Michael Bay Thinks You're Stupid

Blah blah blah, Michael Bay.

Blah blah blah, destroys my childhood.

Blah blah blah, how does he keep getting to produce and direct shitty movies?

Michael Bay gets shit on quite a bit, and he has for quite some time now. Has it been 20 years yet? I'm not sure. I don't recall off the top of my head when "Bad Boys" came out, because honestly I'm too lazy and I just don't give much of a shit to even bother going to IMDB to look it up, but it feels like it's been a while that we've all been slinging shit at Bay while he continues to laugh all the way to the bank. That in itself is the point of all this: just how does someone as critically panned as Bay manage to keep making abysmal films that make money hand over fist?

The simple answer is that Bay himself symbolizes the modern American movie-goer. What does said modern American movie-goer look for that gets his blood pumping?

Explosions, lots and lots of explosions.

Glossy action sequences that feature lots of close-ups of the characters in play, most of which can get pretty uncomfortable.

Frantic film editing. This makes things more exciting apparently, for others (like me) it just makes them feel violently ill like getting churned around in a blender.

Scantily-clad barely over 18 girls, because there's nothing that sells tickets like barely legal poon tang on display.

And last but not least, American flags aplenty...because this is 'MURICA, and if you don't like any of the above, you're un-American.

If you watch any number of Bay films in any particular order, you will see most, if not all, of everything I just listed pop up in his films. Now when I say the average American movie-goer, a large chunk of that audience are teenage boys, hence why most of Bay's films get the ever profitable PG-13 rating.

Now mass marketing crap to kids is nothing new of course, it's as American as processed McDonalds apple pie. However, when a majority of people start bitching and making fun of Bay's works online, yet his films continue to churn out record profits, there's something definitely wrong with this picture here. The "Transformers" movies are one thing. The novelty of the first film wore off quickly as each sequel only proceeded to rot brains worse than the ones that came before, yet they still make BILLIONS of dollars. Why is that exactly? Because people keep laying down their hard-earned money to watch mega-budgeted piles of shit so they have something to bitch about later on internet message boards and social networks.

"Transformers" is one thing, but the latest Bay re-tread to hit the masses is a new take on "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles"...and holy mother of fucking Turtle Christ will people not shut the fuck up over it. I'm not saying their complaints aren't warranted of course, but it's not like anyone put a gun to their heads and made them lay down the money to see such a piece of regurgitated fecal matter.

And, of course, TMNT is making money hand over fist. The movie that months ago, when set pictures and concept art and trailers were released had the internet buzzing with seething hatred and people swearing that "I'll never watch this piece of shit" is making so much money that it will probably knock "Guardians of the Galaxy" from its top spot at the box office. Why is that? Why is something that seemed to be so universally hated raking in millions upon millions of dollars that almost guarantees sequels and the like further down the road that will surely be as hated and looked down upon, yet will more than likely make even more millions upon millions of dollars?

Well, honestly, because the majority of mainstream American movie-going audiences are fucking stupid.

That may sound harsh, but hey, the truth hurts. You can shit all over me for it if you want, and believe me I welcome it, but the same people that bitch and complain about Bay and co. mutilating the source material and all that aren't helping matters by paying to see the fucking thing. I noticed it on Facebook last night when I saw quite a few posts from friends saying "I can't believe how bad TMNT is" and "I can't believe I wasted 12 bucks on that piece of shit". Well, what did you really expect guys? Seriously.

This is modern mainstream American cinema, and it will not get any better anytime soon, mostly because we still fork money over to see garbage that has Michael Bay's name on it. Although I have to admit that I kind of admire Bay's intelligence as a person: he knows he makes shit, and he knows his shit will make money, because he knows the average American movie-goer is a fucking idiot. Rinse, repeat.

If you really feel that Bay's take on films based on licenses you loved as a kid is ruining your childhood, there's one surefire way to prevent him from doing so: STOP PAYING TO FUCKING SEE THEM!

Now as a disclaimer, I just want to say that I'm not calling every person who went to see the movie an idiot, and I'm not calling anyone out if they somehow actually enjoy what Bay offers; more power to you and all that, so please take no offense....


...maybe.

The Belated "Man of Steel" Review

It's been a while since the last time we had a Superman movie, namely 2006's underwhelming "Superman Returns". In that movie, we got a Superman take that did little more than jerk off the legacy of Richard Donner's classic film of the 70s as well as present to us a Superman that was more of a wanky emo brooder turned Super-stalker. Needless to say, not many liked it, and Warner Bros. and DC decided that rebooting it was the best course of action.

Fast forward to 2013, and here we are with "Man of Steel": a more modern take on the classic superhero as envisioned by director Zack Snyder ("300", "Watchmen") and producer Christopher Nolan. Now without further adieu, here comes my belated review of "Man of Steel", so strap yourselves in assholes.

Be warned, spoilers aplenty are ahead:



"Man of Steel" presents a much harder look at the Superman mythos than has ever been presented in film form before. It also packs some of the most unbelievable wanton acts of destruction to probably ever be seen in a summer blockbuster or "disaster porn" film. Seriously. Metropolis gets obliterated so much that it's amazing there's anything left of it. In those regards, the action sequences are brilliant and the wanton acts of destruction are set pieces that I personally have always wanted to see in a Superman film.

The casting and characterizations are mostly well done as well. While main star Henry Cavill didn't leave the lasting impression on me that someone that plays Superman rightfully should be able to do, the rest of the principal cast was mostly great, in particular Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Even Kevin Costner as Supes' earthbound Papa Kent does great in limited screen time, but it's Michael Shannon that really stole the show for me as General Zod. He isn't Terrance Stamp, and who could be, but he leaves a lasting impression. I also enjoyed Amy Adams as Lois Lane and Laurence Fishburne as Perry White (irony!).

Now, here's what so many fans have been having a shit-fit about: the ending. Yes, Superman kills Zod in the film's conclusion. He breaks his neck like a twig to stop Zod from killing more innocent civilians and screams in sorrow at what he's been forced to do. Now I know what you're thinking because I thought the same exact fucking thing when I saw it happen on the big screen: since when the fuck does Superman kill? In retrospect, the idea itself is infuriating, because if it's one thing that Superman stories have been telling us SINCE THE FUCKING 1930s is that Superman always finds another way to save the day. Superman is supposed to represent the best in humanity and put himself over the law...or something. Well, here he broke Zod's neck.

Now, looking back on it, while seeing that bothered the shit out of me, I think I understand why Snyder, Nolan, and screenwriter David Goyer went down this route. Maybe since this was an origin story, they're going to use Superman killing Zod as a benchmark for future events, as to something that Superman can never, ever bring himself to do again, and this is the beginning of Supes deciding to "find a better way" to save the day without having blood on his hands.

That, or maybe film executives still don't get Superman after all these years.

Either way, regardless of its flaws, I enjoyed "Man of Steel" for what it's worth, even more so than I enjoyed "Avengers" or most of the Marvel movies since 2008. That's right, I said it. And since its huge opening weekend, Warner is fast-tracking a "Man of Steel" sequel to lead into an eventual "Justice League" movie. Part of me wants to see that all happen, and part of me doesn't, only because it would never be quite as huge as "Avengers". "Avengers" has the monopoly on safe, family-driven popcorn entertainment that's fairly okay for kids, while DC's properties seem to be going in a darker direction (which I love) that looks like it'll eventually lead into making kids shit themselves.

In 3-D.

Anyway, go check out "Man of Steel", fuck the haters.

Thor Trailer: First Impressions

I'm nerding out again, but I don't know if it's in a fit of pleasure or rage yet.

Marvel's film studio is churning out another superhero would-be epic, this time with "Thor", slated for May 2011. One of Marvel's oldest and most celebrated characters, seeing Thor get a big-screen, big-budget treatment merits almost as much surprise to me as seeing my beloved Green Lantern get the same with DC's "Green Lantern" flick slated to hit only a couple months afterward.

After this past summer's New York Comic-Con, some footage from "Thor" leaked online (and was quickly removed), of which it has been condensced here in the first official trailer for the upcoming blockbuster. Chris Hemsworth, best known for playing Captain Kirk's ill-fated father in 2009's "Star Trek" reboot, is playing the title character, the Norse God of thunder. As the trailer shows, he has his patented long blonde hair, mystic hammer, and what even seems like a great take on his costume as well.

But the one thing I can't quite get over is that this guy is playing Thor. When I picture Thor, I picture a big, hulking individual. I mean Christ on a bike, he's the fucking Thunder God!!! Pro wrestler Triple H always seemed like the flesh & blood version of Thor (tell me he doesn't), but I understand getting an actual "actor" for the role. That being said, when I look at Hemsworth, no matter how 'roided up he looks, I just don't quite see Thor. Thor should be a tall, imposing individual. Any fan of HBO's vampire schlock-fest "True Blood" knows that fan-favorite Alexander Skarsgard auditioned for the role, and was even heralded by fanboys the world-over to get the part, but Marvel went with Hemsworth instead. Maybe they have the right idea, but who knows. I said the same thing about Ryan Reynolds when he was announced to play Hal Jordan in the "Green Lantern" movie, and the jury's still out in both cases.

Then again, like I said before, back when it was announced that Heath Ledger would play the Joker in "The Dark Knight", I laughed. We all know how that turned out now don't we?

Anyway, the visions of Asgard look spectacular, Anthony Hopkins looks like a quasi-mix of badass and corny (I can't explain it, you just have to see and hear him for yourself) as Odin, and the reality that this is just another brick on the road to the geek-gasm inducing "Avengers" movie in 2012, where Thor will unite with Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, and more besides are all reason enough to be looking forward to "Thor".

Then again, I also looked forward to seeing "V For Vendetta" getting the big-screen treatment, and well...I'd rather not talk about how that turned out. And Natalie Portman was in that, and she's here playing Thor's human love interest Jane Foster...guess no word of mouth about her "getting shaved" will bring out any non-geeky, meat-head attendees this time around eh?


"Russian like mighty Thor. Has big hammer, seems like good communist" - The Russian from Garth Ennis' "The Punisher: Welcome Back Frank".