Archive

Archive for the ‘Directors’ Category

Optimus Prime Montage

November 30, 2009 Leave a comment

I’ve been working on this montage for about a week now and it looks pretty good I think. Check it out!

Transformers ROTF – Signed By MICHAEL BAY!

November 23, 2009 Leave a comment

I am so pumped! I have finally received my Autographed by Michael Bay Transformers Revenge of the Fallen DVD today in the mail! This is the coolest thing ever! And it’s actually signed!

Here in the picture you can see my current Transformers ROTF collection so far. The biggest poster on the left is an actually movie poster from the theaters and it has two sides for some reason. But anyway im super pumped and the bumblebee toy i have in my right hand actually transformers into the camaro. It is so detailed! Woot!

And the DVD I am holding is signed by Michael Bay himself!

Spielberg On Board For “Indiana Jones 5”

November 17, 2009 Leave a comment

Today I learned that Spielberg is set to produce and direct a 5th addition to Indiana Jones.

Harrison Ford, 67, says he’s already ready for the globe-trotting archaeologist’s next adventure, only a year after one of history’s most successful film franchises was revived – and that the next chapter is already well on its way.

“The story for the new Indiana Jonesis in the process of taking form,” Ford told France’s Le Figaro. “Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and myself are agreed on what the fifth adventure will concern, and George is actively at work. If the script is good, I’ll be very happy to put the costume on again.”

The screen legend was on hand to accept a career honor at the Deauville Film Festival, with partner Calista Flockhart on his arm.

In June, while promotingTransformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Shia LaBouef – who plays Indiana Jones’ son, Mutt – told the BBC, “Steven’s just said that he’s cracked the story.”

 

Source: People

Review – 2012 (Roland Emmerich)

November 17, 2009 Leave a comment

We haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. The latest global disaster movie from director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow) throws so much stupidity at you in such rapid succession that it’s practically a torrential cliché-maelstrom; the kind of bloated, silly cinematic disaster that is so unintentionally hilarious that actually flips over and becomes a redeeming factor.

California is collapsing into the earth; if it isn’t massive debts and raging fires, it’s subterranean magma flows caused by (and don’t quote us on the science behind this, but here goes…) solar flares casting out neutrinos at the Earth, heating its core and causing massive geological disruptions, plate shifts and fault line earthquakes.

Of course, the United States eats it first – but there’s a secret contingency plan in place to protect the wealthy and privileged as society stands on the threshold of complete annihilation. Naturally, a good-hearted geologist and scientific advisor to the President, Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor, who puts in a good performance under the circumstances), stands up to the corruption and appeals to the President (Danny ‘I’m gettin’ too old for this s**t’ Glover) to make the right decision.

John Cusack, playing a Richard Dawkins-esque author and limo driver, gets caught in the middle of the unfurling conspiracy as he drags his disaffected kids on a camping trip and ends up jumping security fences, wandering into a mysterious steaming lakebed and trampling through the middle of the governmental operation. Now that’s responsible parenting in action.

Cue the rollicking silliness. You know those scenes that play out in every action movie made since 1980? The ones where the bus jumps the broken bridge? Or a man falls over the edge and everyone thinks he’s dead—but it’s okay because a single hand suddenly appears, clinging to the cliff? Or how about the plane that’s trying to escape from an explosion and gets enveloped in smoke – only to come bursting out with impossible speed? What about the eleventh-hour miscalculation that results in the timer speeding up towards impending disaster? Then there’s the grandpa with regrets, the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ guy, the wormy scientist who makes good, the noble daughter who outlives the father, the divorcee who falls back in love, the evil rich dude, the ethnic stereotype village, the holy man on the mountain, the beauty queen with the handbag dog, the dude with two day’s pilot training who must repeatedly fly everyone to safety at street level, through a collapsing city? What about the obligatory heroic kid, or the water escape scene, the tacked-on happy Hollywood ending where it’s all sunshine and laughing and nobody really feels too remiss about the death of 5.9 billion people?

And that’s not even the half of it. Seriously. It goes on and on like this, piling on so much rehash that you will laugh. You can just sit there, switch off and let it wash over you like action-porn. In fact, perhaps that’s exactly what 2012 is – the rebirth of action for the sake of action. To describe 2012 as the best ‘rollercoaster-ride-with-a-story-attached’ is about as much praise as we can muster for this production.


Cusack, who we maintain is charming and a talented fellow when given the right material (think: Grosse Pointe Blank or The Thin Red Line), maintains low gear the whole way through. His strained relationship with his ex-wife (Amanda Peet, looking painfully skinny) gets the same going-over that you’ve seen countless times. It has all the emotional sincerity of a daytime soap opera, but you won’t care – you’ll be too busy reeling after watching Chinooks transport elephants and giraffes over mountainous snowfields after gazing in stupefied awe as Cusack and company bail out of the back of a plane inside a Bentley and onto the tundra.

A special call out to Woody Harrelson who plays an unhinged conspiracy nut with absolute conviction. Harrelson hams it up so much that he almost points towards 2012 actually being the ‘Mars Attacks’ comedy that it’s desperately trying to avoid. Golden.

The real tragedy is this: 2012’s production cost an estimated $200-odd million dollars. What’s worse, it’ll probably make that money back, spawning a hackneyed sequel called 2013. And if there aren’t aliens, dinosaurs, transforming robots and Will Smith in there, we’ll be bitterly disappointed.

So bad that it’s good again, 2012 comes from the same school of film failure as Michael Bay’s Transformers 2 – only, Roland Emmerich plays far more with sentimentality which softens the blows, whereas Bay just beats you upside the head for two hours until you’re spinning and kind of nauseous. Terrible; wonderfully terrible.

Source: IGN

Mark Your Calendars: Michael Bay says Transformers 3 coming… on July 1, 2011

November 6, 2009 Leave a comment

We may have found this summer’s blockbuster, Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen to be heavy on the sizzle and lean on the meat, but that doesn’t mean we’ve written off the series – after all, it’s hard to dismiss excellent CG work, the childhood toys of our youth… to say nothing of that siren Megan Fox.

Thankfully, director Michael Bay informs us via his official website that the next installment is already in the works, and it’s been assigned a release date – July 1 of 2011. That’s a long time from now, granted, but Bay intimates in his blog post that Megan Fox has already signed on for the TF3 project, and hopefully Shia LaBeouf will make the scene too. Bay is already meeting with Hasbro to discuss new characters, so we’d expect a few new transforming automobiles to show up as well.

Here’s hoping that they have enough time to craft a script that lives up to the special effects.

Source : AutoBlog

Gallery: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Why Does Everyone Hate Michael Bay?

November 6, 2009 Leave a comment

Is it illegal to make films that entertain and excite the masses? Is it a crime to literally give people more “bang” for their buck when sitting in a theater? If the answer is no, why do so many people have a problem with the film-making style of director/producer Michael Bay? For years critics have been dumping on Bay because of his desire to produce big budget films. Explosions and car chases have become his signature, and are easily identifiable by any steady movie goer. Granted he may never direct a film along the lines of Schindler’s List or The English Patient, but then again I wouldn’t want him to. Bay has his own visionary style that was unprecedented until he hit the scene in the mid-nineties with his feature film debut, Bad Boys. For the most part Bay has churned out some pretty entertaining films, so whats with the hard feelings? Why does everyone hate Michael Bay?

I recently came across an article on Cinematical where the author pretty much bashed Michael Bay every other line. He asked the question, “is there room for Michael Bay in the age of Chris Nolan?” My first thought was, what does one have to do with the other? These are two totally different directors, with very different film aesthetics. What’s with the random vendetta? It turns out, Bay made a few statements about his approach to making movies, and it rubbed the writer the wrong way.

It seems that every interview with the man contains a response to his naysayers to the tune of: “I don’t see anything wrong with spending a lot of money to make big action movies to entertain people. Yet somehow, I come under special scrutiny. I mean, why don’t people get upset if Dow spends $300 million to invent some new chemical? Audiences like popcorn movies. What’s wrong with that?” and “What we do is not brain surgery. We are entertainers, plain and simple, and we’re responsible to bring that money back, to make a profit.”
I will admit the Dow comparison was a bit extreme, but for the most part is he wrong? Hollywood is full of actors, musicians, directors, and writers who all want to be creative and make a living off their craft. If the entertainment industry wasn’t a multi-billion dollar business it wouldn’t be so hard to break into. What’s so bad about making “popcorn flicks?” Film’s were created to entertain, so whats wrong with making movies that do? I enjoy a variety of films, no matter the genre or director. I can watch anything from a Busby Berkley musical, to a Hitchcock thriller, to a Judd Apatow comedy. There are bad movies made in every genre for every price. Just give me something that can captivate and hold my attention.

Another issue I had with the article was it’s comparison of Bay to Sam Raimi and Stephen Sommers. Again, totally different directors with different aesthetics.

Google Sam Raimi, and you’ll get quotes about the power of great stories, and his love for his source material. Even Stephen Sommers, who has certainly made some reviled films, talks about his enthusiasm and inspiration; you can sense he’s trying. From Bay, you get: “I’m an entertainer — don’t hold me to any standard.”
Really? Stephen Sommers? I liked the Mummy movies like everybody else, but your going to have to do better than that. Did he see the same trailer for G.I. Joe I did during the Super Bowl? I know I’m not the only one who noticed the Transformer-esque elements in that TV spot. As for Raimi, my fellow Michigan native, I love the guy. Army of Darkness is one of my favorite movies and of course I loved his work on Spiderman (with that being said, I mean films I mean one and two). The quote about Raimi’s love of “source material” may be a bit premature. Let’s not act as if those films stuck to the Marvel comic like glue. I personally wouldn’t expect them too since comic book films unfortunately always lose a little something when transferred to the silver screen.

Michael Bay is Michael Bay, he’s no Sommers, Raimi, or Nolan. He sticks to what he does best, and that’s blowing stuff up. You don’t walk into one of his movies for a thought provoking message, you go for the adrenaline rush.

I’m not writing this article as a campaign for you to become the biggest Bay fan, or to run out and buy all his movies. I’m just stating a point. Bay is good at directing summer blockbusters. He says his goal is to entertain and make a profit, and that is exactly what he does. No false pretenses. He doesn’t think he’s making art, he knows what he’s making and he’s good at it. Once again, isn’t that what everyone in Hollywood is trying to do on one level or another? They may not all be as vocal about it, but it’s true. Everyone wants to do the thing they love and do it well. And as an audience member, when I spend my money for a Bay film, he delivers what he promises everytime. It doesn’t matter if the story’s mediocre, or the acting is so-so, I know I won’t leave my seat without seeing a fire-lit car roll over 5 times, while a helicopter spews out a round of bullets in slow motion. Bay sticks to his guns (literally), and for the most part makes enjoyable, fun films. So again I ask the question…..

Why does everyone hate Michael Bay?

Source: ScreenCave

Michael Bay’s In-Theatre Promo for the LA Times

October 21, 2009 Leave a comment

This has been playing in LA theaters since summer of 2008, and I’ve been looking for it online since then. Thanks to Andrea for the link.