Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Last edited:
Sadly, I think even the less... Come si dice? ...sophisticated moviegoers take that stance. Even they realize just what Bay (and company) is spoon-feeding them; but if that particular Soylent Green is what's headlining the menu...might as well swallow it down.

Talk about your Catch 22.....or your Kvetch 22, as the case bay be.
 
I saw the first one in the theater and found some parts entertaining, but I was mostly dissatisfied; I didn't bother with the second one and I still haven't seen it; I have a smidgen of an impulse to see this third entry if only for the large scale destruction of Chicago sequence, but I'm wondering if it would be better for my overall character to deny that rather gross base level impulse.
 
I saw the first one. Thought it was bellow average. The hide and seek sequence was ridiculous. Saw the second one, speechless: 2 hours of robots fighting, and I felt bored and dozed off. Saw the second without reading reviews. Now I've seen the 3rd one reviews, and I know what to expect. Am I going to see this? I have seen every single one of the current blockbusters going on- Xmen, Green Lantern, 8mm... I don't know, I feel like I'm asking for punishment. But watching Bad movies is also a good way to learn, indeed: what not to do in storytelling.
 
Barry_Green said:
Given the subject of this thread, I have to ask -- was that a typo? Or Freudian? Or on purpose?

And I love "Kvetch 22"...
Click to expand...
I meant it as in the endless irony of kvetching about Michael Bay on one hand, & reaching in one's wallet to buy a ticket with the other...


Edit:
Oh, you meant the "bay" bit...yeah, that was an attempt at a double-pun. :beer:
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
I'm not opposed to fun blockbustery stuff as that's the stuff that got me interested in filmmaking in the first place. But there is a point where things degenerate into a lot of noise without coherence and purpose, and Bay is the worst offender of the bunch. Having fun and telling a good story are not mutually exclusive. Matt and I are just lamenting the fact that when push comes to shove, Hollywood would rather throw money at more CGI enhanced cacophony than good scripts as its a safer bet for them. I did enjoy the first Transformers. The second one was nearly unwatchable. I'll go see this one but I know exactly what to expect.
Click to expand...
Anybody who uses words like 'cacophony'actually knows what it means should be banned from all non art flicks!I luuuuurv the braindead action CGI stuff coming out of Hollywood lately. FX barriers must be broken so that the art flick afficianados (ooh! Nice word)can use it to make epic movies like outlander and AI! :)
 
Wilbur Eddings said:
Anybody who uses words like 'cacophony'actually knows what it means should be banned from all non art flicks!I luuuuurv the braindead action CGI stuff coming out of Hollywood lately. FX barriers must be broken so that the art flick afficianados (ooh! Nice word)can use it to make epic movies like outlander and AI! :)
Click to expand...
Sorry for using such big words...Maybe I should talk at your level...Me no likey the robot movie. Make too much boom boom noise. No like the people.
 
Batutta said:
Sorry for using such big words...Maybe I should talk at your level...Me no likey the robot movie. Make too much boom boom noise. No like the people.
Click to expand...

Quick, while you are speaking Bayglish! Watch Con Air again and tell me it aint a pot of awesome on freshly steamed rice!
 
Really? I just said that I'm a fan of the first... But I'm snooty? My favorite movie is Ghostbusters for frog's sake. This movie is just plain damned stupid. To the point that it made me angry. Had nothing to do with spending my money and everything to do with the fact that it is JUST stupid, and it could have been just as fun and entertaining as the first. That's not asking for too much, given the track record.
 
Me? Snooty? I fart in your general direction you english kaaaaa-niggits!

6222801_std.jpg

I avoid Bay movies... they seem like movies Uwe Boll would do if he had more backing.
 
MattinSTL said:
Me? Snooty? I fart in your general direction you english kaaaaa-niggits!

View attachment 36095

I avoid Bay movies... they seem like movies Uwe Boll would do if he had more backing.
Click to expand...

Ooooooh.... low blow man!

Michael Bay would kick Uwe Boll's ass in a poo slinging contest!


I unclog my nostril in your general direction you snooty tooty artsy fartsy Baybasher...

wait..

If I like Michael Bay does that make me bay?


I mean, it's not that I have anything against bays, it's just. well, I'm married to a girl and stuff...

meh!

Bays have rights too!
 
Wilbur Eddings said:
Quick, while you are speaking Bayglish! Watch Con Air again and tell me it aint a pot of awesome on freshly steamed rice!
Click to expand...
Freshly steamed caca more like it. Seriously, I can't tell if you're half just putting us on. You're basically saying only illiterate morons should watch Hollywood blockbusters as that's who they're made for. I don't go for that. I don't grade movies on a curve. While I don't expect the same things out of an action blockbuster that I do a Schindler's List, I expect something resembling a story I can follow and characters I give two craps about. I liked X-Men: First Class because it delivered on that, as well as supplying some great eye candy. If I get something like District 9, that also has something on its mind other than blowing stuff up, I'm ecstatic...With all that said, I just watched the movie in question and while it's certainly better than the second, I don't think it's better than the first. The story more or less makes sense this time, it's just not very interesting. The strain of contriving ways to include Sam Witwicky in the plot kind of showed and his involvement didn't seem as organic (oops, there I go using big words again), as it did in the first. Sequels often fall into this trap, thinking they have to cram all the elements from the first film because the movie is supposed to have them without regard for the plot; Sam having a hot, useless girlfriend -- check --, comedy sidekick robots -- check--, annoying parents --check--. The 3D is probably the best I've seen since Avatar. They timed the movie properly to take into account the dimming of the 3D lenses. My only issue is that I don't think Bay's style actually lends itself to 3D much. He favors long lenses and in 3D that makes things have that viewmaster effect. Cameron shoots wider and with shorter lenses, so the depth really works for him. The CGI robots look fantastic in 3D though, and it has a side benefit of making Bay use longer takes so his trademark cuisinart editing style isn't as obnoxious. But I think the movie goes on way too long, and I stopped caring long before it was over. The most effective sequence was in the collapsing building, as it has a human scale that gives it real suspense. The robots bashing each other gets old after a while, especially when you're not really invested in them emotionally. I think that's what worked about the first film above all, Sam's relationship to bumblebee resonated on a basic level. Oh, and one final note, for abusing a line from Star Trek scripture "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few", I give the screenwriter a hearty middle finger. And having it come out of Nimoy's mouth adds insult to injury. Ironically though, it's probably the best line of dialogue in the whole movie because it was written by someone else.
 
Wilbur Eddings said:
Quick, while you are speaking Bayglish! Watch Con Air again and tell me it aint a pot of awesome on freshly steamed rice!
Click to expand...
Con Air used to be my favorite Michael Bay film, until I realized that Con Air was directed by Simon West, not Michael Bay. Con Air is ridiculous, awesome and fun. It is the type of film that Michael Bay should be trying to make, but he is apparently incapable of doing so.

Michael Bay has directed the following feature films:
  • Bad Boys (absolutely dreadful)
  • The Rock (fun, but about an hour too long)
  • Armageddon (somewhat tolerable, if a little cheesy)
  • Pearl Harbor (absolutely dreadful)
  • Bad Boys II (absolutely dreadful)
  • The Island (absolutely dreadful)
  • Transformers I (pretty bad, but vaguely entertaining)
  • Transformers II (absolutely dreadful)
  • Transformers III (have not seen)
So, in my opinion, Michael Bay has directed one legitimately entertaining movie in The Rock, two bad but tolerable films in Armageddon and Transformers I, and 4 absolutely terrible movies. I have not seen Transformers III, but from what I've read it sounds as bad as, if not worse than Transformers II.

And I love silly action-adventure films. I love 'em.
 
Art, it is not. However, sometimes I do want to watch explosions and robots beating the crap out of eachother. I agree that the best scenes in TF3 were the ones with a human element. The tilted building and when they first arrived in Chicago were actually quite powerful.

The thing that bugs me is how it's Oh So Hip to bash on Blockbusters and Bay especially. $15 bought me 2.5 hours of robot smashing awesome. Plot was thin. I wish it was better, but jeez, it's not an afront to your sensibilities its a movie!

Also, Ebert is a d1ck. I truly believe he has a personal vendetta against Bay. Not a great movie, I'll give him that. But the worst experience watching a movie ever? I call Bull. I've seen far worse movies and I know everyone else has too. I'm not even talking about the 'so bad it's good' stuff either. I would gladly see TF3 in theaters again, at full price, that watch Sofia Copola's 'award' winning snooze fest "Somewhere". I wouldn't sit through that again if you paid me.
 
djbobbyrhodes said:
Also, Ebert is a d1ck. I truly believe he has a personal vendetta against Bay.
Click to expand...

He actually gave Transformers 1 three stars. I think he was too harsh on this one. Sometimes movies just rub people the wrong way, in a way that's not entirely rational. I knew a guy who hated Spider-Man 2 with a fiery passion. I can understand not liking it, but hating it the way he did seemed bizarre to me. The last time I hated a film that much was probably Van Helsing, which looked like somebody devoured a bunch of old monster movies and then vomited them back onto the screen in giant, goopy chunks. It's probably not the worst film ever made, but it was almost physically uncomfortable for me to watch.
 
I hated SP2. The first one was set in a very real NYC. They duked it out on the Roosevelt Island Tram! And most non-NYers probably don't even know what that is. But from the first scene of 2, when he has to deliver a pizza from the Village to like ****ing E 83rd st, I thought: "oh boy, here we go." Then, there's that mysterious elevated train line that does not exists, uses a real MTA train letter, says it goes to Brooklyn, then ends at the East River(for plot purposes). And worst of all, Doc Oc is working on what cold fusion? Hey Doc, I thin, you got a Nobel sealed up just for inventing those arms that plug DIRECTLY INTO YOUR SPINE.

Have not seen this one. I usually don't go to any movies like this, but was considering it. Oh and Kholi, I am going to watch SuckerPunch. I've heard too many polerized reviews on both ends to think there's got to be something going on there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top