Killing Michael Bay
 

http://www.killingmichaelbay.50megs.com/

This short is hilarious! It's about two independent filmmakers who try to kill Michael Bay and put a stop to his big budget fiascos. Right up our alley ;) Not to mention it looks fantastic!

I think the movie would have been more effective if it were two disgruntled fans disappointed in spending money to see Michael Bay movies. Technically it was OK. Even though the compression was a horrendous blocky mess, you could tell that most shots were bluescreen. It did have it's moments, though. Like in the beginning with the dartboard (not the dartboard scene at the end). I liked that shot.

At first I thought "WTF is Michael Bay?", so I searched Google.

Hmmmm...I liked The Rock & Bad Boys, although I'm curiously underwhelmed at the prospect of Bad Boys II

I saw Armageddon ... it was excreble (cries of "armageddon outta here")

I read the Reviews of Pearl Harbour ... oh dear. But I found that there's actually a Pearl Harbour gift set. Presumably it's meant as a gift for someone you don't like very much.

So are you guys against his cinematorgraphy style or just how bad the storyline in his movies are?? I personally think the cinematography in Armageddon was pretty damn good, as was Pearl Harbour.. I'd like to see some DV filmmaker challenge that.

And you can't deny that the action sequences in Bad Boys II are some of the most intense to date, and the style in direction of the movie as a whole was pretty darn well done. Much as I hate to admit I like anything about a hollywood blockbuster sequel, plot-lines aside (heh heh), the Directing and Editing in Bad Boys II was pretty impressive.

The cinematography in Armageddon was fine. The plot stank, and as for the acting...ham and cheese.

Steve Buscemi, what on earth were you thinking?

Armeggedon was a horrible, horrible movie. I just don't care for his directing style. It is very cookie cutter. I also do not like how he has his sound mixed. Very loud and you get listening fatigue quickly. He just bombards you with constant crap. He has his movies edited with quick cuts where there doesn't need to be quick cuts... and dramatic camera sweeps (like in Bad Boys 2) for no reason. His movies always tend to be too long as well. I'd say almost anyone could direct a Michael Bay quality movie if they were surrounded by the same high dollar people on the set Michael Bay surrounds himself with. I'd say Michael is one or two steps above present day George Lucas.

I did enjoy Crimson Tide. That was a good one.

Wow this really shows how subjective this sort of thing can be, and how two opinions about the same thing can be polar opposites, while stating the same reasons.

One more reason why there is no real 'good' or 'bad'. Only preferences...

I didn't think the story of Armageddon was all that great, but I loved the directing style, and the way that it represented a very 'Americana' kind of feel in the dramatic slo-mo moments. Reminded me of old Coca cola print ads from decades ago. I thought it was very successful at what it was trying to do. But again, just an opinion.

I think Michael Bay is a good technical director. He knows how to put a shot together, but I DETEST DETEST the editing of the Bruckheimer films. They are just CHOP CHOP CHOP. I really cannot tell what is going on. I'm 32 and I grew up with action films but really Bay's movies (and Simon West, etc.) look like they were edited in a blender. Multiple camera setups thrown together purely for staccato rhythm. Maybe he shot reams of beautiful footage where the action makes sense, where shots lead into each other logically, but you wouldn't know that from the end product. As far as visual storytelling goes, I think he stinks.

I'm guessing Bruckheimer, being the self-important fellow that he appears to be, probably reserves final cut for himself. Definitely something that muddles up the works, I'm sure...

Nothing new under the sun. I think Bruckheimer picked Bay because his reel probably looked a lot like Tony Scott. Or Bay uses the same DP Scott uses?

Saw a preview of a Bruckheimer film that is more drama than action-epic. Made me chuckle...the guy is branching out (I think he's got a TV project too).

Speaking of which... Tony Scott directed Crimson Tide, not Michael Bay. Just nitpicking ;)

I think Mr. Bay knows how to operate a camera, and manages to get decent enough performances out of his actors. But people need to realize that directors aren't just cinematographers, so the visuals in the movie are only a part of what the director "directs". Do Michael Bay movies look good? Yup. Sound good? Uh huh. Leave me cheering at the end? Not really. Not because of the cinematography, or the lighting, or even the acting. Because the scripts are not that good. It really is the most important part of the movie. It's the blueprint. If you make a very pretty building out of blueprints from an engineer who hasn't got a clue, the building will fall, regardless of how well the colors of the tempered glass match the hedges along the sides.

Story is everything. Michael Bay may be a genius with cameras, but if the scripts suck, the movies will suck, no matter how good he is. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

Yeah, but who goes to see a blockbuster action extravaganza for the depth of story? That's what indie film is for. That's where you get the meat and potatoes... We've all known for years that big-budget studio movies are usually formulated, low-risk, easy on the brain kind of stuff, created with the sole purpose of extreme marketability. But we go see them because of the eye candy... That's all these movies are there for. Even the actors and directors involved in them refer to them as 'safe pictures'.

But, on occasion, we are treated with a big budget studio film that actually turns out to be of a higher quality. I put Soderbergh's studio films in that category. The studio-friendly formulaic storylines may be there, but they have an extra style and intrigue to them. I attribute that to Soderbergh's style of interpretation. Movies like Ocean's 11 and Out of Sight would have just stunk if done by most studio-friendly directors because the story lines were only so-so. Soderbergh is one of those cross-over guys. He doesn't want to be pigeon-holed into just studio films or just indie films. He does both, in a non-snooty way. Movies are movies, all with a different purpose for each.

But again, all of this is just opinion. Most notable is the fact that these people are making movies that are viewed and appreciated by millions.

I agree with Imran.. I've always put movies into two categories: those that are entertainment and those that are art. The majority of movies made with big budgets are not attempting to sabotage film culture or the advancement of film as an artistic medium, but are rather trying to entertain the masses much like TV or candy. I think they're relatively harmless.

The other type of movies are films that push the limit and make you think - it just so happens that the majority of these films are small indies, made with low budgets because they don't attract the big shots, simply because of the nature of the industry.

Occasionally we get people like Soderbergh who straddle the line, and that's great. I think we're going to start to see more and more people like him who are able to direct indies but also cater to the masses and get behind big features. I really admire Soderbergh for that; he's not afraid of making Ocean's 11 and Erin Brokovich, he just promises himself that he'll do the best he can and try to keep supporting the indie community along the way.

Sorry, I call bulltwaddle on separating blockbusters with 'smart' indie films. There is no reason at all for a big budget film to not have a smart script or to have plotholes or gaps in logic or characters acting stupidly. To people ENJOY seeing stupidity? No, they want to be thrilled, they want to see things blow up, dudes getting kicked and bullets flying. None of this means that the story has to be written for the lowest common denominator. I don't mean give Meryl Streep a machinegun (though that image does sound appealing), but give these people scripts that don't insult your intelligence or ask the audience to shrug their way through threadbare devices. So often I see big budget craporamas that don't even stand up to their own universes that they built in the first act. Saying that audiences don't want to trust their own senses is like saying that people at McDonalds can't smell rotting food.

Well I would never equate blockbuster extravaganzas with rotting food... More like perhaps empty calories in, say, Skittles. No nutritional value, could be a lot better, but still fun to ingest as long as you're not expecting filet mignon.

The problem with studio films is the 'collaboratively destructive' environment that it is. Unlike indie films where the vision of the core filmmakers is carried through, with studio flicks you have these huge crews with each person cooking their tiny piece of the broth, while the core group tries their best to manage them. Add to that the big brainless studio producer types that want an actor that's not right for the part but will attract more audiences, or they want some dorky sound bites that people can quote after the movie, and whatnot.

These studios are big movie churning factories. Another analogy would be comparing Lays potato chips to one of those homemade chip makers like Cape Cod or something. You just can't compare what a factory chipmaker makes compared to a small mom and pop company that puts their love into it. The chips are just going to be of a better quality.

It's just the way it is - too many cooks spoil the broth.

I realize these are factors that can lead to big budget crap. Still, every once in awhile studios seem to allow some true visionaries to take the formula and make something stellar. Perhaps it is the convenient marriage between powerful producers and dogmatic directors. Maybe they are the same person. James Cameron for one, with ALIENS, TRUE LIES and T2, used to make visionary action pictures that have clever plots, excellent pacing with concepts that don't insult your intelligence. Luc Besson is another one who embraces the genre. LA FEMME NIKITA, LEON are all great examples of action-oriented pictures that have at their core real characters. Even his fluffiest film, THE FIFTH ELEMENT, follows its own mad logic, paying heed to its comic book source. John McTiernan used to make good action formula pictures that had integrity. DIE HARD and PREDATOR all created little worlds where characters made decisions that made sense. DIE HARD remains among the most tightly plotted action films around (which is why it is endlessly copied ... Die Hard set on... a train! Die Hard set on ... a plane!).

In all the poorest examples of action films that insult the audience's intelligence there really doesn't seem to be much reason why the script takes a leap into illogic. The writer(s) and producers create a world, then they must stick to it. There may not be time for character development, but even in the briefest of scenes you can build something that the audience is meant to identify with. There doesn't have to be an either / or proposition. Oh, we have to chuck the character development because we need another explosion.

(I should also add that I was pleasantly surprised that Bruckheimer allowed Pirates of the Caribbean to be what it was. Maybe he is mellowing as he gets older?)

I agree with everything Keith said. There's no reason why an action movie has to be soooo bad, and I blame Bay because apparently he has NO INTEREST in storytelling. As the guy in the short says, "Every shot looks like a beer commercial". That beautiful, glossy Hollywood look is the only thing Bay cares about. Believable characters? No way. Natural dialogue? Forget about it. Interesting plot? We blow up 37 cars!!!

Tony Scott also came out of the Bruckheimer factory, but at least he's made some good films: Crimson Tide, True Romance... even Top Gun is ten times better than Armageddon or The Rock. The difference is, Scott uses his background in commercials & music videos to help him tell stories on film, while Bay continues to make commericals & music videos but just on a larger scale.

Killing Michael Bay
 

I'm the co-director, writer and editor of "Killing Michael Bay". It's good to know my film started a rambling post thread debating the function of summer blockbusters. Thanks to Alex Taylor for starting the thread. I want to say I agree with Keith Loh on everything he says. I think he's my Canadian clone.
We all know expensive summer blockbusters are meant to entertain the masses. That is self-evident. But it's cynical and sad to think the masses just want eye candy. What about a compelling story: an emotional rollercoaster ride and a burning desire to know "what happens next?" And maybe some food for thought, as well.
Also, what self respecting writer or director would make a film that intentionally had a weak story with thin characters and plot holes you could drive a truck through? When directors like Michael Bay excuse their films by saying they're "just popcorn movies", they misunderstand what their critics are offended by. It's not the mindless action, violence, and special effects. It's the fact that the mindless action, violence, and FX serve no purpose. There's no story there. I want to be transported away like I was as a kid with "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters". But they had a STORY that took priority over FX. That's something I think Lucas has lost with the new trilogy (uh oh, I don't want to spark any Lucas responses here--forget I mentioned that.)
I could rant forever on this subject. I'll end by encouraging all of you to tell as many people as possible about www.killingmichaelbay.com. Gotta get in my shameless plug.

Stay cool,

Todd Norris

How cool, thanks for stopping in. Very enjoyable short!

I still think there's a place in the world for Hollywood pulp, because if I applied my taste to all films made, I'd want to cut out about 95% of what's out there. But then, what would I watch on lazy Saturday afternoons on the couch when the brain wants something to chew on as I drift off to a nice afternoon nap?

I guess there's always Mr. Rogers - he's good for a snooze.

Todd,

Thanks for stopping by! Now that you've discovered us I hope you stay :)

I agree, but most people only know the "popcorn" movies. The more good films that play in large theatres, the more exposure the general public will get to such movies, and the more they'll reject popcorn movies. I hope we're moving towards that point.

It's a shame that the main drive for a lot of big directors is just money. I'd love to see what Bay could do with a $1000 budget, a turtle and a guitar!

Todd, your short was one of the most enjoyable satires I've seen. Good f'n work, man. Totally entertaining and not stupid. :)

Thanks for the kind words
 

Thanks, Keith for the opinion of "Killing Michael Bay". Just checked out your "Hit and Run" video. Very cool. Just having finished a project for work involving After Effects, Commotion, Flash and some 3D, I know how much work you put into it. Well done. And I like the song, too.
Judging by your website, I take it you're a fan of Samurai cinema, martial arts movies, comics, etc. I swear you might be my clone. I used to run a video store that specialized in Art, Foreign and Classic films. I created a kickass Hong Kong and Japanese video section that had no rival. But the owner of the building jacked up the rent and the store went out of business.
Anyway, good job on the video. I'll be curious to see how the "Lady-X" project turns out.

Todd Norris

Thanks for checking the video out. The Lady-X short is scheduled for September 1. Maybe later we can try out something in the scale of what you did with Killing Michael Bay. Love the blue screen stunts :)

Todd

I rarely laugh at anything I see on the internet (at least, not when I'm supposed to)...I laughed heartily throughout...and I'd never even heard of Michael Bay before today. Great film...loved the blue screen work, and really good performances by all.


Heard from Mr. Bay (or his lawyers) yet?

Barry

Killing Michael Bay
 

Believe it or not, we have tried to get the movie to Bay from several different contacts. I think it made it to his production office, but I haven't heard a peep. My guess is that he's such an egomaniac that our little film is completely below his radar. Or he's seen it and figures the existence of a satire roasting his over-the-top style simply proves that he is some sort of auteur.

Todd Norris

Keith Loh's comments are right on target. There really is no reason why a big budget action movie shouldn't have a compelling script and dialogue. A lot of people want to say mainstream America can't handle that, and all they want is to see mindless explosions. I don't think that's true at all. People will take to a decent script along with the action and the movie will be a greater success because of that. That's the reason why films like Pearl Harbor and Armaggedon get such bad reviews. Audiences flock to the theaters in expectation of something great, the studio rakes in millions on opening weekend, then people realize they were cheated and word starts to spread.

It seems nowadays these types of films spend much more time on the trailers and marketing of these films instead of a script, in hopes of scoring big time on opening weekend and setting the pace for trickling earnings to make a decent profit.

I personally can't stand Michael Bay's movies. He's a pompous ass and a mediocre director IMO. Take a look at his photos on IMDB. It seems his gig is more about being a director/model. My favorite is the picture of him with his jean jacket wide open, no shirt underneath, with headphones and a film lens around his neck. This guy makes Michael Bolton look cool.

I'd be curious to find out if Michael Bay gets a look at this short. I'm sure that the name alone will generate enough publicity that it will call his attention. You should send the link to his agent.

I used to think that if Hollywood shelled out better 'quality' flicks that everybody would take notice. And that everybody sees the flaws with movies. And that everybody would appreciate flawless plotlines and actually cares if the film is predictable and fits a formula.

But then that was before I started really listening to the opinions of people who could care less. People who watch American Idol and love every minute of it. People who wouldn't know the difference between a plot arc and Noah's ark. People who just want to have a good time and escape reality at the theater. People who don't know that 'fish out of water' is a standard storyline, and don't notice that it's been done and redone five billion times by Hollywood.

The sad truth is, many, many, many people out there will shovel in any kind of crap if its on a nice plate with 'good production values'. Because, unlike most of the people on this board, filmmaking is NOT a passion to them. Just a form of entertainment like a song would be.

When I listen to Sir Mix-a-lot's 'Baby Got Back' rap song, I don't consider it high art. But hey, it's entertaining. If I was a rapper, I'd probably ridicule it. But to me it's just good fun. Rap's not a passion to me and I'm not about to wax poetic about the stylings of Death Row music as compared to old school Sugar Hill Gang. I don't really care either way; it's not my thing. But I'd still buy it if it entertains me, makes me bob my head, or makes me laugh.

And more importantly, to each his own. Filmmaking is an art, and is subject to opinion. One person may think Michael Bay is an ass, while others may aspire to be like him. It really doesn't matter what one person or another thinks. We just have our ideas of what is good, and some will agree and others won't. Ultimately, if we're passionate enough about what we consider to be good, we make it ourselves (!). And hopefully we get to make it on such a grand budgeted scale as a Michael Bay movie (not to say that such a budget is necessary to make a good picture).

There is a difference between making a film within a fluffy genre and making a crappy film in a fluffy genre. There are lots of movie genres that I don't like, but I respect their art because they have integrity. THE ROAD WARRIOR is a piece of fluff. An action movie from start to end. But it has integrity. It says, 'this is a world where gas is worth dying for, so we'll make a film where everyone drives realllly fast a lot.' That's the only conceit. Within that conceit they make a slam bang, tightly plotted thrill ride. Characters act the way you expect them to within that universe. They don't all of a sudden whip out a light sabre. Why? Because the audience would yell bull. There's no love interest for the sake of seeing the hero whip out his dong. There's no sidekick for the sake of a few jokes. There's a dog and a kid but neither is cute. The creators of that film trusted their material. They said: 'if you buy this universe, we will give you a story that is believable within that universe.'

The crap films are the ones where the source material is betrayed by filmmakers who don't trust the universe they created. They put in Jar Jars, they put in the cute kids and the golden retriever who is menaced by the oh so evil villain. They never bother to mend the gaping plot holes and the illogic. They never bother to explain motivations. They rely upon stereotypes to telegraph a story they didn't bother to think out.
---

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: Big budget spectacle movie + involving characters + complex plot + plus lovingly rendered universe = classic for all time, megabuck winner at the box office and critical darling.

A group of people decided they wanted integrity in their film, honesty to its source material and that their audiences could handle it. They didn't make the characters Americans, they didn't bowdlerize it so that it would fit into a convenient 90 minute package and they didn't add Jar Jar. Because they thought their audiences could handle it.

And guess what? Their audiences lapped it up.

Amen Keith!

I think "Die Hard" is a perfect example. The structure of that movie has been ripped off so many times that we forget how cool it was in 1988. But a human, vulnerable hero up against a complex, interesting villain works every time. All the supporting characters had one little thing that made them stand out--Argyle, Powell, Ellis, even Mr. Tokagi was cool. Add in the subtext of "East meets West" (a cop from New York in L.A. and also Japanese companies in America) and you have an action classic.

Fluffy Genre movies
 

Other fantastic fluffy genre movies (Action, Horror, Sci-Fi):

Robocop
Alien
Aliens
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Terminator
Dawn of the Dead
The Thing (John Carpenter's)
Road Warrior

Yikes, I can tell I grew up in the '80's. But each the the above films created the particular rules of their universe and then stuck to those rules. The main character had a clear-cut goal and pursued it. We, the audience, understood what was at stake and realized just how tough it was going to be for the main character to achieve that goal. In other words, we forgot we were just watching a movie and really started to worry about how things were going to turn out. We got nervous, tense, excited, exhiliarated. Good fluffy genre movies do this. Bad fluffy genre movies just end up noisy and give you a headache (and piss you off because you kissed 8 bucks goodbye).

Ultimately, genre is supposed to make you feel, and this can't be done with FX and explosions alone. Whether we're the "American Idol"-watching masses or someone a little more sophisticated, we respond to a good story, well-told.

I think the real reason to fight for better written genre is because so-called "Joe Six-pack" can still dig well-written genre like "Robocop" and "Die Hard", but a more sophisticated audience is not going to dig "Armageddon" or "Ecks vs. Sever"

Todd

I would like to add that audiences also totally lapped up Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Bad Boys I and also II. All huge box office successes. But we all I think agree here that audiences taking it all in doesn't make it a good movie. It just makes it a financially successful movie. But if 2 million people go see a movie and tell 2 million other people to go see it because they enjoyed it, then didn't that movie do its job?

A telltale sign of box office crap is when you have a $40mil opening and then a sharp dropoff to nothing. You can believe people told their friends it sucked. But what of Pearl Harbor? Say what you will about it, but it held on for quite some time and made quite a lot of return visitors. Like Titanic (I know it's not a Bay film). I didn't think either was all that great, but then, I'm not the target audience! Are these movies just guilty pleasures for women? Who knows. But they did well, long term.

I'm not a big fan of Bay's movies, but can somebody please tell me what makes them so like the devil? Other than fast cuts, because I personally think that is completely speculative and up to taste. I thought the fast cuts in the action sequences in Bad Boys II made for very well executed, intense action. The swooping back and forth in the voodoo bad guys lair was visually and 'cinematographically' enjoyable. I'm a still photographer by hobby, and I enjoy well framed films, and I personally think the framing in all of his films have been very good. I put that on the cinematographer and the DP, but Bay obviously has something to do with it.

The stories are formula. But so is almost every single movie that comes out of studio, and many that come out of art houses. That doesn't automatically make it bad!

Are we just bashing him because he's a studio flunkie? What, other than personal taste, makes these movies so bad?

(And in case anyone's wondering, these action movies aren't really my bag and I'm not trying to defend them. I'd much rather watch films like Next Stop Wonderland, or Smoke, etc.)

Quote -Are we just bashing him because he's a studio flunkie? What, other than personal taste, makes these movies so bad?

Personally, I think all of his movies are overly cheesy in their drama. Now, I know he doesn't write the scripts, but he sure seems to latch onto those scripts which offer mindbending action, yet no character development.

Pearl Harbor might have been a great movie if it was historically accurate and didn't involve a sappy love triangle with Ben Affleck in the middle. Actors have noted that he spends one or two takes on important dramatic scenes, while spending 90% of the day on an action sequence. Obviously action sequences take more time to set up, but it's clear that he doesn't give enough time to character developement and doesn't focus on making sure the audience identifies with any of the characters.

You're right in the fact that if a movie makes a wonderful profit, it has done it's job for the studio. Heck, the recent crop of Star Wars movies have made tons of cash. But again, that's based more on good marketing than good film. These types of films will most likely be forgotton 10 years from now, whereas other great action films with great scripts and acting like Die Hard and Terminator 2, Pirates of the Carribean, Seven Samurai, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lord of the Rings etc.. will be talked about until the end of time. That I think is the difference.

To Imran Zaidi:

I can tell you are an "aesthetic relatavist"--it's all subjective. I believe the same thing. And yet there is still some sort of hunch that "The Road Warrior" is superior to "Armageddon", or "Die Hard" is better than "Bad Boys", even though all these movies made tons of money.

I think the logical argument I've been trying to put forward in my previous posts is that if "Joe Six Pack" can enjoy good fluff and bad fluff equally, shouldn't we still aspire to have more good fluff, so that we intelligent moviegoers can have a little fun, too?

A good genre movie can entertain "the masses" as well as more sophisticated audiences, and I'm not cynical enough or beaten down enough (yet) to just say "OK, bring on the crap."

You said that action movies really weren't your bag, but they ARE my bag, and maybe that's why I care. This leads into why I think Michael Bay is the devil.

Since his films (with their lack of compelling story or characters, incoherent editing style, Coke commercial visuals, and overall irrelevance to anything) are bad, but because they make money, Hollywood decides to churn even more of this crap out because they know it will turn a profit. To them, it's not about entertainment or art, it's purely about making money.

And I'm saying you can do both. Make a good movie that is also profitable.

And I believe a genre movie with a better story will perform better at the box office. That's why those Pixar films make so much damn money. Not just because a parent feels obligated to take their kids to see them, but because those Pixar guys know how to make good movies. Adults love them too. Men, women, boys, girls, highbrow, lowbrow, they all respond to well-written stories.

So let's aim high. Let's demand better movies. Don't be content with crap. Sure, it's never going to go away, but we don't have to like it.

You always bash
 

what you want most....these two guys would change places with Michael Bay in a New York minute. But it's always fun to satirize the big kahunas. Michael Bay makes what he likes, and gets the money to do so, everybody in Hollywood would love that.

Not that I would pay to see a MB movie, but plenty of peeps do and thats the bottom line.

Michael Bay, by the way, is the illegitimate son of John Frankeheimer. Perhaps didn't catch all the talent, but supposedly did get the "endowment".

Supposedly John Frankenheimer denies that Michael Bay is his son. They did a DNA test and it wasn't positive. Bay said that DNA testing at the time wasn't accurate enough.

Todd, that's fair enough. I see your point. And interesting thing about the 'aesthetic relativist'; I've never really put a term behind that sort of thing, but I guess I am one of those.

To celebrate this newfound introspection, I just went and saw a sneak preview of SWAT. I'd love to see what others in this thread will have to say about this one.

I personally was really surprised by how good it was. Or, that is, I was aesthetically pleased by its relative good quality... or something. ;)

Seriously though, I thought it was a very enjoyable film. Still predictable, but the acting was excellent, the story concept is great, and it kept me enthralled the whole way through. BUT, it's no Die Hard. (Yes, I absolutely loved and still love Die Hard I).

Imran, I have no argument at all against formula. As I said previously, I can admire even genres I don't really prefer. Genres = formula. Die Hard is a classic formula movie. There are hundreds of westerns that follow tried and true rules and structures. All genres have formulas. A movie that follows a formula to the letter is usually a decent movie *for that genre*. But truly great films transcend the formula and offer something extra, like a great story, like a great high concept, like memorable characters. They have to offer something that is MEMORABLE.

And this is really the key for me. I GET BORED. When I see a film do something that I've seen a hundred times before, I think to myself: I could just pull one of my old favourites off my shelf and watch that instead of watching another movie do the exact same thing with different actors.

Formula is a starting point. What makes PITCH BLACK more interesting that any number of ALIENS copies? It has an interesting high concept. An escaped prisoner and murderer must lead a band of survivors to safety. The structure of the movie is pure formula. What makes it work is the new spin on the concept and a charismatic star who makes the character believable. Other than that, it's just another movie where humans run from multiple aliens.

I saw the trailer for BAD BOYS II and I yawned. It looked BORING. Sure, it looked like it had lots of shooty shooty, explosions and car chases. And Will Smith and that other guy are good for a laugh. But it didn't look any different than BEVERLY HILLS COP did or THE LAST BOY SCOUT or any other renegade cop movie before that. BIG YAWN.

When I was entertainment editor of a university paper for two years I saw at least a film a week. So you could say that I was the dream consumer for Hollywood. I saw films for free. Dream job? No. It may have started out that way but week after week of watching the same movies being pumped out with the essentially the same plots and the same cookie cutter characters? BORING.

Maybe I am cursed with a memory for every film I've seen before. Maybe if I could forget from week to week I could embrace every counterfeit film that is released this Friday. But I remember almost all of them and my mind desires NEW TASTES. I admit it; I am creative. I like watching films to feed my creativity. But do not make the mistake of thinking I am not a ravenous consumer who wants to eat product.

This is why I go abroad to feed my tastes. I watch foreign films, I watch independent films, I watch HBO productions, I watch the stuff that comes out on DVINfo. I desire new things. People who are in prison are being punished because they cannot go outside the walls to see NEW THINGS. They have to eat whatever is served in the cafeteria. Prisoners riot and kill each other because their stomachs and their minds are not free to find NEW THINGS.

Abroad, there is a much varied cuisine. And a lot of it IS formula genre productions. Liked the blood and guts of GLADIATOR? You can get more of it from Korea, it's called MUSA (THE WARRIOR). Like the fighting action of THE MATRIX? You can get that again from Korea (VOLCANO HIGH). Like your gritty urban crime genre? Get something totally new from Brazil: CITY OF GOD. Sports movie? SHAOLIN SOCCER. All formula films. Also damn good spins on the genre.

I'm going on with this rant next message.

My main complaints against crappy genre movies fall into these categories (and this is not just a rant against Michael Bay; just those types of films he, Simon West, Bruckheimer, Emmerich seem to like to make).

1) Lack of logic. (Stupidity in the story or in the characters). I can squint and pretend that I'm with the movie because of its setup (its universe and rules), but when the story doesn't doesn't seem to follow any rules or goes against what it had already set up, it's just saying: "who cares. Let's just throw some explosions on the screen and eventually you'll have had your money's worth." Characters acting stupider than real human beings. I get angry when I see people on the screen suddenly act stupider than the average twelve year old.

Here's a movie example of something that makes no sense. The end of CON AIR. The hero Nicholas Cage and the main villain (Malkovich) have been fighting on top of a fire engine up and down the Las Vegas drag strip. Fair. How does Malkovich die? Um somehow the fire engine crashes, Malkovich slides under a pile driver that just happens to appear out of nowhere and the pile driver drops on him. HUH???? What is the logic of that? Why not just have him walk down the street and from nowhere a safe drops on his head? Note: this is example of movie illogic. I am not expecting Cage to win a chess match with the villain, I just expect there to be some sort of rules that the movie pays attention to. Otherwise, literally anything could happen.

2) Coherency. I cannot follow what is going on the screen. I am not that old. I grew up with music videos. But music videos are there to catch your attention and work with the beat. Movies are not music videos. Movies are stories. If I cannot tell what is going on the screen because THERE IS A CUT EVERY SECOND then the movie is not doing its job. It is just giving the impression that there is something happening through cut on movement. I suspect, these cuts are there precisely because the actual action is really crappy. Coherency is the same as logic but for the story.

3) Lack of newness. I covered this in my previous post. Give me something new or bore me. Something I didn't mention is stereotypical characters or over-reliance on conventions. Worst moment in INDEPENDENCE DAY, when the dog Buster is almost incinerated in the tunnel ('now we know the aliens are really bad when they put a golden retriever in danger'). Villains who lack any kind of style or motivation. This even goes further in jingoism. In THE PATRIOT, when Mel Gibson's character picks up the American flag and begins assaulting the British with it you could hear the groans up in Vancouver. It may have played well in Peoria.

4) Lack of motivation. The hero is the hero because he is good. The villain is bad because he is bad. The hero wins because he is better. The villain is defeated because evil cannot be better than good. Blah.

5) No risk - no conflict - no thrill. The good examples: DIE HARD: John McLane is a cop with a pistol against ex-commando criminals. INDIANA JONES: Indy is an archaeologist with a bullwhip and a revolver; that's it.

I don't understand Tom Clancy movies (and their ilk) where it's the U.S. against a tinpot POS country. Where is the challenge? Where is the risk? The president presses a button and the superpower snuffs some brown people. What is the risk? Why does the audience stay to the end of the movie if the outcome doesn't at least seem to be in doubt?

Take a look at the good and bad in the MATRIX and the MATRIX RELOADED. In the first movie, Neo doesn't know what powers he has. He and the other humans risk death at the hands of the agents who can seemingly do everything. In RELOADED, Neo is Superman. The agents cannot touch him. No risk, no conflict. Zero thrill.

6) Bigger, not better. Sequels fall into this trap a lot. They take the same concept and just add more. They don't do anything new with the idea; they just change the characters (or not) and spend a bigger budget. No progression. SAME OLD CRAP. Counter-examples: XMEN and X2: XMEN UNLIMITED, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and THE TWO TOWERS. Sequels have the ability to build on something, to develop the characters. Only telelvision really has the power to do more. Developing the story further DID NOT HURT THESE MOVIES.

Keith,

"The Patriot" was directed by Roland Emmerich, a German, and starred an Australian. Food for thought, eh?

The thing about your third complaint is that modern cynicism is just that...modern. In the "nationalist" wars of old, the flag played a vital role...and the flag bearer marched/ran right into the thick of it along with the other soldiers...and I'm sure they batted a few bayonets out of the way with it and thumped a few heads since they weren't exactly suicidal. I don't think that scene is really a far stretch from reality...in the past, that is.

Also, you have to take into context the story...this is a "US" film about the "American" revolution. I think it's funny...if a non-American film has scenes where their own national flag is prominent...it's usually considered historically pertinent. But show a US flag...and eyes roll. Sure...some filmmakers go overboard with flagwaving...but I don't think that's limited to just American filmmakers.

Having lived overseas for a long while and having traveled quite a bit, I can say I've seen far more Canadian and Australian flags than US flags. They're everywhere...clothing, backpacks, sporting goods, etc. But not once have I rolled my eyes and said..."Ugh...Canadians."

Before you start thinking I'm a zealot...there ARE examples that make me, as an American, groan. In Independence Day, when one of the British soldiers says something along the lines of "Thank God, it's the Americans finally!"... now THAT made my eyes roll.