The day will come when "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" will be studied in film classes and shown at cult film festivals. It will be seen, in retrospect, as marking the end of an era. Of course there will be many more CGI-based action epics, but never again one this bloated, excessive, incomprehensible, long (149 minutes) or expensive (more than $200 million). Like the dinosaurs, the species has grown too big to survive, and will be wiped out in a cataclysmic event, replaced by more compact, durable forms.
Oh, I expect the movie will make a lot of money. It took in $16 million just in its Wednesday midnight opening. Todd Gilchrist, a most reasonable critic at Cinematical, wrote that it feels "destined to be the biggest movie of all time." I don't believe "Titanic" and "The Dark Knight" have much to fear, however, because (1) it has little to no appeal for non-fanboy or female audiences, and (2) many of those who do see it will find they simply cannot endure it. God help anyone viewing it from the front row of a traditional IMAX theater--even from the back row. It may benefit from being seen via DVD, with your "picture" setting dialed down from Vivid to Standard.
The term Assault on the Senses has become a cliché. It would be more accurate to describe the film simply as "painful." The volume is cranked way up, probably on studio instructions, and the sound track consists largely of steel crashing discordantly against steel. Occasionally a Bot voice will roar thunderingly out of the left-side speakers, (1) reminding us of Surround Sound, or (2) reminding the theater to have the guy take another look at those right-side speakers. Beneath that is boilerplate hard-pounding action music, alternating with deep bass voices intoning what sounds like Gregorian chant without the Latin, or maybe even without the words: Just apprehensive sounds, translating as Oh, no! No! These Decepticons® are going to steal the energy of the sun and destroy the Earth! The hard-pounding action music, on the other hand, is what Hollywood calls Mickey Mouse Music, so named because, like the music in a Mickey Mouse cartoon, it faithfully mirrors the movements on screen. In this case, it is impatient and urgent. I recommend listening to it on your iPod the next time you have difficulty at the doctor's office filling the little plastic cup.
This F-15 unfolded out of the 1984 Hasbro Bot above!
The action scenes can perhaps best be understood as abstract art. The Autobots® and Decepticons®, which are assembled out of auto parts, make no functional or aesthetic sense. They have evolved into forms too complex to be comprehended. When two or more of the Bots are in battle, it is nearly impossible to distinguish one from the other. You can't comprehend most of what they're doing, except for an occasional fist flying, a built-in missile firing, or the always dependable belching of flames. Occasionally one gets a hole blown through it large enough to drive a truck through, pardon the expression.
You want to talk about incredible? I think it's incredible that any of the tiny flesh-and-blood human beings are still alive at the end of the story. As is conventional in action epics about gigantic monsters, the creatures seem to exist on a sliding scale--always possible in theory, I suppose, for a Bot, but disorienting for the audience. On the one hand, you have Bots large enough to rip the top off the Great Pyramid with its bare hands, and on the other, small enough to fit in the same frame with a human, and this movie is widescreen (2:35: 1). To be sure, a Bot can lean down to talk to a human, as Starscream® is doing in the pic with Shia. But when they're seen standing up there's a problem. Their heads are small to begin with, and the effect of perspective from the human eye-level makes many of them unfortunately look like pin-heads.I didn't have a stop watch, but it seemed to me the elephantine action scenes were pretty much spaced out evenly through the movie. There was no starting out slow and building up to a big climax. The movie is pretty much all climax. The Autobots® and Decepticons® must not have read the warning label on their Viagra. At last we see what a four-hour erection looks like.
Starscream on film (2006)
The action is intercut with human scenes that seem dragged in kicking and screaming from another movie. There are broad sitcom situations and dialog as Shia Lebouef goes off to Princeon, and comic relief from his madcap mother (Julie White), who actually plays the most entertaining character in the movie. Then some romances that cement emotional bonds with the speed of Quick Glue, and are well within the PG-13 guidelines. Kevin Dunn and Miss White, as Mr. and Witwicky, are the only characters allowed the slightest dimension, confirming my suspicion that the most interesting conversation at a high school dance is likely to be had with the chaperones.As is frequent in CGI action, the younger women are made to behave like he-men with boobs. College girls are able to turn instantly into combat-ready participants, except when they have to be dragged to safety by boys. They can out-run explosions with the best of them. Their hair, after countless explosions and long days in the desert heat, is always perfect enough for a shampoo commercial. I suspect many young lads prefer their women like this--at arm's length, if you see what I mean.
Starscream: The 2009 iteration. Don't step on Shia!
Much of the dialog falls under category of Look out! It's necessary in the editing of a film like this to punctuate the action with reaction shots. You're not really able to cut away to another Bot, because their heads are so tiny and so high up there, who knows what they're thinking? You need humans, who react to a blue screen or to a point in space and shout warnings and commands. Acting in a film like this is a season in hell, plus paycheck.At almost two and a half hours, the film is unreasonably long. Since it's impossible to imagine a studio applauding the extra length and thus greater expense, the running time can possibly be attributed to the ego of Michael Bay, the director: If it is indeed destined to be the biggest movie of all time, who cares how long it is? I suspect it will be trimmed down to under two hours in some overseas markets, and if it is, the human scenes will be the easiest to cut. Then the luckless foreigners will be left with an unremitting Assault on the Senses.
The Iron Giant (1999): Maybe I could use this in a makeover
Michael Bay is obviously under the impression that whatever he was doing deserved a 149-minute canvas to do it on. He likes doing this stuff. One pities the hapless animators, peering at their monitors far into the night, trying to distinguish one Bot's hub cap from another's. What we may see at work here is the paradox of rising expectations and diminishing returns . If the first "Transformers" (2007) ran 144 minutes and grossed over $300 million in North American alone, why not keep expanding?Same goes for the Bots. In the stills with this blog, I have traced the history of Starscream® from its origin as a children's toy through its evolution in TV animation (1984) and the 2007 movie. It has grown steadily more complex, apparently feeding on larger and larger junk yards. Starscream® is now too much to comprehend, especially in Bay's typical average shot length of not much over one second. It pains me to say this, because the designer of several of the Bots was Josh Nizzi, a fellow Illinois grad from my home town. No doubt he has many other arrows in his quiver.
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.
WALL-E (2008): A lonely little onion in a petunia patch.
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. I've been making a list of my favorite robots, those few that evoked wonder and sympathy and were simple attacks of sound and images. I think of the gentle, loveable "Iron Giant" (1999), by Brad Bird. And the genius of Jon Favreau's "Iron Man" (2008), with its final battle we really got involved in. And I think of another robot whose body was made of junk yard parts. Its name was "WALL-E." That was the 2008 film by Andrew Stanton that some people believe was robbed of a Best Picture nomination by the creation of the animation category.
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" will no doubt gross many millions. There will no doubt be a sequel. But when audiences feel hammered down by a film, they are less likely to fall for another marketing campaign. If Hollywood wants the "Transformers" franchise to endure, maybe they should hire one of those directors. They still know how to make a movie.
¶
Of course humans can run faster than an explosion! In this movie they do it all the time:
Methinks you had to see the whole thing and could not give it the Tru Loved treatment. Sympathy. But it has set your literary angry juices flowing.
I completely agree Roger. I only saw the film today to fully comprehend your review, and I have to hand it to you, dead on accuracy of the end of an era. I really can't stand this trend in mass market films of being treated like an idiot. Nothing about the film was truly entertaining, and in fact, I found it mostly offensive. The twin robots were flat out the most racist thing I've seen since Were'Rabbit was tarred and feathered in Song of the South.
As I was watching the movie I was thinking about how I don't find any of this AWESOME! Which is what they were going for the whole time. Almost like that Bay American Express commercial. Also, can we please retire dog humping jokes, and hit in the crotch joke, and guy saying sexual reference instead of saying the correct word joke. Is this some screenwriters guide that says when in doubt hit someone in the nuts?
I found myself laughing at the movie a few times, mainly out of disbelief that I was actually watching this mess. Why would he go to Transformer heaven? What purpose is having his mom overloaded on pot brownies? What possible meaning does every time a character who has any sense of race/ethnicity have to be ONLY FOCUSED ON THAT ATTRIBUTE. Hey he's a jew, hey he's a meathead white guy, he's a no nonsense black man, these two are ghetto fools, blah blah blah. Plus when did beauty in a woman mean they have to have gold skin?
Overall, I fear that in 5000 years from now, and the earth is all water and resembles the ending to A.I. and those Aliens that visit and scope out the congressional film library somehow stumble across this atrocity and will assume this represented our best efforts. I mean, seriously, look how much money in generated.
Ebert,
You called the first Transformers movie, "goofy fun with a lot of stuff that blows up good." I haven't seen the sequel yet--though I fully intend to, and in IMAX if possible--but isn't that what this movie is? More goofiness with more explosions?
So what's the difference? What makes one goofy and fun and the other unbearable? It isn't the running time, because the sequel is only five minutes longer.
It strikes me as strange that a lot of the same critics who praised the first Transformers for being stupid, silly, bombastic, and intense are now panning its sequel for also being stupid, silly, bombastic, and intense. Again, I ask, What's the difference?
I'm not expecting intelligence or even a story from this movie, and I didn't before. Sometimes dumb action is entertaining enough.
I'll be seeing the sequel for the same reason I went to see the first Transformers movie: to see giant robots punching each other and exploding. Am I going to be disappointed?
Curious,
Casey
Ebert: More stupid, more silly, more bombastic, and way more intense. Too loud. Visually incomprehensible.
Dare you to sit in the front row at IMAX.
This is a hilarious and dead-on piece. I tried watching the first Transformers movie on TV a while ago and just couldn't manage it -- it was so ugly, so loud and blunt and relentlessly stupid that I had to give up, even despite the not-incidental visual appeal of non-robot Megan Fox.
The only thing I don't get here is the implication that Michael Bay was ever cut out for anything other than exactly this kind of movie. The Rock was certainly a better movie than this trash, but it wasn't significantly different in its form, in its absence of any real character or depth, in its essential single-mindedness. The one thing Michael Bay has always known how to do really well is make things blow up. Everything else seems to be beyond his reach.
I think this movie is better than the first and I hope to God no one listens to Roger Ebert!
I told one of my coworkers he had to read the first paragraph of your review of this "film" on your paper's website. He's not into film or reviews at all - he read the paragraph reluctantly and immediately left to go to his office because he "had to read the rest."
Sat my girlfriend down too - and every few sentences she let out a rollicking laugh.
Sign of a fine writer - take a piece of crap movie, a movie I would never in a million years choose to see, and somehow turn into a truly enjoyable experience. Happy to see the sharp wit hasn't dulled over the years.
When I tell people that I didn't make it through the first Transformers movie, they look at me like I am an alien. I had that feeling of my senses under assault in that one right away. It's not that I don't like action films. It's that I hated that particular action film.
From the first glimpse of the previews of Transformers 2, I knew that I had no desire whatsoever to see it. Too busy. Too loud. Meaningless.
Of all the movies you named in the review, I would most likely go rent "The Rock" again. Now there's a smart and interesting action movie.
Or, better yet, I'd go see "The Hangover again". That's my speed.
I only saw the first transformers movie, and also remember the old 1980's cartoons. Visually incomprehensible is exact thing I thought about the first movie as well.
The characters are designed overly complex in that it becomes way too difficult to distinguish the different robot characters on screen from each other. The quick editing doesn't help at all. Before your eyes can focus on the transformers, they're already off screen again, so you never 'get to know' them. And you simply don't care about them...
At least the 80's cartoon had the advantage of the limited budget and time of the TV industry that forced them to design simple easily recognizable characters.
To a professional the worst of the species must have equal interest.
Ebert: Certainly true of Aardvarks.
Whats to comprehend...they are Robots that come to Earth and transform. The whole idea is far fetched, but that is the fun of it. We get the chance to sit back and be entertained by something that a lot of us really enjoy.
If you are looking for a movie like Citizen Kane or Casablana, you won't find it here. If you are looking for an action packed, well thought out, fun movie, then Transformers is for you.
This movie won't win an oscar for best picture, or best director. It won't even be nominated. But people will go and see it and they will be entertained.
Will Smith said it best at this years Oscars "I make movies that people actually want to see". People want to see movies like this. Let us
Ebert: Be my guest.
But...well thought-out? I'll bet Will Smith doesn't want to see it.
Roger, I went and saw T2:RotF because I read your original review and was under the mistaken impression that it was hilariously bad. I only laughed when the Decepticon (not Deceptibot, by the by) in Manhattan kicked the flag off of the bridge and did nothing to the city itself.
In the review I wrote for my blog, I noted that I wasn't sure if the audiences' positive reaction to the movie was sarcastic or if they really, truly thought it was good. More than one person, upon hearing my opinion, quickly told me that the movie "wasn't supposed to have a plot." I was too exhausted to point out that yes, it should have, by simple virtue of it being a movie, and movies needing plot for the things blowing up to have meaning.
I'll probably be following the box office as intently for this movie as I did with the Dark Knight last year, hoping that the weekly drop-off is intense, that people realize they've been duped, and that you're right about the death of this genre.
However, if you buy the ticket, I'll sit in the front row at IMAX, though I doubt you'd want to be responsible for somebody seeing this movie twice.
The American public feeds on Aardvarks?
Ebert: Would if they hadn't been priced out of the reach of the average consumer.
Then why was never a Superhero named Aardvark?
Ebert:
There was a caped hero named Aardvark
Who would lurk in the dark and bark.
Alas this singular distinction
Led to his tragic extinction
When he was pronged by a runaway quark.
Roger Ebert,
It is an honor to read your words. Michael Bay will probably make 100 million dollars off this movie, but who cares about that? You spent time thinking about his movie. That is the real treasure.
This is not written sarcastically. The fact that you exist gives me hope for man kind.
Ebert: Good gravy! I feel that way about Obama. As many posters on the O'Reilly entry have been happy to point out, I'm only a movie critic.
I am a longtime Transformers fan. The first movie was, as you say, a fun little confection. I saw this for free due to a theater employed friend. I wish I had paid. Money, I can get refunded. But I was robbed of valuable time I can't get back.
After seeing Revenge of the fallen last night, I immediately returned to the theater today to see both UP and The Hangover. Those two movies helped clean me up after I felt soiled by Michael Bay's latest opus.
Sailors had Polaris. Film has Roger Ebert.
Ebert: Geese have halitosis.
"....I'm only a movie critic."...Ebert
But you have a sexy brain.
Ebert: You bet. Curves in all the right places.
On the O'Reilly post everyone tells you to be quiet because you are a movie critic - now people tell you that you have to understand that this is not Casablanca!
No one needs to tell you that Transformers 2 is not Casablanca, but apparantly they do not know.
I will probably go see Tranny 2 - to see what you mean, I enjoyed the 1st, but I heed the advice of critics. On some bad movies I like to go see what you point out. If I wait too long, - I will watch it and think - its not as bad as everyone said. Same as when everyone tells me it was wonderful, it can never meet my expectations. I do not know how many times I have gone to movies based on trailers and have been bummed. Dark Knight was fantastic.
I just finished watching Dr. Strangelove on TCM - GREAT movie - Very Funny.
Thanks Roger
Ebert: I dislike root canal surgery in advance
I'm sure squeezing through that tunnel gasping for oxygen must be like root canaling, which I think you are better acquainted...but to awaken to a brand new Sun....
Ebert: It's like the light at the end of the tunnel.
Your review on Transformers 2 was spot on. Also, the opening paragraph of your review was simply classic. What really got to me with Transformers 2 is that I came in with the most forgiving standards, and it still wasn't enough.
Batman Begins is better than The Dark Knight!!!
You don't mention anything about the performances in the film. Do the actors really get so little screen time that it hardly matters? One of my favorite things about the first film was that Shia Labeouf. Does he really add nothing to this one?
Side-note: I failed to arrive two hours early for The Dark Night and had to watch it from the second row. It also gave me a splitting headache. No film is without its faults.
I guess the vast majority of you aren't in your early to mid thirties and don't have children that enjoy the Transformers toys. I just saw the movie and enjoyed it thoroughly. If movie tickets weren't so expensive, I'd go and see it again.
The only issue I have with the Michael Bay Transformers films is the adult humor. Obviously, there were a lot of kids in the theater.
I didn't go in expecting a classic. I didn't walk out thinking it was a classic either. My family and I were simply entertained. Isn't a movie supposed to do that? If you expect more from a movie, then you need to get a life.
Ebert, I don't know where you stand on Obama and I don't really care. But you shouldn't use your ability to be heard to push people in one direction or another unless you're a political analyst by trade. You don't want politicians telling people what movies to see, do you? This is typical Hollywood at its best. Let people think for themselves, please, and stick to providing your opinions on movies. That's your job.
"....end of the tunnel."
You are in the ionosphere now...or is that your habitat?
Roger, you're slipping. Sometimes I wonder if you saw the same movie I did. In your review for the Sun Times you mention the Witwicky's running from explosions. I recall they were driven away by Bumblebee.
Also, re: the above post, 149 minutes is not 'well over two and a half hours'.
Stupid nitpicks, yes, but it makes me wonder where the normally sharp mind of Roger Ebert has gone to.
I'm not going to pretend that Transformers 2 is high art. By all accounts it's off the charts ridiculous. But sometimes I want ridiculous. Especially in these times of financial and political unrest.
Most reviews I've read really go to great lengths to over-analyze the movie. Let me break it to you. There is no purpose to fighting robots from outer space. There doesn't need to be. They're fighting robots! What a spectacle.
I knew what to expect going in and I got it. I was exhausted when I left the theater but, really, who expected this to be 'the one' that put Michael Bay over as a legitimate filmmaker? Didn't Transformers 1 give you a hint? What sequel has been smaller and more intimate?
Before any of you go see the movie, just think about these words:
Robots
Fighting
Explosions
That's all you need to know. If that's not what you're up for, then by all means go see The Hangover. Or better yet something even more worthwhile like Sita Sings the Blues (thanks for bringing that one to our attention, Roger.)
Transformers 2 is mindless crap, but the 12 year old boy in this 38 year old body wants that. He really does. And he enjoyed himself at Transformers 2. I suspect many other will, too, this weekend.
PS The impossibility of time travel not withstanding, it would be interesting to go back and put the name 'Mann' or 'Raimi' on Transformers 2 instead of 'Bay' and see what the reviews are like. I'm reading a lot of reviews that undress 'Bay' the man rather than 'Transformers 2' the movie.
Ebert: Okay, then, you can't out-run an explosion in a jeep.
Meant to say "two hours." Will fix.
The review you suggest for this one is the one I wrote for the previous one. Mann wouldn't touch this material. If Raimi did, he'd transform it.
Quote Roger...The term Assault on the Senses has become a cliché. It would be more accurate to describe the film simply as "painful." The volume is cranked way up, probably on studio instructions, and the sound track consists largely of steel crashing discordantly against steel.
You see! This is why I appreciated your commentary track on Floating Weeds so much. I was having the exact same thoughts of "this is so NOT like Armageddon".
But there IS an audience out there that's just seeking visual stimulation, and they aren't all young fan boys. One of my 40 something co-workers has drawers full of these types of movies.
For myself, I walk away from these films all buzzed but not satisfied. The best comparison is a sugar rush. I'm serious. It's just like a quick jolt of sugar into the system, followed by a crash after, and then a headache.
Randy M., if you see this comment, give Floating Weeds a try. Ozu isn't for everyone, but perhaps you'll enjoy it. There is a style of Japanese painting that strives to create images with as few brush strokes as possible. I once say a beautiful bird scroll, where every bird was serene and perfect, yet made with only three brush strokes. Ozu is like that. Armageddon and Transformers is like a wall with ten years of graffiti scribbled over it.
Usually critics would have negative reviews of such kind of movie like The Transformer but the fact is they are fun to watch and entertaining especially to the young audiences and of course such kind of a movie makes a lot of money in the Box Office that is why sequels are being made.
you say i dare you to sit in the front row at i-max, no one ever wants to sit on the front row of any theatre, much less the imax, horrible point.
Ebert: I know four Chicago movie critics who do. One of them even has a post in this very thread. But no, not IMAX. Not this movie. Gawd.
Someone mentioned that people with low expectations looking for explosions will see this movie and be happy. Why can't there be films with well done explosions that are, you know, watchable? I mean, take Iron Man and the Dark Knight. Popular, had all sorts of crowd pleasing action, and they were - shock! - good.
Nothing wrong with being crowd pleasing, and I personally love a good action movie as much as I love anything more arty and smart. But there's no reason why something made to be popular can't also be good. Or, at the very least, something that doesn't make people run to the pharmacy to pick up their favorite painkiller afterward.
As I check my Facebook home page, I find that 100% of the people who have statuses regarding Transformers and its awesomeness are non-fanboys AND females.
We're in big trouble, aren't we? (Or at least Titanic and Dark Knight are.)
In your post, you mentioned that some people felt Wall-E was robbed of a Best Picture nom because of the Animated category. I'm sure you've heard that the Academy announced they were expanding the number of nominees in the Best Picture category this year to ten, which might give hope to movies like Wall-E to earn a nomination.
I think that even if it had been nominated, Slumdog would have still grabbed the win. So the addition of 5 more nominees seems inconsequential other than to stop people from complaining that certain movies were snubbed (i.e. Wall-E, Dark Knight). Or to possibly generate more buzz about movies that would normally have missed the cut but would now be included.
What are your thoughts on the issue?
Ebert: It could work both ways. I discuss it here:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090624/OSCARS/906249995
I thought of the Iron Giant as well-- proving that a film about big robots could be more than noise. In the right hands I think a film based on the Transformers could be fun and worth watching, but I suspect the bean counters wouldn't go for that. I'm also thinking about the scene in Big where Tom Hanks is in a meeting and playing with the robot that turns into a building and asked "what's fun about that?".
On another note, one of my co-workers was headed off to see Transformers 2 and I gave him the you are encouraging them spiel, which he fully acknowledged he was. My answer to that was that he would have do some kind of penance for giving this thing money, I suggested that he'd have to see two movies that were signal instead of noise to make up for this transgression. I'm thinking Moon should be one of them, anyone have any ideas for the other?
I just walked in the door upon returning from the film. Ugh. It's is like ordering the largest super-sized combo meal at a fast food joint. It sounds good in theory, but ends up being way too much, lacking nutritional value and leaving a bad taste in one's mouth.
You didn't even mention the not-too-subtle message that the only thing women are good for is ogling. Not a single female character of substance in the film. Even the extras in the background at the college and in the brief Paris scenes were just used for eye-candy, and Sam's mom makes overt sexual jokes. The whole thing stems from the mind of a drunken frat boy: fighting robots and scantily clad women.
I've seen it twice already - once at the midnight showing, again that night with some friends. Walking out the first time, I was somewhat stunned, and I was glad to go see it again with some friends with similar tastes so we could discuss it afterward.
First, as a female, and on behalf of the many female friends who watched this movie with me, I'd like to point out that I hate movies that "cater" to us. If I'm going to watch a movie about giant robot cars with guns, I want to see giant robot cars with guns. If I cared for romance, I'd go see that. To those that make that sort of decision: please stop ruining my movies because you think you know what I want. Fortunately the Sam/Mikaela romance is far less annoying than most. I prefer a woman who'll jump into the action, compared to the majority of women in movies. You can only take so many idiot 'heroines' whose superpower seems to be getting taken hostage after pulling boneheaded moves even the simplest of imbeciles could have predicted would end in disaster before you begin hating movie women. Does Mikaela have to have perfect hair while running around getting herself all blown up? No, but it's a start, and I'll take it. Gladly.
Movign on, I have to admit that the action scenes were the only parts of this movie I enjoyed. Far from perfect, they felt a lot like bliss in between painfully long "Twins" segments. Which brings up the question, who decided the main focus of a Transformers movie should be the inbred hillbilly equivalent of a Transformer? That was the longest, most painful movie-related depression I've suffered since the Matrix sequels came out. And I think we all remember what the third Matrix movie turned out like, assuming we are ready to even acknowledge it exists.
Combined with the Twins, we get the humor aimed at those who still think the word "boobie" is funny (seriously - Transformer scrotums? What??). We get the insanely over-inflated cast (why do we even have to meet Sam's roommate's friends again? Why are there so many Transformers who show up for 3 seconds and then get blown to bits? Why do we need another pet dog just for one of multiple dog-humping jokes? Why, oh god, why do we need a farting robot joke??). And then we get the ending, which was all-out cheeseball terrible, and completely serious. What was that? Was that robot heaven? Why did we need to destroy the key and then have some sort of completely unexplained resurrection scene involving it and Sam?
In short: there are going to be very few people who can truly enjoy this movie. It's bad to the point of insulting, it's unbelievable to the point where even in the middle of a movie about giant transforming robot cars with guns I want to stand up and yell "that's ridiculous!", and it's two and a half hours long. Ouch.
Ebert: You are a movie critic after my own heart.
Yeah, it's like Bay has imported boobs, doggie humping and farts directly from the laddie movies.
Thanks for calling me "the most reasonable;" I'm having business cards printed up next week with that as my title. As always, a terrific piece, but I wanted to point out that I really meant "biggest" literally - as in, it just feels huge, gigantic, mammoth, especially if you watch it in IMAX and everything's crashing down around you - be that the robots, the punch lines, or the ethnic stereotypes. I gave up on predicting box office receipts the day I became convinced A Knight's Tale would be a smash hit, but Revenge of the Fallen is the cinematic equivalent of a semi-truck grill bearing down on you like a hovering gnat, and as many people have observed, it feels that way a little bit, too, although if you're into that sort of thing, it can be fun. In any case, thanks for the nod, and keep up the great work.
Ebert: I was trying to make amends for having in an earlier draft quoting that line but taking it out of context. In terms of your review, it makes perfect sense, as your reviews always do--although I'll bet you a shiny new dime it doesn't outgross "Titanic" or "The Dark Knight."
I've also written defenses of movies simply because they were so much of a muchness. This one, for me, was way, way too much of so much of a muchness.
Readers: Click on Todd's name to see his review at the always-interesting Cinematical site.
I didn't hate this movie, but I understand how bad it is. Does that make sense? I just didn't like it. But I'm kind of puzzled... why did you give it one star? How about no stars? You obviously feel that it is a terrible terrible terrible movie. I still want to understand what it is from a movie that makes you give it a zero stars rating.
I had a similar revelation while attending a showing of Max Payne. Don't ask; it's a short and dissatisfying story.
The characters don't evolve. By the time the movie ends, they haven't changed in the way they think, act, or feel. For that matter, they haven't changed the way WE think, act, or feel. Furthermore, all of the plot elements are telegraphed so far ahead of time that the audience has the bulk of the relevant information within the first 10 minutes. Nothing particularly new, surprising, or interesting is introduced during the ensuing time.
There is a word for something in which all the information is introduced at once and nobody ever changes: a photograph. Aside from purely literal definition (the pictures on the screen appear to be moving), I don't know that the modern summer movie is much different from paying full ticket price to stare at a colorful photo for two hours. But I can think of photos I'd rather do that with than watch Max Payne again.
I HATED this movie. I was bored with it within 30 minutes. One thing that caught my attention were the red and green "twin robots". Were you offended by how obviously stereotypical they were? I was stunned! It's really not good that the only reason I stayed until the end is to see how racist they could be!
The first two pictures are wrong. That's not the Starscream toy from 1984, but some sort of homage to it. I don't know what the second Starscream pic is whatsoever--that image is not from the '80s. About the movie, well, why focus so much energy on a movie that's so full of sound and fury, signifying nothing to you in the first place? There are lots of these sorts of summer time-wasters every year. I thought the second and third PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movies were just as awful on the senses, actually. I would be sad that America's kids will see a movie so full of scatological "humor" instead of something better, but UP had a couple of #1 weeks, so there's hope. This movie is not the end of Western civilization. (That might be Obama and socialism. The masses swooning to this populist Marxist worries me far more than the masses sweeping in to see a big dumb Hollywood blockbuster.)
Ebert: That's how they were identified on the sites where I found them. Can you steer me clear?
I suspect the advent of the 10 Best Picture nominees will have an impact towards this trend shift as well. Warners knew that "The Dark Knight" was in with a chance for Best Picture but probably wasn't nominated simply because there were enough good movies for five different ones. Had there been ten nominations last year, I'm sure it would have been nominated (not so sure about "Iron Man"). This year the overall box office has been down from last year and the overall quality of the blockbusters produced has also been down. I notice you have been uncharacteristically negative towards summer product this year where last year you gave the "Mummy" sequel three stars you gave this year's "Star Trek" two and a half. I think studios will get the hint: make better movies. Make directors WANT to make these sorts of movies. Michael Bay is a dead species.
Yours and James Berardinelli's Transformers review's are the two most humorous pieces of writing on this movie. Please take solace from the fact that you convinced at least one person from not seeing this movie.
Thanks for enduring the pain for greater good :-)
Ebert: I've been a Berardinelli fan from way back. The SOB changed his e-mail address. Maybe he got tired of hearing from me.
I am the confused boy in the theatre who wondered why the Autobots and Decepticons were not given uniforms. As someone unfamiliar with the Transformers I couldn't tell who hit whom, and had to reassure myself that the robot that stood at the end had to be the one that is supposed to be standing.
Ebert: Relax. You were not confused.
I haven't seen the film yet so I can't really comment on the entry at hand much (I plan on seeing it despite the horrible reviews, as I loved the first and have nothing better to do tomorrow, and then I will comment further) but I think 2009 could also be viewed as the year that the PG-13 rating became obsolete.
So far this year, in the PG-13 category, we've had Taken (electrocutions, people being shot in the face, sex trafficking as part of the main plot) Year One (which features references to oral sex, mutual masturbation, and circumcision) and Fired Up, a movie so juvenile and stupid that I didn't even finish it. Now we have Transformers 2, which apparently has a mom getting high of pot brownies and the ver lowering cleavage line of MEgan Fox.
I'm no prude, and I'm far past the age where the rating system has any meaning, but I do have a little brother and sister, and I do think that there needs to be a separation between bombastic summer entertainments like Transformers and more adult fare that stays in the PG-13 category, like Doubt (which is a film made for adults, despite its rating) and Taken. Perhaps a rating like R-13, in addition to your proposed A rating, would make the MPAA's system actually worth a shit, and not just something that I regard when I take my little brother to see Year One and have to squirm through blowjob jokes.
Roger... You will love this South Park clip:
This is from the Imaginationland Episode in season 11
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155700
Also, there's an equally brilliant comment about Michael Bay in this one from Catmanland in season 5:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104224
Before I even finished reading the entry, I felt I had to post this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRS90V8BQGo (voiced by actor Seth Green)
There's a kind of prescience here.
I feel a great sense of pity for my generation things like:
"It doesn't have to have a plot"
"who cares it's only a movie"
"I just want to see robots punch each other and blow up"
"I just like it for the action."
or any other rationalization or excuse for any movie to be bad.
Since when did action movies not require characterization or plots? What ever happened to suspension of disbelief?
I'm all for 2 hours of wanton destruction and carnage. But that carnage has to mean something.
im in this movie's target demographic as well as all of my friends who went to see it with me. we watched the show as kids and liked the first one even though it was a basic michael bay movie....but this one was terrible! none of us really liked it or more importantly understood what was going on! all i want to add to this near perfect review of what is wrong with this "movie" is that michael bay uses a large amount of lense flares in his movies but in this one it was just too much. there must have been a lense flare at least every 3 minutes, constantly blinding me.
I never liked Transformers from the gecko. I'd rather watch Minority Report instead.
Roger, before you take it all out on Bay, I think you'll get a laugh out of the 'abridged' script for "Star Trek", written by the great minds that brought us "Transformers" and, now, "Revenge of the Fallen"...
http://www.the-editing-room.com/star-trek.html
I know a director is supposed to have the most creative control and that Bay chose to make the film but don't you think the hack screenwriters deserve their names paraded around advertised as the guys who wrote this garbage? ...But I forget, they're being celebrated at comic conventions everywhere.
I don't understand the popularity of the franchise. Wouldn't kids rather watch "My Neighbor Totoro" or "Spirited Away" than an army shooting and running and explosions booming? And while fanboys burn up their time online, anticipating the next movie online, theorizing what it might be, they could be searching back at forgotten classics, such as "Silent Running" or looking up what other sci-fi is coming out to theaters, such as "Moon". The whole "Transformers" mania back a few years struck me as strange. I could see how people enjoyed it but how great an experience can a movie about a war waged over a cube be?
Everybody told me I just needed to loosen up, enjoy for all it's worth. Yet, at some point, doesn't a filmgoer have to draw the line? Cool as it might be, innocent and dumb and somewhat imaginative fun as it was, the first film was overpriced. It could have made how many "Chop Shop"s, "Man Push Cart"s and "Goodbye Solo"s? Any sequel is a no brainer tragedy of wasted budget.
Ebert: It rather surprised me that so far not a single outraged fan of "Revenge" has turned up to defend it, inform me I am an old fart, etc.
I've seen a lot of comments on message boards criticizing you for calling the plot hard to follow, and for mixing up the names of various robots, but these people are exactly the sort of people for whom this film is targeted towards.
If you haven't been familiar with the names of the characters and MacGuffins of the Transformers franchise for the past two decades or so, then of course it's going to be that much harder to decipher the ever-growing and ever-convoluted plot points. The first film did an excellent job of introducing people unfamiliar with Transformers to various concepts of the fiction. This film seemed to assume that since then you'd done enough research into the franchise mythology to write a doctorate thesis.
Ebert: The names of the robots? Hell, if I'd had them all memorized I would have had trouble seeing which one I was looking at. I think anyone going to see a movie like this should have a fighting chance of comprehending it.
I have the original Transformers: the movie (animated), which has many excellent actors doing voicework for it, including Orson Welles! I never finish watching it, but you actually care for the robots, however, they are not drawn as humanistically as "Iron Giant." In the movie, I don't think there are any humans in it--they carried the entire movie--and the action was story driven and not so manic.
Um, these preposterous gizmos hold no interest for me whatever, even though they are purportedly a mortal danger to all that humanity holds dear. I guess you had to experience a steady diet of them on TV whilst growing up. Now me, I take Godzilla, the Blob (the original nemesis of Steve McQueen), monsters from the Id, or the Creature from the Black Lagoon much more seriously.
What I want to know is, with expansion of the nominee pool to ten, will it be possible for a film to win best picture award at the Oscars with as little as 11% of the vote (assuming all the others tie at just short of 10%)? Or will they employ some sort of run-off system to assure broader support for the putative best of the best? OBTW, can winners in any category presently get by with as little as 21% support? That doesn't seem to be a very definitive statement to me. Sorry, just sticking my snoot in Hollywood's business, I guess. (And, your other column seemed more interesting today.)
There are 2 things I have to say about movies like Transformers 2.
First, they'll never die Mr. Ebert. In fact, I think they'll only get worse. Directors like Bay offer Hollywood an easy formula. Why spend $200 plus million on "good story" action movie, which may or may not achieve mass appeal, when we can spend the same amount on a "dumb story" which won't burden the simple folks with thinking. And aren't they going just to see s**t get blowed up anyway? For every Dark Knight, I suspect we get at least 4 to 7 Transformers 2.
Second, I look forward to such trash, as it seems to inspire some of your best work. "I Hated Hated Hated This Movie" is one of my favorite books.
I really don't understand how this happened...when the first movie came out a lot of Transformers fans were afraid that it would be terrible and many were happy to see that it was a fun summer popcorn movie with a few minor stupid bits that did not detract overly from their enjoyment of the entire film.
And then Michael Bay goes and makes a sequel that emphasizes every single thing that was bad about the first, as though he's daring people to like this one. It would be like George Lucas, reading complaints about Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and responding with Chapter 2: All Jar Jar, All The Time.
How does something like that happen?
Mr. Ebert, I'm glad to see you are attacking this movie. It deserves it. I only wish you had reacted this sensibly to the first film.
Why Roger, if the film is so bad, do you add to its hype?
This made me so angry, I decided to make my own post about it, therefore of course adding further to the hype machine: http://notfilmschool.com/?p=48
I quite enjoyed the "hard-headed" video review given by Mark Kermode of the BBC, here. He says he aimed it at all Michael Bay films, though I think that's a little too much generalisation. (I appreciated the character development in Bad Boys, for example.)
"Of course there will be many more CGI-based action epics, but never again one this bloated, excessive, incomprehensible, long (149 minutes) or expensive (more than $200 million)." In rebuttle I offer the December release of AVATAR: A CGI-based action epic, bloated and excessive (almost ten years to make), comprehensiblity too soon to tell, long (close to three hours, supposedly), and expensive (three hundred million, before distribution and marketing). But, since it'll have pretty scenes using bright colors and images that until now one could only find on a graphic tee accompanied by a wizard and/or dragon sold in a Sharper Image catalog, it will be given a free pass, like all movies that are pleasing to the eye, embrace new technology, and contain metaphors of life lessons taught and learned by almost all of us in grade school. Money doesn't matter, because, if it didn't cost as much to make and/or watch, then we wouldn't be able to insist it abide our wants and prejudices. Using the same stories, characters, and themes over and over brings no concern or fustration because that is what one is supposed to do when selling a product; convince the consumer they're buying something new and different, when its really just a variation of something they already have. And since this is the movie BUISNESS, and we live in and have been raised in an industrial society, commerce is progress. Of course this is not the end of the bloated mainstream Hollywood movie. Next time we'll just go to a different store.
Nathaniel! This is an intervention. Rent "Casablanca", or, even better, find a theater showing it. It is "action-packed", funny, suspenseful, and features a woman much more beautiful than Megan Fox. And this is from a guy who had a total blast revisiting "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" a few days ago.
Speaking of which... "more stupid, more silly, more bombastic, and way more intense" are all words one could use to compare The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor against 1999's The Mummy. Yes, Emperor's cinematography and costumes were top-notch, but "the best in the series"? Surely you were joking, Mr. Ebert. Nothing in that film was as alive and delightful as Rachel Weisz's performance, to take only the most obvious example.
Well the first one devolved into a numbing experience of giant tin foil balls bouncing around on screen for two hours at 24fps. The first half was enjoyable, though. A longer sequel with more action as a proportion of the length? You have my condolences. I'm telling you, the first film projected at high speed will be akin to that first viewing by people of an on-coming train. They will be mezmerized...and possibly run in panic. It could literally be paint drying, and if this is time-lapse with peeling & cracking at high hz, it will forever change that saying. Now imagine The Matrix or Dark City or any of the original Star Wars films in 48 or 60fps. No need for slow mos that Bay is so unpleasantly fond of to see all the nuance of the action. It wouldn't have made Transformers 2 a better film, but it would have made it more tolerable and comprehensible. I must go to Hollywood. My junior high school motto was "Why not us." Damn it, I went to film school. Why not me... Rachel Maddow just said "my eyes can't move that fast." Yes they can, sweetheart. There's just not enough for them to follow yet. It's coming.
Decepticons.
Anyway, the major problem here is that there are workable movies in the transformers mythos - Starscream as being the evil will that evil mars sort of thing, or if you go with the Beast Wars series, Dinobot, the frequent traitor who dies well.
The point to the series is almost a clash between gods and titans, where the gods are flawed and the titans aren't entirely unsympathetic, where characters die and where you have the infinite nightmare fuel of characters who really can be reprogrammed into liking being evil.
Without the bots actually being characters, without them taking centre stage and having problems and relationships with each other, without any of this, you get a Michael Bay movie.
/geekmoment.
I'm pretty sure I fell asleep at several points during the latter two-thirds of the film, notably punctuated by John Turturro's dreadful "not on my watch" line. I drowsily thought that it was the dumbest thing I'd heard in a while. Your review (and blog entry) have both been immensely more entertaining than this terrible film.
I am neither a fan of the Transformers nor of Michael Bay. Therefore I have not seen the first movie and will not watch this one either.
But I have to say, reading your review yesterday really entertained me tremendously. It is far more entertaining than the movie deserved. Thanks for making me laugh so hard.
I know it is not fair to judge a movie without having seen it, but I feel reassured in my opinion after reading your review and after reading that even Harry Knowles, fan boy #1, who finds an excuse to like almost any explosion he sees on screen as long as it is connected with a comic adaptation, did not like it.
So, I should just stay home and watch 'Atomic Cafe' again? At least the characters are interesting...
Maybe you're right, maybe it is the end of an era, but I wouldn't count on it. In the U.S. it seems that franchises are so often driven into the ground by the desire to make more money with over-the-top sequels. I just don't see that cycle ending any time soon.
My wife is Japanese and so I've been exposed to Japanese media over the years, enough so that I've developed an opinion about some differences between Japanese franchises and U.S. franchises. This is a generalization, so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems that the Japanese sequels give more respect to the original concept and are more restrained. I guess that should hardly come as a surprise given our stereotypical view of the Japanese. The end result is that Japanese franchises are much longer lived but more rigid/less capable of change.
Americans always want the bigger, badder evolution of the franchise, but the smart studios/directors try to deliver an experience that is consistent with the original.
I had read somewhere that the script for this transformers movie was "fast-tracked," which probably has something to do with the quality of the plot.
Everybody keeps saying this, but I'm curious as to why this movie doesn't have a plot. Here, let me break it down for you, kids - there are still scraps of the AllSpark left from the previous movie, and they're causing problems for Sam Witwicky and the Autobots - who realize the Decepticons are coming back for revenge as well as to hopefully take over the planet, so they need to use the help of old friends, new friends, and new enemies to figure out what to do to stop them. What's so difficult to understand about this?
Oh, and Ebert - it's painfully obvious you weren't even ready to give this movie one ounce of a chance. Your mistakes on simple facts like mixing up "Decepticons" and "Deceptibots" is the kind of mistake a fifth grader would make and an editor should have caught.
Your accusations about the incomprehensibility of the action are merely due to you obviously being too lazy to bother to actually WATCH the action. If you're paying attention, it's pretty easy to keep track of who's who. Know how I know you're lazy? Because you missed a couple of other things that were explained too:
Sam Witwicky's parents were kidnapped by the Decepticons and used as bait, which is why we saw them dropped off later, so that the Decepticons could try to kill him when he tried to save them, like they knew he would. I'm sorry if this movie doesn't hand this answer to you on a silver platter. I guess Michael Bay (naively, apparently) thought he could trust viewers with putting two and two together. Silly man.
The armed forces men in the movies fire a specific kind of gun, that actually can hurt the Transformers, because of the kind of ammunition used. They even blow up a couple in this movie. It's explained in the first movie, and if you'd been paying attention, you wouldn't have to ask stupid questions like this.
And finally, your whole complaint about the stupidity of giant bots battling it out - well, you're having a problem with the entire premise, and in that case, why the hell are you watching the movie anyways? You're seriously criticizing Optimus Prime for being a badass in a fight? WHO THE HELL CARES if he's more agile than a many-ton transformed truck should be? What do you want? A weight comparison between his truck form and Autobot form, so that you can make sure that everything is perfectly accurate?? I never once last track of who was an autobot and who was a decepticon - the robots all have different colors, and so it's fairly easy to distinguish them from one another, even during battle scenes. Sure, it's not the easiest action in the world to follow, but that doesn't make it bad. Simply because your eyes and brain are too slow to absorb what you're watching doesn't mean you should blame the movie.
Now, I'm not calling this movie entirely good - I'll admit it has several flaws, one of them the poorly drawn human characters, but I just had to point out how your ludicours conclusions and accusations are tell-tale signs of you sitting down before the curtain goes up, pen in hand, and muttering to yourself, "Okay, what about this movie am I going to hate?" You broke the cardinal rule of film criticism. No matter the movie, you walk in with fresh hopes and a willingness to submit to the filmmaker's rules. Yes, sometimes those rules are ludicrous and flawed, and no, you don't have to accept all of Bay's pretty ridiculous rules, but you certainly don't have to go on a tirade that blames a movie about giant alien battling bots for being bad because it has giant alien battling bots. Now, you can put a glib little bold addition to my comment that doesn't really address any of my arguments, but I would be interested in hearing what you actually have to say.
And no, I'm not some Michael Bay lover who's trying to defend this psycho's work - (Bad Boys, Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, were all AWFUL movies), I just think he should be given more credit than you're willing to hand out. Plus, one reason there were a lot more robots in this film was because fans were disappointed with the boring human characters in the first one - Transformers used to be actual characters back in the day, with little involvement from humans. So Bay's inclusion of more more more is, yes, textbook sequel and obviously marketing-related, but also a good deal of it was fan service. It's not his fault if you can't appreciate this.
Roger,
Sorry to get slightly off topic (though it sort of relates to what you wrote about WALL-E and the animation category): The academy just announced that the upcoming Oscar's will feature DOUBLE (yes, a whopping 10) nominations for best picture. This seems needlessly excessive to say the least. Your professional thoughts?
Ebert: I discussed it here:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090624/OSCARS/906249995
shia lebeouf is a talented actor.
roger ebert is a highly gifted critic
michael bay is a terrible director.
or maybe he just gets bad scripts.
whatever way you want to put it. reading about this movie
will probably be far more entertaining than seeing it.
let us move on now to public enemies. which i am sure
will destroy this film.
you should have released this one in the MIDDLE of july
mikey.
As you may have noticed, The Internet is up in arms this morning over possible racism in the new Transformers movie. From the Associated Press:
"Harmless comic characters or racist robots? The buzz over the summer blockbuster ''Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen'' only grew Wednesday as some said two jive-talking Chevy characters were racial caricatures. Skids and Mudflap, twin robots disguised as compact hatchbacks, constantly brawl and bicker in rap-inspired street slang. They're forced to acknowledge that they can't read. One has a gold tooth."
Was it noticeable to you, or was the movie already so annoying that this was simply the icing on the cake?
Ebert: I noticed. I should have mentioned it. I wish I had. I may go back and add a graf to the entry.
Well said, Roger, well said. A check on your database reveals the fact that out of 8 movies Michael Bay has directed, you have only given thumbs up to 2: The Rock and The Island. As you have said, Bay is not only not evolving but he's degenerating. He seems to have a penchant for racist, sexist and offensive stereotypes. You did recommend that everyone involved in the making of Bad Boys 2 go commit themselves to community service, I wonder has Bay found the time to do it, or is he still coddling up to DOD?
Caught Transformers 2 last night. Bad mistake. The whole was so monotonous that I was bored out of my skull. I couldn't fall asleep due to the Dolby surround. There seemed to be some editing mistakes, but who cares, the whole movie was edited so quickly, I could barely find the time to blink my eyes.
The people who are criticizing you for not liking the movie by saying that it is supposed to be an action-packed spectacle and not a profound work like "Casablanca" are forgetting two things.
1. "Casablanca" was, of course, originally designed to serve as popular entertainment in the same way that "Transformers" is. However, that was during a time when complex plots, sparkling dialogue and strong performances were not looked upon with fear and confusion by studios and moviemakers as things that might alienate some viewers.
2. Even on the level of action-packed spectaculars, "Transformers" bites the big one because it is too loud, graceless and incoherent for any sentient human to endure for more than a few minutes. It is possible to make a movie of this size and scope with some degree of wit and style--the films of Luc Besson immediately leap to mind and even Bay managed to do it with "The Rock"--but this one fails at that so spectacularly that it almost makes the original "Transformers" film seem palatable by comparison
You have to admire the chutzpah of the marketing guys who are getting people to pay $8.50 for the privilege of watching a 2 1/2 hour toy commercial.
There will be a more expensive CG action film: "Avatar". It reportedly has a budget of over $300 million. Here's hoping James Cameron can deliver a jaw-dropping visual experience that has "compelling characters, depends on strong human performances, tells a great story and skillfully integrates the live-action and the CGI." CGI for the sake of CGI has become pointless and boring.
Youtube has the original animated feature film "Transformers: the movie" (1988), for free. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EpwGaJbZq0 Great animation, story driven, human, in the tradition of animation (Bugs and such were really people), and it's not "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", which you know is going to make 70 million just this weekend, anyway. (Also has voice actors: Judd Nelson, Leonard Nimoy, and Orson Welles)
When the first Transformers came out, I was having a bad day during the sweltering summer, and thought I would enjoy watching robots duke it out in an air conditioned theater. If ever I was in the mood for mind candy, that was the moment, and a Michael Bay actioner was the perfect fit.
About what seemed like mid-way through the film, I walked out on a movie for the first and as yet only time in my life, Roger.
I read your review of Transformers 2, but I recall there was a small humping robot in the first one, as well. I also bore witness to Bernie Mac calling his comically angry black grandma "mammy", the yellow car bot play make out music to help Shia get romantic with Megan Fox, who was filmed with all the subtlety of Playboy video shoot. I watched a telephone operator pick his nose, tried to decipher what kind of robot the United States Army's male model division was fighting in the desert... By the time I got to Anthony Anderson as the lovable shlub-able he-can-hack-anything computer whiz, with a comically angry black grandma, not only did I walk out, I got my money back!
I went to another theater and spent my money on Michael Moore's documentary Sicko. I didn't think I'd be in the mood for it (there was no car bot to play a Sousa march for me), but I was entertained, informed, outraged and uplifted. No budget, real people and a point of view - all the makings of a summer blockbuster.
I posed a question to some of my friends: Knowing my movie tastes, should I go to see the new Transformers movie, or should I get the pain over with and cold-konk myself in the forehead with a cast iron skillet?
I thought everybody was showing good taste in movies by suggesting the skillet, but after I started getting calls asking "Well, did you knock yourself out yet?" I began to get suspicious...
I can't understand the people who keep trying to excuse this movie by reminding us that it's supposed to be big dumb fun. That does not excuse it from the crime of boredom.
The worst part about this movie is not that it's bad, it's that Michael Bay is laughing at us the whole time. He and his buddies in Hollywood think we're all just a bunch of dumb hicks with no taste and no dignity, and we'll buy anything that's crass, with T&A and explosions and cars.
I would like to believe the world is better than that. I'm probably wrong.
(The last link was incomplete--missing part 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDm8rqKw-zg&feature=related
Youtube has the original animated feature film "Transformers: the movie" (1988), for free. Great animation, story driven, human, in the tradition of animation (Bugs and such were really people), and it's not "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", which you know is going to make 70 million just this weekend, anyway. (Also has voice actors: Judd Nelson, Leonard Nimoy, and Orson Welles)
have you seen robot chicken's 'Baysplosions'? it's genius.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I know I am in the minority with this opinion but there is something about Michael Bay that simply infuriates me. I have long thought that he is the "death of cinema" simply because he represents Hollywood at its most cynical, shallow, and heartless.
I really do try to take each new movie as a clean slate. I want every movie to be a good one but Bay has consistently produced shiny and loud pieces of crap time and again. With "The Island," for about half of it, I really thought he was going to be able to pull out a good movie, but that was until the second half. Then he fell back onto his old tricks by abandoning all story, blowing everything to smithereens, jacking up the THX sound to 59 and editing every frame within an inch of its life. It was then that I realized that I don't think Bay even cares about making a good movie at all. In fact, with the fist "Transformers," I felt it his least "offensive" movie because it was precisely an advertisement for toys and he didn't have to be concerned with human emotion whatsoever.
I fondly remember Gene Siskel's review of Bay's horrific "Armageddon," as being the film that Malcolm McDowell's "Clockwork Orange" character is forced to watch with his eyes wide open. Bay is cinematically beating us all into some sort of submission just due to his movies being punishingly hyperactive and overstimulated disasters. If it's loud and fast enough, perhaps he can trick the audience into thinking they are seeing something truly "thrilling" and "awesome." But, there has never been any awe, excitement, thrills or surprise. Just the soulless counting of box office dollars.
I hate sounding so "old" but I wish today's audiences had summer films like the ones I had in the early '80s when we could be graced with "Raiders Of The Lost Ark," "Superman II" and so on. Strong actors, strong storytelling, and the special effects didn't overwhelm the entire proceedings. Last summer reminded me of those days with "Iron Man" and the outstanding "The Dark Knight." Those films truly entertained and inspired. Perhaps Bay's movies will inspire new filmmakers to make even better films. Bay should be forced to sit through his...ahem...work...from end to end just like McDowell. Someone please stop him.
I just wish summer movies would aspire to be more like "Jurassic Park" and less like "The Lost World". The first was a nuanced, suspenseful and thoughtful roller coaster ride. The latter was a several impressive but sequences of CG effects strung together by threadbare plot and characters that defied logic.
It's a shame that Speilberg was both the master and destroyer of the summer event movie.
Ebert: He was one of the producers of this (*cough*).
I just wish summer movies would aspire to be more like "Jurassic Park" and less like "The Lost World". The first was a nuanced, suspenseful and thoughtful roller coaster ride. The latter had several impressive but silly effects sequences strung together by a threadbare plot and characters that defied logic.
It's a shame that Speilberg was both the master and destroyer of the summer event movie.
If there was a family dynamic going on in Revenge of the Fallen, would you appreciate the movie more? In the cartoons, the emphasis was on the relationships among the robots themselves. There were even episodes when they were not fighting; instead, they were talking among themselves trying to solve personal problems they had with their kin.
I had to watch the movie twice, and it was only when I paid real attention to their dialogue that I finally understood the movie. The characters were speaking too fast in Revenge of the Fallen that it was no wonder why many could hardly follow the plot. I also read the novel adaptation, and it was only then that it made a lot more sense.
What would you say to Steven Spielberg? He's the executive producer of the movie. I thought he put a restraining hand on Michael Bay like he did in the first movie, but it seems that in this one he put all his trust in his director and just let him had his way.
You despised the movie so much in your review that your dedicated even more disgust with the movie in your blog. One question: Why one star, and not zero?
Ebert: It is merely bad, not morally evil.
it's been suggested we're all missing the point - http://io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie
I completely agree with every comment you've made regarding this film.
Michael Bay seems more interested in the details of his CGI as opposed to any characterisation. Shia's character is very difficult to really root for as the best material he is given one dimenionsional moody teenager.
Regarding the scenes with his parents, I felt they were completely out of place. Like someone was trying to crowbar in a poor scene from American Pie. I understand they are shooting at the audience that particularly enjoy nob gags (my missus loves them too, but refuses to wear one - Boom Boom), but it all felt so forced.
I realise the film is trying to get across the idea of moving away from home. Being in different surrounding etc, but it's not subtle or particularly well done. The college scenes are so tacked on that it feels like a separate movie.
I did enjoy the first film, it was a nice easy 'put your brain away for a few hours' experience. It didn't demand any thought, just a hankering for big robots and explosions. With that in mind I very much thought this was going to be another slice of the same pie.
However it's confusing plot, which I felt all the way through that I had missed something vital.. Was there something in the previous film I forgot? Was there a webisode? Short animated film that gave some information that was important to the plot of this movie?
No... there wasn't, it was just poor writing and a lack of editing from Michael Bay. Add to it that a lot of the scenes rejected for the first film were used for this one and you can see why it's such a mess.
With cinema tickets at a high price point(I paid £7.30) in these cash strapped times, it's a shame that so many people really won't get what they paid for.
Maybe it's time for less famous directors with a little more finesse to be trusted to deliver the goods on the summer blockbusters. So we can inject a little intelligence into proceedings.
And remember, whilst Michael Bay did give us Bad Boys.. an amusing if a little predictable action film.. Do not forget he also gave us Bad Boys 2... Which sucked... big time
I haven't seen Tranformers 2 yet, mainly because I'm going to wait until I can get in for really cheap just to have my morbid curiousity satisfied.
One thing I've heard a lot about, however, that is not mentioned here is the film's racism. . . particularly in the two robots who talk in hip-hop speak, have gold teeth and can't read. If this is truly in there, I can't believe a studio let it pass.
But it points out a problem I've always had with Bay...he loves to use very uncomfortable ethnic stereotypes, particularly of African Americans. In "The Rock" (a movie I enjoy) there was the cutaway to the "streetwise" black woman hostage who kept talking about bringing her "own muthaf---in' gun." In "Armageddon" the opening assault (on the world, and our sense) featured Mark Curry as a cab driver who,when things went to hell began screaming the standard "Damn!" and "Oh Shit!"
But I remember the first "Transformers" being particularly bad. There was Jazz, the robot with the African-American voice who would flop around on cars saying "this looks like a good place to kick it" and other "urban" catch phrases. But then there was also Bernie Mac talking about his "Mammy," as a previous writer said (and Bernie Mac should have known better). But on top of that was the subplot with Anthony Anderson as the hacker...and because he was black, he was a shrill hacker from the ghetto, who was always screaming about the police and sat in his room playing video games all day. The "Bad Boys" films have their followers (I enjoyed the first one) but even they trafficked in stereotype humor.
I don't think Michael Bay's a racist, but I do think he's a very lazy director when it comes to characters...his best way to establish them is to pull out a stereotype. It's cheap, lazy and offensive...and for a man who prides himself on being so meticulous over his action sequences maybe he should take some time away and do something without special effects.
By the way, I have a theory: up until "Pearl Harbor," Bay was making films that were big and loud but still had the some story to them (I think the first half of "Armageddon" is fun...when they go into space it loses me). But I think he got so worked up over the failure of "Pearl Harbor" that he just decided "screw it" and began making movies that tweak his own image--particularly "Bad Boys 2," which is an assualt on the senses and decency, and the "Transformers" movies, which simply feature big robots blowing big stuff up every five minutes. It's like Bay's saying "I know what you expect from me and, screw it, I'm not going ot try to give you any more than that."
I don't understand how movies like this get approved and made, costing the inordinate amount of money they do. Actually, I do understand: the money will be recouped several times over when people go see it.
So, let me rephrase. I don't understand why people go see movies like this. The fact is, though, that people do go see movies like this, which leads me to ponder what it says about people.
Another commenter on this blog wrote:
I'm not expecting intelligence or even a story from this movie, and I didn't before. Sometimes dumb action is entertaining enough.
That is so baffling to me. People actually do pay hard-earned money, of their own volition, with the explicit intent of witnessing stupidity? And they call that entertainment? Someone please tell me, what exactly is it about stupidity that is entertaining?
I really don't get it. Perhaps Roger or someone else can help me understand the psychological or neurological basis for this behavior, because it's so totally alien to me. In fact, I might as well be an alien, since a lot of contemporary human behavior simply doesn't make any sense to me.
I'm reminded of the 2003 movie Stupidity. It seems to me that this Transformers movie and others like it, or worse (Jackass comes to mind), are tailor-made for the group of humans who seem to lack a major part of their brains. I just hope they aren't making a lot of babies.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I have not seen this Transformers movie (nor its first installment), nor Jackass, though I have seen trailers and I have read several reviews. It could be argued, then, that I have no solid basis to condemn either one. That's a fair enough criticism and it puts me in the situation of having to decide between watching them and admitting that my reasoning might be faulty. I opt for the latter.
The only thing I could think of as I watched this film was this: "They seem to have gotten it in their minds that this sequel has to check the following boxes: MORE transforming of robots (check), MORE, bigger explosions (check), MORE Megan Fox being a fox (check), MORE dumb, cliche relationship tribulations (check), MORE deus ex machina (check)."
It's not enough for a Michael Bay sequel to have value from a good story or acting; it has to have everything the previous film had and MORE, which leads to Ebert's incomprehensibility in the case of Transformers 2.
Watching Transformers 2 is akin to watching 3 hours of outtakes from the first movie.
If you walked out of the theater after seeing the first Transformers and thought to yourself: "Great movie, but it really needed to be 3 hours longer and have even more pointless crap!" Well, you're in luck!
I say this as an Ebert fan/girl/woman:
I'm an adult woman who knows little about this film apart from your review, this blog post, and the fact that my younger, female, siblings watched the cartoon back in the 80s.
I've always admired your position in reviews that the term "Chick Flick" was offensive. Yet here I see "It has little to no appeal for non-fanboy or female audiences." If you've made your case as a critic, why do females need their gender as an additional reason to dislike it? If I shouldn't like it because I'm a female non-fanboy, please throw a few sentences of justification into the review.
Ebert: I was only trying to describe the film's somewhat limited demographics. That's legitimate. According to my site software, although "Transformers" went through the roof Wednesday, today's current most-requested review is "My Sister's Keeper," which is arguably more interesting to women ald indeed all conscious life forms than "Transformers." I find that my early site counts are a good predictor of box office, so look for "My Sister's Keeper" to lead the weekend's non-Transporter films.
I admit I enjoyed the first "Transformers" but just from the trailer, I can tell "Revenge of the Fallen" is going to be pretty bad. I blame the idiots who stand in line and buy the tickets. They're responsible for these ridiculous summer blockbusters with nothing but explosions. They're also responsible for the upcoming sequels. And they can have it. It's just sad a movie like "Moon" can't find audiences because the majority of moviegoers are bimbo-headed zombies who just want to see stupid action and big explosions.
Of course I have never understood why anyone would go see a movie made from a game either.
And I abhorred the travesty that was CGI Beowulf. Didn't stay with it long enough to see Angelina as slithery mom. The Tomb Raider ride (only tilts, doesn't really go anywhere) wasn't bad at King's Island though.
I liked the yellow VW gobot toy. It had play value.
Last week, at the insistence of a friend of mine, we watched "Quantum of Solace" for our weekly Movie Night movie. He, a 62-year-old man of gentle disposition and Bhuddist tendencies, enjoyed it thoroughly. His attitude was, Bond movies have always been action movies, and this one was one of the best, because it was all action. I, like you, was put off because the action scenes were incomprehensible. And just because I enjoy butter on my popcorn, doesn't mean I would enjoy eating a stick of butter by itself. I agreed 100% with your review.
Now we have this latest Transformers movie, with the same sort of action scenes. I shall resist the lure of the astoundingly sexy women I saw in the trailer, and not see this film. Since you and I were so completely in synch with QoS, I am fully confident that my level of suffering would again match yours.
However, I must wonder if we aren't reacting the way our parents did to rock and roll. Think of most early Rolling Stones records, or of the crescendo towards the end of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight". It's all incomprehensible noise, until your brain adjusts to things, learns the musical vocabulary, and sorts out the apparent chaos so that it can be understood. Then it becomes exhilarating. Could it be that the people who are enjoying these fast-cut action movies are making the same sorts of mental adjustments?
Ebert: More stupid, more silly, more bombastic, and way more intense. Too loud. Visually incomprehensible.
Dare you to sit in the front row at IMAX.
Can't. Geneva Conventions prohibit it.
I think I'll end up watching this once it comes out on BluRay. There is something sexy and entertaining looking at highly complex CGI. However, sitting in a theater for 2.5 hours to watch this movie? No thanks.
Roger,
My main fear is the death of the attention span. I mean after watching this type of bloated pig how is a kid supposed to go read a Henry James novel (even the short ones) or watch an Ingmar Bergman movie, that is assuming they like the Transformers film, which unfortunately they will (most kids favorite movie is the last summer action film they watched). I hold Michael Bay morally responsible for a type of special effects pornography... and I do believe that "The Autobots® and Deceptibots® must not have read the warning label on their Viagra." is perhaps the funniest line i've read in your journal to date. I want that on the dvd packaging. I actually think for many it would be read as an endorsement.
I haven't seen the sequal, but I thought the first one wasn't bad for what it was, a mindless action movie. Bay has never made good movies. I remember a couple of years ago, Entertainment Weekly did a story on him with the title "Is Michael Bay the Devil?". You can't compare Bay with Speilberg, Nolan, Raimi, or Brad Bird. Those guys have filmmaking talents. Bay has no filmmaking talents, but does have showmanship talents. Sometimes you get passable entertainment, like Transformers and The Rock, and other times you get utter junk, like Armegeddon, Bad Boys 2, apparently, Transformers 2.
This is the curse of George Lucas. He pioneered the technology to tell a series of stories that became Star Wars. Now, every Tom, Dick and Michael uses that technology to enhance the visual and aural and forget that they have a story to tell. The advancement of the art of the technology seems to be inversely proportional to the degradation of the art of story telling.
Just because a mountain is there does not mean you have to climb it.
Of course it would be a wonderful thing if eye-popping effects and superb spectacle were used solely in service of the plot, but there are, alas, good structural reasons why that's difficult at the best of times.
The more money it costs, the more money it can bring in, but at the same time, it's a bigger risk, and it must be a sure thing. So, in the absence of some countervailing force (Up cost $175 million to make, but Pixar's track record buys quite a bit of creative freedom), visually impressive movies will regress to the mean.
This angers me particularly because SF, a genre that deserves--requires, even--interesting stories and subtle plots, also seems to require a big effects budget, which means that movies about robots end up looking like this. Ugh.
So, in the realm of science fiction movies, does this mean that Primer is the opposite of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen?
I'm a 19 year old male, and I find it to be such a disappointment that movies such as "Transformers" are THE movies of my generation. Since the movie's release on Wednesday, a great deal of my peers have updated their Facebook's with statuses such as "Transformers was SO awesome," etc.
I have many issues with the way that my generation perceives film, and the release of "Transformers" once again solidifies my agitation. Due to the lack of exposure to "good films," my generation can't even comprehend what a "bad film" is.
Oh well, I know that I'm not going to waste my time, money, or eardrums on "Transformers 2," I'd much rather spend the evening watching Welles' "Chimes at Midnight." (Even if "Chimes" is on a tiny screen, at least it won't insult my senses, or intelligence.)
P.S.
Roger, I think that you should consider give my peers a big slap of "good taste in movies" in the mouth. (Though I fear that they may need more than that.)
Ebert: You are the hope of the future.
Roger
"It had been a wonderful evening and what I needed now, to give it the perfect ending, was a little of the Michael Bay.
"As I was saying Roger, you can be instrumental in changing the public verdict". "Do you understand Roger, have I made myself clear".
Transformers 2 is not a movie at all, it's a product.
I've just spent the last three months watching the top 100 greatest movies of time of an awesome list of the top 100. (www.theyshootpictures.com). I know a good movie and this is not it. Wandering off track, the last 40 minutes of Greed is what people should be lining up round the theaters to see.
Transformers 2 is beautifully packed, gloriously marketed and the perfect example of how the media conglomerates are working to drive revenue through every channel. In other words, if you talk Transformers 2 at the moment you'll get read.
The sadness is that with $55mm on its first day and likely in excess of $300mm globally in its first week, this $200mm dinosaur will rampage round the planet for month chewing up cinemas, then DVD's and other ancillary activities. A $2bn revenue total is not impossible.
The studio accountants will go back to the mountain and read your epistle on the one hand and look at their bank balance on the other. They will scratch their collective heads.
Who they gonna call?
You guessed it, not you our intrepid friend. The satanic Michael Bay will once more arise and declare that it was always meant to be a trilogy and this will be the biggest and best of all. The studio will "gamble" $300mm (think Dr.Evil) on part 3 and you will be...
...strapped to a chair and carried screaming to the front row of an Imax theater. Your eyes will be forced open and for three hours - more is better - you'll watch TF3
"Viddy well little brother. Viddy well".
Rob
I hope Hollywood doesn't attempt a Gundam movie anytime soon, though I guess it's inevitable really.
Mr. Ebert, are you familiar with the Mobile Suit Gundam anime franchise? I'd recommend the 1st three movies that compile footage from the original series. Plus, the follow-up series Zeta Gundam and the six-part War in the Pocket. After seeing the Transformers movies, I'm sure many Gundam fans are terrified their favourite giant robot show might receive the same treatment.
Wagner, I think I can understand some of the people who are arguing for Transformers: ROTFL. You and I may see things like plot as essential to a good viewing experience but I think some people get the same thrill from this movie that one might experience form, say, a rollercoaster.
Now, roller costers tend to make me ill. Indeed, as I get older the number of suitable amusement park rides dwindles. At some point I will find myself in the teacup ride frantically signaling for the slack jawed carny operator to shut it down. But there are those who love them. There's no point in arguing the merits of love. I could tell them "How can you enjoy a roller coaster??? It's too fast, too noisy, too scary and you end up right where you started! It's NOTHING like a nice drive through the mountains in Fall!"
So I would not trash Transformers for being all action, no plot. There's a market for that. I would argue that it would not take much to please those that appreciate such things and you would then expand your market but I'm just a humble part time special effects guy for micro budgeted movies so my POV is not something that Mr. Bay need fret over. No, my problem is that I think it fails AS a balls to the wall actionfest. It lacks coherency. The robot design is too busy, the fights too quickly edited. In Armageddon this worked; the almost subliminal fast cuts heightened the sense of chaos and destruction. What a missed opportunity this one is. How cool would have been to just show us nice long shots of giant robots slugging each other. It would heighten the sense of awe. You don't edit a Godzilla movie like it's an MTV video (Note to younger readers: MTV once showed videos. It's true.)
With all this talk about CGI robots, one picture always stands out in my mind:
http://www.vertigogaming.net/HUD/georgelucas.jpg
Kinda puts things in perspective, in a kinda sad way.
Dear Roger,
As a child I had several transformers- my favourite was a blue racecar named 'Mirage' that turned into a wierd robot whose arms were too short. How I loved that stupid little toy. I must have imagined a thousand adventures for him, and every one of them more interesting than this movie.
Michael Bay is maturing in the wrong direction? Would you suggest he direct some horrible John Krasinski vehicle like Sam Mendes? Or maybe he should direct Tom Hanks in a boring film about living in an airport like Steven Spielberg? Rather than using his "ego" to make self-indulgent dramas that appeal to the wine sapped east coast intelligentsia, Michael Bay uses his "ego" to direct massive blockbusters that appeal to the broad-based Coca Cola fueled masses. God Bless America! This film is a $200 million gift from Hollywood and almost makes up for "Rachel Getting Married."
Ebert: I think of it more as a gift from the ticket-buyers tto Hollywood.
Roger, let me assure you that I know Todd Gilchrist personally and he's a pompous and narrow-minded moron. This is the guy that showed up at the press conference of Neil LaBute's "The Shape of Things" and said he hadn't even seen the film and had no interest; the guy in my presence who at the time said "Starsky & Hutch" was finally the only good movie he's seen in a long long time; the guy in my presence who said "Thirteen," the picture about experimental teens with Holly Hunter as the hard-pressed mom, said it was a completely useless and miserable movie that served absolutely no purpose; the guy in my presence who called "Speed Racer" a masterpiece that didn't get the audience it deserved. Roger, love everything you stand for, but you gotta stop quoting him.
Ebert: I understand where he's coming from on this film, although I sure don't come from there.
Roger has said that movies presented in 3D do nothing but stick things in the eyes of the viewer, which any serious lover of movies will agree with. To be persistent, Roger now mentions that "Occasionally a Bot voice will roar thunderingly out of the left-side speakers reminding us of Surround Sound..." I have 5.1 sound at home and I'll be the first person to say that I think it's a gimmick. I don't feel that I'm actually surround by sound, but that the mixer is showing us that he's able to make things on the left side of the screen come out of the left speakers. Most theaters that ran "Star Wars" in 1977 ran it in mono, and I'll put that experience against most things I see and hear today.
Ebert: The thing I liked best about the film was that it was not in 3-D.
a masterpiece of wit. your review is chocolate icing on the bloated Styrofoam cake. i just laughed away a considerable amount of tension, thanks to this entry.
i was planning to skip this, since two of my guy friends dragged me to the first one, which i didn't enjoy.
i swear, i thought i'd have a beard and pecs by the time it ended- there was that much testosterone filling the theatre.
Are you sure this movie is not morally evil? Perhaps the content is not, but what about the motives behind making a movie whose content is besides the point, since the only motive is making money? In essence, they have charmed the public into the theater and then given them NOTHING.
I saw the trailer of this movie when I went for a film with a friend and he said, "Wow! This is gonna be so cool!" I knew what he meant by cool. The actual film would just be another movie trailer... only instead of being 2.5 minutes long, it'd be 2.5 hours long.
Sometimes I wonder... when they make these movies, isn't there anyone who says: "You know what? This'll be boring, Michael... it'd be good if we change this and remove that... cause this just isn't realistic.... cause this is difficult to make out..."?
One of the actors? One of the animators? Art directors? Set designers? Heck, one of the spotboys!
Several hundreds of people would have been involved in the making of this destructive creation... so did no one have the guts to walk up to Bay and say: "Your movie sucks"?
Honestly, Ebert, you should've been Bay's uncle or advisor or something! You'd have showed the guy how to make movies and criticised him so much that he'd have: A> made good movies or B> retired.
(I'm just re-reading what I just typed, and I realise it makes no sense... it's a fractured meaningless comment, but I'm putting it up anyways...)
Hello Mr. Ebert.
Sorry for the grammar issues (I'm spanish). Well my point is that the problem of Transformers...is...too much story. In the two installments. Borges wrote a great essay on the born of heroic tales and refered the poetry (the verse) of the stories as essentialist. There were stories of fighting and bravery.
Pop Culture has remade that old great feeling with the sense of wonder of comicbooks or B-Movies. I think that Transformers could have been a masterpiece (or a essential piece) for Jean Baudrillard, the great philosopher of simulation.
My problem is that Godzilla vs. Mothra was 90 minutes and essentialist. The two Transformers installments had no greatness in its language and the action sequences of Bay have been studied by Bordwell as chaotic (I hate the Dark Knight for its terrible set pieces too). There is a lot of stories, a lot of boring mythology: a Matrix, a Spark, the glasses of a grandfather, the old Egyptian text....The Transformers don't support a complex story.
Imagine a movie with just two human characters. And Transformers fighting. Just the way that Ishiro Honda delivered us funny and brief tales of giant monsters fighting each other and the imagination was all. 80 minutes. Nothing more. And lots of sense of wonder. There is no place for movies like this in Hollywood.
Off course, the worst is that Transformers 2 is the USS Militars exhibition of power and, worst of all, boredom. I have nothing against the sometimes tender and funny prop, but this is way too long for a last hour of shots of submarines, flights and helicopters.
Ebert: Strange that they land in Egypt with being noticed.
I have heard so many people say that are going to see this movie even though they know it will be bad. I enjoy a cheesy B-movie as much as the next person (although I prefer bad to boring, which is what the first Transformers was to me), but I also like to balance my diet with movies like Tulpan and Adoration.
What I don't understand is why millions of people will exclusively see movies that they know are probably bad without ever taking a chance on something that could probably be great. I simply don't relate to that mindset at all.
Personally, I think the whole lumbering mess is worth it if the following 6 words make it into the public imagination and part of our lexicon:
"a horrible experience of unbearable length".
I said this in an earlier thread, but, oh, to have a dollar for every experience of mine that could be described that way, from my first marriage to reading Atlas Shrugged. I will be using that quote for years to come.
I heartily agree with the points in this post!
1. The transformers are just too complex to make any sense. Visually, they cannot be distinguished in a brawl fight.
2. Those stupid squinty round light bulb eyes! Surely, when we look at how light bulbs evolve to present day LED lights, cartoon type of eye-shades or rectangular eye strips would look 100,000 times better. Even my low end notebook as indicator lights that is a plastic strip light by an LED. Light bulbs, for prime's sake!
3. Talking lips! Darn! What's wrong with this bay fella? Machina videos made with Halo shows clearly how characters head movement can micmic very very very well 'talking' of a character without showing the lips. And for the most part, most transformers had mouth piece shields. Some had mouths, eg Megatron and Starscream. But that is 'cos they had a recognisable face to begin with!
4. Faction patches are *NOT* visible at all. The Autobot and Decepticon logos should be HUGE so that at least you can recognise the different robots.
I think any of those home made vids on youtube depicting transformers are way better. Even the car maker, Citroen, did a better job with depicting a transforming car.
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=6550
I forgot to add that one of the most painful moments of the first Transformers was when John Turturro -- he of Barton Fink, Quiz Show, and Do The Right Thing -- was urinated on by a giant robot.
Is that what he needs to subject himself to get a big paycheck in 2007? What a sad state of affairs.
Ebert: Come to think of it, if Bots can pee and fart, why can't they have their own Bot Heaven? You know, like Doggie Heaven, Armadillo Heaven, and so on.
All the defense of this movie on the basis of its being "mindless" is very sad indeed. Maybe I'm lucky, but heretofore I've been blissfully unaware that there could be times in a person's life where the simple "act" of thinking is just so painful that one needs to be physically prevented from doing so by a noisy onslaught with negative aesthetic appeal. Why can't you watch ANY action movie, and just opt not to think while doing it?
Michael Bay has indeed sunk low if you look upon Bad Boys and The Rock with fondness! And hold them up as examples of his best work!!
If the best you can say for yourself is that you once, long ago, made Bad Boys, you would have been better off finding a job other than Hollywood movie director after graduating from the Art Center College of Design.
Please change "Deceptibots" to "Decepticons." I think those who are familiar with the Transformers will have a hard time taking an otherwise great commentary seriously with such an obvious error.
Also, your history of the different versions of Starscream isn't quite correct. The first image is of a PVC toy made to look like the original cartoon Starscream, but the second is a toy from the "Transformers Animated" show that has been on the last couple of years and just ended. It's not the 1984 version by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree with you about the current incomprehensibility of the form (I couldn't tell which Decepticon was which in pretty much any scene - they all looked the same), but again I think the commentary would be better supported with accurate information.
Ebert: Web sites I used had bad info. I hope it's now right.
I know it's been said before but it's "Decepticon".
Anyway, part of what so upset me about the look of the movie Transformers was - as you pointed out - they basically look nothing like the original designs. The original designs made them distinctive and you could actually differentiate between the robots on screen. As a child I was a big Transformers fan because, to be honest, Transformers make really neat toys. And Michael Bay turned them in to masses of machinery that are blobby and indistinct when not in their vehicle forms. I'm not saying that the original Transformers designs made any logical sense, but at least the looked distinctive and in their own ways kind of nice. The Autobots were the heroes, the Decepticons the villains. And they at least displayed common sense. Like you said in your review the Transformers in the films are as dumb as a bag of rocks.
Even so, I maintain that Transformers make really swell toys for kids. I just wish that Michael Bay hadn't mucked them up with the movies.
Did you read the recent news story about a controversy involving this Transformers movie being racist since one of the robots does some jive talking ?
Seems to me like this is just another one of many "controversial stories" that conveniently appear in the media when a movie is released. It brings to mind Ron Howard trying to bait the Catholic church into blasting "Angels and Demons" in order bring more attention to a movie that, in that particular case, pretty much bombed anyway.
Ebert: I doubt if the filmmakers desired this controversy.
A minor correction: the picture you have of the 1984 Starscream is, in fact, a picture of Starscream from the 2008 cartoon, not the original from the '80s. You can Google Starscream G1 and find any number of pictures of the '84 Starscream.
Ebert: Did I find the right one? "1984 toy?"
This whole Transformers fiasco seems as good a place as any to ask a question that's been bugging me for awhile. In 2000, we were gifted with a collection of your 2-star-and-below reviews (I Hated Hated Hated This Movie) which was basically a 30+ year career retrospective of loathing. When the follow-up volume came out (Your Movie Sucks), it got to roughly the same page count by looking back on only six or seven years of stinkers.
Do you find this as alarming as I do? When The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature expands from one year to the next, it seems like a good sign for the magazine market. When books about dud films do the same, it feels more like an omen. It doesn't help my superstitious side that two Transformers movies landed after Your Movie Sucks.
I was a fan of the first film. Like you, I found it amusing and silly, with just the right amount of over-the-top action. But this was just too much. I find it strange that Spielberg is happily attaching his name to this flick. Also, when Spielberg saw this for the first time a few months ago, he called it "Bay's best film!" Huh??? I would sit through Pearl Harbor five times before enduring this again.
I've been tracking reactions to this film on Twitter and Facebook, and I'm pretty disappointed. When I walked out of my screening the other day, I was positive that people were going to rage against this mess. Easily nine out of ten people on Twitter are absolutely raving about it. Granted, most of them are teenagers, but there are a disturbing amount of grown men and women praising it as the greatest action movie ever.
I am not a film snob. One of the reasons I appreciate you so much as a critic is because you give every movie a fair shake. Many critics don't do that. If it's a big budget action movie, they immediately write it off as being beneath them. I love to be entertained, and I don't care if it's by a quiet, thought-provoking drama, or a big-budget summer movie. Just don't insult my intelligence. This film is an affront to intelligence and all rational thought. A perfect example is when Jetfire and the human characters exit the Smithsonian museum and walk into an aircraft boneyard in the middle of the desert.
Maybe the big budget action/sci-fi epic will be saved this winter, when James Cameron's Avatar is released. If there is a director out there who knows how to bring on the action and effects, while at the same time presenting interesting characters and ideas, it's Mr. Cameron. I have my fingers crossed, because it can't get any worse than Transformers 2... can it????
Will summers at the movies try to live up to the summer of 2008 from now on? It seems the bar monster-budget blockbusters has been raised. I still have hard time not comparing EVERY film I see to The Dark Knight, even if that movie is just a romantic comedy starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds.
I'm not terribly surprised with your review. If there's anything to be expected from Michael Bay, it's that he will make a loud, obnoxious movie that exploits marketing (Sandisk plug in the first "Transformers," anyone?), special effects, and audiences with equal disregard. I believe "The Rock" was an anomaly, likely because of the excellent talent involved (Ed Harris, Nicolas Cage, Sean Connery) moreso than the directing. It wasn't until the first Transformers came along that I was able to find another movie from him that I actually enjoyed (even though it consisted of the same exploitation).
I think you hit the nail right on the head with the first one: it was entertaining until it devolved into mindless, incomprehensible robot-on-robot fighting that was impossible to follow. And this is coming from someone who grew up a fan of the cartoon iteration and the line of toys. After having seen the trailers for "Revenge," and knowing Bay's aesthetic for doing it louder and more obnoxious the second time around (see "Bad Boys 2"), I have no doubts you are dead-on with this one, too. Fortunately, thanks to your review, I won't have to verify it and can instead spend my precious time and money on "The Hangover," or perhaps seeing "Up" a second time.
What is Michael Bay? Did Hollywood assemble it out of spare parts from Van Damme and Seagal movies (the uncreative and uninteresting parts) and seal the deal with a stamp of 666?
A buddy of mine worked on the set of Brett Ratner's "Rush Hour" and said that he had a billion cameras set up: "Action! Rolling on the billion cameras! Did you get it? Well, it's a billion cameras, so we must have gotten something! Check the gate! Move on!"
That being said, however...
Bruce Willis once complained about Bay (long after wrapping "Armageddon") and essentially said that "screaming isn't directing." In Bay's defense, you can't direct excrement through screaming, you do it with a toilet.
And, if it's not broken, don't fix it...a blockbuster is a blockbuster...but I would imagine a special place reserved in hell for that kind of mentality. Bay would be right at home then.
Michael Bay,
Your Movie Sucks.
There shouldn't be any conflicts between good movies & explosive-robot-fighting movies. Meaning that, yes, of course you would probably have only the words - "Explosion. Robots. Fights" in your mind when you are buying tickets to see Transformers, and some may go in because of childhood memories. But who says because of that the movie could be as bad as it wants? Entertaining and good movies do not need to be all artistic-oscars-winning-foreign-language movies. Dark Knight, Iron Man... all the way to romantic comedies like Last Kiss, these are all good and entertaining movies, and no one expect to see an "oh my god, this is so going to win over Cannes this year" when they walked out on those.
Good is good, entertaining is entertaining, and, BAD IS BAD.
I've given up on Bay after "Pearl Harbour".
Thanks Roger for all the reviews, opinions and thoughts. Thanks for letting us (somewhat) picking your brain here.
Please add this to the long list of thank yous.
Thank you for turning me onto to Cinematical.
The most amazing fact is that people know they are watching junk and still prefer the familiarity of junk rather than trying something new--with more substance.
and the irony is that we are supposed to accept the junk but they can't stand to watch more than 5 minutes of Godard.
Ebert: I was just informed by a poster that Godard would have tried to copy Transformers if he had been lucky enough to see it in 1960. Fellini and Bunuel, too.
Some posters have wondered how "these" films get made. Money. Money is the only reason to make a squeal. First Transformers made $300 million. Why not duplicate that?
Think Cheaper By the Dozen 2 had any meaningful value, other than seeing Carmen Electra. Oh, right, you Transformers guys may not know her: She's just like Megan Fox, only more filled out.
You should watch the recently-canceled Transformers Animated series; it's a cute, postmodern take on the mythos that never takes itself seriously:
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/69398-metabots-and-deconstructicons-transformers-goes-postmodern/
Dig this short:
Optimus Prime: Greetings, young humans of Black River Elementary School. I am Optimus Prime, of the planet Cybertron. I am… uh… extremely honored to be invited to speak at your school’s… uh… um… Career Day.
Precocious Student: Are you the one that turns into a fire truck?
Optimus Prime: Well, heh-heh, actually, I was hoping we could save all the questions for the end.
Precocious Student: Oh. Where does your head go when you turn into a fire truck?
Optimus Prime: Well, i-it sort of gets… um… eh. Tucked in. Um. Anyway, it-it’s not important.
Precocious Student: How do you see?
Optimus Prime: Excuse me?
Precocious Student: When you’re a fire truck with your head tucked in, how do you see?
Optimus Prime: Well, it’s rather complex. You see, our optical units are made up of… uh… a network of visual sensors… connected by…
Precocious Student: Can you turn into a fire truck right now?
Optimus Prime: Well, huh. I wasn’t planning on-
Students: Fire truck! Fire truck! Fire truck!
It's frustrating that so many average Joe Moviegoers
feel the need to defend bad action movies and worse yet, patronize them to the extent that Hollywood studios keep wasting time and money on pumping out these worthless films. So many better films could be made if the public were a little more discerning.
Either my complaint will fall on deaf ears or I'm just preaching to the choir, but why do people feel the need to defend a film like Transformers 2 when they have seen and enjoyed great action/adventure films like Casino Royale, Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2, X2: X-Men United and countless others? There were PLENTY of explosions, gunfire and CGI-based action in those great movies!
Why can't they demand (by withholding their hard-earned cash) that studio make good action films instead of mindlessly support and defend crap by saying that they just want to see explosions and action?
Ebert: They get persuaded by marketing. Or maybe, of course, they like them, although this one hasn't scared up many defenders here. What I'm getting is a lot of "I liked the first one, but not this one."
Um...forgive if I sound terribly naive here, but wouldn't it be simpler for everyone involved to come to the realization that one man's treasure is another man's trash? I plan on seeing the movie in spite of Roger's review, simply because I want to see the FX, but I don't think that makes me an enemy of good taste. I know good taste when I see it. (Lawrence of Arabia f*****g RULES.)
And as for Roger being accused of trying to "sway the opinion" of the masses...to whomever said that in an earlier post: I would posit that if Roger actually had that ability, then "Transformers 2" would never have been made, and the biggest blockbuster of all time would be "Dark City", not Titanic.
(By the way, just caught the Director's Cut of Dark City...spectacular improvements! Not simply added scenes, but re-tooled score and editing...fantastic!)
Ebert: It benefits so much from dropping the studio-,generated spoiler opening narration.
the only reason why the racist caricatures called the twins were allowed is cause of the lack of diversity in hollywood. if there were more people of color behind the scenes someone would have said no. i can not believe in 2009, in the age of Obama (who was mentioned in the film) we still have depictions like this. I wish I could meet the person who put a gold tooth on the robot and thought it was a good idea. so much for a post racial society.
Ebert: Michael Bay says it was all in good fun, haha.
For robot explosion movies (a fun genre), I think the bar is still set by Terminator 2: Judgement Day. The action sequences still hold up, the CG was groundbreaking but worked to serve the story, and there were actual characters actually acting along with an actual script that was actually written by someone who wanted to display intelligent thought. It was 1991, and I still remember it as (I think) the first movie I paid to go see twice in the theater.
As for Transformers, I would watch Bozo everyday even though I knew they only showed the cartoon a couple of days a week, and then I'd watch in the afternoon as well. I liked the first Bay movie ok, but it was a hodgepodge of harmless fun with Ms. Fox as the only thing that remained with me for longer than a day. But even it was far too hyper-kinetic in the robot battle scenes for me to relate; I simply let them sorta wash over me, and actually became bored with them after awhile. I can't see how more of that would be compelling in any way.
I've been lookin for an opening to bring this up, and this seems about as good a time as any, however tenuously, but I can almost identify with some of the defenders of this movie. When I was twelve, I was already a great admirer of you, for your vast intellect, and your late television partner, for his effortless sophistication. How devastating it was when you both soundly trashed "1941," a movie I adored and must've seen five or six times at the theater. To this day, I still feel it is a vastly underrated comic spectacle, with great performances by John Belushi, Dan Akyroyd, Ned Beatty, Warren Oates and Robert Stack, among many others. It also represents one last expensive gasp of special effects generated not by computers, but by good old-fashioned large-scale models, blue-screen and we-only-have-one-take-to-get-this-right staged shots (ala Keaton's "The General"). When the ferris wheel broke free and rolled down the pier into the ocean, I was astounded. When the tank smashes through a paint factory, they actually had a tank smash through a paint factory. Oh yeah, and the skinny-dipper that straddled the periscope of the submarine as it emerged from the sea was also the first time I witnessed female nudity on the big screen. Absolutely glorious.
I have long since forgiven you of your one glaring lapse of judgement through the years. And you did love "Airplane!" too, at the time (the first boobies I saw in a film, by the way. What a wonderful winter that was), which helped me recover quickly from your earlier broadside. Maybe in the long run, you helped me to look more critically at movies, and at myself.
That being said, haha, I gotta say, your review of "Transformers 2" has been one of those instant classics, along the lines of "North" and "Duece Bigalow 2." I've already seen it quoted on Rachel Maddow's show. The trailers alone give me a splitting headache, could not IMAGINE actually sitting through the whole thing in a dark theater. Hazards of the job, I guess, right? Well, after reading your piece, you proved the old adage wrong. You CAN make chicken salad out of chicken...well, you know how it ends.
Hm...maybe you really have helped...in the long run...
Ebert: I think Michael Bay was trying to make chicken out of chicken salad.
Man, Roger, it seems that those anticipated summer days has inspired a spark of vigorous writing. “My Sister’s Keeper” and “Cheri” pop, and, not simply because they are quite positive recommendations. Your words sing. Oh, your “Transformer: Revenge of the Fallen” colossal takedown is like a solid steel hubcap Frisbee direct hit to the knee caps. Ouch! Classic! Would you believe NPR has highlighted (Roger Ebert Tramples the Transformers with Delicious Glee) your review?
I have a confession. I like your prolific product always, and my takeaways have been quite enriching for sure. But, I had an overwhelming sense of melancholy after reading your blog post “Shall we gather at the river?” My feeling was not for the Duke or nostalgia, but for you Mr. Ebert. We are not ready for the void, Sir. Today, your golden thumb shines, and the busy accompanying fingers give us much to marvel, still. Roger, you may hear this way too many times, you are a treasure. Summer days, indeed. Smiles and smiles to go.
I agree with you, Ebert.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1874709/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen.html?cat=2
That "Transformers as an art film" post intrigued me, mostly because I thought the first movie was extremely weak on an artistic standpoint. That could have been a fun stupid movie if Bay's cinematographers learned to just hold a camera still over the action. All the shakey-cam made the admittedly impressive special effects incomprehensible. The trailer for this new movie had some decent eye candy shots that actually looked to slow down and show more detail on the action, but from reviews I take it those are the vast minority of the film.
Roger, did you ever get around to seeing Speed Racer? That and TF2 would make an interesting comparison piece. The former got trashed on by many critics as an Assault on the Senses. It is, but the actual 2001-meets-Sky Captain-meets-Willy Wonka-meets-Mario Kart design of the film I found to be quite beautiful and an interesting experiment in film grammar. The whole thing had a good sense of humor about itself and all while the characters were all caricatures, they were played well by a very good cast. I assume TF2 doesn't carry those virtues.
"Why does there have to be a plot?"
Seriously?
Because it's a movie. Movies tell stories of some kind or other, and that is known, roughly, as a plot. It can be as intricate as a french farce or simple as a worldess kid's film, but it's there, otherwise you are watching stock footage. This comment reminds me of commercials I've seen that advertise Giant Trucks videos. Not a movie about Giant Trucks, just footage of Giant Trucks, running over things, tooling along, sitting around getting their chasses polished. And the damn thing's part of a series! Earth Moving Machines, Humongous Planes (Order now and get the Trains DVD free!)
Who the hell orders these things? I have a tragically clear image of scores of basement dwellers, placing their online orders with quivering, dead-flesh-pale paws, and scurrying off with them to their dens to do wretched, debased things to themselves as these DVDs drone in the background, with the Giant Trucks crushing tiny, helpless Hondas under their mighty treads.
Explosions are fun, all right, but you cannot build any kind of movie around them. The explosions, no matter how numerous or varied or creative in what is exploded, must serve the story. Otherwise it's all just Giant Trucks.
It kills me when people give a pass to movies like "Transformers" (the first one, haven't seen the second yet) by saying "Hey, it's just a summer popcorn flick." As if that means things like story, dialogue, pacing and character are optional. Why set your standards so low? "Iron Man," "Hellboy," "X-Men 2" and even the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films all show that it's possible to make a popcorn flick that offers wit, well-drawn characters and an actual story IN ADDITION TO explosions, action and special effects.
i dont understand how you dont like this movie. its the same as the first. just the story is a tad bit different and a little dumb. but how could you give just a star and a half. you said you liked the first. you are contradicting yourself dude. please explain the difference between the two
Ebert: A gave a star.
One is more fun, one is painful.
What's most bizarro is reading comments from people who say, "I saw it once, thought it meh, but I'm seeing it again to make sure."
What kind of masochists drop 24 dollars to go see a shitty three hour movie TWICE to figure out if they like it or not? Americans are growing increasingly stupid as the marketing demons override their brains.
Let's face it, Ebert has become used to the cliched "good movie," and, worst yet, the cliched "good old movie". If we ship copies of "Transformers" to 1962 and allow Bunuel, Fellini, the French New Wave directors and the lot to sample it, they'd not only hail it as a revolution in film, they would all try to emulate its style.
Ebert: Can't say I agree with you on Fellini.
Bunuel? Let me think. No, not Bunuel, either.
The French New Wave directors? Sorry. I just don't see it. Maybe it's just me.
I saw the movie twice (I'm 31 and grew up watching the cartoons) and look forward to buying it a few months from now. I can understand the complaining and constructive criticisms that a lot of people shared, but happen to love the movie regardless. Now I'm wondering if something is wrong with me lol.
Some movies are made with the explicit intention of making money which they may achieve to some degree. One may expect a law of natural selection as applicable to films to work---but experience would seem to indicate that evolution here as elsewhere is a slow process if it works at all. One can pray that there are other more deliberate processes at work, HI (human intentionality), if not ID which can speed up dawn.
A key concept is that these movies are basically ads for video games.
Dear Roger,
A spot on review. As I watched this movie I began to wonder if the DVD will include deleted scenes of the robots turning into cars in 10,000 BC. Interesting, that robots that can turn into automobiles and toasters, would choose to come to a planet where technology hasn't even been invented yet.
I’ve read many other reviews of Revenge and I keep reading feedback from the defenders of Bay write things like: This isn't Citizen Kane! Huh? Now wait a minute, Star Wars and Iron Man weren’t Kane either, but they are examples of superior filmmaking. You know, a cohesive plot, solid acting and effects that serve the story...not the other way around.
I enjoyed “The Rock”. Bay was restrained back then. The story unfolded organically and the action set pieces were exciting. Why? Because I could follow what was going on! Since then, he seems to have devolved into some ADD affected, mammary obsessed, ten year old boy.
I must disagree with your initial observation, however. If this movie makes the gazzilions many speculate it will, I have little faith that this will “mark an end of an era”. If this is what people are paying to see, then why would they stop making them?
Hey, I have an idea. Why not strap a camera inside a car and then roll it off the highest mountain and let it careen and roll and crash over and over for two and half hours until gravity finishes what it started. Oh no, wait a minute. I saw that movie...
It’s called Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Ummm. So, what? This is a "No"? Don't try to sugar coat it here, Roger, are you saying no to this one?
Just kidding. I thought this was one of the funniest reviews you've ever written, and I've been reading you for fourteen years now.
All morning long I've been reading Transformers 2 reviews on the internet. Why? Because I need a support group. I saw this movie at the Imax here in Austin yesterday and have been trying to cope ever since. Roger, your review is spot-on on this one. The other people that are rallying in defense of this one are either paid by the movie industry to counter-post or, more likely, have bad taste in movies.
I saw the first Transformers and didn't much care for it. I understand 'mindless action'. Sometimes it's a wonderful, beautiful thing (think any action sequence from the Matrix Trilogy, The Rock ((early, but good, 'Bayhem')), Die Hard Trilogy ((the fourth one didn't count)), or even Crank). However, mindless action doesn't pretend to be high-minded art film filled with emotional exposition, and that's where Bay goes horribly wrong with this one. I honestly feel that if you just cut out all the scenes with actors, the movie would a) be shorter and b) more interesting. Maybe slow the frame-rate down a bit so I can really appreciate the work that went into rendering thousands of pieces of each transformer.
What really gets me about these two movies is that they aren't as good as the animated movie that came out in 1986. Yep, it's better. Is the animation silly and weak? Sure, but this was well before the days of real CGI. But it had characters with emotional range (who were mostly all robots), a plot, and some great (if cartoonish) action.
The final indictment of this movie has to be it's reliance on 'things that don't matter' to draw the audience in or entertain them. You go to seee this movie to see big robots fighting. That should be 70% to 80% of the whole film. But it doesn't work that way inside the criminally insane mind of Michael Bay. Instead, we get thrown mindless garbage to distract us and act as useless filler. These things are: robots in blackface, Megan Fox's butt, condensing every college humor bit into a fifteen minute sequence for no reason, random shots of military hardware shooting / blowing things up (I was in the Army and it was just random pieces of hardware that never get fielded like that), and 'dramatic' dialogue that is beyond campy, good, emotional, or believable.
All in all, thank you for making me feel like I'm not suffering alone.
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is only deserving of one star? But "The Mummy Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" is worthy of 3 1/2? "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was worth 3 1/2? "Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace" worth 3? "Episode II - Attack of the Clones"? The list goes on and on. I think your reviews are based on your moods. You loved the first "Transformers", but hated the 2nd? I didn't find "Revenge of the Fallen" to be any louder or goofier than the original; or JJ Abrams "Star Trek", or those "Fast and Furious" movies that you so clearly love (for being loud and dumb) ... sometimes it seems movie critics get off on writing negative reviews - "... because they are fun to write and to read," said Ego from "Ratatouille". He may be right.
I for one don't understand where all of the hate is coming from. I saw the movie with a big crowd yesterday and they laughed, clapped, and enjoyed the heck out of it. So did I.
I find it amusing that BIG event movies that push the envelope in visual FX are typically panned, as critics lament the "old days" where BIG monster movies like the original classic (lol) "King Kong" actually had solid acting (what?) and a great story (huh?). "Revenge of the Fallen" is no different than the original "Kong", or "Clash of the Titans", or "Jurassic Park", or the original "Star Wars". They're popcorn movies that are meant to be loud, special FX driven escapism.
(Unfortunately not all of them can be as good as "The Mummy 3".)
Take some responsibility in your writing and give credit where credit is due. A lot of people worked hard on this film. You don't have to ENJOY it, but giving it one star is a slap in the face to the countless people involved.
Just to clear up the toy pictures,
The first one is the 80's toy and the second one is Startscream from Transformers Animated that aired in 2007 on Cartoon Network.
As for the movie, I am hating it the more I think about it. I left the theater stunned at how bad it actually was. What I am more worried about is what it says about us as a culture. Are there people who find the two Ghetto Bots OK? Are there people who find the crazy mom, humping dogs and robot testicles funny?
The other thing is just who was this movie made for? I am 34, I would love to see a smart, visually accessible retelling of one of my favorite cartoons. This movie wasn't made for me. The language, swearing robots and humping dogs isn't for kids and I fully didn't expect it in there. And I am hopeful that most parents who brought younger kids to see it, cringed every time a robot said "said punk ass bitch." But since my faith in humanity went down just a bit when I went to see Drag Me to Hell at 11PM and there was a small child in the theater, I think most parents will just be happy they don't have to talk to their kids for 149 minutes.
I liked the first one a bit and had hoped the mistakes of the first would be remedied, nope, they were amplified.
I am just at a loss, I think it broke my brain.
Roger, I am curious about one thing...
At what point into the movie did you begin hating it?
In the promising opening few minutes I thought they might make a better movie than the first, something with thoughts about life beyond Earth/humans attached to it, like "Knowing". A few scenes later Optimus Prime is speaking about how humans aren't exactly trustable because of their war-plagued history. A government scientist (agent?) has a few thoughts about how some say people were made in God's image but maybe Optimus Prime was or maybe we're made in his... but he's a robot car so somebody would have had to make him...
So for the first few minutes, I was on a high and had genuine hope that this movie was going to take us somewhere. And then it all starts to fall apart as the routine mass-terror action scenes kick in.
My friends are all taking shots at me now for expecting anything more based on the first few minutes. I guess I'm just not cynical enough, especially after "Watchmen" and "TDK" to put Bergman ideas past a franchise blockbuster. (I ) My friend joked that it would be so wonderful if part 3 had no action whatsoever, and consisted of CGI robots sitting in big, empty buildings and musing about the fragility of existence. "Transformers 3: Waiting For Megatron".
Great review.
By MattyJ " What sequel has been smaller and more intimate?"
Kill Bill Vol. 2
You know, there is a lesson that the Money Mad Pirates in Hollywood have never been able to learn: If you make a 200 million dollar movie out of a brand name, it will make a huge profit on the opening weekend but will fall off as the weeks roll by. But if you make a 200 million dollar movie out of brand name that just happens to be a good movie, you can keep the profits rolling in because people will keep coming back. They will inform their friends and there will be repeat business.
"Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight", both did great business but both were extraordinary films. They made money all summer, not just over the course of a few days, because the audience liked what it got and wanted to come back and see it again.
Roger, unfortunately the first Google image search result that correctly shows Starscream from the 1980s cartoon is from a white power organization.
Here is one from Univ. of Maryland:
http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/fall2005/cmsc330/javapages/part1/starscream12.jpg
BTW, your review of the 1984 movie cartoon of this franchise was not flattering as well, but given the relative monstrosity that is this version, can we appeal your rating of the kindler, gentler predecessor? It had Orson Welles at least.
Much thanks.
Fantastic entry, Roger. I really agree with everything you said about this movie.
I can only come to one conclusion about it. Michael Bay secretly had his editors killed before they could get to his movie so that it would go to theaters untouched.
I have seriously never seen a movie like this before. It somehow has transcended the concept of spectacle and has become something much, much more horrifying. It was like someone just randomly slapped together footage of explosions, boobs, racial and ethnic stereotypes, giant robots, sex jokes, and people screaming at each other into an incoherent monstrosity. It goes on for over two and a half hours. It never relents or slows down. For those of you who have seen Idiocracy, this movie feels like the next logical step in the sequence of events in human history that leads us to Ass. I simply can't bring myself to hate it because, frankly, I am in awe of its hideousness and I almost feel sorry for it; as if it were Frankenstein's Monster.
I don't know where Michael Bay can go from here. This is his magnum opus. He should retire because he can do no more.
Unfortunately, in Transformers as in other films derived from existing stories, there is a tendency to require, what Dav so appropriately noted "enough research into the franchise mythology to write a doctorate thesis." Honestly, the only reason that fans of this narrative have any idea who is who (because god knows none of the characters look anything remotely like the animated stylings with which we grew up) is because we've been reading about the details of this film for months. Because we're fans. And it's always a dangerous thing when fans expect non-fans to know every detail to appreciate a film that is intended for "a broader audience." (And some, like Anakin86, are then guilty of using that unnecessary level of detail to badger quite legitimate perspectives that do not conform with their fan-held world view.)
One point. As you well know, great effects are often substitutes for great stories. That said, big movies, be they good ones like Dark Knight or Ironman or bad ones like Catwoman and the Phantom Menace, are increasingly about marketing product. Since the most redeeming part of this film seems to be the prettiness of the robots, I'm sure Hasbro is quite happy with the final results. Because it is not in the business of selling well-rounded characters (robot or human) but cool-ass robots.
And Hasbro will do quite fine. Thanks for your time.
I checked in early this morning, saw you "strike down with great vengeance and furious anger" Transformers 2, glanced at the comments, then went off to teach my three College for Kids courses down here at Knox (Science Fiction, Heroes and Villains, How to Watch a Movie). In Heroes and Villains an eight-year-old boy told me he had seen Transformers 2. I asked him what he thought of it and he answered, "Awesome." His grandmother took him; she thought it was too violent and had too many "sexy scenes."
When I was eight or nine a bunch of us were dropped off, free-range style, at the Saturday matinee at the Whitman in Camden (yes, named after the poet) to see King Kong vs. Godzilla. We cheered whenever Kong got in a good lick--heck, even when he simply showed up (reminds me of the Woody Allen line about success) and fiercely booed Godzilla. King Kong, you see, was the American monster, while Godzilla was Japanese. (It seems in South Jersey during the early '60s kids were still fighting WWII.)
Of course, the moral is that eight-year-olds also must have their own cinema (sexy scenes optional).
I checked in early this morning, saw you "strike down with great vengeance and furious anger" Transformers 2, glanced at the comments, then went off to teach my three College for Kids courses down here at Knox (Science Fiction, Heroes and Villains, How to Watch a Movie). In Heroes and Villains an eight-year-old boy told me he had seen Transformers 2. I asked him what he thought of it and he answered, "Awesome." His grandmother took him; she thought it was too violent and had too many "sexy scenes."
When I was eight or nine a bunch of us were dropped off, free-range style, at the Saturday matinee at the Whitman in Camden (yes, named after the poet) to see King Kong vs. Godzilla. We cheered whenever Kong got in a good lick--heck, even when he simply showed up (reminds me of the Woody Allen line about success) and fiercely booed Godzilla. King Kong, you see, was the American monster, while Godzilla was Japanese. (It seems in South Jersey during the early '60s kids were still fighting WWII.)
Of course, the moral is that eight-year-olds also must have their own cinema (sexy scenes optional).
The coverage of T:ROTF has been fascinating. Responses have been visceral, and those who support the movie do so with reservations or irony.
Roger, I heartily recommend you check out Charlie Jane Ander's review over at io9. He views the movie as hallucinogenic cinematic fever dream with, dare I say, transformative properties.
I am a little confused by your review of the first one and then the second one. The designs did not change, yet you now comment on the size of their heads. Why is it an issue in this movie, but not such an issue in the first one?
Also, the picture next to: Starscream in TV animation (1984) is actually from the 2008 Animated series, not the 1984 version. The first pic in the article is the 1984 version redone in 2009
You made valid points, which people can feel free to agree or disagree with. However, to me, this is a movie where you check the adult in you at the door, and enjoy it for exactly what it is, a summer action popcorn flick, and it will well deliver.
As for the twins, Skids/Mudflap are not stereotypical and/or racist or whatever others are saying. THEY ARE KIDS!!!! Look at the size of them versus Bumblebee in the movie. We already know they get knowledge about us via the net, maybe they went to the wrong site or something and thought it was cool. I mean, in the first movie, Prime was going to originally start talking to Sam & Mikela in Chinese because the net told him that Chinese was the most widely spoken language on earth! It's like Superbad, IMHO. Those three kids had no idea what they were doing, so they talked "bad" to make them look cool. That's what Skids/Mudflap did. They were scared and way out of their league so they joked and tried to talk "bad"
Ya never know, Nathaniel, now that the Academy's announced there will be 10 nominees,...
And yet, somewhere, there is an intelligent 11-year-old boy from an unknown generation who completely got into TRANSFORMERS 2 - was filled with joy at its every move, and could never understand how so many major print critics have expended so many angry words about it.
I am not that eleven-year-old boy. I will not be seeing TRANSFORMERS 2. But that boy exists, you betcha, and he just sees things differently, and such in the nature of the cosmos.
Ebert: I know that boy exists, and I am happy for his enthusiasm. But his joy in "Transformers" will not survive the passage of time. Yes, someday that boy will be 12.
I have no issue with your review, only your description of your pictures to the left. The animated Starscream you are showing is actually from the new 2008 animated Transformers series, not the 1984 series.
Usually the indicator of an oncoming train...
No, it isn't, for 2 reasons: 1) I'm not in the former, and 2) neither is Maggie Gyllenhaal. So there!
I had read your initial review and felt that I could humbly attempt to at least conjure up a response.
The uneducated common reviewers that plague other sites with their negativity and false sense of "accurate public ideals". The movie is, in a lot of aspects racy, obnoxious and otherwise an acquired taste, I must admit. Yet, as critic-proof as this movie is, many (including yourself) have attempted to impress your own biases and desires in a movie to a generation that could never possibly fathom the complexity and grandeur of movies that hail from another generation.
Granted, the movie isn't a masterpiece but I personally enjoyed every second of it, and it was money quite well spent.
I just felt that I should express what I feel about the matter, and people have a choice to listen to me or not, the same being said about yourself.
Ebert: Generations have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of taste. "The Dark Knight" is a movie with grandeur. "Transformers" is a bad movie. Have you read the comments from many of the younger posters here? Even "Transformers" fans who were disappointed? That society is doomed where the knowledge of youth is prized merely for its brief tenure. Someday in fiction you may meet a character named Kenneth Widmerpool, who learned this to his regret.
Mr. Ebert,
I can't help but think that in some ways "Transformers 2" may be more of a shift in the paradigm of film culture in more of a negative respect than that laid out here in your wonderful entry. With it's dismal reviews, Rolling Stone magazine calling it a candidate for The Worst Film of the Decade, and so much negative buzz, could you say that, with the biggest Wednesday opening ever, this film may be more than just 'Critic Proof?' I'm starting to get the feeling that audiences are so afraid of the unfamiliar that they literally do not care what a critic has to say, and all they need are those familiar archetypes, big explosions, impossibly-hot female 'characters,' and the recognizable franchise to completely ignore what the critical elite has to say. I recently read an interview with Michael Bay in which he described that he does indeed read reviews of his work, and that they do not settle well with him because critics do not take into consideration the immense effort that goes into this type of production. Also of note, Bay made $70 million off of the gross + merch of the original. That said, could it be that Bay is more tapped into the mindset of the public's consciousness than the nationwide critics who are expected to understand the movies from the inside out? I personally thought the original film was a soulless franchise creation adapted from a Saturday morning cartoon, but my opinion is irrelevant: in this era of media-uncertainty, where critics and their newspaper/magazines are dropping like flies, could Transformers 2 be less the end of a future bygone era of mega-budgeted and ultra-bloated spectacle, and more so a harbinger of the future of the role film plays as an element in our popular culture? Or in other words, could the inevitable sequel to the film Rolling Stone describes as a candidate for Worst Film of the Decade be titled: "Transformers 3: Death of the Film Critic"?
I think Bay knows exactly what he is doing, he could make it better but why bother when you are going to make 500 million just with the robots and Megan Fox's cleavage. Even Fox herself recently said her performance stinks, but still, the millions will roll in. Yes, there are plenty of robots at theaters where Transformers is showing, and they are not all on the screen, they are also in the seats.
My biggest problem with the movie was the constant, frenetic pacing. There was never any reasonable period of time where the tension let up (some directors might have chosen such moments to add meaningful characterization -- never Mr. Bay). In such an overly-long movie, by the time the climax(?) rolled around, no one really feels invested in any sense of the danger the protagonists are in. They might feel something akin to shell-shock.
Just wondering if you believe if there is a critically-acceptable future for the Transformers intellectual property in movies after the drubbing TF2 is getting in reviews?
Migrod says:
"Um...forgive if I sound terribly naive here, but wouldn't it be simpler for everyone involved to come to the realization that one man's treasure is another man's trash? I plan on seeing the movie in spite of Roger's review, simply because I want to see the FX, but I don't think that makes me an enemy of good taste. I know good taste when I see it."
YES! This is the problem I've had with many of the review I've seen thus far or Transformers- I feel like I'm being mocked, chastised, and put down for enjoying the film. I've done my fair share of mocking of my friends in he past for liking crap films, but the vitriol being spewed in these reviews is quite shocking.
Again, I've not seen the film yet (later today, I promise) but is it not possible for someone to enjoy this film and also enjoy The Godfather? Personally, each film satisfied a different part of the brain. Transformers satisfies the part of the brain that likes watching crap blow up, and Godfather satisfies the parts that crave rich, meaningful experiences. Surely they can live in harmony.
All the people decrying their generation for liking this film (I'm only 21, so this is my generation too) need to get off their high horses. When I was 13, I too liked films that I'm embarrassed to still have in my collection (Little Nicky, anyone?). I doubt that Transformers will be a film I own or go back to, but the original was a nice escape for two hours on a summer evening, and hopefully this one will be the same.
What use are robots if they behave just as ignorantly and trendy as humans? Sounds like Transformers does for robots what Underworld did for vampires - rob them of everything that makes them interesting.
I gave Bay a chance with the first one because I thought I was prepared for how completely stupid a movie based on a silly cartoon about space robots that turn into cars could be. Turns out I was ill-prepared for the "greatness" of Michael Bay's vision!
I was considering seeing this one just because parts of it were shot here in my home town of Bethlehem, PA. Thankfully you have opened my eyes and saved me the frustration!
I think it's time Micheal Bay admits to himself he makes movies for 6-year-olds (and adults with the mentality of 6-year-olds).
Fantastic article, I watched the movie last night and I didn't even realize Starscream was in it! I thought it was just Megatron and the Fallen and a bunch of less important bad robots.
By far the biggest problem here is that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE ROBOTS LOOK EXACTLY ALIKE ONCE THEY TRANSFORM! (Except for Optimus and thats only cause of his distinct colors and features.
Roger, I took the wife to a midnight showing of this on Tuesday (well, technically Wednesday), and think that Stephen Spielberg having his name attached to it will cause more anti-semitism among the thinking branch of the film-going public than 2,000 Passion of the Christs combined. How did he allow himself to remain associated with this monstrosity once he saw the final cut (or read the first draft, for that matter)?!
Ebert: I don't believe Spielberg's religion is at all relevant.
Mr. Ebert, this film review is the reason you are a god among insects, if I may steal a line from X-Men.
You're the greatest!
as i speak, my ill daughter is watching miyazaki's "my neighbor totoro".
it makes me think that in this film class of the future, transformers should be seen in conjunction with totoro. it would be a simple study of extreme opposites! i can only comment on the first trans movie, they will not get me again...
you will not find a robot, or hardly any complex machinery in totoro. it is organic in nearly every way. you will find HUGE trees, green green grass, flirting butterflies, and huge furry monsters. every frame is lovely.
unlike transformers, the two girls who discover totoro are absolutely believable, and you care for them. and unlike transformers, there is wonder and terror, which seems to be at the heart of the totoro film. there is childlike wonder at totoro (only children can see him). and there is fear and terror: interestingly, not from huge furry creatures - they are curious and friendly and inspire wonder!
the real fear in the film is just that: the very real fear of losing a sick mother, and the terror of losing a lost child.
who can really say that transformers inspired awe and wonder? i agree that the target audience for this movie is probably not looking for awe and wonder; it is probably looking for the same emotional response as a beer commercial.
but your bringing up the iron giant is right on. another ANIMATED film that feels so much more human, so much more real.
I felt the exact same hatred for "Armageddon" (which was generally well liked for some strange reason). However, I lacked the phrase "visually incomprehensible" in describing it. For this, I thank you.
Roger, I love you, and love your writing. Truly. You opened my eyes as a very young man to a world of cinema; you continue to do so, and I owe you for that. These days I am often perplexed by your choices (three stars for The Proposal? Really?) but never in doubt about your sincerity. (Though you often seem to measure a film based on how well it achieves what it's setting out to do, and by my yardstick, that makes TF:ROTF score well more than one star, but it's not my yardstick that's published the world 'round, of course).
And I can't defend Transformers: ROTF. It doesn't need my defense, as the extremely happy hundreds of people leaving my local cinema after 5 midnight screenings can attest. I made a point of sticking around to watch people's reactions and this was one cheerful group. Nor is there a defense for it: it's not by any stretch something I would define as a "good film."
However: I LOVE IT. There are lots of things I dislike about it, but far more that I enjoy. I am not some angry fanboy who is going to diss you for your opinion, nor am I going to pick apart some of the inaccuracies of what you've said about it, although I could do without the ad hominem attacks in the comments on people who do enjoy it. People who have fun watching this movie are not "morons" or bad people. Or teenagers. I'm 45, work in the film and TV business, and I am well outside the demographic for this movie. But I loved it all the same. Anyone looking around the theatre wondering why the majority of fellow patrons seem to be enjoying what they feel is some kind of crime against the senses of vision and hearing, do yourself a big favor: get up and walk out. Right away. I won't blame you.
I don't know if it's possible to understand the dialectic, but in the past week I saw two movies that I really enjoyed. One was TF:ROTF. The other was "Tetro." Lest you think no lover of cinema could take pleasure from both, let me assure you I enjoyed each on their merits. One was a piece of cinema by an acknowledged master of the craft. One was a jarring, loud thrill ride.
I realize you think TF:ROTF is unencumbered by merit, and I respect your opinion: hell, I understand it perfectly! Just like I understand that a bucket of KFC is going to be really, really bad for me. Would I love to see a movie about giant robots that had a plot and real characterization? Sure -- and I've seen one, The Iron Giant. Most of the time, I demand a lot from the films I see. But every once in a while -- a long while -- a movie comes along for which I have few such demands. In this case, my demand was: show me cool fighting robots! Absolutely anything else is a bonus. I have never seen another Michael Bay flick I could stomach, except for these two. They are big, loud b-movies, hell, C-MOVIES, unapologetically so. Seriously, if the robot stuff was cool, I don't care a go for the rest of it. This makes me neither a moron nor a morally unsound person. I just like some candy once in a while.
All this earnest hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing about how summer movies are just big and stupid now I find exceedingly silly. "Since when did it become OK for popcorn movies to not have good acting and stories etc. etc.?" Since FOREVER. Perhaps people's memories of, I don't know, "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" or "The Blob" or, hell, name your William Castle picture -- or serial adventure of bygone days -- have been burnished with the passage of time, but those were the critic-proof, stupid popcorn entertainments of their time. I find the TF's no stupider and a good deal more eye-popping and generally well-made.
I too wish there were more summer movies of the calibre of Raiders, or Empire and so on -- wish that dearly -- but let's recall just what those filmmakers expressly set out to recreate -- pretty badly done, poorly written, money-generating, fannies-in-the-seat popular entertainments. (Or are people's memories of "Flash Gordon" serials similarly burnished?)
Is it possible to make something that works as a popular entertainment that's also a good film? Damn right it is -- just ask John Ford. But there aren't a lot of John Fords in the world -- never were, truth be told -- and much as I rue that along with all the people ragging on TF in this thread, I don't mind the occasional piece of cinematic junk food. I treasure it, to be honest, because for me it's a rare treat.
If I may address three specifics:
The supposedly incomprehensible plot: I am really stymied at the number of people making this complaint. I can only conclude that the overwhelming nature of the flick in general is what's confusing people -- like they're switching off. The plot is very very simple and clear, as already elucidated earlier in this thread. I really find it hard to believe so many people can't seem to understand it.
The Twins: a little tiresome, I'll confess, but the racism thing didn't even occur to me until I read people talking about it online. One of the few things that I found amusing about them was that I was taking both of them to be teenagers, the dumbass youngsters of the crew, one of them to be more of a hick and one of them to be more like one of those poser suburban kids from a rich household who slouches around the mall with his $90 jeans down around his ass, t-shirt down to his knees, $40 baseball cap perched at an absurd angle on his head, talking all "street" with a lot of "yo's" a "dawgs" with his Eminem cranking out of his $200 iPhone. I thought these characters were taking the piss out of that sort of kid, and actually, I still think so, and I am as earnest a white liberal as the next person.
Gender: my wife, a late-30s professional, loved the first one (in spite of herself, much as I did). I am inclined to believe she will also love this one. She will also dislike a lot of it, as I did. But it will be a fun ride.
I'll not change anyone's mid with these comments, not do I wish to, but I do want it said that some people take pleasure in the occasional entertainment of this sort. Just because I like to go on a roller coaster once in a while doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to live in one -- or that I don't appreciate a ride in a Jaguar.
As one of the approximately twelve-and-a-half people who wasn't fond of the first Transformers (or most of the similar, bombastic, CGI-enhanced live action action films), I feel almost feel a breath of relief that this film is getting bad reviews. This is a bit closed-minded of me, considering that I have yet to see the real film, but the usage of CGI in modern action films I feel has made the action sequences less exciting.
Perhaps I'm a bit nostalgic for the golden era of the Hong Kong action film, which as we all know has greatly influenced the style of modern Hollywood action film making. Despite the fact that I've seen their films so many times, the works that Tsui Hark, John Woo, Jackie Chan, and Lau Kar-Leung were doing at this time are still far more exhilarating to me than the computerized violence of today. Of course, I do realize it would be pretty much impossible to make these types of films in Hollywood, due to issues with the insurance companies that the actors would face. Hong Kong film makers themselves haven't been living up to the marks they set years ago, having been influenced by the Hollywood films that they themselves had influenced. I am curious to see if the new efforts by John Woo and Yuen Woo-Ping will change any of this.
The plague of incomprehensible editing is probably the largest problem of all. Even in the Dark Knight, which was a pretty good film overall, a lot of the action sequences (especially in Batman's first fight scene at the parking ramp) were muddled and sloppy. This isn't to say that all fast-editing is bad, but it should be precise.
First, most "professional" political analysts have demonstrated themselves to be ideologically-biased stenographers (more for the right because most of the billionaire media moguls/corporations signing their fat contracts are intensely Republican and tell them what to say/write), and second, the entire fucking point of America is that to maintain our freedoms, for democracy to work, we need an informed and involved electorate, not just a monolithic political/journalistic class that tells us how and what to think. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in advocating for allowing people to think for themselves while pushing to leave political discussion to the "professional" political analysts? What don't Republicans get about having an informed electorate and endlessly hectoring on about how others should "stick to what they know best?" You're abdicating your proper and necessary role in our democracy, and you would have others do the same. That makes you un-American in principle. Last, no one in their early-to-mid 30s writing under the nom de plume of a Transformer will ever have his/her unsolicited political opinion taken seriously.
it pains me really, in terms of plot this is one of the worst sequels, a good sequel will star of where the first left of with the same characters but gradually introduce new ones so newcomers and vetrans will have a clear understanding of whats going and the opening will have to serve as means to set the tone, pace and characters
heck i can come up with a much better opening here and ive yet to get good practice on developing stories, i hope i will be a writer though so if anyones interested please feel free to read:
Barricade (the police car decepticon from the first movie who just dissapeared without a trace and whom the writers were nice enough to NOT say what happened to him and lie that he was a tie in to this movie) is causing panic in Shanghai as a way to lure the Autobots and humans there so he can continue with his reaarch into the team and find out if any new autobots have answered Primes call, he also has been sent out to test how they work and whats the best way to attack them, since he was trained under Soundwave(the satellite), which explains why Frenzy (the silver robot who died in the first film) was with him, he can easilly handle the task with stealth and using their psyches against them.
Ironhide (Metal incarnation of Clint Eastwood) and the humans arrive to kill him but barricade who uses his disguise gets in between Iornhide and kills a few humans which in the chaos shots Iornhide down as his armour is weaker than decepticons, he falls down and Barricade escapes into some back allies.
Rachet (metal incarnation of Yoda) gets his introduction and tends to the injured Ironhide, this scene will give people a chance to know what he is like when hes been defeated by a single con, Rachet and the humans decide its best to send in the faster bots so enter Sideswipe (the only robot in this movie to have wheels for feet) and Arcee(sadly the only female Autobot present), Sideswipe and Arcee head towards the other 2 and Arcee being the good nature she is wants to make sure he is okay, Sideswipe than heads of to track Barricade down but Rachet warns him to not take any chances, he is smaller than most cons so Barricade has it more easy when it comes to dodging bullets as well as Sideswipe has just arrived to earth and so he is not familar with the past events, Sideswipe displays his cocky attitude and the fact that he uses war as an excuse to be carless and starts the chase with Arcee spliting into 3 more bots and also gives chase.
After hearing of a trap the humans have set, which was discovered by Soundwave(this gives forshadowing to his presence), and so Barricade uses this info to fake them all out and destroy the trap, but he gets cornered so he uses some all spark energy he got after harvesting it from some robots from Mission City, a tie in with the first film and a wrap up to a lose end, and he uses it to bring online a construction vehicle which he fought was appropiate as he just got word that the last of the Constructicons * team of decepticons who transform into construction vehicles and dont get a single line and have clones of them for some reason the movie never explains why)has made it to earth and due to the distraction Barricade is causing they have not been detected by anyone. That was another of barricades tasks, to serve as a distraction
He christians the new bot Demolisher (giant wired mutant who is only good for deathing caboms and only has one line before being cast aside) even though its not needed as barricade knows he will die, Barricade then uses this time to quickly disable Sideswipe and Arcee while they were distracted.
Then with no option left Prime enters in dramatic fashion and fight Demolisher.
He brings him down and kills him but Barricade has already fled into the night with all his tasks being a sucess.
There if that was so ill be very happy with the opening, it is more of a blance between action and character growth/plot, besides with that parade of explosions out of the way a good chunck of the movie after this will spend time on the characters and their interating with eachover as: the Autobots decide what they should do and, the Decepticons can discuss what is the next plan of action after Barricade gives his report and the humans doing what cliche humans do in a Bay film, make sex jokes, flash girl flesh and swear in a film that is about advertising toys to kids...yeah smart move their Hasbro
Ebert: He was one of the producers of this (*cough*).
I'm sure if he's reading this he's drying his eyes with a billion dollar check (*cough*).
Ebert: Now he's crying again, because he couldn't find a bank able to cash it.
I wouldn't bother with Transformers 2. I ran out of patience partway through the first. I may eventually rent My Sister's Keeper.
Anyway, I don't think the average fan of a movie like Tranformers 2 knows what is different in Dark Knight from Transformers that makes it a better movie, any more than a lot of Hollywood producers.
Roger:
I apologize if I haven't read every post made above me by this point, but there have been more than 150, and I wanted to write while my mind was fresh.
I haven't seen Revenge of the Fallen yet, but I am known as one of two local Transformers "geeks" in my circle of friends. I own a fairly extensive collection of toys since the turn of the millenia, and can recite mid to obscure facts about the series without much mental stress.
Yet I could only see the original Transformers once, and I suspect I'm only seeing this movie because I am expected to.
Admittedly, Transformers isn't much of a Hero's quest or anything else that fits in nicely with classical storytelling. It was created to sell toys, plain and simple. Yet somehow it transcended this. It developed a mythos that involved a people lost from their home, struggling to exist in a racist world--or, at least, this would be the situation if the motifs were carried to their implied conclusion. This is never really fully explored due to the Transformers never honestly being "disguised" for very long. So instead you get a good versus evil told almost in the style of a mythological play. Good always triumphs, evil never learns, and the characters start and end in the same place. Michael Bay's first Transformers movie basically follows this to the letter.
With that said, I want to point out a slight mistake made in your editorial. You track the evolution of Starscream up through Revenge of the Fallen, but you made a mistake. See, the second picture of Starscream, the one without a caption, is from 2007's "Transformers: Animated," which was made AFTER Michael Bay's Transformers was completed. And it is probably his greatest moment. See, Starscream, for all his bravado, is a power-hungry coward who would rather backstab than prove himself in the face of adversity. He rarely evolves past this point, and when exposed usually fails. In the original Transformers movie, Starscream is outright killed for his ego. The same thing happens in Transformers: Animated. He then becomes immortal through a plot device, and in the process learns that he is incompetent -- and thus creates clones of himself to overwhelm his enemies.
So what's the whole point of this, and why am I rambling on? The lack of a caption on Animated's Starscream makes me assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are not aware of TF: Animated's existence. It's nothing to be ashamed of -- few are aware. Yet TF: Animated is somewhat of a gem. Drawn in a simplistic anime-influenced style (completely opposite of Michael Bay's movies), Animated features a leader who is being punished and is afraid to lead, in control of misfits who have flaws and don't work well together. Through the course of the show, they grow together, gaining the confidence to be the warriors they should be. The big battles only happen during the season finales and important moments, allowing for character growth. The Autobots -lose-. And in the process, the heroes earn the right to be called that.
Transformers: Animated isn't perfect, but it is a whole lot better than what Michael Bay put out. Which is sad, because Animated was killed due to low ratings and the fact that it was "filler" between the two Michael Bay movies. The writers tried their best to honor every generation and iteration of Transformers, including in-jokes, references, and plot points lifted from every era. It was, in essence, a case of remolding the entire mythos and diluting it to its purest form. And due to its existence I find I cannot enjoy Michael Bay's Transformers.
I urge you to check it out sometime. After all, Starscream is voiced by the same man who plays Spongebob Squarepants, as well as Skids and Mudflap in the new movie: Tom Kenny.
PS, completely unrelated: I want to thank you, in part, for the Bachelor's degree I received a month back. As part of my English Studies degree, I took a rhetoric class and debated against your essay on video games as art. Someday, maybe I'll be able to match your ability to write, as much of my critical analysis ability has come from studying your critical process.
I take a strange pleasure in reading the less-than-glowing reviews this film has generated. I go to Rottentomatoes on my free time and read the full accounts of various critics, and cackle maniacally. It is my sincere hope that this is truly the beginning of the end of machine-gun style camera editing, explosion out-running, and the casting of overly beautiful people (for the single purpose of being beautiful). There are other clichés present here too numerous to name, and I hope they are on their way out too.
The action movie has been slowly evolving since the new millennium began, but this film felt stuck in 1996 from start to finish.
Variety says "Sequel breaks Wednesday opening day record"
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005354.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
We are screwed.
(slight correction to my previous post, still waiting approval: Only Mudflap is played by Tom Kenny, Skids is played by Reno Wilson.
We all know that feeling of boredom one gets even though there are action scenes on screen because there's no story to care about. Maybe that's why all the loudness. The movies sounds like one long fibrillator resuscitation.
Ebert: I was wondering what it sounded like.
Michael Bay is a terrible filmmaker, that's hardly news. He's made several movies we can easily categorize as indefensible.
I think the blame falls on Spielberg, to be completely honest. He doesn't seem interested in making strong films anymore. He once set the bar for big-budget, adventurous spectacles by creating outstanding pieces of work, from Jaws to Close Encounters to Raiders to ET and so on.
I know you enjoyed the fourth Indiana Jones picture (as did I, but only in a nostalgic way), but most would agree that it was disappointing, as was his War of the Worlds.
For someone with as much talent and influence as Spielberg, you would hope he would be interested in setting a better example, and not going through the motions as he's done recently. Even Munich was a bit overrated...Catch Me If You Can had its moments but was SUPER light and sort of flippant, in a way...The Terminal was awful...Minority Report you adored and was probably Spielberg's best since Schindler. What else? A.I.? Eeeesh....
Yes, we all want more. But we should start by asking more out of those who can actually produce better material, like Spielberg, not those who are completely incapable of creating anything intelligent, worthy, or thoughtful.
Like Michael Bay.
Or McG.
Or that idiot who did Snatch.
Roger, you hit the nail on the head here.
I personally grew up with Transformers in the 80's, LOVED the 2007 film, but was really disappointed with so many aspects of Revenge of the Fallen.
Sh!tty dialogue, lethargic pacing, disjointed scenes, unenergetic "action", and maybe worst of all---
Practically no subjective storyline. It operated on almost an entirely objective level. No developed through-line for either Sam or Optimus Prime.
Thus what was missing from this one that the first had?
HEART.
The action was meaningless because there was no heart. God, pretty disappointing if I make myself think about it.
Roger, to clarify what's in your first two Starscream pictures (my apologies if this has already been said - I didn't read through all of the comments). The first is a picture of a Revoltech Starscream. It's a non-transformable PVC figure from Japan that came out a couple years ago. While not old, it does faithfully represent his appearance from the original cartoon. The second is a picture of a Starscream figure that came out just last year as part of a new line of toys supporting the Cartoon Network show "Transformers: Animated". The cartoon was a reimagining if you will of the original Transformers.
Oh, and I liked Revenge of the Fallen. Sorry!
two things...it will make a gazillion bucks so i fear it will not be the end of the big loud overpriced blockbuster
michael bay may be like those shooting stars we have seen so often...they storm on the scene so bright but then flash out...still waiting for cuba's next great role...how about alex proyas next amazing film (yes i liked knowing but it wasnt advertised as an alex proyas film)so far dark city...ohh heres one: M NIGHT SHYAMALAN! he needs to work on someone elses story for a while until he gets his bearings back...so because of what hes done every time i see a movie with michael's bay name on it, i avoid at all costs and i think he will have that with him for a long long time
I have to disagree with you quite a bit. First of all, I think a majority of the people watching it are not necessarily going in hoping to feel for the human characters and see their story, so seeing the giant robots of their youths, transform and look awesome on screen is probably plenty enough for a lot of movie goers.
To be honest, I could just watch an hour of seeing Optimus on screen and listen to Peter Cullen's epic voice than be forced to sit down and watch crap like "And there will be blood" or something made only for movie critics and the Academy.
I understand the idea about everything being about the story, but sometimes I'd rather pay to see something I loved as a kid come to epic life on the screen in front of me, and see what kind of characters pop up. If you don't like mindless summer action flicks, then don't watch movies in the summer. Oscar bait is a dime a dozen every other season of the year, so let people have fun if they want to take a break from emotional exhausting movies or ones that you have to stay glued to for 2 hours deciphering complicated hints so you can get the 15 minute payoff at the end.
Ebert: I wish Oscar bait was a dime a dozen. After all, there is nothing really wrong with a movie being good.
I sometimes wonder if I come from an entirely different universe from my peers. This explanation makes sense, I have no interest in seeing Year One and I watch anime that isn't named "Naruto"
Anyway, even though I knew it was going to be bad, I didn't know the depths to which it would plumb.
I like popcorn movies as much as the next guy, but I require some sort of semblance of a plot from my films.
The humor in this "film" seemed like it came from the pages of one of those trashy male mags you find at gas station magazine racks.
Now I feel like I need to "cleanse" myself from this tripe by watching some different, "better" (I hope) movies on my Netflix queue.
By the way, Mr. Ebert, some of the films on my queue are on your Great Movies list (Au Revoir, Les Enfants, The 400 Blows, 12 Angry Men, Ikiru, Solaris, Metropolis, Rashomon, Hoop Dreams)
Ebert: You're in for movies that will make you better, not...(fill in blank).
Would it have killed Spielberg to have taken at least an hour any time during the production of either of these two movie and carefully explained the concept of the "master shot"? Or at least the importance of establishing spatial relations between the participants in an action sequence. I can only guess after the controversy caused 27 years ago from the dust-up between him and Tobe Hooper during the filming of Poltergeist, he has made a conscious decision as producer not to tell the director how to do his job. So perhaps the question is why Michael Bay doesn't think any of those things are important. Maybe he can cite the box office numbers for Bad Boys 2 and Armageddon as proof that his films work. Yeah, perhaps 2 1/2 hours of CGI and stuff being blown up good gets bums in seats for the all important opening weekend, but does anybody remember the action sequences? To trying to recall anything in a Michael Bay movie is like trying to read a book with a strobe light for a desk lamp.
It's far too easy to compare a Michael Bay action sequence to any scene, like say the classic truck chase, from Raiders of the Lost Ark. So how about the truck chase from the much-maligned Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. During that sequence, Spielberg established the setting. He let you know where the vehicles were in relation to the other vehicles, what was happening in each vehicle, what action was taking place, where the action was taking place, and how other participants reacted to that action. As the characters played "musical chairs", being thrown from truck to truck, you could tell who was in what truck, and what they were doing there. When Shia LaBeouf infamously started swinging on vines with CGI monkeys, you at least understood how he ended up on those vines, where he needed to get to, what he needed to do to get there, and why it was important. It may have been silly, but you could at least comprehend the silliness.
Ebert: This post in particular and this thread in general cointains some well-written film criticism--and some great zingers. I like the strobe light.
Roger,
You are, in my opinion, far too generous as a critic. You give too much time and attention and, often, too many stars to totally garbage movies. Life's too short to watch, let alone discuss, Michael Bay films.
Hear hear, Roger. What the hell happened to this Bay guy?! I absolutely ADORED The Rock, and every Bay movie since then has been a complete turd. I still remember watching the end of Armageddon as they trudge triumphantly off the plane, the fighter jets streaking by overhead to honor them, and SERIOUSLY thinking "those jets are gonna crash into them, aren't they?" because everything up to that point had been so ludicrously over the top that it just felt like the logical conclusion to the movie. I was literally angry coming out of that movie, and have felt similarly in every Bay movie I've seen since.
I just wish you were right about this being the last, but sadly, we both know you're wrong. Ten years from now this movie will look stale and placid; they'll probably be wiring directly into our genitals at that point and delivering two and a half hour electric shocks interspersed with random images of decapitation and boobs.
Ebert: I can see the twitters now: Dude, these genital wires ROCK!
The more comments I read about this movie the more I think about maybe watching it - because of all the hate it gets. Can it be that this is a much worse piece of crap than Battlefield Earth? If this is true then I have to put it into my DVD-Player as soon as it will be out for rental. Someone, please help me to make a decision: Is "Transformer 2" fascinating and assaulting in a perverse way, and in this case somehow interesting; or is it only stupid, stupid, stupid and therefore not even worth watching once? I really would appreciate some advice.
Ugh. Michael Bay. I just brushed my teeth, and that still brought a bad taste to my mouth. I loved the "Guardian's" quote, although I think it's more of a micrometer than an inch... I've been asking the world to stop seeing his movies since "Armageddon," but, hey, what do I know? An acquaintance of mine sent out a group text message yesterday, saying that "'Transformers' the movie ROCKS everybody!!!" This illustrates why, for the last year, I have steadfastly refused to see a movie with this person. Or to really know that person, for that matter. I have watched with a growing sense of dread as Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer have lowered the common denominator, setting a higher bar of crap and a shallower pool of quality.
"The Rock" is undoubtedly the best film he's made, but look back at it, really. It's got all of the ingredients that made "Pearl Harbor" and "Transformers" the waste of perfectly good ukelele picks that the celluloid they were printed on could have become. Slam!-Wham! action scenes, punctuated with awkward, nonsensical "emotional" and /or "Character Building" scenes, with any dialog gaps filled in with an even-by-then generic soundtrack by Hans Zimmer. It's pretty much the exact same soundtrack as previous Simpson/Bruckheimer films "Crimson Tide" and "Bad Boys." Still, it's very watchable, for four reasons: Sean Connery, Ed Harris, John Spencer and Nicolas Cage. This was also the last film that Don Simpson made, as he died during its production. His influence has been missed, as Bruckheimer's solo productions have shown a marked lack of imagination since then: film stock and look, music, and directors have pretty much stayed the same since the mid-90's. Period drama, romantic comedy, action-adventure; it doesn't matter. It must look and sound the same. Meanwhile, he's stoked Bay's ego, thinking that what made "The Rock" so successful was the explosions and crash cuts/zooms/squibs exploding, not the fact that he had two Oscar winners, and a nominee, plus a future multiple-Golden Globe winner as his cast. He's never had that deep a talent pool since.
Working on a film a couple of years ago, a grip told me a story after I asked which sets he'd been on. During the shooting of one of the under-Alcatraz scenes, crunched for time, Bay was trying to figure out how to get several shots done with minimum breakdown/setup times between. Sean Connery made a suggestion, something about putting up some dolly track in an elevated position, I think. Michael Bay turns to his star, an Academy Award winner, a legend, who had worked with Alfred Hitchcock, Richard Attenborough, John Huston, John Milius, Stephen Spielberg, Brian DePalma, and many others, and says. "Sean, why don't YOU be the actor, and I'LL be the director!" I'd like to think that I wouldn't speak to an actor whose previous experience was a Domino's commercial like that, let alone a legend in the field, and the star of my film. Connery turned and started walking off set, stopped, faced the Great Director, and said, "You know, Michael, making a movie can be a truly wonderful experience, but, with you, it's a fucking nightmare." Then, he left.
Now, Michael Bay sticks a gifted actor like John Turturro with the worst role I have ever seen. Ever. Yet, his movies make gajillions at the googleplexes, and Turturro's own "Romance and Cigarettes" does absolutely nothing, slow or fast in any sort of box office. I was able to see it because the place I used to live had an exceptional video store.
Few things would give me as much pleasure as seeing this film fail to break even, let alone make a profit. Regrettably, that is unlikely. I know I won't be seeing it anytime soon. My brain cells are too valuable to waste on such dreck. To call it bottom-feeding dreck is to insult perfectly decent (and delicious) catfish and lobsters.
Assembled below is Michael Bay's best work of all, and "Robot Chicken's" summary of his current body of work. It has better story structure, and a much more palatable time length than any of his last three movies. And, it has a happy ending!
Awwuuh Buuuuhhh!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLSsswr6z9Y
"Robot Chicken"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRS90V8BQGo
Special Bonus: Bay would do this, but he couldn't bear to hold the camera still for so long. Also, he wouldn't understand the words...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pdXlZvu8Bk
Re: Anakin86's comment.
Anakin86 is correct, the pictures are not labeled correctly. The topmost is an homage to the 80's cartoon Starscream, but not the toy as it was originally released. The second photo from the top is a toy based on the current cartoon incarnation of Transformers.
I found a nice but dated website that, appropriately enough, has a page dedicated to different versions of Starscream.
http://www.unicorncottagecompany.com/transfan/generations/g1.php
Here's a wikipedia page that contains a photo of the latest version of Starscream:
2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starscream_(other_incarnations)#Transformers:_Animated
Thanks,
Child God
Ebert... How about a review or some comment, via your blog, on the original hand-drawn animation feature, Transformers: The Movie (release date: August 8, 1986). I've always thought this was an interesting film done for animation (it was a Transfomers' purist movie - it certainly would be an interesting comparison with this pop-culture trash). I searched your online database years ago and could not find a review for this film... I wanted to write you an email about that for quite some time, I guess now is my big chance!
It annoys me that when I show people a true action movie like one of the "Mad Max" films, they scoff and make fun of it. Yet they see this overinflated garbage and call it a masterpiece.
You know what Mr. Ebert? I completely agree. I saw the movie premier on monday and although I laughed at some of the jokes (The mom character was rather funny)and was ok with the action I found the movie rather lackluster, sort of Indiana Jones 4 all over again.
But here is the thing every little kid under 10 that was there came out with huge smiles on their faces and calling it the greatest thing they had ever seen. I was responsible for handing out some of the tickets for the premier and on tuesday I received about three calls from parents whose kids were elated by the movie. Real personal calls not thanking me as an employee of the newspaper I work for but by name.
Now I think, maybe Bay got it right in this regard. What do you think?
First time commenting on your website, Mr. Ebert, and your reviews and opinions are very much respected.
However, I saw Revenge on the day it came out in the UK. While it was good, it seemed they may have actually tried a bit too hard - in fact they did attempt to put too much into the film with the new characters, the plot, all of the CGI and explosions, it sort of spilt out over the edges.
The comedy did seem to rule this film - last time it was the explosions. You couldn't go five minutes without a joke being thrown in your face. Thankfully, most of the jokes were mediocre but the drug joke and Wheelie humping Megan Fox's leg was a bit dodgy, similar to the masturbation joke in the 2007 film.
On the positive side, the action (featuring the Transformers anyway) was very good and the forest fight between Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream and Grindor made up for all of the unwatchable fights in 2007. Plus, you could actually see what was happening in this film - less frenetic editing and camerawork.
I found the larger cast of Transformers more enjoyable - but that was also this element's downfall - there were 48 or more robots which made it tricky to keep track of who was who and gave most of the newcomers little screentime. Some characters like Optimus, Megatron, Starscream and newcomers Soundwave and Ravage were a thrill to watch while some were disappointing like Devastator and the main villain, the Fallen.
Overall it was a good film, and I may go and see it again before waiting to buy in on DVD. What our cinemas really need though is some original material or films that have souls - not just remakes, adaptations, or apparent original films that are all just explosions and the such - we need some enjoyable, emotional films that audiences can relate to and enjoy.
Transformers seems to be following the same progression the Batman movies did - initially attached to a director who's drawn in by the visual aspects, but doesn't really understand what makes the character tick (has Tim Burton ever acknowledged that Batman mounting machine guns on the Batmobile and blowing up a factory REALLY missed the point?). That's the stage Bay is in now, but since he's less talented than Burton he's also in the "sound and fury signifying nothing" stage of the Batman movies - the Schumacher era.
Eventually, someone will come along and figure out that there's some reason these characters have lasted for so long in their various incarnations, and do something more in line with what long time fans have always been expecting (Bay seems to think he's making these movies for fans; most fans turned against these with the first movie, let alone this abomination). Of course, it took a disaster of a movie for that to happen with Batman, and inexplicably audiences don't see these movies as anything that bad, when in fact they're much worse.
Ah, well, much like Batman... the animated versions are better than the movies, anyway.
As an afterthought, here's a link to a "1941" trailer for good measure. At least back then, when Hollywood would produce an occasional overwrought bomb, it was almost always good fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YB2lrrOJgg&feature=related
And yes, I am officially a cranky old man, convinced his past is vastly superior to the present of the today's youth. Now if you'll excuse me, there's some neighborhood kids I need to kick off my property...
Roger,
I agree the film was bloated and tried far too hard to be epic before nailing down the basics (and don't even get me started on the esoteric crap or the out-of-body experience), but aren't you being a little hard on it? It certainly has some redeeming qualities! Weren't you the least bit moved by Optimus Prime's valiant stand against the robots that were after Sam? An un-invincible character yelling, "I'll take you all on!" to protect a boy? That's good stuff!
Ebert: It couldn't help itself. He was following the First Law:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Z said:
"But you have a sexy brain."
Ebert said:
"You bet. Curves in all the right places."
And I'll add that we love your tan lines, and adore it when you hold your 2 best parts.
Ebert: Yes, the left and right hemispheres.
Car parts? Bot farts?
They must be eating Pinto beans.
I agree completely about the design of the characters. When I saw the pics of Starscream here, I thought "Ah! So THAT'S what the movie version of Starscream looks like!" And I SAW the movie.
The problem was the action scenes -- Bay's editing prevents you from getting a good look at anything. And the Decepticons were only seen during those action sequences.
At least in the original movie, the Autobots got a little downtime so we could actually take a look at them. The animators worked too long and hard to have their designs completely obscured by frenetic cutting.
I know that film's can only copy reality so much until it is too much (though I agree with the statement that film can be more real than a documentary), but this film felt so unbelievably fake all the way through. I think the most reprehensible scenes of fake-ness involve Sam Witwicky's teacher played by Rainn Wilson. The first time we see him, he is cocky and telling Sam that this is "my universe". The next time (during the credits), he is smug again as Sam returns to class...AFTER SAM'S FACE HAS BEEN BROADCASTED ON EVERY TELEVISION SET IN THE ENTIRE WORLD (though the Decepticon's don't seem to realize that not everyone on Earth speaks english)!!! My problem is, why do filmmakers ignore things like this? Would his teacher honestly treat him the same way after that, even in bizzaro-Transformer world?
I don't have a problem with a film world not imitating ours, but for goodness sakes, films are their own worlds! This film makes no attempt to give it's world consistency, and it drove me mad. I think the first one side steps that problem (slightly) by giving the film a structure. Their is a process of meeting the Transformers. In RotF, we've meet the main ones before, but their are about 6 billion new Transformers, and yet we don't know where the heck they came from (and why some of them decided to act like morons).
But I have to say, I have laughed so many times just thinking about the ridiculousness of it all, which brought some redemption for the 3 hours (including trailers, my goodness) of pain.
ROTFL. Apparently, Roger and the rest of us know nothing. This piece of dreck is reportedly setting first-day attendance records, beating even Harry Potter. Lesson to be learned: your likes, dislikes, values and aesthetics are largely tied to your generational cohort. We embrace what was popular or widely held when we were coming of age. Researchers have shown this is true for our politics as well.
As for me, I'm keeping those pod bay doors shut, Dave.
"It's just a summer popcorn flick, it's not Citizen Kane."
Words to live by, wouldn't you agree? Some things just don't need to be done well, do they? I mean, consider:
"It's just knee surgery, buddy, you don't have a brain tumor."
"It's just a brake job, not a Lamborghini overhaul."
"It's just invading Iraq, not World War III."
Keep these precepts in mind, and you'll never be disappointed, whether in a movie theater, or, heck, convincing the UN it's time to invade somebody. Save your best for only the things *you* think are important, don't worry about the opinions of those who will be *affected* by it.
/sarcasm
I've been a long-time follower of your advice for films I should see, and I have not been disappointed with your selections of great movies, less so with your selections of so-called bad movies (The matrix and Fight Club stand out). But in reading the many reviews of this movie, I do believe you're right about the end of an era that has been blasting our ears since Star Wars. Blockbusters used to provide some semblance of entertainment, just jacked up to gigantic proportions. Nowadays they all seem to be nothing but cliche's (With the exceptions of the dark knight,Ironman, Wall-E...gee that's about it). One example is The Golden Compass, newly seen by me, what I saw on the screen was the girl constantly getting saved at the last moment, every plot important character colliding in one place at the same time, and just general lunacy. Blockbusters in their own way used to be about the entertainment, now it's just the money. Micheal Bay has made good movies, but he is more the symbol of the dying tastes in film than any director in this era (he even tops the much hated Uwe Boll). I remember watching Terminator 2:Judgement Day, and realizing that this blockbuster had a message, had a point, like all the best movies do. This is shown merely to demonstrate how far we have fallen.
This generation has seen a whole world of quality entertainment displayed in front of them, only to pass it all up for films that are, in your own words, "all payoff and no buildup". I'm sick of it. Remember, even Ed Wood tried the hardest he could to make a good movie. Now we have Uwe Boll, and Micheal Bay hurling bad movies at us to purely make money, not for the love of the process.
As a change of topic, I really think that the 10 nominations could help the Oscars. We all know that if there had been even just seven available slots, Dark Knight and Wall-E would have been nominated. The availability will help to dispel the myth that the Academy wrongly snubs films, it could also open up the possibility for some animated films or documentaries to gain even more recognition as equal pieces of art next to the indie fare of late. There's hope for the academy, But they'll never live down TDK and Wall-E, just as they've never lived down Pulp Fiction. If it takes disasters such as the choices they made then to change their minds, then so be it, as long as they finally realize their responsibility to actually pick the BEST film as the Best Picture of the year.
As a final note, You're probably the greatest critic for film the world will ever see, because you go out of your way to celebrate films that deserve it, and scorn films that deserve it. I'm actually reading your two books of Great Films, and am startled to find that because of your analysis of the film, I realize that I have yet to experience some transcendental experiences.Keep on doing your thing with the great movies. But can I make some suggestions. I am not here to force you to, just to ask. I will point out that you have gone back to reconsider films for Great Movie status, Groundhog Day comes to mind. In saying this, here are my suggestions and the reasons why I make them.
The Matrix:No other movie of 90's has been so influential, and yet it is an action picture of such magnitude that I found myself whooping and Cheering for Neo to get back up. Sure it may, in your view squander it's philosophical views in favor of action, but in my opinion the philosophy stuff was just a buildup towards those action scenes, in fact there is very little philosophy in the film, or at least not as much as you think you heard. More is heard in the sequel, but this film uses its premise to create action scenes of such wonder that I was left awed by the experience of simply watching the best action movie ever made.
The Terminator:A movie that toys with the question of fate in a way more direct than any film could put it, it sends a killer robots back in time to alter the future, can't get any more direct than that. The performances are astounding, and the visions of a nuclear apocalypse will remain relevant until there are no nukes in the world.
Terminator 2:A movie that deals with the same stuff, but is more entertaining, with some of the best special effects ever, and a horrifying vision of a nuclear ravaged future. It also deals with father issues, and what it means to be human.
To note your reviews of the matrix and Terminator 2 indicated they were slightly flawed, but your inclusion of Red River in your great movies selection means there is hope for these movies to make the grade. Red River is the same movie where you said it has some incredibly weak scenes. but that the rest of the movie redeems it, I only hope that you see the same redemption for these films
This movie probably couldn't have come at a worse time. Despite the facts you mention, with all the violence and trouble going on in Iran and the middle east as a whole, I've had enough senseless violence. I just didn't get any enjoyment out of it.
I think I got obscenity filtered for repeating some of the things said by Skid and Mudflaps.
In any case, I like Bay's "They're robots, by the way" defense of the two. Why would robots from another planet choose to be pitiful, awful stereotypes?
That bit about them being unable to read, coupled with the minute spent on the gold tooth popping out in the fight against that one Decepticon with the giant, wrecking ball testicles, might be the worst thing put on screen this year.
I have to say, I saw this the other morning with my family (stepmom, dad, little brothers and stepbrother - a teen) and I felt like the grinch at the party - I hated every simpering, moronic moment of this film: it hadn't a brain in its bloated size head. Just a terrible 149 minutes of loud action junk. Compare that to the 2007 Michael Bay original and this gets blown out of the water!
As to the end of an era? We can only hope, though I fear that movies like this will get made again and again if people continue seeing them en masse.
P.S. Did you note the "racially sterotypical" qualities of the twin robots? There was an AP headline on opening day on Yahoo! News about it and the funny thing is - I wondered if anyone else thought about that while watching it. The only worthy thing worth thinking about during this film's 149 minutes besides the age old question, "Why am I watching this?!?"
P.S. REDUX: Roger, as if this wasn't enough, I found myself curious about "September Dawn" (2007) based on your lacerating zero star review and felt the need to watch it. So I did the night after I saw "Transformers 2"... If the blockbuster sequel was a lumbering, hyperkinetic yet somehow deliberate (not so much deliberate as maliciously) paced "epic," the shorter, even slower Mormon massacre expose' was coma-enducing.
I fear for the future not only of "summer blockbusters", but a variety of entertainment as well. While Bay is the face of this film and will take the blame, the process of development in town has reached new (and quite low) levels of the ludicrous, perhaps taking some of the blame from his shoulders.
Even in my end of the business, cranking out "content" for certain cable TV outlets, I've seen a change in the last few years, where anything approaching the subtle is dismissed in favor of grabbing onto the viewers who execs feel all suffer from ADD and not letting go. There was a time not only in television but even in these "event" pictures where at least some subtlety and story development was allowed, if not encouraged, but among many in control at the moment, those elements are seen as weaknesses instead of strengths.
Could Steven Spielberg make "Jaws" today the way he made it 1975? It's highly doubtful; there would be an insistence on showing the shark within the first two or three minutes (no doubt through the use of CGI), and then again in somewhat graphic kills every seven to ten minutes to "keep the attention" of the audience, nevermind all those little things like the building of suspense and character development.
Of course, the bottom line is that it comes down to the bottom line, and this film is already doing quite well, which seems to reinforce the ideas of our Corporate Masters. I've always considered myself a commercial filmmaker, but this contemporary atmosphere is not only off-putting as a viewer, but one that makes me question WHY I want to make films in the first place.
Mr. Ebert, I believe this film may very well be nothing but a stroke of complete genius. Yesterday I saw this at IMAX (the day before yesterday I watched the first Transformers film again on dvd, except this time with the folks from MSTK3 doing "Rifftrax" on the movie) Watching this in IMAX the film was so utterly bad, so utterly confusing with so many nonsensical things thrown into it that it can be nothing less than intentional. No movie can do all that we just saw in Transformers 2 by accident. The movie cliches were even more over the top than an intentional parody done by the Wayan brothers, the gags and comedy so obviously terrible, the movie has you laughing, crying, and throwing your hands up in the air all at the same time. Great works of art are created by madmen, so a mad movie like this can only be created by great men. The absolute silliness and insanity of the film made me so bewildered and hysterical that i am anxious to see it yet again. A movie like this does not require Rifftrax; it speaks for itself.
I wish there were a Star Wars for this generation; this isn't it. UP, Harry Potter, I suppose.... Filming in Petra was an act of hubris. Spielberg was there in 1988 when he was 42, and he shot it with love, seduction and mystery. This Petra was thrown on a broken down couch wearing a cat print teddy.
They will only make these movies because we pay to see them. Once the cash flow stops then no more sequels and then the 200 million budget for the next one can but heavily divided to make many great cheaper films with real characters, stories, emotions, agendas and more than Michael Bay's CGI 'de-stravaganza'. I'm not going to pay to see this anyways but others will.
Today is my birthday! And clearly in a playful frame of mind, the universe conspired with unseen forces to arrange that an unexpected check should arrived from a magazine in New York; $25 U.S. and presumably royalties for a small story I'd written years ago.
Ooo, how to spend it!? That's like $30 CAN with the exchange! There's the new Harry Potter movie due out soon. Or I could buy a toy. Or some small groceries and new socks. Hmm.
Harry Potter! There, done. :)
One thing was never in doubt - Hell itself would have to freeze over and God too, before I'd ever buy a ticket to see "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". For in addition to Roger's delightful review, I've now also read Tara's:
"However, Fox does not play the most interesting female character in the film. That task falls to an unnamed female student in an astronomy class. Her job is to pick up a discarded, half-eaten, tossed-on-the-floor apple upon the command of the professor, who tells her to eat it. This degrading display is so horrific that I can't even be sarcastic about it." – Tara Meacham
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1874709/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen.html?cat=2
Her review exposes more of the sexism and misogyny at work within the script - which was already offensive owing to minstrel-racist elements and when all combined, now paints a portrait of a film which I can only conclude was intentionally designed to appeal to a very specific and very white male demographic.
Note: I read some of the comments posted in response to her review and shuddered. Gee, there are a lot of really threatened men out of there. I hope they're not enlisted - as nothing that ignorant should ever represent a country and heaven help us all if it does. The anti-Obama comments were also sad to see.
Years ago, my brother used to play with Transformers (the original toys) and it was always about defeating evil and saving the world; Optimus Prime was the "good guy" and Megatron the "bad" one. He watched the cartoons as well circa 1984 and there wasn't anything "icky" about those stories. Just stuff turning into other stuff and battles being waged etc. Today, my brother enjoys a wide variety of toys, games and films including old B/W classics, indie and subtitled. Mind you, he also played with LEGO blocks as a kid and I think that helps. It gets you to use your own imagination more.
He hated the last Transformer movie, moreover, and has no intention of seeing this new one. "I have standards" he replied, when asked. :)
Unfortunately, it's possible to make a lot of money without any. You just have to marry violence with soft-porn elements applealing to those who don't mind a sticky floor when you're done...
http://www.canada.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Megan+says+sexiness+part+Transformers/1731629/story.html
On the brighter side, it's not a Canadian film and so I don't have to be embarrassed for it. :)
Ooo, time to get ready! Birthday plans include dinner and a movie but I don't know yet which one! Just what it won't be; chuckle!
Ebert: Bet you didn't know this:
http://www.brainyhistory.com/daysbirth/birth_june_25.html
So when we break it down, why are we more forgiving of some "big, stupid" effects movies over others? Does it have to do with some being more "Mummy" and others being "Mummy Returns"? (Haven't seen mummy 3).
I think Ebert nailed it on the head with this quote from the first Transformers movie:
"I saw the movie on the largest screen in our nearest multiplex. It was standing room only, and hundreds were turned away. Even the name of Hasbro, maker of the Transformers toys, was cheered during the titles, and the audience laughed and applauded and loved all the human parts and the opening comedy. But when the battle of the titans began, a curious thing happened. The theater fell dead silent. No cheers. No reaction whether Optimus Prime or Megatron was on top. No nothing. I looked around and saw only passive faces looking at the screen.
My guess is we're getting to the point where CGI should be used as a topping and not the whole pizza. The movie runs 144 minutes. You could bring it in at two hours by cutting CGI shots, and have a better movie."
Why, why why do these movies stretch running times and pack themselves with extra pointless characters? Every single Pirates and Narnia movie would be better (and more enjoyable to ALL) if they were well under 2 hours. Is everything trying to be Lord of the Rings, so much so that they forget to have charm?
Yes, Roger, that is a picture from Starscream's '80s incarnation. I'm sure we can all rest easy now.
Ebert: Some others need repairs?
Extremely well-put, as per the usual. I was a big fan of the cartoon back when I was a kid. It was pretty much required watching for me on good ol' KSTW after a long day in school. I even saw and enjoyed the first Transformers movie. You know, the animated one with a couple songs by Weird Al, and voices from the likes of Eric Idle, Leonard Nimoy (?) and Orson Welles (?!).
But, man, the first movie just left me feeling vaguely worn out and slightly hypnotized by the action scenes. Its only real saving grace was Shia LeBeof as Sam (well, and the actor who played his friend Miles was a nice bit of eye-candy. Hmmm... Sam and Miles... dear God, I hope no one was trying to make a Maltese Falcon reference).
I've loathed Michael Bay's films ever since Armegeddeon (not sure I spelled that right, but who cares?). It was a terrible movie, and his cinematic crimes were only compounded with the odious Pearl Harbor, which should've had WWII vets rioting in the streets.
I'm willing to be that with this film, he's achieved a new low. I haven't seen it yet and won't until Saturday (that I'm seeing it at all is an expression of my dedication to write reviews as warnings to my blog readers). I haven't any real high hopes, but at least it'll be a couple hours in air conditioning I didn't pay for eating some decent popcorn. Plus, maybe some good trailers.
Maybe.
Roger,
I showed this article to my boyfriend, who went with his friend to a midnight showing and, though he had no expectations to begin with (his friend is one of these proud "I don't go to the movies to think" idiots who thought The Love Guru was hysterical--but the only way they can spend time together is at the movies, and it's the only way to get his friend away from his awful, shrewish wife) crawled home at 3:30 with regret on par with a man who just spent the mortgage payment on a stripper who turned out to be a dude.
Good movies like The Wrestler and The Big Sleep aside, I am also a fan of terrible cinema. I was an avid devotee of Mystery Science Theater 3000 during it's 10 year run and show Ed Wood films to my Comp 101 class. I can quote Roadhouse and have been known to yell "Avenge Me!" during paintball. I am also a crime writer, so I understand hyperviolent films--Sin City is one of my favorites in recent history--but what I cannot wrap my head around is what makes something as cinematically repugnant as Hobgoblins or Overdrawn at the Memory Bank seem as charming as tea on Sunday in comparison to the bloated blockbusters we are routinely subjected to?
What is the art to making a bad movie? Can we go back to the B-movie, not on a hyperized Tarantino retread, but to make a genuinely terrible film with no redeeming factors, a la Plan 9 From Outer Space?
The follow-up to my question is when did blockbusters become as unwatchable as they are now? I revisited Independence Day recently and was surprised at how well it held up to an adult viewing. It's no Casablanca, but as far as popcorn fare goes, it's a strong film--likeable characters who engage in more than just extended CGI fight sequences, unexpected heroes (the black guy and the nerdy Jew save the planet!) You said so yourself that it's a fun sort of movie, and though that's all it strives to be, it doesn't stoop to the lowest common denominator of slow-motion boobies and opulant explosions.
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Idiocracy. We are very quickly approaching the territory of Ow, My Balls: The Motion Picture. As my man Morrissey said best, "Has the world changed or have I changed?"
During the initial run of the original 'Transformers' cartoon back in the 80's, my oldest son, who was six or seven at the time and absolutely hooked on the show, made his own 'Transformers' movie using drawings on poster board, a video camera, and his voice. I still have the tape somewhere and it's hilarious. Sample dialogue- Hero Robot, in booming voice, "It's just you and me, Megatron!"
Megatron, in tiny, evil voice, "So it is."
Later, the hero cries out, "Trailbreaker! Ravage! (pause as he thinks up the next line) Get him!"
Anyway, sorry I have nothing to add about the new movie, as I have no plans to see it, other than to say it amazes me that it is as big a deal as it apparently is. In this case, I will take your word on how bad the movie is.
Roger,
I find it hard to put all my feelings on this subject into writing. I read this blog with a mixture of despair and hope. Despair because I find it unlikely that Transformers will mark the end of an era. No, the cynic in me thinks that big-budget blockbusters will become even more unwieldy, incomprehensible, and successful. But I also find hope in reading these numerous comments, and discovering how many people look for more in a film than Bay's blow-em-up pyrotechnics.
I confess that I have not yet seen "Revenge of the Fallen," but I recall being dragged to the first movie in 2007. I was 14 at the time, but I already knew what I was in for. I suppose I was prepared for disappointment after seeing the big-budget debacles Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and Spider-Man 3. But I ended up seeing "Transformers" anyway, and was shocked by what a mind-numbing, intelligence-insulting, and utterly depressing affair it was. So many defenders of the franchise talk about how much fun it all is, which I find inexplicable. I fell asleep about 2/3 through the movie.
I don't count myself as a film snob, though through your writings I have been introduced to the joys of Bergman, Truffaut, Fellini, Kieslowski, Resnais and others. I certainly enjoy a well-crafted summer blockbuster - I hold WALL-E, The Dark Knight, and Spider-Man 2 in high regard. But even these exceptions to the trend of mediocrity trouble me, for people my age think that is all cinema has to offer. After seeing The Dark Knight, one of my friends described it on Facebook as "the greatest work of cinematic art ever." My school's self-described "Film Society" shows the most recent summer blockbusters and nothing else. So many teenagers describe black-and-white films as "boring." When my French teacher asked who had never seen a foreign film, over half the class raised their hands. These are only a few examples of how ignorant my generation is of film.
Still, maybe you are right. Maybe the age of the blockbuster is ending, and we will see a revival of serious film culture. For every film like Transformers, there are films that give me hope - like Synecdoche, New York, Once, Pan's Labyrinth, Slumdog Millionaire, Children of Men, Chop Shop, and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Hope springs eternal.
Oh, and one other commenter mentioned something about Angels and Demons bombing. I looked on Wikipedia and it's pulled in about $450 million. Are we now in an era where a movie is a bomb after taking in nearly half a billion at the box office?
Ebert we need to elect you as some sort of film president of the world. Your views on 3D and now over-hyped and disappointing summer movies are dead on.
I saw the film at midnight packed in a theater with the emo generation, who I suppose are thrilled by things like robot humping, dog humping, and obvious racism presented in Skids and Mudflap (did Micheal Bay even see The Phantom Menace to know the Jar-Jar character was an embarrassment?)
All the while I'm a film student and I am thinking, "These are the people who will determine if my movie is a financial success?"
Pray for us.
Whether or not this movie really is the summer piece of S&^%$#, I won't say. I do not have any intention of paying $12 to sit through this movie. I work at Hollywood Video and will be able to see it for free the weekend before it is released on Blu-Ray. I guess I kind of "liked" the first one, but "The Rock" is still Michael Bay's best film.
I think there should be what I call the $7000.00 movie challenge. When Robert Rodriguez made "El Mariachi" in 1991 he used creativity instead of money to achieve success. And I know in your 2002 interview with him he believes the less a movie costs, the more creative he can get. So, here's a challenge to Michael Bay, Tony Scott, Brett Radner, and MCG ("Terminator: Salvation" sucked!!): Go make a feature length movie for $7000.00. The rules of the challenge are this: You can shoot the movie any way you like, but the film has to be a minimum of 79 minutes in length. If you use more than $7,000 for any step in making the film; planning, production, casting, editing, etc you have failed!!! The idea is that this challenge will show everyone just how creative of a filmmaker any of you really are.
Who needs plot indeed? The science fiction website io9.com wrote a very witty review, and somehow manages to compare Michael Bay to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (tongue firmly in cheek):
http://io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie?skyline=true&s=x
(Also, as for super hero aardvarks, how can you forget Dave Sim's Cerberus? Not really super, but he is an aardvark with a sword.)
Nothing like the new "Transformers" movies to make me feel like an old-stick-in-the-mud. I loved the "Transformers" toys. I loved the original 1984-1987 "Transformers" cartoon (even if it was hokey and formulaic) and the Marvel comic (especially the ones written by Simon Furman, which hold up really well today). OK, the impetus for both the cartoon and the comic was to sell the toys, but I think they transcended that pretext, and were way better than they could have been (there's a reason "Transformers" has endured where most other 80s toy-inspired cartoon franchises haven't, and it's not just to do with nostalgia for the toys). One of my earliest and fondest cinemagoing memories was seeing the animated feature, "Transformers: The Movie", during its theatrical run in 1986. I was five and I loved it. The movie bombed at the box office and with critics, but it's a cult classic and an example of prime (pun not intended) 80s nostalgia. I've re-watched that movie more times than I can say.
Seeing Michael Bay's "Transformers" in 2007 was a disspiriting experience - not just because the movie itself was a brain-numbing, relentless dirge of special effects and chaotic-editing (with the ungainly-redesigned Transformers themselves relegated to supporting characters in their own movie) - but also because it was something I had affection for in my childhood, reconfigured into pure tripe (I had a similar reaction to the "Star Wars" prequels). Given that "Revenge of the Fallen" seems to be everything that was risible about the first movie taken to the nth degree, plus the fact that even the critics who inexplicably liked the first movie are slating it, the chances of me going to see it are slim. Anyway, I'm sure the movie will clean up the box-office without my AUS$16.
Roger, I have found your review of Transformers 2 ten times more entertaining than the first movie and decided to spend my Thursday night reading your back-catalog instead of buying into the Death of Modern Cinema.
It was almost unthinkable to me, even just a few years ago, to skip any type of sci-fi or comic book related movie. However, 'Terminator: Salivation' and 'Transformers 2' are two movies I will not be paying to watch in the theater - and I am a die-hard fanboy of both franchises having "bought in" to the tune of thousands of dollars worth of merchandise over the past 25 or so years.
Don't these studios realize that they're playing with candy glass when it comes to iconic characters?!? Didn't they learn anything from Watchmen?
That's it. Zack Snyder and Robert Rodriguez are officially the only two directors who are allowed to touch comic book adaptations from now on. (Hopefully Raimi will make it up to us for Spidey 3, which was, to say the least, disappointing.)
Roger, although you thought there was an excess of it, do you still believe the visual effects were a remarkable achievement?
Ebert: Excessive special effects are by definition not effective.
Dear Roger,
I do not see why there have been so many negative reviews from the critics. As a fan of the first "Transformers" I was very excited for this sequel and had high expectations. Within the first 10 minutes i was blown away, the CGI was incredible and I liked how it jumped right into the action. Throughout the entire movie my blood was flushed with adrenalin. Quite frankly I don't see what people are complaining about, the major criticisms i have noticed from reading a few reviews are: the plot had holes and was not deep enough, the acting was sub par, it was inappropriate, it was too long, etc.
What people need to realize when watching this movie is that it is not supposed to be a super sophisticated movie, it's targeted audience is teens and young adults. It's about alien robots coming to earth and essentially having a war on our planet. It is not meant to be taken as a deeply profound movie, it is meant to be a fun and ENTERTAINING summer film.
As far fetched as this idea is, Bay has tried to make it seem as realistic as possible. That is why he made the twins and added the scenes of Sam's parents. The twins are not meant to be offensive but rather a reincarnation of Jazz (from the first movie) who spoke in a similar fashion, and at times I found them hilarious. The same goes for Sam's mom, whose parents don't have goofy moments like this?
As for the plot, it is fairly straight forward. In its simplest form: Information from the Cube (that leads to the tomb of the primes where the matrix of leadership is hidden) was implanted into Sam's brain, the decepticons need this information to obtain the matrix of leadership so that they can harvest the energy from the sun and destroy the planet. The reason that this is not all made clear to Sam and the autobots in the beginning is because they are not old enough to know about the history of their people and "The Fallen."
In regards to the acting, I think Shia and Megan did a fine job of what they were supposed to do. In a movie like this where many of the main characters are robots and have to be edited in, it is quite difficult for the actors to film by themselves on a blue screen. Despite this difficult task, i believe that they accomplished their role, I BELIEVED them, their emotions seemed genuine and I could imagine myself behaving in a similar way under their present circumstances. As for the love story and people saying it was "corny,"can't you look back on a relationship you had in your teens and see how foolish and corny you may have seemed at the time. You have to remember that Sam can only be around 18 and still in these awkward years.
However, the main focus of this movie is the action, I mean it is an ACTION movie...the battles were big and the explosions even bigger. The scale of the destruction was on such a large scale and so crisply filmed, it was absolutely breath taking.
I think one of the reasons why this movie has generated such negative reviews is that action movies like these are so easy to criticize and find faults in if you are looking for them. It's very difficult to criticize a movie that is about real events that inspire compassion (ex. Schindler's List) But it is easy to rip apart a movie about alien robots.
I have to ask, how many times did you see this film before writing your review? I'm guessing that after seeing it once, you figured you had seen enough? Well seeing as you are a professional movie critic, I might recommend you see it again although it might be too late. If you watch it the first time for pure pleasure (not going over it with a fine toothed comb) you will get a better sense of the film and then after this initial viewing you can go back and really pick apart the movie into pieces. Then again i could be wrong and you may have seen this multiple times.
I feel like this movie is being unjustly criticized and needs the fans who enjoyed it to stand up for it. If you check fandango well over 1,300 people (out of approx 1,700) said its a "Must-Go" and on IMDB over 50% of the people who rated it gave it at least an 8 out of 10, with the majority giving 10 out of 10.
For all of you considering whether or not to go to this movie, it is a must see. Everything that you are looking for in this light hearted masterpiece is there. This movie went above and beyond what it was supposed to be! I absolutely loved it and the next chance I get I am going back to see it again and again!
Don't forget the greatest robot movie of all time: Short Circuit.
Roger,
I usually enjoy your reviews, and always take a peek at them before I toss my money down before the ticket guy/gal. I am wondering if you would have enjoyed this movie more had the volume been turned down a bit? Perhaps Mr. Bay is a fan of the movie 'This is Spinal Tap'? I have noticed most of his movies 'go to eleven'.
Thanking you,
Stu
I saw it midnight on opening night, and enjoyed it for what it was. I was born in 1986, but grew up on VHS recordings of the original series, collected the toys, and loved the animated movie to death. So naturally I was excited when the first movie came out. Saw it in the theaters and loved it because, hey, it's the Transformers and Optimus Prime is the ultimate cartoon badass. However with each subsequent viewing I garnered less and less enjoyment because, as many have stated, it was pretty devoid of things like an intelligent plot and discernible characters (although you always know which one is OP, he's unmistakeable). I have no doubt that this movie will fall off in my mind as the first did, but at least I got to see my childhood hero kick much more ass than he did in the first one. I enjoyed the movie largely out of nostalgia...and say what you will about the incomprehensible fight scenes and characters, but when the movie slows down enough for one to enjoy the CG models, they are incredible.
I went to see this movie knowing exactly what was in store.
And I still almost fell asleep.
Please, Michael Bay, re-watch 'The Rock' and try to figure out what you can do in your next movie to make it as fun as that one was.
Sorry for the double post, but I feel like this comment is better off separate.
Many people have asked why people spend money on these sorts of movies rather than less hyped but more artistic and riskier films. I personally view the movie-going experience as just that--an experience. If I am going to spend $10 on a movie, I want to see something that I cannot get at home. That is, I want to see a huge screen and a sound system that I couldn't afford in a million years, and I want them to be tested. Granted it is always great when blockbusters have "good film" qualities (solid acting, story, direction, etc), but the comparison to a roller-coaster is valid, like someone above used. I have seen plenty of movies that are off the beaten mainstream path...love and own Pan's Labyrinth, I enjoyed Persepolis, love the films of Miyazaki, and I especially adore the offbeat and bizarre comedies that I tend to stumble upon (I highly recommend one called The Chumscrubber).
But given my limited budget, those are usually rentals for me. I only see maybe five movies in the theater a year at most, and those generally fall into one of three categories: Pixar movies, can't miss blockbusters (Transformers, Harry Potter, Star Wars), and maybe a knockout comedy like The Hangover that I can go see with friends, although that one is more rare. I really wanted to see Adventureland, but odds are I could enjoy that one on a 13" B&W television made 50 years ago just as much as I could in the theater, and for less money.
In other words, I go to the theater for the experience. Granted, if I weren't a fan of the Transformers to begin with, and had this been a mindless action movie of any other name, I probably would have stayed away as well.
A movie is not just a movie. Like the loo it is a place of solitude and if noisy one can't even converse. In this a brain to "understand" it will not be needed. One could close one's eyes and just relax. The noise might even help concentration. I wonder what the entrance is like.
Ebert: I find in the loo it helps to bring along something to read.
Dear Roger,
Dear Roger,
Let's remake this film.
1- Starscream played by Bill O'Reilly.
2- Megatron played by Ben Stein.
3- 3D
4- Using the script, sets and props for "Anti-Christ"
5- Shot in real 70MM, but screened in Pan and Scan on an IMAX Lite screen.
Omer M
"By Keith Carrizosa (corrected)
We all know that feeling of boredom one gets even though there are action scenes on screen because there's no story to care about. Maybe that's why all the loudness. The movie sounds like one long defibrillator resuscitation."...as an audience member
Ebert: I was wondering what it sounded like.
I'll just watch ER's Best Defibrillations DVD.
How dare you step out of your boundaries writing about Transformers 2? First politics then media and now this? Stick with film criticism and leave 149 minute toy commercials alone! Stick to your dayjob, sir!
Roger. I suppose I should preface this by saying I'm a 27 year old male (target demographic alert!) who grew up watching the Transformers. My earliest memory is receiving an Optimus Prime action figure for Christmas when I was two. I'm a self-admitted fanboy of the highest order.
Now that I have that out of the way, let me state that Revenge was absolutely painful to watch. Many critiques of this film have pointed out the flaws so I won't waste everyone's time by rehashing them. But I can say without question that this "film" was more uncomfortable than anything I have ever experienced. I fought the urge to walk out on several occasions. "Maybe it'll get better." Denial can be a powerful force indeed. I've only walked out of two films in my life. This should have been number three. I keep telling myself it's the ignorance of youth so I can sleep tonight.
As I read review after review lambasting this movie, weeping at the reports of Michael Bay destroying the fond childhood memories I have of the cartoon and toys, I wondered aloud, "what could POSSIBLY be worse than this?"
And then it occurred to me, as, undoubtedly, it occurred to you, Roger:
Transformers 3-D.
I'm reminded of what you said on the twenty-fifth anniversary re-release of John Waters's Pink Flamingos, speculating on a fiftieth: "If I haven't retired by then, I will."
Ebert: In 3-D, this movie might have posed a hazard to mental health.
Well, I haven't seen either film, but I'm not sure I trust the critique by a man who calls a 149-minute film "well over" 2.5 hours. Last I checked, there are sixty minutes in an hour, making two and a half hours 150 minutes. And if I remember my math right, 149 is in fact LESS THAN 150.
Ebert: I just ran that through my calculator, and, good gravy! You're right!
Ebert,
Reporting back from the third post. I saw it at one of those fake IMAX screens. My neck muscles weren't strong enough to crane for three hours in the first row, so I scooted back to the third.
You told me so. The movie was awful. And even though I was expecting it to be awful, it surpassed my expectations. And not just with the dog-humping and robot-humping jokes.
I'm still puzzled by WHAT made this movie so awful compared to the first one. And I mean textually. Blaming the writers' strike only explains WHY.
Could it be that Michael Bay became too ambitious? He tried to create the Transformers as an actual alien race--instead of just robots that transformed and punched--and didn't notice along the way that he lacks the worldbuilding craft of Peter Jackson or Ridley Scott. Could it be that this movie--despite its awful attempts at comic relief, including John Turturro in a thong--took itself too seriously? Or is it just that the gaps between the explosions took too long?
Because every scene with punching robots wowed and awed me. But when the robots stopped punching, I felt either bored or disgusted.
It occurs to me that the first movie was fun because it was campy. Technologically advanced and big-budgeted, but campy nonetheless. This movie lacked that sense of campy fun.
The difference is, I think, that the last movie we were laughing at the fact that Michael Bay doesn't realize what a terrible director he is. Or, at least, he doesn't realize what his weaknesses as a filmmaker are (they include juvenile humor, lack of story cohesion, and an inability to present drama as characters). This movie, the joke's on the audience for paying to see Bay indulge himself.
Which is not to say that I didn't have fun. The duel with Optimus Prime fighting three bad robots in the forest was exceptional, and there were a few other good action scenes. And I actually enjoyed the moments when Michael Bay turned the movie into an advertisement for the armed forces. But those scenes were spaced out between long gaps of stupidity that didn't even have the sense to be campy.
Long comment. Possibly a review of my own.
But--what lesson should I learn from this?
-Casey
I think if Starscream was StarsCream, it would instantly be more provoking to the imagination.
By Michael J. Nelson (of MST3K fame) via Twitter:
"So rather than see Transformers 2, I'd be better off driving 5-inch drywall screws into my temples, right? (Hardware store's about to close)"
There's some speculation going around that the reason why "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" lacks the enjoyability of the original "Transformers" film is because Spielberg didn't keep as tight a leash on Michael Bay this time around. Time and time again I hear fans of the first "Transformers" remark that they admired how it at least had a sense of "Spielberg wonder", since Spielberg apparently was able to tame Bay's music video sensibilities into something less obnoxious.
However, the current rumor is that since the first "Transformers" was so successful, Spielberg gave more creative liberties to Bay and the screenwriters for the sequel, and the result was something blown completely out of proportion; something that, without the much-needed touch of Spielberg magic, was just a big, loud, dumb blockbuster. Does this sound like a valid theory to you?
Wow... What I usually do is read your reviews after I've watched the movie and quite often we agree on a good many movies (give or take half a star). Because of that you're the only critic I trust to match my own tastes. This time I read your review before I saw the movie. I think I'll take your word for it on this one and not see it. Rental, possibly. Just to bare witness to how bad it was.
Even though I totally agree with you on the first movie, I still bought it in DVD since I'm a Transfan from way back (heck, I even have the horrid cartoon movie). This one I think I'll skip buying and expel it from memory same as I did with the Matrix sequels. They never happened. ;)
I was warned against seeing this movie. I was a little dubious it would be any good to begin with. The idea to make a Transformers sequel struck me as having the potential to go badly. After the success of the first movie, it is assumed that a certain percentage of fans will see the second. From the sound of it, that's probably all they cared about.
Hollywood has been piggy-backing on "redos" and tired franchises for awhile now. It doesn't seem like a lot of love went into this sequel. I doubt any good writers were hired to work on the script. As a writer, I may be partial to scripts, but I feel like the story is the foundation of a movie, and if it's bad on paper, adding CGI, stunts, and special effects doesn't make it enjoyable (didn't we learn that from the Star Wars prequels?)
The first movie had its endearing parts and its annoying parts. You felt like someone really cared about bringing Transformers to the silver screen. It made all of us from the 80s generation feel warm, like tomato soup served with goldfish crackers.
For the sequel, it sounds like they just wanted to make a "blast" without telling an actual story. They seem to have kept all the annoying parts, which include robots that are physically hard to distinguish from each other, too-broad characters, battles that are too big to follow, and a cheesy plotline where even the consequences are just too big.
This movie is all metal. I don't have to see it to know that nothing is growing.
My only complaint, Mr. Ebert, is that you might want to add Johnny 5 to your list of lovable robots.
As you shut eyes, the screaming missiles punctuated by explosions and aforesaid gregarian chant free of latin would sound a soothing lullaby....far, far from recession and other ills flesh is heir to...
as a fan of the first movie i couldn't agree more. the main difference to me was the first one attempted to have a story this one seems to be a product of several people writing the script with no idea what the other was writing. It was an Incoherent mess which could also describe the robot battle scenes
One of the best examples of what these movies could have been is dinobot's death in beast wars(synopsis here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SepcT0KtUM)
It had humor, culture, heart, as well as action and explosions. It meant something. It's simple saturday morning CGI may look dated, but i'd take it over michael bay's multiterrabyte flop any day.
Ebert,
I'm 24, so for the most part, too young to be a Transformers fanboy (though I am an admitted comic book geek, I profess knowing very little about Transformers lore)
I happily sat through this movie on wednesday evening. I enjoyed it immensely. I went in with the understanding that there would be little to no plot, and mostly a bunch of scenes with big robots kicking the crap out of each other, interspersed with tense late-teenage drama and an otherworldly hot Megan Fox. I'll probably go see it at least one more time, and certainly at least once in IMAX. This is a made for movie theatres movie.
I was not disappointed. I had no trouble following the plot that they hastily threw together. Decepticons want energon, need to blow up sun to do it. Autobots want to stop them. That's all I really needed to know. I had no trouble following the big Bot fights. It was actually far easier to follow the bot fights in 2 than it was in the original!
I'm curious if you maybe had a bad theatre experience? Or maybe Michael Bay forgot to send you a compliment of escorts for the after party?
I saw the Transformers 2 movie yesterday and now wish I hadnt. I had a feeling it would suck and it did...HARD! As a child of the 80s I grew up watching Transformers and loved it. One of my favorites was Soundwave. I heard he was gonna be in the sequel and was excited to see him but afraid theyd screw him up. Well, they screwed him up BIG TIME! His voice was all wrong. I hated a lot about this movie: Soundwave being a satelite, the stupid JarJar Binks wannabe twins, Starscream, the childish nonsense, the drug use, the use of the "P" word. Yes, they said the "P" word. The twins talked like gangstas and used the "P" word and a couple others unsuitable for children. One of the twins had bucked teeth and 1 of the teeth was gold colored. The old Decepticon turned Autobot ancient bot with the long metallic beard and walking stick. Im sure kids will love it for the giant robots and silly crap. The guys might like it for the explsions and the scenes of Megan Fox running in slow motion a la Baywatch. The girls, at least the ones in the theater I went to, will like Shia and the sappy romance. But as a Purist of all things from my childhood I thought it sucked and was way over budget for the stupidity level of the movie. I could go on and on all day long but I think Ive made my point. I will probably be back for the GI Joe fiasco. Im sure its gonna suck as well. I mean Snake Eyes secret ninja clan tattoo is ON HIS SWORD BLADE! "Secret" means no one knows about it. Whatever, I KNOW its gonna be a stinker. I guess you really cant go back. That sucks.
I'm sorry but after reading some of the comments about this journal entry I started to laugh. Most of you people are acting like elitist who believe they are above all else just because they did not like this film. Are you people children? Just because you walk out after 30 min or bash this film till no end, that makes you more intelligent? I cannot believe that most of you are acting this arrogant. Just because you did not find the film entertaining, anyone who did is a simpleton? And is it necessary to call this generation the emo generation or whatever other title you want to give it? Most of you are acting as if you know best for everyone which is clearly not the case. All of you pompous individuals need to come down from your pedestals and realize that your view is different than others. But none of you can probably accept the fact that you are ever wrong, which is truly sad. It is people like you make this a horrible society to live in because you walk around like your s**t don't stink and act as if you are better than everyone else. It is a MOVIE and most of you are act as if someone pissed in your cereal. I know children who act more like adults than most of you. I also love it when people throw out the names of old movies and act as if they are film experts, gimme a break. And most of you need to stop kissing Mr. Ebert ass, its sickening. Say what you want about me but remember “Arrogance diminishes wisdom”
Ebert: I'm not better than you. I simply, in my wisdom, like better movies.
I was warned against seeing this movie. I was a little dubious it would be any good to begin with. The idea to make a Transformers sequel struck me as having the potential to go badly. After the success of the first movie, it is assumed that a certain percentage of fans will see the second. From the sound of it, that's probably all they cared about.
Hollywood has been piggy-backing on "redos" and tired franchises for awhile now. It doesn't seem like a lot of love went into this sequel. I doubt any good writers were hired to work on the script. As a writer, I may be partial to scripts, but I feel like the story is the foundation of a movie, and if it's bad on paper, adding CGI, stunts, and special effects doesn't make it enjoyable (didn't we learn that from the Star Wars prequels?)
The first movie had its endearing parts and its annoying parts. You felt like someone really cared about bringing Transformers to the silver screen. It made all of us from the 80s generation feel warm, like tomato soup served with goldfish crackers.
For the sequel, it sounds like they just wanted to make a "blast" without telling an actual story. They seem to have kept all the annoying parts, which include robots that are physically hard to distinguish from each other, too-broad characters, battles that are too big to follow, and a cheesy plotline where even the consequences are just too big.
This movie is all metal. I don't have to see it to know that nothing is growing.
My only complaint, Mr. Ebert, is that you might want to add Johnny 5 to your list of lovable robots.
Just as it was thought we were supposed to be living in the Jetsons era by the 90's, so did we think CGI would get better in movies with time. Seems the best we could do was send Jetsons robots to our time, film with a 90's home camcorder and pray for the best.
You know one thing that bothered me while watching this movie that no one else seems to care about was the fact that the Decepticons were basically going back and forth between Cybertron and Earth incredible quickly. Wouldn't it take them much longer to do that? Anyway...
I didn't like this film nearly as much as the first. The first one was alot of fun and had the "invasion" of Earth going for it that made the spectacle and epicness of it work. Here we just get lots of shots of robots fighting each other with no coherence. I have to say though, despite all of the things the movie does wrong (and there are alot of them) I was still entertained the whole time, be it with a lingering sense of frustration that it wasn't nearly as good as the first. They needed alot more Optimus Prime in this movie (Peter Cullen's voice is absolutely epic and I think Prime is easily the stand out character of the series).
I would agree that this movie is rather ridiculous but let's be serious; what can you expect from a movie about giant, ancient, alien robots that can transform into cars? This movie is meant to be filled with over the top action and it almost completely succeeds. Although it may be unintelligent entertainment it manages to entertain none the less. With all of the above taken into account who really cares about the unrealistic aspects of the movie. It seems preposterous that one might call out the fact that people are escaping explosions while at the same time considering that they are explosions caused by the aforementioned robot aliens. The only aspect of the movie that I was not entertained by was the cheesy humor. This could have been left out. In summation it seems ridiculous to criticize a movie about alien robots for using too much CGI, being unrealistic, and having bad dialogue. What else can one expect?
I'm thoroughly confused. I'm under the impression that I can either A) like Transformers 2 and be a retarded halfwit, or B) enjoy classic cinema such as The Searchers or Maltese Falcon or Seven Samurai. I wasn't under the impression I had to choose. From what I can tell, I enjoyed Transformers 2 AND my criterion edition of Army of Shadows, and yet, my brain has not imploded. I feel at peace having seen a mindless action movie from Michael Bay, and the same evening, enjoying a Cary Grant film. So, in summary, I fail to see why enjoyment of the two at the same time is somehow impossible. I know this movie isn't for everyone. If we all liked the same things, this planet would be very, very boring. But to say enjoyment of one only comes through hatred or rejection of another is simply ludicrous.
Michael Bay is to blame. Like South Park pointed out, he cannot distinguish between ideas and special effects. Flash and bangs are not a plot.
As a kid I loved the Transformers cartoon from the 80's. It had original and interesting characters. The bad guy wasn't evil just for evil's sake. He had an objective. I was sorely disappointed by Bay's last dung dropping and have no intention of wasting time and money on this travesty.
Bay has never made a good movie and I doubt he will change that unless the studios stop supporting his methods and he's forced to evolve or disappear.
Many people say they just want to see robots fight, and who care about story? Well I like to see Robot fights too, but the only time I get to see a robot in full view is when they do a slo-mo of a robot doing kung-fu back kick or mortal-combat-rip-your-heart-out move. So to me, the fight sucks, I don't get why robots are doing kung-fu instead of shooting plasma gun or firing missiles at each other. And why do soldiers think their M-16 bullets will do any harm at all? Being PG-13, it was also obvious they didn't want to show robots ripping apart humans. One dude even got stepped on by a 3-stories tall robot, and he didn't even splatter! So to me the fight was stupid and incoherent.
Second, I can accept a lack of story in an action movie like this. But at least preserves my mood from scenes to scenes. One scene Shia and gang ran into a pyramid to solve mystery. The next, he's cuddling megan fox under starlight! I mean wtf! aren't they suppose to be saving the world!?
My primary interest in film is in Westerns and in action movies, which I feel are westerns at heart when done well, so I think I'm bothered more than most people by the Speed Racer/Transformers approach.
I think action is maybe the most iconic dialect within the cinematic language. Imagine Star Wars without any lightsabers or space shootouts. Imagine The Searchers with no guns or knives or fist fights. Physical heroics are a great way to cut right to the chase, to build a mythology around the characters and make the story seem larger than life.
So... it really sucks, for me especially, that this is what they've been reduced to. Action movies don't always tell the best story, but they ARE supposed to tell a story. In the best action films, the action doesn't take precedence over the story, rather, the story is told through action. In Transformers, since you can't tell what's going on, you can't really call the action scenes "action" anymore than you could call it a guitar solo when the amp is cranked up so loud that you can't hear anything.
What really bugs me is that the quick-cut style was developed because American directors wanted to make movies with more of a Hong Kong element after we all saw The Matrix, but American actors can't do Kung Fu, so they do one or two moves at a time and cut it all together, and the incessant closeups and obscuring camera work was largely to hide how poorly the Kung Fu was being performed. So, why apply that style to CGI? Can the Transformers' 3D models only remember a couple moves at a time?
P.S. Thanks for posting the article on Michael Jackson. Even if Jay Leno can elicit a laugh by just mentioning the guy's name, a lot of people, of my generation especially, will remember him as the charismatic young man who defined popular culture for almost twenty years.
Roger, I usually agree with you 100% (hence why I've invested so much in a library of your books), but I simply enjoyed this movie too much to be this harsh.
I do agree with the criticism in the over complication of the robotic characters. I felt they did need to be a little less clunky than the original comic book and cartoon designs, but the minute slivers of metal that their forms employ are too seamless when put together in vehicle mode. They needed to be less "clay-like."
Oh, and one more thing. Iron Man is not a robot. He's a human being with a suit of armor. So listing him among your favorite robots is grievously and noticeably erroneous.
Ebert: It's not just a suit of armor. It's a wearable user-controlled robot, no?
Haven't seen the movie yet, but it seems like this is a lot of pointing out how great a movie isn't when it's the kind of movie that's meant as pure entertainment, and not some kind of big artsy thing. Aaaanyway, I was mainly bugged by the part where he says it's well over 2 1/2 hours. He said at least twice that it has a running time of 149 minutes. That's 2 hours 29 minutes, Rog.
Ebert: Just keeping you on your toes.
I have my own phrase for movies like this whose previews make me not want to see them: too busy.
But I'm no fanboy, so Transformers (insert copyright mark here) never interested me. The only thing I wondered about was whether, in the ad jingle, they were singing "robots in the skies" or "robots in disguise." Coz they flew AND looked like ordinary machines, see? I'm sure someone will have the answer here by this afternoon, but I'll go look it up anyway. Nice thing about the Internet, after you read wit by Ebert, you can quickly set to rest some of the trivia that's been bugging your brain for years.
Eric Isaacson asked:
"However, I must wonder if we aren't reacting the way our parents did to rock and roll. Think of most early Rolling Stones records, or of the crescendo towards the end of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight". It's all incomprehensible noise, until your brain adjusts to things, learns the musical vocabulary, and sorts out the apparent chaos so that it can be understood. Then it becomes exhilarating. Could it be that the people who are enjoying these fast-cut action movies are making the same sorts of mental adjustments?"
Speaking as one of the younger generation, I have to say, no. No, I don't think we are making those adjustments. Perhaps I'm in the minority.
For the twenty years I've been actually watching movies (as opposed to just having images displayed in front of me) I've been subjected to faster and faster cuts in editing. Particularly during fight scenes, but now its happening even during exposition, conversations... it's aggravating. Hold the God-damned camera still so I can see what the hell is going on!
Movies are primarily a visual medium. I should be able to see what is happening. I want to be able to see Jason Bourne or James Bond fighting his enemies, and not get motion sickness.
I am a child of the 80s. I loved Transformers as a kid, and I was very excited about the first movie. I mourned that it would be light on plot, but I'll admit--I'm willing to give up some characterization if it involves 30-foot tall robots beating on each other.
But like you say, Roger, they are too visually complex, these bots. With all the exposed gears and hydraulics, and the same flat metal coloration, its hard enough to tell where one of them ends and another begins. When you add Michael Bay's editing to the mix it's damn near impossible. And beyond Optimus Prime--who is as a second father, or even a first, to any real Transformers fan--I cared very little about any of the bots. The Autobots are paragons of good and virtue, and I'm supposed to want them to succeed--but in the first movie, when Megatron ripped Jazz apart as though he were a Cornish game hen, it hardly mattered.
The more I hear about this sequel, the less I care. (Why does the old robot have... a ... beard? Why would a robot have... fake hair... made from metal... GAH MY BRAIN.) I will almost undoubtedly rent it, where I can at least watch the action scenes in slow motion, and try to make some sense out of it. That is the most money I will contribute to this schlock.
As a final note, Roger, let me say how great it is that not only do we get to read your comments on the film, but you actually respond to some of the readers here. That sort of effort and contact is appreciated, and it is great, and it is lovely. Thank you.
So Mr. Ebert, what are a few directors you would you like to see step up to the third Transformers movie if Bay decides to step down? And do you think Bay could make a good third film, or do you think a new director should be attached all together?
Ebert: Oh, it's his series. He made it, and now he has to lie down in it.
OK, so, if one star is a movie you simply hate and 0 stars is a movie that you find offensive, when do you give a movie half a star? Is one star the lowest grade you will give a movie that you did not consider morally evil, but just didn't like? I don't mean to sound sarcastic, I'm just curious.
Ebert: It could have qualified for a half-star if it had been in 3-D. I like to keep something in reserve.N
I'm not exactly sure what I just witnessed when I came to see the sequel...is it a human study for a self-aware audience that knows what the movie will have, yet to test their tolerance for the film by going beyond their expected limits?
And yes, it did certainly have everything I was expecting it to have after seeing the first movie. This includes a hunch I had right after viewing the first movie to which I predicted that Linkin Park would have a new song prepped up in time just for the sequel.
And because of knowing what will come out of this I actually felt the need to see both movies more than once just to grasp an understanding of the plot, the characters and the conflict. Why I would do such a thing? Call it too much free time. I already dived into Citizen Kane at school, and my teacher would never bring up Michael Bay during her lectures so why not even the field. ^_^
It's not something I always do anyways. Aside from the first Transformers film The Matrix Reloaded was the last time I saw a movie for a second round just to understand things that I had missed. But after seeing Revenge of the Four-minute Villain....I think either I will have to see it a third time or I may just not bother trying to comprehend it any further.
I actually find it to be a fun assignment, and thankfully I'm not paying the price for doing so (unless you count my own time!) since I work at a theatre.
However why is it that movies like this intentionally make you feel numb? I'm a little insulted that the movie parades around a comic relief character such as the little swearing, Megan Fox humping decepticon pet known as Wheelie for two-thirds of the movie and then abandons him with no explanation whatsoever.
***spoiler***Was he not with the main cast when they searched for the Matrix to bring back Prime? Why does he completely vanish for the remainder of the movie in the next shot?***end spoiler***
But alas if I consider this a self-made project then the results I'm turning in are far from A-worthy. All I can gather is that even when I understand which Transformers are in this film, I rarely know which one is fighting which. I have seven main ones down. Prime, Fallen, Bumblebee, Megatron, the Twins and Starscream. Everyone else (including the main lineup from part one) just feel faded to me. Some of my Trans-fans did a second showing to also confirm the amount of bots, and which were which. At least with X-men you know which mutants are which, and if you do not then you can follow what kind of mutant they are.
The plot I guess comes from autobots destroying decepticons, and vice versa shifting to Sam's role in helping Optimus for one goal which then changes to another goal. Wait, those are plot points aren't they? Must remember to e-mail my teacher about that one.
Well what stems from that are supporting characters pulled in for comic relief, and to stage where everyone else will go next. And...oh yeah, The Fallen wants revenge for betraying his brothers and suffering the consequences for doing so. Feel free to stop me if I'm wrong on that one. These villains are so out of whack with their plans now that even some of them switch sides. I guess the Decepticon's motivation for taking over everything in chaos needs to take a class with the Joker on how to do it right.
I can't stress myself further on the matter. If I see it a third time I can at least guarantee I'll figure out whether the Leo character was just made to set up a reunion between Sam and Simmons, or just to take the helm for annoying tag-a-long. Perhaps both.
It takes thousands of man hours to animate something like this, yet it would only take 2 or 3 to produce a plot that is at least a little better in every sense. This is true of all crafts: Planning is cheap but making is expensive, so at least get a half-decent plan if you can afford nothing else. And yet, given a budget of millions and a staff of skilled professionals, this movie occurs.
How do these things happen? Did the various higherups honestly read this script and conclude it could not be improved? Is the film's audience really so stupid that constructing a coherent narrative (even assuming all its other flaws remain unimproved) would not be as effective? Could this movie not have been made even a little better while making the same or more in profit? If so, who is at fault for failing to make it so?
Is everyone involved so cynical that the effort simply isn't made?
Brad:
To be entirely fair, I think it should be a $600.00 challenge.
According to Rebel Without a Crew, Robert Rodriguez only spent, I think, six hundred dollars on the actual production of the film, while the rest of the money was spent on the film stock. Rodriguez has also said that, were he to film the movie today, he'd do it on digital. Digital is so cheap to film on that it's practically free.
And of course, you can now use digital effects in film to dramatically reduce the cost. Most of Robert Rodriguez's explosions, bullet hits, gun flares, etc, are 100% CGI.
I'm currently making a feature film on a budget of zero dollars and zero cents, because I realized that the Robert Rodriguez of the digital age is going to make a wild action movie without spending a dime. I dunno if it's going to be me (probably not), but I at least don't want to disqualify myself from the running by spending a dime (unless I could find someone to finance it, then I might be open to a budget of a single dime).
Sing in our sweet lullaby;
Lulla, lulla, lullaby; lulla, lulla, lullaby!
Never harm,
Nor spell nor charm,
Come our lovely lady nigh
Of all the recent summer blockbusters of 2009, only Star Trek (a movie where the cast could have looked very silly) proved to be a nice surprise. However the characters entertained me in Star Trek, not the loud and wild computer animated action sequences that other movies like to bombard the audience with; Wolverine, Terminator 4, and Transformers 2. It's sad to see that explosions are such a staple of modern summer movies that they're practically dialogue by now for the average viewer.
So, Roger, what Michael Bay movie do you think is worse: Armageddon or Transformers 2?
An explosion is not like a stampede which a person might need to outrun. The characters do not need to 'run faster than an explosion' in order to escape, so long as they can get far enough from its point of origin, which is instead what they are (obviously) doing when they run.
Ebert: If you are standing close enough to an explosion for it to kill you, you cannot outrun it. Ever heard of anyone who ever ha.
I find your review a little funny because in my opinion seems a little off in many ways. Not that Transformers 2 isn't an assault on the senses but because that is treated as a negative. That is what this movie is supposed to be. Someone does not watch The Notebook expecting explosive action or watch Superbad expecting a deep philosophical drama. Transformers 2 set out in ALL ways to be an assault on the senses and to sell both tickets and toys. In MANY aspects it is much like going from season to season of the old cartoon - carry over a few of the originals from before and add a boatload more.
The plot may be not the greatest thing but it does exist - with the Decepticons once again set on trying to take what they want even if it means destroying the Earth in the process and the Autobots prepared to stop them by any means necessary. This had more small little story bits then the first one when it comes to the Transformers themselves but not nearly so many with the humans. With the Matrix of Leadership and the line of Primes stories added it opens a gateway to MANY more possibilities.
The story for this one really is what Hasbro has given us from the Transformers every time since 1984. THIS one was exactly what the advertising told us it was going to be. As far as all 3 movies I still prefer the 1986 cartoon - amazing action and many surprises that at the time I did not expect - but this is still a good solid roller coaster ride of action.
Do I get on a roller coaster expecting to have a conversation about the nature of the universe? No. I expect to have my heart racing and my blood flowing. For 2 and a half hours I watched action - the occasional humor bits and never looked at the time. It went by and entertained the entire time.
As far as that OTHER criticism this movie seems to be getting - of being racist - I don't understand it at all. It could just easily be dismissed in the fact that they are robots and they are not racial at all, that every one of those characters could theoretically be "black". If I did see them as the two "black" characters I could also argue that those so-called racial stereo-types are also two of the main heroes of the film and alone go after the largest of ALL the Decepticons - Devestator.
How about the simple concept that THAT kind of person DOES exist on this planet in this country. They DID have another "black" character that was also an Autobot - Jazz from the first one (originally voiced in the cartoon by Scatman Crothers). If they were not very courageous heroes that in the end deserved respect from the other characters - if they were lazy and/or were bad guys putting a negative light on that stereotype then perhaps racist COULD be applied. I was always under the impression that racism involved a negative attitude involving a stereotype - not just attributing some racially based attributes to a character or person. If that were the case then have any difference within any two characters should be viewed as racist. Then you would need to take it a step further - the movie was ageist because Jetfire was an oldman. Indeed also the movie UP would also fit in THAT catagory.
So until every person on the planet acts and talks and dresses the exact same way - I HOPE we continue to have diverse characters throughout. BTW - as far as the characters being "illiterate" it was for their native language of Cybertron and few of the Transformers were able to speak it.
My own review gives this movie gives it about a 3.5 or a 4 out of 5.
Fun action abounds.
Ebert: What I'm getting is a lot of "I liked the first one, but not this one."
Roger,
I think I may be the first and possibly only individual here (and elsewhere for that matter) whom very much disliked the first film but enjoyed this one. I don't expect you to be able to wrap your head around that one because... I simply I cannot either in a logical fashion. After some thought I had come to realize my reaction bears some resemblance to, and above all I'm sure, your great friend the late Gene Siskel and his review segment of Bay's 1998 Armageddon. He smiles throughout it due to how relentless it was to the point of absurdity. He says "if you get into this mood with this picture, I was laughin'! That's a strangely entertaining and amusing experience.... if you can stop blinking and of course take your fingers out of your ears. So a weird, truly weird thumbs up." Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen for me was that kind of experience. It truly felt as if Michael Bay, unlike last time, knew exactly what he wanted to do with every minuscule detail. The end result is something I can't even begin to explain how much I UNDERSTAND where you are coming from. Gene Siskel in that Armageddon review once again clearly has the same reaction. He never once tries to seriously disagree with you. In fact, as you explain your own reaction, the words from him right off the bat are pure agreement: "No question. Right. You're right." he says. It really put my feelings into context. The film gives you *everything* you need to openly destroy it as an intellectually inferior work, whilst simultaneously inviting you to just get into it and go along for the ride. I know you know what I'm talking about because last year you gave three stars to "Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor". You fell into a groove with that film when I'm sure every intellectual fiber in your body was boiling with disgust at this temporary fall into immaturity. I say certain films bring this out of all of us. Strange is it how we are all having a conversation about how much we dislike this particular film when I'm sure with a flip of the wand some of us may have enjoyed Mummy 3 (at least secretly); the first Transformers as well. Why is that? Could we really engage in an intellectual debate about such for the sake of comparison? I say not. It is simply a matter of feeling and chords struck we film lovers sometimes do not know how to explain, often feeling very embarrassed about it. I'm 23 years old, a massive cinephile. As a child I collected films dating back to 1950's B-Movies such as "The Blob" and "Them!" while my friends were likely playing with super-soakers and watching "Snicktoons" on Nickelodeon. As such I've always followed everything related to film very closely, this includes you, Roger. Here I am on your blog, confessing my borderline love for a film you strongly disliked and have every valid reason out there for doing so. After all this time of following your work, now and by way of your journal, I may actually get to be communicating with you... and how so? Admitting I enjoyed a film that you say a 12 year old would reject proceeding the age of 11. You could call me a fool I suppose, but I say all of us lovers of the cinema are fools in love to begin with.
Ebert: When you’re a fool in love
And nothing goes the way you plan
And no one cares and no one understands
That you’re a fool and you’re in love
Never another spring for you,
Never a robin to sing for you,
You’re out there on your own
When you’re a fool in love
As an IMAX usher, (traditional film IMAX, thank god) I'm dreading having this movie for a month. I watched the screening with the rest of the employees, and I hated the movie. I'm giving it a second chance soon, but not expecting much. Mostly I'm dreading having to hear the final ending credits song, which is also terrible.
Megatron,
This is his BLOG. He can say whatever he damn well likes. Are you implying that a politician cannot recommend a movie in his blog? Do you even realise how daft it is to say that a person cannot air our his political views on his blog just because he isn't a political analyst?
Michael Bay keeps writing every couple days on his website about how he doesn't care what the critics think.
It makes him seem like he cares very much.
For the record, I'm about as big a Transformers fan you can find, and I haven't that seriously considered walking out of a movie since uhhh... Armageddon.
Ebert wrote: Bet you didn't know this: http://www.brainyhistory.com/daysbirth/birth_june_25.html
GASP!
Anthony Bourdain!
He was born June 25th too?! It is most auspicious that we share the same birthday; this is a good omen. Are you familiar with him, Roger?
Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations – Chicago Deep Dish Pizza!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0iys-vgD6M
And this one from Venice: part one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9oBD5rAee4
Note: if you're interested in seeing a creamy seafood risotto made from a centuries old recipe, or traveling to the smaller islands and drinking "forbidden wines" or seeing pollenta served with Venetian cuttlefish in its own black ink - look for parts 2 to 5 which are also hosted on You Tube. :)
And I see George Orwell was also born on the same day:
"Good writing is like a windowpane" - Orwell
Along with Ricky Gervais, Sydney Lumet and Chloe Webb who played "Nancy" in Sid & Nancy - one of my favorite movies! And fellow Cancerians include Nelson Mandela, Henry David Thoreau, Edmund Hillary and the Dalai Lama.
Gosh! The Dalai Lama! I wonder what he got for presents? Me..? I got what matters most and lets you know you're really loved by people who care; a nice pile of unmarked twenties! :)
Note to Libby: I loved Mystery Science Theater 3000, too! But then it was genuinely funny. A compilation from The Undead, Laserblast, and Star Force Fugitive Alien II...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnDQxGUEjjE&feature=related
That aside and on sadder note, I see Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett both died on June 25th. Seems the universe was having a busy day all round, eh?
Ebert: George Orwell is one of the few people I would rather share my birthday with that Paul McCartney.
Many on Rotten Tomatoes talked about racism in this movie. I got a feeling of that as well. How about you? Also, I thought there was a creepiness to the film as when a robot "humps" the leg of the heroine and she doesn't exactly stop him... How much input did Spielberg have on this project? It seems like another production where the Michael Bay dog is allowed to run amok!!!! And, God help us, a new Transformers is already in pre-production!!!!
Ebert: Help me out on this. What was the robot feeling when it humped her leg? What did it want? Did it think it had a gender? Since all the Autobots® and Decepticons® have male voices, what do they hump in Botland?
I'd say I disagree... but I'm honestly avoiding this one like the plague. This, however, is easily one of the most entertaining reviews I have read yet for the movie. Thank you!
"Transformers: Revenge of Fallen" was released on Wednesday in South Korea, and I saw the movie with my colleagues yesterday. I hated the movie, but my colleagues hated the movie less than I did. Although they were not satisfied and they thought the movie is too long, one of them said it was good for blowing away his stress. I doubt it. The movie is full of "Bang Bang" instead of "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang". People at sound effect and special effect must have worked a lot during many nights, but all I could hear and see was numbing assault of CG and noise. These dizzy CG actions do not give any sense of direction and your senses are rampaged. Hey, even the most exciting and scary roller coaster has something you can hold on.
I did not like "Transformers", but I accepted its silly fun just like "Mummy: the Tomb of Dragon Emperor". These guilty pleasure movies know what they are(yeah, they are pulp, or trash!) and have some fun. But "Transformers: Revenge of Fallen" is just noisy, humongous, and boring. I even checked my watch after 15 minutes and that was the record. In case of friend who said the movie blew away his stress, I replied "Shoot 'em Up" could have been more efficient and economical solution for his stress. It bravely and joyously goes over the top, and does many, many things in 86 minutes(63 min less then "Transformers: Revenge of Fallen"!). He has seen it before, and he agreed with me.
"Transformers: Revenge of Fallen" drove me to a glass of Junebug and a glass of Long Island ice tea at that night, but they were not enough. Thankfully, there are more movies to come in July. "Public Enemy", new Harry Potter movie, and "Up". And I have plenty of other movies to watch. Recently, I bought several Errol Morris documentaries including "Gates of Heaven"(I was confused with "Heaven's Gate" at first). Maybe I will watch one of them tonight. People, or characters, are always more interesting than CG.
Ebert: I'll be interested to learn what you think of "Gates of Heaven."
My brother had a Starscream, and a Grimlock (he turned into a mechanical T-Rex). I usually had first crack at the toys he outgrew, but with those two, he deliberately sold them at a school swap meet so that I wouldn't get my hands on them.
Michael Bay's Transformers movies feel a lot like that: A cruel last-minute theft of my gleeful anticipation.
Ah, well. I still have Powermaster Optimus Prime to get me through the day. Pew, pew, *transformer noise*, "Now you shall pay, Megatron!" Pew, pew...
From your review
"Footnote 6/24: Does it strike you as a lapse of Pyramid security that no one notices a gigantic Deceptibot ripping off the top of the Great Pyramid? Not anyone watching on the live PyramidCam? Not even a traffic copter?"
What do you expect to this movie? When Deceptibots are in New York for a while, nobody seems to notice or care about them even though they were at the top of buildings. I found it quite strange.
Ebert: They didn't care because they had already seen the trailer.
To me the issue is simple, its only 5 days till Public Enemies opens. There is no reason for me to step into a movie theatre until this occurs. No Doubt Transformers will make a mint of money this weekend. I as a movie goer, can wait the 5 days to be challenged like the adult that I am.
If the American public could elect George Bush twice, it is not beyond my belief that this could be one of the top grossing films of all time.
I, like some other posters, could not make it through the first Transformers. You should get hazard pay for sitting through some of these movies. You have gone above and beyond. You sat through this so many of us would not have to. (Not that I was going to.)
Roger, maybe I have just been too naive all these years or maybe I am just getting too old, but this summer's crop of blockbusters, namely "Terminator Salvation" and TROTF made me realize what an appalling contempt for the audiences' intelligence some filmakers have. Maybe they just do not want people who notice crazy inconsistencies or geographical impossibilities to see their movies in the first place. Am I being too nit-picky to wonder: Where in the back lot of the Smithsonian is this enormous airplane graveyard with mountain backdrop and can you really run to the Giza plateau from Petra in Jordan (It seems Israel and the Sinai are in between)?
I used to think Bay at least made technically interesting movies. The first Transformers made some the most seamless use of CGI in movies yet. I thought. In this one I caught Bay recycling sets (the same Arab ruins/village set for human vs robo battles in both movies), recycling shots (the Predator drone flying into above desert ruins) and even recycling actors (I am sure the US general of NEST died in the opening sequence of the 1st movie.)
In the end, I fear that your prediction of this being the last stage of these types of action spectaculars is only wishful thinking.
-AT
I am sorry for bringing this relatively insignificant issue up but- this movie is loud. This movie is loud. Holy [expletive] this movie is loud. You call it pain Mr.Ebert but i assure you after about five minutes of this aural onslaught i realised that i had transcended all pain. This movie is loud. If my ears could have stormed off in anger at my continued viewing i promise you they would have. This movie is loud. All i remember is a blur of SOUND- if that makes any sense. This movie is loud.
Walking out of the cinema about three quarters way through, the scene that came to my mind was De Niro, Pesci, and Liotta stabbing Billy Batts in the trunk. But it was Micheal Bay with the knife and the audience in the trunk. Or Micheal Bay with the knife and "plot" and "character" in the trunk. Or Micheal Bay with the knife and "coherence" in the trunk. Or Micheal Bay with the knife and "film making" in the trunk. Sigh... see where you can go with this?
Aside: The first time i came across your blog i must admit i was pleasantly surprised and kind of disappointed too. Surprised because you actually answered some of the comments which i thought was cool of you. Disappointed because i had to shelve one of my theories about people on TV- apparently you all do not live in mystical TVland with milk and virgins and whatnot. Still, the theory about you being a cleverly made automaton by Disney (by the the same team this keeps walt disney's head alive) stands.
Ebert: TVland has a lot of milk but no virgins.
The only Michael Bay's film i love is THE ROCK & TRANSFORMERS (2007).
And i totally agree with Roger's review about his latest directing TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN.
Maybe it will be a biggest film of the year, and i'll kill my self is this epic will get any oscar next academy award. I know it won't be.
Hello there Ebert.
I like to think that in capable hands any intellectual property can be made great. Batman is an excellent example. The world of Gotham was almost doomed to be cheesy, saturday morning fun, which normally wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't friggin BATMAN (seriously, Batman working only in the daytime?). Not even Tim Burton's reinterpretation could save Batman (if anything it sort of made things worse).
Where Batman shined was in the non-movie field. Batman: The Animated Series, and the darker edgier comics. They took the mythos of Batman and made complex, engaging stories (I'm an animation fan like you, so The Animated Series was like a dream come true). And when Nolan eventually was handed the franchise, he called upon those characterizations and basic human psyche to create Begins and Dark Knight.
Imagine what Transformers would have been like with that treatment. Having the entire movie take place on the oft-mentioned homeworld of the Autobots and Decepticons would be interesting. An entire planet of giant robots would be more entertaining than their wacky mishaps with Shia LeBuff (or whatever his name is). It'd also make an interesting form of voyeurism; no human characters to relate to, instead you're fully concentrated on the affairs of these giant...things, as if you were spying on them.
That's my two cents anyway. (For the record, I didn't see Revenge of the Fallen. Transformers was before my time, instead I grew up on Pokemon and Sailor Moon, neither of which I think would benefit much from a Nolan-esque treatment).
In the words of one of the (in my humble opinion) great modern movie commentators in any medium: "The Movie Preview Critic"; (an internet blog/facebook style page with some great humor and insight). The "Movie Apocalypse" is slowly approaching.
As a people we remain optimistic. In today's world, when we apply for that new job we expect our new bosses and co-workers to treat us with dignity and respect. To judge us based upon talent, charisma and heart more than shady influence, a false sense of vain image or kissing ass to get ahead. When we meet that special someone and they return our affections, we hope that their feelings are mutual and genuine and not just a ruse to get us into bed or to feed off of our long term monetary fund. We go to the store and buy fresh fruit, hoping that it is not laced with chemicals and pesticides. And we send our children to school, knowing that they won't be exposed to drugs, alcohol, teacher abuse and violence. As a community we expect the very best from our leaders, hoping that they will make the right decisions that help in shaping our prosperity rather than their pocket or power books. But in the end, who's to really say? Perhaps people like Gordon Gekko are pulling the strings after all. Maybe in the end we're all like Charlie Sheen's Bud Fox. Optimistic, hopelessly naive and a bit sloppy. I wouldn't be surprised, but that would be very easy to think cynically.
Going to blockbuster movies these days is a bit of a manifested microcosm of that kind of reality. We see it everyday in the kind of mish-mash, uninspired slurp that comes out of the creatively-deficient assembly line Hollywood likes to call the movies. Indeed, this moving