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

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!"

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...

 

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...

 

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.

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...

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.

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.

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!