Travel the dunes with the LEGO� Star Wars™ Ultimate Collector Series Sancrawler™

FBTB - From Bricks To Bothans

Follow us: RSS
News? Questions? Comments? Email!

Transformers 2 (is probably going to suck)

It's like the old BCS, except the 2.0 makes it fancy. Wondering why you can't post here? Check out the rules and expectations, and it all should be made clear...

Transformers 2 (is probably going to suck)

Postby Lord T » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:31 pm

So UK finally got lucky and got Revenge of the Fallen. What an excellent movie! Tonnes better than the first, much cooler storyline and some wicked designs, effects were superb (no Wolverine mess ups here that I could notice!) and even the acting was alright (and I'm beginning to see how The Beef is shaping up to be a little Harrison Fordy which ashames me).

Of course it helps that I love the Transformers in the first place but woah it was super.
Last edited by Solo on Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: I split this from the blobtacular movie hread for everyone, carry on...
Image
...{Flickr}...
Lord T
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:47 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby nacho » Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:05 pm

Lord T, that is good to know! I was getting a little worried about whether I would really like the second Transformers, just based off of rottentomatoes.com. But then again, I don't rely too much on critics to know which movies I like or don't like.
nacho
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby Master Fetty » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:17 am

*Forewarning - this will probably have mild-major spoilers in (not that there's much plot to spoil)*

Lord T, hate to throw out a reviewing cliche, but were we watching the same film.

Transformers II was one of the worst films I've seen in the past years, only just better than Max Payne and The Spirit.

First and foremost, this film was too long. Way too long. About an hour in you're sick of the predictablity and two hours in you feel liek you want to die. The plot meanders to such an extent if you filtered out the rubbish, the film could easy hit the 90 mins mark.

And now to the robots. I've not seen the first film, so speak as a newcomer, but there a way too many frigging robots. Seriously, every five minutes a new one appears and then goes just as quick. They come so thick and fast I was only able to pick up a few name; Optimus (leader of the good guys), Megatron (the bad guy), Bumblebee (the yellow one), Fallen (title character), Irondale (an Autobot who I assume used to be a Decepticon). That's it. And perhaps if the film had just contained them it would have been passable. But Bay chocks it so full of comic relief robots that you can't breathe. And then there's the Decepticons (the bad guys, but they can become good guys). THEY ALL LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME. In the final battle, I thought Megatron had died FIVE times. How someone can tell the difference elludes me.

The plot is also slow and clunky. As part of their quest, Sam & Co. head to Egypt in search of this pyramid shaped weapon. Hmmm - Egypt, pyramid shaped... Obviously Sam doesn't get it - when camping out IN FRONT OF THE PYRAMIDS, he gets a brain wave - to travel away to find the some dead robots. When they get there, you assume Sam has figured where they are going to be. Oh no - it takes five minutes for that to happen. Seriously, the plot moves at such a slow pace and the characters are so stupid you have emotion grounding for the film. The robots are the most human thing on screen and nearly all them (even the good guys), I would hate to spend five minutes with.

Then there was the huge Transformer with five to seven different Transformers used to make it. Bigged up so much by film magazines before, it gets five minutes screen time and does nothing. Kinda like Megan Fox but without the looks.

The effects are good, but that should be a given nowadays. The plot is slow, characters stupid, robots all the same and it is way too long. Avoid. Avoid for your sanity.
Master Fetty
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:54 am
Location: The Island?!

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby Drock » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:02 pm

Thanks for the heads up. I'm really not expecting much from Transformers (but I'll be going because my wife wants to go), or from anything this spring-summer. Sequels are bad. Remakes are bad. Sequels of remakes are very bad. Unfortunately that's all there is for the big spring-summer movies. Nothing original.
Drock
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:16 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby nacho » Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:14 pm

Yikes, two very different opinions on the movie! Hopefully, I won't be too let down... That requires me to not keep my hopes up too high.

Has anyone seen The Proposal? That's another movie I want to see badly. I'd like to know what you think about it.
nacho
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby Lord T » Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:13 am

Fetty, I loved the Spirit. We were literally falling out of our seats it was so funny, so no doubt we will disagree! I went to the film to enjoy some mindless fun, don't get your expectations set for this to be some masterpiece of scripting and storyline. Its a toy advert but its the best toy advert I have ever seen!
Image
...{Flickr}...
Lord T
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:47 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby Master Fetty » Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:31 am

The Spirit - funny? It was a lengthened version of those Sam Jackson Virgin ads. The jokes were NOT funny (it was never, ever said to be a comedy). It may have worked before X-Men, but the superhero genre isn't just heartless idiots anymore.

I think anyone who says they go to the cinema just wanting action is lying. You expect some plot, some emotion and some sense of commitment to the genre. This is nothing but mindless trash that bores even if you just want explosions. As soon as people admit they want clever plots, real characters and money well spent we can finally get rid of these awful sequels and focus on GOOD cinema.
Master Fetty
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:54 am
Location: The Island?!

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby theJudeAbides » Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:03 am

Master Fetty wrote:As soon as people admit they want clever plots, real characters and money well spent we can finally get rid of these awful sequels and focus on GOOD cinema.


Hmm, so what you're saying is that everyone should conform to the way you think about movies. I mean really, who needs opinions and tastes when we could all think alike? It's not like people don't come from different social, cultural, and economical backgrounds. Heck, some people may not even realize this entire paragraph is sarcastic.

And you know what? No, I don't always want a "clever plot" or "real characters" in everything I watch. After a hard day of work, I don't always want to have to put a lot of thought into what I'm watching. Sometimes all I want are some (and by "some" I mean "a lot of") explosions, a burly dude rescuing some hot chick, and an awesome one-liner to go with the final defeat of the bad guy.

What I feel like watching is entirely dependent on my mood. Yes, there I times I want a well thought out, intricate tale or an emotional tear-jerker. Other times I need a laugh. Heck, there are even times when I'll enjoy watching some pre-pubescent mamma's boy stalk some chick while flying around wielding a sparkly sword.

So yeah, you're on a site that is largely dedicated to Star Wars complaining about how movies should have "real characters" and "clever plots." If you don't see the irony in that, then perhaps it's time you looked up the definition of the word "irony."
Image
The beauty of a LEGO MOC is not the elements that go into it, but the way those elements are put together.
theJudeAbides
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby Darth Caedus » Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:39 pm

^Totally agree. I know I don't need every movie to be brain food. Last night I watched a great BBC production of David Copperfield. tonight ,we're probably going to watch Die Hard. Both movies are great because they can suit what ever mood we're in. With more contemporary flicks, Wolverine wasn't super-realistic, but it was pretty darn entertaining and a fun Saturday film - awesome for awesome's sake. But then if I want some depth, themes, and meaningful characters with my epic battles, I'll go watch the extended cuts of Troy or Kingdom of Heaven.
Darth Caedus
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:27 pm

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby AlternativeRadio » Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:28 pm

Well, Hollywood seems to be pumping out more eye candy than brain food. Everyone likes to watch a movie for the action of the laughs every once in a while. But I'd rather have Hollywood work on movies that can stand the test of time because of depth and plot with a few 'splosion flicks thrown in than see how they can make the quickest buck. (with the action movies released during the summer when nobody's brain is functioning normal)
AlternativeRadio
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby Flynn » Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:53 pm

I think that we need more action films like Raiders of the Lost Ark. The action was incredible and entertaining, but the story was also good, as were the characters. It was a good mix of great story and great action. Now, it seems as if Hollywood has become like the urSkeks (Wow, geeky reference there...), where the action films are purely action, and films that have good plot and characters have little action at all.

I know I'm being overly critical here. After all, we have been hit by films like Dark Kight, Iron Man, and Star Trek, but it just seems like these are overpowered by the endless action films and sequels.
joecrowaz on Flickr wrote:Flynn you little wussy with a purple robed fairy for an icon,


Flickr Brickshelf
Flynn
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:38 am

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby Master Fetty » Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:21 am

theJudeAbides wrote:So yeah, you're on a site that is largely dedicated to Star Wars complaining about how movies should have "real characters" and "clever plots." If you don't see the irony in that, then perhaps it's time you looked up the definition of the word "irony."


But...you can feel some realism in the Star Wars characters and the plots drive you. Who isn't moved by 'I am your father?'

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not some Inner Party worker who drags you to Room 101 if you disagree with me. I just fail to see how people can get emotionally involved in (or at least enjoy) a film when the you feel nothing for the characters. The Death Star Trench Run works because we care for the rebels/hate the Empire. That's the failing of the prequels - we didn't care all that much for Anakin. Why? Because Lucas focused the film first on [occasionally political] 'action' rather than depth. Same happens in Transformers (as with a lot of films). You may be exhausted, but I can't imagine that exhausted to find that sort of thing good.

In magazine interviews before the release, Bay even admitted that the film was plotless and just huge explosions. Heck, he included the pyramids because he thought they would look cool. That's what a five year old does with his toys, not a director will a two hundred million dollar budget. Flynn makes the best point - Raiders is an action film, but has strong plot, characters etc. It works. It excites and you enjoy it. All Transformers has going for it is the effects, and I'd be shocked if a blockbuster with ILM on board didn't have them of that high standard.

I enjoy popcorn fodder, but I want to be entertained. And to be entertained I need to be involved and believe what I'm seeing. Not believe as in think it could happen (as you suggest), but believe that if it could happen, it would. Not many films this summer have done that (I can think of two, maybe three standouts) and Transformers hits a new low.

I could too send you on a dictionary search, but fear the word I would suggest would be blocked by the filter. Not everyone's a mindless fool as you seem to think.
Master Fetty
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:54 am
Location: The Island?!

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby dWhisper » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:51 am

First, you two behave. Anyway...

The realism? Really? In the Star Wars plot? That the greatest engineering feat in the galaxy was undone by a small port, that lasers are allergic to starship hulls, and three-foot tall Teddy Bears could best an armored and armed trained soldier?

A New Hope was written all over it that it was originally designed as a stand-alone film. The end wrapped it all up quite nicely, the rebels one, the big bad guys lost, and there was that light touch of Obi-Wan only being mostly dead. If the movie had flopped, that would have been that. But it got made into two sequels, and once they'd beaten that dead horse into meatloaf, they released three more. Three that were glorified merchandise presentations so berift of plot and acting that they've been linked to some forms of cancer. In fact, I'd argue that they're probably poster child for poorly thought out sequels.

Beyond that, it's not as if sequels are a new idea. In fact, if you look at what Hollywood has done in recent years, they've gotten away from it. Yes, there were classics back in the day, but also an absurd amount of sequels and spinoffs for the runaway successes (see "Planet of the Apes"). And it's not like the idea of revisioning a series, ala Batman Begins or Star Trek is new either. The Omega Man was a remake of I Am Legend (which was remade recently again).

Sequels have represented something that's a safe investment. Movies are just that... you're talking an undertaking that can run tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to make. For every small-budget hit, there are hundreds of stinkers. And while you can have a big-budget failure that's unique (Lawrence of Arabia is an all classic flop), you're less likely to lose money by sticking to a formula until it's been milked dry.

Hollywood is always going to balance between doing something unique, trying to capture the next Titanic or Braveheart, and doing something safe, like a Transformers sequel.

Oh, and irony means the use of a word or situation for something other than it's original purpose.
If the above post didn't offend you, you're probably reading it wrong.
dWhisper
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:56 pm
Location: The Arkansas Wasteland

Re: Summer Blockbusters 2009

Postby Jedd the Jedi » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:29 am

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is almost not worthy of being called a movie. Read on!


Movie Review 24/6/09

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN
2009

Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox
Directed by: Michael Bay
Distributed by: Paramount Pictures

It’s a sequel. Based on a line of toys. And directed by Michael Bay. These are warning signs if there ever were any. Still, being a summer tentpole blockbuster, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen generated impossible amounts of hype. Here is my advice up front: don’t buy into any of it.

It has been two years since the events of the first film, and the military has formed an alliance with the good-guy Autobots to rat out the bad-guy Decepticons. The Decepticons are still after the hero from the first film, Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf), now a college freshman struggling to live a regular life after saving the world. Now, he has Cybertronian glyphs imprinted into his brain, making him the key to find an ancient device.

This device is the Star Harvester, turning suns into energy for the robots, which the Fallen, the vengeful last of an early generation of Prime robots, is after. Upon this flimsy fragment of plot are piled endless skirmishes between the Autobots and Decepticons, with plenty of military involvement as well. Sam, his girlfriend Mikaela (Fox), conspiracy theorist roommate Leo (Ramon Rodriquez), Major William Lennox (Josh Duhamel) and Air Force Combat Controller Robert Epps (Tyrese Gibson) from the first film and even Sam’s parents (Kevin Dunn and Julie White) are all flung into the thick of the action at one point or another.

The film is pure, unadulterated Bayhem – read: noisy, overblown and very unintelligent. Director Michael Bay relishes in packing as many explosions as possible into most of his movies, this one being no exception, and consequentially leaving very, very little room for anything else. The target audience of teenaged boys ultimately wants to see giant robots bash each other up, and this the film offers up plenty of. However, the melees between Transformers are excessive and get old very quickly, even when supplemented by F-16 bombing runs and tank artillery fire and locales as exotic as the Great Pyramids of Giza and the rose-red city of Petra. There are only so many ways that one robot can trash another, and by the last act one would be hard-pressed to even care.

The problem with the action sequences, in addition to their excessive nature, is that none are very inventive or engaging, turning the film into a same-old same-old smorgasbord. One major action set piece is almost an exact duplicate of another from the first film. This is a pity as Bay clearly had the resources to make something special at his disposal. Bay famously has connections to the military, so in addition to a messy robot wrestling match this becomes a sort of propaganda film as well. The film’s running time of 147 minutes is also merciless overkill. Revenge of the Fallen is ample proof that it is possible for a film to be overwrought and overtly simple at the same time. There is only so much Bayhem the mind can handle.

Thankfully, there are (albeit all too few) flashes of comic brilliance. John Turtturro returns as a former government agent reduced to working in his mother’s deli, his semi-delusional patriotism put across with much aplomb, particularly in interactions with Sam and Leo. Look out too for comedian Rainn Wilson’s (of The Office fame) cameo as Sam’s sleazy college professor. Unfortunately, most of the other humour is redundantly crude or offensive-do we really need irritating twin stereotype “gangsta” Autobots or a transforming toy truck humping Megan Fox’s leg?

The rest of the cast put in okay performances-considering the frustrating nothingness they were given to work with. Shia LaBeouf reprises his slightly neurotic, fish-out-of-water portrayal of Sam Witwicky and shows he is somewhat deserving of his current Hollywood it-boy status. Megan Fox manages to look sexy not only when perched suggestively atop a motorcycle but also when running away from killer robots, and looking sexy is all she needs to do. Kevin Dunn and Julie White are a hoot to watch as Sam’s embarrassing parents, their caricature performances grounding the movie somewhat. In the end though, character development of any sort is drowned out by the pyrotechnic bells and whistles, and the characters’ believability is stripped away as the film progresses. Michael Bay’s affinity for crazy camera movements even during simple dialogue scenes does nothing to help either.

The saving grace of the film is ultimately the stunning computer-generated effects by ILM, Digital Domain and other effects houses. As with the first time around, the idea of transforming robots in our world is sold effectively enough with incredibly realistic textures and movements. Unfortunately, apart from several close-ups, Bay’s epileptic camera movements ensure we never get to see a decent shot of the robots, particularly when they are brawling. In one fight scene where the camera was relatively still, the screen was mostly occupied by big honking pillars. And there is also the sneaking suspicion that we’ve seen this all before. Alas, this film is evidence that no film can ride on visual effects, no matter how spectacular, alone.

Forget the Decepticons. Michael Bay is the biggest menace to the human race.

RATING: 2/5 STARS

Jedd Jong Yue
Jedd the Jedi
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:47 am

Re: Transformers 2 (is probably going to suck)

Postby Jabba the Taff » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:13 am

Saw this Monday and I'm halfway between Lord T and Master Fetty, and I'd rate it slightly higher than Jedd the Jedi. They've already covered most of the pros and cons. It was fun.

What I would add was I really taken with the film until the last half hour or so. I was able to suspend my disbelief enough until then. But for the final sequence suddenly all the new abilities just appear willy-nilly with no explanation whatsoever. And yes, the decepticons are ridiculously similar.

The humour element is going to be a matter of taste, but I was pleased they managed to keep it throughout the film, rather the first one that seemed to forget about it halfway through.
Jabba the Taff
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:10 pm

Re: Transformers 2 (is probably going to suck)

Postby Big C » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:44 am

The movie was awesome. I saw it because I wanted to see transforming vehicles and robots beating the crap out of each other. Because of this, the movie exceeded my expectations, and I loved it way more than the first one. The dialogue was significantly better than the first one, too. Like, surprisingly better. I love the first movie, but I really can't stand 3/4 of the dialogue in it ("Oops, my bad"). I found myself laughing and generally enjoying what everyone was saying so much more this time around. The cussing was a little too much for a movie that's being marketed towards children, but it didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. And some of it was just hilarious, like Ironhide saying "Punkass Decepticon." The original Ironhide never would've said that, yet it still fit his movie personality for him to say that.

Optimus PWNED this movie. I have always been disappointed by the lack of hardcore action from him in the first movie. Seriously, the dude took on Starscream, Blackout, and Megatron in this one. AT THE SAME TIME. And he kicked their keisters up until (highlight to read spoiler) Megatron skewered him. It was brutal robot smackdown, and I loved every minute of it. And don't get me started on Teenage Mutant Ninja Bumblebee saving Sam from Rampage. THAT was badass.

Oh, and Skids and Mudflap were awesome. Whoever first started calling them the Jar Jar's of Transformers ... Really? Image The scene of them taking on Devastator together was freakin' sweet. They showed that they could actually kick some butt while still being a couple of punks.

The only thing I didn't like was the lack of screen time (or any talk time at all) for Jolt. He looked awesome, and I was disappointed he didn't get to do much more than he did. But overall, A+ movie. My fiance even teared up at the end when (highlight to read spoiler) Sam was "dead" and Mikaela was trying to wake him up. She never cries when we see my geek movies, and she was really moved by that scene.
Image
Big C
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:34 am
Location: Between the D and the FW, Texas.

Re: Transformers 2 (is probably going to suck)

Postby meeotch » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:09 am

So, I've been avoiding this thread until I was able to see the movie, and last night was the night. So, sorry if what i say has all ready been covered, but here are my thoughts on the movie:

Overall, I enjoyed it. I went to see robots, and that's what I saw. I thought it was pretty funny. Some of the crap (in terms of both humor and sexuality) was pretty gratuitous, but it's Michael Bay, so I'll let it slide. Optimus showed in this movie why he is the leader of the Autobots.

Okay, so my biggest problem? Other than the racial aspects of Mudflap and Skids, to me it seemed as though the effects company stuck all the noobs on those two characters. The look of the other Transformers was sketchy at worst, with the larger names (Megatron, Optimus, etc) actually looking downright believable. Then you have those two yay-hoos that look like they were drawn on the film with cell-shading. I thought I was watching Roger Rabbit when those guys first showed up on the screen.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't really mind those characters despite the racial overtones to them. This was just my view from the perspective of someone educated in digital multimedia.
"Always carefully check the source of your internet quotes" - Abraham Lincoln
meeotch
 
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Portland

Re: Transformers 2 (is probably going to suck)

Postby Solo » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:45 am

If it's anything like this exclusive clip, I'm so going to see it like eight times. XD
                                                                                                                           Image
Solo
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:53 am
Location: right here

Re: Transformers 2 (is probably going to suck)

Postby meeotch » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:36 pm

lol. It's a lot like that clip!
"Always carefully check the source of your internet quotes" - Abraham Lincoln
meeotch
 
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Portland

Re: Transformers 2 (is probably going to suck)

Postby Big C » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:40 pm

HA! Nice. :lol:
Image
Big C
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:34 am
Location: Between the D and the FW, Texas.

Next

Return to BCS 2.0

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest