Posts by Anthony Smith3

Pictures.

Produced by Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov—the guy behind hits like Day Watch and Wanted—and directed by Shane Acker, this animated Sci-Fi Fantasy is finally hitting screens. It’s actually a feature-length expansion of Acker's 2005 short film, which snagged an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short. We're looking at a $33 million budget, featuring a heavy-hitter voice cast including Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, Christopher Plummer, Crispin Glover, and Martin Landau. Word is Danny Elfman was originally lined up to score this, but for some reason, the job went to Deborah Lurie, who has plenty of experience working alongside Elfman on projects like Spider-Man 2, X2, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Expect the US premiere this September.





IMDB

Official site

TRAILER 1
TRAILER 2
TRAILER 3

PLOT

When 9 (voice of Elijah Wood) first comes to life, he finds himself in a post-apocalyptic world where all humans are gone, and it is only by chance that he discovers a small community of others like him taking refuge from fearsome machines that roam the Earth intent on their extinction. Despite being the neophyte of the group, 9 convinces the others that hiding will do them no good. They must take the offensive if they are to survive, and they must discover why the machines want to destroy them in the first place. As they'll soon come to learn, the very future of civilization may depend on them.

northerncrane4 said:Yes—that’s exactly what it is: a comparison based purely on the level of audience satisfaction. 🙄 Regardless of what you say—the fact remains—I get why Michael Bay appeals to certain audiences, whereas you simply can't grasp why Lynch is actually a significant director; you seem to reject the idea that it will ever click for you.

LOL🤣 Look, from what I know, a comparison happens when you directly weigh one thing against another (like Harlin vs. Bay... or Scott vs. Bay)... which isn't even what happened here... but whatever, have it your way.👍

I get why you and a lot of others worship Lynch, but the reasons people love him and call him a "significant" director don't mean anything to me when it comes to film style and auteur expression. To you, he's a master; to me, he's just some guy with a weird psyche who feels the need to be different and mess with people's heads...

But hey... let's just stop putting Lynch on a pedestal, man...

northerncrane4 said:I haven't even bothered explaining why Lynch is good—or what I actually see in his work—let alone defending them as quality filmmaking. My only move here was questioning that ridiculous comparison between Lynch and Michael Bay. The only reason Lynch even entered this conversation is because you felt the need to signal to everyone that you don't actually enjoy his movies. To you, Lynch is "fake" while Michael Bay is the "real thing." So, because I happen to be able to decipher Lynch’s visual language—unlike you—am I just supposed to shut up? Not a chance. Besides, Michael Bay’s films don't possess even a fraction of the visual culture found in a David Lynch film. It's just that bombs aren't constantly exploding in Lynch's work, which makes it harder for self-proclaimed cinephiles like you to notice.

Look, man... you didn't just jump at the chance to quote me by bringing up "Lynch's visuality and intellectual strangeness", you completely missed the point of what I said. I don't know... maybe it was too complicated for you to grasp.🤷
Since when? There was absolutely NO 🤷comparison😕 happening here. I honestly have no clue where on earth you saw MY comparison between Bay and Lynch.
Here... I'll quote my own text again just to be clear...

Whatever people think of him, the guy knows how to make a visually striking and cool movie... he knows how to design great action shots, cool frames, and slick sequences far better than 80% of blockbuster directors. So, strictly in terms of action, his movies are visually creative, and thanks to his specific, recognizable "style," he stands out. Now... some people dig that... some don't... just like some people enjoy having their brains melted by Lynch, while others would rather just slap him in the face for it...

So... let me simplify this for you and a few others...the bottom line is, some people like Bay, and some people like Lynch..👍 Lynch was only brought into this as an example of how different people appreciate different things. What offended you (and a few others) was simply me saying that Lynch messes with people's heads with his films... but hey, that's my take on Lynch, and I'm allowed to have it, just like you have yours on Bay. Look... I'm not some deep intellectual looking down on everyone else, judging their trash tastes or acting like I "understand Lynch's code."
It’s honestly exhausting seeing people beat their chests and act like they're film experts just because they've watched Lynch, Godard, Van Saint, Bergman, and other world-renowned auteurs, thinking that automatically makes them literate in cinema. That doesn't give anyone the right to look down on others or lecture them. If anything, it's the opposite.☕

Seconded. Since my previous response was nuked for being a dead end, maybe his baseless insults toward me should be wiped or handled differently...😉

If he were still around, Ante Peterlić would definitely have dedicated one of his exhaustive critiques to Michael Bay. I mean, once you start putting David Lynch in the same breath as Bay...you really ought to check if someone actually understands basic cinema or has any sense of taste before they even think about logging onto this forum. Otherwise, just any random idiot can ramble on about whatever they want.

Anyway, enough about that...

briskhound2 said:Hey everyone, looks like this thread is moving at lightning speed 😁 So, let's pivot away from Lynch for a second and finally make a comparison with someone actually in the same ballpark. Renny Harlin. Have you guys actually sat through his recent stuff? The Convent is a massive teen-targeted flop—just a directionless, aimless mess that’s a total slog. His latest, 12 Rounds, is a slight step up, but honestly, it’s just a blatant rip-off of Die Hard 3... everything from the plot beats to specific sequences and even the dialogue is just copied. A movie that could have been a decent, high-octane action flick ended up being... well, we've seen much better versions of this ages ago. Look, comparing Bay and Harlin... it's a zero for him. Harlin burned through all his credit a long time ago with Die Hard 2—which is basically the ceiling for the action genre—and Cliffhanger, a movie that owes its popularity almost entirely to visual spectacle since there isn't much acting depth to speak of. Tony Scott does his best work under Jerry Bruckheimer's wing; once he wanders outside those waters, he starts churning out some pretty unwatchable garbage (The Fan, Domina), so comparing Bay and Scott isn't out of line, but they both basically make the same movies, except Scott's been in the game longer. If you compare 12 Rounds to The Rock, it becomes immediately obvious that Bay actually knows his craft... it's an action rollercoaster that never feels boring, exhausting, or like a cheap imitation, all while being a visual feast with a story that's clear and easy to follow. I mean, what else does a solid action movie really need to offer?

Seconded. Also, regarding Harlin's "newer" stuff... we should mention Driven, one of the biggest flops of the last decade.

northerncrane4 said:@briskhound2

Harlin is just burnt out—plain and simple. But let’s be real: Bay doesn't have anything in his filmography that even comes close to "Die Hard 2," "Cliffhanger," or heaven forbid, "Cutthroat Island" and "Deep Blue Sea."

As for Scott's "Last Boy Scout" and "True Romance"? Bay can only dream.

Look... you just won't admit it because of your personal vendetta against Bay... end of story. But if you actually looked at this objectively, you'd see The Rock was a hit with both critics and audiences... even more so than Die Hard 2. Basically... the movie has a pretty solid reputation...

northerncrane4 said:Look, you were the first one to bring up Lynch—completely out of context, by the way. What exactly are you looking for here? For me to hand you an off-topic penalty just because you mentioned him in your post? I don't get it.

I don't expect anything specific from Bay personally. However, when it comes to the film itself—especially an action flick—my expectations are higher. I'm looking for much more clarity than what he’s actually capable of delivering—based on what I saw in Rock and Armageddon.

LOL... straight to the warnings when you don't get it... nice work.👍 Feel free to hand one out to yourself while you're at it.😉

I brought up Lynch to show how what he does best works for some people, just like how what Bay does best works for others in a totally different way. That was my point. But then you immediately latched onto Lynch and started explaining why he's good, what you see in his films, why they're masterpieces, etc. Anyway... let's just drop it.😉

There are plenty of action movies that offer more! And who said we were talking about Bay's action movies? You've got Leon, Aliens, Die Hard, and tons of others where you actually get that "more." As for the clarity thing... I don't follow. What specifically is "unclear" to you?😕 Fine, if Rock and Armageddon were that "unclear" to you, definitely stay away from Transformers or Island (though I doubt that'll be an issue).😉

northerncrane4 said:Look, kid—I find plenty of meaning and structure in Lynch's films, something that clearly escapes you. You admitted yourself that all you see in Bay's work is visual hype—which I agree with, but it's just not enough for me.

Besides, if we're talking about pure action visuals, Michael Bay can hold his own against guys like Renny Harlin or Tony Scott.

Let's not veer off into an off-topic debate about Lynch...😉

That bolded part right there is exactly why this thread is such a mess. You and a few others feel like that visual rush isn't enough (which is just personal taste, even if it's a lame excuse to make)...but for me and some other people, it is. I don't ask for anything more from Bay personally...it's that simple. Either you dig watching dozens of explosions tear a city apart or you don't...but the fact is, Bay knows how to throw a top-tier "fiesta."

Now, Tony Scott is in a league of his own (personally one of my favorite directors). He had his ups and downs, and in his later years, he started experimenting with his style a bit, which I thought was great. But Harlin... I don't know. Maybe the Harlin from the 90s (though that's also when Bay was at his creative peak)...but not this modern version...not really (though I haven't seen "12 Rounds" yet). To be honest, even the "new" Bay doesn't wow me like he used to back in the 90s. For me, Transformers wasn't even half the blockbuster that Armageddon, The Rock, or Bad Boys were. Honestly...everything else is just so-so.

northerncrane4 said: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.

And you’re out here watching movies with zero actual substance or logic.👍🙂

northerncrane4 said: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.

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.😉

Nicholas Walker3 said:@Anthony Smith3

Honestly, David Lynch isn't trying to mess with anyone's head—everything he does is actually pretty straightforward. Just watch the movie and enjoy the ride --don't try to overanalyze what he put on screen. People who struggle to grasp things that aren't meant to be decoded just don't "get" Lynch (or Trier) and their messages; they end up feeling confused, thinking there's some hidden trick. But really, he just sees the world through a different lens than everyone else!
To truly understand Lynch, you only need to remember his line from TP: "owls are not what they seem" and that's pretty much it.......

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

wiredbison82 said: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.

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...

wiredbison82 said: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.

I don't think you get my point at all... but whatever... doesn't matter...☕

wiredbison82 said: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.

I can't agree with that at all... I actually think he's great when it comes to visual creativity. Obviously, he's not offering anything groundbreaking or revolutionary, but he really knows how to deliver a visually striking, creative experience (just look at that sequence in Pearl Harbor where they bomb the ships—that shot where the camera follows the falling bomb... the guy just kills it with those kinds of visual flourishes). To be fair, he's lost his touch a bit since Bad Boys 2, but whatever...

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.

Putting a signature on almost every single sentence...

New international trailer out now...

INTERNATIONAL TRAILER

Lisa Ross65 said:Look, I get it—his movies are clearly designed as massive cash grabs. But for heaven's sake, he could at least put some effort into character development. The characters in his films are nothing more than caricatures—take Anthony Anderson in Transformers, for example. It's exhausting. That said, if we're talking about his actual work, The Island is probably his best shot.

Honestly... I don't even think it's on him; it's the scripts. Most of what he picks up lacks any real depth or characterization—it's just pure action and cheap jokes. But Bay always nails those specific elements, and in my opinion, he does them better than anyone. His peak stuff has to be The Rock, Armageddon, and Bad Boys. I'd say The Island is one of his weaker ones, even if it was ambitious. Visually and conceptually it held up, even if the plot isn't exactly groundbreaking. It borrows bits from The Matrix (that fake reality vibe), Equilibrium (the whole forbidden emotions thing), and feels most like a riff on Logan's Escape (honestly, the whole concept seems based on that). Still, it offered more than just mindless explosions by giving us a decent moral dilemma.
This time, Bay actually tried to tackle a serious premise: cloning humans to use as spare parts and treating them like products instead of people. But all that seriousness goes right out the window during the first action sequence, which was loud, frantic, and visually cool, though arguably over the top in places.
It’s obvious he lives for car chases, since almost all the action in this flick boils down to that. Even though Bay is an action master, it feels like he’s running a bit low on fuel here; some sequences felt recycled, especially that highway chase that looked like a carbon copy of the one from Bad Boys 2, just turned up to eleven.

Lisa Ross65 said:Bay's movies are basically just two-hour music videos. He doesn't care about anything besides explosions and special effects—period. His stuff didn't used to be this bad, but I recently sat through Armageddon and Transformers again and honestly, I could barely make it to the end.

And they work perfectly just like that.

So... my answer to the question in the title is a hard NO. This guy does exactly what he’s built for: summer blockbusters. If he had actually tried to direct a drama after all those explosions and turned out to be a total disaster—like, someone with zero grasp on emotions, character arcs, or actual human connection—then maybe this conversation would even be worth having. Otherwise, there's no point.

Back in early 2006, when news broke that the newly formed Marvel Studios wanted to turn the "Iron Man" comic into a movie with Jon Favreau directing, nobody really saw this coming. Little did we know that "Iron Man" would blow up to become one of the biggest, most entertaining summer blockbusters of 2008. It absolutely crushed it with both critics and audiences, raking in a massive $318 million domestically. That put it right at the top of the 2008 charts, sitting just behind another comic book heavy hitter, The Dark Knight. On top of all that, Robert Downey Jr. pulled off an incredible career comeback. Playing that billionaire playboy turned hero totally won him back over the eyes of the public and made him a national favorite. Given that massive success, a sequel was a total no-brainer. The studio scrambled to get it made as fast as possible to capitalize on the hype. Unfortunately, things weren't exactly smooth sailing behind the scenes. Word is Terrence Howard, who played Col James ' Rhodey' Rhodes in the first flick, got swapped out for Don Cheadle because he was asking for way too much cash. At least we still have Gwyneth Paltrow and Samuel L. Jackson, though the latter only pops up briefly at the end. We've also got some new faces joining the cast: Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, and Scarlett Johansson. While the exact budget is under wraps, considering the first movie cost $140 million and made a killing, you can bet the producers aren't pinching pennies this time around. Industrial Light & Magic is back on deck to handle the VFX, and fun fact: Al Pacino was reportedly considered for the role of Justin Hammer before it ultimately went to Sam Rockwell. The US premiere is slated for Pig 2010.



IMDB

PLOT - we don't know the full story yet, just a few hints...

With his secret superhero identity now revealed to the world, industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) must deal with the consequences, as well as confront new villains Whiplash (Mickey Rourke) and a fellow industrialist, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). Meanwhile, the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) lurks in the background.

PHOTOS

Word on the street is Hitman 2 is actually happening! 👏🙂

Look, as someone who lives for this trilogy, I was honestly stoked with how they handled the movie (best game adaptation IMO). I’m down for a sequel if they keep the director and lead actor on board...

Kyle Ward Pens " Hitman sequel

According to IESB, 20th Century Fox has brought on Kyle Ward ("Kane & Lynch," "Fiasco Heights") to write a follow-up to the 2007 "Hitman" movie.

Xavier Gens helmed the original flick about Agent 47 (Timothy Olyphant), the genetically modified hitman caught in a massive web of global conspiracies.

Adrian Askarieh, Daniel Alter, and Chuck Gordon are all set to produce again.

Looks like John Travolta is finally back on track. After a string of decent but pretty much ignored flicks like Be Cool, Lonely Hearts, and Wild Hogs—not to mention that devastating personal loss with his son—he’s actually managed to win over critics and audiences alike with his performance as the villain in The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. To be fair, he’s always been great at playing the bad guys, the psychos, or the drunks. Just look at Pulp Fiction, Face/Off, Broken Arrow, and Swordfish; regardless of how those movies landed overall, Travolta absolutely crushed it. And judging by the teaser trailer, he might just kill it in this one too. From Russia with Love. It's an action thriller produced by Paramount Pictures. Think about franchises like The Transporter, Hitman, Tekken, or the Taxi series. As usual, Luc Besson's on screenplay duty. Look, Ada Hasak, the bottom line here is that... Directed by Pierre Morel., The guy behind it all. Last year's was incredibly highly acclaimed. Taken is a total hit.A ruggedly handsome Travolta who actually looks cool style-wise. Jonathan Rhys Meyers from The Tudors is also joining the cast. The budget is sitting at $55M, and we're looking at an American release in February 2010.



IMDb

Teaser trailer.

PLOT

IMDb teaser plot Quote: in Paris — a young staffer at the Office of The US Ambassador hooks up with an American spy looking to stop a terrorist attack in The City.

Pictures.

wiredbison82 said:There isn't a single masterpiece or even a standout hit in this poll, so it’s not surprising none showed up over the last decade.
American Beauty, No Country for Old Men, and Eastwood's movie are solid—really good, actually—but let's be honest, there's better stuff out there...

Oh, give me a break.🙄☕

New trailer just dropped...

TRAILER 2