Directed by:
Michael BayScreenplay:
Ehren KrugerCinematography:
Amir MokriComposer:
Steve JablonskyCast:
Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Frances McDormand, Hugo Weaving, John Turturro, Tyrese Gibson, John Malkovich, Patrick Dempsey, Ken Jeong (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a 2011 American science fiction-action film. It is the third film of the live-action Transformers film series, directed by Michael Bay and produced by Steven Spielberg. The Autobots learn of a Cybertronian spacecraft hidden on the Moon, and race against the Decepticons to reach it and learn its secrets, which could turn the tide in the Transformers' final battle. The Last Battle! (Paramount Home Entertainment)
(more)Videos (9)
Reviews (15)
Bringing epic trilogies to a close is traditionally a thankless job. Michael Bay managed to bring Optimus, Bumblebee, and the other Autobots to the end of their journey in the weakest installment, but that's no disgrace after the mesmerizing first film and the fairy tale-mythological sequel. The third Transformers film is occasionally funny, occasionally not so much, occasionally frightening, but above all, so grandiose from about a third of the way through the running time that it almost tears apart all your senses. What unfolds in Chicago is an audiovisual experience that leaves the viewer stunned the whole way home. But what elevated the entire trilogy for me is mainly the fact that this story was never about the largest amount of scrapped metal. Yes, it will always be a battle between the Autobots and Decepticons, but many people forget that amidst all the adventure, a young boy became all grown up. The one who first rode in a yellow Camaro three films ago and as a result ultimately saved the world... three times.
()
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%
()
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.
()
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.
()
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: ***
()
Ads