Here we have a perfect example of why I read Rope. A well balanced piece of reporting of what's happening and who's saying what and an intelligent clear eyed response.

I can't say I love award season. So much is vested in it. And too many people seem to think it's the end all whether someone or something wins or not. But I do love when someone or something I'm rooting for gets nominated. And if it wins, I'm usually shouting in my living room. But funny how the same people who say that they don't think critics are relevant, pant after the awards, or would if they could.

But I absolutely agree with you about the young crowd wanting the noisy action films. As much as my 15 year old granddaughter enjoyed watching "500 Days of Summer" with me, as we exited the theatre we could hear "GI Joe" echoing through the corridors and I said, "Now that's a loud piece of not interesting." She responded, "That's true. But I'm probably going to see it."

All I'm asking for is something for the grownups somewhere in the theatre. Are adults staying away and waiting for the DVD? I confess I often do that too. Most often, really. It's only recently that I've come to understand what a disservice that is to my favorite films. And I must say that there's nothing like the big screen and sound system the theatre brings.

I thinl GI. Joe opened my eyes a little. No, I didn't see it. But I talked about it with the U-25's that massed to go see it.

I am still in University, and still have kept my low-paying job from High School, where I work alongside people of the same age groups, most of which do not attend Uni. And I was shocked when my co-workers would, after talking about how much they liked Transformers 2 (specifically mentioning how funny it was, and specifically mentioning the Megan Fox shots over the motorcycle), mention how good the trailers for GI Joe looked.

See, I thought that it was the idea of GI Joe, the history that people have with the toys, that brought people to the theaters. But people actually see excellence in the trailer, where I, and most of you I would imagine, saw Dennis Quaid performing lines that made me audibly groan. The promise of action and special effects seem to be enough.

I've often felt that producers and directors need to 'step up their game', so to speak, and find ways to maintain the action, while making the movie better. Because if people enjoy a film for its 'mindless action', but don't think it's very good, then there is room for improvement. But it seems like there might be few incentives to improve, if people actually believe that those films are good, in addition to enjoying them immensely.

Of course Sommers is utterly wrong with saying that critics 'just don't get it', and I am assuming that he doesn't actually believe it (correct me if I'm wrong there). But I think it may be true that the critics, including Ms. Goldstein, along with the people who listen to the critics, including myself, truly don't understand "Why Did So Many People Go See GI Joe?"

I've grown tired of Awards season, by the time you get to the Oscars there's no surprise or suspense at all (for the most part). I do like watching the Red Carpet event and that is even starting to get tiredsome. I remember when an E reporter interviewed Angelina Jolie, she only asked Angelina ( or Angie as she called her) about Brad she didn't ask her squat shit about the film she was being nominated for. I was like are they serious.

I firmly feel that Michael Mann films are for the more adult ticket buyers which is why sadly his movies suffer at the box office but do very well in DVD sales (Heat is one of the top selling VHS is all time look it up) so there are flicks out there for adults just overlooked

I fall into the adult section and played with G.I. Joe's as a kid. This movie did not appeal to me the least bit (have not seen it, do not want to). I understand where Sommers is trying to appeal to a "fun gene", but why not appeal to both kids and adults and create a much larger audience. To me it seems as if he fell into the sequel formula, over the top antics, characters and gadgets. Too much too soon. I could not wait until Transformers 2 came out based on my opinion of the 1st. However, I was highly disappointed. This was due to highly irrelevant material, i.e. transformer girl?, too many characters (kept story line thin), and the scene where Shia's character was confronted by the ancient prime's. The only director to pull off a great movie as well as sequel is James Cameron. If you look at T1 and T2, they are both virtually the same story with a few modifications. Anyway, I have now made it a point to decipher all movie trailers and also avoid opening weekend to prevent the mistake of spending my hard earned money. So far this method has suited me well.

Whole Bloody Affair, I'll believe it when I see on a retail shelf. Basterds is Weinstein when Kill Bill is still Miramax, so I doubt they'll coordinate. Where the hell's the Grindhouse theatrical edition?

Stephen Sommers sounds like me. He's not, me. I think.

Intelligent, mature material is better suited for the format of television. Would you rather watch the characters from In The Loop in a 2 hour, one off movie or a BBC-Showtime co-production with 10 episodes?

Sommers take is valid from his point of view because GI Joe isn't The Godfather. I enjoyed GI Joe as I thought it was fun, fast moviing which more than enough characters to build a franchise on. In many ways I don't feel movies are nearly as good as they were in the 70's 80,s and even the 90's but as summer popcorn movies go I enjoyed G.I Joe. It had the sense of fun that Transformers 2 did not.
If you go back to 1984 with Gremlins, Temple of Doom, Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, Footloose and Beverly Hills Cop there is no way that popcorn films are anywhere need as good. Actually not even close but as things are I still liked G.I Joe and would give it a 7.5 out of 10.

chuck

@entertainmenttodayandbeyond.com: I'm not criticizing you as a person or denigrating your opinion, but 7.5 out of 10?

This is just the kind of inflationary grading I was talking about in another thread, Brad. But there I was defending it. Now, I'm shocked by it.

@entertainmenttodayandbeyond.com:

Chuck,

I will take your word on G.I. Joe based on the fact you had an alike opinion on Transformers 2. A rating of 7.5 is a "take it or leave it" grade, which at least prepares me for what is to come. I guess I'll watch it this weekend. By the way, I like your references to earlier popcorn flicks.

I'm dying to see the Inception trailer, my most anticipated film of the future…

@Patricia: At the end of the day an opinon on a movie or TV show is subjective. You life experience, who you are and what you generally are interested in factor into that alot. I have seen alot of movies and TV shows and I don't expect everything to be a life altering experience. Many films classified as art house movies that some critics love I can't stand. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is an example. I just don't get it. Not for me.

Im a big fan of the first Transformers but thought the sequel was a hollow shell of that. Thats my opinion. If someone digs it good for them. Of course I can be passionate about my opinion but I can't tell people that my opinion is the end of the road. There is no absolute when it comes to art. I also liked Terminator 3 and 4 as well as the TV series. Are they as great as Cameron's first two films in the franchise? NO but I still can enjoy them.

I also can love a B movie like The Blob, Night of the Comet or Night of the Creeps.

When I saw GI Joe I liked it. It was fun. I really liked Sienna Miller and find Rachel Nichols really appealing. Movies can have flaws and not totally work but you can still like them. Many critics and so called internet geeks see things only in bl;ack and white and they miss out on some decent gray. On TV I have seen every episode of ER- while many critics were saying the show was bad over the last few years it still worked for me. While I knew it wasn't as great as in in heyday it still was good. I enjoyed it every week. Good works for me. I can also watch a TNT show like Raising the Bar and enjoy it. Which I do. While I knocked movies like Transformers 2, Wolverine and Land of the Lost I really enjoyed The Taking of Pelham 123. Was it as great as the 74 original? NO but I still really liked it. Your statement of inflationary grading is just your response to your reaction not mine.

A line that comes to mind would be Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns when he said "what you put in your toliet I place on my mantle" There some truth in that about everyone in one way or another when it reflects what you enjoy at the movies or TV. Again there are no absolutes.

chuck

@entertainmenttodayandbeyond.com: How we react to a film or a book or a play is certainly subjective. Something can call to us or speak of some glimmer of truth we have experienced or even that is completely foreign to us. It's is why, afterall, that we are drawn to these forms of "entertainment" or at least why I am. I can also appreciate a film, or a book, or a play that is just flat out fun. It takes us away into the fantastic and unreal and away from the ordinary and plain. Just as writing commentary on a website can do, really.

I'm sorry that I'm feeling a bit pensive, but I just watched HBO's "Grey Gardens."
Anyway, as originally stated, I have nothing but respect for your opinion as your opinion. I just abhor the trend toward NOTHING but low humor and action films, well not nothing, but damn little else.

I'm reminded of Edward R. Murrow's speech in "Good Night and Good Luck." In it he says, referring to television, "This instrument can teach. It can illuminate and, yes, it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it towards those ends." That is also how I feel about film and filmmaking.

@entertainmenttodayandbeyond.com: To say that some critics (yourself excluded, I presume) 'see things only in black and white" seems a bit trite. Would you better explain your 'decent gray'?

I think i can help chuck out. there are some movies in my point of view i feel is just crap like all 3 spiderman movies i thought was trash but so many other people liked them and i respected that because it made them happy and excited. not all movies need to blow us away like The Prestige, Heat, Narc, Crash ect some can be like anchorman its not a great movie but its funny and it makes people happy because of how stupid it is. Now GI Joe isnt the best film but it wasnt trying to be and wasnt trying to make us "think" or make us sit in the theater afterwards in silence it was to entertain us which some it might and some it wont which is why i go back to the spiderman movies for some it was amazing for others it was crap. fact of the matter is you cant expect every movie to be as amazing as your favorites and sometimes you and other people will have different taste but that doesnt mean theirs is bad taste

I don't understand this "Fun Gene" argument. I saw Transformers 2 in IMAX and there was nothing fun about it. It's a flashy, loud and an incoherent mess.
Some critic said that the experience of watching Transformers 2 was like being hit over your head with a frying pan for 2.5 hours over and over again. And I completely agree, there's nothing "fun" about Transformers 2.

On the other hand I also saw "Drag me to Hell" which can also be described as loud and flashy, but the level of filmmaking involved was just much superior (from script to the camera work). And that's the difference here. Its not the size, or the loudness of a film that makes it good or bad, it's the filmmaking behind it.
And I just think that Michael Bay is not a good filmmaker, and the same goes for Mr. Sommers.

He is right though that critics are irrelevant when it comes to big event movies though.

I agree Bay is a dope but I just feel that if someone enjoys the film because they do have fun watching it let them enjoy it ad not look down on them for doing so

@Dan Tralder: Remember I said some. Lets take Jaws for example. Its safe to say that an overwhelming majority see that film as a classic and I do also. It sequel Jaws 2 was received with mixed reviews. Some critics liked it and some disliked it. The ones would gave it negative reviews stated it wasn't as good as Spielbergs original. YES that true but I thought it was a solid sequel that worked on its own terms. It wasn't great but it was good and well worth seeing. Its probably better than 80% of the summer films this season. My point is that many critics set the bar so high that they don't accept anything that dosen't work on every level.

One pet peeve many critics do have is sentementality. They hate it. Many feel there being manipulated with a film like Pay it Foward and kill it in there reviews. Same with a film like The Notebook. That film has a huge following but many critics didn't like it because they classify it as a tear jerker.

When I was a kid I lived in NY and Rex Reed who wrote reviews for the NY daily news gave a negative review to 90% of every movie he saw. In my opinion thats just crazy. At the end of the day I guess everyone has there opinions. It probably doesn't pay to analysis it.

chuck

First: Can't wait for the entire Kill Bill edition. I doubt it'll ever happen, though, because…Second: I'm still waiting for Tarentino's (at the time of his last interview) 25-plus page dissertation on why he thought Superman Returns was so bloody awesome. Lastly, to Stephen Sommers: dude, you're no Michael Bay. You "directed" a movie of Uwe Boll quality, and released it on an unsuspecting public. You're probably worse than the Mutant Chronicles guy.

Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers have the right to defend their creations, and certainly I would expect them to. After all, they've spent a year or longer of their lives making the best film they can. However, the fact of the matter is that if you're going to ask people to plunk down ten bucks to see your creation, those people have a right to know what they're going to get, and that's where film criticism is most useful. In all fairness, I tend to agree that most film criticism is poorly done at best, lacking even basic knowledge of filmmaking and/or unmitigated personal attacks at worst (particularly among Internet critics who seem more interested in landing zingers than actually reviewing a film fairly). However, when done correctly (by folks like Roger Ebert), film criticism can be an invaluable tool in making the decision as to which movie to see.

Unfortunately, as with most things, Americans tend to prefer getting their information in as digestible and brief portions as possible. They'd much rather rely on an internet blurb or a 30-second sound bite rather than actually reading a review. These are the lowest common denominator and because they turn out in such vast numbers, filmmakers pander to them.

We get the movies we deserve. If (500) Days of Summer – by far the best film I've seen so far this year – were to do $200 million at the box office, you can bet there'd be a dozen movies like it next summer. Since GI Joe and Transformers 2 are doing the kind of numbers they are, we can look forward to movies just like them.

Rather than complain that the 25 and up demographic isn't being served, go out and see the movies in the theaters rather than wait for them to come out on DVD. Give Hollywood a reason to serve you and they will, trust me. But there's no sense in complaining that there aren't enough movies for adult if you aren't going to go out and see one when they are released. It's simple economics folks, and if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, there's no sense in opening your mouth at all.

Ok. Let's look at this in a different way. Think about hamburgers. There are different levels of quality when you are talking about hamburgers; there's the $50-100 gourmet burgers, and the budget hamburgers from places like MCD's (I don't want to get sued.) Now there's nothing wrong with eating MCD's burgers, they can be really good if that's what you are hungry for. You don't always want the fancy gourmet burger.

But what would happen if McD's suddenly got rid of all their health regulations, and let their employees do whatever they wanted. So now the employees at McD's are dropping food on the ground, and feeding it to you anyway, they aren't washing their hands, and the level of quality of McD's starts dropping dramatically. Would you still eat there, saying "oh it's only McD's, they ARENT TRYING to make really good food." You still need to be held to a quality standard. Some people who used to like McD's, would be really upset, because now if they eat at McD's, they are going to get sick.

So that's a really thick analogy, but I think it works; just because a movie isn't out to win best picture, doesn't mean you can throw all concept of quality out the window.

Movies like Star Wars, the original X-Men, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the Matrix, were all made in the name of fun. But they didn't talk down to the audience like they were students in a special-education class.