Come on la man, this movie is meant to make us open our mouth wide and say WOW from the inside and drooling snd not to forgot, to make us laugh. I did all that except drooling, lol.

Just enjoy the freakin' movie. RM12 is very useful for people like me except if i watch the movie just to post damn long 'professional' negative review here.

What if someone else paid for the movie?

actually I only paid RM7.50 for it, without having to line up. Good ol' e-ticketing and student discounts!

I didnt see him in the movie at all. Weird. Was he one of the 100 soldiers in one of the action scenes with 20 transformers on screen and everything going kaboom?

seriously I didnt see him at all. And I would know if I saw his annoying face!

problems... really?
3. 3R.. Recycle, Reuse, Reduce.. ain't it 'environment friendly'?

Was that you who said you'll be watching this at least twice in the cinema no matter what? Too late for regrets!
There are badly-written but harmless scripts, and there are badly-written and annoying scripts.

The more I think of this movie, the more I wonder how the hell I managed to squeeze some kind of enjoyment out of it. Maybe going in with real low expectations really works. I'm sure the second viewing will completely fall flat, so I'm not even gonna bother with another one.
and you would be wrong, coz most of the girls really think this movie is awesome as well.

As for Michael Bay, he is only 44 and I hope he tires of this nonsense and returns to making real movies. He was only 31 when he made "Bad Boys" in 1995, and 32 when he made "The Rock." He had been in TV for years. He was a prodigy, like Steven Spielberg, But Spielberg was 47 when he directed "Schindler's List." Michael Bay seems to be evolving in the wrong direction.

By Casey Cosker on June 24, 2009 9:59 PM

Ebert,

You called the first Transformers movie, "goofy fun with a lot of stuff that blows up good." I haven't seen the sequel yet--though I fully intend to, and in IMAX if possible--but isn't that what this movie is? More goofiness with more explosions?

So what's the difference? What makes one goofy and fun and the other unbearable? It isn't the running time, because the sequel is only five minutes longer.

It strikes me as strange that a lot of the same critics who praised the first Transformers for being stupid, silly, bombastic, and intense are now panning its sequel for also being stupid, silly, bombastic, and intense. Again, I ask, What's the difference?

I'm not expecting intelligence or even a story from this movie, and I didn't before. Sometimes dumb action is entertaining enough.

I'll be seeing the sequel for the same reason I went to see the first Transformers movie: to see giant robots punching each other and exploding. Am I going to be disappointed?

Curious,

Casey

Ebert: More stupid, more silly, more bombastic, and way more intense. Too loud. Visually incomprehensible.

Dare you to sit in the front row at IMAX.

yeah ..hahha

wan to experience the sound system and etc @ diff location mah ..
hhahah

overall this movie is awesome loh but i got abit abit disappointed.... haizz    ...... but if really wan to comments there really lots of bad comments for this second sequel compare to the first one coz the first episode everything is nice, slow and clear [should be this three words..lol  ].........

so ubsacc2004 how many times u planning to watch?? or just watched once enough ??   

jz watch it at gsc timesquare. overrall the movie is awesome.

only the intro part about the robot is not that gud. most autobot and decepticon robot i cant remember the name. even the first scene i duno which 1 is decepticon. until i listen to the conversation i jz know there are 2 decepticon robot.loL!
if the movie intro more about the robot first then i think it will be a perfect movie d.
for those that cant understand the story line, this is because u guys didn't watch the first episod and also because u guys din concentrate to the movie.
bravo for transformer!!!