An ancient struggle re-erupts on Earth between two extraterrestrial clans, the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons, with a clue to the ultimate power held by a young teenager.
Transformers is a big, loud, dumb movie. That would be fine - I'd expect nothing less, especially from Michael Bay - if it were fun. But it isn't. It's just big, loud, and dumb.
What's wrong with it? Two things, namely: the script, and the action. Writers Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman spend a lot of time dilly-dallying, wasting our time with corny jokes, backstory and general B.S. before getting to the action. When it finally comes, the robots move too quickly, with their 'transformations' so visually complex, that it's difficult to follow. The result: boring boring boring.
How hard is it to make giant robots fun? Get 'em smashing shit and we've got a movie! You would think pairing Michael Bay and giant friggin' robots would be a match made in heaven. Hopefully they up the ante with the sequel, due this summer, cause this first installment was quite the snoozefest.
An improvisational comedy using a handful of actors playing characters competing in an actual poker tournament.
This movie is terrible. Not funny, not interesting, really dumb and lame. All sorts of bad.
Worst of all, they somehow convinced Werner Herzog to be in it, playing a German stereotype. I don't know if he needed the money to fund his next trip into the jungle or what, but poor Herzog. He provides the only real amusement, but at what cost?
According to IMDB, "The script was barely 29 pages long. Zak Penn had the actors improvise." Basically a bunch of actors did it as a favor for their writer/director pals and just decided to dick around. They probably had some fun making it, too. But it ain't no fun to watch. Seriously -- don't watch this crap.
Written by Brad Bird & Jan Pinkava & Jim Capobianco
Remy is a young rat in the French countryside who arrives in Paris, only to find out that his cooking idol is dead. When he makes an unusual alliance with a restaurant's new garbage boy, the culinary and personal adventures begin despite Remy's family's skepticism and the rat-hating world of humans.
It took me over a year to sit down and watch Ratatouille because I have my reservations about Pixar. I tend to find their animation technically impressive, but flat and disinteresting, especially the color schemes (very purple and yellow), character designs, and all too fluid movement. Likewise the writing, while tightly wound, is often very formulaic, safe, and soft. The films hit the right beats, but all too well. For a company that puts so much individual care into each of their films, they sure seem to churn them out conveyor belt style. Not too mention most of the anthropomorphized characters could easily be substituted for humans and not much would change.
After watching, I still don't understand why this film was so well received. The animation is flat and bubble-like, the story has the same elements as every other Pixar film (an anthropomorphized animal is 'different' from the pack, gets separated, is sad about being lost but learns to love it, etc etc), and the humor is so safe it's practically non-existent. This is a kids movie -- Pixar only makes kids movies, let's be clear -- but where's the adventure? Where's the edge? Where is anything interesting? Why am I watching this?
Technically I am impressed -- don't get me wrong, the amount of tiny detail that gets its due is impressive -- but ultimately the film is unsatisfying. I really wish Pixar would grow a pair and make a goddamn movie worth watching. I still haven't seen Wall-E so maybe my feelings will change after that, but nothings done it for me yet...
Writing credits: Mark Protosevich (screenplay) Akiva Goldsman (screenplay) Richard Matheson (novel)
After a supposed miracle vaccine turns the world's population into undead mutants, one scientist (Will Smith) fights for a cure.
This apocalyptic effects extravaganza suffers from the worst of Hollywood flaws - a poor script. The idea itself is great: a man, perhaps the last alive in the entire world, struggles to find a cure for a devastating vaccine that was supposed to cure cancer. One man alone in the world... think of all the things you could do with that concept! Well, this movie doesn't do anything interesting, and is riddled with plot holes and hokey movie-science.
SPOILERS! WARNING!
Legend sets up some basic facts for the environment and the effects of the virus: 1) Manhattan is completed quarantined, as the bridges were all blown up. 2) The virus is spread both air-borne and through saliva. 3) The creatures effected by the virus show no signs of human behavior, social skills, or human intelligence.
The film then systematically debunks all of these rules through action.
Questions:
If Manhattan has no road access, how do Anna and her son Ethan, Smith's supposed saviors, drive their car onto the island? Where do the deer and lions roaming the streets come from?
How come 1% of the population is immune the virus? Why are some animals effected by the airborne virus, but others are not? At what point did the virus stop curing cancer and start killing people?
The film spends time setting up this arch-nemesis type creature who appears bigger than the other mutant humans and seems to exhibit some basic behavior skills. For example, he runs after the woman creature Smith catches; he sets up a trap for Smith; he leads the creatures in the attack on Smith's fortress. But the script doesn't elaborate on this idea any further, and goes out of its way to suggest that this character is merely a freak anomaly. So what's the point? Likewise, why did Smith kill himself at the end? There's no reason for it - he could have easily tossed the grenade and hid with the woman and things would have turned out the same.
There is also a lot of coincidence and repetition of scenes. Smith's character just so happens to find the cure as the creatures are breaking into his fortress - just like how Anna just so happens to show up right as Smith is about to kill himself. Smith hunts deer at least twice. Why do we need to see this more than once? Why is he hunting deer in the first place? It's not like he needs them for food. Repetition is a tall tell sign of poor screen writing.
The landscape scenes look gorgeous - especially on IMAX - but the creature effects are extremely second rate. They could have easily just dressed up a bunch of people as zombies but for some reason they used this incredibly fake looking CGI.
Millions of people have already seen this movie and it blows my mind that no one has taken the time to just think about what the film presents. Two minutes of meditation on the story reveals that it's a pretty incoherent, illogical pile of crap - not even in a nit-picky sense, but on a basic transitional level. See it on IMAX, if you must see it at all.
Writing credits: Ben Affleck (screenplay) Aaron Stockard (screenplay) Dennis Lehane (novel)
Two Boston area detectives investigate a little girl's kidnapping, which ultimately turns into a crisis both professionally and personally.
Ben Affleck's directorial debut is by no means memorable, but it is an effective, well made film that shows promise from the former Academy Award winner. Affleck handles his camera with an assured confidence, and while the script lapses at points, the picture drives towards some interesting ideas on moral ambiguity and making firm decisions.
Where the film succeeds most is in its casting. Affleck manages to draw some intense performances from his actors, particularly his brother, Casey, who despite wire thin, boyish looks, takes charge of the screen. Likewise, Amy Ryan completely captures the emotion of a cracked-out mother searching for her child. Ed Harris gets a bit hammy as a police detective on the case, and Morgan Freeman sort of sleepwalks throughout, but neither feel out of place.
The script has some dips, particularly a twist towards the end that doesn't sit well, but at the same time feels necessary, mostly because it secures the main theme of morality. Having kids clearly effected Affleck, and he's not afraid to probe what it means to be a parent, to do what's right for a child. The Boston location adds depth to the concept of community, and makes the film feel much more real. The final shot of Casey sitting on a couch with the newly returned child is both depressing and poignant.
Overall, Gone Baby Gone isn't a perfect film, but Affleck managed to wring a lot of interesting ideas out of the material, and handled the picture with confidence. It scares me to say it, but I'm looking forward to his next picture. Worth a gander.
The extraordinary life and times of famed French singer Edith Piaf (Marion Cotillard)
Like most biopics, this incredibly uneven but suprisingly moving portrait of Edith Piaf, one of France's national treasures, relies heavily on the performance of its lead, Marion Cotillard. Thankfully she nails Piaf to a tee, capturing her movements and manneurisms with such precision it's almost uncanny.
If only the script did her performance justice. Dahan's presentation of periods in Piaf's life is so scatterbrained, it's almost hard to tell what is going on. The film does an incredible amount of jumping back and forth through time in the most illogical of ways; snippets from Piaf's childhood are connected to her final days or mid-life antics without any real causal connection, thematically or emotionally. The poor pacing results in a fragmented portrait of this powerful artist, one that leaves the spectator feeling as though they are missing something, despite the film's two and a half hour plus run time.
If you're already a fan of Piaf, then you're sure to love this film. If not, stick to the soundtrack - it'll tell you all you need to know.
Longing for the days of the Drive-in? Grand Opening is Manhattan's only drive-in cinema - in a store. Choose your favorite film from the 60's - 90's, book a one-of-a-kind 1965 Ford Falcon convertible with seating for six and a full concession stand, and relax like it's the good old days all over again. Highlights include Dr. Strangelove, Cool Hand Luke, The Hustler, Pulp Fiction, and many more.
$75 per show (Car seats up to 6 passengers) 2 shows per night (7pm and 10pm)
When an innocent midwife (Naomi Watts) accidentally uncovers potential evidence against his Russian mobster family, Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) must put into motion a harrowing chain of murder, deceit, and retribution.
While not as thematically complex as A History of Violence, Cronenberg's latest offering is a taut, moody thriller, almost economic in approach. No Cronenberg film makes a stronger tie to Hitchcockian modes of storytelling; each scene moves the story efficiently, while maintaining maximum entertainment value. Yet, the film also contains that trademark Cronenberg style, a queasy mix of violence and humor, absurdity and density.
Viggo Mortensen gives a bravura performance, one of intense restraint yet physical prowess. The knife fight scene, already infamous, will go down as one of the best fight scenes in history.
The Onion's AV Club has taken the liberty of dictating a pretty basic introduction to the works of one of my favorite filmmakers, David Cronenberg, for those of you unfamiliar with his body of work. Cronenberg is the genius behind some of the most psychologically twisted, reality-bending films of the past three decades, not to mention the inventor of 'body horror'. It's a great read, check it out.
There's an auction going on Ebay right now that offers the chance for a private dinner with director Brett Ratner. Right now the current bid is at US $8,643.73, which is a heck of a lot of money. The disclaimer says nothing about bodygaurds being present, so let's hope whomever wins this bad boy takes the opportunity to punch Ratner in the face. They'd be doing film fans everywhere a favor.
James L. Brooks screenplay Joel Cohen consultant writer John Frink consultant writer Matt Groening screenplay Al Jean screenplay Tim Long consultant writer Ian Maxtone-Graham screenplay George Meyer screenplay David Mirkin screenplay Michael Price consultant writer Mike Reiss screenplay Mike Scully screenplay Matt Selman screenplay John Swartzwelder screenplay Jon Vitti screenplay
After polluting the local lake, resulting in Springfield being put under a giant government instituted glass dome, Homer must simultaneously save the town and his marriage.
Those of you who read this site may have noticed that I haven't written a review of a new film in quite a long time. That's because I haven't been to the theaters in over two months. That's right - two whole months have passed since I've been compelled to go to my favorite place on Earth, the movie theater, and watch a film. I've been so fed up with the crap that Hollywood has churned out this summer that I simply decided to boycott pretty much every movie that has been released. Sequel after sequel, revised franchise to remake, I couldn't stand to sit through any of them.
But The Simpsons was something I had to see. Eighteen years in the making, The Simpsons Movie was something that was always on the tips of everyone's tongue, but seemed like it would never happen; a mythical idea that looked great on paper but could never be done. Like most of my generation, I grew up watching The Simpsons, and just couldn't picture a jump onto the big screen that would do the show justice.
So when the movie finally landed - to rave reviews, nonetheless - I had to see it. I went in with the best of expectations: that it would undoubtedly disappoint, but if there were two or three good jokes, I'd be happy. And I'm glad to say that the film not only met those expectations, but exceeded them. The Simpsons Movie is about as good of a film one could ask for from a show that seemed to have run its course almost a decade ago.
Without side-stepping the legacy that they've already built, Groening and Co. have managed to craft a fast paced, funny, cinematic counterpart to the show that retains its spot-on portrait of the American family. While some might complain that the satire isn't as biting as, say, South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut, the film somehow manages to make its points clear while staying fresh. After all, The Simpsons was never really about controversy, at least not in the same way as South Park, but the dives it takes at religion and American life are still quite funny while aimed at an incredibly wide audience; I saw the flick with my whole family, and my parents laughed just as hard as I did.
Ultimately the film is a bit short and maybe too fast paced for its own good - it's a bit top heavy and starts to lose steam towards the last act - but I have to say I was impressed. Was it worth the eighteen year wait? No - but it didn't ruin the show in any way, and was certainly an improvement upon the last couple of seasons. If anything, it reminded me of why I liked The Simpsons so much to begin with, and that's certainly a good thing.
Lots of people have been asking me how I feel about the J.J. Abrams produced as-of-yet-untitled monster movie codenamed Cloverfield that's been driving the Infernets crazy these days. If you haven't heard about it, get on over to /film.com, who has the up to the minute skinny on this super secret, virally marketed flick. But back to my feelings... I think this photo sums it up pretty well:
Until they start releasing something more concrete than a two minute teaser, a no-name cast list and some blurry cell phone shots, I could care less about this 'mystery' project. After all, this is just a revised form of the marketing for Snakes on a Plane, and we all know how that turned out. Sorry, Paramount - Internet games and rumors are simply not enough to get this film nut in a frenzy. I'll get excited when I hear the film is actually watchable.
Here's a recent article written by Johnathan Foster discussing the two differing schools on Michael Bay: explosions vs art. Foster's makes a pretty simple argument
I gave up on Michael Bay movies having great stories or strong characters long ago, and yet, I find that he continually fails to deliver thrills. He wields explosions around as gracelessly as bad comedies do jokes, and yet his pyrotechnic fervor has wrongly come to symbolize the entire genre: the bigger the fireworks, the better the film.
but I think Bay's validity in cinema is a bit more complex. Bay's films are so overtly pro-American, patriotic in the truest sense of the word, that it's almost hard to ignore. Take Armaggeddon, for example, in which some variation of red white and blue can be found in every frame. While he may not have 'style', his aesthetic is so well defined that it alone can distinguish a film. Maybe its similar to the way people appreciate Ed Wood - bad, but so distinctly bad.
I haven't seen Transformers yet (or any of the other major blockbusters this season, they're all so crummy!) but I am definitely interested. I figure, if Hollywood can't get gigantic fucking fighting robots right, then they should really just stop making movies. Just stop.
The Annual New York Asian Film Festival starts this Friday at the IFC Center. Highlights include a screening of Takashi Miike's unreleased in the US Zebraman, anniversary showing of John Woo's Hard Boiled, shorts from Old Boy helmer Chan Wook Park, and more. This seventeen day orgy of new films will introduce you to buffalo-busting action flicks from Thailand, cartilage-cracking gangster films from Korea, and the first gore flick ever made in Pakistan!
You can find the full screening list and purchase tickets here.
Lionsgate marketing exec and part-time photographer Tim Palen shot the photo as part of an upcoming book titled Guts: The Art of Marketing Horror Films. NYMag says that the book is “a collection of his creepiest work, including a pornographic, absolutely not-safe-for-work portrait of Roth”. The photo is called “Eli Roth Has the Biggest Dick in Hollywood.” The prosthetic was built by K.N.B. Effects, the same effects company that worked on The Chronicles of Narnia and The Island.
