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)

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)

Michael Bay is all about the effects, and honestly, I don’t mind that. Some of the action scenes in this movie must’ve been insane on the big screen. But outside of the action? It was absolute nonsense, almost unmatched in its ridiculousness. And the characters—everyone seemed to be acting like a complete idiot. I could tolerate it in the first movie, but this one was just wild. I love a good blockbuster, but Transformers just isn’t for me. (07/08/2012)

What have I learned this time thanks to Hollywood? 1) There is no negotiating with enemies; enemies get shot. 2) If you have the screenplay for a sci-fi C-movie, not even a 200-million-dollar budget will help you. Leave a bit of that out and this would be so bad that it’s actually entertaining. That’s a shame. The less polished War of the Worlds now looks like the sci-fi action movie of the year. The positive: LaBeouf, some of the action scenes, Bay’s absurd fondness for shiny things costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The negative: everything else. 55% (27/06/2011)