If he were still with us, Ante Peterlić would have undoubtedly dedicated one of his exhaustive essays to Michael Bay. It seems we have reached a point where people are actually attempting to place David Lynch in the same conversation as Bay... frankly, before anyone even thinks about logging onto this forum, they ought to verify their basic understanding of the seventh art and whether they possess even a shred of decent cinematic taste. Otherwise, any random amateur can just waltz in here and ramble on about whatever nonsense they please.
Anthony Smith3 said:I don't think you get my point at all... but whatever... doesn't matter...☕
Give me a break. You actually had somewhat decent arguments when it came to Woo, but please, spare me any talk regarding Bay and his supposed creativity. I answered the question quite clearly by stating I don't consider him a bad director; as for discussing the brilliance of "Pearl Harbor," perhaps save that for a "Teen" forum.
If you define creativity as catering to the tastes of the MTV Generation while layering in a bit of high-octane melodrama—all featuring two or three actors who graced the posters in every teenager's bedroom—then Bay's films are essentially the gold standard of creative expression.
Of course, Bay isn't a bad director. He isn't an "auteur," nor does he show any inclination toward becoming one, but from a purely technical and craft-oriented standpoint, his films are products that definitely have a target market. His movies are, admittedly, creatively hollow, yet within the realm of popcorn cinema, they are perfectly digestible and occasionally even quite entertaining. To achieve that level of status in Hollywood—regardless of how laughable such a standing might be from an artistic perspective—you simply cannot be bad at what you do.
We are looking at a collection of absolute masterpieces, or at the very least, films that have left an indelible mark on cinema. However, "The Sting" and "Rocky" truly sting when you consider the historical slights; the fact that the former lost the Oscar to "American Graphite" and "The Exorcist," and that "Rocky" was bypassed for "Taxi Driver," remains one of the greatest injustices in the history of the Academy. It is difficult to select a single standout from this list, but if forced to choose, I would point to "The Godfather Part II." It sits there, breathing down the neck of "The Godfather," "French Connection," and "The Deer Hunter."
Looking at this poll, there isn't a single masterpiece or a sensational standout here, so it's hardly surprising that none surfaced over the entire decade. While films like American Beauty, No Country for Old Men, and even Eastwood's work are certainly high quality—very good, actually—if we’re being honest, there have been much better movies made than these...
Lisa Ross65 said:I reckon we could throw Kevin Smith onto this list too—honestly, he didn't need Jersey Girl to prove himself...
Call me a heretic if you want, but Smith hit his stride with Clerks and everything else since then has just felt like overreaching. Some filmmakers capture lightning in a bottle with their debut; anything they attempt afterward is essentially just trying to catch shadows.
"Beginners" might find it best to start their journey with Amarcord, followed by Giulietta of the Spirits, then moving into Nights of Cabiria, La Strada, Dolac Vita, Satyricon, and naturally, 8 1/2. This final sequence doesn't strictly require that specific order, but those films alone should provide a sufficiently thorough introduction to the Felliniesque body of work.
Jerry Adams71 said:It’s always funny to think about John Belushi getting out of jail only to have Frank Oz hand him that used condom... Now you have Lloyd Landis filing lawsuits alongside Michael Jackson while trying to direct various TV projects...
🙂🙂🙂 regarding that scene, 😢😢😢 regarding Landis today
Jerry Adams71 said:A true masterpiece. It’s genuinely tragic to see how far John Landis has fallen. As for the sequel, there’s no point in even discussing it; it remains one of the most profound disappointments in cinema history.
It’s the truth. Watching The Blues Brothers today, you can't help but feel a sense of mourning for what happened to poor Landis. He went from hits like An American Werewolf in New York, Animal House, Wheel of Fortune, and The Blues Brothers straight into an absolute creative void.
Lisa Ross65 said:Word is getting out about an remake starring Gerard Butler. At this rate, it looks like every single Carpenter flick is headed for a reboot...
Poor Carpenter... though I suppose all these remakes might actually nudge some people toward watching the originals, like Assault, Fog, and now Escape from New York.
Lisa Ross65 said:Most people grow up on American movies, then slowly branch out into international cinema as they mature. When I was a kid, my "must-watch" list consisted strictly of Stallone and Schwarzenegger—I didn't have the slightest clue who Kieslowski or Visconti were back then..
Let's be honest, at fourteen, you're either an outlier or just incredibly precocious if you're sitting there watching Visconti or Bergman..🙂 As for me, I practically lived on Steven Seagal movies, and to this day, I can recite the entire script of "siege" from memory...
Nicholas Edwards4 said:It’s almost like American movies are the only thing that actually exists... What about everything else from Europe or Asia? Where are your classics like Amarcord, Sky over Berlin, Downfall, Bread and Tulip, The Barber of Siberia, or East Meets West... not even counting the rest? Honestly, these picks feel pretty shallow and kind of childish, I guess.
You make a fair point; the dominance of Hollywood is obvious enough, though it isn't exactly a revelation given how much Asian cinema has permeated our culture lately. But claiming the legend of autumn among five must-watch films belongs in a home collection??!!!!????? For whom?? I suppose some bored housewives might find it useful...
William Roberts2 said:Look, if you’re getting all worked up over X-Men, fine, whatever. It's basically a kids' movie. But honestly? Real directors—the heavy hitters—don't even bother wasting their breath on little flicks like that.
Look, X-Men isn't strictly "for kids," but I know plenty of supposedly heavyweight critics have voiced similar sentiments. However, once I started seeing those same "intellectuals" claim that George Lucas is overrated—as if the only movies worth watching are by Bergman or Antonioni—it all became quite clear to me...
Look, the guy directed a total masterpiece like The Usual Suspects and then just kind of drifted off into those X-Men movies and Superman stuff, and now we're stuck with this Valkyrie thing. It’s a long shot, honestly. I don't see him ever pulling off another lightning-in-a-bottle moment like he did back in '96.
The first two X-Men films are actually quite sharp; following Tim Burton’s Batman, they might even stand as the premier comic book adaptations. Singer also has that overlooked gem, Apt Pupil, tucked away in his credits. While it does feel as though The Usual Suspects remains his definitive peak, that doesn't necessarily mean his talent has evaporated.
Lisa Ross65 said:Now we have the great Werner Herzog working on a remake of Abel Ferrara's Bad Lieutenant. Starring Nicolas Cage and Val Kilmer. Honestly—pretty out of left field.
I’m looking forward to this; it feels like a wild card. It will either be the cinematic achievement of the year or an absolute disaster... though I suspect Herzog might just pull off a pleasant surprise.