Summer Review #4 -- Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Not every movie can brag about operating as both film and testing ground. This is why Michael Bay's latest offering is so irreplaceable in its intent. After the slam, bang, boom, unsavory experience of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, I can say that the movie has thoroughly tested my survival skills. If I made it through it, I can make it through anything.

In the wake of the two messy battles between the Autobot and Decepticon factions, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is an American hero unable to find a job and his parents are apparently inhabiting an RV -- nothing like a timely slice of life for the audience to relate, right? After Sam's new girlfriend (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) pulls some strings with her boss (Patrick Dempsey) to get her guy hired, and before you can say Victoria's Secret, Sam gets embroiled in another war. This time, the conflict revolves around an ancient Cybertron spacecraft, which happens to have been discovered by the first American astronauts. Ginormous displays of elaborate action sequences and textbook examples of bad acting follow, as we sit patiently, counting down the minutes and wondering why we did not see X-Men: First Class again instead...

If there is a story somewhere, it quickly gets lost among the grandiose technical achievements. Admittedly, these aspects are a sight to behold -- the highway scene and the skydiving sequences are truly impressive -- but they alone do not a movie make and we have seen most of these elements in the previous two installments. It is ironic that Dark of the Moon is being screened in 3D, considering that its terrain is void of multidimensional developments, effervescent characters and a single grain of ingenuity. No, I did not go in expecting a Shakespearean depth of narrative, but I was expecting an entertaining nugget on the level of the playful original, particularly because the filmmakers were boasting that they have made a better sequel than the insipid Revenge of the Fallen. Who were they kidding? Was that not a low standard from the start? This movie contains slow motion, bullet time, aerial shots and all other cinematic techniques in existence, dragging on for 2 1/2 hours with nothing substantial to show for it. Eventually, the proceedings turn into Battle: Los Angeles... oops, I mean, Battle: Chicago. And the warfare goes on. And on. And on. Suffice to say, an action movie that ends up boring its audience is never a good idea.

Another aspect that I found irritating, and offensive to boot, was the screenplay's latent homophobia. The only way that the franchise is capable of flaunting its "macho" factor is by throwing barbs at those perceived as not up to par in the rough-and-tumble, bring-it-on world. Guys, there IS a significant policy repeal being discussed in the media these days, and a military one, no less. You may have heard about it. Get informed. And yes, Virginia, somebody of the same sex is free to touch your hand without you growing "afraid" that they might be gay. The year is 2011.

Are the performances really worth mentioning? If I had to pick the best one, my vote would go to the special effects wizards who created the robots, but let me try and stick to convention. LaBeouf is going through the motions, by now probably well aware of the fact that method acting has no place in the Transformers universe. Huntington-Whiteley is so pretentiously, distractingly wooden, I was seriously starting to miss Megan Fox and her curvaceous lack of persona. I could not help wondering what Frances McDormand and John Malkovich were doing here, but hey, the cost of living is steep. Dempsey and McDormand are the only actors attempting to flesh human beings out of the cardboard characters -- the former does away with much of his charm-fueled image, while the latter hams it up as an uptight bureaucrat.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon is so laughably bad, it actually managed to infuriate me while watching. I would have done anything for it to end and I would do anything to erase it from my mind. It is a shame that milking a cash cow and tossing creativity aside remains an acceptable way to get a movie made but, considering the financial intake so far, I guess the assumption is that the laugh is on us.

3/10