Stylin Online TFW2005 Contest #3 - Tell Off The Critics!

The idea of the contest is to post well thought out, well written responses. The competition is intended to be something fun that people who genuinley liked the movie to express their opinions in a manner befitting that of Mr. Eberts and the other critics reviews, not another troll ridden flame-fest. As such I can't see very many legitimate entries in this thread and those of you here to argue are doing it in the wrong place. Move along before more strict action is taken.

From this post onward anything that is not a response to the competition at hand will result in that user being banned from the thread. Any particularly inciteful or spam-like comments will be awarded with infractions.

I hope this is absoloutely clear to you all.

I am temporarily closing this thread to clean it up. The goal was for folks to post counter points to ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL CRITICS - not to talk shit and be talked shit on by one another.

UPDATE: DISASTER RECOVERY...

OK, I guess either I didnt make myself clear, people didn't read the board rules, or we are all assholes. So let me clarify what the point of this thread was SUPPOSED to be before it devolved.

It was meant for the folks that DID like the movie, who DISAGREED with what was perceived as the overly harsh mainstream critic response to the movie.

This is not to say that the critics were wrong. Or that folks who DONT like the movie are wrong. Or that TFW2005 supports ROTF as Gone With the Wind level cinema worthy of a sweep at the Oscars.

The folks that do agree with the critics, and don't like the movie, there are other threads on this forum that you can respond to, and are free to do so. That's just not the point of this particular thread.

During the early part of opening week, I felt there was an stronger than normal negativity floating around the movie by PROFESSIONALS, and wanted us, the fans, to respond. In a constructive, FUN manner.

So, I will give this one more shot. Ive deleted several hundred posts from this thread, leaving less than 25. Let's try to stay on target.

New Rules

You must quote a professional critic's original story.

You must reference 2 points in their story and explain why you feel they are wrong.

You may not comment on anyone's posts from this thread or forum inside this thread.

You may not respond to anyone who posts a review here. This thread is not for back and forth fan commentary on the movie or movie industry. It is meant to speak about particular critics and why you think they are wrong.

If you think they are right, stay out of this thread.

You may not call anyone anywhere a name.

It must be more than 3 sentences.



I apologize to everyone for not staying up on the management of this thread, I've been busy and didn't think a festering swamp of puss was brewing in here like it was.


And to anyone all up in arms about the contest, Stylin had nothing to do with the creation of this contest, I made it up without speaking to him, and actually havent spoken to him since I have. So place all blame on me.

If you have a problem with anything like this in the future - PM ME, or another mod/admin, do not post your concerns publicly.

Cyber-Screamvs.Roger Ebert

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments."

All your opinion, and aren't movies supposed to be long? A film's length IS the movie. I wanted it to last forever!

"One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination."

Um, huh?

"The dialog of the Autobots®, Decepticons® and Otherbots® is meaningless word flap. Their accents are Brooklyese, British and hip-hop, as befits a race from the distant stars. Their appearance looks like junkyard throw-up. They are dumb as a rock."

Transformers are supposed have different personalities. And once again that's all your opinion! Wow 'somebody' isn't a happy puppy today..

"I knew a little boy once who lost his blue toy truck at the movies, and cried as if his heart would break. Such a child might regard "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" with fear and dismay."

What..? This is Transformers not Cars.

"The humans, including lots of U.S. troops, shoot at the Transformers a lot, although never in the history of science fiction has an alien been harmed by gunfire."

First off, I can name 5. And that's what the military does in Transformers! This is a MICHAEL BAY movie!

"The battle scenes are bewildering. A Bot makes no visual sense anyway, but two or three tangled up together create an incomprehensible confusion. I find it amusing that creatures that can unfold out of a Camaro and stand four stories high do most of their fighting with...fists. Like I say, dumber than a box of staples."

CGI scenes can't be made perfectly, its not like they had a billion dollar budget. For the sake of Primus...JUST ENJOY THE GIANT ROBOTS!!! And Transformers are supposed to be tall! WOW. And its science fiction, so fists coming out of a Camaro doesn't have to be realistic. Don't we go to the movies to escape the limits of everyday life? XD

"Does it strike you as a lapse of Pyramid security that no one notices a gigantic Deceptibot ripping off the top of the Great Pyramid? Not anyone watching on the live PyramidCam? Not even a traffic copter?"


You mean DeceptiCON? And what's a PyramidCam?; why would you feel the need to think that during the movie? Once again, JUST ENJOY THE DANG MOVIE! ITS NOT THAT BAD, YOUR JUST NITPICKING!!!!!!!

This ends my rant/entry. NEVER listen to critics.

Let me start this by saying I am going to try to keep this short sweet and to the point, however sometimes I lose control of how long I've been talking/typing. I am going to be replying to Roger Ebert's journal review "The Fall of the Revengers," (a link is here:Roger Ebert's Journal: Archives). Now Roger obviously thinks this movie has too much action and too little human and is too long. Let me say that I read this journal review and his other review (Not to familiar with Roger Ebert so excuse me if he has written more than 2 reviews) and it was boring and long a direct contradiction to the fact that he claims rotf is essentially boring and long let me tell you it was certainly not boring and to me it seemed no longer than an episode of tfa I was sad to see the credits appear. Now let me just say that I feel bad for Michael Bay, because he made Transformers (2007) a movie with lots of plot lots of human comedy and interaction with fewer bots with less action and people loved it, but wanted far less humans and plot and more bots smashing each other. Now he makes Transformers 2 (2009) and gives it enough plot to be comprehensible with as little humans as possible and gave it tons of robots and robot action now people are mad it has too little plot and too much action. I loved the 2007 movie and the sequel I thought they were both excellent and great movies it is unfair for people to see something say they want it to be different and when it is changed say they liked it the way it was before. Sorry I know this has gotten long and I claimed i would keep it short but you should have read my warning now I will counter and say the few things I didn't like I wish Soundwave's voice was more g1 but not a big deal I was also somewhat disappointed to find that some of the characters I was looking forward to seeing like the fallen devastator demolishor wheelie and ravage are not shown much more than what you see in the trailers but it is understandable it is a long movie and I applaud Michael for getting so many bots in this one film. My biggest beef with this film is really just how little soundwave is shown and his voice other than that I thought this movie was a beautiful masterpiece and a great blockbuster view. I waited 2 hours in line at midnight to be the first person in and get my favorite seats (in the same seats I saw the original) and I do not regret it I loved it and plan to see it in Imax and in theaters a few more times I would recommend it to anyone and my friends enjoyed it, heck even my sister who wasn't a fan of the original loved it. I really don't see why people are disappointed it is everything fans said they wanted in the original, but still with some good comedy and more personality to the bots. Lastly, I will say you can expect to see me waiting in line to see Tf3 sorry for the length, Bye!

I read many of the different versions of Roger Eberts review of Transformers Revege of The Fallen. (Sited here. Here. and Here. )
And I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Ebert did not fully enjoy this movie because the target audience of this movie was for action loving, adventure junkies. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that the movies Mr. Ebert considered as 'good' were movies with deep meaning, hardly any, if any, were actiony films. He also seemed to prefer movies that made 'sense' and had deep meaning. Accordingly, with such a record, it is obvious that Mr. Ebert would not enjoy an actiony, whirling, confusing, 'look over there, no now it's there!' movie such as Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen. While many people disagree with Mr. Ebert, including myself, I believe he did not enjoy this movie because it was not a movie he would probably ever go to watch without ever being prompted to do so. Just like we would not want to go see a 'Chic Flic' (Assuming most of us are men) if we would rather go and see Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen. Mr. Ebert is not a bad person for disliking Transformers. Though, he seemed to be a bit biased, and would rather watch a movie with deeper meaning, or at least less exploding, such as "Tulpan", A much less actiony film. While he may not have enjoyed Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen, it would appear the rest of the world enjoyed it from the massive revenue that TF: RoTF cooked up worldwide. They say that they even broke some box office records. So, Mr. Ebert, while you believe that this movie was a suck-fest, the rest of the people living on this planet obviously disagree with you.

My comment to those 'hatin critics' is perhaps a bit different.

Personally, I'd like to thank Ebert and others for continuously sticking to their guns in spite of the many fans who refuse to see things as being anything other than right or wrong. It's unfortunate that so many people place such value in the opinions of others. This simply isn't an issue that is worth getting upset over whether you loved or loathed ROTF. It seems that far too many people are unable to remove themselves from the fandom and look at things objectively (both the haters and the die-hard supporters). For the critics and many others, this is just another film. And yes, it is a film with a number of shortcomings. While I certainly enjoyed ROTF for what it was, I fully appreciate why an industry that looks at the artistry of film might not hold this movie in high regards. It's a shame that the has taken this to be a personal assult on their hobby and their love of the franchise.

In many respects I look at this in the same way I would look at a review of a blockbuster that I don't have any interest in. Terminator Salvation and Wolverine were both lambasted by critics for having similar shortcomings. As films they were riddled with plotholes and suffered from weak scripts relying instead on a connection to a strong fanbase. Spiderman 3, the Prequel Trilogy and others have a similar history doing well at the boxoffice only to be scorned at by audiences much later. A critic's job isn't to be popular; it's to look at a film critically and form an opinion. Unfortunately many of us forget that no opinion is completely objective.

I shudder at the idea that personal critique should ever cave to popular opinion. The tyranny of the masses can be a terrifying thing that gives licence to endless mediocrity (reality TV certainly fits that bill). Despite many protests from fans and others, it is not unreasonable to expect a film that delivers thrills and a well-developed story with rich and rewarding characterization. I am tired of hearing comments that suggest that anybody who doesn't automatically love every big-budget blockbuster is automatically looking for Shaksepeare with robots. It is possible to have reservations about, or even dislike a film completely without being a pompus self-righteous jerk.

To that end, this is where I have difficulties with both the pompus Hollywood critics and the overzealous fans who hate them. Neither group seems content with holding an opinion about a film. Both groups seem to feel the inate need to mock or insult the intelligence of anybody who disagrees with their position. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that many of the critiques of movies like Transformers and others like it are meant to be demeaning and insulting to those who enjoy such films. People who find pleasure from viewing these sorts of blockbusters are frequently labeled (directly or indirectly) by critics as being unsophisticated or unintelligent. Of course this is a two-way street and many hardcore supporters are quick to throw knives of their own calling anybody who finds fault with their precious film to be an uptight self-righteous shmuck.

In short; to those critics who fairly voice their opinions, be they negative or positive; thank you. To the arrogant asses who feel a need for excessive sarcasm and those who strive to put down the average movie-goer as an unintelligent and uneducated yokel; screw off!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want an example of the sort of nonsense I can't stand let's look at this wonderful quote from Peter Travers:

"Transformers: The Revenge of The Fallen is beyond bad, it carves out its own category of godawfulness. And, please, you don't have to remind me that the original was a colossal hit ($700 million worldwide) and the sequel will probably do just as well. I know it's popular. So is junk food, and they both poison your insides and rot your brain."

I'm sorry, but this is more about insulting the audience than the film itself. I respect the right to dislike a film. I don't respect the need to be sarcastic and demeaning. Travers is a perfect example of the kind of criticism that I can't stand.

"I know there are still 17 months to go, but I'm thinking Transformers 2 has a shot at the title Worst Movie of the Decade."

And Travers; isn't this beyond melodromatic? It's insulting and extremely difficult to take this kind of extreme drivel seriously. If you hate a movie, back it up with reasons; not trite insults.


Conversely, not every negative review has been so negative. Ray Bennett's for the Hollywood Tribune review pretty much nails the movie for it is; an explosive spectacle. He pretty much nails it stating;

"With its intelligence at the level of the simple-minded, however, the film is not likely to attract moviegoers who seek something more than a screen filled with kaleidoscopes of colored metal. Fan boys will no doubt love it, but for the uninitiated it's loud, tedious and, at 147 minutes, way too long."

On the surface it seems like a cruel statement, but really is it that far from the truth? I had alot of fun with the film, but I appreciate where critics are coming from. I know that I'm more than your average fan. I just don't appreciate those who feel that melodrama and personally insulting moviegoers is part of the experience. A negative review is fine if you have the intelligence and decency to not personally rip into movie goers. It's too bad that so many critics (Ebert included) clearly lack such decency these days.

I just got this email from a movie buddy of mine. He had a starring role in the first film, but was sadly reduced to a cameo in the second, something he's not happy about. He wanted to respond to the critics, specifically one Roger Ebert, and this contest has offered him the ability to do so. Without further ado, here's some words from my buddy (He hates it when I call him that), Bonecrusher.
-----

I am well known for my ability to hate, and pleased as I am to see the trend growing recently, I feel I have to step in. Hate is an art that is wasted upon you fleshy types. Throwing accusations of plotlessness, juvenile humor, and bad acting against a film directed Michael Bay is rather like hitting a rubber ball with a 6 ton bar of iron. There is simply no challenge in hating the obvious. If we leveled the accusations thrown at Michael Bay at every film ever, well, then hating things as a past time would become rather dull and repetitive. That silly robot movie the critics are all whining about is like every other silly summer movie. No, if you want to make a career out of hating something, as I have, you must delve in deeper, and find truly outrageous things to make you froth in anger.

Take one Roger Ebert, a man for whom I have respect only for the fact that he often hates things as overtly as I do. But, my dear Ebert, you are a lightweight in the field of hate-inomics, as much as you would like to be otherwise.

Observe, if you will:
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments.”

This is, of course, the sissy way to hate something. Giving it credit for amusing moments? Equip some new ball bearings and tell us what you really think, Roger! Two lines later, he does.

“ If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination.”

We're getting warmer, and now you can feel the hate rolling off it. But again mister Ebert, your technique is off. You do not lay such a bombshell at the beginning of the review! You must build up to it, snowballing your hatred as you go so your reader goes with you, so that by the time you are finished, they loathe the object of your hatred as much as you do - or at the very least, loathe you for making them hate it so much. So sit back Ebert, and watch a true master!

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has numerous failures, of which any imbecile can go on for days. Merely listing them would be an ordeal matched only be attempting to wrest leadership from Megatron. But by far, the biggest insult is made against ourselves, the humble and noble Decepticons. For you see, Michael Bay, in his eagerness to sell out to the Autobots, GM, Hasbro and the US Military, has even gotten the basic tenants of history wrong! Everyone knows that Primus and Unicron created Transformers, and thus the omittance of this blatantly obvious fact shows that Michael Bay is not just unaware of how terrible a film he is making, but how unaware he is of the universe around him. Bay exists in a dream state defined by explosions and babes, a blissful non-reality that the brightest among us cannot begin to comprehend. His films are not just a failure on every artistic and conceivable sense, but Bay himself is so detached from reality, that he is a danger not just to himself, but to the entire world. In his never ending quest to satisfy his lust for carnage, Bay will only keep upping the ante, until in Transformers 5, he attempts to blow up the moon. Bay is not just a threat to the decency of film, a but a threat to all mankind, and he clearly must be stopped in as painful a manner as possible, and all those who follow him, put down. No other alternative is acceptable, so grab your guns, and prepare for war!

You see, that is how you convey TRUE hatred. You must go past the film, and paint its creator as the soulless monster we all know he truly is. After all, he made me smash through those busses without mercy, and then cut most of my cameo from the film. So listen reviewers, if you want to make it your job to hate films, take it from the master. They didn't just make a film you dislike, they are your mortal enemies, and your best task is to kill them outright.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get started on this ‘war’ thing.

-Bonecrusher

PERCEPTITRON’s Review of Roger Ebert’s Review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Revenge of the Critic, all right, if you’re thinking Roger Ebert.

Perceptitron Rating: 1

Roger Ebert’s review of “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is a horrible experience of average length, briefly punctuated with one or two good points. One of these involves a comment on “bewildering battle scenes.” Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the time reading his review, go into the kitchen, find yourself an elderly, technology-fearing grandparent and ask if they liked the movie. Then close your eyes and pray to the Primes they stop before they think they get witty.

The critique is incomprehensible. Ebert’s rant is meaningless word flap. His accent is highbrow, film festivalese befitting of a maladaptive, older man quickly becoming a distant star. His insight rings of thoughtless junk. His analysis, dumb as a rock. He shares his review with many other like-minded critics whose reviews are much more interesting, and that is faint praise indeed.

Roger Ebert, who had little positive to say of the new "Star Trek" or "Terminator" movies, waxes uncontrollably over the “spectacular special-effects” used in the 1940 newly Technicolor “Thief of Bagdad.” Now he has reviewed “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” The boys of “Hangover” made better decisions. This isn’t a review so much as a slam at modern summer films. An old codger grasping at the shrink-wrapped “Thief of Bagdad” VHS casing, clamoring with desperate servitude to understand new-fangled movie magic. I once knew an aged gentleman who lost his VHS and, yearning for its ribbony goodness, became so disenchanted with special effects he wept as if he’d forgotten his whereabouts. Such a man might regard Ebert’s review with incontinent joy.

Part of the time he is engaging in witless banter hating on ILM’s work and the rest of the time he’s running in slo-mo from subjectivity, although—hello!—you can’t outrun bias. He also makes creepy-old man comments like this one: “There are many great-looking babes in the film, who are made up to a flawless perfection and look just like real women, if you are a junior fanboy whose experience of the gender is limited to lad magazines.” He spends a lot of time shooting at the film’s plot holes, although in the history of science fiction (including his beloved “Thief of Bagdad”) there has never been a completely fact-based plot (a grant-wishing genie? That’s the realistic plot?).

After a pointless albeit sardonic revel in babe evaluation he focuses his rage on the Witwickys. He blames the harbinger of darkness himself for their inclusion into the film foregoing one of the most tangible and ubiquitous storylines in any script: the strong bonds of family. He also struggles with other obvious plot points, like the capture of Sam’s parents by Soundwave to use as leverage in obtaining the Matrix of Leadership, instead blaming Swoop (who isn’t even in the movie) for their sudden arrival to Egypt.

Next he battles 20 years of cinematic technological breakthroughs, trashing the CGI effects. True the fight sequences can be hard to sort out, especially on an IMAX screen, but to summarily complain that they are fighting with low-tech “fists” reeks of inconsistency. Like I say, dumber than Skids and Mudflap. For such a big head, one would think you could muster up some consistency. Have you put any effort into this review?

Aware of the massive critical distaste for Transformers, I looked up a few forum posts as a reality check. I was reassured: ”For the sake of Prime, just enjoy the giant robots!” (Cyber-Scream); “Equip some new ball bearings and tell us what you really think, Roger!” (Bonecrusher via Master Fwiffo). Ebert’s review lowers the bar on critical evaluation and lumbers around like Devastator climbing a pyramid.

Footnote: Does it strike you as a lapse of Chicago Sun-Times judgment that no one notices a gigantic blowhard besmirching this summer’s blockbuster? No one watching in the boardroom? The paperboy’s route?

MSN.com review
'Transformers': Nothing Meets the Eye

…And I haven't even begun to talk about the racist-caricature robots of "The Twins," who speak in thug slang and "aren't much for reading" and talk about getting "up in that ass," and one of whom has, I wish I were kidding, a gold tooth…

Hey, you remember that one guy you knew in high school who thought he was so gangster and everyone around him (or sometimes her) knew they’d grow out of that eventually but laughed at them anyway. Well, when you put that in an action movie it’s called comic relief in a sea of seriousness. Action movies generally have those kinds of things. Please loosen up a bit. Jazz saying “little bitches” in the first movie was funny to all of the black people in the audience – which includes me, or at least half - and you know it.


USA Today
'Transformers 2': Witless script consigns it to the scrap heap

…Bigger, louder, longer and more metallic is definitely not better…

They’re giant, war-torn alien robots that have been trying to kill each other since before recorded human history. What the hell else is it suppose to be?

*I thought this one was kinda funny

Boston Globe
Transformers: ROTF – Boys and Their Toys

…and if you want to complain, text someone who cares…

A bit redundant for a negative review, don’t you think?

And last but not least;

Tfw2005
Revenge of the Fallen: Worst-reviewed $400 million hit ever

* Now, this doesn’t actually count as a bad review, I just thought I’d throw it out there.*

…the "Transformers" sequel will be by far the worst-reviewed movie ever to make the $400 million club. Critics and mainstream crowds often disagree…According to Paramount's exit polls, 91 percent of the audience thought the sequel was as good as or better than the first "Transformers," which received far better reviews…On Rottentomatoes.com, a Web site that compiles critics' opinions, the sequel had only 38 positive reviews out of 187, a lowly 20 percent rating usually reserved for box-office duds.

Really, who’s opinion is more important to Bay? The audience of an insane amount of fans that the actual film was directed to AND where the money comes from, or the critics that make money off of complaining? As Animated Swindle stated in Decepticon Air; “It’s a no processor-er.”

Not everything has to be spelled out for you haters and critics. The fans get it... that's what matters:-)

I easily answered all the questions that douche on Yahoo movies had, no problem.

It's like, if they don't understand it... there must not be an answer or they didn't spell it out for my stupid ass so I have to trash this movie. God I hate critics.

Its All about what the fans want.... SORRY!!!:-)

Seriously... they are picking just to pick. HATERS!!!

As a fan... everything I wanted was in there. All the human actors minus the mom during the weed scene were great. The robots were great, story great, action amazing.

to really get a perspective on the gap, RT community has the movie at around 65% fresh, the critics 18-20%.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tran...iews_users.php

Ebert is the same guy who said Transformers 1 should have been about 10 minutes shorter on the robot fighting.

He obviously doesn't get it.

Fans wanted more robot fighting and more robot dialog (robot character as "characters"). That's what we got. Yet he wants more humans and more human dialog etc.

Do you think Ebert knows anything about Transformers? Come on guys... he doesn't. He just found a new movie to trash becasue he didn't get it. And as a critic if you don't get it... might as well trash it.

Plus! I am under the firm belief that critics bashing this movie do it mostly for the publicity they get from angry fans, etc. It's a $400 million dollar movie. If you trash it... people will certainly hit your site to see why.

Me vs Roger Ebert's review on Tf:ROTF

Roger Ebert-"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination."

Me-As far as I am concerned regarding all of this,I see that as a side order of being uptight for nothing,hyperbole,and lies being poorly dressed up as facts instead of opinions. If the movie was unbearable length wise then why did you foolishly decide to watch the entire movie? Pots and pans together? You saw the first movie and didn't have a problem with it(loudness),and two of course the movie will be loud when you're seeing it in a movie theater. Yeesh. Dog like robot? Not even close! Pay attention,with a war movie like this it should be expected for alot of noise,an explosion can be louder than someone talking,and stuff may not get done if you're not talking loud enough and people too can talk loud out of panic or something.

Roger Ebert-"The plot is incomprehensible. The dialog of the Autobots®, Decepticons® and Otherbots® is meaningless word flap. Their accents are Brooklyese, British and hip-hop, as befits a race from the distant stars. Their appearance looks like junkyard throw-up. They are dumb as a rock. They share the film with human characters who are much more interesting, and that is very faint praise indeed."

Me-Much more interesting humans? Riiight. Meaningless word flap? They talked for a reason and take their missions seriously. Junkyard throw-up? Umm hello? They are made out of alot of parts and it's expected because they are alien robots from space and aren't suppose to be very easy on the eyes. Oh my gosh,so what if they have human accents? You saw the first movie and had no problem with it. You're contradicting yourself. It's called having a personality as well despite wanting to talk with an accent or not. The plot incomprehensible? You obviously were not paying attention enough,or are blindly disliking,or both.

Roger Ebert-"The movie has been signed by Michael Bay. This is the same man who directed "The Rock" in 1996. Now he has made "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." Faust made a better deal. This isn't a film so much as a toy tie-in. Children holding a Transformer toy in their hand can invest it with wonder and magic, imagining it doing brave deeds and remaining always their friend. I knew a little boy once who lost his blue toy truck at the movies, and cried as if his heart would break. Such a child might regard "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" with fear and dismay."

Me-Dismay? Oi,a Transformers movie is suppose to have those elements so don't pretend that it shouldn't. Fear is a transferable emotion between the youngsters when it comes to Tf:ROTF and it's natural for kids to not all be fearless when it comes to a movie like that,this movie doe's have bad guy Transformers in it. Even with the fear factor it could be worse,you make it sound like it's a rated R Transformers movie.

Rogert Ebert-"The human actors are in a witless sitcom part of the time, and lot of the rest of their time is spent running in slo-mo away from explosions, although--hello!--you can't out run an explosion. They also make speeches like this one by John Turturro: "Oh, no! The machine is buried in the pyramid! If they turn it on, it will destroy the sun! Not on my watch!" The humans, including lots of U.S. troops, shoot at the Transformers a lot, although never in the history of science fiction has an alien been harmed by gunfire."

Me-Out run an explosion? Ok so you expect them to stay still and let explosions hurt and/or kill them? Got it. Aliens being harmmed by gunfire never happened in a movie? I guess you forgot that it happened in the last Transformers movie,War Of The Worlds,Independence Day,and whatever other sci-fi movie that happened in. Regardless of them being in their alien ship or not. There isn't alot of slow-mo running,you're wrong. Ok so the dialog wasn't good,but it could have been worse and it wouldn't be the first or last time a movie had that kind of dialog in it.

Roger Ebert-"There are many great-looking babes in the film, who are made up to a flawless perfection and look just like real women, if you are a junior fanboy whose experience of the gender is limited to lad magazines. The two most inexplicable characters are Ron and Judy Witwicky (Kevin Dunn and Julie White), who are the parents of Shia LaBeouf, who Mephistopheles threw in to sweeten the deal. They take their son away to Princeton, apparently a party school, where Judy eats some pot and goes berserk. Later they swoop down out of the sky on Egypt, for reasons the movie doesn't make crystal clear, so they also can run in slo-mo from explosions."

Me-So what if there are alot of good looking females in the movie? There's nothing wrong with that if you're a straight guy. Bay likes hot females in his movie,that is old news and shouldn't be considered shocking. And to be fair there are alot of females in a college in the movie. You forgot the part where a protoform Decepticon went after Sam's parents before the final battle in Egypt,oh and sex appeal sells by the way.

Roger Ebert-"The battle scenes are bewildering. A Bot makes no visual sense anyway, but two or three tangled up together create an incomprehensible confusion. I find it amusing that creatures that can unfold out of a Camaro and stand four stories high do most of their fighting with...fists. Like I say, dumber than a box of staples. They have tiny little heads, although Jetfire® must be made of older models, since he has an aluminum beard."

Me-Come on,you make it sound like it's a human beard! A bot in the movie makes no visual sense? And yet you are able to point out the fact that they can change into something like a car. Whatever you say. And also,this movie is about alien robots. Soo yeah. Little tiny heads? You have no concept of a variety of perspectives then. And again,you fail to explain why these alien robots are dumb.

Roger Ebert-"Aware that this movie opened in England seven hours before Chicago time and the morning papers would be on the streets, after writing the above I looked up the first reviews as a reality check. I was reassured: "Like watching paint dry while getting hit over the head with a frying pan!" (Bradshaw, Guardian); "Sums up everything that is most tedious, crass and despicable about modern Hollywood!" (Tookey, Daily Mail); "A giant, lumbering idiot of a movie!" (Edwards, Daily Mirror). The first American review, Todd Gilchrist of Cinematical, reported that Bay's "ambition runs a mile long and an inch deep," but, in a spirited defense, says "this must be the most movie I have ever experienced." He is bullish on the box office: it "feels destined to be the biggest movie of all time." It’s certainly the biggest something of all time."

Me-Biggest something of all time? I believe the words you are looking for are Transformers:Revenge Of The Fallen is one of the biggest anticipated and fun movies of the year. Wether you like it or not the proof is out there,I think it's time for you to stop writing movie reviews and to get a different job. Maybe if you and those of your ilk who continue to write movie reviews were to do them better and with more passion then perhaps alot of people would care more about what you guys think. Stop wasting other's time and energy with loads of nonsensical so called movie reviews if you can't do one right. What good is your credentials that allow you to write movie reviews then other than your brain?

To be honest, I hate the sequel and it doesn't live to my expectation after it looked promising on trailers. 2 years of waiting and what I get are 140 terabytes of craps-Bay style.
New bots like Sideswipe, Sideways, Arcee and Demolisher are nothing more but movie props while the 2 annoying twins get all the attentions for being useless;
Optimus is dead throughout the movie when the sequel can be an in-depth identity search of his destiny as a descendant of the Primes;
Bumblebee can uses more dialogues with its voice back so that it won't be as sub-par as Mojo;
Megan Fox is still as stiff as usual, lack of character and good for diverting attentions from all those flaws in the movie;
Devastator is such a major disappointment because it didn't demonstrate its awesome destructive force and the only thing he can be compared to is a home used vacuum cleaner. Even the kitchen bots are more useful than that;
Robots spitting like retarded idiots with no moral sense, they can also flash their genitals like flashers on the street. What a lame joke and low-life way to diss transformers fans;
I seriously doubt rabid Megan-Fox fanboys are Transformers fans at all, ROTF isn't supposed to be some lame frat comedy like Sorority Boys

So what if this bloody movie is made to entertain ordinary audiences and not critics? I think that's a lame excuse from bigshots who can't deliver what they've promised 2 years ago that the sequel would be bigger and better, which is so unprofessional and downright hypocrite. ROTF is the worst summer action movie to date

Why am I getting email responses for this thread when both my posts were deleted because I didn't conform to the "Ebert" policy?

I still believe my posts were on topic and quite witty as well.