Ouch - Review of Transformers- Page 2

[strummergirl]

Posted: 7/4/11 at 4:26pm

Why does it still have to be mindless drivel? Why can it just simply have a basic plot with robots and explosions? Why do I need to care about a Victoria Secrets model was somehow netted by the main character? Why that whole space race subplot (with cameos by JFK and Buzz Aldrin) that really makes no sense even in the Transformers universe? Michael Bay and Ehren Kruger made this movie a lot more convoluted than it should have been.

Thor was an action/genre movie that could be considered mindless drivel but it was well-made, well-acted, had plenty of action going on from the start, and had enough plot for me to enjoy it despite the fact its whole existence is based on moving The Avengers movie forward for Marvel to make more $$$. I don't finger wag its existence as it is inoffensive, entertaining, and made sense.

[nygrl232]

Posted: 7/4/11 at 5:05pm

$181 million? To quote a friend of mine, let's just put the monkey head on the Lincoln Memorial right now and save time.

[romantico]

Posted: 7/4/11 at 5:06pm

Its the times we live in. 20 years ago on 4th of July I was a teenager and my friends and I went to see T2:Judgment Day.It was the TRANSFORMERS of its day. Action and state of the art special effects.I just watched T2 a few months ago and I enjoyed it just as much as I did when I saw it opening day int eh theater back in 1991.Kids seeing TRANSFORMERS will say the same thing 20 years from now I'm sure.Oh, and back then T2 broke all records. It made a ton of money over the holidays (of course films back then played on fewer screens and ticket prices were not what they are today and more people went to the movies I think)

Strummergirl, you pointed out something very interesting in responding to Stockard Fan's post regarding the film being for kids. You said:

"The last movie had endless masturbation jokes, a dog humping Megan Fox's leg, showed John Turturro's butt, autobots that seemed straight out of a minstrel show, and was 2 1/2 hours long. This movie is a little longer and supposedly has many of the same things with exception to the racist autobots."

All of the above is tame for kids nowadays.With cable,the internet,video games, and the times we live in, this is nothing.I'll never forget the Mom and Dad who brought their kids, who could not have been more than 8 or 9, to see SIN CITY in the theater.The kids were laughing and clapping at all the right parts along with their parents. A family bonding experience I'm sure, but I was disturbed as hell.

Updated On: 7/4/11 at 05:06 PM

[strummergirl]

Posted: 7/4/11 at 8:06pm

Romantico,
I ain't a prude but yeah, that disturbs me. I can handle it when the parents let their kids get away with under their roof (I myself practically got away with murder with what I could do under my parents noses as a kid) but seeing kids at a movie like Kick-Ass, for example, was a shock to my system (especially during that same week I remember an actual family movie How to Train Your Dragon was out).

But it is funny when a film like Rango gets categorized/criticized as too esoteric for kids because jokes, most of the jokes in Rango often spoofed classic movies, would go over their heads but a fart/poop/piss/masturbation joke would not. That's like saying Mel Brooks can forget about the spoofing movies in a clever manner part but he can keep the campfire bean-eating sequence and turn it up to 11.

Maybe I am being a lot more idealistic but I doubt kids will remember these movies. The latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie made a billion dollars worldwide. Is it memorable? Do people even remember Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland from a year ago?

[bethnor]

Posted: 7/4/11 at 8:25pm

Why does it still have to be mindless drivel? Why can it just simply have a basic plot with robots and explosions?

that is not my question. my original question was as follows: why is there so much derision on this board when transformers (or whatever other generic blockbuster) does well, but so much disappointment when the narnia series, which is again, very thinly veiled christian propaganda, doesn't?

[strummergirl]

Posted: 7/4/11 at 8:54pm

I have not seen one Narnia film (and never read the books) so I cannot answer that question.

I really don't care for generic blockbusters because it is generic. The Transformers films are just unwatchable. I can watch the worst movie from the Fast & The Furious franchise on a loop and it would be better.

I will say the filmmakers for the Narnia movies are pretty unknown. Michael Bay was a known commodity and his work is mostly blow stuff up, tracking shots of a Tommy Hilfiger catalog, make things look shiny, and forget the plot. His movies are mostly clumsy and there is a certain fanbase of Transformers fans who hate him for their nostalgia of a pretty generic and very commercial property. I am not one of those fans but plenty of people just hate Michael Bay. Michael Bay is more tangible than any Narnia movie director. He gets the car keys from the big studios again and again for his clumsy, shiny movies. That really frustrates movie fans when say Edgar Wright can forget about ever having a major budget because Scott Pilgrim flopped at the box office and Guillermo del Toro's projects are constantly in production hell for being too bold.
Updated On: 7/5/11 at 08:54 PM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 12:10am

$181 million in its first week and counting!

The lemmings have spoken!

People went to see a movie that wasn't high brow or endorsed by critics!?!?! *Le gasp*

Pull the stick out of your ass & let people enjoy what they want without throwing out the bullsh*t lemmings line.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 11:26am

I saw this film on Saturday. It was definitely better than the second one. The problem with it though was that it was too long. I was waiting for it to end during the last twenty minutes of it.




SPOILER:

Just like in the film, "Valentine's Day" McDreamy from "Grey's Anatomy" turned into McJerky.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/5/11 at 11:51am

I thought about going to see this just because I was surrounded by the Chicago destruction sets for so long, but I'll wait for DVD. I don't there was anything conceptually wrong with this franchise. It just disintegrated into lazy execution. Who cares if it is a franchise based off toys and a cartoon series? It could have been written well and been fun action films for kids and adults. The first film wasn't too bad. But the second was just awful and it sounds like the third isn't much better. "Hollywood" hasn't fallen to any depths lower than it's been before. Far worse is produced all the time, both in concept and execution. And I don't think I've ever heard of a summer action flick that wasn't produced solely for the idea of making money. And if these films make a bucketload of money, then mission accomplished. It doesn't matter if I like it or not. And it will happen again, summer after summer, until the American public tires of mindless action flicks. Which will be never.

[nygrl232]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 8:57am

It doesn't matter if a film sells toys or rakes in money. It's just the way those douchetards in Hollywood react to their success. "People want this crap! Let's give it to them!"

Michael Bay should give all of his money to the editors and computer animators.

[romantico]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 9:25am

Nowadays box office is more important than substance. They begin predicting box office outcome weeks before the release. They poll films by the trailers. They do test screenings and if the audience does not like the ending or feel it is not what THEY WANT sometimes the studio will go against the filmmakers and make changes to a film weeks before the release. All this just for money.When a decent film under performs at the box office studios will mock and gloat. When a film does very well they do the same thing. Its all about how much the film profits and makes in its first week. THIS IS ALL THAT MATTERS.Tent pole movies are just about numbers and FX nowadays.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/6/11 at 11:26am

I don't think there's any "nowadays" about it. Resources and technology may have changed, but studio greed is as old as Hollywood. It just wasn't until more recently that we saw the rise of the independents in opposition of the major studios. But the fact is, there will always be big studios making crappy blockbusters that audiences enjoy.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 7/7/11 at 6:59pm

My fave review:

"Better, it works as a fine illustration of how this industry of ours that I spend a lot of time defending is in bed completely with the Michael Bays of the world, who represent, I think, the money-making potential of any industry that consents to peddle vice and venality to children. Think of the cash a live-action hardcore porno based on the Barbie license would bring in. Let's get on that, Bay and Zack Snyder, and give out heroin with the purchase of a ticket while we're at it. The first one's free, little girl."

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/transformers3.htm