Movie Review: "Transformers"
I had such high hopes for Transformers. After all, with the backing of Spielberg's Dreamworks Studio, and the directing touch of Michael Bay (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, The Island), plus a plot line custom made for special effects, this had the potential for the "summer blockbuster" that thus far hasn't materialized (the latest Die Hard doesn't qualify due to its R rating).
Instead, what we've got is a confused example of cinematic schizophrenia, a movie that one moment is channeling The Terminator and the next minute is a knock-off of Gremlins. The dialog is uniformly awful when spoken by adults (or Transformers), but pretty darned entertaining when given to the teenagers in the cast. And – I never thought I'd type these words – the special effects were, well, too much.
Stay with me on this one. The very best special effects are those that unfold in a leisurely manner on the screen, so that one can search for flaws in the technique, or clues as to how they were done, and in the happy instances where both are non-discernible, subconsciously buy in completely to the reality presented by the film. A good example of this is Alien; Transformers, with its mind-numbing frenzy, occupies the other end of the spectrum.
Of course, I'm not the target demographic for this movie, not by decades. The Nephew has already declared it the best movie ever made (draw your own conclusions from that), and the IMDB ratings are through the roof. I suspect that if you're already a fan of the cartoon, the movie represents a little bit of heaven.
As far as casting, Shia LeBeouf is the spitting image of John Cusack, albeit much younger, and Megan Fox is the next Jessica Alba (there again, draw your own conclusions). John Turturro and Jon Voight seem remarkably inept (blame the script), but all the humans are really just supporting cast for the Transformers. The aliens have mostly chosen to live as muscular vehicles, with the exception of one poor guy who was stuck being a Pontiac Solstice, which is a fine-looking little car, but hardly instills confidence as a protector of Earth. More interesting is the appearance of the 2009 Camaro (possibly tuned by Saleen, along with some of the Transformer/Mustang police cars) which looks awfully derivative of a two-door Dodge Charger.
At 2 hours, 24 minutes, the movie pummeled us into submission. That's a transformation I just can't recommend.
See, I didn't even know they had a theme song. Maybe if they'd sung it, I'd have felt differently about the movie. ;-)
We enjoyed Ocean's 13 much more.
Posted by: Eric at July 4, 2007 09:43 PMSpielberg's involvement notwithstanding - and I suspect that he was primarily a money man on this deal - I soundly predicted that this would be a dud. Michael Bay & Jerry Bruckheimer are two peas in a pod - nearly all of their movies are brainless, effects-fests that start solid and crumble under the weight of their preposterousness.
I'm all for cool effects, but only so much as they support a good story. This is kinda like the original Star Wars trilogy versus the second set. With the original, effects were so difficult & expensive, there had to be a really good reason to include 'em. By the time the second trilogy came along, the effects were fairly disposable and largely meaningless.
Posted by: Rob O. at July 4, 2007 09:59 PMRob, I guess it depends on how you define "dud," as I'm sure the movie will make a bazillion dollars. Most of the afternoon showings in Midland were sold out yesterday, and fans of the cartoon are ecstatic (for instance, read Beth's review here).
We didn't hate the movie, or even dislike it; it just didn't live up to the hype in our admittedly un-Transformed opinions.
Posted by: Eric at July 5, 2007 06:49 AMOther than the theme song from the Transformer toy commercials, I have no idea what they're all about. Yeah, yeah... a burrito vending cart that turns into a giant robot. I get that. But aside from that, I'm not familiar with the story.
I had thought I might get caught up by renting the movie when it comes out on DVD, but now I'm thinking maybe not.
Posted by: Foo at July 5, 2007 07:44 AMMy 13 year old son is going tonight ... for the Megan Fox girl...he doesn't even know what a transformer is. I figure I saved about $10,000 with him NOT knowing.
Posted by: julie at July 5, 2007 10:29 AMJulie, if he's already into Megan Fox, I have a feeling you may be wishing he'd gone with Transformers instead. ;-)
Juniors in high school never looked like that when I was 17!
Posted by: Eric at July 5, 2007 10:42 AM13 year old's movie review: "It was so friggin' awesome..."
Washed his mouth out with soap, then he told me it was a tie between Transformers and Live Free, Die Hard for best movie EVER.
Never said a word about Megan Fox.
Posted by: julie at July 6, 2007 01:35 PMI agree, however I was more upset by the content and adult humor. A disappointment for me. More thoughts on my blog.
Posted by: Christopher at July 6, 2007 05:20 PMSo, Julie...I can't help wondering how the kid got in to see "Die Hard."
Your comment is especially interesting in light of Christopher's observation (which I agree with, although I didn't mention it in my review) that "Transformers" had some inappropriate material. We've got adults being offended by the content of PG-13 movies while 13 year olds are watching R-rated ones.
It's an interesting contrast.
Posted by: Eric at July 6, 2007 07:43 PMJack saw Die Hard with good old Mom...I think he's seen more adult situations on television than he did that afternoon.
On the other hand...I had to come home and nap. Die Hard wore me out.
Posted by: julie at July 9, 2007 09:57 PM
Wow. This is so not the review I plan to write tomorrow. Have to say, I fall into the Nephew's camp on this one. It. Absolutely. Rocked.
But then, I can still sing the themesong.
Posted by: beth at July 4, 2007 09:15 PM