Haven't seen 'Knocked Up' but... from what I've heard... it's a fun, witty romantic comedy for both men and women. If it's being judged on that, why wouldn't it get a high score?
This has been an ongoing theme in here: judge a film on its intention. If it succeeds in being what it set out to be, it's good. If it doesn't, it's not.
'Transformers' had a lot of publicity implying great characterisation and retaining the essence of what fans loved, while updating it to make more sense for today's audiences.
I think those who thought the intention was purely to have a wham-bam explosion-fest have been providing great reviews. Those of us who watched certain videos of the writers and Spielberg discussing the process of bringing the franchise into the realm of live action film weren't quite as impressed. Pre-release publicity like that is deceiving and happened to a great degree when the writers of 'X-Men: The Last Stand' chose to answer questions on discussion boards - though I get the impression they believed what they were saying, only to have it bastardised in the final film.
As for the Zod/Superman analogy, of course it didn't bother me. It's one alien telling another he won't sacrifice a well-known object/place and sounds natural. In 'Transformers', Sam's only recently found out about what he's holding yet speaks as though the term 'Allspark' is as everyday as the words 'it' or 'thing'. I dunno - just sounded dopey to me. And, for the record, if I was protecting my own child, I'd say 'him' or 'her' - not 'child'.
Now, if Supes had said 'I'll never surrender this planet named Earth', you might have more of a point.
Oh... and Naite, I forgot that first line from Megatron! I agree completely. It sounded so out of place... like, d'uh... Sam just said that a few times.
Why am I nitpicking the script when there clearly wasn't one? *Sigh*