Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Transformers 2009 (can't be bothered with the full title)

This is topic Transformers 2009 (can't be bothered with the full title) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001560

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 06-17-2009, 03:49 PM:

Fantastic...does what it says on the can!.". 5 hours of pure fun. Won't win an Oscar, but who gives a shit.....great, 4.5/5.
If you don't like this one you must be brain dead!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-17-2009, 03:57 PM:

Revenge Of The Fallen. You're right, that was way too hard. [Eek!]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-17-2009, 05:17 PM:

quote: Justin Gorka
If you don't like this one you must be brain dead!

Are you sure you don't mean the exact opposite?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 06-17-2009, 05:32 PM:

I am sure it will be eye candy that will rot your brain making all who watch to hard brain dead!

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 06-18-2009, 06:53 PM:

I saw this on Tuesday evening, as Justin says it's what you'd expect, great big CGI robots smashing each other up and Megan Fox looking hot. The plot was pretty decent for this kind of film, some of the origins of the Transformers are explored and the action set-pieces are sandwiched between comic relief and Megan Fox doing her thing. Just get the biggest Coke and Popcorn and enjoy! Some people hate these silly action epics and that's fine, but it is great to just switch off for three hours and have some mindless fun.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 06-18-2009, 08:18 PM:

quote:
If you don't like this one you must be brain dead!

What if I've already decided not to see it?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 06-18-2009, 09:16 PM:

I actually love this type of action spectacle!
If Michael Bay had a grasp of how to direct like his heroes James Cameron and Steven Spielberg it would be great!

In my opinion, he has dummy downed the action genre to 12 year old levels.
His choices always take me out of the story. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 06-21-2009, 11:58 PM:

I love Megan FoX! What Eye Candy for sure!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-22-2009, 12:04 AM:

I called "not it" on this turd months ago. No way will I sit through this retarded piece of Michael Bay poo.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-22-2009, 11:42 AM:

Like you have time to be at a theater doing grunt work!

Posted by Ed Alvarado (Member # 2760) on 06-23-2009, 06:34 PM:

man this movie was just not what i hope for it to be. it was a bit mature at times but man the cheesy lines and the whole college thing with his mom was just STUPID. and whats with the ghetto twin bots? did they go to south central la to find those robots?

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 06-23-2009, 07:17 PM:

Eh, I dunno. The action sequences were pretty good, although in the opening scenes, the robots seemed to have a California Raisins look about how they moved. Too long and too much love story, but entertaining overall.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-23-2009, 07:29 PM:

I still say this is dogshit on reels...and Roger Ebert (who has seen it) agrees:

quote:
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination.

His full review here.

Posted by John Henry (Member # 3084) on 06-24-2009, 02:15 AM:

I do agree it was way to long...at least Dreamworks put in the correct fader settings 82db-85db. Maybe this is the wrong spot for this but who got the black or silver locks, my two prints had both black

Posted by David Alexander B (Member # 4862) on 06-24-2009, 04:12 AM:

as Bay said he shot it as it was the last opus. a 3 is not planned
anyway disappointed by the sound in the theater, perhaps level not correct but also something with the subs
STAR TREK and T SALVATION were absolute reference sound experience with tight impressive bass and crips mediums highs.
anyone's opinion on the sound of TFORMERS 2 ?
again a noisy super 35 (is it ?) image at times as with the first one. (3DLP DIGITAL)
some very funny moments. last sequence is nice. too long i agree.
STAR TREK AND T SALVATION were more "impressive" new of course.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-24-2009, 05:22 AM:

It's exactly what you expect from a Michael Bay movie. Everything is big and loud, and be blows stuff up real good. The first half of the movie was actually fairly entertaining. But the last 45-60 minutes it just goes into over drive and my brain more or less shut down.

Megan Fox does look amazingly hot. And there are a number of shot designed to tell the men in the audience "Megan Fox is hot and all you can do is dream". Once the movie went into over drive and everyone is just running around screaming while stuff blows up, I found myself paying more attention to whether Megan's boobs would pop out of her shirt - and wondering how they didn't!

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-24-2009, 03:17 PM:

All you have to do to make a person hot is to give them an orange tan. That's how you know they're supposed to be hot; they're orange. Megan Fox looks like plastic, and that other girl at the college looks like they were double-casting for her.

The full-frame IMAX portions were really cool to watch. Two big sequences were the only places they filmed that way: the first big fight in a forest, and the big pyramid one at the end. The latter had a lot more cuts from standard letterbox to full-frame, back and forth. Some people said that was distracting, others didn't notice (and this is a "real" IMAX theatre and screen), but I definitely did notice while watching from the booth. The full-frame just makes the whole movie eye-widening at that moment, because all of a sudden there's more to take in. Surprisingly, the garbled, mechanical mesh of metal and gears and pistons becomes more discernable as characters doing actions, not just CG motion and explosions; even if for just a moment here or there.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 06-24-2009, 03:38 PM:

"2009 (can't be bothered with the full title)" is a hell of a lot longer than "Revenge of the Fallen". Feeble attempt at humor.

quote: Victor Liorentas
If Michael Bay had a grasp of how to direct like his heroes James Cameron

Yeah - Henry Jones III could teach Megan Fox how to "spit like a man"! OK, so technically that's his writing but it's still Cameron.

Posted by David Alexander B (Member # 4862) on 06-24-2009, 05:32 PM:

guys how do you rate the sound mix ?
played at reference how was it ?
cause someone must have turned down the vol last night here...

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 06-24-2009, 07:31 PM:

had a look at this yesterday , well i can remember much about the first one , so maybe that was not that good either.

I started off ok action bit of humor fast pace , then it just seemed to repeat itself. It is waaaaay to long , wrap this into 90 minutes and it would have been alot better.

sound was good , camera work sucked.

I found myself wanting it to end when it still had an hour to run.

2.5 out of 5 from me.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-24-2009, 08:03 PM:

I am excited. I am going to see this movie just so I can complain about it (I am an old-school Transformers fan). What's more, I am going to see it at a theater I used to work at for a long time so I'll have even more to complain about! I can't wait!

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-24-2009, 09:39 PM:

Cinemark Movies 14, Mishawaka IN
Auditorium 12, 35mm, Dole Bee Digit All
Presentation: [thumbsup]

Turn up the fader please!

Big giant robots beating the piss out of each other. Throw in a stupid plot and you get a meagerly ok popcorn flick. Quite frankly, I got a little bored with this one. Maybe because I saw it in 35mm, or maybe because it was too long, drawn out, and just not as interesting as the first film.

Dare I say, ugh, I did not really like this. [Confused]

I sure hope the sound mix was better than what I heard too. Usually auditorium 12 is great, but something about this lacked what 12 can usually do. I MAY give this a try in REEL IMAX to see if it is up to snuff.

AJG

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-24-2009, 09:50 PM:

quote: Aaron Garman
I MAY give this a try in REEL IMAX to see if it is up to snuff.

Doubt it...it'll still be smelly, just a bigger smelly. [bs]

Posted by Michael Hossen (Member # 4274) on 06-24-2009, 10:37 PM:

As a fan of the first instalment, I have to say, this one sucked!

I left the cinema wondering wondering why everyone else seemed to love it. Oh well, it's still going to do well here, regardless of how shit is really is.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 06-25-2009, 01:09 AM:

At our preview we kicked it up by 1.5.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2009, 01:23 AM:

CINEMA: Regal United Artists Greenwood Plaza "Stadium" 12
AUDITORIUM: 5
PRESENTATION: 35mm film with ??? Digital, probably SDDS because I installed an SDDS unit in there years ago and there is still an SDDS plaque I mounted outside of the auditorium doors, though this auditorium can run DTS as well. Simplex XL projectors with auto-turrets that still reset the screen to flat after each show (side masking). I snuck into the small auditoriums and the masking does not reset to flat since it is common width in there, but they used to before I was employed. I am glad to see that they did not reverse my rewiring. Nobody likes to see their screens get smaller when the movie starts.
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Volume was too low, the head of reel 4 was crazy dirty, as if someone built it up on to a 7000' reel and took it to the MUT with the head dragging on the floor. Various dirtiness throughout the print. The cues were little circles on the frameline, very annoying. Xenon bulb wasn't focused very well (always a problem at this theater with the crappy Strong Super Highlight lamphouses) and the green bands of the trailers bounced onto the screen indicating that whoever assembled the print spliced way too close to the green bands. Hell, at least they included the green bands unlike lesser theaters. At least 3 lab splices, one causing the audio to drop to silence for a half a second. Preshow volume was crazy low, but that is a plus because I want to hear myself talk over the preshow. All in all the theater was better when I was there, but we all know that, right? [Wink]

The Movie:
Well... at least it had more color than McG's Terminator 4. The story was stupid and the design of the actual robots looked really bad. It is just a lousy style. I did not care for the two black Autobots who where intended for comic relief. There was one girl Autobot who had one line in the movie but she looked like all the rest. Seriously, the robots should not be this "detailed". They look messy and very uncoordinated. Also, it takes them forever to transform. Who was the robot hanging out in space? Why did it take him 2 years to figure that he could hack into a satellite? Why does he sound like Dr. Claw from Inspector Gadget? Oh wait... that must be Soundwave, because without the vocoder applied he sounds like Dr. Claw in the old cartoon. Yup, they finally got Frank Welker back, but he still doesn't voice Megatron. They should have used the vocoder. Also, a robot called Devastator was in the first movie and he transformed into a tank. But here a bunch of construction vehicles combine to form Devastator and he is like a giant crab. WTF?

Out of all the Transformers incarnations from Beast Wars to Armada to all of that shit, Michael Bay's version is the worst. And believe me, the other crap is baaaaad! They started out good and then someone came along and said "Hmmm, what can we do to make this more shitty?" New incarnations continued until Michael Bay came along and said "I can do shit better than anyone. Leave it to me to fuck everything up BIG TIME!"

And everyone loves him for it. Go figure.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 06-25-2009, 08:47 AM:

we opened to a full house with it today , it has apparently broken all opening box office records in Australia today as well.

I am very interested to see what legs it has.............. massive drop in week 2 maybe [Confused]

Posted by Michael Hossen (Member # 4274) on 06-25-2009, 11:28 AM:

quote:
we opened to a full house with it today , it has apparently broken all opening box office records in Australia today as well.

I am very interested to see what legs it has.............. massive drop in week 2 maybe [Confused]

Phil, I heard this too.

We've been doing very good with it down here. Just over 400 admissions each for Wednesday and Thursday. Good for mid-week.

It'll be interesting to see when it drops off.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-25-2009, 12:01 PM:

Joe, I am disappointed you didn't see that at the Chinese. You must go to the Chinese tonight and view the same movie and give us your report from there.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2009, 02:05 PM:

I can't get in the Chinese for free because they are run by Karotes or some weird-ass company like that and they aren't friends with anyone, so no outsiders allowed. For the next movie I see, I will choose the Continental so I can complain about their dim picture!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-25-2009, 03:02 PM:

It really knocked down the walls yesterday at some of the screens around here, but do agree: will it still have legs in two weeks...

..seems to be the trend lately with all of these movies released - no legs.

-Monte

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 06-25-2009, 03:11 PM:

quote:
I can't get in the Chinese for free because they are run by Karotes or some weird-ass company like that and they aren't friends with anyone, so no outsiders allowed. For the next movie I see, I will choose the Continental so I can complain about their dim picture!

Kerasotes?
If you don't pay for your movies, you should only expect to get what you paid for.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2009, 04:13 PM:

LOL. So how do you provide a crappy show to the two people in your audience that got passes but a great show to everyone else who paid? Great logic there. Only a manager could think of something like that.

I expect each theater to do their best whether I pay or not... as they should be doing. Though if I paid I'd probably escalate the problems all the way up to corporate.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-26-2009, 10:05 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
seems to be the trend lately with all of these movies released - no legs.

Movies this summer have been pretty leggy for us. Up, Museum, Star Trek, even X Men had decent staying power. We could have played Museum for a 3rd week which is unheard of for a movie we didn't open on the break.

quote: Joe Redifer
I expect each theater to do their best whether I pay or not... as they should be doing.

I agree. A show for 1 person deserves the same treatment as a full house.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-26-2009, 11:59 PM:

3 weeks is having "legs"? Well, maybe that might be true for a single or twin in a small town.

Still, I think Titanic and Forrest Gump have been the only movies released in recent years that really truly had legs. Those were movies that absolutely endured weeks on end.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-27-2009, 12:19 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
3 weeks is having "legs"? Well, maybe that might be true for a single or twin in a small town.

Right. We get the occasional movie that's played-out after three days. (With "Shaft" it was one day.) That makes for some long nights, lemme tell ya.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I think Titanic and Forrest Gump have been the only movies released in recent years that really truly had legs.

What about "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," "Gran Torino," The first "Pirates of the Caribbean," or "The Sixth Sense." I'm sure I could think of a lot more if I looked at our booking list over the years.

Sorry for drifting the thread. I haven't seen the Transformers flick yet but based on the reviews and comments here I don't think I want to.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-27-2009, 12:54 AM:

I played My Big Fat Greek Wedding for over 6 months. That's legs. Unfortunately My Life in Ruins has none to speak of.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-27-2009, 01:19 AM:

Also, it all depends of the market area on how "Legs" can run..like a clydesdale, or a quarter hourse.

I know of one 8plex that can't keep films there since "legs" runs quick and runs out of steam by the 3rd week.

Then, you get a larger complex that can obtain clydesdale legs an keep the endurance going.

this 8plex opened up "ROTF" on wednesday, and I can safely bet, in two to three weeks, it'll be ready to be shoved in the cans after it's been moved to their 'throwaway' house.

-Monte

Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 06-27-2009, 06:20 AM:

We ran 'Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' for over 10 months, almost up until the release of 'The Two Towers', given that towards the end of its run it was down to one session a day but IMHO that counts as "legs"...

My question is this however, what measures success, the length of a run, or total box office. If 'ROTF' rakes in huge profits in its three weeks of solid box office, vs. any number of films that take three times longer than that to generate decent profit, surely 'ROTF' is more successful.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-27-2009, 12:12 PM:

Please continue the discussion about long film runs here.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-27-2009, 11:19 PM:

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen is everything the first film should have been but thankfully wasn't. By some inexplicable alignment of the stars (or something) the Michael Bay Movie-O-Matic Machine™ managed to concoct a first film that was an entertaining and awesomely cool fighting robot flick (with a slightly boring middle section). With the second picture, however, Bay is back in the form which delivered such box office busting drivel as Bad Boys and The Rock.

Following on from TF1, the Autobots have formed an alliance with humans called NEST and have become a mechanical Team America: World Police style wrecking ball, indifferently ripping up cities and ancient ruins in an effort to destroy Deceptacon sleepers who have been living on Earth for 21,000 years (apparently), searching for some kind of sun harvesting machine built by an ancient evil race of Deceptacon elders. It's never explained why the Deceptacons didn't spend the intervening years ripping the planet apart looking for said device (and exterminating its human population in the process) nor is it explained how this plot in no way impinged on the Allspark story from the previous film. But such oversights generate barely a ripple in Michael Bay.

The first film was new and fresh; we hadn't seen anything quite like it before. However, failing to recognise that you can't be dazzled by the same effects twice, this film is merely more of the same. That's not to say that there isn't any entertainment value here, it's just that it is severely depleted and when you combine that with it's numerous drawbacks and excesses, what's left is a thin, vacuous shell of a movie. Even the poster art lacks the inspiration of that of the first film.

TF2's primary sin is that it pushes the comedy element way too hard! It's as if the producers said to themselves, "that was funny in the first film so let's increase it threefold in the second." (Note to Bay et al, a joke is only funny the first time.) So as a result we have repetitive, juvenile, humping dog jokes, an over abundance of tokenistic robot sidekicks and Sam's nutty parents being brought forth into a major subplot (sic).

And the films sins continue: A pop culture reference to swine flu looks and sounds like it was dubbed in post production. In fine Dungeons & Dragons tradition, no good guy dies who can't be resurrected again. Bumblebee's character was always more interesting when he spoke via his car radio, so despite getting his voice fixed at the conclusion of TF1 it's now inexplicably busted again. And as if Optimus Prime's serious headiness may interfere with the films new found juvenile funster image, he's removed from the plot for a large portion of the flick. The film is much poorer without him.

Attempts by the film to add faux depth to it's shallowness merely results in shallower shallowness. What meaning do declarations like, "God made us in His image. Who made him [i.e. Optimus Prime]?" have in this toy-fantasy universe? Particularly when the answer is clearly "Kenworth"!

The film is not coy in gently bludgeoning its audience with its allegorical sledge hammer either, the most distasteful of which is that on the "war on terror". Meg Fox's character iconifies everything which the public considers reprehensible about the Bush administration (sans the glamourous aesthetic) and it's served up to us as entertainment! She captures one of the enemy, extorts information from him by applying a blow torch to his eye and then confines him to a toolbox-sized prison cell. Later on she's seen leading him around on a chain. Is it any wonder the poor little guy ends up suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and is delightfully humping Meg's leg by the end. (Another humping joke!) It all leaves a rather sour taste in the mouth.

Of course this would be easier to swallow were the robots not personified to such a high degree; indeed it's a degree of personification which has transgressed to the point of meaninglessness. Old-timer robots have walking sticks, others have beards and testicles, Bumblebee is reduced to a sulking pet and a pair of clownish jive talkin' hip hop mofo robot twins is particularly cringeworthy.

TF1 treated the Transformer legacy with a measure of respect but this one exploits the franchise to the point of ridicule, cheapening the brand in the process and not even gigantic kungfu robots or Meg Fox's bouncy bits can atone for it's trespasses.

5 outta 10.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2009, 12:50 PM:

I would like to know what they were thinking when they titled this film. Whenever I see it abbreviated Transformers ROTF my mind says "Transformers Rolling On The Floor."

Posted by Burleigh Ibbott (Member # 3917) on 06-28-2009, 02:23 PM:

It is the second weekend for me showing Transformers 2 and it finishes on thursday with Ice age starting on a wednesday. Tonight im nearly sold out, so the film is good like Angels and Demons was for me> Im fortunate as i have a intermission in my film as it is a long film for all the 6yr olds watching it and it give the parents time to get another beer in. But what i like to know does anyone know a single screen cinema that shows a film longer than Two weeks bearing in mind the film companies conditions of not sharing a screen with another film?

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-28-2009, 05:52 PM:

I think the film's full title is Transformers: ROTFLMAO.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2009, 08:38 PM:

quote: Burleigh Ibbott
But what i like to know does anyone know a single screen cinema that shows a film longer than Two weeks bearing in mind the film companies conditions of not sharing a screen with another film?

I'll answer this question but in the topic "Long Film Runs" over in Film Handlers.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 06-29-2009, 02:15 AM:

The title did not suit the film. It was trying to mimic Revenge of The Sith type of title!! The good guys win in the end again so what is so revengefull! Anyway I enjoyed the film throughout. Not an oscar winning of course but fun 2 and something hours.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 06-29-2009, 09:51 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I agree. A show for 1 person deserves the same treatment as a full house.

Unless that person is Joe Redifer.

The previous conversation I had with Joe was completely in jest. At my location we hold our presentation standards very high whether it's one whining ex-employee seeing the movie or an actual paying customer.

Anyways, onto my review of this film:

Cambridge Premier Cinemas, House 1, 3:30 pm show 06/28/09:

Great Presentation. Not only did someone change the Xenon Lamp since the last time I was here - looks like they did a complete overhaul of the projector and the sound is much better. Making phone calls seems to help. [Big Grin]

I did not, however, like this film. I hope they are done with making Transformer movies. It was about a half an hour too long.

The preview of "The Last Airbender" was the best thing about watching that film yesterday.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-29-2009, 12:17 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
Unless that person is Joe Redifer.

Completely agreed! If I am the only one there, I should be made to run it myself. [Wink]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 06-29-2009, 03:57 PM:

Terrible movie, but at least I did't spend any money to see it. If I hadn't wasted my time watching it I would have been watching Mariano Rivera get his 500th save and first RBI, so I'm not upset at all...

There was one funny line that I laughed at the rest of the night. It was the line about the tight shirt. I don't know why it was so funny to me, but I see far too many guys that do that and I chuckled again and again. I was surprised at some of the content given the age of the customers that have been going, the pot references and language mainly. I realize it is PG-13, I just wonder if some parents will finally get that they should look at what the rating is and why before they bring their 4 year olds.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2009, 11:12 PM:

I accidentally saw 2 minutes of this today while checking a projector.

Words cannot describe the sheer stupidity of what I saw.

0 out of 5 stars (as expected)

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 07-13-2009, 05:03 AM:

Well, apparently enough of us heathens and low lifes enjoyed it, just like the first one. It's holding up okay, and has grossed in excess of $300 million again.

Can't wait for the third one!

quote: Mike Blakesley
Right. We get the occasional movie that's played-out after three days. (With "Shaft" it was one day.) That makes for some long nights, lemme tell ya.

The worst I ever recall is "Free Willy 3." I was working as manager and projectionist at a 4 screen at the time, and it played for 5 days to a TOTAL of 6 or 8 people.

We just opened "The Brothers Bloom" this past Friday, and Tuesday is it's last day here. Same time as "Free Willy 3," but it had far more people. Not that exceeding 8 people over 5 days is a real achievement...