MightyPez: I have never understood Megan Fox's appeal. I always felt strange about telling people that because they would look at me as if I suddenly turned gay. But that line sums it up. She looks like a porn star but hasn't done porn (yet).

Don't get me wrong, she is a very beautiful woman. But there are far more attractive women out there with real talent.

I said this to my friends after TF1. She was hot, sure, but nothing special.

brigid_fitch: DamnYankees: Dr.Knockboots: Rented it on VHS some time later and was like "god dammit, this movie was great".

2 great lines from that movie always gives me chills just due tothe delivery:

"Detectives. Detectives. DETECTIVES!"

"John Doe has the upper hand."

No, best line:

Det. Mills: "Has he tried to speak or communicate in any way?"
Dr.: "Even if his brain were not mush...which it is...he chewed off his own tongue long ago."

My favorite was the scene between Brad Pitt the massage parlour guy:

David Mills: Do you like what you do for a living? These things you see?
Man in Massage Parlour Booth: No, I don't. But that's life.

aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

well i'm sorry your "my" was grossed out...

/sharp knees and whatnot

Somethings just ruin a hot woman. Disgusting tattoos are one of them.

for YOU maybe...not to some of us. with or without, i'm happy to look at a hottie.

So am I. I would not be against you finding one and plastering her picture all over the thread.

/Damn you, now when I see pictures of Fox, I don't just see her club-thumb, I also see her messed up arm tattoo.

DamnYankees: you are a puppet: This has been my impression of a retard

Ha. Let's see how many bites you get.

Admittedly, I was with it until the sentence about "popcorn flick at which I can eat popcorn." Then I start to laugh, out loud as it were.

Clarence Potter: David Mills: Do you like what you do for a living? These things you see?
Man in Massage Parlour Booth: No, I don't. But that's life.

Just a freaking brilliant movie all around. I admit I had forgotten that scene. And lets not forget Leland Orser in the interrogation room. Dude caused himself to hyperventilate before they started filming in order to pull that off.

Andrew Kevin Walker wrote Seven while working as a clerk at a Tower Records. I like that.

I'm not sure if anyone realized it or not, but Roland Emmerich has released a new trailer for '2012' specifically to address the concerns raised in this article.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2qxFkcLM0

Did anyone link to this FAQ-style review of the movie yet?

My six yers old said the girl was pretty and the stuff blowing up was cool


//that is all

amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

well i'm sorry your "my" was grossed out...

/sharp knees and whatnot

Somethings just ruin a hot woman. Disgusting tattoos are one of them.

for YOU maybe...not to some of us. with or without, i'm happy to look at a hottie.

So am I. I would not be against you finding one and plastering her picture all over the thread.

/Damn you, now when I see pictures of Fox, I don't just see her club-thumb, I also see her messed up arm tattoo.

well i can't just arbitrarily start posting pics of hot chicks. that's a threadjack brotha! (and a 24 hour time-out)

have to wait for the boobie threads.

Ah yes, but The Hours and Sex, Lies and Videotape both won Oscars for best picture.

Go figure.

robsul82: Andrew Kevin Walker wrote Seven while working as a clerk at a Tower Records. I like that.

Little trivia. In Fincher's next movie, Fight Club, in the scene where Edward Norton is going to have his dick cut off by the three cops, those cops nametages say "Andrew", "Kevin", and "Walker".

his kung fu is still sooo superior to anyone elses

drxym: Michael Bay is a hack. It's not a generational thing, or a "not getting it" thing. His movies are cut too fast, incoherent, badly scripted, often make no sense, poorly acted, filled with loud explosions and topped off with bombastic music. He is incapable of telling even the simplest of stories without farking it up in the process.

In other words, he might be some sort of bizarre clone of George Lucas and Ed Wood?

SynthLord: 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.

QFT, QFT.

The things I'm a qualified expert in aren't things I tend to debate about, but in many, many aspects of life, there's having an opinion, and there's being just flat wrong.

Yet the common belief is "everyone has an opinion, man, and that doesn't make one more valid than the next." Well, if all opinions were equal, that would certainly be true.

But all opinions are not equal, and some things are not subject to opinion other than "I liked it; I didn't like it," and that's as far as you can go. That's not the beginning of an evaluation, it's the end.

"Afternoon Delight" is a good pop song. It has everything a pop song should have -- memorable hooks, comfortable structure, easy changes, no musical wankery. I hate that song with an indescribable fury, a burning hatred beyond the words mortal man.

It is a good quote, but here is where is falls apart in my opinion:

How do you prove, as fact, that a movie/song/book/painting is good?

I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Sure, you can list specific reasons or criteria why you did or did not like the art in question, but those may not matter to someone else.

/That's the thing I always disliked about subjects like English or Art History in school.
//Math and science 4TW!

DamnYankees: robsul82: Andrew Kevin Walker wrote Seven while working as a clerk at a Tower Records. I like that.

Little trivia. In Fincher's next movie, Fight Club, in the scene where Edward Norton is going to have his dick cut off by the three cops, those cops nametages say "Andrew", "Kevin", and "Walker".

Yeah, noticed that the first time through Fight Club, and suddenly I remembered Brad Pitt was in this one too.

aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey: amanogowa: aggravatedmonkey Thanks for ruining her for me.

/my is grossed out by that nasty tattoo.

well i'm sorry your "my" was grossed out...

/sharp knees and whatnot

Somethings just ruin a hot woman. Disgusting tattoos are one of them.

for YOU maybe...not to some of us. with or without, i'm happy to look at a hottie.

So am I. I would not be against you finding one and plastering her picture all over the thread.

/Damn you, now when I see pictures of Fox, I don't just see her club-thumb, I also see her messed up arm tattoo.

well i can't just arbitrarily start posting pics of hot chicks. that's a threadjack brotha! (and a 24 hour time-out)

have to wait for the boobie threads.

It's all in the comment;-)

/"This would have been a much better hottie for transformers 2 and would have shut everyone up"

DamnYankees: robsul82: Andrew Kevin Walker wrote Seven while working as a clerk at a Tower Records. I like that.

Little trivia. In Fincher's next movie, Fight Club, in the scene where Edward Norton is going to have his dick cut off by the three cops, those cops nametages say "Andrew", "Kevin", and "Walker".

You know, I catch something new in that movie every time I watch it, and still never put that together, awesome. Watching fight club again tonight.

Dr.Knockboots: I went in to Transformers 2 wanting to see cool robots, funny moments, a hot girl or 2, big explosions and awesome action with killer special effects..
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

I simultaneously agree with both you and Mr. Ebert. I think this movie is quite likely to be an insult to my intelligence. But I know myself well enough to know I'll probably still enjoy it.

It's clear that all decepticons can teleport (remember jetfire was originally a decepticon and then just decided to change sides) because they are constantly being redeployed from space, without any explanation as to how that's possible. Teleportation. There's your continuity *facepalm*

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: Here's the thing, though: I don't need to make excuses. I paid to see a film with Transformers fighting and got what I came to see. I don't see where it's automatically required to go into every movie expecting Oscar-caliber acting, writing, and directing when movies are made to entertain, and people get enjoyment out of different types of entertainment. Honestly, I find myself enjoying more movies this way and appreciating the truly artistic ones even more than before.

But hey, that's just me.

I hope the next time you go into a fast food joint and find out someone spat in your burger you take the same attitude. I mean, its just fast food, and you were expecting shiat, so I suppose you should be happy with horrible food which was salivated on.

Expecting crap does not mitigate getting crap.

Easy, tiger. You'd think I insulted your mom or something.

Your analogy doesn't work, either. I go into a fast food restaurant expecting fast food that meets a minimum criteria (i.e., not being spat in) like I expected a movie called "Transformers 2" to have robots fighting. As long as my fast food is edible and this particular movie had robots fighting, I met my minimum requirements and was able to enjoy it.

Walker's career shows what a crapshoot Hollywood can be in what directors you get for your work - with Seven, he got David Fincher, who wasn't letting a studio change the ending no way no how, and with 8MM, he got Joel Schumacher, who said, "The studio wants it to be lighter in tone? Sure, why not!"

And now we're back at...Nicolas Cage.

/fark you, Kevin Bacon

aggravatedmonkey: goddamn, this applies to A LOT of you...

The point is that the balance between talent and ass is WAAAAAAAAY out of balance with Megan Fox. She may be hot when properly tarted up, but so is Avril Lavign. Can you picture that-one-chick-from-Transformers even getting nominated for an Oscar? At least Angelina Jolie can act; I mean even Sasha Grey has more acting chops than Megan Fox.

/And Grey does DP for a living!

Dr_Gats: Richard in a Box:
/Oh, and having Jetfire make an appearance is super nostalgic since I still have my Generation 1 Jetfire toy.
//Though I wish I had kept him in better shape
///Still transforms though!

I loved the visuals for jetfire, they did an awesome job on him. Was sad he didn't have a bigger part.

Ditto. I was hoping that Optimus would somehow figure out a way to use his spark to bring him back. Particularly when they were on the carrier, I was hoping he'd come back as an F/A-18 or something. :D

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

It's an actual line.

But the movie was awful. Youtube the clip for that one line and save that hour and a half of your life.

Here's a clue - During at least two of the interminable and inconsequrntial battel scenes, I found my mind wandering to the point I was noting the emerging trends in fab-boy haircuts amongst th eother movie patrons.

Only Micheal Bay can make giant CGI robots beating the hell out of each other and everything around them... kinda dull.

Richard in a Box: I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Sure, you can list specific reasons or criteria why you did or did not like the art in question, but those may not matter to someone else.

Well, this is false, empirically speaking. The fact that humans tend to gravitate towards certain things tell you there is something measurable. An overhwhelmingly large number of straight men will tell you that Catherine Zeta Jones is more attractive than Barbara Bush. If there was really nothing objective going on there, we would not expect that result - it would be random. Rather, we can sort of build up a profile of characteristics which correlate with "beauty". Then you test your subject against those characteristics.

You can do this with movies, art, music - anything. It just takes effort. Luckily, people study this shiat, and there are objective resaons why The Godfather is a *better* film than Troll 2.

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

I had absolutely no desire to go see this movie, until I read that review. I think I'll see it tonight.

t3knomanser: Richard in a Box: I paid to see a film with Transformers fighting and got what I came to see.

So, that must be something they added in the sequel. Because it didn't show up in the first Transformers film.

That's funny, I remember seeing Optimus and Megatron fighting. Where were you?

Enough with the "action movies are supposed to be dumb" bullshiat. I saw Public Enemies yesterday, and it fit all the criteria: lots of violent gun battles, a sexy woman, etc., yet it also had good acting and was an actual movie, not a screeching, incomprehensible headache.

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

Look at that! My good friend Rob Bricken getting props on Fark for writing a review of Transformers: RotF. Nice!

Richard in a Box: Your analogy doesn't work, either. I go into a fast food restaurant expecting fast food that meets a minimum criteria (i.e., not being spat in) like I expected a movie called "Transformers 2" to have robots fighting. As long as my fast food is edible and this particular movie had robots fighting, I met my minimum requirements and was able to enjoy it.

And many people's 'minimum criteria' for an action movie is (1) understandable action (2) some kind of plot which makes sense and (3) pathos which makes everything 'matter'. TF2, based on everything I've read, fails at achieving these standards.

This movie is a mockery on the Transformers franchise.

gad: Dude (and Roger) - it's a movie about Giant Sentient Robots from a Comic Book - not Shakespeare or Schindler's List.

This has been how I've been viewing the movie since I saw the trailers. I've repeatedly said that I wanted nothing more than explosions & giant battling robots.

However, that doesn't mean that's all we should get. You can have a good action movie with massive CGI, explosions, AND a coherent plot. The Matrix, Dark Knight, Iron Man, Star Trek--Hell, I'd even throw Tropic Thunder in there.

The point is, Bay didn't even try. He just apathetically threw all this shiat together and we're supposed to like it because it's ONLY good points are the explosions & CGI.

Richard in a Box: I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters.

I don't make films, but I do photography, and writing. All media exist to communicate something. So the quality of any work of art can be evaluated on these grounds:
1) The quality of the message - did it communicate something worth communicating, even if it were only for entertainment's sake?
2) The execution of the message - was it expressed clearly, and in a way that held the audience's attention? If its purpose was to entertain, did it do that? If it were making a statement about the human condition, did it do that?
3) The technical execution of the message - given the technical aspects of the medium, was the medium communicated in a fashion that demonstrates an understanding and dexterity with the medium?

Michael Bay consistently fails on #2 and #3. He always sets out to entertain, but in my experience, rarely succeeds.

I don't get it. The "Transformers" generation is all guys in their mid-thirties to late-twenties. Why is this film so hopelessly pitched at dumbass teenagers?

The kids of today have no visceral connection to Transformers from back in the day, so they can't be relied on as a solid base of viewers.

Why would they take this venerable franchise with its built-in fanbase and turn out such a piece of crap?

I have to wonder if Michael Bay purposefully makes his films worse just to spite the critics. Even those who liked the movie have to admit that the humping dogs, Bumblebee pissing, and Turturro's ass were completely unnecessary. I think this movie would've been much-better received if Bay didn't feel the need to make his film more low-brow than they already were.

If you're really paying 7-12 bucks to see robots fighting, why don't you just rent Transmorphers? Oh right... People who like Transformers 2 are constantly making excuses as to why their acceptance of bottom-feeder drivel has a high-level rational explanation rather than the greater likelihood that they are mildy or wildly retarded.

DamnYankees: Richard in a Box: I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Sure, you can list specific reasons or criteria why you did or did not like the art in question, but those may not matter to someone else.

Well, this is false, empirically speaking. The fact that humans tend to gravitate towards certain things tell you there is something measurable. An overhwhelmingly large number of straight men will tell you that Catherine Zeta Jones is more attractive than Barbara Bush. If there was really nothing objective going on there, we would not expect that result - it would be random. Rather, we can sort of build up a profile of characteristics which correlate with "beauty". Then you test your subject against those characteristics.

You can do this with movies, art, music - anything. It just takes effort. Luckily, people study this shiat, and there are objective resaons why The Godfather is a *better* film than Troll 2.

Yeah, measuring what appeals to people is quantifiable, and if you want to judge movies based on that, go for it. I'd like to see how mass studies would hold up though. Critics and movie aficionados would say a movie like "Citizen Kane" is the best movie ever, but I'd like to see if after being required to watch that, that would be true.

A lot of these things go in cycles and are cultural too. To go back to your beauty measurement study, what most people find beautiful now is probably not what would have been the case had that study happened in a different era.

Richard in a Box: SynthLord: 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.

QFT, QFT.

The things I'm a qualified expert in aren't things I tend to debate about, but in many, many aspects of life, there's having an opinion, and there's being just flat wrong.

Yet the common belief is "everyone has an opinion, man, and that doesn't make one more valid than the next." Well, if all opinions were equal, that would certainly be true.

But all opinions are not equal, and some things are not subject to opinion other than "I liked it; I didn't like it," and that's as far as you can go. That's not the beginning of an evaluation, it's the end.

"Afternoon Delight" is a good pop song. It has everything a pop song should have -- memorable hooks, comfortable structure, easy changes, no musical wankery. I hate that song with an indescribable fury, a burning hatred beyond the words mortal man.

It is a good quote, but here is where is falls apart in my opinion:

How do you prove, as fact, that a movie/song/book/painting is good?

I don't see how it's possible. These aren't truly quantifiable subject matters. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Sure, you can list specific reasons or criteria why you did or did not like the art in question, but those may not matter to someone else.

/That's the thing I always disliked about subjects like English or Art History in school.
//Math and science 4TW!


The 'right' answer is one where the 'elitists' say it is ... and the rest of the population, well - they're no more then a bunch of uneducated 'unwashed masses.'

How do you know this for sure? Watch the Academy Awards - 95% of the 'popular' movies never win anything - maybe a token 'best costume' or 'best lighting'. It's the 'message movie art' that get all the awards.

/ didn't used to be that way

Uuum... I don't understand the difference.


/Seriously, no one else?

farkingatwork: Telos: ObscureNameHere: 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!

Yeah, that's it. :roll:

Sorry if I'm capable of noticing when someone writes an outright lie when he's trying to make a movie look bad.

Ooh, or how about let's explain the entire decepticon plan ourselves in 2 sentences and THEN claim the movie never explained it? Even though you just did, based on watching the movie.

Yeah.

The real thing is, the actual problems he noticed were made less noticeable in his blog by the crap he made up. when you've read 10 misinterpretations/lies/retarded statements the 2 or 3 true ones just kind of fade away...

/liked the movie
//it was FUN
///blog article was stupid.

Transformers 2 is the only movie that been so bad unanimously, that I don't even want to pirate it, let alone watch it.

Yet it was a fun movie...

But hey, if you want to follow the herd...

Dr.Knockboots: I went in to Transformers 2 wanting to see cool robots, funny moments, a hot girl or 2, big explosions and awesome action with killer special effects..
I got every bit of that, made me happy.

I wasn't expecting My Dinner with Robo-Andre or anything.

I didn't go see it to watch Great Art. It's Michael Frikkin Bay for Chrissakes (That is for the Sake of Chris, my neighbor). My requirements were:
Robots Battle (Check)
Sexy Chicks (Check and Check)
Asplosions (Check)

Their attempt at Plot was silly at best, and in spots downright insulting. Lucky for me that wasn't a requirment for me to enjoy this one, though.

DamnYankees: Clarence Potter: David Mills: Do you like what you do for a living? These things you see?
Man in Massage Parlour Booth: No, I don't. But that's life.

Just a freaking brilliant movie all around. I admit I had forgotten that scene. And lets not forget Leland Orser in the interrogation room. Dude caused himself to hyperventilate before they started filming in order to pull that off.

All this is making me want to go find a swarm of friends who'll share their copy of the movie with me.

HowAboutNo: All I have to say is, after two Transformers movies, where the hell my Gobots movie at??????

So let me get this straight: you transform into a helicopter and your name is Cop-ter? Lame.

TribeFan695: film more low-brow than it already was.

DROxINxTHExWIND: 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.

Even though this was an hour ago...

Honestly, you can't tell me that Scarface was a good movie. Did it have powerful themes? Of course. Did it have interesting, larger-than life characters played by top-notch actors? Undoubtedly. Was its impact upon a large portion of society anything less than profound? The answer is self-evident.

However, the pacing was terrible, the script was mostly crap with a few flashes of brilliance, and the plot was just short of incomprehensible. The first time I saw Scarface, it was a complete thrill. The returns have seriously diminished upon subsequent viewings.

That's not to say I don't like crime movies, either; GoodFellas immediately stops my channel surfing, no matter what.

HIS FARKING GUN WAS IN MY THROAT! OH GOD!

Richard in a Box: That's funny, I remember seeing Optimus and Megatron fighting. Where were you?

Probably asleep, by that point. I think I nodded off around hour six of the interminable NSA hacker garbage.

Richard in a Box: A lot of these things go in cycles and are cultural too. To go back to your beauty measurement study, what most people find beautiful now is probably not what would have been the case had that study happened in a different era.

But that's not relevant. Something can be both "changing" and "objectively measurable". For example, height. What is "tall" in 1750 would probably be "short" now. But we can still measure how many inches high someone is, and we can make intra-epochal categorizations.

As to your Citizen Kane line, that's neither here nor there. That movie requires actual knowledge about film and film history to understand *why* its great. Asking people what the greatest movie is is not better measurement of true quality than asking people who the greatest mathematician is - most people are not sufficiently educated to even make a guess. But that doesn't mean there's no answer.

/Carl Gauss