Not as funny as Transformers 2, but better plot and action and more graceful overall. Transformers 1 still provides the best mix.

Overall, pretty awesome. I do think there was some weird cutouts like Malkovich and the parents never showing up again halfway through the movie, not seeing Bee get captured, not seeing Optimus get his weapons (and wasn't he caught in some wires or something?). But I didn't really care.

They killed a lot of cool characters and yet, this doesn't feel like the last Transformers film. I don't think Bay insulated himself well with future villains to bring in. They need to make some plotline off Earth IMO

Be honest. You're shaking with excitement waiting for Real Steel.

No doubt

I think this was a giant fuck you to anyone who didn't like the second film because it's more of the same. Tone and inept action sequences killed the second movie. Only the tone ruins the third this time around (though the action isn't without it's problems).

The first film worked so well because it was pretty much kid friendly. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for violence and sex, but it's got to have some sort of purpose doesn't it? The complete obliteration of the city of Chicago is completely inappropriate for this kind of film. The two shots showing bystanders getting obliterated by those ray guns (?) (except sometimes their skulls are left intact?...a family in my screening walked out at this point) felt completely out of place. And the 30 second shot of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley's ass in black panties? We get it Michael; you hate Megan Fox and you're trying to one-up your shot of her on the motorcycle, but come one. I'm all for nudity over gratuitous violence, but even I have a limit when I'm gazing at a hot ass, and you upped it by at least 10 seconds. Again, I have no problem with the shot or the content of it (she does have a great ass). I guess what I'm getting at is that these scenes would feel at home in something like a Bad Boys II (if it had robots), but not in a Transformers movie.

Instead Bay, with the sequel and now this one, believes he has to morph the films to appeal to the fanbase that loves the Nolan Batman movies. Two big differences though. The Batman movies have never really been kid friendly (except Batman & Robin and that's just one of the reasons why it was fucking awful) and Nolan is a much better filmmaker than Bay. Nolan knows how to adapt his films for their appropriate audiences. The Dark Knight never tried to come across as "kid friendly" at any point during the film and neither did Batman Begins. The first Transformers did come across as kid friendly. The last two are pretty much what I think Michael Bay fantasizes about whenever he's getting off. He's not making films for his audience anymore and when you're a big budget director like he is, that's a significant problem.

What I liked:

First half: I admit, I didn't mind the humor. It's not especially well done, but at least the film wasn't taking itself so seriously at this point.
Second half: The action sequences are extremely well choreographed and shot. The skyscraper cutting in half is the highlight of the film and the most entertaining scene.

Rosie Huntinton-Whiteley - Aside from the last scene with Megatron, well...she could've been much worse. I didn't find her to be anywhere near as annoying as Fox was in the second movie.

What I didn't like:

Second half: The Chicago storyline goes on for far too long. How did Bay not learn from the second movie that non-stop action doesn't necessarily equate excitement? Instead he's upped the ante and made the entire second half non-stop action. Literally, it's non-stop. Even The Rock allowed moments for the audience to catch their collective breaths and that's a wall-to-wall action film.

And why do the Autobots abandon the humans again? They're supposed to be protecting them, right? Instead they hide and let an entire city get wiped off the map (and like the author of the article Web provided said) only to teach our world leaders (really America) a lesson? Thanks guys. No reason to attack them while they're trying to set up the beam and in the process destroy Chicago. Nooooooo, that'd be too easy.

*½ (D+)

Whether Bay directs another or not, this is the last time I'd care to see a Transformers movie.

That's exactly what I said after the first one.

And we all should've listened. I could've done something with those five hours.

Oh, you went to the five hour Transformers? Interesting. Probably why you didn't like it.

To be fair, the assembly cut at least made sense.

No I was talking about the combined running time for the sequel and this third movie.

I really don't know what anyone was expecting. I just wanted to see what morally bankrupt action spectacle Michael Bay had cooked up, and it was just as deliciously evil and visually mind-blowing as I had been hoping for. Walking into one of these movies with the intention of dissecting the "plot" is really missing the point. I don't mean to imply that film analysis is bad, of course! But to me, the Transformers franchise is no more evil or stupid than most of the action movies Hollywood produces, particularly the many, many alien invasion movies of this year. It's just more on-the-nose with the war-mongering xenophobia, and more lackadaisical towards editing continuity, 'realistic' characters and other things that people only pretend to care about in their blockbusters. And Michael Bay movies aren't just sillier and more obvious than similar ilk - they're way more bombastic and visually iconic. And whether or not people admit it, he's got a much sharper sense of humor and a knack for getting funny performances out of actors we like to think know better.

Transformers is symbolic of everything that's wrong with Hollywood. But by being consistent posters on this forum, we implicitly profess our own love of the system. So from where I see things, harsh critics of Transformers are Decepticons in disguises.

And they're only deceiving themselves.

The only thing I'd say is, I love Michael Bay so much that I'm looking forward to him making non Transformers movies again just for the fresh factor

I liked 'Bad Boys II'. I know what to expect.

And yes, the action in the last 30 minutes was 'visually mind-blowing'. But what about the first two 'boring-with-all-the talking' hours of the film. Should I just 'overlook'? I don't understand why didn't Bay stick with what he's good at. Why bothers adding complicated 'plot', instead of a simple one.

Do you realize that this film took 18 minutes (spent those 18 minutes with Apollo-thing, Sam's new GF) before its first 'visually mind-blowing' ACTION sequence which lasted for exactly 1:37 minute.

Loved for all the reasons people hate it. Nobody does mass scale destruction like Michael Bay. Every one of the shots he cares about are a marvel to behold.

Dude, Michael Bay wouldn't be an awesome director if only his action scenes were compelling. But he shoots everything, even normal 'talky' scenes, with flair and sharp humor. Sometimes it's idelogically evil humor, but it still got a laugh out of me. Except for Shia LeBouf, who just seemed to be physically uncomfortable throughout.

But also, your meticulous second counting seems to forget the opening Cybertron war sequences. Now that was mind blowingly cool, especailly in 3D.

Sentinel Prime's ship escaping reminded me of the opening minutes of Revenge of the Sith. In 3D!

And if the non-action scenes were dramatically compelling it would take away from the visual spectacle. It symbolizes how boring real life is compared to giant robots beating the shit out of each other.

I don't want them (non-action scenes) to be 'dramatically compelling'. I want them to be CUT OFF.



that's silly

It's less retarded than the second one, at least. And the 3D was good. And Rosie whatshertits didn't totally ruin things.

Why was Shia full of Harry-Potter-in-Order-of-the-Phoenix rage in this one, though?

I like to imagine that Spielberg and Bay were continuously punking him with super elaborate pranks throughout the production.

I must have watched a different film. I thought it was WAY better than the last film and about on par with the first but for different reasons.

The first half was fun, especially the workplace scenes. Rosie is hot. Bay abandons quick shots and cuts for slow mo and it works as we can see what is actually happening and importantly - gulp - the 3D is awesome. Cant believe I said that.

Yeah yeah its too long, i dozed off for 15 mins near the end haha and has a bunch of other issues but overall its a nice conclusion to Bay's trilogy and much better than I expected going in.

6/10 -> C

I actually don't find this one to be noticeably better than the second movie. It might be marginally better, but it equally suffers on all aspects. From lame humor (way too desperate to be funny, not as natural and whacky as the first movie), still confusing action scenes (robot fights still looks like two soda cans mashing each other) and the worst thing is how long this movie is. It's at least one hour too long.

I actually thought the plot was pretty good. It definitely offered a decent layout, but unfortunately it seems like they wanted to stuff everything they could think of in this movie. The not-Megan-Fox-girl is just as useless and unnecessary (LOL @ her talk with Megatron) as are Sam's parents and even Sam. Bringing back every character back was (and pretty much always is) the worst idea.

The 3D was good though. The space stuff was better than the Earth stuff. Though maybe I'm bored with viewing the Earth in 3D all the time. I need my fix of 2D.

Rewatched this for the 4th of July, love this movie.!

Finally hit instant watch on Netflix, will try and stomach a go. 2nd was wretched and the reviews on here are certainly not encouraging.

The Transformers sequels are better in doses. 20-40 minutes at a time on cable.

This movie is still effing awesome.

I agree that these movies are only tolerable on TV on a lazy Sunday...


Tf1 is okay, I have seen parts of it like 10-12 times on TV now...

ITs always on TV....