Transformers: Age of Extinction

Watch: Transformers: Age of Extinction

PG-13

6/27/20142h 45m

Theatrical Release (US)

~ This is not war, it's extinction. ~

Overview:

As humanity picks up the pieces after the battle of Chicago, a shadowy group reveals itself in an attempt to control the direction of history…while an ancient, powerful new menace sets Earth in its crosshairs. With help from Cade Yeager, Optimus Prime and the Autobots rise to meet their most fearsome challenge yet.

Director:

Michael Bay

Status:

Released

Language:

English

Buget:

$210,000,000.00

Revenue:

$1,104,054,072.00

Key words:

sequel
alien
on the run
based on toy
giant robot
robot
metal
good vs evil

Cast

Mark Wahlberg

~ as ~

Cade Yeager

Peter Cullen

~ as ~

Optimus Prime (voice)

Stanley Tucci

~ as ~

Joshua Joyce

Kelsey Grammer

~ as ~

Harold Attinger

Nicola Peltz Beckham

~ as ~

Tessa Yeager

Jack Reynor

~ as ~

Shane Dyson

Frank Welker

~ as ~

Galvatron (voice)

Sophia Myles

~ as ~

Darcy Tirrel

Li Bingbing

~ as ~

Su Yueming

Titus Welliver

~ as ~

James Savoy

View full cast & crew

Reviews (3)

GE
Grant English
Written 10 year(s) ago
3
Is there any excuse available that will justify spending 2 hours, 45 minutes to watch this film? Or why I am gifting it three stars?

It was a free rental at Redox. I normally enjoy Mark Wahlberg movies. I love Bumblebee.

Do any of these hold water?

I know one thing that doesn’t hold a lot of water – the story. Does it really matter at this point in the franchise? There are good guy Transformers called Autobots and bad guy Transformers called Decepticons and standing between them are stupid humans that betray their species for profit – normally it’s the U.S. Government. BUT wait – there is one hero that will change all of this and talk Optimus Prime (Autobot Boss Daddy) into fighting one last battle (for the fourth or fifth time – I’ve lost count at this point) while some hot-looking woman runs around explosions in short-shorts.

You now know all you need to know about the entire Transformer franchise.

For this incarnation we trade out Shia LeBeouf for Mark Wahlberg and Courtney Fox for Nicola Pelz. And now for the twist…wait for it… Mark Wahlberg plays Nicola Pelz’s FATHER. That’s right – the FATHER. Yeah, it totally doesn’t work. At all.

There’s a point in the movie about 90 minutes in where it looks like all the loose ends are going to get tied up and I thought: You know, that wasn’t so bad. Good action flick, a bit hoaky at points but watchable.

And then the movie keeps going. And going. For another 90 minutes. And you basically watch the movie again except instead of it being in Texas and Chicago, it’s in China and Hong Kong.

It’s too long, too many explosions, too many American flags and Texas flags in the background. This movie desperately needs an editor or it needs to be euthanized. Probably the latter.

John Goodman and Ken Watanabe lend their voices serve as decent comic relief but there’s not a lot that can save this film. Bumblebee deserved better.
CinemaSerf
Written 2 year(s) ago
5
I guess even Michael Bay must have realised that by the fourth outing, this franchise needed refreshing. To that end, the previously long-suffering cast have been allowed to hang up their screwdrivers and a new set of characters have been drafted in. They are led by "Cade" (an enthusiastic Mark Wahlberg). Now he just happens to buy an old truck and it just happens to turn out to be the long lost "Optimus Prime". Of course, there are still agencies hunting for the robots and soon he and daughter "Tessa" (Nicola Peltz Beckham) are on the run from a militia controlled by the manipulative industrialist "Joyce" (Stanley Tucci). Quite why it needs to take 2¾ hours to get to the standard denouement is anyone's guess. Despite the inclusion of some Tyrannosaur-bots, the film has the same relentless predictability as the "Autobots" and "Decepticons" (if you can spot the difference) go through the same repetitively staged combat scenes before an ending that relies unduly on human intervention (oh yes, and lots of sentimentality too) before we essentially start back at square one with the usual "Optimus" monologue concluding the proceedings. This has the added benefit of a truly terrible performance from the always over-rated Kelsey Grammer who had a few, entirely futile, goes at being a cinema baddie and unlike the other films which had a semblance of internationalism to them, this is now an entirely American affair that just bored me. Surely no more...?
r96sk
Written 5 month(s) ago
9
'Transformers: Age of Extinction'... what the hell happened here?! I actually seriously enjoyed a movie from this franchise, I'm honestly flabbergasted. It's written, directed and produced by the same people, though I wouldn't have predicted that whilst watching.

This, to me, felt almost entirely different to the preceding films in the series, despite the aforementioned. The opening 45-60 minutes are especially entertaining, it does wobble in that regard once or twice but when all is said and done I actually had a lot of fun with this!

I was, for the first time, actually invested into not just the robots but also the human characters too. It's a new bunch on the latter side and, despite minimally liking Shia LaBeouf & friends, I found this lot to be a big upgrade - the change also made it feel fresh. Mark Wahlberg is great as lead, Stanley Tucci and T.J. Miller (for once) are pluses as well.

Nicola Peltz and Jack Reynor are the weakest members of those onscreen, though even then I was still marginally interested in them. Kelsey Grammer, despite playing a fairly standard antagonist, is good, as is Li Bingbing in a relatively smaller role. Peter Cullen, John Goodman and Ken Watanabe, meanwhile, impress with their voices.

Upon starting this review, and still now, I was struggling to come up with negatives. I guess the near three-hour run time truly ought to be one, yet somehow it really... isn't, rather unexplainably. As for a criticism, the excessive product placement is all I've got, I'm afraid.

I'm yet to see the reception that this got, as usual I'm hoping my thoughts are not an outlier in a sea of dissatisfaction. I'd guess it's rated as mid-ly as the prior installments, at worst. Not that any of this is all that important of course, because I enjoyed it and that's all that matters. I did not expect to be saying that, at all!

checks reception: Welp. An outlier I seemingly am. Then again, 12k (on Letterboxd) others agree with my rating (and it incredibly again made a billion on the big screen, I see) so I guess it isn't as bad as it looks. Some uncertainty has crept into my mind, I'm thinking it over and comparing it with other films I've rated similarly and... it's not even in doubt. Wild.