Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Michael Bay plays horribly on effects and I don't blame him for it. In the cinema, some scenes from this movie had to be a real blast. But apart from those action scenes, it was such a mess that maybe it's not equal to any other. Besides, everyone there seemed to behave like a jerk. In the first one, it was still manageable, but this was really crazy. I like blockbusters, but Transformers just aren't for me... (08/07/2012)

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)

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. (07/12/2011)

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% (06/27/2011)

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)