Film Festival

The Motion/Captured Review: 'Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen.'

Bayhem taken to a new scale equals something I've never seen before

Meet Mudflap and Skids, whose appearance in 'Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen' should please anyone who thought 'Birth Of A Nation' went too easy on race relations

Credit: Paramount Pictures

I have never felt more like a third nipple than I did, as a screenwriter, while watching Michael Bay's new movie, "Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen."

And believe me... the ownership of this film, artistically speaking, belongs to Michael Bay.  This is absolutely a movie authored by the guy who directed those Coke commercials, that great "Aaron Burr" Milk ad, the ultra-sleek Aerosmith videos.   This is a guy who has one thing on his mind... the moment you are watching RIGHT NOW.

"Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen" takes Bay's signatures to a new level, a purely visual experience that plays as a two and a half hour action sequence.  It is, quite possibly, the most powerful physical assault I've ever experienced in a movie theater, seeing it at the IMAX screen at the Bridge.  More so than "Irreversible" at the Egyptian.  It's that kind of a wicked knee to the privates.  TROTF, as we'll call it, really is the most primary storytelling experience so far in Bay's whole career.  Taken as a whole, it's barely a movie.  It starts at an arbitrary moment, and it ends at an equally arbitrary moment.  And the moment that should be the film's big emotional moment will probably work best on younger viewers, much as it did when the animated film came out in the '80s, because for most viewers, it won't connect in any significant way

And, having said that, if you have even the slightest interest in giant robots, you should absolutely see it the way I did.

[more after the jump]

When I got home from the screening, I saw a lot of intense reactions right away on Twitter and Facebook.  A lot of intense negative critical reaction, specifically.  And talking to Greg Ellwood, one of the founders of HitFix here and a guy who I definitely take seriously when it comes to discussing reactions to films.... he hated it.  With a powerful intense hatred. 

Listening to him react, I absolutely get it.  TROTF is a mess in a lot of ways.  It's way too long considering the story it tells.  And there are some crazy digressions.  But it is wall to wall robots.  I mean... non-stop.  There is always something onscreen, something going on, and they are... amazing.  They're so casually amazing that I'm sure most people will dismiss how crazy the two hours plus of photo-real machine animation that they're watching really is.  It's insane.  It's ILM's biggest show ever, by far.  I have to go back and see what the whole credit breakdown is for the work in the film, but I assume most of it is ILM, and it is outrageous.

Some of it, by the way, is ill-advised, to say the least, in terms of conception, and that's where I'm having trouble precisely modulating my response.  Take Mudflap and Skids, already the most controversial aspect of the film.  The performance of the two characters is one thing, and literally impossible to defend.  The quality of the animation is another.  I think it's pretty clear that Michael Bay is a big fan of Joe Dante's "Gremlins," and if you imagine that he's sort of doing a riff on that film in these scenes, but with his own crazy wacky little monsters, it makes sense, particularly the early scene where Sam accidentally turns all of his mother's kitchen appliances into Transformers.  There's a lot of that stuff in the film, on both sides.  It's the Minstrel Twins, though, speaking in shuck-and-jive and with gold teeth and unable to read, truly inopportune designs coupled with broadly racial vocal work, who define the problem most clearly.  Like I say... I didn't like them when they were speaking... but the energy of the scenes they're in with the animation of how these two machines tangle... amazing.

In some ways, I think "Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen" is the movie that fanboys have been slowly but surely placing down payments on for the last 20 years of pop cinema.  When I hear people complain that it's overstuffed and indulgent and excessive, I am sort of amazed that they feel the need to point that out.  OF COURSE IT IS.  That's what Hollywood believes you want.  Thanks to the way we've rewarded the lowest common denominator wrapped in the shiniest package, summer after summer after summer, and the way we seem to constantly demand that sequels turn everything up louder, make everything longer, and fill the frame with moremoreMORE, Michael Bay stands astride Hollywood like the perfectly evolved Modern Action Director.

Which is not to say I think he's the best action director working.  Simply the BIGGEST.  And it's funny to me how out of step I am with the people who started out as Bay's fans.  "The Rock" gave me an actual headache the first time I saw it, and I hated the script so much I could barely hold a rational conversation about the movie.  The first "Bad Boys" left me indifferent at best.  And "Armageddon"... oh, dear god.  I still find it baffling that anyone made it through that film without howling at the sheer horror of what's on display.  I still remember gasping in horror as I read the reviews other people wrote for "Pearl Harbor," including Jeffrey Wells who called the actual attack one of the best action sequences in film history.  I felt like a crazy person, watching how much other people seemed to thrive on Bay's particular brand of over-the-top, and even when we met a few times and Bay spent time talking to me about his approach to building a sequence, I just couldn't see how anyone could enjoy these things as "movies."

And then came "Bad Boys II."  And the sheer amoral kick of that film, the preposterous overdrive of it all... well, it felt like Bay was finally embracing the absurdity of his own style and offering it up as more joke than anything else.  I didn't care for "The Island," but it was an inoffensive miss.  And then the first "Transformers" seemed to me, again, to be Bay tweaking his own image in very knowing ways.  This sequel feels like he has taken all of the excess of every one of his previous films, added it all together, and then squared it.  The film starts with cavemen fighting robots, and ends with the US Army squaring off against a Decepticon army in the shadow of the Pyramids, and inbetween those two completely wacko sequences, it rushes from set piece to set piece, from robot to robot, from gag to gag, without even the slightest indication that Michael Bay cares about telling you what would commonly be identified as a "story."

There's a plot, sure.  Sam Witicky (Shia LaBeouf) finds a shard of the All-Spark cube from the first one, and when he touches it, it implants a series of symbols in his mind that contain the location of The Matrix Of Leadership, which will evidently power a machine built thousands of years ago by the first Transformers to visit our planet.  That machine, if activated, will drain our Sun of all its energy, destroying our galaxy so that the Transformers can once again begin to repopulate the universe.  The instigator of this plan is a robot who has been trapped on Earth since that original encounter with the cavemen, an angular collection of nasty called The Fallen, and the Decepticons all appear to happily follow The Fallen, terrified of him.  The Decepticons chase Sam around.  They try various tricks to get the info out of his head.  And then once everyone knows where the Matrix is located, it all becomes a chase.  And that's pretty much all the plot there is in nearly 2 hours and 40 minutes of screen time.

What I find remarkable, and the reason I made that "third nipple" comment at the start of this review, is how little the plot seems to matter, and that's how this movie feels to me like the final evolutionary step in the blockbuster.  Much of this film was put together during the Writer's Strike, and I'm guessing Michael Bay never once worried about it.  From moment to moment, the film is always in motion, always pushing forward, and the actors are more props, placeholders to give you some sense of the scale of all of this Bayhem, than they are actual characters.  I thought some of the humans made the most of their screen time.  Jon Turturro's character, disgraced after the end of the first movie, is now a marginalized nut, working in his mother's deli, and he seems to relish his screentime.  Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox, who are definitely the stars as far as how much of the movie they're in compared to anyone else, both throw themselves into the physical demands of the film with admirable zeal, which is good, since there's nothing else to the roles.  In an almost-total inverse of the first film, the humans here are barely onscreen long enough for anyone to judge the performances they give.  They run and they yell a lot.  That's about it.  Instead, this time out, there are roughly 10,000 robots given speaking roles, and the barrage of different robots is part of what kept me engaged, wondering just how crazy it was going to get. 

There is one robot who disguises itself as a really, really, really hot chick named Alice (Isabel Lucas), and although none of what happens with her makes any sense, there are some crazy wild images involving her character.  There's an old robot who has been hiding out on display in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum who actually has a giant metal beard and a cane, which is just ludicrous, and his change from Decepticon to Autobot seems totally arbitrary.  There's a super Transformer made from a whole bunch of other Transformers that actually has a pair of wrecking balls for a scrotum.  And it seems to go on and on, this parade of wacko robot characters, which is what I mean about the surprising scale of the film.  There are some ideas I like in the movie, like an early sequence in Shanghai where we see the Autobots working with a special Army team to track down and destroy Decepticons.  I sort of wish the whole movie had just been about this team at work around the world, because that's a cool idea, and nothing we've seen before.

But that also leads to the thing that made me most uncomfortable in the film, and it shouldn't be a surprise.  Politically, this movie couldn't be more out-of-step with the so-called "liberal media."  I actually found that subtext far more squirm-worthy than the racial stuff.  Optimus Prime is, sorry to say, a genocidal creep, and his zeal for pulling the heads and spines off the Decepticons is more disturbing than heroic.  Realizing just how little I have in common with the mindset of the film, I disconnected emotionally from it completely, and maybe that's why the spectacle of it all worked for me.

I don't take Michael Bay seriously.  But these days, I suspect Michael Bay doesn't, either, and that may be why I am able to enjoy this era of his filmography while the fans of his earlier "serious" films are so upset by what he's doing now.  In the end, if you've ever supported his "more is more" philosophy, you have little room for buyer's remorse.  Complaining that his movies are big and loud and dumb now is pointless.  He lives and breathes big and loud and dumb, and T:ROTF may well stand as the pinnacle of that particular type of blockbuster filmmaking.

And what's funniest of all is that I would say that's exactly why you should go see it for yourself.  I saw it in IMAX last week, then sent a big group of friends to see it in IMAX last night, and even the people who didn't like the film reported back that they were dazzled by the presentation.  I'll say this for Bay:  it takes a lot to wow me on a visceral level these days, but the sight of Optimus Prime fighting a group of Decepticons in a forest, everything projected in front of me in real size, is one of the most remarkable visuals I've seen in anything all year, and for that, only the IMAX screen will suffice.

The film opens everywhere today.  Resistance is futile.

Can't get enough of Motion/Captured? Don't miss a post with daily HitFix Blog Alerts. Sign up now.

Don't miss out. Add Motion/Captured to your iGoogle, My Yahoo or My MSN experience by clicking here.

Not part of the HitFix Nation yet? Take 90 seconds and sign up today.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Millersam_talkback_profile

    Sam Can

    Nothing could drag me into the theater to see this pile or robot dung. Only kids will end up seeing it or talking about it in any kind of positive way. I'm with Ellwood on this.

    June 24, 2009 at 12:01AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Sruli B

    I actually enjoyed the first "Bad Boys" - watching Will Smith emerge as a big-budget action star. Then came "The Rock," and "Armageddon." I've since boycotted every Michael Bay film and have wished for him, Joel Schumacher, and Bret Ratner to exile themselves to some deserted place where they can pleasure themselves far away from civilization.

    June 24, 2009 at 12:33AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    ocaramano

    i hated the first movie, and i had zero desire to see the sequel until i read this. i think you nailed a lot of how i feel about bay's films. i don't think i'll like T2 and i loathe the idea of supporting the film by buying a ticket, but... sometimes these big messes are more interesting than the successes. if anything, it'll be an interesting case study on the devolution

    June 24, 2009 at 12:56AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    ocaramano

    ...of action movies.

    June 24, 2009 at 1:01AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    nabguy

    Just got back from seeing it, and while it had a solid first hour, the last half degenerated into boring drivel. It was a literal cross between the first 'Transformers' and 'Mummy Returns'. The 'twins' were arguably worse than Jar Jar Binks, because I couldn't fathom a single reason, story or theme wise, for their existence. We spend most of the Autobot screentime with these two schmucks, and it's painful.

    Oddly, the dialogue was VERY muffled in my theater, and it didn't remotely affect my understanding of the movie.

    June 24, 2009 at 3:19AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Admiral Neck

    Drew, thank you for writing a review that actually engages with the movie. No mainstream critic has even tried, and across the internet I hear comparisons to Batman and Robin and various kinds of poo. It might be flawed (really flawed), but it really isn't that bad.

    Except for the Ebonicbots. That's just out of order.

    June 24, 2009 at 3:44AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JoeK

    One of the very few mature responses to the movie I've read so far. Your observation about this being some kind of culmination of what the fan community has been making down payments on is Right On The Nose.

    I really didn't feel that there was anything in the movie tonally or as a complete package that wasn't COMPLETELY telegraphed by the first movie (only that there was more of it in every way). It seems to me that people kind of blew their wads gnashing at the first one so now can only pick at the edges in ways that are far more boring and indulgent to me than the movie itself.

    I saw it in IMAX as well and the moments of spectacle were pretty amazing (actually spectacular unto themselves) to behold but I did come away disappointed in the use of IMAX in an overall sense. By way of comparison Nolan was measured and deliberate about his IMAX sequences but here Bay cuts in and out of them with a miscalculated and apparent disregard for the effect that creates. Impressive as some of those IMAX sequences were they were diminished for me in how they were integrated into the movie in ways that I think could have been avoided.

    I also love long movies in general but this one tested my stamina in ways I'm not wholly familiar with (more bladdery than mentally but you get the idea). The bottom line for me again is that your reaction to the first one should wholly inform your response here if you are being honest with yourself. If you brayed and moaned the last time out you get what you deserve on a round trip to a bigger version of the same ride.

    June 24, 2009 at 9:44AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Nlf2_talkback_profile

    Vern

    I liked your review Drew, and I do get why it is fun as spectacle, although I enjoyed it more as a "holy shit, this was really made by human beings" type of awe-inspiring trainwreck. I think your description of it is very accurate but it seems to me that by giving this one a pass you are "rewarding the lowest common denominator wrapped in the shiniest package" and saying that yes, this actually somehow IS what people want to see. I'm curious what your thoughts are on that because that paragraph seemed to me like a dead-on criticism of common attitudes in movie fans on the internet until the surprise twist at the end where it turned out to be an an endorsement.

    Anyway, not gonna begrudge you enjoying it and must respect your courage in writing that paragraph attempting to describe the plot, which I'm gonna have some trouble with because I literally have no clue what in God's holy hell was going on in that fucking thing. Something about Energon, sparks, baby robots and destroying the sun. I do know who The Fallen is but not sure how he's getting revenge or what he is avenging.

    June 24, 2009 at 11:36AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Killer_kadoogan_talkback_profile

    kadoogan

    Yeah, I thought that the success of LORD OF THE RINGS was supposed to raise the bar for blockbuster entertainment (and not just in terms of spectacle). Hollywood may think that what fanboys want is the brainless excesses of TRANSFORMERS, but I seem to remember fanboys turning out in droves no too long ago for movies like IRON MAN, DARK KNIGHT and STAR TREK.

    June 24, 2009 at 2:59PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JoeK

    I'd agree but people forget, because it was so huge, just how outside of the normal Hollywood auspices the production of Jackson's LOTR films were at the time. It seems crazy to consider now given how they are loved and succeeded but the people pulling the levers on that one (Weinsteins, Bob Shaye, Jackson, etc.) were seen to be taking on an enormous risk at the time, the very kind of risk that these companies are running as far from as fast as possible most every since they came out.

    I also don't really see Drew endorsing the movie in his piece here but trying to step back and just observe what is going on when the inertia that creates a movie like this one becomes as unstoppable as it apparently is. The argument that this is hardly a movie, yet is still wildly anticipated and probably will succeed on some level is what I think he's getting at and as much as Hollywood is to blame, audiences are as well.

    June 24, 2009 at 3:27PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Killer_kadoogan_talkback_profile

    kadoogan

    Good points, Joe K, but I guess my question is, "Who is the audience that is making TRANSFORMERS such a success? Isn't it the same audience that made IRON MAN, TDK and STAR TREK so huge? And if so, what is it exactly that this audience wants?" Cuz there's a huge difference, in my mind, between STAR TREK and REVENGE OF THE FALLEN. Maybe it's just one of those mysteries that will never be solved.

    June 24, 2009 at 3:47PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Patch660a_talkback_profile

    RocketDigitalPro

    Most of the reviews that I have read have virtually ignored the movie and focused on what they hated...the Twins, Location:Scrotum, incapable of outrunning explosions. But you apparently watched the movie, much thanks for your review.
    I very much enjoyed the movie. The story was essentially the same thing you would have had from the 80's Cartoon just Bay-ed. It was set up the same but instead of being constrained by time, Mr Bay could diverge into these Dragon Ball Z length fight scenes. And that is what I paid to see, Robots fighting Robots. Devastator was massive and the Insecticon was tiny. Ravage was actually using his hip-mounted missiles. Soundwave was still kind of cool. This was an episode of Transformers G1 come to life via Hollywood. What more could a fan of the Transformers ask for?

    June 24, 2009 at 10:52PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    smokeydubs99

    Hello.

    June 25, 2009 at 2:03AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    smokeydubs99

    I'd like to hear your reasoning that Optimus Prime is a "genocidal creep". Maybe you threw that in there to get a reaction, if so, you got me.

    I was about to type up some rationale against it along the lines of, "this is purely good guys vs. bad guys, there's no nuance etc." But then I remembered the Old Robot, formerly a decepticon, which would completely undermine my point...so maybe you're right.

    Still, I'm curious how you would back up that claim.

    June 25, 2009 at 2:10AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    djamdjean

    Drew,

    Remember your LOTR:FOTR review in which you said that you would now knew what a great movie with big special effects could be? That you would no longer need to lower your standards?

    Guess you forgot because this movie is one big pile of shit. Who gives a fuck that it has "visceral effects". Can't I demand as a viewer to have effects AND story?

    June 25, 2009 at 3:57PM EST Reply to Comment
  • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

    drew

    You can indeed demand more, and if I hailed this script as great or if I told you I thought it was a profound emotional experience, then your comments would pack a punch. All I can do is honestly report that, yes, on an IMAX screen, ILM's work and the scale of this thing carries a visceral punch. That's hardly me selling out everything I believe in, sir.

    June 25, 2009 at 5:40PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Randy Flagg

    This is the sort of film that can only appeal to mindless audiences that care nothing about the mythology of the Transformers. I know Drew isn't a TF fan, but he hits the nail on the head when he points out that Optimus is a genocidal creep in this film. A true TF fan would never accept Prime killing Deceps all over the place in cold blood. This film is the future in Idiocracy come to fruition. Millions of people watching a movie that is nothing but explosions and toilet humour. It will win 8 Oscars nex† year, including Best Picture.

    July 9, 2009 at 10:16PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    tacos

    i havnt seen the new transformers movie but i watched the first and i find it funny that u describe optimus as a genocidal creep, since in the first film i would describe him as the complete oposite, leaving his team mate (bumble bee) to be tortured by the humans just bc he didnt want to hurt them. not to mention how cheesy his morals are, but then again thats proly what cartoon optimus is like.

    October 6, 2009 at 12:20PM EST Reply to Comment
Drew McWeeny

About This Blog

Los Angeles has changed since 1990, and Drew McWeeny, all-around Chauncey Gardner of movie fandom, has seen it all as an industry insider and screenwriter who wrote for 12 years as "Moriarty" for Ain't It Cool News.

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook