I can trust Roger Ebert's opinions on film about 99% of the time.

My own opinion is Transformers 1 sucked balls, and Transformers 2 sucked big stinky donkey balls.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

This comment wins the thread. Best. Movie Review. Ever.

"Critics blithely refer to movies as 'painful' all the time, but this is the real deal."

"A bad film that seems like a nightmare because it is one."

"A joyless, humorless, bloated carcass of an event movie...Nothing kills the euphoric buzz of exceptionally articulated carefree mindlessness quite like a newly emboldened Michael Bay."

"You might make it out of the movie with your soul barely intact, but the actors in the film don't fare so well."

"If you ever wondered what a movie would look like geared toward the underdeveloped brain of a gestating zygote...then Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the insipid illustration you've been waiting for."

"It's a wad of chaos puked onto the big screen, an arbitrary collection of explosions and machismo posturing."

"Putrid, offensive and life-sucking. Early word is describing this woebegone fiasco as the next Batman and Robin. Having seen both, Joel Schumacher has every right to protest the comparison."

OFCS Rating: 6% Rotten (new window)

I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

DamnYankees: Carth: I still haven't forgiven Ebert for giving a negative review to the new Star Trek and a positive review to the piece of crap Knowing.

While that was criminal by him, he did give ST 2.5 stars out of 4. So technically it was somewhat positive. He just decided to only write about the bad things.

True. I tend to group things into positive or negative based on rottentomatoes. A 2.5 star could go either way he just decided to rate it as negative.

There is no way Knowing should have been a 4 star film .

This image has many implications on many levels. All of them dirty. I love it.

As a child, I was a complete Transformers fanatic. I enjoyed Transformers 2. Having said that, the move was almost completely awful. "almost" because the only thing you could enjoy was the action -- which was about 95% of the movie.

/plot made NO SENSE
//if there was a plot.

so, did you guys go there expecting something more than big shiny robots beating each other up with gratuitous one liners and hot chick scenes?

That may be why you were unsatisfied.

Personally I kinda got funny feelings in my jeans with Megan Fox dominating a robot with a big chain around it's neck...

and I really had no issue following the plot, it seemed kinda simple to me. Was also very satisfied that they even mentioned energon, since they didn't even acknowledge it's existence in the first movie, made me WTF.

only award it should win though will be special effects, anything else would be an insult.

The Southern Dandy: I can trust Roger Ebert's opinions on film about 99% of the time.

My own opinion is Transformers 1 sucked balls, and Transformers 2 sucked big stinky donkey balls.

Which is ironic, because he said the movie Big Stinky Donkey Balls transformed him.

Best review I've read is actually a FAQ (new window)

Also, this article reminds me of the time James Cameron demanded Kenneth Turan be fired because he gave Titanic a bad review (new window).

The only thing which made me somewhat interested in seeing this movie was that apparently Shia's roommate in the film is played by an actor who was on The Wire. But that's not enough.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Lol.. Win.

DamnYankees: robsul82: coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

The Slashfilmcast highlighted that review for its podcast on TF2, it was hilarious.

Did you notice how *NONE* of the revierws, including the 1 hour long review by the /Filmcast, mentions any of the acting? No one even talks about LeBouf and Fox. It's ridiculous. I haven't seen the movie, but can the ostebsible main characters really be that unimportant?

Other blockbusters which did well and were considered good usually get great accolades for the acting. Think of Heath Ledger, Chris Pine, Zacahry Quinto, and Robert Downy Jr.

Yes. Yes, they can be. I don't make the "the only thing Shia LaBeouf can do is make a shocked face in front of a greenscreen" joke because it's not true, lol. And especially in a Michael Bay film, the leads are incredibly unimportant.

Ledger - a Chris Nolan film, someone who saw a comic book series about a billionaire fighting people dressed as a bat and thought, "I can do something with this."

Pine/Quinto - a J.J. Abrams film, someone who saw a crappy 60s TV show and thought, "I can do something with this."

Robert Downey Jr. - well...that was RDJ himself.

But anyway, the common thread is people who (despite the shiatty source material) decided to TRY. And that's something Michael Bay never does or ever will do, and that above everything else is why he is so offensive to so many moviegoers.

URAPNIS: I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

I enjoyed Waterworld until after the Atoll burned down. Then it was lame.

URAPNIS: I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

I like you.

coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

You're right, that is a great review.

Too bad the only work of Megan Fox's I'm ever going to watch is the inevitable sex tape.

Spoiling shiat real good ahead:

What I don't understand about Transformers 2 is why the Primes, some of the most powerful robots in existence, had to sacrifice themselves to form a tomb for a key so powerful the kid almost sneezed it away. Then those two retarded twin-bots manage to put a crack in the ultra-tomb making the sacrifice of the super-bots seems worthless.

And then just some editing order that I really hated was when the kid is dead and talking to uber-bots in his dreamworld heaven/hell scene and he's all getting defibbed in real life.

WHY the hell do they not have him snap back to reality after a defib shock??? It would have made so much more sense to all those sitting around him! And to the audience! Everyone gives up defibbing him and thinks he's dead but later he just magically comes back to life/reality when the girl says she loves him.

Shut the fark up Michael Bay, you cock.

Excen: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

COMEDIC FARKING GOLD!!!

/didn't see it
/mostly because it would mean tracking down a baggie of mushrooms and finding an IMAX theater

From the sounds of that linked review, it appears that the anime show "Bakugan Battle Brawlers" my kids are watching on YouTube actually has more continuity.
Which is saying a lot, IMO, as some the core issues of the anime make no sense.
Like most anime.

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

That review more or less sums up what I think about the movie too.

It was "fun" in that they blew shiat up and had some slapstick, but it was stupid in that there is no way I'd ever watch that nonsense ever again.

Can you explain Megan Fox's appeal?

Yes. She looks like a porn star and has the same acting talent as one, yet for some reason she makes mainstream movies. This tonal disconnect is what's so appealing about her.

Win.

Excen: COMEDIC FARKING GOLD!!!

I didn't see the movie but am glad it exists just so I could read this;

Could you sum up the film in one line of its dialogue?
"I am standing directly beneath the enemy's scrotum."

robsul82: But anyway, the common thread is people who (despite the shiatty source material) decided to TRY. And that's something Michael Bay never does or ever will do, and that above everything else is why he is so offensive to so many moviegoers.

I disagree. I think he does try. I just think he is completely insulated from any artistic accountability because he makes so much money, and he's a *REALLY* shallow person. He clearly tries really hard at doing what it is he wants to do - CGI and military porn.

And I still love The Rock. Easily his best film.

URAPNIS: I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

They give Scarface 2 stars, so I'm not really interested in what a critic thinks.

Ku_No_Ichi: Could you sum up the film in one line of its dialogue?
"I am standing directly beneath the enemy's scrotum."

Is that an actual line from the movie? I assumed it was made up by the reviewer.

I stopped listening to critics because:

1. They said the movie Seven was terrible.. and err, it was great.
2. They are getting paid for an opinion, not everybody likes the same stuff..I don't care about your opinion, I'll make my own decisions on what to like and not like.

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

You're right, that is a great review.

Too bad the only work of Megan Fox's I'm ever going to watch is the inevitable sex tapes.

FTFVivid

/As long as she ages like Chardonnay not Milk
//With acknowledgments to Walter. . .

DSF6969: This image has many implications on many levels. All of them dirty. I love it.

Cue the 'Buttsecks?' Owl.

I can forgive a bad plot in a movie, or plot holes, or whatever. But Transformers 2 was worse than that. It wasn't just the plot that was bad. The special effects were bad; the script was bad; the editing was bad; the attention to detail was bad; all in all, it was just a bad movie. I have never seen so much money spent on something that showed so little love of the craft.

The first one was mindless fun. The second one was cringe-worthy, in the most negative sense.

I thought decent people stopped paying to see Michael Bay movies after Pearl Harbor.

I saw the first Transformers expecting giant robots and explosions. I got so little of both, that I'll have nothing to do with any future snoozefests from Bay. The first one was one of the most dull and boring films I've ever seen, and it was too damn long.

coinspinner: The best review I've found of Transformers 2. It's an art piece, and you probably didn't get it.

I agree. If Transformers 2 has two redeeming features, it's that it pushed so many reviewers over the edge into pure Lovecraftian insanity, plus you know the eventual Rifftrax for this film is going to be friggin' awesome!


"My opinion of my whole experience varies from time to time. In broad daylight, and at most seasons I am apt to think the greater part of it a mere dream; but sometimes in the autumn, about two in the morning when winds and animals howl dismally, there comes from inconceivable depths below a damnable suggestions of rhythmical throbbing..."

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Yeah, it's like what an idiot would write if he were trying to make a film look worse than it was so that he could brag to his friends about his popular internet site.

DamnYankees: I disagree. I think he does try. I just think he is completely insulated from any artistic accountability because he makes so much money, and he's a *REALLY* shallow person. He clearly tries really hard at doing what it is he wants to do - CGI and military porn.

And I still love The Rock. Easily his best film.

This. The Rock is a solid action film. The Transformers movies are incoherent drivel.

Bay needs adult supervision. He could be the next James Cameron if he had a more sober director to work all the crap he doesn't really care about (and to keep him the hell away from comedy).

It's a movie about robots fighting other robots, that's what they gave us. You don't hear Nascar fans complaining about cars going in circles do you. It is what it is.

NikolaiFarkoff: notmtwain: Those of us who were saved from wasting our money and time have a lot to thank Roger for.

That, plus the availability of several other really good films lately. Drag Me to Hell was awesome, so was Up!, and Away We Go was pretty good. Apart from Up, I got blank stares from most people when I mentioned the other two.

Drag Me to Hell was very good story-telling & a lot of fun. But instead of Away We Go, husband & I saw Hangover instead (stupid, mindless fun).

I did see Transformers, though. Only went for the explosions & giant, battling robots, so I got what I expected. It just took an effort to ignore the glaring plot problems.

This review was by far the best, most in-depth, post-mortem of Transformers 2 that I've seen yet:

Warning: Massive Spoilers!

DamnYankees: robsul82: But anyway, the common thread is people who (despite the shiatty source material) decided to TRY. And that's something Michael Bay never does or ever will do, and that above everything else is why he is so offensive to so many moviegoers.

I disagree. I think he does try. I just think he is completely insulated from any artistic accountability because he makes so much money, and he's a *REALLY* shallow person. He clearly tries really hard at doing what it is he wants to do - CGI and military porn.

And I still love The Rock. Easily his best film.

Well, if anything, he's not even attempting to make a good film. The only time I think he gave that a shot was Pearl Harbor. I really do think he was trying to make his own Titanic there, and after that didn't come close to any awards shows, he just threw his hands up.

Dr.Knockboots: 1. They said the movie Seven was terrible.. and err, it was great.

Seven has an 84% on Rotten Tomatoes. So what are you talking about?

Yeesh! That 2012 trailer is rough...

DamnYankees: Is that an actual line from the movie? I assumed it was made up by the reviewer.

I assumed the reviewer was taking a creative license there, and summing it up for us.

If it is an actual line from the movie, I will pay double price for one ticket and actually go see it,

yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

That was seriously awesome.

Telos: yogaFLAME: Didn't read Ebert's review, but I guarantee he was far too nice to the film. This is better.

Yeah, it's like what an idiot would write if he were trying to make a film look worse than it was so that he could brag to his friends about his popular internet site.

Hey look! Michael Bay has a FARK account!

Movie critic needs to shut the hell up. He gives his stupid thumbs up to any movie whose producer gives him a sack full of money. Anyone whose deciding factor on whether to see a movie or not based on this assclowns opinion doesn't need to be watching movies anyway when they could be hanging themselves.

T.rex: ... I'm not saying beef up the plot,,, but they at least vary up what the robots are doing. the action sequences were devoid of creativty.

You know, I haven't defended Transformers 2 for much, since I assumed most people would be expecting some type of awesomeness from their childhood transformed into a legend.

Those of you who put your faith in Michael Bay for this were poorly misled.

But the one thing I will not agree with is the above quote. HOW THE FARK can you possibly not have loved the optimus death scene? AWESOME robot action, was probably the best part I took away from the movie!

and for those of you who didn't like the twins, do you remember the original cartoon? Or the fact that it was a cartoon? Humor was not exactly educated.

I think you people have too lofty expectations for what this movie was supposed to be.

/but how about that Avatar trailer eh?

tdpatriots12: I thought decent people stopped paying to see Michael Bay movies after Pearl Harbor.

The saddest part of all this is there are people who think the Michael Bay Pearl Harbor movie is a documentary.

Dr_Gats: so, did you guys go there expecting something more than big shiny robots beating each other up with gratuitous one liners and hot chick scenes?

That may be why you were unsatisfied.

Personally I kinda got funny feelings in my jeans with Megan Fox dominating a robot with a big chain around it's neck...

and I really had no issue following the plot, it seemed kinda simple to me. Was also very satisfied that they even mentioned energon, since they didn't even acknowledge it's existence in the first movie, made me WTF.

only award it should win though will be special effects, anything else would be an insult.

It will win quite a few Razzies, I should think.

I read all my movie critics from Mr Cranky.

YOU MUST GO TO THE ARTICLE AND CLICK ON THE FRENCH COMMERCIAL.

That is all.

brigid_fitch: This review

Oops, yogaFLAME already beat me to it. :)

DamnYankees: Ku_No_Ichi: Could you sum up the film in one line of its dialogue?
"I am standing directly beneath the enemy's scrotum."

Is that an actual line from the movie? I assumed it was made up by the reviewer.

Yes, it is.

The FAQ doesn't even cover the massive continuity error of having a complete Devastator fighting one battle, while miles away, some of the individual robots who make up his body parts are fighting as themselves at another battle miles away.

lilbordr: Yeesh! That 2012 trailer is rough...

1) I hope The Cusack fully pays his gambling debts with the proceeds from that movie so that he never has to make a 2012 again.

2) It really seems like Roland Emmerich is saying "FARK MICHAEL BAY! WHO'S GOT THE DESTRUCTION? I GOT THE DESTRUCTION, BABY!" with every frame of that film.