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?
2012 is a horrid film. Then again i hate cliche and missed oportunities. I say watch/listen to the Roger Ebert Dark City commentary, once you've listened to it you realise why he has the opinions he does.
I didn't even know he was still around? For me, I check out Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB. Sadly, I must agree with the publics response on this one. I know.... everyone thinks ROTF was the oscar award winning, second coming of gone with the wind, with Godfather type story telling masterpiece... I don't agree but can't we all agree to disagree?
I don't and neither do a lot of people. I'm just saying he took an excuse for ROTF and applied it to 2012. While he dissed ROTF and it's viewers.
Or maybe RotF was a poorer film then 2012, the latter (which while unbelievable) might have a more well constructed plot? And the spectacle it delivers is much grander then that in RotF.
Sorry, not seeing the contradiction. He liked one movie and not the other. Can you point out somewhere he liked something in one film and disliked the exact same thing in the other?
i think he was missing the point by a country mile and suggesting it was the CGI ebert didn't like about rotf and did like in 2012.
Hes a film critic and a highly respected one at that. You shouldnt if you can act like a rational human being. Unless u mad.
I just watched the trailer for 2012, I had never seen it before. I must say there's two things I really hate in movies. John Cusack, and meteors that fall at 70 miles an hour. gauranteed I just watched the coolest parts in the movie too, so no point in seeing it now
he's not necessarily contradicting himself; this just shows that his review of Transformers was biased. ROTF couldn't be much worse than 2012 and vice versa, so clearly he just hates Transformers
I'm saying he contradicted himself by stating that the movie 2012 is a movie where you shouldn't expect anything else but fun. Basically saying if you expected deeper story, plot, no cliches, oh well because this wasn't that kind of movie. But when applied to ROTF in the same way the fans are ******ed or stupid Bayfans. Tell me fans of ROTF don't say the same thing when they hear critiques on the movie like no story or plot?
I always imagine professional critics to be very much like the resturant critic from Ratatouille, puffed up with arrogance and full of self importance, resolutely assured that they are infinitely mroe cleverer than their readers. perhaps they are. All the same, it must be terrible to be so very, very clever that they find themselves unable to enjoy some of life's guiltier pleasures the last thing TFW needs is more brofisting.
I enjoyed ROTF, but i'd also be inclined to agree it's bloated and overlong. the whole 'being about transformers' thing covers a multitude of sins for a TF fan, if visually kinetic action sci-fi based on an eighties toyline isn't really your preference there probably wouldn't be a lot of appeal there. Disaster movies on the other hand have a long heritage of being trashy affairs with no plot and extravagent special effects. I expect a student of cinema history, as no doubt this ebert fellow is, appreciates that pedigree over the brash and unabashed commercialism of the TF franchise. Fuck him, frankly, but tell me you'd have liked ROTF as much if it had been about Gobots, and i'll tell you you're a big old fibber.
With Megatron's head being visible in alt mode in ROTF, I assumed Bay thought he was doing a Go-Bots film. Ebert has been pretty clear in the past that he judges films according to their genre. 2012 is a disaster movie, a genre that seems to be pretty much about blowing as much stuff up as possible in as cool a way as possible*. Transformers and ROTF would come under the heading of sci-fi, a genre where you hopefully get a bit more than "Wow, that explosion was so fucking ace!" Hence, I suspect, Ebert being fine with 2012 being about shit blowing up, but finding ROTF to be a tub of shit. Oh, and don't forget the possibility that 2012 is just a better film. *Michael Bay should make disaster movies.
