Thursday, July 9, 2009

The Review: Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

When a public intellectual writes a film review, she (or he!) is actually reviewing two things: the film in question, and the society which produced it. While much attention is paid to the creative and artistic impulses which underpin the film's unfolding vision, equal attention must be paid to the material conditions and social relations which constitute the film's very raison d'etra. In the case of Michael Bay's provocative and challenging study Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, the reviewer can be excused for providing a small history lesson by way of introduction.

In the immediate aftermath of the second world war, the United States emerged as aggressive, expansionist empire promoting the "shock doctrine" of global capitalism. Racial oppression at home and imperialist military conquest abroad were the order of the day. However, in the late 1960s and on into the 1970s, a group of dedicated, selfless men and women emerged to challenge the status quo. Through organizing, writing, protesting, and poster-making, these brave workers sought to raise awareness of the unsustainable contradictions which underpinned American society, and to give a firm nudge to the unfolding dialectic of capital and labour.

These people became known as "the Transformers."

But then, in 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President. Despite the subsequent release of the Clash's album Sandanista, and the invention of the Reagan '84: War '85 bumper sticker, nothing the Transformers could do was able to hold back the darkness, which has lasted until this very day. The Transformers had "fallen" on very hard times indeed.

However, beginning in late 2007, something exciting happened. The unsustainable contradictions of global capitalism finally lurched their way into view. The ensuing global depression--the inevitable result of capitalist exploitation and environmental degradation--offered the Transformers their chance for Revenge, and they have taken it with gusto. Never before have anti-global finance opinion articles been so easy to write; never in history have anti-corporate bon mots tripped so easily off the tongue.

Bay's film (his first, I believe) considers these developments in light of the sassy and irrepressible Nada M., a dedicated Transformer who is herself transformed over the course of the film from conscientious but morally paralyzed wall flower into no-holds-barred critiquing machine. Audiences will shudder with approval as, by the film's third act, Nada is spitting in Alan Greenspan's soup, lecturing World Bank dictator Robert B. Zoellick about the evils of compound interest, and--in the film's stand-up crowd pleasing moment--kicking Donald Trump in the balls. Whoops--I probably should have put a SPOILER ALERT before that last one!

Anyway, the film is directed with calm, steady hand, and the performances--especially that of Nada S. as Nada M.--are lively and transgressive. Four Stars!


My Rating: Four Stars

Readers' Rating: Three Stars


UPDATE: One of my readers has sent me the following rude and inaccurate message: "Why are you writing a review of a film that you obviously haven't even seen? Isn't that unethical? The film has nothing to do with global finance; it is based on a line of toys from the 1980s, and is about cars that "transform" (get it, putz?) into giant robots. Are you a pathological liar, or is it just a fun hobby for you?"

Well, leaving aside this person's vulgar and thimble-rigging tone, I wish to say that I most certainly have seen the film, but, at the same time, I admit that I probably should not have attempted to write the review without having my notes from the film to hand. Let me just go over them now, to see if I can add anything of substance to the above review.

Well yes, I can see here that there was a toy which, I think, transformed into a car and then . . . later on, I believe, it, erm, transformed into a robot. Yes, yes, now I recall, it transformed into a very large metal robot. And then into a toy. Well come to think of it, this movie may not have been quite as good as I initially claimed it was; I'm taking away one of the stars. Three stars.

And then, lets see here . . . there was also, whats this? oh god, now I remember--an explosion that lasted for twelve minutes. That sounds dreadful. I'm taking away all of the stars. Zero stars. Do not see this film.

My Rating: Zero Stars

Readers' Rating: Three Stars


UPDATE: Irritating reader G.B. has written again and is still unsatisfied with the review: "What is wrong with you? Can't you just admit the review is phony? Or why don't you go and actually see the film and then write a real review? P.S.--there was certainly not a "twelve minute explosion," although that would most definitely have rocked."


Well, G.B., you've got me. I didn't see the film. Until yesterday I had never even heard of the film.

You might recall, G.B., that I AM ATTEMPTING TO ATTRACT MORE READERS TO THIS SITE SO THAT I CAN MONETIZE IT. You might recall that. So yes, I did a computer search of popular things that lots of people are interested in, and this film was near the top, along with a fellow name Lindsay Lohan (sounds like a rear-admiral, doesn't he?) and penis enlarging. I thought it not unreasonable to conclude that many people on the internet would come to my site if I wrote a review of this popular film. Well, to further set the record straight, I actually do know who Michael Bay is, and I would sooner sit through a ten-hour prayer breakfast at the Club for Growth than watch another of his flaming shit-kabob "films." Hence, I wrote a concise and intellectually engaging review of a film that ought to have been made under the title Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. And lest you are tempted to mount your high horse yet again, G.B., I pretty much tipped my hand when I wrote that Bay directed the film with "a calm and steady hand"! Didn't that clue you into my little scheme? BECAUSE MICHAEL BAY USES THE CAMERA LIKE A RETARDED TEENAGER WITH STAGE 5,000 PARKINSON'S DISEASE. ZERO STARS.

My Rating: Zero Stars

Readers' Rating: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT MY READERS THINK BECAUSE THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY A BUNCH OF PUERILE FAN-BOYS WHO NEARLY HAD A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER TO MASTURBATE TO MEGAN FOX OR OPTIMUS PRIME DURING THE MIDNIGHT PRE-SCREENING THEY ATTENDED.

3 comments:

  1. In Praise of the Modern Cineplex

    After having seen this film, well to be fair - after having HEARD this film (I had actually paid for Away We Go in the theater next door), I must say that those explosions you speak of were indeed breathtaking. They really brought the movie to life. Why suffer through witty dialog about funky tasting vaginal secretions when you can drown it out with "kaBoooooom!". After that, I think his parents gave him some bad news, not sure. It sounded like "krkrkrphohwwwwwww". I shouldn't go into any more, I don't want to be a spoiler, but the next three scenes sounded like the following: "ffffffkrwolll!", "Zzzzt-t-t-t rrr rrr rrr rrr rrr" and "bhrowwwwww!". And as for that 12 minute explosion...I think she had some serious issues with losing her parents at a young age. Who knew Michael Bay had such depth?

    Looking forward to the Maggie Gyllenhaal breast-feeding action figure....

    ReplyDelete
  2. MM, I am more than impressed with your critique, which appears to have drawn inspiration from sources as varied as Thomas de Quincey and Charlie Callas. What you have provided here is a review--not of a film--but of a palimpsestic cinematic moment: the fate of Optimus Prime is overlayed with the fate of a second-rate t.v. actor who wouldn't even have a job if he weren't cute; "funky tasting vaginal secretions" provide the soundtrack for Megan Fox's desperate attempts to transform giant metal robots into cars and then, eventually, into toys. There is no "punctual self"--only an ocean of swirling and contradictory ideas and sounds (every one of which, by the way, sounds absolutely dreadful); the audience is stripped of its self-satisfied notions of "objectivity" and "I want more popcorn." MM, I encourage you to continue making contributions to this site. In so doing, you will Become Part of A Great Conversation--and not one that you have to pay $60 a month for you piece of shit New York Times.

    ReplyDelete