Showing 1 - 5 of 5 posts found matching keyword: transformers
I just saw Transformers 2, and it made me like Michael Bay a little more. As I mentioned years ago, even Michael Bay thought the first movie was bad, but it sold well. Really well. So he did what any sane man would do when presented with an astronomical paycheck (reports estimate a personal income of $75 million for the original film) and a public that just couldn't get enough crappy cinema: he gave us more. Jump cuts of dogs fucking, large scrap heaps punching other large scrap heaps, and mystically-reanimating teenagers should not equal box office gold, but somehow they do. Bay gives us what we ask for, and therefore what we deserve.
It's worth noting that the movie goes so far beyond stupid, it can be used as a litmus test for judging the quality of a man by discovering whether he liked it or not. There are two types of people in this world: people who hated Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and the living dead. People who enjoy this film cherish style over substance, and their idea of style is anything that will make a rational person bleed from at least 2 of the holes in his head. A bit of advice: if you are over the age of 12 and genuinely like Transformers: ROTF(L), not just Megan Fox's tits or the distinctive sound of metal grating against metal, see a doctor before you reproduce. Your children may unwittingly suffer because of your retarded genes.
Have I mentioned that I'm addicted to Google Earth? Well, I am. And I've learned that visible shipwrecks are much more common than I would have thought.
My favorite place to stare at from space is Prypiat, Ukraine, the city evacuated following the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. (It's really the ultimate in modern urban ruins.) But a close second favorite attraction is aircraft museums and airports. Don't ask me why, but there's something amazing to me about seeing so many large, gravity defying crafts grounded.
And there's always the odd bonus scene, such as this 85ft Bat-Symbol at Six Flag America in Washington DC.
I'm still looking for signs of the giant Optimus Prime in Kunming, China, but for a six-story statue, he's been surprisingly elusive. Maybe it is possible for a tractor-trailer sized talking robot to hide amongst humanity.
I have now seen Transformers, and it sucks. I mean really, really sucks. For many, many reasons. For example, in all promotional advertising Dreamworks presents Optimus Prime's head with a mask over the mouth just as his movie-inspiring toy version has traditionally appeared. However, in the film, Prime has a visible mouth at all times. Why would Dreamworks promote the film showcasing a design that doesn't appear within the film? Answer: because they know that the masked toy-design is much, much better than the design that they actually used. I only mention this because this proves that the in-house marketing department at Dreamworks knows that their film actually sucks. As I previously posted on May 30, even director Michael Bay publicly stated that he thought the movie sucked. So who the hell paid to see this thing in the theater enough times to make it the 3rd highest grossing movie of 2007 to date? That person is the reason that we have capital punishment in America.
But since I think that so many of my recent posts have been so negative as late, instead of a long post about the abundant things about Transformers that make it very, very horrible, instead may I present two things worth watching instead:
1. Bleach on Cartoon Network. Sure, it's animated anime fantasy about super powers and dead samurai sword fights, but isn't that exactly the genre of thing that you'd go to see Transformers for? Great characterization always produces great entertainment. And this show's got it (whether the pronoun "it" here refers to either "characterization" or "entertainment") AND super powered sword fights set to Japanese pop-music. Sweet.
2. Pushing Daisies on ABC. This is the wonderfully narrated fairy tale of one man who has the power to return the dead to life. Naturally, he uses this power to solve murders and complicate his own love life. This show looks like nothing else I've ever seen on TV. It's getting great reviews, but must have a truly staggering production budget (and rumors circulate that director/producer Barry Sonnenfield has gone waaaay over-budget and angered studio execs), so I suspect that it will get the axe as soon as ratings slip even a little. See it while you can.
It suddenly occurs to me that both of those shows circulate around the concept of death. But then, so do CSI (and most other crime dramas), House (and most other medical dramas), and Law & Order (and most other detective shows). So let's not get carried away with calling me a goth, okay?
Who is more dangerous: Michael Moore or Al Gore? Both are politically-minded liberals who use technology, one-sided propaganda, and scare tactics to much remarkable success, convincing a large number of people that the status-quo is dangerous to their future. Is Moore's masterful manipulation of the mass media any less deceiving than Gore's ingenious beguiling of the genuinely guileless?
I have friends who are completely in the camps of one or both, and, although even a jaded fellow such as myself has to admit that they do have their points, I am sincerely wary of their means and motives. Is it acceptable to follow a idealistic fool (Moore) or an compulsive liar (Gore), even if they're right? Is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons acceptable?
Once upon a time, Optimus Prime would have told me, "No, it isn't." But my Optimus Prime is dead, replaced by some Michael Bay zombie of CGI scrap metal. And I can't turn to Yoda for answers, because he was recently revealed to be a procrastinating quitter. Even Superman, as of late, has begun to waffle like an anguished X-Man after fathering a child then leaving the woman that he supposedly loves to raise their child on her own so that he can selfishly sow his own wild Kryptonian-oats. I'm rapidly running out of role models here, people.
Even Michael Bay, director of the highly-anticipated Transformers, thinks that his upcoming film will suck. He was recently quoted in Maxim magazine saying, "we had a test screening in Arizona, and I’m thinking ‘This movie fucking sucks. It’s stupid.’ But then we get our highest numbers ever.” That's the first good thing that I've heard about the Transformers movie. If Michael Bay thinks it sucks, it just might have some merit.
Granted, Bay has previously said that he wants the Transformers movie to be as realistic as possible, which would make it a dramatic departure from his previous films such as Bad Boys and Armageddon. But who wants to see realistically displayed transforming robots, anyway? I want to go to the movies and relive my childhood, not investigate the inherent fallacy of gigantic, nearly invulnerable alien robots who feel the need to disguise themselves as automobiles and dinosaurs. I'm sure that if Bay made a G.I. Joe film, he'd be investigating the economically oppressive political climate that could give rise to a depth of hatred powerful enough to inspire a man with a severe speech impediment to don a mask and attack the same group of international soldiers again and again as an exercise in self-loathing.
Michael, I want characters that look and act like the toys that are still on my mantlepiece. If I wanted gritty realism, I'd get Eastwood to direct, alright?