Friday
26Jun2009
Movie Review - 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen'
Friday, June 26, 2009 at 12:46AM | Transformers: Revenge of the
Fallen
Starring Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, and a bunch of
effects  |
Sitting through Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is
singularly depressing. Only a few films have ever cost as much money to produce, and few films of its
stature have ever been so devoid of brains, heart, soul, energy, impact, and story. In short, this
is Hollywood at its worst. I nearly walked out.
The one thing Transformers gets right is the visual effects. Specifically, we're dealing with more Transformers than before, as if that outweighs the absence of character development.
The first Transformers, perhaps in spite of itself based on the current evidence, managed to
have some heart and intelligence even though it, too, was a showcase for computers and not actors.
And that's fine; there's a place for it. Hell, Star Trek is one of the most enjoyable movies
of 2009 using more or less the same formula. How is it even possible that Trek and the
Transformers movie from 2007 both employed two of the three writers of the new film, Roberto Orci and Alex
Kurtzman?
Director Michael Bay is not known for engaging your brain, but even for Bay, this film
represents an all-time low. The robots in Revenge of the Fallen have more personality than the human characters,
save for John Turturro's returning government agent. They
also have too much dialogue and suspicious accents, which is a milder way of saying they project ethnic stereotypes. Two of them make Jar Jar Binks look like a paragon of political correctness.
Reader Comments (60)
My jaw dropped when I saw the one lonely ape. Mainly that Kurtzman and Orci wrote such a bland film after the (popcorn) greatness Star Trek and even the first Transformers. I was so looking forward to this flick and I'll still see it but now with lower expectations.
Kurtzman and Orci probably could not be arsed about the transformers franchise as michael bay his directing is as shallow a movie can become... they'd better focus on the second season of fringe and the new trek sequal.
i mean... if u worked with JJ Abrams for so long, doesnt that make Michael Bay look like some fuck up in every single way?
Spot on... one of the worst movies i have ever seen; and definitely the worst since seven pounds anyway
Yo man don't listen to this fool dude up there. Movie is great. Amazing I might add. Indeed I am a fanboy. Just remember this, Spielberg is the executive producer, he's not gonna let his pet project Shia make a bad movie.
Overall, I'd say go see the movie IMAX or big screens. The reviewers will tear it apart and the movie will do gangbusters in the box office.
Peace
Just want to say that this movie was amazing! I know as critics it is your job to nitpic at every little detail but come on. Just sit back for once and enjoy. Maybe critics need to watch these movies with real audiences instead of private screenings for critics. Movies are made for entertainment and this movie entertains. The entire sold out theater laughed hysterically the entire movie and then gave it a standing ovation at the end. Read the reviews people but give it a chance and make up your own mind. Great movie and it will get plenty of repeat business from all us dullards as some critics have called us.
Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull comes to mind when i think of this movie.... and wait Spielberg and Shia were involved with that too... wierd. Boom Roasted!
I'd rather only be able to watch "The Room" for the rest of my life then ever see this "film" again
This... "The one thing that bothered me about the Transformer battles in the first movie was that you couldn't quite make out everything that was going on in giant robot hand-to-hand combat. It wasn't a deal breaker, but it was noticeable."
Outside of everything else the above quote represents what annoyed me the most about the first flick and I'll be damned if I pay theater prices for more annoyance. That the rest of the film is little more than window dressing to the computer generated effects is just another nail in a well hammered coffin. I''m all for mindless fun but completely mindless and without fun? No. Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince has been my event movie for this year ever since it got moved and that still hasn't changed.
usually with a movie that has such a huge back "fanboy" base backing critics will tear into the movie because they feel there is an absence of 'soul' but for the true fan that soul has been inside them for many years... case in point, I am not making a comparison when it comes to overall movies but you can get the same type of reaction to people who read "Twilight" and the ones who didn't and watched the movie... there's nothing driving them to see the movie whereas those with background interest in the film will look for every detail from what they know inside them.
Okay, maybe it was a bad comparison to use "Twilight", but same could be said with the Harry Potter franchise...
I haven't seen it yet but everyone who is like me and has a vested interest in the movie loved it...
LOVED your review on KUPD this morning. LOVE IT! (Angery Colin is THE BEST) I have to second the dropping of my jaw when I saw ONE DAMN DIRTY APE & will now try NOT to get dragged to this piece of garbage. Just the fact that you almost walked out says A LOT! Keep up the awesome reviews. I check out your site quite frequently & often tell others to check it out as well.
Hated the first one. Will not see this one. I'm damn glad to hear it's as lousy as I'd expected, though. Hopefully it bombs at the box office and we get to hear Michael Bay whine about how it's all the studio's fault.
I thought the first one was decent but hugely overrated. I had no plans to see this one. I still don't plan to see it but now I kind of want to just to laugh at it. It sounds unintentionally funny from what I have heard. Kind of like the "fanboys" trying to defend it. I enjoy reading their comments to laugh at them. "Critics have to nitpic", "Movies are supposed to entertain", blah blah blah. Good stuff.
The first movie got bad reviews, and yet I liked it. I expect to like this one too, although the twin robots with the annoying voices are going to irritate the shit out of me, based on what I saw in a commercial. You'd think movie-makers would have learned from Jar Jar.
Anyway, it should be a fun ride at the movies, nothing more. I'll come home after wards and watch The Wrath of Khan or the old animated Transformers movie for some sci-fi with a good story.
i pointed out the dyson effect on the trailer... "what? all that sand moving, and the truck is still there??"
i was walking out to go, when i came back here and read the review. although i'll miss my hot buttered popcorn goodness, i'll save my $5 on the ticket until later this week.
Ugh...reviewers these days. I have seen this movie twice now, once in normal theaters and once on an Imax screen, and after that I can safely say that while the movie wasn't as good as Star Trek, it was definitely more entertaining. I'm not sure how you can nitpick a movie like this for not having character development among human characters when those could be said to be just tools to get the Transformers from one place to the next. They weren't even in the original series or movie for crying out loud. And the two twin robots with the stereotypical black voices were hilarious, as was Wheelie and Sam's mom. I'm sorry if say for instance, the humans in the movie are real people with real problems as Sam put it in the movie, and actually not much changes in 2 years since the first one. Could it possible be that the characters haven't changed much, other than Simmons, because not much has happened?
The Autobots got a few new partners and the humans just tried to go back to ordinary living. Simmons got fired which added a new dimension to him because he had to take on new work. Sure, the only new thing learned about Mikaela and Sam's character is they are afraid to say "I love you" but what the heck is wrong with that. That is something very real that couples go through all the time. I'm sorry that the humans in the movie exhibit a realistic side to them even when 50 foot robots are running around, but that's life.
I'm not saying your review is biased, because it doesn't seem like you have presuppositions that are blinding you, but I think you are missing out on a great movie here. I was never a fanboy, nor was I even that into Transformers, but these have become two of my favorite movies because they have everything. Bay does a splendid job in creating emotional attachment to the robots in the same way that Peter Jackson did with King Kong. By the time the end of the movie is hitting the screen, you are rooting heavily for one side or the other because Bay has crafted a movie that makes you choose.
Not only for sheer quality, but now that I've seen it twice, I can clearly see that critics seem to be the only ones with these shallow, terrible views on this movie. I've been to the midnight releases of both Revenge of the Sith, all three Pirate's movies, the second two Lord of the Rings, and the Dark Knight, and I can honestly say that the clapping both during the movie and after for this movie trumped all of those because the people there to see a Transformers movie got exactly what they came for: a movie about robots fighting each other and blowing things up.
Please don't decide not to go see this movie because of reviews like this or a low score on Rottentomatoes. This movie deserves to be seen and will impress if not amaze. I hope you all decide to see it so we can have a third in the series.
"I can safely say that while the movie wasn't as good as Star Trek, it was definitely more entertaining". This was my favorite part of Kevin's review. Variety will be calling and offering him a job any minute now......
I think Kevin must have been the dude rubbing it out in the back row every time Fox was on the screen. Hey K can you shoot me your email, I have a dry cleaning bill for you. Seriously dude, get a girlfriend and some taste if you can.
On a more intelligent note, nice job Colin, good writing, straight forward and honest, Bravo!
Kevin:
If we're not supposed to be connected to the human characters, why are they even in the movie? So either they're integral to the movie and they're underdeveloped and it's a flaw or they're in the movie when they shouldn't be and it's an even bigger flaw. Take your pick, because it's only one option or the other. And no matter which option you choose, it's a fault.
Actually, the humans aren't in the movie to serve the robots. You've got it backwards. If it's not Sam's "destiny" or "fate" or whatever they called it in the third act, the Autobots perish, correct? The sun gets blown up (how could Michael Bay, of all people, not make that happen?). They're the facilitators for Sam's growth and Sam's journey, not the other way around. That's fundamental stuff. Read your Joseph Campbell.
Pointing out that a film doesn't have character development is not nitpicking, since the difference between a plot and a story is how the events in the movie shape the characters, hence - character development. On the other hand, it is nitpicking to wonder why Michael Bay has a fascination with dog and leg humping. That's not elemental to the story, but character development absolutely is. In fact, it's everything.
The cheering, what little I heard in a theater of about 450 people over the course of 150 excruciating minutes of computer masturbation (or is that mastur-Bay-tion?), was only when stuff blew up. Nobody was rooting for Megatron; they were hoping to see explosions.
(SPOILER: Put another way, nobody cried when Megatron bit it.)
So i assume you liked Dragonball more than Transformers 2.
No. Dragonball didn't even have good effects.
So if a movie averages 1 star from critics and 4 stars from the "regular joe's" who go to see it. In your "professional" opinion, is it a success or a failure?!
I don't think Paramount and Michael Bay care one way or another about the critical reaction to this film. I think they care if it makes money, so if six months from now, it's made about $700 million worldwide, it would be a success commercially. Being a critical success was not anything they tried to achieve.
CB, I think they filled all 600 seats that night didn't they? But you're right, no one sobbed when humans got hurt, we just cheered when Optimus Prime was about to smash something.
It's good to admit that Transformers II stinks. Now, let's admit that the first one stunk too.
Uh, yes...the humans did serve a purpose in that movie, and that sole purpose was to give a little more feelings and emotion to the movie, but largely (and this is the key) they served as a tool to get the Transformers from one area to the next to start the next fight scene. Some may say this is a lack of depth or character development or plot, but I disagree. First of all, not every character in every movie has to be the deepest character ever written. This is not a Steven King book or anything, but the characters are deep enough to keep you interested. Look at movies like King Kong that were met with great critical success as well as fan success. King Kong was developed and Anne Darrow was semi-developed, but Adrian Brody's character was not nor was Jack Black's character. In fact, the only 2 characters that met any sort of changes throughout the movie was King Kong, Anne Darrow, and the male actor named Baxter, yet this movie was considered a great success on all accounts.
A movie cannot just contain characters that are deep and enthralling, hence Dark Knight. Obviously Batman changes along the way, Harvey Dent went through changes, but the Joker and Rachel were both the same from beginning to end. Nothing that happened helped shape their characters at all. I'm not arguing that Transformers 2 was better, because in no way it was, but on a pure entertainment level, I'd say it was close.
I don't understand why a movie can't be entertaining, but not the best movie ever. Star Trek had a lot of flat characters, and to me, the action was few and far between. I didn't really find much of a reason to like any characters, although I did have a reason to hate certain characters. That movie was met with success both critically and by the fans, but yet...when I say it was better just not as entertaining, I get crucified. C'mon people, be more consistent.
And to your question, if it scored a 1 from critics and a 4 from the fans, would it be a success, and my answer is absolutely. I've sat through 2 sold-out shows now, and I've heard from both people that have been huge fans as well as people that don't care either way that it was a great movie, and that they enjoyed every minute of it. Other than reading these kind of reviews online, I have not talked to any person that has said it is even an average movie at best. I don't trust reviewers because they don't review each movie according to that movie's premise. This is not the Notebook, it's not Titanic, and it's certainly not Dark Knight. It's a Transformers movie. And if anyone has seen or read or heard anything about the original Transformers comics or cartoons, there were no humans, and the main point was for the bad guys to desire power, and the good guys to try to stop them from getting it.
The plot was simple: Megatron wanted Energon to become ultimately powerful, and Optimus and the Autobots had to keep him from it. There was no secondary reason for the good guys to exist other than to stop the bad guys. And now, we had a live movie that centers around both humans and Transformers, so we are already given more than the original source material to work with. We have semi-decent plot lines and plenty of good actions scenes with the best special effects seen in movies to date. The characters are lovable, but not always 3-dimensional. I'm struggling to see why people bash a movie that does more than its original source material but still manages to keep people entertained for 2 and a half hours.
You all pick on me saying that I'm too lenient on this movie, but the fact of the matter is that you all simply need to expect a Transformers movie from this and nothing more. If you would do that, I believe the ratings would be closer to the 4 out of 5 that I would give it. And because of what a Transformers movie stands for, I believe Bay is the best director to film it because he can film action and effects better than just about anyone out there.
You're still very, very wrong about the human characters in this movie. That's not an opinion, either. The hero's journey. Look it up. Seriously. It's pretty standard stuff. Everything that happens in these two movies is seen through the eyes of Sam Witwicky. Your position is like saying Twister is about the tornadoes or Days of Thunder is about the race cars. The fact that you don't see that tells me even more about how bad a script this truly is.
Also, though you could argue that The Joker and Rachel Dawes don't undergo massive changes, they at least influence the action. What the hell does the roommate do in this movie, or Sam's parents, or even Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson? They don't have any bearing on the outcome of the film, on Sam's actions, or - if you insist this is still about robots - the Autobots and Decepticons. So again, it's a gigantic flaw to even waste our time with them.
Speaking of The Dark Knight, its character development wasn't very good, either. Rachel Dawes is nowhere near as effective as she's supposed to be (she's villain bait in two straight movies), and the Harvey Dent arc was poorly handled.
As for the ratings, if this movie were more like the first one, I'd be closer to a four or a five. Well, not a five, but a four, at least, which is what I gave Transformers in 2007. That one had charm to go along with the effects. This just recycles those effects and adds nothing else, anywhere, to the proceedings. This movie can't be a success simply because it also has the same effects as last time.
If the characters are lovable, please explain why. What is there to love about Mikaela or Optimus or Witwicky or the roommate in this movie? Don't tell me what they do but why they're lovable, because that is apparently something I missed.
A few points on criticism: I don't care what the source material was. It has no bearing on this movie, just as watching this movie has no bearing on the source material. You want me to evaluate it on its premise, and I do. I never consider if something is better than the TV show or book it's based on, and I can't be asked to read every book that is spun into a movie. I'm here to look at the film, judging it by the same standards that I judge everything else.
If I didn't take into account the premise of each movie, I couldn't very well say that The Proposal is a good romantic comedy, accomplishing what it sets out to do. But that is indeed the case. I could revisit all of Sandra Bullock's bad movies, but they don't influence this one. Similarly, Michael Bay has made a bunch of awful movies. The only movie he's made in ten years that I liked was the first Transformers. It had those elements you're professing exist in the sequel, even though they don't. It had characters and a story and was a good marriage of an action movie with a polished screenplay.
This one lacks definition on nearly every level of the story. The only thing addressed by the screenwriters is how to get to the next set piece. The characters are cardboard cutouts of people. There's very little memorable dialogue, and what is memorable is awful. The movie's only saving grace is the visual effects. But I've seen them before, and in a movie that gave me more to watch.
Oh man, you are so wrong. The characters that one is supposed to care about are the machines, not so much the humans, save for maybe Sam. And yes...you have to review this movie based on the source material and what it is coming from. You can't compare it to moves like Spider-man or the Dark Knight and say that because it doesn't do things quite as good as those movies do, it's bad. That is a 5-year old mentality of how to rate movies. It's the more grown-up mature way to review them when you stop for 5 minutes, think back to what Transformers was about and then think whether or not this movie does similar stuff, but better. And because of that, this movie is about as good of a Transformers movie as one could ask for.
The minor characters (the mom, Josh Duhmal, Tyrese Gibson, basically all the marines, the dad) are all there to serve as either comic relief, which the mom is just intensely funny, or to just support the main character of Sam. Bay is not trying to get us attached to all the other people in the movie, but just Sam and Mikaela (maybe) and obviously the Autobots. That was the goal, and just because you didn't like the movie does not mean he did not accomplish that goal.
And we can talk about theme and a moral, which there definitely was a huge one that ran through the first movie as well as the second movie, but hey...you probably don't care about that because you are stuck in your reviewing rut based on a rubric that should change depending on the movie your reviewing.
You are right in saying that The Proposal was a good romantic comedy, although that really has no bearing on this movie. There is no source material for that. There is no cartoon or comic strip to feed us the story or to direct us in how that movie was supposed to go. It was good because the chemistry between the two main characters was clearly evident, as well as Ryan Renold's being very humorous. It was just a solid movie. Transformers is like that, only one has to look back and ask themselves: What should I expect from this movie? And if one can do that, they will have a much more appreciative view of the movie because they wouldn't come to these absurd notions that this should have some deep plot or even make us care about the humans at all. And, this movie might follow around Sam the most, but it's told through the perspective of Optimus Prime, as he is the one narrating the movie. It's kind of like how if someone watches the Star Wars saga, and comes to the conclusion that the point of view is from Anakin or Luke depending on which trilogy you watch, when almost everyone who cares about Star Wars knows that the series follows the perspectives of R2-D2 and C-3PO, courtesy of George Lucas himself.
We get Optimus starting and ending the movie by telling us what has been going on, and he is the one we are really made to care about through the movie. All the other characters base a lot of their decisions and emotions off of what happens to Optimus and that is shown so many times through this second movie, so please watch it again and learn where the movie's focus actually is.
I could talk all day about why your method of evaluating this movie is stupid, but my whole argument boils down to one key phrase: It's a freaking Transformers movie. Based on the comics and cartoons, we should not expect some deep dramatic movie, but an action movie that entertains from start to finish. It did that 10 times over, and I can't wait to go see it again. Please stop spewing your nonsense opinions of a good movies that might deter people from going to the theaters and actually feeling like their $10 was well spent.