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)

Dark of the Moon is another of the fantastic highway action flicks that are becoming the director’s most reliable trademark. The spectacularly flying marines, following the example of The Dark Knight’s flight in Hong Kong, and the final action inferno in Chicago are pure action pleasure. For a Bay movie, it is also unusually easy to follow. But the rest of the running time, i.e. at least half of the film, is humorless, boring and at times annoying like never before. John Malkovich’s character is horrible, and watching Frances McDormand and John Turturro making idiots of themselves goes beyond the limit of the audience’s endurance. And in which television mini-series did they find Patrick Dempsey and Rosie Huntington- Whiteley? Megan Fox, we miss you. I will probably burn in hell for giving the third Transformers the same number of stars as Trier’s Melancholia, but what can I do? Michael Bay is a talented commercial creator, sold out to the US military, US government and unscrupulous corporations, while embodying the glittering shine and the technical insurmountability of Hollywood possibilities. Take his camera away and we won’t have anyone to hate and admire at the same time. (01/07/2011)

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)

Bringing epic trilogies to a close is traditionally a thankless job. Michael Bay managed to bring Optimus, Bumblebee, and the other Autobots to the end of their journey in the weakest installment, but that's no disgrace after the mesmerizing first film and the fairy tale-mythological sequel. The third Transformers film is occasionally funny, occasionally not so much, occasionally frightening, but above all, so grandiose from about a third of the way through the running time that it almost tears apart all your senses. What unfolds in Chicago is an audiovisual experience that leaves the viewer stunned the whole way home. But what elevated the entire trilogy for me is mainly the fact that this story was never about the largest amount of scrapped metal. Yes, it will always be a battle between the Autobots and Decepticons, but many people forget that amidst all the adventure, a young boy became all grown up. The one who first rode in a yellow Camaro three films ago and as a result ultimately saved the world... three times. (12/07/2011)

I will divide Transformers 3 into three parts: 1) the dialogues, 2) the action set pieces (the motorway and the skyscraper), and 3) the remaining filler. Thumbs up for 2), but for 1) and 3) Bay deserves to have his ass kicked. Otherwise, I hope that this third part puts an end to this insult to science fiction (yeah, I know, I don’t have to watch it, but as a sci-fi fan, I was again unable to listen to the warnings that said: “Don’t watch this bullshit!”). (30/12/2011)