PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV Transformers 2


J Diddy
06-29-2009, 04:59 AM
Love it or hate it. Seems there ain't now in between. For the post nazis:

Love it means you liked it/enjoyed the experience

Hate i means you didn't like it/would recommend it to others

unlurking
06-29-2009, 05:06 AM
Still waiting to see it. I actually had planned to, but all of the vitriolic reviews and posts have made me reconsider. I probably will see it some time, but now I may just wait for it to appear on Netflix.

EDIT: Oh yeah, this was supposed to be my way of saying there should have been an obligatory Gaz option so that I could easily see the results without voting and skewing the numbers.

J Diddy
06-29-2009, 05:39 AM
Still waiting to see it. I actually had planned to, but all of the vitriolic reviews and posts have made me reconsider. I probably will see it some time, but now I may just wait for it to appear on Netflix.

EDIT: Oh yeah, this was supposed to be my way of saying there should have been an obligatory Gaz option so that I could easily see the results without voting and skewing the numbers.


Don't get me wrong, I like Gaz. He was great, but he's gone. IMO the obligatory gaz option should be a Jim option. He was more of a contributor.

PhillyChiefFan
06-29-2009, 07:07 AM
It was really good, long, but really good.

Crashride
06-29-2009, 07:31 AM
It was a michael bay action film. It lived up to his standards.

Sure-Oz
06-29-2009, 07:35 AM
I'd recommend as a rent only...if they come out with a third one i don't know if ill see it in theaters. loved the 1st one!

Buehler445
06-29-2009, 11:37 AM
I paid $15 for an IMAX ticket and thought it was worth the money. The plot is thin, but I expected it.

It's pretty consistent with the first one except on a larger scale/budget.

Guru
06-29-2009, 11:45 AM
So does "not planning to spend the money on it" count as "hate it"?

Buehler445
06-29-2009, 11:50 AM
I think it is meant for people that have seen it?

Sure-Oz
06-29-2009, 11:53 AM
The movie is great looking on IMAX, with the robots on screen and the explosions/fighting...it is probably the only way to see this movie.

Sure-Oz
06-30-2009, 07:28 AM
So only 13 people on the board have seen it?

Micjones
06-30-2009, 08:05 AM
Loved it.
Critics have been entirely too hard on Bay and this film.
It's not intended to be Citizen Kane. There is something poetic and highly artistic about what Bay does...it's just visual. Looks like 3's on the way in 2011.

Tribal Warfare
06-30-2009, 08:13 AM
It was fuckin badass a I would definitely recommend this for a great Summer popcorn movie

meStevo
06-30-2009, 07:50 PM
Short of having a nice home theater, anyone who remotely liked the first is robbing themselves of a good night of robots fighting each other on the big screen if they pass because of reviews/word of mouth.

Jewish Rabbi
06-30-2009, 08:30 PM
Oh yeah, this was supposed to be my way of saying there should have been an obligatory Gaz option so that I could easily see the results without voting and skewing the numbers.

Because you can't click on "View Poll Results"?

KCFalcon59
06-30-2009, 09:35 PM
Took my son tonight. Went in a little jaded by the bad word of mouth going around. Came out of the theater thoroughly entertained. My son loved it. I thought it was a lot of fun. Lots of action. Lots of scenes with Megan Fox running around. What more could I ask for? I liked it better than the first.

DaFace
06-30-2009, 09:47 PM
"Loved it" is far too strong, but I enjoyed the experience overall.

Bowser
06-30-2009, 09:59 PM
"Loved it" is far too strong, but I enjoyed the experience overall.

I'm glad I got to see it on a big screen. Movies like that are made to be seen on big screens.

So far, I would rate the sci-fi flicks I've seen thusly...

1) Star Trek



2) Wolverine

3) Transformers












4) Terminator

Deberg_1990
06-30-2009, 10:01 PM
This movie is so bad it required two threads??

Reaper16
06-30-2009, 10:44 PM
Should have made this a public poll, so the all of people who voted "Love It" can be outed for the fucktasters that they are.

J Diddy
06-30-2009, 10:51 PM
This movie is so bad it required two threads??

Let's see one is posted about the previews of the movie. The other is based on peoples opinions.

So, I guess, yes it does.

J Diddy
06-30-2009, 10:56 PM
Should have made this a public poll, so the all of people who voted "Love It" can be outed for the ****tasters that they are.


I'm pretty sure they've spoke to it and they're in the majority.

Reaper16
07-01-2009, 12:32 AM
I'm pretty sure they've spoke to it and they're in the majority.
Which doesn't surprise me, seeing how much this movie is banking at the box office.

I wish more people had good taste is all.

Nightwish
07-01-2009, 12:47 AM
The movie wasn't great ... it was just really, really good! It's not deep, it's not trying to make an artistic statement, it is simply trying to entertain audiences with good action and a fun story. My advice - ignore the critics on this one. I notice this movie has begun a war of words between the critics, who have almost unanimously lambasted the film, and the moviegoers, who have almost universally loved it. I think the moviegoing public is finally realizing that the critics, no matter how much they prop themselves up as professionals and experts, are really nothing more than moviegoers with an opinion and a podium, and it's long past time that people stopped looking to them for guidance on whether a movie is good or bad. The blasting the critics are giving this film is tolling the death knell on their credibility. And the last few "professional critic" reviews I've read suggest they know it, and they're pretty bitter about it! I never have cared much for pompous blowhards who think a internet podium and a degree in film or theater gives them an objective viewpoint on these things. It's about time a movie came along that brought those idiots back down to earth.

So read the critics' reviews for a chuckle if you like, then go see this highly enjoyable movie! It's a lot better than the first one, in my opinion. Yeah, sure there are some plot holes and inconsistencies (like how'd they manage to fit several acres of open field with rows and rows of old aircraft in back of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum)? But it's nothing that will significantly challenge the willful suspension of disbelief, and no moreso than any other sci-fi film.

Go see it! I've never been a Transformers fan, but I give this one two thumbs up! <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_206584-->

Reaper16
07-01-2009, 12:58 AM
The movie wasn't great ... it was just really, really good! It's not deep, it's not trying to make an artistic statement, it is simply trying to entertain audiences with good action and a fun story. My advice - ignore the critics on this one. I notice this movie has begun a war of words between the critics, who have almost unanimously lambasted the film, and the moviegoers, who have almost universally loved it. I think the moviegoing public is finally realizing that the critics, no matter how much they prop themselves up as professionals and experts, are really nothing more than moviegoers with an opinion and a podium, and it's long past time that people stopped looking to them for guidance on whether a movie is good or bad. The blasting the critics are giving this film is tolling the death knell on their credibility. And the last few "professional critic" reviews I've read suggest they know it, and they're pretty bitter about it! I never have cared much for pompous blowhards who think a internet podium and a degree in film or theater gives them an objective viewpoint on these things. It's about time a movie came along that brought those idiots back down to earth.

So read the critics' reviews for a chuckle if you like, then go see this highly enjoyable movie! It's a lot better than the first one, in my opinion. Yeah, sure there are some plot holes and inconsistencies (like how'd they manage to fit several acres of open field with rows and rows of old aircraft in back of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum)? But it's nothing that will significantly challenge the willful suspension of disbelief, and no moreso than any other sci-fi film.

Go see it! I've never been a Transformers fan, but I give this one two thumbs up! <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_206584-->
Goddamnit. Now I have to hate you. Thanks a lot.

Nightwish
07-01-2009, 01:03 AM
Goddamnit. Now I have to hate you. Thanks a lot.
:D

Really, as long as you go into it looking for entertainment, and not looking for Oscar-caliber performances and Tom Clancy levels of intrigue, it's not hard to enjoy.

Micjones
07-01-2009, 01:44 AM
Best. Review. Ever. (http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php)

And now I'm wondering why I liked this film.
OUCH!

Short Leash Hootie
07-01-2009, 01:46 AM
Well...I really enjoyed the first one.

This time (and I'm simply not a big fan on this kind of movie usually)...all I was really waiting for was the end...it wasn't terrible, but I wasn't excited...and about an hour in I was just hoping it would be over soon.

4.5/10

J Diddy
07-01-2009, 05:41 AM
Which doesn't surprise me, seeing how much this movie is banking at the box office.

I wish more people had good taste is all.



Yeah, me too.

Sure-Oz
07-01-2009, 07:41 AM
Best. Review. Ever. (http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php)

And now I'm wondering why I liked this film.
OUCH!

is this work friendly cause the URL doesn't look like itROFL

Sure-Oz
07-01-2009, 07:42 AM
Which doesn't surprise me, seeing how much this movie is banking at the box office.

I wish more people had good taste is all.

agreed....but at the same time, the first one entertained me, i atleast wanted a similiar feeling towards this one. it just was over the top with comedy and esp the length, it dragged for almost an hour like they were going 200 laps in a circle.

J Diddy
07-01-2009, 07:44 AM
is this work friendly cause the URL doesn't look like itROFL

some language, no pics though

J Diddy
07-01-2009, 07:49 AM
Best. Review. Ever. (http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php)

And now I'm wondering why I liked this film.
OUCH!

I dunno, seems kinda funny to me.

DaFace
07-01-2009, 08:31 AM
Best. Review. Ever. (http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php)

And now I'm wondering why I liked this film.
OUCH!

That's pretty fantastic.

Reaper16
07-01-2009, 11:01 AM
:D

Really, as long as you go into it looking for entertainment, and not looking for Oscar-caliber performances and Tom Clancy levels of intrigue, it's not hard to enjoy.
I don't like the implication that Oscar-caliber acting and a plot with intrigue is not entertaining.

Here's the thing: I'm not dumb. I didn't go into this movie with expectations of it being good. In fact, I expected it to very bad. It didn't even meet my low expectations. All I want from a summer popcorn movie is an average film, something coherent, something properly paced, something that doesn't come apart at the seams during every scene. Transformers 2 is not any of those things. It miserably failed at being simply competent.

Micjones
07-01-2009, 11:07 AM
is this work friendly cause the URL doesn't look like itROFL

This particular portion of it is from what I can tell.

Demonpenz
07-01-2009, 11:12 AM
it's breaking records all over the place. It's Official...it is a Large hit. truely More than meets than meets the eye

Buehler445
07-01-2009, 12:06 PM
I don't like the implication that Oscar-caliber acting and a plot with intrigue is not entertaining.

Here's the thing: I'm not dumb. I didn't go into this movie with expectations of it being good. In fact, I expected it to very bad. It didn't even meet my low expectations. All I want from a summer popcorn movie is an average film, something coherent, something properly paced, something that doesn't come apart at the seams during every scene. Transformers 2 is not any of those things. It miserably failed at being simply competent.

Eh, the movie was stupid. But I expected it to be. I was still entertained.

Saulbadguy
07-01-2009, 12:07 PM
Eh, the movie was stupid. But I expected it to be. I was still entertained.

A lot of people are entertained by "MAD TV" too.

Reaper16
07-01-2009, 12:15 PM
A lot of people are entertained by "MAD TV" too.
That show sucks.

Micjones
07-01-2009, 12:59 PM
I don't like the implication that Oscar-caliber acting and a plot with intrigue is not entertaining.

It certainly can be, but even the Academy has it's faults.
It tends to devalue several VERY important genres of film.
Drama is all that really matters there.

Reaper16
07-01-2009, 01:24 PM
It certainly can be, but even the Academy has it's faults.
It tends to devalue several VERY important genres of film.
Drama is all that really matters there.
I can agree with you there. The Academy certainly gets things wrong, for various reasons. The Best Picture win by "Crash" sticks out as a recent, egregious error.

Nightwish
07-01-2009, 03:21 PM
I don't like the implication that Oscar-caliber acting and a plot with intrigue is not entertaining.
I'm not saying they aren't. I'm just saying those elements aren't required for a movie to be entertaining.

Here's the thing: I'm not dumb. I didn't go into this movie with expectations of it being good. In fact, I expected it to very bad. It didn't even meet my low expectations. All I want from a summer popcorn movie is an average film, something coherent, something properly paced, something that doesn't come apart at the seams during every scene. Transformers 2 is not any of those things. It miserably failed at being simply competent.
I can't fault you for your opinion. I mean, your opinion of this movie is pretty the same opinion I had of Napoleon Dynamite, and everybody around me thought that movie was great. Different people are entertained by different things. Personally, I thought this one was pretty well-paced (it didn't feel at all like a 2.5 hour movie), and I was able to follow the storyline without it seeming to be too amorphous. Sometimes it felt like the action was a bit overdone, and the movie could have sacrificed some action scenes in favor of more plot development, but it wasn't nearly as bad in that regard as, say, Race to Witch Mountain.

Reaper16
07-01-2009, 09:42 PM
I'm not saying they aren't. I'm just saying those elements aren't required for a movie to be entertaining.


I can't fault you for your opinion. I mean, your opinion of this movie is pretty the same opinion I had of Napoleon Dynamite, and everybody around me thought that movie was great. Different people are entertained by different things. Personally, I thought this one was pretty well-paced (it didn't feel at all like a 2.5 hour movie), and I was able to follow the storyline without it seeming to be too amorphous. Sometimes it felt like the action was a bit overdone, and the movie could have sacrificed some action scenes in favor of more plot development, but it wasn't nearly as bad in that regard as, say, Race to Witch Mountain.
Napoleon Dynamite was awful. I'm surprised that you found the pacing to be sufficient; that is one of my biggest beefs with this movie.

My opinions on movies tend to skew along the same lines as respected professional movie critics aka the people you lambasted in an earlier post for having an opinion worth no more than that of Joe Shmoe down the block. I take it as a sign that I know what I'm talking about.

J Diddy
07-02-2009, 12:50 AM
Napoleon Dynamite was awful. I'm surprised that you found the pacing to be sufficient; that is one of my biggest beefs with this movie.

My opinions on movies tend to skew along the same lines as respected professional movie critics aka the people you lambasted in an earlier post for having an opinion worth no more than that of Joe Shmoe down the block. I take it as a sign that I know what I'm talking about.


Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. That explains it.

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 01:19 AM
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. That explains it.
Yup. I'm smart and you're dumb as fuck, son. No further explanation necessary.

J Diddy
07-02-2009, 01:36 AM
Yup. I'm smart and you're dumb as ****, son. No further explanation necessary.

Righttttttttttt. Because you admittedly follow the line of so called critics you are smart. How do you know you are smart when all you do is follow what someone else is telling you?

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 01:50 AM
Righttttttttttt. Because you admittedly follow the line of so called critics you are smart. How do you know you are smart when all you do is follow what someone else is telling you?
I, for one, am privy to this valuable tool called "reading comprehension." I can look at an earlier post of mine in which I said that "My opinions on movies tend to skew along the same lines as respected professional movie critics" and comprehend the sentence's meaning. Various word choices such as skew and tend help to anchor the meaning that my film opinions often end up being similar to good professional critics. No where in that sentence is the implication that I merely "follow what someone else is telling me," as you assert like a coward/dumbshit. I do not admit that I follow their line. I said that our thoughts line up a lot.

J Diddy
07-02-2009, 02:05 AM
I, for one, am privy to this valuable tool called "reading comprehension." I can look at an earlier post of mine in which I said that "My opinions on movies tend to skew along the same lines as respected professional movie critics" and comprehend the sentence's meaning. Various word choices such as skew and tend help to anchor the meaning that my film opinions often end up being similar to good professional critics. No where in that sentence is the implication that I merely "follow what someone else is telling me," as you assert like a coward/dumbshit. I do not admit that I follow their line. I said that our thoughts line up a lot.


That's awesome!!!! You must be smart!!! Only an enlightened soul such as yours could take me enjoying a popcorn flick as being an idiot, coward and dumbshit.

Genious since they watch the movies first I am only left to one conclusion. You follow their lead. You shouldn't be angry about it. You should embrace it.

It saves alot of energy, you know, not having to think for yourself and all.

Stryker
07-02-2009, 02:08 AM
I enjoyed the movie alot. It was exactly what I expected going into it plenty of action and explosions but felt it was a little too long - I was ready for the movie to end. I think the first one was much better and thought the ending of the second was a little too over dramatic. The attention to detail was cool! You could see the fatigue in the metal during the fight scenes and the sound effects were incredible.

J Diddy
07-02-2009, 02:11 AM
I enjoyed the movie alot. It was exactly what I expected going into it plenty of action and explosions but felt it was a little too long - I was ready for the movie to end. I think the first one was much better and thought the ending of the second was a little too over dramatic. The attention to detail was cool! You could see the fatigue in the metal during the fight scenes and the sound effects were incredible.


According to the enlightened one that makes you an idiot.

Unless a more popular critic tells him that he likes it. That might sway his opinion.

All joking aside I agree with everything in this post. I did feel there was a LOT of filler in there that could have been cut out.

Stryker
07-02-2009, 02:21 AM
According to the enlightened one that makes you an idiot.

Unless a more popular critic tells him that he likes it. That might sway his opinion.

All joking aside I agree with everything in this post. I did feel there was a LOT of filler in there that could have been cut out.

Well, tell the "enlightened one" that HE is an idiot if he expected anything more from this movie. ROFL

It is a summer time blockbuster nothing more, nothing less. Hell, it's got Megan Fox and the aircraft carrier scene alone was worth the price of admission! :)

BigRedChief
07-02-2009, 06:42 AM
Don't get me wrong, I like Gaz. He was great, but he's gone. IMO the obligatory gaz option should be a Jim option. He was more of a contributor.
I thought their was a lot of talk about a "Fax" option instead of a GAZ option?

BigRedChief
07-02-2009, 06:45 AM
Went and saw the movie in IMAX yesterday. Best eye candy movie ever. A visual summer festival movie. They are getting much better in blending CGI and real stunts together. Of course Megan Fox running with her rack bouncing had to be slow mo'd. NTTIAWWT.

As far as a movie, it was okay, could have been better. But, I didn't go in expecting to see an Oscar caliber movie. It met my expectations. I'd highly recommend seeing this one in IMX.

Now Star Trek was a visual treat and had good acting and story lines. Best movie I've seen in the theatres in a while.

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 12:01 PM
That's awesome!!!! You must be smart!!! Only an enlightened soul such as yours could take me enjoying a popcorn flick as being an idiot, coward and dumbshit.

Genious since they watch the movies first I am only left to one conclusion. You follow their lead. You shouldn't be angry about it. You should embrace it.

It saves alot of energy, you know, not having to think for yourself and all.

According to the enlightened one that makes you an idiot.

Unless a more popular critic tells him that he likes it. That might sway his opinion.

All joking aside I agree with everything in this post. I did feel there was a LOT of filler in there that could have been cut out.
Truth be told, I don't read a lot of movie criticism. There are a couple of critics that I regularly read before I see a movie. I may check out more reviews after seeing it.

But please, continue on with this nonsensical position that I lack critical thinking skills.

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 12:03 PM
Here is a thought: why can't we ask more of our CGI-laden action movies? There is a gold standard for the genre set just last year. It is called "Iron Man." Transformers 2 falls depressingly short of the Iron Man standard.

Buehler445
07-02-2009, 12:07 PM
Here is a thought: why can't we ask more of our CGI-laden action movies? There is a gold standard for the genre set just last year. It is called "Iron Man." Transformers 2 falls depressingly short of the Iron Man standard.

Really? I saw Iron Man and thoroughly enjoyed it, particularly RDJ, but after watching it I didn't think it was the Gold Standard for much of anything.

(Although it was better than Transformers2)
Posted via Mobile Device

Saulbadguy
07-02-2009, 12:20 PM
Here is a thought: why can't we ask more of our CGI-laden action movies? There is a gold standard for the genre set just last year. It is called "Iron Man." Transformers 2 falls depressingly short of the Iron Man standard.

And it's not like Ironman was all that great, either.

I agree - saying "well its just a CGI action movie, what do you expect?" is a total cop out, only uttered by fan boys and morons.

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 12:28 PM
I disagree. I thought that Iron Man was a legit 3-star movie.

Buehler445
07-02-2009, 12:33 PM
I disagree. I thought that Iron Man was a legit 3-star movie.

I assume you're using a 5-star model?

I agree it was a well done flick, but I don't know about gold standard for CGI movies.
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 12:44 PM
I assume you're using a 5-star model?

I agree it was a well done flick, but I don't know about gold standard for CGI movies.
Posted via Mobile Device
4 star model. Which puts it in the "good" range.

Gold standard for superhero movies, anyway. Transformers is close enough to count. Obv. Iron Man doesn't have CGI that is more impressive than Transformers. I hesitate to call Iron Man just a CGI movie because it has more than that (unlike Transformers).

Demonpenz
07-02-2009, 12:50 PM
mad tv is like a cult for lowbrow, where kids in the hall, the state were more cult for how brow.

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 12:52 PM
mad tv is like a cult for lowbrow, where kids in the hall, the state were more cult for how brow.
The Whitest Kids You Know is a cult for how now brown cow

Saulbadguy
07-02-2009, 01:12 PM
I disagree. I thought that Iron Man was a legit 3-star movie.

I'd give it a 7 out of 10 - which makes it good, not great.

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 01:16 PM
I'd give it a 7 out of 10 - which makes it good, not great.
I don't like out-of-ten scales for movies, but I think we're in agreement. I think Iron Man is a good movie. 2 = average. 2 1/2 = above average. 3 stars = good. 3 1/2 = great. 4 = JIMP.

I'd give Transformers 2 a half-star (1/2 star).

Saulbadguy
07-02-2009, 01:33 PM
I don't like out-of-ten scales for movies, but I think we're in agreement. I think Iron Man is a good movie. 2 = average. 2 1/2 = above average. 3 stars = good. 3 1/2 = great. 4 = JIMP.

I'd give Transformers 2 a half-star (1/2 star).

is 0 stars possible?

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 01:44 PM
is 0 stars possible?
Yes, I suppose that it is possible.


But the CGI was real nice. That has to count for something.

J Diddy
07-02-2009, 03:24 PM
Truth be told, I don't read a lot of movie criticism. There are a couple of critics that I regularly read before I see a movie. I may check out more reviews after seeing it.

But please, continue on with this nonsensical position that I lack critical thinking skills.


Hey what do I know? I'm a cowardly idiot dumbshit.

Sure-Oz
07-02-2009, 03:33 PM
is 0 stars possible?

Rolling Stone Magazine gave it 0 stars.

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/25458013/review/28840142/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen

irishjayhawk
07-02-2009, 03:35 PM
I can agree with you there. The Academy certainly gets things wrong, for various reasons. The Best Picture win by "Crash" sticks out as a recent, egregious error.

Really? What did you think should have won that year?


I'm aware they make political statements like Crash but I loved Crash.

Great Expectations
07-02-2009, 03:55 PM
I liked Munich better, Capote was better, but mostly because of PSH.

Mistakes made by the Academy could be better expressed through movies like Chicago or Titanic.

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 06:34 PM
Really? What did you think should have won that year?


I'm aware they make political statements like Crash but I loved Crash.
I liked Crash fine enough. Of the nominated films, I thought that Goodnight and Good Luck was its equal at least and that Brokeback Mountain should have won the prize.

Reaper16
07-02-2009, 06:38 PM
Mistakes made by the Academy could be better expressed through movies like Chicago or Titanic.
Or Gladiator. Or Braveheart. There is no shortage of Best Picture screwups.

I wish that the Critics' Choice Awards were more prestigious.

irishjayhawk
07-02-2009, 07:38 PM
I liked Crash fine enough. Of the nominated films, I thought that Goodnight and Good Luck was its equal at least and that Brokeback Mountain should have won the prize.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on BM. One of few movies I got up and left.

Goodnight and Good Luck was tremendous. I would have had no problem with it winning.

Deberg_1990
07-02-2009, 07:40 PM
Spike Lees "Do the Right Thing" is now 20 years old....wow, im feeling old.


That was a major Academy screwup. Didnt even get nominated, and Driving Miss Daisy won the best pic that year. ROFL

irishjayhawk
07-02-2009, 11:33 PM
Just got back from the movie.

There isn't one redeeming quality in the whole movie. My god where do I begin?

1) There were 2 confirmed Bay Moments (TM) in the movie. That was always a plus. :)
2) The plot - thin, if any - didn't make one iota of sense. He goes to speak with Optimus to tell him it's not his fight. So, to prolong the movie, he forgets that he has another piece of the allspark so all is not lost. Then, Optimus is killed and the Autobots escape. He could have mentioned that he has the allspark sliver and could go to the base and revive Optimus. But no, he doesn't do that. Instead, he tracks down an old robot who switched sides and wastes the allspark to revive him. Then that guy tells him to go get the key which is what the symbols point to. Follow? Oh, so then he goes and gets the key only it disintegrates upon touch. So he cries over it and decides pixie dust will do the job. So he runs through explosions (see last part of Transformers 1 and THE SAME EFFING SET THEY USED IN T1) and "dies" only to be resurrected in a Matrix-esque and Indiana Jones 4-like way with aliens talking to him telling him he's awesome and brave. And so he's revived only to use this key which is like THE EXACT FRIGIN THING HE STARTED OUT WITH (AKA ALLSPARK) to revive Optimus. And then, since it wasn't the Allspark, he wasn't fully energized so the guy they resurrected for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON kills himself to give Optimus an arsenal. He proceeds to kick ass and then the movie ends with another heart to heart only missing the Linkin Park song. Makes zero sense. Does that even qualify as plot? I think the Hangover had more plot.
3) The humor was so over the top it killed most of it. The hash brownie mom sequence was atrocious. And the best funny moments were one-liners sprinkled in between action or downtime. Whenever there was a concentrated dose of humor it failed spectacularly.
4) The replacement human antagonist was pointless and unfunny.
5) It was 1 hour too long. Seriously. They could have chopped some of the battle scenes clean off. If they wanted to lengthen anything, I think Rainn Wilson as teacher could have used more than a quick peek.
6) There were times when stunt doubles were obvious. That's never good upon a first watch.
7) I will give credit where credit is due: the military presence was awesome. I would have killed to be on set (even if it was the same set).
8) The parent trap was puzzling. They take the parents and the audience gets the picture but they never tell Sam until they just show up and run towards each other and hide. Then trap over. WTF?
9) Did Josh Duhamel do anything but point a gun, wave his arm and yell? I mean in the first one he at least rode a motorcycle and did stunts....
10) Aaron Pierce > Jon Voight
11) Fight scenes in CGI were hard to watch. Not only were they somewhat confusing to see what exactly was happening at any given moment, but they followed a pattern: jump, slice, slow-mo shot of bad guy getting killed, resume action. Repeat so many times that the slow-mo became a joke.
12) Another credit to Bay: Isabel Lucas. He knows how to pimp his hoes, that for sure. She's sexy in the movie.

That's off the top of my head. I'd probably give it 1 star out of 4.

irishjayhawk
07-03-2009, 08:50 AM
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firstshowing/~3/-OM5teIO2rU/

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has raked in over $400 million worldwide. Double its budget. Almost $50 million more than Star Trek and loads more than Pixar's Up, the previous top two. It's a smash. A commercial juggernaut. And its been out just over a week. But to say I'm surprised just wouldn't be the truth. No matter how critically flayed ROTF was bound to be after the tepid response to its predecessor - sliced to bits by critics and dragged asunder by the very fanboys at which the film is aimed - it was destined to destroy. Even when the bile started to spew just before its release, I don't think there was ever any doubt.

We had to see it. We just had to. Everyone was doing it. And so we did. We all saw it. But I'm not here to write a review. To be honest, I wouldn't even know where to begin. (Charlie Jane Anders' satirical masterpiece probably comes closest to my experience.) Which is why I am here; I'm here to try and reconcile just what happened to me in those wee hours of Sunday morning. I'm here to do my best to explain just how Michael Bay does it. How he gets me every time.

I paid an exorbitant amount of money to see ROTF in IMAX - $19, to be exact. For one ticket. I didn't have to, I wasn't forced to, but I wanted the purest high I could get. And seeing a Michael Bay film in IMAX is, for me, just about equivalent to slamming a gram and a half of cut crystal straight into my median cubital. It's a cinematic rush. A rush that drew in an inexplicable sold-out crowd to Los Angeles' The Bridge Cinema De Lux at 1:15 in the morning. We all knew full well that we'd be stepping out of the theatre barely an hour before the Sunday faithful awoke for early mass, but we were there, regardless. And when the movie started, we knew why. With that first sweeping pan, the first glint of sun reflected off a Transformer's exoskeleton, the first glistening female body, we knew.

Then it ended, two and a half bloated, bombastic hours later. And I felt… dirty. Used up. Spent. And most of all, conflicted. Now, I've seen every Michael Bay film. I'm a self-proclaimed Michael Bay apologist. I own both The Rock and Armageddon as Criterion Collection DVDs. I know exactly what the man is. I know exactly what I'm going to get when I come across Bad Boys II or The Island on HBO. And there's something about that that I really love. The man can direct action. Every one of his films are just beautiful. Visually dynamic (sometimes - ahem, Pearl Harbor - to a fault) and always packed with adrenaline. Sure, his sense of story may as well not exist. His sense of pacing (as of late) may as well be a belt sander, cranked up to 11, grinding away at my eye balls. But Michael Bay is a drug with predictable side effects. Well, at least he was.

It's with ROTF that I think I may have OD'ed. No, I know I OD'ed. Todd Gilchrist of Cinematical says "this must be the most movie I have ever experienced." I'll take that a step further - ROTF is the most movie I ever want to experience. It's completely, utterly, unapologetically Michael Bay. It's everything that I expected (and my expectations were subterranean). The film hit every beat, showed every explosion, panned around every inch of Megan Fox, but it just did it too much. And that's why I just can't wrap my head around this damned movie.

I should just be able to accept it and move on. Just think to myself quietly as I walk out of the theatre, "Great action. It's not Summer without Michael Bay," and then continue whatever conversation I was having before the lights dimmed and the previews started to roll. But for days now, it's like Optimus Prime is tearing at my brain. Skids and Mudflap make me hate the movie - a lot. The "forest fight" makes me love it - perhaps the most redeeming factor for the film was this scene viewed in IMAX. John Turturro, Orci and Kurtzman, and that Cylon-wannabe make me hate it again. The Fallen on top of the Great Pyramid make me love it and hate it, but by that time I'd had too much, I didn't care, I was overwhelmed and tired. And Megan Fox — well, she makes me love it and hate it to such a degree that my eyes go blue and I have to Ctrl-Alt-Del myself back to consciousness. Are you seeing the dilemma here?

Michael Bay has always been a drug; the allure of escapist, illusory cinema, explosions and jokes that people 8 to 88 can enjoy together, a high that shoots squarely for the middle and never pushes beyond that demographic. But Michael Bay has become dangerous. This mainlined, über-purified, 'roided version of himself as seen in ROTF is just too fucking much. It's everything wrong with American blockbuster cinema. Hell, it's everything wrong with America - obese with arteries so clogged we're about to pop. You know that economic crisis we're all undergoing here in the States - ROTF may as well be its thesis. Excess and unconditional balances. Spending without qualms and out of entitlement. It's bankrupted us. I can only hope Michael Bay and ROTF has bankrupted (at least, figuratively) American film and how it's thought of, how it's presented.

Because Michael Bay should now be considered dangerous to us all, but especially to our children, the young minds that his hallucinatory forays effect most, we must all turn our eyes away and refuse the next ocular injection coming in two years' time. Just say no. I know it feels good. In a darkened theatre, the subwoofers rumbling your very core, metal on metal laced with ILM, hot chicks and hulking guys glowing underneath the ever-noon sun. The kind of world where every person who steps out of a car is as regal as a king, just you and the sky — but, please, just say no. 'Cause even though I still can't express what actually happened to me in that theater, it just may have been a spiritual awakening. A cleansing of the soul.

My name is Brandon, and I've been sober for four days now. And, you know, a locked-off shot and some subtitles - they're not that bad. Not bad at all.

Mr Luzcious
07-03-2009, 12:58 PM
I thought it was... ok. At least somewhat entertaining. IJ's post makes me like it less though.

Guru
07-03-2009, 02:56 PM
Well, it's official. I hated it. Even more than the first one. But my son is happy. Guess that is what matters.

Guru
07-03-2009, 02:59 PM
I second IJ's post.