Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Movie Review

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"/Dir. by Michael Bay/Paramount Pictures/Rated PG-13/157 min.

Michael Bay likes to blow stuff up real good. I know this is a bold statement about the man who directed "Bad Boys", "Armageddon" and the "Transformers" films, but I stand by it. He pays lip service to the idea of a "plot" and to "character", but really, they're nothing more than an explosive delivery system. In previous films, this sort of bothered me, especially in "Pearl Harbor", where he used one of the most tragic events in U.S. history as a means for his fetishistic love of all things destructive. One shouldn't be watching the attack on Hawaii and think "Wow, those explosions are cool!".

However, I thought the first "Transformers" movie was the perfect marriage of director and material. Go ahead Michael, make the giant alien robots blow stuff up. Fill the story to the brim with silly characters and silly plot contrivances because this is, after all, a movie based on a toy. (anytime you start a movie with the credit "in association with Hasbro productions", you know you're not looking at a future best picture candidate) Yes, "Transformers" was profoundly silly, but it was fun and gave the maestro of destruction a perfect canvas for his unique sensibilities.

Unfortunately, it also made him a fortune and gave him free reign to go crazy on the sequel, which amped up the action, but also amped up the "comedy" with wall to wall characterizations that made Jar-Jar Binks seems subtle and sophisticated by comparison.

So, the real question for "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is this: Is it better than the last one? The answer, thankfully, is yes. The annoying characters are still annoying, but there's less of them. The "funny" parts are still, for the most part, met with silence and the "serious" parts met with laughter. It's still WAAAAYYY to long, with a final battle that lasts for over and hour. Seriously. Over an hour. However, it's more of the guilty pleasure that the first one was, instead of just the guilt (minus the pleasure) of the second one.

This time, our protagonist, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) has graduated from an ivy league school, but is still having a hard time finding work. Fortunately, his new girlfriend (former Victoria Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) just got a great new job and is making enough for both of this. However, Sam feels that his past service to the country (you know, saving the world a couple of times) should have afforded him a better career path.

Meanwhile, bad things are happening in the world of robots in disguise. Several world events, including the original moon landing and the explosion at Chernobyl, are being revealed to be all Cybertron-y. It's up to all of the gang from the previous films to get together and figure it out before Earth becomes the blueprint for "The Matrix".

As I said, the plot is strictly incidental, although there are some nice twists as the true villains of the story are revealed. They're fairly obvious, but these twists show more cleverness than this series has heretofore shown as a standard. In the end, the central protagonist isn't Sam, or even Optimus Prime and his Autobot buddies. It's the mayhem.

I mentioned earlier that the final battle is over an hour long and while I believe it was a little bit of overkill, it's still a pretty stunning set of eye-candy. The previous films took a slightly more cartoonish approach to the ending set pieces, but this one has a bit of a "War of the Worlds" type vibe to it. The threat is surprisingly dark for this light an entertainment and it's doubly impressive in 3D. (word is that James Cameron himself gave Bay pointers on how to effectively use the format). Supposedly, this is the final film in a trilogy and I kind of hope it is because the sheer volume of havoc found in this battle would be unwise to try to top. As it is, I don't think I need to see a giant special-effects extravaganza for quite some time and for those of you who know my love for all things digital, you know that's saying something.

The bottom line is this. "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is not a good film, but it is a great spectacle. It's less annoying that the 2nd film, although not quite as much fun as the 1st. However, if you liked either of those two, it's an easy recommendation.

Grade: B-

Cars 2: Review

"Cars 2"/Walt Disney Pictures-Pixar Animation Studios/Rated G/113 min./Dir. by John Lasseter and Brad Lewis

When I was a kid, my mother would always respond to the statement "My room is clean" with the same question: "Is it Paul clean or is it Mom clean". "Paul Clean" meant that on the surface, my room looked great. The bedspread was straight, the floor was uncluttered, the plethora of Star Wars toys were poised on shelves, looking like three dimensional art. However, if one looked beyond the surface (i.e. under the bed or in the closet), things might not look as nifty as they did before. "Mom Clean" meant that the room honestly didn't look that much different at first glance, but on closer inspection one could see cleaned windows, polished desks and chairs and spotless closets. There were times when she asked this question that I could proudly say, "Mom Clean!" At those times, I loved having mom go to my room and discover the work that had been done beneath the surface. However, if the answer was ever anything other than that, I would just hang my head and go back to work.

Recently, in the deluge of computer animated films, critics have asked a similar question when presented with the final product: "Is it DreamWorks good or is it Pixar good?". That question seems very insulting to DreamWorks, but it really shouldn't be. DreamWorks deals, for the most part, in surface entertainments and they're really quite good at it. However, when they give the world a "Kung Fu Panda" or a "How to Train Your Dragon", they're clearly making sure that there's more than just the surface entertainment. That's why those films have been labeled by many critics as "Pixar good".

Pixar is famously known for the mantra "story, story, story". John Lasseter, the founder of Pixar and current creative head of Pixar and Disney Animation, has stated this time and again and, as a result, they typically produce truly transcendent films. I use the word transcendent quite literally. The films transcend plot and technique to reveal layering and depth that renders audiences truly moved by the experience.

Of course, every family has a black sheep and Pixar's was "Cars", the 2006 film that had to settle for being "successful" as opposed to "one of the best animated films of all time", a moniker often placed on new Pixar films. "Cars" had always been the one Pixar film that was "DreamWorks Good". It was, on the surface, entertaining, funny and a lot of fun to look at, but underneath the surface there was no exciting sense of discovery. It was a non-transcendent comedy, a solid entertainment, but so much less than the character-masters at Pixar were capable of.

When it was announced that they were making a sequel to "Cars", my first response was "Of all your films, you're choosing to make a sequel to your least acclaimed film? Why not 'The Incredibles?!? That one's begging for a sequel!" Then I remembered that "Cars" had become the most successfully merchandised film in their canon and figured that Disney honchos pressured them to come up with a franchise. After seeing the film, I'm still pretty sure that money was the motivation behind it getting made.

"Cars 2" is a totally different genre than the first film. Where the original was a comedy teaching the value of an relaxed, old-fashioned lifestyle, this one is a spy thriller/comedy. Which means that instead of being lulled to sleep, certain adults in the audience may feel bombarded by noise and action.

The plot centers around a World Grand Prix race, in which Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is one of the favorites to win. Against his better judgement, Lightning decides to invite his best bud Mater the tow truck (Larry the Cable Guy) to come along and help in the pit crew. However, during the Tokyo leg of the race, Mater is mistaken for an American spy by the automotive equivalent of James Bond, a suave car named Finn McMissile (Michael Caine), who in a nifty bit of creativity has a grill that looks like a smoothly manicured moustache. Of course, as in all mistaken identity spy movies, zaniness ensues, and I don't use that phrase sarcastically. The results of Mater getting thrown into the spy world are often quite funny.

There's an unlikely but appealing romance thrown in for Mater in the form of a female spy played by Emily Mortimer named Holly Shiftwell, a nice tribute to the Bond tradition of giving heroines silly, doubly-entendred names. Plus, there's a richly textured world created here that's really a kick to look at. This is a case of the 3-D really working, making the world come alive in a visually exciting way.


On the downside though, there's a ham-fisted message that makes the environmental aspects of "WALL-E" seem extremely subtle. It's not that I disagree with the message, but nobody likes getting beat over the head with a moral, even if it's a good one.

Also, at the end of the day, this is a "Cars" film. No matter how visually engaging or pun-fully funny it is, there's never any sense of concern or wonderment. Will Mater live and save the day? Of course he will. Will he and Lightning learn the true meaning of friendship....again? Yep. Will we be given something beyond the surface plot elements to ponder on the ride home? Unfortunately, no. This movie is "DreamWorks Good", which, again, isn't an insult, it's just disappointing from a studio that so consistently shows us it's capable of more.

Also, your enjoyment of this film will definitely hinge on two questions: Did you like the first one and do you like Mater, because this is absolutely his movie. If the answer to either of those questions is no, then tread with caution. (by the way, my personal answers to those questions are: yes, like, but not love. and absolutely, Mater is the "simple-isn't-stupid" heart of the franchise)

As a teacher, I know the disappointment when an extremely talented and capable student turns in an assignment well below their ability level. Had any other student turned it in, you might give it an "A-" or a "B+", but for this student, those grades wouldn't accurately represent what they CAN do. Knowing what Pixar is capable of, "DreamWorks good" simply isn't good enough. It's delightful that DreamWorks is showing a desire to become more "Pixar Good", but Pixar should never be anything less. However, if you're just looking for a light and forgettable family film, this one can fit the bill.

Grade: B

p.s. There are very bright moments before the movie even starts with an awesome preview for Pixar's next original movie, the Scottish adventure, "Brave" and a delightful new short with the "Toy Story" characters. Don't miss them.

School's out! Bring on the summer movies!!!

Well, the last note has been sung and the last paper turned in. The 2010-2011 school year is done, which means I can spend some of my free time reviewing movies. Unfortunately, the school year ended about a month and a half after the summer movie season began which means this first entry is all about playing catch up. Let's get to it!!!

"Thor"/Paramount Pictures/Dir. by Kenneth Brannagh/Rated PG-13/115 min.

Of all the Marvel comic characters, this is the one that's always left me a little bewildered because it's the one that moves the furthest from the "real world" sensibilities of most of the others. Stan Lee prides himself on creating fantastic characters that are rooted in human problems and frailties, so adding the Norse God of Thunder to the Marvel canon of superheroes feels a little....odd. However, the movie does a terrific job of not only explaining how the mythological Thor fits into the Marvel universe, but of making him feel, for lack of a better word, human. I attribute this to the writers, the director and Chris Hemsworth, the soon-to-be star playing the titular lightning slinger. Two of the writers credited with writing the screenplay (Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz) are also responsible for the summer's other awesome superhero saga "X-Men: First Class" (more on that later) and they do a terrific job of grounding the immortal characters with human motivations and frailties. This not only serves to make them more empathetic, but it also makes the relations that Thor forges with the human world more understandable. Director Kenneth Brannagh, who has never directed this type of film before injects the film with the grand Shakespearean angst that's defined his career and he proves to be an inspired choice for bringing this movie to life.

Best of all is Hemsworth, who energizes the whole movie with the innate likability that he brought to his brief moments in 2009's "Star Trek". He effortlessly makes the audience want to root for this character and it will be a treat to see him interact with the other Marvel characters in next year's "The Avengers".

As for the other actors, including recent Oscar-winner Natalie Portman, they do a fine job with what they're given to do, which isn't a lot, but it's fine for this type of an origin story. Here's hoping that in future films their characters are fleshed out a little more.

Grade: A-

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides/Walt Disney/Dir. by Rob Marshall/Rated PG-13/137 min.

Pirates 4 is not a bad movie, it's simply an uninspired one. I know that the last adventure of Jack Sparrow, "At World's End", has it's detractors, but I'm not among them. I found "A.W.E." to be a perfect ending to the story of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, with each of these characters ending their arc in a surprising, yet somehow inevitable place.

The mistake that "On Stranger Tides" makes is it assumes Jack Sparrow was the hero of the previous Pirates movies. He wasn't. Not even a little bit. Those films were always the story of Will and Elizabeth with Jack being the "Puck"-ish character throwing a wrench into everything. However, here he's cast as the leading rogue and it just feels off. He's given a romantic sparring partner in Angelica Malon (aptly played by Penelope Cruz), however their romantic chemistry is never given much time and the audience is meant to care about it not because of said chemistry, but because...well....we're told they used to care about each other a lot. Sorry, but moviegoers usually prefer to see a relationship built on character and situation rather than be told to care about a couple.

The real romantic sub-plot is shuttled off to a bland preacher and the only bland mermaid in the movie (for some reason the mermaids are represented as horrific piranha-like creatures, other than this one pretty, but bland exception) and their stories conclusion is frustratingly unresolved.

The characters are still fun and there are a few nice moments (the revealing of the fountain of youth is pretty nifty), but it's easily the weakest of the series and a bit of a disappointment.

Grade: B-

"Kung Fu Panda 2"/DreamWorks/Dir. by Jennifer Yuh/Rated PG/90 min.

Think about the original "Kung Fu Panda" for a moment. If you didn't like it, you won't like this one. If you liked it because of the fat-panda-getting-beat-up jokes, you probably won't like this one. If you liked it because of the sincerity of the screenplay, the beautiful visuals and the surprisingly well-choreographed fight scenes, then this movie is an easy recommendation.

Much of the plot is spent explaining how a big panda ended up being the son of a noodle-obsessed duck and the answer is simple and satisfying. Po (Jack Black) learns about his past through his experiences with a new threat to the valley of happiness, a vengeful peacock named Shen (terrifically voiced by Gary Oldman). "Kung Fu Panda 2" not only amps up the threat-level (surprisingly so for an animated film), but it is every bit as visually thrilling as the original. For example, the villainous Shen hides his arsenal of knives among his feathers, so it looks like he's pulling metal feathers out of his skin and hurling them with deadly accuracy. It's kind of a neat visual and is a great metaphor for the character itself, making his menace seem innate, but also revealing it to be more surface-bound. The movie is filled with "more beneath the surface" moments like this in its narrative, which is part of the reason this is such a treat for adults as well as kids.

Grade: A

"X-Men: First Class"/20th Century Fox/Dir. by Matthew Vaughn/Rated PG-13/132 min.

Thus far in the summer of superheroes, this is the best of the bunch. Everything about this film is inspired, from the casting, to the writing, to the direction, it's everything a movie with "X-Men" in its title should be and a wonderful recovery from the scatter-shot "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". By taking the concept of mutants back to its discovery by the U.S. government and placing it against the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis, "First Class" re-vitalizes the franchise and re-imagines it as a superhero movie set in a James Bond universe. Michael Fassbender is not only easy to visualize maturing into Sir Ian McKellan, but he embodies Magneto with an understandable and uncontrolled anger that is terrifying and empowering all at once. As Magneto's frienemy, Charles Xavier, James McAvoy is terrific, especially when he's pleading with his friend to maintain his humanity. The special-effects are awesome and the action sequences are what summer was made for, but the movie is great because of this unlikely friendship, which is at the heart of the full-blooded superhero/political thriller.

Matthew Vaughn ("Stardust") is a fantastic choice to direct this film. He's always shown a knack for presenting the fantastic as merely the background to intimate stories about relationships and that is the sensibility that "X-Men" was built around, both as a comic series and as a film series.

Grade: A

"Super 8"/Paramount Picture/Dir. by J.J. Abrams/Rated PG-13/112 min.

I was 11 years old when "E.T." was released in theaters and it was the first movie that I saw multiple times in the theater. (I was too young to see "Star Wars" in the theater and too young to have discretionary money for multiple viewings when "The Empire Strikes Back" came out). At 11, I was the target audience for Spielberg's fantasy combining the mundane aspects of suburbia with the incredible concept of getting an alien best friend. I, like everyone else, was entranced and was transported by the experience.

Director J.J. Abrams has made no secret of the fact that "Super 8" is his tribute to the Spielberg films of the late 70's/early 80's and elements of old-school Spielberg are all over the place. Foul-mouthed, but good-hearted kids? Yep. One parent households? You betcha. The kids even have a middle-school science teacher played by the same guy who played the high-school science teacher in "Gremlins".

With such sincere, but obvious, tipping of the hat to Spielberg, it'd be easy to dismiss "Super 8" as more love letter than movie, but Abrams also realized that the best Spielberg films are about realistic characters overcoming the genuine hardships of life against the backdrop of extraordinary happenings and in so realizing he has made a truly heartfelt film that is as much a tribute to youth itself as it is to Spielberg.

As a word of warning to families, "Super 8" also keeps the Spielbergian tradition of scaring little kids spitless. The other-worldly forces here are not benign like "E.T." and there are scenes that play out more like "Jurassic Park" or "Jaws". If you wouldn't let your child see those movies, don't take them to this. Also, if the kid-related cursing in "E.T." or "The Goonies" bothers you, this one will too. Otherwise, feel free to enjoy. It really is a treat.

Grade: A


"Green Lantern"/Warner Bros./Dir. by Martin Campbell/Rated PG-13/105 min.

Personally, I think most critics were a little harsh on this movie. It's entertaining and fun to look at. Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively are solid and likable actors and Peter Saarsgard is a perfect nebbish-turned-maniacal villain. The are really only two problems with "Green Lantern". First is the central plot conceit, which is that aliens from all over the universe have harnessed the energy of will power into ringsg that give their wearers the ability to materialize anything they can think of. They use this power to defend the universe against evil. This is a very, very, very silly premise. It is, however, the premise of the comic book as well, so the movie is simply being true to the source material. If you can laugh off the premise and go for the ride, you'll be fine.

Secondly, it's an origin story and as such, it's not much different from the roughly 5,375 other superhero origin stories Hollywood has produced lately. There's a guy, he's in love with a girl, but it never works out because of one central flaw (vanity/shyness/arrogance, take your pick). However, he then gets super powers from an unusual source (dying alien/radioactive spider/unrealistic technology, take your pick) and through that power is able to overcome the aforementioned flaw. The one thing "Green Lantern" has that a lot of these other origin tales don't is a sense of humor. For example, in a lot of these films the heroine can't recognize the hero when he's wearing a mask, in spite of the fact that they've been intimately connected for years. Heck, she usually doesn't even recognize him when he talks in his regular voice (I'm looking at you Lois Lane!). "Green Lantern" addresses this cliche quickly and in a way that winks its eye at the other clueless heroines in superhero films.

While the first two acts of "Green Lantern" are pretty standard for an superhero origin film, the final act hints at the potential of this story as a franchise. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the last 20 minutes have some of the best moments I've seen yet this summer. If the inevitable sequel can build from that and make a whole movie that's as solid as the last 20 minutes of this one, that sequel could be one of the best superhero movies ever. As it is though, the "Green Lantern" is made up of some great moments and some merely adequate ones.

As such, its grade is an above-average: B-

OK, I'll try to write this blog about once a week, to keep you abreast of what movies are new and worth your time. Thanks for reading!!!