2 Hours and 45 minutes. Why?
There was a time in modern filmmaking where length exceeding or even approaching 2½ hours in length usually meant that the product to follow would carry a level of care, love, detail and effort typically reserved for the most praiseworthy films of the year. “The Lord of the Rings,” “Casino Royale,” “The Dark Knight,” “The Avengers,” “King Kong,” any number of blockbusters over the course of the last several years that have felt it necessary to push past the standard 2 hour mark usually give some justification for its length that have proven so compelling that they have called into question the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ biases and thought process when choosing which films to provide accolades to.
As somebody that believes in the power of Hollywood resources to make more strong cinema today more than any other era, such efforts never cease to bring a smile to my face. Then a film like “Transformers: Age of Extinction” comes along and just torpedoes faith in the progress of an entire industry.
I’m not going to act high and mighty by pretending that I’m not fond big dumb popcorn action flicks. I become as giddy as a school boy on Christmas break with the release of each new “Fast and Furious” movie and I’m first to jump to the defense of several of Michael Bay’s other films including the critically maligned "Bad Boys 2" and "Armageddon," for what they are worth. At the end of the day though, they're only junk food. Lay's potato chips and cotton candy can be delicious when you have them in a well timed burst but they're not a meal entree for dinner.
"Transformers: Age of Extinction" is 10 minutes shorter than "Fellowship of the Ring" yet is somehow almost plotless.
Enough effort was somehow put into the production to edit it into a nigh 3 hour experience but not enough to draw attention to a coherent thread to be followed throughout the movie? Less than 8 minutes of character bonding and exploration carried by decent performances by Mark Wahlberg, Peter Cullen, Stanley Tucci and Kelsey Grammer are slapped into the film but are never built on outside of a dialogue? This film reeks of the worst kind of laziness; Bay and Ehren Kruger clearly cared enough about their jobs to make the movie pretend to be different from its predecessors and have substance at 1 or 2 points but were too lazy to actually make it different from its predecessors and give it substance beyond 1 or 2 points.
"Transformers: Age of Extinction" is 10 minutes shorter than "Fellowship of the Ring" yet is somehow almost plotless.
Enough effort was somehow put into the production to edit it into a nigh 3 hour experience but not enough to draw attention to a coherent thread to be followed throughout the movie? Less than 8 minutes of character bonding and exploration carried by decent performances by Mark Wahlberg, Peter Cullen, Stanley Tucci and Kelsey Grammer are slapped into the film but are never built on outside of a dialogue? This film reeks of the worst kind of laziness; Bay and Ehren Kruger clearly cared enough about their jobs to make the movie pretend to be different from its predecessors and have substance at 1 or 2 points but were too lazy to actually make it different from its predecessors and give it substance beyond 1 or 2 points.
Stupid mindless action isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is however nauseating when it composes about an hour and a half straight of a nearly 3 hour feature. This is a kind of length reserved for character depth, intrigue, plot twists and developments, not action set pieces, chase scenes and transitions from and to action set pieces and chase scenes. Excess, noise and flash isn’t entertaining after 165 minutes, it’s exhausting. Just watching machines punch each other and blow things up is only fun when it’s unusual, not when it constructs a cavalcade of over 52% of a very long film.
And as far as popcorn entertainment goes, which it barely functions as because how rewatchable is a film that requires the entirety of your evening to get through it, it still falls flat. This franchise is billed for having outstanding special effects and yet the final film frequently contains instances of CGI that required multiple additional renders before being presentable.
There is nothing that “Transformers: Age of Extinction” had to say that couldn’t be wrapped up in less than 2 hours. Speaking as a “Transformers” fan, even the best film that this franchise would ever be capable of producing wouldn’t clock in at a length over the run time of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” a movie that was literally designed to be long and exceedingly monotonous. That is its ultimate sin.
From the emotionless bore of “Alexander,” to the gross mishandling of “Watchmen,” to the bizarre disaster of “Heaven’s Gate,” bad cinematic epics are ambitious and as such, far from unheard of. However, even the worst of films that come out of such endeavors contain a level of passion and love in the creation process that is clearly visible on screen in some capacity, which makes them almost hypnotic to watch even when they’re clearly bad.
I would dare to wager that if Bay were ever confronted about the problems of this film, as he’s been regarding most of his previous work, he would brush off any legitimate criticism with the excuse that it wasn’t meant to win awards, just be a fun ride. Is that truly the mark of an artist that was passionate about the “epic” that he crafted?
“Age of Extinction” is not bad because of what it is or is trying to be but because it knows what it is and dares to insult the audience's intelligence with superficial elements that feel like afterthoughts in an attempt to convince them that it’s something greater, only to question them for believing that they should have expected quality filmmaking for buying a ticket to something that they thought looked interesting.
If you’re going to give something a borderline epic length, it better be engaging, insightful or actually have something to say but failing there, it could at least show off an earnest effort on behalf of the filmmakers.
And to all fans of these films allow me to say that I hold no grudge towards any of you. You are entitled to enjoy a piece of art and express positive opinion regarding it however you see fit whether I disagree or not. I don’t want to convince you to hate something harmless to society that you clearly enjoy. However, I implore you; please just hold these studio executives slightly responsible for going beyond the call of duty.
Movies like “Edge of Tomorrow” and “Guardians of the Galaxy” released this summer alone have proven fun action movies don’t need to be cerebral, emotional, or intriguing at the cost of just being fun. Whether you enjoy “Transformers,” detest it or don’t care either way, there is clearly more that can be done with this property and the potential that is being wasted is almost criminal. You deserve better and so does Optimus Prime.
With the announcement of “Transformers 5” potentially going to a new creative staff, I’m more than willing to give this series another chance but things are only going to improve if Paramount gets the message to try harder.
No comments:
Post a Comment