Ebert’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Review Pulls No Punches
It will probably be a couple more days before I get around to seeing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but in the meantime I thought I should direct you toward someone else’s review of the film, specifically: Mr. Roger Ebert. Although Ebert has often been known to champion certain blockbusters and pure popcorn flicks, and actually had positive things to say about the first Transformers movie (you can read that review here), in this case, he is absolutely merciless in his destruction of Transformers 2. This is must-read material. Some choice quotes:
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments.”
“The plot is incomprehensible. The dialog of the Autobots, Deceptibots and Otherbots is meaningless word flap. Their accents are Brooklyese, British and hip-hop, as befits a race from the distant stars. Their appearance looks like junkyard throw-up.”
“The battle scenes are bewildering. A Bot makes no visual sense anyway, but two or three tangled up together create an incomprehensible confusion.”
While I don’t always agree with what Ebert has to say, I find it pretty easy to buy into his opinion this time around. Still, when compared to his review of the first film, I have to wonder… can it really be that much worse? Is he being a hypocrite here? I don’t know. I certainly don’t expect to love this movie, but sometimes low expectations are a good thing. Do you trust Roger Ebert’s assessment of the film? For anyone out there who has already seen Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen already, do you agree or disagree?
» Related Link: Roger Ebert: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Review
Comments (71)
Maybe Ebert was in a shitty mood when he watched this compared to when he saw the first one?
Posted by AdamH on June 24th, 2009That was hysterical.
If this does adequately describe the movie, I can’t say I would be too surprised.
Posted by Nick D on June 24th, 2009As a lifelong Transformers fan, I went to the midnight showing and could not have been more disappointed. The film was truly awful, and this is coming from someone who desperately wanted to love the film. Michael Bay succeeded in ruining this, just as he did Pearl Harbor. Revenge of the Fallen was truly a terrible movie.
Posted by Ben P on June 24th, 2009I watched last night and I can totally agree with Ebert, I loved the first one and was looking forward to this one. I can tell you that it was the biggest disapointment of my life. What was Michael Bay thinking??? Horrible in every single way,if you don’t believe me see it for yourself, I’m almost sure you’ll feel the same way.
Posted by Daniel on June 24th, 2009the dialog in the first one was really dumb. if its a kids flick then whatever, but then maybe you shouldnt have megan fox’s asscrack showing every other sceneand masturbation jokes with shaeeiea labluaauff.
i feel like they couldnt make up their minds here. “lets make it a dark scary robot movie, but have a breakdancing robot too.”
everybody go watch small soldiers, then watch transformers 1 again. feels like the same flick to me, just with a few hundred billions dollars more thrown around. ugh.
Posted by jason pm on June 24th, 2009I have seen the movie. It’s extremely long, which sucks. It’s also extremely complicated and makes no sense, and lacks cohesion. But I have to say, I saw it in a massive theatre, and there were points in the movie where I found it very hard not to be impressed by the film. Mainly the visual effects. I actually really like CGI, and there are some stuff in the movie that I thought were quite impressive. It also feels more like the cartoon, the robots have almost stopped talking alien and speak english to eachother. They have more character and talk-time as well. One of the major problems is Megan Fox, anytime she is on screen you feel like you’re watching Baywatch. Seriously, they might as well have cast Pamela Anderson or Carmen Electra in the role, that’s what it feels like when you’re watching her, and it’s annoying. The ‘humour’ has a new-record for emphasis on dick’n'fart jokes, it’s quite amazing how many are in there.
But I saw an aircraft carrier get ripped apart down the middle for absolutely no reason. The visual is enough to excuse it for me. There is impressive stuff in the film, and the action is better than in the first one. Less cuts. I will go on record as to say that TF2 has better and more easily comprehensible action than Bourne Ultimatum did. Even though it’s big robots, I can actually invest more in this because the shots last 1.5 secs instead of 0.3 secs. The forest scene is quite good I think.
Way too long, way too much plot and even more subplots, horrible acting, impressive effects, impressive visuals. I’ll give it 1.5 or 2/4 I think.
Posted by Henrik on June 24th, 2009I have a hard time believing its worse than the first one so much as I believe the big blockbuster nostalgia that brainwashed people into believing the first one was good, has worn off, and by deliving more of the same people are now seeing Bay’s Transformers is the emperor with no clothes. I’ve got ‘told you so’ smugness to spare.
Posted by Goon on June 24th, 2009This has better action that Bourne Henrik? Ok then, I didn’t like the first very much and have never seen any of the transformers cartoons. So sounds like I may like this on the level I like Emmerich films, cool visual decent action
Posted by AdamH on June 24th, 2009I friggin’ loved it to death. The crowd in the theater that I saw it with last night was GREAT – they cheered at all the right parts, I never heard anything get so loud of laughs before in my life, as Sam’s mom and the Twins did, which I don’t understand all the hate the Twins got. I found them a bit funny.
The movie got a standing ovation for a good three minutes at the end of the movie, and I never heard a crowd cheer as loudly as they did, outside of a sports game, when Optimus said ‘I’ll take you ALL on!’ and started kicking some major ass, and also the scene where Bee OWNED Ravage got quite a loud cheer as well.
Overall, I loved the movie and it was a great theater-going experience.
Posted by Slushie Man on June 24th, 2009Yeah I think it’s better than the first one in terms of action. But just be prepared, it’s 150 minutes long, and exactly 51 of those minutes have robots in them (curtesy of the ILM FACT SHEET that was delivered to the press ^^ First time I ever saw that, it had like ridiculous facts about how heavy the computer effects were).
Posted by Henrik on June 24th, 2009Actually, I will say that the Sams mother eating potcookies scene, is more out there than I ever expected. It’s quite ridiculous.
Posted by Henrik on June 24th, 2009Wow 51 mins of robots? I’ve never heard of a SFX company posting details like that..
Posted by AdamH on June 24th, 2009Slushie Man, that’s why if I ever see this film once, it will be in a crowded theatre for that experience. I might check on runpee.com to see when I can go for a toilet break
Surprise, surprise. The first one was terrible and I knew the second one would be too. I will never watch this film.
Posted by Jackson on June 24th, 2009Ebert obviously went into Revenge of the Fallen thinking it would be better than the previous film. He was mistaken and vented his disappointment in his review. I can’t say I blame him. I would do the same and have in the past.
Isabel Lucas from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
http://film-book.com/isabel-lucas-joins-transformers-revenge-of-the-fallen/
Megan Fox eye candy
Posted by Film-Book dot Com on June 24th, 2009http://www.flickr.com/photos/30693123@N04/3351567848/
this review is great, but it’s pretty embarrassing to read his review of the first movie. surely the shittiness of this sequel is indistinguishable from the shittiness of the last movie. where’s the epiphany?
Posted by Joel on June 24th, 2009No kidding, he gave the first one 3 stars
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070705/REVIEWS/70620006/1001
I stand by my theory
Posted by Goon on June 24th, 2009btw, I wasnt planning on seeing this thing, but some of the things i’ve read about have made me think this needs to be seen to believed.
Posted by Goon on June 24th, 2009And Goon if you go see it once it may as well be seen on the big screen right? That’s why im going, although im keeping an open mind, maybe therell be some cool action..
Posted by AdamH on June 24th, 2009I hate Megan Fox.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on June 24th, 2009i’m not looking forward to see this movie anymore, i was but now i’m not. shit, why did i order tickets? ah well. i’m keeping an open mind and i’ll hope for the best.
Posted by Rick on June 24th, 2009I implore people to stop paying money to see these movies, so hollywood will stop cranking them out. I never saw the first one, but remember hearing “it was SICK!!” and “you HAVE to see it!” from co-workers that summer and rolling my eyes and holding back the incredulous, sarcastic remarks in an attempt to keep a civil work enviornment. Stupid fucking mainstream.
Posted by dan on June 24th, 2009I agree with the fan that went to the midnight showing as I did as well. What was great for me was the fact that despite the crowd reactions influencing my emotional response I had solitary moments of sheer awe. What blows me away is critics can dis a movie that clearly has all the elements of films that have been adored by audiences in the past. If anyone else gets a bit of independence day or Indiana Jones & even matrix vibes when they see it they will get where I’m coming from. How can those movies mentioned get praised then when this one cleverly advances those themes into a robot cartoon movie get bombed? Summer blockbusters for me have been an unfulfilled chase of a high I used to get back in the 80s & 90s from epic event movies. Revenge for me gave me quite a bit of that rush consistently & I didn’t even realize it was so long.
Posted by nErd on June 24th, 2009I am gonna reserve my judgement till i see the movie..I am still looking forward to the movie!!
http://c-trainsentertainmentreviews.blogspot.com/
Posted by cj on June 24th, 2009I haven’t even seen it, but in the preview where Bumblebee is playing “I’m so excited and I just can’t hide it.” made me decide I will most likely watch this on DVD. Spielberg has lost his touch and Michael Bay never had it. It’s no surprise to me to hear all the bad reviews.
Posted by Chris on June 24th, 2009loved it! I agree it isnt the most mature movie in points, but the robot on robot violence is pretty harsh and graphic! Good fun all the way through!
Posted by Bert belgium on June 24th, 2009I love transformers So i will probably love this movie
Posted by Andrew on June 24th, 2009Guess Ebert was right. Saw the film today and I can say I’m right here between ‘disappointed’ and ‘impressed’. I agree with Ebert specifically on the unbearable length. imagine a film lasting longer than two hours, full of comic relief nonsense characters, extended college dorm secenes, unnecessary wheelie jokes and cheesy sex jokes and all. and of course, in the second half of the film, I almost puked watching all those military base stuff, orders, coordinations, tanks, planes, bombs etc. Would rather watch less humans and military stuff. and yes, I miss Barricade
Posted by Amber on June 24th, 2009“If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination.”
Well done Ebert
Posted by rob on June 24th, 2009I like how the argument of, “ya the dialog was dumb and the plot made no sense, but the robots were fighting each other!!”, is still used for the sequel.
Posted by Mike on June 24th, 2009There’s a scene in the movie where Jetfire and the humans step out of the Smithsonian museum into an Arizona desert aircraft boneyard, no explanation is given, maybe they hope people don’t know that the museum is in DC and that it’s really located in the middle of a desert.
Posted by Duke Togo on June 24th, 2009There’s also a few scenes set in NYC which seemingly are set there so they can be shown in the trailers, almost nothing happens in NYC except bots standing on bridges or buildings. When you see the cool images in the trailer, you hope that they are expanded in the movie, nope that’s all you get with this film.
I actually liked the location of the museum and where they went afterwards with all the planes. I definitely don’t care if it’s real.
Posted by Henrik on June 24th, 2009I have three letters about this movie: lol
To expand
First off, unlike the first movie, I did not leave the theater angry, I literally am laughing my ass off about this movie. And before I go on, I did like it more than the first movie.
The first hour, even for all the retardedness, I was quite entertained. The bad stuff was so wtf stupid I couldnt help but giggle at what I was watching, and the actual Transformer stuff I feel was actually a vast improvement over the first movie – they weren’t cutting away every 3 seconds, I could tell what was happening, and it was the actual robots I wanted to see doing stuff.
Once Optimus is off screen and after Jetfire gives his exposition and takes off though, it takes a massive nosedive into a movie even more boring and barely watchable than the first movie, and the final fight is even more bullshit. It’s absolutely hilarious that there is more time of Megan Fox running or screaming in slow motion than there is of Optimus or any other star Transformer, the military fetish continues as they take out major villains instead of the heroes, and the time with the humans is even more pointless and dragged out, even during the big final fight where shitloads of robots are being torn apart IN THE FUCKING BACKGROUND. I mean, wow, just wow.
The twins complaints I have to say, are overblown, they weren’t as Jar Jar or racist as has been said, and maybe thats because I can’t be offended by Tom Kenny. I did actually like Wheelie as comic relief. Shia’s performance wasn’t bad, and Fox was improved as much as she could be. The guy playing Leo was the most annoying movie character perhaps ever, and if only they could have killed him.
So compared to the 0 or 0.5 I gave the first, this is a 1 or 1.5 maybe. And even though Star Trek (which I was disappointed with) was a better movie, I will dare say this thing is such a bizarre spectacle that its a much more memorable couple hours. I won’t forget Transformers 2, but those calling it good I still say are absolutely kidding themselves. There’s no justification for applauding the latter hour and a half of this very very long movie.
Posted by Goon on June 24th, 2009When I watched the first one I was bewildered at how anyone could enjoy it. It was long, the dialogue was uninspired, and the plot was hard to follow. Overall, it was pretty shitty. I definitely wouldn’t be referred to as a film snob so this isn’t coming from some high brow film critic.
Posted by Sam on June 24th, 2009Goon, I imagine you having a good time with scenes like the potscene. I did too, I thought it was pretty fucked up, in an entertaining way.
Posted by Henrik on June 24th, 2009it wasnt funny the way they wanted it to be funny, but it was funny they tried doing it at all, and that they went to the trouble of actually labeling it with a pot leaf so the dumbest person would understand, and did such over the top crap with it.
To me it was like unintentional self parody/mockery of how bad the comedy was in the first movie, it was bizarre.
Posted by Goon on June 24th, 2009and wtf is with crap like the ‘50 hottest freshman’?
also, even the complaints about Mountain Dew product placement return for the sequel. Welcome back!
Posted by Goon on June 24th, 2009Well I think Ebert is right from all I have heard. Question for those who have see it….. So is this movie even a rental or should they burn it? It sounds like the first movie “The Transformes” transformed into a big turd! If it is… then it just goes to prove that visuals are only part of a movie and giant robots are not enough. Hopefully they do not reboot this one and let it die. May be Gi Joe can beat this movie. Not likely though.
Posted by Big Hungry on June 24th, 2009I hated the first one and have no intention of seeing the sequel, but I am rather curious as to why this one is getting such a harsher break than the first one (which seemed to get a total pass which it didn’t deserve from critics)
I think it might have to do with context, the first one came out in “the summer of treequels” so the bar was pretty low adn i guess the prospect of a new property which didn’t take it self too seriously seemed bearable by comparison. But I think The Dark Knight might have raised the bar back up to where it belonged, took away the notion that summer movies needed to be judged like they were in the special olympics or something.
Either way, I’m glad these people came to their senses now and can see this franchise for what it is.
Posted by MJS on June 24th, 2009It’s a rental for sure, I’d say it’s a great modern day MST3K candidate, some of it’s ‘badness’ is on purpose and some of it is unintentional. Also, the CGI didn’t look too good on a large screen, it looks better on a smaller monitor. Remember that the film was rushed due to the then impending writer’s strike and I’m sure it was rushed in the effects department and editing to make it’s release date. The soundtrack wasn’t as good as the first film either.
Posted by Duke Togo on June 24th, 2009Unfortunately, Ebert is right on the money.
This movie was just fucking terrible and it felt like it was never going to end.
Posted by Steven C. on June 24th, 2009Ebert didn’t like the new Star Trek movie either. I think Ebert has lost touch with the general movie going audience, so I’m expecting this movie to make a lot of money.
Posted by Reed Farrington on June 25th, 2009The movie was great and the CGI was alot better than the first movie. the action sequences were thrilling and the comedic parts were funny. this movie is far better than the first and i seriously think that if someone is going to write a review on a movie about fighting transforming robots and then critize it because there is too much fighting transforming robots than you have clearly lost your mind because thats all I’ve been reading in several reviews and comments. which killed my expectations and i seriously dont understand why it got such a bad rep.
in the theatre i went to the people watching the movie were not dissapointed i could clearly tell they were satisfied because all i heard as i walked out after the credits was “this movie was awsome, great, funny” etc.. and the fact that it was about 150mins or so should not put you off or give it a worse rep because you wont even realize its that long because from the start to the very end your attention will be all on the screen. all i can say is dont buy into the reviews see it for yourself.
Posted by jhota on June 25th, 2009I will agree with Ebert! I had low expectations going in and kept think though, it will be good, it will be good. Boy was I wrong! Michale Bay can not make a movie! He is all action no plot and that is what this was!The plot(if you call that a plot!) really wasn’t that imaginative! He knew he could recycle CGI and whip up a story a four year old could have written and it will sell! Sorry, I’m being harsh,it has Megan Fox!
Posted by Guy Law on June 25th, 2009on a side note Eberts review sounds more like an old man complaining about how things are done in the “Good old days” then an actual review he should just really stop b#$ching and learn to enjoy a movie instead of looking for and making up flaws to rant about to get some attention.
Posted by jhota on June 25th, 2009“if someone is going to write a review on a movie about fighting transforming robots and then critize it because there is too much fighting transforming robots…”
I’m gonna stop you right there, jhota…
Number one, too much or too little doesnt matter if the robots that are there suck.
Number two, this movie frontloads the robots fighting each other to most of the front of the movie, and to the very end, where they essentially are fighting in the background while we get slow motion shots of the people and military. Bay treats the robots not as characters, but as explosions.
Number three, what truly made the movie suck was the very long stretch where there were no robot fighting/explosions at all, just humans meandering around in the desert or going through the motions of a Mummy type plot from place to place – and the filler (and it is filler in the purest sense) of so much of the college sequences.
For the first hour of the movie it was like two completely different movies. One was like American Pie Part 8: Witwicky Wackyland, and the other was an actual Transformers movie about the Transformers that I didn’t actually mind. The only consistency between the two of them was that they were still corny, unhinged Michael Bayhem.
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
After Optimus is seemingly dead, just like the majority of the first film where he’s not around/hasn’t shown up yet, you’ve taken the real main character that people came to see out of the movie, and its complete “when are we gonna get to the fireworks factory” filler until he shows up at the end again.
“in the theatre i went to the people watching the movie were not dissapointed”
You’re right though, it may still turn out to be critic proof. I partially wonder if the early British reviews spurred the wave of negative American ones or not, like it gave the US ones permission to say what they actually thought. I don’t know. There was applause in my theater, and some of it came from the same people who behind me were talking during the movie saying “that makes no sense”, “retarded”, etc.
One common crit about it being too long is weird because its barely longer than the first, and the first felt longer to me than this did. That said, I believe you could cut over an hour out of TF2 and you’d have a passable movie. I’d love to see an attempt at a “Phantom Edit” type project
Posted by Goon on June 25th, 2009Why jhota would he be looking for and “making up” flaws if he liked the first one?
Are you accusing Ebert of LYING about his opinion of the movie?
Posted by Goon on June 25th, 2009That review was absolutely hilarious. Can’t wait but possibly for all the wrong reasons.
Posted by stevie_boy on June 25th, 2009Why jhota would he be looking for and “making up†flaws if he liked the first one?
Are you accusing Ebert of LYING about his opinion of the movie?
I would accuse him of not paying attention and generating a complaint on something he clearly missed thats all read this foot note from his review
“Footnote 6/24: Does it strike you as a lapse of Pyramid security that no one notices a gigantic Deceptibot ripping off the top of the Great Pyramid? Not anyone watching on the live PyramidCam? Not even a traffic copter? ”
“spoiler” in that part of the movie one of the decepticons blew an emp disabling all hardware one of the actors ‘Tyrese Gibbson’ i think thats his name actually comment this.
In his fifth paragraph on his review he writes this…
“Spolier”
“Later they swoop down out of the sky on Egypt, for reasons the movie doesn’t make crystal clear.”
he is talking about Sams parents who were taken…now If your trying to get something you really want from someone and you would do just about anythin why not abduct someone they love and use them for a trade I mean its self explanatory let alone the fact the Sam(Shia) was willing to give himself up untill he saw bumble-bee creeping up on the decepticon.
Posted by jhota on June 25th, 2009Ebert goofing/missing those particular things does not swing a review. I mean we all know in LOTR if they had rode the eagles to Mordor it would be over, but that doesnt mean the movie sucked.
But for that second one, I think the complaint is valid. For all the parts that ARE in the movie, those characters just showing up without seeing them kidnapped was just stupid, and even some of the people I knew applauded audibly “what the fuck”ed over it and threw up their hands.
Me, I was thinking “Oh great… more human characters distracting from the robot action”
and that complaint is COMPLETELY valid.
Posted by Goon on June 25th, 2009jhota, I’m gonna give you a chance here to convince me:
“the comedic parts were funny”
I request you give everyone a top 10 list of funny things that happened. And it would be best if they were things that you found funny that were intended to be funny.
Comic relief is a huge part of this movie and I think that’s pissing some fanboys off. I actually can say I liked Wheelie as comic relief exactly as the way it was intended, but other than that, I can’t see the defence for Turturro’s ass, dogs humping, or absolutely anything Leo’s character did. Worst character ever.
Posted by Goon on June 25th, 2009To address the “just turn off your brain” or “what did you expect citizen kane” type opinions, I am cutting/pasting from user boogs of somethingawful.com who I completely agree with
“‘What did you expect, Citizen Kane?’ is a question that really misses the point. When someone criticises a movie like Transformers for not being very good, they aren’t saying it’s bad compared to Citizen Kane, or Shakespeare, or whatever other hallowed work of art you can immediately think of. They’re saying it’s bad compared to other, better-quality movies of the same genre. If it’s an action adventure movie, then it’s fair to expect that the action be well directed and that the plot be strong enough to justify the action by giving it some narrative weight, which means involving characters who are well-developed enough for us to care about. It takes some effort to get right, but this is pretty basic stuff. If the movie fails to achieve any of these things, then it’s perfectly within someone’s rights to criticise it. No movie is above criticism; it’s just that within certain genres, different canons of criticism apply. If Transformers has a bad plot, inefficient pacing, badly directed action and characters we’re indifferent towards, then it’s failed in many of the crucial areas a movie of its sort is expected to succeed in. Complaining that it wasn’t scary enough, for example, isn’t a valid criticism of the movie because it isn’t in the horror genre. That the action scenes are confusing or that the movie’s over-long–these criticisms are perfectly appropriate to level against an action sci-fi blockbuster.
Really, though, no movie should require you to stop thinking for it to be enjoyable; I don’t even know how you can appreciate a movie without thinking about it. It’s just that different movies require different approaches. It should never be the case that a film be approached as if it were above (or below) criticism. Don’t voice the appropriate criticisms, and the studios won’t take any steps to address them. There’s really no reason that a Transformers movie can’t be exciting, well-written, well-directed and well-acted and yet still remain squarely in the big-budget sci-fi action mould. But as long as people continue acting as if it doesn’t have to be, that crappiness is to be expected and even defended, then one’s never going to get made.”
Posted by Goon on June 25th, 2009out of everything i’ve read it just seems like every problem this movie has (and could be said about any movie) begins with the weak plot development, thier innability to communicate said plot, and relying on peoples intelligence to infer what happened.
Throwing in the “college-esque” immiture jokes, it equals out to be some die hard fans pissed off, as well as general public who are more familiar with what makes a passable movie or a GREAT movie (godfather, dark knight). Like alot of people on this website (goon for instance and i hate to admit it, shutup-ed)
Mostly i just wanted to comment on the “just turn off your mind and enjoy the movie” or however it was said…..are you stupid? if your going to turn off your mind whats the point in going to the movie? The best movies are the ones that get inside your head, your heart, that can make you feel sad, or happy, or scared. That offer a range of emotions and feelings that leave you thinking “whats going to happen next”. i mean you sound like Timothy leery “turn on, tune in, drop out”. As soon as someone starts telling you to think, is as soon as you should probably watch closer.
J hota, i appreicated your review, but a movie can not rely on CGI animation alone. And a film of this magnitude should not be relying on some “american pie” humor.
my last thing is i’m going to say is that it’s true a good audience in the theater makes a movie far more enjoyable. However you can not base your opinion on how the crowd likes it. in the end it’s how you felt about it, and your thoughts regarding the movie that matters. Goon is a smart person, but if some childs getting a kick out of the robots, do you think that, that is an apropriate mile stone in cementing his opinion? no, of corse not.
Posted by Rick on June 25th, 2009Thanks Rick.
I think when a lot of people say “turn off your mind and enjoy the movie” they are inferring that happiness/enjoyment is entirely a visceral experience and that thinking somehow is getting in the way… as if thinking and proper critical appraisal has no place in enjoyment whatsoever, whether that thinking happens during or after the fact. I actually loved Speed Racer, but I didnt do the ‘thinking’ about it until I left the theater and realized the movie I went to go see to make fun of was actually my cup of tea.
Its not unforgivable to love some big dumb popcorn movie in spite of its flaws. But its not cool to not acknowledge the flaws if you did see them and then complain when you get more of the same next time. I wish there was more nitpicking over the first movie instead of ‘fuck you it was awesome’ because now a good number of those people who thought the latter are realizing that maybe they should have spoken up about it in 2007.
Going back to the critics, one thing that I think is also happening with them and why this is getting so much worse reviews – is that when they saw it in 2007, a lot of people gave it a free pass because they figured “hey, its for the kids and the fans and i guess it gives them what they wanted”. Some of them now are realizing “oh shit, i’m going to have to spend 3 hours of my life on all these sequels” and now are actually reviewing the way they should have all along, being honest and trying to steer the franchise in a better direction (if not put it to sleep).
That aint gonna happen, so maybe the fanboys oughta step up and tell Michael Bay with their words (or their wallet) that they want a better Transformers movie and they’re not as stupid as he treats them.
Posted by Goon on June 25th, 2009i agree;
one thing i thik would make it better is get an actress who’s not megan fox to be in the movie. She’s nice to look at, but other then that theres not much too her. Get olivia wilde or something. A beautiful women who can act and is more then just pretty face.
second get with the original writers, get with fan boys and come up with a plot worthy of transformers that makes since and that you can atctively communicate with the audience.
and your right goon, i think we all have movies that are completely dumb that we do turn off our minds for and enjoy. I’m just saying a movie like transformers for how big it is, isn’t that kind of movie.
and your welcome goon.
Posted by Rick on June 25th, 2009The way Fox is used in this movie, I don’t think trading Fox for anyone would make much of a difference. She didnt really have much of an opportunity to fuck up OR do well.
Posted by Goon on June 25th, 2009Goon
request you give everyone a top 10 list of funny things that happened. And it would be best if they were things that you found funny that were intended to be funny
“”"”"”"”"Spoiler”"”"”"”"”"
-the scene when the house appliances turn on the parents there reactions to the attack.
-the little robot trying to get to the the shard from megens fox autoshop
-teos first encounter with sam…(afterwards he does get annoying)
-Sams mothers reaction when sam was leaving to college.
-the Sams proffessor-
=When sam started seeing the symbols and drawing them…(not the best acting but his facial reactions were pretty funny)
-in the beggining of the movie when the twins fight to pick the car there going to look like.
when the soldier tricked the politician to pulling the hook releasing his parachute.
-when they revived the old transformor, they showed his age by making him walk around with a cane and him muttering about beating up decepticons.
-turturro when they go see him in his shop seeing what happened to him after the first movie and how he stil acted like a government agent.
theres ten i can name more but these parts got huge laughs when i went to see the movie and there not in order. listen before you say anything im not a die hard fan, to really understand the movie you have to pay attention because the plot is not spoon fed to the audience but its not really deep. Goon you are right there is a significant section of the movie that had no action in it but thats when the actors got there time to really shine some did good some did horrible “Teo” there really is no consistency with the action its really the first 35mins and last 20mins give or take but i find it hard to beleive that people will complain about the sex and fart jokes and not look at the other comedic moments and the lable this a horrible movie it seems to me like people are just going with these reviews, watching the movie and then empowering all the negative facts with out looking at the positives.
Posted by jhota on June 25th, 2009correction on one thing its leo not teo…sry
Posted by jhota on June 25th, 2009This movie is critic proof. Nothing you say or any other critic will stop this movie from making an absoute fortune in the box office. I have seen droves and droves of peoples comments about this movie saying how they really enjoyed it. I think the haters are in the monority in this instance. Even my mum and sister went to see it and got a real kick out of watching giant robots tool each other on screen =) Myself I really enjoyed the movie and that’s all I care about.
Posted by Dom on June 25th, 2009Jhota, the only think I have to say is the only thing I found even remotely funny on your list was “-the little robot trying to get to the the shard from megens fox autoshop” – and it wasnt that funny, just mildly amusing.
Posted by Goon on June 25th, 2009“I think Ebert has lost touch with the general movie going audience”
I’m very curious, Reed, what your opinion is of people who don’t generally see very many movies. They do exist and, despite the “BIG NUMBERS” you see from box office results, they are a sizable portion of the rest of society. What I’m trying to get at is I’m wondering if you’re giving a certain amount of esteem to “the general movie going audience” because of the money they collectively give to tentpoles. It’s hard to tell. I seem to recall you not really liking Star Trek all that much either, so does that mean you’ve also lost touch with that group? If so why are you being so dismissive of Ebert’s review?
Also, are you planning on seeing Transformers 2? I would very much enjoy hearing you articulate your thoughts on the film.
Posted by Dave on June 25th, 2009“o really understand the movie you have to pay attention because the plot is not spoon fed to the audience but its not really deep.”
A shallow plot that still needs moderate to high levels of concentration to understand? That’s some shitty, shitty screenwriting right there, I tells ya’.
Posted by Dave on June 25th, 2009Dave, I used to think Ebert would tailor his reviews according to the audience a movie was meant for. I wouldn’t have expected him to be so harsh on a Michael Bay film, because clearly, there is an audience for a Micheal Bay type of film. Reviewers often use the term critic-proof to describe “awful” movies that the general audience will flock to. I’m not being dismissive of his review. I just thought he would be more restrained in his criticisms.
I’m not sure how to answer your question regarding my opinion of people who don’t see many movies. Are you asking whether I think their opinion of a film’s merit matters? If so, I think everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. The question of whether a film has artistic merit is a cultural bias. I tend to agree with the views of John Berger and Mary Anne Staniszewski with regards to this.
I was dismayed by both the critical acclaim and the large box-office that the Star Trek movie achieved. So, yes, I have lost touch with the general movie going audience, at least in regards to viewing Star Trek. I didn’t even think Star Trek was exciting enough for the masses.
Sean and Jay are catching Transformers 2 at the drive-in and want me to come along. I enjoyed the original Transformers although I admit that Shia’s acting seemed “cartoonish.” I should go see it, but I probably won’t until the DVD comes out in the bargain bin.
Posted by Reed Farrington on June 25th, 2009“o really understand the movie you have to pay attention because the plot is not spoon fed to the audience but its not really deep.â€
A shallow plot that still needs moderate to high levels of concentration to understand? That’s some shitty, shitty screenwriting right there, I tells ya’.
Dave, you misunderstood that comment what it means is that the plot was straight foward not dramatic with twist or turns that make you think really hard and make you second guess what you think is actually going on, but at the same time it didn’t lay it out so that you already new what was gonna happen in the first 30mins in other words it was average and i wont argue that the plot was spectacular cuz it wasn’t. they really did need better writers but i would still say its better than the first movie.
Posted by jhota on June 26th, 2009Uh, no, I didn’t misunderstand your comment because it was plain as day. Not really deep means shallow and having to pay attention to understand what’s going on requires concentration. A shallow plot should not require concentration to understand, especially in a movie based on toys and presented as military porn. The script was dumb, the direction meandering, and the comedy flat. The movie was a giant waste of time and that’s my story.
I’m sticking to it.
Reed, thanks for the response.
Posted by Dave on June 26th, 2009“I used to think Ebert would tailor his reviews according to the audience a movie was meant for. ”
I disagree, I believe he simply is normally the kind of writer who tries to convince people and win converts to his side of thinking. In this case he clearly doesn’t care who he offends. To me the real issue is why the hell he didn’t notice these problems in the first Transformers movie.
Posted by Goon on June 26th, 2009Hindsight can be 20/20 unless you wear rose colored glasses. You know what’s funny? Remember how Andrea nearly tore my head off in that Twilight discussion on The Rotcast? She admitted the flaws of the film but still circled the wagons when I tried to crystallize the point of the whole story. Transformers fans do the exact same thing. They gush and gush on how awesome they think the movie is but when you press for specifics, all they can really say is what they hated. It was the same way with the first movie; under all the hyperbole you had everyone admitting it was a bad movie. The whole “turn your brain off” argument is as empty as Megan Fox’s skull. You can’t turn your brain off in any context at all except to zone out, and when you do that you’re just going to a different part of your mind. If all you liked from this movie was the explosions and flashing lights, it’s because those images lit up parts of your brain that stimulated a very base, visceral reaction. It’s like watching a fireworks display, the only difference being a fireworks display is about 90% shorter and carries 100% more significance.
Posted by Dave on June 26th, 2009I havent listened to it (Seriously, not just trying to save face
) – but apparently the commentary John Campea made for Transformers just has them bashing everything throughout, and this is the guy who called Spiderman 3 the worst movie of the year. Its amazing where a dancing scene and Kirsten Dunst will get you, but what can be forgiven.
I find it significant that Megan Fox is maybe my smallest complaint with the second movie.
Posted by Goon on June 26th, 2009I have listened to it, and they do bash it quite a bit. Doug Nagy is funny on it, and he says that if the line from Megatron to Starscream wasnt in the film, he probably would have totally hated it.
It is the sort of movie that gets significantly worse on a second viewing, and even more so on a small screen though. I don’t think anybody should ever be subjected to Transformers or its sequel on anything but a massive screen.
Posted by Henrik on June 26th, 2009I wouldn’t put too much in the Spider-Man 3 being the worst thing though. It was obviously just to stir up controversy, since he brought it up again and again in posts, and in slow comments sections on other posts how horrible Spider-Man 3 was.
Then again, he did give The House Bunny a higher rating than The Wrestler.
Posted by Henrik on June 26th, 2009Ebert is absolutely dead-on in his review of this droning p.o.s. Before the first movie came out, I thought that Michael Bay was approaching Renny Harlin status as the worst over-the-top director of our time. But I went to see it and liked it.
I was too old for the Transformers toys or TV show, and I think that this movie had some potentially great parts to it to expand the T-former universe and make it comprehensible. It also introduced some neat new characters like the ancient one dressed up as a Stealth Fighter. But the movie had so many problems that Optimus could drive his new hook-up through the plot holes – like how does this fighter go out of the rear entrance door of the Smithsonian Institute in D.C. and then go straight to an Air Force graveyard out west? WTF?
The screenplay might have started out o.k., but it has been rendered asunder by this movie’s endless egotism.
Posted by Geoff on June 26th, 2009Worst adaptation of any film or old cartoon I have ever seen. If anyone has ever seen “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre- The Next Generation” you will understand when I say ROTF was even worse than that ridiculous mockery of a sequel. What the hell was Megan Fox’s point in being in the movie? She wasnt involved in the plot at all- wait, actually….what was the fucking plot? Megatron (who the movie was supposed to be about, right?) barely had anything to do with the damn movie, little screen time, and the time he was on he was portrayed as a weakling puss. And the ebonics robots? That was……the stupidest thing in any movie EVER. Ebert- you nailed it on the head. I want my money back plus 20 bucks for having been subjected that piece of junk. I’ll never get that 2 hours of my life back….never.
Posted by Christina on August 15th, 2009Leave a Reply