The Rock needs an iconic film

You are talking like he is some kind of artist.

He needs fuck all. His aim is to make as much money as possible, which he is succeeding at.

I'm sure he'd like to have a few iconic roles like Arnie or Stallone, but as long as his pay checks keep coming in with 8 figures, I doubt he really cares.
 
Last edited:
I dunno man... Watch this depiction of a real-life murder:



Bay just can't help himself.

Morally conflicted, religious and innocent Rock is still too cool to not walk away from an explosion in slow motion.



As opposed to say, Saving Private Ryan's slow-motion D Day sequence or every award winning gang execution based on a true story, or the stark black and white filters during Schindler's list and its infamous balcony scene? Those aren't artistic renditions of their real world subject matter?

How many mainstream films do you see that shoot their characters to death absent musical accompaniment or elegant shot compositions? You get arthouse films with victims screaming into a void.

Most mainstream films glamorize violence and real life tragedies via their medium and the rules of aesthetic composition, that's every bit a part of their design as pleasing audio/visual constructions and we don't fault them for it. You see a "guy turns back on explosions" shot and immediately blame Michael Bay when Kubrick has his gang stylishly strutting around in slow motion forward-facing tracks with everything but the fireball behind them

Sounds an awful lot like filmmaker prejudice instead of a problem with slow motion or forward tracking with destruction behind its subject (that doesn't look back)

I'm not buyin it

[Edit:]
This isn't to diss anyone who hates Bay films btw, I'm fine with that, but I defend stylism in film all over the place, especially with the "cool guys dont look at explosions" trope - the alternative is to force characters to look at the theatrics behind them, effectively turning them into a spectator of their own film. Making them a lesser stated part of the tableau is the whole point
 
Last edited:
The problem is that the rock is just there to cash out. I don't think he has any interest in his legacy as an actor. He just wants to be as big as possible and make as much money as possible and he's doing that. I do think that he is a great talent and I agree with the op. I just don't think the rock himself is interested or cares about that.
 
Wesley Snipes tried that with Wong Foo. The Rock better bring some real game if he's gonna go the gay way.

Otherwise, at best it will be a forgotten project like Eric Roberts and It's My Party. At worst...it will be the gay version of Keanu Reeves and his accent in Dracula. And I know he played a gay dude in Be Cool, but I have a hard time imagining that performance as the main character in a serious drama.

The best portrayal of a transgender was Guy Pearce in The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

Hugo Weaving and Terence Stamp were ugly as fuck as women. @BisexualMMA

image17.jpg

 
He was his best as a heel in wrestling, so maybe he should try playing bad guys in movies rather than being the hero.

Then again, I don’t watch movies with The Rock in them, so maybe he already is playing bad guys half the time. I don’t know.
 
As opposed to say, Saving Private Ryan's slow-motion D Day sequence or every award winning gang execution based on a true story, or the stark black and white filters during Schindler's list and its infamous balcony scene? Those aren't artistic renditions of their real world subject matter?

How many mainstream films do you see that shoot their characters to death absent musical accompaniment or elegant shot compositions? You get arthouse films with victims screaming into a void.

I think my point is that he has a hard time restraining himself from descending into Bayisms, even when it works against the scene or tone you want to give him credit for trying to achieve.

Moments before the "walking away from the explosion in slow mo" shot, the three murderers were bumbling fools. Anthony Mackie was clinically retarded for putting on the seatbelt, Wahlberg was just barely making the plans work after being idiot enough to wear his distinctive cologne or whatever, and The Rock was engaged in his religious "Mike Tyson caring for pigeons" buffoonery so that the three of them were just barely succeeding at making the car crash with Shalhoub in it, and were still bickering.

But now that it was time for Shalhoub to actually die, Bay does it the only way he knows how. Low angle shot of Wahlberg swinging the fire thing in slow mo, and then walk away like Seal Team Six as the car explodes behind them, just like they planned...so exactly according to plan that they don't even need to look back in surprise at how loud it was or dive for cover from shrapnel or burning gasoline or anything.

Thirty seconds earlier, these guys were buffoons of the highest order, buckling up murder victims to make their own plot fail and then bickering in the street like...three fat black women in any other Michael Bay movie.

But now the page says the car burns so Michael Bay does it the only way Michael Bay can. Something's on fire and blows up, so somebody has to be a stud walking away from that blowing up stuff.

Like I've said about this movie several times now, that scene still works...well enough. But I actually can't even picture Bay setting up the part where the car burns any other way, regardless of what kind of movie he is making.

I just have a hard time keeping a straight face when I see something like Michael Bay's...fortieth? slow mo explosion shot mentioned alongside the directorial choices in Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan.

At this point, I don't know if it's even a directorial choice for Bay rather than a reflex.
 
Last edited:
I think my point is that he has a hard time restraining himself from descending into Bayisms, even when it works against the scene or tone you want to give him credit for trying to achieve.

Moments before the "walking away from the explosion in slow mo" shoti, the three murderers were bumbling fools. Anthony Mackie was clinically retarded for putting on the seatbelt, Wahlberg was just barely making the plans work after being idiot enough to wear his distinctive cologne or whatever, and The Rock was engaged in his religious "Mike Tyson caring for pigeons" buffoonery so that the three of them were just barely succeeding at making the car crash with Shalhoub in it, and were still bickering.

But now that it was time for Shalhoub to actually die, Bay does it the only way he knows how. Low angle shot of Wahlberg swinging the fire thing in slow mo, and then walk away like Seal Team Six as the car explodes behind them, just like they planned...so exactly according to plan that they don't even need to look back in surprise at how loud it was or dive for cover from shrapnel or burning gasoline or anything.

Thirty seconds earlier, these guys were buffoons of the highest order, buckling up murder victims to make their own plot fail and then bickering in the street like...three fat black women in any other Michael Bay movie.

But now the page says the car burns so Michael Bay does it the only way Michael Bay can. Something's on fire and blows up, so somebody has to be a stud walking away from that blowing up stuff.

Like I've said about this movie several times now, that scene still works...well enough. But I actually can't even picture Bay setting up the part where the car burns any other way, regardless of what kind of movie he is making.

I just have a hard time keeping a straight face when I see something like Michael Bay's...fortieth? slow mo explosion shot mentioned alongside the directorial choices in Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan.

At this point, I don't know if it's even a directorial choice for Bay rather than a reflex.

In a story about glamorized hubris turning out to crueler than its charisma I'd absolutely justify those same types of antiheroes thinking they're cool for strutting away from a man burning to death

It's pretty satirical for you to accuse it of glamorizing violence- that's the point of Lugo's vision of himself
 
Last edited:
In a story about glamorized hubris turning out to crueler than its charisma I'd absolutely justify those same types of antiheroes thinking they're cool for strutting away from a man burning to death

It's pretty satirical for you to accuse it of glamorizing violence- that's the point of Lugo's vision

But isn't The Rock's character, who you described I think as a tragic patsy, with his own movie about being sucked into this crime story, the kind who might not think it cool to strut away from such an explosion? Moments earlier he seemed to feel bad about Tony's needless suffering due to the seatbelt.

As the car explodes, all three characters are doing the exact same thing in that shot. But why not...say...have Lugo be the one who thinks he's cool for strutting away, buffoon Mackie dive for cover or be surprised at the explosion and The Rock show some kind of remorse or conflict?

They all acted exactly the same - too cool for school - as the car exploded.

I'll say it again...it worked well enough, and I feel kind of silly splitting hairs about artistic choices and character development in Pain and Gain. But to me that shot in particular just shows how Michael Bay didn't look much deeper than "guys walk away from explosion in studly fashion."
 
He tries too hard.

Walking Tall is his best performance. An actual character, well sort of.
 
He definitely has a bit of that 'Ryan Reynolds' thing going on where he is meant to be a strong ripped lead but is a bit soft/jokey. Reynolds found his place with Deadpool and Van Wilder and just fully embraced it, but maybe Rock can harden the fuck up and make it work? I think he is definitely charismatic enough and he can still be a domineering physical force. Just needs a role that leaves the comedy at the door and is setup to make him shine.

Closest thing he had was Hercules but they still turned that into a "big funny guy" film.

I think you're on to something but I would add that I'd like to see him playing a heel with no comedy. Is there a role where that's done already?

All the best action films of the 80's involved the lead being an actual badass.
 
He tries too hard.

Walking Tall is his best performance. An actual character, well sort of.

Liked that performance, the film wasn't enough though. It was a good watch but comfortable. Showed some acting chops.
 
But isn't The Rock's character, who you described I think as a tragic patsy, with his own movie about being sucked into this crime story, the kind who might not think it cool to strut away from such an explosion? Moments earlier he seemed to feel bad about Tony's needless suffering due to the seatbelt.

As the car explodes, all three characters are doing the exact same thing in that shot. But why not...say...have Lugo be the one who thinks he's cool for strutting away, buffoon Mackie dive for cover or be surprised at the explosion and The Rock show some kind of remorse or conflict?

They all acted exactly the same - too cool for school - as the car exploded.

I'll say it again...it worked well enough, and I feel kind of silly splitting hairs about artistic choices and character development in Pain and Gain. But to me that shot in particular just shows how Michael Bay didn't look much deeper than "guys walk away from explosion in studly fashion."

I completely agree with your points about pain and gain. I turned the film off and came back to it later I found it so unremarkable.

I think the real story hamstrung it a bit, the attempts at comedy seemed forced and the constant monologue from a broadly uninteresting main character was tiresome. I don't think the rocks performance was interesting but I don't thing that was his fault, all three protagonists were pretty one note affairs. I didn't feel like there was enough craft in exposing their motivations, probably because the film makers did not understand how they actually got from point a to b.
 
I completely agree with your points about pain and gain. I turned the film off and came back to it later I found it so unremarkable.

I think the real story hamstrung it a bit, the attempts at comedy seemed forced and the constant monologue from a broadly uninteresting main character was tiresome. I don't think the rocks performance was very good, in fact all three protagonists were pretty one note affairs. I didn't feel like there was enough craft in exposing their motivations, probably because the film makers did not understand how they actually got from point a to b.

I think MacDuffle is stating his case well. I just don't agree with a good portion of it.
 
The Rundown is a classic that is replayed on basic cable all the time along with Walking Tall.

Faster is his "oh shit this guy can act in movies the Academy might respect" moment
The Rundown is amazing and highly underrated. That scene when he finally arms up is epic! Christopher Walken was in fine form too and the guy from American Pie was a good sidekick. It's just a well crafted/acted movie.

For the op, The Rock has his iconic role, and it's him being the Rock. Dude was the best performer of all time IMO and he can always return and entertain countless. He made wrestling worth watching again for me, as I grew up on the Hogan/Cartoon WWF era, which I eventually grew out of.

No one worked a crowd like the Rock



The announcers legit dying :D

 
Last edited:
Ive never watched a movie The Rock was in.

I only know him as Rocky Maivia. And i refuse to know him any other way.

I still chant “Rocky Sucks” every time he’s on screen.
 
But isn't The Rock's character, who you described I think as a tragic patsy, with his own movie about being sucked into this crime story, the kind who might not think it cool to strut away from such an explosion? Moments earlier he seemed to feel bad about Tony's needless suffering due to the seatbelt.

As the car explodes, all three characters are doing the exact same thing in that shot. But why not...say...have Lugo be the one who thinks he's cool for strutting away, buffoon Mackie dive for cover or be surprised at the explosion and The Rock show some kind of remorse or conflict?

They all acted exactly the same - too cool for school - as the car exploded.

I'll say it again...it worked well enough, and I feel kind of silly splitting hairs about artistic choices and character development in Pain and Gain. But to me that shot in particular just shows how Michael Bay didn't look much deeper than "guys walk away from explosion in studly fashion."

I don't have a problem with spectacle-styled overconfidence during a cruel act, in a film satirizing overconfidence fighting a losing battle with its own cruelty. Like you said yourself, the characters had already expressed plenty of reservations before that point. A forward track of the explosion is no different than the dozen shots of glistening biceps and bikinis having their aesthetic cake and eating it too when the glitz and glam comes crashing down later

You also mistake my examples of Saving Private Ryan slowmo or Schindlers black and white filters by claiming they're being ranked alongside this film in terms of greatness. They are all deploying stylistic rendering of subject; good or bad, it's the majority impulse of films to enhance the image rather than reduce its dynamics

That's why when explosive/dynamic moments happen, films tend to track their characters against that background: it's a perfectly normal aestheticism dating all the way back to war portraiture and greek urns and battle tapestries and wotnot
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with spectacle-styled overconfidence during a cruel act, in a film satirizing overconfidence fighting a losing battle with its own cruelty. Like you said yourself, the characters had already expressed plenty of reservations before that point. A forward track of the explosion is no different than the dozen shots of glistening biceps and bikinis having their aesthetic cake and eating it too when the glitz and glam comes crashing down later

You also mistake my examples of Saving Private Ryan slowmo or Schindlers black and white filters by claiming they're being ranked alongside this film in terms of greatness. They are all deploying stylistic rendering of subject; good or bad, it's the majority impulse of films to enhance the image rather than reduce its dynamics

That's why when explosive/dynamic moments happen, films tend to track their characters against that background: it's a perfectly normal aestheticism dating all the way back to war portraiture and greek urns and battle tapestries and wotnot

Okay, but why bring up Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan? It seems like you're suggesting I should praise Michael Bay for stylizing a shot or scene because other great directors also stylize shots and scenes (in markedly different ways). Should I praise or excuse Bay for repeatedly using the same stylized shot, even if inappropriate for the film or scene in question?

I mean, producers don't need John Woo to send in his shooting schedule or storyboards. The moment he's signed on to direct, they make the call to their "dove guy" to make sure he has his birds ready for whenever John Woo needs them. Even if he's remaking Terms of Endearment, there will be some scene where doves fly around in a church while some guy dives across the screen firing two guns in slow motion.

So you've now phrased it as "stylistic rendering of subject; good or bad" - but how much credit am I supposed to give for either bad or inappropriate stylistic rendering in a given shot or scene?
 
Okay, but why bring up Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan? It seems like you're suggesting I should praise Michael Bay for stylizing a shot or scene because other great directors also stylize shots and scenes (in markedly different ways). Should I praise or excuse Bay for repeatedly using the same stylized shot, even if inappropriate for the film or scene in question?

I mean, producers don't need John Woo to send in his shooting schedule or storyboards. The moment he's signed on to direct, they make the call to their "dove guy" to make sure he has his birds ready for whenever John Woo needs them. Even if he's remaking Terms of Endearment, there will be some scene where doves fly around in a church while some guy dives across the screen firing two guns in slow motion.

So you've now phrased it as "stylistic rendering of subject; good or bad" - but how much credit am I supposed to give for either bad or inappropriate stylistic rendering in a given shot or scene?


Aestheticism
 
ITT we debate whether John Woo used too many doves

And whether characters should turn around to look at explosions before taking out their phone and calling the fire department and waiting ten minutes until they arrive

Instead of walking away with shades on

Whether a stylistic rendering of subject delights or pisses you off largely depends on your affection for the subject matter. If WW2 soldiers are being gutted in slow motion, a sizeable audience will treat it with historical reverence. If Tom Cruise's Space Marine #5 is gutted in slow motion, you may not give a shit

But as far a filmmaking is concerned both shots must be recognized as the type of stylized shot they are, whether we're talking about forward tracks in slow motion or a push on close up.

Whether a fictional sci-fi moves you to tears or strikes you as the dumbest f*cking genre ever shouldn't affect your ability to recognize the type of shot used and your understanding of why that stylism was used to complement its subject
 
Last edited:
Back
Top