Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Edelstein finds the film a thrilling, wildly ambitious spectacle despite its excesses. He especially praises the action sequences, singling out the Chicago battle and a highway chase for their visual inventiveness.

Woodward finds the film an overlong, shallow spectacle that delivers excessive action at the expense of story. He praises Bay’s commitment to extravagant action excess, while criticizing the pacing and thin human characters.

Jones finds the screenplay ragged, the humour misjudged and the film overlong, but praises its spectacular action. He singles out Michael Bay for raising the action bar with the film’s spectacle.

Sharkey finds this a leaner, more watchable entry, praising Bay’s effective use of 3-D and the detailed visual effects. She complains that the spectacular action, especially the final battle, goes on far too long.

The page identifies this as a review of the 2011 film. The review text is inaccessible, so its verdict and specific praise or complaint cannot be determined.

The article text is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be established. No specific praise or complaint can be verified.

Christley offers a conflicted verdict, finding Bay’s eccentric excess both entertaining and troubling. He praises the collapsing office-tower sequence and the film’s distinctive visual personality, while criticizing its stereotypes and rushed editing.

Chang finds the film more coherent and visually controlled than its predecessor, but still an overlong spectacle with little human or dramatic interest. He particularly praises the clearer, more spacious 3D action, while faulting the story’s reliance on clunky human motives and relentless mayhem.

The review finds the film overlong, repetitive and confusing, though it gives audiences much of the spectacle they want. It praises the chaotic CGI combat scenes as terrifically done.

The critic describes the third installment as tiresome. The review’s opening complaint singles out how quickly the film establishes that tone.

Hewitt finds the film only marginally better than its predecessor, with weak writing and characters undermining it. He praises the climactic Chicago action sequence as spectacular and especially effective in 3D.

Bradshaw finds the film loud, exhausting and overlong, though slightly less foolish than its predecessors. He praises the opening’s counterfactual Apollo 11 sequence but says the climactic action is chaotic and dull.

Newman finds the film disappointing, despite its state-of-the-art effects and occasional bursts of spectacle. He singles out the burrowing mechanical worm and the tilting-skyscraper action as effective, but says the human comedy and robot carnage drag.

Lane finds the film briefly entertaining at first, but says it soon collapses into disconnected drivel. He faults Bay for abandoning sequence and consequence, making the Chicago invasion feel incoherent.

The critic finds the film exhausting and emotionally hollow, with destruction overwhelming human drama. He singles out the elaborate Chicago battle as a showcase for spectacle that ultimately leaves the movie feeling lost.

Lambie finds the film tedious and overlong in its first half, but says the action-packed second half makes the wait worthwhile. He praises the impressive integration of live-action and CGI and the effective 3D in a standout set piece.

The headline suggests a mixed verdict, with the film’s action praised despite an asinine story. It singles out roughly 40 minutes of great action as the film’s strength.

Lyus finds the film technically impressive but largely sterile and emotionally empty. He singles out the collapsing-building sequence for praise, while criticizing the childish comedy and repetitive action.

The critic finds the film incoherent and exhausting, calling it bigger but no better than its predecessor. He singles out the overwhelming special effects and spectacle as crowding out the story and leaving the destruction emotionally meaningless.

The critic finds the film joyless and impotent despite a few entertaining performances. They single out the overacting of the veteran actors for praise, while criticizing the chaotic visuals and weak performances elsewhere.

The critic finds the film an incoherent, overlong and disappointing spectacle. He praises the striking opening montage and effective use of 3D, but faults the storytelling and comedy.

Bitel finds the film exhausting and thuddingly boring despite its enormous scale. He singles out the relentless, overwhelming action and the film’s inability to make its spectacle engaging.