Transformers 3 - La face cachée de la Lune

Une autre action autoroutière fantastique, devenant le trademark le plus fiable du réalisateur. Les Marines, volant de manière spectaculaire à la manière du vol de Hong Kong du Chevalier Noir, et l'incendie d'action final à Chicago sont un pur plaisir d'action. Cette fois-ci, même Bay est exceptionnellement clair. Cependant, le reste du film, c'est-à-dire au moins la moitié, est ennuyeux, sans humour et parfois même ennuyeux comme jamais auparavant. Le personnage de Malkovich est un véritable cauchemar, et regarder Frances McDormand et John Turturro se donner en spectacle est au-delà du tolérable. Et Patrick Dempsey et Rosie H.-W., d'où les ont-ils déterrés dans une mini-production télévisée ? Megan, tu nous manques. J'aurai certainement une place en enfer pour donner la même note au troisième Transformers qu'à Melancholia de Trier, mais que puis-je faire. Michael Bay est un requin commercial talentueux, vendu à l'armée américaine, au gouvernement américain et aux corporations impitoyables, et incarne en même temps l'éclat éblouissant et l'inégalité technique des possibilités hollywoodiennes. Retirez-lui une caméra, et nous n'aurons personne à haïr et admirer en même temps. (30/06/2011)

I will divide Transformers 3 into three parts: 1) the dialogues, 2) the action set pieces (the motorway and the skyscraper), and 3) the remaining filler. Thumbs up for 2), but for 1) and 3) Bay deserves to have his ass kicked. Otherwise, I hope that this third part puts an end to this insult to science fiction (yeah, I know, I don’t have to watch it, but as a sci-fi fan, I was again unable to listen to the warnings that said: “Don’t watch this bullshit!”). (29/12/2011)

The first major 3D contribution to world cinema: Michael Bay gave up the epileptic editing and the unbearable firing of detail. The action in T3, on the other hand, is often captured in one round-up, in slow motion, resulting in both a magnificent visual aspect and a well-moving camera. Moreover, with some relief, I must say that the unbearable fragmentation of the second film and the ridiculous attempt to turn the Transformers into a metaphysical myth have disappeared. The third film is a completely pure Bay film - the first part is still carried in the classic robot score, the second one gets a little rougher and serves up a Bay-style alien invasion. You won't find greater tricks far and wide, and by finally appreciating the director's ability to tame a giant screen thanks to the epic whole, it must appeal even to hardened skeptics. Everything else is more or less useless, although some of the sub-jokes are good and pave the way for the film to establish a reign of heavy-weight pathos. All those heroic ceilings, compositions with stars and stripes, and due to bad dubbing even guilty pleasure pathos. This is Bay how the mainstream needs it. The last of the Mohicans of high-budget idiocy, protector of clichés, destroyer of invention. I could give 4*, but when I think back on the amused smile and slightly dropped jaw from the visual, T3 is exactly the kind of blockbuster that makes me appreciate things like Thor or X-Men: First Class. With all due respect, Mr. Bay: *** (27/06/2011)

Less Bay, more Emmerich, or else, out of the frying pan and into the fire. But still easily the best part of the trilogy. And, despite the first half, where there’s a lot of “face-making doubling as humor". But in the second, purely action half, Bay pulled himself together in terms of editing and shaky camera, left out all the “jokey" moments (not even the parents or Turturro get a look after the switch to Chicago) and rolls out one epic scene after another, or rather one hour-long scene. Which is paradoxically a big problem, because so much happens at once and non-stop, without any calmer interjections for a rest, that after a few (ten, twenty...) minutes, you can’t help getting fed up and stupefied. And that’s a shame, because more than one part deserves to be relished; particularly the escapades during the escape from the collapsing skyscraper. Again a confirmation of the hackneyed expression that less is often more. (29/06/2011)

Finishing epic trilogies is traditionally an ungrateful job. Michael Bay managed to bring Optimus, Bumblebee, and the other Autobots to the end of their journey in the weakest installment, but that is not a disgrace after the mesmerizing first film and the fairy tale-mythological sequel. The third Transformers are occasionally funny, occasionally less so, occasionally frightening, but above all, they are so grandiose from about one-third of the runtime that it almost tears apart all the senses. What unfolds in Chicago is an audiovisual experience that leaves the viewer stunned all the way home. But what elevated the entire trilogy for me is mainly the fact that this story was never about the largest number of scrapped metal. Yes, it will always be a battle between Autobots and Decepticons, but many people forget that amidst all the adventure, a young boy grew up. The one who first rode in a yellow Camaro three films ago and ultimately saved the world because of it. Three times. (12/07/2011)

I went to the cinema thinking I was going to see a five-star film. After the first hour, I knew it was barely going to be 4 stars, and after another half hour I figured I wouldn't give it more than 3 stars. But then came the relentlessly long and repetitive ending and I can't even give it those 3. I liked Huntington-Whiteley until the fights started... then it just got ridiculous. Some of the effects weren't bad, of course, but the 3D was again completely unnecessary. A clean 2 stars. (06/07/2011)

I have bad with disruptive elements when it comes to Transformers. After a terrible experience with part two I went to the Imax, in the morning... but still I encountered kids. They were chatting away and kicking my seat from behind. And I think they didn’t even notice the movie going on. The screenplay... ehm... is some super serious conspiracy nonsense where there were fewer dumb jokes than last time, which is good, but at the same time so much happens that 154 minutes was just too little. Perhaps the director’s cut will be more satisfying in this respect. So that’s that. Now to the action, which is awesome as always, much more synoptic and the final action sequence that takes up the last fifty minutes of the movie is actually in 3D, just incredible. I actually had the feeling that Bay made Transformers 3 just to push the boundaries of 3D technology even closer to perfection. The highlight is probably the paratrooper mission in Chicago. Otherwise, the actors give their standard performances, Malkovich was really quite entertaining, and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (one of the most beautiful new faces) is a perfect example of an accessory to the main character to the fullest (it’s quite funny how the situation is “supposedly" the other way round). The only new robot to get any space is Sentinel Prime, the others are here to make up numbers for the action. (12/07/2011)

There aren't many movies where you can see exploding skyscrapers in Chicago for 200 million USD. Michael Bay's visual sense cannot be denied, and together with James Cameron (although going in a slightly different direction), they are the most advanced “technicians” in Hollywood. However, where Cameron can do that for the good of the film and people praise him for it, Bay has been struggling lately, like in this Transformers sequel. A joke? Why not, but purposeless fooling around for an hour is a bit too much. The hour-long action that follows is okay, with a monumental, visually stunning style, and this time it's also more comprehensible. But after a while, it leaves you with a headache. Transformers 3 is quite a mess. The first one was so much better. (09/07/2011)

Wow, Michael Bay uses long takes (well, by his standards, don't expect any De Palma rides) and it's one of the best ideas he could have gotten. Similarly, the cameraman has apparently stopped or started drinking and his hand no longer shakes as if he has Parkinson's. This makes the action scenes in Transformers 3 really spectacular and clear. Seriously - compared to the previous two films, this time I even knew which robot was hitting which every time. So that would be the biggest plus. Another positive is the first twenty-five minutes or so of the film dealing with the moon and Chernobyl. Negative aspects? Everything else. Especially the script. It's not so much that it's stupid, I expected that, it's just that it's terribly boring. I mean, almost nothing happens in the first hour and a half (except for the aforementioned beginning), for God's sake! What about John Malkovich and Frances McDormand's characters? Completely unnecessary. Neither of them needed to be in Transformers, not to mention the main character's new girlfriend is as attractive as she is unlikable. At least the action ending was good and there was something to watch in the movie theatre. (18/07/2011)

Un exemple parfait de pure folie sans aucun sens, même pour un instant. Heureusement, on ne regarde pas cela pour les dialogues ou la logique, mais pour l'onanisme technologique et informatique et la possibilité de profiter de ces scènes d'action qui sont à couper le souffle. Les vingt premières minutes sont bonnes, la dernière heure est une vraie bousculade, mais cette heure de remplissage entre les deux est totalement ennuyeuse. Les premiers Transformers restent donc la meilleure partie de la trilogie. (02/09/2011)

I didn't mind the overlong running time, the flatness of the screenplay and the number of purely American clichés in the first two Transformers, but in the case of the third installment it all hit me in the eyes in an unpleasant way. It took quite a long time before there was proper action and they also cut down on the comedy elements that could have saved some scenes. Shia LaBeouf was even more annoying, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was duller than Megan Fox and Ken Jeong gave one of the most pathetic performances in similar films. It was nice to see the return of John Turturro and the casting of Frances McDormand. As for the action sequences, I was most impressed by the passage with the Decepticon attacking a skyscraper and, of course, the final fight between the Autobots and the Decepticons. In the end, it's nice to watch, but in this case the stupidity was already over the level of bearability, which was not helped by the inclusion of real events from our history like the moon landing and Chernobyl. (31/08/2019)

I will not lie to myself, that movie in the cinema looked simply good when I went to see it. I probably wouldn't have gone on my own, but since my brother offered to go with me and said he wanted to see something that time, I couldn't refuse. It's visually impressive and intense, but the story is simply stupidity and I can't shake the feeling that Bay doesn't read the script, but only looks at the sketches provided to him. Then he only needs the information that there will be at least 50% action scenes and goes straight to filming. (02/04/2014)

The first was a well made lyrical/epic (lyrical in its celebration of Megan Fox's beauty, epic in the fatality of the war between the Autobots and the Decepticons) sci-fi tale where the action itself was well balanced by the plot. The second half was a sheer action orgy and a considerable devaluation of any character motivation, but I still enjoyed it. I liked the third one too, though some trimming in places definitely wouldn't have hurt. As for the punchy, pompous, Bay-esque action, it doesn't come until "after the invasion", i.e. in the second half of the film, but it's perfectly cut, clear, and ball-ripping. I don't mind that Bay absolutely doesn't mess with the characters in the third installment and uses them only as vehicles for the action spree – that’s just how he is and he won't be any different.) I can't say the third Transformers is a bad movie. The visuals are totally professional, and even the imagery in the first non-action part is impressive. It is a must-see in the cinema, otherwise take 20-30% off the final experience and rating.:) (02/07/2011)