Despite what many might say, Transformers has not had the best of histories in terms of reception, going right back to their humble beginnings.
Did you know that Hasbro bought the toys from Japanese toy company Takara Tomy, from lines called Diaclone and Microman toys, and that by 1985 these lines were discontinued?
Hasbro reinvented the toys that they bought off the Japanese, literally giving the toys names and personalities alone and producing a cartoon out of them. Vehicles such as trucks, sports cars and vans were the heroic Autobots while planes and weapons were to become their eternal rivals the Decepticons.
This fledgling franchise would eventually become one of Hasbro's most memorable and successful toylines over the decades. "Generation 1" had its own movie event in 1986, and afterwards the series would go through multiple reinventions.
Personally, I adored the original Generation 1 cartoon but I did not go further than the 1986 movie. The cartoon should be remembered as a distinctly action packed and repetitive laser battle between the same robots again and again, frequently throwing in new "characters" without any introduction so they could sell more toys!
I love it dearly, but I know what it was and it was very good at it!
I did however lose sight of the Transformers for over a decade. I didn't read the comics, I didn't watch the Beast Wars series or future series. I didn't even rewatch my old favourites until news of Michael Bay's movie was announced! Then everything started again.
I bought toys, I followed the online forums and got all the concept art leaked about robot designs. I was hooked. I couldn't imagine Transformers being brought into the real world through CGI, but here it was!
Of course, so far, Transformers has had a difficult time in Hollywood. I still defend it to the hilt as a good source of entertainment, but there are many, many people who somehow claim they are the worst films ever made.
No, the Bloodrayne movies are the worst films ever made. Get it right.
So let's go through this. Let's roll out!
Transformers (2007)
I feel very sorry for those many people who jumped on the bandwagon of hatred towards this series and forget how outright enjoyable the first movie really is.
A simple story of a boy getting his first car, only to discover his car is an advanced alien robot in disguise! He finds himself caught in the middle of an intergalatic civil war between the noble Autobots and merciless Decepticons, and Earth becomes the battlefield.
When Michael Bay stepped up to direct the first live action interpretation of the 1980s cult cartoon Transformers (yes, I use the word "cult" specifically) there were some groans and doubts. But think about it, what does he do best? Explosions and cars. What does Transformers constitute of? Explosions and cars. Under the executive producer eyes of Steven Spielberg and Dreamworks Studios, Bay's outright silliness is restrained and this film actually feels structured.
This comes from some decent acting from/direction of Shia LeBeouf as Sam, regular boy who wants to win the affection of Megan Fox's Mikaela. It takes a good forty minutes before the action takes off and our planet is bombarded with thirty-foot tall talking robots. As a fan, my inner child was (and still does) itch with anticipation! This is the Transformers mandate, heck it is in their motto: Robots in Disguise! We see Bumblebee, Sam's guardian, as a regular car... the film knowingly holds off showing us transformations for as long as possible.
This makes the reveal of all the others, especially childhood cartoon hero Optimus Prime, incredible to see!
You have to understand. As a kid this sort of thing, showing real life Transformers, was only a thing of dreams, the technology wasn't here until this movie. This film glorifies the act of these regular vehicles changing shape and continuing on their way. I still get some chills as Starscream swings around, leaping into the air and transforms.
Another thing this film achieved is often overlooked now. It was a massive success. I mean a massive success. Not only was it nominated for Academy Awards for special effects (and was robbed in broad daylight, The Golden Compass, seriously?!?) but Transformers was always a geeky, disrespected cartoon even at its height (sorry fandom, but it was) and this film broadened the franchise's influence tenfold. Everybody loved Bumblebee, for example, and learned how people like me respected Optimus Prime as a character. It was wonderful! So many newformed fans appearing everywhere. Even my sister enjoyed it!
If you are one of these people and in denial of your initial feelings towards this film, I feel very sorry for you. There is a huge number of fickle-minded people out there.
Is it perfect? No.
Michael Bay still has some influence, though not a great deal, and there are a handful of human characters who do not belong. The story takes unnecessary detours and bypasses just to include human characters who could have been cut completely to make a sharper film. Does it detract from the film as a whole? No.
Yes, there are suspensions of disbelief, yes it is silly and the climax is a myriad of explosions but honestly! This is Transformers! For a first try at making something so ridiculous as this cartoon a living, breathing film, this hits it out of the park and lays a good foundation for improvement. Sadly, for this film (not unlike The Matrix) its sequels do their best to avoid improvement...
It is a fun, entertaining action romp. Exactly what Transformers was and should forever be.
Additional Marshmallows: On a personal note. When I used to watch the cartoon as a kid, I have the distinct memory of saying to my sister: "Hey, we always see Starscream fly off at the end of the episode!" Like this:
Now imagine, with that memory so persistent in your mind, that even after the riotous fun of the climax of Bay's 2007 film (and with a cheering audience around you!) you see.... this as the final credit clip:
!!!!!!
I was gushing with so much childish joy! Once again, Starscream blasts off at the end of the episode!
(I made these GIFs specifically to deliver this point to all of you. Naturally these clips are copyright of Hasbro and Dreamworks)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
What a way to shoot yourself in the foot. Dive bombing so much promise into an eternity of hatred; instantly switching a blooming franchise into a notorious cluster of nonsense.
With Decepticon leader Megatron disposed of, the Autobots receive reinforcements and team up with human soldiers to hunt down the remaining Decepticons. But little do they know that an ancient Decepticon, known as The Fallen, seeks to destroy Earth. Sam, a college freshman now, holds the key to The Fallen's final plan.
Or something like that.
Okay, so I will be honest... this film is deplorable. A fine line divides what I consider good (the 2007 film) and this, and it mostly comes down to a tragically misaligned screenplay. Scenes come and go, no build up, no tension, no anticipation, no reason, and this mash lasts for over one-hundred and fifty minutes!
The reason for this is simple; during the film's development and production there was a strike at the screenwriter's guild. Lead writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman only had a premise before filming began (that's right, no script) so a third writer, Ehren Kruger, was called in to start work on the film. Plus, Michael Bay himself worked on the script, story and even design of some robots. They also had no plans for a sequel to begin with since Transformers '07 was a bigger hit than expected, and a release date barely more than a year after conception was far too optimistic.
Need I say more?
A lot of people don't appreciate how Bay's influence here is much greater than in the first film, or all of these production problems, and ultimate condemn all three films to be equal to its worst part. This part.
This film should be the darker turn in the series: the Decepticons are here and want revenge but no... RotF is packed with unnecessary characters, scenes and a surreal focus on all the wrong things. Terrible comedic turns, cool characters are ignored for unbearable racist stereotypes, character development that bears no emotional impact. The script is noisy and repetitive and the editing is ugly (did I mention that Bay actually re-uses footage, including some from the first film!)
You could argue, as I have in the past, that this is Transformers! It is silly and it is a cartoon for kids, it shouldn't mean anything. But there's being entertaining, and then there's being obnoxious.
The film still looks good. The opening battle in Shanghai is awesome and feels like a good start to the continuation of the series, the robots are fifty-fifty of good and bad designs outside of the returning characters (some of them are very creative looking). It was wonderful to see Ravage in live action, and I am one of the few who liked Jetfire and Soundwave.
Sadly though the climax of the movie is far too messily shot to feel rewarding and the worst crime of all: we barely see the Transformers actually transform. Unlike the first film, this one doesn't glorify it with any scenes tailored specifically for transformations.
I was disappointed even upon the first viewing, and though I still say the Transformers themselves redeem some of its awfulness, the more I watch it... the more I get tired of the rife Bay-isms. At best this is a guilty pleasure, more than the other films in the series.
Additional marshmallows: How on Earth can a film so badly constructed and narratively implemented include such an ironic line as: "Beginning, middle and end. Facts, details, condense, plot; tell it."
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
After their disastrous second outing, few people had faith in the third part, but Dark of the Moon rights a lot of the narrative faults and feels like the sequel the first film deserved.
A despondent Sam finds himself out of the limelight as the Decepticon threat appears to have lessened, Mikaela and Bumblebee have left him and he struggles to find a job and direction in life. But when Optimus Prime learns that humanity had found a vital Autobot ship crashed on the Moon, he rescues Sentinel Prime from the wreck, just when the Decepticons return with a plan to restore their homeworld of Cybertron.
Watching Dark of the Moon feels like an endurance test by the time it finishes, this is due to a ridiculously drawn out battle set in Chicago for the climax. While it makes up for Revenge of the Fallen's terribly underwhelming finale, it does become a blur of insignificance after a while because there's simply too much happening!
But if there is one thing done right this time is a correct use of characters. A lot of the ludicrous padding and fluff from RotF is completely missing; our human characters are involved but not excessively (ie. Sam's parents hardly feature at all!) and let's say this film provides us with humans who aren't noble and just.
There's a lot more of the Transformers too (you would hope so) and it feels like they have a lot more respect shown to them now. Decepticons genuinely appear threatening and the Autobots are shown to have personalities again, continuing from the first film's groundwork (a scene with a silent, brooding Optimus-in-truck-mode is a favourite). The action is off the rails too. More in keeping with the original film we see them transform during battles.
There are some deeply unsettling scenes too. The setup involves assassinations against humans who knew about the mission to the Moon, executed by Decepticon Laserbeak (great to see him too), one where he infiltrates a family's house by pretending to be a friendly Autobot playing with their daughter. Woah, woah! RotF was too cheesy, but this is really dark all of a sudden!
As a fan of the Transformer characters, this film sees a lot of deaths. Some are most unforgivable. We haven't seen this many prominent robot deaths since the slaughter that was the 1986 Transformers: The Movie!
The only other gripe I mostly have about this film asides deaths and a bloated finale is Carly, Sam's new love interest (the forgettable Rosie-Huntington Whitely) who is given things to do thanks to the plot, but is far less notable than Fox's Mikaela (I cannot believe I just wrote that) but I do believe the film would be stronger without a love interest. But it is Michael Bay, we need a girl for those slow-mo shots.
It is a vast, vast improvement and a faithful sequel to the 2007 film. It is too long, and it does make some unforgivable decisions regarding Transformer characters, so it feels less perfect in those regards. It is still a fun film though.
Now there is a fourth film coming soon, and I am fully up for it! While I do admit, I would have preferred a new trilogy by a new director... Michael Bay has had his turn... but a Transformers movie is still a Transformers movie to me. So long as it still provides me bright, exciting entertainment with plenty of giant robots transforming before my eyes, I'll be happy with it!
So this month was a special month for me, a prominent birthday! I'd like to celebrate on Cinema Cocoa with an image!
Probably one of blockbuster-director Roland Emmerich's better movies over the last ten years or more, White House Down ticks all the boxes as a solid action film.
John Cale (Channing Tatum) is a man out to prove himself to his wife and emotionally distant daughter by signing up to become one of the US President's (Jamie Foxx) bodyguards. But just as he is declined, his chances arises when the White House is taken over from the inside by terrorists and everyone inside is held hostage.
It is undeniable that the comparisons to Olympus has Fallen are rife with reviewers, both films released last year with barely a month between them (one of the reasons I wanted to review both back-to-back). There are weirdly similar elements besides the blatantly obvious (the titles are effectively the same!) both have scenes referring to the British attack on the White House from American history, and I'm sure both have a villain say the line: "Welcome to my house".
For all its infrequent cheesiness and let's be honest here, "Emmerichisms", this film is better paced and has more emotional connection than its overly-serious counterpart. The setup feels more believable (incredibly, considering the tonal differences of both films!) our villains appear to have a thought out plan, the heroes become tied into the action with actual reasons. Heck, I even felt these characters were actually vulnerable, unlike the scenery-chewing Gerald Butler.
Sure, when action hero Cale teams up with the US President we get quips, we get wise cracks and the film starts to become a surreal buddy action movie that... for all intensive purposes... makes no realistic sense. But at least White House Down runs with it, it knows what it is: a bit of entertainment!
(there's no overbearing and trumpeting score, or any all-praise-America baggage here!)
It is by far a good movie, its characters are pretty stock, the action and effects aren't actually as good as Olympus in my opinion, and it may have been a little long in the tooth by the end. But it has good pacing otherwise and doesn't feel restricted by its own presence and gravity. The levity comes from the dialogue, both from heroes and villains.
Like with Olympus, I doubt I will remember this film for much longer, but I can tell you right now that this film was more enjoyable and... paradoxically for Emmerich... felt more genuine than the serious-toned alternative.
A bit of high grade action fun, the sort of thing Emmerich is good for, without the ghastly ham-fisted nature of his worst movies!
Well I had always intended to watch this... but now that I have I have discovered some awful not-supposed-to-be-funny 'Murica trite.
When a terrorist attack on the American White House ends with the President and his aids taken hostage and the House turned into a fortress, only an ex-Secret Service agent (who was retired due to an earlier accident that caused the death of the President's wife) can save the day.
The 1990s were full of action political thrillers and Olympus has Fallen appears to be trying to rekindle that genre of film: grounded, realistic and most importantly contemporary stories based around sieges, hostages or conspiracies. But either Olympus has missed the point completely, or something has been lost over the last fifteen years.
First of all, this film (as someone from the UK) is so overwhelmingly America, just... in your face AMERICA. Okay, that's fine for a while. But when every single scene for the first twenty minutes is noble politicans striding boldly through corridors while the score blares with trumpets and warbles with drums, over and over again, I'm sorry but you lose any sense of nobility.
We then have the actual attack on the White House which is spectacular, there's no denying that the action in the film is well done (there's no obnoxious shaky-cam for a start, I generally knew where everything was!) but again the total lack of defense around Washington DC was outright laughable.
"Suspension of disbelief" is all well and good, but when a tone of a film is generally seen as realistic or gritty, behaving like an action thriller than a standard popcorn flick, these sorts of issues become targets for criticism. Sure, trumpet how awesome America is just before obliterating everything it stands for a moment later! ...
The film is a bloody sequence too: televised executions, beatings, stabbings, traitors, all shown through a lens of gritty hardship. I can't actually call this pro-America, it comes across more like self-defecation!
Then there is Gerald Butler... Oh boy. I don't dislike the man; I enjoyed Law Abiding Citizen (for example) but this film's script and acting is atrocious. I've already said this film is bringing the 1990s back, and that is right. I've seen all of these cliche sequences before. I had all of the emotional attachment for him and his wife/girlfriend/partner/person as I do for my toothbrush: every now and then, I am reminded that it's there.
Butler's character is, for want of a better analogy, The Terminator. We see these terrorists enter the story by massacring hundreds of civilians, and so naturally Butler can go on a bloody rampage executing any terrorist he sees with impunity. Imagine Die Hard, but without the sense of humour or self awareness. He just growls and murders his way to inevitable victory (oh, could that be a spoiler? You mean you weren't sure if the personification of America would survive this ordeal?)
Ugh. Suspension of disbelief can carry you so far, but after that you need to tone down the pretentiousness. It is a forgettable action film that doesn't know how to act. "We are realistic and contemporary: We... have hi-tech Hydra weapon platforms. We Stand for American integrity: We use a three-code nuclear activation system called Cerberus."
I need a good note to finish on... uhm... uhm... It is better than A Good Day to Die Hard?
Avoid, unless you want to have some noise in the background while you do something productive.
Tom Cruise continues to show us he isn't getting old by strapping on a gun-totting exoskeleton to blast some aliens. But luckily for him his co-star is excellent and the film's implementation is entertaining.
In our very near future aliens arrive via meteor shower. Before long the entirety of greater Europe has been reduced to an infested wasteland. The military of all major countries amass around the borders and attempt to push the expanding tide back with state of the art weaponry. Cruise plays William Cage, a military spokesperson who is drafted against his will, only to get himself killed in the final battle. However, through unknown means he finds himself reliving the day, again and again, each time he dies.
This sort of thing has been done before, from Source Code to Star Trek television episodes, the hero trapped in a time loop offers an affordable bit of entertainment with the reuse of sets and even dialogue. Luckily, I'm a sucker for this sort of story.
Think Groundhog Day mixed with the visuals from the battle for Zion in Matrix Revolutions. Based off a Japanese graphic novel called "All You Need is Kill" (originally the film's title until it was changed to suit wider audience appeal... sigh...) the film starts out with contemporary settings and a very un-Cruise like Tom Cruise. His character is a downright coward, and we see him trying to shrink and squirm his way out of army recruitment. This was a great way to start as it proves that maybe this film will be unique.
Then you have a literal montage of Cruise dying... a lot! As is the film's gimmick; Cruise must learn (and in turn inform the audience) about the mysterious alien invaders through the only way he can: by fighting through a hopeless battle over and over again.
He finds help through Emily Blunt's character Rita, a veteran in this future war and quite probably veteran show stealer. Certainly Cruise's continual deaths are the funniest thing he's done in a long time (take that as sadistically as you want!) Blunt's grim reality is a great foil for him, especially when she must... instigate his day's repetition.
It does have some cliche of course. The unit that Cruise's character is settled with could be replaced by the Saratoga's marines from Aliens, and I've already mentioned how the entire premise has been done before. The way the story naturally develops does mean that our lead hero becomes more and more Tom Cruise-like too. It is perplexing, but the more interesting character is seen to be slowly replaced by the all too familiar film star. It also has a terrible ending that reeks of massive cop-out. Far from the worst I have seen but certainly up there, a very unsatisfying end after everything that had happened.
The action is also far too frenetic. Coupled with the aliens appearance being very, very fast and covered in tendrils, it is incredibly difficult to see what is going on! I only saw this in 2D but I am grateful for it... this mess would induce a headache in 3D.
But, it proved good entertainment and as a sci-fi fan I enjoyed it. I laughed a lot more than I expected to and I would consider it well above average.
Four years in the making and this sequel does what few ever manage; soaring as high as its predecessor!
Life on the island of Berk has improved since Hiccup proved to the viking people that the native dragons could be friends, even pets. We see Hiccup's impression on the village with everyone using gadgets and inventions, however our hero is not feeling confident with his father's plan to make him the new chieftain. But when a notorious dragon training tyrant called Drago has plans to take their pet dragons for his army, Hiccup feels he can resolve the problem without violence.
I felt the 2010 film didn't require a sequel; it functioned as a single feature and even the series of books it is based upon does not give it a sequel, but... this new film is great!
Our characters have grown up, but they maintain their snappy dialogue and relations and possibly the best part: they aren't angst-ridden teenagers! Hiccup may have identity issues, but the film does not linger on this, it doesn't even try the old cliche of putting deliberate wrenches in his relationship with Astrid (this is very tastefully handled in general!) Toothless too has retained his cute charm and gains plenty of knowing looks towards Hiccup's more harebrained ideas. I love where they take his own personal story. Hiccup's father, Stoick the Vast, remains one of my favourites, in fact a lot of the film is focused on his past which I really appreciated; it fit what we did and did not know from the first film.
I was going to argue that Drago (Djimon Hounsou) the exotic villain of the piece, is the weakest element, but upon further reflection he does provide a tremendous amount of weight to our lead characters, and even acts as a mirror to Hiccup's own ethics (being a dragon trainer himself) and I believe his character will improve over further viewings.
The graphics are gorgeous. Over the four years between films the characters and locations have been virtually made high definition, most obvious being Astrid's hair! The 3D too was very good, much like the first film.
I'm talking a lot about the characters, but that is because I love good characters more than the stories themselves, and these two films have had a consistently great cast!
My only gripe does not affect the film itself. While the plot's narrative felt far more predictable this time around, I hate this film's trailer. The trailer gave way too much away! Trailers need to stop doing this because there are reveals in this film that should be both intense and surprising, but if you've seen the trailer entire scenes become needlessly ambiguous. This review is not giving away any of this and I implore you: if you haven't seen the trailer yet... don't! Just believe me and go and see the film (and the first one if you haven't already!)
HTTYD2 does what sequels rarely do these days; it takes everything that made the original good and didn't mess with it. It doesn't over-complicate its already splendid characters with cliched yo-yo plotlines, it doesn't throw in grandiose concepts that break the narrative's simplicity, it merely gives us what we want: more! Expanding the world, explaining the lore just enough to keep things light and fun but also challenge us with intensity and daring.
I think I have a new Film of the Year.
Additional Marshmallows: All the way through this film I was listening to one particular character's voice... for ages I was like: "Is... is that...? Is that really Jon Snow's actor in this film??" Yep. Game of Thrones' star Kit Harington features as a newcomer and he is pretty funny too!
2010 was a tough, tough year to rate films; so many excellent films, it remains the most memorable year for me. Inception won out, but even with Tron Legacy and Toy Story 3, How to Train your Dragon came a very, very tight second behind Christopher Nolan's mind-warping thriller. Even now... I question that choice: in my top 50 films of all, this film comes a solid 18th (one place higher than Inception).
I adore this movie.
In a fantastical land, warrior vikings battle dragons on a daily basis, but one viking Hiccup is not like the others; he is meek and sheltered and instead of battling he creates traps and gadgets, instantly becoming a laughing stock of his peers and a disgrace to his father. But when Hiccup wounds a mysterious new dragon and begins to form a friendship with the beast, his world is turned (sometimes literally) upside down!
I remember the early posters for this film. I remember scoffing: "Hmpf, How to Train your Dragon? Another lame animation full of crude humour from the studio that brought us Shrek? Count me out." But then the trailer appeared and wow. Then I watched it and I was floored.
For a ninety minute feature it is crammed with story and great characterization! The dialogue first and foremost is witty and snappy but never overbearing or obnoxious (something a lot of animation suffers from at least a couple of times) this comes from having genuinely wonderful characters. Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel, probably now typecast for life) is not whiny or too hopeless, using intellect and unorthadox thinking to win out, and the film's core being the developing friendship between him and his dragon Toothless, which is both very powerful and fun to watch! I don't think I can forget their first scenes together on screen!
Toothless, what can one say? Media has had a lot of great dragons in the past, Toothless is right up with the best of them! Somewhere between a dragon and a cat, his is intensely cute and fiercely loyal to Hiccup. They become like joshing best buddies.
It doesn't stop there either, the supporting cast are excellent too. Gerald Butler gives a fantastic performance as Hiccup's father, the amazingly named Stoic the Vast (the father-and-son "talk" scene is actually one of my favourites) and even potential love interest Astrid (America Ferrera) isn't anywhere near two-dimensional.
It isn't all fluffy cuteness either, the overarching story is intense; these vikings live to hunt and kill dragons, this is a war going on and at times How to Train Your Dragon does not pull any punches. There are some challenging, heart wrenching moments in the third act, and as such this film single-handed showed the world that Dreamworks Studios are capable of standing as tall (if not taller) than Disney and Pixar combined.
The music is a soaring Celtic and orchestral mix, the graphics are often eye-popping (the sky and rock effects are incredible) and the animation on Toothless is to die for, the screenplay is tight and never wasteful and the dialogue is smart and refined.
Dare I say it, nothing is wrong with this film!
Additional Marshmallows: If you haven't already, I recommend you find the How to Train Your Dragon short animations, they are great additions to the world and provide even more wonderful character dialogue!
