One is pretty positive and the other is rather mixed though calls it a "marked improvement" over the last two installments. ‘Transformers: Age of Extinction’ Review: Michael Bay’s Franchise Continues | Variety 'Transformers: Age of Extinction': Film Review - The Hollywood Reporter Some of the positive comments: "The Autobots look more distinctive and easier to tell apart than ever". "The score by Bay’s regular composer, Steve Jablonsky, which achieves a thundering majesty whenever the Autobots make a dramatic entrance". "3D effects provide immersive experiences of large-scale destruction, showering the viewer in a beautiful confetti shower of splintered metal and exploding debris." "It’s the robots — endowed here with character-rich physicality and almost human-scaled facial features — who give the film its emotional heft. Optimus Prime’s charismatic leadership of his team, as well as his unwavering compassion for the humans, again makes him the movie’s moral anchor. Drift, with his samurai getup and Watanabe’s dignified line readings, strikes a neat balance with Goodman’s cigar-chewing, wisecracking Hound. Still, the character most likely to be beloved by audiences, especially tykes, remains Bumblebee, whose mischievous personality brings much-needed comic relief." "Bay really lets rip when the Autobots, with the help of their human allies, break into KSI Headquarters in Chicago, ground zero in the previous installment. It’s an exhilarating sequence in which two man-made Transformers, Stinger and Galvatron (Frank Welker), slug it out with the good bots." UPDATE: Another review here by a Youtuber, he seems legit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KlWWs71RMs#t=12 Not really sure what to make of this one though, the guy pretty much says he HATES Galvatron because his alt-mode isn't the same as G1 so yeaaah... :L
Well that's disappointing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsqmU3v0hVA ----- Oh and the YouTube stuff has already been dealt with - the reviewer himself doesn't even know the names of the robots so I doubt his legitimacy.
Yeah 100% most of the time I'm skim reading trying to make sense of these small words whereas every other sentence does not make sense whatsoever. I don't understand why they have to write like that, the general public don't understand them so why give an ass of their review?
Here comes the "I disagree with the reviews therefore the reviewer is an asshole with no clue how to write a review or what the movie is supposed to be." I read both, they read like reviews should read. Business like read ups about a film, pointing out the good and bad and explaining the plot.
Would you guys mind pointing out the hard to understand parts? Because those reviews are incredibly straight forward.
Reviews come in many different forms - most try to be intellectual to target their demographic. Others portray it as more comedic or simple. Some dumb it down to just saying the plot and pointing out the good or bad with jokes. This ^
Fine reviews that talk about the good and bad about the movie. I knew that the running time would be a point of contention, though the Variety review seemed a bit kinder to it than the Hollywood Reporter. In truth, these aren't the vitriol spouting pieces that I assumed they would be, so I am satisfied. Will be interesting to skim other reviews, though I'm somewhat certain that Jeremy Jhans and Devin Faraci will be the most hateful of the bunch .
About what I'd expect from a review of a Transformers movie, or most summer crowd pleasing visual effect blockbusters.
Would you rather it was dumbed down to sound suitably stupid? There's nothing overtly intelligent here as it is and certainly nothing pretentious. It's simple, straight-forward reviewing. You also understand that, while intelligence is something to aim for, pretentiousness isn't, right? So why you think they would "try" to sound that way is baffling. Choose your own criticisms carefully so that they actually make sense.
This one is a little more spoilery than the others, I had to start skimming. It is the most positive so far, so I'm surprised about the B- compared to the B+ Drew gave Dark of The Moon, but he seemed genuinely impressed overall. I kind of got that feeling he liked the movie, during his interview with Mark Wahlberg, and saying that he's going to take his kids to see it and how nuts they're going to go for the action.
Why is it that I only have a problem with critics being so picky when they are reviewing transformers films?
