Topless Robot's Transformers 3 FAQ

By Rob Bricken in Movies, Toys
Thursday, June 30, 2011 at 5:00 pm

How many robot bodily fluids and robot genitalia are shown in the movie?
Thankfully, no genitalia, and only one robot bodily fluid. Drool, specifically.

Well, Laserbeak slavers and Megatron spits a bit when he gets too excited. Again, I contend that Michael Bay still doesn't know what a robot is.

So should I watch it in 3-D or 2-D?
3-D for sure. Whatever my problems were with the action sequences, it wasn't the 3-D. Honestly, the 3-D was probably better here than in Avatar, although that might be because exploding robots are more interesting than blue hippies reenacting Dances with Wolves. Incidentally, even if you don't watch it in 3-D, you should appreciate that it was filmed in 3-D, because I'm pretty sure it forced Michael Bay to make better action sequences.

How so?
Well, you can't film too close up in 3-D because then much of the 3-D effect is lost. So many of the fight scenes in TF3 are filmed from a distance, meaning I could actually tell what the fuck was going on in some of them. Yes, the robot designs are still messes, but when they're not on shaky-cam from three feet away, you can actually make out robot arms and legs and what they were doing sometimes. It's an interesting sensation in a Bay film.

Are the Twins in the film?
Yes and no. Yes, they show up in one of the Autobot convoys in car mode. But they never turn into robots or speak, thank god. I wouldn't bother trying to get Bay to pay up, though.

So did they explain why Megan Fox was suddenly gone?
Only in that the Beef says at one point he was dumped. And I'm pretty sure Wheelie calls her a bitch.

How's Rosie Huntington-Whiteley compare to Megan Fox?
Well, she's less attractive than Megan Fox and not as good an actress, but not insanely so. However, I rescind my previous statement that she seemed worse than January Jones in X-Men: First Class. January Jones was significantly worse.

I don't find Rosie Huntington-Whiteley that attractive.
Well, Michael Bay sure does, because the first scene after the title is a close-up of her ass, only in panties, walking up the stairs for a good 30 seconds. And again, all the males in the movie leer at her unsettlingly. Even Bumblebee, when he first sees Rosie, freaks out and breaks a chandelier. Ha ha, it's funny because she's so attractive ha ha ROBOTS WANT TO FUCK OUR WOMEN.

What's the biggest problem with this movie?
It's that's it's so dull. Seriously, the first hour and a half -- 3/5ths of the damn movie -- there's virtually no action in this action movie. And when the action starts, it lasts a full hour -- which sounds cool, but somehow manages to be dull in its own way. I'm not saying Bay can't direct action, because he obviously can, and I'm sure plenty of people loved it as is. But after 10 minutes of people gadding about in a collapsing building, I was ready to move on, and yet there was still 10 more minutes of it to go. There's absolutely no pacing in this movie.

Really? There's an hour-long action scene and you think it's dull?
Think of it this way: Chocolate cake is good, right? But you wouldn't want to eat it for an hour. The first 10-15 minutes would be awesome. The second 10-15 minutes might still be pretty good. After 30 minutes, you're full and you don't want any more cake, even though it's delicious. And after an hour, all you want to do is vomit. And that's Transformers 3.

Hey, does any of this movie take place in the dark of the moon?
Not one fucking bit.


So why'd you go see it if you hate Transformers so much?
Because I'm a professional blogger, and one of the things I do on my blog is nerdy movie reviews. It was my job to see Transformers 3.

Then why don't you go get another job then?
Because the economy sucks and because even if Transformers 3 sucks, watching it is still a hell of a lot better than digging ditches for a living.

Who cares if the plot sucks? It's an action movie!
I care. As it turns out, I prefer it when my movies have good action scenes and a decent plot. I'm greedy that way.

Why are you bitching that the Transformers movie is stupid when the original cartoon is just as stupid?
Because the '80s Transformers cartoon didn't have a $300 million budget and wasn't supposed to appeal to millions of viewers of many ages in several countries. I think having slightly higher standards for the live-action movie is pretty reasonable.

Do you really expect a great story from a movie based on a toy cartoon?
No. But a decent story? A so-so story? A story that isn't relentlessly stupid? Yeah, I think I'd like that.

Who cares if it's dumb? This movie is for kids!
I think the lingering shots of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley's almost bare ass and the incredibly graphic violence indicate the movie is not solely for kids. And as it turns out, it is legal to have a non-ludicrously dumb plot, characterizations instead of accents, and even mediocre acting in kids movies sometimes. I looked it up.

Do you expect TF3 to be Citizen Kane? It's a turn-off-your-brain summer popcorn flick!
Of course not. But there's a pretty wide range between your standard summer fare and Citizen Kane, and just because I don't want my movie to be so stupid that I can't stop thinking about how dumb it is doesn't mean I need it to be some art house flick. Here's a summer popcorn flick for you: Thor. Was Thor dumb? No, but it wasn't smart. And it wasn't so dumb I was too distracted by horrible plot holes to enjoy the movie. I like not-smart movies. Love 'em, in fact. I don't need all movies to be as clever as Citizen Kane. I just need them to not be insanely stupid.

Why can't you just enjoy the spectacle, man?
Because spectacle is infinitely more spectacular if it's part of a story that makes a modicum of sense and characters that I give the tiniest shit about.

Email Print

Sponsor Content