June 28, 2011

A Michael Bay movie cannot be measured by the same standards as a normal movie.  A Bay movie cares not for compelling characters, narrative cohesion, or realistic emotions.  Instead, a Michael Bay movie must be judged on its “Bay-ness”.  How gigantic are the special effects?  What levels of homophobia, sexism, and racism can the humor reach without being outright offensive?  How long can the camera linger over the curves of the sexually-charged lead female character without starting to feel like really expensive porn?  Transformers: Dark of the Moon is about as Michael Bay as Michael Bay can get within the confines of a PG-13 movie (his gold standard in the R-rated realm is Bad Boys II).  The movie is far more successful in its action sequences and its humor (homophobic, sexist, and racist as it may be) than 2009′s abysmal Return of the Fallen), but lacks the charm of the first film in the franchise.  But since “charm” can’t be digitized and bought for millions of dollars, Bay is all about the set pieces and judging by that metric, the final hour of Dark of the Moon is his masterpiece.

In the war for control of Cybertron (home planet of the Transformers), the Autobots had a secret weapon to defeat the Decepticons.  However, the spaceship carrying the secret weapon, pillars with the power to teleport objects through space and time, was shot down as it attempted to escape.  Despite Cybertron being a distant planet, the ship somehow managed to make it all the way to our moon where it crash landed.  The Apollo 11 mission wasn’t one of discovery but one where a comical JFK impersonator laid out a secret mission to explore the wreckage.


Cut to the present day where Decepticons are trying to retrieve the final pillars and the pillars’ Autobot creator, Sentinel Prime (voiced by Leonard Nimoy).  While the Earthbound Autobots are trying to uncover this plan, human “hero” Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) struggles to find a job because that makes him “relatable”.  However, the quirks that made Sam an endearing character in the first movie have made him unbearable by this point.  He seems selfish, unimaginative, and feels entitled to meaningful work after saving the world twice.  Another movie might try to explain how Sam can receive the Presidential Medal of Honor and take a photo proving he recieved that honor, but he’s not allowed to tell people why he won the medal.  Instead, the script ignores that obvious logical conflict (as it does so many others), and simply has Sam whining about wanting to “matter” like he did when he shouted “Optimus!” all those times and then let the Autobots destroy monuments and cities.

Sam only gets to spend what feels like an eternity complaining about his insecurities and under-appreciating his Megan Fox-replacement girlfriend Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) before coincidence throws him back into the Transformers war through too many convoluted and contrived developments to name here. The battle once again comes down to a fight between Autobots and Decepticons over a Cybertronian power item.  The twist this time is that the Decepticons actually have the upper hand, manage to start an invasion of Earth, and this is where Bay gets to give his grand finale to his tenure as the director of the series.


I’m no fan of 3D but the gimmicky technology is perfect for a director like Michael Bay who can now not only fill the width of the frame with mayhem, but now can also fill its depth.  The 3D really allows the visuals to pop and show off the level of detail in the Transformers and their gigantic set pieces.  More importantly, Bay has far more success in choreographing and designing the action scenes due to the technical restrictions and meticulous planning that shooting in 3D requires.  While the Decepticons and the lesser-known Autobots tend to blend together among themselves, when they’re fighting you can mostly follow the action and it’s not the incoherent mess of gears we saw in the second movie.  Dark of the Moon is really all about its final hour of destruction and in that regard it’s a smashing success.

Unfortunately, there’s still an hour and a half of movie to sit through before we reach the orgy of special effects and pyrotechnics.  For the most part, Bay doesn’t care about character development, smart humor, or about making sure the plot holes aren’t so big that a Transformer could walk through them.  But he cares a little bit.  If he didn’t care, he would have brought back the racist Twins from Revenge of the Fallen instead of replacing them with diminutive, less-racist versions that serve as slightly-stronger comic relief (although the entire film is comical so there’s not much point to them).  It he didn’t care about jokes, he wouldn’t ask respected actors like Francis McDormand, John Malkovich, and John Turturro to be in the movie and chew every piece of scenery in the world.  If he didn’t care about plot…well, there’s nothing in this movie to indicate that he cares about plot beyond its ability to lead him to a new action scene or cheap joke.

And Dark of the Moon has to muddle through these jokes, Sam’s “character development”, and threadbare excuse for a plot like a kid forced to do his chores before he’s allowed to play video games.  Sometimes, like when LaBeouf has to ham it up and scream like a girl or when the film respects the boundary between silly (an Autobot that needs reading glasses) and the stupid (almost everything else), the jokes work.  But when it needs to have Ken Jeong play another weird, creepy Asian guy (such specific and pitiable typecasting) or when Sam refers to his off-screen break-up with Mikaela as “She dumped me.  I moved on to something better,” (because in Bay’s twisted world, hot women aren’t “someones”, but things—more specifically, sex objects), the movie shifts back to that uncomfortable place Revenge inhabited for the majority of its runtime.

You have to grind through 90 minutes of tedium to get to the chewy, chocolate-y center of Transformers: Dark of the Moon.  There are moments where the jokes work and the earlier action scenes are kind of cool, but the movie’s sole purpose is to drive you to the spectacle at the end of the 3D rainbow.  It’s the rare film I can point to and say “If you’re going to see it, see it in 3D” because the silliness of the technology is perfectly matched to the silliness of the movies that Michael Bay makes.  Swerving wildly between the insultingly stupid the ironically idiotic, Dark of the Moon is Bay at his worst and at his best.

Rating: B-


  • Alex H

    I agree that Michael Bay’s movies shouldn’t be judged by the same standards as other movies, but then that should be the same for any movie. Judge it for what it is, not the technical aspects. A review should be about enjoyment, plus technical aspects. Yet 99% of reviewers allow the technical aspects to overshadow their enjoyment of a film. That’s why no film critic should review a movie until they’ve seen it at least twice.

    Sorry, Matt… This isn’t just referring to you. But you (and the rest of the Collider team) do tend to do that.

    Good review, though haha.

    • Cartouche

      You are right. I felt the same what about the Green Lantern review..

      The “technical” aspect of their reviews are really a turn off to people that was to talk about the movie not the making of the movie..we just want to discuss the end result..

      **To Tarek***

      That is Hiliarious

  • AWhite

    Still recovering from the reading Bay and ‘masterpiece’ in same sentence. Will settle for (ab) normal.

    • AWhite

      Oops. Typo – strike ‘the.’

  • Rev. Slappy

    “A Michael Bay movie cannot be measured by the same standards as a normal movie.” I have to call extreme bullshit on this statement. By this logic Bay should go back to making commercials and Meat Loaf videos since he can’t make a normal movie. Imagine how much better a movie like this would be if you actually cared about what happened in it? If it didn’t completely insult your intelligence at every turn? Why does Bay get a pass that no other filmmaker would get? I love summer popcorn movies when they are done well, but I want to be told a story and I want to be able to have a rooting interest in the outcome of that story. If you go to Youtbue and look up videos of buildings being imploded and watch them for 2 and a half hours it’s the equivalent of watching a Michael Bay film.

    • junierizzle

      I couldn’t agree more. Who is Michael Bay to get his own category?

      I am so sick and tired of the “oh well, what were you expecting?” excuse. Or “It’s not meant to be an Oscar nominee”, “I like turning my brain off”, “watch it for what it is.” Sorry but if a movie is stupid then it is just stupid.

      I find it ironic that the same nerds that complain about Hollywood making crap are the same nerds that give the Transformers a pass, just because the robots look cool.

    • Michael

      I agree with both of you, Rev and Junie. I also cry “Foul.” By no stretch of the imagination is Bay in the league with the current crop of visionary filmmakers who know the rules of filmmaking and intentionally break them (such as Werner Herzog, Jim Jarmusch, Spike Lee, Terry Gilliam, etc.).

      Bay’s more in leagues with the likes of Zack Snyder.

      Just about every review I read about this movie (except for the ones where the critic was obviously either paid by the studio, is kissing up to the studio, or just trying to get their overglowing praise on top of advertisements) lays out exactly why I don’t want to see this movie. As expected, any sort of dramatic scenes or plotting are just flimsy strings of gum in between overbloated, mindless action scenes. The first Transformers by Bay was actually tolerable, despite some very lame parts. He hadn’t completely blown off the lid of ridiculousness. But he detonated that lid and let out millions of CGI cats out the bag with Revenge, and there’s no going back. He sunk to such an all-new low, that there couldn’t be any way he’d make a worse movie.

      Sorry, Bay apologists, there’s no way I’d sacrifice my personal pride and sense of self-worth to be an unpaid shill, a hack extolling the “virtues” of Michael Bay movies, gushing about how “great” they are and scolding everyone else as idiots who don’t “get it.” You guys really need to know that it looks extremely silly to see and hear people defend movies they full well know are awful, and yet delude themselves, and go along with the charade, that these movies are somehow the greatest of cinematic gifts. The money they make speak for the mindless masses, and Bay is like the McDonald’s of moviemaking. Please, don’t start gushing about how great McDonald’s menu items are. “What are you expecting, filet mignon???!” (Big Sigh)

      • Neo

        I disagree, and you sound like a complete ranting idiot. Not every movie is meant to be a masterpiece, and they shouldn’t be designed that way either. Movies are to entertain a a wide variety of people, not just cater to one group. All of you guys spewing this shit sound dumb. If you don’t care to see why the movie, why bother ranting about it? Sometimes people do like to just sit back and enjoy the movie for what it is. Dark of the Moon just sounds like a fun ride, it’s not meant to be Return of the King.

      • Jason

        Michael, you have proven that you cannot decipher film language.

        The fact that you think Michael Bay and Zack Synder are “more in leagues” with each other demonstrates this easily.

        Unlike Bay, Synder knows how to compose a shot. Also Synder, unlike Bay, is one of the very few working directors in Hollywood right now that knows how to film action sequences.

        Watch any one of the fight scenes in Watchmen and compare that to the fight scenes in Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen. It’s night and day. Bay just goes for a lot of visual knows and explosions to make it look exciting whereas Synder appreciates movement and wants to highlight them and make them cinematic.

      • Jason


        *Bay just goes for a lot of visual noise….

      • junierizzle

        I think you used all the excuses I posted. Look, I like a fun movie too. But there is a difference between a fun popcorn movie and a shit movie masquerading as a fun popcorn movie, TRANSFORMERS. Just look at COWBOYS and ALIENS, I haven’t even see it and I will bet 1 million dollars that it will be a fun popcorn movie, and it will not be idiotic like TRANSFORMERS.

        To all the BAY/TRANSFORMERS defenders, no one ever said Bay wasn’t good at action and visuals. We know the visuals and action scenes are going to be awesome. But what about the rest?

        Come on guys, are we really cool with sitting through an hour and a half of crap just to get to an hour of action? Is it really okay for only one hour of a two and a half hour movie to be watchable?

      • Michael

        @Neo, even though you don’t deserve any response (least of all a dignified one), I’ll just say this. The way in which you freely call others idiots and dumb tells a lot about you. Maybe, one day, you’ll grow up and move beyond such juvenile behavior.

      • Michael

        @Jason, let me clarify. First, you can disagree with me, I have no problem with that. When I said that Bay and Snyder in the same league, I meant that they are individuals who do put up visual spectacle above cinematic depth. Are there differences between the two? Yes.

        I do like Snyder’s Watchmen, even have it on DVD. And, as you said, Snyder does have more of a knack for framing and a cinematic richness that Bay doesn’t.

        I even enjoyed Bay’s first Transformers movie, but Revenge of the Fallen is extremely bad, and Dark of the Moon looks like more of the same. Bay’s style feels more like that of a wild-eyed guy who wants to throw just about everything into a frame, including the kitchen sink.

        But, in my opinion, both directors tend to focus more on visuals and wowing the audience. While I do like Snyder more, his Sucker Punch is one example how he really overdid it with all the CGI spectacle.

      • Jason

        Your definition of “cinematic depth” is way too narrow. Why are you bringing up people like Spike Lee, Terry Gilliam, Werner Herzog and Jim Jarmusch as comparisons? They aren’t even interested in the same subject matter.

        Just because a director chooses to direct a story that talks about family let’s say does not make that director and that film automatically a better “film” than a movie about superheroes let’s say. Not only because they are not comparable movies but because they are reaching for different goals.

        It’s a bad argument.

        As far as comparing Bay and Synder you are wrong to say they are in the same league. Synder is far and away a superior filmmaker.

        While you brought Sucker Punch that was a movie that largely failed because the movie was hinged on a story and premise that I personally felt was unfulfilled and lacking when all was said and done. To be fair to Synder, there is some word I have heard that the Director’s Cut of the film is a lot better than the cut that was released to theaters. I haven’t seen it yet but let’s leave that out of the equation because as far as the theatrical cut goes, it was the script that was lacking and that was up to now Synder’s only writing credit.

        Bay as far as I know does not write his own scripts and Synder, with the exception of Sucker Punch, does not either. Therefore one can only compare their film making. Synder doesn’t just merely “have more of a knack for framing and a cinematic richness that Bay doesn’t.” He is just flat out better and superior. The man, unlike Bay, is more interested in the moving image and how to illustrate it on screen in a clear and exciting way. Like I said, Synder is one of the few in Hollywood that can direct action. Also look at how much attention to detail Synder has in production design and shot composition. Back in the day in Hollywood this was a basic foundation for film makers but now in the era where shaky cam directors like Paul Greengrass are considered top notch for basically filming poorly Synder really does stand out among his Hollywood peers.

        Bay’s “style” is really just filling the screen with so much expensive mayhem that it blinds people into thinking that he’s a great action director when he really isn’t. Mind you, I haven’t seen this latest Transformer film but based on the stuff in Revenge Of The Fallen Bay’s “compositions” are filled with nothing but hot air.

      • Michael

        @Jason, let’s just agree to disagree.

      • SPS

        Except that the effects in Sucker Punch were awesome and helped tell that story! Snyder is WAY better than him, they just bashed the film for no reason and gave the box office victory to that Wimpy Kid movie. It was such an awesome movie and it was so unfair the way it was treated, but the same can’t be said for this one.

      • SPS

        Watch the robot train fight scene in Sucker Punch. THAT is revolutionary filmmaking. A single two and a half minute shot that was meticulously put together from a ton of different angles for an amazing sequence. It even topped the five minute single shot in Children of Men, for me. Bay dosen’t have the balls to pull off visuals like that, all he does is explosions.

  • Tarek

    I heard that Transformers will get a reboot next year.It will be entitled Transformers Origins. We will learn that Henry Ford was the Maker of BumbleBee in 1920.
    Ben affleck will direct and star in the movie.

  • Michael

    And we’ll also see Ben Affleck’s evil twin character: Evil Henry Ford, a completely CGI creation who has a major throwdown with Good Henry Ford in the middle of a Ford factor, laying waste to everything, except for a box of doughnuts and a purdy, young thing screaming in slow-mo, wearing perfectly clean, white clothing while all sorts of CGI dust, debris and chunks of metal fly around her.

    • Michael

      Forgive the typo: I meant a Ford “factory.”

      • tarek

        Good idea. The sequel will be entitled: The Factor “Y”

        “Y” do you torture us like this Bay ? ^^

    • MainFragger

      I heard that Evil Henry Ford has another actor with Ben Afflek’s face overlaid, so that Evill Henry Ford can actually show some expression when he “acts”…

      Michael Bay doesn’t even qualify as a director in my book. He’s just the guy who knows when to point the explosion guy when its time for something to explode. He recognizes this by listening to his intended soundtrack as he’s filming..when the music gets loud and slow and overimportant sounding..Point and BOOM!

      My biggest problem isn’t merely that Michael Bay is a hack.. Its that he’s a one note hack who does the same thing over and over and over again. If you’ve seen once Michael Bay movie, you’ve seen them all. Now that you know, you can save yourself money and never watch one of his films again. If I were a film critic I would refuse to screen his films. Why bother? You’ve already seen it the first time around. Bad Boys II was his penultimate movie. Once you’ve seen that..skip the rest, and you’ll be happier for it.

  • Jason

    “How long can the camera linger over the curves of the sexually-charged lead female character without starting to feel like really expensive porn?”

    If that were a standard to judge Bay’s movies then this particular one fails since Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has no curves to speak of.

    • Clay


      • Jason

        How was what I wrote “juvenile”, Clay? Please make sense.

        I’m not the reviewer that suggested that one of the standards to judge a movie is to measure the length of shots “over the curves of the sexually-charged lead female character” before it starts to “feel like really expensive porn”.

        And pointing out that Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has no curves to speak of is the opposite of “juvenile”. Anyone who easily falls for any female just because they are plastered all over the place in the mainstream media as “hot” even when they are hardly feminine is as “juvenile” as it gets.

    • Clayton

      I just reread your post. I misread it. My apologies :)

  • The Mantis

    Another one of you crusaders for the little guy who can’t walk out your front door without seeing something you deem to be “homophobic, sexist, and racist”. You basically wrote your whole “review” around just how offended you are about everything in life. I’m actually going to see this DESPITE you, and I’ll keep my eyes peeled and ready to plug my ears and shut my eyes whenever there’s something “homophobic, sexist or racist” that takes place so I don’t run the risk of being as big a FAG as you undoubtedly are. oops… that was very homophobic of me.
    People like you are the reason this country is becomming the nanny state that it is. If you’re offended by things like Transformers, maybe you should just stay home and watch MSNBC where they all agree with you.

    • MainFragger

      The sad thing is, the sexist and racist things that Michael Bay has in his films is the least offensive thing about them. You have to work hard to have directing skills that are so offensive that your crude humor is drowned out by them.. But apparently, Michael Bay is an over achiever in that regard..

  • Terry

    Please! I’m going to see this movie. Fuck the critics and their purest asses. Hell, go over to rotten tomatoes and them fuckers sound like they’re trying to get a literary prize. Damn!
    So far this movie at RT has garnered a 35%. Green splat. So what.
    I guess there wasn’t enough pay off money to go around. And the other necessities like hookers, coke, crack, ambien etc.

    • MainFragger

      Even people being bribed to review positively should have SOME standards by which they judge how much of a bribe their positive review on a Michael Bay should be worth. Hookers and Drugs aren’t gonna cut it. Anything short of promising every brick of gold in Fort Knox would be insulting to my intelligence..

  • chris

    How is it you can go on paragraph after paragraph, crapping on all that is Michael Bay and his Transformers franchise, specifically crapping all over this movie (except for the chewy, chocolate-y center) and still give it a B-?

    What is it with you anti-Bay people that want to say all he does or has ever done is shit, yet you still see his movies and even admit to liking them? Not every movie has to win the F’ing Oscar and most who do are actually s**t buried under some “make you cry drama” and “it’s time to learn some kind of history” extra bulls**t.

    He has made entertaining movies. That’s all they will ever be and all they were meant to be. If you gave it a B-, you liked it. So why can’t you act like it?

    I usually really enjoy the reviews from this site but it’s sad to see you fell victim to this “we hate Michael Bay” bandwagon crap. Just sad.

    • john

      Exactly right. Matt should just admit that he liked it. But everyone is afraid to just sit back and enjoy a Michael Bay film. Every director has his strengths and weaknesses – he is an expert at shooting action, why can’t he just be respected for that?

      • Clay

        Disagree. Expert action scenes deliver not only thrills, but suspense and a coherent spatial relationship with its audience. Bay’s quick-cut trickery and flashiness is a hollow impersonator of an expert action scene. Oh yeah, and action scenes aren’t worth a damn if you don’t care about anyone or anything involved in them.

        Just my opinion.

      • Steven

        Clay, I disagree with your disagreement. I will admit that there have been some rather sloppy, quick-cut scenes (the biggest offender IMO would be when Bumblebee fights the cop car in the first one) but outside of a few slip-ups I think he actually does a really good job with getting a good shot. Then again, who knows… I hear that quick cuts are crap but I’ve also heard that long tracking shots are really hack so I can’t really say what would satisfy people as “good directing”, maybe medium length shots?

      • Neo

        Well, I don’t think you’ll have the Michael Bay-esque action scenes because he filmed this one in 3D.

      • Clayton

        I get that. Bay plays to his roots (the commercial industry) and thus I feel like his action scenes, and movies in general, are protracted commercials. Some of the shots are cool but they’re preceded and followed by queasi-cam non-sequiturs that destroy any momentum that the cool shot provides. His car chases, for example, fail to capture the visceral quality that films like The French Connection and Ronin have achieved. Those car chases have consequences that feel real. More often than not, I feel like Bay’s action scenes have all the polish in the world but are routinely missing a single memorable moment.

  • Kenny B

    Mantis – Goldberg never said he was offended. It’s his way of saying the writing isn’t very sharp.

  • shaunx

    anyone can be a critic ..even my dog can do it !!! but do u know anything about movie making ???

  • RPJ

    I love visiting this site because they are usually on top of their game regarding movies and rumours about them. However most if not all the reviews I have read on this site are so narrow minded lol – You cannot watch a Tformers movie and disect it to the point where you dont agree with character development!! Its a bloody popcorn flick – Compare it to the likes of other popcorn movies – The net is full of negative people its quite crazy how negative ppl actually are – Especially critics sometimes I think they post poor reviews just so someone will actually attempt to read their narrow minded review. Thankfully I love all genres when it comes to movies and can appreciate what each movie has to offer. I read about a paragraph of this guys review and just scrolled down to the bottom as clearly I am not the only one who thinks this dude is very narrow minded LOL. Again keep up the good work with the site its great – But find someone else to do your reviews as this guy clearly belongs with the likes of the rotten tomatoe ppl who litterally hate all Sci-Fi or Hero movies!.

  • Steven

    I agree with Chris… the review is coated in disgust/disinterest but we somehow end up with a B-?

    I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea that when you go to see a Michael Bay movie, you are going for the spectacle, but I don’t really get all of the hate that Michael Bay gets caught up in. It’s like when we see a headlining name plastered on the poster we suddenly forget that a movie is made by lots of people contributing together… Michael Bay is not involved with ever facet of the movie, yet we all talk about HIS racist robots and trampy leading ladies as if he took a pass at the script himself.

    The guy seems like a dick, and there have been a couple moments in the first two movies that were surprisingly poorly shot but I think the guy is actually good at what he does, that being big action movies. There’s a whole discussion above about how Bay isn’t in a league with all of the current visionary directors out there, and I’d agree, but I’d say it’s more of an “apples-and-oranges” thing than the commentor’s implication that “one league sucks and the others are visionaries.”

  • ReptarTheTommy

    Well… here’s the first 5 minutes of the epic final fight scene if anyone doesn’t feel like sitting through the first hour and a half.

    • WOW

      You suck.

  • JD

    The thing about Bay is that he is not a ‘bad’ film maker because he accomplishes 100% of what he is trying to do. Now, while some directors go for the “masterpiece” movie with deep character development and plots Bay goes after visual thrills, whether it be robots or a hot female lead, and epic action scenes. It has NEVER been a secret that Bay’s movies dont have many Oscar qualities about them, but he does not care. Instead he focuses on his (dare i say) winning formula to make the most visually thrilling experience that he can. Those of you that complain and bash him because he is ruining the transformers franchise need to realize he does not care, because the 95% of the people in the theater did not come as fans of the original series make up for the billions of dollars his movies have made.

    Im just so sick of Michael Bay bashing when in reality if all directors accomplished their goals as much as Bay, we would have a lot more high quality movies

    • AWhite

      Bay basically makes movies about chunks of metal hitting each other. Only difference between “Pearl Harbour” and “Armageddon” days and the Transformer series is the chunks of metal are bigger and the correspondingly shrinking human element – requisite boy/girl – run more. Not bashing, because obviously many people like to watch crunching metal, but choking again on mention of ‘masterpiece.’

  • Okay Fine

    Matt is a Bay-cist.

    How is Bay a racist? Because of the two “hip hop” robots? Why did you assume they were black? Huh? Yeah cuz why? Oh right because there are actual people that talk like that.

    You are so enlightened Matt. If only we could achieve the level of zen you have reached, the world would have no war, no pain, and no sadness. Alligators would be in petting zoos.

    Maybe if we were all just like you things would be perfect. You should be Supreme Emperor of the human race dude. Come on, your ego can handle it. You’d be great.

  • Lance

    I don’t see why there’s so much arguing over this guy. What Bay does is create juvenile, mindless fun. If it weren’t fun his movies wouldn’t make so much money. But the people who point out you’ve got to grade Bay on a curve because his movies are less than what they could be are right as well.

    In short, people SHOULD be a little embarrassed about liking Michael Bay’s stuff. To say he’s the most brilliant director ever is to reveal that you aren’t very thoughtful when it comes to entertainment.

    Also, when you take into account Michael Bay probably thinks his movies are “important” it’s fun to deflate that overblown ego and all the hype that surrounds it.

  • Naruto

    Ok you may hate bay but I’ve just got in from a packed screening were everyone walked out drained through laughing then the emotional bits then the excitement of the action. Oh and everyone loved it by the crowd reaction.

    Look I know critics hate bay but instead or moaning he is out there making films.

    I loved all 3 and although 2 had it’s bad bits the 3rd is fantastic I can’t complain I loved it from start to finish just wish there was more :)

    • tarek

      Quote: ” just wish there was more ”

      Oh don’t worry. There will be more…Alas. ^^

  • English gent

    I have just seen this film and i have to say its is fucking terrible…What a waste of time. Ok the 3d is jaw dropping but you spend so much time thinking what the hell is going on its not worth it? there is no need for humans in this film at all. The villain shock wave does nothing and says nothing except when he impersonates shia “optimus” i really wanted to love this movie but i couldn’t it was to long to boring yes even the 3d and the set pieces got boring.
    At least avatar had a story you could follow dont waste your time or money ;-(

  • junierizzle

    Okay I just came back from seeing it. I didn’t have to pay, which was the only way I would see it. I went in with an open mind and I knew not to expect “an Oscar nominee.” I hoped it would be cool, and I say this without a hint of hatred towards this franchise, it was weak.

    It’s not a piece of crap like the first 2 (although I never saw the second one but I know it’s universally known as crap)
    Some things were just pointless. There was so much going on and I didn’t care about any of it. So many things just didn’t make sense but I went along for the ride. This was a boring ride. Then the last hour of action that will blow your mind started. Honestly, I was not impressed. Where was all this amazing action that everyone is talking about? Then it just ended and I said, that’s it?

    Yes the crowd clapped at the end and it boggles my mind that such a mediocre film is going to make so much money.

    In conclusion, I didn’t hate it, like it or love it. It is in fact a movie though. And the 3D was just as forgetable as all the other 3D movies.

  • Cujo123

    So in brief, this movie is (as expected) crap.

    What still amazes me is how the people in this site still insist on justifying Mchael Bay’s inability to make a decent movie. Why can’t you call it as it is? “Michael Bay’s movies should be measured by different standards”? what kind of nonsense is that? If it sucks, it sucks, end of the story!

  • Tyler S

    I think your first mentioning of Revenge of the Fallen you meant “Revenge” not “Return” right?


    Poorly shot, soulless, random, pointless, over dramatic, cheesy action scenes set to a Linkin Park power ballad. Shaky cam, blurry, zoomed in, 1 second, ADHD editing with 20 different camera angles.
    The Transformers designs are horrible. They have no personalities, no dialog, and no screen time.
    Blatant and lazy story, plot holes, continuity errors, pacing problems, terrible cliche and excessive ad lib dialogue. Horrible acting, cringe inducing comedy and toilet humor that would make a 10 year old vomit in disgust.

    • AO1JMM


      Do us all a favor and never go watch a movie again. You over think it to a level unheard of before.

  • AO1JMM

    I love these reviews!

    This movie and many like arent meant to make you think per se but to sit back and eat popcorn and enjoy the action.

    Critics are a joke!

    • junierizzle

      Geez don’t you get it? We know they aren’t meant to make you think. And it doesn’t even work on that level.

    • Tarek

      Thinking is what makes you a human being. think about it… ^^

      Matrix was a top Sci-Fi action movie. But unlike “TrashMorphers” it makes you want to watch it again and again, because there is a lot of patterns within the pattern.

      I don’t want to watch a movie for Action and CGI per se. My brain needs also to be “entertained”, not just my eyes. We need smart plots, intelligent dialog, memorable quotes, good writing. The CGI must be used as a tool, not as a purpose.
      But of course the Pokemon Generation has grown up fed with CGI brainless video games-like movies. Michael Bayknows that.

  • Bakernator

    I think a movie is as subjective as the movie review itself.

    I rate the movie highly, meaning I think this review is poor.

  • Bakernator

    I would also like to add that some Movie Reviewers are like Coaches; they can pass bitter judgment and offer improvements, but would fail in epic proportions performing the task themselves.

    I would love to see Matt Goldberg direct a blockbuster, because this guy apparently is the Mecca of Movie Making.

    I seriously wish I hadn’t read your review, I found it insultingly stupid the ironically over written, oh and contrived.

    The internet, a failed writers play ground.

    • Tarek

      It sounds like you are a relative of Michael Bay, or Bay himself…Is it possible ? ^^

  • SPS

    Remember me complaining about how they weren’t announcing the soundtrack on time? Well, they only included THREE songs in the film, one not on the actual CD and no My Chemical Romance! Hugely disappointed. I’m not looking forward to seeing it, only seeing it because I’ve seen the first two. Didn’t have problems with second one, but knew the criticisms and hoped that they wouldn’t be included. But from what I’m hearing, they are. BTW, anyone earned 500 million dollars yet for spotting the twins yet???

  • sense 11

    Michael Bays first mistake was making the transformers look like unrecognizable pieces of metallic shit

    Its like what, who am i looking at.

    Remember at comic con right before the first one came out they had a full size truck that looked exactly like the Optimus from the 80. it was sooo exciting. But in true Michael Bay style, i was eventually disappointed.

  • SPS

    And where is the homophobia, that’s what I wanna know, because I never saw that in the films, even in the second one.

    • ColdAndComposed

      Ken Jeong and Shia LaBeouf coming out of a bathroom stall, the former with his pants around his ankles. I wouldn’t exactly call it homophobic, but that’s the closest thing to a gay joke this time around.

      • SPS

        Not that big of a deal then, is it? But then again, Ken Jeong from Hangover, not to sure about that.

      • SPS

        Not that big of a deal then, is it? But then again, Ken Jeong from Hangover, not too sure about that.
        I know I might have said this twice, but there was an invalid code.

  • bobbins

    You’re reviews are always harsh… This movie is an A- not B-.

  • lunasect

    would someone please explain to me how this movie is homophobic, racist, or sexist? o wait, theres a movie with some conservative characters in it so you libtards have to pull the racist card, never mind i figured it out. at least everyone knows being called racist by a liberal doesn’t mean anything anymore.

  • Daniel

    Did anyone actually notice Ironhide was killed! He died in the film and they didn’t mention it once, he was supposed to be Optimus’ closest comrade !