In all honesty, I don't think Michael Bay gets as much critiscm, as say, Uwe Boll. Sure, he goes for style instead of substance. And while directing, some of the scripts he has worked with needed a director who could pull character perfomances out of the actors, and that isn't his strong point. If you look at the list:

Transformers - Weak story line. Blurry action sequences. John Turtorro's character?? Exessive product placement.

The Island - Great opening act. Turns from nifty sci-fi to no brains action movie. Over exessive product placement.

Bad Boys II - A sequal for the sake of a sequal. All action. No additional character development.

Pearl Harbor - Tried to fit a sweet and stirring story into the events surrounding Pearl Harbor. Didn't work. characters flat. No product placement though.

Armageddon - This one worked for me. Exciting. Fun characters (though a little shallow and predictable) that worked in the world that was created for them.

The Rock - All the staples of a classic action movie. Good characters. Great conflict. Nice action. This one works for what it was meant to be.

Bad Boys - Another good action movie. Will Smith does up the quality, but still a decent flick.


Overall, the things I don't like about Bay's work are:

1. Product placement (which he admits he does for the extra production budget)
2. Not all 3rd Acts need to be a chase scene with explosion after explosion (The Island could have been a fantastic sci-fi action).
3. Style over substance (as was quoted above by another poster)
4. Poor performances, even from great actors.

That all being said, I've still seen most of his movies at the theatre because once 'n awhile, I like to turn my brain off and be entertained.

Stew

Yeah, Pearl Harbor sucked.  I couldn't even make it through that movie, which is a rarity for me.

It's just annoying to me that Bay's basically synonymous with bad directing when I mean, at least he made The Rock (which I think is fantastic), and a bunch of movies that are, well, okay, at the least.  Definitely touche on the product placement though, I was laughing out loud during The Island.

Also, I think what Bay did with Bad Boys II was pretty cool.  The movie was about as overblown as it gets, sure, but Bay was the one guy who's had the guts lately to stand up and make a brutally violent action movie in mainstream Hollywood.  Not only that, but he was trashing REAL cars, shacks, and mansions.  If you watch Bad Boys II, the CGI used in the action is actually kept at a fairly surprising minimum.

I'm always suprised when people hate Armageddon.  I've always enjoyed it, although I mean, obviously it's uh, a bit on the cheesy side.  But to be honest I think it's pretty well shot and acted (even if you don't like Ben Affleck, which I don't), and the script...well, at least it keeps things moving along...

Oh and yeah, I can see what you're saying, James.  Personally I don't think he takes himself too seriously though...I think he takes serious projects (like The Island) and then forcibly turns them into fluff.  I think that the potential seriousness of The Island was just left over from pre-Bay scripts...I don't think he ever intended to make anything other than a poofball.  But maybe.  Who knows.

Sucks though...The Island had a hell of a lot of potential.

Out of everything he's done, I agree that The Island had heeps of potential... it was just not his type of movie. The resulting flick is what happens when you marry a director to the wrong project. It was good, but it could have been great (and if he didn't go over-budget and called in the product placements, it would have been even better!).

Stew

He's a whiner.  That's why people "hate" his movies.  Criticize him or his work and he's on his blog, another blog, skywriting, in the press complaining about the treatment.  Pick on him and he'll give you plenty to work with if you've got a movie site or a blog.

Bruce Willis said he didn't enjoy working on Armageddon.  One of the reasons he mentioned was that the director was a screamer.  Since then Bay has criticized Willis and his work at every turn.  Kate Beckinsale was very vocal about him terrorizing her on the set on Pearl Harbor -- calling her ugly and fat in front of the crew.  According to Bay in the press he made her a star and she should kiss his feet.

This past summer he had two very public meltdowns.  One was about the Blu-Ray disc format and the other about the producers of the Transformers (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/michael-bay-wants-to-get-facts-straight/).

And then there's that weird thing where he claimed to be John Frankenheimer's son for years.

Quoted from Tierney Bruce Willis said he didn't enjoy working on Armageddon.  One of the reasons he mentioned was that the director was a screamer.  Since then Bay has criticized Willis and his work at every turn.

Michael Bay wouldn't be the first director to have problems with Bruce Willis from what I've heard and Willis has made his fair share of shite movies.

Quoted from Heretic Also, I think what Bay did with Bad Boys II was pretty cool.  The movie was about as overblown as it gets, sure, but Bay was the one guy who's had the guts lately to stand up and make a brutally violent action movie in mainstream Hollywood.

Who are you comparing him to?

Armageddon: PG-13
Pearl Harbour: PG-13
The Island: PG-13
Transformers: PG-13

If anything Michael Bay has no guts whatsoever to fight for realism, gore or whatever you wanna call it. As of late only bad Boys II was rated R. before that you have to go 12 years back to the Rock.

Mainstream directors who consistently do R-rated movies:

David Fincher
Michael Mann
Ridley Scott
Tony Scott
Zack Snyder
Mel Gibson
The Warchowskis

So unless you're comparing Michael bay to Gore Verbinski or Jon Turteltaub, I don't think his track record is very impressive.

Quoted from Death Monkey Mainstream directors who consistently do R-rated movies: David Fincher Michael Mann Ridley Scott Tony Scott Zack Snyder Mel Gibson The Warchowskis So unless you're comparing Michael bay to Gore Verbinski or Jon Turteltaub, I don't think his track record is very impressive.

I did promise myself I was gonna try and stay out of some of these conversations and spend my time writing scripts instead. I seem to get carried away with myself and cannot seem to limit my responses to a couple of sentences. I will stop but Death Monkey has made a good point here and done his homework. I am not a big action fan at all but when I do want to watch an action / thriller movie then you can do a lot worse than the list Death Monkey has come up with.

Take the Scott brothers, not only are they capable of making a bloody R-rated movie but they inject the one thing that is missing from all of Bay's movies, and that is intelligence. There is no rule whatsoever in hollywood that says all big budget 'popcorn' action movies must be devoid of intelligently scripted drama. Tony Scott can make a movie every bit as exciting as a Michael Bay movie that will please the action fans but also ensure there is a good enough story in there to please everyone else and the same can be said for everyone else on the list - although I am not the greatest fan of Michael Mann but Collateral was pretty decent. Compare 'Man on Fire' to anything that Michael Bay has ever directed and you tell me how he stacks up!

For me the whole argument about Michael Bay rests on the fact he cares far less about the story then he does the action. If you are the type of movie fan who does not care too much about story then fine, each to their own. But it just seems really strange to be starting this debate on a website devoted to the art of crafting stories for the big screen.

Sorry, DM, I didn't mean that Bay consistently does violent action movies.  I just meant that he had done one this century, which I don't think many people do, but I think we may have differing views on what an action movies are.

I guess I'm torn here, because I'd have to argue that Bay is in a different (lower) class than most of the directors you mentioned.  To me, what Hollywood is missing is the guts to do mindless R-rated action stuff like they did in the eighties and nineties, with guys like Schwarzenegger and Stallone and Russell.  Ridley Scott or David Fincher can much more easily justify an R-rated movie to the studios, because they make deep, intelligent films.  It's a much harder sell to the studio (I would think) in this time if you just say, "Not only is this movie pointless and stupid, but it's going to be horribly violent, so only adults can see it" than to say, "This'll be an intelligent film for thoughtful adults, which is convenient because it'll be violent enough that only adults can see it."  Black Hawk Down is an easy sell for an R rating...it's about war.  Fight Club is an easy sell for an R rating...well...for obvious reasons haha.  I like that back before I was born, there were violent, adult-oriented movies that were still dumb popcorn entertainment.  Most of the directors on your list make excellent films, but they're not dumb films, and that's the distinction that I would make between them and Bay and also the distinction I would make in the merits of having made an R-rated film.

Or is that lame?  Haha, I don't know.  And of course, The Wachowskis, Gibson and Snyder all made nice mindless action films for adults, although I think perhaps the Wachowskis were striving for more.

Quoted from Murphy Tony Scott can make a movie every bit as exciting as a Michael Bay movie that will please the action fans but also ensure there is a good enough story in there to please everyone else and the same can be said for everyone else on the list - although I am not the greatest fan of Michael Mann but Collateral was pretty decent. Compare 'Man on Fire' to anything that Michael Bay has ever directed and you tell me how he stacks up!

I really like most of the directors on that list, but I don't think any of them please as wide a range of action fans, I really don't.  Which is a shame, because except for Snyder, I consider them all better directors than Bay.  Sure, most of them make better movies, and they SHOULD generate bigger audiences, but obviously they don't (except for the Wachowskis, ironically probably the least consistently talented on that list).

I guess I just think it's strange to talk about a director being gutsy because he's made ONE R-rated movie in the last 5 movies. Tony Scott does pretty mindless action as well, The Warchowskis too. No, they're not 100% the same as Bay, but who is? It seems like it's a very narrow category we're dealing with here. Basically you're comparing Bay to other directors who are as mainstream, as corporate and without creative ambition as he is. To me that's like saying Osama Bin Laden isn't so bad...compared to the ebola virus.

Even more directors with more R-rated films under their belt than Bay (in the new millennium), and this time I went straight for no-brainer action:

Antoine Fuqua
John Woo
Guillermo Del Toro
Len Wiseman
Renny Harlin
John Singleton
Ronny Yu

So again who specifically are you comparing him too? Who doesn't have guts in Hollywood?

I think what it comes down to for me is asking: What does Bay as a director bring to the table? What are his skills? I think people sometimes look at his movies and they're shiny-shiny pretty and have a nice production value, so he can't be that bad, but that's just that - production value; that's a good cinematographer, a decent editor doing things by the book. So what can Michael do? Where does he excel?

I think Michael Bay has a lot in common with Brett Ratner actually, except that Bay perhaps has an inkling of a style (which sucks) whereas Ratner has no personal trademark at all.

Btw. I just love Mark Kermode's review of Transformers and his impression of Bay :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0d6G1X278s