Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Review

[Jason14h]

I am yet to see any review say this movie is anything other then complete crap, including people at my work who saw the Monday Night Screening. (And they all likes the first one)

I have a feeling this movie might make Spiderman 3 look good

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

The point isn't that it wasn't a terrible movie - which it was ... but somewhere along the line the writers, studio, director, etc. decide for it to be a mindless action movie and it becomes even more crap when it doesn't need to be. (Mostly Bale's fault, he supposedly turned the entire concept upside down to give his character as Connor more screentime than he should ever have had).

It can be fun and full of action and yet have some substances and poignancy toward the human condition.

Let's look at Terminator 2 - that was like the ultimate in fun action movies and yet you had much deeper stories and subplots like you had a story of the fatherless Jon Connor - finding a surrogate father in a machine...and watching a kid lose his new dad (or Uncle Bob) and best friend all over again to save the human race. It also a warning about the dangerous of technology and nuclear annhilation and taking your current world and your life for granted as it could end just like that without anybody realizing it. It was also a story of maternal love and motherly instincts for a son like no other...and the redemption and catharsis for a woman who had spent years harboring only hatred for machines to realize that there was something she could respect in the Terminator...and that man and machine can work together.

That's an easy one.....James Cameron is just a better director than McG. Cameron is a genius in my opinion.

[MarchHare]

Well, in the case of Transformers, it's kinda hard to make it serious, or dark and edgy or whatever you want when the premise is as silly as it is. It's a movie based on a set of children's toys but everyone wants it to be more.....I don't get it.

I know, right! Can you imagine if someone tried to make a serious film about a children's comic book character who dresses up like a bat and fights a clown? There's no way you could possibly make anything but a mindless film from that silly premise.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I know, right! Can you imagine if someone tried to make a serious film about a children's comic book character who dresses up like a bat and fights a clown? There's no way you could possibly make anything but a mindless film from that silly premise.

Yeah, because there wasn't a darker component to the Batman characters. Bad comparison.

Optimus Prime was lame and cheesy in the cartoons and he's lame and cheesy in the movies, but he can kick some serious robot ass.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Well, in the case of Transformers, it's kinda hard to make it serious, or dark and edgy or whatever you want when the premise is as silly as it is. It's a movie based on a set of children's toys but everyone wants it to be more.....I don't get it.

It has nothing to do with being serious or dark or edgy. Substance is not about being 'gritty'. It's about good stories that are intelligent with human touches that make you think about things.

For the Transformers? I've never liked the premise of the new movies, the Allspark that they are fighting for is realy an All-Macguffin that is just an arbitrary plot-object that two opposing good/evil forces are fighting over. It could be anything at all. The old cartoon was pretty terrible and silly but the basic story was actually pretty interesting as it an allegory to the energy crisis of the 70s and 80s.

In the original cartoon, the reason the Autobots and Decepticons left Cybertron is that years of war had left their planet barren, ruined, and starved of energy and no more resources of any kind and they went out into the universe in search of new sources of energy. The Decepticon's chief goal became plundering earth's natural resources and energy and sending it back to Cybertron to continue the war while the Autobots stayed to protect the humans from Decepticon attacks. The decepticons were stealing Earth's supplies of oil, strip mining, drilling to the earth's core, etc. and basically wrecking the planet to extract all the things they wanted. There was an environmental angle you could go after.

[awildermode]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I hate the idea that movies just have to be "mindless summer fun". I was listening to Christian Bale talking about Terminator Salvation and he kept dissing his own movie: "we are kidding ourselves, if we say this is anything other than what it is, a great fun summer action flick - people are here to see the explosions and big machines, that's all"

Sorry, that B.S. Movies can be fun, explosive, action-adventures and NOT be mindless. Terminator could have been so much more. It reminds me of Superman III when Christopher Reeve kept saying in interviews that the movie looks like it "just flew out of the comic pages" - as in it's only worthwhile as comedic pulp for children...and that was a honest assesement for how terrible that movie was...but again, there is no reason why things have to be that way.

the problem is obvious:

Terminator - McG
Transformers - Michael Bay

these guys are great at visuals and making things go boom...and hot chicks in slow-mo. they are poor story tellers, do not know how to develop characters, move the story forward, and incorporate plot.

on the other side:

Star Trek - JJ Abrams
Up - Pixar (Pete Docter)

These guys (especially Pixar) know how to tell a story, character development, plot. stuff movies should be based on. They also sprinkle in eye candy where needed.

movies built on the foundation of "special effects", brand, or actor are generally huge disappointments. yeah, GI Joe is gonna suck. ones built on the foundation of story, plot and character development are the ones that last.

"summer movies" are usually mindless demo reels of special effects, there is nothing wrong with that. they make money and entertain the audience...and spawn sequels for years to come, which leads to more money. as long as people are paying to see these, they will keep making them. heck, i will buy it when transformers comes on dvd, but most likely not see it in theater...unless it is for free.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Yeah, because there wasn't a darker component to the Batman characters. Bad comparison.

Not really.

Nobody is saying an action film has to be "dark" or "edgy" to not be mindless. "The Incredibles", for example, is a wonderful superhero movie full of up-beat, lively characters and bright palettes. Ditto for the most recent Star Trek film. The difference between great films like The Dark Knight and The Incredibles and junk like Transformers 2 or Terminator 4 is that the former treats their audience with respect and knows they want to see a compelling, well-written story in addition to cool action sequences whereas the latter just want to beat the audience senseless with big explosions and loud noises.

[Blaster86]

"The glorious Micheal Bay has killed the infidel James Cameron. He is burning in a fiery pit after being slain by the glorious Michael Bay. By Primus' will, these infidel movies "Up" and "Star Trek" will be crushed beneath the heel of the mighty Transformers, and their intricate plot and greatness."

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by awildermode

the problem is obvious:



Star Trek - JJ Abrams
Up - Pixar (Pete Docter)

These guys (especially Pixar) know how to tell a story, character development, plot. stuff movies should be based on. They also sprinkle in eye candy where needed.

movies built on the foundation of "special effects", brand, or actor are generally huge disappointments. yeah, GI Joe is gonna suck. ones built on the foundation of story, plot and character development are the ones that last.

"summer movies" are usually mindless demo reels of special effects, there is nothing wrong with that. they make money and entertain the audience...and spawn sequels for years to come, which leads to more money. as long as people are paying to see these, they will keep making them. heck, i will buy it when transformers comes on dvd, but most likely not see it in theater...unless it is for free.

JJ also seems to love lens flairs and a main complaint with him is that he is style of substance as well. Just not to the McG degree. And speaking of GI Joe I read somewhere that Stephan Sommers might have been fired by the studio and that they hired Stuart Bart to finish editing etc.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It has nothing to do with being serious or dark or edgy. Substance is not about being 'gritty'. It's about good stories that are intelligent with human touches that make you think about things.

For the Transformers? I've never liked the premise of the new movies, the Allspark that they are fighting for is realy an All-Macguffin that is just an arbitrary plot-object that two opposing good/evil forces are fighting over. It could be anything at all. The old cartoon was pretty terrible and silly but the basic story was actually pretty interesting as it an allegory to the energy crisis of the 70s and 80s.

In the original cartoon, the reason the Autobots and Decepticons left Cybertron is that years of war had left their planet barren, ruined, and starved of energy and no more resources of any kind and they went out into the universe in search of new sources of energy. The Decepticon's chief goal became plundering earth's natural resources and energy and sending it back to Cybertron to continue the war while the Autobots stayed to protect the humans from Decepticon attacks. The decepticons were stealing Earth's supplies of oil, strip mining, drilling to the earth's core, etc. and basically wrecking the planet to extract all the things they wanted. There was an environmental angle you could go after.

I can't agree with you on this debate. I don't see any problems with a movie having a lame story, or very little character development, or any allegories. I went to the movie last night to see crap being blown up, and I got what I wanted. Would the movie have been better if there was more substance to it??? Probably, but I didn't walk out of the theatre really caring.

I understand what you're trying to say here, I really do, but I just can't agree. I know that makes me sound like some dumb punk ass kid....

[Yeah_Baby]

Does Transformers 2 have the Orci/Kurtzman one liners?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

For the Transformers? I've never liked the premise of the new movies, the Allspark that they are fighting for is realy an All-Macguffin that is just an arbitrary plot-object that two opposing good/evil forces are fighting over. It could be anything at all. The old cartoon was pretty terrible and silly but the basic story was actually pretty interesting as it an allegory to the energy crisis of the 70s and 80s.

The immobilizer, the negavator, the energy of the peruvian temple, kremzeek, Deceptitran, the golden lagoon, Prime's new Cosmotron, the Matrix, Unicron, B.O.T, Nightbird.

Damn those new movies for having a static Macguffin! I liked it better when it changed every episode/movie too!

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

In the original cartoon, the reason the Autobots and Decepticons left Cybertron is that years of war had left their planet barren, ruined, and starved of energy and no more resources of any kind and they went out into the universe in search of new sources of energy. The Decepticon's chief goal became plundering earth's natural resources and energy and sending it back to Cybertron to continue the war while the Autobots stayed to protect the humans from Decepticon attacks. The decepticons were stealing Earth's supplies of oil, strip mining, drilling to the earth's core, etc. and basically wrecking the planet to extract all the things they wanted. There was an environmental angle you could go after.

It was a toy commercial. You're going waaaaay to deep into it. I find that the "Years of war left the planet a lifeless metal orb forcing those still alive to escape it to survive, while hunting what was once the life force of the planet," a lot better than, "We need energy." Especially since there's a 4 million year gap where the planet apparently was fine without the Energy they were hunting for.

[Hack&Lube]

Regardless of the things I've said against mindless movies, Transformers the Movie (1986) is one of my favorite movies of all time and that's really nothing more than a rip-off of the Star Wars story but it had beautiful art, crazy worlds, and kick-ass soundtrack because it basically was a 120 minute Toy Commercial set to the style of Heavy Metal (the movie/magazine) complete with it's own heavy metal soundtrack.

[Hack&Lube]

I agree, there's not much you can do to make the Transformers less "mindless" but you can easily make a movie more fun with more humanity and insight and deeper thought and better made. It's sort of the difference between Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. I still stand by what I said about certain movies like Terminator, etc. Most people 20 years ago only thought Superhero flicks could only be silly and comic book like and pulp fun but we've turned that corner I think. Again, I have to clarify - it has nothing to do with realism or grittiness or seriousnous or darkness...But just good writing.

I haven't seen Revenge of the Fallen but it seems to me most of the new addons (the new Wheelie - please no!) are just more George Lucas Ewoks/Jar Jar Binks Malaise that are not good in any form whatsoever.

[Pagal4321]

People's expectations of this movie are so skewed that it makes me laugh.

The first one was mindless entertainment, so why expect ANYTHING different with the second? And hell, there will probably be a third that follows the SAME formula.

Sure some people are going to want a detailed, coherent story along with crazy graphics and explosions. But if you want a movie like that go watch Star Trek and skip Transformers.

[GirlySports]

I liked it! Just mindless fun.. I'm always amazed with special effects and how movies are made. There was a standing ovation as well when I went to the Monday screening.

No need for plot or acting... just big noise and fun!

[MarchHare]

No need for plot or acting... just big noise and fun!

Sigh.

Why can't we have both? The Dark Knight got it right, and it became the second-highest grossing film of all time.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I am yet to see any review say this movie is anything other then complete crap, including people at my work who saw the Monday Night Screening. (And they all likes the first one)

I have a feeling this movie might make Spiderman 3 look good

I don't think you can make that claim until Megatron does this at some point:

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sigh.

Why can't we have both? The Dark Knight got it right, and it became the second-highest grossing film of all time.

So unless Transformers is like Dark Knight, then it sucks?? Come on. The Dark Knight was a brilliant movie, one of the best superhero movies ever. There's more than one degree of good and the rest being degrees of suck.

There's nothing wrong with having fun at the movies.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

So unless Transformers is like Dark Knight, then it sucks?? Come on. The Dark Knight was a brilliant movie, one of the best superhero movies ever. There's more than one degree of good and the rest being degrees of suck.

There's nothing wrong with having fun at the movies.

Of course films don't have to be exactly like The Dark Knight. I was just using that as a recent example of a summer action film that also had a solid story, great acting, and excellent directing and cinematography. And it made tons of money too, topping the commercial success of every other film ever made aside from "Titanic".

There's nothing wrong with having fun at the movies, but I don't have fun watching mindless explosion films that are poorly written, acted, and directed. Summer blockbusters don't have to be that way. Hollywood can do better -- and they have!