What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
671 Comments
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 06/23/2009, -78/+586If you're watching a transformers flick and expecting it to be the pinnacle of compelling dialog and artistic storytelling then you're going into it with unrealistic expectations.
- inactive, on 06/23/2009, -41/+333Know why I saw the first one, and will see the second one?
Giant robots fighting. - fuzzyllama, on 06/23/2009, -10/+225Looks like he's not the only one: http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/3689/transf ...
I like the title of this article... "Insert Earplugs and just look at Megan Fox" I'll digg that.
"...dazzles the eye, numbs the mind and may cause deafness in some cases. Did I mention to bring along some Excedrin?" — Lou Lumenick, New York Post
"Fanboys will no doubt love it, but for the uninitiated it's loud, tedious and, at 147 minutes, way too long." — Ray Bennett, Hollywood Reporter
"This sequel to the clever and funny first Transformers not only is disappointing, it will give most people a throbbing case of metal overload." — Claudia Puig, USA Today - kingnova, on 06/23/2009, -26/+235I expect to see some good action scenes of robots fighting. I expect many of those scenes to raise the bar from the last movie.
Beyond that, I expect the story to make no sense (like the last one), the acting to be wooden (like the last one) and for many lines to be unintentionally funny (like the last one).
Who goes to a Transformers movie expecting anything beyond that? - Maxjan, on 06/23/2009, -7/+208Until this moment I thought that same exact thing. But how many times can we be expected to just fork over the cash and not get at least some story and not a 147 minute Linkin Park music video with robots?
- fluidfoundation, on 06/23/2009, -7/+178He could have been watching GI JOE by accident.
- banderwocky, on 06/23/2009, -66/+224People seriously thought the first one was good? Laughable. I won't waste money on this piece of crap either.
- shenerd, on 06/29/2009, -73/+210Didn't want to see the first one, have no interest in seeing this one.
- sodbustin, on 06/23/2009, -2/+124The problem is that a lot of reviewers (even Ebert) actually liked the first one. This is not simply a case of "Michael Bay = Bad Review"
- zetsurin, on 06/23/2009, -8/+119My review: it sucked, in a kind of 'are you sure this wasn't directed by George Lucas?' kind of way, complete with Jar Jar level annoying characters stealing significant screen time, along with endless 'do you love me?' type 'romantic' scenes guaranteed to get even glass eyes rolling. Avoid. Even if you are the world's biggest TF fan, still avoid!
- Nydendarin, on 06/23/2009, -26/+134Giant Robots and Boobies, that's why I'm going. Why else would you?
- pingveno, on 06/23/2009, -12/+111FTA
"The dialog of the Autobots, Deceptibots and Otherbots is meaningless word flap."
At first I read that as being "meaningless word fap." Now that would be interesting. Linguistic masturbation? - gwhardyiv, on 06/23/2009, -0/+90I can assure you that Roger Ebert didn't expect this movie to be the "pinnacle of compelling dialog and artistic storytelling." He's been doing this for a while now. He knows how to manage his expectations.
- Hetman, on 06/23/2009, -6/+96I agree with that statment. However from the reviews it sounds like even the explosion and fight scence are boring.
- Falldog, on 06/23/2009, -6/+90There were giant robots fighting? I thought a wood chipper was pumping out metal shards two feet in front of a shaky cam.
- Jonmad17, on 06/23/2009, -2/+83He actually liked the first one too. He gave it 3/4 stars. The second must be really terrible to receive the one star. It also shows that even Roger Ebert can enjoy mindless action if done well and is entertaining. He isn't the type of pretentious critic that will condemn anything with Michael Bay's name on it.
- IanRulez, on 06/23/2009, -2/+75I hate this sort of remark. Die Hard didn't have "compelling dialog and artistic storytelling" but it was still a great action flick. Much better than any Michael Bay movie.
You can have great action, big set pieces, and hot ass while maintaining an entertaining story.
Why else would we watch a movie? - STBAT25, on 06/23/2009, -14/+86Ebert is awesome. His book "Your Movie Sucks" is great and has a lot of great disses in it.
- nesagwa, on 06/23/2009, -10/+80"This sequel to the clever and funny first Transformers not only is disappointing"
"This sequel to the clever and funny first Transformers"
"clever and funny first Transformers"
"clever and funny"
There was nothing clever nor funny about that pile of *****. - CapeKid, on 06/23/2009, -1/+70I never get this excuse.
You can have both good dialogue and good action in an action movie. At the very least, the dialogue shouldn't detract from the movie. Dark Knight, The Matrix, Terminator I and II, Iron Man, Star Trek, and Saving Private Ryan all serve their action with their plotlines. Then there are popcorn movies that may not have the strongest dialogue, but give you enough of the action to make up for it, many would argue that Sin City, Kill Bill Vol. I and II, Die Hard fall into the category.
Why should an audience be expected to sit through robot pee jokes, or lame soldier characters, or rampant ebay product placement to get to what they came to see? Watch Transformers again, don't fast forward through parts, it is about 10:1 ratio of crap to robots fighting.
So what did I expect? To not have the worst dialogue and plotlines in movie history shoved down my throat just to make me feel some degree of relief when Shia LaBeouf stopped talking about ancient runes and encoded audio messages and I could finally watch some damn robots punch each other in the face. If this movie was called "Robot Fights" instead of "Transformers" it would have been universally panned, but nostalgia and hype can make people enjoy anything. - Falldog, on 06/23/2009, -1/+69Google Megan Fox, save $9
- LordBalderdash, on 06/23/2009, -3/+69considering what passes for big-budget sci-fi these days "knowing" was a ***** masterpiece.
- shenerd, on 06/29/2009, -15/+78I like to read movie reviews. The fact that Roger Ebert was panning Transformers 2 made it all the sweeter.
- leif777, on 06/23/2009, -1/+59Stay home and have sex
- kingnova, on 06/23/2009, -26/+83And yet you seek out a story about the movie, so you can comment?
Hmmm - vism, on 06/23/2009, -0/+56His review for the first movie: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic ...
Quite a contrast. - CoD4, on 06/23/2009, -6/+61Nice try, roger
- jfulls, on 06/23/2009, -9/+62My girlfriend is dragging me to see this at midnight tonight...
How much weed do I need to smoke? - luther70, on 06/23/2009, -16/+64I dont know if I'll ever trust Ebert after saying "knowing" was one the best SciFi movies he seen.
- jsrduck, on 06/23/2009, -1/+48"Faust made a better deal"
Awesome line. - DirtPile, on 06/23/2009, -7/+51YOU SHUT YOUR WHOLE MOUTH WHEN MEGAN FOX'S BREASTS ARE ACTING
/s - rolfeman02, on 06/24/2009, -0/+41My two cents: I was able to see it last night through an advanced screening.
I have to agree with every point ebert brings up.
The plot is dismal and totally filled with holes and incomplete subplots.
The comedy feels VERY forced (it's funny stuff..in fact, there are a few GREAT one liners, you just wonder why the hell they put some of it in there). Characters were introduced into the movie simply to make a funny statement and they had nothing to do with whats going on.
I still don;t understand what the point of shia going off to college is or why his roommate is even in the movie.
I feel like the movie was rushed into production simply because they could get away with it.
The entire movie is just robots fighting each other(which is what people asked for i guess) with some human characters thrown in.
The CGI was actually pretty disappointing.
Soundtrack, lame.
The theater was cold
Megan fox is pretty hot in the movie, (and while not a bad thing,) i felt like the only reason she was even in the movie is so they could do MANY MANY gratuitous slow motion shots of her running away from an explosion.
In conclusion, if you are just interested in seeing megan fox's ass and robots fighting robots, then this movie is for you. Don't go for plot, cgi, sound, or especially acting. From waiting in line at the IMAX to waiting until it comes out on PBS, I would give this a Pay-per-View rating. - joejitsu, on 06/23/2009, -21/+61Its not fair that Michael Bay keeps on making movies.
- legendxx, on 06/23/2009, -0/+40Agreed. CGI circle jerk.. nothing to see here.
- DirtPile, on 06/23/2009, -1/+38Hey, Kid, stop the reviewin'. I'm a movie.
- FrEaK40, on 06/23/2009, -0/+36enough for a threesome
- scoot2006, on 06/23/2009, -4/+38"...although never in the history of science fiction has an alien been harmed by gunfire."
I remember this scene in Independence Day when they shoot the alien through the glass at Area 51.
Yes, I know, I'm a smart ass and I understand his point.. Just sayin' though. - inactive, on 06/23/2009, -1/+32What, news from the "no *****" department?
Marketing plays on nostalgia are pretty successful in the end. The movie's probably a big ball of ***** in reality, but everyone will go see it anyway going "oooh!" and "ahhh!!" whenever they see their favs on screen.
Hell, there's a reason why GI Joe is coming out now. That demographic is now old enough to have kids, to take their families "this is the stuff *I* liked as a kid!" as your kid goes "WTF is this?"
That pretty much sums it up. - EarlOfLade, on 06/24/2009, -2/+32It's so bad I won't even pirate it!
Would be a waste of perfectly good bandwidth! - dOOBiEx213, on 06/23/2009, -4/+33The first Transformers movie was good, except for the parts with humans.
- CoD4, on 06/23/2009, -2/+30Yahztzee could make a lot more money by doing movie reviews
- DirtPile, on 06/23/2009, -8/+36Maybe he should start making apostrophes.
- FishHammer, on 06/23/2009, -8/+36It's still going to make millions.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 06/23/2009, -0/+27Sooped?!
- inactive, on 06/23/2009, -11/+38As long as people keep paying for this *****, they'll keep churning it out. Thanks, Transformers fanboys, for contributing to the cycle. You're why "I Am Legend" sucked so hard.
- duggtodeath, on 06/24/2009, -0/+27No no no no no no no no no
- inactive, on 06/23/2009, -3/+30I was going to take issue with clever and funny as well. Clever to who? A retarded 7 year old who currently was only allowed to read the back of cereal boxes?
- ericthesalmon, on 06/24/2009, -2/+28Clever to readers of USA Today.
- camaroz06, on 06/23/2009, -1/+25I think the rampant product placement is going to be keeping me away from this movie even though I love popcorn action flicks and am a TF fan.
- MisterFurious, on 06/23/2009, -10/+33Not Megan Fox?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 683 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is