Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)Directed by: Michael Bay
Writers: Ehren Kruger (written by) & Roberto Orci (written by)
Starrting: Shia LaBeouf (Sam Witwicky), Megan Fox (Mikaela Banes), Josh Duhamel (Major Lennox), Tyrese Gibson (USAF Master Sergeant Epps) John Turturro (Agent Simmons), Ramon Rodriguez (Leo Spitz)
Writers: Ehren Kruger (written by) & Roberto Orci (written by)
Starrting: Shia LaBeouf (Sam Witwicky), Megan Fox (Mikaela Banes), Josh Duhamel (Major Lennox), Tyrese Gibson (USAF Master Sergeant Epps) John Turturro (Agent Simmons), Ramon Rodriguez (Leo Spitz)
Michael Bay has the last laugh. As soon as the summer blockbuster ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’ was released, every critic worth his or her salt, lambasted the film, calling it a fruitless exercise in CGI.
However, if you get people to buy tickets to see this ‘fruitless exercise’ on the big screen, I think, it was worth the exercise.
I saw the film at a local theatre on the second week of its release. What I enjoyed most was the reactions from the audience. Most of them were young boys who would cheer every time Optimus Prime beats up a Decepticon. Apparently, most of them were seeing the film for the second time, and they knew where to cheer, where to hoot: the appearance of Megan Fox in a hot pant, for example.
As the film progressed, and a tiny autobot/decepticon started to hump Ms Fox’s legs, my enthusiastic friend, who was accompanying me, said, "This is how a five-rated film goes to hell." What the hell! If you can please the crowd and make them buy the tickets twice over, who cares about some stupid rating. I am sure Mr Bay does not give a damn about the critics.
Now. The bigger question. Are the critics who have lambasted the film is off the mark? Not really. Actually, there is nothing in the film, except some CGI robot action set-pieces. And, can you make a movie more than two hour long only on a few action sequences? Apparently, you can. That what Mr Bay does.
Compared to this, the first Transformers film can be called a masterpiece. Roger Ebert gave it a three star rating. There was a good mix of storytelling and action, and fantastic CGI-enhanced robots as well. In the first film, the robots, Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, had a life of their own. You really cared for Optimus Prime when, in the climatic scene, he dies, only to be resurrected.
Optimus Prime, leaders of the autobots, dies in this film too, that too much before the climax. But you don't have time to worry about him; there are too many things happening in Sam’s life, or there’s nothing at all, except for a lengthy sequence of fight that leads to climax, Kaboom!!! Optium Prime is resurrected. Frankly, who cares?
This is the bane of a sequel. Apparently, a sequel demands a amplified version of what was interesting in the first movie. But, can you ‘amplify’ a dish already cooked to perfection. No, you can’t. This is where most sequels fail. The latest victim is ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.’
The first film was built on a myth, whatever silly it may be. This time, they try to carry it forward, but fails miserably, since there is nothing more to add. So, there’s some mumbo-jumbo about a bad Prime and some good Primes, some millennia ago; the action moves to Egypt and the ‘epic battle’ starts.
So much for a summer blockbuster!!
However, if you get people to buy tickets to see this ‘fruitless exercise’ on the big screen, I think, it was worth the exercise.
I saw the film at a local theatre on the second week of its release. What I enjoyed most was the reactions from the audience. Most of them were young boys who would cheer every time Optimus Prime beats up a Decepticon. Apparently, most of them were seeing the film for the second time, and they knew where to cheer, where to hoot: the appearance of Megan Fox in a hot pant, for example.
As the film progressed, and a tiny autobot/decepticon started to hump Ms Fox’s legs, my enthusiastic friend, who was accompanying me, said, "This is how a five-rated film goes to hell." What the hell! If you can please the crowd and make them buy the tickets twice over, who cares about some stupid rating. I am sure Mr Bay does not give a damn about the critics.
Now. The bigger question. Are the critics who have lambasted the film is off the mark? Not really. Actually, there is nothing in the film, except some CGI robot action set-pieces. And, can you make a movie more than two hour long only on a few action sequences? Apparently, you can. That what Mr Bay does.
Compared to this, the first Transformers film can be called a masterpiece. Roger Ebert gave it a three star rating. There was a good mix of storytelling and action, and fantastic CGI-enhanced robots as well. In the first film, the robots, Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, had a life of their own. You really cared for Optimus Prime when, in the climatic scene, he dies, only to be resurrected.
Optimus Prime, leaders of the autobots, dies in this film too, that too much before the climax. But you don't have time to worry about him; there are too many things happening in Sam’s life, or there’s nothing at all, except for a lengthy sequence of fight that leads to climax, Kaboom!!! Optium Prime is resurrected. Frankly, who cares?
This is the bane of a sequel. Apparently, a sequel demands a amplified version of what was interesting in the first movie. But, can you ‘amplify’ a dish already cooked to perfection. No, you can’t. This is where most sequels fail. The latest victim is ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.’
The first film was built on a myth, whatever silly it may be. This time, they try to carry it forward, but fails miserably, since there is nothing more to add. So, there’s some mumbo-jumbo about a bad Prime and some good Primes, some millennia ago; the action moves to Egypt and the ‘epic battle’ starts.
So much for a summer blockbuster!!
No comments:
Post a Comment