http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/994/994427p1.html Not a bad review but the score doesnt quite match up with what he said and his big 'negative' point is pretty much my 'positive'.
Hmmm, obviously not the frst review as there is a total film review and some other one mentioned in the news section. Still do not understand how the film being TOO long is classed as a negative, and how that seems to be the only negative he mentions, why did he only give it 3 out of 5?
Oh I'd say the film's a bit too long. The first one most certainly was. Sure, he made it all work (for the most part) and filled that 2.5 hour run time without going overboard. However, on the whole, a good portion of the first film was boring, slow, and unimportant. They just spent way, way, way too much time building a pointless and boring story, about characters with no depth. The only real positive that sold it was the Transformers themselves. (Had it been a movie about a boy and his car, only, the film would've been absolute torture. Like bamboo and fingernails, waterboarding, etc.) There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that these movies need to be 2.5 hours long. There's simply not enough material to make it work. Say what you want (and I'll even admit there are some slow spots to it) but Spider-Man (the first one) was an excellent example of how to make a movie like this. Sure, the first hour had moments where you wanted to keep checking your watch, but when the second hour kicked in, it was just incredible, and well worth the first hour's ups and downs. TF (either movie) didn't take any hints from the Spidey franchise, and really, they should've. You could tell Sam's story, but shorten it at least 20 minutes. Cut out the hacker subplot. (which is sad, because I liked both Maggie and Glen, I really did, they were just not entirely necessary.) Or at the very least, cut down their screen time to about 10 minutes. The gist of it all could've been handled with dialogue instead of showing in detail what's going on. We get how it was working, we're not stupid and we didn't need flash cards, which was basically what the film was doing. They didn't have to show how stupid Sam's friend was (I still can't remember that douche's name.), they didn't have to do the Porsche dealership scene (while it was funny, it was wasted time. The same humor could've come from a great one liner, instead of an entire scene.) They could've cut right to the meat and potatoes of it all without going over budget. Even if the robots received the same amount of screen time they have now, just cutting down the human side of it all would've helped immensely. I can only sit through the movie once per viewing, and can't see it repeatedly simply because it does hurt my brain from the noise, and my ass from sitting too long. ROTF sounds to be more of the same, and I'm prepared for it, this time, at least. I'd love to see a fan make a shorter edit of the original film, and present it to us for viewing. I guarantee we could still have Sam's story, build the overall Macguffin story, and still have a film that's watchable without being torturous. The pacing is just too slow when telling the story, the good scenes are just too rushed, and the lack of depth for all of the characters (and I'd have liked more, even with the humans! I actually like the humans in this film!) is just not working for me. The opening of the first film? Excellent. We had story building and some background (Lennox talking to his wife and daughter, a nice moment, and it was handled nicely.) Blackout's incredible reveal and subsequent kick ass action sequence, and just really worked nicely, all around. If only the rest of the film could've followed that formula. But it didn't. =\ I still have high hopes for ROTF. I really do. But so far...slowly becoming less and less impressed with what I hear. I truly don't get it....Orci and Kurtzman proved themselves with Mission Impossible III (which is an excellent film.) and Star Trek (which was just a complete and total shocker to me, it's so impressive, and was handled quite well, even though there were some glaring plot holes.) but twice now, they come up with really subpar TF storylines. Why? I can see why they busted their asses with Star Trek. You don't take a 40+ year old property and screw with it. I'm not sure why they made Ethan Hunt's last outing so impressive (especially considering it was the threequel), but they can't do much for TFs? It makes no sense to me, at all. I can understand Bay's role in all of it. He started in music videos (and commercials, I believe), and he's great with action and special effects. So as long as those parts are covered, he doesn't really give a damn about the story aspect (though he does work it in, what little there is.) It's just absolutely mystifying to me. I always thought "Hey! More running time means more of everything. Awesome!" I apparently always thought wrong, on that. Spider-Man proved you could tell story, wow with visuals, and get right to the point in two hours or less, and still produce a film that was a golden accomplishment. The critic for IGN is right. Less is more. In this case, it'd be a lot more.
From what I'm reading - it sounds like the reviewer felt it hit it's highest point half way through and felt meticulous from there. Maybe you see that as only "one" negative, but it's quite a big one. If I felt a movie lost pace, with it's climax not matching up to what came an hour or more earlier in the film, yeah, there's no way I'd give it anything more than 3/5 at best. Seems to be a fair review. It makes sense.
also looks like hes biggest problem was the running time. BUT o well everyone has there own opinion..
That's actually what I loved about the first one! Star Wars, Jurassic Parks, Indiana Jones, and Transformers should be long! This is my opinion obviously does not apply to everyone but when my favorite characters are on the screen I never want it to end!
