It looks every inch the Michael Bay Transformers movie that we've already had three times before - likely with the same low level of coherence and plot absurdity. Perhaps the humour is slightly more on target this time as they won't be parents, Malkovich, Turtorro, Chang from Community, LaBeouf, etc. I am confident, however, that Mr Bay will disappoint and force some completely unfunny scenes in there.

I didn't much like Pacific Rim, but at least that movie did robots so much better.

Was one of those criticisms Jodie Foster's weird French accent?

Some random thoughts. I have a problem with a story that announces a character to be a tactical genius but demonstrates that by showing only mass self-sacrifice. Also, the zero gravity game has practically no relevance to the actual battles that they're fighting. Finally, I love when movies show footage from earlier in the movie and pass it off as actual footage of the event.

And where are these magic cameras that are capturing all the real-time events of the end game?

Churches are nice though!

Well that sounds like a fair shake.

I've not seen the film in a long time, but I remember most of the film is actually about his friends, who are all professors representing various fields, engaging in an intellectual exercise with him (none of them actually believe him when they leave) because, well you know, they're all academics. That he isn't otherwise remarkable is also sort of the point, he's not a superhero or Connor MacLeod, and actually wouldn't retain memories of most things he has seen. He even makes a palpable point that his earlier degrees mean nothing because a lot of the knowledge is obsolete. The story is about "what if", possibly even "how?", not "he is, oh wow".

The film falls apart in its climax, which trades the air of ambiguity with a groan-inducingly awful revelation and an even worse 'tragic plot device' (which seems completely thrown in at the last minute to add some Drama!). However, everyone of us has seen far far worse so it just seems weird to call this garbage and even more bizarre to fixate on a character's name as being symptomatic of its quality.

I think you're getting too hung up on a perception that the screenwriter is trying to be clever with the name rather than understanding why the character is going by that specific name. Why is any name given to anyone - fictional or otherwise? And why did this character choose Oldman for what is a temporary alias? Folks use all sorts of names when they're pretending to be someone that they're not, and most often these are silly, derivative, or imitation. I don't think he even has an actual name, so his selection in going for names that are always plays on being very old is revealing, and thus demonstrates character.

My point is that there's a world of difference between the screenwriter calling their immortal character Oldman as some kind of 'see what I did there, aren't I clever' exercise and how the film treats it. If you've seen the film, you would realise they even hang a lantern on the name, as it's essentially revealed too that names don't actually mean anything to him. It's not an arbitary choice but multi-layered and whilst I think the film ends poorly, it's rather absurd to focus on that as some kind of key failing.

It's not like two last survivors of an apocalypse are revealed in the climax to be called Adam and Eve.