# Rate Transformers



## Krug (Jul 4, 2007)

Rate the *Transformers* movie. Yes the Michael Bay one. No spoilers please.


----------



## thatdarncat (Jul 4, 2007)

Rated.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jul 4, 2007)

Can't call it a 10, I reserve the top of any scale for really exceptional things.  But it was a very fun movie, call it a solid 8.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 4, 2007)

I want to give it a 10, beacuse I just had so much fun...but I can't. So I'll compromise with myself and give it a 9. The only thing that brings it down is a a bit too much of the shaky-cam(which I don't mind in small doses) and not enough Starscream.

Not nearly enough Starscream.

In fact, I should just have given it a 1 for not being Starscream: The Movie.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 4, 2007)

Just got back from my second viewing.  I think I liked it better the second time.  Being in a theater where people are clapping is awesome.  Solid 9.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 4, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Not nearly enough Starscream




I felt the movie was lacking somewhat without the requisite "Now's my chance to destroy Megatron and _rule_ the Decepticons!"

So it gets an 8, which is still a damn fun movie in my book.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 4, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Not nearly enough Starscream.




Did you stay for the little clips during the credits?  There are three.  Starscream is in the third.  Can you say Transformers 2: The Rise of Starscream?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 4, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I felt the movie was lacking somewhat without the requisite "Now's my chance to destroy Megatron and _rule_ the Decepticons!"
> 
> So it gets an 8, which is still a damn fun movie in my book.




I did miss a nod like that, though the prequel comics DID have a lot of that...so that sated me somewhat. 



Spoiler



And hearing Megatron tell Starscream that he'd failed him AGAIN the first time the two are seen together on screen was just pure beauty.



I was happy to not be the only one laughing happily at that.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Did you stay for the little clips during the credits? There are three. Starscream is in the third. Can you say Transformers 2: The Rise of Starscream?




I definitely stayed and that made me enjoy the movie even more. 



Spoiler



It was great to see Starscream constantly shifting into jet mode and HIDING from the other jets as he blew them to pieces...then he runs off. I love that coward.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 4, 2007)

Nothing is ever a 10 to me, so a 9 is to high but an 8 was a good solid number that stands well.

Coyote6 and I got into the theater for matinée prices, but afterwards I would have paid full price to see it.

Lots of CG, but the vast majority of it was not (least 'til the robots came onto the screen).  

No, spoiler here- the Spec Ops guys, they were called Rangers, but I don't think they were Rangers, they operated in a small unit (about 8) and carried all the right primed up gear (I am thinking Delta).  

Oh, and the lady in this movie, is rockin' sexy!  Wow!


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 4, 2007)

Who gave it the 5?  Fess up so you can be publicly ridiculed!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 4, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Who gave it the 5?  Fess up so you can be publicly ridiculed!



 And so I can tell Starscream who you are!

(Sense a theme? )


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 5, 2007)

I gave it a 10.

It was far better than I expected.  Yes, the camera was shaky a bit too often, but all in all, it WORKED.  Everything hung together very well.  There were some poor choices, but usually they were made on insufficient information, so not too bad.

Brad


----------



## Capellan (Jul 5, 2007)

I gave it a 5 - strictly average.  It was OK.  But it could have been much better.

It was at least 20 minutes too long, and had far too many extraneous characters. Having 2 or 3 humans that we were supposed to not want to get stomped would have been enough. This had at least 7. With all the time spent on the fleshies, the robot characters basically don't have any, at least not beyond the most simple fo archetypes.

And Megatron? Oh lord, how they misuse Megatron. Big M's personal battle with Optimus should be a core thread in the film. Instead, it's a 30 second fight scene at the end. A 30 second fight scene with a dumb ending.

Others have raved over the giant robot battles. I can't agree. They're all filmed in that super-tight close-up blur-o-vision that has been popular since Gladiator because it's an easy way to cop out on actually showing something that would be difficult to do well. I hate it.

I don't regret seeing it, but I wouldn't see it again.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 5, 2007)

I voted an 8.  Mainly just cuz there wasn't a fair enough ratio of Giant Robot screentime to Piddly Human screentime, though still decent screentime for the Transformers.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 5, 2007)

Also gave it an 8.  It was a lot of fun, and it definitely had the "WOW" factor.

Normally I cringe at Hollywood comedic scenes, but Shia LeBouf actually pulled it off, the mom bits were excessive though, as was one particular interaction between Bumblebee and the government agent.

The fight scenes were what I was hoping for.  Wouldn't have minded a bit more time spent building the characterization of the Autobots other than Prime and Bumblebee.

As for Starscream, there is a scene during the climactic battle sequence where he lives up to character and "stabs" Megatron in the back.

Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime = awesome.  And I wouldn't have recognized Meghead's voice as being Hugo Weaving considering how over-processed it sounded.  Heck, they should have just used Frank Welker (probably would have been cheaper as well).

Have neither the time or funds to see this a second time in the theater, but will definitely pick this up on DVD when it comes out, as well as the extended/director's cut if such a thing ever comes out.


----------



## Tarthalion (Jul 5, 2007)

9 here...Return of the King is the only 10 I think I've given a film in my life.

It is definitely the best movie of the year so far.  Pirates and superheroes got their rumps sorely kicked by giant robots...all is as it should be.

Now if they ever did a movie about giant pirate ninja cosplaying robots that may indeed snuff out the light of creation with it's awesomeness.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 5, 2007)

9 for me, possibly the best movie I have seen this summer.  Wonderful balance of action and humor, with excellent pace and actting.  

Note - think the "casting person" should be given two thumbs up.  

Everything you could ask for in a summer movie.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 5, 2007)

Razor-thin plot so as to not get in the way of the action.  Fun action despite significant faults.  Every word of dialog spoken while actors were OD'ing on caffiene.  Great animation.  Terrible editing - everyting motion and confusion - they spend bazillions on awesome CGI and then blur the hell out of it with a thousand micro-cuts so you can't EVER follow a proper sequence of action events [and DAMMIT I'm really getting sick of that crap!].  Excellent comedy.  About what you would expect from a Spielberg/Bay co-effort.  Fun to watch.  Sure to spark a bazillion buck of toy sales.  Highly forgettable. 7/10


----------



## F5 (Jul 5, 2007)

A great summer action movie.

There was a lot of screen time devoted to the human cast, yeah, but I can't think of a single major human character that I didn't like.  I hope they all come back for the sequels.  I hope there ARE sequels!

A few of the requisite plot holes of the sort present in all big-budget movies released between May and September, but I was easily distracted from these by the "-OOH!  Starscream just drop-kicked a fighter plane into a scyscraper in mid-air!" factor...


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 5, 2007)

F5 said:
			
		

> I hope there ARE sequels!



Given the box office receipts so far, there will be sequels.  A second movie has alredy been greenlighted.  According to Wikipedia, Shia, Megan, and Peter Cullen are already signed for the second movie.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 5, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Given the box office receipts so far, there will be sequels.  A second movie has alredy been greenlighted.  According to Wikipedia, Shia, Megan, and Peter Cullen are already signed for the second movie.




Numbers so far:
Domestic:  $36,251,000 (50.0%) + Foreign:  $36,253,961 (50.0%) = Worldwide:  $72,504,961   
Budget is listed at 150, it will be interesting to see how it does, domestic, after a full weekend, it will be going up against Harry starting Wednesday, 07/11.  You then enter a period of bland movies until The Simpsons Movie 7/27 and The Bourne Ultimatum on 08/03.


----------



## Pyrex (Jul 5, 2007)

8/10

Pros:
  Solid action.  Solid funny.  Above-average writing & acting.  Bumblebee the DJ.  2/3's of the callbacks to the toon.

Cons:
  Slapstick was a little over-the-top in a couple scenes.  Last 1/3 of the callbacks were forced.


----------



## prospero63 (Jul 5, 2007)

Personally, I find numeric ratings to be kind of worthless. For me, it's a question of what will I (or will I not) spend my money on. Is it a wait for cable thing? Wait for pay channel? DVD? Dollar show? Matinee? Full price?

Transformers is "I'd pay full price to see it again". Best movie I've seen all year. Might be the best since the LotR series.


----------



## F5 (Jul 5, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Given the box office receipts so far, there will be sequels.  A second movie has alredy been greenlighted.  According to Wikipedia, Shia, Megan, and Peter Cullen are already signed for the second movie.




To this I say:

WOOHOO!


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 5, 2007)

Six months ago, I would never have thought a Transformers live-action movie could get such high marks. I gave it a 10.

Bullgrit


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 6, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Numbers so far:
> Domestic:  $36,251,000 (50.0%) + Foreign:  $36,253,961 (50.0%) = Worldwide:  $72,504,961
> Budget is listed at 150, it will be interesting to see how it does, domestic, after a full weekend, it will be going up against Harry starting Wednesday, 07/11.  You then enter a period of bland movies until The Simpsons Movie 7/27 and The Bourne Ultimatum on 08/03.



Well, I'd imagine with one unopposed weekend the total (domestic and foreign) will hit the 100k mark.  It could hang out long enough after Potter 5 comes out to hit 150K combined in the theaters... but more than likely the DVD sales will be impressive enough to more than make their money back.

Not any kind of expert, just making an educated guess.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 6, 2007)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Well, I'd imagine with one unopposed weekend the total (domestic and foreign) will hit the 100k mark.  It could hang out long enough after Potter 5 comes out to hit 150K combined in the theaters... but more than likely the DVD sales will be impressive enough to more than make their money back.
> 
> Not any kind of expert, just making an educated guess.



Oh, it will reach 150, daily take is still possitive and word of mouth is helping, it has just about double and this weekend I think it will have another 35+ million.  

Take at this time:
Domestic:  $65,725,939 (64.4%) + Foreign:  $36,253,961 (35.6%) = Worldwide:  $101,979,900


----------



## xmanii (Jul 6, 2007)

Gave it a 9, definately the best movie to come out this summer so far.


----------



## Krug (Jul 8, 2007)

Hah and I read an article a couple of weeks ago about how the budget of US$150 million was considered 'cheap'...


----------



## Ibram (Jul 8, 2007)

Loved it, gave it a 10.

There were lots of little bits in the movie, like what was written on the side of Blockade.

I also like how it seems that Starscream gets his shot in at Megatron at the end (it appeared to me that he was in the final flight that bombarded Megatron).


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 9, 2007)

Had to give it a 6, in a bizarre and unexpected twist of fate, this is largely on the strength of the first third.  The action sequences were so awfully filmed that they deserve approximately a 2, and the ham-handed storytelling used to ratchet up the collateral damage was close to character assassination of one of the otherwise respectable human characters.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 11, 2007)

Gave it a 7, entertaining movie though there are parts that are very clunky and not a lot of robots in disguise. Though what we got was usually pretty good.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 12, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Who gave it the 5?  Fess up so you can be publicly ridiculed!





Probably the same person over on the discussion thread who loudly stated that he/she didn't like it....  :\ 

I'm giving it a 9 for awesome!


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 12, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Who gave it the 5?  Fess up so you can be publicly ridiculed!




Yeah!  Those of you who gave it a 5 or lower, confess so we can tar and feather you with *words*!!


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 12, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Yeah!  Those of you who gave it a 5 or lower, confess so we can tar and feather you with *words*!!




Pretty much.  But seriously, if you gave this movie a really low rating, are you saying you put it on the same level as Catwoman or Gigli?

Speak up so I know whose posts I should never take seriously again.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 12, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Pretty much.  But seriously, if you gave this movie a really low rating, are you saying you put it on the same level as Catwoman or Gigli?
> 
> Speak up so I know whose posts I should never take seriously again.



Nah, I think some people just give things too high a rating. 5 is in the middle, its average, not great not good.  Gigli and catwoman are probably 1s, 2s, and 3. I probably would have given transformers a solid 6 if not for the nostalgia factor.  

Main reasons have been stated in the other forum
1. Bad camera angle. I want to watch the movie not be in the movie. 
2. Robot interaction was short
3. Too many human characters. 
4. That one scene where the 5 30ft 2 ton robots sneak around the house. 

Main reasons for liking it
Childhood memories are intact as opposed to destroyed in Masters of the Universe.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 12, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Yeah!  Those of you who gave it a 5 or lower, confess so we can tar and feather you with *words*!!




I gave it a five, because there are parts in the beginning that absolutely drag and were painful to sit through, and the action is pathetic, due to the extreme close ups and all too frequent fast cuts that make it impossible to tell what's happening all to often.

The movie was entertaining, but I'm firmly convinced it won't hold up to repeat viewings due to the issues I mentioned and I know I'm not alone it that assessment.

If you have issues with anyone who doesn't give it stupidly high marks I suggest you look in a mirror and contemplate the two parts of Don's post I italized below.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I probably would have given transformers a solid 6 if not for the _nostalgia factor_.
> 
> Main reasons for liking it
> _Childhood memories are intact as opposed to destroyed in Masters of the Universe._


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 12, 2007)

The head of section whatever (Agent Simmons) was awful.  There was no reason for a child-level cartoon government villian.

The Hackers were useless.  They didn't suck, just not helpful for the plot, and I don't personally buy for a millisecond a hot blond female hacker is one of the top two hackers on the planet.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> ...and I don't personally buy for a millisecond a hot blond female hacker is one of the top two hackers on the planet.



She is somehow _less_ believable than the giant robots from space who like to dress in drag as Earth vehicles and beat the sh*t out of each other?

Anyway... my rating. I hate Michael Bay's films, but I really dug Transformers. I give it a solid 8. I left the theater with a big stupid grin on my face to match the big stupid film I just spent an improbably entertaining 2.5 hours watching.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 12, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> She is somehow _less_ believable than the giant robots from space who like to dress in drag as Earth vehicles and beat the sh*t out of each other?




Yes, you accept those going in, plus they're so unrealistic that you hand wave right off the bat.

The closer to reality you get the more unacceptable divergences become, didn't you know that?


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2007)

Welverin said:
			
		

> The closer to reality you get the more unacceptable divergences become, didn't you know that?



Don't go all Uncanny Valley on me, k? 

Besides, it can be proven mathematically that any point in a Michael Bay film is equidistant from reality and that distance is of infinite length.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 13, 2007)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Yes, you accept those going in, plus they're so unrealistic that you hand wave right off the bat.
> 
> The closer to reality you get the more unacceptable divergences become, didn't you know that?



Fair enough, but even my wife was of the opinion that the movie needed "more of hot accent chick."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 13, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but even my wife was of the opinion that the movie needed "more of hot accent chick."




Hot accent?

She was Australian :\

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 13, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> She is somehow _less_ believable than the giant robots from space who like to dress in drag as Earth vehicles and beat the sh*t out of each other?




Yes.  The robots are supposed to be surprising.  It is, in fact, the plot.

The hot hacker girl?  If they want to make a movie based on how surprising that is, then I think it might be fine.  But they didn't.  In fact, while people were constantly surprised of giant robots from space posing as earth vehicles killing each other, nobody blinked twice at the hot hacker girl.  Despite the fact that the two are nearly as rare as each other   



> Anyway... my rating. I hate Michael Bay's films, but I really dug Transformers. I give it a solid 8. I left the theater with a big stupid grin on my face to match the big stupid film I just spent an improbably entertaining 2.5 hours watching.




I liked the movie two.  I just REALLY didn't like Agent Simmons, and mildly disliked the hackers.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 13, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but even my wife was of the opinion that the movie needed "more of hot accent chick."




Even your wife is a horny teenage boy then 

Seriously, we already had improbable hot car mechanic girl doing slow motion Playboy poses for the camera.  The improbable hot hacker girl was just plain silly.  She didn't need to be in the movie.  Her role felt tacked on like some executive said "we need another hot girl to seal the deal on attracting the teenage boys to this movie, in case they don't buy the robots.  Oh, and there is no ethnic character in there either - throw in a black funny guy to get the ethnic people".  I'd bet a stack of bills a conversation like that took place at some point.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 13, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Yeah!  Those of you who gave it a 5 or lower, confess so we can tar and feather you with *words*!!



Well, since you asked so nicely... 

I gave it a 4. I thought it could have been so much better.

I think the Transformers as a whole got too little screen time, and didn't interact enough with each other. There wasn't enough friendly banter among the Autobots, arguments and rivalry between the Decepticons, and not enough insults and quips during the fights. 

I'm not a fan of the jerky camera motion, either. That, plus the fact that I was unfamiliar with the Transformers' new look, plus the fact that some of the Autobots and Decepticons looked similar to each other (at least to me), made it difficult for me to follow what was happening.

This may be thinking too much, but one thing that bugged me was how the Autobots and the Decepticons knew that the co-ordinates to the Allspark were imprinted on the elder Witwicky's spectacles. Was it that obvious from the pictures on Ebay and in the Government files?


----------



## Jeysie (Jul 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The hot hacker girl?  If they want to make a movie based on how surprising that is, then I think it might be fine.  But they didn't.  In fact, while people were constantly surprised of giant robots from space posing as earth vehicles killing each other, nobody blinked twice at the hot hacker girl.  Despite the fact that the two are nearly as rare as each other.




I dunno, I didn't find this at all weird. But then, I'm a girl who's been using some variety of computer since I was old enough to read and push keys, and who knows several attractive computer-saavy ladies.

Granted, none of them look like Rachael Taylor. But then, this *is* Hollywood, where we're supposed to, for example, swallow the likes of Emma Watson, Janeane Garofalo, and Sandra Bullock as being Plain-Janes who need cleaning up to be attractive. I'm just sayin'.

Would she be believable if she were Ugly Hacker Girl? 

Peace & Luv, Liz


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 13, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Hot accent?
> 
> She was Australian :\
> 
> -Hyp.



Your point?  I've got the remnants of a NJ accent.  By comparison, practically anything but Cockney is a hot accent.

But, actually... that was two descriptors, as in she was hot and had an accent.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Even your wife is a horny teenage boy then



Nope.  She's a hot graduate student, and will one day be a hot professor.  I've met women with doctorates who are _distractingly_ hot.  A hot hacker isn't really all _that_ improbable.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 13, 2007)

Jeysie said:
			
		

> I dunno, I didn't find this at all weird. But then, I'm a girl who's been using some variety of computer since I was old enough to read and push keys, and who knows several attractive computer-saavy ladies.




It's not that she is pretty, or female, or a hacker (each taken individually).  It's not "computer savvy".  That I could buy.

It's that the combination that the second best hacker ON THE PLANET is about 23 YEARS OLD and a SMOKING HOT BLOND GIRL who is able to barge in to meetings with the Secretary of Defense and be taken seriously immediately. Come on now.  Pull the other one!



> Would she be believable if she were Ugly Hacker Girl?
> 
> Peace & Luv, Liz




She would be more believable if she were a lot older, and out of shape, and previously well known by the Government because she was so well educated and experienced in the field of hacking computers.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 13, 2007)

Canis said:
			
		

> Nope.  She's a hot graduate student, and will one day be a hot professor.  I've met women with doctorates who are _distractingly_ hot.  A hot hacker isn't really all _that_ improbable.




It's not that she is hot.  It's that the second best hacker on the planet is a 23 year old hot girl.    And yes, you have met people WITH DOCTORATES, which means they are not 23 years old.  And if their field was computers and computer security, the odds are DRASTICALLY against them still being in good physical shape.

I mean come on guys, who are we kidding here.  We are D&D players.  We know reality.  Why are you guys pretending like reality isn't what it is suddenly in defense of this movie?  I liked the movie fine, but admit it's a fair criticism that Rachael Taylor isn't who would be the second best hacker in the world.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yes.  The robots are supposed to be surprising.  It is, in fact, the plot.



What is this 'plot' you speak of?



> In fact, while people were constantly surprised of giant robots from space posing as earth vehicles killing each other, nobody blinked twice at the hot hacker girl.  Despite the fact that the two are nearly as rare as each other



You've got a point here.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 13, 2007)

While the stereotype of the 'fat, nerdy computer geek' isn't COMPLETELY wrong, it isn't completely right, either. Even at those kind of levels.

Besides, what's wrong with breaking a stereotype like that, anyway? Sure, we had a few others get nailed hard in the movie, but shouldn't gamers be HAPPY the whole fat geek thing isn't completely played to? (Though, of course, it is to a point with her friend, but still)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 13, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's not that she is hot.  It's that the second best hacker on the planet is a 23 year old hot girl.    And yes, you have met people WITH DOCTORATES, which means they are not 23 years old.  And if their field was computers and computer security, the odds are DRASTICALLY against them still being in good physical shape.
> 
> I mean come on guys, who are we kidding here.  We are D&D players.  We know reality.  Why are you guys pretending like reality isn't what it is suddenly in defense of this movie?  I liked the movie fine, but admit it's a fair criticism that Rachael Taylor isn't who would be the second best hacker in the world.



Feh.  Movie reality always inflates hotness.  Since I'm married to a woman in a historically "un-hot" profession who defies the ever-loving heck out of the "hot girls aren't geeks" convention, I'm certainly not going to concern myself whatever hotness inflation occurs in tech professions in movies.  In my experience, it is no more egregious than if she was a hot waitress or a hot doctor, or... whatever you like.  If she were a barista or a jewelry salesperson, would you find it so far outside the norm?

Pretty much ALL people in movies are a standard deviation or so above the norm.  With that caveat built-in, and a meagre attempt to explain the youth with the "we're recruiting them right out of high school these days" throw-away comment... they did exactly what I would have expected.  Summer movies have hot girls.  In my experience, tech professions are ALSO in possession of hot girls (increasingly, in fact.  Heck, _library science_ is starting to look like an indie-rocker's wet dream.)

As such, of all the minor and major deviations from reality that occured, "ZOMG!  That computer nerd is unrealistically hot" just didn't bother me


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jul 13, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> This may be thinking too much, but one thing that bugged me was how the Autobots and the Decepticons knew that the co-ordinates to the Allspark were imprinted on the elder Witwicky's spectacles. Was it that obvious from the pictures on Ebay and in the Government files?




Both sides apparently had figured out that it was on Earth.  There were more Decepticons on Earth at start of the movie (Barricade, Blackout, Scorponok, Frenzy) than there were Autobots (Bumblebee), which suggests that they were the ones who figured it out (probably by tracing Megatron's movements), and the Autobots followed them.

I suspect that there was a lot of scanning and such that took place before the start of the movie, as the Decepticons crept around the planet looking for any sign of the Allspark and/or Megatron.  Of course, they didn't find anything.

I also suspect that the Decepticons might've stumbled across a clue somewhere about the military having information on the Allspark and Megatron, and that led them to abandon cover and take direct action.  This is after they've exhausted other sources; while they might hold the vermin in contempt, it's still a bad idea to reveal yourself.  Note that they were trying really hard to make sure there wasn't any direct proof of their existence; Scorponok was following the SOCOM team, and only attacked when the guy mentioned that he did have a picture of it.  That seems to indicate they were willing to let these guys go if they didn't have any concrete evidence of the Decepticons existence, since an attack on them could provide the very evidence they were trying to suppress.

So, in any event, the Decepticons brutally hacked into a classified network that had the information on it.  The first attempt (by Blackout) got them confirmation that the vermin knew something, and the second attempt (by Frenzy) got them the name Witwicky.  That then led to them finding Sam/Spike*'s eBay auction.  A bit of Cybertronian image enhancement later, and voila.

The Autobots' method is not shown, but Prime mentions that they found it on eBay, too.  They may have been using different search parameters than the Decepticons, looking for "weird crap" online that might suggest the Allspark, and hitting paydirt when they found Sam's eBay auction.  (I also suspect that "they" may have almost entirely been Bumblebee.)

Brad

* - I so want to call the kid Spike, dagnabbit.  And his dad should be nicknamed Sparkplug!


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jul 14, 2007)

The thing about 1-10 scales is that some people use it like the way school grades use it and others use it differently. Example: average movie to some is a 7 (70% grade= C), to me ... I make an average movie at 5 (right in the middle of the 1-10 scale). 

So for me, 5 being a decent enjoyable movie (nothing to write home about, only buy it on DVD if its in the $11.99 bin)...then I rate Transformers a 3.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for that but hey, its my personal review. Special effects looked fine and all. But, even for a popcorn movie it had too many flaws with story/directing for me to give it a higher score.


----------



## Pants (Jul 14, 2007)

I gave it a 6 for two, BIG reasons:

1) Waaaay too long.

2) Despite it being long it doesn't develop half it's characters properly even the transformers don't get more than a passing nod. The decepticons are woefully under-represented and are reduced to the 'here's my name and I'm coming rargh' scene near the end.

Honorable Mention: Too much time is devoted to extraneous characters that don't do crap or lame side stories when that time could either be devoted to a) shortening the story a tad, b) developing the already large amount of characters (or at least making an effort to) or c) at least ramping up the robot on robot action just a wee bit more.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 15, 2007)

Its was a 7 BUT could have been a 9 if Micheal Bay actually cared about making a movie about a war between Transforming robots instead of a "movie about a boy and his car"


----------



## delericho (Jul 21, 2007)

I gave it a 4. Frankly, I found it a bit lame.

Reasons:

1) It was about 40 minutes into the film before Sam even started to interact with Bumblebee as anything other than his 'demon car'. It was another 10 minutes or so before the rest of the Autobots arrived. That, IMO, is far too long. By then, I was already looking at my watch, which is NOT a sign of a good movie.

2) The action was really badly filmed. I basically couldn't follow most of what was going on, even to the point where when 



Spoiler



Megatron ripped Jazz apart


, I thought "Poor 



Spoiler



Ironhide


!"

3) The whole "Section 7" was really badly handled. I can accept there being hidden government agencies looking into all this wierd stuff, but I _hate_ it when they are cartoonishly inept.

4) A personal hate - I hate it when movies try to talk science in areas I know about and get things so utterly wrong. "



Spoiler



You need to stop talking about Fourier transforms and start thinking about Quantum Mechanics,


" indeed. And don't get me started on 



Spoiler



needing to hotwire a computer into the radio in order to send Morse code


! Either hire people to help you get the science right, or just make up technobabble. Don't just use the jargon incorrectly and try to pass it off as real.

5) 



Spoiler



They took an item giving off high levels of radiation out of the concrete bunker, and tried to hide it in the middle of a city? WTF?



So, as I said "4". I didn't hate it (Phantom Menace would be a "3", Catwoman barely rates a "1"), but I was unimpressed. Re-edit the fight scenes so I can actually follow them, and I'll give it a "7", but without that...


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jul 22, 2007)

Good movie. Solid 7.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 22, 2007)

I've seen it twice and it is now twice as good.  A high 9 nearly a 10 but, as someone already said, not enough Starscream.


----------



## FCWesel (Jul 23, 2007)

' 3 '

And that's kinda being generous.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 23, 2007)

Would love to see the next movie review have a 1 to 5 poll.  I think that would give a more accurate view of the movie.


----------



## FCWesel (Jul 23, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Would love to see the next movie review have a 1 to 5 poll.  I think that would give a more accurate view of the movie.



Then I would have to give it a 1.5


----------



## Agamon (Jul 23, 2007)

Gave it a 7.  Didn't suck, but I wasn't all that impressed.  Too many extraneous roles.  The whole hacker subplot is unnecessary.  The humor was pretty much horrible.  The end fight was cool, if too long.  Decent action pic otherwise.  Spidey and Knocked Up are still the best movies this year so far.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 24, 2007)

Pants said:
			
		

> I gave it a 6 for two, BIG reasons:
> 
> 1) Waaaay too long.
> 
> ...



I was going to post my "6, because..." and list a couple of things, but eerily, it was done for me.

Thanks for saving me some typing work, Pants! 



			
				Agamon said:
			
		

> Didn't suck, but I wasn't all that impressed. Too many extraneous roles. The whole hacker subplot is unnecessary. The humor was pretty much horrible. The end fight was cool, if too long.



Thanks to you too, Agamon!


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 25, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Gave it a 7.  Didn't suck, but I wasn't all that impressed.  Too many extraneous roles.  The whole hacker subplot is unnecessary.  The humor was pretty much horrible.  The end fight was cool, if too long.  Decent action pic otherwise.  Spidey and Knocked Up are still the best movies this year so far.




You said Transformers has too many "extraneous" roles yet you liked SM3?  Whatever.  SM3 was awful.


----------



## Brogarn (Jul 25, 2007)

I went in with the hopes that there would be robots blowing stuff up, the CGI would be cool, and there would be robots blowing stuff up (repeated intentionally). Also, it would help if they would blow each other up. I was satisfied on those counts. I only gave it an 8, though, because the Michael Bay Cheesy Love Moments almost made me lactose intolerant by means of overdose.

Still, though, the robots were cool. The slow down CGI moments were cool. Stuff blew up. Robots blew up. I was happy and had a good time watching it.


----------



## FCWesel (Jul 25, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> SM3 was awful.




Quoted for truth. In fact, it might be in the top 25 very most truthful things ever to have been said on the internet.


----------



## Pants (Jul 26, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Thanks for saving me some typing work, Pants!



Glad to be a service! 



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> You said Transformers has too many "extraneous" roles yet you liked SM3?  Whatever.  SM3 was awful.



I think they're actually pretty similar in quality, though I liked SM3 a little better... for whatever weird reasons.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Jul 26, 2007)

From VGCats regarding Transformers movie...

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=241


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 26, 2007)

Pants said:
			
		

> I think they're actually pretty similar in quality, though I liked SM3 a little better... for whatever weird reasons.




Aside from the fact that Transformers had less crying and wasn't lame, sure, I can see how they are pretty similar.


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 26, 2007)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Aside from the fact that Transformers had less crying and wasn't lame, sure, I can see how they are pretty similar.



Hey, you forget that it had less spectacular musical numbers and random villians.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 26, 2007)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/STQ3nhXuuEM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/STQ3nhXuuEM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 9, 2007)

Capellan said:
			
		

> Others have raved over the giant robot battles. I can't agree. They're all filmed in that super-tight close-up blur-o-vision that has been popular since Gladiator because it's an easy way to cop out on actually showing something that would be difficult to do well. I hate it.
> 
> I don't regret seeing it, but I wouldn't see it again.




I gave it a 6 for pretty much those reasons. 

What is the point in close-up blur-o-vision? Maybe directors think that it gives an immediacy to the action, but it just looks cheap, nasty and confusing to me.

The only thing that raised the mark a little for me was the comedy angle, especially in the first half of the movie, which I thought was fun, I liked the teen principle actors (which makes a change!).

I couldn't see what the point of the hacker subplot was though - didn't really add anything to the movie that couldn't have been done by ordinary spooks.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Aug 9, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I couldn't see what the point of the hacker subplot was though - didn't really add anything to the movie that couldn't have been done by ordinary spooks.



Beyond adding a hot chick with an accent that the over 30 crowd wouldn't feel guilty about oogling, not much.


----------

