I love Roger Ebert. I love how much he loves movies. I love how he’s battled back from debilitating illness and still writes more than any over-caffeinated 20-year-old blogger on a good day. And there’s nothing more fun than Roger Ebert when he really dislikes a movie. (Remember his review of North in 1994? “I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it.” Good times.)

The latest target of his wrath? Just the biggest ‘buster on the block right now — Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. His official review on Tuesday was nothing short of withering. (Just a taste: He says the robots look like “junkyard throw-up.”) That obviously wasn’t enough for him. He returned a day later with an end-times blog post, putting his view of the movie’s badness into a larger context and stating unequivocally that someday far in the future, the Transformers sequel will be studied in film classes as the moment when the “bloated, excessive, incomprehensible” CGI action movie finally got too big to survive.

I think Ebert might be off on this one, though. Considering the movie’s outrageous box office haul, doesn’t it just mean we’re in for even more huge, excessive action movies? Plus, there are those who disagree with Ebert’s judgment, including EW’s own Owen Gleiberman, whose “inner 10-year-old” nodded in approval of the super-size, metal-on-metal action. What do you think? Have you seen Transformers 2? Do you think Ebert’s right, or is he way off the mark?

addCredit(“Transformers: Robert Zuckerman; Ebert: Lee Roth/RothStock/PR Photos”)