This is the most positive review I've seen of this surely awful movie. My favorite was the "zero star" one from Peter Travers. When you're feeling down, head on over to Rotten Tomatoes and just read the blurbs of the reviews. Good stuff.
A perfect movie for a nation of idiots.
2
As long as Tom Cruise isn't in it (any movie), I'll generally gamble with my dollars...
First - kudos to a great review. The movie is more believable than a dance number on an LA freeway, and more enjoyable than Birdman.
This is 100x better than the last Transformer in 2014 filmed in Hong Kong. This is an A+ work. Absolutely love the movie!
Hey, as an HK cinema fan, I loved the "cameos" in that one (I know, only two, and you have to wonder exactly what their agents did to get them in a Transformers movie). For me the HK location livened up the last part of the movie a bit!
So very sad to see fine actors reduce themselves to doing this trash for the worst director in film history.
They aren't rich enough?
They aren't rich enough?
2
I understand, but then again, some of the films that receive all the critical acclaim, fame, and hoopla are...trash (in my humble opinion).
E.g.: Django. (And I'd include Reservoir Dogs too; Tarantino is like a 12 year old with a camera...although some flicks just kick butt, like Kill Bill 1 & 2, although they still are a bit warped.)
E.g.: Django. (And I'd include Reservoir Dogs too; Tarantino is like a 12 year old with a camera...although some flicks just kick butt, like Kill Bill 1 & 2, although they still are a bit warped.)
Aww, come on, it's all about the franchise. Patrick Stewart used to refuse to talk about his role as Captain Picard (and get angry when reporters tried -- this is while he was doing 'A Christmas Carol' on Broadway back in the early Nineties) and now look at him. It might be fun for them, and certainly some extra cash in the pocket! Anthony Hopkins is also the only one who lent 'Red 2' any kind of dramatic weight, so he is really providing the rest of us a humane service. :-D
First off it is not solely based off "Hasbro toys". The early cartoon series led to the birthing of Michael Bay's famous "Transformers" series. Second, Mr. Bay is a great director and is not to be thrown under for one bad movie! Keep it up Mr. Bay!!!!!
Bad movies never had such a good critic, before now.
3
This is know an "Airplane Movie." You can fall asleep multiple times during the film and never notice that you've been napping.
5
Michael Bay = artistic vacuum. Hopefully the dismal box office returns domestically give studios pause. A director that can somehow manage to destroy a film, so rich for stories, as "Pearl Harbor," yet keeps regurgitating "Transformers" is a joke. Explosions, Mr. Bay, don't make a film --- even a bad one! Try marketing.
3
To planetwest, I believe Wikipedia (and anyone with common sense) begs to differ:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_directors
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_directors
1
Seeing the Wednesday premiere, I was completely underwhelmed -- as was my 16-year-old son/Transformers fanboy. Unless you are a huge fan of this series or unless you have a child who is, avoid this movie. And, if you must take your child, extract a meaty favor and/or chore from them before going to compensate you for sitting through this incoherent, bloated mess.
4
"Depth and coherence of the 'Star Wars' franchise." Pardon me?
16
There's a tongue in that cheek.
3
"Mark Wahlberg... is back as the scruffy inventor Cade Yeager."
I'm trying to picture the boardroom's full of corporate cynicism that came up with that name.
I'm trying to picture the boardroom's full of corporate cynicism that came up with that name.
7
"That is thanks largely to two words: Anthony Hopkins."
Make that three words! He's Sir Anthony Hopkins to you, bub.
Make that three words! He's Sir Anthony Hopkins to you, bub.
17
The dumbing down of America continues. So much of today's film is designed solely for the purpose of getting 24/7 video gamers out of their mother's basements for a few hours a week. Calling the latest Transformers installment "far from the worst in this continuing experiment..." is the reason the phrase, "damning with faint praise" even exists.
19
This is by far the worst movie I've seen in my entire life. 2:30 hours of nonsense is more than enough to say that this franchise has to end. Now! The whole storyline is confusing, and Anthony Hopkins' character is not that great. A rich old guy with access to a lot of antiques... that's what he is! I can't believe he agreed to do this! After the screening, I was thinking to myself how stupid it is to keep giving Michael Bay money to do this kind of movies. And I'm not even going to comment on the racist "jokes" and the incoherent love story. Just a flop...
2
I question that you've even seen this movie since it wasn't released yet and you couldn't have seen many movies if you feel this is the worst. The success of these movies is important to Hollywood since the profits enable other (profitless?) movies to be made. They provide more than decent employment to myriad technicians, actors, caterers, hoteliers, etc. and is a reason that movie production is coveted by many other countries with perks and incentives. These movies generate huge profits and incomes for others as well, retailers, toy manufacturers, popcorn entrepreneurs. Bay helps keep an industry healthy. As for Hopkins, what's wrong with a payday? After a career doing extraordinary work (with his greatest success as a cannibal) he's allowed to have some fun. If you had watched the trailer, you would have seen the entire movie and known what to expect. Be more careful next time.
2
Thoroughly worthless time and money spent, dumbing down our population even more.
Get off your high horse planetwest. Porn movies also generate profits and allow "employment to myriad technicians, actors, caterers. . . etc." Any film that relies on CGI to generate excitement is not worth the price of admission.
2
"an this giant plane is flying along and then it crashes into a massive cgi building and it all goes splaggggww!! then this other plane explodes in mid air and it goes kabooommmm, and then this giant cgi monster appears out of nowhere and starts firing rockets."
"Those are movie idea's they're special effects.."
"Those are movie idea's they're special effects.."
5
Why is Sir Anthony doing in that movie? To grab a big, fat paycheck. It seems to be de rigueur for these kinds of movies to place one prestige elderly British actor (the knighthood always a big plus).
4
Sir Laurence Olivier had to do these sorts of movies, too, plus commercials. Apparently, being a knighted British actor doesn't pay so hot.
9
I think it's the British accent, which is presumed to lend a measure of dignity and "class" to movies that don't otherwise possess it. Sir Anthony does the same sort of thing for the Thor franchise.
2
Maybe there is a chance I can make it through this one. I tried watching Battleship the other day for the first time and made it maybe 20 minutes. That left me scratching my head how anybody can sit through these things. If there is a story line as the reviewer says it has a chance with me.
1
"Mr. Hopkins, a knighted Emmy and Oscar winner, is doing in a “Transformers” movie is unclear,". not true; he's earning a paycheck.
10
For the ages:
Sir Michael Caine, who's appeared in a lot of bad films, on being asked if he'd ever watched JAWS 3:
"Never. I hear it's terrible. However I have seen the house it built, and that's terrific."
Sir Michael Caine, who's appeared in a lot of bad films, on being asked if he'd ever watched JAWS 3:
"Never. I hear it's terrible. However I have seen the house it built, and that's terrific."
30
The one I heard way back on Michael Caine and Jaws 3 went something like this:
Reporter: "Mr Caine, how can you, a critically acclaimed actor, lower yourself in this manner?"
Caine: "3 weeks work, $500,000. Next question?"
Reporter: "Mr Caine, how can you, a critically acclaimed actor, lower yourself in this manner?"
Caine: "3 weeks work, $500,000. Next question?"
1
Thank you for the sober review.
You have given me hope that I might be able to bear it when my son begs me to take him to see it.
I'm glad we aren't in the era of Police Academy 7.
You have given me hope that I might be able to bear it when my son begs me to take him to see it.
I'm glad we aren't in the era of Police Academy 7.
14
Ok. That's funny. And I used to like those PA movies. Oh the humanity.
3
There are thousands of independent movies that explore complex socioeconomic and political issues that are consistently ignored in favor of the umpteenth money grab by a major studio in whatever franchise they're pushing to boost their profits. Is there any benefit to the Times or its readers in having it reviewed?
11
Yes. In most cases, outside of the major cities, there are limited options for viewing independent films. Denver has maybe ten screens? Boise has four. As the majority of readers are looking to head down to a local-probably chain-restaurant, down a few beers and watch something at the megaplex, then knowing about the few offerings from which they have to choose is helpful. People, particularly readers of the Times, are inundated daily with "complex socioeconomic and political issues." They would like to be entertained for an evening that will cost about a day's wage for the median family's income. Knowing that if you liked or tolerated the first installments of this franchise, that this one is an improvement, is news that people can use. If you have a 14 year-old you are trying to decide between this and "Wonder Woman," not this and "I, Daniel Blake."
9
Yeah-- don't you? If I live in a place where I can see a lot of different movies. So yeah there's a snobbish attitude for a lot, but because we live in areas where we got to see a lot of movies that they not make it to other areas and you may have to get on Netflix, comments can be good.
Do any of them have giant fighting robots?
1
The still photo at the top of the article is as impressive as the best sci fi illustrators, Frazetta, Bonestell of all time and that alone is a reason to watch the films. Bay's filmmaking abilities are astonishing, and appreciated by those interested in this genre. Bay has become the most successful filmmaker of all time and there has to be some reason. As David Mamet has stated, film's roots are in the Nickelodeon and are returning to those roots, a few moments of entertainment for a penny. Trying to apply normal critical standards to these films (or the STAR WARS genre) is absurd. They are what they are and serve their audiences well. Don't expect Kabuki.
3
Michael Bay "the most successful filmmaker of all time?" That's wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
11
Wrong? In what way? His films have grossed more money per film than any other director in film history and that means he has reached a public better than anyone. Film, or better, Movies, are a public entertainment-a business. I suppose you missed the Nickelodeon quote. You can argue any description of a successful filmmaker but box office numbers are absolute and there ain't no one better.
The body of movies directed by Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron have out-earned Michael Bay movies, and generally "success" as a filmmaker includes some element beyond box office—these three have made far better movies than Bay, movies more widely enjoyed across age and gender.
2
How I long for science fiction films such as "Soylent Green" and "Silent Running" that contained an ounce of a plausible scenario of Earth's future. These films provided us with unique scenarios of our collective future while also working to inspire people to make societal changes for the benefit of others and our children's futures.
Now I am stuck watching "incoherent battle scenes" where I lose interest and fall asleep, knowing I won't miss much in any sort of plot.
Now I am stuck watching "incoherent battle scenes" where I lose interest and fall asleep, knowing I won't miss much in any sort of plot.
21
The problem, in my opinion, is an over-reliance on CGI and an under-reliance on plot and character development. Take "Clash of the Titans," for example. The stop-action monsters in the original were unbelievably silly, but over-all, the movie was infinitely preferable to the remake.
3
@Jackie: hey! some of us love those old Ray Harryhausen stop-action special effects -- no, they don't look realistic today -- but they are clever and imaginative anyways, and have a sort of vintage charm that no CGI will ever approximate.
One hopes that Mr. Genzlinger was well paid for having to sit through this (if it's marginally better than its franchise predecessors- all of which I've paid to sit though- that would equate to its being an enormous waste of time and money as opposed to a colossal waste of time and money). In any case, whatever became of the quaint idea that the NYT has two "chief film critics" named A O Scott and Manohla Dargis? Has anyone else noticed that the two of them review a grand total of perhaps 25% of the new releases these days? Even assuming that Stephen Holden has retired (it's been a while since we've seen his name on a film review), it doesn't appear as though those two "chief film critics" have picked up any of the slack. Perhaps at some point the arts editors will be willing to make some sort of announcement to clear up the mystery behind its AWOL film review staff.
9
Why are you complaining when it seems you hate everything Scott and Dargis write? Focus on the film being reviewed for a change.
Now, now, be fair. Scott recently had to review PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 5 _and_ THE MUMMY. A critic can only take so much summer badness.
6
I have no idea how critics can actually offer a critical analysis of a Transformers movie. It's source is a toy from the 80's. Guess they just needed to blow some smoke.