Michael Bay’s career has BOOMED for a while. In fact, most of his movies are filled with crashes and booms. Booms are actually what Bay does best. But it seems that with Transformers II, Hollywood wants Bay to go bust.
Bay’s strong suit has never been his story telling. It’s action. It’s stunts. It’s slow motion heroes staring off into middle distance. That’s his trademark. He’s done similar movies for the past decade and a half.
But this week, suddenly Hollywood critics are finding Bay’s style so awful that they’re viciously panning his latest, Tranformers II.
Look, I’m pretty darn confident that Transformers II is not a good movie. And I’m pretty sure I’m not going to see it. But the vitriol coming out of reviewers is pretty odd and it intrigued me. And what many of them seem to focus on is Bay’s unpardonable sin of dissing President Obama in the movie.
Variety:
“So as usual in these movies, the federal bureaucrats are portrayed as annoying if not villainous. The President’s man, “Galloway,” is a bespectacled blowhard who becomes an obstacle to our brave fighting men and their alliance with the noble Autobots. Operating specifically under Barack Obama’s presidential authority, he makes all kinds of mischief. He says the President wants to try “diplomacy” against the evil Decepticons and hints the President would consider handing over Shia LaBouf’s character to be killed by them.”
This doesn’t sit well with the elites whose sole commandment is “Thou shall not disrespect Obama.” They say it’s unfair. (Sounds kind of believable to me after you read this.)
But Rolling Stone ups the ante and gives the movie 0 stars and personally attacks the director.
Disguised as a human director, Bay is actually a destroyer of dreams. When Hasbro invented those Transformers toys, the intention was for kids to use their imagination about what those bots would morph into. Bay crushes that imagination with his own crude interpretations that seem untouched by human hands and spirit. I know there are still 17 months to go, but I’m thinking Transformers 2 has a shot at the title Worst Movie of the Decade.
What? Aren’t we forgetting Basic Instinct II or The Love Guru?
But it’s more than one teeny weeny Obama mention in his latest movie. I think it’s worse. Much worse. I think Hollywood is starting to suspect that Bay is not a liberal. And there’s reason to suspect it.
Bay created the uber-patriotic Armageddon where oil drillers save the world. Oil drillers! (That should have clued Hollywood in, huh?)
Bay directed the patriotic WWII movie Pearl Harbor.
Bay also directed one of the most pro-life movies I’ve seen in the past twenty years in “The Island” in that it comes out against human cloning, for the existence of the soul, and deals with other moral dilemmas along with all sorts of explosions and car chases. There’s a lot more explosions and near nudity than moral dilemmas but the morality of the movie is clearly anti-cloning anyway.
Even in Transformers, the military is seen almost universally positive tones which sets it apart from virtually every other movie coming out of Hollywood right now.
And while the critics are savaging the movie, regular folks seems to like it fine. The critics on Rotten Tomatoes give the movie 22% out of 100% while the regular folks give the movie a 68% approval. Something tells me there’s more going on here than critics upset that the plot doesn’t hold together all that well.
So critics and liberal weenies are after Bay. Something tells me he won’t care too much as Transformers is already zooming towards $100 million just a few days after being released. And this is the same Michael Bay who said:
We don’t make movies for critics. I’ve done four movies; there’s millions upon millions upon millions of people who’ve paid to see them. Somebody likes them. My greatest joy is to sit anonymously in a dark theater and watch it with an audience, a paying audience.
Sure sounds like a fiscal conservative.
June 26, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I liked 'The Island'. The anti-cloning message was fairly powerful. "Armageddon" was a fun watch, and I never saw "Pearl Harbor".
I turned off "Transformers" after 35 minutes – terrible script (was it written by George Lucas or something?), and the masturbation reference was unnecessary and low-brow.
If it comes out that Michael Bay is right-leaning, then the attacks make sense.
June 26, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Oh man, of all the directors to turn out to be right-leaning, does it have to be Michael Bay? There should be a special circle of hell devoted for guys who make the drek he churns out.
Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?*
Team America Fans know what I mean.
June 26, 2009 at 8:00 pm
The Island – a total snoozer. Saw it on cable TV.
Armageddon – A good piece of brain candy. Lots of action, good premise, but WAY stupid as Bruce Willis is delivering his heartfelt speech as the asteroid is plummeting to Earth with each sappy word of his monologue.
Pearl Harbor – sucked. Plain sucked.
Transformers – was forced to watch this on a transatlantic airplain ride. In retrospect I would have preferred watching the fat bald 3 rows up from me drool on himself as he slept.
I don't know about the pro- or anti- Obama theme of Transformers II. But the plots, dialogue and acting are just BAD. So, there may not be a correlation between the two.
June 26, 2009 at 8:03 pm
He could be right of Mark Levin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, I'll still keep my $9.50 in my wallet for other movie fare.
June 26, 2009 at 8:14 pm
What a bunch of party poops! Don't you people know how to have fun anymore? Transformers was not supposed to be dialogue driven, it was supposed to be cool as hell and fun! Which it was! What a bunch of boring, self-important, snooty weenies you guys are.
June 26, 2009 at 9:20 pm
The first Transformer movie sucked so bad I can't believe they made another one and I certainly wouldn't pay money to see it.
June 26, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Hmph. Michael Bay is the "remake king." Aside of Transformers, he's done nothing but churn out bad remakes of horror films with more on the way! In his remake of The Amityville Horror he portrayed my dear friend George Lutz as an ax wielding dog murderer. If you’re making a movie about a specific person, don’t you get to know that person in order to portray them properly? Nope. They froze him out, then filed a law suit to shut him up. The actual story is one of the best testaments to Catholicism that there is. Father Ray got that family out. He did not run from the house and abandon the family. Then he gave them the tools to survive. The rosary, the scapular, and the Miraculous Medal. George Lutz converted to Catholicism not long after leaving. He was devout until the day he died. Let’s add that the real John Ketcham, portrayed in Bay’s remake, was a wonderful man. Hicksite Quaker, suffragist and abolitionist. Not a murderer and torturer of Native Americans.
June 27, 2009 at 11:38 pm
My husband and I saw this movie. We were hoping the parts written by a 13-year-old boy (the perverted, unnecessary comments that are far from humorous) would be kept to a minimum, but they were abundant. On the bright side I remember commenting, "Yes, Obama is a coward… Haha!". Funniest part of the movie. Not really, but it is nice to see something mainstream not worshiping Obama.
June 29, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Have to agree with T Shaffer. You'll LOVE Transformers II if you're one of those old fashion people who likes to be ENTERTAINED when you walk into a movie theater. The effects were great, the jokes (even the crude ones) were funny, and it was a genuinely positive portrayal of the U.S. military and the triumph of the American spirit.
Shame on the crazy liberal critics who forget the President/Administration is SUPPOSED to be the jerk in movies where the hero is an underdog. And don't forget, in Transformers I, Bush is portrayed terribly, asking for Ding Dongs during a crisis.
It's a movie! If you don't have a sense of humor or love of action–stay home! and let the rest of us enjoy.
June 29, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I didn't like the unnecessary crude parts of Transformers 1, but otherwise I thought it was an entertaining but silly movie. My son LOVED it. My husband describes it as "one big commercial for the Army." And why not? Boys love giant robots and the Army.
I figured the crude parts would be worse this time but I let my 13-year-old son go with a friend because the memory of a few crude jokes fades but the memory of giant transforming robots — that lasts forever. He said it was "awesome." And it can't possibly be any dumber than Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 (not 1! 1 was great!).
"Pearl Harbor" really was awful. But apparently Transformers 2, in 5 days, has already made more than half the money it made in Transformers 1's entire run. So no one is listening to the critics.
June 30, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I also agree with the people who said that transformers is more about being fun than being plot intensive. Come on, it's based on a children's tv show. I loved it, and the obama digs made me cackle, I won't lie.
July 4, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Hi guys, after reading this post (and every one following it, I am very late!) I wen tout and watched it for myself. I have posted a bit of a commentary of my own over at Chiral Capers, with my reflections on the social commentary of the film. If you can, do take a look! It was a struggle not to reveal spoilers, since the ending with Prime (and the Primes) were the juiciest musings of all.
Anthony OPL