Transformers: Dark of the Moon 3D Review [2]

Posted by Jeremy Wilson on 06.30.2011

Can Michael Bay, Shia LaBeouf and Optimus Prime get the franchise back on track with Transformers: Dark of the Moon, or is this the death knell for the effects-heavy robot franchise? 411's Jeremy Wilson checks in with his full review!

Directed by: Michael Bay
Written by: Ehren Kruger

Sam Witwicky: Shia LaBeouf
Carly Spencer: Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
Lt. Col. William Lennox: Josh Duhamel
Seymour Simmons: John Turturro
Chief Robert Epps: Tyrese Gibson
Dylan Gould: Patrick Dempsey
Charlotte Mearing: Frances McDormand
Bruce Brazos: John Malkovich
Ron Witwicky: Kevin Dunn
Judy Witwicky: Julie White
Dutch: Alan Tudyk

Rated PG-13 for intense prolonged sequences of sci-fi action violence, mayhem and destruction, and for language, some sexuality and innuendo .
Running Time: 157 minutes



*Needless to say, spoilers are contained within this review. If you don't want to know, read it later. If you don't care, read on.*

Michael Bay is either the embodiment of everything that is wrong in modern film-making and Hollywood blockbusters, or is the most unencumbered, balls-to-the-walls director of action and effects that we've ever seen. Or both. I suppose it depends on who you talk to and the film you reference. Trying to make heads or tails of Transformers: Dark of the Moon is nearly impossible and it has become apparent that speaking positively or negatively about him or his movie will put you squarely in a debate about the purpose and analysis of movies themselves, via of one of Hollywood's most controversial and commercially successful directors. Even looking over the reaction to Bay and his film on this site alone (not to mention numerous others which I won't mention), it is apparent we have come to digest movies like this almost as if they were junk food. They have no nutritional or social value, but damn if they're not tasty and screw you for even deigning to suggest otherwise! In this analogy, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is essentially the cotton candy of modern-day cinema.

The plot, such as it is, is strikingly familiar to previous entries with a few changes. Basically, the cliff-notes version looks like the following: Autobots and Decepticons just plain don't like each other; fate of the world is at stake; Sam Witwicky (with hot girl in tow) is our only hope. The film starts with the true purpose for the space race of the 1960's, with the discovery that an Autobot ship carrying both Sentinel Prime (the former leader of the Autobots) and a way to win the war and save Cybertron, crashed on the moon. The entire Apollo program was a way for the United States to study the ship and send back samples. We then find Sam Witwicky living in Washington D.C., with his Victoria's Secret model girlfriend, Carly, jobless and frustrated. His girlfriend is on him to get a job. His parents are on him to get a job. Sam himself desperately wants to get a job. He eventually does, joining the mail room at a prestigious tech company with the help of Carly's boss, Dylan Gould (Patrick Dempsey), and his new weird-as-hell boss, Bruce Brazos (John Malkovich). However, soon after being hired, Sam is warned of a Decepticon plot to destroy the Autobots and take over the planet. We find out the Decepticons seek to activate the “pillars” that crashed with the ship and transport Cybertron to replace Earth. That about ends the story part of the film, and for the next two hours, Bay pretty much turns it over to his natural instinct and lets the action ride. And ride it most certainly does.

It is best to probably start with the good. Transformers: Dark of the Moon reportedly had a budget of just under $200 million, 80% of which I would be willing to bet went into the special effects. For the most part, they look pretty good (outside of a hideous JFK sequence and somewhat muddled scene on the moon). I was especially impressed with a non-CG (mostly) sequence involving soldiers jumping out of planes and flying/gliding through ravaged Chicago, waiting until the last second to pull their chutes and join the fight. It reminded me a little of a similar scene in J.J. Abrams' Star Trek, except not originating in outer space.

I'll give Bay some credit; he certainly empties the chamber when it comes to effects. He also deserves some plaudits for not having the 3D in his film totally suck. I saw it in 3D and it compares favorably with most of the other 3D offerings seen in the wake of Avatar. It doesn't come close to reaching the majestic uses of 3D in that film, but Bay certainly makes it useful enough in the midst of all that action. I still don't think 3D is viable in the long-term except for a few select films and purposes, but at least Bay had 3D at the forefront of his mind while making the film.

Most of the cast is good enough. Acting isn't something that Bay necessarily stresses or values, but adding two Oscar winners in Frances McDormand (playing the Secretary of Defense) and John Malkovich certainly doesn't hurt. McDormand is very good playing the bossy, uptight government official and no one does offbeat better than Malkovich. This is obviously a paycheck for both and they easily could have coasted, so it's nice to see a little effort. John Turturro also deserves some appreciation as he genuinely looks like he's having a blast, having carved out a pretty memorable role through the course of these three Transformers films.

As far as Shia Labeouf goes, you either like him or you don't, and nothing in his performance will sway you one way or the other. Yes, he and this character can be grating at times, but he actually has a few funny lines and some comedic timing in this film (unlike Revenge of the Fallen) which keeps you from totally hating him. It is arguable he has better chemistry with the CG Bumblebee than with his love interest, but through three of these films he hasn't really had a strong actress to play off of, so that may not be all that fair to raise. The rest of the cast (except one) are at least average and the voice work from the Autobots and Decepticons is strong, particularly the three main figures: Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen), Sentinel Prime (Leonard Nimoy) and Megatron (Hugo Weaving).

Then there is Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Her purpose is self-evident and her performance is about what you would expect. Is she good? No, not in the slightest. Then again, it is not her fault. This was her first, and most likely last, starring role in a major motion picture. We all know she wasn't chosen for her acting ability or talent. You don't hand a starring role in a major Hollywood tentpole franchise to a supermodel who doesn't have one film or TV show on her resume. That is, unless you're Michael Bay. For all the criticism she received, at least Megan Fox had a middling Hollywood career before being plucked out of relative obscurity to be in the original Transformers. I don't blame Huntington-Whiteley at all, and I'm sure Bay is just thrilled with how it all turned out. She certainly runs in heels very well (yes, she's in heels nearly the entire movie). The obligatory ogling camera shot(s) is there, and is actually probably the funniest thing in the whole film. Bay is certainly taunting us by going back to the well and self-referencing perhaps the trait he's most known for outside of big explosions and kinetic action; exploiting gorgeous women for our (and his) enjoyment. In this regard, Huntington-Whiteley serves her purpose very well. She tries hard too, so there's that.

It's hard to attempt to analyze a film that doesn't even try to fulfill the most basic of cinematic and storytelling principles. There's a plot. It's not very interesting other than as a means to use action and effects in various set-pieces. There are characters. They are one-dimensional and given almost nothing in the way of personalities (except Witwicky) or backstory. There is no theme from what I can tell, other than vague allusions to identity, destiny and never giving up in the face of evil and insurmountable odds. Or something to that effect. There are some funny moments, but not nearly enough over the course of 2 ½ hours to keep it from seeming way too self-important and self-serious. I would complain about the 157-minute running time, but each of the films in this franchse have run at least 140 minutes, even though this is the longest of the three.

The tone is all over the place, light and sarcastic one second and end-of-the-world melodramatic the very next. Sometimes it even seems as if the competing tones simply overlap one another, crashing and exploding into each other like some Autobot/Decepticon battle. Bay obviously took to heart some of the criticism he received from the last picture (even saying it wasn't very good), and he at least tries to insert more humor and a lighter (for him) touch. It doesn't always work, but its an improvement. It's better than it was in Revenge of the Fallen, but not as good as the original. Needless to say the script is a mess, as Bay tends to let action and effects lead the way and act as the mode of distributing plot and what little character development there is (particularly for the Transformers themselves). I don't know if it speaks positively or negatively that the beginning of the film (which contains the least action and effects) is the least interesting and effective in the film. That is unless you truly cared to see 45 minutes of Shia LaBeouf looking for a job. If you were indeed looking forward to that, there's a job interview montage that will most definitely tickle your fancy.

This isn't a good movie. I'm sorry, it's just not. There is a difference between things we like and things that are good. We have been programmed to believe that films that push the right buttons, that provide us with cursory and superficial film-making, the type that provides mindless but oversized thrills and epic-looking set-pieces are enough. They're not, or at least, they shouldn't be. Bay and company make absolutely no attempt at a nuanced, coherent plot. They make no attempt at character development. They don't even try for thematic relevance. That shouldn't be good enough.

I can hear your cries of criticism now. “But it's Transformers and Michael Bay! They're alien robots, based on Hasbro toys. Did you really think this was Shakespeare? What did you expect?" No, I didn't, but that doesn't mean I can't hold out hope, does it? I fully recognize this isn't high art. This is full-blooded, big-money popcorn extravaganza stuff. Does that mean we should give up? Does that mean we shouldn't hold films – even Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Michael Bay – to any sort of standard? So is the response to just give up and take the medicine we're given? I would hope not.

There are countless examples of summer blockbusters that entertain and make you think. Films that touch the heart and stretch the brain. Movies that feature sublime performances, creative plots, outstanding writing, stunning camera work and nuanced direction. Films that work hard to engage you and give you an experience and memorable story. Just because the majority of summer films range from acceptably mediocre to utter dreck, doesn't mean we should change our standards or accept lesser film-making. This summer alone there have been several films that make an attempt at entertainment and art (or at least pop art) with varying degrees of success. At least they tried, something this movie doesn't do except for action effects.

On a final note, I'd like to say something about reviewing films. I am always of the mind, that I will go into the theater with an open mind and hoping for the best. Reviewers are human and we have subjective tastes like the rest of the audience. The difference is that our job is to be on the level, to not go in predisposed one way or the other, and if we are, then we have to wipe it out of our minds before the lights go down and the opening credits roll. I believe for the most part, I and others do that. I know that I do my best to achieve that sort of blank slate, especially when I am in a position of reviewing a film for others.

You have every right to disagree with ratings and reviews. You also have the right to comment on a particular review. I read and listen to what others are saying, much more so if it is intelligent and respectful (that is not an invitation to troll). What I don't understand is the argument that “...well, if you were going into the theater expecting it to be a masterpiece or high-quality in terms of plot, characters and themes, then you are (fill-in-the-blank insult).” So, we can't expect films – even those about alien robots or made by directors known for putting action ahead of storytelling – to be both entertaining and of a high quality? If you settle for mindless entertainment and artistic mediocrity, then that is what you'll get. Film has, over the course of a century, provided countless examples of films that do both well, and I would argue the best, most memorable were those that were of the highest quality in both artistic and entertainment value. Movies are special because they bring together art and entertainment in a way that many other fields can't. We decry the rise of reality television and repetitive formats. The state of Hollywood and American cinema is constantly eviscerated for that very reason, except when critics or elites are seen as tearing down a film the masses like, such as Dark of the Moon. Don't we deserve better?

The 411: Transformers: Dark of the Moon is one of the goofiest, silliest, most empty and mindless films I've ever seen. It doesn't even attempt narrative coherence or complexity, or development of character and theme. The film's writing is an empty exercise, with scatter-shot, inconsistent humor and a multitude of tones that clash and are all over the place. Shia LaBeouf is divisive; you either like him or you don't. This movie won't change your mind on his character or abilities as an actor. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley gives a pretty terrible performance, but boy does she look good doing it! To her credit, running in heels throughtout the second half of the movie is a skill worthy of praise. Frances McDormand, John Turturro and John Malkovich are bright spots in the acting department. The effects are mostly pretty good and Bay can never be accused of holding back on action and explosions. Plus, the 3D isn't totally worthless, compared to other films recently released. All in all, it's not as good as the original, but better than Revenge of the Fallen. If you like the franchise or need or want something mindless to do for 2 ½ hours, then perhaps this would be for you. However, it is what it is, and “what it is,” is not a good movie. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but in no way other than effects is it good. Not recommended.

Final Score:  5.0   [ Not So Good ]