Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

D: Michael Bay
W: Ehren Kruger, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman
C: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Peter Cullen, Hugo Weaving, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Ramón Rodríguez, John Turturro, Kevin Dunn, Julie White, etc.

I didn't plan on seeing this in the cinemas at first, for a multitude of reasons, but in a spur of the moment my friend and I decided to go and see something. Transformers 2 was simply the first movie that was starting when we arrived at the multiplex. The only reason you should (or shouldn't) pay $10 to see this film, is to experience the visual effects and the work by the sound department. Other than that, I wouldn't recommend it.

It's a sick movie and certainly not in a positive kind of way. The only explanation I have, for everything that Transformers 2 does wrong, is if this was made specifically for 12-year-olds (just a random number, don't take it personally). And no disrespect for every 12-year-old across the world, cos not all of them have low standards. What I liked about the first one, was the fact that it didn't go overboard. You can easily notice the flaws in both films, but the first Transformers keeps the stupid shit relatively under control. Transformers is a solid popcorn movie with it's pros and cons, but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is as ridiculous as sequels can get. The Hollywood mentality towards sequels is that it has to offer more, but that doesn't mean you should enhance everything that was wrong about the first film. Take the good and work on that. Michael Bay doesn't get it, unfortunately. You just give him $200 million dollars and let him go crazy. And as long as people don't care, they just keep on making movies this way. Michael Bay had a special screening just for Steven Spielberg and the master approved the cut. Now that I've seen the film, I can see two possibilities: Steven Spielberg is either too nice to speak the truth or he's completely lost his mind.

The length is the biggest issue here basically. It leaves too much room for failure. A popcorn movie with not much story to keep it afloat is not supposed to be 2 and a half hours long. I don't care if you're Steven Spielberg, if I were the producer for this, there's no way in hell I would've approved the theatrical cut. There's a skeleton of a story here, a default tutorial script copy pasted from some random screenwriting software. You and me can write this script, if we felt like it. On top of that it's a complete mess and it drags a lot. The first film was only a bit shorter, but it didn't drag as decidedly, it was more fluent and simple. Transformers was an accomplishment of sorts, turning a line of toys into a successful popcorn film, just like Pirates of the Caribbean was with it's theme park ride. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was made just for the sake of doing a sequel and cashing in with the help of people who don't put much thought into deciding what they're going to see in the cinema. Revenge of the Fallen leaves a bad taste in my mouth, just like Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and Spider-Man 3. Coincidentally, or not, both of which will be getting another sequel of their own in the upcoming years.

The story connection between the two films is weak at best and this where the plot holes begin. And they never stop. I'm not going to list them here separately, but I'm sure I'll address a few along the way. The amount of plot holes is amazing and not something you can ignore here, even if you really tried. Why would they save a piece of the AllSpark ? To make a sequel. Why would a shard of the AllSpark be in Sam Witwicky's clothes ? To have that skeleton of a story. How was the government able to cover up everything that happened during the first film and that be reduced to an mere alien conspiracy in the sequel ? Why are robots that make up the Devastator also seen fighting the Army, at the same time ? Why would the robots need more personality or human-like characteristics than what we saw in the first film ? My memory is a little hazy about the first Transformers, but what is the point of the robots having teeth ? Why do they need accents ? I'm sure I'm forgetting something else, but there were numerous things that gave both Decepticons and Autobots more human-like characteristics. They are robots for fuck's sake. They come from a place far away. The only thing I would've expected more was the Decepticon language we heard a little during the first film. That gives them character, that's what makes them who they are. Why just strip them of their culture and turn them into some generic incarnation of evil. Default, kiddy-like evil. I can enjoy a movie once and awhile where I can turn my brain off and just bask in the eye candy, but this is way below my standards of consuming mindless fun. I mean the story of Beverly Hills Chihuahua was more compelling than this. Switching your brain off simply doesn't suffice here. There's an overabundance of stupidity and plot holes that it basically robs you of the chance to be immersed in any meaningful way. Don't be fooled by the good parts: the visuals, the great sound work or Megan Fox's sex appeal. This is a poor movie, plain and simple. The effects are there to distract you from a shitty, nonexistent storyline filled with ridiculous plot holes.

On a good note, I'd like to address the positive stuff for a change. I never get tired of seeing the Autobots or Decepticons transform, it's amazing to behold. The visual effects and the amount of force they carry, are astounding, as they were in the first film. This is complemented by the great work of the sound department. Both of these are worthy of an Oscar nomination. If not for the sound (which is not as impressive as in Star Trek), then certainly for the visuals. As for the actors, Shia LaBeouf is hard not to like and Megan Fox, once again, is very easy to look at. Shia as Sam Witwicky is easy to relate to and one of the few characters that come off as relatively sincere in this film. Fox's character, while being sexy, is a complete waste of potential though. This film would've been more enjoyable if the relationship between the two wasn't so bland and uninteresting. For a woman who isn't afraid to get her hands dirty, she clearly lacks character and Sam lacks balls when it comes to her relationship with Mikaela. Considering what both characters have been through, you'd imagine their relationship would be more interesting than that. Instead, the main dynamic here is Sam's friendship with Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, for better or worse. One thing I'm glad about is that Bumblebee was still unable to speak, even though he was able at the end of Transformers, which also contributed to one of the few sincere un-cheesy moments of the first film.

As for the humor, there are a couple of moments where I laughed out loud, but the majority of it was in poor taste. And that's putting it mildly. In short, the humor is aimed at children. This is presented in so many idiotic ways, that it must be some kind of a record. Though a record far behind the amount of plot holes. One moment I found genuinely funny, was when Agent Simmons and Leo Spitz were twitching on the lavatory floor. The second one was when Sam's mother got baked. There was one girl in the audience, however, that found everything to be funny. Even the slightest of things made her laugh out loud. My friend said afterward that she was probably stoned, but she was accompanied by 3 friends and they were all normal as far as I'm concerned. I doubt it though and that's what scares me. That girl had amazingly low standards for humor. You wouldn't believe the things she laughed at. I can't laugh at something when it's not funny, whether I'm sober, drunk or high. The humor in Revenge of the Fallen is childish, lowbrow and even disrespectful at parts. This is coming from a man who likes his share of Leslie Nielsen movies and stand-up comedy heavy on stereotypes. I have a very wide taste for humor, but this was too much for me. I don't need to see Turturro's character in thongs, giant robot testicles or robots farting. I also don't appreciate stereotypical humor, which implies that black people can't read. This film is mostly aimed at youngsters (remember, based on children's toy line), so it blows my mind that these 2 stereotypical characters were even in the film. Robots don't require any sort of human-like characteristics, cos they're not from Earth. And I'm sorry, but the excuse of them being able to scan and mimic the voices heard on the internet, radio or TV, simply doesn't apply here. They speak like humans (between each other), because people in English speaking nations are usually too lazy to read subtitles.

I've grown used to Michael Bay's cheesy approach to filmmaking and I'm forever grateful to him for making a perfect chick flick for guys, Armageddon. Let me remind you that he also directed The Rock, which is a load of fun to watch. With that said, the guy has not written any of his movies and when you think about that, he's either been incredibly lucky or unfortunate. He's definitely had a better career than Uwe Boll, that's for sure. Bay has also been fortunate enough to work with such producers as Jerry Bruckheimer and Steven Spielberg. The man is clearly living the American Dream, meaning that you don't necessarily need talent to succeed in Hollywood. Coming back to his cheesy approach to filmmaking, Revenge of the Fallen tops everything he's ever done. Michael Bay is the uncrowned Master of Cheese and this film blew my cheese-o-meter. The first Transformers was relatively conservative compared to this monstrosity. It's just one of the many things that are wrong with this film, that's all I have to say about that. You need strong characters and strong character interaction, otherwise you're just shooting yourself in the foot. I can't imagine how many Hollywood films I've seen that are completely ruined by it's ending alone. Unfortunately, the ending is the least of it's worries.

There's this back-story, that is supposed to give the characters some weight. The first film had a nice balance and a good balance is always hard to achieve, no matter what film you are doing. Editing, what stays and what is cut, is usually half the battle, unless your footage sucks of course. In Revenge of the Fallen, they bring on the leader of the Fallen. Such powerful names are used as Matrix of Leadership, Sun Harvester, AllSpark, Dynasty of Primes, etc. Why not work on that and flesh out a strong back-story to give the characters some weight ? The only character that has any weight to him is Optimus Prime, but even he gets stabbed with plot holes. And when you're going for a cool back-story and something cheesy, then why would you undermine that with racist, childish and tasteless humor ? These things don't go together. I just don't understand the reasoning behind that. I mean the writers team wasn't a bunch of beginners writing their first script like Beau Thorne with Max Payne. It's just a shame when you have potential for something better, even though this movie shouldn't exist in the first place, because any normal human being would've destroyed all remains of the AllSpark, you can still make a better film with those specific writers and director. When you have $200 million dollars at your disposal, I guess people just don't seem to bother anymore. It blows my mind, when film studios complain because of piracy or the risk factor in taking on certain projects and so forth, they still keep throwing money around for these ridiculous films and they succeed because they market the shit out of them. Revenge of the Fallen took $150-175 million to market and distribute worldwide. An entertaining blockbuster can also be a good movie. Casino Royale, The Dark Knight and Star Trek immediately come to mind. These are three films with a nice balance between story and action. It can be done, but Michael Bay is either not capable or uneager to bother. This is not a good film, not by any stretch of the imagination. The Island and even Pearl Harbor are better than this.

5/10