Transformers The Reviews Thread

[Kokomo29]

Do we get to see anything of Cybertron in the new film?

 

[Magicbreaker]

Wow, 5 bad reviews popped out of nowhere...along with 2 more good ones.

About five bad reviews, I noticed C+ and C reviews are given as rotten. Doesn't "Cs" mean passing grades?

 

[blind_fury]

This is a pretty interesting review :

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/07/02/005013.php
Movie Review: Transformers (2007)

Written by Jonathan Scanlan
Published July 02, 2007

Transformers is one of those films that the average person will enjoy, and indeed the critics appear dumbfounded with most giving it a thumbs-up for being entertaining. Indeed, a strength of the film is its cheesiness and simplicity.
Yet, contrary to the critics who mostly emphasize it being a fun film, it has a very interesting and complex theme about mankind's relationship with technology behind those visuals. Not one of good versus evil, but of survival by adaptation versus victory by strength.
Similar to 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), a squarish object is used to explain the origin of intelligent life. Aptly named, the 'all spark' is covered in hieroglyphics, and has the capacity to bring objects to life, but in doing so fosters mania. It is this object that becomes central to the plot, with the Autobots hoping to destroy it, and the Decepticons aspiring to gain advantage by it.
The contrast between the two sides is clearcut. The strength of the former is that they blend into their environment and represent vehicles that are essentially civilian, whereas the latter take the form of vehicles that are effective at conquering their environment. This reflects the duality of technological advancement, where development has historically been driven by the desire for competitive advantage by solving problems.
The role of the humans in the story is also of particular note, because what we find throughout the plot is the tendency for collaboration being key to victory against adversity. While the Transformers have brute strength, humans repeatedly prove that their strength lay in collaboration. A battle against a robotic scorpion, in an early sequence, is just one of the many points where such a network proves useful. Like ants, the strength is in the numbers.
What's more, the human pursuit of knowledge comes across as a two-edge sword. Seeing a bumblebee at the mercy of humans who intend to freeze him for research is just one of a few sequences that reflect the more grizzly aspects of human nature. In a way, it reflects a moral quagmire which asks us if using another living thing in this way is justifiable if the payoff (knowledge and survival) will be of greater value to the population. Kant wins this one.
The film also takes a materialist stance within its rather Darwinian theme. In the aesthetics, the transformers come across as lifelike by being made up of metallic muscles and the necessary skeleton of helmet and armor. And when the US government attempts to examine the severed tail of the robotic scorpion, they accidentally trip a nerve and cause it to flex uncontrollably.
Curiously, the way the transformers can link themselves to technology appears to suggest something more than a mechanical biology but rather that our technology is 'pre-life.' Being complex but lacking a will in the same way that a most basic virus simply processes a chemical-reaction and replicates itself. All of this reflects the current cultural shifts which are product of increasingly reducing human individuality and will to biochemistry.
Today, the greatest mystery to science remains the very origin of life, which by its nature is self-complicating and counter to chemical equilibrium. Yet the 'all spark' denies the use of spiritual answers by being explainable in a sense. It emits a particular kind of radiation, and the transformers even appear to understand something of how it works.
Truth be told, in Transformers (2007) is a lot more than meets the eye. More than mindless fun, transformers asserts a highly rationalist view of the world.

I wish more reviewers were capable of this type of insight.

This guy's so good he could put most of the critics out of work with their dismissive "omg, it's teh based on a toy there4 it sucks!!!1!" reviews. That sums up every negative review on rottentamatoes. "Oh noes! it's based on toys so it automatically sucks!!!"

Required reading for people who think the TF mythos has no potential

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I wish more reviewers were capable of this type of insight.

This guy's so good he could put most of the critics out of work with their dismissive "omg, it's teh based on a toy there4 it sucks!!!1!" reviews. That sums up every negative review on rottentamatoes. "Oh noes! it's based on toys so it automatically sucks!!!"

Required reading for people who think the TF mythos has no potential

Unfortunately I haven't seen it yet, so maybe he is absolutely right. I also agree critics shouldn't right something off just because it's a summer blockbuster or a comedy or a teen romantic comedy, those genres can work on levels that a movie like It's a Wonderful Life or The Departed doesn't. However, as someone else once said "you can BS things onto Jaws: the Revenge". Just because this guy says it, doesn't mean this stuff is there, nor does it mean it's deep fiction. For example, I know King Lear is a deep, meaningful play because within it are phrases like "It's a pity you were old before you were wise", or for something a little more known to this forum...Blade Runner's monologue delivered by Batty at the end of the film (I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.) you can clearly see the thematic elements and weighted quality of such a line. You can BS anything onto a story, but ultimately you cannot prove it until you can show it to me with some form of direct textual analysis, this guy just seems to be constructed false conclusions off of things...but hey, I could be wrong.

 

[CFlash]

Unfortunately I haven't seen it yet, so maybe he is absolutely right. I also agree critics shouldn't right something off just because it's a summer blockbuster or a comedy or a teen romantic comedy, those genres can work on levels that a movie like It's a Wonderful Life or The Departed doesn't. However, as someone else once said "you can BS things onto Jaws: the Revenge". Just because this guy says it, doesn't mean this stuff is there, nor does it mean it's deep fiction. For example, I know King Lear is a deep, meaningful play because within it are phrases like "It's a pity you were old before you were wise", or for something a little more known to this forum...Blade Runner's monologue delivered by Batty at the end of the film (I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.) you can clearly see the thematic elements and weighted quality of such a line. You can BS anything onto a story, but ultimately you cannot prove it until you can show it to me with some form of direct textual analysis, this guy just seems to be constructed false conclusions off of things...but hey, I could be wrong.

I remember I read the book for Jaws The Revenge. Just because the movie sucked doesn't mean it didn't have themes. And also just because a writer didn't intend certain themes doesn't mean we can't read into his work and pick out things that may have unconciously seeped into his or her work. They build entire departments (CompLit) off of this stuff. It's fun stuff.... and I wouldn't call it "BS."

 

[Figs]

Only thing I have to say is, with that review......doesn't that kind of put to rest the negatrons complaining that the movie is all explosions and no substance. The fact that two of the biggest Negatrons are basically agreeing with what that reviewer saw in this film proves that you shouldn't judge something before you've seen/read/played or listened to it.

 

[CFlash]

Only thing I have to say is, with that review......doesn't that kind of put to rest the negatrons complaining that the movie is all explosions and no substance. The fact that two of the biggest Negatrons are basically agreeing with what that reviewer saw in this film proves that you shouldn't judge something before you've seen/read/played or listened to it.

That would instantly put SHH out of business!!! LOL. t:

 

[blind_fury]

Only thing I have to say is, with that review......doesn't that kind of put to rest the negatrons complaining that the movie is all explosions and no substance. The fact that two of the biggest Negatrons are basically agreeing with what that reviewer saw in this film proves that you shouldn't judge something before you've seen/read/played or listened to it.

You know if more than one out of the dozens of reviewers recognized this subtext I would embrace the film.

But the fact that the subtext is lost on 99% of them means these themes/concepts/metaphors are too vague or de-emphasized to be noticed and appreciated by most. They might as well not be there at all if 99% of people don't even notice them.

 

[The Kid]

I figured out the 2001 connection months ago.

I knew it was possibly a borrowed element or something. what planet have you all been on all this time, negatrons?

 

[Figs]

You know if more than one out of the dozens of reviewers recognized this subtext I would embrace the film.

But the fact that the subtext is lost on 99% of them means these themes/concepts/metaphors are too vague or de-emphasized to be noticed and appreciated by most. They might as well not be there at all if 99% of people don't even notice them.

Um.....B_F. Your talking about "The Masses". I would have to say only a small % of people actually look for those kinds of messages and metaphors. For the most part, 99% of people who will see this film are going because they want to see Giant ****ing Robots.

Those kinds of messages shouldn't be right out there in the open anyway. If there not semi hidden it beats the purpose of getting people to use their minds more and think.

 

[Kap]

You know if more than one out of the dozens of reviewers recognized this subtext I would embrace the film.

But the fact that the subtext is lost on 99% of them means these themes/concepts/metaphors are too vague or de-emphasized to be noticed and appreciated by most. They might as well not be there at all if 99% of people don't even notice them.

True, one can only hope that following sequels will have more of this, I guess we'll have to do with these subtle stuff in the first one.

I figured out the 2001 connection months ago.

I knew it was possibly a borrowed element or something. what planet have you all been on all this time, negatrons?

"HERE HE COMES TO WRECK THE DAAAYY!"
^As Jim Carrey from Liar Liar

We were having a nice friendly discution here, don't stir things up. There are no more negatron/optimists primes this close to release. Tha Hype is on for everyone!

 

[Figs]

"HERE HE COMES TO WRECK THE DAAAYY!"
^As Jim Carrey from Liar Liar

We were having a nice friendly discution here, don't stir things up. There are no more negatron/optimists primes this close to release. Tha Hype is on for everyone!

Although I agree, this close to release we should keep the flames down at least until after everyone has seen the movie. Believe me after the movie is officially released, there will be more flame wars and arguments than you can count. But, Wesyeed is the Yin to B_F Yang lol.
There needs to be that balance of the boards or else the world will end in Anarchy.

 

[Avangarde]

Although I agree, this close to release we should keep the flames down at least until after everyone has seen the movie. Believe me after the movie is officially released, there will be more flame wars and arguments than you can count. But, Wesyeed is the Yin to B_F Yang lol.
There needs to be that balance of the boards or else the world will end in Anarchy.

Can't wait for this place to explode in a day or two.

 

[Figs]

Can't wait for this place to explode in a day or two.

LOL, I think I may go back to lurking for a short time when that happens. Head to the 'ol bombshelter.

 

[nosebleed.]

Although I agree, this close to release we should keep the flames down at least until after everyone has seen the movie. Believe me after the movie is officially released, there will be more flame wars and arguments than you can count. But, Wesyeed is the Yin to B_F Yang lol.
There needs to be that balance of the boards or else the world will end in Anarchy.

Psh...

oh, sorry, wrong thread.

 

[Figs]

Psh...

oh, sorry, wrong thread.

LOL. More fueling of the fire.

 

[The Kid]

so much love in this thread, I'm about to cry

 

[Kap]

LOL. More fueling of the fire.

*Taking cover*

 

[blind_fury]

Unfortunately I haven't seen it yet, so maybe he is absolutely right. I also agree critics shouldn't right something off just because it's a summer blockbuster or a comedy or a teen romantic comedy, those genres can work on levels that a movie like It's a Wonderful Life or The Departed doesn't. However, as someone else once said "you can BS things onto Jaws: the Revenge". Just because this guy says it, doesn't mean this stuff is there, nor does it mean it's deep fiction. For example, I know King Lear is a deep, meaningful play because within it are phrases like "It's a pity you were old before you were wise", or for something a little more known to this forum...Blade Runner's monologue delivered by Batty at the end of the film (I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.) you can clearly see the thematic elements and weighted quality of such a line. You can BS anything onto a story, but ultimately you cannot prove it until you can show it to me with some form of direct textual analysis, this guy just seems to be constructed false conclusions off of things...but hey, I could be wrong.

you are wrong.

Fantasy and fiction is not meant for a single interpretation and conclusive analysis. Some people see the rebel forces fighting the Empire in Star Wars as a metaphor for the the struggle to end the war in Vietnam. Some people see a simple story about good vs evil with taoist mysticism thrown in. Some people thinks it's all just dorky silliness. Who's right and who's wrong?

All of them are right because it doesn't matter what George Lucas intended. Once he puts the fantasy out there for the public to digest he loses creative control. It's how people interpret the fiction is where things get really interesting. That's a reason most artist don't interpret their own work for the public. It ruins it for all those who interpreted it differently and added their own spin on it. That's why people hate midochlorians as an explanation for "the force". Nobody wanted a conclusive answer. The reason it had such a universal appeal is because everyone interpreted differently and felt is was a metaphor for everything from Christianity to Zen Buddhism to something very personal.

It doesn't matter why George Lucas came up with it or the intended meaning. There are thousands of interpretations and they're all right.

So this guys interpretation and perceived metaphors are all correct. You say all his ideas were constructed from his vivid imagination. I say to you that's the whole point of presenting non-fiction and art. To allow people to draw from it whatever their strangely unique minds are capable of.

 

[blind_fury]

True, one can only hope that following sequels will have more of this, I guess we'll have to do with these subtle stuff in the first one.

Yes. I'm hoping the sequel will be the Empire Strikes Back of the franchise rather than The Mummy 2.

A New Hope introduced the world to Star Wars but ESB is what gave the franchise the gravity and resonance so it was appreciated on a universal level.

There are plenty of comic stories and character dynamics/motivations to draw from for the sequel. Hopefully they try to make it something more than empty spectacle because the novelty of seeing giant robots fight for the first time will be lost on many.

 

[spideyo]

Here's a pretty good review from someone who doesn't really like Michael Bay's movies :

http://hollywood*****slap.com/review.php?movie=15538&reviewer=404

Transformers

by brianorndorf
"Listen, I'm as shocked as anyone else"

Has Hell actually frozen over? Are pigs now taking to the sky? I only ask because Michael Bay has achieved the unthinkable: he’s directed a crushingly entertaining movie. I’m astounded the world hasn’t stopped turning from the shock of it all.Searching the galaxy for a troublesome energy cube, the Autobots, lead by Optimus Prime (voiced robustly by legend Peter Cullen), have arrived on Earth. Teaming up with a teenager named Sam (Shia LeBeouf) and innocent bystander Mikeala (Megan Fox), the Autobots set out to complete their mission; but when government agents interfere (led by John Turturro and Jon Voight, with grunts played by Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson), it awakens the wrath of the Decepticons, who free their leader Megatron (Hugo Weaving) from his ice prison and put Earth in their crosshairs as they challenge Prime for control of the all-powerful cube.

The “Transformers” line of robot toys was the adolescent boy Spice Melange back in the 1980s, accompanied by a bewitching cartoon series that peaked with the release of a bizarre 1986 animated feature film. They were classic plastic creations, born of primary colors and blocky, sometimes puzzling movement, and they held the imagination of millions of children hostage all over the globe; a radiant legacy that continues to this day. Turning something this iconic and fanboy-protected (I’ve met some who would fall on their sword for Prime) into a hip summer popcorn product (live action no less) is an endeavor I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Coincidently, Bay turns out to be the right man for the job.

I’ve been hard on Bay in the past, but deservedly so; he works too feverishly in the area of sensory overload, thinking a sheer wall of sound will stupefy his audience long enough to swallow the Shinola he’s shoveling. Bay’s films are crude, self-aware, and frequently insulting, but with “Transformers,” his swollen ego is tethered to radical geek expectations that he’s no match for.

Granted, these aren’t your granddaddy’s Transformers. Souped up to resemble high-tech living robots while fighting and the latest in automobile trends in car form, Bay and the producers have mucked around considerably with the look of the Autobots and Decepticons, putting the infamous flames on Optimus Prime and turning Megatron into an alien jet. Supporters of the all-holy “G1” have every right to scoff, but “Transformers” has a wonderful way of making these ludicrous alterations fit into the bigger, slicker picture, pressing down hard on the extraterrestrial angle of our visitors. It’s only a matter of moments before you buy these reinvented incarnations of popular characters and another few seconds before you start to root for their victory and defeat.

Bay being Bay, there is a small armada of Bayisms scattered throughout the picture, including a reprise of asinine gunfight camera technology that was employed in “Bad Boys 2,” an obsession with tanned womanly attributes (keep in mind Fox’s character is supposed to be 17 years-old), and some of the most unimaginative scoring and soundtrack selections of the year. Bay also gets predictably nutso during the combat sequences, but I was floored to see his typical edit count of a billion tempered down to a mere million. Bay respects the scope of the Transformer might, and appears willing, for the very first time in his career, to let some shots play out, allowing the viewer to get a clear gander at the enormity of the “robots in disguise” and their unholy wrath.

Bay also ropes off some space for the human factor, using Sam as a spacer in-between scenes of special effects brawling with other special effects. While LeBeouf is doing his habitual LeBeouf stammering square dance in the film, his teen distress is welcome amidst all of the intricate visual splendor, playing well off Fox and the macho military militia (a Bay staple) that swarms in the latter half of the film. The “flesh-based organisms” are here to keep the picture light and approachable, and it’s amazing how well these limited actors are able to accomplish that.

Running a woozy 140 minutes, “Transformers” never runs out of juice, saving an eye-opening amount of rocket sauce for the final battle between good vs. evil. Those more accustomed to Bay’s 10 Commandments of Destruction (“Thou Shall Bleedeth from the Ears,” etc.) will be delighted to see the film finally go completely bonkers, wrecking entire Los Angeles city blocks and skyscrapers, killing beloved characters, and in general smashing anything that dares stand in the way. It also means a true payoff of both the seamless special effects and the Transformer design, as the Autobots and the Decepticons go medieval on each other with a thundering PG-13-bending rage. It’s the kind of mayhem that a 12-year-old boy’s dreams are made of, and makes for a comfortably numb viewing experience that takes a worthwhile leap of bonehead faith to fully embrace.

Frankly, I’ve never seen Bay share this much joy with action before. Maybe it’s his distance from the source material or perhaps he wants out of the movie jail 2005’s brain-dead flop “The Island” locked him in. Either way, Bay is starting to control his sinister urges little by little, and I pray it signals maturity rather than short-lived career panic.
I can’t say “Transformers” ends as much as it takes a breather to wait for the box office tally to roll in. There’s a promise of a sequel made at the conclusion of this breathless film; a prospect that I wouldn’t mind seeing fulfilled. Sure, Michael Bay fussed hilariously with the Transformer designs and allowed Prime to utter the hacky line, “my bad,” yet I can’t fight the reality that he’s also created a rock ‘em, sock ‘em piece of thunderbolt summer escapism. It doesn’t wash away his past sins, but “Transformers” provides two emotions I never thought I’d feel walking out of a Michael Bay film: hope and satisfaction.

 

[Figs]

you are wrong.

Fantasy and fiction is not meant to for a single interpretation and conclusive analysis. Some people see the rebel forces fighting the Empire in Star Wars as a metaphor for the the struggle to end the War in Vietnam. Some people see a simple story about good vs evil with taoist mysticism thrown in. Some people thinks it's all just dorky silliness. Who's right and who's wrong?

All of them are right because it doesn't matter what George Lucas intended. Once he puts the fantasy out their for the public to digest he loses creative control. It's how people interpret is where things get really interesting. That's a reason most artist don't interpret their own work for the public. It ruins it for all those who interpreted it differently and added their own spin on it. That's why people hate Midochlorians as an explanation for "the force". Nobody wanted a conclusive answer. The reason it had such a universal appeal is because everyone interpreted differently and felt is was a metaphor for everything from Christianity to Zen Buddhism to something very personal.

It doesn't matter why George Lucas came up with it or the intended meaning. There are thousands of interpretations and they're all right.

So this guys interpretation and perceived metaphors are all correct. You say all his ideas were constructed from his vivid imagination. I say to you that's the whole point of presenting non-fiction and art. To allow people to draw from it whatever their strangely unique minds are capable of.

I agree with whats in bold at the top. Reading some interviews in the past with musicians/bands I like has ruined some of my favorite songs. There have been songs that I loved because I found a connection with them in relation to my own life, once I had heard from the artist/musician what they were really about it totally ruined them for me. I was still able to listen to them and enjoy them, but it just wasn't the same.


For the two parts in bold near the bottom though. Doesn't that make everything you say, about the movie should have had those messages you saw in the show not valid or fact. As you and a few others like to make them out as.

In a lot of the arguments I've seen theres one side saying those messages in the show weren't intended or just aren't there, and theres the side thats saying they are. What you just said though basically says your "facts" are in fact your opinion of what you got out of it, as opposed to everyone elses' opinion on the other side of the argument.

Basically in short...who's to say as fact that this movie isn't faithful to the show(exact looks of characters not withstanding).

 

[Papa Burgundy]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=21643

A 9. FREAKIN 5

 

[spideyo]

Another really positive review from a a nice lady( take notes from her Victoria Alexander)

http://movies.about.com/od/transformers/fr/transform070207.htm

Definition of a Summer Blockbuster: See "Transformers"

Guide Rating -

Finally, the hype surrounding one of this summer’s big releases is justified. Transformers delivers the thrills we’ve been waiting for all year long and love him or hate him, director Michael Bay pulls off something films with bigger budgets and more stars (Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Shrek 3, Spider-Man 3) couldn’t accomplish. Transformers is the over-the-top slam-bam action dramedy that almost single-handedly redeems the 2007 summer blockbuster season.
Based on a line of Hasbro toys, Transformers puts the fun back into moviegoing, blending comedy with the robot action and adding a dash of romance along with eye candy for both sexes into a film that never takes itself seriously yet doesn’t poke fun at or offend those who grew up loving the toys. Smartly cast with awe-inspiring special effects, Bay and company have created more than just a movie. Catch it in a theater because on DVD it just won't be the same. Watching Transformers on the big screen is a real cinematic experience. The preview crowd I was with cheered the robot heroes and really interacted with the film (not to the degree it was annoying), totally caught up in what was unfolding on the screen. And strangely enough, the idea of robots battling each other with the future of mankind hanging in the balance almost seems plausible because of how ingeniously the make believe world of Autobots and Decepticons has been brought to life in Transformers.The Story
Following a brief bit of narration in which the backstory of the Autobots and Decepticons is revealed, Transformers focuses on the story of high school student Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and his desire to own a car. Sam’s dad has promised he’ll help buy him his first car if he can raise some cash on his own and if he delivers a report card studded with As. Sam's so anxious to own a car that he even resorts to using eBay to try to sell some of his great-great-grandfather’s possessions which the famous explorer used while making an important discovery in the Artic.

Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf in Transformers.
© 2007 DreamWorks LLC. TM & © 2007 Paramount Pictures

The great-great-grandfather’s discovery and Sam’s first car, a beat up canary yellow Camaro, lead directly to Sam’s involvement with the Autobots (the good guys) led by Optimus Prime (voiced with evident relish by none other than Peter Cullen). Sam’s initial suspicion that there’s something fishy about his Camaro are confirmed when the car displays a mind of its own by choosing only to play ‘love’ songs after Sam offers shapely beauty Mikaela (Megan Fox) a ride. That act of intelligence is followed up shortly by the Camaro transforming into a gigantic yellow robot (the Autobot Bumblebee). It seems Sam’s great-great-grandfather’s glasses hold the key to the location of an item that both the Autobots and the evil Decepticons (the bad guys) want to get their mechanical hands on. Sam's use of eBay to sell the glasses has alerted the robots to his whereabouts and thus turned him into a major player in their robot war.Meanwhile the United States military is drawn into the battle after their base in Qatar is attacked by a helicopter that shape-shifts into a super nasty robot. Further attacks on the military and civilians, along with an infiltration into Air Force One’s computer system, convince military intelligence and the Secretary of Defense John Keller (Jon Voight) that there’s more going on than meets the eye. The military readies to go into battle against an enemy they’ve never seen before and one they have no idea how to crush. Everything comes to a head as Sam, Mikaela, the US military and the Autobots face down Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving) and the Decepticons.

The CastIf there was ever a question of whether Shia LaBeouf can carry a film it’s answered in the affirmative with Transformers. Acting opposite tennis balls on poles, LaBeouf’s comic timing is impeccable and even his delivery of the more serious lines of dialogue is utterly believable. LaBeouf’s appealing without being a pretty boy and he’s the glue that holds the entire film together.
Fox hangs in there during the action scenes although it’s evident the foremost reason she was cast was because she’s drop dead gorgeous. Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson play Army Rangers who survive the initial attack in Qatar and who help lead the charge against the Decepticons. Duhamel and Gibson take a serious yet playful approach to their characters and it works.
John Turturro’s deliciously funny as a federal agent who knows more about the robots than anyone on the planet due to a secret government project he’s been involved with called Sector 7. And Jon Voight adds a certain gravitas to the production by playing it totally straight, or at least as straight as possible considering the fact the film is built around a toy line.
What Worked/What Didn't
I didn’t expect to care about the robots (I’m a huge Bumblebee fan now) and I also didn't expect Transformers to be so hilarious. It's not advertised as a comedy but if it were I'd be willing to bet more women would check it out. That’s not to say the film doesn’t treat its subject matter with respect. While Bay and writers Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman do take liberties with the characters, they never stray from the essence of the popular toys.

Transformers does have its faults. During the robot fights it was nearly impossible to track who was fighting who. It's also weird that the showdown takes place on busy downtown streets rather than someplace more appropriate. And the idea of a super model-type as a computer hacker just didn’t sit right, especially after swallowing the idea that Megan Fox is a gearhead who grew up fixing cars. Although it’s possible there are women as beautiful as Rachael Taylor who enjoy hacking and gorgeous babes who love tearing apart engines, it just doesn’t work well to have two such women in one movie. A geeky guy or gal in place of Taylor would have fit in more smoothly. But this is a Michael Bay movie and he does love to showcase beautiful women, so it wasn’t completely unexpected.The Bottom Line
The fast-paced action leaves you without a second to catch your breath and longing for a remote control to rewind and slow down the fights and transformations. There’s so much going on and Bay doesn’t let up once the film enters the third act. But even if you can’t tell exactly what’s going on, it’s incredibly entertaining to watch. The wizards at ILM worked their magic in new and astonishing ways and the result is a film in which huge robots have their own distinct personalities. If it weren’t for their bulky metallic frames, these robots would almost seem human.
First and foremost Transformers is an action film, but it’s also surprisingly touching and uplifting. The sides are clearly defined and the battle between the Autobots and Decepticons will leave you drained but cheering.
Grade: A-

 

[arty2]

LA Times review (negative)

'Transformers' heavy on plot
CGI techniques bring beloved playthings to life, but the film's focus strays from the toys.
By Kenneth Turan, Times Staff Writer
July 2, 2007

'Transformers'
'Transformers'
click to enlarge
Related Stories
- Reader reviews
- Theaters, showtimes
Once upon a time, within the memory of those still living, if a film was successful, it inspired toys and games without number. Now, apparently, it is the other way around.

"Transformers," the new movie by director Michael Bay, is based not on a novel or play or screenwriter's inspiration but on a line of Hasbro toys that have been hot tickets for young boys for more than 20 years and were the basis of several animated TV series and an animated feature. If you're one of the people whose reverence for those toys is next door to a religion, you already know that. If you aren't, there isn't enormous reason to care.

Paradoxically, the problem with "Transformers" is not with those much-beloved playthings, walking Erector Sets whose defining characteristic is the ability to change from robots to cars and other machines and then back again — hence the name "Autobots" for some of them.

Advancement in computer-generated technology — the "Transformers" press material says that the film would not have been possible as recently as three years ago — means that watching these enormous NBEs (Non Biological Extraterrestrials) both come to life and metamorphose is everything fans could hope for. If this film were a lot shorter — it clocks in at an inflated two hours, 23 minutes — and kept its focus on the toys, it would be hard to argue with.

Fearing, however, that even enormous wonder toys can't just tromp around on the screen forever, screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have concocted a narrative to go with the robots. The problem is not only that there is way too much of it but also that it isn't very good.

Some of the back story is a given. Transformers, as any small boy can tell you, come with built-in conflicts in morality. The Autobots — Bumblebee, Jazz, Ratchet, Ironhide and maximum leader Optimus Prime — are the good guys, while the Decepticons, led by bad-as-he-wants-to-be Megatron, want to acquire power first, ask questions never.

Working with John Rogers, with whom they share a story credit, screenwriters Orci & Kurtzman have come up with an acceptable sci-fi frame. Having fought each other for eons on their home planet, the Autobots and Decepticons transfer their battle to planet Earth, where an enormous object called the Cube, or AllSpark, the source of all Transformer life, has improbably ended up.

It's at this point that flesh-and-blood folk enter the story and make us wish they hadn't. Screenwriters Orci and Kurtzman have done quite well with director J.J. Abrams ("Mission: Impossible III" and TV's "Alias" and, one hopes, with the upcoming "Star Trek" vehicle), but their work with other filmmakers, for instance "The Legend of Zorro," has not been impressive.

Unfortunately, though he has a way with CGI toys and action set pieces, director Bay does not have a noticeable gift for making human beings come to life. "Transformers' " multiple earthling story lines are tedious and oddly lifeless, doing little besides marking time until those big toys fill the screen.

Encountered first are a bunch of U.S. military stationed in Qatar, led by Capt. Lennox (Josh Duhamel) and Tech Sgt. Epps (Tyrese Gibson), who make first contact with a particularly ornery bunch of Decepticons. Back in Washington trying to figure out what it means is attractive computer analyst Maggie Madsen (Rachel Taylor) and a somber secretary of Defense played by the reliable Jon Voight.

In fact, for reasons having to do with that all-important Cube, the aliens are looking for improbably named high schooler Sam Witwicky, who spends his time lusting after his first car (he ends up with a Camaro with a mind of its own) and the hottest girl in his 11th-grade class.

That would be Mikaela Banes, whom Sam romances with an iconic line ("There's more to you than meets the eye") from the 1980s "Transformers" cartoon theme song. Much of "Transformers' " human time is spent with these teens, who, as the key audience demographic, are fated to save the world.

As played by Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox, Sam and Mikaela look as much like 11th-graders as I do, but the film has bigger problems, like keeping everyone interested while the toys are off the screen. Any film whose most resonant line of dialogue is uttered by the robot who says "It's you and me, Megatron" has no business being two hours, 23 minutes long. No matter how good the toys are.

[email protected]