Review- Transformers: The Last Knight

Transformers 5 is a pretty bad film yet somehow, is not close to being the worst of the franchise. In fact, after watching this film, I'd like to retroactively change my rating for the last film

because that film was genuinely awful whereas this one is just kind of depressing at how little is happening in an action film. I usually talk about the plot at this point but as I write this it's been less than 24 hours since I saw it and I don't remember any big details at all. Optimus Prime has gone bad because he's been possessed, the government have decided that the only way to stop him is to team up with the Decepticons and then Mark Wahlberg has to team up with Anthony Hopkins and replaceable hot chick (no longer related to Marky Mark) to do something with some thing from Arthurian times which was apparently 1600 years ago. It's a sprawling mess where a lot happens yet nothing really seems to happen. In fact, the only notable thing I remember is how Shia LaBouef is related to Merlin now according to Transformers cannon. There was actually another thing, which is that Earth is Unicron. This means nothing for people who know nothing about Transformers but essentially, Unicron is a planet that is also kind of a Transformer (voiced by Orson Welles in the animated film). It makes no sense, especially when there is already another planet consuming planet in the mix.

Acting is equally dire in the film, it only serving to make you often go "They're in this? Oh, shame, I like them". Leading the charge is Mark "Marky Mark" Wahlberg as Cade Yeagar, an inventor who invents things. The good thing about this performance is that if you close your eyes, you can pretend it's just Andy Samberg doing his "Mark Wahlberg talks to Animals" skit from SNL. The hot arm candy of this film is Laura Haddock and while I feel like I want to say she has more charm than this character trope usually has, that may be because I still think of her as Will's girlfriend from The Inbetweeners Movie where she was great fun. Anthony Hopkins is here and gets to deliver the line "Look at that bitching ride" which means this is his Nine Lives. The other major performance is Josh Duhamel who is just crap, at one point delivering the line "Oh my God. Look at that. It's an alien ship". It sounds bad on paper and is worse on screen. The rest of the cast list is essentially a list of cameos with actors turning up for brief paychecks. Rebecca Front turns up, making me wish I was watching Knowing Me, Knowing You. Tony Hale turns up, making me wish I was watching Arrested Development. Stanley Tucci turns up too as a drunken Merlin, somehow making me wish I was watching The Core.

It's a Michael Bay film though and that means action is a plenty and needs talking about. For the sake of comparison, I'm going to talk about Transformers as compared to the most recent Fast and Furious films. Both are huge franchises that make their names (and their money) from having massive action set pieces that defy belief. In regards to how they are filmed, Fast and Furious uses a surprisngly large amount of practical stunt work (where possible) and because it's mainly cars in the stunts, you have a more intimate scale than the colossal CGI beasts of the Transformers. Admittedly, it's basically impossible for them to have practical effects in Transformers but Pacific Rim shows that it doesn't have to be soulless. Similarly, the stakes of the action is vital too. Fast and Furious, ridiculous as the stunts are, has relatively intimate stakes. Sure, a nuclear submarine is deadly but we don't want Charlize Theron to have it because she killed the mother of Dom's son. Transformers attempts to give its characters more intimate stakes that matter like family but then they still have to save the day or Earth will be obliterated. We know they will succeed because this is a franchise that has to go on forever for Paramount, whereas in Fast and Furious, there are moments where you doubt success and it genuinely feels improbable.

I wouldn't usually talk about something like editing in a film because I'm not exactly an expert on it and I know that most people find some of the more technical parts of films boring but this film really pissed me off with its editing. From the very first trailer, I spotted something that worried me as much as it confused me; the aspect ratio seemed to keep changing. For those who don't know what aspect ratio is, it's basically all about how films are projected and it's the reason some films on Netflix fill the screen whereas others have "letter boxing". To change this in a film isn't entirely unheard of. Christopher Nolan did it in Interstellar and while occasionally irritating, he does it to emphasise the action setpieces. Michael Bay seems to have seen that film and then not understood it because he seems to change the aspect ratio between every single shot. Not scene. Shot. It aggravated me instantly and I couldn't get over it through the entire two and a half hours. I'm not sure if it was because of that that I noticed this next bit or if it was just that sloppy but the pacing was bizarre too. The film is 15 minutes shorter than the last one (a blessing) but so much happens in the film (without anything actually happening) that to trim the running time, I'm convinced the editors just trimmed milliseconds off every single scene. Continuity errors abound because of this and there was a point where I wasn't actually sure that a character had survived a scene until a minute later when they're in the back of a jeep.

This sounds like I cannot stand the film and while I didn't hate it, that much is probably true. Like The Mummy though, this film is more boring than genuinely infuriating, but in fairness, The Mummy is more memorably bad. Take that how you will but I still wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. I mean, Baby Driver comes out tomorrow, aren't we above this? Anyway, I'm done, this film is bad and gets a