Why do I have to keep saying action isn't an excuse for terrible? Live Free/Fie Hard had a ridiculous plot, but it was progressed in a reasonable manner, everything fit, there was proper directing, decent jokes, good characters, and it was all the better for it. That was a fucking good action movie.
Know why this was worse? Bad characters, bad plot, bad directing. I don't know why robot CGI somehow changes the 'bad' that emanated from the piece of shit.
Sylvester Stallone once said that he wanted to do a Rambo movie with no dialog, because action movies should be movies with story told through entertaining visuals, not dialog. This is what you're getting at, that what you see matters more than what is said, but if that's the point WHY HAVE SO MUCH HORRIBLE DIALOG? CUT IT. You can't on one hand say 'the CGI is all that matters' and on the other say 'it doesn't matter that all that shitty talking was in the movie.' Everything you cut helps a movie, and apparently they didn't cut anything.
'But it's an action flick!'
A bad one.
I'm all for a fun flick, but they tried to have a plot and character development and then fell flat on their face after stepping on the rake of horrible directing/writing. If you just want fighting robots, have 1:30 of fighting robots. They should have cut the horrible extraneous bs. I'm ALL FOR fun in movies, I'm explaining why, to me, the movie was downright terrible. And honestly, everything about movie conventions agrees with me, everyone saying the action was good should agree that it'd be even better with more emphasis on action, much less on dialog and plot, right?
But more than half the film was dialog/plot/bullshit, see the problem in ignoring how bad it was?