Iron Man Tons of positive early screening Iron Man reviews

[S.A.A.D.]

And this is why Hollywood is in a rut, doing dumbed down comedies and unasked for remakes. *sigh* Still the sheep will flock to the manure and ignore the tasty morsels.

Remakes aren't always bad IMO,I'm a pretty big fan of horror movies,some horror movies that are remakes turned out good IMO. (Ie The Blob (1988),The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Halloween,The Fly (1986),The Hills Have Eyes). Remakes shouldn't be totally looked down on as long as likable ones can be made.

 

[IamProdigy]

Well, I think people have to keep in mind that Iron Man is a strong character, but he´s not Spider-Man or Batman or X-Men. Don´t come expecting the greatest superhero movie ever made and you´re less likely to be disappointed.

But I bet Iron Man will be better than Spider-Man 3 and all three of the X-Men movies, haha. Still though, Batman Begins is still, to me, the best comic-book adaptation movie.

 

[Prefix]

And this is why Hollywood is in a rut, doing dumbed down comedies and unasked for remakes. *sigh* Still the sheep will flock to the manure and ignore the tasty morsels.

Good god, you are such a tool.

 

[DACrowe]

So what if the story was simple?? The movies you mentioned (Indiana Jones,Jaws,Jurassic Park) those movies had simple stories and here you are giving Transformers flack for having a simple story. If you're not a fan of Transformers,why did you watch it then?? You shouldn't have bothered watching it or you should have did research properly on it before you wasted your spare time seeing it in a theater,there are resources,you could have read reviews. Or you could have asked specific questions to people on the internet who did see it,but you failed to capitalize on it. You seem to forget that the Transformers don't originate from earth,the Decepticons talked in their Cybertron language because they were from a different planet.

Oh,and by the way,Indiana Jones,Jaws,POTC,and Jurassic Park all had merchandise that was made which were connected to them,they aren't totally different from the case of merchandise that were made that had a connection to the Transformers movie. If Transformers was anymore serious,we could have had a Superman Returns on our hands in terms of fun factor,it's your problem that you're like one of those movie critics who expect every movie these days to be inspiring,thought provoking,and/or Oscar worthy material. Hell you like movies that had SIMPLE stuff in it too and that weren't DEEP,so I don't think you should bother knocking Transformers at all because of the SIMPLE/non DEEP factor.

You don't get what I'm saying, do you? I know those movies had very simple stories. Particularly Jurassic Park, which I feel is the best comparison because it is about giant CGI dinosaurs chasing humans and was the biggest hit ever in 1993 with effects that blew people away. You know people still talk and rave about that movie to this day with fond nostalgia. You know why? Because it was made perfectly with fine craftmanship and knew how to tell a story WELL. It is a very simple story. Men clone dinosaurs that break out and kill half the cast and terrorize the other half. But it is the execution. Even though the effects are dated Dr. Grant seeing a dinosaur for the first time is still awe-inspiring between the acting, character development, music and direction. It is iconically moving. The tension has people on the edge of their seats because all the major characters are fully rounded and entertaining to watch. You care about all of them and the movie waits about 45 minutes for the real action to start because it takes as much joy with Jeff Goldblum and Richard Attenborough arguing the ethics of exploiting science for profit. Seeing a Tricaratops. The movie is just gradually building to the action. It has a sense of humor and still delivers the knock out set pieces that are still suspensful. People still can hold their breath when the raptors come into the kitchen or the T-Rex escapes or one of the characters are killed off, even if the effects are dated now.

Why? Because you gave a damn about what was going on. Was anyone worried about Sam or Mikela not surviving Transformers? Did anyone care if they even got together?

Yes, JP relied heavily on merchandising to make a tone of money (Speilberg even highlighted that as a joke in the movie), but that wasn't its purpose. It tried to be a good movie first and became a classic popcorn movie. It ends on a simple image with Johnny Williams music playing, but that is better than Linkin Park. Speilberg wanted the audience to come away moved. Bay wanted the audience to come away without asking for a refund. The movie panders and has little else to do. It is a long line of product placement and endorsement deals. It was made by the studio (inlcuding Speilberg who produced it) as a bottom line effort to make some money. It is simple, but is dumb. Jurassic Park isn't.

Now I could detail those reasons for Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean, the first two Spider-Mans and ESPECIALLY Jaws or the original Star Wars trilogy (the pinnacles of summer cinema, IMO). TF is a hit but pales in their shadows because it is mindless. There is nothing to attract the audience but special effects. It is a STUPID movie.

I went in open minded and gave it a chance because everyone was raving about it and it was no different to me than most of the forgettable garbage released in the summer time. It is above Pearl Harbor but is still on the same wavelength as Armageddon or Bad Boys II. It just has very little to offer but eye candy. That is why I panned it. I'm sorry if my opinion upset you, it is just what I think of the movie. I mean just last summer Bourne Ultimatum, Ratatouille and HP5 blew it out of the water, even if they didn't do as well at the b.o. I promise you nobody will be talking about the movie by the end of this year (unless it is hype for the forthcoming TF2).

Anyway back to Iron Man....

 

[BlackLantern]

I personally liked Hellboy as one of my favorite adaptations and the fight scene in Bourne Ultimatum, in the dirty bathroom, is one of the best fight scenes I have ever watched

 

[Kokoryu1]

But I bet Iron Man will be better than Spider-Man 3 and all three of the X-Men movies, haha. Still though, Batman Begins is still, to me, the best comic-book adaptation movie.

What about The Crow? The first movie (the others Sucked) was amazing and it didn't rely on over the top special efects just pure story. For my money the best comic book movie to date. And for the record DaCrow... ARMAGEDDON RULES!!!!!! And TFs was 1 million times better than Bad Boys. Oh Yeah, IRON MAN WILLLLLL KICK ASSSSSSS this summer at least until Batman Hits.

 

[The Guard]

There was very little character development for Sam and Mikaela, but really, it didn't need character development...it's Transformers.

Sam had plenty of character development, given the context of the movie. He went from being a relatively awkward, somewhat fearful and even shy teenager, to being a more confident, ambitious and courageous young man. That's character development, like it or not. Mikaela also went from being an "I only care about myself" character to someone who cared about the bigger picture. It's evident in that she showed less "vapid, angry skank" and more "caring girl next door" as the movie progressed. Just because they don't have any long drawn out scenes explaining how they are developing doesn't mean that development didn't exist. And it's obvious that Sam will develop further in sequels, developing leadership and mediation skills, etc. He's going to end up being something akin to John Connor, I'm guessing, a leader of a resistance that has humans working with Transformers.

Go watch the Indiana Jones trilogy, Jaws, Jurassic Park, the Back to the Future trilogy, the first two Spider-Mans, Men in Black, the first Pirates of the Carribbean and of course the original Star Wars films off the top of my head.

Bad examples if you're trying to distance them from Transformers. Every single one of those movies, cool as it is, has a VERY simple, straightforward action/adventure storyline and very basic and in some cases abrubt character development. I'm not even sure Indiana Jones changes at all. The strengths of those movies lies in their execution and their themes, and the performances and the way that characters are tested and then overcome obstacles, not the depth of the movie's characters or the depth of the story itself.

It sounds to me like you're just looking at classic movies through rose-colored glasses.

Saying there is no heart in Transformers is absurd. There's just as much heart in Transformer's forced emotional scenes as there ever was in Indiana Jones forced emotional scenes, or in Star Wars forced emotional scenes. I'll take a romantic scene from Transformers ANY DAY over one from Star Wars. Better-acted, and just all around more believeable.

Oh yeah, The Guard finally accomplished to throw an anti-BB rant in the argument...

If it bothers you, I can use another movie. BATMAN BEGINS is just the most recent and most obvious example of a movie being condescending to the audience that I can think of. It isn't bashing, and I love the movie, it's just simple fact. Again, I asked for a specific example of how Transformers is condescending.

If I recall, TF repeats that "sacrifice" motto a lot

I believe it's three times, each Witwicky says it once as it's a Witwicky family saying.

and the lead doesn´t really make any sacrifice, that is, he doesn´t really give up on anything, in the end of the movie he has all he asked for and more, the hot chick, a cool car, and badass new friends. I´d make a sacrifice like that every day... He takes risks, but risk and sacrifice are different things.

In this case, a risk is a sacrifice. He's giving up his feeling of safety for something he values more. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or

The audience DIDN'T CARE about these characters. Outside of Prime and Bumblebee no one even remembers the other Transformers names except for the fans.

So? You can say that about almost any comic book character in a movie.

The fact that they had to introduce ALL the bad guys with subtitles in the last 20 minutes speaks of how badly conceived the movie is.

It is a number of generic jokes and faux-sentimentality no different from Armageddon except now Bay focused on "What if Peter Parker met E.T." as the sentimentality that had as much meaning as a Hallmark card.

ET met a young boy. Bumblee was a cool car/robot meeting a teenager. The sentimentality is bound to be different. But it was accurate, and appropriate.

I'll put it this way, did you give a crap when Jazz died?

Yes. It was a brutal moment when he was killed. I knew Jazz was the Transformers friend and ally. I know he was being brave before he died. I felt for Prime when saw what had happened to him, and the Transformers reaction upon learning of his death was palpable. I didn't have to see Jazz undergo ten random scenes of character development to understand the moment in context.

You don't get what I'm saying, do you? I know those movies had very simple stories. Particularly Jurassic Park, which I feel is the best comparison because it is about giant CGI dinosaurs chasing humans and was the biggest hit ever in 1993 with effects that blew people away. You know people still talk and rave about that movie to this day with fond nostalgia. You know why?

Because it was a best selling novel, so people already liked it. Because the CGI was fantastic and done on a level that had never before been attempted or even conceived of by many people, and the effects were good. And because it was funny, adventurous, and had an interesting concept behind it. And because Steven Spielberg made it, so the visuals were amazing. It also had a great musical score.

You talk about the awe of people interacting with dinosaurs, but apparently completely missed the awe in a different context when people interacted with giant robots.

Men clone dinosaurs that break out and kill half the cast and terrorize the other half. But it is the execution. Even though the effects are dated Dr. Grant seeing a dinosaur for the first time is still awe-inspiring between the acting, character development, music and direction. It is iconically moving.

The tension has people on the edge of their seats because all the major characters are fully rounded and entertaining to watch.

Fully rounded characters my ass. Ian Malcom is a techno-nerd. Ellie is the stock female lead. Dr. Grant is the gruff loner with a heart of gold who learns to like children. The tension has people on the edge of their seats because it is DESIGNED to do that.

You just seem to assume people have to care about characters in a movie to be entertained.

LOL at the "It wasn't made to be marketed" line.

And again, to the people who insist TRANSFORMERS was thin, or shallow, or stupid, or dumb.

What cartoon did you watch as a child that was packed with so much depth that you find missing here...

And if you think TRANSFORMERS was so thin...tell me, specifically, what did you WANT?

 

[GNR]

You guys need to calm down seriously.

OMG,IT'S A POSITIVE REVIEW

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/40263/iron_man_review.html

 

[Kargo Warrior]

Another positive: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/.../erstein/entries/2008/04/a_iron_man_with.html

 

[SurfDUI]

You guys need to calm down seriously.


http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/40263/iron_man_review.html

The same can’t be said of Jeff Bridges, who frankly fails to convince as the upwardly-mobile and backstabbing Obadiah Stane. His acting is fine, but the aggressive instinct requisite for playing screen villains doesn’t seem to be in the actor's nature. I love Jeff Bridges, but this wasn’t one for him.

I wondered about that- O. Stane is very big in the Layton versions of Iron Man, Bridges is a much more subdued type of actor. He's great, but i think that review is prejudicly close to being right. Then too he's in his 50's now and big -even in this project is past him. good one, concise.

 

[ultimatefan]

Sam had plenty of character development, given the context of the movie. He went from being a relatively awkward, somewhat fearful and even shy teenager, to being a more confident, ambitious and courageous young man. That's character development, like it or not. Mikaela also went from being an "I only care about myself" character to someone who cared about the bigger picture. It's evident in that she showed less "vapid, angry skank" and more "caring girl next door" as the movie progressed. Just because they don't have any long drawn out scenes explaining how they are developing doesn't mean that development didn't exist. And it's obvious that Sam will develop further in sequels, developing leadership and mediation skills, etc. He's going to end up being something akin to John Connor, I'm guessing, a leader of a resistance that has humans working with Transformers.



Bad examples if you're trying to distance them from Transformers. Every single one of those movies, cool as it is, has a VERY simple, straightforward action/adventure storyline and very basic and in some cases abrubt character development. I'm not even sure Indiana Jones changes at all. The strengths of those movies lies in their execution and their themes, and the performances and the way that characters are tested and then overcome obstacles, not the depth of the movie's characters or the depth of the story itself.

It sounds to me like you're just looking at classic movies through rose-colored glasses.

Saying there is no heart in Transformers is absurd. There's just as much heart in Transformer's forced emotional scenes as there ever was in Indiana Jones forced emotional scenes, or in Star Wars forced emotional scenes. I'll take a romantic scene from Transformers ANY DAY over one from Star Wars. Better-acted, and just all around more believeable.



If it bothers you, I can use another movie. BATMAN BEGINS is just the most recent and most obvious example of a movie being condescending to the audience that I can think of. It isn't bashing, and I love the movie, it's just simple fact. Again, I asked for a specific example of how Transformers is condescending.



I believe it's three times, each Witwicky says it once as it's a Witwicky family saying.



In this case, a risk is a sacrifice. He's giving up his feeling of safety for something he values more. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or



So? You can say that about almost any comic book character in a movie.

The fact that they had to introduce ALL the bad guys with subtitles in the last 20 minutes speaks of how badly conceived the movie is.



ET met a young boy. Bumblee was a cool car/robot meeting a teenager. The sentimentality is bound to be different. But it was accurate, and appropriate.



Yes. It was a brutal moment when he was killed. I knew Jazz was the Transformers friend and ally. I know he was being brave before he died. I felt for Prime when saw what had happened to him, and the Transformers reaction upon learning of his death was palpable. I didn't have to see Jazz undergo ten random scenes of character development to understand the moment in context.



Because it was a best selling novel, so people already liked it. Because the CGI was fantastic and done on a level that had never before been attempted or even conceived of by many people, and the effects were good. And because it was funny, adventurous, and had an interesting concept behind it. And because Steven Spielberg made it, so the visuals were amazing. It also had a great musical score.

You talk about the awe of people interacting with dinosaurs, but apparently completely missed the awe in a different context when people interacted with giant robots.

Men clone dinosaurs that break out and kill half the cast and terrorize the other half. But it is the execution. Even though the effects are dated Dr. Grant seeing a dinosaur for the first time is still awe-inspiring between the acting, character development, music and direction. It is iconically moving.



Fully rounded characters my ass. Ian Malcom is a techno-nerd. Ellie is the stock female lead. Dr. Grant is the gruff loner with a heart of gold who learns to like children. The tension has people on the edge of their seats because it is DESIGNED to do that.

You just seem to assume people have to care about characters in a movie to be entertained.

LOL at the "It wasn't made to be marketed" line.

And again, to the people who insist TRANSFORMERS was thin, or shallow, or stupid, or dumb.

What cartoon did you watch as a child that was packed with so much depth that you find missing here...

And if you think TRANSFORMERS was so thin...tell me, specifically, what did you WANT?

It didn´t feel condescending to me. There´s plenty for you to think and interpret for yourself if you want to. It may have much exposition, but it´s part of the point of the story. TF may not explain as much, but there barely is what to explain from such a paper-thin story, and yet it´s all blatantly spelled out. Just that is pretty condescending in itself.

Yeah, the sacrifice motto was said about three times, I believe, and it can be very well considered hammering in the head if you wanna go there.

It never felt to me like safety was something Sam had a particular fondness for. If anything, he was looking more for freedom and independence, and he didn´t sacrifice either.

All you could tell about Jazz is he was one of the Autobots, talked like a rapper - which certainly doesn´t attract any sympathy from me - and got killed in a fight. If there´s no build up, all it is is a forced, ineffective sentimental moment. Plenty of big studio movies, including superhero movies, have done better - Spider-Man, Superman The Movie, etc.

 

[The Guard]

It didn´t feel condescending to me. There´s plenty for you to think and interpret for yourself if you want to. It may have much exposition, but it´s part of the point of the story. TF may not explain as much, but there barely is what to explain from such a paper-thin story, and yet it´s all blatantly spelled out. Just that is pretty condescending in itself.

At this point I'm not sure you understand the following concepts, period:
1. Story, and specifically, a story that is "paper thin". A story with multiple storylines about various humans, government and Transformers cannot be considered such.
2. What "condescending" means. Since I used BATMAN BEGINS, a movie which is not condescending to the audience in the least, as an example, and you didn't catch it.

Yeah, the sacrifice motto was said about three times, I believe, and it can be very well considered hammering in the head if you wanna go there.

No, it really can't be. Because the characters didn't say the line in a way that indicated "HEY AUDIENCE. THIS IS THE THEME OF THE MOVIE". As it wasn't. It was only Sam's developmental theme, and it was very subtly played.

It never felt to me like safety was something Sam had a particular fondness for.

Then you weren't watching the movie. He's very quick to want things, until there was risk/danger involved. At that point he became less interested in doing what it took and more interested in his survival or his "survival".

If anything, he was looking more for freedom and independence, and he didn´t sacrifice either.

He was looking for it, but he wasn't willing to act to get it. He wanted things just to happen for him with minimal effort. This is fairly clear early in the movie.

All you could tell about Jazz is he was one of the Autobots, talked like a rapper - which certainly doesn´t attract any sympathy from me - and got killed in a fight.

All you could tell about Jazz was that he was an Autobot who liked dance and music, and was a bit more spunky than the others. That's more or less what Jazz is. If you have a problem with the film's portrayal, I'd say complain about the show and the comics making him that way to begin with. That's Jazz. He's gimmicky.

If there´s no build up, all it is is a forced, ineffective sentimental moment.

Maybe to someone who is completely heartless and cannot discern basic themes. I mean, do I have to know each person who is killed in Schindler's List to feel an impact from their death? No. No I don't.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I hope the movie is good. I hope that it's not another Superman Returns fiasco, where I for the life of me can't understand why (according to Rotten Tomatoes) SR got 77% of critics to agree that a bad movie was good?

 

[Prefix]

I hope the movie is good. I hope that it's not another Superman Returns fiasco, where I for the life of me can't understand why (according to Rotten Tomatoes) SR got 77% of critics to agree that a bad movie was good?

Maybe because it was good?

 

[StylishHokie21]

I hope the movie is good. I hope that it's not another Superman Returns fiasco, where I for the life of me can't understand why (according to Rotten Tomatoes) SR got 77% of critics to agree that a bad movie was good?

I don't get that either.

 

[kedrell]

^I think they were blinded by nostalgia and Singer-love.

 

[Prefix]

But I'm not old enough to remember the original movies, and the only Singer movies I have seen are X-Men, X2 and Superman Returns, which I would have seen simply because they are comic book movies. So, no.

 

[kedrell]

Another positive review from a foreign user at RT(yeah, I know he's not a professional critic, but neither were the guys at AICN that started this thread):

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=622941

 

[kedrell]

But I'm not old enough to remember the original movies, and the only Singer movies I have seen are X-Men, X2 and Superman Returns, which I would have seen simply because they are comic book movies. So, no.

I meant the critics. They are old enough to remember the Chris Reeve movies and have also seen Singer's other movies like Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil, etc.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Damn,Iron Man is on a roll!! t:
I wonder how much longer it can go strong by getting one good review after another.

 

[YJ1]

Another positive: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/.../erstein/entries/2008/04/a_iron_man_with.html

That's a very interesting POSITIVE review from someone who says, "I can’t say that Marvel Comics franchises are what I look forward to -- I'm more of a musical geek that is circling the calendar for the opening of Mamma Mia!"

Saying that it's easy to see the "$186 million" hit the screen is great news. The budget is more in line with $135 million. If it looks that good... Favs, Stan Winston and company need to take another bow.

 

[Kokoryu1]

The review just confirms what most of us have come to accept. Iron man is gonna rock. I was against Downey at first prefering Ed Quinn

But I can admit when I'm wrong. I hope we get a trilogy and War machine somewhere in them! I am Amped! Excelsior!

 

[FaT_tONle]

how did the budget go down 50 millon? And if that's the case how the heck was SM3 250? I mean the CGI in the trailer wasn't perfect... but it seemed like this was still a 160-180 dollar film no?

 

[DACrowe]

Sam had plenty of character development, given the context of the movie. He went from being a relatively awkward, somewhat fearful and even shy teenager, to being a more confident, ambitious and courageous young man. That's character development, like it or not. Mikaela also went from being an "I only care about myself" character to someone who cared about the bigger picture. It's evident in that she showed less "vapid, angry skank" and more "caring girl next door" as the movie progressed. Just because they don't have any long drawn out scenes explaining how they are developing doesn't mean that development didn't exist. And it's obvious that Sam will develop further in sequels, developing leadership and mediation skills, etc. He's going to end up being something akin to John Connor, I'm guessing, a leader of a resistance that has humans working with Transformers.



Bad examples if you're trying to distance them from Transformers. Every single one of those movies, cool as it is, has a VERY simple, straightforward action/adventure storyline and very basic and in some cases abrubt character development. I'm not even sure Indiana Jones changes at all. The strengths of those movies lies in their execution and their themes, and the performances and the way that characters are tested and then overcome obstacles, not the depth of the movie's characters or the depth of the story itself.

It sounds to me like you're just looking at classic movies through rose-colored glasses.

Saying there is no heart in Transformers is absurd. There's just as much heart in Transformer's forced emotional scenes as there ever was in Indiana Jones forced emotional scenes, or in Star Wars forced emotional scenes. I'll take a romantic scene from Transformers ANY DAY over one from Star Wars. Better-acted, and just all around more believeable.



If it bothers you, I can use another movie. BATMAN BEGINS is just the most recent and most obvious example of a movie being condescending to the audience that I can think of. It isn't bashing, and I love the movie, it's just simple fact. Again, I asked for a specific example of how Transformers is condescending.



I believe it's three times, each Witwicky says it once as it's a Witwicky family saying.



In this case, a risk is a sacrifice. He's giving up his feeling of safety for something he values more. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or



So? You can say that about almost any comic book character in a movie.

The fact that they had to introduce ALL the bad guys with subtitles in the last 20 minutes speaks of how badly conceived the movie is.



ET met a young boy. Bumblee was a cool car/robot meeting a teenager. The sentimentality is bound to be different. But it was accurate, and appropriate.



Yes. It was a brutal moment when he was killed. I knew Jazz was the Transformers friend and ally. I know he was being brave before he died. I felt for Prime when saw what had happened to him, and the Transformers reaction upon learning of his death was palpable. I didn't have to see Jazz undergo ten random scenes of character development to understand the moment in context.



Because it was a best selling novel, so people already liked it. Because the CGI was fantastic and done on a level that had never before been attempted or even conceived of by many people, and the effects were good. And because it was funny, adventurous, and had an interesting concept behind it. And because Steven Spielberg made it, so the visuals were amazing. It also had a great musical score.

You talk about the awe of people interacting with dinosaurs, but apparently completely missed the awe in a different context when people interacted with giant robots.

Men clone dinosaurs that break out and kill half the cast and terrorize the other half. But it is the execution. Even though the effects are dated Dr. Grant seeing a dinosaur for the first time is still awe-inspiring between the acting, character development, music and direction. It is iconically moving.



Fully rounded characters my ass. Ian Malcom is a techno-nerd. Ellie is the stock female lead. Dr. Grant is the gruff loner with a heart of gold who learns to like children. The tension has people on the edge of their seats because it is DESIGNED to do that.

You just seem to assume people have to care about characters in a movie to be entertained.

LOL at the "It wasn't made to be marketed" line.

And again, to the people who insist TRANSFORMERS was thin, or shallow, or stupid, or dumb.

What cartoon did you watch as a child that was packed with so much depth that you find missing here...

And if you think TRANSFORMERS was so thin...tell me, specifically, what did you WANT?

I will admit you have a point about the Indy films and the character not changing that much (though I'd say there was some growth in TLC) and that it is the execution. I think the same goes for the first POTC. But I stand by what I said for JP, SW, Jaws, BTTF and SM.

Transformers went through the motions but it was insincere. The characters were no fun to watch. It was just a series of bad teen comedy jokes to bad teen music with affable actors in the roles split between another Michael Bay military flick where he paints them in the same faux-sentimental patriotic light as he did in The Rock, Armageddon and Pearl Harbor. If you want to see a director who really means it and believes in American patriotism without pandering, go watch a John Ford, Frank Capra or Steven Speilberg movie.

The whole thing goes thorugh the efforts but I don't care, it is all archetypes selling a product. Sam and Mikela might as well be Peter and MJ without the pull or chemistry that caused the audience to root for them (in the first movie anyways). Bumblebee is E.T. without the emotional arc or real fear he will die. All the other Transformers not named Prime are window dressing. When Quint dies in Jaws it is hard to watch and almost tragic the way you grew to like the character and the irony of it. When Jazz dies I didn't even notice.

I used Jurassic Park because it was a simple premise that involved major SFX and giant creatures that blew audiences away in 1993. The thing is it still blows people away in 2008. It is still an impressively executed story with all the major players well rounded and worth watching. TF is closer to Armageddon where they're there, but no one really cares. Transformers was A SIMPLE MOVIE. A very stupidly simple movie that had a plotline anyone could see from a mile away. So the comparison of saying those movies are simple doesn't wash. Neither does saying "wait until the sequels." No movie should have to depend on the sequels or its predecessors to not be able to stand up in its own right. For example SM2 can stand on its own feet, SM3 cannot.

Lastly, I have to say that while George cannot write dialogue to save his life Lawerence Kasadan can. I'd much rather watch the chemistry that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher dripped as well as the wit their characters and the actors who played them had over a Sam and Mikela scene. I'm talking the original trilogy and not the prequels. The "I love you," and "I know" is classic. As opposed to "Whatever happens I'm really glad I got in your car."

...

 

[DACrowe]

P.S.

Maybe to someone who is completely heartless and cannot discern basic themes. I mean, do I have to know each person who is killed in Schindler's List to feel an impact from their death? No. No I don't.

Way bad comparison.. Schindler's List is a VERY different kind of movie from summer entertainment.

Since these are fictional characters (giant robots who turn into cars at that) there needs to be some build up and development of the death for it to have resonance. Think of when Obi-Wan Kenobi died in Star Wars or Doc Brown seemed to die in BTTF or Uncle Ben in SM1. Seriously, just think of Harry in SM3. Most people hate that movie (I do not, but know it is very flawed), but when Harry died it was truly sad and you didn't need to see the previous two films to feel it. His sacrifice was felt and moving. As was Doc Ock's in SM2 and even GG in SM1 and they were the main villains of that trilogy. Jazz was a good guy. Shouldn't we react more distraught?