REVIEW: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Okay, so I'm not really sure where I should start on this one. I guess I should start by saying that I really enjoyed the first one. I thought it was a lot of fun, it had action and humor and romance, and there was only one plot hole that bugs me ("we need to hide the Cube! Bring it to the city!").

So, that being said, the first one is exponentially better than the second one. I guess we can only expect so much since the screenplay was written before the writer's strike, but they also didn't clean it up or fix things that needed to be fixed. And, because of that, the movie felt rushed and unprepared with as a many gaping plotholes as swiss cheese. But it's the combnation of the rushed storyline, the gaping plotholes, the cheesy dialogue, the racist robots, and the photography that make this film far below sub-par.

So I'm a relative Michael Bay film. And when I say that, I mean to say that I like to see s**t get blown up, and Michael Bay provides this service. Never have I really expected any big, mindbending story coming out of him (think Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, The Rock). Just simple, dumb stories where lots of explosions happen and lots of people die. Fun times. But I at least assumed that Bay LOOKED at the screenplays before starting to film his movies, but the new Trasnformers movie proved me wrong.

One of the biggest problems I have with the movie is the random jump cuts. And to those who don't understand, let me explain. In one scene, we have the main characters searching for a lost key, and they're entering a tomb (during the day) where they think it might be hidden. In the next shot, Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox are on top of a scaffold (at night), cuddling. Now, was it too hard to have 10 seconds where one of the characters could say, "Okay, let's bunker down for the night"? Setting up an establishing shot is one of the most important shots of a film, and Michael Bay is completely skipping (numerous times) in order to get to the action faster. And this happens all over the place. In another part, Megatron is holding down Shia's character (Sam), and then the Autobots burst in. The next shot is of Shia, but he's standing up, WITH MEGATRON GONE. Megatron just apparently vanished. What Bay is forgetting is that we can't see everything that's going on, which is why his camera needs to provide the windows for the action. However, we don't see Megatron leave shia, we just see him fighting Optimus Prime, but we don't know how he got there.

Okay, so I kinda got use to all that stuff, although it was pretty easy to make fun of. As for the gaping plotholes, there are just too many things missing in the story to think the film is anywhere near realistic. When Shia reaches college, there's a hot girl who starts hitting on him, and eventually turns into a Decepticon (SPOILER!!!). Yeah, whatever. So, my questions are these: how did she find Shia? Is she even a Decepticon (I assume she is, but you never find out). And, finally, since when could Transformers transform into effing humans? I'm sorry Michael, but you should've gone through this to make sure that it made sense. Becuase it really doesn't. I could go on for awhile about the plotholes, but it's easier just to stop here.

The dialogue is cheesy, but we all could've expected that. After all, we're here for the explosions and destruction, not the dialogue. As for the characters themselves, they all pretty much work. Shia actually does a pretty good job in the leading role. He just needs an action movie where he actually fights the enemy rather than running away. Maybe then I'll actually consider him the action star that Hollywood is so set on making him. As for Megan Fox. Well, she does a decent enough job. But her character is so damn annoying, spending the entire movie whining because her boyfriend won't tell her he loves her. Sorry, b***h, but he's being chased by killer alien robots. Get off his back for a few hours. How about a bj? Sooth the nerves? No? Well, then shut up.

As for robot characters, there's a slightly offensive humorous side to the movie that really isn't expected. That comes in the form of the two ghetto robots and the giant Destructicon that pops up at the end. The two ghetto robots fulfill every possible black stereotype aside from fried chicken. One has a gold tooth, they talk with a ghetto accent, they can't read, etc. I even thought for a moment one of them had a doo rag (sp). As for the Destructicon, he's made up of entirely construction vehicles, and yes, he in fact has two wrecking balls as his testicles. That you get a very vivid shot of. It's quite obvious. And I'd expect it from Family Guy. But, the first Transformers movie is pretty much all about the story (it just has very little, which is why it was easy). The humor in the first movie flows very nicely, but they never resort to semi-offensive or blatantly and unnecessarily sexual. The new one does. And it takes away from the film (as much as it can).

Okay, so I've sort of laid out the groundplan for what's wrong with the movie (and all of this continues for the 2 and half hours that it is). Constant questioning of "how?" or "why?" coupled with unrealistic story. You really need to shut off your brain and avoid all logic or realism to even try to enjoy the movie. Assuming you can. But the biggest thing that's wrong with the movie, and what ended up bringing it downhill in the end, is the rushed writing. Had Michael taken the time to look at the script before filming, it may have turned out pretty good. Maybe they would have changed the story, or the dialogue, or both. But the film was just too rushed that it seemed unfinished and unprepared, and ultimately didn't feel like a full movie.

Now, the Transformers movies are supposed to create a trilogy, so we can only hope that the third one is better than the second (cross your fingers, knock on wood, etc.)

SCORE: 3.5/10

PS The robots are cool.

A Real Mission to Mars?

Famed astronaut Buzz Aldrin is getting his fingers into space again, and this time the whole "buzz" is about Mars. Apparently, Buzz was pretty depressed after his trip to the moon, and now he's thinking that we should start sending astronauts to Mars, and even start a human colony to Mars.

Honestly, I'm okay with it. The only problem? I'd prefer to see NASA send an inanimate object to Mars without it crashlanding before a human makes the attempt. I have nothing against sending humans to Mars and beyond. In fact, I'm quite into the whole idea, and would like to see NASA pursue the possibility more. It just seems unrealistic that we would be able to make a human colony on Mars a reality within the next ten years or so. If anything, we should focus on getting a colony on the Moon. It'll give us some practice, and it's a helluva a lot closer (think 3 days trip vs. 8 months = one hell of a road trip).

So, how about we say we look at the Moon for the time being, and then focus on Mars later. I'd feel more comfortable with that, considering we've had humans who have landed on the moond. All we've gotten from Mars is a $5 billion land rover crashlanding into the rocky sand. Check out Buzz's comments below.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/06/23/aldrin.mars/index.html

Shyamalan's new twist

The last few movies from M. Night Shyamalan have been sub-par at best (and by last few, I mean since "The Sixth Sense"), and it seems he may have gotten the hint that the whole predictable horror-thriller with a "shocking" twist had worn itself out (unfortunately it took about 7 movies, including an R-rated attempt, to prove this). Now, it seems he's trying his hand at a new genre.

"The Last Airbender," which is based off of the kid's anime cartoon "Avatar," is planned on release for summer of 2010, and it looks as though Shyamalan is finally donning something other than his typical shocker horror. Will it give him new life in cinema? Quite possibly. We can only hope that he's trying something different and learning that making a good movie is different than making a movie with an insane twist (especially when everyone sees it coming). Although, part of me is still expecting the hero to end up being the villain, in some outrageous twist that only Shyamalan can provide. Check out the new trailer below.

Transformers vs. G.I. Joe: The Battle for our Childhood

As Megan Fox prepares her deliciously curvy body to lead "Transformer: Revenge of the Fallen" into the summer's big blockbuster action movie, we're also drawn to the upcoming "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra." Here's the difference. With "Transformers," we think "Oh, that'll be fun to see." With "G.I. Joe," it's "Oh, that'll be fun to see and make fun of." Now, what we're supposed to deal with is the fact the Hollywood has an obsession with making movies that exploit our childhood memories. Any kid born in the 80s has learned that the shows and toys they grew up with are now becoming huge Hollywood action movies, and in most cases, are doomed to fail right from the start.

It's unusual that "Transformers" fared so well when it came out, especially since Michael Bay is essentially the ADD director of action movies. Plus, it turned Shia LaBeouf into an action star (even though in all of the biggest action movies he's been in, i.e. "Transformers," "Disturbia," "Indy Jones 5," "Eagle Eye," he's actually RUNNING AWAY from the enemy). However, outside of Transformers, the only childhood memory to have emerged from the film industry successfully was "Clue." Now, since Hollywood is slowly fading out of the sequel and remake phase (although it's far from over) they're focusing their attention on what made us kids.

Think of the upcoming "Where the Wild Things Are" and "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs." Either my adulthood will fuse with my childhood and make my life complete, or my childhood will be completely repressed from my memory because I can only associate it with mediocre kids movies made 15 years after I was a kid. Or, to briefly discuss boardgames, how about the in-works movie adaptations of "Ouija," "Monopoly," "Candy Land," and "Battleship" (which I really can't imagine anything besides two old people sitting at a table and yelling out "You sunk my battleship!" while their dentures chatter in the glass besides them...[shiver]).

As for "Transformers: RotF" and "G.I. Joe: tRoC," we're faced with the fact that Hollywood is trying to transform our childhood memories into serious pieces of film, while at the same time trying to blow up as much stuff as possible. The only solace we have is that Optimus Prime still has his original voice, and that Megan Fox has a smoking hot body in very little clothing. As far as I'm concerned, "G.I. Joe," lacks both of those. Although, there is Snake Eye. And seeing him fight may be the pinnacle of the film. Just remember: Stephen Sommers, the director, was fired because Paramount received the worst screen testing results EVER. Probably exaggerated, but still pretty brutal. Now I'm afraid of seeing my childhood memories with G.I. Joe action figures crumbling before my eyes. Sigh...


Just look at the pic of Megan Fox to make you feel better.

P.S. I'm expecting a movie on Hungry Hungry hippos. Ving Rhames as the Green Hippo, Queen Latifah as the Pink Hippo, John Goodman as the Blue Hippo, and Jack Black as the Yellow Hippo. Thoughts?

REVIEW: Up

Another year, another Pixar movie. Last year, in "WALL-E," audiences were brought to a post-apocalyptic world vicarously through Disney, which is apparently inhabited by a sole robot, who spends his days cleaning up the rubble of our destroyed civilization accompanied by his pet cockroach. The opening of the movie is quite reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" with hardly a trace of dialogue. The film also manages to create an endearing and intelligent story with two characters who pretty much spew each others' names every time something happens. Nonetheless, it wowed audiences (as every Pixar movie has done to-date).

Now, a year after "WALL-E," Pixar releases their second movie based on humans (the other being "The Incredibles"). I'm not sure if it's intriguing or disappointing that Pixar tends to focus more on inanimate objets as main characters instead ofh umans, but it does make a good sales for the children. However, they decided to opt out of their inanimate object drama to focus on what we can sympathizer with a bit more: a real human. In "The Incredibles," Pixar took out some of the funny for some action, creating the only PG-rated Pixar movie until "Up." In "Up," some of the funny is also taken out, but this time it's replaced with realistic drama and adventure.

The first five minutes of the movie presents us with some of the high drama that Pixar is deciding to handle, as a montage of the main character's life fast forwards to present day, and his present predicament. Within five minutes of the movie, we are presented with innocent youth, family issues, love, lost love, urban renewal, and dealing with being part of a dying generation. Needless to say, this movie starts off as the heaviest Pixar movie to-date. But because of this, it may be perhaps the best one that Pixar has released.

The film is, for all intents and purposes, a coming of age story. The only catch: the main character is well into old age. Dreaming of being an adventurer early in his lifie, he got caught up in young love and spent the rest of his life with his wife, dreaming of adventuring, but preferring to stay at home with the love of his life. Cute? Absolutely. Realistic? Most likely; not many people go traveling off to a secret, forbidden area of South America just because they want to. Now living alone in old age, Karl Frederickson ends up leaving home (and we've all seen the trailers and commericals of him sailng away in his house). So what makes this a coming of age story? Karl is never looking for an adventure. He goes off in the hopes of finding this secret area of South America, but he never dreams of reaching it. Not only that, but the side characters presented in the story that aid Karl provide more than just a side story for him. The enduring youth, Russel, as well as Dug the dog, and the wonderfull bright foreign female bird, Kevin, help Karal realize the things about him he's missed since his wife died so many years ago.

The context of this personal drama is present amongst a fun and wonderful adventure story, full of wild villains not seen since Disney's heydey back in the 90s. What makes this movie so fun and enjoyable is how easily Pixar is able to meld the personal dramas of each individual person (or creature/animal) and fuse them together to make a stunningly realistic fantasy adventure. Even with all of its wild colors, "Up" is most definitely Pixar's darkest movie (even taking into account the post-apocalyptic nature of "WALL-E"). Why? Because the villain will stop at nothing to get what he wants (including killing animals and children), he has a pack of ravenous dogs that bow to his every whim, and the human characters add a sense of sympathy that is usually missing from Pixar movies (it's hard to sympathize with a toy, insect, car, robot, fish, rat, etc.)

However, even will all of this personal drama, Pixar is still able to make the movie extremely funny. Some moments are laugh-out-loud funny, while other moments are so subtle it's hard to notice them on the first watch. The movie shifts so seamlessly between drama and humo it's hard to say that it's still a Pixar movie. It's such a departure from their previous movies that it feels as thought it's na 80s or 90s Disney film (which is always a compliment...just don't touch the 00s).

Overall, the entire movie is enjoyable, even if it isn't as laughable as Pixar's previous films. However, it's their most personal and dramatic, and absolutely a must-see. Just be prepared for a rather dark kid's movie

Score: 9.5/10