-
Website
http://www.areyouscreening.com/ -
Original page
http://www.areyouscreening.com/2009/07/09/defending-transformers-from-roger-ebert-again-sort-of -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I have only recently discovered your site and I have to say - you are the man! Finally, someone is standing up to Ebert, who, let's face it, has been going off of his rocker lately (The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor - 3 1/2 stars; the first three Fast and Furious movies? 3 - 3 1/2 stars, Indy 4, all of the Star Wars prequels! All of them - 3-3 1/2 stars!) I don't really mind if critics like a movie or not, but to have one call me "silly" for liking a film is absurd! I think Ebert had a REALLY bad day (maybe even a headache) and wandered into "Transformers" already pissed off ... his review (and I've commented on this several times on his blog) does nothing to praise the technical achievments of the film. So you didn't like the plot? Fine. The acting? Understandable. But give credit where credit is due! "Transformers" has some of the best FX I've ever seen; and some pretty damned impressive action sequences to boot. No one would have raised an eyebrow had he given it 2-2 1/2 stars (which I thought he would, based on his review for the original "Transformers") - but one star? It would seem he walked into this movie ready to tear it apart ... and it shows! Kudos for standing up for us "insufficiently evolved" peeps who enjoy a little Michael Bay every now and again!
I get that you can watch a movie that's silly and still like it. I've seen Gods Must Be Crazy twenty times and I still like it, though I still think that movie just came about because a documentary film crew was affected inadvertently by a local hallucinogen. I don't put it against my favorite film of all time (Notorious), but then I only watch Notorious maybe once every five or ten years. There are number of great films that I am glad I watched because I learned something, felt something, but have no interest in watching again, like Sophy's Choice or Schindler's List. I like being happy and like being entertained.
Lots of people do and no one, in my opinion, should be made to feel small by enjoying something that is simple-minded fun. Note, I consider myself a brainiac myself, repeatedly defend education, and deplore the current trend of anti-intellectualism. However, positions that foster the image of "I'm an expert so if you don't agree with me, there's something wrong with you" are partly why there is an anti-intellectual bias.
Being expert doesn't mean you can't be questioned or can't even disappoint a devotee of your work. If one's review is all about who's names are over the title and not the movie, maybe one has lost sight of what one is doing there.
Your points about the reviews struck a chord with me. Like many an aspiring fiction writer, I give and receive feedback fiction, often of drastically varying caliber. I know I appreciate feedback that says, "I like the dialog," or "This made me laugh," and "This seemed rushed," or "I didn't understand this reaction." Good points or bad points, I can work with that and know what worked, what didn't and why. Someone who says just "This bites," or "Great work, I loved it!" - I can't do anything with that.
As I tried to imply (but perhaps didn't), I think it has almost become a "kind of movie" reaction for Ebert, and it seems odd.
Cheers
Some of the best movie reviews I've ever read were for movies I absolutely hated, nevermind not agreeing 100%.
When it comes to movies specifically, I think the expert thing is great generally, and that's why I do think people should read Ebert's blog post... it's got good stuff in it. But, the thing is, I really think there's drawing a line and then there's drawing a line. I also think a lot of people, critics and fans alike, lose touch with utter subjectivity of film. Do we at some point get to say people are wrong as the Gene Siskel quote states? I think we do actually. But, that's got to built around the subjectivity.
The Godfather just doesn't do it for me, and that's pretty much because I just down like mob movies. I just don't care. Someone else may hate or love science-fiction as a general rule. Fried Green Tomatoes had no chance with me, and Fried Green Tomatoes shouldn't care.
As I said, something is often lost when the point somehow isn't about getting the reader to know if they will like the movie. That's supposed to be the whole excuse for movie critics really. You open the paper and read reviews of what happens to be playing, so you know what to go to see.
The general viewpoint of writing reviews should make it very possible for someone to say, "Wow. That was really a great review. I have no interest in seeing that film, but that was a great review."
I've had that response to some of the best reviews I've ever read, and as perhaps just that little added bonus, a movie I will never see still got a chance to provide something to me.
Thanks again for the comment.
Cheers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whatever. Nice chatting with you.