Revenge of the Fallen Movie Critics and their terrible reviews of RotF

[TheVileOne]

Jin, there's already a thread for this. You are epic fail.

 

[CelticPredator]

And you are a something something. Stop.

Also, EVERYONE stop insulting each other because they like a damn movie. So ****ing what. Does it hurt you?

A friendly waring to the OP. Given the opportunity, I will hunt you down and kill you without remorse. Brainless morons like you are the very reason movies like TF2 make any amount of money. It is unfortunate to see unsophisticated perverts like Micheal Bay make multi billion dollar films when true directors with REAL talent have to struggle to make their place in the industry.

I blame Steven Spielberg for this. He's the one suggested Bay for Transformers
I'd rather have prequel trilogy Lucas do them instead. At least the man and even the prequels have an air of dignity and class about them.

Are you ****ing 13 years old? This isnt name calling, this is a question. For gods sake, you're threatening to KILL someone over a movie!

And you know what, I dont know how you call people brainless morons when you watch Dragonball Z.


No wonder Bay doesnt want to make a movie for you guys. You people are nuts.

 

[luke1234]

Wow i cant believe i read all that.

I blame this on Michael Bay lol

 

[Timstuff]

lol it amazes me how many people are saying: "This movie is not for critics, its for people who enjoys movies"

Sounding like real morons

There is some truth to the idea that critics have different taste in films than the general public, and we learned about it my film classes. They tend to look at films from a more analytical point of view, and above all else are looking for something to set the movie apart from all the other movies they've seen (especially in a genre). When your job is to watch movies on a non-stop basis, eventually it's not enough for a movie to simply be "good, but it doesn't break the mold."

For a movie to be good to a critic, it has to break the mold-- it has to offer some kind of theme or message that makes it unique, or else it's just another dumb action movie. Critics can't enjoy a dumb action movie the way a regular viewer can, because they practically see all of them, and in their line of work they're often of a story and drama mindset more than action and adventure.

For a genre movie to do well with critics it has to do something truly profound that transcends genre, which unfortunately many don't. Even if it's a genre movie that genre fans will love, that doesn't mean that someone who is tired of seeing those kinds of movies (like a professional critic) will like it.

 

[The_Joker7895]

While there are aspects legitmacy to the OP's argument, there are also glaring flaws.

Yes, a great deal of critics have been cynical and the older ones like Rex Reed do tend to pine for the "good ol' days". However, the critics themselves are not without justification. So many of today's blockbusters are in fact, garbage. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Terminator Salvation, Spiderman 3, etc., are all complete and abject failures. The thing about Transformers 2 is that the first film wasn't quite as harshly reviewed because of the novelty and freshness of seeing Transformers in live action. It was a cool concept and thus the weak aspects of the film were forgiven more easily by critics and cynics. However, the sequel, like all sequels, does not get the free pass. Transformers 2 may be a huge technical achievement in terms of visual and sound effects, but as far as story-telling, acting, writing, and direction, the film does tend to come up lacking. Like all art, film is subjective, and you get out of it what you expect going into it. If you go into Transformers expecting something insightful, deep, or moving, you will come out sorely disappoited. If you go in expecting to see a bunch of giant transforming robots trashing the hell out of eachother in mind-bloding CGI, you will be satisfied at the very least.

Some will claim that films like The Dark Knight have set the bar so high that now everyone expects a deep masterpiece out of every summer blockbuster. Thsi is only half true. Yes, TDK set the bar very high, and yes, it will be hard for many blockbusters to live up to that standard, but I think the more intelligent of movie-goers, and even some of the more average ones, still know that it's all about what you want out of a film, and what the source material lends itself to. The Dark Knight was a brilliant masterpiece because it was all around flawless in every aspect. The Director, writers, actors, and technical crew all brought something new and went above and beyond the call. Batman as a character and mythos lends itself to deep, almost Shakespearean tragedy. Transformers does not. Batman has always been a character and mythos that will reveal to shed light on insight into human psyche and can become a zeitgeist film that defines a generation. Call it hyperbole, but I firmly believe that along with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Dark Knight is the defining film of the decade. No other film has truly tapped into the zeitgiest and public consious the way The Dark Knight did.

Transformers, while a huge visual effects achievement, is exactly what it appears to be on the surface. A goofy, action-heavy, summer blockbuster epic. In that respect, it's very similar to it's source material because let's face it; this is a movie based on an 80's cartoon based on an 80's toy line. It's not meant to be more than that. The G1 cartoon was just as campy, over the top, and cheesy as the films. I think that had the technology existed, these films would have a much better reception if they had been made in the 80's. Not only because they would be hot on the heels of the phenomenon that was G1 Transformers, but also because that was the tone of action films in the 80's. Campy, over the top, and sex infused.

In that respect, despite the technical achievement being representative of the present and future, the story-telling in Transformers is something of the past, which in turn shows that it's not that the critics long for times long since gone, they simply want two things; for studios, directors, and writers to try and go above and beyond the call, and for movies that belong in an era to remain in that era. ILM went above and beyond the call with Transformers, but the director, actors (sans Shia LeBouef, who actual was pretty darn good here), and writers didn't. They simply stuck to the formula and didn't try to up the stakes. As much as I love Transformers and the occasional dip in mindless entertainment, we need less Michael Bays, less McGs, less Brett Ratners. We need more Christopher Nolans, more Martin Cambells, more Jon Favreaus, more Peter Jacksons, more Guillermo del Toros, more Michael Manns, more David Finchers, more James Camerons, more Ridley Scotts, more Steven Spielbergs. They are the ones who show that a blockbuster can also be a great film. They went beyond the call, and made truly iconic films.

That's really all the critics are asking for. For more talented directors to move the genre foward in new story-telling directions by taking risks, and making films that go a bit deeper than big explosions, hot women, and action heroes. All that is good, but gets tiresome eventually.

 

[CelticPredator]

I agree with everything except the "we need less Bay's".


IMO we need a Bay to go with the Nolan's, the Finchers...ect, he brings that counter balence to the other films.


**** McG and Ratner though.

 

[MadVillainy]

I agree with everything except the "we need less Bay's".


IMO we need a Bay to go with the Nolan's, the Finchers...ect, he brings that counter balence to the other films.


**** McG and Ratner though.

Cant have good without the bad

 

[CelticPredator]

Pretty much.

Bay makes great explosions. Sometimes, you want some exposions. And other times you want a Dark Knight.

 

[The_Joker7895]

I agree with everything except the "we need less Bay's".


IMO we need a Bay to go with the Nolan's, the Finchers...ect, he brings that counter balence to the other films.


**** McG and Ratner though.

Bay certainly is a different breed. His movies are not really nay good in terms of story-telling, dialogue, etc., but his action sequences and production set-piece values are way higher than hacks like Ratner, McG, etc. Like I said in my official ROTF review, it may be dumb fun, but at the very least, even the haters can acknowledge that the action and CGI is top-notch, especially when compared to the asswipe CGI of Wolverine, Terminator Salvation (minus the awesome CGI governator cameo), Spiderman 3, etc.


Though for me personally, I wouldn't mind not having the guy, as sometimes he can be a real *****e and for every Transformers he brings to the table, he then comes out with The Island, Pearl Harbor, or Bad Boys 2.

Was Spielberg Executive Producer on this one? I don't remember seeing his name in the promos or opening titles, though I may have been mistaken.

And quick sidenote, I did in fact love ROTF, but I certainly had a lot of eye-rolling/face-palm moments.

 

[Nathan]

Sometimes the explosions can be too much though. It was fun to watch, I loved seeing the Decepticon forced slowly walking onto the scene in the desert and then all hell breaking loose. Then my eyes started to hurt after a while and I began not to care anymore. He should've wrapped the battle up a lot sooner and moved to the fight with the Fallen, which sadly turned out lackluster. But if he wouldn't have wasted all the money on the fight before, we might have gotten a decent Optimus Vs Fallen showdown.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I agree with almost everything The Joker7895 said, except lumping Guillermo del Toro with the great film makers, Guillermo too me seems much like Tim Burton, the worlds and makeup effects are amazing yes, but his storytelling is very lacking. You can't really tell me the plot of the Hellboy movies was the draw.

 

[CelticPredator]

GDT is a genius.

Anyway, yes, Bay can sometimes over kill a bit. I'd love to see him try to tackle a drama after TF2. That'd be cool.

And I liked the Island.

 

[The_Joker7895]

Sometimes the explosions can be too much though. It was fun to watch, I loved seeing the Decepticon forced slowly walking onto the scene in the desert and then all hell breaking loose. Then my eyes started to hurt after a while and I began not to care anymore. He should've wrapped the battle up a lot sooner and moved to the fight with the Fallen, which sadly turned out lackluster. But if he wouldn't have wasted all the money on the fight before, we might have gotten a decent Optimus Vs Fallen showdown.

I am inclined to agree here. The final desert battle was awesome, but very stop and go in terms of sheer momentum. It felt slightly inconsistent in terms of pace and momentum building to the climactic fight between Optimus and the Fallen. It was an awesome fight, and an improvement over the Optimus vs Megatron in the first movie, but felt wayyyyy too short and one-sided. Yes, Optimus is now like ultra powerful and has a flight mode and is a total badass, but for all the talk abotu how only a Prime could kill the Fallen, the Fallen sure got his ass handed to him. The forest battle pwns the final battle in ROTF any day of the week.

 

[The_Joker7895]

I agree with almost everything The Joker7895 said, except lumping Guillermo del Toro with the great film makers, Guillermo too me seems much like Tim Burton, the worlds and makeup effects are amazing yes, but his storytelling is very lacking. You can't really tell me the plot of the Hellboy movies was the draw.

Hellboy 2 was infinitely stronger than Hellboy, but was much more about characters than story. The plot itself was merely functionary, but the characters were the driving force.

Pan's Labyrinth is a masterpiece and one of the best films of the last decade. You cannot tell me that had a weak story. It was so beautiful, poetic, and tragic. It nearly moved me to tears. In fact, I would go so far as to say it was the best film of 2006, above even the masterpiece that is The Departed.

I cannot wait for The Hobbit. Del Toro directing, Jackson producing, and both writing, along with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens writing, and Weta doign effects, it's going to be epic.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

The problem I have with Bay is that at the very least Bad Boys, The Rock and Pearl Harbor are somewhat watchable and enjoyable. But TF2 really crosses the line. It is unadulterated filth, nothing but sex and fart jokes. No development for half the characters.

I felt physically ill and dirty watching it. And the "Twins" are absolutely disgusting in nature. Bay is a very disturbed man and needs serious psychiatric help. Devastator's balls, Jetfire ranting about his itchy buttocks, Sam's mother tackling that student, Bumblbee covering Alice with his fluids
I want to slap him and scream into his ear, "WHAT THE F*** IS WRONG WITH YOU?!"

Transformers fun was a watchable film and I weep for the parents and children who go to the sequel. Neither party will enjoy it.

Star Trek is a good fun action film. Transformers 2 is utter trash.

 

[dark_b]

fart jokes? ok maybe a fart joke. but jokes? there were more fart jokes?

 

[TheVileOne]

Once again, we already have a designated thread for critics and review discussion.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Back on topic.

At they and of the day critics are humans like us but considering they are people to get paid to watch and give their opinion on films, they are generally much more informed.
Also, I rarely if ever disagree with Roger Ebert...

 

[The_Joker7895]

The problem I have with Bay is that at the very least Bad Boys, The Rock and Pearl Harbor are somewhat watchable and enjoyable. But TF2 really crosses the line. It is unadulterated filth, nothing but sex and fart jokes. No development for half the characters.

I felt physically ill and dirty watching it. And the "Twins" are absolutely disgusting in nature. Bay is a very disturbed man and needs serious psychiatric help. Devastator's balls, Jetfire ranting about his itchy buttocks, Sam's mother tackling that student.

Star Trek is a good fun action film. Transformers 2 is utter trash.

The mental health accusations are a bit over the top. Remember that this is marketed as a kid's movie so as to sell toys, and the in thing for kids is crude bathroom humour. The sex humour is there so as to keep the older members of the audience amused. Sometimes a studio has more say in what goes into a script when the movie is destined to make a huge amount of money and sell toys out the yin yang. It doesn't mean anyone needs to be admitted to a mental hospital. It just means that the general audience apparently is ok with really crude, excessively bad taste humour.

While he may have a lot of crude humour in it, Bay is not the only one to blame. Bay didn't write the script, Orci and Kurtzman did. Yes, they also wrote Star Trek, but with one important difference. There was a third writer on ROTF; Ehren Kruger. This man's other credits include such masterworks as Scream 3, The Ring, The Ring 2, The Brothers Grimm, The Skeleton Key, and Blood & Chocolate. The studio, as I pointed out earlier, aslo had a lot of say in what went into the film, as there is a huge amount of money and toys at stake here. Toys!!!!!!!!

From what I can gather, Orci and Kurtzman put a lot of effort into Star Trek, and ROTF was a bit more of a side-gig as insurance in case Star Trek wasn't successful, which is evident since even though the humour in Star Trek gets a tad corny at times, it's still funny and fresh.

 

[CelticPredator]

AB is defintly under the age of 18. I'm sure.

 

[The_Joker7895]

AB is defintly under the age of 18. I'm sure.

Indeed.

 

[Nathan]

Remember that this is marketed as a kid's movie so as to sell toys, and the in thing for kids is crude bathroom humour. The sex humour is there so as to keep the older members of the audience amused.

Seriously? Do we honestly need crude and sexual humor to stay entertained? I don't think it's needed. The level of humor in the first Transformers was sufficient. I've seen someone say that the Transformers Movie franchise should maybe be like Iron Man in terms of adult humor and story telling. I tend to agree with that.

 

[CelticPredator]

We didnt need it. You're right. The movie would've been fine without it. But they included it. Because the kids he targets, 10-18 years old, ALL love and do use that humor on a daily basis.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

You know, if enjoying immature tripe such as TF2 implies being above 18 then I would rather stay below 18 and enjoy some classier stuff.

However, I'm afraid I'll start enjoying these films soon as I am 19 as of June 2009.
Oh... woe is me... alas....

Also, I'm happy to see more people like Nathan around. Humanity is not yet lost.

 

[CelticPredator]

See? You're horriblely hyperbolic opinions are ****ing annoying. Thats what kids under 18 due. I know, I am one. And I have done that crap in the past.

Its a movie. ****ing christ get over it.