Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

[The Noose]

Yeah i dont like the Transformer films, One thing that i really hate about them though is the action scene's the graphics are terrible as was the camera work its all over the place and i couldnt really see what was going on. I hate films that over do the CGI it dates terribly.

CGI heavy films are nearly all ****. LOTR's, Terminator 2, Titanic and Jurassic Park were all great, but everything else is ****e.

I watched Spiderman 3 yesterday, and i was once again ****.



Mark Kermode the film critic hit the nail on the head when he said CGI takes no skill. Old films they used stuntmen and had to prepare a stunt for weeks in advance, having to capture it on film in one take. People would watch the films over and over again to see these great stunts. Now, anyone can make a CGI sequence.
Non of it looks real.

And all the story lines are totally neglected.

[Davros?]

Yeah i often feel that more traditional techniques looked better, I suppose CGI is probably cheaper and you can do what you want with it but i feel it gives a very fake effect. I remember watching I Am Legend and they had that chase scene with those deer and a lion and it looked utterly fake why not use real animals?

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

I just rented it. What a load of fucking rubbish, this is one of the ****test films I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through.

WTF did you expect? It's a film about giant robots that transform into cars and airplanes..........

[Danny Gunz]

I just rented it. What a load of fucking rubbish, this is one of the ****test films I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through.

by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen

[Grand Champ]

I've seen much, much worse. But it definitely had its flaws.

[Move BRICKS™]

It's because you can't fathom it.

[AssasinKing]

Wow...

I liked it, dont get me wrong it was nothing amazing, number 1 > number 2...

But still, i love the action in it, its mad

[squealpiggy]

It's a PG-13 movie for god sake...so unless your like errr....13yo...IT AINT FOR YOU

So you're saying that a change in the intended age group should result in an abandonment of plot, characterization and quality? Utter toss. Up was a kids movie. Wall-E was a kids movie. Stardust was PG13 but was a good film. Coraline was PG but it didn't stop it from being amazing.

WTF did you expect? It's a film about giant robots that transform into cars and airplanes..........

I think it takes a very special talent to fuck up such a premise. It's a great idea! It's like that **** Paul W S Anderson. He's given a premise: The two baddest movie aliens in the history of cinema battle it out with us in the middle. And he fucks the concept in the ass and makes it ****ty! How can you break source material like Aliens vs Predator? The comics were great. The movie was dreadful.

Mark Kermode the film critic hit the nail on the head when he said CGI takes no skill. Old films they used stuntmen and had to prepare a stunt for weeks in advance, having to capture it on film in one take. People would watch the films over and over again to see these great stunts. Now, anyone can make a CGI sequence.
Non of it looks real.

I have no problem with using computers to enhance the special effects. The issue is that things like plot, story and action are being neglected in favour of big shiny computer graphics. CGI has come a long way but is being embraced by a certain type of director who really doesn't give two ****s about telling a story and that's the real issue.

Jurrasic Park was a good example of a plot driven movie that used special effects to enhance the story. King Kong was another one that started with a good premise, decent acting and dialogue and great action sequences and used CGI to help create the director's vision. Lord of the Rings is another.

I think the issue isn't CGI in and of itself, it's when CGI is used as a substitute for director's vision, and unfortunately it's these huge budget lowest common denominator directors who appear to dominate the lists of CGI using directors.

[JohnCIV6]

It's called no imagination... If millions of people liked it, and you didn't... Who's the moron here?? Just saying.

The movie was too cheesy the first ten minutes or so, but it got better.. I enjoyed it.

[squealpiggy]

Yeah i often feel that more traditional techniques looked better, I suppose CGI is probably cheaper and you can do what you want with it but i feel it gives a very fake effect. I remember watching I Am Legend and they had that chase scene with those deer and a lion and it looked utterly fake why not use real animals?

This is another thing I hate in modern films. I have no issue with product placement in the role it traditionally took. You might as a producer put out a tender to companies. Hey my character is having a soft drink. We can make it your brand for a fee. It's unobtrusive, it doesn't affect the film, it's more realistic for a character to drink coke or pepsi than a generic cola made up by the props department. Perfect.

But that scene in I am Legend was basically a car commercial for the landrover he was driving. Bumblebee is a VW beetle, he always was. But in the Transformers movie they made him a Camaro. Sucks. But, I thought to myself, at least they made him a beat up ****ty old Camaro. I thought too soon, because at the first opportunity he changes himself into the brand new model, right off the factory floor. ****S!

Adding whole sequences to a movie just for your sponsors is one of the things that utterly kills the experience for me. It's as though I'm paying $15 to see the movie and then handing over my wallet to the movie's sponsors. Like I say people can use a brand of phone for example. They can even show the logo as long as it's unobtrusive. It's when they zoom in close and you see the phone face, back, logo and functions in a 20 second short that is there purely to please the advertiser that it becomes detrimental.

Oh and X-Men Origins ****** as well.