Comments on: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

By: Jenny

Jenny — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:50:00 +0000

I actually really enjoyed the first Transformers movie and was looking forward to the sequel. I couldn't stand the sequel because a) it was waaaayyy too long, b) as mentioned already, the fights scenes confused the heck out of me because all of the robots looked the same, c) the chemistry between Shia LaBoeuf's character and Megan Fox's character was not the same anymore, and d) Shia's character treated Bumblebee like a pet instead of the giant killer robot who almost died saving his life in the first film.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:07:33 +0000

Thank god it wasn't just me who thought T:RotF made no sense! I liked the first one OK, but I had to stop watching and go do something else 15 minutes into this.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:15:55 +0000

1) Someone said that the year 2009 was maybe the best year ever to be an early-teen boy going to the movies. I agree with that.

2) The problem with treating "Transformers ROTF" like a context-free independent artifact is that the "Transformers" brand is the whole reason it exists!

3) And even if you do say "okay, it's just a movie, just pretend that none of this property ever existed", the movie is STILL crap. Topless Robot's "Transformers 2 FAQ" is probably the best critical treatment of the subject: http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php

By: Jen S

Jen S — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:37:04 +0000

@LaBellaDonna, oh, yeah, Bay may not be the most sensitive arty guy around, but he knows that audiences come to his movies for two scoops of explosions. And explode things he does. It's just that after six fight/explosion scenes where you have no idea what just blew up or which side won, it makes the movie either baffling ("What just happened?") or boring (characters exposit on what just happened so everyone understands whether to be happy or sad). In my mind, the explosions can't just be works of boomey art unto themselves–I have to understand WHAT just blew up and why. All the closeups of tangled, intricate machinery didn't really clear things up.

By: kategm

kategm — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:32:00 +0000

I only saw bits and pieces of this when my dad rented it one weekend. The parts I saw included when Shia went to "robot heaven."
That was worth it. I decided, "carry on, movie! I'm not quite sure what you're up to but you have fun with it."

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:58:57 +0000

Yes, zombies are played. But Regency-era (?), ninja-trained, Empire-waisted zombie killers aren't. And were I to make such a movie–which I won't, but still–I'd DEFINITELY do whatever it took to get Firth and Ehle, because that would redefine "surreal", except that Ehle is going to be busy with the whole "Game of Thrones" business.

Shia LaBoeuf still bothers me infinitely more than Megan Fox, despite the fact that their "blindingly stupid public comments" ratio is 1:197. And I saw a hilarious article online awhile back, featuring a proposed Bay script for a "Hamlet" remake that featured "!!@#~" (POW) (BLAAAAMMM) on every page. Little explosion graphics, and everything.

By: Elisa

Elisa — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:03:57 +0000

Honestly, I tried watching this movie and I really thought it was boring. The story was nonsense. I mean I don't expect much, but I expect them to keep me entertained. I was so bored that I fell asleep, and when I woke up there were still about 45 minutes left of the movie and I was so indifferent that I didn't even care enough to go back to where I had left off. I just want a fun movie sometimes, but I didn't feel it was fun at all. I'm very glad I only paid 1.00 at Redbox for it.

By: Claire

Claire — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:23:57 +0000

I couldn't even enjoy it and I saw it for free on campus. It was just so confusing. And loud (although not loud enough that I didn't have to turn around a give a bitchface glare to the girls behind me who were having a screechy conversation about their opinions on Megan Fox (which then sent me into a spiral of depression because I just glared at people for talking during a Transformers movie))

By: bluechaos

bluechaos — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:30:31 +0000

My issue with T:RotF is this: they filmed at Princeton University including right outside the library in which I work. The extra traffic was annoying but it was mostly an entertaining experience (if nothing else it gave us something to talk about/mock). Then months later, there's an interview with Shia LeBeouf saying that they blow up a library. I, weirdo that I am, get incredibly excited by the idea of the library that I work in getting blown up therefore meaning that I die in the movie. I happen to think it would be awesome to die in a movie. Sadly, it turns out that while they do blow up a bunch of Princeton buildings, Firestone Library remains in tact, and I do not die in the movie. No fair.

By: Sarah D. Bunting

Sarah D. Bunting — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:51:56 +0000

I'm fine with criticizing them, and I don't think it's that snobby. I do think that, if you're reviewing the movie, you need to review the movie, and if you use the review as a conduit for a torrent of cultural anxiety about Megan Fox, be upfront about the fact.

…I don't know. Michael Bay isn't in need of my help or anything. But there's a difference between "I don't care for X" and "this movie does X poorly." It's like if I order a raisin tart and then complain about all the raisins in it — it's not trying to be an ice-cream sundae, and judging it with that metric is unfair and misses the point.

With that said, even for what it is, T: RotF was at best a B-minus. The battle scenes were pretty confusing and often went on one or two kablams too long.