Movie Review - TF5 The Last Knight

[reillyd]

I mainly have more questions than comments.

But the gravity/Cybertron thing. Given that we have frequently seen mass-density shifting and size shifting it didn't bother me so much, plus it looked to be largely hollow anyway. I thought it was just a broken shard of Cybertron (because, DoTM space bridge) and not the planet proper.


Questions which I am hoping someone smarter can answer

Q1: Does the spark reside in the head, and so can Starscream be revived.
Q2: How on earth did Starscream die in the first place (Lockdown?)
Q3: What happened to all the sparks Lockdown harvested. I had hoped to see them get revived, if Megatron can come back for the umpteenth time.
Q4: Did anyone else think Quintessa looks adorable (in her shimmering metal mode) and have unnatural thoughts? #justaskingforafriend

[SharkyMcShark]

I mainly have more questions than comments.

But the gravity/Cybertron thing. Given that we have frequently seen mass-density shifting and size shifting it didn't bother me so much, plus it looked to be largely hollow anyway. I thought it was just a broken shard of Cybertron (because, DoTM space bridge) and not the planet proper.


Questions which I am hoping someone smarter can answer

Q1: Does the spark reside in the head, and so can Starscream be revived.
Q2: How on earth did Starscream die in the first place (Lockdown?)
Q3: What happened to all the sparks Lockdown harvested. I had hoped to see them get revived, if Megatron can come back for the umpteenth time.
Q4: Did anyone else think Quintessa looks adorable (in her shimmering metal mode) and have unnatural thoughts? #justaskingforafriend

For 1 and 2, the spark of Ratchet and Optimus were both shown in their chest, as well as various transformers in the films leaking bright blue stuff and dying from chest shots, so probably the chest.

Starscream died in DOTM after having a bomb go off in his head that blew up his head and upper torso.

[GoktimusPrime]

Although Mega-Galvatron was revived just from his head. Ah, let's face it, there's just no coherent logic between these movies.

[millhouse]

So a buddy and I went to see this last night (free tickets from a local comic shop that had a competition).

The story - just awful. As expected.

Visually? Some of the best VFX I've seen in cinema. The car chase through the UK was far more coherent than a lot of Bay's other TF work. The shifting ratios didn't bother me (although I assume it would look better on a real IMAX screen). The look was incredible.

But man, that script. Impossible to overcome.

[AJ_Prime]

I really enjoyed it. I saw it in 3d and the visuals were stunning, I found myself literally saying 'wow' out aloud as I felt I was actually in some of those scenes. One thing Bay does well is cinematography and attention to detail with lighting etc to get realism in the scenes.

Sure, the plot had more holes in it than a sieve but seriously, who went along expecting a solid storyline? I did enjoy the reference at the end about working together in order to rebuild the planets. To me it seemed like a hint towards climate change action. Nice little subliminal message in there.

It did feel as though some of the characters were built up to play more of a part than they did, but I suspect they figured that the more characters they include the in movie, the more toys they can sell. And essentially, that is what G1 was all about too.

I thought Cogman was quite a humorous character and I loved the fact that they included a chase scene with a McLaren P1, my favourite car (next to the F1).

It did seem that we saw more of Mark Walberg's flesh in this film than the female lead, but oh well at least there was plenty of robot fighting action to detract from it.

[GoktimusPrime]

The thing that gets me with, "It's a good movie if you switch your brain off" is... it shouldn't be. Why can't the movie be both an exciting action film and a good story? (e.g. The Empire Strikes Back, Beast Wars, Lord of the Rings etc.) It's not as if action and story are mutually exclusive. What I find odd is how so many people are forgiving of Michael Bay despite making no real effort to improve, yet are incredibly harsh against George Lucas, despite notable efforts to improve from past mistakes.

e.g. Jar Jar Binks
* Phantom Menace: totally annoying and screen-time wasting character who contributes almost nothing to the plot
* Attack of the Clone: only appears in a few scenes and role is far more significant to the plot (i.e. helps Palpatine to pass the Clone Army creation Act).
* Revenge of the Sith: only makes a single cameo appearance during Padmé's funeral. No dialogue.
And there are numerous other examples, but I'm not gonna derail this discussion with an essay-long post about the Star Wars Prequels.
The point is that with the Star Wars Prequels we can see progress being made. Bay on the other hand keeps on taking one step forwards and three steps back, but everyone's like, "Oh well, that's Bay." But when Lucas tried to improve, everyone's like, "THE PREQUELS SUCK! THERE ARE NO PREQUELS! (except for Rogue One)" etc. Not to mention that Lucas ultimately sold the rights to Star Wars and then donated the US$4 million that Disney paid to fund children's education. #onionninjas

I really enjoyed it. I saw it in 3d and the visuals were stunning, I found myself literally saying 'wow' out aloud as I felt I was actually in some of those scenes. One thing Bay does well is cinematography and attention to detail with lighting etc to get realism in the scenes.

That's true. One of Bay's strengths is definitely, "Giant Effing Robots."

[Doubledealer]

Absolute garbage. I walked out after 50 minutes.