tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post2987867496409118365..comments2023-11-02T05:10:17.211-07:00Comments on We Are Cursed to Live in Interesting Times: Transformers 3Mr. Subtletyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16243495225217139453noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post-46280646677505708292011-07-06T00:01:37.234-07:002011-07-06T00:01:37.234-07:00Fred --
I don't exactly mean to imply there...Fred --<br />I don't exactly mean to imply there's no story, just that its a poorly constructed story badly told. There's a lot of plot points, but no actual narrative. It spends almost an hour being about Sam's job and then that thread completely vanishes, never to return. By the end of it most of the major characters from the first half are completely incidental. The film ends with him promising to never leave his girlfriend, I think I remember that conflict being introduced for about 10 minutes when she inexplicably storms out one time around the hour and a half mark.<br /> <br />So I guess my point is, there's endless exposition and dialogue, but that doesn't exactly make it a story. I hope my review didn't give the impression that its not deadly boring (if not actively infuriating) every time there aren't robots on the screen, because of course it is -- maybe I felt like that was such a given I didn't properly emphasize it.<br /> <br />I Did feel a little hesitant about CARS 2, but my theory is that I'd like the studio to have the finacial independence to follow their passion next time. I guess after years of stunning works of ballsy genius, I don't begrudge them one cash grab to shore things up a little. I wish there had been some classier choices, but if it's between Pixar and Michael Bay it's pretty much a no-brainer.<br /><br />Dan -- I'm definitely with you that the 200 mil ended up on the screen, I'm just not sure that money like that buys my interest. There's a few lukewarm moments of eye candy which I describe above, but a lot of that money went into incredibly detailed realistic giant robots sort of standing around. Bay's imagination is so limited and his sense of escalation is so nonexistent that although your rational mind can see how elaborate the effects are, they're just not all that exciting to watch.<br /><br />And that's completely ignoring the weak-ass story. I actually agree with you that a great (or at least, a really fun) action film doesn't need a great story, it just needs mind-blowing spectacle. I mean, STONE COLD, right? I love the shit out of DIE HARD 2 and will fiercely defend it as an awesome movie but would never ever describe it as anything other than a muddled rehash of DIE HARD (1). But it delivers the crazy function setpieces the way only a mad Fin could. Harlin is genuinely crazy risk-taker. Michael Bay is just loud. There's a ton of spectacle in TRANS 3 but a almost negligable amount of it is in any way mind-blowing (that's why I think the elephants metaphor works). It's undeniably big and expensive but its very seldom exciting. <br /><br />I should note, I'm not saying this as a matter or snobbery or professional pride. I can't say I honestly went into this thing thinking I would like it, but if it had worked for me I would have admitted it. I always sort of want Bay's films to win me over; whatever you may say about them there's not a lot of people making this kind of film right now, and I'm always up for a great one of these. Fuck, I think INDEPENDENCE DAY is a pretty great one. It's dumb as as stoned hamster, but it has some stunning setpieces, colorful and ingratiating characters, and a perfect ever-building rhythm to it. There's a few sour notes, but as stupid as Emmerich is he knows how to stage an action sequence to make it seem exciting and impressive. Bay just doesn't seem to know how to do that, and its the only thing he's selling. He spent more money, but even though you can see the cash in almost every shot it just has less impact.Mr. Subtletyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16243495225217139453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post-5442898013703038722011-07-05T09:52:57.845-07:002011-07-05T09:52:57.845-07:00Honestly, I must say that I really dug this one an...Honestly, I must say that I really dug this one and thought it was the best of the trilogy. I thought about doing a blog post on it a la that rambling one I did for part 2 a few years ago, but as you note, part 3 is much less of a fascinating train wreck and there's really not much to say about it. <br /><br />I enjoyed what I considered to be a high quality spectacle, and I laughed a lot at the (knowingly?) absurd stuff about the moon landing, Buzz Aldrin playing himself, etc.<br /><br />Still, it didn't fulfill my dream of a film made entirely of mind blowing, plot free, near-abstract spectacle with minimal narrative. This is mostly due to the action. I've defending Bay's action chops in the past, but it was painfully clear to me this time that there's little sense of spatial relations in his action scenes. I feel like he can craft awesome, elaborate, beautiful looking individual shots, but has little sense of how to plan and edit them so they piece together in meaningful way. This leads to a lot of eye-popping visuals and (to me) gratifying money shots, but rarely anything like a sustained sense of momentum (with a few exceptions, like the falling building, which I thought was pretty awesome).<br /><br />Still, this to me is what a $200 million action movie should look like: gaudy, baroque and large scale. I can't defend spending that much money on a movie in moral terms, the most I can ask for is that you can see every dollar up there on the screen. (Something that I feel doesn't come across in something like IRON MAN).<br /><br />I hold out hope that one day a studio will finance ALIENS VS TERMINATORS, which I envision as a $300 million epic with no identifiable characters and a seriously streamlined plot that's essentially just 2 hours of the craziest special effects of all time.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03050879099756585371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post-73312707606813746482011-06-30T23:28:35.644-07:002011-06-30T23:28:35.644-07:00Spot on with the action and elephants. Still, you ...Spot on with the action and elephants. Still, you tout the age old "there's no story" line. Does 90 minutes of plot exposition not suggest the opposite? Why are they trying so hard to make this matter when we're all more likely to accept is as pure spectacle?<br /><br />Not sure paying for Cars 2 is any better, the most shameless money grab beneath even Dreamworks. Lasseter even explained the appeal of Cars in terms of the marketing product demographic penetration. I know that means kids are playing with it, but good God, at least pretend it's a passion project.Fred Topelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02879613488065842731noreply@blogger.com