`Transformers': Worst-reviewed $400 million hit?
 

After just five days, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is halfway to $400 million domestically, a box-office milestone only eight other movies have reached. If it climbs that high, the "Transformers" sequel will be by far the worst-reviewed movie ever to make the $400 million club.

Critics and mainstream crowds often disagree, but "Revenge of the Fallen" sets a new standard for the gulf between what reviewers and mass audiences like.

The movie pulled in $201.2 million since opening Wednesday, the second-best result for a movie in its first five days, just behind "The Dark Knight" with $203.8 million. Even after its whopping $60.6 million opening day, "Revenge of the Fallen" was packing theaters, a sign that unlike critics, who mostly hated the movie, audiences felt they were getting their money's worth and were giving the flick good word of mouth.

Well, it has had a huge ad campaign behind it and the average cinema going person obviously likes things to blow up real good more than a logical and appealing story.

Films are made to make money so the fact that it is pulling in so much means that as far as the studio is concerned it has been a success, it can be a crap movie too.

the dumbest sell the mostest...thats the name of the game.

the interesting thing about critics... is that they criticize. their existence revolves around finding fault with things. i walk into the theater because i want to be entertained... reviewers walk into a theater with an agenda.

Reviewers are fucking stupid because most of them measure everything with the same yardstick.

When reviewing Transformers 2, the critic can give his opinion, but he should also ask himself, "will 12-35 year old males have an orgasm over all of the giant fighting robots and exploding stuff?" and express if that group should go see it, instead of telling everyone to avoid it because the plot is a mess.

Even technically, there has to be some merit there, and enough to give it a recommendation. There's a lot of artistry that goes into making special effects of this caliber, and if you like loud dumb action, this probably the movie to go see. Nothing wrong with that.

I love my slow, character drama indies, but I also like to see the living dog dookie get blown out of everything in sight by giant robots that turn into cars.

If I was a critic, I would be smart enough to know when to lower my standards on certain areas and take something at its face value, if it has the kind of stuff I enjoy. It takes a better person to not be afraid to admit that you like stupid shit.

I'm seeing it today in IMAX and I hope to have my skull fucked properly by this movie, regardless of how silly it is.

If a "notable" critic admitted to enjoying a 100% action flick that may lack in plot or has holes in the story, they'd be risking their credibility, maybe even their jobs.

It doesn't change the fact that such a movie can be very entertaining.

Since I got stuck watching Broke"MyAss" Mountain, I ain't reading critics anymore :2 cents:

That's probably a really good explanation for it.

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.

That some pretty impressive number...i love that movie

not so fast bro

here's another action film that was loved by critics and fans
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

The movie was pointless. The fight scenes looked like shit between the Transformers.

It also felt like I was watching back to back Army commercials and Chevy commercials.

If that movie didn't have air tight plot, Trekkies would have a fit. They're the analytical crowd. I haven't seen it so I can't comment, but I think both movies were geared toward vastly different audiences.

Might explain a few things...

http://chrisonrails.files.wordpress....s2trailer3.jpg

There were a few things that I did not like about it. But the one thing I did, was that the Transformers themselves had more of a role in this one than the last.

that's too sexy

It's called a blockbuster for a reason - you target the lowest common denominator. I was planning on writing a review about it, but it didn't really inspire me to write.

It a nutshell, it was a good action film, that had it's slow points. There wasn't enough Megan Fox, and it was hard for me to follow the fighting scenes between multiple Transformers. When non-human objects are fighting hand-to-hand combat, it's difficult to see the finer details that make the fights badass.

P.S. - Avoid "The Hurt Locker" like the plague.

Nice bike :winkwink:

Funny you say that.

We should go see the worst reviewed movie of the year, but avoid the best reviewed movie so far this year like the plague. Are you allergic to good films?

movie was sic,,

I intend on going to see this movie in IMAX soon. Am I still going to be disappointed?

you mean crazy pips??

It will probably, just look more shitty. I suggest. Saving your money and go rent a movie instead.

This ass is worth $201.2 million :thumbsup

Sucks when they use reviewers over 12!!

:1orglaugh

J/k, devil's advocate. :winkwink:

You see the dark part between the pantlegs... that's what the critics missed that made it worth $10 to see.

good movie

It was a good no brain action flick. Sometimes its good just to get away and lose yourself in a movie like this.

:thumbsup i agree.. the audience goes to the movies not to look for flaws of what they are watching, but to watch and to be entertained - which i think is the real purpose of paying a ticket for a movie..

the producers of transformers now care less about these reviews.. flowing cash = sucess :2 cents:

did it hurt ?:Oh crap

The amount of people quoting, and jerking to CGI is amazing.

I could swear I was back in highschool.

If they started doing that then no film would ever get a bad review since every piece of shit film will still have a group of people who enjoy it. From what im hearing just as many of the 12-35 year olds who have watched the film think it was a pile of shit as the amount who think it was good. I would say the reviews have been pretty fair.

Iron Man, The Dark Knight etc etc. When pop corn action flicks are actually good the critics agree. Dark Knight in particular is one of those movies that makes you realise that all dumb action flicks don't HAVE to be dumb action flicks. Star Trek had plot holes.. but it was also good.

now that is what I call sexy :D

Lots of people dogged Dark Knight saying it got rave reviews only because of Ledger's death. I agreed with critics that it was an all around great action flick. One of the best. Transformers isn't close to that but it's no less entertaining from an action standpoint. What's baffling are those who gave the first Tranformers top grades but have sheer disdain for the second. I really didn't find each movie all that different from one another. Ebert supposedly gave the first one 3/4 stars. I saw it and rated it worse than that. But I guess we watched the films for different reasons.

Transformers II is too long of a robot action flick. Seriously! There are many scenes in the movie that held no significance whatsoever, and this movie could have been a whole lot better if it was shorter. All the fight scenes and seeing our favorite Transformers in the movie were worth watching, but the length just starts to wear down on you. :2 cents:

I didn't understand the critics really. Were they expecting a highly complex plot? Many reviews said there was no plot and if you have seen the movie you know thats not true at all.

I also agree there wasn't enough Megan Fox, but I did enjoy the various humor spots in this movie. I like there were move robots that had more parts. I also think they made the action easier to follow by using more slow motion when the robots were fighting.

I don't go into a theater for intricate characters and detailed plots, I go to escape reality and be entertained. Transformers 2 delivered.

megan fox needs to sign for vivid

i was bored to tears watching it; waste of my money

Ya but didn't she have the same exact pose in the first movie? Just seemed redundant at times this movie.

And the end there where they are like saying i love you was so cheesy i just about got up and left..

Somewhat entertaining, probably worth seeing on a big screen because the sound is pretty sweet, but other than that maybe about a 6.5 out of 10.

Who is this in your sig, it looks like anthony bossong (or bosson)

I'll be watching it soon. Sequels are usually worse. I expect it to be good.

Still wanting to see it,guess it's gonna be entertaining.

i was definitely entertained. i think most critics missed the point of going to see a movie. im not there to seek the meaning of life.

looks good

Remember
the moviegoing public gets to choose the movies they go see, a critic has to pretty much watch everythin and that likely includes a lot of movies that are in their least favorite genres (like if I had to review romantic comedies or high end artsy fartsy british films or Woody Allen films).

You can have an action movie even for 12 year olds that isn't retarded. The reason hollywood puts out crap is people like you settle for shit because "it's just an action movie". Maybe if people avoid this like the plauge Transformers 3 would actually have some writers that knew how to write.