company for even thinking of including it in their collection....I'd say that Bay supporting here is yet another thing that generally sets this forum apart and the reason I continue visiting.

And to pass judgment on his stuff--and him--without seeing his films, is the kind of high falutin' film snobbery that people let go unchecked in regards to Bay, but would absolutely shred to bits if ever applied to, say, "a serious auteur."

So I'm with Narshty on this one--it is generally intellectually safe to hate on Michael Bay. Hence my mission to spread the gospel of the Bad Boys franchise.

Yes, but what you fail to mention is that Bay is one of the top-paid directors in Hollywood whose films are seen and loved by millions. He doesn't exactly need defending, or someone to "preach the gospel of the Bad Boys franchise." If he inspires more vitriol than, say, Kiarostami, it's only because he is also more ubiqutious (of course, Kiarostami inspires more fervent vitriol in his own country than Micheal Bay ever could here, but that's besides the point). I think it may be intellectually safe to act as if you are in the brave minority who must defend one of the top directors in the world as if he were a neglected genius, which suggest that the millions of people who line up to see his films aren't smart enough or capable of doing him justice. It's also intellectually safe to say that those who "pass judgment on him" do so "without seeing his films," (I don't doubt that people do this but this is neither specific to him nor relevant to Bay's actual merits or faults as a filmmaker).

[colinr0380]

Is there anything more intellectually safe than hating Michael Bay? Christ, it seems like he only is talked about by "movie-people" in order for them to feel superior. Is Bay really more abhorrent than, say, Guy Ritchie? (Admittedly I have not seen Bad Boys II). Even in his own field, the action genre, is Bay really worse than Roland Emmerich? or Lee Tamahori? or Rob Cohen? I don't think so. Transformers was fascinating to watch just to see Bay work, to see what movies with an essentially unlimited budget look like. It seemed like something of a throwback to the blockbusters of the 1990s, and I'm not sure anyone makes films like that better than Bay.

Lee Tamahori at least made one more than decent film in Once Were Warriors and I have to admit to liking Rob Cohen's films - it seems like some of his enthusiasm in taking on the subjects in his films comes across to the audience. It feels as if he is at least having fun learning about Bruce Lee or street racing rather than presenting an attitude of knowing it all already and making a film that will shower his wisdom on ignorant audiences who know nothing of what the youth of today are into!

I don't know if this is because of his filmmaking style, or whether he just knows when to defer to experts in specific areas to give him advice on things he might not be familiar with, but it seems to give his films a likeable tone that works as a good introduction to the subjects and worlds of his films rather than seeming cynical or patronising in their attitudes.

That doesn't mean I think his films are great successes, sometimes they can be as embarassing as seeing a middle-aged man trying to jive with the kids, but I'd take them over Armagdeddon any day!

You can have Roland Emmerich - he seems Bay's nearest equivalent in threatening the world's population in his films to make simple minded points or sketch in various stereotypes to poke fun at before they're destroyed in the most spectacular manner and yet in a way that ensures that we hardly remember them five minutes after they die. Because of that I suppose it was a coup to bring in Harvey Fierstein to portray an easily-identified-as-gay character in Independence Day!

Guy Ritchie also makes terrible films, but he is doing a good job of committing cinematic hari-kiri on his own, with nobody seemingly interested in defending him, so it feels nasty to criticise him further! Having said that this was a great Adam & Joe toy parody of Snatch (as well as a great parody of Mark Cousins!)

[Len]

Bad Boys 2 is excellent. It's one of the few cases of a real 80's action film made in the recent years (also recommended for fans of Bad Boys 2 is the John Cena-vehicle "The Marine"). I'm not quite willing to say that it's better than The Rock, but BB2 is the most energetic action film to come out of Hollywood in ages. It's a perfect example of Bay's more is more filmmaking philosophy actually working, with the script providing just the flimsiest of excuses for Bay to really indulge his love for excess. And how could someone not love an film where in the end, the heroes invade and blow up Cuba? (and the whole thing is topped off with a really memorable death scene for the main baddie)

While I absolutely love the aforementioned part of Bay's filmography, I can't really call myself a Bay supporter as I find Bad Boys 1, Armageddon and especially Pearl Harbor pretty much unwatchable. Haven't seen The Island, have very little interest to do so, but Transformers was indeed a nice surprise. Too bad the film wasn't done earlier though, I bet it would've been way more fun before the age of CGI overdose. I'm also somewhat annoyed that Bay didn't end up making a film with Arnie at any point. They would've made a great team.

Also, not my intention to take the thread off-topic too much, but when speaking of big budget excess and the people who do it well, one name does come to mind. James Cameron. The less said about Titanic the better, but everything (well, not quite so sure about The Abyss) before that showed that he knows how to film large action sequences possibly better than anyone else in Hollywood (Woo was obviously amazing with gunfights in his prime, but stuff like MI2 showed that he doesn't have the same kind of talent for huge setpieces like Cameron or Bay do). Hopefully he still brings it to Avatar.

And as for awful modern day directors working in the genre, Len Wiseman gets my vote. That guy has no talent whatsoever. I hated Armageddon, but it's still way better than anything Wiseman has done (including DH4.0).

[davebert]

Yeah, I actually like Rob Cohen a lot as well. XxX and Fast and the Furious both have earned places on my shelf, and I'll actually sit through some of them if they're re-running on USA or something, too. I agree the power of his films comes through a sense of excitement, and the scripts are pretty great, too. Vin Diesel could be a great comic actor if he got the right script...

And montgomery is right, of course, that there's a smug sense of elitism/self satisfaction no matter which side you choose--either "I'm too into film to lower myself to the crap common folk push to commercial success" or its opposite in approach if not in mindset, that "I'm going to play holier-than-thou and fake out the critical establishment by arguing in favor of some unexpected Hollywood director as an auteur or hated-upon commercial product as masterpiece (such as the reassessment of Mann's Miami Vice)." So yeah, I admit to being a tosser too. But hey! I'm enjoying myself. I will freely admit that Pearl Harbor and The Island are absolute garbage, but many directors have career low points. I just know I look forward with great excitement to Bay's new films whenever I see them trailered, and that's something I don't say about many directors working today.

[blindside8zao]

I don't think he meant it that way. It seems more like he's saying that if you ignore the whole cinephile backlash against Michael Bay, or your own intellectual pride, and go in looking for a fun time, you might actually find one. Which is as much to say it's the name and not the movie that is guiding opinions.

That's how I meant it. I had a wonderful time at this film and experienced no inner shame or guilt. A serious reading of what I wrote would be rediculous. I think it's also the same advice I'd give to some people who didn't enjoy Grindhouse.

[Svevan]

I'll probably keep coming back to this thread to read the funny asshole reviews like svevan's.

Sorry you thought I was being a funny asshole, but I loved the film. I think I'm guilty of what Montgomery is accusing:

I think it may be intellectually safe to act as if you are in the brave minority who must defend one of the top directors in the world as if he were a neglected genius, which suggest that the millions of people who line up to see his films aren't smart enough or capable of doing him justice.

I certainly wouldn't want to imply that everyone who loves Bay is dumb, but it's possible some people take him seriously, as I believe he himself does. I think the only right way to read lines like "freedom is the right of all sentient beings" or the melting pot idealism of "we are here, we are waiting" is with a groan and a laugh, and most of the audiences I see Bay films with seem to agree.

[malcolm1980]

I would like the invent a new term in describing someone like Michael Bay: the Anti-Auteur.

[patrick]

The Island was surprisingly OK with some entertaining action sequences, but every last bit of Bay's vision of the future is cribbed from better movies and Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson are forced to hold the damn thing together. However (and this may be apocryphal), I remember hearing/reading that Michael Bay wanted Scarlett to keep her bra on during her love scene (I guess to not endanger his PG-13), and for that he gets a special place in my personal hell.

Bad Boys II is admittedly kind of awesome though.

[foggy eyes]

I would like the invent a new term in describing someone like Michael Bay: the Anti-Auteur.

How does that work? Bay exercises a highly recognisably formal style, and has visibly worked out a number of themes throughout his work (fatherhood, nihilism, etc). The very nature of the auteur theory calls us to make qualitative judgements about individual directors and the place of particular films within the context of an oeuvre - a process that much of this thread has focussed on. I find it difficult to view Bay's work as challenging the very notion of auteurism (perhaps a case could be made in that respect for a director like Michael Winterbottom?).

[malcolm1980]

Perhaps, anti-auteur wouldn't be the right word. But with Bay's consistent style and theme, he does technically qualify as one, as bad as he is.

I wonder if there are any intelligent film theorists who'll revisit Bay and defend him as an artist.

[domino harvey]

I wonder if there are any intelligent film theorists who'll revisit Bay and defend him as an artist.

Why not, half this board already does the same embarrassing thing with Michael Mann

[Andre Jurieu]

... and most of the people on this board seem to have a favorable view of him.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I like "him". I mean, I think The Rock is a great action film, but to paraphrase the above comments, he is kind of a jackass. Of course, that's not exactly a rare occurence for directors.

[davebert]

However (and this may be apocryphal), I remember hearing/reading that Michael Bay wanted Scarlett to keep her bra on during her love scene (I guess to not endanger his PG-13), and for that he gets a special place in my personal hell.

This story is definitely true, as Bay himself told the story (probably in an effort to drum up some free publicity prior to the film's opening). As he tells it, a subjectivity that should naturally raise a few alarm bells, Scarlett was just begging to do the scene nude and proper, but Bay had to be the adult and think of the children. Whether Scarlett was as gung-ho as Bay suggests can surely be debated, but I think the basic kernel of the story is true.

[Antoine Doinel]

I don't think any man on Earth, if given the option, would want Scarlett Johansson to keep her top on.

I'm sure the studio wanted a PG-13 rating and told Bay that he couldn't have any nudity. Bay probably spun the story so it seemed like it was his choice rather than a decision thrust upon him.

[malcolm1980]

I don't think any man on Earth, if given the option, would want Scarlett Johansson to keep her top on.

Amen to that.

[Cinesimilitude]

Megan Fox was unbearably sexy in this. I liked it, wish it wasn't so tight on the fights as it was a little hard to follow. definitely the best thing he's done since The Rock.

[The Invunche]

Megan Fox is God's way of making up to Brian Austin Greene for giving him less "street cred" than Vanilla Ice.

[malcolm1980]

Megan Fox was unbearably sexy in this.

The only thing missing is an interesting personality.

But who cares? LOL.

[jbeall]

Megan Fox is God's way of making up to Brian Austin Greene for giving him less "street cred" than Vanilla Ice.

As if Greene deserves something in return for his lack of street cred! What you're saying, in other words, is that her relationship to BAG is a cruel joke by God.

I have to say, one thing I did find terribly amusing in Transformers was the ruthlessly totalitarian thinking of the Decepticons; searching for the Allspark, they destroyed a military base and hacked Air Force One's computer, etc. Meanwhile, the Autobots just located Spike by googling him. Too funny!

It was also funny to see Jon Voight basically doing a Donald Rumsfeld impersonation. It was like watching the real-life Rummy, only competent.

[Matt]

I'm surprised to see all the praise for this. I found it totally uninvolving and lacking most of what usually makes Michael Bay's films such fun. Apart from the usual shucking and jiving from the black characters (including the "black" Autobot--thanks for that) and the incessant low angle dolly shots, I could have been watching anybody's film.

I think what I like about Bay's previous films is that, even in their total implausibility, the action remains plausible. Yes, I know it's ridiculous to think you can jump a chasm on an Asteroid in a jeep, but you're glad to see it happen in Armageddon. When you're watching a bunch of giant robots, of which you literally cannot discern ass from elbow, shoot rockets at each other at close range, it becomes boring really fast. I think I would have liked it more if the robots were more fragile and got damaged in the ways that a normal car/jet/cheap boom box gets damaged. I wanted to see parts flying off of them and endangering bystanders.

I don't know where to rank this among Bay's oeuvre. It was about as dull as Pearl Harbor, but lacked that film's homoeroticism and precisely visualized action set pieces. Yet it was also not 4 hours long. I dunno, Bay. Time for Bad Boys 3?

Meanwhile, the Autobots just located Spike by googling him. Too funny!

Wait, was Spike the Shia LaBoeuf character? That's how unengaged by this film I was--I didn't even know the main character's name. EDIT: No, his name was Sam. I did remember that. Who the hell is Spike?

[redbill]

His name was Spike in the cartoon.

[jbeall]

Sorry for the mixup; you're right, Matt, it was Sam in the movie.

Some of the action is realistic, but it all involves the US military. When you want to lay siege to somebody (or a giant robotic scorpion), you definitely bring in the C-130. There aren't many helicopters that you can just mount a howitzer on and circle slowly while shelling the absolute crap out of something.

The battle between the soldiers and Scorponok in the desert was actually my favorite action sequence in the film.

[Cinesimilitude]

Matt, I think you've pinpointed my major problem with the film, and I didn't even know it before. I liked this movie, but only when there weren't any transformers on screen. I wasn't attached to the autobots at all. If optimus prime had sacrificed himself, I wouldn't have cared at all. Maybe the sequels can improve on this aspect.

[Kinsayder]

Anyone else remember Goldorak (aka UFO Robo Grendizer) - who was the transformer cartoon robot for my generation? He had gold horns and an enormous codpiece. Which is odd, for a robot. I loved that big guy.