About As Bad As The Rest Of The Franchise: Transformers: The Last Knight

The Good: Great cast, Most of the special effects
The Bad: Banal plot, Lack of real character development, Terrible lines delivered unconvincingly by great actors.
The Basics: Transformers: The Last Knight is not great, but it is more par for the course than being truly terrible.


Transformers: The Last Knight is out and the press for it has been pretty bad in general. I'm feeling like bucking that trend to argue that the cinematic Transformers has been pretty lousy in general and Transformers: The Last Knight is pretty much what one expects as opposed to being an all-out terrible film. Transformers: The Last Knight is bad, but lately I've seen far worse films.

Michael Bay has not been recreating Casablanca for the past ten years with the Transformers franchise. He makes films for Summer Blockbuster Season filled with explosions, computer-generated special effects, and direction that lasciviously passes the camera slowly over whatever female lead the film possesses. To be fair to Transformers: The Last Knight, there is far less of the camera exploiting women than in the four prior installments of the franchise. Unfortunately, there are more retcons that place Transformers and alien technology on Earth in the past and make the movie fit very poorly into any continuity with the others, despite the fact that more of the cast from the first three movies recurs in Transformers: The Last Knight.

Opening in Briton during Camelot, Merlin and Arthur enlist Transformers to thwart their enemies. Flashing forward to the present, some Transformers have taken refuge in other countries, while in America the teenager Izabella uncovers a downed Transformer in the ruins of a baseball stadium. Izabella is a homeless girl who is rescued by Cade Yeager. The pair are hunted back to Cade's junkyard by the American military. Colonel Lennox has become aware that the Decepticons under the newly resurfaced Megatron are hunting something that they believe Cade has.

Off Earth, Optimus Prime crashes into Cybertron, which is headed toward Earth with the planet's creator, Quintessa. Quintessa reprograms Optimus Prime to wipe out humanity and remake Earth into a new homeworld for the Transformers. The chase of Cade Yeager takes him to England where Sir Edmund Burton has been part of the line of humans working with Transformers to protect the Earth. Burton brings in Vivian Wembley, the last surviving descendant of Merlin, who has access to technology and information that sends her and Cade under the sea to recover an artifact that will allow them to thwart the Decepticons, Quintessa, and the ensorceled Optimus Prime.

Transformers: The Last Knight is exactly what one expects of a Transformers movie. The human characters are mundane, poorly characterized and deliver far more expository dialogue than anything that is clever and defines the characters in unique and interesting ways. Transformers: The Last Knight picks up after Transformers: The Age Of Extinction (reviewed here!), so it begins with the Transformers abandoned by Optimus Prime who flew off Earth at the end of that film.

Blending the main characters from the early Transformers films - Lennox, General Morshower, and Agent Simmons - with Cade Yeager and newer Transformers like Hound, Transformers: The Last Knight just continues the banal franchise with more explosions, more robot on robot fights and an absurd predicament that absolutely defies rational physics. Transformers: The Last Knight asks viewers to accept as credible that there is a scientist who denies the existence of magic and fantasy in a world with Transformers who fails to point out that a planet-sized object rushing toward Earth would completely destroy the Earth long before that object starts ripping apart the surface and extracting massive chunks of technology. Only the least-sophisticated viewer could believe that the Earth could survive in any recognizable way after the events of Transformers: The Last Knight.

Arguably the most disappointing aspect of Transformers: The Last Knight is that Jeff Bridges does not appear in the movie in any form. Astute fans will note that in Transformers: The Age Of Extinction one of the sound clips used as Bumblebee's dialogue was from The Big Lebowski. Transformers: The Last Knight is like a mini-reunion for The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) with the return of John Turturro and John Goodman (albeit as a voice-only actor in the film) and the introduction of Steve Buscemi as the Autobot Daytrader. And that was the most exciting aspect of Transformers: The Last Knight.

Sir Anthony Hopkins is wasted as Sir Edmund Burton and it seems like the only reason he is in the film to get the venerable actor to call someone a dick and make other remarks that are well-below his usual level of diction. Stanley Tucci's cameo in the film is virtually unrecognizable and newcomers Laura Haddock and Isabela Moner add nothing significant to the mix. Marc Wahlberg is fine as Cade, but it seems like outside his physical performance, the main reason to have him in Transformers: The Last Knight is to pull off a scene where characters act amazed that Cade has been celibate for years.

The Transformers themselves are hapless robots in Transformers: The Last Knight with no clear sense of boundaries or sensibility. Optimus Prime is reprogrammed by his creator . . . but Bumblebee being willing to sacrifice himself and deliver lines in his own voice is enough to change his programming?! And Prime leaps back up to Cybertron with other Transformers not worrying that he'll simply be reprogrammed again and come back murderous again?!

So, Transformers: The Last Knight is just a pretty bad action adventure film that does the usual Summer Blockbuster Season thing that has been done by the franchise four other times and by far better movies many, many more times.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Rough Night
The Mummy
Wonder Woman
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
Baywatch
Alien: Covenant
Guardians Of The Galaxy, Volume 2

3.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Two Laughless Hours Later . . . The Ridiculous 6

The Good: Three lines, perhaps.
The Bad: Wastes the decent cast members, Not funny, Dull plot.
The Basics: Netflix is not doing its subscribers any favors by producing the Adam Sandler-led Western parody The Ridiculous 6.


When it comes to Adam Sandler comedies, I have long known to keep my expectations low. I grew up while Sandler was making his transition from Saturday Night Live to making blockbuster comedy films and they just did not grab me. Until Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!), Sandler did not really impress me with his acting abilities. I have also come to have fairly low expectations for Netflix original films as the majority of ones I've seen have left me unimpressed. So, the idea of a Sandler/Netflix film was one I went into with low expectations. The film is The Ridiculous 6 and it is not doing anything to improve my opinion on Adam Sandler comedies or Netflix original films.

The Ridiculous 6 is not Adam Sandler's attempt to make Blazing Saddles (reviewed here!), though Blazing Saddles is generally considered the gold standard of Western comedies. The Adam Sandler parody of a Western film is basically a generic Adam Sandler comedy set in the West. As such, it includes fart and shit jokes mixed in with dry deliveries of ridiculous lines that are hardly unique to the film, like generic baseball jokes. The Ridiculous 6 has bestiality jokes, physical humor and gross jokes involving smearing ointment on humans and flatulent burros indiscriminately. Much of the humor in The Ridiculous 6 falls flat and large chunks of the movie are just gross.

Opening with White Knife, a white man raised by Apaches, going into a nearby town to pick up some flour, he and his fiance are preyed upon by a gang of one-eyed bandits. Tommy "White Knife" Stockburn easily thwarts his adversaries and returns to the tribe that raised him before his biological father, Frank, shows up. Frank Stockburn wants to give his son the treasure he has amassed, but the next morning, the outlaw Cicero appears with his gang and kidknaps Frank for his treasure. Tommy goes off to steal $50,000 to cover the treasure that will not be there when Cicero's gang tries to have Frank dig up his treasure near a singing windmill.

While Tommy searches for places to rob, he encounters various half-brothers - other sons from Frank Stockburn. Tommy meets Ramon, his Mexican half-brother and Ramon encounters their idiot half-brother Pete while Tommy is clearing out the local bank. They discover an Asian half-brother, Herm; a black half-brother, Chico, and Danny, their white half-brother. Together, they try to steal a gold nugget worth $25,000. After their heist, the brothers sing around a campfire, play the first baseball game, and work together to rescue their father.

The Ridiculous 6 is generally a comedy that fails to inspire laughter. The two-hour film got me to smile three times and none of those smiles even came from Sandler. Given that Terry Crews is able to illicit more of a smile than Adam Sandler in The Ridiculous 6, it is hard to even call the movie an Adam Sandler comedy.

It is tough for me to rate movies with performers like Jorge Garcia (totally wasted as he does not have any lines that allow him to emote!), Harvey Keitel (who proves himself to be a definitively dramatic actor by illustrating no talent for comic timing in The Ridiculous 6) and Luke Wilson, so low, but when a movie just sucks, it just sucks.

The Ridiculous 6 just plain sucks.

None of the actors in the flick illustrate any new range or genuine talent - which is sad given that several of the actors are talented. The Ridiculous 6 is not clever, nor is it funny. It is simply a waste of two hours.

For other Netflix exclusive films, please check out my reviews of:
Mascots
ARQ
XOXO
Tallulah
The Fundamentals Of Caring

0/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Am I The Only One In The World Who Did Not Enjoy Anger Management?!

The Good: Moments of humor, Generally good performances
The Bad: Agonizing tone, Predictable plot, Irksome character development
The Basics: When Dave Buznik is sentenced to 20 hours of anger management therapy, he ends up getting more than he bargained for when noted author and expert Dr. Buddy Rydell antagonizes him.


There are a number of movies that came and went in their theatrical run that I had absolutely no interest in watching that I now find myself catching thanks to my wife. Pretty much any film featuring Adam Sandler falls into that category; my wife is a fan and I’m not a huge fan – though there are some that I have enjoyed. Despite the presence of Jack Nicholson in it, I never had the urge to watch the Adam Sandler film Anger Management. That avoidance ended last night when my wife and mother-in-law were in the mood to watch Anger Management and I was in the mood to hang out with them.

Hated it.

The thing is, I don’t recall what I knew about Anger Management going into it, but from the outset the movie set me off because the protagonist seemed woefully misdiagnosed with anger issues. Adam Sandler is possibly the ultimate actor for portraying seething rage beneath a good-guy persona. He did it masterfully in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!), so Sandler has abilities. For sure, there are many different ways people who have anger under the surface might act, but in Anger Management, Sandler’s character of Dave Buznik exhibits no recognizable traits of someone who is truly angry and struggles to deal with that. Instead, in Anger Management, Dave is constantly provoked and he is surrounded by angry people who overact to his calm rejections of their behavior.

Dave Buznik has been dating Linda for years and he remains too timid to commit to her, despite the fact that she pals around with Andrew, an ex who shows no respect for her relationship with Dave. Dave has a great idea that his boss takes credit for. That leads to Dave traveling for his boss and on the plane, he moves seats to sit next to Dr. Buddy Rydell. In asking for headphones, Dave is forced to wait and when he gently puts his hand on the stewardess’s elbow, the plane lands and he is charged with assault. He is sentenced to twenty hours of anger management therapy . . . with Dr. Rydell.

Rydell begins almost immediately making offers to Dave and then betraying him. Dave’s sentence is expanded to forty hours and the group sessions Dave attends include the legitimately violent Chuck, a porn star couple, and a guy who is far long in Rydell’s program, Lou. Traveling together, Dave and Rydell go through a number of exercises, like Rydell having Dave pick up a woman at a bar, then telling Linda about it. Rydell has Dave confront his childhood tormenter and then starts dating Linda himself. In the process of Rydell agitating Dave, Dave comes to stand up for himself and his relationship with Linda.

Anger Management is unpleasant to watch because almost immediately, the viewer has the sense that Dave is being played. Watching a generally nice guy get railroaded by an erratic manipulator is not my idea of entertaining. As a result of the transparent way that Rydell works Dave, the “surprise” twist near the end is more obvious than audacious. Anger Management telegraphs itself and it is frustrating to watch a film where the protagonist is so far behind the curve.

That said, Anger Management has an impressive cast that is utilized remarkably well . . . outside Sandler. Sandler’s Dave is not written to be particularly angry, clever or distinct and that leaves Sandler with remarkably little to play. Anger Management does not give Adam Sandler one of his interesting or quirky characters to play and the result is that much of the movie has the viewer watching an indistinct tool.

The rest of the cast of Anger Management is impressively utilized. Jack Nicholson plays Dr. Rydell with an energetic quality that borders on the sadistic and makes the role instantly credible. Nicholson gets through the psychobabble with a brilliant straight face and when his character turns toward the charming and erratic, he lends some continuity to the performance that makes it seem like it is the same character going through everything. Nicholson has amazing facial acting and director Peter Segal captures that wonderfully. The supplemental cast of Marisa Tomei, Luiz Guzman, Kurt Fuller, Woody Harrelson, John Turturro, Heather Graham and John C. Riley flesh out the world around Dave and Rydell to keep Sandler playing off an intriguing number of other talents.

Unfortunately, the humor in Anger Management is slapstick and not at all shocking. Telegraphed well in advance, much of the film has mediocre jokes broke up by long stretches of Rydell antagonizing Dave. Anger Management is like watching torment on film and for as much as Dave is tormented, so is the viewer.

For other works with January Jones, please visit my reviews of:
X-Men: First Class
Unknown
Love Actually
Bandits

4/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Quirky Blend Of Bowling And Hostage Negotiations, The Big Lebowski Is Rightfully A Cult Classic!

The Good: Funny, Decent acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Too often weird for the sake of weird (lack of purpose)
The Basics: Delightfully odd, The Big Lebowski is the film Thomas Pynchon would have made and has a visual style that helps define the greatness of the Coen Brothers.


I was clearly too young when I first watched The Big Lebowski. I know I saw it back after college, but I had no particular affinity (or even memory) of it. So, when the opportunity came for me to watch The Big Lebowski today, I leapt upon it. I think it might be ironic that the day I panned one of Thomas Pynchon’s latest novels, Against The Day (reviewed here!), the highest compliment I can give The Big Lebowski is that this film has a Pynchonesque quality to it. Thomas Pynchon is known for being quirky and meandering and in writing and directing The Big Lebowski, Joel and Ethan Coen create something distinctive that is the most Pynchonesque film I have yet seen.

Like a comedic, less violent version of Payback (reviewed here!), the Coen Brothers blend the story of a man looking for far, far less than others want or expect out of him (like Porter in Payback going through his ordeals for vastly less than most of the gangsters expect, the Dude is really just out to get his rug replaced in The Big Lebowski) with a ransom which may or may not be real. Including dream sequences, quirky characters, and surprisingly good characters, the only real problem with The Big Lebowski might well be that there are so many different collectible versions of the DVD/Blu-Ray and it is sometimes weird for the sake of being weird as opposed to being a cohesive story. It is, honestly, not much of a problem at all.

The Dude (Lebowski) returns home from buying half and half to get his face shoved in his toilet by thugs who demand to know where the money is. One of the thugs urinates on his rug and when they realize that he is not the millionaire that they are trying to shake down, they leave. Inspired by his bowling buddies, the Dude searches for the real Lebowski to get compensation for his rug getting urinated upon. After taking a rug from Lebowski’s house and going bowling (where his rule-bound friend, Walter, draws a gun on an opposing player), the Dude is summoned back to the Lebowski mansion.

Mr. Lebowski’s wife, Bunny, has been kidnapped and Lebowski wants the Dude to act as a courier for the ransom. When talking with Walter, the Dude posits that the rich girl has not even been kidnapped, which Walter decides must be true. Walter throws a false bag – without the ransom money – to the kidnappers, queering the deal. The Dude quickly finds himself threatened by Lebowski, Lebowski’s daughter (who is older than his new wife), a pornographer who Bunny owes money to and, in a completely different context, a pedophilic bowler named Jesus. In hunting down the money, which has been stolen, the Dude is tailed, menaces a fifteen year old and does battle with corrupt cops.

Like a Pynchon novel, The Big Lebowski is populated by ridiculous characters who represent archetypes and agendas that allow the ridiculous plot and plot turns to seem entirely plausible. The Dude is a former hippie, conscientious objector, whose big accomplishment is being an occasional bowler. He essentially becomes a detective due to the apparently wealthy Lebowski and works for a cut off three different people with agendas for the return of Bunny Lebowski. Walter is a psychopath who claims to observe the Sabbath and plays up his status as a veteran.

Thugs and nihilists go up against the Dude and Walter in a caper that includes ransom demands when there is no hostage, a person who cuts off a toe, and a fight that involves one man biting off another man’s ear. Impressively directed by Joel (and, in an uncredited capacity, Ethan) Coen, The Big Lebowski includes dream sequences complete with big dance numbers that have a trippy feeling that is fun to watch. In fact, outside David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (reviewed here!), it is hard to recall a film that so purely captures the blend of drug trips, reality, and dreams as The Big Lebowski. Unlike something like Mulholland Drive, though, The Big Lebowski actually tells a story and in that way, it makes for a eminently satisfying film.

In other words, outside the simple visual styling and the quirky characters, The Big Lebowski is enjoyable because things happen and there is a story to be pieced together. Like the best of Pynchon’s novels, there is substance and themes in The Big Lebowski presented in a way that has a sense of poetry. It is easy to see how the film became a cult classic.

Julianne Moore has a wonderful supporting performance as Maude Lebowski, where she is unlike any other performance she has had. Similarly, the exceptionally brief appearance by John Turturro as Jesus (who the previews might make one suspect has a substantial role in the film) performs with a wonderful sense of physical comedy, a looseness that makes him ridiculous in a way that he plays nowhere else. Steve Buscemi (Donny, the other bowling partner of the Dude), David Huddleston (Lebowski), and Philip Seymour Hoffman all have decent supporting roles that help play off the ridiculousness of Jeff Bridges as the Dude.

John Goodman is predictably wonderful as Walter. The real surprise, though, is Jeff Bridges as the Dude. Bridges, who frequently takes serious roles where he is able to play dignified, is incredible as the slacker, the Dude. Slouching through most of the movie, he presents the character as smart, but also incredibly able to reason at key moments and makes the whole role seem plausible. Bridges has a great physical presence and his expressions of surprise and disappointment are well-played.

The Big Lebowski is funny, clever, and well-presented and well worth watching for anyone who has an appetite for quirky and surprisingly smart.

For other works with Sam Elliott, check out my reviews of:
Marmaduke
Did You Hear About The Morgans?
Ghost Rider
Thank You For Smoking
Hulk

9/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Messing With You Don’t Mess With The Zohan On DVD Is A Waste Of Time.

The Good: Moments of message
The Bad: Not funny, Wastes good cast members, Predictable, Lame character development, Moments of message
The Basics: A terrible film not worth anyone's time or attention, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan is not funny, not clever and certainly not constructive.


Sometimes, it is only in assembling lists that I discover I have overlooked something I thought I had reviewed. For example, when I was making my list of the "Worst Films Of 2008,” I discovered that I had never actually penned a review of the film You Don’t Mess With The Zohan, even though it easily made that list. Now on DVD, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan is just as bad and a film I loathed having to suffer through again.

Whenever people pitch the "worst movie of the year" or make grandiose claims that certain films are the worst film of a certain time frame, I suspect they forget about works like You Don’t Mess With The Zohan. So, for example, for all of the problems some reviewers had with Twilight, it is hard to take them seriously when they declare that film to be worse than You Don’t Mess With The Zohan or The Love Guru. Similarly, when people claim that 2008 wasn't all that bad in the theaters, my first questions tend to be "Did you see Disaster Movie or (Stupid) Quarantine?" I preface my considerations of You Don’t Mess With The Zohan with these thoughts because it is an utter waste of time, talent and the DVD medium. And sitting through it twice now just left me feeling robbed of time and life.

Zohan is an Israeli secret agent who has no greater ambitions than to cut hair. A superstar in Israel, he dances, plays hackey sack, has sex with many women and catches numerous things - like a fish - in his butt. As the violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians escalates, Zohan sees no potential end to the violence and the rise of an equally powerful adversary, the Phantom, leaves him wishing for more.

So, Zohan fakes his own death by appearing to let the Phantom defeat him in hand-to-hand combat. As many women mourn the loss of Zohan, he escapes to the United States where he assumes an alter ego as a hairdresser. As a corrupt real estate developer moves in on a New York City neighborhood, Zohan raises business at Dahlia's boutique by cutting hair and having sex with all of her clients. Soon, though, Zohan is spotted by a man he once wronged, Salim, who is furious over Zohan taking his goat some years before. Salim threatens to expose the Phantom as a fraud for not killing the Zohan and they converge upon Zohan at a sham hackey sack tournament as the real estate developer hires some white supremacists to burn everything down.

Every now and then, there is a movie that just makes one sit up and say "wow, this is a stupid movie." You Don’t Mess With The Zohan is one such stupid movie, but not for all of the reasons one might think. For example, a comedy about Arab and Israeli relations is about due. The fundamental concept of this flick is not a bad one. The problem is in the execution. So, for example, watching Adam Sandler as the Zohan grill naked and shoot a fish out of his butt has no real redeeming value. And by the time that the viewer gets to more telling, quirky funny bits like Salim's obsession with the goat Zohan once took, the viewer already does not care. Why? In between there are a slew of jokes that virtually all boil down to the idea that it is somehow funny that Zohan has sex with middle aged women or senior citizens of all body types.

Moreover, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan is so forced with its generic and stupid form of humor that it has to telegraph it. This is essentially the function of Gail's son. Gail takes the Zohan in and her son walks in on Zohan and her repeatedly having sex. The joke then is about the son's revulsion and as most of the things with that character, the lines he delivers are essentially saying, "this is what you ought to be laughing at." The problem is, this type of humor is likely to only appeal to the 13 year-old members of the PG-13 audience. And of those, it's not even the brightest and certainly not the most mature 13 year-olds that will find it funny.

By the time the humor gets around to actually being political, it is far too late and hardly funny. So, when Zohan's friends in New York City begin talking politics, the conversation soon degenerates into a conversation on which politician's wives each of the men would be willing to have sex with.

Far more insidious in the film is the equation of Israelis and Arabs with terrorists, though to be fair to Sandler, Smigel and the other writers, they are indiscriminate in their prejudice. Both the Israeli characters and the Palestinian ones are heavily armed and have all sorts of weapons just laying around. This - even in the context of a comedy - reinforces the prejudice that "they" are all terrorists. And it is in that regard that the film has its one decent exchange of dialogue. One Arab character says "People hate us because they think we are terrorists!" to which an Israeli character notes, "People hate us because they think we are you!" There is plenty of hate to go around in You Don’t Mess With The Zohan and unfortunately, when it is not overtly combating the hate, it is subversively reinforcing the worst prejudices about the Israelis and the Palestinians.

At least as offensive is the sheer amount of talent that You Don’t Mess With The Zohan wastes. Talented comedians show up for quick appearances that do not utilize their talents or make them the butt of jokes pertaining to one aspect of their personality. So, for example, Chris Rock's appearance as a cab driver is short and disappointing. That George Takei, Dave Allen and Kevin Nealon went anywhere near this movie is unfortunate.

And of the principles, one tends to expect what they get from both Adam Sandler (who plays Zohan) and Rob Schneider, who is "disguised" as the Arab Salim, but that John Turturro gets sucked into this crapfest is just offensive. Turturro has a great ability to play comedic as well as dramatic. And I had to watch Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) after seeing this movie on DVD just to cleanse my palate because Turturro plays a character of such integrity in that film. But in You Don’t Mess With The Zohan, Turturro is wasted, even with his sense of comedy. As the Phantom, he flops with the physical comedy and the verbal gags are hardly funny enough to waste his abilities on.

Now on DVD, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan includes a bevy of deleted scenes which add nothing to the movie, featurettes on the behind-the-scenes antics and development of the movie and commentary tracks that are not funny either. Those who find this movie funny are hardly the type who will enjoy commentary tracks and Sandler and Schneider, who both appear on the commentary track, are particularly unenlightening about anything in regards to the movie.

For those even considering You Don’t Mess With The Zohan, just ask yourself if there isn't some better way to waste two hours of your life. Having wasted over four hours on this insipid "comedy," I can tell you: there are better uses of your time!

For other works with Nick Swardson, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Jack And Jill
30 Minutes Or Less
Just Go With It
Bolt
I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry
Almost Famous

1.5/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Two Men Boxed In: The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 In Real Time.

The Good: General idea is interesting enough, Principles act well enough
The Bad: Some bad acting, Pacing, Annoying direction, Overbearing soundtrack, Title blocks
The Basics: Obvious and average, Tony Scott's remake of The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is visually confused and boring.


Last night was a pretty disappointing night for me at the cinema. In addition to taking in one of the worst romantic comedies I have ever seen, I made it to an advanced screening of the new John Travolta/Denzel Washington vehicle (pun intended) The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3. This is a suspense/thriller which is based upon a novel and a 1974 film by the same name. I believe that the last time I came out of a thriller or conspiracy film this underwhelmed was for Pride And Glory (reviewed here!), though this film did not have the technical issues that that one did, it was still annoying, obvious and ultimately an unpleasant waste of my time.

As is my usual disclaimer for such things, this is an evaluation of the 2009 film The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3, not the novel upon which it is based or on its quality as a remake. I have neither read the John Godey novel nor seen the 1974 film. As such, this is a rather pure viewing of the film as it was presented. And it was presented poorly by director Tony Scott.

It is an ordinary day in New York City where Walter Garber is working at his Transit Authority desk in Rail Control Center (Midtown). At 1:59 P.M., men board the Pelham 123 train and by 2 P.M., the conductor and the motorman (driver) are hostages and the train is heading into a secure section where it stops. Garber notices the change almost immediately and when the train stops and separates, he tries desperately to raise the motorman. The train is separated and when a transit police officer makes a move on one of the hostage takers, he is killed. The obvious leader, though, makes an unexpected move, which is to have the conductor release everyone on the longer half of the train and walk them all to safety. In the engine car of the subway, then, the leader takes nineteen people hostage and he opens a line of communication with Garber in Rail Control.

Garber and the man, Ryder, then begin a series of negotiations where Ryder demands $10,000,000.01 for the release of the hostages and Garber realizes almost immediately that the hostage taker means business and that he knows his way around the system. A passenger aboard the subway loses his internet access on his laptop while communicating with his terrified girlfriend, setting up future scenes when Ryder and his team set up their own wireless network. Through that, Ryder learns more about Garber and the two begin an intellectual chess match wherein the lives of innocents are placed in the balance for ten million dollars.

The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is supposed to be tense, but unfortunately, it is packed with cliches that utterly gut the suspension of disbelief, not because they are unreal, but because anyone who has seen this type of movie before has seen exactly what Tony Scott and Brian Helgeland (the screenwriter) do in it. So, for example, when the hostage negotiator, Lieutenant Camonetti, arrives and takes over, Ryder becomes furious and demands to speak with Garber, who was sent home moments before. The viewer knows - not just because Garber is played by Denzel Washington and he has top billing - that Garber is Ryder's foil and he will be back the moment he rises from his desk. That Scott and Helgeland expect the audience to believe even for a second that Garber is being replaced is insulting to the viewer and that they played that card sets the viewer up for future disappointments in the film.

The most notable disappointment here is in the character of Garber. Garber is working in the Midtown Rail Control Center because he is under investigation for bribery; he is actually a big shot. When Ryder has a gun to a kid's head aboard the subway car, the viewer is given the full story about that investigation and it seems again like the film is mired in the conceits of the genre rather than telling a story that is truly original. The result here is that there are two minutes of exposition that are less revelatory and more boring. Like the fact that the laptop's feed would somehow be used to gain information on those in the subway car, this conceit is more or less built in to the idea and the concept that Garber is not a perfect angel is more underwhelming than in any way shocking.

Throughout the film, director Tony Scott adds annoying reminders of what time it is (the clock is counting down to 3:13 P.M., when Ryder will start killing hostages for every minute the money is late) which is utterly unnecessary because time is continually being referenced by the characters. Thirty-seven minutes from the deadline, the Mayor agrees to pay the the ten million and that sum becomes a clue into Ryder's mind and history. Scott's annoying notations on-screen about time and location are hardly enough for non-New York City dwellers to truly appreciate the effort. So, for example, as the police transit for the cash is labeled en route from a marker "Midtown Manhattan" viewers who are not fluent in The City are left in the dark because this has no relation to us with the film's other notation "42 and Vanderbilt." The notations are only worthwhile if one has a sense of scale or geography to match them and Scott does not build that into the film.

The only element that is truly clever is Ryder's real plan, which is revealed surprisingly early in the film to anyone who can read and intuit. As well, The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 does have some social commentary. Unlike a film like 15 Minutes (reviewed here!), the commentary here is far more subtle and seems to be more general about the state of economics in the world. Capitalism kills in The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 and those who play the game and try to fly right will be corrupted in order to save their families.

Ryder is given surprisingly little motivation and the viewer is left wondering what he needs the vast sums of money he sets out to get for. Characters like his assistant from the inside, Phil Ramos, are actually fleshed out more but also leave the viewer wondering why they do what they do. In other words, Ramos could easily be a man bent on revenge from the way he was dismissed from the transit authority. But he is the brains of the operation and there is not a single scene where actor Luis Guzman acts like his character is motivated by revenge.

The acting in the film is average, though John Travolta makes for a convincing bad guy here. The cute 8-year-old boy outshines the acting of the teenage George (the kid with the laptop) though. Denzel Washington is also convincing as Garber, but this is hardly one of his indispensable roles. Instead, this is pretty much the product of great casting, much like Spacey and Jackson in The Negotiator. Like that film, Washington and Travolta play off one another as the viewer awaits the inevitable scene where they meet in the real world and have a chance to play face-to-face. Their acting is good.

But it is not enough to go see this film. The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is one long stretch of boredom punctuated by pointless car chases and witless characters who ask the questions engaged viewers ask about ten minutes after the viewer does. This is an easy film to pass by during Summer Blockbuster Season and only suitable for wasting a rainy day on DVD.

For other works written by Brien Helgeland, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Mystic River
Payback
L.A. Confidential

4.5/10

For other movie reviews, check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Mr. Deeds Is A Surprisingly Good Comedy.

The Good: Funny, Quirky, Surprisingly well-written, Decent acting
The Bad: Somewhat predictable plot, Standard setup
The Basics: A surprisingly decent Adam Sandler film that actually makes the audience laugh, Mr. Deeds forces us to ask “What is the world coming to?!”


Every once in a while, I decide it is time to even out the old bell curve of my ratings. Because I didn't want to completely waste my time, I got out A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (reviewed here!) with Mr. Deeds, which was the DVD I figured I would not enjoy. Who would have guessed that I would have found Mr. Deeds to be the superior movie? Those readers of my reviews will know that I usually rate comedies fairly poorly as they do not stand up well over repeated viewings. Mr. Deeds seems to be an exception to that.

When Preston Blake dies, his multi-billion dollar corporation looks for any heir to his empire. They find Longfellow Deeds, a laid back pizza delivery guy who seems to enjoy his simple life in a small town in New England. Cecil, the company's chief counsel, and Chuck Cedar, the company's CEO, hunt Deeds down and bring him back to New York. There, Deeds is taken in by investigative reporter Babe Bennett, who needs a story before she gets fired. Deeds falls in love with Babe, who has been lying to him all along about who she really is. While Chuck works to swindle Deeds out of his stock, Deeds begins to figure out that being a part of this particular company is pretty decent.

What Mr. Deeds lacks in original plot material, it more than makes up for with humorous characters and a rather unique use of an assortment of character actors. The movie almost immediately establishes itself as something different with a quirky use of dialog between Cecil and Murph, Deeds' best friend. When Cecil arrives in Deeds' hometown, the exchange between him and Murph is quick, funny and utterly disarming. Prior to that, the movie is just a bunch of stupid jokes that are obvious and simple. But with that one exchange of dialog, the viewer is sucked in to a movie we know is going to be a bit different.

The differences do not come in the form of the plot. This is the most hackneyed, obvious, overdone Hollywood plot there is. After all, we could probably name fifteen movies and/or episodes of television shows wherein the protagonist suddenly is bequeathed lots of money and has a decision to make about it while those around him (or her) manipulate them or attempt to get their money. It's a standard plot. The originality of Mr. Deeds is not in that element.

What Mr. Deeds does is it takes the standard and plays with it, populating it with some weird characters. Deeds himself is happy-go-lucky and simple, often ending up as the butt of other people's jokes. Babe, the reporter investigating him, is a compulsive liar who pulls all of her lies out of To Kill A Mockingbird. Cecil is an eccentric lawyer who does more than deadpans, he actually connects with Deeds and plays into his simpleton joy. Deeds new housekeeper, Emilio, seems to move at the speed of light and is a wonderful straightman. All through the movie, there are weird characters that seem to defy our expectations for what characters in this situation would do. And some of the cameos are wonderful, including John McEnroe playing a raging version of himself.

But what makes Mr. Deeds even funnier is the use of the actors. Adam Sandler is surprisingly good as Longfellow Deeds and he plays Deeds with more understatement than he does in most of his other movies. Gone is the mumbling sketch comedian that Sandler uses in far too many of his other, less worthwhile movies. Here, he stretches his creative wings and he rewards the audience with a different type of comedic performance than his usual portrayal which is almost completely derived from his Saturday Night Live routines. Still, he has not completely done away with that person and his little violent side makes its usual appearance in this piece.

John Turturro is great as the speedy butler Emilio. He gives a great comedic performance that is very different from his incomprehensible character in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, his manic protagonist in The Luzhin Defense, and his driven family man who is the backbone of Cradle Will Rock. Instead, here he plays a muted character who has presence only in the movie's climax and then never stealing the scenes from Sandler's Deeds.

The person who does steal the movie is Eric Avari, who plays Cecil. Avari, who might be best known to mass audiences as Elektra's father in Daredevil (reviewed here!), is an unlikely candidate for comedy and then he has the dignity and bearing for a sidekick, a straightman whose straightlaced nature plays off the wackiness of those around him. It is therefore, casting genius that Avari is used as a quirky, funny, emotive character. Avari's character flirts, joins in singing a David Bowie song and has a love of Wendy's frosty's. He plays the part expertly, using his facial expressions to twist a joke even further. He makes the movie even more interesting than Sandler.

I went into Mr. Deeds expecting to not enjoy it and instead, I found a movie I was consistently laughing at. It was funny. And it held up as funny when I watched it a second time. It's not Monty Python's Flying Circus or Kids In The Hall, but it is funny and it is worth a viewing when you're in the mood for a laugh.

For other films with John Turturro, please visit my reviews of:
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
Transformers
The Luzhin Defence
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Cradle Will Rock
Rounders
Miller’s Crossing

7/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Coen Brothers Take Us To Miller’s Crossing, A Mildly Nostalgic Trip

The Good: Excellent acting, Interesting characters, Cinematography, decent DVD extras
The Bad: Convoluted plot that does not go very far, Slow and drawn out
The Basics: When Tom, a counselor to a lead gangster, finds himself on the outs with his employer, his bookie and his woman, the viewer is treated to a beautiful looking film.


Lately, I've been seeing some works I've been looking forward to for quite some time. Perhaps the most anticipated work that I've finally sat down to is Miller’s Crossing. This 1990 cinematic outing by the Coen Brothers (possibly best known still for Fargo) was largely neglected by the major awards and seems to have become something of a cult classic. I remember seeing a real compelling preview for it years ago (not the trailer that is on the DVD, which is one of those terrible trailers which virtually shows the entire movie) and I'd been looking forward to seeing it ever since.

Tom Reagan, Prohibition-era gangster advisor, finds himself in a world of trouble when the boss he counsels, Leo, offends a rising gangster named Johnny Caspar simply by not taking his desire to kill a bookie seriously. Caspar fixes fights and places bets with Bernie Bernbaum, who then sells the information on who Caspar is betting on to others, who flood money into the pool and effectively alter the odds so there will be no payout. Caspar wants to kill Bernie, who is under Leo's protection and Leo blows him off.

Sadly, Leo neglects Tom's counsel in large part because he is in love with Bernie's sister, Verna. Tom is involved with Verna as well and this sets off a string of problems for Tom that are compounded by his gambing debts. Rejected by Leo, he finds himself approaching Caspar, evading Bernie, and in a weird relationship with Verna. When Caspar's lieutenant, the Dane, suspects Tom might be double-crossing Caspar, Tom must figure out how to save his own life, which involves setting all his enemies against each other.

Miller’s Crossing is a beautifully shot film that reminds the viewer of just how important cinematography can be to establishing mood and setting. One of the few DVD bonuses on this disc is a conversation with Barry Sonnenfeld, who discusses his shooting philosophies and ideas for how Miller’s Crossing was framed and created. It's worthwhile, educational and highlights how much thought went into the look and feel of this gangster film.

And the result is a beautiful-looking film. Miller’s Crossing is inarguably a wonderful looking movie. Few films leap right to mind as being assembled so well that what the film looks like tells so much of the story. Indeed, I would be tempted to spend an evening simply watching the film without sound just to soak in the color contrasts, the murky forest that stands starkly against the sharp, beautifully appointed - almost opulent - rooms of Leo's various palaces. Directors Joel and Ethan Coen and Director of Photography Sonnenfeld have a wonderful sense of style that is virtually lost in films outside the art house's now.

Sadly, while the look of the film is wonderful, the feel is anything but. Almost homogeneously slow with characters belaboring the complexities of the plot which is universally based on the concept of which character is betraying the others based on their relationships. So, for example, the Dane has a prominent place in the movie as Caspar's lieutenant, who is having a homosexual relationship with Mink, who is involved with both the Dane and Bernie. Tom manipulates the Dane's love of Mink with Caspar to sew seeds of distrust between the boss and his closest advisor. The webs that are woven between the various characters are all similarly complex and much of the time on screen for the characters is simply spent defining who is relating to who or how someone is tugging at a character based on those relationships.

Miller’s Crossing is a big film about relationships. The problem with it is that almost all of the dialogue belabors that, it is spent defining and explaining the relationships rather than illustrating most of the relationships. So, there is a vast amount of time of the movie spent with characters talking about other characters and musing on how they related. The result is a movie that feels like watching a house of cards being assembled where the person building the structure is belaboring what card is being placed now and what cards it is atop and proximate to.

Fortunately, it looks so good. But also, the characters are interesting. Despite a plot that is dependent on all sorts of character exposition in order to be even remotely sensible, Miller’s Crossing is populated by interesting characters. In one of the other extras, clips of television interviews (sadly, there is no commentary on this version), Marcia Gay Harden - who plays Verna - speaks about her joy at playing a very different female character. She is in a period piece, but playing a strong female character who is not the hooker-with-a-heart of gold, but rather a very independent, strong woman who is running her own game.

And Tom Reagan makes for a wonderful protagonist. Tom is an anti-hero, a gangster who is in deep debt from gambling who will not allow his boss to simply make good on his debts for him, despite the peril it puts him in. Indeed, Tom's big problem is his integrity on some level; he gives Leo good advice, which Leo simply ignores, and he is honest with Leo about his relationship with Verna, which puts him on the outs with his boss and plunges his life into real peril.

The peripherals and supporting characters are all easy to watch and enjoy. Indeed, Mink appears on screen only once and is stunningly memorable for his brief appearance. Bernie Bernbaum is deliciously manipulative and at moments utterly pitiable. Leo and Caspar both have the bearings of genuine leaders and the Dane is a surprisingly strong supporting player on a very full tapestry.

The joy of Miller’s Crossing has to be the acting. All of the performers in this film bring their "a game" to the movie. Gabriel Byrne is Tom and he plays the role unlike anything I've ever seen him in, though he does have a coldness to him that he played in subsequent roles. J.E. Freeman is brilliantly pokerfaced as Eddie Dane. Indeed, one of the coolest moments of the entire cinematic experience involved the Dane's using Verna as a human shield while taking out two bodyguards. Freeman uses his body fluidly and brilliantly in such a way that seems effortless and stylistically wonderful, yet utterly real and a part of the world created for this movie.

Marcia Gay Harden, who I loved in The Spitfire Grill (reviewed here!), once again illustrates her complete range of talent by providing a performance that is strong and opposite almost every other film I've seen her in. Here she is a major player and she holds her own in a very manly movie. She and Byrne have great on-screen chemistry which sells their relationship perfectly.

The one to watch, though, is Jon Polito. I was familiar with Polito before this film solely from an episode of Millennium called "Omerta" from its third season (reviewed here!), where he played a quirky reformed gangster. The role was wonderful and weird and when Polito opened Miller’s Crossing, he was instantly recognized by me. Usually, I judge an actor and their performance on how different it is from their established cannon of works. Polito wonderfully and expertly plays essentially the same character I had seen before in Millennium in a very different context. He manages to balance humor and efficiency wonderfully and despite the similarities in characters and performances, Polito steals every scene he is in.

It's just enough to recommend this film. As someone who has watched hundreds of movies in the last year, it's hard to find something I still find new and intriguing and I suspect if I had less experience with films, I would have enjoyed Miller’s Crossing a lot more. It's an enjoyable film, but it belabors itself because it is complicated, but not long, though it feels long in parts. It is beautifully shot, with a wonderful score and interesting characters. The performances are great, but most of the work was done in the casting; this movie has a truly great ensemble and is likely to delight those who are tired of giant a-list heavy films. This is a rather manly film, but it is not brainless guy fare and may be accessible to women who like a good gangster film that is a bit quirkier than the average drama.

But it's not for the faint of heart; this is a bloody movie obsessed with relationships and how messy they can be. I'm glad I watched it, finally, even if I did find myself wishing for more.

For other movies with gangsters, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Godfather
The Whole Ten Yards
The Untouchables

6.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Another Long Thinking-Persons Movie! Cradle Will Rock

The Good: Acting, Casting, Tapestry of plots, Ambiguity of message
The Bad: Moments of pacing (density)
The Basics: Another film that ought to have been contending for greater things in 1999, Cradle Will Rock is a character-driven tapestry of 1930s U.S.


Cradle Will Rock is potentially one of the greatest robberies in film history. No, it does not steal from other people's works or such, but in the races to win awards and receive recognition and an audience, it most certainly was robbed. It's ironic, considering the film is often about people standing up and acknowledging truths and greatness, that so few people stand up to praise the movie.

The film has a large scope and as such it often loses people, especially those who wish to see a movie without having to concentrate on it. The plots and characters weave around and play off each other. Nelson Rockefeller has chosen to have Diego Rivera paint the mural in the lobby of Rockefeller Center, which becomes problematic as the leftist artist incorporates images such as Lenin and syphilis into the work. WPA worker Hazel Huffman has rallied several anti-Communist artists to aid her in testifying against the WPA. One such artist is vaudeville ventriloquist Tommy Crickshaw, whose character arc is quite gripping. Largely the film plays around with Aldo Silvano and Olive Stanton, who are playing in a WPA play called "Cradle Will Rock," which is on the importance of Unions in America. Set against the play is a whole plot of steel tycoon Gray Mathers who is supplying Mussolini with steel.

The film is truly a tapestry and without knowing - or being able to appreciate - that, the viewer is lost. It's a complex film, especially as it says one thing and does another. For example, the play Cradle Will Rock is attempting to show the benefits of a union while the events surrounding the play lead to the Actor's Guild refusing to let the play be performed. If anything, the film is making the most potent argument about Unions ever: that they have their time and place, but their application is not universally beneficial to those who are a part of it. It's a story set in the 1930s, illustrating a concept that took much longer to be realized.

The acting is wonderful. All of the players get into their parts and portray the people they represent. Hank Azaria is wonderful as the delusional Marc Blitzstein, who writes Cradle Will Rock in the film. Harris Yulin gives a great performance and the briefly-seen Congressman Dies. All of the usual suspects: John Cusak, Joan Cusak, Philip Baker Hall, Vanessa Redgrave, Ruben Blades, John Turturro, and Emily Watson give their high caliber performance meeting or exceeding our expectations for their work. The true acting genius comes in the unlikely package of Bill Murray. In the surprise of the film, Bill Murray plays Tommy Crickshaw with a wonderful mix of self-loathing, abandonment and neediness. His character has surprising depth and I never thought I'd be saying he's the man to watch in a film with such talented actors as this.

While the film is not perfect, Cradle Will Rock comes quite close. Outside some historical references that are obscure, the film has moments where its purpose is unclear and it slows the pace. There are much worse uses of your time than this film and if you have children, I highly recommend this as an intelligent, engaging film. There are too few these days.

I must say, I'm impressed by the caliber of work Tim Robbins puts forth writing and directing Cradle Will Rock. This film was vastly underrated in a year of great films, most of which were overlooked.

For other powerful dramas, please visit my reviews of:
Magnolia
The Social Network
The Mission

8.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

O Brother, Where Art Thou? Here We Are!

The Good: Funny!, Well-written, Good protagonist, Cinematography, Soundtrack and use of it.
The Bad: Flat peripheral characters, No superlative acting
The Basics: O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a clever, funny film that focuses on one man's attempt to return to his wife in the Deep South.


Well, readers of my reviews know I'm almost constantly looking for a comedy I'm willing to recommend and often falling drastically short of such. My main beef with comedies these days are I tend to find them predictable, not funny or something I know will not hold up on further viewings. And then there's O Brother, Where Art Thou?, a comedy I can and will recommend.

First and foremost, the film is funny. It's actually laugh-out-loud funny in parts. The allusions to Homer's The Odyssey are sometimes overt (Big Dan Teague as a reference to the Cyclops) and other times subtle but hilarious. For example, I laughed aloud when I realized the reference to The Odyssey in the scene with the KKK was to the scene where Odysseus thwarts the cyclops. In The Odyssey, the protagonist hides under sheep. In Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?, the protagonists hide as Klan members, thus the gag is that the KKK are a bunch of sheep, which I think is both true and hilarious. It works out quite well in the film, but without knowing The Odyssey, that specific humorous poke, for one, is lost.

That is not to say one must be a mythology scholar to get the most out of the film. In addition to The Odyssey, the allusions are to Southern U.S. mythology. If one is not versed in that, which I've never been, one loses some allusions as well.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a film about Ulysses Everett McGill, a Southern gentleman and his two companions from the chain gang, Pete and Delmar. Ulysses organizes an escape from the chain gang with the other two and attempts to get through Mississippi to his wife. Along the way, the trio encounters many obstacles including Southern Baptists, seductive washerwomen, and a vicious bible salesman. In addition, the three fugitives are hunted by the sheriff from whom they escaped.

The film is a modern (Depression Era) adaptation of the Greek classic The Odyssey. Ulysses is an intellectual and a con artist of sorts, attempting to be something he probably is not. He swindles his companions into the jail break on false pretenses and his constant elitism over a specific type of hair pomade indicate a desire to be a different class of man than the felon he is. His wife, Penny, seems to recognize the truth, though she clearly needs convincing.

The film is a journey and the peripheral characters tend to be allusions more than actually fleshed out individuals. They are an eclectic collection of classic (Big Dan as the Cyclops) and American (George Nelson and Tommy Johnson in lieu of Robert Johnson) history and mythology. These characters are less drawn out and more fitting an image than I usually prefer.

Outside of the cameo by Michael Badaluco (of The Practice, here he appears as the psychotic George Nelson), none of the acting is particularly wonderful. I have high expectations for John Turturro and he probably slid right under them or met them, but did not exceed them. George Clooney, on the other hand, I have no expectations for and he met them, but did not exceed them. He plays an excellent character, but seemed to bring little to the role. Of all the actors in the film, I expect a lot of Michael Badaluco and he delivered more than I anticipated. His character is so very different from Jimmy on The Practice and he pulls it off so perfectly; it's truly what a great actor does.

Ulysses, however, is well defined as a character and the reasons to watch the film are clear. It's an intelligently-written comedy. It's refreshing. The soundtrack fits the film perfectly and while it is almost always noticeable, it is never overbearing. The washed look of the film is also wonderful. It gives everything a dry, burned appearance that is appropriate to the story and character.

And in the final analysis, it's funny and I know when I see it next, I am going to enjoy it at least as much as I did the first time. Finally, a comedy I want to rewatch!

For other films with John Turturro, please visit my reviews of:
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
Transformers
The Luzhin Defence
Rounders

8.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Legs, Special Effects Robots And Strong "Guy Appeal," Transformers: Dark Of The Moon Is Fine For What It Appears To Be, But Not What It Is.

The Good: Special effects, Elimination of ridiculous ethnic pandering, Generally consistent acting, Moments of plot.
The Bad: Subversive nature of the movie, Ridiculous treatment of women, Obvious reversals, Disgusting abrogation of philosophical high ground.
The Basics: Initially engaging, Transformers: Dark Of The Moon quickly degenerates from a fairly clever science fiction work into an invasion story into a military advertisement.


I have not, traditionally, been a fan of the Transformers movie franchise.  I did not particularly enjoy Transformers (reviewed here!) and I think I liked the sequel Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (reviewed here!) even less. So, it might seem odd that I was the first in my local theater last night for the nine o’clock showing of Transformers: Dark Of The Moon. Despite her gasping and “ooh”ing and “ahh”ing each time we saw a preview for the movie, my wife begged off attending with me. Ultimately, I think she was glad she didn’t attend; I came to the point where I was not glad I had gone.

Explaining what is wrong with Transformers: Dark Of The Moon is initially difficult because the film is almost subtle in what it does, but not so subtle that if the viewer is engaged while watching the movie it doesn’t stand right out for them. I went into the movie engaged. I was initially excited because some of the elements that had been very, very wrong with the earlier two installments had been fixed. As my wife pointed out when we watched the other two recently, it’s hard to imagine a super-intelligent mechanical race that still speaks like a bunch of teenage street gang members. In other words, to appeal to the young, hip (and black) audience(s), some of the Transformers in earlier installments spoke more with ebonics and that was pretty ridiculous. That’s gone from this adventure, as is Megan Fox and her unsupported bosom.

Unfortunately, what the movie puts in their place goes from bad to worse on two very important fronts. While Megan Fox’s character in the first two installments had obvious t&a appeal, there was at least a passing attempt to give her character character. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley’s Carly isn’t even given the passing attempt. She is a pawn and her entire function in the movie is to present a pair of legs that will leave boys, men and many women salivating for weeks, eager to return to the theater just to see them again larger than real life. Unfortunately, this completely mortgages the one strong female character, played by Frances McDormand. McDormand, a universally respected actress of great quality and caliber, appears in Transformers: Dark Of The Moon as Mearing, the Director Of National Intelligence. She starts the movie as a powerhouse and in the last third of the film, I cannot recall any lines she had, save the punchline to her arc with John Turturro’s Simmons. This is because she is lost in a sea of masculine characters and by that point in the movie, it’s appealing to a very different audience, one where respecting women is not a primary concern. But, alas, I get ahead of myself.

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon opens, engagingly enough, with new information on the long-ago war on Cybertron. As the Decepticons moved toward complete defeat of the Autobots, Sentinel Prime created a technology that would definitively end the war with an Autobot victory. Unfortunately, before he could activate this ultimate weapon, the Decepticons shot down his ship and their valuable cargo. Somehow, the escape craft for it made its way to the moon, where it crashed in 1961, sparking the space race. And during the blackout during Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk, two American astronauts uncovered the crashed ship and brought back Cybertronian technology to Earth.

In the present day, Sam Witwicky, hero of two incursions on Earth by the Decepticons, is desperately searching for a job. He is a kept man, living with his new girlfriend, Carly, in Washington, D.C. and striking out at virtually every job interview he has. When his parents come to visit, he redoubles his efforts and manages to score a job in the mailroom of Bruce Brazo’s company. While Sam tries not to be too jealous of Carly and her boss, Dylan, Lennox and the Autobot-allied NEST team work a couple of clean-up operations in the Middle East and one in the Ukraine (at Chernobyl) that goes horribly wrong and exposes a powerful Decepticon, Shockwave.

As the Decepticons start killing off their human collaborators, Optimus Prime reveals that the Ukraine mission has uncovered a piece of technology from Sentinel Prime’s downed ship. Using the ship that brought the second wave of Autobots to Earth, Prime and another Autobot recover Sentinel Prime and five pieces of the ultimate technology from the Ark. Reunited with his former mentor, Prime is thrilled, but his elation is short-lived. Laserbeak, a Decepticon assassin, attacks Sam’s workplace as part of the Decepticon endgame. Sam tries to get Carly to safety, but the pair discovers that Dylan is a powerful collaborator who uses Sam to get information on Optimus Prime’s next move. That next move is one of utter defeat when Sentinel Prime reveals his true intentions and a full-scale invasion of Earth by the Decepticons begins.

Recapping the plot of Transformers: Dark Of The Moon might make the movie sound impressive or engaging (and for those worried about spoilers, Dylan and Sentinel Prime’s betrayals are pretty obvious from the outset because it’s That Kind Of Movie) and it could have been, but that it changes in tone and tenor for the last third. The first portion of the movie is pure science fiction. It’s not always good science fiction, whatwith the announcement that the world is in peril followed immediately by a scene where the viewer is taken to a car museum to look at shiny restored cars and the camera virtually molests Carly, and an appearance by Bill O’Riley. But for the most part, the movie starts well and it gets better. In the middle portion, the betrayals we know are coming arrive; Dylan is too smarmy to be good and the lack of Megatron for the bulk of the film tells anyone with more than a tenth of a brain that Sentinel Prime is not all Optimus hopes he will be. And in that section, the movie becomes a heart-pounding alien invasion flick. It’s a good one, but don’t expect the philosophy of something as smart as V (reviewed here!). No, any sense of what could have been even Autobot philosophy disintegrates when Optimus Prime tells everyone that the plan is to kill every Decepticon.

And then the movie goes to hell for the final third. The last third of the movie is complete, cinematic trash. Indeed, the best possible recommendation I can give in regard to Transformers: Dark Of The Moon is to walk out after the deportation scene. After that, the movie is over. What follows for the final third of the almost-three hour movie is what made me absolutely come to loathe Transformers: Dark Of The Moon. The movie stops being a story and it becomes the job advertisement for the U.S. Armed Forces that the movie was set-up (unbeknownst to the audience in the first third) to be. The last portion of the movie has Epps, Lennox and their teams moving through the besieged Chicago where the Decepticon forces have taken up, picking up different units of military forces and showing off what their talents can do. Sam Witwicky and the audience are exposed to a virtual job fair wherein the paratroopers, Navy SEALS, sharpshooters and ground troops all illustrate their special talents.

It’s dumb. Flat out. People might not want to read such precise criticism, but it’s dumb and it’s exploitative. Readers might want to believe they are watching an epic of science fiction, but they start watching one of the most absurd infomercials of all time. In the final third, Mearing gets all of her information from people who are not even assets and all of the men around her define what is important and essentially make the decisions that she ruled in the first third of the film. This is even more absurd than Carly being dragged through rubble, falling through and out buildings and being proximate to explosions without getting a single stain on her white outfit. And if one wishes to make the argument that I’m reading too much into this obvious candy for Summer Blockbuster Season, I’d ask who is shooting the firearm when the movie suddenly turns into a first-person shooter perspective for a scene?

Who knows? We don’t. We don’t know because that’s not the point. The point of Transformers: Dark Of The Moon at this point in the movie is not anything reasonable, rational or even entertaining. The point of the movie at this point is “You’re looking for a job, these are your options: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. Pick whichever you want, your life will be exciting like a first-person shooter game and your prize is this dripping chick who wants you, who cares that she can’t string together a coherent sentence? You don’t; you get to be her protector!”

It’s cheap. It’s almost as cheap as the way Leonard Nimoy uses his line as Spock (it’s actually Dickens, not Spock, but Nimoy made it famous for a whole new generation) in the mouth of Sentinel Prime. I had decided to watch Transformers: Dark Of The Moon because I enjoyed Star Trek (reviewed here!) and I thought that this movie might provide some hint as to the quality of the forthcoming sequel. We can only hope it does not go in this direction.

Usually, I spend some time discussing the character development and acting, but I’m done. Sam Witwicky doesn’t develop, he gets tossed around and goes to a job fair. The female characters get put in their places by men who act smarter and more powerful than they are and the acting is entirely familiar. Blowing up Abraham Lincoln was pointless and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley has such a pointless role as Carly that it’s no surprise in the last half that she struts more than acts.

Transformers: Dark Of The Moon might be the best of the franchise, but it’s still a lousy movie, despite the potentials from the beginning.

For other works with Alan Tudyk, please check out my reviews of:
V - Season 1
Serenity
Firefly
28 Days

4.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |