I'm not annoyed, just curious. Is it because its a "Michael Bay Film" in which case critics are not suppose to like it or since ROTF was panned by critics, this one will be just as bad? Also, because these movie critics enjoyed the film it must be that they were all paid off to say that or whatever silly theory brains is claiming as "fact".
7.3 /10 Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) - IMDb Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) - User ratings
Transformers 3 7.3 /10 Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) - IMDb Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) - User ratings TDK The Dark Knight (2008) - IMDb The Dark Knight (2008) - User ratings Avatar Avatar (2009) - IMDb Avatar (2009) - User ratings Inception Inception (2010) - IMDb Inception (2010) - User ratings and TF3, has not even premiered. The best movie 2011.
It actually is a well known fact that some of the "lesser" critics are routinely paid by movie studios in exchange for a glowing endorsement, usually in the form of a quick statement or sentence that the studios can use in ads.
Exactly right. And most the ones Nelson listed on the first page are those exact critics. You see these names every week when a new movie comes out telling you its the best movie of the year. In 2 weeks, Shawn Edwards will be telling us "Harry Potter is the best 3d movie ever made". Not 1 of these critics listed has any weight and to be honest, it's kind of scary that the studio has to pay these guys for glowing endorsements a few days before release.
$200 says Ebert's gonna give it a craptastic rating. These minor critical reviews really prove little as to the film's quality. Buuuuuut they are still very positive nonetheless, so at least the film doesn't completely suck.
To me Ebert's reviews aren't even credible anymore. He gave Hereafter 4 stars out 4 and it was a bad movie. That said he did actually give the first one a favorable review.
He said the first one lost a potential 4th star due to the final action sequence...I mean, come on! That's the kind of stuff I was looking forward to seeing! He also said the audience was completely silent during that part, unlike with the rest of the movie, like it was a bad thing. I'd say they were completely hooked and in awe like I was...
I remember some good reviews, but not to that extent [the best action movie of the decade]. And he liked 2012. The worst movie of the decade.
What really killed his credibility for me was when he said The Mummy 3 was better than the first two.
Trust me when I say that my excitement for the film is through the roof. But even I have to admit that these aren't so much reviews as they are generic statements, the kind you would find on the back of a DVD. No action movie is ever going to have blurbs like "Low-octane!" or "Slow-Paced!". They don't really tell you anything of importance. Still, Nelson acknowledged that the point of the post was to prove that the movie has been seen by US media, so I'll let it slide and wait for actual reviews. And for the record, I like Ebert. I don't always agree with his opinion, and sometimes there's a movie that he loves/hates for reasons I can't even begin to fathom, but he's welcome to his opinion as much as the next man. He writes his reviews clearly and with enough experience that I can can appreciate his perspective. In the end, he's not telling you to feel the same way about a film. He's telling you what he thinks are important points or views and for you to take them into the film with you and compare to your own experience.
Depends. Does saying things "this movie is bad and if you like it you are worthless" is any good? One thing is saying the movie is bad, the other is being outright offensive to those who like it.
Like what he said about 'if you and your friends like Battle: Los Angeles'. [/butthurt] My goodness, am I ever excited for DotM though!
