Premise: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard get an unexpected surprise when they adopt Esther.
Stars: Vera Farmiga * Peter Sarsgaard * Isabelle Fuhrman
Story: Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard portray the Colemans, an American couple dealing with the aftermath of a stillbirth. Kate (Farmiga) has continuing nightmares and John is a little distant. They try to fill this perceived hole in their lives with the adoption of a third child, Esther (Fuhrman), from a local orphanage. Their two living children - Daniel and Max - react differently: Daniel is jealous and unwelcoming, while Max readily takes to having a new sister.
However, Esther has a secret that could threaten them all.
Review: The movie has a solid premise. An adopted child with a secret is a fundamental fear of most adoptive parents. Adoptive parents want to know the child is alright. They want to know the child will adapt well and come to be a loving, contributing member of the family. They also want to know that they are acceptable and loved themselves. However, when secrets are kept in the background, particularly secrets of abuse, murder, violence, etc., then it can turn a dream of having a child into a nightmare.
Orphan begins this way. There is an idyllic beginning with a slightly ominous overtone. But whether that's a natural fear coming to the surface, or something more sinister is debatable. But the premise of uncertainty is quickly removed when a class bully decides to pick on Esther for her way of dress and behaviour - and instead of keeping things hidden, in order to keep the uncertainty and intriguing nature of the child, a quick reveal lets the viewer in on Esther's secret - she's violent and manipulative.
The film brings up several subplots that could have turned this film into a top-notch thriller: John's (Sarsgaard) past infidelity, Kate's bouts with alcoholism, the orphanage's representative Sister Abigail has a violent encounter with Esther - these could all play into the uncertainty and intrigue of Esther's character. Likewise, Esther's background is only briefly referenced - any implication or causation of what made a child into a murderess other than simply stunted growth is thrown out the window. (Should the viewer take the idea that any dwarf is subject to violent tendencies?)
As an example. Kate has cultivated a rose bush that represents the stillborn daughter Jessica. Jessica's ashes fed the bush, so the emotional and psychological tie is there. John tells Esther to express how she feels about Kate. Esther cuts the roses from the bush, enraging Kate. This simplifies Esther; earlier she showed duplicity and manipulation, so why not order roses that look exactly like those of Jessica's rose bush? This would put the psychological onus on Kate, who could - if the story remained true to its premise - be turned into barely clinging onto her sanity.
Instead of building on the fundamental fear that parents have, the film turns into a typical slasher film with psychological overtones. It's a letdown.
Regarding the acting, Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard appear bored with the material. Aside from a few moments of intimacy and argument, one could easily replace both actors with any of the OC crowd as the roles do not require a lot of work once the adoption occurs. Fuhrman as Esther, however, really does captivate. While her "Lolita" appearance as she tries to seduce John are disconcerting, her transformation into her "authentic" self as the film wraps really does let Fuhrman appear older than her 12 years. While the film does try to maintain the psychological edge early on, it is again, her turn as Esther that keeps the film from falling apart. The rest of the cast - CCH Pounder as Abigail, the child actors playing Max and Daniel - perform ably.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saw VI (2009)
Premise: The sixth installment of the horror series adds new victims and backstories to the franchise.
Stars: Costas Mandylor * Tobin Bell
Story: Jigsaw and his apprentices are back! This film follows one main victim (Easton) and shows how his story affected that of Jigsaw himself. It also tracks the progress of one of Jigsaw's apprentices (Hoffman) in his efforts to continue Jigsaw's work as well as prevent the discovery of his identity.
Review: John Kramer AKA Jigsaw has been around for six films, even though he died in the third movie. Each installment in the series continues to flesh out John's life prior to becoming Jigsaw as well as introduce new ancillary characters (Easton), bring former characters new life (a presumed dead detective), and expand the motivations and roles of others (Jill Tuck, Amanda).
I honestly don't think I've seen a series where characters that are already dead have as much influence and appearances in the show with the actual living characters unless they are ghosts. And there's nothing supernatural about this film or the series.
Once again, the movie starts out with a twisted test of the desire to live. Again, a central character (this time William Easton, similar to Jeff Denlon in Saw III) must proceed through a series of tests that will determine who lives and who dies. Only this time, instead of tying characters to his desire for revenge, the characters are completely innocent (a couple of people this HMO VP would normally write off as DOA) or are complicit in his schemes to bilk the living of their money while denying care to the dying.
While a lot of sympathy is garnered for a few, the aim of the film is to clearly make the watcher believe that people are complicated, there are no clearly good or evil people. So do you root for the victims? Those willing to force such moral dilemmas upon the protagonist? And then the film throws enough twists and "Gotcha" moments in that there are very few people to identify with, so sympathy is a hard commodity to bargain with.
While points are worth mentioning, and the backstory of John Kramer himself is interesting, the film simply takes a path already followed by earlier films, adds no hero (or villain) to really root for, and loses its audience by the third act.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Costas Mandylor * Tobin Bell
Story: Jigsaw and his apprentices are back! This film follows one main victim (Easton) and shows how his story affected that of Jigsaw himself. It also tracks the progress of one of Jigsaw's apprentices (Hoffman) in his efforts to continue Jigsaw's work as well as prevent the discovery of his identity.
Review: John Kramer AKA Jigsaw has been around for six films, even though he died in the third movie. Each installment in the series continues to flesh out John's life prior to becoming Jigsaw as well as introduce new ancillary characters (Easton), bring former characters new life (a presumed dead detective), and expand the motivations and roles of others (Jill Tuck, Amanda).
I honestly don't think I've seen a series where characters that are already dead have as much influence and appearances in the show with the actual living characters unless they are ghosts. And there's nothing supernatural about this film or the series.
Once again, the movie starts out with a twisted test of the desire to live. Again, a central character (this time William Easton, similar to Jeff Denlon in Saw III) must proceed through a series of tests that will determine who lives and who dies. Only this time, instead of tying characters to his desire for revenge, the characters are completely innocent (a couple of people this HMO VP would normally write off as DOA) or are complicit in his schemes to bilk the living of their money while denying care to the dying.
While a lot of sympathy is garnered for a few, the aim of the film is to clearly make the watcher believe that people are complicated, there are no clearly good or evil people. So do you root for the victims? Those willing to force such moral dilemmas upon the protagonist? And then the film throws enough twists and "Gotcha" moments in that there are very few people to identify with, so sympathy is a hard commodity to bargain with.
While points are worth mentioning, and the backstory of John Kramer himself is interesting, the film simply takes a path already followed by earlier films, adds no hero (or villain) to really root for, and loses its audience by the third act.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Smokin Aces 2: Assassin's Ball (2010)
Premise: A prequel to Smokin' Aces; multiple groups of killers are out to collect on a contract.
Stars: Tom Berenger * Vinnie Jones * Tommy Flanagan
Story: Multiple bands of assassins, including the Tremor family, a beautiful solo assassin who poisons her victims, the master of disguise Lazlo Soot (from the previous film), and an assassin that specializes in knives known as The Surgeon all convene on a target protected by multiple FBI agents.
Review: The film is almost a direct rebuild of the first film. However, where the first film had a little originality, this film has none. A couple of interesting ideas (using actual human cannonballs, for example) are simply weighed down by the stereotypical character molds inherited from the first film as well as character roles previously played. Vinnie Jones plays a sophisticated killer specializing in tools of death. Sound familiar?
Avoid. Watch the first film and pretend this one doesn't exist.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie
Stars: Tom Berenger * Vinnie Jones * Tommy Flanagan
Story: Multiple bands of assassins, including the Tremor family, a beautiful solo assassin who poisons her victims, the master of disguise Lazlo Soot (from the previous film), and an assassin that specializes in knives known as The Surgeon all convene on a target protected by multiple FBI agents.
Review: The film is almost a direct rebuild of the first film. However, where the first film had a little originality, this film has none. A couple of interesting ideas (using actual human cannonballs, for example) are simply weighed down by the stereotypical character molds inherited from the first film as well as character roles previously played. Vinnie Jones plays a sophisticated killer specializing in tools of death. Sound familiar?
Avoid. Watch the first film and pretend this one doesn't exist.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Iron Man 2 (2010)
Premise: Shellhead is back.
Stars: Robert Downey Jr * Don Cheadle * Mickey Rourke * Gwyneth Paltrow * Scarlett Johansson * Sam Rockwell
Story: Tony Stark has announced he's Iron Man. The son of his father's Russian rival (Mickey Rourke), embittered at Stark's success, makes an attempt on Tony's life. Failing, he teams up with Stark's business rival (Sam Rockwell) to go after him again. Don Cheadle makes an appearance as Stark's best friend and Gwyneth Paltrow reprises her role as Stark's potential love interest/business partner/secretary. Scarlet Johannson and Samuel L Jackson appear as the Black Widow and Nick Fury, both working for SHIELD.
Review: Honestly, on first viewing I really liked the film. It's hard not to love Robert Downey, Jr. and his performance of Tony Stark. The action pieces were timed well and the eye candy - Johansson, the suits, the cars, Paltrow, occasional violence - was liberally sprinkled throughout. Rockwell, another immensely likable character actor, nearly steals the show from RDJ when they're together, and easily plays off the patient menace of Mickey Rourke. And Samuel L Jackson doesn't chew the scenery as normal, so the more cerebral approach keeps him from playing his normally hammy self.
The only performance that I felt was weak was Don Cheadle's as Lt. Col (simply Colonel early in the film) James "Rhodey" Rhodes. Cheadle's a great actor (Hotel Rwanda, for example), but he brings a stiffness to Rhodey in the film, one that wasn't there in the first film. Granted, there is a new tension between the two due to the machinations of the government to acquire the technology, so maybe this can explain the stiffness.
So the performances are pretty spot-on. The special effects crew also do a great job.
The problem this time, tho, is the writing. There are elements of the plot that make little sense. The "buddy fight" between Stark and Rhodey is completely not believable. The exposition in the film implies that Stark somehow knew Rhodey would go get the armor and attempt to "knock some sense" into him. The "accidental" blast where the two suits' repulsor beams hit each other, creating a shockwave of course is used later.
How did Vanko know that Stark would just walk out onto the race track and take his driver's spot? Vanko appeared in pit crew gear at the same time while Stark is getting in the car - yet doesn't appear hurried or scrambling to get into the clothes to infiltrate what was an unexpected set of events.
Vanko builds another set of constrictor whips on a suit of armor. If Vanko knew the suit specifications and language of the War Machine armor to lock it up, why not create a backdoor in case his original plan is hacked? To say, lock up the suit when he personally gets involved? Or turn it into a time bomb to explode? Any number of possible plot points arise from the notion that Vanko could at any time deal with Cheadle's suit. Or, for that matter, given that the suits worked the same, why not retro-engineer a code to take over Stark's suit?
When Vanko removes his helmet during the fight with Iron Man and War Machine, why didn't one of them simply shoot Vanko in the head? Why bother with the repulsor shockwave?
The blood poisoning. So it starts slowly and then takes a big giant leap when Stark does nothing noteworthy or any strenuous activity. It took a larger leap in a shorter amount of time (going to Monaco) than it did during all the flying and fighting of the previous movie put together. Shouldn't that be reversed?
The blueprints for a new element. Seriously? A map of an EPCOT Center ripoff (the Stark Expo) is somehow a new element design that just happens to resolve the blood poisoning? Howard Stark is supposedly dead a decade or so, the film is from the seventies (given Stark's age and the film technology) and somehow Stark Sr. foresaw the need for a new element that would save Tony's life? If it's just a new element that can't be synthesized yet, why not leave some notes in a safe for Tony? It's just a little far-fetched.
I liked it. It's fun, it's not very complicated and it doesn't really engage the brain beyond a few questions here and there. I call it an empty calorie movie, or a run of the mill popcorn flick. But it's not the equal of its predecessor.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Robert Downey Jr * Don Cheadle * Mickey Rourke * Gwyneth Paltrow * Scarlett Johansson * Sam Rockwell
Story: Tony Stark has announced he's Iron Man. The son of his father's Russian rival (Mickey Rourke), embittered at Stark's success, makes an attempt on Tony's life. Failing, he teams up with Stark's business rival (Sam Rockwell) to go after him again. Don Cheadle makes an appearance as Stark's best friend and Gwyneth Paltrow reprises her role as Stark's potential love interest/business partner/secretary. Scarlet Johannson and Samuel L Jackson appear as the Black Widow and Nick Fury, both working for SHIELD.
Review: Honestly, on first viewing I really liked the film. It's hard not to love Robert Downey, Jr. and his performance of Tony Stark. The action pieces were timed well and the eye candy - Johansson, the suits, the cars, Paltrow, occasional violence - was liberally sprinkled throughout. Rockwell, another immensely likable character actor, nearly steals the show from RDJ when they're together, and easily plays off the patient menace of Mickey Rourke. And Samuel L Jackson doesn't chew the scenery as normal, so the more cerebral approach keeps him from playing his normally hammy self.
The only performance that I felt was weak was Don Cheadle's as Lt. Col (simply Colonel early in the film) James "Rhodey" Rhodes. Cheadle's a great actor (Hotel Rwanda, for example), but he brings a stiffness to Rhodey in the film, one that wasn't there in the first film. Granted, there is a new tension between the two due to the machinations of the government to acquire the technology, so maybe this can explain the stiffness.
So the performances are pretty spot-on. The special effects crew also do a great job.
The problem this time, tho, is the writing. There are elements of the plot that make little sense. The "buddy fight" between Stark and Rhodey is completely not believable. The exposition in the film implies that Stark somehow knew Rhodey would go get the armor and attempt to "knock some sense" into him. The "accidental" blast where the two suits' repulsor beams hit each other, creating a shockwave of course is used later.
How did Vanko know that Stark would just walk out onto the race track and take his driver's spot? Vanko appeared in pit crew gear at the same time while Stark is getting in the car - yet doesn't appear hurried or scrambling to get into the clothes to infiltrate what was an unexpected set of events.
Vanko builds another set of constrictor whips on a suit of armor. If Vanko knew the suit specifications and language of the War Machine armor to lock it up, why not create a backdoor in case his original plan is hacked? To say, lock up the suit when he personally gets involved? Or turn it into a time bomb to explode? Any number of possible plot points arise from the notion that Vanko could at any time deal with Cheadle's suit. Or, for that matter, given that the suits worked the same, why not retro-engineer a code to take over Stark's suit?
When Vanko removes his helmet during the fight with Iron Man and War Machine, why didn't one of them simply shoot Vanko in the head? Why bother with the repulsor shockwave?
The blood poisoning. So it starts slowly and then takes a big giant leap when Stark does nothing noteworthy or any strenuous activity. It took a larger leap in a shorter amount of time (going to Monaco) than it did during all the flying and fighting of the previous movie put together. Shouldn't that be reversed?
The blueprints for a new element. Seriously? A map of an EPCOT Center ripoff (the Stark Expo) is somehow a new element design that just happens to resolve the blood poisoning? Howard Stark is supposedly dead a decade or so, the film is from the seventies (given Stark's age and the film technology) and somehow Stark Sr. foresaw the need for a new element that would save Tony's life? If it's just a new element that can't be synthesized yet, why not leave some notes in a safe for Tony? It's just a little far-fetched.
I liked it. It's fun, it's not very complicated and it doesn't really engage the brain beyond a few questions here and there. I call it an empty calorie movie, or a run of the mill popcorn flick. But it's not the equal of its predecessor.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Monday, July 20, 2009
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Premise: Harry and Company are back.
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe * Rupert Grint * Emma Watson * Michael Gambon * Alan Rickman * Jim Broadbent
Story: Harry Potter is back, along with Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Dumbledore and the rest. This time Voldemort is a background player, with the direct threats personified by Draco Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, and Severus Snape. A new professor comes to Hogwarts, Professor Slughorn, who holds a key to defeating Voldemort. Harry also develops a relationship with Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister, while Ron and Hermione go through the pains of teen love. In the end, Malfoy represents a threat not to Harry, but to Dumbledore himself.
Review: I'm not going to go into how the changes from the book drastically change the feel and tone of the movie. While a couple of important plotlines and pivotal moments remain, a number are changed or outright removed. Instead I'll focus on the weaknesses of the film.
Draco has been established as a whiny ne'er-do-well who is no serious menace to Potter, instead he relies on his thuggish companions and his connections to more powerful menaces to try and ruin Potter's life. In this movie, he is pretty much the same but is being used to represent the main in-story threat, aside from vague menace from a silent voiceless character who appears vaguely wolfish (Fenrir Greyback is the name and it is seen briefly on a newspaper) and Bellatrix Lestrange who appears a couple of times to try and embody Voldemort's threat at the beginning and end of the film. So the movie lacks a primary credible threat, as Potter has demonstrated multiple times before that he can defeat Malfoy through his wits.
The teen love that dominates the majority of the film is focused on Ron and Hermione. While the performance of Lavendar Brown is refreshing at first, it quickly becomes grating - as it does for Ron in the storyline. Hermione's love affair with Cormac McLaggen plays mainly as her avoidance of a boor who is simultaneously Ron's rival in Quidditch. Luna and Harry have a date, but Harry's eyes are kept on Ginny Weasley. The problem with both romances is that both female characters are played as lovestruck fools - and in Ginny's case mostly a cipher with no established character of her own. Hermione spends most of the movie in an amped up performance of her scenes in earlier films - crying and miserable.
Slughorn (Broadbent), however, is a refreshing change and is a scene stealer when he appears. In his dealings with Dumbledore and Harry, he provides a refreshing change from the teen angst that goes on elsewhere.
Dumbledore (Gambon) is no longer the pre-eminent, wise and seemingly invincible wizard he was in the earlier movies. From his first appearance, Dumbledore appears worn down and constantly weakening - which could be understood if one knew the context from the book, but which is not explained in the movie.
There are pivotal scenes retained from the book, but as a result of the editing presented in condensing a thick text, the film doesn't really captivate the audience, aside from the initial Pottermania euphoria which accompanies every film. As a result, this film feels more like a filler episode in a series, where characters are slightly fleshed out, but it only serves to whet the appetite for a follow-up film - in this case the two adaptations of the follow-up novel.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe * Rupert Grint * Emma Watson * Michael Gambon * Alan Rickman * Jim Broadbent
Story: Harry Potter is back, along with Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna, Dumbledore and the rest. This time Voldemort is a background player, with the direct threats personified by Draco Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, and Severus Snape. A new professor comes to Hogwarts, Professor Slughorn, who holds a key to defeating Voldemort. Harry also develops a relationship with Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister, while Ron and Hermione go through the pains of teen love. In the end, Malfoy represents a threat not to Harry, but to Dumbledore himself.
Review: I'm not going to go into how the changes from the book drastically change the feel and tone of the movie. While a couple of important plotlines and pivotal moments remain, a number are changed or outright removed. Instead I'll focus on the weaknesses of the film.
Draco has been established as a whiny ne'er-do-well who is no serious menace to Potter, instead he relies on his thuggish companions and his connections to more powerful menaces to try and ruin Potter's life. In this movie, he is pretty much the same but is being used to represent the main in-story threat, aside from vague menace from a silent voiceless character who appears vaguely wolfish (Fenrir Greyback is the name and it is seen briefly on a newspaper) and Bellatrix Lestrange who appears a couple of times to try and embody Voldemort's threat at the beginning and end of the film. So the movie lacks a primary credible threat, as Potter has demonstrated multiple times before that he can defeat Malfoy through his wits.
The teen love that dominates the majority of the film is focused on Ron and Hermione. While the performance of Lavendar Brown is refreshing at first, it quickly becomes grating - as it does for Ron in the storyline. Hermione's love affair with Cormac McLaggen plays mainly as her avoidance of a boor who is simultaneously Ron's rival in Quidditch. Luna and Harry have a date, but Harry's eyes are kept on Ginny Weasley. The problem with both romances is that both female characters are played as lovestruck fools - and in Ginny's case mostly a cipher with no established character of her own. Hermione spends most of the movie in an amped up performance of her scenes in earlier films - crying and miserable.
Slughorn (Broadbent), however, is a refreshing change and is a scene stealer when he appears. In his dealings with Dumbledore and Harry, he provides a refreshing change from the teen angst that goes on elsewhere.
Dumbledore (Gambon) is no longer the pre-eminent, wise and seemingly invincible wizard he was in the earlier movies. From his first appearance, Dumbledore appears worn down and constantly weakening - which could be understood if one knew the context from the book, but which is not explained in the movie.
There are pivotal scenes retained from the book, but as a result of the editing presented in condensing a thick text, the film doesn't really captivate the audience, aside from the initial Pottermania euphoria which accompanies every film. As a result, this film feels more like a filler episode in a series, where characters are slightly fleshed out, but it only serves to whet the appetite for a follow-up film - in this case the two adaptations of the follow-up novel.
Overall: Mediocre
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Premise: Autobots vs Decepticons again, with Sam Witwicky along for the ride.
Stars: Shia LeBouef * Megan Fox * Josh Duhamel * Tyrese Gibson
Story: A couple of years after the first movie, the Autobots and a multi-national team of soldiers have been hunting down Decepticon cells across Earth. Sam Witwicky has gone through school and is about to go to college. Unfortunately, a sliver of the AllSpark remained in Sam's jacket and imprints its language on Sam's mind. The Decepticons resurrect Megatron, contact their progenitor - the Fallen - and set out to recover that knowledge from Sam. Along the way, the Autobots have a falling out with a bureaucrat over apparent suspicions of loyalty once fighting breaks out.
Review: Honestly, this movie will keep your seat vibrating with noise, explosions, small thrills, and some gratuitous skin. But it will simultaneously kill brain cells. There should be a Surgeon General's warning on this film for anyone watching this film sober.
There are enough plot holes to drive a planet through. There are enough offensive stereotypes to generously offend every member of the audience - all ages and all races. This film is a literal 'screw you' to every fan of the original series, even while it throws in everything under the sun.
For a start:
There's the Decepticon Pretender which is a Species ripoff. There are giant steel testes. I say again, giant steel testes. Decepticons which previously were impervious to all but sabot rounds are now killed by random small arms fire. Autobot commandos - including Optimus 'the idealist' - hunt down Decepticons who have not harmed anyone - when it is later shown that Decepticons can choose to be Autobots if allowed to. A small Decepticon acts like a hormonal pooch. Two Autobots talk in hip-hop slang and have gold teeth. Transformer 'heaven' acts as a deux ex machina to save the day. A transformer with a beard and cane. A transformer that has been around for 10,000 years and is a SR-71 blackbird. Sam & Co. walk through the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC and ending up in an airplane graveyard - all of which are in the American Southwest. A key Decepticon from the first movie is brought in momentarily, only to be immediately be killed. Time is literally wasted on stoner humor of the wrong variety - did we need to see Mrs. Witwicky get high?
And lastly, a very unnecessary thong which illustrated Mr. Bay showing his ass to the audience.
I don't think everything is wrong with this film and I can point out a few good things. Robots fight. There are attractive people in the film. The lighting is masterful as always in a Bay film. Robots fight.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Shia LeBouef * Megan Fox * Josh Duhamel * Tyrese Gibson
Story: A couple of years after the first movie, the Autobots and a multi-national team of soldiers have been hunting down Decepticon cells across Earth. Sam Witwicky has gone through school and is about to go to college. Unfortunately, a sliver of the AllSpark remained in Sam's jacket and imprints its language on Sam's mind. The Decepticons resurrect Megatron, contact their progenitor - the Fallen - and set out to recover that knowledge from Sam. Along the way, the Autobots have a falling out with a bureaucrat over apparent suspicions of loyalty once fighting breaks out.
Review: Honestly, this movie will keep your seat vibrating with noise, explosions, small thrills, and some gratuitous skin. But it will simultaneously kill brain cells. There should be a Surgeon General's warning on this film for anyone watching this film sober.
There are enough plot holes to drive a planet through. There are enough offensive stereotypes to generously offend every member of the audience - all ages and all races. This film is a literal 'screw you' to every fan of the original series, even while it throws in everything under the sun.
For a start:
There's the Decepticon Pretender which is a Species ripoff. There are giant steel testes. I say again, giant steel testes. Decepticons which previously were impervious to all but sabot rounds are now killed by random small arms fire. Autobot commandos - including Optimus 'the idealist' - hunt down Decepticons who have not harmed anyone - when it is later shown that Decepticons can choose to be Autobots if allowed to. A small Decepticon acts like a hormonal pooch. Two Autobots talk in hip-hop slang and have gold teeth. Transformer 'heaven' acts as a deux ex machina to save the day. A transformer with a beard and cane. A transformer that has been around for 10,000 years and is a SR-71 blackbird. Sam & Co. walk through the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC and ending up in an airplane graveyard - all of which are in the American Southwest. A key Decepticon from the first movie is brought in momentarily, only to be immediately be killed. Time is literally wasted on stoner humor of the wrong variety - did we need to see Mrs. Witwicky get high?
And lastly, a very unnecessary thong which illustrated Mr. Bay showing his ass to the audience.
I don't think everything is wrong with this film and I can point out a few good things. Robots fight. There are attractive people in the film. The lighting is masterful as always in a Bay film. Robots fight.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Land of the Lost (2009)
Premise: A comedic sendup of the 1970s children's show.
Stars: Will Ferrell * Danny R McBride * Anna Friel
Story: Professor Rick Marshall (Ferrell) has become a laughingstock in the scientific community following his publication of a work where he puts forth the idea that artificially created wormholes will solve the world's energy crisis. Disgraced, he is visited by a graduate student, Holly (Friel) who believes in him and has become an outcast herself. She convinces him to test his idea at a local road sideshow, where Will (McBride) shows visitors his 'Devil's Cave' which is little more than runoff and waste.
Marshall's tachyon emitter (the device that is intended to create wormholes) actually triggers a wormhole, sending the three to the Land of the Lost, a kind of pocket alternate universe where the 'detritus of our universe' ends up - some aliens, a run-down motel, some primitive cave men, dinosaurs, and more.
The rest of the movie follows the trio's adventure as they attempt to recover the tachyon emitter, prevent the alien Sleestak from taking over Earth, and survive attacks by an intelligent tyrannosaur.
Review: The movie is a pastiche of typical Ferrell humour: stupid toilet humour, flabby belly jokes, getting stoned/drunk, whining loudly, and supposedly comical pratfalls. Ferrell follows his tried-and-true formula, of going for the easy laughs. His partners this time around, a smart-but-naive Friel and Danny R McBride (again playing his standard shtick) are respectively his foil/love interest and smartass sidekick.
Between boorish whiny Ferrell and boorish obnoxious McBride, it's clear where this movie was aiming. Unlike its brethren - the send-ups of The Brady Bunch and Starsky & Hutch - this movie doesn't aim for the brain, but for the belly. And for a while, it hits its mark.
Unfortunately, it just keeps going for the belly laugh over and over. Which gets old. Some jokes are simply unfunny. The plot with the Sleestak and the tachyon emitter is interesting, but is simply lifted from most films - bad guy wants the device, manipulates the protagonists to get it, protagonists save the day.
Friel is literally a waste in this movie, as the presence of an always-horny and perverted cave man - probably the funniest character in the movie - steals the show. Just not enough of it.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Stars: Will Ferrell * Danny R McBride * Anna Friel
Story: Professor Rick Marshall (Ferrell) has become a laughingstock in the scientific community following his publication of a work where he puts forth the idea that artificially created wormholes will solve the world's energy crisis. Disgraced, he is visited by a graduate student, Holly (Friel) who believes in him and has become an outcast herself. She convinces him to test his idea at a local road sideshow, where Will (McBride) shows visitors his 'Devil's Cave' which is little more than runoff and waste.
Marshall's tachyon emitter (the device that is intended to create wormholes) actually triggers a wormhole, sending the three to the Land of the Lost, a kind of pocket alternate universe where the 'detritus of our universe' ends up - some aliens, a run-down motel, some primitive cave men, dinosaurs, and more.
The rest of the movie follows the trio's adventure as they attempt to recover the tachyon emitter, prevent the alien Sleestak from taking over Earth, and survive attacks by an intelligent tyrannosaur.
Review: The movie is a pastiche of typical Ferrell humour: stupid toilet humour, flabby belly jokes, getting stoned/drunk, whining loudly, and supposedly comical pratfalls. Ferrell follows his tried-and-true formula, of going for the easy laughs. His partners this time around, a smart-but-naive Friel and Danny R McBride (again playing his standard shtick) are respectively his foil/love interest and smartass sidekick.
Between boorish whiny Ferrell and boorish obnoxious McBride, it's clear where this movie was aiming. Unlike its brethren - the send-ups of The Brady Bunch and Starsky & Hutch - this movie doesn't aim for the brain, but for the belly. And for a while, it hits its mark.
Unfortunately, it just keeps going for the belly laugh over and over. Which gets old. Some jokes are simply unfunny. The plot with the Sleestak and the tachyon emitter is interesting, but is simply lifted from most films - bad guy wants the device, manipulates the protagonists to get it, protagonists save the day.
Friel is literally a waste in this movie, as the presence of an always-horny and perverted cave man - probably the funniest character in the movie - steals the show. Just not enough of it.
Overall: Bad
Other Sites: Wikipedia * IMDb * AllMovie * Rotten Tomatoes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)