Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

The title for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has multiple meanings, though it mainly refers to the franchise, which has fallen into despair and is now seeking revenge against us, the innocent moviegoers. Michael Bay has upped the ante in every department, especially those departments that didn’t need any ‘upping,’ resulting in a loud, unintelligent explosion-fest that fails to recreate the magic of the first Transformers. Many will say that you can’t bring high expectations to a movie like this, but if you come to a bad movie with low expectations, and your low expectations are met, what kind of praise is that? I was at least hoping for the same level of quality as the original, but Michael Bay tried to fix what wasn’t broken, giving rise to a computer-generated bore.

The film opens with the Autobots (the good Transformers) fighting alongside the US Military to hunt down the Decepticons (the bad Transformers). Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) heads off to his Freshman year at Princeton, beginning a long-distance relationship with his scantily-clad girlfriend, Mikaela (Megan Fox). As Sam begins to have strange visions of alien symbols, the Decepticons plan to kill him and use his brain for their sinister purposes. Sam must team up with the Autobots to defeat The Fallen, an ancient Decepticon who hopes to exterminate humanity by destroying the Sun.

If that plot sounds both convoluted and stupid, then my summary was a success. Honestly, in a movie about alien robots, who cares about all that junk? The first Transformers worked because it had the right blend of character development, action, and humor. A charming performance by Shia LaBeouf sealed the deal, creating a surprise blockbuster that appealed to viewers across different age groups. On the other end of the spectrum, Transformers 2 has the worst kind of mix: one that won’t appeal to any age group. In trying to please everyone, it pleases no one. This movie has absolutely no idea who its target audience is.

When it comes to a Summer movie about robot cars from outer space, it doesn’t take a Hollywood executive to know that the target audience consists of young teenage boys. Why, then, is this movie bursting with inappropriate content? The language and sexual humor are so over-the-top that parents won’t be pleased, and the kids sitting next to their parents will probably just feel awkward. The charming humor of the first film is long gone, replaced by gags that fall somewhere between third-rate and downright bizarre. Metallic robot testicles, racial stereotypes, and a robot that humps the heroine’s leg all turn up at various points. That last one struck me as an especially cheap laugh. Do machines actually procreate as we do? The only thing missing is a Transformer fart joke.

When Sam arrives at Princeton, the movie resorts to every college cliché ever filmed: the weird roommate, the bad first day of class, legions of girls that look airbrushed, ridiculous parties ... I half-expected a CG John Belushi to run past in a toga. Apparently, Princeton traded its Ivy League status and became a talent pool for “Girls Gone Wild.” Sam’s mom even gets high on Pot brownies and runs around the campus like she’s on LSD. I don’t know what happened to the writers between films, but there’s no excuse for the dense plot, dimwitted jokes, and treatment of sexuality like it’s something funny and shameful. If the first Transformers reminded me of the carefree fun and playfulness of youth, the sequel reminded me more of the guys’ locker room.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen runs for roughly the same length as its predecessor, though it feels twice as long. In its final act, the film descends into an endless barrage of robotic mayhem, explosions, and slow motion shots of Megan Fox’s boobs bouncing up and down. There’s no sense of wonder because we don’t care about the characters, the story, or the machines. The transformations themselves aren’t even as innovative this time around. There’s nothing here to rival the moment in the first film when Starscream flies in as an airplane, transforms in midair, and begins ripping fighter jets out of the sky.

The short list of pros includes impressive effects, the return of Agent Simmons (John Turturro), and the innovation of Decepticons defecting and joining the Autobots. The list of cons might overload my poor laptop’s processor, so I’ll close by saying that the inevitable third film had better pull itself together. Michael Bay & Co. obviously stumbled into success with the first, and now it’s time to look back at that movie and take a few pointers. The first Transformers, while entertaining, still had major flaws. It shouldn’t have been hard to match, or even surpass, but sitting in the theater during Revenge of the Fallen, I began reminiscing about the first like it was an old classic.


Click here to view the trailer

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material.

The language and sexuality go way beyond the original Transformers. This film is rated PG-13, though I’d say 14-15 is more like it. Regardless of age, no one will enjoy this film more than the first, so unless your kids are absolutely dying to see it, I’d stay home, save your money, and watch the original Transformers again.

Michael Jackson, 1958-2009

The top-selling solo artist of all time has left the building. On Thursday, June 25th, Michael Jackson died at the age of 50, and while I am surprised, some part of me isn't shocked. Michael Jackson was a strange man, born into a spotlight that he never stepped out of. Easily one of the biggest celebrities of all time, he had an image that was even bigger than he was, putting him alongside celebrities like Elvis Presley, James Dean, and Marilyn Monroe. Tragically, all of these superstars died unexpectedly and early: the price of monumental stardom.

He became increasingly strange as the years progressed, altering his face nearly beyond recognition. Many younger people only know this transformed, controversial Jackson, forever tainted by unproven accusations of child molestation. However, all those my age or older remember a time when he ruled the world. He truly was the King of Pop, and his record sales may never be surpassed. Thriller isn't just the best selling record in history; it holds that title by a margin of roughly 60 million copies. Michael Jackson died on the verge of his "This Is It" Comeback Tour, capping a tragic life with an especially heartbreaking end.

Still, there should be no doubt that even though Michael Jackson has passed away, his music isn't going anywhere.

Up

Pixar and I have a game that we like to play. Whenever I see a trailer for a new Pixar movie, I assume that it can’t possibly be as good as Pixar’s previous movies. The folks at Pixar assure me that it is, and after I’ve seen the movie, one of us is declared the winner. I have yet to win this game. Up marks Pixar’s tenth feature film, tenth work of art, tenth masterpiece. I thought that nothing could effectively follow WALL•E, the best film of 2008, but let me remind you again that the score currently stands: Pixar - 10, Dee - 0.

Up features a wonderful protagonist: Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner), age 78. A widower soon to be evicted off his property, Carl decides it’s time to embark on the adventure that he always wanted to take with his wife. By tying thousands of balloons to his house, Carl lifts off and sets a course for South America. Once airborne, he discovers that Russell (Jordan Nagai), a young Wilderness Explorer Scout, has inadvertently stowed away on board. When the two of them reach the jungles of South America, they encounter many perils, not the least of which is learning to get along.

Pixar has made me laugh and cry during the same film on multiple occasions, but now they’ve made me do it in the first 15 minutes. Up boasts a brilliant prologue, one that reminds us that grumpy old people don’t appear out of thin air. In today’s youth-obsessed culture, it’s easy to forget that all old people were once young. Carl Fredricksen grew grumpy over time, and for specific reasons. The early montage reflecting on his marriage has no dialogue, but conveys the kind of genuine emotion that storytellers dream about. Carl is a rich, fully-developed character, and pairing him with a young child was a masterstroke.

When Up isn’t moving you to tears, it’s making you laugh, and not just half-heartedly, with under-your-breath chuckles. The scenes between Carl and Russell had me hooting and cackling, which might have been embarrassing had I been the only one in the theater making such a racket. A grumpy old man and a joyful, optimistic child - as a comedic filmmaker, you would have to work pretty hard to lose with that setup. The rest of the comedy comes through some wonderfully innovative fantasy, which complements the realism unexpectedly well. The human characters are grounded and relatable, but then you’ve also got mythic birds, talking dogs, and a flying house.

As always with Pixar, the magnificent animation captivates, but it takes a backseat to the story. Story has come first at Pixar since day one, and it’s remarkable that Pixar’s beautifully rendered movies aren’t known for their animation. Everyone loves them for their stories and their characters. In addition to being Pixar’s tenth film, Up also marks the studio’s first 3D feature. 3D effects are so rich and impressive nowadays, and they work especially well with computer-generated images. The film would still play very well in a traditional format, but if you have a chance to see it in 3D, it’s worth the few extra dollars.

In an unexpected way, Up reminded me of one of my favorite novels, Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Carl Fredricksen learns late in the game that he’s been missing the joy in life’s little moments. He always dreamed of adventure, but failed see the adventure in the world immediately around him. His journey made for one of the funniest, most touching, and most rewarding filmgoing experiences I’ve had in a long time. Before the film began, the audience cheered during the teaser trailer for next year’s Toy Story 3. Pixar is returning to the familiar territory that began it all, which I know they wouldn’t do unless they had a great story. I’ve already decided not to play my silly Pixar game on that one, or any others, for that matter. I’m just going to sit back and enjoy the magic.


Click here to view the trailer

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: Rated PG for some peril and action.

Up has some intense action (especially intense in 3D), but nothing to worry about. You’ll probably be far more emotionally exhausted than your children, because your children won’t fully appreciate Carl’s backstory. Kids will eat up the humor, the visuals, and even the grumpy old protagonist. Definitely treat your kids to this picture, but know that you’ll also be treating yourself.

Angels and Demons

Ron Howard’s team missed the mark a bit with The Da Vinci Code (2006), failing to achieve the right balance of action, intellect, and suspense. Howard’s approach hasn’t changed much, but Angels and Demons works better than The Da Vinci Code, mostly because the book is more cinematic in nature. This action-based thriller succeeds better than its puzzle-based predecessor, but it still suffers in some of the same respects.

Tom Hanks returns as Robert Langdon, a Harvard Professor whom the Vatican summons shortly after the Pope’s death. The Illuminati, a secret society that hopes to destroy the Catholic Church once and for all, has kidnapped four prominent Cardinals. The assailants tell the Vatican that one Cardinal will be murdered every hour, from 8 pm to 11 pm. In addition to the kidnappings, they have hidden a highly explosive substance somewhere on Vatican grounds, and the device will detonate at midnight. Langdon races against the clock to rescue the Cardinals and save the Vatican from imminent destruction.

I felt while reading the book that it would make for a better movie than The Da Vinci Code did, and while the book’s structure is better suited to the big screen, the film adaptation still falters in the face of time constraints. The novel isn’t any more realistic than the movie, but the novel seems more realistic, largely because it takes its time. As an author, Dan Brown had complete control over pacing, allowing him to properly balance the brainy parts and the action. By contrast, the film crew had to not only convey the entire story in just over two hours, but also make its absurd premise seem at least somewhat logical. Not even Robert Langdon has faced a challenge so daunting.

Ron Howard did about as well as anyone could have. The cast delivers, though I’m still not sold on Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. Hanks is easily one of the greatest and most versatile actors in the business, but he just doesn’t work for me as the Harvard-Professor-turned-action-hero. Hanks’ likability alone carries the character to a certain extent, but not far enough. The supporting cast is solid, featuring especially strong performances from Ewan McGregor and Stellan Skarsgård.

Much has been made of Dan Brown’s historical inaccuracies, but its worth noting that his stories, however spotted with misinformation, are very tightly woven. Here we find yet another pitfall for the film adaptation. As soon as you cut one element out, however small, another suffers. This film version omits many tidbits, meaning that the viewer who spends too much time thinking about the plot will find holes the size of St. Peter’s Square. There just isn’t time to patch up all the leaks in the ship. Angels and Demons has more action than The Da Vinci Code, but it still pauses for the occasional history lesson, which rubs up against the ticking time bomb plot device like sandpaper on a sunburn.

In the end, Angels and Demons has enough thrills and intrigue to hold our attention and provide a good time (Ron Howard is a first-class filmmaker, after all), but it’s a fairly forgettable flash in the pan. I don’t like to point out films’ problems without offering solutions, but I confess to not having the answers for this one. Oh, I could list a few specific changes I would make (though not without disclosing plot details, which I won’t do), but I stand by my assessment that Dan Brown’s novels aren’t cut out for the silver screen. Cinematic time limits make it too hard to adequately understand and care about the complex situations.

Ron Howard has proven to be a master of suspense, but the script has to be character-based. If you put great characters in Ron Howard’s hands, he’ll make you sweat every time, even if you know how the story turns out (Apollo 13). I admire Howard’s work, especially his willingness to expand his horizons. His filmography grows increasingly diverse, though I suspect these Dan Brown adaptations won’t be remembered for as long as his other films. It sounds impossible, but Angels and Demons, an enjoyable thriller about mystery, murder, and scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, never approaches the level of suspense that Ron Howard achieved in 2008 with Frost/Nixon, a film about two men sitting in chairs, talking.


Click here to view the trailer

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, disturbing images and thematic material.

The violence is harsh, bizarre, and very creepy, especially a horrific scene where a Cardinal is burned alive. Kids would be frightened, and with good reason. 13 should definitely be the minimum age here, and a few extra years wouldn’t hurt. Even though it’s not very bloody, the violent imagery stays with you.

Terminator Salvation

Sitting in the theater, I began to wish that John Conner would send a machine from the future to terminate this franchise. Terminator Salvation gets some things right, and it works better than Terminator 3, but that doesn’t make it good by default. My one word review is “unnecessary.” The filmmakers obviously hoped to reboot the franchise, but this franchise should’ve ended in 1991 with Terminator 2: Judgement Day. The innovation of the first two films has dried up, and now it just feels tired.

This fourth installment unfolds in the year 2018, several years after machines have wiped out humanity in a nuclear holocaust, dubbed “Judgement Day.” The few survivors of the human race have formed a resistance movement against the machines, led by John Conner (Christian Bale). Not everyone recognizes Conner’s leadership, while others treat him as a near-religious, messianic figure. While fighting to ensure humanity’s survival, Conner sends out radio broadcasts in an effort to locate Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), the man who eventually becomes his father (Reese later goes back in time to impregnate Sarah Conner, which almost makes sense, but not quite). Reese journeys alongside Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a mysterious stranger whose true purpose is gradually revealed.

My biggest complaint stems from an overall lack of purpose. The cast performs well, in spite of unimaginative dialogue, but the predictable plot holds no revelations or big surprises. I sat in the theater, thinking of various plot twists that might have made the film relevant. Still, the post-apocalyptic California feels extremely real, thanks to some top notch visual effects. Most of the action sequences achieve a gritty, war film realism, and I must confess that I was prepared for campiness that never came, which was a pleasant surprise. The superb design of the film actually made the film’s other lackluster aspects all the more apparent.

The first two Terminators (especially T2) have a good mix of humor, drama, and various types of action sequences, but Terminator Salvation never strays from its dismal, monotone battle scenes. Is the future really so joyless? A world completely devoid of humor (or even smiles, for that matter) doesn’t feel very human. The compelling battle scenes marry phenomenal CGI with traditional techniques like handheld cameras and long, uncut shots, but the action isn’t grounded in characters that we care about. Some innovative dialogue with a little humor thrown into the bargain would’ve gone a long way.

It’s worth noting that I was fully prepared to love this movie. I saw it as part of a Terminator marathon at a local movie theater. The first two Terminator movies played, followed by the midnight premiere of Terminator Salvation. Seeing the films in one night made me aware of all the minor throwbacks and tributes in the new film, and there are several, but it also made me more aware of what the latest chapter is missing. When Terminator 2: Judgement Day ended, James Cameron obviously intended for the story to be over. Then other writers gave us the lackluster Terminator 3, and I at least hoped that this new film would provide some closure, but it doesn’t. The “salvation” promised by the title never arrives. The film ends completely wide open, guaranteeing sequels, but if the writers were going to relaunch this franchise, they should’ve started with a story that justified that decision. At one point, John Conner looks into the camera and delivers the franchise’s most famous line: “I’ll be back.” Here’s hoping he doesn’t mean it.


Click here to view the trailer

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and language.

The violence in the film isn’t gory. Terminator Salvation has the tone of an R-rated film, but the content of a PG-13. There’s very little blood - mostly just explosions and shots of machines getting ripped apart. However, if your children haven’t seen the first two Terminator movies, they probably won’t understand this one, but if they have seen them, they’ve already seen and heard things far worse than this film has to offer. It’s almost like one of the time travel paradoxes from the Terminator movies ...

Star Trek

Not since Star Trek: The Next Generation aired on television (1987-1994) has the Star Trek franchise been so accessible and enjoyable. J.J. Abrams’ latest film will be appreciated by the mainstream, while still delivering substance for the fans. Star Trek now joins the ranks of other once-tired franchises that have been successfully revived, most recently James Bond and Batman. Most Trekkies will love it, but even if you’ve never enjoyed the franchise before, don’t let that stop you. Through a potent blend of style and solid character development, the new Star Trek boldly goes ... well, where no Star Trek has gone for a good while.

The film features the original slate of characters, most notably a young James Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto). Having grown into a rowdy degenerate in Iowa, Kirk follows the advice of a military officer and enlists in Starfleet. Spock, a half-human, half-Vulcan, sees Kirk as immature and incapable of leadership. Once Kirk and Spock find themselves working aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise together, the two slowly learn to respect one another, despite their opposite sensibilities. The full cast of characters from Star Trek: The Original Series (1966-1969) stands alongside Kirk and Spock in the battle to defeat Nero (Eric Bana), a dangerous Romulan who has journeyed from the future.

Character development serves as this installment’s primary success. After years of mediocrity, the Star Trek universe needed a revival, and putting characters first was the best way to rebuild momentum. The writers give us classic characters that we know already, but then expand them through generous backstory and well-crafted dialogue. As is often the case with films featuring already-iconic characters, the casting director is the unsung hero. The stellar cast, composed largely of semi-stars and unknowns, makes a wonderful ensemble that could easily carry this franchise into two or three more films.

The plot doesn’t make much sense, but in this unique situation, it doesn’t really matter. The story involves time travel and essentially serves as a gimmick to establish an alternate timeline of events. Because Nero travels back in time and changes the past, a reality is established that doesn’t have to match the continuity of the other films. I wondered if this film would keep with Star Trek continuity or if it would disregard the originals and simply start over the way Batman Begins or Casino Royale did, but it ultimately keeps a foot in each camp, which should please the fans. It honors the originals without being constrained by them.

Having run for over 40 years, the vastness of the Star Trek universe poses a problem for outsiders. This film walks the same sort of line that The Lord of the Rings successfully walked: faithful and thick enough for fans, yet still approachable for those who don’t know the lore. Average Joe doesn’t speak Klingon, and the writers did a fine job recognizing that and striking the appropriate tone. Most great science fiction has more to do with relatable characters than with innovative science, and the characters usually make the difference between popularity and nerdy obscurity. Popularity isn’t always the mark of solid sci-fi, but it did accompany the original Star Trek series/films, and I predict that this latest will find similar success.

A few moments feel out of place, most of which feature unnecessary spectacle. When a monster chases Kirk through the snow, it feels like a cheap thrill, well below the standard set by the rest of the film. These moments are fortunately few, as most of the action not only advances the story and/or character development, but also boasts a grittier, less-polished quality. The action isn’t more realistic, but it does carry an intensity and an edge that the shiny originals never achieved. The heightened action increases the peril, making us care even more about the characters. The formula sounds simple, but this well-tuned machine was assembled by first-rate storytellers.

The powerful opening scene may bring fans to tears, and that’s a real triumph. The writers achieve some emotional depth, but not so much that the timbre of Star Trek gets lost. They fixed only what was broken, leaving many other aspects (such as ship design and costumes) largely untouched. Star Trek hasn’t been cool for a long time, but I’m thrilled to see this new franchise starting off so solidly. May it live long and prosper.


Click here to view the trailer

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.

The action gets pretty intense, though as you might expect, there’s no gore to be found. The brief sexual content is indeed brief, featuring Kirk and two female roommates in their underwear (Kirk and his lover are interrupted by the other roommate, and the scene is played for laughs more than anything). I’d say it’s appropriate for teens, and the only big concern with younger kids is that they might be frightened. If your child usually enjoys action movies, he/she will probably enjoy this one.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

X-Men Origins: Wolverine answers many questions raised by the first three X-Men films. How old is Wolverine? How did he get his metallic skeleton? What happened to make him so bitter? As you might expect, some of the answers are more compelling than others. While the X-Men trilogy boasted complex characters and explored relevant social and political issues, Wolverine never achieves such depth. It’s a typical summer movie: a good-looking vehicle for big action scenes and cutting-edge special effects. As an X-Men fan, I was hoping for more.

Still, the action thoroughly entertains, and picks up immediately. The film opens in 1845 as a young James Howlett (who later becomes Logan/Wolverine) runs away from home with his brother, Victor. Both are mutants who possess heightened senses, superhuman strength, and accelerated healing/slow aging. The brothers choose to embrace their mutant natures and become fierce outcasts, and the opening credits follow them through nearly 130 years worth of warfare, culminating in their participation in the Vietnam War. When a mysterious government agent, William Stryker (Danny Houston) appears and offers them the chance to join a top secret team, the brothers embark on a journey that will change them both forever and ultimately pit them against each other.

Everything described above happens in the first fifteen minutes, and that’s part of what bothered me about the film. The pace was so accelerated that I didn’t have time to soak in the characters and the story, which was not true of the other X-Men movies. The mythology of X-Men has always concerned itself with its characters’ psychological profiles and the political relevance of the setting, but Wolverine never lets up on the action. I would have enjoyed spending more time in the past, seeing how the beginnings of the mutant phenomenon shaped World events. As the credits raced over a century of American history, I felt ripped off. If Wolverine fought in the Civil War, ravaged the trenches of World War I, and stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II, I want to see it. 


The action scenes kept me engaged, and Hugh Jackman plays the character so well that it’s hard not to have a good time. Strangely enough, for a film so watered down, it isn’t very accessible for newcomers. The film takes for granted that you already know about the lore, the characters, and the events to come (X-Men 1-3). If you don’t, prepare to find yourself confused. Still, the action scenes take center stage. Casual viewers seeking a summer movie thrill won’t be disappointed, but the fans of the franchise probably will. It’s fun to see some cameos from favorite characters like Emma Frost and Gambit, though they don’t do very much. I hope that if filmmakers produce more Origins stories (I’d love to see X-Men Origins: Magneto), they get back to the roots of what drew us in to begin with. This time around, the heart and soul just aren’t there.


Click here to view the trailer

For the Parents:

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity.

The violence is comic book violence, meaning there’s next to no blood, but plenty of intense shootings, slashings, explosions, etc. The partial nudity is completely asexual, as Wolverine runs naked out of the facility where his metal claws are surgically installed.