If anyone needs a non-fan's opinion as to why a Transformers movie stinks, then the film critic's review is the place to go. It's pretty much the best, public, objective view-point of these movies.

Movie critics are anything but objective. They too have their preferences.

Anymore I don't pay any attention to critics. They seem to forget that genre movies built Hollywood. It doesn't have to be highbrow art to be a good time.

Anymore I don't pay any attention to critics. They seem to forget that genre movies built Hollywood. It doesn't have to be highbrow art to be a good time.

 

Although I agree people should form their own opinions of the movie, critics do hold a greater knowledge about movies than the general audience (well I hope they do). Like any good critic they should have a expansive taste in movies and probably seen all the classics to the big blockbusters. Critics are essentially movie buffs. People who watch tons of movies usually can spot out the tropes and visual cues in movies. So it is probably harder to impress critics then the everyday movie goer. Not only that, GOOD critics can write reviews that are not just fan rants or praises of a movie.

 

I mean I dodged several movies due to critics. Knowing, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four would be some examples.

 

What I am saying, yes form your opinions but do not knock down critics as pretentious movie snobs. Most might be a little jaded, but they know that it can be done better.

ROTF being a bad film has nothing to do with reviewers being "crotchety" or "negative."

 

There a simple, ways to determine whether a movie is good or not.

 

Have the characters had to go through some kind of evolution? Does the core of the plot make sense? Is it paced well? Does it illicit some emotional response? Are the actors' performances reflective of their characters and arcs, etc...

 

...and that's ignoring technical aspects like cinematography, editing, etc...

 

What ROTF did well, it did very well, i.e., 75% of the humor, the plot pacing of the first half, the CGI, 75% of the fight scenes, actor chemisty, etc...

 

What it was lacking in was just terrible, i.e., the never ending second half of movie traipsing through the desert, the twins humor being simultaneously too juvenile and too adult, and the almost complete lack of a final coherent plot.

 

Did I enjoy it? Yes. There's very little Transformers media that will be released that I won't enjoy on some level.

 

Was it a sound film? A good film? Dear god, no.

Something which many people are missing is the fact that all of these mechanisms of film production, cinematography, coreography etc etc is there TO DO A JOB. It is in place to HELP ACHIEVE SOMETHING.

 

It is not THE MOVIE. The movie is the product of many factors coming together. Some movies have appalling characteristics and are still awesomely great. Think of the likes of "The Thing" by todays standards the effects are laughable, but i never laugh. It is a classic film.

 

Transformers is an awesome movie, for what it is and what it was set out to be. The first thing you should consider when the credits are rolling is "Did i enjoy the movie" at the end of the day all other considerations are secondary and ultimately a little futile.

 

Most negative reviews of ROTF are actually reviews of Michael Bay himself. They dont like this movies and his style, so i ask, why bother reviewing his movies, i could have written the reviews myself before viewing ROTF.

 

Im a bit of a die hard fan of Transformers and am probably biased in my own review, my girlfriend however is not and she loved it. Found the action great and the comedy very good also... a true reflection of a movie comes always from a neutral.

I have a rule. I dont read critics garbage until after Ive seen the movie that way i wont let there useless rants taint my movie going experience. If I were a critic Id give it ***1/2 stars.

Y'know what, lemme tell you something about critics: 50% of them LOVED Transformers 1. Even "crotchety" and "snobbish" Robert Ebert. They appreciated it for what it was, a brainless, but visually entertaining spectacle. So arguments about "critics do not have the pulse of the masses" and "they're just criticizing Michael Bay" do not hold water at all, because on some level they've appreciated Bay's previous work immensely.

 

Like what others have said before me, critics are there to analyse a movie to tell you why it made your brain hurt, not to foster their opinions on you. When everything's said and done, one critique is just one opinion by one person. Critics have differing opinions on different movies. But when there's a glaring consensus among dozens and hundreds of them, it gives you a rough picture of how good or horrendous a movie is, given different people's standards. It's like when you buy a pair of jeans and you ask your friends, "does it make me look fat?" and 80% of the responses you get is "hell yeah, step aside Fatzilla!" then you know that maybe, just maybe, you should put that Twinkie down.

 

But of course, now you're gonna say, "but I liked the movie, doesn't my opinion count?" Sure it does. Hell, every cent you put in Michael Bay's pocket is a thumbs up for him and his movie, no matter how terrible everyone else thinks it is. The difference between you and the critic, the critic has to tell us why he or she loved or hated something, in full detail, every week, in a way that is both informative and entertaining, otherwise he won't get food on the table. You just have to fork over your cash and watch mindlessly.