Posts by northerncrane4

Anthony Smith3 said:LOL... so you mean Lynch's deep, pseudo-intellectual mind-f***ing where he uses experimental psychoanalysis to present consciousness itself? Yeah... like I said... Lynch nails that, mad respect. And the best part? Audiences like you swallow it whole, thinking it's all so profound... just like audiences like me swallow Bay's "assault on the senses"... and hey, that's fine, that's how the world works. It's just a little pathetic that Lynch is treated like some grand visionary and his movies like masterpieces. But I get it—if a canned piece of crap in a museum counts as art... or some used urinal signed by a "famous artist"... why wouldn't Lynch count too? Personally, though... I'll take flashy kitsch any day if it's done right.😉

See... I'd say that about Bay before Lynch... you just gotta vibe with the movie and leave it at that...

I’m honestly not even sure how to respond to that. I can only hope that one day things finally click for you—maybe then you'll be able to appreciate Lynch's work for what it actually is. Until then, enjoy your subjective shots of falling bombs.

Anthony Smith3 said:Nah... your response wasn't interesting or meaningful... you just totally missed my point entirely.
Let me clarify things with some actual logic... since I don't know any other way to explain this. It’s a well-known fact that Bay "evolved" under the wing of Jerry Bruckheimer—the guy who basically defines loud, big-budget blockbusters. Over time, Bay found his own wings and became a massive Hollywood brand in his own right. When we talk about Bay, we're talking about summer blockbusters packed with action and CGI designed specifically to be visually stunning, loud, bombastic, and just plain cool. That’s exactly what sets him apart from his competition. Maybe Roland Emmerich can hold his own, but that's a whole different conversation.
For comparison, look at this year's blockbusters... Terminator Salvation or Wolverine... neither of those is visually impressive. Honestly, they aren't visually appealing at all, despite being incredibly expensive and loud (not to mention their other issues). Neither can touch a Bay film because neither MCG nor Gavin Hood simply have Bay's sense of spectacle and creativity when it comes to destruction and explosions. Regardless of what people think of him, the guy knows how to make a movie look cool. He knows how to frame an action sequence better than 80% of blockbuster directors out there. So, strictly looking at the action, his films are visually creative, and thanks to his specific, recognizable style, he stands out. Now, some people love it and some hate it... just like how some people love having their brains melted by Lynch, while others would rather punch him in the face for it...

Hold on a second—are you seriously equating Bay's "visuals" and intellectual void with Lynch's visual style and intellectual depth?

Bay's visuals are just action-movie LARPing—zero substance. His directing skill is basically on par with a toddler who gets a picture book of a tiger and a pack of crayons, and then what does he do? He uses every single crayon just to color in the damn tiger. It's mindless. It’s an assault on the eyes and ears, not actual direction.

briskhound2 said:Actually, "Con Air" was directed by Simon West. Look, let's be real—Bay makes movies for the American market, not for Europe or anywhere else... he's making them for the USA. And when one of his films pulls in 250 million bucks, you know a massive amount of people showed up to see it. I remember reading some reviews on Rotten Tomatoes a long time ago (surprisingly, they were slightly positive) where some critic basically said he had to actually go watch the movie just so he could have something to trash. I mean, where's the logic in that? For instance, I couldn't care less about Harry Potter or Twilight, so I didn't go see them and I definitely don't plan to—not that I'd bother writing anything bad about them either. If it's a marketing thing, even the trailers don't explicitly say you *have* to see his movies, which means there's clearly something there. Another thing I read back during the Armageddon era is that he plays on the audience's emotions (which feels a bit forced, but okay) and we end up right back at what bugs everyone about his work. The pathos, the extreme Americanization, the heroism, the "God and Country" stuff... it's all pretty manipulative because none of that is in the trailers. It's all tucked away in the final package, unlike some other directors who lead with that stuff to bait you. Bay knows how to sell his product—just look at the trailer for Transformers 2. That thing is a total trip, a logistical nightmare to film—I'll give him credit for that even over James Cameron—and it all boils down to the effects, the explosions, the flashy visuals... but you already know it's going to be big and epic (even if you don't know what it's actually about). Bay knows that's what people expect. You sit down, watch the movie, the plot drags you toward some climax, and suddenly Bruce Willis, Mirko Cro Cop, and Slavko jump in, strike a pose—you know, arms wide, dropping to their knees—and I'm practically thrilled because he delivered exactly what I wanted to see and hit me right in the feels with that scene. Pathetic, sure. But "bad"... well, that's just a matter of taste. By that metric, he's a good director (he'd probably kill it in a smaller production too, just look at the horror remakes he produces) because he knows how to please the crowd without doing anything particularly special. Of course, that's just my take, since he's the kind of director you either love or hate. Just like his movies.

There you have it. 🙂 Exactly the kind of thing I might actually find tolerable.

briskhound2 said:Bay knows how to sell his product—just look at that Transformers 2 teaser. It’s pure adrenaline; a total logistical nightmare to pull off—I’ll give him credit for that, even over James Cameron. It all boils down to the effects and those "boom-crash" visuals, but you already know it's going to be something massive and epic (even if you don't know what exactly). Bay understands the hype, too. You sit there, the plot builds toward a climax, and suddenly Bruce Willis, Mirko Cro Cop, and Slavko jump in, strike a pose—you know, arms wide, hitting their knees—and I’m practically thrilled because he delivered exactly the kind of movie I wanted to see. That scene hit me right where it counts.

You're right—it all comes down to personal taste. When he shoves a scene like that down my throat and tries to pass off pure banality as some kind of epic masterpiece, it’s unbearable. That's exactly why I don't watch his stuff anymore.

briskhound2 said:Look, maybe "manipulation" isn't the perfect word, but what I'm getting at is that he delivers exactly what everyone secretly craves but won't admit out loud... and then he puts them in this position where they end up respecting him anyway—at least based on the box office numbers. I'm not quite sure how else to put it when a guy gets massive professional validation through pure profitability while the critics are absolutely tearing him apart from every angle. He basically corners the audience... they're having a blast while the movie is playing, but then they turn around and trash it later even though the results prove they actually loved it. How else do you describe that? It’s like he manipulates people so effectively that he doesn't even have to defend himself—the numbers are right there in black and white. I mean, we're doing the same thing right now, calling his movies brainless and soulless, yet when Transformers 2 rolls around, most of the people spitting venom today will be perfectly fine buying a ticket... acting like they aren't watching something totally ridiculous. He targets a specific demographic—he's not exactly going to pivot and make something different for them—so they just show up. Isn't that a pretty massive achievement that very few people pull off? And he does it all without ever having to say a single word in his own defense. How else can you call that but audience manipulation? Or maybe it's just tapping into the subconscious desires of a certain crowd? I think I've explained it as best as I can, if that makes sense 😁

I don't see why you assume those who hated it are the same people who actually enjoyed the ride. Even on this thread, you have people who view Michael Bay as the gold standard for action, and others who can't stand him. Are you suggesting everyone here claiming Michael Bay is a bad director is secretly enjoying his movies?

Personally, I've sat through three of his films—"The Rock", "Con Air", and "Armageddon". Each one was an almost unbearable slog to watch (maybe "Con Air" earns a passing grade if I squint hard enough and grimace)—but then I realized they were all directed by the same guy. Since then, I haven't been interested in seeing a single Michael Bay movie, nor will I ever be.

briskhound2 said:It’s not really "playing" with them... that would be... well, pointless, since Michael Bay doesn't make those kinds of movies. But he definitely manipulates them in a way that's totally obvious—hardly anyone respects him as an "auteur," yet his films are almost always massive hits because everyone knows exactly what they're getting, and they love watching it. I'd call it manipulation (maybe not the perfect word, but, you know...) because if he were doing it specifically to please them, that would be connecting. This feels more like a symbiosis... nobody admits to anything openly, but the box office numbers speak for themselves—those types of scenes clearly work. The day he actually starts playing with the audience, that'll be... something else entirely.

😕 I still don't follow the logic here. Is the argument that Michael Bay manipulates audiences simply because he makes exactly what they want—high-octane action chases with zero soul and minimal substance?

briskhound2 said:Americans tune in because those sequences—like that badass explosion right behind Nicolas Cage, obviously—are tailor-made for them. It’s actually pretty brilliant how Bay manipulates the audience by just feeding them exactly what they want: his heroes front and center in these heart-pounding, epic moments where the camera just circles around them. If it isn't pure emotion (which it usually is), then it’s either pure showmanship or just a way to punch up the movie's pivot—like in both Bad Boys films—right when the finale kicks off. To be fair, I’d give him the edge over Emerich... since Emerich always feels the need to shove in these long, overly dramatic monologues about—for God, country, and the people—before finally wrapping things up. Bay does it through cinematography, which borders on actual experimentation because—and I mean only occasionally—he doesn't feel the need to hold the viewer's hand, actually pulling you into the action. That's aside from the fact that everything is already totally predictable...

I don't follow this logic—calling it "playing" with the audience because he gives them what they want? That's just meeting audience demand, not manipulation. 😕

David Price5 said:It doesn't really matter if the character lacks depth. In this genre, we don't demand the same qualities we look for in other types of films. I think we all realize that when working with Michael Bay, the actors aren't exactly gunning for an Oscar for Best Actor or Original Screenplay. You have to understand that Bay could craft an entire feature without a single line of dialogue—just pure action and explosions—and it could technically be considered an experimental masterpiece. But let's be honest: calling something a masterpiece feels much more earned when you're talking about *The Godfather*.

Just because an action movie is packed with stunts and flashy scenes doesn't mean it's actually a good film. I remember seeing a similar trend back when I was first getting into cinema; many critics who praised the original film absolutely trashed this sequel. We have to maintain certain standards.

Personally, I don't think The Rock even comes close to Die Hard on any level. To be honest, I watched The Rock a while back and have been trying my best to forget the experience ever happened.I simply cannot shake the memory of that climax where Nicolas Cage plunges the injection into his heart and falls to his knees, arms outstretched toward the heavens.I need to wait until I have all the data before I can provide a truly meaningful comparative analysis.

That’s exactly why people watch Michael Bay movies. You forgot that those hunters flew right over him during that scene, too. I can't quite remember if there was an explosion going off right behind him, though. Hmm.

In reality, we should all realize that the "masterpiece" label is reserved for films without such glaring flaws as those found in Michael Bay movies.

David Price5 said:It doesn't really matter if the character lacks depth. In this genre, we don't demand the same qualities we look for in other types of films. I think we all realize that when working with Michael Bay, the actors aren't exactly gunning for an Oscar for Best Actor or Original Screenplay. You have to understand that Bay could craft an entire feature without a single line of dialogue—just pure action and explosions—and it could technically be considered an experimental masterpiece. But let's be honest: calling something a masterpiece feels much more earned when you're talking about *The Godfather*.

Just because an action movie is packed with stunts and flashy scenes doesn't mean it's actually a good film. I remember seeing a similar trend back when I was first getting into cinema; many critics who praised the original film absolutely trashed this sequel. We have to maintain certain standards.

Personally, I don't think The Rock even comes close to Die Hard on any level. To be honest, I watched The Rock a while back and have been trying my best to forget the experience ever happened.I simply cannot shake the memory of that climax where Nicolas Cage plunges the injection into his heart and falls to his knees, arms outstretched toward the heavens.I need to wait until I have all the data before I can provide a truly meaningful comparative analysis.

That’s exactly why people watch Michael Bay movies. You forgot that those hunters flew right over him during that scene, too. I can't quite remember if there was an explosion going off right behind him, though. Hmm.

Unfortunately, I didn't forget. I actually wrote it out and then deleted it—felt like too much—thinking I might have misremembered or mixed it up with Con Air.

briskhound2 said:I don't really see the issue. I mean, this movie checks all the boxes for those films that riff on the "Die Hard" formula—think Sputnik 57 or Under Siege—you've got terrorists seizing a confined location, hostages everywhere, and a lone wolf protector working his way through them one by one... if anyone else had directed it, it would have just been "Die Hard at Alcatraz," plain and simple. But when you actually sit down and watch it, it stands perfectly fine on its own without needing to be tethered to those other flicks. Sure, Bay lost his way a bit later on with stuff like Armageddon and Transformers, but even then, he managed to carve out this specific, frantic visual style that sets him apart from the sea of directors doing the same thing (looking at you, Dominic Senna and Tony Scott)... it’s high-octane, especially in Armageddon, but you always know it's a Bay film. Not to mention the fact that he’s only had one real flop in his entire career, but that's a whole different conversation... 😁

Personally, The Rock isn't even in the same league as Die Hard on any level. But I watched The Rock a long time ago—and frankly, I've tried my best to forget it—so I'm in no position to offer a meaningful comparative analysis now. (Though, unfortunately, I can't quite suppress the memory of that climax where Nicolas Cage jams an injection into a heart and ends up on his knees with arms spread wide toward the heavens).

briskhound2 said:The Rock is basically in a league of his own when it comes to action flicks. Looking back at 12 Rounds, it really hits home just how much of a talent > actually is at this stuff... the way he handles scene clarity and keeps the pacing tight without any unnecessary filler is impressive. He managed to take what was essentially just more material for a "die with dignity" style franchise and turn it into something that still holds up today—it’s got a certain charm and energy that hasn't faded one bit.

In my view, Michael Bay’s biggest failure as a director—aside from his weak scripts, cookie-cutter characters, and total obsession with VFX—is his lack of visual clarity. It's most obvious in Armageddon; during the peak action sequences, you can't tell who is where, who is going where, or what is actually happening to whom.

Comparing him to Die Hard is beyond blasphemous—honestly.

If you stripped away those three leads involved in the love triangle—if the script wasn't weighed down by a dozen fuzzy dramatic choices—and set the whole thing in, say, Memphis or some small town in the Midwest where it actually makes sense for the same people to run into each other constantly—it might have actually been watchable.

The real saving grace here? A bunch of stellar character performances.

Joseph Lee3 said:Oh, absolutely! 😁 That one is a personal favorite of mine too. It feels like De Sica hit this massive emotional nerve in that film; it’s the kind of raw realism that actually makes you feel something in your soul, whereas compared to that, even Fellini feels a bit like he's just performing surgery.

I still get choked up every single time I watch "Umberto D."—it’s a lump in my throat and swollen eyes, every time.

And my other favorite Fellini? "Proba Orchestra." Go figure. 🤷

Joseph Lee3 said:Well, which De Sica are we actually talking about here? The man’s filmography is all over the map, swinging wildly between extremes. You’ve got stuff like Miracle or Umberto D., which definitely echo those early Fellini vibes, but then you remember he also churned out movies like Caccia alla volpe... honestly, I can only imagine what Peterlic would make of that. He probably would have absolutely loathed it. 🙂

Black and white. 😁

Joseph Lee3 said:I’ve always felt that Peterlic leaned more toward an urban sensibility, the kind of director who would have naturally gravitated toward the sort of moody melodrama you see in an Antonioni film. Have you seen his Accidental Life? It’s his only directorial effort, and honestly, it’s a shame he didn't stick with filmmaking (though I don't think he failed us as a theorist). There's a certain grit to Accidental Life that feels reminiscent of the urban dramas by Aleksandar Petrovic, maybe even pulling from a Berkovichian "Rondo" or Mimičin's "Prometheus." Even in his early days, Fellini was already carving out his own lane, clearly moving away from the strictures of neorealism. He spent his career dancing along the edge of magical realism—sometimes leaning in, sometimes pulling back—and at points, especially after Satyricon, he seemed to lose his way entirely (not that I mean it negatively; look at a standout like Amarcord).

From what I can gather about Peterlic, he had much more respect for films that were a bit more depressive and intellectual.

Peterlic was a huge fan of De Sica. He found Fellini a bit too sugary—though he did appreciate "La Strada."

velvetcrane57 said:the woman at the top of the tower—I've got a hint, but I still can't crack it.

(it isn't about her, it's about what she's doing)

two bucks in a box

(bucks, just plain bucks)

a sign that says 5280 ft

(how many feet is 5280, and what color is the sign?)

that plane on the ground near it

(the plane doesn't matter—what happened to it does)

a windmill

(an American movie with a French title)

the man who paints the car

(he isn't painting it, he's dotting it—and it's a train, not a car)

the guy climbing the ladder and that star at the top

(the guy is just dusting off the glass)

The Golden Flower

velvetcrane57 said:A woman at the top of the tower.

(The image is a bit wider.)
The Golden Flower

The king who cheats.

(Yes.)
The Golden Flower

A three-headed dog—Frankenstein's monster.

(One movie—it involves a car.)

quietdriver3 said:

Oh, please. The US and the UK are working-class nations—you don't pay royalties every single time old content gets rebroadcast. 😢

I actually picked up three copies of the Criterion release of "Brazil"—had I realized things were this dire, I would've grabbed even more. 😬

I'm afraid—to my great disappointment—that even Gilliam has lost his touch. His last two, "The Brothers Grimm" and "Tideland," were practically forgettable. 😢

ruggedfox28 said:Just waiting on the guy behind the scenes to drop Public Enemies...

I've got a feeling this one's gonna be incredible (really, really good)☕...

Before Watchmen came out, there was this teaser. It ends, and then suddenly, someone shouts "RENTAL!" through the whole theater—everyone lost it.😬

briskhound2 said:Look, I don't know... I mean, Don Donen was a respected director—at least he was, if nothing else from a purely financial standpoint—and even today, some polls still label him as "cult," which isn't exactly nothing. His work holds up to critical scrutiny too; *American Flyers* is a great drama, and *War Games* sits right at the top of those techno-thrillers from back before that genre even had a formal name... much like Donen himself. And I won't even get started on *Saturday Night Fever*, which is still held in high regard. In my book, Donen is a director who actually left a mark and meant something to the industry, regardless of whether he ever officially cracked the A-list. I mean, Michael Bay might be the king of flashy, big-budget blockbusters these days, but you rarely see his stuff get even a passing grade from critics, let alone an auteur credit...

Like I said—just another hack Hollywood craftsman, one of thousands. Always has been, always will be. Not a single significant cinematic auteur in the bunch. Now that he's older, he doesn't have the stamina for actual film production anymore, so he just churns out filler for TV. ☕

briskhound2 said:To me, Badham is a solid B-movie guy—nothing wrong with that—but he’s alright. Back in the day, he made stuff that people actually wanted to see, you know? Real box-office hits that didn't try too hard to be high art or anything. For me, "Stakeout" and "Another Stakeout" are basically the peak of what a good action comedy should be, and "Bird on a Wire" isn't far off from that level. I'd put him in the same bracket as Peter Hyams... except Hyams actually showed some ambition back in the day (like with *Capricorn One*) and had some real quality, whereas now he can barely scrape together a decent flick...

I’m not sure how you interpreted this thread, but the point was to discuss directors who actually meant something to the industry before they essentially dried up. This isn't about those endless Hollywood hacks—the ones where you might find two or three movies you thought were cool back when you were a kid.

And, by the way—modern TV production is significantly bolder and more revolutionary than anything coming out of theaters right now. I don't recall anything approaching the quality of "Deadwood" hitting the big screen in ages.