The latest target of his wrath? Just the biggest 'buster on the block right now — Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. His official review on Tuesday was nothing short of withering. (Just a taste: He says the robots look like "junkyard throw-up.") That obviously wasn't enough for him. He returned a day later with an end-times blog post, putting his view of the movie's badness into a larger context and stating unequivocally that someday far in the future, the Transformers sequel will be studied in film classes as the moment when the "bloated, excessive, incomprehensible" CGI action movie finally got too big to survive.
I think Ebert might be off on this one, though. Considering the movie's outrageous box office haul, doesn't it just mean we're in for even more huge, excessive action movies? Plus, there are those who disagree with Ebert's judgment, including EW's own Owen Gleiberman, whose "inner 10-year-old" nodded in approval of the super-size, metal-on-metal action. What do you think? Have you seen Transformers 2? Do you think Ebert's right, or is he way off the mark?
Read Owen Gleiberman's review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Comments (1-15) of 143 Add your comment
That man is so dead on about that movie I think he may just be a prophet.
I want those 3 hours of my life back…
While I wouldn’t say Transformers 2 was a great movie by any means (actually, it was only decent as far as blockbuster action movies go), I wouldn’t go as far as calling it junk. The movie wasn’t made to excel in the acting or plot department; it’s pure summer fun. But even putting that aside, wasn’t Roger Ebert the one who gave Nicolas Cage’s “Knowing” four stars? Umm…Yeah.
I agree for the most part with Ebert. The movie’s script and plot were nauseatingly bad and it was hard to sit through almost 3 hours of Megan Fox’s horrible acting. Shia didn’t do bad though, still love that kid. The battles were pretty impressive (and being a huge fan of the Transformers universe, I did enjoy it) but the story just didn’t go anywhere. I highly doubt this will be the last HUGE blockbuster though. Some of these movies work very well. And while some really miss their mark, hey, they still make a crap ton of money. It is a really bad movie, but hey, who doesn’t love a bad movie for some escapism every now and then?
I think he is. I love Roger Ebert, and the only review I believe was way off and even kind of annoying, was for Star Trek (the new one).
But he’s right about Transformers 2. And he’s not the only one who said that the movie was a distasteful one. The 21% in ROTTEN TOMATOES sure agree with him.
Rise of the Fallen is crap. I don’t know what Owen Gleiberman was snorting to make him like it
well, Sandy Kenyon from ABC hated it as well. I have no plans on seeing it, but they have to for their jobs. Being forced to watch a 2 and 1/2 hour movie that you hate will bring out the worst in a critic, lol!
Loud, action packed, in your face – the 10 year olds I saw it with loved it, and it was entertaining – now if I can just get them to stop wanting to see another ‘best picture’ pixar movie…. please!
Sorry, you’ll never get them to stop wanting to see those movies – and with good reason.
I read Ebert’s blogs every week and it’s great stuff. I don’t agree with him on Transformers 2, though. This 50+’s inner child knew what was in store with this movie. I wasn’t expecting Hamlet with a Michael Bay movie…how else do you do a movie with these characters that isn’t CGI heavy and loud??? This one had less of a plot and no character development from the first; but, I’m here for the robots.
The same argument with every person that tries to defend this movie: It’s not “Citizen Kane”, it’s not “Casablanca.” Dude, Roger Ebert knew what to expect when he went to see this movie. You should never just say something is a good movie in its own right, just because it’s a certain type: At that point, the moviegoer will become dishonest and thoughtlessly accepting, as Ebert himself testified. Besides, when it goes to big-budget special effects movies, there are so many far superior films: “Star Wars”, “E.T.”, “2001″, “The Dark Knight”, too many to count. Basically, “Transformers 2″ was a poor movie no matter how you look at it, and a person can make that distinction on their own. What they cannot control is whether or not they like it (That’s totally subjective.), and Roger Ebert absolutely didn’t!
I don’t understand how Owen Gleiberman is even a movie critic…he’s a moron. I’m never going to turn to EW for true movie review again.
I hate to be a detractor but have to agree with old Rog sight (of the movie) unseen. While I am a huge mindless mayhem fan (loved “Shoot ‘Em Up” with Clive Owen) I seem to’ve lost my taste for this tin can crap. Watched 10 minutes of the first Transformers (on DVD) and left the room as it played on to answer a few emails.
Roger, the worst movie in history was Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls. Transformers and Transformers 2? No matter how much money they make, crap is crap. I’ll pass.
Ebert’s fun when he really hates dumb stuff….and that “North” review is classic, but he is getting way too much into apocalyptic ranting and raving. The badness of the Bush years has turned him sorrowful. He has basically admitted that he doesn’t think human beings will last 50 more years. Lots of his reviews now are hysterical outpourings of emotion. In the “Revolutionary Road” review he referred to the 1950s as a time when “life was a disease.” Some dumb CGI blockbuster isn’t the end of the world.
lets see, a film about giant robots from another planet looking to defend or conquer earth.
what was he expecting “shakespeare in love?”
Thank you for that. I’ve been feeling mopey ever since hearing about Michael Jackson, but those reviews have given me a right royal cheering up.
The odd thing is that Ebert gave the first “Transformers” movie 3 1/2 stars. His review of the sequel perfectly captures how I felt about the first film.
Actually he only gave the first one 3 stars, so it’s not necessarily that odd, at least to me. But I will not argue with your opinion, I don’t wish to insult you.
The movie was good, mindless, amusing fun. I agree with Ebert that some of the fight scenes were muddled when two robots fought. A robot clash looked like twisted metal and you couldn’t really see what was going on. I don’t know how that looks in IMAX but on a standard screen I will agree with Roger on that. My only complaint was that it was about 1/2 hour too long. Some tighter editing could have easily cut time off the film and not have sacrificed anything.