Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen movie review
When I saw the first Transformers movie, I can't say I was all that impressed with what I saw. I guess I shouldn't have expected so much from a movie that is essentially based on a toy. So with my expectations suitably lowered after the first film, I went along to catch Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. It's clearly a big screen, big budget, big bucket of popcorn type movie. It's packed full of stuff you'd expect. Fast cars, hot chicks and robots in disguise beating the steel out of one another.
Transformers 2 opens with Sam (Shia LaBouf) about to head off to college leaving his super hot girlfriend (Megan Fox) behind. It's not long before he drops a piece of the spark (a carry over from the first film) and we have some robots in disguise wrecking havoc in his kitchen. Look, I'll be blunt, the plot could really be summarised on the back of a postage stamp. Young dude heads to college, leaves girlfriend at home, is tempted by another hot chick, and is then, against his will, forced to save the planet from bad robots in disguise. Lots of robot fights later, the fate of the world rests in Sam's hands, and I'm sure you can figure out what happens from there. There's really nothing more to the movie than that. It's big and it's dumb. With that said though, I enjoyed it. Maybe that says a lot for me?
Now, I have some Transformers questions. This time around (if you've read any of the films press this will be no surprise - otherwise SPOILER ALERT) the evil forces of the Decepticons have a "human" model. Pretty, yet personality free, Isabel Lucas features as a potential love interest for Sam. A hot chick who looks hell bent on stealing him away from hotter Megan Fox. The sting in the tail, so to speak 
comes when Isabel Lucas is revealed to be an evil Decepticon. Now, my question is, why don't all the Decepticons just transform into various hot chicks and/or world leaders, and take over the planet that way? Why would you transform into a cement mixer when you could walk and talk amongst real people without alerting anyone? And why was there only one "human" transformer? Do they cost more to make? Are they Energon guzzlers? It made no sense and, for me it was the stupidest part of the whole movie.
So to summarise, Transformers 2 was a guilty pleasure. I found myself enjoying it, despite finding myself groaning at it's stupidity. I'd give it a solid 3 out of 5.
 |
4-range Current Transformer for Motor Status Monitoring |  |
0 Bid | US $15.66 | 15m |
Rate it
(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading ...Filed under: Movies
Tagged: movie review, Transformers
Social Networks:
Semi-related posts
6 Responses to “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen movie review”
Leave a Reply
Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.
Totally agree with this review…it’s a big-budget, fun summer movie. Take it as it is and enjoy the ride! I know I did.
its called revenge of the fallen
Right you are. I’ve corrected it now. Thanks
Crappy review. You have something against this movie – don’t so see it and don’t write your biased reviews about it. Yea, the movie is based on a toy, and yes the plot can be summarized on the back of a postage stamp. However, you did forget to indicate what point font would be used. By the way, every story ever written can be summarized on the back of a postage stamp.
Yeah, there is a “human” decepticon. This is also a series of movies so everything you see in every movie need not be explained within the movie in which you saw it.
As far as all transformers being people and trying to take over the world, the decepticons don’t give a crap about taking over the world, they just want the energy from earth and they want to destroy the autobots – that’s why they don’t all transform into people. The only human they actually remotely give a crap about is Sam and that’s because he has information about an energy source on Earth.
Try to be more objective when you write your reviews and people won’t think that you suck.
Dear Metroplex,
Firstly, do you work for Michael Bay?
Secondly, is the review crappy because it’s poorly written or crappy because you don’t agree with it?
Thirdly, I paid $16 to go to Hoyts, sit in a cinema with a hundred or so other people, and watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen in its entirety. After watching the movie, and reflecting on it, I personally found it to be average. The review is therefore my opinion of what I saw. All reviews are, at least in part, a written with a degree of personal bias.
If I’d written the review from the point of view a 14-17 year old hormone driven boy perhaps I would have rated it higher. For what it’s worth, and you may have missed this point, I didn’t say the film was terrible, only that it was an average popcorn blockbuster flick. I enjoyed it for what it was.
Fourthly, you said “Yeah, there is a “human” decepticon. This is also a series of movies so everything you see in every movie need not be explained within the movie in which you saw it.”
To be fair, the film does do a fairly poor job of explaining some of the plot developments, which I think you somewhat acknowledge in that statement. Yeah, it may be a ‘series of movies’ (well two so far), but by the same token, the damn film runs for 147 minutes, which is more than enough time to deal with all the films plot elements. Here’s an idea – take out a couple of explosions and spend two minutes explaining why the hell we suddenly have one Terminator-esque Decepticon when all the other characters are stuck as trucks, cars, cement mixers and remote control cars.
Fifth, I don’t believe that it is possible for a movie review to be truly objective, nor do I think I’ve ever read or heard a truly objective movie review.
ob?jec?tive –adjective
“not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased”
A movie review is nothing more than one persons opinion, a personal judgment or evaluation. It is based on the writers interpretation and feelings toward a film. You may not agree with it, but you don’t have to. You may not like it, but you don’t have to.
I’m wondering, do you believe that your comments are objective?
Sixth, based on 215 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, Revenge of the Fallen has received an average 20% overall approval rating. Similarly, Metacritic has calculated an average score of 35 out of 100 from the 32 reviews it has collected.
My favorite review so far is from Dark Horizons:
“Bay’s most unrestrained and ridiculous to date. The male teenage cinematic equivalent of snorting cocaine off a hooker’s ass.”
I’m guessing you wouldn’t like that review much either, so I wouldn’t recommend you read it.
Firstly, do you work for Michael Bay?
No.
Secondly, is the review crappy because it’s poorly written or crappy because you don’t agree with it?
Poorly written.
Thirdly, I paid $16 to go to Hoyts, sit in a cinema with a hundred or so other people, and watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen in its entirety. After watching the movie, and reflecting on it, I personally found it to be average. The review is therefore my opinion of what I saw. All reviews are, at least in part, a written with a degree of personal bias.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are also going beyond the scope of the review when you start attacking the movie before you even see it in the first paragraph. That is prejudice, such an ugly thing.
If I’d written the review from the point of view a 14-17 year old hormone driven boy perhaps I would have rated it higher. For what it’s worth, and you may have missed this point, I didn’t say the film was terrible, only that it was an average popcorn blockbuster flick. I enjoyed it for what it was.
No, you didn’t say “terrible,” as you so eloquently put it: “It’s big and it’s dumb.”
Fourthly, you said “Yeah, there is a “human” decepticon. This is also a series of movies so everything you see in every movie need not be explained within the movie in which you saw it.”
To be fair, the film does do a fairly poor job of explaining some of the plot developments, which I think you somewhat acknowledge in that statement. Yeah, it may be a ’series of movies’ (well two so far), but by the same token, the damn film runs for 147 minutes, which is more than enough time to deal with all the films plot elements. Here’s an idea – take out a couple of explosions and spend two minutes explaining why the hell we suddenly have one Terminator-esque Decepticon when all the other characters are stuck as trucks, cars, cement mixers and remote control cars.
Fifth, I don’t believe that it is possible for a movie review to be truly objective, nor do I think I’ve ever read or heard a truly objective movie review.
ob?jec?tive –adjective
“not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased”
I didn’t ask for an objective review – I said “more objective.” Meaning, don’t crap on it because it’s not a Sundance Award™ Winner about gay cowboys eating pudding. Most people aren’t coffeehouse philosophers like you who love to creatively bitch about things and people that aren’t as “unique” as you all are.
A movie review is nothing more than one persons opinion, a personal judgment or evaluation. It is based on the writers interpretation and feelings toward a film. You may not agree with it, but you don’t have to. You may not like it, but you don’t have to.
I’m wondering, do you believe that your comments are objective?
Not entirely, no. Fair? Yes.
Sixth, based on 215 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, Revenge of the Fallen has received an average 20% overall approval rating. Similarly, Metacritic has calculated an average score of 35 out of 100 from the 32 reviews it has collected.
So what does that mean? That all the coffeehouse philosophers think the same? Since you bring numerical data to the table, I think the $394M gross from nearly 2,000 theaters that put the movie at the top of the list on Rotten Tomatoes is more telling.
My favorite review so far is from Dark Horizons:
“Bay’s most unrestrained and ridiculous to date. The male teenage cinematic equivalent of snorting cocaine off a hooker’s ass.”
This is confusing – sounds like the movie is awesome, but he didn’t like it. He didn’t like it because of the “stereotypes” – BUT he did like the quintessential coffeehouse philosopher Rainn Wilson. Guess you boys only like your own kind.
I’m guessing you wouldn’t like that review much either, so I wouldn’t recommend you read it.
I read it. He’s an angry coffeehouse philosopher, too.
Didn’t mean to get this involved in arguing over the movie review, but I’m just getting tired of seeing all the same crap in different toilets when it comes to smaller sites that review movies.
While you guys are trying to be so superior by attacking the most financially successful movies the hardest, it comes out making you look like a hypocrite.