Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Review

[Hemi-Cuda]

watched the movie today, it was exactly what i expected. i want to see robots beating the **** of of each other, and i got exactly that (much better fights than the first movie). what i do agree with on all the negative reviews though is the length, they could have easily taken out 30 minutes from the runtime and the movie would have been better for it. that stupid new nerd sidekick could have been removed completely, as could have the presidential whipping boy. the whole long distance relationship stuff could have been cut as well

i was also quite disappointed in how Devastator was used, for being the biggest, baddest Transformer he should have been so much more. i actually said to my buddy when those two twin bots were climbing and beating on Devastator that it was like the Ewoks all over again

overall though i was entertained, they've stayed close enough to the source material for my liking and seeing Megatron run away from Optimus like a little bitch was great

[Resolute 14]

The good: The bot fights

The bad: everything else. And I mean everything. There was no need for 15 different characters to serve as comic relief. The acting was bad, the lines were bad, the storyline was a pathetic rip off of Star Wars, the Matrix and Indiana Jones. The movie was at least 90 minutes too long given what actual content there was.

And yet, somehow, it was better than the first.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I suspect it's kind of like Batman Begins fighting where it's all closeups and random flashing around with with big metal bits that all look dark and shiny and mechanical and all the same while the camera is shaking and spinning.

Yeah whats with this "new" method of filming fight scenes where you can't tell which guy is which and the camera bobs and weaves and makes you nauseous.

I think its crap. I wanna see the action, not have to guess at what is happening.

Hard to say when I first noticed this, definitely the 2nd or 3rd Bourne movie had a lot of that filming style.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I often enjoy the mindless action films.

But this one was pretty weak. Like I said above the fight scenes are filmed terribly for the most party.

Script was bad. Movie was trying to be a comedy and an action film at the same time and failing.

Hopefully sometime in the future somebody attempts to resurrect the Transformers idea with some real talent in the writing and director positions.

The wasted potential here reminds me of how the Batman series was after the first two.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Wife and 14 year old son loved it.

I got to work. Very happy. I didn't have to waste a trip to the theater to see either one. I've never been a fan of these types of movies. That's not to say that they are a waste for everyone, they're not. I just want to get more out of my theater trips because they are few and far between these days.

Now maybe the next time we go I will get to pick the film since they've had their fix.

[Mr.Coffee]

While watching this abortion, I honestly tried to like it. Unfortunately Bay decided to go the wrong direction on... actually pretty much everything.

Pros-

1. Forest scene is killer.
2. Megan Fox

Cons-

Ok here we go. First of all, why are all the people orange / tanned / greasy / kinda sweaty ALL the time? Like EG said I seriously do not get this, everyone looks like they need a shower. Parent scenes are cheesy x 500. Just brutal. Racial innuendos with the twin robots much? Can't tell whats going on with the action scenes, talk about sensory overload. Which robot is which? Good luck figuring that out. Old robot with cane and "beard"... lame. Story, better than I thought it would be I guess but a little unexplained for me. Why are there only like 3 autobots and 50000 decepticons? Half of Shanghai gets destroyed but these things are still a secret???? What?? The end of this one is the same as the end of the last one, Sam running to a location during a big fight scene... no intros for robots, couldn't tell at all who was who. Robot humping leg was stupid and randomly switching sides...?

Wow.. I could on for hours on this disaster. At least try, Bay. I know its for kids but that was just awful. First one DESTROYS this one.. not even close.

They need to do more with the story of Starscream taking over from Megatron.. they barely touch it and it's at least an interesting segway in a very narrow story.

[Blaster86]

Optimus hits Megatron with a tree, all your arguments against this film are irrelevant.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Optimus hits Megatron with a tree, all your arguments against this film are irrelevant.

Optimus essentially ass rapes the entire Decepticons at the end.

/thread

[MarchHare]

Roger Ebert wrote an excellent editorial piece (in addition to his 1 star review linked earlier in this thread) explaining precisely why this film is so awful. He uses many of the same arguments some of us have made here, but he's a much, much, much better writer than any of us.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009...revengers.html

As for Michael Bay, he is only 44 and I hope he tires of this nonsense and returns to making real movies. He was only 31 when he made "Bad Boys" in 1995, and 32 when he made "The Rock." He had been in TV for years. He was a prodigy, like Steven Spielberg, But Spielberg was 47 when he directed "Schindler's List." Michael Bay seems to be evolving in the wrong direction.

So is the hyperactive blockbuster CGI action genre. If there is one thing everyone in Hollywood thinks they know for sure, it's that the three most important words in movie development are story, story, story. This is not a story: A group of inconsequential human characters watch animation.

The very best films in this genre, like Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" and Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man 2," had compelling characters, depended on strong human performances, told great stories, and skillfully integrated the live-action and the CGI.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...nsformers2.htm

Transformers has made nearly 400 million worldwide in 5 days and that's with some TERRIBLE reviews. I can only think that if it had half decent reviews, hell even mixed reviews, it would be a lot higher.

201 domestically, just shy of Dark Knight's 5 day record. 30 of my dollars are in that. I saw it twice including a 17 dollar Imax show....god that's expensive for a bigger screen.

[Thunderball]

Ebert is right, but of course, as a movie snob, I think he misses the point.

Sometimes things that are beautifully made, well-thought, and perfectly acted are simply not entertaining, at all.

Yes, there were ample flaws in this movie. Yet, there were ample flaws in Star Trek, he disliked that too (most critics ignored the gaping ST plot holes), but it also was well-received by moviegoers.

Are the Transformers movies going to stand toe-to-toe with the Godfather Saga, Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Schinder's List, etc. No. But I don't think it ever wanted to.

I think Transformers was designed to be an overwhelming feast of the senses, and there's definitely a huge market for that. I don't think the CGI action fests are going the way of the western by any means.

[MarchHare]

Are the Transformers movies going to stand toe-to-toe with the Godfather Saga, Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Schinder's List, etc. No. But I don't think it ever wanted to.

One thing you need to know about Ebert: he's not a movie snob who only likes serious arthouse films. The point of the article is that he was examining how Transformers 2 compares unfavourably to other films in the summer blockbuster genre. He specifically compares it to its peers in The Dark Knight, Spiderman 2, Iron Man, and Wall-E (all of which Ebert rated very highly). Unlike Transformers 2, those other films had compelling characters and a strong story to go along with their action sequences and CGI effects shots.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

One thing you need to know about Ebert: he's not a movie snob who only likes serious arthouse films. The point of the article is that he was examining how Transformers 2 compares unfavourably to other films in the summer blockbuster genre. He specifically compares it to its peers in The Dark Knight, Spiderman 2, Iron Man, and Wall-E (all of which Ebert rated very highly). Unlike Transformers 2, those other films had compelling characters and a strong story to go along with their action sequences and CGI effects shots.

Of course, aside from Wall-E (which I'd argue doesn't fit with the more teen-adult themed movies), those top movies have very notable stars who have done a lot of more "conventional" movies.

Christian Bale, Robert Downey Jr, Tobey Maguire, Heath Ledger, Jeff Bridges, Alfred Molina, etc. are well known actors with top end drama credits. But of course, they are playing iconic roles. Transformers, aside from Jon Voight in the first one, is really made up of relative unknowns, b-listers, and few with anything resembling an impressive resume anywhere close to the principal casts in Dark Knight, Spiderman 2 or Iron Man. The stars of Transformers are Optimus Prime and Megatron, and their comrades. The humans are secondary. Those stars happen to be CGI robots mixed with human supporting cast, which due to their complexity, is jarring. I actually wonder if this movie would have had better reviews if they swapped out the human actors for something a little more A-List even with the paper thin plot.

This differs it both from Wall-E (completely CGI cast), and the top superhero movies (completely human cast).

Ebert isn't a full-on arthouse movie snob, but he definitely is one. If he doesn't feel the plot and acting are top notch, the movie can have little redeeming quality.

[Blaster86]

Roger Ebert's argument is also irrelevant.

Prime hits Megatron with a tree. A tree. A. TREE.

This movie is impervious to your pithy logic.

[3 Justin 3]

Ebert said Spiderman 2 had a good story. His point is mute in my eyes. Spiderman 2 was terrible.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Ebert said Spiderman 2 had a good story. His point is mute in my eyes. Spiderman 2 was terrible.

Are you sure you're not confusing it with Spiderman 3 (which was godawful)? Spiderman 2 was the best in the series, IMO.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...nsformers2.htm

Transformers has made nearly 400 million worldwide in 5 days and that's with some TERRIBLE reviews. I can only think that if it had half decent reviews, hell even mixed reviews, it would be a lot higher.

201 domestically, just shy of Dark Knight's 5 day record. 30 of my dollars are in that. I saw it twice including a 17 dollar Imax show....god that's expensive for a bigger screen.

The problem here is Transformers huge cult following. People that love Transformers go to see robots change shape and beat each other up. That's the only thing both of these movies have going for them, and that is all the mega transformer geeks need to go see this movie three or four times. So far, I think it is the nearly universal opinion of anyone who isn't a dedicated fan of Transformers that this is an awful movie.

Case in point, I only went and saw this because one of my good friends is a ridiculous transformers nerd. Based on how bad the first was, I wouldn't have gone to this one otherwise. As it is, when the inevitable third movie comes out, he's on his own. Both transformers movies have been complete garbage. Not getting fooled a third time.

[flip]

I don't know if it has been posted already but South Park (as usual) got it right about Michael Bay.

General: [to the specialist] Get him out of here. [M. Night Shyalaman is hauled away, only to be replaced by...] Mr. Bay, can you thnk of any idea how to outwit these terrorists?

Michael Bay: I believe I can. [the officials get their pens ready to write] We start... by making a big CG building and then we have a meteor go CROSSHH! [makes a diving motion with his left arm] and it, and it's all like CRAAWWWLL [simulates an explosion with his arms] a-and motorcycles burst into flame while they jump over these helicopters, right? [has his right hand go over his left arm like a motorcycle over a helicopter]

General: [firmly] No no! We need ideas how to stop the terrorists! Michael Bay: An eighteen-wheeler spins out of control and it's all like BROSSHH [makes a crashing motion with his right hand] And then this huuuge tanker full of dyna- [launches into a series of explosions]

General: [fed up] Those aren't ideas, those are special effects!

Michael Bay: I... don't understand the difference.

General: I know you don't. Get him out of here! [next in the chair is Mel Gibson] Aaand being that we are all big Mel Gibson film fans, we thought maybe you could help us.

[burn_this_city]

I'd say the plot has evolved immensely since the tv show from the 80's. Overally I really didnt think it was a bad movie. I didnt realize we were looking for hyper realism or super complex character development in 2 hours of robots fighting.

[burnin_vernon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Of course, aside from Wall-E (which I'd argue doesn't fit with the more teen-adult themed movies), those top movies have very notable stars who have done a lot of more "conventional" movies.

Christian Bale, Robert Downey Jr, Tobey Maguire, Heath Ledger, Jeff Bridges, Alfred Molina, etc. are well known actors with top end drama credits. But of course, they are playing iconic roles. Transformers, aside from Jon Voight in the first one, is really made up of relative unknowns, b-listers, and few with anything resembling an impressive resume anywhere close to the principal casts in Dark Knight, Spiderman 2 or Iron Man. The stars of Transformers are Optimus Prime and Megatron, and their comrades. The humans are secondary. Those stars happen to be CGI robots mixed with human supporting cast, which due to their complexity, is jarring. I actually wonder if this movie would have had better reviews if they swapped out the human actors for something a little more A-List even with the paper thin plot.

It doesn't matter who stars when the characters are so poorly written. Spiderman (seems to be the common ground here) 3 had all the big names too but was nowhere near as compelling as the first two. Why? Because Peter Parker, Sandman, and Venom were terribly written. No matter who starred in it, seeing the protagonist dance around in a piano bar with an emo hair cut isn't going to cut it for anyone.

That being said, it is hard to have a robot as a compelling character, which is why I didn't like much of Transformers to begin with