An establishing shot of an expensive muscle car follows a fade-in from the opening credits, and the camera zooms in closer to catch the profile of the attractive male protagonist. He speeds down a highway and in some other location, his sexy lady friend worries about him (or maybe she joins him on his adventure). He increases his speed and swerves in and out of normal citizens who are simply trying to commute to work or home. Someone is chasing him. Someone shoots a gun. Something explodes. The highway is now a literal wreck. But it doesn’t end there! The film will continue with gratuitous explosions, sex appeal and product placement. You are watching a Michael Bay film.

1. There’s an utter lack of substance.

Film is art, and while I understand the film industry is also a business, it’s hard to look past the way Bay’s films lack the body and soul, which I believe is essential to a good movie. Sure, it’s great to see something that doesn’t make you really think and is easy to consume, but the movie literally adds nothing to film culture except for a profuse amount of boobs, guys being dudes and fiery explosions from hell.

2. The films focus on overfilled scenes and threadbare screenwriting.

Have you seen "Bad Boys" (1 and 2)? Have you seen any of the "Transformers" films? As much as his films lack substance, there’s too much stuff. And by stuff, I mean sequences filled with too many visual effects and ineffectual moments of dialogue acting as a filler between moments of high, convoluted action. If the audience isn’t distracted by Megan Fox and her glistening (code for sweaty) body, than we are surely shoving popcorn into our mouths and watching some macho dude shooting military-grade weapons and blowing up a bridge, car or whatever is closest.

3. One word: cinematography.

Maybe I’m just a film snob. Maybe Michael Bay just sucks. It’s a subjective opinion, but I don’t believe for one second that he employs skill or consideration (besides the fact he is clearly a very smart businessman since his audience easily opens up their wallets to see his films) behind the cinematography. My problem is that so many directors are capable of producing war films or action movies that don’t lack where it matters. All I’m saying is that Michael Bay majored in slow motion, babes and fire.

4. Speaking of cinematography, the sound of his films is damn near frightening.

This statement might be misleading or confusing. Let me clarify: His movies are just blatant noise. It’s visually noisy because of congested scenes and mise-en-scene (which means "everything on screen," from the blocking to the props). It’s aurally noisy because of poor sound editing, choked dialogue and constant digression from character development to insert those incessant explosions. They’re so loud and so tactless. Cringe.

5. The mentality behind his films is money.

Bay’s movies make money, and money makes the world go round. I’m 99 percent sure Hollywood writes him a blank check with a "why bother" attitude because the big wigs know Bay’s target audience will always financially deliver. Bay probably has so much money from his poorly directed films, he has a "why bother" mentality himself with the cash in his bank account. There is a fine line between art and the business behind art. I will always be convinced if one feels comfortable with compromising the art for the money, it isn’t even art anymore.

6. They’re not watched because they’re popular; they’re popular because they’re watched.

This means the Bay flicks aren’t popular because people necessary want them but because they’re easily consumed and understood. They are simple enough without thinking too hard, and intriguing because the movies provide the action our rather mundane and often ordinary lives may lack. It doesn't mean we necessarily like these movies; they just offer some sort of weird, explosive escape.

7. The movies lack logical sense.

There is a ton of discourse between the "Transformers" films. The story literally does not matter because as previously mentioned, it isn’t about the substance. It’s about the spectacle and the viewer turnout. It isn’t about what the viewer takes away, but what monetary value the viewer contributes at the highest possible volume. So, while these films (specifically the ones of the series variety) succeed in appeal to a massive audience, they fail with connections and significance.

8. He’s a bit of an insolent man.

Yes, this relates to his films, and this is not me just picking on him. According to Bay, “[The consumers] love to hate, and I don’t care; let them hate. They’re still going to see the movie! I think it’s good to get a little tension. Very good.” Pay attention: Michael Bay knows we hate his movies (even if we can mindlessly enjoy them). He knows. And he uses it to his benefit. Does this negatively impact the world or humanity? Probably not. Bay isn’t killing anyone after all, but he is killing a part of our culture and creative sustenance.

Here’s what I believe to be true about Bay and his films, based upon what I’ve taken away from watching them: He lacks passion. The plots are empty, the characters are static and the entirety of the film relies on action-based sequences that don’t provide anything but a visually stimulating experience. Even then, those sequences are overused, and we’re left with the same movie set in different cities and experienced by different characters.