More does not equal better

Rating: 6/10 (25 June 2009)

It was a stroke of genius to invent a toy which, with a few manipulations, changed from a vehicle of some kind into a robot - a simple concept, if complex in the engineering. Creating an animated series as a running commercial for the toys was also brilliant although, like all such things, the fad ran its course and both toys and TV series were relegated to the fond remembrances of ex-small boys. However, nostalgia is big business, hence the reappearance of the Transformers in real-life (well, high quality CGI) in 2007's big screen Transformers movie.
Let's be clear - if you thought the first movie was rubbish, there's nothing in Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen which is going to change your mind.
I happened to quite like it, and so did lots of others because it enjoyed considerable box office success: so much so that the makers have set out to replicate that success in this sequel.
Let me look at the common features of both movies. There is no story, of course, only backstory (viz. the ongoing interstellar war between two groups of shape-changing robots, the good Autobots and the evil Decepticon - this scenario was an adequate hook on which to hang an episodic animated series), but interposing an engaging couple of humans is a great help. Shia LaBoeuf as beleaguered everyman Sam Witwicky is ideal for audience identification, and Megan Fox as the sinuous Mikaela is ideal eye-candy for slavering male fanboys (for, make no mistake, these movies aren't aimed at women). And it was a masterstroke to bring in Peter Cullen's excellent voice characterisation of Optimus Prime - magisterial but compassionate - to bridge from the TV series to the movies. Sam's parents play non-essential but entertaining roles in both movies (particularly Julie White as Mom) and John Turturro reprises his role, albeit more sympathetically in the sequel (his role as establishment a-hole is taken by a newly appointed government something-or-other). The script is blessed with humour, there's lots of action, and the Transformers themselves are visual marvels.
Now let me look at what has been changed for this sequel. Er, nothing. No, that's not strictly fair - the big change is that there is far more - FAR - more - of everything, even to the extent of introducing a second, and unnecessary, beleaguered everyman. There are more Transformers, more explosions, more running away, and that's where the problem lies - when the film concentrates on Sam's problems, or on the interactions between the Transformers as characters, it's fine.
It's when the action takes over that the flaws of the first movie become compounded. Number one is that the action is so frenzied, and the camera-work (as is the fashion these days) is so verite that it's often difficult to tell what's going on - use a tripod sometimes, folks! Number two is that it is often difficult to tell which Transformer is which, particularly with the Decepticons, and if you don't know who is fighting, how can you care about the outcome. And the third is the overkill factor - the lesson of Matrix 3, that interminable CGI action sequences lose the audience's engagement after a while - seems to have passed Michael Bay by. Transformers 2 could have been at least half an hour shorter, most of it trimmed from the final action sequence.
The ongoing potential subplot about Mikaela's Dad's shady past is touched on and then passed over.
These flaws are a pity, because there is much to enjoy about the movie, particularly the sequence about the hot chick at college who unaccountably takes a shine to Sam. I could have done without the leg-humping gags, and half an hour of ear-pounding action, but otherwise I enjoyed it.