Comments

• • spudmonkeysteve

    Apr 16th 2009, 10:12

    Actually Transmorphers is a pretty good film in its own right, despite the knock-off Nigel title. Ok so the acting leaves a lot to be desired and the dialogue is stilted and hackneyed but the plot is an intriguing blend of Transformers and The Matrix centering around a human plot to overthrow the tyranny of the machines, sound familiar? The film has a delightful lack of product placement, unlike Transformers, and the plot itself is way better than Transformers. I would give this film three stars any day of the week compared to some of the big budget tosh that tends to score big points within the hallowed pages of your illustrious magazine, good though it is.

    Alert a moderator

  • thedarkknight

    Apr 16th 2009, 15:26

    You like Transmorphers. You're silly.

    Alert a moderator

  • theGlimmerTwin

    Apr 16th 2009, 22:18

    I'm surprise you missed out such classics as the imaginatively titled "Snakes on a Train", "Alien vs Hunter" and "Monster" (a less obvious name for a Cloverfield knockoff). I got all three a joke presents and quite frankly they are painful... Alien vs Hunter is maybe the worst edited movie I've ever seen. SoaT was doing ok until the most uncomfortable and needless near rape scene ever... oh dear indeed!

    Alert a moderator

  • spudmonkeysteve

    Apr 20th 2009, 9:03

    Wow mocking and sarcasm, well excuse my degree in Film all to hell, you've proved me wrong, how dare I have an opinion that differs from mass dismissal. Just because one film was ok, please read my comment as I don't rate it as exceptional merely passable with a decent story, doesn't mean every single one is going to be the same level. theGlimmerTwin and thedarkknight, I am sure you have some DVDs in your collection that are far worse and that cost far more to make than Transmorphers. People are all too ready to dismiss films as irretrievably bad if every single aspect of it isn't glossy. I was merely offering an actual analytical dissection of the films merits rather than just talking about the bad aspects of the film. I merely pointed out that I could see the potential in the story that is hidden beneath the below average acting and sub par script. You focus on details of a film rather than the overall piece of work, just because one aspect of a film is bad does not make the entire thing rubbish, there are always elements to be salvaged from even the worst cinematic car crashes, be it the camerawork, the story or one particular performance that stands out above the rest and lifts an otherwise awful film to the level of being merely below average. Films like this start ooff on a disadvantage because we automatically assume they are going to be c**p and so we focus on those aspects of the production that confirm this, anything that is good is quickly dismissed as coincidental, a happy accident, rather than a small glimmer of talent being exhibited by the makers. I think if this film had had a bigger budget, better actors and a different title it would have been merely average and audiences would have treated it as the Deep Impact to Transformers Armageddon, another Michael Bay film see what I did there? Watch films with an open mind and don't be so ready to mock and deride them, a successful analysis relies on you being able to analyse each aspect individually while keeping your eye on the bigger picture asnd, while Transmorphers bigger picture wasn't particularly brilliant, it had elements that were OK and, given the 'talent' was involved, that is a massive achievement. An unreserved unashamed 3 stars remains my final answer.

    Alert a moderator

  • spudmonkeysteve

    Apr 20th 2009, 9:03

    Wow mocking and sarcasm, well excuse my degree in Film all to hell, you've proved me wrong, how dare I have an opinion that differs from mass dismissal. Just because one film was ok, please read my comment as I don't rate it as exceptional merely passable with a decent story, doesn't mean every single one is going to be the same level. theGlimmerTwin and thedarkknight, I am sure you have some DVDs in your collection that are far worse and that cost far more to make than Transmorphers. People are all too ready to dismiss films as irretrievably bad if every single aspect of it isn't glossy. I was merely offering an actual analytical dissection of the films merits rather than just talking about the bad aspects of the film. I merely pointed out that I could see the potential in the story that is hidden beneath the below average acting and sub par script. You focus on details of a film rather than the overall piece of work, just because one aspect of a film is bad does not make the entire thing rubbish, there are always elements to be salvaged from even the worst cinematic car crashes, be it the camerawork, the story or one particular performance that stands out above the rest and lifts an otherwise awful film to the level of being merely below average. Films like this start ooff on a disadvantage because we automatically assume they are going to be c**p and so we focus on those aspects of the production that confirm this, anything that is good is quickly dismissed as coincidental, a happy accident, rather than a small glimmer of talent being exhibited by the makers. I think if this film had had a bigger budget, better actors and a different title it would have been merely average and audiences would have treated it as the Deep Impact to Transformers Armageddon, another Michael Bay film see what I did there? Watch films with an open mind and don't be so ready to mock and deride them, a successful analysis relies on you being able to analyse each aspect individually while keeping your eye on the bigger picture asnd, while Transmorphers bigger picture wasn't particularly brilliant, it had elements that were OK and, given the 'talent' was involved, that is a massive achievement. An unreserved unashamed 3 stars remains my final answer.

    Alert a moderator