I enjoyed both TF films. I also enjoyed the film 2012. I know in more aspects than one that they probably shouldn't be compared. But what I am comparing is how Ebert views TF and 2012. One of the many defenses for ROTF, is that it is meant to be a Summer action flick / big blockbuster for your entertainment. Even though alot of people expected more. Basically, people (including Ebert) shitted on ROTF for lacking story, plot, acting, being a mindless CGI filled crapfest. Here's Ebert on ROTF: bloated, excessive, incomprehensible, long (149 minutes) or expensive(more than $200million). Right, 2012 cost an estimated 200m – $260m total and is 159 minutes. Here's 2012: Ebert says no sentient being will buy a ticket EXPECTING ANYTHING ELSE!!! He basically told you since you watched it it will be one of the most satisfactory films of the year for you the viewer. The thing is though, he feels no sentient being expected anything but fun from an end of the world movie. Like how fans of ROTF say nearly the same thing. I liked 2012, and Roger Ebert is cool. It's just when I read his review of 2012, those quotes I clipped stuck out the most. The same defenses for ROTF, he feels for 2012. Ironic?