A Wholly Negative Review

Apriorion · Post by **Apriorion** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:41 pm

This is the first thoroughly negative review of the movie that I have seen.

http://www.moviehole.net/reviews/200706 ... rmers.html

Although I expect many of the things he mentions (cliche humans, etc.), I hope it doesn't get in the way of my ability to enjoy the film. Oh, and he seems to be misremembering the G1 cartoon when he says "Many of the Autobots behave like children and have an irksome, cutesy quality that did not exist in the cartoon". I just watched a bunch of season two episodes--one would be hard pressed to find an episode where the autobots *don't* sound like a bunch of nine year-olds pretending to be soldiers.

Halfshell · Post by **Halfshell** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:44 pm

Apparently Starbuck's a chick, too.

Jaynz · Post by **Jaynz** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 pm

It's a different kind of 'kiddie', though. Think more 'mogwai', even for Optimus Prime at several moments...

RID Scourge · Post by **RID Scourge** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:04 pm

"It's not G1! Raaaarrrr!!!"

I wasn't thrilled with the designs. In fact, I downright hated them. However, I would have been sorely disappointed if it turned out to be a G1 rehash. In all honesty, I still think they're ugly as sin, but the designs have really grown on me, and I kinda like the fact that they're ugly.

And what else has been changed from the established Transformers lore? Let’s just say that Bumblebee’s change from Vee-Dub to Camaro is among the smallest of the screenwriter’s sins.

Yup. Has nothing to do with VW's policy of not endorsing war machines, which is why we couldn't get an alt BB. Nope. Nothing of the sort . . .

Quick question: What's the point of writing a review of a popcorn flick, based on characterization and story, if everyone and their mother knows it's going to be nothing more than blow-em-up action sequences? It's kinda like saying See Spot Run sucks because it's nowhere near as well-written as Dickens.

Ozz · Post by **Ozz** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:58 pm

Originally posted by Brendocon
Apparently Starbuck's a chick, too.

Your new thing?

Halfshell · Post by **Halfshell** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:19 pm

Yes.

It will be one of my three stock answers to all criticism for them daring to change/update stuff.

Dragon Warrior Steve · Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:46 pm

Many of the Autobots behave like children and have an irksome, cutesy quality that did not exist in the cartoon,

Has this person actually seen an episode of Generation 1?

RID Scourge · Post by **RID Scourge** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:58 pm

I haven't seen the show in a few years. Don't remember much, aside from being embarassed, even while watching it, with no one else in the house. Somehow, I think I would have been filled with a deep shame, had I been caught watching it.

Post by **zigzagger** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:29 pm

Moved to Movie forum. Seems more appropriate there.

Sir Auros · Post by **Sir Auros** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:09 pm

Originally posted by TFVanguard
It's a different kind of 'kiddie', though. Think more 'mogwai', even for Optimus Prime at several moments...

Yeah, but to be fair, they are at least touching on the fact that these are aliens. The cartoon had a lot of things that related the Transformers to humans more than I'd like to see in the movie.

Clogs · Post by **Clogs** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:52 pm

Originally posted by Brendocon
Yes.

It will be one of my three stock answers to all criticism for them daring to change/update stuff.

Please share all three stock answers... the rest of us might want to quote you if accosted by the press.

Cliffjumper · Post by **Cliffjumper** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:57 pm

Originally posted by Sir Auros
The cartoon had a lot of things that related the Transformers to humans more than I'd like to see in the movie.

Use of names of random car/aircraft parts in place of human body parts. "Oooh, I think I've pulled my crankshaft doing astro-yoga" ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH ARGH STAB GLUT STAB GLUT STAB GLUT. Yeh, it probably wasn't Don Glut's idea, but an excuse to give him a damn good stabbing cannot be passed upon.

Halfshell · Post by **Halfshell** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:47 pm

Originally posted by Clogs
Please share all three stock answers... the rest of us might want to quote you if accosted by the press.

Starbuck's a chick.
I hear the Cylons look human now.
Boomer's a chick.
Boomer's a Cylon.

Yes, it's four. The fourth is a special bonus catch-all one.

Dr Roivas · Post by **Dr Roivas** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:54 am

In the film, the autobots learn about earth culture through the internet...of course they act immature.

Whatever, they seemed to be simply alien and uneducated in regards to earth culture, society and normalcy, imo.

Tetsuro · Post by **Tetsuro** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:29 pm

Now that we're getting into that, does the movi feature battleshake cameratica, too?

Brimstone · Post by **Brimstone** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:27 pm

Originally posted by Tetsuro
Now that we're getting into that, does the movi feature battleshake cameratica, too?

What movie doesn't these days?

I look forward to the day when this is no longer the "in" thing to do.

Rhodes · Post by **Rhodes** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:37 pm

Originally posted by Brimstone
What movie doesn't these days?

I look forward to the day when this is no longer the "in" thing to do.

Me to!!!!

Jaynz · Post by **Jaynz** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:51 pm

Originally posted by Brimstone
What movie doesn't these days?

I look forward to the day when this is no longer the "in" thing to do.

Most movies don't. This was really popular in television for 'action' sequences in the 1990s, though. I guess there was some trade school someplace that found it 'cool' and it's rooted in Grade B film-making.

But if you make action sequences hard or impossible to follow.. you've screwed up.

Brimstone · Post by **Brimstone** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:08 pm

Originally posted by TFVanguard
But if you make action sequences hard or impossible to follow.. you've screwed up.

Um...I didn't mean that. I'm just talking about camera shake and super fast shutter speed. It gives me a headache.

Jaynz · Post by **Jaynz** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:15 pm

Originally posted by Brimstone
Um...I didn't mean that. I'm just talking about camera shake and super fast shutter speed. It gives me a headache.

That's actually what I was talking about. I'm serious, a large number of grade-B flicks in the 1990s used it to make the 'action' seem more 'actiony'. (I want to blame Blair Witch... but, it's too easy, that movie should be blamed for all of Hollywood's cinematic shortcomings..)

There's about a five-episode stretch of ST:TNG that did this too, and it looked just as amateur and hackneyed there.