Warning: getimagesize(/home/moviehaw/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/transformers.jpg) [function.getimagesize]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/moviehaw/public_html/wp-content/themes/sofa_memento/functions.php on line 544
Before the first images roll on screen in Transformers, two things show exactly what kind of movie it will be. Crediting Michael Bay as director and toy maker Hasbro as a co-production company, the movie states outright that expecting anything more than a big, loud, dumb action flick about giant, warring alien robots is a fool’s errand. Delivering on these promises in full force, Transformers will either be a welcome piece or entertainment or a disappointment, depending on how well you can cope with a very simple fact: no matter how often the famous tagline is attached, there really isn’t more to Transformers than meets the eye.
As cinema, Transformers doesn’t follow any kind of the canon set up in the 1980′s television series, film, or comic books; this is perfectly acceptable, because rewatching the show as an adult brings you to the realization that it made absolutely no sense. Bay’s Transfomers come to Earth in search of the Allspark, a mysterious cube that can bring life to their planet Cybertron. The leader of the Decepticons, Megatron, crash landed on Earth in the 1800s while tracking down the cube and was later discovered, frozen and disabled, by the great grandfather of Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) onto whose glasses became imprinted a map to the cube in the Transformers’ native language. When Sam puts the glasses up for sale on eBay, the Transformers rush to earth to retrieve the map, the Decepticons with the intentions of ruling Cybertron and the Autobots hoping to protect Sam, save humanity, and destroy the Allspark.
Michael Bay has taken his share of hits for making big, dumb action movies over his career; for this very reason, he is the perfect director for Transformers. It’s everything a summer movie should be. With Bay’s signature camera styles, the action comes in huge chunks that keep the adrenaline flowing. With flashy CGI, the robots look stunning, rendering moot any argument over how faithful a representation was necessary compared to the first-generation Transformers. With LaBeouf as leading man and featuring cameos by John Tuturro, Anthony Anderson and Bernie Mac, it’s got more than its share of laughs. And with Megan Fox tailing LaBeouf the entire movie, it’s got a smoking hot babe.
On the other hand, Transformers has the same predictable problems as many recent summer blockbusters: it’s about 30 minutes too long, features exactly one fruitless plotline, and has an imbalance of plot and action (plot heavy here at times). As such, Transformers is far from appointment viewing, but Bay presents a strong case for ignoring the framework and focusing on the dueling robots, and his success in this vein is reason enough to see the movie.
Rating: * * * 1/2 of 5
Dear Mr. Martin-
Occasionally I’ll frequent your blog, curious to see what you post for you various movie reviews. After reading some of your summer critiques, I’m seriously starting to ponder by what criteria you award your stars.
I just interested in your above Transformers review, but before I read a single word, I naturally checked out your scoring of 3.5 out of 5. Now I wasn’t good in Celindonio’s class, but to me, that’s above average, by whole 20% according to your system.
By this logic, I knew we were already starting off on different pages, as if I were adhering to your system, my swag estimate rating would probably be 1 out of 5, but let’s leave that be for now.
So I read your review, looking for your defense of this high rating, because let’s be honest, as critics, that’s what we do- we are essentially defense lawyers for a particular stance of numerical judgment we’ve somehow felt entitled to bestow on a film. So…where’s your defense for what I would deem a rather generous rating?
It would would appear that your main argument is “flashy CGI” and “a smoking hot babe”. Really? Those two elements warrant an above average rating?
I will maintain there was something magical about the CGI transforming of giant ass-kicking robots in and out vehicular form, and I could probably sit for a solid 30 minutes with a Cheshire Cat grin watching that effect…but that’s not a movie, and it wasn’t even this movie.
Let’s throw everything else out for a moment, because by process of elimination, we at least agree that the acting, the plot, the length, were all sub-par. So that leaves us with the action (and Megan Fox).
I challenge you, could you verbally describe to me the events of any of the fights seen in “Transformers”? I mean this in terms of say a ringside announcer?
I’ll tell you what I saw- two hunks of metal transform, then the camera super zoom in while those two hunks became one giant pile on indiscernible metal rolling down the street.
Now if you want to talk about pinnacles of CGI, I personally have to look at something like The Matrix Reloaded. If I asked you to describe the action in the Burly Brawl or the Highway Chase, I would imagine you’d be able to do so with quite some accuracy.
My point is this- I believe Transformers is a giant slight of hand trick. Bay is asking not to just suspend belief of these giant robots being Earth, but even beyond that, Bay is essentially saying “you have to trust me, the fight is REALLY cool”. Well, I wanted to SEE it.
I don’t care that the plot line is cookie-cutter. I don’t care that there are predictable lame laughs, an unnecessary romantic subplot, and I even defended the “modernization” of the robots…but my support is gone. I paid to watch a movie. No scratch that, I knew better, I paid to watch giant cyborgs beat the Hell out of each other. What I got was a bunch thrashing about with sound effects which vaguely reminded me of a TV show and movie I used to enjoy.
As for a smoking hot babe…hey, I of all people appreciate that, and you know what Megan Fox was fine in her sex symbol role…but that’s all she was; she was fine.
So, 3.5 stars? Really? So by that standard, it’s .5 stars below The Departed? It’s just as good as Casino Royale?
Perhaps you and I saw different movies, but you have me scratching my head. I need more than impressive computer graphics integrating seamlessly into the real world. I’m not saying it’s not easy, but it’s certain not the whole pie.
There’s more I could say about this, especially if were to enter the realm of lack of there being an epic quality, a sweeping score, unnecessary characters, and there really only being 4 Transformers in the whole movie: Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Scorpnik, and “Nearly Identical Gray Transformers”.
But I’ll leave it there for now. Just some food for thought ;)
Christopher “Fox” Troilo
Movie and Theater Critic – Washington D.C. Observer News
Film Critic – The Baltimore/ Washington Connection
Nintendo Wii Critic – The Adrenaline Vault
Chris,
I can concede most of your points, but where I am irked by your comment comes in the “.5 stars below ‘The Departed’” area. I try to make an effort to judge a movie on its own merits, and so comparing “Transformers” to “Departed” just doesn’t work. I base my star rating on how well the movie succeeds at what it tries to do and how entertaining the experience was in addition to the standard recognition of taste, the latter getting more attention most times.
Still, you’re right, 3 1/2 is generous for what was essentially a very entertaining time kill. But I was entertained by the movie, and got what I asked out of it.
My star rating of FF2: Silver Surfer? THAT needs reconsideration. The summer has been relatively packed with lame movies, so the ratings have tended to skew higher. Maybe I’ll have to go back and read the review and see what I might need to change.
Mr. Martin-
Do you not see the irony of you being irked at me for point out an inconsistency with a system you have chosen to implement? ;)
The movie critiquing standard are these so called “stars”, which I find to be absurd.
My proposed solution (if only that it is trite to point out a problem without offering a means of recourse) would be to rate movies via “scorecards” of say 10 categories which are unique to that genre.
This is the method I try to employ, however I still believe I’m in the minority for changing the ratings system.
PS: Transformers still sucked. Go see Ratatouille =oP
See this is the flaws in critiquing movies period. Jeff, god bless him, has a lot of flaws as a critic but he still has the ability to see a movie as what it is, a way to escape from the world for some amount of time. Jeff’s review pointed out the problems the movie had but that doesn’t matter the movie isn’t about plot or even substance. It is about big fucking robots beating the shit out of each other. Anybody looking for more will fail to enjoy the movie it is a simple as that. There are plenty of reason to hate this movie and only one reason to like it but that reason is fifty feet tall and transforms from a truck into a giant robot. ‘Nuff said
Pat-
I FULLY agree with you. In my criticisms, I say exactly that. I wanted to see big huge robots fighting…but I didn’t SEE that. My issue is a result of cinematography. The heart of this movie is correct, it’s the filming that went horribly wrong.
why the hell can’t a guy rate a movie based on how much he enjoyed it? he doesn’t have to justify his enjoyment of a movie. and his reviews are always pretty thorough and give his honest opinion about a movie.
that’s exactly what i want to see in a review.
Jeff,
I think that the movie was good, but honestly, why did we all see the movie, something to do, maybe a hope to remember some childhood memories of a favorite show, i know dont know, we all had our reasons. Lets look at the way you chose to rate your movies. You have a system that works for you and i agree with it most of the time. the thing that gets me is i know you are doing this for fun, and being attacked by another “critic” may upset you. But we all are entitled to our opinions, the the point of all this blog bull stit, to tell how you felt about a movie, and give your honest opinion of a movie, book or whatever you choose to write about. Keep up the good work, and remember that your writing is more than meets the eye!
Lets get serious here for a sec, yes the acting sucked and plot was not deep but what reason did you really go to see this movie? Be it for nastalgia or just to see what type of movie it can i think it delivered exactly what it was supposed to be, AN ACTION FLICK!