Review: Transformers -- James's Review
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Paramount, Theatrical Reviews, Dreamworks, Steven Spielberg, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Games and Game Movies
.jpg)
When Michael Bay was announced as the director of Transformers, a big-screen version of the '80s cartoon franchise about alien robots who hide among humanity disguised as vehicles and other machines, it seemed like the perfect match of director and subject; whether that's a compliment or an insult is a matter of your perspective. Bay's movies (Bad Boys II, Armageddon) have always looked like a bizarre hybrid of truck commercials, Army recruitment ads and country-music videos: high-gloss, quick-cut, back-lit visions with an emphasis on surface sheen and a minimum of scripting or storytelling to get in the way of the next explosion or action moment. Transformers may represent the ultimate symbiosis of director and subject: Transformers is, in many ways, a long-form commercial, co-produced by Paramount, DreamWorks ... and toy manufacturer Hasbro.
Transformers, the movie, may sell Transformers, the toys, but it doesn't do much of anything else. You can't go into Transformers expecting it to make a lot of sense, or to work as science fiction (it is a movie about giant robots who shift shape, after all) but I don't think it's too much to ask that it could, at least, be competently and coherently made, which it isn't. There's no rhythm to the big moments of action -- they're too quickly-cut and closely-shot to be clear or comprehensible -- and the script, credited to Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, is littered with failures in both simple taste and basic storytelling.
The human characters are as stiff and inhuman as the robots; they include Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), a young man who we first meet when he's presenting his explorer grandfather's personal effects as part of a high school genealogy project, and trying to sell them to finance his first car. Sam's great-grandfather explored the North Pole, but came back home a shattered man, ranting and raving about some "Ice Man" he'd seen in an underground crevasse. Sam's search for wheels brings him to a low-rent used car lot, where a older Camaro catches his eye -- and, it turns out, vice-versa: The Camaro's, yes, a robot in disguise, there to protect Sam and help find one of the film's central plot devices. Meanwhile, an Army base in Qatar is approached by a helicopter -- which all records say was lost in Afghanistan three years ago. The helicopter then reveals itself as one of the bad robots, blowing up the base as part of an effort to hack into the Defense Department's computer networks.
This all comes after a thick, gravy-like serving of exposition that opens the film, explaining where the good and bad robots come from, and how they're all hot on the trail of something called the "All-Spark," a huge, massively powerful whatsit that gives the robots something to fight over. And again, I don't know how you could come up with any plot that could make Transformers plausible, but the problem here isn't the plot (or, more correctly, isn't just the plot); it's in the execution, in the dialogue, in the tone and feel and shaping of the film. There's not a single scene in Transformers that doesn't contain either some leaden, limp cliché or some basic failure of good storytelling. Of course, Sam's unattainable dream girl Mikaela (Megan Fox) is a stone-cold hottie who knows cars and engines inside and out; of course, our group of soldiers under attack in Qatar is led by the dedicated Sergeant Lennox (Josh Duhamel), who only wants to get home to see his wife and baby girl.
But complaining that a multi-million dollar summer movie contains clichés is like complaining a multi-million dollar house contains bricks; the problem isn't the material but the shape of the construction -- and the mortar of dialogue, character and scripting that's supposed to make the cliché's connect. When we first meet the good-guy Autobots, a big moment in a big movie clearly aimed at kids, why does the first thing out of the mouth of the Porsche-robot Jazz have to be "What's up, little bitches?" When our hero-bot, Optimus Prime, destroys Sam's family's bird bath, why does he say "Oops -- My bad," as if he were a 16-year-old mall girl instead of a 16-ton robot? When the requisite shadowy government agency who knows about the aliens (see also Predator 2, Independence Day, Men in Black) shows up, why does the film have to neuter any sense of menace or suspense by having their leader played by John Tuturro, giving a goofy, goony performance that punctures scenes before they even start? When the shadowy government agency has captured Sam's car, Bumblebee, and Sam insists on seeing him before he'll help save the day, why does Duhamel's soldier pull his gun to back up Sam's request -- despite Duhamel and LaBeouf not having shared so much of a line of on-screen dialogue? And why does the film have to have the faintly racist idea that comedic relief consists of, mostly, Black men (Bernie Mac, Anthony Anderson) shouting at women?
None of the elements above are unexpected (or even unappreciated) in a mega-million action thriller: Snappy introductions, threatening agencies, heroes bonding and backing each other, a smattering of comedy. They're all part of the muscle and marrow of genre entertainment. But they're so badly handled here (and bear in mind that this is just a top-of-my-head list) that they feel like watching a drunk figure skater weave and stumble through the compulsory exercises, hoping they'll pull it together for the big finish. But then again, I heard someone outside my screening of Transformers say – without irony or sarcasm – that "It's not about the script; it's about the CG." That may be one of the most chilling things I've ever heard from a moviegoer, suggesting a world view where, to paraphrase 1984, if you want a picture of the future of entertainment, picture a CGI boot stamping on a human face – forever.
But the fact is that the effects in Transformers, even in the film-ending robotcalypse, are poorly-shot and framed. There are precious few long, stable shots of the transformers, uh, transforming; They're mostly done fast and up-close as if trying to distract us from how clumsy the effects are. And the long-shots commit another cardinal sin of computer-generated effects, where the massive, metallic good and bad robots move with no sense of gravity or inertia, just the hollow flimsiness of a Mylar balloon. Just as Peter Jackson's King Kong was hurt by moments where the title ape moved like a blow-up doll and not a flesh-and-bone mammal, the robots here feel like hollow shells made of tinfoil and fishing line, not huge hulks of alloy and metal.
I am not predisposed to dislike summer entertainment and genre films; in fact, I'm predisposed to like them a little too much. I could watch Spider-Man II or The Empire Strikes Back or X-Men 2 or Aliens (all huge franchises, all huge sequels, all heavy on special effects) over and over again. And I have, because for all of their money and gloss, they're well-written, well-constructed, well-made movies about human beings, made by people who understood that all the groovy effects and high-concept ideas you can imagine fall flat and lie there rotting without a structure of human feeling and intelligent writing to support them. Transformers is supposedly about robots who turn into cars and back again; what it's really about is big Hollywood turning money into stupid and back again – because as bad as Transformers is, it's going to make cash hand over fist as long as audiences want their major motion pictures giving them spectacle instead of storytelling and junk effects instead of real entertainment.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
7-03-2007 @ 9:52AM
TVGenius said...
That has to be one of the best blog comments I've seen yet.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 9:54AM
andydreamseeker said...
Thank you for this sensible review about Transformers. It is as objective and as kind a critic can possibly write about the film.
Here's my take about the movie which I felt was nothing more than a commercial film for the mass market:
http://andydreamseeker.blogspot.com/2007/06/movie-review-transformers.html
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 9:58AM
Juan said...
I can't believe you told everyone what I thought to be the best line in the movie. "oops... my bad" was classic! Go down in movie history. Way to go
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 10:01AM
Anthony said...
To the first comment.
That gets my vote for blog comment of the year.
This film will easily do 100m. opening weekend.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 10:06AM
Michael said...
Dave - YOU ROCK!
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 10:34AM
chris said...
ohh well, to each his own..
i thought this movie was passable and not as bad as you say, true the story was very loosely held together - but then again, i guess i enjoyed it more because i grew up with the transformers and it was nice seeing them again.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 10:36AM
Los said...
Really I'm with Dave on this one, if you're going to take such a stance on a movie like this, you really have lost the thing that made the original serious so great when you were a child.
For all of those of us who haven't let the 10 yr old inside of us die and shrivel into a cynical, analytical, sheeple of a film critic. This movie is more than satisfying. It's great. Best $10 I've spent, and I'm going to see it again.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 10:36AM
Richard von Busack said...
Yeah, James, too bad about your inner ten year old. Too bad about mine, too, because even back then I would have been ten years too old and smart for this movie. What I really hate the most about this entire bully-boy phenomena is the way its partisans assume one is too snooty to enjoy giant robots, if you loathed this movie--even if you loved Gigantor, The Iron Giant, Rusty and Big Guy comics...Bay has a genuine talent: he can ruin everything he touches, even the idiot-proof giant robot movie.
$100 million opening weekend! (Then $25 million the second one.)
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 10:42AM
Gerry Scott said...
What pathetic comments. The notion that a film reviewer should like a movie because it is going to be successful is so asinine as to defy comment. Should I like a politicia just because he is going to win? James' review makes quite clear there is nothing wrong with big budget, action movies in which effect play a major part. That doesn't mean that they are don't have to meet the the basic acceptable standards of movie making. I wonder what happened to Dave as a 10 year old that the experience of being shouted at by the incoherent and rambling Michael Bay for 2 hours seems like a good way to spend his money.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 10:54AM
Brian Kerutis said...
Christ James were you beaten with a depressing stick of sorrow? I saw this movie last night and had the time of my cinematical life! The crowd was cheering and clapping for autobot kick-assery (it’s a word now), and laughing at the great comedic timing of the Shia.
Why grade this movie on technical BS when its intent is nothing but fun and excitement. There not going for an Oscar so stop flexing your gloomy word muscle.
Junk effects? - you sir are retarded.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 10:55AM
Screen Rant said...
James,
Thank you, THANK YOU for not making my voice the lone one in the wilderness that thought this movie was crap!
Shia was great, I loved watching every minute of him on screen but outside of that I was utterly and completely indifferent to this flick. If I hadn't planned on reviewing it I would have walked out about 3/4 through because I just didn't care how it was going to end.
I think I finally understand the whole "Damn you, Michael Bay!" thing on the net.
Vic
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 11:06AM
Brendon said...
Dave's comment is pathetic. It's this kind of dumb nostalgia that turns people into money making machines for the studios. Just because you remember the Transformers from when you were a kid, it doesn't make this film good.
In fact, I thought it would mean this film had something to live up to - and something more than just delivering big robots and a weak nostalgia trip.
Everybody who came out in defense of Dave needs to have a think about what they're endorsing.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 11:22AM
Los said...
It's not dumb that nostalgia makes a movie successful, why else would they have even made.
What happened to movies for the sake of entertainment? Why has everyone gotten so serious about movies and coem to expect so much from them? Sometimes you just gotta go into a movie and know that all your doing is letting go for a couple of hours. Get away from all those serious and critical things in your head.
Not every movie is going to have a message, or some deep introspective plot. Not every movie is going to be shot technically perfect and with the Artistry of the Masters.
All you people who take such critical looks at such movies are whats taking the fun out of going to the movies. This is the return of the Summer movie blockbuster, it's just fun.
Stop having expectations and just have fun. Let loose.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 11:26AM
Los said...
And by the way, anyone who saw this movie coming knew it wasn't going to be much more than what it turned out to be.
If you don't want to let go of your hard-earned money, then don't go, and if you decide to go, live with your decision, nobody held a gun to your head and made you give them $10.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 11:29AM
Go_Dave said...
Keep up the good work Dave. Brendon needs to realize that there isn't a universal definition of 'good'. While nobody is calling it a work of art, this movie can be an enjoyable experience. It's like never eating burgers and fries because they are crap food. Well, sometimes that burger and fries are the best tasting thing in the world. Who cares if I'm paying big corporations for my food.
The stick up Brendon's ass has a stick up it's ass.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 11:46AM
Joseph Moore said...
I had hoped that Mr. Spielberg's involvement would, if not negate Bay's heavy hand, at least ensure that the script was passable. Unfortunately, by all accounts that doesn't seem to have happened.
Honestly, this review reads pretty objectively. All of you fanboys can transform back into the furnace in your Mom's basement now.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 12:01PM
Felix Mederos said...
this is why when it comes to movies that require an inner child i read reviews made by people like IGN and other sites that are more loose and dont require that u take a ditctionary to read the rewview, heck reading this review i swore i heard british accents from harry potter in my head sipping some tea and crumpets lol. the point is its transformers, the show it was based off was ridden with plot holes, shameless plot devices,horrible animation and miss coloring, and constant toy advertising yet it was loved and adored by billions did u honestly expect this movie to be some sort of diary of anne frank documentary with A+ scripting and oscar winning preformances? no its ass kicking robots called tranformers if you dont have a funny bone dont watch a comedy. if u dont know how to let go and have fun dont watch transformers. the movie may not be the best thing out there but its a transformers movie in its own right.
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 12:26PM
TheFann said...
I don't think the movie will make money "hand over fist" because of CGI affects...The movie will make money, because the genre (TRANSFORMERS) as a cult classic.
There's an entire generation of 80's children...that are now adults...who can AVIDLY and with great enthusiasm remember the original series. The Transformers ruled the 80's...and now the kids who grew up watching it, have the capital to spend....THAT is what makes this movie an inevitable success.
Whether this movie is poorly written or not....Whether the effects are finely tuned or not....Wheter the actor are cool and stiff or not....THis movie is destined to do well.
There isn't a child of the 80's, who won't be in a theatre during some point of this movie's release....
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 12:31PM
raphael said...
I'm seeing it this week. but whats up with bumblebee as a camero??? i understand the lord of profits and GM obviously bought exclusive rights here, but at least make him a geo metro or something. He is supposed to be the "runt!!!!!!!!!"
Reply
7-03-2007 @ 1:02PM
James said...
If you were into transformers as a kid, and I mean really into them then just go see the movie because if nothing else you'll get a kick out of it, but don't go in expecting some sort of masterpeice, the movie wasn't made for that it was made for your aveage 20-something who grew up on the transformers cartoon/comics and just wants to watch a movie about transformers.
I grew up on the transformers and personally I thought the movie was great, and considering it was 1 of only 2 movies I've seen get a standing ovation at the end (Serenity was the other) I guess I'm not the only one.
Just MHO
Reply