Transformers; An Artistically Meaningful Film. NOT!

Ok, maybe I’m being a little bit over the top with the irony, there.

Just a touch.

A tad.

But I think I’ve possibly — possibly — got an excuse, here.

And just as equally possibly not got an excuse for throwing in the pic of Megan Fox, who appeared as the love interest — Michæla — in the film.

Had to double check the cast list and character names there.

Which possibly tells you something …

I’m hoping it’ll imply “Transformers” is …

Well …

Entertaining …

Eumm …

Possibly not — it’s sort of borderline entertaining, although it does have a lot of eye-candy in it.

I do know it’s the first time I’ve seen Movie Night Adrian trying to politely avoid, and then give in to swearing, then he wondered why John Voight — Angelina’s dad, don’t forget — be involved with a bad movie.

Not quite the phrase he used, but you get the idea.

I’m not thinking it was that bad.

But — borrowed copy that it was — I’m glad I didn’t pay money for it.

Ok, I know I maybe shouldn’t be expecting much from a film that is, after all, spun off from a TV series that is, in turn, spun off from a line of toys. And aimed maybe more at a family audience* than its 12 certificate implies.

But, while the look of — and action in — the film is superb, I can’t help but think that, in the post-Buffy, post-“Shrek”, post-new “Doctor Who” space that genre film and TV now occupies, a certain level of emotional sophistication is missing from this.

Which is possibly unsurprising, given one of the production companies involved was Dreamworks; “Transformers” was made after their distribution deal with Disney, but could easily, I feel, have been directly funded by the latter.

I’m also fairly certain that John Voight’s involvement with this film would’ve earnt the production companies involved a little bit of kudos for hiring himº, earnt him a nice amount of what Humphrey Bogart would’ve called “FU money”. In other words, much like the “Indiana Jones” movies did for Spielberg, it got Voight a big fat pay-cheque that let him move onto the projects that he really wants to do. There’s also a long used phrase from the world of professional music — the Tax Albumª — that’s must modern rock bands nearest equivalent.

So, much as I would’ve liked to have recommended “Transformers” to people, I’m not.

I’m really not.

I’d really only feel comfortable about recommending it to you if you’ve got kids who’d like to see it, or the soon to be released sequel.

I also know one of the producers, Tom DeSanto, said he wanted to recreate a sense of wonder with this film.

I’m walking away from it, feeling mildly glad I’ve not spent money on it. Because “Transformers” definitely isn’t wonderful.

* And even then, I’m also very aware that the new series of “Doctor Who” has a lot more subtle gags and references than “Transformers”. That ‘musical theatre’ line in “Daleks of Manhatten” springs to mind …

º I’m told this is also the reason why George Lucas and company hired Alec Guinness, all those years ago, for “Star Wars”; it got them a spot of kudos, being able to say they had a notable heavyweight in their corner. I could possibly make the same argument for Peter Jackson’s hiring of dear, dear Sir Ian. Except Sir Ian McKellan immediately did “Coronation Street”, and “Aladdin” not long, there-after. Which makes him possibly the only Shakespearean actor to have played Window Twankey …

ª The ‘Tax Album’ is any just about on-par album a band makes, when it finds it has a larger than expected tax bill — or alimony/fine/what-have-you — to pay. Or needs to get out of a record contract, quick. And, while I love “Boo”, by Was (Not Was), I have to wonder, sometimes …