Are you serious?
I admit i enjoyed Charlies Angels 1+2 but only on a superficial level because it was so goofy and funny.
The only advantage he has on Bay is that he didn't discover shaky cam (yet).
Both are popcorn directors and i'd call neither one a good director...
I am serious. He fucked up on T4, there's no question. He allowed the studio to meddle too much. He allowed a star to come in and shake things up with his demands. Then, to top it all off, he paid too much heed to the internet and freaked out to the bad response the original screenplay made, and halfway through production (and this partly due to the aforementioned studio meddling) started changing things around so as not to piss people off. All horrible, horrible mistakes, and I hope he's learned lessons.
But if you look at the Charlie's Angels movies and his other directing work, the guy has a steady eye. He knows how to construct a through line when it would be easy to go off the rail, and he has an incredible talent for retention of tone and visual key. All things Michael Bay does not
have. Look at a McG action sequence and a Bay action sequence, and a McG one is far more visceral in a perceptually retainable yet still kinetic way.
i'm still laughing when it was pointed out to him how that big humancollector robot was able to "sneak" up on that house in the middle of the desert and ambush everyone and he was stunned because he couldn't explain it.
Someone should point that out to Captain Craig