Transformers: Dark of the Moon

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: *** (06/27/2011)

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. (06/30/2011)

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. (07/12/2011)

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 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)