TF2 Revenge of the Fallen(thread): Bay doing coke off dead h

[@Li3n]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYSVNzJAYaM:29iiu44l][/youtube:29iiu44l]


The funny thing is i can;t really tell if it's worse then "M.Bay blows stuff up around robots part II"...


Wait, Sheridan/Tron is in it?! Now i have to see it...

 

[DarkAudit]

Looks like the bots have shot their wad...

Transformers 2 and Ice Age 3 tie for top weekend box office spot.

If there hadn't been reviews of Ice Age 3 linked on Google News last week, I would never have known it was coming.

 

[Alucard]

Call me naive on the subject here but I seriously hope Ice Age 3 does better in the box office over Transformers 2 in the long run this year.

 

[@Li3n]

Looks like the bots have shot their wad...

Nah, just Bumblebee... (also, actually in the movie)!

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Call me naive on the subject here but I seriously hope Ice Age 3 does better in the box office over Transformers 2 in the long run this year.

You're naive on the subject.


Hey, this is still about Roger Ebert's review right? (nope)

Well, who cares, read this fantastic blog entry by him about "turn your brain off popcorn hurrr"

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/07 ... iniac.html

Roger Ebert is a moron! Transformers 2 is the best action movie ever. Don't listem to that moron! He is only into slow boring romantic movies. That is his type of movies. Michael Bay did a great good. Roger... your an old fart! John C

Having now absorbed all or parts of 750 responses to my complaints about \"Transformers,\" I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that most of those writing agree with me that it is a horrible movie. After all, look where they've chosen to comment. There have, however been some disagreements that I thought were reasonable. These writers mostly said they had a thing about the Transformers toys of their childhoods, or liked the animation on TV, or like to see stuff blowed up real good. In that case. Michael Bay is your man. If you enjoyed the movie, there is no way I can say you're wrong. About yourself, anyway.

Another common line of attack was disturbing. It came from people who said I was out of touch with the tastes of the audience. That the movie's detractors (lumped together as \"the critics\") like only obscure movies that nobody else does--art films, documentaries, foreign films, indies, movies made 50 years ago--even, God forbid, \"classics.\" One poster argued that \"Transformers\" was better than that boring old movie \"Casablanca.\"

I was informed I didn't \"get\" Michael Bay. I was too old, \"of the wrong generation,\" or an elitist or a liberal--although not, I was relieved to find, a \"liberal elitist.\" It seems to me \"Transformers\" also qualifies for conservative scorn. It is obliviously nonpartisan. Yet one commented said I hated the movie because it was an attack on President Obama. I was afraid to say I hadn't noticed that, because then I would be told I hadn't even seen the movie. It is possible to miss many of the plot points, strange in a movie with so few of them. Veiled in-jokes about politicians and famous people, popular in animation and mass market movies, come with the territory. I enjoy them. The apparent reference to Obama was no big deal, although a reader from Germany told me the actual name \"Obama\" was used in the German dub. That possibly didn't happen without Bay hearing about it.

But am I out of touch? It's not a critic's job to reflect box office taste. The job is to describe my reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others. The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded, but to evaluate another opinion against his own. But you know that. We've been over that ground many times. What disturbs me is when I'm specifically told that I know too much about movies, have \"studied\" them, go into them \"too deep,\" am always looking for things the average person doesn't care about, am always mentioning things like editing or cinematography, and am forever comparing films to other films.

I've \"forgotten what it's like to be a kid,\" another poster told me. One of the most-admired contributors to this blog, who signs herself \"A Kid.,\" is 12 years old. She hasn't forgotten. Neither have many other readers of middle school age. Their posts give me hope for the future. For them, to be a kid is not to be uncritical or thoughtlessly accepting. They seek magic, and don't find it in the brutal hammering of \"Transformers.\"

A reader named Jared Diamond, a senior at Syracuse, sports editor of The Daily Orange, put my disturbance eloquently in a post asking: \"Why in this society are the intelligent vilified? Why is education so undervalued and those who preach it considered arrogant or pretentious?\" Why, indeed? If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge? Yet sports fans are proud of their baseball knowledge, and respect commentators who know their stuff.

It's true that many Americans have an active suspicion and dislike of the \"educated.\" They ask, \"what makes you an expert?\" when they're really asking, \"what gives you the right to disagree with me?\" The term \"college graduate\" has become in some circles a negative. Hostility is especially focused on the \"Eastern Elite,\" to the chagrin of we Midwestern Elitists. To describe someone as a \"Harvard student\" is to dismiss them as beneath consideration. You can often hear the words \"so-called\" in front of words like scientist, educator, philosopher. I don't believe this is intended to imply that the person involved is not a scientist, etc., but to suggest that no one calling himself such a thing is to be trusted--because he is no doubt many other undesirable things.

While I am eager, in the words of my alma mater's song \"Illinois Loyalty,\" to back you to stand, against the best in the land, I envy the hell out of anyone who has gotten himself into Harvard, especially with his mind and not his parents' clout. Some people believe it is the best university in America. Why must that be a mark of shame?

I never took a film class. I will not bore you with yet another recitation of my rags-to-riches saga, my hard-won film education, and blah, blah, blah. Let's just say I started out with a lot to learn, and am still trying to learn as much of it as I can. There are people who know so much more about film than I do, it makes me all but weep with gratitude when they deign to speak with me. Two words: David Bordwell. That he speaks to everyone in clear and eloquent prose speaks for itself. It isn't that he \"thinks he knows more than anybody else.\" It's that he does. It's like he happens to know a lot of interesting stuff, and is happy to share it with you.

Now about those who sincerely believe \"Transformers\" is a good, even a great, film. I sincerely believe they are wrong. I don't consider them stupid--at least, not (most of) the ones who write to me. Some of the posters at certain popular web forums are nine blooms short of a bouquet. But on the other hand look at the spirited discussions on the movie forums of the all-Transformers-all-the time seibertron.com, where a Paramount exit poll showing \"90% of those polled thought the second film was as good or better than the first one\" has been received with ridicule. Significantly, those are moderated forums.

So let's focus on those who seriously believe \"Transformers\" is one of the year's best films. Are these people wrong? Yes. They are wrong. I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, \"after all, it's opinion,\" Gene told him: \"There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong.\" Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle. Sir, not only do I differ with what you say, but I would certainly not fight to the death for your right to say it. Not me. You have to pick your fights.

What I believe is that all clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their lifetimes: Curious and teachable. If someone I respect tells me I must take a closer look at the films of Abbas Kiarostami, I will take that seriously. If someone says the kung-fu movies of the 1970s, which I used for our old Dog of the Week segments, deserve serious consideration, I will listen. I will try to do what Pauline Kael said she did: Take everything you are, and all the films you've seen, into the theater. See the film, and decide if anything has changed. The older you are and the more films you've seen, the more you take into the theater. When I had been a film critic for ten minutes, I treated Doris Day as a target for cheap shots. I have learned enough to say today that the woman was rarely gifted.

Those who think \"Transformers\" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve. Those people contain multitudes. They deserve films that refresh the parts others do not reach. They don't need to spend a lifetime with the water only up to their toes.


Do I ever have one of those days when, the hell with it, all I want to do is eat popcorn and watch explosions? I haven't had one of those days for a long time. There are too many other films to see. I've had experiences at the movies so rich, so deep--and yes, so funny and exciting--that I don't want to water the soup. I went to \"Transformers\" with an open mind (I gave a passing grade to the first one). But if I despised the film and it goes on to break box office records, will I care? No. I'll hope however that everyone who paid for a ticket thought they had a good time, because it was their time and their money.

The opening grosses are a tribute to a marketing campaign, not to a movie no one had seen. If two studios spend a ton of money on a film, scare away the competition, and open in 4,234 theaters before the Fourth of July, of course they do blockbuster business. The test is: Does the film have legs?

Major league Hollywood seems completely dominated by the belief that money can buy anything and justify anything. When a reader wrote to inform me that Michel Bay paid $8 million to the writers of the screenplay, I very much doubted it. Turns out that figure is correct. With numbers like that representative of big time Hollywood, I observe with Yeats that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. No wonder. It pays better.

 

[Cajungal]

I like that; thanks for posting it.

As for all that Obama talk... my bf's brother said the same thing--that it was some kind of political commentary when it was mentioned on the news that President Obama had been relocated to a safer place.

To me, it's only that there are 2 things you can do when you mention an ACTUAL president in a movie:

1. Get an actor who is able, and willing, to impersonate him.

2. Find some excuse for why he isn't in a movie where it might be expected for the President to address the nation.

Didn't seem like a big deal to me.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

I haven't really read the thread. did it ever break down into a fight where it's "this is a bad movie" vs. "I had fun when I watched it"?

 

[Espy]

Damn. Ebert ftw again.

 

[Steve]

[quote="Roger Ebert":vgurw7tm]Review

[/quote:vgurw7tm]

Thing I like about Ebert is he is old school nerd. Short, fat, glasses, not to attractive and the highlight of his dating career was Oprah and that was back when she was fat nappy haired Oprah.
And that was a great review. Unlike you Charlie my disdaint for T2 came AFTER I saw the movie not before it. I was still holding hope it would be good and was dissappointed. Most of my friends who don't live online and aren't into comics love the movie. My few friends who play WOW, bounce through forums and read comics thought the movie was garbage. Physically we may be inferior but intellectually we are superior. Transformers 2 sucked!

 

[Krisken]

I maintain the stink made about this movie is equal to the stink of the movie.

Amusing read. Agree with most of what he said.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

I maintain the stink made about this movie is equal to the stink of the movie.

Amusing read. Agree with most of what he said.

Weren't you one of the people saying that critics are out of touch and claiming the fact that you never read reviews as a point of pride?

 

[Krisken]

I maintain the stink made about this movie is equal to the stink of the movie.

Amusing read. Agree with most of what he said.

Weren't you one of the people saying that critics are out of touch and claiming the fact that you never read reviews as a point of pride?

No, you mix me with others who were making other arguments. That's the problem with lumping together everyone who disagrees with you in the same group. :heythere:

I said that reviews are all nice and well, but I prefer to form my own opinion (and have).

 

[DarkAudit]

As for his question, "Does the film have legs?" I would point to my link earlier today with this weekend's box office numbers, and say it does not.

Harry Potter is sure to give Optimus Prime a right ass-kicking. :moon:

 

[Steve]

I maintain the stink made about this movie is equal to the stink of the movie.

Amusing read. Agree with most of what he said.

Weren't you one of the people saying that critics are out of touch and claiming the fact that you never read reviews as a point of pride?

No, you mix me with others who were making other arguments. That's the problem with lumping together everyone who disagrees with you in the same group. :heythere:

I said that reviews are all nice and well, but I prefer to form my own opinion (and have).

Ebert made a good point in hoping those who thought it was a good movie would find better movies and evolve in their tastes. I mean I thought Power Rangers was an awesome show when it came out. Go back and watch it. . . not so much.
And regarding braindead fun I'm the king of that. I really enjoyed the first movie and am the first to shut off all parts of my brain and enjoy a movie but this one just did not do that to me. Honestly, you have a movie about vehicles that turn into giant robots. How in the world can you screw that up? Or it could have been I had my expectations too high (I enjoyed the first movie) and it just didn't live up to them.

As for his question, "Does the film have legs?" I would point to my link earlier today with this weekend's box office numbers, and say it does not.

And as long as it pulled in the green it did Hollywood doesn't care. Ebert made a good point that marketing campaigns drive these openings. Just like with Spiderman 3. Despite the horrible reviews and the sharp fall in box office receipts after the opening weekend the studio heads still feel it was a success and they were correct in forcing Raimi to put Venom in the movie. Lucas still feels the recent Star Wars films were a success. They all live in their own reality and it doesn't include us.

 

[MisterSteve]

Took my little brother and his friend, they loved it. I thought it was better than the first one. Of course, the first one was utter dogshit, so....


If they really wanted to make a good flick, please, please, please, make it where I can SEE WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON! The robots all look alike and when they fight at close quarters, you can't see shit. That is my whole review, right there. Can't. See. Shit.

 

[chakz]

Two things.
1. I now respect the hell out of Roger Ebert and will be paying closer attention to his reviews (twas the iron man review that did it)
2. I keep mistaking TF2 for team fortress 2.

That is all.

 

[strawman]

And as long as it pulled in the green it did Hollywood doesn't care.... Despite the horrible reviews and the sharp fall in box office receipts after the opening weekend the studio heads still feel it was a success... They all live in their own reality and it doesn't include us.

Keep in mind that movie studios claim the majority of the profit for the movies for the first few weeks, then the movie theaters get their profit. For some highly anticipated films, the theaters get NOTHING for the first week or two (ie, star wars episode one).

http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/10/eco ... us-so-much

So it's a success from the studio's point of view if the movie makes back its money on opening weekend and then doubles that over then next week or three so the studio can recoup losses due to box office bombs.

They don't really care if a movie has staying power, and so advertising the movie heavily leading up to its release is great, and once the studios stop getting theater profits (and the theaters finally starting getting their real cut) the advertising stops.

Transformers 2, whether anyone here likes it or not, was successful, and the studio knows it can produce the same kind of film and make it work for them.

-Adam

 

[Shawn]

Thought I would post Sohmer's review of Transformers 2 from his blog post at http://www.leasticoulddo.com.

Before I get into my topic for the day, I just wanted to thank everyone for their birthday wishes yesterday. Nothing like a few thousand emails to highlight the fact that I'm one year closer to the grave.

Special appreciation goes out to the folks who noted that while I might be old, I'm still not even remotely as old as Lar (he's very old). When you're facing the abyss, it's surprising how comforting it can be knowing that someone is going to reach it before you, statistically speaking.

I may be a couple of weeks late with this, but what's on my mind this morning happens to be Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. Specifically, the reviews.

For months, like everyone else with a childhood entrenched in the 80s, I was greatly anticipating the release of the new Transformers movie. The first one was a great ride, and the blu-ray sits proudly on my rack of honor (right above the rack of shame, where Babylon AD sits).

As the sequel got closer to its worldwide release, the reviews began pouring in, almost universally negative. The acting was bad, the dialogue was laughable, certain characters were deemed as blatant racism and the plot was non-existent. Suffice it to say, I was rather discouraged. Yet still, as the devoted dork that I am, I still went to see the film the week it came out.

And I loved it.

It was fun, I laughed more than I have at other films that filed themselves as 'comedies', I went 'holy shite' a few times and I was thoroughly entertained. In short, it was everything I hoped it would be, and everything a summer blockbuster should be. Say what you will about Michael Bay, he's the reason why they invented Blu-Ray.

After the movie, while we were discussing how many times we saw Megan Fox run in slow motion (and how that was nowhere near enough), I began to wonder about the disconnect between my feelings towards the film and the others I had read beforehand.

I think I've come up with a conclusion.

Not every film is going to be an Oscar Winner, not every film tries to be. Why does every movie need to wow us with its use of language, or showcase an actor that does nothing more than glower at the camera for 3+ hours? Why can't some movies, just be movies, with the sole intention to entertain?

Why do I need to leave a theatre feeling depressed at the human condition, or the state of the world? Like all of you, my brain is active from the moment my eyes open to lizard-like slits in the morning until the instant I begin snoring at night. Shutting my brain off for a couple of hours in a dark theatre is a treat.

Transformers 2 was a spectacle, a visual delight, and I was entertained. That's more than enough for me.

For those who were expecting or demanding a Shakespearean effort, let me remind you what the subject matter is: Alien robots that turn into cars.

And sometimes planes.

A little escape-ism is never a bad thing, and it's nothing to look down upon or to be ashamed of enjoying.

- Because I can.

Quote of the Day

\"You know what my father was? A wheel! The first wheel! And do you know what he transformed into? Nothing! But he did it with honor!\"
-Jetfire, from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen(2009)

 

[Philosopher B.]

Awesome Ebert blog. Just awesome. Except for this part:

When a reader wrote to inform me that Michel Bay paid $8 million to the writers of the screenplay, I very much doubted it. Turns out that figure is correct.

8 million for Transformers 2's screenplay.

$8 million

$8 million

$8 million

*Swoons*

 

[Shawn]

Awesome Ebert blog. Just awesome. Except for this part:

When a reader wrote to inform me that Michel Bay paid $8 million to the writers of the screenplay, I very much doubted it. Turns out that figure is correct.

8 million for Transformers 2's screenplay.

$8 million

$8 million

$8 million

*Swoons*

Looks like I should put together a script for a third one really quick like.

 

[Philosopher B.]

Awesome Ebert blog. Just awesome. Except for this part:

When a reader wrote to inform me that Michel Bay paid $8 million to the writers of the screenplay, I very much doubted it. Turns out that figure is correct.

8 million for Transformers 2's screenplay.

$8 million

$8 million

$8 million

*Swoons*

Looks like I should put together a script for a third one really quick like.

I'm thinking of typing one with my ass. That should get me a couple extra mil.

 

[Shawn]

[quote="Philosopher B.":1t7yy27d]Awesome Ebert blog. Just awesome. Except for this part:

When a reader wrote to inform me that Michel Bay paid $8 million to the writers of the screenplay, I very much doubted it. Turns out that figure is correct.

8 million for Transformers 2's screenplay.

$8 million

$8 million

$8 million

*Swoons*

Looks like I should put together a script for a third one really quick like.

I'm thinking of typing one with my a**. That should get me a couple extra mil.[/quote:1t7yy27d]
I don't think those are the "explosions" the script calls for.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

Thought I would post Sohmer's review of Transformers 2 from his blog post at http://www.leasticoulddo.com.

Good to know that his opinions on film are just as terrible as his comic.

 

[Dieb]

Thought I would post Sohmer's review of Transformers 2 from his blog post at http://www.leasticoulddo.com.

Wow, that strawman must be in the hospital, because it got BEAT DOWN.

Now, to reiterate something I wrote in the last thread: I haven't seen the movie. I do not intend to see the movie. Therefore I cannot pass judgement on it. Could be good, could be bad, I don't know, and I don't particularly care. But that review you just posted...The author asks "Why can't some movies, just be movies, with the sole intention to entertain?" From what I've read, people disliked the movie because it didn't entertain them. Plain and simple.

But apparently, for this reviewer, if a movie is escapist, if it has explosions+hot people, it's automatically entertaining. After all, the only reason people could dislike it if they are snooty people who love art films. Pretty much the definition of a strawman argument. Put words in people's mouths and then attack those words. If you find the movie entertaining, whatever, say so and state your reasons why, but don't say that people who disliked it must hate escapist etertainment. It makes the rest of your argument seem foolish.

 

[@Li3n]

I for one prefer my escapism with less retarded stapled on...


And the movie would have been so much better if they just skipped the plot entirely instead of paying people too much money for something that no one really care about anyhow.

 

[Shegokigo]

Thought I would post Sohmer's review of Transformers 2 from his blog post at http://www.leasticoulddo.com.

Good to know that his opinions on film are just as terrible as his comic.

How you could be so contridictory in a single sentence baffles me.

 

[Frank]

Thought I would post Sohmer's review of Transformers 2 from his blog post at http://www.leasticoulddo.com.

I laughed more than I have at other films that filed themselves as 'comedies'

Yeah, no wonder his comic is a Mary Sue laden mess that tries to out B^U Cad.

-- Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:34 am --

Thought I would post Sohmer's review of Transformers 2 from his blog post at http://www.leasticoulddo.com.

Good to know that his opinions on film are just as terrible as his comic.

Uhh...what he said.

aranoid:

 

[Shannow]

Thought I would post Sohmer's review of Transformers 2 from his blog post at http://www.leasticoulddo.com.

Wow, that strawman must be in the hospital, because it got BEAT DOWN.

Now, to reiterate something I wrote in the last thread: I haven't seen the movie. I do not intend to see the movie. Therefore I cannot pass judgement on it. Could be good, could be bad, I don't know, and I don't particularly care. But that review you just posted...The author asks "Why can't some movies, just be movies, with the sole intention to entertain?" From what I've read, people disliked the movie because it didn't entertain them. Plain and simple.

But apparently, for this reviewer, if a movie is escapist, if it has explosions+hot people, it's automatically entertaining. After all, the only reason people could dislike it if they are snooty people who love art films. Pretty much the definition of a strawman argument. Put words in people's mouths and then attack those words. If you find the movie entertaining, whatever, say so and state your reasons why, but don't say that people who disliked it must hate escapist etertainment. It makes the rest of your argument seem foolish.

Thats what I pretty much got out of that. But hey, people take Sohmers words as gospel on a lot of topics, I have noticed. And he loves to throw his opinions out there about anything and everything, so meh.

 

[Espy]

Thought I would post Sohmer's review of Transformers 2

Thanks!
See, I wanted a crappy review and I got one! I couldn't be happier. It was really uninteresting and full of crappy arguments and I loved it!
:tongue:


*don't take me to seriously, I'm just goofing around... I disagree with him but I'm glad he liked it. Most people did. Most people like a lot of things.

 

[Shannow]

*don't take me to seriously, I'm just goofing around... I disagree with him but I'm glad he liked it. Most people did. Most people like a lot of things.

It is true, most people like a lot of th- HOLY CRAP, A BLUE CAR!!!

 

[Espy]

I bet you wanted to see a blue car and you got one so you are happy.

 

[ScytheRexx]

I give Ebert props, that was a great article. Does not change my mind about the movie though, I was entertained, and no matter what other people think of the movie, I am going to keep that feeling. :tongue:

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

goddammit.

I kept a running diary.

two other people here
Paint it black on radio
cartoon pre-show will likely be highlight of my day

"damn i'm good"
"punk-ass decepticon"
still can't see shit
oh good the Witwickys
if you knew, I'd have to kill you badge
at least 5 shots of dogs fucking
this is so fucking....
blood, sweat, and precious metals

writers have never been high ever
Fox is literally the worst actress
same shitty love theme
music is all the worst
oh good this joke (?)
the movie literally can't count

robot satan
exposition
oh no, the dean, punk'd
poor dwight
italian goombah robot
"kiss this, bitch"
this is fucking gross
forest dangerously close to a good scene but too fast, muddled, no weight to anything

lol decepticons hate USA
Pearl Harbor 2: Pearl Harder
title check. good, sam's parents again
Obama to central bunker
homophobia
oh nooo, not diplomacy
can't negotiate with decepticons
Tyrese - "this guy is a real ASS-hole"
FUCK ME 1/2 way??
fuck fuck fuck
"you a pussy. sashay"

racism? arab w/ bad teeth
swine flu - timely
good, john turturro's ass
comic relief, nut tasers
ugh. old UK bot
we have robot humping
Leo - "ow my balls"
jesus christ, he just ordered more exposition. robot satan
holy shit - more racism. a midget.
when did this movie become national treasure

1h left? oh god
Fox has same expression on her face the whole movie
meanwhile, in an Army commercial
Leo tasered, then they immediately forgot
I am intensely bored.
Devastator - a little cool.
Fox covering her face is an acting improvement
"we gotta jump!"
"bad mother(boom)"
parents out of nowhere
slow motion's the only time you can tell anything

EMOTIONAL FAMILY CORE
meanwhile, in Top Gun
"save a gazillion lives"
deus ex rail gun
puzzling shitty slow-mo running
Rescuing civilians, lol only the white people
"too old for this crap"
"directly below enemy scrotum"
so much explosions
so much slow-mo

oh good, her love. Megan Fox is acting
ROBOT GOD ROBOT JESUS
Sam Prime. haha, WTF fallen
Super optimus time
"I rise, you fall"
oh good another message
FUCK MY LIFE

I
HATE
EVERY
THING

POST
CREDITS
BULLSHIT

 

[Shannow]

well, that about sums it up, right there.

 

[Tress]

goddammit.

I kept a running diary.

[quote="my hand during this poop":mp5vrfb4]
the movie literally can't count
forest dangerously close to a good scene but too fast, muddled, no weight to anything
lol decepticons hate USA
Pearl Harbor 2: Pearl Harder
meanwhile, in an Army commercial
meanwhile, in Top Gun
Rescuing civilians, lol only the white people
ROBOT GOD ROBOT JESUS

[/quote:mp5vrfb4]

I think that pretty much sums it up.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Shannow. Damn.