Transformers second best film of year?!?
Ah, AOL poll. Just goes to show what a bunch of vacuous wankers took part in the poll I suppose?
Lindsay Lohan crowned 2007's worst actress
Lindsay Lohan has been crowned 2007's worst actress for her chilling performance in I Know Who Killed Me by a discerning audience of almost four million AOL Moviefone pollees. Eddie Murphy also took a critical shoeing for Norbit, which was honoured as the year's worst film. 300, meanwhile, pipped Transformers into second spot …
-
-
Wednesday 2nd January 2008 18:24 GMT Rick Brasche
maybe they misplaced the decimal point?
as in, which movie was most worth your $1.00?"
I figure if I divide my Netflix account monthy fee by the amount of movies I get in, plus the roughly 10 cents a blank DVD costs me (I don't buy in big enough bulk apparently), I can come close to a buck.
and 300 was a fun film. It wasn't a preposterous liberal wank-fest of a foreign film nor did it try to shove stupid politics down my throat, or some BS kumbaya enviro doom story. It was based on a comic book and was just fine based on that.
And as far as Transformers? what did anyone expect, having Michael "blatant product placement" Bay filing it? It was more of a commercial than the old cartoon series was-at least the cartoon series only advertised the toys that starred in it...
-
Wednesday 2nd January 2008 18:24 GMT Joseph Zygnerski
Re: Transformers second best film of year?!?
Not the best movie, but the one most worth the price of admission (and I want to know where people are seeing a movie for only $10).
I'm happy that I saw Transformers in the theaters. It was entertaining, fun, and good on a big screen. Not the best movie of the year, but worth the price of a theater ticket.
-
Wednesday 2nd January 2008 20:07 GMT Christopher Aussant
Transformers was no where close to second best
Transformers was garbage for the same reason every superhero movie done by Hollywood is garbage. The director has to put his own 'vision' on the screen and change the story and characters and setup and EVERYTHING about it to either make it more viable to a wider audience, or put thier own spin on it.
In the Transformers cartoon, which is what became famous not Bay's jizzstain of a movie, Optimus Prime was a flat nose semi, not a long nose truck, Bumblebee was a WV bug not a Camaro(if they had to use the Camaro why not use the Hot Rod character?), the reason for being on Earth was the search for Energon, not this crap story about an All Spark, Starscream wasn't an F22, etc etc. The fans fell in love with the show the way it was, changing everything about it will only serve to do what it did: piss us off. As soon as I heard Bay was directing Transformers my expectations for the movie dropped to near nothing. I had HOPED Spielberg could rein him in and not make it his usual waste of a moviegoers time, but sadly he didn't.
If you liked the movie, well, you're entitled to your own opinion but watch it again and watch it carefully and see everything that was bad. Those transformations sequences were so busy and with the cam moving all over the place it was damn near impossible to see just what the hell was going on. Plus we didn't really need the stupid love angle with Sam and his lust object.
-
Wednesday 2nd January 2008 23:41 GMT Iamfanboy
Best movie of 2007 was Fido
Fido is a HYSTERICAL movie, and an even better meta-movie; it's Lassie meets Dawn of the Dead. A little boy and his only friend in the world - a rotting, animated corpse, set in a 1950's era where the living dead have overrun the earth and it's only the benevolent corporation ZomCo that has saved us all with their zombie enslavement collars. It's going right next to Shaun of the Dead.
OK, No Country for Old Men was GREAT, but it's the COHEN BROTHERS. What was the last bad movie they've actually done? Fido is a movie that I could recommend over and over.
-
Wednesday 2nd January 2008 23:41 GMT heystoopid
So
So the big question is when is this AOL trash films of the last century concept of crap being paced in the $2-00 bargain trash bin along with all the John Wayne Propaganda films of the same era ?
As for Lindsay Lohan even as a child actress the supporting cast were the movie and she was merely decoration at the best of time as the strange ugly duckling looking one with freckles in the corny bits !
In 300 , was there not a delete scene in the battle where they all turned around and apologised for the crap scenes and total disrespect for real history of the time !
As in all rigged polls the results were pre determined anyway so what would Paris say ?
-
Wednesday 2nd January 2008 23:41 GMT Aubry Thonon
Re: Transformers second best film of year?!?
@Joseph Zygnerski "...and I want to know where people are seeing a movie for only $10".
The local cinema 'round here has 6 screens, decent seating (with a comparatively small number of seats per cinema) and all for AU$7.50 in peak times, less for off-peak. (that's currently US$6.15 I believe).
-
Thursday 3rd January 2008 08:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Christopher Aussant
Not much of a REAL Transformers fan, are you? Transformers went through about 11ty trillion iterations of all the characters being different vehicles, and had just as many storylines. They just rebirthed the show with all new characters (same names, though) and all new storyline every time they brought out another line of toys. This is just another iteration. What you're remembering was just the most popular of the various iterations, and also the most widely distributed. Hell, watch the old cartoon movie some time. Energon? What energon? Earth? There's no Earth in this movie. WTF IS THAT!? OMFG IT'S LEONARD NIMOY AND HE EATS PLANETS!
If you understand that, you know that arguing over "differences" between Michael Bay's movie and anything you happen to remember is utterly pointless.
Beyond that, both 300 and Transformers were *FUN* movies. If you went into the theater or rented the DVD expecting to be enriched, I question your sanity - you can't trust Hollywood to do that anymore. It's kind of like Snakes on a Plane. Hideously stupid movie, but great fun.
-
Thursday 3rd January 2008 08:42 GMT Andy Worth
Lol
Transformers was "alright" as far as films go, I mean I didn't claw my own eyes out rather than continue watching it, but it only got the acclaim it did because it's "Transformers". What I mean is that as a film it was slightly above average at best, but there were a lot of sweaty-palmed nerds jizzing into their socks over the film a year before it was even released.
300 was better, but I'm not sure about best movie of the year. Then again I haven't watched anything in 2007 that made me go "Oh wow!".
-
Thursday 3rd January 2008 09:45 GMT Christopher Aussant
@Annon Coward
While you make some very good points(and while making them you do so in a fashion thats not insulting, kudos) you may have missed my point. In that old cartoon movie(which I own, and actually HAVE watched recently) the characters were THE SAME as the ones from the cartoon. There didn't have to be an Earth in the movie as they were on Cybertron, the planet they originated from.
As for arguing over the differences being pointless because they have gone through several iterations over the years, I must disagree. Bay did not call this "Transformers: Bay Edition." He called it transformers, and used the characters made famous in the first iteration. All the new iterations were simply made to sell a new line of toys, same as the first one was. Money before art, the old rule still applies.
However, I will agree with you. It was a *FUN* movie in that I could go to the theater and be entertained by big robots fighting on a large screen and munch on popcorn. However, as I was a big fan of the original and most famous G1 transformers, I felt let down by all the changes which WERE unneccesary. The only reason they made a movie about transformers was to make money and every change was made in the interest to push products and make more money, but the only reason they COULD make money was that transformers was popular in the FIRST place.
People talk about 300 needing to appolagize for the crap history tale. Strange how they don't ask for Transformers to do the same.
-
Thursday 3rd January 2008 12:50 GMT Andrew Fenton
Yurrrgh
300 is just vacuous rubbish, Very stylish, but contentless - it's rather hard to build the atmosphere needed when the dialogue provokes giggles. If it hadn't followed Sin City then it would have had novelty value, but now it has no merit whatsoever. I've nothing against war films, or indeed violent films (some of my favourites are Apocalypse Now and City of God), but this was just tedious war porn.
By the way, it's interesting such an obviously homoerotic film is so popular. Have we become more open-minded so that it's not a factor? I suspect not - it's probably just most of its audience isn't aware enough to notice it (and indeed would be disgusted with themselves if they were).
-
Thursday 3rd January 2008 13:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Christopher Aussant
hahahahaa. The "Transformers fans" you speak of are sad geeks-boys. No one normal gets pissed off because of percieved Transformers continuity blunders!
Their target market was pretty clear - my generation, who watched the original transformers TV stuff and maybe the film and then grew up and filled their heads with other more marketable / exciting-for-those-over-12 stuff, or the new generation of kids that haven't really been introduced to the Transformers franchise.
What you don't seem to realise is that people that people who remember children's TV shows in such detail don't make up a large enough group to have any significant purchasing power at all...
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
