Teenagers are children.

 

He liked Judy White? LLOOOOOOL she's ffrikkinga noyign

 

There's no way... even if Ebert liked the movie he couldn't admit it. He'd lose his job.

 

He does have many good points, being an old man talking about a fightan robits movie and all.

I lol'd at his Starscream historian bit. He did serious business research.

 

Dk:

He's very broadminded when it comes to movies, though. I guess he would have to be, after seeing so many. Definitely a Cool Old Dude.

 

I'm usually with Ebert on his opinion, but man, he's got a vendetta on this one.

 

Ebert seems pretty consistent with his review of this film and the first one. He enjoys the human elements of the story, but once the Transformer action takes over he quickly losses interest. He considers the humans to be the stars of the movie and not the Transformers. He doesn't see the Transformers as characters at all, but rather he sees them as foils for the human characters. I'm actually quite surprised he didn't compare them to Gremlins or Critters.

How so? Seriously, in what Bizzarro world is Ebert so beaten down by the studios that he lying about his opinion of one silly movie?

 

LOL no.

 

Well they sure ain't mature yet.

To contribute, I would just like to point out that Roger Ebert's favorite part of ROTF was the scene with Mojo and Franky. That's right, his favorite part of a movie was watching two male dogs hump. Let's all think about how that reflects on him, shall we?

Also, he seems to think that this movie, which he admits will make boatloads of money, will prevent other studios from making a CGI action summer blockbuster ever again. Because that's precisely what's happened with all the CGI action summer blockbusters that were terrible but made boatloads of money before ROTF.

That being said, a lot of what he said about the movie from a cinematic perspective is damning, and completely true.

 

Why the fuck does he complain about the sixe of the robot heads?

The action is amazing, but I agree wth him in one thing, the film feels too long, the first film had almost the same lenght, but it was never tedious, but in ROTF when they are looking for the tomb of the Primes you start to feeling tired.

 

He wrote this journal yet still didn't really acknowledge the fact that he liked the first one. Not many comparisons either. Why?

 

Honestly, I can't blame Ebert for his frustrations. As a film critic it must become pretty tiring to see so many summer blockbusters that are devoid of plot or character development. Transformers 2 is just the latest whipping boy in a string of ho-hum summer films that really fall below expectations. Following the lackluster Terminator Salvation certainly didn't help things either. After the likes of The Dark Knight, Iron Man and others I suspect that alot of critics (and perhaps even audiences) have come to expect a bit more depth from their blockbusters.

Ebert's rant (like those of many critics) is probably a bit overblown but I'm not sure if he's that far off the mark.

 

If I want an opinion on a movie I'll go watch the damn thing myself and make up my own mind,not listen to some pompous twat that over analyses every little thing and who in all probability is in the pocket of one studio or other and I don't get why people take any notice of critics.

 

I demand that the third TF movie be subtitled Transformers 3: Assault On The Senses!

Come on, you know it fits perfectly. Just like ROTJ, ROTK, ROTS, and now ROTF all have super similar acronyms, TF:AOTS could sound just like Star Wars Episode II, AOTC.

 

Proving his point for him?

 

"at last we get to see what a four hour erection looks like."


At last? really? Because I never had any interest in seeing that.

"todays guys like their woman at arms length"

Was that a masturbation joke? WTF does that mean?


also, he talk about Starscream as an "it" instead of a "he" and the robots he brings up? Ironman? Not A F**KING robot!! Wall-E? A programmed droid!

There's nothing like Transformers. They think, feel, emote, etc. He just doesn't get it.

He makes some good points, lack of story, assault on the senses, but he just doesn't get it.

I never thought TF's were something you had to 'get' to think they were cool, but maybe they are. People just don't seem to understand that the TF's are basically humans in a robots body. They think, feel,...dare I say.....Love? Lol.

 

I enjoyed the movie, and will continue to do so. There are plenty of things I would change, but it could have been a lot worse in my mind. Roger Ebert is an old fuck and I could a shit less what he thinks. He can enjoy his bullshit Jennifer Lopez and Ben Assfuck movies all he wants.

 

I agree, the movie sucked big time. Totally disappointing.

 

I thought Ebert's original review was terrible. It was poorly written, came off as whiny and pretentious and was the sort of thing that confirms the "critics are out of touch" stereotype. Maybe it was just a case of only having so much space, but it was atrocious and, frankly, unprofessional. This review, however...he actually makes some really good points and there are a number of objective criticisms he has that I definitely agree with. I disagree with him on a lot of the subjective stuff, but he presents his arguments a lot better here and I'm glad he took the time to pen a more considered response.

My two main problems with it, though:
- Reading his review for the first movie, he liked the designs. In fact, he praised the "junkyard" feel, where viewers could see every part and where it went. Nothing about the designs not making "aesthetic sense" in that review. A number of designs in RotF are reused from the first movie and the rest follow the same aesthetic. So, what changed?
- He notes that the movie is too long, then pays lip-service to the fact that it's only about 5 minutes longer than the first. I agree that Bay didn't use all of that run-time effectively, and there's room for criticism there, but if the first movie's length was fine and RotF is virtually the same length, then the length of the movie in and of itself isn't the problem.

 

I got annoyed when he wrote, "The movie is well over 2 and half hours"

when it isn't, that's just a lie. Then later he gives the actual minute length.

"Well over" indicates to me a movie that's closer to 3 hours. The guy just has no clue and is preaching some hate.

Like what was pointed out, he liked the looks of the bots in the first movie, but doesn't like them in the second movie,.......when it's the same bots. (for the most part)

He just wants to be a hater. He makes some good points, but it's tough to weed them out from all the bullshit.