May 13, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
There’s a reason why filmmakers are never supposed to respond to their critics.
Well said, Jeff.
Bay winds up coming off even more egomaniacal by referring to the large box office of his film, as if that somehow makes it a good film. The name-dropping of Steven Spielberg is a nice touch as well. And wouldn’t good word of mouth be more indicative of how the film did after the first week? All due respect to Don Murphy and the film’s financial achievment, but it seems odd to me that Bay would even try to refute the claim that he has an enormous ego. I also hate it when directors don’t just let the film speak for itself.
I like when he calls himself down to earth. Isn’t everyone down to earth in these situations?
Bay totally smacked that guy back down to earth. Very nice job. I may be alone on this island, but I have no problem with being alone on an Island. Bay responded to a critic’s snark with superiour snark. If there is a problem with such a thing. Please; inform me of such a problem.
Have any other directors directly responded to a review? Like Jeff said, there’s a reason they shouldn’t.
“Have any other directors directly responded to a review?”
A couple have. And I’m only thinking of Kenneth Turan reviews.
Legend holds that in 1906, the German composer Max Reger wrote in reply to a withering notice from newspaper critic Rudolph Lewis, “Sir: I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. Your review is before me. Soon it will be behind me.”
Robert Luketic wrote me after I panned his Win a Date with Tad Hamilton.
I will always treasure the gracious handwritten note I received from a director after I praised his film and he released my wife and son unharmed.
When he releases a film, Kevin Smith has been known to round up nearly every review imaginable and post a summary (sometimes just the number of stars awarded) and then a response to the review on his Web site. My personal favorite was Smith’s response to Chicago Tribune critic Mark Caro, who panned Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. “Dude, lose my phone number,” or something in that vein. The relationship between artist and critic can be a prickly one, especially if you’re thin skinned. Perhaps Bay really is an artist. A hack would be completely content with that kind of mega opening and revel in the insane cash payout coming his way, instead of seeking the approval of some suburban Chicago third-tier film critic.
Bay always uses the grosses to defend his films from the naysayers.
I think there should be MORE back-and-forth dialogue between filmmakers and critics. Mr. Bol, my e-mail address is sean@thecharlotteweekly.com.
I think we’re all missing the point. Michael Bay cares enough about the smaller markets that he takes the time to read the Northwest Herald and seems geniunly concerned for the health of Mr. Westhoff.
I always liked the story Neil LaBute tells about meeting John Simon, (at the time) the NYT Theatre critic. (Paraphrased.)
LaBute: “Mr. Simon, nice to meet you. I’m a fan of your writing.”
Simon: “I wish I could say the same.”
a critic shouldn’t base his review on whether he dislikes the director. he should review the movie.
that said, a lot of crappy movies have made a lot of money. i don’t know about this one. i still haven’t seen it, but the same person who recommended “superman returns” loves “transformers.” i’m a little frightened to go.
and “down to earth guy” was worth a chuckle
I thought his response was funny. I don’t know if he meant it to be, but it was.
And saying Michael Bay has “no style” is a bit on the reTAHded side. It’s pretty damn obvious when you’re watching a Bay film.
I must say I find all of the Michael Bay hatred a little childish and displaced. I finally saw it the other night and enjoyed it for what it was. It was a very good summer blockbuster that showed me something I hadn’t seen before.
I only ever had a passing knowledge of Transformers culture but my older brother was addicted to it. Nevertheless, this live action version delivers special effects that live up to their name. I liked that it was shot on a much grittier film stock, as the alien robots appear to blend into the action much better than many other CGI epics.
Labeouf was a very likable lead and showed the required emotions of fear, heroism, sacrifice and humour when he needed to. Jon Voight also lent an air of gravitas to the proceedings as a Secretary of State who can more than hold his own in a battle. His portrayal (and that of Josh Duhamel) was very refreshing for recent summer blockbusters where the military and their commanders are alternately seen as either evil or moronic.
Is it perfect? No. The half hour middle section detour into comedy and goofyville was not to my taste and I did not like the parents or Jon Turturro. They took away a lot.
But the final showdown on the streets of Los Angeles is stunning, intense and makes up for a lot. Bay is criticized much as a director but he does have a great eye for composition and epic scale. If you look in the periphery of scenes, his extras are a good cross section of types that fill out the landscape well.
Any critic who says Bay does not have a distinctive style is flat out full of shit and makin’ it up as he goes along. You might not like his style, but he does have one.
Don, if you read this, your idea for a big screen Transformers paid off and even gave a person like me, not terribly familiar with the cartoon, a good night of entertainment.
Don’s idea involved an eco-catastrophe. Just sayin’…
I didn’t like the stuff shot downtown; same backgrounds over and over, and too many endings and planes slicing through buildings – made it feel unoriginal, terribly mean and cheap.
I think Jeff does some it up best. And Bay’s letter wouldn’t sound so whiny if he didn’t mention the grosses for god’s sake. I was half expecting the letter to end with “I know you are but what am I?”.
at the 2001 Oscars Ridley Scott walked right on past Roger Ebert on the red carpet (Ebert gave Gladiator two stars). The following year Scott talked to Ebert for a long time on the red carpet (Ebert put Black Hawk Down as the 2nd best movie that year).
That Kevin Smith story doesn’t surprise me one bit, what childish, pampered brat.
Oh my god. He name dropped Spielberg AND used the ‘biggest non sequel’ talking point in his defense.
i think i ruptured my spleen i laughed so hard.
the fact that this guy reads reviews like this and then responds throwing PR talking points… what a miserable son of a bitch he must be.
I mean, shit, if i put out a movie that was well liked by the public and making a shitload of money, i’d like to think the opinion of some dick at the Northwest Herald really wouldn’t mean a whole lot to me.
What’s next? Inviting critics into the ring for a fight? Nah, no one would be worthless enough to do that.
The problem is, most of the critiques against Bay – ARE – talking points.
He has no style? Please.
He doesn’t care about plot? As opposed to the airtight plots of the majority of other summer blockbusters.
He is egotistical? As opposed to the humility and tame attitude of other Hollywood directors.
I could be specific and mention some critical darlings of the past few years that have gotten a pass with far less coherence but I don’t want this to turn into another ideological debate (although I would argue a lot of the hatred against Bay is ideological).
Fact is, Bay is not a genius but he is in no way the hack these critics want him to be.
Any critic who can’t be more nuanced than that is really revealing his own love of talking points.
I mean these are the same people who line up to give Tarantino a sloppy hand job for his current tripe. Let’s get some perspective.
ah, but must we raise bay? can we not lower tarantino?
Aside from the final climactic battle of Transformers 1) making absolutely no sense in terms of story; 2) being shot from so many different angles and camera setups to make little spatial sense; 3) being shot on about 2 blocks of Broadway which made it seem small and constrained; 4) containing no emotional character beats and no interesting character arcs; 5) containing inexplicable action set pieces that make absolutely no sense……..I agree with Nicol.
I agree with several of those points as well, except that Bay takes all of the ‘problems’ of the summer blockbuster to new levels. Say what you will about Spider-Man and Pirates, but they were both more interested in character and narrative than Transformers.
And in my opinion the critical praise for Death Proof was by and large completely appropriate. Sure, there’s a herd mentality involved, but that’s nothing new either.
And the planes into buildings and people jumping was heartless. And this was a movie for all kids, not just some.
What are you talking about?
By which I mean, planes flying around buildings as in Transformers means that America is officially over 9/11; and I didn’t see any ‘people jumping’ but that could have been because my eyeballs were glazed over by Bay’s overcranked style.
Joe, got any other juicy stories for us. I know you’re a critic and there’s a lot of thin-skinned babies in the movie bidness.
Bay’s behavior pales in comparison to that fat fuckwad Kevin Smith. What a pampered, spoiled brat. I’ve heard him say “Jersey Girl will be much appreciated down the road, you’ve just got to give it time”. Delusions of grandeur.
“…Ridley Scott walked right on past Roger Ebert on the red carpet (Ebert gave Gladiator two stars). The following year Scott talked to Ebert for a long time on the red carpet (Ebert put Black Hawk Down as the 2nd best movie that year).”
And Ebert bothered talking to this guy?
Wrecktum,
If you – really – did not understand the action, context or content of the final battle sequence of Transformers, you should be ashamed to say so in a forum where you want to be taken seriously about film.
This is exactly the kind of facile rhetoric about Bay that undercuts your argument.
Of course I understood it, Nicol. I said it made no sense. To wit: Why did the good guys have to drive from Hoover Dam to L.A.? That’s a five hour drive. Why did Shia have to race half a mile to a specific building and climb 14 flights of stairs to get the cube to a helicopter? Every tall building in L.A. has a helipad and most have working elevators. Why did Josh D. commandeer a motorcycle and speed towards a transformer? Did he have secret plans of how a transformer will magically explode when shot in the crotch?
These are things that don’t make sense. I understand that they happened within the context of the movie but, I’m sorry, I can’t turn my brain off that completely.
Good grief Wrecktum,
If these sorts of things really bother you I don’t know why you even go to pop movies. I mean, if you really worry about why Josh rode a bike towards a Transformer to fight it…I know I can’t convince you otherwise.
But y’know, these sorts of criticism would be a hell of a lot easier to take if critics en masse -didn’t – turn off thier brains during so-called ‘high brow’ entertainment such as Sicko, Children of Men, Syrianna, Grindhouse, Sin City and the like.
And that is the rub for me. Consistency. I just find it odd that we live in a film culture where Transformers is held to higher logical standards than Michael Moore, QT and the latest Oscar bait.
Let the hounds wail…
Yeah, I know it’s Syriana.
Bay’s success speaks for itself and, on those terms alone, he’s pretty unassailable. He generally present beautifully lit shots, if anything. His love of the magic hour is clear (even if most of his movies seem to take place during the same hour of the day just for the quality of light he loves). He’s clearly a talented guy.
My problem with him begins and ends with the sheer lack of humanity I get from his films. And maybe I could be inconsistent in this because there are certain directors I admire who make or made a career out of presenting inhumanity to us.
I just always feel a real emptiness at the heart of every Bay film I’ve seen (and I admit that I’ve missed a couple).
So, I won’t say he’s an untalented hack. But I do hope one day he finds some kind of soul, so that his attachment to anything more sentient and organic than a sports car gets stronger and might even result in a stellar film you can love without reservation. To this point in time, I’ve yet to see that.
Anyway, my two pennies.
“If these sorts of things really bother you I don’t know why you even go to pop movies.”
I usually don’t. Thus my anguish.
If I may, I’d like to try and bridge the Nicol/Wrecktum gap a little bit: I didn’t have a problem with the drive from the Hoover Dam to Los Angeles – it was a necessary change of scenery to a location with higher stakes, and even though it truly made no sense for the Army guys to travel to a place where a lot of civilians could be endangered, given the kind of movie that we were in it was acceptable because the movie is emotionally building to a climax. It’s the same reason why Cameron stuck a gun chase into Titanic or Lucas had the final duel of ROTS not just on an alien planet, but on an evil fire planet.
However, the incoherence of the action _in_ the final scene knocked me back into reality, specifically Bay’s inability/disinterest in connecting the action beats spatially, one of the hallmarks of a truly satisfying action sequence, to me; it prevented me from thinking of the end scene as something where the action actually mattered, and instead put me into the mode of merely watching lights and shapes flickering at high speed in front of me; somewhat exciting, but not as meaningful as it should have been. Add to this the designs of each of the robots, which are almost all the same (indistinct gray junk heaps), and it was not easy to quickly determine who was shooting at who and so on.
I can accept a situational/premise-based leap of faith, but once I’ve given myself to Bay’s robots fighting over an essentially meaningless macguffin in downtown LA, I really need him to deliver on that promise and not just wave stuff in front of the camera until the money runs out.
And Nicol, you’re veering close to the same anti-critical hyperbole that you’re accusing others of indulging in.
As far as the ‘holding Bay to higher standards’ argument, I don’t see that at all. I’m asking for basic competency out of Bay; Death Proof, Children of Men, and (to a lesser degree) Sin City are all so high above his level that I don’t know how one could compare them. (You can have Syriana.)
Oh, and I don’t think of Sin City, Children of Men, Syriana, or Sicko as ‘high-brow’ entertainment. All are thoroughly mainstream and middle-brow. Death Proof meanwhile is too much of a hybrid arthouse/exploitation movie to fit that category.
anyone who thinks Grindhouse was ‘high brow’ has been sipping the Kool Aid for too long.
I don’t think it’s asking too much that even your pop tentpole movies have some plot/story coherence and work to earn their contrivances. Any number of summer movies have leaps of logic, but there’s a way to sell them and set them up that separates a great summer movie from just an empty exercise. My love always goes to the movie that tries for something a little bit more.
That’s why I love a movie about a killer shark (who’s done in by the only one megaton exploding air tank in aquatic history- SPOILER!) because it gives me characters I love and isn’t afraid to take things down a little to deliver a lovely monologue about the Indianapolis. Or why I love a movie about an archaeologist that’s patently ridiculous, but is so loaded with beautiful characterization and plot set-up that I’ll buy whatever it’s selling. Or-to link to another thread here- a summer film about time travel that plays fast and loose with the concepts of how that could possibly work for the sake of a great ending.
It’s not that we should despise pop movies for trying to put big whoppers over on us. But we should flatly reject it when they haven’t put in the requisite extra effort to pull it off as seamlessly as possible. “It’s a summer movie. People just do stupid things in them as long as they look good” is not a valid excuse for sloppy construction and follow-through.
We should expect more so we can hopefully get more.
“Sicko, Children of Men, Syrianna, Grindhouse, Sin City”
This would make a great “five of these things don’t go together” segment on Seseme Street. The last two are as boneheaded as movies come and work depending on your willingness to go along with it. (Which for me, was not possible for a lot of those. But the reviews I read of them seemed to say the same thing.)
The first three, whether you agree with their ideas or not, are at least more thoughtful movies. Debates over Sicko are ultimately going to come down based on political leanings and your tolerance for Moore’s MO (and, again, I think a lot of critics are aware of this and reflect it in their reviews). I understand the problems with Syriana and I’m not getting into that one.
And I don’t want to get into another COM defense this week, but I don’t recall the kinds of logical fallacies that would earn it inclusion on that list.
Still, I don’t think movies are immune to things like Wrecktum’s criticisms even though they’re pop entertainment. And I don’t think those movies that you listed got any free passes either. Hell, except for SIN CITY (my least favorite out of that group), they all paid at the box office.
Exactly – why are people defending Transformers ($240m and rising) at the expense of Sin City ($74), Syriana ($51), Children of Men ($35), Grindhouse ($25) or Sicko ($17), except through a reactive bias?
I’m sorry but if you don’t think there is a huge stylistic and quality chasm between the films of Alfonso Cauron and those of Michael Bay, you simply don’t have the taste buds to know the difference.
Just because everybody goes and eats McDonald’s doesn’t mean it’s any good – it’s just that a lot of people like to eat garbage.
Bad analogy. People eat McDonalds because it’s cheap, it’s fast and it’s consistant.