Skip to main content

You think you were born? You were built!

Transformers: Age of Extinction
(2014)

(SPOILERS) There’s a strong argument for not sitting down and watching the fourth crappy instalment of a franchise when only the original had any merit. Particularly when that original was passable but nothing special. And yet I still find myself curious to see if something or anything can salvage a latest outing of the robots in disguise. The sequels don’t even qualify as terrible, not in the sense of being actively offended by their existence (although the racist robots in the second deserve attention in that regard); they’re technically outstanding yet entirely indistinct, banal and bereft spectacles. Bloated in length out of all proportion to their content, as if running time is a barometer of value, they leave the viewer numb and exhausted but not mindful of their content. Transformers: Age of Extinction is no exception, but it does have one not-quite saving grace.


I can recall that actors like Johns Turturro and Malkovich cashed cheques for obscene amounts of money, that Megan Fox bowed out after two to make way for a Victoria Secret model, that Shia LaBoeuf just about made it through the trilogy before he lost the plot entirely, and that the third one (I think) had an impressively staged spectacle within a collapsing building. But for the most part one scene of battling robots is interchangeable with any other, and one moment of pontificating Transformer philosophy is as laughable as any other.


This strange predilection for epic posturing one moment while tucking into fart gags the next is essential Michael Bay, of course. He’s never been remotely artistically scrupulous in his choices, but for a few years back there somewhere he was delivering reliably overblown Bruckheimer spectacles. Things seemed to short circuit for him sometime around Pearl Harbor. What can possibly have inspired him to devote the best part of a decade to Hasbro toys? He can’t claim accolades from critics or an adoring public like, say Peter Jackson (who at least has one of his two trilogies marked as a classic by cinemagoers and the Academy). Was it the fee that “inspired” Bay to climb on board for a fourth Transformers? I’m sure it didn’t hurt. And he’d made his serious little picture (the not bad Pain & Gain, where he made pals with Mark Wahlberg) to satisfy his visionary urges, even though it looked every bit as unsubtle, leering, and overblown as everything else he touches.


Cynically (of Bay?!), I suspect he wanted to lay further claim to the billion-dollar club; another Transformers takes him up a second rung on that ladder without any effort to get there. It puts him in company with Cameron, Jackson, Nolan and Verbinski. He’s probably indifferent that they can all at least lay claim to distinctive and/or memorable features (I may not be a fan of either of Cameron’s greatest hits, but I wouldn’t suggest they’re forgettable). Bay’s approach here is identikit to everything else he has ever done but, even given my disappointment that he consistently fails to channels his OTT-style into full on self-parody, I have to give him some credit for the moment where the front wheel of a flying car brains a black ops guy).


Is there any point trying to relate the premise of this? Since the Battle of Chicago (that was where that building toppled, I believe) opinion has turned against Transformers. A CIA black ops unit is in league with Transformer bounty Hunter Lockdown to bring Autobots down. The motivating force is, in the words of Kelsey Grammar’s CIA guy, to rid the world of these alien terrorists who also happen to be here illegally. What’s this? They’re immigrants? Is Michael Bay revealing an unlikely liberal agenda?!! Part and parcel of this plan involves developing the government developing their own Transformers, aided by spare parts from slaughtered bots and the acumen of Stanley Tucci’s corporate inventor Joshua Joyce. Joyce has identified the Transformer metal, called Transformium (not since Cameron’s Unobtanium has a substance been so scintillatingly titled), which can “change anything into anything”.


It might be worth mentioning at this point that, while many of the effects in this picture are as photoreal as one would expect form the series, Bay's team, perhaps suffering from metal fatigue, make occasional missteps. The flying-transforming-morphing effects of the “human” Transformers are sub-Transcendence in quality, and there’s a high wire sequence between two buildings where the director isn’t fooling anyone that the actors are more than a couple of feet off the ground on a green screen stage. Likewise, the twirling slow motion rescue-the-humans slices of Transformer action look a wee bit daft and cartoony; perhaps it looks so much better in 3D…


Into this scenario (the Decepticons aren’t here, or anywhere this time, except in spirit) comes unlikely inventor Mark Wahlberg with the unlikely name Cade (??!) Yaeger. He’s also a creative type, which later gives rise to the preposterous line, “Look, I know you have a conscience. Because you’re an inventor just like me”. Well, of course. Cade is the latest example of Wahlberg’’s occasionally dubious vocational casting; past examples include science teacher (The Happening) and astronaut (Planet of the Apes). Don’t play brainy types, Mark. You’re no Rick Moranis. Cade rescues/salvages Optimus Prime, so before long he and his daughter (Nicola Peltz, who leaves no impression and has the honour of being Razzie-nominated for The Last Airbender; perhaps she and Wahlberg got to share Shyamalan war stories together), and her boyfriend (Jack Reynor; one wonders at points if his character is intended as a rebuke of the LaBoeuf type, but alas he’s shown to be alright at the end) are on the run from the government. Could this be Bay’s conspiracy movie’ All the President’s Autobots? No, not really.


As is more-often-than-not the case with Hollywood movies, Age of Extinction’s bad guys are a rogue element within the government. The White House likes Autobots (the White House likes immigrants) and the Chief of Staff is shown to be in the dark about Grammer’s activities. Come the conclusion, order is restored, the rogue element is disposed of, and there’s no need for good American folks to worry. Titus Welliver offers full-on snarling Mr Nasty conviction as the lead black ops guy (these guys are so evil they point a gun at Cade’s little girl’s head and intend to pull the trigger!) Anything remotely inclusive or progressive here should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. This is a picture where the human hero drapes the Stars and Stripes all over his barn and the optimal Autobot, who never kills humans, turns all Dirty Harry to make an exception for the really bad one.


Age of Extinction is keen to appropriate philosophical and metaphysical notions, with Bay and Ehren Kruger desperately holding on to the idea that the picture is about something. It will comes as no surprise that this is at best lip service. Optimus keeps waffling on about the soul (Spark), marking out Galvatron as distinct because he lacks one. Yet Optimus is informed he was built (so soulless) and his creators want him back, while Galvatron is revealed as the reincarnation of Megatron. Despite the imposition of a rational explanation for the existence of Autobots, Optimus’ offers a parting shot of ludicrous lyricism (“Look to the stars, think of them as my soul”). One might read into this the prizing of creationism over evolution, even when the believer has heard the arguments against, if one was so inclined.


The humans aren’t any better when it comes to makeshift wisdom. Brainy Mark has the audacity to say, “Being human means we make mistakes. Sometimes out of these mistakes come the most amazing things”. Yes, he went there. ‘60s Star Trek, instructing the alien natives American values (or in this case the illegal immigrants).


More curious still is Bay’s apparent fixation with Ridley Scott’s Prometheus.  The ancient astronauts theme has run throughout the Transformers series, doing more to dispel any cachet the concept holds than any amount of scientifically inclined naysaying. Age of Extinction begins in the Cretaceous period, but before we get the idea Bay has gone all Terence Malick on us we discover that, not dissimilarly to Ridley Scott’s uneven sci-fi semi-prequel, the Earth is being seeded (Cyberformed, leading to mass extinctions). Later, the action transfers to Lockdown’s ship, which will take Prime back to his creators. As with Prometheus, they are presented as a malign force; jealous and destructive gods.


Then there’s the strange manifestation of Arthurian myths, complete with Optimus’ own Excalibur. This magpie approach to thematic elements serves to highlight how Lucas got it so right with Star Wars (at least at first); Kruger and Bay get it so wrong.


Age of Extinction also prefigures the (hoped for) resurgence of all things prehistoric by a year (Jurassic World is incoming) with the appearance of Dinbobots. Much like Transformers generally, they are a design gimmick in search of anything going on under the lid. Less effective still are the whacky new Autobot stereotypes, including Ken Watanabe voicing the samurai-styled Drift and John Goodman as the obesity-styled Hound (complete with an autobeard).


With this barrage of pixelated machines it’s no coincidence that the best scenes involve humans. Unfortunately it’s not until about two-thirds of the way through this not-far-from three-hour endurance test that we get any interesting ones. Stanley Tucci comes on as your shameless capitalist opportunist and is, through no particular change of heart on his part, rehabilitated as a reluctant hero. How much of Tucci’s performance is ad-libbed is anyone’s guess – I suspect it’s merely his inimitable delivery that makes the difference – but the picture almost feels alive and spontaneous when he is onscreen. Particularly strong is the extended sequence where he makes off with the Seed, accompanied by the stunning Li Bingbing. Whether he’s sitting on a roof sipping from a juice carton, laughing in a lift, bypassing young (“Hi kids!”) and old (“Excuse me, ladies”) or showing impatience with pedestrians (“Just hit ‘em, just hit ‘em!”) he’s the absolute highlight of the picture. And given the multi-million dollar CGI action spectacle, it’s also telling that by far the best bout is Bingbing’s kick-ass lift fight.


Why Wahlberg felt the compelled to show up in this is anyone’s guess. I guess it guarantees more green lights (it made double the amount of his previous highest grosser) and he must be one of those few who digs the Bay. Hopefully Sophia Myles got paid well, as her role is utterly forgettable. T J Miller gets/gives himself some good lines before he leads an early exit. He helps to highlight the rather queasy obsession the picture has with the acceptability of lusting after Cade’s 17-year-old daughter (the obsessive dad thing is also highly dubious). Miller refers to her as a “hot teen-ager” and her 21 year-old BF testifies that it’s okay to be dating her because of a Romeo and Juliet law. Is this the Bay agenda? That he wants the world to know it’s okay for him to slather over teens? Most disturbing is his fixation with painting them orange. Peltz looks like she’s overdosed on beta-carotene.


The success of Transformers: Age of Extinction – the 10th highest grossing picture of all time worldwide, despite most discerning people being barely aware of its presence – is certainly not attributable to the series’ dwindling US popularity. As with a number of franchises (Spider-Man, The Hobbit) the US is no longer the key market. This picture made $300m in China alone, the most successful movie ever there. No doubt it was helped along its way by extensive location filming there (this being Transformers, it could have filmed anywhere in the world that granted a permit to blow shit up and it would still have all looked the same). The baffling thing about this series is that its attendees cannot solely be those who buy the toys, yet it’s impossible to see any reason for its existence or popularity other than to sell them. Michael Bay is not returning for Transformers 5 in 2016. I look forward to him spreading his wings as the true auteur he is, as he enters his sixth decade.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.