Transformers: Dark of the Moon

There aren't many movies where you can see exploding skyscrapers in Chicago for 200 million USD. Michael Bay's visual sense cannot be denied, and together with James Cameron (although going in a slightly different direction), they are the most advanced “technicians” in Hollywood. However, where Cameron can do that for the good of the film and people praise him for it, Bay has been struggling lately, like in this Transformers sequel. A joke? Why not, but purposeless fooling around for an hour is a bit too much. The hour-long action that follows is okay, with a monumental, visually stunning style, and this time it's also more comprehensible. But after a while, it leaves you with a headache. Transformers 3 is quite a mess. The first one was so much better. (09/07/2011)

I have bad with disruptive elements when it comes to Transformers. After a terrible experience with part two I went to the Imax, in the morning... but still I encountered kids. They were chatting away and kicking my seat from behind. And I think they didn’t even notice the movie going on. The screenplay... ehm... is some super serious conspiracy nonsense where there were fewer dumb jokes than last time, which is good, but at the same time so much happens that 154 minutes was just too little. Perhaps the director’s cut will be more satisfying in this respect. So that’s that. Now to the action, which is awesome as always, much more synoptic and the final action sequence that takes up the last fifty minutes of the movie is actually in 3D, just incredible. I actually had the feeling that Bay made Transformers 3 just to push the boundaries of 3D technology even closer to perfection. The highlight is probably the paratrooper mission in Chicago. Otherwise, the actors give their standard performances, Malkovich was really quite entertaining, and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (one of the most beautiful new faces) is a perfect example of an accessory to the main character to the fullest (it’s quite funny how the situation is “supposedly" the other way round). The only new robot to get any space is Sentinel Prime, the others are here to make up numbers for the action. (13/07/2011)

The first major 3D contribution to world cinema: Michael Bay gave up the epileptic editing and the unbearable firing of detail. The action in T3, on the other hand, is often captured in one round-up, in slow motion, resulting in both a magnificent visual aspect and a well-moving camera. Moreover, with some relief, I must say that the unbearable fragmentation of the second film and the ridiculous attempt to turn the Transformers into a metaphysical myth have disappeared. The third film is a completely pure Bay film - the first part is still carried in the classic robot score, the second one gets a little rougher and serves up a Bay-style alien invasion. You won't find greater tricks far and wide, and by finally appreciating the director's ability to tame a giant screen thanks to the epic whole, it must appeal even to hardened skeptics. Everything else is more or less useless, although some of the sub-jokes are good and pave the way for the film to establish a reign of heavy-weight pathos. All those heroic ceilings, compositions with stars and stripes, and due to bad dubbing even guilty pleasure pathos. This is Bay how the mainstream needs it. The last of the Mohicans of high-budget idiocy, protector of clichés, destroyer of invention. I could give 4*, but when I think back on the amused smile and slightly dropped jaw from the visual, T3 is exactly the kind of blockbuster that makes me appreciate things like Thor or X-Men: First Class. With all due respect, Mr. Bay: *** (27/06/2011)

Wow, Michael Bay uses long takes (well, by his standards, don't expect any De Palma rides) and it's one of the best ideas he could have gotten. Similarly, the cameraman has apparently stopped or started drinking and his hand no longer shakes as if he has Parkinson's. This makes the action scenes in Transformers 3 really spectacular and clear. Seriously - compared to the previous two films, this time I even knew which robot was hitting which every time. So that would be the biggest plus. Another positive is the first twenty-five minutes or so of the film dealing with the moon and Chernobyl. Negative aspects? Everything else. Especially the script. It's not so much that it's stupid, I expected that, it's just that it's terribly boring. I mean, almost nothing happens in the first hour and a half (except for the aforementioned beginning), for God's sake! What about John Malkovich and Frances McDormand's characters? Completely unnecessary. Neither of them needed to be in Transformers, not to mention the main character's new girlfriend is as attractive as she is unlikable. At least the action ending was good and there was something to watch in the movie theatre. (19/07/2011)

I went to the cinema thinking I was going to see a five-star film. After the first hour, I knew it was barely going to be 4 stars, and after another half hour I figured I wouldn't give it more than 3 stars. But then came the relentlessly long and repetitive ending and I can't even give it those 3. I liked Huntington-Whiteley until the fights started... then it just got ridiculous. Some of the effects weren't bad, of course, but the 3D was again completely unnecessary. A clean 2 stars. (06/07/2011)