Roger Ebert "The Brainiac" explains his ROTF review

I attacked the critics at first, but after all the discussion I see where they are coming from. Now I enjoyed the movie, but thats coming from a TF fan who used to dream of live action movies. The action was awesome, but too enjoy the movie the most you gotta just watch it the whole way through, and don't analyze anything, just enjoy it for what it is. When you actually start thinking about everything, thats when you realize how bad it really is, which is what these critics jobs are. They aren't paid to just "enjoy the ride" they gotta be fair and break the whole movie down.

That being said considering how rushed it was, adding the writers strike into the mix, its a miracle we even got an enjoyable movie at all!

Gosh I love his review. And he is right. We were groaning in our seats by the time Jetfire took what felt like half an hour to explain the movie- and then we realized we still had almost an hour more to go! My goodness but it was a terrible film. Did justice to none of the characters- and every minute that featured Skidz, Mudflap or Devastator could have been given to Ratchet, Arcee and the Fallen respectively.

All the crud having to do with the location of the "matrix" could have been slashed and no would have cared.

Terrible.

The dude's right.

As a movie, that touches you and makes you stop and think about life.. it's crap.

As a movie that's about robots kicking each-others ass, it's fecking A!

Guess what. most people aren't interested in robots kicking each-others ass.

The movie lacks about all the emotions that were even in the animated movie 23 years ago and the only thing it has going for it is a lot of 'splosions. mindless fun? yes. a good movie? no.. .a good Transformers movie? not by a long shot...

Roger Ebert is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else. The only difference is that he's paid to publish his opinion.

Personally, I believed the 68% user rating on RottenTomatoes.com than the 90% from Paramount.

I'll defend Mr Ebert because he has the right to his opinions. Personally, I find I disagree with most of them as I find what he enjoys from films doesn't match with my own tastes.

I learned ages ago after reading negative reviews of movies I really liked to ignore reviews entirely. I attend movies or buy DVD's if they appeal to me. I'll still read reviews in the paper, but a can't think of a single written review review that has stopped me from seeing a film I want to watch or vise versa.

What I don't get is people who say "You gotta enjoy it for what it is". Why? Why do I have to enjoy it? Why must I settle for this? Don't I, don't YOU, deserve better? Are you gonna argue with me that its about alien robots and blah blah blah? Really, is that the best you can do? Cause Star Wars was about nothing BUT aliens and it was a WAAAAAAYYYYYY better film(s) then ROTF. The new Star Trek got great response from fans.

Yes you're always gonna have the never satisfied group of people that will bash anything thats not 100 percent the way they want it, but I am far from that person, being very open minded, loving the first film and getting crushed by the second.

Action = great, story = pure junk, no one can refute that.

I must admit that while I tend to disagree with a lot of his film assesments I do have a lot of respect for his years of experience and the viewpoint from which he approaches things. I've always felt that that viewpoint was more often narrow than it really should be but to each their own.
UNTIL he made the following comment...

"Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film I hope they climb a presonal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve."

I'm well into my 30's and, while I may have my favorites in the realm of music and movie genres, I by no means limit myself to these and actually enjoy all aspects of films from docu-dramas, to indies to even so-called "chick flicks" or "feel-good" movies.
I enjoy art museums and science exhibitions as much as folk life or Rennaisance fairs. I can spend all day digging ditches and then don a suit and tie and rub elbows with folks at the yacht club (which was quite fun actually) so I must say that Mr. Eberts remark was no less than offensive, rude, selfish and absolute, narrowminded BULL****! (One good turn deserves another.)
Despite how many of my posts come across, I do have a very good command of the english language and I can assure you that I could have found a far more eloquent, less blatantly rude manner in which to insult an entire fandom than what he did. He just found a way to give us all "the finger" and still have it done with a "G" rating.

He really didn't so much as explain his position as indicate that those who found objection to his position didn't posses the cerebral capacity to understand his viewpoint in the first place and that he really didn't HAVE to explain himself since he had put in enough time in the industry as to be above reproach.
It was a fascinating article but once you filtered out the unnecessaries and got to the actual core of his response, you were left with nothing less than a whole lot of self righteousness.

I, personally, am still left with ever growing conflicted feelings about the movie myself as the newness wears off and I've had time to rethink the film from all angles. The team behind this film failed horribly on many aspects and I do feel cheated in a lot of respects but at the same time I cannot ignore the fact that it was an epic venture on several levels. It truly did fall into the singular category of the highest grossing, most breath-taking, astounding, award deserving failure of cinematic history. How the hell does someone pull THAT off?

Wow. That's a really cool feeling to see Roger Ebert mention Seibertron.com ... and not just mention, but more-or-less acknowledge that he read through our discussions to see what we had to say about the movie (and possibly his review). I certainly wouldn't mind connecting with him since we're both fellow Chicagoans.

T-Macksimus wrote:I must admit that while I tend to disagree with a lot of his film assesments I do have a lot of respect for his years of experience and the viewpoint from which he approaches things. I've always felt that that viewpoint was more often narrow than it really should be but to each their own.
UNTIL he made the following comment...

"Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film I hope they climb a presonal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve."

I'm well into my 30's and, while I may have my favorites in the realm of music and movie genres, I by no means limit myself to these and actually enjoy all aspects of films from docu-dramas, to indies to even so-called "chick flicks" or "feel-good" movies.
I enjoy art museums and science exhibitions as much as folk life or Rennaisance fairs. I can spend all day digging ditches and then don a suit and tie and rub elbows with folks at the yacht club (which was quite fun actually) so I must say that Mr. Eberts remark was no less than offensive, rude, selfish and absolute, narrowminded BULL****! (One good turn deserves another.)
Despite how many of my posts come across, I do have a very good command of the english language and I can assure you that I could have found a far more eloquent, less blatantly rude manner in which to insult an entire fandom than what he did. He just found a way to give us all "the finger" and still have it done with a "G" rating.

He really didn't so much as explain his position as indicate that those who found objection to his position didn't posses the cerebral capacity to understand his viewpoint in the first place and that he really didn't HAVE to explain himself since he had put in enough time in the industry as to be above reproach.
It was a fascinating article but once you filtered out the unnecessaries and got to the actual core of his response, you were left with nothing less than a whole lot of self righteousness.

I, personally, am still left with ever growing conflicted feelings about the movie myself as the newness wears off and I've had time to rethink the film from all angles. The team behind this film failed horribly on many aspects and I do feel cheated in a lot of respects but at the same time I cannot ignore the fact that it was an epic venture on several levels. It truly did fall into the singular category of the highest grossing, most breath-taking, astounding, award deserving failure of cinematic history. How the hell does someone pull THAT off?

T-Mack,

I think you missed something. His response was aimed towards the people that have been flooding his inbox with "Transformers was awesome, you suck old fart" comments, not TF Fans in general. Hell he even complimented us on Seibertron.com, the ULTIMATE Transformers Resource.

"How the hell does someone pull THAT off?"

By pouring another 50 million into marketing and releasing the film in a spot with no competition. With nothing else to see, might as well see the robots blow stuff up...

The cool thing was that he actually mentioned this site, and complemented our moderating team.

"Seibertron.com: All-transformers-all-the-time."

That would be a cool slogan.

But Ebert is still wrong on movies most of the time.

First Gen wrote:Action = great, story = pure junk, no one can refute that.

Amen! I have been saying this since I saw it. Still enjoyed it nonetheless but I do believe we are owed big time for TF3. Unicron and the dinobots at the very least.

Zeds wrote:

First Gen wrote:Action = great, story = pure junk, no one can refute that.

Amen! I have been saying this since I saw it. Still enjoyed it nonetheless but I do believe we are owed big time for TF3. Unicron and the dinobots at the very least.

The only way I can see a Dinobot or two would be if they crashed near a museum (Like MOTR, for instance) and scanned a Tyrannosaur as an alternate mode, or if they never changed the altmode at all, since the altmode has a resemblance to a dinosaur.

However, I can definitely see Unicron.

Rodimus Prime wrote:He is still wrong most of the time.

His job is to give his opinion on movies. That is, he's no more wrong about movies than you are.

Badass Grimlock wrote:However, I can definitely see Unicron.

I could live with that. I want to see some apocalyptic destruction.

Personally, I don't even bother listening to critics. It all pretty much comes down to different tastes.

Though I am slightly offended when Ebert said that whoever thought that this was a good movie hadn't evolved. Well, I loved ROTF and my favorite movies of all time are The Good The Bad And The Ugly, Seven Samurai, and The Godfather.

And wasn't Ebert the one who liked Batman And Robin? Or was that somebody else?

I hate this guy and I always thought his reviews were laughable but this time around i find my self agreeing with some of his comments. Hell I am one of the few that thought this movie sucked. I think that this is one of Bays worst films. As a TF fan im disgusted and as a movie fan im just as appalled. The action parts are watchable as long as you dont try and figure out whats happening and why. The rest should just be thrown out. The story (if you can call it that) was pure garbage and dont get me started on the mediocre acting. To much was thrown in and done wrong. This could've been the best thing since movies were created but once again Bay and the people who wrote the script dropped the ball big time. People think that this movie was great but they dont realize that it could be so much more if put in the right hands. This version is the lowest rung on the latter. Bay owes us and every one else who saw this movie. TF3 better be the film that redeems this franchise. And that doesnt mean Unicron. You destroyed the Matrix in this one so theres no point. And i dont want Galvatron just yet. Megatron still needs an earth mode. Plus i dont want Unicron to get completely screwed up like so many others have in these films.

On another note its pretty damn cool how much seibertron.com gets mentioned these days. And i agree with Rodimus Prime, "Seibertron.com: All-transformers-all-the-time" should be the sites slogan. Or at least added to it. "The ultimate Transformers Resource" sums up the site but put the two together and you have an epic win of a slogan . And The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly is one of the best movies of all time.

Shadowman wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:He is still wrong most of the time.

His job is to give his opinion on movies. That is, he's no more wrong about movies than you are.

OK, I should have said in my opinion he is wrong, because most of the time, my opinion of a movie after seeing it differs from his. Happy?

Seibertron wrote:Wow. That's a really cool feeling to see Roger Ebert mention Seibertron.com ... and not just mention, but more-or-less acknowledge that he read through our discussions to see what we had to say about the movie (and possibly his review). I certainly wouldn't mind connecting with him since we're both fellow Chicagoans.

He didn't say a whole lot, but what he said leads me to believe that he has respect for the opinions as well as the "spirited" debates that are in the threads of this site. He seemed to mention this site because it is a very respected Transformers site. That really should make you proud!

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:He is still wrong most of the time.

His job is to give his opinion on movies. That is, he's no more wrong about movies than you are.

OK, I should have said in my opinion he is wrong, because most of the time, my opinion of a movie after seeing it differs from his. Happy?

Not really. He has different opinions from you, that doesn't make him wrong. You can't call someone "wrong" for a differing opinion, you can only disagree.

Shadowman wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:He is still wrong most of the time.

His job is to give his opinion on movies. That is, he's no more wrong about movies than you are.

OK, I should have said in my opinion he is wrong, because most of the time, my opinion of a movie after seeing it differs from his. Happy?

Not really. He has different opinions from you, that doesn't make him wrong. You can't call someone "wrong" for a differing opinion, you can only disagree.

Exactly. I disagree with him being right about what he says. therefore, in my opinion, he is wrong, because he viewpoint differs from mine. I did not say he is factually wrong, because we're both writing about the same facts.

Just to give my opinion, then walk away,

I agree with T Mack.

I don't care how much experience he has, how acclaimed he is, whatever. He has no right to tell anyone they are wrong for liking a movie. No one does. And acting like you hope the wayward sheep "evolve" towards better movies is hubris. Guess what? I like "Citizen Kane," I like "Ghandi," and I liked ROTF too! Interesting too, he picks the thread where it is mostly negative, ignoring the many positive threads on the site. But that's to be expected.

But I'm not going to turn around and say he's wrong, though. That's his bag. He's entitled to his opinion, and he might be right on some points. No one can argue that the plot is masterfully crafted, the movie well edited, or that it is mistake free. Certainly, it's slammed together with a very heavy fist. As far as the "Science" of movie making, he may be right. But if that's his point then he completely eclipsed it by discounting the people who did like the movie. There were things to like. The movie, while not a touching, over coming adversity film, was fun.

And to all the people who cry, "Other better movies are fun too!," or, "I'm not lowering my standards BRAAAAAAAH" let me just say, it's OK to like a film for entertainments sake. Films are, at their core, for entertainment. That's how it was all started. Is film a medium that can be used to touch, enlighten, and educate? Absolutely. And I applaud the film makers that do that. But an event movie like this, a spectacle, is fine too. You can enjoy it without lowering standards.

Obviously, there are people out there who like this movie. I'm one of them. There is no reason for the disrespect. I know people hate this. It's fine. But show people who like it the same consideration.

Kuribohfett wrote:I don't care how much experience he has, how acclaimed he is, whatever. He has no right to tell anyone they are wrong for liking a movie. No one does. And acting like you hope the wayward sheep "evolve" towards better movies is hubris.

This is exactly why I will never listen or read another one of his reviews, not that I used critics reviews to determine anything anyways. I am not going to let a critic determine if I am going to like a movie or restaraunt or whatever. To me, his whole article was full of arrogance. Now I'm not evolved because I like this move and think its good? He is entitled to his opinion, but to come across like that? He was politely giving the finger to those who disagreed with him and who liked the movie.

Its fine that he wants to respond to his critics. It could have done without the arrogance. All reviews come down to personal opinion. Everyone is going to rate each movie differently and one might think one movie is better than another. Then to say they are wrong for thinking that way? Roger seriously needs to get over himself to think that he is the end all be all. No one is comparing this to Casablanca, Citizen Kane or other greats. To do that is ludicrous. To compare it to other movies of genre is acceptable.

You can think a movie is great and not not think its the greatest think of all time. You shouldn't be told you are wrong because that is what you think. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and I just happen to disagree with large quantities.

First off, I cannot stress how much I dislike this man. He's a total prick, and I sincerely believe that companies pay him to give their movies a good rating. Now this is NOT because of the review he gave ROTF. ROTF was nothing more than an action flick. It was fun, and enjoyable when in the right mindset. As a deep, thought-provoking movie? It fails horribly. But was anyone expecting it to be Citizen Kane? Of course not. And that's what it comes down to. The ratings prove that people enjoyed this movie, no matter what the critics say. So F**K off Roger Ebert, America loves Transformers!

Does anyone else find it funny that Orson Welles' last roll was TFTM? Coincidental?

I will agree with that. Ebert is basicly saying that he doesn't respect the intelligence of anyone who likes RoTF. He basicly thinks that, and that is his opinion. That's ok, whatever. However, I have been around long enough to see many of his movie reviews, and he isn't always "right". I will just say that I tended to side with Siskel back in the day a lot more than with Ebert. I take his reviews for what they are; they are one schmuck's opinion. They are not fact-I got a little peaved by his mention that sometimes the people who are "right" just have to stand up sometimes and let the "lesser" people know what is actually right. He showed his ass in that statement. If people want to watch a movie, then that is their right to do so without being accused of being a dumbass for doing it.

well first off guess i should say based on what i've seen of him on tv over the years, i have nothing against the guy. he seems nice and all. and to those he mentioned who accuse him of only liking "critic" movies, over the last few years he's given many movies most critics hate a thumbs up. his tastes have varied over time. but anyway.....as some others have mentioned, this article is sorta "high horse-ish" and the sorta attitude i'll never understand but constantly see on the lovely internet. (AICN in particular lol).

not only is he saying people are wrong in their OPINION of the movie but he goes on to basically imply only idiots like those sorta movies. i'm not even sure how someone can be wrong about their opinions. i mean if he can say someone is wrong for liking it, then someone else can say he's wrong for disliking it. but of course someone like him would disagree with that.

and whats with dredging up movies like casablanca or citizen kane in these sorta articles and conversations? so what, if you dont like those movies either you're even more of a dumbass? because let me say...i dont like any of them, in some cases i've never even seen them because i simply have no interest. they aren't my cup of tea. i'll even go as far as saying i think they are boring and they suck. now is that a fact of the universe that everyone should agree with? nope...its just my opinion. it isnt wrong or right, its just me.

i never have and never would judge a person on their movie tastes, i don't understand why so many do. and you know its always the same sorta people who do judge. they think they have this amazing taste and anybody who doesn't share it or simply disagree is beneath them.

this brings up a saying i see a lot regarding many movies.

"maybe you liked the movie but you can't honestly say it was good"

yes....yes i can. maybe i'm weird or special in the way my brain works or something but if i like a movie, then obviously i thought it was good. if i thought it was anything less than good then i wouldn't like it. how hard a concept is that to grasp?

anyway i'm not sure if any of this made sense but thats me. lol

I feel guilty for calling Ebert out of touch and possibly hurting his feelings (yes, even on the Internet, someone can express guilt). Not agreeing with someone's well-informed opinion doesn't make them out of touch. But unrelated, Ebert, seriously, video games can be art. Video Games are merely prodcuts of design and code, both of which can be beautiful.

Personally, I like bad movies. And yes, I even enjoyed Revenge Of The Fallen more than classics like Casablanca, Gone With The Wind and the infallibly genius Dunston Checks In... Just kidding about the last one, or am I?

I for one am not going to "hate" on Roger Ebert. He is a critic and he gives his opinion, that's his job.

Honestly I think he was rather gracious in the way he responded.

Besides, he mentioned the greatest Transformers fansite in his article.

Delicon wrote:I for one am not going to "hate" on Roger Ebert. He is a critic and he gives his opinion, that's his job.

i'm not hating on the guy, i dont think he's a moron or something. everyone has their own tastes, nothing wrong there. i just think he was a little condescending in the way he went about this.

there are many movies i think are terrible and i can't believe anyone would like them but i'd never think less or talk down to those who do.

"But on the other hand look at the spirited discussions on the movie forums of the all-Transformers-all-the time seibertron.com, where a Paramount exit poll showing "90% of those polled thought the second film was as good or better than the first one" has been received with ridicule. Significantly, those are moderated forums."

I feel complimented.

GetterDragun wrote:"But on the other hand look at the spirited discussions on the movie forums of the all-Transformers-all-the time seibertron.com, where a Paramount exit poll showing "90% of those polled thought the second film was as good or better than the first one" has been received with ridicule. Significantly, those are moderated forums."

I feel complimented.

i dont think it was really received with ridicule in the way he's implying. based on what i've read here, its just that people are a little weary of a poll conducted by the company that produced the movie. of course they'll say positive things you know? lol

that almost sounds like he's trying to say "look...even the hardcore fans dont like it, see how right i am?" but that's just my interpretation. lol

I enjoyed Transformers 2. Yeah. A lot of it was crap and annoying and bad. But there was a lot of stuff that blew Up. I saw it in a $5 matinee with a gift card that I got for free. When It hits DVD I hope its got cool transforming special edition packaging so it looks good on my shelf with my Godzilla movies and my Ed Wood boxed set. That's the level its at. They tried really hard with what they had at their disposal and the end result makes you go "Aw bless. It's charmingly retarded"

the movie was a cluster fuck pure and simple. but even so, I had a good time watching it. to me, the pintless campy sillyness while not g1 in style, did have a campy 80's cartoon feel to it. honestly the only thing I came out of there upset about was Megatron calling the fallen master, as Megatron Bows to Nobody!!!.

look at it this way... the second movie of most movie trilogies are never as good as the first or third. Spiderman excluded.

Evolution Prime wrote:

Kuribohfett wrote:I don't care how much experience he has, how acclaimed he is, whatever. He has no right to tell anyone they are wrong for liking a movie. No one does. And acting like you hope the wayward sheep "evolve" towards better movies is hubris.

This is exactly why I will never listen or read another one of his reviews, not that I used critics reviews to determine anything anyways. I am not going to let a critic determine if I am going to like a movie or restaraunt or whatever. To me, his whole article was full of arrogance. Now I'm not evolved because I like this move and think its good? He is entitled to his opinion, but to come across like that? He was politely giving the finger to those who disagreed with him and who liked the movie.

Its fine that he wants to respond to his critics. It could have done without the arrogance. All reviews come down to personal opinion. Everyone is going to rate each movie differently and one might think one movie is better than another. Then to say they are wrong for thinking that way? Roger seriously needs to get over himself to think that he is the end all be all. No one is comparing this to Casablanca, Citizen Kane or other greats. To do that is ludicrous. To compare it to other movies of genre is acceptable.

You can think a movie is great and not not think its the greatest think of all time. You shouldn't be told you are wrong because that is what you think. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and I just happen to disagree with large quantities.

Did Roger Ebert come to your house and write his review on your screendoor or something? You read his review, you disagreed...He said TF 1 was good and said this one was $hit (I think both were $hit, but that's neither here nor there)...Like it or not, he's established himself as atleast one of the top 3 movie critics in the history of the profession...The only reason you're talking about him and he has multiple threads on this site is because he's Roger Ebert...If he was Ebert Roger he'd just be another arbitrary poster...So let's just be real here..the reason he's getting so much disrespect is because he's Roger Ebert and obviously his opinions on movies attract a response (Which is his job)...What you perceive as arrogance is him doing his job...I'm sure the review where he praised TF1 isn't even on Soundwave's radar when it comes to this site...

Listen, i hate to be harsh and if i come across as "whatever", it is what it is, but I totally agree with his point about evolution...To me, not just to enjoy, but to champion, and to vigorously defend this film is a lack of evolution...But what I think is worse is to champion this style of movie-making that offers nothing outside of the most general of terms (IMO of course, of course)...Even a dumb action flick with no soul, should be better than this...For those who thought this is or was the pinnacle of what TF or any movie could be, I gotta agree...My mind makes me agree, and it doesn't need depth of thought for it to know why...

He needs to go away now. His ego has gotten way out of hand, he actually insults our intelligence just for liking a movie? He flat out says his opinion is right and anyone who likes the movie is wrong. When was he crowned king of cinematic entertainment? We don't need film critics anymore, in this day and age we are more connected to each other than ever. When a movie comes out I instantly have access to the opinions of thousands of people who see movies to be entertained. Not to nitpick them to death and judge them by other movies that aren't even of the same genre. Comparing RotF to Casablanca is like comparing Apples to Crowbars.

Ryan, sorry I did not mention it before. Congrats on having this most EPIC work of years be mentioned by a Nationally Syndicated columnist. Truly commendable.


The rest of you are all MORONS! There! I said it and I didn't mince words like Ebert did. Now, the question is are you going to let an insult actually have any power at all?? I say NO! You let it roll off and you find something more constructive, more encouraging, more uplifting to do with your time and you don't give in, like I did earlier, to someone who's only hold over you is that which you ALLOW them to have. Debates like this are good for only one thing and that's getting people pissed off at each other. Not one good thing has come from these discussions since the movies release and yet you people still dive headlong in.

Knock yourselves out. I'm going to go immortalize some TF fans/friends in print. You folks have fun ATTACKING yours...

wingdarkness wrote:

Evolution Prime wrote:

Kuribohfett wrote:I don't care how much experience he has, how acclaimed he is, whatever. He has no right to tell anyone they are wrong for liking a movie. No one does. And acting like you hope the wayward sheep "evolve" towards better movies is hubris.

This is exactly why I will never listen or read another one of his reviews, not that I used critics reviews to determine anything anyways. I am not going to let a critic determine if I am going to like a movie or restaraunt or whatever. To me, his whole article was full of arrogance. Now I'm not evolved because I like this move and think its good? He is entitled to his opinion, but to come across like that? He was politely giving the finger to those who disagreed with him and who liked the movie.

Its fine that he wants to respond to his critics. It could have done without the arrogance. All reviews come down to personal opinion. Everyone is going to rate each movie differently and one might think one movie is better than another. Then to say they are wrong for thinking that way? Roger seriously needs to get over himself to think that he is the end all be all. No one is comparing this to Casablanca, Citizen Kane or other greats. To do that is ludicrous. To compare it to other movies of genre is acceptable.

You can think a movie is great and not not think its the greatest think of all time. You shouldn't be told you are wrong because that is what you think. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and I just happen to disagree with large quantities.

Did Roger Ebert come to your house and write his review on your screendoor or something? You read his review, you disagreed...He said TF 1 was good and said this one was $hit (I think both were $hit, but that's neither here nor there)...Like it or not, he's established himself as atleast one of the top 3 movie critics in the history of the profession...The only reason you're talking about him and he has multiple threads on this site is because he's Roger Ebert...If he was Ebert Roger he'd just be another arbitrary poster...So let's just be real here..the reason he's getting so much disrespect is because he's Roger Ebert and obviously his opinions on movies attract a response (Which is his job)...What you perceive as arrogance is him doing his job...I'm sure the review where he praised TF1 isn't even on Soundwave's radar when it comes to this site...

Listen, i hate to be harsh and if i come across as "whatever", it is what it is, but I totally agree with his point about evolution...To me, not just to enjoy, but to champion, and to vigorously defend this film is a lack of evolution...But what I think is worse is to champion this style of movie-making that offers nothing outside of the most general of terms (IMO of course, of course)...Even a dumb action flick with no soul, should be better than this...For those who thought this is or was the pinnacle of what TF or any movie could be, I gotta agree...My mind makes me agree, and it doesn't need depth of thought for it to know why...

I'm not commenting on his review of the movie, just his response or explanation article/blog. Heck it could have been anyone writing that and I would still have the same response as I do now. It just happens to be one of the most widely known critic. He is not doing his job by saying my opinion is right and yours is wrong. He is being an arrogant ass. His job is to review movies and critique them, not to come out and blast those who like it. I disagreed with his review of the movie since that was his and my opinion about the movie. Him coming out and then does some eloquent name calling about those who liked it and saying they were wrong for liking it just doesn't seem something that he should be doing for his job. Its alright for him to respond to who blasted his review of the film, but he definitely could have done it in a better tone. If getting a reaction is his job, he went about the wrong way of doing it.

With that, I'm done commenting on the movie. I think I have made my stance on all of this perfectly clear. I'm returning to HMW.

I don't see why he felt the need to defend his review. It is his opinion, what does he care what anyone else thinks. Besides, for the most part he's right.

For me it's: Giant robot action in ROTF=WIN, Everything else in ROTF=EPIC FAIL. I shouldn't have to shut my brain down to the point I'm drooling on myself to completely enjoy a movie. As a whole, ROTF was just that bad.

"But if I despised the film and it goes on to break box office records, will I care? No. I'll hope however that everyone who paid for a ticket thought they had a good time, because it was their time and their money."

I tend to agree with Ebert here. I like action, and I like big explostions. But I like to have a story where I care about the action and cheer the explosions. Revenge had nothing for me. Bay truly sucks at telling a story, and due to the writer's strike, it shows in Revenge. Any 9 year old with a webcam and a collection of toys could have told this story. "And then Optimus Rips Off His Face! Yeah!" I expect at least a little bit more when I plop down my 9 bucks and sit my ass in a seat for 2 and a half hours of holding my pee in.

And the damn shame is that the core idea behind the movie was good. For those of us who could roll with Bay as director and the changes the Hollywood mentality put to the franchise, it could have been better than the first movie. But it wasn't. Without anyone to shore up his crappy storytelling, Bay reached for the only trick in his bag. Spectacle.

Note: since the other thread on Ebert is mostly people who agree with him, I am taking my stance here, and making this topic for those who feel that they loved the movie, and disagree with Mr. Ebert's assessment. My rebuttal to his weak explanation is as follows. Feel free to add anything Intelligent to this thread, as I hope he reads it and sees how many "Un-Evolved" people exist outside of his large cranium's reach.

Roger Ebert is a moron! Transformers 2 is the best action movie ever. Don't listem to that moron! He is only into slow boring romantic movies. That is his type of movies. Michael Bay did a great good. Roger... your an old fart! John C

Having now absorbed all or parts of 750 responses to my complaints about "Transformers," I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that most of those writing agree with me that it is a horrible movie. After all, look where they've chosen to comment. There have, however been some disagreements that I thought were reasonable. These writers mostly said they had a thing about the Transformers toys of their childhoods, or liked the animation on TV, or like to see stuff blowed up real good. In that case. Michael Bay is your man. If you enjoyed the movie, there is no way I can say you're wrong. About yourself, anyway.

I appreciate that you can acknowledge that people have a right to their own opinions. While subtly masking and protecting your initial Position. It is a quality that certain Politicians posses. They are able to make us smile, and compliment us. While at the same time protecting their own agenda in a cloak of words.

the funny and jib jabbed shot against a fan's grammar, as to insinuate lack of intelligence by the use of the phrase "blowed up real good". That is a stroke of pure genius. I marvel at how you can politely attack your critics, and yet give no quarter. This is the mark of a true performance writer. next I suppose you'll turn to an old trick and play the victim, Oh wait, yep you do that later.

Another common line of attack was disturbing. It came from people who said I was out of touch with the tastes of the audience. That the movie's detractors (lumped together as "the critics") like only obscure movies that nobody else does--art films, documentaries, foreign films, indies, movies made 50 years ago--even, God forbid, "classics." One poster argued that "Transformers" was better than that boring old movie "Casablanca."

I suppose there are people who have not relished in the classics. I for one love movies from the 1940's and 1950's era..especially those of Danny Kaye.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kaye
A great and thoughtful actor, with movies that touched the soul and made me happy.

However, I am only 32 years old. I also have a fascination with science fiction, and giant alien robots fits that bill quite nicely. To suggest that your apparent defense of people saying that "the critics") like only obscure movies that nobody else does--art films, documentaries, foreign films, indies, movies made 50 years ago--even, God forbid, "classics." is false, then you truly are out of touch.

let us take a few academy award winning movies, that truly are horrible and meaningless wastes of time and money spent, shall we?

Slum Dog Millionaire?
Milk?
Vicky Cristina Barcelona?
The Reader?
Frost/Nixon? ( a liberal rehashing of Nixon, where are the critical Bill Clinton flicks?)

are you kidding me?? those movies were absolutely horrible, and yet the reviews by "critics" and the peers who voted for them to win awards, were the same. The box office takes were rather poor and utterly not worth the money it took to produce. So to imply in a sly way that being a movie critic means being stereotyped into caring about movies that only wrap around a certain genre, the only advice I have for you is to stop being a statistic then!

Stop giving people the ability to stereotype you! But wait, as I read further I found out that you don't care what people think. so why choose to use stereotyping as a defense? again here we go with the self victimization, and all without giving ground to the validity of the argument, or admitting that you may be wrong. it is tiresome, and made me want to paraphrase your article, as I tired of the self protectionism and self victimization.

I was informed I didn't "get" Michael Bay. I was too old, "of the wrong generation," or an elitist or a liberal--although not, I was relieved to find, a "liberal elitist." It seems to me "Transformers" also qualifies for conservative scorn. It is obliviously nonpartisan. Yet one commented said I hated the movie because it was an attack on President Obama. I was afraid to say I hadn't noticed that, because then I would be told I hadn't even seen the movie. It is possible to miss many of the plot points, strange in a movie with so few of them. Veiled in-jokes about politicians and famous people, popular in animation and mass market movies, come with the territory. I enjoy them. The apparent reference to Obama was no big deal, although a reader from Germany told me the actual name "Obama" was used in the German dub. That possibly didn't happen without Bay hearing about it.

Actually in a portion of the movie, it states on a television within the movie that President Obama is on his Plane and leaving the area.

that was in English.

the other thing you failed to see was the apparent jabs at the policies of Obama and his lack of support in the military as emphasized by the newly instated secretary of Defense representing the White House. So add that into the whole mix, and the mention of the current President, and there you have the negative portrayal of the current President.

and as seeing how Michael Bay works closely with the military, this point of view is common amongst many in the service. Making this a conservative witch hunt, all while pretending to be ignorant to the charges of Liberalism and the jabs at Obama doesn't make you seem that much more a victim to me. I see through this shady attempt again to play yourself some kind of now "political" victim.

now if I can put these few obvious clues together, and you apparently are an expert. Then what does that say about your skills as a critic?

"Brainiac:" Must be a critic. Thinks he know it all, and never likes anything. (Click to enlarge.) Copyright © DC Comics.

But am I out of touch? It's not a critic's job to reflect box office taste. The job is to describe my reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others. The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded, but to evaluate another opinion against his own. But you know that. We've been over that ground many times. What disturbs me is when I'm specifically told that I know too much about movies, have "studied" them, go into them "too deep," am always looking for things the average person doesn't care about, am always mentioning things like editing or cinematography, and am forever comparing films to other films.

nope you watch movies your own way, and pick at what you like and dislike. which is what everyone else does. Here we see that you consider what you do as it is to "things the average person doesn't care about"...

I take issue with this statement. I assume that someone with your own personal experiences and achievements can appreciate that not just a select few "critics" are able to do such things and look deeply into a movie. Am I wrong? Is this superhuman ability only given to a select few such as yourself? I mean let us all be honest, studying movies and being paid to recite your insight is nothing compared to a person who works 50 hours daily and tries to support a family on his own back.

here we see that you value your own opinion and feel as many do in a job they know well, that you do something that no one else does. but your statement implies that the rest of the "common man" does not or is incapable of deeper thought when watching a movie at the theater. Do you honestly not see the elitism in this statement? No I suppose you wouldn't, and I suppose that my pointing that out will be used for yet another self defense victimization example.

I've "forgotten what it's like to be a kid," another poster told me. One of the most-admired contributors to this blog, who signs herself "A Kid.," is 12 years old. She hasn't forgotten. Neither have many other readers of middle school age. Their posts give me hope for the future. For them, to be a kid is not to be uncritical or thoughtlessly accepting. They seek magic, and don't find it in the brutal hammering of "Transformers."

A reader named Jared Diamond, a senior at Syracuse, sports editor of The Daily Orange, put my disturbance eloquently in a post asking: "Why in this society are the intelligent vilified? Why is education so undervalued and those who preach it considered arrogant or pretentious?" Why, indeed? If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge? Yet sports fans are proud of their baseball knowledge, and respect commentators who know their stuff.

So here you go finding others to support your opinion, and using their statements as again a shield and veil of victim-hood. Trying to draw a contrast between what the Sports commentator receives versus those of the Movie critic. In truth, Mr. Ebert, they are both different things entirely. That is why one is called "Baseball" and the other a "Movie". one is a "commentator" providing facts and stats, the other is a "Critic" sighting opinions and awards thus given by opinions...

As far as someone not finding their childhood in Transformers. that may be true, and simply to say because one woman has not found her childhood in it is not to say another person does. We are all different Mr. Ebert, and we all like different things. If a movie grosses a high take at a Box office, then it must mean that a majority like something. Does it make that movie more appealing because of that fact? no. But it does say something about how most people felt about it.

But if you go to movies to find your childhood, or seek to find a movie and judge it's worth based on how well it moved your heart, then you are missing out on life itself outside the theater. Some movies are just for entertainment, and not to provide some level of spiritual enlightenment. Transformers means more then just a "blowed up real good" flick to me. It is a delving into the science fiction of the impossible. An Alien Race of Robots, living robots. A back story deep in history, with rich special effects that make me feel these creatures are alive.

there was humor in the movie, and I like humor. There was death, and the lesson learned that being true and showing courage was the mark of a leader. A lesson Shia Lebeouf proved to achieve in the movie. Did you miss the point of what it means to have courage? What it means to not play a "victim"? With all the things I see happening to this society now a days, with all the "Me, I deserve, and I have the right to, I am a victim of, it is not my fault"..

you seem to be more in step with today's modern mood then you realize. This is emphasized by your victim riddled article I am now refuting.

"Transformers" fanboy, somewhat atypical


It's true that many Americans have an active suspicion and dislike of the "educated." They ask, "what makes you an expert?" when they're really asking, "what gives you the right to disagree with me?"

okay here we go again, more victimization, this time based on your perception of how smart you are. I think you mistake, as most with this affliction of Education Supremacy do, that people are offended by a disagreement. When it is not such a case. It is more of your own perception that that is why they do not follow and hang on your every opinion. you see you think simply because of your education, that if a person who is of a lesser education does not agree with you, that they instantly resent you because of your schooling background..

it is you who fabricate this perception, and it is those who choose their own beliefs that are contrary to yours that make you upset.. How can they be right? They didn't have a degree in this subject? I know better because I have studied this, or that?

it is not the degree we abhor, it is the arrogance associated with the notion that because of said degree, that makes one infallible or superior.. When it does nothing of the sort. I know professors who know more about quantum Mechanics then they know or realize about life itself. Do I consider them smarter then most? No, because they are only focused in one direction, and my definition of Smart is what you know of the world as a whole. A fact that can only be determined by actual physical contact and hanging out with that person.

Truth is Mr. Ebert, we all have a definition of what we think is a smart person, and a degree or lack there of is nothing more then a piece of paper..much to dismay of those who have spent time and effort to obtain one.

The term "college graduate" has become in some circles a negative. Hostility is especially focused on the "Eastern Elite," to the chagrin of we Midwestern Elitists. To describe someone as a "Harvard student" is to dismiss them as beneath consideration. You can often hear the words "so-called" in front of words like scientist, educator, philosopher. I don't believe this is intended to imply that the person involved is not a scientist, etc., but to suggest that no one calling himself such a thing is to be trusted--because he is no doubt many other undesirable things.

again, you miss the point of what it is that makes these people shunned.. in certain instances it is not their Eastern Liberal Elitist status, Stop watching MSNBC news and looking for witch hunts from FOX news..

these people with these degrees as I said who feel like the rest of the world hates them.. is no more then an arrogance on their part that they are somehow above it all, and now garner a hatred because of their enlightened status..it is their own perception that causes such fear.. and makes them react to the "common man" as defensive. I see it all the time. not that there hasn't been a case of commoners resenting the elites. That does happen too. But those "elites" in certain circles are afraid to look at themselves first before condemning the "common man".

So here again an attempt has been made by you to enact a victimized status based on class warfare. I hate to say it but we saw with the election from the last 2 years, that class warfare is a signature liberal move. If you say you are not such a person, then why do you employ their tactic in this article, though subtle as it is?

While I am eager, in the words of my alma mater's song "Illinois Loyalty," to back you to stand, against the best in the land, I envy the hell out of anyone who has gotten himself into Harvard, especially with his mind and not his parents' clout. Some people believe it is the best university in America. Why must that be a mark of shame?

I think Harvard is great, but I wonder at all the crazy pro global warming, and socialist activism, the absence of Constitutional critical thinking, and adherence to the rules of Individualism. Not liking a movie is being an individual. but citing nothing but reasons for being a "victim" is being a typical socialist. Blame everyone else. personal responsibility is not yours. they are wrong, to disagree with you..

you think it is because of your age, your back ground in education, and your political affiliation.. truth is Mr. Ebert.. they liked the movie! I liked the movie! For all its flaws, I still liked it! For a creation of Man, and man is not without mistakes. I still loved it.

I never took a film class. I will not bore you with yet another recitation of my rags-to-riches saga, my hard-won film education, and blah, blah, blah. Let's just say I started out with a lot to learn, and am still trying to learn as much of it as I can. There are people who know so much more about film than I do, it makes me all but weep with gratitude when they deign to speak with me. Two words: David Bordwell. That he speaks to everyone in clear and eloquent prose speaks for itself. It isn't that he "thinks he knows more than anybody else." It's that he does. It's like he happens to know a lot of interesting stuff, and is happy to share it with you.

in trying to site someone whom you can elevate to a high status of mental prowess, you thereby try to justify yourself as a "know it all" in your field. I see how this can make you feel more secure in your beliefs. A psychiatrist and psychologist would have a field day with your writings.

Now about those who sincerely believe "Transformers" is a good, even a great, film. I sincerely believe they are wrong. I don't consider them stupid--at least, not (most of) the ones who write to me. Some of the posters at certain popular web forums are nine blooms short of a bouquet. But on the other hand look at the spirited discussions on the movie forums of the all-Transformers-all-the time seibertron.com, where a Paramount exit poll showing "90% of those polled thought the second film was as good or better than the first one" has been received with ridicule. Significantly, those are moderated forums.

this is true.. and I finally find an honest reference from you on what fans think of this movie, and in which case I could almost commend you on. However, you have spent the better part of this article defending yourself, and victimizing yourself from attackers and those critics of your movie critique. It is hard for me to imagine this as a proper citing of legitimacy, when you could be also using this to justify yourself and your dislike of the film. A shame that you couldn't have just left all that victimization stuff out of your article and actually talked about your real reasons for not liking the movie, and maybe took a step back and looked at those who did, and tried to see what it is they are looking at. To me the fact that most "critics" disliked the movie is an indication that I would like it.

Most of those self professed genius critics are all in the same lake, not necessarily in the same boat. They just have lost touch with what a real good movie is these days. In grasping for some kind of emotional fix, they instinctively vote in favor of movies that bore the audiences and speak to a small core group of emotionally deprived people who only get their life time highs in the movies.

shall I again give an example?

Mr. Ebert, if you must find a way to evoke emotion in your life, then might I suggest reading a good book? The theater is a medium more focused on entertainment then emotional evocation. Hence the term the "Entertainment industry"

Hollywood studio executive: What, me worry?


So let's focus on those who seriously believe "Transformers" is one of the year's best films. Are these people wrong? Yes. They are wrong. I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle. Sir, not only do I differ with what you say, but I would certainly not fight to the death for your right to say it. Not me. You have to pick your fights.

Wow...

Do you honestly believe what you just wrote? I am stunned. So basically, it is now a matter of fact that transformers 2 is not a good movie. Opinions aside, and why is that you say? Because you are the Expert? you state that opinion matters, but then it becomes fact, so the only fact I see is that if a movie is taking in lots of money as this one has, and is liked by many people world wide..

then how in the hell in "your" Logic, is it a fact that this movie is horrible?

you would think that if a movie bombs, it would have no box office take. Or are we just all mindless idiots? as this is what I think you are implying..

What I believe is that all clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their lifetimes: Curious and teachable. If someone I respect tells me I must take a closer look at the films of Abbas Kiarostami, I will take that seriously. If someone says the kung-fu movies of the 1970s, which I used for our old Dog of the Week segments, deserve serious consideration, I will listen. I will try to do what Pauline Kael said she did: Take everything you are, and all the films you've seen, into the theater. See the film, and decide if anything has changed. The older you are and the more films you've seen, the more you take into the theater. When I had been a film critic for ten minutes, I treated Doris Day as a target for cheap shots. I have learned enough to say today that the woman was rarely gifted.

you can't make a generalization like this about people and their opinions! what may have taken you a lifetime to achieve in movie perception, may only take 1 person 2 trips to the same movie to notice details they initially missed. Though this thought I am sure terrifies one of such self importance.

Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve. Those people contain multitudes. They deserve films that refresh the parts others do not reach. They don't need to spend a lifetime with the water only up to their toes.

So now we come to it, the reason you tried so unsuccessfully to hide. The victim defenses you laid like a trap to give yourself the one thing you wanted.

Cover, and cover to basically tout your (now Obvious) Elitist remarks. Again, I live life, and do not seek emotional satisfaction through movies. To suggest that we as those who loved this movie are somehow "not sufficiently evolved".. is exactly the reason people think you are what you try to defend by playing the victim.

I sir, am a fan of this movie. I am not a toe dripping idiot with a beer gut and pizza stained shirt. I am not an elitist, and I am of the working class. I own my own business, and live my life to the fullest extent in everything from lawn work, to paper work. I take offense at someone's remarks such as yours, which suggest that I am somehow not as evolved in a sense enough to know what I am watching in a movie.

You sir, Mr. Ebert, do not know me, and do not presume that you have any idea of what I consider great cinema. For what I consider is a great movie, you would consider trash. The only difference is, that I do not make my living based on my own opinion and credibility. I think this movie has severely made a dent in that credibility, and tarnished your own ego in the process.

Director Michael Bay, preparing "Transformers 3."


Do I ever have one of those days when, the hell with it, all I want to do is eat popcorn and watch explosions? I haven't had one of those days for a long time. There are too many other films to see. I've had experiences at the movies so rich, so deep--and yes, so funny and exciting--that I don't want to water the soup. I went to "Transformers" with an open mind (I gave a passing grade to the first one). But if I despised the film and it goes on to break box office records, will I care? No. I'll hope however that everyone who paid for a ticket thought they had a good time, because it was their time and their money.

you are right, it was our time, our money, and we had a blast! I never figured for a minute after reading this article, that you would care if a movie breaks box office records, and you hated it. You are a man who is incapable of admitting that your assessment is not of the main stream, rather that the main stream of America is wrong..

it's like that old saying: "I am not crazy, it is everyone else who is crazy!"

The opening grosses are a tribute to a marketing campaign, not to a movie no one had seen. If two studios spend a ton of money on a film, scare away the competition, and open in 4,234 theaters before the Fourth of July, of course they do blockbuster business. The test is: Does the film have legs?

Ah the typical argument..money and Hype bought the movie..ummm there are allot of movies that fit the money conspiracy theory Mr. Ebert. there are also allot fo movies that were hyped and did not make any money. so I fail to see how this justifies your critique as being the correct assessment.

Major league Hollywood seems completely dominated by the belief that money can buy anything and justify anything. When a reader wrote to inform me that Michel Bay paid $8 million to the writers of the screenplay, I very much doubted it. Turns out that figure is correct. With numbers like that representative of big time Hollywood, I observe with Yeats that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. No wonder. It pays better.

since when did making good money off a movie or any job you do a bad thing? Are you certain you are not liberal at heart? seriously, this argument that money made this movie great and succeed..

you are right, the special effects were costly, and so were some of the salaries, but as for the box office. I saw like 3 or 4 trailers on TV that was it. The rest of the hype came because I saw the 1st movie, and couldn't wait to see how they would top it in this next installment.

this movie had a science fiction fans dream. The robots had more in depth history revealed. Megatron and Starscream's (bad Guy robots) dichotomy came to the forefront. A great tribal aspect was introduced into the storyline. The Military scenes were action filled and exciting. I felt for Optimus (a robot leader of the good guys) When he fell in Battle. Sam's (Shia LaBeouf's) family was hilarious, and his relationship with Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox) took on a more complex role. believe it or not some relationships are similar to theirs. Pretending to not be interested in one another, but all the while being totally in love. If you did not catch that aspect, and felt as if the acting was dull, then you missed that point. Which is only so obvious to a toe wet kinda person such as myself.

Overall Mr. Ebert, you can justify it to yourself, and to your fans who frequent your blog. You can convince those who worship your every word that you are a master at interpreting film and acting.

But here is the cold hard truth of it all.

I don't need you to tell me if what I see is good. I could care less what you or anyone else thinks is Bad. You and your fellow critics are immaterial, as proven by this Movies Box office records and take. That is the one thing above all else that makes you mad, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

this rebuttal was brought to you today by the high priest of the church of the painful truth.

Also known as Skywarp-2

Roger Ebert is awesome.

Michael Bay almost totally bites.

That is all.

Well said. Well said indeed. I honestly hope he reads this. That whole "Unevolved" comment pissed me off as well. I love movies, I try to give every movie and fair chance. I usually make it a point to see the "Oscar Nominated" films during the fall/winter months and try to see which one I liked the best. I loved many films that many would consider "Cinematic masterpieces" The Godfather, ET, Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, The Graduate, Psycho, Pulp Fiction. Need I go on? To call me "Unevolved" is very insulting. What, because every now and then I like to sit back and just enjoy something? That's why I go to the movies. It is a form of escapism. Thinking someone is less intelligent than yourself, due to their interests is in a word, Prejudice. Roger Ebert is no better than anyone else in this small little planet we inhabit, to think otherwise is pure foolishness.

Transformers 2 isn't going to win any awards (Well except maybe for visuals/sound). But it isn't the sack of crap that every critic is making it out to be. I like for once that movie goers aren't being blinded by the critics word.

I have respect for Roger Ebert. But I don't have to agree with him. After that comment I may just lose all respect I have for him. I like Roper better anyway.

Reading the opinions of Ebert's views on his blog page, I read people state that the box office figures doesn't mean that it's a good movie. Becuase, logically, you buy the ticket before you see the movie. However, what keeps drawing in the crowds day after day, weekend after weekend, is from all the possitive hype the movie gets. A lot of people wait to hear what other people (friends, family, reviewers) think about a movie before they'll go out and see it. And the movie continuing to be a blockbuster breakthrough means that people are seeing the movie and loving it. And telling all there friends it's a must see summer phenomenon.

I'm 36 and have seen A LOT of movies in my time. So I don't think I'm just up to my toes in experience. And I judge movies for what they are. If it's supposed to be phillosphical, or a comedy, what have you, I will judge it for what it's supposed to be. This movie is simply a fun summer flick that lets the audience have fun for almost 3 hours. Not a movie that requires a lot of thinking or rationalizing. And I loved it. I saw it 3 times and it never bores me.

I can have a reviewer who believes he is very intelligent and knows better than me argue for hours that his opinion is more note worthy than mine or others. So what? Would I then deny myself the excitment of seeing the movie? Then I would have missed out on a very exciting experience. I often go by the rule that my opinion of a movie will differ from a professional reviewer 9 times out of 10. If the reviewer loved it, I'm going to fall asleep half way through it from pure boredrom. But that doesn't mean the point of the movie escaped me. And vice versa, if they hated the movie, I probably thought it was great. I don't take movies so seriously that I have to critique to the point of not just enjoying a good flick. I dont' compare it to every other movie I've seen, but try to appreciate it for it's own merits. My opinion...I loved the movie. Most of the people that have seen it have absolutely loved it too (and yes I've watched and read A LOT of reviews, esp on youtube). So my advice, is to go and see it. Enjoy it for what it is.

Except the diminishing returns show the contrary. Fewer and fewer people are going to go see the film- not more. If there was good word of mouth- then more people would go. Instead there is TERRIBLE word of mouth, because Ebert is right. It is a horribly crafted film that does little to impress those beyond the small minority who like Giant F---ing Robots.

And we are a small minority. And those of us who can sit through a TWO AND A HALF hour movie with little payoff beyond Giant Robots- well, they're an even smaller minority.

I haven't heard from anyone outside the community who had one good thing to say about the film.

It plays to a very small audience- everyone else who went was duped into going through a combination of marketing and summer movie drought.

Just because you liked it- doesn't make it a good movie. There are established qualifiers for what makes a good movie- just like anything else. That's why we laugh at the bad ones on MST3K.

If someone tried to sell you a car that smelled like a skunk and got a mile to the gallon- you'd say "That's a terrible car."

And if they said- "Yes, but the trunk is full of candy," would it somehow make it better? Would you want to eat that skunky candy?

And what if the car publications reviewed that car, and said it sucked because it didn't meet the standards associated with a good car- would they be out of touch?

A single good quality (Robot Action) doesn't wipe away terrible acting, shoddy story, poor humor, or pointless editing- all those BAD QUALITIES hurt the one good one. They stink it up.

SoooTrypticon wrote:
If someone tried to sell you a car that smelled like a skunk and got a mile to the gallon- you'd say "That's a terrible car."

And if they said- "Yes, but the trunk is full of candy," would it somehow make it better? Would you want to eat that skunky candy?

I never thought of it like that, but so true.

You're comparing apples to oranges. A car is something you invest a lot of money into. It's going to be with you for several years. So yes, a wise person would want to look into the carfax, blue book, opinions of others who owned the car, before buying it. Or it might be an awesome sports car that you just got to have. So performance may not really matter to you.

This is a movie that's gonna cost you $10.00 or less to go see. It will eat up 2.5 hours of your time. I don't think the general concensus is that we should be very thorough in hearing critics reviews before seeing it. You're more likely to either a) go see it based on the previews you saw b) see it based on a friend or family member's opinion. And it is still breaking ground with the money it's making. Just look at the news postings, stating it still is going very strong as of this last weekend the 6th.
http://www.seibertron.com/transformers/ ... ice/16414/
So show me wear it's hurting in in profits in any way.

And of course profit is going to dwindle down throughout the weeks because a lot of people have already seen it. That's inevitable no matter what movie we're talking about. I won't argue with you weather you liked it or not. You have that right. But you brought up weak facts to try to prove your point.

When I saw it, everyone in the theater cheered at the end, if that doesn't say "I enjoyed it" nothing does.

"You're comparing apples to oranges."

Not so. Quality is still quantitative. That's how something gets judged, by the criteria set up by its peers and evidence of its own intent.

Transformers 2 is a movie, and wants to be a movie, and as a movie it fails on almost every level. The only good quality I hear repeated ad-nauseum is that it has "action and robots."

Problem is that the structure around that is broken. It's a broken movie. So the Robot part only works if you just look at the Robots. And a lot of people are only looking at the Robots.

That's fine- look at the Robots all you want.

But you can't say that it's a good movie- because it just isn't. It's not even a mediocre movie. It's a broken movie. It doesn't work. Characters disappear. Villains don't do anything. Motives are unclear. Stuff just happens.

You can still enjoy a broken movie.

I love them... To laugh at. Not with. At.

When they're short and don't cost upwards of 200 million it's fun because you can point out what a film-maker was trying to do and failed at.

When they're huge summer blockbusters it's just sad.

Transformers 2 is a sad movie.

And, adjusted for inflation- it's not breaking any ground. It's just skimming. It's taking in fewer tickets than the last, and will peter out by next week. It will limp to 400 million here, maybe. The international audience has had it, and will abandon it in the coming weeks.

Even if it does make more money than the first (which I doubt it will) that doesn't make it a good movie.

Cigarette Companies make tons of money every year- but they won't keep you alive.

Hi, my name's Burn, and i'm a sub-human yet to evolve and receive an education, I went and saw Transformers 2 and this is my opinion of it.



See, I don't need people telling me what's good and bad, what's right and wrong, i'm more than capable of deciding that on my own.

I honestly don't know whether to give him credit for taking the time to research the reaction to the film and his review, or to just write him off as an attention seeker.

meh, i've spent enough time thinking about it ... ooooo shiney object with pretty colours!

JesWal wrote:Does anyone else find it funny that Orson Welles' last roll was TFTM? Coincidental?

Like it was funny that Elvis became a fat, bloated blob that was no shim of the heart-conquering entertainer he was before he died?

It's sad to see someone like that "degraded" to a role in a feature length commercial.