I have an amazing story about that film and its premiere that I will not share in a public setting.

Did it have to do with coke, more coke, viagra and coke and lots of filthy sex?

Well, if you're not even willing to try I guess you're SOL.

As far as I understand it, all the 3D presentations are digital but I may easily be wrong about this.

The easiest way is to go to Fandango, which presents show listings for all theaters that report them (which, these days, is pretty much all of them). If a film is in 3D, IMAX, Real-D, etc., it will be denoted with the listing. I'll get you started with the Manhattan listings for tomorrow (since tonight's screenings are limited).

I think the only film presentation of this movie is IMAX.

http://www.philly.com/philly/enterta...s_coupled.html

Shia's become a real attention whore. He needs to leave that crap for when he's over-the-hill and begging for work.

Yes.

The only film-based 3D presentation of the film is in IMAX as Suprmallet pointed out. Paramount does not partner with Technicolor 3D and we should all be glad for that.

Saw this last night and loved it. It's got some flaws, of course, but I found a lot less fat on this one than the previous two and a lot more of what I want when I pay to see a movie about giant robots beating the hell out of each other. I checked it off on ICheckMovies.com a little while ago and it seems to me that most of the negative reactions are really from people who actively pay to see movies like this just to disparage them. Seriously, dwelling on Rosie Huntington-Whitely being clean and not bruised in the finale? This isn't a gritty, realistic dramatization. It's stylized violence with an adoration of eye candy. For its milieu, her being unblemished is perfectly acceptable.

Speaking of her, I thought she was fine. I was under the impression from some of the word that had reached my ears before I saw the movie that this was going to be a performance as annoying as, say, Uma Thurman in Batman & Robin. It doesn't stand out as a particularly noteworthy performance, but it also doesn't stand out as a particularly bad one, either.

Lastly, I thought the score was fine, but the song selection was just "blah" this time around. Nothing at all ear-catching like "New Divide."

I agree with you MinLShaw - this was fun, nowhere as pretentious and ponderous as the second film, and the battle in Chicago finale was far better than the entire 'Battle Los Angeles' film. The 3D effects were excellent - I think I might to see this again!

[youtube]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H7kcqB3thJM&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H7kcqB3thJM&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>[/youtube]

^ Yeah, I saw that earlier this afternoon. Personally, it doesn't bother me. Lots of film-makers include little homages to their previous works as Easter eggs. Michael Bay just decided to reuse an entire scene for the seventeen people who saw The Island. I can see why some would want to know why, with the budget they had, they even needed to re-use old footage. I'm more interested to know why and how this guy filmed the movie in the theater. Did he recognize the scene and go back a second time just to get this?

I'm sure he just downloaded one of the many copies online and edited out the one scene.

It's less easter egg and more budget saving technique. Bay did the same in ROTF where they reused footage from TF and Eagle Eye (the latter is acknowledged in the audio commentary of ROTF). DOTM also recycled dialogue from TF as radio chatter during the Chicago finale.

People need to remember that Bay is notorious for keeping films in or under budget (even when the budgets are huge). That's why studios and producers like him sso much.

who gives a shit... the movie was awesome regardless

It was good but hardly. Awesome. Had they trimmed al the excessive fat it would have been awesome.

That was a joke on my part, actually. I never thought it was intended as an Easter egg.

I can nitpick some things, but to be honest I didn't find much fat on this one. Just about every scene gave us more information about the characters, plot or at least the socio-political climate of the film. The pace was brisk, and I never found myself feeling that, "Just get on with it so I can see what I paid to see" boredom that I felt throughout the first two films (especially the second).

What did John Malkovich provide that couldn't have been done more efficiently and with less cringe-worthy humor?

Story-wise, of course, it was through his work environment that Sam is introduced to Wang. Could that role have been more perfunctory? Absolutely. I didn't find it much of a distraction, but I'll grant you this example of extraneous material. Though I will say that this was the kind of role in the first two films that would have been in the entire movie once he first appeared, and instead he's really only in a handful of scenes.

I consider Wang to be just as superfluous. There could have been a million ways Sam could have gotten that information (information that the Autobots already knew) that didn't involve so much mugging on Ken Jeong's part.

I believe that entire subplot was intended to establish that knowledge of the Transformers was not confined to the Transformers and those with whom they had directly interacted. That others were on the scent of the trail, too. So that aspect of it speaks to the establishment of the environment of the film which does become important later.

Now, if you argue that we already know from the first two films that there are people out there who know about the Transformers, that's true. Wang is different in that he wasn't merely an enthusiast. He had key information firsthand that he needed put in the hands of someone who could, and would, act on it.

I'll of course grant you that this, too, was a role that could have been more perfunctory in nature.

I think any one of us could have come up with a more elegant, simple, and streamlined way to tell this story that allowed the action to shine. I really don't believe you think the film didn't have much fat when it's closer to three hours than two.

As much as I loved him, can you tell me why Alan Tudyk is in the movie?

Wang should have been a simple quick scene of an employee passing something on to Sam moments before his apparent suicide. Not an unfunny sequence of his stalking Sam and then assaulting him in the bathroom stall. Also, his standoff with Lazerbeak has no business in this movie since it killed the bleak tone established earlier with Lazerbeak murdering the collaborators.

Likewise, unless they were gonna reveal Tudyk as someone Manning placed to keep tabs on Simmons (which it seemed like it was almost going there before turning into a one-off joke), there was no reason for Dutch or Simmons being in this movie beyond unfunny improv.

It was awesome to me... good story, great action, serious moments... it was a summer movie..

Super 8 is still the movie to beat for me but it was great!

Awesome? It was crap with a big budget. Writing was horrible. Effects were cool. That's all anyone cares about now I guess.

Look I enjoyed it too but it didn't have a good story. It had the premise for a good story, one would assume.

Solid visuals and action...shit filler.