Directed by: Michael Bay (Transformers)
Starring: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, John Turturro, Kevin Dunn
Michael Bay’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen may not be the worst movie ever made, but with its 150-minute running time, it very likely is the most obnoxious. And what do you get for frittering away two-and-a-half hours of your life on it? Well, let’s see. You get a giant robot with testicles (“I’m right beneath the enemy’s scrotum”), a robot with an erection, a robot that farts flames, gay-dog sex, no less than three arbitrary slo-mo boob-bounce shots of Megan Fox running, John Turturro’s naked butt, a small horny robot that tries to marry Megan Fox’s leg, endless cheesecake shots of Megan Fox with her backside in the air, and a pair of jive-talking ghettobots (one with a gold tooth). And it’s all wrapped in Spielbergian dysfunctional suburban-family humor, while Shia LaBeouf continues to demonstrate that he’s a few acting lessons Shia drama degree.
I thought the first Transformers movie was bad, but this takes bad to new levels. I could almost be convinced that Bay has made a wicked satire on the very type of film this is. That the amassed asininity—the pointless swirling camerawork, the ridiculous pandering to a 14-year-old’s notion of sex, the bad jokes, the general air of smarminess etc.—is a gag being played on the film’s target audience is not beyond the realm of possibility. Well, it wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility if anyone other than Michael Bay had made the damned thing. This, after all, is the man who gave us rats that copulated on cue in Bad Boys II back in 2003. The intervening six years have not been ones in which he’s refined his sophistication. The sad fact is that even if this movie were a deliberate joke, it wouldn’t be any less repellent or criminally stupid.
To this we may add the fact that the movie’s supposed raison d’être lies in watching giant robots beating the crap out of each other. Oh, sure, there’s something that vaguely passes for a largely incoherent plot about the Decepticons (those are the bad robots) turning on some device that will eat our sun, but it doesn’t matter much. The real draw—apart from the utterly bizarre notion that there are millions of folks who want to see a movie based on a toy from their childhood—is robots fighting and causing property damage. Fine. But Bay and company can’t even get that right. The action scenes are a jumbled mess of incomprehensible “stuff happening” that we’re supposed to accept as exciting for no reason other than the fact that stuff is happening. You can rarely tell exactly what stuff is happening because it’s all shot in close with Bay’s peripatetic-cam and chopped into small pieces. Scenes in which you can tell which robot is doing what to which other robot are so rare that they appear to have made it into the movie by mistake.
What we have here is the cinematic equivalent of a drunk relative at a family function. He won’t shut up and appears to be completely oblivious to the fact that he’s being offensive. That sums up the movie—and Bay’s Neanderthal career. Everything is big, loud and dumb to a spectacular degree. More appalling still is the fact that Bay excuses this crapfest by saying he did this and that “for the kids.” This, in fact, is his justification for the racial-stereotype-bots. Great. In the bargain, he’s giving children black comic-relief robots that sound like Jimmy Walker on an off day and are portrayed as illiterate (“Uh, we don’t do much readin’”). The world was crying out for this, I’m sure.
Undoubtedly, I will hear from readers who don’t care about any of this as long as “things blow up neat,” and I suppose that’s who this overstuffed mass of a moronic movie is designed for. On that level, I guess you could say it’s successful, but it strikes me as indefensible in every other possible regard. In a fair world, I’d be able to rate this monstrosity a negative five stars, but I have to settle for the half-star, since that’s as low as we go. Unfortunately, Bay can go much lower. Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material.
Commenters email addresses are never displayed. Please do not insert HTML code.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (without http://) and it will be active.
|
You know, as much as I wanted to avoid this movie at all costs, my friend paid for my matinee…which isn’t an excuse by the way, just a fact. We all came out with massive headaches and immediate urges to take a nap. Needless to say, my head still hurt two days after seeing this. I’ve often thought that Bay films needed a warning label for their level of quality, now I am a firm believer that they should be recalled before any more harm is done |
clkwrkred Jul 01, 2009 |
|
I shock, shocked I tell you, that Justin got to review the pick of the week, and Ken ended up with Transformers. Has there been a shift in the earths gravitational pull that I am not aware of? |
Jul 01, 2009 |
|
I’ve stumbled across this amusing little article about the inherent flaws of this movie. I’m sure this only scratches the surface, but it’s funny (in a depressingly idiotic sort of way) nonetheless. http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/smg-transformers-10-questions.html |
Jul 01, 2009 |
|
Im a hopeles transformers fan. I love the idea od big robots beating the crap out of each other. And I really enjoyed some of the action scenes. But dear lord most of this movie was pointlessly juvinile. Now a movie based on a toy line isnt going to be shakespeare. But I can make the distinction between entertainment that is mindless, and entertainment that insults my intelligence. |
Jul 01, 2009 |
|
I shock, shocked I tell you, that Justin got to review the pick of the week, and Ken ended up with Transformers. Blame it on the Bossa Nova—no, blame it on the Monster Bash. Me being out of town from Thursday till Sunday had much to do with how this shook out. I’m not sorry, though, because every time I’ve tried to let Justin review something that looks like it’ll be better than the usual crap he gets, it turns out to be less than it appeared on the surface. It is, however, worth noting that Justin proved his manliness and sat through Transformers with me. |
Jul 01, 2009 |
|
It is, however, worth noting that Justin proved his manliness and sat through Transformers with me. If this is the criteria for manliness, then I’m in trouble. |
Jul 01, 2009 |
|
If this is the criteria for manliness, then I’m in trouble. Well, you could have joined us (though I would have advised against it). |
Jul 01, 2009 |
|
Apparently—to judge from a couple of folks on Rotten Tomatoes as concerns this review—we are all lacking in judgment. One notes, “This is one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. What are y’all looking for in a movie? For it to be boring enough to fall asleep during it?” (Actually, I thought this was.) And another is more succinct, “you are a complete idiot. Did the movie not entertain you? If it did not then you are stupid.” Of course, someone else took me to task for saying it might not be the worst movie ever made. According to him—based on its expense—“dollar for dollar” it is demonstrably the worst movie ever made. There’s really no winning in this game. |
Jul 01, 2009 |
|
you just hate freedom, hanke. |
Jul 01, 2009 |
|
you just hate freedom, hanke Piffy, old thing, I’ve heard that before somewhere. |
Jul 02, 2009 |
|
“If we can just get rid of these actors and writers maybe we really got something here” (Larry Levee was such a Cassandra in The Player) Wow, just wow, was my brain was beaten to a pulp. I am so thankful I didn’t have to pay for this. This movie was so long I just started laughing at everything. (robot heaven?) One thing I am surprised critics haven’t mentioned were the countless shots of troops/planes/ships mobilizing in the “climax” of third,no seventh act. There were so many I was expecting to see shots of monkeys,clowns,unicyclists,mimes,and synchronized swim teams. I mean come on Bay, let’s take it to the max. Two questions: Why not rate this movie with “0” stars? Is it really good enough to get that 1/2? |
T_REX Jul 02, 2009 |
|
This movie was so long I just started laughing at everything. (robot heaven?) Damn! I knew I’d forgotten something on my list of things you get for your money and ghost robots standing around like dead grandpa and grandma from “The Family Circus” was it! Two questions: Why not rate this movie with “0” stars? Is it really good enough to get that 1/2? No, it’s not worth 1/2, but we’re just not set up to go any lower than that. Personally, I’d opt for negative 5, but that’s not in the drop-down menu. The only positive thing I could think of walking out was “well at least people are still going to the cinema” but if it takes movies this bad to get people away from their home entertainment, is it worth it? A case could perhaps be made that crap like this is what makes it possible for good movies to exist. There’s some sense to that, but it doesn’t make the existence of such movies—and their popularity—any less depressing. Take some solace in the fact that there are good movies out there. Any summer that has brought us Up, The Brothers Bloom and Easy Virtue can’t be all bad. And there are still such things to come as Whatever Works, which I haven’t seen, but have hopes for and it opens on Friday. And next Friday finds Cheri and Moon opening—both of which I have seen and both of which are worth your time. |
Jul 02, 2009 |
|
I was expecting to see shots of monkeys,clowns,unicyclists,mimes,and synchronized swim teams. If it was an hour shorter, and this had actually transpired, then I might actually take the time to see it. This sounds almost as appealing as taking my wife to ogle over Johnny Depp this weekend. But, alas, that would probably be too embarrassing for such a quality-oriented director as Bay. And next Friday finds Cheri and Moon opening Moon is coming to Asheville! That is great news! I saw the trailer about a month ago, and thought it looked great, but was convinced that I wouldn’t get a chance to see it until it came out on DVD. I don’t know how accurately the trailer depicts the actual movie, but it struck me as a kind of 2001’ish looking (only a little faster paced, hopefully) psychological sci-fi thriller. |
Jul 02, 2009 |
|
<b>Moon is coming to Asheville! That is great news! I saw the trailer about a month ago, and thought it looked great, but was convinced that I wouldn’t get a chance to see it until it came out on DVD. I don’t know how accurately the trailer depicts the actual movie, but it struck me as a kind of 2001’ish looking (only a little faster paced, hopefully) psychological sci-fi thriller.</i> Yes, it opens next Friday at the Fine Arts. Here’s an odd case where I can’t tell you how accurately the trailer reflects the film, because I’ve seen the film, but not the trailer. However, what you describe isn’t far wrong. A little faster paced than 2001, yes, but it’s also a lot more human—and a lot shorter. |
Jul 02, 2009 |
|
A little faster paced than 2001, yes, but it’s also a lot more human—and a lot shorter. Hurrah! |
Jul 02, 2009 |
|
You can gripe all you want about how bad the movie is (or how bad you think it is), but it’s made $474 million so far and personally, I think it deserves every dollar. As a fan of the franchise, this is the movie I wanted to see the first time round. While I agree that it is a tad long, the story is better than the first film, the action scenes are more coherent and I liked that the bots were front and center (last time, they seemed like secondary characters). Who cares if it’s not high art? It’s fun (imagine that!), and ideally, that’s what movies are supposed to be. I can enjoy Million Dollar Baby or Doubt as much as the next person, but this is the kind of movie that cranks my dials to eleven. I think critics in general expect too much from films like this. Sometimes you just have to turn your brain off and enjoy the ride. Here’s hoping a third film brings in Unicron to finish a trilogy off in style. |
Vince Lugo Jul 03, 2009 |
|
Can’t argue with that, we all all have our guilty pleasures.(I enjoyed 300,Face/Off, etc.Heck, I even like The Adventures of Ford Fairlane and that is a really dumb movie) Sometimes I can just have fun with a movie and “turn my brain off” but that doesn’t give filmmakers a pass to be insulting, crass, and juvenile. On the flip side, as bad as this movie is I’m still talking about it and as a struggling actor if my agent said “hey their filming a part of TF2 in Asheville, want to be an extra?” I wouldn’t say no. |
T_REX Jul 03, 2009 |
|
It’s fun (imagine that!), and ideally, that’s what movies are supposed to be. The point for me and a lot of others is that it isn’t fun in the least. I can enjoy Million Dollar Baby or Doubt as much as the next person Not if I’m the next person, since I think Million Dollar Baby is dreadful. Sometimes you just have to turn your brain off and enjoy the ride. While I’ve simply never quite gotten the appeal of having to turn your brain off in order to enjoy a thing, the larger problem here is that I didn’t find the ride enjoyable in the least. It’s not like I’m incapable of liking junk—just not this particular junk. |
Jul 03, 2009 |
|
Michael Bay condescendingly called Megan Fox’s statement that the movie was more about special effects than about acting “ridiculous.” That comment made me lose more respect for him than for his entire resume of bad movies. With Uwe Boll, you can tell he knows what he’s really doing. Michael Bay seems to genuinely believe he’s making good movies. |
Will Jul 03, 2009 |
|
I think people like the junk they grew up with… whether it be comedy, horror, cartoons, whatever. I think the movies you grew up with pretty much set your standard of what you personally deem entertaining. That explains to me why I never agree with Ken’s reviews… he grew up in a different time than me…. not that it’s bad or good, it’s just what it is. Now, I think Justin must be an old soul… again not bad or good, just what it is. |
Jul 03, 2009 |
|
I actually like the first film. I enjoyed the robot action enough to ignore all the crap. However, this film has so many faults that a shaolin monk wouldn’t have the patience to ignore them. I don’t care to take the time to list them all, but I will make special mention of how baffling it is that Lebuff wasn’t annoyingly twitchy enough, they added another pointless character that ALSO only speaks in twitchy, bad Woody Allen impersonation form. racist, homophobic, infantile, offensive that’s how I’d describe this film. I think the racism pissed me off the most though. |
Jul 03, 2009 |
|
Michael Bay seems to genuinely believe he’s making good movies. That’s actually kind of sad. |
Jul 04, 2009 |
|
I think people like the junk they grew up with… whether it be comedy, horror, cartoons, whatever. I don’t know, that seems a little broad to me. By that logic, I ought to dote on Hanna-Barbera cartoons like Huckleberry Hound and Yogi Bear and think that Gilligan’s Island and the Batman TV show are good or that Jerry Lewis is one of the great comics. It hasn’t played out that way for me. I think the movies you grew up with pretty much set your standard of what you personally deem entertaining. I wouldn’t exactly argue with that, except that I personally deem a lot of stuff that’s been made since 2000 to be entertaining—and it doesn’t factor in that what you grew up with may not consist entirely of movies that were new when you were growing up. That explains to me why I never agree with Ken’s reviews… he grew up in a different time than me…. not that it’s bad or good, it’s just what it is. I’m not trying to pick an argument with you—especially since you aren’t taking me to task and are being perfectly pleasant—but isn’t “never agree” a little strong? I’ve reviewed roughly 160-200 movies a year in the Xpress since the end of 2000. That’s a lot of movies. Have you honestly never liked anything I have out of all those movies, never disliked anything I have, and always liked everything I’ve panned? There are certainly critics I rarely agree with, but I don’t think there’s anyone with whom I’ve never agreed. (I concede, however, that in many cases I may well like the same thing they do for different reasons.) Now, I think Justin must be an old soul… again not bad or good, just what it is. While I would probably agree with that in a general sense in some respects, doesn’t that run counter to the “what you grew up with” concept? |
Jul 04, 2009 |
|
Haha… I get what you are saying… I grew up watching the smurfs… I doubt I would run to watch a smurf movie right now. But I do think I was influenced heavily between the ages of like 9 to 18 by what was on the TV and movies at the time, and that sets the standard by which I judge things I see now. (I grew up in the 80s which is why my taste… well you remember the 80s.) I will replace my former “never agree”, with “rarely agrees”. :) The old soul thing was just a good natured ribbing… my brother and I joke that Justin doesn’t seem to like ANYTHING!! Hahah… mebbe just cranky in training. |
Jul 04, 2009 |
|
The old soul thing was just a good natured ribbing… my brother and I joke that Justin doesn’t seem to like ANYTHING!! I actually like quite a few things, it’s just rare that they’re the things I end up reviewing. The way this whole thing is set up—which is usually me picking up the odds and ends to help Ken out (which I really don’t mind)—means that I get stuck with a lot of junk. |
Jul 04, 2009 |
|
But I do think I was influenced heavily between the ages of like 9 to 18 by what was on the TV and movies at the time Influenced, I would agree with. I make the distinction though that one isn’t necessarily controlled by that. Oh, I do know people who are, and a lot of them are in fact baby boomers. They can be incredibly pig-headed when faced with something that’s stylistically at odds with what they’re used to. I can too, but I usually know when I’m doing it. But your Smurfs (dear Lord) example is a good one. Something like it resurfaced rececently when Gale Storm died and I was reading people wax nostalgic over her TV show, The Gale Storm Show (aka: Oh! Sussanah!). All I could think of was a friend of mine catching some episodes a few years ago—and cautioning me to leave the show as a pleasant childhood memory and not follow his example. And honestly, I probably read your reviews MORE because I know I won’t agree… usually Well, I know people who read them because they enjoy the bad reviews, so I can kind of follow the idea. The old soul thing was just a good natured ribbing… my brother and I joke that Justin doesn’t seem to like ANYTHING!! Hahah… mebbe just cranky in training. In all fairness, Justin tends to end up with the bad movies more often than I do, so he’s more likely to not like the movies he reviews. (He got lucky last week with Away We Go.) This is perhaps what makes him “cranky,” but I will say that he’s probably a little more cynical than I am. He’s also 26 and can afford to be cynical, since cynicism is in many ways a luxury of youth. However, he does like—even love—a lot of movies. He just doesn’t get to review many of them. |
Jul 04, 2009 |
|
which is usually me picking up the odds and ends to help Ken out (which I really don’t mind) I will remind you of that parenthetical should Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel be in your future. |
Jul 04, 2009 |
|
While I tend to agree with you on a lot of your reviews of films (not all however) I’m gonna have to disagree with you on this one. I found this movie to be exactly what it was meant to be: stupid fun. Something which Michael Bay is quite aware of actually (he referred to this film as “silly fun” though. I prefer “stupid fun”. I think that is a more apt description.) I think your main problem with the film is that you took it way too seriously. When reading your article today I got the feeling that you were 1) very upset (at the film) and 2) had a grudge against Michael Bay. Now, before I continue, I must say that I’ve had a grudge against him too. But then I realized that part of it was because I took him (and myself) a little too seriously. Not only that, Bay must be one of the easiest targets in the film industry to ridicule and condemn. I find something very unimpressive about people who slam obviously bad filmmakers like Bay (and take themselves seriously). It’s just too easy to dislike and bash him, and ridicule his movies. When I realized this, I just let go and went with it. By shifting my attitude and just taking things as they come I found myself enjoying Transformers 2 very much actually (which was interesting because just a few days earlier I had watched the first one and felt very much the same way you did about this one afterward). So what I would suggest to you is this: lighten up dude. |
Pieter Jul 05, 2009 |
|
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel |
 Jul 05, 2009 at 5:24 PM |
|
I found this movie to be exactly what it was meant to be: stupid fun. Well, I found it to be stupid. I did not find it to be fun. I think your main problem with the film is that you took it way too seriously. In what way? I knew it was going to be a stupid movie going in. I’ve seen the original and I knew it was about giant robots beating each other up. I certainly didn’t go in expecting to take it seriously. I would have settled for not feeling like I was being smacked in the face with imbecile writing and directing for 2 and a half hours. When reading your article today I got the feeling that you were 1) very upset (at the film) and 2) had a grudge against Michael Bay. Now, before I continue, I must say that I’ve had a grudge against him too. But then I realized that part of it was because I took him (and myself) a little too seriously. Not only that, Bay must be one of the easiest targets in the film industry to ridicule and condemn. I find something very unimpressive about people who slam obviously bad filmmakers like Bay (and take themselves seriously). I’m sorry. I don’t see how recognizing that Bay is a horrible filmmaker and pointing it out is in any way a barometer of how someone takes himself too seriously. I just don’t. Are you suggesting that Bay should get a free pass because he’s awful? Why not Uwe Boll while we’re at it? When I realized this, I just let go and went with it. By shifting my attitude and just taking things as they come I found myself enjoying Transformers 2 very much actually Your call, of course, but I’m not getting on board the idea that the viewer has to make himself as stupid as the movie he’s watching. What exact purpose does that serve? |
Jul 05, 2009 |
|
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel I wish I was, but I’m not. |
Jul 05, 2009 |
|
I wish I was, but I’m not. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1231580/ Was rather amused to see that Megan Fox has said in various interviews that the film ‘makes no sense’ and is about special effects rather than real acting, and Bay’s response is that she’s got a lot of growing up to do. Yeah, She’s the one who needs to grow up… |
Jul 05, 2009 at 6:25 PM |
|
David Cross is in this?! He was in the first one, too. You want to really weep? Read the cast list for Roland Emmerich’s 2012. I dare you. |
Jul 06, 2009 |
|
He was in the first one, too. You want to really weep? Read the cast list for Roland Emmerich’s 2012. I dare you.
|
Jul 06, 2009 at 9:38 PM |
|
Moon is coming to Asheville? Hurrah! Any idea on when 500 Days of Summer is coming? |
Jul 06, 2009 |
|
JOHN CUSACK?! Exactly. OLIVER PLATT?! Exactly. CHIWETEL EJIOFOR?! Exactly with bells on. Danny Glover went from BE KIND, REWIND to a Roland Emmerich doomsday picture?! Depressing, is it not? |
Jul 06, 2009 |
|
Moon is coming to Asheville? Hurrah! As I said, unless something changes dramatically, it starts Friday at the Fine Arts. My review is slated for Wednesday’s paper. Any idea on when 500 Days of Summer is coming? Should be fairly soon, but I don’t have a date yet. |
Jul 06, 2009 |
|
For your amazement and amusement: Everyday Life Directed by Michael Bay— http://www.cracked.com/article_17527_if-everyday-life-was-directed-by-michael-bay.html he’s a few acting lessons Shia drama degree. I cried so hard at that terrible, terrible pun that I had to blow my nose on a Hanke. David Cross is in this?! Jesus Christ on unicycle I misread this comment and thought that David Cross was starring in a movie entitled Jesus Christ on a Unicycle—which is one high-concept that could benefit from the Bay treatment. JOHN CUSACK?! OLIVER PLATT?! CHIWETEL EJIOFOR?! This is madness! Should be fairly soon, but I don’t have a date yet. If you can’t find one in time, you can always go stag. |
Sean Williams Jul 06, 2009 |
|
I misread this comment and thought that David Cross was starring in a movie entitled Jesus Christ on a Unicycle—which is one high-concept that could benefit from the Bay treatment. |
Jul 06, 2009 at 7:43 PM |
|
I cried so hard at that terrible, terrible pun that I had to blow my nose on a Hanke. When you recover from your own pun, look me in the eye and swear you could have resisted the “Shia drama degree” one. This is madness! This is Roland Emmerich! If you can’t find one in time, you can always go stag. I shoulda expected that. |
Jul 07, 2009 |
|
I’m still waiting for Peter Jackson to get around to making THE CHRIST MUST DIE, his proposed movie about Nazi zombies going back in time to stop Jesus from being born. The picket line forms on the right. |
Jul 07, 2009 |
|
Okay, I was hesitant to put this up but since others have posted some links please allow me….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_D2XKRbYmM&feature=channel_page the best video review I have seen about TF2. -from Mark Kermode (BBC film critic) |
T_REX Jul 07, 2009 |
|
-from Mark Kermode (BBC film critic) |
Jul 07, 2009 at 4:30 AM |
|
The picket line forms on the right. I’ll be there. Since the whole subject of Zazi Zombies has come up, those interested in such fine cinema might want to check out this link: http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/deadsnow/ I just love this tag line for the movie - “The group of friends had all they would need for a successful Easter vacation; cabin, skis, snowmobile, toboggan, copious amounts of beer and a fertile mix of the sexes. Certainly, none of them had anticipated not returning home alive! However, the Nazi-zombie battalion haunting the mountains surrounding the aptly named Oksfjord (Axefjord) had other plans…” |
Jul 07, 2009 |
|
I do enjoy listening to the podcasts of Ken’s radio appearances, but he has yet to favour us with impressions of Werner Herzog and/or Renee Zellwegger. Hey, I’ve done Karloff and Lugosi impressions. My best, though, is Gregory Ratoff, but maybe 7 people would get it. |
Jul 07, 2009 |
|
This is madness! Madness? THIS—IS—HOLLYWOOD! *Punt* |
T.H.X. Pijonsnodt, Esq. Jul 07, 2009 |
|
the best video review I have seen about TF2. This is my personal favorite review… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM19FWFGER0 in almost every case, I’ll find myself in agreement with KH. I enjoy his stuff as well, but he did give a pretty positive review on Twilight, which made me go “WHA!?” ...but then the MTV Awards liked Twilight too, so whatever. |
 Jul 08, 2009 at 12:31 AM |
|
I enjoy his stuff as well, but he did give a pretty positive review on Twilight, which made me go “WHA!?” What an elastic definition of “pretty positive.” |
Jul 08, 2009 |
|
What an elastic definition of “pretty positive.” |
Jul 08, 2009 at 5:19 PM |
|
I’m sorry, I didn’t copy and paste Mr Dylan’s comment all the way. Yes, I was referring to Kermode, not you Ken. |
Jul 09, 2009 at 8:07 PM |
|
This, along with his inexplicable love for High School Musical III, has severely damaged his standing in my eyes. He also decided he loved Mamma Mia!, if it comes to that. I generally don’t play the “this critic liked such and such and so doesn’t know anything” card, because we all make some pretty inexplicable calls every so often, but Twinklight in particular is hard to quite overlook. |
Jul 09, 2009 |
|
He also decided he loved Mamma Mia!, if it comes to that. |
Jul 09, 2009 at 11:04 PM |
|
he framed it more like ‘so bad it inverts the fabric of reality and comes out the other side as something remarkable’. That seems like a fair assessment to me. Doesn’t seem particularly fair to me, since I found it pretty appalling throughout. |
Jul 09, 2009 |
|
I think Michael Bay’s footprint on this thing is distracting from the technical prowess that went into it. Devastator may well be the most detailed and complex CGI creation ever. With wrecking ball testicles…. |
Jul 10, 2009 |
|
Devastator may well be the most detailed and complex CGI creation ever. With wrecking ball testicles… It’s an accomplishment of some kind, I suppose. Hell, they probably should have been allowed to write and direct this movie as well. Well, I think it’s a cinch they couldn’t have done any worse. |
Jul 10, 2009 |
|
By the way—I defy you to guess the provenance of this quote without resort to Google: “The film is padded by an hour of completely unnecessary, worthless, offensive and repugnant sequences that do nothing but tread water…. The amount of foul language popping out of their mouths is astonishing… The filmmakers, studio and toymakers behind this film should be ashamed. To spend this type of money to bring this sort of hurtful and repugnant work to screen - it is an insult to every DREAM that so many have WORKed for, for years. I’d like to ask you not to support this film… A film with the lowest forms of humor, stereotypes and racism around. Not only that, but its [sic] packaged for our children. Which makes it all the more offensive.” |
Sean Williams Jul 23, 2009 |
|
I was going to guess Uwe Boll, but I googled the first sentence. I think Boll’s name would have surprised me less. |
Jul 24, 2009 |
|
guess wat bro ur soooooooooooooooooooooooo wrong |
lenny Jul 30, 2009 |
|
Oh, we have an intellectual in our midst. |
Jul 31, 2009 |
|
Well, Lenny had to find some way to amuse himself after George got tired of telling him about the rabbits. |
Jul 31, 2009 |
|
Well, Lenny had to find some way to amuse himself after George got tired of telling him about the rabbits. There is that, yes. |
Aug 03, 2009 |
