By Brenton Thom TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION is the fourth installment (so far) of the franchise. It is also the eleventh feature film from action director Michael Bay. The film is basically three different movies thrown into one, which might be a good or bad thing depending on who you are. Some people think more is better, but others, not so much. This one definitely has a lot going on, and with a run time of 161 minutes, it’s just shy of three hours. The film opens on Earth in the past, specifically the era of the dinosaurs. The planet is invaded by space machines which wipe out the dinosaur species with volcanic bombs, turning organic matter into an ash-like metal. Flash forward to the present - it’s been four years since the battle in Chicago (as seen in 2011's TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON), and we see sinister government agents hunting down various transformers (and not the evil Decepticon transformers, but the heroic Autobots) with the aid of a malevolent transformer of their own. This transformer assassin is a bounty hunter called Lockdown. He is working with the CIA, run by Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer), to track down Autobots (and the missing Optimus Prime in particular) for their own dark purposes. We then meet Mark Wahlberg’s character, Cade Yeager, and his daughter Tessa. Cade's a struggling, down-on-his-luck inventor who tries to sell scrap parts to pay off the mortgage of his home and also get his daughter into college. His daughter is also secretly seeing her racer boyfriend behind her father's back. This storyline (which echoes director Bay's earlier film, ARMAGEDDON) makes up the primary “human” element of the movie. A key subplot, and probably my favorite part of the story, is about a business tycoon, Joshua Joyce (played by Stanley Tucci), who uses the metal of the transformers to create a new type of matter, a matter that you can program and change. His company basically uses the technology to make their own transformers, which can shape-shift and transform into anything they are programmed to. Now where to begin the analysis of this film? I know one of the big complaints about the past Transformers movies was that people wanted the movies to be about the transformers, not humans, and just to see robots fight. Well, this movie at least makes an attempt at that. The opening scenes with the Autobots being hunted down and killed is a stab in that direction. Also, the movie does have a lot more development for the transformers as actual characters than the previous movies, and a few of them I really liked. I liked how cool the design for Lockdown was, and I enjoyed how the movie handled his secret intentions. He has a lone gunman/bounty hunter feel that's something new for this series. Think of Boba Fett when you see him. Something the movie could have dealt less with, though, was Cade Yeager’s daughter. Granted, we need to get humans in the movie to appeal to audience demographics, but that is the fatal flaw in this movie. There are countless points when the humans could have broken off from all the disaster and destruction. And even if they (the filmmakers) wanted to keep Cade a part of the story, he could have dumped his daughter off at any number of points along the way. But no, we drag her and her boyfriend along for the action. Through the entire movie, Cade's daughter is crying, or in peril. Same with her boyfriend! These two characters do very, very little to advance the plot. While I was watching the movie, I couldn't help but think of ARMAGEDDON, and how I cared more about what was going on with the human characters in that film, which has a similar dynamic as this one: the father/daughter relationship and the father despising the boyfriend. Part of me thought Wahlberg was going to sacrifice himself for her, or to save the world, but that never happens. It should have. The ending to ARMAGEDDON had more of an emotional impact, and I'll admit to getting misty at the end, but TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION barely approaches that kind of emotion. There isn't enough at stake. Honestly, the movie could have been about the CIA hunting down the transformers to harvest their technology in order to make their own transformers and the Autobots have to fight back. That would have been enough of a cool plot to allow for a solid flick, and it would have given the fans what they wanted. It would allow us to follow the Autobots and grow to care about them, instead of following the humans as they get into these high death-rate situations. The movie's not all bad news, though. There are two characters I think are pretty great. One is John Goodman (in voice form) as Hound, an Autobot from an Oshkosh DMTV Truck who is a commando. He's fixed with a lot of guns, ammo, and quite the mouth, to boot. His witty banter and playfulness made for a memorable, welcome character addition. The other good character is the one played by Stanley Tucci. Tucci steals the show. His character's a smart guy with his own motives, and actually has a arc in the story, which is way more than I can say about the other characters in the film. He learns what he’s doing is dangerous and wrong. But his character is along for the ride and is the most enjoyable part of the film. He has the best banter and lines in the whole movie! I’d bet that most of his lines are ad-libbed or things he came up with on the spot. Being a Michael Bay film, obviously the visuals are fantastic, as are the sound mix and music. Granted, I could care less about the soundtrack in the actual movie, but the score does help underscore the tone and story. Bay's visuals and shot compositions are outstanding. There is a great balance of colors, as well, and we get to see fantastic parts of the world, such as China, which keeps the action engaging. Overall, this movie delivers a lot of action, but if there is action without stakes or emotion, it can get boring. I ended up caring more for the Autobots and Optimus Prime than Wahlberg’s character and family. I found the action was more stimulating when the Autobots where fighting for their lives and their cause than any of the stuff involving the Wahlberg family story. Again, if they focused it on the transformers characters and cut out the Wahlberg family, we could connect with them. I know people might question how can you connect emotionally to a robot or non-human creature, but it's been done plenty of times in the past. You add human emotional elements to them. Give them human feelings. Examples: A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, THE BRAVE LITTLE TOASTER, and even AVATAR (granted, those were giant blue cat aliens, but you still cared for them). I think with trimming and a script revision (or two) this movie could have been solid: have the Autobots dealing with the Stanley Tucci storyline along with the Lockdown and CIA stuff. Cut out Wahlberg's family entirely. They were the boring parts of the movie and did nothing to advance the story... except to cry and shout in fear and constantly need help from the Autobots. If you enjoy seeing a lot of action or are a die-hard fan of this franchise, the visuals alone will probably satisfy you if you decide to see it in cinemas. If the first part of that last sentence doesn't describe you, you could wait until it’s on home video. Personally, I did enjoy seeing it on the big screen and with great sound, but I did check my watch frequently. To each his (or her) own. It’s probably better to see on the big screen and in 3D if you only care about the visual experience, but if you care about character or story, it’s a movie you could easily wait to see at home with a rental... or perhaps not at all...
0 Comments
By Brett Blake It's been a summer packed with (mostly) good movies so far, and while I usually like to give my full attention to one movie at a time, a confluence of events conspired to have me view three movies in a very short time frame. As such, I've grouped them all together here. It's an eclectic assortment, that's for sure. MALEFICENT It’s always a risky proposition to take a classic story (say, in this case, the immortal SLEEPING BEAUTY story presented in Walt Disney’s animated masterpiece from 1959) and update or remake it. You hope for a fresh take on the familiar premise, that both honors what came before while also doing something different. With MALEFICENT, what we get is definitely a fresh take, and it is certainly different. It is also one of the more misguided family blockbusters of recent years. Ostensibly telling “Sleeping Beauty” from the villain’s perspective, MALEFICENT offers some neat visuals in the service of a muddled and confused narrative that makes a complete hash of the classic story in an attempt to turn its villain into a sympathetic anti-hero. It utterly botches the opportunity to tell a tale from an antagonist’s point-of-view, because - quite simply - the filmmakers chicken out and don’t really allow the title character to be much of a villain at all. They want to have their cake and eat it too, by giving Maleficent all of the iconic, dark trappings of her animated predecessor, and yet also making her a wronged woman with a heart of gold. In one of the most baffling of many baffling choices made by the screenplay, she actually spends much of the running time PROTECTING the young girl who is meant to be her nemesis and object of ire. Given that the character is pretty much a mess, it would not have been a surprise to see Angelina Jolie phone it in, but she completely throws herself into the part, and in the few moments where the script actually allows the character to display malevolence, she clearly relishes it. Even in the moments that are supposed to be more emotionally affecting, Jolie sells them. It’s a shame, then, that I found this version of the character to be such a non-starter. If Jolie had played Maleficent in a straight live-action retelling of “Sleeping Beauty,” she would have knocked it out of the park and stolen the movie. As it stands with the film at hand, she’s the focal point, and the character (as written) can’t support that position of importance. The script is also curiously unfocused and structured, as well; we linger on scenes that have no apparent value to the overall narrative, while also racing through moments that should land with more of an impact. Sharlto Copley’s King Stefan and Elle Fanning’s Aurora (the formerly-titular Sleeping Beauty) are given particularly short-shrift, and while the performers do fine work, the characters’ ultimate fates land with dull thuds. The designs for the fantasy world and its various creature inhabitants show off some fun ideas, even if the CGI used to bring them to life is frequently of a more cartoonish variety (particularly evident in the rather hideously unconvincing work for the young princess' three fairy guardians, characters who also provide some egregiously ineffective comic relief). The strongest element of the movie, unquestionably, is the sublime musical score from James Newton Howard; it conjures up an aura of impressive high fantasy and adventure, which makes it one of the year's best musical efforts thus far. I don’t want to oversell the movie’s issues, because MALEFICENT is certainly not an outright disaster, but it's a severely wrong-headed approach to a legendary Disney villain, and it’s one of the more confounding “event” pictures to come from a major studio in recent years. JERSEY BOYS Taste in music is - obviously - subjective. However, there are a few inarguable musical truths, and one of these is that the songs of the Four Seasons are among the best of their era, with memorable melodies and one-of-a-kind harmonies. Director Clint Eastwood’s JERSEY BOYS - a cinematic adaptation of the Broadway hit - tells the rise and fall (and rise again) of the group from the early 1950s through the 1970s, complete with mob connections, familial turmoil, inter-group conflict, and an understated sense of humor, all powered by crisp, sparkling versions of the Seasons’ classic hits. For a good chunk of the early section of the movie, it is something of GOODFELLAS-lite, as we watch young Frankie Valli (John Lloyd Young) and Tommy DeVito (Vincent Piazza) navigate their way through their aspiring music careers under the watchful eye of local boss - and mafia connection - Gyp DeCarlo (Christopher Walken at his most Walken-ish). Soon, Nick Massi (Michael Lomenda) and Bob Gaudio (Erich Bergen) join the ranks, and the Four Seasons begin their ascension to the top of the charts. The story frequently involves the characters breaking the fourth wall and talking right to the audience, a device which might not have translated well from the stage version but actually adds an interesting flavor to the cinematic interpretation; there’s something captivating about an actor speaking directly into the camera, and it gives JERSEY BOYS a confessional, conversational sort of feeling. Eastwood, on the surface, might seem like a curious choice to helm what could be termed a “musical,” (though there are no instances of the characters spontaneously bursting into song; all of the numbers are presented as organic performances by the group itself) but one needs only to look at his background - which includes directing 1988’s BIRD, a biopic of jazz great Charlie Parker, as well as composing the scores to many of his own films - to see that music is a passion of his. His clean and straightforward directorial style pairs well with the more mob-inflected elements, and his handling of the musical numbers, though never flashy, offers some interesting staging. The four leads are all convincing, both on the acting and singing front, though Piazza’s the standout, managing to capture everything quintessential about being an Italian goon in that era without becoming a complete caricature. He also provides a great deal of the movie’s humor, an element that is never in the foreground but is always close by. There are even a few inside jokes and references to some classic gangster films, which eagle-eyed movies buffs should be able to spot. I’ve seen some criticisms leveled at JERSEY BOYS that imply the movie lacks exuberance or flair, that it’s a strangely dark experience. “No fun” is a phrase I’ve seen bandied about in some other reviews, but I don’t subscribe to this at all. Even at its most dark, there’s a feeling of playfulness on Eastwood’s part that is a marked contrast to the dour heaviness of some of his recent films (such as 2011’s J. EDGAR, a film I enjoy but whose tone would have been completely wrong for JERSEY BOYS). Though it tells a kind of story that we’ve seen before, this specific collection of characters (and their specific story) is unique, and coupled with the great music, it makes for an engaging and completely entertaining semi-musical biography. And if nothing else, JERSEY BOYS guarantees you’ll leave the theater with at least one (and probably several) of the Four Seasons’ classic songs stuck in your head, which is never a bad thing. HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 2 2010’s HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON was the most pleasant of surprises: a thoughtful and exciting family film that didn’t talk down to (or insult the intelligence of) its audience. Four years later, we finally have its sequel, and it follows the solid foundation set down by its predecessor, offering a frequently exhilarating ride along with some thematic heft. The specific plot of this installment (which I’ll not describe here) is not some kind of revolutionary storytelling showcase (indeed, its primary villain is thinly-sketched and lacks really any satisfactory motivation; he’s on a quest to do vaguely-evil things because, well, that’s what villains do, right?), and the first movie was definitely more satisfying on a narrative level, but HTTYD2’s plot is effective enough to propel forward the more interesting singular moments and sequences, and to service a rather sophisticated emotional journey for its hero, Hiccup, and his dragon, Toothless. Indeed, the movie is primarily concerned with the old notion of finding one’s place in the world, and the way in which this movie handles that is compelling and unique, particularly for a piece of entertainment aimed at kids and families. One specific choice made by the filmmakers is almost amazingly daring and complex for most kids to be expected to wrap their minds around, and its worth celebrating when a movie attempts to challenge its audience along with its characters. I found it particularly interesting that the movie is at its weakest when it stops for interludes of comic relief; the humor’s actually pretty enjoyable on its own, but it feels utterly extraneous and unimportant, because when the movie’s playing it straight - with real stakes and consequences for the characters - it’s incredibly effective. Technically, the animation on display here is absolutely stunning. While the first movie had a freshness factor working in its favor, this film’s flying sequences are even more dynamic and arresting, and they’re brought to the screen on a scale that is nothing less than gigantic. Similarly, the dragon characters are rendered with great personality, and the “cinematography,” if you will, of the animated environments is top notch, with atmosphere to spare. One sequence - in which we meet one of the film’s primary new characters for the first time - is particularly striking, and a masterclass in using light and shadow to set a mood. One of the elements that made the first movie so successful was its Oscar-nominated musical score by John Powell, and he thankfully returns to tackle this film. He not only returns, but he tops himself, producing a musical work that stands as the best of 2014 so far. Grand melodies and delicate lyricism combine with explosive, even full-on-swashbuckling moments of action and adventure. With so many contemporary film scores embracing droning ambiance, it’s a real pleasure to hear a composer let loose and soar, and that’s what we get here from Powell. HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 2 is imperfect, but its aim is high, and it’s packed with great ideas and memorable moments. I still give the edge to the first movie as an overall experience, but this sequel is easily more thought-provoking and interesting. How often can you really say that about an animated (non-Pixar) film? By Brett Blake EDGE OF TOMORROW is not the movie its trailers have been selling. Yes, they’ve communicated the basic gist of the plot, and they’ve given a good idea of the flavor of the action, but they’ve also depicted the movie’s tone to be fairly grim, even dour. It might be a surprise to learn, then, that the film itself is terrifically entertaining, with a healthy sense of humor and an engaging spin on some classic science fiction ideas. The film opens with the world at war with an invading alien race. The conflict is mostly confined to the European continent and - in one of several allusions to World War II - the story begins on the eve of a massive military assault on the aliens’ position in France. Shades of the D-Day invasion are heavily felt, which is appropriate given that this film’s opening weekend marks the 70th anniversary of that historic engagement. Tom Cruise stars as William Cage, a military P.R. officer who (through an interesting plot development) is dropped into the middle of the assault as though he were an ordinary soldier. Having had no combat training of any kind, he is quickly killed, only to find himself waking up the previous day. Now stuck in a time loop of sorts, he relives the invasion over and over, and thus begins his quest to both end the constant resetting of his life and - if possible - cripple the alien forces once and for all, a task that eventually requires the help of war hero/propaganda figurehead Rita, played by Emily Blunt. EDGE OF TOMORROW is the sort of film that I like to call a “blender” movie, where you drop in elements from prior stories, mix them up a bit, and - hopefully - you result in something that feels fresh. Sometimes the component parts are barely-disguised or too obvious, but in this case, director Doug Liman and the screenwriters are able to achieve a blend that, indeed, does feel fresh. EDGE OF TOMORROW’s primary influences are the alien invasion story and the time loop story (the best example of which remains GROUNDHOG DAY), and these two concepts are grafted together in a way that is novel and interesting. The most compelling element of the story is the way it handles Cruise’s character. Being a public relations mouthpiece, we see Cruise early on being a slick, smooth-talking spinner of information, regurgitating the same talking points over and over. He’s also a full-blown coward at the start of the story; it’s great the way in which the movie is unapologetic about this aspect of the character’s personality, and it only serves to set up a compelling and satisfying arc for the man to undergo. The screenwriters deserve credit for efficiently establishing the character in quick-but-meaningful fashion; there’s not a wasted moment to be found in here, something that also aids in the film’s fairly rocketing pacing. Cruise himself is great as our protagonist; he nails the character’s transition from a semi-asshole coward, to a scared-out-of-his-mind reluctant soldier, to - finally - a legitimately good and heroic man. He’s famous for doing as many of his own stunts as he’s allowed, and though there’s certainly no shortage of CGI splashed across the screen, Cruise brings a convincing physicality to the role. As his counterpart in the story, Emily Blunt is also terrific, playing a slightly damaged, closed-off, no-nonsense badass; on the page this could have easily been a one-note character, but Blunt hits all the appropriate subtleties, brings them to the foreground, and sketches out a convincing inner life for her character. Character actor stalwarts Bill Paxton (here at his most Paxton-y) and Brendan Gleeson also pop up and round out the cast in a fun way. And there’s the keyword: “fun.” At its best, EDGE OF TOMORROW is massively entertaining. It has a great deal of fun with the idea of the time loop Cruise finds himself in, deriving a ton of enjoyably perverse humor from the ways in which Cruise gets himself killed (he dies onscreen no less than several dozen times), several of which are certifiably laugh-out-loud moments. The humor never compromises the tone or the stakes of the narrative, but it adds an extra layer of enjoyment to the overall package. In culinary parlance, it’s the movie’s secret ingredient. Additionally, the script plays with the recurring beats that Cruise keeps re-living in neat ways, without ever allowing them to become boring or redundant; each repetition serves a purpose, and each reset takes us closer to the characters’ (and the story’s) ultimate destination. The movie is handsomely photographed, and the staging of the action is really quite good. Director Liman finds the sweet spot balance of being chaotic and visceral while still keeping everything clearly discernible and with a sense of spatial geography. The squid-like design of the alien creatures - slightly reminiscent of the machines from THE MATRIX - is nifty, and although we don’t exactly get to spend prolonged amounts of time in their presence, the lethal quickness and “unstoppable force” aspects they display make them effective villains for the story. The script does stumble just a bit in terms of the ending, but it’s nothing that threatens to bring down the movie as a whole. There’s one last thing I want to say, and it’s in regard to Tom Cruise himself, a celebrity I know some people have an aversion to. Here’s the thing - you can dislike the man’s personal life choices, or his perceived failings as an individual, or his public statements about this-or-that, but there should be no denying that he throws himself completely into his roles, gives a one-hundred-percent effort every time, and genuinely makes interesting choices when picking the films he wants to headline. The idea that some people seem to have written him off as a performer because of things he did nearly a decade ago (and which, I might say, were blown out of all proportion, as detailed in this excellent piece on his career in LA Weekly) is unfortunate. I say this simply to hammer home (to those who might have little interest in EDGE OF TOMORROW merely because Cruise is the star) that a dislike for Cruise personally - misguided though I think that might be - should be no reason whatsoever to avoid what is a really fun and exciting sci-fi/action tale. The quality of the movie should absolutely be able to transcend the baggage that Tom Cruise brings with him in the eyes of certain audience members. It’s the first big pleasant surprise of the summer, and well worth your time. By Breanne Brennan
Trust me...this poster is not a contender for the rapture. At first glance one might think this would be a poster for a parody movie given Cage's dumbfounded expression, and not to mention the silly mugs on everyone else. The artificial lighting on the characters creates an awkward cut-out look, and there's something strange going on with the size of the receding road and waves in the background. I'd almost expect to see a bearded Forrest Gump to be running down that road...maybe he's what Cage and Co. are staring at."Nic, I just felt like runnnning!" And before I forget, let's not ignore that genius tagline "The End Begins." Where have we heard that one before? Oh, just about every other dramatic movie out there. Audiences, it's quite clear from this poster that some creative team needs to repent. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|