Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Paramount, Dreamworks, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels
.jpg)
As a high-school graduation present to myself in 1993, I stayed up all night watching the original Star Wars trilogy on video. When the Extended Edition of The Return of the King arrived on DVD, I camped out on my couch and sat through all three Lord of the Rings films in their longest versions, one after the other. And for two separate retrospective assignments in anticipation of their recent big-screen rebirths, I endured all ten Star Trek movies and all eleven Friday the 13ths. But I can honestly say that as a film critic and lifelong cinephile, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen may be the most movie I have ever experienced.
Michael Bay, condensing the cumulative total of the spectacle from all of his seven previous films into one unwieldy, gargantuan opus, has exceeded even the possibilities of sequel-driven "moreness," combining his own muscular, high-gloss sensibility with the conventions of blockbusters past, present, and probably future to create a monolithic action masterpiece that feels destined to be the biggest movie of all time.
Back from the first film are stars Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox as Sam and Mikaela, whose romantic bond seems decidedly less destined when they're worrying about long-distance loving rather than lost alien civilizations. Before Sam can comfortably settle into collegiate life, leaving Mikaela to her own devices (literally) in her father's chop-shop garage, Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) reaches out to him for help. Sam declines, wanting only to live a normal life, but is nevertheless drawn into the robots' civil war after he unwittingly absorbs information that will lead the Transformers to a massive power source that was lost centuries ago somewhere on Earth. But after Prime is mortally wounded while protecting him from a resurrected Megatron, Sam begins to realize that the only way to help a fallen leader may be to become one himself.
Anyone wondering when and if filmmakers would stop being so damn sensitive about the necessary end result of an attack on the world's populace will no doubt be relieved to know that Michael Bay has filled Revenge of the Fallen with more wanton, meaningless destruction than any other movie in recent memory: an on-screen acknowledgement of at least 7,000 deaths as a result of Transformer-related action puts this at the top of a shortlist of post-9/11 films that accept (if not embrace) the inevitability of civilian casualties. But only a true killjoy, or maybe just a person who mistakenly wandered into the theater after buying a ticket for The Hurt Locker, would dispute this film's raison d'etre, which is to be a piece of exhilarating, idiotic escapism; there isn't a single frame of film here that exists to convince audiences that anything in Revenge of the Fallen is, or is even meant to be realistic.
Rather, the film truly exemplifies Hollywood's belief that in blockbusters, more truly is more, be it a stake-raising death toll or just the allotted screen time for characters whose comedic potency is inversely proportionate to a lack of it. In particular, Sam's mom and dad are used entirely too often, not only to provide comic relief amidst the flying debris, or even pad the film's 147-minute running time, but to make the argument that this in some way is not a film about giant robots, but humans, which again isn't true, and truly does not matter. If it were or it did, the beginning of the film would find Sam not still smitten with Mikaela, but tired of hooking up with her after finally sealing the deal with his sexy but substance-free dream girl – a far more believable and fertile dramatic starting place for his character. Instead, Sam serves as a proxy for the fanboys in the audience who still drool longingly over Megan Fox, even as she serves as a physical substitute for the character development that ordinarily would take place were the movie not more obsessed with the many magnificent battles between Autobots and Decepticons.
Not that any of that is needed, or even wanted. Indeed, Revenge of the Fallen often feels like Bay's attempt to outdo virtually every action set piece of the past three decades at the same time, and that's sort of a reason to love him: his ambition runs a mile long and an inch deep. Remember the scene in The Dark Knight where Batman goes to Hong Kong? Well, what if that scene, like, had Transformers in it? Or the climax of Titanic, where the upended ship bobs vertically in the water as passengers hang on for dear life? Hanging Transformers would make that much better. What about Indiana Jones' pursuit of rare artifacts across dusty landscapes while decoding mysterious riddles? Think what that would be like... with Transformers!
Even for a sequel, there seems to be precious little originality in any of the film's ideas, relationships, characterizations, or plot developments. Megatron's relationship with the mysterious Fallen closely resembles the one between Darth Vader and The Emperor, while Sam is sort of a compendium of man-on-a-reluctant-mission clichés, including Richard Dreyfus' character in Close Encounters, Luke Skywalker, Neo in The Matrix, and Indiana Jones among many others. Additionally, there's a Government Bureaucrat Who Wants To Shut The Operation Down, A Disgraced Agent Seeking Redemption, and not one but two Comedic Sidekicks, one Latino and one black.
Again, however, it's important to note that these are only shortcomings if you're going into Revenge of the Fallen expecting something other than a movie about Transformers. Who needs subtlety and sophistication when Bay provides the perfect geographic context for Egypt by showing vehicles driving past camels? Or punctuates a temporary Decepticon triumph with a shot of a robot knocking the American flag off of its pole? Heroism and villainy in the Transformers' animated universe was never less than crystal-clear black and white, and there's no reason the moral compass needs to be less concretely defined here, especially when you have gigantic, multi-robot mash-ups sucking up half of the desert, showdowns that level entire forests, and fight scenes that lay waste to the better part of several major metropolitan areas.
Directorially, Bay is unparalleled by other filmmakers at delivering thrills on such a massive scale, and exceeding even himself, he maximizes every shot to show giant robots crashing over, under and even through the screen at the audience in one scene after another. Since Pearl Harbor, Bay has used a different cinematographer on every film, and certainly in comparison to Mitchell Amundsen's often incomprehensible work on the first Transformers, Revenge director of photography Ben Seresin seems one of his best fits yet: many shots run longer and attempt more elaborate camerawork than much of what Bay has previously done, so while much of the film still feels like an assault on the senses, there's an occasional sense of poetry, or dare I say, patient composition that gives sequences a cohesiveness ones in his earlier films lacked.
Ultimately, whether one loves or hates Revenge of the Fallen will be up (or down) to individual expectations; much like the story's conventional turns and twists always seem to arrive right when and where they're needed, there's something both comforting and disappointing about getting exactly what you want. Personally speaking, I was entirely overloaded by the film's dizzying momentum, throttled by its indefatigable string of action scenes, and disappointed by but mostly distracted from paying too much attention to its unsuccessful attempts at either comedy or pathos. In other words, it may or may not be good enough, but it quite literally gives you everything imaginable that can be explored within its premise. Which, again, makes Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen the most movie you may ever experience - even if it probably isn't the best.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
6-22-2009 @ 6:02PM
emmanent said...
brilliant review, although now i can't figure out if i'm even more stoked or even more scared to see it.
http://emmanententertainment.wordpress.com/
Reply
6-24-2009 @ 4:01PM
lol said...
shut up this review sucks
6-25-2009 @ 4:42AM
Heather said...
hey i guess it isn't going to be for everyone.. but i am thinking that ev en if the guy who wrote the review dioesn't enjoy it much.. I know a lot of movie goers that will.. I watched it and it was pretty good..Get out much?
6-23-2009 @ 2:00AM
Bryan said...
Megan Fox could sit in a chair with a camera slowly paning around her for 2.5 hours in complete silence and I'd pay 10 bucks to see it. The good news is there's so much now that 'could' be done in the future with Transformers even if Bay ever decides to quit. Sure the movies aren't to be great right now, but hell, we can always reboot and reimagine it all back to G1 status later right? LOL
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 8:26PM
Moishe said...
Whatever you're smokin' I want some of,NOW!
You have to be tweaked out on something to consider
this sprawling mess anything but loud and noisome. =\
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 8:53PM
Lukan said...
Any comparisons to Star Wars,Close Encounters or the Matrix are nothing short of absurd. Srsly is this a joke?
Reply
6-29-2009 @ 5:16PM
Clayton said...
Hey never said they were positive comparisons, but more the film borrows some of their elements.
6-22-2009 @ 9:16PM
tim said...
Thanks douchebag. Three paragraphs in you mention Optimus is mortally wounded. I would have liked to have seen the movie first before you dropped that ya jerk
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 10:24PM
Rich said...
Its not like they didn't show it in the trailers.
6-23-2009 @ 1:58AM
Mr.R said...
Don' t worry, I am sure there is really no story here so what do you care?
6-24-2009 @ 11:24AM
Martin said...
If you don't want to read plot spoilers...don't read an online review?
Idiot?
7-03-2009 @ 8:28PM
Dave said...
@ Rich (Comment 9)
They DO NOT show it in the trailers--you're completely incorrect. In just about every trailer, Optimus gets hit in the face in slo-mo. Shia Lebouf screams "Optimus." That's all. In the movie itself, Optimus is mortally wounded from a completely different physical attack altogether.
In other words, you're wrong.
/topic.
@ Martin (Comment 11)
Since when do online reviews and spoilers go hand in hand?
Your comment is about as logical as the following: "If you don't want to see a chick flick, don't go to the movies!" All movies are chick flicks? All reviews have unannounced spoilers?
The majority of reviews--online or otherwise--do NOT contain spoilers, since most writers have the forethought to realize they are seeing the films before others do.
While I enjoyed this review, I too agree that there should have been some advance warning of the spoiler--since it might be considered to be the only portion of the film with an ounce of gravitas.
Idiot? Yes, Martin, you are.
6-22-2009 @ 9:14PM
Atomicmonkey said...
Wow. That must have been a big check or a really cool set visit. Harry Knowles doesn't pump up shit movies this much. What a joke.
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 10:26PM
Sy said...
I am sorry but continuous action with glorified cinematography does not make a movie. It may need an actual plot.
Reply
6-23-2009 @ 1:37PM
meltzer.justin said...
Bay doesn't need plot when he can distract the audience with Megan Fox.
6-22-2009 @ 10:55PM
Kevin said...
What in the world is wrong with you people? This movie is called Transformers, not some stupid chick-flick, or a great thriller, or some deep mystery, it's Transformers. If anyone watched any variation of the many takes of the TV show, they would know that there was a very deep plot that basically always came back to the good guys trying to stop the bad guys from taking over.
There was very little in the way of dialogue, and much of the show was spent showing fight scenes that were intensely cool. So, Bay is tasked with taking that very concept to the big screen, and he actually gives us 10-fold of what the show gives us. He puts it into our world and gives us believable characters to relate to, and some who are quite clever and funny. The main point of the movie, like the show, is to showcase the transformers themselves, not the humans because, let's face it, it's all about them.
I am not sure what all of you are expecting a movie whose title is the name of the robots, but expecting some deep plot or amazingly woven story is just plain stupid. You can't follow a rubric when grading movies like this, and this review seeks to adjust its scale to account for what this movie is and what it tries to be.
Personally, I'm glad it's 2 hours and 27 minutes, because I get to go see more robots blowing stuff up and fighting, while still getting drawn into the believable setting and time-frame, but all the time realizing that this is completely made-up and some guy drew these robots on a computer. The realism in the CGI work is second to none, and Bay has proven over and over again that he knows how to direct movies that are quite epic in scale.
Stop trying to make this and other movies like it be something they are not and are never trying to be. Expect Transformers fighting other Transformers, which is what you should expect, and you will leave this movie with so much more than when you went it.
Reply
6-22-2009 @ 11:08PM
Mr.R said...
Dude, chill! You' re gonna pop a vein here, not like you don't get to see this turd as many times as you want. Nothing wrong with adding a little brain to a movie to make even more enjoyable, that's all, no one expects a lot but films should evolve now and then.
6-23-2009 @ 1:37PM
meltzer.justin said...
Ok Michael Bay, we know it's you. Stop pretending your name is Kevin and tell us what we all already know; the fact that you wrote this post.
Why else would anyone who reads a movie blog site and who actually cares about movies defend one that is an over glorified "2 hours and 27 minutes" of getting to "see more robots blowing stuff up and fighting..."
People (normal ones) care about movies for plot, story, and characters. If you want to see stuff blowing up and fighting, go to a monster truck rally and WWE wrestling match respectively, not a movie theater.
6-23-2009 @ 1:35PM
j said...
I disagree m.j. Some of the first films ever were concentrations on special effects, animations, etc, and had little to no dialog (in text on-screen). In fact, people first flocked to cinema to see the unreal and marvel in the special effects of film and didn't care much for the content. Sure there were films mixed in about historical recreations, and some that could be considered documentaries, but it was the rocket in the moon's eye or the death-defying stunts in cars, or the slapstick comedian that drew the audiences.
Film is an art form, and in art no matter how much you try to apply rules there is always someone who doesn't want to be defined. As much as you may not like it, explosions and violence have as much a right to be cast into films as a well-written character drama with substance, plot, and great characters has a right to call itself a film.
6-23-2009 @ 1:59PM
meltzer.justin said...
j, it's not that I have a problem with violence and action in film, it's just that i have a problem when it is done in just for the sake of having violence and action on screen. That is called being gratuitous, and it can be argued that that is poor filmmaking.
Take into account that this movie lacks any good reason or logic throughout and people can being to call it "schlock." And I will admit that I have not yet seen this sequel, but taking what I have seen from the trailers and my impressions from the first movie, I can make assumptions on how this movie will pan out. (That is what trailers are for, right?)
Movies will forever continue to advance special effects limited only by the imagination of their creators, but when the special effects are the MAIN or ONLY basis for a film that is when I begin to stop caring. Michael Bay can be as undefined as he wants to be. He just won't get any praise from me for it.