WONDER WOMAN

“Transformers” movies back-to-back-toback-to-back-to-back, not counting the occasional break to use the bathroom, pop another Advil or hurl yourself off the nearest cliff. Thirteen hours! Think of what you could get done in that time. You could put a dent in “The Brothers Karamazov,” binge the first season of “Billions” or run an ultra marathon — all experiences likely to leave you feeling less nauseated than having lines such as “I’m gonna hot-wire this bitch!” pound against your skull for half a day. Fortunately, the “Last Knight” screening I attended was the only “Transformers”-related content I consumed all day, assuming that ugly pileup on the 101 Freeway doesn’t count. Seen toward the end of a sweltering afternoon in an air-conditioned, 3-D-equipped Imax theater, this latest dispatch from the interplanetary war between the good Autobots and the evil Decepticons turns out to be surprisingly bearable in its 150-minute bloat. By this I mean it comes nowhere close to the brain-dead nadir of “Revenge of the Fallen” (2009) and “Age of Extinction” (2014), and at times it even approaches the fun-in-spite-of-itself apex of “Dark of the Moon” (2011). Overall, the odd-numbered entries would seem to be on this franchise’s side. Not that even the most hardcore “Transformers” devotees should be expected to keep track of exactly what happened when, given Bay’s casual disregard for even the most casual requirements of narrative logic and continuity. Like few auteurs or hacks before him have managed, Bay has a genius for imbecility; he turns incoherence into its own form of hyperkinetic abstract art. He is a Pollock of pulverized metal, a virtuoso of vertiginous clutter. This is reportedly the director’s final “Transformers” movie before he turns over the reins, and he approaches it with infectious glee, as if he were the ringmaster of the world’s largest zero-gravity robot orgy and delighted at the chance to crack the whip one last time. Like its migraine-inducing predecessors, “Transformers: The Last Knight” is not just the product but the living embodiment of Bay’s boyish imagination. As any parent knows, the world of a child so intently at play can be an alternately lively and tedious place, one where we are treated as either engaged participants or bewildered observers. Sometimes a boy needs friends to help throw his toy cars in the air. And sometimes he just needs to be left alone with his staff. — Justin Chang, Los Angeles Times

1/2 PG-13, 141 minutes. Waterford, Stonington, Westbrook, Lisbon. It’s taken 76 years for the comic book character Wonder Woman to lasso her way onto the big screen in her very own standalone film, and it’s not a moment too soon. “Wonder Woman” arrives in theaters under an intense amount of scrutiny. The first female-starring superhero film directed by a woman, Patty Jenkins, carries the burden of representing half the population, and her success could determine the fates of other female superhero films. Not only that, but after a string of superhero blockbusters that have been battered by critics, the DC Comics cinematic universe needs an acclaimed hit. So it’s a pleasure to report that “Wonder Woman” more than delivers on its promise. It is simply awesome. The keys to its success lie in the two wonder women at the heart of the film, director Jenkins and star Gal Gadot. With her scene-stealing appearance in last year’s “Batman vs. Superman,” it was clear Gadot could ably fulfill the duties of the hero: smart, sassy, strong, and in need of no man’s aid. She remains just as headstrong and physically formidable, but in “Wonder Woman,” we get to know Diana better, and she’s one of the most charming and lovable superheroes to come around in a long, long time. Jenkins and writer Allan Heinberg have sacked the dark and dour tone that began with the