The problem with reviewing this movie is that its basic premise is absurd on its face. Some reviewers can't get over the fact that Transformers is meant to be ridiculous in such a manner. Those that realize this gave it good reviews and admitted as much. Those that didn't, well, just don't get the point, according to their reviews. I suppose the plot could have been better, but would the public have had a better time watching it? The movie could have a plot that all the naysayers apparently died for, but is it worth sacrificing all the glorious and proposterous action for just a few scenes of heart-felt emotional pull? I don't know. I'm seeing TF tonight precisely because I want to see things get blown up on a grand scale. Some reviewers are hell-bent on hating this regardless, so I say let them toil away in their closed-minded, boring lives.
LOL. I had to giggle. So it's snobbish to ask for a plot and good writing/acting because you want MORE than just action scenes when being entertained? Wow. I'm impressed. Can you lot ever read a post correct? I mean just once I'd like to hear you lot read a post and then comment and show you actually understood it. Action can be the very basis, but if it has to carry the whole show and be the only thing that's entertaining, then it's actually a poor movie. In this case, the movie is carried by the CGI and the action scenes, which is not enough to appeal to ME, especially not if I don't like the CGI models. I'm such a snob for wanting a good story to go with it. Oh my gosh. Burn me. Entertaining is fine, it's fun, it's the intention YES. But for crying out loud do you understand the difference between ENTERTAINMENT and QUALITY ENTERTAINMENT? Rambo is entertaining, but not a good movie. It's a classic. Same for Predator, same for some Rocky movies, same for this, same for that. Doesn't mean they're really good movies with really good plots or acting. But entertaining enough to make money. Sheesh. 2 star movies can be enjoyed by a lot of people and that's fine. Doesn't mean they're actually good movies in the sense of "bestest movies evah". There are plenty of movies I could enjoy at 2 stars, but a lot of you are pretending this movie is 4 to 5 stars and are thus slating all the critics/haters or whatever else you can think of. It's not necessarily a GOOD movie because you enjoy it. Heck, I enjoyed watching 'Mars Attacks' to a certain degree, but it sucked horribly in tons of ways, even for a parody and even with all its normally top notch actors. Heck, if you take this to extremes, a lot of people enjoy porn movies. Doesn't mean they're any good, does it? RedSquadron, did I zone in on negative reviews? Didn't I mention what the majority of positive reviews focussed on? And isn't that EXACTLY what all the positive people here are so happy with? Isn't it fun how a lot of you completely disregard any hint at criticism since... ages because you don't want to hear anything might be wrong with it? Isn't that exactly why you're being angry at critics? Oh and I still can't hold my opinion on the matter because it somehow offends you that I don't think it's a good movie and that I don't think it appeals to everyone with higher standards than just basic action? Very mature folks. I agree with Random Autobot btw. These movie forums have long been a joke where subjectivity and hypocrisy are concerned. But for some reason, people get angry when you point out they're being hypocrits or are trying to censor others.
Most Comic Book films are absurd on their face. Random Genetic Mutation that gives people powers? Turning into a spider man because you get bit by a mutated one? An alien from another planet who looks exactly like us, but has super powers because of our sun? These are all ridiculous premises, but smart writing, and engaging storytelling and performances made them all work very well on the big screen, and no action was sacrificed to do so. Having an intelligent, interesting plot isn't that difficult, it's just a question of resonance, and story elements that make sense. The original conflict in the G1 show, and energy crisis that leads to war, has more resonance today more than ever. Instead, they went with a fight over a mysterious cube that can do something cool, inexplicably. Action doesn't have to be sacrificed to tell a smart story. In fact, a smart story often makes the big action payoffs all the more satisfying.
Should I ask how old you were when you decided to ignore the critics in 1986? I didn't pay much attention to the critics when I was that age either... I think, in truth, the 1986 movie IS pretty awful. It truly is a film that only a child, or a nostalgia-infected adult could enjoy. That may be tantamount to sacrilege on this website, but for all the affection I feel for that movie, I recognize that it's bad on many many levels. Even at the time, I wasn't that impressed by it. But I get your meaning... a critic that doesn't seem to be open to the possibility that an action movie could be great on it's own merits, nor that nostalgia could be a worthwhile factor in enjoying a movie, doesn't seem like a critic whose opinion you'd want to consider for a movie like this. Q. F. T. ! zmog
Somehow I doubt it. I agree with some of your points, but the contrived "condescendingly bemused and dismissive" act doesn't do much to dispel the appearance of snobbery I'm afraid. Again, I agree with the sentiment, but you don't offer much in the way of distinction between "ENTERTAINMENT" and "QUALITY ENTERTAINMENT". While I too feel that too many people hide behind the "subjectivity" of quality, I think also your criteria is a bit vague. The first ROCKY movie was pretty good. As in QUALITY. The first Rambo movie (specifically FIRST BLOOD) was also a pretty decent movie, though not without faults. My comments on PREDATOR are above... RAMBO is a pretty stupid movie, actually. Fun, but dumb... I think it's worth making the distinction between some of the examples you use, rather than lumping anything with an explosion in it all together. zmog
That automatically makes me not want to listen to or read one damn word they say or write. They're probably the same critics who nominated that shitstorm Babel for any awards.
those two fighting over how good a movie is compared to how much you enjoy it arent contributing more than i am
I agree. It's just that this movie is as good as it's going to get with Bay at the helm. So, I look at it as a pure action flic and take it for what it is. As for a smart story, perhaps they should have ditched that original script from the get-go. All of the characterization points that negative reviewers have mentioned could have easily been tweaked and shaved as has been suggested, and the movie would have been better. My big thing with the making of this movie for me, however, was making sure the robots looked photo real. Spidey III looked ridiculous at times. The Matrix Reloaded Agent Smith brawl scene makes me cringe, though it was probably as good as they could get it at the time. Bay apparently does a good job on making the transformers seem real, so I'll take the trade-off there.
I believe the use of the term "you lot" perfectly underscores my original evaluation. You are holding yourself as superior to others, and assuming that because people choose to like something that you do not, that they are INCAPABLE of liking that which you do. Let me be clear: disliking a movie (any movie, since quality is subjective) is not, in and of itself, snobbery. However, insulting and belittling those who do not share your dislike, and implying that their fondness for a few pleasant pieces of pap means that they are complete artistic naifs, certainly does fit the description. Bash the movie all you want; I'll read your criticism objectively and carefully. Comment on the poor editing, the spotty acting, the dated jokes, and I'll certainly agree. It's when you attack people for no better reason than to try to make them feel stupid for liking a movie that you don't that I take issue with your critical perspective.
This will probably be my biggest complain about this movie. The original premise is a smart original idea that reflects our own problems with natural resources today. Instead, we get some really dumb downed idea about a rubricks cube with magical abilities because the writers felt calling it the Matrix would confuse the audience (and apparently the audience is rather dumb according to them). I'll enjoy the movie for what it is, but I know what the movie could have been and that makes me a sad panda sometimes.
I would try to nuanciate more, but my posts would get even longer. Quality is subjective as well though. But to me quality is scoring well in all aspects a movie can score in or at least as many as possible. That ranges from sound to plot, to animations etc. With the budget the Transformers movie had, you can't possibly tell me you couldn't have come up with a more enjoyable plot to more people. I've read fanfics that were fastly more enjoyable and entertaining than this plot. And yes, those had good action scenes as well. I just don't get what's elitist or snobbish about pointing out you can enjoy a movie without it actually having to be qualified as really good, while not everyone will feel that way. It can be good in the entertainment sense to many, but I've never said you couldn't enjoy this movie, which is what some seem to be making of it. As I then say I personally prefer the one that has more aspects executed well and thoroughly and that this movie doesn't live up to that at all especially in plot, that's elitist? O__o If that's the case then I'll happily be considered elitist or a snob, but I very much doubt it's the proper term. I'll give you the first Rambo and Rocky movies had some originality to them, Rambo even had a psychological plotelement/motivation to it. As such they aren't bad, just not extremely good and leaning very much on the portrayed graphical violence. Predator even more so with the skinned soldiers for example. Overall, they're not really good, indepth movies. But you don't have to be a good indepth movie to become a classic if you have other things to lean on. You just have to appeal to a lot of people and typically, action and big robots appeal to a lot of people. That's all I'm saying. This movie doesn't do it for me and a lot of others. I just don't get what's wrong with these people that they get irked by people having higher demands or being more critical than them and expressing that view? I don't see how I could be considered condescending if even they themselves agree with that they aren't looking for more in a movie than what they got. We all know they're not the most demanding part of the potential audience, so what's wrong with stating that? People don't want to hear that they don't have the highest demands because that'd make them hillbillies or something? ' If some of you think that's what I'm saying, then there's a gross misunderstanding.
Well, don't be pessimistic about it, and look for the silver lining. It's not a deep movie by any means, but in the absence of the old resource-shortage theme, I found a nice undertone of resource exploitation and globalization. No, I'm not grasping at straws. Megatron isn't looking to steal Earth's energy this time. Instead, he's wanting to use our production of technology for his own ends. One might argue that he deliberately stayed dormant until we'd created enough technology to be useful to him. Optimus takes the opposite extreme, and goes to extraordinary lengths to permit humans the chance to grow on their own. The humans appreciate the benefits the Cybertronian technology brings, but at the same time, react with fear and paranoia when the Cybertronians themselves pay a visit. I refuse to argue the rights or wrongs of any side (this is NOT the place), but in this age of offshore cost-cutting, cultural leveling, and too-rapid technological advancement, the movie does hit some relevant subjects, without at any point hitting anyone over the head with them. A light touch, rather like the old G1 energon theme...it never got in the way of selling us transforming cars. As for calling the Allspark the Matrix, I blame the Wachowski brothers and Warner Bros' legal department.
I don't think that you aren't entitled to your opinion. It would just hold more weight if you had actually seen the movie, quit comparing apples to oranges and not blasted Ebert for his opinion without even know who he is. I am still confused why you are even bringing up the 'high standards' of filmmaking with a Hollywood feature based on a Hasbro toyline with a summer release date. We, 'the lot', are not morons.
Perhaps. Emotions run high on both sides, and I would as quickly take the pro-movie side to task were they to suggest that your dislike of the movie equated to a lack of intelligence or discernment. For either side, it's probably unwise to base an opinion of someone's analytical abilities on a single data point, especially a data point so weighted with childhood nostalgia. Everyone on this board knows the difference between art and pop, between good movies and bad; it's really not that esoteric an ability. Just because, in this one case, they demand more or less than their usual standards doesn't mean that they'll always do so for every film that comes down the pike. Another movie I saw this weekend, Ratatouille, provides the perfect example: Spoiler sometimes no matter how cultured you are, you're just in the mood for something unexpectedly banal.
No, I'm not. I'm however sick and tired off being misinterpreted and having words twisted seemingly on purpose by the likes of RedSquadron and many others on these forums. I'm however, very straightforward with my wordings, some explain it as rude, but that's not the intention nor the point. Hold on, I'm not belitteling anyone for liking this movie. Heck they themselves even agree they only watch it as a pop corn flick and don't want to take it or expect more. You point out where I'm insulting when I say what they like is not the highest of standards when I just analyse it's not the highest of standards. That's simply a fact. If you take that as insulting, because you'd be unwilling to accept that fact, you may not be the most critical person in the world when you're being told you're not and get angry over that. I never qualified it as bad. I just qualified it as me disagreeing with that for being too low a standard TO ME. So yes, I'm 'elitist' in that I expect more quality from a movie I'd be paying for. I've never done that, even though a lot of people would like to read it that way. I have however, ranted before that people should be more critical OR read my posts better so they actually understand them. More than often they'll reply before they fully understood what I'm actually saying. That's what I find annoying about a few people that have really long toes and will see the comment as an insult rather than looking at the point made. But that's not limited to the movie. There are plenty of people praising the crap out of near stickfigures in the fanart forum, while they would be more contributive when commenting on how they can be improved. Just saying "Wow" and "Good stuff" I don't qualify as terrific replies, I always add critiques someone can work with and I wish more people would do that. Instead, a lot of these "Wow" and "Good stuff" people will come down on you for criticising someone's work and stating what could be improved, because they themselves don't have the same set of standards as I have nor see the need to improve on that. It's fine that they don't feel the need to critique, but don't get upset if others disagree with you because they DO have higher standards or feel the need to critique. And that's exactly what happens here and they can't handle being told that's the case and feel insulted by 'some elitist guy'. It's true that in my opinion there are too many complacent people that will defend poor choices or bad art because they don't see the need for improvement or feel that was the intention of the piece of work. If you think that's a condescending attitude, fine, but it's not my problem really if people can't or don't want to be critical and then get upset when someone actually does get more critical than them.
