|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 14, 2009 20:43:59 GMT
Saw it in IMAX yesterday, and I really appreciated the detail that went into all the visuals. I think the movie's flaws were almost all confined to the script - there was a lot of skill gone into making the look of it.
Was sat in front of a couple of, maybe 12-year-old boys who seemed to be the audience the film was made for. They cheered Prime on, they gasped at his 'death', they laughed heartily at all the humour, they paid attention to the story, and they left the auditorium in spirited discussion about who were their favourites. Took me right back to that age and improved my enjoyment of the film no end, more so than the IMAX element.
Martin
|
|
Nigel
Thunderjet
Posts: 4,963
|
Post by Nigel on Jul 15, 2009 9:13:21 GMT
The trouble is, I suspect it wasn't made for people that age. It's either in the director's commentary for the first film, or a recent interview (I forget which, I think it was the commentary) that Bay says that children shouldn't see it. The film isn't intended nor suitable for children. Albeit he was referring to younger children. (I'm pretty sure it was in the commentary, so he'd have been referring to the first film, but I should think he'd have the same attitude to the second.)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jul 15, 2009 14:57:36 GMT
I personally do not feel ROTF is suitable for very young children.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Jul 15, 2009 15:04:09 GMT
Deffo agree with that. If anything, the 'humour' is too sexual in nature.
|
|
Nigel
Thunderjet
Posts: 4,963
|
Post by Nigel on Jul 15, 2009 18:41:47 GMT
Transformers = sex, drugs and Rack and Ruin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 15, 2009 19:13:42 GMT
The trouble is, I suspect it wasn't made for people that age. And yet, like I said, it seemed to be, judging from the pleasure it gave them. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jul 15, 2009 20:11:36 GMT
It's all a matter of opinion. I just would not feel comfortable taking a child to see the movie due to the nature of the sex-based humour and some of the violence. I would advise parents check it out first.
-Ralph
|
|
Rich
Protoform
Posts: 824
|
Post by Rich on Jul 15, 2009 22:17:12 GMT
The gags were pretty tame compared to what comes out of the mouth of the average Year 8 (12-13 year olds). That said, when I saw it there were a couple of 4 year olds there, which I thought was a bit odd, as I could imagine bits of it scaring the crap out of some small kids, but I can only hope that the parents knew what their kids would like.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamthomson on Jul 16, 2009 7:11:03 GMT
I wonder how many parents took the advice of the "12A" rating and saw it themselves before taking an under-11 to see it.
At the showings I've been to, the teenagers were bounding about their seats in excitement, and then asking each other to "GIVE ME YOUR FACE" on the way out.
Compared to my own childhood experience of a Transformers film (sobbing myself to sleep after all my favourite characters were killed off to make room for brightly coloured imbeciles with vocal tics), these kids don't know how good they've got it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 16, 2009 19:52:15 GMT
Compared to my own childhood experience of a Transformers film (sobbing myself to sleep after all my favourite characters were killed off to make room for brightly coloured imbeciles with vocal tics), these kids don't know how good they've got it! Nor do today's professional film critics. Have some karma for that comment, G.  Martin |
|
|
|
Post by jameso on Jul 16, 2009 21:14:19 GMT
The new characters that appear in Revenge of the Fallen with no explanation, no introduction and no motive are a million times worse than the new characters in the animated movie. In my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamthomson on Jul 17, 2009 13:11:30 GMT
Nor do today's professional film critics. Have some karma for that comment, G. Martin You are too kind! |
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Jul 18, 2009 11:32:38 GMT
If we're complaining about all the new TF's in the film (who are there purely to fire weapons and get shot mind) who never got individual Shakespearian level characterisation shouldn't we also be complaining about all the unnamed NEST soldiers and fire fighters who were purely there for backdrop/practical purposes as well?
Maybe not every individual in the film needs/deserves it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2009 9:16:20 GMT
Is this movie a peadophile?
Because it just raped my childhood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Jul 29, 2009 18:58:55 GMT
Not happy with movie 2 'Ghost? Know the feeling. First movie was much better. Second movie could have been so much better.
Ok chaps. Gun against your head- what's the one thing you'd have changed? I know that's quite a wide ranged question, but what's the one thing that disatisfied you the most?
For me it wasn't the Twins, even though I HATED them. It wasn't the lack of robot characterisation. It wasn't the juvenile humour at the wrong moment. It wasn't the awesome Devastator being wasted on the freakin' Twins (PUTTUP!). It wasn't the total criminal lack of a conection between the first movie and the second.
It was the fact that Megatron was number 2. Totally took the menace out of him for me. Megatron is no ones number 2! Megatron would have killed Fallen Dave Breams ago and taken over the running of things himself! Damnit!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 29, 2009 19:59:34 GMT
It was the fact that Megatron was number 2. Totally took the menace out of him for me. Megatron is no ones number 2! Megatron would have killed Fallen Dave Breams ago and taken over the running of things himself! Damnit! But surely the best of the Marvel comics were when Shockwave made Megatron number 2... What's the _one_ thing I'd have changed? Hmmmmm... That's tough. OK, I suppose I'd also get rid of the Fallen, mainly because he wasn't in the original 10-year Marvel comic run and so doesn't deserve to be there. But I wouldn't bring Megatron back either. I'd have Shockwave in place of both the Fallen and Megatron. I like having interesting new TFs like the Wheelbot and Reedman in the lower ranks, but having the Fallen as a leader when the likes of Shockwave, Straxus, Ratbat, Thunderwing and Bludgeon haven't even appeared yet is outrageous queue-jumping. There's no single thing you could change that would take it from being a lowest-common-denominator popcorn blockbuster to a story of the quality of the early Marvel comics, so I won't try. I'm resigned to the live-action movies being explosions and shallow humour and am prepared to enjoy them on that level - much better than not having a live-action TF franchise. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Aug 5, 2009 19:08:37 GMT
Forgot to mention, saw it again on sunday gone. The good bits were good, the bad bits were bad, the utter stupidly bad bits were utter stupidly bad. What a shame, just a coupla tweeks and it would have been so much better. I think the thing which stung me the most this time was Bumblebee's treatment. Scrap the Twins, put Arcee or another Autobot in there, and have Bumblebee TALK! Great opportunity for robot characterisation missed. BB and Sam coulda solved it all together. What a waste. Fights were good though. AND I LOVE DEVASTATOR!
|
|
