Comments on: Transforminators: Terminator meets Transformers

By: Rodney

Rodney — Tue, 26 May 2009 22:50:54 +0000

Matt, your whole arguement is based on assumption.

You assume that I cannot remain unbiased. My relationship (or John’s) have never tainted our review to be more favoured. If anything both John and I have been more critical.

And I measure a comedy by a comedy and an action as an action. An action that tries for drama and fails, will get called for just that. Which I have.

I never said I was an “unwaivering force” but your application of hyperbole is the only way you have a point so you can presume if you want. Doesn’t change my review, and surely doesn’t change how I do them in the future either.

By: Matt S

Matt S — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:37:16 +0000

Rodney, I thought I made myself clear, I guess not. If you read my comments again (slowly, this time) you will see that I was making the exact same point you made after me. It IS rediculous to measure different films with a different stick, yet with your earlier comments defending your reviews of Crank and Salvation you gave me the impression that you do just that (reread your prior comments as well). You seem to like to take comments in a radical direction sometimes, when I in fact said the opposite of what you claim I said.

Your claim that your relationship with someone can in no way alter your opinion of their work is the real narrow idea. I think you honestly know that. Also, my comparison to Ben Lyons is very relevent, but go ahead and dismiss it if you don’t like it.

Speaking of God, you to might be related, if you really are the unwaivering force that you claim to be.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:51:29 +0000

Matt, Are you really going to try and argue that a movie that sets its goals and achieves them is somehow measured by a different stick?

If a comedy tries to be funny and it isn’t its a failure. But if a comedy is funny, but not AS funny as something else, but still good in its own right… you say it still fails???

Terminator tried to be action and drama. It succeeded as action. It failed as a drama. Which is precisely what I said in my review.

And John is as dear and as close a friend as I have had in my life, and you think for a second if his movie sucked ass I wouldn’t tell him that?

Your assumption that my feelings for a person would change my opinion of their work is narrow. Your comparison of a kissass reviewer KNOWN for tainting his reviews has anything to do with me is inaccurate.

God invented the platypus, and I have some strong feelings about the guy, but damn that is a dumb animal.

By: Matt S

Matt S — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:17:23 +0000

Rodney,
Two things, one, even the most serious and prolific critic (in any medium) knows that a personal relationship with someone involved in a product they review WILL alter their opinion (many will even admit it…. out loud). That is one of the (many) reasons that most film critics don’t respect Ben Lyons, he is a complete star whore and it clouds his (already cloudy) judgement. I’m not saying that you would have loved Salvation if you and McG were pals, or John would have hated Crank if he didn’t know those guys, but to act as if you are an unwaivering force like that when it comes to reviewing films is utterly rediculous. You very well may call it like you see it, but knowing the artist will make you see the painting through rose colored (or whatever colored) glasses. Claiming that you are immune to something so obvious that has affected even the most stallwort critic is much more damning of the integrity of your reviews, than anything anyone has posted on this board.

Secondly, defending Crank’s score by saying it only tried to be non-stop action and achieved that so it is a success, is a bad arguement. Same with saying the reason Salvation was a failure was because it tried for more, but didn’t accomplish everything it set out to (that’s not why it was bad). That’s like saying “this movie set out to be complete shit, it accomplished that with flying colors, so I will give it a perfect score”……. We how insane that sounds?

By: ramtastic

ramtastic — Tue, 26 May 2009 12:55:35 +0000

sad part is, it would still come second at the box office, losing to night of the museum 3

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 26 May 2009 12:01:43 +0000

Damn Rodney, there was nothing redeeming about Crank 2, it was downright awful. I have a very hard time believing that this website’s relationship with the directors doesn’t have something to do with the positive reviews.

By: R1ZE

R1ZE — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:45:10 +0000

I really don’t think McG is to blame here though. For what he had to do, he did it reasonably well. The script was fundamentally flawed – rewrites were going on throughout production (for the better, the full original script leaked out today and it’s TERRIBLE). They really made a gem out of what could have been a complete disaster. You might not love the film, but it at least does have redeeming qualities.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:26:20 +0000

I dug the movie and I wasn’t really floored by the first three. Par of why I liked it was the giant robots but I didn’t even think about the Transformers. The gritty feel of the movie worked for me even though the post acocolypse landscape thing has been played out. The Guns N’ Roses nod was also cool.

By: algoresnuts

algoresnuts — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:47:29 +0000

I love the Christian Bale voice/impression. So spot on! That’s basically how Bale talks throughout the whole movie.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:38:43 +0000

Which is why I called it “moaning”. There is a buzz around the net that McG was trying to ride the popularity of the Transformers wave by including giant robots instead of just terminators and flying ships and tanks.

But it makes sense that they would have these heavy’s around. Terminator Ships don’t need to be piloted, and bikes don’t need to be ridden. I actually liked that they made them autonomous entities.

I am not saying they are right, but there are people who (wrongly) complain about this like it matters.