Lemme guess why you hated it...

The US Army?!?!?!

I forgot about that one, thanks Chippy. It was so mind-numbingly stupid it distracted me from my crusade against yankee imperialism.

wait for his second review of it. sure to be the opposite.

Here's his reviews on TF2...

It's kind of flattering people are so interested in my reviews.

I was coming off the "high" of viewing it in the theatre with some friends and laughing and commenting with them...then I watched it again and my opinion was really lowered. I have no interest in seeing or thinking about TF3 again so I doubt my opinion will change. I'll let you know if it does, though.

That's Generally a pretty good reason to hate something.

Obviously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7kcqB3thJM&feature=player_embedded

I knew right after I saw that car obliterated by the decepticon that it very much resembled the freeway chase in The Island, but I had no idea it was literally the same shot with a decepticon composited in. Brutal.

Wasn't this done to sort of paste over the stunt that injured the woman?

It was supposed to just be Bay's respectful way to see the woman got paid double residuals for this ill-fated stunt - - but then internet weenies had to go and make fun of Michael's noble gesture - - now the accountants are gonna slam that loophole, but good!

I'm a fan of Michael Bay. I have reservations--his films tend to struggle when he aims for sweeping romance or, worse still, humor--but I appreciate him and many of his films, The Rock and The Island in particular. At his best he can put the energy of his cast to perfect use (consider Sean Connery's grumpy-old-Bond opposite Nicolas Cage's live-wire nerd) and stage heart-stopping, electrifying action sequences.

The Transformers films, of which he's done three, one after the other without interruption, over the last four years, are the nadir of Bay's career. All right, all right, the first one was decent enough entertainment, though Bay's hard-on for super-macho military action and lingo sat uneasily alongside the Spielberg-esque tale of a teenage boy and his first car/pet (the Transformer Bumblebee). The sequel, however, was a cinematic abortion. A numbing, godawful "epic" with no discernible emotional through-line, plentiful racism, and nearly incomprehensible robot-vs.-robot fisticuffs. I entered Transformers: Dark of the Moon, the third (final?) entry, with low expectations, though I did hope Bay would improve upon the second film. How could he not?

I suppose he has, but Dark of the Moon still falls well short of the the first film and is the second worst picture of Bay's explosion-filled career. In a change of pace from Revenge of the Fallen, this one has a "plot." This is a mixed blessing. Screenwriter Ehren Kruger and Bay spend the first hour and a half or so of their 157 minute opus piling on lots of characters (new and returning) and lots of references to agencies and secrets and stashed-away files, most relating to the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing and its secret alien connection (a clever enough conceit, though one spoiled in the very first trailer). I applaud Bay and Kruger for trying to anchor all the metallic chaos with a tale of intrigue, but they don't do a very good job of it and all of this plotting goes out the window during the film's obscene hour-long final action sequence, in which the city of Chicago is obliterated and then destroyed and then raped and then obliterated again.

Action is Bay's specialty, and he does deliver a few amazing moments of it here, rendered in not-quite-Avatar-but-not-bad 3-D. For example, a scene where the camera follows skydiving soldiers as they jump out of a plane and soar over a city offers a real you-are-there thrill. However, in the end, too much action can be nearly as boring as watching paint dry. During minutes on end where nothing occupies the screen but indistinguishable robo-carnage, all filmed a bit too close and cut a bit too quick, the theatre roof becomes a preferable alternative. Who is who? Why is this happening? Who cares?

I could delve into the ensemble cast, but you know the drill. Shia LaBeouf is slightly more irritating and manic than he was in Revenge of the Fallen (Bay brings out the worst in this promising young star). Megan Fox replacement Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, she of the fixed pout and invincible heels, poses her way through her every scene, and Bay doesn't even try to pretend her character is anything but eye candy/meat. "Love interest" would too strong a term. A few acting greats show up and collect a paycheck, including Frances McDormand in super-bitch/Joan-Allen-in-Bourne mode. Patrick Dempsey is poorly cast as LaBeouf's slick, intimidating rival and seems to be having a very bad time.

Michael Bay had a chance here to save the Transformers franchise. A chance to stare himself in the mirror, admit his flaws, and turn out a darker, smarter, more streamlined sequel. Instead he's more or less repeated the Revenge of the Fallen formula of idiocy, only this time saddled with more (forgettable) storyline. A failure.

D

Did you see it in 2D?

Nope

So did the 3D change your life?

No. Though it was a lot better than Priest's 3-D.

Might have been better than the first.

It was awesome.

Fucking awful. Does Michael Bay and the writing team research human characteristics and foibles and then blow that shit up and drink some Rockstar?

Ken Jeong, the parents, the midget robots, the really old robot, John Tutrurro, and probably some other character were all fucking annoying and completely unrealistic.

Forgot John Malkovich. Add him to the above. Good thing I skipped this in 3d. I only wish I would have remember how fucking awful Transformers 2 was. At least this was an improvement.

Has Michael Bay ever made a good movie? Not a serviceable movie, a good movie? The Rock is the only thing that comes to mind and it isn't particularly good.

At least Bay likes and respects the Warfighter, which Barabbas hates.

F+.

It's a big step up from the last film but there are some weird cuts. Like

I was still highly entertained. Also, there's still a bit of backstory to this which I appreciate unlike 2012. The action scenes are pretty good but I don't think 3D would have made it a better experience. Shia is still Shia...serviceable and annoying. Rosie just sucked. That shot of her looking up to the sky while the whole city was burning around her was hilarious.

In the end though, it's all about the robots. The action was pretty good. It's too bad that even fewer Autobots were used this time. They could have used some of the action to at least give a couple of them some lines or something funny to do.

Comedy was still hilariously bad but it worked in a couple of places.

It was about 30 minutes too long in my opinion but action scenes made up for it. Not as good as the first but better than the second. 8/10

Quite a bit better than I was expecting and probably the best of the series. The script is mind-numbingly bad, but as a straightforward action popcorn flick it delivers on pretty much every level. I also thought Rosie Huntington-Whitley was about a million times better and more likable than Megan Fox. B

Is that a bad thing?

Witherberry is saying that dirty cunt can drop to her whore knees and suck his fucking man meat anytime she wants.

Things go boom. C

Gunslinger is projecting.

2012 was a lot better....still a shitty, mindless action film, but at least it was legitimately fun at points (the L.A. earthquake sequence).