Skip to main content

"Transformers 2" (Michael Bay) (24 June 2009)

One of the things Micheael Bay does well in both Transformer films is convince you that the battle would go on, even if you weren't there to observe/experience it. This differs from LOTR, where too often you sensed that the battles were conceived with you in mind--are the halflings going to "get it"?! No, for just as you begin to wince in anticipation of the falling sword, comes whomever to save the day. The feeling you get is as if Bay asked the CGI dudes/lasses to forget about the viewer and concentrate on what whatever particular robot would do in the situation he found himself in. The result of this immersion, interest in something other than making you feel a certain way, integrity of the art form, even, is that the battles (for the most part--there is a bit of the nick-of-time stuff here) feel uncontrived, unpredictable, outside (not the projection of someone's inner world) -- really happening, and incredibly immersive and exciting. These films are not just loud and bombastic. And thank God. For Stephanie (Zacharek, at Salon) isn't just making a comment about Michael Bay, here; she's saying something about the American populace that would like this "crap." To her, the bulk of humanity finds satisfaction in naught but loud noises (though are these the same people she sensed were trying to convince themselves they were having fun while watching Phantom Menace?). Fortunately, it appears that the current rabble do have some of the same sense for art their equivalent had way back when, when Shakespeare's make of the razzle-dazzle dominated the stage. The popularity of Independence Day scares me way more than does the popularity of this series. (And there is stuff in this film I really don't like -- I don't like what it does with the Washington-type [but I didn't like what Incredibles did with the boy-genius, either], which feels pre-requisite, and doesn't help us any, for example.)

About the editing: this is one film I'd certainly like to see circulated to fans to fiddle around with. One too many dizzy mommy moments, for example. And maybe also choose between the fem-bot and the humping dog-bot. (Dump the chick and keep the dog, is my sense.) Unlike the first film, there are a bunch of other robots that never really "gel" into enjoyable, apprehensible entities/identites. It's a relief when bumble-bee (who shines in the battle sequences) bashes the two annoyo-bots together--"I don't understand either of you--get out of my face!"

Stephanie said the action felt "clumpy." Despite the worthy family stuff that goes in these films, which to me is as worth talking about here as it is in that movie about gentrification, The Incredibles, I would like it if in future with major action movie releases, she expanded on this kind of impressionistic analysis of the action. This kind of criticism seems most appropriate here; and is interesting, intriguing, and possibly helpful. I certainly watched the film wondering how I would over-all summarize the feel of the battles. I didn't immediately come up with clumpy, but I'm still thinking about it. Bay certainly likes wrestling throws and mid-air twists and turns, and boy they are fun to witness and experience. You kind of want to mimic them yourself, as I did all that shotgun cocking and curling in Terminator 2, for instance.

Also, Someone please draw attention to all the quick verbal and visual humour in these films. And with respect: the humping bot and destruction balls were true enough to the occasion, clever, and funny, to be worth noting and discussing.

Link: Transformers (Salon)

- - - - -

We'll see

No, but I'd prefer if you'd do more with the summer's major movie release than just quickly pee on it. If the first Transformers had uninspired action sequences, people would not have liked the film. (One thing the bulk of X-box humanity has got down, is when there is and when there isn't LIFE, in action sequences.) I liked that the action felt sort of unstaged, adhoc, unpredictable. I felt there was was both aggression and genius in it, and preferred it to the pin-point, neat dancing you get in X-Men, or the right angles and geometry, you get in Dark Knight. That you get "pussy" and "bitch," seems only appropriate for a movie uninterested in being quite so noble.

- - - - -

Mikaela

Also, I didn't experience Mikaela as "prancing"; nor when drawn to attend to her butt did I think of its "pertness." This woman isn't a perky elf--she's got too much flesh, weight, sway--sensuality, to be fairly summized this way. The outfits are all form-fitting, as they are in Incredibles, Star Trek, and everywhere else, out and about, in this tight and controlled age.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...