FG Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
As I write this, the Tomatometer for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen at RottenTomatoes (currently at only 21% fresh) is dropping faster than the value of the dollar as more and more negative reviews pour in.
Now, I’m not a rabid Transformers fanboy; though I watched the cartoon as a kid, I barely remember it (though I do remember it fondly) and I know it hasn’t aged well. I’m also not by any means a big fan of Michael Bay; the man has made some absolutely terrible movies.
I will, however, defend Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen against all the critics who seem to think that it ought to be something it was never meant to be. Perhaps intelligent, thoughtful blockbusters like The Dark Knight and The Matrix have given reviewers the wrong impression that all summer films need to suddenly be fodder for essays by college film students or exercises in philosophy and psychology. Some of these reviewers are now giving off the impression that if a movie’s depth can only be measured by explosions and scrap metal that it has no other value.
In other words, most of them have apparently forgotten how to simply have fun.
How about a little perspective? This same film-reviewing community that has badmouthed Transformers 2 into having only a 21% rating also gave Independence Day a whopping 62%, The Day After Tomorrow a surprisingly high 45%, The Fast and the Furious a 52%, and (get ready for it) the original Transformers movie a 57% freshness rating! (Heck, somehow even xXx fared better.)
Does this make sense to you? It’s like everybody caught a “snooty” bug and conveniently neglected to remember all of these other, very similar movies that they said were shamelessly enjoyable. Either that, or the Michael Bay hater bandwagon has reared its head again.
Don’t get me wrong. I am absolutely all for quality, thought-provoking cinema. In fact, I think we need more of it. Mainstream movie audiences need to be more regularly prompted to think at the multiplex. Sometimes, though, it’s okay to just enjoy a movie for what it is. Transformers is a franchise based on a line of action toys from the 1980′s. This isn’t high art! It’s blatant marketing. In fact, even this latest film is equal parts GMC showroom, military recruiting station, and action figure commercial — unabashedly so. Anybody who goes into it expecting something else deserves to be disappointed.
Frankly, I’m happy to see that Michael Bay has stopped trying to fabricate emotional depth in his movies. Pearl Harbor and Armageddon were contrived and ridiculous in their attempts to provoke audience sympathies and heartfelt engagement. However, everyone can agree that Bay is good at spectacle, and like the 2007 original, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is 94% spectacle.
There are more special effects, more fireballs, more property damage, and more battles. There are also more characters, some of whom are nameless cannon fodder, but some who we get to know better than we did in the first movie. Like GM’s latest vehicles, American military hardware is prominently on display in this movie, and for me, watching it in action was possibly more enjoyable than seeing the impressive CGI robots. Also on the positive side: there’s more focus on the importance of family, of sacrifice, and of duty and commitment to things bigger than yourself.
Sadly, along with the 94% spectacle is the other 6% of the film, which consists of repeated, annoying instances of extremely juvenile humor — mainly sex jokes and gags about body parts. Honestly, “gag” is the right word, because these weren’t cleverly nuanced puns, but instead were in-your-face examples of crass and crude scriptwriting that should have been left out. That along with the obvious occasions of objectification of Megan Fox and one other actress were inclusions to the film that, while not unexpected, were still disappointing but didn’t ultimately detract irreparably from my enjoyment of the movie.
Overall, what I’m trying to say is this: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is very much like its predecessor, only bigger and more bombastic. If you liked the first one, there’s more of the same here. If you’re looking for meatier material to sink your teeth into, this movie isn’t for you, and that’s okay. Just don’t ruin it for the rest of us!
I’d like to end by metaphorically comparing the difference between Transformers and other, weightier films with something else everyone likes — food. We all look for a hearty, nourishing meal nearly every time we sit down to eat. Every once in a while, though, it’s okay to indulge a craving for a candy bar. While movies like Transformers should not comprise the majority of anyone’s cinematic diet, they do make for a fun treat now and then.



Reader Comments
I saw a behind the scenes clip of Peter Cullen voicing Optimus Prime. I literally got goose bumps. Awesome! I probably won’t see the movie because of the raunchiness, but I’m now content after hearing Cullen instruct the Autobots to “Rollout!”
Hear! Hear! All the military hardware was awesome to behold for a gearhead like me. The jets, tanks, etc. (not to mention, the sweet assault rifles they carried – I want one!) were easily as imppressive to watch in action as robot fisticuffs, action transformations and impressive explosive displays – and everyone knows Michael Bay is the potentate of cinema pyrotechnics.
One final thing – to those who say it was hard to discern who is fighting who in the Cybertronian melees, I call bull crap. I had no trouble telling who was who and that may partially be because I’m a huge geek and I like to keep track of those kinds of things, but I’m more prone to think you just wanted to hate the movie from the get-go and used this as a convenient add-on to your litany of dislikes.
Way to bring it home
.
Good review, man! I’m heading out to see it tomorrow afternoon and I am pretty excited.
I have to admit, I did expect a little more substance and storyline from the original Transformers, but you’re right; Michael Bay doesn’t really do well with “substance” – He’s just really good at blowing things up. (I am a big fan of The Island, though.) The sci-fi films this summer have been phenomenal and I’m hoping Revenge of the Fallen doesn’t slow down the momentum.
I wouldn’t be so hasty to assume that the critical masses’ disdain for Transformers is all from misplaced expectations. It is, after all, a movie based on comics/toys/cartoons, a sequel to a movie which also shared its “Big stuff go boom” philosophy. Which many reviewers acknowledge. But just because a movie isn’t aiming high doesn’t mean it can’t miss. For me, the first transformers lost me when it devolved into lame jokes/dialogue (the scene where shia was trying to get into his house and the robots were peeing on things was a low-point) and it just became a cacophonous fight/explosion sequence. I like explosions, but these explosions didn’t grab me.
While I’ll reserve judgment on this movie until I see it, I think it’s perfectly understandable that someone could go into this movie not wanting more than good summer popcorn action and still be disappointed.
Adam – Yeah, I totally understand some of the humor and objectification being a dealbreaker for people. It is pretty cool hearing Peter Cullen back in action, though!
Triton – I agree. While I’m sure for some people it’s a valid complaint, I feel like if you’re able to pay attention to faces and things, the robots have enough differentiation to be able to tell the difference if you care to try.
Ryan – I’m totally in agreement that that scene was one of the lowest points of the first movie, and similar humor really does bring down the sequel a few notches. However, for me, it’s about seeing the exciting action and battle sequences, the technology, and that sort of thing, so I’m able to sort of roll my eyes at the annoying parts and move past them to the other, more enjoyable elements.
My complaint with the negativity of the current reviews is simply that they should have known what to expect. I can understand poor reviews for the first movie because, yeah, it might not be what people were hoping for, or they were turned off by the humor or the cacophony. However, the film was marginally well-reviewed. Given that the sequel was more of the same in every way, I’m not sure why this time people decided that it was worth wholly panning. I think it’s fine if people don’t like it, but acting surprised that the sequel was very similar to the first movie seems a little silly, as does appearing to project expectations of a greater raison d’être on the movie than what’s inherently there.