Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

When Transformers came out in 2007, I said it was one of the great summer blockbuster spectacles, a statement I stand by. The epic sense of awe and wonderment, coupled with eye-popping special effects and breathless combat scenes made for some grand entertainment. Yes, it was dumb as dirt, and yes it had some moments I found to be racially insensitive, but overall I was very entertained. The one thing I hoped for from a sequel was more screen time for my favorite OG Transformer, Starscream. So two years later, as I sat through the sequel - Revenge of the Fallen - I was dumbstruck. The things that didn't work in the first film were amplified to the extreme, while the things that I found to be so great were completely abandoned. Flabbergasted, all I could do was repeat to myself "At least they gave Starscream something to do."

It's hard to know where to begin when something goes this wrong. Perhaps I should mention first the most surprising thing: the action is terrible. If memory serves correct, there are three big set pieces: one at the start of the film, one about an hour in, and another at the end. None are very well done, and none top the final battle in the first film. What makes these kinds of battles work is adding a human scale to it. Robots fighting robots in the desert gives you no sense of scale or feeling of impending danger. A lot of people are complaining that you can't tell the robots apart, so there is no investment in them when they fight. I disagree. There is no investment because 90% of the robots fighting are ones we've never seen before, they never speak, and they are never given a name. Who are they? I have no clue. I wanted to care, I really did, but Michael Bay had no investment in these characters, so it became impossible for me to. But at least they gave Starscream something to do.

The characters in the first film weren't great, but they were serviceable. Here they have all been reduced to comedic sidekicks. No exaggeration - all of them. We have the wacky roommate (1), the wacky parents (2,3), the wacky washed up federal agent (4), the wacky pet robot that humps peoples' legs (5), the wacky college professor (6), and the wacky illiterate twin robots (7,8). What a breath of fresh air it was then to have Tyrese show up and not not be wacky at all, but instead wisecracking. Michael Bay knows a film's limits: 8 wacky characters is great, but 9? That might have been pushing it. I honestly couldn't tell you why Sam's roommate stays in the film for as long as he does. About halfway into the film I found myself saying "we have other sources of comedic relief, why are you still here?" Shia LaBeouf, who was really pretty charming in the first one, is absurdly bad here as Sam. Granted, he has to act like he is losing his mind, and that is rarely a graceful thing to perform, but he is especially bad at it. Megan Fox, by virtue of the fact that she can't act, comes off the best in this film. Megan Fox should never, ever be the best actor in a film. But at least they gave Starscream something to do.

Let's jump back to those illiterate twins for a moment, shall we? If you go back to my Transformers review in July 2007, I called that film out for some potentially racist moments. This film blows that one out of the water. Mudflaps and Skids are two illiterate, slang spewing, rambunctious robots with droopy faces and big ears (one even has a gold tooth). Much humor is derived from their ignorant pratfalls. Hey, they don't know any better, how funny! If you hear one thing about this movie, it will certainly be about these two. It is an unfortunate fact that something so regressive could exist in a film that will surely be so huge. Some of those involved with the film have made the argument that the Transformers learn our language through the internet, movies, and TV, and that these two could be seen as a reflection of our own society. So maybe Mudflaps and Skids have just been watching too many Michael Bay movies! But at least they gave Starscream something to do.

I think the thing I hate the most about the majority of sequels is this assumption of familiarity. In the first film there is a sense of discovery as we learn about the characters, what the implications of the story are, and what kind of world they live in. Sequels, like this one, assume that we don't care about that sense of discovery anymore and just throw us into the film. Sometimes it works (The Bourne movies), but usually it doesn't. The plot here is absolutely ridiculous, and really, it wasn't the plot in the first one I liked, either. It was fun to see how people reacted to giant robots, as well as how the robots reacted to us. It was exciting to see the Transformers actually transform from time to time. Here they just remain in robot form the entire time, unless they are moving from one location to another. Remember that great scene in the first where Starscream blends in with the other jets, then suddenly transforms, shoots a few, then turns back into a jet so no one can tell which one is him? Yeah, none of that here. It's just wall to wall mindless noises, bad jokes, and an incoherent plot for two and a half hours. But at least they gave Starscream something to do.

And since we're on the subject, how about Starscream, my one hope for salvation in the film? Well, for starters, he is nothing like the Starscream I love. Gone is his nefarious machinations to overthrow Megatron and rule the Decepticons. Instead, he has been turned into a beaten dog, always abused by Megatron for no good reason. He has no personality, except to grovel at appropriate times. When Bay needs a Decepticon to do something for the plot, it is usually Starscream who does it. That's nice in theory, but often it amounts to no more than following Sam or firing upon enemies. Sure, he's physically in the film a lot more and has actual lines, but he's really not doing anything of interest or consequence. But at least they gave Starscream... well, no I guess they kind of didn't even do that.

Moon

Moon is the perfect example of how to take a simple idea and explore all of its implications. If there were an energy source on the moon that could sustain Earth, how would we go about harvesting it? Sam Rockwell stars as Sam Bell, a man sent to the moon to mine for that energy source and send it back home. Why is one man doing this job alone? Why, indeed! That is part of the fun of Moon - things you think are plot holes initially are really just ideas for first time director Duncan Jones to riff on. When all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, it's a film that makes almost too much sense. If it sounds like I am being coy on what exactly this film is about, you win the big prize. To really say anything about this film's plot would be to give away too much (indeed, the trailer itself already gives away more than I think you should know). Instead, all I can offer is an analysis of its pieces and hope that when you see the film, this review will make sense.

Like I said, Sam Rockwell takes center stage, and he is amazing. There are no other actors in Moon for him to interact with, which makes his performance all the more impressive. Sure, he has a robot companion voiced by Kevin Spacey, but that's just a special effect. No, this is Rockwell from start to finish, and he is never dull. His performance explores many different facets of the character, and by film's end you really feel like you've gotten to know Sam Bell from the day he arrived on the moon until his departure three years later. Kevin Spacey as the robot companion complements this performance perfectly, as I quickly forgot it was Spacey and just accepted it as another character in the film.

The ideas this film presents are what make it work so wonderfully. It's fun for a film to plant an idea in your head and then let you as an audience member interact with that idea on your own. Director Jones never tells you how to feel about the events in the film, nor does he give you a definite reason for why things are happening exactly, but investing a bit of your own interpretation into it makes it all the more satisfying. The film is never really confusing or overwhelming - a problem a lot of hard science fiction films can have - but it has just the right level of thoughtfulness to keep you constantly engaged. It's a film that wraps everything up while still leaving you with things to discuss afterwards.

I really enjoyed what this film had to offer, and I hope it expands to a wider audience in the coming weeks. In some ways it recalls Danny Boyle's Sunshine from 2007. That was another hard science fiction film that really tried to grapple with some ideas while balancing a level of fun. But where Sunshine lost confidence in its ideas in the final act by dissolving into a horror film, Moon embraces its core concept to the end. For those who like hard science fiction films, it's probably the best to come along in a few years.