Search This Blog

Monday, June 30, 2014

Movie Review #91: Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

Last wednesday I worked my very first eight hour workday. From nine to five I packed up, carried and loaded boxes in the humid weather for nearly eight hours straight. And yet the pain I felt then was nothing compared to excruciatingly painful theater experience that this film was.

I previously mentioned in my Super Bowl Highlights post that if I got a chance to see Transformers: Age of Extinction I would see it. And boy do I hate keeping my word.

Transformers: Age of Extinction takes place a few years after the events of the last film. Autobots and Decepticons alike are being hunted down because humans now view them as bad and unsafe. Enter Cade Yeager, played by Marky Mark without the Funky Bunch. He's an inventor from Texas who bought a broken truck that he later discovers is Optimus Prime. They both decide to work together and reunite the Autobots to take down a corrupt corporation trying to build their own Transformer army.

I did mention that I was rather intrigued by this film though. I wouldn't dare call it excited though. To me, it seemed like a step in the right direction by ditching the original cast and getting a brand new one. Casting Mark Wahlberg as the lead sure is a step up from Shia Labeouf. Not to mention the impressive additions of Stanley Tucci and Kelsey Grammer to the cast. But even the best actors can be reduced to mere caricatures of cliches and tropes with the wrong screenwriting. And the script hasn't differentiated from the first three films because this film is nothing new.

Mark Wahlberg is our main protagonist and he is easily the best part of this entire film. He's a very likable protagonist, which is hard to come by in a Michael Bay movie. You really like the guy because he just wants his daughter to be safe. Parental figures have been put in a really bad light in the first three Transformers films so it is nice to see one you can actually get behind. And during the battle sequences he's always there to help and actually fight, which is something you never saw Shia Labeouf do.

The rest of our heroes, his daughter and her boyfriend, on the other hand are simply awful. They are both completely unlikable and annoying. She constantly disobeys her father and every time he rescues her she always thanks and hugs her boyfriend who does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! And I really do mean absolutely nothing. He doesn't add anything to the plot, he's not funny and he sure as heck isn't a good actor! The only thing he does is surrender, run away and smart of to Mark Wahlberg's character. Yeah, this guy is dating his daughter and he's back talking to her father. Hey genius! That's not how you make a good first impression! Ugh. I feel bad for Mark Wahlberg for having to put up with these two idiots.

As with any generic Transformers movie you have to throw in a government conspiracy with your typical government bad guys. These roles are occupied by Kelsey Grammer and Stanley Tucci. Kelsey Grammer commands a great on screen premise in big, dramatic villain roles. But here he's just forgettable. His performance isn't bad really. I mean it's probably second best only to Mark Walhberg's. Thankfully his dialogue doesn't consist of a bunch of cringe-worthy, tasteless "jokes". Leave that to Stanley Tucci's character! Stanley Tucci is one of those actors that you can almost count on to be great in everything he does. And he really tries. Boy does he try. I feel that Michael Bay was trying to turn his character into the next John Tuturro. Every time he says a stupid "joke" you can just see in his eyes that deep down it's killing him on the inside. Sometimes they got a chuckle out of me, but most of the time I just felt bad for the guy.

Some of the Autobots were alright. John Goodman and Ken Wantanabe lend their voices to two Autobots and they have some fun in their roles. You can tell that Goodman  channeled his inner Walter Sobchak for this film. He of all characters probably had the most laughs. That being said, I still didn't care about any of them.
I never got to know any of them. Their history or their different personalities. So if I'm watching a movie called Transformers, how do you expect me to care about the Transformers if there's nothing for me to go off of?! If someone asked me when I walked out of the movie, "Who was your favorite Transformer?" I would probably respond with something like "The green one, I guess." And that's the thing is that they rarely ever use their names! The only way I could tell them apart was by what they looked like and their voices. And that is such a shallow, one-dimmensional way to describe a character. Let me try describing the Transformers actually:

  • Optimus Prime - Blue and red with a sword and shield and has a really cool, commanding voice.
  • Bumblebee - Yellow.............. and that's it really. (There is honestly nothing interesting about this one)
  • Hound - Brownish with grenades and gatling guns and is voiced by John Goodman so that's awesome.
  • Crosshairs - Green with guns (Not much t this guy either)
  • Drift - Blue, samurai-like appearance with giant katana sword 

Oh yeah and they all have to be inconspicuous so let's make them all look like multi-million dollar cars. Really? THAT is keeping you from being detected? Seriously? I don't get that. If you really wanted to blend in then why don't all the autobots look like Gremlins? You know I would love to see one that looks like a Volkswagen Thing.

The only real redeemable element this film has over the others is the addition of the Dinobots. These guys were really cool to see on screen. I loved the T-rex bot and the Triceratops bot and the ones that I couldn't tell what they were. (I'm pretty sure one was a Stegosaurus) I'm a big Jurassic Park/Land Before Time fan and I kind of loved seeing these guys take up the screen. Even if it was only during the final battle. That's the real problem with this film! The Dinobots were criminally underused!

When it comes to Michael Bay's direction.... well there is none. If you've seen a lot of Michael Bay movies (or even only a few) then you should expect to see every Michael Bay-ism possible. What are some of his cliches you might ask? Well here are just a few:

  • Low angle shots of people getting out of cars.
  • Having the camera focus in on the legs of the female protagonist/any female on screen.
  • Sunset backgrounds.
  • Spinning cinematography.
  • Hyperactive editing.
  • Explosions.
  • Explosions in slow-motion.
  • Explosions that look like fireworks.
  • Explosions that look like fireworks in slow-motion.
  • Explosions that look like sparklers.
  • Explosions that look like sparklers in slow motion.
  • Explosions that look like fireworks and sparklers at the same time.
  • Explosions that look like fireworks and sparklers at the same time in slow-motion.
  • Theatrical film runtime of nearly three hours long.
All of these are seen on screen at least 10 different times. Each. I dare not even count all of the explosions. I don't think numbers go up that high.

In all seriousness, this film has no style. There isn't any passion or joy in this filmmaking. It's just a bunch of loud special effects and sounds trying to compete at which one can be more annoying. Michael Bay doesn't deserve any of the credit. It's the people at Industrial Light and Magic that deserve the praise because without their terrific special effects, this movie would be absolutely nothing.

Final Report: There's a great quote that George Lucas once said;
"Special effects are a means to tell a story. A special effect without a story would be pretty boring."
Transformers: Age of Extinction has no story or character and masks it with an overabundance of blaring special effects. And what George Lucas said rings true because this film after a while, was pretty boring.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Movie Review #90: Jersey Boys (2014)

I felt rather awkward when I walked in to see Jersey Boys because even though I couldn't see everyone in the theater, I just knew that I was the youngest one there. By about 40 years. At least.

Jersey Boys! Yeah I know this movie came out last week but I couldn't get around to it because of my job. But where I work is being remodeled so I'm out of a job for possibly three weeks. That's good news for me getting to see more movies but bad news for my wallet. So it comes as both a good thing and a bad thing. But I saw Jersey Boys nonetheless. On the opening weekend of Transformers: Age of ExSTINKtion, which is a movie that most people in my age group would be flocking in herds to see. I personally don't see the appeal in Michael bay films but I do enjoy me a good movie musical. Even if this one felt more like a musical biopic.

Jersey Boys is a film based off of the smash hit Broadway musical of the same name that tells the story of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, their rise to fame and all the bumps along the way.

This film is directed by Clint Eastwood. Yeah, interesting choice to say the least. I'm not saying he's a bad director. Far from it! He's directed two Best Picture winning films along with some other really stellar dramas. That being said when he directs a bad film, it doesn't come off as bad but rather just slow and boring. And when taking on a material like Jersey Boys, it better have some energy to it. And while it's never uninteresting, it is definitely slow. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Firstly, the film looks great. I love the time period this film takes place in. Mostly because I wish I lived back then. When cars were built to look cool, men wore suits, women wore skirts, rock 'n roll was on the rise and the thing everyone did on the weekend was cruise around town. Wait, I'm talking about American Graffiti now. Eh, whatever the time period still fits.

I am a big fan of rock 'n roll biopics and music movies like The Buddy Holly Story, Ray, That Thing You Do and La Bamba. And Jersey Boys really felt more like those films than a Broadway musical adaptation. What I mean by that is that whenever the characters break out into song it's always for a show or a live performance in the film. Random supporting characters don't just break out into spontaneous song and dance routines, the only actors that sing are those playing the Four Seasons. Which honestly comes to me as rather refreshing. Speaking of the Four Seasons, let's talk about the cast.

At first I thought Clint Eastwood chose a bunch of unknown actors to play the four lead roles, but they are more well known for theater than they are on screen. The only actor reprising his role from the original Broadway cast is John Lloyd Young as Frankie Valli. Casting theater actors in a movie musical can be both a good thing and a bad thing. It's great for the musical numbers because they were without a doubt the highlights of the film. Kudos to John Lloyd Young because it's amazing how similar he sounds to Frankie Valli! And he gave the best performance in the film. All of the actors sang live on screen which didn't work out too well for Les Miserables, but here it is stellar. It's not so great for some of the dialogue scenes. On stage you have to act for the people in the back rows. You have to really emote and express on stage, but in a movie you can understate things. When you overly emote or express on screen, it comes off as over-the-top and out of place. Overall, the performances were fine, but the over-the-top arguing scenes happen, they do stick out like a sore thumb.

One thing I thought was rather strange was the narration. Instead of your typical storybook/Morgan Freeman off-camera narration, the lead actors break the fourth wall and let the audience in on what's going on. Kind of like Ferris Bueller's Day Off, or basically any Muppet movie ever. I take it the only reason the narration is this way is because that was most likely how they told the story on stage. Which does make sense, because you would actually have an audience in front of you! In a movie an off-screen narration would not only be a lot more understandable, but also less confusing. Here's what I mean: During the Four Seasons' performance on the Ed Sullivan Show in the middle of one of their songs one of the band members turns towards the camera and starts reciting exposition. I was just sitting there wondering, "Why?" I just didn't get the purpose.

The supporting cast isn't really anything too special. That is of course with the exception of the great Christopher Walken. He plays a mob boss and he steals every scene he's in. He had a majority of the funniest lines because come on, it's Christopher Walken. His iconic voice and deadpan delivery are just comedy gold. And he's also a great actor and awesome human being too.

As I mentioned before, Clint Eastwood's films come off as either spectacular or boring. Strangely enough thought, this film was neither. I mean it was slow, but not slow enough that it made me check my phone every ten minutes to see what the time was. And it wasn't energetic as it could have been with this being a jukebox mob musical. I mean I was entertained and fascinated by the story. But I just know that with a more lively director like an Adam Shankman or a Rob Marshall, this could have been something really spectacular.

Final Report: Clint Eastwood's adaptation of this popular Broadway show wasn't as lively as it could have been. But as it is it's not bad at all. The musical numbers are a blast and the story is rather captivating. I just know it could have been so much more. Jersey Boys is worth a rental but instead of seeing the film, just buy the soundtrack! All the best parts of the film with not a dull moment to be had.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

News: Pacific Rim 2: It's Actually Happening!

Well, better late than never!

News broke today that a sequel to Pacific Rim is not only in the works, but has also managed to snag itself a release date. The film is set for an April 7th, 2017 release. Director Guillermo del Toro will return to assume writing and directing duties.

This news honestly made my day. I've been hoping for a Pacific Rim sequel since I saw it for the first time in theaters on opening night last July. I thought it was just such a jaw dropping theater experience. The visuals were stunning, the action beyond delivered and actually managed to make us laugh! Not to mention it had GIANT ROBOTS FIGHTING GIANT MONSTERS! Holy cow why did it take so long for a sequel to get confirmed?
Sure it might not have "Citizen Kane-like" depth but it's not supposed to. It's supposed to pay homage to both monster movies and anime in the best way possible. And I say it succeeded.
Pacific Rim is basically like what Michael Bay could do but he won't do because he doesn't respect his audience enough to.

And while the film earned a majority of positive reviews from critics and moviegoers alike, it surprisingly ended up underperforming at the domestic box office. So much so that on opening weekend it lost to Grown Ups 2. Ugh, more like "Groan Ups 2". That being said, Pacific Rim blew away the foreign box office! Which does make sense, considering the film takes place in Japan. And that it looks like Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers on the budget of 200 million dollars, it's no surprise this film has an overseas smash.

Anyone else find it kind of fitting that the day before the premiere of Transformers: Age of Extinction, Universal drops this bomb of a news scoop? Considering how many have called Pacific Rim,
"A thinking mans Transformers".
Can't fault perfect timing I guess.

Even though I'm pumped for Pacific Rim 2, I do wish Guillermo del Toro would make a third Hellboy film to complete his trilogy. Come on, the second one ended in a way that just begged for a sequel. And for all you haters out there who wish del Toro would go back to making more original movies like Pans Labyrinth, don't worry because next year he has Crimson Peak for us so just wait.

All in all I'm stoked. This is cool news for me but what are your thoughts? Post them below and tell me your opinions.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Movie Review #89: Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Tom Cruise stars in a futuristic alien invasion time travel movie costarring Emily Blunt and Bill Paxton in a film directed by the same man who brought us The Bourne Identity. This sounds like the recipe to an sci-fi action movie magnum opus, how on earth is this film bombing at the box office?!?!?!

Yes, I finally got around to seeing Edge of Tomorrow! The film that is being hailed by fans and critics alike as one of the most original science fiction films of the decade. Yet for some reason, this film has been failing to deliver at the box office. And this makes me very sad because this film is as good as everyone has been saying it is. Why more people are not flocking in herds to get in line and see it on the other hand is a question that I have no answer to.

Edge of Tomorrow is based on a Japanese manga called All You Need is Kill, which by the way is a much cooler title than the one they ended up going with. The story is about a military officer played by Tom Cruise who, for reasons I will not give away, discovers that he is caught in a never ending time loop between a doomed battle between an invading alien race. He later discovers of another soldier who had the same problem he currently has. Together they join arms and plot to wipe out the alien race once and for all.

I was looking forward to this film before the trailer or even a poster was released. Time travel is a topic of science fiction that fascinates me very much and I am always interested in anything and everything Tom Cruise stars in. Say what you want about him as a person, but no one in Hollywood commits to a movie more than Tom Cruise does. He's the hardest working man in the business for a reason. The guy does all his own stunts and he even learned how to sing and play guitar for his role in Rock of Ages. Oh and yeah, that Dubai Tower scene from Ghost Protocol? Yeah that wasn't CGI or a stunt double. That was all Cruise. The man is insane and will probably get himself killed. But it's that commitment and essence of craziness that makes me appreciate him as an actor. And I haven't even talked about his film track record! He has been making consistently great films since the 1980's with very few career ruining duds. And I'll tell you one thing, Edge of Tomorrow is anything but a dud.

Wow what a rush! If you want nonstop, turn-your-brain-off action for nearly three hours........ then go watch Transformers Age of Extinction. But if you're hungry for an science fiction action thrill ride crafted with intelligence and care, then this is your ticket because Edge of Tomorrow might just be one of the best science fiction films in recent memory. I would put it alongside Moon, Sunshine, Star Trek, Minority Report and Inception as a science fiction movie we're going to continue raving about long after it comes out on Blu-ray.

I was slightly skeptical of the action scenes because I absolutely detest shaky camera direction and director Doug Liman popularized this type of filmmaking with The Bourne Identity. Thankfully the action is filmed very smoothly using a lot a wide shots. And considering 75% of the film takes place during an alien battle, this film would have really suffered from poor action direction. Another technical element that I really dug were the aliens. They honestly didn't look like any sort of creature I had seen before. The only thing I can describe them to be like were the machines from The Matrix. And the way they attacked was really bizarre, hectic and erratic. They really stood out from all the other generic little green men we've seen in films like Signs, Independence Day and War of the Worlds.

Tom Cruise really surprised me in this film. The trailers made him out to look like your typical hero that has to save the day. But when the film starts out, it's the exact opposite! I won't say much else but needless to say, he undergoes a massive character arc that was really surprising. And Tom Cruise absolutely killed this role! The only other actor who might have possibly stolen the show was Emily Blunt! It comes as a sight for sore eyes to see a strong female lead in an action movie. As of recently we have seen women in action films portrayed as weak or helpless. So to see a strong woman train a helpless, weak Tom Cruise and put him in his place time and time again is not only refreshing to see, but also very funny!

The amount of humor in this film was definitely the most surprising part. Some of the humor comes from the training sequences between Cruise and Blunt. It's just hysterical watching Tom Cruise getting thrown around like a toy. But most of the comedic scenes involved the supporting cast, who were also fantastic. Bill Paxton plays an army sergeant and I instantly thought of his character from Aliens.

Roger Ebert made a rule for movies he called the "Stanton-Walsh Rule," which stated that no movie that has Harry Dean Stanton or M. Emmet Walsh in it can be altogether bad. I believe that that same rule applies to Bill Paxton playing a comedic supporting role in an action movie. Think about it; Aliens, True Lies and now Edge of Tomorrow. It's only common logic! Hmmm, maybe I'll make some more of these "rules" in the future..... I digress.

While this film is very funny at times, it isn't afraid to get dramatic and intense. I really liked the relationship that formed between Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt. It's a very interesting relationship because Cruise repeats the same days over and over again and has to meet and get introduced to Emily Blunt's character time and time again. Meaning that he gets to learn her story while she only knows him for the two days he repeats. It's a very bittersweet relationship that I'm glad the writers touched on. Even more surprising that it was never became romantic. That's a huge cliche that could have been so easy to do and the better for this film for not succumbing to popular tropes and cliches.

And that really describes Edge of Tomorrow the best. It doesn't follow your standard story with your basic characters. It thought outside the box, colored outside the lines and went against the flow. It might not have been the most successful route, but almost everyone who saw this film are glad they went this direction. As am I.

Final Report: If you are looking for a nonstop action thrill ride that never stops surprising you, then Edge of Tomorrow just might be the movie event of the summer for you. And if you enjoy clever humor and intelligent writing that actually makes its audience think, then I implore you to give this movie your time of day. I guarantee you that you won't regret it.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Movie Review #88: Maleficent (2014)

Funny story about this film: I saw it on friday but there was a miscommunication between who I was going to see this film with. She said 7:30 when it was actually 6:45. So in the end I missed about 15-20 minutes of the film. To say the least, it was pretty ridiculous. I saw it nonetheless and I do have my thoughts about it: The 70-75 minutes I did see of it.

Maleficent is the story of the classic Brothers Grimm character and legendary Disney villain Maleficent. The story differentiates from the animated film though with the way the film plays out. It focuses on Maleficent's perspective which is a viewpoint you don't hear from very often: The villain's take.

 It seems that ever since Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was released in 2010, Disney has been trying to make a similar film in the same vein of it. Why? Because Alice in Wonderland grossed over a billion dollars worldwide and became the third highest grossing live action Disney film of all time. And since the only thing Disney loves more than acquiring every franchise possible, it's money. And they've been trying to replicate that formula for a while with last years Oz the Great and Powerful and Maleficent being the most recent attempt to once again strike billion dollar gold.

The film is directed by Robert Stromberg. Who's that you might ask? He's a very well known visual effects artist and a two time Oscar winning production designer for Avatar and Alice in Wonderland who's making his directorial debut. Yeah cue the red flags. The last time a well known production designer made his directorial debut we got The Cat in the Hat directed by Bo Welch. Yeah, yikes. Not to mention this film broke a record with the highest budget for a first time director at $200,000,000. And this film has been passed around from director to director even more so that Pokemon cards. These are some facts that are enough to raise suspicions.

You walk into the movie about Maleficent expecting to see a film about Maleficent and you definitely get that. I'm not a big fan of Angelina Jolie as an actress or a person, but she is without a doubt what makes this movie. For starters, her makeup is unbelievably good. From the horns to the high prominent cheekbones they got her look nailed to a tee. The makeup is done by Rick Baker and it shows. He's the same guy who did the makeup and prosthetics for the Men in Black films. To say the least, his work is immaculate. She also manages to give a rather sympathetic villain performance. The film revolves around her having cursed Princess Aurora, but as time goes on her heart starts to soften and feelings for her start to form. It's a good character arc to see a villain go through. Most of the humor falls flat, but whenever Maleficent speaks completely deadpan, it's rather funny.

The supporting cast on the other hand are completely forgettable. Sharlto Copley plays the king and his acting is just downright awful. It's so angry and over-the-top that's it's almost laughable. And I don't mind him as an actor! If anything, he was one of the few things I liked about Elysium! But he was just so miscast for this part. I could see like Sean Bean in this role but not Copley. I'm gonna sound like a jerk for saying this, but his voice really annoys me. I know that it's his voice and that's a terrible thing to nitpick about, but it just really grates on my ears whenever he yells. It's like Alanis Morissette singing while scraping nails on a blackboard. To me at least, it's that bad.

I am a huge fan of Elle Fanning but she has nothing to do in the role of Princess Aurora. She looks the part, but adds nothing. The three pixies that take care of Aurora might be some of the most annoying comic relief characters since Rebel Wilson in Pitch Perfect. What makes them even worse is that they aren't even funny! I think Jar Jar Binks has made me laugh more than these three bumbling embarrassments.

The visuals as a whole do manage to dazzle. Strombergs' background as I said before deals heavily with visual effects and production design and this film really shows it. Give or take a few instances where the CGI looks very obvious. Particularly in the pixies and the woodland creatures. The creatures in the forest looked like CGI Muppets. Kind of in the vein of Labrynth and The Dark Crystal. To say the least, they worked better as puppets.

The film's runtime is 97 minutes long. Yet it somehow cost 200 million dollars to make. Really? At least The Lone Ranger had that unbelievable train battle sequence that made me say "Oh, that's where the 250 million dollars went!" With the runtime not even reaching 100 minutes it doesn't feel like I got my money's worth! If you're still really looking forward to seeing Maleficent (which I wouldn't recommend) the least you could do is save yourself a few bucks and catch it at matinee price.

Final Report: Maleficent looks nice and provides a terrific star showcase for Angelina Jolie as the title character. But the supporting cast members are expendable. Not to mention that the 97 minute run time hardly makes it feel like you spent your $10 wisely. Kids and anyone who shops at Hot Topic frequently will probably have a good time. Anyone who doesn't fall into those first two categories will most likely forget about it. And sadly I fall in the latter category.