BA Transformers review now online

By Phil Plait | July 5, 2007 6:31 pm

Every time a new Michael Bay movie comes out, I swear I’d rather do something better, like stick a red hot screwdriver in my eye or visit the Creation Museum. Or both.

But c’mon, giant battling alien robots!

So yeah, I went to see "Transformers" yesterday. And yes, I will in fact recommend it, bearing in mind that it is a Michael bay movie and therefore will lower your IQ several (dozen) points. But it is also totally cool. :-)

And of course, it being a Michael Bay movie, it has some egregiously stoopid science in it. So, in order to deduct the price of my movie ticket off my taxes, I have written another famous Bad Astronomy Review! Nitipicky? Yes! Fun? Maybe. But I know that in the end, that’s 13% of my $8.00 ticket I don’t have to pay to Uncle Sam.


Comments (56)

  1. Christian Burnham

    There’s a germ of a good idea in the Transformers franchise. Firstly, I suspect that it’s far more likely that we would be visited by extraterrestrial AI robots than fragile biological organisms. Secondly, those robots could do worse than camouflage themselves as automobiles. As Douglas Adams pointed out- cars are obviously the dominant life-form on this planet.

  2. I’m too old to understand the Transformers, and I really don’t want to. But hey… :)

    And remember Phil, Micheal Bay started out as a video director for MTV, so (as far as I know) he doesn’t have formal schooling in the art of film directing, like Spielberg, Howard, and Coppola do. And have you ever noticed that his movies are uncomfortably loud?

    I would never expect anything insightful, meaningful, or deep from a Michael Bay film. Just a bunch of over-the-top visuals, lots of quick cuts, and mindless action.

    Not that that’s a bad thing. :)

  3. chris

    i read your review and though i see the point on your description of the movie i would also agree your nitpicky. i saw some things that i thought were out of reality, (like alien robots lol) but i thought big deal, its a movie and its TRANSFORMERS, i grew up with em

  4. Jamie

    I think that’s the first review of this movie that actually got the point. All the “real” movie critics who know so much more than the general public about films tore it to shreds because they didn’t like the script or story, but that point of the movie wasn’t to have the best script ever written or a riveting story that would have the audience emotionally invested in the characters. The target audience is already emotionally invested in the franchise and really just wants to see honkin big robots wreak havoc and such . . . oh, and there’s the cars too.

  5. Bob

    And your review touched on the most important part of the movie. Megan Fox is SUPERNATURALLY HOT! I mean REALLY HOT!

    Oh, and huge, battling alien robots can’t help but be cool.

  6. Michelle

    Great review BA!

    Of course it’s a movie about giant fighting robots so you can’t expect much about exact science… But I surely laughed at the two first bad points. I love it when movies try to tie up reality with fiction and fail miserably.

    Hey, I don’t like transformers that much but I just might go see that movie next week though. I like action. But then again, maybe Die Hard 4 might be better for me… Hmmm.

  7. Ut

    As someone who grew up with the Transformers (show, movie, toys, you name it) over multiple incarnations, I feel a strong cultural duty to see this movie. In fact, I’ve been hearing good things: Thin plot, little attempt at acting, or even a story, once the ‘bots come out to play, and big, shiny CGI.

    ‘Cause let’s face it: Plot, people, and performance are really Bay’s weaknesses. His strength is (apparently) knowing a lot of people in the pyrotechnic world.

  8. There was one part that really bothered me … why go into the middle of a city if you are running from an enemy and trying to make it to a rendezvous point for pick up? Sure it makes for great effects when cars and stuff are thrown around, but how many innocent people just got flattened? No consideration for collateral damage?

  9. it’s the most good looking 3d animation on film yet. agree? (In a movie)

  10. Michael Preiss

    I agree with both Phil and Hazzel: The animation alone, notwithstanding all the other special effects, makes the movie worth seeing. I laughed quite a bit, too, but mostly because the dialogue was horrendous.

    Oh, yeah… I have a nitpick (very minor spoiler ahead) with the movie. When the little girl wanders around the pool with her “my tooth” bag and the giant bot emerges from the pool dripping with water, where does all the water go? The robot must be so tall that the water evaporates before it hits the ground and drenches the little girl b/c not so much as a drop grazes her golden locks – or petite peds.

  11. Christian Burnham


    This page contains a Digg button, but your movie review page doesn’t. It would be nicer to Digg the movie review page directly.

    Also, where’s your Reddit button? Reddit is in some ways better than Digg.

  12. Wayne

    The Beagle 2 thing bothered me as well. I wouldn’t expect perfect science but when they make such basic errors it just rips you out of the fantasy. And did anyone else think that the “telemetry” they showed looked like the MER’s? Beagle 2 wasn’t even a rover.

    My theory is they said, “two Mar’s related things that the public will remember is that a lander failed recently and we’ve put rovers on Mars. Let’s just mash that together.” I guess we should be greatful that they got the name of the failed lander right.

  13. Another Mars problem: Mars is a LOT colder than the Arctic wastes which were able to keep Megatron in hibernation. Why are Transformers, who are so easily subdued by cold temps on Earth, seemingly impervious to cold on Mars?

    In fact, the Mars tangent really didn’t seem to have any point at all, except that it was the focus of the trailer last summer.

    On the way home, I thought about that song from “Team America”: “I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark…”

  14. Crux Australis

    Not that I’m dissing the Transformers or anything, ’cause I was their number fan (maybe in NZ anyway) when I was growing up, but wouldn’t very cold temperatures make their circuits work better? Maybe their joints froze over too, though?

  15. Crux Australis

    Phil, are you going to see ‘Sunshine’ anytime soon? I’d love a review on that too.

  16. Crux Australis

    Oh one more thing, was it just me, or is it dumb to have robots that blink? At least, I think I saw Prime blink a few times.

  17. Michelle

    You know what I’d love to see a review of? Transmorphers! …haha.

  18. Mikhail Bragoria

    Phil, don’t spend your US$1.04 all at once…

    Seriously though, finding a way to make the cost of cinema tickets tax deductible makes you super-cool!

    Do you have any other scams that you’d like to mention? 😉

    *me gets a pencil*

  19. OptimusShr

    Hey Phil, thought I might mention. While the Sector 7 agents think that the Earth caused him to crash it was explained in the prequel comic that it was not Earth. He was chasing the Allspark and was low on Energon (TF energy source) and was superheated when he landed in the arctic circle. The ice gave was and he went offline.

    Anyway yeah, good movie. Even though I am a TF fan I was worried about how it would turn out but yes it was good.

  20. athemax

    Dissing bad science in movies is fun but not really a contentious issue, I suspect if you went and told Michael Bay the science in his movies is bad, he’d shrug and agree with you and say so what?
    And he’s right, so what? I think most people and especially most teenagers are smart enough to take this stuff with the appropriate pinch of salt and accept that movies are not science textbooks
    If you got giant alien robots and a hot babe who needs accuracy?
    Look at the science in the Fantastic Four that was rubbish too but it had Jessica Alba in a tight cat suit (science what science?)
    Tackling the Creationist mob is a far more serious issue.

  21. The kid was a football weeny, that doesn’t mean he can’t run … but yeah, the whole he-can-carry-the-cube thing was silly. So was the fact that most of the people on Earth are apparently deaf and can’t hear the giant robots stomping around just outside.

  22. Aubri

    Hehehe, yeah… during the Mars scene, in the theater, I said to my friends, “Uh… that was an ESA probe. And people all over the world were monitoring the signals. And Beagle 2 wasn’t a rover!”

  23. Dan

    Why is there not a link to Megan Fox? geez

  24. A

    In your review fyi, “independant” – > “independent”. Feel free to delete this comment.

  25. Robert Madewell

    Hey Phil, ’bout time you got back to reviewing movies. Hope to see more reviews in the future. It was fun reading.

  26. stogoe

    Meh. I noticed most of the bad science while I was watching it, but it’s fiction. It’s giant transforming robots! I have to say, though, that the old corvette was a hundred times cooler than the new model they were paid to pimp.

  27. Allow me to pick nits just for the pure hell of it:

    Just once I’d like to see some car get hit by a shrink ray, and when it becomes matchbox size it suddenly falls through the surface of the Earth because its density goes up to several tons per cubic inch. That would be really cool. And funny.

    I don’t have a matchbox handy at the moment, but let’s say that it’s roughly 1.75″ long, 0.5″ tall, and between 1″ and 1.5″ wide. That gives a volume of 0.875-1.313 in3.

    According to a file of CAFE data whose provenance I can no longer ascertain, but I’m pretty sure it was from, the average weight of a car in 2004 was 3239 lbs, or 1.62 tons. This gives the matchbox-sized car a density of 1.23-1.85 tons/in3. So presumably to get “several tons per cubic inch”, you’d need a heavy car or a small matchbox, or both.

    And AFAIR Matchbox™ cars are larger than a standard matchbox.

    Just thought I’d let people know that I have no life :-)

  28. MichaelS

    I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I’m pretty sure they made a mistake with the Mars lander in the trailer last year too. I think they showed Spirit or Opportunity, but claimed it was the Mars Express lander. But that was a while ago and I could be wrong.

  29. Ah jeez. Do I HAFTA?

    Two reasons why I probably won’t be seeing the film:
    1: I’m 48 years old, and the whole “Transformers” thing was a little after my time.
    2: I don’t think I’ll EVER be able to forgive Michael Bay for “Armageddon.” Yes, I realize that forgiveness is a virtue, but for goodness’ sake, my self-respect is at stake here!

  30. Thanks for pointing out the lack of difference between falling onto the ground, and falling onto a robot’s unmoving hand. This always bugs me.

    They came close to this in one scene, where a robot moves his hand around in a curving motion, indicating that the vertical motion is transformed (haha) into horizontal motion.

    Back in my ping-pong-playing days, there was an exercise I’d sometimes do: bounce the ball into the air, and catch it on the paddle so that it doesn’t bounce. This seems to be exactly the same as the problem of a robot catching a human.

    Now, the way most people do this is to hold the paddle vertically, and sort of curl it under the ball. This isn’t to transform vertical motion into horizontal, or anything like that. It’s just that you want to start by getting the paddle close to the ball and with a low relative velocity, and it’s easier to place the paddle to the side of the ball than underneath it.

  31. Re: Mass displacement, while changing the cubes size and weight makes absolutely no sense, the animators have insisted that the transformers in this movie do not change their mass in the process of transformation. Every part of the vehicle alter is supposedly in use in the robot form (which is definitely NOT the case in the animated series). In fact, Optimus Prime’s alter was changed to a massive Peterbuilt rig precisely so that he could stand taller in the movie. Perhaps merely places vehicle weight over two feet stepping suddenly would shake things up a bit more than the same weight distributed over four moving tires? It is not as if they crash through the road with every step.

    My nitpick is the mention of DEFCON DELTA. I am not in the military, so I do not know for sure but I’m fairly positive that THREATCON indicates increasing probability of attack going forward from lowest ALPHA to BETA, CHARLIE and DELTA. DEFCON is a countDOWN to war, working backwards from 5-normal, to 1-launch the nukes! I hope I heard it wrong at the midnight showing. That is so very late for me to be out at the movies.

  32. MichaelS

    DEFense CONditions are what level of offensive capabilities we are at; alpha means we’re just being normal, while Delta might have every available body actively staged/engaging in war.

    Related are Force Protection CONditions (formerly called THREAT CONditions), which describe our defensive posturing; alpha might just be routine ID checks at the gate with random inspections and stuff, while Delta would keep pretty much everyone but the president from coming on or off base.

    Giant, evil robots would put us in Delta on both cases, I’m sure.

  33. Every official review of this movie I’ve read has been bad. Every review written by someone whose opinion I respect is good. Maybe I’ll go see it in the theaters!

    Freelance fantasy and SF copyeditor did a review that highlighted continuity errors, the sort of thing a copyeditor is looking for:

    Reading your review, the bit about how the hero “would actually ooze out” after being held by a giant robot while falling a great distance reminded me of the “BIG AMERICAN DANCE PARTY!” segment from Clerks: The Animated Series. A car carrying several people suddenly transforms into a giant robot, and blood begins to ooze out of the small space that had previously been the car’s interior.

    I am getting a kick out of the “Optimus Prime at the Drive-Through” commercial currnetly airing.

  34. DEFCON 5
    This is the condition used to designate normal peacetime military readiness. An upgrade in military preparedness is typically made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and announced by the United States Secretary of Defense.

    DEFCON 4
    This refers to normal, increased intelligence and the heightening of national security measures. Readiness remained at this level throughout most of the Cold War. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, one of the specific conditions of escalating to level 4 prompted the military to replace training (or “dummy”) tips with live nuclear warheads on all target selected ICBMs.

    DEFCON 3
    This refers to an increase to force readiness above normal. Radio call signs used by American forces change to currently-classified call signs.

    DEFCON 2
    This refers to a further increase in force readiness just below maximum readiness. It has been declared only once, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    DEFCON 1
    This refers to maximum readiness. It is not certain whether this has ever been used, but it is reserved for imminent or ongoing attack on US military forces or US territory by a foreign military power. Use of nuclear weapons is authorized. (State of Emergency.)

    TREATCON (now called FPCON)

    FPCON NORMAL describes a situation of no current terrorist activity. The only security forces needed are enough to stop the everyday criminal, most likely civilian police forces.

    FPCON ALPHA describes a situation where there is a small and general terrorist activity that is not predictable. However, agencies will inform personnel that there is a possible threat and standard security procedure review is conducted.

    FPCON BRAVO describes a situation with somewhat predictable terrorist threat. Security measures taken by agency personnel may affect the activities of local law enforcement and the general public.

    FPCON CHARLIE describes a situation when an instance occurs or when intelligence reports that there is terrorist activity imminent. Increased security by agencies are likely to cause problems for civilian law enforcement and the public, as people looking for access to agency facilities may be denied.

    FPCON DELTA describes a situation when a terrorist attack is taking place or has just occurred. When applied for long periods of time, FPCON DELTA can cause hardships for civilian police and the public, as heightened agency security can impede their everyday duties. FPCON DELTA usually occurs only in the areas that are most vulnerable to or have been attacked.


  35. . . .Not meant to sound haughty, just genuinely confused. Thanks.

  36. Steve

    The military doesn’t do THREATCON anymore. It’s now FPCON–Force Protection Condition. But for movie purposes, THREATCON rolls off the tongue a lot smoother than FPCON does.

    And now my nitpick: It’s BRAVO, not BETA.

  37. Steve

    …and nevermind. You’re just too damn fast, Elwood.

  38. Mighty Favog

    About the mass of the vehicle staying the same after transformation: it’s been done. In the old “Back To The Future” Saturday morning cartoon, there was an episode where Marty comes into the Doc’s lab, and Doc shows him his latest gadget for the time machine. He presses a button, and the Delorean folds up into a brief case, like in the Jetsons. Marty strains to lift it, and says something like, “Hey Doc, I can’t even lift it!” And he replies, “Of COURSE you can’t lift it! There’s a CAR in there!”

  39. Issue #1: So does or does not the mass of the Transformers change in this movie? I’m still thinking that the weight of a vehicle landing from a step onto a “foot” would cause earthquake like effects compared to the same vehicle rolling along the highway, which makes sense for the Autobots. I do wonder about the Deceptions, though. Some of their alters would be awfully heavy. I could never figure out how Autobots could stand a chance. Not only are they less massive, they’ve confined themselves to slow, terrestrial travel against an enemy with Air power.

    Issue #2. What is the dialog concerning “DELTA.?” It sounded like DEFCON DELTA to me. I’m seeing the movie again Sunday. I’ll have to take a listen. (And did I say BETA instead of BRAVO? Apparently so. Oops.)

  40. Mighty Favog

    If you look closely, the mass doesn’t seem to change. it’s not the mass that is in error, it’s the sound. Sound is often exaggerated in movies for effect–hopefully exaggerated in an effective way so that you won’t even think about it while watching, but you will receive the desired visceral experience. It’s the sound that completes the illusion of mass for an object you know isn’t real. Think about the T-Rex in Jurassic Park–that low, rumbling thump of it’s footsteps, and the vibrations seen in the water glass. In reality, small localized impacts don’t usually generate vibrations that travel that far unless they are VERY powerful, even if the object itself is massive. It’s the amount of energy imparted, not the weight of the impactor. Dirt dampens vibrations pretty effectively; a giant robot carefully stepping around in your yard probably wouldn’t wake you up unless it tripped over the bird bath.

  41. Just to nitpick the BA review slightly: It’s been some years since I read them, but as I remember it, it was actually Asimov’s “Fantastic Voyage II: Destination Brain” that attempted to use quantum physics to deal with the shrinking mass problem. Asimov did write the original novelization, but he complained that he was obligated to follow the movie, and “Fantastic Voyage II” was written not as a sequel, but rather as the book (he says) he wanted to write, unconstrained by adapting an existing story. As I recall, he did put some sort of brief handwaving technobabble into the original, but I don’t remember it having anything to do with quantum.

  42. The Dread Polack

    I know that in the comics, the Transformers are supposed to have mastered technology that can displace mass into “Another Dimension”. This explains how a boombox can turn into a 12-foot robot, and how Megatron turned into a pistol that Starscream had to shoot you with (aren’t you glad they didn’t try that in the movie?). Of course, this was a justification, probably by an author who was annoyed by the disregard for science and wanted to explain things.

    I’m not a computer expert, but some of the discussion surrounding the Decepticons hacking into computer networks sounded like technobabble to me, and I find that personally annoying. I’d rather a character simply kept their descriptions vague and didn’t go into detail in those sorts of situations.

    Overall, I liked the movie too. There were no egregious crimes against the Transformers, but it could’ve done without a couple of the secondary characters and plot lines, and focused on getting to know the transformers themselves. You might forget that they’re supposed to be characters, not just special effects.

    Dread Polack

  43. The BA says: “the Earth’s magnetic field is pretty puny. We have spacecraft that operate inside the strongest parts of the field all the time, and the magnetism alone can only barely move a needle in a compass.”

    When my son was still in Scouts, we were on a Camporee (Boy Scout competition). One of the events is “orienteering” where the scout has a bag put over his head and he has to walk a course using only a compass for bearing and his pace (step distance, not speed) for distance. They start from a fixed landmark and are scored by how far they end up from the ending landmark. In this particular event, the boys were all over the field looking like the perfect demonstration of random motion.

    I understood what was happening when we were placed at the starting landmark, the camp’s giant steel water tank! I pointed out to the adults running the event that the compass needles didn’t point north next to the tank, but were attracted to the tank itself. Apparently, none of them actually tried to walk the course from the very start, since when setting it up they knew where they were going, and were more aware of counting their paces than watching the compass.

    Everyone learned something that day.

    – Jack

  44. Crux Australis Says: “Phil, are you going to see ‘Sunshine’ anytime soon? I’d love a review on that too.”

    The F.W. Murnau film from 1926? I don’t recall much astronomy in that one. Oh, wait, that’s “Sunrise.”

    Never mind.

    – Jack

  45. Mikhail Bragoria Says: “Phil, don’t spend your US$1.04 all at once…Seriously though, finding a way to make the cost of cinema tickets tax deductible makes you super-cool!
    Do you have any other scams that you’d like to mention?”

    Once you’re a professional writer (and by professional I mean that someone else actually pays you to write) then you are by definition self employed. You get all sorts of tax deductions on basic home expenses based on the percentage of your home used in the business. As a writer, that’s not much, usually a spare bedroom for the computer desk and some bookshelves.

    You also get to write off lots of cool things as “research materials.” For the Saucer movie book I’m writing I bought high quality DVDs of “Day the Earth Stood Still”, “War of the Worlds” (all the different versions since I wrote the reviews for Filmfax), Earth vs. the Flying Saucers”, “This Island Earth”, “Forbidden Planet” and the entire three seasons of “Lost in Space.” I even got to fly down to Hollywood last November to interview Anne Frances and other FP cast members at the 50th anniversary release of the new DVD set. All of these were considered legitimate business expenses.

    Downside? Well, you’ve got to snuggle up with the IRS, which is like trying to keep warm next to a hibernating bear. He could wake up and swat you unpredictably at any time over anything. Declaring a home office is one of the MAJOR items that will trigger an audit. It’s been pretty soundly abused in the past. If you are declaring all of those “research materials” (like movie tickets so you can post a review on your website), you’d better darn well do it. And all those movies better wind up in the book!

    I’ve been audited twice, and both times it was a non-issue because I keep my nose clean and play by the rules, but the rules can be quite beneficial if you are serious about what you’re doing.

    – Jack

  46. Wildride

    > You know what I’d love to see a review of? Transmorphers! …haha.

    Transmorphers, from the makers of Snakes on a Train!

    Even just a review of the preamble. My friend and I had a good laugh at the timescales involved. Earthstorm would be another funny one.


  47. The density blooper would be a great idea for Robot Chicken. They love to riff on the Transformers.

  48. Irishman

    I noticed the Beagle 2 from NASA/JPL and the rover images. I’m probably the only one in the theater who did, but I did and reacted audibly.

    Also, they clearly said DEFCON Delta, not THREATCON. I noticed that one, too.

    The Transformers were supposed to pack the same mass and volume into their alter shapes. I keep wondering how they manage to get a robot packed into the volume with a full working automobile. 😉

    Yet they then violated that rule by repacking the huge cube into something the kid could carry in his arms. Ugh.

    As a kid I never really got into Transformers. I think the idea of a robot into common items seems cool, but somehow never caught that craze.

    The 3D animation is superb. The splits from actual car to animation are very smooth.

    stogoe said:
    > I have to say, though, that the old corvette was a hundred times cooler than the new model they were paid to pimp.

    Uh, you mean Bumblebee, the Camaro?

  49. Hevach

    Irishman: Defcon would have been the appropriate term, considering the response. The misnomer was using a Threatcon/FPcon level instead of a Defcon level. The response to the Decepticon attack was pretty much to be expected from Defcon 1.

  50. webrunner

    The thing that bugged me the most was the cooling unit. It was open air. Shouldn’t it be like, a sealed tube or something? At least a LITTLE insulation would probably save billions in energy costs.

  51. Doodler

    I caught the tail end of the Transformers craze in the US back in the 80s, before the third season in Japan took it to new levels of bizarreness only their bloody manga crap can achieve (I’m half surprised there weren’t any flippin’ tentacles involved…). Knowing it was a Micheal Bay film, I set the expectation meter lower than normal and managed to come away impressed.

    For all the schlock Bay stuck in there, enough of the Generation 1 Transformer material was there not to utterly offend the senses, despite the changes.

    If I’d had my eyes closed when the Autobots spoke, I could have identified them from their voice acting alone, and that carries a lot of meaning to me. All the flashy visuals aside, the characters are still there, just in need of a better director to let them run.

  52. Irishman

    Hevach, yes, Defcon is the proper term. I was commenting to someone above who said that the line was “Threatcon”.

    webrunner, yes, that’s another good point. They have Megatron in cryogenic storage – in a huge open high-bay but trying to keep him coated in ice. Right.

  53. Laura

    First I have to say to Michael Priess, the reason the girl didn’t get wet is because it crashed into the pool before she went outside. she heard the crash and went outside thinking it was the toothfairy. get ur facts straight.
    anyway the movie was so awesome and i definetely plan on seeing it again. really good plot and it had a little bit of everything. i was laughing, sad, on the edge of my seat, and excited about all the action. really AWESOME movie. =]

  54. Irishman

    Laura, I think he was talking about water coming off the robot after the robot climbed out of the pool. You know how you’re soaking wet when you get out of the pool, and leave a big wet spot on the pavement from all the water pouring off? Same thing. The robot would be dripping buckets of water off, all over the girl.

  55. Cam Corte

    Shame on those of you who go to a movie based on an 80’s epic empire of cartoons & toys expecting a profound plot the likes of “The Godfather” or “Forrest Gump”. In short, “Transformers” is clearly all about ACTION. Those of you who still loathe the movie despite ALL its breath-taking special effects, cutting-edge-of-your-seat explosions, ingenious side-splitting humor, All-Star cast & crew, and inescapable stellar fan fare, TOTALLY missed the point. The sole purpose of this film was to shock & awe you, and to awe-inspire you to reflect retrospectively upon a purely greater era than our own, filled with countless dreams and enchanting fantasies, in our own time: the 1980’s.

    In fact, I feel sorry for those of you who absolutely despised this movie: does it really take THAT much more to satisfy you at the theaters? Can not one bad ass apocalyptic explosion after another, coupled with hot chicks & sleek smooth rides, Bernie Mac slapstick, and gloriously triumphant American patriotism woo you into submission like the poignant picture of the fireworks on the Fourth of July? The bombs bursting in air? The rockets red glare? Megatron’s icy dark lair? Gave PROOF through the night, that our tastes were not BARE! Spoke TRUTH to the sky, that there’s MORE than meets the eye!

    Now, I’d like to talk more about the movie, but the sheer cynicism of the pessimistic critics causes me to indulge myself in a battle for acceptance & recognition of the Inevitable. If anything, this movie is a testament to the old adage: “No matter what, you can’t please all the people all the time.” There will always be haters, no matter HOW brilliant the artistic endeavor nor HOW deep the breadth of exhilaration inspires the Simple Man to do, as he surely does: to simply ENJOY the experience, neglecting to critique every minute detail of the kick-ass ‘flick’. Rarely in my own life has any film EVER thrilled me with such an unfathomable sense of stimulation in the heart of the cinematic spectacle. To compare, I’ll only name a few: “Jurassic Park”, “Independence Day”, “Armageddon”, & “Titanic”. Yes, there I said it…I liked the movie “Titanic”. And I’m not ashamed to say it. I thought it was a mind-blowing movie-going experience, and apparently I’m not the only one. Yet still the haters will crawl out of the woodwork and defile me for my honesty, my sincerity, my outward expression of that inner emotion which we ALL feel to one degree or another, and thereby will attempt to crush my credibility solely at the mention of James Cameron’s epic masterpiece.

    Anyways, on with the show. What do these five movies ALL have in common? Action, Intrigue, Emotion, Inspiration. Allow me to reiterate that last one: Inspiration! THAT is the inner emotion which we ALL feel, some more than others, and others at the beat of a different tune, when we see a movie that strikes our fancy and deeply satisfies our ravenous tastes. When a dynamic movie of epic proportions appeals to the insatiable hunger which dwells within us, we get goose-bumps at the climactic rapture, feel GOOD, warm, and fuzzy inside at the triumphant conclusion, and slowly but unsurely get up from our seats like docile little lambs and numbly walk out of the theater, our mouths agape in utter astonishment at the epochal accomplishment our artists have created before our very eyes.

    In my mind, “Transformers” IS “The Godfather” of action movies this summer. It IS the “Forrest Gump” of blockbusters this season, interminably running away with the limelight like there’s no end tomorrow. “Transformers” blew “Spiderman 3” clear out the water! “Live Free or Die Hard”? I’d rather watch the “Transformers” move and live free AND die hard! If all else fails at the box office this summer, and you’re anything like me, this movie alone will literally and metaphorically ‘transform’ you too. It is an aesthetic orgasm at the zenith of its climax. In simpler words than none: this movie is right on the money.

    And to think, I almost didn’t even go see this movie because the “expert” critics proclaimed “it left more to be desired.” HAH! Only a literal missile through my incredibly awe-struck head from Starscream’s F-16 could have put their disgruntled dissatisfaction to rest. Well, seeing as how this Decepticon gets away in the end anyway, I’ll leave that next remarkable visual feat to Michael Bay. Bring on the sequel(s).

    If you only scrolled down to read the end of my rant, in short, F**K the critics. For me, after seeing this powerfully prevailing movie, their credibility is shot. If you even had the slightest desire to go see this movie before, if the kid inside of you compelled even the humblest of inclinations to witness this wonderful maelstrom of a movie, if the brazen child of the 80’s which resides in EACH of us even remotely all-sparked you (pun intended) to gaze upon this in God’s greatest glory, go see it. And the Inevitable Truth is that this movie inspires generations of men, and children of men, to live like we were dying in an era of enchantment and wonder. For those simpletons of us who merely go to a theater to enjoy the action-packed cinematic experience, Optimus Prime & Co. will not let you down. As the clichés say, your ticket will grant you the whole seat for the show, but you’ll only need the edge of it. A fan may even vie to cry, for with “Transformers” the movie, there certainly is more than meets the eye.

  56. yun

    I was so excited when I heard they were making a Tranformers movie because with special FX technology today, the time seemed right. Unfortunately, they’ve also brought in today’s corporate marketing and decisions are now being made on who spends the most money. Too bad VW didn’t cough up some cash. Nothing against the Camaro or Chevy, but it’s too far from the story line.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More

Collapse bottom bar