Just found this sitting in my drafts folder with only this written:"I don't like it."
Whilst this is accurate, I can see why I put off 'publishing' such a critique...or lack of critique.
We're talking months ago now, and frankly who cares anyway - about the movie, and even less about what I thought of it. But here goes what I think, or what I can remember of what I thought.
Plot
I can't remember what it was about. I guess the Deceptacons were going to destroy Earth, and Shia and the blond Megan Fox, and the Autobots, saved it? Look at the poster, that's where I got my information...
Whas I thunk
I didn't like it. Apparently.
I can only assume I didn't like because it was a tension-less barrage of metal carnage. I know, I know. That's Michael Bay. But surely this could be better. Was the first one better? Can't remember, but I do remember the second one as full of makeup and fake tan and basically a masterclass in how to make a clearly attractive woman (Megan Fox) look like a, well, a cheap slapper. And that it was worse than the first movie.
I can't help but wonder how this film hopes to engage with it's audience. Is it merely to provide some suitable, ahem, wank material for 14 year old boys? Why did I watch it. Good question. Well, I am fairly indiscriminate with my film viewing...but it's also been a matter of what Yusuf has given me, or someone else, and what has been showing locally at the handful of times I've gone to the cinema...and then there's the final factor: given the option of crap over heartbreaking, I frequently choose crap. Only to watch the heartbreaking at a later date. So I guess that's why other people see it. They don't want to watch a movie about the brutal killing of raped child by a schizophrenic meth-addict that won the Palm D'Or. They want to see tits and robots.
But look at Batman Begins - crappy movies don't have to be crap. They can be awesome.
It was both this review and my own gluttony for celluloid punishment (sometimes to appreciate the good, you need to remind yourself of the crap) that made me just (yes, I literally just hit stop) watch that 154 minute double-barrel barrage of confusing, overly-american-moral-injected-techno-gore tribute to excess.
ReplyDeleteI think you hit the nail on the head with the term tension-less. Trying to discern what made this the case made me realise, in no way an epiphany, that its because almost patronisingly, it again yields the same finale, almost shot-for shot. Granted, even without watching the first two, you know what the outcome is going to be, but other than a bit more spine-ripping, fuel-spilling and *slightly* less T&A, this film again proved how an excess of whizz 'n' bang can leave you feeling a little dumb for not knowing what the actual story is again.
I still rate this one higher than the second (First wins for me) and I didn't fall asleep watching it like I did the with the second (wasn't far off it—I walked out to eat a mango at one stage and I didn't miss much).
Also, someone please assassinate Shia Labeouf.
Merry Christmas.
Am I the only one to see the genius of Michael Bay? The only one to understand the true reality of what he has created with this series of Transformers movies? 'A visual feast but no plot' the critics cry, but where have I encountered that combination before? Oh yes, that's right, in Ron Fricke's masterpiece, Baraka! No one complained about Baraka not having a plot. Double standards! What, Transformers isn't Oscar material just because there are robots in it? Snobs.
ReplyDeletePlease excuse my evil twin posting above.
ReplyDeleteI hated this film. It was big and dumb, and it disappoints me when people go, "Yeah, of course! Dude, it was a Transformers movie" and just accept it, like 'big and dumb' is all a Transformers movie could ever be. You're right to mention Batman Begins which showed that action movies don't have to be dumb. Though I would say The Dark Knight proves the point even more. Actually, to digress, Smart Action Films would be a great topic for discussion. Maybe later. :)
Anyway, when Michael Bay was confronted with the accusation that he'd ruined people's childhoods, he was right to respond by saying that if you go back and look you must agree that the Transformers needed an update, but pretty much every decision he made updating the Transformers was wrong. In my humble opinion. Not least of which is the character design, which is so incredibly detailed and complex that, in robot mode, I found it virtually impossible to tell who any of the characters were. The original characters were wonderfully designed, and conformed to Matt Groening's principle that your characters should be identifiable by their silhouette. No chance of that with this new batch.
Anyway, I won't go on at length. It doesn't deserve it. I will say that the thing I found most amazing about this film was the cast! If anyone had asked me if I knew what the new film starring John Malkovich, John Turturro and Frances McDormand was, I never would have guessed 'Transformers 3' in a gazillon years. I was embarrassed for them. Although, what's that Michael Caine quote about his appearance in Jaws 4? "I have never seen the film, but by all accounts it is terrible. I have however seen the house that it built, and it is terrific." Great line. I guess Malkovich, Turturro and McDormand must be getting into real estate as well.
Great review, Em. Thanks for posting.
Thank you both. Only *slightly* more informed than myself on this topic I see. And thanks for your suggested topic...watch this space. Or not this one here in the comments section of the Transformers review, but a new space dedicated to Smart Action Films.
ReplyDelete