Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > FORUMS on 30th RAZZIES Choices > TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: A Giant Hit...& Still a Piece o’ sh*t??
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

A Giant Hit...& Still a Piece o’ sh*t??

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 8>
Author
Message
HeadRAZZBerry View Drop Down
Berry Important MODERATOR
Berry Important MODERATOR


Joined: April 23 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4997
Post Options Post Options   Quote HeadRAZZBerry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: A Giant Hit...& Still a Piece o’ sh*t??
    Posted: June 22 2009 at 5:14am

IT ALMOST DOESN'T MATTER THAT AUDIENCES HAVE MADE TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN the #2 MOVIE of 2009, BECAUSE THIS SEQUEL-THAT-EXISTS-SOLELY-to-BE-a-MONEY-MAKING-MACHINE PERSONIFIES EVERYTHING THAT SUX ABOUT MODERN HOLLYWOOD: 

THE FEAR of DOING ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY ORIGINAL...

THE BLATANT DISREGARD for MOVIE-GOERS' INTELLIGENCE...

THE RELIANCE ON EXPENSIVE SPECIAL FX at the EXPENSE of RECOGNIZABLE HUMAN CHARACTERS...

and THE NOTION THAT IF YOU MARKET the HELL OUT of SOMETHING, the ACTUAL QUALITY of the FILM ITSELF DOESN'T MATTER ONE WHIT.

WE EXPECT MANY a "FAN BOY" to ARGUE WITH US on THIS ONE, BUT WHEN SOMETHING GETS MADE ONLY BECAUSE a PREVIOUS VERY SIMILAR MOVIE MADE a PROFIT, THEN WE SAY SOMETHING IS BERRY WRONG with the WAY THINGS WORK...


TORTURRO: "Whadda ya got there?"

LaBEOUF: "It's Michael Bay's Bag o' Trix -- Explosions, one-liners, expensive but pointless SFX...You know, the same ones he uses in every movie he makes!"

Ye Olde Head RAZZberry
Back to Top
Movie Man View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: August 19 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 214
Post Options Post Options   Quote Movie Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2009 at 5:51am

I liked the first "Tranformers" movie and gave it four stars out of four. It was smart, fun, and great to use a toy line that was for kids and turn it into a movie that appeals to grown-ups as well.

So that "peice of s@*t" comment about the first film is unnecessary. Sure it might not be original, but it is better than some of the movies nominated on this site. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Just to clarify, the "piece o' sh*t" comment was actually about this 2nd TRANSFORMERS movie, not the first one (though I'd still have to disagree with your defense of #1 to some degree)... 


 

Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2009 at 9:45am

This movie only exists for one reason ... other than to make money off of. To make a drinking game out of!

-Take one shot for everytime Shia Lebeouf yells "No-no-no-no-no-no-no!"

-Take one shot for every scene where Megan Fox is barely dressed or is getting undressed (Take another shot if the camera zooms in on her exposed body).

-Take a shot everytime something blows up (which should get you wasted pretty quickly).

-Take a shot everytime a Hummer is on screen (Take two if the Hummer is in a high speed chase).

-Take a shot if or when Michael Bay makes an on screen cameo, or better yet, boo really loudly!

-Take a shot whenever any character says something so stupid and campy that it makes you wonder if five year olds wrote the script (which is how I felt about the dialog in the first movie).

WARNING: Do not actually play this drinking game, because chances are you could die from alcohol poisoning within the first half hour of the movie...

 

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Back to Top
MiguelAntilsu View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: August 30 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1500
Post Options Post Options   Quote MiguelAntilsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2009 at 2:09pm
Ooh!!!  You are so busted!
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 22 2009 at 3:35pm

Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu

Ooh!!!  You are so busted!

GASP! You mean ... the LA Times has targeted us again? Whatever shall we do?

Oh, wait, I know -- we'll just join sides with the hundreds of newspaper, magazine and tv critics who will agree with us about this being the most soul-less movie of the year.

Or maybe you're talking about those teenagers at IMDb, who have chronic ADHD (the target audience that Michael Bay leeches off of). Surely armchair critics like them have a better clue about what a good movie is than the likes of us! ...Oh, no, wait, they don't!

Yes, we're mocking the Transformers movie franchise. We mocked the first, we're mocking the second, and yes, we're going to mock the third, too. Why? Because we see it for what it is, H-Wood at its worst, based on all the aspects HeadRazz listed above. Those listed reasons are why the Razzies exist in the first place, and this movie embodies all of those aspects, so of course we're going to mock it.

And no, we don't care what one H-Wood butt-kissing newspaper has to say. Nor do we care what a bunch of teenagers who think Michael Bay is a genius just because it's easy for them to follow his movies, since he caters to their two-second-long attention spans.

Oh, and to warn you ahead of time: We're going to mock "GI Joe" as well. As Frank says, I hate seeing my childhood raped for profit...

 

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Back to Top
dEd Grimley View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 31 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2024
Post Options Post Options   Quote dEd Grimley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 3:06am

Seriously though (and all kidding aside) HeadRazz is just so very right about all this.

Let's assume for a moment that the first movie was OK. Movies that NEED a sequel have a compelling story and leave a lot of unanswered questions. Can you REALLY tell me that Transformers 1 required a sequel? Does it really have characters that interesting or original that you need to see them again? Take the Transformers themselves from the movie... Are they unique and individual? What is the point of this movie?
If you answered "The first movie made a lot of money, and the second surely will as well," you're correct. If you answered anything else (that isn't a comical spin on that), then you're wrong. Do you even think that Michael Bay sat around as a child and PLAYED with Transformers (He'd have been 19-20 or so when they came out)? Or is this aimed at a generation with disposable income (for now, that is)?

 

-Iron helps us play-
Back to Top
RoadDogXVIII View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 14 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 332
Post Options Post Options   Quote RoadDogXVIII Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 5:23am
Man, what the hell is going on here? I was looking extremely forward to this movie, and now there's a busload of negative reviews? You know, I bet they're coming from those who hated the first movie, so I'm sure there'll be positive feedback shortly.

What pisses me off is that Megan Fox is being made out to look like this vapid twat. Look, I suggest you guys go to YouTube and look up London Tipton. Please, do that, and I swear you all will be eating a dozen pound of crows.

I loved the first Transformers. It had alot of laughs, it was loose all around, Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox are a billion times more believable as a romantic couple than Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens, they rangled in Peter Cullen to reprise his role as Optimus Prime, it had a kick-ass soundtrack (including Linkin Park's wonderfully sublime "What I Done", and a kicker from the Smashing Pumpkins called "Doomsday Clock"), the visuals of the robots were photorealistic, and it had me on the edge of my seat throughout. If you're expecting something deep from this, sorry, but watch an art film if that's to your liking.

And this Michael Bay hate is so 10 years ago. We get it, he's a hack filmmaker with contempt for his audience. It's not even funny anymore. Hello, we have untalented Disney pop singers being compared to the Beatles. Maybe Transformers is the Disney product for us males, but it sure beats seeing the Jonas Brothers and their stupid hairdos that the ho's go nuts over.

Look, I'm sorry HeadRAZZ, I don't want to rain in on your parade. But go back to dissing Disney's slew of sh*t. Because me and MiguelAntilisu love you for that.
You think you know, but you have no idea.
Back to Top
dEd Grimley View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 31 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2024
Post Options Post Options   Quote dEd Grimley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 7:41am
There's no reason for Megan Fox to settle for the Screech (from Saved By the Bell) of this decade.

I'm trying to get beyond "I hate Michael Bay" jokes, myself, but that doesn't change the fact that he's the lowest common denominator. If he were a fraction, he'd be 1/1.

As one reviewer put it, Michael Bay makes pyrotechnic pornography. You can disagree with HeadRazz for choosing Transformers, but the reviews are bad, and the premise is inherently weak. He (and I) could be wrong, and it could be good, but he's justified in picking a movie that superficially looks like the cash grab of the 21st Century.  
-Iron helps us play-
Back to Top
RoadDogXVIII View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 14 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 332
Post Options Post Options   Quote RoadDogXVIII Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 8:10am

Yeah, well, with all due respect to you (because some of you guys are against Disney bullcrap) I am not a deranged fanboy.

I'm aware of Michael Bay's failures (I've seen Pearl Harbor - bits and pieces on TV - and I can relate to what everyone is talking about), and the fact that Transformers 2 is getting bad reviews. But I bought the score from Steve Jablonsky, and I'm already sucked into the madness. Maybe I'm part of the lowest common denominator that Michael Bay's playing to, but I wholeheartedly enjoyed Transformers without playing into the "We Hate Michae Bay!" agenda. Is it either hate the guy, or be lynched for it?? 

To be fair, we should be going after the new Disney company. I mean, they're honestly turning girls into young sluts who emasculate lower-class individuals for fun (like Megan Fox "supposedly" did - we don't know if it was intentional, she probably had something on her mind). Face it, women are supposed to be the respected gender, but when you have one of THE most annoying spokeswomen of the Disney Channel - London Tipton - supposedly popular (not more than Miley Cyrus, but to the fact that she has a blog on the Disney Channel website, so I'm told), the fact I mentioned would be forever negated. Therefore, the future that the film Idiocracy foretold will be coming ever so close, and both genders are going to be the most retarded creatures of the planet.

That's why Michael Bay, Megan Fox, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Kim Kardashian, and all these motherf**kers you hate with a blinding passion don't even compare to what my once-favorite childhood company is birthing.

Besides, if everyone hated Transformers so goddamned much, why did it make so much money? I'm sure some people with more than half a brain cell went to see it. 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I find this entire string fascinating, since I assume we're all arguing here while none of us have actually yet seen TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN.

My argument against the movie is about what TRANNIES #2 stands for as much as it's about the movie itself -- The robotic, knee-jerk, audiences-are-idiots-who'll-shell-out-ten-bux-to-see-stuff-b low-up-real-good mind set that currently rules Hollywood.

As I stated elsewhere, I was neither a fan nor a RAZZ-er of the previous TRANSFORMERS movie, once I saw it (though its gigantic box office returns did disturb me). The fact that this second installment is getting far less favorable reviews than its predecessor did (LINK for R.T. Reviews on #1) was a factor in my choosing it as Worst of the Weak -- But as I said in my Berry First Entry on this string, it's the NOTION of making another one (when no reason exists to do so EXCEPT to make a fast, lazy buck) that I find so offensive...

You think you know, but you have no idea.
Back to Top
dEd Grimley View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 31 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2024
Post Options Post Options   Quote dEd Grimley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 8:42am
A lot of people liked it, of course. That's why I say that it's playing into the lowest common denominator - those who like explosions, special effects, and a sexy tease.
I loved Transformers as a kid, and that's all the more reason for me to hate this franchise. They're exploiting my generation, and know that they can make anything with that sort of pedigree and that it'll make money. That's why you get a pyro like Michael Bay to direct it, and it'll get a huge budget for these guys to play with - they know it's going to make money no matter what.

Now enter the film critics - people who're supposed to know the basic elements of story telling, plot, artistic vision, etc. That's what they're paid to look for. And then they see something like this, and it's all about special effects and a couple of jokes and whatever, and it doesn't advance the artform, it advances the filmmakers bank account. You'll get a few cheap thrills out of it, perhaps, but you won't remember what the plot was afterward, or the moral it was trying to convey, or any of that. It's eye-candy.

You can like it if you want. Frank liked the other one, too. We're not lynching you here, we're disagreeing. As for Disney, it's the same thing to me - marketing not media - and so I'd go after either with the same fervor.

The Worst of the Weak is based upon what critics would call a "bad" movie, and the critics tend to agree that this was nothing terribly special.
-Iron helps us play-
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 9:53am

Thank you, I'm glad someone said that. And I agree with what you said above; did the first movie really need a sequel? Not really. Actually, the Tranformers were barely in the first hour of the first movie, all the dialog sounded like it was written by five year olds, and the human characters might as well have been played by cardboard cutouts. "Lord Of The Rings" and "Harry Potter" have sequels because they are based on book series that tell long and detailed stories. Transformers has sequels because the studios knew that movie goers would be sucked into the big booms, shiny things, and Megan Fox's bare belly. Those aren't storytelling aspects, those are just eye candy that you can get from a video game or a Maxim magazine.

"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Back to Top
HeadRAZZBerry View Drop Down
Berry Important MODERATOR
Berry Important MODERATOR


Joined: April 23 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4997
Post Options Post Options   Quote HeadRAZZBerry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 10:24am

Anyone who thinks this second TRANSFORMERS movie isn't mostly about Making Quick Bux need only click on this LINK.

While B.O. MoJo estimates the first film cost about $150 million to produce (and probably another $75-$100 million to market) it ended up grossing over $700 million worldwide. By Modern Hollywood Law, any movie (good, bad or indifferent) that brings in over twice its investment (and that's before DVD sales, TV licensing and toy tie-ins factored in) demands that another film be made.

 

Ye Olde Head RAZZberry
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 2:20pm

And one of the few non professional critics I agree with or listen to, the Movie Preview Critic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2_Y8zf9gF0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXJVB9sa91E

And some added humor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiAABQlsib8

Yeah, that sums up the movies in a nutshell.

Back to Top
RoadDogXVIII View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 14 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 332
Post Options Post Options   Quote RoadDogXVIII Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 3:19pm
HeadRAZZ: I don't want to start an argument with anybody, if that's what you're thinking. If you think I'm defending Michael Bay like a crazed lunatic, please relish the thought. I'm aware of the pieces of sh*t that Armageddon and Pearl Harbor were, so I'm not really willing to go to town on his balls. But, like you said, we didn't see the movie yet. I'll see what happens, because I listened to Steve Jablonsky's score, and I was mesmerized. But, that's just me.

In my opinion, I have a problem with the
audiences who waste hard-earned cash for other things. Whether it's the latest craptacular from the Disney house (check this interesting video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZgXg_7kVI8) or one of Tyler Perry's soap operas masquerading as Really Important Films (if I'm racist for saying that, let it be your opinion), they might need to take more of a knocking.

Once again, HeadRAZZ, nothing against you or anything like that all.
You think you know, but you have no idea.
Back to Top
Mayhem5185 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: October 10 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 259
Post Options Post Options   Quote Mayhem5185 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 3:29pm
I would agree that it is being made mostly for the money. However, you also need to take into account that it was very well liked (if you look at all users on rotten tomatoes, imdb, box office mojo, and yahoo movies, it did very well). That was because the movie played to a certain target audience, and for once Bay delivered.

As for this movie, I think your over-reacting a bit HeadRAZZ. With all the sh*t that's being released this year, this is a sparrow's fart in the middle of a typhoon -- a very loud fart, but a fart nonetheless. It's pandering to a certain audience (mainly males 13 to about 30) and I'm sure for them, it will deliver.

As for me, I'm catching a midnight showing in about an hour, and I'm not really expecting much, other than to sit back in my  movie chair with some popcorn, and maybe a beer, set my brain to mush and watch as robots kick the sh*t out of each other Gundam Wing style.

Later guys!
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2137
Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 23 2009 at 4:46pm
Originally posted by dEd Grimley

A lot of people liked it, of course. That's why I say that it's playing into the lowest common denominator - those who like explosions, special effects, and a sexy tease.

That's a bit condescending, isn't it? Sometimes, people watch movies purely for entertainment. I'm pretty sure this is the case for this film. In an interview with an honest Megan Fox in Entertainment Weekly, she says "This movie is not about acting." Here's the rest of the fantastic interview: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20246950_20263258_20284375,0 0.html

Really. Read it. It's very interesting, including her talking about watching High School Musical 3 while high.

I loved Transformers as a kid, and that's all the more reason for me to hate this franchise. They're exploiting my generation, and know that they can make anything with that sort of pedigree and that it'll make money. That's why you get a pyro like Michael Bay to direct it, and it'll get a huge budget for these guys to play with - they know it's going to make money no matter what.

All movies are made to make money.

Now enter the film critics - people who're supposed to know the basic elements of story telling, plot, artistic vision, etc. That's what they're paid to look for. And then they see something like this, and it's all about special effects and a couple of jokes and whatever, and it doesn't advance the artform, it advances the filmmakers bank account. You'll get a few cheap thrills out of it, perhaps, but you won't remember what the plot was afterward, or the moral it was trying to convey, or any of that. It's eye-candy.

I think that's the point.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down