|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Jun 23, 2009 9:24:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Jun 23, 2009 11:06:25 GMT -8
Or go buy the first season of Transformers that was just released.
Joe
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Jun 23, 2009 11:16:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Jun 24, 2009 6:10:56 GMT -8
That is bad news. Ebert liked the first Transformers and never once complained about the preposterous nature of cars unfolding into giant robots. Just goes to show you that a film is its execution. When it sucks bad, it reveals all its flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Jun 24, 2009 11:35:05 GMT -8
I can indeed confirm that Transformers 2 is utter ridiculous garbage - no redeeming value and nearly incomprehensible in its unfocused desire to be 'exciting'. The question, however, is: should you see it anyway? Some films that are absolutely destined to be bad you still simply HAVE to see. Maybe it's nostalgia, maybe it's morbid curiosity, or maybe you have some misguided friends who think it will be a good movie and so you go along to be social and humor them (and in turn watch all their dreams of an 'awesome' transformers movie franchise come crashing down). It was a combination of all these that led me to the theater at midnight last night, feeling so very old among the 12 - 17 year olds playing "theater ball" waiting for the film to begin. The film plays out literally as if, to create it, the producers gave a 6 year old with severe AD-HD a few new transformers toys and a bucket full of pixie stix and then simply wrote down every word and action the kid did until the sugar-crash and then called ILM to make it directly into a movie. I can't even think of what I could possibly spoil for anyone reading this since the film has no intelligible plot to speak of except for some blabbering exposition-vomit one of the transformers does about 90 minutes into the film in order for there to be some kind of reason for the next 75 minutes of explosions and metal-on-metal slam-dancing. But wait! There are hot chicks! Yes, indeed...but the movie doesn't just put hot chicks on screen, it decides to do the gratuitous oogling for you through camera motions. In one scene in which Megan Fox is taking her outer garments off, the camera is at a full-body shot distance, but then zooms in slightly for an upper torso shot, then quickly pans down and back up her body as if the camera was attached to some guy's head who was sizing her up at a bar. This is not the slow, sexy pan from stomach to breasts from the first film's car repair scene - this is a quick and dirty licking of lips...you can almost smell the beer on the camera's breath and feel the mullet on the back of its head. There are approximately 187 more shots like this in the film. The moments of forced "drama" by the human actors and Optimus Prime had my friends and I laughing hysterically by the end of the film at its cheese. The speech by Optimus Prime at the end of the film is so convoluted and nonsensical it's as if Winston Churchill contracted severe Alzheimer's after WWII but still tried to continue making speeches about the battles he won, not realizing he was talking to his toaster. I won't repeat the points Ebert already made in his amazing review - all of them are deadly accurate. This film makes other over-the-top ridiculous movies look like high art. It is by far the most absurd, dumbed-down, intelligence-insulting, pointless visual masturbation ever put to film. Is there ANYthing good about it? Well, I did like the decepticon Soundwave's voice. Also, the fight scenes are at least filmed from a fair distance in this movie so you can actually tell which transformer is which. I found the battle in the forest mildly entertaining from an 80's kid nostalgia point of view. Oh, and Megatron finally transforms into a gun for once (albeit very briefly and partially covered by the shaking camera, hundreds of explosions and Megan Fox's jiggling breasts in the same scene). Oh, and the VERY FIRST thing you see after the Dreamworks/Paramount logos? *LENS FLARE*You've been warned... -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Smith on Jun 24, 2009 17:00:39 GMT -8
What about the wrecking balls joke?
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Jun 24, 2009 19:00:22 GMT -8
What about the wrecking balls joke? Hey man, whatever you're into that's cool... But that is a perfect example of how classless this movie is. It's a sad day when an 80's TV cartoon series has 100 times more class than your film about the same subject matter. I feel sorry for Michael Bay as it's obvious he is devoid of any kind of substantive personal qualities.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Jun 26, 2009 14:31:01 GMT -8
Ok, that's it. I've seen more than a fair share of reviews and comments. I refuse to watch this movie on principle. Michael Bay is not getting my money.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Jun 26, 2009 17:15:38 GMT -8
I watched "Up" today. It made me cry, literally bawl, 5 times. And if you count the little girl's story of wanting to see the film in her death bed, that's 6 times this studio has made me cry with "UP". Fuck Pixar. And fuck everyone who doesn't see this film because it is absolutely brilliant. edit: Forgot to add: Giacchino's score is fantastic. True, while there are passages that are too close a reminder of Ratatouille and, overall, the music isn't that much a departure from that film's, it is a testament to the man's talents, with 3 wonderful Pixar movies under his supervision, it proves that when he is given strong characters, a sensible story, and a film with a strong identity, he will come up with inspired material. If you give him this, it won't be the same.
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Jun 26, 2009 21:28:13 GMT -8
So the question is, can Up get nominated for Best Picture? It will certainly be easier now that there are ten nominations for the category, but the anti-animation bias might still get to it.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Jun 27, 2009 1:24:02 GMT -8
...when he is given strong characters, a sensible story, and a film with a strong identity, he will come up with inspired material. If you give him this, it won't be the same. Bingo. Thus why Up was a terrific score while Star Trek was merely passable.
|
|
Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on Jun 27, 2009 14:10:44 GMT -8
Ok, that's it. I've seen more than a fair share of reviews and comments. I refuse to watch this movie on principle. Michael Bay is not getting my money. Really? You're saying that just now? I got there after Pearl Harbor.... I've never understood why you guys would punish yourselves by watching this at all! Save your money for the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, or Moon or something.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Jun 28, 2009 18:27:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Jun 28, 2009 18:59:33 GMT -8
F.U., Jens. Now I'm torn whether to see this or not. I mean, there's plenty of deep hurting in it and sounds so preposterous I actually think it's more probable that the entire world is messing with me than this film existing in real life.
Must. Keep. Distance.
In related news, the film broke a 5-day record with $200+ million at the box office. Americans just love big chunks of metal that make absolutely no functional sense. GM should have gone into the movie business. Rack those millions up, boys! There, I just fixed your economy. I want Obama to give me money, now.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Jun 28, 2009 22:58:18 GMT -8
F.U., Jens. Now I'm torn whether to see this or not. Haha, Brendan's post almost had that effect on me, but then yours pulled me back from the brink. Seriously, Hook, we cannot support this sort of thing. If we were to go see it, the stains on our souls would never come out.
|
|