Critics Consensus: Transformers 2 Is Less Than Meets The Eye
Summary
This week at the movies, we've got robots in disguise (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, starring Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf) and a family in disrepair (My Sister's Keeper, starring Cameron Diaz and Abigail Breslin). What do the critics have to say? Most folks like their blockbusters big, loud, and loaded with spectacle. However, the masses also tend to enjoy good characters and some semblance of a plot, two things the pundits say are sorely missing from Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. A lot of movies walk a fine line between being emotionally involving and seeming merely manipulative, and critics are essentially split on which side My Sister's Keeper falls. Back to Article
This week at the movies, we've got robots in disguise (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, starring Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf) and a family in disrepair (My Sister's Keeper, starring Cameron Diaz and Abigail Breslin). What do the critics have to say? Most folks like their blockbusters big, loud, and loaded with spectacle. However, the masses also tend to enjoy good characters and some semblance of a plot, two things the pundits say are sorely missing from Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. A lot of movies walk a fine line between being emotionally involving and seeming merely manipulative, and critics are essentially split on which side My Sister's Keeper falls. Back to Article
(1-146 of 146 posts) | Reply
on Jun 25 2009 05:10 PM I'm assuming it will still make a killing. It's one of those movies that you have to see even knowing that it's bad, just for the crazy special effects. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure someone will drag me along in the next week or so. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:11 PM Roger Eberts and Peter Travers comments on Transformers are pretty funny and kind of accurate, even though I didn't hate the movie like they did, they did find a great way to sum up the movie. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:13 PM omg..i was pulling for My Sister's Keeper..at a 72%...oh well..i do think it was well-acted (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:17 PM In reply to this comment (#2517315) Hey jokerboy, because I am too lazy to look up their review, can you put the link up here for me? Gracias! (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:21 PM Meanwhile, the T-Meter for THE HURT LOCKER keeps on climbing. Why can't that be a wide release? I shed a single tear for quality cinema. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:22 PM I get the feeling the reviews for Transformers 2 are much more entertaining than the movie itself. Guess I'll find out in a month, when the crowds finally die down. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:27 PM Yeah, it kills me to think that Transformer 2 is going to make unheard of amounts of money and movies like The Hurt Locker are going to fade away into obsurity. But seriously, to anyone that liked Point Break, The Hurt Locker is made from the same director, but it is better! Don't rule this movie out if you've already seen Transformers2 and you're looking to see something at the theatre again this weekend. I could not think of a more perfect time for a movie like the Hurt Locker to be releasing. I give the studio a lot of credit for having the balls to release it now instead of during oscar bait season. While this movie does offer a lot of commentary in regards to war and America in general, its not preachy or from a bleeding heart point of view. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:32 PM LEDAWG WAS RIGHT! Remember when he said 24 percent or lower? Well, he was on the money. Only one person agreed with me, and they an share the glory. I'll rent "Transformers 2", although I'm expecting it to be bad. It can't be worse than the directors other works like "Bad Boys II" or "Armageddon" because Shia LaBeouf is a good acotr, the visuals will be good and Megan Fox is hot. That won't be enough to save it, but it will keep it from being his worst. Nothing for me until "Public Enemies". (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:34 PM Saw Transformers yesterday in IMAX. Its pretty cool to see in IMAX and the movie is alright I guess but the first one if way better. The only thing really good about the movie are the special effects other than that there's not much going on. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 05:34 PM For the record, "My Sisters Keeper" looks lame. Looks like a Hallmark movie. Even if it dosen't have racist stereotypes and robots with balls, I'd still rather wath "Transformers 2". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 05:48 PM In reply to this comment (#2517319) There one liners were the best, here they are. Just look at there main review quotes from their reviews. Travers said it was a new level of god-awfulness and Ebert said just bang some pots for 2 hours with rock music and you'll get the same thing. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:05 PM I liked the movie, but have stated that in other threads. Sure it's thin on plot, the acting is just okay and there still isn't enough robots fighting it was exactly what I expected. It is exactly transformers 1 except just more of each part. The effects were cool, I loved what they did with Sounwave and Ravage, I was happy with the exchanges between Megatron and Starscream, Devastator was awesome, the Twins were not as annoying as I expected them to be, and no where near Jar Jar levels. Standard Hollywood blockbuster, heavy on explotions light on substance. The Hurt Locker seems very cool, might check it out. But there are dozzens of amaing films that get outshadowed by these summer blockbusters. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:06 PM Transformer's 2 Sure did dissapoint. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:15 PM Gonna have to go against the grain here..... I enjoyed it.. I honestly did.. Yes, I am a huge fan that grew up right in the middle of the original transformers saga.. I went in with negative thoughts after reading all of the negative reviews, but I have to say I did enjoy it.. My 6 year old son sat through the entire movie, that is a first lol.... Parts I did not like.. I did not like Jetfire's part, I wanted lots more from him.. Soundwave was also kind of a let down as he just wasnt used enough, also it wasn't the voice that I loved so much as a kid... Devestator was okay, but he didn't get to kick enough *** IMHO... The Fallen, nah........ But I really still enjoyed it... Just my opinion...:) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:21 PM In reply to this comment (#2517321) Its true. I was thinking about the reviews during the movie and i was laughing to myself. All the comparisons to garbage disposals, trash compacters, and such were accurate. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:37 PM saw Transformers last night here in the philippines. First off, there are two things first rate about the movie. The FLAWLESS vissual effects(BEST OF ALL TIME) and MEGAN FOX(i'm talking about her looks, not acting), she is so photogenic, she rivals Angelina Jolie as the best looking actress on films.. other than that, the movie is horrible. the movie is a mess, the action scenes arent paced correctly. it was all over the place. Michael Bay should depart his genre and work on Indie films, he always said he'd like to do one. it would help him focused more on the story so that one day, when he makes a movie like this again, he'll put the story first. and some of his antics is getting old. the slowmotion dramatic scene isnt really dramatic. a movie full of BEAUTIFUL HOT GIRLS draws alot of attention because it's hard to take it seriously. bottom line. Transformers 2 had the BEST VISSUAL EFFECTS EVER on screen, but it's a mess of a movie. Transformers 1 is better, much funnier, and much shorter. this movie is SO long. it can't glue you to the screen unlike TDK. also, has anyone notice that Shia's roommate was kind of a tailor made for Jonah Hill, too bad he can't commit cause of Funny People. we might have gotten a few more laughs if Jonah starred. well atleast he won't be in a BAD movie this summer. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:44 PM i tell ya transformers will be raped by public enemies july 1 (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:59 PM yeah Public Enemies will rape Transformers critically but not at the box-office. I'm sorry but I don't see Public Enemies making nowhere near Transformers money. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:08 PM is everyone on this thread um high? u people talk trash about an action film cuz theres no story? um do u all go see a drama movie and say boring cuz theres no action? the movie was great.. if your not a transformers fan to begin with then y r u watching the movie? and if u are a fan then y r u complaining? the movie had me on the edge of my seat the whole time! much more entertaining than yaawwwnn the dark night!! that was a comic book movie? where was that action? woo riding on a motorcycle with big tires..ya um great action.. .BAYS directing is awesome.. his visuals are 2nd to none... Transformers 2 def the best action movie ever!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:11 PM My take was this: it was too BIG, too looong, and to wishy-washy... it couldn't decide on being an R or PG-13 movie. The innuendo was pathetic and pitiful; as much as I enjoy sexy stuff and comments, they just put everything in-your-face... nothing subtle about this movie. You didn't have to think about ANYTHING, it was all troweled into your eyes and ears with your mouth agape and that little bit of drool hanging out. It reminds me of the excesses "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." a well made movie, but I only wanted to see it once. But I HAVE to see it again tomorrow with my kids - I'm not looking forward to it... guess I'll just spend the time looking for EFX errors and admiring ALL the college girls they showed. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:17 PM "Transformers 2" is not as bad as some are making it to be. I mean calling it "terrible" or "horrible" is just overhasty & over-critical but then again I think the haters were expected to be exactly that just purely @ma "the action scenes arent paced correctly"? I don't know about that one. The film may not have been paced entirely correctly but The action sequences didn't have much of a problem & actually, I would say they were much improved over the first installment. You also brought up Megan Fox's acting. Personally, I don't think she can be truly blamed for what she has to work with & I also don't think Megan Fox is BAD actress by no means. I could name a ton of others actresses who are truly not good actresses. I think Fox is a moderate actress & can improve especially when she get further along in her career. I mean she is only 23 years of age & It took Angelina Jolie sometime to prove to people she's more then just a pretty face & Angelina Jolie has proven she is a solidified actress. @Daniel R. "Transformers will be raped by Public Enemies"? Don't know about that one. "Public Enemies" will probably do "The Departed" type B.O. numbers which was in the range of $150-180 million mark but "Transformers 2" though will be in the $200-$250 million possibly $300 million mark. Word of the mouth from the public for "Transformers 2" is more positive then negative. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 07:29 PM Transformers RotF isn't terrible. It's more of what we got in Transformers and exactly what people should expect from the master of plotless explosions: Michael Bay. It's enjoyable if you know what you're getting into. The twins will go down as Bay's Jar Jar Binks. They're racist caricatures. They're completely useless to the plot. Their poor attempt at humor simply takes away from Bumblebee who was a much more effective comedic relief. I really wish they were replaced by Arcee who's a fan favorite and much more interesting than two idiots spouting every negative black stereotype known to man. And she would have given Megan Fox someone to talk to other than complaining to Shia. Of course Bay can't figure out how to direct women and would have screwed that up too. A half hour could easily have been cut out, like Judy getting high which went on for far too long. Unnecessary and useless humor distracting from what little plot there was. At the very least Bay figured out how to actually show the robots fighting rather than five feet away while they roll over the characters. Optimus kicks some serious *** in the film and looks great doing it. And we got more classic Megatron and Starscream bickering. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:31 PM I am by no means a fanboy, but Transformers is not as bad as its rated. One of those films were the critics and masses are on polar opposites. The people in my theater were having a lot of fun watching it. Yes, its loud, silly, and inconsistent. But as long as you know that going in...you're going to have a good time. There were moments that made me cringe, and scenes that left me dumbfounded and feeling insulted as a moviegoer. Why I like it--because it did what summer movies are supposed to do: provide escapism and evoke emotions that remind me of why I like seeing big movies on big screens. TROTF is so bad its good by covering up its rotten insanity with eye-candy and over-the-top antics. Like most Bay films, the action and effects keep coming at you so you don't have time to mentally reject the pointless and nonsensical plot...unless your an RT Top Critic. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:51 PM In reply to this comment (#2517329) @ledawg: Yeah dude, you deserve some massive credit. When I saw your prediction, I was thinking to myself that it would be at least twice that. Foolish of me, I know. Good call, sir. Very well done indeed. @CtrlAltDestroy: I wish that people would heed the call, but the movie is playing in SO FEW areas that it's hard to get to it even if you *want* to in some cases. That's why it bums me so much that it's not a wide release film. I am going to watch TRANSFORMERS 2 as part of a friend's birthday party tomorrow. I hope the twins - or should I say, "Car Car Binks?" - aren't as annoying as some have made them out to be. I prefer comic relief in action movies to be subtle (a la DIE HARD) rather than in-your-face. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 07:53 PM transformers2 was awesome. if anyone didnt remotely like it, your ****in gay. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:53 PM The reviews are sio over the top bad that it makes me want to see it more! Cant wait to witness this sh*t storm. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:57 PM ya the twins were annoying but they wernt rasict. only a real rasict would bring that up. like i said before, does every transformer have to talk like a white man? (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 08:01 PM Roger Ebert's comments are hilarious. "Go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination." "Their appearance looks like junkyard throw-up." (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 08:37 PM In reply to this comment (#2517419) Don't I know it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 08:40 PM I'll go see UP again instead. What annoys me is that I would really LOVE to see a great Transformers flick; it's the type of movie I%u2019d usually go crazy for. But for me the story is the most important part of a movie, not the effects; Michael Bay and company believe the opposite of that. I'll wait twenty years when they reboot the franchise with a solid script and a director that wants to make a movie for everyone, not just teenagers. Sure it will make a lot of money but, wow, imagine how much money this movie would have made if they had actually cared to put some real thought into a good plot. Such missed opportunities. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:16 PM I actually very-much enjoyed Transformers 2. I went in not expecting a smart story, and expecting a dumb, but very fun movie and was rewarded greatly. Very fun film. I may see My Sister's Keeper, if I dont go see the bots again, which I shall. Next week looks great with Public Enemies, as well as the rest of July with Bruno, HP6, Funny People, even Ice Age 3, and lastly 500 Days of Summer. Going to seek out The Hurt Locker this weekend. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 09:28 PM Everyone's criticisms are right on the money, but there is one extra gripe I have (and had with the last one): I am sick of seeing humans kick the Transformers' asses. I mean, in this one they took out MEGATRON. I love how Bay gives props to the military and shows how he can get all the latest stuff in his movies. But the films focuses too much on Army vs. Decepticons, and not Autobots vs. Decepticons. Maybe I missed some scenes in all the exploding sand... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:42 PM In reply to this comment (#2517319) Bay is a Philistine. The Hurt Locker is awesome! It is an superb adaptation which manages to keep the suspense up throughout the entire film. It is a thousand times better than T2. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 09:46 PM Christ, you are a moron if you don't know by now what you're getting with a Bay movie. He makes movies in spite of plot and characters. So do us all a favor and quit going back to his movies and expecting him to change. That's just not going to happen, man. So anyway, I dug the movie with the people in the theater. Though, I did think the twins were useless. But other than that, I was entertained by the giant freaking robots beating the living **** out of each other. Steve Jablonsky deserves a hat-tip, too. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:55 PM In reply to this comment (#2517388) dude, honestly, that movie (Public Enemies) looks pretty retarded. I mean the only pull that movie has is that Johnny Depp is in it for some bizarre reason. the cinematography looks like utter sh.it!!! Even Johnny Depp has lost some of his credit as an actor IMO..blehhh (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:56 PM In reply to this comment (#2517464) @CodeClearanceBlue The military just slowed Megatron down & kept back but they didn't knock him entirely out because he was in the final battle & got his face bashed in. I mean your logic is somewhat questionable. I mean what do you want? That the military weapons be completely ineffective? Come on! that just illogical. "focuses too much on Army vs. Decepticons, and not Autobots vs. Decepticons." You do know the Autobots were working with the military? so yeah, the army would be part of the battle. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:06 PM I saw Transformers 2 this evening; gotta say I don't see how its tomatometer is any lower than the first one; I thought it was an improvement in many respects. I'd still by no means expect anything higher than a 50-60%, but I think this is just one of those movies that the critics love to hate. Biggest thing I want to point out is an ENORMOUS improvement in how the Transformer action scenes were presented. So those who took issue with the fight scenes in the first movie can go into this one with some optimism. I've always been a fan of Bay's action scenes, but they were so awful in the first Transformers: often poorly lit, zoomed in way too close, too much camera movement, quick cuts, andjust a lot of robots rolling around and grappling so tightly it was impossible to see what was happening. There are still a few scenes like that in the sequel, most notably the first major action scene in Shanghai, but the later combat scenes are presented so much better. Bay backs the camera up a bit, and keeps it (relatively) fixed so we can actually follow what's happening. Fewer quick cuts help too. Beyond the presentation method, the combat choreography is so much more interesting than the first film, with less grappling on the ground and more weapon-based and striking combat. The brutality has really been kicked up a notch too; some of the violence was pretty extreme. If they had been human characters, or even just biological in some way, the movie would have had one hell of a hard R rating. Other aspects, such as plot, characterization, and humour are roughly comparable to the first one. The plot this time around is a little more complex, and builds on the previous movie to be a little less contrived. I'd say character development was pretty stagnant in this one; at least in the first, Sam had a bit of a charcter arc and we saw his relationship with Mikaela develop. In this one, neither he nor her nor either of the military leads really change at all. On the other hand, the main human characters (and the Autobots and Decepticons) get a larger percentage of screen time in the sequel, as the writers wisely chose to focus on a smaller set of characters, rather than alterantely bouncing around between Sam and Mikaela, the military guys, Jon Voight and the hackers, then finally throwing them all together in the end, as we saw in the first movie. I think the sequel still suffers from being too scattered and having an excess of unnecessary scenes and subplots, but it seems to flow with a bit more of a purpose than the first. Regarding the humour, it's very much of the same nature, though a bit more adult this time around. I suppose that's good news or bad news depending on your tastes. I actually liked Sam's parents in the first one (though I see how one might not), so I was glad to see more of the same from them. I didn't think the controversial 'Twins' autobots were nearly as annoying as Jar-Jar Binks, and though their stereotyped personalities were in bad taste, I didn't think they were meant to be offensive. So yeah, not so much irritating or offensive, I just thought they didn't need to be there. They weren't particularly effective as comedic relief for the audience, nor were they of any practical use for their comrades in the movie. I would have rather seen Ironhide, Ratchet, Arcee or Sideswipe given more screen time in their place, as they were all quite underused. The usual annoying Bay nuances were there: a few too many shots of people running in slow motion (though strangely I didn't mind so much when it was Megan Fox), explosions in slow motion, and repetitive shots of soldiers firing away, but these sort of things didn't really bother me; minor quibbles. All in all I'd say I was quite satisfied. If you truly detest Michael Bay, or truly hated the first movie, of course you shouldn't go see it. If you're like me and thought the first one was ok but flawed, I suggest giving this one a shot, you may find it's an improvement; I definitely did. If you really liked the first one, definitely check this one out, if you haven't already. Out of the summer tentpole films thus far, I'd put it well ahead of Wolverine, ahead of Terminator Salvation, and probably around even with Star Trek. Bear in mind though that I'm in the camp that thought Star Trek was pretty good, not excellent. Wolverine 4/10 Terminator Salvation 6/10 Transformers 2 7/10 Star Trek 7 or 8/10 (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:11 PM @Patt B. Haha...you are totally an ill-advised ignorant dunce. You don't know cinematography that's for sure. You don't explain your reasoning why it looks "retard" & then you go on & say "I mean the only pull that movie has is that Johnny Depp is in it for some bizarre reason." then you say "Even Johnny Depp has lost some of his credit as an actor IMO..blehhh." Why is it bizarre Johnny Depp is in it? If you knew anything, Johnny Depp is a "character actor" which is a type of actor that is looked at as a "chameleon" which pretty much means can do just about anything when it comes to his range & skill set of acting. He's able to adapt into a role & become a that character & not just be the actor playing the character such as you see with actors such as Will Smith, Tom Cruise, Shia LeBeouf, & such. How has Johnny Depp lost some credit as an actor? that's just an absurd comment let alone non-factual statement with no proof or evidence of his creditibility loss. The only thing that's losing creditibility is you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2517464) @CodeClearance Actually I don't think the army did a whole lot against Megatron. They hit him a whole bunch, but it didn't seem to do too much damage. I'm pretty sure it was Optimus who really busted him up. I see your point in general, or at least I understand why that would be an issue for you, but I really thought we saw a lot more Decepticons getting trashed by Optimus, and to a lesser extent by Bumblebee, than by any humans. I would have liked to see some of the other Autobots do some damage though; seems like many of them got overlooked for the most part. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:17 PM @ColinTheCimmerian You have a pretty solid prespective on the view of "Transformers 2". I would agree with the majority of your review. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:29 PM This isn't directed at anyone in particular, and it isn't meant to be sarcastic; it's an honest question: does anyone have an idea for a 'good plot' for a Transformers movie? It comes up time and again on many threads during the last few weeks, with people lamenting the fact that the plots used for the first two movies are mediocre, or commenting that the movies could be so much better with a well-written plot. I don't dispute that; the stories for the two movies thus far are certainly lacking. But off the top of my head, I can't really think of a better concept than what's been used: the Decepticons looking for some object of power on Earth, and the Autobots trying to stop them in order to protect Earth and to prevent them from gaining an edge in the war. I just don't really see any other reason for the Decepticons or Autobots to be on Earth, short of acquiring some sort of resource they need (this often seemed to be the plot of the TV show episodes). I realize this may seem confrontational (I assure you it's not meant to be), but does anyone who complains about the weakness of the plot have a better idea? Or anyone who hasn't complained about the plots? Really I'm just looking for any creative ideas here :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:42 PM In reply to this comment (#2517496) A lot of the shots seemed blurry or out of focus and poorly lit, often at the same time. Honestly, the vibe i got from the whole trailer was amateurish film-making. Maybe you saw something different in it then i did. But the only reason i think he's losing credibility is all of his Tim Burton collaborations, i mean i was thoroughly dissapointed by his take on Willy Wonka, and then Sweeney Todd was just boring, the same old bag of tricks Burton and Depp always seem to be relying on now. I like the pirates movies, but i mean how much more money does Depp need, really??? Just stop doing the pirate movies and maybe try a movie without Burton as the director for a change (i know Public Enemies has a different director). I suppose it could be argued that Johnny Depp is a character actor, but he's really not. he is hardly a chameleon anymore. although, when i think of him in Fear and Loathing, or Finding Neverland you are right, he is sort of like a chameleon. I duno, sorry my words have offended you so much, you were really impressed by that Public Enemies trailer? Come on!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:42 PM In reply to this comment (#2517484) You have lost ALL credibility. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:45 PM In reply to this comment (#2517515) I see we got a bunch of Johnny Depp nuthuggers up in here!! ;P take it easy guys, so uptight!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:47 PM In reply to this comment (#2517517) Don't make crazy a$s statements! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:47 PM In reply to this comment (#2517329) Ledwag: Armageddon was a cool movie!...and also if you are going to watch Transformers 2 knowing is bad and only for its eye candy. Then do it on an IMAX screen, not on DVD. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:48 PM It was crap. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:49 PM In reply to this comment (#2517518) YES MASTER!!!! I SHALL ONLY TALK AS YOU COMMAND ME TO TALK... I WANT TO HUG JOHNNY DEPPS NUTS JUST LIKE THE REST OF YOU Is that any better? :D (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 10:49 PM I saw it..and everything Ebert says is completely true. I just want Public Enemies to blow this **** up. lol, I wanna say i can foresee Depp's Oscar. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:59 PM In reply to this comment (#2517506) @ColinTheCimmerian: I think one of the issues present is that complaining about plot is not, in any way at all, a catchall complaint. For some people, it's a deeply intricate story, like THE DARK KNIGHT (God, I'm sorry for dropping that reference, but it's the first movie that came to mind that had a very driven, complex plot). For others, it's a story that adheres more closely to the canon. For me, I just don't want a stupid plot. In fact, I'd be in favor of a plot that is even simpler than the ones that Bay uses. When it comes to plot and narrative structure, yes, there is something to be said about complexity, but a great action movie can rely on simplicity as long as it isn't obnoxiously stupid. I think RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK has a really simple plot - a couple of MacGuffins to advance things along, but it's by no means an intricately plotted tale. Before I give you an idea for a simpler TRANSFORMERS plot, I'll tell you what my issues were with the first one (I will watch the second tomorrow; I've been avoiding spoilers, and consequently haven't read your review, which I *will* later revisit :D). The central MacGuffin that drives the story forward is this pair of glasses, which is just stupid in my mind. I'm not trying to be degradatory or needlessly offensive - I seriously posit that eyeglasses with a map to the Allspark is one of the stupidest MacGuffins I've encountered in cinema. So anyway, it never made any sense to me how the robots KNOW that the glasses have a map of the Allspark on them. So Megatron crash lands, he's found hundreds of years later by Archibald Witwicky, and somehow all the robots know that this special pair of glasses has the map to the Allspark on it? It's never clearly explained how they know it. If someone's offering an explanation, it's one that they've made up, because it's NOT stated in the movie. Is this a nitpick? Well, considering that the discovery of the glasses is what brings Optimus et al. to Earth, I don't think so. Okay, let's put that aside for a moment. Let's talk about what's at stake. In any movie that features good guys vs. bad guys, we need to know what the central conflict is all about, right? I want to know what happens if the bad guy wins so that I actually care about the good guys winning. Now, at the beginning, we're told that the Allspark has the capacity to give life and that Optimus Prime wants to use it to rebuild his homeworld of Cybertron, which has been destroyed by the ravages of war. When we're later introduced to this Allspark that everyone's after at the Hoover Dam, it's a force of evil. Any technological thing that comes near it, be a cellphone or whatever, gets converted into an evil thing. Doesn't sound like the ideal world-building device. Now let's get to Megatron's plan. Optimus Prime tells us that Megatron's ultimate goal is to convert all the technology of the Earth to evil using the Allspark (which an hour ago was the sole hope of restoring life to Cybertron - but it's a purely malignant force now). We're also told by Sector 7 that all the technology we have comes from reverse engineering Megatron. Okay, so Megatron's plan all this time has been to: 1) Crash-land on the Earth, damaging himself and going out of commission for hundreds or thousands of years or whatever; 2) getting discovered by humans; 3) having said humans reverse engineer a bunch of technology; 4) convert that technology to evil beings to then enslave the humans. Now, granted, that's just a laughable extension of logic, but I'm going by what is directly put on film. If there's anyone over the age of 13 that thought the hacker scenes were anything even close to approximating what the military is really like, I don't know what to say. I'll just leave all the hacker bits out, but I definitely thought those were horrible aspects of the story. To me, this is all just over-complicated drivel. Every single "apologist" (I use this term without any malice intended) states, "the plot can be thin because all I want is giant ****ing robots beating the **** out of each other." Good. I want that too. What I don't want is a ridiculously bad story. I can stand for a thin plot. I'm not asking for breathtaking twists and turns and blink-and-you-miss-it convolutions of plot. I just want a simple story that sets up these premises: 1) Intergalactic robots have been waging a war for millions of years, and have now brought that war to Earth. 2) The goal of the Decepticons. 3) The motivation of the Autobots. That's about all. It could be a super-thin story about the Transformers running out of Energon and coming to Earth to look for new energy sources. If a director were ambitious enough, he might even add some themes and subtext about an impending energy crisis and the inherent altercations that have plagued sentient beings when resource-scarcity becomes a driving force of action. If that is too much to stomach, how about introducing Mini Cons, a la the Armada series? Mini Cons are small Transformers that become weapons that enhance the powers of the bigger Transformers. In the war on Cybertron, control of the Mini Cons becomes imperative to winning, so the Mini Cons hop aboard a ship and leave the planet - only to crash land on Earth. Guess who comes after them? It's not a deep plot, but it definitely allows for some awesome transformations, and a great action set up (what's cooler than a robot that can join up with a bigger robot and enhance its powers?). My point is, after all this lengthy, discursive rambling, that a plot doesn't have to be genius in scope to improve what we've been given thus far. Plots can be simple and still entertain if they're not unnecessarily convoluted. Anyway, it's over 100 degrees, I'm drenched in sweat, and it's almost 1 AM. I need to be up early, so I should self-editorialize and quit :). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 11:35 PM In reply to this comment (#2517506) @ColinTheCimmerian: I'm glad you didn't use the general ignorant response- "Dont complain if you cant do better!". I think Bob.S put it simply that keep the story simple and don't over stuff it with Maguffins, I don't even get why they keep using Maguffins as plot devices. Don't throw in that many side characters that won't be developed are even likable (Sam's roommate). I think it would be pretty cool to see if Sam ended up going to the Transformers planet where there is a full on war going on. I would like to see Sam being thrown into an even more insane situation where he actually starts doubting himself, wouldn't that be cool just to see him say at one point "**** this" and then hide. Thats what I wanna see, a Transformers movie that deals with Sam being in an un-winnable situation that just makes him afraid and unsure of himself. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 01:12 AM I hate when garbage movies make money. I swear to God half the people I know went to the midnight showing. I was asked to go, and I said no. When asked why, I flat out told them it looks like a steaming pile of goat S***. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 07:50 AM In reply to this comment (#2517561) You mean like the Spiderman movies? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 07:54 AM Went to see this in IMAX last night and loved it. I'm sick of critics grading these on the level as an "oscar worthy" film. This film was about fun, and that is it what it was. Sometimes folks just want to go to a movie and not have to analysis it. Hell, life throws enough crap at us the way it is. This was pure escapism. I was a bit worried about the length going into it but was surprised how quickly it went by. Their really seemed to be now stop in the action. Yes, there might have been little plot but what do you expect when the theme is based on a 1/2 hour cartoon. It provided enough historical information on the Transformers to satisfy me for now and look forward to the next one. Like others are posting, you got exactly what was advertised, an exciting action movie. Not sure what others were expecting. I will also say the audience was really into the film by cheering and laughing throughout. Guess the critics have to complain about something or they wouldn't have a job. My guess is that none of them watched the cartoon growing up. Probably didn't get a puppy as a child either : ) (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 08:36 AM In reply to this comment (#2517320) Amen Bob, I'm so disappointed that I can't see The Hurt Locker in Wilmington, NC, but goddamn Transformers is on 60 screens. I guess you have to live in NY or LA for good movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 08:38 AM In reply to this comment (#2517320) I'll add the Kathryn Bigelow (I don't know if I spelled that correctly) is one of the better (and most underrated directors) working today. I've seen all her films sometimes without knowing they were hers. She's great. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 09:38 AM In reply to this comment (#2517532) I agree, there's nothing wrong with keeping it simple, as long as it's sensible; the glasses thing in the first movie really bothered me too. I was just curious if anyone did have any really creative ideas, but I see no problem with sticking with the 'Decepticons come to Earth to get *something*, Autobots come to stop them' plot structure. The Mini-Cons idea falls into the same category I think, but it would certainly be a different twist on it, maybe they'll use something like that for the next one. I think it is worth discussing the function of the Allspark in the first movie. While still a pretty hokey plot device, I don't think it's quite as inconsistent as you sugggest. Prime's suggestion that it has the capacity to create life isn't really contradicted by what it does to the cellphone and what Megatron wants to use it for. It is creating life, by making a previously inanimate object into a living Transformer. My understanding (and granted this is just an inference, it wasn't explicitly stated, but I felt it was fairly clear) was that the Allspark made inanimate things animate, injecting them with a 'spark', or lifeforce. I haven't seen the first movie in a while, but I thought it was stated that the Allspark was the source of all life on Cybertron, suggesting perhaps the Transformers were originally all just machines or vehicles that were given life by the Allspark. Regardless, its ability to animate the inanimate seems pretty clear. I think the incongruence between what Prime wanted to use it for and what Megatron wanted to use it for can be explained by HOW it is used. This is just supposition, but perhaps if used correctly, the Allspark can used to create inherently evil life or inherently good life, depending on the desire of the one manipulating it. That's pretty outlandish, but perhaps more reasonable a notion is that the life it creates is essentially a newborn, without any coherent sense of thought or moral alignment, just a wild creature. As I recall, the machines we see given life in the first movie weren't necessarily evil, just very wild and aggressive, not unlike a feral animal in an alarming situation. Could be Prime figured he could create new life and teach the resultant Transformers the way of the Autobots, essentially raising them like children to repopulate a Cybertron decimated by war. Simalarly, Megatron may have been planning on bringing all of earth's machines to life and training them as Decepticons, creating a huge army in the process. I think about how in the Beast Wars Transformers show, whenever a 'blank' or whatever they were called fell from orbit, it was a race between the Maximals and Predacons to get there first and claim the blank-slated Transformer as their own. The point is, I don't think the discrepancy between Prime's desired use of the Allspark and Megatron's is as ridiculous as you suggest. What IS ridiculous is that the thing which can grant life, can also apparently kill (when it's convenient for the plot of course) since Sam used the Allspark to smite Megatron. That was most certainly dumb and inconsistent with its apparent purpose. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 10:34 AM Okay haters, read this first sentence then stop: Transformers 2 has very little creativity and the fighting gets pretty stale after a while. Okay haters, go away. Transformers 2 was a lot of fun! No, it's not as good as the first movie, but it is so funny it kept me laughing almost the entire time. It certainly helps that I am a hard-core Transformers fan, so watching Optimus Prime in battle gets me pretty giddy. Don't let these sour-pusses on this site turn you away. Put on a smile, grab some popcorn and go have some fun. The movie isn't as loud as the critics want you to believe. Have you ever noticed the people who hate Transformers are either too old or too young? I guess they're just a bunch of sourpusses that don't understand what Transformers is all about: Fun! (Uh-oh, here comes the "No, it's about making money" replies from cranky haters. Go watch your violent hateful movies and leave me alone...) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 11:12 AM Im new to rotten and honestly i wouldnt even be on this site if it werent for the fact that everyone is bashing Transformers 2. I hear talk about racist robots and plot holes. If u guys werent so bent on finding negative things about a movie, im pret ty sure u would love it. I bet half of u are on depression pills anyways. Just cause u are a loser doesnt mean u have to bash everything to make ur self feel better. And those racist robots arent racist. If u were to walk into compton or watch a rap video and see a black man talk like shia lebouf then u just dont want to see reality. U are the people that call me racist for saying there are mor black people in jail than any race, i say im just stating a fact. People like u are the ones who make my dumb *** friends who listen to u not want to ever see great movies and they miss out. Critics are good, wee need them. But when u say all the movies in america that everyone wants to see are bad and tell everyone that the movies they dont want to see are good then u are just going against the grain. If a movie truly has a flaw then state it but if it just doesnt really matter then let it go. U guys sound like the emo kids in highschool that complained about everything and did nothing about it. Cry some more and go cut ur wrist then come back and write a review. Maybe u will feel a little better and quit being such asses about everything. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 11:32 AM I grew up with Transformers. Heck, I even remember getting the toys when they were a spin-off from the Micronauts by Takara. I had the comics and watched the cartoons. Then I grew up. I found the first movie somewhat entertaining. Now, I don't mind skipping this one. My problem with the chaotic and distancing mise-en-scene of the first film sounds enhanced by this sequel. I always hated Bay's work, too boot. I find him so pandering in his craft, it makes me cringe beyond laughter. I am hoping to catch the Hurt Locker for a true adult action film, though it sounds harrowing. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 11:43 AM I get so much joy coming to these sites and watching folks pretend to be sophisticated and elite... I'm the first to agree that most people are morons...but moron or not a fun movie is a fun movie. 90% of the bashers out there will still pay money to watch this movie (or steal it, but they'd also steal "good" movies)... Bashing a director like Michael Bay, who gives the movie going public EXACTLY what they want is just childish. Save your bashing for directors who consistantly put out garbage that nobody wants to see...but who elitists feel the need to defend so they can appear better than the masses. Public Enemies? Seriously? Great premise...but Johnny Depp is single handedly responsible for ruining every movie he appears in...so why bother? Oh and FYI...going on and on about how "popcorn" movies suck and low budget movies are amazing isn't going to get you either a position voting on the Oscars or a gig as a movie critic...they already have enough tasteless elitists to fill both positions. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 12:21 PM @ColinTheCimmerian: Well, the only issue I have with the Allspark explanation (and I'm going by purely what we see on film) is that in and of itself, when Sam is carrying it around, and it drops momentarily, it turns steering wheels into chomping machines, a Mountain Dew vending machine into an aggressive robot, and so on. My interpretation, reinforced by what was shown, is that it turns technology evil, which is in contradistinction to the earlier stated purpose. I never looked at it the way you discussed about making feral creatures, and thanks for the insight. Still, it takes ONE line of dialogue for Optimus Prime to just say that outright and no further questions asked. Looking at it from a meta-perspective (I know that some here will get their panties in a twist about over-analysis, but I hope that you as a film lover will understand where I'm coming from), what Bay is trying to do here is reinforce WHY it is imperative that Megatron not get the Allspark. The problem is that doesn't jive with the ultimate storyline and Prime's motivations, so that cognitive dissonance is an annoyance. When I posted my issues with the plot of the first film earlier, I did also mention that it was conveniently used as a way to destroy Megatron instead of its stated benevolent purpose of giving life 2 hours before. The overall structure was just silly: the motivations are never well explained, the central MacGuffin is never convincing, and central plot points are juggled around with dismissive laxity only to be used when convenient. Here's the beauty of what I'm suggesting: Apologists can't say I'm wrong. I'm not arguing for a great plot, but a simple one. One that doesn't trip all over itself. One that can stem from a 30 minute TV show or whatever other ridiculous arguments have been posited by some. And before anyone tells me that Bay had budget limitations and could only have the robots on-screen for X amount of time, I'd point out that because of the designs Bay pushed for (read: moving mechanical vomit), the render times made it too expensive to have the robots on screen for the majority of the movie. I'd design the Transformers like N (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 12:30 PM I havent been this disapointed in a summer sequel since.....well I can't really remember but the second Jurrasic Park comes to mind. This is not surprising to me though because we have seen this before but not to the extent we saw it in Transformers 2. Average sequals have been made to great money maker movies like The Matrix, Pirates, and even Spiderman, but to say this movie is average is to sell your soul to Satin. The only thing that prevents you from walking out of the theater and into on-coming traffic is the amazing special effects the movie has, but what a price to pay for minutes of enjoyment. Micheal Bay has to make sure Transformers doesn't walk down the path Spiderman did which completlly sold out to cheap pukie kiddy humor and forgot the story and the whole fact people go see a movie like that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:03 PM I don't understand How everyone thinks that CGI cartoons count as "crazy special effects". CGI makes movies look extra fake. Roger Rabbit looked better... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2517762) But was it ever any more than this very thing? Honestly, I know a lot of you liked the first movie and that's fine, but be honest about what it is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:15 PM i went into transformers with very lowered expectations but i thought the first one was fun. i was shocked to find out how stunningly bad this movie was. the characters were ridiculously dumb (shia's parents, his roommate- why was he in this movie?!) and the plot was...m.i.a. seriously the most disapointing and depressing film experience of the year, miles below wolverine and terminator salvation. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:15 PM In reply to this comment (#2517314) That's why I saw the first one, and I was really disappointed. The ONLY good thing about that movie was the giant robot battles, and those weren't even that good. How hard is it to make giant robot battles interesting??? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:25 PM In reply to this comment (#2517752) @Bob S. You showed how you would have done the robots in Transformers through youtube video. See the type of model (the blocky type models) you want was already tried during the developement stage of "Transformers". According to producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura, during the designing of the Transformers, as a test Optimus Prime was first designed in CGI in his classic boxy look from "Transformers" (1984), but he looked fake and boring. So the robots were designed in a more intricate, three-dimensional image to be more realistic and to reflect their alien origins. The major influences in these designs were real-world physics (each robot matches the size of its chosen disguise), the Rubik's Cube (numerous pieces moving to convert one thing to another) and samurai armour (going back to the toyline's Japanese origins). Personally, I agree with producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura that the boxy look does look artificial, boring let alone just outright cheesy. Also, just to let you know CGI effect shots are cheaper then live-action action shots. So, don't make the budget your source of reasoning becasue it's a faulty excuse. While render times where long depending on the robot itself such as Optimus Prime who is composed of 10,108 pieces, Megatron is composed of 2,411 pieces, Bumblebee is composed out of 7433 pieces, Ironhide is the bulkiest Transformer in the film, with both his guns composed of 10,000 pieces each as all of these characters take 32 hours to render just one frame & one in particular known as Devastator is made out of 52,632 pieces & took 72 hours to render a single frame. The cost of CGI is priced by frames not rendering time. @gm1200 While you try to prove a point it comes off really impolitic & even just lunatic at points. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:35 PM @jaysix "I don't understand How everyone thinks that CGI cartoons count as "crazy special effects". CGI makes movies look extra fake. Roger Rabbit looked better..." What are you talking about? Are you saying the robots look fake? "CGI makes movies look extra fake?" Now, that's just an ill-advise comment or you have horrid judgement. So, your telling me the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park" looked fake? Your telling me that Davy Jones in "Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" looked fake? If CGI is used properly then it makes a film even better. I'm sorry dude but you are clearly out of your element if are stating what I think your stating? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:36 PM In reply to this comment (#2517752) Yeah I hear ya about the Allspark thing lacking clarity. The things it brought to life certainly acted pretty nasty, and it absolutely could have been cleared up with just a bit of explanantion from Optimus. I suspect my theory is probably what the writers originally had in mind, or something like it, but Bay obviously did not feel the need to express it clearly to the audience and probably only served to convolute it further by making the pop machine transformer and the other 'newborns' seem so mean. But I don't think his primary concern was storytelling. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:36 PM correction "I'm sorry dude but you are clearly out of your element if *you* are stating what I think your stating? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:49 PM Terminator 2 is funnny, rediculous confusing (especially the geography. It bounces all over the place while claiming to be in the same place.) The humans are (at best) supporting characters (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 01:50 PM In reply to this comment (#2517423) Paints hz shirt red: "Does every Transformer have to talk like a white man?" So what you're saying is that every black man talks like the twins?! I think this is the first time I've ever taken something resembling offense to something someone said on RT! Good job, Paints! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 02:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2517514) Patt B.: He is still a chameleon, you're just too busy thinking of him as Johnny Depp the actor. He keeps doing Pirates movies because he loves playing that character, and why not work with Burton over and over again, after all, they are best friends and "get" each other. Not to mention Burton's the director that directed him to stardom (remember Edward Scissorhands). A lot of people would disagree with you on Sweeney Todd, and Ed Wood is probably the best movie Depp or Burton as ever done. Also, don't forget that Public Enemies is being directed by Michael Mann: Heat, 'nuff said. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 02:41 PM In reply to this comment (#2517724) Michael S: You aren't really reading the comments on here are you? There's a lot of people who have stated their issues with the movie. I went to the movie half in the bag, without the intention of picking the movie apart, but I couldn't help myself when it started. There are so many things in that movie that are started up and we never see them again. How many things seem to have no real purpose in the movie? I'll give you one big one: the fembot that was hitting on Sam. Now we know that it was trying to get info from Shia or whatever, but it was also set up to make Mikaela jealous. Mikaela has an issue with Sam's tryst for five minutes and we never hear about it again, nor did that robot ever come up again. That whole subplot made no sense because it doesn't lead to anything and takes up 15-30 minutes of the movies run time. There was also no purpose to Sam's roommate or the twins. They served absolutely no purpose to the plot except for supposed comic relief, but in reality they were just flat out annoying. These are legitimate problems with the movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 02:46 PM In reply to this comment (#2517737) gm1200: How does Johnny Depp ruin every film he's in? I gave my issues with Transformers 2 (a few, but I'll give more if you want them) so how about you give your reasons for bashing Depp! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 03:01 PM In reply to this comment (#2517737) I have to apologize, I gave a spoiler away in one of my previous posts without even thinking of it being a spoiler till now. To all of you who have read that post and haven't seen the movie yet, I apologize. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 03:15 PM The eunning time on T2 should've been cut by 20 minutes. Other than that it's the amusement ride I was expecting when I paid for my ticket. Shakespeare - or even "The Matrix" - it ain't...nor was it supposed to be. Was it worse than T1 one? Yeah. But it was still fun ride. And seriously, how many people are NOT going to at least check out this flick unless they're over 60 or under age 12? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 03:18 PM In reply to this comment (#2517855) CORRECTION: I meant RUNNING time by the way. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 03:31 PM In reply to this comment (#2517816) i didnt say every black man talks or acts like the twins. gohead and act offended whitey. its probly the only time you will b able to act offened for anything. ill let u have your moment. if critics are gonna blast the twins then why hasnt megan foxs transformer that talked italian on blast? or jazz from the first one? to me theres no difference. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 03:38 PM In reply to this comment (#2517524) It's an improvement. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 03:41 PM I went to see "My Sisters Keeper" this morning by myself because I had heard that it was an emotional movie and, being a man, I did not want my wife to see me cry if this was the case. I loved this movie. It was both heartwarming and emotional and a movie that I can relate to because I too lost my sister to Cancer at an early age. I don't know who played the little girl with Leukemia but if she does not get an Academy Award Nomination the people at the Academy are crazy. She was absolutely wonderful. This is the first time I have seen Cameron Diaz do such great work in a motion picture. This picture may not make much money but I can guarantee you that it will be replayed and replayed over the years while everyone forgets the Transformer movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 03:41 PM In reply to this comment (#2517520) Well, I pretty much despise every second of "Armageddon", but it's not Bay's worst. That will always be "Bad Boys II". And as for seeing it on DVD as opposed to theaters, I don't want to spend what little spare money I have (I'm not rich) to see a movie I expect to dislike. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 04:01 PM @Jimmy C. You are stretching yourself on "Transformers" won't be replayed over & over again let alone I think you are also ignoring the fact the majority of the public like these films & it's not just kids as the biggest demographic for these films are from the 18-25 demographic. Also, a film like "My Sisters Keeper" isn't the type of film that gets played over & over again. It's the type of film you see once & then maybe see again several years down the road. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 04:54 PM In reply to this comment (#2517861) Paints Hz Shirt Red: I wasn't actually offended, I was just joking (even when a guy stood staring me in the face and called me the n word once I wasn't offended, I was only offended when my dad did it). And I made mention of the Italian robot on another post, as well as the bucktoothed Jew, and a lot of people had already talked about Jazz. I wasn't offended by the twins, but I can see how people would be. Growing up milatto in Florida I hate anything dealing with stereotypes. Do you know what it's like to not fit a stereotype as a kid? People asking me why I didn't listen to rap, talk in slang, or dressed in baggy clothes and all that wasn't fun growing up and I wouldn't want any kid to go through that at a time when they're trying to find out who they are as a human when they shouldn't have to worry about race. Between movies like this, the media, and the rap community it's hard to escape when you don't fit the stereotype. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 05:02 PM In reply to this comment (#2517392) OMG! Moofie, lik, wuz arsum! I luf Tranzfermors! BAy is rules! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 07:41 PM In reply to this comment (#2517894) ok my bad. yes i personally dealt with racism before. im native american, grew up on a reservation and lived there all my life, till about 3 years ago. the closest town never was very friendly to us ndnz. but my point is alot of people never had to deal with racism on a personal level and im sure alot of these critics that bashed this film for it never has either. thats why i think its very stupid that people look at it that way. actually its kind of sickening. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 07:51 PM why do the critics hate this movie so much? they hated terminator too but these movies had some great action and good casting. The story lines were way better than the critics say. They deemed Transformers 2 storyline as incomprehensible yet it is a movie made for the masses. Some movies they look at a movie and critique it on what and who it is aimed for and they fail to do so at all with this movie. I mean I love Pixar films, but they don't seem to review them like they review live action movies. That's because they review by looking into what they were aimed for. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 09:31 PM @NTROST: I would give your counterpoint more weight if I felt that Bay's designs were: 1) not cheesy; 2) not hideously ugly; 3) realistic; or 4) remotely comprehensible. They are so terribly garbled, busy, and ugly that it is hard to make out what part of a Transformer you're looking at in a closeup, let alone in the heat of a battle. I care about what the ultimate object looks like, and the video, IMO captures a robot that one can easily recognize the parts to. As I left the theater, I overheard a lot of the conversations people were having about the movie, and a lot of them noted that they couldn't tell what was going on a lot of the time when the Transformers were shown in closeup. That alone is an inexcusable design flaw. One of my friends noted, "Well, I saw a lot of colors on screen but I didn't know if I was watching a fight or having epilepsy." As for your assertion that Bayformers are grounded in real physics, you do realize that ILM cheated with the transformations, right? In the first movie, they used a lot of lateral plane shifts for parts that were off camera. The movie toys feature completely different transformation sequences because the ones shown in the film don't actually work in real life. The designs I propose as being superior are actually based on toys that *did* transform. Combine that with some of the top-notch artistry at ILM, and I think they could have come up with something infinitely better than the walking junkpiles/scrapheaps that you see populating Bay's film. I frankly don't give a damn how many parts comprise each robot. I just care about whether they look good and whether they're distinguishable from one another. When the design precludes you from comprehending exactly what you're seeing, it's a bad design. As for your assertion that the cost of CGI is by frame and not by length of render, I beg to differ. Yes, some of the cost depends on how many frames of animation are needed (a 40 second CGI shot costs less than a fully CGI character that is on screen for 30 minutes). However, rendering costs are NOT by frames, but by gigahertz-hours. Transformers might need 32 hours/frame of rendering; James Cameron's AVATAR needs 50-100 hours/frame of rendering. Why would they be priced by frame? Massive render farms charge by how much processing power is utilized in the rendering process and by the length of time required for the renders. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 09:57 PM I am not sure if it was the Imax theater or what, but I did not think it was garbled, busy, or ugly. In fact I loved it!!! Total summer blockbuster entertainment at it's finest. WHen the movie ended the whole theater started clapping and cheering!(not because it was over) It was fun, the action was awesome, funny at times, and Meghan Fox looked amazing! Bottom line, Thank you Michael Bay! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 10:06 PM Can a man please ask for a moratorium on referring to TRANSFORMERS 2 as T2? T2 refers, in my mind, to an absolute classic of the action sci-fi genre, one of the best-crafted movies of its type, and an exemplar of technical filmmaking (i.e., TERMINATOR 2). Please, people, refer to TRANSFORMERS 2 as TF2. Having just returned from TRANSFORMERS 2, I'm in the camp that says it will be a forgotten film 10-15 years from now. Easily. Like, there's no doubt in my mind. Why? The spectacle of it is going to seem old when special effects advance within that timeframe (maybe even by December, when AVATAR has had its way with our eyeballs), and people will look at the zoomed-in, shaky-cam direction, realize that it's utterly incomprehensible, and never give it another look when there is far superior eye candy to be had. The movie featured dogs humping, slapstick comedy, Sam's mother getting hopped up on pot brownies, crass jokes, and the twins (who massively offended me! Not for racially stereotypical reasons, but because they were annoyances that had no purpose or place in the narrative). This movie alternately expected me to laugh at a robot humping Megan Fox's leg and take it very seriously when there's a robot that wants to destroy the sun. In between, I'm supposed to sit through a subplot of jealousy and betrayal with a Decepticon cribbed from TERMINATOR 3. It's trying to hit on all cylinders, trying to appeal to every possible demographic (including the dog-humping demo), but that lack of focus severely undermines any gravity to the proceedings of the action. I believe that great action is founded in caring about the involved characters and outcomes to give the viewer a sense of suspense from the real/implied danger. Here, there is a ludicrously over-complex plot that keeps tripping over itself, and we're supposed to have some sense of danger at the thought of some robot destroying the sun? It's a shame, because there was a lot going for the movie. Seeing the Decepticons starting to kick some butt was cool, ramping up the stakes. Demolisher was wasted early on, but the other car Decepticon even more so. Again, the plot suffered from being unnecessarily bloated. All of the subplots were annoying. The number of MacGuffins that are thrown out in the latter half of the film completely undermines the sense of a clear cut reason for caring about X/Y/Z. There's a whole hullaballoo created about getting the Matrix of Leadership, but if Megatron was revived by the use of one Allspark fragment, why not use the other one (that Sam/Mikaela have *in their possession!*) to revive Optimus? The never-ending run of annoying "comedic" characters was just grating, the film felt incredibly, self-indulgently bloated, had so many unnecessary subplots and characters (Sam's roommate being one; and like all Latinos in Bay movies, he has to break down and just start gibbering in Spanish at one point), a horribly unconvincing ultimate villain in the Fallen, a disappointing climactic battle with him, and clear re-use of a lot of the robots in the fight. I mean, we see some of the robots that form Devastator down there fighting in robot mode while Devastator is off climbing the pyramid, admixed with some shots of the robots as they were when they first arrived on Earth. Positives? The forest fight was good. A few of the action scenes actually were staged well and shot well, with the camera pulled back enough for people to make out what was actually occurring on screen. There was less in the way of quick, rapid-fire cuts that completely disorient the viewer, though these tendencies crept into the beginning and especially the ending of the film. I was totally ready to be blown away by great action scenes, but that lust was only mildly sated; a little bit less of the nonsensical camera moves and shakes, and a little bit more ability to distinguish the robots, and it would have been much better. I liked Optimus Prime's final mode, though it would have been better if he'd combined with Jetfire rather than Jetfire pulling a Sam Worthington move. I like the patriotic undertones throughout the movie. It's a welcome change to the usual message Hollywood tries to send. Other than that, I'm having a really, really hard time thinking of things I enjoyed. I'm not sure whether to credit it for trying to explore some deeper themes among the Decepticons' motivations and the actions of the Autbots, or condemn it for failing miserably. Mostly, I'm just disappointed that instead of having a simple, yet compelling story, they felt the need to use a horribly silly plot, that their additions to the mythos just felt trite, that they couldn't take the material seriously for the life of themselves, that they wasted Soundwave, and that they felt the need to put in so much silliness that it felt like it was a puerile broad-taste adolescent comedy with action than an action movie with comedic elements. 5/10 (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 10:08 PM In reply to this comment (#2517973) Or we should call it ROTF. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 11:28 PM In reply to this comment (#2517954) @Bob S. For one, let me just say I quoted the producer. I didn't say that myself. "As for your assertion that the cost of CGI is by frame and not by length of render, I beg to differ. Yes, some of the cost depends on how many frames of animation are needed (a 40 second CGI shot costs less than a fully CGI character that is on screen for 30 minutes). However, rendering costs are NOT by frames, but by gigahertz-hours. Transformers might need 32 hours/frame of rendering; James Cameron's AVATAR needs 50-100 hours/frame of rendering. Why would they be priced by frame? Massive render farms charge by how much processing power is utilized in the rendering process and by the length of time required for the renders." Okay I did some research when you brought up pricing & I found that where both right in our own right & perspective: Basic Pricing(GHzHr) at a Rendering Farm Maya © 3D Studio Max © Maya Software 0.49 USD Scanline 0.49 USD Maya Vector 0.49 USD VRay 0.49 USD Mental Ray 0.49 USD Brazil R/S 0.49 USD Maya Hardware Not Supported Mental Ray 0.49 USD LightWave © Cinema 4D © LightWave Software 0.45 USD Cinema 4D Software 0.49 USD XSI © AfterEffect © Mentalray 0.49 USD AfterEffect 0.65 USD/Frame *All rates reflect price per GHz-Hr. *A unit of GHz-Hr is how much usage is measured on the renderfarm. *Please check below for an example of how pricing is calculated Prepaid Discount Pricing Prepaid Amount (USD) $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $5,000 $10,000 Additional Rendering Credit 10% 15% 20% 25% 40% * Credit never expires. Example of the Prepaid Bonus Sytem Prepaid Amount (Actual Price)- $5,000.00 Additional Rendering Bonus - 25% ( $1,250.00) Total Credit Towards Render - $6250 USD Example on how GHz hour is determined Number of CPU - 2 CPU Speed - * 3 GHz Rendering Real Time - * 1 Hour GHz Hour = 6 Example on how pricing is determined GHz Hour(Node) Number of Frames Price - * 25 Number of Real Time Hours - * 2 Hour Price of Renderer 3.0Ghz*2(dual) - .65USD (vray) = $195 "Having just returned from TRANSFORMERS 2, I'm in the camp that says it will be a forgotten film 10-15 years from now. Easily. Like, there's no doubt in my mind. Why? The spectacle of it is going to seem old when special effects advance within that timeframe (maybe even by December, when AVATAR has had its way with our eyeballs), and people will look at the zoomed-in, shaky-cam direction, realize that it's utterly incomprehensible, and never give it another look when there is far superior eye candy to be had." I don't agree these "Transformers" films will be forgotten because of special effects advancements. If that were true then films like "Jurassic Park", "Terminator 2", "Lord Of The Rings, "Pirates Of The Caribbean", "King Kong" & such would be forgotten. If special effects advancements were so impactful then films from 1900-1999 would already be disregarded. "Jurassic Park" came out in 1993 as it's now 2009 which would make that film 16 years old & well, it still remembered & still impressive. Computer Generated Imagery will reach it's limits in advancement for film. What alot of people don't seem to be misunderstanding about James Cameron's "Avatar" is it's going to be breaking ground in 3D technology aspects more then Computer Generated Imagery. Creating CGI characters such as Davy Jones, Dinosaurs, & such are reaching there high point. The things were CGI will advance in is in the capturing of the human form in complete detail which Hollywood has already begun doing with Aguru Dome which is the latest technology that allows filmmakers to create models of real people that can be seamlessly morphed into action scenes featuring human actors. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 11:31 PM correction: "What alot of people seem to be misunderstanding" (eliminating: *don't*) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 01:42 AM In reply to this comment (#2517855) Please stop calling this **** T2. That belongs to Terminator 2 and it confuses most people as that has been the films nickname for a long time before fu**ing Transformers. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 01:52 AM Sorry Bob S, you had already made that point. I just couldn't let that go after the second person referred to it as that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 01:54 AM In reply to this comment (#2517987) NFrost, All the films you mentioned were much better films and way better in terms of how the were put together. Transformers to is one of those "I'll see it because it is popular at the moment." I don't think it will be remembered for anything in the future. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 27 2009 03:33 AM In reply to this comment (#2517869) To Jimmy C.: the girl who plays the role also plays the older daughter in Medium(tv show), she is pretty good. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:33 AM 'Walken the park' is right, the reviews are infinitely more entertaining than the film. Best one i've found yet is Mark Kermode's (BBC reviewer, find it on you tube), who's so angry about it that i'm surprised he didn't keel over half way through reviewing it! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:32 AM It's an "empty calorie" type of movie. A visual treat with the special effects and all those pretty girls and cool cars, but not filling. That's not to say that I didn't like it, I just don't think they ever claimed that it would have an amazing plot or be really dramatic. *spoiler alert* I was hoping that it would end on a down note, like Empire Strikes Back then they could make their 3rd and call it good. But those pesty autobots just keep on winning. That always bugged me about the cartoons, the decepticons kept getting beat but not killed so they came back for more. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 05:08 AM Well, I don't put TRANSFORMERS in the same league as JURASSIC PARK, KING KONG, or PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Those movies have story and interesting characters, and in fact, I'd say that the dinosaurs of the original JP are better looking than those of JP3. Ask even a big TRANSFORMERS fan and (s)he will admit that the movie is thin on story, but the visuals look great. When the biggest argument for the film is that it has fantastic visuals, I would suggest that its appeal will wear down over time. How much do you think people revisit the Old Trilogy vs. the New Trilogy STAR WARS? I don't know about others, but I can still watch the old movies over and over, while getting myself to sit through AOTC is...a challenge, to put it mildly. BLADE RUNNER is one of my favorite movies of the science fiction genre. Yes, the visuals in it are still impressive and stylistic and hold up well today, but they're not the reason that I so deeply love the movie. There's just a lot more to it there. My belief that TRANSFORMERS will become outmoded is rooted in the idea that a great story is what lasts, not once-fancy visual effects. People still read Homer's Odyssey; few people have much inclination to re-watch THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS time and again for all its impressive visuals. As far as what AVATAR will do, according to Cameron, they've bridged the uncanny valley that exists in CGI parlance (that last little bit that makes people say, "That looks fake.") He says they managed to do it in 9 of 10 CGI shots, and came very, very close on the last bit. Photoreal CGI in addition to immersive 3D? I salivate at the thought. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 05:11 AM In reply to this comment (#2518006) @JAKEofMIDWORLD: Hey, it's cool - it can't be stated enough ;). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 07:32 AM In reply to this comment (#2517329) Shia LeBeouf a good actor...was that said out loud. Honestly, he possibly, could be, maybe a good actor but he has played the same character (or likely just acted like himself) in every movie. He completely ruing Indiana Jones though that wasnt that hard. The only thing he has going for him is that Speilberg gushes about him and puts him in all of his movies (ie produced transformers 1 & 2 and eagle eye, produced and directed Indiana Jones. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 08:05 AM In reply to this comment (#2518063) i agree shia lebeouf is a decent actor. there are much worse out there. but i do disagree that he ruined indy4. george lucas ruined it, if he let speilberg do his job without him looking over his shoulder the entire time it would of turned out to be better. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 01:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2517987) NTROST: I believe what Bob S. was referring to is that the only reason to see the movie is for sheer spectacle, but other than that once the spectacle has worn off there will be no reason to remember this movie. Movies like Jurassic Park, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Terminator 2, and King Kong are remembered just as much for their characters and stories as they were for their effects. These movies are and will be remembered because there's always a reason to go back and watch them besides being dazzled by special effects, Transformers won't have that same effect when more movies with better effects, characters, and plot are made. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 01:15 PM In reply to this comment (#2518044) Bob S.: Sorry, I commented on your intent before I read that you had already done so! I'm so impatient! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 01:20 PM In reply to this comment (#2518063) Reddan 3: I seriously think you need to tone down on your hate. You shouldn't blame Shia for Indiana Jones, I doubt Shia had anything to do with adding CGI Monkeys and Prairie Dogs to the film, putting Jones in a refrigerator during a nuclear blast, and creating an ending that didn't give our main protagonist anything to do while conjuring up horrible CGI aliens. Shia's a decent actor, and played his role in Indiana Jones well, it's not his fault if the character just didn't belong, after all, he didn't write it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 01:44 PM I like Indiana Jones 4...just saying. I always have to defend it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 01:54 PM In reply to this comment (#2518130) i agree mr. ledawg. indys awesome, lets all hope the next one has a little bit better of a story. i actually really liked indy4. to me it just seemed like they rushed to get it out. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 02:02 PM In reply to this comment (#2518141) Rushed to get it out? They were planning it for 18 years. I love Indy as much as anybody, but South Park got it right. Lucas and Spielberg raped Indy and a large part of it was Shia. Not necessarily that he was bad at the role, but Indy doesn't need a sidekick and if he did he should remain his sidekick and not attempt to be moved front and center in an ill adviced stab at making Indy the next generation. Again I don't think he is a bad actor, but he should never have been wedged into Indy 4. I don't give a crap how good an actor you are you can't use the term "Daddy-o" and stay cool. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 02:18 PM @whitey: Quite alright - that was what I meant, anyhow. @bigbrother: Yeah, after years of telling us all that they were just waiting on the right script, their schedules to work out, and the right stars to align, all I could think of was...THIS is the script you chose? I didn't like INDY 4 very much, but like you, I don't really blame Shia specifically for ruining the movie. He does do a bit of his, "No no no no no no no!" but for the most part he plays the role of the smug 1950s greaser competently enough. The bigger issue is that Mutt Williams should never have been conceived to be a part of the film. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 02:21 PM I think all that stuff looks fake I'm sorry. Gollum in Lord of the rings was probably the best CGI character I've ever seen and it still looked like a cartoon. I think the future technology of film realism is to have real "material" and make this real material move through CGI. Kinda like they did with brat Pitt's real face superimposed on another actor's body in Benjamin button. A sort or real & CGI Hybrid. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:08 PM In reply to this comment (#2518147) bigbrother: I think saying a large part of the problem with the movie was Shia is blaming your dislike of the movie on the actor rather than the character, which adding the character is Lucas and David Koepp's fault. (Personally, from what I've seen of Frank Darabont's scriptment for the Indiana Jones movie I wish they would have gone with him over Koepp.) If Shia did the role competently enough for what he was given he's not the problem. Honestly, if you grew up with a love for Indiana Jones and had always wanted to be in an Indiana Jones movie and knew that no matter what they were going to do it, wouldn't you jump at the chance to work on it? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:11 PM In reply to this comment (#2518147) jaysix: We'll see, As Bob S stated above, James Cameron says that he's bridged the gap between CGI and reality in 9 out of 10 shots for Avatar. If this is true, and he did achieve a new level of photorealism in CGI then we won't need real CGI hybrids. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:24 PM In reply to this comment (#2518147) @ bigbrother. ya they had 18 years to do this film, and look how it turned out. its not like they spent the entire time planning it. it seems lucas just slapped a quick story together and handed it over to speilberg. thats what i meant. and shia didnt ruin this film, he didnt write his own part for it.indy always had a sidekick in his films. so i dont see what the problem is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:39 PM @Bob S. & whitey_mcwhite Okay, I see everyone's points (valid points in many cases & levels) & your not telling me anything I don't know already. I think there was some misunderstanding in Bob S. previous statment & how it appeared in perspective that just didn't seem fit but it's a bit more clear now on with you enlightenment on what you were trying to put across. Let me just say, I wasn't putting "Transformers" in the same classification as "Jurrassic Park", "Terminator 2", "King Kong", "Pirates Of The Caribbean", "Lord Of The Rings" & such. Actually, all of them are in different kinds of fabrics & comparining the materials & such would be unsound & unjustifiable in comparing the materials. Now as far as "Avatar"? I think "Avatar" will change some little things mainly in the 3D aspects of technology & somewhat in CGI technology but I seriously think the hype has been taken to high for what this film is going to bring. I mean the story of "Avatar" is nothing special let alone not even original & actually, just by what's been said about the film, it seems this film will be mainly about the 3D VFX especially since every shot is in 3D. There has already been people that have seen clips, some scenes, even an hour of the film already of "Avatar" & not one mentioned anything about the story itself. I just truly don't think "Avatar" isn't the second coming of film if anything it will have some sort of an impact on the 3D VFX aspects more so then anything else. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:44 PM In reply to this comment (#2518173) Whitey/Paints that's why I immediately explained what I meant by the statement you referenced. Think we're saying the same thing here. Paintz, the problem is as I said in every other instance of Indy having a sidekick (Salah, Short Round, I suppose his dad) they were clearly sidekicks. Whereas a major part of the problem with Mutt was it seemed like they were trying to prove he was the equal of Indy with an eye toward making him the "new Indy". I never said Shia ruined the movie as in he and his performance was the reason it was bad. He just never belonged, he was written poorly as you say and he just didn't work in the movie. He should have been a bit more of a supporting character and his portion could have worked, but he didn't and his character was one of the many things wrong with the film. Whitey, having seen Hayden Christiansan, Jake Lloyd and now Shia LeBeouf take these roles I can honestly say I wouldn't jump at the chance to be in one of my favorite movies if the role was crap, but as you probably came to the same conclusion as I did telling that movie is going to be crap based on a script is harder to discern than looking back on it which is why I don't blame Shia, but Shia's character. I think you can be a good actor and still be bad in a movie. Look at John Connor. I think it would be hard to find someone who thinks Edward Furlong is a better actor than Christian Bale, but both playing John Connor it's hard to say Bale's character was superior because it wasn't written as well and the entire movie was overall weaker. that's all I'm saying. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:51 PM In reply to this comment (#2518179) NTROST, I think people aren't talking about the story on Avatar because they're probably legally forbidden from doing so. Just because a movie is 3D based I don't see why it can't be groundbreaking in other ways. Nor do I see your point about a lack of originality making or breaking the movie. Originality is overrated. Almost nothing is original anymore. Star Wars wasn't original, The Dark Knight wasn't original, Pretty Woman wasn't original but they were all good movies and have had lasting effects on the industry. Some less so than others, but I wanted to use Pretty Woman just to break up the overused examples of Star Wars and TDK. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:56 PM @jaysix: Like it, love it, or hate it, CGI is here to stay. Personally, I am hoping that it will someday get to the point that it can look photorealistic and blend seamlessly with live action footage. I'd also like it if the novelty of the device wore off, and directors could get back to thinking about telling a great story rather than trying to one-up the previous summer's blockbusters. If you look at the improvement in quality of rendering technology even over a decade, I think it's undeniable that absolutely perfect CGI is going to be a reality. I like practical effects as much as the next person, but above all, I love beautifully integrated effects that never pull you out of the story. Hate to say it, but sometimes, those puppets look like, well, puppets. @whitey: The Darabont script wasn't perfect, but it was really a lot better than the one that was chosen. That biplane fight...sigh, what could have been. @Paints Hz Shirt Red: Well, none of the sidekicks were his illegitimate son, either ;). I had a flashback to SUPERMAN RETURNS. @NTROST: No harm, no foul :). I think for the entirety of my life, one of the greatest moments in my film-watching experience will be the first dinosaur seen in JURASSIC PARK. It was like the landmark level of "You will believe a man can fly" for the previous generation or so, where the effect was so brilliant that it made me *believe* rather than merely suspend my disbelief. Combined with Williams' swelling, beautiful score (which truly captures the magic and wonder of the on-screen wizardry), the scene was so evocative of everything a 9 year-old child could experience that I cried from an overwhelming surge of emotion. To this day, I can't watch that scene without getting chills down my spine. Believe me when I say I wish that TRANSFORMERS had the same impact for me. I was so, so ready to see a part of my childhood brought to life on screen and to make me feel that pure ecstasy and joy. I got considerably less. I'm not in the camp that will tell you it was a horrible film, but I firmly believe there was a lot of wasted potential. Giant, transforming robots are right up there with dinosaurs as fodder for the imaginative mind :). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:11 PM In reply to this comment (#2518155) @jaysix "I think all that stuff looks fake I'm sorry. Gollum in Lord of the rings was probably the best CGI character I've ever seen and it still looked like a cartoon. I think the future technology of film realism is to have real "material" and make this real material move through CGI. Kinda like they did with brat Pitt's real face superimposed on another actor's body in Benjamin button. A sort or real & CGI Hybrid." All the CGI stuff looks fake? come on dude! Your telling me the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park" looked faked? Your telling me Kong looked fake in "King Kong"? Your saying "Davy Jones" looked fake in "Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest"? & I could go on & on. I mean if you are saying yes to these then i'm sorry but I think you just have pure fixated ignorance. Comparing Gollum (which isn't the best CGI character but exceedingly solid one) to a cartoon? doesn't even make sense in alot of cases. Not everything will be able to be done with "real material". It just isn't going to happen & CGI has maybe 10-15 maybe 20 years left in improvements before it reaches it's full potential. Photorealism won't work for everything especially on fictional & non-existant characters (it may work on facial aspects like they did with Kong, Davy Jones, Benjamin Button, & such) but other then that? No. CGI character hybrids will always be around & I think you will have just have to learn & accept that. I think some people truly have unrealistic belieifs. Like I said, CGI is closing in on it's full potential (it's about 75%-80% the way there already). But as far as you saying everything CGI looks fake? is just ignorance & having a fixation of knowing it's CGI. I think either your going to have to become more broader in your acceptance or just don't watch films with CGI but I find your statement rather laughable to say the least. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2518181) bigbrother: Good points. I think I heard it best said in The Screenwriting Bible: Creativity isn't coming up with something new, it's giving an old story a new feel. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:35 PM In reply to this comment (#2518181) @bigbrother "I think people aren't talking about the story on Avatar because they're probably legally forbidden from doing so. Just because a movie is 3D based I don't see why it can't be groundbreaking in other ways. Nor do I see your point about a lack of originality making or breaking the movie. Originality is overrated. Almost nothing is original anymore. Star Wars wasn't original, The Dark Knight wasn't original, Pretty Woman wasn't original but they were all good movies and have had lasting effects on the industry. Some less so than others, but I wanted to use Pretty Woman just to break up the overused examples of Star Wars and TDK." I think there forbidden from giving any type of major details about the story but you don't need to go far to see what the story is about because the premise of the story has already been revealed & the premise is just a basic story. There is nothing special or significant about it even the reporter that explained about the hour of foootage in his article (I'm sure it was posted on here just like it was on comingsoon.net). The thing that impressed him the most wasn't the acting, the characters or anything. It just the 3D VFX. I'm not saying, the story can't be executed well because it's 3D based. That would just be a doltish thing to say but if your expecting everything about this film to ground breaking? then your fooling yourself let alone your expectations which I think that is what is happening. By the way, I think you carried on bit much over the originality part. The point about originality I was make was...for a film that's suppose to be the "next big thing" you would expect complete originality. That's all I was saying about that. I didn't mean for you to go off the way you did but that's all I was saying. @Bob S. I completely agree with you about "Jurassic Park". When I first saw T-Rex on screen that was just awe-inspiring & to do this day that film just has a special magic about it. I also agree John Williams has a wonderful score in that film. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:59 PM @NTROST: I agree that a large part of the appeal of AVATAR and a lot of its "revolutionary" aspects will be its 3D immersion filmmaking, but the story didn't seem to me totally devoid of appeal. It sounded like DANCES WITH WOLVES or THE LAST SAMURAI by way of space opera. Not the first time it's been done, but I still think that Cameron will find ways of making it appealing and clever in its own right. I've got my fingers crossed :). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 05:01 PM In reply to this comment (#2518190) Sorry if it seemed like I was going off. It wasn't intentional. Ask people who I've gone off on when I do it it's pretty obvious. I don't lose my head too much, so when I do I make it worth my while :). I was just making the point that if this film is going to be the next big thing which I think Cameron has made enough of those in the past to not discount the possibility out of hand that there is a precedent for material that lacked originality that were previous big things. I don't have huge expectations for this movie because I haven't heard much about it, you have me at a disadvantage there. That's probably one of the reason's I didn't get the hype you were talking about. I haven't heard much buzz for this outside of the internet movie sites. Still plenty of time though. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 05:53 PM NTROST: I think right now the viewings aren't to focus on plot or characters but rather to get the word out about what Cameron's accomplished in terms of technological advancements. From what I've noticed, and I could be wrong, but this movie is going to be more about characters and other worlds than it really is going to be about plot. If Cameron's accomplished what he appears that he has the sense of being absolutely blown away will be the first thing you'll feel, and you'll probably end up going back to get more of the plot and characters. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 08:39 PM I didn't mind Indy 4's plot, it was the cartoon like visuals that annoyed me. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 10:00 PM personally, I liked the movie because I felt like I got my moneys worth, it was just constant action and the effects look really good, and the action was just a build up from small scale to even bigger and bigger scale at the end, I was entertained all through the move, I just do not see the reason why critiques hated it, it is a simple check your brain at the door kind of movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 01:13 AM In reply to this comment (#2518290) @eastern2western I agree with you that the film was adequately entertaining & your not alone on liking it as the majority of the public did like it as well. It's just the critics & the minority group of the public that didn't like it (which a good portion of the haters are just over-sensational on things about the film) but it was same way with the first installment. Does it deserve the 21% it's recieved from critics? No! It should be in the same range percentage as the first installment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 01:51 AM In reply to this comment (#2518329) @NTROST Couldn't disagree more, I think there first film is much better. Its not that critics are snobby and a lot of them do enjoy brain-less popcorn movies= (fresh ratings) Wanted, Crank, Crank 2, Incredible Hulk (if you consider it dumb fun like me), Shoot'em Up, Predator, Commando, etc. I don't get how you think critics complaints for Transformers 2 are over-sensitive= Bloated, Dumb, No Character Development, Way too Long, and really unfunny. Those are plenty enough valid reasons to hate a movie, I didn't hate it, but your INSANE if you think those aren't real problems someone could have with this movie. I mean even look at Roger Ebert, he gave the first one 3 stars saying it was almost a 4 star movie, and then he gave this one ONE star. I agree that majority of the public does like this movie. That 21% just means that 89% of people who really love movies couldn't enjoy this and most of there reasons are valid. I think people who love Transformers get way to over-sensitive who bash people for saying they don't like the movie dumb reasons while there reasoning makes perfect sense. I also don't get how someone is a hater for not liking a movie, its opinions, and some people really love movies and they like to discuss good and bad ones. Again, I didn't hate the movie, but the critics that did have plenty enough reasons to. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 01:59 AM Also are generally audiences as a whole really loving this? I mean my crowd was mixed, but love? Its got like 6.7 on IMDB and thats a really bad sign for it to be that low after just being released, it always goes down. Yahoo users have like a B and the first movie has an A-. I think most people actually seem to like the first movie a lot more then this one. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 09:32 AM In reply to this comment (#2518334) I think NTROST's point is the same one I made back in my review, that the two movies should be closer in tomatometer. He didn't say the critics should have liked it, just that it should have ended up in the same general percentile as the first one. It's the severe drop-off from Transformers to Transformers 2 that suggests a bias in the critical community, since all the things you mentioned the critics are complaining about: "Bloated, Dumb, No Character Development, Way too Long, and really unfunny" are just as prevalent in the first movie. The first one had a ridiculous plot, poorly conceived characters, approximately 2.5 hour running time and questionable sense of humour. The few things that were generally commended in the first movie by critics, namely the special effects and action scenes, have actually improved. So why the severe 37% drop-off in tomatometer? Either the critics are hammering it extra hard because it's a sequel, or they just decided they wanted to give this one a particularly hard time. That happens sometimes; critics are people too, they can be fickle and aren't always as objective as they should be. This is going off on a tangent, (and will probably make me sound like a crazy person), but I actually have a conspiracy theory that the only reason Darren Aronfsky's The Fountain was critically panned was because the critics didn't want him to go 3/3 with Pi, Requiem For A Dream and The Fountain. They loved his first two (and now his fourth, The Wrestler), but somehow The Fountain didn't click with them. The main complaint was essentially that they didn't understand it, but I don't buy that anyone could get Pi but not Fountain. (For anyone who hasn't seen them, Pi is just as bizarre, perhaps much more so). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 09:36 AM In reply to this comment (#2518267) ya the plot wasnt bad. the character that annoyed me the most was mutts mother. other than that i really liked the film. cant wait for the next one. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 10:08 AM In reply to this comment (#2518380) Nah thats insane that they didn't like it because its a sequel, also a lot of critics have complained that the action here at times is incomprehensible (last 30 minutes) and they also say its kind of the same old action, the first movies action was something kind of new. I think the story was more focused in the first movie, even though it wasn't all focused, but it wasn't completely incoherent. Plus I think there are a LOT more annoying characters here- Sam's parents were even more annoying, Sam's roommate was excruciating, and the two twins. I think the new movie was also 15 minutes longer and most critics complained that even the first movie ran too long. They are not hating on it just because its a sequel or because its directed by Michael Bay, sorry but thats ludicrous, whether or not you like the movie you cant say critics complaints here don't make sense. I think the term "Sometimes less is more" applies perfectly here. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 11:10 AM In reply to this comment (#2518390) Dammit man, don't you listen? Er, read? No one said the critics complaints 'don't make sense', just that they were the same complaints as before, ergo the two movies should have similar tomatometers. The complaints are perfectly reasonable, but they said the same thing last time, so why the inconsistency? 2h 15m ruuning time or 2h 30m running time, what's the difference if they're both deemed overlong? Do you really think a critic would give the second movie one less star because it was 15 minutes longer? Sam's roomate the annoying character subbed in for Anthony Anderson's annoying character, big deal. Were Sam's parents really that much more annoying the second time around, to the point where it made the movie that much worse as a whole? If the first movie already had annoying characters, and was frowned upon because of it, and the second movie had one or two more, do you think that would cause a drop from fresh to rotten in so many critics? The plot was criticized the first time around, so if it gets criticized in the second movie too, how does that account for a big drop-off? It went from bad in the first one to bad in the second one. (I actually thought it was better the second time around in terms of coherence, it had one less concurrent major story thread and as a result was a bit more linear, but the point is both movies were docked marks for poor plotting) The only thing you said that's actually logical is that "its kind of the same old action, the first movies action was something kind of new", which, incidentally, is pretty much exactly what I was getting at when I said they were being hard on it because it was a sequel. Obviously they didn't hate it because it had a '2' in the title, that's not what I meant, but because it was more of the same thing they'd seen before, they may have counted that as a con. I think its reasonable to do that to a certain extent; it would have been nice for them to do something different with it, but is a sequel being overtly similar to its predecessor really that bad a crime? Not enough for a huge tomatometer drop-off. Point is if a sequel has all the same pros as its predecessor and all the same cons, there's no way to explain a 37% drop-off in critical reaction without a)critics being excessively hard on it just because its similar to the first one, or b)critics being excessively hard on it, just because they feel like it. To illustrate my point by alternative example, it would be like Return of the King getting a 59% after The Two Towers got a 96%. They're made very much the same way, with the same pros and cons, but Return took everything (good and bad) up a notch. The tomatometer drop off between Two Towers and Return was 2%. I'm not saying Transformers and Transformers 2 should be THAT close, but 10-15% is much more reasonable than 37%. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 11:34 AM In reply to this comment (#2518380) @ColinTheCimmerian: Sorry that I can't agree with your conspiracy theory. Yes, there were problems with the first movie. They were more pronounced in the second. It felt like 2 different movies, with the first half devoted to one MacGuffin, and the second to an entirely different one. The story felt more incoherent, more fractured, and in spite of us having some background for the characters on-screen, they felt even less developed. The comedy was crass and unnecessary in the first one. The second has really, really poor taste. Dogs humping, Decepticons humping, and so on - I can't imagine what parents that dragged along young ones felt like afterwards. The action scenes were shot better in some instances, but in others it was the same old story of an incomprehensible mess of metal swirling around. Bay's typical mannerisms are even more pronounced - does the camera really need to be spinning around Shia and Megan as they have their kissing scene? Yes, the film improved on spectacle, but it regressed in many other respects. So the T-meter isn't about a 37% drop. Critics rate the movie on a scale of 1-10, and those on the lower side of 6 are rotten, while those above are fresh. The T-meter reflects only the percentage that are 6/10 or above. Critics didn't think it was a 2/10 movie - it's just that a larger part of them chose to vote for less than 6 this time around, which is fair enough. I rated the first movie as a 6/10 and this one as a 5/10, being rather generous in both instances. From a T-meter perspective, that's essentially a 100 for TF1, and a 0 for TF2. Seeing as how many critics thought the first was a marginal movie, a fairly large regression in almost all areas of the film could easily push them to the other side of 6, and consequently result in a disproportionate drop in the T-meter. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 12:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2518398) Yeah I still think your wrong, I think the first movie is much better. I found Sam's parents even more annoying- Sam's mom eating pot brownies, really? Dogs humping each-other, really? Two annoying unfunny robots with a good amount of screen time, really? I wasn't a big fan of the humor in the first movie but it never got to the point where I was annoyed. 15 minutes can make a difference especially if your not enjoying a movie. Yeah it is similar to the first movie except its a little more bloated, kind of more incoherent, more of the same, more unfunny moments, and a really crappy villain- come on, he sucked compared to Megatron in the first movie. I think its ludicrous to think that this deserves the same meter as Transformers 1. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 12:58 PM @Bob A valid point, the tomatometer is very sensitive to even slight changes in the ratings of individual critics, provided that slight change is common enough across the board. Nonetheless, I find it difficult to believe that the number of critics that took it from a 6 to a 5 is so much greater than the number that took it from a 5 to a 6 that it could account for that severe a drop, assuming an equivalent grading rubrick is used for both movies. It's unlikely enough that it's worth noting at Wh (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 01:34 PM In reply to this comment (#2518431) Wha? I was mostly pointing out that critics had more problems with this sequel, its irrelevant whether I agreed with most of them, and it does make sense why this has a lower tomato-meter then the first movie. Critics have already seen the action like this so its not like they had that feeling of excitement they had watching the first movie, also I have also seen a lot of them say its not very suspenseful/exciting because those scenes are filled with pre-conceptions aka you know what characters are going to live. There was even more action in the first movie and again the critics who liked the first movie said it felt fresh then. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 01:43 PM Just got back from the movie and I have to say I really enjoyed this movie. Don't get the points at all about it being unfunny, or in poor taste. Though I could see how people could see that. It's all a matter of taste, but we have to remind ourselves that for everyone who goes into a movie looking at every detail and judging it for critical merit there are probably 3 who go just to be entertained. I'm a bit of both and while I noticed some of the mind bogglingly silly aspects, it didn't ruin the entertainment value of the film for me. Bob, I don't know about everybody, but the parents that brought their kids to this movie didn't seem bothered at all since the kids really liked it and didn't see the elements you mentioned as dirty or just plain didn't get the joke and those old enough to get it have probably seen worse at school. I think as a society when we become adults we forget that kids view things differently and are a lot more resilient than we give them credit for. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 01:57 PM In reply to this comment (#2518431) @ColinTheCimmerian: My friend, I'm afraid maybe you are missing the point. Perhaps the point is that most people, critics included, feel that the second is a markedly worse film than the first, contrary to what you believe. For example, you say that the plot of the second is bad, but so was the plot of the first. However, I would say that the plot of the second is markedly worse than that of the first (and as you know, I'm no big fan of the original film's plot :D). Like I said, the beginning seemed to have little coherence with the end. Try as I might, I can't really create a super-logical structure that links the first bit to the last. Part of that is because of ridiculous subplots that amounted to nothing (the Decepticon disguised as a co-ed, for one) that were interspersed between. Now, if you're grading that on a scale, even if you're applying the same scale, I'd say that the plot of the first merits a 5.5/10 and the plot of the second merits a 4/10. I don't think that poor plot = poor plot. I think there's such a thing as *worse* plot. I also think that this view is espoused by the vast majority. Although you enjoyed the second more than the first, the Community T-Meter puts this at 68% (comparable films: X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (68%), TERMINATOR: SALVATION (72%); IMDb scores for WOLVERINE and TF2:ROTF are identical as well). IIRC, you ranked WOLVERINE a 4/10 and T:S a 5/10, but TRANSFORMERS 2 a 7/10. By contrast, you put STAR TREK in the 7-8/10 range, which has a community T-meter at 88% or so. I'm glad that you enjoyed it (not being snarky or sarcastic - I'm actually happy that you had a good time at the theater), but I don't think that the preponderance of filmgoing opinion bears you out. Additionally, I believe you said that you thought TRANSFORMERS was, along with PEARL HARBOR, one of Bay's worst films. By contrast, many people think TRANSFORMERS was one of his best (Community T-meter 80%). I think the combination of your relative devaluation of the first film (which also elevates the second by comparison) relative to others' opinions of his work makes the discrepancy between the first film and the second seem large. The first film has a rating of 5.8/10 on RT, and the second a 4.0/10. I think there was enough regression in the actual material to push the vast majority of people into saying that the second movie was worse than the first. I watched the movies back-to-back, with a viewing of the first right before I went to the second. Believe me - I grew up with Transformers, and the idea of cars and jets that transform into giant robots and beat each other up is one of the coolest things in the world to me - I *wanted* to like TF2 more than its predecessor. I just don't think that many people agree with your opinion that it actually was. Indeed, there's actually significant evidence that most people think it was worse, not just the critics. I do think the second film got some things better. I liked the action sequences more, as some were competently staged. I think the new Transformers could have been cool if they weren't treated like adjuncts who only got to maybe say their name and cut one thing up and then only reappear in the background later. The spectacle of the entire beast easily surpasses the preceding film, with the occasional "HOLY CRAP" type of visual that made me glad I didn't just wait for the DVD. The degree to which these things were improved over the original article just wasn't enough to make up for the things that got worse. I value your opinions highly and I think they're very intelligent and informed, but in this case, divergent from the herd. Which is cool. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 02:24 PM I don't know Bob, I can only judge from the theater I was in, but it was sold out for all the IMAX shows and a couple of the regular ones like the one I saw and everyone seemed very pleased coming out of the theater. I can't judge it based against the first since I saw that one in England and the Brits don't have the same love of Transformers as Americans and generally aren't as boisterous when sober. Some people even applauded at the end. I don't think it's as well structured as the original, but for entertainment value I think an arguement could be made that it's better. I'm shocked to say that since I'm one of the biggest opponents of taking a sequal and just turning the volume up. I think that practice has killed the horror genre over the last 30 years, but it really seems to work for this movie. I laughed at a ton of the jokes. Sure they were blunt, but so is the 3 Stooges and that's still funny. I laughed a lot more that this than the original, the action was better, Megan Fox was maybe a little less sexy and I for one was so glad to see the Autobots not portrayed as little bitches who were constantly getting their butts handed to them by the Decepticons. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 28 2009 03:44 PM I'm only going to see the Transformers movie for the action and the robots. The story line isn't really a big deal when your dealing with awesome robots that can turn into anything. Like the only reason why I liked the first was because of the robots and the action, the plot was quite ridiculous. Plus, the Megan Fox scenes, they're not needed (at all) but they're eye candy for many (not me). Placing "eye candy" scenes is to me a cheap way of getting people to watch a movie or to keep them interested. Why can't they get Bryan Singer to direct a transformer movie? He's good and knows how to work a plot and action together perfectly. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 04:16 PM In reply to this comment (#2518443) Well Bob, I certainly can't argue with your logic; my preference for the sequel could very well be skewing my viewpoint. And since none of us will ever really know if all the critics were truly being objective, or if some of them were feeling particularly wrathful (and adjusted their ratings accordingly), I suppose we might as well leave it at that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 05:02 PM @bigbrother: Oh, there's no doubt that people are turning out for the movie in droves. Movie can't make $200M domestic in 5 days or so if that isn't the case. My theater was absolutely packed as well. In honesty, the reaction after the first movie for me was vastly different from the second. Let me put my first viewing in context for you. I had been studying to take the USMLE Step 1 examination for 3 months. This is the biggest, most grueling exams in med school, and I spent 3 months studying 16 hours a day, to the exclusion of everything else prior to taking it. The exam itself is 8 hours long, and I'd forgotten to bring something for lunch with me, so I did it starving. After that ordeal, I got tickets to see TRANSFORMERS a few days before its wide release. I saw it in an old-style theater that has a lot of the trappings of those classic theaters with the popcorn machine and poster layout and whatnot - just a fantastic atmosphere. The forward part of the theater has all the seats torn out and replaced by leather couches, and so I saw it in the absolute perfect frame of mind for a turn-off-your-brain movie, reclining in full comfort and eager to experience some of the nostalgia I had growing up. I was having a ridiculous amount of fun with it, the crowd I was with totally loved it, and there were explosive cheers at key moments (such as Optimus Prime's first appearance). There was something else that happened during the movie that I will not detail here (it's not appropriate for all audiences :P), but you can imagine what might happen with a fellow and his gal who'd not been together in some time due to the rigors of my study schedule. Needless to say, I walked out of that theater in a state of sheer ecstasy. I have been on cloud 9 before, but this was somewhere up in the stratosphere. I was giddy, and so was everyone else exiting that theater. Unfortunately, that excitement did not last. I went to see it again a week later, and the magic was gone. I wanted so desperately, so very very much to love that movie, but it was just obnoxious and I didn't care for it for reasons I've detailed many times before. Nothing will ever ruin that awesome theatrical experience that I had during the first TRANSFORMERS, but repeat viewings have shown that it doesn't hold up. With the second film, I'll grant you I wasn't walking on clouds as I left the theater, but the tone seemed to be far more muted, and I heard a lot of people talking about how the action was incomprehensible in parts. Like I said, there were parts of the movie that were better than the first - but as a whole, I don't think it was. My point was that you can look at IMDb or Community T-Meter ratings and most people seem to think that the first movie was a superior product, which is a better index of public opinion than a subjective assessment of a crowd reaction. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 05:53 PM In reply to this comment (#2517388) Public Enemies will probably only make 120 M here (Reply to this) |
on Sep 24 2009 09:00 PM I didnt hate this movie it was just too long and story-less plus ITS A SUMMER FLICK the critics take their jobs too seriously during this time of the year (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Articles
- RT on DVD: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (0)
- Win Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on DVD (7)
-
Transformers Has Giant DVD/Blu-ray Debut
(72)
- RT on DVD: Transformers, Peanuts, and an Easy Rider (44)
-
Michael Bay Ponders Transformers 3, Bad Boys 3
(30)
-
Michael Bay filming (literally) intimate project
(18)
- Exclusive: Latest on Transformers 3 with producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura (117)
-
Optimus Prime Reads Letterman's Top 10 List
(11)
- Robots Scrap Scrat as Transformers freezes out Ice Age (1)
- Watch RT on Current TV (1)
Most Discussed
- Critics Consensus: Avatar Is Certified Fresh (311)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar Soars to #1 Spot (260)
- Brittany Murphy: 1977-2009 (111)
- Total Recall: James Cameron Movies (90)
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (55)
- Weekly Ketchup: Bryan Singer Teaches X-Men: First Class (44)
- Awards Tour 2009: SAG Nominations Are In! (43)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: District 9 and (500) Days of Summer (29)
- Total Recall: Jude Law's Best Movies (22)
- Friday Harvest: Alice in Wonderland, Sherlock Holmes, and more! (14)
Latest News
- Total Recall: Jude Law's Best Movies (22)
- What We're Watching on Blu-ray from Disney! (8)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: District 9 and (500) Days of Summer (29)
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (55)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar Soars to #1 Spot (260)
- Brittany Murphy: 1977-2009 (111)
- Friday Harvest: Alice in Wonderland, Sherlock Holmes, and more! (14)
- Weekly Ketchup: Bryan Singer Teaches X-Men: First Class (44)
- Critics Consensus: Avatar Is Certified Fresh (311)
- Awards Tour 2009: SAG Nominations Are In! (43)
Latest Interviews
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (55)
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (21)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (2)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (12)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (23)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (16)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (24)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
Latest Features
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (55)
- The Effects of Where the Wild Things Are (34)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 2 (7)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (37)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (56)
- Exclusive: The World of Where the Wild Things Are (10)
- Sundance 2010: RT's 10 Most Anticipated Movies (42)
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (46)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (106)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (107)
RSS Feeds