Change Your Image
abbottsam
Reviews
Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)
Haters gonna hate. Reality is it's exactly what it's meant to be. Don't hate. Embrace the fun!
Most of these reviews are done by tenth grade A/V club hipsters. It's okay guys. It's okay to like a popcorn movie! Go on, be the first one of your group to say you like it. I bet you one of your friends will come up to you later in private and say, "You know, I kinda liked it too, but I didn't want to sound un-cool
" (Having said that I still think the second film was an abomination!)
But generally I still think many people need a reality check. Were you not entertained?! This is a movie, a piece of escapism. This kind of movie in particular is something that is meant to indulge the senses and make us go 'wow'. For people of my generation there is also a sense of nostalgia in watching characters from my childhood brought to life.
There are some negatives, let's get them out of the way first. Over-Americana and the sappy family sob story. That's one. Product placement is really starting to get over-the-top. That's two. The final cut didn't seem to transition as well as the other films. The vehicle sequences and many other scenes didn't have the depth to convince me they weren't green screen. That's three. You know what, that's about it.
Other reviews will tell you that it's just more of the same, more of Bay up to his usual tricks. Yeah, it's unmistakeably a Bay film, but he has learned. The robot story arc is given more real estate here over the human characters that over-took the first three films. This film is about Optimus, the origins of the Transformers, Lockdown and the human races advances in technology as a result of the Cybertonian presence on Earth. It's overall got a darker, more sinister tone and we start to see a little more character development, particularly with Optimus.
Yeah, it's Bay. It's a 165 minute rocking music video clip. But what's wrong with that? Again, I ask you, were you not entertained?!
The story isn't much, but it doesn't need to be. It's enough to give us the action we want. It's also enough to open up the Transformers Universe into something that has much more possibilities in it for future films. Is Unicron looming in the background in the same way Thanos has been in the MCU? We'll see in a couple of years
It's five years after the Battle of Chicago. Human politicians have outlawed all Transformers for the war they have brought to Earth. Optimus and the surviving Autobots were granted refuge on Earth as long as they stayed hidden. This is why Optimus and Bumblebee are in real old school alternate modes at the beginning of the film, to stay hidden.
Intergalactic bounty hunter, Lockdown has formed an uneasy alliance with some CIA heavies, the head of which is in league with the head of KSI, the company who has developed the technology to build man-made Transformers. We don't see it, but we are told that Optimus barely survived his first encounter with Lockdown – his spark barely operational, we first see Optimus in stand-by mode.
Face facts guys, it was awesome to see Optimus in G1 spec alternate mode. You asked, you received – yet you still criticize.
Cinematography = awesome. Action = awesome. Soundtrack = awesome. Visuals = awesome. Nicola Peltz = Awesome, and added comic relief when needed. I seriously don't know what you guys want?!
The possibilities now are endless and we are likely to see the TU open up into a fully-fledged robot space opera. I get the feeling humans will start to appear less and less over the next few films
People seem to have a hissy fit that Bay's films are not like the cartoons. Really? You don't say?! I for one am happy to see a little re-inventing going on. It keeps it interesting and the re-invention of some key characters in this film is actually more fitting with the events of previous films. It makes more sense than if they were pressured to remain true to the cartoons or the cartoon film. They're creating a stand-alone mythology of their own and the reality is that it's quite cool. If you wanna watch the cartoons, go away and watch the cartoons! I'm up for something different! If it's not going to be different, why do it at all?
Iron Man Three (2013)
Read this before you rate/write a review for Iron Man 3
Visually amazing, but slightly insulting to the audience.
Iron Man 3, which is seemingly only set a short time after The Avengers and Tony Stark is up to Mark 47 armor! Yet Tony only has Mark I to Mark VII on display in his garage and uses the new Mark 47 as his new "daily drive". Mark VIII to Mark 46 are apparently stored in a secure sub- basement level below Stark's garage. All prototypes; Stark's intentions for use of these 39 armors are never revealed, although there are some hints. Poor hints, but hints.
Never-the-less, 40 armors in the space of about a year = what the hell? He did quite well with Mark III to Mark VII for four years, 2008-2012. To go from seven (in total) armors in four years to building 41 (in total) in one year seems unrealistic and stupid.
The reasons given is that Stark is paranoid since the events of The Avengers. Gods and Aliens and threat of wars from powers unknown to human kind plague Stark's mind. He is losing sleep and spends all of his time building suits to suit different purposes depending on the kinds of threats the earth might face in the future.
But this makes no sense, as it appears since The Avengers that Iron Man has basically been retired by the Iron Patriot (War Machine/Rhodes), which also makes no sense!
Where was Rhodes during the events of The Avengers? No reference for this was given. Why did the government feel the need to put such faith in the Iron Patriot program when it was Iron Man who led the defence against the invasion in The Avengers?
The Iron Patriot armor was obviously new (as the semi-restored Mark II armor was now back in the Stark Garage) and obviously Stark tech. Why did Stark build a specific set of armor for the government? Throughout Iron Man (2008) Stark said he was done building weapons for the government. Throughout Iron Man 2 Stark said he was never going to let anyone else get hands on his technology and the government specifically "can't have it". Now all of a sudden we are meant to believe he just up and decides to build a new set of armor for government use? I don't get it, sorry.
Where was SHIELD and The Avengers? Surely they would have been on hand regarding these major acts of terrorism and presidential threats? Or at least on hand or around to assist Tony in his various moments of crisis'?... Particularly Captain America; he's already a Government sanctioned super hero. Where was he? Was painting the Iron Patriot in Captain America's colors a slap in the face to Capt Rogers, especially considering again, he was instrumental in the defence against the alien invasion. Again, where was Rhodes and why the focus on Iron Patriot?
Extremis was OTT.
The Mandarin twist was stupid.
Why didn't they tie The Mandarin into the foundation they laid with 10 Rings from the first Iron Man film?
Mark 47 was an extremely unreliable unit for a piece of Stark tech. Why didn't he use one of the Mark VIII to Mark 46 suits as his "daily drive" while the Mark 47 was still in beta testing? What was with the power issues hinted throughout the film? Are these suits not powered by their own individual arc reactors? Is that not self-sustaining energy? This makes the whole Mark 47 storyline (damage and repair etc.) really quite stupid, un-understandable and weird. Bottom line could Tony have not used energy from his personal arc reactor in an emergency type situation? So what was with the hooking up of Mark 47 to freaking car battery to "charge it up"? Am I the only one asking this stuff?!
If Tony had 39 other suits just hanging around in lock up, why did he use The Avengers damaged Mark VII to meet up with Rhodes for a meal?
Why did he use a suit at all to just meet up with Rhodes? Doesn't he usually drive most places as Tony Stark?
Why was Mark VII just parked there out the front, open? Couldn't anyone just hop in there and take off? Or at least throw it on a trailer and nick it?
I don't understand why someone with Tony Stark's resources couldn't get all of those suits out of the ocean sooner
Like, straight away.
Ben Kingsley is the best actor in the world.
I'm all for humor, but the chance for a darker, more epic end to the trilogy was missed – we won't get that chance back.
If Tony was so paranoid about further invasions and threats to Earth, hence building 41 suits in total in a year, why then destroy them all on a whim because Pepper has a whinge about Tony not spending enough time with her?! Priorities Pepper, jeez! And Tony, letting a woman tell him what to do?!
If it was so easy to take the shrapnel out of Tony's heart, why wasn't that done as soon as he was rescued in 2008? Why go through all of the trouble of creating a better arc half way through the first film, then palladium poisoning and a new element and core in the second film? Especially considering from Iron Man 2 onward all suits had their own independent reactors and didn't run off of Tony's anyway. So in theory he could have done away with a personal arc a long time ago it seems
Sorry, it all just seems like a gigantic waste of time and has destroyed the credibility of everything that came before it in the first two films?
I feel like writing and alternative Iron Man 3 just to highlight what they could and should have done.
This movie was weak and nonsensical (and deep down, you know it)!
6 Bullets (2012)
Everyone reviewing this film must be 12 years old. This is a terrible film, and I'm a JCVD fan!
I rate, I don't usually review unless it's really good, or really bad. This is the latter. As a JCVD fan I've been encouraged by his some of his later work in the film 'JCVD', 'Universal Soldier: Regeneration' and 'The Expendables 2'.
He's old, sure, but he's kept in shape and his acting has improved a lot over the years, he's actually quite good! But this film is one of the cheapest pieces of crap I've seen and well beneath the actor JCVD has become in his twilight years.
It's poorly written, poorly shot, poorly edited and poorly acted by everyone else in the thing!
It feels like it was directed by a teen on HD camcorder. I couldn't sit through the whole thing. That's some dead honesty, as I've sat through a lot of crap and a lot of JCVD over the years (sometimes one and the same).
Don't waste your time. If you are trying to chose between this and something else right now, choose that something else.
Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning (2012)
More of a poor re-imagining than anything else. Ignores the great work done by "Regeneration"
In my mind there are only two Universal Soldier movies, and if you watch Universal Soldier (1992) and Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009) you will have a complete, unspoiled Universal Soldier experience. Give everything else with the UniSol name attached to it a miss, it just spoils it!
Universal Soldier (1992) is a classic of its time and genre. It was destroyed with two "unofficial" sequels that I have never seen and never care to.
Then came the official sequel, Universal Soldier: The Return (1999). JCVD was back, which gave the movie some cred, but it deviated too far from what made Universal Soldier (1992) good. "The Return" was didn't have the same "feel". It was too "shiny", too "clean", just too "Hollywood".
When I got word of another Universal Soldier sequel I avoided it like the plague! I wasn't going to fall into temptation, but it was the reviews here on IMDb that finally turned me. I finally buckled due to the overwhelming praise of Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009).
"Regeneration" really is SO good for its budget. It took the UniSol series from the "classic for its time" bracket and thrust it into gritty reality. A worthy and brilliant sequel (that thankfully ignores the events of "The Return" and still doesn't get the praise it deserves. WATCH THIS FILM!
"Regeneration" leaves room for a direct sequel, which if made in the same tone would have been brilliant! But "Day of Reckoning" ignores the lot of it and goes in a completely different direction again! I have no idea why or what they were thinking after the acclaim of "Regeneration". Everyone involved should be fired and never be allowed to work again!
This film does not star JCVD or DL. They are extras at most. This film follows a new character and his story which intertwines into a re- imagined UniSol universe almost completely unrelated to anything before it.
JCVD and DL look extremely old, even more so than in "Regeneration" where they just got away with it!
This film shouldn't have been made. They had all the ingredients to run with a better sequel after the events of "Regeneration".
I am in fact a little angry that I have seen "DOR". It has left a foul taste in my mouth again just like I felt after I watched "The Return".
In a way I hope they still do another one because their track record suggests their next one will be good again. On the other hand JCVD and DL are far too old.
It will take several sittings of the original and "Regeneration" to erase this movie from memory. And just like how I believe there are only three Star Wars films, only three Indiana Jones films and Joel Schumacher never made a Batman film - there are only two UniSol film: the original and "Regeneration". Watch these two films again and again if you have to, just give this one (and any others) a miss.
Thank me later.
(2 stars for some pretty reasonable and gritty action and fight scenes for its budget - only good part of the film).