Search
TA
The Actors' Crucible: Port Talbot and the Making of Burton, Hopkins, Sheen and All the Others
Book
The town of Port Talbot has long been seen (quite literally) as synonymous with the steel industry....
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Amistad (1997) in Movies
Aug 13, 2020
Give Us Us Free
Slaves are put on trial when they start a mutiny on the ship bringing them over to America. Although a little long in the tooth, Amistad is a memorable movie that gives you something to root for.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldn’t have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so it’s no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. It’s riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. It’s a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldn’t have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so it’s no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. It’s riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. It’s a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) in Movies
Oct 7, 2018
Another Coppola classic!
Coppola's take on the classic Dracula story is to use the book as the source! So many of the other adaptations, including the 1931 classic, changed or combined characters, rather than stay true to the source material.
So many of his decisions were great when making the film including firing his original visual effects team and hiring his son, Roman Coppola to take a more "traditional" route when setting up the film's look through "old school" techniques instead of the modern day approach the original team wanted. The result was very unique, almost "cheapish" looking, but the way the filmmaker wanted it to look.
There has been much written over the years about Keanu Reeves' role in the film and how he felt out of place with the rest of the remarkable cast. In retrospect, he may have been miscast, but I have grown to enjoy his performance over years. The performances of Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins (fresh off his cannibalistic Oscar win) certainly carry the film. Oldman almost makes the character of Dracula a sympathetic one. You almost want to root for him to be successful instead of damning him back to hell as the master vampire.
Overall, one of my top 3 vampire flicks of all time and a consistent rewatch. Just purchased on 4K which made the look and fell, colors and darkness of the film as fresh as ever. Highly recommended.
So many of his decisions were great when making the film including firing his original visual effects team and hiring his son, Roman Coppola to take a more "traditional" route when setting up the film's look through "old school" techniques instead of the modern day approach the original team wanted. The result was very unique, almost "cheapish" looking, but the way the filmmaker wanted it to look.
There has been much written over the years about Keanu Reeves' role in the film and how he felt out of place with the rest of the remarkable cast. In retrospect, he may have been miscast, but I have grown to enjoy his performance over years. The performances of Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins (fresh off his cannibalistic Oscar win) certainly carry the film. Oldman almost makes the character of Dracula a sympathetic one. You almost want to root for him to be successful instead of damning him back to hell as the master vampire.
Overall, one of my top 3 vampire flicks of all time and a consistent rewatch. Just purchased on 4K which made the look and fell, colors and darkness of the film as fresh as ever. Highly recommended.
Red Dragon (Hannibal Lecter #1)
8.1
Rate It
Book
A quiet summer night...a neat suburban house...and another innocent, happy family is shattered - the...
crime fiction
Poetry and Theology in the Modernist Period
Book
Following the religious turn in other disciplines, literary critics have emphasized how modernists...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Mar 5, 2021
I've got a lot a love for the first Thor movie, but like many others, the second one is probably my least favourite of the whole franchise. So, when one of the mightiest Avengers threatens to become stale, what is the solution? Taika fucking Waititi is the solution.
One of my favourite working directors helming an MCU film is exciting indeed, and manages to deliver a film that injects new life into the Thor series, manages to fit in with other chapters of the franchise without feeling too alien, but still has liberal splashings of Waititi's trademark wit throughout.
The comedy in this entry is thick and fast, but everything lands just right. It's fair to say that it's taken a leaf out the Guardians of the Galaxy playbook, but manages to come across smoother and feel more refined in it's humour than Vol. 2.
Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo and Idris Elba are back and as good as ever with MCU newcomers Cate Blanchett, carving a memorable figure as this movies big bad Hela (who I really hope we see again at somepoint), Tessa Thompson as the badass Valkyrie, a wonderful Jeff Goldblum as secondary villain Grandmaster (another that I hope we see again), and Karl Urban as The Executioner. It's a well put together cast.
It's packed full of comic shit too, with references to Man Thing, Beta Ray Bill, and Bi Beast, a tie in appearance from Doctor Strange, the first appearance of Surtur, and Hulk rampaging through Asgard. It has relentlessly entertaining set pieces and an 80s synth style soundtrack that tops everything wonderfully.
Not much to complain about here - easily the best of the Thor trilogy and a solid entry into the wider MCU.
One of my favourite working directors helming an MCU film is exciting indeed, and manages to deliver a film that injects new life into the Thor series, manages to fit in with other chapters of the franchise without feeling too alien, but still has liberal splashings of Waititi's trademark wit throughout.
The comedy in this entry is thick and fast, but everything lands just right. It's fair to say that it's taken a leaf out the Guardians of the Galaxy playbook, but manages to come across smoother and feel more refined in it's humour than Vol. 2.
Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo and Idris Elba are back and as good as ever with MCU newcomers Cate Blanchett, carving a memorable figure as this movies big bad Hela (who I really hope we see again at somepoint), Tessa Thompson as the badass Valkyrie, a wonderful Jeff Goldblum as secondary villain Grandmaster (another that I hope we see again), and Karl Urban as The Executioner. It's a well put together cast.
It's packed full of comic shit too, with references to Man Thing, Beta Ray Bill, and Bi Beast, a tie in appearance from Doctor Strange, the first appearance of Surtur, and Hulk rampaging through Asgard. It has relentlessly entertaining set pieces and an 80s synth style soundtrack that tops everything wonderfully.
Not much to complain about here - easily the best of the Thor trilogy and a solid entry into the wider MCU.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020
The second Thor movie is a visual representation of the word "meh". It has all the right ingredients, but somehow manages to fall flat.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Kidnapping Mr. Heineken (2015) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Kidnapping Freddy Heineken starts as we follow our five criminals Cor Van Hout (Sturgess), Willem (Worthington), Cat (Kwanten), Spikes (Eeuwen) and Brakes (Cocquerel) who have always been looking for a way to make money quickly instead of getting real jobs in Holland. Their latest plan is to kidnap beer tycoon Freddy Heineken (Hopkins) and collecting the ransom.
With the plan in place the kidnapping goes well the wait for the ransom is what takes the time and tests the strength of the kidnappers over the victims as we follow what could be the undoing of the men.
Thoughts on Kidnapping Freddy Heineken
Characters – Cor Van Hout is the leader of the gang, he brings his men together to complete the jobs with some failing and others not, he comes up with the latest job while his personal life is about to hit the highs a father could experience. Willem is the hot head of the group who will go past the marks to make the job get done and he could become the biggest problem involved. Freddy Heineken is the beer tycoon that has become the target of this men and he stays extremely calm through his ordeal trying to friend his kidnappers too.
Performance – Jim Sturgess is strong in the leading role of this film throughout feeling like the rest would listen to his every word. Sam Worthington is good in the loose cannon role too. Anthony Hopkins is as always the star of the show here as you want to see all of his scenes.
Story – The story is based on the true story of what happened when a group of criminals kidnap the tycoon and how they were not completely sure things would work and how things could go wrong. This is good because it doesn’t go down a slick as the best heist movies but is also calm enough to feel like it is based on real people human errors through the heist.
Action/Crime – There are a couple of good car chases through the film which do make up the action side of things while the whole story is about the crime being committed.
Settings – The streets involved in Amsterdam show us how tight the car chases can be and escape routes by more than just road, we do feel like this is authentic with how everything unfolds during the crime.
Scene of the Movie – Freddy’s orders.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The clear choice for a problem is having some Dutch cast members but the leads are not.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the films that didn’t get much talk when it came out but I don’t understand why, it is an enjoyable and one film that is worth watching for all the heist fans out there.
Overall: Good heist film.
With the plan in place the kidnapping goes well the wait for the ransom is what takes the time and tests the strength of the kidnappers over the victims as we follow what could be the undoing of the men.
Thoughts on Kidnapping Freddy Heineken
Characters – Cor Van Hout is the leader of the gang, he brings his men together to complete the jobs with some failing and others not, he comes up with the latest job while his personal life is about to hit the highs a father could experience. Willem is the hot head of the group who will go past the marks to make the job get done and he could become the biggest problem involved. Freddy Heineken is the beer tycoon that has become the target of this men and he stays extremely calm through his ordeal trying to friend his kidnappers too.
Performance – Jim Sturgess is strong in the leading role of this film throughout feeling like the rest would listen to his every word. Sam Worthington is good in the loose cannon role too. Anthony Hopkins is as always the star of the show here as you want to see all of his scenes.
Story – The story is based on the true story of what happened when a group of criminals kidnap the tycoon and how they were not completely sure things would work and how things could go wrong. This is good because it doesn’t go down a slick as the best heist movies but is also calm enough to feel like it is based on real people human errors through the heist.
Action/Crime – There are a couple of good car chases through the film which do make up the action side of things while the whole story is about the crime being committed.
Settings – The streets involved in Amsterdam show us how tight the car chases can be and escape routes by more than just road, we do feel like this is authentic with how everything unfolds during the crime.
Scene of the Movie – Freddy’s orders.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The clear choice for a problem is having some Dutch cast members but the leads are not.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the films that didn’t get much talk when it came out but I don’t understand why, it is an enjoyable and one film that is worth watching for all the heist fans out there.
Overall: Good heist film.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Verdict: A Pryce & Hopkins Masterclass
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has anyone got an aspirin?
Shhh! Don’t tell anyone I told you this but I’m a little bit of a Transformers fanboy. As a child I had many of the series’ toys and adored the animated series. Heck, I even have an Optimus Prime bobblehead next to my bed.
So when director Michael Bay announced in 2005 that he was planning a Transformers live-action movie with Steven Spielberg as producer, my heart skipped a beat. 2007 came and the film was everything I wanted.
Fast forward ten years and the series has, rightly or wrongly, become a laughing stock for critics the world over. Derided for nonsensical plots, messy special effects and in some cases racism, it’s been regarded as one of the worst film franchises of all time. Does the fifth entry in the franchise, The Last Knight redeem the series somewhat?
Humans are at war with the Transformers and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) has disappeared. The key to saving the future lies buried in the secrets of the past and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Now, it’s up to the alliance of Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), Bumblebee, a Lord (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and an Oxford professor (Laura Haddock) to save the planet.
Michael Bay’s swansong is definitely the best of the series since the 2007 original, but suffers from all the problems of its 3 sequels.
On a budget of $260million, there was no doubt The Last Knight would look spectacular, but things really have stepped up a gear. The CGI is some of the best put to film and makes the uncharacteristically sloppy special effects of Age of Extinction look incredibly dated.
The Transformers themselves all look great with Bumblebee in particular taking on the role of “lead bot”. Newcomer Squeeks is sure to become the BB-8 of the franchise and is predictably adorable despite his limited screen-time.
Of the cast, it’s a story of same old. The voice acting on all the Transformers is good with a disappointingly underused Peter Cullen stealing the show once again. Mark Wahlberg is permanently likeable and it’s always a pleasure having John Turturro’s Agent Simmons returning to the screen. Laura Haddock is the typical Michael Bay choice of female lead, channelling Megan Fox, Rosie Huntington-Whitely and Nicola Peltz.
However, Sir Anthony Hopkins is where this film raises itself above the parapet. The veteran actor is really exceptional and brightens the movie in every single scene he appears in. You can tell he’s not taking it too seriously, and that is exactly the point of this series.
Sure, the plot is a hot steaming mess of nonsensical dialogue with loose strands of story, and at 149 minutes it’s a good half hour too long, but with all the fear and hate in real life, sometimes it’s nice to switch your brain off and escape to a world where robots exist – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Michael Bay may not be the subtlest of directors. Give him a classy love story and he’ll turn it into Fifty Shades of Grey, but he’s clearly a very clever man. The critics have savaged this franchise but audiences keep coming back for more and who can blame them?
If this is, as has been said by the man himself, Michael Bay’s last entry into the Transformers canon, then it’s not a bad film to leave on whatsoever.
You know the score by now. Don’t go in expecting Shakespeare or Oscar-winning performances and you’ll be fine. Just make sure you take some paracetamol; crikey it’s loud.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/24/transformers-the-last-knight-review/
So when director Michael Bay announced in 2005 that he was planning a Transformers live-action movie with Steven Spielberg as producer, my heart skipped a beat. 2007 came and the film was everything I wanted.
Fast forward ten years and the series has, rightly or wrongly, become a laughing stock for critics the world over. Derided for nonsensical plots, messy special effects and in some cases racism, it’s been regarded as one of the worst film franchises of all time. Does the fifth entry in the franchise, The Last Knight redeem the series somewhat?
Humans are at war with the Transformers and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) has disappeared. The key to saving the future lies buried in the secrets of the past and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Now, it’s up to the alliance of Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), Bumblebee, a Lord (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and an Oxford professor (Laura Haddock) to save the planet.
Michael Bay’s swansong is definitely the best of the series since the 2007 original, but suffers from all the problems of its 3 sequels.
On a budget of $260million, there was no doubt The Last Knight would look spectacular, but things really have stepped up a gear. The CGI is some of the best put to film and makes the uncharacteristically sloppy special effects of Age of Extinction look incredibly dated.
The Transformers themselves all look great with Bumblebee in particular taking on the role of “lead bot”. Newcomer Squeeks is sure to become the BB-8 of the franchise and is predictably adorable despite his limited screen-time.
Of the cast, it’s a story of same old. The voice acting on all the Transformers is good with a disappointingly underused Peter Cullen stealing the show once again. Mark Wahlberg is permanently likeable and it’s always a pleasure having John Turturro’s Agent Simmons returning to the screen. Laura Haddock is the typical Michael Bay choice of female lead, channelling Megan Fox, Rosie Huntington-Whitely and Nicola Peltz.
However, Sir Anthony Hopkins is where this film raises itself above the parapet. The veteran actor is really exceptional and brightens the movie in every single scene he appears in. You can tell he’s not taking it too seriously, and that is exactly the point of this series.
Sure, the plot is a hot steaming mess of nonsensical dialogue with loose strands of story, and at 149 minutes it’s a good half hour too long, but with all the fear and hate in real life, sometimes it’s nice to switch your brain off and escape to a world where robots exist – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Michael Bay may not be the subtlest of directors. Give him a classy love story and he’ll turn it into Fifty Shades of Grey, but he’s clearly a very clever man. The critics have savaged this franchise but audiences keep coming back for more and who can blame them?
If this is, as has been said by the man himself, Michael Bay’s last entry into the Transformers canon, then it’s not a bad film to leave on whatsoever.
You know the score by now. Don’t go in expecting Shakespeare or Oscar-winning performances and you’ll be fine. Just make sure you take some paracetamol; crikey it’s loud.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/24/transformers-the-last-knight-review/