Transformers: Dark of the Moon

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. (2011-07-18)

A perfect example of complete dementia, which does not make sense for even a moment. Fortunately, this is not meant to be watched for its dialogues or logic, but rather because for the technological computer masturbation and the possibility to enjoy the action scenes, which are once more ball-busting. The first twenty minutes are good, the last hour is as exciting as it should be, but the hour of filler in between is totally boring. The first Transformers therefore remain the best part of the trilogy. (2011-09-02)

Less Bay, more Emmerich, or else, out of the frying pan and into the fire. But still easily the best part of the trilogy. And, despite the first half, where there’s a lot of “face-making doubling as humor". But in the second, purely action half, Bay pulled himself together in terms of editing and shaky camera, left out all the “jokey" moments (not even the parents or Turturro get a look after the switch to Chicago) and rolls out one epic scene after another, or rather one hour-long scene. Which is paradoxically a big problem, because so much happens at once and non-stop, without any calmer interjections for a rest, that after a few (ten, twenty...) minutes, you can’t help getting fed up and stupefied. And that’s a shame, because more than one part deserves to be relished; particularly the escapades during the escape from the collapsing skyscraper. Again a confirmation of the hackneyed expression that less is often more. (2011-06-29)

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. (2011-07-09)

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!”). (2011-12-29)