Roger Ebert says: 3/4 stars

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by GogDog, Jul 2, 2007.

  1. GogDog

    GogDog Logic's wayward son Veteran

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Posts:
    12,203
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    246
    Likes:
    +6
    He said that it would have been 4 stars, except for his one complaint that it had too much action at the end! :) 

    Best line in the review: "I think that's the first time I've used exclamation points. But Megatron is a three-exclamation-point kinda robot."


    His review is here.
     
  2. Solid Alexei

    Solid Alexei Secret Operative

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Posts:
    672
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +1
    Who is Rogert Ebert?:p 
     
  3. Ops_was_a_truck

    Ops_was_a_truck JOOOLIE ANDREWWWWWS!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Posts:
    11,549
    Trophy Points:
    236
    Likes:
    +0
    Ebay:
    Ebert's probably the one person whom I - nine times out of ten - agree with; just about all of his reviews synch up with my opinions about films. What he's saying about the movie (which he's already seen) sound about like my opinions from reading the script, way back when it got released.

    Yay Roger Ebert!
     
  4. Tenebrouser

    Tenebrouser Craft...or is it crap?

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Posts:
    6,666
    Trophy Points:
    226
    Likes:
    +0
  5. Pwnbeaver

    Pwnbeaver teh uber pwnage

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Posts:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Likes:
    +0
    Take that basterd film reviewers!
     
  6. Lateralus

    Lateralus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Likes:
    +0
  7. 9.8m/s^2

    9.8m/s^2 What's in a name?

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Posts:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    177
    Likes:
    +8
    He's always been a reliable defender of a) good science fiction/fantasy and b) movies that are simply fun and enjoyable, rather than being artsy or culturally significant.

    Also, he's slowly recovering from surgery, and only reviewing a few movies at a time; he passed up every other blockbuster these past weeks to review this one, and favorably, to boot.

    He's one of us.
     
  8. Cory Bauer

    Cory Bauer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Posts:
    2,047
    Trophy Points:
    206
    Likes:
    +0
    So Ebert's review counts for like 20 on the tomato meter, right? :p 
     
  9. drippy

    drippy is a freethinker.

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    2,642
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    As for me, there's Devin.

    http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=10915

    [/FONT]
     
  10. redsquadron

    redsquadron Token idiot...

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Posts:
    2,390
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    I just wish I'd copied and kept all those "Heh, this movie is going to tank so hard and the critics will slaughter it" posts from the official movie forum last year.
     
  11. infinitron

    infinitron DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Posts:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Likes:
    +0
    Three cheers for Roger Ebert!

    I remember when he reviewed the original "Predator" film years ago. He said something to the effect of- "yeah it's a cross between Alien and Rambo but it happens to be damn fun". He appreciates entertainment for the sake of entertainment...:thumb 
     
  12. Quintesson #1

    Quintesson #1 Eater of Fuzzy Stuff

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Posts:
    632
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Likes:
    +0
    Actually, there are a LOT of critics that are slaughtering it. Those with higher standards that is where acting, plot, characterisation and a number of other things are concerned. The designs themselves are hardly subject of discussion, because there's simply no reason for them to compare them with other Transformers material, them not being fans. If they would be diehard (G1 or whatever other line) fans I'm sure that those would be included in their crits. However, the majority of negative reviews complained about a lot of subjects the positive reviews don't even consider when reviewing.

    Stuff that they would complain about would be lacking in other movies as well.


    It appears Roger Ebert is someone with rather 'low' standards for what a 'good' movie is, as he judges on 'entertainment value', where entertainment value is mostly concerned with testosteron inducing bits and visual effects. The Predator movies were complete crap, IMO. Somewhat entertaining if you like big gunz, gore and explosions yes, but complete crap and not worth a second watch with regards to characters and plot.

    What a lot of you seem to miss, is that entertaining does not actually equal good and that a movie with a GOOD plot, GOOD characterisation and GOOD acting would actually be both very entertaining AND good. This is a crap movie that can entertain the lowest common denominator: namely the people that want a shallow action flick.


    And yes, that IS the lowest common denominator. Generic action and destruction movies are always enough to generate cash and a relatively content audience, but it's not actually guarantueeing a good movie in all aspects. Judging from most of the posts on this forum, it appears the majority of Movie Forum posters (which is not the majority of TF fans), is in the department of shallow action flick and is actually proud of it that it has no good plot. Most of you seem to think the only important bits for this movie are hot chicks, lots of gunfire, complex robots and some action scenes. That the characters are absolutely not portrayed very well, don't get a lot of good texts (or only three lines in the whole movie like Starscream gets) or as well as they could have been is not interesting, because that's not what you're interested in: you just want fights. Not a very high standard IMO, you can have it and you can think it though, but don't pretend it doesn't need more to be good.

    More power to you if that's ALL that you want, but that doesn't mean it's a good movie unlike some here seem to claim, but that since that's subjective will certainly not be the case for everyone. I for one put a lot of weight on the plot of a movie and I've yet to see anything good about the plot. I won't be paying to see this movie anyway.



    Heck, there were people that were entertained by Streetfighter and Mortal Kombat movies and proclaimed those to be "Awes0m3". Does it make them good movies if you look beyond the fightscenes and the gore? I don't think so. And yeah I personally think this movie is on the level of Streetfighter, with better CGI tools. Would have been nice if it had been able to reach the level of at least particular Batman movies or at least adhere to something more relevant to Transformers than a Beast Machines concept like the Allspark. IMO it could have been even better seeing as you're doing robots and that's relatively new territory in movies.

    But for that, you'd have to have had a decent plot for starters. This movie won't tank (like I've said in advance - edit: I never thought it'd tank), because people do not know anything about the quality, but come for the big names from their youth, action and giant robots first. Plot second. However, I have to see if a second movie could generate the same revenue as a lot of people know what to expect then. It won't be something new then and the CGI won't impress as much as it will for the first movie.


    To sum up, 'appreciating entertainment' is something considerably different from being able to declare something 'good quality'. Heck, even Tom Cruise makes movies with more depth these days. And that's saying something, IMO.
     
  13. jazzmasta32

    jazzmasta32 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Likes:
    +0
    he doesnt like action?
     
  14. Wackyguy75

    Wackyguy75 Cunning Linguist

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Likes:
    +0
    Yeah... but he ate Siskel... so thats a minus point for him...
     
  15. smkspy

    smkspy is one nice fucking kitty

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Posts:
    20,316
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +81
    Thats just wrong...


    Good review...although he major quip is the one thing we all want to see more of.
     
  16. nuopus

    nuopus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Posts:
    694
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Likes:
    +0
    LOL your joking right? He is the biggest film reviewer. Siskel and Ebert have been reviewing movies since you were a baby, or before depending on how old you are.
     
  17. GogDog

    GogDog Logic's wayward son Veteran

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Posts:
    12,203
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    246
    Likes:
    +6
    I once read an article that claimed that people who have a hard time grasping humor and sarcasm have underdeveloped brains.
     
  18. 9.8m/s^2

    9.8m/s^2 What's in a name?

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Posts:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    177
    Likes:
    +8
    I read your post in its entirety; I merely snipped to save space.

    "Higher standards" are often a poor excuse for thinly disguised snobbery. What, precisely, is wrong about appealing to a broad audience? Your implication is that people who limit themselves to enjoying only a particular class of film are somehow better than the common folk who simply seek two hours of escapism. I can play Rachmaninoff; that doesn’t make me superior to people who would rather hear Billy Joel songs when I’m at a party.

    Cinema has always served multiple masters, only one of which is entertainment, and critics and audiences alike are free to choose which elements appeal to them most. Ebert is wise enough to judge each film on its own merits: a drama must contain convincing gravitas, for that is its intent; a children's movie must be engaging and comprehensible to young minds; an action movie must quicken the pulse and dazzle the eye.
    Does Transformers require a place in cinematic history, or indeed, even a moral center or layered plot structure? It's a movie about giant robots, for cryin' out loud. The film has a serviceable plot, arguably excellent acting, and appropriate characterization for its genre. Its plot is no simpler than Star Wars, its acting no worse than the Matrix, and its characters no less broadly drawn than Die Hard's.

    There are many lowest-common denominator films that make money despite being genuinely awful; Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, and Aliens Vs Predator come quickly (and unpleasantly) to mind. Transformers shares the goals of those movies, but lacks many of their weaknesses; it doesn’t take itself too seriously, it sustains a suitable mood, and leaves one with a pleasant, satisfied feeling at the end of two hours.
     
  19. DaggersRage

    DaggersRage Autistic bastard.

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Posts:
    3,606
    Trophy Points:
    151
    Likes:
    +0
    C'mon guys, be nice.

    Glad to hear from Ebert again, I must've been out of it but when Siskel and Ebert broke apart I thought the both where completely gone.
     
  20. redsquadron

    redsquadron Token idiot...

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Posts:
    2,390
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    So people who can enjoy diverse films and judge each one of them within their genres have low standards then? Thanks for yet another less than subtle insult.

    Just stick me on your ignore list if you really don't like me, PLEASE - That's what it's for.
     

Share This Page