Print Page | Close Window

A 2 Hour Toy Commercial!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 2007 RAZZIE® MOVIE FORUMS w/LYNX!
Forum Name: TRANSFORMERS
Forum Discription: Nominated for Worst Supporting Actor (Jon Voight)
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1993
Printed Date: September 22 2014 at 3:31am


Topic: A 2 Hour Toy Commercial!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: A 2 Hour Toy Commercial!
Date Posted: July 01 2007 at 1:43am

WE REALIZE THAT BOYS LIKE to PLAY WITH THEIR TOYS -- BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS. ESSENTIALLY a 140-MINUTE INFOMERCIAL for PRE-SCHOOL KIDS' "ACTION FIGURES," (AND CHEVY AUTOMOBILES... DON'T FOGET, CHEVY AUTOMOBILES... DID I MENTION CHEVY AUTOMOBILES??) http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=205 - TRANSFORMERS MAY HAVE BEEEN one of  SUMMER 2007's BIGGEST BOX OFFICE HITS, BUT GOD HELP THOSE of US WHO LIKE a MODICUM of BRAIN MATTER THROWN in WITH OUR ACTION and ADVENTURE...

Shia: "So, like, remind me again...I'm supposed to relate to you like this kinda crap could actually happen, or are we making a comedy here?!?"



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: #1-Movie-Fan!
Date Posted: July 01 2007 at 1:50am

My favorite review so far, which I read at RT, calls this film "Merde that meets the eye," and goes on the trash it as too dumb for adults and not smart enough for anyone over 5. Here's a http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2007_thb/070629_fri.html - LINK to read the entire review...



Posted By: #1-Film Freak!!
Date Posted: July 01 2007 at 1:55am

Jesus, this is what passes for movie-making in 2007?  An endless string of product placements for Chevy trucks and lame Hasbro toys, broken up by explosions every six minutes and dialogue so dim-witted it could have been written by retarded monkeys! If this thing makes a fortune, next thing we know somebody as dumb as Michael Bay could get elected President. 

Oh, wait...that's already happened!



-------------
Nobody LUVS movies more than ME!


Posted By: jb razz
Date Posted: July 01 2007 at 2:21am
You may want to look again, HeadRAZZ, because Transformers has an 82% approval rating on rottentomatoes. After years of making film that are way too big, loud, and dumb, Michael Bay might actually prove that he has one more entertaining action movie up his sleeve (like The Rock).


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 01 2007 at 8:52am

The Island wasn't a dumb movie. Well, it was loud and big but it wasn't dumb. It was his best film so far (well, I just watched 2 of his films). And I seriously hope this is a joke. It will be the biggest and most greatest film ever! I'm so HYPER!!!!! I NEED TO WATCH IT NOW!!!!!!!!



Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: July 01 2007 at 8:57am

well, i think we all have some favorite movies done by Michael Bay, moviewizguy. I didn't like The Island that much, but I'm alright with the fact that you did enjoy it. If I had to pick a favorite movie from Michael Bay, it would be The Rock by far. I actually thought that Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage were terrific in that movie. Some of his other films, like Armageddon, there were good actions scenes, but looked pretty dull. Pearl Harbor, looked too boring for like 3 hours, but when you get to the action scenes, it will take you off your seat. But with an 82% approval rating from critics from RT, it looks like this movie's going to be Michael Bay's best film so far.



Posted By: #1-Film Freak!!
Date Posted: July 02 2007 at 1:05am
All you posters who keep citing TRANSFORMERS as having an 82% approval rating at RT need to revisit the site. As of this morning, with a total of only 27 reviews logged, its rating had dropped down to 70%  ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - LINK ). And that's without factoring in the near total slam review that appeared in today's Los Angeles Times ( http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-transformers2jul02,1,838647.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&ctrack=4&cset=true - LINK ). If this downward trend continues unabated, TRANFORMERS could be in "rotten" territory before its first official public showing tonight...

-------------
Nobody LUVS movies more than ME!


Posted By: #1-Movie-Fan!
Date Posted: July 02 2007 at 1:13am

This morning's L.A. Times also had an interesting article in their business section about how Paramount and Dreamworks have spent the last two years "positioning" TRANSFORMERS to open well this week, with strategies including bogus "viral videos" and courting the Internet movie nerds (with an amusing mis-step or two!) to help promote it. Here's a http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-transformers2jul02,1,2675735.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=5&cset=true - link to the story. 

Since its director has been a Razzie nominee three times already, I still think the movie may be diverting but, like almost everything Michael Bay has ever done, it'll also be dumb as sh*t...



Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 02 2007 at 8:28am
Well, as of right now it looks like the reviews are starting to level out at the mid 60's over at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - RT . I agree that maybe next to Uwe Boll, Mr. Bay is one of our worst repeat offenders in the director's chair (The Island anyone!). However he may have actually made something decent out of this 2 and half hour infomercial that is coming out tomorrow. We may want to rethink the "2nd Worst Movie of the Week" on transformers and just give a full "THUMBS UP THE CRACK" (as our HeadRAZZ might put it) to the next Robin Williams flick, coming out Friday.

-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: July 03 2007 at 6:19am
You know, I'm starting to get the feeling that you guys are hating on Michael Bay now. Admittedly, Transformers isn't ranking high as The Rock, but after seeing all the trailers and reading the positive reviews (and there are alot of them), it's certainly a step up from his other disasters (I agree with you guys that Armageddon, Bad Boys II, Pearl Harbor weren't great movies - that was around the time when Bay somehow got hacky). Oh, and FYI, I thought The Island was an underrated and misunderstood gem. Save all your bashing for the next Uwe Boll film (it's either gonna be In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale or Postal). Then I can join you guys in the bashing. 

Of course, I do agree with your other choices for worst movies of 2007: Are We Done Yet (another awful family film), Because I Said So (Mandy Moore is one of the better pop singers-turned-actresses; who else could explain her track record; even though some of her movies were sucky, least she can act, am I right?), Blood and Chocolate (haven't seen it), Code Name: The Cleaner (Cedric, how could you?), Dead Silence (haven't seen it), Delta Farce (where's Larry the Cable Guy's head at?), Epic Movie (Hot Fuzz is a better spoof), Evan Almighty (it wasn't bad, but it wasn't funny!), Evening (this film is in a list of films that I never EVER will see), Georgia Rule (you know it was gonna be bad when Jimmy Robinson's letter to Lindsay Lohan came out), Hannibal Rising (another attempt to add a face to horror), Happily N'Ever After (another Shrek clone), The Hills Have Eyes 2 (another hard-R horror movie that's more stomach-churning than thrilling) The Hitcher (of course, I heard that Dave Holmes respected the horror genre better than the other directors, but what do I know?), I Think I Love My Wife (aside from Head of State, Chris Rock is a lousy director), The Messengers (no PG-13 supernatural thrillers), The Number 23 (I heard Jim Carrey did good, but Joel Schumacher didn't), Perfect Stranger (thank God Bruce Willis moved to Live Free or Die Hard which, I agree with you guys, is a good film) Premonition (we should probably let Sandra Bullock off; I heard she did a good acting job in this film), Primeval (a potential to be a good thriller; then it became Blood Diamond), and The Reaping (all I heard was that it was one huge cliche).

I also got some predictions for the next few titles worthy of Razzie nods:
  • Addicted (SMG is getting suckered into another mediocre potboiler that won't recieve my, or anyone else's, attention.)
  • Alvin and the Chipmunks (As a fan of the classic cartoon, I'm not planning to see it, considering it's directed by the guy who massacred the second Garfield film [Tim Hill].)
  • Alien vs. Predator: AVP2 (R rating aside, I don't know if people will turn up for this sequel, directed by hack music video veterans.)
  • Bratz (Have you seen the trailer? I was ready to bail after hearing Pink and Avril Lavigne's terrible songs. And it's directed by Sean McNamera, no relation to Dylan Walsh's character on Nip/Tuck.)
  • The Brothers Solomon (Will Arnett's going back to his Let's Go to Prison director, dragging in SNL funnypeople Will Forte and Kristin Wiig.)
  • Captivity (AfterDark releases another mediocre horror film that will contain lots of gruesome torture that will make people throw up. Hell, even the reviews piling up are saying it's awful. SPOILER: Elisha Cuthbert and Daniel Gillies have sex while they're captured.)
  • Daddy Day Camp (Who really is looking to see another one of these. The trailer makes it look worthy to be direct-to-DVD. Of course, Cuba Gooding Jr.'s in it, so no dice.)
  • Death Sentence (It's up in the air at this point. But since James Wan did Dead Silence, the director could get another nod for Worst Director. But as I said, it's up in the air. With above-average talent like Kevin Bacon and John Goodman, we'll save our hate till then)
  • El Cantante (Gigli Part Deux, this time with Marc Anthony, and it's a drama.)
  • The Eye (Who's in the mood for another PG-13 horror movie with cheap scares and tedium. Jess Alba should know better.)
  • The Game Plan (Y'know, the poster looks very similar to another crap kids comedy, The Pacifier. This might be up in the air, since The Rock is a solid wrestler-turned-actor, and Andy Fickman's She's The Man had some funny bits.)
  • I Know Who Killed Me (That may be up in the air. Lindsay Lohan is burned into my head after being unfortunate to looking at gossip magazines [Hey, it wasn't by choice]. And moviewizguy says that it's gonna be a mind-bending thriller. Still, I won't be on Lohan's beck-and-call [is that how it's said?] until she does a movie directed/produced by Judd Apatow.)
  • Mama's Boy (Even if the cast is good [Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels, Anna Faris, Sarah Chalke], weren't we served the same plot as in Failure to Launch?)
  • The Martian Child (John Cusack's witnessing a rebirth in his career after 1408. Unfortunately, his next film is a cornball family drama that almost had me running when Vanessa Carlton's "Ordinary Day" started playing. Oh, well, there's always War, Inc.)
  • Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (I saw the trailer, and that looks like a stupid rip-off of Charlie and  the Chocolate Factory. One hopes that the acting talent of Dustin Hoffman, Natalie Portman, and Jason Bateman can lift it from a whopping rip-off.)
  • Mr. Woodcock (School for Scoundrels Part Deux, this time Billy Bob takes on Stifler. And word is out that it sucks)
  • No Reservations (A successful businesswoman cares for a kid who lost her mother in a car crash. Raising Helen, anyone? There's even a bad review available, though I ain't givin' it out. From Little Miss Sunshine to this? Why, Abigail, why?)
  • Postal (Uwe Boll's trying to mimic Borat. What a shame. I won't tell you much about the plot, but what I do know is that several well-known actors - including Dave Foley, Seymour Cassell, and Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer - have been suckered into this mess. And I heard they're gonna lampoon those who lost their lives, family, and friends during 9/11. I think I've explained enough there.)
  • Saw IV (This continuing franchise serves as a reminder that there are better horror movies out there. We don't need gore for the sake of gore, and overacting for the sake of overacting. Oh, and James Wan is directing.)
  • This Christmas (Preston A. Whitmore III is back with his follow-up to Crossover. 'Nuff said.)
  • Underdog (Jason Lee soils his career with another crappy family comedy based on a classic cartoon. Is Patrick Warburton having a niche for starring in these films? Heavens...)
  • Who's Your Caddy (Big Boi, Jeffrey Jones, and a cast of funny comedians are reduced to starring in a crap urban version of Caddyshack that is directed by Don Michael Paul, the man who single-handedly killed Steven Seagal's movie career.)
  • Why Did I Get Married? (Another Tyler Perry film. I wonder if they'll be having women getting beaten up, central casting drug dealers, and lame UPN-style comedy bits. This ain't a good formula for a feel-good movie for the African-American race, but if it is, then no wonder our movie culture is so bland. And we're getting slammed for what we really think about it.)
By the way, Lindsay Lohan's slated to play Paris Hilton in an upcoming biopic with music from Britney Spears. I predict that's gonna be a bash-worthy film.


-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 03 2007 at 6:38am
....most of the movies up there doesn't deserve to be on the list...like AVP2. If you haven't noticed it would be more like the originals (yes, it would be rated R!!!), you wouldn't be putting it up there. I Know Who Killed Me looks like a great mind-tringling thriller.


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 03 2007 at 7:57am

I forget where I read it, but I have to agree with one of my esteemed colleagues in our beloved Forum about you, moviewizguy. Is there a movie you don't like ! I really think you are posting in the wrong forum sometimes... 

Now even through RoadDogVXIIIIIIIIIIII (Oops, got carried away) was just a tad long winded was actually pretty close to the mark on his laundry list. But just to clarify my thoughts on Mr. Bay. I also thought The Rock and Armageddon were both good summer popcorn flicks as well. Bad Boys 2 was just waayyyy too commercial and boring (I'm glad someone thought the Island was a undiscovered gem, because in the continental United States, movie goers are still looking for the Gem that you http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=island05.htm - found !).

As for the Transformers it looks like it is holding at a steady 61% at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - RT  (70% Cream of the Crop), I really don't see this movie getting berried next year at our annual salute to the berry worst.


Response from Head RAZZberry: FYI -- I just checked our Rotten Tomatoes' http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - LINK and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - TRANSFORMERS has now, by a slim margin of 1%, slipped into what may be permanent listing as being officially "ROTTEN." I plan to see it later this week, but must admit I am amazed that something as clunky looking as this could get even 35% approval from major film critics, let alone top 50%. If we had a specific category for Most Obnoxiously/Aggressively Marketed Movie, this would "win" it, hands down... 

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: July 04 2007 at 5:08am
Originally posted by RoadDogXVIII


  • Alien vs. Predator: AVP2 (R rating aside, I don't know if people will turn up for this sequel, directed by hack music video veterans.


Apparently, the title for the sequel is now "Aliens vs. Predator".


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 04 2007 at 9:22am

Just saw it:

High-school student Sam Witwicky buys his first car, who is actually the Autobot Bumblebee. Bumblebee defends Sam and his girlfriend Mikaela Banes from the Decepticon Barricade, before the other Autobots arrive on Earth. They are searching for the Allspark, and the war on Earth heats up as the Decepticons attack a United States military base in Qatar. Sam and Mikaela are taken by the top-secret agency Sector 7 to help stop the Decepticons, but when they learn the agency also intends to destroy the Autobots, they formulate their own plan to save the world.

I was quite surprised that many people were at the earliest showing today, July 4th. Hoping to watch the movie with a couple of people with teenagers and crying babies away, I was quite disappointed but it didn't ruin my movie experience.

The film was decent. This is coming from a guy who knoews nothing about Transformers. The oh-so-incredible action sequences weren't that good and the plot, well, you know, was paper thin. Sure the CGI was flawless but you expect more. I found the camera work better than Bay's past films and the score great (except Linkin' Park).

This is all you know when you see this film: Good robots vs. bad robots trying to find this mystical cube. If you want to watch this film for its plot and story, you'll be disappointed. Do you even think this film needs a good plot? No. It's a fun filled action film.

I thought the film excluding the last forty minutes was decent. I expected more from Bay but as the last forty minutes rolled in, it gets thrilling. The acion is non-stop. I liked the humor throughout the film which makes it entertaining. Shia LaBeouf plays a chirosmatic character and Megan Fox a sexy, but smart, girl. Others like Josh Duhamel and Jon Voight was good.

Do not watch this movie expecting a great story. Watch it to be entertained with the action sequences and humor. Michael Bay isn't a grande storyteller yet but he is a professional popcorn movie director. 7/10



Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 04 2007 at 10:37am

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD.

The Trashformers
Less than meets the eye
The Trashformers
Makes you wonder why
Just another way of
Taking junk
And using it
To make a buck
For the corporate boss.

First there was  http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0086817/ - the ORIGINAL CARTOON SERIES  introducing new characters all the time.  Then they came out with all these different series with slight variations to get kids to buy more and more.  And let's try to forget the http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0092106/ - horrid animated Transformers movie where some executive nimrod at Hasbro thought it was good business to kill off all the cool Transformers and introduce several really lame ones.

Apparently, he wasn't the only nimrod at Hasbro.

There has always been an unanswerable problem with the story of the Transformers.  Why would such all-powerful sentient alien robots bother to transform into Earth machines?  Until this question is satisfactorily answered, there will always be a problem with the Transformers storyline, no matter if it's a comic book, a television series or, as in this case, a movie.

So, http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/ - Transformers comes back to the theatres for a second try, and, like my parody implies, it's trash.  Aside from never answering the big question, what happened this time?

Spielberg and Bay got it all backwards.  They concentrated on the humans and not on the Transformers.  It's a movie about the TRANSFORMERS, for crying out loud.  There's only two humans who should have mattered in the storyline; Sam Witwicky (he ain't "Spike" no more) and Mikaela Banes.  The rest of the story should have been about the Transformers!

There were glaring problems.  For example, in the cartoon series, Optimus Prime and Megatron were an even match.  In this movie, Megatron mopped the city with Optimus Prime. 

I could go on with the ridiculous overacting (only really liked Shia LaBeouf), five Autobots hiding in one backyard tacked onto a whole goofy "look for the glasses" scene, the whole idea of Sector Seven, the whole idea of the "All Spark", the barest character development to the Transformers or the lousy dialog.  Why could Bumblebee pound the daylights out of Barricade but couldn't break free of a few cables?  Why would Megatron's navigation system imprint the location of the "All Spark" on a pair of glasses 70 years ago?  What happened to the few machines that were converted into murderous robots towards the end?  Why did our heroes let the final battle happen in a populated city?   

And they killed off Jazz!

Aside from LaBeouf's acting, the scene I liked the most was the firefight with Scorponok.  The special effects were amazing.  Some of the added touches were good, like when Megatron, recovering from a fall, flicked away a human and said, "Disgusting!" 

Other than that, this movie doesn't even better its animated predecessor, and certainly doesn't stand well when contrasted with the original series, and never gives a good answer to the big question.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - Rotten Tomatoes currently stands at "Rotten" with 59%, a steep drop from the original 82%.  It appears, like MWG suggested awhile ago, that 5,000 votes giving this movie a "10" have artificially inflated the http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/ratings - IMDb voter rating for this movie to 8.4.  This will come down as well.

Razzie noms for worst movie, worst director (Michael Bay), worst screenplay (Robert Orci and Alex Kuntzman).



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 04 2007 at 2:12pm
You hated it THAT much?


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 04 2007 at 2:29pm

Well, I did list the parts I liked.  If a movie is going to call itself Transformers, yet it is 80% about the humans and 20% about the title characters that many of us were into during the 80s, then yes, I have problems with it.  I probably could (and have done so in the past) have overlooked the big question not being answered, if they just get the rest of it right.  They didn't.

Great special effects, though!



-------------


Posted By: tomsmobr
Date Posted: July 05 2007 at 3:16pm

I saw that Alvin and The Chipmunks was being mentioned by RoadDogXVIII as a possible Razzie contender.  I just saw The Movie Poster on line, and it looks like they're going to be a Rap Group. You can view the poster here http://www.impawards.com/2007/alvin_and_the_chipmunks.html - http://www.impawards.com/2007/alvin_and_the_chipmunks.html

Response from Head RAZZberry: The CHIPMUNKS poster can also be seen here in our Forum. Here's that http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2004&PN=1 - LINK ... 

 



-------------


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 06 2007 at 3:23pm

Honestly HeadRAZZ, up to 2 weeks ago I was just going to be thankful it was just going to Reach 30%, especially with the track record of the Director in recent years. As it stands now it has only slightly dropped to 57% Rotten and Cream of the Crop still has it reading at 72% fresh. Maybe we should give this an Honorary "Berry" in the category you suggested, because I thought people were going to go "Belly Up" and lose their jobs jumping on this Band Wagon!

Originally posted by HeadRAZZ

Response from Head RAZZberry: FYI -- I just checked our Rotten Tomatoes' http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - LINK and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - TRANSFORMERS has now, by a slim margin of 1%, slipped into what may be permanent listing as being officially "ROTTEN." I plan to see it later this week, but must admit I am amazed that something as clunky looking as this could get even 35% approval from major film critics, let alone top 50%. If we had a specific category for Most Obnoxiously/Aggressively Marketed Movie, this would "win" it, hands down... 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: RoadDogXVIII
Date Posted: July 07 2007 at 1:49pm

Let me just clear something here. In case you didn't know this, Michael Bay's last picture, The Island, wasn't up for any Razzies, even though critics tore it to shreds. I saw it, though, and found it to be modest entertainment. His latest effort, the movie we're all talking about, is actually - blast me if you feel like it, I don't give a rat's ass - one of his best movies since The Rock. The people who are bashing this movie don't know the big picture - you don't have to take the film seriously, and Bay is aware of how silly the picture is, so he throws humor to add some personality to it. When all is said and done, if you go and see Transformers, don't hate yourself after it's over, because it's a wild thrill ride. Hell, with Steven Spielberg producing and Shia LaBeouf as one of the stars (Disturbia, anyone?), what can go wrong? Maybe pissant trolls like you who have nothing to do but bash the guy (though I don't know if the person whose message I'm replying to is in this group). Hell, I'll say this without feeling like crap: I might see it again! So f*cking piss on me, I dare you.

HOWEVER, I do agree that Bay's other movies weren't great. Armageddon could've been good old fashion guilty fun, but they had to throw in too much camera edits, awful dialogue that took itself too seriously, and a crap romantic subplot between Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler (whom, from what I heard, were nominated for Worst Couple Razzie back in '98). For Pearl Harbor (which I saw some bits of it on ABC, unlucky me), Bay was DEFINITELY not the man to direct a historic event, and even the love triangle was just mind-numbing. Bad Boys II could've helped but him back on the map, but due to hidden agendas (according to Entertainment Weekly, Bay wanted to go bonkers just to get back at the critics and prove to them that people will see his films), it became a wreck, depsite a good box office run. THOSE films were his nadir. So, in conclusion, maybe Bay should stay away from the Jerry Bruckheimer camp (of course, they'll both reunite for the Prince of Persia adaptation), cause I found his last two movies to be more watchable than that other crap.

Originally posted by ITbeast

Originally posted by HeadRAZZ

Response from Head RAZZberry: FYI -- I just checked our Rotten Tomatoes' http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - LINK and http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/ - TRANSFORMERS has now, by a slim margin of 1%, slipped into what may be permanent listing as being officially "ROTTEN." I plan to see it later this week, but must admit I am amazed that something as clunky looking as this could get even 35% approval from major film critics, let alone top 50%. If we had a specific category for Most Obnoxiously/Aggressively Marketed Movie, this would "win" it, hands down... 

 

Honestly HeadRAZZ, up to 2 weeks ago I was just going to be thankful it was just going to Reach 30%, especially with the track record of the Director in recent years. As it stands now it has only slightly dropped to 57% Rotten and Cream of the Crop still has it reading at 72% fresh. Maybe we should give this an Honorary "Berry" in the category you suggested, because I thought people where going to go "Belly Up" and lose their jobs jumping in on this Band Wagon!





-------------
You think you know, but you have no idea.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 07 2007 at 9:16pm

Originally posted by RoadDogXVIII

In case you didn't know this, Michael Bay's last picture, The Island, wasn't up for any Razzies, even though critics tore it to shreds.

Well, Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj wasn't up for any Razzies last year, but that doesn't mean it wasn't Razzie worthy. . . .

That said, hey, if you liked this movie, go knock yourself out.  I didn't, for the very reasons I spelled out, the main one being it was 80% humans (who were always cheesy in the series) and 20% Transformers.  I could've done without that much cheese, thank you.



Posted By: wetbandit82
Date Posted: July 08 2007 at 1:39pm

The real problem with Bay is that he acts superior to everyone he comes across, and promotes himself as a supergenius (of course, so does Wile E. Coyote, and we all know where that gets him, especially when he's teamed with Bugs). So people enjoy watching him fall flat on his face.  In productions with dozens of people alongside you, good people skills are essential...and Bay (at least explicitly) has none whatsoever. 

 



-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 09 2007 at 12:55pm

Well, you all know the tune, so feel free to sing along:

Transformers, boring meets the eye...

 



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: July 11 2007 at 12:36pm
TRANSFORMERS is sitting at $173.4 million at the U.S. Box Office after Tuesday's results, so maybe Michael Bay learned something from his last film that bombed at the Box Office, THE ISLAND...

-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 12 2007 at 4:01pm

What has Michael Bay learned?  Heavily commercial toy line + vastly superior, vastly impressive special effects + way too much cheesy human scenes and dialogs + plot holes that give Optimus Prime and Megatron plenty of room to rumble = megahit movie.

It seems to me a parallel can be drawn between this movie and 1959's http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0052948/ - Journey to the Center of the Earth .  Back then, that movie had the best, most impressive special effects of its time, and I heard it was a blockbuster at the box office.  Watch it now, though, and the special effects look cheap and the bad acting and dialog stand out.  It still has a charm about it, but it has many flaws.  Over time, the special effects began to look phony, even though they looked realistic when it first came out.

Transformers comes across to me the same way.  It's just missing the stupid duck. . . .

And remember, don't eat Hans' duck. . . .

Response from Head RAZZberry: Interesting that you should draw a parallel to JOURNEY...when I was a promo writer/producer for Fox Movie Channel, one of the several hundred titles I created promos for was CENTER. The clip I used featured Pat Boone and Arlene Dahl fighting off "terrifying dinosaurs" on a beach. The "dinosaurs" were actually common desert lizards, blue-screened into the images to look "gigantic." The trivia note I used for the spot mentioned that JOURNEY received 3 Academy Award nominations ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052948/awards - IMDb LINK ) including one for "Best Special Visual Effects." Indeed, we have come a long way -- If not in plotting, at least in the ability to believably depict  the fantastic on film.



-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 13 2007 at 2:22am

Pretty clearly this movie had a built-in audience, so its decent box-office performance is no real surprise. If anyone ever does a live action version of Fireball XL-5  I'll definitely be there, even if Michael Bay directs it. Go Fireball Go!...and wasn't Matthew MCConaughey born to play Steve Zodiac? Most important of all, am I the only one here who remembers Fireball XL-5?



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 13 2007 at 4:43am

Okay...on the off chance that the answer to my query above is actually yes...here is how I blew a half hour every Saturday morning of my childhood...isn't the Internet great?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-1AMrSzN40 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-1AMrSzN40



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 14 2007 at 8:42am

I think Transformers was meant to be a big, dumb, loud action movie. That's probably why people like it in the first place.

Response from Head RAZZberry: If by "people," you suggest you're speaking for anyone else posting on this Forum, I feel compelled to quote classic Hollywood producer Sam Goldwyn, who once declared: "Include me out!" 

 



-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 15 2007 at 5:16am

So as a general rule, the tastes of the American people run toward big, loud and dumb?

Well, that would explain their current choice of national leaders... 

Response from Head RAZZberry: By comparing it to our current political leadership, aren't you being just a tad harsh to TRANSFORMERS? Big, loud and dumb as it may be, at least it has achieved its mercenary purpose of being a money-making machine. I can't site a single issue on which our current so-called "leaders" have achieved even minimal success...   

 



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 15 2007 at 3:52pm
Well, if you have read the reviews, people had seen it and liked it for being an action film...

-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 15 2007 at 5:52pm

Yeah, and other reviews show that people don't like it because it is an action film that dwells on a bunch of dumb humans instead of the Transformers.

But, hey, they all agree that the special effects were superb!



Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 17 2007 at 11:10am

Response from Head RAZZberry: By comparing it to our current political leadership, aren't you being just a tad harsh to TRANSFORMERS? Big, loud and dumb as it may be, at least it has achieved its mercenary purpose of being a money-making machine. I can't site a single issue on which our current so-called "leaders" have achieved even minimal success...   

A tad harsh? Moi?

Okay...

Point taken... here is what I should have said:

So, as a general rule, the tastes of the American people are running toward big, loud and dumb? I guess someone has finally explained the popularity of Rush Limbaugh.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 17 2007 at 12:40pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

So, as a general rule, the tastes of the American people are running toward big, loud and dumb? I guess someone has finally explained the popularity of Rush Limbaugh.

Saturnwatcher, Not everything that comes out has to have an agenda or political message. Like Head RAZZ said, "its mercenary purpose of being a money-making machine". For once I think Michael Bay delivered the goods where Transformers was concerned, and made a very enjoyable popcorn flick. However, both my son and I agree that "Live Free or Die Hard" delivered the goods in spades. He is already bugging me about when it will come out on DVD.



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 17 2007 at 5:06pm

I think Michael Bay delivered the goods to his investors while creating a movie that wasn't awful, but was almost completely lacking in anything imaginative that might have actually "transformed" this particular movie going experience into something unique. If there is a grave sin in Hollywood these days, it lies in the temptations toward driving down the easy, safe, proven and dumbed down highway. I don't think we should give them a pass.

 As for my various lampoons on moviewiz guy's "big, loud and dumb" remarks, the targets were both easy and obvious. There was no intent to assign politcal motivations to the movie, but rather to assign the appropriate absurdity to moviewiz guy's description.



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: bruin_522
Date Posted: July 21 2007 at 5:53pm
And obviously, this film's definitely become a major Box Office Hit of 2007, right now, after Friday's results, it's standing at $248.4 Million at the U.S. Box Office. Once again, Michael Bay has made another major Box Office Hit...


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 23 2007 at 10:48am

Yeah, but this is a country where a guy once got incredibly rich selling people pet rocks...and people actually go see Adam Sandler movies! I think this movie would have made $250 million even if Ed Wood had made it. Just once, wouldn't you like to see someone with a track record for originality and actual cinematic capability tackle a project like this?

Originally posted by bruin_522

And obviously, this film's definitely become a major Box Office Hit of 2007, right now, after Friday's results, it's standing at $248.4 Million at the U.S. Box Office. Once again, Michael Bay has made another major Box Office Hit...



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: July 28 2007 at 8:56am
I thought the special effects were great. Other than that, the movie was just okay...

-------------


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: July 31 2007 at 5:14am
This isn't my kind of movie, but I think Shia LaBeouf is still a great actor. But this should be nominated for something like Worst Waste of Hype.


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 31 2007 at 9:34am

It would have been very interesting to see what the the concept of the film would have been likeif Spielberg had helmed the project himself, and not delegated it to Bay.

Anyways, overall, we'll just have to wait till the next Bay-helmed movie completely stumbles, because this one has not.



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 5:23am

I've seen this movie twice, and I hope the CGI effects alone get an Oscar nomination.

Response from Head RAZZberry: Since best Special Visual Effects is the lone Oscar category where Academy members pay attention to box office receipts, I think it's a reasonable bet that TRANSFORMERS will be nominated. And, since the two often seem to go hand-in-hand where Oscar voters are concerned, it will likely also get a Best Sound nomination... 

 



-------------


Posted By: dipitlow555
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 6:10am
This movie is okay for a summer movie, but nothing special.


Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 3:27pm

Shia LaBeouf is a promising young actor.



Posted By: Kenny
Date Posted: August 05 2007 at 5:53pm

I liked this movie very much. I think saying stuff like "it's just a toy commercial" is not a way of constructive criticism in this case - of course it's a toy commercial, but the old series was that as well, and naturally it's going to have much product placement. However, if Spielberg and Bay really wanted it to bit more aimed at kids they would take away the masturbation jokes, tone down the violence and get a G-rating for this film. Then I would agree with some of you guys here that it was a movie for kids trying to sell toys.

Bay and his screenwriters knew that this movie and this concept was absurd, and the movie is well-aware of that it's stupid unlike some previous Bay-films that just took themselves way too seriously. But this one he did very well. Just the plot is so obviously cartoonish that I think some critics just missed what movie they really were set out to review. The funniest thing is really that the robots were probably more likeable and had more screen presence than most HUMANS in earlier Bay-films. Amazing job by ILM and the voice actors. Bay's action scenes were stunning in my opinion, but yeah, he could have kept the camera still in a few shots and the climax battle lacked some wide shots, but I was very impressed.

Big, loud fun and very entertaining Summer spectacle I say. The VFX may be the best ever created. Movies like LOTR, Spider-Man and Star Wars prequels may have had state-of-the-art effects but there were moments when it didn't look real - it looked like a VFX. This movie was completely flawless in that department. Also, Shia LaBoauf was just great - he brought ALOT to the film.

Needless to say, because this is a movie directed by Michael Bay that have grossed over 500 millions dollar worldwide - and counting - this will likely get a few Razzie-nominations, predictable and "wrong" as they can be. It's a high-budget, popular movie after all. And the Razzies love to shoot those down. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Don't be so sure, Kenny. There's way worse stuff out there than TRANSFORMERS this year -- Including "another" toy-commercial-posing-as-a-movie (which is clearly aimed at a young audience) http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=212 - BRATZ . When all of our Nominating Ballots are counted next January, there's at least the possibility that Michael Bay and His Big Box Office Behemoth could get off Berry-Free... 

 



-------------


Posted By: ZookGuy
Date Posted: August 07 2007 at 3:48am

I haven't seen the original animated version but the IMDb says Orson Welles was in it. And I'm sure that (well if the studio executive had a single brain cell for culture.) would waste the talent of Orson Welles. Don't believe me that Orson Welle http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092106/fullcredits#cast - s was in it? Check out the 'Cast and Crew' IMDb profile http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092106/fullcredits#cast - here .

Originally posted by cvcjr13

And let's try to forget the http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0092106/ - horrid animated Transformers movie where some executive nimrod at Hasbro thought it was good business to kill off all the cool Transformers and introduce several really lame ones.

Response from Head RAZZberry: Just because Orson Welles had something to do with a project (especially if it was made after about 1958) that does not imply anything about the project's quality. For the last 25 or so years of his life, Welles pretty much took anything offered him, especially if it only involved voice over work (as I assume TRANSFORMERS would have). As I pointed out elsewhere on this Forum recently, one of the berry last things Welles did was a cameo role opposite Pia Zadora in her RAZZIE "winning" screen debut BUTTERFLY (for which Welles received his one-and-only RAZZIE Nomination as Worst Supporting Actor). Here's a http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082122/ - LINK to the IMDb page for BUTTERFLY to check it out... 

 



-------------


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: August 07 2007 at 4:51am

Not that I don't disagree with what HeadRAZZ is saying concerning what Orson. What Welles did accept his last 25 years of life was less than, shall we say, "reputation building." However, in his defense, he probably figured that, since no one cared about the great quality work he had put out early in his career (See his http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000080/ - IMDB Link for further details) why bother trying to do so? At that point, he probably just figured he might as well do crap that audiences did watch at the time, and get a steady check for it.

Orson Welles was probably one of Hollywood's greatest film-makers, and the Hollywood corrupted him into what he was before he passed away. 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Yes, Welles did make some of Hollywood's finest films in his early years. But his own profligate, self-indulgent lifestyle lead to his eventual corruption as much as anyone else in Hollywood did. A man of enormous appetites (in all areas of his life) Welles never seemed to think beyond the moment, spent every cent he made as soon as he made it, and made progressively un-wise choices in both his career and personal life. A large factor in his accepting the crappy assignments offered him in his later years was to simply enable himself to sustain the self-undlugent lifestyle to which he had obviously become accustomed.  An interesting analogy to Welles was the great silent director D.W. Griffith (BIRTH OF A NATION and INTOLERANCE). Griffith ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000428/ - IMDb LINK ) pioneered many of the basic filmic technicques still used today, enjoyed enormous success prior to World War I, was a founding partner in United Artists. But, refusing to accede to the industry's demands that he work on more pedestrian product, Griffith ended his life a reclusive, all-but-forgotten alcoholic. Obviously, most people would choose Welle's route of self-indulgence over Griffith's of self-sacrifice. To my mind, Welles' end-of-life choices, though hardly laudible, do make a mastermind more human... 

 



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Kenny
Date Posted: August 08 2007 at 7:30am

Response from Head RAZZberry: Don't be so sure, Kenny. There's way worse stuff out there than TRANSFORMERS this year -- Including "another" toy-commercial-posing-as-a-movie (which is clearly aimed at a young audience) http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=212 - BRATZ . When all of our Nominating Ballots are counted next January, there's at least the possibility that Michael Bay and His Big Box Office Behemoth could get off Berry-Free...

I hope so. Actually, I would lose alot of respect for you if you did  Just kidding. As far as summer blockbusters, I think there are some very disappointing third chapters that you could aim your Razzie-cannon towards instead. Orlando Bloom should get his goddamn Razzie now, it's about time.



Posted By: ZookGuy
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 2:55am
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

WE REALIZE THAT BOYS LIKE to PLAY WITH THEIR TOYS -- BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS. ESSENTIALLY a 140-MINUTE INFOMERCIAL for PRE-SCHOOL KIDS' "ACTION FIGURES," (AND CHEVY AUTOMOBILES... DON'T FOGET, CHEVY AUTOMOBILES... DID I MENTION CHEVY AUTOMOBILES??)

Yes, HeadRAZZBerry, I must admit that the movie did have a lot of Chevy ads. But I think Michael Bay also made fun of Chevy, especially when the car attacked the two people driving it...

 



-------------


Posted By: ZookGuy
Date Posted: August 09 2007 at 3:00am
Originally posted by ITbeast

 

Response from Head RAZZberry: Yes, Orson Welles did make some of Hollywood's finest films in his early years. But his own profligate, self-indulgent lifestyle lead to his eventual corruption as much as anyone else in Hollywood did. A man of enormous appetites (in all areas of his life) Welles never seemed to think beyond the moment, spent every cent he made as soon as he made it, and made progressively un-wise choices in both his career and personal life. A large factor in his accepting the crappy assignments offered him in his later years was to simply enable himself to sustain the self-undlugent lifestyle to which he had obviously become accustomed.  An interesting analogy to Welles was the great silent director D.W. Griffith (BIRTH OF A NATION and INTOLERANCE). Griffith ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000428/ - IMDb LINK ) pioneered many of the basic filmic technicques still used today, enjoyed enormous success prior to World War I, was a founding partner in United Artists. But, refusing to accede to the industry's demands that he work on more pedestrian product, Griffith ended his life a reclusive, all-but-forgotten alcoholic. Obviously, most people would choose Welle's route of self-indulgence over Griffith's of self-sacrifice. To my mind, Welles' end-of-life choices, though hardly laudible, do make a mastermind more human... 

 

Don't we all do that at one point in our lives? I'm sure in one's past or in one's future (including mine, so don't think I'm trying to be selfish), especially people with fame, will do the same thing. We're human, that's it. We do things like that when we're human...

 



-------------


Posted By: Dariasensei
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 5:29am

The worst of the year

 

 



-------------
•·.·´¯`·.·•The Daria Peruviana•·.·´¯`·.·•


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 22 2007 at 2:09pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I think Transformers was meant to be a big, dumb, loud action movie. That's probably why people like it in the first place.

Response from Head RAZZberry: If by "people," you suggest you're speaking for anyone else posting on this Forum, I feel compelled to quote classic Hollywood producer Sam Goldwyn, who once declared: "Include me out!" 

 

                                                                                     Oh my God, I actually agree with moviewizguy!?!?!?!?!

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: SaintSmythe
Date Posted: September 23 2007 at 9:21pm
If nothing else, I want to see Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox (had to look her name up on iMDB because I didn't know who she was) get a nod for Worst On-Screen Couple.  Seriously, folks.  These two have no chemistry whatsoever.



Posted By: Criss808
Date Posted: October 19 2007 at 1:37pm

When I think more & more about this movie, it makes me hate it even more.

I think Michael Bay is one of the worst directors of all-time. He should get an honorary Razzie award.



Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: October 20 2007 at 7:58am
I can't believe this film is even mentioned on this Forum when many other mediocre movies (such as Smokin' Aces,  the Reno 911 movie, Trade, Rush Hour 3 just to name a few) are not even mentioned at all! I thought this movie was pretty good, especially for a Michael Bay movie (though I was kinda turned off by the GM and e-Bay product placements, and the abrupt ending).

However, seeing that Micheal Bay is now going to direct Transformers II, the sequel...







-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: November 11 2007 at 1:46pm
This forum's kinda dead, but I thought I'd chime in on this one. I've seen this movie many times, and while it has it's problems, it's hardly Razzie worthy. Yes it stands at just 56% on RT, but that still means the majority of the critics liked it. And don't forget its cream of the crop rating is 68% (with a user rating of 81% -- Spiderman 3 didn't get that much!). And on other movie websites, the consensus has been overwhelmingly positive.

I may be wrong cause there have been a ton of bad movies, but this might be the highest rated movie up for a Razzie. At the most I'd give Megan Fox a worst actress nod (She was easy on the eyes but man was she terrible.), and John Voight for worst supporting actor (He was pretty bad although he was also in September Dawn and Bratz, so who knows what movie it will be for.) I think that the haters out there (You are in the minority!) should get over themselves and direct their hate at the real disappointment of the summer: Spider-man 3.

Peace! ^_^


-------------
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: November 24 2007 at 12:08am
I think the real disappointment of the summer was Rush Hour 3, not Spiderman 3, even if Peter Parker went all emo in Spiderman


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: November 24 2007 at 5:42pm
I don't think so because rush hour 3 was expected to be bad.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: November 25 2007 at 11:48am
But, "Rush Hour 3" was a box-office bust as well. At least, "Spider-Man 3" did a bang up job at the box-office.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: SuperGlucose
Date Posted: December 01 2007 at 6:40pm
This movie was not just bad.  It was insulting.  First he gushes over the Camero the one autobot turned into.  Too much product placement.

Then it makes the fundamental mistake about hackers.

The best hackers in the world are not 15 year olds living with their moms or 20 year old college students.  The best hackers in the world are in their forties (for the most part) and do not spend their time breaking into top secret information.  The fact of the matter is, in terms of computer hackers, no one knows who the best are, but you can rest assured that they have been studying computers and hacking for far longer than any of the 'hacker' characters in this, or any other, movie have supposedly been alive.

Finally, this movie makes the SECOND fundamental mistake about hackers: that it's possible to hack into NSA databases.  Any classified information is kept on a closed network: literally no way to get in.  And I don't mean they firewall it, I mean... they're kept in bunkers that only have electrical cables going in, and in some cases may even have their own generators.  Hacking those would be like shooting a neat hole through Earth with a cannon: it's just not going to happen.

Now I'm very picky about these things, so couple that with typical-male-fantasy chick, typical-lonely-nerd lead, and a ho-hum "AMERICAN CONSPIRACY AT [insert location here]" plot (overdone to death with National Treasure and about to rot with its sequal, hopefully) and to me, this deserves Worst Picture.

Or a new category: Worst Misrepresentation of Facts.


-------------
Up, in the Cytoplasm, is it an amino acid? Is it a nucleotide? No, it's SUPERGLUCOSE!


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: December 02 2007 at 3:36am
I think "Worst Misrepresentation of Facts" should go to the Fantastic Four Sequel.

Anyway, because so many films this year had a single percentile RT rating (Awake, Daddy Day Care 2), putting this film up for Worst Picture is just a waste of space in that category....


-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: Kenny
Date Posted: December 02 2007 at 10:33pm

Yeah, the movie wasn't very realistic alright, you got me there. I do agree that all the hacker stuff was extremely useless to the story though. I'm surprised Steven Spielberg didn't go "Ok, Mike, this sh*t has to go" because there was too much of nonsense in the film and too little of Shia (very good performance), The Autobots and The Decepticons. But overall I enjoyed it immensely. Charming, fun and self-aware. Bay himself knew the concept was absurd and cheesy and directed the movie after it. He was the right dude for the job.

And I can't for my life figure out why ANYBODY would honestly care about product placement? Pearl Harbor or Bad Boys II are perhaps the two easiest movies to diss the f**k out of in the world, but it seems harder to come up with good, valid reasons why Transformers is "oooh, so insulting and god-awful. The downfall of our humanity" because people go on about how the action was oooh boring, and it wasn't enough of it and you didn't even see ANYTHING because of the camera work. They lie, basically.

Not anywhere near Razzie-material.



Posted By: Sanndman228715
Date Posted: December 04 2007 at 11:15am
So, HeadRazz if you've seen it, what did you think of the performance of the usually good John Turturro? When I found out he was in it, I once again compared him to Steve Buscemi. I think they're both great character actors, who have done amazing work in independent films, and good work for The Coen Brothers. They also for some reason seem to work for Adam Sandler frequently, and are usually the best thing about his movies that they appear in ( Buscemi in Big Daddy, I now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry, and Turturro in Mr. Deeds, plus he would have been the best thing about Anger Management if it weren't for Jack Nicholson). Now they've both done Michael Bay films.


Posted By: Movie Man
Date Posted: December 19 2007 at 6:49am
Good News to those that liked the movie on the messag board, "Transformers" is a semi-finalist in the field of visual effects for the Academy Awards.

http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6612 - http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6612


-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 20 2007 at 2:27pm

It'll win, hands down.

Originally posted by Movie Man

Good News to those that liked the movie on the messag board, "Transformers" is a semi-finalist in the field of visual effects for the Academy Awards.

http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6612 - http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6612



-------------


Posted By: icegirl
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 8:32am
God , I have been waiting to see these movie for so long! It was a dream come true when I bought the tickets! And then the movie started and I started to cry on how awful it was! I don't have the words to describe the disappointment(I was kind of expecting a LOTR reincarnation):crappy humor where it doesn't belong(that sector seven guy looked so stupid that I wanted to get an axe and chop his face through the screen ), crappy acting(megan fox should get another job) , a bunch of fight scenes where no one could tell who is megatron and who is optimus prime, some "i will sacrifice myself to save the human kind" along with "there's more to them that meets the eye" crap and that's how my action perfect movie got screwed! Let's hope they'll make a remake!!
The only thing that I liked in this movie was the Linkin Park soundtrack


Posted By: icegirl
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 8:41am

What a great comment! I couldn't agree more!!

Originally posted by SuperGlucose

This movie was not just bad.  It was insulting.  First he gushes over the Camero the one autobot turned into.  Too much product placement.

Then it makes the fundamental mistake about hackers.

The best hackers in the world are not 15 year olds living with their moms or 20 year old college students.  The best hackers in the world are in their forties (for the most part) and do not spend their time breaking into top secret information.  The fact of the matter is, in terms of computer hackers, no one knows who the best are, but you can rest assured that they have been studying computers and hacking for far longer than any of the 'hacker' characters in this, or any other, movie have supposedly been alive.

Finally, this movie makes the SECOND fundamental mistake about hackers: that it's possible to hack into NSA databases.  Any classified information is kept on a closed network: literally no way to get in.  And I don't mean they firewall it, I mean... they're kept in bunkers that only have electrical cables going in, and in some cases may even have their own generators.  Hacking those would be like shooting a neat hole through Earth with a cannon: it's just not going to happen.

Now I'm very picky about these things, so couple that with typical-male-fantasy chick, typical-lonely-nerd lead, and a ho-hum "AMERICAN CONSPIRACY AT [insert location here]" plot (overdone to death with National Treasure and about to rot with its sequal, hopefully) and to me, this deserves Worst Picture.

Or a new category: Worst Misrepresentation of Facts.





-------------


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 5:33pm
Originally posted by icegirl


The only thing that I liked in this movie was the Linkin Park soundtrack


Your whole rant was just rendered null and void the second you posted that comment.


Posted By: icegirl
Date Posted: January 31 2008 at 9:18pm
Originally posted by Mayhem5185

Originally posted by icegirl


The only thing that I liked in this movie was the Linkin Park soundtrack


Your whole rant was just rendered null and void the second you posted that comment.

Ok, I'm not sure if I get this right...WHAT?????


-------------


Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: February 01 2008 at 4:37pm
Originally posted by icegirl

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

Originally posted by icegirl


The only thing that I liked in this movie was the Linkin Park soundtrack


Your whole rant was just rendered null and void the second you posted that comment.

Ok, I'm not sure if I get this right...WHAT?????


Sorry, I have to question someones taste in just about anything if they say they like Linkin Park.


Posted By: icegirl
Date Posted: February 02 2008 at 7:51am
Originally posted by Mayhem5185

Originally posted by icegirl

Originally posted by Mayhem5185

Originally posted by icegirl


The only thing that I liked in this movie was the Linkin Park soundtrack


Your whole rant was just rendered null and void the second you posted that comment.

Ok, I'm not sure if I get this right...WHAT?????


Sorry, I have to question someones taste in just about anything if they say they like Linkin Park.


Oh common, I thought What I've done was a really good song and had a nice video. I don't know, I really like their songs, and here we criticize the movies not the music some listen


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: February 03 2008 at 12:17pm
I like Linkin Park as well.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html
Up-next: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


Posted By: fredmaia
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 4:57am

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

I like Linkin Park as well.

 They wright very good comercial-pop-rock-kinda-heavy tunes.. thats it!! No more no less!!! They just where in the right place at the right decade!! They still have to prove me wrong...



Posted By: Mayhem5185
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 7:35am
YES!!! I successfully started a topic within a topic, go me. 


Posted By: icegirl
Date Posted: February 06 2008 at 8:40am
Originally posted by fredmaia

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

I like Linkin Park as well.

 They wright very good comercial-pop-rock-kinda-heavy tunes.. thats it!! No more no less!!! They just where in the right place at the right decade!! They still have to prove me wrong...



Ok, I really like rock,it makes me fly when i listen to it (and I listen to very different styles of it too) .
I happen to have a nice discography of some nice bands, and LP happens to be one of them! I think they are different (in my country there is no possible band or artist that you could like) and the lyrics of their songs helped me pass over some difficult moments of my life!So I don't know how commercial they are, but I like them...oh, I almost forgot, if you think they are commercial what can you say about the crappy music produced by timbland and the crappy:justin, beyonce, pussicat dolls and many many others


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: September 13 2008 at 11:49am

Movie Preview Critic comments about the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY9H8_nEPBA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY9H8_nEPBA

He agrees with most of what the fans say about the movie being too focused on the humans and that the Transformer designs are all wrong.



Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 3:36pm
Ditto.  

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

I like Linkin Park as well.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 06 2010 at 5:48pm
No band can save a sh*tty movie from still being sh*tty!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 1:54pm
I give this 6/10.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 2:18pm
Originally posted by Vits

I give this 6/10.
Please tell me you're not following in MWG's example of giving movies 6 or higher based on entertainment factor alone!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 3:09pm
No.It's because as an action movie is O.K..I'm not a fan of this kind of action movies yet I enjoyed the sequences.Plus the special effects are amazing,and the movie has some good moments,both funny and dramatic.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 15 2010 at 8:12pm
Originally posted by Vits

No.It's because as an action movie is O.K..I'm not a fan of this kind of action movies yet I enjoyed the sequences.Plus the special effects are amazing,and the movie has some good moments,both funny and dramatic.
Yeah, so pretty much entertainment factor alone and not overall quality.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 3:09am
Special effects are a technical aspect.And the moments come from the script,which is related to the quality.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 11:05am
Originally posted by Vits

Special effects are a technical aspect.And the moments come from the script,which is related to the quality.
Yeah, only problem with that: the script was s***, only surpassed by the second movie's script.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 1:12pm
That's why I said "moments".

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: November 16 2010 at 5:35pm
Originally posted by Vits

That's why I said "moments".
Okay then. Because for me, I was heavily considering putting a bucket over my head and banging my head against a wall from the first 30 to 60 minutes of the movie alone.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 20 2012 at 11:06am
[TUBE]lUM27OSr3Og[/TUBE]
If you prefer, skip to 04:08.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window