Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Quick review: a film is the telling of a story, a work of art, and hopefully, a compelling and inspiring adventure, of which the words artistic, aesthetic, and ambitious, among others, would not be out of the question. A movie, however, is chiefly entertainment, spectacle, “fun,” and is typically lacking in depth, substance, and subtlety, to say the least. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a great movie, but it is a horrid, horrible, dreadful film.
Michael Bay is known for a few things, among them are explosions, loud noises, and slow-motion girls running in the style of Pamela Anderson on Baywatch. These are stereotypical of box office blockbusters, especially during the summer. But this is not new knowledge, and it certainly is not surprising. With this in mind, one can expect only a handful of things from this movie, and they have already been mentioned, but I will reiterate: big, bang, boob.
Shia LeBeouf is doing his best. I think. As David Mamet has said, there’s really nothing an actor can do with a bad script. It’s a bad script, and it will come off that way, no matter what the actor tries to do to enhance or improve it. Unless that person is John Turturro, in which case a bad script becomes hilarious and the exact amount of comic relief needed in between gigantic eruptions of fire and bombs and Megan Fox. Who is eye candy. And only eye candy.
There is much that can be said against this film. It’s shallow, hollow, and inconsistent, lacks any real emotion, and is perpetually hoping that the audience will like it because it spent $200 million on CGI. And let’s admit it: the CGI is very, very good. But besides John Turturro and the CGI, there is nothing that even approximates “good.” It is very entertaining. Not much more can be said. It’s a fun summer blockbuster. Don’t expect anything more from it.
Rating: 2/4 Stars
I take great issue with the devaluing of the term “movie.” I believe both are interchangeable and the term film doesn’t (or shouldn’t) carry any more weight than “movie.” And as always, I believe that entertainment can be just as high a calling as moving men’s souls (see: Sullivan’s Travels by Preston Sturges). Pauline Kael and subsequently Ebert also defended the use of the term “movie,” hence “I Lost it At the Movies” and “The Great Movies.” It’s a word that has come down from the spectacle inherent in early cinematic forms, short for “moving picture,” and whether or not there are films that entertain and those that seek to instruct, the word movie should and (for me) continues to carry the weight of a storied and significant artistic legacy. To sum up, I’d rather have an entertaining shallow film than a boring intelligent one any day.
1) I’m not trying to devalue it. I am merely playing semantics to elucidate my response to the movie. Words can have several meanings, and one of those meanings of “movie” is certainly synonymous with “film.” My point is that, in order to explain my sentiments, a semantic game was in order. That’s all.
2) I agree with your last sentence. I would definitely much rather have an entertaining shallow film than a boring intelligent one.
3) If you read my previous reviews (which I know you have), you’ll notice I use the terms interchangeably. I could just have easily have defined film as entertainment and movie as art. But people typically associate them the other way round, so I stuck with convention on that one.
Love,
Neal
I think this is the best Harry Potter movie yet, much darker than the previous ones