The Muppets - Review

I think the first few lines of the opening musical number for this movie pretty much summed up my reaction after hearing that a new Muppet movie was in development: "Everything is great, everything is grand, I've got the whole wide world in the palm of my hand!" Okay, well maybe I don't quite feel like the world's in my hands, but news of the long awaited theatrical return of Jim Henson's legendary characters sure got me excited. As a kid, the Muppets never failed to make me laugh, be it the TV shows, the movies, or the television specials. What surprises me is how, as an adult, I still find them funny. Alright, I guess some of the Muppet productions haven't quite held up (the cartoon spin-offs and some of the later movies haven't exactly gotten better with age), but even the worst of the Muppet movies are, at the very least, entertaining on some level (Muppets From Space). Does the new Muppet movie live up to Jim Henson's legacy?

The Muppets, while more or less in line with the series' previous movie canon, is something of an in-continuity reboot. It's been well over a decade since the last theatrical Muppet movie, and since then the Muppets have all split up and gone their separate ways. Kermit lives a most secluded life in his Hollywood mansion, Miss Piggy is a famous fashion designer in Paris, Gonzo has become a plumbing magnate, Fozzie is the lead singer of Reno Muppet impersonation group called The Moopets, Animal is in a celebrity anger management group, and... the list goes on. When 3 Hollywood tourists, Gary (Jason Segel), his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams), and his Muppet superfan brother Walter (who happens to be a Muppet himself) discover a plot by a greedy Oil tycoon named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to tear down the Muppet studios to drill for oil, they form a plan to reunite the Muppets to band together and save their beloved studios.

I'll be first to admit that the plot for the movie isn't really groundbreaking. There's nothing inherently bad about it, but it's just been done before. It's basically The Muppet Movie meets The Blues Brothers. In the end, that doesn't really matter because the script delivers on where it needs to. In other words, the movie is really funny! The film was mainly pitched by the film's star, Jason Segel. Apparently Segal has been a long time fan of the Muppets who co-wrote the script with Nicholas Stoller. Make no mistake, this is probably the funniest film I've seen this year. I admit that might have something to do with the fact that the comedy scene has been somewhat lacking in 2011, but I don't want to sell the movie short because I was laughing almost the whole way through.

As funny as the movie is, there are more than a few things to nitpick. First off are some of the non-cameo human characters. I kind of hate to criticize any of the non-Muppet actors, since nobody gave a bad performance or anything like that. It's just that almost all of the funniest lines and parts went to the Muppet characters, and whenever they weren't on screen, the movie lost a little steam. Jason Segal and Amy Adams are both good actors with great comedic ability but most of their scenes without the Muppets at times would lead to the occasional chuckle, but nothing more than that. Plus, the romantic subplot between the two was mostly unnecessary, tacked on, and irrelevant (although, it did lead to one of the more enjoyable musical numbers).

The other character I have mixed feelings about is Chris Cooper as the villainous Tex Richman. While Cooper was clearly having fun with the role, his character was pretty forgettable. He's little more than a generic evil rich person whose recurring joke was saying the words "Maniacal Laugh!" whenever he was discussing his evil plans. I can see that they were going for a tounge-in-cheek generic villain, but it didn't really work. He lacks the goofy appeal of Doc Hopper from the first movie (a fast food tycoon who sells fried frog legs) or the natural comedic abilities of Charles Grodin's jewel thief from Great Muppet Caper. These are relatively minor nitpicks, but worth mentioning nonetheless.

The direction is hit and miss too. Like I said, the actors are all mostly solid when you consider the film's tone. That might be perceived as a flaw in other movies, but with the movie's inherent hammy tone, everyone fits in pretty nicely. Still, some elements of the production design look a little too cheap and inconsistent. Plus, there wasn't a whole lot of visual flair to the cinematography. None of it is in-your-face awful, but rather just kind of meh. That said, the puppetry work is as solid as ever and some of the dance choreography is well done. Again, these are mostly little nitpicks that are fairly insignificant to the big picture.

There are only a few things a Muppet movie needs to get right, and this movie nails every single one of them. It's a back to basics and return to formula Muppet movie that succeeds in their signature sense of humor and storytelling. Were you hoping for catchy musical numbers? How about the characters trademark slapstick or fourth wall humor? Or maybe you're a fan of the celebrity cameos? This movie has all of the above. The music is appropriately catchy, the jokes are spot on, and the cameos are plentiful. It features a soundtrack of new songs as well as reprisals of a couple classics, Rainbow Connection and Mahna Mahna. The jokes are appropriately goofy but also clever enough to not be annoying. As for the cameos, Jack Black, Alan Arkin, Emily Blunt, Neil Patrick Harris, Zach Galifinakis, Sarah Silverman, and many others all bring their comedic charm for their brief appearances. It's a classic Muppet awesomeness the rings back to the glory days of The Muppet Show and the first movie.

In short, I loved this movie! It's not a perfect film, but it succeeds in everything it needs to. It's a fun comedic romp that both adults and kids can enjoy. All I can say is that it's great to have the Muppets back. Highly recommended!

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Real Steel - Review

There are some movies with premises so goofy and strange, that I wish I could have heard the screenwriter, producer, or director pitch his/her idea to the studio. I imagine the pitch for Real Steel went something along the lines of "Rocky... but with Robots" or maybe this film started off as a film adaptation of the Rock-Em Sock-Em Robot toy line. Hell, it was probably greenlit as an opportunity for the studio to put a family friendly crowd pleaser in theaters for the end-of-summer lineup and give them just enough time to market a line of Real Steel-themed toys in time for the holidays. No matter where the origins of it's bizarre conception came from, what really matters is whether the movie is any good. So is Real Steel as dumb as it sounds or is it the real deal?

The said goofy concept basically goes like this. Real Steel is set in the near future where a new sport craze has captured the nation... Robot Boxing! Audiences don't care about seeing two people wail on each other in the ring anymore, now they prefer seeing brutal fights between 10 foot tall robots. In the middle of the Robot Boxing circuit is Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman). Himself a former boxer, Charlie travels the country entering his robots in as many fights as he can... and usually looses. Up to his neck in debt and malfunctioning robots, Charlie struggles to maintain a living. When he learns that his ex-girlfriend of many years ago unexpectedly died, he suddenly finds himself reunited with his estranged son Max. Not wanting to have anything to do with his child, he arranges for his ex's wealthy and willing sister to take custody of Max, but not until after summer comes to an end. In the meantime, Charlie reluctantly takes Max on the road for his boxing circuit. There they both discover a beat-up robot named Atom. Despite Atom's relative inability to dish any pain, it's ability to withstand large amounts of damage make it a surprisingly formidable fighter. So now, Charlie, Max, and Atom take the roads and become a surprising hit in the world of robot boxing.

Any movie with a story that can be best described as Rocky with a touch of Over The Top and some Transformers-style robots has no real reason to be any good. That said, I have to admit, Real Steel actually isn't that bad of a movie... dare I say that I even liked it. Make no mistake, it's by no means amazing but its well enough made to justify at least one viewing (it's probably not in theatres anymore, sorry for the late review folks). Oh sure, it's still mainly an excuse to make a quick buck and to market a bunch of toys, and the film snob part of me sometimes says that I should be harder on it, but I can't deny that I found the movie very enjoyable and well made. What can I say?

I've generally been a fan of Hugh Jackman, but I have to admit that he hasn't exactly been on a high streak lately. With the exception of his amusing Wolverine cameo in X-Men First Class, I can't really think of any other particularly noteworthy movies he has been a part of the last few years. His performance in Reel Steal, however, changes that. He certainly pulls off what is normally a fairly generic "douchebag with a heart of gold" role and does it well. He starts off as enough of a deadbeat to set his character arc in motion and as the story progresses, his development feels natural and convincing. He's by no means Oscar worthy but Jackman does his part well. The real breakthrough performance has to go to Dakota Goyo as the young Max Denton. Kid performances tend to either make or break a movie if their character plays a major role in the plot, but Goyo pulls through and brings a natural and believable performance that's neither forced or annoying. Not much else to say about the acting other than that it just works.

The special effects are surprisingly some of the better I've seen this year. Looking back on this last year, the visual effects front has been kind of lackluster. The Transformers cgi was less-than-spectacular, Super 8 had its moments yet was kind of meh, Green Lantern was ugly, Planet of the Apes was well detailed but usually looked pretty computerized, X-Men's looked somewhat unfinished, Thor's were colorful yet also not totally convincing, and... you get the point. Real Steel's on the other hand actually look pretty damn awesome. The cgi robots aren't always 100% convincing, but they all have neat-looking designs that serve the movie well. The detail in the animation is impressive, the physics behind their movements works, and the designs are all distinct from one another. It's mostly cgi (especially during the fight scenes) but there are a few scenes using puppets and animations. It had a good balance between the two, and it just plain works.

The boxing and action scenes are surprisingly better than I could have ever expected. Director Shawn Levey's filmography before Real Steel consisted mainly of second-rate comedies. I would have never led me to believe he was capable of directing action. After all, this is the guy behind forgettable fare like Big Fat Liar, Cheaper By The Dozen, The Pink Panther remake, Night At The Museum, and a few others of more or less the same calibre. Granted, most of his films aren't necessarily horrible (usually) but most are pretty meh to say the least. For Real Steel, the action scenes combine the efforts of Levey's surprisingly formidable direction, fast-paced but not erratic editing, well-placed camera angles, great fight choreography staged by Sugar Ray Leonard, and the aforementioned solid special effects. What can I say other than that they're exciting, well made, and a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

To no surprise, the story is the film's biggest weak spot is the story. I'm sure there are plenty of people that will have a hard time getting behind the Rocky with Robots plotline, and I'll be first to admit how silly it sounds. The main problem for me wasn't so much the goofy plot as much as it was the incredibly predictable nature of the story. If you've seen any boxing movie ever made, you'll have absolutely no problem predicting the ending and most of the dramatic turns. Not to mention, some of the character development comes kind of out of left field. The most noticeable would be the scene where Max suddenly changes from a star-struck young fan to a noted expert of the craft of robot boxing. It's generic, run-of-the-mill screenwriting to say the least, but if you keep your expectations low enough, it probably won't phase you much.

This kind of a side note, but I'd like to take this time to write a note to Michael Bay or whoever will be making the next Transformers movie. Mr. Bay, take a look at Real Steel and take some notes on how to make a fun movie action movie with toy-like robots. Take note of the robots... they're distinguishable from one another, moved like robots, and looked well constructed. Look at the action... the camera wasn't shaking around erratically and you could actually see what was happening. Finally, observe the actors... did you see how grounded and believable performances made the movie better and more believable as opposed to overacting psychos shouting half of their lines? Just take a look, it certainly couldn't hurt.

I don't think that Real Steel is playing in theatres anymore, but if it's still hanging around, I'd say it's worth checking out. If you can accept the silly premise, then definitely give it a shot. Kids will probably eat it up, but adults will find enough to enjoy about it as well. If you missed it in theatres, give it a watch when it comes out on DVD.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Paranormal Activity 3 - Review

Hey! It's October, and that means two things. Halloween is around the corner AND a new Paranormal Activity movie is out (now taking the place of the once annual Saw series). I have to admit that I have a bit of a soft spot for these kinds of movies. If you're a frequent reader of my blog, you'll know that I'm a horror movie fan with a particular interest in ghost stories and haunted house movies. At the same time however, I've never cared much for found footage movies. Cloverfield was decent but not great, Blair Witch was overrated, and most others ranged from awful to meh. The original Paranormal Activity was probably the only found-footage horror film that I not only liked but thought was actually great. Sure, none of these movies are epic achievements in filmmaking or anything like that, but they basically deliver on what I expect out of a fun and exciting horror film for the Halloween season.

The first movie was a fun, suspenseful, and at times compelling ghost story that hooked you in with a spooky premise and delivered some memorable scares. The second film, while not as good or fresh as the first, was a surprisingly solid follow-up. It had more than a few faults, but the suspense was still there and it tied the story to it's predecessor better than expected. Does the third entry hold up or has the series worn its welcome?

Paranormal Activity 3 continues the series' chronological trend of going backwards in time. The second movie took place a few weeks before the first film while PA3 goes a couple decades back to the year 1988. Katie and Kristi (the protagonists from parts 1 and 2 respectively) are both young kids living with their mother Julie and their stepdad Dennis. Kristi (approximately age 5 or 6) has apparently made up an imaginary friend named Toby. While "Toby" seems like a harmless made up friend for Kristi at first, things start getting weird. Unexplained and seemingly paranormal occurrences start happening around the house, and the so-called Toby seems to be connected to them. Is he just a figment of Kristi's imagination or is he something else entirely???

I don't even know why I ended that plot description with a question. If you've seen any of the Paranormal Activity movies before this, you already know what's going on. There's an invisible demon that's terrorizing an unsuspecting family. He moves stuff around in the middle of the night, makes spooky and eerie noises, and on occasion attacks an unfortunate victim. This worked well in the first movie, using the"fear of the unknown" and "less is more" concepts to help the film rise above it's otherwise gimmicky premise. It didn't answer every question the viewer may have had, but it didn't need to. It stood on it's own quite well and didn't really need a sequel. This being a successful horror film, though, changed all that and a sequel came out a year after it's wide release to delve more into the mythos.

(I'm about to spoil the plots of the first two movies, but not Part 3. If you want to keep the first two movies a secret, skip ahead two paragraphs)

The first movie left most details about the entity in question under wraps. At first, the movie seemed like a simple spirit haunting... spooky and eerie but not immediately dangerous. After watching the camera footage, doing EVP tests, researching paranormal phenomenon, and conducting experiments, both the characters and the viewers learned that the entity in question wasn't a harmless ghost, but a malevolent demon bent on harming the innocent Katie. The only explanation as to why the demon was tormenting Katie was that demonic hauntings were totally random and that most of the time, they have little to no reason... a somewhat weak explanation I admit, but that didn't really matter because it gave us enough background to keep us guessing but not feel totally cheated out of an idea for what was happening.

The second film changed that a bit. It hinted that these hauntings weren't random, but they instead had something to do with their family's past. Apparently these paranormal visits were triggered by Katie and Kristi's grandmother, who made a deal with the Devil. This "deal" was only briefly hinted at from a few lines of dialogue, but no real insight or details were provided. This was the main problem with PA2 (this and that the movie was basically a retread of the first with a higher budget), it eliminated a lot of the mystery without providing any real closure. It still had some great scares and spooky moments but the ambiguity didn't work to it's advantage this time. I knew there would be more explanation in future sequels, but I still couldn't help but feel a bit cheated.

(Spoilers End here)

Unfortunately, Paranormal Activity 3 falls victim to many of the flaws of it's predecessors (especially part 2). It still feels the need to explain way more than it really needs to. The first 30 minutes were quite tedious. Treading familiar turf from the first two movies, the first act takes way more time introducing the characters and paranormal occurrences than it really needed to. I know this is a prequel and that this is (supposedly) the first time these characters are experiencing any ghostly hauntings, but the filmmakers really needed to put more thought into how the audience would have perceived the introduction. We know who Katie and Kristi are, we more or less know what the demon is capable of, and we are somewhat familiar with their backstory. I realize that some of the introductions were necessary, like the new characters and setting, but they still spent way too much time getting us reacquainted with what we already knew.

The second act was a modest improvement. This is where things were starting to get spooky and the suspense was slowly gaining momentum. Its still more of the same... the lights go out and shit starts going down. Still, you can't argue with what works. There were enough moments to keep me on the edge of my seat and deliver the expected though still effective jump-scare. I couldn't help but feel like many of these scenes were getting to be predictable, but I'd be lying if I told you that I wasn't on edge or being caught off guard constantly.

The third act is where things really started getting good. I won't spoil what happens, but make no mistake that this was by far the scariest, most suspenseful, and best part of the movie. Again without giving anything away, it tries something different and unexpected while delving into territory that the previous movies hadn't gone to yet. Some of the ads and reviews have said things along the lines that last 20 minutes will "scar you for life" or be the "scariest thing you'll ever see." I personally think thats quite over-stated, I doubt you'll loose much sleep over them, but it's pretty memorable nonetheless. There is one thing about the last part that I absolutely hated... the ending! After this super suspenseful buildup and finale, the movie just cuts away to the credits while providing hardly any closure. The whole theatre let out a collective moan as soon as the credits started rolling. I know they're setting it up for another sequel, but to just end a movie with so much buildup and no resolution is basically giving the finger to the audience. They might as well have had a producer come out and say "Thanks for watching bitches! Paranormal Activity 4 next year... gimme your 12 bucks!"

There's not really a whole lot more I have to say about Paranormal Activity 3, at least nothing that I feel like I haven't stated before. In terms of it's merits of basic filmmaking, it's fairly solid. The acting is overall believable, with effective performances from child actors Chloe Csengery and Jessica Brown as the young Katie and Kristi. The sound design is still effective too, altering between total silence and jump-worthy shocks! Also, as I mentioned before, most of the scares are still quite effective. Not much to say other than that the pieces come together and the film works. That said, if you weren't a fan of the first two, I seriously doubt this one will change your mind.

There's a part of me saying that I'm going too easy on this film after being ticked off from the ending and the series' repetitive nature, but I can't deny that Paranormal Activity 3 delivered on where it needed to. That said, I must say that the series is starting to look a bit long in the teeth by now and that the gimmicky premise is really wearing out its welcome. I'm not saying that it can't get better, and I hope it does, but they're really going to have to rethink the direction of this series in order to keep it fresh. Nonetheless, Paranormal Activity 3 is a fun and spooky horror film, light on the gore but heavy on the scares and perfect for this Halloween. If that sounds up your alley, check it out!

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Warrior - Review

Hey look! September has come and summer is over... you know what that means? Gone are the year's summer blockbusters and in comes the fall lineup of indie films and Oscar bait. First up, is the year's Rocky ripoff known as Warrior. Oh excuse me, this isn't a boxing film, the sport in focus is actually Mixed Martial Arts. Because yeah, that totally changes everything... yeah right.

Joel Edgarton and Tom Hardy star as estranged brothers, Brendan and Tommy Riordan. Neither have spoken to each other in years and the two have next to nothing in common, with two exceptions. They both resent their abusive former alcoholic father (Nick Nolte) and are expert Martial Artists. Brendan is trying to live the quiet life as a high school science teacher along with his wife and two daughters while Tommy is attempting to start a new life after being discharged from the Marines. Brendan's life is disrupted with his youngest daughter needed an expensive medical treatment which saved her life but left the family financially broke. Tommy, on the other hand, is fighting some personal demons and tragic secrets from events that transpired during his time in Iraq. Both make hasty decisions to return to the UFC cage and compete in a brutal and tournament against some of the world's most dangerous fighters for a 5 million dollar prize.

When watching a film like Warrior, I can't help but feel like I'm getting a little soft with my critiques. I really should hate movies that resort to storylines embracing nearly every cliche in the book, but sometimes they're just so freaking hard to resist. Ever since Rocky came out and solidified the already established underdog sports story, the same concept has been repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... you get my drift? The catch is that a lot of these Rocky-inspired movies have found a way to make the story seem less redundant either through likable characters, compelling performances, stylistic filmmaking, or (speaking of cliches) heart and passion. Warrior... it's definitely not breaking any boundaries with it's storytelling, but I can't deny that it just works.

The acting is probably the movie's biggest strength. Joel Edgerton does a commendable job in his role as Brendan, the do-good everyman looking out for his family. There really isn't too much to say about him other than he's convincing, at times very compelling, and that it's overall a damn good performance. Tommy (Tom Hardy) is probably the most interesting character in this movie because he has a certain darkness and mystery to his back-story that really keeps you hooked. Because of his rough childhood with his alcoholic father and tough time on the battlefield, his motives are more secretive and his outlook is bleaker. He shows that he does have a softer side, but often buries it with rage and resentment. While Brendan is a formidable fighter with a few tricks up his sleeve, Tommy is an absolute beast who easily takes down opponents significantly more threatening than him. This makes for a more interesting and mysterious character and while it doesn't exactly stray away from cliches, it keeps you interested. Supporting actors Nick Nolte, Jennifer Morrison, and others all give great performances as well. No complaints acting-wise for this movie.

For sports-driven dramas like Warrior, there are two things on which they must deliver. One is solid performances (which we've established are all great). The second is good execution of the sport in question, in this case Martial Arts. So are the fights any good? Yeah... like really good actually. The pacing of the editing, the stylistic camerawork, the top notch sound design, and the dedication from the actors is about as close to perfect as one could get. They are brutal and intense, and feel about as legitimate as you could probably ask for. If you come to Warrior expecting to see some great fights, you won't be disappointed.

This is the point where I usually pick out the movie's faults or mistakes, but to be honest, I feel like I've already hit on most of this in my opening. The movie's only real downfall is the cliche and predictable storyline. Granted it can be a pretty big problem when scriptwriters continue to repeat the exact same storyline again and again, but then again some people like familiarity. Here's how I see it... films like Warrior probably won't move the industry forward in any meaningful way or be responsible for any innovative filmmaking techniques (Raging Bull was the last film in the boxing sub-genre to do any of that) but there's nothing particularly wrong with them either. I agree than in a remake driven industry lacking in originality, something new and innovative is always encouraged, but films like Warrior are not to blame for any of that. If nothing else, they're usually passable stories that give actors the chance to showcase their acting skills as well as allowing directors, editors, cinematographers, and sound designers to try some clever techniques. If you're looking for movies to blame for being repetitive and cliche, blame the majority of romantic comedies released every year (those are way more cliched and drained for ideas than sports dramas).

So yeah, Warrior isn't exactly original but it's still a very well made, well directed, and well acted film. It's definitely worth seeing and will probably get some Oscar nominations come award season, but probably won't be remembered in any meaningful way years from now.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Review

You know what is the best thing about Transformers 3? It's that this officially marks the end of the Michael Bay-directed Transformers films! (If this was a video review, this is the time you would start hearing "The Messiah" playing) Hallelujah!!! Hallelujah!!! Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the 2007 film. It was a fun and crazy over-the-top sci-fi action film. That said, despite what the massive legions of over-enthusiastic fans would say, it was nothing more than a stupid and dopey action film. In other words, the flick was big, fun, and loud but moronic on pretty much all levels of filmmaking with the exception of it's impressive special effects. It was at best a guilty pleasure. The 2009 sequel, on the other hand, entitled Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was a disaster. An over-stuffed, over-plotted, poorly acted, horribly shot, and visually unimpressive nightmare of a film, Revenge of the Fallen stands as one of the worst sequels ever made and one of my personal worst films of all time. Even after two years I'm still spitting out it's horrible taste, so you can probably imagine that I wasn't exactly overjoyed for a third entry. Is it an upgrade over the last tragedy or is this one another broken and buggy mess of a movie?

Dark of the Moon takes place a few years after Revenge of the Fallen. Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf) has just recently graduated from college and is currently living with his new girlfriend Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whitely). Sam takes an entry level job with a major corporation, but finds himself having difficulty conforming to such a mundane job with his Autobot allies out defending the world. Meanwhile, trouble brews on the battlefront as the Decepticons discover a means to turn the tide of their battle with the Autobots. In the 1960s, an Autobot ship known as the Ark, carrying technology capable of rebuilding their home planet of Cybertron, crash landed on Earth's moon. Kept secret by the American government for over forty years, Decepticon leader Megatron learns of it's existance and aims to find it to rebuild their planet on Earth before Autobot commander Optimus Prime gets his hands on it and prevents Earth's destruction.

Alright, let's just get this out of the way right up front... is it as bad as Revenge of the Fallen? The answer... no, it's not as bad, but not by much. To it's credit, I didn't leave this one furious over it's poor quality like I did with ROTF, but then again I went into DOTM with really really really low expectations. I know that Michael Bay isn't out to create high art (believe me, I get that), and he's made a few films that I've really enjoyed. Movies like The Rock, Armaggeddon, and the first Transformers are, in my opinion, some of the better "pure-fun, guilty pleasure, popcorn flicks" out there. That said, Bay's disregard for the basic tenants of filmmaking are so obvious that his films, enjoyable or otherwise, come off almost as amateur as a first year student film if it had a budget of 200 million dollars. Terms like plot, character development, depth, tripod, steadicam, subtlty, have virtually no place in a Michael Bay directed film. In spite of all those criticisms... none of that would bother me much for this kind of movie had it not been so over-the-top annoying and cheesy... but that's exactly what this movie is!

Michael Bay has one particular talent that I don't think gets discussed enough... the ability to get good actors give bad performances. While Shia Labeouf has shown that he's not that bad of an actor, his choice in roles could really use some work. I can't say that I blame him for his choices... being in huge blockbuster franchises like Transformers or Indiana Jones have gotten the guy some major exposure and probably some nice paychecks too. Unfortunately, the Transformers movies are going to hang over him like a sign that reads "Don't Take Me Seriously!" In this, he has his moments and can still hold is own in the action scenes, but his tendency to overact has seriously kicked into high gear. He spends most of the movie looking paranoid and shouts what seemed like half of his lines. I really hope Shia gets some better roles soon, before his Transformers image is permanently typecast onto him.

One of the most talked about casting changes was the replacement of Megan Fox for newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. A lot of the movie's criticism has been directed toward her acting ability. In my opinion, she's not terribly awful, but just really bland. It doesn't help that her character is nothing more than a generic love interest and occasional damsel-in-distress, but her lack of any acting experience is obvious. An actress with more training could have easily brought out some emotion to the character. That said, with most of this movie's cast either playing a neverending game of "Who Can Overact The Most?", she gave a more grounded performance that was at least not painfully annoying. That's probably why I didn't hate her as much as most people did, but I can't deny that her performance doesn't really work. I suppose you have to make due with what you've got.

For the rest of the cast... this is where the whole "Michael Bay makes good actors give bad performances" notion is most apparent. John Turturro returns as Agent Simmons, once again soiling an otherwise solid filmography with another horrendously annoying Transformers performance. Veteran actor John Malkovich shows up in a mostly-pointless role as Sam's boss, Bruce Brazos, only to give a painfully annoying over-the-top performance. Speaking of painfully annoying and over-the-top performances, there's also Frances McDormand as Director of US Defense, Charlotte Mearing. She's right up there with John Malkovich in terms of over-the-top and annoying performances. Julie White and Kevin Dunn (Sam's parents), show up again to give their trademark over-the-top and unfunny schtick again... though they fortunately only had about one or two scenes (gotta appreciate the little things.)

You know what is the worst thing about the Transformers movies? Aside for those two Autobot twins from ROTF (honestly, I still can't get over just how bad that movie turned out), it's the fact that the actual Transformers play second fiddle to the human characters. For a movie that's called Transformers... that's a huge problem! It wouldn't bother me much if these movies had gripping storylines with well-written human characters that would compliment the Autobot Vs Decepticon storyline.... BUT THEY DON'T!!! I'm not even coming at this as some nostalgia-fueled fanboy. On the contrary, I never cared for the Transformers growing up. I didn't watch the show, I didn't collect the toys, and I never read the comics. I was born in 87, so I missed the Transformers generation (had I been born a few years earlier, I'm sure I would have loved them). Still, a series that is as simple and straightforward as good robots fighting bad robots shouldn't be this cluttered.

Have you noticed that the first movie was mainly a story about Shia Labeouf trying to get laid? The second movie... well, that plot was so cluttered and messy that I was barely able to comprehend what it was about. From what I remember, it had something to do with Sam getting laid in college with the Transformers story being treated more as a subplot. The third is about Sam trying to make it in the working world with the Transformers occasionally popping in to say hi. I wasn't expecting greatness or anything like that from a Transformers movie, but don't think a generic good robots vs bad robots story is too much to ask for! At the very least, can't the writers cool it with the stupid government conspiracies crap! It made no sense in the second movie about how the world governmentshad been covering up the Transformers existance for so long or how they managed to keep the whole final battle from the first movie under wraps. This whole movie centers around the the space race from the 60s being nothing more than a response to finding a Tranformer that crash landed on the moon. The movie even got Buzz Aldrin to make a cameo... no seriously, the real Buzz Aldrin is in this movie! I don't know whether to be impressed for the filmmakers attempt at bringing some authenticity to the concept or annoyed to see a genuine icon appearing in such a stupid movie. EESH!

This is the part where I'm supposed to say something along the lines of, "At least the action and special effects are good." Well, I have to admit, this is where the movie kind of works... "kind of" being the key phrase in that sentence. I remember being seriously impressed by the cgi in the first movie, calling it some of the best ever. Watching the robot designs in this one... well, let's just say they haven't gotten better with age. That might be because there's not much diversity in the designs, particularly in the Decepticons. Most of them look so alike, that you can't tell one another apart except for the close ups. As for whether they look convincing... let's say they look flawed yet decent. Still, they do look like a lot of work was put into them, and despite their imperfections, it is still some of the more impressive cgi out there.

The action is still hit and miss, but fortunately it hits more often than it misses. The finale is where it especially works. It's still generic Michael Bay action, if you've seen any one of his movies, you know what to expect. Explosions, guns, explosions, lens flares, explosions, shots of the sunset, explosions, helicopters, explosions, and tanks... the standard. Did I mention there were explosions? I just wish it didn't take so long with the tedious Shia Laboeuf plot to get to the action. Unfortunaely like ROTF, the said plot didn't spend enough time developing enough of the said supporting characters, so you feel no real emotional connection to anyone in the final battle. The 3D effects were surprisingly very well done, making this movie one of the few movies were the 3D actually improved on the overall moviegoing experience. It's not up there with the Avatar or Tron Legacy 3D effects, but it does it's job well. It's your standard Michael Bay action fare... crazy and erratic but for what it is, it's not too shabby.

Odds are if you're seeing a Michael Bay movie, you're probably expecting little more than crazy action. If that's all your looking for, then yeah, you'll probably leave more or less satisfied. It is an improvement over the second but it still lacks the fun factor from the original. It's been in theatres forever now, so you've already decided when/if you are going to see it or have seen it already. Granted, this movie is best seen on the big screen, but still I'm going to say you can probably skip it unless you really really really want to check it out.

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Captain America: The First Avenger - Review

Out of all the Marvel comic movies, I think Captain America has probably had the toughest time transitioning into film. It's not hard to see why... a patriot-themed superhero comes off as a bit campy, especially in a time where America isn't exactly seen in a particularly positive light these days. The character actually been adapted to film 4 times before. The first of which was a 1944 serial. It was decent for it's time I suppose, but like most serieals from the time period, it hasn't aged well. 1979 saw two forgettable made-for-TV adaptations that made little to no impact on audiences. Of course, the most infamous adaptation was the 1990 film, simply called Captain America. This low budget abomination went straight to video and is often considered one of the worst superhero films ever made. So yeah, the Captain's film history hasn't exactly been stellar, that's for sure. Is director Joe Johnston's film adaptation, Captain America: The First Avenger, the one to change all that?

This World War II themed superhero flick begins in the city of Brooklyn in the year 1942. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a young man who wants nothing more than to serve his country as a soldier in the US Army. However, due to his lack of physical strength, his asthma, and general poor health, he is deemed unfit for military service. That all changes when rogers meets Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a military scientist who after recognizing Rogers' perseverance and good nature, selects him as a candidate for his super soldier program. The experimental procedure would change Rogers from an asthmatic weakling to super-strengthened fighter and the prime American soldier. The experiment is a success, but when the program is sabotaged by Nazi spies, the government shuts down plans to create a super-powered army and instead turns Rogers into a costumed character known as Captain America. He is then treated as a gimmick, paraded around USO shows selling bonds and boosting soldier morale. Not content with simply being a sideshow attraction, Rogers takes to the battlefield as Captain America and stumbles onto a heinous Nazi organization known as Hydra, led by an equally powerful Nazi known as the Red Skull. With Hydra becoming stronger everyday and the Skull's hunger for world domination increasing, Captain America becomes the world's only chance of stopping them and saving the world.

Eep! I hate it when I give away that much plot information, but every time I tried to cut it off, I felt like I was selling this movie short. This movie really has a lot going on in it, both as it's own film and it's role in the continuity of the Marvel movie universe. It's a superhero film, it's a WWII epic, it's a prelude to the Avengers, and it's a prequel to Iron Man, Thor, and The Incredible Hulk. What's funny about all that though is that the story itself is essentially a straightforward comic book plot, the basic good-natured hero vs evil villain, albeit with patriotic overtones. Still, almost everything in this movie works... like really well. The storyline is engaging, the characters are fun, and the action is awesome. It's one of those movies that feels as if I shouldn't have liked it as much as I did... but everything comes together so nicely. Seriously, there's next to nothing in this flick that doesn't work.

Probably the biggest success comes from the perfect casting of nearly every character in the movie. Chris Evans (The Human Torch in the Fantastic Four movies) tones down his usual snarky attitude and rather plays the Captain with a likable and rateable demeanor. Unlike many disturbed (Iron Man), troubled (Spider-Man), or borderline psychotic superheroes (Batman), Captain America is one of the more straightforward comic books heroes. He's a good natured, friendly, and overall decent guy who loves his country. This doesn't mean he's stale or underdeveloped, in fact I'd say his good guy demeanor actually makes him one of the more refreshing superheroes in recent memory. Sure, one might still see him as little more than a glorified boy scout, but I personally think there's more to the character. He starts off as a weak man who becomes a national hero that's based less on his physical ability and more on his passionate yet not arrogant patriotism. If nothing else, he's an incredibly fun character that's a blast to watch.

Speaking of fun characters that are a blast to watch, the movie also features Hugo Weaving as the film's central villain, Johann Schmidt aka The Red Skull. The depiction of the character bares many similarities to his comic book counterpart, the best of which is his spot on appearance. One element of the Skull's backstory that was cleverly reinvented for the movie was this. He starts off as a prominent Nazi official (like the comic) and head of Hydra, the Nazi advanced weapon manufacturing division. Soon after the movie starts, Hydra succeeds from Nazi affiliation due to the fact that Hitler consider Schmidt to be too evil... Wow! Overall, I found Weaving to be incredibly entertaining as the red faced villain, finding a perfect balance between camp and seriousness. There are also great supporting performances from Haylee Atwell as the female lead Peggy Carter, Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark (Iron Man's father), Stanley Tucci is great as always as the scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine, as is Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Chester Phillips. Overall, it's a great cast!

Of course for any summer blockbuster, especially a superhero movie, one would expect some great action scenes and special effects. If that's all you come to this movie expecting to see, then I can all but guarantee you'll leave happy. Aside from some a few dodgy cgi shots, I'd go as far to call the action scenes perfect... or at least as great as one can expect. There's the usual hero vs villain fights, but there's also a Bourne style on-foot chase scenes (minus the erratic camera) and some well shot WWII battle scenes. Like I said, there were a few cgi shots that could have been rendered a little better. The most apparent one would have to be Chris Evans pre-experimented body, digitally made shorter and weaker. At times it looks real, but more often that not it looked like a digital effect. Granted those are nitpicks that didn't take me out of the movie. It delivered on all levels as an over-the-top summer blockbuster, a War film, and a fun superhero flick.

If Captain America was simply a fun summer blockbuster with cool action and fun characters, I probably would have been fine with that. Apparently, that wasn't enough for the filmmakers and director Joe Johnston. In addition to the action and characters, this movie features top notch production design, amazing costumes, a great musical score from Alan Silvestri, and an engaging story. It's one of the few superhero films to find a great balance between camp and seriousness while never loosing track of basic solid filmmaking. The 40s setting gave the filmmakers a great opportunity to play with some fun retro themes. It kind of reminded me of Joe Johnston's earlier and very underrated WWII superhero film, The Rocketeer. The sets compliment the 40s vibes and gives the movie a really stellar look. I also dug the tinted old-film inspired color correction, again aiding in it's retro appeal.

My favorite element of the production design had to be the costumes. All of the outfits are extremely well made and seem to be authentic, but it's the main hero's costume that really did it for me. Captain America's costume is about as perfect as you can get. It honors it's source material, updates it appropriately, and appears to be a fully functional costume for it's actor. In other words, Evans is able to move around and pull off the action scenes without looking stiff or robotic. Honestly, if this movie doesn't have the best superhero costumes of all time, it's definitely in the top 5. It's right up there with Spider-Man and Iron Man.

It's so refreshing to see a great superhero film made by passionate filmmakers, especially coming off of the disappointing Green Lantern. It goes to show that when you have a great director, cast, and team all pouring their heart and soul into any movie, especially one as difficult to adapt as Captain America, the results can be awesome. Let me just make this clear... do NOT miss this movie! It's awesome! Not quite Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2 awesome, but definitely my favorite out of the connected Marvel movies (Cap, Thor, Iron Man, and The Increidble Hulk) and somewhere in my Top 10 favorite superhero movies. Now bring on the Avengers!

My Score: 4.5 Out of 5!

Thoughts On The Teaser For The Amazing Spider-Man

Let's try something a little different today... instead of a movie review, how about a movie trailer review. Today, the teaser trailer for the newest Spider-Man movie, entitled "The Amazing Spider-Man," was released. If you don't know, this flick is a complete series reboot with absolutely no connection to the previous Spidey flicks directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire. Instead, this movie will be directed by Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) and stars Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. The main difference is that this movie will take place during entirely during Parker's high school years, when he first gets bit by the radioactive spider responsible for making him super-powered.

Here's the teaser... My review after the jump.



My thoughts... I've been skeptical about this movie ever since I first heard about it. I enjoy Sam Raimi's take on the Spider-Man series (yes, I even kind of liked the third one) and was actually looking forward to a fourth entry... but that got scrapped when Sam Raimi had creative differences with the studio. This teaser actually gives credence to something I've been concerned about since this movie was announced... that it would either be too similar to Twilight or a mediocre teen sci-fi show on the CW. Eep!

The Good:
I will say that I'm glad that they're taking this movie in a different direction than the previous movies, simply because I like to see a different filmmaker try different things. The apparent darker and more dramatic style is just fine with me. It also looks like that it's trying to keep it character-driven and less action-focused, which in theory could be a good thing (don't get me wrong, action is important too though). Plus, the high school setting doesn't bother me too much seeing as many Spidey comics took place during his teenage years anyways. It's also nice to see them actually using Gwen Stacey as the love interest in her proper setting (ie, not shoe-horned into the story for the convenience of a love triangle a la Spider-Man 3). The cast is quite good as well, Andrew Garfield as Spidey, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, Sally Field as Aunt May, Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy, and Rhys Ifans as The Lizard... yeah I have no problem with this cast. So yeah, there's barely enough to keep me hopeful.

The Bad:
Eeeesh... this teaser reeks of Twilight and WB bullshit. I really don't mind the high school setting, but I'm hoping and praying that this doesn't end up being a half-rate love story with flat dialogue, stale performances, questionable morals, and shitty abstinence messages. I might have been able to somewhat take solace in all that had the trailer featured some cool action or neat displays of superpowers, but nope! Instead, we get a weird first-person cg running segment that looks like a cut scene out from a mediocre video game. The cgi in that 30 seconds is pretty awful. I know I know... it's just a teaser trailer and they've got a whole year to fix up the effects (which they probably will), but it's just not boasting me with much confidence right now. Not to mention, we only barely get a glimpse of Parker in the costume. Granted, that's not a huge concern but it's just kind of a bummer.

Overall:
Yeah, this trailer isn't exactly doing it for me. Yes, it's only a teaser and it's still way too soon to judge, but if Sony is going to get the nay-sayers to come around for this flick, they'll have to do much better than this.