I have absolutely NO idea how this film got a 12A/PG-13!

Rating: 5/10 (30 June 2011)

I enjoyed "Transformers" (2007), I enjoyed "Revenge of the Fallen" (2009) less, although the graphics and action kept me entertained and, let's be honest, you don't go to see "Transformers" for the "avant-garde-ness", the Oscar-winning script or the world class performances. First of all, I'll say this: Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is HOT! However, Megan Fox is HOT! The difference is, Megan Fox can act... she can also act without looking entirely as though she's at a Maxim shoot whilst she's doing it. When you take into account that this film is an action and CGI-lover's wet dream, that doesn't really matter. There's no point in the film where Huntington-Whiteley is naked and so the BBFC and MPAA have no reason to go above the 12A or PG-13 certificates, I have no problem with that. I also can't think of a 12 or 13 year old who would be drastically affected by seeing the curves of an older woman (at that age, it's all they think about anyway). Now, I'm 18, I don't have any kids, I enjoy films and, occasionally, I like to see a film like "Transformers" just to take a break from hard-hitting, philosophical, thoughtful dramas. I am not personally bothered or emotionally affected by on-screen fantasy action, action or graphic violence (as long as it's not a snuff movie or a video of a guy splitting his face in half after jumping from fifteen metres onto concrete). This is probably a good thing, because at the age of 18 (in the UK) I can watch any film distributed in this country that has not been banned by the BBFC, a lot of which contain action, graphic violence, graphic sex, extreme profanity and heavy drug use. I like that this is the case. I like that this is a democracy where we have free speech and freedom of expression. Just by reading the synopsis of a film, you can tell if you're going to like its contents or not. When a film's name is "Saw" and you're not a fan of gore, JUST DON'T WATCH IT! The problem is, the BBFC and MPAA seem to have been lowering their standards since the turn of the millennium (especially for blockbusters - I'm not a conspiracy theorist) and "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" clearly illustrates that point. If I had a 12 year old child and took them to see this film, I probably would have covered their eyes, walked them out of the screening, berated the cinema manager and then burnt down the BBFC before catching a flight to LA and assassinating Michael Bay. In a scene on the freeway, at least twenty cars, being driven by innocent civilians are blown up, thrown carelessly away, crushed or used as objects to chuck at the aggressor's opponent. On the streets of Chicago, the Decepticons obliterate dozens of people with ray guns, vaporising them... but not their clothes, leaving bloody clothes where the people did stand, laying on the road. In another instance, there is a camera shot along the inside of a train or bus carriage which has been hit by an explosion of some kind: all of the passengers on board lay limp in their seats, covered with ash. An entire building is destroyed by a boa constrictor-esque Decepticon, imaginably causing the death of hundreds of employees. My final problem, early on in the film the Autobots are sent to the Middle East to an "Illegal Nuclear Compound", these massive robots break in and when the soldiers, in fear, put their hands up in surrender, they are demolished by the aliens' gunfire. What I understood from this film's predecessors was that the Autobots had stayed to protect "man kind". The beginning of "Revenge of the Fallen" sees them fighting unwanted Decepticons, in fact, the Autobots have never fought a battle against any humans in the "Transformers" trilogy until this scene... I would imagine the fact that the first humans to be killed by Autobots are from the Middle East is a complete coincidence (that was sarcastic by the way). Michael Bay would always defend himself by saying that he's a patriot of America and her allies. I do not mind patriotism; I do not condone illegal nuclear compounds in any part of the world (especially Iran - not to imply that that's where they were suggesting the compound was). What I do mind is Michael Bay, in a film that he knew was going to be given a PG-13/12A certificate, presenting the "Middle East" as Iran, an entire sector of the world that we should now hate because they make nuclear weapons and want to hurt America. I would have been OK with it if the subtitle said "Iran". May I just add that a patriot does not use any excuse to blow up as many US landmarks as possible in their films (including the Lincoln Memorial) and suggest that an evil alien race assassinated JFK. Not only the violence, but the themes in this film annoyed me, not me personally, because I, along with a large percentage of the population, am aware that Michael Bay is simply a rich, vacuous and pretentious idiot. However, I feel that a young audience viewing this without that understanding and whilst they are still developing their moral compasses and deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, this could have a detrimental effect on their growth. I'd be happy with a 15 certificate for this film. Obviously the USA doesn't have an equal classification and an R might seem steep, but a PG-13 definitely is not steep enough. This is just my personal opinion, I might have read into it further than the average viewer would, so if you'd like to share your opinion, then feel free, especially people with children around the age of 12 or 13, I'd like to know how you feel about your kids watching this. I hope no-one's too annoyed that this wasn't actually a review.