Transformers: Age of Extinction

**Warning this will be spoiler heavy because I don't give a crap about spoiling this movie, if you care, do not read the following review. Have a nice day.**

I hate Michael Bay. But the main reason I hate him is likely different from why other people hate him. I hate him, because he just does the same thing over and over again, instead of improving and being a better director, especially when I know he can be a better director. His three highest rated movies, are The Rock, Pain & Gain, and the first Transformers movie, at least according to Rottentomatoes. To some extent, I would agree with this assessment. Pain & Gain was the most fun I had with a Bay film. The Rock, in my opinion is an exceptional film (especially for Michael Bay) it comes as no surprise to me though, that Bay's only, yes, his only fresh rated film is The Rock.

I hate Bay because he refuses to be the good director I know he can be. He refuses to evolve and make what are widely considered, on a critical standpoint, to be terrible films, better. He does absolutely nothing other than repeat the same points over and over again in his films. That could not be more clear than with the Transformers series up to this point. 

Seriously, they practically sync up perfectly.

But now to get to the grit of what this is about, the actual review of the fourth movie. 

 

It would honestly be a bit more difficult to sync up number 4 to the previous three, because Bay does something different this time around. We still have an opening that takes place in the past, but there is absolutely no opening narration by Optimus Prime, which has opened the prior three films.

Another reason as to why this would not exactly sync up properly with the previous films, is because this film is essentially two movies that tries to sell you that it is one movie, while shamelessly setting up a sequel that will no doubt happen, and I'm okay with it, because I actually get enjoyment out of watching terrible movies like this and being among a small party that laugh at every stupid thing done or said in the movie.

 

Like explosions that come out of dirt instead of the actual thing that is exploding.

Also, the Dinobots can speak fucking English, granted broken English, and I don't understand why all they can do, even when transformed is make dinosaur sounds. It does make sense when you examine how they were made, but once you start to investigate that that is also how Optimus and the other Autobots/Decepticons were made, it then makes no fucking sense.

I just don't understand why you would purposely step on, and ruin something that I, and many others loved as children by not properly representing them. Granted, they are the most bad-ass aspect of the film, and hopefully they will be more prevalent than just roughly thirty minutes of screen time in the fifth movie.The most consistent character in the film was Mark Wahlberg's Cade Yaeger (yes, his last name is Yaeger, pronounced exactly like Jaeger, or Jäger. Which are the robots in Pacific Rim, a film far superior to this piece of trash), and the least consistent, again, is Optimus Prime. Prime straight up murders several characters in this film, just murders them, he even rushes into a building and orders his autobots to terrorize people. The Autobots are terrorists. As crazy as this sounds it is sadly a subplot of the film, the idea having been proposed by Kelsey Grammer's character, whom Optimus murders near the end of the film.

This has by far been my biggest running complaint of the franchise, Prime gradually over the course loses his morality that he is so famous for. Killing people that beg for mercy, ripping a defenseless Megatron's head off, promoting the murder and terrorization of humans because they did the same to his people, and straight up blowing people up that don't see it coming. This is not my Optimus, and this is not an Optimus that people should like or be cheering for. He's a psychopath with a bloodlust. Megatron/Galvatron isn't portrayed as much of an antagonist as Prime, and for that matter neither is Lockdown, Age of Extinction's primary "antagonist."

I just don't understand character morality and who is supposed to be viewed as the bad guys in this movie. Lockdown is running around killing Autobots, yes, but he's also, allegedly, been killing Decepticon's too. It turns out he's only been hunting them, because he was promised Prime, while he wanted Prime to make him a trophy, essentially, that doesn't change the fact that Galvatron, the likel antagonist for the following films has maybe ten minutes of total screen time, and there's literally nothing different about Galvatron and Megatron than appearance and voice, no longer being voice acted by Hugo Weaving, and is now voiced by Frank Welker, someone who has taken on the role of Galvatron and Megatron before. And hell, while Galvatron is clearly presented as a villain, he's presented in one straight forward way with one motive, to be reborn, and to take over the world and kill all humans/Autobots. Nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't flip flop around, changing what he considers just or injust in the matter of a 2 hour and 45 minute movie, he just wants to cause chaos.

Yep, Rainbow Dash is a man made Transformer in this movie.

Honestly, I cannot believe the padding of pointless shit that added nothing to the plot in this. Sure, some of the action shots were longer, and the action was more clear. But I still had no idea what was going on because of the fucking shaky cam. Not to mention that only eight robots are named thirteen if you count the thirty minutes worth of Dinobots. But this scene, with Rainbow Dash literally made me laugh out loud, not because it was funny. But it comes out of nowhere, is intended t be funny, but isn't. It only serves to make "bronies" mark out and confuse the hell out of people that don't know what that fucking is other than a plush pony toy. Then there's this random shot of Mark Wahlberg nodding when the dinobots came running in to save the day. it's a two second close up shot of Wahlberg fucking nodding. WHY IS THAT IN THE MOVIE? We don't need Wahlbergs approval to know that the Dinobots kicking ass is awesome, they're fucking robot dinosaurs. Why is this movie two hours and 45 minutes long, because of these pointless fucking scenes that add nothing to the plot.

Sorry.

I get upset when I think about this sort of stuff, and that causes me to use "obscenities."

Seriously though, when this movie gets applause from ten or so people. But something like Captain America: The Winter Soldier or The Lego Movie doesn't, it upsets me and it should upset you too. 

This is the epitome of bad writing and poor directing because Bay clearly has stopped caring about getting proper performances out of actors, the few standouts, Wahlberg and Tucci, only stand out, because they can actually act. Grammer does nothing in this movie to even come off as an intimidating villain. Nicola Peltz was about as good an actress here as she was in The Last Airbender. Further her character is seventeen, that is made very clear, to the point where her boyfriend has to pull out a "Romeo and Juliet" (printed out on a piece of paper he conveniently keeps in his wallet) law so that the romance isn't illegal, and yet it's perfectly okay for the camera to objectify this seventeen year old girl. I can understand the relationship being okay. But if this girl is seventeen, don't show me a five second close up of her ass while Marky Mark tells her to go put on some longer shorts. Then there's the boyfriend character played by Jack Reynor, who is the most worthless piece of shit in the series, Sam friggen Witwicky did more than him, not to mention his bland acting. Lastly, TJ Miller is underused and killed off before he can be used to his full potential, not that Bay (or the screenwriters) would even allow that to happen.

My last point will be this, aside from explosions, nothing new happens in this movie, literally nothing. Lockdown kills Ratchet, who nobody cared about to begin with. Then he kidnaps Prime, who is immediately rescued, forcing Lockdown to come back only to be killed by Prime along with Grammer's character. Megatron comes back, which happens in every movie, this time as Galvatron though, he forms an army, that then is trounced by the five Autobots and Five Dinobots, and Galvatron goes into retreat until Transformers 5. Optimus then goes out into space and the movie ends. The world is left in the same condition it was left in at the end of Transformers 3, nobody trusts the Transformers, and they have even more of a reason not to now. Nothing has happened here, that hasn't happened in the previous three movies. It's all been done before, maybe not better, but we've seen everything before.

I read an article recently that basically said Summer blockbusters need to stop being serious. There's one inherent flaw in the article. That is that summer movie typically aren't serious, and he picks out one that was trying to do the disaster movie seriously, while "not having fun with it." I seriously doubt the people behind Godzilla (2014) didn't have fun with it. It insists that because the movie takes its subplots seriously that that is the issue with the film, at least during the summer blockbuster season. This is a ridiculous point of view, because it promotes this sort of shlock, that is nothing but "having fun with it." There's nothing of substance here. It's just inane bullshit from credits to credits. 

I primarily took issue with this quote: "Godzilla wants so badly to make sense. Pacific Rim wants so badly for Ron Perlman to wear golden shoes." 

My main comment to that is, "So what?" Godzilla wants to make devastation and destruction serious, because it's a serious thing. A city is destroyed and millions of people died, and you want that to not be a serious thing? If you didn't have fun watching it, I don't know what to tell you, because I sure as hell enjoyed every second of the monster stuff. Pacific Rim does the same thing, while also joking about it. The only difference between the two is that Pacific Rim had a better writer, and more experienced director, in Guillermo Del Toro. Godzilla's flaw was poor characters, and poor plot points. Not a lack of "fun."

And then there's Transformers: Age of Extinction. All it does is this idea of "have fun with it," there's no evidence of effort put in aside from quality visual effects and waiting until sundown to do some cool shots in the country side. There's a My Little Pony reference for God's sake. My proposal is that Summer blockbusters should be allowed to be as dark or serious as they want, as long as everything in the film makes sense for it to be that way. If the writing is good enough, if the acting is good enough, if the directing is good enough - go all out for the serious, but have fun doing it too. That's what Pacific Rim did, and that's why it seems like they had more "fun with it." It all comes down to the quality of the craft. If it's done right, then do it right.

The simple idea that having fun is what makes a quality Summer blockbuster is absurd, because there is nothing of quality here.

Transformers: Age of Extinction gets a 4/10. It's better than Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), but still worse than the original Transformers (2007). Nothing compares however to the shit storm that was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009).

I'll return at some point with another movie, Tammy is of interest and comes out in the next few days, while Dawn of the Planet of the Apes won't be out until the 11th. I'll also be seeing How To Train Your Dragon 2, down on Long Island with my lovely girlfriend that weekend, likely on the 12th or 13th.

Here, have a video:

22 Jump Street

Turn down for what?

The day of sequels was cut a bit short in the movies department; I only saw one of them. I'm waiting to watch How to Train Your Dragon 2, until I an see it with the girlfriend in July. But at least I was able to see 22 Jump Street.

 

Whoever said sequels can't be better than the original needs to watch this movie. But then again, if you didn't like the first one, you are most likely not going to like this one. But I don't know many people that didn't like the first one.

I take back almost everything I said about how good A Million Ways to Die in the West was. I'd still give it a 7.5, or whatever my score was (I'm too lazy to check), but God, when a good comedy comes out like this one, you realize just how sub-par other comedies are. I will say that this was a lot more "adult" than it's predecessor, 21 Jump Street. If that means anything. There were more obscenities, more sex, and much more violence.

The plot is fairly simple to explain, and nearly identical to the first film, as exemplified (fairly on the nose) by Nick Offerman's character early in the film.

It's actually a bit of a statement about Hollywood's constant remakes and sequels. But it's directly referential to this film itself, basically stating that we will be getting, for the most part, the same movie again. But this time, in college!

 Speaking from experience, everyone in college looks like babies - myself included.

This sort of self referential humor, along with a vast quantity of pop culture references are strewn across the film, and with great effect. My favorite of which would be the "red herring" joke. As the only writer amongst my friends I was the only one that understood the joke, and I'm pretty sure I was the only one in the theater that laughed at it, which is a bit upsetting. None the less, it was my favorite of the self referential jokes.

Ice Cube's role is larger this go around, and he is directly involved in two of the funniest scene's in the film, as well as the climax. Whereas in the first one, he was in the movie for all but ten minutes. He's a very welcome addition, providing a balance between Hill's and Tatum's overly comedic characters, as well as creating tension with one of the few twists I did not see coming. Which in all honesty, I should have. 

Like the first one, the "gay couple" jokes are strong in the narrative, but they aren't off putting. At least not to me, and in all honesty, I don't know why anyone should see them as insulting or off putting. In no way does the film make fun of homosexuality, or the idea of it, if anything the film embraces it. Above all else it's just an extreme portrayal of the "bromance" archetype.

I only bring this up, because I have seen some, negative backlash about that aspect of the film's humor. Perhaps it's because I'm not homosexual that I see no issue with the jokes, or maybe it's just because I see them as jokes and don't take them seriously, but I have no issue with this movies extreme "bromance" relationship. The worst it gets is the scene in the therapist's office, and that simply was a case of the therapist confusing them for a homosexual couple. Nothing more, nothing less - but of course their wording didn't help the situation either.

 

I don't enjoy spoiling movies for people that haven't seen them before, so I try to keep my wording as vague as possible. But with comedies it's harder because you sort of have to give the exposition for a joke, to explain the joke and what is going on. Minor spoilers are not exactly avoidable with comedies. Especially when I throw .GIF's into these reviews.

All in all, the movie was fantastic. It is by far, one of the best comedies I have seen in years, I was laughing consistently throughout, a few times, too much.The pre-credits sequence was hysterical, though it leaves the potential future of the franchise in question. Also, for those who have seen the trailers, do not expect every joke in the trailer to be in the movie, because a few of them, are not there.

22 Jump Street gets a 9.5/10.

I'll be back around the 27th with a review for Transformers: Age of Extinction in which I will probably spew hatred of it for it's dirt explosions. 

 

I just get a vast amount of enjoyment from the explosion coming from the dirt behind Grimlock's head.

Hopefully the Dinobots can speak English and transform out of their dinosaur form. The toys at least suggest they can. Until then, have a video:

Something Cool.

A Million Ways to Die in the West

A bit late on this entry, I know - but forgive me, I'm working on other stuff such as getting an apartment and my license and a car, as well as furnishing said apartment. Not to mention, trying to keep up with the shows I watch in the process. So as you can imagine I've been a bit busy. Hell, I still haven't started getting into Mad Men or any of the HBO shows now on Amazon Prime that I claimed I would have been flying through by this point. Call me lazy, but I just haven't gotten around to any of them.

 

I should probably start by saying that I enjoyed this a lot, and I mean a lot, more than most. It's currently sitting at 33% on Rotten Tomatoes, with an average rating of 4.8/10. Admittedly a little less than Ted. Though only slightly. Perhaps I'm just an idiot that likes Seth McFarlane and his comedy style, I mean I do still enjoy watching Family Guy and American Dad, I never really liked The Cleveland Show, though not many really did.

The humor this go around was a lot more obscene than in Ted, or rather, just more in your face about it. I'd be lying though if I told you I could remember a single line of dialogue that wasn't in the trailer. I'd also be lying if I said, as other critics have claimed, that the best jokes are in the trailer. I was one of the people that had seen the trailer for this several times and still found me laughing at the jokes I had already heard. So perhaps, I was just the right audience for this movie.

I should probably get this out of the way now, because a lot of people seem to be claiming that this was trying to be Blazing Saddles. Like this moron. Perhaps "moron" is a strong word, because he actually has a job, but then again, so do most people. There's literally nothing in this film that resembles the mastery of self-referential comedy that is Blazing Saddles. This isn't even self referential. Sure, "Mila Kunis" is the Native American word for "fine" in the film, but that was simply a joke, and nothing more. Comparing this to Blazing Saddles is like comparing apples to oranges, and I mean that literally. They're both comedies that take place during the 1800's in the West. Just like apples and oranges are fruit. However apples are not oranges, they have a different texture, taste, and they don't need to be peeled (well oranges don't technically need to be peeled, but it's highly recommended). A Million Ways is not Blazing Saddles, it's tailor made for McFarlane's audience, and not trying to be a commentary on comedy and how films are made, Seth McFarlane is not Mel Brooks, nor do I think he is even trying to be. The only similarity between them is that they are Western Comedies, that's it, that's as close as they get to each other.

I just have to ask why so many are making this insane comparison. It's like they thought Blazing Saddles was the only western based comedy to have existed before this (1, 2, 3, 4 there's also this one comparing it to Django Unchained, which in no way was a comedy, though there is a Jamie Foxx cameo). Sure, it is likely that Blazing Saddles had some influence on the film, but what about Three Amigos, Back to the Future: Part III (There's even a friggin cameo that would suggest that had more of an influence than Blazing Saddles), Or even Maverick or My Name is Nobody. The fact of the matter is that people are seemingly refusing to see that this is simply a western comedy, and thus it will have similarities to other western comedies. Perhaps its the absurd nature of A Million Ways that links it to the extreme nature of Blazing Saddles.

I also feel the need to call out the writers of these reviews for their comments, but I won't and call it their opinion. But when I see a line like, "There’s also a runaway slave shooting gallery, which shows MacFarlane’s willingness to offend," I can't just sit back and let that slide. First of all, when has comedy not been about offending someone? When did comedy become something to where nobody should be offended? I've always lived under the impression that comedy, inherently in it's very nature, will offend someone, and that's partially where the humor comes from. I mean, arguably the best stand up comedian ever was George Carlin, and you can't get much more offensive than him.

Basically pointing out that a comedy is being offensive is pointless. If everyone went to a comedy, let a lone an r-rated comedy expecting to at some point not be offended by what they see, then I'm afraid...

 

Sure, I'll admit that Mcfarlane was perhaps not the best choice to lead this film, plenty of people would have potentially be better fit to play the role, I'll agree there, but that's as far as I'll go. It seems that more and more people take offense to jokes and somehow label that as a bad thing. Your personal inability to take a joke is nobodies fault but your own, and you are in no place to blame the movie for your being offended. You spent the money to go see it, you are entirely at fault. Now you can however blame the movie for not being funny, because if you didn't find it funny then it's just not your type of comedy. That may seem like a double standard, but it isn't, allow me to explain.

In one case you find a joke offensive, in both then, it's safe to assume that the joke would be found to be unfunny. Many people can find the joke unfunny, I found a lot of the jokes not-particularly funny while others around me were laughing or not laughing. If they also take an offense to it, that's a personal problem. You are putting your own personal feelings about what can or cannot be joked about above all else. I've said this, for what seems like a million times now, but nothing is off-hands in comedy. Anything and everything can be joked about, and if we start saying "you can't joke about that" because we don't want to offend someone, then we can't joke about anything in fear of offending the next person. That may seem like a slope that is slippery, but it isn't, it's just stating that if we start trying not to offend people, we'll end up at a point, where we won't be because jokes won't be offensive any more, or there just won't be comedians any more (that may be a bit of a stretch though, and I can conceive of that point falling into that of the slippery slope variety). 

Take for example last night's episode of Louie (a bit off topic, but it's relevant) the episode entitled "Pamela 1." Louie tries to force himself onto Pamela, in an attempt to kiss her or more. He even begins to lift her shirt up, all while she is saying "No," and trying to leave, but he is persistent. It goes no where, aside from an awkward, consented kiss. But when she gets away from him, when he stops trying, she says "This would be rape if you weren't so stupid -- you can't even rape well," while pulling her shirt back down over her stomach. You can either watch the episode for your self, or read this article about it. The writer of the article states at the end, "While Louie the character doesn't see the connections, I suspect that Louis the writer knows them all too well—and we have him to thank for producing an episode of television that manages to reflect lived realities while simultaneously challenging them, and even sneaks in a few great jokes in the process." We have something as offensive as rape, and yet, there are jokes about it. Which is not entirely surprisingly, as Louie has defended the use of rape jokes before stating, "To me, all dialogue is positive. For me, any joke about anything bad is great. Any joke about rape, the Holocaust, the Mets -- any joke about something bad is a positive thing. I've read some blogs during this thing that has enlightened me with things I don't know" (Source).

 

Then there's this from an entirely different episode (full scene).

So basically, offensive things exist in comedy. That's just the way it is, and nothing is off limits. All in all, I enjoyed my time with A Million Ways. I found it enjoyable, and wasn't bored with it, I was laughing enough to keep my interest and occasionally I was laughing uncontrollably. 

The opening cinematography and landscape shots will remind any western fan of the classic westerns that they know. Just keep in mind, this in no way is a classic western. I'm giving A Million Ways to Die in the West a 7.5 out of 10. Despite the comedy hitting strong at points, there were still a lot of jokes that fell flat, and admittedly McFarlane is a rather weak lead here, and it would have done the movie better justice to have cast someone else in the lead. Also, NPH is awesome.

 I doubt that I'll be going to the theaters this weekend for either Edge of Tomorrow or The Fault in Our Stars. I'll likely be waiting until next week and the 13th's release of both How to Train Your Dragon 2 as well as 22 Jump Street. Until next time, here's a video, enjoy: