Revenge of the Fallen

as a kid I would really enjoy this one ....havent seen it and I dont need to , maybe someday ...by chance .
 
I forgot to mention that I liked it. My kids hated it though -- it was cut too fast and they couldn't follow the story.
 
So the movie is 2 1/2 hours of indistinguishable mechanical bits colliding together in slow motion, a Teflon covered Mega Fox running in slow motion, a leg-humping toy going at it (not in slow motion), and a guy who somehow ends up in robot heaven and then comes back to life Neo style.

Brilliant !
 
In ten years Michael Bay will be recognized as a post-post-modernist artistic genius. Hundreds of film-theorists will get their PhDs from writing their dissertations on Bay's films. I swear.
 
Jesus, I never thought this movie would end...It just went on and on. I think something happened. All I saw was what looked like gleaming metal shards being shredded by a blender and filmed in slow motion. Michael Bay does possess some kind of genius I guess, it just seems divorced from things like narrative coherence, subtlety and taste.
 
Wow. Just saw this last night on netflix. This was atrocious. Painful. I'm a big "popcorn film" fan, I think I even went on record as saying the new "Star Trek" was pretty fun, but this... oy vey. No redeeming qualities. None. Bad. Really, really, really, really bad. Impressive in its badness, set new standards for bad. This is "Gigli" bad. "Glitter" bad. "From Justin To Kelly" bad.

And I'm not a Bay basher. I even liked "The Island", and the original Transformers.

But man, with Transformers 2 it's not like he even phoned it in. It's like he got a wrong number when he tried to phone it in. And didn't even bother to leave a message.

This is definitely going up there with Jaws 2, Highlander 2, and House IV among the worst sequals EVAR.
 
Hyperbole? Possibly. Gigli has a 2.3 on the IMDB ratings scale, whereas "revenge of the fallen" has a 6.2. Hmm. Could Gigli really be worse than Transformers 2 though? Clearly a back-to-back review is necessary. I'll go put Gigli at the top of my netflix list.

Can't be worse though. I mean, Transformers 2 was "Catwoman" bad. It was "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus" bad. It wasn't a third as entertaining as "Snakes on a Plane".

On the flip side, I did manage to tape "The Thing With Two Heads". (okay, not "tape", I DVR'd it, but y'all know what I mean). Even though I only caught glimpses of it so far, it looks to be at least seventy times more entertaining than Transformers 2.

Check it out. Rosie Grier as a homicidal maniac, with a white bigot's head transplanted on his shoulder, all set to a boppin' 70's psychadelic soundtrack. That's cinema, folks.
 
lol...

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
Why do these film discussion boards always end up in some ignorant argument about what movie is better then this one. I am sure that every filmmaker on this forum likes or dislikes every film ever made. That doesn't mean that a particular film sucks or doesn't suck. I just means you didn't enjoy that particular one. I guess I just expect better arguments from a filmmakers forum like this, simple things such as shooting style, shot composition, lighting, special effects, sound, maybe even acting. Not just fighting whether it sucked or not. If I want to read that pointless dribble I can go to YouTube or Yahoo chat. I know that I watch every movie twice, once for the simple enjoyment of it and the second time to break down all the afore mentioned items. And of course the proverbial "that was awesome, how did they do that"? And just my 2 cents, I would gladly switch places with Michael Bay any day. I don't think that all of his work is epic by any means, but I do think he is a very talented individual. If I had just a monochrome of his talent and was given a break, I wouldn't be making films in Kansas City on a micro budget!
 
I believe it was deliberately bad -- as in making-his-audience-look-stupid bad. I mean come on, walking into a building on one side of the country, and exiting on the other side? That blew my mind because of the audacity at assuming the audience would have such a short memory and low level of comprehension (and probably 95% of the audience never noticed).

Phoned in is right. He sees that he's caught in a niche and will never get out, and isn't even trying anymore except to see with how much he can get away with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top