Sequels are very difficult to do well; you have to take a successful formula, recreate all the elements that made it successful, and add even more elements to avoid getting repetitive. In a sense, “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” attempts to do that; it has more characters, more explosions, and more storylines. Yet somehow the movie still seems like a retread of its predecessor that came out two years earlier. How can it seem like the same movie if there’s more stuff? Well . . . maybe because it’s more of the same stuff; the same fight scenes, the same story lines, and the same characters. And anytime there is something new we see very little of it. So does that make the sequel good or bad? If you loved the first film and want to see it again, it’s good. If you want to see something fresh, new, and bursting with original ideas, it’s bad.

The story begins as our young hero from the first film, Sam (Shia LaBeouf), is going off to college and leaving his girlfriend, Mikaela (Megan Fox), behind. They agree to still be a couple despite being so far apart. Luckily Sam has a conspiracy nut roommate named Leo (Ramon Rodriguez) to keep him from being lonely. Sam’s troubles start up when a piece of the alien cube (called the All-Spark) from the first film seems to take over his mind. Suddenly, he starts writing symbols, and spitting out gibberish that mean nothing to him. Fortunately, it means a great deal to the Autobots, who explain that the symbols are a map leading to a machine that the evil Decepticons can use to make more Transformers. The downside of this manufacturing bonanza is that it needs energy to function, energy that can only come from destroying the sun.

But this obviously isn’t a problem as they defeated the Decepticons in the first film, right? Faster than you can say, “payback,” the Decepticons return to Earth and resurrect Megatron so that he can carry out the orders of their evil leader known simply as ‘The Fallen.’ Sam, Mikaela, and Leo are joined by the Autobots as they follow clues that are left in Sam’s mind and try to find the evil machine before the Decepticons do. Along the way they come across several explosions, action scenes, and crude one-liners - pretty much what we expect to find in a Michael Bay film.

With that said, “Revenge of the Fallen” is about as “by the book” a sequel as you can get, giving you more of the same, just on a bigger scale. What that made the first film so enjoyable (but is missing from this one) is the sense of simplicity and build up. For instance, when Optimus Prime makes his initial appearance in the first film, the audience roared with applause; however, in the sequel, there are several new Transformers, bigger and better than before, but they are never really introduced or even given any lines. With the exception of one called Jet-Lag and a set of comedic annoyances known as ‘The Twins,’ the new Transformers are seen once and then forgotten. Also, the plot seems overdone and overwritten, with too many locations to visit and too many action scenes to count. Granted these scenes are fun to watch for awhile, but they don’t build in intensity like in the first film.

Where the first film begins with a fight scene in the desert and ends with one in the city, this one begins with the fight in the city and ends with one in the desert. Why would that be more impressive? Watching people shoot at sand is not exactly entertaining, and even when it looks like they’re going to do something epic (like the reveal of a Transformer that’s actually five machines combining as one) they underplay the event. This film would rather watch people firing guns at the Decepticons for over twenty minutes, which is simply tiring. Of course there are all the standard ploys that you’d expect in a Michael Bay film: immature humor, slutty women, over the top stereotypes, and constant moving shots. But where the first film seemed to have fun (almost satirizing) the conventions, the sequel just reuses them, adding nothing new to the mix. I guess it fulfilled its purpose - to give us the mindless entertainment that we have come to expect from Bay, but without the elements of surprise, suspense, or a sense of wanting to see more.

So who’ll like it? People looking to see something almost identical to the first film or just searching for mindless action (and let’s face it, we all are, sometimes). They will most likely find this flick to be marginally satisfying.

Who won’t like it? People looking for a continuation and expansion of the story instead of just a recap of the original. And anyone tired of the old Michael Bay formula will REALLY be tired of it in this film.

My thoughts? I suppose I enjoyed watching this film in the theater, but forgot it very quickly after leaving, and could never imagine watching it again. I expected more, and it is my guess that fans will expect more as well; I fear many may find it to be disappointing. I would say that it is on par with sequels like “‘Ghostbusters 2, Men in Black 2, and Home Alone 2.” If you enjoyed those sequels, then you’ll enjoy ‘Revenge of the Fallen,’ but there’s no denying that it is recycled. The trick to making a sequel is not only giving people what they want, but giving them what they didn’t even know they wanted. Surprise them, throw them for a loop, give them something that they’ll enjoy, but not predict five steps ahead. Those are the films that audiences not only love but continue to remember. This is not one of those films; it will most likely entertain some, but be forgotten by most. And, if remembered at all, it will be as “Transformers: The Mighty Have Fallen.”