New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

I saw the film on several occasions, each time with a different friend. These are friends who usually sit through a movie quietly and then discuss their likes and dislikes with me afterwards. Three of these friends were bouncing on their seat during the forest fight, and all three of them turned to me when it was over and said, "That was f...ing awesome." I have never seen this type of reaction from them in a public theater before, and these are three separate people on three separate occasions who do not know each other and they each used the exact same expression. That tells you something right there about how good Transformers 2 is. This is spectacular filmmaking, and I would like to be able to sit down with some of these critics and debate the quality of the film's beauty scene by scene. An argument I could make with every one of Michael Bay's eight movies.

As for the plot that has been crucified, I found it very easy to follow and likened it to a traditional comic book story, which in a movie like this is exactly what it is supposed to be. Kevin Dunn gives the best acting performance of the film near the end where he pleads for Sam to run away from the ongoing carnage. All the criticisms made about the acting in the picture must have missed this scene.

The film's CGI effects may possibly be the best ever. Steve Jablonsky composes yet another killer score, and the sound effects are meticulously crafted. Even the opening Paramount logo with the shooting stars has an awesome mechanical sound that erupts from a separate speaker for each star. Michael Bay's main concern is to assault the audience's senses with something that has never been seen or heard before and he succeeds every time. For his detractors who wish to harp about plot or acting for whatever reason, I dare them to argue his quality control. As far as I am concerned, there has never been a director in Hollywood history that has the quality control of Bay. He ensures that absolutely every single shot looks perfect, and he would never allow a pitiful, fake special effect shot in his movie, unlike the director I will discuss next. Although everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I'm grateful that I am not like these Bay haters, and I can escape to a place of great happiness and awe every time I watch one of his films.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

I see a lot of Internet blogs using the word hack to describe a director that they do not like. Perhaps every director currently working has been called this by at least one disgruntled film watcher. Obviously, these critics have no idea what a hack truly is. A hack is not someone who makes a movie with a weak plot or poor character development as they seem to think. The definition of a hack is someone who has no idea what they are doing; a total incompetent. This is a person with skills so limited that the product they release is an absolute embarrassment; it looks and sounds like a complete amateur production. This brings me to G.I. Joe and its director, Stephen Sommers. Apparently, G.I. Joe cost $175 million to make, only $25 million less than Transformers 2. The latter has some of the best CGI ever, while G.I. Joe made my jaw drop on countless occasions due to its pathetic effects. What was all that money spent on? These are Sega Genesis graphics. I've seen better effects on cut-scenes for the Playstation. How did this movie pass through Paramount, receive such a massive marketing push, and be released on thousands of screens around the world? Sommers should be ashamed of himself, and all of the writers who praised this film on a certain Web site that thinks it's cool should be ashamed of themselves.

Continued:       1       2       3