Deseret News | 'Transformers' confusing, juvenile

Reader comments
Film review: 'Transformers' confusing, juvenile

Juvenile? | 3:23 p.m. June 23, 2009

Let's remember these movies are based on a television show that was created simply to sell toys. Can't expect much based on the source material.

Anonymous | 3:34 p.m. June 23, 2009

the author states "the computer-generated visual effects are stunning, and there's plenty of action".

well that's the whole point of the movie, isn't it? why talk about plot (or lack thereof) when the entiree point of the movie is the special effects and the action?

this is a stupid review. the author doesn't even understand the point of the movie. The movie is AWESOME!! let's just leave it at that.

Critics are overrated | 3:38 p.m. June 23, 2009

Critics are totally overrated. This movie is tracking insane numbers in this entire state right now. One theater has it on 13 screens - 13 SCREENS! - at midnight tonight and is completely sold out. Movies are about making money, plain and simple, and this one is about to make a boatload of it.

Comments continue below

John Charity Spring | 3:56 p.m. June 23, 2009

This article misses the point. The point is not that the movie had a ridiculous story, bad acting, and juvenile antics. The point is that is contains "vulgarity, profanity, drugs, torture, brief sex, slurs, [and] nude art." It is outrageous that Hollywood would market a movie solely to teenagers and children that contains such garbage. With modern Hollywood's continued promotion of immorality, greed, and selfishness, it is no wonder that society is such a mess. There was a time in this Country when Hollywood promoted positive values. Apparently, that time has passed.

SJ | 3:59 p.m. June 23, 2009

I had to take a film class in college and it ruined films for me until I learned to stop over evaluting everything about the film.

The only thing I want to know about this movie is this: "Will it be entertaining?"

Mr. Bond | 4:04 p.m. June 23, 2009

Michael Bay=horrible movies that make lots of $$$$

Ethan | 5:22 p.m. June 23, 2009

"Apparently, that time has passed."

um, DUH!

Where have you been the past 50 years?

Patrick Gibbs | 5:35 p.m. June 23, 2009

No, this article gets the point exactly. The point is, this is an awful movie. Jeff is being quite kind. The effects are good, but the action is not - it's quite bland poorly staged. This movie is not fun in any way, shape or form. Given the choice between seeing it again and vaing a root canal, I would gladly take the latter option.

The Authority | 5:54 p.m. June 23, 2009

Just because it was based on a toy concept doesn't mean it has to be vulgar and juvenile. Remember, The Dark Knight? Yeah, that was based on a concept designed to sell the lowest grade newsprint available to children. Iron Man? Same thing.

Transformers is an exciting concept, but it's been ruined by people who just don't get it and mistake sexual humor for maturity, when in fact it's the opposite.

JAMMER | 5:55 p.m. June 23, 2009

IF YOUR LOOKING TO STILL SEE THIS MOVIE AT MIDNIGHT, WALKER CINEMAS IN NORTH OGDEN AND PERRY, UTAH STILL HAVE TICKETS AVAILABLE.

Hero of Canton | 9:10 p.m. June 23, 2009

Listen to what Patrick Gibbs is saying...that man is a genius.

What are movies? | 10:55 p.m. June 23, 2009

Interesting comments here. Some are claiming that the entire point of "Transformers" is for mindless action and special effects for those that are interested. Almost implying that the story, writing, acting, development and all other nuances that make all other epic movies attractive completely optional.

Other comments responded by saying that even Iron Man and the Dark Knight (and I would add the Bourne movies) still had good writing, good story-line (I agree about Dark Knight, not with Iron Man).

Is there ever a time where "cotton candy" movies are appropriate? Is there a time where a bunch of teenagers can simply just be entertained? What does that even mean? What is entertainment? Someone else mentioned that taking a film class "ruined films for him" unless he didn't evaluate it too much, whatever that means. Somehow analysis ruins art?

So, what I find most interesting, is the first few people commenting are obvious fans of Transformers, and will see it multiple times regardless of what ANYONE says about it. So, I ask them, who was this review written for? Why does it affect you? You're going to see the movie anyway.

Action movies need serious help.

Bryan | 3:31 a.m. June 24, 2009

I just saw this movie, it was so FREAKIN' AMAZING!!!! Whoever wrote this article must not have a taste in movies, i'd have to agree with "Juvenile?" the story was kinda weird, but what can you do? I thought it was great considering what they had to work with!

unterhund | 8:09 a.m. June 24, 2009

"Someone else mentioned that taking a film class 'ruined films for him' unless he didn't evaluate it too much, whatever that means. Somehow analysis ruins art?"

Yes, it can. I ran into the same problem after taking a similar class. I could no longer watch a movie as a whole, only as an assembly of components. An analogy would be to look at the Mona Lisa and see only the colors and brush strokes, unable to appreciate the whole. And I'll freely admit that not everyone who takes a film class will have this happen.

Regardless, I expect nothing from the Transformers movie but loud, mindless action. From the review, it apparently delivers on its promises.

Jason | 9:33 a.m. June 24, 2009

"Critics are totally overrated. This movie is tracking insane numbers in this entire state right now. One theater has it on 13 screens - 13 SCREENS! - at midnight tonight and is completely sold out. Movies are about making money, plain and simple, and this one is about to make a boatload of it."

Unfortunately, some pretty objectively terrible movies (terrible in terms of all the elements of filmmaking) have made tons of money, while some really great ones have made almost nothing (and vise versa, of course.)

Money does have to be a factor in almost any artistic creation (especially those that require collaboration) - but it doesn't have to be the sole or even the primary motivation. Look at a film by, say, the Dardenne brothers or Abbas Kiarostami and try to say that the sole or main purpose of their films is "to make money" and not at least partially for the purpose of social and artistic expression. Of course they want to turn a profit - that way it'll be easier to make more movies in the future - but they're also pretty clearly going for something a little bit more than box office success.

goethe | 9:39 a.m. June 24, 2009

What were the filmmakers trying to do?
How well did they do it?
In the end, was it worth doing?

meh?

Jason | 9:42 a.m. June 24, 2009

@Critics are overrated - Your post isn't a statement of the quality of the film. It's a statement of how effectively the studio was able to advertise the film. Films like this are certainly critic-proof (even though they're absolutely right in their negative judgment of it) - but that doesn't make critics overrated. Critical reviews are much more likely to have a larger effect on the overall box office of smaller films that have less of a chance for a massive marketing budget.

So yes, a negative review for this kind of film is kind of useless - but critics are pretty indispensable when it comes to promoting smaller and lower-budgeted films.

R U KIDDING? | 9:55 a.m. June 24, 2009

TO - John Charity Spring | 3:56 p.m
["The point is not that the movie had a ridiculous story, bad acting, and juvenile antics. The point is that is contains "vulgarity, profanity, drugs, torture, brief sex, slurs, [and] nude art."]

and those are good things!! all you are doing is pointing out that it's not for little children, which is why it's rated PG. What don't you understand about that? in fact, the things you mention make it a BETTER movie... so what's your point?

["There was a time in this Country when Hollywood promoted positive values. Apparently, that time has passed."]

you, sir, are the epitome of ridiculous religious old-school, stuck in the the 1800s, temperance league really old snoots. Sorry to disappoint you but Mayberry RFD was just a tv show - it wasn't real. maybe you can get a time machine to send you back to the 1950s. Seems like that's the only way you'll be happy.

and for the record - THIS FILM ROCKS. the entire point is the special effects and the action (and of course Megan Fox.) So it meets all criteria.

AnnieWilkes | 9:56 a.m. June 24, 2009

Once again Hollywood is back with their dirty birdie antics and foul language. I am boycotting Hollywood and will be in my cabin in Sidewinder until they make some great wholesome movies based on author Paul Sheldon. Thanks for the review!

Jason | 9:58 a.m. June 24, 2009

As for the "film class ruins films" argument, I can't really agree. While certain films that I once enjoyed may no longer hold up, there are plenty of other films out there that will withstand the increased scrutiny and analysis. Film class and my own research into film technique helped me gain a greater appreciation for the art of film, ultimately making film-going a more enlightening and satisfying experience. It may be more difficult to just go to a multiplex and turn my brain off for a few hours (though I do still love my fair share of mainstream Hollywood flicks) - but that's not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion. And there are a lot of other, more artistically, morally, and intellectually significant films that I've learned to appreciate and enjoy much more fully.

question | 9:59 a.m. June 24, 2009

all you people that are saying it isn't a good movie... I would like to know what you thought of the first one so we can gauge whether your opinion has any reasonable basis.

so hollor back. did you like the first one but not this one? did you not like the first one nor this one?

John Charity Spring need not answer. We already know the only movies he's ever liked was the Sound of Music, or anything with Fred Astaire...

art? | 10:17 a.m. June 24, 2009

it's unclear to me why some of you are using the word "art" in your posts.

this movie has nothing to do with art. if you want art, go to cannes. if you want action, special effects, and Megan Fox, go see this movie. it's great!!

and John Charity Spring - the 50s ended a while ago. surprised you haven't noticed - but at least you belong to the right church for your antiquated views....

David | 10:19 a.m. June 24, 2009

To RU Kidding.

Maybe a bunch of us are living in the past but regarding the vulgarity etc, I have one question. Why?

It seems to me that it is not needed but placed in the movie anyway.

Maybe it communicates on its own level. Glad you liked it.

re - AnnieWilkes | 9:56 a.m | 10:20 a.m. June 24, 2009

["Once again Hollywood is back with their dirty birdie antics and foul language. I am boycotting Hollywood and will be in my cabin in Sidewinder until they make some great wholesome movies"]

no one really cares, but we do hope you stocked up on a lot of food.... maybe you can invite John Charity Spring to join you - I think you'd be a match made in heaven...

Chasseur | 10:25 a.m. June 24, 2009

It sounds like this movie. . .Which I wouldnt see at gunpoint --is going to hit it's target market exactly right. 14-28 year old boys who played with Transformers as a kid but are now wanting a little Drugs, sex partial nudity and racial slurs mixed in with their movies. I myself am getting so tired of Green screen Hardware movies. I liked Star Trek, but this "movie / Toy Commercial" would make that look like "Remains of the Day". I would need about 12 Tylenol after this thing. It's a good thing I saw the whole movie in a 2 minute trailer.

BTW You can guess the ages of all these commentators by the adjectives they used. . .such as FREAKIN' AWESOME.

Jason | 10:28 a.m. June 24, 2009

I was rather ambivalent towards the first film, and I thought this one was really, really terrible - as in boring, un-involving, and poorly made. And I can assure you my opinion has a "reasonable basis"...

And you're absolutely right about JCS - he posts the same nonsense (including the "there was a time in this country" line) in a lot of threads, even though he's made it abundantly clear that he doesn't really know anything about the history of the country. It's sort of amusing, and sad.

So Good! | 10:30 a.m. June 24, 2009

I saw the movie last night at mid night and over all I liked it. It was more sexualized than the first one but over all good. I'd see it again!

Victory for the Vapid | 10:44 a.m. June 24, 2009

Michael Bay movies are about as nutritious as School paste mixed with cotton candy. You definitely shouldn't expect intellectual depth.

re Jason | 10:53 a.m. June 24, 2009

thx for the response.

I personally thought the first one was awesome. the desert scenes were really good. I have probably watched it on blu-ray 50 times! which is why I asked the question. if anyone really liked the first one but didn't like the second one, I'd be interested in how they think the two differ...

and for the record, I didn't like the first one the first time I saw it - thought it was juvenile the way the robots talked ("my bad", "wanted to show my guns", etc.) but once I got past that and just focused on the intense special effects and action (and of course Megan Fox hanging over the hood of an old camero) I couldn't stop watching it. Great film - especially on blu-ray. You really get to see a lot more of the detail as they transform, etc and incredible sound...

re - David | 10:19 a.m | 11:11 a.m. June 24, 2009

["Maybe a bunch of us are living in the past but regarding the vulgarity etc, I have one question. Why? It seems to me that it is not needed but placed in the movie anyway"]

vulgarity? the problem is there really isn't any vulgarity in the film unless you're a puritan. You see, that is how people actually talk in the real world. The actual problem is the review is stuck in a fantasy land and thinks mayberry rfd is a real place.

if those that think the film has vulgarity would join the 21st century, they would realize that the world is a different place, and that isn't a bad thing, either. less uptight is a good thing, in my opinion.

it really boils down to a religious narrow-sightedness issue.

toys and toy commercials | 12:12 p.m. June 24, 2009

I couldn't bring myself to see Transformers and when I did see it in a home theater I was unimpressed. These movies are based on toy commercials from 1985. That grown men with families make up a significant portion of the fanbase for these movies shouldn't surprise me. Rather, I'm disappointed at how childish it is for grownups to buy into movies based on toys and the commercials produced to sell those toys. What a stupid world we live in when $200 million is spent to produce mindless, childish and poorly conceived entertainment.

@ toys and toy comm... | 12:32 p.m. June 24, 2009

How awesome that 200M$ can be spent to feed families and employee hundreds of people. The movie will more than break even, so there will be other millions spent to make other movies and families will be fed as hundreds are kept employed.

I like mindless, fun, frolics. 8$ to be cool in the heat and enjoy vicarious thrills is a lot cheaper than going to LaGoon.

re - poster 12:12pm | 12:38 p.m. June 24, 2009

TO - toys and toy commercials | 12:12 p.m.

["What a stupid world we live in when $200 million is spent to produce mindless, childish and poorly conceived entertainment."]

life is difficult i this day and age. a little more "mindless, childish and poorly conceived entertainment" is exactly what we need to take our minds off the big problems and give us a little bit of relaxation. why does everything have to be complicated and mature? isn't life complicated enough for you people?

Freedom is not stupid. | 3:51 p.m. June 24, 2009

["What a stupid world we live in when $200 million is spent..."]

If you expect the world to be optimal (or at least non-stupid), your life must be one big disappointment after another.

The only remaining optimal (non-stupid) part of this world is the free market that allows people produce mindless action movies on their own dollar, and allows people the freedom to pay what is left of their paycheck to see such a movie.

How marvelous that one person's standards of art and entertainment are not yet forcibly imposed on everyone else.

Doctor's can't choose not perform abortions. Chrysler dealers on the wrong side of some bureaucrat's list can't choose to stay open even if they are profitable. And an ever increasing portion of our income is spent by those who (like you) would impose their own choices and value judgments on everyone.

What you call stupid is actually one the few remaining indicators of sanity in this world. And if Hollywood took a bailout, it would soon be gone too.

rdha | 11:37 p.m. June 24, 2009

Just saw Transformers 2 this evening and it was BRILLIANT!!!! Who cares about the cutting reviews? Sure, the film had questionable humor that could have done without; more than I would like to admit. Other than that, it's my favorite live action movie of the summer!! UP is the best animated movie so far this year. I just love them Transformers; Autobots and Decepticons. That female Decepticon was so frightening; those who have seen the film already, know what I mean. I loved the action and adventure in Revenge Of The Fallen and Soundwave is my new favorite live action Decepticon. Loved the first Transformers as well, a couple of years ago. Crud, the cheesy animated movie from 1986 was fun too. Love those 80's rock songs on the latter. Sure, alot of the human performances were hyper-active but maybe that's one of the fun elements of Transformers movies. Visuals were mind blowing!! May the Film Critics have me in their crosshairs for my personal review of this awesome robot movie. And I enjoyed Terminator 4; Salvation as well. Guess my fate is sealed.

Frank Castle | 10:49 a.m. June 25, 2009

re: John Charity Spring | 3:56 p.m. June 23, 2009

//There was a time in this Country when Hollywood promoted positive values. Apparently, that time has passed.//

Hollywood is a business & has always been about making, promoting, and distributing movies.

Movies are entertainment and will emphasize on whatever the powers that be think will generate large amounts of $.

Anyone who expects Hollywood to teach us values has no right to call Tinsletown LaLa Land.

p.s. My Favorite movies so far this year are; Angels and Demons, Pelham 1-2-3, & 12 Rounds.

Frank Castle | 10:55 a.m. June 25, 2009

re: AnnieWilkes | 9:56 a.m. June 24, 2009

//I am boycotting Hollywood and will be in my cabin in Sidewinder until they make some great wholesome movies based on author Paul Sheldon. Thanks for the review!//

Does your Boycott include the Twilight?

Who is Paul Sheldon?

FWIW; Wholesome should only be used to describe Krispy Kreme products.

Re: Frank Castle | 2:27 p.m. June 25, 2009

Frank, how much stock are we really supposed to take on the moral high ground from a guy who wears a skull costume and runs around killing those who killed his family and others who need justice? ;-)

Frank Castle | 2:43 p.m. June 25, 2009

to 2:27 poster. You are not. Its my opinion - treat it as such.

I will say it sounds like you are upset that I'm trying to knock you off what you believe to be the "Moral High Ground"

Follow up to 2:27 poster | 2:46 p.m. June 25, 2009

Its not justice. Its punishment.

Your Bud,

Frank C

Naruto | 2:53 p.m. June 25, 2009

I guess you could say it's "more than meets the eye!"

AnnieWIlkes | 3:15 p.m. June 25, 2009

Re:Frank Castle- Paul Sheldon is a brilliant author whose title character Ms.Chastain is the heroine in numerous Victorian era romance novels. Paul Sheldon could write a better movie than Transformers even though he is currently wheelchair bound. I'm sick of all the cackadoodie naughty language! Kids movies should be wholesome not full of dirty birdy naughtiness.

Megan Fox | 1:31 p.m. June 27, 2009

Is a horrible actress!!! She should just do posters and modeling for all those slobbering goof balls that went to the movie just to see her. Seriously she can't act and her little crying/slapping of her boyfriend and screaming I love you is lame!!!!!!!!!!! Couldn't see that coming from the very start could you!!!!!!!!

Re Megan Fox | 7:44 p.m. June 27, 2009

Who cares! She's a babe! I bet you thought Twilight was a better movie than this?? You can all stick to Edward Cullen and Ill stick with OPTIMUS PRIME!!!

Anonymous | 1:07 a.m. June 28, 2009

Dear michael Bay,
Your second installment of transformers was a valiant effort, but fell short. I will give you credit that you worked in the contructo-cons and they did combine to make devastator. I will also give you credit when you stuck to the cartoon and toys with the matrix of leadership. Ill forgive your first movie by making bumble bee a camaro, and not transforming megatron into his gun, only because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But your second installment was ridiculous, the twin autobots with buck teeth, the useless crude humor, the sexuality, and the bathroom humor made your movie stink! Ill just stick to the 80s cartoon movie which has a thicker plot, better acting, and the transformers theme song.
sincereley
Brandon
pleasant grove, ut

wow | 4:27 p.m. June 28, 2009

im sure micheal bay really cares what you think brandon.

Made from CHILDREN'S TOYS?!?! | 7:23 p.m. June 28, 2009

You have really got to be kidding me. "Mild profanity"? Puh-lease. It is a sad world we live in. We think that vulgarity has to be a part of the world we live in. BUT IT ISN'T! Even the PG kids movies has plenty of profanity in it. My six-year old cousin knows the "R-rated" word from these "kids" movies!

Adolescent humor | 9:42 a.m. June 29, 2009

I saw the movie over the weekend. I should have went with my instincts and waited for the dollar movie. I like action movies as much as the next guy but this one was pretty juvenile. I was just hoping for a shred of intelligence. The special effects were top notch but the many of the characters were so irritating. The first one was quite a bit better in comparison. It feels like a 14 year old boy wrote and directed it. The newer Batman movies and even Iron man are proof that you can do a good action movie with intelligence. At least make the juvenile humor original or something...

Mike | 11:43 a.m. June 30, 2009

I liked it. You people complaining about the potty humor need to be less sensitive.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.