Transformers The Reviews Thread

[Shmoil]

I wasn't trying to attack him, I just meant to discuss his complaints. His critique is very well put together and that's what worries me. Often people come in and just say "The movie sucked" and give few to no reasons, other than that they didn't like it. This guy is genuinely intelligent and I respect that. I was only trying to discuss.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I'm expecting this film to be on the same level as FF2, maybe a little better. Who knows, I may be surprised.

 

[omid17]

I'm expecting this film to be on the same level as FF2, maybe a little better. Who knows, I may be surprised.

i hope not man FF2 was just ****ing ******ed

 

[DorkyFresh]

Thread's funny. A guy gives a bad review with some real critique among personal disappointments and half the board attacks him for not liking the movie....classic.

TF getting a bad review from a credible person doesn't bother me. TF getting a bad review from someone who gave FF2 a great review makes me question their credibility....that's all.

 

[nosebleed.]

I'm expecting this film to be on the same level as FF2, maybe a little better. Who knows, I may be surprised.

As much as I don't respect Michael Bay...I put him leagues above the guy who made Taxi.

And I questioned Disclaimer's review because he seems to be partially biased toward FF2. It received a GLOWING review from him, stating there were no faults...but he finds them aplenty in a movie that is receiving almost nothing but positive reviews since almost a month before its release. It is suspect to me. I would counter with the many faults I feel FF2 has...but they've already been stated aplenty all over the internet.

 

[Octoberist]

the problem with the Fantastic Four was that Fox doesn't strive to make a groundbreaking movie, a good movie, or a fun movie. They were out to make a movie to make money, and that's it. It rings true with other Hollywood movies, but with F4, it's so obvious that they are not aiming to high with quality b/c it doesn't matter: it's going to make money in the end of the day.

However, i think Fox is underestimating the public quite a bit.

I don't like Bay either, I think that perhaps he's not that low to even touch the hackiness of Tim Story. Sorry, but Story seems like a nice guy who means well, but he is so paint-by-the numbers boring.

 

[nosebleed.]

the problem with the Fantastic Four was that Fox doesn't strive to make a groundbreaking movie, a good movie, or a fun movie. They were out to make a movie to make money, and that's it. It rings true with other Hollywood movies, but with F4, it's so obvious that they are not aiming to high with quality b/c it doesn't matter: it's going to make money in the end of the day.

However, i think Fox is underestimating the public quite a bit.

Maybe they'll start paying attention with that 65% drop in BO.

 

[CFlash]

Thread's funny. A guy gives a bad review with some real critique among personal disappointments and half the board attacks him for not liking the movie....classic.

Not me. I've thought ALL the reviews so far (including the positive ones) have been iiiiiiinteresting.

 

[Octoberist]

honestly, i don't know anyone that i know who likes the Fantastic Four.

I went with friend, and she was embaressed to go b/c and I quote "It stinks of lame". She was right..haha.

I'll be honest, initially, I was at first skeptical with Bay and Transformers..but I'll damned, it might be the savior of this lousy summer.

 

[Disclaimer]

So okay, here is was what I don't get he says "Transformers didn't deliver as a film about a technological race befriending a teenaged boy"....but the movie is about that, so by definition it delivered just that

Might need some English lessons, buddy. Had I put a comma between 'deliver' and 'as', you'd have had a point. Instead, you read the whole sentence wrong. I'm saying 'as a film about a technological race befriending a teenaged boy, it didn't deliver'. That concept has charm - like ET and Gremlins - whereas this film did not have that charm. Herein lies my big problem, since we were - whether you guys believe it or not - led to believe that essence and charm was a big part of the writing. Instead, the film simply attempts this with throwaway dialogue with little to no emotion.

One of the first rules of screenwriting is that you show rather than tell... and 'Transformers' - more often than not - tells you what the emotions should be, instead of letting you feel them. Even in an action film, that's unforgivable.

You know what's funny, though? Many of you seem to think I hate the film. I don't. I just don't think it lived up to promises made quite explicit by people like DeSanto, Orci, Kurtzman and Spielberg about character and mythology. And in regard to the popcorn flick stuff, you'll understand when you see the film. This one is quite gritty and generally serious in tone, hence why the goofy antics of the Autobots and the whole glasses and Allspark issues seem so ridiculous.

Again, I'm speaking in overall context. Look the word up.

 

[nosebleed.]

I've met quite a few people who liked FF2...but I did not. Possibly because I saw it in the theater. I was content with FF because I caught it on dvd and for a rental it was fine and dandy. But when I actually put forth effort to go to the theaters, pay for a ticket, fight for popcorn, fight for decent seats (and that coveted hetero space between you and your bud) then I'm pretty much going to be pissed if the movie sucks. I should have watched 1408.

And I'm pretty much blown away that the reviews for Transformers are doing so well. I'm REALLY blown away by the tracking for it...and with fantasymoguls.com predicting a $330 mil domestic BO (is that guy serious??), consider me spent.

 

[arty2]

Fair enough review, he didn't entirely hate it. You're bound to have negative reviews among the many positives.

 

[nosebleed.]

Might need some English lessons, buddy. Had I put a comma between 'deliver' and 'as', you'd have had a point. Instead, you read the whole sentence wrong. I'm saying 'as a film about a technological race befriending a teenaged boy, it didn't deliver'. That concept has charm - like ET and Gremlins - whereas this film did not have that charm. Herein lies my big problem, since we were - whether you guys believe it or not - led to believe that essence and charm was a big part of the writing. Instead, the film simply attempts this with throwaway dialogue with little to no emotion.

One of the first rules of screenwriting is that you show rather than tell... and 'Transformers' - more often than not - tells you what the emotions should be, instead of letting you feel them. Even in an action film, that's unforgivable.

You know what's funny, though? Many of you seem to think I hate the film. I don't. I just don't think it lived up to promises made quite explicit by people like DeSanto, Orci, Kurtzman and Spielberg about character and mythology. And in regard to the popcorn flick stuff, you'll understand when you see the film. This one is quite gritty and generally serious in tone, hence why the goofy antics of the Autobots and the whole glasses and Allspark issues seem so ridiculous.

Again, I'm speaking in overall context. Look the word up.

But all the flaws in FF2 are very forgivable? I'm not buying that. Especially with this statement

there was almost nothing at all wrong with this film!

 

[Disclaimer]

Arty2: precisely! And you don't see me bagging people out for liking it...

I just wish I had read a slightly negative perspective before going in and maybe I'd have been less disappointed.

Meanwhile, for those who can't let go of the fact I loved 'FF2', I also enjoyed 'Terminator 3', Disney's 'Tarzan', 'Alexander'... and 'Legally Blonde', 'Prince of Egypt' and 'Coyote Ugly' were a good bit of fun! I disliked 'X-Men: The Last Stand', thought 'The Fountain' was a waste of time and my favourite films are 'Se7en', 'Fight Club', the original 'Star Wars' trilogy, 'American Beauty' and 'X2'...

...sheesh...

...deal with it, would you?

 

[CFlash]

As much as I don't respect Michael Bay...I put him leagues above the guy who made Taxi.

And I questioned Disclaimer's review because he seems to be partially biased toward FF2. It received a GLOWING review from him, stating there were no faults...but he finds them aplenty in a movie that is receiving almost nothing but positive reviews since almost a month before its release. It is suspect to me. I would counter with the many faults I feel FF2 has...but they've already been stated aplenty all over the internet.

To be fair, it wasn't exactly "glowing." He says "To me, it seems too many people are expecting highbrow drama from a property that's simply meant to be great fun!" Isn't that what people keep telling the so-called negatrons here???

I haven't seen FF2, but based on what you say you'd probably think I'd have given the first FF a glowing review (I don't). Far from it. Like Daredevil, I think it was badly made [directed]-- but I still liked it for some dumb escapist reason.... that I prolly wouldn't be able to back up in conversation because I never read FF4 or Daredevil hardcore (although I did grow up in Hell's Kitchen- go figure ). It was just fun.

 

[nosebleed.]

*looks at Disclaimer's list of films*

Say no more.

 

[CFlash]

Arty2: precisely! And you don't see me bagging people out for liking it...

I just wish I had read a slightly negative perspective before going in and maybe I'd have been less disappointed.

Meanwhile, for those who can't let go of the fact I loved 'FF2', I also enjoyed 'Terminator 3', Disney's 'Tarzan', 'Alexander'... and 'Legally Blonde', 'Prince of Egypt' and 'Coyote Ugly' were a good bit of fun! I disliked 'X-Men: The Last Stand', thought 'The Fountain' was a waste of time and my favourite films are 'Se7en', 'Fight Club', the original 'Star Wars' trilogy, 'American Beauty' and 'X2'...

...sheesh...

...deal with it, would you?

Terminator 3 is a highly underrated movie. It could have used better directing tho.

BTW, thank you for the review. I don't think you really said anything different than the other 'positive' spun reviews. Seems there's a common theme running through all the reviews.

 

[Abaddon]

so what's the deal here: good?bad?worth it?

 

[kal-el2006]

lol@ legally blonde

good joke

 

[CFlash]

lol@ legally blonde

good joke

Somebody must have liked it. It spawned a sequel AND a broadway show.

 

[TNC9852002]

I might get to see the movie as early as this Friday night, so, fingers crossed!

I'll post my opinions back here whenever I get the chance.

-TNC

 

[Kap]

This one is quite gritty and generally serious in tone, hence why the goofy antics of the Autobots and the whole glasses and Allspark issues seem so ridiculous.

And Moviehole's version - http://www.moviehole.net/news/20070625_drews_review_the_transformers.html

Bay only agreed to do Transformers if he could do it ‘real’, and the photorealism of the effects are the movie’s biggest strength. If anything the (dare we say it) cartoony personalities of the robots detract from the serious approach, and as an action film you’ll not likely see bigger or better all year.

That's actually good news imo, I would hate it if the autobots were totaly generic and just massive warmachines, something I feared early on. MB did state he directed the performances of the bots in to the very end of postproduction. And as long as the personalities has that spielberg warmth and stay somewhat true to it's comic counterparts I'm all for the new appearances.

 

[blind_fury]

so what's the deal here: good?bad?worth it?

Just about all reviewers agree it's worth watching at least once for the spectacle alone.

 

[arty2]

Another negative review:
(This is Moviehole's 2nd review, this was the first more positive review)

Mark's Review : Transformers
Date : June 25, 2007 Posted By : Clint Morris

Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Tyrese Gibson, Jon Voight

Nothing in the pre-production of ‘Transformers’ boded well. Michael Bay (‘Pearl Harbor&#8217 came on board as director. John Rogers (‘Catwoman’, ‘The Core&#8217 developed the story. Leaked information showed Optimus Prime with a garish, swirling fire paint job. Bumblebee had been changed from a Volkswagen to a Camaro. Sacrilege, screamed the fanboys.

But then glimmers of hope appeared on the horizon. Peter Cullen signed up to reprise the voice of Prime, which he made famous in the beloved ’80s cartoons. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (‘Mission Impossible III&#8217 penned the script. The teaser trailers showed what appeared to be impressive special effects. Could it be? Could Michael Bay actually do justice to the fond memories of millions of Gen-Xers?

The answer, sadly, is no.

The story in ‘Transformers’ is more or less the same as the cartoon, except with a few ludicrous tweaks. The Autobots and the Decepticons go to war over the ‘all spark’, essentially a genesis machine that first gave the robots life. During the battle the all spark is lost into deep space and both factions of the Cybertron world pursue it. The cube ends up on earth, which becomes a new battleground for their war. Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is drawn into this war through some of the most preposterous circumstances seen since the low-budget sci-fi movies of the 1950s.

If you think that sounds like a thin storyline on which to base a two-and-a-half-hour movie, you’re right. Not one of the humans is sufficiently developed to be referred to as a character. Every single person a walking cliché (the put-upon nerd who finds courage, the attractive love interest with a shady past, the gutsy military captain, the imperious special agent, a pretty blonde thing with genius intellect, the comic-relief black guy) and their personalities are drawn up via one-liners and hackneyed declarations of love, hate or determination. Commenting on the actors’ performances is pointless – acting is largely superfluous to the film anyway.

Fair enough, ‘Transformers’ was never meant to be a deep character study. So let’s examine what are supposed to be its strong points. The special effects scrub up pretty well, although that’s no high achievement when the transformers are inorganic. The action is an eye-bleeding mess – between the transformers’ moving parts, the countless bullets and explosions and the shuddery camera work, it’s often hard to tell what’s going on at all. There seems to be no logic in the robots’ transformations, either – things whirr and spin and twist, but frankly the cartoon’s depiction of this made more sense, even with Optimus Prime’s miraculously appearing/disappearing trailer.

And what else has been changed from the established Transformers lore? Let’s just say that Bumblebee’s change from Vee-Dub to Camaro is among the smallest of the screenwriter’s sins.

You can call ‘Transformers’ all sort of ugly things, but what you can’t call it is boring. Then again, you couldn’t call ‘Matrix Revolutions’ boring either, and like that film, as the improbabilities and continuity errors mount, most adult viewers’ patience will begin to wear thin.

‘Transformers’ is the corniest of popcorn flicks, an action extravaganza with about one brain cell to its name – i.e., Michael Bay’s specialty. But unlike many other Bay efforts, in this one he’s had to hedge his bets to encompass the consumers who will purchase the inevitable line of toys, and that’s where ‘Transformers’ frustrates most. Its intense battle scenes show almost no casualties. Many of the Autobots behave like children and have an irksome, cutesy quality that did not exist in the cartoon, while occasional moments of physical humour are head-slappingly bad.

Yet while ‘Transformers’ deserves every criticism dished out in this review so far, it would be remiss not to acknowledge its appeal for ten to 14 year-olds, whose judgement is clouded by neither nostalgia nor demands for storyline, characterisation or originality.

Would I have liked this movie at age ten? No.

I would have loved it.

Rating :2 out of 5 stars
Reviewer : Mark Bennett

source

 

[CFlash]

Was this posted already? If so, I missed it. It's a very harsh review.

http://www.moviehole.net/news/20070625_marks_review_the_transformers.html
Excerpt:
"‘Transformers’ is the corniest of popcorn flicks, an action extravaganza with about one brain cell to its name – i.e., Michael Bay’s specialty. But unlike many other Bay efforts, in this one he’s had to hedge his bets to encompass the consumers who will purchase the inevitable line of toys, and that’s where ‘Transformers’ frustrates most. Its intense battle scenes show almost no casualties. Many of the Autobots behave like children and have an irksome, cutesy quality that did not exist in the cartoon, while occasional moments of physical humour are head-slappingly bad.'"

[edit] I see arty just beat me to it. ^