Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Transformers: Age of Extinction

This is topic Transformers: Age of Extinction in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=002059

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-17-2014, 04:52 AM:

You might remember Transformers, Dark of the Moon from 2011. You could argue that mankind came pretty close to extinction when they transported a whole planet into earth's orbit. But seemingly, we got closer to extinction in this movie... whatever you say Mr. Baylord.

If you were, just like me, fooled into thinking that Dark of the Moon would be the last in this miserable franchise by the lack of a Transformers movie in 2013, you're in for a surprise. The uncrowned King of Teal and Orange has a whole new 165 min. fantasy/sci-fi/transfo-porn epic in store for you.

In the Michael Bayniverse, there is no room for unimportant stuff like plot, logic, consistency and physics. So, if you can switch off the parts in your brains that are responsible for processing said unimportant stuff for an hour or three, this movie could actually be enjoyable. Otherwise this thing is just a very lengthy repetitive sequence of:

1. Say what..?
2. ... ??? !!
3. Whatever...
4. Goto 1

This movie has so many flaws on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to start and where to end. This post could go on for five pages and I wouldn't be done with it. So, let's not do that... Besides that, the first three movies already got a good workout from somebody else, here, here and here.

* Mild (like a drop of Tabasco in a 20 galon vat of water) spoiler alert *

Luckily, Megratron (correction, Galvatron!) is alive and kicking at the end, so the franchise can continue... I guess, even if they catapult Megatron into the sun, he (she, it?) will survive by infecting the core of the sun with his evilness and beaming evil infected transformatrons onto the earth...

The special effects in this one, just like the predecessors, look pretty much awesome. Actually, I feel pity for the fact that so much talent and money is being thrown at something that has so little redeeming qualities.

And before I forgot to mention it, this movie is also brought to you in stereoscopic 2D. I call it that way, because, with exception of a potential headache, the "Three-D" added close to nothing regarding depth perception.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-22-2014, 09:46 PM:

I disagree I thought the 3D aspect was pretty good notably during the crossing across the steel wires (from building to building).

and the Dolby Atmos mix took full multiple advantages of the ceiling speakers to astonishing effect.

sure it was loud, silly and way too long, but I enjoyed it more than the prior film.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-30-2014, 02:53 AM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
I disagree I thought the 3D aspect was pretty good notably during the crossing across the steel wires (from building to building).

Yeah, I remember that part. But maybe I'm just getting tired of this load of bollocks called 3D they keep ramming down our throats, especially for over-lengthy wannabe-epics like this one.

No matter how good your Three-Dee is, it's getting tiresome and repetitive after an hour or so. The last movie that I remember that *really* benefited from stereoscopic 3D was Gravity.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-04-2014, 02:29 AM:

The projection booth scene with the nod to IMAX was a good IMAX plug.