You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Best Director' category.
I know 2008 is a distant (bad) memory, but much like last year’s Margot at the Wedding diatribe I wanted to circle back and get a few things off my chest. It’s funny how it worked out- this site managed five posts dedicated to the entire Best Picture slate (and none for The Reader or Benjamin Button) but got up multiple posts for films like The Wrestler, Happy-Go-Lucky, and The Visitor. We know how to be relevant, eh?
The Reader’s big category nods still bother me (to the extent that one can still be bothered by Oscar nominations in May), especially if it was at the expense of The Dark Knight or The Wrestler. It’s still a decent film but not all that effective at what it sets out to do.
Plus Kate Winslet is going for her third major award for her work in this film, as she is up for an MTV Movie award! And she’s competing against some familiar 2008 Oscar faces! She’s taking on Anne Hathaway again, though for Bride Wars instead of Rachel Getting Married. And Angelina Jolie- but for Wanted. Oh and Kristen Stewart for Twilight! Taraji P. Henson (Button) rounds out the list.
But let’s step back and reflect on this again: The Reader has been nominated for an MTV Movie award (but will lose to Twilight)! Its themes clearly resonate with the tween set.
ANYWAY
To me, the film has three distinct elements: the relationship between Hannah (Kate Winslet) and Michael (David Kross and Ralph Fiennes), the implications of Hannah’s involvement in the Holocaust, and the power of literature. Apparently the Weinsteins tried to play down the pedophiliac aspect but to me it was the best part of the film. Their awkward relationship, the way he becomes totally involved in her, and the repercussions that last for decades all really grabbed me. A sexual relationship with an older woman at the age of 15 isn’t going to affect every kid for the rest of his life but it’s entirely likely that it could. By young adulthood Michael is distant in all his social relationships. And when he is unexpectedly confronted with Hannah’s past it’s devastating.
The Holocaust elements have some good ideas. Who do we blame individually when a whole society commits and atrocity? And how does that society move on? It’s a fascinating question that helps propel the film even when it falters. The line from Michael’s classmate about how Hannah’s trial is proceeding only because a victim wrote a book about her crimes – that this is selective prosecution – is brilliant and I was dismayed when the film didn’t dig much deeper. But then Michael’s trip to a concentration camp completely crosses the line into Holocaust porn, one of the most egregious examples I’ve ever seen.
And then there’s the whole message about literature and literacy that couldn’t have fallen more flat. My discussion about this will go at the end due to spoilers, but suffice it to say it nearly entirely killed the movie for me. I couldn’t have cared less about the bond of literature between Hannah and Michael.
Quick Oscar notes. Kate Winslet is terrific and it’s nice she finally got her win. She’s excellent here though I wouldn’t have voted for her. I hope her win doesn’t go down as one of those “make up” or “lifetime” Oscars but it may since she was better in every other film I’ve seen that she’s been nominated for. I loved David Kross, who learned English for the role. He would have made an excellent supporting actor nomination. The picture, director, and adapted screenplay nominations are all hogwash. Cinematography is a fine nomination, especially since Roger Deakins needs a nom every year, right?
The end here is spoilery, but let’s face it if you haven’t seen The Reader by now you aren’t going to. You probably forgot about its existence.
It’s amusing that the “big secret” of the film is not that Hannah was involved in the Holocaust, as I had assumed walking in (in which case it would have been a horribly kept secret). Instead it is that she is illiterate. So. What. The film has gall to try to explain some of Hannah’s crimes using her illiteracy: note how she never would have taken the job with the SS if she hadn’t have been promoted at an earlier job to a position that required reading skills. If you want to make a film about an individual’s culpability in the midst of a civilization committing a terrible atrocity then do it- it could be very interesting. But literacy couldn’t be more irrelevant. Does her inability to read mitigate or exacerbate Hannah’s crimes in any way? Of course not.
And then she learns to read! Hooray! What redemption! Except that it matters not at all. Y’know, because of the Holocaust and all. Here’s a hint: if you’re going to make a film about the redemptive power of literature, DON’T REDEEM THE HOLOCAUST! Redemption from Holocaust requires a lot more than reading.
But Hollywood is self-centered likes to be reminded of the Importance of Art so it ate this film up. And I’ll stop before this turns into a post appropriate for the mouth-breathers at Big Hollywood.
No clever lede here. The Wrestler is just an all-around terrific movie. I don’t even really care about the Mickey Rourke resurrection story. I’ve never seen any of the early films in which he showed much promise, only Sin City. In fact, it’s a little obnoxious that so much of the hoopla surrounding the film is centered on Rourke and his story instead of how great it is in total.
Rourke’s Randy “The Ram” reached his peak as a professional wrestler in the 80s and now works the local circuit in school gymnasiums and American Legion halls while scrimping up the rent for his trailer. Marisa Tomei’s Cassidy’s rise and fall isn’t as dramatic, but she depended on her body at the strip club and now that she’s older she’s losing out to younger girls. It’s a simple but devastating story of faded glories and the inability to let go. They know how to do one thing and keep at it, because what else are they going to do? They may be stuck in the past but what else do they have to stick to?
I think a little of the film’s impact was muted initially by the shock of the graphic wrestling scenes, but as time goes on it remains in my head. The fate of those who depend on their youth for their livelihoods and peak early is an interesting theme and one that I’ve often pondered in non-film settings. I’m always interested to hear what has happened to ex-athletes or faded entertainment stars, especially those who experienced a brief but substantial time in the spotlight: too short to be set for life but too long to simply return back to normalcy. The college hoops star is on top of the world at 22 but nothing at 42.
(And then there was that trip to a strip club not too long ago with that awkward older stripper who had trouble finding up dances. So she just circled the room, nude and sad. I felt so bad that when I turned her down I had to tell her it wasn’t her, I just didn’t want any dances from any strippers. But if I did, no, I probably wouldn’t have chosen her either.)
The Wrestler only landed two Oscar noms, for leading Actor Rourke and Supporting Actress Tomei. Both are very well-deserved and Tomei’s inclusion was one of my personal highlights for nomination morning (between this and Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead does she get any roles that don’t require her to be topless through half the film?). There’s not much I can say about Rourke that hasn’t been said- what a perfect actor to play a broken down piece of meat. But it really should have been in the running for more. Robert Siegel’s – whose other credit is The Onion Movie(!) – script creates wonderful characters and places them in some incredibly poignant moments, such as Randy’s good and bad days behind the deli counter at the grocery store or his devotion to an old wrestling Nintendo game and the local kid who humors him by playing with him. For a film with this pedigree and style it really could have played a part in Best Picture discussions but yet somehow did not.
Darren Aronofsky’s direction style puts us in the ring and nearly always hits the right notes. This guy’s had a heck of an early career. I hesitate to say he can do no wrong since I haven’t seen the polarizing The Fountain, but what a resume: The Wrestler is one of the best films of 2008, Pi is wonderful and odd, and the brilliant Requiem for a Dream is one of the best films of the decade.
And then there’s the case of perhaps the most puzzling snub of the year: Bruce Sprinsteen’s exclusion in the Best Song category. I don’t know what else you can ask for in a movie song. As Randy leaps from the ropes and the screen fades to black, the strums of Springsteen’s ode to the one trick pony and one-armed man punching at the breeze begins. It was so perfect thematically and tonally that it kept me glued to my chair through the credits. Commercials and trailers for the film backed with the song give me chills. It’s the best song on Springsteen’s pretty terrible new album and it’s one of my favorite songs of 2008. The Academy actually chose three very good nominees but none come close to “The Wrestler.”
Last year I hoped that The Savages wouldn’t be the little film to fall through the cracks of time and this year it’s The Wrestler for which I wish the same.
Oscar nominations will be announced on January 22. We’re counting down to the big day by tackling some tough questions and spouting some mad opinions. We’re starting with an appropriately grouchy topic: What lock for a nomination is undeserved?
Jared: Milk Script is Spoiled
I’m considerably more bearish on Milk than my fellow Grouches (yet another reason not to trust their opinions), so perhaps unsurprisingly I’m going to be disappointed when Milk gets its Best Original Screenplay nomination. In my mind, it is a fine movie and decent script, but hardly Oscar-worthy. Perhaps the strongest argument to support this stance is that the strength of the cast creates the illusion of a stronger script. If Sean Penn isn’t there giving one of the strongest performances of the season, does Milk get the screenwriting nomination? Josh Brolin and James Franco’s performances were both nominated for awards, and let’s face it, both play characters with relatively few meaningful lines. Some argue Emile Hirsch steals the scenes he’s in, because he goes so close to being over the top. And Diego Luna, well, he sure makes everyone else look better, again suggesting it is the actors, not the script. Milk follows an awkward storyline, forgoing clearly depicting Milk’s rise for a standard biopic method of cherrypicking events. Climatic scenes seem to lack an oomph. Again, it isn’t a bad script, probably in the top fifteen or so original scripts of 2008, but a serviceable screenplay with great actors should not translate to an Oscar nom. Granted, this year’s original scripts aren’t terribly exciting, and many of the ones in contention do seem to be largely propped up by a star turn. Now should be the time for the Academy to get off its high horse about comedies, and instead of forcing in something like Milk, turn to an In Bruges.
Adam: Impeach Ron Howard…
It seems unavoidable that I will soon be ridiculing the Academy first for their nomination and then for their ultimate Oscar choices. I am already disappointed in many of the “locks” that currently pervade the buzz. Probably the biggest snub in my opinion is the lack of talk about In Bruges (actors, script, directing, picture). It was one of my favorite films of the year, and I have to give the HFPA credit for their recognition (albeit limited recognition) of it. That being said, I have chosen a different topic for my piece – Best Director. Hollywood’s love for Ron Howard while not totally unfounded is highly overblown. He is perhaps one of the most over-rated directors in the industry. I actually liked Frost/Nixon, but I don’t believe that the direction warrants a Best Director nod. There are much more deserving directors including Martin McDonagh for In Bruges (as you may have guessed by my lead-in), Darren Aronofsky for The Wrestler, or John Patrick Shanley for Doubt. Honestly, I don’t really like David Fincher over McDonagh or Aronofsky either. In short, I think it’s a travesty that In Bruges hasn’t been recognized enough – whether because of its genre, release time, etc. – and I think the Academy needs to look past its standard/comfortable/fall-back nominees to actual deserving candidates.
John: … And Frost/Nixon While You’re at It
Frost/Nixon is a fine film, but not Best Picture worthy. To me it works much better as like a caper movie where a bunch of underdog ruffians try to take down a President. Or as a showbiz flick as the gang tries to put on the big show. But it has designs on being much more and it doesn’t really work and that’s because, at the core, I didn’t really care. I wanted the underdogs to win, I wanted the show to come off without a hitch, but didn’t really care if Nixon said anything revelatory. Maybe it’s a generational thing where a defeated Nixon means little to me. Or maybe the film didn’t give me enough context to care. Which, incidentally is also a failure in direction and writing, two places where Frost/Nixon is also likely to grab nominations. I can give Howard credit for spinning an entertaining yarn, but it doesn’t do anything exceedingly special.
Going into this year’s Oscar season, if I had to pick one contender I least wanted to see, I’d imagine it would have been Frost/Nixon in a runaway. Because going into the movie, I’d probably have called screenwriter Peter Morgan a hack. I felt like I’d given the man a fair deal, having seen The Last King of Scotland, The Queen, and The Other Boleyn Girl (Morgan co-wrote the first and has sole credit on the latter two). The Last King of Scotland was a somewhat tolerable movie. I know some people liked or even loved The Queen, but they happen to be exceedingly wrong. And as I may have mentioned before, I think Morgan must possess some sort of unholy power if he can turn a movie starring Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson into a clunker of a snoozefest.
With that on the table, I found I actually kinda sorta liked Frost/Nixon. Not in the top of the charts sense, more in that it is probably in the top quarter or so of movies I’ve watched this year. Maybe it was because Morgan first wrote it as a play, but I think what worked was the dynamic between interviewer Frost (Michael Sheen) and Nixon (Frank Langella). Everything else, perhaps, falls fairly flat, so it is fortunate the movie spends a good chunk of time (though not nearly enough) on the battle between the two men.
Nixon certainly views it as a competition. He looks forward to engaging Frost in a duel of wits. And as the interview progresses, he gloats over how he is ahead on points. Indeed, it may have been Brian who called it one of the best sports movies of the year. And it certainly has most of the trappings of a sports movie. Scrappy underdog with his small band of supporters who no one believes in up against an overconfident, yet intelligent foe with a sniveling henchman in a title bout that looks all but lost until the very end. Sure, the hero gets the hot chick a little early and we may have been lacking a montage, but otherwise we are pretty much there.
To Morgan’s credit, he clearly tries to add texture and depth to characters and situations, where subtlety is not necessarily a desired trait in a sports flick. Nixon, for example, is not the typical villain. I’d argue he’s portrayed in a rather sympathetic light. Sure, he may get a little cocky at times, and he makes the inevitable fatal slip-up, but as a sharp-witted old man, he never comes across as malicious. The only two characters to actively loathe him are awed when they meet the former President in person. But again, most interesting is how Frost views him. For most of the movie, Frost doesn’t view Nixon as an antagonist, really. Frost seems to think Nixon is a curosity, but he’s only ever gets even slightly intimidated by Nixon on the eve of their final interview.
Frost is the weaker of the two main characters. I think it is because for the first chunk of the movie Nixon isn’t his opponent. Instead, he’s fighting the more vague battle to first get the interview, and then get financing and a network to air the show. Which isn’t terribly interesting, because it isn’t detailed very well and we aren’t given very much of a chance to see its impact on Frost. It is only when he finally turns to focus on Nixon that the potential of the movie starts to shine through.
Apologies for the horrible title. If it goes on to win Best Picture God help us that headline will be everywhere.
Milk may be the best biopic I’ve ever seen. Admittedly the review of my memory for a better biopic was hardly scientific and this is an invitation to set me straight in the comments and for me to sheepishly agree, but for now I’ll call it the best in memory. It doesn’t fall into the usual traps even good biopics succumb to and it manages to be a message flick without being too preachy or heavy-handed.
From a plot standpoint I think Milk’s life naturally lends itself to an effective biopic. For one, it was short and the most influential times of his life spanned a remarkable short period. He only lived to 48, didn’t move to San Francisco until the age of 39, didn’t run for San Francisco supervisor until 43, and didn’t win until 47, and only served for 10 months. This all makes it easy to keep the film focused in both plot and theme without skimping on the details. For me it was a refreshing change of pace from films like Ray and Walk the Line which felt sprawling and thematically shallow because they had so much to cover over their subjects’ long lives. For this reason many biopics feel like a series of vignettes: in this scene the hero experiences childhood tragedy, in this one he let’s his demons overcome him, in this one he redeems himself, etc… Milk rarely feels like that, instead composing a continuous story. And of course, Milk’s life was dramatic and heroic and he fought for the tried and true ideals of freedom and equality.
The positives in Milk are not by all means inherent to the subject, however. Director Gus Van Sant imbues his film with a remarkable sense of time and place, putting the viewer not just into the life of Harvey Milk but also into his environment. As much as we’re experiencing a great man’s achievements we’re experiencing a period of upheaval in 1970s San Francisco. Again, this is rare for a biopic, which necessarily tend to focus more on their subjects than their settings. The cars and clothing change over the years in Ray, for example, but there isn’t the same depth in setting as there is in Milk.
Van Sant filmed mostly in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, even renting the space Milk’s camera shop used to occupy. It was made up to look like the old shop; security guards stationed there reported older residents walking by and getting moved to tears by the recreation.
Beyond that, the story is well told and the characters well developed. The pacing, the level of drama, and the tone always felt right on. And in a time when the gay civil rights movement is gaining attention and traction and Harvey Milk’s state is once again thrust into the spotlight, the message hits home without getting preachy (save, perhaps, that boy in the wheelchair). I found the interspersal of archive footage to be effective and not gimmicky and I loved the opening montage.
Sean Penn is terrific as the title character. He disappears into the role and I in turn lost myself in his performance. The man is simply one of those movie stars that you forget is a movie star when he is on the screen. I also really liked Josh Brolin as Dan White, Milk’s killer. The character is complex and off-kilter and the performance is skillfully and subtly unsettling. If I can agree with one point in Jared’s (I’m sorry to say) remarkably wrong-headed post is that I wish we saw more of White. He is an intriguing character and the film does a disservice to itself by suggesting White did what he did because he was gay. There is no evidence to suggest he was and Dan White’s warped mind was likely more fascinating than explaining away his motives with a false and simple reason. Thankfully there was no scene of him chowing down on Twinkies. (For extra reading, check out this story on White from earlier this year)
As to the rest of Jared’s argument, I know we saw the same movie because I saw it with him. I wouldn’t believe it if I hadn’t seen him there with my own eyes. I guess he wants more sense of context, but I’m not sure how that matters. Who cares how many gay people there were in San Francisco or how many supported Milk? How does that help a story about the man? The film does a remarkable job of developing its environment, but it’s still primarily about the man. I found the context provided and a simple knowledge of history to be more than enough context. Also you namechecked the wrong Brolin there, boss.
You’d have to think one of the supporting actors will sneak into a nomination, if not several. Brolin was my favorite, followed by Emile Hirsch and James Franco. Neither character was as fleshed out or challenging as Dan White, however. Diego Luna was the weak link in the cast, I think.
Elsewhere we can probably expect Best Picture, Director, and Original Screenplay nominations, all well deserved. As far as the technical categories, with those big nominations one would imagine Editing to follow. And, to throw a bone to Jared, art director Charley Beal was also the art director for the pilot episode of “Love Monkey,” so he must have been good.
Finally, does anyone know what the deal is with all the random little barbs directed at Dianne Feinstein? Amusing but strange.
I’d been eagerly anticipating Slumdog Millionaire for some time. Normally I try to temper such expectations, but heck, last year Juno would have been my preseason favorite and it ended up one of my top films of the year. If we catalogued such things, Slumdog Millionaire would have been my preseason pick this year. Unfortunately, I would have picked incorrectly.
I did like the movie, and I’d feel comfortable recommending it to just about anyone. Structuring the film around an episode of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire framed things nicely. Maybe not the most sophisticated of techniques, but one still inspired nonetheless. Along with Quiz Show, Starter for Ten (like I’ll ever get off that horse), it forms a nice triumvirate of movies with a trivia game show as at least a subplot, and I think I speak for all bar trivia-goers in suggesting that Hollywood would do well to churn out a few more.
Mostly, though, I just don’t have anything to say about the film. It didn’t affect me as much I thought (or hoped) it would. The central romance was fine, but I don’t think Simon Beaufoy (the screenwriter) or Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan (the co-directors) did a great job establishing the connection between Jamal and Latika. A few more shared scenes wouldn’t have hurt, perhaps. To me, it seems that Jamal longs for Latika because she’s the only girl he’s ever met. And Latika wants to be with Jamal because…he’s on the outside? It isn’t entirely clear.
The film doesn’t really have a main character, not if you count current, younger, and youngest Jamal as separate characters. Which makes for an interesting ensemble. But, emblematic of the movie as a whole, most of these characters deserve to be better fleshed out. Jamal’s brother Salim, for example, is barely sketched out in all his incarnations. And really, Salim’s actions drive the plot at least as much as those of Jamal. But the reasons for Salim’s pivotal shifts tended to be too subtle. Latika herself is more of an object for Jamal than a filled-out character. I did, however, really like the game show host, and thought his character was very well done.
In a nutshell, the movie just felt a little too distant, too hesitant to starkly dive into anything. I found it too muted to really blow me away. That’s not to suggest I found the movie anything less than enjoyable. I just didn’t think it managed to break through and become something special or memorable.
A few side notes: John and I were wondering if there’s some sort of law requiring Irrfan Khan to be in every movie with a U.S. wide release and is set in India. Not that it would be a problem, because he’s pretty great. Just curious. Also, I think Slumdog Millionaire just adds further proof to the notion that every movie would be better if it added a song and dance number. And Freida Pinto is really pretty. Just throwing that out there.
And finally, I’m curious to see if Dev Patel ends up with a Supporting Actor nomination. Going for him is the movie’s current status as a seeming near-lock to get nominated (and possible favorite status to win the whole shebang) and the lack of any other actor from the movie to nominate. There’s also a relative dearth of name actors and juicy roles under consideration. (The Golden Grouches underground campaign for Bill Irwin notwithstanding.) The catch may be that his is a sort of nontraditional supporting character, in that the movie is really about him. Additionally, Jamal’s character traits are more those of a main character (likable, gets the girl in the end, plucky, underdog). Could voters not vote for him, thinking he belongs in the best actor category, and instead go with someone in a more standard supporting role, like James Franco or Eddie Marsan?
The heavy hitters of this year’s Oscars have just started passing through town, so I can’t really compare Slumdog Millionaire to other Oscar bait. In a sense, I feel the same about the film as I did about The Departed. Both are perfectly fine movies, but I don’t really understand how anyone could consider them the best of anything.
Harvey Milk’s story is the stuff from which biopics are made. He faced discrimination, became a leader in his community, had a series of failed campaigns, was finally the first openly gay person elected to major office, and was murdered by a disgruntled fellow politician. There’s tragedy and triumph, all surrounding Important Social Issues.
Dustin Lance Black and Gus Van Sant’s depiction of that story, however, never really rises to the challenge. Compelling actors and back story make the movie watchable, but it doesn’t seem particularly special. If, as some people claim, 2008 is a relatively weak year for Oscar movies, this movie’s awards success might be helping the notion gain traction.
Milk’s primary weakness is its inability to provide context. It is never quite clear who, exactly, is impacted by Harvey Milk. This vagueness starts with his coterie, none of whom are given any discernible character traits. Other than his two boyfriends, who maybe get one apiece. There’s never any sense of how many gay people were living in San Francisco, or how many people (gay or straight) supported Milk. Or didn’t. The movie hints at Milk uniting the gay vote and turning it into a force, but what was the magnitude of that force? Perhaps Van Sant attempts to answer these concerns with his insertion of stock footage from the era. But it only serves to weaken the film’s tenuous creation of an environment.
That’s not to say the movie is a failure. It has plenty of solid moments. The film has some funny bits and some touching ones. It is paced well and is fortunate to have a great cast. Milk, perhaps obviously, advocates gay rights, but the message is generally used to enhance the film, rather than take it over.
I’ve probably made it clear I’ll be disappointed if/when the movie grabs Picture, Director, and Original Screenplay nominations. The Academy has done far worse, but I just don’t get why Milk is considered great, and not merely good.
At this point, I’m all for Sean Penn and James Brolin to be nominated for Actor and Supporting Actor, respectively. I love me some James Franco, but I’m not sure he’s deserving here. Penn as Milk, is probably the highlight of the movie (other than the doggie, naturally), and he certainly makes the movie much more interesting. Brolin’s character is another supporting one who deserved to be better fleshed out. But he turns Dan White into the most intriguing character in the movie, one who provokes the most thought. For me, anyway.
I don’t know how much more there is to say about Juno. Through Oscar season we had the hype, the acclaim, the backlash, the backlash to the backlash… All I can say is that I loved the movie and that it was one of the few films I saw that I immediately wanted to see again.
Most of the controversy seems to revolve around the script. Is the dialogue too cutesy, are the characters too quirky? I don’t think so. The first five minutes smacked of trying too hard, but throughout I thought it adeptly walked the line to keep it from becoming too precious. Too much time has been spent complaining that Juno doesn’t speak realistically. Um, it’s a movie. No one in a movie talks realistically! Real people don’t have the coherence, dramatic touch, or comedic timing of movie characters. But, honestly, Juno doesn’t talk all that weirdly. Yes she doesn’t talk like a normal teenager, but she does talk like a self-absorbed, know-it-all, cocky, hip teen who thinks she’s awesome… which is exactly what Juno is! A viewing companion mentioned that he couldn’t believe that Juno would think Mark wouldn’t know Mott the Hoople. I think a sixteen-year-old who thinks she knows everything about music would definitely make that mistake. Teens think they’re bees knees and everyone else is lame. It’s a time honored tradition. I think sometimes Juno so frequently plays up how put-together she is that we forget she really isn’t.
The lingo-filled dialogue might have propelled Diablo Cody to a well-deserved Original Screenplay Oscar win, but it’s really the characters that make Juno special. I love how Juno’s layers are pulled back, revealing the self-sure dynamo’s insecurities. Ellen Page deftly lets the emotion peek out, never ever stooping to the melodramatic. Jason Bateman’s Mark and Jennifer Garner’s Vanessa start out looking like one type of couple and shift into something completely different. JK Simmons and Allison Janney as Juno’s father and step-mother are the caring and wise (and witty) parents that movie parents are rarely allowed to be. Read the rest of this entry »
I do not hide the fact that I heart Michael Bay. Adam, though incredibly rational when it comes to just about everything else, is terribly misguided in his dislike of Mr. Bay. Naturally, I suggested we take this to the blog.
Adam,
Michael Bay is great. The sooner I can convince you of that, the sooner we can move on to more important things. Since for some reason you won’t take my word, it is my duty as an American to change your mind. There are many reasons why Michael Bay is so great, I’ll paint some broad strokes to describe them. If for some reason you aren’t sold, I’d be happy to clarify.
Michael Bay connect with the people. Here’s a list of the takes of his movies. His movies have universally raked in money. Bad Boys (his first) is the under $100 million domestically, but that one was obviously profitable, plus it took it another $75 million overseas. The Island tanked hard (yes, I was there in theaters), but it grabbed over $125 million in foreign lands. Which is what imdb estimates was the budget for the movie, so it is hard to call it a flop, per se, though clearly it wasn’t a moneymaker like the rest of his movies. Still, 6 for 7 ain’t bad. In fact, he ranks 11th all time among directors in combined domestic total gross, (his movies have grossed over a billion dollars!) with most of the directors ahead of him directing more movies and helming heavy-hitting franchises.
Recent Comments