2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Madison graduation 2012
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2007 > June > 25 > Entry
Battering Bay: Armageddon
Transformers shape-shifts into theaters on Tuesday July 3, so I’d like to spend the intervening time kicking Michael Bay around by posting my reviews of most of his films. For awhile now I’ve been writing them in the style of my “Memo to” reviews that you might have read for Deja Vu and Pirates of the Caribbean: At What End.
Why bash Bay? More than anything else, it’s therapeutic. No single director working today has been more responsible for short-circuiting my nervous system more than the director of Armageddon, Bad Boys 2 and Pearl Harbor, among others. After his lengthy sensory assaults, I come out half-blind, with my temples just throbbing. Even the almighty Nyquil takes time to work its pulsing, aching, stuffy-head, fever so I can rest magic.
So since I don’t have any fun watching Bay’s movies, darn it, I’m going to have fun explaining exactly why they go wrong.
None of this means that I think Bay is a complete hack. He has a singular gift for making carnage look slick. From the sweat to the blood to the smoke, everything just glistens. Heck, even the mud is kind of pretty.
That said, the man has only told a story semi-coherently once, in The Rock, and you know what? I wish he would make more movies like that.
Honest to god, I do not look forward to tearing Bay’s movies down. I don’t want to have a bad time at any film. If I did, it would make me a poor critic. If Transformers actually turns out to be good, then I will give Mr. Bay due credit, although I will have to reinsert my eyeballs first. If Rob Schneider can make peace with Roger Ebert, I can do the same with Michael Bay.
But if he bludgeons me yet again with his swirling cameras and his chainsaw editing style, then he’s going to get the hammering he deserves like the one that follows.
Note that the following review was written some years ago and was directed at Jerry Bruckheimer, who produced most of his movies. Bay would take a more direct hit later, as you will see in the coming days.
Memo to Jerry Bruckheimer, Producer
From A temporarily deaf critic
Just because you fill your movie with enough action scenes for ten movies doesn’t mean it’s as good as those ten movies put together. It only means that your movie is ten times as aggravating. Some scenes were fairly thrilling but by the end, I felt like I’d been hit 1,000 times by the asteroid and lived.
Jerry, I’m actually something of a sucker for a good action flick, but I want one that thrills me by having not only action but a story where I want the characters to live. In this movie, I honestly don’t think I would have cared if everybody became asteroid pancakes, except for Billy Bob Thornton as the NASA chief. For whatever reason, you let him create an interesting character, and the other actors could have done that, too, if they weren’t so busy spitting out dumb one-liners.
My suggestion to you is this, Jerry: You know how to cast your movies well enough; now find some screenwriters that can actually give your actors interesting things to do and say. And I don’t mean hiring ten writers to work on the script piecemeal. Find one or two good writers and let them write a story rather than a series of set pieces. You did it before with Crimson Tide, and you can do it again.
Oh, and one more thing Jerry. Tell your director, Michael Bay, to calm down a little, willya? The man’s got some talent in there somewhere, but he’s going a little too haywire. I think Entertainment Weekly’s critic had it right when he said Bay directs like he’s got a live tiger shark caught in his underwear. It might help if you teach him how to use a tripod.
Good luck. You’re going to need it.
GRADE: D
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By SRCputt
June 25, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this
Somehow this is the only Bay film I have seen in a theater. Not only was I bored, but I always thought Bruce Willis looked bored.By Sir Critic
June 25, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
And a couple of my other favorites. EBERT: The movie is an assault on the eyes, the ears, the brain, common sense and the human desire to be entertained. No matter what they’re charging to get in, it’s worth more to get out. WASHINGTON POST: So predictable it could have been written by a chimp who’s watched too much TV, the huge movie is as dumb as it is loud, and it’s way too loud.By Allie D.
June 25, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this
I like to think somewhere in my head that you are doing this Michael Bay bashing week for my benefit as well. LOL You know my opinion on Mr. Bay, and my sentiments echo yours to a T. I love a good action flick as well, but I like them a little on the gritty side. Bay’s movies mirror the side of American culture that I tend to loathe.By Sir Critic
June 25, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this
That was indeed Todd McCarthy of Variety, who said: “Much of the confusion, as well as the lack of dramatic rhythm or character development, results directly from Bay’s cutting style, which resembles a machine gun stuck in the firing position for 2 and a half hours. Perhaps someone will someday reveal how many separate shots make up “Armageddon,” but the count has to be one of the highest in Hollywood history; at a guess, there must be a cut every three seconds or so.”By SRCputt
June 25, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
Was it Variety that said Armageddon was like an automatic weapon stuck in the firing position? I think that was one of the better review lines of the last 10-15 years.