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. (18/07/2011)

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. (30/06/2011)

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. (29/06/2011)

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)

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. (02/09/2011)