Transformers: Dark of the Moon

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)

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)

Finishing epic trilogies is traditionally an ungrateful job. Michael Bay managed to bring Optimus, Bumblebee, and the other Autobots to the end of their journey in the weakest installment, but that is not a disgrace after the mesmerizing first film and the fairy tale-mythological sequel. The third Transformers are occasionally funny, occasionally less so, occasionally frightening, but above all, they are so grandiose from about one-third of the runtime that it almost tears apart all the senses. What unfolds in Chicago is an audiovisual experience that leaves the viewer stunned all the way home. But what elevated the entire trilogy for me is mainly the fact that this story was never about the largest number of scrapped metal. Yes, it will always be a battle between Autobots and Decepticons, but many people forget that amidst all the adventure, a young boy grew up. The one who first rode in a yellow Camaro three films ago and ultimately saved the world because of it. Three times. (12/07/2011)

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)

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)