Transformers: Dark of the Moon

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. (09/02/2011)

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. (06/29/2011)

I have bad with disruptive elements when it comes to Transformers. After a terrible experience with part two I went to the Imax, in the morning... but still I encountered kids. They were chatting away and kicking my seat from behind. And I think they didn’t even notice the movie going on. The screenplay... ehm... is some super serious conspiracy nonsense where there were fewer dumb jokes than last time, which is good, but at the same time so much happens that 154 minutes was just too little. Perhaps the director’s cut will be more satisfying in this respect. So that’s that. Now to the action, which is awesome as always, much more synoptic and the final action sequence that takes up the last fifty minutes of the movie is actually in 3D, just incredible. I actually had the feeling that Bay made Transformers 3 just to push the boundaries of 3D technology even closer to perfection. The highlight is probably the paratrooper mission in Chicago. Otherwise, the actors give their standard performances, Malkovich was really quite entertaining, and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (one of the most beautiful new faces) is a perfect example of an accessory to the main character to the fullest (it’s quite funny how the situation is “supposedly" the other way round). The only new robot to get any space is Sentinel Prime, the others are here to make up numbers for the action. (07/12/2011)

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. (07/09/2011)

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. (07/06/2011)