Search


Feed

About Me

Kyle Smith (Twitter: @rkylesmith) is a film critic for The New York Post and the author of the novels Love Monkey and A Christmas Caroline. Type a title in the box above to locate a review. Find an alphabetical listing of The New York Post's recent film reviews here.

Buy Love Monkey for $4! "Hilarious"--Maslin, NY Times. "Exceedingly readable and wickedly funny romantic comedy"--S.F. Chronicle. "Loud and brash, a helluva lot of fun"--Entertainment Weekly. "Engaging romp, laugh-out-loud funny"-CNN. "Shrewd, self-deprecating, oh-so-witty. Smith's ruthless humor knows no bounds"--NPR

Buy A Christmas Caroline for $10! "for those who prefer their sentimentality seasoned with a dash of cynical wit. A quick, enjoyable read...straight out of Devil Wears Prada"--The Wall Street Journal

Rotten Tomatoes
Search Movie/Celeb

Advanced Search
  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • « More Fleetwood Mac Gossip | Home | “Rescue Dawn”: Herzog’s Career High? »

    Review: Transformers

    By Kyle | July 3, 2007

    transformers-9.jpg

    BOTBUSTER!
    2stars.gif

    Kyle Smith review of TRANSFORMERS
    Running time: 2 hours, 20 minutes
    Rated PG-13 (action violence, brief sexual humor, profanity)

    “Transformers” knows its demographic. A computer hacker being sweated by the FBI protests, “I’m a virgin!” The actor who says these words is 36. At another point, a guy shopping for a car with his dad protests that he doesn’t want a beater because it says “40-year-old virgin” to him. That one over there? It says “50-year-old virgin.” Members of the audience will titter nervously, thinking about their large collections of factory-sealed action figures. But no matter. Perhaps their Jedi mastery of “Grand Theft Auto” will make Natalie Portman show up at their door?

    “Transformers” fires up the same boy glands as a demolition derby, and it at least offers an original story when most of its competitors have numerals in their titles. I challenge you to name another movie about a friendly alien robot come to save the world while disguised as a bitchin’ yellow Camaro.

    On the other hand, the originality of “Transformers” is borrowed–from ”The Terminator,” “Gremlins,” “Starship Troopers,” “Independence Day” and “War of the Worlds.” As for that cheery lemon Camaro — which calls itself “Bumblebee” and gives its young lovers a little nudge by playing “Sexual Healing” on its radio and steering them to Makeout Point–isn’t it really just an intergalactic Herbie the Love Bug?

    Shia LaBeouf plays the car’s owner, a doofus who uses show-and-tell (they still have that–for eleventh graders? Actually, I’m not surprised) to try to hawk junk like an old pair of eyeglasses left him by his great-grandfather, an Arctic explorer. No one on earth wants this stuff — but on other planets, it’s hot property. Robots from outer space notice the specs (I’m not making this up) on eBay and realize they contain a code the aliens need to find “the cube,” which is the secret to their civilization and which was lost somewhere on earth after the arctic explorer discovered it. So do the spacebots put down a bid and await delivery from the Universal Parcel Service? No, they invade earth disguised as machines and start attacking everything from Air Force One to American troops in Qatar, which allows us the opportunity to witness lots of Army vs. Doombot shootouts backed by dialogue like, “Bogeys in the weeds ten miles out, no squawking.” And no anchovies, while you’re at it.

    A rival group of metal-man visitors also checks in, but these tinpots respect humans and try to protect us by destroying the bad ’bots. They even talk, to LaBeouf (they learned our language on the Web). One of them speaks fluent Homeboy.

    Whew. Lot of effort for one pair of used glasses. There are two excellent reasons for these deep-space warriors to disguise themselves as machines: to sell toys, and to furnish lots of Michael Bay-devised shots of huge trucks, zippy sports cars, fighter jets and even a boom box transforming into robots and back.

    There is no story reason for any of this, however. Once their secret is out, the Transformers don’t take a lot of Clark Kentish precautions to hide; they’re 100-foot fighting monsters who can infiltrate any computer at will and whose every step causes the streets to shudder, and they’re proud of being more indestructible than Dick Clark. Why should such an almighty army care if we’re on to them? Did the aliens in “War of the Worlds” try to throw us off their trail by transforming themselves into toasters?

    While we’re waiting for the movie to get on with it and serve up the big battle (which it eventually does, with a 30-minute smash-and-crash that didn’t provide a lot more excitement than playing Hot Wheels with my brother in 1979), it transforms itself into a suburban sitcom. In one endless scene, various good Transformers — massive machines disguised as monster trucks — hide themselves outside the LaBeouf character’s house while he rolls his eyes at the cluelessness of his parents, who know he’s up to something but think it’s masturbation. The scene is important, though, to the viewers it’s aimed at, who were born in the Clinton administration; key to any kiddie fantasy is the idea that we can’t let the lame old folks in on our secret world.

    The action, which is very action-y, grabs the imagination less than the childish fun that lies in the notion that your car, or even your vaccuum cleaner, may harbor ambitions to seize the world. And, so as not to frighten the little ones too much, care is taken to make the machines adorable. The little boombox, who first turns himself into an impish steel Gremlin, then makes a lot of cute  frustration sounds (part Pac Man, part R2-D2) whenever he is foiled, is basically a bad-tempered pet—down, Rover, stop stealing top-secret data!–while another Transformer is even more doglike: he actually urinates on an enemy.

    At its best, like “The Matrix,” the movie makes you think twice about the world around you: as I lost interest in the ker-powing onscreen I found myself wondering about all of the real human beings who act suspiciously every day. For instance, with the rotation of a flap here and the rearrangement of a torso there, might Christopher Walken turn out to be a cyborg from Alpha Centauri? But if advanced alien detection equipment ever arrives, the first person I want to see it used on is Tom Cruise.

    There are a few amusing riffs to the Transformers story, such as an unexpected secret behind the Hoover Dam and a surprise explanation for why technology took off in the 20th century. There’s a limit, though, to how emotionally involved I’m going to get in watching digital renderings of machines trying to crush each other. “Autobot” is not only the name of the good-guy machines; it would be a good name for whatever software churned out this script. By the time that last half-hour of rock ‘em sock ‘em robots comes along with a maximum of clang and roar, the only way the movie could possibly surprise you would be if it tucked in its joints and flipped its widgets and whirred itself inside out until–bam! Before your very eyes, this thing has transformed itself into a Merchant Ivory film.

    Share/Save/Bookmark

    Topics: Movies |

    29 Responses to “Review: Transformers”

    1. peter Says:
      August 8th, 2007 at 1:12 am

      Although I like Transformers in general, this review is deliciously cruel, good job!

    2. Kingnutin Says:
      August 25th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

      Spot on..An agonizing movie that went on and on and on….Was also disappointed by the action and dialogues and pace of the movie - oh hell was disappointed by everything. But I expected this crap from Michael Bay (who NEVER makes movies for people with a positive IQ) The jokes alone can’t keep up this movie.

      Great review…

    3. Ciano Says:
      September 26th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

      Spot-on review, though you make it obvious that you didn’t want to see this movie in the first place. This film was not made for you, Mr. Smith. It was made for me, and my generation. Those of us who grew up with these characters will and do love this film to pieces, and so do those individuals of your generation (and older folks than that) who choose to walk into the theater with an open mind. Some people (like yourself, most likely) consider it beneath them to appreciate a film for sheer visual spectacle and well choreographed action. And that’s a shame, because while you complain about the lack of a plot, we applaud the abundance of simple, primal, and satisfying entertainment.

    4. CriticsCritic Says:
      October 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

      “Whew. Lot of effort for one pair of used glasses. There are two excellent reasons for these deep-space warriors to disguise themselves as machines: to sell toys, and to furnish lots of Michael Bay-devised shots of huge trucks, zippy sports cars, fighter jets and even a boom box transforming into robots and back.”

      Firstly, those toys you think this movie is intended to sell have been on the market for close to twenty years. Saying this movie was designed to boost sales of a product that is probably off the market by now is laughable. And secondly, what’s wrong with big trucks, fighter jets and zippy sports cars? If you weren’t so old maybe you’d understand that they weren’t made to sell product - but these flashy things were BASED OFF OF the product. Well all except bumblebee I believe. You take away the big trucks, the planes, the cars then you’re missing the whole premise of what a transformer is.

    5. TheCounter Says:
      October 16th, 2007 at 11:18 am

      4 comments wow, huge audience you have here. I couldn´t possibly finish reading this bloated, never ending review that runs on and on about the same thing.

    6. kyle Says:
      October 16th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

      TheCounter: this site is really aimed more at intelligent readers. Not so much at you.

    7. Ty, The Movie Reporter Says:
      October 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pm

      Hey, yo, You know what my favorive part of your review was. The fact that you say Transformer is when you said “the originality of “Transformers” is borrowed–from ”The Terminator,” “Gremlins,” “Starship Troopers,” “Independence Day” and “War of the Worlds.” What is funny about this is that the characters and story of Transformers came from a cartoon that started in 1984. Woh wait, Starship Troopers and Independence Day didn’t come out til the mid 90’s. And Gremlins and Terminator came out in 84′ as well, so Transformers was its own idea, as were those movies. I can’t argue War of the Worlds in terms of the time of release, but I can say that adding it to the list, means that it belongs on EVERY ALIEN TYPE MOVIE as a BORROWED idea. Also, last time I checked, I didn’t see any vehicles of any kind TRANSFORM into a BIG-A Robot!!! The reason people or I should say, CRITIC say there is no origniality is because critic can’t open their minds to a new story, they have to COMPARE and make ANALOGIES and once they’ve made one little connection, they say that is was COPIED. I’m an aspiring critic/filmmaker who would like to write screenplays, and I’ve discovered many ideas I’ve come up on my own can be really closely related to any story. No can except a story as IT’S OWN STORY. They have to compare. There is my 25 cents.

    8. dabada Says:
      October 22nd, 2007 at 5:21 pm

      Your review of the film as a piece of cultural media is probably correct. “Transformers” probably won’t hit all of the bullet points on your rubric for a work of art. However, I have to ask, didn’t you already know that? Isn’t it foolish to view this film using your bourgeois hermeneutical lens? Who is this review for? Is it to make sure all those art house snobs don’t accidentally waltz into this movie? Your critique certainly doesn’t appeal to the working class that enjoyed this movie, of which there are legion.

      Admit it, you made up your mind about this movie before you even saw it. You probably had pre-written snippets on your notepad like “Grand Theft Auto” and “Jedi” so that you would seem like you had your finger on the pulse of pop-culture. I have a humble suggestion for your review of “Transformers 2.”
      Just skip the movie, and save yourself the time. Go onto Wikipedia, after the movie is out, and get a general plot summary. Then defecate allover the movie in your article. Include old critic’s clichés like “eye candy” and throw in a reference to “Halo” for good measure. See! Now you didn’t even have to sit through a movie you knew ahead of time you were going to hate!

      Judging by your quote at the top of your website “there’s little point in writing if you can’t annoy somebody,” you’re into shock value journalism. If that’s the case, fine. For your future scribbling, take note of Wendy Ide’s review of “Transformers” from The Times in the UK. Wendy writes “Films directed by Michael Bay are usually like being shouted at by a halfwit for two and a half hours, and Transformers is no exception.” Now THAT is funny.

      I hope, at best, I’ve given you something entertaining to read. At worst, you and your elitist friends can sit around and correct my grammar.

    9. Toby Becker Says:
      October 23rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm

      I felt Spielberg set up a good introduction to the franchise he wants. We saw this at the IMAX, and my major criticism was its length. I’ve seen it in segments on DVD, and with aid of scene skipping, it held up very well.

      A note to the reviewer though: It wasn’t ’show and tell’. The teacher even made a point of telling Sam that “this isn’t show and tell.”

    10. s Says:
      October 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

      This review is pretty standard for Smith. I read his reviews in the actual paper every week. I remeber being disappointed when he first started at the paper and I realized that the snotty, ‘too cool for school’ pip squeak writer was going to be a regular moview reviewer. He is an arrogant jerk.
      That being said, the moview was not very good.

    11. Khan Says:
      November 3rd, 2007 at 8:06 am

      You tend to focus on the whole no sex thing in the beginning of your rant. Hiding something? And this whole thing

      “On the other hand, the originality of “Transformers” is borrowed–from ”The Terminator,” “Gremlins,” “Starship Troopers,” “Independence Day” and “War of the Worlds.”

      What the hell do those movies have to do with anything? You just grabbed a bunch of older Sci-Fi movies and strung them together.

      Anyways, You’ll never read this, but your a douchbag for trying to sound hip by compairing a movie to older blockbusters and trash talking a bit of coltural media history becouse you liked to play with your sisters dolls instead of your own toys.

    12. Josh Says:
      November 5th, 2007 at 3:03 pm

      To Ciano: Um…I grew up with the original Transformers and I was severely disappointed in this movie. For the most part Kyle’s review was spot on…this 2 hour and almost 20 minute movie should have had A) a better story line or B) Been reduced to 45 minutes with all the drawn-out/useless filler thrown away. At 1hr and 30 minutes I was seriously debating turning it off and giving up on anything very interesting happening (other than the opening scene). Even the climax was semi-boring… I won’t tell someone not to watch this movie but I won’t recommend it either.

      Oh…and yes, the other people who said that Transformers was an ORIGINAL concept as opposed to Starship Troopers and whatnot are correct. Seriously Kyle…this was no big secret, how could you make such an asinine, if not completely retarded, statement? I’m not sure how old you are but if you’re writing about movies whose premise is based on something that came out before you were born you should do your homework ;)

    13. Intadream Says:
      November 8th, 2007 at 1:47 am

      Speaking of cultural media history, are we still insulting men by calling them ‘ladies’, momma’s boys and that they play with their sister’s dolls?

    14. El Bio Terroristo Says:
      November 28th, 2007 at 4:47 pm

      I started reading this with an open mind, as I normally conduct myself when reviewing someone’s opinion. I look for valid points, good arguements, you know, the facts that make whatever that person is saying is valid.

      I tried to do that as I read this review, until I stumbled upon this lovely gem:

      “On the other hand, the originality of “Transformers” is borrowed–from ”The Terminator,” “Gremlins,” “Starship Troopers,” “Independence Day” and “War of the Worlds.”

      Are you serious? I didn’t know the New York Post hired crackpots. Obviously I was mistaken. Are you even aware of the timeline you just insinuated? Transformers, the original cartoon in which the movie is based, came to American television long before any of these movies, save a couple of them, were even in development. And have you even read any of the Transformers graphic novels, or seen any of the television shows, or even the feature film? The Transformers genere does have an overall seriousness to it, but within it it holds a lighthearted, comedic feel as well. Sam Witwicky and his parents clash on his masturbation were pure comedic relief, as well as the part within the movie wherE
      Ratchet walks into a power line, and seemingly gets high off the electric jolt, telling Ironhide “Whoo, you gotta try that!” not much of a spoiler for those who haven’t seen it, but you get the general idea.

      My only thought on the movie as a setback was that the name of the movie was named Transformers, but really, there weren’t enough Transformers for my tastes, as there was more human interaction than there was gigantic robots. Which is why most people came to see the movie, to see Optimus and Megatron butt heads for two hours, rather than some stringy meatman end it all in an anti-climatic flash.

      That still didn’t stop me and the Missus’ from seeing it five times though.

      But seriously, after reading this dribble, I have to seriously doubt your credientials as a reviewer, and the odds of you being taken seriously ever again have dropped to a good 30% of the time.

    15. kyle Says:
      November 28th, 2007 at 6:30 pm

      I think you mean “drivel.”

      To all of the readers who have asked, “Whoaaah! Doesn’t he know that Transformers was a toy back in the 1980s”? Please. I was 14 when the 80s began. I watched more Saturday morning cartoons than the next ten people combined. That jingle! “The Transformers! More than meets the eye! The Transformers! Robots in dis-guise!” I’ll never get it out of my head.

      Michael Bay’s film does not simply take the 80s franchise and put it on screen. It feeds in an awful lot of elements familiar from an awful lot of movies that Bay and I and everyone else have seen since the 80s. If you like big crunching robots, fine. Don’t pretend this movie is a paragon of originality.

    16. kyle Says:
      November 28th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

      Oh, and the reader who claimed that this movie, which was co-produced by Hasbro, was not made to sell toys because they’re off the market: guess what? A new generation of toys came right back on the market…coincidentally, right as this movie was coming out! I have one on my desk. Oh, no I don’t. I kinda threw it away, because I’m not 11.

    17. El Bio Terroristo Says:
      November 29th, 2007 at 11:38 am

      No, I meant “dribble” as in reference to as the dictionary defines as:
      “–noun 7. a small quantity of anything”

    18. Cyrano Says:
      December 5th, 2007 at 7:29 am

      The failure of this reviews and indeed, most reviews, is that this movie performs exactly what it set out to do and please its target audience.

      Most of the people who don’t like this movie were fans of the cartoon, placing you as 20/30 yrs old. This is a teen movie, you are not teens, move on.

      Also, the:
      “On the other hand, the originality of “Transformers” is borrowed–from ”The Terminator,” “Gremlins,” “Starship Troopers,” “Independence Day” and “War of the Worlds.”

      Is just a random collection of sci-fi titles in an attempt to put th movie down.

    19. Cyrano Says:
      December 5th, 2007 at 7:30 am

      Whoops, screwed up my first paragraph

      It should read:
      “The failure of this review and indeed, most reviews, is to recognise and rate this movie based on that this movie performs exactly what it set out to do and please its target audience.”

    20. Satish Naidu Says:
      December 12th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

      Believe it or not, there sure are some benefits of watching a Michael Bay movie, more so when you get early to the counter and buy the cheapest tickets. Sitting there, among numerous teenagers, and adults still to break the barrier into maturity, you get to feel so good about yourself. You realize that you no longer are that stupid teenager who laughs at a barrage of sex, urine and fart jokes. You also get to watch a lot of stuff blow up, bang bang, that bang recording a decibel reading barely within the higher limit of human audible limit. Good Bay realizes that, otherwise there would be dogs going crazy outside. If ever movies can be looked as a meter to record the intelligence quotient of a person and you want to test yourself, best is to check into one of them Michael Bay movies. If you still find yourself laughing and have your adrenaline pumping after the testosterone overflow on screen, tell yourself-“Still some way to go.”
      I am not exactly one of those Bay haters; it is just that I despise his movies (Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, Bad Boys II, The Island). But in Transformers, he finally seems to have found a material that can resist his carnage-creation (carnage = bad movies). Not that it is brilliant, not even remotely, but it is just that a combination of my sub-zero expectations, my thinking cap left with my car at the parking (Bay movies, special offer: No extra charges) and some cool special effects coupled with some wow moments (believe me, they are just moments the longest of them clocking at 5 seconds) made this one of the more enjoyable movies of this summer. On a scale, I enjoyed it more than Spiderman3, Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix and Shrek the Third combined, the tent poles of this summer.
      Don’t ask me about the plot, I pay slightly higher attention than Bay to that insignificant ingredient in the Bay world, which isn’t saying much. There’s something about some cube called AllSpark that is some sort of huge power (I would be grateful if somebody mailed me the power everyone’s behind) that has been supposedly hidden on Earth millions of years ago by an alien race i.e. transformers, the inhabitants of some planet called Cybertron. There’re the good transformers called Autobots that don’t want the cube to fall into the wrong hands i.e. the evil transformers or the Decepticons. They come to earth, both of them, to find it for the secret lies in the hand of one Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and then all hell breaks loose, which in Bay world means explosions, dumb characters running amuck and lots of loud noise.
      Let us get done with the good stuff real fast, it won’t take long.
      Some of the action moments are brilliantly done. They might be super-dumb but Bay movies sometimes know how to appeal to that male inside you. I admit, sometimes I enjoyed it this time too and maybe because it was nicely done. Trucks, monster ones, are something I’ll buy any day. Here, big trucks, tanks, cars, airplanes basically all that piece of equipment created by man (humans) that appeals to a man (males) is on full display. Plus the scenes of them roaring as a vehicle one moment and creaking into one of them cool oversized piece of robots is fun to watch. The transformers aren’t exactly great characters, but what the hell, you paid for a Bay movie not a James Cameron movie (that is why come early and get the cheapest tickets). They’re some real spectacular sequences of chase where in they turn from vehicles to robots, some real wow moments I spoke of earlier. The action sequences are the one and the only draw, though they aren’t exactly good. Most of them, as is the entire movie, shot with an epileptic camera where few things are clear. It is just carnage (any which way you look at it). But something about them felt so frustrating for they was the germ of some spectacular action sequences. But no one, both in the movie and the people who made it realized that there were more than a few opportunities of a spectacular car chase with lots of avenues to spend time and money on cool transformations and explosions. Especially one I remember correctly where in one evil transformer (kindly mail me the name) chasing the Bumblebee with Sam Witwicky inside transforms back into a police car and starts chasing. The sequence had terrific potential to be a special one but it just ends, with nothing on the plate. Alas, I exclaimed and added “Bay” to it.
      It did take long.
      The bad part, this is going to take even shorter. It is a Bay movie. What are you expecting, Terminator 2: Judgment Day? All the “virtues” are on full display. The dumbness factor is the usual. Plus the characters are so irritating, except for the central one of Sam. In the midst of it, one of the good transformers asks-“Parents are irritating, should I shoot them.” Replace parents with people there and you’ve my answer: a resounding Yes. At 144 minutes, Transformers is especially long. Needless parts dealing with boring teenage stuff with the story going nowhere and laced with embarrassing jokes keeps Transformers from really taking off, except for the climactic battle. Even the battle is less of a showdown and more of a letdown; nobody really cares about the battle between Megatron and Optimus Prime. One reason, averagely etched characters and another reason, that jarring camera that just leaves our heads spinning with headache. The action is more or less lost in translation. Performances, apart from LaBeouf’s are splendid opportunities for poking fun. Special mention for LaBeouf, this boy is good. His is the same part, cheesy, dumb and irritating in equal parts but he somehow manages to give a nice turn. Worst element of all is the background score. One word again will explain how ridiculous it and its usage is-Bay.
      That is Transformers for you -stupid, cheesy, loud, unclear, long, boring, irritating, wild, exciting-in-parts, great action and would have been great action, all of it rolled into one. And if you follow my prescription of parking your brain, believe me, this is the most “summery” movie this summer (keep At World’s End out of the equation).
      But I can’t help but wonder, what a good film maker would have done with it?

    21. Matt Says:
      January 12th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

      Crap! As a former New Yorker, I know how bad that typo must sting! I think I’m going to have to write a grant to hire a fact-checker. A million apologies.

      Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Kyle Smith is a film reviewer for the New York Post! Post, I say!

      Sorry.

      PS: Who came up with the Transformers/Herbie connection first–you, or Anthony Lane? I was just wondering if there was a Herbie-analogy smackdown or something?

    22. kyle Says:
      January 13th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

      Well, I didn’t read his review before I wrote mine. So we each thought of it independently.

    23. Andy Says:
      March 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

      Kyle is right on. The movie IS heavily influenced by The Terminator, Gremlins, Starship Troopers, Independence Day and War of the Worlds. He never said that Transformers ripped off those movies in 1984, he said the MOVIE RELEASED IN 2007 was not very original.

      When I watched it, with Bumblebee and the cop car both chasing Sam down, I thought: woah, that’s just like Terminator 2 (one sent to protect him, one sent to hurt him). When that annoying little robot was trying to hack Air Force One, I thought: why does a ROBOT make noises like a Gremlin? When they were in the desert firing round after round at a giant CGI insect amidst clouds of dust, I thought: that’s just like Starship Troopers. When they went to the Hoover Dam to find the AllSpark and Megatron, I thought: that’s just like the secret organisation in Independence Day with the UFO from Roswell. I then came on here, read this, and was shocked that so many people thought this movie was entirely original, based solely on the cartoon and not at all influenced by the twenty years of movies that have come out between then and now.

      And for the record, as someone who loved Transformers as a kid I had really high expectations of this movie and really wanted to like it, but found it so boring I very nearly walked out.

    24. Grezzi Says:
      April 5th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

      I agree that this movie isn’t original but let’s face it, very few action movies today are. A movie like this is just made to entertain, they did not make it to please all the people who played with the action figures in the 80’s.

      Also, if so many of you simply HATE Michael Bay and every movie he’s ever done, why the hell do you go and see a movie that is clearly directed by him. It says so right on the films poster; “A Michael Bay film”

      My advise to you is to let it go, he’s never gonna make a movie that you’ll like. This is his thing, this is what he does best. Millions of people love it, it sells, so he’s gonna keep doing it. But you can just stop seeing his movies if you HATE him so much.

      Thank you.

    25. ohaji Says:
      June 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 am

      The movie had the foundation to actually be really good. the work done on the robots was incredible, but they relied on that to drive the movie rather than taking the time to develop the plot. At one point anthony anderson’s character is about to crack the code that would be the key to understanding the alien’s language, which could have developed into a pretty good story line, just as the code is to be cracked, the FBI shuts him down and then we go into a 45 min chase scene and we don’t come back to that story line. almost as if bay is saying to his audience, we wanted to actually give you a story to follow, but figured you wouldn’t be interested in an actual plot line, so here’s a hot chick and cool cars….enjoy!

    26. Bumbleebee Says:
      June 17th, 2008 at 3:15 am

      Transformers was an awesome movie. I don’t know what you people are complaining about.

    27. DPaul Says:
      June 27th, 2008 at 2:08 am

      Personally, I thought the film was what us 80s kids were looking for. Who’s to say that explosiveness and action sequences were without merit.

      I mean, I personally, back in the 80s, imagined that if there were to create the transformers back then it would have looked like a guy in a suit or some kind of frame by frame animation. As a kid, since I never really understood the limitations of special effects, I was usually disappointed whenever they turned a comic or cartoon character to life (”Masters of the Universe”, nuff said). Now that we have the tech to actually achieve what we imagined before, I see no wrong in giving it a high dose of effects now.

      That said there are a few considerations that we could have been neglecting. It could critically be a no win situation, the premise are about robots who transforms to vehicles. And though I understand the importance of following a storyline, how many twists can one put into that before someone yells, “STFU and show me prime again!”

      I thought the story was balanced enough to give way to the fans who have waited 20 years to see prime in live action as well as a good enough story to follow. Comedic timing was good, sound was a bit overwhelming, and transition could use a bit more work but overall, I would watch the guaranteed next installment.

    28. Drew Says:
      August 15th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

      I admit the movie had flaws, but I enjoyed it anyway.

      Bay has made 7 movies. This one was one out of two of them that I liked (The other being the Rock). But now that a lot of the fiction/foundation has been established, I feel that the second one will be better than the first, because the makers know where they went wrong in this one.

    29. Lulabelle Says:
      July 25th, 2011 at 11:11 am

      What you guys seem to not acknowledge is that this shiny, mindless fun. It’s for ten year olds, and more importantly, it’s for people with inner ten year olds. If you don’t have an inner ten year old, or at least an inner teenager, you won’t like this movie. Period. It makes perfect sense, just think about. I have an inner ten year old and an inner teenager but I still believe this movie is awful in an awesome way. XD

    Comments