So we went to see Transformers this weekend. What can I say; I watched Transformers when I was a kid - Sky Channel every Saturday and Sunday morning. Sometimes, I can still watch the old cartoons, and they've actually stood the test of time pretty well all things considered. But this movie......
It's very well made, that's for sure - impressive special effects. However, what never seizes to amaze me is the total lack of proportion between special effects budget and the money the put into a) script and b) actors. Alright - this movie is based on cartoons, so nobody expects it to be an adaptation of The Old Man and the Sea or nothin', but the sad fact is that Transformers the movie - the animated piece from 1986, had a way better and more involved script stretched over 84 minutes. This one clocks in at almost two and a half hours, and has the same storyline complexity as a 20-minute regular Transformers cartoon. Why the hell do directors feel the need to stretch every damn movie to way over two hours, regardless of the story and genre? It's like the directors are whipping out their precious'es, trying to se who can stretch the script the furthest. And of course; noone, but noone does this better than Executive Director Steven Spielberg - the director's equivalent of Samuel L. Jackson. Given enough time and an unlimited budget, and I'm sure the Steven Spielberg's Director's Cut of Shine would be exactly like Coyote Ugly or House Party II.
Problem numero dos is that no money whatsoever was spent on actors, despite the unfortunate fact that Michael Bay and Steven "Dial 'S' for Suction" Spielberg have incorporated many scenes which under normal circumstances would require an interplay between actual actors. But not so in this case. Instead, the Douche Duo opted for a 50:50 Baywatch:Friday Night at the Apollo solution, wherein the actors were selected from a distinguished roster of nameless bimbo1 and 2 (previous acting experience includes "naked screaming girl in shower", "stripper #3", "fourth cheerleader from the left on second row" and "snotty daddy's girl"), Bernie Mac, extras and stage hands from the Bernie Mac show and Def Comedy Jam, generic pretty boys retrofitted with tight shirts and a month-long 750 mg/week of Winstrol V/Clenbuterol + sit-ups and bench presses routine for that "authentic" rugged soldier look, John Torturro and the actor's equivalent of a doggy bag - Jon Voight. The jewel among the actors is Anthony Anderson.
So would I recommend the movie to anyone? Like I said - it's very well-made, and if you're gonna see it, it makes sense to do so in a cinema. That being said, I've got a request for Steve-O: Dude; you've got tons of money, Oscars out the a$$ and recognition well beyond what you actually deserve - in short, you've had a great run. How about calling it a day, eh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Anthony Anderson rules !!!!
He's huge in the shield !!!
RESPECT !!! (for those who have seen the series)
Transformers ? No I don't think so
I watched Fast and Furious 3 yesterday so I think I have seen enough crapy movies in which guidos and almost naked girls think that they are the new Antony Hopkins or Meryl Streep.
I didn't watch transformers when I was I child (I grew up in the 70's), and have no intention to watch this movie at the cinema. But maybe I'll grab it if it comes up as a movie and take-away pizza deal from Peppes or Dolly. That's were I get my crappy action movies from...
At least get your collective asses to the cinema to see Die Hard 4.0.
Post a Comment