Yes, it’s better than the last Transformers movie, but that doesn’t keep Michael Bay’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon from being the most obnoxious, noisy, tedious, ugly waste of film this year. In its own peculiar way, I suppose that’s something of an accomplishment. In that same vein, we should pay honor to such other improbable feats as finding an underwear model—Rosie Huntington-Whiteley—who makes the fired Megan Fox look like an accomplished actress, and note Shia LaBeouf’s seemingly effortless ability to get worse with every movie. Much more disturbing, however, is the fact that the American public has already shelled out $162 million to have its senses bombarded and its intelligence insulted, while the rest of the world has ponied up an additional $210 million. Kind of makes you want to retire to Sussex and keep bees, doesn’t it?
Of course, the idea that Mr. Bay’s latest mess of excess is better than the previous one isn’t predicated on what it has, but rather on what it doesn’t have. The lack of jive-talking comedy-relief robots and a robot with testicles is a plus, but this isn’t to suggest any actual improvement has taken place. And the addition of Ms. Huntington-Whiteley and Mr. LaBeouf’s increasingly incomprehensible “acting style” may make those omissions pretty much a wash. Apparently, it’s supposed to be disturbing that Bay has recycled footage from The Island (2005). I find it more alarming that anyone knew The Island well enough to notice.
So what do you get for your investment? Well, apart from a great deal of noisy CGI “spectacle” involving giant robots beating each other up and causing massive digital destruction, there’s a sort of a plot that might make sense if you’re careful not to examine it. Seems that the entire space program of the 1960s was due to a desire to find out what crashed on the moon—conveniently, the dark side of the moon. This, of course, turns out to be an Autobot (those are the good robots) ship with a mysterious cargo and the big cheese Autobot Sentinel Prime (given voice by Leonard Nimoy apparently channeling John Huston). We know he’s the oldest and wisest bot because he has a stringy bot beard. (Is anyone over 12 still reading this?)
While he’s being jump-started by Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen), the head Decepticon Megatron (voiced by Hugo Weaving) has lumbered back into business. He appears to be missing half of his brain, but is still functional (perhaps he should found a political movement) and still bent on world domination. There’s duplicity afoot, too—not to mention a lot of pointless digressions (why is the John Malkovich character even in this thing?)—in both human and autobot agencies. None of this should surprise anyone, but in case it might, I’ll leave you to discover it on your own.
All this nonsense is leading up to an endless bout of rock-‘em sock-‘em robot action that devastates Chicago, while an evil plan so scientifically idiotic that Roland Emmerich might have questioned its believability unfolds. It’s the sort of thing that will doubtless appeal to those who like to use phrases involving “check your brain at the door and enjoy the carnage” to justify the onscreen silliness. And no doubt that’s the concept that will be used to defend this rubbish—along with “you’re taking this too seriously.” But really, if a movie insists on frittering away over two-and-a-half hours of my time, yeah, I’m going to insist on something more than “stuff blows up neat.” Rated PG-13 for intense prolonged sequences of sci-fi action violence, mayhem and destruction, and for language, some sexuality and innuendo.
I feel like it deserves a half more stars because it was one notch better than its previous sequel rise of the fallen. Yes, it was very very long but it had more of a story and exceedingly less trashy than the last one.
I feel like it deserves a half more stars because it was one notch better than its previous sequel rise of the fallen. Yes, it was very very long but it had more of a story and exceedingly less trashy than the last one.
Say, how is it your name changed from Isaac last time you posted on here railing about how trashy Drive Angry 3D was? I thought I’d lost all credibility with you already for liking that?
Please tell me the listing of Frances McDormand in the cast listing above is a mistake.
Please tell me the listing of Frances McDormand in the cast listing above is a mistake.
Oh, I wish I could.
Transformers toys came around 10 years too late for me (Micronauts!), so I really have no dog in this fight. HOWEVER, I say with a heavy heart that this film was entertaining.
Perhaps it is because the 2nd film sucked so bad that ANY improvement would seem infinitely better. And there is much improvement. Megan Fox is gone and I think as a joke a Victoria Secret model has replaced her. Also gone are two of the annoying robots. Shia’s parents are barely in it and Turturro has been toned down. Despite a bad accent, FIREFLY’S Alan Tudyk was a welcome addition along with Leonard Nimoy. Shia doesn’t shout “GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGO,” much to the chagrin of Rifftrax.
The payoff for the three films is the hour long invasion of Earth, and that did not disappoint. Lots of stuff blows up good. All in all, it still sucked, but was a tolerable level of suckiness that I guess translates to a recommendation.
With MacDormand, Malkovich and Turturro I wonder if Bay was trying to channel the Coen Brothers… with giant robots.
I say with a heavy heart that this film was entertaining.
See? This is what happens when you turn off your brain one time too many.
The payoff for the three films is the hour long invasion of Earth, and that did not disappoint.
I’d debate that. It went on so long and was so stupid that I lost interest long before it was over.
Lots of stuff blows up good.
Uh huh.
All in all, it still sucked, but was a tolerable level of suckiness that I guess translates to a recommendation.
“A tolerable level of suckiness” — that should festoon the DVD case.
While I understand your dislike of this movie, you seem uniquely suited to not enjoy it. This is not to say that your criticisms are irrelevant – it’s certainly the case that the plot is poorly constructed. But you should know, going into a movie like this, that you aren’t going to get stellar acting or an emotionally mature or significant plot (though they would certainly be bonuses).
This movie succeeds in spectacle that the previous two came nowhere close to for one specific reason: action choreography.
In the first Transformers film, most fight scenes between the robots were short, and were done with very little music in the background. The conclusion to the ultimate fight scene in the original transformers was so poorly set up and quickly executed that it left many wondering what happened. While improvements were made in this regard in the second movie, the horrible plot and mind bogglingly awful humor were such that minor improvements in action scenes could not outweigh the problems. “Dark of the Moon” featured fight scenes between the robots, between equals, that lasted a satisfying amount of time, and were choreographed to be more than just one explosion then another – it was reminiscent at times of a martial arts movie.
The creation of this sort of scene is immensely complicated, and the most important part of it is to keep the motion going at high speed. Too many action movies, or scenes that rely on action, merely show the difficulty of what the characters are going through before moving on to another topic or scene. If one wants depth of character or wit, one can read a book or watch a television series and can potentially, even probably depending on the book or show, get the same level of satisfaction as they would from the best movies out there. This movie does something that television shows, with lower budgets and less time, or books, with their reliance on imagination, generally cannot do: provide visceral and well-made fight scenes.
Bear in mind that this is different from just having explosions and tension: in this day and age, any high budget movie can have that. It takes a lot more artistic merit to have well planned martial combat. So while I fully acknowledge the accuracy of many of your criticisms, I have to say that I don’t think you were suitably impressed by what was the main point of this movie: well planned, well executed, action.
While I understand your dislike of this movie, you seem uniquely suited to not enjoy it.
Does that make the 138 other Rotten Tomatoes reviewers who gave it a bad review also “uniquely suited” to not enjoy it?
But you should know, going into a movie like this, that you aren’t going to get stellar acting or an emotionally mature or significant plot (though they would certainly be bonuses).
Isn’t this the “check your brain at the door” concept? See, I don’t buy that. I see no reason I should have have to make myself as stupid as the movie in order to enjoy it. At the same time, it isn’t as if I am not capable of finding merit in movies that function on some level other than “stellar acting or an emotionally mature or significant plot — see reviews for Drive Angry 3D, Hobo with a Shotgun and Thor to name relatively recent examples. The difference with this sort of thing is that those films didn’t actively insult my intelligence and go on and on and on.
This movie does something that television shows, with lower budgets and less time, or books, with their reliance on imagination, generally cannot do: provide visceral and well-made fight scenes.
Here’s the problem for me with this assessment — I didn’t find the action scenes all that remarkable. And I certainly found nothing about them visceral. I’m not sure it’s even possible to create anything visceral involving watching CGI incarnations of cumbersome, ludicrously-designed robots beating the crap out of each other.
I have to say that I don’t think you were suitably impressed by what was the main point of this movie: well planned, well executed, action.
You’re right, I wasn’t suitably impressed. Mostly, I was bored by it. And it wasn’t just the overkill of the length of the finale, since I did not have this problem with 13 Assassins which has a finale of very nearly this length.
I’m not sure it’s even possible to create anything visceral involving watching CGI incarnations of cumbersome, ludicrously-designed robots beating the crap out of each other.
Therein lies the fundamental disconnect between the ways fans and critics discuss this movie: fans are impressed by the special effects; critics are baffled and annoyed by the framing, the cinematography, and the editing.
I don’t mean that either perspective is more valid than the other. The effects are impressive. It’s just that personally, I don’t care about impressive effects in service of a film so visually incoherent it could have been made by sticking a camera inside a trashcan and rolling it down a hillside. All of the digital work amounts to a gilt frame around a Thomas Kinkade painting.
Roger Ebert wrote, “I have a quaint notion that one of the purposes of editing is to make it clear why one shot follows another, or why several shots occur in the order that they do. “Transformers 3″ has long stretches involving careless and illogical assemblies of inelegant shots. One special effect happens, and then another special effect happens, and we are expected to be grateful that we have seen two special effects.”
To Ken Hanke:
On the topic of the “check your brain at the door” comment, you seem to be missing that there are multiple intelligent angles to take when looking at a movie. While looking at this from a plot perspective, yes, I will give you that this movie is stupid, and I have never pretended otherwise.
As for other comments seeming to indicate that fondness for this movie is only the result of (admittedly very impressive) special effects, I argue it is not. For the most part, if you replaced the transformers with humans in the martial combat scenes, I still would have liked it – the difference being sheer gore, which I have a distaste for, and so humans could have made this film less tolerable for me based on how it was filmed. If they glorified the blood and gore of it all, I’d have problems, but if they kept it subtle, I’d be fine.
Yes, I recognize subtlety is too much to hope for from Michael Bay, but I like the robots the way they are. Either way, my point is that the action was well choreographed, and did not need special effects to succeed in that department. For instance, let’s compare a scene from Revenge of the Fallen, and how it could be improved, with a sequence from Dark of the Moon.
In Revenge of the Fallen, the giant robot with testicles is shot off the pyramid by a super secret weapon the US military just happened to have near Egypt that the audience was never told about (this is poor action sequence planning, not just poor plot planning). It gets shot off the pyramid by the super secret laser, then the Fallen goes up and starts doing his thing, only to be taken off the Pyramid by the new and improved Optimus Prime in a fight scene that can’t have lasted more than a minute and involved Optimus getting all his shiny new parts ripped off with barely any use. I think we can all agree that this was a bad scene.
I argue it could have been improved a number of relatively simple ways, the first of which is to remove the testicles from the giant pyramid eating robot, he does not need them. Next, there was no reason to bring in a super secret weapon from the military – this is about robots fighting each other, and a gun a hundred miles away does not make for dynamic choreography. It would have been better to have the new and improved Optimus take down the giant pyramid eating Transformer, getting barely a scratch by just flitting around the big thing, thereby showing off his shiny new weaponry, how powerful he is and what he can do. Then they could have had a fight scene with the Fallen, having previously established that Prime’s upgrade is actually good. The fight also needed to last longer, and should have mostly taken place in the air – they just gave Optimus wings, didn’t give him a long time to use them, and there were certainly more interesting choreography choices in the sky than there were on the ground, where the fight had been going on for the past half hour already.
Let’s compare this to how Optimus Prime approached Sentinel, Dark of the Moon’s big baddie. After getting free from being tangled (I maintain the movie’s worst part for Optimus Prime – if you want to delay him, have him get delayed fighting something, not stuck in rigging), Optimus charges through a line of Decepticons, blades swinging deftly at each of them, discarding the weapons as they become unusable, culminating in a shot of Prime’s fist going pretty much straight through one Decepticon, before he charges up to Sentinel, has a few words with him, then the combat begins.
I loved that scene. First off, I don’t see why more action movies don’t have that slow motion shot of a fist being moved into punching position. Second, it gave Optimus a fast way to show how tough he was, how powerful he was, before going to Sentinel for the final fight. This is a good way to establish tension and the sense of a climactic battle, far outside the oddities they provided us with in Revenge of the Fallen.
My point here is this: while trying to analyze this movie for plot is always going to be a depressing endeavor, there is an intelligent way to examine how the action sequences were put together and come out with a good result. The planning involved in putting these action sequences together clearly outdoes the last two movies, and in my opinion outdoes the fight scenes of every other movie I’ve seen so far this Summer, with the possible, though embarrassing, exception of Kung Fu Panda 2.
Say whatever you want about that movie: it had good action choreography.
I love the fact that this: the giant robot with testicles is shot off the pyramid by a super secret weapon the US military just happened to have near Egypt exists in a movie. Say what you will about Revenge of the Fallen, that description rules despite what the actual footage looks like.
I liked Dark of the Moon in the same way I like to be in the presence of screaming toddlers at a really bombastic fireworks display: drunk. That I caught it in an air conditioned theatre is icing on the cake.
Also, does this movie really warrant such a vigorous defense? It made scads of money, will probably spawn another trilogy… does the opinion of the critic community really sting the Transformers super fans that much?
this is about robots fighting each other
And right there is the whole reason I cannot even begin to take any of this seriously.
Also, does this movie really warrant such a vigorous defense? It made scads of money, will probably spawn another trilogy… does the opinion of the critic community really sting the Transformers super fans that much?
Didn’t it actually perform under expectations, like most movies this summer? Even with the cost inflated for the 3D glasses, I believe it was about $40 million under their prediction.
Ken, did you think there was ANY improvement over that horrible 2nd film? I did, enough for me to give it a 2 1/2 star rating… I guess.
Also, does this movie really warrant such a vigorous defense?
That baffles me. And I’m usually the one who’s accused of “taking it too seriously.” By now David/Falcon has mounted a defense that’s longer than the review and yet doesn’t actually say anything other than that the film has really good fight choreography. My problem with that is three-fold. First of all, it’s essentially computer created, it’s not like I’m watching actual human beings doing anything amazing. Second, it’s not actually filmed or edited all the well or even logically. Third, it not only has no emotional resonance to me (why should I care about these robots?), but it goes on so long that I for one got burned out and bored.
does the opinion of the critic community really sting the Transformers super fans that much?
Apparently it does. The irony is that it’s the kind of movie that is utterly critic-proof. The probability that a single person who was going to see this was convinced not to by a review is pretty slim.
Ken, did you think there was ANY improvement over that horrible 2nd film?
It left out two idiot characters and robot balls. Like I said, those are improvements by omission. It lost points for the vapid underwear model and for sheer punishing length. This is a 90 minute movie that runs 157. I pretty much hated it, so, no, I didn’t find it significantly improved. Remember, I disliked the first one, too. It got a half-star bonus — bringing it up to a full single star — for having an Austin-Healey 3000 in it that, blesedly, didn’t turn into anything other than itself.
I agree with you, this movie was a waste of my time, I enjoyed the first one, the second was so terrible I prefered to forget, and in this one i dont understand anything! the plot is just a mess, the actors involved are completely lost, john malkovich? really? Frances McDormand?? i feel ashamed for them. I will go on and on about how bad the movie is but I wont get back my price of the ticket. so thats all. (im sorry for the grammar, im from mexico)
Should I ever get the urge to watch giant robots pummel each other, I’ll watch Stuart Gordon’s ‘Robot Jox’ instead. While there are no metal ‘bot balls to be found, there is a scene with a giant chain saw coming out of one ‘bots’ crotch.
Should I ever get the urge to watch giant robots pummel each other, I’ll watch Stuart Gordon’s ‘Robot Jox’ instead.
Oddly, a friend of mine wrote to me after seeing Dark of the Moose that it had him “longing for the innocent ineptitude of Robot Jox.”
At the end of 2.5 hours, it didn’t feel long, perhaps because it didn’t have much in the way of plot changes, while still having a minor plot twist that I honestly did not expect. It exceeded my expectation.
My favorite review that I read right before deciding to see Dark Side of the Moon stated that the movie was “lifeless” — and that’s a good thing. Unlike most films, we don’t see the filler that makes up most of life. We don’t see actors dressing themselves, brushing their teeth, thinking deep thoughts, taking in the scenery, or any of those small moments that make up a typical life and a typical movie. We only got the big parts, one action-blasting climax after another.
In the end, I ask, Was this movie better or worse than Salt?
Salt was terrible, but you gave it 3-1/2 stars. You wrote that you would have given it four stars if you could confirm that it a was supposed to be a comedy…
In the end, I ask, Was this movie better or worse than Salt?
Far, far worse.
Salt was terrible, but you gave it 3-1/2 stars. You wrote that you would have given it four stars if you could confirm that it a was supposed to be a comedy
I still would. It did something this didn’t — it entertained me. It may have not entertained me the way it intended, but even being unintentionally funny is better than being mind-numbingly boring.
For reference, and so that I’m not too easily dismissed, my favorite films from last year was Ghost Writer. All time favs: My Dinner with André, The Mosquito Coast, Murder By Death, Harold and Maude, The Quiet Earth, and Brazil.
I still would.
It hurts, it hurts, make him stop!
All time favs: My Dinner with André, The Mosquito Coast, Murder By Death, Harold and Maude, The Quiet Earth, and Brazil.
Well, I’m with you on two of them and haven’t seen (or even heard of) The Quiet Earth.
And really, you already knew the answer as to whether I liked Salt better than Dark Side of the Moose, so what was the point in asking?
Well, I’m with you on two of them and haven’t seen (or even heard of) The Quiet Earth.
Really? The New Zealand sci-fi film? Looks like you have another film to add to Orbit’s queue.
Really? The New Zealand sci-fi film?
Believe it or not!
Looks like you have another film to add to Orbit’s queue.
You threaten much, my friend, but rarely do you foist these titles on me.
I’m a big fan of New Zealand film-making in general, since I was a teen, staring with Heavenly Creatures, I heard the Mermaids Singing, and, of course, The Quiet Earth. I also recommend The Price of Milk. I have a hard time finding the New Zealand section at Orbit, though. I’ll have to ask for directions next time I come in.
I have a hard time finding the New Zealand section at Orbit, though. I’ll have to ask for directions next time I come in.
There is none. People ask all the time for the British section, Australian section, etc. My reasoning until now is that if you are speaking English, it all goes together.
However, I really enjoy making little sub sub genres in the spring and fall when we are slower so maybe it’s time.
However, I really enjoy making little sub sub genres in the spring and fall when we are slower so maybe it’s time.
I don’t claim to be even slightly well-versed in New Zealand film, but if you have a Peter Jackson section, will you fold it into such an area? Or make it a section within a New Zealand section? I understand the desire to break it down by country, since there’s a significant difference between US and British films, Australian and US or Brit films, etc., but once the filmmakers become international, it gets trickier.
Turns out that the director for The Quiet Earth went on to be the 2nd Unit Director for Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, after a decade of trying to succeed in Hollywood with B actor movies, including one Steven Segal vehicle.
Since it’s all shot in New Zealand, Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings might as well stand next to his other works, and the remainder of the New Zealand collection at Orbit. Of course, it’s all up to Marc…
And where do you put The Lovely Bones?
Well, IF you put the New Zealand section NEXT TO the Peter Jackson section, I’d guess it might go somewhere in the middle. I’m sorry I missed The Lovely Bones…
Perhaps the correct answer is:
“In the DVD player.”
Possibly the kindest thing you could do is ignore it, but he did make it.
My biggest asset is my catalog section, so any reorganization of my 23,000+ titles is an asset.
but once the filmmakers become international, it gets trickier.
Not just directors these days, but the whole productions cross borders. Studio Canal finances a Spanish director with American actors.
I guess Bay didn’t bother to find out that the “jog” from the Apollo landing site to the “dark” side of the moon would have been a thousand miles. And why should he? The sort of people who like this crap wouldn’t care either. I guess that having a linchpin of the plot being entirely historically impossible is a plus in this sort of production.
That implies you could ever take people fighting seriously. I don’t see why you’d have such a marked difference between the two.
That implies you could ever take people fighting seriously. I don’t see why you’d have such a marked difference between the two.
You don’t see why I might find it easier to take actual people fighting more seriously than watching rock-em-sock-em robot toys? It seems pretty self-evident to me.
A fight’s a fight. Would you have found it more entertaining if the robots were people shooting and fighting?
A fight’s a fight.
Maybe to you it is. It isn’t to me. I want to know who’s fighting, why they’re fighting, and why I should care.
Would you have found it more entertaining if the robots were people shooting and fighting?
I would have found it less stupid if it wasn’t ridiculous looking giant robots slugging it out. I might have found it more entertaining if it had an entirely different script that included characters I could give a shit what happened to.
Also, does this movie really warrant such a vigorous defense?
A good question. However this seems to be the case more and more with the fanboy phenomenon. The internet hordes descend upon anyone foolish enough to criticize their flavor of the moment. IMHO it’s just pure immaturity. Those of us who like movies like Machete or old 50s sci-fi are used to our movies being lambasted by the critics and so most of us usually just smile and ignore them. What difference does it make? It can be interesting to debate the merits of various movies but it’s a bit pointless to take it all that seriously.
Here’s the review that I found interesting enough to WANT to see this movie:
http://www.curvehouse.com/transformers-dark-side-of-the-moon-review/
I found that I enjoyed this movie, did not find it over-long, and laughed frequently (particularly at inappropriate insertion of “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) even though I think transformers are a stupid toy from head to bumper, and that the concept of making a movie about them (or any Hasbro toy) is morally bankrupt.
I’m not defending the movie, just intrigued now by what it is that makes the coin flip one way for Ken and another way for me on those movies that are somewhere between crap and excellence.
There is a story about a King who asks his three daughters what they would give up for him. The eldest say, “Father, I love you more than gold.” The second adds, “Papa, I love you more than silver.” The youngest daughter thinks about the questions and responds, “My King, I love you more than salt.” The king flies into a rage and banishes her from the kingdom. She travels widely to seek her fortune, taking upon herself a new name. Being an observant and thoughtful daughter, she had taken to watching everything that happened daily in her father’s castle. She watched the stable hands care for the horses, the smiths fabricate armor and weapons and all manor of items, and even the servants in the kitchen prepare grand feasts…
Years pass. The king hears tell of a cook who can take any collection of ingredients and create incredible feasts. As this cook moves from kingdom to kingdom, the king sends messenger after messenger to invite her to the king’s court. She refuses repeatedly but eventually concedes, with the request that she prepare a meal for him before they meet. When the meeting day arrives, she prepares a magnificent feast of 17 courses from old ingredients found in the root cellar.
The king, full of anticipation, takes one bite and begins to cry. Each course draws more tears, and more smiles, from the old king’s eyes. The court, not knowing what to do, simultaneously weeps and complements the food. At the end of the meal, the king summons the cook before the court.
“Why is there no salt in any of this feast? Surely each of these exquisite dishes would have improved with just a little salt? Do you not honor your king?”
“My King, it is because I love you more than salt that I have learned to do without.”
“I love you more than salt, too, my daughter.”
He welcomed her into his arms and never spoke a harsh word to her again. The two were never again parted.
So, Ken, when I say, “Do you love this movie more than Salt?” there is a wink and a smile attached.
The response to my criticisms interests me. One of the first points to be made against me, and one that I have not argued with because it has merit, is that the vast majority of people seemed to dislike this movie. Yet as this goes on, people are talking about hordes of fanboys descending and crushing those who have the gall to criticize their favorite movie. It seems to me that I’m one person just voicing my own opinion – and if anyone feels I am saying that this movie was the best thing ever, and that anyone who does not appreciate it is not worthwhile, then I am being misunderstood.
The comment that brought that to light did note that it can be interesting to debate the merits of a movie. Well, that’s how I feel.
Either way, I believe we are getting closer to the difference in how we approach filmic fights – I feel I tend to look at a fight scenes quite apart from how much I care about the characters, but more for how it was put together, how choreography was used, and how the pacing was maintained. Note that this is not how I judge movies – just fight sequences. It seems you prefer not to look at the fight in and of itself, but as a part of the whole movie. This is why, you say, you might possibly have found the fights in this movie entertaining if you had cared about the characters and the plot. Taken in conjunction with your previous statements, that the action scenes bored you, this brings me back to my original point: that I feel people who don’t enjoy this movie (and yes, I was wrong to say anyone was uniquely equipped to not enjoy it), or find any pleasure in the fight scenes, are not appreciating the thought and planning that went into making the scenes.
This is not to say that the people are looking at this movie the wrong way, necessarily, but I feel that one might get more enjoyment out of the movie if they took that angle. So, let us pretend that the plot of this movie was coherent, that the characters were sympathetic and worth our time, and that the pacing building up to the final battle had been reasonable, as opposed to what it was. In short, let us pretend every other aspect of the movie was enjoyable, but the fight scenes remained as they are now. If your reaction to the battles would change under those circumstances, then we are approaching the criticism of the action sequences of this movie from completely different stances – and I wish to understand yours. But it seems unfair to me to criticize that part of the movie for the failings of the rest of it.
One of the first points to be made against me, and one that I have not argued with because it has merit, is that the vast majority of people seemed to dislike this movie.
Does that really mean it has merit? All it actually does is put you in the minority. It doesn’t prove anything. My question is why you care that anyone else likes or doesn’t like it.
Yet as this goes on, people are talking about hordes of fanboys descending and crushing those who have the gall to criticize their favorite movie.
I do not think the remark was directed specifically at you, but at a demonstrably prevalent situation in the world of the internet.
Either way, I believe we are getting closer to the difference in how we approach filmic fights – I feel I tend to look at a fight scenes quite apart from how much I care about the characters, but more for how it was put together, how choreography was used, and how the pacing was maintained.
You’ve made this clear more than once. Several problems exist for me with it. First is that I simply wasn’t as impressed by the fights as you were — partly because however well choreographed they are, they aren’t all that well shot or put together. But more, it keeps coming down to a question of what these fights are at the service of. You’re apparently not concerned with this, which I’m guessing means you like fight scenes for their own sake. I don’t. And fight scenes by themselves just ain’t my idea of filmmaking. They’re my idea of fight scenes and I don’t care about them on their own. I mean, why bother even having the rest of the picture? Why not just have 157 minutes of fight scenes?
It seems you prefer not to look at the fight in and of itself, but as a part of the whole movie.
Well, unless you’re simply gaga over fight scenes for their own sake, how else can you look at them except as part of the movie? That’s what they are. If that’s the movie’s whole raison d’etre, then I don’t think much of the movie.
Taken in conjunction with your previous statements, that the action scenes bored you, this brings me back to my original point: that I feel people who don’t enjoy this movie (and yes, I was wrong to say anyone was uniquely equipped to not enjoy it), or find any pleasure in the fight scenes, are not appreciating the thought and planning that went into making the scenes.
Does it not occur to you that not everyone considers a fight scene enjoyable just because it took a lot of thought and planning? It’s not the difficulty of making a movie that counts, but what ends up on the screen.
So, let us pretend that the plot of this movie was coherent, that the characters were sympathetic and worth our time, and that the pacing building up to the final battle had been reasonable, as opposed to what it was. In short, let us pretend every other aspect of the movie was enjoyable, but the fight scenes remained as they are now.
At best, what you’ve put forth results in a crap movie with theoretically great fight scenes. You’re suggesting that everything else about the film be ignored, glossed over — that we pretend the actual nuts and bolts of the film just don’t exist. Now, why should I do that? Why should I want to do that?
If your reaction to the battles would change under those circumstances
It might help, but I’m willing to bet I’d still find it all way too long. Unless you can come up with a scenario that cuts the big battle in half, you’re not going to even start to sell me on this. Even then, you’re working from a wild premise, since I’m assuming that the action scenes still involve giant shape-shifting CGI robots beating the crap out of each other. And I can’t imagine that being involving on any significant level.
So, in short, you are saying you don’t understand where I’m coming from at all?
So, in short, you are saying you don’t understand where I’m coming from at all?
No, I’m not saying that. I understand where you’re coming from. I understood where you were coming from the first time you said it. What I don’t is find it a useful or valid approach to judging a film — unless what you’re interested in are fight scenes and not much else.
There’s a fairly awful 1936 John Cromwell movie called Banjo on My Knee that stops dead about half-way through for a wonderful version (okay, it’s kind of cribbed from “Ol’ Man River” in James Whale’s Show Boat) of “St. Louis Blues” performed by the Hall Johnson Choir. Taken on its own merits, this one stretch is great, but it doesn’t make the overall movie any good.
I think people are overlooking one factor in the midst of the complaints over the latest installment – and no, it’s not the replacement of Megan Fox – and it turns out to be just another improbable feat the film pulls off. These movies are, in the long and short of it, MERE MOVIE PRODUCT BASED ON TOY PRODUCT, and the fact that we reached part three in a series that could have already ended with part one is not only Hollywood’s fault, but the audience’s as well. If the cinematic audience happens to be the world’s largest class, most of us are seriously flunking the course by just begging and attending the releases of movies like these.