Your favorite Michael Bay film

[LordTheNightKnight]

Reasonable said:

LordTheNightKnight said:
I wonder why people can't just say they don't like his movies based on their own tastes. They have to try to bash the guy. If you just don't like his work, it's just your opinion, and stop acting as though you can make people share it.

Incidentally, the movie I like least of his is Pearl Harbor, but that wasn't that much his fault. The studio wanted to make it the next Titanic, for one thing. And on those grounds I am offended Transformers 2 has more critical hate. That movie didn't try to turn a tragic event into a cash cow (note Titanic was not anticipated to be such a hit when it was made).

The other movies I (mostly) like, so I can't put up a favorite.

Everyone has opinions of course, but with films there are accepted critical standards for script, cinematography, etc.  Those can be judged whether you like the film or not.

Transformers 2 comes up short when judged critically against many of those standards.  It's as simple as that, and that's why, completely fairly, it can be critized on that basis.

BTW I don't mean comparing it to say Citizen Kane, I'm talking about something like Raiders of the Lost Ark.  Raiders had a fantastic script compared to Transformers 2, I would argue better cinematography and composition and even better action scenes.  The fight around the Germay Plane is massively superior to the forest battle or any similar 'slug fest' moment in Transformers 2.

BTW in my view the difference between a personal opinion and a true critical review is the ability to disconnect personal taste and focus on the quality of the film.  That's why professional reviews can give a film they may pesonally not like a praiseworthy review because they have the skill to see the script quality, composition, etc. seperate from their own enjoyment.

 

 

I meant those who write things like the film is retarded, and Bay can't film anything with explosions. Those are not helpfull comments, as they speak nothing of the actual quality of his work, and are just attacks.

And I don't think the reviewers did their job with this movie, as they did the same thing, just with "nicer" words. Ebert even wrote this ridiculous article about how the movie is so overblown, it's somehow going to kill the blockbuster, even though the film made money.

How does that make sense? It seems like just wishful thinking from critical snobbery.