So, thank you for such a well written response to Ebert's opinion.
There is a line in subjectivity for what a film equals; but going so far as to denounce the viewers, is neither intelligent, nor helpful.
Bad film; yes.
Worst film ever; NO.
And anyone who makes statements as such, is not especially knowledgeable of film at all.

There are also many other things I did not like about that movie (like how budy climbs up the pyramid after the monster and says “remember what I'm doing for MY COUNTRY (America)” while he's in the Middle East fighting aliens trying to destroy the planet… and finally reaches the monster only to call on his radio and say “the monsters at the top of the pyramid!” and climb back down).

While Starwars (all of them are pretty much the same to me, but I do refer to the new ones) and the Davinci Code had similar idiotic plot's, it is not the plot that made me dislike Transformers 1 and 2. The special effects action scenes in Starwars were considerably shorter, less frequent, and in my opinion better done (not technically, but much more intriguing). Also Starwas had better dialogue (duh), there was better character development, and they were made in anticipation of their highly acclaimed predecessors. I could go on forever.

Oh, and I love Papillon, but I am emotionally attached to “prison” movies for some reason.

There are also many other things I did not like about that movie (like how budy climbs up the pyramid after the monster and says “remember what I'm doing for MY COUNTRY (America)” while he's in the Middle East fighting aliens trying to destroy the planet… and finally reaches the monster only to call on his radio and say “the monsters at the top of the pyramid!” and climb back down).

While Starwars (all of them are pretty much the same to me, but I do refer to the new ones) and the Davinci Code had similar idiotic plot's, it is not the plot that made me dislike Transformers 1 and 2. The special effects action scenes in Starwars were considerably shorter, less frequent, and in my opinion better done (not technically, but much more intriguing). Also Starwas had better dialogue (duh), there was better character development, and they were made in anticipation of their highly acclaimed predecessors. I could go on forever.

Oh, and I love Papillon, but I am emotionally attached to “prison” movies for some reason.

Whatever. Nice chatting with you.

Whatever. Nice chatting with you.

Flow of the story? Meaningful connection? Plot? If you are seriously using these terms in reference to this film then I am afraid it is you that is being obtuse.

Flow of the story? Meaningful connection? Plot? If you are seriously using these terms in reference to this film then I am afraid it is you that is being obtuse.

Seriously? Incoherent? The flow of story had no meaningful connection? You couldn't follow the plot? You don't know how we got from point A to point B? Come on.

Seriously? Incoherent? The flow of story had no meaningful connection? You couldn't follow the plot? You don't know how we got from point A to point B? Come on.

Without even going into point by point detail, just the fact that you say it is incoherent speaks to the gross hyperbole you're shooting for with your comment. It isn't the least bit incoherent.

And, in a sort of opposite skew on Ebert's position, if you think this is the worst movie ever, you just haven't seen a lot of movies.

But that just my opinion, of course.

Without even going into point by point detail, just the fact that you say it is incoherent speaks to the gross hyperbole you're shooting for with your comment. It isn't the least bit incoherent.

And, in a sort of opposite skew on Ebert's position, if you think this is the worst movie ever, you just haven't seen a lot of movies.

But that just my opinion, of course.

It's nonsensical, and as I say, it's a movie that is calling the audience stupid.

His statement on Crystal Skull is pretty coherent, but it's bull. Raiders of the Lost Ark is in-genre, pulpy, fun adventure. Crystal Skull is ludicrous.

It's possible to get the mix wrong, of course, and I obviously don't mean to be supporting the idea that Revenge of the Fallen is all that good… it isn't even as good as the first one.

There probably are a lot of other things going on, and Bay is rather silly insofar as many of his techniques, not least of which is his demand to spin the camera around people's heads, but I suggest there are other other things going on as well.

I appreciate the comment, and as I think I said, I certainly have no problem with people not liking the film, or believing that it leaves much to be desired, or even believing that it certainly could have been better. I'm just saying it isn't quite Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever.

Cheers.

I would suggest that when Ebert was talking about taking in the sights of TPM, he wasn't just talking about visual *effects*, but *visuals*- art design, shot composition, etc. A movie can have very proficient, convincing effects and be ugly as sin. Michael Bay's aesthetic approach is, well, polarizing- some people find it striking, some can't get past the shakycam and the fact that no shot persists for longer than 3 seconds ever.

And I think Ebert's statement on CRYSTAL SKULL is pretty coherent- all of the silly events in that movie are in-genre. They are things that happen in pulp adventure movies. It has a certain internal consistency to it. Now, I can't speak for REVENGE OF THE FALLEN's consistency or lack thereof- arguably Michael Bay is becoming his own genre- but it's possible to get the mix wrong, so to speak. BATMAN AND ROBIN is a good example- tried to be like the Adam West series, but couldn't sell it.

If this film is getting worse reactions than the Lucas/Spielberg joints mentioned above, I would say that there are other elements at play other than just the plot being perceived as dumb. Plot's just one part of a movie, after all. A lot of critics, Ebert probably included, are getting sick of the no-master-shot, no-tripod, impressionistic style of action movie filming, and Bay takes that to a certain extreme. So if you think that an action sequence needs to be something you can easily follow, there's that element (especially in a movie that's sold entirely as an action thrill ride.)

It's nonsensical, and as I say, it's a movie that is calling the audience stupid.

His statement on Crystal Skull is pretty coherent, but it's bull. Raiders of the Lost Ark is in-genre, pulpy, fun adventure. Crystal Skull is ludicrous.

It's possible to get the mix wrong, of course, and I obviously don't mean to be supporting the idea that Revenge of the Fallen is all that good… it isn't even as good as the first one.

There probably are a lot of other things going on, and Bay is rather silly insofar as many of his techniques, not least of which is his demand to spin the camera around people's heads, but I suggest there are other other things going on as well.

I appreciate the comment, and as I think I said, I certainly have no problem with people not liking the film, or believing that it leaves much to be desired, or even believing that it certainly could have been better. I'm just saying it isn't quite Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever.

Cheers.

I would suggest that when Ebert was talking about taking in the sights of TPM, he wasn't just talking about visual *effects*, but *visuals*- art design, shot composition, etc. A movie can have very proficient, convincing effects and be ugly as sin. Michael Bay's aesthetic approach is, well, polarizing- some people find it striking, some can't get past the shakycam and the fact that no shot persists for longer than 3 seconds ever.

And I think Ebert's statement on CRYSTAL SKULL is pretty coherent- all of the silly events in that movie are in-genre. They are things that happen in pulp adventure movies. It has a certain internal consistency to it. Now, I can't speak for REVENGE OF THE FALLEN's consistency or lack thereof- arguably Michael Bay is becoming his own genre- but it's possible to get the mix wrong, so to speak. BATMAN AND ROBIN is a good example- tried to be like the Adam West series, but couldn't sell it.

If this film is getting worse reactions than the Lucas/Spielberg joints mentioned above, I would say that there are other elements at play other than just the plot being perceived as dumb. Plot's just one part of a movie, after all. A lot of critics, Ebert probably included, are getting sick of the no-master-shot, no-tripod, impressionistic style of action movie filming, and Bay takes that to a certain extreme. So if you think that an action sequence needs to be something you can easily follow, there's that element (especially in a movie that's sold entirely as an action thrill ride.)