Transformers: The Last Knight

Rarely am I regretful for the time spent in a comfortable chair, watching a $260 million film on a 100-foot screen. But it does happen. I mean come on, I could have watched the Mariners win another game in what will be Seattle’s first World Series year ever. I digress. “Transformers: The Last Knight” may not actually be the last time we’ll see the robots in disguise on screen, but it plays out like a finale.

The world is in peril yet again, with an imminent collision between Earth and Cybertron. The evil robot goddess Quintessa is trying to suck the lifeforce out of the Earth’s core, or something like that. Battles ensue between autobots, decepticons, good humans, bad humans, and there is a mystical staff of power that is uncovered for the first time since the dark ages. The plot is silly and amateur, but we don’t watch Transformers for the story, do we. The audience is bombarded with sentient robots, new and old. There are some adequately cool visual effects, but there are some serious problems with this film.

Mark Wahlberg plays Cade Yeager, a prototypical humble hero, and his acting made me pine for the days of Shia LeBeouf. Laura Haddock plays Vivian Wembley, and she made me legitimately miss Megan Fox. I know what you’re thinking, but it’s truly that bad. To capitulate the almost certain Razzie award sweep, Sir Anthony Hopkins, who is one of the finest actors of his generation, delivers what is undoubtedly the single worst acting performance of his career. A shame really that it is such a high profile piece in the twilight of his career.

Screenwriting is an area that I tend to pay particular attention, and when you combine nonsensical dialogue with a director who clearly has ADHD and isn’t ashamed to let the world know, it tends to overshadow any and all continuity or movie magic in this case. Story? Who needs a story when you have special effects? Let’s blow some things up and put gorgeous women in tight clothing and diminish characters by creating elaborate but irrelevant details about them. Look, a squirrel! Explosion, sex appeal, product placement, stereotype. Mark Wahlberg’s abs, giant robot fight, cheesy cliché speech. Bad jokes, worse acting, the worst dialogue. The end.

Michael Bay is in his element, which is to say his fifth Transformers film. He loves his cutting edge special forces technology and bearded, sunglass-wearing macho men. I actually kind of liked “13 Hours” last year. He also loves explosions. Lots of explosions in slow motion with camera flares. And then blow up the explosions with special effects. I think you get the point. This was a terrible film on top of awful writing, and horrendous acting.

Don’t get me wrong, I was a fan of Transformers since before I can remember, and the 2007 original live-action film was one of my most anticipated films of the year. I liked the first one. It was quirky and had a nice blend of action and humor. But then the franchise began its spiral into cinematic depravity, chasing the dollar in all the wrong ways.

You are probably asking yourself, “there has to be something good about it, right?” To that I will say, absolutely. The fight scenes were great. A bit inconsistent in quality, duration, realism (even within the realm of giant robotic car creatures), and science (Michael Bay likes to take liberties with the laws of physics).

Basically, this was a colossal pile of regret. $260 million wasted on a terrible film. A terrible film that will likely make more than a billion dollars worldwide. Sigh. 3/10.

The Mummy

Déjà vu. That’s the first thing that comes to mind as I reflect on watching Tom Cruise sprinting away from danger while those all around him just can’t seem to run as fast (or look as good doing it). “The Mummy” is a forgettable, mediocre action film with a highly formulaic arc. The film kicks off an interesting new franchise that might have some promise, but maybe should have gone a different direction in its debut vehicle.

The Dark Universe has been around for decades, but Universal Pictures has decided that now is the time to reboot. With “The Invisible Man,” “Bride of Frankenstein,” “Creature from the Black Lagoon,” and presumably “Dracula,” and “Wolfman” down the pipeline, it’s beyond familiar; it’s played out. That said, it’s going to make a boatload of money. With stars like Johnny Depp, Javier Bardem, Tom Cruise, and Russell Crowe, Universal is pulling out all the stops to make a viable extended universe of characters that just might leave a real cinematic legacy.

The film begins with the back story of Egyptian Queen Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) sealing her mystical fate by killing her husband and his progeny. She’s mummified and cursed, giving us everything we need to know about how the rest of the film will play out. Enter present day Iraq. Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is an army operative who is really more of a treasure hunter than a patriot. He’s too cool to wear a uniform, and seemingly does whatever he wants, even with his superiors barking orders at him. Anyhow, after discovering Ahmanet, she awakes from her slumber only to have a massive mummy-crush on Nick, chasing him with the intent of binding themselves in eternal bliss or something. How it ends doesn’t really matter, because it’s all about Tom and some surprisingly impressive action scenes. Everything else is essentially dreck, but the plane crash, van chase, and particularly underwater fighting scene are fun enough.

Tom Cruise does his best to create a memorable character, but it’s not enough. Nick Morton is not particularly likable or heroic and honestly didn’t ever quite fit for the mood of the film. I would have preferred someone with less typecast recognition, and maybe someone of middle eastern descent. I understand the need to kick off the universe with an impressive collection of A-list stars, but wonder if the films would carry more weight if done with a higher standard of quality and less attention on starpower. Anyhow, the ageless Cruise (he’s 54 now) delivers impressive action and unimpressive acting. I’m anticipating September’s “American Made” as it might be an opportunity for him to demonstrate some quality acting in what might be a surprise hit.

Russell Crowe plays Dr. Henry Jeckyl (yes, that Dr. Jeckyl) in what will likely be the Nick Fury character (Marvel Avengers reference) who ties the whole universe together. He stands out as the strongest character of the bunch, which may have been intended, but is definitely not enough to carry a film in a supporting role. Jake Johnson is the comic relief sidekick, and Annabelle Wallis is the damsel in distress archaeologist who tries to keep the cavalier Cruise in check. It’s pretty unremarkable overall.

Director Alex Kurtzman is new to this aspect of the game after writing and producing Michael Bay and J.J. Abrams movies for years. He does a pretty decent job, but there is nothing special about his work and I wouldn’t expect him to churn out anything of real quality. The three members of the writing team have worked with Cruise on numerous occasions, and have all come on hard times lately in terms of quality screenplays (excluding Christopher McQuarrie’s 2014 “Edge of Tomorrow”) “The Mummy” is no exception. A tent-pole film for Universal with high long-term expectations, and a modest $125 million budget, it should do well at the box office, no doubt.

Watching Tom Cruise in action is always somewhat entertaining, and the visual effects are higher quality than they appear in the previews (that’s mercury, not water dripping from the sarcophagus). A few of the action scenes are fun, and the story is timeless, almost ubiquitous horror fare. I had low expectations, and admittedly was entertained, but this wasn’t what I would consider a good movie. 5/10.

Wonder Woman

It’s about time we have a bona fide female superhero. That’s the general sentiment around the campfire, which is why I am incredibly dubious of the lack of studio confidence in this franchise. There has been minimal advertising, marketing, or merchandising. Where are the action figures, fast food tie-ins, and ubiquitous product placement? The film also has a noticeably lower budget ($149 million) than the Zack Snyder behemoths that have critically tanked in the past several summers (“Man of Steel” - $225 million, “Batman vs Superman” - $250 million). This might have been a mistake.

When I was young, Wonder Woman stood atop the pantheon of superheroes at Superman’s right hand side. She was more powerful than any of the Marvel guys not named Thor or Hulk, and the daughter of a Greek God? Come on, the character begs for a franchise. She finally has one, and almost everything about it is terrific.

Set to the backdrop of the war to end all wars, Diana Prince (Gal Gadot), the Wonder Woman, embarks on a quest to defeat the Germans and duel Ares, the Greek God of war (it makes more sense than it sounds) after an American spy washes ashore her all female paradise island of she-gladiators and threatens their peaceful existence. Fighting in the trenches alongside Captain Steven Trevor (Chris Pine), she begins to understand that man isn’t as evil as she was taught, and gods aren’t as dangerous.

What makes the film work for starters is the portrayal of the larger than life character. Gadot is outstanding as the warrior princess and can play a very wide range of emotion without saying a word; confusion, naiveté, innocence, love, and rage. She’s mesmerizing in her beauty, and after several failed false-starts since the 1970’s, just like Henry Cavill as Superman, I think they’ve found their hero for the next decade. She oozes strength and sexuality, a difficult combination to pull off on screen (and be taken seriously for both). Brie Larson certainly has her work cut out for her in 2019’s “Captain Marvel.”

Patty Jenkins (“Monster”) is the first female director to the high-stakes, tent-pole genre, and the subtlety by which she introduces the strongest of the fairer sex is beyond commendable. She takes a massive question mark and turns it into solid gold, and the box office will confirm that, trust me. She has earned herself a sequel with this one, and now the only question is if she wants it.

DC Comics and Warner Bros. needed a critical hit not just to avoid three (arguably four) poorly done comic movies, but also to open the floodgates for a whole new audience that has long been neglected. Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow, and more notably, the leads in the last two “Star Wars” films (Daisy Ridley and Felicity Jones) have been a huge step forward in progressive thinking by film studios. Bravo. Add Gal Gadot’s name to that list, and put her down as the top reason I will be excited to see “Justice League” in November.

There really isn’t much not to like about the film. The visual effects are typical DC; not quite up to the quality of Marvel, but still entertaining. Maybe Disney just has a competitive advantage on the technology and quality? Who knows, but the film ran a bit too long at just under two and a half hours. The climax raged on for far too long, but that isn’t necessarily that bad. It added more depth to the evolving character, and set her up for a long and successful cinematic run.

“Wonder Woman” is by far the best DC superhero film since 2008’s epic “The Dark Knight” and does so by changing its image. Reminiscent of “Captain America” in more ways than one, we finally see a DC film that captures the humor and lightness of Marvel in a way that is absolutely spot on. Due to the recent misfires, I was skeptical that it could be done, but “Wonder Woman” is wonderful. 9/10.