Latest News

Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

The Worst Reviewed Highest Grossing Movie Of All-Time?

Posted on Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 by Peter Sciretta

transformers2last08

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has just passed $600 million at the worldwide box office, despite mostly really bad reviews. This is nothing new. Mainstream audiences don’t listen to the critics, and big screen spectacle will almost always win over quality entertainment. Nothing was going to stop me from seeing the movie, not all the bad reviews in the world. It’s an event movie — and I needed to see it for myself. It should be noted that box office should never be looked at as an indication of the mainstream public’s thoughts on a movie (it sold tons of tickets so the mainstream public must’ve loved it) but only an indication of the hype (and in later weeks, possibly word of mouth).

The success of Transformers 2 got me thinking. What is the worst reviewed box office success of all time? Could it be Revenge of the Fallen? Find out what I’ve uncovered after the jump.

What is the worst reviewed highest grossing worldwide release of all time? It’s a tough question.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest earned $1,066.2 Million and has a 53% on the Tomato-meter, making it the largest grossing film to be negatively reviewed, but not necessarily the “worst reviewed highest grossing worldwide release of all time”.

But how do you compare Dead Man’s Chest’s 53% against Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’s 19%? I had to invent a formula to rank these releases. What I did was take the Box Office total and divide it by the tomato-meter rating, which gives us a more balanced unit which relates Box Office to the Critical Analysis. It’s not the most scientific or mathematical way of handling this, but for our purposes, it works. The films below are listed in descending order based on the $/% number, and guess what — Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the worst reviewed highest grossing film of all time.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Box Office: $607.7 Million (so far)
Rotten Tomatoes: 19%
$/%: 31.9

The Da Vinci Code
Box Office: $758.2 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 24%
$/%: 31.6

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
Box Office: $961 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 45%
&/%: 21.35

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
Box Office: $1,066.2 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 53%
$/%: 20.11

Shrek The Third
Box Office: $799 million
Rotten Tomatoes: 42%
$/%: 19

Hancock
Box Office: $624.4 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 39%
$/%: 16

Armageddon
Box Office: $553.7 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 40%
$/%: 13.8

Meet the Fockers
Box Office: $516.6 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 38%
$/%: 13.6

Angels & Demons
Box Office: $473.2 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 37%
$/%: 12.8

The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Box Office: $618.6 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 49%
$/%: 12.6

The Day After Tomorrow
Box Office: $544.3 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 45%
$/%: 12.1

Bruce Almighty
Box Office: $484.6 Million
Rotten Tomatoes: 49%
$/%: 9.9

Surprises: Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are not on the list because they were actually come-what positively reviewed. Menace has a 63% on the Tomato-meter with 97 fresh reviews and 56 rotten. Crystal Skull received high praise from critics, earning 76% on the Tomato-meter with 186 fresh reviews and 58 rotten. Indy 4 is one of the rare occasions where the mainstream public average was actually a lot lower than the critics, with a 6.7 on IMDb. Spider-Man 3 also received some-what favorable reviews with a 62% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Aside: It should be noted that box office should never be looked at as a rating of the mainstream public’s review of a movie. People vote with their dollars before they see the movie, and thus the box office figure can only account for hype and not analytical review. While there is no accurate account of the mainstream public’s opinion on a movie post-viewing, I often use a combination of IMDb’s user rating, Netflix and Flixter ratings as they are the largest accounting of non-critic opinion of a film.

Comments

yoyo

critics sucks balls, who are they to say if someone should see or not see a movie, fuck'em

AngryBroomstick

wow, what a very intelligent comment! *sarcastic*

Michael Bay Sucks

Well let's see... critics are mostly made up of people who are experts in film making or at least have spent their careers studying and understanding the film making process and what makes a good film.... Their job is to critique films, so that we the audience have a heads up on whether the movie will be good or not, saving us money and time....so if the critics give bad reviews to a film, it's because the movie is bad...The movie is bad because, it does not fulfill the requirements for a good movie (good story, good acting, good direction, good cinematography..etc.) Transformers 1 and 2 suck!...

blah

yes because spiderman 3 was awesome right.
No cirtics base their opinions on outdated concepts of movie making. transformers 2 may not have been as good story wise but it was entertaining. Indiana Jones 4 was a complete failure compared to its predecessors and yet hey it got good reviews. No, critics are biased opinionated idiots who just get paid to speak.

Nik

Critics offer an opinion that is no more or less valid than anyone's.

If you like something and a billion other people didn't doesn't make you wrong.

With Transformers 2 though the figures to prove that on one or more levels the film has been a huge success so in that sense the film makers did something(s) right.

You as an individual can like it or hate it, won't change the figures and it never should.

juiceless

All the $$'s prove is that the marketing for the film worked, and people paid to see it. Your assertion that box office revenue links to film quality is silly. Look at the inverse - there are many very good movies that make very little money. Do you believe that the low box office numbers suggest that the filmmakers did something wrong?

Additionally, I don't buy your statement about critics opinions being no more or less valid than anyone elses. Critics are (or should be) people who watch a lot of films. By virtue of that, they are have a wider base to compare a particular film to, and are (hopefully) able to use that base to provide their reader's with some context. Would you argue that a scientist's opinion about black holes is no more or less valid than the average person?

Benlomand

I think the figures do speak with this movie. After all the negative press this movie has gotten it still is rocking the box office.

juiceless

Which means the marketing dollars are working. The average movie goer doesn't scour the web reading reviews - they see trailers, and then they see movies.

Captain Jack Sparrow

Like it or not, its not only marketing. But word of mouth, people DO like this movie. And they return to see it again and again. I'd have to say in this case, that the critics are the odd man out. While they are critics, they struggle with easily enjoying something meant to be fun, and pick at things too much. The people who go into a movie like The Hangover and pick at it and pick at it like a vulture until it is nothing more than some unreadable note. If critics don't like it and so obviously posted their revolts towards it, its obviously been shown that mainstream audiences dont give a damn in some cases what a critic thinks. Yes, the marketing worked, but obviously its beyond the marketing when half these people come home and say they loved it and tell their friends to go see it, who in turn do. If it was the terrible piece of crap film you put it to be this likely wouldn't happen. I'd rather be able to enjoy the likings of what you critics see as a piece of crap, than to be amongst you in this case, and see things with an overeasy eye that can't refrain from pulsating for a moment to just enjoy the booms, cheesy puns and Megan Fox.

And as much as you'd all like to think a critics opinion is valued, well it is. By some people and other critics it is. But I hate to tell you, but many people will take the word of a friend who knows them than the word of someone who wrote up a review online. Believe it or not... Critics do let you know what your going to see, but sometimes its best to see it for yourself then write it off on the words of another. Its just like life, when people choose a career path or goal for life, they should follow their ideals and personal interests in finding out what they want to do rather than to go at the suggestions of others in the pursuit of money over enjoying your life. Note you, if you critics are calling the general public idiots, then so be it. Some people are more easy in finding value in simple than others, that is true. And when someone doesn't understand why others do this, these critics can't help to get confused and sometimes angered. It comes with the nature of confusion.

I pity the group who sit there day after day warning people not to see this film, only to obviously be denied. There's no point in arguing with this as we are to you "Stubborn idiots who like to see things go boom leaded by someone named Michael Bay".

Juiceless

Really, word of mouth? Transformers dropped 61% in its second week in theatres. It didn't exactly face stiff competition. That doesn't seem to suggest good word of mouth to me.

Joshua Ruth

Just to be clear, 'The Hangover' is sitting at a 79% fresh on rottentomatoes.
It is a lazy answer to go back to the 'critics take films too seriously and can't have fun so that's why no one cares what they think' reasoning. If your theory held any water at all, critics wouldn't be able to have fun with 'The Hangover' and it would be down at 19% where Transformers 2 is. The fact is, while you may not agree with a particular critic, when MOST critics in the world- people that watch a lot more films than you, who know a lot more about film than you - say that a movie sucks, it's a good chance that it sucks. It's a pretty good barometer. The fact that ROTF has made as much money as it has doesn't show that critics are taking it too seriously, it shows that most people have shit taste in movies. Personally, I hope that film never lowers it's standards to your level. Since you obviously can't tell the difference between good and bad, people like you need more educated and discerning people to tell you the difference.

captainjacksparrow

Or we could have people like you back off and just worry about your own little problems. While you can instead of reviewing films sit down with your buddies and discuss the greatness of Citizen Kane.

Joshua

You attempted to make an argument by bringing up 'The Hangover' and word of mouth. Both of those pathetic arguments were soundly discounted by two people.

I will back off when you have the intellectual sack to support your lazy arguments with something that makes sense.

You probably haven't even seen 'Citizen Kane,' have you? It's just the one old movie you've heard of that you think you can make fun of critics over.

Perhaps if you watched more films like 'Citizen Kane' and less films like 'Transformers 2,' you wouldn't use awful grammar like "leaded by someone named Michael Bay."

captainjacksparrow

Hahaha, I've watched Citizen Kane more times than you'd imagine. I can imagine it would be your dream movie, and you in defending it tell me what type of person you are so in defense there is no point in arguing with you. As you say I have no "intellectual sack", then there is no point in arguing with you because I can see this argument is pointless and I'll never really care what you say, so gday mate!

Oh and I'm right because I'm Captain Jack Sparrow mate, savy? And if you do respond to this, then you are really just as idiotic as I thought because now I'm just bored and having fun.

Aaron

Comparing critics and scientists is just as ridiculous of an argument as any other. There is no "scientific" basis for ruling a movie's quality. To do so would be to include variables like "the number of shots using steadycam" or "the number of shots where an actor shed 2 tears in an emotional scene".
Nik's argument is sound and I agree with him. A critic is a person, like all of us. They judge a movie based on their own personal expectations of it. Just because these expectations have become more specific based on the volume of films seen by the critic, it gives them, and ONLY them, a barometer for new media that they take in. In short, critics can ONLY critique a movie for their own experience. They can NEVER judge a movie's content for another.

Juiceless

Aaron, I think you've missed my point. I didn't suggest that there is anything scientific about movie criticism. I suggested that critics, being immersed in movies as they are, are in a better position to critique a film than someone who isn't.

I think you're missing the point of criticism. It's not the job of a critic to tell you if something is fun or not. It's the job of the critic to contextualize a work of art (be it a novel, a film or a painting) and to judge its quality against what has come before it. A food critic would surely judge Captain Crunch cereal to be pretty low on the totem pole - that doesn't mean that people won't (or shouldn't) enjoy it.

Tercotta

A good critic's opinion should be of more worth than Joe Doe's. A good critic has seen thousands and thousands of films of every genre and styles. Who is going to trust the random stranger over someone like Ebert? usually critics have some sort of film training or knowledge or have considerable experience with the medium in other ways. Thus the elite critics have a very important voice.

Note this does not apply to terible critics such as quote whores and/or that dude from the New York Post (I think) that hates anything of quality.

TheDev

I'm so tired of ppl that hate on critics, thinking that they are dictating ppl whether or not the general public should see a movie. Thinking that critics have this omnipotent power that will make or break a movie.

They let you know what you're getting yourself into, especially if you're on the fence about watching a movie. They help determine whether or not you should waste your time/money, but ultimately it's up to you. If you're one to let someone else determine your entertainment, then I suggest you should start thinking for yourself and go watch something you enjoy.

Critics post their thoughts and views because they enjoy talking about films, and are opening their judgements for discussion. In addition, they know that there are people out there looking for what critics have to say, so don't blame critics for doing their jobs as demanded by the people.

Andy

The people appointed critics arbiters of taste, to help them know whether or not they're wasting their time. It's not the fault of the critic that the people are now jabbering imbeciles with the attention span of a drunk gnat.

Of course you're mad at critics, there are still enough of them to remind you that you're an idiot.

NEONBEAR

yea, because you have to do everything they say right?

Peter Levendis

Saw TF2 twice in "IMAX". Paid for 3 tickets total. Your welcome Michael Bay. Money well spent. Fuck the critics, go watch some indie films.

NickN328

Explain to me why indie films are a bad thing. Go ahead, explain.

quintushalls

Moon, The Hurt Locker, were awesome!!!

Aaron

Moon should have been an episode of the twilight zone or outer limits or something of that nature. Not nearly enough happened in that story, interesting as it was, to justify it being a full length movie.

Krycek7o2

He can't explain. There are no explosions, only plot. So, his mind is not operating. In his mind, everything is happening quickly so he can ascertain action not emotions or something we who love film call plot. It's alright Peter, I blame maybe your ADD or some illness that prevents you from seeing something meaningful and worthwhile which in the end will be remembered down the road.

Krycek7o2

That little rant was meant to Peter Levendis.

Aaron

I'd hate to be the kind of person who inflicts horrible michael bay movies upon himself just to spite critics like that.

God help you.

Joshua

Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Is it worth it, Peter? Do you pat yourself on the back for money well spent when Tuturro's ass-crack is magnified at IMAX size before your face? Does that second dog humping scene get you laughing every time?

I hate to make fun of someone who put themselves out there with such a...bold...opinion. You just make it so easy.

Benlomand

I believe his point was that critics only give good reviews to indie films that few(as in the main stream) don't watch.

Aaron

I believe his point was that Transformers was worth spending money on, but you're wrong too.

Completely wrong. Anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds could come up with counterexamples to that ridiculous statement.

Since you're obviously not the thinking type, here are a couple directly off the top of my head

Dark Knight
Any Indiana Jones movie ever made, even the terrible ones
The Hangover

AngryBroomstick

Transformers definitely deserves to be put on the list. I don't always agree with critics, but there are times when I do agree with critics. In this case, I hated Transformers 2 so much, I wanted to stab my eyes out. Lots of money at the B.O do not always guarantee that it's a good movie (or in that case, just because a film flopped at the B.O, doesn't mean it's bad... Fight Club, anyone?)

But critics aren't always right about box office hits being bad movies. I think I remember reading that Star Wars (A New Hope) got bad reviews when it came out in 1977... and well, everyone knows what a huge, lasting film that is today.

almostinfocus

You're right that sometimes good films get poor critical reception, but critics write reviews based on one viewing on a specific date. Some films need more than one viewing or some time to sink in.

The inverse of this is the film that audiences love and everyone says is great, but after another viewing or a few months, or even years, it's viewed as not quite as good or even mediocre. It's hard to find someone who thinks "Titanic" is a good film, yet everyone saw it and loved it at the time.

I believe "Star Wars" got mostly excellent reviews and was nominated for several oscars including Best Picture.

I think it's often assumed that critics hate box office hits, but most of them really like box office hots that are also good films. "Star Wars", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "The Godfather", "Jaws", "E.T", "Spiderman", "Star Trek", "The Dark Knight" and many others were huge box office hist and received an overwhelmingly positive critic response.

k0rrupt

I'm sure lots of people will say fuck the critics and whatnot but i think people take opposition to their views far too personally. People seem to say that critics are out of touch with mainstream audiences or they don't know anything because they lack affinity with the source but that makes critics what they are, they view the film objectively, not subjectively as many people do. Other people liking/disliking Revenge of the Fallen have no bearing on my viewing

and Angrybroomstick, i believe that Star Wars got largely positive reviews, people always seem to forget that it won six oscars and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director and Best screenplay, and best actor nom as well, its astonishing what you can do with a so called "kids Film", shame people don't expect that quality to day

Sean Kelly

Even though I contribute to them, I know for a fact that user ratings are flawed and NOT an accurate representation of whether a movie is good or bad.

For every person (like me) that gives a well-thought out rating on the scale, there are like 100 that give either the highest or lowest ratings (as looking at the vote tally on IMDb can proove).

Personally, the only opinion on a film that I truly care about is my own. If I liked a film, it doesn't matter if every other person in the world didn't.

Trevx

Haven't seen Transformers 2 and I don't intend too. I thought the first one was a big turd and after seeing the trailers and reading a few reviews, the second one also looks like a piece a crap.

Joshua

And you, sir, have just justified the existence of critics in the world.

If you can save only person from spending their money on Transformers 2...

JB

All those numbers just to let me know how much TF2 sucks...
Cool!!!

Man, it's soooooooooooo bad!!!

Joshua

That's the thing. TF2 sucked sooooo bad that the critics are still trying to find ways to quantify it even two weeks later.

Stabmaster Arson

TF2 Review: Shiny things go BOOM - Blazing guitar solos - Tits

*waiting patiently for Shoot'em Up 2*

Nik

You probably thought Terminator Salvation was quality entertainment didn't you?

This post just makes you sound very far up somewhere dark almost as if being in the minority on this film is a cool thing.

It isn't.

Mike

Yes it's sad that today instead of accepting good summer entertainment like Star Wars or even Iron Man, they'll accept nonsense and shit like TF2. We all understand that the people who liked this "got what they wanted with loud explosions and COOL ROBOTS!" but the fact is you should WANT more from your movie. To accept just bare basics in a movie and not even a good, coherent storyline with not even somewhat funny jokes (more subjective, I know but still) and to accept racism and it is (and to those who say it's only racist to those who see it that way, that's total BS; it could be that you're too ignorant to recognize such blatant stereotypes and also them "downloading" our culture is not an excuse either because if that's the case then they are describing our culture as racist thinking that everyone can't read or have gold teeth, big ears, etc., etc.).

Sorry that rambled on a bit, but I speak the truth. Just because audiences got what they wanted from the movie, doesn't make it good or right. People must expect more from their movies and it's apparent a lot do with the success of Iron Man and such. Why do movies like Snow Angels and Goodbye Solo which are highly praised, get ignored and not seen as widely as TF2 or Fast and Furious? Do people not like to think anymore even when everything about the movie is better than TF2 could ever be. And it would be acceptable to like TF2 if it had a coherent storyline or was like the first Transformers. I like the first one and this one made me want to kill myself it was so godawful. Do you not understand?

Hopefully people do come to understand that they should expect more from their movies and their hard-earned money. Millions of people eat junk food all the time and it destroys their bodies and makes them fat; it's not good for them at all. Is TF2 good for you?

Nik

See, when you use phrases like "you should..." you are trying to force your opinion on others and that is really not cool and it disrespects people freedom to consume shit and/or diamonds as they wish.

Mike

Yes but my point was that when I say "they should", it's only because it's good for people. It's proven that junk food is bad for you and doesn't keep you healthy. I think it's been proven TF2 is idiotic with a terrible script and terrible dialogue. I felt I was losing intelligence while watching it. I think all people should ask for is a little intelligence. Just a shred.

They will always have the freedom to choose what they want, but that doesn't make it right.

Joshua

Look, I don't think Mike is saying that films like Transformers 2 shouldn't have the RIGHT to be made. It doesn't have to be about pride and 'don't YOU tell me what I have to do!' It's about quality. It's about lowered standards. This may seem like no big deal to people that'll just go watch a movie and like it no matter how crappy or incoherent it is, but Nik: do you hate Star Wars? Do you hate Raiders of the Lost Ark? My guess is that you'd probably say that they're at least better than TF2, right? If critics and people who see it as the shit that it is, don't call it out as shit: then - they - will - keep - making - shit. These dollars that are spent are votes. And the message the studios are getting is, why bother making another 'Star Wars' they'll take anything we give them. Just like when people started to wake up to many bad foods, healthier options started to appear. The shitty stuff is still out there if you want it. Food and movies alike. But we should never surrender our right to demand something better.

Alex

And why is good for them? What is good or bad in movies is just a convention, most of the things without any thinh holding them.

And you (and a lot of people everywhere) is missing something. Films (and music, literature, painting...) are about feelings and nothing else. Everything the film could have inside are just tools, the script, the actors, the pacing, the sound, the CGI... everything. And feelings are not objetive and would never be objetive. Feelings are never correct or incorrect and can't be trained.

Some people (lots of professional critics) have turned for themselves the tools as the point of the movie and that is what is wrong. The way to see a movie (every movie) is just sit and enjoy it (or not), accepting his own rules and then, once you have finished it, you analyze it. In that momment you think about the tools used to evoke that feelings, but if you want to "rate" it, the correct rating is about the way you felt before the analysis.

Because, where is stablished what pacing is correct for a movie and why is stablished that way? Because I know people (very "trained" in cinema) whose opinion about that can't ever match. What for one is "fast" for the other is "slow" and what for one is "slow" for the other is "paused, wrong" and what for the second is "fast", for the first is "unwatchable, wrong". Who is right? Because is there is a "correct" way doing a movie one ofthem MUST be wrong.

Joshua

That's a misguided opinion. The moment that we stop analyzing the technical aspects of film is the moment they start churning out nothing but crap like TF2.

The scene where we see Tuturro's ass crack is for no other reason than to get a cheap laugh out of the audience reminds me of that movie in 'Idiocracy' where people watch two hours of a naked ass farting and love every minute.

Frankly, if people knew the difference between good and bad, critics wouldn't be needed. Unfortunately we live in a world where people are willing slaves to advertising. If you need proof of that, ask most people to name a band they like that wasn't fed to them through the radio or a film that most people haven't heard of. People are by and large, lazy, and don't have the tools to find the films worth anything.

If not for critics then films like 'Brick' would never be seen. Critics don't decide whether a movie sucks, they just show you the difference between 'X-Men 2' and X-Men 3.'

Alex

I don't need anyone to tell me the diference betwen X-men 2 and X-men 3, it's at plain sight. In X-men 3 I almost fall asleep in the theater.

I don't eat everything hollywood brings, i thought lots of blockbusters where nothing but crap, but not this one. I think this one is better than X men 3, Poseidon, Wolverine, The Davinci Code, Angels and Demons, Pirates 2, The Lost World, Hanckok (wich actually in my opinion is a good movie), The day after tomorrow... and much more.

And if you look at this years box office you may see that this year a lot of Hollywood Blockbusters have failed with advertising campaigns as big as Trasnformers. If people go to see what the studios seel them, why did they fail? Why did Wolverine failed? Why Angels and Demons wasn't the expected megahit? Why terminator salvation failed? Why Watchmen failed? Why Night at the Museum 2 wasn't the expected hit? Why Knowing failed?

And you know what? I found Turturo's ass totally unnecesary, didn't liked it, the same as the dogs sex shot, but two bad jokes doesn't ruin a movie for me.

I tell this is about feelings, and not everything works for me. And the same with music, i don't care how much they advertise something or how good the critics say one album is, the only opinion wich has value for me is mine, and that's what everyone should do.

I really hate does people who say "I hated this, but it's excellent,the critics said it" or "I loved it, but is awful, the critics said it", if you liked you think is good and if you hated you think is bad, the rest is plain hypocrisy because you don't want other to think you don't have "good taste".

And I didn't think critics shouldn't talk about movies, but i think they are looking in the wrong direction. What makes movies great is never their technical features, is the reaction they cause in you while you see it. Technics are the tools, not the aim.

For this there's a very clear example, Malevich's painting "Empty square" (http://longstreet.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83542d51e...). What technique could be found here? But this is actually considered a Masterpiece by many people, and a joke for many other. What's the difference? In some people it causes something, in others nothing.

Bob Loblaw

But why should you want more from a movie? It's elitist to limit the definition of what a movie is, because a movie can be anything. Snow Angels, which you cited, is a fantastic film that explores its characters and the relationships they have with each other. It succeeds because of how strongly those were realized.

If Snow Angels' focus is character study, then TF2's is its aesthetic. Like every other blockbuster, TF2 uses its visuals as its means to thrill and entertain. the choreography of the action, the fidelity of the special effects are composed and created in such a way to illicit a response from the audience. TF2's plot is convoluted and its characters are poorly conceived, but that's OK because it's main goal is to entertain and tell a story through action and spectacle (whether or not you were entertained by this is purely subjective). And there's no shame in relying on that. The thing that differentiates film from books or paintings is its ability to create art through moving pictures. And in that way I think Bay makes pure cinema.

And that's why I go see his films, to appreciate his aesthetic and style. Not every film requires a strong narrative or any narrative at all; they can be consumed on a strictly visual sense (Baraka, Planet Earth...i know it's TV series).

That being said, it's OK if you did not like TF2. That's perfectly fine. Just please get off your soapbox and stop instructing others what they should or shouldn't want in film. Movies are great because they're all different and can serve a particular purpose. I don't always want to watch The Diving Bell and The Butterfly, sometimes I just want to laugh endlessly at Step Brothers. Both types of movies will continue to be made and coexist...and *shock* there are some people out there who can appreciate both.

Mike

I really liked Step Brothers. I just think TF2 is a bad movie on so many levels and far greater films get ignored which bothers me. Too be honest, I like ridiculous action films even though I know they are not necessarily good. But for me I see this film as an insult to everybody.

I'm not really sure how else to respond to your comment, but I can say your liking of so many other great films make your appreciation of TF2. I won't be able to change my mind on the film no matter what, but I wish Snow Angels and TF2 could coexist in this world...in reality though, they don't. Snow Angels practically makes no box office return and TF2 will probably go on to make a billion.

Like I said, I can appreciate your liking of TF2. Not really more else I can say.

zamarov

After Dead Man's Chest and the first Transformers I promised never to go and see a film unless it was deemed at least relatively enjoyable by the majority of critics.

I still can't believe Transformers 2 is making as much money as it is, particulalry considering the insipid mediorcrity of the first one.

Dead Man Chest's success is to be expected because people genuinely loved the first one. But At World's End success is as bewildering as Transformers 2's.

This summer so far I've resisted from going to see Tranformers 2 and Terminator Salvation. It has taken many arduous cinematic experiences to build up the will power in resisting these films but I feel I'm better human being for it.

/Film

Blogging the Reel World

The Worst Reviewed Highest Grossing Movie Of All-Time?

Related Posts

Tags

/Film