Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Spoiler ahoy!)

[Stofsk]

Well, I just got back from seeing it with a friend of mine and my two nephews at IMAX, and the verdict is unanimous: this movie rocks!

[Oni Koneko Damien]

It seems like they moved that role of "unstoppable villain" from Megatron to the Fallen. I admit, Megatron seemed more intimidating in the first film in terms of "unstoppability".

Well, they failed horribly at that too. I mean, what does the Fallen do? Sit in an ICU unit on Cybertron for the majority of the movie, then climb an aircraft carrier, steal a macguffin, throw a few tanks around, then promptly get his ass handed to him by Optimus. Maybe that's why I found the final battle so disappointing, both the Fallen and Megatron utterly failed to deliver in the threatening department.

[tim31]

When Prime got the powerup I was torn between fanservice joy and dismay that this was going to spell the end for The Fallen. At the end of the day, I'm in the camp of people who loved this movie, and can't wait for the home release.

[Vympel]

both the Fallen and Megatron utterly failed to deliver in the threatening department.

I found Megatron and the Fallen plenty threatening. Megatron killed Optimus after all (not to mention destroy an SSN, which was awesome) and the Fallen wiping out an entire unit's worth of armored vehicles was wicked. Not to mention he can teleport.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I found Megatron and the Fallen plenty threatening. Megatron killed Optimus after all

By stabbing him in the back, after Optimus had already been gangbanged by Megs, Blackout and Starscream. In the first movie he was more than capable of slugging it out with Optimus one on one.

and the Fallen wiping out an entire unit's worth of armored vehicles was wicked. Not to mention he can teleport.

Yeah, but he used none of that directly in the fight against Optimus. It's like two fully armored knights showing off their capabilities, then one throws his sword down, rips off his breastplate and charges against his opponent.

[Havok]

both the Fallen and Megatron utterly failed to deliver in the threatening department.

I found Megatron and the Fallen plenty threatening. Megatron killed Optimus after all (not to mention destroy an SSN, which was awesome) and the Fallen wiping out an entire unit's worth of armored vehicles was wicked. Not to mention he can teleport.

So what. Blackout wiped out an entire base in the first movie. As for the SSN, a single torpedo can do what Megatron did. So while visually impressive, considering he is like half the size of an SSN, and didn't to anything other than rip a hole in the sub, not that impressive.
As for threatening, yeah not really. Megatron couldn't even fight Prime one on one this time around and the Fallen got whipped faster than possibly any movie villain in history.

If they had wanted to make them actually threatening, they would have had the rest of the Decepticons chasing the McGuffin so they could resurrect the Fallen fighting the ABs, who are just one step behind them the whole way, then have the returned Fallen wipe up the ABs and NEST on his own, then to show even more power, have him resurrect his favorite Lt, in Megs, then have them both slaughter Prime and have the end of the movie with the ABs defeated and in retreat, with Earth on the brink of being conquered/destroyed, and with almost no hope left.

Instead, you have Prime get killed in a movie where someone else already got resurrected in the first 1/4 of the film.... gee what is going to happen now? It took any sense of anyone being threatening out of the equation.

Just one more mediocre part of a mediocre film.

[Stark]

'Threatening', when talking about villains, isn't just 'OMG DID A BIG ACTION THING'. Someone can blow up the world and not seem very threatening, because it's about how it's shot, what they say, how others react, etc. If it's poorly done, the audience can indeed feel no threat from villains who have perpetrated lots of 'action'.

[tim31]

Refer to destruction of earth in Hitchhiker's Guide.

Actually the Stark statement casts my mind back to the director's edition of The Abyss. The scenes where the aliens flex their muscles by placing mile high standing waves at the shores of the coastal population centres of the world despite the film's attempt to portray them as divine creatures for me created a feeling that these creatures were not at all benevolent; I don't know what Cameron's intent was there(apart from the usual NO MOAR WAR messages).

[Darth Wong]

Refer to destruction of earth in Hitchhiker's Guide.

Actually the Stark statement casts my mind back to the director's edition of The Abyss. The scenes where the aliens flex their muscles by placing mile high standing waves at the shores of the coastal population centres of the world despite the film's attempt to portray them as divine creatures for me created a feeling that these creatures were not at all benevolent; I don't know what Cameron's intent was there(apart from the usual NO MOAR WAR messages).

Wrath of a powerful superior force, drowning Earth's sinful people with a Great Flood ... sound familiar?

[Singular Intellect]

Refer to destruction of earth in Hitchhiker's Guide.

Actually the Stark statement casts my mind back to the director's edition of The Abyss. The scenes where the aliens flex their muscles by placing mile high standing waves at the shores of the coastal population centres of the world despite the film's attempt to portray them as divine creatures for me created a feeling that these creatures were not at all benevolent; I don't know what Cameron's intent was there(apart from the usual NO MOAR WAR messages).

Wrath of a powerful superior force, drowning Earth's sinful people with a Great Flood ... sound familiar?

Ah, your talent for pointing out biblical references (intentional or not) never ceases to amuse.

It's always been ironic that people envision enlightened beings coming to Earth and informing us of how we're such a nasty and violent race of beings, and then proceed to either threaten us or use their own unstoppable weapons of mass destruction to prove that they will not tolerate us using weapons and violence to...solve...problems...wait a minute!

[tim31]

Wrath of a powerful superior force, drowning Earth's sinful people with a Great Flood ... sound familiar?

Oh, yeah, I got that bit. I was just wondering whose side Cameron was on, or whether he was just using what he thought was a good bit of drama to finish the film. One thing's for sure, he practically created the list of Film and Television makers that have pissed off Bob Ballard with the inclusion of aliens under the sea. Somehow Cameron persuaded him to help out on Titanic, but then that was a subject Ballard couldn't leave alone.

Back to the Pyramid, is it possible for people to enjoy a high-stakes bit of drama like the countdown to annihilation knowing full well that the hackneyed laws of narrative are on the good guy's side?

[Vympel]

By stabbing him in the back, after Optimus had already been gangbanged by Megs, Blackout and Starscream. In the first movie he was more than capable of slugging it out with Optimus one on one.

I fail to see how Megatron, Starscream and Grindor kicking the shit out of Optimus Prime somehow means Megatron is less badass than he was in the first movie. I don't remember anything in that fight that led me to believe that Optimus would beat him one-on-one. Can someone refresh my memory otherwise?

And The Fallen and Megatron getting their asses kicked at the end was damn refreshing. We had already had a long, drawn out fight sequence in the forest - what, the movie needed another? What's wrong with Jetfire-Prime tearing the Fallen a new asshole in moments?

[FSTargetDrone]

The way Bee didn't speak once the whole movie struck me as weird, too, but I found the way he communicated with the radio charming enough to let it pass. Seriously, in his response to Sam's "if you hate me I'll understand" BB was far more endearing than the twins were for the entirety of the movie.

There was a clip of that scene that they released a few weeks before the movie. I think it was the Showest footage - should be on Youtube somewhere. Bumblebee did speak a line or two with Sam before Sam left the garage. Seems they cut the bit out of the final edit.

Bumblebee's not speaking was addressed in the movie. In the scene where Sam is saying goodbye to Bee in his garage, Mikaela says something like, "Is he still having trouble with his voice?" Those aren't the exact words, but she mentions it.

[Terralthra]

Bumblebee's not speaking was addressed in the movie. In the scene where Sam is saying goodbye to Bee in his garage, Mikaela says something like, "Is he still having trouble with his voice?" Those aren't the exact words, but she mentions it.

Sam responds by shaking his head and saying "He's playing it up..."

[NecronLord]

It's always been ironic that people envision enlightened beings coming to Earth and informing us of how we're such a nasty and violent race of beings, and then proceed to either threaten us or use their own unstoppable weapons of mass destruction to prove that they will not tolerate us using weapons and violence to...solve...problems...wait a minute!

I always liked the way that was handled in The Day the Earth Stood Still - they're not pacifists at all, they just don't want us developing weapons that could conceivably harm them.

[white_rabbit]

So what. Blackout wiped out an entire base in the first movie. As for the SSN, a single torpedo can do what Megatron did. So while visually impressive, considering he is like half the size of an SSN, and didn't to anything other than rip a hole in the sub, not that impressive.

Didn't Megatron smash the SSN out of the water in a crazy spin ? Thats thousands of tons of Submarine which he bashes out of the water. A swift google found this piccy for a torp blasting a destroyer in two http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... esting.jpg.

the displacement of various modern US SSN is three times that of the destroyer in the picture. Blackout may have looked prettier and made more explosions when trashing the base, but that submarine probably massed more than a large chunk of the hardware on the base put together, and Megs just shouldered it out of the way.

[Bounty]

Ebert responds to the poor fools who think this is actually a good movie:

Roger Ebert is a moron! Transformers 2 is the best action movie ever. Don't listem to that moron! He is only into slow boring romantic movies. That is his type of movies. Michael Bay did a great good. Roger... your an old fart! John C

Having now absorbed all or parts of 750 responses to my complaints about "Transformers," I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that most of those writing agree with me that it is a horrible movie. After all, look where they've chosen to comment. There have, however been some disagreements that I thought were reasonable. These writers mostly said they had a thing about the Transformers toys of their childhoods, or liked the animation on TV, or like to see stuff blowed up real good. In that case. Michael Bay is your man. If you enjoyed the movie, there is no way I can say you're wrong. About yourself, anyway.

Another common line of attack was disturbing. It came from people who said I was out of touch with the tastes of the audience. That the movie's detractors (lumped together as "the critics") like only obscure movies that nobody else does--art films, documentaries, foreign films, indies, movies made 50 years ago--even, God forbid, "classics." One poster argued that "Transformers" was better than that boring old movie "Casablanca."

I was informed I didn't "get" Michael Bay. I was too old, "of the wrong generation," or an elitist or a liberal--although not, I was relieved to find, a "liberal elitist." It seems to me "Transformers" also qualifies for conservative scorn. It is obliviously nonpartisan. Yet one commented said I hated the movie because it was an attack on President Obama. I was afraid to say I hadn't noticed that, because then I would be told I hadn't even seen the movie. It is possible to miss many of the plot points, strange in a movie with so few of them. Veiled in-jokes about politicians and famous people, popular in animation and mass market movies, come with the territory. I enjoy them. The apparent reference to Obama was no big deal, although a reader from Germany told me the actual name "Obama" was used in the German dub. That possibly didn't happen without Bay hearing about it.

But am I out of touch? It's not a critic's job to reflect box office taste. The job is to describe my reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others. The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded, but to evaluate another opinion against his own. But you know that. We've been over that ground many times. What disturbs me is when I'm specifically told that I know too much about movies, have "studied" them, go into them "too deep," am always looking for things the average person doesn't care about, am always mentioning things like editing or cinematography, and am forever comparing films to other films.

I've "forgotten what it's like to be a kid," another poster told me. One of the most-admired contributors to this blog, who signs herself "A Kid.," is 12 years old. She hasn't forgotten. Neither have many other readers of middle school age. Their posts give me hope for the future. For them, to be a kid is not to be uncritical or thoughtlessly accepting. They seek magic, and don't find it in the brutal hammering of "Transformers."

A reader named Jared Diamond, a senior at Syracuse, sports editor of The Daily Orange, put my disturbance eloquently in a post asking: "Why in this society are the intelligent vilified? Why is education so undervalued and those who preach it considered arrogant or pretentious?" Why, indeed? If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge? Yet sports fans are proud of their baseball knowledge, and respect commentators who know their stuff.

It's true that many Americans have an active suspicion and dislike of the "educated." They ask, "what makes you an expert?" when they're really asking, "what gives you the right to disagree with me?" The term "college graduate" has become in some circles a negative. Hostility is especially focused on the "Eastern Elite," to the chagrin of we Midwestern Elitists. To describe someone as a "Harvard student" is to dismiss them as beneath consideration. You can often hear the words "so-called" in front of words like scientist, educator, philosopher. I don't believe this is intended to imply that the person involved is not a scientist, etc., but to suggest that no one calling himself such a thing is to be trusted--because he is no doubt many other undesirable things.

While I am eager, in the words of my alma mater's song "Illinois Loyalty," to back you to stand, against the best in the land, I envy the hell out of anyone who has gotten himself into Harvard, especially with his mind and not his parents' clout. Some people believe it is the best university in America. Why must that be a mark of shame?

I never took a film class. I will not bore you with yet another recitation of my rags-to-riches saga, my hard-won film education, and blah, blah, blah. Let's just say I started out with a lot to learn, and am still trying to learn as much of it as I can. There are people who know so much more about film than I do, it makes me all but weep with gratitude when they deign to speak with me. Two words: David Bordwell. That he speaks to everyone in clear and eloquent prose speaks for itself. It isn't that he "thinks he knows more than anybody else." It's that he does. It's like he happens to know a lot of interesting stuff, and is happy to share it with you.

Now about those who sincerely believe "Transformers" is a good, even a great, film. I sincerely believe they are wrong. I don't consider them stupid--at least, not (most of) the ones who write to me. Some of the posters at certain popular web forums are nine blooms short of a bouquet. But on the other hand look at the spirited discussions on the movie forums of the all-Transformers-all-the time seibertron.com, where a Paramount exit poll showing "90% of those polled thought the second film was as good or better than the first one" has been received with ridicule. Significantly, those are moderated forums.

So let's focus on those who seriously believe "Transformers" is one of the year's best films. Are these people wrong? Yes. They are wrong. I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle. Sir, not only do I differ with what you say, but I would certainly not fight to the death for your right to say it. Not me. You have to pick your fights.

What I believe is that all clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their lifetimes: Curious and teachable. If someone I respect tells me I must take a closer look at the films of Abbas Kiarostami, I will take that seriously. If someone says the kung-fu movies of the 1970s, which I used for our old Dog of the Week segments, deserve serious consideration, I will listen. I will try to do what Pauline Kael said she did: Take everything you are, and all the films you've seen, into the theater. See the film, and decide if anything has changed. The older you are and the more films you've seen, the more you take into the theater. When I had been a film critic for ten minutes, I treated Doris Day as a target for cheap shots. I have learned enough to say today that the woman was remarkably gifted.

Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve. Those people contain multitudes. They deserve films that refresh the parts others do not reach. They don't need to spend a lifetime with the water only up to their toes.

Do I ever have one of those days when, the hell with it, all I want to do is eat popcorn and watch explosions? I haven't had one of those days for a long time. There are too many other films to see. I've had experiences at the movies so rich, so deep--and yes, so funny and exciting--that I don't want to water the soup. I went to "Transformers" with an open mind (I gave a passing grade to the first one). But if I despised the film and it goes on to break box office records, will I care? No. I'll hope however that everyone who paid for a ticket thought they had a good time, because it was their time and their money.

The opening grosses are a tribute to a marketing campaign, not to a movie no one had seen. If two studios spend a ton of money on a film, scare away the competition, and open in 4,234 theaters before the Fourth of July, of course they do blockbuster business. The test is: Does the film have legs?

Major league Hollywood seems completely dominated by the belief that money can buy anything and justify anything. When a reader wrote to inform me that Michel Bay paid $8 million to the writers of the screenplay, I very much doubted it. Turns out that figure is correct. With numbers like that representative of big time Hollywood, I observe with Yeats that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. No wonder. It pays better.

[Vympel]

Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve. Those people contain multitudes. They deserve films that refresh the parts others do not reach. They don't need to spend a lifetime with the water only up to their toes.

Ah, yes, the foul stench of snide insinuations that the movies you enjoy say something about your intelligence.

Is it a good movie?

Well, I was fucking entertained. It had great effects. I found it funny. The action was awesome.

Yes, I think it's a good movie.

Oh no, I am not sufficiently evolved!

Seriously though, a critic actually responding to others who saw the movie and think he's wrong is kind of beneath him, I think.

It's odd that he goes to the trouble of dismissing the success of the film as merely being because of the marketing campaign before it was released - because you know, pre-release marketing alone somehow accounts for getting $700 million in 20 days at the box office on the back of mostly bad reviews

It's especially so given that in the paragraph before, he 'doesn't care' about it breaking box office records. Well, clearly he cares enough to come up with an implausible rationalization to explain away the film's popularity, and then question if the movie has 'got legs'. Err, yeah, I think it does. Why does it matter? Lots of shitty movies do well.

He would've been better off just letting his review speak for itself. This is almost childish. He didn't have to lower himself to answer the ravings of internet denizens who thought his review was shit.

[Crown]

This movie blew.

Glad I saw it on the big screen though.

[Darth Wong]

The thing about film critics is that they literally spend all of their time watching movies. This does give them a particular skewed viewpoint which is not shared by the person who manages to get out to the theatre once every six months if he's lucky. The typical film critic is far less tolerant of cliché, unimaginative storytelling, and film-insider stuff like imperfect cinematography. Conversely, he is far more tolerant of the imperfections in any story which is unusual, surprising, and different in some key way from the thousands of films they've sat through before.

If Roger Ebert is saying that a person who enjoys lowbrow movies is not "evolved" as a human being in general, that's pretty damned asinine and I would have to say that he's being completely stupid. If, on the other hand, he just means that you're not "evolved" as a film viewer, he's probably got a point. Then again, there is no particular reason why anyone should become a highly evolved film viewer. Roger Ebert loves film with a passion; this comes through in all of his reviews, all of his editorials, all of his opinions, and the story of his life. Me personally, I don't. They're just something I occasionally consume for entertainment, when I have time.

It's not a whole lot different from people who contemptuously says that you're not a "refined" diner unless you know which kind of fine wine goes with which kind of food. That kind of guy is typically a stuck-up snob. who never asks why it's so important to be a "refined" diner. Having said that, the kind of person who thinks there's nothing wrong with eating a completely deep-fried diet really does need to become more refined in his eating. I suppose you could say that everyone has his set point. For me, it's somewhere below the level of a film critic, and somewhere above the kind of person who enjoys "Larry the Cable Guy" movies.

[Stark]

Even in the case of dining, it's 'important' to know that shit because it is actually better. It's just not bad to drink whatever wine you feel like; the 'proper' wine just compliments the food more and does whatever silly crap synergising tastebuds is supposed to do. It's not like it's a random or totally arbitrary thing, it's just snooty and unnecessary to enjoy food.

I find it more amusing that many reviewers (and people) think TF2 is a bad movie, and that really offends some people, even those who say 'my standards are 'big explosion, titties, I had a good time''. It's easy for them to like movies for the hell of it, but they've still got 'pride' in their 'taste' after describing how easy it is to satisfy. Is it lamer that someone like Ebert says 'maybe when people grow up they'll have standards instead of being wrong' or someone like Vympel says 'made heaps of money so everyone who says it's crap is wrong'?

[SylasGaunt]

the displacement of various modern US SSN is three times that of the destroyer in the picture. Blackout may have looked prettier and made more explosions when trashing the base, but that submarine probably massed more than a large chunk of the hardware on the base put together, and Megs just shouldered it out of the way.

Yeah the impact throws the whole ass end of the sub up above the surface as I recall.

[Oskuro]

I have to agree with Erbert's opinion. On the one hand, there is the issue of viewer evolution. If we take the nostalgia goggles off (and sometimes without doing so), we find that we can no longer enjoy movies that we used to enjoy back in the day. I'm personally noticing that my taste in movies is changing, because the genres I usually like are becoming boring and predictable to me.

Then there's what I believe is the major point in his post, that is, education. It is ok to like a movie, everyone is entitled to their own tastes, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But if the intention is to see how a movie measures up in a more objective perspective, you need to know about movies, about filmmaking, and about what makes a movie good or bad independetly of opinions. It's just like debates around here. Whose argument has more weight? The argument of a newcomer who has barely watched the material being discussed and posts out of gut instinct? Or the argument of the respected veteran (that is, someone who has proven himself to his peers) who not only has viewed more of the source material, but knows enough of the setting to provide accurate calculations?

Ebert makes a long point regarding how people with an education are despised, and that's an important point that has been discussed in this forum before. And I believe we have examples of this behaviour on this very thread. So yes, Ebert has watched countless films. Yes, he has a long career as a film critic. Doesn't that make him more qualified to make an objective analysis of a movie? What's with all this bile towards the man? Is the disagreement of a film critic enough to shatter confidence on your own personal tastes?

[NecronLord]

Yes, he has a long career as a film critic. Doesn't that make him more qualified to make an objective analysis of a movie? What's with all this bile towards the man? Is the disagreement of a film critic enough to shatter confidence on your own personal tastes?

Some statements in his first review are simply baffling. "The movie doesn't make crystal clear how the parents get to egypt" - I for one distinctly recall them being kidnapped by the Decepticons, and Soundwave pretty much saying 'bring on the bait to lure the kid out.' I honestly don't think he was paying much attention.

Of course, it's not a great film, hell, I'd hesitate to call it good, but his review is hazy enough on some points to imply that he basically slept through it.

[JLTucker]

Yes, he has a long career as a film critic. Doesn't that make him more qualified to make an objective analysis of a movie? What's with all this bile towards the man? Is the disagreement of a film critic enough to shatter confidence on your own personal tastes?

Some statements in his first review are objectively untrue. "There's no explanation for Sam's parents being there" - I for one distinctly recall them being kidnapped by the Decepticons, and Soundwave pretty much saying 'bring on the bait to lure the kid out.'

I figured that was obvious when Sam actually holds up the sock with the remains of the Matrix and says something like "This is what you want. Leave them alone." Ebert obviously wasn't paying attention, which is evident by him saying that Starscream had a fucking beard, when he looks completely different than Jetfire.