Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Hm. I saw a lot of action, but sometimes I just didn't know who was with who, where is what. The beginning was decent, I enjoyed it, but then it went downhill, although the action and noble gestures increased. Too bad, I just wasn't enjoying it. Anyway, if I were a guy I'd add a star for Megan Fox's cleavage, those running scenes, they really could have used some slow motion, eh? X-) But then again, I didn't expect more from it, so no disappointment. Definitely worse than the first one. The message "love and peace and memories" was sent again, so I'm expecting another installment. (07/22/2009)

Michael Bay’s lack of taste and sense of proportion in the magical, polished world of the first Transformers?! Transformers has undergone a similar shift as Bad Boys. Spielberg's touch has disappeared and Bay has gone rogue. The first instalment was great thanks to several pleasant, well-proportioned aspects – the visual celebration of Megan Fox’s beauty, the sparks between her and the shy Shia LaBeouf, getting to know the cool robots, with each of them having their place in the script and rousing astonishment and fondness. The film didn’t hurry, but rather took time to relish every scene and its only weak spot was the chaotic action climax. In the second film, Megan and Shia merely evade explosions (in similarly chaotic action scenes) and the humor relies on scenes like the one in which a little robot humps Megan’s boot like a dog (!). The robots’ potential is wasted here, especially in terms of their individuality, and some are even annoying (the “couples” accompanying the main characters). And when you finally see a truly impressive robot, it’s immediately made ridiculous by his “funny” huge steel testicles from underneath which John Turturro radio-calls the Marine Corps (!!). This is simply not a direction I wanted Transformers to take. And that’s not even to mention the weak script, barely holding together the continuous action orgies, which just don’t satisfy after two hours. Michael, you obviously have no idea why the first film was such a nice surprise. (06/19/2009)

I would deserve a slap for expressing everywhere that the other Transformers cannot be great. Because they, in fact, once again gave me a sense of absolute happiness that cinema has given us blockbusters. The revenge of the defeated may not rewrite history and will never be anything other than a thrilling ride, which surpasses the story with its visuals (even though it is irresistibly fairy-tale-like). Those who were so captivated by the adventure of the boy and his protector are suddenly disappointed when Bay's vision brings something even more magnificent. Not me, I bow before the story of the same boy, who, however, has much more to do this time. Enthusiasm, wide-eyed and touched by how intoxicating a film can be. I go to the cinema because of this, and I'm sorry that the series never reached this peak again. (06/27/2009)

This series has never grown on me since the first installment. However, I have seen all three of them. I watched the first one out of interest, the third one because my brother wanted to go to the movies after years, and they happened to be showing it, which could have looked cool in the cinema. As for the second one, I watched it to fill the gaps between the first and the third film. It's not worth it. Michael Bay just confirmed that he's a freak for technology, and that's the only conclusion the film brings. The robots may look cool, the effects are actually good, but the story disappeared somewhere with the jokes that are inserted into the main character's mouth. Shia LaBeouf should be the catchy cool guy who carries the whole film, but he's just a clumsy person who got his hands on super toys that he loves. "Transformers" are actually like adult "Toy Story", but with the difference that this is pure masturbation over super awesome technology, grand action, and completely dumb story. And Megan Fox? I definitely won't be one of those who daily search the internet for her new photo where she shows at least 20% of her left nipple. If Megan is compared to Angelina, someone has made a big mistake because Angelina, as far as I know, can act excellently when she wants to. Megan just has a pretty face. As soon as she left - in the third film, she had to be replaced by a model who didn't play any role - I immediately gave the film 10% more. And I wasn't the only one. But the second one is simply a travesty. Summer blockbusters like this should be banned. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/06/nebezpecne-znamosti-jak-ztratit-kluka.html (02/21/2013)

Bay likes to escalate. This means that the second film is bigger, more explosive, more infantile, stupider, more lobotomized... maybe a little funnier. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman used most of their intelligent ideas in the Star Trek prequel script, so in this Hasbro mishmash they have no choice but to dilute the really demented plot with decent gags and self-parodying one-liners. Which is nice - otherwise Revenge of the Tinsmiths would seem really unbearable to me. Even so, watching two and a half hours of destruction, confusing action and rushing concrete mixers is a solid impact on the nervous system. Especially because, compared to the first film, it's no longer ballbusting - it's hackneyed. The moment of surprise is there, so we get Emmerich's recipe "if you don't know what to do, blow up as much of the world's ropes as possible". At the end, the divine Michael Bay prepared his much-loved pathos in a raw state for me, for which I thank him and send him a tin kiss. I know that Michael Bay lovers will be drooling with happiness, but for a viewer, who, in addition to a ton of steel armor, also likes a little bit of thought put into things, this year's blockbuster is Star Trek. And that won’t change no matter what Michael Bay does. (06/19/2009)