Transformers: Age Of Extinction has continued the franchise's string of terrible reviews from critics, with a poor 17% consensus rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.
The series, which now stars Mark Wahlberg in place of Shia LaBeouf, has never picked up acclaim from reviewers, but is usually dependable in terms of raking in vast amounts at the box office.
LA Weekly said in their critique: "The movie's crammed with useless nuts and bolts, the storytelling equivalent of a mechanic who lifts the hood of your car and says, 'That's everything, fix it yourself.'"
Transformers (PR)
Vulture, meanwhile, wrote: "Transformers: Age of Extinction is nearly three f**king hours, and they're brain-freezing", while the New York Times summarised: "The story is scaffolding for the action, and like every other standing structure it is wrecked in a thunderous shower of metal, glass, masonry and earth."
Rolling Stone said: "Michael Bay has done the impossible. With Transformers: Age of Extinction, the start of a - everyone duck! - second trilogy in his metalhead franchise, the Bay-man has made the worst and most worthless Transformers movie yet."
"Nothing coheres," TIME argued. "Movies usually try to come together at the end; this one falls apart. If that's Bay intention, then cinema has finally entered its Age of Extinction."
"Loud, ridiculous and nonsensical," the New York Post said, agreeing. "Even for a Transformers movie."
Maybe no Oscars for this one either, then...
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.
