*waits for this topic to be moved and reposted here again*

I'll agree with them on the fact that the story was meh and there wasn't much to it.

**edit**
love their disclaimer:
The views above are Sean Nelson's ... so don't get angry at all of us. Some of us want to beat him up, too, including his editor. Either way, write to us at heymsn@microsoft.com and give us your worst blockbusters, and ways to punish Sean

E.T.!? This guy's smokin' crack.

E.T. was great when I was eight years old... the years haven't been kind to it.

The guy's right; Spielberg's maudlin sentimentality was in full effect with that film. Blah.

Honestly, I don't think that Michael Bay deserves to be considered the "Worst" director ever... I would reserve that honor for someone like Uwe Boll. Michael Bay does have some genuine directorial skills, particularly when it comes to cinematography. His movies have always been pretty to look at, if nothing else.

I never cared for such lists.

I think E.T. holds up uber-well. And, while it is among Spielberg's more sentimental offerings, sentimentality =/= poorly made.

Also, what the hell are the first 2 Spidey films doing on this list?

usually, the only ones that bother to make lists are the ones with issues the rest of the world doesn't share and they feel if they just shout loud enough we'll all wake up and realize how crazy we've been.

I don't think anyone's accusing Spielberg of going low-rent. But the guy does have a habit -- a chronic habit -- of being like HEY THIS IS THE PART WHERE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FEELING SOMETHING. Emotional subtlety isn't the guy's strong point.

The cinematography in the attack scene in Pearl Harbor was pretty amazing...

I think the basic premise was that Michael Bay along with Roland Emmerich are the consistantly worst blockbuster directors, meaning, they make very successful movies with no real substance. Directors like Uwe Boll have yet to actually make a blockbuster.

Right, fair enough.

I still think Independence Day was a great disaster/popcorn movie... but anything else by Emmerich is utter IMO.

And honestly, the only Bay movies I've ever seen are The Rock (liked it), Armageddon (HATED IT), and Transformers (probably would have found it obnoxious and retarded if not for being a TF fan and all). I never saw Pearl Harbor (the worst, supposedly) or The Island (the best, supposedly).

Guy on the internet posts his opinion. Big freakin' deal.

I'm just bored of critics constantly feeling the need to trash for the sake of trashing something. They're entitled to their opinions, and a critics job is to in fact critique..but, it doesn't always just have to be negative droning...none of them actually bother to review..just gripe. Can't a movie just be fun? Can't it be "it is what it is?" I happen to like almost all the movies he posted about..And can take them at face value. It's just what the movies are. Not every one of them has to be an instant classic. Not every one of them needs to go down in history as the greatest movie ever..It's just a 90min-3hr escape..And just hope it's a fun ride.

And I'm still tired of Bay bashing..Before TF I still liked his movies...Don't tell me you didn't cry when Bruce Willis says "we won Gracie" at the end and he has to say good bye to her..His stuffs designed well, paced well, detailed great..Again, they're fun movies to just go and enjoy.

Michael Bay is the world's most overpaid cinematographer. The guy can't direct actors for shot, but he does now how to frame a picture.

Michael Bay: We start... by making a big CG building and then we have a meteor go CROSSHH! and it, and it's all like KRAAWWW!!! and motorcycles burst into flame while they jump over these helicopters, right?
General: No no! We need ideas how to stop the terrorists!
Michael Bay: An eighteen-wheeler spins out of control and it's all like BROSSHH And then this huuuge tanker full of dyna- BRAAAKKK! PKKKKK! BRAAAMMMM!
General: Those aren't ideas, those are special effects!
Michael Bay: I...I don't understand the difference.
General: I know you don't -- get him out of here!

But, ummm...yeahhh, great big WTF? to this list.

Bad Boys I &II are still my most favorite fun Bay Movies. Loved the play offs between Will and Martin, but yeah...playa cop in love with hooker/escort girlfriend = ghey.

I liked "Stargate" and "Godzilla" - plus "The Patriot" was supposed to be pretty good (although I never saw it).

I hope you're not talking about that garbage that Matthew Broderick was in. Maybe you meant Robot Chickens take on it.

If those films gave him "Misery" I can name a couple DVDs he should watch.

I hate Star Wars. With a Passion. I think George Lucas is a hack who couldn't write a believable escape from a wet paper bag (Or direct it, and then he'd throw CGI at the attempt and it'd end up looking like a 500ft turkey or something) but his films are entertaining.

The less said about some of those other choices the better.

I thought it was good for what it was...a "giant monster rampages through city" movie.

It got a bad rap because "ZOMG! IT ISN'T LIKE THE JAPANESE GOJIRA AT ALL!" A lot of people seem to forget that there were some pretty crappy movies in the Japanese series.

American Godzilla is 10x better than Son of Godzilla or Godzilla vs. Hedorah. JMO
(DISCLAIMER: I am partial to the Heisei and Millennium series films for the most part.)

People like this are better off ignored. Bottom line seems to be these so called critics only get paid to bash and not much more than that.

Since when has it been a requirement/standard for any movie to have to challenge/emotionally overwhelm an audience/critic. I don't go to movie to learn/have my ideas/beliefs challenged buy how some director feels his film illustrates. I don't need films to serve as a history lesson/awareness test of how the world is or should be. I'm not closed minded I just want a movie to be 90-135 minute piece of visceral escapism. This doesn't mean I'm in the habit of watching everything Hollywood pumps out I'm just very selective in the movies I see. For instance I love special effects/action movies, have. As big and loud as these movies are I can normally appreciate the amount of work, and production on such films. Unless a movie is executed as poorly as Battlefield Earth, Batman & Robin, or any one of Boll's cinematic atrocities just what the hell do critics have to complain about.

In a two hour film I expect at the very least coherent story telling/Directing/editing, and simple but fun/relatable characters. A kickass score, and lots of cool fx/explosions is all bonus for me. Transformers had no problem meeting my expectations. Apparently critics found everything about Transformers lacking in substance though it did have a three way plot, and lots of characters being bounced from one end of the spectrum to the other. Just what passes for substance these days anyway. The Bourne movies? Seriously how are they any better that any number of Bay's movies? I haven't read the books but the movies really don't have a lot of substance other than Bourne in all three movies suffering amnesia, and trying to find out who he once was and what happened to him before turning Superspy. With that bit of characterization/plot the rest is one cliff hanging moment/car chase throughout yet apparently there's enough intrigue to keep most critics happy. Personally I love the Bourne movies but as a viewer the only difference I see between them and any Bay movie is the much more frenetic editing which IMO made everything in Transformers look as if it was happening in slow motion.

Just thought I'd bring up Disney's Pixar movies. I have yet to be disappointed by any Pixar animation feature though I have to say, the plotting/theme throughout any number of them seems to be the same each time around. I find it almost funny no critic I've yet read has made mention of Disney recycling the same idea time and time again. Worst of all it doesn't seem to matter who or what the characters they create or the world they inhabit are it's always always the same. Going into any Pixar movie you're guaranteed two things from the get go. One it will aways be a fish out of water story and two it'll be a buddy/buddy movie. Now that I think of it The Incredibles are kind of exempt because though it was a family being thrust into unknown/dangerous situations they're really is no buddy/buddy situation that pays out. I'm very interested to see what or who Wall E the robot gets paired with later this Summer. All that said and as awesome/fun as any Pixar animation feature is to watch would any critic go as far to say these films lacked substance. Probably not but strip away everything that makes one of these films awesome and you consistently come back to the same original concepts/ideas first born and played out in the first Toy Story movie. Guess if ain't broke there's no reason to fix it but after seven movies I'm really wondering how many more films they can draw from the same pile of ideas.

A film's substance relates heavily on how a movie is viewed/perceived and by who is watching/perceiving it. Critics FWIW are too intelligent to be watching most movies anyway, amd there attitudes towards most mainstream cinema mirror just that.

The Transformers movie successfully achieved what it set out to do. Although it isn't a direct translation of G1 onto film (which is a good thing IMO) it does carry the core spirit and essence of G1 quite well. And the movie is actually better than G1 in several areas. Unlike Transformers The Movie the audience isn't required to have any pre-existing knowledge of Transformers to be able to watch and enjoy the story. Transformers The Movie completely sucks if you'd never watched the Transformers cartoon before, whereas the live action movie can be enjoyed by fans and non-fans alike.

The critic seems to hate Transformers just because Michael Bay directed it. :/ I'm not a huge fan of Michael Bay myself. The only other Bay movie I like is Bad Boys (aside from the great chemistry between Smith and Lawrence I think it's a good movie)... but I'm not going to hate every movie that Bay makes just because he makes it. (-_-) There are several directors who make movies some of which I love, others I hate... but I judge the movies on their individual merits.

I love Star Wars, but I'm rather "meh" about American Graffiti and THX-1138 bores me to tears. The core concept of the story is okay, but I didn't think it was a terribly entertaining movie. I really liked Raise The Red Lantern and Brokeback Mountain, but I thought Hulk was just crap. Anyway, you get the idea.


Shut up! Stop knocking my religion you Pagan! Your lack of faith disturbs me!! *Force.choke*

The Patroit is a well done movie. Own it. It had Gibson from before his Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto (leave the directing to directors and stick to acting Gibson), and drunken/disorderly conduct days.

Independence Day is one of my all time favorite movies (I still need to get a new copy on DVD). Watch it every time I go and visit my grandparents...surprised I haven't worn it out yet.

Emmerich and Bay make decent films. And like every director, all movies are either a hit or miss.

The first two Spidey movies need to be removed from that list. The third...well, I'm the person that enjoys it and does see what it adds to the story, I just feel some things were done that weren't necessary...along with too many villains to maintain as good a quality as it might have had if they'd just had Venom and Sandman. They should have saved Goblin II for a later movie as a standalone villain. I Am Legend was okay, not great, but not as bad as he makes it out to be. The Home Alone movies were okay. They weren't bad. The Star Wars prequels were good. Worthy of being in the saga, just maybe a few adjustments here and there. I like "E.T.". A lot.

The only movies I agree deserve to be on that list Da Vinci Code, Titanic, and Passion of the Christ.

To be honest, after the big buzz of the movie coming and going.. I don't think I watched that thing maybe more than twice. IMHO it was slow.. and it took too long till it actually took off. Plus there was the handling of the decepticons, which was another issue all together.. but I really appericate the undertaking that was done to make this movie believeable.. like how they managed to get real cars to change into scale robots and so forth. I'm hoping TF 2 turns out to be a little more engaging.. because I often have the same opinions about trilogies.. the first movie is always the more subdued one.. well, except for the original Back to the Future, which could stand toe to toe pretty well with BTTF 2.

Like I really didn't like Narnia part one.. it just seemed really watered down and kinda ghey.. but Prince Caspian was awesome. Not like LOTR awesome, but enough to get the point across.. XD

Braveheart disagrees with you.

Freedom!

Braveheart was a great movie. Mostly because it had boobs in it.

I'm not a fan of anything Emmerich's ever done aside from ID4. And in that case, I think going with the traditional disaster-flick ensemble cast formula really helped. I mean, it was a great cast...

Going to disagree with you (somewhat) about Spidey 3. It should have been Venom and Goblin II, they could have ditched the Sand Man entirely. They had to wrap up Harry's arch, and Spider-Man 4's far from a sure thing, so he more or less had to be in 3.

The movie blows chunks though. Venom was awesome, and it was nice to see the Goblin story play out. Emo Spider-Man and Sand Man brought it down though. If they removed Sand Man and let Venom serve as the main villain then the movie would have had less emo Spider-Man and no annoying villain yarning for redemption who also managed to make part of the first film meaningless.

The problems I had with Bay's Transformers movie were 2-fold. First, there was entirely too much "try-to-make-the-whole-family-laugh" slapstick comedy. I found myself getting annoyed more than anything at the blatant way it was done. I also liked neither the design, nor the voice of Megatron. He look terrible in a tasteless sort of way, and they REALLY needed to use Frank Welker's voice, seeing as how they got Peter Cullen back for Prime. Agent Smith as Megatron just didn't cut it for me. I also found it odd that Megatron spoke in english, even though he had been frozen for thousands of years. All the others had to learn english "from the world wide web".

One good positive for the film in my case anyway, is I liked Ironhide in it. I remember he was my least favorite character from G1, so I guess I felt any change is for the better.

As for Bay's other movies, yeah many of them were pretty mindless. I do confess to liking "The Rock" however.

Uhhh, not to go Spider-Man fanboy on you or anything, but in order to have Venom, you've got to have emo-Spidey. That's part of the character's evolution; the symbiote bonds with Parker, turns Parker "emo," Parker rejects the symbiote, the symbiote bonds with a more willing host. Othwerwise, why do Venom at all?

But yeah, Spidey 3 would have been SO much better as Spider-Man 3 and Spider-Man 4. One movie is the Venom story, one is the Sandman story, and the "New Goblin" story could have served as a backdrop on either.




Uhhh, at what point in the film did this occur?

Just curious.