Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Review by Loc

I’ll begin with my Transformers diatribe and a reflection of the state of movies. Look, just because Michael Bay acknowledges he pisses in the face of fans all over doesn’t mean it’s a legitimate reason to make shitty movies. You want to treat Transformers as a separate entity, untied to 30 years of history and fan worship? That’s fine, it’s stupid, but fine. But that defiant attitude that you take with it doesn’t mean you’ve done a good job. Shitty movies with no semblance of plotting and pacing are bad. Shitty movies with no attempt at logic are worse. And your willingness to not only accept your shortcomings, but flaunt them with a suck-it-if-you-don’t-like attitude is insulting, not to fans, but to humanity. We’re not that dumb, and all of us, me included, should do a better job of speaking with our wallets and avoid the platters of poo that are served up. Quick hit: I didn’t care for Transformers too much, in case you were wondering.

On to the movie. Picking up a couple years after the first, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen takes a couple minutes to recap. Open with a little action, a little covert mission that sets up the general situation, cool enough. Lots of explosions, lots of crap getting destroyed, whatevers. But then you get another hour of supposed plot building, but is actually just boring crap involving Shia acting overwhelmed and his parents being goofs, and you start to get that numb-ass feeling. Not good.

Cutting to the chase, the good-guy Autobots have been working with the US government in a don’t-ask-don’t-look way, killing the lingering Decepticons on Earth. Call me old-fashioned, but seeing the good-guys rip the bad-guys in half or blow their heads off seems a little off. I don’t know, aren’t good-guys supposed to show a little compassion or honor? Guess not, rip his face off Optimus!

On to the plot, somehow it’s taken two years for the Decepticons to mount an offensive. They steal some fragments of stuff, revive Megatron, who was dumped at the bottom of the ocean, and begin to hunt down Shia because the little kid is the key to something. Doesn’t really matter as plotting isn’t exactly the purpose of this flick. But even in that one sentence summary, the glaring logic-holes are hard to overcome. So you have Autobots killing the shit out of the bad guys, but the baddest bad guy, you dump at the bottom of the ocean? Why not just rip his face off? Why not blow a hole in his head like the other bad guys you find? Oh, because then you wouldn’t be able to get to the next scene…I see.

Moving on to the special effects, stuff looks shiny. But if you’re gonna spend time properly setting up the enormity of these robots, why make the action scenes extreme close-ups? And if you’re gonna make them shiny, why not make them a little easier to tell apart. Near the end, a bunch of silver bots are fighting, which might be Decepticons since they’re the ones that get blown up. But really, is it that hard to destroy a couple more character legacies and make them distinct? Plus, the action is so in-your-face that you can’t tell what’s going on. Except, shit is being beat up and big things crash into big buildings. Fun.

Let’s get to the heart of this flick: teenage id-fantasy. Big robots, check. Bigger explosions, check. Hot babes, check. Yes, Megan Fox is hot in this flick again. You wouldn’t think it’s possible to cram a dozen slow-mo running scenes with her, but it is! Bless the desserts of Egypt for providing the proper setting for escaping explosions in slow-motion abundance. Also of note, Isabel Lucas, who plays a hot-for-Shia college freshman. Never mind that she’s a robot-in-disguise, only mind that she’s onscreen. Man, I wish I were a horny teenager, this would be great! Oh and Shia is in this. Again, geek fantasy as someone so schmucky somehow maintains a relationship with arguably the hottest It-girl of the moment. Power to the 14-year-olds of the world!! Oh, and the demolition balls for the giant robot Devastator, hey, you can’t go wrong with a testicle joke.

For the long time fans, you’ll notice some “inspiration” from the classic animated movie and series: the inclusion of the Matrix of Leadership, an Optimus moment or two, even the Fallen draws comparison to one planet-eating Unicron in terms of motivation. Yet, it’s done poorly, oh well. One thing that was nice was a return to character traits: the Starscream and Megatron relationship finally added a little character to these guys and gave them a little more personality.

OK, but here’s the thing. You knew all of this before you walked into the theater. My opening mission statement aside, you get exactly what you expect from Michael Bay. And strangely enough, this might be a more entertaining flick than the first one. It is long, but when it’s rolling through explosions, they’re better explosions than the first. Plus, the sheer absurdity is higher, making it easier to laugh at the flick without being mad at it. Case in point, there’s an “old” Transformer, so old, he has a cane…yes, a mechanical, transforming cane. And he’s Scottish. I will say no more.

Overall, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen offers nothing but melted brain cells and a vehicle towards a future reality detailed in Idiocracy. But, it’s a semi-entertaining attempt at it. Are the logic holes passable? No, not even close, but you shouldn’t bring logic to this party. Again, my argument is that we shouldn’t accept this type of attitude, but that’s for the future, nothing you can change about that in this movie. Out of 10,000 year old pyramids, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ages ungracefully with 4500 years. This shall be the summer where my favorite toylines in childhood get destroyed, with GI Joe coming up in August. Whoo hoo.

Public Enemies

Review by Loc

I wonder if it’s a reflection of my local public school education that I don’t know John Dillinger’s story. I also wonder if it’s a reflection of my movie viewing habits that I haven’t seen any of the Dillinger movies that preceded Michael Mann’s latest effort. What I do know is that the prospects of seeing Captain Jack Sparrow square off against Batman in a Heat-like cops-and-robbers showdown is too good to pass up. Quick hit: unfortunately, this flick was flat like the 2-liter bottle of Coke that you find at the back of your fridge from last year’s barbeque.
Public Enemies presents a simple enough premise: John Dillinger is the larger than life bank robber of the 1930s and Melvin Purvis is the forgotten G-man that brought him down. However, with a skilled filmmaker like Mann helming this flick, only good things could come out of your charismatic bad guy going up against your angsty good guy, right?

Wrong. Public Enemies plays out like a film student’s overly ambition passion project that tries to offer lots of zest, but fails to provide any meat and misses on most of the zest. Most glaring is the “innovative” film techniques peppered throughout the flick. Starting with the opening scene and continuing haphazardly throughout the film, you get unsteady hand-cam action full of in-their-face close-ups, nauseous-inducing bouncing, and random HD-Cloverfield-handy-cam shots that completely take you out of the film. If there’s one thing I’ve picked up over the years of pseudo-film study it’s that movies are an extreme form of escapism. You suspend your belief to transport yourself into the fictional story before you. So it doesn’t do much good when a period piece offers up super-technology like HD-shots and bouncing, fake documentary framing in shots. Bad choices abound.

What about Johnny Depp as Dillinger? Well, he looks cool. It’s been too long since Depp chopped his hair and kept a clean, chiseled look for the audience, but here he does it well. Yet, for all his looks, the natural charisma seems stifled and suffocated under the weight of portraying the real-life figure. Since the material offers little leeway, Depp is boxed up as he humanizes the larger-than-life Dillinger. If the movie keeps saying how big of a bad-boy celebrity he is, why does he come off as a Joe Schmoe. Sure, maybe that’s the point, but it doesn’t offer much to watch.

On the flip-side to that coin, Christain Bale steps in as Melvin Purvis. In what can only be described as a moving mannequin role, Bale sure does fill out his finely tailored suits well. Other than that, he does a lot of staring, speaks a little in a heavy Southern/Texan accent, and that’s about it. You could have had anyone in this role and it would have been the same. However, it does get you to start thinking, maybe Bale is just flat in general. He plays Batman as a constipated, growling thing and Bruce Wayne as a flat, overly-serious, self-important guy. As John Connor, he showed more emotion while yelling at a grip than in the actual movie. Maybe Bale is just kinda there.

Are there good heist scenes at least? Not really. There’s two, maybe three bank robberies, and these consist of walking into a bank, slapping a couple guards around, then making off in an old car. When Dillinger says it takes him one minute and forty seconds to rob a bank, I guess they meant to keep that realistic. You get a way more dramatic robbery scene in the first five minutes of The Dark Knight. And you get the end-all-be-all heist in the middle of Heat. In Public Enemies, you get little to nothing.

Overall, Public Enemies is just kind of there. Michael Mann makes a movie once ever couple of years because he gets so involved in the process. You can bet that everything on film is as close to real as you’re gonna see. However, he’s also made the same cops-and-robbers themed film several times. Unfortunately, he hit the peak with Heat and everything since then has been blah. Miami Vice was simply horrendous, long, drawn out, and boring. Public Enemies doesn’t fare much better, with flat flat stuff being shot in stupid ways. Out of a 100 second bank heist, Public Enemies gets caught with a mediocre 50 second botched job. You can safely avoid this one.

Up

Review by Loc

I speak in reverential tones when discussing Pixar films. There isn’t another studio that embraces the creative process in today’s Hollywood. The foundation of telling quality, character-driven stories is bred in Pixar’s DNA, and you’ve seen that from its very beginnings. In the days of Toy Story and A Bug’s Life, the focus was on creating a great story imbued with heart and care, and this was so successful that these stories resonated in the audiences. Even as Pixar became a money-minting machine, they never bowed to the temptation of box-office bonanzas. They produced one film at a time because that’s what their staffing could handle, and if it meant an 18-month wait between Pixar flicks, that’s what it meant.

So now, we find ourselves in the new age of Pixar, subsidiary of Disney. Has the cycle changed? Yes, there’s basically a new Pixar flick scheduled for every year. Has the quality changed? No, they approach every new story with wide-eyed wonderment and aim to tell something unique. Will it last forever? I doubt it. But is this shift evident in their latest offering? Quick hit: Up is a fine fine movie.

Let’s get this out of the way. The technology, the CGI, the visual and auditory offerings from Up: magnificent. It’s not so cutting edge, it’s not like WALL-E’s opening junk-pile sequence where things were near photo-realistic. But Up looks very nice, classic Pixar, and nothing to sneeze at. For the most part, CGI-animated flicks are now the standard and Pixar doesn’t cut any corners with Up.

That leaves us with the story, and what a strange concept it is. On the surface, one might think a story about a cranky old man tying a bunch of balloons to his house to travel around the world is sorta weird and mostly uninteresting. Even the early trailers didn’t offer much other than CGI and Pixar branding to sell it. Yet, as you settle in, you begin to realize this story has little to do with the balloons, little to do with the house, a little more to do with the relationship between old man and young boy, but mostly to do with old man.

And that’s where this flick, more than any other Pixar film, treads firmly in the adult-themed arena. Sure, WALL-E was a pretty obvious knock on human consumerism and over-consumption. Something like The Incredibles had some hinting of family-life and mid-life crises. Ratatouille was all about pursuing your calling in life, damn be the critics. But Up, this film is almost a downer, a story wholly focused on fulfilling the dreams of youth that have since long slipped away in the midst of surviving life’s speedbumps.

Carl Fredricksen, voiced by Ed Asner, is the gruff old man whose life is much more than this simple stereotype. Conveyed in the first five minutes of the film, we see how Carl met his sweetheart as a young kid, we see them grow up and get married, we see how they manage to live a fulfilling existence even while maintaining youthful dreams. Honestly, in the first five minutes of this film, you experience the bittersweet reality of…reality.

And from that fun recap, we jump into the meat of Up. Facing a retirement home, Carl concocts the most unlikely of plans, sail away with house-in-hand and find the one paradise that always eluded him and his true love. Unfortunately, a young “wilderness adventurer”, read “boy scout”, ends up on Carl’s porch and now we have a funny odd-couple. However, this is where Up diverges from the preconceived notions of the film. The story isn’t about journeying in the house of balloons, it’s actually about what happens after they’ve journeyed. There’s little time spent in the atmosphere, and most of the plot revolves around where they land and the characters they meet. It’s funny that a film called Up is really about what happens after you come down. Deep, I know.

Overall, this is a solid film. It’s touching at points, especially as you see Carl’s “This is your life” montage. It has funny gags, things that make both the kids and adults laugh out loud. There’s not a whole lot of clever bits, as this story really isn’t a comedy at all. But little things like the HSN Schneider lens clip is great for those of you who watch too much Youtube. The talking dogs are funny, but if you’ve read We3, then you get the joke already. This is a good-hearted Pixar offering, not their absolute best, but nothing to sneeze at. Out of 1000 helium balloons, Up floats off with 750. More than any of its predecessors, this is an adult-Pixar offering.

Terminator Salvation

Review by Loc

Remember when Eddie Furlong was a small kid? He was tiny enough for Arnold to pick up while riding a motorcycle and plop Eddie in front of him like a two year old. Guess what? Eddie is hella fat now, like gigantic fat. Shame. But it kinda reflects the state of the Terminator franchise. Once sleek and cool, the killer robots from Skynet are now bloated caricatures, toy props and merchandising machines. However, Christian Bale wants to change this, to change the course of history and avert the total downfall of the once-fresh franchise. Did he do it? Quick hit: like the inevitability of Judgment Day, Terminator Salvation falls victim to its destiny, the fourth movie in the franchise.

What does that mean? It means it sucks. How many fourth installments are good? I count one, Harry Potter, and that’s really a result of a seven-edition book series. No no, Terminator Salvation falls prey to what most franchises do, and that’s craptaculation. Stupid script. Stupid characters. Overly important rallying points. Stupid plotting. About the only thing going for it is the special effects, not Christian Bale. Sad. Like a fat Eddie Furlong.

The biggest miss is the overall storyline. Yes, the trailers set up a nice, dark take. But if you really want to see a good Terminator 4 movie, you should stick to the trailer and make up the rest in your head. Because the flick that comes out on the silver screen is mostly trite, unsophisticated dribble. The foundation is there: Christian Bale as the badass John Connor. The mysterious Marcus Wright who seems to be an amnesia-plagued robot. The unending march to Skynet’s total domination. It’s all right there, right? Then, you get past the two-minute highlight trailers and build out a story, and have the stupid police control the content. Ooof, its bad.

For instance, terminators fighting humans…killer robots programmed to “terminate” waste their time with fist fights? Really? The T-1000 poked people through the head with his liquid metal. Original Arnold drove a truck into a police station then killed all the cops. Now? The baddest models are busy having hand-to-hand combat with their most prized targets?? Um, ok.

And what about the vaunted “resistance”? You have the head honchos hanging out in a submarine, led by Michael Ironside, who no longer brings gravitas, but does bring cheesy in hearty amounts. Then you have random “freedom fighters” hanging out like Mad Max rejects. I mean, if they’re already that screwed, why didn’t Skynet just wipe them out? You know, send your gigantic gunships and just completely annihilate everyone. No? Rather hunt them and gather them up like cattle? And why is that? Oh, never explained. Maybe slightly alluded to, but um, the reasoning still doesn’t make sense.

Lastly, you have John Connor headquarters, which looks like a bleak version of Matrix’s Zion. And you have a bunch of “time tested” troops who act like they’re in an action movie. Seriously? There was more intensity in the three minute flashbacks from T1 and T2 than there was in the entire movie. Blahhh.

The cast wasn’t even a shining point. So much has been made about A) Christian Bale’s intensity on set and B) Sam Worthington’s turn as his nemesis/ally/foil Marcus. Well, A) Christian Bale’s intensity really led to low gravely voice and loud yelling, and B) Sam Worthington had the fade-in-fade-out Australian accent throughout the whole flick, which was awesome. Throw in Anton Yelchin, who was very good as Checkov in the new Star Trek, as a weinny Kyle Reese, spouting off famous lines with all the flare of a pre-pubescent goofball, and you’re killing the legacy of Terminator almost as bad as Terminator 3. At least Terminator 3 is widely disregarded as non-canonical, but this one was supposed to reset the course.

Last thing, and this is a stylistic choice that I would have made. When the non-surprise cameo comes up, it was a wasted money shot in a wholly incoherent and stupid climax. Imagine a stupid fight scene predicated on ridiculous logic and there you have the ending of Terminator Salvation. I would almost venture to say that Terminator 3’s ending was more satisfying in that it led to the Judgment Day inevitability that we all know and love. This ending was just dumbness, endoskeletons boxing, heart resuscitations via random electrical wires, just, I don’t want to say much more, but when little kid grasps hand of Marcus, I was laughing.

My choice, the non-surprise cameo should have been the final shot. Skynet completes its mission, and we know humans are f’d because they just made their ultimate weapon. Not the crap they gave us instead.

Overall, Terminator Salvation fails on many levels. It’s a goofy, poorly executed summer flick that tried to be serious and weighty. At least Wolverine knew what it was, even if it failed to reach that low bar it was aiming for. Terminator raised the bar then failed to qualify on the lower level it should have been. That’s like a double fail. Out of Judgment Day in 2018, Terminator Salvation shouldn’t be back with a poor 807. Let’s hope Skynet succeeds and keeps anymore Terminator drek from being produced.

Star Trek

Review by Loc

How do you properly reboot a franchise steeped in decades worth of continuity, a rabid fanbase, and more recent overexposure than outright failure? That is the status of Star Trek, a sci-fi property that long ago went boldly past good taste and intriguing entertainment. Yup, for years, Trekkies or Trekkers have been reduced to anxiously awaiting fans. When would the right creative team bring the shine and luster back to the Enterprise? Quick hit: be careful what you wish for, Trekkies.

JJ Abrams brings this reboot to life. The mastermind behind the Alias TV show and one of the creators of Lost, Abrams has amassed a good amount of Hollywood credibility. However, his first turn as blockbuster director yielded Mission: Impossible III, a serviceable if not mundane film. More importantly, to the geeky legions, he was the writer of the failed Superman script which saw Lex Luthor as an FBI agent who eventually revealed he was Kryptonian as he battled the Man of Steel…yes, you read that last part correctly.

So to say there was apprehension with this project would be an understatement. As the trailers came out and the new cast revealed, more nervous anticipation: everything looked slick and stylized, maybe too slick and too modern. Which just goes to show, people like to complain about anything, even things that are “too good”.

Back to Star Trek, the reboot, relaunch, revisioning, whatever re-you-want it to be. Focused around the core formation of the original Star Trek characters, this film takes a look at how Kirk, Spock, Bones, Sulu, Uhura, and Scotty can to man the Enterprise. Only, with a twist. Seems that there’s some temporal stuff going on, some threats from the past or future, that kick start everything. It’s an elegant and quick way to kickstart this series, nodding to the old, but opening the door to the new. And it easily takes care of any questions about past movies and tv episodes, and how they should be treated in this new reboot. Quick answer: everything counts, but the new stuff does, too. If you want more details, you gotta see the flick.

As for the cast, everyone does a very good job. Chris Pine as Kirk is very solid. Beyond the rugged, I’m-good-looking casting, Pine throws in a nice dose of arrogant confidence. He’s likeable and believable as the charming macho guy, a modern embodiment of the 60s Shatner version, which is surprisingly fun to watch. Zachery Quinto from Heroes fame sports the pointy ears of Spock, and much like Pine, rises to the occasion. This Spock is confident, not overly cold, a bit brooding, but not boring. Both actors infuse the characters with their own touches, make the characters their own, and run with it.

The rest of the ensemble is very good as well. Both a reflection of good writing and good acting, the characters take on greater importance and display greater depth than any of the previous movies have allowed. Case in point, Uhura is sexy and smart, with an actual skill set to justify her existence. Same with Sulu, well, not the sexy part. Bones McCoy is good, but almost a parody of himself, which is the only misstep in the cast. Scotty is comic relief, but not overdone, and enjoyable in the doses we get.

Ah, what about the plot? What about the story? Yes, the cast is good. The direction is good. But really, it’s the story and execution that bring this out to play. It’s paced extremely well, and the two hours moves along without notice. The action is very good, showcased with the space dive and 20,000 foot high battle. And very high on the list, the special effects are finally good. Not just serviceable. Not static and boring. Abrams wisely threw out any Trek-focused styling and introduced a whole new era of explosions, starships, and starship explosions.

The actual story is very solid as well. Sure, if you sit back and think for a couple minutes, there’s some weird and stupid things that happen. But for the most part, Star Trek is a fun, well conceived story that showcases the good parts of Trek lore. Is it deep? No, not particularly, and maybe that’s where the traditionalists have issues. However, it is entertaining and sheds the skin of geeky space-UN peachiness.

Overall, this is a very entertaining film. Easily the most well rounded summer flick so far. Given that there’s only been Wolverine and Star Trek, that’s not a hard accomplishment. However, I’d venture a guess that this will remain as one of the most solidly entertaining movies of the summer. Imagine Iron Man levels of geeky happiness. Out of 1701 designation for the Enterprise, Star Trek warps ahead with 1446, or 8.5 out of 10 for the mathematically averse. This is how summer blockbusters should be, and looking forward to the next installment.