The End of the Page

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen – Loud, Proud and Utterly Ridiculous

Look out! The critics are coming!!

Rating: 3 out of 10

Everyone strap in, because we are about to go on a familiar ride, one we all took last summer and now we look back on with a mixture of sadness and nausea. Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen is already breaking records and is primed to repeat the scenario of last summer’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The spotlights are pointed to the ring and we all wait for the inevitable three-way battle between the critics, the movie fans and the head honcho himself, Michael Bay. This flick already grossed more than $60 million dollars in one full day of release, which gives it the auto-greenlight for a third chapter in the robotic roadhouse, but as fast as the ticket sales went through the roof, the reviews have mostly plunged into the floor, many of them nailing similar points and themes running through the movie. I can’t honestly say mine will sound all that different, but you never know, I may crack an original joke here or there.

Revenge of the Fallen continues the mission of the Autobots and their decision to help the people of Earth rid themselves of the terrors of the Decepticons. Unbeknownst to our shiny, metallic heroes, the Decepticons are on their own mission to find a long lost source of Energon, the fuel that keeps them going, and with it revive Megatron, bring their supreme leader, “The Fallen”, back to power and blow up the sun (that’s one hell of a daily checklist). Dragged back into the middle of the fray is Sam Witwicky who finds himself battling with his own mind and a frantic jumble of ancient robotic lettering, possibly leading the way to an ancient machine which will help in the destruction of the sun. It’s a chaotic fight to the finish in a battle not just for the planet, but the entire future of the Transformers race.

There are many who will argue that this movie shouldn’t be held to any real criticism. We should just go in expecting the story and plot to be nothing more than linking posts between the battery of beautiful robot beatdowns. The CGI is amazing and the transformers are all incredibly well-animated, but the drawback is we’ve seen this all before in the first flick. So the opening argument doesn’t hold. All in all the fight scenes began to wear thin towards the end of what was already a needlessly long movie (clocking in at two-and-a-half hours). Remember, this is Transformers here, not the futuristic version of The Godfather. Numerous scenes could have been cut and others drastically shortened in an effort to trim the fat, but the wizards behind the curtain were hell bent on making this one longer, louder and more insane in every respect over the original.

No matter what the movie is about, no matter how fantastic or silly the premise, story is king and it needs due respect, which Mr. Bay and his creative team chose to ignore in an astounding sense. What’s even more shocking about the terrible writing is the duo behind it, now responsible for one of the most disappointing flicks of the summer, is also the same wordsmiths behind Star Trek, without a doubt the best movie of the year so far. They have managed to swing the pendulum of quality from one extreme to the other in a matter of two months. Here’s to hoping their talent follows the laws of physics and swings back once more towards quality and awesomeness as they gather steam for Star Trek 2.

I’m not going to lay out a litany of complaints about the script since that would take up too much time and possibly give me carpel tunnel syndrome, but I will address the controversy surrounding the twin autobots, Skidz and Mudflaps, who are characterized as urban, street talking brothers originally in the form of a beat up Ice Cream truck until they upgrade to newer, slicker looking street cars. These two play directly to the twelve-year-old members of the audience giving them all the comic relief they could ever want, but for anyone out of elementary school the hip-hop heroes were the most racist stereotyping seen in years. It was bad enough when one of them transformed for the first to display a prominent gold tooth jutting out from its bucktoothed mouth, but then the paperthin veil was torn off when both of them shuffle-stepped nervously before admitting they were both illiterate. There’s been a lot of subtle finger pointing going on since the movie released about where these particular character traits came from, whether it was in the original script or changed in production, but so far there is no clear winner in the blame game. To me, it doesn’t matter where it originated, what matters is all the people up the chain who witnessed it, approved it and thought, “Hell yes, that is hilarious.” It was pointed out by another perceptive reviewer that we wouldn’t have even gotten close to seeing these terrible stereotypes if those characters were played by real black actors on screen, but since they were animated robots, suddenly that makes it all peachy keen. At this point with all the cash that will be rolling in this weekend, I predict Mr. Bay and the folks behind the movie to lovingly give the whole racist stereotyping controversy a nice big middle finger and giggle their way to the bank, but I reserve hope that maybe next time around they will think a little more about it before greenlighting characters audiences thought they left in the dark days of cinema.

There were a few glimmers of improvement though and they deserve mention. Shia LeBouf still manages to show his talent even when battling against a terrible script and entire football fields of green screen imagination-land. He’s cemented his star in the blockbuster world, but hopefully it will give him more time and power to make his way back over to drama and indie fare again. If you haven’t already, check out The Battle of Shaker Heights, if only for him, Amy Smart and Shiri Appleby. Josh Duhamel once again gave some true grit, but was barely seen in the overall length of the flick. John Turturro managed to shake of his incessant annoyingness from the first movie and become a reasonable comic foil this time around. Yet, the real surprise and honorable mention must go to Megan Fox. She transformed (pun intended) from the bitchy, unattainable sex-pot into a real person, a young girl with feelings and a cuteness I didn’t expect. She gets a few brief moments in between the massive mayhem to shine just enough to give me and other movie watchers hope that her talent extends farther than her reflection in the mirror.

Recommendation: Bigger doesn’t always mean better and this is silver screen proof. A two-and-a-half hour explosion concert is nothing when not backed up by a worthwhile and legible story. For those thinking IMAX is the way to go, please don’t take any drugs before hand. Your mind will most certainly be beaten into a colorful mush.

The Taking of Pelham 123: Slides Off The Rails

Go ahead, mention “Battlefield Earth” one more time. I dare you!

Rating: 3 out of 10

Remake, rehash, reboot; call it what you want, it all boils down to the same thing, this story has been seen before. Now that doesn’t imply automatic boredom or even a certain level of quality, all it means right off the bat is the audience will be coming in with a particular expectation set by the previous version of the story. How big the expectation is will depend on how popular the original film was and how recently it was in the theaters. Most second chances at the silver screen come more than ten years after the original version, but that gap seems to be closing in the last decade. Maybe it’s a statement about our national attention deficit disorder or it could be a comment on there being a complete lack of new and original ideas.

It also could resonate in our current economic climate as a safer bet in the eyes of the studio. The film has a built in audience, which at least a portion of them will certainly be curious enough to come out and see it in an updated fashion. But, beyond the financial aspect, someone in the studio, whether it be the director or the writer or whomever, must think they have something new to add, some new take on the tale to make it worth all the time and energy to return it to the screen. On occasion they do follow through and allow us to see some entirely new dimension we previously looked right past, but in a number of examples the new version just proves to be flashier CGI and more contemporary actors, nothing at all to do with the story. In the end, the eternal question, looking past the bank accounts, is “Was it worth it?”

In today’s example, I would say not.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an action/thriller about a random New York City subway controller who gets unwillingly pulled into becoming a hostage negotiator when a ransom plan for a carload of subway passengers is hijacked underground. It’s a psychological tug-of-war between a devious and determined kidnapper and a seemingly moral citizen who can’t help but try and do the right thing. Each step along the way leads to bigger consequences as lives are lost and the money in play skyrockets until the whole world is tuning in to see how it will all end.

The original version of this was released in 1974 starring Walter Matthau as the unassuming hero and Hector Elizondo as one of the gang of hijackers. There was also a TV movie version in 1998 that tossed in Edward James Olmos as the good guy and Vincent D’Onofrio and Donnie Wahlberg as members of the gang. This new millennium version posts Denzel Washington in the hero role and counterparts him with John Travolta as the leader of the gang. The early versions were much more based around tension and intrigue, while this one went after it with more action, fast editing and hyper-kinetic camera tricks to infuse energy into the story. One of the other main differences was the hijackers were originally only named by color (possibly the inspiration for the same decision in Reservoir Dogs), but this version skipped out on that plot point altogether.  Tony Scott, the director of this installment, definitely retained his current style of loud noises, quick cutting and washed out coloring to instill a raw, edgy reality to the universe, but it didn’t feel like it added anything new to the story. I appreciated his visual stylings much more in Man on Fire, with Domino a close second.

As for the performances, Denzel Washington rarely disappoints. He is near the top of any list when thinking about an ordinary character put into extraordinary circumstances. He really embodies the everyday man having to rise up and take on situations way beyond his normal expectations. Even when playing the bad guy, as in John Q., he still relies on his ability to connect with the blue-collar movie watcher and portray that reality on screen. Yet, with all that said, being the best part of this film doesn’t give him a huge boost. On the other side of the punch card is John Travolta, who turns in a slightly less than believable performance as the criminal mastermind. Some of his issues can’t be discussed without giving away plot twists, but let’s just say he doesn’t fit the bill once the story is unraveled. Also, I’d have to go back to the other versions to see if this was present, but Travolta made an unusual amount of references to the attractiveness of Washington, both in person and over the phone. At a certain point in the film I wondered if Travolta would switch the ransom demand from large amounts of cash to a single date with Washington. I can easily and happily give Travolta his due credit when his performances merit it, as in Michael, Pulp Fiction and Face/Off, but this time out he pales in comparison to his co-star and borders on the ridiculous.

Recommendation: Not a great outing for Scott, Washington or Travolta. Avoidable on most accounts. Maybe catch it on HBO someday if you don’t feel like getting off the couch and you’ve already drained your TiVo.

Up: Pixar Soars Into the Clouds Once Again

These Jehovah’s Witnesses are getting really aggressive. Sheesh…

Rating: 9.5 out of 10

Very few movie companies can step to the plate time and time again and still manage to knock it out of the park. Inevitably somewhere in the line-up, one film will falter and bring people’s expectations back to the land of reality, but Pixar is bucking that trend, keeping their level of quality and integrity far above the rest of the pack. There were some who said they stumbled with Cars, but in terms of box office and DVD profits, it actually beat out the original Toy Story and A Bug’s Life. Up to this point, nothing they have released has generated less than $350 million dollars, which ranks pretty high in terms of a solid track record. Floating calmly into the skyline of the summer movie season, Pixar continues it’s impossibly amazing track record with Up.

Up is a story of love, loss and rejuvenation for one cranky old man named Carl Fredricksen. A born adventurer, Carl finds himself alone and on the verge of losing his home, when he makes the life-altering decision to follow the dream set out by him and his wife to live on the edge of a cliff in a mysterious place called Paradise Falls. Not seeing any reason to leave his house behind to be destroyed by corporate construction companies, he attaches his house to hundreds of balloons and off he goes, soaring into the great beyond. Things get a little complicated, as things are prone to do, when he finds an accidental stow-away, the excitable and determined Russell, who just wants to help an elderly person with anything and receive his final scout badge. This unlikely duo goes with the wind and finds adventure, excitement and danger beyond their wildest imaginations.

Oh, and there are talking dogs. (That’s pretty much enough to get me into a movie theater right there.)

From the top, Pixar brings out the big guns and does what they do best, completely visual storytelling. Including yet another hilarious short film in front of the movie, an early montage showing Carl’s early years is shown with only music and no dialogue at all. No matter how long it has been since the age of the silent movie, the power of visual storytelling will never lessen. Just look back to last year with Pixar’s last effort, Wall-E, which ran through nearly 25 minutes of the film with rarely a word spoken. The main character had a total vocabulary of maybe a dozen words, yet viewers all around the word understood and loved him nonetheless. I can only hope the people in the live action world are watching and learning from the thought and effort put into these animated masterpieces and pull some of that into the more common mainstream films.

Right next to the genius of silence, Pixar also triumphs in the bringing to life of animals and inanimate objects. In Up, we meet Dug, a rambunctious, joy-filled dog who can talk due to the technology of the collar around his neck. He loves and devotes himself to anyone he perceives to be his master, but learns that some masters are better than others. Also joining in the roving gang of adventurers is Kevin, named such by Russell, who is a rather large, colorful and rare bird thought by most of the world to not exist at all. Kevin squawks, sings and does all the playful things we want from a Pixar pet and fits in very nicely to the tone and humor of the film. Kevin is also on a quest, which leads the gang into more trouble and excitement, but I can’t tell you what the quest is without giving away major spoilers. Deal with it.

Recommendation: This is another in a long string of hits for the Pixar gang and in my opinion only falls short to Wall-E and Finding Nemo (honestly, has there ever been a funnier character than Dory?). The movie is out in 3D as well, which was how I saw it, but I didn’t find anything in the film to be particularly amazing with the extra dimension. So save a couple bucks on the glasses rental and see it regular digital 2D.

Indeed, Love is a Battlefield

Come on wind, don’t die on me now. *Pfooooo….pfoooo….*

To many around the country and even beyond its borders to the outside world, the fight for marriage equality centers around the formerly progressive state of California and the infamous Prop 8. Prop 8 was voted on and narrowly approved in the November elections, thereby banning same sex marriages in the state. Less than a week ago, a decision was handed down by the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8 by a vote of 6 to 1, leaving the ban in place, while a small note of logic and compassion slipped through allowing the nearly 18,000 same sex couples who were married in the brief time of legality to stay married in the eyes of the California legal system. In the amazingly harmonic words of the Canadian a capella group, Moxy Fruvous: “Can’t really call that a loss or a win?”

Let’s be frank here, it was a step back on the road to equality, even with the already performed marriages upheld. Supporters of equal rights for same sex couples rallied all over the state on the day of the decision, chanting and yelling, doing anything they could to keep their spirits up and not let themselves get crushed under the angry, fearful bus of bigotry and discrimination that just ran over them once again. For those of us on the side of equality, we knew this decision was likely. The Supreme Court has a great tendency towards not overturning what they describe as “the will of the people,” but we also knew the justices are all human beings, with the same faults and the same fears, one of which is being looked at unkindly by history and handing down a mass divorce decree for 18,000 couples would certainly not look good in the record books. Being prepared for the likely answer didn’t make it any less disappointing, but it did allow plans to be put in place in case things fell in that fashion.

The discussion now surrounds whether or not to bring the issue back to the ballot in 2010 or 2012. I completely understand the facilities needed to fight this and the finances which must be drawn to keep pace with those who want to see the ban stand, but I can’t see any downside to pushing forward and bringing the fight in 2010. Even if we lose once again, I feel confident ground will be gained and it will only bring us that much closer to success in 2012 (if necessary).

Let’s look at the facts here once more, just as a refresher:

- Although many opponents of same sex marriage use religious rhetoric and diversionary fear tactics, this is not a religious fight. The church has nothing to do with who gets married. The church, synagogue, mosque or temple, doesn’t issue the marriage certificate. In fact, they cannot even officiate over a marriage without getting the aforementioned certificate sent to them by the state. This is a government issue and religion has absolutely no place in the argument.

- Although the case brought before the state supreme court was ill-framed, the fact remains their job is to interpret the law and ensure it is fairly enforced over all its constituents, not just the narrow majority. One of the main roles of government is to ensure the rights of the minority are not trampled on by the majority and this is point for point the failing in this case, not only in California, but nationwide. Beyond the whooping and hollering by both sides here in California, this issue should never have been left in the hands of the states. How can we ever say one state has the right to control who you love while another state doesn’t? Love is not a statewide right, like being able to smoke in a bar. Love is a civil right, one due to every citizen of this nation, no matter if they stand under the rainy clouds of Seattle or bask in the sultry sun of Key West. It is the basic human right to have your love for another person recognized by the government and take part in all the benefits wrapped up in that acknowledgment. There is a case being brought before the Federal Supreme Court now, launched just days before the decision to uphold Prop 8, and the two lawyers arguing for same sex equality are top people from each side of the landmark Gore v. Bush case, which awarded Bush his first term in office. These guys know what they are doing when they approach those hallowed halls of justice and those on the side of discrimination have no clue what is coming their way.

- In most states gay couples can petition and be granted the right to legally adopt children, but are denied the right to marry. Think about that for a second. How does this support a cohesive family unit, one so desperately protected by those against gay marriage?

- Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, was quoted after the California Supreme Court ruling saying: “Marriage is worth protecting because it is the way we teach the next generation: children need mothers and fathers.” So, to all those single parents out there thinking right now you are doing everything you can to provide for and love your children, guess what…you’re not enough. You’re not traditional and “nuclear”. You can’t possibly fully provide a loving and nurturing home for your children because you are only half as good as a gender balanced couple. Thanks for trying though. Please drop your kids off at the nearest adoption clinic so they can be fed into the foster care system until they’re eighteen years of age and dropped back into the world alone.

- The national divorce rate is 50%. What exactly is being torn apart by allowing more people the shot at having long fruitful, respectful and loving relationships? Does it look like the heterosexual population is really, truly respecting the “traditional” values of marriage? Those people who wave the banner of sanctity in marriage can come and talk with me once they legally shut down 24-hour drive thru wedding chapels officiated by Elvis impersonators. Reinstill respect and tradition for the straight world first before claiming the gay world is ruining it. Some of the couples who have taken advantage of the right to marry, in California and the handful of other states who recognize it legally, have actually been together for thirty years or more, just waiting and hoping for the day to make it legal and gain the respect and rights of thier country. I would love to see a statistic of how many straight couples make it that long without officially tying the knot.

President Obama did make a number of statements during his campaign pledging support for the rights of gay people all over the nation, both in regards to civil unions and marriage equality and in the realm of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which forces gay soldiers to hide their true self in order to serve and not be discharged. He has not made a lot of headway on these issues during his brief time in office, but I can honestly afford him some slack on these since it’s easy to see he has other, more nationally compelling issues to deal with (economy crashing, rising wartime violence, spiraling budgetary concerns, etc…). But make no mistake about it, the gay community and its allies, like myself, will not let him forget the promises he made and I fully expect them to be dealt with during his second term, when he won’t have to worry about the need for re-election votes.

I encourage all those who wish to deny the full rights of marriage to the gay community to find a history book, anything from the seventh grade and above. Crack it open and read a couple chapters on the suffrage movement of the 20s, the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s (pay extra close attention to the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education where we received the lasting legislative ruling that stated “separate, but equal” was inherently unconstitutional), and toss in a light dusting of the fight for women to serve in the military. If you look close enough, you will see where this modern day civil rights movement is heading. There is a light at the end of the tunnel for supporters of same sex marriages and it is unavoidable, whether you like it or not. History ignored is history repeated and although we would like to think people would see logic, reason and humanity in these early stages, we’ve already read to the end of the history books and seen equality handed down once again to those who most certainly deserve it.

Last note: For the supporters of marriage equality, it can be a touch confusing on how to support financially or with volunteer work since it feels like another grassroots organization sprouts up each and every day. With the people I’ve talked to and the research I’ve done, I happily point you towards Equality California and the Human Rights Campaign. These two organizations are incredibly motivated and connected with the fight, both in California and across the nation. If you want to support the cause, I recommend starting your research with either of these groups.