It's all about parents letting go of their kids so they can run off and grow whichever way they choose in college with a generous helping of "support the military" and "peaceful" alien interaction in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". A sequel which has been "buzzed" about and completed on an impressively low budget compared to other "blockbusters". Michael Bay, deemed the most explosive man in film-making by promotional rumor, has packed in more content and characters with plenty of military action, mini-bot mayhem and--sadly--sexual, "ghetto" and drug-related humor. He has "upped the ante" with new types of robots and a very slightly better combat format. However, silliness abounds--sometimes in a good way--which taints the movie's quality and "gives me reason" to ask questions that will likely never be answered. Some moments seem used for effect without sensible direction or purpose. They are the crowd-pleasing moments that take away from the story as if to distract those who might criticize or find fault. You might call it "creative deception". And, the plot itself might be flawed.
Without having to go into much detail(as commercials and trailers offer plenty), the story revolves around fragments of the past linking themselves to the present where Sam(Labeouf) finds himself suffering epileptic symptoms after handling a fragment from the cube he handled in the previous chapter when the Autobots sent Megatron's petrified corpse to the bottom of the sea. Since that day of the Decepticons defeat, the Autobots have been working with the U.S. military(and foreign goverments, not as apparently)for two years to hunt down other Decepticons. In a conflict causing mass destruction in the Far East, a message is received telling of revenge upon Earth coming from "the fallen". Who or what that may be is disregarded til it reveals itself and begins a mass assembly of both Autobot and Decepticon forces. And, like in any war movie, good guys fall along with the enemy. This, in turn, creates drama and dire need for resolution. A quest begins which ties in a fragment of the old cartoon story once more. And, in the end, the Autobots' "brave leader" gives a little speech--just like in the first movie--which really seems like nonsense to me.
The first film was a sketchboard compared to this two-hour-plus dynamo. While the former had a better opportunity to focus on the robot characters(as there were fewer), it did not capitalize on this much(and messed with what made the original characters so much more visible and dynamic). Now, there are more characters in action, causing greater confusion and fewer dropped names to identify the originators of the 80s. And, they didn't do any better working out the names and personalities of all of them. [I really liked Ravage(despite the changes made), the new silver car --which stood out like a sore thumb in foreign countries--and the motorcycles but didn't get enough of them.] In fact, the images you might find on the internet would be more like a joke or tease than of any value because of how little screen time the majority of robots get(namely the first female Autobots in one of these Bay films, the "Arcee twins", who are actually triplets). It's a battle scene with plenty of unknown soldiers. However, those characters that return from the first film(with the exceptions of Ironhide and Ratchet) do more to express themselves and gain respect. Bumblebee(despite the car form which defeats the point of his "little engine that could" character spirit) comes out even more of a hero and less of an immature baby. Optimus sheds some of the silliness he displayed before and attempts to inject some sincere emotion and drama. Starscream finally shows a hint of his original cartoon character in talks with his "mentor" Megatron. The latter, by the way, takes a very interesting backseat in this film which actually pleased me greatly and opened doors for future "episodes" that might bring the whole franchise into better sensible perspective. However, he is still just a hunk of junk that--it seems--can't be destroyed.]
What also comes as a bit of a surprise, as I expected so much less of the actors, is the chemistry between family, "friendly" soldiers and budding lovers. The human factor manages to show some depth of character(even if it is typical, or expected, in parts). I did not think Labeouf and Megan Fox would be anything more than paper cut-out dummies. I was wrong. For one brief moment in watching his array of films(only because I keep finding him in the films I choose to see), I find a hint of respect for Labeouf. He improved himself considerably in this film. The only real awkward moments for him in the film are the kissing scenes, oddly enough(which I don't mind considering how some might feel about Megan Fox...nudge, nudge...wink, wink).
Credit should also go to Linkin Park who, after slapping one song on the end of the first film(which seemed like a crappy move to me), apparently have imprinted themselves on the soundtrack of the sequel. Their music is like the "technology-driven" ambience of the movie. It appears in bits everywhere like the Autobot and Decepticon logos.
There is clearly an "effort" in making this sequel more multi-cultural with the variety of characters(again, an attempt to bring in a wider audience to the original concept). However, I am not sure this is always a good thing. While welcome to participate, I am not sure every culture is presented in a positive light. In fact, the movie seems to say "we are all dumb, horny, vulgar slobs". It might bring people together, but it doesn't make anyone stand more "upright". Though, this isn't too serious of a problem in the movie.
The part that continues to bug me about these films(not including how they change the original characters into different scrap-heap configurations) is the military input. It astounds me the quantity of troops, officials and vehicles this involved(no matter if they are real or computer-generated effects). Perhaps a promotional stunt for recruitment while flooding the screen with explosions and simplifying interactions with what are, obviously, "hostile aliens". Security is weak. The main actors cast as soldiers seem more like celebrities toting over-sized guns and running with military escort to helicopters to get away from rabid fans than they are "real" soldiers. And, when they aren't on screen, the other troops appear like they are shooting a commercial. There seems to be something amiss with all of this. It makes the interactions between "classified" and common folks artificial and imaginative. It's like kids wondering how troops might act in such a situation without the realistic boundaries. And, casting a funny man as someone close to military secrets does not help(even if he has funny moments to lighten the tension). So, if the purpose of all this and the films themselves was to appeal only to children(and not the adults that were once children themselve watching the 80s cartoons), then I'd say "well done" with the exception of all the violence and weaponry which might just make kids more violent and/or desensitized to war.
[Minor spoiler alert. Read this next paragraph only if you have seen the film. Otherwise, skip ahead.]One other tidbit that bugged me was the inclusion of what should be classified a "pretender". If I was made aware that the threat of the alien enemy robots was able to take a human form, I think I'd be a little more concerned about security and safety. And, why would the enemy stop at one? What purpose does this character serve other than a minor threat and a little sexual tease?
Since this is quickly becoming my longest review, I will cease babbling like Sam and give "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"(rated PG-13 at approximately two and a half hours long) 3 stars out of 5(2.5 out of 4). [But, if anyone would like to discuss this film, feel free to contact me as I am still processing it.] Either the deception was enough to interest and/or amuse me, or the movie was truly a vast improvement on its predacesor. Either way, Michael Bay has work yet to do to win my full respect(if that is possible at this stage). There is enough material worth pondering here, but there is also so much confusion, silliness and disarray that the good still suffers from the bad.
My suggestions: 1)Less military and bodily humor and more time spent on the robots and the history to give the actual characters of the story their rightful screen time. The armies will always be present but don't need to be a prominent role if they are going to be used like a joke. 2)Be mindful of new and older models when inputting them in foreign or historical territories lest the point of camouflage be wasted(considering how they have the ability to change more often than in the 80s yet may not always have the privacy to do so). A shiny, "space-age" silver sports car in the Egyptian desert and an "old" plane who did not look like an old plane(not even the one in the photograph I assume it was supposed to be?) seem out of place. 3)Don't put your actors at risk of injury or death for the sake of a good explosion(if rumors are true). 4)And, if you want to incorporate sponsors, try telling the audience that the logos on various vehicles are actually the icons/symbols of other ancient robot tribes within the sides of good and evil that have been disguised in history. That way, the Autobots and Decepticons don't seem so obvious. [Nice touch using what appears to be the same location from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" which is part of a franchise Shia Labeouf participated in recently and made a bit of a sad joke compared to the previous films.]
--brainstormer, free-lance movie critic
[This isn't my war!]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_2
|
|
| Views: 97
Email This to a Friend 
