When the original TRANSFORMERS rolled out in 2007, it was no less than anyone expected from the director of PEARL HARBOUR – typically divisive, most dismissed its lack of plot, character and substance. Still, some enjoyed it for its action and entertainment value. I was amongst the latter crowd, choosing to look past its various flaws in favour of enjoying the ride.
I could do no such thing with its sequel two years later, however: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN was bloated, aimless, unfunny and, among other things, pretty racist. Worst of all, it didn’t even deliver on the entertainment values of its predecessor. Suffice to say I wasn’t exactly looking forward to the inevitable three-quel yet two years later – but, unlike many, I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.
That’s not to say director Michael Bay had re-attained the heights (middles?) of the original. This is a franchise that has teetered haphazardly on the fence of ‘passable’ to ‘it’s a bit shit really’ since its inception, and DARK OF THE MOON wasn’t a game-changer for Optimus and the gang. What it did have over the previous two films that helped it stand out were four key elements:
1) Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
2) THAT tower scene
3) John Malkovich
4) Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
And did I mention there was no Megan Fox? Praise the almighty robot in the sky. But yes, subjective opinions on Bay’s use of the male gaze aside, DARK OF THE MOON still boasts one of the best action sequences in modern cinema (and if anyone was ever going to say anything nice about Michael Bay, it could only be that). And Mr Malkovich; an instant recipe for improving any film, no matter how shallow or void of character it may be elsewhere.
While TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON may be lacking in everything that makes a film watchable, it at least has the balls to stand up and say it doesn’t care. It just wants to see stuff get blown up. At this point, you’re probably thinking I must love every Tom, Dick and Harry DIE HARD impersonator that rolls up on my cinema screen. This is untrue: the reason I like (not love – that is reserved for my guiltiest of pleasures later this month) DARK OF THE MOON so much is because it does its action well.
Let’s compare it to a more popular film that runs along a similar vein: AVENGERS ASSEMBLE. I’m sure its hordes of fans would decry me for ever mentioning the two in the same article, let alone bearing them a comparison, but hear me out: is the focal point of AVENGERS not pure action? Sure, the script’s a lot better, and you actually want to root for the good guys there, but aside from that all you’re left with is sheer spectacle. There’s no character development. ‘That came in the Phase One films!’ I hear you cry – but this is not an excuse. AVENGERS should be able to stand alone as well as working as part of a broader arc. It does not. And its villains, Loki aside, are even more thinly developed than TRANSFORMERS’ antagonists.
So now that I’ve dragged everyone’s favourite non-Batman film of 2012 down to the level of Michael Bay, maybe you can understand where I’m coming from when I say DARK OF THE MOON’s spectacle is enough to warrant it at least a watch – and perhaps certified popcorn blockbuster status, as AVENGERS also (rightly) deserves. Its runtime may be bloated enough to put you off multiple viewings, but for a one-night stand of brainless action, there are very few that can better the TRANSFORMERS series. (Minus the second one.)
To see our other guilty pleasures, click here
Matt Dennis
Aug 4, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I think your idea of ‘good for the sake of pure spectacle’ is a very well thought out and interesting concept. Thinking back to films like the Matrix Sequels and Transformers 1, whilst they suck ass in terms of character development and story, theres no denying that the action sequences in those films are first class. I thought Avengers had plenty of good character building moments, but now you mention it, I may have to give it another watch, just to be sure.
Anyways, excellent article!
antonio
Aug 4, 2012 at 8:37 pm
I actually agree with you on your points,but are you trying to bash both transformers and avengers? I mean these movies aren’t meant to have strong plots, character developement, and possibly thought provoking. Its a blockbuster that’s a spectacle for the eyes not for the brains. And apparently transformers 3 was watchable enough to gross $1.1 billion. Honestly, do you go to movies like this for a great plot and strong character developement or do u go to see great sequences and possibly it has a good plot and character development? Wht expect something different from the movies leading to scavengers (Thor, iron man 1 &2, captain America, and hulk) and transformers (transformers & 2)?
NoahDavid Lein
Aug 5, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Fifth key element:
5. Leonard Nimoy.
And when he turns, he TURNS. That gave the movie – and the rather emotionally flat Transformers – some dynamics. It got personal with a voice-actor who brought some respectability to the line-up.
Chris Wharfe
Aug 6, 2012 at 11:34 am
Quite the opposite Antonio – I’m saying we should celebrate them for their spectacle because they do it so well, and because of that it’s easier to forgo their lack of plot or character development.
This isn’t true of every action film that finds itself otherwise void of character/plot – if the spectacle isn’t engaging then it is difficult to find any reason to recommend it. (Think GI Joe, Terminator Salvation etc.)
Of course, we then have to take into account films like Inception – a blockbuster with fantastic action scenes, but also an intelligent plot and characters. With the existence of films like this, it’s hard not to question why more films can’t combine all three elements (action, character and plot). But then, I suppose not every film can be directed by Christopher Nolan… 😉
And fair play to you NoahDavid Lein – Nimoy was definitely the standout voice actor in the cast.
Sam Carey
Aug 6, 2012 at 12:45 pm
The system works. I’m now going to watch this tonight, and I really didn’t like Transformer’s. I wanna see some running and explosions!!!
John Sharp
Aug 6, 2012 at 4:07 pm
I’m down with a film focusing on spectacle over character if that’s the selling point. But damn, can Michael Bay provide a female lead who is there for reasons other than being ogled at? Or can act? A bit?
Chris Wharfe
Aug 6, 2012 at 8:55 pm
You’re in for the long haul Sam.
And Monsieur Sharp – probably not. Let’s face it, the entire film is pretty much just meant to be ogled at.
Though I do think his male leads are pretty competent. (I realise I’m in the minority when it comes to Labeouf. But I have fond memories of Holes…)
Chris Conley
Aug 15, 2012 at 3:23 am
I still can firmly debate the racism of Transformers 2, the movie is not racist, yeah it has gangsta sterotypes with gold teeth, but for all we know they could of modeled them after White people rapping. Two, since when do giant mechanical robots have any color to begin with. But then again, I thought Jar Jar Binks wasn’t racist either. Now, I won’t argue that the characters were annoying, both the two robots and Jar Jar Binks. Two, if the movie is racist, why the hell isn’t Tyrese Gibson having gold teeth and doing a stupid comedy routine oh wait its because the movie isn’t racist. Its sterotypical but not racist.