I'm a proud Brainiac

Hi Roger,

I liked both your review and the Transformers movie. The movie was terrible, it had plot holes, horrible acting was too long AND I walked out of it loving, thinking it was awesome and with a big smile on my face.

One problem I see is an relatively recent (last 5-10 years) cultural shift where everything is my way or the highway, music, politics, food, TV, what have you...it's no longer possible to disagree politely, any discussion is a personal attack on one's deeply held beliefs and it is perfectly acceptable to lose one's mind over the perceived slights.

I think that is terrible but it is what I have observed.

Now, is there a link to pre-order tickets to Transformers 3?

PS The 2012 trailer made me laugh at the absurdity and actually made me intrigued to go see it. :)

This is now endemic in society: You have to choose sides, and once you do you must deprecate the other side regardless of reason or logic. We see it in politics. We see it in cola wars. We see it in PC vs Mac wars. And in recent years, perhaps since the publicizing of the Top Movies of the week on the news, we have seen this polarization in the movie world. It's no longer enough to like a movie, you now must criticize anyone who makes a choice that disagrees with yours.

So no longer is it a matter of opinion, it's a matter of right versus wrong. People have become so self-doubting, they cannot stand it when someone else has a different opinion about a movie they like. Unable to admit they might be wrong, it means that de facto the other person has to be wrong. And this being the Web age, best to tell the world that the other person is wrong.

De gustibus non est disputandum. I wish people would accept that there is no disputing taste. If you liked Transformers 2, good for you. No need to run others down just to validate your own opinion. Have the courage of your convictions and don't let the opinions of others disturb you. You just look like you are doubting yourself when you lash out at dissenters.

I appreciate you including in your definition of a critic another opinion against which to evaluate their own. As a student, I want to defer to the opinions of experts--critics--too often. I derive much satisfaction when I completely disagree with your assessment of a movie, because then at least I know I'm using my own critical faculties and not just absorbing those of other people.

Thanks for teaching your readers how to watch and consider movies.

This is precisely why you will always be *Uncle Roger* in my mind. And for your UK readers, no that is not at all creepy.

What disturbs me is when I'm specifically told that I know too much about movies, have "studied" them, go into them "too deep," am always looking for things the average person doesn't care about, am always mentioning things like editing or cinematography, and am forever comparing films to other films.

I've heard this before, and so many times too. Even people I'm very close with have told this to me before, that I "analyze to much" and "don't enjoy enough." But if I don't enjoy it, don't I have the right to assess why I didn't to begin with?

I've gotten into the habit this past year of writing movie reviews for my own references, and even for friends to drop by here and there to read. Doing so, I feel more and more clearheaded with every movie I see; it's interesting to see how my writing style and thought processes progress, but most importantly, it keeps me well-grounded in how I feel about a movie.

Ironically, I wrote a little bit on "Music and Lyrics" awhile back, and a internet lurker managed to come across the entry and wrote:

and thats why you shouldnt read movie reviews by school kids

Because I'd stated that I am a student (undergrad, actually), the commentator assumed that I had no credentials, no authority, and dismissed me with that. It's a bit of a converse to what you get, but I feel that people tend to dismiss reviews regardless of the points actually made: everything is "you're either agreeing with me or not" sort of mentality, and it results in ample discussion and food-for-thought not coming to fruition.

It's a shame, really. Even if I believe they are wrong, I'd at least hope they'd throw a riper tomato with more thought. But I guess that's just hoping.

Ebert: Nobody on the net knows how young you are unless you tell them. Keep them guessing and they won't jump to conclusions about your opinions. The internet is ideally a perfect democracy. Quality rises. I remember when James Berardinalli first appeared. Just this guy in New Jersey publishing his reviews. We had lunch in Philly once. Well, he still has the day job, but today he is one of the most-read critics in America.

Roger, speaking as someone who grew up on the original Tranformers cartoon, unwound many a weekend in my teens enjoying Mainframe's pretty good CGI follow up beast wars, and still occasionally indulges in buying one of the toys as a sort of "take that" to a childhood that afforded me very few of them... as one who, as a boy, upon seeing the animated movie, bauled out "THEY KILLED OPTIMUS PRIME, THE ASSHOLES!" (my first true cuss) and who has even gone out of his way to catch the Japanese editions of the cartoon when there was none on this side of the ocean, who's inner child experienced a squeal of joy when he heard the original voice of Optimus would supply those tones for the movie-- in short, a fanboy:

You are right. The first movie barely passes and the second is a soulless husk of something I loved in my childhood.

More than that-- even when I disagree with you (I'm sorry, Roger, Knowing? Not a good movie)... you state your opinion well, and anyone demeaning you as "not getting it" or being "too smart for your own good" needs a head check.

I think part of it is, our favorite art becomes part of our identity. Much as we say, "He bumped into me" when someone hits our car, when someone "disses" a movie we've enjoyed... well, it's far too easy to take it as a personal affront.

As to matters of taste and the facts of something being great... I promise, I'll get back to you on that, sir. This is something I've been thinking on lately.

Ebert: My guess is, when someone says, "I loved those toys," what they mean is they loved the zone of imagination the toys helped them enter, and the qualities they invested in the toys. They didn't pour lighter fluid on their toys and melt them, or use one to pound on another. The movies don't love the robots.

this from the man who gave YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN 3 stars?

kidding roge

Seems like the problem here, Roger, is that everyone thinks they are educated and/or intelligent. This holds especially true of young people. At least it certainly did for me until I left college for the real world!

When you stamp your review as "intelligent" or "evolved", you are implying that those who think otherwise may not be either of those. That doesn't compute for anyone who doesn't agree. And that's when it becomes easy to point at consensus and say "the mob agrees with me".

A theory: this is why liberals are tagged as elitists in the States. I believe many are a little too eager to cite their big education, almost as if it means their opinions must be self-evidently correct. I know where Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Bill Maher went to school. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, George F Will? No clue. Everyone under the sun knows that Obama has a Harvard law degree; I bet about half that many know Bush has a Harvard MBA.

For the record, I haven't seen and won't see Transformers. Looks awful.:
Ebert: George Will: Trinity (Conn.), Oxford, Princeton. Bill O'Reilly: Marist, University of London, MA Boston, MA Harvard. Glenn Beck: College limited to one class at Princeton.

I remember when John Mayer's second album, Heavier Things, debuted at #1, he said in an interview (which i can't find at the moment) that the high sales didn't mean Heavier Things was good, it meant his first record was good and people went out to buy his new one on the back of that. Unfortunately, this kind of logic seems to have gone amiss amongst the powers that be in Hollywood.

The execs and media folks defending Transformers seem to be constantly citing the box office figures as a sign that 'this is what the audiences want' but they fail to note that you pay for a film before you see it, not after. So there is no evidence that Transformers is actually what people want.

I, like you, have never quite understood the argument "i just want something mindless and fun" for watching a bad film. Partly, that's because i don't find bad films fun, but just bad. But mostly it's because light, mindless and fun films don't have to be bad films. Iron Man could hardly be said to cause great strain on the brain, but it is a good film, it is funny, full of action and explosions and it is good.

I am 23 years old and i am proud that i enjoy the films of Werner Herzog, the novels of Salman Rushdie and the music of Tom Waits. Because art that is difficult is often art that is rewarding and i simply don't understand why anyone would want to settle for Transformers when there is such a depth of riches in the world of cinema that can bring so much joy.

Sorry, my point was not that those guys don't have big education - it doesn't surprise me that they do (though I can't imagine O'Reilly at Harvard) - but that they don't hang the degree on the wall and point at it every time they argue something.

Anyway, really? Glenn Beck at Princeton? I assume that was a joke? Either way, you wonder at what point the Ivy League mystique will disappear. I've studied in the US and abroad, and found the curriculum here in Australia pretty difficult. And I hear that the premiere Asian universities, particularly in Japan and Korea, are worlds in front of the West in terms of rigour.

Ebert: One semester at Princeton of theology.

hi Roger,
so on comment to your review, unlike others i will not call you some dumb old fart that like slow romantic dramas, or what ever anyone has said in response to your review. Honestly I don't care what you think about this movie, though it is much to long. I just want to see stuff get blown up, when enter a movie like this most people know what their going to get, some loud dumb action piece of garbage movie. And thats what I wanted. Michael Bay delivers on that, what I didn't want was a butt load of boring story. I mean it's Transformers for heaven's sake, I don't really care about a big robot. While I think you are correct on a few things i believe that if a sequel movie lives up to the first it's if it doesnt then it's bad and in the case of Bad Boys 2 it's just bad.
William

I am surprised that a critic has to defend being critical. Especially of a movie about transforming robots and their relationships. Actually if it was about relationships that would be interesting. Instead it is just about robots smashing into things. That isn't so good.

Hey Ebert,

I forgot to add: the irony of why I've come to love and learn to assess films stems from the first time I can remember reading your review for "The Lord of the Ring: Return of the King" online. LOTR was a huge film event for me, and I remember being severely disappointed that you denied ROTK "it's rightful four star" rating. Boy was I mad, especially when I saw how you gave "Master and Commander" a four star rating when I had been so bored watching it in theaters.

I was so peeved, I huffed and puffed to myself "OH NO YOU DIDN'T" and "YOU'RE A JERK" and looked at your star ratings for the first two LOTR films. I was even more appalled: 3 stars, for both of them?? Sure, I thought, maybe that was acceptable for "The Two Towers," but for "Fellowship of the Ring" ?! That was unacceptable!

From that day on, I formed a habit of going through your movie archives to see what star ratings you'd given to my favorite movies; this turned into a weekly reading of the movies you'd reviewed in addition. What first started out as an upset obsession slowly turned into a learning process, and it's something I've found to be one of the most beneficial lessons I've learned. I'm still learning, but as my 11th grade English responded to one of my angst ridden self-reflection essays, "You'll never stop learning. Life is learning, no matter how old you get." So I'll keep at it, and I thank you for lighting my until-then-unrealized passion for film six years back.

Ebert: Take a little credit. You went looking for that light.

Your article brings to mind how I heard Christopher Hitchens once described a well known politician:

"He's unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently proud of all these things."

What I find fascinating (and more than a little disheartening) is the idea that someone who is curious, educated, cultured, or intelligent is somehow lacking, that they are not ordinary, they are to be viewed with suspicion. And not only suspicion of these traits, but holding that the opposite--willful ignorance--is a virtue.

At the heart of this idea, I've found, rests a certain level of self-consciousness, or perhaps insecurity. Admitting someone is stronger, faster, more talented than you, etc, isn't really given a second thought.

But saying someone is smarter than you, that seems to be quite different. People may admit that, in general, there are people smarter than they are, but when saying a person they know or interact with is smarter, more insightful, more creative, etc, is a different proposition all together. The argument is: "After all, I have my opinion, but no one can have a better opinion than me because all opinions are equal." It seems it's alright to be able to beat someone, but not alright to out-think someone.

This phenomena is nothing new, but it seems to be more prevalent in the United States than in many other countries. As a child of immigrant parents, I've always found a little odd that this is the attitude so often found by those who are the first to claim that America is the best country in the world. I haven't met a lot of people who've moved to the United States in hopes that their children will become uncultured, uneducated, inarticulate and incurious. And I don't know how great a country it would be if there weren't a whole bunch of people--smart, cultured, educated, and curious people--striving to do what they do best.

But, then again, I'm probably just one of those elitists, or liberals, or liberal elitists, and my opinion should be looked at with suspicion and possibly contempt.

Ebert: As I've said before, I have NEVER had an immigrant taxi driver in Chicago (invariably African, Indian, Middle Eastern) who was not tuned to NPR. Make of it what you choose.

I haven't seen the current Transformers. Nor the last or the last to last nor would like to see any of them. Nor seen any film in the last four months. I decided having seen about half of the first Great 100 plus a goodly number of others one reaches a point of satiation for a person for whom films are not a way or a means of life( I was happy to leave my konked out "home theatre" in its current dis-repair).
But I think everyone needs to have a sense of mission and the makers of this kind of film have only the purpose to make bucks, which could be called a mission if one's family were starving or some sick person crying for medicine.
My addiction (the exact word, not it's cousin) to this blog, and the compulsion to plant a comment or two, persists.
My embarrasment to be identified as a brainiac is also ingrained and I use a series of masks---thank god I'm not celebrated or have to cater to the herds, like Mr Ebert. One of the dumbest books I'm reading is Dawkin's God Delusion, which might be like the film under review, as it emerges from the Condensed Works displayed above.

Re:2012

This is the first I've heard of the film; all I could think of while watching the trailer was the drunk from Hitchcock's the Birds: "It's the end of the world."

I don't think people have changed all that much over the years. We probably had just as many shallow movie lovers in the old days as we do now. Some of my friends fit into that category, which is fine. One of my friends thinks Will Ferrell's movies are brilliant and never seems to see anything else. That's the genre he likes and he's sticking to it. Now, Will F. has made me laugh plenty of times, but would I ever be able to limit myself to his particular brand forever? No, I wouldn't. Another friend will only talk about loud action movies, like X-Men and Transporter and Vin Diesel's latest. Now I like some of these movies too, but I'm convinced I like them for different reasons.

The thing is, these guys are all my age. They've had the same tastes forever and ever. If they had read one of your reviews when they were teenagers, what would they have done? Well, first of all they wouldn't have read your reviews or anyone else's, but let's suppose. They may have grumbled to each other and dismissed you, but they certainly wouldn't have written you in any way. Now with the instant communication of email and blog comment pages, 'everyone's a critic'. So, from the audience perspective, I think some of the opinion filters have been removed. Everyone can mass communicate their opinion and have semi-direct access to everyone else who is expressing their opinion. Parliament has become Hyde Park.

Now then, I do believe Movies have changed. Technology has made an enormous impact. Special effects are a reason that some people love movies. They want to see the giant robots, the Godzilla monsters, the wall of fire spilling over the horizon in an apocalyptic nightmare. Just seeing images like that are satisfying enough. However, I myself don't understand this sort of reasoning. For me, I've seen it all already. Yes yes, very impressive. That sure was a big wall of fire, or wall of water, or wall of dinosaur tail scattering a wall of tanks.

Those kinds of things only scratch the surface of my brain. If a movie wants to go deeper it needs to use a story. Only a story will make my mind sit up and take notice so that it signals me to pay attention, something is happening. Now, some would say that hugely expensive action sequences streaming past in hyper-kinetic style is certainly 'something happening'. Well, yes. Something is happening, but it's not happening to me. It's not even happening to the characters in the movie, who are just props. When a story is doing it's job, then I'm identifying with one of the characters on the screen. That means that whatever happens in the movie IS happening to me.

Stories don't have to be realistic to perform this task. I can identify with the characters in Star Wars (the originals) or Sigourney Weaver in Aliens. I can identify with Daniel Craig's first James Bond movie or Christian Bale in Batman Begins. All these characters are struggling towards something, they all have huge obstacles in their way. I want to see how they handle the moments. Do they rise up or fall down. These sorts of fantastical movies are really about our own lives. It doesn't matter if it's an international evil spy network or indestructible space alien or a gang of insane criminals. What is important is that there is an obstacle to be confronted. We all have obstacles in our way and challenges to meet. When the film maker is able to connect the characters fantastic challenges with the challenges of the audience you have an instant hook into the story. We want to know if the character can work it all out because we want to know if WE can work it all out.

For myself, I almost never read a review of a movie before I go see it. I don't read Roger Ebert so that I can decide if something intrigues me. But if I see a great movie I will almost invariable go to the website and read the review so that I might understand it better. You see, sometimes you don't know why a movie effects you the way that it does. Actually, I would say that most of time this is true. It's not our job as audience members to figure out the mechanics of the experience. Our job is simply to have the experience and if we're curious, we can try to understand it later. If we want to know the how and the why, we need experts to consult with. The critic gives reasons, and history and experience to a review. Remember that the choice of liking a movie is still completely up to you. The critic is simply giving you an insight into WHY you like or dislike it.

I saw Transformers 2 today and I have to admit that I hated it. This isn't really to complain about either your review or the meat of this separate post. However, having just seen it today in the U.S., I wanted to confirm that they specifically do identify Obama by name as the source of all the meddling directives from on-high. They say "The President," in most of the scenes, of course, but they make the connection in a single scene where they do say that President Obama is being evacuated to a safe location.

Ebert: Yeah, sure, he gets a safe place. What about the audience?

It is so strange that we live in a world where people can get so upset because someone else didn't like something. It reminds me of the scene in Silver City where Kris Kristofferson gives the speech about how advertising used to be - Best tasting beer, best truck in it's class and now it's all best selling beer or #1 selling truck. It's all about joining the club.

You know, I like many of your readers have followed your reviews for years, and I know that there are films that do not seem to be your cup of tea that I might like, and I take that into account when I read your reviews-- why can't or won't the transformer lovers do the same?

To continue the analogy between Transformers 2, as ably reviewed by Robot Chicken in above video and Richard Dawkins infantile God Delusion, one could argue on behalf of Michael that the explosives are not of malodour. Plain moronic is far superior to the vile and malicious variety of imbecility. Ofcourse I believe in the miracle of natural selection and not in a white bearded two legged kind of diety. Only in the Force within and without. Dawkins book was reminiscent of the fecal sequence in Slumdog---both are the expressions of the British mind , Elizabethan subspecie.

Ebert: And there you have it.

"What I believe is that all clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their lifetimes: Curious and teachable."

Amen. Which means that we who hated Transformers 2 are willing to listen and glean even a bit of insight from the reviewers who loved it. Mostly I've learned that contemporary American entertainment has reached a new low. When multiple dog humping jokes, a lack of coherent story, and even subtle racism (I'm referring to the Autobot twins) are deemed "entertainment," we need to rethink what entertains us. An excellent response, Mr. Ebert, and while our opinions of films don't always align, I hope to keep learning from someone who's seen a lot more films than I have.

Ebert: A correspondent to the Answer Man informed me that the twins were not blacks but only learned to speak that way on the internet. Say what? Alien robots are not real black people?

So important to be branded, to be born rich or smart or eight pounds? Why keep comparing? Shouldn't it be enough to be oneself and not someone else? One is lucky enough to be human and not a cat, which one could as easily have been? How our Dog longs to be a human being!!

"I envy the hell out of anyone who has gotten himself into Harvard..."...RE

So important to be branded, to be born rich or smart or eight pounds? Why keep comparing? Shouldn't it be enough to be oneself and not someone else? One is lucky enough to be human and not a cat, which one could as easily have been? How our Dog longs to be a human being!!

Dear Roger,

Thanks again.

The American dislike isn't so much against anything "educated" as much as it is for something else (that is thus associated with things "educated"). The distaste is for condescension. It's an allergy to almost any sort of condescension, but especially European condescension. Our heroes are often underdogs who are covered in dust and sweat, scarred on the outside and inside, with prides that might be easily hurt. I'm thinking of not only John Wayne, but also Rocky, and perhaps Indiana Jones (who is, by the way, a college professor). Thus, we have an appreciation for people of great authority who are "down to earth," and we have an allergic reaction to arrogance. At least, that's my take on it.

On a side note, I think your link above is mislabeled. It says that it's the trailer to the next Roland Emmerich film, but all I saw was the an ad for the 2012 Republican Presidential Campaign. The only things missing were the Gay spouse and the Muslim terrorist. (and a newly-resigning governor). Sorry. I had to go there.

I hope all is well.

Omer M

I am not disagreeing, or agreeing with you. I would just like to note one thing I noticed.

You reiterate Jared Diamond's question, "Why is education so undervalued and those who preach it considered arrogant or pretentious?"

Yet later you state, "So let's focus on those who seriously believe 'Transformers' is one of the year's best films. Are these people wrong? Yes. They are wrong."

Using education as a broad term, as most will accept your vast experience as significant substitution for "proper" education. It is often the natural human response to become defensive when one is told their opinion (being the result of their mental faculties) is wrong.

This seems, to me at least, to be the very heart of an "expert" being considered pretentious or arrogant.

As I said, it is not that I disagree with your stance. I have had many times where I had to blatantly say someone's opinion was wrong (or dangerous, as the case may be). However, I do consider myself arrogant for doing it. I do not hide that. I just don't see that arrogance as a bad thing. Sometimes you are just right and they are wrong.

Also, for the record, I fall into the category of people who have "a thing about the Transformers toys of their childhoods, or liked the animation on TV..."

I can't help but conjure in my mind a situation where a professional food critic were to write a review of a McDonald's hamburger. If the review was negative (as it undoubtedly would be), would they be bombarded with accusations of being "out of touch" by fans of the restaurant chain? Would the sales figures of happy meals be waved in front of their faces? Would they be described as an "elitist that only wants to eat escargot"?

Last week we had some bright sight in the dominance of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" in the theater. It is small Korean sport movie(This time, it's weight lifting!), and it sometimes sticks to the formula too much. There is an unnecessary villain, and it is a little manipulating at tear-jerking moments. However, the bond between characters is palpable, the story works, and it manages to lift up me and other audience in the end. "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", big and heavy, did not lift me up. It threw me on the floor with loud bangs. Ouch.

Mr. Ebert, don't worry about missing some plot points. I even did not realize Sam Witwicky's hand was injured until I saw the bandage near the end of movie. When did he get hurt? I thought about it for a moment, but, wait a minute, Shia LaBeouf was injured before the movie started in the theater. The problem was solved.

Even though my colleagues agree with me that "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is not so recommendable, they still think I have strange opinions on the movies. Well, I always reply that this movie or that movie has indeed problems on my view, and I sometimes explain to them. That does not change situation much. I have learned a lot in theaters, but I think I need to learn more for convincing them I am not some weird moviegore. I do not have David Bordwell's books yet, and I am going to read them someday. At least three of his books, including "On the History of Film Style", has already been translated and published in our country.

I think I am watching too much movie that I lose my time on these movie books. I read "Scorsese on Scorsese", "Woody om Allen", and "Hitchcock" during middle school years, and they are still in my bookcase. I remember things too much that the books become spoilers later, but they helped me a lot while I engulfed huge amount of movies(yeah, I was a teenager blob at some moment). But now... almost nothing. Only recent movie books I remember reading are two books about Stanley Kubrick, and that was three or four years ago. Maybe I am afraid of spoilers. I have left some of your reviews in "The Great Movies" unread just because I have not watched movies yet.

I think some of movie critics succumb to ignorance in my country. There is one critic I do not like much. I admit that she has some talent as a writer, but she boosts her ignorance in public even without one ounce of shame. I know NOTHING about movies or movie theories! I just write what I see! If I am served and rice and beans, I can get away with writing about beans! The result is quite refreshing indeed. "The Kite Runner" becomes disgusting right-wing propaganda from Afghanistan immigrants with mix of rape and pedophilia(Well, because Taliban is BAD!). "United 93" becomes conservative Bush movie plus heroism. "Hotel Rwanda" becomes the story of comprador elitist told from the view of western imperialism. And "The Lives of Others" becomes, surprise, a queer movie!

"Sir, not only do I differ with what you say, but I would certainly not fight to the death for your right to say it. Not me." My response to her reviews was same. I calmly counterattacked her writing on "United 93", which I chose "The Movie of 2006"(By the way, I chose "Pan's Labyrinth" as No.2. Now I understand how you came to choose "The Battle of Algiers" instead "2001" as No.1 in 1968). She won't care, anyway. I am just an amateur, self-appointed critic who did not even have blog two years ago. She has doctor's degree in psychology(big fan of Jaques Lacan) and is a permanent columnist on well-known weekly movie magazine. I know I have to learn more, but is it time for her to realize she needs to learn about movies? Ma'am, think about your position! I did not see but heard about her appearance on TV, and I wonder whether she is similar to Bill O'Reilly. She is left-wing, but her writings smell of fascism. You are WRONG! I am RIGHT!

Some critic pointed that Korean filmmakers and audience need critics like you as the drawbridge between them. Well, they seems to emerge one by one now. I am glad for that. However, there still is that critic. She seems to be more in love with having 'fresh' perspective than watching movies. Some people love that. On the other hand, one well-known critic do not like you because reviews are too easy to read. What do you want, sir? In hieroglyph?

P.S.

1. Sorry for not sending recipes for electronic rice cooker. I asked my mom, a wonderful cook, but she said she has used it for storing cooked rice warm only. I think foreigners like you become more creative.

2. This site has many wonderful reviews of Korean movies, written by Darcy Paquet and others.
http://www.koreanfilm.org/

This is also very nice blog site.
http://www.koreanfilm.org/Q/

RE: One is lucky enough to be human and not a cat, which one could as easily have been? How our Dog longs to be a human being!!

Or perhaps it is we who should be unlucky to not be a cat and long to be our dog. So long as we're confident of what we are, it really doesn't matter so long as you can back it up competently.

What I don't quite understand is why people craves so much watching stuff blowing up, to me T2 was a painful experience where people laughed at unfunny things and got orgasmic at the sight of explosions, they made me think of a short story by Horacio Quiroga, The Decapitated Chicken. If you have the time read it, it's worthy.

I really enjoyed this post.

I have to admit that one of the reasons I got into filmmaking was because of 'At the Movies'. Watching you and Gene every Sunday was a fantastic treat for me as a young man. I remember specifically an episode where you talked about great films from the 70's that are must see's. I believe they were The Conversation, The Last Detail, Five Easy Pieces and a few others I can't remember. Needless to say your suggestions changed my life. I fell in love with Hall Ashby and Gene Hackman because of your tastes. You did an important review on Clean Shaven that was amazing and your critique against the Academy for not giving Hoop Dreams the Oscar was gold.

It's still a dream of mine for you to review a film I have made. It may happen, I don't know. But for the record your a fantastic critic. Have I disagreed with you, of course, but you're an amazing resource and an even better writer.

Transformers and Transformers 2 are both terrible films. They could be much better than they are and I don't follow the line that lowest common denominator is acceptable. Terminator 2 is a great action film, Die Hard is a great action film. Both are iconic. But so are action films like The Wages of Fear, The Train, Seven Samurai and The Longest Day (which are all shot in black and white!). None of those films showcase LCD mediocrity and they inspire the greatest depths of of human emotion.

You can give me explosions, Mega' Fox and CGI up the wazoo but if I don't care about the story or the characters then the film has failed as a form of entertainment. What many viewers are missing are the fundamentals of understanding entertainment and many of them are at a 4th grade reading level (in relation to film viewing that is). No disrespect but you can't be entertained by explosions alone. Eventually the heart will want something more fulfilling and the mind will crave emotion that relates to your every day life.

--

Hi Roger,

I make the distinction with my students between judgments of taste and judgments of quality.

I illustrate with gourmet hand-made ice cream vs. air-and-chemicals tastee-freeze. No one can demand that you must hate the tastee-freeze, or that you must love the gourmet pistachio. But if you say that the tastee-freeze is great ice cream and the gourmet stuff is garbage, you are wrong.

Again: If you say (as I do) that you hate James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, you can at the same time acknowledge that Joyce is one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. Or, like you, one can say that 'Transformers 2' is garbage, but acknowledge that a lot of people enjoy it.

Which is why tastee-freeze ice cream sells.

Eric

I think there is an obvious reason for the anti-intellectualism so prevalent in today's zeitgeist. It is rooted in the increasing disparity between the wealthy and the non-wealthy. It has been going on for years, but has been accelerating in the past twenty years or so.

In order to become one of the "elites," you have to go to college. This was not so unattainable twenty years ago, but the costs of tuition have skyrocketed, while the amount of student loans and grants has fallen. As a result, the only demographic that can afford college are the wealthy. Middle- and lower-class people are priced out of knowledge.

Those college graduates then flock to the cities - because if nothing else, that's where the majority of high-income jobs are. The rest of the country consists mostly of suburban middle classes and various degrees of poor folks. Since they are not in major population centers, they do not have access to much that is not underwritten by major corporations. Any attack on those things is, in their mind, an attack on their lifestyle, and an attack on them.

This is what underlies the "elitist" criticism of your Transformers review. "You hated the movie because you don't like mainstream movies - the only movies that are available at our local multiplex. You obviously only like 'artsy' films - the ones you can only see in cities with more than a million people, and are only attended by the elites who can afford to live there."

Or consider "dietary alarmist" films like Food, Inc. or Super Size Me. Many people eat that food because there's a lack of other options. There are many cities where there are no restaurants other than chain stores; and even if a city has a Whole Foods, most people can't afford to shop there (I'm one of them). So when someone comes along that criticizes fast food or supermarkets, their customers assume it's a personal attack on them. And sometimes they are right:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_drastically_scales_back

All this combined with a sense of helplessness because of the current economy, a situation that the average American had nothing to do with. When an economy collapses not because of decreased industry or changing consumer patterns, but mostly because of the paper-shuffling of banking officials, then a backlash against "elites" is not long in coming. No matter what type of "elites" they are.

Ebert: Education need not involve a university education. Some of the best contributions on this blog are written by young teenagers. Many Americans are raised on the Bible, and if they're lucky it's the King James version and they're absorbing poetry every day. No person need be uneducated who has access to books and the time to read them. And those two things should be universal human rights.

And here is my how-to handbook of how to eat a healthy diet on a very low budget:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/11/the_pot_and_how_to_use_it.html

I am sorry, I completely disagree with your review. The first transformers movie was an unwatchable pile of rubbish just as much as the second. I couldn't finish watching either of them.

roger,

i have not seen the new transformers movie. yet based on my review of the trailers, teaser trailers, and various promotional paraphernalia and marketing tie-ins that accompany the release of the film, i agree with you that it is a bad movie.

but you say it isn't 'so-bad-its-good' .... its just bad. so, i wonder by what criteria would one judge whether a movie is 'so-bad-its-good' or 'so-bad-it-surpasses-good-and-goes-back-to-bad-again'.

certainly some russ meyer or ed wood movies can be judged 'so-bad-they're-good' because of the earnest voice of the auteur that seeps through the campy on-screen antics. other movies, such as the oeuvre of john waters, are so audacious and caustically over-the-top that we believe the audience is laughing with the filmmakers and not at them.

for some reason, i am reminded of jerry lewis' legendary yet obscure "the day the clown cried" which was buried by its creators for being terrible, though it could probably make a fortune on the midnight movie circuit along side "rocky horror picture show"

what exactly is it that separates the enjoyably bad from the tediously bad? obviously many so-bad-its-good movies are made by enterprising and well-intentioned filmmakers who inadvertently lay an egg that becomes a cult classic. other films of this genre seem to be purposefully in bad taste. so the intent of the artist isn't really what divides the bad from the so-bad-its-good. then what, exactly, does?

Film, or shall we just say art in general is a creative medium (Obvious i know- bear with me. What follows would hopefully make up for the daft beginning- beginnings were always my weakness, middles and ending i'm good at). In the end, how creative a piece is, whether in substance or execution determines it's artistic value. And the more you indulge yourself in say film, the finer your palette becomes, it becomes increasingly easier for you to spot cliches and lazy writing while at the same time much harder to find original pieces. However, to someone who does not watch films nearly as often as you do, a lot of the movie conventions and over used sequences which you have seen a million times before is new to that person, and so to that person at least, that movie which you think is stale and repetitive is actually fresh and hey- even original. And maybe you're thinking people that ignorant (not the right word exactly but i'm in a hurry) about film don't exist- you'd be wrong. I have a friend who after watching "Taken" declared it to be the greatest movie watching experience of his life (he's jazz age). "Taken" is not a bad movie, i enjoyed it... but it WAS derivative- i mean the plot..sheesh... anyway enough of that, to my friend though who's only foray into movies was the occasional summer blockbuster (He really liked jurassic park 3, still raves about it today), "Taken" was brilliant and in his words "daringly original".
And how does this relate to transformers 2? ... Well... let me see... okay, i'm not sure- but there is a connecting sinew there somewhere.

It was neat to see you mention David Bordwell. I saw him give a lecture a couple of years ago on Hong Kong martial arts movies when he visited my university. Before the lecture, the only thing I knew about Hong Kong martial arts movies was that Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee appeared in them. It's to his great credit that I was able to follow along easily as he spoke about a subject I knew almost nothing about. He certainly got me interested. I signed up for a Chinese film class and bought his book, Planet Hong Kong.

I still remember the vague outrage I felt upon looking up one of my favorite record albums in a compilation of Rolling Stone reviews and finding it dismissed as "unlistenable tripe." Say what?
On the other hand, as a critic, I've said some horrible things about entertainment products that a certain segment of the population absolutely adore. There's another segment that can't be bothered. It's all the folks in-between that reviews are aimed at. They're looking to be swayed.
And reviews, particularly newspaper reviews, pretty much boil down to the same bottom line — are we recommending that you spend your money on this product, or keep your cash in hand? Reviews are generally aimed at those who haven't seen the movie, "criticism" is aimed at those who have seen it but wish to understand it a little better. That's a vast generalization, natch.
I still find it amusing that "Transformers" fans read reviews. (There I go, generalizing again.)
But I'm even more intrigued by the hoohaw over President Obama being mentioned. So? Making topical references is a grand Hollywood tradition.
And so, linking together these disparate thoughts, I propose a new movie ratings system: Presidential. Is this new movie about illicit sex more of a steamy Clinton or an old-fashioned Harding? Is this new James Bond movie a Bush 41 or more of a Kennedy? That comedy about race relations — a LBJ or a Jefferson?
I'm pretty sure the new "Transformers" is a Bush 43.

OMG! Brainiac!

Geeky pop-cultural FYI: Buffy The Vampire Slayer's main attraction "Spike" aka James Marsters, also played Brainiac on Smallville. :)

As for those trapped in a state of post-adolescence who take issue with your reviews...

Curious to a fault, I'll read almost anything - including even badly written posts responding to a thread called "I Hate Critics" over at the Official Michael Bay Forums; where I spent some time lurking today and was much amused by things unwittingly shared...

"I hate critics as much as everyone else. I personal think one person judging an entire movie for the world or for what ever region they are located in, is just plain stupid. But either way Transformers 2 is blowing The Box Office out of the water. So these pathetic critics that are giving this movie 2stars or 3 based on a movie that might not have the best story line in the world hasn't at all inflicted on the movie being an amazing successor.

And i think seeing robots kicking-ass for 2 hour or so was the best thing iv'e ever seen

Now i never really watched the t.v back in the days. So i cant really say that the movie was dead on to the show. But most of you people can agree that in todays world. Movies have changed as well as the people who go see them. And i love seeing a movie with hot girls, robots beat the living crap out of each other and have a good comedy to it as well.

So if i had to rate this movie id give it 5 Stars due to that i was interested in the movie from the beginning to end. There was never a part in the movie where i'm like wtf. I was totally zone in and loved every second of it.

Now again this is of course my opinion and everyones of course will be completely different."

THAT was written by a 20 year-old from Florida. I can't begin to tell you how much I love the last line of it. It should be printed on a t-shirt or the side of a bus, the irony is just that wonderful. And I'm hugging it to myself as I type while laughing; chuckle!

Ah, America. So many of you still trapped in High School.

That probably explains why disaster movies of a nihilistic nature are so popular right now; millions of Americans are reacting to the news that they have to grow-up and for reasons I can only guess at, find watching an apocalypse oddly comforting.

Pop-cultural side note: Seth Green created "Robot Chicken" along with Matthew Senreich, also played "Daniel "Oz" Osbourne" - the werewolf on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. :)

Maybe this subject has already been discussed here, but I'd like to recall that Mr Ebert wrote a quite favorable review of the last Transformers movie. It would then seem, to me at least, like he doesn't simply dismiss a movie just because it's an action movie.

It's a tragedy that there are those who would attack you personally for your learned opinion rather than attempt to publish their own in-depth review of the film. You have used your public voice to provide a scholarly analysis of a terrible film, presumably in the hopes that the reader will glean from it some knowledge that will help them to enjoy all of cinema just a little bit more. Some people just don't know when gratitude is due. Any open-minded person should have the wisdom to listen to those who would argue with them, for how else can one refine their own understanding of what good cinema is?

Oh, and I'm sure I heard Obama's name in the American version of the film. I think it was during one of the scenes in the NEST hangar. Please don't ask me to re-watch that dross to confirm though...

This is one of my favorite blogs yet. I just wanted to point you to the fact that, while you attempt to exempt sports, this mentality exists there as well. Here's an example, from Jeff Pearlman's blog, defending himself against the charge that he "hates sports."

http://jeffpearlman.com/?p=2253

If you ever find yourself in a theater with this Trans 2 defender types, turn around and look at their faces. I've done this. Granted, some will look like me during, say, There Will Be Blood--wide-eyed and gasping. But many, many of them will have a blank look, rarely smiling or laughing, the way children melt in front of a bad cartoon, still watching, glued in fact, but clearly not having "fun." There's a mindless place that many people find comforting, and their defensiveness about it reveals that they know it's a sinkhole they should be struggling to escape.

As a teacher, I believe one of my primary tasks is to teach young people how to look at the world and see it critically, and that to do so is emblematic of love and respect for the things they are seeing.

Otherwise, we might become the kind of people who would accuse an all girl country trio of hating their country and send them death threats because they were critical of the government. Yeah....

Wonderful essay, sir. I'm often considered a "snob" or "elitist" in my film watching or reading material. I personally do enjoy some mindless entertainment once in a while, but even then it's got to be somewhat good. I found Air Force One mindless and silly but enjoyable and well directed. I guess that was a while back, though. Those "trailers" were hilarious. But I thought you said to avoid trailers at all costs? Anyway, I love the sports fan analogy and plan on using that with some friends and family members. Also, I am nominating you as an honorary Elitist Bastard (http://elitistbastardscarnival.blogspot.com/)

Thanks for all your work. I especially enjoy your Roger Ebert's Book of Film--a great collection.

for films will come
and films will go
but ebert is for ever

Ebert:

Just
the other
way around.

Roger, I couldn't help but hear the voice of the narrator from "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" every time the Optimus Prime robot opened his mouth. This was the one thing in the film I enjoyed.

Ebert: Food for thought, definitely food for thought.

I'm always fascinated to read a critic's thoughts on his own profession. I suspect that criticism self-selects more reflective and intellectual people, which, while perfectly suiting the educated filmgoer, alienates the casual viewer who sees film as low-challenge escapism. This ivory-tower effect of increased knowledge affects anyone who communicates sometimes difficult ideas to a non-specialist audience.
I re-read Anthony Lane's "Nobody's Perfect" every year with fresh delight and abject jealousy. It is not simply for his clever turns of phrase or superlative mastery of the language, but his ability to express in crystalline terms the very heart of the work, and for the reader to both recognize it and to see it fresh. That, to me, is criticism, and should be applauded.

I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong."

You know, I've been wanting to tell you you're wrong for a while now. It's in regards to your Spiderman (the first one) review. One of the reasons you disliked it was that in the final scene Peter Parker wants only to be Mary Jane's friend. You chalked it up to social paralysis, but that's not why. He explains clearly (in a voice-over I think) that it is because everyone around him is in danger because of his alter-ego. Somehow you missed that, and it affected your review.

Cheers to being wrong. :-)

I still don't understand how you didn't like Star Trek.
The score and the visual effects alone deserve a 3 star rating.
Not to mention the phenomenal acting, exciting story and the movie succeeding in pleasing both old fans and new ones alike.
Any chance of a reconsideration? :(

Roger,

I'm attempting to whittle down the mindless aspects of internet surfing and commit myself to more justifiable uses of time, yet I am always rewarded by keeping up with your blog because it more often than not sparks an issue that has been brewing in my mind for a while.

While I would like to think of myself as a "braniac", I have friends from college much more successful in the academic sphere than myself and am fighting to gain a place in those circles, professionally one day. Yet, I am hopelessly lost to the world of study and enrichment. I agree that art is certainly not 100% subjective. There is a real mix of personal taste and reality here, yet there are films and books and music that are actually better than others. Once I have begun to take a look at the landscape around me I require a thousand lifetimes (at least) to fully traverse the beauty that flows from the eternal distance of the trinity... I don't wish to be "elitist" (though in honesty I suppose we all have a bit of this in us) yet I want to point everyone I know, especially the young in the direction of this infinite possibility of creativity and art. While maintaining a healthy balance I cannot help but be fueled by an intense desire to read great books, theology and literature, to see places, to watch every movie Hitchcock ever made and Fellini and Bergman. This certainly doesn't limit itself to the uber-obscure or "classic"(though I have quite a tolerance for the difficult, the long, the "boring") Paul Rudd is wonderful. I loved "Iron Man" and "the Dark Knight". I believe "Up" is one of the most simultaneously beautiful and accessible movies in recent history. Yet, I want the viewers in this country to be challenged. The film distribution system in this country makes me livid just thinking of it. Jonathan Rosenbaum is really onto something when he addresses this issue. The level of cultural blindness and displacement from the reality of cinematic achievement that is contemporary, that is NOW, is disgusting. Those who feel that critics and "braniacs" are simply about being difficult and "out of touch" have to understand that underneath that enthusiasm of many of those mentioned is a basic, visceral love of movies for the sake of movies, not for the sake of being "in the know"... I get the feeling this trend is different in other parts of the world, especially in European circles. It's frustrating that an American distaste with cultures like France often includes a rejection of a cultural robustness that characterizes those types of places. I think of the British Film Institute that is a powerful force in the U.K. I think of the publicly funded BBC that produces and promotes such quality film, tv and radio. I think there is a place for the hype and excitement for big releases like Harry Potter 6 (which I will enjoy very much I'm sure), but how many people in the U.S. have seen or even heard of gems from last year like "Wendy and Lucy" or the transcendent "Happy-Go-Lucky". At least there's "Slumdog Millionaire". That gives me hope.

"I envy the hell out of anyone who has gotten himself into Harvard..."...RE
“If you quietly accept and go along no matter what your feelings are, ultimately you internalize what you’re saying, because it’s too hard to believe one thing and say another. I can see it very strikingly in my own background. Go to any elite university and you are usually speaking to very disciplined people, people who have been selected for obedience. And that makes sense. If you’ve resisted the temptation to tell the teacher, “You’re an asshole,” which maybe he or she is, and if you don’t say, “That’s idiotic,” when you get a stupid assignment, you will gradually pass through the required filters. You will end up at a good college and eventually with a good job.” .....Chomsky

I totally agree with you. I don't see how someone could view themselves as a serious movie connoisseur and defend Transformers 2 as a great movie. Keep being honest...that's why you are my trusted source of film criticism.

Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve. ... They don't need to spend a lifetime with the water only up to their toes.

And hopefully they get to the point where they can determine what parts of the water are good to swim in and which parts are fetid and just plain bad for you.

Mr. Ebert, you wrote:

If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past.

Tune in to WSCR any day of the week, and you'll hear those people call in.

Alas, the anti-intellectuals are not limited to criticism of film criticism.

I haven't seen either of the Transformers films, and don't plan to. But surely even films of such poor repute are not worthless when they can generate the intelligent discussion I see here.

Or can I just credit you, Mr. Ebert, for making such discussion possible? Or can I credit your readers for constantly raising the level of discourse on the Internet?

Hi
First of all let me say, I am following your reviews since I developed a much literal taste in movies and start enjoying movies like Casabalanca on Bad boys or Armageddon, i.e, when I passed 13.. :-)

Now for you I must say this year, your reviews are much different and open than other critics around, means lets take Knowing, it was bashed universaly and you made in best science fiction, also movies like Land of the lost got some favor from your end ...

Now for Transformer-2 I think your review was spot-on, people are actually amazed why the same man who praised transformer-1 was same sort of shit is now bashing the sequel.. I think I know (correct me) as:

1. Transformer-1 was first of its kind
2. The movie tough insane was nicely constructed, and tried to introduce and develop some character before going insane on action (which I believe you didnt like, the end part of 20 minutes explosion)
3. Good Human story and clean funny moments and so on

Part-2 has done the exact thing to dissapoint you, they just though first won was hit because of the final explosive 20 minutes and hence they constructed good 2 hrs 40 minutes on same track.....

Still there is audience out there who has paid now 293M USD (USA) + 298 M USD (Rest of World)

I think you are completely correct in your criticism of transformers 2.
Having watched it from a corner seat of an IMAX cinema, I felt as if I had been deprived of my senses. I enjoy watching a trashy film as much as the next, but Transformers is just a big pile of old dross. The robots have nothing to say, nothing about who they are or what their aims are, or even any vague banter or acknowledgment of each other. There are also numerous plot bits that don't make sense. For example, when they meet the old transformer, and then just jump through time and space and land in a desert. If the robots can do that, why do they spend their time driving around? It remains unexplained, like many other sections of the plot. I am not sure how it can be classed as a film in any traditional sense, as it has no seeming structure, just a random sequence of events, with people jumping away from things.

Hey Roger - long time fan, first time poster, lifelong movie lover.
The old idiom certainly stands true that "there is no accounting for taste." I was dragged to this film by a longtime friend whose taste in film reflects that of the masses - i.e., whatever is making the most money or gets the highest rating on Fandango. I went in expecting nothing that would stimulate me - I am not an action movie kind of person, frankly, unless the action evolves organically from the story, which is exactly what this film did not do. It is one BOOM! BOOM! BOOM after another. Is Shia funny? At times. Is Megan sexy? No doubt. Are there a few good lines in the script? Yeah, a few, a few. It's also mildly racist, fully jingoistic and mindless to the extreme. That said, I would have probably loved it when I was 12 (I am 36). Sex and violence? For a 12-year-old? YES PLEASE! And that's who filled the theater when I went - teens. I actually walked out of the theater feeling better about the film than when I went in. It actually would have been a pleasant experience had it been about 40 minutes shorter. But at its core, it is emotionally bereft. And when they try to inject a little humanity into it - via Shia and Megan's kiss - I found myself rolling my eyes and silently begging them to blow up something else rather than try to insult me with a sudden burst of emotion in a film that only wants to overwhelm you with technical proficiency. I think someday, Michael Bay will make a film with heart and soul that blends the tech seamlessly and has action that takes place within context and not simply because the script reads: "INSERT EXPLOSION HERE." Spielberg did it. Zemeckis did it. Am I lumping Bay in with those geniuses? Christ no. But in the outer realms of reality, where robots transform into cars, that probability exists. Here's hoping.

I'm really glad you justified your review, because a critic is a critic for reason. You are an authority. Like a gourmet.
Being from India, I understand what you're saying. Money seems to rule over good pieces of work. I'm afraid for the future of film. Audiences aren't being given the "gourmet experience".
Sidney Lumet's "Making Movies" explains your point almost perfectly (in a "not so succinct/articulate" manner). I also feel directors/auteurs aren't being born out of this money making machine. It's all about the stars, the effects and the gimmicks. With all the technology and glitz, we should've evolved. It's very, very disturbing.

The "taking sides" comment -- pick a spot or else -- explains a great deal. People who are fundamentally shallow (yes, I'm being JUDGMENTAL!) operate entirely on outwards appearances.

Expressions of taste are part of that. If I say I like Kurosawa and Fellini, but I also liked Neil Marshall's "Doomsday" (I *did*, dammitall), the more enlightened person is apt to think: "He's large, he contains multitudes." One less enlightened will think: "Hey, he likes stuff blowing up; he's one of us!" Trying to get the latter to watch even "La Dolce Vita" or "Seven Samurai" is often uphill work.

One last note about expressions of taste: the older I get, the more I realize they mean little about a person's character. I knew someone for several years who had very good taste in many things, but was also a compulsive liar and a con man. I wonder now if his professed taste was simply part of the game-playing.

Roger, you close with a trailer for 2012. THIS is funny...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2qxFkcLM0

...far more entertaining then the official trailer.

Roger, that's why we love you. Thanks for always being articulate and clever, but always with empathy and heart. You'll give almost anything its fair shot. For example, I know you don't necessarily enjoy horror films, but you've done a wonderful job of seeing the beauty in something like Let The Right One In (Horror writers get kids, how they work, almost better than anyone. It's like Stephen King and Stand By Me. I think so, at least.) Even when I disagree with you (I didn't about Transformers, but say, Bottle Rocket) I always enjoy hearing what you have to say about a movie, and I usually learn something. I've been wandering slowly through your 'Great Movies' list. It's been a journey. Whole worlds opening up, things I didn't know existed.

Thanks for guiding the way.

In a perfect world, a film like My Dinner with Andre, Persona, Amarcord, et al. would be blockbooked into every multiplex in America for the Fourth of July weekend. At the very least, it sounds like an interesting experiment.

Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve. Those people contain multitudes. They deserve films that refresh the parts others do not reach. They don't need to spend a lifetime with the water only up to their toes.

This is so true. It is no secret that many, if not most, people in this country don't seek out the so-called "art films" or "indie films" or "foreign films." They see what is fed to them. In fact, my local theatre here in Murfreesboro, Tennessee (a city of 100,000 people) is showing Transformers 2 on three of its sixteen screens right now. I have to drive to Nashville (nearly 40 miles) to see Sam Mendes' Away We Go or Woody Allen's Whatever Works.

I am 24 years old now, and, by the time I was 20, I had really started to watch more films. I mean, I'd seen The Godfather movies and was a fan of Tarantino by the time I was 13, but I started watching "documentaries" and "classics" and so-called "art films." I couldn't stop. I saw Gus Van Sant's Elephant and Bertolucci's The Dreamers in a theatre for crying out loud. I was changed. Those are the films that make you feel and think.

I love me some action, some mindless entertainment if you will. I love the new blockbuster comedies that keep coming out. The Hangover is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. I'm sure of it. But what I really want is a movie that tells me that the people who made it felt something real and true. They aren't driven by box office success or money. They want me to see and feel and think about what they see and feel and think about on a higher artistic level. I don't usually find that in the films of Michael Bay, although The Rock is still one awesome movie.

Ebert: "The Hurt Locker" is worth the 40-mile drive.

Without Transformers 2 the movie there would be no review from Roger Ebert which means I would have missed out on possibly the funniest review I have ever read. I think it was something like "horrible movie of unbearable length" along with the kids banging on pots and pans reference that really got me, and that was just the opening paragraph. I had to call a friend in Miami who loves the Transformer movies and even he laughed at that those lines. That is one of the more enjoyable reviews I have ever encountered and I must credit Michael Bay for creating something that could bring out the best in my favorite movie critic. I loved the Transformer toys and cartoons as a child in the 80's but that does not change the fact that these movies truly sucked.

I just want to say that I grew up with the original cartoon series and the toys and the reincarnation of that franchise that Michael Bay created resembles absolutely nothing of the original. I like things blowing up but that doesn't make up for the fact that this movie was total crap, especially for faboys of the original source material. It had nothing to do with the original Transformers and that's what made me the most angry.

I'll have to keep that Gene Siskel quote in mind for my friend who states that Battlefield Earth is a good film!

You had me until you started belittling those who liked the movie by calling their opinion "wrong" and they themselves "not sufficiently evolved," thereby proving the angry mob at least partially correct when they called you an elitist.

I haven't seen the movie, and I'm sure it's as bad as you say (worse, actually, since you're always way too generous with your reviews), but to rudely dismiss all positive views of it (which include those of your fellow critics Owen Gleiberman and Jordan Mintzer, among others) in such a way seems both arrogant and close-minded. I'm sure the movie is not half as ineptly made as, for instance, In Search of a Midnight Kiss, a movie you really liked, but which is easily the worst movie I've seen in the past few years. I, however, would never call you "not sufficiently evolved" just because you liked it.

This is possibly the only time in my own memory that a film this heavily disparaged by "the critics" has been such a box office smash. (Don't get me wrong; I am totally on board with the disparagement.)I have seen a lot of lackluster films or so-so films do great business, but can you think of any other time where the disparity between critical success and box-office success has been so great?

Why do I love this blog? Because it features an intelligent rebuttal to those who become irrationally angry over Roger's opinion of AND also features a clip from Robot Chicken with an oral sex punchline.

You find me another site that does this as well, and I will make you a ham sandwich.

Ebert: And not to overlook the French TV commercial.

I've found this whole Transformers 2 problem interesting, even though I haven't yet seen it (my girlfriend refuses to let me watch it with her, because I'm a "snobby film student" and will ruin the fun for her, apparently. This is what I get, I guess, from making her watch Goodfellas and Clockwork Orange).
What's strange with this is that I've never seen such a massive disconnect between what the critics are saying and what the audience is saying. A 90% exit poll, with reviews at 20% on rottentomaotes? Unreal. Last summer, I thought the blockbuster world was going to change dramatically - almost all of the big event films wound up being critical darlings, as well. No one was saying then that critics were "elitist snobs". Now, with the "disappointment" of the brilliant Watchmen and now the massive success of what appears to be a mind-numbingly stupid film, it's safe to say that most studio execs will probably be going the Michael Bay route, once again, instead of the Christopher Nolan path.
There is a place for dumb movies, but for me to enjoy a dumb film, I want to get the feeling that the writers and directors KNOW it's a dumb film, and play on that. Movies like Shoot 'Em Up and Congo and Snakes on a Plane are great examples of that. But clearly, Michael Bay doesn't realize he's made a stinker. He's even verbally attacked his lead female star for saying that the movie isn't a "chance to really act well", which is something everyone on the planet knew except for Bay, apparently.
A good friend of mine, who's actually very smart, loved the new Transformers. I asked him why. He said "it doesn't have any pretensions - it gives me exactly what it said it would, and doesn't pretend to be anything else". I asked what it said it would give him, and he replied "boobs and booms". I guess, if that's all your looking for, the movie is probably a great success. But I'm saddened by it. I'm saddened that when I say I have no interest in the new Transformers, or thought the first one was mediocre, that people look at me like i'd just attacked The Godfather. Why do all teenage boys seemingly have to love "boobs and booms" in their movies? Watchmen had boobs and booms, but also one helluva brain. It's sad that the majority of our blockbusters don't follow this direction.
cheers
KZ

Don't let the idiot majority get you down, Roger. Comments from the likes of John C at the top of your blog post is typical of a society that is slowly getting dumber by the day. I am 25, I love movies and Transformers 1 and 2 are both terrible. There is nothing redeemable about them. The dialogue is cringe-inducing, the actors ham it up and Michael Bay is incapable of making a good movie. It's not entertaining, it's just tiresome and boring. I greatly admire your work and I make a point to read all your reviews, even of films I would never go see. Why? Because you're an authority on the subject and you write eloquently. That's what I appreciate. Why would I ever believe some college frat boy's opinion or some 16-year-old girls thoughts on a movie over yours? It's the same reason I don't go to a hot dog vendor for medical advice. They don't know what they're talking about, but they might just be delusional enough to think they do. Woe to the society that continually values style over substance.

I think a lot of the negativity you get about the Transformers 2 review is just part of the overall internet anonymity problem that now plagues us. Many people (certainly not all!) might disagree with you in person, but the discussion would probably be much more civil. In all likelihood even an exchange of ideas would take place where they may concede that some of your points had merit and you may agree that some of theirs do as well. This could happen even if neither person changes their overall opinion about the movie.

By the way, I think I may be able to clarify your confusion about the Obama comment (though I realize you didn't ask for clarification!). They do mention Obama by name in the English version (I saw it in California). The reason some may see it as an "attack" on him is because of the subplot where the presidential advisor is trying to end the relationship between the military and the Autobots. The premise is that Obama believes the reason the Decepticons are causing problems is because they want revenge on the Autobots. So if the Autobots would leave Earth, so would the Decepticons. But in reality the Decepticons want to destroy the Sun. Therefore if Obama had his way the world would be destroyed.

Now that you understand the Obama part I'm sure it is now clear to you that the academy expanded the Best Picture category to 10 films to help ensure this movie wouldn't be overlooked!

You are right, it is a bad movie.

When the original came out I was working with my father who wanted to see why I loved those robots that had captivated me since childhood. One evening we went to watch the first movie, me no longer that young child who was a bit more than excited even as an adult to see something he loved so much be finally on the big screen in a real movie. The movie was not great, it was not utterly awful but it was passable at best, nothing grand, nothing that good either. I thought to myself, well okay they just need another shot to iron out the bugs and get everything padded down for the next film which shall correct the wrongs of this movie. Such is what I thought, that is what sequels are for are they not? To improve and be greater than the original. It goes without saying I didn’t expect the next Star Wars epic or anything else but it had to be better, there could be no excuses to be worse than the first.

Perhaps I hoped too much, perhaps I put too much stock in those making the film, surely Bay despite his faults and limitations would be able to improve on the original he made right? What a bitter disappointment. I’ve spoken to people who enjoyed this movie, and the same plot points keep popping up. They liked Megan Fox who herself as you might have heard and read said the movies had no real plot as well and were just special effects filled movies. They got big bad robots smashing each other and they got some humor. That’s why they liked the film. I have never seen anyone trying even remotely try to justify the script or the plot because quite frankly you’d have to be amazingly foolish to even begin to think this train wreck of a movie had anything remotely near a storyline.

So why did they like it? Eye candy? Basic violence? Crude humor? Well, one shall never fail by catering to the lowest common denominator or humanity it is true but still come on. I can enjoy bad movies. Some movies are so bad they are good, that they have redeeming qualities. Something to make you smile, laugh and enjoy a good time and even recommend it to a friend. The movie had nothing of the sort, it was just loud, stupid and all the worse of what Bay himself has become a parody of in many eyes. Hey I liked the Rock, it wasn’t deep but I enjoyed the movie. It was good. This movie though, your left feeling Bay is just catering to people now knowing he doesn’t even have to try or attempt to make a good movie. Give the fans their roller coaster ride and they’re happy.

Some people will argue what do you expect, it’s based on a toy, a comic book whatever. Hey so was Batman, SpiderMan and any number of such films. If I had to compare Transformers 2 to any of those films it would be Batman & Robin.

I’m still waiting for a director and proper writing team to come together to give a TF film that can match The Dark Knight in quality.

All things considering, I fear it shall be a very long wait indeed.

Did anyone else watch the French TV commercial? If you haven't yet, I highly recommend doing so right now. It is a perfect example of the type of highly accomplished story-telling that well-crafted TV commercials pull off all the time. Oh, yes - it's also absolutely hilarious.

Ebert: It's a sublime little film.

"Not sufficiently evolved."

You are a very kind man Roger.

I was one of those kids who grew up on the Transformers toys and loved them. When I reviewed Michael Bay's first take on them, I didn't like it. I said, "For followers of the series, how much you love Michael Bay’s TRANSFORMERS will depend on how much you have grown up (and probably how many decibels your eardrums can take)."

You're not out of touch Roger. It's just that some of us absolutely refuse to learn. Those defending that stance deserve whatever they want to be entertained by.

"What I believe is that all clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their lifetimes: Curious and teachable."

I'm very glad that someone in the public sphere is promoting this as a goal in life. I am 40 years old, long out of school, and I would consider it to be a real tragedy if I stopped learning from other people. Keep fighting to good fight Roger.

I once heard Dick Cavett tell a story about Groucho Marx. In preparation for his two-show interview, Cavett attended a literary party at Groucho's home. As it turns out, Groucho spent the later years of his life promoting young American writers, and held parties to bring together authors, critics, and publishers.

Groucho pulls Cavett over to a group of young writers and introduces him to them, mentioning the writers' books by title. Cavett acknowledges the authors, as if he has heard of them or their books.

Then Groucho pulls Cavett aside and whispers in his ear, "You know how you can tell if someone went to college?"

"No, Groucho, how?

"He never admits he doesn't know something."
-------------------------

Personally I think your reviews are right on. I would know from your "Transformers" review that I wouldn't want to see it; but 10 years ago, I would have known that this is THE movie to take my 10-year-old son to see.

I recently saw "The Hangover" based on your review. The TV ads made the movie look insipid; your review disclosed an excellent story.

Honestly, I don't always enjoy the movie-going experience, but I always look forward to reading your reviews and blog.

To Chris who posted at 8:40 and 9:04. I completely disagree with the premise that Liberals trot out their diplomas any more than conservatibves trot out theirs. Often the mainstream conservative commentators trot them out in order to denigrate them.

The big problem is the anti-intellectualism in society. There used to be a time when people wanted their leaders to be the best and the brightest. I

I wrote in my review of the film:
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is a mind numbing experience that is so chock full of constant chase scenes, explosions and mindless insanity, that it goes from what should be a fun movie to a seizure waiting to happen."
www.typewriterriot.blogspot.com

By David Sillén on July 6, 2009 7:00 AM

Maybe this subject has already been discussed here, but I'd like to recall that Mr Ebert wrote a quite favorable review of the last Transformers movie. It would then seem, to me at least, like he doesn't simply dismiss a movie just because it's an action movie.

The first film at least had fun with mankind learning that alien robots were living amongst us disguised as vehicles.

It's amazing that Ebert has dedicated so much time to an inferior movie. I'm sure there are hundreds of movies that he's reviewed in the past that surely have earned as much attention (if not more). The most amusing part in all this is that Ebert seems to be playing the victim despite the scathing personal attacks against Bay himself.

Maybe it's me, but perhaps Ebert is squeezing all the milk he can out of the Transformers in the efforts to keep the spotlight on him a little while longer. With newspapers dying, I guess he's resorted to the tried and true role that pretty much guarantees an audience...

Bravo, you are officially no longer a film critic.

All hail the Ebert Troll!

Without Transformers 2 the movie there would be no review from Roger Ebert which means I would have missed out on possibly the funniest review I have ever read. I think it was something like "horrible movie of unbearable length" along with the kids banging on pots and pans reference that really got me, and that was just the opening paragraph. I had to call a friend in Miami who loves the Transformer movies and even he laughed at that those lines. That is one of the more enjoyable reviews I have ever encountered and I must credit Michael Bay for creating something that could bring out the best in my favorite movie critic. I loved the Transformer toys and cartoons as a child in the 80's but that does not change the fact that these movies truly sucked.

The latest Transformers film is a perfect example how the "show" has been taken out of "showbusiness." All that's left is "business." It's a shame, really.

Watching this show made me think of the movie-within-the-movie from Idiocracy, titled (I think) Ass. It was just a picture of a butt that let out the occasional fart, but everyone loved it. In the case of Transformers, the love is reflected in the hefty box office take.

Mr. Ebert;

Thank you for the reference to David Bordwell. His writings are now in my rotation.

I grew up a 10 minutes trolley ride from Harvard Square and share your envy of those educated there. The Cambridge universities are priceless resources to America and to the local community. Much of what they offer is available free to anyone interested in what they are talking about.

Movie fans will remember Cambridge as the home of the lamented Orson Welles Cinema and the still operating, non-profit Brattle Theatre.

I wonder how many of your "Transformers" detractors will find your post a teaching opportunity?

I am a software engineer that saw the first Transformers movie, and liked it, but definitely won't go see the second one based on your review, and many others. Unfortunately, most of my friends would rather see "Transformers II" than "Public Enemies". They'd find "Public Enemies" boring. One of my friends, a really smart guy, saw the box office numbers from the first week, and used that as a reason to go see the "Transformers II". He thought that since people were going to see it in huge numbers, it must have something going for it. He said he thought it was really funny, and it was really similar to the first on, and went again to see it this past weekend.

Ebert: Say what? "Public Enemies" did a $34 million weekend, best in history for a gangster movie.

Hi Roger,

Thanks for your thoughts. I too liked both your review and the Transformers movie. Yes, the movie had plot holes and horrible acting yet I too walked out of it happily, thinking it was a lot of fun, with a big smile on my face. I admit I played with the toys a lot as a kid and was just happily entertained by it all. Perhaps on another day it would have been different. On that day it just "worked" for me.

too am frustrated at how the trend in public opinion is that one must have set opinions on thing, including films and take personal offense if someone didn't like a film or other things that they did. I admit I can be a fussy filmgoer but everyone in a while something like this sneaks up on me and I enjoy it despite myself. It's a shame you've had to recieve some personal attakcs over your opinion of the film. I respect your opinion on films...and will continue to do so.

It really is amazing that the simple act of reading a book in today's society is looked upon by some as an act of arrogance. I truly do fear for the future unless there is a radical shift in the public's thinking and people actually start to value knowledge again instead of stupidity and emptiness. "Idiocracy" is becoming more factual by the day.

How can you make a movie with Megan Fox and not exploit her physical attractiveness as much as possible? Any mention of her in a review should be preceeded by the words "scantily clad", "partially nude", or "buck-naked".

Ebert: No mention of her in a review should be preceded by the words "Not enough of."

I came for the Brainiac picture, but I stayed for the conversation.

I have been a big fan of your movie reviews for some time. I always made my mother turn on channel 11 to watch you guys, and this always made my parents laugh at the idea that a 6 year old wanted to watch Siskel and Ebert. (To be fair, at 6, I was usually only concerned with the previews) but I kept watching and as my frontal lobe developed, so did my ability to engage in (sometimes animated) conversations with the television. I never did agree with everything you or Gene had to say, but shouldn't that be the case with all human interactions? Should anyone be blindly obeyed? From reading some comments, it appears so.

I went off on a mini-rant about Transformers the other day. My sister tells me quite often that I think too much and that I should just watch a movie for S's and G's. And that movies are all about taste. I countered with a similar Godfather argument to explain that tastes may differ, but in some respect, tastes and opinions are wrong. (I used Pauly Shore's Jury Duty as the juxtaposed film)

Anyhow, my point is that simply wanting a movie to entertain you is asking far too little from the movie. In two hours plus, a movie should be able to far more than entertain. It should be able to bring you into a world that by the end of the movie, you feel is your own, regardless of how unbelievable that may be. The movie should have characters that you connect with, be it love, hate, or something in between. Just having pretty people run from fabricated danger does not a movie make. That seems to be my biggest problem with Transfromers, its laziness. This movie was made knowing that people will come out in droves to see robots fighting and that was all that mattered, so they slapped together a movie to satisfy that one demand.

Compare that to something like Spider-Man 2. After the success of one, Raimi could have put zero effort into the sequel and stiall walked away with very, very similar BO numbers. Instead, he chose to elaborate on characters that he clearly cared about and make a film that is superior to the first. (and boy did I love the first)

Big movies can be great movies. They can also be terrible movies. Refusing to understand that is a problem people need pointed out to them. Thanks for that Roger.

Dear Roger,

I am a junior in high school who just wanted to let you know that you have not lost your touch with the young audience. The audience for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was, for a lack of a better term, a group of morons who would rather see a bunch of explosions with attractive people jumping out of the way of them then see actually good movies. For example, I was with some of my friends at the local video store where we were choosing what movies to watch that night. I was the one spending the money so I thought that we should find something interesting and not raunchy or explosive. I chose two of my favorites: Chop Shop by Ramin Bahrani and Snow Angels by David Gordon Green. When we went back to my friends' house to watch them, my friends couldn't get through half of either one of them. Instead they chose to watch a marathon of Bad Boys and Bad Boys 2. I was so upset that they wouldn't finish those two great movies until I realized, you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

What Transformers 2 lacks is a sense of wonder. I sense that that's what you're looking for in this movie. Am I right? :)

The writers and Michael Bay should have done more in creating a sense of wonder that could inspire people to watch it over and over again.

If Arcee were a single robot falling in love with Bumblebee, or if only they explain why Autobots believe in an after-life, or if only the Decepticons were shown to take advantage of gullible humans with temptations of power or wealth if the latter work for them...

IF ONLY. *Sigh*

Ebert: Nobody on the net knows how young you are unless you tell them. Keep them guessing and they won't jump to conclusions about your opinions. The internet is ideally a perfect democracy. Quality rises. I remember when James Berardinalli first appeared. Just this guy in New Jersey publishing his reviews. We had lunch in Philly once. Well, he still has the day job, but today he is one of the most-read critics in America.

At a time when everybody can be a "film critic" on IMDB or the Rotten Tomatoes message boards or their own blogs, fewer and fewer people understand the concept. The film critic is just one more voice among millions, and as newspapers and magazines move online, the line between someone writing for the New York Times and somebody blogging for Ain't It Cool News is growing thinner by the day. That's a good thing, because it democratizes criticism, but there's also a growing sense that if anybody can do it, there's no art to it. (It's not just some film critic thing either - in the age of Ikea, the artisan carpenter is a rarity.)

I freelance as a film critic for Fangoria magazine and its website, which I guess puts me somewhere on the dividing line. I tend to get comments that call me a fraud or a snob - one person wrote that he was sure the film would be good despite my dismissal because "real people" liked it. (I'm not real?) Few attempt to engage with the substance of the review, to tell me why I'm wrong because I missed this subtlety or I unfairly dismissed this point - it's usually just "you're wrong because it's a ghost movie and I love ghost movies."

BUT - I've noticed that when I review a movie that turns out to be universally reviled or universally beloved by critics and viewers alike, the feedback from comment-writers is almost universally positive. "Great review!" "Wonderful review!" they write, and then go on to confirm that the movie is indeed excellent. I get the sense that they don't really find anything wonderful with the review itself other than the fact that it validates their own thoughts about the movie it's talking about.

Ebert: I've read reviews by you and admired them. Certain sites like Fangoria and SF and Fantasy and three or four of the DVD sites maintain a very high standard. Their critics know their fields and are far, far, from being just "fans."

Some live for cheap thrills, others seek deeper intellectual stimulation. The beauty of our cinematic culture is that there's plenty for both.

But we accept the fact that we're all going to have to sit through the other's garbage from time to time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZguHLo-Yq0

"Maybe this subject has already been discussed here, but I'd like to recall that Mr Ebert wrote a quite favorable review of the last Transformers movie. It would then seem, to me at least, like he doesn't simply dismiss a movie just because it's an action movie."

He's also given favorable reviews to many, many blockbuster action films. The idea that he only prefers art-house movies is absurd and can be quickly disposed of with a search through the archives. I like that one would only have to search as far as the first Transformers to find one such example.

Roger--

Are you familiar with the Redbox DVD dispensers? They're my favorite invention since Wikipedia: one dollar plus tax, one DVD until until 9 PM tomorrow. I recently got laid off from work, and these machines have been a saving grace for inexpensive, (sometimes) quality entertainment.

In any event, I've been trying to turn my roommate onto them, and my argument tends toward, "how many movies would really be a waste of a dollar?" Even my most recent disappointment, Tropic Thunder, was worth a dollar just to remind myself of how annoying Ben Stiller can be.

Relevance to this blog? It's that Transformers is just the kind of movie which wouldn't pass the one buck stress test...and that's REALLY saying something.

Ebert: Spend that dollar on a shiny red apple.

[Belated thanks for the last-minute correction on my post last week. I expected to hear from some IT staff member, not "the man himself." Thank you for taking the time to manage these comments. Like all of your fans I'm thrilled that you're well enough to write so prolificly, and I hope your health stays with you for many more years to come. - JW]

Here's my theory about the anti-intellectualism of today.

In the past forty years or so there has been a shift towards requiring an advanced education - first it was Associates degrees, then Bachelors, and now Masters degrees are all but essential for career progression in corporate America. One private-sector company I've worked for gave preference to Ph.Ds. (How banal can your outlook on life be to spend the time required for a PhD just to go to work in the private sector? I can't imagine.)

But yet some people are still not college material. That wasn't always a shameful thing. There were jobs to be done in manufacturing, construction, taking care of infrastructure in your community - physical labor. There was even a chance to work your way into the corner office if you had the "gumption" and drive. Those people were still essential. Their pride came from a strong work ethic, not the certificates on their wall.

But now there is an insidious insistence throughout our culture that if you don't want to go to college you are insufficient and worthless to society, and by extension, unintelligent. Those people, who aren't going to be college material no matter how much they're berated or cajoled, are pissed off about it. Thus they lash out at "intellectuals" and "elitists." And they have a point.

Education used to be one way to a better life, not the only way. When we sold out our manufacturing base and advanced education became the only path to the American dream, there came yet another thing that some people would have, and others would have not.

Roger, nothing you can say can change that fact that YOUR still an old fart!

Ebert: When you have a choice, always prefer an experienced fart. Your welcome.

I saw the film opening day with my whole family (dad, stepmom, two little brothers and one of two stepbrothers). My other stepbrother (19) and his girlfriend saw it later that day. A few days later he tried to understand why I didn't like it. I said it was long, stupid and full to brimming with mind-numbingly boring action. He still didn't know what I meant. To each his own?

I'm usually pretty big on effects-driven tentpole movies, and I have this pseudo-filmgoing-philosophy that if a movie cost $200 million dollars then, sure, I'll spend ten bucks to see where all that dough went.

Something about Transformers 2 is rubbing me the wrong way, though. I haven't seen it yet, and somedays I think to myself "Damn, I'm glad I'm never gonna see that movie" and other days I'm thinking "ah, what the hell, lemme go see what the fuss is all about." I haven't heard one single positive thing about it but some of the action I've seen in the advertising does look pretty cool.

Then I remember going to see Bad Boys 2 and watching Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are driving a yellow Hummer through a shanty-town and thinking to myself "when is this going to be over??" and "why the hell is this movie more than two hours long?" Pirates of the Carribean Part 3 also comes to mind, this giant, hulking disaster of a movie that obviously came from a "strike-while-the-iron's hot" mentality.

Somedays I crave a Big Mac. I know it's bad for me, I know I'm gonna feel terrible after eating it, but every once in a while I'll go buy one. And it's delicious. And then I feel like crap immediately after I've eaten it. But I'll still get one every once in a while.

Transformers 2 is like a Big Mac. I know I'm going to see it. I can't help myself.

I was accused of being elitist by a college T.A. when I dared to write a critical paper contrasting Jay Rosenblatt's Human Remains to Speilberg's Schindler's List (amongst other things, coming to a somewhat tangential conclusion that the former was a far superior and more profound exploration of the nature of human evil, while the latter was only a shallow treatment of the same). It was the first time I had been accused of being an elitist, and I wasn't quite certain what it even meant. I had an email exchange regarding this a few years ago with a hero/friend of mine whom you might recognize --Mr. Carney from Boston University-- and he told me how I should take the criticism. I paraphrase him here, because alas I don't have access to his original email at the moment (I hope I am doing his eloquent response justice):
"I turn the tables on [those accusing elitism]. I ask them, 'What's not to like about elitism?' From the clothes I buy, to the restaurants I eat at, to the car I drive, I try to pick the best my money can buy at the time, and I'm sure these people do the same. Only the few get to heaven (though they probably won't admit it). If I had to go under the gas for the removal of a brain tumor, would I find the best brain surgeon my insurance coverage would provide, or would I go with some hack-job off the street simply because I didn't want to be labeled an elitist? They might say, 'But art is not a matter of life or death, like brain surgery.' I say, 'Ah, but it is. Perhaps more so.'"

It's odd, some of the most racist people I know were offended by the racism in Transformers 2 and have said so publicly, voicing their disbelief and amazement.

If The Spirit was like Birth of the Nation with way more snow, I can only imagine what this movie is like (which I haven't seen).

I do film criticism for a local newspaper, and I've had much of the same experience after reviewing Transformers 2. I try and keep my reviews as simple and objective as possible, acknowledging the good and the bad in every film. But here I could not find anything good to acknowledge. I personally felt insulted by the entire movie, or the fact that this is what Hollywood thinks I should like. I thought the film was racially insensitive, unfunny, and brutally painful to watch. And that's what I wrote about, including the interesting fact that screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzmann have essentially apologized for the Twins in interviews.

I then received an email saying I should be ashamed of myself, and then speculating that perhaps I had been abused by a Transformer in another life. This is one of many emails that we have received at the paper, and indeed, a negative Transformers review has inspired more public discussion than any other movie we've reviewed.

My theory is one of two options: 1) People have been so convinced by advertising that they must love this movie they are afraid to have the supposedly minority opinion (despite the fact that the vast majority of people I talk to did not like the movie, although very few despised it as much as I did). 2) People loved the old series or the toys so much that they don't care how bad this movie is, as long as it has Transformers in it. This covers the one person I know who did seem to enjoy the movie, although I think that loving something as a child would make me even more critical of it now. For example, I loved Star Wars growing up, but I'm perfectly willing to express my disappointment in the prequels. I don't need to love them simply because they are Star Wars movies.

I especially enjoy the readers who tell me that critics obviously don't like action movies. Those readers clearly did not read my Star Trek review, or my reviews for Iron Man, Hellboy 2, or The Dark Knight. Those are all action movies, but they are movies with heart and character and narrative drive, not just constant ejaculatory explosions and clanging noises.

But my favorite defense that I've actually heard people use for this movie, and I wish I was making this up: "It's not supposed to be good." If that's the case, then what was the point of the movie? Why did I waste my approximately 9 hours getting pounded in the head by Michael Bay? If the trailers used that defense as a tagline I wouldn't even have bothered.

Ebert: When they tell you, "perhaps I had been abused by a Transformer in another life," you wonder what part of that they mean serioiusly. And then you don't want to know.

I find it very sad that in this day and age, people don't understand what the point of movie critics is. Your job is not to tell everybody what to think about a film. It is to give an informed opinion about the general quality of the film. You tell us what you liked and disliked about the film, and we gauge your analysis against our own tastes. We look at various elements cited in your review and decide whether those elements are sufficient to make us like or dislike the movie enough to go out and see it or decline to do so.

Many people can't seem to distinguish between a good film and an enjoyable film. When you say that a movie is a bad film, you aren't saying that no one is going to enjoy it. Heck, I'm willing to bet money that we all have movies that are absolutely terrible, but that we still love to pop into the DVD player every now and then.

I also agree with your assessment that it isn't opening night at the box office that makes a film good. What makes it good is the work put into it, and the quality of the end result. One of the best sayings I've ever heard was to the effect that "Convincing 2,000,000 people to buy cakes of questionable quality doesn't make me a good baker. It just makes me a good salesman." In our corporate-driven culture, the public often confuses numbers with quality.

I am consistently disgusted by people telling me that I should go see/buy/play/read something simply because a large number of other people are doing so. I wish more people would see the hypocrisy in dismissing critics assessments of a film as irrelevant, while at the same time asserting that a movie is a "must-see" film simply because others are seeing it. How is a single informed opinion less valid than a number of uninformed ones? Thirty blind people telling me the sky is green doesn't make it any less blue.

Anyhow, keep writing great reviews! You won't necessarily sway my opinion of a movie, but you will definitely be helpful in my decision to go see it.

As a college student, I would like to say that Casablanca was a tremendous (and in no way boring) film and Transformers was the worst film I have ever seen, not because of the glaring plot holes and horrible dialogue, but because the action was completely unintelligible.

Roger,

Your perspective on the investments of a movie viewer are profound and accurate; we do bring what we've seen and experienced before to each movie, and are affected accordingly. It's regretful not only that many haven't seen or experienced so many wonderful, enriching movies... but also that people find mindless frenetic action and explosions to be all the "wonderful" and "enriching" they need, thank you. Is this also a product of the lack of exposure to greater film work? Who can say?

I also agree strongly with you regarding the effect of brutal marketing and wide release on a less-than-stellar product. It does not ALWAYS work, but it works often enough for the Hollywood machine to count on it as statistically beneficial. I've been disappointed in the past by movies, by Hollywood and by the whole nasty money-making system. But never before have I been so heartbroken than this year, where Transformers 2, offering nothing new whatsoever to humanity, sees enormous release and large box-office take, and meanwhile Bigelow reaches for the skies and creates the tense and powerful "The Hurt Locker" with great effort and only $11 million, and it struggles with limited release and next to no publicity.

- peter z.

Hi Roger,

I find myself agreeing with your reviews 90% of the time but I always feel there are some movies that get the wrong interpretation.

I did not enjoy Transformers 1 and do not intend to see part 2. The first was loud, clunky, numbing, and I sincerely wanted a piece of shrapnel to come through the screen and end my misery.

Having said that, I understand the appeal as I'm sure you do and many a times I feel critics are swayed by how they are feeling in the moment.

I remember watching your At the Movies review with Gene Siskel on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and you said that it was a 90 minute commercial that had no purpose than to make children beg their parents for more TMNT lunch boxes and toys and what not.

But then in Confessions of a Shopaholic you gave it a positive review and stated it was funny and fun. Could you not argue that Confessions of a Shopaholic also promoted a materialistic fantasy or was your mood when you entered the theatre to see this film a much more cheerful one compared to other movie-going experiences?

It is this reason that I feel where audiences and critics differ most. Audiences walk in knowing they're going to watch over 2 hours of onscreen mayhem with Transformers and are probably all in the same action-craving mood. They paid $10 to get in and they expect it.

Critics on the other hand walk in and vary in expectation. One critic might want to see an action movie and another may feel like the task of watching 2 plus hours of mayhem is nothing short of a chore. The latter critic may thus see Transformers, or any other movie for that matter, as lacking because their mood didn't fit the bill of what the movie was demanding.

Hope I made sense and I hope you can tell I was a fan of TMNT and not of Confessions of a Shopaholic.

When someone says "You have forgotten what it is like to be a kid" they can only be referring to the slack kids give to movies because they (usually) don't know better. Of course a kid is going to like "Transformers 2" because it is all very visual. As a kid I loved the 1979 releases of "Battlestar Galactica" (My heart aches for Sensurround) and "Buck Rogers." It never occured to me that I was being ripped off because these had been shown almost in their entirety on free television. I also loved "The Black Hole" because at that time the effects (for all three) were, in my eyes, terrific. To watch these movies now is to be pretty bored with them, much like I was bored with "Transformers 2." It was great to look at for about 20 minutes but there was no character development, the story was needlessly convoluted and complex so all there was was the effects. The same goes for most of Bay's movies - especially "Pearl Harbor." It's like eating a Tootsie Roll pop with barely any Tootsie Roll in the middle. You expect more when you get to the core but all it is is sugar. Bay delivers sugar filled entertainment. Are we really surprised?

Next time someone tells you that you forgot what it is like to be a kid (movie-wise anyway) I would take it as a compliment. It means you learned to tell the good from the crap and stopped being fooled by movies with visual flair and no story, style or characters.

Why does digital and FX these days look so drab? The terminator film also had this problem. It seems like movies have too much detail in them. Why did the transformers have so many little moving parts that provided so many little grey lines all over their bodies?

The toys were actually quite colorful and had rich textures. I think is started with The Matrix and how they decided that green is the new black and white. Icky. Go rent What Dreams May Come to recalibrate your color scheme in your head.

Mr.Ebert, I've noticed that for some movies that are truely awful that get harsh reviews from you (like Police Academy) you don't review the sequels in the franchise (which are usually even worse). Is this intentional? I'm just curious as to whether or not we'll be seeing a Transformers 3 review, or if you're done with the franchise altogether, which I can understand.

Ebert: I'm holding my 2011 calendar open for "Transformers 3."

I would say that the Transformers 2 review was helpful to me, in that I didn't see the movie, because I knew I wouldn't really enjoy it.

When I saw the first movie, it was serviceable. It had a plot that I enjoyed following, and the robots had character. The part I didn't like was the robot battles, particularly at the end. I found myself just waiting for them to be over. And the review indicated that not only was there more of that, but that they didn't fix any of the problems that made the battles so monotonous in the first ones. They just made them louder, and therefore harder to sleep through.

I thought it was my own poor eyesight that was to blame for not being able to tell the robots apart when they're not in car form.

It struck me that the one thing the movie is getting the wrongest, is the movie's whole reason to exist: fighting robots.

So if I want an action movie, I'll just see Star Trek again.

Great piece Roger. I couldn't agree more with your argument that an opinion can only be taken so seriously. God knows I see my fair share of blockbusters, but for someone to leave Transformers 2 feeling like they've just witnessed greatness...well, it makes me wonder about their state of mind. It's no secret that some movies are made to be dumb. The movie "Idiocracy" comes to mind. But the makers of Transformers 2 had one thing and one thing only on their minds. Money. And sadly, that's all there is to it.

Also, just out of curiosity, what is your favorite "big dumb" blockbuster? Your favorite mindless guilty pleasure?

I just want to specifically comment on that trailer. What an exciting series of recognizable monuments falling prey to destruction! Oh no, not the Sistine Chapel! Not the USS John F. Kennedy! Not John Cusack!

Roland Emmerich makes one half of very exciting movies. Then when he runs out of disasters he's stuck with characters that the plot never bothered to develop, and we have to muster enough interest to watch them muddle their way through some sort of resolution that often involves uploading a computer virus from a Powerbook - one that cripples extremely advanced and utterly alien technology.

My question is, since apparently in 2012 the planet is going to be destroyed, where is the happy ending for Cusack and his adorable children/love interest? On Mars? Ooh, I smell sequel! 2012 2: 2016 (Red Planet Kablamo!)

What on earth is the poster who said, "I just want to see stuff get blown up," doing on Roger Ebert's blog? If it wasn't satire (which I'm hoping was the case), then I hope he sticks around a while. He might learn something.

"Americans love junk. It's not the junk that bothers me--it's the love." Santayana

There's plenty of love in my heart for so-called "lowbrow" culture. And advertisers seem to like it too, when they get sick of pushing Glamour! and Excitement! and start the "Good Ol' Middle American Family Values Rest Within This Pair Of $185 Levis" ad cycle. So it's not like explosions and robots and Megan Fox aren't appreciated by the "elite" money makers who market to the masses. They know what buttons to push--hell, they went to school to learn it.

But what bugs me is twofold: First, "lowbrow" culture (say, anything that doesn't originate within the Ivy League Belt) is not automatically "stupid." True artists in, say, the Arts and Crafts movement may work in unfashionable obscurity and poverty in Iowa (as opposed to fashionable o/p in Paris) but they put as much work, thought, and discipline into their creations as any other artist. They read, think and desire, and want to express it in a certain way, so much so that they devote hours, days, weeks, years to creating something. So when advertisers see "God Bless The USA" as dumbing down their approach, it's a real affront to everyone who actually lives in that way. They produce not appreciation of the culture that exists, but a trashy, crude version with fake boobs and racist humor that they cover with sparklers and light and throw in your face, screaming demands for your money.

And secondly, we apparently can't get enough of this approach! Who cares about a structured script? To hell with coherent editing! I've been ordered to not give a crap that Michael Bay just took a giant shit all over the toys that brought me hours of happiness in my childhood! He loves us, and proved it by spending eighty trillion dollars on making a giant two and a half hour explosion! That's what we've been told to want! More! More! More! We're dumb and under orders to love being dumb, and that's all there is to it!

YOu don't have to hate High, Low, or Middlebrow culture to prove how real you are. What's real is making up your own mind about something you love, and the reasons for that love should strengthen your arguements and mind.

Roger, I agree with everything stated until you got to this part:

"Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved."

After lecturing about movies and tastes being subjective it's somewhat contradictory to be making derogatory statements about those who liked the movie. Nobody is arguing that Transformers 2 is better than the Godfather 2 so you can't use Siskel's argument to prove your point about how some subjective statement borders on fact. It also makes you seem like, what's that term....an elitist. Maybe that's why some people accuse you of being one. To each their own.

I saw Martin Amis do a book reading once and he said Americans take great satisfaction when a poet or other intellectual commits suicide. Sort of a "see I told you so." Sometimes I completely agree with that and do think Americans take great pride in being anti-intellectual and then I discover some pocket that where I know all is not lost.

I think a good critic is someone who you can completely disagree with but in reading their criticism you can still determine whether you personally would like whatever it is they're critiquing. If I completely agree with you it doesn't make my assessment of your argument any less rigid than those I disagree with. I've seen too many arguments on the web where people take such pride in disagreeing. The true mark of using your critical faculties is being able to add to the discussion whether you agree or disagree with what's being said.

Sometimes it seems like rhetoric now has to be black and white. You must hate or like. No gray area. And I think I good critic or analyst sees the gray area and can talk about it and use it to foster actual discussion rather than boil everything down to a creed or non-questionable belief system that I see the web reduce conversation to sometimes.

Overall I just end up appreciating my slightly cranky Seminar teacher in high school who taught us critical thinking.

Roger,
Based on your recommendation, as well as that of other critics, I have decided to forgo the time and money to see a movie I was looking forward to. I do this because I have followed your reviews for many years, and though I do not always agree with your assessments (i.e. Star Trek), I have found you to be one who reviews movies on their own merits. And thus I value your thoughts, opinions, reviews, and insights.
I have no overwhelming desire to see a movie with little or no plot cloaked in overwhelming sound and special effects.
What I do find interesting is how people take a disagreement to your review as a personal affront to their sensibilities. It is as if they need you to like it in order to justify their opinions.
Though like you, I agree, not all opinions are created equal. This is one of the great fallacies in our country today. Just because someone has an opinion, doesn't make them right. It just makes them opinionated.
Thanks again for the recommendation. I'll probably rent Transformers for a dollar where I can control the volume, and pause it if I get bored.

Perhaps some of the problem is that your critics are comparing apples to oranges, instead of other apples. What about the glowing reviews you've given to other action/adventure fantasy films, such as The Phantom Menace, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, or King Kong? Not that I've agreed with all of them, but I at least understand where you're coming from in your reviews. That's the very reason I trust your opinion on Transformers 2.

There have been several action movies that have been revered by Mr. Ebert. I remember being asked a question in dramatic theory and criticism who determines whether art is art and whether or not it is good art? That questions continually dogs me as I go to see movies and theatre and wonder why something I enjoyed gets bad reviews. But I tell you this fact, out of touch is a comment that should never be delivered to critics. Ever. The only way to be out of touch is to be isolated from the current industry. Mr. Ebert is IMMERSED in it. I sometimes get irritated when people automatically think critics do not understand the genre.(I see someone else had discussed the LOTR series because I stopped reading the Mr. Ebert's reviews after the three star for Fellowship of the Ring - but of course, came back. I contend that within a critics lifetime, they have seen more action movies than any of the fine bloggers here that are critical of that review. It does take education to be able to say - this one is not good. It cannot just be an action movie. There has to be something more - and that can be anything. But if it is just action, then it better be varied. I am not film critic, but that is the problem with the transformers. I am not a fan, but have nephews that are fans. And there is nothing but explosions and Megan Fox delivered for the masses. I don't see anything else that makes this one better.

But I had to grab the out of touch comment - because critics that have been in the industry for years, perhaps cannot predict which films will be smashing box offices successes or flops, but they can tell you which films a few years from now will be collecting dust in the 99 cents (probably 2.99 by then) used DVD section. And transformers #2 will be outdone by some other action movie with better special effects a few years from now. And since there is nothing else to hold on to (unless, once again, a Megan Fox fan), this movie will be forgotten.

And that is what makes it a poor movie. It's only value is one thing and that one thing is transient.

Great blog Mr. Ebert.

I didn't like the first Transformers though there were a few redeeming moments in the special effects and humor. I haven't seen the 2nd one and I refuse to.

I can appreciate low art. After all, I like B-movies. I like action films. I like softcore skin flicks. Yet, I'm also into high art. Art films. Dramas, comedies, whatever.

I really don't like the attack on critics just because they didn't get the new Transformers. Audiences don't know what they want. You just can't force-feed the same old thing over and over again. You need to give them something different. I remember what you said about what a director does in that James Toback documentary you appeared in. Michael Bay is really more of a caterer just feeding on what people want but he does it such tasteless fashion.

Kudos to you Mr. Ebert. You rock!!!! Don't let those dumbass fanboys get you down. You're more entertaining than Bad Boys II, Pearl Harbor, The Island, Transformers, and Armageddon combined.

I'm right behind you, Roger.
When I hear good things said about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, it is usually to the extent that "I liked it, even though it was too long, had a weak plot, didn't have any interesting characters, etc."

Let us allow that viewers can 'like' whatever they very well want to (my personal picks of the all-time greatest movies ever made usually rank around the %70-%80 range at Rotten Tomato), that doesn't mean that what they like has quality.

Even if you liked Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, you should recognize that it simply wasn't a quality film.

I'm currently working on a thesis that includes the subject of taste in the 18th century, and it appears that little has changed. Much of what was said above, especially Siskel's remark on errors of fact, mirrors what David Hume wrote 252 years earlier in his "On the Standard of Taste."

I find the parallels amusing.

Action movies today suck. They all suck. There hasn't been a truly great action movie in years, because crap like Transformers and Star Wars dominate box-office sales. Tarantino's movies don't count, either, because the tongue is too firmly in cheek in his movies to allow viewers the chance to be fully, emotionally involved in the action.

"Treasure of the Sierra Madre," "Wages of Fear," "The Getaway," "Papillon"--these are great action movies, with great characters, that should be emulated more often today. Who tells simple man-against-nature stories anymore? These used to be a staple of popular short stories and films. Today, however, they are ignored because these stories don't offer opportunities for explosions and computer effects.

Action movies used to be smart and psychologically compelling. Boy, they sure don't make 'em like they used.

Hi Mr. Ebert, you might remember me as that teenager who was inadvertently brought into the wonderful world of the movies by your Ikiru Great Movies essay.

Reading this entry, I found it remarkable how much I can empathize with your position. Imagine me, an eighteen-year-old, not knowing a single person in my age group who has seen a work by Ozu or a silent epic. I already feel aged and out of touch with my own generation.

Know full well Mr. Ebert that your insights and criticism are not lost completely on the youth. It is to your credit that these attacks on how apparently 'boring' or 'out of touch' you are don't phase you nor discourage you from continuing to state your honest opinions. Thank you.

Nice article, love the Brainiac reference, hopefully he will be in the next Superman movie.

The question is, will "Idiocracy" be our "1984"? We didn't learn anything from 1984, no matter how prescient, and it appears we're learning nothing from "Idiocracy".

P.S. Your s**t is all retarded and s**t.

These writers mostly said they had a thing about the Transformers toys of their childhoods, or liked the animation on TV, or like to see stuff blowed up real good.

That's me, right there, all three. I grew up on the Transformers cartoon, as did my husband, and that's why we go to see the movies. Not to mention we're action movie fans. Of course we saw a bunch of things in the movie we didn't like, such as the racial stereotypes. We noticed plot holes and wondered about the curiously physics-defying boobs (in a moment of role-reversal, apparently I was the one staring at them and wondering why they weren't flying out of their confinement during chases; I had to point this out to my husband). But we were largely able to put those out of our mind to enjoy the nostalgia, robots, and explosions.

That said, I get it. I review books, not movies, and I have the same problem with them. I can still enjoy "popcorn" movies that I know (intellectually) aren't very good, but it's a lot harder for me to do with books. Partially because I consume many more of them. Partially because I know a lot more about writing than I do about filmmaking and thus the problems glare out at me much more clearly---I imagine that's how you see movies.

I enjoyed your anti-Transformers 2 review; I thought it was interesting, insightful, and well-thought-out. I agreed with a lot of it, and yet that didn't keep me from going and enjoying those parts of the movie I wanted to enjoy as well. That's the beauty of entertainment such as movies and books---we all like different things, and that's okay. What's execrable to you is tolerable to me, even if I understand why you hated it. This is part of what attracts me to reviewing---the attempt to pick apart what about a thing (in my case, books) makes it attractive to one person, but not another. I believe a review is well-written when readers can get out of it whether THEY would enjoy something, and that's exactly what I got out of your review of Transformers 2.

While reading your Blog entry, I was reminded of the animated series "the Critic", when Jay would sing his little ditty, "I love boring, pretentious French films"! That always made me smile.

"But am I out of touch? It's not a critic's job to reflect box office taste. The job is to describe my reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others. The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded, but to evaluate another opinion against his own."

Life is short, and so I've decided to skip reading all of those 750 comments. What's funny to me is that no seems to have cited your four-star reviews for 'The Dark Knight', 'Spider Man 2', 'Juno', and 'Minority Report', the last two of which you called the best movies of the year. Not to mention your glowing reviews of Terminator 2, Star Wars, ET, Titanic, and Jaws, among many others. Were you catching any flack during those times for being 'elitist' and 'out of touch'? Or is this, as I suspect, a condition peculiar to my generation?

Oh, but they are already drowning!

It would seem to me that life requires one to think deeply, so as to make sense of all the complex stuff that happens to one and all the strange things that one feels and does.

Those who do not think so deeply about their complex lives, believing apparently that they already know all they need to know (and couldn't bare the thought that they, like everyone else, are in fact rather clueless), or worse, they believe that they are of the special few who have pleasingly simple and straightforward treks through life, will from time to time find themselves to be drowning, under the weight of the mystery, the delusions and denials, the addition through consumption, the refusal to THINK THINGS THROUGH.

I'm convinced that the kind of people who could call "Transformers Two" a great film, rather than a silly entertainment and a very bad movie, are the type that would not think through the complexities of life for all the posing and posturing and deluding themselves and lying to others that they're doing everyday. Teenagers, I mean - and those who have refused to evolve from the teenage mindset.

Of course, those who do think deeply do live complex and difficult and sometimes overwhelming lives, though perhaps with a bit more humor and understanding and wonder.

When I was turning eighteen, and nearing the end of my childhood as I had known it, I engaged some very deep thinking that allowed me to see life as very complex and full of unusual choices and unexpected turns and changes and, if I should continue to live so willfully (as a teenager lives), plenty of disappointment. Most of my friends were frantically (I dare say, frantically indeed) searching for a mate and a career and some financial foundation to building a normal life of house, cars, kids, and gadgets. I was not.

There was a time during my mid-twenties that I began to give in to that settling instinct (or is it not instinct but pressure, from outside, manifested inside?), especially when I saw most of the free spirits I'd befriended during my wandering years begin to settle down in a job they never envisioned themselves doing but did not hate entirely, find a mate, acquire things, and reproduce. But I'm proud to say (elitist that I am) that I fought it back.

Is the alternative now anything better? Not necessarily. But being alone at 29, without very much job security, without much money, without many acquisitions, I live a rather full spiritual and philosophical life, enjoying most of the primal delights of my peers only in theory, thinking long and hard about my next maneuver in life while thinking long and hard about my last ones, learning to be a better writer and communicator and thinker and dreamer and moviegoer, learning to live without so much jealousy and resentment for the roads I've not taken, all the while being quite content to live for a dream, a secret passionate dream for the life I always wanted to live, and not settling for much of anything less than that.

I have to confess, though: I haven't seen "Transformers Two" yet. And I don't plan to.

And I hear that the premiere Asian universities, particularly in Japan and Korea, are worlds in front of the West in terms of rigour.

American Universities are still well in front of most others in the world in terms of overall quality. The rigour of which you speak is mostly memorization and standardized tests, which, as these very Asian Universities are well aware, leads to poor creative, problem-solving, and conceptual skills, things which American Universities actually teach extremely well.

I consider myself a filmophile and hated Transformers. It wasn't because it was a dumb action movie; it was because it was dumb. There are plenty of action packed films, violent films, special effects films, sci-fi films that are exciting, visceral, visual and don't blow like this pestilence did. I watched Pearl Harbor on cable and literally found it obscene. To make a popcorn spectacle out of something like that was just wrong. I wait for his Vin Diesel 9/11 film with cool effects. Michael Bay is not just a dumb filmaker, he is a maker of films for what he assumes are dumb audiences.
Try Cameron's movies (not Titanic), Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc. for good movies where stuff blows up real good. It can be done. You just need to expect a little more.

I know how you feel, Roger. I was chastized by my friends recently because I did not like "Angels and Demons". My friends and I saw the film as a group and at dinner afterwards I was a lone warrior in my defense of the fact that the movie - if you thought about it for two minutes after it was over - was patently ridiculous.

"You have to read the book", I was told

"No I don't", I said, "It is the filmmaker's job to translate the film so that I don't need do any prep-work before going into the theater"

I've had many arguments like this. My taste in movies has changed. I was once part of the large cattle herd that thundered into the week's major event picture without a second thought. That is, until I got older and started to realize what this junk was costing me and that there were better places for my movie dollar to be spent.

I am utterly bored by films that ask nothing of me. I detest movies in which I take nothing with me when I leave the theater but an empty popcorn bag and a void where my $10 use to be. I don't like spending the ride home discussing with my wife all the things are wrong with the movie we just saw.

I saw "Transformers" two years ago in the theater and, I admit, I had a fairly good time. It wasn't the greatest movie ever made (I haven't seen it since) but, due to it's unexpected sense of humor, I had a better time then something like "Armageddon" which offered me nothing. I haven't seen "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and I do not plan to. I figure I saw all I needed to see in the first film and this one doesn't seem that it will have anything new to offer.

I can't get to the movies right now (I am out of work) so anything I wish to see will have to wait for Netflix. I want to see "The Hangover" and I still haven't seen "The Watchmen" or "Knowing". These are the kinds of films I look forward to.

Mr. Ebert:
Reading through your post, your thoughts about the development of one's taste and learning, and the late Mr. Siskel's remark, I was reminded of the distinction one of my graduate school professors made between mere opinions and informed opinions. The American poet James Wright, once commenting about students who complained that Shakespeare's plays were boring, wondered, "Don't they know how precious their lives are?" I read your reviews, and your blog entries, because I enjoy the way you write, the play of your ideas, your essential generosity in reviewing many films you might have had a reasonable expectation beforehand are not very good. I do not always agree with your views about individual films, but I find myself agreeing more often than not. It is true that I would have not been inclined to watch the Transformers film anyway, but I will not go to see a film you have indicated is "as dumb as a box of staples" since as I keep learning I keep having a better sense of how precious my life is, not to mention how brief it is.

Somehow I think John C. is a pseudonym for Michael Bay himself. It sounds like something he might say. Actually, one thing Bay actually did say recently was that Nicolas Cage wasn't a big star before The Rock, which I vehemently disagree with. But I guess the numbers probably bear Mr. Bay out. Of course, Cage only became a PG-rated megastar with the National Treasure series and, indeed, Cage himself is now a national treasure. As for Tr2, what I want to know is, how did Spielberg let this happen? Did Bay make like Bronwen Hughes and keep Spielberg out of the editing room? Is Bay longing for the true creative freedom that only a like-minded Jerry Bruckheimer could provide him?

Since Bay is a talented visualist whose gifts have thus far been visceral how do we expect to quantify that on an intellectual level? Many of the film's supporters have likened it to a theme park thrill ride, this may seem an uneducated and simple defense, one that gives T2's detractors comfort, but it is one of the core reasons folks go to movies. In my own circle of people I know very few have disliked the film. Plus the film has legs, which means good word of mouth. Its funny to bring Kael up, here was a critic who praised good trash and T2 is some good looking trash...

Roger, I completely disagree with you on this one. In fact, while I wouldn't have ever asserted you were elitist for disliking Transformers 2, saying that those who believe Transformers 2 is a good film are "wrong" is a fairly elitist sentiment. There are no "wrongs" or "rights" in these matters.

Look at it this way: there have been plenty of equally derised films as Transformers 2 that you have praised. Just off the top of my head, there is "Knowing" and "You Don't Mess With the Zohan". There are plenty of critics who would say you are "wrong" for enjoying those films. Are you wrong? I know there are some people who would assert anyone that liked Sandler's "Zohan" is a 'moron' (and as a fan of that movie, I would know).

At the end of the day, within film, there are no "wrong" opinions. Film is a medium that effects us through our feelings and emotions. To say that someone's opinion is wrong is to say that they are wrong for feeling a certain way about something. One's feelings cannot be wrong. For instance, it isn't wrong to FEEL sexually attracted to children, only to actually sexually abuse these childrens. One cannot control feelings. There are no such thing as "wrong" or "right" feelings. And thus, one's feelings about a film cannot be "wrong". They can be weird, unusual, or even revolting, but they cannot be "wrong".

Whenever the subject criticism of critics arises I recall the words of the critic Anton Ego of Brad Bird's briiliant "Ratatouille":

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new; an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking, is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, "Anyone can cook". But I realize - only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IvnptQJ__U

Hey Roger,

I stopped caring about most summer blockbusters a long time ago, and never did go to see Transformers. However I do remember an acquaintance of mine called Transformers his favorite movie of all time, and went on to describe how detailed the robots were and how awesome the explosions were. While I am leftist in my politics, I'm far from an arrogant liberal elitist, but if watching movies with even a smidgen of intelligence makes me some kind of horrible educated elitist, than I guess I'm proud to say that's what I am.

Forget the plot being thin, I'm suprised the dialogue could get through in that movie. Characters basically would spout what they were doing at the time like "I am punching you!".

Why was the girl in that movie around anyway, it seemed like she was unimportant to the plot.

I also had issues with all the discontinuities, examples:
The aircraft carrier that was destroyed in the beginning of the movie returns as a 2nd aircraft carrier at the end (both have number 74).

They call in the Jordanian military (quite ineffectively) despite the fact they're in egypt next to pyramids. Either the pyramids shouldn't be there or the Jordanians should be there...

Why would a shard of the cube burn through the floor of Sam's house, but not through the plastic container he was holding it in or the metal tongs he used to pick them up.

etc etc etc, all of that was blaring at me drowning out a lot of the rest of the movie.

Having recently re-watched the original 1986 Transformers film, I feel I should point out that its plot is much easier to follow than Revenge of the Fallen, it is better-paced, and (an unspoken requirement of summer blockbusters) it contains many more quotable lines.

And it was still pretty lousy.

Speaking as a Transformers fan who can be honest with himself, I think the problem many of the naysayers had with your review is that they feel they need some sort of excuse for buying toys at their age.

Oh and, if I may add, you may not be a moron or any of the other traits attributed to you, but you really sound sure of yourself. Perhaps that comes across as arrogance, even if it's justified.

$8 Million??! and yet they couldn't justify spending 10 minutes to google the Smithsonian and learn for themselves that it's front is in fact in Washington D.C. and its backdoor is NOT in a southern Californian aircraft boneyard?

clearly...I've spend an entire lifetime overthinking this whole "art" thing. I must be trying to hard.

"I'm a proud Brainiac"....Ebert

One has no credit for the cards dealt, only for the game we played. If inherent abilities are as if given in trust, one might ask, what have I done with what I recieved for the betterment of my species...pride of a kind may be justified in that sense.

Vladimir Nabokov said that "minor readers like to recognize their own ideas in a pleasing disguise"...

not much has changed.

do you believe that there are different types of intelligence? and that perhaps michael bay expresses his type of intelligence in way obscure to yours?

Ebert: Apparently.

Ebert, you write good stuff. Now that you are under the radar of the world in terms of your blog having popularity, people feel entitled to disagree with you as if it was personal.

Meanwhile, the new transformers sucks so bad I don't even want to pirate it, let alone actually see it in a theater. What you are getting though, is that idiocy-spew that our wonderful country is so known for.

I do recall someone telling me that all the glowing reviews of these box office movies are from people who are flown to hawaii/other tropical locations to watch the movie, which is where they get their "amazing, fantastic", etc quotes which they use in commercials. Can you verify this/make a comment if you've ever heard about that?

I decided to give Bay the benefit of the doubt, and accept the gaping plot holes and idiotic characters as being in the spirit of the old cartoon. Like I told my friends, the series had a trio of robots who thought it was a good idea to disguise themselves as red and yellow metal dinosaurs, because it was less conspicuous than giant robots. I thought the first movie was nice and glossy, but not much of a Transformers movie. I think this one captured the idiotic levels of toy sales giant robot fighting with some plot tacked on as an afterthought that I recall from the show.
Of course, this means that if you're not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, or you're not a fan of the old series, you're not going to get the same sense.

I'm still amused that the idea that some robots are "black" raises the question of whether the other robots are "white". Everybody knows all giant robots are "yellow". Which makes the "female" motorcycle a Japanese schoolgirl.

Great follow up. It still amazes me that so many people are singing the praises of this film. This has to be the greatest example of "lipstick on a pig" ever put forth. Though in a few places the pig does look pretty good, you can't ignore the fact that its still a freaking pig. It seems movies have lost touch with creating meaningful moviegoing experiences in lieu of a new goal... Becoming the de facto standard DVD to be played in the home theater store demos. Bay will no doubt grab that title and help sell a great many speakers with this film, but he'll only hold onto it until 2012 comes out sometime thereafter =)

Peace

"It would then seem, to me at least, like he doesn't simply dismiss a movie just because it's an action movie."

'Transformers 2' is (theoretically at least) a fanboy sci-fi movie. And Mr. Ebert, I would like to point out, is a real fanboy. I use the term in its most positive sense.

I honestly don't know where the whiners get their ideas from. Certainly not from reading his reviews (or at least reading more than the one that personally offended them). If they had actually bothered to read some of the things he wrote about recent sci-fi, fantasy and comic book films (most of the ones generally agreed upon as being good), they would have discovered a side of Ebert's personality that is positively childlike, and filled with glee and wonder. They would have found how much he enjoys discovering new places, seeing new images, learning new things - and, crucially, embracing new ideas. This is the heart of science fiction, and any man who loves it as much as he does is my brother.

He has given four stars to and written in superlatives about both 'Primer' and 'Sky Captain', two sci-fi films that could not possibly be any more different. He has always given this much-maligned genre its due. To suggest that he is biased against a movie because it's a fantasy entertainment is... is silly.

Mr. Ebert often likes to quote Werner Herzog's belief that we live in an age starved of new images. He champions films that nourish. And he is accused of lacking joy. Truly, the mind boggles.

P.S. He is also accused of forgetting what it's like to be a kid. I submit to you that anyone who knowingly chooses 'Transformers 2' over, say, 'The Fall', is a cold, cynical person, whom childhood has left behind, regardless of age.

nice plot breakdown here:
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/06/bonus_robs_transformers_2_faqs.php
and I mean "breakdown"

Roger wrote, "As I've said before, I have NEVER had an immigrant taxi driver in Chicago (invariably African ...) who was not tuned to NPR. Make of it what you choose."

Now, I'm sadly waiting for a Transformers 2 fan to come in and say, "Uh, I think the correct term is African-Americans, Mr. Ebert."

:-)

Ebert: No, I was deliberately referring to Africans.

My best friend is someone whose taste in film I frequently have reason to question. The other day I showed him The Third Man, which he'd never seen and pronounced as merely "ok". He does actively want to see Sunset Blvd and All About Eve, so hope for the future remains.

He's often, especially in my discussions with him about Transformers 2, given me lot of what you've gotten; that I'm looking too deep into it, that there's nothing wrong with a big, stupid action film, etc. I try to tell him that the fact that it's an action film doesn't mean that it can't be good, since there are many action films that are quite entertaining and even, yes, intelligent, though strangely none made by Michael Bay.

Oh, well. I'll continue to try and show him good film. Later this week or next we'll be watching M, so we'll see how that goes. Wish me luck. :)

I wonder when audiences started to feel that filmmakers were their personal jesters; that the purpose of cinema was to entertain. It may be the intention of some, but I disagree in it being a requirement for all.

I have also been accused of taking cinema too seriously and that I should just relax and not think so much, but I find it easier to let go when watching a film directed by someone like David Lynch than one by a Michael Bay (there is a difference between abstraction and absurdity), and if I have to question the storytelling then *clank* it's not really mindless entertainment, because forcing me to question its plausibility is forcing me to think.

It's better to be out of touch with the audience than out of touch with the world. Did the makers of Wanted really believe that I would feel relief *SPOILER* when the protagonist survived the train sequence or that I would feel some form of sadness by the death of his father, when a train full of people fell to their death in the same sequence: that's out of touch.

You've cited the story about "The Valachi Papers" vs. "The Godfather" more than once, but I had always read in your previous accounts that it was you, not Gene Siskel, who made that cutting witticism. Which is correct?

Ebert: That's a great quote. I think you're right. It must have been me.

Couldn't agree more with the first poster here -- it was an awful, awful movie that I enjoy immensely. I grew up with the cartoons and toys; the movie was somewhat of a nostalgia trip for me. It seems that a lot of people can't differentiate opinion from actual criticism. While it's true that the script and story of Transformers 2 aren't at the forefront of our attention, but they are still elements of a film that are subject to critique, and in this particular movie's case, they were horrific. That doesn't mean a person can't still enjoy the film, but it'd be difficult to argue that it's a "good" movie when such a major element of film-making is lacking.

So, yeah. It's a really bad movie that I enjoyed a lot. I can't imagine a situation where I'd ever have a desire to see it again, but for two and a half hours, I had fun at a bad, dumb movie. Whether or not anybody else did is somewhat irrelevant.

Hi Roger,

What amazes me is that those who are slamming you for “Being out of touch” probably have never read or seen any of your other film reviews. It appears that you have seen almost every movie ever made. Not just “classics” as some have argued, but also past and current films aimed at younger audiences. The criteria you most employ when rating them is very simple:

“Did the film succeed for what it wanted to be?”. Also...“Was it good?”. And as for comedy...”Did I laugh?”.

Detractors really should really educate themselves better. Over the years, I have read and seen you enjoy a multitude of movies that many other critics might regard as “juvenile”. All one has to do is read or see your review of Bachelor Party to understand what I mean. For someone to write that you have no sense of humor or that you only like “boring movies” is someone who had their head up their ass.

I have read the feedback on many sites defending Revenge of the Fallen. There is much similarity to these entries it almost sounds like the same person or persons doing it. One particular recurring argument is the “Turn off your brain for enjoyment” thesis. Pardon me, but doesn’t the sense of enjoyment come from the brain?

Wow. You now have two threads devoted to Mr. Bay’s latest noise fest. Interesting. It seems you have hit a nerve. But since most of the people who vehemently defend Revenge of the Fallen had their brains admittedly switched off, I’m not sure what nerve we’re talking about here. Since nerve endings send impulses to the brain.

Excellent piece, sir. I always enjoy reading your work.

Upon reaching the end of this one, however, I was still left with an idea/comment that I had at the beginning; your explanation and reasoning seemed clear, but I still felt like (at least for me personally) you might not "get it." When it comes to the action movie genre, I have rarely seen one that tries very hard at all to win academy awards. They seem at times to be reminiscent of gladiator battles from Roman times: crude, sometimes inappropriate, but full of raw entertainment that appeals to lower brain function or maybe basic instincts.

I think generally I would be more appreciative if, as a critic, you could recognize these movies that (intentionally or not) are not shooting for masterpiece status as typical artistic works, and compare/contrast them based on this presumption that they are classed in a different category. When lumped with other less-than-stellar (in terms of solid plot, character depth, etc) action flicks, I feel Transformers 2 comes out to be very entertaining and all-around good movie. The explosions are large, the robots are respectably accurate to the concept, and the special effects and general story are epic.

Will I be disappointed if this doesn't get film of the year? Absolutely not. Will I tell people the acting was amazing? No. Do I think this movie should ever be on a "top films of all time" list? Never. But is it a great and entertaining action flick? Without a doubt.

Yo Ebert,

Regarding the personal affront some of the talkbackers took to your review, I think a lot of people create their identity by the music they like, the movies they watch, the gadgets they sport, the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, and so on. In our hyper-consumerist culture, this is how people (young people especially) express their individuality. So, when you disparage a movie they like, you are disparaging them.

Of course, this has always been true to an extent, but I feel it escalating in recent years. I suspect its linked to the proliferation of social networking sites, where people must distinguish themselves from one another without personal contact. So, people congregate around their shared interests, such as the film criticism of Roger Ebert.

i respect you and your job, you've been doing it a long time. I don't necessarily agree with you all the time, but you seem to be an authority.
I watched the first transformers movie the other night and fell asleep halfway through. The CGI was cool, but the plot was predictable so why bother watching the entire thing?
Shia La Boof isn't very convincing as an actor either. I've seen better acting from "tough actin' tenactin".

Some of what you said reminded me of Socrates, what with the referring to horse people on horse matters, as apposed to just anyone. Surely the individual who has watched 5000 films and feels strongly about many, and can discuss why, might be better informed of a movie's quality than the individual who only goes to the movies with friends and only rents the odd DVD.

I love U2, but I know nothing about music, and so when my music friends tell me they suck I am at least considerate of the possibility, as well that taste is all I've really applied to them (this results in my thinking all the harder about the music so that I might one day properly defend it). Why people feel the need to call Transformers 2 the best movie of the year, instead of just their favorite, is, well... probably fitting of their intellect.

Nick Hornby also said that there is no way to prove any song is better than any other, which might be applied to film as well. How can we prove that our sensibilities, entertainment values etc are not skewed? Come to that, to argue definite quality would imply an immovable set of standards outside of consideration or amendment.

But then we invented movies, and our general entertainment values are, to a degree, innate and so immovable. The matter, I guess, is in getting people to own up to which entertainment values they are flattering with a film, and which they are ignoring. Story telling, in the case of Transformers 2, is ignored. The problem here is that it draws the usual "I didn't go to Transformers to see ART!" rebuttal, and the values must be broken down further to properly corner the opponent's inconsideration.

And to do this, you'd need to, for instance, show them a well shot and edited action sequence, get their approval, and render an explanation which would either, A: discover their lack of standard and therefore inability to distinguish, or B: unearth standards they ignored while watching, say, Transformers 2. I have, in my debates, found it rare the discussion goes past the "ART!" rebuttal.

Anyway, what I like least about all of this is that I (like others who know Transformers was garbage) did not attempt to tell someone they could not like the movie; simply, I hated it. Rather than agree to disagree, accusations of snobbery are their response. I didn't call them names, I just disagreed, and I can respect the stance of just being entertained, but to condemn application of thought or standard to something just because you supplied none, is awful.

Sorry for the length and thanks for this and the previous related article.

I consider myself intelligent, or at least smart. I have a job that requires me to not only have a decent amount of brains, but to use them. Educated? I have taken some college classes, but have no degree. I enjoy Casablanca as a true masterpiece. I frequently go to our local Symphony, which I enjoy greatly.

And yet....

I enjoyed Transformers2. Yes, the plot had holes and was simplistic. And several parts made no dang sense at all. The errors were annoying at times.

BUT!

For the time I was in the theater, I relaxed, had an open mind, expected little, got it, and was pleased that I got to see giant robots fighting and stuff blowing up. I enjoyed it, my family enjoyed it, and I'll buy it the day it is available.

And....will pay good money to see Transformers 3, regardless. Because even brain dead foolish movies with all their flaws and errors are better than 99.999% of ANYTHING currently on TV.

That's all I have to say about that.

Say what you will about T:ROTF.

But take back what you said about Snatch!!

Ebert: Readers: Be sure to follow the link to be sure you know what Chris M. is talking about.

I will repeat a comment from above:

"I liked both your review and the Transformers movie."

I have just enough emotional attachment to the property to want to see it played out in a live-action context, but not enough to really care whether Bay and his crew "do justice" to a decades-old property based on toys.

Many of my geek peers are incensed at the film for entirely different reasons than you lot. Generally, they cannot abide any changes to their childhood icons, even simple cosmetic changes. I've labeled this disorder Autobotic Asphyxiation.

What I don't get is that some people love things like cheesy old Godzilla movies, and cannot see that something like Transformers 2 is just the modern equivalent.

Put another way, I'll paraphrase a man whose opinions and insights I respect mightily, despite his wildly misguided review of Fight Club:

"Transformers 2 is not a throwback to corny old movies like Godzilla. It's what they would have been if they could have been."

The humor was absurd, and a dozen other things about the film were absurd, but as someone who hates the overuse of CGI, I have to say that the CGI in this movie was essentially seamless. And while the designs of the robots make it difficult to discern which robot one is watching at any given point, I thought some of the Big Dumb Robot Fights were... well... awesome. The Prime/Megatron/Starscream fight was intense, and Bumblebee ripped Ravage's spine out! Bloody hell. (I was reminded of a line from Ron Burgundy: "That really escalated quickly.")

I ate about a pound of M&Ms while watching Revenge of the Fallen; neither the candy nor the movie were very good for me, but I enjoyed both immensely.

But Roger, you'll like this: as if the theater itself were protesting having to play the movie, a thunderstorm knocked the power out for ten minutes about an hour and a half into the movie. (I suspect that the break helped me to enjoy the movie, to tell you the truth; if ever a movie needed an intermission.)

$8 million for a horrible screenplay? wow, that's more than the entire budget for a lot of good movies. also, the academy-award winning screenplay for Little Miss Sunshine only cost $100,000.

I agree with your hunch that devoted "Transformers" fans don't much care for this movie. Who, then, are these ardent defenders?

Perhaps this has something to do with Michael Bay's unalloyed worship of the US military and its hardware, a point you implied, I think, in your review.

Roger - it works both ways as well. A movie you think is "great" can also be wrong. Remember that when you're raving over the new Tarantino film which recieved mainly negative reviews out of Cannes. A film that looks so unbelievably ludicrous, uninteresting, and horrible yet I expect nothing but a four star rating for "Inglourious Basterds" and a long-winded nonsensical explanation for why you think so.

You might be out of touch, Ebert. Just as Bosley Crowther was when he reviewed Bonnie and Clyde, eventually resigning as a film critic because he was so out of touch with the audience.

We all know you're a complete Tarantino apologist and completely biased. And when Inglourious Basterds bombs and millions of us are saying its the worst film of the year, we can read your review, and then read this post, and know you're a hypocrite and a complete fraud and call for your resignation.

Its over Ebert.

Excellent column, Roger. I also enjoyed your review of "Transformers II."

Over the years reading your opinions, I've disagreed with you many times, occasionally quite vehemently, but I always love the fact you care so deeply about film. Your curious and teachable mind (and fingers) once wrote that you want to LOVE every film you see, not hate it. You're not eviscerating "Transformers II" because you're elitist, out-of-touch, or even old(er). It's because you just really, really didn't like it. Based on your years of intelligently written film columns, this is something that everyone who reads your work should consider.

People who wrote that you're an elitist or out-of-touch are reacting emotionally because they see you as spoiling their little party. Well, party-goers, here's some advice: be nice. Respect Ebert. Deliver him a summary of why you disagree instead of throwing childish insults his way. Learn how to debate.

Oh, and regarding "Transformers II" being the best film of the year? Wrong. Even Michael Ba-B (Explosions!) Bay would agree with you on this point.

Look, I'm not going to try to convince anyone who enjoyed Transformers 2 that they shouldn't have. It's as hopeless as arguing about bad jokes or breast implants. No one is going to change their mind. And really, what is there to be gained?

By the same token, I'm not going to argue or take offense at anyone who hated the film either. That's their right. They likely had certain expectations going in that were not met. They paid for the film, and they were less than satisfied with their experience. By all means, express that disappointment.

But I am going to argue and take offense with all those, on both sides of the Transformers divide, throwing the term "action movie" around in their reviews as a justification or explanation for their opinions.

You've got people on the one side arguing that action films should be exempt from any lofty expectations of characterization and story, and that they be judged different from other films because they are a more visceral experience. Unfortunately, this basically boils down to an argument that action movies are as immune to critique or reflection as pornography, and by extension, little better.

On the other side, you've got people who don't much like action movies to begin with essentially complaining that Transformers 2 is an action movie. They decry the overt racism, the nonsensical plot, the explosions, and the cardboard characters, but in the end it's just an excuse to rail on about an entire genre of film that they actively dislike. And disappointingly, their critique always carries the implicit assertion that anyone who likes action films must, through lack of education or intelligence, be unable to see those glaring flaws.

I will say - RE that 2012 clip.

Its a new way to blow the same old crap up.

I for one am excited about it.

I'm so stoopid! Of course a movie named "2012" is in the works! How could I not have seen that coming? Are there going to be any special effects left by the time the movie is released, or can we watch the trailer and call it a day? Won't the movie seem dated by the year 2013?

Some guy named Garrison Dean recently re-cut the trailer for '2012' into something that goes right along with the supplemental videos for this article:

'2012: It's a Disaster!!!'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2qxFkcLM0

I figured your readers would appreciate it. Keep up the great work!

Whenever I express distaste for the idea of seeing Transformers 2, someone invariably looks at me as if I have lost a basic element of my humanity, and whenever I go further and say why I don't want to see it (too many explosions, too much hot babe—one reviewer said that the constant leering at Megan Fox by the camera made him uncomfortable—too little plot, and too little intelligence), that someone often acts as if I am actively attempting to take away their fun.
"I don't want to see it for the plot," is something my brother frequently says, as if that makes everything all right.
Some of my favorite movies have no plot in the technical sense of the word (Prairie Home Companion and Gosford Park spring to mind, as does Lawrence of Arabia). They are intelligent, humorous, even (in the case of "Lawrence") awe-inspiring. But they have no plot. By that I mean that there is no set up of a conflict between antagonist and protagonist which is resolved in a climax. I do not see these movies for the plot, just as the people who are wasting billions of dollars on T2 are not seeing it for the plot. What exactly are they going to see?
I can't ask my brother because that seems to make him feel as if his more educated, critical, artistic, literate older brother is bashing him over the head with superior knowledge...but I get the distinct feeling that audiences are attracted by the explosions and the CGI. If it's the explosions, then this points to an enjoyment of destruction and death that is fairly worrying. If it's the CGI, at least we should be grateful that audiences have the ability to tell good cinematic craft when they see it in a trailer.
If Transformers 2 was a sort of celebration of the craft of film-making, made with intelligence, restraint and taste (and even made without a plot), I might be interested, but it seems like an attempt to cram as many fireballs and roiling clouds of black smoke as possible into 2+ hours.
Am I too educated and too interested in movies to enjoy them anymore? No. The problem is, I think, that any smart criticism of a movie comes across as either showing off or the workings of a fun-hating mind, determined to kill all enjoyment in others.

Oh, how you make me smile.

It was a terrible film, and I loved it.

I hope he never makes another one, and that it's greatly successful.

It's two movies. First, film. Second, Michael Bay film. Zero and five stars, respectively.

Just another throw-in about the movie and the questions of racism it brought up as well: In the latest GQ I believe, they have a quick Q&A with an Indian-American comedian, who said he he went in for a casting call for the movie and walked out when told they wanted a KWIK-E mart accent.

I can absolutely understand how action and explosions can make for wonderful entertainment--heck that trailer above for 2012 made me want to see it on a large screen. It gets my pulse racing! But even if you're entertained to no end, I would still call it at most "great entertainment", not a "best movie". Especially with a lot of undercurrents, true or not, of not well-thought out stereotypes.

Up has been my favorite so far. I was entertained and thought about it every day for a week.

- 23 year old

I have a number of friends that have seen Transformers and loved it. For the most part they are uneducated, but aren't "stupid" or anything.

I saw it myself and found it to be a gigantic assault on my ability to comprehend. I couldn't make out the robots and the sound in the theater felt like I was standing on an airport runway.

The shallow story and numerous plot holes left me a little empty afterward. I didn't think it was a terrible movie; it just had a lot of issues. It was a typical summer big budget blockbuster where the conventions of storytelling give away to explosions and fisticuffs.

Meanwhile when I talked to my friends they LOVED it. It was like they just witnessed the second coming of Citizen Kane. And in typical fashion I heard things like "F the critics! They don't know nothing!"

I ponder whether it had anything to do with education when I read this blog post and felt a little more confirmed.

I just don't think that some people don't really care much about the qualities of a good movie. "Who cares if Transformers is too long and thin on plot? I get to see Optimus Prime kick some butt!"

I also agree like you had mentioned that a lot of people just assume that critics are too smart for themselves and don't like anything big budget and prefer obscure independent films featuring subtitles.

I like to imagine what would the opinion have been of Transformers had the movie not been a Transformers movie and not have been heavily promoted. Would those same people that loved the movie still have the same opinion? Or would they have seen it as some ridiculous sci-fi robot movie? It is an interesting question I ask myself sometimes in regards to these types of films.

Can you perchance link back to the post by Mr. Diamond that you cite? If he wrote more, I'd love to read it. As a member of a family that has valued education for generations to bring us out of abject poverty, I find it horrifying that so many populists are pushing against education. I'm not surprised to see that same effort playing out in pop culture.

Ebert: That's all he wrote, as they say.

To find a comment on a given blog, just open the blog and use command-S to look for a name or keyword.

I've taught film classes to third graders, college students, prison inmates. At first, the common reaction is a desire not to "over-analyze"; they just want to have fun. But then some realize that paying attention to the grammar of film and knowing something of its history and the theories that have developed are simply different ways to enjoy the movie. My favorite comments come from former students who wryly thank me for "ruining" film for them, because they can't watch a movie anymore without paying attention to the visual and aural elements or making involuntary comparisons to other movies.

Favorite student moment: the grammar school student who, when asked to describe the opening sequence of Citizen Kane, said it reminded him of a haunted house. Now there's someone who will have a better time at the movies than most of us!

I used to feel like going to see a block buster action movie was just that. Explosions, effects, and action. Very little expectations for story and plot. I'm in the fx industry and worked on the first Transformers and had fun doing so. I enjoyed it for what it was and was a fan of the toy and cartoon when I was a kid.

But then something happened. I saw moves like Batman and Ironman. I found it is possible to make an action movie with a story and plot. Now I feel like I shouldn't be subjected to losing what IQ I have left with idotic writing and bad acting. Why should I drop $12 buck to see a movie with low expectations, when all I really feel like I'm doing is supporting Mr. Bay's cocaine habit.

So I'll skip Transformers 2, and most likely G.I. Joe. And be patient to wait for an experience as a whole.

"Do I ever have one of those days when, the hell with it, all I want to do is eat popcorn and watch explosions? I haven't had one of those days for a long time."

I think a big problem is, there's only so many ways to watch something blow up. So with the multitude of action films throughout the decades, it gets old, really fast. Sure, some action films are particularly well directed and crafted, and rise above the rest. But the run-of-the-mill bombs and bullets affair just won't cut it, and hasn't for a long time.

Anyway, action films and films of ideas and feelings need not be mututally exclusive. Just look at such titles as "Point Break," "Terminator 2," "Minority Report," etc. Those were films that did a good job of balancing the action segments with the overall story and characters. It is unfortunate that Michael Bay appears not capable to strike that same balance.

'Ello Mr. Ebert-

I'm glad you've decided to comment on this disturbing trend. Disagreements do seem to hit people on a strangely personal matter, don't they? I'm not always innocent of this either. The way I see it, most people don't have as much money as they used to, and thus can't go to the movies as often anymore. We don't spend time with loved ones as it is, and a trip to the movies is a rare exception to that. So any experience seeing overpriced, sticky-floor, off-focus cinematic garbage seems like an event to be cherished. At least it gets us out of the house, right?

But then here comes a Critic, with his Intellect, and Logic, and he has the audacity to Disagree, using Big People Words and Book Learnin'. The nerve!

I attribute this reaction to a misfiring in the brain, that confuses a negative critique as a personal attack. If I love a movie and someone else says it sucks, are they really saying that my beliefs, my personal enjoyment is invalid, worthless even? How much self-loathing does one require to convince themselves a differing opinion is the same as a scathing insult directed at them? Perhaps this is some leftover defense mechanism, a primal subroutine otherwise meant for saber-tooth tiger attacks.

What a distressing number of people don't seem to realize is that while a bad review can be insulting, it's usually meant for the filmmaker, not the audience. Which I think is fair game if the movie is insulting right back. It's not like the Transformer movies couldn't have worked. If Chris Nolan can take "a funny book about a guy who dresses up like a rodent and punches bank robbers because he misses his mommy" into something poignant and tragic, there's no reason why the same can't be done for Optimus Prime. There's got to be someone out there who can make transforming car-robots as valid from an artistic standpoint.

I don't plan on seeing Revenge of the Fallen. I may mourn its startling financial success, but I'm tired of ruing people for salvaging something out of Michael Bay's crap-blasted idea of entertainment. I have friends who loved it, I won't rain on their parade. But ah, wouldn't it be nice if people who "turn their brains off" during movies like this could repay that favour?

In the meantime, I eagerly await another sci-fi movie about aliens in Egypt. It's called District 9. That trailer alone might be more profound and engaging than all 143 minutes of the first Transformers.

Thank you for perfectly explaining the fight I had with my brother after seeing this movie. He said that I was always looking for the "deep drama", and there didn't need to be anything deep about Transformers. But that's not true. Transformers didn't even meet my bare requirements for enjoying myself, which I realized when I WANTED the Decepticons to kill them all.

Also, I'm really glad you have addressed the anti-intellectualism pervading American society. As a "smart kid", I feel it often. Your baseball analogy is also spot on.

I remember watching "At the Movies" at a tender young age and being absolutely horrified when you and Gene gave "Star Wars" (the first one, in 1977) a somewhat less-than-stellar review. I remember my younger brother and I said things like, "Those old guys!" and "What do they know!" and "They're out of touch!" I figured you and Gene had spent too much time watching stuffy old classics like "Casablanca". Back in 1977, and for many years after, "Star Wars" was my favorite film. I was eight, my younger brother was four.

In the years that followed, film became a serious hobby for me. The advent of home video gave me the opportunity to watch films multiple times and to really study what I was seeing. Sometimes I would watch a movie with the sound on mute so I could better tune in to what I was seeing and how it affected me. DVD technology brought deleted scenes and commentary tracks, all of which expanded my knowledge of film and the art of film making.

For almost a decade, I worked at (the now all-but-defunct) Columbia House company, which gave me access to almost unlimited free movie rentals. At the time, TV Guide published a list of the "Top 100 Movies That Translate Well To The Small Screen". I made it my goal to see every movie on that list. A list that included a host of classic gems, including "Casablanca". All of them served to open my mind to a whole range of films I had never before even considered viewing.

Over time, reading about and watching so many different films began to expand my vocabulary. I was able to put names to the things I was seeing, like whip pans, and lens flares, and rack focus. This in turn made me much more aware of what I was seeing, and enabled me to take a much deeper look at any film.

I am by no means a movie critic, nor do I play one on TV.

Nearly 20 years after its initial release, I had the opportunity to watch the re-mastered DVD release of "Star Wars" (you know, the first one, from 1977). I enjoyed it very much... I laughed at the funny bits, and marveled at the effects, and I even did a fist-pump when Luke destroyed the Death Star.

But when the lights came up, and after I had wiped away a tear of nostalgia, the first thing I said out loud to my wife was, "You know, there really are some problems with that film."

Sometimes we don't even know enough to know how much we don't know.

Thank you for an articulate and brilliantly written piece.

Ebert: I believe we both loved "Star Wars."

There are people who define themselves by what they own and what their tastes are. So maybe when you say that something they like is awful they transitively take that to mean that they are awful.

The first rule of Argument Club is I am attacking your argument, not you personally. This piece seems to go well with the one about the yelling pundits from a few days ago.

I personally love movie reviews, but I have noticed that my brother has a sort of defensive approach to the whole idea. As it so happens a lot of movies that he's liked in the past have received horrible ratings by the critics, and at this point he has decided that for the most part he has no use for the reviewers' services.
I recently saw happy-go-lucky only because I remembered your review some months ago--I don't even remember when or if it was in the theaters near me, yet your review gave me a chance to meet a movie character that I won't soon forget. I appreciate your services and as a result I will come back for more, but I also understand the individual who for whatever reason decides that your opinion is not valuable and chooses to review your services negatively for friends.
In a way your reviews are for a select group who value the same things you value from movies. A somewhat elite group who have seen more movies than the average person and has adopted a more refined taste in that department. I would consider you lucky and gifted to have accumulated any knowledge and understanding that you now have, but I do have a nagging question that goes deeper than movies: What about the others? I turn 23 soon and that is a very sincere question from my end. I hear a lot of criticism toward religion, and I have heard both liberal and conservative viewpoints on many issues. To me a major question seems to be, how does an educated and well traveled person communicate or relate to someone who has not been as blessed? Should the less educated be ignored until the elite finds a way to guarantee education and health to everybody without a drop in overall productivity? The liberal Elite exists when a privileged individual does not care about alienating the less fortunate. No one can say that of a truly religious person.

Speaking of 'watering the soup', let everyone notice that sometimes it is needed. The final Yeats quote you borrow is merely a simplification and paraphrasing of Shelley's Prometheus Unbound. Perhaps the soup was far too concentrated to fit into your article, Mr. Ebert? Still, Transformers 2 was disastrous.

It's good to see that there's someone out there who actually watches movies for their content rather than their face value. Particularly though, as bad as some of the stories and acting have been in movies as of late, what offends my senses the most is the use of in your face close up filming without the slightest consideration for the wide angled shot. It seems in most modern movies that everything has to be in your face with no consideration for the scenery or the wider picture. There is no zoom outs during a heated battle, there's never opportunity to see everything that's going on, and the camera angle shifts almost every second. Frankly, I see movies like Transformers as a constant jumble of ADHD. You don't have to be one inch from something to feel part of the action, and I feel as though directors have lost the understanding for that.

Being a 22 year old man, most of my friends saw this film. When asked when I did not see it yet, part of me wondered why. Yet at the same time I realized its because I know how bad it is. I try my best to not put down those who see it, but at the same time try to explain to them why they should save their money. Most of the time I get a blank stare, or they just change the subject. Then I just think of it this way.Their are two paintings in an art gallery, one is an image of a dog doing a trick. The other is an old woman looking out the window with a sad look upon her face. When a crowd of lets say 20 walk into the room, right away 15 of the people go to the image of the dog. While the other five go the image of the woman, they study it carefully with a sharp eye. Some from the other side of the room may glance over, but eventually just go back to the dog. Thats film, not everyone understand the eyes of the old woman, they may rahter just see the bumbling eyess of the dog. Film is important, but few have the itch. It's not so much pointing the finger, but extending a hand to those who glance.

re: the $8 million paid for the script

Here is an excellent summation of where that money went.

The rise in polemic in discussion can, I think, be linked to the "comments" section now commonplace on nearly every website. While they are possibly complementary on sites that publish mostly opinion, the egregious violation is that they now frequently appear on supposedly factual "news" sites.

It used to be there was at least a moderate barrier to disseminate an opinion -- that to be published, at least someone had to make an effort to procure the means and physically distribute the result. The implication that arises from the comments sections is that everyone's opinion is equal; that everyone's opinion, regardless of age, education, background, expertise, or even truthfulness, has to be weighed equally and, in some way, on par even with the article being commented on. We end up with kind of literary "tyranny of the majority" -- an egalitarian illusion born of nothing more than currently popular (and lucrative) website design mechanics.

Heck with that, Roger. I don't agree with you about every movie, but at least I know to elevate an informed opinion over the other kind.

I have been known to walk out of theaters. Turn of Blu-Rays a quarter way through. And once or twice actually become proactive about my opinions and ask for my ticket money back if the picture was a waste of my time. I have been told the same things that many other serious movie viewers have: "Stop analyzing and enjoy the movie." I suppose they do not understand that any person who truly appreciates a particular avenue of artistic expression, whether it be painting, sculpture, or the culinary arts (or the movies for this instance) finds the most pleasure in a work if he or she can dive into the piece and try to understand the mechanics of the whole thing. One does not simply walk up to Van Gogh's self portraits or his magnificent "Starry Night" and simply say, "hmm... pretty picture" and than walk away. And if one does such a thing, he (or she) has no real appreciation for the artist or the work itself and that person cannot qualify themselves as an active participant in the discussion of such things.

It is true that each person is entitled to their opinion. But until you can answer the question, "why do you feel such and such about this and that," there can be no argument with a person of an opposing view. When most people are asked, "What do you think of the movie?" most people would either respond in the positive e.i., "I liked it." or the negative, "I did not like it." But in all honesty, this type of non-answer is worth about as much as dirt, when you think it over. It is not worth anything because you have not put anything into your response. You have not thought about the movie, or whatever we are speaking on, which I think is greater conversation.

A while back, you and Gene Sisckel aired a review on the great Woody Allen film, "Radio Days". You spoke of Allen's possible comment on the degraded sense of critical thought in our most modern age. This is the problem that we are seeing now. We are all so eager to let the television tell us what to think or how to feel. It is as if we are all part of this enormous laugh track on the sitcom of life. We are all being told how and when to respond and people have now been desensitized enough to this intellectual puppetry that they no longer see the strings that control their lifeless limbs.

So, yes people will become hostile when their delusions are challenged. It is all that they believe that they have in order to survive. It is not dissimilar to the film "Logan's Run" where the people that were in the dome were told that there is nothing outside and only on the inside of this man made structure will you be safe.

I think that this redone 2012 trailer works well in this article

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW2qxFkcLM0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fio9.com%2F5307976%2Fthe-following-preview-has-been-rated-d-for-disaster&feature=player_embedded

Hi Roger,

I really enjoy your column and watched your show for many years. I do not always agree with your critique, but as you have said many times over there is an element of personal taste to movies as well. I think the Transformers was a great movie to see with the family. I had a great time and enjoyed it. The question that you are paid to ask however is was this a great film. Those can be very different things. I think it was a lame film with gaping plotline holes, cheesy jokes and some juvenile humor, but I still had fun. As a critic you are expected to evaluate this film differently and more thoroughly than I. I agree sometimes a film is just bad, but it is hard to argue with fanboys. (Im a trek and Star Wars fanboy, but didn't love every movie in the genre)

I agree whole heartedly with your comments on education and intelligence being ridiculed and I too am sick of it. I have a law degree and several other degrees. I consider myself intelligent, well read, educated etc etc etc. I am also a vet (an infantry sergeant) and come from a blue collar family background. Not to get political, but the arguments raised while George W was running and most recently when Sarah Palin was up for VP show the outright disdain many in this country show for education and intelligence. It is pathetic and i pray it changes soon or we will not be able to compete with countries who revere intelligence and learning. I am trying to instill in my daughters the love of learning and education my parents gave me.

I have been enjoying your column now for months and consider myself a fan. Keep up the good work and the insightful writing.

"Intelligence may indeed be a benign influence, creating isolated groups of philosopher-kings far apart in the heavens and enabling them to share at leisure their accumulated wisdom ... [On the other hand] intelligence may be a cancer of purposeless technological exploitation, sweeping across a galaxy as irresistibly as it has swept across our own planet"

Mr. Ebert,

I read your commentary and I've expected this to be brought up as an issue. The main point I found here were those saying you "weren't familiar with this generation" and insulting your intelligence and criticizing your right to... criticize.

Welcome to the Age of the Internet. A place were credentials are scorned and the loudest demagogue wins the fight. It takes awhile for it to reach the right circles... I remember the early days at the turn of the century when you were a pariah if you couldn't hold your own in a debate on current events. It is quite the opposite now. The anonymity of the internet has been embraced as a way to channel all of those thoughts that were previously dismissed as emotional and most likely out right wrong.

Don't let these dregs of the internet make you question your quality as a film critic for even a second. Perhaps there are specific reviews and opinions that could be held for debate, but this new group seeks only the acknowledgment that what they think is right, and everyone else is a pseudo-intellectual out of touch with the real world. Unfortunately, you'll only receive more and more of these comments as time goes on. Such is the way of the internet.

Movies have changed, but you have changed with it. Sure, summer movies can be fun to watch if you can suppress the part of your mind yelling at the plot holes and rip offs, but it is your job as a critic to tear it apart so that, perhaps future directors could make, God forbid, more summer movies that hold up critically as well.

Hi Roger,

As a Transformer fan, I was disappointed in the film. Aside from the largest-possible-audience pandering of the toilet humor and girly shots, I found that the film lacked real weight in the area of its own brand. The bad robots were, routinely, obstacles made necessary by the rhythm of the summer blockbuster formula and the good robots were mostly props.

Consider the giant robot in Egypt made out of the construction vehicles. ILM probably spent the better part of the last two years designing and rendering it, and all it accomplishes in terms of the plot is knocking a few blocks off the pyramid and facilitating a testicle joke. It could edited out of the film entirely with minimal impact. The giant robot, despite all of its size and bombast, is ultimately empty, weightless spectacle, which is symbolic of the larger problems with this movie.

Ultimately, the Transformer fan in me can navigate the film reasonably well and get some enjoyment as I can view the movie with all the knowledge of the robots that I bring with me, but it shouldn't have to be that way at all.

I do disagree strongly with your assertion that the action was too blurry and the robot designs unintelligible, though. The good robots are, for the most part, different bright colors, whereas the bad ones tend to be gray (and aren't characterized in the least, so it doesn't really matter which one is which). I can also follow the quick-cut action without any difficulty at all. I do not think it is catered to any sort young, ADD crowd (I myself am 27 and count Tokyo Story as one of my favorite movies), but perhaps it's just a matter of what visual media we indulge in (I do play video games frequently, which are also fast-paced).

Hello Mr. Ebert. First off, I'm an avid reader of your reviews and columns of commentary. I own your books 'I Hated Hated Hated This Movie', 'Your Movie Sucks' and 'The Great Movies'. You're one of the few critics still working today that I have the utmost respect and admiration for, and have often referred to your 'Great Movies' book for seeking out quality cinema. I should also add my three favorite films of all time are '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'Blow-Up' and 'Un Chien Andalou'. I also find myself getting into discussions with peers/people about why I refuse to see the new 'Transformers' film.

The only reason I paid to see the first 'Transformers' in a theater was because I've never seen a Michael Bay film on the big screen. Not that I'm a fan (I hate the man) but I was curious, what was one of his crass, commercial enterprises like on a large pallette? I was gratified to learn that my derision for Mr. Bay's work didn't change much when seen on the big screen. His 'cinema' may as well be anti-cinema. The most telling moment in the first film is that of an obese teenager running after the decepticons with a hi-8 camera shouting 'Dude, this is way cooler than Armageddon!'. Bay knows his demographic and has no qualms about proclaiming their level of intelligence and perception. What I don't understand is what there is to 'get' about a Michael Bay film. There's nothing to be gained. It is like taking a hard drug: turn off your mind and watch indistinct colors intersecting, augmented by deafening noises. It's an intellectual dead zone and an insult to film people.

As for pseudo-intellectuals who draw complex connotations out of a Michael Bay film to Barack Obama, they're the same people who consider 'I Spit on Your Grave' to be a delicate portrait of female empowerment as opposed to what it is: misogynist cinema.

By the way, what did you think of David Lynch's 'INLAND EMPIRE'?

This made me think of an article by Sam Harris over at newsweek when he said: "We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence."

Harris's article was in reference to politics, but what is scary, is that I think he underestimated the scope of disdain many Americans have for any kind of intellectualism, not just in there elected officials. Once out of boredom, my ADD went into full swing and instead of doing my work, I started googling what makes fascism. I came across a professor's work (whose name escapes me) that did a study for commonality between the regimes, of Pinochet, Hitler, Pol Pot, Franco and Mussolini. He came up with something like 14 common characteristics, One of the 14 was a disdain for intellectualism, and the arts. When I read something like that, I can't help but find it disturbing when I see even the smallest traces of it in my own country.

In my opinion, a change I've noticed in the media, has contributed to the the anti-intellectualism. Now instead of using experts in an attempt to strive for objectivity, We see the media strive for balance. It has gotten so bad, that I expect to turn on the news and a see a scientist, saying the world is round, be countered with equal time, by a lunatic who think the world is flat. All in the interest of fairness. To me that creates an atmosphere where people start to think any opinion is to be given equal weight. and I just don't think that is as it should be.

So I guess I must have a trace of elitism in me as well, and that is why I have taken the advice of those elitist who tell me to resist masochistic urges to see transformers, and seek out an art film instead.

I've often thought about when an opinion crosses the line and becomes a fact. I agree though, that there is a line, even though a lot of people don't seem to acknowledge it. If someone told me "Old School" was a better movie than "Ghost World," I'd think they were a fool. If someone told me Britney Spears wrote better lyrics than Aimee Mann, I'd wonder how they dressed themselves in the morning. Yet there are not only people who would tell me those things; there are people who would think THEY are the ones stating facts. Maybe it all comes down to intelligence or good taste. I just wish it was something a little more concrete; that way I could prove them all wrong.

You might find this interesting as well:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/study-people-avoid-viewpoints-that-conflict-with-their-own.ars

See one of the things that shocks me is when I discuss Transformers 2 with my other friends I get some of the same responses. I am two days shy of 28 and yet I don't "remember what its like to be a kid". Well I do remember, because it was a youth spent playing with Transformers in my back yard with friends; or watching Transformers on TV, or heck even reading the old Marvel Transformer's comics. Now I won't claim that either the show or the comics were amazingly deep or had fantastic character depth; but good lord they were better then Bay's offerings.

Having only seen the first movie (fool me once and so on), I came out feeling less like having gotten in touch with my childhood and more like I had been let out of a sensory deprivation chamber after three weeks: Blinking, bewildered and nauseous.

Roger,

Maybe it's me, but it seems terribly ironic to accuse you of being a "elitist" movie critic. It's been my observation that you especially have a respect for the fact that not all movies have to be "high-art" to be a good movie. Or at least that Saturday matinee fare isn't necessarily held to the same standards as an art-house flick and vice-versa.

When I returned to college after a seven-year stint in the Army, I took a political science class as part of my requirements. Having been stationed in the Far East as a public affairs specialist, it was my job to understand a bit more about the surrounding cultures than most of my fellow soldiers.

As a result, I had several discussions during class with the professor, arguing against his version of the events we were studying. One day, I asked him if he resented this in any way. He told me that on the contrary, he welcomed it. It meant that I was a student, not a stenographer.

I just posted a review of "Knowing" for my blog on the MySanAntonio.com web site. While I liked the film, I didn't think it was four-star material, as you did. This doesn't bother me, nor should it bother anyone else. Why? Because criticism is opinion, not gospel.

Our editor printed and posted an editorial yesterday about Michael Jackson and how we would not be sending a reporter to cover the funeral, nor would we be publishing a special section. Reason: despite the fact that he was never convicted, he was accused of too many things. The number of comments is up to 161 as of 2:40 p.m. CDT. And they're mostly caustic, full of vitriol, and eerily similar to what people were saying about OJ Simpson during his first trial.

The internet is the greatest printing press ever invented. It is truly democratic, for it allows anyone to express their opinion, usually anonymously. But that is also its greatest weakness; there is no filter. So what passes for polite discourse is whoever can shout their opinion the loudest, no matter how informed or uninformed it may be. Perhaps we can blame it on the Walkman, iPod and cell phone. We have to shout over the voices we're pumping into our heads.

I regularly read a diverse number of editorial writers: conservative, liberal and middle-of-the road; because I want to know what the most informed people are saying. I want to know where they differ. And I take that information and make up my own mind.

I am a student, not a stenographer.

A lot of this hangs on what the definition of a "good" or "great" movie is. I have a college education and a graduate degree and consider myself reasonably intelligent, and found Transformers 2 mindless but worthy based on my standards. For 2 and a half hours, I did not think about my work or my bills or any other problems. I was absorbed in the spectacle, the imagination involved in some of the concepts, in the incredible technical accomplishment of the special effects, and even the saturated palette. Basically, I found a way to enjoy it.

Did I think about life and its deeper meaning, or anything of substance? No. But if a movie has to be exceptional, thought provoking, truly clever, insightful, meaningful or particularly engaging in order to justify seeing it, I wouldn't go to the movies very often. Sometimes you just take what you can get and try to enjoy it for what it is.

That is why I appreciate Ebert's reviews. They are always insightful and often educational. When a review is negative, I can usually tell if I will enjoy the movie anyway, based on the reasons Roger gives for not recommending it. Just because he doesn't like it doesn't mean I can't find some escapism in it.

It's not a secret that Bay is proud of his work in every movie he creates, which is composed of "baysplosions", boobs, outlandish violence and crude humor when possible. That's what he's good at, it's what he does. Bad Boys 2 was one of the most nihilistic things ever put on film, yet for some reason you can't turn away.

I was an avid Transformers fan as a kid. Born in 1983, the original animated series and movie was right in my wheelhouse. I had many of the original toys and spent hours setting up elaborate fight scenes, going through various transformations, and allowing complete havoc to rule the day. Most of those toys, which would probably be worth a fair amount now, became irreparably broken. I own the 1980s animated movie on DVD and still watch it from time to time (the voice talent in a child's movie is staggering). I mention this only to lump myself, in a way, with the fanboys who loved the original product so much.

The Michael Bay version of my beloved childhood staple is garbage. It is, for one, unfaithful. I have not seen (and, unless forced, will not see) the sequel, so my comments are based mostly on the first one and somewhat reviews of the second.

Optimus Prime went from a noble, heroic figure, to just another transformer, full of slapstick fun (and here I am thinking mostly of the scene in Shia Lebouf's front yard). The transformers are a mess of metal and gears, and as Ebert criticized, one cannot be differentiated from another. The jive-talking Jazz is such a thin caricature that it would laughable if it wasn't so depressing. There is none of Starscream's equal parts brown-nosing and desires to overtake Megatron's throne.

And that's just for the robots.

As with all recent Michael Bay films, we have the barest shreds of character depth in spite of being introduced to far more characters than necessary. The opening scene, with the soldiers in the chopper, is Michael Bay in a nutshell: each goes around and flat-out tells the audience who their character is. And they are all stereotypes: the Spanglish-speaking Hispanic; the Irish, Fenway-going, beer-drinking Bostonian; the soldier who just wants to get home to his family. Why show who these people are when you can say it faster, and thus get to explosions more quickly?

And, of course, there is the requisite love story. Giant robots from space are fighting on Earth, but clearly half of the movie should be spent with Shia Lebouf trying to win over Megan Fox (and thankfully, Shia is helped out when Fox's character explains -- in essentially their first conversation! -- how she always falls for the wrong guy, and all the problems in her past relationships). This wasn't as needless and distracting as Bay's performance in Pearl Harbor, but it follows the same outline.

So... there. One fanboy's opinion. Take it for what you will, Mr. Ebert, but I hope you don't get the idea that all 20-somethings think you are out of touch. Even when I disagree with your take on a movie, you always do a fine job of explaining where you are coming from. Movies, and enjoyment of them, are subjective anyway.

I just wonder how different opinions on both of these movies would have been had they been called "Robots from Space" instead of "Transformers". At least in that case, I might feel like a part of my childhood hadn't been defecated on.

Mr. Ebert, may I submit the following link as evidence that Michael Bay himself understands that his films are essentially vehicles for stunts and explosions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiHsxQJ9ZOo

I doubt he would assent to poking fun of himself in this manner if he truly thought he was making substantive films of great social or artistic importance.

To be fair, the first Transformers film made fun of George Bush, showing the then-commander-in-chief sitting in Air Force One eating a Ding-Dong while the Decepticons stole valuable military intelligence from right under his nose. Also, I believe he was wearing red socks, which were propped up on the desk to hide his face, but were unable to hide his accent. I don't think Michael Bay wants any political message to get in the way of his glorious exploding machinery; overt support of one political party would threaten to cut half the movie's potential audience.

While I agree it's ridiculous to criticize a critic for being "too educated" or "knowing too much about movies," I think such criticism isn't based in a deep-rooted hatred of knowledge (though that may be the case for some people), but rather a belief that an intellectual analysis of a movie is too detached to account for the visceral immersion many movies provide. Non-critics may be willing to suspend their disbelief at the door, and surrender to the movie's vision without thinking too hard about it; they see the movie as a magician's trick, and get more pleasure from the appearance of an illusion than from figuring out how it all works. Criticism is often based around trying to show how a movie works, and to the aforementioned viewers is often as interesting as the owner's manual on a top hat with a hidden compartment for the rabbit.

I wouldn't call myself one of those viewers, but I do enjoy watching movies for what Aristotle would call the catharsis of the dramatic situation: a huge release of emotion upon the resolution of the film. Many action films are better at catharsis than "art films," which often seem suspicious of giving the audience the release it seeks. Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, and Steven Spielberg, in particular, are three filmmakers who seem to have mastered catharsis, yet very few critics seem to discuss this aspect of their work. Instead, they discuss the economy of Spielberg's editing, the facist undertones of Eastwood's Dirty Harry movies, and Gibson's fascinations with passion plays and revenge tragedies (both of which are two of the most dependable genres for generating catharsis in the audience, but rare is the critic who explicitly makes that connection in his review). Audiences read these analyses and understandably feel alienated; they feel that the critic is calling them fascists for enjoying Dirty Harry's dogged pursuit of a serial killer, or accusing them of bloodlust for responding to the horrifying imagery of Braveheart or Passion of the Christ. "I just liked the movie!" they think. "Why does this critic have to over-analyze everything?"

The truth is that few critics are trying to cast aspersions on the audience of a movie, and are simply attempting to analyze the techniques of the filmmaker. But in emphasizing detached technical analysis over engaged emotional reaction, they create the perception that they are so caught up in critical theory, they become deaf to the immediate emotional reaction experienced by the audience- in other words, they are "thinking too much." I've heard some critics say that a film has to "earn" the ability to make them laugh or cry, which always sounded to me like the film must pass through the proud ivory gates of Reason and Logic before allowing it access to grimy, shameful basement of Emotion. This might be the effect of growing up in a generation suffused with irony, or it might be an illogical and emotional reaction on my part. But I do have to say, Roger, that I think your reviews exhibit this tendency much less than other critics' reviews do. You have always seemed both emotionally and intellectually engaged by movies, and I've always appreciated that about your reviews.

Ebert: The Obama stuff didn't bother me.

Whilst your review was articulate and accurate, this one was funnier

Link

You wrote in your review that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is "a horrible experience of unbearable length." My friends said it was the best movie they'd seen in a long time. Trusting them, I went for it.

I should have trusted you. Really. I should have.

Transformers 2 might be the worst movie I've seen in years.
I was excited when they dimmed the lights... I wanted to be blown away by this movie. I was blown away, all right... perhaps too literally.

The seats shook. The noise echoed. Colors flashed across the screen. Megan Fox in a slow-motion shot. Shia screams. Colors. Noise. Here is a movie so boring, it'll drive you to sleep and yet so noisy, you can't.

After Watchmen, I thought about the meaning of time, and of peace. After Angels and Demons, I thought about the conflict between Science and Religion. After Transformers 2, I thought about how bad a headache I was having and I was checking if my hearing had been slightly impaired.

It was a waste of money. Not mine. A movie ticket is nothing much... I'm talking about millions of dollars that went into the making of this horror. A small country could've been fed with that money.

After seeing all those massive ships being capsized and all those robots battling it out in Egypt, amidst massive explosions, I found that I was a billion times more thrilled by a 78 year old man and a talkative kid in a flying house tied to thousands of balloons (Yes, I'm talking about the amazing UP).

I completely agree with your statement "Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve."

A friend, who liked the movie, was chatting with me...

FRIEND: wt didja thnk abt Trnsfrmers 2???? :P
ME: I felt it was like trying to watch the first film on an iPod and at the same time bungee jumping into a metal scrapyard heap.

You might find this interesting as well:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/study-people-avoid-viewpoints-that-conflict-with-their-own.ars

Mr. Ebert, since first encountering your reviews when your show with Mr. Siskel went national, I have found you to be a good touchstone of whether or not I will appreciate a movie. Note "appreciate" as opposed to "enjoy". There are a number of films I have enjoyed but have not appreciated - the visual equivalent of fast food versus filet. And there are a number of films I have seen that do not leave me happy when walking out of the theater (or turning off the DVD player), yet I appreciated their ability to challenge, to reframe my perception of an issue or larger society, or simply to leave me with a more profound sense of my own humanity. And often it has been your reviews that have overridden my desire for escapist cheese and let my art-house-loving wife choose the movie.

Your reviews make a willing reader (or viewer, back in the day) think; a talent rarely lauded these days. And I hope that your own striving to "fight the good fight" as you continue to do in your personal life will inform your reviews and challenge movie-goers and moviemakers alike. Life's too short to waste our time on mindless, thoughtless, insulting assaults on the senses like...well...

If I might offer one correction, a nit-pick if you will (a hazard of being a member of the Nitpicker's Guild): according to an interview in GQ magazine, Glenn Beck says the one class he took was at Yale, not Princeton.

I thought this article was put excellently, and I really respect your opinion. When I saw your initial review of Transformers 2 I was hesitant, thinking, "but this can't be a bad film". Then I saw it for myself, and I honestly think your 1 star rating was unusually high. I love the part in this article where you say "We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle", because that's exactly what has to be said about all this. Yes, people are allowed to think this was a good film, but it does not, in fact, make them right.

hi roger - i applaud those willing to both leave early, and with a smile. hey, remember back in the day, when you and gene would recommend a list of your own "guilty pleasures" - films that you really, really enjoyed, in spite of the fact that they weren't "really" good films? HA! one reason i loved that feature was because it was such a joyful and unapologetic admission of your own flukes and goofy imperfections. without that same prideless, light-hearted kind of honesty, i may have never have discovered such timeless treasures as "Invasion of the Bee Girls" or "Emmanuelle"...

Ebert: "Emmanuelle." No robots. "Bee Girls." Not enough bees. Just babes. Do today's lads need robots to convince them to see babes. In my time (how I love hagt phrase) we were more hardy and simple, and just the babes were enough.

Have those negative posters forgotten about " The Dark Knight" or " The Watchmen"? Ebert gave both a 4 star review. The difference is these were great movies. It doesn't take a genius to see "Transformers" for what it really is; An easy moneymaker. Bay should retire his directing cap and put on his thinking one. Nolan has shown us you can make an awesome action movie and still have great writing and directing. I am not an elitist nor a brainiac by any means, I just love film and believe that people like Bay should have more respect for it.

Roger,

First of all thank you for your thoughts. I had a lot of issues with the critics reviews of this movie and its nice to hear your defense of your criticism. I am not here to disagree with you on your critique because after all, everyone is entitled to their opinion of a film and I always take that with a grain of salt. I think my biggest issue with the critics reviews is that I feel that they often don't take their audience in account when reviewing a film. I went to film school and work in the entertainment field and I think I have a pretty good grasp of what makes up a good film. I feel that I can read a critic's review and agree or disagree about the writing and mechanics of a film. What constitutes a good or bad performance on the actors side, and how a director used camera work to adequately immerse me in the story.

I just feel that a film like Transformers is different. I don't think anyone walked into the film looking to enjoy a robot version of the Notebook or the Godfather. Sure it had plot holes... and the acting was definitely not Oscar winning. But it was entertaining. Coming from a CG based field I was stunned and amazed by the visual effects. I wasn't looking for a great love story..I wanted to see 50 foot ass kicking robots, and root for the people that shouldn't be able to defeat them do so. It wasn't an intellectual field trip..it was an intellectual vacation. I got what I was looking for, and I think most people that were looking forward to the movie did so as well. I think that people often confuse being educated with sharing what they know rather than listening to what others have to share. If people that are uneducated are enjoying a movie..then I think a critic's job is to understand why. Just my thoughts on it. I do appreciate your critiques..and definatly your knowledge and enjoyed reading this article.

"The internet is ideally a perfect democracy. Quality rises."

- Roger Ebert

quality rises and also pictures of cats.

I recently moved to a new town where I didn't know anybody, a lot of my friends back home were big movie buffs, music fans, critical appraisers of media with an nuanced appreciation for aesthetics, camp, etc.

A few weeks ago my new roommates invited me to watch Transformers, which I had never seen. I promised to keep the snark to a minimum, because they really don't appreciate my comments. Within 15 minutes I had to leave the room, because I kept thinking things that I shouldn't repeat here.

I really appreciated the Transformers review, it made me laugh. Michael Bay is ridiculous, but that's OK because lots of people are. So, the problem really is that he is overexposed.

I think if anyone were imprisoned for a year inside a dark room with only a large tv and Michael Bay's entire body of work to entertain themselves, they would be much more bored than the guy stuck in a room with, oh, say, Kubrick's entire body of work.

Oh hey, something exploded. Oh hey, something else exploded. Oh, now there's a grand swooping shot of some Big Damn Thing. Whoo.

Oh hey, maybe here's illustrated the destiny of man, ascending into a world of cosmic revelation. Or maybe it's still just a Big Damn Thing. Doubt it, but either way, at least instead of just being some giant robot, it's a freaking Space Fetus.

Clear winner.

Roger:

Thank you for another thoughtful post that touches on issues that encompass not just movies, but American culture as a whole.

I have not seen "Transformers II" and don't plan to. I saw the original "Transformers" at a drive-in and fell asleep 20 minutes into it. I would not have gone out to see the sequel even if your review had deemed it only half as bad as the original.

Your detractors are being unfair. I have never known you to trash a movie just because it was laden with special effects and heavy on popular appeal. An "elitist" movie snob of the type you are accused of embodying might have trashed "Star Wars" as a recycled Western with uneven acting. But he'd have missed the point: "Star Wars" was fun! Your 1977 review certainly embraces that.

"Transformers," on the other hand, was no fun. However, I don't begrudge anyone's right to enjoy this movie, particularly children and others whose experience of cinema does not run deep enough to judge it against truly wonderful films.

We also have to remember that we Americans do have a tendency to bristle when those who are deemed "authorities" second-guess their tastes. Some people enjoy the sheer spectacle of a movie like this -- and indeed, when you think about it, a movie like "Transformers II" is a stunning technical and (can I say it?) artistic achievement, in spite of Bay's Baby Huey pacing. We can and should acknowledge that.

Since you invited this, I'll make a very strong argument for 70s Kung Fu films right here-

The action is clear and concise, they were made on dirt-cheap budgets, and there is always some degree of pathos in the action itself, meaning that the action is part of the story and not just a distraction.

In other words, the exact opposite of what Michael Bay delivers.

I'll be honest, most of them are pretty boring. You're right about the genre being largely unworthy of investigating, but the good ones transcend their genre. Sensible Chop Socky fans don't really enjoy most of the movies they see, they just have the time and patience to sift through the garbage to find the gems.

If you ever have the inclination to give the genre another chance, "A Touch of Zen" is considered to be a truly Great Film by fans and non-fans of the genre. Sort of a Chop Socky "Thief of Baghdad" in many ways, building a fantasy world through startlingly convincing pre-CGI special effects.

Roger, we live in a world where, to get re-elected, politicians take the most complex issues and pretend there are simple answers to them. Then, to get ratings, the media tries to treat the most complex issues as something that can be covered in two minutes. In both cases their opponents/competitors do the same thing, but with different simple answers/two-minute coverage. Since the issues are too complex for any of them to be correct, people are left to just pick one, if they are silly enough to listen to politicians/media, and thus the "I'm right" "No, I'm right" style of arguing.

In the elitism department, same thing. Nothing is ever that simple (or it's already been taken care of and politicians/media don't bother with it), so you need to study the issue in depth, learn the history behind it, compare the various solutions tried before, etc. etc. But that's hard, so much easier to just denounce anyone who has as elitist.

P.S. When you do the analysis and conclude that Transformers: Revenge of the Greedy Studio Executives has none of the elements that actual motion pictures possess, and someone posts that they nevertheless think is a great movie, saying "You're wrong" is correct but tends to put people's backs up. Instead, maybe just say, "Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but perhaps you should consider, for the benefit of the human race, keeping it to yourself." :P

I don't go to many movies any more because they simply don't make movies for people my age (besides porn). I did see the first Tranformer movie and it was so bad it nearly gave me cancer. I'll watch the second one at about the same time I see "Land of the Lost" (i.e. it's network debut). Note: In memory of Robert McNamara, Fog of War is a great documentary worth watching, even for non-eggheads.

Dear Roger,
It's nice to see that you don't begrudge folks their bad movies. I'm a big fan of Mystery Science Theatre, and have really enjoyed cinema train wrecks like Space Mutiny, Red Zone Cuba and Overdrawn at the Memory Back. However, I've never mistaken them for well-made films.
Have you ever experienced the opposite? That is, watching a very well-made movie which you cannot stand? I recognise that Schindler's List was an excellent film, but I found it disturbing and unpleasant to watch and never want to see it again.

Let me begin with three statements -

1) I have not seen Transformers 2

2) I did see Transformers

3) I love well-made movies of all kinds, particularly comic and action genres.

With those three statements as givens, can we all at least agree that, when one shells out $10 for a Michael Bay film, one has a reasonable idea of what to expect? And that is a neutral statement.

Isn't the whole idea of a director as someone who delivers a movie with their vision? How they would imagine it to be?

Can you mention Ridley Scott without imagining the bleak futuristic landscape of "Blade Runner," a movie that changed the vision of the future? Or mention Chris Nolan without referencing the exquisite atmospheric Chicago shots of "The Dark Knight"? Martin Scorsese with the lovingly photographed "family" meal scenes in virtually all his movies?

More than any other element of a film, I find the director to be an indicator of what the movie will be like. Not an indicator of what the movie will be about, but what it will be like. In the case of Michael Bay, it will be "Big." Loud. Action-packed. Explosive. Loud. Laden with special effects. Loud. Oh yes, there will be some people in it, too. Did I mention "Loud"?

Good? Bad? I don't know. I haven't seen it. But I remember describing the Dirty Harry series to someone thusly, "Buy some popcorn, check your brain at the door, and go for the ride". You know what it's going to be, and, if that's your cup of tea, enjoy!

I cannot denigrate either side. With all due respect to Mr. Siskel, personal opinion and taste is just that. During two years of working in Mexico, my Mexican compatriots offered me several local dishes: mole, fried maguey worms, cuitlacoche (corn fungus). I sampled them all, but not all were to my taste. It's a question of taste, not correctness.

Perhaps I am a bit sensitive about that, as my lowest grade in college was given me in my "Humanities Through Film" class. The final asked us which, in our opinion, was the better film, "Whore (Ken Russel--see above)", or a foreign film (whose name escapes me) on a house of prostitution? I chose "Whore", as I felt it was a more realistic view, and had more of the elements of a good film (in my 20-something opinion). The professor informed me my opinion, regardless of how well it was constructed or expressed, was wrong.

But that was just her opinion.

I consider myself to be a fairly big Transformers fan. I have a near complete collection of the original toys (some even boxed). Additionally I've seen virtually every episode of the cartoon, including some foreign variations and I have even read quite a few of the comics. Needless to say I greatly enjoy the Transformers story line and I can find value in this genre where plenty of people would be rolling their eyes. But make no mistake, I accept this stuff for what it is. It's not deep, it's not profound and it's hardly meaningful. Transformers is simplistic stuff. It's mindless entertainment.

That said, Transformers on the big screen is an entirely new level of mindless in terms of rating entertainment. Even my Transformer comic books and cartoons had rudimentary plots and some passable levels of character development. On film, however, the characters (including the nondescript virtual cast) exist merely to facilitate explosions not unlike a model in an adult film exists primarily to titillate. Dialogue is delivered loudly and clumsily, scenes are seemingly written in crayon. This is essentially a montage of Megan Fox running around to the backdrop of giant explosions caused by killer robots.

To that end I don't think the latest Transformers film deserved such a harsh review. In fact, I don't believe it deserved a review at all because really it's not even a film. This is explosion porn. And perhaps your biggest mistake is not only bothering to grade this Movie, but also trying to qualify your answer to people who don't even know what a film is.

What slightly annoys me is the way you use the word "stupid" to describe the kinds of people I very much dislike too. Because my native language is not english, I had to check the dictionary definition of the word and found out that it means what I thought it would mean: "slow of mind".

I have no problem admitting that I'm stupid. Heck, I'd even go as far as to say that I'm duller than Andy Warhol (when he was alive, that is).

You may find this hard to believe, but despite being stupid, I am also curious and as teachable as my slow mind allows me to be. Sharp-witted people earn my respect, and those who are wise and rational too, earn my admiration and interest.

Ebert: I don't equate stupidity with a low IQ. I believe you have to choose to be stupid.

Like so many others I loved the Transformers toys as a kid and insisted they be my only Christmas gift from ages 5-9. But it was always about the imagination which Michael Bay destroys with his barrage of explosions.

However, I wanted to point out that I missed the first Transformers, and watched it on DVD to prepare for the second installment. But, your review convinced me not to go. Not to flatter you, but just a reminder since you may have forgotten after so many years of writing that many many people take your reviews seriously, you really can kill or make a movie, so "with great power comes great responsibility". Keep doing what you are doing Roger. I trust your judgment and hope that relationship continues.

It seems to me like people around the internet are arguing more and more that you're losing touch for whatever reason when they disagree with your reviews. I think that those people clearly aren't regularly reading your material because I think that your writing is just as strong as it has ever been. Also, as someone above mentioned, I think that the reviews that you have written over the course of your career show that you don't dismiss movies of any particular genre.

I don't that that is true of all critics, which makes the fact that people attack you for being "out of touch" with modern audiences even odder to me. I suppose it's simply because you're the most fashionable one to attack due to your popularity as a critic. While I disagree with your reviews sometimes, I think that you explain why you feel the way you do very well and I think that you're more "in touch" with audiences than most critics are.

I sometimes wonder whether the people who make those arguments when it comes to movies like Transformers watch many movies other than action/special effects blockbusters. I like action/special effects movies (perhaps even more than most people since I'm twenty-four and they were very popular when I was growing up), but in most cases I can see (and agree) that good movies in other genres are better FILMS than movies in that genre even if I find certain action/special effects movie more fun while I'm watching them or more re-watchable.

I think that in some cases there can be a distinct difference between a "fun" movie and a good movie. It's very possible for a movie to be fun AND good or great, but I think it's also possible for a movie to be fun in an escapist kind of way while not making much sense and being ridiculous. Of course, filmmakers, even if they're trying to make a movie of the latter sort need to make sure that they're not going too far, because if it gets TOO ridiculous there's a very good chance that it's just going to get stupid. I think that too many people seem to think that the movies that might be fun in an escapist sort of way while not making much sense/being ridiculous are great films (and they can't understand why anyone would think differently) when in reality they're just fun diversions.

I fear that I rambled there, so I hope that made some sense and that I got what I was trying to say across.

Transformers was complete junk. The script had more holes and less plot than any movie I can recall seeing. Characters made rash, stupid decisions for no reason other than to further the plot, it had the most asinine misrepresentation of a person high on marijuana since Reefer Madness. There are factual errors in the movie, there are ridiculous caricatures of African Americans, not to mention being subjected to John Turturro's near naked backside. I'm still trying to decide which was worse, the giant Transformer testicles or John's pasty white ass. I like an explosion just as much as the next guy, but at least put enough effort into the script to make me suspend my disbelief.

Transformers 2 has a dodgy plot, obvious continuity errors and has cringeworthy attempts at humor.

But it also has giant robots fighting each other, and Megan Fox in Daisy Duke shorts, meaning that its an absolutely perfect movie in the "hot chicks and giant robots with no plot" genre.

I liked it.

Ebert: Would you have liked it as much with Megan Fox and just a few medium-sized robots?

Some random thoughts.

You can be right about the merits of a movie and still be out of touch.

I have no interest in Transformers, but I do find that your columns over the last couple of years have drifted somewhat. Too often I find myself annoyed that you seem to be critiquing the people who are the target audience of a film rather than the film itself (Fanboys). If you don't like the film, that's fine and is in fact the information readers expect from you.

When you stray off of the topic of film into commentary on current pop culture (twitter, video games, fandom), I find you to be out of touch.

Now, I don't think that you are required to be in touch with everything that people like (fandom, social media, etc are not part of your job requirement) but I think you do yourself a disservice by lambasting things that you essentially just don't get.

I understand that your job requires you to be opinionated, but it's arrogance of a high order to claim that all other opinions are invalid. You seem to expect people to disagree with you politely and respect that you are an expert in your field, but seem unable or unwilling to show the same respect for people who are expert in other areas (video games as a form of art).

I do think you are a fine film critic and although I often disagree with your assessment of a film, I at least can appreciate why you did or didn't like it most of the time. I like that your reviews consider more than just the plot and acting of a movie but point out flaws and triumphs on the production side as well, it's worth noting if a film is badly lit or the score is amazing.

One of the things that is wonderful and awful about the internet is that we can all have our own soap box to stand on and rant about anything at all. That doesn't mean we always should.

With that, I'll get down off of the soapbox I seem to find myself on at the moment.

In all honesty, where so you draw the line at a commercially successful movie vs. a highly intellectual and thought provoking movie that was a dud. It seems that most highly successful movies are not very cohesive or thought provoking, rather they are fun (which seems to be what more people want, or are worthy to pay for), action filled, highly improbable, and mostly filled with actors not associated with the word OSCAR...i.e National Treasure, Indiana Jones, Transformers, Twilight, etc., and on the flipside. movies like Syrianna and Good Night and Good Luck end up in the discount bin for $4.99. For most people (and this is more of my belief) it seems that critics have become too elite and condescending, and the general public cannot discern the difference between commercial success and critical acclaim. Since Transformers 2 did so well, one would think that you are terrible at judging movies (if money was the only statistic), regardless of plot holes and realism, or lack of a shakespearean dialogue....anyway, is there any way to unify a "blue collar" "average joe" mentality with the so called "elitest" viewpoints....or take into account nostalgia or culural significance? i.e. transformers, gi joe, etc...and their impact on the viewership of said movie even though it prob will be not a true work i.e. Godfather or Casablanca?

Wow, what a beautifully filmed commercial. (Also: freakin' funny.) I really love the coalescence of reverence and that kind of childlike, playful intimacy, especially the way it was expressed on the faces of the actors - that woman who played the younger nun is a very talented -

Er, what were we talking about? Robots? Yeah, I'm paying attention. Sorry.

Having grown up during the years the Transformers first appeared, and having owned the toys and watched the cartoons... I admit to having a certain bias. That being said I also accepted this film at face value for what it was, and that is what I think everyone on both sides of this is missing.

Is this the "Best movie ever"? Most certainly not... Film is still evolving as an art form, and if I have to choose a film to fill that slot I am personally voting for the elegance of Bogart and Bergman in "Casablanca" over Transformers 2. What it IS though is two and a half hours of watching robots turn into cars, jets, and other vehicles (and in this film- a human analog) then battle it out in a destructive and spectacular way.

Is the plot weak? Most certainly... but so was the original plot of the cartoon, comic books, etc. I would argue the plot of 'Titanic' was weak as well... I mean honestly, did you really watch it to see Leonardo DiCaprio woo Kate Winslet or did you want to see the events happen and see it played out in front of you? I know *I* wanted to see the boat sink in all it's tragic glory... and suffered through the 'romantic subplot' to see history play out. There still though, I accepted the film for what it was and knew as I walked out of the theater that it was going to win an Oscar... no matter what I thought of the script.

Is Transformers 2 one of the worst films ever made? There too I would be forced to say no. I believe that honor goes to either 'Catwoman', 'Mortal Kombat 2', or 'Highlander 2: The Quickening'... but thats a personal opinion. I respect you and have read and watched your reviews for over twenty years, and I have often agreed with your assessment (even if I did have to go and see them for myself to make sure), but this time I think you were a bit harsh. Is it a great film? No... it is certainly mindless, big budget, blow-em-up, sci-fi twaddle... but sometimes, thats what I want to watch.

Does that mean I'm not loooking forward to seeing the upcoming Julia Child film starring Amy Addams? Certainly not... I am waiting eagerly and will proudly be one of the lone men in the theater between my wife and a friend whose husband won't take her. I am an avid and passionate fan of Film... so yes, I am willing to give just about anything a chance if I might be surprised by it.
I know you are as well...

All I ask is that you don't condemn a film for being what it is... a dog can be nothing more than a dog, and a Blow-em-up Robot film is only a Blow-em-up Robot film.

Roger, to use a quote from Cheyenne, "Bravo".

I'm keeping an open mind about the upcoming "2012", but there's something I just wanted to say.
Is that it, Hollywood? You are now turning to catastrophe again, based on the worst theories (pretty much refuted already) about the mayan calendar?
But the thing that makes me flinch more is the final voice: "To know more, search 2012 on google".
Great, now every conspiracy theorist out there has been sponsoring your movie. How much will they get paid for advertising?

Roger, you could not have said it better RE: modern popcorn cinema, fear of the intelligent among us, etc.

Thing is, movies are both a serious art form AND a popular art from. And the people who swim in the shallow end of the pool don't much cotton to the "elitists" who believe movies are worthy of discussion, dissection, admonition, etc. They feel they OWN the movies as much as we feel we do, and they're right, but it's like they're scraping the chocolate off the top of their eclaire with their buck teeth, all the while never actually biting into the full creamy thing...

Heck, there are some people who will SLAM a movie that dares to ask them to think, to process. They're insulted, as if somehow the filmmakers skipped a step in their storytelling and "expect" the audience to "figure out" the missing parts. (i.e. "How DARE Ang Lee make a thoughtful, artful movie out of the Hulk character? I demand that his movie be as brainless as it can be! It's about a green monster, what could be artful about that?"

Further, there are those who will HATE a movie that doesn't have a happy ending or isn't populated with "nice people"... ("Did you like that movie?" "Yes" "Why?" "Because nice things happened"...)

I recently watched (for the first time) LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD. Now THAT'S one difficult movie. Brilliant, transfixing, mystifying, gorgeous... but it gets a '10' for difficulty on that same scale that a Bay picture gets a '1' and an Apatow gets maybe a "2.5"... Now, I don't think anyone anywhere is making truly heady movies like MARIENBAD anymore (No, Mr. Von Trier, not you either)... and that's a real shame for the culture at large. But those people who had a hard time decoding how they felt about what happened in MYSTIC RIVER would simply wither at MARIENBAD, like slugs trying crawling across ULYSSES instead of putting the words together, one after another...

I suggest we take a roomful of these clowns who rave about TRANSFALLEN: RETURN OF THE FORMERS and make them watch MARIENBAD with their eyes taped open like Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. 98% of them would die of boredom, frustration, alienation, and the jitters. But of that remaining 2%, a few would pretend to like it in the hopes that it would get them woman... and then there would be three or four that actually liked it, actually had their mind pried open. Point being, those are the people we like, those are the people we invite to join us in the deep end where you can start thinking and just never stop...

I find it odd when people accuse you of liking only old, dreary boring movies. You gave Spider-Man 2 four stars and got a thrashing on the other end of the argument from Stephen King.

Beyond that, you were the person who taught me how to watch movies. It may sound a bit odd, but you were definitely my primary guide. If a movie aims to entertain and enlighten 5 or 6 year olds, how well does it accomplish its goal? I'm remembering your review of The Barney Movie as I write this.

I'm also thinking of your review of The Road Warrior, which, if I remember right, you didn't "enjoy," but recommended because it achieved everything it aimed to, and well. I watch every movie now with the film's goals in mind. (all that being said, torture-porn or whatever the Hostel movies are called don't apply. The creators' intentions all but ensure a horrible movie)

I got into an argument over Punisher: War Zone with a kid that was probably around 18. I tried to explain why the movie sucked and how it could have been better. He told me that I didn't know what I was talking about and that if I read the comics I would know. Little did he know that I own nearly every Punisher comic ever published. I'm as well versed as they come. After a few rounds with this kid, I realized HE hadn't read that many Punisher comics or seen many movies of any genre. He was a blank slate. The film failed at to be a compelling movie about a dark character. I've seen hundreds of better films with similar themes, he hadn't. It seems to have made all the difference.

I'll admit, Mr. Ebert, I've disagreed with many of your past reviews, but I was thoroughly entertained by your review of Transformers 2, as well as by your defense of the "smug" characters in Away We Go. To me, a good critic professes an opinion in a review, but backs it up with factual observations of the film, and I really appreciate that there are critics who still do that - I mean, I understand why people wouldn't like the characters in Away We Go, but I still think they're well developed characters in a deftly structured story. What frustrates me are people who accuse critics of being overly critical, and people who can't grasp that you can like a movie yet know that it's not a good movie (and vice versa). Bad movies can still be entertaining. Good movies can still be boring. Taste/perspective and critical analysis don't always go hand in hand, and people don't seem to respect that.

And even though, as you say, people think critics are biased against anything that's not dramatic, independent, or foreign, I don't think that's entirely true. Part of that, I think, is just that Hollywood is entirely preoccupied by all things financial, and it's easier to find good storytelling outside of that, where people are less concerned about their budget or projected box office intake. Plus, there are good big budget action movies - my favorite recent example is The Bourne Ultimatum - a franchise summer blockbuster that has car chases AND good storytelling - which I believe you also enjoyed. I wish audiences were more discerning - I like seeing an explosion or two as much as the next person, but I don't want to see the filmmakers sacrifice the joy of the story and characters for cheap thrills and empty special effects. I don't think "good" is synonymous with "boring," and I wish more people would recognize that.

Hi,

Well, if anyone's interested, I actually enjoyed Transformers, both first and the second. But probably, I'm guessing, the cause of me liking it is a little different. I am sure everyone can recall movies like "evil dead", or "the cars that ate Paris", stuff like that. Some may say that it's a bit like camp stuff. If anyone is not familiar with this, let me quote wikipedia: "Camp is an aesthetic sensibility wherein something is appealing because of its bad taste and ironic value."
I actually enjoyed every long minute of this movie, plainly because it was so incredibly over-drawn that it made a satire of itself while it was projected in the movie theater. Now, I don't know whether this was an intended effect, probably not. While watching this, it seemed to me that Bay is pulling the string just to see how much pure crap he can pull off and make a blockbuster of. I am truly amazed that he managed to do this, honestly. I watch those movies in sheer amazement, wondering when the directors will create a movie that has explosions and explosions only, pumping with explosion sounds, flooded with huge machines, ships, buildings that grind their huge iron parts and smash their gears without any indication of a plot. And Bay came really bloody close with this one. I laughed my ass off and I came prepared. I knew what I'll be in for, this was not a coincidence.
I think that we are dealing with something that we'll be looking back on, saying "wow, this movie had a cult status" and by that I mean it was so bad, that it actually was good. This obviously isn't flattering to the director, on the contrary, but I think that we can enjoy something precisely because it's horrible and this whole debate on whether Transformers are a good movie, or a bad one seems to be missing this point.
I wonder how they can improve the next one, as the limit of baysplosions was close to an absolute this time. Bay and Emmerich seem to have made a bet on who will create a more mindless exploding and violent movie. I don't even know if it fits the definition of a movie, they reached another level of fiery art.

Cheers,
Marcin

Well, Roger, I only disagree with you on one point... the ones who believe that "Transformers 2" is a good, even great film - they ARE stupid.

Roger, the mention of ships to save humankind in that trailer for 2012 makes it sound suspiciously like a remake of When Worlds Collide, doesn't it? (Which I should point out was made from the novel by Edwin Balmer and Philip Wylie.)

Although supposedly a remake of that is in production.

"I have learned enough to say today that the woman was rarely gifted."

Incidentally, isn't this sentence perhaps a bit more ambiguously interpretable than perhaps you intended. Clearly you meant to say that Doris Day's gift was rare, but it might be misread as saying that she rarely had a gift.

Also, since when should someone in a propellor beanie be made a figure of mockery? In the name of Ray Nelson, and old-time sf fandom, shame on you! :-)

Ebert: Now I have to apologize to Miss Day again!

Marie Haws: "So many of you still trapped in High School."

Actual high schooler here. Run a review blog and publish some of my reviews and other editorials for my school paper. Disappointed with the first Transformers and no interest at all in seeing the second. Favorite movie of all time's Pan's Labyrinth. Also big on the works of Quentin Tarantino, Tim Burton, Hayao Miyazaki, and Pixar. I like to think I have pretty good taste compared to some of my peers. ;)

Ebert: That's putting it mildly.

"Transformers" was a beautifully shot science fiction movie works on both levels as an art film and an action thriller . . . no, wait, I just looked at my ticket stub. It was "Minority Report" that I saw.

I love this essay. It really mirrors a lot of what I've been saying lately: namely, that (1) movies nowadays are either made for profit (Big Hollywood, pornography) or for art (by which I will charitably include good movies that major Hollywood studios think will both make people happy AND make money - in that order), that a one-time spectrum has given way to two polar opposites; (2) people in the U.S. have become, to put it bluntly, completely crazy retards with absolutely no validity to their misinformed opinions ("opinions"? I recall watching "Idiocracy" recently and thinking to myself, This isn't funny - this is happening RIGHT NOW!). I strongly suspect that the tragic events of 9/11 and the subsequent media blitz were responsible for literally driving many Americans clinically insane, and that their poor taste in movies should be the least of our worries; and that (3) the impossible-to-please fanboy of yesteryear has given way to the ostensibly* impossible-to-disappoint fanboy of today.

*Of course these goofballs know this stuff sucks, or at least have a creeping suspicion that it does.

Roger,

You and your readers may enjoy this parody of the 2012 trailer. I certainly did.

http://vimeo.com/5463875

I always find it funny when people who review a movie say "as long as you don't go in wanting a classic, you'll enjoy it" or "what do you expect from a Transformers movie? It has robots fighting, therefore it's a great movie" or "people have too high of expectations for an action movie, Transformers did what it was trying to accomplish."

What they forget is that there are good action movies. Casino Royale turned a hokey series into an amazing, heart-racing adventure that is better than most movies that came out that year. Terminator 2 instilled a sense of dread that other movies cannot even fathom. Batman Begins and Spiderman 2 turned a genre full of terrible movies into modern day classics. Making a great action movie out of questionable material IS possible and we the viewers shouldn't have to "lower our expectations" to enjoy a movie that we paid to see.

Dear Mr Ebert,

I have followed your reviews since 1979 when I watched Sneak Previews on PBS. Your knowledge and love of film is something rare these days. You've championed many great films that have gained audience love and respect over the years. It is a shame you have to even address this. Pretty much across the board this film has been pounced by critics and you should not have to say anything. Hope you are doing well health wise and just continue to review as you see fit.

Dear Mr Ebert,

I have followed your reviews since 1979 when I watched Sneak Previews on PBS. Your knowledge and love of film is something rare these days. You've championed many great films that have gained audience love and respect over the years. It is a shame you have to even address this. Pretty much across the board this film has been pounced by critics and you should not have to say anything. Hope you are doing well health wise and just continue to review as you see fit.

There are many things in your piece that are worthy of discussion but I'm going to choose to talk about the one aspect that strikes home with me the most -- the examination of film. I believe examining a film is the most unnatural thing one can do. Studying, evaluating and qualifying things like cinematography, editing, composition, pacing, tone, etc, are unnatural because these tools -- which is what they are, tools -- at their absolute height should be imperceptible. If I'm watching a film for the first time and I find myself admiring the cinematography it speaks volumes more about the lacking in other areas than it does about the quality of the cinematography. Ideally, I should be so wrapped up in the story that those tools shouldn't reveal themselves until the second or third viewing, or at least until after the film has completed and I've begun digesting it. The end goal of a film should be one of emotion, not of analytical perfection.

I believe that this is at the heart of the portion of responders that chastise those who dare to mention the value (or lack thereof) of those tools. Most people don't understand how a film is conceived. They don't understand that there aren't (or shouldn't be) any random lines of dialogue or arbitrary frames. As filmmakers we should spend every waking moment trying to squeeze 16 ounces into an 8 ounce glass, incorporating every possible tool at our disposal to further the story and augment the viewer's experience. We should do all of that for the purpose of best telling the story we have to share. We should do these things and we should expect other filmmakers to do them as well. It's not because doing them is "better" or more "intelligent" or more "sophisticated" it's because it's the only way we have to show the audience respect.

When I turn over my $15 and 2 hours to a filmmaker I'd like to think that they cared enough about the story to use every tool available to them to tell it. Imagine two houses, both beautiful and awe-inspiring from the outside. One was built with concrete, nails and a tape measurer. The other was slapped together with nothing but wood glue. Which one is better? Which one would you feel comfortable spending time inside?

It's not that Transformers 2 failed as a movie, it's that it failed as an action movie. There's no inverse correlation beween the number of explosions and the "quality" of a film. Look at John McTiernan. Films like Predator and Die Hard are perfect examples of great action movies that used these tools to further the story and the characters. Dismissing people that don't like Transformers 2 as artsy/fartsy or "elitist" is the equivalance to covering your ears and yelling "La la la la la la I can't hear you!"

Dear Mr Ebert,

I have followed your reviews since 1979 when I watched Sneak Previews on PBS. Your knowledge and love of film is something rare these days. You've championed many great films that have gained audience love and respect over the years. It is a shame you have to even address this. Pretty much across the board this film has been pounced by critics and you should not have to say anything. Hope you are doing well health wise and just continue to review as you see fit.

Mr. Ebert,

I enjoyed your review of Transformers 2 and agreed with it almost entirely. But I really got a kick out of this article explaining the reasoning behind it, and the passion you have for your profession. I see critics as being a vanguard set to hold film to a higher standard, so that the makers of these films will be able to aim higher and higher as they advance in experience and knowledge. To cave to people banging garbage cans screaming for blood because you didn't like their robot and explosions movie would have been cowardly and treasonous to your own sensibilities. I have more respect for you after reading this defense of personal virtues than I had before.

Keep up the good work sir

I have given up trying to understand why some formulaic movies and their sequels are guaranteed mega hits no matter how bad they may be. I did, however, feel sad when I went to see "Up" last week, and found the theater over half empty, while numerous showings of "Transformers 2" were sold out. I'm not embarrassed to say I had tears in my eyes twice during "Up," which I believe is one of the best movies of the year and sweetest films of many a year, and also believe it deserves to be seen by more people than does "Transformers 2." I don't think that makes me a liberal elitist, just someone who recognizes a great film and wants others to share in the experience. Kind of like one of those dastardly movie critics, huh, Roger?

By the way, thanks for the preview of "2012." It's been at least 24 hours since I've surfed past a movie on cable in which all or a part of the United States has been blown to bits (last night, both "Armageddon" and "Independence Day" were on at the same time, and are presented at a rate of 100 times the number of showings of, say, "Lawrence of Arabia" which, coincidentally, is about 100 times better). I wonder if Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich spent their childhoods filming their toys being smashed in slow motion?

Roger, thank you for the article. I've been called, to my face, a "film snob" by some friends and even some family, because of the movies I choose to see (probably more because of films I choose to avoid). I remember being told I must see 'Wild Hogs' because "it's such a fun movie where you need to turn your brain off". I don't know how to respond to this without falling further into the trap. Maybe I'm a mutant, but I can't imagine being entertained while my noggin is in sleep mode. Telling me up front that I can't even bother to think about the film without risking the whole experience disintegrating to nothing is not a recommendation or endorsement. It's an admission about a bad film.

I try to be respectful of everyone's tastes. Part of me envies those who are easily entertained. There is plenty of mass-market cinema I enjoy. I liked the latest 'Star Trek' a lot more than you did, and watching 'Watchmen' at the I-Max was an unbelievable experience for me. But I find when it comes to compromises, it's always those of us with more discerning tastes who are forced to submit. It's common for movie night to center on the latest Will Ferrell comedy or Michael Bay explosion-fest. But what happens when one recommends the film playing at the local art theatre (in this case it was 'Sugar', a film I thought I could get away with because it's disguised as a baseball movie)? One gets immediately tagged as a film snob. "Let's just go see a movie." Whatever that means.

It's the same logic that tags one as a beer snob when I say "no thank you" to someone offering me a warm Natural Light. When I know darn well I couldn't get this same person to even try a sip of a nice cold Goose Island Honker's Ale.

OMG the Star Trek movie SUCKED. Someone mentioned it above - the movie was a basket of horrible with a vomit topping.

Roger,

As you make clear, it's never a pompous or esoteric point of view to expect filmmakers to respect the intelligence of the audience. Not to say that every director needs to make artsy pictures that only genius' can understand, but it bothers me when audiences are treated like they are drooling idiots - even on the occasion that they are.

In a review of Fargo you once mentioned a scene that allowed you to realize that it was going to be elevated to something truly great. I had a reverse experience with the latest Transformers. There is a sequence when Sam's parents travel all the way to a romantic Parisian cafe only to order a Budweiser (label turned out, of course) and to mock French customs. It was easy to see then and there what the filmmakers thought of the audience. Many big-budget action movies these days don't do the same thing (The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Star Trek) and it would be a disservice to such movies to lump Transformers together in the same category of quality. Even in tailoring to children with less developed brains, Pixar always manages to respect the intelligence level of its audience. Movies themselves can be dimwitted and fun when the audience is allowed in on the joke, like with the first Pirates of the Caribbean or Indiana Jones. Watching Transformers, I honestly felt that the audience WAS the joke.

Well of course you're a brainiac!

You got the Pulitzer prize for criticism, didn't you? That ain't chopped liver, bud.

I understand people go crazy over films like Transformers II etc... I never wanted to see the films since the fun of the animated show was absent from the films.

Take for instance on the cartoon show much of the action was out in the middle of nowhere and the government didn't seem to know anythign about these gigantic robots fighting each other and blowing up the land. This is actually in a way funny and I think in the films bring some real world senibility into the fold, and it doesn't work. It was maybe mindless fun, and nothign wrong with it but I can even say a film I love as a guilty pleasure is SATISFACTION with Justine Bateman and Julia Roberts and the under-rated Trini Alvarado, it will never be great cinema but it is fun, and I grew up watching it.

I have another film that I think is a masterpiece and no ass kissing mind you but a few years back I was so excited to venture out and purchase a Special Edition DVD of a film called Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, I had heard things about the film, I was mid 20's at the time- at any rate, as I was watching the film I thought hmmmm this is a bad movie... watched it more and loved the look for the film (where is this Blu-Ray?) and thought wow this film is unlike anything I have ever seen. It hit me that if this film was bad it was because it was intentionally that way. It is well made and never gets old. I can invite friends over as a late nite film pop in Beyond Valley of the Dolls they go nuts, it is an assualt on the senses and so much fun great witty dialogue.

I guess my point is if I can make the point is that Transformers is loud banging noise that looks great, but do you think 20 years from now we will think it was a lot of fun? I saw Titanic 3 times when it opened I thought it was amazing and looking back I am embarrased to watch it.

So for those who think Transformers is the greatest film ever... I will qoute Russ Meyer's classic Faster Pussycat Kill Kill! " Varla: I never try anything. I just do it. And I don't beat clocks, just people! Wanna try me?"

Hello Roger,

First off, I am a big fan of your work although we might not agree on everything (Ex:"The Godfather Part II"). Whether its to read your review on the latest film in theaters or to check what you thought of a film from the past i recently saw for the first time, I always look foward to reading your reviews and i check your website on a regular basis.

What I love about your negative reviews is your sense of humor. For example, you said "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."

I am 19 years old and very much dislike this film. It has nothing to do with age why i dislike this film in the same way it has nothing to do with age that you dislike this film. The plot is thin and the attempts at humor are poor. The action is too much for the eyes and ears and there scenes of cheese that seems way too much. Rather than looking foward to an action scene, i found myself very displeased when finding a new one was coming up.

I feel many people enjoy this film thinking that anyone who does not like the movie do not like action films or blockbusters. I for one think this is absurd. Like you, I thought the Dark Knight was a four star film and one of the best films of 2008. It found a way to balance plot, action, characterization and great themes that in ways reflect the society we live in. I love blockbusters when they are good and don't when they are bad. Plain and simple.

You put in the time, insight and effort to truly reflect on a film. This comment is to tell you there are many upon many who appreciate your work and understand the true value of your opinon. There are many who agree with your opinon not only about this film but others. Many, myself included, only have the highest and utmost respect for you. Keep up the superb work.

Greetings Roger and Fellow Readers!

This is a highly valuable and interesting addition to your essay entries. Namely because it addresses the devauling of education and expertise in North American society.

Another related type of perplexing ignorance emanates from those who assign others the category of 'overqualified' when filling an employment vacancy. I've never understood this appellation. When growing up, most of us were strongly advised to acquire as much education and experience (s) as possible to 'qualify' for more employment (and life) opportunities. It's quite a rude shock to run into an ethic that effectively punishes one for having a quality education and varied work experience.

Keep up the sage, and dare I say, educated insight!

Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada

Most recently viewed: October 1970 (circa 2006), Syriana (2005), Gangs of New York (2002), and No Way Out (1987).

From your review: "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."

Although you are, of course, exaggerating for effect, and also of course, speaking of movies, not text sf, I remind you of: a) the classic Day The Earth Stood Still (there is no other).

Also, for what it's worth, The Brother From Another Planet lost a foot, though through a crash injury, not through gunfire.

"Do I ever have one of those days when, the hell with it, all I want to do is eat popcorn and watch explosions? I haven't had one of those days for a long time. There are too many other films to see. I've had experiences at the movies so rich, so deep--and yes, so funny and exciting--that I don't want to water the soup."

Spot on, and I find myself having less and less of them as well. There are so many wonderful, joyous experiences to be had at the movies that with each one I have and each great film I see I find myself drifting farther and farther away from the need to shut off my brain and knowingly submit myself to a bad one.

Which makes it all the more embarrassing that, in deciding what to watch last night and knowing that I have more than 100 unwatched DVDs on my shelf (including works by Cocteau, Kurosawa, Ozu, Mizoguchi, Antonioni, Godard, Renoir and others), I opted instead to order the recent Friday The 13th remake On Demand. Hey, we all have our weak moments :)

I thought you might enjoy this blog post from the genre site io9.com

Be sure to check out the recut trailer for 2012 at the bottom!

http://io9.com/5307976/the-following-preview-has-been-rated-d-for-disaster

"We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle."

This is very well put, and yet I'm not sure I agree (at least when it comes to movies). The problem is that there are no definite rules on what makes a film good or bad. I sometimes feel like seriously telling someone they're wrong about a film, but I'm aware that their opinion is as true in their mind as mine is to me. Some viewers are smarter, more perceptive and more film literate than others, no doubt, but that is simply their experience. If someone who enters a theater with a different mindset to mine has a different response than me, defined by their own experience, who am I to tell them they're wrong?

Not that that has ever stopped me from arguing my case. I'd be more than happy to argue with anyone who thinks "Transformers 2" is a great film - if I'd seen it and it turned out to be the nonsense it seems to be, that is.

This article really spoke to me because of my own troubles expressing my opinions about Transformers to my friends. During the movie I struggled to stay awake through the ridiculous story and horrible acting, and when my friends and I left the theatre after the ridiculously one-sided final battle I naturally chattered about the weaknesses of the movie with them while we stood outside. Apparently I had missed them drooling over the (to me) disappointing battle scenes, because they really ripped into me.

You see, certain friends of mine really hate dissidence to their opinions (as it seems everyone does these days, from half of all news anchors to my own teachers) and take any critique to any of their opinions as a personal insult. I was already on thin ice this summer for calling Year One decent, and my critique of Transformers broke down their so-called patience. Immediately after the words "bad" left my mouth you'd think I had just called them all morons based of their responses.

I'm noticing this problem more and more among everyone my age. They have firmly rooted opinions on all subjects and to them challenging one of their dogmatic views is one of the gravest insults imaginable. Take politics as an example: seemingly everyone I talk to at my school sincerely hates Obama with a passion. When I ask why nearly all of them give me a stupefying answer along the lines of "because he's black", "he's the anti-Christ...I mean....he IS oddly charismatic...", or, my favorite, "I was watching Bill O'Reilly last night....”. To ask why any of these justify or prove anything is to invite a slurry of insults about how everyone can have an opinion and about how an opinion can NEVER EVER be wrong. For someone who just wants to discuss things, the new era of sensitivity that seems to have arrived is very draining.

I know there must be some way to talk to people about issues without creating a storm of rage-filled rants....I just have no idea what that is in a day and age when countless TV personalities throw five-year old fits at non-believers, all while in front of millions of viewers under the creditability of being a "news program". If I can tell that these tirades are pathetic as a teenager/barely ‘B’ student, why can’t the adults who seem to be mirroring these childish freak outs over nothing more than a differing opinion?

Roger I have been reading your reviews as far as I remember. Pauline Kael and you are on the top of the best critics. Ever since blogs been around allowing more and more people to review films I noticed you have been put down more and more. We (the reader) can understand where you come from with your reviews, however, with blogs you really don’t know where these reviews are coming from and what their goals or bias. Maybe they just want their name and website put on a crappy movie TV spot or DVD cover. You reviewed a movie this summer (I think Star Trek) and you were not too fond of it. Some blog wrote about how you don’t understand movies and you probably don’t even see movies with crowds. I was laughing because I don’t think they understand what reviewing and critiquing a movie is about. If I was a film critic why would I want to see a movie on a Friday night with a crowd? Not only can you not hear what’s going on half the time but crowds could influence a movie review from bad to good, good to great, etc. I have seen movies that are extremely bad and caught the Friday night showing and left feeling OK to good about it. Not only can crowds influence the reaction I agree with you that 3D and I-Max also could change your perception of a film. Another thing that bothers me is Nicholas Cage, who if you noticed blogs will trash his movies before they even seen them. Your **** review of Knowing was spot on. It, I believe, will be a sci-fi classic in the years to come. My final note, Transformers was horrible. I couldn’t believe it was worse than the first Transformers, how could that have happened? You have some love out there from the people who love movies and the art form it is and you have a ton of hate from people. I don’t know why. and took them in as some

I think the issue that some people have towards the Ivy League isn't the Ivy League education itself, but the perception that to get into the Ivy League in the first place, the student is drawing on money or connections, doesn't have to work, and is spending four years insulated from the pressures of the "real world", with summers spent at The Cape.

Then after the Ivy Leaguers graduate, many believe that the students either go on to positions where they are overpaid for what they actually produce due to their Iv League pedigree, or are freed from the pressures of working due to family money, and then go into politics or work for fashionable causes.

So, its not the education itself that anyone thinks of with disrespect - its the presumed privilege that many believe one has to have to get into the Ivy League in the first place, or that is automatically granted to one after graduation.

I was downstate over the weekend, I can't imagine anyone in Champaign county sneering at a local getting into Harvard, but I can certainly see how they'd be less impressed by someone from the Francis W. Parker school making it.

Again, all of this is perception. Cynically, as a proud graduate of a state school (Go Salukis!) I have to say that given the chance, I would do all I can to help my child get into an Ivy League school, not because I think their education is going to be better than that at the U of I, but because it will help them in their lives and careers. Many of their fellow students would have been born on 3rd base. Going to Harvard can at least help my son steal Second.

Ebert: You know, in several fields, such as Engineering and Computer Science, an Illinois degree opens doors lightning fast.

I find it funny that those defending Transformers 2 claim that "the critics" who are panning the film for its mindless action and nonexistent character development only like obscure, foreign, and/or arthouse films, yet just last year those same critics were heaping praise on two other big summer blockbusters, Iron Man and The Dark Knight. And last I checked, neither were obscure, foreign, arthouse films. And those movies were great because they WEREN'T mindless action films lacking any character development. They didn't need to be simplistic or bombastic to be entertaining.

Yes, Transformers is doing very well at the box office, probably undeservingly so. Enough people seem to be finding enjoyment from the movie regardless of its shortcomings. But just because it's enjoyable doesn't give it nutritional value or merit. Kids love candy too, despite the fact that it rots your teeth and makes you fat. And like candy, kids like Transformers too. Transformers (and Megan Fox) are eye candy, and I guess there were a lot of people with a sweet tooth (or a sweet eye...or something).

Isn't being anti-intellectual a form of elitism itself? It's another way of saying you're not part of my sub-group, my tribe. So much of the conflict in the world, big or small, seems to come out of that same primitive root.

re:2012
That trailer seems to me a bit like a condensed version of Irwin Allen's career. Every disaster movie he did, only with computer generated effects and quicker cuts. I initially thought the large building the aircraft carrier John F Kennedy destroys was the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which would have been a nice bit of topical irony. On second look it turns out to be a different building. Must have been my imagination expanding on your blog post.

I've been reading your reviews for years, even though I don't go see many movies. It's been for the reading of them. It's been great to have your blog expanding your basis of topics. I hope it continues for many years, thank you.

Hi Roger,

I will nitpick:

"I envy the hell out of anyone who has gotten himself into Harvard, especially with his mind and not his parents' clout. Some people believe it is the best university in America. Why must that be a mark of shame?"

Your statement here strikes me as being very similar to saying: "so-called deserving student", and casts the majority of people going to Harvard as having got there on their parent's clout. It's so slyly contradictory, it's genius!

Personally, I feel pretty jealous of anyone who gets themselves such a great crack at a good future. If anyone finds themselves in such a position, I hope they make the best of it!

Based on your review for Transformers, I'm going to make every effort to catch it on IMAX. It sounds like the goal of the movie is to be a deafening, bombastic assault. So, best to have it applied as it was intended to be inflicted.

Ebert: I may be hopelessly naive, but I believe the majority of today's Ivy League students got in because of themselves and not their parents.

You are also a National Treasure, Mister Ebert.

Forgive me for the wanton ass-kissing.

-)

Ebert: It's the wanton part I can't stand.

Dear Roger,

My employer arranged a screening of this movie on company time and all I could think was "I guess someone really could pay me to sit through a Michale Bay movie." (I rented Pearl Harbor and the first Transformers movie but found them unwatchable.) My coworkers and I were shocked by how awful it was.

An above poster mentioned Idiocracy and all I could think of during the screening was that film's popular TV show "Ow, My Balls!" I'm afraid of anyone over the age of thirteen who like this movie. For them, I've provided this link to a scathing IMDB
Transformers Two FAQ: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1055369/board/nest/141925027. I'm curious if you, yourself, have read it yet (warning: it's spot on but long).

When I returned from the theater, I tore open my red Netflix envelope and popped in My Dinner With Andre. Amazing how great characters and great dialogue can enthrall viewers while the most expensive CGI to date can bore them senseless. Still, I'm one moviegoer who's eagerly awaiting Jim Camaron's Avatar to show the likes of Bay that there's a hell of a lot more money to be made by first making a great movie. I still think the best balls-to-the-walls sci-fi action flick of all time was Camaron's Aliens and I'm looking forward to seeing him raise the bar yet again.

Cast with an attractive female clad with expensive trimmings, its loud and unabashedly light in substance.

I guess Transformers 2 is the Sarah Palin of movies.

A reader named Jared Diamond, a senior at Syracuse, sports editor of The Daily Orange, put my disturbance eloquently in a post asking: "Why in this society are the intelligent vilified? Why is education so undervalued and those who preach it considered arrogant or pretentious?"

Okay, I know I already ranted about Jason Friedberg & Aaron Seltzer ad nauseum in the bad movie thread, but I gotta take one more whack at that dead horse. Well, it's not so much another rant about them as it about 20th Century Fox, who distributed three of their films.

Back in 2003, Mike Judge made a movie for that studio called Idiocracy. In that movie, two average schmoes (Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph) are cryogenically frozen for 500 years. They awake to find that this current alarming "anti-intellectualism" trend has devolved us into a nation of idiots. Anybody who attempts to sound remotely intelligent is mocked as "talking like a f*g". The hit TV show is Ow! My Balls!. The most successful film playing is Ass: The Movie, which is a ninety minute close-up of a man's bare ass, farting to the great delight of its moronic audience

As we all know, Judge had already made another movie for 20th Century Fox called Office Space, which flopped in theaters but went on to be one of the biggest DVDs of all time. One would think that Fox would give him the benefit of the doubt. Even so, the studio found it difficult to market this movie, so it sat on the shelf for years. It was eventually dumped into a handful of theaters with zero advertisement, where of course it flopped.

During this time, Fox gave wide distribution and huge marketing campaigns to the Friedberg and Seltzer "spoofs" Date Movie and Epic Movie. They pushed these movies into very successful opening weekends dispite neither having anything remotely resembling a joke. How bad are these movies? The DVD release for Date Movie includes a laugh track, as well as an audio commentary from film critics, Scott Foundas and Bob Strauss, who explain in great detail how the movie has doesn't have anything remotely resembling a joke. The DVD release for Epic Movie is worse. That, I kid you not, includes an audio track that adds additional fart noises throughout the movie.

Think about that. A major studio is clueless what to do with a clever satire that sends up the people who would flock to a movie about farting, but they can successfully sell a movie in which there is apparently a demand for more farting.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

What I would like to know from the movie's defenders is why they take criticism so personally. Why expect critics to have an open mind about movies that entertain you when you refuse to do the same? Why is it snobbish to be intelligent? or to analyze what you see? Personally, I often disagree with critics. Terminator Salvation earlier this summer is an example. I was thoroughly entertained by it despite the mostly-negative reviews. Still, I find it entertaining to read reviews and hear what other people have to say about it. It challenges me and ultimately helps me enjoy movies more than I would otherwise.

On another note, Roger Ebert is not a snobby critic by any means. Check out his review of Land of the Lost for an example of that.

I was struck by some of the comments above aimed at director Michael Bay. Trans2 is exactly the movie Bay set out to make, in exactly the style he wished it to be, and he had all of the magical resources Hollywood F/X wizards could apply. Everyone involved in Trans2 were working at the top of their game. In any other sense, this devotion to a peculiar vision would make Bay a respected auteur. At the very least, it shows that Bay is a director that gets what he wants and makes money for the studio.
The fact that Bay's films are designed to punch you in the eyeballs, damage your cognitive thinking and leave you drooling is another matter.

Really Roger, I thought kicking someone while they're down was beneath you. To get this out of the way, I grew up on transformers, I played with the toys, and I LOVED THE HELL out of the movie. It's the definition of pure circus spectacle at the movies, and prettymuch exactly like the cartoon from beginning to end. It seems that Bay wasn't going to win this even if he stuck to the source instead of changed it to suit the exec's 5 year old's tastes like with other movies. did it have its problems? Yes, it meanders, and following the sloppy first film doesn't help it, but it's fundamentally fine unlike your average soulless action movie. Why is it that people give much worse movies less venom than this? I guess it's because its a michael bay movie and this is the critic's way of punishing him for becoming too safe and stale. On the contrary, I think hes actually the most daring visionary director working in cinema today. Where else are you going to see some the crazy stuff he does? I can't say I wouldn't have wanted more substance in tf2, but the kid in me doing backflips when Optimus combined with the jet and kicked both megatron and the fallen while quipping "I rise, you fall." DISAGREES WITH ME. Once again, I wouldn't go to the circus and then complain about the lack of good story telling. If I want some slipshod attempt at shoe-horning deep intellectual thought into an explosion fest I'll pop in matrix reloaded.

Criticism (or, for those readily offended, "analysis") of artistic works only applies to those who are willing to learn more about the craft than they already know. They seek out an expert on the craft, then ask the expert's learned opinion, so they may evaluate their own. Don't you think that there are films ("movies" to the under-20 set)that are not made to be critiqued? There are art critics (yet no illustration critics), food critics (yet no "fast food" critics), theatre critics (although I have yet to see Mrs. Johnson's 6th grade production of "Our Town" seen and assessed by a critic). Why are critics of your stature and caliber wasting your valuable time critiquing movies like "Transformers"?

I just don't get the point. Reviewing "Transformers" is like the New York Times Book review analyzing a coloring book; it's absurd. The public needs you to illuminate the nuances and subtleties captured in the performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Capote". We do not need you to advise us not to see "Transformers." And I don't believe for a minute that you go into these kinds of films with an "open mind". It must feel primally insulting to have to even see a film like this, let alone comment on it. We need you to enlighten us by showing us a great film that we never heard of ("House of Games"),because all the film ads we ever see are made and marketed for 10 year olds.

I dont' know if you're under contract to see and comment on such films, but if you have any say at all, please refuse to "review" films like "Transformers" that are beneath the rest of us. There are too many quality films being made that we're missing out on because you spent two hours watching robots shoot each other. There are still lots of us who want to learn about film, about the craft of acting, the beauty and complexity of cinemetography. All the time you're wasting on this garbage, you could be teaching the rest of us about the appreciation of quality films.

I'd respect you more if your review was something like, "Transformers. Didn't need to see it. I'm sure it was awesome. OK, our next film..."

Excellent blog entry. As a film student, I sometimes have trouble defending myself to my professors when I enjoy a film that is, by and large, terrible, just as I have trouble telling people that Donnie Darko isn't the greatest film ever made and why (although it is a damn fine film). This entry gave me more material to work with in those conversations, and I appreciate it.

I think my issue with the whole Transformers 2 debate is that your review, in essence, chastised the elements of the film that you enjoyed in the first one. I know in your Last House On The LEft review you said that you are no longer interested in consistency, but how can you say that the plot in the first Transformers "doesnt really matter" while condemning the plot of the second? What do I make of the fact that in your TF2 review you said, "A Bot makes no visual sense anyway...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," but in your first review, you said they were "indeed delightful creatures; you can look hard and see the truck windshields, hubcaps and junkyard stuff they're made of. And their movements are ingenious, especially a scorpionlike robot in the desert." What changed? This is the problem I've had with much of the criticisms of the second, especially from people who liked the first: What did you expect from this film, and why is suddenly a film that is, in essence, more of the same so much worse than the original?

I liked the second Transformers, albeit it was too long and there was horrible racism. Just because I enjoyed it, doesn't mean it was good, which seems to be what this entry is trying to say. I also liked the first Transformers film. Doesn't make me a bad guy. I love The Godfather and Casablanca and plenty of other classics. I just wish that we could all ditch the hyperbole, name calling and inconsistencies and just be fans of film, be they films about transforming robots or the Holocaust.