Sarge 2.0 goes to the movies!

[Star]

Do you write for a paper? Or is it only online?

 

[Episode29]

Do you write for a paper? Or is it only online?

Yeah, asidce from my online stuff, I have a paid position on my University paper (www.the-peak.com), as well as my on-line stuff. I don't consider myself a true-blue film critic or anything, but after you've been writing 2 or 3 reviews a week, and attending weekly press screenings, for 2 years you kinda fall into the reviewer-by-association category.

Next fall I start journalism school, and will hopefully by applying to outside periodicals/websites in the interim.

 

[Episode29]

I still stand by my original request of seeing your write a review of a bad film. I enjoyed your Waltz with Bashir review, and thought it was well done, but am still curious how you would review something like, I dunno, Street Fighter or whatever, as your style so far is best suited to well-made, quality films.

Myself, I'm about to dive into my review of Fired Up!... Pray for me.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I'll definitely pray for you.

I wrote one bad review, for Max Payne. I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Here's my Max Payne review from October:

Mark Wahlberg is a very good actor who is simply guilty of making bad choices as of late. First, he starred in the contrived M. Night Shaymalan snorefest "The Happening" this past summer.

Now in the fall, Wahlberg is the star of yet another miss--the train wreck of a video game adaptation that is "Max Payne." The film is adapted from a popular 2001 video game that made use of "bullet time" gunfights popularized by the "Matrix" films. The game was also a tribute to film noir, graphic novels, and Norse mythology.

The film contains these elements to an extent, but they're simply designed to distract the viewer from the insipid plot and cringe-worthy dialogue.

The plot of the video game is more or less intact: Max Payne (Wahlberg) is a police detective whose wife and child are brutally murdered by junkies high on a new psychedelic drug called "Valkyr." An unfortunate side effect of the drug is that it induces hallucinations of Valkryies.

Subtlety is not this films strong suit. The film opens with a shot of Payne sinking beneath an icy river, and his hilariously clichéd narration informs us with much melodrama that "I don't believe in heaven. I believe in pain."

Already director John Moore and writer Beau Thorne choose to beat the viewer over the head with a frying pan outlining the themes and motifs of the film. The film does not get any better from there, unfortunately, and we flash back to one week earlier, as two characters who we will never see again are conversing in an incredibly clunky and expository manner.

One of the films major flaws shows itself here, because it is in this expository conversation that we are told offhandedly about the tragedy that befell our intrepid hero and led him to work in the cold case department. Instead of actually seeing this murder for ourselves in the beginning of the film, we are informed of it through throwaway dialogue, and immediately the emotional impact is lost.

The major plot point of the movie, the revenge plot, is castrated from the get go and from then on, it is impossible for the viewer to care about Payne's tortured soul, since we don't particularly care about what's torturing him.

Next we're treated-and I use that word very lightly-to a few less than thrilling interrogation scenes where Max proves that he's a tough guy by beating up on some junkies. From there we're introduced to the rest of the main characters in rapid succession, and in the least interesting way possible.

Thorne doesn't seem to grasp that characters need to be introduced in a way that seems natural, and there should not be scenes that scream "Plot Point!" or "Look! Important thematic element!" because it's not only annoying, but a little insulting to the intelligence of the viewer.

First we meet Mona (Mila Kunis) who is an assassin She's also Russian, although she only speaks enough Russian to indicate her nationality to the viewer, and she spends the rest of the film speaking perfectly unaccented English.

Her sister Natasha (Olga Kurylenko) tries to get into Max's pants, and is then murdered by the drug dealer Jack Lupino (Amaury Nolasco). See, we know that Lupino is a villain because he is bald, covered in tattoos, and curiously shirtless in spite of the constant snow and rain that occurs in the film's world.

Lupino is yet another example of a character within the movie who exists simply because the script calls for his existence, and not because he carries any sort of importance or gravity to the film's characters or plot. Soon after, Payne's partner Alex Balder (Donal Logue) is murdered, but not before he and Max have dramatic conversations in the pouring rain. The scene where Max discovers Balder's body and is subsequently knocked unconscious is so poorly edited and shot that I actually heard groans of embarrassment in the theater.

Max wakes up in the hospital and we are introduced to B.B. Hensley (Beau Bridges), who we learn was Max's father's partner, but who is now working for the Aesir Corporation where Max's wife once worked.

Apparently Max needed to be reminded of all these points, because B.B. tells Max all of this in their first scene together. Max is framed for both murders and is investigated by an internal affairs agent named Jim Bravura (Ludacris).

Soon enough, Max obtains enough information to carry out a mission of vengeance that makes up the final two thirds of the film, with a little help from Mona along the way. Max proceeds to shoot a lot of people, although he only does so in slow motion twice, which is curious since the slow motion shoot outs were the main selling point of the video game.

Aside from the shooting there are more interrogations, an explosion or two, some less than shocking revelations, and a few scenes involving Jack Lupino brandishing his machete and yelling a lot.

"Max Payne" is a failure on every possible level. It fails to adapt the gritty, exciting plot of the video game, and stubbornly refuses to use the bullet time sequences that made the game so memorable. The revenge plot is as engrossing and emotionally involving as an episode of Antiques Roadshow, and the neo-noir look of the film is so poorly done that it is almost painful to look at.

Every performance screams of "I'm just in this for the money" or "I'm contractually obligated to do this movie," so I can't really blame the actors for the travesty of this film. But John Moore and Beau Thorne can certainly be blamed for the punishment that thousands of unfortunate movie-goers endured, and I almost want them to apologize.

At the end of the day, save yourself the misery and boredom of "Max Payne" and do something better with your time.

I now remember that the film was so poorly written and constructed that I went through every aspect of the plot in order to identify every single piece of dreck and slime that I could find.

 

[Heretic]

Having never played the Max Payne game...it was never clear to me in any way exactly who Mila Kunis was. She started out as what appeared to be the leader of a Russian gang, who apparently peddled the deadly drug...and the next time we see her she's telling Max (in perfect english) that she has his back. Then of course, she disappears again. Her character is one of the most poorly handled characters Ive ever seen in a major motion picture.

 

[Episode29]

Here's my Max Payne review from October:

I now remember that the film was so poorly written and constructed that I went through every aspect of the plot in order to identify every single piece of dreck and slime that I could find.

I really enjoyed that one, perhaps because I'm narcissistic and your review mirrored my own in some ways...

I'm curious though, how come you fill that review with criticisms, pointing out everything wrong, yet in your really positive reviews you don't do the opposite as much? Just wondering, because I think your good reviews, which are really nicely written and flow fairly elegantly, don't show as quite as much engagement.

Perhaps you should be writing my Fired Up! review, sir!

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Unfortunately, that's partially due to the fact that my editor recently got shafted and had to go from three pages down to two, so I've been trying to keep my reviews shorter. The Max Payne review was published back when I had enough space to write that much.

Edit: Haha, I just read your review of Max Payne, and in my original draft I also mentioned that I had to go to Wikipedia to look up Mona's occupation, but that got cut for some reason. Weird coincidence though.

 

[Episode29]

Unfortunately, that's partially due to the fact that my editor recently got shafted and had to go from three pages down to two, so I've been trying to keep my reviews shorter. The Max Payne review was published back when I had enough space to write that much.

Edit: Haha, I just read your review of Max Payne, and in my original draft I also mentioned that I had to go to Wikipedia to look up Mona's occupation, but that got cut for some reason. Weird coincidence though.

That really sucks. What is your word count limitation? Mine is typically 800.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

They try to keep it below 1,000 so my reviews tend to average about 650 words. Any higher and they tend to get chopped up by my editor.

 

[Hunter Rider]

After I watched the dire Max Payne tonight I checked your review out, man you nailed it good and proper, the completely clipped nature of every scene meant there was no investment, no build to a pay off, just a lot of "You need to know this" scenes slapped together like cut scenes from a video game.

Not one character was brought into it as anything more than a 2d enabler to the woefully clunky and jumbled mess they called the story.

Only point we disagree on was i liked the look of the world, it evoked the game quite well IMO.

Wahlberg really needs to get his **** together, hopefully 'The Lovely Bones' will see him get out of the rut 2008 put him in.

 

[Episode29]

Hey Sarge, are you interested in submitting anything for my next podcast? We're going to record likely next friday or saturday, and would love a clip from you if you're interested. Maybe a short review of Waltz with Bashir or something... Let me know.

 

[Space Moose]

Waltz With Bashir was easily the best movie of 2008, hands down.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Waltz With Bashir was easily the best movie of 2008, hands down.

That would be The Wrestler.

Anyway, I know I haven't written anything in a while, and I still haven't got a blog started up but that'll come eventually.

But a few days ago I watched Three Colors: Blue and I think today I'll watch White and Red, then do a write up on all three.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Yeah, so I'm finally going to get a review up tonight. Instead of doing it on the Three Colors Trilogy, I'm going to do it on "Goodbye Solo", which I'm still kind of gathering my thoughts on. It's a film that's really brimming with creativity and thoughtfulness, so I'm trying to gather what exactly I want to say about it.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Aw hell I might as well do a quickie.

"George Washington" is a masterwork from one of the shining lights of American cinema, David Gordon Green. The film is beautiful, poetic, thoughtful, and sensual; when it was released in 2000 it seemed to herald a new age for American indie films. It is about nothing less than the loss of childhood, and the discoveries of death and love that come with burgeoning adolescence. The cinematography is remarkable in the way that it captures the languid beauty of a world that is figuratively - and in some places literally - rusting. This decaying, arresting landscape is the backdrop for the story of a group of kids, some black and some white, and the things that happen over the course of their last summer of innocence. There's so much to say about this film, but I'll talk about that at length some other time. For now, I simply advise you to see it. And then when you're done, see it again.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Here's my long delayed review of "Goodbye Solo"

Ramin Bahrani’s “Goodbye Solo” achieves what only the best kind of movies can achieve: it leaves the viewer feeling invigorated by its fresh approach to filmmaking. When it’s over you feel as though you understand people, life, and what it means to be an American a little bit better than you did before the film began. The movie is that good. This is Bahrani’s third film after 2005’s “Man Push Cart” and 2007’s “Chop Shop”. Both movies are about immigrants living in America, how they survive, and how they deal with the realities of the American Dream. In a Q & A after the screening, Mr. Bahrani elaborated on his treatment of immigrants in America: “Even though ‘Chop Shop’ contains a primarily Latino cast, you’re not going to see any Latin dancing. And even though the main character of ‘Goodbye Solo’ was a Senegalese immigrant I obviously didn’t include any African drumming”. Bahrani himself is an Iranian-American from North Carolina where he said that the population essentially consisted of “White people, some black people, and then there was my family”. Because of the fact that he felt slightly out of place growing up, he makes films about immigrants to illustrate the fact that immigrants are not “visitors”. They are the representatives of a new American population.
Indeed there is no African drumming in “Goodbye Solo”, because as an audience member pointed out, Bahrani wisely does not “knock [the viewer] over the head with cultural diversity”, these characters are just as American as everyone else and they are not defined by their cultural heritage. Bahrani has been hailed as “the new great American director” by Roger Ebert, and A.O. Scott proclaimed that Bahrani – along with Kelly Reichardt who directed 2008’s sublimely naturalistic “Wendy and Lucy”, and Ryan Fleck who directed 2006’s powerful “Half Nelson” - represents a fledgling movement in American filmmaking which Scott terms “neo-neo realism”. As Scott says, “a handful of young American directors are making clear-eyed movies for hard times”; in this climate of economic recession and uncertainty the most powerful and accurate portraits of American life must be taken with quiet, unflinching realism.
The film itself has a simple story; a potentially suicidal southern man named William (Red West) hires a Senegalese immigrant cabby named Solo (Souléymane Sy Savané) to drive him to Blowing Rock National park in 10 days time. When Solo asks him if he wants to be driven back, William simply stares. Disturbed, Solo asks him what he plans to do at the top of Blowing Rock. William simply says “mind your own f**king business”. No, this film is not “Driving Miss Daisy” for the new millennium, far from it. Solo is kind hearted, but he is far from simple minded. He quickly figures out the nature of William’s trip to Blowing Rock, and from the moment William enters his cab Solo senses such intense sadness that he is moved to help in any way he can.
Solo makes sure that whenever William requests a cab, the dispatcher will assign the fare to him. Before long, the two men become a part of each others lives, even though William doesn’t want any part in Solo’s life and doesn’t want Solo to have any part in his. William meets Solo’s family, which includes his pregnant wife Quiera (Carmen Leyva), and Quiera’s young daughter Alex (Diana Franco Galindo). Alex is an exceptionally bright and perceptive young girl, and her intelligence manages to amaze even William. William even becomes somewhat proud of the gifted young girl, stating “Alex is so smart. I wonder who she will become”.
Part of Bahrani’s technique involves allowing the faces of the actors to provide emotional context, and like most great filmmakers Bahrani knows that the human face provides information more artfully than action or expository dialogue. Bahrani, much like Kelly Reichardt recognizes that the most powerful experiences in human relationships come from the things that are left unsaid. And with the character of William the things that are left unsaid all seem to point to a man whose life is full of regrets, a man who is left with nothing but bitterness and melancholy in the twilight of his American Dream. Most of the credit here belongs to the wonderful acting from Red West and Souléymane Sy Savané, whose faces and speech patterns seem to embody the souls of their characters. West was a childhood friend of Elvis Presley, and grew up to become one of the King’s most trusted bodyguards. After Presley’s death West moved on to acting where he had character roles in the films of legendary directors such as Oliver Stone and Robert Altman along with some stunt work and bit roles. His craggy, weathered features are perfect for playing a geriatric good ol’ boy whose general disposition is to look meaner than hell. Savané is a fashion model from the Ivory Coast, and he perfectly portrays a man who is clever, easy going, and capable of unconditional kindness. As Bahrani said in his Q & A, “Goodbye Solo” is a film about the extent of human kindness, and how far someone will go to help a person that they care for or even love. It’s also about how two people who have no reason to like each other, with completely different cultural backgrounds and nothing in common could develop such a relationship
“Goodbye Solo” will be coming back to Philadelphia in May. I urge you to go see it as soon as it’s released. It’s the kind of movie that makes you realize that 90% of the films that are being released in this country today are simply products being marketed by big studios, there is no personal vision. It makes you realize that 90% of movies being released in this country today are not the work of artists that have something to say about who we are and what life in America is all about. If you’re content to simply go to a movie so that you can watch some flashing pictures with some background noise, and then promptly forget about everything you’ve just seen as soon as the credits begin to roll, so be it. You can continue to pay $8.50 to idly walk through your movie-going experience, never to be challenged, never to actually think about what’s going on screen, and most tragic of all never to be uplifted by truly great work. But to those who don’t fit in to that category, go see “Goodbye Solo”. I promise you that you will feel more alive when the film has ended.

 

[Episode29]

Wow. That's a really damn well-written review. I especially liked how you were able to speak to two very different audiences: the general movie goer and the art-house lover. Perhaps the highest compliment I can pay is that reading that made me put that flick on my "Must See" list.

Geez, sir, lets get that blog going and get some readership and attention headed your way!

P.S.: I had to smile at the irony of your impassioned final thoughts being delivered on the day in which Fast & Furious is revealed to have made 70+ million dollars in three days. Le sigh.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

It's been almost a week since I've seen it, and I've had considerable time to mull over it and absorb the musings of the general public ("This movie ****ing rocks!"), the fringe iconoclasts ("J.J. Abrams is no talent hack!) and the people in between ("Set phasers to 'meh'!"). I fall somewhere in between the last two.

"Star Trek", the brain child of sci-fi legend Gene Roddenberry, was a visionary television series that broke racial and gender boundaries, and pondered questions both cosmic and mundane. The crew of the USS Enterprised consisted of distinct, fully formed characters each with their own backstories that would color the way they reacted to the fantastic things found on their voyages. For example, when the crew of the enterprise is greeted by the Greek god Apollo, he proclaims "I am Apollo", the Russian ensign Pavel Chekov retorts "And I am the czar of all Russias!".

So you can see why the news of a Star Trek prequel/reboot directed by J.J. Abrams and promising a young, sexy cast sent many devoted Trekkies in to a tizzy. The good news is that the young, sexy cast is the best part of the film. The bad news is that J.J. Abrams and his screenwriting team are the worst part. The film starts out with a strong foundation, but quickly begins to unravel once - most of - the crew boards the Enterprise for the first time.

The film opens with a nicely done prologue which introduces the main antagonist, a time traveling Romulan captain named Nero (Eric Bana). The prologue also depicts the death of one George Kirk. Wouldn't you know it, his pregnant wife begins to give birth to their son in the seconds counting down to her husbands noble demise. Flash forward to several years later in Iowa, and that infant has grown in to James Tiberius Kirk, and he's a precocious little scamp. He steals an old convertible from his guardians and speeds through the heartland whilst rocking out to the Beastie Boys. Reader, I would be lying if I said that scene didn't slap a big goofy smile on my face. Flash forward some more and Kirk, played by Christopher Pine, is a bar brawling rogue who gets an offer of a lifetime from Christopher Pike (Invaluable Canadian character actor Bruce Greenwood). He says, "You're father was a captain of a starship for twelve minutes. He saved 800 lives, including your own. I dare you to do better".

As it turns out, Pike knew which buttons to push and Kirk is soon enrolled in the Starfleet Academy where he meets and instantly befriends Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban). Kany great friendships have begun with the words "I may throw up on you". This is no different. After some nice interludes at the Academy (Kirk makes it with a green chick played by Rachel Nichols and cheats on the Kobayashi Maru) the Starfleet cadets of Bones, Kirk, and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) along with Lieutenant Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto) board the enterprise to investigate a distress call from the planet Vulcan. At this point you can almost feel the movie derailing itself when it launches in to lots of hollow, whiz bang action and special effects.

The action sequences that don't involve space ships suffer from that headache inducing shaky cam technique. A prime example would be the fight between Kirk, Sulu (John Cho),and two Romulans on a giant drill protruding from the Romulan ship. I defy someone to clearly make out what exactly happens in the fight between Kirk and his opponent, and Sulu's simultaneous sword fight - say that three times fast! - is equally murky. When are film makers going to learn that shaky cam only detracts from the excitment of fight scenes by robbing us of the visual energy provided by clearly visible fight choreography? This is not the only flaw with the films visual style, which includes a curiously high use of lense flares and distractingingly showy camerawork during scenes of simple dialogue. Of course, these visual flaws did not bother me as much as they bothered other critics, but its certainly worth noting.

And now we get to the script. The script obviously suffers from the fact that the film must reintroduce the already familiar Enterprise crew, and then attempt to create a coherent plot about the Romulan villains plans. To elaborate, Nero travels to an alternate past through a black hole and plans to destroy all of the planets in the Federation. He believes that the Federations negligence was the cause of his home planets destruction. He holds a particular hatred for future Ambassador Spock (Leonard Nimoy) because Spock was the one sent to protect Romulus in the first place. This creates a parallel, alternate past where Kirk has to be told that he and Spock are "destined" to become great friends rather than become friends on their own. All of this sounds fine in writing, but it ends up rather formless and seems like tacked on filler between the big, loud action sequences.

But the movie isn't all bad. I'll be damned if this fresh young cast didn't win me over, and there are some really nice scenes in the beginning and peppered throughout the middle with real character and charm. Pine brings a rebellious, energetic brashness to Kirk that is more cynical than the Shatner portrayal. Quinto does a fine job of balancing Spock's mannered, logical Vulcan quirks with brief moments of humanity. John Cho wisely chooses not to impersonate George Takei and as such inhabits the character of Sulu on his own terms. Anton Yelchin is serviceable as Chekov and Simon Pegg gets shafted since Scotty isn't introduced until a good two thirds in to the movie. There's some inexplicable stunt casting involving Winona Ryder as Spock's human mother Amanda Grayson and Tyler Perry as the head of Starfleet Academy.

The movie doesn't have the quiet thoughtfulness of the television series, nor does it have that sense of exploration and adventure. But some of the action sequences are fun and I'll be damned if the cast didn't win me over in spite of the films many, many flaws. Perhaps the next film will retain the charming cast, but ditch the showy director and hire real screenwriters to give it a better, more thoughtful script. Big box office and an overall seal of critical approval basically ensures a sequel, so perhaps when "Star Trek 2" sets its phaser to "kill" the damn thing won't backfire quite as badly.

5/10

Here we are. Full Star Trek review.

 

[Eggyman]

Nice review, as always, Sarge. I'll let you know if I agree tomorrow

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Oh, this movie is bad. It is one of the most aggressively unpleasant and disastrously awful movies I have seen in a very, very long time. It’s taken me a while to get a proper review down simply because my mind has been boggling over this movie. It is an unmitigated catastrophe; I don’t think I can even call it a movie, to be honest. It is a product that thrashes, writhes, and spasms on screen with great sound and fury. They should show this to film students as an example of how not to make a movie. It is, as Jim Emerson so eloquently stated, anti-movie. Now I know what you’re thinking, “Hey, it was filmed and it had actors and stuff happened on screen, it’s a movie!” unfortunately “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen” does not do anything that a movie – especially a summer blockbuster- is supposed to do. Simply put: it does not entertain, it does not engage the audiences’ imagination, it does not thrill, it has no legitimate or substantive narrative, etc. etc. It is not a movie. It is a product that the audience can simply watch, unengaged, as the pretty special effects and big ol’ Michael Baysplosions litter the screen. The characters? Idiots. There is not a single competent, likable, or respectable character in this movie. Not one. They are paper-thin crayon drawings whose sole purpose in the film is to watch as computer animated robots duke it out with no particular sense of consequence, importance, or dread.
For example, the films main baddie is known as the Fallen (Tony Todd), he’s an ancient Cybertronian conqueror who falls from the grace of his brothers, the Primes, when he decides that he wants to eradicate the human race for no particular reason. Apparently John Milton was actually talking about big ass alien robots and not angels and demons. At least that’s what I assume, since the Transformers apparently have their own vaguely implied theological system. I’ll get to that later; as I was saying, the Fallen decides to make his presence known to every country on the planet. He announces that he’s come to Earth and the planet will be in for it unless the human race surrenders Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf). Now, this reminded me of a similar scene from last year’s “The Dark Knight”. In the scene the Joker addresses Gotham city, saying that unless they kill some nebbish Waynecorp accountant, he’ll start blowing up hospitals. Understandably everyone in Gotham freaks the **** out and tries to hunt down this businessman. What does the population of the world do when confronted by the presence of an unspeakable alien menace? They basically go about their business and don’t even bother to hunt for Sam. In the next scene there are actually people standing around in a deli with Sam in full view, and none of them are even the slightest bit concerned about the days events. Such is the narrative structure of this film. Significant events are not fleshed out completely, they are established and then right as the film begins to run with them it moves on to something completely different! Eventually this is enough to fry ones brain, and I gave up trying to rationalize anything that was happening on screen.
Michael Bay displays his massive ego and utter incompetence in many other ways as well. Since this film is essentially a two and a half hour Michael Bay ego trip, I guess he figured that he didn’t have to bother making a proper movie. Want an example of why Michael Bay is an incompetent visual director? Look no further than the scene in the beginning of the film where Sam says goodbye to his improbably hot girlfriend Mikaela before going of to college. As they speak the camera circles around the back of one actors head, then the other, then back again, and repeats this cycle until it swirls all the way around both actors. Why did Michael Bay do this? What purpose does it serve other than to show off and make the audience dizzy? The only explanation I can think of is that Michael Bay and his DP decided that they would show off all the cool stuff they could do with the camera and make the entire audience incredibly conscious of the fact that there’s a cinematographer at work. The fact that they chose to do this during an ostensibly tender moment makes it even more bewildering. No doubt Bay’s rabid supporters will eat up this silly and disorienting technique and cite it as an example of Bay’s incredible visual prowess, but they’re the kind of people who are impressed with shiny things regardless of any actual quality or substance. Here’s another weird shot for you: during the big ol’ final battle in Egypt, Sam and Mikaela are hiding out in some dilapidated building (I assume an abandoned home). Sam looks through a hole in the wall to monitor the action going on outside, so we zoom through the hole to witness the action as well. Therefore, everything we see should be what Sam’s witnessing, since that was the purpose of the set up and the shot, right? As Lex Luthor would say, “WRONG!” We somehow end up on the other side of the building when we’re supposed to be done watching the action because the camera zooms back in through a keyhole that is directly behind Sam. Why do something like that? I guess because Michael Bay thought it would be super cool to have the camera zoom through a CG keyhole. Whee. Oh, did I forget to mention the cavemen? In the very beginning of the film, we learn that the transformer aliens first visited earth in prehistoric times. The Fallen and his brothers the Primes came to earth, and we see caveman stare in awe at their presence. Then we get some confusing – but unintentionally hilarious – slow motion shots of the cavemen, and we even get to see a closeup of one neanderthal’s pearly whites. That’s right, even in prehistoric times people had brilliantly white teeth. Do you have a headache yet? I did, and it was only about thirty seconds in at that point.
Let’s move on, shall we? Now I’ll address the most unpleasant and deplorable aspect of the film: it’s stabs at so called “humor”. Michael Bay proves that he has the sense of humor of a 12 year old boy when we first see Sam’s two dog’s humping each other. He proves that he has the sense of humor of 7 year old when he cuts back to the two dogs humping again for no reason whatsoever during a sequence that had absolutely nothing to do with them. He just thinks that two dogs humping is funny. Ha ha. Then there’s Skids and Mudflap (Tom Kenny and Reno Wilson, respectively). A lot has been said about these two already, so I’m not going in to very much detail about it. Although I will say this: it’s 2009 and Michael Bay still thinks minstrelsy is funny. A robo-minstrel show is fun for the whole family! Also, the robots use words like “*****” and “dumbass” and “*****”.
There’s lots of profanity and decidedly un-kid friendly material here. Michael Bay’s treatment of women in the film is no less deplorable. When Sam arrives at college, every single girl on campus looks like a Maxim super-****. They all act like ****es as well, especially during the icky scene where Rainn Wilson cameos as a sleazy college professor who hits on his female students with not-so-subtle innuendos. How do the Maxim super-****s respond? By licking their lips seductively, of course! Because in Michael Bay-land, all women are sleazy sex objects who exist solely to be eye candy for the men while they go off and do manly things. Predictably, Megan Fox’s boobs and ass are front and center for most of the film. I think it’s also worth noting that Michael Bay’s notorious love for shoot ‘em up warmongering has not diminished. Quite the opposite in fact; large portions of the film are essentially a glorified Army recruitment commercial. Bay also shameless rips off Terminator 2, the Matrix, and there are subtle undertones of freaky Cronenbergian body horror when Megatron (Hugo Weaving) tortures Sam by letting a creepy crawly Decepticon go through his nose and enter the soft tissue of his brain. More fun for the whole family! Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that the creepy little Decepticon Wheelie humps Megan Fox’s leg, and she doesn’t mind at all! John Tuturro reprises his role from the first film, and when his character is paired with Sam’s roommate Leo (Ramon Rodriguez) the two make up the most annoying duo in the history of motion pictures. Not only do we get to see John Tuturro’s ass, good ol’ Leo gets tazed in the testicles. And he cries, and whines, and shouts, and generally makes you wish he would get squashed by one of the robots at any moment. Speaking of testicles Devestator has giant, 2,000 pound robo-balls. Don’t ask me why. Oh, and Jetfire is so old that he has a beard and a cane. Don’t ask me how that’s possible, or why when his parachute ejects it makes a fart noise.

Is there any saving grace to this movie at all? Almost. Optimus Prime provides fleeting moments of what might be described as joy. Too bad he’s dead for two thirds of the ****ing movie. But he provides the one enjoyable moment in the movie (not scene, there is not a single good scene in the film) when he beats the **** out of Starscream while fighting him along with Megatron and some unidentified Decepticon apparently called Grindor. The movie doesn’t bother clarifying on a lot of things like the names of places and transformers. Just because you can look it up on Wikipedia doesn’t mean it was explained in the film, by the by. But yes, the only moment that made me smile even a little was that single fleeting one where Optimus got to be Optimus, kicking Decepticon ass and taking names. Yes, this movie is atrocious; it is an absolute, unquestionable failure devoid of structure or value. Did I mention that the acting is terrible? The acting is terrible. Especially from Megan Fox, who apparently was never taught how to make facial expressions besides “vacant stare” or “seductive look”. This movie is making and will make a **** ton of money because it’s easy and cheap and vulgar and stupid. The movie going public has proven that they would rather spend their ticket money on an unbearably long and boring piece of product rather than a movie. Whether this bloated monstrosity will mark the end of processed summer trash or the beginning of a new era of disgusting filmmaking waits to be seen. Until then, those of us left with taste and dignity must hold out with solidarity and hope that Hollywood will make more TDK’s and less ROTF(L).

0/10

Well, that was cathartic.

 

[DDS]

Hmm...just out of curiosity, what did you think of the first Transformers? Because I enjoyed that (even though it was obviously stupid as hell), but ROTF sounds like something else. And not just from your new review, I mean.

edit: Oh, and I haven't seen ROTF yet, in case you didn't gather that.

 

[-Arya-]

Great review Sarge. Just great.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Hmm...just out of curiosity, what did you think of the first Transformers? Because I enjoyed that (even though it was obviously stupid as hell), but ROTF sounds like something else. And not just from your new review, I mean.

edit: Oh, and I haven't seen ROTF yet, in case you didn't gather that.

I actually liked the first one. It wasn't ridiculously incompetent or depressingly mean spirited, and it had some genuinely enjoyable moments. This movie was two and a half hours of pure despair.

 

[DDS]

Well then I guess I'll totally hate this movie, which I know I'll eventually see, even after all of this. Thanks for the heads up. / edit: Oh, and I should add that by "eventually see", I mean I already have tickets in advance. So I have taste, I just can't back out now.

It seems like I've had this mentality for most of the films this year...