|
Movies Books Music Food Tv Shows Technology Politics Video Games Parenting Fashion Green Living more >

Lunch » Tags » Movies » Reviews » Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen » User review

Transformers Revenge of the Fallen Poster

2009 Sequel to the hit film Transformers

< read all 16 reviews

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - not intended for weenies

  • Jun 29, 2009
  • by
Rating:
+4
Since there are already several reviews out there, I'll spare you the synopsis.  This is a review by a Transformers fan and a movie watcher addressing the critics who enjoyed bashing this film so much.

As a film, Transformers is pure popcorn fun.  It's basically a 2.5 hour commercial to sell toys just like how the cartoons were 20 minute commercials to sell toys.  As long as you keep that mindset, everything will be okay.  This isn't freakin Schindler's List.  Not every movie needs to have some poignant message.  There are just times when I want to see stuff get blown up real good and Michael Bay seems to know how to satisfy those cravings.  Doesn't make sense?  Okay, it's a movie based on TOYS with a back story that was reverse engineered in order to sell more TOYS.  Still over your head?  Stay home and read a book.

There is a story and it isn't as bad as all the weenies make it out to be.  Just understand that the story was reverse engineered around the action scenes kind of like formula for the original cartoon.  On this level, the first movie was a little better.  It was more obvious that the script was a side effect of the storyboards on this one.

I read a whole lot of girly-men reviews about how this movie was "too loud" and how it was like "putting a pot on your head and bashing it against the wall".  Wow.  Really? You thought this movie was too loud?  I think you need to grow a pair.  I asked my wife if she thought this movie was too loud and she said no.  For some perspective, my wife thought the scene in Benjamin Button where his tug got attacked by the sub was too loud when I was watching it on my cheapy home theater in a box.

Now I'm going to address some of the elements of the movie that were complained about the most:

Why do these super advanced robots still have to fight hand-to-hand sometimes?  Because there are times when you want to lay down some serious whoop ass and if energy blades can pop out of your hands, then why not?  Oh, an it's based on a CARTOON!

Jetfire is so old that he has a beard and uses a cane!  So? In the CARTOON, some of the older robots had beards and the cane was funny.  His inclusion was for the fans, not for the weenies.  It's okay if you don't get it.  You don't have to get everything to enjoy this movie.  Some critics also seemed to miss how Sam and crew ended up in Egypt all of a sudden.  They must've missed the part where Jetfire teleported them because they must've had their heads shoved up their arses to muffle the "loudness".  Teleport?!?! Yeah right!  Um yeah, giant robots that can transform into whatever they want can probably teleport too.

The "Twins" were useless and racist.  I thought they were useless at first too to serve only as comedic relief, which was unneccessary, but did you people missed the part where they put a hurt on Devastator and managed to slow him down?  See head up arse reference above.  To say they were the Jar-Jar Binks equivalent is a bit harsh.  Jar-Jar was truly useless.  Now the touchy racist part.  They're alien robots.  If you saw them as black, then that's your problem.  I saw alien robots who talked and bickered like idiots.  I've seen people of all kinds act and talk the same way.  Oh, and one of the voice actors is white and the other is black.

The running time.  I can see how a non-fan would think it was about 30-40 minutes too long.  If you go into it thinking you will hate it because it's not "intelligent" enough for you, then it will be painful.  As a fan, I appreciated the details.

I haven't seen anyone mention it, but the addition of the weenie beuracrat sent in by the president ( who is mentioned as being Obama) to throw a wrench in the military operation was a little funny.  In the end, it's the military that's in charge and fixes things.  I'm wondering if it's a shot at the Obama administration by the very pro-military Bay.  Now before anyone reading this gets their panties in a bunch, Bay took a shot at Bush too in the first movie.

Now the parts that even I had to chuckle at the sillyness of. 

The spinning camera shots and Michael Bay slo-mos.  The spinning camera stuff is annoying.  I just want to see the details of the robots.  Stop moving around so much!  The slo-mos are just part of Michael Bay.

When Optimus was getting his arse handed to him in the forest, where was his back up?  Why did it take so long for a Camaro and a Corvette to get there?  Optimus is a freakin Peterbilt semi and was there before all these other suckers.

After Sam and Simmons find Jetfire at the Smithsonian, Jetfire is awakened, busts through a hanger door and they are in PIMA which is located in Arizona.  Even if you didn't know this, I'm sure most people would know that there is no huge aircraft bone yard behind the National Mall in DC.  Nothing was gained by them being in the boneyard either.

The gratuitous fan service shots of Megan Fox.  How the heck did she change clothes so often?  She must do a real good job of layering.  I also didn't know that having your butt arched in the air is the most ergonomical position to be in when painting a chopper gas tank.  Someone should check with the guys at Orange County Choppers to see if this is true.

In the end, this is a fun movie for most guys and cool girls.  If Spike TV were to run this movie 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it would still satisfy their demographic's needs (fast cars, robots, fights, explosions, hot girls, military).  Go see it and have fun.  Don't be a weenie.

What did you think of this review?

Helpful
17
Thought-Provoking
8
Fun to Read
17
Well-Organized
12
Post a Comment
June 30, 2009
I totally disagree with your review--this movie would've been better if it was 30 minutes shorter; the humor was bad, stupid and dumb. You said you saw two bickering idiots in the 'twins' which was exactly the point of those who were offended. I wasn't offended, but I saw from what area they were coming from. However, your review was fun to read and I agree with Fooddude. It is a bad way to convince, since the movie's "nay-sayers" can ALSO easily say "Transformers is for the dumbed-down movie fan". .You say "grow a pair to watch this movie?" heh. .I've seen some majorly disturbing shit, and this movie does not require any 'balls' but it requires that you leave your brain and sensibilities at home.  


Oh, box-office receipts doesn't reflect on how good a movie is, my friend, it only reflects on the viewing public's tastes. I guess I am a weenie--since I gave this movie 2 stars. It is quite sad that crowd pleasers such as Bay with inept storytelling skills get blockbuster acclaim--if you support a hack like him, then he'll continue on.(I say he's a hack because the film's action scenes are probably mostly done by the CGI experts and his rendition isn't faithful to established animated series) I saw it because I somewhat liked the first film. I guess we need more weenies in the world! LMAO I still like your review; it was funny as soon as you read it. But some folks may take your title literally.
June 30, 2009
Glad you enjoyed my review. My title was intended to grab you and it did. I'm pretty sure most people aren't going to take it seriously. Anyone who does, gee...I don't apologize. Haha! If idiots got offended by the twins, then stop being an idiot! Don't act that way. Like I said in my reply to Fooddude, neither I nor Paramount needs to convince anyone to see this movie. It's obvious that it's critic proof and is about to set a record for the worst reviewed movie with the highest gross. My "growing a pair" reference was for those critics who thought it was "too loud" not to those who just didn't like it for legitimate reasons (which there are plenty of). Come on, it was NOT too loud. There are plenty of other negatives to focus on than the volume. That's just whining. There are definetly plenty of reasons to not like the movie which the majority of the reviews have already discussed but most miss the point that this is pure movie watching fun. A fun movie does not have to be good. It's pretty obvious that this movie is succeeding in accomplishing its intended purpose. I think it's great that Bay gets blockbuster acclaim because it's a reminder that many people still believe in going to the movies as a form of escapism. Simple law of supply and demand. Regardless of the film, I leave most of my brain and sensibilities at home anyways and sit through the whole thing (credits included) like drooling idiot with my popcorn and Coke. I paid $10 for someone to show/tell me a story. I don't want to think. I save the analyzing for later. If it weren't for guys like Bay, then the art house nuts wouldn't have anything the bitch about and the world would be thrown off its axis.
June 30, 2009
Thanks for responding, bud. and of course, don't apologize. he-heh. Now, now, I wouldn't say the folks who got offended were idiots--it's all a matter of different strokes. I think when some critics say the movie was loud, they weren't referring to the film being loud in an auditory sense; they could be referring to it being too stylized and flashy. My only complaint on this film is that it was so busy with trying to out do the first film, that it went on 'too much' of everything. I really had fun with the first film, it has funny, cheeky and action-packed.

True that a fun movie doesn't have to be good, I'm no movie snob--sheesh! I loved "Poultrygeist: return of the chicken Dead" and it was way worst than this film but in some ways better. LOL! Also I'm not totally anti-Bay since among my favorite action films is "The Rock". I guess, I just thought Bay messed up the first film's simple formula. Anyway, with that out of the way, you did write a fun review--reflective of what your opinion was. Later, bud. Hope you review some more...
June 30, 2009
I agree with you that this one tried too hard to out do the first one...one of the reasons I gave it a 4 instead of a 5....that and poor ergonomical gas tank painting position...haha.
 
June 30, 2009
While I completely disagree with Transformers having anything redeemable other than loud, punchy action, your review was fun to read, mainly because of its impassioned, gutsy approach. Also, trying to attack masculinity is not a good way to persuade someone: I.e. "What, you're not MAN enough to like it? you're a man aren't you? Than like this."
June 30, 2009
Based on the box office receipts, it's pretty obvious I don't need to persuade anyone to see it. I was mainly trying to be funny. I think Transformers is a prime example of the differences between the trendy metro-hipster male and the traditional macho male. I saw one reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes who actually labeled the film as "so last administration". HAHA! I could have writen an equally humorous review from the opposite view point, but that's pretty much been taken care of by the pro critics.
July 02, 2009
Yeah, as Woopak stated, box office receipts and quality films don't always good hand in hand. See "Wild Wild West" for a perfect example. Despite these big blockbusters making an absurd amount of profit, it seems a huge waste of money for a product of such superficial substance. The new Transformers cost $195 million...which could have been used to make 20 high quality indie productions like discovering the next "Reservoir Dogs" or "American Beauty." Nobody will care about Transformers, as a film, in 6 months. It's hard to remember what summer blockbusters were shown two years ago. You watch it, maybe have a good time and move on. Only rarely do blockbusters really come off well: Iron Man and The Dark Knight come to mind. Well, that was a fun attack open blockbusters. :) In the end, if you spend your money and have a good time, that's fine, but maybe consider if all the money that went it was well spent.
July 02, 2009
I never said that because TROF made lots of money means that it's a quality film. My rating is indicative of my opinion that it is a fun movie that was worth my $10 to see. The people who don't want to see this movie to begin with won't be swayed by some amatuer review. My review is for entertainment, just like the movie. I applaud your wishful thinking. Do you think that the $200M would really have been spent on 20 indies and not some other blow-em movie that would draw in large audiences? That's like asking why don't universities put more money in women sports. Because they don't bring in nearly as much revenue as mens sports. Financially speaking, that $200M is turning out to be very well spent. If studios didn't spend lots of money on fun movies that make lots more money, then they wouldn't have the money to fund and gamble on the artsy movies that usually don't make very much money. I'm not convinced that there isn't room in the world for both.
 
June 30, 2009
In spite of my disagreement (I just wasn't impressed with this movie but it was mostly for the messy screenplay), this review was a ton of fun to read! Lots of good humor! I hope all your reviews are this entertaining to read!
June 30, 2009
Oh yeah, no doubt the screenplay was all over the place. I thought the backbone idea by Orci and Kurtzman was good, but you can tell where Bay wanted re-writes to force-inject in more explosions and fan service. It's like shooting the cream in a Twinkie and just like a Twinkie, you can see the injection holes.
 
1
More Transformers: Revenge of the F... reviews
review by . September 11, 2011
posted in Movie Hype
There are times when the true, awe-inspiring stupidity and insipidness of mass media works never really strikes you until the thought hits: THIS. WAS. WRITTEN. By people who presumably have normally functioning human brains. Sometimes by more than one of those said people. For every work of art in which you are keen on finding out who the artist is in order to praise him, there are many others so bad you put them out of your head, forgetting completely that people were behind them making them work. …
review by . July 01, 2009
posted in Movie Hype
If all you want is smashy, crashy fun then it's good.
Transformers!  THE SEQUEL!  Sequels to comic book, superhero movies lately are always a better bunch then the first film having gotten the annoying origin stories and introductions out of the way.  The first Transformers movie in 2007 got by in my book by having a rock em sock em action scene in the finale that helped redeem the movie by it's conclusion.  This newest movie tones down the human characters, gives us more Transformers, more action, more Baysplosions and....a …
review by . July 28, 2009
 I won't even go into reviewing the story for this movie because it is so absolutely ridiculous and it was already superbly covered in the Topless Robot Review (very funny read, but contains spoilers and adult language).      As far a transformers movie, the Revenge of the Fallen makes up for the one shortcoming I felt the first movie had by including way more fighting robots....  Way WAY more fighting robots... SO MANY fighting robots that I actually dozed off …
review by . June 27, 2009
posted in Movie Hype
Poster
   The first “Transformers” film may not be faithful to the original animated series and not even to the comic book by Marvel comics in the 80's. Seeing as how Hasbro only utilized those mediums to promote its toy line, I can forgive its inconsistencies to the beloved animated series. The original film by Michael Bay was fun, it utilized a simple formula with little room for a real intricate plot; it was just a popcorn film. After the huge box-office success of Bay’s …
review by . November 13, 2010
   A thoroughly disappointing sequel to one of 2007's biggest summer movies. While still drawing the big bucks like its predecessor, it fails to really deliver anything new and special. Really, it seems to take a step backwards.      Spielberg, as always, goes above and beyond to ensure a glitzy, action packed, SFX extravaganza for the audience. However, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen seems so concerned with its action content that it fails to really get anywhere …
review by . June 26, 2009
posted in Movie Hype
There are times when movies can blow you away.  The first Transformers movie certainly blew me away.  Despite its problems, it was a fun ride with a well crafted story and even some well crafted dialog and sequence of events.  Transformers Revenge of the Fallen, however, shows us that bigger isn't always better.  In fact, bigger can be a headache.  Especially when it's a Michael Bay sequel. The film brings back Shia Lebouf and Megan Fox as our protagonists.  As it turns …
Quick Tip by . September 07, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
Caption
This is a very disappointing sequel, but the robot fights were better than in the first movie. I think this small cartoon says it all and I'd like to share it via a quick tip:      This is fun as to how it made fun of the movie's many plot holes and mistakes...            This is the Transformers complaining in Bay's office....LOL!        
review by . June 28, 2009
ROTF Poster
I'm pretty sure that when it is all said and done, there's going to be a lot of controversy over Revenge of the Fallen.  Either people are going to really love it or they're going to hate it; that has actually been the case so far.  I LOVED it!  At the risk of sounding like a fanboy, I am going to go ahead and say that Revenge of the Fallen is just a touch better than Transformers...shoot me.  I said in my review for the original that it's in my top ten favorite films of all …
Quick Tip by . July 01, 2010
Stupid, overlong, pointless and under plotted Michael Bay's "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a movie that destroy the fond memories that date back to the 1980's animated series and leaves the name that is Transformers in ruins.
Quick Tip by . February 01, 2010
Like Devastator in the movie, the Best thing Bay's 2nd interpretation of the toy line does is SUCK a lot!
About the reviewer
Chris Low ()
Ranked #452
Member Since: Jan 8, 2009
Last Login: Oct 1, 2010 06:57 PM UTC
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

You
rasetsu
Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this movie

Wiki

Poster
 
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the sequel to the hit film Transformers and was released on June 24th 2009.  It is directed by Michael Bay and stars Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox.  The script was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.  The budget of the film was $200 Million


Filming of Revenge of the Fallen started in LA and then moved to Bethlehem, PA.  Michael Bay did a lot of the filming in the city of Philadelphia.  Once there, they shot at the Exelon Power Plant, The University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, Fairmount Park, Eastern State Penitentiary, City Hall and Rittenhouse Square.  After filming in Philadelphia was completed, the moved on to Princeton University. A lot of filming was also done in Giza at the Pyramids with the permission and blessing of the Egyptian government. 



Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was shot partly in IMAX.  Three of the films main action sequences were filmed in the IMAX format.

 

view wiki

Details

Director: Michael Bay
Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Release Date: June 24th 2009
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Screen Writer: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman
Runtime: 147 Minutes
Studio: Paramount Pictures, Dreamworks PIctures
First to Review

"Headache Inducing"
© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists