Transformers: Why the Serious Analysis
Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen has recently been slammed in many ways from the lack of character development to the inaccuracies of geography. I respond with this (in homage to Heath Ledger), “why so serious?” Critics have lambasted the movie stating such nonsense as “the movie lacks a transformative will of characters to overcome their on-screen egos” (whatever that means) and my personal favorite, “the lack of believability insulted my intelligence.” Give me a break. When was the last time you encountered automobiles and planes transform into robots? Here’s my personal review of it in non-pretentious terms: “Enjoyable. Action-packed and a good use of two-and-a-half hours.” My question to the reviewers and others who put such a philosophical slant to their reviews is did you know the movie is based off a toy? Sure, I can see a philosophical or sociological interpretation to, say, the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe or the Golden Compass where both books are based on books that have a dominant religious or anti-religious interpretation. But when you try to do the same for Transformers, doesn’t it cheapen what Transformers is, a gkid’s toy. Sure, there are plotholes. What movie doesn’t? Cut it some slack and take it for it is: a movie that is designed to have action and lots of it. It’s robots from outer space, people. As a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, so too is a scifi movie just a scifi movie.
Comments
Leave a Reply