The End of the Page

Crazy Heart: The Dude Finds a Girl, a Guitar and a Truck.

Why yes, it is called the Dude Ranch. Why do you ask?

Rating: 7 out of 10

With mere days to go until the Academy Awards, I’m doing my best to find and witness screenings anywhere and everywhere of the nominated films. I’ve missed a few due to the insane schedule I am currently keeping, but I was lucky enough to have a good friend offer me passes the other night for this country music moment on film that has many people raving. I jumped at the chance, strapped myself into the comfy padded seats of the screening room and here’s what came out of it.

Crazy Heart is a tale as simple and heartwarming as your favorite country tune. Bad Blake is a true country musician; smoking, drinking, loving and putting it all into his songs. He once had a shot at the big time, but life took a turn and he finds himself playing roadside bars and bowling alleys left behind by time itself. As a favor to a local musician, Bad allows himself to be interviewed by a young woman, who in turn finds herself drawn to the power and passion of his character. Yet, like in all country tunes, rocky times hit hard and Bad Blake is tested to see what kind of man he can become and if anyone will accept him if he makes it to the other side of the bottle.

First off, let me say it is dangerous for me to watch a movie about country musicians because the soundtrack gets stuck in my head and I become forced to admit to liking country music. I know deep down that there is nothing at all wrong with that, but when I was growing up country music was thought of as for old people and those who were mad about losing the Civil War. So I feel it is with a certain sense of renewed maturity that I applaud the wonderful soundtrack in the film and admit to humming the tune of Fallin’ & Flyin’. While I may have buckled on my childhood ban on country music, I am still holding strong to the fact I look terrible in a cowboy hat.

Now, on to the real review. Crazy Heart is another of those truly touching films that begins and ends with the main actor. Jeff Bridges schools Hollywood once again with what it is really like to envelop a role, live it in front of a camera and make your audience forget you, the actor, even exists. Bridges seems to revel in characters that are out of place in their own time, proven back in the day by roles like Kevin Flynn in Tron (a personal favorite) to the lead in John Carpenter’s Starman. He reached what many believed to be his cult-pinnacle inside the skin of the lackadaisical, prema-chilled sloth-man known only as “The Dude” in The Big Lebowski. In a move that will surely ruffle a few bong-tinged feathers, I report that he might have equaled that achievement with this tender and honest portrayal of an artist left behind by life. Maggie Gyllenhaal co-stars as the young woman who reignites his fire and sets him on the path to recovery. She appears on the screen with a light sense of shyness and an internal blush that radiates under the affections of Bad Blake. Her charm certainly helped keep the character afloat, but Bridges stole the show in almost every way possible. Also lending his status and talent is Robert Duvall as a bar owner and close friend to the down-and-out Blake. There are few people who bring the grit and grind of hard life people like Duvall and his few moments on screen were a continued testament to that ability.

The story itself was simple, but as I’ve said before, even simple stories can be screwed up by too much meddling. Crazy Heart strums all the right notes, but lets the song drag in a few places. I left feeling that the movie itself was not nearly as memorable as the performances.

The End of the Page Recommendation: Jeff Bridges fans should all go through the roof for this film, while those who might not know him as well are bound to get an incredible first introduction to a world-class actor. Check it out if you want to know what “Oscar worthy” really stands for.

Twilight – New Moon: New Director, Same Failures

Yes, this is the only facial expression I have. Why do you ask?

Rating: 2 out of 10

At the screaming and preening delight of tweens across the nation, the second installment of the uber-popular Twilight franchise hit the screens at midnight Thursday and proceeded to break numerous first-day records. Leaving Dark Knight in the dust, New Moon separated tween parents from the money in their wallets at a rate of $72 million dollars in the first 24 hours. It slipped a little bit in the weekend total and five-day gross, so in the end Dark Knight and a few other choice films still rank higher, but Summit Entertainment and Twilight fans alike know their precious franchise is very much alive and cemented in cinema futures for the next few years.

For those who might not already know, New Moon takes the love story between Edward and Bella and drops in the ever-so-popular third wheel, Jacob. Edward bails from the gray and rainy world of Forks because he believes he will only end up hurting Bella more and in his absence Jacob grows to be more than just the nice kid form the reservation. She allows him to drag her up from the depression Edward left her in and finds herself caught even more now in the middle of not just a battle for the hearts of two men, but two monsters as Jacob reveals he too is more than meets the eye.

Let me just tell you all up front that after seeing the first Twilight film and finding it to be fairly abysmal, I borrowed all four books from a co-worker and read them over the period of a week. My reason for doing this was I wanted to know if all the blame for the movie’s faults could be laid upon the shoulders of Catherine Hardwicke and her newly famous cast, but I came to realize that not all of it was hers to bear. That shared responsibility continues in this new chapter as the reins got taken over by Chris Weitz, who last graced the screen helming the CGI-cluster bomb The Golden Compass (another example of shared blame between director and source material). So to be fair, the volume of issues there are in this film are not with the movie alone, but with the source material it is born from.

My main and most pounding issue with New Moon is the length. There is no reason for nearly two-and-a-half hours of this. If you cut out even half of the strained dramatic pauses in every piece of dialogue, this could possibly make the cut as a one-hour TV special. Not a single person in the film seems to be able to finish a sentence without stopping and staring at something or someone, forcing unnecessary importance on what they are about to say next. Again, this is inherent in the books, although in that medium, you as the reader can just choose to read faster (which admittedly, these are incredibly fast reads). In the darkness of the movie theater you are trapped, glued by the increasing price of the movie ticket you bought to get in, to stay there and suffer through page after page of visual ellipses.

Secondly, when I was finished with the books I actually had hope for this movie because I felt it was the most enjoyable of the books. The relationship that grows between Bella and Jacob is actually the only relationship in the entire series that you get to witness blossom and actually believe in. Bella and Edward seem to fall hopelessly and endlessly in love with each other from first glance and they spend the next two-thousand pages trying to prove it to each other, but as a reader and audience member we don’t get to really witness that journey. It all feels too heavy without any foundation. Unfortunately, after only one pleasing montage of Bella and Jacob, the super-buff best friend spends the rest of the movie taking on every boring and melodramatic trait of his vampire nemesis. Long stares, brooding glances into the distance, gruff sighs between each and every word. Be still my beating…oh wait, it is still, aw crap, this movie put me in a coma.

Lastly, without dragging this out too long, New Moon actually increases one of the main problems from the first chapter; Bella is not a likable character, not in the least. Without being able to root for her, we can’t honestly route for either of the pseudo-men fighting for her affections. She mopes, whines and is overall gloomy from front to back in this film and she gives you nothing to attach to in order to want her to be happy.

In terms of the acting, it’s patently unfair to critique these people on performances largely hobbled by the books themselves. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner are all suffering from what I politely refer to as “The Star Wars Prequel Phenomenon.” After those movies, hordes of people walked around tearing apart Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Ewen McGregor and Liam Neeson, but true movie fans knew all along that their horrid performances were not accurate representations of their actual ability. It’s just what happens when talented people are stuck in untalented movies. Kristen was redeeming in Adventureland, Robert got amazing reviews for Little Ashes and Taylor, well, he might not have a ton to his credit yet, but he’s the only one who actually seems to have the ability to shine at all in this franchise, so I expect big things from him once the caskets are finally snapped shut here. Even the addition of an acting prodigy like Dakota Fanning didn’t raise the bar even an inch (although to be fair, she gets approximately four minutes of screen time in this chapter; she’ll be much more featured in the ones to come). The reality of the situation is hidden just beneath the surface during a particular scene where Bella and Edward are in class together and everyone is watching Romeo and Juliet. This is high school melodrama, this is uber-heightened puppy love built up beyond all possible boundaries and while that works for classic stories like Romeo and Juliet, New Moon and it’s associated books fail completely to even dip their sparkly-toed feet into such hallowed waters.

The End of the Page Recommendation: Obviously Twilight fanatics don’t need to read a review to figure out whether or not to see this, but for the rest of the reading audience, if you haven’t read the books, this is not going to bring you anything but confusion as to why it’s making such ridiculous money.

Taking Woodstock: Missing the Music and the Moment

“Didn’t you kill tons of Nazi’s and go crazy in your last film?”

“Yep, I’ve got what film people refer to as “range”.”

Rating: 4 out of 10

Anytime you step into the world of “based on true events” or choosing to fictionalize a story set inside a real life moment in time, you had better be ready to defend your choices. Real life moments mean real people lived them, maybe not the exact ones being portrayed on screen, but close facsimiles and they love nothing more than relating how many details you got wrong when trying to recreate the feelings and nostalgia from way back when. A great number of movies that fall into this category are saved by the sheer amount of years between now and then, thereby eliminating their detractors, but choosing anything that took place from the 1920s onward and you will likely find someone spinning a tale in direct opposition to your own. And how can you dismiss it? They were there! The danger gets exponentially bigger when you choose something the size of Woodstock, where over one-and-a-half million people descended on this small town to bear witness to the musical representation of peace, love and the new generation in America. It was something parents screamed and railed to keep their kids from going to, yet those kids grew up to tell and retell their own children about why they went and the magic they experienced at one of the greatest music festivals of all time. Many movies have tried to capture the emotional content of Woodstock and no one seemed primed to do it better than the master of mood and emotion, Ang Lee.

Taking Woodstock tells a small story inside of an extremely large moment. Elliot Tiber is the dutiful son, living in the big city, but sending all his money home to his parents and their dilapidated motel. Year after year he returns in the summer to help bring in the meager amount of tourist business, but this particular summer, while on the verge of bankruptcy, Elliot hears of a music festival in desperate need of a location to land. On the run from town after town of narrow minded and fearful locals, the hippie festival known as Woodstock needed a new home and Elliot saw a flower-powered flashlight dancing at the end of his lifelong tunnel.

Ang Lee said in an interview he wanted to tell this story because he was tired and drained by the emotionally heavy subjects he tackled in his recent films, like Brokeback Mountain and Lust, Caution. Lee wanted something happy, full of hope and felt the need to remind us how over a million people came together in overwhelmingly terrible conditions and lived together for three days without a single instance of violence reported. There was an aura over the crowd, a group connection which connected and combined the hearts and minds of those in attendance. Yet he made very clear that this was not a documentary about the music, since those have been done before. This was solely about the people and the effect the concert had on them.

With that intention in mind Lee pulled together a wide swatch of personal storylines, beginning with Tiber, but radiating outwards to include his parents, the locals, old semi-acquaintances from his youth, a politically radical theatre troupe living in his barn, and just to top it all off, a cross dressing ex-marine-cum-personal security officer. Many, but not all, of these were intensely interesting characters and situations, but Lee’s failure was trying to include all in one film. Any of these alone could have been enough to give breadth and emotional focus to Woodstock and the effect it had on that one person, but all together it dragged the film down and created a tangled web of people with no real conclusion or specific journey.

[Minor SPOILER below. And even though it sounds major, it plays out as minor]

In one example where Lee made things overcomplicated is with the main character, Elliot Tiber, where he not only had to deal with his parents odd personalities, their failing motel and the overwhelming stress brought on by trying to host Woodstock, it turns out he was also trying to hide his homosexuality. Something as large as this should have been explored more and brought to the forefront of who Tiber was, but it ended up just another unfinished element in an increasingly congested landscape of characters.

[SPOILER over. Continue reading unafraid.]

With the issues inherent in the script, I found it hard for the actors to really reach their full potential inside these roles. Demetri Martin, someone I think is single-handedly pushing the forefront of comedy, gave a decent performance, resting comfortably in his inherent awkwardness, but he didn’t grow with the character and failed to end the movie a believably stronger person than when he began. Emile Hirsch, one of the strongest actors in his age range, also portrayed a nice mixture of pain and longing from the vantage point of someone only recently returning from the Vietnam war. Unfortunately he also suffered from never truly being explored and remained only a tertiary character on the sidelines of the story. The one person able to actually break through the haze of character cross-pollination was Liev Schreiber, who actually got one of the most odd and at first seemingly insignificant characters in the film, Vilma, the cross dressing ex-marine. Schreiber became the voice of reason, the old wise man/woman inside this drug-induced wonderland of freaks and flower children. He also seemed to pull through because he was the only person who had a real sense of self and a solid belief in what they wanted out of life. Understandably you can’t have the main character like that because there would be no drama, no conflict, no confusion, but it was a welcome relief to have at least one person on a clear path through the wilderness of the Sixties.

The last thing I want to mention is Elliot’s parents: An old world couple which originally played nicely against his modern-sixties lifestyle in the big city and the commonplace fear of the oncoming hippie generation. While the father gets a small arc and gains some much needed perspective on the world, the mother not only fails to learn any type of lesson throughout the film, but remains an irredeemably negative influence on Elliot. Both actors, Henry Goodman (dad) and Imelda Staunton (mom), play their parts quite well, but the failure to allow them to amount to anything holds back any true appreciation.

The End of the Page recommendation: I still remain a fan of Ang Lee and feel he is a master at creating mood and environment, but here he proves that those elements become moot without a compelling and satisfying story to pull it all together. For those looking for a feel-good movie about the effects of a generation of music, try Almost Famous or Velvet Goldmine.

District 9: Intelligence On Our Own Planet!

Wait a sec, was there crab in that dish? I’m really allergic. What do you mean you can see that?

Rating: 10 out of 10

Step back from your monitors, wipe your eyes and sit back down just so you can take in the full effect. The time has finally come, the perfect 10 is here!!! In certain genres, like Sci-Fi, you hope for a bunch of fun and flashy flicks, a ton of terrible pieces of tripe and one lone escapee from the chaos to shine as a bastion for this commonly maligned and under-appreciated area of filmmaking. Yet, this year we have been doubly lucky with the release of Moon, from debut director Duncan Jones (son of musical icon David Bowie) and now we have the incredibly original and yet comfortably familiar film District 9. I’ve decided to block myself from even looking into the remaining months of this year in hopes of pulling a Sci-Fi hat-trick with one more stellar addition to the ranks because the sheer hope of it makes me shiver uncontrollably. Before it gets too much and I lose the ability to type, let’s get into this wonderful and amazingly intelligent film.

District 9 is the name given to a government-created slum used to house aliens, negatively referred to as “Prawns”, who have descended into the airspace over Johannesburg with no reason as to why they are here. The initial excitement over first contact wears thin over twenty years of occupation and now the people of Johannesburg and the planet beyond have decided it is time for the government to move them even farther away from the city and human society. One man from a nearby multi-national military contractor is put in charge of the relocation efforts and what should have been the greatest achievement of his career becomes the most integral turning point of his life. “Right versus Wrong” is once again relabeled “Us against Them”.

There are a wide range of reasons why this movie succeeds so greatly in its message and mission. One of the first and most important I believe it its ability to borrow from previous Sci-Fi classics and repackage them in a new and fresh way, feeding us iconic imagery in a way which makes us feel like we are seeing it for the first time. There are no words to explain how hard that task really is. Starting from the look of the ship itself, a classic flying saucer design (very closely resembling the mother ships in Independence Day), yet the design team here adds much more of a steampunk feel to it. The ship is less shiny, less streamlined and actually looks like it is capable of breaking down, which is an important part of the story.

Moving beyond the surface, the subtext of the film is also a throwback to a number of previous Sci-Fi landmarks. Dealing with racism and segregation inside of an alien storyline is nothing incredibly new, since we all remember classics like Alien Nation and the TV mini-series V (currently getting a remake of its own), but District 9 piles on an even deeper layer by placing the whole film in Johannesburg and highlighting the already difficult class struggle inside the more poverty stricken areas around the city. They even pulled in the rampant crime syndicate that burrows through the society and seeks to gain money and power by exploiting the aliens and their technology. For many moments in the film, even with one of the “prawns” on screen, you might very well convince yourself what you are seeing is a live news broadcast. That type of realism comes from great research and great writing, learning to weave truth and real life situations into fictional worlds. Skills like that are inherent to creating a lasting and impressive story like this one.

Lastly I want to mention the arc made by the main character Wikus, played brilliantly by Sharlto Copley (a man with a whopping one single credit to his name before this one). Copley starts the movie as an ambitious, nerdy and somewhat adorable government worker looking for his big break. As he moves through the story you begin to see some cracks in the veneer, moments of rage, dangerous uncertainty and deep racism against the aliens (made apparent by his subtle but continued use of the term “prawn”). As the twists turn for our improbable hero he is forced to make a number of choices, ones that control the very outcome of his life. For such a touching, yearning and powerful performance to be given by someone with such an unassuming resume, it is one of those moments movie lovers wait for each year. I have little doubt that Copley will be seeing his list of credits grow and I hope to see that same list on this very site.

Neil Blomkamp, the director and co-writer of this amazing film, truly went beyond the norms of the Sci-Fi genre and brought together something with a contemporary and moving story. Very few times when walking out of a film with aliens, energy rifles and floating spaceships would an audience member hope to find that they have either learned something about how the world works or even more how they themselves view other people. Questions are indeed raised by this film about what we would do as a society in the face of an alien influx into our world. Would we welcome them? Would we attack them? It’s possible we’ll never know until the time comes, but District 9 lays out a very realistic and probable scenario, scary as that may seem once you’ve finished watching it.

Recommendation: Seriously, it’s the first 10 out of 10 film I’ve reviewed. What do you think I’m going to say down here – GO SEE IT! NOW!

Paper Heart: A Fake Story About Real Love

Did you just use the words “serve and obey”? Seriously?

Rating: 8 out of 10

Love. When we don’t have it, we want it. When we have it, we struggle to hold on to it. When we lose it, we blame it. Yet we always come back around to the beginning again and feel the need to bring it into our daily life. For some people it is a lifelong quest to find the kind of love only talked about in movies and books, while for others they are content with a much more temporary version of the emotion. Then there are those few and far between who for one reason or another can’t seem to find the connection to that world-driving feeling. This is the story of one such girl.

Paper Heart is a quasi-documentary starring Charlene Yi as a young girl who questions whether or not she believes in love. She drives across the country from Los Angeles to New York with a small film crew conducting interviews with a wide cross section of the American populace. Along the way she meets fellow actor, Michael Cera, and she finds her search for the meaning of love becomes increasingly internal instead of external. The arc of the documentary contours to the arc of their relationship and we witness her take that journey first hand.

[Minor spoiler ahead. Be warned]

There are two main things this movie has going for it. Firstly, when talking about the film, Charlene, who was also the co-writer and producer, and director Nick Jasenovec make no illusions about the fact they scripted the relationship storyline with Michael Cera. You begin to feel throughout the movie that things were just too perfect to all happen on film and it makes you doubt the authenticity about what you’re seeing. Yet, with the filmmakers completely and freely admitting those portions were created specifically as a throughline and emotional pathway for the film, you can relax and fully appreciate how well it was crafted. Secondly, Charlene herself is a joy to watch. It is refreshing and relieving to see her as herself, or a close facsimile thereof, instead of a ninety-minute movie about the diminutive stoner girl from Knocked Up. In Paper Heart, Charlene is adorable, honest, intriguing and at times nearly heartbreaking. She walks a very thin line between lovable and painfully awkward, but on this occasion she keeps her balance with rare precision.

Kudos also must be given the director Nick Jasenovec who also helped to craft the story and bring in the Charlene on-camera idea. If this were to have been crafted solely as a documentary about love it would have felt incredibly slow and long-winded. Being able to follow Charlene on her personal and poignant journey gave the audience a respite from the real-life interviews and personal stories from those outgoing and kinetic Americans along the road. Also, even though the director in the film following Charlene is named Nick, he is not actually the director. The softly toned performance of Nick was actually given by Jake M. Johnson and the crux he found himself in between creating a true and meaningful documentary and doing unnecessary damage to the growing relationship between Charlene and Michael felt incredibly honest and true.

Michael Cera himself does deserve mention as well. He has a very unique and particular charm to him and this role did nothing to detract from that. He is very easily pigeonholed into one small character type, yet I find nothing wrong with continuing to give us more when he does it so well. It was interesting to see him here acting as himself, but my personal favorite of his so far is still Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist (my deepest apologies to the legions of Arrested Development fans out there).

The half-documentary genre is a hard one to get right. The balance of the real world and the fictional one needs to be nearly invisible, but not to the point where the audience is feeling duped or lied to. Paper Heart moves along the line with rare confidence, especially for a creative team with such little previous experience. I was completely unsurprised to hear Nick and Charlene are working together again and developing a project for the near future. A narrative voice emerged in this film and I look forward to hearing what oddly funny and touching words will flow from it next.

Recommendation: If you find Charlene adorable, the film will touch you. If you find her too awkward to enjoy, the movie will most likely miss its mark. Also, at the screening I went to we made bets on the number of “awwww” moments from the audience. I bet seven (I missed by one, we got six.).

The Hurt Locker: Exploding with Power and Passion

I’m from America. I’m here to liberate your country. Why don’t you trust me?

Rating: 9 out of 10

In the years since we proved the motto “these colors never run” don’t include instances of running into other people’s countries under wildly false pretenses; we’ve seen the theaters filled with film after film dealing with the incredibly varied viewpoints of the Iraq War. Some are for the war, many are against, but all deal with the stresses and toil that it takes on the soldiers sent over there to protect us from afar and protect the civilians in that country from themselves. The biggest fear for any film covering this topic now is whether the audiences have seen it all. What more could possibly be brought to light after the 24-hour news cycle has been raking this story over the coals for nearly eight years? The answer coming from Hollywood seems to be making the stories more and more personal, connect them to individual soldiers and stories, whether they are true or based on true situations. We know why they are fighting, but we don’t always know who they are and that’s what still intrigues audiences.

The Hurt Locker centers around a bomb disposal unit in Iraq, dealing with car bombs, IEDs and any variety of homemade roadside explosive device. A new unit leader, Staff Sergeant James, finds himself trying to keep unit cohesion while not letting go of his unorthodox style of bomb defusing. Tempers flare, egos are tested, but the whole group must find a way to work together in order to keep themselves alive in their constantly hostile surroundings.

“Rare” is the first word that comes to mind when I describe this movie. In a project filled with so much inherent tension, very few are able to walk the hair thin line between too much tension, which would shut your audience down in some numb coma-type state, or too little tension, which would leave your audience bored and feeling as if the subject matter was taken too lightly. The story, the pacing and the intensity is handled beautifully by director Kathryn Bigelow, who really has had a intensely varied style of filmmaking ranging from the epitome of surfer action flicks, Point Break, to the turn-of-the-millennium sci-fi acid trip, Strange Days. No matter where she brings her vision, it always results in something unique to the current filmic landscape. With Hurt Locker, Bigelow paints a picture of three soldiers with completely different outlooks on their situation and she manages to give them all equal weight, which is an accomplishment in itself. She also is very specific with her use of camera tricks, like slow motion, so when they do appear in the film they don’t get lost in a sea of quick cuts, lens flares or unnecessary explosions. Overall it was a great effort from Bigelow and should keep her in the good graces of the Hollywood system for years to come.

Taking on the stresses of the bomb-busting trio are Jeremy Renner (Staff Sergeant James), Anthony Mackie (Sergeant Sandborn) and Brian Geraghty (Specialist Eldridge). Renner takes the point position here and leads the trio through the film with a wildcat mentality and seemingly careless attitude towards death on the job. This might have come off as a one note performance for Renner were it not for the brilliant script and the arc which his character travels. Mackie and Geragthy both show their initial discomfort with working for their new unit leader in different fashions. Mackie does a great job keeping the strong face and trying to remind Renner that they are all a team and must work together, but Geragthy has a more youthful persona and he becomes an endearing soul to the audience, swinging back and forth between emotionally shell-shocked and frantically fighting for his own freedom. Truly toned performances all around.

The Hurt Locker feels a great deal like what The Kingdom wanted to be. A balanced social commentary about life on the ground in the war zone balanced with action and tension to keep the audiences involved and attuned to the fact they weren’t watching  a documentary.

Recommendation: If it is still playing in a theater near you, check it out. The sound design alone is reason enough to not wait for DVD. If you can’t catch it on the big screen, don’t worry, the performances and poignancy of the film still carries through. Plus, you could just turn up your TV really loud.

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.

Terminator Salvation: More Human Than Human

Yeah, that’s right, you stupid robot. Pull my finger…

Rating: 5 out of 10

I’m going to change up my tactic for you. I’m going to make an effort to increase your enjoyment of this movie without giving away any type of spoilers. Great debates have been held inside my head about the formation of this review, so let’s see if I can get them all to come together in print and actually make sense. If I get lost along the way, please send a search party and ask them to bring Nerd Rope.

Terminator Salvation brings the robot-battling franchise charging forward into the year 2018 and lands us deep in the war between machines and humans. The humans are being driven underground while the machines seem to be gaining more and more ground every day. When a miraculous tool falls into the hands of the humans which could swing the momentum their way and possibly end the war, John Connor has to make a choice between following logic and following his instincts.

Here’s the hint I’m going to offer you in hopes it will help you enjoy the movie just a little more: John Connor (Christian Bale) is not the main character in this movie! The trailer and the story arc up to this point have built him up to be the main focus, but while watching the movie your attention is drawn toward two other people: Marcus (Sam Worthington) and the teenage version of Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). These two characters, greatly helped by the actors portraying them, provide numerous layers and poignant moments and steal the focus away from the top billed Bale. Bale suffers both from narrow development of his character and one-note deliverance throughout the film. For large stretches he just feels like Batman without the mask. Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy him as Batman, but in those films we get to see him as Bruce Wayne as well and he achieves a balance between different sides of the character. Salvation doesn’t really give him that chance, so the blame doesn’t fall completely on him. Worthington and Yelchin, on the other hand, really become the main story of the movie and steal the spotlight. Worthington shows great dramatic range, but he does lose a step during a romantic subplot with Moon Bloodgood. Yelchin, who also plays Chekov in the J.J. Abrams reboot of Star Trek (so far the summers best flick), lands another major role in terms of storyline and mythological importance. As the young Kyle Reese he single-handedly represents the past and the future for the life of John Connor, which is a lot of weight to be shouldering on such a young actor, but Yelchin proves he is up to the task. Displaying innocence and hardened street smarts at the same time, he manages to bring the much lacking human element to this movie front and center.

There is an argument to be made that movies in this genre are not here to astound us with great acting or well thought out plot development. They are here to create insane CGI and never-before-seen special effects to literally knock us out of our cushioned seats. In that realm, Salvation did an exceedingly good job. The robots were bigger, the explosions were louder and you could literally hear each and every gear and servo inside the machines as they whizzed towards our woefully under-prepared human survivors. There is a pair of impressive chase sequences which included some very unique moments and that kept people glued to the screen. Very little of the action seems to move the plot or story along though and in the end you begin to wonder what it was all for; you almost feel the entire film didn’t even need to happen. No matter how deep a movie is inside the action genre, the audience needs to feel that the story had a distinct purpose and Salvation fails to completely deliver in the end.

The decision to focus more on the effects than story falls in the lap of director McG, who gained massive exposure when he brought the 70s iconic TV show Charlie’s Angels to the big screen. It doesn’t seem like he’s really changed that much in his style since then though. It is still all about flash and visual onslaught to keep the people bouncing in their seats without a foundation to make any of it meaningful. Charlie’s Angels was meant to be summertime fluff, so it worked out well, but Salvation has a darkness and grit which needs to be motivated in the writing and direction as well and that just didn’t happen. To extend the olive branch slightly towards McG, he was definitely weighted down by massive paradoxical plot holes in the film created long before he ever dreamed of taking the reins of this apocalyptic franchise. Despite the poor directing and plot development flaws, the box office numbers are not terrible ($68 million opening weekend), so you can be sure the graveled and gruff voice of Bale will be heading our way in a couple years to remind us, “You are the resistance.”

Recommendation: If you are interested at all in seeing this, do yourself a huge favor and see it in the theater. The sound and picture are a large part of what makes this watchable, so don’t discredit yourself with lesser visual and aural impact.

Added recommendation to McG: Leave out the Arnold cameo next time. Seriously. Really.

Wolverine: Cuts Just Underneath The Bar

C’mon, who wants to try and take the Oscar host gig away from me? I dare ya.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Bring on the over-buttered popcorn, the obscenely large sodas and the amazingly radiated hot dogs…the blockbuster season is upon us! Every summer the world rushes into the theaters daring the movie studios to try their best to blow us out of our seats. CGI masterminds and real life stuntmen pull out all the stops in a yearly effort to make us drop our jaws once more at something we believed we would never see. Amazement and imagination collide inside a brilliant torrent of big-budget action flicks for the next five months and most studios bank their entire year on these “tentpole” films. The money made or lost on these cinematic feats can determine whether a studio will even be in business the following summer. With all that pressure, being the first one out of the gate is a big deal and this year that incredible honor is bestowed upon a familiar face, Wolverine.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine tells of the beginning of one of the most standout characters in the Marvel universe. It follows him from his start as a sickly child though his transformation into one of the world’s most deadly and indestructible killers. It also brings to light his mysterious past in Canada and what made him the missing piece to a terrible and destructive puzzle. Backgrounds and motivations are brought out of the shadows as we delve deeper into the lifeline of this wild and mostly untamed anti-hero.

There was a small rebellion right away when this idea got announced for a Wolverine origin film and the reasoning was some people felt we had already gone down that road in X2. While that is partially true, the secret of this script is it actually tells us more new information on the birth of other characters, letting Wolverine be the lynch pin to bring it all together. Beyond our cigar-smoking hero, we also get the origin story of Sabertooth and Deadpool, which in the end might prove to be the single best thing to come out of this film. Ryan Reynolds, who played Wade (aka Deadpool), has already signed on for a spin-off film surrounding the future of his wise cracking assassin. From the second he was announced as the casting choice fanboys around the world breathed a sigh of relief because they knew they had hit the jackpot. Deadpool is an insanely skilled weapon who never stops talking and cracking jokes, even during the most complicated missions, and that smart-ass nature makes Reynolds that absolute perfect choice for the role. Plus, we had seen him bulk up and take on the comic world before in Blade: Trinity and although the movie itself wasn’t anything to jump and shout about, Reynolds brought some much needed humor to the screen.

Getting back on track with this film, while the storyline of Wolverine might not feel incredibly necessary, the fans can’t seem to get enough of Hugh Jackman playing this iconic comic book role. This film is the fourth time we get to witness him wear the scowl of Wolverine and according to various Hollywood trades it won’t be the last. Making me and scores of other comic book geeks happy, the word has come down that the next Wolverine film will center around his time in Japan, which is a much more interesting storyline than this one.

Following the trend of causing your comic-loving audience to geek out for the sheer joy of it, Wolverine flooded the screen with numerous other characters, which sometimes can be a detriment, like in the original Batman franchise, but Marvel seems to have a slightly better hold on how to approach multi-character films. The most anticipated in this category was certainly Gambit, played by Taylor Kitsch from the TV show Friday Night Lights. I appreciated the physicalization of Gambit and the expression of his powers, but they toned down two of the best parts of who Gambit is, the Cajun accent and his overbearing romantic nature. Admittedly there was no female character for him to draw a bead on, but they could have dropped in at least one line or moment of him making a super-cheesy move on a girl in a bar and watching her melt under his skills. In the comics one of the most memorable things about Gambit is his determined romantic assault on Rogue, which in the X-Men film universe would have to take some clever restructuring since by the end of X-Men: The Last Stand Rogue has given up her powers completely so she can have a real relationship with Bobby Drake (aka Iceman). There were some rumblings about a possible Gambit spin-off as well, but I think his showing in this film wasn’t strong enough to warrant the money and resources, especially not when the Deadpool film is already greenlit and the Magneto script has also already been written (supposedly).

To the other names and faces popping up throughout this film, there was not too much else to get excited about. Will.I.Am, from the music group Black Eyed Peas, did a fine job as the teleporting cowboy, John Wraith, but nothing extraordinary. Dominic Monaghan, who is undoubtedly more connected to Hollywood history than anyone in this film due to his roles in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the TV phenom Lost, played the cool and quiet telekinetic Bolt, but he also felt slightly underused and just there to fill out a head count of comic book archetypes. Without going through the rest name by name, I will leave you with the person I thought was the worst represented, The Blob. No disrespect to the acting talents of Kevin Durand, but the physicalization of The Blob when he reached his massive and imposing size just ended up looking silly on camera. This brought one of inherent and most dangerous problems of the recent trend in adapting comic books for the big screen, some of the characters just don’t translate well in a realistic fashion. Sometimes you have to find creative ways to get them up there in a different physical form while still holding onto the core meaning and nature of the character, not that I know a way to do that in the case of Blob, but the fact remains, he ended up reminding me of Chet from Weird Science when he got turned into a big pile of crap.

Recommendation: Having a three movie lead-in for this character built up a huge following, which is great for box office potential, yet it also built up huge expectations, which this film did not completely meet. It has some really good scenes, but it fails to keep the pace up throughout.