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.

Then again, he did give The House Bunny a higher rating than The Wrestler.

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.

I find it significant that Megan Fox is maybe my smallest complaint with the second movie.

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.

I’m sticking to it.

Reed, thanks for the response.

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.

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.

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’.

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.