|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon
|
Stu Jamieson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 524
From: Buccan, Qld, Australia
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 07-03-2011 12:37 AM
After the debacle that was Revenge of the Fallen, much hope was held out for this new instalment, Dark of the Moon, amid assurances from the director (Michael Bay) that he'd learnt the lessons of his previous failure. And upon opening it looks like he has. This new film is predicated on a retelling of the space race and America's determination to land the first man on the moon; it turns out that the real mission was to investigate an alien impact which, naturally, turns out to be of Cybertronic origin. Bay nicely segues his story into space race history, interspersing new themed content into archival news footage, exploiting the advantages of contemporary 3D technology to the hilt, setting the tone for something truly special.
And then disaster strikes.
Our reacquaintance with our human hero, the irrepressibly highly strung Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), is via his new unFoxy girlfriend's barely concealed crotch and flawless thighs as she minces seductively up a flight of stairs to an elaborate bed chamber and announces to her beau in sweet sultry English tones, "My hero needs to wake up." Oh please! And then we see her face. She's beautiful with her perfect hair and her perfect lips and her perfect tan and her perfect dimples. In addition to her physical beauty she's also understanding, funny, even tempered. She doesn't even care when Sam is an utter jealous dick when her suave boss (Patrick Dempsey) paws over her, she just laughs it off nonchalantly with a gentle tease. What a gal, eh? Surely this is some wet dream sequence from which Sam will presently awake? (It's almost certainly a literal depiction of one of Bay's wet dreams.) But, alas, no. Surely then this is a replicant-style decepticon as seen in Revenge of the Fallen? Again, apparently not. Apparently we are being asked to accept that this inhuman vessel of utter feminine perfection is real. Previously we have been presented with heroines in the forms of Megan Fox and Rachael Taylor, both beautiful and believable (albeit also overtly exploited) but we believe in them because they were imbued with a spectrum of human characteristics - they get upset, anxious, angry, bitchy, in addition to being loving and compassionate from time to time. I don't know what this new creature is, she's certainly not of our species. Indeed the only time she gets pissed off with Sam is when he decides once again to save the world - weird! Strike 1!
And then we're introduced to not one but two tiresome, supposedly funny, miniature robotic sidekicks. Strike 2!
And then Sam's parents arrive on the scene. What were once a loving but zany couple doting on their only son are now reduced to a one dimensional comedy act; their presence becoming tantamount to Bay raising a great big neon sign saying, "here comes a funny bit!" Strike 3, you're out!
The film has already passed the point of no return by this stage but it gets worse. Taking a turn for the nasty, the autobots are no longer content with terminating decepticons in self defence, now they callously draw and quarter them. Optimus Prime seems completely deranged in his single-minded determination to execute every last decepticon in the most grisly manner possible, spilling gallons of claret-coloured hydraulic fluid on to the streets in the process. He has lost all sense of honour. He has been reduced from valiant warrior to guerrilla. He is no longer a pillar of strength to look up too. He is corrupted. He is Harvey Dent transformed into Two Face (if I may use a Batman analogy).
Now such a turn is not, in principle, invalid but it is completely incongruous with the comedic vehicle Bay has chosen to portray his story. So much so that it gives the film a subliminally sinister tone as we feel we're expected to find this behaviour funny or "cool". It identifies Bay as a film maker sans moral compass.
In a world where we're attempting (quite successfully) to expunge games like "cowboys and Indians" from the minds of our youth, Bay is out there teaching them it's cool and fun to rip our enemies limb from limb and, seemingly, he's getting away with it. It's a logical step from the previous film which saw Megan Fox imprison a miniature decepticon and torture it into submission, only to see the poor little guy wind up with Stockholm Syndrome.
Now I'm certainly no wowser when it comes to on-screen violence and I consider myself a warrior against political correctness but is responsible depiction of violence too much to ask?
There are some serious pacing problems in the latter half of the film. The climactic battle scene runs for a whole hour during which the narrative slows to a standstill. It's ironic that all this frenetic destruction of property, machinery and human lives seems to take forever to complete because amidst all this activity, there's nothing actually going on. Never before has so much action resulted in so little story.
John Malkovich is a beacon of light, adding some much needed class to the otherwise infantile comedy. And Frances McDormand plays it straight amongst all the silliness, adding some much needed gravitas to the proceedings. It's a shame, then, that she should drop so hideously out of character in a post credits vignette. Optimus Prime's new transforming trailer is a welcome addition, a far cry from the simplistic disappearing unit of the cartoon.
Michael Bay's new movie is a parody of itself, and not in a clever way but in a groan-inducing way. All hope of recapturing the fun of the first film seems lost amidst comic quirks which become ever more excruciating with each new entry into this franchise and the action descends into mindless bloody violence played for laughs. As guiding hand and executive producer, Steven Spielberg, of all people, should have know better.
4 out of 10.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-10-2011 03:13 AM
Is this movie supposed to be better than the second one?
I elected to see this on 2D film and not in Ultra 3D Dolby Earfucker Sound. This movie lacks a lot of coherence. It just jumps from place to place and I'm left saying "Wait... what's going on?" You never learn the names of most of the robots, but it doesn't matter much as they pretty much all look the same due to their horrible, clusterfuck design. They got rid of the racist twins and now they have tiny not-as-racist Stoner Twins. They are just as awful. One of them is ALWAYS smoking. What the hell? And who the hell was that giant Autobot that was bald who invented things? Never got his name. Should probably be Wheeljack, but Wheeljack never looked that ghetto.
Did anyone feel as if Shia Leboof's character was representing Michael Bay's ego? Think about it. In the first movie he's all bad-ass. The second movie he's so bad-ass that everybody wants him to come back and save the world and he's the only one who can do it. In this movie he's been dismissed and wants to help but everyone keeps ignoring him. He knows how to help, but the haters won't let him. Finally the haters realize how awesome LaBoof is and he gets to run the show and save the world again.
WTF were those skydiving segments for? Seriously! I don't recall what purpose they served. Maybe to just show off 3D is my guess. And another thing; the Autobots flew to the moon to retrieve an auto part that was sold out at Pep Boys. Then later the Autobots need to leave the planet. But then Laboofy-boof whines "The Autobots don't have a ship!". What the hell did they just fly to the moon with, asshole? And I don't get what good bullets are going to do against the Decepticons. They try to force humans into this battle like they matter. They don't, and the audience simply cannot connect or care about them. Even Omar Epps figured that he couldn't do shit in his one moment of clarity (at least I assume it was Omar Epps, everyone kept calling him "Epps"). I was so exasperated that the final battle was incredibly boring. The final battle I speak of seemed at least 4 hours long.
This movie was shit. Is it better than part 2? Maybe, but from where I sit, it's really hard to tell two pieces of shit from each other. You just want to flush them both and hope that they don't clog the pipes on their way out.
Michael Bay is a no-talent assclown hack.
Also, "Executive Produced by Steven Spielberg" doesn't mean shit any more. In fact, those words on a movie might indicate that it will not be very good. Even as a director, I can't even remember the last good movie he made. But really, who cares who is executive of what movie?
I saw it at the Regal Colorado Mills 16. Great sound (best I've ever heard there), no issues with the print. I hate to say it, but letting the regular staff run the movies has really improved things at Regal.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-13-2011 01:49 AM
We saw this last night and I have to agree with most sentiments here -- it's not too good. I knew that the "final battle" was going to be in Chicago, so I kept waiting for Chicago to show up and when it did, I was like "well good, we can blow up Chicago and get out of here in 15 minutes or so." Wrong! It must have taken at least 45 or 50 miinutes for the Chicago sequence, which was then followed by another half-hour (it seemed) of wrapping-things-up.
The sound on the film is amazing. But it was too loud, too much, too long. I love a good loud sound efx scene, but when they go on for 20 minutes or 30 minutes or an hour, you just get sick of it. (My favorite part of the whole movie was the opening Paramount logo.)
I also found the sidekick robots annoying in the extreme.
The Transformers themselves are kind of annoying too. It's just too implausible. I mean I know it's not supposed to be a documentary, but when something the size of a Ford Mustang unfolds to a several-stories-tall machine in five seconds while running down a highway at 75 mph (and rolling end-over-end a few times in the process) ... well it's just too silly. I mean, it takes longer than that for a Mustang to open its front window.
The one other thing (besides the sound) that I was impressed with is that Michael Bay seems to have grown out of his shaky-cam phase. The camera work here was steady for the most part, but there were so many 1-second or half-second cuts that the movie still gave me a headache.
Overall, about 2 out of 5 stars from me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic