Transformers (2007) Review

If the old adage is true that a successful Hollywood movie should be pitched at a 19-year-old male, perhaps in the wake of Michael Bay's Transformers that quote should be lowered to 16. Uh-oh optimus prime, don't trample those flowers! Oh no, you trampled the flowers! Derp. Ok, but watch out for the telephone wire... Oh derp! Now you've broken that too! Haha. Oh bumblebee you're such a clutz, let's hope you don't lose all coordination again when the decepticons show up! Large swathes of the middle section of Bay's latest masterpiece are filled out with sub-American Pie scenarios that would've looked dated and embarrassing ten years ago. Son, what's that noise? Is there a gang of giant robots in the garden or are you masturbating? Because that's ok! Your father does it, and so do I! I did just this morning! Maybe we can give you adult material to... Oh derp, it looks like you had a girl hidden in here the whole time! Well aren't I both humiliated and relieved! Go for it son, give her hell.

The concept of bringing Transformers battles to the big screen no doubt appealed to Bay since the fateful day a famous CGI internet video of a car transforming was adapted into a commercial. However, Bay apparently sees the mid-section of a movie as a suspension bridge he must cross before he can throw his whizz-bang up on the screen at the end. He seems to have no idea how to fill this void between the powerful introduction of the robots (which is to say the moment the movie shows us its Maya biceps and CGI sixpack) and the big bang ending, at which point the bad guys can be wiped out for good.

There's a half assed slice of tried and tested 'frozen in ice' backstory in there by writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and John Rogers . It's intention is to loosely tie the lead teen-star's great-great- grandfather to the Decepticons via a pair of spectacles. Of course it smacks of sub-Tomb Raider "we've gotta make it more personal" writing by numbers and it needn't have been included at all. First this plot device of a non-character is referred to as Whitwicky's great-great-grandfather, then his grandfather, then his great-grandfather. Was this movie really written by illiterate children? One suspects that Michael Bay is cleverer than we give him credit for. Perhaps he is poking fun at his audience who couldn't care less what's etched on an old man's spectacles. Perhaps Bay's trying to tell you that he knows this movie doesn't have to be good.

I'm gonna throw another destruction derby/monster truck rally up on the screen for the rednecks to enjoy, he seems to chuckle, and the only people who'll care it's terrible is you, the reviewer. And even you'll pay to see it, just like everyone else.

Micheal Bay, like Aliens vs Predator that also ripped off the hackneyed 'buried in ice for centuries' formula, proves here that sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. The icy flashbacks remind us only that Transformers, despite the expensive CGI, is vastly inferior to the tight and tensely scripted The Thing by Jon Carpenter.

Transformers has dizzying highs, such as the full-screen close-up mech transformations that should have anyone interested in 3D design salivating. It also has to crushing lows. For example this is a badly paced movie with a middle section so flabby you'd think it's innards were about to spill out. It's also full of Michael Bay's incessant camera spinning. Seriously, it's ok Mike, you won't lose my attention if you keep the camera still for a second or two. Maybe even Dwayne Dimshanks of Ohio will stay awake if you let him decide what to look at. Who knows? Give it a try. The aesthetic of the movie is through and through Bay patented Peugot-advert cheese. Dialogue is, as ever, machine gun fast and disjointed. Conversations feel like they've been pieced to together from a thousand different takes, not because they followed the logical flow of the conversation, but more because they sounded cool at the time.

Bay handles tone without any finesse or success in Transformers. By the end of a 10 minute stretch without action the viewer is left with the impression that no-one is engaging with anyone. It feels like a protracted advert for a product that never appears, because the product is Bay. It seems his most thoughtful film, The Island, not-entirely-paradoxically collapsed like a drunk giraffe. So Bay's revenge on the public is to give them exactly what Dwayne Dimshanks of Ohio wants; the absence of all thought, care, taste and internal logic. A huge scene in which Bumblebee wins over the main character Sam Witwicky played by Shia LaBeouf is like the longest, most nonsensical Herbie movie you've ever seen. After the real tension and peril of the opening sequence, the boy star derps his way into Megan Fox's knickers while pretty much ignoring the sentient behaviour of his new ride. It's obviously supposed to be funny. The humour is implied but not present, and it's so stretched thin in its Carry On Transforming style, contrived setups that its totally at odds with the 'world in peril' sequences that book end it. Light relief is not a problem, but this mismatch of tone just comes across as sloppy.

The precocious lead Shia LaBeouf is the kind of thing Hollywood auteurs eat up; a good looking, fast talking, fast thinking Jewish boy who's picked on by the W.A.S.P crowd, but if only Tiffany Cheerleader would go against the grain and pay closer attention to his hidden depths and undeniable charm, she would find something the brawny, meatheaded, jock crowd can't match; intelligence and entreprenurial ambition. In truth he's a great lead, an witty speaker and hasn't yet lost his visible and puppy-like love of the Hollywood industry. Sadly in Transformers most of his scenes feel like sub-Herbie derp-filled attempts to get score with Mary Jane Cheerleader. It's not impossible to deliver lines like, "I'm not leaving without Bumblebee", provided the director has set the scene right. The American Pie influence on Transformers has been overlooked so far and deserves comment.

"Uh-oh, I guess I have to eat my own poop now." American Pie-style ridiculously contrived, forced, stretched and telegraphed excuses to drum up a caught in the act/gross out moment is what Bay and co chose to fill out the middle of their fireworks display of a toy advert. Perhaps Spielberg recommended some light relief in the mid-section? Keep the kids happy? Who knows. The scene in which LaBoeuf and Fox visit mummy and daddy's house with a huge pack of giant robots in tow lowers standards of everything you look for in a movie. Writing, acting, pacing, CGI? You name it, it is defecated upon from a great height in this section. The parents spout third rate 'are you masturbating, cos that's ok - let us join you' dialogue that would've felt dated and crass 10 years ago. It feels like Bay just caught up with a fad that is thankfully passing. Meanwhile the robots derp around in the garden but their bumbling is explained by the old 'emergence of the hidden girlfriend to the parents' relief' routine. Itis a pathetic embarrassment for everyone involved. This summer Die Hard 4 showed us how action movies could be balls-out, over the top, fun. Bay shows us mainly how to sigh, shake our heads and cringe.

On paper it looks like a good way to add to the family factor of an otherwise heavy movie. In reality it's a tragic and pathetic effort that makes one wonder if too many money-men had a say in this broth. Is this movie for the kids who grew up with Transformers or the kids of today? As ever the filmmakers decided to hedge their bets and aim for something in between. The problem with this movie is not the big bangs and the CGI, they are adequate. There are a few thousand close ups of transformations too many, but it the CGI is pretty. The movie-makers had two choices when it came to transformations, realistic and clunky or smooth and fluffed. They went with the latter. The transformations are too slick and lack logic. Surfaces slide over surfaces, the camera spins - and the formula is repeated to irrelevancy. All of the CGI shots seem to have been designed to so busy that the viewer will give up trying to take in the whole frame and therefore rest his judgment on a verdict of "breathtaking".

We at Film Reviewer love spectacle, we love dazzle, we love breathtaking CGI. We also like movies. The real talent in this movie comes from its charismatic lead and the teams behind the incredible CGI. The big problem here is Bay's inability to create a unified whole from the tonal roller coaster ride that is a Hollywood blockbuster. One wonders what would've come from a more talented director at the helm, and Bay as producer. One can only hope that a close friend or confidante can convince Bay to employ his talent as a money-man and low-brow entertainer in a different capacity. But that won't happen as long as audiences want to see the CGI razzle-dazzle and Bay keeps serving it up. In terms of dollars it doesn't matter who likes a movie like Transformers. It doesn't matter who's in it. It doesn't even matter who directs it. These things only matter for posterity. Apparently quality sells fewer units than big robots.