I guess I'd be foolish to try to sell you on the down and dirty charms of OUT FOR JUSTICE, but when it comes to the "big studio action movie" I would argue that Bay's never made one as fun as UNDER SIEGE, let alone DIE HARD, the deadbeat daddy of alot of those movies.

I could write a book on why I hate Michael Bay too, but I don't like to put that kind of negativity into the world. What I was referring to in the other post is that to me his action scenes are incomprehensible. I mean sure, he is very talented at hiring other people to create explosions and make them look pretty, but as an action fan I'm more interested in directors who can shoot and edit images like that into sequences that create tension and excitement. And I guess I take it more personally than some people because I love action movies so much and in my opinion the success of movies by Michael Bay, Simon whatsisdick who did CON AIR and guys like that has lowered the standards of acceptance for visual storytelling and led to a generation of subpar action movies.

I don't get how you enjoy those movies, but I don't got a problem with it. More fun for you. Just don't get all pissy on other people for having complaints about Bay's style. Not everybody has to like the same shit you do.

Anyway the commercial did make me laugh. That is sort of how I picture Michael Bay's home life. I didn't think about it being a ripoff of the Wes Anderson commercial until somebody mentioned that.

But I don't really buy your argument about "any movie can be picked apart," as if that makes 2001 equal to ERNEST SCARED STUPID, or DIE HARD equal to SPEED 2. Yeah, you can find a flaw in almost any great movie, but then you will still have all kinds of greatness left. Whatever these "plot holes" are you're looking for in T2, you still have a great story, great characters, some of the best action sequences of all time. It's a big blow 'em up, shoot 'em up movie that has soul. You care about what happens to the characters, even the robot, you want them to save the world. When they kill the Terminator at the end it's as sad as E.T. leaving or Old Yeller dying. For me Bay doesn't cut it as an action director, and he doesn't even try to get any of those other things. And to be perfectly honest although I prefer to have both, I don't even demand both. If a movie is completely empty and soul-less BUT has some fun action and a good sense of fun to it I can still enjoy it. TRANSPORTER 2 comes to mind. That one even had some Bay style veiled racism in it, I still enjoyed watching it once. So the argument that I'm holding genre movies up to higher standards doesn't fly. I'm actually being lenient.

In fact, take BATMAN BEGINS. I didn't like the style of action. You can check my review, I complained about it at the time. I also didn't really like when he was dressed as Batman. But the serious treatment of this character still won me over. If it has been kind of a dumb movie that had amazing action sequences I might have gave it a pass too. For me Bay fails spectacularly in both categories, so that's a problem.

I don't have a problem with you, Ryan. You enjoy these movies, that's good for you. I just don't like when you keep putting these stupid arguments in my mouth. Why do you and the Bright Eyes guy keep saying "character development" over and over? What do you even mean by that? Why would I want to see his characters go through changes and learn lessons when I don't even like watching them on screen in the first place? That is the least of my concerns. Once he learns the basics of putting together an action sequence and has characters who do more than make you groan with constant jokes maybe we'll start worrying about whether or not his characters grow from their experiences. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it, which is never.