Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

This entire site is about the common man, the every day moviegoer. As noted many, many times, I don’t have any qualifications to review movies at all – none! But it really gets to me sometimes, in this case in particular, when I read what the “critics” have to say about a film. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen isn’t a perfect movie, oh lord no. However, did we expect it to be? Did I? Hell no. Nevertheless, the critics have once again proven to me that they couldn’t recognize pure fun and adrenaline if it laid in their lap. With that short rant aside, the second installment in the toy-based series is a whole lot like the first – kick and ass. It’s big, it’s loud, it’s a friggin’ spectacle, Megan Fox oh man, and the most impressive thing – it kept my complete interest the entire running time of roughly 2:30 hours. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen tries to do a lot, and it succeeds a lot more than it fails. When I wrote my review for the first movie a long time ago, I said people should step back and recognize the pure fun and adrenaline Michael Bay delivered. Well, he went and did it again. Maybe better.

Oh yes, the action is absolutely fantastic, but it doesn't need to carry the entire film. Still amazing though. (Dreamworks/aceshowbiz.com)

One of the biggest knocks on this movie is that it’s just 2:30 hours of special effects, with robots smashing other robots into oblivion causing you as the audience to go into a state of complete and utter boredom after a little while. Now, I watched the entire movie and I was glued to the story the entire time. Yes, the story, there is one, a pretty cool one at that – like the first movie. It seems like a weird disconnect that the critics gave an OK to the first where they could have said there was little story there, but two thumbs down to this where it’s almost the same formula. I don’t get it. Bay and his writers did however up the ante, and the cash flow, for the action. One thing to sum it up is this: Transformers isn’t trying to be Saving Private Ryan, ok? Is it trying to be epic as hell? Absolutely, but it’s not reaching for something that it can’t grab, at least for the most part. There won’t be any best picture Oscars for this is my guess, and I feel like the filmmakers are OK with that – this is about a non-stop thrill ride. They succeeded mightily at achieving that.

Perhaps the singular thing that set the first movie apart from a lot of the other blockbusters that summer and previous summers too, was the humor. Shia LaBeouf nailed his neurotic kid role, the music in Bumble Bee, the quips between the government agents, etc etc. This is the area, the humor, where it did fail perhaps more than it should have. Let’s look at the good stuff first, and it starts with Shia. The movie takes place two years after the last one ended, and he’s entering college (but as you can guess, not for long). I don’t know what it is about this young actor, but he pretty much kills whatever role he’s asked to play (see: Disturbia, Eagle Eye, The Greatest Game Ever Played). His skitzed out, freaky, and downright bizarre antics, coupled with his oh so natural teen awkwardness brings the audience into his character a lot. And to really enjoy a character and care for that person in a movie that cost upwards of $200 million to make, is impressive, and says a lot about him. The other key to the many laughs in this movie was the returning John Turturro, as the former Agent Simmons. If you’ve seen Mr. Deeds or Anger Management, you already know what he can bring to the table. I actually think he’s capable of carrying a comedy by himself, but that discussion is for another time. But when it comes down to it, and perhaps a few people groaned during the movie’s last hour or so ending in Egypt, waiting for it to wind down, Turturro busts one-liner after one-liner that worked every, single, time.

LaBeouf and Turturro are the big guns when it comes to humor. LaBeouf is outstanding in general. (Dreamworks/aceshowbiz.com)

Now, for every good joke, it seemed like there was an equally weird or bad or drawn out joke, especially from the two, uh, gangster cars. I’m not entirely aware what the writers were thinking or even what Michael Bay was thinking to let these characters have so much screen-time. There have actually been quite a few articles written about how the movie is racist, and you can certainly pinpoint that argument to these characters. If people say the movie is loud or annoying, I’d blame it on these two. The biggest problem isn’t necessarily the God-awful “jokes” and voices they spewed out throughout the entire running time, but rather…why have them at all? I’m still scratching my head at the reason for placing them in the film. This was a swing and a miss effort. But as a whole, when you tie in the humor and the laughs I’ve talked about, and combine it with the sheer cleverness and unique look and feel to this movie, you forget the bad in place of all that good. Again, what made the first one special was how it sort of took itself seriously, but was still really different looking and funny. Revenge of the Fallen is just like the first installment – unique, different, and not a disappointing run-of-the-mill action flick that we’ve seen too often this summer so far.

What they call "acting." (Dreamworks/aceshowbiz.com)

I would be very saddened at myself if I didn’t briefly talk about Megan Fox. Oh yes, Ms. Megan Fox. Now, I am not one of those weird guys that thinks she’s the second coming, the absolute most beautiful and sexiest being on the planet. Frankly, I find Rashida Jones immensely more beautiful. I’ve had conversations with friends about this topic, but let’s just say this – the obsessive Megan Fox fans have won this battle over my judgement, at least while watching her in Revenge of the Fallen. My lord. Michael Bay has assets to work with, and he used them quite well – in a very low cut shirt and tight jeans (in Egypt too!). There have been recent quips between Fox and Bay about her “acting time” in the movie, but honestly, is there anything beyond her looks? C’mon. To awkwardly revert back to another point I made though and at the same time wrapping up my Megan Fox discussion, Shia LaBeouf is the key to this movie, hands down. He turned 23 years old a few weeks ago and already has shown the acting chops, in this movie and others, to be a staple in Hollywood for years to come. He was awesome.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen tries to be a very epic movie. Will it go down as this epic tale that will go down as one of the greatest ever? Yea, right. But at the very same time, it gives off a feel to the audience of “this movie is going to kick your ass with action, make you laugh, and if you like it, good, if not, whatever.” And for the most part, I’ve heard people are liking this movie, as they should. The action is absolutely unreal, but it doesn’t carry the movie, despite the unreal climax battle in Egypt. The humor is there, despite a few slip ups, and adds a huge element to this film that can separate it from a Terminator Salvation or something dry like that. It’s well acted, as weird as that sounds, and uses beautiful scenery as its’ backdrop. You don’t have to love Michael Bay, but you can’t deny his ability to make you have fun while watching a movie. This was a hell of a lot a fun in a number of different ways, and to put it quite straightforward – I don’t understand the critics. It’s not running for an Oscar, it’s a loaded action film that keeps your attention for two and a half hours…what more do you want? Oh well.

Does it try to be too epic? Maybe, but it still works somehow, and I'm ready for the third. (Dreamworks/aceshowbiz.com)

Lastly, I will say this: Revenge of the Fallen is a movie you have to see in theaters. I had the unique pleasure if seeing it in IMAX which was mind-blowing, but I’ve heard good things from regular theaters as well. I don’t necessarily say you have to pay the money to see it in theaters because it’s some 4-star masterpiece, but rather because of what it is and what it looks like. This movie just won’t be the same on a TV at your home, even if it’s an HD big screen thing.

The soundtrack to the movie is great too, and Linkin Park’s song is a great ending coupled with the true epic feeling that the final speech gives off. That concludes my review/entirely too long essay.

TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN: (out of 4)

Review: Public Enemies

It must have been interesting for the marketing team of Public Enemies to look at the 2009 calender a while back to try and find a date in the summer that worked. June 24 or 26? No no, that’s Transformers territory, it’d be annihilated. How about July 10? No, wait, that’s Bruno and that’s going to be huge. Fine, what about July 15? Crap, that’s Harry Potter. So after deciding on July 1, sandwiched between robots and a gay Austrian mockumentary, sharing a date with Ice Age 3D never sounded so good – this is exactly what they were hoping for. This movie should and will get all the fans who have been wanting a summer movie that isn’t all shiny and new looking, and completely brainless. It will attract the elderly, meaning 30 and above. It will also attract the legions of Johnny Depp fans, of which there are plenty. So with the movie out there’s only one question left: was it any good?

Although we don't learn much of his character, Johnny Depp's return to the silver screen is very enjoyable (Universal Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

Public Enemies is a very refreshing feel and look from the rest of the summer movies that have been churned out of Hollywood since early May. From Wolverine to Terminator Salvation and more, it’s all been big, epic action with super heroes or even typical family films too. Man, it’s getting boring. Setting a film in the 1930’s will certainly help your cause if you want separation from the rest of the pack. This film looks authentic, and while the actors deserve so much credit for that, the visuals the filmmakers used were outstanding. The outfits, cars, and accents were all seemingly straight out of Chicago around 1930 or so. It was as interesting as it was fun, and much credit goes to Michael Mann. The different angles and thoughts that went into each shot, every creative view, were no doubt approved or thought up by the acclaimed director. They worked for the most part and lent a great deal to the film’s authenticity.

When you talk about Michael Mann, you have to scratch your head at his resume – it’s hit or miss. There have admittedly been the misses in Miami Vice and Ali most recently. But the hits have been shot out of a cannon – Heat, The Insider, Ali, and Collateral. After viewing Public Enemies, it’s easy to see why this will be in the hit category for sure. While it isn’t as completely gripping as Collateral, or quite as interesting as The Insider, it holds its own for over two hours and is such a solid action film from start to finish. While Mann deserves credit, he has quite the habit of working with the right actors as well. Depp, Bale, and Marion Cotillard are the lead gems in this stacked list of talented actors.

'Enemies' was a strong rebound for Christian Bale after a disappointing start to the summer season. (Universal Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

Johnny Depp hasn’t been in a movie, unless you count voicing an episode of SpongeBob, since 2007’s Sweeney Todd and the third installment of Pirates. His unique presence is certainly fun to watch and there isn’t another actor that can nail down his ability and “coolness” quite like Depp can. There isn’t a ton to the background and substance of the character of John Dillinger, which I’ll get to, but Depp does what he can, and it works for the most part. He’s fast with a gun and with his words, he never hesitates, and he’s sly and smooth. But people have been waiting for Depp to come back, which isn’t exactly what you can say about Christian Bale. The once thought of ‘biggest action star on the planet’, after The Dark Knight, took a huge hit with the lackluster Terminator Salvation. First there the media frenzy that captured his on-set blow up, and the movie wasn’t that good either. Instead of waiting back and then getting back in the limelight, he jumped right in with Public Enemies. It was a wise choice, especially with his role. The film marketed itself around Depp and his character as it should have, so Bale and his great performance turned out as a rewarding surprise. He played his character with a certain humility and determination that stood out among the rest of the actors. It’s fair to say Bale is back in the game.

The one thing that I would complain about when it comes to Public Enemies is the lack of depth behind Dillinger’s character. You can tell that the intent of this film isn’t to be just another summer popcorn brainwash, but rather a smarter and deeper entry. The filmmakers may have wanted it that way, but the action certainly overtook any small effort of character development. There was no emotion felt when anything, good or bad, happened to him, and that hurt this movie for sure. On the flip side, the action was extraordinary. The gun fights were a true spectacle and rounded up a really solid summer action movie that was better than most, but not as good as the top few.

PUBLIC ENEMIES: (out of 4)

Transformers: Tearing Apart the Box Office

I just ordered my tickets for this Friday in IMAX, and wow – I am excited beyond belief. And while Public Enemies comes out Wednesday (excited for it, but not overly excited) and the 42nd Ice Age as well (no interest), I think the new Transformers will reign supreme.

Wed, June 24: $60.6 million (includes $18 million midnight showings, is 2nd biggest day ever)

Thurs, June 25: $28.6 million

Fri, June 26: $36.7 million

Sat, June 27: $40.6 million

Sun, June 28: $34.7 million

None of those are typos.

The poorly reviewed sequel has torn apart the box office and has $400 million domestic in sight. (Dreamworks/ign.com)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has grossed an estimated $112 million over the 3-day weekend, making it one of the biggest weekend openings ever, but more importantly, it grossed an absolute jaw-dropping total of $201.2 million over the Wed-Sun five day period. The total is just roughly $2 million less than the all-time record for a 5-day period, held by last year’s The Dark Knight, which totalled $203 million.

Oh yea, and it also made $187 million internationally, with other countries rolling out the film in days to come.

What’s most amazing about this box office smashing is the immunity to mediocre and bad reviews this film got. I think it’s currently riding a cold 20% on Rotten Tomatoes. People didn’t care one bit. And from the scattered positive reviews, and from many people close to me, it sounds like the first one but maybe better – awesome special effects, decent story but just a hell of a lot of fun. Really, could you ask for anything more?

Review: The Hangover

I know, I know, it came out almost a month ago. And yes I know, it’s already shattered every single expectation at both the box office (I think it’s almost at $175 million!) and with the critics. But to be so honest, I’ve been just insanely busy, and now have finally gotten around to writing my review for perhaps the funniest movie of the past few years. Yes, it was that good. I’ve seen The Hangover twice, and while I honestly can’t wait for the DVD to see it again and again, the memory of every little scene and quote is imprinted in me to this moment. The word of mouth for this movie is extraordinary, and for good reason. This comedy is unique, fall-on-the-floor hysterical, and just simplistic genius. So, how the heck did all that happen?

It’s a good question on how yet another movie about a bachelor party became one of the best comedies in some time. How did it become unique, how is it special? Well to put it quite easily, it’s not about the bachelor party at all. You see the four guys taking shots together, and that’s about it for male bonding. The rest is the most absurd yet creatively constructed wild chase you could imagine through vague memory. When I started seeing the heap of advertisements for this movie all over television, my initial thought was “eh, might be alright.” Then I did a bit of research and realized Todd Phillips directed it, who did Old School – a classic through and through – my eyebrows raised. Finally, I started hearing little rumblings here and there from critics and press that this movie has broken all standards or expectations in terms of laughs (and cash). I saw it, I loved it to death, and I’m here to tell you to see it.

The trio of Helms, Galifianakis, and Cooper are a mixture of comedy gold. (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

One of the most important things working for The Hangover is the beautiful dynamic between the three main characters: Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis). Unlike Old School before it, which had stars like Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn, so you knew what you were getting, these three guys are “B-listers.” They aren’t unknowns, but when you look at a Bradley Cooper all you can think is – “that’s the guy from Wedding Crashers, right? He was hilarious!” The same with Ed Helms – The Office. Galifianakis has done stand-up for years and is the most relatively unknown of the group with movie appearances just here and there. But their chemistry together isn’t something you can force at all, it’s apparent these guy: a) like acting with each other, and b) are all on to bigger and better things because of their chemistry and now, success.

Each actor brings a certain brand of humor to the table too, which makes it refreshing. It’s not all dry humor, and it’s not all slapstick. Bradley Cooper is the controlled of the three, the leader, and his slip ups and distaste for married life are pretty understandable. One of the first lines you hear: “Hey, you’ve reached Phil, I’m not here so leave a message. And don’t send a text message, that’s just gay.” Ed Helms is the edgy, on a leash boyfriend, who eventually comes out of his element towards the end. If you’ve ever seen Helms on The Daily Show or The Office, you know his musical range, as well as his ability to nail each emotion with hilarity. Finally, perhaps the ultimate scene stealer, Galifianakis is absurd looking as he is ridiculous acting. Beeper service. Carlos the baby. Holocaust rings. Skittles in his satchel. The list of quotes goes on and on and on.

The cameos from other Todd Phillips flicks makes it that much funnier. (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

It’s hard to fit into a little review all the things I loved about The Hangover. But to touch on another one of the things that made it so great, perhaps just for “hardcore” comedy fans of late, are the cameos and appearances by certain characters and actors from Old School and other recent comedies. Sometimes, bringing back the goods work the second time around, and this is certainly the case. The doctor in the hospital was the golfer employee in Old School. The Jewish guy on the elevator getting uh, some work done by his lady friend (who is actually the director, Todd Phillips), was the same exact guy asking for a gang bang in Old School. Perhaps my favorite was The Dan Band – the “…I fucking need you now tonight, fucking need you more than ever!” band at the wedding in Old School that set that movie off with an absolute bang. In that one, they took Total Eclipse of the Heart to new levels of hilarity. In The Hangover, they take a 50-cent song to insanely good levels, and cap the movie off with seriously good results.

Again, it’s tough to express how great some 2-hour comedy can be. So many summer movies, not just comedies, are forgettable quite easily – not this one though, not in the slightest. This will without a doubt be the next movie that’s quoted over, and over, and over. It’s already the next instant classic. It was more than I expected and then some, with some lines being inaudible because of laughter from the audience going nuts. Lastly, please stay for the credits – incredible.

THE HANGOVER: (out of 4)

Review: Up

I missed out on Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, Cars, Ratatouille, and Wall-E. Didn’t see one of ‘em. Yes, it seems that after the Toy Story movies, for some reason or another, my interest in Pixar movies faded fast. Maybe I thought they were too childish, or maybe I just had a hunch the stories were far fetched and there was no way I could connect to anything in them. *Slaps self in head* Looks like I’ll be renting quite a few titles after tonight.

Yes, this is the main character in the movie. Oh and yes, the same movie that tugs at your heart while making you laugh (Buena Vista Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

Up is a triumph in so many ways that it almost makes me want to start a rant on why animated movies should be considered for ‘Best Picture’ at the Oscars. That argument is for another time, and I might be getting ahead of myself. But to say it as simply as I can: this movie was perfect. It’s not for kids, nor is it for adults. This is an experience (yes, I saw it in 3D which made it that much cooler) that will resonate with a 5-year-old as it will with a 75-year-old. It was rejuvination into Hollywood, as Pixar apparently has a knack for doing every few years; a much needed break from the same old sci-fi action flick. Above all, it never lost sight of where it was headed. It was the most fun I’ve had watching a movie in a long time, and without a doubt, the most heartfelt and touching time I’ve had as well.

I feel like this whole Pixar thing might catch on soon; they’re getting quite good at storytelling for adults in a “childish” atmosphere. Now, granted the animation isn’t childish at all, but some might point to it that way and claim it as fact – take me for example, prior to tonight. But after watching Up, heck, even while watching it, you certainly get a good dosage of themes that aren’t for screaming babies and toddlers at a stupid new Eddie Murphy flick. This movie actually dealt with complex emotions, and it’s a fine line to try and walk if you’re Pixar to keep the young and old in the loop. They passed that test with flying colors as I’m sure the deeper sentiments went over the young ones’ heads. But I will honestly say, to all you anonymous Internet users, that I came close to shedding a tear quite a few times. And judging by the audience’s reaction, I wasn’t alone.

Honestly Pixar, how do you do it? Success again! (Buena Vista Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

Up isn’t exactly The Reader, however. It’s not a sob-fest, it’s a healthy jolt of remarkable fun and humor, mixed in with that other emotion and all. So, while tears may have been close at points, the laughter was there to balance it out ever so perfectly. Hell, take the main character for your first example: Carl Fredricksen…a 78-year-old grumpy man. Who the heck thought that one up? That’s Pixar’s creativity at work. A house that flies from balloons? Uh-hu. It takes you to the most extraordinary places with the most wild of characters. There is no shortage of laughter in this jam packed 90+ minutes, and you can attribute that to clever writing, and insanely good characters.

Visually speaking, Up is a success already. You wouldn’t even need a good story, memorable characters, or laughter and love. But all those things are what sepearates Pixar movies from well, the crappier animated attempts. However, the visuals, and again I’ll stress you do see this in 3D, are wonderful. This company has a look that’s well known by now. The faces, the cars, everything, it all seems familiar. Some may wave a hand, saying “give me something new”, but why fix what hasn’t ever, ever broken? Up continues the unreal success Pixar has had making children and adults come together to enjoy a perfect night at the cinema. And I need to go rent a few of the ones I missed.

UP: (out of 4)

Review: Terminator Salvation

This is not the future I imagined. A world of unbelievable special effects, used as a backdrop to a weak story. Uninspiring characters that offer close to nothing to the whole. A complete and utter lack of humor and cleverness, things made classics like T1 and T2 special. Terminator Salvation isn’t a bad movie, hell, it’s not even an “OK” movie – it’s pretty decent. But you just can’t be satisfied at all with something that’s this easily forgettable when you’re following in the footsteps of a classic film prequels. Sadly, as entertaining as it was, it wasn’t the movie I wanted it to be – one to remember in the Terminator series, the standout of the summer – it will be forgotten pretty quickly.

I wasn’t in love with the choice for McG to take the helm for the fourth installment in the Terminator series. Following James Cameron is near impossible, but the choice caused me to scratch my head just a bit. The guy’s resume isn’t exactly dazzling. His biggest directing accomplishments were the two Charlie’s Angels movies. He has been a producer on Sorority Forever, Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious, and the O.C. Now, those are a lot of great things he’s done and I’m sure he’s made his family (and wallet) very proud. But this is Terminator. And I’m not a fan-boy speaking here, I’m a critic. This is a serious action trilogy that people consider way up there in prominence. The chance to direct a film of this magnitude is a huge mountain to hurdle, and McG was certainly not the right choice after seeing the film. He did a lot of things wrong. He spent the $200 million budget on special effects. He cast poor actors in all of the supporting roles. He used nothing of substance that drew you in to any of the characters and almost left the entire story out to dry. Again, this movie wasn’t awful, this review may sound that way, but given the name of it, the prestige that should come with it, it’s a massive letdown.

Overloading on special effects aren't what made the first two in this series so unique, and it ended up failing this installment (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

The special effects in some movies are enough to save the entire project. Think Pirates of the Caribbean 2. That movie stunk in all intensive purposes, but looked really cool. In this film, the special effects are off the charts. I’m not sure if there’s a stretch of over 2 or 3 minutes where you don’t see something you’ve never seen before. It was quite amazing to witness. But let’s do a quick comparison when talking about the story that has to couple the action. In this year’s Star Trek, there was enough special effects to just write a crappy script and call it a day, and some people would be satisfied. But the story was compelling, it drove itself forward by the characters in it, not by the action surrounding them. Go back to Terminator Salvation, where the characters serve as a backdrop, spitting out one line at a time, shooting guns and not much else. It’s almost a waste of money on the special effects if the story isn’t considered much at all.

Contrary to what you’ve read in this review, there were effective characters in the movie, and not who you might think either. The two standouts were Anton Yelchin and Sam Worthington, whom I’ll get to in a moment. Christian Bale originally said a big fat ‘no’ to this movie due to the apparent lack of character development and story. Once it was tweaked, he signed on. Now, Bale is one hell of an actor, and that’s not just Batman stuff either. Think The Prestige, The Machinist, and 3:10 to Yuma to name a few. But he was given crumbs in this one, unable to flex his acting muscles really at all. He was dirty, and aggressive, and kick ass, and altogether solider-like. But it was almost like a broken record at points. He certainly had his moments that opened my eyes, but they were too few and far between. His role was far too narrow for him to break out too much. Now on the other hand, underwhelming supporting actors aside, Anton Yelchin and Sam Worthington were great. Yelchin, who was in Star Trek as well to give him the best summer of his life, played Kyle Reese – Bale’s dad. Wierd, yes. A lot of times, the facial expressions an actor can give will often substitute for any words they could have said, in good and bad ways. Yelchin was terrific in what he didn’t say, playing a beaten down, but driven protector of another war refugee. His face read that of someone who has fought their last battle but knows they have to go on, not for their sake, but everyone else’s around them. He was compelling in his approach at survival, and in somewhat limited screen time, made the most of his role.

Sam Worthington was the shining star in this movie, and carries just about every scene he's in (Warner Bros/aceshowbiz.com)

Worthington on the other hand, was getting all the hype prior to the film being released, and for good reason. The young actor stole the show in this one, and you can see him in James Cameron’s first movie since Titanic this December in Avatar. Wow. As half machine, half man, sort of terminator, Worthington was the only humor the movie had. For such a clever franchise, that has made me laugh out loud in the other movies, it was a shame to see the humor almost disappear. But Worthington was funny when he had to be, and extremely good on the serious end when he had to be. The movie starts with him, and pretty much ends with him – and that’s only right, as he set the tone on both ends. His journey is the only one you as the viewer should really end up caring about. His emotions aren’t forced, but come across as true and well acted. He kicks ass too, but his character’s confusion and reluctance are terrific flaws that were played to perfection.

Did I want more? Yes. Would I have liked it to be way better? Absolutely. It didn’t suck, as noted, it was pretty good. But I wouldn’t see it another time, and I’ll likely forget about it by the end of the summer. That’s not how a Terminator movie should be. Unfortunately, special effects stole the show and never gave it back to the story – that could have been so well told, and so unique. This isn’t the future or T4 I imagined, but in the distance lies T5, another sequel in this series’ epic line of action films. My one hope is that they remember what made the first two so damn good, and skew away from T3 and Terminator Salvation.

TERMINATOR SALVATION: (out of 4)

Review: Star Trek

Well, I don’t believe it: I feel like a Trekkie. Joking of course, as the chances of that happening are as good as me paying money to see Dance Flick. But the bottom line is this – I’ve never been a fan of the Star Trek television shows or movies, and have never had any real interest in the subject matter at all. But just like he did with an albeit smaller project in Cloverfield, J.J. Abrams surprised me again with Star Trek, a really fun warp speed ride that a non-Trekkie could enjoy just as much as the diehards.

There is no let down when it comes to special effects in this movie (Paramount Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

The re-booting of a franchise is what seems to be the hot idea these days, and why not, with The Dark Knight grossing over $1 billion worldwide, movie studios and executives are hoping for that same effect with their story. The story of Kirk, Spock, and Scottie has been, well, “dead”, for a number of years now to put it plainly. Shoved to the back-burner after years and years of movies and shows, Abrams (Lost, Alias, Cloverfield, etc) decided to give it a go. Just like other successful reboots, not Dark Knight in this case, he cast no-names to truly start fresh. That was his first, and possibly best choice in the whole darn process.

I don’t know why but watching the movie trailers for Star Trek and the television spots, I kind of found Chris Pine (Kirk) annoying. His performance was quite the opposite. While Zachary Quinto, who played Spock, gave a good showing of the Vulcan with no emotion – not much to do with that role really, Pine was dynamic in his representation of the ship’s eventual captain. Funny, sly, and cocky are just a couple of words to describe Shatner’s replacement. But when it came down to serious business, his action chops were as good as his one-liners.

A mostly no-name cast worked wonders for Abrams' reboot (Paramount Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

Visually, the film is absolutely dazzling. The space sequences are obviously incredible, but even more than that, I found the shots on Earth even more amazing. There are simple scenes in any movie that can be imprinted on your memory for one reason or another as unique. In Iowa, yes…Iowa, while Kirk drives past fields on his motorcycle, the far off distance shows the scary-tall towers and operations of Star Fleet. It’s a quick shot, over in just over 5 seconds, but the link between this world and the one we live in today is really cool to look at. That scene aside, the actual Star Fleet academy is another shining star in this movie jam packed with special effects. The bold, slick design of the buildings and atmosphere clash brilliantly with the dirty, menacing shots of Eric Bana’s ride of evil.

On Rotten Tomatoes, Star Trek clocks in at a mind-numbing 95% – a number so high, that Pixar hopes to do reviews like that (and they probably will). While I don’t think this movie is an all-timer, one to be remembered for the ages, it’s exactly what you want from an action movie all around. It’s fun, and it’s funny. It’s action is back and forth at a dizzying pace. The cameos and references to older generations Star Trek are fun and really do put a smile on your face. It’s a perfect summer blockbuster, and a hell of a ride the whole way through.

Oh oh, and by the way, as a last minute tangent: great casting overall. Simon Pegg is hilarious, Anton Yelchin is really good, and Zoe Saldana, well, wow.

STAR TREK: (out of 4)

Review: Angels and Demons

The taste of The Da Vinci Code was still very much in my mouth. This one took a hefty $150 million to make. The book adaptation cost the most ever at a tag of $4 million. It was sandwiched between Star Trek and Terminator. With expectations so much lower than just a few years ago, when Dan Brown’s smash hit novel The Da Vinci Code hit theaters, given all these obstacles, it couldn’t possibly do well…right? Surprisingly, wrong.

Let’s address the other few points before getting to the Da Vinci factor here. First off, whenever a movie costs that much money to make, it had better look good, at the very least. Check. The visuals of Vatican City (which was actually a replica constructed by the filmmakers, as they were banned from the actual V.C.) are stunning and left me completely awestruck. But within the wide shots were the small details, like the Vatican library (also fake). It just dazzled on screen, mixing history with technology in the most interesting of ways.

Better than Da Vinci? Much, much...much better (Columbia Pictures/aceshowbiz.com)

Also, something it’s predecessor lacked (actually, this book is the predecessor, but you know what I mean) was some quality action sequences, and by God, this movie was full of them. It was a ticking time bomb of a movie, taking place mainly within the span of around 5 or 6 hours. When you write a movie like that, there literally isn’t enough time for the drawn out boring sequences Da Vinci had. This film was set up quite well, and quickly at that, and then rocketed into action. With multiple car chases, gruesome deaths, and gun fights a plenty, Ron Howard corrected the mistakes he made a few years back.

The one thing that was still not working were those corny little one-liners from Tom Hanks professor Langdon character. I mean, we get it as an audience, he’s a smart, hip, Harvard professor. But they weren’t funny, they caused quite the weird silence, and well, they just didn’t fit. It could have taken itself a little more seriously without them, even though Howard and co. probably thought injecting just a bit of humor was a good idea. But what they may have overlooked was the terrifically dark action film they had on their hands – no humor was needed at all.

Let’s now compare Angels and Demons to Da Vinci. In a word – better, Angels that is. It was better in style, in substance, and in action. It left out the dryness, the painstakingly boring and drawn-out conversations, and injected itself with a fresh breath of suspense and cleverness. The characters were more engaging. McGregor was convincing and fantastic. The visuals were better. Everything was just a huge step up. Now, I know that the claim “this is better than the Da Vinci Code” isn’t saying a ton, but when I compare the two, it’s almost not even fair to compare the them at all. It’s a completely different movie, and while it wasn’t utterly fantastic, it was what these books should be, it was entertaining and smart. It was fun at the movie theater during the summer and heck, that’s all I’m asking for right now.

ANGELS AND DEMONS: (out of 4)

Review: The Soloist

There haven’t been many reviews I’ve had to write that are tougher than this one. Heck, watching the movie in itself was a battle. And this is all because of the book, written by Steve Lopez (played by Downey, Jr.). Not only was the book inspiring, heartbreaking, and incredible, but it was written with such grace and detail that it was a true masterpiece in my opinion. So separating the book from the movie is insanely hard for me to do. If I judged this movie next to the book, it would get maybe 1 star out of 4; but this is a movie review, not a book review. So here goes nothin..

The two main actors in the movie, Robert Downey, Jr. and Jamie Foxx, were each terrific and spot on in their respective roles. I’ve never seen Steve Lopez talk in real life, but my father and others have, and have told me he’s funny, witty, and sarcastic. Downey, Jr. pushed those buttons quite well, and at times even came off a bit annoying in contrast to any of the other characters. On the other side we have Jamie Foxx, who after his role as Nathanial Anthony Ayers, the homeless musical legend, had to seek psychiatric help. This role was so demanding on him, playing a schizophrenic, that he was close to breaking down completely. I’m not sure some of the subtleties Foxx portrayed were fully appreciated by the audience. The weary but hopeful eyes, the scary rage and distant mind, and the complete abandonment of “normal” human interaction, in various scenes. He was the true bright spot in this movie, and while he was tested to the full degree, I would have liked to see more of him, as the movie focused on Lopez quite a bit. But then again, how do you relate to the audience from the mind of a mentally ill homeless person?

There are scenes that absolutely floor you; but they're few and far between. (Dreamworks/aceshowbiz.com)

Ok, I’m sorry, but I have to quickly point out just three things from the book that the movie certainly could have done better. The first is opening the audiences eyes to Skid Row, where Ayers often sleeps at night – one of the most horrifying and inhumane places in not just L.A., but America. That in itself could have been made into a feature film. The cops don’t touch it, the city ignores it, and the worst you can possibly imagine occurs there every day. This is where our character lives, and I think that could have been useful. Second, the transition from the streets to LAMP, where Nathanial eventually sleeps near the end, was far too hasty. If anything was taken from the book and used too quickly, it was this. The transition of a mentally ill patient living on the streets for 30 years, moving into a safer “community” home, took a year in Lopez’s book, and wore greatly on him and many others. Lastly, I would have loved to see the interaction between Lopez and Ayers’ father who lives in Arizona. For those who read the book, it’s understandable why that could be crucial.

Now granted, the movie can’t be 4 hours long. And granted, you just can’t stuff 200 plus pages worth of story into a movie; you’ll never get out of the filming stage. With that said, I thought for the most part the movie was moving at too quick of a pace. Again, this has nothing to do with the book or anything like that, just the movie. It jumped from scene to scene, from flashback to flashback, without much meaning of each scene by itself. There were effective parts to it without a doubt, some that really grabbed you emotionally and slammed you to the back of your seat. But it skipped around the issues, the feelings, and the main objectives just a bit too much. The movie never allowed itself to develop under any one issue, before moving on with the plot. All of this clouded the good acting, and potentially great movie.

Jamie Foxx, just thinking back one last time, really was outstanding. He should perhaps be kept in the minds of people during awards season. Amazing job.

THE SOLOIST:  (out of 4)

Review: Wolverine

Way, way back, before comic book movies were keeping Hollywood afloat at the box office (along with Pixar I suppose), that industry decided to get its feet wet in a big way with X-Men. The first of what would be a trilogy of movies, was absolutely spectacular. Then came the sequel, X2, which was possibly better than the first. Then, because of money, they made X3. Let’s just say…I really wish they hadn’t decided to make that one, boy was it awful. I don’t know what it is about these recent 3rd’s sucking – X3, Spiderman 3, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Matrix Revolutions - but this followed suit. So the reboot of the franchise perhaps, came in the form of its most marketable character in Wolverine. After a bit under two hours of watching this movie, I feel a little sad that my interest in X-Men movies has gone completely out the door.

I’ll start off by saying that this movie wasn’t a complete and utter bomb, it was leaps and bounds ahead of the before mentioned X3. But even so, when this movie was at its best, it was sandwiched between corny scenes or ones that left you laughing when you shouldn’t have, or just flat out stupid ones. The good moments, as they say, were few and far between. The action was pretty cool, but even the special effects at times looked a bit off. I don’t know how to describe it, but even in the climax, when you want it to look pristine, something just wasn’t right. But there were good parts, and Liev Schrieber was pretty good given what he had to work with.

When it started with scenes like this, I knew it was going to be a long evening (20th Century Fox/aceshowbiz.com)

Ryan Reynolds. Now, it’s true, he wasn’t in the movie for an enormous amount of time, but why…why? I can’t imagine the person in charge of casting…”Who can we get to really fill an important spot in this huge action blockbuster? How about Ryan Reynolds! He’s proven himself!” Yikes. The guy has played the same exact role in every movie he’s been in, and it annoys me every time. At least he was consistent, as he annoyed me in this movie, and left me scratching my head as to why he was in it at all.

Alright, here’s probably one of the biggest stains that this movie had – the epicness. Director Gavin Hood and co. must have thought that this was perhaps the most important movie of all time judging by some of the shots – and it didn’t take long to make me realize it was going to be that kind of movie. Someone dies, a person clutches them in their arms, and then the ultimate epic shot — they look up at the sky, scream at the top of their lungs, and the camera is above them slowly zooming out. I do not understand the need for this shot, especially in this movie. Speaking of not understanding something, I won’t ruin it for those who have yet to see the movie, but there’s a sequence of dialogue between Hugh Jackman and his lady friend that goes beyond the word ridiculous. It’s really hard to take a movie seriously when there’s lines that involve the moon like that.

That brings us to our main man, Wolverine, Hugh Jackman. I will say that he gave it his all in this one and really did come across as one angry, tough mo-fo. The lines he was fed from the screenplay hurt him a bit, but he kicked some serious ass in the action sequences. He did a good job, but was unfortunately unable to save the movie as a whole. I know it sounds like I’m completely poo poo’ing this film, but it was just disappointing. It’s probably worth the watch, but you’ll forget it soon amongst the myriad of summer blockbusters.

WOLVERINE: (out of 4)