Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: my transformers 3 review

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: my transformers 3 review Page: <<   < prev  15 16 17 [18] 19   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: my transformers 3 review - 8/7/2011 6:03:51 AM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
If that is Kermode and not just someone shamelessly stealing from him, I'm disappointed that the phrase "Cluster-fruitcake" didn't make it to the print review. 

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 511
RE: my transformers 3 review - 8/7/2011 7:45:03 AM   
UTB


Posts: 9931
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

quote:

ORIGINAL: massacretheatre

During the decline of the Roman Empire, the games put on at the Colosseum became increasingly absurd. They begun filling the arena with water, ships, wilder animals, more exuberant battles etc, and why? Because when any kind of entity is on the verge of collapse, they become more ridiculous and out of whack than ever. Michael Bay's "Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon” (do Pink Floyd have copyright over the word "side”?) is important for a singular reason: it symbolizes the progressive inevitability of the end of 3D cinema. No it is not the end of stupid, pointless films, stupid films will always be made, and there will always be a Michael Bay to make them, however this will be one of the last times audiences will have to pay 20% extra for their ticket plus glasses charges, the end is so utterly nigh for 3D – and for this, and this alone, I thank Transformers 3. But let's put the technology "debate” (there isn't a debate) on ice for the moment, and let's focus on the actual content of Transformers 3, of which is impressively offensive.

The plot isn't especially worth going in to - it is doubtful many of those involved in making the film even have a vague idea of the plot, but essentially the mechanics of the so called narrative allow for the usual lurid misogyny, the sexualisation of a child's toy, racial generalizations which border on racism, MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS and more within a 2 hours plus struggle of a film which serves to fulfil the Bay-ist pornographic sensibility.

Charisma vacuum Shia Labeouf stars alongside debut "actress” Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Getting the role whilst meeting director Michael Bay on the set of a Victoria Secret advert, her role is nothing more than another car or another explosion in the film, and it her best another contribution to the culture of misogyny. A particular scene stands out, in which a man talks about a car: "doesn't she have incredible curves” and more increasingly excessive lurid comments which lead us to the realization that to Michael Bay a female is nothing more than a disposable THING to fulfil men's voyeuristic desires and have nothing valuable to offer other than their appearance and (if you're really lucky and they are actually worth a man's time) a passing interest in cars.

Cameos with John Tuturro, Frances McDormand and John Malcovich are nothing more than acting set-peices to plug the holes for the lack of acting ability from the leading cast; Tuturo particularly excels however these cameos serve to only enlighten us that Michael Bay sees acting as another special effect, there is nothing cinematic about this disgustingly mechanical (pun intended) franchise. Because of this, you can't really judge this as a film, and it's important to recognize this in order to retain some of one's sanity.

Yes, we're a planet of morons and this will go against the promising trend that "Inception” and "The Dark Knight” set in which there seemed to be some kind of second wave of enlightenment over mankind and people seemed to want to actually THINK when going to see a big budget mainstream film – Transformers 3 demands nothing of your intellect or imagination, just of your wallet and WAY too much of your time (hilariously it runs for more than 2 and a half hours). Its inevitable climb to the top of the box-office will briefly reignite belief that there is still hope for 3D (at least with the studio's money men), however what about for us? Don't worry we've done our research here. The most successful 3D film ever in terms of money earned against money spent is a 1960's film called "The Stewardesses” of which the tagline is: "the leggy lovelies leap off the screen and in to your lap”. "Transformers 3” is in good company here, it is a lurid, soft-core porn sex-comedy hybrid that is difficult to not find offensive.

Famously, Bay once described his film making style as "fucking the frame". This is opposed to, for example, taking the frame out for a casual stroll on a Sunday afternoon, maybe take the frame out to see it's favourite play, or perhaps even going out to dinner with the frame and offering to pay the bill AND the frames cab home. Bay seems to revel in being some kind of shameless cinematic anti-Christ, and we seem helpless to stop him from raping our cinema. And yes, it is our cinema, and this is artistic rape and it really needs to stop.


Mark Kemode,welcome to the boards!



I wasn't convinced until I saw 'Inception' mentioned, now I'm sold.

Hello Mark.

(in reply to darth silas)
Post #: 512
RE: my transformers 3 review - 8/7/2011 9:36:06 AM   
Invader_Ace


Posts: 1586
Joined: 31/7/2008
It's some guy called John Shammas.

That's right,  the internet is on to you..

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 513
RE: my transformers 3 review - 8/7/2011 9:53:12 AM   
Scruffybobby

 

Posts: 4341
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House
quote:

ORIGINAL: Invader_Ace

It's some guy called John Shammas.

That's right,  the internet is on to you..


I think Dr K might have something to say about the copyright notice at the bottom of "John's" review.


_____________________________

"You're only given a little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it." - Robin Williams

(in reply to Invader_Ace)
Post #: 514
RE: Your star ratings are screwed - 8/7/2011 9:53:42 AM   
Holly_2208

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 8/7/2011
I think its a good film :)

< Message edited by Holly_2208 -- 8/7/2011 10:02:02 AM >

(in reply to tommypocket)
Post #: 515
RE: my transformers 3 review - 8/7/2011 10:08:07 AM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006
quote:

It's some guy called John Shammas.

That's right, the internet is on to you..



Ooh, maybe Mark Kermode has an (evil?) clone!

(in reply to Invader_Ace)
Post #: 516
RE: Was this a review by a professional film critic??? - 8/7/2011 11:53:07 AM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 4000
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimmius


The film is simply fun to watch. And I think that's what these kind of films is all about. If you go in and expect to see something that will touch your heart or make your mind a knot with its script then yes you are going to be disappointed. Its an action blockbuster and nothing more but it's a GREAT one.




Another one to the "collection."

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph
Post #: 517
RE: Was this a review by a professional film critic??? - 8/7/2011 12:21:40 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8297
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimmius
The film is simply fun to watch. And I think that's what these kind of films is all about. If you go in and expect to see something that will touch your heart or make your mind a knot with its script then yes you are going to be disappointed. Its an action blockbuster and nothing more but it's a GREAT one.

I disagree. I expected a Transformers movie. Instead I had to sit through an hour and a half of Sam's First Job.

quote:


The script is just fine. It gives a different perspective to some historic events to set a background for the story based on some conspiracy theories. But after a while the background setting of the story becomes irrelevant

The script is a turgid mess. Stories and plotlines are abandoned without warning or explanation. Characters pop up and then disappear just as suddenly.

quote:


All in all the film delivers like it should it's a fun action film its not that memorable but it deserves more than 2 stars I would give it 3.5 if I could but the scoring system here is imba

The last adjective I'd apply to this movie is 'fun'. And I was ready to shout "Bingo!" there for the comment about the rating system but you left it unfinished, you tease. 
Post #: 518
RE: my transformers 3 review - 8/7/2011 4:29:28 PM   
shool


Posts: 10141
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: massacretheatre

During the decline of the Roman Empire, the games put on at the Colosseum became increasingly absurd. They begun filling the arena with water, ships, wilder animals, more exuberant battles etc, and why? Because when any kind of entity is on the verge of collapse, they become more ridiculous and out of whack than ever. Michael Bay's "Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon” (do Pink Floyd have copyright over the word "side”?) is important for a singular reason: it symbolizes the progressive inevitability of the end of 3D cinema. No it is not the end of stupid, pointless films, stupid films will always be made, and there will always be a Michael Bay to make them, however this will be one of the last times audiences will have to pay 20% extra for their ticket plus glasses charges, the end is so utterly nigh for 3D – and for this, and this alone, I thank Transformers 3. But let's put the technology "debate” (there isn't a debate) on ice for the moment, and let's focus on the actual content of Transformers 3, of which is impressively offensive.

The plot isn't especially worth going in to - it is doubtful many of those involved in making the film even have a vague idea of the plot, but essentially the mechanics of the so called narrative allow for the usual lurid misogyny, the sexualisation of a child's toy, racial generalizations which border on racism, MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS and more within a 2 hours plus struggle of a film which serves to fulfil the Bay-ist pornographic sensibility.

Charisma vacuum Shia Labeouf stars alongside debut "actress” Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Getting the role whilst meeting director Michael Bay on the set of a Victoria Secret advert, her role is nothing more than another car or another explosion in the film, and it her best another contribution to the culture of misogyny. A particular scene stands out, in which a man talks about a car: "doesn't she have incredible curves” and more increasingly excessive lurid comments which lead us to the realization that to Michael Bay a female is nothing more than a disposable THING to fulfil men's voyeuristic desires and have nothing valuable to offer other than their appearance and (if you're really lucky and they are actually worth a man's time) a passing interest in cars.

Cameos with John Tuturro, Frances McDormand and John Malcovich are nothing more than acting set-peices to plug the holes for the lack of acting ability from the leading cast; Tuturo particularly excels however these cameos serve to only enlighten us that Michael Bay sees acting as another special effect, there is nothing cinematic about this disgustingly mechanical (pun intended) franchise. Because of this, you can't really judge this as a film, and it's important to recognize this in order to retain some of one's sanity.

Yes, we're a planet of morons and this will go against the promising trend that "Inception” and "The Dark Knight” set in which there seemed to be some kind of second wave of enlightenment over mankind and people seemed to want to actually THINK when going to see a big budget mainstream film – Transformers 3 demands nothing of your intellect or imagination, just of your wallet and WAY too much of your time (hilariously it runs for more than 2 and a half hours). Its inevitable climb to the top of the box-office will briefly reignite belief that there is still hope for 3D (at least with the studio's money men), however what about for us? Don't worry we've done our research here. The most successful 3D film ever in terms of money earned against money spent is a 1960's film called "The Stewardesses” of which the tagline is: "the leggy lovelies leap off the screen and in to your lap”. "Transformers 3” is in good company here, it is a lurid, soft-core porn sex-comedy hybrid that is difficult to not find offensive.

Famously, Bay once described his film making style as "fucking the frame". This is opposed to, for example, taking the frame out for a casual stroll on a Sunday afternoon, maybe take the frame out to see it's favourite play, or perhaps even going out to dinner with the frame and offering to pay the bill AND the frames cab home. Bay seems to revel in being some kind of shameless cinematic anti-Christ, and we seem helpless to stop him from raping our cinema. And yes, it is our cinema, and this is artistic rape and it really needs to stop.


This is a bonafide piece of art.



Amen!



_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 519
RE: my transformers 3 review - 8/7/2011 8:28:32 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: massacretheatre

During the decline of the Roman Empire, the games put on at the Colosseum became increasingly absurd. They begun filling the arena with water, ships, wilder animals, more exuberant battles etc, and why? Because when any kind of entity is on the verge of collapse, they become more ridiculous and out of whack than ever. Michael Bay's "Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon” (do Pink Floyd have copyright over the word "side”?) is important for a singular reason: it symbolizes the progressive inevitability of the end of 3D cinema. No it is not the end of stupid, pointless films, stupid films will always be made, and there will always be a Michael Bay to make them, however this will be one of the last times audiences will have to pay 20% extra for their ticket plus glasses charges, the end is so utterly nigh for 3D – and for this, and this alone, I thank Transformers 3. But let's put the technology "debate” (there isn't a debate) on ice for the moment, and let's focus on the actual content of Transformers 3, of which is impressively offensive.

The plot isn't especially worth going in to - it is doubtful many of those involved in making the film even have a vague idea of the plot, but essentially the mechanics of the so called narrative allow for the usual lurid misogyny, the sexualisation of a child's toy, racial generalizations which border on racism, MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS and more within a 2 hours plus struggle of a film which serves to fulfil the Bay-ist pornographic sensibility.

Charisma vacuum Shia Labeouf stars alongside debut "actress” Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Getting the role whilst meeting director Michael Bay on the set of a Victoria Secret advert, her role is nothing more than another car or another explosion in the film, and it her best another contribution to the culture of misogyny. A particular scene stands out, in which a man talks about a car: "doesn't she have incredible curves” and more increasingly excessive lurid comments which lead us to the realization that to Michael Bay a female is nothing more than a disposable THING to fulfil men's voyeuristic desires and have nothing valuable to offer other than their appearance and (if you're really lucky and they are actually worth a man's time) a passing interest in cars.

Cameos with John Tuturro, Frances McDormand and John Malcovich are nothing more than acting set-peices to plug the holes for the lack of acting ability from the leading cast; Tuturo particularly excels however these cameos serve to only enlighten us that Michael Bay sees acting as another special effect, there is nothing cinematic about this disgustingly mechanical (pun intended) franchise. Because of this, you can't really judge this as a film, and it's important to recognize this in order to retain some of one's sanity.

Yes, we're a planet of morons and this will go against the promising trend that "Inception” and "The Dark Knight” set in which there seemed to be some kind of second wave of enlightenment over mankind and people seemed to want to actually THINK when going to see a big budget mainstream film – Transformers 3 demands nothing of your intellect or imagination, just of your wallet and WAY too much of your time (hilariously it runs for more than 2 and a half hours). Its inevitable climb to the top of the box-office will briefly reignite belief that there is still hope for 3D (at least with the studio's money men), however what about for us? Don't worry we've done our research here. The most successful 3D film ever in terms of money earned against money spent is a 1960's film called "The Stewardesses” of which the tagline is: "the leggy lovelies leap off the screen and in to your lap”. "Transformers 3” is in good company here, it is a lurid, soft-core porn sex-comedy hybrid that is difficult to not find offensive.

Famously, Bay once described his film making style as "fucking the frame". This is opposed to, for example, taking the frame out for a casual stroll on a Sunday afternoon, maybe take the frame out to see it's favourite play, or perhaps even going out to dinner with the frame and offering to pay the bill AND the frames cab home. Bay seems to revel in being some kind of shameless cinematic anti-Christ, and we seem helpless to stop him from raping our cinema. And yes, it is our cinema, and this is artistic rape and it really needs to stop.


This is a bonafide piece of art.



Amen!





For a second I thought you were referring to Transformers: Dark of the Moon


(in reply to shool)
Post #: 520
RE: Damn product placements - 9/7/2011 1:46:17 PM   
TheFuzz_1989


Posts: 399
Joined: 16/9/2010
Great start, Great last half an hour or so.

Middle: blergh! Messy, messy, messy. Plot goes no-where.
Main criticisms:
Rosie Huntington-Whitely: sucked the life out of every scene she was in, although I'm sure all of you know this.
Script recycling: probably the biggest offender. Compare this checklist between RoTF and DoTM
1: Have a prologue featuring Optimus narrating about a lost part from Cybertron (ahem, plot device) that was lost/found.. Check.
2: Action scene showing the autobots and NEST on a special mission... Check.
3: Oh, lets see what Sam is up to.. Cue gratuitous shot of current girlfriend in provocative position... Check.
4: Sam's parents meddling and being annoying... 5 min of screentime than we won't see them until the start of the last part... Check
5: Middle-section build up to final big action scene... cue Cameos... Check
6: Last hour of action in city/ desert.... Check
7: Pointless closing narration by Optimus Prime.... Check
8: Linkin Park song over end credits.... Check

Don't get me wrong though, the first 20 minutes and the last act almost make up for the mistakes. I'll give it 3 stars.
Post #: 521
Transformers : Dark of The Moon - 9/7/2011 8:59:32 PM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005
Saw it in IMAX 3D...

Potential wasted.
Post #: 522
RE: Transformers : Dark of The Moon - 9/7/2011 9:04:44 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

Saw it in IMAX 3D...

Potential wasted.


How so?

_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 523
RE: Transformers : Dark of The Moon - 10/7/2011 12:13:51 PM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005
SPOILERS


I liked the idea of Decepticons working with humans under the radar, that could have been expanded more. The film also needed more of a climax, Prime and Megatron should have a longer more intense final stand off. Megatron's death was too abrupt.


(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 524
RE: Transformers : Dark of The Moon - 10/7/2011 12:54:06 PM   
cerebusboy


Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

Saw it in IMAX 3D...

Potential wasted.


How so?



Perhaps because the dude had the "potential" to do something worthwhile with 2 1/2 hours of his time?

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 525
RE: Transformers : Dark of The Moon - 10/7/2011 2:52:48 PM   
CORLEONE

 

Posts: 4711
Joined: 2/11/2005
From: Nakatomi Plaza
"You're just Sentinel's bitch" - this is where I felt nauseous.

_____________________________

Al Swearengen: "Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back".

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 526
RE: Your star ratings are screwed - 11/7/2011 2:06:33 PM   
blackduck


Posts: 1604
Joined: 1/10/2005
SPOILERS

Right start with the positive.
The 3D is excellent, best I've seen since Avatar, Bay really seems to know how to get the best out of it.
The battle at the end is surprisingly enjoyable once you ignore the plot.
The Megan Fox replacement has amazing lips.
Better than the second one

Aaaand the bad..
Sam is a whiney git, could care less about his job hunt
The Transformers barely have any screen time , Deciptacons hardly in it at all.
Plot makes no sense, who came up with the big plan? Megatron was frozen for most of it.
The Deceptacons involved creative accounting......couldn't just sabatage the rockets, no they made the moon project financially unviable, the bastards.
Why didn't Sentinal take the Matrix when OP offered it to him??? An entire movie was dedicated to that thing.
Why did Sentinal swap sides? Sure made sense during the war, but Megatron had been whipped twice by Prime, Autobots were the winning side now.

I could go on and on, how hard it it to write a straight forward movie about a bunch of robots beating each other up.


_____________________________

I am but an egg.

(in reply to tommypocket)
Post #: 527
RE: Your star ratings are screwed - 11/7/2011 2:16:21 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8297
Joined: 31/7/2008
I've just remembered, did anyone else think it was weird when Sam (or rather, Shia's obvious stunt double) suddenly became like some champion free-runner during the end battle?

(in reply to blackduck)
Post #: 528
RE: Your star ratings are screwed - 11/7/2011 2:18:48 PM   
jcthefirst


Posts: 4426
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Bangor
My review, from my blog. Apologies if it reads like a rant and becomes non-sensical.

quote:

Ok, deep breath.

The supposedly final part of the Transformers trilogy is here. And it’s exactly what you’d expect.
This is not a good thing.

I could just review it as the leave your brain at the door kind of movie it is, and as that kind of movie it’s great. The action is fantastic, there’s a lot of it, and it has MASSIVE TRANFORMING ROBOTS FIGHTING FFS!!!!!!!!!! But I’ll choose to be critical instead and put my serious film reviewer head on. Just for you.

I’ll get the good stuff out of the way first:

- MASSIVE TRANSFORMING ROBOTS FIGHTING!!!!!!!! IN 3D!!!!!!!
- Shia LeBoeuf is as likeable in this as he is in the other two.
- Rosie Thingummy-Whatsherface isn’t as bad as reported and does alright.
- Um, did I mention there’s MASSIVE TRANSFORMING ROBOTS FIGHTING? Cause there is.

And now, the bad.

The plot makes literally no sense whatsoever, and all the characters (especially both Autobots and Decepticons) do stupid things in order to advance the next nonsensical part of the plot. The one thing that hugely annoyed me though, was when Optimus Prime gave Sentinel Prime the Matrix of Leadership, which is something that would have been useful for him to have once he SPOILER eventually turns evil. And despite no-one being suspicious of Sentinel at this point, he decides to give it back to Optimus without a second thought.


OPTIMUS!

And slightly earlier, Megatron (who for some reason decides that wearing a head scarf is enough to warrant the Transfomers mantra of ‘robots in disguise’) tells his pet bird transformer (seriously) to kill anyone who knew of the ship that landed on the moon back in the 60’s. This is a ship that contains Sentinel Prime, who is the only one who can activate this super gizmo that could end the war between the Autos and the Deceptions. So, when after the pet bird kills Ken Jeong’s conspiracy theorist Deep Wang (groan) and makes it look like a suicide, all covert-like, what does the robot then do? It proceeds to attack Sam, outing itself as the killer of Wang in the first place.

And, and, when it is revealed that Megatron and Sentinel were working together, it makes you wonder why Megatron just didn’t go and wake him up sooner. I mean Starscream flew into space at the end of the first movie; couldn’t Megatron have said to him at one point “Yo ‘scream, scoot on up to the moon and wake up Sentinel. We’ve got this super secret plan to destroy everything.” And then, we wouldn’t have had the stupidly convoluted plan of tricking the Autobots into finding an engine part of the Ark (the moon spaceship), which leads Optimus to awaken Sentinel and kick this whole thing off.



OPTIMUS!

Later on the Autobots are told to leave Earth, because the Decepticons are evil. This makes literally no sense. Sending away the good robots that can protect you because the bad robots that are still on the planet and won’t leave willingly have threatened to kill you. And then SPOILER the Autobots get blown up because the Decepticons are, shock horror, untrustworthy. So now, the only thing that could protect the humans is gone, because the humans told them to go. Don’t worry though, the Autobots aren’t really dead. Not that you think they are for a second anyway. In fact, they only reveal themselves again after most of Chicago has been obliterated, with thousands killed, apparently because us earthlings needed to be taught a lesson about how the Decepticons shouldn’t be trusted. WHICH WE KNEW ALREADY!!!! Thanks, retarded US Government, and fuck you very much Optimus. People are fucking dying here.

(Dammit, I was going to try and not swear, but thinking about these things just makes my brain hurt, and also very very angry.)



OPTIMUS!

And also, what were those other Transformers doing on the moon? They didn’t need to be revived like Sentinel Prime did. They just apparently woke up when the space bridge teleporter thing was turned on. Were they just chilling out on the moon for the past 50 years since the Ark crashed? And that’s another thing, the start of the movie says that Sentinel was trying to escape on the Ark during the Cybertron War, but the Decepticons shot him down. Why? If he was in league with the Decepticons, why would they have shot him down at all? And if only Sentinel knew of the alliance why did all those Transformers on the moon suddenly turn bad. One assumes they were on the Ark, and therefore as Sentinel was still a good robot at the time, they were good robots too.

I could list a whole load more of these stupid stupid little annoyances, but it’d take far too long.



OPTIMUS!

Also, for a movie that is about MASSIVE ROBOTS FIGHTING!!!!!! It takes a while before we see any actual fighting. There’s like 2 big set pieces in the first hour and a half, and then the final 40 minute battle. Which yeah is cool, but you sort of get a bit fatigued by the end of it. It doesn’t build and build and build in the way that some great cinematic battles have, like in Return of the King for example. Its big battle here, big battle somewhere else, and another one somewhere else again. They all seem to happen one after the other. Some inter-cutting would have been nice.

And worst of all, Optimus Prime is taken out of the battle for twenty minutes by, get this, getting tangled in a bunch of cables. This is Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots, who now apparently needs to tow around a truck that carries his weapons in it, and is useless without them, despite having concealed blades up his robot sleeves in the 2nd movie, getting caught in a bunch of fucking wires. It’s stupid, and then the other Autobots get captured which makes them look rubbish in comparison. We're not even shown how Bumblebee et al get captured, just all of a sudden they are. Even though half of them were on the other side of the city a second ago, now they're where they need to be to service the plot. The geography is all fucked up throughout. But it gets worse. At the point where everything seems lost and the Decepticons are about to execute Bumblebee, Optimus shows up out of nowhere and kicks everyone’s ass, saving the day. Ordinarily I would think that was cool, but because Optimus takes everyone out so easily, it the equivalent of the Power Rangers calling in the power sword, whenever things got really tough. Even the action didn’t excite as much as it had previously; I think it’s just a bit of overuse really. I mean, transforming robots was cool 2 movies ago (Optimus transforming in the city at the climax of TF1 is still one the coolest things I’ve ever seen) but now, and it pains me to say it, it kind of boring. In fact, we don't even see the bit that might have been pretty cool, the siege of Chicago by the Decepticons. We just cut to black at one point, and when we come back the city is overrun. I mean I get some things have to happen off screen, but not that. Surely, showing us the plight of some of the humans (the people you'd think we're supposed to care for) would have made the eventual defeat of the Decepticons more powerful. But no, we skip over that bit and don't see the Chicagoans die, because Michael Bay is only interested in the robots.



OPTIMUS!

The final nail in the coffin though was that Rosie Thingummy-Whatsherface’s character is the one who convinces Megatron (Megatron!) to stand up and fight against Sentinel because if Sentinel wins, Megatron will only be his second in command. This is Megatron, leader of a highly advanced race of evil robots, tricked into saving Optimus’ life by a teenager using Psychology 101. And it works. Then despite Megatron saving Optimus’ life, Optimus then goes and flat out executes him. In fact, Optimus is a bit of a dick in this movie, letting the Decepticons destroy Chicago to teach the humans a ‘lesson’ and then killing Megatron who I bet was just about to apologise.



And then, about a minute after Megatron is defeated the movie ends with everyone laughing a chuckling. Don't worry about the thosuands of dead folk littering the streets. As long as Bumblebee makes a cute gag about Sam and Rosie Thingummy-Whatserface getting married and Optimus makes his usual sanctimonious speech, everything is alright.

The next list of bad things aren’t so much plot annoyances, just wee niggling things. Much like Decepticon testicles in the last movie.

- Why do some Transformers have beards? Seriously, this doesn’t make any sense. And why are some of them made to look old? Robots don’t age, and I very much doubt that when they transform there’s a part of their programming that turns their non-transformer form into various facial hair, and/or teeth. Megatron had teeth. Why? This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. And also, one of the Autobots has a Scottish accent and threatens to bottle somebody. I would have foud that funny if it wasn't so fucking ludricrous.
- What the fuck is Malkovich doing in this? He serves no purpose but to be Sam’s dicky boss. Yet he’s shoehorned into the plot at a later point. I don’t remember what he does, but he’s never seen again.
- Alan Tudyk plays a gay, apparently former Nazi, manservant to John Turturro’s now famous ex-FBI agent. I have no words.
- I have no idea who half the transformers were in the movie. In fact the only one I did know was Optimus Prime, because at least one character, normally Sam, screams it every 20 minutes.
-And also, despite being called Dark of the Moon, there is only one point of the movie where it is mentioned and that's right at the start.


OPTIMUS!!!!



So, overall. 2 stars, one for the action, and 1 because it's not utterly irredemmable, but it's pretty close.


_____________________________

@Jonny_C85

My Movie Blog | My Other Various Rantings Blog

(in reply to blackduck)
Post #: 529
RE: Your star ratings are screwed - 11/7/2011 4:01:32 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield
Having really enjoyed the first movie, tolderated the over long second, I was hoping this third (final?) installment would bring back some of the things I thought worked from previous films and ignored all the crap that didn't. In some ways it really does, but for the most part it misses the mark widely.

I thought the 3D was excellent, by far the best 3D I've seen in a film so far, and if other directors start to use 3D in this way, I'll give it the chance. However, judging by the 3D in the Captain America and Harry Potter trailetrs, it's still going to be used as a post production convert and ramp up ticket price excercise. Bay really gets it though and at times, specifically during the opening Space Race scenes and the Chicago finale, the 3D looks stunning. One thing I think helps it, is Bay's use of bright colour and filters. He's a director that doesn't often drag his action scenes into murky darkness, just a pity he too often makes them unwatchable in the edit. However, here he really seemed to reign it in and at it really looks good, and really bright.

I thought Mcdormand, Malcovich and Turturro were great, but all seemed to be in a totally different movie universe to the majority of the cast, but it's often to their credit. I really liked Shia in the first movie, he walked the line between bumbling geek and reluctant hero pretty well, and his rapid fire line delivery felt pretty fresh. However, two movies in and he's kinda made Witwicky a bit of a prick and the zip of his delivery starts to really annoy me. But it can't have been easy acting alongside a souless hunk of wood. I also think this movie lacked any kind of friendship between Witwicky and Bumblebee, which in the first was pretty well handled.

It's another very average summer blockbuster. It's too long, has a plot that makes no sense and characters do things that dont really make sense (so why exactly was Dempsey working for the bad guys? what was the referecne to his father and NASA?), but in it's favour despite its length it moves along at a pace, plus the action scenes are inventive, have scope and geography and the money is all up on screen. Not as good as the first, not as bad as the second.

And another thing, has it ever been explained why Transformers choose to be cars and planes and stuff, because it's established they can be human in form (that ridiculous bird in Revenge) so why not just do that to infiltrate the CIA or whoever to get whatever the fuck it was they were after? Makes no fucking sense. Still, I liked it when that building was all slidey and explodey....

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to jcthefirst)
Post #: 530
RE: Your star ratings are screwed - 12/7/2011 12:24:24 PM   
blackduck


Posts: 1604
Joined: 1/10/2005
ORIGINAL: jcthefirst

quote:

Ok, deep breath.

And slightly earlier, Megatron (who for some reason decides that wearing a head scarf is enough to warrant the Transfomers mantra of 'robots in disguise')


Actually LOLd at that bit.

And when he was in the camp he was basically doing the robot equivelent of feeding the pidgeons.
He was a bit of a broken tragic figure , which makes what Prime did at the end even more dickish.

_____________________________

I am but an egg.

(in reply to jcthefirst)
Post #: 531
RE: Your star ratings are screwed - 12/7/2011 12:42:57 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5099
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
I wasn't keen on all the cold-blooded killings and gangland-style executions dished out by the Autobots. Or the fact that at the beginning they were basically going round murdering people for the governmenet. But neither of those bothered me as much as some of them having spiky hair and fucking beards.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to blackduck)
Post #: 532
RE: Your star ratings are screwed - 12/7/2011 1:37:32 PM   
blackduck


Posts: 1604
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I wasn't keen on all the cold-blooded killings and gangland-style executions dished out by the Autobots. Or the fact that at the beginning they were basically going round murdering people for the governmenet. But neither of those bothered me as much as some of them having spiky hair and fucking beards.


Yeah but they were killing people for the US government so thats ok.....exept for the times they snuck out just to do it for the laugh

< Message edited by blackduck -- 12/7/2011 1:38:47 PM >


_____________________________

I am but an egg.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 533
RE: 2 stars? - 13/7/2011 3:17:33 AM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5099
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
Where did John Malkovich go? Not that he was good or anything - he, Frances McDormand and John Tutturro should hang their heads in shame for enabling such an affront to cinema decency - but did anyone else think it was a bit weird that he just vanished halfway through?

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.
Post #: 534
RE: 2 stars? - 13/7/2011 5:50:12 AM   
hairdbeezt8

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 13/7/2011
I was a huge fan of the cartoon. I thought the first one was pretty good. I walked out of the second one. The third movie started out strong. The first 15 minutes were intriguing. The rest of the movie not so. This is a really long movie. The movie just keeps going and you just want it to end.

< Message edited by hairdbeezt8 -- 13/7/2011 5:51:56 AM >

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 535
RE: 2 stars? - 13/7/2011 12:56:10 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8297
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Where did John Malkovich go? Not that he was good or anything - he, Frances McDormand and John Tutturro should hang their heads in shame for enabling such an affront to cinema decency - but did anyone else think it was a bit weird that he just vanished halfway through?


Yeah, he turns up a Sam's girlfriend's flat, picks a fight with Bumblebee for some inexplicable reason and that's it, out of the film. His whole 'character' was completely stupid and pointless (like all that shit about the colours in his office - I can only assume one of the writers once had a boss like that once and he decided to crowbar it into the movie). Turturro's character is basically nothing more than a lecher now, and McDormand is little more than a conduit for exposition.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 536
RE: 2 stars? - 13/7/2011 2:17:45 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5099
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
Aye, the Bumblebee bit was quite shockingly pointless.
Anyone else find they just can't stop thinking about how terrible this was? I don't think I've been this disturbed since the first time I saw Salo. And I'm someone who loved the first film and even enjoyed the second one. It says something when even the mind-blowing effects/3D, possibly the best I've ever seen in a cinema, still aren't enough to make up for the utter shitness of every single scene involving humans. The bits when the robots are conversing in kiddy-cartoon-level dialogue are way more believable than any scene involving Rosie Huntington Whatserface. And the 'comedy', Christ, the 'comedy'.
The sad thing is the first twenty minutes, the Chernobyl scene and most of the final hour are quite brilliant, spectacle-wise. But jesus, the second any character (and I use that term very fucking loosely) opens their mouth it's as if Michael Bay just smeared dogshit all over the lense.
Truly the worst thing I've seen for years. Makes Revenge Of The Fallen look like The Empire Strikes Back.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 537
RE: 2 stars? - 13/7/2011 3:13:01 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2777
Joined: 12/7/2006
All I want to know is how did Empire justify a second star for this atrocity?

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 538
RE: 2 stars? - 13/7/2011 3:37:19 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
God, this film. A week later and happily most of it has left my memory. 

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 539
RE: 2 stars? - 13/7/2011 4:17:14 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8297
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

God, this film. A week later and happily most of it has left my memory. 


Repressed you mean, to burst out in a welter of rage and tears at a later date.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 540
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 17 [18] 19   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: my transformers 3 review Page: <<   < prev  15 16 17 [18] 19   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.422