It is no secret that I disliked the first two Transformers films. In fact, I employ no hyperbole whatsoever in admitting that I, for lack of a more expressive word, utterly loathed them. There are those who claim Transformers: Dark of the Moon is light years better than its predecessors. Do not believe their rancid deceit. While director Michael Bay—who recently admitted the second film in the franchise was repugnant—has clearly learned some valuable lessons, they are not of a sufficient caliber to elevate the film out of the misogynistic, infantile and puerile sewer from whence it was first conceived. About the best that can be said for this dreadful piece of cinematic rubbish is that it is only slightly better than the second installment—and that was one of the worst reviewed films of 2009.
When it is discovered that the space race of the 1960s was the result of a crashed alien spacecraft on the moon—a spacecraft containing a weapon so powerful it virtually ensures humankind’s complete destruction—both the Autobots, led by Optimus Prime (voice of Peter Cullen), and the Decepticons instigate an interstellar war to posses it. Caught in the middle, as usual, is Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and his Megan Fox body-double Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whitley). If they and their well-chiseled friends cannot find a way to stop the Decepticons, Earth will be lost forever.
I hope, if the categorizers at Netflix are worth the money they are paid, that all the Transformers films will soon be classified under the heading: “Comedy.” As I said in an earlier review, Transformers “suffers from an almost pathological aversion to taking itself seriously.” This, and indeed each of the three films, could be immeasurably improved simply by expurgating the more absurd comic elements. If you hated the racist, jive-talking twins from the last movie, they’ve been replaced this go round by Mini-Me versions. Did you find Sam’s dullard parents taxing comic relief? Now they come in matching tracksuits and contemplate the size of their son’s penis. Did you think John Turturro’s Oedipal secret agent was a preposterous cartoon masquerading as a man? Well this time he’s joined in his idiotic antics by the likes of The Hangover’s Ken Jeong, John Malkovich and, most regrettably, Alan Tudyk as a gay, German, ex-secret agent now celebrity personal assistant—if it made sense, do you think I’d mention it?
Regardless of what you might have heard, screenwriter Ehren Kruger is phenomenally talented. How else can you explain the fact that his literary voice so perfectly matches that of former screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, replicating with uncanny precision the same senselessness and stupidity for which they have proven themselves capable time and again. Dark of the Moon continues to rely on brainless jokes, inane humor, an incoherent plot and profoundly banal dialogue rather than treat the material and the audience seriously. Should you feel the need to counter with the objection that a movie about giant talking robots is hardly fodder for serious filmmaking, might I point you toward The Dark Knight or X-Men: First Class, two equally silly premises that succeed specifically because their filmmakers understood that the audience will follow the artist courageous enough to siphon drama from drek.
What Kruger does succeed in doing is crafting a richer story than we have seen before, incorporating threads of rousing NASA history and injecting just enough conspiracy to keep things crackling. The inclusion of sci-fi legend Leonard Nimoy (Star Trek’s Mr. Spock) as newcomer Sentinel Prime is also a nice touch, even if Kruger takes it too far by presumptuously—and improperly—incorporating a classic Star Trek line. (He also introduces a moment of such cosmic scientific wrongness that any school child dumb enough to talk their parents into a ticket should walk out in protest.)
Bay too has managed to correct some of his former missteps (though gutting his penchant for excess and superfluousness isn’t among them), making more than a commendable use of the 3D medium, something all too atypical in the regrettable 3D glut. His camera seems to have stumbled on the perfect sense of scale between man and machine, and he holds his crisp action shots for a much longer time than usual, allowing us, at last, to comprehend the action. He’s even managed to create the feeling of genuine, epic peril, though, in doing so, is merely ripping off every alien invasion movie that’s vanguarded the way, from Independence Day to Battle: Los Angeles. One scene involving a careening skyscraper—the only one to even marginally quicken my pulse—is breathtakingly well done.
The final hour of this bloated, 160-minute, brain dead behemoth (and yes, you will feel every second of it) is one long action sequence. If Transformers: Dark of the Moon is even remotely successful, it is thanks to the sheer spectacle and overwhelming sensory avalanche of this one sustained scene—the destruction of Chicago (inexplicable except when you consider that this sort of carnage wrought in, say, Manhattan, would strike most as tactless). You won’t miss a thing should you decide to show up late to the theater and slip in slightly more than half way through the film’s running time. But be warned: the prolonged climax is an unrepentant sonic assault; I literally left the theater with a pounding headache.
There is no arguing with the fact that Michael Bay is a slick director. The former commercial and music video man hasn’t changed his style or technique a whit since he first broke onto the scene. What is Transformers but Estée Lauder with explosions? Although one could have argued all along—and the weight of the evidence is inescapable given the third film—that the Transformers franchise is little more than a trio of flag-waving, jingoistic, military recruitment commercials. With hot girls. And even hotter cars. And Bill O’Reilly. Yes, Bill O’Reilly. What’s more American than that? All that’s missing is Optimus Prime cutting down Megatron while shouting, “Oorah!” Come to think of it, baseball is another quintessential component of Americana, Mr. Bay, and in the words of the umpire, “Strike Three! You’re out!”
© Copyright 2011 Brandon Fibbs. All rights reserved.
Directed by Michael BayStarring: Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whitley, Peter Cullen, Ken Jeong, John Malkovich, Alan Tudyk, Josh Duhamel, John Turturro, Frances McDormand, Kevin Dunn, Tyrese Gibson, Patrick Dempsey
Rated PG-13 for intense prolonged sequences of sci-fi action violence, mayhem and destruction, and for language, some sexuality and innuendo.
Running Time: 158 minutes






6 responses so far ↓
1 Dan O. // Jul 1, 2011 at 9:33 am
It’s an improvement over the second one, which isn’t saying much, but still is a very fun blockbuster filled with action, destruction, romance, robots, and Michael Bay once again letting loose on all the special effects and action there is to let loose. Good Review! Check out mine when you can!
2 Shane // Jul 1, 2011 at 2:02 pm
I contend that Transformers is probably the worst trilogy in the history of film, with the possible exception of Rush Hour (or some other franchise I’m not thinking of). Though at least Rush Hour was funny in its own moronic sort of way. The Transformers films are just a bad joke on every level.
3 Daniel Fordemwalt // Jul 1, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I loved this movie along with the previous 2 installments(maybe i am biased being that I am a longtime transformers fan). It delivers what it promised, which is insane action, breathtaking special effects, impending apocalyptic doom, and among other things Transformers doing on the big screen what many of us have grown to love in cartoons and toys of our childhood.
Bashing Michael Bay films seems to be a beloved passtime in the drab unimportant world of today’s community of critics. If his movies are “mindless jumbled crap” as most critics would claim then I’m sure that a critic could quite easily, with their vastly superior knowledge of what makes a good flick, take his formula and top what Bay has done time and time again at the box office. I say let the box office speak for a movies’ quality and goodness. Great movies do well in theaters because the audience loves them despite the futile attempts of critics to ruin everyone’s fun by telling the masses what is acceptable in a great movie.
“I literally left the theater with a pounding headache”. Really? You sound really old and boring with commnts like this. You clearly missed the point of the movie.
I will be surprised if this comment is actually approved for posting because it may not be what
Mr. Fibbs would like associated with his review. But, If he truly is for what critics stand for than it is his obligation to post this.
All In all I whole heartedly disagree with Mr. Fibbs review. I think it was great and I can’t wait to see it again in the theater as the grand finale of a back to back transformers marathon.
4 Daniel Fordemwalt // Jul 1, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I stand corrected. I thought this would surely be screened for content. Though our opinions are vastly different, I commend Mr. Fibbs for allowing comments to be posted without screening. He is true to what he as a critic stands for, which is criticism good or bad. Much respect
5 Brandon Fibbs // Jul 2, 2011 at 12:52 pm
In the future Daniel, might I suggest that you attack what the critic says rather than the critic himself. It makes for a much more legitimate argument.
The thing you and many others have to realize Daniel, is that critics are not some sort of monolithic group that always thinks exactly the same way. That this should be obvious is, well, obvious, but you are hardly alone is the assumption. A quick look at Rotten Tomatoes, for instance, reveals this to be true. Critics are individuals and as such, we all come away from a film with the exact same differing opinions as a group of you and your friends. As such, it does no good at attack critics en-mass. Simply attack those with whom you must disagree–like me! (As a slight aside, I should point out that the consensus of those individual critics is that “Transformers” sucks–just had to point that out!)
You apply a curious capitalistic economic principle to your movie watching. If a movie makes money, it must be good. It therefore logically follows that if it makes little money, it is bad, yes? I think we both know that we can find hundreds of films you and I both love/hate that will utterly obliterate this flawed line of reasoning.
Oh, and if you read my first “Transformers” review (http://brandonfibbs.com/2007/07/03/transformers), you will see that I too grew up a fan of the toys and cartoon. Loving them and hating these new films is not, I assure, impossible. It is, I have clearly argued, the only sane reaction.
Lastly, what is, since you mentioned it, the point of this movie?
6 Nathaniel // Jul 3, 2011 at 8:32 am
Thanks Brandon, for articulating everything I’ve felt that is wrong with not just this movie, but the whole series of movies so far.
Sorry Daniel, but I can’t understand how as someone who grew up watching and enjoying the original transformers, that you can enjoy these new movies in the same vein. They have no common ground except for the fact that they use the same names and logos of the autobots and decepticons, on top of that to make such a unintelligent movie, just mocks us as viewers, fans or not.
If Michael Bay (and the writers involved) wants to make a big budget mindless action movie, do it on their own idea and story, but don’t take something which is good, and pull the life out of it, in the name of money.
Leave a Comment