The problem that has always plagued the Transformers franchise is its origins. Based on the popular Hasbro toyline, it was always designed as nothing more than a money making tool. What's that, Dreamworks? You're seeing dollar signs? Hmmm....I thought so. In the world of franchising, Transformers fits the perfect business model for any power hungry studio. Give Michael Bay a $250million budget and you know you're gonna have a loud, obnoxious, overblown, overlong yet critic-proof juggernaut on your hands. Michael Bay's "What can I blow up next?" philosphy will always ring true to the majority of the public, who see the Transformers franchise as escapism cinema. It's really anything but that.
The story involves a government conspiracy that goes back all the way to the Apollo 11 Moon landings, where Neil Armstrong & co. were actually sent to investigate the crash site of a Cybertronian spacecraft following the war on Cybertron, mentioned in the previous films by Optimus Prime. In the present, we are thrown back into the life of Sam Witwicky, played by Shia LaBeouf the Charisma Vaccum, who now has a new girlfriend Carly (there is no mention of why Megan Fox in the film) who is played by newcomer, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, a Victoria Secret model hand picked by Bay himself. I won't spend too long on this but this is one of the many things that displays Bay's lack of sense towards cinema. He supposedly loves creating his 'art' but he hires a model as the new love interest. We get it; she's attractive. So how else to introduce her other than a shot panning up her naked legs to slowly focus on her bottom? The man baffles me. I will say that she makes Megan Fox look like a masterstorke of casting genius but I digress. The Autobots now work for the government, participating in missions around the globe whilst Sam struggles to find a job and longs to work with the robots again. Their paths meet and once again, we are thrown into a miltary warzone where the Autobots and Decepticons engage in battle (again).
I deeply wish I could say there was more of a narrative to go on but there just isn't much to say. The third act of the film, roughly the last 60 minutes, is dedicated to one enormous fight between the duelling parties. Granted, the CGI is wonderfully executed and it does genuinely look good in the 3D format but for a full 60 minutes, there is only so much an audience can engage with. I found myself struggling greatly to keep up; the frantic editing leaves you wondering who's fighting now, the explosions are constant and its one set-piece after another. The first Transformers movie resembled what a summer blockbuster should be; silly, fun and OTT. But not in the way Dark of the Moon is. Whilst the original leant heavily on a story with a few battle sequences, the second film Revenge of the Fallen destroyed any notion of that story and spent 150 minutes blowing stuff up. Bay promised the third would be a massive improvement and actually, many critics reckon it is. Not this one I'm afraid. Its 155 minutes of bad acting, stuff blowing and the general sense that this franchise should have ended when the original (and superior) film was released.
Thankfully, Mr. Bay and Charisma Vaccum have stated they won't be returning to the franchise after the release of Dark of the Moon, considering the story finished. Thank goodness for this. Revenge of the Fallen is in my Top 5 worst films ever and Dark of the Moon has swiftly followed suite. I beg of you not to waste your time on this but with over a half billion in the bank after 10 days on release; its really no use. No will listen......like I said before, dollar signs change everything.
1 out of 5 stars. (Yes, THAT bad)
P.S. check out this link featuring the review by BBC Five Live's Mark Kermode, my favourite critic. He sums up in his own way what he feels about the Transformers franchise without saying a word.
No comments:
Post a Comment