For the people on here saying that people would be believing the review if it was positive, the whole thing with the review is that the website mentions its from a friend of one of the members of the website. Usually when a website says that about an early review, it's false. Same thing happened last year on another similar website during a review of Man of Steel which mentioned Brainiac being heavily in the film.

There was more bloody thought in the 4chan leak.

Let's not also forget this possible trailer description from a few months ago
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/transformers/news/?a=94689

 

Yeah, I'll sooner believe the 4chan "leak" than this.

 

Does that mean the review is false? Everything he said seemed to be spot on. It's dissapointing that the dinobots will get minimal screentime and lockdown working with a human sounds so dumb/cliche. But hey....what can you do. It was my fault for getting my hopes up.

 

This. I'm calling BS until I see the film myself next Thursday. Until then, I don't believe a single word.

 

Uh, not according to wikipedia;

As in "unaltered" or "slightly altered"? Because Sentinel was gold in the trailers but red in the film.

Well, it's not so different from people who are smug about saying the movie is going to be the best when all they have are trailers, is it?

We've had two leaks, this review included, on the content of the film, and they're generally on the same wavelength with each other. I mean, the whole selling point of the movie is the Dinobots, but both leaks suggest they're barely in the movie. What reason would anybody have to mention there are no dinobots for most of the film if their true intent would be to only rile up the fanbase? I'd think they would be saying the Dinobots are in most of the film such that the fanbase would be disappointed because the dinos aren't really that important at all.

People are being smug about the matter because they generally suspected this was the case from the get-go, and now they've got more proof they were right all along even though the movie's supporters continue to insist otherwise. This isn't saying they're actually right, for all anybody on the boards knows, the movie could be the next Citizen Kane and Grimlock is voiced by Nolan North or something. But with the evidence at hand so far, it's kind of biased what the movie is going to potentially end up being for many.

Just saying, but how can you prove that it wouldn't be the people who are rabidly supporting the film doing the "I told you so" posting if this review had been positive? They'd have just as much support as the critics do now.

 

See, the thing that makes me think this is a load of crap is the fact that none of it is something you couldn't really guess from the trailers. These movies always have some sort of twist or hidden plot point.

In any case, this is along the lines of that uber secret trailer that somebody claimed they saw months ago, which turned out to be false. Although I totally believe the part about the Dinobots only really showing up towards the end of the movie, as that sounds reasonable. The Dinobots are powerful, endgame type guys, based on the trailers. Autobots would be overpowered if they rode them into battle for two hours.

 

For me it looks like it is written by somebody who have seen less trailers and tv spots then the majority of people on this forum.

 

This. Anyone could make up how the film goes by watching the spots and trailers.

 

When a article starts off by saying a friend of ours saw the movie. . . something's usually fishy. That or the site just wants traffic.

 

Oh, I fully agree that if it was positive there would be smugness from those same people, and I would be annoyed by them too. Why? Because the movie isn't out yet, early reviews of people claiming to having seen screenings are always sketchy and suspect until proven true. These have yet to be proven true and just because they're on the same wave-length doesn't mean they aren't the same person. Could be the same troll, or some other troll who read 4chan plot summary and made a "review" based on it. There are so many unknown factors here that it's insane to be smug about it either way...

 

funny enought, some parts of it were proved true later

 

Flushed away=/= Transformers (aka bigger budget, aka harder to edit than a movie like flushed away)
And no, it's not that smug.

 

Bumblebee doesn't burst through the building and that piece was seen on set.
Point is, none of what was described was ever in the trailer (except for scenes we had seen previous trailers).

 

ask nelson he know is real or not real for cosmic book news.

 

The premiere is tomorrow and all we have to do is find an ACTUAL review from the premiere. Besides, Nelson may take a while to respond.

 

Who gives a damn about what some lying shitbag online has to say? Go watch the movie and form your own opinion.

 

agreed

in fact, I am not reading any review before I see the movie...
I dont want my excitement to be ruined because of some reviewer...

 

This, thats why im avoiding all reviews til i see it myself

 

I'm Not Reading Either.

 

Is it just me, or was that entire review made of elements that we already know, with some opinion thrown in? Nothing really new in it at all. Could just be a fake review. There was too much 'same ol same ol' crap to avoid having to actually write about anything. It was kinda pointless.. I'm saying it's a fake.
Lockdown just wants prime for his collection? Could be a sport for him.. but as a Bounty hunter, he has to cash in! I think it's just negative speculation in the form of a review.