Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
That's not quite true.
Look at Roger Ebert, for example. He gave the first Transformers film 3 stars (out of 4), Shoot 'Em Up 3.5 stars, etc. Transformers 2 didn't get 1 star because it was an action flick, it got 1 star because it sucks ass.
Compare a film to a dinner. Let's say an action film is dinner at a steak restaurant. Obviously, the main course is steak (action). But no matter how good the steak is, if the chef pisses in your drinks (the plot) or shits in your dessert (the acting), it will ruin the dinner.
And that's what Michael Bay does in Transformers 2: he pisses in the beer and shits in the chocolate mousse. And no matter how good the steak may be, having to consume Michael Bay's excrement alongside with it ruins the entire meal for many people.
|
The article states that the gulf is between what critics think and what the mass audience that the movie was intended for thinks. In other words, most people enjoyed the meal because they knew it was going to be fast food. I think the number of ticket sales supports this view.
It's true that from a critical perspective the movie may not hold up. But few people care because the basic idea is that there are good robots and bad robots. The good ones help the humans beat up the bad ones. Everything else in between is thrown in for entertainment value. It's not for everybody but in the end it's the tried and true formula for summer blockbuster success.