Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Let me start off by just saying that “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” is much more better than its predecessor.

I’m not what you’d exactly call a fan of the Michael Bay-directed Transformers film series. I didn’t particularly like the first film with it’s excess of cheese and CGI. I hated “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” which was even with it’s action sequences less interesting than watching paint dry in a dark room. It was muddled, and after 30 minutes of watching the movie, I started to begin to have chronic headaches. Luckily though, Michael Bay has picked up the pieces, and directed the awesome “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.”

I’m not gonna bother writing a detailed plot description, since it doesn’t really matter a lot, but the film is practically the following… Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) has to once again save the world from total destruction. He once again needs to help his Autobot friends. He once again has the hot girlfriend, this time a new one, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who’s replaced Megan Fox. She is what Megan Fox was, hot and not getting too much dialogue. She’s effective at what she is supposed to do.

Thankfully, there’s less and more humorous humor here. Coen-favorites John Turturro and Frances McDormand star alongside John Malkovich to provide us with subtle humor. Turturro’s character, the retired agent Seymour Simmons, who tried to laugh us in the previous films, actually succeeds here. From it’s cast to the amazing special effects put to display here, “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” is a carefully made action picture. It succeeds as one on every level.

That said, there are still mistakes in “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.” The plot is too complicated for the adolescent 12-year-olds it’s mainly made for, and it drags quite a lot in act two, but “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” was the fastest two and a half hours I’ve ever experienced. I mean that in the best possible way.

There’s a huge cast in “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.” Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Frances McDormand, John Turturro, John Malkovich, Hugo fckin’ Weaving, Kevin Dunn, Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and even Patrick Dempsey as Whiteley’s playboy boss.

Bay is known for directing bad movies with great action sequences. He doesn’t create a good movie here, but he creates a movie that’s action sequences are so good, that we don’t really care about anything else. He’s obviously done a lot of work here. Remember all you haters, Michael Bay doesn’t write the dialogues of his movies. Ehren Kruger does that in “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” and I give Bay extra credit of making the action so frickin’ good that we forget about Kruger’s horrible dialogue writing.

Apart from the action sequences, the 3D is amazing here. It’s as good as I’ve seen in a long while. In fact, I believe that the only movies with good 3D I’ve ever seen are “Alice in Wonderland” and “Tron: Legacy.” I didn’t see “Avatar” in 3D. The second act dragged a bit, but the engrossing act one and the frantic act three with the epic destruction of Chicago in amazing 3D, more than make up for act two’s mistakes.

He said it himself, Michael Bay wants to “entertain the summer audience”. He will with “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” which is the best film I’ve ever seen that he directed. This isn’t a great movie, but it’s wildly entertaining. It’s got the explosions, it’s got the frantic action, it’s got the Victoria’s Secret model, it’s got robots beating the shit out of other robots, and it’s got the amazing third act of total destruction. What more could you ask from a summer action flick?

Rating: ★★★

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H8bnKdf654

Cars 2

“Cars 2” is the sequel to Pixar’s “Cars” which came out in 2006. “Cars” was, until now, largely considered the worst Pixar film, though still very good (74% on Rotten Tomatoes). “Cars 2” has so far accumulated a 38% rating. That is very low. According to the Tomatometer, “The Expendables” is better than “Cars 2.” That’s true.

The first “Cars” starred Owen Wilson as Lightning McQueen, a racing car that’s, by accident, dumped in the middle of nowhere – Route 66 – where he finds friends and realizes that life isn’t always about winning. That’s the morale of that story. “Cars 2,” at least to me, doesn’t appear to have a moral. That doesn’t make it a bad movie at all, but a bad kids movie. Kids will likely swarm theaters to see this movie. I think that Pixar should’ve known better and should’ve took the opportunity to teach kids, other than just show bright explosions and unfunny hillbilly dialogue.

Unlike the first movie, McQueen (FYI, he’s got headlights now) isn’t the star, (even though he’s leading the pack on the poster) his tow truck, hillbilly friend Mater is. I don’t particularly like Larry the Cable Guy (he voices Mater) but I do respect him for wanting to make people laugh, and he does do that a lot. I laughed two or three times during “Cars 2,” two of those times were at the “Toy Story” short preceding the film. The third time was when Mater was locked in a bathroom in Tokyo.

The story here is basically the World Grand Prix. McQueen and Mater embark on a journey through the world to places such as Japan, Italy, and England. After an incident at the bathroom in Tokyo before the race, Mater is dragged into an international Bond-like espionage and the film becomes a Bond-like spy thriller, while frequently cutting back to McQueen and his quest to become the fastest car in the world … again.

Mater gets caught up with spies Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer), the promoting-his-gas Sir Miles Axlerod (Eddie Izzard), and the evil Professor Zundapp (Thomas Kretschmann). I liked John Turturro as a proud F1 car, and the animation is beautiful to look at, but the film’s bad in overall.

The film is bad not only because it hasn’t got laughs or something to teach the kids, but also because there are so many explosions. My god, so many explosions. And so many cars being destroyed. I don’t know how this could be rated G. We know it’s not for real, every kid knows that, but this film doesn’t feel like it’s for kids anyway.

(Almost) no laughs, no moral, too much disturbingly frantic action and explosions, pointless 3D (as almost always), and no reason whatsoever. Why did Pixar make “Cars 2.” “Cars” was already a mistake, didn’t they really learn? And furthermore, “Cars 2” makes “Cars” worse. I really liked “Cars,” although I can tell you that it’s definitely among Pixar’s worst. “Cars 2” just ruined “Cars” for me. I can never see “Cars” again without thinking about “Cars 2.”

The fact that “Cars 2” is made by Pixar only makes its badness worse. Here’s hoping “Brave” will be much better than the essence of rottenness, “Cars 2.”

BUT, I am quite sure that young kids will laugh at everything that’s bright and moves fast, so if you think your kids can handle a film like this, and you can handle a film that your kids can handle, then take them out to see this movie. Otherwise, stay inside and watch “Toy Story 3” again.

Oh and you might want to check the movie out just because it has a teaser for Pixar’s next movie, “Brave” attached to it. That looked cool.

Rating: ★½

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg5hj2c5Nkk

Green Lantern

“Green Lantern,” the fourth superhero film of 2011. Considered the worst this year, the reviews have been mostly negative, but I’m proud to say that I enjoyed this film.

Martin Campbell, known for frantic action films like “The Mask of Zorro” and “Casino Royale,” has got an eye for action. He directs “Green Lantern,” and while action may play too big a part in this movie, it entertains, and that’s what this kind of movie is for. Those expecting a dark thriller like “The Dark Knight” will be dissapointed. Those who are looking for a good time will enjoy “Green Lantern.”

The Green Lanterns are the intergalactic peace corps. They can create just about everything with their ring. There are thousands of them. Ryan Reynolds stars as the title character. He’s played a superhero before – Deadpool in “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” This movie is much better than that movie.

Hal Jordan (Reynolds) is a test pilot, Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) is his love interest for the movie. Jordan is an irrational man. He doesn’t think before he acts and that often leads to disaster. He doesn’t sound as the Green Lantern type, but the Ring does choose him.

The evil Parallax, a being that derives its power from fear, escapes from Planet Rayut and fatally wounds Abin Sur, the Green Lantern who captured him. Abin Sur escapes to the nearest inhabited planet – Earth – to have the Ring choose a new Lantern to take his place. Hal Jordan is chosen, but the Ring never makes mistakes.

Jordan is transported to Oa, the kind of a capital for the Lanterns. We meet Sinestro, (Mark Strong) a leader of the Lanterns, Geoffrey Rush as a fish, and Michael Clarke Duncan as Kilowoq. They train Jordan to become a strong Green Lantern.

Oa is a beautifully rendered world. I would’ve used more scenes in Oa, and more length to the movie in overall, it all happened perhaps a bit too fast.

Tim Robbins plays the senator father of Dr. Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) who is apointed to examine Abin Sur’s body, which the government finds in a swamp. He is exposed to Parallax’s ’venom’ which was found in Abin Sur’s body, and becomes a huge-headed freak from whom Parallax can feed fear. Parallax, by the way, is a huge cloud, and unlike many say that that’s silly, it actually isn’t.

We’ve seen great superhero films this year. “Green Lantern” isn’t quite the “X-Men: First Class” but it entertains a lot. The action is exhilirating. Ryan Reynolds is funny and charming. Blake Lively is hot as hell. The visuals are spectacular, deserving a Best Visual Effects nomination. The score by James Newton Howard is epic. There plot is slightly illogical, but this is a fun movie.

If you don’t go expecting a great superhero movie, you’ll get a fun and entertaining one. “Green Lantern,” while it isn’t deep like other DC Comics movies like “The Dark Knight,” succeeds as a fun summer movie with great action and visuals, and an overall not-too-dark-but-still-dark-enough-to-not-be-silly-and-still-maintain-a-fun-tone feel. “Green Lantern” is an old-school action movie where the action matters more than the plot, but in a good way.

Rating: ★★½

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-9VnAiNmL8

The Tree of Life

It’s directed by Terrence Malick, who’s considered a genius in filmmaking, it stars Brad Pitt, and it won the Cannes Palme d’Or this year. Do you need any more to convince you to seeing this movie? If so, then read carefully.

Terrence Malick has now directed only 5 feature films over the past 40 years or so. He’s currently working on his sixth film labeled “Untitled Terrence Malick Project.” He takes a lot of time to work on his films, but it always pays off. “The Tree of Life,” while not perfect, is still quite a miracle.

“The Tree of Life” stars Brad Pitt as Mr. O’Brien, a Texas father of three, and Jessica Chastain as Mrs. O’Brien. Sean Penn co-stars as one of the three boys haunted by the death of one of his brothers. He doesn’t get a lot of screen time.

The film mainly focuses on raising the O’Brien boys, but often cuts to cosmic, evolutionary images such as the beginning of time, cells uniting, or rides through space and time. It’s set in the 50’s, and the film feels very authentic. I think the production designer Jack Fisk is the one to thank for that.

“The Tree of Life” is also very well acted, especially by the boys portraying the O’Brien kids. Brad Pitt is very believable as the strict father and Jessica Chastain convincing as the mother, and the cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is gorgeous. I also really loved Alexandre Desplat’s score. It is as ambient and beautiful as the movie. You could just listen to it for relaxation.

“The Tree of Life” has a running time of 138 minutes, which isn’t particularly long compared to “The New World” which is at almost 3 hours. But it still feels longer than “The New World,” which entertained throughout and never dragged. “The Tree of Life” drags in the second half of the movie, and the ending is far too long.

At the 84th Academy Awards, “The Tree of Life” should merit consideration for a Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Director, and Best Picture nomination. As for the acting Oscars, I liked the performances, but this isn’t that kind of movie.

I loved the cosmic imagery and the exploration of the meaning of life a lot. Though, I could’ve watched 138 minutes of that instead. Watching the children grow and the parents being parents was nice at the start, but after an hour and a half or so, I got sick of it.

But it’s refreshing to watch a movie that’s made with care for a change. This isn’t your average drama. For some it will evoke ideas for the meaning of life and other related themes. I just liked watching a film like this, dragged a bit, but the imagery of the cosmos and Earth hundreds of millions of years ago really appealed to me. And, did I mention… THERE ARE FRIGGIN DINOSAURS IN THIS MOVIE!

Rating: ★★★½

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXRYA1dxP_0

Super 8

J.J. Abrams’s “Super 8” is quite possibly the best film I’ve seen this year. It’s got everything, frenetic action, wonderful performances, gorgeous cinematography, a beautiful score, even Spielberg’s trademark troubled father. Everything about this movie is good, “Super 8” should merit a Best Picture nomination.

“Super 8” is directed by J.J. Abrams and produced by Steven Spielberg, who back in the 70’s and 80’s directed films that inspired Abrams into making this film. Those films seem to be “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial.”

Abrams’s last directorial effort was “Star Trek,” the space adventure film that mostly drew inspiration from George Lucas’s “Star Wars,” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” directed by Steven Spielberg, so J.J. Abrams is definitely a Spielberg-inspired filmmaker, but some critics have said that “Super 8” draws too much inspiration from Spielberg. But you can’t say something like that about a film that is produced by Spielberg. Besides, this is clearly a homage to him.

“Super 8” stars Joel Courtney as Joe Lamb, a 13-year-old boy living in the fictional town of Lillian, Ohio, who has lost his mother. The year is 1979, and four months later, when Joe and his police officer of a father Jack Lamb (Kyle Chandler) haven’t quite yet overcome the loss. Joe has an eye for art and uses his gift to help his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) finish his Super 8 short “The Case.” In case you didn’t know, Super 8 is an old motion picture film format. Educate yourselves here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_8_mm_film.

Once of the scenes in the boys’ film needs to be filmed at a train station at night with a girl, so the boys ask Alice (Elle Fanning) to play the part. She agrees and they happily film the scene. Then, a car drives onto the tracks and crashes with a train, from which something then escapes. That’s when the mystery begins. The U.S. military appears, the dogs escape from the town, there are frequent power outages, missing people. It’s very thrilling to watch as the story unveils. We also get the Spielberg trademark troubled father who wishes to improve the relations between him and his son, and also a love interest for Joe.

From the John Williams-inspired score by Michael Giacchino to the wonderful performances of the entire cast, J.J. Abrams’s “Super 8” sprouts greatness. It is one of the best films I’ve seen in 2011. Let’s hope that films like these begin to appear more often this year. So far, we haven’t seen a lot of good films. Sure, we’ve seen entertaining films like “Thor” and “X-Men: First Class,” but they aren’t even close to the caliber of “Super 8.” It should receive a Best Picture nomination.

Rating: ★★★★

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCRQQCKS7go

X-Men: First Class

Most of us loved “X-Men,” even more of us loved “X-Men 2: X-Men United,” but ever since Brett Ratner’s “X-Men 3: The Last Stand,” things have been looking bad for 20th Century Fox. I liked all of the X-Men films, even “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” I thought that it was entertaining and I liked how cheesy it all was. Granted, it was never near the greatness of the first two X-Men and even a bit worse than the third movie, but still fun to watch. I’m happy to announce, however, that “X-Men: First Class” is not only better than “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” but that it is by far the best in the series.

The first two films were helmed by Bryan Singer, who did a great job with them. The other films apart from this one were badly received, they were also not directed by Bryan Singer. Here, they’ve hired the guy who was supposed to directed “X-Men 3: The Last Stand,” but eventually didn’t get involved. That guy is Matthew Vaughn. Known for co-producing films like “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch,” and directing films like “Layer Cake” and the more recent “Kick-Ass,” Vaughn is an undeniable talent in Hollywood, these days.

Having directed “Kick-Ass,” Vaughn is experienced in the superhero genre. And even though I can’t say that I enjoyed “Kick-Ass,” I love what he’s done here. “X-Men: First Class” tells the story of Charles Xavier and Eric Lehnsherr before they were Professor X and Magneto, respectively. The film opens with Eric being separated from his parents by Nazis, when he uses his powers of controlling metal to bust the gate that separates him and his parents open. The film’s villain, Sebastian Shaw, effectively played by Kevin Bacon, sees this and orders Eric to be brought to him. He “tames” Eric and becomes sort of an evil for him. Then, eighteen years later, Eric (Michael Fassbender) meets a British college-boy Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and together they begin to form the X-Men.

The film’s mainly set in 1962. The plot revolves largely around the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I think that they’ve taken proper advantage of that. The film feels very authentic, which is good, not many superhero films do. Vaughn co-wrote  the screenplay, which has clever lines for Fassbender, who doesn’t quite steal the show when McAvoy’s around, but does so when he’s not.

I really liked Jennifer Lawrence as Raven/Mystique. She is a great actor. I thought that the performance she gave in “Winter’s Bone” was the strongest female performance of 2010, and should’ve landed her an Oscar. She did get nominated though. Here, she doesn’t outshine anyone and still gives a great performance. She is believable as a mutant who wishes to get rid of her powers and her abnormal look.

The first superhero film we saw this year was the horrid comedy “The Green Hornet.” I respect Seth Rogen, but his films just aren’t funny for me. “The Green Hornet” wasn’t funny at all, and it wouldn’t have been a good movie to begin with. It was muddled, the action was incomprehensible, and although I like Cameron Diaz, she seemed out of place. The next superhero flick we saw was “Thor,” a very entertaining, well-made, and awesome film. “X-Men: First Class” is as good as “Thor,” perhaps slightly inferior. With the overwhelmingly negative reviews for “Green Lantern,” it’s beginning to look more and more as if “X-Men: First Class” is this year’s best comic book movie. I still have my hopes up for “Captain America: The First Avenger.” I love Joe Johnston’s work and I think that the film is going to be awesome. I hope it’s better than “X-Men: First Class” and “Thor” put together.

That doesn’t mean that this is, in any way, a bad movie. The direction is good, the script is good, the special effects are good. Henry Jackman’s score is also awesome here. But the film is perhaps a bit too cool. It has the same problems that “Kick-Ass” did, though they are considerably smaller here. “Kick-Ass” wasn’t funny at all, it was far too serious and violent. “X-Men: First Class,” while it isn’t too violent, it’s slightly too serious. I could’ve used more humor, but it was still entertaining throughout its 2-hour running time. A solid superhero flick.

Rating: ★★★

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frcCCHb9LHc