In this week's At The Movies, it is Rolling Stone movie critic Peter Travers' honor to review what he calls the potential Worst Movie of the Decade, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Somehow, director Michael Bay miraculously took his already-awful Transformers film and made a sequel that is worse, clocking in at a punishing two-and-a-half hours where moviegoers are subjected to metal just crashing into each other (and Megan Fox looking like Megan Fox, the film's lone redeeming factor).
Still, despite how bad it is the blockbuster will likely make hundreds of millions at the box office. "I know it's popular, so is junk food, it still rots your brain," Travers says. In fact, going into your attic, excavating your old Transformers toys and playing with them for two-and-a-half hours would likely be a more rewarding intellectual experience. In other of Bay's dud, Travers' is transforming his Scum Bucket into the Transformers Scum Bucket, the measuring stick of terrible movie-making that all bad films must aspire to.
Fortunately, for your brain cells at least, there is one fantastic alternative in theaters this week, and it's called The Hurt Locker.
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by Rolling Stone contributor Mark Boal, the film tells the story of a bomb disposal unit during the Iraq War. It's a film "made by an artist and touched by human hands," Travers says. Plus, for the Transformers fans, there are explosions. This ticking-bomb thriller will make you sweat and make you feel.
Read this week's reviews:
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
>>Watch every episode of our weekly Peter Travers video podcast by subscribing via iTunes (when prompted, click “Launch application”). Every Friday, a new episode will be delivered to your iTunes. [If you don’t have iTunes, download it here.]
Share
Email
Stumble
AIM
Del.icio.us
DiggThis
Fark It!
- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC.
Get RS Mobile
RSS
Steve | November 11, 2009 9:17 PM
O.K. i agree with you guys whole heartedly that this wasn't great. Too many sex jokes, no development in the transformers, and the title character is the biggest wimp of all time, and I see it as the biggest dissapointment of the year easily but come on. worst movie of the decade? That's pushing it. I can think of a at least five movies from this decade that i hate many more times then this
brian patrow | August 9, 2009 3:26 PM
peter ....i totally agree with u 100%. i saw it in a pack theater. the action was great....but the stroyline is sooo stupid. didnt make any since at all. but i enjoy the action sence....but the problem i had was mudflap and skid. what the hell was the point of those two.
Grizzla | July 13, 2009 9:08 AM
I fell asleep during Transformers 2 but don't even feel like asking anyone I know what happened after that. That's how gripping this slop was.
Edsopinion.com | July 7, 2009 2:48 PM
Well Peter you done it again! The Hurt Locker has grossed $370,123 since its release. Transformers Revenge of the Fallen has grossed $293,355,885 in approximately the same time. The audience has rendered its verdict. The Hurt Locker an incomparably better movie than Transformers is snubbed even though the critics including your self gave it very high ratings. What is at work here: wide release and publicity over limited release, Indy film with limited promotional funding. I haven't seen one TV commercial for this worthy film!
NTL | July 5, 2009 10:42 PM
I actually left the theater before the movie ended. I haven't done that since...well, never. I couldn't take the machines anymore or the earth shattering sound. It was too long to endure that hell. Nothing made sense. Nothing. The story was pathetic. I left wanting a refund. Unfortunately they can't give me back that time wasted.
Ted | July 5, 2009 6:01 PM
Having a bias against a director and still reviewing the movie? Can you explain what is reasonable about that?
The MAn | July 5, 2009 5:57 PM
Yeah, movies that make money are stupid... Public Enemies, a movie that made a viewer in my theater puke from the awful camera work...that's a good film... Hey Pete, trim the pubic hair mustache, stop taking it up the butt, and put your opinion where your boyfriend puts it.
Harry Hooligan | July 2, 2009 10:40 PM
When the plot fails so early in a movie, one can only look to action or humor to salvage the remainder of it. This being the case, I shall assess this travesty on these points.
Action: Unbelievable action! Really. Unbelieveable. but good looking though.
Humor: As a 25 year old male, I've never felt so old. Humping jokes? C'mon. Oh wait, i forgot at least we had a token mom-eating-pot-brownies gag to make us laugh. Sigh.
Could've done my laundry.
Les | July 1, 2009 9:50 PM
Baldvin:
I have to laugh at your comment "why don't you try to do better". Plenty of people HAVE done better. See Star Trek yet? That's not counting all the small budget films that never get release in multiplexes.
Andre | July 1, 2009 1:58 PM
Michael Bay did make one great film: The Rock
WTF! | June 30, 2009 10:00 PM
WTF that was the tightest movie i have seen this year. the fact that Travers hates Bay (perhaps he didn't want to spoon?) doesn't mean that he has to hate the movie and ruin it for everyone else.
YOU SUCK PETER TRAVERS!!!
Dan | June 30, 2009 7:45 PM
Assuming that a person can't dislike something because they may or may not be able to do better is very poor logic. It was a bad movie, and most of us could probably do better.
Jake | June 30, 2009 7:42 PM
Michael Bay is terrible but not as bad as Uwe Boll. Worst movie of the decade? No, but definately in the top 12.
Dan | June 30, 2009 6:10 PM
For anyone wondering why Spielberg's name would be attached to this film, it's because "Executive Producer" means, among other things, "person in charge of making sure the movie is profitable". In that sense, Spielberg has done his job. I've not seen ROTF yet, but Peter Traver's review has me excited to see it. I knew it would be bad, but curiosity about the depth of its awfulness has me kind of excited.
Baldvin | June 30, 2009 12:12 PM
Since you hate it so much, why don't all of you go and try make a better film? I'd like to see those results.
James | June 30, 2009 2:44 AM
I've been a Transformers fan since back in the day, but I have to say this new flick is terrible. My fanboy dreams have been shattered, thanks Bay. While I was amused and entertained by the first film, I had hoped Bay would improve on the franchise. I was putting too much faith in a dream that was destined to fail. Bay did nothing to improve anything. He threw in too much and gave too little. I usually don't agree with critics, and I what they say about films is their opinion, but this time I'm biting the bullet and agreeing with Travers. I want my money back.
Grant | June 29, 2009 9:10 PM
So far I have agreed with every review Peter Travers has done and I am a devoted reader of his reviews in Rolling Stone and will continue to be, but I have to admit this is the one review I think he was a little harsh with, or maybe it's just because I'm 15 and in a way Michael Bay appealed to my senses with this movie, even though there are many issues with it, I enjoyed it.
remember barney? | June 29, 2009 7:12 PM
As much as we might despise it, there is a genuine audience that was entertained by this movie. It's depressing, but you can't force people to like good acting and meaningful story.
Trek | June 29, 2009 6:50 PM
Critics will always be critics. Basically it's an objectification subjectified in their own taste. No matter how one love something there will always be another to hate it. It's just a reality that everyone else will always have something different to say. We can never be objective about something because we view something personally in different point of views. in the end who loses? of course the haters of this movie that shelled out their bucks to watch a movie that's not even worth a penny in a junkyard for them. winners? as long as you enjoyed without remorse.
o'man | June 29, 2009 6:44 PM
what in the hell did i just
see?who were the good guys
and who were the bad guys?
the only interesting bot was
the old fart with the cane
from the smithsonian.i saw it
in IMAX which brought some
intertainment value.my nine
year old grandson loved it,
so,seeing him laugh and jump
made it ok.well
Unsilent Majority | June 29, 2009 11:17 AM
I've lost respect for both Rolling Stone and Peter Travers after reading this review. Worst movie of the decade? Come on! This movie isn't going to win an Oscar for best picture (as an aside, perhaps one for visual effects though), but worst movie in the last 10 years? That's a plain and simple STUPID, BIAS, and RIDICULOUS comment. Obviously, this is some sort of personal vendetta against the movie due to Michael Bay, Transformers as a phenomenon, etc. BTW, Rolling Stone/Peter Travers, there are millions of people thinking the exact same thing and if you'd like to maintain any credibility amongst the masses you may want to add and addendum to your comments.
Brian | June 28, 2009 9:01 PM
Yep. It's definitely a silly film. I wouldn't say it's the worst film of the decade, as many others have stated...Norbit and Ultra Violet...oh god, those two are not even worth VHS. There is a parody by Robot Chicken of Bay Explosions...it pretty much hits the mark. Bay is mentally a young boy who has never developed his 'story' part of his brain and his tumor 'exploding' part only continues to grow bigger and bigger, leaving no room for anything else. Someone must perform surgery to have that thing removed, soon.
Dumbass | June 28, 2009 5:10 PM
Drrrrr I was entertained.
Anonymous | June 28, 2009 3:06 PM
Bay directed The Rock and the first Bad Boys. He's not that bad as a an action director. Hell, I liked the first Transformers. However, the amount of power that this guy has over the industry is sickening and makes him very hateable. Now, I don't hate Bay, I hate Rattner and Anderson and the "genre movie" guys. I just wish the guy would wake up and have a dickens type of awakening where he didn't have to turn all of his movies into a formula.
Jerry | June 28, 2009 2:46 PM
@AK
...except Michael Bay DIDN'T make the metal and explosions look cool, his special effects department did. Michael Bay has never had a good movie, but in this world of uncertainty, I for one am glad to see that some things never change.
Cole | June 28, 2009 12:17 PM
I agree that the movie is bad, but what I find attrocious is a movie reviewer who bashes one movie and plugs another for a person who works with him.
AK | June 28, 2009 11:10 AM
I liked the Transformers movies. The action is incredible. I don't know what kind of story line you except out of an action movie. That is what dramas are for. You might think the story line was crap but that's not what I went to see the movie for, I went to see it for the visual effects. I think Michael Bay did a great job making pieces of metal look amazingly awesome! I would like to see any of you try and make a movie that required that much visual effects!!!! I think this movie critic gets paid for saying ridiculous things, some of his other reviews of movies I don't agree with either but it boils down to what type of movies you like and don't. I don't think this guy should be criticizing movies he would never like in the first place. There has to be some middle ground. Good day.
Jim | June 28, 2009 8:33 AM
My son and I saw the first Transformers together when he was 16. I went just to go to the movies with my son. I was completely entertained. Loved the movie. Saw it again, and bought the DVD then the Blu-Ray to see it again before seeing Rise of the Fallen. The chase seen was too vast. Bumble Bee should have replace the two little ghetto boy autobots. The way the fowl language was misused was insulting and not for 13 year olds. But, for 2.5 hours, we were completely entertained, will see it again, will own the second one when it's released. It's why we go to the movies isn't it?
Andy | June 28, 2009 5:06 AM
Norbit the worst movie? Please, you are an idiot. ROTF is incoherent garbage throughout. The first movie was not good either. Michael Bay is a hack and should be banished from Hollywood.
Andrew | June 28, 2009 1:06 AM
Ridiculously high standards? Is that what asking for a coherent plot, dynamic characters, and not pure metallic incoherent wrecks of action sequences is called now? That is now "ridiculously high standards"?
What the hell has become wrong with the public? Why is the public willing to settle for this, why does wanting decent storytelling now suddenly become a benchmark for "your standards are too high"? Have people become so fixed on crap?
Hellboy, for example, was no Ben-Hur, but it still qualified as a decent film because they cared about creating interesting characters and a decent plot, this is the minimum standard we, as movie watchers, should expect. This film's failure to follow basic storytelling conventions should not be a reflection of our standards, but rather the lack of said standards within the general populace.
ericWV | June 27, 2009 5:22 PM
Anyone who says that this movie was made for kids and that adults "just don't get it", are only covering up the fact that they like crap movies and have bad taste. You know what, I grew up on the cartoon. The TV show had better action, character development, and stories than either of these multi-million dollar budget movies had, and you know what it was a SATURDAY MORNING CARTOON! That was supposed to be junk food for the mind. Michael Bay must be lobotomized.
David | June 27, 2009 4:04 PM
You guys have no idea what you're talking about. This movie was awesome, plain and simple. It was meant to entertain and bring some nostalgia to the people who grew up with the cartoon. Just because you guys are incapable of understanding what entertainment is there's no need to bad mouth this movie. Besides not every movie has to meet up to your ridiculously high standards. After all if all you have to say are bad things about it, then just keep your mouth shut. I feel sorry for you, because if you continue posting such inaccurate reviews about movies like transformers, you can kiss your reputation as a movie critic goodbye.
JP | June 27, 2009 1:37 PM
I'm simply astounded why anybody thought this sequel had any chance of being good. Considering how atrocious the first movie was. Even more astounding will be the fact that this piece of crap movie is going to rake in beaucoup bucks this weekend. Oh well, here's to the suckers that are stimulating this economy.
Starsky | June 27, 2009 4:47 AM
I can't believe that a true genius like Steven Spielberg was the "executive producer" of this piece of junk, again......
Why he didn't give Mr. Bay some good ideas for the film.
Mike | June 27, 2009 2:43 AM
I cant believe you were able to explain how absolutely terrible michael bay and his filth is in such a short time. Thank you.
Bay ~ Please have a duel to the death with paul anderson where both of you die or are both rendered unable to ever make another movie again.
Paul | June 27, 2009 2:34 AM
The only thing I liked about the outcome of the Transformers 2 movie was the dress Megan Fox was almost wearing at the premier in Germany. Yahoo news has a few nice shots of it.
Jim | June 26, 2009 10:55 PM
Outstanding job Mr. Travers.
Bob | June 26, 2009 10:30 PM
"Transformers" wasn't great but I don't think it deserves the title as worst film of the decade. That belongs to "Norbit."
Namkcab | June 26, 2009 8:25 PM
Get a grip everyone, it's a movie based on a low budget cartoon series that promoted toys for young boys. The moive hit a bullseye with the youngsters that went to the movie with me. Hasbro must be very happy with this film and wasn't that the true intention of making this film?
Savon | June 26, 2009 8:10 PM
Thank you for championing The Hurt Locker! Jeremy Renner is from my hometown, and I met him when he signed autographs at a special screening of his film S.W.A.T. Kathryn Bigelow directed the two-part sixth season finale of my favorite TV show of all time, Homicide: Life on the Street. I look forward to watching The Hurt Locker.
Bo | June 26, 2009 8:06 PM
It's porn, that's no news. Promised myself I will do something good for myself and pass these Transformers. And I hope box office will suddenly turn against it for the sake of the film art.
Suzanna | June 26, 2009 7:50 PM
I saw the movie last night and the only word that came to mind was: stupid. It was also sensory overload and totally incomprehensible - I didn't give a shit about any of it. Megan Fox is hot but, please, she looked like she was posing for a Maxim photoshoot the whole time; that's not acting. Where was she getting all her changes of clothes - and how did she keep her pouty lips so glossy amidst the rubble? I walked out halfway through, don't know how I tolerated it that long.
Czikk | June 26, 2009 4:37 PM
Was another Transformers movie necessary? The first one was actually enjoyable, assuming one can take it at face value. It wasn't art, by any means, but it did at least entertain. Can I say the same about this? Can anybody?
hdbngr63 | June 26, 2009 2:59 PM
It's been three days since I've seen the movie and my ears are still ringing. I've now hung a picture of Michael Bay on my dartboard. Needless to say I've been trying even harder to hit the bullseye.
Jonathan | June 26, 2009 2:36 PM
A short story: my first experience with Michael Bay was when I was eight and Armageddon had been released. It was a scorching summer night and mom took me to watch this movie. Three hours later, mom asked me what I thought; I tell her that Armageddon was awful. I was eight and even then I knew that this was a loud, implausible laughable film. Unfortunately for me, Mom took me to see this fiasco seven times when once was enough.
Watching Revenge of the Fallen was like being back in that movie theater years ago, watching Armageddon. Except that Revenge is truly the worst thing he's ever done.
Nate | June 26, 2009 2:25 PM
This is the best review of Transformers I have seen. Regardless of whether it is a hit, at least there are people like Peter Travers giving that scumbag Michael Bay what he deserves!!