Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Bay, 2009) — The Reviews Thread

[scott1598]

Please continue pre-hype discussion in this thread: Transformers 2 (2009) - news, rumors, castings...

Movie:
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” (2009) (Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Isabel Lucas, Josh Duhamel)

Release Date:
6/24/2009

Rating:
PG-13

Running Time:
147 min. (2h. 27m.)

Rotten Tomatoes Reviews:
Fresh:41 Rotten:172 (19% as of 7/14/09)
RT Link...

Info:
IMDb Link...

Trailer:


Poster Art:

[scott1598]

opens late Tuesday night.

reviews coming in...not looking too good, but what can you expect from a bombastic Michael Bay movie?

the first one really grew on me with subsequent viewings. looking forward to the mindless action this is shaping up to be and will probably be able to see on Wed.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by Rotten Tomatoes 'Fresh' Review

"It’s like watching a blender for two hours while someone shouts at you. And then the last half an hour is the same, except it’s more like having your head strapped to a washing machine while you watch a blender and someone shouts at you."

[Suprmallet]

I can't say too much except the bad reviews are correct.

[fumanstan]

For reference, it looks like the first Transformers was a 57%.

[vhgong]

Who cares...all i want is transforming robots fighting.

[Draven]

Oh good. I was afraid this one might be better than the first. Looks like the shit streak continues!

[Blu Man]

I prefer more of the David Fincher, Christopher Nolan type of films as apose to blow 'em up action. But every movie has it's place.

[Seantn]

Originally Posted by vhgong

Who cares...all i want is transforming robots fighting.

If that's "all you want" then you'd probably love this:



and this:

[Solid Snake PAC]

Blu, such a comment is preposterous...we'll always have films like this. It's easy to see that it's not TDK, it's a franchise pic based on a cartoon that was spawned out of some toys. It's a live action cartoon toy promotion....

[Suprmallet]

I've actually got Transmorphers on my Nextflix queue.

[scott1598]

Originally Posted by Suprmallet

I've actually got Transmorphers on my Nextflix queue.

i actually saw this or better yet fast forwaded this from cable a few weeks ago. maybe 6-7 minutes of seeing actual robots (if that even) or anything that resembles robots and then the rest of the movie is this feeble cast in an underground tunnel talking about the fall of man or something like that. it was cheap, even less quality than a Sci-Fi original and god-awful.

[Jason]

If Shia LeDouche gets stepped on and crushed by a giant robot, I'll give this 5 stars. Otherwise, it's a rental at best.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by Jason

If Shia LeDouche gets stepped on and crushed by a giant robot, I'll give this 5 stars. Otherwise, it's a rental at best.

Personally, I'd rather see Madea getting stepped on and crushed to bits.

Despite the reviews, I plan on watching this Thursday. I don't expect any Michael Bay film to get gushing reviews from critics. I just hope this sequel doesn't feel as bloated as the Pirates sequels did in the theater. Those felt like they lasted about 5 hours.

[Rypro 525]

christ and i thought the first one was too long. Would it be asking for too much for Bay to make a quality action flick under 2 hours? i'll prob catch this at midnight if i'm not too tired and my friend wants to go

oh and this will get an automatic 5 stars if Megan Fox shows nudity

[Draven]

I'm going to post this review from AICN DOWNUNDER over at Aint It Cool...this sounds exactly like what I figured the problems would be in the previous thread. Too long, dumb subplots and "jokes," big CGI confusion for no reason beyond "they can". No big spoilers but I'll hide it to be safe:

Spoiler:

TRANSFORMERS: RISE OF THE FALLEN
Australian/NZ release: June 24
Note: this will be an entirely spoiler-free review.
This is not because the movie has any particularly impressive twists and turns, or because I think you should all go in as fresh and possible, but rather it's that I have no fucking idea what happened.
I'm not even kidding. This film is almost completely impenetrable. Oh sure, it looks like a big Hollywood blockbuster, but as bad as they can sometimes get, at least they're relatively simply to follow. This film is all over the place, and I'm not even sure the audience is expected to follow what's going on.
What I would like is for this to be an anger-fuelled review. You know the type. Where they took some property I loved, or even liked, and distorted it beyond belief, creating something that offended every one of my sensibilities. Those reviews can be a lot of fun to read, as well as a lot of fun to write.
Unfortunately, I wasn't angry. I was just bored. Yes, bored. Big explosions and CGI creatures are not interesting just because they're BIG. It takes about five minutes to get desensitised to all the Big Stuff Happening, and so for the remaining seven hours you're just numb. CGI should work for your story, not the other way around. And I'm not saying that from the point of view of an analytical critic; I'm guessing a lot of the audience is going to feel the same way, even if many of them can't articulate why. When mega-huge Transformers are climbing up the side of a pyramid, you don't for a second believe that's what you're watching. You're watching an exercise in large-scale CGI, and that lack of engagement is what makes it dull. No attempt is made to engage us with the story, so you end up just ticking off each scene as it runs through the predictable motions.
I'd have been more impressed had the CGI been better. The Transformers, I'm sorry to say, have not improved since the first film. They're too busy, there's too damn much going on. If you're going to do anything with the core idea of a Transformer, then I should be amazed at how all the parts folds into one another, how a robot can become a truck. Instead, we're blinded by an infinite number of moving parts that mean nothing. As if someone waved streamers in your face and then showed you a semi-trailer.
The dialogue is, it must be said, fucking terrible. Look, I'm not expecting Mamet when I go into one of these things (although, who wouldn't love to see Mamet write a TRANSFORMERS?), but this is just unforgivably bad. Are those two African American robot car things supposed to be funny? I don't understand. Are we supposed to like them? Did the poor woman who plays Shia's mother ever stop to point out her dialogue is the worst ever given to an actress? Oh, I know middle-aged people saying "shit" a lot is really funny in and of itself, but after a while the joke starts to wear thin, you know? And why is one of the deep-voiced dignified Autobots saying "Damn, I'm good" like he's recording catchphrases for his toy? Who fucking wrote this shit?
Well, two of the writers were Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the guys I praised for delivering me a STAR TREK film I actually loved. I'm at a loss. I loved TREK, so much so that I was willing to forgive some minor flaws and inconsistencies. How did they go from that to this? Maybe it's Ehren Kruger. I don't know. Kruger did write the terrific ARLINGTON ROAD. Dammit. Who is to blame? Who can I throw stones at? Who was responsible for the line -- and I swear, this is verbatim -- "I'm just an ordinary kid with ordinary problems". Guys, I think that was a suggestion for characterisation, not a dialogue note.
I know this reviews is a bit all over the place, but that's appropriate given the film is as well. And I know it sounds like I'm angry, but I'm not. I'm enthusiastically confused.
But hey, it's not all bad. The film does somehow manage to be closer to three hours than two. If nothing else, rest assured that what the film lacks in quality, it more than makes up for in length.
Just don't bother.

[RichC2]

Originally Posted by Rypro 525

christ and i thought the first one was too long. Would it be asking for too much for Bay to make a quality action flick under 2 hours? i'll prob catch this at midnight if i'm not too tired and my friend wants to go

oh and this will get an automatic 5 stars if Megan Fox shows nudity

It isn't possible for there to be a quality flick, much less a quality action flick, under 2 hours. Everybody on this board knows that now.

[Doctor Gonzo]

YOW! That transmorphers movie looks bad!!! for anyone who's curious, somebody has the whole thing up for viewing on youtube - take a quick look just to see the shit FX

[RichC2]

Originally Posted by Doctor Gonzo

YOW! That transmorphers movie looks bad!!! for anyone who's curious, somebody has the whole thing up for viewing on youtube - take a quick look just to see the shit FX

Are the visuals at least up to par with Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus?

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by Rypro 525

christ and i thought the first one was too long. Would it be asking for too much for Bay to make a quality action flick under 2 hours? i'll prob catch this at midnight if i'm not too tired and my friend wants to go

You want some 90 minute shit? Well look no furthur than Transmorphors pictures a few posts above.

WHy in the hell would you want a summer action movie to give you less? I can understand if for example a smaller film like Whatever Works was 2 and a half hours and you were all like "oh thats too long", but wanting less in a summer action film is just ridiculous. Are you the kinda person that pays for an x-tra large pizza and then proceeds to cut half of it off and throw it away and say its too big?
Dont you people want your money's worth?
Look at the biggest movies ever and their grosses. Loot at how long they last:
Titanic
Dark KNight
Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter
etc. etc. anyone see a pattern on the run times for these films?
well i do and part of the reasons these movies worked is because they told a full story and people were obviously impressed by them.

[JumpCutz]

[GenPion]

I went to a psychic today, and they told me this movie would suck.

I just thought I'd give you all the heads up.

[Seantn]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

You want some 90 minute shit? Well look no furthur than Transmorphors pictures a few posts above.

WHy in the hell would you want a summer action movie to give you less? I can understand if for example a smaller film like Whatever Works was 2 and a half hours and you were all like "oh thats too long", but wanting less in a summer action film is just ridiculous. Are you the kinda person that pays for an x-tra large pizza and then proceeds to cut half of it off and throw it away and say its too big?
Dont you people want your money's worth?
Look at the biggest movies ever and their grosses. Loot at how long they last:
Titanic
Dark KNight
Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter
etc. etc. anyone see a pattern on the run times for these films?
well i do and part of the reasons these movies worked is because they told a full story and people were obviously impressed by them.

And how many of those were Rated R?

[Suprmallet]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

You want some 90 minute shit? Well look no furthur than Transmorphors pictures a few posts above.

WHy in the hell would you want a summer action movie to give you less? I can understand if for example a smaller film like Whatever Works was 2 and a half hours and you were all like "oh thats too long", but wanting less in a summer action film is just ridiculous. Are you the kinda person that pays for an x-tra large pizza and then proceeds to cut half of it off and throw it away and say its too big?
Dont you people want your money's worth?
Look at the biggest movies ever and their grosses. Loot at how long they last:
Titanic
Dark KNight
Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter
etc. etc. anyone see a pattern on the run times for these films?
well i do and part of the reasons these movies worked is because they told a full story and people were obviously impressed by them.

I could have easily cut out 30-40 minutes of this movie to make it better. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Quantity does not equal quality?" Then again, maybe you haven't.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by Suprmallet

I could have easily cut out 30-40 minutes of this movie to make it better. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Quantity does not equal quality?" Then again, maybe you haven't.

So it's basically just like the first? Does the robot to humans ratio at least improve in terms of screentime or is that the same as well (despite the increased robot roster)? Just wanna know to keep my expectationsin check.

Also, are we once again treated to a pointless subplot similar to the analysts/hacker from the first? Or has that mistake not been repeated this time around?