*But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new.

Not that there was anything really new here. Michael Bay took a simple concept and turned it into a fanboy's wet dream; albeit with very little substance.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen completed the opening weekend with a 5 day haul of $201 million; which puts it right behind The Dark Knight for a 5 day opener. It also opened with a 21% rating on Rotten tomatoes, which in this case I am not so sure is deserved. Here me out.

I don't at all believe that Revenge of the Fallen was a quality film deserving of the highest praise. Simply put, it is a Michael Bay movie. Bay. Not Fincher, not Cameron, not Soderberg, not VonTrier, not Stone. The latter directors put out material to a wide audience for mass appeal, but the quality of work cannot be denied (I refuse to get into how some deny that it is art, and how wide audience appeal is a sell-out to the indy world etc. etc. add naseum). Bay simply makes popcorn fluff for action fans. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some of the criticisms leveled at the film are definitely deserved, don't get me wrong. There are issues in the very basic storyline that just don't make sense within the context of the universe that the movie exists in. For instance, if the Autobots are sentient beings, how come they need to be stored in a hanger on a military base in their basic vehicular forms, when they aren't out kicking Decepticon ass? When a team of Autobots show up to rescue Sam (yet again) why does Prime's back-up disappear and leave him to take on an army of baddies all by himself, only to show up once again after he has been killed? How does Mikaela fly across the country to meet Sam in one afternoon - with a tiny Decepticon in her carry-on? Why doesn't Starscream take out the US army in the Egyptian desert with a couple of bombing runs when he is flying overhead, instead of just taking out their radio communication? Was there any doubt that the 'magic dust' would bring Prime back from the dead, after it had already brought back Megatron, among other inanimate kitchen utensils?

All of this is besides the point though. Anyone who nitpicks the above and more in a serious fashion is seriously over-thinking the film. I understand the argument that we as an audience should be demanding more for our money. Iron Man and The Dark Knight are two prominent examples that are continually pointed out in that arguments defense when it comes to the comic-book genre. (On a side note I will thank Christopher Nolan publicly for smashing all previous incantations of Joel SHMUCKmacher's Batman films). I don't deny that the quality of the entertainment needs to be there. I am a big advocate of the films that make you think, make you mad, or that make you feel good. Filmmakers like those mentioned above, and studios like the gargantuan Pixar are now pushing the boundaries and countinually raising the bar.

In unapologetic defense, I believe a film that falls into the mass appeal, spit-em-out while you can, popcorn entertainment category should be taken exactly at face value. The two robot twin characters in the film, Skids and Mudflap, have been criticized en masse as racist representations of a stereotypical hollywood approach to African-Americans. Seriously. These are the same people with far too much time on their hands who ban Cookie Monster from eating only cookies, and take the time to spot what they see as phalic symbols in Disney's The Little Mermaid's Poster art. I don't understand the reasoning behind these over-zealous adults who feel the need to raise and wave their flag of moral justice in the face of mainstream enterainment "by and for the people." If you think the twins are racist, then that says more about you than it does Michael Bay. That's not even taking into account that their total screen time in the whole film is less than 12 minutes.

Other critics are attacking the editing, claiming that nothing can be seen when these giant metal titans clash. I would definitely agree with that argument in the first film. With Revenge of the Fallen it is clearly apparent that Bay listened to what some had to say as his camera is pulled back wide so the action can be seen in all its computer generated glory. He has also pulled some tips from the work of Zack Snyder and the Wachowski Brothers with regards to slowing some of the action down in order to give the audience that moment to take in the awesomeness that is mass destruction. Is it perfect? No. Are the characters discernable from one another? Absolutely. I don't think they are any less identifiable than the main caricatures who populate your average 'chic flick' (not that those films do better with the critics).

All of these criticsims and arguments aside though it still comes down to what that ever so intelligent executive decides to green light. All critics may be using Revenge of the Fallen as their top target of choice right now, but the fact remains that the garbage churned out of late far exceeds that of Michael Bay's robot sequel. Come August, these same people will have a whole other film to attack by a wholly different director. That film being Stephen Sommers "G.I. Joe" adapatation. Let the tomatoes fly.

*Anton Ego - Ratatouille