What You're In For:
Following the massive destruction of Chicago in "Transformers: Dark of the Moon", the U.S. government disavows their support of the Autobots, and forces them into hiding. After the dust settles, a bounty-hunter transformer begins flushing them out and imprisons them one-by-one; but he may not be working alone.
Who's Involved:
"Transformers: Age of Extinction" is a production of Paramount Pictures & Hasbro, Written by Ehren Kruger & Directed by Michael Bay, Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Nicola Peltz, Jack Reynor, Stanley Tucci, Kelsey Grammer, Titus Welliver, and T. J. Miller.
Travis’s Take:
Michael Bay is at it again. In his famous franchise of CGI
Carnage, his quest to blow up everything on-screen continues. To start, if
you’re already planning on seeing “Transformers: Age of Extinction”, you should
already know what you’re getting yourself into. Those aware of the franchise’s
problems will want to know if this entry into the Transformers saga offers us
anything new, or improves on the issues that littered the previous
installments. Perhaps the boldest change the filmmaking team made was
distancing this story from the characters we struggled to connect with in the
first 3 films. Sadly, we now get an entire new cast of characters we hardly
care about. Mark Wahlberg takes center stage, in what might be the most
over-the-top entry yet. If not for such a charismatic leading man, the film
might’ve been an even weaker attempt. For all the gravitas and fun Wahlberg
brings to the screen, the supporting characters seem to counterbalance his
efforts and reduce the film to a mere toy commercial. Weak character
developments aside, let’s get down to the point. We all need our fix of obnoxious
CGI Robots violently hashing it out on screen, and Michael Bay knows it. His Transformers
films have built a foundation of success specifically due to this fact. In
regards to the Transformers, the effects that bring them to life look
fantastic, but they seem to be excluded from using traditional physics during the animation process (and
yes, I’m aware that this is a giant robot movie). The only other factor that
sets this Transformers film apart, is the live-action debut of the DinoBots,
and when they finally hit the screen, we’re treated to a smorgasbord of chaos
and destruction that feels all too familiar. The film's tagline says “The Rules Have
Changed”; sadly, it seems that only the cast members and locations have.
Austin's Take:
Since the first Transformers film debuted over seven years ago, I have been patiently waiting to proclaim another Transformers film on par with the hype surrounding it. Sadly, the fourth installment in the franchise, “Transformers: Age Of Extinction,” is another complete bomb. This is what we have come to expect: an over-hyped, big budget film, that prides itself solely on CGI. From the clink clank of transforming robots to the nonstop explosions, the visuals are the main draw. Yet, it’s clear that all the graphics have been recycled and look the same as before. This is not the only downgrade. In an attempt to upgrade itself, the previous cast has been entirely replaced, leaving no familiar faces to associate with, yet they deliver the same acting we have come to expect. This time around, Mark Whalberg teams up with Michael Bay to fight robot aliens and save mankind. By now, this franchise has clearly become just a sole money maker, and who better to cash in on it than Michael Bay himself. We wouldn't expect anyone else to take on this type of project and, quite frankly, there is no one else who could take the story as seriously as Bay. Alas, the new story attempts to evolve. Mark Whalberg stars as Cade Yeager, a failing inventor and father who will do everything for his daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz), except what is best for her. Then out of blind luck, he discovers a dormant Transformer, Optimus Prime, who is in hiding to avoid extermination by humans. The story pits our lead characters against heartless Black Ops, Transformer Assassins, and the extinction of all Autobots. Throughout the chaos, Cade's courage is tested to the max as he tries to reconnect with his daughter. Unfortunately, this is a "been-there, seen-that" movie with an unstructured plot and flashy repetitive graphics, which seem all too familiar; just like the Transformers franchise, which is all too familiar with letting us down.
Filmmaking Report-Card:
Directing: 4.5/10
Editing: 5/10
Cinematography: 5.5/10
Acting: 3/10
Screenplay: 4.5/10
Over-All Experience: 4.5/10
The Conversation:
("The Conversation" is meant to be an intellectual debate used to discuss the film's overall quality, which is referenced in the films "Report-Card". The letter "T" will be used to identify comments made by "Travis", & The letter "A" for "Austin").
T: Wow, what a mess. Deep down inside, I thought Michael Bay had matured (Especially after "Pain & Gain"). He must have laughed his way to the bank after churning out this installment. It was a fun ride, and the new cast did a little better, but the script was weak. Just another average blockbuster.
A: It couldn't possibly have surprised us that this movie was going to be awful. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Bay is completely to blame. Sure he sticks to his flashy style where every other shot is from the ground up, or the same, and edits his movies to the point you can't remember one cut to the next. But the acting to me completely lagged. Maybe it comes with the territory or maybe the script? I mean they did kill off the best character midway...
T: I'd say the script had a heavy hand in this disaster. I even feel that the casting of Nicola Peltz and Jack Reynor was all wrong. The last thing a production like this should want is an unlikable character to appear on screen, and we had that in overdrive with those two. I'm not praising the casting for the previous sequels, but damn, they had a chance to really start over here. Oh well, such a missed opportunity. Ehren Kruger is the true culprit here, though. He showed some creativity with the core story, but all of the ridiculous sub-plots clutter the heck out of his films.
A: I would agree that Jack Reynor was awful and in my opinion the weak link. His character only served the story and was an obvious pawn. You would think that Ehren Kruger, given his past history, could have come up with at least more rounded characters who were not so one dimensional. Would you say this type of writing is a style on it's own? Summers always call for the cheesy money makers and people keep paying to see them. Or is it more of a visual draw (which is what Transformers is all about)?
A: It couldn't possibly have surprised us that this movie was going to be awful. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Bay is completely to blame. Sure he sticks to his flashy style where every other shot is from the ground up, or the same, and edits his movies to the point you can't remember one cut to the next. But the acting to me completely lagged. Maybe it comes with the territory or maybe the script? I mean they did kill off the best character midway...
T: I'd say the script had a heavy hand in this disaster. I even feel that the casting of Nicola Peltz and Jack Reynor was all wrong. The last thing a production like this should want is an unlikable character to appear on screen, and we had that in overdrive with those two. I'm not praising the casting for the previous sequels, but damn, they had a chance to really start over here. Oh well, such a missed opportunity. Ehren Kruger is the true culprit here, though. He showed some creativity with the core story, but all of the ridiculous sub-plots clutter the heck out of his films.
A: I would agree that Jack Reynor was awful and in my opinion the weak link. His character only served the story and was an obvious pawn. You would think that Ehren Kruger, given his past history, could have come up with at least more rounded characters who were not so one dimensional. Would you say this type of writing is a style on it's own? Summers always call for the cheesy money makers and people keep paying to see them. Or is it more of a visual draw (which is what Transformers is all about)?
T: Both, no doubt. It's certainly a Hollywood tradition these days to fill these films with cheesy jokes and on-liners. The CGI is another cop-out; Studios know people want to see this madness smother the screen, and as long as it's marginally coherent, they know we'll recover just enough for another "assembly-line" sequel. Bay isn't completely innocent though. Sure, he handles the production well, but he's definitely in cruise control now. Showing up for work due to contractual obligations, using this lucrative franchise to fund his passion projects. He may have a great eye for visuals, but that doesn't cut it. The only positive outcome to this issue, is that he saves his range for the films that matter to him ("Pain & Gain", for instance).
A: We could watch any and all types of music videos if we wanted to see great visuals. Obviously his filmmaking background is derived from that. Yet when it's translated to a feature film, everything seems to fall apart from act to act. It would be nice if the pace of the editing could slow down for just a bit so we could truly get into the actors heads and feel something emotional (that isn't brought on by the latest pop song). We know he can harness it (Pain & Gain) but these big budget flicks will always kill it.
T: Big budgets are Bay's kryptonite; and with the path he's on, he'll always be a blockbuster director. With all the Bay-hate these days, people forget that he used to be the best at what he does. His '90s action films were actually immensely entertaining, and even the writers cared about how the action complimented the story. The first Transformers film towers over its sequels, and is even a decent film by all accounts. I'm blaming the script, casting, and lazy directing. Every problem I find roots from these issues.
A: "The Rock," by all accounts his best feature film, seems like such a distant memory. Time has progressed with all things visual and yet, the creative stories have been left behind. Without a true script and structure the Transformers become mere puppets and the actors appear on screen only to recite lines. I would agree that the script, casting, and directing are all to blame for this jumble of a film. Let us not forget the studios as well,who fund such projects, and keep the 3 hour waste of time alive.
T: That truly sums up the problem, the studios will always think of movies as a business endeavor first and foremost. Film is a form of art and expression in story telling, but it's obviously lost in this day and age. It's almost relieving that there are less quality films to keep track of, otherwise we'd be overwhelmed by ticket prices and not excessive uses of CGI. Looks like we can add "Transformers: Age of Extinction" to the list of empty entertainment, and focus on something with higher quality filmmaking behind it.
The Final Say:
We seem to be in agreement, "Transformers: Age of Extinction" is a sad mess of blockbuster. Offering nothing fresh - other than a new cast, and some fun CGI action sequences. Be prepared to witness another cluttered, quick-cutting, wasted opportunity by Michael Bay.
Final Score: 5/10
