‘Transformers: Age of
Extinction’ is NOT a great film; it’s not even a good film. Quite simply: it’s
terrible. The great shame is that $165 million was given to Michael Bay and he
has produced something so bad that there’s no certainty that even loyal fans of
the previous three films will find it in their hearts to pay hard-earned money
to see ‘Age of Extinction’. If they do, they will come away feeling the same
way they did after the last film in the series, ‘Dark of the Moon’, which
itself was a very mediocre affair. On the upside for the film’s financiers,
there will be millions of teenagers on summer vacation in the Northern
Hemisphere who, with nothing better to do, will flock to their local cinema
complexes in search of some mind-numbing entertainment that will outlast their
investment in the jumbo popcorn that they paid too much for at the Candy
Counter. ‘Age of Extinction’ is tailor-made for that purpose.
There’s no doubting the
success of the ‘Transformer’ franchise. Michael Bay has hit on a formula that
has been very successful and he may be one of film-making’s great unheralded
geniuses because his first three ‘Transformer’ films generated a combined $2.6
billion in box office receipts between 2007 and 2011. Sadly, the fact that
Bay’s films have been successful has more to do with the intent with which
these films are conceived and represents the great conundrum that faces
movie-makers of the 21st Century. ‘Age of Extinction’ is a
by-product of this problem and Bay is the poster-boy. Entertainment produced
for the lowest common denominator has the best chance at appealing to the
broadest possible audience. Without sounding like a film snob, this type of
film is manufactured for an audience that does not regard film as a culturally
significant communication medium. Rather, the enjoyment comes from how well the
viewer’s visual and auditory senses are stimulated in comparison to the latest
game, app or social media outlet. The biggest disappointment about this film,
as well as the previous three, is Steven Spielberg’s association with the
‘Transformers’ franchise. In 2013, Spielberg and George Lucas publicly bemoaned
the spiralling budgets of blockbusters like ‘Age Of Extinction’, yet, less than
a year later, Spielberg has his name attached to the very type of film he
declared was killing diversity in movies. From an individual who has
contributed so much to movies as an art form, it is frustrating to see his name
emboldened alongside Michael Bay’s on a ‘Transformer’ film.
The other big problem with
this new film is that, not only does it set low expectations; it is in and of
itself a poor piece of film-making. All films start with their story, followed
closely by the screenplay, and ‘Age of Extinction’ fails on both fronts with a
poorly constructed narrative and a screenplay that is so directionless at times
that it becomes quite obvious that sequences have been stitched together in the
editing suite in an effort to deliver a story that makes some kind of sense. The
architect of all of this Ehren Kruger, who, even after the mess that was ‘Dark
of the Moon’, gets another shot at the franchise and, once again, hamstrings
the whole project with a screenplay that is devoid of logic, good dialogue and
any real character arc for either humans or robots!
 |
| Goodness only knows in which management meeting somebody came up with the idea of 'Transformer' dinosaurs |
The story and screenplay,
however, are but one of the problems with ‘Age of Extinction’. The cinematography
is worthy of mention because of how varied the results are from one sequence to
the next. Cinematographer Amir Mokri continues his association with the
franchise and provides some genuinely inspired shots mixed with some truly
horrible efforts. Mokri has become a specialist in this sort of big budget
film, having worked on 2013’s ‘Man of Steel’, ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’,
‘Fast & Furious’ and ‘National Treasure: Book of Secrets’. The film’s final
act, set in Hong Kong, is the film’s most visually interesting section and
Mokri and Bay do a nice job at capturing images that portray the cityscape in a
favourable light. Viewing the IMAX version of the film is especially
unforgiving of the film’s mixed photography, as the non-IMAX footage looks
grainy and almost out-of-focus in parts.
The actors’ performances
continue the uneven tone of the film, as the Autobot vocal performances are completely
at odds with the live-action work. Mark Wahlberg has been drafted into this
fourth film, in place of the fast-falling Shia LeBouf, and tries valiantly to
drag something out of his dialogue to make his character more than just an
adjunct to the computer animation that dominates the film. One incredibly
grating issue with the live-action performances is the use of post-recorded
dialogue into scenes that call for an injection of humanity that would be
otherwise dominated by the conflict between the various robots featured
throughout the film. Of all the performances, the only actor who comes out of
this with any shred of credibility is Stanley Tucci, who plays the billionaire
owner of a company who is complicit in a plan to weaponise the Transformer
technology for the American Army. Tucci clearly worked out during the shoot
that this film was not going to be one for the ages and chews the scenery, at
first, with the megalomaniac air of a Bond villain and, then, as a likeable
rogue who sees the error of his ways and injects some much needed humour into a
story that is taking itself much too seriously. As for the rest of the cast, there’s
not much to say. Peter Cullen returns for his fourth feature as the voice of ‘Optimus
Prime’, this time joined by John Goodman and ken Watanabe as fellow Autobots ‘Hound’
and ‘Drift’, while Kelsey Grammer is entirely forgettable as CIA operative
Harold Attinger.
 |
| Why are these two men laughing so hard? |
There is not a great deal to
recommend about this film. At 165 minutes, it’s far too long. The screenplay
lacks structure and jumps from set-piece to set-piece with no real thought.
There’s the unending product placements, many of which have been positioned to
appeal to the massive Chinese audience the film is banking on to provide a
large slice of its box office receipts. These become so obvious by the end of
the film that no longer is it a question of whether they will or won’t appear,
it becomes a game of how many you can count throughout the duration of the
movie. There are two things that are disturbing about ‘Transformers: Age of
Extinction’. One, there will be a ‘Transformers 5’. Paramount have already
announced it before they’ve even seen how this film fares. That’s confidence!
Second, despite everything that is wrong with this film, it will be hugely
successful. That seems wrong. In a movie season where a well-made, original science
fiction film like ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ will be judged a failure because it makes
$350 million at the worldwide box office, ‘Age of Extinction’ will do more than
double that despite the fact that it is
bloated, ill-conceived and poorly-executed… Despite an inability to
speak at public gatherings; privately, Michael Bay is laughing, but it may not
be “with” us.
No comments:
Post a Comment