A good plot, real story, good acting, emotion, romance, comedy.

Basically more story and acting, less CGI.

My sarcasm level is cranked up to 11 tonight! (8-p)

Edd

If people are going to give verdicts on films that are still showing in the cinema or have just recently screened in the cinema then please can they not provide any spoiler material in their post unless it's obfuscated in some fashion.

Mark

You wish only time will tell

Spoiler BBCode FTW! (8-p) People could Rot13 spoilers in the interim, though.

Edd

This sums up this piece of brainless tosh perfectly, and may I say, rather hilariously:

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=566

So, is Optimus Price Goose or Maverick?

Brainless tosh it might be, but it's still incredibly enjoyable, awesome and making mucha-moolah at the box office. Dark Knight levels of moolah in fact.

Reviewing the quality of a film based on its sales is flawed.

Surely though for a film to be enjoyable it does not have to be a cinematic masterpiece? It depends what you want from it. I'm really not expecting oscar winning drama when I watch Transformers. I expect cutting edge CGI, massive explosions and Michael Bay looking up to the sky camera angles. On that basis Transformers ticks all the right boxes.

I agree totally. If this sells well it is because people like watching things blow up. Appealing to peoples base instincts, fire for example still resonating through humans due to the threat it had to early civilizations, is nothing new. However, one does have to be careful when you go down the "well this was all I was expecting" root of criticism as it lowers your expectations of future films.

For example:

Transformers 2 is very good at blowing stuff up and is a visceral treat. People can go an just turn there brains off and watch two hours of stompy robot death. Cue people lowering their expectations of the film delivering anything more. Cue billions of people going to see it and the film making . Cue next film with more of the same ad infinitum – as it is clearly what the public want – until the franchise runs outs of steam.

However, what if people don't lower their expectations when going into see the movie? What if they say well I want to see good plot, narrative arch, in-depth 3D character portrayal and a superbly written script which broaches important questions about life, reality, perception, time, what it is to be human etc etc etc AS WELL as the stunning robot death? Then people go and see the film, it gets a more objective review, and its sequels then have to build on those original flaws to keep drawing in the punters. It is the different between a positive or negative trend.

Then they're in the wrong cinema. Transformers is never going to give you that. It is a film based on an 80's cartoon about giant robots fighting a war on Earth. I mean come on....

large amounts of "moolah" (is that a milk product? ) doesn't equal good.

Just take "Beverly Hills Chihuahua", please, just take it! Anywhere!

It was huge on its first weekend...

I'm not really a Dark Knight fan either. I saw it, it was meh, okay, but nothing special.

I disagree. It is all I expect from Michael Bay; I have different expectations of Sam Mendes or Frank Oz. If I pick up a John Grisham/Jilly Cooper novel in an airport, I'm not expecting to read the work of Sartre or Descartes. It doesn't mean that the next time I read a novel, all I'm expecting is the same level of writing. I'll take Louis De Bernieres over Andy McNab any day of the week.



Exactly.
The cinema is a broad church. There is room for the big-fiery-smashy-CGI spectacle and the warm'n'fuzzy-nature-of-humanity titles. In fact, you could argue that without the big spectacle, then the smaller art films don't get financed. It's a business, and without bums on seats witnessing spectacle, then a lot of the smaller stuff can't be financed.
I spent too long in university with cinema snobs. Yes, I enjoyed Jacques Tati, but I also think John Hughes is awesome. There is ample room for both.