GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Roger Ebert's take on Transformers 2 (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=913017)

Libertine 06-27-2009 08:19 PM
Roger Ebert's take on Transformers 2
 
One of the most entertaining reviews I've read in the past few years :thumbsup

Quote:
"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.

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.

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.

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 outrun 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.

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.

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.

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.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/906239997

Adam X 06-27-2009 08:23 PM
I saw this review inside one of my iphone apps before going to see it last week.

Frankly I thought the movie was fairly entertaining.

Ebert is just getting too old.. this movie is for a young audience looking for
the same laughable, graphically blistering experience they got from the first movie.

My ex dated Michael Bay, lol, we texted him with a decent review after the movie as he
was curious what we thought.

Agent 488 06-27-2009 08:28 PM
i'm sure it will be a big hit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%2...n_every_minute

Libertine 06-27-2009 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam X (Post 16006946)
Ebert is just getting too old.. this movie is for a young audience looking for the same laughable, graphically blistering experience they got from the first movie.
No, this movie is for people who don't mind being treated like mentally handicapped, ADHD-ridden six year olds. People who wouldn't recognize a coherent story if it walked up to them and hit them in the face with a brick. People who have nightly fantasies about all-you-can-eat buffets at the McDonalds. People who, after watching Idiocracy, wondered when the movie "Ass" would open, filled with exuberant anticipation.

Quite frankly, this is a movie for an audience whose mere existence is a strong argument for the worldwide implementation of a radical eugenics program.

But that's just my humble opinion, of course :glugglug

BlackCrayon 06-27-2009 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 16006963)
No, this movie is for people who don't mind being treated like mentally handicapped, ADHD-ridden six year olds. People who wouldn't recognize a coherent story if it walked up to them and hit them in the face with a brick. People who have nightly fantasies about all-you-can-eat buffets at the McDonalds. People who, after watching Idiocracy, wondered when the movie "Ass" would open, filled with exuberant anticipation.

Quite frankly, this is a movie for an audience whose mere existence is a strong argument for the worldwide implementation of a radical eugenics program.

But that's just my humble opinion, of course :glugglug
thats a large segment of america!

Anthony 06-27-2009 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 16006977)
thats a large segment of america!
Heard the movie opened huge in Canada.

Iron Fist 06-27-2009 09:19 PM
Funny review indeed.. I wouldn't go expecting it to be mindblowing.

mvee 06-27-2009 09:33 PM
I thought the following 'review' was more entertaining than the movie

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/...ers_2_faqs.php


Are there honestly 46 new Transformers in the movie?
I have no fucking clue. It's impossible to tell most of them apart except for Optimus and the Racist Twins (there's another yellow Autobot who I constantly thought was Bumblebee). There could be 46, or there could be 12. I honestly would believe 12 if someone had said that.

What is the status of the Transformers at the beginning of the film?
The Autobots have joined the military to hunt down the Decepticons. We're told the Decepticons are "doing things," but they appear to be hiding peacefully when the Autobots show up and brutally murder them.

What?
Yeah. The Decepticons aren't apparently doing anything, then the Autobots show up, the Decepticons run for their goddamn lives, and the Autobots hunt them down and brutally murder them. It's kind of weird.

Why is the U.S. military helping them?
Supposedly to help keep the Transformers a secret from the public. Although since the climax of the last film was a massive firefight involving 50-foot robots and took place over five miles of downtown Los Angeles and the beginning of this film wrecks several miles of Shanghai, China, they seem to be incredibly shitty at their job.

How does the U.S. military help them?
Well, not at all, actually. They just kind of come along with guns and stuff, and act like they're going to help, but the Autobots do all the work.

Why is the U.S. military in this movie at all, then?
Because Michael Bay has a huge erection for jets and tanks and aircraft carriers and considers giant robots only a necessary evil for the film. At least 15 full minutes of the film's 150-minute run time is nothing but footage of jets and tanks and planes without any robots or actual action whatsoever.

How is Sam Witwicky dragged back into the fight?
Well, he finds a fragment of the Allspark shard. You know, the Allspark that he spent all last movie being told he shouldn't give to Megatron, but when he gave it to Megatron, it killed Megatron. That one. Anyways, the shard makes the Beef see symbols and act like more of an spaz than usual.

So the Decepticons want the shard? Why?
Uh... to bring Megatron back to life?

What?
That's what they said.

But the Allspark killed Megatron in the first movie.
Yes.

...and now it can also bring him back to life.
It's very powerful, this Allspark.

Uh-huh. So what's their plan to get it?
They send a small R/C car who talks like Joe Pesci in Casino to get it.

Shouldn't they have sent Starscream or somebody?

$5 submissions 06-27-2009 10:21 PM
Roger Ebert let it all hang out. Unfortunately, a large % of those who watch these kinds of movies are there not for the story but for the ambience/special effects. To each his own.

It's not like this movie was being marketed as "Spartacus" or "2001: SPace Odyssey"

I like Roger Ebert and everything but dude... take it easy...

SoloGirlsContent 06-27-2009 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 16006939)
One of the most entertaining reviews I've read in the past few years :thumbsup



http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/906239997
I said the same shit 2 days ago
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=912578

BFT3K 06-27-2009 10:31 PM
:drinkup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 16006963)
Quite frankly, this is a movie for an audience whose mere existence is a strong argument for the worldwide implementation of a radical eugenics program.
Nice. :drinkup

SoloGirlsContent 06-27-2009 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam X (Post 16006946)
I saw this review inside one of my iphone apps before going to see it last week.

Frankly I thought the movie was fairly entertaining.

Ebert is just getting too old.. this movie is for a young audience looking for
the same laughable, graphically blistering experience they got from the first movie.

My ex dated Michael Bay, lol, we texted him with a decent review after the movie as he
was curious what we thought.
so michael bay is GAY?? I thought so

mikesinner 06-27-2009 11:16 PM
Roger Ebert is getting old and like most old men he never finds anything to be good and without fault.

pinupglam 06-27-2009 11:37 PM
Roger Ebert isn't getting old... he's just telling the truth. Michael Bay simply makes shitty films. Anyone with a brain in their head plainly knows this fact. Yes, his films make a jillion dollars, but massive sales figures doesn't make something good. If it did, then Brittany Spears and the Backstreet Boys would have to be classified among the greatest musicians of all time.

And since when does a generation of teenaged retards who routinely gulp down these crap-fests have any credibility in validating anything anyway?

Drake 06-28-2009 01:20 AM
Apparently he missed the memo that this is supposed to be a brainless action flick based on a 80's kids cartoon.

voa 06-28-2009 01:24 AM
The movie looks good with all this effects

Manowar 06-28-2009 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvee (Post 16007028)
I thought the following 'review' was more entertaining than the movie

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/...ers_2_faqs.php


Are there honestly 46 new Transformers in the movie?
I have no fucking clue. It's impossible to tell most of them apart except for Optimus and the Racist Twins (there's another yellow Autobot who I constantly thought was Bumblebee). There could be 46, or there could be 12. I honestly would believe 12 if someone had said that.

What is the status of the Transformers at the beginning of the film?
The Autobots have joined the military to hunt down the Decepticons. We're told the Decepticons are "doing things," but they appear to be hiding peacefully when the Autobots show up and brutally murder them.

What?
Yeah. The Decepticons aren't apparently doing anything, then the Autobots show up, the Decepticons run for their goddamn lives, and the Autobots hunt them down and brutally murder them. It's kind of weird.

Why is the U.S. military helping them?
Supposedly to help keep the Transformers a secret from the public. Although since the climax of the last film was a massive firefight involving 50-foot robots and took place over five miles of downtown Los Angeles and the beginning of this film wrecks several miles of Shanghai, China, they seem to be incredibly shitty at their job.

How does the U.S. military help them?
Well, not at all, actually. They just kind of come along with guns and stuff, and act like they're going to help, but the Autobots do all the work.

Why is the U.S. military in this movie at all, then?
Because Michael Bay has a huge erection for jets and tanks and aircraft carriers and considers giant robots only a necessary evil for the film. At least 15 full minutes of the film's 150-minute run time is nothing but footage of jets and tanks and planes without any robots or actual action whatsoever.

How is Sam Witwicky dragged back into the fight?
Well, he finds a fragment of the Allspark shard. You know, the Allspark that he spent all last movie being told he shouldn't give to Megatron, but when he gave it to Megatron, it killed Megatron. That one. Anyways, the shard makes the Beef see symbols and act like more of an spaz than usual.

So the Decepticons want the shard? Why?
Uh... to bring Megatron back to life?

What?
That's what they said.

But the Allspark killed Megatron in the first movie.
Yes.

...and now it can also bring him back to life.
It's very powerful, this Allspark.

Uh-huh. So what's their plan to get it?
They send a small R/C car who talks like Joe Pesci in Casino to get it.

Shouldn't they have sent Starscream or somebody?
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

getmouthy 06-28-2009 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 16006939)
One of the most entertaining reviews I've read in the past few years :thumbsup



http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/906239997
Ebert is decent at giving reviews and to be honest, Michael Bay's movies are usually crap wrapped around a killer package.

He can make ANYTHING look visually stunning but that's where the creativity stops.

Armageddon, Pearl harbor, Bad Boys II, e.t.c. :2 cents:

He's not gonna win an Oscar anytime soon, but almost every movie he does breaks 100 mil at the box office, which keeps Hollywood happy

psili 06-28-2009 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 16006963)
Quite frankly, this is a movie for an audience whose mere existence is a strong argument for the worldwide implementation of a radical eugenics program.
Haven't seen the flick, and really dig the idea of implementing controls on human procreation... but really, wouldn't that pretty much kill off the population that throws down a credit card for such obviously contrived videos of "Hi. My name's Barbie. And I'm a virgin getting ready to be fucked by 20 dudes." ?

Kill the dumb, who then to market to?
Unless Danica McKellar's going porno, as I'd pay to watch that shit if she could learn me some good maths. Or something.

JamesK 06-28-2009 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 16006963)
No, this movie is for people who don't mind being treated like mentally handicapped, ADHD-ridden six year olds. People who wouldn't recognize a coherent story if it walked up to them and hit them in the face with a brick. People who have nightly fantasies about all-you-can-eat buffets at the McDonalds. People who, after watching Idiocracy, wondered when the movie "Ass" would open, filled with exuberant anticipation.

Quite frankly, this is a movie for an audience whose mere existence is a strong argument for the worldwide implementation of a radical eugenics program.

But that's just my humble opinion, of course :glugglug
:1orglaugh

I'm going to pass on this movie after reading all the comments on GFY. I didn't really like the first one either, but didn't expect any better.

PornMD 06-28-2009 03:56 PM
I have a question: Was the 1st one any good by many accounts? The moment I heard Michael Bay I thought Pearl Harbor which meant instaskip for anything else he makes. Megan Fox could get lubed up and fucked by giant robot cock and I'd still have no urge to see either the 1st or 2nd. I'm just baffled at why this 2nd one is SO popular...I mean you realize that by the end of today it's expected to have made over $200 MILLION? 5 fuckin' days! Like already in the top 100 highest grossing movies of all time in 5 days for what seems to be such a shitty movie by what everyone's been saying...I just don't get it. I don't see how anyone was EXPECTING to like this movie. *shrug*

seeandsee 06-28-2009 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 16006939)
One of the most entertaining reviews I've read in the past few years :thumbsup



http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/906239997
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

CaptainHowdy 06-28-2009 04:08 PM
Funny I never understood what was going on the first Transformer movie... still worth checking out!

BVF 06-28-2009 04:13 PM
I watched a bootleg DVD of it and I couldn't keep up with it. The brunette a gorgeous. I'd marry her

$5 submissions 06-28-2009 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmouthy (Post 16008830)

He's not gonna win an Oscar anytime soon, but almost every movie he does breaks 100 mil at the box office, which keeps Hollywood happy
True. Transformers 2 just broke the $300 million mark.

woj 06-28-2009 04:20 PM
it didn't really look very appealing to begin with... so no huge surprise that reviews it's getting are bad...

CyberHustler 06-28-2009 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvee (Post 16007028)
I thought the following 'review' was more entertaining than the movie

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/...ers_2_faqs.php


Are there honestly 46 new Transformers in the movie?
I have no fucking clue. It's impossible to tell most of them apart except for Optimus and the Racist Twins (there's another yellow Autobot who I constantly thought was Bumblebee). There could be 46, or there could be 12. I honestly would believe 12 if someone had said that.

What is the status of the Transformers at the beginning of the film?
The Autobots have joined the military to hunt down the Decepticons. We're told the Decepticons are "doing things," but they appear to be hiding peacefully when the Autobots show up and brutally murder them.

What?
Yeah. The Decepticons aren't apparently doing anything, then the Autobots show up, the Decepticons run for their goddamn lives, and the Autobots hunt them down and brutally murder them. It's kind of weird.

Why is the U.S. military helping them?
Supposedly to help keep the Transformers a secret from the public. Although since the climax of the last film was a massive firefight involving 50-foot robots and took place over five miles of downtown Los Angeles and the beginning of this film wrecks several miles of Shanghai, China, they seem to be incredibly shitty at their job.

How does the U.S. military help them?
Well, not at all, actually. They just kind of come along with guns and stuff, and act like they're going to help, but the Autobots do all the work.

Why is the U.S. military in this movie at all, then?
Because Michael Bay has a huge erection for jets and tanks and aircraft carriers and considers giant robots only a necessary evil for the film. At least 15 full minutes of the film's 150-minute run time is nothing but footage of jets and tanks and planes without any robots or actual action whatsoever.

How is Sam Witwicky dragged back into the fight?
Well, he finds a fragment of the Allspark shard. You know, the Allspark that he spent all last movie being told he shouldn't give to Megatron, but when he gave it to Megatron, it killed Megatron. That one. Anyways, the shard makes the Beef see symbols and act like more of an spaz than usual.

So the Decepticons want the shard? Why?
Uh... to bring Megatron back to life?

What?
That's what they said.

But the Allspark killed Megatron in the first movie.
Yes.

...and now it can also bring him back to life.
It's very powerful, this Allspark.

Uh-huh. So what's their plan to get it?
They send a small R/C car who talks like Joe Pesci in Casino to get it.

Shouldn't they have sent Starscream or somebody?
You guys should read the rest, it's funny as all hell...

WinstonTriplexcash 06-28-2009 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberHustler (Post 16009057)
You guys should read the rest, it's funny as all hell...
Hahaha, thats so true

dig420 06-28-2009 10:21 PM
I took a date to see this movie. We both had to use the restroom at the same time, which turned out to be about five minutes before the end of the movie. Neither of us were upset at missing the ending.

Seriously... if you're not an 11 yr old transformers junkie, there is nothing in this movie for you at all.

MediaGuy 06-28-2009 10:23 PM
The Egypt parts look fucking amazing.

Roger Ebert should maybe read this thread:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...i ant+octopus

Trash will never die...

:D

NaughtyRob 06-28-2009 10:38 PM
Just watched it tonight, it rocked. Very entertaining.

Neon Dollars Daniel 06-29-2009 02:21 AM
Ebert liked the first one, so he can enjoy a dumb action movie. I cannot judge the new one as I haven't seen it and will not rush to the cinema after these reviews, but will probably watch it at some point.

SGS 06-29-2009 02:44 AM
My eight year old thought it was crap and I would have rather had my eyes poked out with a stick and spent the evening is casulty.

Mr.Right - Banned For Life 06-29-2009 02:49 AM
nice review

sexandcash 06-29-2009 05:23 AM
the review is completely hysterical....oh Rogert Ebert, you still haven't lost your quick wit....

pornguy 06-29-2009 05:26 AM
I enjoyed the movie. and that IDIOT has said some bad things about some great movies.


If you let someone like him decide for you. then you should not bother trying to say that you have a personality. It comes down to what you like in a movie.

I enjoyed it on many more levels than just the movie it self. It brings back memories of the cartoon when I was a kid, it was interesting to see the CGI work done on on the movie, and to see how well the actors were able to interact with something that was simply not there.

rock-reed 06-29-2009 05:47 AM
Visually---it looks pretty good.

Not much story...

Overall---I didn't like it... Its not my kind of movie.

I prefer a story over action.

I did not highly like the first one either.

But for pure mindless-entertainment... they are good.

Give me "The Hangover" any day.

rock-reed 06-29-2009 05:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PornMD (Post 16008923)
I have a question: Was the 1st one any good by many accounts? The moment I heard Michael Bay I thought Pearl Harbor which meant instaskip for anything else he makes. Megan Fox could get lubed up and fucked by giant robot cock and I'd still have no urge to see either the 1st or 2nd. I'm just baffled at why this 2nd one is SO popular...I mean you realize that by the end of today it's expected to have made over $200 MILLION? 5 fuckin' days! Like already in the top 100 highest grossing movies of all time in 5 days for what seems to be such a shitty movie by what everyone's been saying...I just don't get it. I don't see how anyone was EXPECTING to like this movie. *shrug*
The Hype machine and true IDIOCRACY is upon us.

Pipecrew 06-29-2009 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam X (Post 16006946)
My ex dated Michael Bay, lol, we texted him with a decent review after the movie as he
was curious what we thought.
I read a while back that he's rumored to have a giant schlong. Must be nice following that guy ;)

BradM 06-29-2009 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine (Post 16006963)
No, this movie is for people who don't mind being treated like mentally handicapped, ADHD-ridden six year olds. People who wouldn't recognize a coherent story if it walked up to them and hit them in the face with a brick. People who have nightly fantasies about all-you-can-eat buffets at the McDonalds. People who, after watching Idiocracy, wondered when the movie "Ass" would open, filled with exuberant anticipation.

Quite frankly, this is a movie for an audience whose mere existence is a strong argument for the worldwide implementation of a radical eugenics program.

But that's just my humble opinion, of course :glugglug
That's most of America.

dready 06-29-2009 08:44 AM
I enjoyed the meaningless action scenes, but the story / dialogue caused me near physical pain.

gornyhuy 06-29-2009 08:45 AM
My kids are currently watching the original cartoon on DVD - just came out this month. Good stuff.

Deesnuts 06-29-2009 09:01 AM
i thought it was pretty good....fuck u ebert

jesse_adultdatingdollars 06-29-2009 09:17 AM
movie seems ok

Andy CHOOPA 06-29-2009 11:36 AM
Lol he was fired up

Scott McD 06-29-2009 12:09 PM
I had a funny conversation about an hour ago with someone. We were talking about Transformers 2. He went to see it and said it was good.

I said i've heard it's fucking shit. Then i mentioned the fact i had still to see Terminator Salvation, to which he replied "it's got good effects but a shit story".


I was thinking "hmmm, and i take it Transformers had a great story did it ??" :1orglaugh


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123