With love, from Bay, to you...

Michael Bay has 155 million reason (which he mentions with glee) not to give a damn about what Mr. Westhoff writes regarding his film. On the other hand, I guess just about anybody will be miffed when someone they don't know calls them an "egomanical hack." "Hack" is surely fair game - to turn a phrase around, hack is pretty in Bay's "job description."

There's no point in rehashing the old argument that critics aren't in the business of predicting or pandering to popular tastes. That' obvious enough it doesn't need stating.

What I find most interesting about this is not the lame 'My film made money, people like it, therefore your negative review must be wrong' approach, but the staggering insecurity Mr. Bay displays. Not only does he feel the need to write a letter about a negative review, he also needs to defend himself by mention how rich he is (not much different than how much money his movie made) and also feels the need to mention that he is friends with Steven Spielberg. I guess even the most successful directors still crave everyone's approval like a six year old begging mommy to "watch me do this trick."

Side note: I won't dispute that Spielberg is "smart about film," but when asked to choose his most overlooked American film, he selected "Lawrence of Arabia." Um... 0 for 2 on that one, Steven.

That he has such a status for character assassination is flattery. The reviewer assumes everyone is familiar with his films.

Kael's review of 2001 might be recommended to him. Isn't the existence of reviews like this just a sign that he's still an active and current director?

PS His music video for Meatloaf sure was sappy & kitch-filled, which is to say, it sure was fun to watch.

I don't know anything about Michael Bay's personal life. I figure if a guy wants to make crap films, that's his prerogative. Personally, I thought Transformers was entertaining enough, and was certainly better than the rest of the films in his oeuvre (which isn't saying much). But complaining about people who criticize your work simply isn't classy, and singling out a critic (Transformers has a 57% rating on RottenTomatoes, so there are plenty of negative, even scathing reviews to choose from) to attack, implying that the critic's employers should fire him for voicing his opinion, well that's downright sleazy, to say the least.

In NY Times (June 18) there is an article about
"One Weekend Wonders":

After its superstrong $182 million opening week in May, “Spider-Man 3” plunged at the box office by 61 percent the next week. “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” sank like a stone in its second week, dropping 66 percent. And when the box office gross for “Transformers” fell by only 47 percent after a week in theaters, Hollywood marveled at the movie’s strength.

Spin it how you want, Michael, but a movie that drops 47% in the 2nd week, is NOT benefiting from positive word of mouth.

Ah, playing the old 'and one of the executive producers of my movie thinks your scathing review is stupid too' card. Persuasive.

Isn't Bay proving the reviewer's point? Surely it's the very definition of egomania to not only read all your own press.

And Bay's got to learn to pick his battles. I always feel a little embarrassed for those authors who feel compelled to write to the New York Times Book Review after some reviewer "misrepresents" their work; but to pick a fight with the Northwest Herald —not, to my knowledge, a mega-influential culture-leading tastemaker—man, that's just pathetic.

Surely Westhoff of the Northwest Herald is not the only one giving a negative review to the film. In fact, a quick scan of Rotten Tomatoes shows some 76 rotten ratings thus far. Why single out Westhoff? Bigger names like Richard Corliss and Anthony Lane also gave it bad reviews, why not go after them. Perhaps because they are bigger?

And just out of curiosity, I wonder if Spielberg would have said what he did to Bay if he'd known it was going to be used in a published letter?

When filmmakers respond to critics not liking their films I think it makes them smaller. I know the temptation is there, don't get me wrong. I once received a review that was glowing in all respects except for one part where the critic questioned one of my motivations (this was for a stage performance). It drove me insane. Everyone kept pointing out the praise but all I could see was the negative line. Finally, after turning it over in my head a thousand times I decided he was right, I had made a bad choice with that one detail.

So I understand a bad review can ruin your day. But writing a critic and telling him off can ruin your character. And that's not a trade-off I'd recommend.

This isn't a law, but it should be:

Anyone who claims they are nice and down-to-earth, isn't.

How did Michael Bay even happen upon the Northwest Herald's review in the first place? And why did he feel the need to defend himself to a newspaper with a circulation of 40,000? Choose your battles, man.

If Bay were a 'down-to-earth' guy, he would have brushed this review aside. But being that he is a 'egomaniacal hack' he felt he should in short request that the reviewer should be put on leave.

I have worked with several production people who worked with Bay on commercial shoots and have always described him as anything but a down-to-earth guy.

When I read Westhoff's review, it sounded more like an attempt to pander to pop culture and predicting popular taste -- blindly jumping on the anti-Bay bandwagon -- than expressing a genuine opinion about Transformers. Frankly, I wasn't convinced he bothered to see the movie until the sixth paragraph. Everything up until that point could've been written after watching only the Trailer, and having a preset bias because Westhoff didn't like Bay's previous films and Bay's association with Spielberg.

I actually like Michael Bay's mindless action flicks, and I don't have a problem reading negative reviews of his films. In fact, I prefer to read a well-written reviews with an opposed opinion because I'm never looking for a pat on the back (likewise, I hate reading an idiotic review that takes a stance I agree with.) I don't even have a problem with critics hating Michael Bay's films for being Michael Bay films (some people stay away for that reason, that's why I go see them.) Love it/hate it/piss on it -- whatever -- just convince me you've seen the damn movie (preferably convince me BEFORE the midpoint of the review.)

Which brings me to Bay's letter ... the fact Bay is responding to such a poorly written review (not to mention inconsequential in the long run) at all is bad enough. But it's sad and pathetic Bay has to cite the box office gross (that Jason Voorhees of irrelevent arguments which refuses to die), toss out Spielberg's name (stand on your own -- it's the NW Herald for crying out loud), and then painfully and despicable call for "the editor to give Westhoff a little relaxation and sunshine" (Give me a break, Bay.) Why sink to these levels when the first two paragraphs will give the non-film-savvy readers (and many of the film-savvy readers) the idea that Westhoff was biased from the get go? C'mon, go after the fact Westhoff doesn't support or cite an example of "no discipline, no style, no concern for story, no sense of rhythm. He just piles on and plows ahead: big, dumb and loud" or "The story is all over the place, too, with more holes than plot. And the dialogue is dreadful."

To be fair: Bay isn't exactly convincing that he actually read Mr. Westhoff's review. He uses generic bitching in place of precision arguments. His statements could've just as easily been based on an over-the-phone paraphrasing, "Hey, there's a review out there attacking you as a director, and not really addressing the film."

At least Westoff eventually convinced me he actually saw the movie he wrote about ... man I hate it when people screw up a stance I agree with through stupid ill-conceived arguments.

Maybe in some ways this reviewer and this director deserve each other?

"If you don't have the guts to be hated, you don't deserve to be loved."

Bay needs to learn that "Haters" need to keep Hating-- it's their job.

Alternate headline: "I can haz good review?"

Little doubt about that, Jim. Bay is typically boorish when bragging about his film's box office take-- those numbers may reflect a lot about how people had hopes that Transformers would be worth their $11, but they say nothing about the mood of the moviegoer upon exiting the theater. And I think Jonathan is right-- Bay is in schoolyard bully mode by choosing to pick a fight with a reviewer of little repute, ill or good (I'd never heard of Jeffrey Westhoff before today), rather than take his tiff to the New York Times or The New Yorker, where his blowhard tactics might be better exposed or batted down. Jeez, Rob Schneider showed more moxie than that.

On the other hand, Mr. Westhoff gives his game, and his credibility, away with his opening paragraph: "Whatever chance that Transformers... might have been a decent movie disppeared the moment Michael Bay was hired to direct." Now, I know pure objectivity is a myth and all, but this is taking things a bit too far in the other direction. I'm no fan of Bay's movies, and I've avoided Transformers so far. But I was at a drive-in last night, caught a glimpse of the movie on one of the screens and thought, "Gee, this looks like it might be a silly, fun picture to see under the stars, with a few wise-cracking pals sitting on lawn chairs and armed with more than a few buckets of buttered popcorn."

Bay may have a "leaden touch," but this reviewer hasn't enough of a way with words for me to think anything other than Michael Bay has finally found his counterpart in the world of film criticism.

I agree with Jay. Bay is right that the review is poorly written and unfairly prejudiced against him, but he doesn't say that. Instead he makes an appeal to pop culture, cites box office dollars, and drops Spielberg's name as if all that should tell Westhoff to shut up.

I don't think Bay is a bad director, it just seems like he's one of those directors who like making a movie more than having made one. In all his interviews he plunges in with glee about the fun he had playing with his toys, the stunts, cars, pyrotechnics, military cooperation, special lenses and cameras, etc. Somehow the movie itself comes across like an afterthought. Roger once wrote about the movie Hocus Pocus:

...a film desperately in need of self-discipline... It's one of those projects where you imagine everyone laughing and applauding each other after every scene, because they're so convinced they're wild and crazy guys. But watching the movie is like attending a party you weren't invited to, and where you don't know anybody, and they're all in on a joke but won't explain it to you.

That would also describe Bad Boys II. However, Bay seems to be inching back to the more spare storytelling of The Rock with his last two films.

Anybody else remember this Onion article supposedly written by Michael Bay? How is it that reality has gotten more ridiculous than the satire?

So, can I be the one who destroys Mr. Bay's worldview by teaching him basic economics? It's one thing for the studios and the media to buy into these fabricated 'records' based on unadjusted grosses across time, but it's pretty low for Bay to use that in his defense. It's an utterly preposterous claim to anyone with even a mediocre education. And even beyond that, the changing shape of distribution kinda makes it unfair to pretend a seven day record means anything except to to very recent history.

Gotta love how the movie industry is virtually the only one that doesn't track its successes by counting units. All to keep the egos well fed. Watching execs try to spin ticket numbers would be so much more fun, not to mention actually informative.

"Maybe in some ways this reviewer and this director deserve each other?"

It's like a match made in heaven. :)

There are a lot of great points being tossed about above, cogently wordsmithed by better writers than Westhoff and Bay put together.

But I'm surprised that no one's raised the possibility that it's not even Bay writing the letter. My first thought - and perhaps it's just the Internet Cynic speaking - that a Bay hater has pulled one over on a small newspaper.

I suppose the fact that this is making the rounds through the blogs might suggest that Bay would step up and address it - real or not - but perhaps to do so would only further suggest the insecurity that the letter above does.

Jim,

They do deserve each other. I laughed heartily at both. But I don't think it would work out in the end..."irreconcilable differences".

I almost hope that Westhoff and Bay keep sending letters/articles back and forth.

"Bay like totally sux!"
"Nuh-uh! Spielberg said I don't suck. And I made money!"
"Doesn't matter, you still suck."
"Stephen, hit him for me! Make the editor fire him!"

As has been said before, the funniest thing about this is that Westhoff's unprofessional claim that Bay is an egomaniac is so completely borne out by Bay's own letter. Bay starts his letter with the third person, describing both the merits of his film (i.e. box-office sales) and the negative aspects of Westhoff's review (i.e. Spielberg doesn't like it), before actually specifying who he is, so as to make it seem as if he has no potential bias against Westhoff's words. Real down-to-Earth, this guy: he is trying so hard to pretend that his letter isn't his being personally offended, but his feelings that Westhoff can't write properly. And saying that Westhoff is "out of touch" with popular culture is a pointless, entirely irrelevant attack on the same level as Westhoff calling Bay an egomaniac. Saying that the movie sucks and insulting Bay have nothing to do, frankly, with being "in touch" or not.

Basically, though, Bay just makes me sad. Is he that insecure that one review that calls him an egomaniac makes him not only write in, but use box office results and Stephen Spielberg to "prove" that his film doesn't suck? Poor guy.