| Transformers is a franchise that began in the 1980s, and it wasn't until 2007 that a live-action film was made starring Shia Labeouf and Megan Fox. Personally, I found that the first Transformers film and the introduction of such amazing CGI and special effects was groundbreaking and shocking. It's the first time we've seen real cars turn into real Transformers, and they were done so well. Even the sounds when they transformed were believable. It was a job well done, and even though audiences may not have like the acting or the storyline, the CGI in itself should have been the <more> focus.The next two sequels, "Revenge of the Fallen" and "Dark of the Moon" were released a couple years apart from each other. Obviously, the CGI was amazing, but the story lines seemed to falter as the sequels progressed. "Revenge of the Fallen" kept all of the main cast from the first movie, and the same types of dorky humour were conserved. However, with "Dark of the Moon", it was a bad move to introduce so many new characters and still keep Shia Labeouf as the main character. It's hard to associate one main character with so much change, and it puts a dent in the entire sequel because you hope to keep everyone from the original two just for continuity purposes. Now fast-forward to "Age of Extinction", which is the 4th movie in the Transformers live-action franchise. It's now completely reinvented with a new cast and a new story, even though it takes place 5 years after the incidents in "Dark of the Moon". Personally, I think this was a good move because the series needed a fresh start again, and a new storyline to pursue instead of lingering on to Sam Witwicky.First of all, it's important to say that we already know what's coming in this movie: a LOT of CGI and epic action scenes. It's what every Transformers movie has been so far, so why would this one be any different? I've heard a lot of people say that they hated this film because the storyline sucked and that it wasn't worth their money, but in all honesty, you're not paying to see a Transformers movie for the acting or the drama. You're paying to see the CGI and how much better they could possibly be compared to the previous Transformers movies. And no, "Age of Extinction" does not disappoint in this area.My overall rating for this movie was a 9/10 because in the context of why people would go and watch this movie, it delivers what it's supposed to successfully: mind-blowing special effects. I personally thought that the storyline itself was good because it provided viewers with a fresh start, and Mark Wahlberg was a great replacement for Shia Labeouf. There's no more of that dorky humour, but rather a more mature cast with better humour that is more acceptable. The movie also focuses on the Transformers quite a bit and takes away most of the human element in the film even though there are some key moments with humans involved , but that's exactly what is to be expected for a film so focused on CGI. For those who really enjoy special effects and have enjoyed any of the previous Transformers films, I'd highly recommend watching this one because I think it's one of the best out of all 4. For those who look deeply into the storyline and only care about great acting and drama, I wouldn't bother purchasing a ticket because you won't find what you're looking for in this movie except 3 hours of non-stop action and CGI. For those who have never seen a Transformers film, I'd still recommend giving it a go because it's a new story with new characters, and it's 3 hours of amazing special effects...so it's well worth the money to sit through the entire thing. <less> |
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
