Transformers 2: What did you Think?
Friday, June 26th, 2009
Feel free to share your thoughts on the latest Transformer movie. Spoilers are allowed.
Personally, I had very little fun with the film. I thought it was dull and loud and ugly and it makes me sad that this is going to make more money than Star Trek and Up. Although the film did do one thing that I didn’t think was possible; create two charecters that were bigger racist caricatures than Jar Jar Binks. Stay classy Michael Bay, stay classy.
Gallery of Images
Tagged under: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Posted By:
110 Comments
Subscribe to Comments FeedLeave a Reply
Book of the Month
Scott Pilgrim Vol. 1-6From writer/artist Bryan Lee O'Malley comes the story of Scott Pilgrim, the 23 year old slacker who's precious little life is turned upside down when he meets the girl of his dreams (literally), Ramona Flowers, and discovers that in order to be with her, he must fight and destroy her seven evil ex boyfriends. Buy all SIX volumes and qualify for free shipping from IST!
This IS THE worST SHIT EVER!!!!!! WTF Michael BAY is a talentless SHIT HACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARGLEBARGLE
naw, just kiddin’. I’ll probably see it second run, or if something I want to see ends up at the same theater I’ll double feature it (Public Enemies maybe?).
I didn’t like the first one, and if I see the sequel it’ll only be because all my friends are going or something like that. And of course, Megan Fox…
um…*looks around* I actually really enjoyed it
Loved it. The story was pretty solid, but it was so segmented that it doesn’t surprise me that people had problems with it. In addition, it bothered me that they added 40 bazillion new transformers, but barely fleshed out any of them. The next movie badly needs to develop some of these characters.
It’s a shame that Mudflap and Skids got the most development out of all the transformers. I was happy to see Starscream have a personality this time. the Jetfire personality didn’t bother me as much as I thought it would, though I could do without fart jokes in robot movies.
The language was a little harsh for a movie that kids all over are going to go out and see. You risk scaring the parents away in future sequels.
The complaint that bothers me the most is that the movie was too long. That may actually be true, but in most cases, they indicate that movies about giant robots should never be that long, and it broke the formula from the first movie. However, the first movie was only 6 minutes shorter than this one.
I thought the first movie was more fun than this one was, because the story was more fluid. However, I thought that there was a lot to love in this movie. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of the so called bad word of mouth that this movie is getting is because there is virtually no middle ground. You either love it or hate it. At least with the first movie, you could just turn off your brain and enjoy it as a big budget action movie.
In the words of a greater wit than mine; I can’t turn off my brain and enjoy things, my brain is how I feel enjoyment.
Turning off your brain obviously means to not over think the movie. An action movie is absolutely not made to have a the most detailed characters and plots. It’s virtually impossible to flesh out characters and plots when you have an explosion every 5 minutes.
It’s like trannies insist on mediocrity. They dont just settle for it, they prefer it. “Set the bar low, I don’t want to have to reach”.
@ It’s virtually impossible to flesh out characters and plots when you have an explosion every 5 minutes.
Did you read this from the MIck Bay newsletter? No no no, you can’t have action and characters. I’m only capable of enjoying a film on a single dimension. If I want a story with ideas and themes I’ll watch Citizen Kane.
Why are Mick Bay’s fans and apologists willing to go along with this nonsense? Have you seen Star Trek? The film from way back last month? The opening is an action scene and it features a moment of heroism that is both touching and exciting. It got chills. Tell me about the equivilant scene is Transformers.
Traditionally, compelling and charismatic characters were considered essential to the action genre. James Bond, Indiana Jones, Ripley, Han Solo, Darth Vader, John McClane. Remember Heath Ledger’s iconic performance from way back last year. A year after the trannies insisted that stories and characters weren’t necessary for an action film, that right there should’ve FORCED you to reevaluate this transformers nonsense.
Compelling characters shouldn’t be considered “extra”. McBay succeeds by exploiting peoples willingness to settle for the mediocre and shrug appathetically in the face of 2.5 of tedious stupidity as long as there are explosions occasionally.
I’m not saying you should hate every film that’s not as good as Dark Knight. I’m saying you should DEMAND a film be as good as Dark Knight. And if it’s not you should be disappointed, you should say “that should’ve been better”.
We should all go to the theater expecting to be moved emotionally (Star Trek did it for me 3 times) challenged intellectually, shown something we’ve never seen, have our horizons broadened. None of this “it’s not supposed to be Schindlers List”, “it’s good for what it was” BULLSHIT.
We can’t always expect greatness but we should always demand it.
You may say you loved Trans2. But you didn’t come out of it raving to us about the awesome set pieces or impressive imagery. You said you liked that Starscream “had a personality” and Jetfire “didn’t bother me as much as I thought it would” and while the film was too long you didn’t like people pointing it out. That’s your rave review of Transformer 2, when’s part 3 come out, I heard Grimlock’s gonna be in it.
And as for these explosions every 5 minutes that don’t allow for characters. Well, I haven’t seen the new one but the last had about 40 minutes of action and an hour and 50 min of filler. So again, I think you’re settling too low.
Sorry, I just don’t share your opinions. First of all, I consider myself a Transformers fan about as big as they come. Though there are definitely some that follow the series a lot more than I do, I’m definitely at the top tier when it comes to geeking out over them.
I’m absolutely not settling for mediocrity. To me, these movies were awesome, and a real example of how well cinema has progressed over the years. To me, this is the pinnacle of special effects in movies. And the characters that are fleshed out are genuinely interesting.
I can speak for hours about what I would have done differently, had I made these movies. But that doesn’t make the direction they have went in bad. It makes it different.
The funny thing is, you are using your own feelings to demonstrate how powerful a movie is or is not. I loved Star Trek. Loved it. But it never emotionally moved me. That doesn’t make it less of a movie, it just means it effected me differently. I wasn’t emotionally attached to Kirk’s dad. Great scene, but I don’t think that it’s leagues above what I saw in Transformers. I would put the Optimus fight scene and his talk with Sam in the same category. You don’t? Sorry to hear that we have differing opinions. It’s terrible to see that everyone in the world doesn’t think exactly the same.
You gave a whole list of main characters as compelling. I feel the same way about Sam and Optimus. Again, you don’t? Sorry.
I just think a lot of what you say is rubbish. You should expect every movie to be The Dark Knight, and be disappointed when it isn’t? That’s BS. I refuse to live such a jaded life where 90% of all movies disappoint me. Movies can absolutely amaze me on different levels.
And for the record, there were many things about Transformers 2 I loved and would rave about it. Awesome set pieces? Did you see that they used the freaking pyramids? Did you see that they believably destroyed them? Hell, every single transformer is a work of cinematic magic. If we are to the point that we can’t enjoy a giant robot believably turning into a car, then we’ve become far to used to the special effects that make movies what they are.
My comment about Starscream was a compliment over one of the big fanboy peeves from the first movie. The Jetfire thing was one of the issues I thought my fanboyism was going to have with this movie. You know fanboy pet peeves, right? The people that worry about Batman’s costume, Two Faces makeup? That’s fanboyism. It happens in every geeky recreation, and it has zero to do with the quality of a movie.
Transformers was the first HD DVD movie I bought when I got my player. I still enjoy the movie, and if not for the fact that I still had my HD DVD player hooked up, I would have already sought out a Blu-Ray version. You talk about Mediocrity, but you refuse to believe that there are some of us that genuinely enjoy a movie that you don’t.
I’m so sick of people around here thinking they are the end all be all judge of what is good and what sucks. Why can’t you just accept that your opinion is YOUR opinion, and give it and move on? I’ve gave many “excuses” about Transformers, because they are issues that other people have. I’m accepting them as issues, and discussing them. I’m not giving these reasons because I find them to personally be an issue to me. I’m just not immediately invalidating everyone else’s opinion and dismissing it.
Believe it or not, there are people out there that would argue as much as you have here, that Star Trek sucked. I’m definitely not one of them. But it just goes to show that something you chalk up automatically as the perfect example of a great action movie isn’t always considered to be so.
If you think Optimus Prime and Shia LeBouef are such great characters then what did you mean by this?
@ It’s virtually impossible to flesh out characters and plots when you have an explosion every 5 minutes.
That’s the comment that inspired my rant on settling for mediocrity. But I’m glad to see you now at last arguing for Transformers merits rather than just passively accepting the arsenal of excuses that Bay fans seem to peddle in.
Your literal minded approach seems to have translated my words from a call for passion to a call for uniformity. Understand, I’m not saying “everyone needs love Star Trek and Batman”. I picked those as examples of action films that aimed high and didnt fall back on excuses and because I know they are popular around here.
If, in fact you weren’t moved by Star Trek, if the characters didn’t work for you; then you shouldn’t settle for it. Why are you willing to accept that? Yes it does make it less of movie. You should say “this film was occassionally entertaining but mostly just set pieces strung together by filler”.
You call me jaded. But it’s not jaded to be disappointed it’s jaded to accept disappointment. It’s jaded to sit through 2.5 hours of trash and walk out going “well it wasn’t supposed to have good characters”.
This is a subject that we’ve touched upon in our back and forths but never addressed directly. You’ve hinted that to apply the great deal of scrutiny that I do to films is cynical. That I’m all about tearing things apart.
But it’s exactly the opposite. I know what it’s like to be deeply affected by films. And when that doesn’t happen then I feel that something is missing. I expect to be moved, it’s what I go to the movies for. So I examine them closely and think about films a great deal, its’ not a passive experience to me. And that does mean that I can’t “turn my brain off” and enjoy trash, but it’s also why i got more out of Star Trek than you. Films like Transformers are the collateral damage that I’m willing to sacrifice to get more out of cinema.
“And, to deal with the token objections of the film’s defenders, I have an inner child; he’s just not an inner idiot. And if how much money something made had any correlation to how good it actually is, doctors would recommend you get more cocaine instead of more leafy greens. And no, I can’t shut my brain off and have fun, anymore than I could rip out my tongue and enjoy a meal, because my brain is where I feel fun.”
http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-critic-reviews/transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen/?icid=MOVIES1>1=MOVIES1
I enjoyed it, I despised the first film, but this one was dumb fun, just easy watching, Michael Bays best film at 7/10
I just could not have fun with this movie. Some of the fights were pretty, but none of the action & adventure held a candle to Star Trek. It was just nearly two hours of robots that all looked vaugely like each other punching each other while spouting lines like “give me your face”; the camera adoringly catching every glimpse of Meagan Fox’s clevage and I just couldnt like it. I dont see why for some movies we’re expected to turn off our brains. Why can’t the move just turn on it’s brain instead?
sorry, I meant nearly THREE hours. God…
I have decided to skip this movie until DVD. I liked the first Transformers movie the first time I watched it, but I’ve watched it a couple times since, and it has gone down in my esteem each time.
I’m just not excited to see the new one in theaters, especially with all the descriptions of it that I am hearing. Even the good reviews aren’t getting me excited for it. So a pass on Transformers 2 from me. Perhaps I’ll go to the theater for Public Enemies, but I’ll definitely be seeing Harry Potter.
I feel like this is one of those movies thats going to lose something on the small screen.
I thought it was good, the action was alot better and clearer what was happening. the twins got really old really fast though. I liked that the transformers all seemed to have personalities in this one though.
I’m on my way now to see it at my cheap neighborhood theater (6.50 FTW!)
“Personally, I had very little fun with the film. I thought it was dull and loud and ugly and it makes me sad that this is going to make more money than Star Trek and Up.”
Eh. Because it’s a kid’s movie (guarantees an adult ticket for every child ticket sold) that has nostalgic appeal for the older crowd. It was pretty much a given.
I know by seeing it I’m supporting this kind of nonsense but I really pine for the days when we had big movies for adults. I highly doubt some of the great 80’s R rated action blockbusters (a la Die Hard) would ever be made in today’s market.
TF2 is definitely not a kid’s movie. I was surprised at the amount of language the movie had. Every time you turned around you was getting a healthy dose of profanity, or Hash Brownies. Still though, it will be a movie that appeals to kids, so I guess the two ticket rule still follows. But you aren’t going to see many young children in the theaters, I don’t think. And those are usually the ones that come with parent(s) in tow.
Besides, that argument doesn’t really explain why it would beat Up, which is absolutely a kid’s movie at it’s core.
Love it or hate it, a movie about giant robots is as good for geekdom as all these movies about super heroes. The more the core market shifts toward things that drives geekdom into a fervor, the better it is for us in the future. Maybe one day our television shows will see mass acceptance as well.
Just got back.
My.
God.
I think I need to have a marathon of movies in B&W in German that have a bunch of people sitting around discussing philosophy my brain hurts so much.
I love movies where shit blows up. I really do… but mon dieu…
That movie was incomprehensible. And the sad part was being in a full theater and having everyone laugh at some of the most base guttural jokes ever that just had me cringing.
Did I just watch a small robot hump Meghan Fox’s leg?
Did Shia go to robot heaven or something?
Why the hell was Josh Duhmeil (not the greatest actor ever, but a serviceable one I find mildly attractive) third billed or even in this movie?
I’m starting to think my love of The Rock is purely because whenever you have a movie with Sean Connery vs Ed Harris and smattering of Michael Biehn playing a Navy SEAL I will be tickled happy. And my love of Armageddon is purely my utter fascination with disaster movies no matter how bad. That these two movies have nothing to do with Michael Bay.
Maybe it’s because I have no sentimental attachment to Transformers (my family was the kind that gave girls Barbie dolls even if all she was doing with them was ripping their heads off and pouring ketchup over the bodies creating horror movies) and the cartoon never appealed to me… but damn. I never thought a movie with explosions, a couple of cute guys, and robots would be such a cringe inducing boring mess…
If you liked it, you liked it I guess but… wow. Wow.
Loved it…….Thought it was a fun summer movie……Plan on seeing it again…I agree the language was a little harsh for kids…but as a parent of 3 I always see a movie before I allow my kids to see it……But to me this is a must see…..Fun action film thats fits the summer ninche to a T
I enjoyed the film. But I would have really liked it if they lowered the over the top comedy with Leo, the section 7 guy, and Sam’s Mom. But I did find the twins really funny though
Well if they just took all the civilians out and it was just the military and the Transformers, it would be better.
I’m excited for Public Enemies. That and Harry Potter look like the final quality action dramas coming out this summer. I think the only question now is; will GI Joe be worse than Transformers?
GI Joe does look pretty poo…
My eyes are now set to December. It’s all about Avatar for me now.
I am really trying to restrain myself with the hype machine on that one now.
wow, pretty big opening, who wants to bet on thechances of another film?
Oh it’ll happen. I mean…I don’t want it to, but it’ll happen.
When did Cracked get so funny ?
Also inbetween the GI Joe’s and He-Mans I really hope we all find the time to go see the other sci-fi films that open this summer; District 9 and Moon.
I know I keep bringing these two up as if I have I’m invested in them. Well truthfully I do feel invested, not financially, but as a scifi fan and cinephile. What does it say about me as a scifi fan if I’m first in line for Star Trek but can’t make it out for District 9?
It says that I’m a timid film goer. That I’m really only interested in films that are presold as a repackaging of an old franchise. That I’d rather root for my favorite franchise in the box office race than support new artists. That I’m suspicous of the new and comforted by familiarity and I’ll get excited about a $100 million ad campaign but otherwise I can’t be bothered.
Roger Ebert has said many times, and it’s frustratingly true, that film goers would rather go see a film they know won’t be any good (GI Joe, Transformers) than take a risk on an unknown film. I don’t know why this is but I’ve seen it for myself and even caught myself acting that way. It means we get films based around marketing campaings and happy meal tie ins instead of based around vision and stories. It means we get trailers that spell out every beat of the film and screenplays scrubbed of ideas to make sure no one has to worry about being surprised or challenged in the movie theater.
Increasingly that’s what audiences demand. It’s harder and harder for films unattached to some franchise branding to get theatrical distribution and find success with an audience. The art theaters are shutting down and lower budget movies shut out of screen to make room for Wolverine to rolled on 5000 screens and then forgotten two months later.
I don’t vouch for either Moon or District 9, I haven’t seen either (Moon opens here next week). They could both be as bad as Transformers 2 (haven’t seen either) but I’m excited to go see something that I don’t know everything about before hand. I’m glad the trailers don’t tell me what to expect beyond the general mood.
“What does it say about me as a scifi fan if I’m first in line for Star Trek but can’t make it out for District 9?”
It says that you wasn’t interested in the stylings of District 9, didn’t see the marketing, or generally made the decision to spend your ~$10 in a different way?
“Roger Ebert has said many times, and it’s frustratingly true, that film goers would rather go see a film they know won’t be any good (GI Joe, Transformers) than take a risk on an unknown film.”
That’s complete and utter BS. Very few people go to see movies they know they will suck. At the very least, they think there is the possibility they will like it. I don’t see too many people out there that repeatedly go see Uwe Boll movies. They generally learn their lesson and move on. Or at least they think, “This could be better”. Very few people say, “I can’t wait to go by my ticket for this movie that sucks.
As for taking a risk on an unknown movie? Well, that’s just what it is. A risk. People may not think they will love Transformers 2, but they know what to expect. District 9 is completely unknown from every direction. Nobody has ever seen the director do anything (Other than a couple Halo movie scenes, and some commercials, at best). The plot is virtually unknown. Do we even know what style of Scifi movie it’s going to be? Action? Thriller? Intrigue? the trailers don’t really show enough to give a good grasp of that.
The thing is, existing franchises are popular for a reason. They are known to us. You go see a Star Trek movie, and you may not know how the movie is going to be. But you know the characters, you know the setting, you know the type of movie it’s going to be.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m going to see District 9. I’m more interested in that than I am in GI Joe. But there is a legitimate reason why people don’t go all out for some unknown movie. With that said, it isn’t like it doesn’t happen. Cloverfield made $170 million worldwide. Not bad for a movie that was built from the ground up using mostly viral campaigns. Also not bad, considering the movie made a large portion of the audience nauseous.
You say “Increasingly that’s what audiences demand. It’s harder and harder for films unattached to some franchise branding to get theatrical distribution and find success with an audience.” Again, I call BS. Every single existing franchise was a new franchise once upon a time. It succeeded in what it was doing. That’s why it’s currently being made again.
It’s not necessarily what audiences demand, it’s just what is being put out. If you are a studio in the middle of an economic crisis, do you go for the $80mill unknown? Or the $100mill virtual guarantee sequel? If you go the way of the cheaper and lesser known movie, you have a lot more things that can go wrong than with the existing series. Not to mention, you have to work a lot harder than you do for the sequel to get the awareness out about the movie. The truth is, however million people that enjoyed the first Transformers movie would recognize the second one as something they would want to see. Same with Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. Even if they didn’t see the advertisements, that’s something they would recognize it, if they saw it was playing. But with an unknown? If they don’t recognize it, chances are they won’t give it a second look.
This is why some of new movies that succeed do so based on successful marketing campaigns. Much like how Blair Witch Project soared into a whole new level because they went to the trouble of convincing people that the whole thing was a true documentary.
Mostly, my issue is that you claim that people will actually consciously watch a movie they know will be bad (Not think, not hear, but actually KNOW that it will be bad) versus a new franchise. The problem with this thought, is there is no way to prove that it is true. You can’t assume that just because a movie does poorly that people are avoiding it because it’s new. In most cases, it’s because they have no earthly idea what it is.
I remember a little movie several years back called the Matrix. It was new. It was unique. It was unknown. People didn’t have a problem supporting it, once they figured out that it existed.
Reading back my post it’s not exactly a paragon of tact and diplomacy but that aside I’m right about this stuff.
Roger Ebert is right about this. I’ve talked to people countless times who went to go see the latest poorly review films from Paul WS Anderson, Michael Bay, and Steve Summers and left disappointed but unsurprised.
I will personally admit I went to see Matrix Revolutions for no other reason than because I saw the first two.
I’ve worked in a few theaters off and on as a projectionist so I’ve seen it from both ends.
I saw the first two Matrix (LOVED the first), and I never saw the third. I even own it, but I haven’t bothered to pop it in the dvd player.
“Most people choose movies that provide exactly what they expect, and tell them things they already know. Others are more curious. We are put on this planet only once, and to limit ourselves to the familiar is a crime against our minds.”
-Ebert
I went looking for Ebert’s exact quote because I’m sure he didn’t say “a film they know will be bad”, no one knows whether a film they haven’t seen will be bad. I couldn’t find the specific quote but the one above expresses a similar sentiment as I was trying to get across.
You’re right people go to the films looking to enjoy themselves, but in doing so they seek out the familar and shun the innovative. They prefer to “turn their brain off” and they are warry of being challenged. They gravitate towards the mundane because they know what to expect, they’re suspicious of anything that defies convention.
I’ve worked in a few movie theaters as a projectionist so I’ve witnessed it from all sides.
Countless times I’ve talked to people who went to go see the latest poorly review films from Paul WS Anderson, Michael Bay, and Steve Summers and left disappointed but unsurprised.
How many times have we all given the benefit of the doubt to some pretty dubious films and directors. Wolverines, and Matrix sequels, terminators 3s&4s, michael bays and steven sommers, spiderman 3’s… insert your own examples.
I will personally admit I went to see Matrix Revolutions for no other reason than because I saw the first two.
Why don’t District 9 and Moon, films without product tie ins and millions of dollars worth of TV ads, deserve that same chance?
Do you really find the teaser for District 9 that objectionable? Doesn’t it at least look intruiging? Isn’t it bold to set a scifi film in Johanesberg, among actual refuge camps? Isn’t this an interesting project for an award winning FX artist? Isn’t all that at least worth a shot?
We all went to go see Transformers and Wolverine when their RT scores were at 20% (I mean, I didn’t. But it’s the type of thing I would do) but we can’t “risk” District 9.
I hear all this trepid hand ringing whenever I bring up this film.
What’s it about?
It looks like a documentary?
Why are their faces pixilated?
I don’t like their spaceships?
From the perspective of the average film goer, really the average consumer, I understand why a trailer that elicits a “huh?” doesn’t get them out to the theater. But we’re all scifi fans, right? Shouldn’t we be the first people to get in line for something weird and innovative.
Who cares if the trailer doesn’t tell us “which genre of scifi to expect”?! Look at the powerful imagery it contains!
Why is the unknown such a negative in everyone’s mind. For chrissake, What is scifi about if not exploring the unknown?!
And Moon looks awesome too. Also from a first time time director I believe.
“You’re right people go to the films looking to enjoy themselves, but in doing so they seek out the familar and shun the innovative.”
I mostly agree with it when you put it that way. I say mostly, because I think it would be closer to the truth if you had left of the “…and shun the innovative”. Nobody is shunning movies because they are innovative (Or at least, not it the way you seem to imply. I’d argue that people shun movies that are sci-fi based and such because they aren’t “realistic”. But that’s a different debate altogether)
To say that the shun they innovative would imply that they are staying away from it because it’s innovative. I think it’s more likely that they are staying away from it just because they are unsure of what it is. And honestly, if I didn’t get my movie tickets for free, I’d probably do the exact same thing. $10 is a lot to pay for a shot in the dark.
Don’t mistake my earlier comments. I think District 9 looks VERY original and interesting. I’m definitely going to be seeing it. But any movie that leaves you with so many questions about what the movie is actually about is going to be met with some people taking a wait and see approach. Or a “I’ll wait until you are ready to tell me what movie I’m going to be paying to see” approach. That approach has both failed and succeeded in the past. When it works, it’s always a fantastic surprise. I was extremely skeptical about Seven Pounds, but it ended up being one of my favorite movies of last year. Not knowing what to expect added to that. But there have been other movies where you didn’t know what to expect, and came out feeling like they didn’t show you anything, because what they had wasn’t very good.
Personally, when I went and saw Transformers and Wolverine despite the lukewarm reviews, I did it because I don’t trust reviewers with “genre” films. It paid off for me with Transformers 2, because I loved it. I’ll trust my own opinion over anyone else any day of the week, and I hope everyone else feels the same.
And finally, to summarize why I think some of these movies are doomed to fail because they don’t get the built in exposure of being a “sequel” or a spin off, I have to say. What in the hell is Moon? I’ve been to every big movie this summer. I’ve seen 8 out of the top 12 movies at the box office right now. I frequent trailer sites, box office discussion sites, etc. And I can say without even blinking that I have never heard of “Moon” before you mentioned it in your last comment.
If I’ve never heard of it, and it’s right up our alley, how can we expect random cautious consumers to have heard of it? Now, of course, I mostly asked what it was as a rhetorical question. Now that my interest is piqued, I’ll look it up myself. But I am curious where you saw anything on it.
I’m curious how people would rate the movies that we have seen thus far. Throw every movie you’ve seen in theaters to this point into the mix, and give us the final list. Mine goes something like this:
Star Trek > Transformers 2 > The Hangover > Up > The Proposal > Terminator Salvation > Wolverine > Year One
Technically, I’ve also seen My Sister’s Keeper. But that wasn’t a movie that I actively like or dislike. It’s not really even a form of enjoyment for me. It was just kind of there. It was well done, but I couldn’t care less if I ever see it again or not.
I consider everything from Star Trek down to the Proposal to be Great. Terminator to be “good”. Wolverine I mildly enjoyed. Year One was borderline dislike. Terminator, Wolverine, and Year One would be my “mediocre” choices of the summer. Sad, because I was looking forward to all three.
Brothers Bloom (3.5), Drag Me To Hell(3.5), Up(3.5), Girlfriend Experience(3), Star Trek(3), Hangover(3), Terminator(2.5), Limits of Control(2.5 My least favorite Jarmusch film),
I blinked and missed this film called Pontypool that’s been on my list to lookout for. And I’ll make an effort to see Land of the Lost.
I also saw Lovely Bones this summer.
I’m probably forgetting something.
I saw the torrent of Wolverine as well. I give it one condescending shrug.
I *really* want to see Brothers Bloom, but it hasn’t hit any theaters near me. I fear the same will be true when it comes to Moon.
I ADORED Brothers Bloom! I review it in the new Two Geeks (Which we just recorded yesterday, btw)
Other films I’m looking forward to for the Summer.
Public Enemies (tomorrow!) Tetro, Tyson, Away We Go,Moon, Inglorious Basterds, 500 Days of Summer, Paper Heart, District 9, Hurt Locker, Final Destination 3-D
My list looks pretty similar to yours, although I would add the new Harry Potter to my list as well.
Dude, you’re listing MY must sees! haha. Well, besides Final Destination I mean. Plus, my list also includes Funny People, I’m really hoping this is Apatow’s Manhattan. (Although he always struck me as more of a James L. Brooks than an Woody Allen.)
I’ll probably see funny people, I like Aptow it’s just… I guess Im sort of indifferent.
How can you not be excited about Final Destination 3-D! It’s a Final Destination movie! it’s in 3-D! Did you not read the title?
Dude, it’s not “Final Destination” it’s
THE FINAL DESTINATION
Apparently, by putting the “the” there it takes away the need for the numbering “four.”
I’ve been pretty lazy this year when it comes to going to the theater. I’ve totally missed some of the ones I wanted to see like Terminator & Wolverine. Anyway, this is how I rank the ones I have seen:
1. Up (10/10)
2. Star Trek (9/10)
3. Coraline (9/10)
4. Watchmen (8/10)
5. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (6.5/10)
I liked URotL, but it’s not in the same league as the rest of those.
Public Enemies (2)
Really disappointing.
And my favorite movie of the year so far is Observe & Report.
And I double featured the first half of Transformers 2.
I was sitting next to a woman who found this to be the funniest thing that has ever happened to anyone ever. The whole time she was in stitches.
During the scene some young lady is advancing on Shia in a sexual manner she’s going “uh huh… uh huh”
Then we see her under britches and the woman squeled in delight.
and then they cut to Megan Fox getting out of the cab and she goes “Aw snap!”
In case it’s of interest this young lady’s ethnicity was Asian.
I can’t believe you went through all the trouble of calling this woman out on how she reacted to the movie, and then used the words “under britches”. Not that you are incorrect, technically. I just found it to be a bit funny.
I’ll take “Aw Snap” over “Britches”, any day.
And just because I love getting you all riled up. I loved Public Enemies. Discuss.
I didn’t call her out, I sat there quietly.
I didn’t think Public Enemies added much to the two existing Dilinger films. Warren Oates will always be my definitive John Dilinger.
I didn’t care much for the cinematography either.
Semantics. I call posting her exact reactions on a message board “calling her out”. But it’s moot anyway.
Two types of movies I rarely get into are Westerns and Gangster movies. So I don’t have a whole lot to compare it to in that regard. But I thought that Bale and Depp did a terrific job in their roles. I had to keep reminding myself that Depp was Dillinger. I could always see the similarities between Jack Sparrow and Willy Wonka. But then to compare this role to one of those really blows my mind.
Let’s see, I’ve had an insane ammount of free time on my hands so my lidt of summer movies is pretty long… I kinda see everything these days, I just like movies… a lot (which is understandable for any young film maker, I suppose)
Drag me to Hell (10/10)
In the Loop (10/10)
Star Trek (9/10)
Coraline (9/10)
Last Chance Harvey (6/10)
Terminator Salvation (4/10)
Wolverine (2/10)
Year One (2/10)
Sunshine Cleaning (7/10)
Fugative Pieces (6/10)
The Hangover (9/10)
Observe & Report (7/10)
Transformers 2 (7/10)
Bruno (9/10)
Synedoche, NY (5/10)
Fantastic Mr Fox (9/10)
I’m really looking forward to Moon, Funny People, Harry Potter, Ponyo, Where the Wild Things Are, Up, Away We Go, I Love You Beth Cooper, (500) Days of Summer, A Boy Named Dad and I really wanted to see but missed Sounds Like Teen Spirit and I haven’t got round to seeing Looking For Eric or French Film yet.
Also Cold Souls and District 9 have caught my interest
@ I have never heard of “Moon” before you mentioned it in your last comment.
That’s especially weird since I’ve mentioned it several times before that in this very thread. I don’t know what to tell you.
http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/moon/
I’ve not been paying attention to this thread. In any case, I wasn’t aware that you was the sole advertising method for this movie. They are certainly doomed.
haha. You haven’t been paying attention?! You replied to some of those posts! I’ll have to keep this in mind in our future correspondence.
@ I wasn’t aware that you was the sole advertising method for this movie
Well you weren’t aware of the movie at all
Its called skimming. I do it often. Like how I missed this comment for 3 days.
@ “Well you weren’t aware of the movie at all”
Guess you aren’t doing a very good job with your advertising.
I invented a new thing to call Transformers. TransBOREmers ha ha ha
I must say that the back and forth debate between you two has been very interesting to read.
I enjoyed the movie. It was a bit too over the top with the action (like Spider Man 3), IMO, but it was still fun. My husband mentioned something about the swearing as well. We didn’t bring any kids, but we saw a lot there running around in their pj’s (we were at the drive in).
I have only seen Watchmen, Star Trek, and Wolverine at the theatre and Transformers 2 at the drive in. Star Trek was the best by far, probably a 9 or 9.5. I haven’t even see T4 yet and I’m a huge Terminator fan. My hubby hates the theatre so I only go when I find somebody to go with. I am driving over an hour to meet my bff half way for the midnight release of Half Blood Prince (what I am looking forward to most this summer).
Unlike my complaint with other big actioners (Die Hard 4, T4) Transformers I think would benefit from a LOWER rating. All the swearing and gratuitous female fetishisizng really hurt both movies, IMHO.
I’m not one to scram “oh the kids, oh the kids,” but it just left me, a grown-up, feeling skeezed out and slightly yucky.
Ill say it again. I long for the days when grown-ups had their movies and kids had theirs. Yes, we all know kids snuck into these grown-up movies and loved them anyway, but at least the pretense was there.
It’s not a matter of “protecting the kids” it’s just a matter of decency. You wouldn’t go into a second grade class room and use words like “bitch” and “pussy” so why did Bay use that language in his film intended for that same second grade class room.
Raimi doesn’t use foul language in his pg13 superhero franchise. He’s a class act.
I guess what it comes down to is Bay makes films for children. Crude, follow mouthed, racist children.
It still guts me to no end that Transformers was a much more harder PG-13 in some regards than Terminator Salvation was.
And it guts me to know that a friend of mine isn’t taking her 6 year to see a movie that SHOULD be for him because of the language and the fetishizing. It’s sad because he loves the cartoon show and has a couple of the toys and all that stuff is marketed to his age group… but the movie is far too crass for him. I mean, I remember some 80’s kids movies had some swearing in them (Goonies, Ghostbusters just off the top of my head) but they definitely didn’t come off as crass and un-kid-ish as Transformers does.
So I just found that Moon opens here on the 3rd (this friday), I thought it wasn’t til next friday!
Randy, if I send in a review will you post it?
If he won’t, I will. But I’m pretty sure he will.
Do you have my email address now?
Ugh. I soooo wanna see Moon. But it’s at the theater that takes me 45 mins of train time to get to. And pay 13.00 to see. I wish movies like that would come to my ghetto theater 5 min walk from my place that has 6.50 matinees.
I think that is the main reason why movies like Moon don’t do as well. I imagine my situation for seeing it is probably not nearly as bad as others and that’s really saying something.
Rereading some of your comments Randy, there are few nits I’d like to pick.
@ To say that the shun they innovative would imply that they are staying away from it because it’s innovative. I think it’s more likely that they are staying away from it just because they are unsure of what it is.
What?
What?
First of all, How can agree that audience seek familiarity while at the same time disagreeing that they shun the new? What is involved in seeking familiarity if not shunning the new? And what does it mean to say “they’re not avoiding innovation they’re staying away from it because they are unsure of what it is”. What does that mean?
I love innovation. I just hate the properties inherrent to innovation. I also love the beach but hate sand and water.
@ You say “Increasingly that’s what audiences demand. It’s harder and harder for films unattached to some franchise branding to get theatrical distribution and find success with an audience.” Again, I call BS. Every single existing franchise was a new franchise once upon a time.”
You can disagree with many of my points but this one is unimpeachable. Do you ever read trade mags like Creative Screenwriting or Script? Have you ever worked in a theater? There are more screens then ever before and more movies made every year but the market is more and more conservative.
Too much money and screens are spent on a movie like Terminator Salvation to leave room for a low budget sleeper like Terminator.
The business model for theaters these days doesn’t allow for films to catch on by word of mouth. They’re rolled out on 5 thousand theaters accompanied by marketing blitzkriegs and then forgetten about 2 weeks later. If they don’t make money that first week then their gone. And even though there’s more screens there’s fewer independent theaters.
You’re telling me I’m way off base but look at your own list of movies you’ve seen this Summer. It’s all films with huge marketing campaigns, aimed squarely at your demographic (or your wife’s). And every single action film is a sequel / remake / spinoff / etc…
And if your explanation is that those are the only films playing anywhere near you, that also proves my point: There is less opportunity for smaller films.
Here’s a list of the highest grossing films of the past 10 years:
The Dark Knight
Shrek 2
Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
Spider-Man
Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Spider-Man 2
The Passion of the Christ
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Finding Nemo
Spider-Man 3
Shrek the Third
Transformers
Iron Man
Does jump out at you about this list? Anything at all?*
On the other end of it MILK didn’t even turn a profit prior to winning an Oscar. Think about that; a high profile, star studded film from a Oscar nominated director and with major studio push couldn’t turn a profit. It cost $20 mil. Doesn’t that say something alarming?
Compare last years Oscar noms:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/oscar/chart/?yr=2008&p=.htm
to ten years a go:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/oscar/chart/?yr=1998&p=.htm
And that’s 10 years worth of ticket price inflation. That is way waaay down. Although box office overall is up.
I mean you just said how weird it is that you’ve never even heard of this scifi movie Moon because apparently it hasn’t been advertised. That is putting a pretty fine point on the issue while somehow missing it completely!
I’m glad to hear you’re planning on seeing District 9.
*The answer is that almost all of them are associated with an existing franchise
I know that wasn’t your intention, nor is this meant to offend anybody, but I giggled at thinking Passion of the Christ was a part of “an existing franchise.”
I did too.
The thing is, even though I wouldn’t lump it in with the rest, it is consistent with my point. It attaches itself to an existing storyline with high name recognition.
And just like Star Trek and Star Wars and LOTR and Serenity it’s got it’s own band of fanboys that are expected to go for multiple trips, be first in line, and bring all their family members.
I remember expressing my discomfort with Passion of the Christ’s blockbuster-y-ness to a coporate fuck from a movie theater company I used to work for (before I learned not to speak or even make eye-contact with corporate fucks in general) and all he could rattle on about was how much the movie made, repeat business, etc. Like his actual opinion was basically the business report he got handed on his desk. He missed my point entirely. I was mearly saying that I found it odd that most people were buying large cokes and large popcorn’s to the flick. It’s like they have myopia when it comes to money. And that’s the thing, these guys aren’t ‘movie people’ they’re ‘business people.’
Gone are the days when ma and pop owned a theater for the love of it and just hoped to make enough to get by and live. It’s the same with the movie business. As soon as studios stopped being privately owned and became part of conglomerations the business models shifted. The thought process shifted. The people who run the business now don’t think now, ‘make a big hit so we can make a bunch of little movies later in the year’ they think ‘let’s just make five big hits and three prestige pictures. And if the prestige ones win Oscars than we got 8 hits on our hands.’ I mean even the fall prestige pictures are starting to become as same-y same-y as the summer blockbusters.
I’m sincerely hoping the recession helps change the thought process on this. But I doubt it.
shun [shuhn]
–verb (used with object), shunned, shun⋅ning.
to keep away from (a place, person, object, etc.), from motives of dislike, caution, etc.; take pains to avoid.
To actively seek one type of thing does not imply in any way that your are shunning the other types of things. If I buy soda because I enjoy it, I am not shunning juices. I’m simply not buying them.
Innovation is something new and different. New and different are the properties that make innovation so appealing. “Unknown” is a property that people tend to ignore. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. The Matrix was innovative in it’s special effects, and the depth of the story that it told. I would imagine that most people aren’t going to say, “God, that movie looks like it will revolutionize special effects. There is no way I’m going to go see it.” However, they are quite likely to have said, “I have no freaking clue what the movie is, what it’s about. I’m going to go spend my money on this movie instead”. That’s the difference. And it’s a pretty big difference, in my opinion.
I do not read magazines, but I do follow industry news online. I’ve never worked at a theater, but my wife manages one. I have no doubt that companies are becoming more conservative in what movies they show. I’d much rather sell out Terminator Salvation than to show a movie that may get 5 people per day. It’s business.
However, my problem with what you said is this. You say that it’s harder for movies not attached to a franchise to get distribution and find an audience. I just don’t think that’s the case. A good movie will find it’s audience. A marketable movie will find it’s distribution. But it has to prove that it’s worthwhile in order for that to happen.
Sequel-itis is a problem in every industry. Why? Because they have proven they can sell tickets. And beyond that? They have a built in audience. They don’t have to find an audience, they already have it. Anyone that loved Spider-Man is going to see Spider-Man 2.
However, just because those movies sold the most tickets does not mean that they made the most money. I’m sure that list would look significantly different. Do you recall the results of the Blair Witch Project? My Big Fat Greek Wedding? Do you consider Titanic as part of an existing franchise? What about Pixar Movies?
Total Box Office take is a poor measure of how well a movie does. Yes, it’s selling more tickets. But why? Is it that hard to conceive that household names and proven successes would sell more than something a majority of people have never heard of?
Plus, if you’ve ever heard me talk about the Oscars, you would know that I couldn’t give a damn about what they say the best movie of the year is. The fact is, Oscar noms cater to a very specific crowd.
I don’t see how saying how I’ve never heard of Moon is proving anything that you’ve said. I keep saying, and I will say it until I’m blue in the face, that the success of a movie has everything to do with how well it is marketed, and how well it suits the people that are going to buy the tickets. People are not avoiding these movies, they just don’t know about them.
The proof is evident in your oscar link. Those movies, when put in the eye of the public go on to improve their take by almost 100% in most cases. Why? Do you think that people really say, “Oh gee, I thought I’d avoid that movie like the plague because it’s innovative and unique. But now that it’s on the Oscars, I’ve changed my mind.” Absolutely not. It’s because people didn’t hear about it or pay attention to it until it was pointed out to them.
In my opinion, there are two arguments that can be made here. #1 – The studios don’t do a good enough job getting awareness of their movies out there. #2 – People don’t pay enough attention to things. The problem with the first is that you can’t realistically advertise a movie enough with that sort of budget. The problem with the second is, So what? People have better things to do than eat, sleep, and breath movies like most of us do. Hell, I can’t keep up with all the movies, and I love going to the theaters.
@ Total Box Office take is a poor measure of how well a movie does.
What?
@ Is it that hard to conceive that household names and proven successes would sell more than something a majority of people have never heard of?
No Randy, it’s not hard to understand that at all. You keep pressuming to lecture me about The Business, The Way It Is. As if I’m mystified about why a Will Smith film with a 100 million dollar marketing campaign makes more money than some movie no ones heard of. I don’t get it… what am I missing?
I’m not confused as to why they make sequels, neither do I begrudge studios for making them (I probably liked most of those sequels I mentioned). You’ll notice that most of my ire is saved for the audiences not studios or theaters.
I agree that for studios to continue making films then they have to make money. And that is why, with that in mind, I am disturbed by some of the trends in box office. More screens devoted to a smaller array of films. Fewer $50-70 million financed in favor of more $200 million films. More Thunder Cats The Movie, less Francis Ford Coppola (did you know he has a new film out this Summer?) vanity projects. Too many Paul WS Andersons, not enough Paul Thomas Andersons.
The Oscars weren’t always catering to a niche audience. You don’t have to go that far back to find the Oscars nominating broadly popular crowd pleasers. Pulp Fiction, The Crying Game, Fargo; films that didn’t have the best marketing but succeeded by word of mouth. But today there’s no time for word of mouth because the theater cycle is too crowded and too short.
The whole point of comparing last years Oscar noms to 1998’s, which seems to have completely eluded you, was to compare a sample size of mostly smaller to medium budget non franchise pictures with a good amount data readily available. And it clearly shows not just shrinking audiences but shrinking box office, while box office overall is rising.
If you don’t think that proves my point, then you don’t get my point.
And to all this you shrug and say “So what?”. Which leads me to conclude that you don’t see the problem because your part of the problem. You’d probably be perfectly content to see more Smurfs, Halo and He-Man at the theater instead of Do The Right Thing, Goodfellas and Blue Velvet. In fact if I had to guess, you’ve probably never seen any of those movies. But I bet you own more than one Michael Bay film on video.
@ “What?”
Just what I said. The box office take is not a good measure of success. I’ll take a $500k budget movie that makes 50 million over a $200 million movie that makes $210 million any day.
@ “The Oscars weren’t always catering to a niche audience.”
That’s why I don’t like them anymore. And that’s why 10 years ago those movies got a higher take. Saving Private Ryan is going to appeal to movie goers a lot more than Slumdog Millionaire. And I love Slumdog, and never actually watched or had a desire to watch Saving Private Ryan.
@”Which leads me to conclude that you don’t see the problem because your part of the problem. You’d probably be perfectly content to see more Smurfs, Halo and He-Man at the theater instead of Do The Right Thing, Goodfellas and Blue Velvet.”
I’m sure I am part of the “problem”. I’d love to see a Halo movie, or dozens of other existing franchises. Because I like them. To say I wouldn’t want to see a film (done well) for a franchise I enjoy would be an insult to that franchise.
But I watch a lot more smaller movies than most people do. So I guess I’m also part of the solution, huh?
Truth be told, I’m a useless statistic, because I get into all movies for free, and they never ring up actual tickets. So I don’t exist to Hollywood. And also to be truthful, I don’t see a difference between big Hollywood and small Hollywood. As long as I enjoy the movie, that is all that matters to me. I could care less if it cost $200 million or $50 to make.
As a general rule, I’m not a big fan of independent movies. They have a funky style that they go out of their way to accomplish. I generally dislike anything that does art purely for the sake of being artistic. Art is something that should be done because it improves the piece. See also Ang Lee’s Hulk.
And, actually, you would be wrong about the Michael Bay films. At least until Transformers 2 comes out. I own Transformers, and that’s it. I think my wife still has Pearl Harbor on VHS, but I wasn’t a fan. I liked Deep Impact over Armageddon, so I never really jived on that. While I liked Bad Boys for what it was, I never had a desire to buy it. And I probably enjoyed The Island more than most people, but I doubt I’ll ever watch it again, much less buy it.
You talk about people being blinded by their passion for a franchise like Transformers. But I honestly fail to see the difference with someone like you, who sees movies in terms of how much money they took to make. It’s a nearly blind opinion.
Like I said, for me, at the end of the day it is ALL about how much fun I have when I watch the movie, and not at all about how much it cost or what it is about. Yeah, I loved Transformers as a kid, and I loved the movie. I also loved X-Men and Spider-Man as a kid, and hated the third movies in both franchises. Passion isn’t something I often let blind me.
Though I will openly admit that it is a lot easier to enjoy something that has built a world of imagination for me for multiple years. It is like building a house in a warehouse. It might be a decent house, it might not. But put it in a setting where the the surroundings are beautiful, and it improves the image of the house a lot.
First of all, I want to clear up right now that I would never accuse a trans fan of being “blinded by passion”, I don’t know where you got that from but passion is something I respect, and I do not respect tolerance of trash like transformers.
In what way do I see film in terms of their budget? Flesh that out for me, what does it mean?
In the same weekend I saw Star Trek and Limits of Control in the theater. So I’m certaintly not letting budgets, marketing or box office dictate which films I’m going to see.
I’m talking about a film’s budget and box office, because it’s relevent to the point I’m making in this thread.
That point being that we should do what we can to support these smaller less marketed films of quality. Especially if they’re in the scifi genre which we’re all big fans of.
Like I said before I’m glad to hear you’re looking forward to District 9, I hope you’ll keep your eyes for Moon as well, though I’m not sure how wide a release it’s getting. I don’t know much about it other than I’ve heard it compared to one of my favorite recent scifi films Primer which I think is a must see for all scifi fans.
I keep bringing up how much I hate transformers, but that’s kind of a distraction, as I’ve tried to say it’s not literally about whether you like Transformers. Neither do I think everyone who sees Trannies is a cancer on cinema. What I think is that the people who see only Transformers (and Spider-Man and Star Trek and yes, even Dark Knight) are contributing to a decline in quality.
Every Summer we look forward to the big blockbusters, and it’s sometimes hard to remember the less ostentious films from great directors that get lost in the mix. But the films we look forward to are rarely the same ones look back on. That’s why everyone rewatches Donnie Darko but no one ever recommends Pearl Harbor to their friends (Released same year. PH $200mil. DD $.5mil). Looking forward to 99 was all about Star Wars and Austin Powers but looking back it’s all Fight Club and Matrix.
But it’s the Fight Clubs and Donnie Darko’s that are being squeezed out in favor of more dollars and more screens for Pearl Harbors.
When all we’re making are hype machines like Trannies and GI Joe then what will we look back on? And don’t say those are perfectly good substitutes for Fargo and Last Tango In Paris, because they’re not. I don’t care whose directing Thunder Cats The Movie.
Some thoughts on the first half of transformers that I watched.
I am glad Bay slowed down during the action scenes, but it’s exposed something that I’ve always suspected about him but could never prove; he sucks at coverage. How many decepticons are in that scene in the warehouse. I’m pretty sure the answer is two (Megatron and the Helicopter) but it’s not at obvious from the movie. From the coverage it looks like Megatron is the helicopter. You would think that two 50ft tall robots standing next to each other in a closed off environment would appear in the frame together occassionally. There’s a one second shot where they’re in frame together! At the end of the scene! That’s how I know.
And don’t tell me everyone knows that Megotron doesn’t turn into a helicopter, because I’m not at all clear on what he turns into. Based on the last film I thought it was some of jet (seen only as a blur) but I swear there’s a second where he’s a tank.
What does the Fallen transform into; besides film history’s lamest villain (I saw the end in a torrent)? The titular character, what is he?
Devastator, the film’s main attraction, is a glob of golbedy gook who shows up for a second, stands on a pyramid and waits to get shot in the head!
The only reason I can tell Starscream and Megatron apart is because I’ve seen pictures on the internet, where I’ve had time to take in StarScreams unusual shape. Based on this film alone I’d have no idea.
It literally seems like Bay forgets about the gimmick.
The gimmick that the movie is named after.Imagine a Batman movie where it’s not clear that Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same person. A Hulk movie where you’re not exactly sure what happens when Bruce Banner gets angry. That is what this series is to me. That is how much they miss the mark.
Supposedly Bay’s this great action director born to make a movie about talking cars and planes… but he can’t even photograph them! I should know every robots name and what he transforms into, that’s the whole point of the movie and it’s beyond him. Robot > car is too complicated for Michael Bay.
I don’t understand anyone who thinks these films are good enough. Of all he films to defend as “fun”… I just don’t get it. Why is this movie so long? What do the fans do in the theater during the 70 minutes of filler that I waded through to get to this big action scene in the woods that everyone told me was worth it?
Randy, are you playing videogames on your phone? Are you getting reading done in between?
I do not understand why anyone would sit through this film.
From I saw I do think this one, overt racism and juvenille misogny aside, is an improvement over the first. The two action scenes I saw are obviously better than anything in the first movie. And most of all this film earns the title “Transformers” whereas the other one is really Shia LeBuff and John Turturro: Featuring Some Transformers.
So good job Bay, he’s improved. As a director, as a human being he’s still a piece of detritus.
Decepticons are hard to tell apart. But it’s not an issue for me for the most part. The Autobots are almost all really easy to tell apart, because they all have unique styles. That’s the problem I have with the almost plant-looking designs that the Decepticons got.
Also, I disagree with the action scenes in this one being better than anything in the first. The first movie had the Optimus on the freeway scene which was quite possibly the coolest battle I’ve ever seen. Also, besides the blurry action crap (Which isn’t limited to Transformers or Michael Bay), the city battle was very epic.
Anyway, glad to hear you got a chance to watch part of the movie. There is more to your opinions to dismiss now than before. Ultimately, I love the series. Millions of others do as well. And try as you might, none of your personal issues with the movie really bother me. To me, there was no filler. It was non-stop enjoyment.
Makes me want to go buy some tickets to continue to support it. I know how bitter people get when something succeeds despite their personal problems with it. It’s ok, really. Spider-Man 3 did amazingly well at the box office, and I thought that it was garbage. It happens.
Also, if you want to know what keeps this movie from beating the first one for me, it’s all the minor issues that I had. It can all be summed up in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM19FWFGER0
Bad enough to make it less enjoyable than the first, but good enough to make it one of my favorites of the year.
Really favourite of the year? To me this was a forgettable easy film, but then again I thought this was better than the first.
One of. Not the favorite. See my list above. Also, it’s important to note that my list is for my favorite summer movies. I have a hard time putting dates on movies older than a couple months. So I didn’t include earlier in the year stuff. I probably would’ve said something from 2007 if I tried to remember back that far.
I’d say it’s probably my third or fourth favorite for the year if I had to guess without seeing the full list.
Randy? Rusty? Can you guys do a podcast special together? Just once?
Oh, the bicker-palooza that’ll be.
He did participate a couple times in the call in episodes, didn’t he? But then again, I think that almost everyone that showed up to the individual episodes was there because they mostly enjoyed the content. So there wasn’t a wide variety of opinions presented.
Transformers 2 is the worst-made film of 2009.
Hey nick, send me an email.
I dunno man, I’d give that honour to Year One, it was justa bunchoflong shots with bad ADR over them. Also there was reallypoor continuity in that movie. At least there was some sort of effort put into Transformers 2’s direction… or was there, I actually can’t remember any details of the movie.
Yeah, I think Year One will probably end up as my least favorite movie as well. But not necessarily. I still find Michael Cera to be hilarious, so it’s got a redeeming quality for me. It’s possible something will top it.
O.o Maybe you have a better screening process or I must cast wider net for movies to watch, because this wasn’t even in the top ten worst movies I’ve seen this year.
Though no American movies are in my top ten best either.
The best movies I’ve seen that have come out in 2009 have been The Brothers Bloom, Star Trek, Up, Adventureland, Coraline and Up. The worst movies have been Terminator Salvation, Transformers and Wolverine.
Nick, what did you think of Observe and Report.
And how come no ones mentioning Watchmen, I thought that was everyones favorite movie this year?
Oh Yeah! I loved Observe and Report, that would probablly make my list as well. Watchmen was really good, I thought, but not Best of the Year good.
Ahem. Hello, Rusty?
Watchmen was #4 on my list up there. It’s not my favorite movie this year, but I did enjoy it (and I’m curious to see how different the extended version of the film is from the theatrical).
Polygon: I see I overlooked your mention. Sorry ’bout that.
Nick: Yeah, O&R is probably my favorite of the year so far. Well it was until last night.
Have you ever seen King of Comedy? If not I recommend it.
Watchmen was a solid movie. I didn’t put it on my list, because I only listed Summer movies. With that said, I had never read the graphic novel, and after watching the movie, I lost the desire to do so. I was satisfied with the movie, and didn’t feel the need to know more.
I wouldn’t put it in my top 5 movies for the year, but it would probably make my top 10.
Randy, I carry this thread to 100 posts with comments berating you for your poor taste in everything.
Watchmen is not something to be “satisfied with” it is a great work of literature. You’re cheating yourself if you don’t read it and all of Moore’s early works, especially From Hell.
Watchmen is something you have to read the right way at the right time. If I had seen the movie before reading the book, I honestly don’t know how it would affect my appriciation of the book
I agree. Randy fucked up permanently.
Did you get my email?
Yes. And I don’t think its Randy’s fault. I for one have never read Return of the King. Everytime I try reading Lord of the Rings it just makes me want to watch the movies, becuase those were my introduction to Middle Earth. Same basic principal.
I’m just padding to get to 100.
What’s “Lord or the Rings” ?
I dunno. Right now The Proposal (which my mother made me see with her) is duking it out with Transformers 2 for the worst movie of the summer for me.
One insulted my brain pan, the other made me want to grab Sandra Bullock by the hair and scream to her she’s 45 and needs to start doing grown-up movies.
There are many great pieces of literature I’m probably missing out on. But it hasn’t effected my life yet, so I think I’ll be ok.
Coincidentally, I think The Proposal was probably the best Sandra Bullock movie I’ve seen in….maybe forever. Not a fan of her. But it was enjoyable. I probably would have never saw it, if that hadn’t been the movie my dad and stepmom chose for Father’s day Dinner and a movie. So maybe it got undeserved credit for being the movie I saw with such a good experience.
Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds having a 12 year age difference only mildly creeped me out.
I actually wrote a really weird review of The Proposal which turned into a rant about modern romantic comedies, Sandra Bullock’s career, Cary Grant movies, Ryan Reynolds and pre-code 30’s movies. Randy, would it be cool to post?
We don’t have a movie review person anymore, so I don’t see why not. Scott may feel free to overrule me on that though.
Year One made me chuckle a few times at least, but it is still the weakest Apatow production. (Move over Drillbit Taylor)
I just saw the brand new trailer for District 9, and it looks even more awesome than before. One more month and counting….
Transformers 2… I’m actually glad I watched it because now I finally have a name for that feeling of a director prying open your skull and taking a day after the bender in mexico shit directly into your brain for a subjective 17 hours of fecal overload. I’m hard pressed to think of a way to spend more money on a giant steaming pile of shit unless you were to stop waste sewage treatment in NYC for a year, package up the proceeds, and then buy it with the price based on it’s weight in gold. Oh, and Bay is involved, so of course you’d have to blow it up while filming it with a shaky camera amidst some sort of large scale military action. I do have to admit that if you were to remove plot, characters, and the director from the equation it wasn’t that bad.
Michael Bay isn’n being racist.The twins can’t read that language because it was the language of the primes.Only Optimus Prime and his brothers can read it.
That wasn’t the only reason this movie was racist, just one of many. I think you missed the point of Bay’s “joke”.
By the way.It’s an awesome movie
Nope.