criterionforum.org

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:38 am**

Andre Jurieu wrote:
scalesojustice wrote:i think it sets a new bar for commercialism. this isn't product placement, this is "product involvement." i've never seen commercialism embraced so warmly and unappologetic as with this movie. coupled with the fact that the original cartoon from which the movie is based was meant to sell toys to kids ... but it brings back some of that good ole, summer blockbuster fun that you can't help but be entertained... by a 2 1/2 hour commercial.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Is anybody like me, when they hear the word "Transformers" you can't help but think about the Mattel Chocobot hour from The Simpsons?
Yeah, first I think of the TV-cartoon, then I think of the Simpsons parody (though the show looked more like the GoBots than Transformers). The names that they came up with alone are genius:

TV Announcer: The new, improved Kidz Newz...has been canceled! Stay tuned for the Mattel and Mars Bar Quick Energy Choc-O-Bot Hour!

Choc-O-Bot: You can count on us, Mr. President. Major Nougat! Gooey! Cocoa! Put down those entertaining Mattel products! Colonel Kataffy is up to his old tricks!

Cocoa: Let's power up!

Lisa: I can't believe they canceled us for this s...
Bart: [interrupting] Shut up! I'm trying to watch this!

"That show is barely legal as it is."

Posted: **Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:05 am**

Antoine Doinel wrote:I think Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Joe Dante, Paul Verhoeven, Sam Raimi, Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan could've made something more interesting out of the material.

Probably one of the reasons why it didn't completely sucked.

You know, Joe Dante could've really made something special out of this.

Steve Spielberg executive produced so he did presumably have some input into the film.

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:52 am**

Saw it last night. It's to say the least a fun summer popcorn film, and Bay's second best film *The Rock still being the best thing he's done and thats saying a lot*. If you go into it knowing that it's going to be a big things that blow up and go boom cheese fest for 2 and a half hours, your going to be ok. If you go into it wanting more, then your out of luck. I will say that it's a hell of a lot more fun than Spiderman 3 or Pirates 3. The crowd I saw it with seemed to be having a great time compared to the other 2 big summer films. Still though, I liked Live Free or Die Hard more.

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:22 pm**

A couple more AICN reviews. The first is just disappointed and the second makes it sound as if it could be this year's Wicker Man remake:

And there is one of the great "did I really just see that?" moments when one of the robots says something along the lines of "Yo yo yo wussssUUUUUUPPPP Autobots REPRESENT!" and I don't think he was eating robotic chicken or watermelon but I swear to you on my mother's grave that he started breakdancing....

...There is a part that I almost think I might've dreamed but I remember it so vividly, where there is a cartoon BOING! sound and then there's a long shot of one of the robots proudly pissing all over John Turturro. This guy has toiled away in independent film for decades, done so much great work and in order to get a pay check he has to get R. Kellyed by a fucking cartoon robot. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be funny or if it's supposed to be sexy but it failed on both counts. And then all the sudden Shia's car/robot/pet gets shocked and dragged away on cables and the score turns into violins like it's SCHINDLER'S LIST. It is an understatement to say that this heartwrenching music is not earned. It's like if Jennifer Love Hewitt's character in GARFIELD found out she had cancer and we were expected to get choked up....

...Imagine you took apart a whole bunch of cars, mixed the parts up and welded them all together into a giant ball maybe 15 or 20 feet in diameter, then rolled it down a hill. Shoot that in closeup and you got every fight scene in this movie. I'm sure the Michael Bay style is a huge contributing factor, but I'm pretty sure you could've shot these fights with a stationary camera like a boxing match and I still would have no clue what the fuck was going on. I am no expert on robotics but to my untrained eye, these robots look like shit. Their designs are so overly complicated you can't tell which part is which. One robot (I think a bad guy robot, but not sure) goes flipping through the air in slow motion and while staring at it I was not entirely sure which end was up. There are scenes that are close on Optimus's face while he's talking where I could not even make out a face. I never knew which robot was which or who was a good guy or bad guy or what vehicle was what robot. Luckily Optimus has a shiny blue part on him, occasionally I would see shiny blue and know that hey, that's Optimus! I spotted one!

What Michael Bay has already done to action editing and staging he has now done to character design. ...

I know it's not fair to drop the B&R bomb, it's like comparing people to Hitler in political discussion. But TRANSFORMERS is honestly approaching BATMAN AND ROBIN proportions of horribleness. You can't say it's as bad, because the lighting is nice and nobody's wearing rubber fetish costumes or pink gorilla suits, but it's a similar type of minding-numbing machine gun barrage of moronic, inept garbage. And it goes on for almost 2 1/2 hours, longer than some interrogations.

So in a way, that does explain to me why some people might enjoy this. Some people like to be whipped and peed on. And it's an instant camp classic. I know people who get a good laugh out of shitty movies like INDEPENDENCE DAY, and I will definitely demand that they see this shit on video, because it makes INDEPENDENCE DAY look like 2001. It's so full of quick cuts and preposterousness I'm sure I missed all kinds of things. They were already onto the next scene by the time my brain processed the fact that I had just seen a Mountain Dew machine transform into a bad guy robot. Hopefully he will be the main villain in the sequel. But he'll be defeated by a good guy Nike truck. I can't see enjoying this on anything other than an ironic or anthropological "human beings really made this!" type level. No matter how it plays this summer, this movie is so full of bad taste and "what the fuck?" moments that I do believe it will live on. Ten or fifteen years from now, when some theater in a college town plays it as a double feature with ROADHOUSE, it will absolutely kill.

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:24 pm**

I will see this for one reason only. Megan Fox. christ is that girl a looker...

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:03 pm**

SncDthMnky wrote:I will see this for one reason only. Megan Fox. christ is that girl a looker...

Yeah, she doesn't know it yet, but she's my future ex-wife.

The Onion gave it a pretty scathing review, and if their review is right, it seems like Bay can't tell a story to save his life. That said, I'm seeing a matinee in just over an hour and I'm pretty psyched to see giant transforming robots!

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:27 pm**

jbeall wrote:
SncDthMnky wrote:I will see this for one reason only. Megan Fox. christ is that girl a looker...
Yeah, she doesn't know it yet, but she's my future ex-wife.

The Onion gave it a pretty scathing review, and if their review is right, it seems like Bay can't tell a story to save his life. That said, I'm seeing a matinee in just over an hour and I'm pretty psyched to see giant transforming robots!

Well, I just slept through the time I was going to see it but I will definitely see it by the end of the week.

re: Megan Fox, I doubt she'll hang on to her d-list fiance (Brian Austin Green) for long, so it's only a matter of striking at the opportune moment. I wish you luck.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:55 am**

Thanks. I saw the film. On one level, I can't believe how spoiled I am by special effects. It didn't occur to me until I left the theater that I was watching giant transforming robots kick each others' asses.

The battle scenes are good, but the film could use more of them. I think Michael Bay is pretty sub-par as a storyteller; there are a number of plot strands that are either a) interesting but dropped without resolution or b) irrelevant and should've been cut. The film seriously needed a better editor. At least 30 mins. could have been cut from the formulaic, pseudo-comic storyline involving the Witwickys.

But oh well. Lotsa shit blew up real nice, so I got my money's worth!

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:59 am**

Ebert gives it a surprisingly positive review, although he notes the same thing that AICN review above does - you can't tell what the hell is going on in the action scenes.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:47 pm**

Not so surprising, as Ebert is actually the author of The Rock's CC liner notes (am I the only one around here who prides himself on owning it?).

The Village Voice review for the film has some really great lines, and an ultimate appreciation of what I think I'll take away from it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:44 pm**

davebert wrote:Not so surprising, as Ebert is actually the author of The Rock's CC liner notes (am I the only one around here who prides himself on owning it?).

Hell no! I love that DVD. It's probably the only Michael Bay movie I can stomach and I will defend it till I'm dead. It's probably the last great traditional Hollywood action movie since Die Hard rendered the genre almost useless. Though they aren't really related to the filmmaking, the DVD actually includes a few incisive comments made during the commentary track by the military consultants regarding the mentality required to execute certain types of military operations.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:02 pm**

Andre Jurieu wrote:
davebert wrote:Not so surprising, as Ebert is actually the author of The Rock's CC liner notes (am I the only one around here who prides himself on owning it?).
Hell no! I love that DVD. It's probably the only Michael Bay movie I can stomach and I will defend it till I'm dead. It's probably the last great traditional Hollywood action movie since Die Hard rendered the genre almost useless. Though they aren't really related to the filmmaking, the DVD actually includes a few incisive comments made during the commentary track by the military consultants regarding the mentality required to execute certain types of military operations.

I think Face/Off is a great action film and a better film than The Rock.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:42 pm**

jbeall wrote:I think Michael Bay is pretty sub-par as a storyteller; there are a number of plot strands that are either a) interesting but dropped without resolution or b) irrelevant and should've been cut. The film seriously needed a better editor.

Everything in the film is irrelevant, that's what makes it a Michael Bay film. No one has managed to promote and subvert patriotism simultaneously as he has, nor has anyone made comic relief so tasteless and so out of place. The entire film is an exercise in tonal shift and insignificance - moving so fast from teenaged comedy to political suspense, then from cartoon humor to patriotic robot-speeches, the movie lacks cohesion so much that without Bay's rapid editing style the whole thing would've imploded on its own absurdity. There's a reason Bay's movies are almost all over two hours: he doesn't leave anything out. I think Transformers is the best Bay film simply because it has everything and nothing at the same time.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:18 pm**

malcolm1980 wrote:I think Face/Off is a great action film and a better film than The Rock.

Good call. Face/Off kind of slipped my mind. I don't know if it's better than The Rock, but you're right in calling it a great action film. I enjoy that film, but the only reason I consider it a step below The Rock is because it's kind of uneven at times and Cage's performance is really hit-and-miss from scene-to-scene.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:39 pm**

Didn't really care for Face/Off, to be honest, as Woo was already in his self-parody phase by then. But Transformers is enjoyable enough, although I feel no impulse to see it a second time.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:24 pm**

Apparently, Michael Bay used some footage from Pearl Harbor in Transformers.

Posted: **Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:25 pm**

I had no real interest in seeing the film before reading that second AICN review and the one in Village Voice, but after those I had to see the film for myself (also happened to check out Dito Montiel's film "A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints" earlier today, and that Shia Lebeouf kid was pretty good in that).

And sure enough, Transformers is easily the most insane film I've seen in ages. I want to bash it and say it's awful CGI masturbation that makes Armageddon seem like a textbook example of restraint by comparison, but to be honest, I constantly found myself staring at the screen wide-eyed, unable to believe I was actually witnessing whatever was happening on the screen, whether it was John Turturro getting peed on by a autobot or an Mountain Dew machine turning into a blood thirsty robot. It's not a good film by any means, but only in the last 20 mins of straight CGI carnage did it all get boring, which is way more than I can say for the other recent big budget blockbusters, namely Die Hard 4 and Spiderman 3. I'm still trying to convince myself I actually did see a robot breakdancing on the silver screen. Dunno how much coke Bay still does these days, but it seems to be working for him.

And yeah, Megan Fox is pretty hot, even if at times the robots seemed more real than she did.

I don't even need to see this on a double bill with Roadhouse fifteen years from now, it already killed me. A wonderful, entirely horrible film.

Posted: **Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:19 pm**

After reading the script, my friends and I honestly considered seeing it for the bad movie value. Now that I know the movie is 2 1/2 hours and other friends have been telling me about some of the worst Bay directed moments off the top of their head, I lost the guts. I'm going to wait for home video to make fun of it. At least then we can bring our own drinks.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:15 pm**

I think if you forget it's michael bay and pretend that the director is some no-name you'll have a lot of fun watching this and laughing sometimes with it, sometimes at it. All the same, I'll probably keep coming back to this thread to read the funny asshole reviews like svevan's.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:39 pm**

blindside8zao wrote:I think if you forget it's michael bay and pretend that the director is some no-name you'll have a lot of fun watching this...

You'll also be a complete tosser. Honestly, talk about disappearing up the sphincter of cinephilia.

It's very amusing to see the people on this board who can't quite bring themselves to admit Michael Bay has made a (reportedly) very enjoyable film and have to make all sorts of silly excuses for it.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:06 pm**

DrewReiber wrote:After reading the script, my friends and I honestly considered seeing it for the bad movie value. Now that I know the movie is 2 1/2 hours and other friends have been telling me about some of the worst Bay directed moments off the top of their head, I lost the guts. I'm going to wait for home video to make fun of it. At least then we can bring our own drinks.

I don't think anybody goes into a Michael Bay film because it has a good script - they are mostly sold on their concept. And none of his films have ever come in under two hours, so I'm not sure what the surprise is there.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:10 pm**

Is there anything more intellectually safe than hating Michael Bay? Christ, it seems like he only is talked about by "movie-people" in order for them to feel superior. Is Bay really more abhorrent than, say, Guy Ritchie? (Admittedly I have not seen Bad Boys II). Even in his own field, the action genre, is Bay really worse than Roland Emmerich? or Lee Tamahori? or Rob Cohen? I don't think so. Transformers was fascinating to watch just to see Bay work, to see what movies with an essentially unlimited budget look like. It seemed like something of a throwback to the blockbusters of the 1990s, and I'm not sure anyone makes films like that better than Bay.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:36 pm**

What makes Bay especially abhorrent is his success. Sure, Emmerich, Tamahori and Cohen have had their own share of hits but Bay's films, which are largely bad, are very successful. Even Pearl Harbor. That's why I think people hate him especially.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:39 pm**

chaddoli wrote:Is there anything more intellectually safe than hating Michael Bay? Christ, it seems like he only is talked about by "movie-people" in order for them to feel superior..

I really don't get that sense at all. Criterion has released his films, and most of the people on this board seem to have a favorable view of him. Is disliking this kind of movie "intellectually safe?" 300 million dollar CGI popcorn flicks about robots blowing each other up? You know, some people just aren't into that sort of thing. I watch this stuff and I can't even tell what the hell is going on. I don't think it's intellectually safe for me to dislike Micheal Bay, it's intellectually dishonest for me to say I like him. It's just not my cup of tea.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:30 pm**

I think it's a very vocal group of Bay supporters like myself that keep up appearances at this forum. If you go to Google and type in "The Rock" and "Criterion" I'm sure you'll find a very large majority of folk at all kinds of boards hating on the film and the company for even thinking of including it in their collection (as if the rest of the established classics were somehow tarnished by merely sharing the company). Since there's a very active thread on the merits of the Psycho remake here, I'd say that Bay supporting here is yet another thing that generally sets this forum apart and the reason I continue visiting.

I have no problem with people who don't like his films or don't like him--all interviews point to him being something of a jackass--but especially when put in the company of an Emmerich or a Harlin or a whoever, there's no comparison. The man does big budget excess better in my book than any Hollywood director working today. And to pass judgment on his stuff--and him--without seeing his films, is the kind of high falutin' film snobbery that people let go unchecked in regards to Bay, but would absolutely shred to bits if ever applied to, say, "a serious auteur."

So I'm with Narshty on this one--it is generally intellectually safe to hate on Michael Bay. Hence my mission to spread the gospel of the Bad Boys franchise.

criterionforum.org

Transformers (Michael Bay, 2007)