Michael bay's violent action film Ghost Attack shattered logic and story.

After the failure of Transformers 5: The Last Knight, even though I deeply love the "michael bay Doctrine", I can clearly feel that michael bay is a spent force and can no longer bring joy to the audience through the robot battle series.

Therefore, I was particularly excited to hear that he was going to make a spy war action movie. On the one hand, perhaps by changing the theme, we can get back the surprise and emotion that michael bay brought us in "Jedi Men" and "Braving the Island".

What really surprised me about Ghost Attack: Fighting Violence with Violence this time is that michael bay seems to be no longer bound by the grading system and box office pressure of large-scale production by big factories, and he jokingly performed the bloody scenes in Brave Island and The End of the World before, and it was fun.

You will see that when the car is chasing, the car rushes directly into the crowd, and passers-by are hit by batches like unparalleled soldiers; Or when the villain chasing the protagonist drives into an excavator or construction site on the side of the road, the picture will clearly see that objects such as steel bars and fragments are directly plunged into the bad guys, and plasma splashes; When it exploded, it was also obvious that there were bodies flying out of the fire.

Of course, this bloody degree is harmless, but it is really difficult for us to see such a straightforward and disgusting bloody picture in a large-scale action movie shown in a cinema. If we use michael bay's famous slow-motion lens to present it, if we spray bright red blood on the yellow face of the woman in green, and match it with the building with blue background, it is not an exaggeration to call that moment "beautiful". This is definitely a relief and an feast for the eyes, and I am glad to see it.

However, judging from the overall action scenes in this film, it is obvious that michael bay's rhythm and atmosphere are not as sharp as those in previous works such as Jedi Police II and Transformers, or his vision has failed to catch up with the current audience. Even in these action scenes, every shot is so beautifully designed and the scheduling is so complicated, but together, we can't feel the crisis and close call faced by these agents.

Sometimes editing is too slow; Sometimes I deliberately stop to watch Ryan Reynolds and other characters talk rubbish; Sometimes the camera shakes so much that it is not clear who is hitting who now, and the fight is over.

In a word, the action scene of Ghost Attack: Fighting Violence with Violence is really spectacular and gorgeous, but the tension and excitement it should have can't be properly presented, so it can only be a scene that makes people feel dull and visually tired.

Finally, I want to mention the story of this movie.

I used to say that when watching michael bay's movies, we should not pay too much attention to stories. They all talk about flat characters, cartoon-like simple plots and illogical worldview settings. Therefore, when watching Pearl Harbor, we probably won't pay too much attention to historical textual research or superficial love triangle.

Even if we go to see Transformers 5, it's as bad as it can be, and we don't think there's anything to say. We just pieced together some plots, just to connect them with the later war scenes, and we thought, "That's just a bad script and a bad story."

However, from Ghost Attack: Fighting Violence with Violence, we know that michael bay is no longer good at narration. It is totally illogical to jump and flashback between plots. For example, at the beginning of the movie, I was watching Ryan Reynolds fly a plane and inexplicably started chasing cars. After a few minutes, I jumped back to talk about what happened before the car race. Or one second, the protagonists are chatting in the coffee shop, and the next, they suddenly talk about what happened in Ryan Reynolds's refugee camp.

Although all the plots are laid out in this way, the audience can still infer the cause and effect and understand the whole story, but when michael bay connects these stories together, it is almost a feeling of confusion, which leads to emotional disorder and incoherence in the middle part of the play. Either the director won't use this flashback and stream-of-consciousness fragment to describe it, or michael bay really lost the ability to tell a coherent story.

See how fierce the flashback of Watcher is played by Rizac Schneider and how strange the stream of consciousness of the beautiful girl commando is. At least the transition is clever and won't make the audience feel confused and uncomfortable.

It can only be said that michael bay blew up everything in the shooting scene, such as cars and houses, and also blew up the "story" by the way, so the whole story narrative is just fragmented fragments that can't be pieced together. Not to mention the mood and story connotation of the characters.

First, I have no idea why the protagonist suddenly flouts all the laws and regulations in the world and wants to "be free" by pretending to be dead after witnessing the tragic situation in a refugee camp.

Second, why did the protagonist go from a man who did whatever it took to ignore his teammates to a humane leader? What mental journey he experienced in the middle, the plot is completely unknown.

The only thing that can run through the whole scene is probably Ryan Reynolds's clumsy character and other characters who love to talk nonsense. If some jokes weren't really funny and didn't amuse me, the literary drama of this film would probably end up as impatient as "Pay and Harvest" ...

In a word, michael bay once again proved his superb skills in large-scale scene scheduling, keen vision of visual aesthetics, and poor narrative ability. Although this is a bit excessive, I feel more and more that Michael Bay should really be a director of the Second Regiment, and it is also good to help others shoot some action scenes. It is more appropriate to leave the work of telling stories to others.