free counter with statistics Box-Office Results June 28, 2009 | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

Transformers_2__Shia_Labeouf_and_Megan_Fox.jpg
Slo-Mo Boobs and Slo-Mo Booms! What Else Do You Want?


The Box-Office Round-Up / Dustin Rowles

Box Office Round-Ups | June 29, 2009 | Comments (45)


I’m not telling you anything you didn’t know the day that a sequel to Transformers was announced — it was the number one film at the box office, largely for reasons explicated by Dan over on his blog, namely: “It doesn’t look that good, but I’ll see it anyway.” That’s the sentiment that swept the nation over the last five days, and in the end, Revenge of the Fallen managed a whopping $201 million over that period, second to only last year’s The Dark Knight for a five-day period. On Wednesday, it also put up the second largest one-day tally of all time, again behind only last year’s The Dark Knight; and, over the weekend, with $112 million, it easily outdistanced X-Men: Wolverine for the biggest opening weekend of the year.

“It doesn’t look good, but I’ll see it anyway,” apparently was worth about $385 million worldwide since Wednesday, and it’s likely that sentiment that will not only make Revenge of the Fallen the biggest movie of the year (it should surpass Up’s $250 milllion by next week), but push it eventually over the $400 million mark in America and $700 million worldwide. $1.1 billion for “It doesn’t look that good.”

It’s just a goddamn shame that “It doesn’t look good, but I’ll see it anyway,” is worth so much more in box-office dollars than: “That looks amazing, and I’ve heard great things. Maybe I’ll see it on DVD.” What the hell is wrong with this country’s mindset? There are a couple million folks who only venture out of their house once a year to see a movie, and they’ve decided that Revenge of the Fallen was the one movie worth seeing. And my guess is that 1/3 of those people walked out incredibly disappointed; another 1/3 hated it but their pride refused to allow them to admit they spent $10 on an exploding turkey; and the other 1/3 genuinely loved it, proclaiming, “It’s got slo-mo boobs and slo-mo booms! What else can you ask for?” How about a little quality, a storyline, some credible acting, and an idea of what the hell was going on onscreen?

“Michael Bay knows how to build the perfect summer box-office beast,” said Paul Dergarabedian, box-office analyst for Hollywood.com. “He squarely aimed right at the demographic, right at what summer movie-goers want, and he put it on the screen. And audiences can’t seem to get enough of it.”

I fucking hate that he’s right. And I fucking hate that Michael Bay is handsomely rewarded for giving dumbasses exactly what they want.

Meanwhile, the good news is that The Hurt Locker, an infinitely better, more intense, and more compelling thinking-man’s summer movie did manage to put up $10,000 more per screen than did Revenge of the Fallen. The bad news, unfortunately, is that it only played on 4 screens, while Transformers II played on 4,000. Dan’s going to have the review up this afternoon; do yourselves a favor and read it. And, in a few weeks, when The Hurt Locker comes to your town during the same weekend that G.I. Joe opens, think about it a little before saying, “It doesn’t look very good, but I’ll see it anyway.” Honestly, it’s like eating a turd out of the sewer because everyone else is doing it when, for the exact same price, you can eat fajitas. The Hurt Locker is the short line at the DMV, folks.

Elsewhere in box-office news, The Proposal — a decent film, but in no way better than another option in most decent-sized cities this weekend, The Brothers Bloom — put up another $18 million to push it close to $70 million, essentially guaranteeing that it’ll eventually cross the $100 million mark. You know what the best thing about that is? Ryan Reynolds will be a better box-office draw when his next movie, a small independent film, is released. I like that trade-off.

The only other major release over the weekend was the cretinous weeper, My Sister’s Keeper, which debuted at number five, with a respectable $12 million. A couple of years ago, counterprogramming worked a little better because moviegoers would see something else when the movie they wanted to see was sold out. Now, Revenge of the Fallen is on half the screens at any given multiplex, so instead of going to see another film, they just wait five minutes for the next screening. I guess that’s progress.

Here’s your top five:

1. Revenge of the Fallen ($112 million; $201 million)

2. The Proposal ($18 million; $69 million)

3. The Hangover ($17 million; $185 million)

4. Up ($13 million; $250 million)

5. My Sister’s Keeper ($12 million)


Cannonball Read - Winner | Michael Bay I Am Number Four



Comments

Overt racism and splitty-titties are worth $200 million dollars? Our country is fucking weird.

Posted by: Kballs at June 29, 2009 9:57 AM

My wife asked me if I wanted to go to a movie this weekend? I said "OK, which one" expecting to hear Star Trek or UP!. "How about Transformers" was her reply. I laughed, hard!

I was contimplating divorce, but perhaps a little time apart would suffice.

Posted by: admin at June 29, 2009 10:01 AM

Best justification for Transformers 2 ever: http://io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie

However a friend of mine put it best: "[Revenge of the Fallen] makes the first one look like Amadeus".

Posted by: Doctor Controversy at June 29, 2009 10:05 AM

When will the Brothers Bloom get anywhere near where I live?
And what's the ETA on 500 Days of Summer, Dustin? You said you'd keep us posted.

Posted by: Optimus J. Rhyme at June 29, 2009 10:06 AM

I took my boys to see Up, and the "fans" for the SMoBSMoBs (Slo-mo Boobs, Slo-mo Booms) were lining up:

Ten year old: "What they are doing?"
ME: "I said that they are waiting to see The Transformer movie at 12:01."
Ten year old: "Why is that teenageer wearing a plastic yellow diaper and plastic yellow catcher's mask?"
ME: "I guess he wanted to be his favorite transformer."
Ten year old: "I thought that was only for Halloween and he looks stupid."
ME: "People like their movies, son." (trying to keep him from being judgemental)
Ten year old: "Maybe he should pick friends that would tell him he looks stupid."
ME: "I would guess he would not care."
Ten year old: "Thanks for not letting me do that."
ME: (with a smile) No problem, how about some Cold Stone?

Posted by: richmac at June 29, 2009 10:10 AM

My wife also asked me if I wanted to go see a movie this weekend, admin. After checking what was playing at our smalltown megaplexes, she narrowed my choices down to The Soloist and Sunshine Cleaning, both of which were showing at the dollar theater. Sunshine Cleaning was an enjoyable little hodge-podge of a movie that was easily worth what we paid to see it. Then we went and ate ice cream outdoors right before a thunderstorm broke out -- that was a better sound and light show than anything emanating from Michael Bay's stunted imagination...

Posted by: Che Grovera at June 29, 2009 10:14 AM

just because i wanted to see giant robots slinging it out on a hot friday night in june doesn't make me a dumbass.
i can enjoy many types of films, some of them with (gasp) subtitles even!
but if you give me the choice between robots i played with as a kid and a c. diaz cancer flick, then don't *hate* when i go for the former.

geez.
what a dickhole.

Posted by: gp at June 29, 2009 10:14 AM

Richman: That is an adorable fucking story. I hope my kid is that insightful when he's ten. And Optimus: 500 Days hits theaters on July 15th.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at June 29, 2009 10:16 AM

Thanks Dustin, and does that mean 500 Days is going to get the Potter wand in the unmentionables?

Posted by: richmac at June 29, 2009 10:19 AM

However a friend of mine put it best: "[Revenge of the Fallen] makes the first one look like Amadeus".

Posted by: Doctor Controversy at June 29, 2009 10:05 AM

Between this and Richmac's story, a little of my faith in humanity has been restored.


On the other hand, my 17 year old son loved it...precisely for the reasons stated in the title of this post.

Posted by: dammitjanet at June 29, 2009 10:21 AM

I overheard one of my coworkers this morning saying that she enjoyed Transformers II much more than The Dark Knight.

This only confirms what I already suspected about her.

Posted by: Wednesday at June 29, 2009 10:22 AM

richmac, you are father of the year. I'm serious, your kid gives me hope for all the minis out their.

I think the only way to really appreciate Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is to go in with low expectations. I don't mean low as in "Okay, this will probably suck", I mean REEEEEEEAL low. Set your expectations lower than you have ever known. Set them so low that all you will ever know is soul-crushing agony. Set them so low that every surface you touch will turn cold, everyone you've ever loved will abandon you, and the darkness in your heart will slowly consume every fiber of your being. You will cry out to a Godless sky, but hear no response. Eventually, all that will remain is withered husk of a human being. You will pray for a merciful death, but you will go unanswered, walking the Earth as a damned man.

And that's how you make Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen entertaining. Enjoy!

Posted by: Jeremy Feist at June 29, 2009 10:30 AM

but if you give me the choice between robots i played with as a kid and a c. diaz cancer flick, then don't *hate* when i go for the former.

Why watch either? A very wise man once said, "Vote none of the above!"

Posted by: branded at June 29, 2009 10:31 AM

because we're a week into summer and the temps have already reached 105 (not including that bastard of a heat index). my AMC theater is so cold and inviting and i can't resist paying 5 bucks for a coke zero.

Posted by: gp at June 29, 2009 10:36 AM

I don't get it. I saw "Fallen" Sunday with my girls and thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was exactly what I expected, and, frankly, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it overdelivered, based on reviews such as yours. I absolutely love Pajiba, but sometimes you're so full of yourselves that you miss the point of entertainment.

Posted by: Terry Heaton at June 29, 2009 10:38 AM

Richmac, that was an adorable story.

Unfortunately I had to drop off my 8 year old brother at Revenge of the Fallen yesterday. His reaction when I picked him up:

"It took a really long time to end but I wasn't bored"

Posted by: Wormer at June 29, 2009 10:40 AM

Action movies, if good enough, must be seen in the right environment to be properly enjoyed, and if you aren't blessed with the military-grade home theater system the Fry's salesmen are always telling me I'm not a real man without, then the theaters is the only remaining option.

Weepy chick-flick, rom-com, sob-story, touchy-feely, etc. movies (you know what I mean) can be enjoyed quietly, at home, where I can cry like a bitch without anyone knowing.

In related news, I'm thinking of taking out a lawsuit against "Up" for false advertising and defamation of character, as well as my girlfriend's dry-cleaning bill, since I had no forewarning it was anything other than a happy animated family movie and the first ten minutes may have done irreparable damage to my macho mystique and was forced against my will to use my girlfriend's sleeve as a hankie.

Anyway, that's why I only watch certain movies in the theater -- unless of course, like any man, I've been bribed/blackmailed with sex into seeing some Kate Hudson stinkbomb.

Posted by: Neodiogenes at June 29, 2009 10:44 AM

Dustin, I think we may be the same person. Think about it, have we ever been in the same room together? Huh?! I agree whole-heartedly with this post. Now, please stop posting the god damn celebrity gossip bullshit.

I can't decide if the vapidity of pop culture as of late is dangerous or not. I go back and forth between "this shit is fucking dangerous" and "to each his own". I also constantly try to keep perspective and not go into "get off my lawn" mode, and I'm not every 30, yet. So, maybe it's always been vapid and we sift through all the shit twenty years down the road and see what was worthwhile.

Anyway, yeah, people gotta stop seeing shit like this. I really enjoy the whole Terminator universe, but I read too much bad shit about it. And even though every bad review contained a small amount of the plot that made me wanna know what happens, I just refuse to give in. It'll take a few years for Hollywood to notice, and a few more for them to act on it, but then we'd have decent action movies. Wouldn't that kick ass? Vote with your god damn dollars.

And now if you'll allow me, I'm gonna throw-down:
"I know. It bothers me. People's expectations should be higher. All of us have to man up a little and be like, Okay, we're not going to see any more shitty movies. Enough is enough." - Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in Esquire May 2009

Congrats to whoever can rationalize that with him being in G.I. Joe. I'm blaming the director, because I would bone JGL, and my girlfriend knows this.

Posted by: pissant at June 29, 2009 10:59 AM

I'm going to ignore the success of Transformers and just sit here being thrilled that UP has stayed in the top 5 this long - and that it beat the CancerSister movie. It may only be the number one movie of the year for a day or two, but I'm really gratified by its success.

Posted by: Edith at June 29, 2009 11:06 AM

I'll treat it the same way I treated the first one: I'll rent it from netflix eventually and that's just to see Fox.

Posted by: John W at June 29, 2009 11:13 AM

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BUUUUULLLLL SHIIIIIIIIIIIT.

I will never tire of repeating this:

If JJ Abrams had his name on Revenge of the Fallen you'd all be creaming your panties at his genius for action.

Pajiba douchebaggery at its finest you bunch of snobby motherfuckers.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 29, 2009 11:41 AM

Get real, Slim. This is the same crowd that blew its collective load over The Dark Knight and Iron Man last year (and even got into a geeky shoving match over which one was better). You really think Transformers: Revenge of the Mallrat is in that league? Given what Abrams did with Star Trek it might be worthwhile to speculate over what he might do with the Transformers franchise instead of the inexecrable Bay.

Posted by: Che Grovera at June 29, 2009 12:00 PM

Two of my very good friends, both rational women in their 30's (with no children), went to Transformers this weekend. Both of them live in cities that are large enough to offer real choices. That's opposed to the seven smallish screens I have here in Podunkia; Transformers currently is occupying thought it was really good, in her own words. No word from the other, who I suspect went into it with the "it won't kill me, and the place has A/C" attitude.

Now, I'll admit to liking some pretty cheesy, crap movies. I also like to see things go boom in spectacular ways. It's not so much that people are embracing a bad movie. That's fine. That's what DVDs are for, in fact. What bothers me most is the implications the success of this movie has for the future. Megan Fox is a vapid, horrific excuse for a human being, and now I'll have to see (and worse, hear her) everywhere for who knows how long. It made a shit-ton of money, to quote another friend who has not seen it, so everyone else is going to jump on the bandwagon and crank out more junk just like it.

Posted by: appwitch at June 29, 2009 12:05 PM

(Sorry for the double-ish post, a little chunk got excised the first time around.)

Two of my very good friends, both rational women in their 30's (with no children), went to Transformers this weekend. Both of them live in cities that are large enough to offer real choices. That's opposed to the seven smallish screens I have here in Podunkia; Transformers currently is occupying two of them. One friend thought it was really good, in her own words. I am going to ask her husband to assess her for head injury later. No word from the other, who I suspect went into it with the "it won't kill me, and the place has A/C" attitude.

Now, I'll admit to liking some pretty cheesy, crap movies. I also like to see things go boom in spectacular ways. It's not so much that people are embracing a bad movie. That's fine. That's what DVDs are for, in fact. What bothers me most is the implications the success of this movie has for the future. Megan Fox is a vapid, horrific excuse for a human being, and now I'll have to see (and worse, hear her) everywhere for who knows how long. It made a shit-ton of money, to quote another friend who has not seen it, so everyone else is going to jump on the bandwagon and crank out more junk just like it.

Posted by: appwitch at June 29, 2009 12:07 PM

I totally fall into the "It doesn't look good ..." category, but I gotta say, I took my 10-year-old nephew to see this movie and as far as he is concerned, Transformers 2 is Citizen Kane, and I am fine with that. He laughed hysterically, then cried grabbing my hand for support and finally cheered at the end in vindication. Holy shit, I wish I could enjoy a movie that much but it turns out I am way too jaded from my own movie snobbery.

Posted by: jason at June 29, 2009 12:08 PM

There is something to be said for Neodiogenes' point - movies with huge special effects and lots of explosions need to be seen on the big screen for the full effect. When I go see a movie in the theater, it's usually because I feel like I will get more out of the visual experience in the theater than I will at home. I don't put movies on my Netflix-queue because I think they are lesser than the ones I see in the theater - I'd watch them ALL on Netflix, if it weren't that some movies (Star Trek, Up, The Dark Knight) really GAIN from being seen on the big screen. For anyone who WANTS to see a movie in the theater, these kinds of movies are going to be the ones that get the most money, simply because the others don't suffer as much in the transition to the TV screen. Don't hate me if I don't see The Hurt Locker in theaters; it's an understandable call when you have limited funds for movie theaters.

Posted by: Edith at June 29, 2009 12:15 PM

Neodiogenes proposed an excellent explanation. It certainly applies to me. The ONLY reason I ever go see a movie in a theatre is for the atmosphere or technology. These movies tend to be stupid. Stupid, but enjoyable.

I have the same philosophy with food. I will only order food that I can't cook/would be a pain in the ass to make. I can't make delicious thai food at home, so I go out to eat that. If i want some spaghetti and meatballs, I eat at home, unless I want a robot with a thong to serve it to me, in which case, I dine with Michael Bay in his tastefully decorated dining room, which contains a first edition copy of alice in wonderland, a Paul Cézanne, and a large framed poster depicting the almost fully exposed chest of a woman in a red see-through bra entitled goals.

See: http://www.filehurricane.com/media/2766

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at June 29, 2009 12:18 PM

"And I fucking hate that Michael Bay is handsomely rewarded for giving dumbasses exactly what they want."

That is the biggest problem with this stupid movie, isn't it?

Posted by: chris at June 29, 2009 12:22 PM

What a great declaration of where the film industry is currently sitting.

Love the piece today!

Love the header...slo mo boobs. hilarious.

Posted by: Warren J at June 29, 2009 12:28 PM

Coincidentally (?), the article header was the precise explanation that some (former) friends offered when pressed to illustrate the 'awesomeness' of Transsexuals: Revenge of the Ballen' (bear with me here people). Aw crap. What's worse is that I'll probably end up watching this flaming ball of fossilized mastodon turd (LOOK.AT.THE.FUCKING.TRAILER.) just like I unwillingly ended up watching Masturbator: Salivation. Guess it's "it doesn't look good" camp for me...*sigh*

Posted by: Pancho at June 29, 2009 12:31 PM

But, Pancho, I suspect you knew all this before you read this. And now it's been explicitly stated in front of you. And you agree with it. So, why do you still think you're going to see this? Why not just say no? If more people would do that, maybe we'd get better movies.

I mean, honestly, haven't we all seen enough explosions this summer? Perhaps the people of the world should unite and say, "Hollywood, we will accept one shitty movie from each category*, each summer. Otherwise, you gotta make something worth watching for reasons other than its category's cliches."

* - categories decided by committee, to include, RomCom, SciFi, Balls Out Action, Superhero, Racist Comedy, Tear Jerker, etc.

Posted by: pissant at June 29, 2009 1:14 PM

I haven't gotten much of the "it doesn't look good, but I'll see it anyway" vibe re: GI Joe. Even dumbasses know to stay away from that one. I'm predicting a Speed Racer type bomb.

Posted by: Handel at June 29, 2009 1:20 PM

Godtopus dammit. Brothers Bloom played at an art house theater in my town for TWO WEEKS while I wasn't around. Now it's not even there. No theater in or around my town is playing this great movie that I really want to see.

By the way, I don't live in some bumfuck village. We're talking about motherfucking Dallas, TX.

Fuck you, Dallas.

Posted by: CleverJohnny at June 29, 2009 2:20 PM

There was a time when going to the theater was a magical experience, that the imagery projected onto that enormous stretch of blank canvas was literally larger than life and size alone transcended any triviality in plot, character, or direction.

Then as I grew up, televisions got bigger, movie reproductions became cleaner, and home sound systems had more fidelity and more power. On top of that, I gradually numbed to the excess of cinematic experience -- bigger explosions, better special effects, more gruesome violence, all lost their power to influence me, at least by themselves, without plot, character, and direction to put them into acceptable context.

To put it another way, it's not the size of the director's dick, but how s/he employs it, that turns me on.

So these days I'll see a movie in the theater if and only if it is either:

A) a decent movie where the inflated input contributes directly to the enjoyability of the film (Star Trek), or

B) an exceptionally good movie that needs to be seen now, this weekend, do not pass Go, large popcorn extra butter (Up).

Otherwise, I can wait for Netflix and the comforts of home. This includes most (if not all) of the movies nominated for Oscars last year.

Posted by: Neodiogenes at June 29, 2009 2:25 PM

If we didn't go to movies Mrs. , and I would never leave the house. So we go. And we tossed $12.50 into "The Hangover" take this weekend (and $10 toward Brothers Bloom" last week -- BTW, it's still here this week, so my little West Virginia college town is kicking Dallas' ass, as it richly deserves).

Anyway, thanks, Jib, for steering us to some good laughs.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at June 29, 2009 2:59 PM

I love a good big-blow-up movie as much as the next person, but everything I hear about Transformers just makes me NOT want to see it, even if the trailer makes it look fun.

I heard it was really boring. And really fucking long. And that's it's too damn noisy and dumb. Really, I love a loud action movie. Independence Day is one of my favorite movies. But this just looks terrible and not at all enjoyable. I'll take dumb, as long as it's fun and not taking itself seriously. And I KNOW that Michael Bay takes himself way too seriously and probably thinks he's making art.

So, no thanks. I'll save my money for some other dumb movie.

Posted by: figgy at June 29, 2009 3:12 PM

While I understand the desire to see movies on the big screen whose presentation benefits from that venue...C'MON, Y'ALL. You are lowering the bar by submitting to this crap.

Whatever happened to going to a theater and just getting wrapped up in that environ with a great story?

Maybe if you go see The Hurt Locker on the big screen you're not getting quite the increased cost-benefit that you would from Transformers, but if you leave the theater satisfied having seen a good movie, isn't that the whole damn point? Is this increased cost-benefit of having endorsed storytelling crap for the sake of a few good effects shots truly worth it when it continues to dumb down the multiplex? Remember when summer movies could wow us with effects and have a semblance of a narrative and humor that wasn't of the most inane sort? Spend a summer choosing intelligent fare instead of being a lemming, and maybe Hollywood will get the message and put out a superior product - one in which the effects are great and we're not treated like idiot children.

Trust me - the explosions and the effects will ALWAYS be there. If you continue to spend your money on this shit, quality cinema will become much less common. The movie-making model still primarily springs from the concept of theater distribution, and at this rate you'll be scrounging for actual good new movies on your precious Netflix and wondering what the hell happened.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at June 29, 2009 3:30 PM

Slim >> We're frequently on the same page, but it is you who is spouting the bullshit in this instance. If J.J. Abrams' name were on Transformers, it would be an entirely different movie. There might even be a story included! And humor that isn't aimed at...well, I can't begin to speculate as to the actual target audience for the "jokes" therein. It's true that past experience has taught me that Michael Bay makes horrible movies, but if J.J. Abrams branded his name on Devastator's wrecking ball testicles, I'd have the exact same reaction.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at June 29, 2009 3:46 PM

To be fair, I don't watch small movies in the theater because...we just don't get them here. We get the big movies or nothing at all.

Posted by: figgy at June 29, 2009 3:46 PM

To be fair, I don't watch small movies in the theater because...

There are no small movies, figgy, only directors with extremely tiny penises.

Posted by: branded at June 29, 2009 4:28 PM

Hey I saw Abram's Star Trek and I didn't think it deserved all the love it got.

As I said at the time once you got over the novelty of seeing different actors playing the characters you knew, it wasn't anything you haven't seen before in the various incarnations of the show.

Just with a bigger budget.

Posted by: John W at June 29, 2009 6:36 PM

I saw it this weekend. WAY TOO LONG. I found myself falling asleep during the last 20 minutes of the movie because the action was mind numbingly over-the-top.

Note the Michael Bay: Bigger ain't always better. And you know they are going to make a third installment, the money it just too tempting. Oh the humanity!

I also saw Oliver Stone on Real Time with Bill Maher, he is going to direct a sequel to Wall Street. Michael Douglas is back as Gordon Gekko and guess who is going to portray the young antagonist . . . wait for it . . . Shia LaBeouf.

Wait, is that the sound of BarbadoSlim's head exploding?

Sorry, CleverJohnny I saw ,The Brothers Bloom at the Magnolia in Dallas, you just have to be quick. I also saw Chéri Saturday, a little too British instead of unmistakably French. I always envisioned Lea de Lonval as a more carnal beauty and a lot more debauched and Michelle Pfeiffer while beautiful is too much the ice princess.

Posted by: allheavens at June 29, 2009 8:14 PM

I have seen so many 'oh my god Transformers was awesome' facebook status updates that I knew this was inevitable. Much like my snapping and going on a murder spree the next time someone tells me how good this penile-compensating trash was. I'm about ready to cut out some brains and make people eat them, as clearly they will be more use to them as a nutritional supplement than for actually thinking.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the attraction of boobs and explosions. I get why people go and see it. But to proclaim it as the BEST. MOVIE. EVAH makes me all kinds of homicidal.

Posted by: redfeathers at June 29, 2009 11:03 PM

I think critics are missing one important thing. This movie is of its own acion genre. I have seen tons of sword fights, space ships, matrix like fist fights, car chases, gun battles, and yes, super heroes too.

However, I have only seen giant robots that can transform realistically into a car once, and that was in 2007. And that was really cool.

And since no other movie has been able to do that except the sequel. I watched that too. And did it deliver? Sure, because I got to see even more robats that can transform duking it out.

In that sense, the transformers series visually is pretty unique as an action series. Its got no competition! Which other action movie can give me giant transforming robots other than transformers?

Posted by: John at June 30, 2009 8:52 AM

I glady have not seen this .... yet.

My mother, my MOTHER and sister want to see this, with me... thats so wrong and im trying to avoid it anyway i can.

Posted by: Shemp at June 30, 2009 2:50 PM