|
Post by krill on Dec 26, 2007 17:58:24 GMT -5
What movies you suggest? Cause I bet they would all suck I suggest watching "The King of Kong" Here's the other movies of 2007 that I think are better than Transformers, and their rating out of 4 American Gangster 4 No Country for Old Men 4 Zodiac 3.5 Knocked up 3.5 Fracture 3.5 King of Kong 3 Beowulf 3 Shoot 'Em Up 3 Superbad 3 300 2.5 Simpsons Movie 2.5 Grindhouse 2.5 Yep, as I thought.
|
|
Rube
Hank Scorpio
Sammich Bogart
It's always the same and it's always different.
Posts: 5,619
|
Post by Rube on Dec 26, 2007 18:01:26 GMT -5
I would have liked it more if the goddamn camera didn't shake so much. Couldn't even tell what was going on sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by krill on Dec 26, 2007 18:02:58 GMT -5
I would have liked it more if the goddamn camera didn't shake so much. Couldn't even tell what was going on sometimes. I can agree on that. Especial as i watched it on a rather small screen.
|
|
Madagascar Fred
El Dandy
TAFKA roidzilla and SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH SON!
Posts: 8,784
|
Post by Madagascar Fred on Dec 26, 2007 18:09:20 GMT -5
American Gangster s***s on Transformers
|
|
|
Post by krill on Dec 26, 2007 18:10:06 GMT -5
American Gangster s***s on Transformers meh
|
|
|
Post by jfbop37 on Dec 26, 2007 18:10:15 GMT -5
I enjoyed the eye candy of seeing the autobots and decepticons. Unfortunately, the dialogue in the movie was a deal breaker for me. It was Star-Wars-Prequel-Rolling-Your-Eyes bad.
I have yet to see a picture released this year that was better executed than Ratatouille.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Dec 26, 2007 18:11:23 GMT -5
American Gangster s***s on Transformers Yep 30 days of night was better than Bayformers, and i didn't like 30 days all that much
|
|
|
Post by THE Dinobot on Dec 26, 2007 19:07:55 GMT -5
American Gangster s***s on Transformers Yep 30 days of night was better than Bayformers, and i didn't like 30 days all that much Transformers made Hud look like C.H.U.D, and I loved Hud!
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Dec 26, 2007 19:19:33 GMT -5
Yep 30 days of night was better than Bayformers, and i didn't like 30 days all that much Transformers made Hud look like C.H.U.D, and I loved Hud! HUD is a great film. CHUD.......well, Devin Farraci retro-actively hurts the movie. Boo!
|
|
|
Post by THE Dinobot on Dec 26, 2007 19:43:46 GMT -5
Transformers made Hud look like C.H.U.D, and I loved Hud! HUD is a great film. CHUD.......well, Devin Farraci retro-actively hurts the movie. Boo! I've never actually seen Hud...yet. Was referencing a line from The Critic, just replacing Transformers at the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan on Dec 26, 2007 19:47:47 GMT -5
Well... how is "it's a fun movie" not enough to explain that you like something? I mean, what's the point of seeing a movie? To have fun, right? I don't know about others, but I don't go to movies to find the answers to life or solve my problems or anything else other than to enjoy myself. So, if I see a movie and I enjoy myself, that's enough for me to like it and to think it's a good movie since it did what it is supposed to do: entertain me. And the more entertained I am by a movie, the more I like the movie; the more I like a movie a movie, the better it seems to me. So I don't see why I would need more than "I like it; I thought it was a fun movie" to defend my stance on liking it. If I said I hate and despise you, is that enough? Again, if the movie entertained you, fine, whatever. Intelligent, cerebral pictures, like last year's CHILDREN OF MEN and THE FOUNTAIN, or dramas like MICHAEL CLAYTON and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, or even pure-action cinema like THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM and SHOOT'EM UP and WAR, all entertain me in different ways. I was just simply interested as to why you liked it beyond the "it's fun" statement. Then again, from your I just don't see why "I thought it was fun" isn't good enough an answer to defend liking a movie and thinking it was good. And I also don't see why liking this movie means I must not have seen a lot of other movies. I guess its an alright explanation, but if you read my reviews for say WAR or even INDIANA JONES & THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, I write how I had good fun with both, in different ways. With WAR, it was I wrote "delicious fast-food action cinema" and basically called TEMPLE OF DOOM a boy's juvenile adventure film as well-made as such a picture can be (perhaps). But really, you seem to think I'm calling you stupid. Did I ever? Don't get so emotional over something as simple of a question from me like "why?" Actually, that would be enough for me. If you disliked me, hated me, or anything like that, I'd respect your decision to not like me. I might be curious as to why, but it wouldn't bother me any. After all, what you like and dislike is completely up to you, and neither myself nor anyone else has a right to harp at you for it or expect some great reasoning for why you dislike what you dislike. People have different tastes in movies same as with everything else. Not a single movie you mentioned interests me in the slightest. I'm fairly sure that if I saw the Bourne Ultimatum, it'd bore me just as much as the first one did. Does that mean you saying that you liked it isn't enough to justify your stance on it? No. I'm not going to rag on you about how your arguement for it being good doesn't stand up or that you just haven't seen enough movies (not that you've done that last one, but others have) simply because I don't like it. Rather, I accept that you like it and leave it at that. And I don't think you're calling me or anyone else stupid, but I also think the comment you made on how our "arguements" for the film don't stand up is a bit pretentious. A movie is meant to entertain, and if it was entertaining to someone, that's all there is to it; I fail to see how someone can be wrong about a movie entertaining them, expecially when they're speaking of their own tastes. I also fail to see how anyone needs more than this to "stand tall" about their liking for the film. And I'm no more emotional about this than you are (or, well, I'm assuming you aren't emotional about this; if you are, I apologize for the assumption); I'm simply pointing out that all someone has to say to defend their liking of a movie is that they liked it. No one needs to write up a review to validate their opinion, or come up with some deep-seeded answer for why they think one movie is better than another in order for their reasoning to be approvable. It all boils down to personal preference. And while anyone is free to ask about why someone likes or dislikes something, to make light of their reasons for no other reason than that you disagree is a tad bit rude. "It was fun" may not seem like enough of a reason to like a movie for you, but it's obviously enough of a reason for others, and it's more than what anyone has to say on the subject. My point is, something like this... Notice how people who defend Bay's TRANSFORMERS can't stand tall with their arguments beyond the "it's fun!" comments? ...just sounds a bit pretentious. No one needs to stand tall to like something, and no one needs more than "it's fun" to stand tall in liking a movie of all things. There's a bit of a difference between asking why someone likes something and belittling someone's reasons for liking something.
|
|
|
Post by Palatial Regalia on Dec 26, 2007 20:09:03 GMT -5
I found it to not be in the least bit entertaining. Too much human interest and sophomoric humor. The Transformers themselves were over detailed for detail's sake and detracted from the action sequences forming almost a blur of overdone CGI effects.
Like South Park stated, "Those are special effects Mr. Bay, we need ideas".
|
|
Splinter
Don Corleone
Picard really hates fat kids
Posts: 1,897
|
Post by Splinter on Dec 26, 2007 20:19:39 GMT -5
The original cartoon film steamrolls over Bayformers
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Dec 27, 2007 2:38:56 GMT -5
If I said I hate and despise you, is that enough? Again, if the movie entertained you, fine, whatever. Intelligent, cerebral pictures, like last year's CHILDREN OF MEN and THE FOUNTAIN, or dramas like MICHAEL CLAYTON and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, or even pure-action cinema like THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM and SHOOT'EM UP and WAR, all entertain me in different ways. I was just simply interested as to why you liked it beyond the "it's fun" statement. Then again, from your I guess its an alright explanation, but if you read my reviews for say WAR or even INDIANA JONES & THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, I write how I had good fun with both, in different ways. With WAR, it was I wrote "delicious fast-food action cinema" and basically called TEMPLE OF DOOM a boy's juvenile adventure film as well-made as such a picture can be (perhaps). But really, you seem to think I'm calling you stupid. Did I ever? Don't get so emotional over something as simple of a question from me like "why?" Actually, that would be enough for me. If you disliked me, hated me, or anything like that, I'd respect your decision to not like me. I might be curious as to why, but it wouldn't bother me any. After all, what you like and dislike is completely up to you, and neither myself nor anyone else has a right to harp at you for it or expect some great reasoning for why you dislike what you dislike. People have different tastes in movies same as with everything else. Not a single movie you mentioned interests me in the slightest. I'm fairly sure that if I saw the Bourne Ultimatum, it'd bore me just as much as the first one did. Does that mean you saying that you liked it isn't enough to justify your stance on it? No. I'm not going to rag on you about how your arguement for it being good doesn't stand up or that you just haven't seen enough movies (not that you've done that last one, but others have) simply because I don't like it. Rather, I accept that you like it and leave it at that. And I don't think you're calling me or anyone else stupid, but I also think the comment you made on how our "arguements" for the film don't stand up is a bit pretentious. A movie is meant to entertain, and if it was entertaining to someone, that's all there is to it; I fail to see how someone can be wrong about a movie entertaining them, expecially when they're speaking of their own tastes. I also fail to see how anyone needs more than this to "stand tall" about their liking for the film. And I'm no more emotional about this than you are (or, well, I'm assuming you aren't emotional about this; if you are, I apologize for the assumption); I'm simply pointing out that all someone has to say to defend their liking of a movie is that they liked it. No one needs to write up a review to validate their opinion, or come up with some deep-seeded answer for why they think one movie is better than another in order for their reasoning to be approvable. It all boils down to personal preference. And while anyone is free to ask about why someone likes or dislikes something, to make light of their reasons for no other reason than that you disagree is a tad bit rude. "It was fun" may not seem like enough of a reason to like a movie for you, but it's obviously enough of a reason for others, and it's more than what anyone has to say on the subject. My point is, something like this... Notice how people who defend Bay's TRANSFORMERS can't stand tall with their arguments beyond the "it's fun!" comments? ...just sounds a bit pretentious. No one needs to stand tall to like something, and no one needs more than "it's fun" to stand tall in liking a movie of all things. There's a bit of a difference between asking why someone likes something and belittling someone's reasons for liking something. Was I actually belittling you? My point was, nobody was making a good worthwhile argument, in defense pro quo this side of a worthy defense, why they dig this stuff. Now take that NATIONAL TREASURE review I posted days back. Someone at another message board replied with this whole argument that's rather interesting. He wrote that he agreed with me that NT was pretty damn silly, but he enjoyed it still. Why? Because to him, he enjoyed it much like many of those PG-rated kiddie-safe adventure fare from the 80s of say GOONIES or even INDIANA JONES & THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, where the action takes place in impractically-giant temples/ancient buildings and the thrills of going after a treasure of some kid. I don't buy the argument, but it makes sense. I mean, I wrote how I enjoyed LAST STARFIGHTER partly because it was a nice nostalgic throwback to the Arcade Era. What's me to say that this fan of NATIONAL TREASURE was wrong? Much like a Crapper (who I won't name because it was PM) who had a great counter-argument against my chief problem with NATURAL BORN KILLERS. I wrote how Stone's scene with the dead Indian was an unnecessary trick to try to make his homicidal maniac heroes sympathetic to the audience, how it even conflicts with said heroes' vow of murder-abstinence. He writes, "but in that prison riot, death is everywhere, its their environment, and for once they're killing for a good reason: to save their own asses." I still stick to my opinion, but that's a damn good point he has. Hell, he almost made me reverse course. Fact is dude, I don't want a fight or prove how goddamn smarter I am or right* or whatever you think I am trying to do. I simply want a good film-buff debate, hopefully fun and non-confrontational. That's it. *=Critics, like you and me, think we're right. We can respect everyone else's opinion, but this is the kitchen. You can burned very easily if you can't back up YOUR opinion. You backed up your opinion, which is good.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Dec 27, 2007 3:11:24 GMT -5
I grew up with Transformers. In fact, Optimus Prime was the first one I ever got, and that was way back when I was 5 years old. I was there to see the Constructicons debut, I was in the theater when Galvatron killed Starscream and I was still along for the ride when Optimus came back to life.
And I won't hesitate to add that I was there the day Transformers debuted in the theater this year, and I loved it enough to buy the DVD the moment it came out. I loved the action and how the robots were able to come to life. Sure, there was too much human-related footage, but I'll say the same thing I said about the Star Wars prequels: You can't just throw things out there and begin a movie as if we all know what's going on. You need to start slowly, introduce characters and work your way to the main focus of the story. That's why I'm fine with there being only so many robot-related scenes. Besides, I love it when things come together and all the characters learn what's going on.
My only other gripe is the lack of footage showing the final fate of Barricade. He was one of my favorite characters.
|
|
|
Post by krill on Dec 27, 2007 4:44:28 GMT -5
did anyone find bumblebee to be as irritating as Jar Jar Binks?
|
|
|
Post by King Fox -1017 Bricksquad on Dec 27, 2007 5:10:14 GMT -5
I absolutely loved Transformers. And I also think it's one of the best movies of 2007. I didn't see any of that other emo crap that will probably win an Oscar instead of Transformers, But for my money I thought it was really good.
|
|
|
Post by Nan Flanagan on Dec 27, 2007 5:23:08 GMT -5
I grew up with Transformers. In fact, Optimus Prime was the first one I ever got, and that was way back when I was 5 years old. I was there to see the Constructicons debut, I was in the theater when Galvatron killed Starscream and I was still along for the ride when Optimus came back to life. And I won't hesitate to add that I was there the day Transformers debuted in the theater this year, and I loved it enough to buy the DVD the moment it came out. I loved the action and how the robots were able to come to life. Sure, there was too much human-related footage, but I'll say the same thing I said about the Star Wars prequels: You can't just throw things out there and begin a movie as if we all know what's going on. You need to start slowly, introduce characters and work your way to the main focus of the story. That's why I'm fine with there being only so many robot-related scenes. Besides, I love it when things come together and all the characters learn what's going on. My only other gripe is the lack of footage showing the final fate of Barricade. He was one of my favorite characters. That pretty much sums up my feelings. I did go through phases of being excited then worried back to excited to thinking the movie was going to be an abomination. Then I took a step back and realised the only way I could honestly judge the movie was to see it for myself. So I did...and I absolutely LOVED it. So much so I went to see it again in the theatre and then put in a pre-order for the dvd as soon as I could. I've watched it a few more times since it arrived in the mail. The movie was fun and kinda cheesy..but on reflection so was the cartoon.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Servo on Dec 27, 2007 6:01:36 GMT -5
Notice how people who defend Bay's TRANSFORMERS can't stand tall with their arguments beyond the "it's fun!" comments? Unless you count a certain Crapper who tried, and I feel bad for him, but tried some ridiculous argument about how the movie represented keeping toys under the bed or something that made no sense. For "popcorn," its hollow corn. TRANSFORMERS (2007) - *1/2But aren't films such as TRANSFORMERS supposed to just be a fun film to watch? I didn't go into watching it expecting CITIZEN KANE. I went in hoping to enjoy myself. The guy that works at the comic shop I go to defends SPICE WORLD by giving the "goofy fun" argument. I don't think the makers of either film had an Oscar in their eyes while making it (ok, TRANSFORMERS may had one for F/X, but that's the extent of it) You may take issue with the "it was fun" defense, but how else can someone explain why they liked a film like this?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Todd Grisham on Dec 27, 2007 6:21:09 GMT -5
Notice how people who defend Bay's TRANSFORMERS can't stand tall with their arguments beyond the "it's fun!" comments? Unless you count a certain Crapper who tried, and I feel bad for him, but tried some ridiculous argument about how the movie represented keeping toys under the bed or something that made no sense. For "popcorn," its hollow corn. TRANSFORMERS (2007) - *1/2You may take issue with the "it was fun" defense, but how else can someone explain why they liked a film like this? I think the point rra was making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that people stop at "it's fun" and he sees that as a cop out, at least I do. Why is TRANSFORMERS fun? I don't think the people who think it's fun are evaluating it by its own terms, I think the nostalgia factor is high. That, and some people are easily enthralled by giant shiny robots fighting. So enthralled they forget about the wacky camera, the annoying orange tint, the lame sophomoric jokes, and the Michael Bay Plot Holes™. I agree, the point of movies, and any other media, is entertainment. And different people have different standards by which they are entertained. "Fun" is subjective. But we can still better understand what is fun to ourselves and others. Perhaps we can change our own standards.
|
|