Transformers: The Last Knight (2017)

Chang finds the film surprisingly bearable, praising Bay’s exuberant visual command despite its incoherent plot and juvenile sensibility. He especially singles out moments of startling visual beauty amid the chaotic action.

Gleiberman finds the film’s over-the-top, dystopian excess makes it a better, more badass entry, though it remains hectic and empty. He praises the lively chemistry between Mark Wahlberg and Laura Haddock, which gives the spectacle some human spark.

The accessible text identifies this as a review but does not reveal the critic’s full verdict. Its standfirst describes the film as a loud, assertive return for the franchise.

The URL identifies this as a review of the specified film, but the page content is unavailable. The critic’s verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be determined.

O'Sullivan finds the film convoluted and mostly piffle, but not the worst entry in the franchise. She singles out Bumblebee's character arc and a nifty chase sequence for praise.

Jones finds the film an exhausting, mind-numbing spectacle, despite its lavish action. He criticizes its convoluted, largely incomprehensible story and its jumble of Arthurian legend, undersea adventures, and space battles.

Brody finds the film an exhausting, convention-bound spectacle with flashes of striking cinematic ingenuity. He praises Bay’s sense of scale and the imaginative force of the images, while faulting their speed and brevity.

The review calls the film noisy and nonsensical but says it retains a spark of grandeur. It singles out Michael Bay as the source of that distinctive grandeur.

The review finds the film a sloppy, disengaged entry that never delivers the energetic spectacle expected from Michael Bay. It praises the absurd plot’s occasional laughs and Anthony Hopkins’s gleeful exposition, while criticizing the muddy action and careless character handling.

Yoshida finds the film barely coherent but more entertaining than its predecessor, with its excesses sometimes tipping into weird fun. She praises its visual and sonic imagination, especially an inventive Bumblebee action sequence.

Woodward finds the film incoherent and insultingly poor. He singles out its baffling abundance of plot questions and its crude racial stereotypes for criticism.

Turner finds the film more watchable than its predecessors, though it remains weighed down by problems. He praises Jim Carter’s comic performance as Cogman, while faulting the chaotic, tedious climax.

The critic finds the film predictably formulaic, offering spectacle without compelling character or drama. The inventively staged action is praised, while the overlong, human-focused story and illogical plotting are criticized.

Nordine finds the film incomprehensible and exhausting, especially for a first-time viewer. He singles out the transformers as more interesting than the human characters, but says the film’s length and confusion make the experience worse.

Freer finds the film overlong, soulless and unable to make its action fun. He praises ILM’s effects, especially Bumblebee reassembling, but says the spectacle ultimately feels deadening.

Scheck finds the film a frenetic, incoherent, overstuffed mess that is unlikely to win over critics. He notes the large-scale action set pieces, but says the convoluted storyline and failed attempts at humor weigh the film down.

Cole pans the film as a frivolous, incomprehensible step backward for Michael Bay. He singles out the chaotic action and sensory overload for erasing any sense of place.

Bitel condemns the film as an exhausting, incoherent blockbuster and a distillation of what can go wrong with the genre. He singles out its relentless explosions, borrowed ideas and puerile humour as especially tiresome.

Bradshaw dismisses the film as a tedious, pointless spectacle. He faults its lack of the wit and fun he finds in Marvel films.

Hammond finds the film oversized and overlong but ultimately tolerable, with fans likely to get what they came for. He singles out Anthony Hopkins for adding dignity, wit, and presence to the film.

The review finds the film a fun but flawed ride, though its chaotic story and overlong finale test the viewer’s stamina. It praises Mark Wahlberg’s grounding presence but complains that Optimus Prime is largely absent.

Leitch finds the film perfunctory, dull, and evidence that Michael Bay has checked out of the franchise. He complains that the action is unceasing but uninspired, with none of the director’s usual showstopping spectacle.

Collins finds the film mostly bad but appreciates Bay’s distinctive commitment to his own style. He singles out the director’s kinetic visual excess as the film’s redeeming quality.

Davis finds the film entertaining at first but ultimately incoherent, unsatisfying, and more of the same. He praises Bay’s kinetic, sweeping action and breathtaking IMAX visuals, which cannot compensate for the weak story and dialogue.

The critic finds the film loud, disjointed and enervating, despite a few coherent action sequences. They single out the finale’s overwhelming visual chaos and booming soundtrack as especially exhausting.

Lambie condemns the film as a loud, confusing exercise in blockbuster excess. He praises its spectacular visual effects and stunt coordination, while criticizing its incoherent plot and cynical storytelling.

The critic finds the film a relentlessly boring, tedious failure and says it leaves little lasting impression. They acknowledge Bay’s ability to stage visually impressive action, but fault the film’s convoluted story and thin characters.