It’s nothing new, but films with colonised titles seem to have undergone a resurgence lately. And it’s not just sequels, with flicks like GI Joe: Rise of the Cobra getting in on the act in the hopes of building a franchise. With sequels though, the colon offers the opportunity to sell the movie based on the success of the first by keeping the recognisable name in the title, but also gives the film a freshness that tacking 2 (or 3 or 4) on the end quickly negates.
Which brings us to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. A lot’s already been said about this sequel to the 2007 blockbuster – Roger Ebert hated on it, fanboys hated on Roger Ebert because he hated on it, and Roger Ebert hated on the fanboys hating on him hating on it. Thing is, they’re both right. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a horrible mess of a film that lacks sense and heart, but I enjoyed the hell out of it.
Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is heading off to college, but leaving his Autobot protector, Bumblebee, and girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox) at home. As he’s packing, a shard from the All Spark (the first movie’s McGuffin) uploads some info into his brain, making him flip out at random times and begin writing strange symbols all over the place. Meanwhile, the Autobots, led by Optimus Prime, have joined forces with the US government to track down Decepticons hiding around the world. When the Decepticons learn that there is another ancient energy source hidden on Earth, and that the key to finding it is now in Sam’s brain, the race is on to be the first to it.
It turns out dropping Decepticon leader Megatron into the deepest part of the ocean isn’t enough to keep him out of the way – particularly when he has his own boss, the Fallen of the title, to answer to. The Fallen, hiding out in space, is powerful, but refuses to come to Earth until the last of his ancient enemies, the Prime, is destroyed. That’d be Optimus.
Director Michael Bay raises the stakes, no doubt. Sam is captured early on and there is a real sense of threat in this film that was lacking in the first one. The climax though – a battle in Egypt – is less impressive than an earlier fight scene in a forest in which Optimus cuts loose. The Egypt stuff is too long, and cutting between four different groups of characters doesn’t help with identifying exactly who is fighting who.
Bay’s love of military porn is in full XXX mode. There’s only so many times you can see a formation of jets zip through the sky or a carrier carve through the sea before you get bored of it though. Get back to the robots, dude.
There are some new Transformers on both sides, but apart from giving the movie some extra grunt, you don’t really care about them. Optimus and Bumblebee are the only guys worth worrying about. Former Home & Away star Isabel Lucas is dead set vacuous and her big revelation is the most moronic part of Fallen, though she does set up some funny moments between Sam and Mikaela.
The thing that made the first movie was the opening 30 minutes of Sam. His interactions with Mikaela, with Bumblebee and with his parents are gold and feel like another movie compared with the military and action sequences. Shia is more confident here, but he has less time to explore the fun and quirky Sam before he is required to run around and dodge explosions.
There’s no doubt who Bay has made this film for. There are those who say that he has ignored the people who love and grew up with Transformers. The fact that Bay has made the movie for eight to 14-year-olds shows he knows a lot more about the brand than these 35-year-old fans. It’s a movie based on a toy line. The toys came before the cartoon – though I’ll grant you it was the cartoon that clearly established the universe. So, even given that, it’s a movie based on a cartoon. A cartoon made for eight to 14-year-olds. Just because those kids are now adults doesn’t mean the movie should be made for them. The target market hasn’t changed – it’s still kids.
Would Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen be better as a cartoon? No way. Would it be judged less harshly if it was a cartoon? Most definitely (despite the success of Pixar et al, cartoons, much like comics, are still perceived by the general population as kids’ stuff). So, in that respect, consider it a cartoon come to life and you begin to see why it’s so enjoyable.
I’m not saying Michael Bay is a film-making genius, but he’s way better than people give him credit for. The guy knows action and he knows how to spend money to make money. This is spectacle and it’s also illusion. Like a magician drawing your attention from his subtle hand movements, Bay covers up the film’s problems with flashy movement and bright lights, and that’s fine by me.
Matt
No comments:
Post a Comment