User reviews

This has all the ingredients of a good film, but it's composition is certainly not as recognisable as most Sci-Fi Action films recently released.

The pacing is oddly fast with some intriguing storylines swiftly being washed to the side for more CGI spectacles.

One thing I will say in this film is that elements of the script are really very good. We enjoyed the 'butler' robot very much with his sarcastic remarks bringing humour to the film and tied nicely with his master's equally dry sense of humour.

I really wish I could rate it higher because we were left saying 'that wasn't bad' when the credits rolled but honestly I can barely remember the storyline it was shifting so rapidly.

Hopefully the next Transformers instalment will carry a little more weight in terms of storyline and pacing to support it's awesome CGI elements and give the film a better shape overall.

Like all the other sequence, the visual effect is good, which is of course expected. However, the splendid visual effect cannot save an unreasonable screenplay with particularly fragmental shots and scenes.

There are countless flaws in the plots and poorly actings: 1. the self-righteous scientists, their smug parts have 0 contributions to the movie. 2. Cade, what's wrong with Mark Wahlberg? First time acting? Especially his tone is NOT convincing at all. He really needs to work on his facial expressions and tones. (or perhaps his shots are so fragmental? ) 3. the car chasing part in London city is to make audience excited or dizzy/faint? ...

After 30 minutes, all i want is to skip to the end.

The last straw that makes the whole movie doomed is Optimus' line: earth is my home. There is no need spending 150 mins on this movie.

Its not a terrible movie. Typical Micheal bay, but why the DEI? Why can't we leave things like 1400 England alone? I'm Hispanic... I dont ask for Brown people to be in movies or entertainment they clearly dont belong in. Haha its a silly thing and at the same time. Ridiculous. Hollywood and the Fed need to move on from this. Other then the stupid DEI. The movie is just another filler for time. Makes time go by. Something to play when your bored or dont know what else to play. Mark is Mark. Makes for a ok movie. As with all the transformer movies lots of plot holes, but we dont watch these to sit and think about plot holes. But a little accuracy would be nice. Hopefully if they make one more like the rumora state. We will get Shia and Fox back for one more good movie. Like the first and second.

1. Every movie must be 3hrs long, keep adding secondary characters until you get there.

2. Have a pointless love interest with no chemistry.

3. Have fight scenes pop up out of nowhere just to show off special effects.

4. Pay a famous actor to do what amounts to an extended cameo, no matter how forced.

5. Introduce stereotypical, secondary characters that were popular in the 80's, the cute kid and the comedic relief, black guy

6. Have heroic deaths, where each hero gets to give a speech as they die in the arms of their best friend. Play epic music just in case we don't understand the moment.

7. Even after 3hrs, leave the audience confused about the plot and behavior of main characters. What was up w/Optimus Prime was he a redeemed bad guy or a restored good guy, why the mood swings?

8. Have the main villain who was indestructible at the start of the movie, badly lose the last fight of the movie.

I felt bad for Laura Haddock, she could have served a purpose other then 'love interest' had they combined her role with Hopkins, and dropped Hopkins. This would have shortened the movie by 30 minutes (oh yeah, rule #1). But instead they gave her a trite role, 'the scholar who was the ONLY one who could FIND the artifact only to hand it over to Wahlberg the ONLY one who could USE it)

We've got to the point where no one expects anything good from any of these Transformer movies, and this one is no different. It has a confusing, pointless plot with heaps of holes, shocking acting, and unlikable characters.

However, I didn't watch this movie with the intention of being a critic; I watched this movie one afternoon when I felt like watching a crappy action movie with robots, explosions, and the occasional fart joke. And in that sense, the movie nails it. I had no idea what was going on the whole way through but I'd be damned if I didn't love every minute of it. Mark Wahlberg's acting is disappointingly terrible and that's awesome, and the editing is absolute chaos. It was perfect.

I actually liked this movie it's far far better than the previous one , i don't know why it's getting bad reviews, i liked the movie , the story line was good , camera work awesome , 3d very impressive , even though it's a lengthy movie i did not get bored , i would love to see more transformers movies like this , do give it a watch

Despite all its spectacle, 'Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)' is simply completely mind-and-arse-numbingly boring. It's an utter chore to sit through from beginning to long-awaited end. It's also the kind of self-indulgent trite that goes in one ear and straight out of the other. Honestly, I felt as though I'd been sat in the cinema for years, never mind the already far too long two-and-a-half hours I actually had to endure this for. Not a single frame provided even a morsel of entertainment - which is weird because, for all intents and purposes, the admittedly impressive visual effects should've at least granted me some brief form of passive enjoyment during one of the over-blown action set-pieces. Yet, the takeaway I have from the picture is this: only Michael Bay (and his team, of course) could make something as inherently exciting as giant robots battling one another so painfully and utterly dull. 3/10.

Just for the record, before those defending the film jump down my throat and start accusing me of all kinds of unfounded things like they have done with their tiresome, uncalled for and disgustingly condescending critic bashing, this review is not coming from a 'Transformers' detractor. Far from it actually oddly enough.

Most of the animated show are really entertaining and well made, and the animated film likewise in a guilty pleasure sort of way. Of the live-action films, the first was enjoyable, 'Revenge of the Fallen' (often considered the worst) for me wasn't that terrible but had a lot wrong with it while 'Dark of the Moon' and 'Age of Extinction' were mediocre. This is coming from somebody with a diverse taste in film and television (and a huge fan of classical music and opera), loving films of all genres old and new.

Am honestly of the opinion that Michael Bay's 'Transformers' franchise got worse with each instalment, and having seen some describe 'The Last Knight' as the worst of the five having seen for myself with an open mind but with a little knowledge of its reception personally am in agreement. By all means, 'The Last Knight' is not irredeemably bad, none of the 'Transformers' films are. As usual the special effects are mostly of an awesome standard and the Transformers themselves are very well voiced, particularly a note-perfect Peter Cullen and Frank Welker.

Bringing some welcome gravitas and fun to the film is Anthony Hopkins in one of the better performances of all five films put together. The best character is the refreshingly witty Cogman, performed with sleek enthusiasm by Jim Carter.

However, Bay's direction is smug and self-indulgent and while there is some audacious stylishness to some of the cinematography too much of the editing is enough to make one get a headache. The Transformers don't have enough to do and while well voiced their personalities have been better defined before and their scenes lack tension, fun, excitement or any kind of intrigue. While the action sequences worked in the first three films, they didn't here and 'Age of Extinction', especially here, being chaotic and dull in rhythm. Aside from them being so poorly edited that it was confusing making out what was going on and to the point it was seizure-inducing, they got increasingly repetitive and dull. So instead of feeling thrilled the only feeling I got was boredom, and that was true of a lot of the audience in the cinema.

None of the human characters are interesting, some are wasted and some are pointless (such as Izabella and Sqweeks). Others are annoying, of all the characters in the entire film faring worst in this regard is the complete failure of a comic relief character in Jimmy, annoyingly played by Jerrod Carmichael. Once again the script is very poor, which has the subtlety of a sledgehammer (even for a live-action 'Transformers' film where subtlety was never a strong suit and wasn't expected, but this was nauseating overkill too often) and is laden with tiresome clichés and cheap lowbrow humour that is on 'Age of Extinction' level and makes that of 'Revenge of the Fallen' comparatively tame.

'The Last Knight' is again overlong by an hour, with the basic story being very thin on the ground and both rushed and slow moving. To make up for this, or disguise it more like, a lot of subplots are added, far too many and many of them are unsatisfyingly resolved or explored or serve no point at all, all giving an over-stuffed feel. Hopkins aside, the acting for the human characters is really not good, with Mark Whalberg being wooden and unconvincing at being tough and Laura Haddock is completely out of her depth. The two generate zero chemistry throughout. Even John Tuturro, Stanley Tucci and Mitch Pileggi are lacklustre.

In conclusion, weak film and gives the sense that the 'Transformers' franchise has run its course. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Not bad at all.

What is it about the odd numbered ones in this franchise that are my favorite? The first Transformers movie was OK. The Third one was my favorite (Which is not saying much). This fifth and last one is up there with the third one.

Like the third one, it was an excellent use of CGI to do the action scenes. Transformers was one of the first movies that I've seen in which they did CGI scenes in the day time, and it looked really good. You can see that director Michael Bay has hit his peak in really making the CGI action interact well with the live action footage.

Like the original movie, The Last Knight is an ensemble cast that revolves around the main character. It's not the best ensemble cast I've seen. Josh Duhamel, who had been in the series longer than Wahlberg felt like a strange insert done for pure nostalgia, but if you are into the Franchise or Transformers in general the ensemble cast gives you that fandom.

Speaking of Wahlberg, his Cade Yeager is a much better character than Shia LaBeouf's, Sam Witwicky. I like the way Cade gets into the action more than Sam trying to get away from it. It makes for better interaction between the live action and CGI. Bay treats Wahlberg like a walking action figure.

It is weird how little action is actually in this movie. You have a few giant battles leading up to the epic one at the end, and in-between it's Micheal Bay pretending to be the filmmaker he's not with funny scenes that are not really funny and his attempts to poke fun at Romance scenes in films only made his film stupid. Stick to the slick action and crap blowing up Bay.

Overall, I enjoyed the film. Not one of my favorite franchises but I did like this one. It's like watching a live action cartoon, but that's all the Transformers movies isn't it? Thought this one seems to be the best cartoon out of them all.

OK http://cinemagardens.com

This is unwatchable and so bizarre. I mean Merlin and king Arthur in Transformers movie????

This movie is outstanding. You know how when you are a kid you and your brother throw over the toy bin and pull out dinosaurs, knights, tanks, submarines, Lamborghinis, Transformers, GI Joe, Voltron, some LEGO vehicles that can be disassembled and reassembled and a few Star Wars space ships? Maybe your sister wants to play so somehow a Barbie ends up in the mix. Then you have an absolutely epic battle with Knights fighting space ships and LEGOs transforming on the spot to whatever you want. Toys switch back and forth and fight for whoever is holding them. Complete insanity ensues. The story makes no sense because it can't but the battle is truly epic. Your brother grabs a chair and declares its his planet and throws it at your toys so you throw the couch at his. Finally your mom comes in and sends everyone outside, so you leave every toy out and all the furniture turned over to clean up later. Maybe your sister declares that Barbie just did something. That is this movie! It has absolutely everything and makes about as much sense as it can considering. This movie truly channeled second grade for me. I had so much fun and I cannot wait to go back! Definitely watch in 3D and try to watch in IMAX if it is available. Do not wait for it to come out on DVD.

Look, let's all agree from the outset that Transformers -- as a concept -- is absolutely asinine. It's a race of advanced alien super machines disturbingly taking on traits of human behavior and cultural affectation whilst mostly rolling around in the guise of various performance vehicles fawned over by philistines. There's no rationale where this isn't a mind-numbing conceit born from a toy line aimed at the aggressive fantasy synapses of immature brains. And that's a perfect sandbox for Michael Bay to build his arena and wallow with gluttonous abandon.

So now that that's established, let me declare the main thesis point for advocacy here: He's a genius! That's right -- Michael Bay is a genius!

Because Bay is one of the few commonly known filmmakers in the zeitgeist, certain glib hipster constituencies lazily feign credibility in cinematic knowledge by dropping his name in loathing as a pathetic synonym shortcut for superiority though snark. In deed, any faint praise toward Bay is often immediately shot down with hyperbolic aghast and equated to justifying Hitler by his work as a painter, or musing on the songwriting merit of Charles Manson. Now I won't dispute that Bay has an inclination for silly sophomoric humor and vapid glamorization of excess. Nor will I gloss over his propensity to indulge in stereotypes and cliché. One may not be simpatico to his fetishizations, but it's sort of pointless to criticize the very essence of the art form, especially when it's done with such gusto. At lest Bay seems to have a knowing wryness that can take a joke at expense of his brash reputation. As an artist working in the medium of moving visuals, Michael Bay is nothing short of brilliant. If he plays to the lowest common denominator, that denominator in nonetheless true to a passionate perspective set by him. These raucous boyhood reveries aren't just mercenary exploits, but expressions of what Bay truly loves and wants to revisit. Intimately personal to a singular psyche, these are massive experimental art films that happen to align with commerce as their principled dogma. If nothing else, being cognizant that what you're getting is being given with a verisimilitude that absolutely attends to the authentic aura of its own axiom, ought to eek some appreciation -- however begrudging. Just because Bay makes movies with the sensibilities of a thirteen-year-old boy, doesn't mean he ought to be demonized as though guilty of atrocities.

It's fairly true that Bay's spectacular extravaganzas cater to simpletons, but the dense amount of information breathlessly presented through pure cinematic terms within them is anything but simple. The fact that most of the breakneck exposition being blasted at an audience actually sticks, is proof that Bay is profoundly competent beyond eye-popping exhilarations. It should be noted that before his feature debut with "Bad Boys", Michael Bay was already one of the most sought after and acclaimed commercial directors of all time, having amassed an astounding amount of advertising awards for his ability to pack viscerally entertaining stories into thirty-second to a minute-and-a-half short form films.

Unlike the majority of filmmakers credited on complicated productions of vast proportion, Bay (quite uniquely) doesn't shirk responsibilities off to 2nd-Unit crews and department heads to autonomously realize aspects or sequences, but rather personally micromanages all divisions to his specified fruition. With a wicked efficiency in speed and breadth, Bay generals hugely intricate on- set sequences involving simultaneous camera setups of stunning aesthetic composition involving impressive precision in kinetics, frame- rates, lighting, lens augmentations, stunt work and practical effects rigging -- with actors performing in frame – and orchestrates all this "Bayhem" safely. Then without missing a beat carries that energy over to lording over every minute aspect of post-production; from the incredibly layered complexities of editing, effects, sound design, music, and even marketing. Bay is no gun-for-hire hack, he is a specific visionary of immense skill set. Although some may be bewildered by the styled nature of its non-stop sensory bombardment -- and regardless as to its vulgar pronouncement, no one can claim it's not often astonishingly beautiful and does somehow express a cohesive whole. That's an extraordinary exhaustive task that only a handful of the most adept and composed directors in the world could even dare attempt, which Bay confidently mounts on a frequent basis, to a degree perhaps unequaled.

There is a reason why the often emulated, never replication, bigger than life spectacle that Bay routinely accomplishes has garnered proper recognition, accolade, and defense over the years from peers such as Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Oliver Stone, Edgar Wright, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Quentin Tarantino; Because they know that action and montage is the purest form of cinema and Michael Bay is a master of that discipline -- and the fact that it seems so undisciplined is maybe even a testament too. Also they understand the overwhelming workload required to definitively command such gargantuan ventures, and the fact that Bay does it time and again with virtuoso vision of auteur aesthetic is a totally impressive feat -- even if you don't care for it.

Opposing the consensus dismissal that Bay is an unsophisticated abomination that merely makes incoherent populace bombasts that lack any semblance of subtly or nuance in pensive development -- I would counter that perhaps the purveyors of that notion simply lack capacity in comprehending communication through super sophisticated rapid sensorial stimulation. Bay may be stuck in arrested development in his childish proclivities, but that child is nonetheless a supreme savant in cinematic verse.

As for "Transformers: The Last Knight", it has the same expected virtues I've detailed as well as those defects of being excessively loud and shallow. Sure, I'd prefer Bay tone down the bro banter, silly stoicism, and frenetic editing – but such criticisms can only go so deep when what is presented is so staggeringly authentic to its aspiration. Anyway, Anthony Hopkins seems to be having a helluva time!

Boring pointless rubbish, just don't bother it's bad

The best part of this movie is the action, the story was very lack luster. I think it had potential with a good cast including Anthony Hopkins, but the writting always falls short in these movies. You can watch it over and over for the action, you just might scratch your head at certain spots.

Transformers: The Last Knight is a baffling addition to the franchise, marked by a convoluted narrative and an overindulgence in visual effects that ultimately detracts from the experience. Directed by Michael Bay, the film attempts to weave together multiple storylines, jumping through time periods and mixing historical events with the fictional lore of Transformers. The result is a chaotic jumble that leaves viewers more confused than entertained.

The plot revolves around a secret history of Transformers on Earth, but instead of offering engaging storytelling, it bombards the audience with heavy-handed exposition and jarring transitions. This overcomplicated narrative fails to provide any emotional resonance or coherent motivation for the characters, making it difficult for viewers to invest in their journeys. Mark Wahlberg returns as Cade Yeager, but even his attempts to ground the film feel overshadowed by the clutter surrounding him.

The film's reliance on CGI and action sequences leads to sensory overload. While the visual effects are undoubtedly impressive, the continuous barrage of explosions, robot fights, and rapid-fire editing make it hard to follow what's happening on screen. Instead of captivating action, it feels like a relentless assault on the senses.

Character development also takes a backseat in The Last Knight. Many characters, including returning favorites, are given minimal screen time or arcs that feel disconnected and shallow. The introduction of new characters does little to alleviate this issue, as they are often forgettable and underutilized, leaving audiences with a cast that lacks depth.

In the end, Transformers: The Last Knight is a disappointing installment that fails to capture the charm of its predecessors. With a muddled plot, excessive reliance on special effects, and underdeveloped characters, it seems that the franchise has lost its way. Fans of the series may find some enjoyment in the spectacle, but for those seeking a coherent and engaging film, this entry falls flat.

The movie is made by a teenage writer who cannot even write conversations natural, read part of DaVinci Code, part of Arthur, and watched a Star War movie. Putting everything together without logic, this is what the movie is. Oh, by the way, his knowledge about physics never go beyond what his parents told him in kindergarten.

There are more than enough critics on plot and poorly told stories; I'm not going to repeat. But I have to point one character: the Old Man. Who cares what his name is (I didn't get it AT ALL) I don't know what kind of personality Michael Bay want to create. What I saw was a rude, uneducated, changing man with a lot of money. It was so awkward while he dump the famous names into my ears and declared that all those people tried to keep that stupid secret. I don't know what he said "I can't go with you" because he eventually was there, and...just died there.

After 10 min, the only though I had was to see how bad the movie can be. YKW, it's just worse than I thought.

The worst piece of dirt this year so far. No logic, no plot, no story, but with Anthony Hopkins. Why did Anthony participated in this dirt ball mind crap, I don't know but it is not enough. This movie is empty, it is a 2 hours long advertisement of various car manufacturers and American military. Worst Transformers ever, please let this garbage just die and don't bother us with actors who just can not save this movie. It was just awful to watch, I couldn't believe the low quality dialogues and just the waste of money for junk CGI no one really cares about. But why did Mr. Hopkins lower himself to participate in this charade of a movie is beyond me.

WORST MOVIE 2017

The Transformers franchise is one of the rare bad movie franchise that continues to entertain and made a lot of cash. They are a type of movie where you throw your brain out of the window, be entertained and have some fun. The trailer for the fifth Transformer movie did give us the impression that this movie might be good, but is it really what the trailer show us?

Well, I've got the answer: It's both a very entertaining movie and a huge mess. This movie, in a typical Michael Bay fashion, is a very entertaining ride from start to finish, which is also a poorly constructed pieces of awesomeness that the movie itself cannot show it's potential to be a good movie (despite being the one with the most potential to be a good movie!)

Pros: The story is the most creative and the most entertaining out of the five. Idk why but this is the most "fun" Transformer story so far.

Mark Wahlberg is fine. Not great, just fine. Stanley Tucci, although brief, brings a good performance as Merlin. Laura Haddock who plays Vivian the professor, and Isabella Moner as (the lazily named) Izabella, both being the latest to be "Michael Bay-fied" also gives a good performance, in particular Isabella Moner. Anthony Hopkins is way to good for this movie, and he's one of the bright spots in this movie.

For the action scenes... You don't need a review for this (because it's Michael friggin Bay.) The visuals are amazing as usual, although there's nothing new to be seen. The cinematography is just fine. The Third Act is a mind-blowing, over the top action that will (obviously) blew your mind. The small cameo by Nicola Peltz and Shia LaBeouf is also well executed.

The post end credits scene (yes, there is one) is well executed (I guess), and the fact that the long typical​ styled​ credits is replaced by appear/disappear credits (that it's only purpose is to match the end of the song to the end of the credits) is a nice touch as well.

Cons: Despite being the most "fun" Transformer story, it is also a mess. The story is so convoluted that it's very hard to follow. There's so many plot holes, I mean a lot of plot holes that makes the movie less exciting. The first and the second act was so rushed and it felt like a large portion of the story there was missing. I can bet that there's a large portion of deleted scenes removed from there.

Ken Nolan, despite I have high hopes for you for the screenplay, but you're not as good as the other Nolan. The screenplay is littered by very bad and cheesy one liners and despite trying to be funny, it just don't land. Not to mention some awful characterization: Isabella Moner's character is just someone in the wrong place and in the wrong time, she's just there. The inventor guy is so annoying. Josh Duhamel as Lennox from the first three movies is, I don't know, "useless". Like Isabella Moner's character, he's just there. John Tuturro's Seymour Simmons is for me can be removed from the movie and made this movie 5 minutes shorter.

Despite being the shortest of the entire franchise, it feels like the longest. Also in the credits I see around 6-7 editors for the movie, but the movie is poorly edited, a downgrade from the previous installment (what the hell are you doing editors?!). When introducing the Deceptions, they went for the "Suicide Squad" style introduction, which is very unnecessary. I hate the constant change of aspect ratio in standard theaters. Does it even necessary to "force you to watch in IMAX 3D to see more"?. Also, is it just me, or the editors were lazy enough so that when they introducing the locations, they use the exact same font and effect from a better Michael Bay film: "13 Hours: Secret Soldiers of Benghazi".

Overall this movie is both a entertaining, no brainier fun, but with over convoluted plot and bad editing, makes this movie not as entertaining as the previous installments. If you want some over the top, out of this world action scenes, go watch this movie and have some fun, otherwise don't watch this movie because it's definitely not for you. Just don't forget to bring some popcorns and drinks because it's going be a very long ride.

Final Score: 7/10 for action sequences, explosions and more explosions.

On a side note: Michael Bay, should you ever direct another Transformers movie, can you please prioritize story over visuals, cause I think that is the biggest flaw in every Transformer movie. Thank you.

The writing, editing and direction were amateurish at best. This movie is downright terrible. Period. DO NOT WASTE THE TWO AND A HALF HOURS!