Review: Transforms: Age of Extinction

by. Joe Moss
★★

Michael Bay's latest installment of Transformers definitely lives up to the hype associated with most Michael Bay movies. There's plenty of CGI and 'bang for your buck'...BUT there's the also typical cheesiness that makes you feel your watching a cartoon-based movie; subpar acting from an outstanding cast; and an anemic plot-line that leaves you groaning quite often. "Transformers: Age of Extinction" does a wonderful job fixing many mistakes of past Transformers movies, there are a few plot ideas that completely rewrite the cartoons of the 80's, and...ultimately...left me feeling wholly unfulfilled.

This film picks up 5 years after the events of "Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon." Cade Yeager (Mark Walhberg) is a down and out inventor in Texas who desperately needs to find that 'big idea' so that he is able to make ends meet, save his homestead, and send his 17 year-old daughter, Tessa (Nicola Peltz) to college. In the midst of his scrounging for parts, he stumbles across a beat-up rig that he wishes to take home and disassemble for scrap. Nevertheless, while cleaning it, discovers that the truck is 'more than meets the eye' and rightly assumes he's stumbled into a long-lost Transformer. In the process of assessing his options and discovering who the transformer truly is, the CIA, headed by Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer) and his lackey Savoy (Titus Welliver), swoops down upon the homestead with great anger and terrible vengeance ready to destroy, maim, or kill without question. Once Optimus Prime is discovered the remainder of the movie deals with uncovering the plot by the government that finds itself 'unknowingly' in cahoots with a Deceptacon bounty-hunter, Lockdown, who will exchange a 'seed' for Optimus.

What this film lacks is MANY elements of plot that would fill the innumerable gaps. Ehren Kruger, who penned the screenplays for the last 2 Transformers films, attempted to make many necessary correlations with the other 2 films, and fix a few gaps in those...but then left many new gaps in the process. Where does the Lockdown/CIA pact come into play? Where does Kelsey Grammer's character come from since it's stated he's 'been around for 20 years' yet not in the other 3 movies? How does KSI (Stanley Tucci's business) get an exclusive contract to forge the metal of the destroyed Autobots and Deceptacons? The foreshadowing of the 'seed' at the beginning of the movie, and the subsequent discovery of those happenings by Dr. Tirrel (Sophia Myles), really doesn't add much to the film as a whole - rather it is a completely unnecessary plot fragment that should have been edited out. From where do the dinobots come? Is that what the beginning of the movie was really trying to do was show us? Their evolution as a means of setting up the next 2 films in the franchise?

And then we have the newly introduced 'pretty face' of the film in Tessa Yeager (Nicola Peltz). who comes to us from "Deck the Halls (2006)" and the horrible "Last Airbender (2010)." While gorgeous, her obvious lack of acting talent and running about like a damsel in distress the ENTIRE film--while simultaneously attempting to act like she's got it together--takes away from the story. BUT...sadly...her distress is what ties helps tie the 2nd and 3rd acts of the film together with the first. I guess Michael Bay follows a formula of 'bring a beautiful face into the movie to distract people from the subpar plot'...Megan Fox, and Rosey Huntington-Whiteley anyone...

Additional to the plot issues, the film editing powerhouse trio of Roger Barton, William Goldenberg and Paul Rubell (who have worked on many Oscar winning and nominated films) definitely dropped the proverbial ball at numerous points in this editing process. There was bad CGI fitted into live action scenes that made many elements of the Transformers themselves seem cartoonish in contrast (as seen at the right)...

I will admit that the visual effects team, sound editing team, and set design did an amazing job. The Transformers themselves seemed more lifelike than ever and the transformation from man-like creature to camouflaged robot was more seamless than ever...but is that enough to make the movie truly great?

My favorite part of the film was the climactic battle in Hong Kong when the Dinobots appear full fledged into the fray. I always loved those big lumbering idiots as a kid, and while they do not talk in the film, and all of them have fire-breath...where in the cartoons only Grimlock and Slag ever used it...they were the CGI equivalent of a gold mine. In fact, most of the audience in the theater I was seated cheered when they appeared on screen. This last 25 minutes made the film worthwhile--as a childhood nostalgia revisited. And yet...you can see the editing of Grimlock into the film is much like before...cartoon like. Yikes!!

Review: The Rover

by. Joe Moss
★

I must admit that I had some incredibly high expectations walking in to view David Michôd's 2014 Official Cannes Selection "The Rover;" nevertheless, after the 1:46 showing time (which felt like 3 hours), I left severely disappointed. I chalked this move up as a movie that I would have rather

viewed after consuming mass quantities of mind-altering substances--only then may it have been vaguely interesting. 

Since, leaving the theater at 5 pm yesterday, I have tried to allow time for the "poignant message" of the film to seep into my brain--as is stated in other reviews and fan-postings. BUT THERE IS NOT ONE! Others have stated that this film encompasses a type of intensity and cerebral grittiness that passes the normal viewers' mindset... I would like to call BS and state that THEY must have been on a bender while watching this drivel. I am all for cerebral, thought-inducing films...and this is not an example of such. I will say...the double entendre of the title was awesome for about 2 seconds. Then I realized the vague and meaningless point of the movie and thought to myself "WOW...that was IT?"

The film is set 10 years hence in an post-apocalyptic Australia. [NO, this is not a reboot of Mad Max (that would have been wishful thinking)]. Eric (Guy Pearce) has his car stolen and spends the entire film trying to retrieve this car. How does he find it? He lucks upon the mentally handicap brother, Rey (Robert Pattinson), of one of the car-thieves who was wounded in a gunfight with the Australian military. Roy takes Eric across 8-9 hours of the outback to a dilapidated housing outpost where they find the car. At this pint, it almost seems that Eric is about to check out and leave, but then revenge is doled out as an afterthought.

I find the impossibly long takes and lackadaisical direction that Michôd used in this film to be ridiculous. They added nothing to the substance of the film--rather they made the movie drag on impossibly long. Rather than the standard 3 acts of the film, I would argue that there are 4 in this film. 4 Distinct settings and 4 distinct plot movements that are supposed to move the audience toward a deeper understanding. That did occur...SLOWLY. In the 1:46 minutes of shooting time, I definitely feel that the movie would have been better suited to 1:20. That is about the time I looked at my watch and was thinking is the point ever going to happen. 

Joel Edgerton (Warrior, Kinky Boots) developed the story with Michôd adapting the screenplay. And somewhere I feel there must have been some elements lost in adaptation.  Elements...how about the entire dialogue? There is so little plot development occurring that when it does, I was thinking--really..that's IT? Why were we subjected to Rey (Pattinson) having a conversation in Mandarin with a woman and her child? Is this supposed to show us that he is not AS mentally handicapped as previously thought and demonstrated? I understand why we do not find out much about Eric (Pearce) until the last 30 minutes of the film, but why was that element downplayed? Why are we subjected to the long sequence with the Vet...oh, yeah, [SPOILER ALERT] by the end of the film that one is ABUNDANTLY clear... In fact, at the end of the film, you see that is the fore-shadowing event extraordinaire. The film fizzles out at the end, there is not great A-HA moment!

On a POSITIVE note, I will have to agree that Robert Pattinson's performance was a nice stand-out. He does show an innate ability to act after all. I did enjoy the depth of character 'derrière les yeux' (behind the eyes). He was a joy to watch, and for that saving grace alone the film received the 1 star. In fact, he alone summaries the movie in the best delivered line of the screenplay. "Not everything has to be about something"

I pretty much had the anaemic plot worked out by 25 minutes into the film, only to have the ending produce such an anti-climactic event that I thought to myself "self...you should have left the film 45 minutes ago."

Review: Jersey Boys

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

“Jersey Boys” is a musical depicting the rise of the 1960s rock group The Four Seasons. It is an adaptation of the 2006 Tony Award winning Broadway musical of the same name. The stage musical is described as a documentary style presentation. The film is done in largely the same manner with many of the characters breaking the fourth wall to talk to the audience about the events happening or about to happen.

We start with Tommy DeVito (Vincent Piazza), a guitar player and singer who also has some deep ties to a New Jersey mob family lead by Gyp DeCarlo (Christopher Walken). He’s also pals with a kid named Frankie Castelluccio (John Lloyd Young) and recognizes that he has a very unique and promising singing voice. He’s already got a vocal group going with Nick Massi (Michael Lomenda) and eventually Frankie comes in as the lead singer and assumes an easier to pronounce name: Frankie Valli.

But venues don’t want to book trios, so they need to find a fourth member. They happen upon a songwriter named Bob Gaudio (Erich Bergen). Frankie loves the guy right away, but Tommy isn’t so sure. They eventually come to terms and the group is formed. They get some work doing backup studio vocals for producer Bob Crewe (Mike Doyle). He doesn’t think they have anything unique on their own until they bring him a song called “Sherry.”  Then one called “Big Girls Don’t Cry.” And another called “Walk Like a Man.” But of course, fame has its way of ruining successful bands, and The Four Seasons are no exception.

“Jersey Boys” depicts much of the turmoil within the band after they begin selling millions of records but also how Frankie Valli was able to keep some of his own personal integrity in tact. Director Clint Eastwood has an exceptional grasp on this story and what all four of these characters are going through. There’s genuine change in each character in this film. No one is vilified to the point where you have to despise one in order to like another. Eastwood could easily have gone this route, but instead puts forth a film that makes each character sympathetic in his own way.

However, Eastwood does get a little too carried away trying to add too many different layers to these characters. “Jersey Boys” starts out slow with and takes its time setting everything up. The first act break is not discernable at all. My guess is it comes about 45-50 minutes into the film (usually it’s about 20, no more than 30). This makes for a long and dry act of setup. The act breaks here are different than that of the original source material, of course, since it’s a three-act film rather than a two-act musical theater production.

The screenplay was adapted by Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice, the writers of the musical’s book, but have stumbled bringing their story into the world of film. They’ve written the script to include not only their original storyline, but to include many more elements that aren’t easy to depict on stage. They probably should have just filmed the musical book instead and hoped it worked. I’m surprised Eastwood didn’t do that since he has a habit of filming the first draft of scripts rather than waiting on endless rewrites.

Vincent Piazza is great in his role as Tommy DeVito. He serves as our first narrator in the film and conveys many different emotions. He displays a lot of determination to see his band succeed, and that’s a pretty typical archetype in stories such as this. And yet he never feels derivative. The movie ultimately belongs to John Lloyd Young, who originated the role of Frankie on Broadway (and won a Tony for the role too). He has a commanding presence on the screen and can really sing the songs like Frankie himself. I can only imagine what it must have been like to see this man play this role live on Broadway.

“Jersey Boys” has all the makings of great film, but it just gets too lost in its own story to ever become the gripping movie it should have been. It has the look and feel of all the great Eastwood movies. Eastwood and his longtime cinematographer Tom Stern have a beautiful gritty look in this film that is distinctly theirs (very similar to the looks they achieved with “Million Dollar Baby” which is still Eastwood’s best movie by far). But the beauty of the film and the razor sharp acting and vocal performances cannot salvage the fact that “Jersey Boys” runs way too long. It is probably much more suited for a live theatrical performance rather than a silver screen presentation.

Review: 22 Jump Street

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

“22 Jump Street” is a movie that doesn’t lie about what it is. It’s an R-rated summer comedy film, but most importantly (and they don’t want you to forget it) it’s a sequel. In an age where the movie going public says they’re tired of sequels, remakes and reboots – yet pays to go see them anyway – “22 Jump Street” opens and tells its audience that it is definitely sequel and that it’s going to be just like the first time. It even hints at many more to possibly come.

I wasn’t a huge fan of the first film “21 Jump Street” but I did like the pairing of Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. It didn’t make a whole lot of sense why those two would be paired for a buddy-cop action/comedy, but at least it worked. For “22 Jump Street,” Hill and Tatum return as Schmidt and Jenko. We open with them attempting to bust a smuggler known as The Ghost (Peter Stormare). Deputy Chief Hardy (Nick Offerman) doesn’t think anyone likes them busting up smugglers, so he’s sending them back to Jump Street to do more of what they did the first time around. I’m not paraphrasing that; Offerman really says that showing us once again that this is a sequel and it’s going to be exactly like the first time.

On Jump Street, Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) assigns them to a nearby college to investigate a growing drug problem. A young student named Cynthia has recently overdosed on a new drug that’s going around campus and they need to find the supplier and find the dealer – just like the first time. Early evidence leads them to some football players including Zook (Wyatt Russell) who shares a very similar personality to Jenko. Left out of all the fun, Schmidt is left to look into Cynthia’s dorm neighbor Maya (Amber Stevens) and Cynthia’s ex-roommate Mercedes (Jillian Bell). Working apart for one another causes a bit of a rift between Schmidt and Jenko.

And we’re reminded every chance they get that this is the second time around and it’s just like the first time. We’re told they’ve spent more money this time around and expect better results. There’s even a little dig at how Jenko did some Secret Service work since the first time but that didn’t work out too well (a little slam at last summer’s “White House Down”).

Using the same format again for the sequel under the assumption that it worked well the first time never really works (see – or rather don’t see –  “The Hangover Part II”). The formula used for the first film is utilized here too, just like they say numerous times in the movie. As the movie progresses, you start to notice that they’re actually telling a different story and it is – in fact – not like the first film at all. And that’s quite a relief.

There’s nothing worse than a movie sequel that knows its going to be terrible and attempts to make its audience entertained by forcing the same plot line down their throats complete with the same jokes and gags. They think we won’t notice, but we do (see – or rather don’t see – “The Hangover Part II”). One thing I always notice in sequels is that the characters established in the first movie are often turned into caricatures of themselves in the second. The “dumb one” in the first movie is flat out stupid in the second one. The “smart one” keeps the plot moving in the first, but is reduced to telling jokes that don’t fit his personality in the second.

“22 Jump Street” doesn’t do that to its characters. We got to meet Schmidt and Jenko in the first film and got to know who they are. In this sequel, they’re the same people. And since Schmidt and Jenko were what kept “21 Jump Street” from being a total disaster, why would they need to be over embellished in the second? And they’re thankfully not.

Hill and Tatum are a great team. Since they already used the first movie to establish these characters, there’s no need to spend anytime on further development. It’s like seeing friends we haven’t seen in two years and feeling like we haven’t lost any time. Ice Cube gets more screen time too, which is a welcomed addition. He starts out doing the same thing he did in the first film, but as it begins to distance itself from the first, Ice Cube gets more face time.

The character Jillian Bell plays is outstanding and absolutely hilarious as well. Bell is famous for her role on Comedy Central’s “Workaholics” and she nearly steals the show in this movie. A scene with her and Hill is featured in the preview for this film, and its even funnier than what’s shown in the trailer.

Normally I’d pan a blatant cash grab sequel like “22 Jump Street” but it’s so much fun and utterly amusing that I can’t help but praise it. Those who thought “21 Jump Street” was great (and I was not one of them) will love this one even more. The jokes are new and aren’t rehashed from the first. The plot line is different enough to keep us guessing. And the characters aren’t radically different this time around. It’s refreshing to see a sequel do it’s own thing while at the same time acknowledging that its here just to take some more of your hard earned cash. You’ll walk away not feeling cheated by a sequel for once (see – or rather don’t see – “The Hangover Part II”).

Review: Edge of Tomorrow

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

Love him or hate him for what he does off the screen, Tom Cruise has actually been really solid over the last few years of his career. Film like “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” and “Oblivion” were really good movies and Cruise never looked like he was struggling to remake a tainted image. It’s almost like he didn’t even care people hated him; he was going to make the movies he wanted to do. Which is good for us because he’s been on a roll lately. Cruise’s latest film is “Edge of Tomorrow,” and it is another fine piece of work from the veteran action star.

Cruise plays Major William Cage, a PR officer for the US Army and spokesman for the United Defense Forces (UDF) at a time when the world is at war with an alien force. UDF General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson) orders Cage to cover the European invasion on the French beaches in person. Cage objects and attempts to blackmail Brigham. The next thing he knows, he’s waking up at a Forward Operating Base with orders to deploy and fight the next morning.

No one, including Master Sergeant Farrell (Bill Paxton), believes Cage to be an officer. The next day, Cage is suited up in a giant exoskeleton combat suit and dropped onto the beach with the rest of the UDF forces. Unfortunately, the invasion is a disaster and everyone, including Cage, dies. Only instead of dying, Cage wakes up back at the FOB the previous day. Once again, he’s suited up and dropped into action. He dies, and wakes up in the same spot yet again.

He continues to participate in the invasion, remembering different ways to stay alive each time. On one occasion he catches the eye of Rita Vrataski (Emil Blunt). She’s in awe of his ability to see things before they happen and instructs Cage to come find her when he wakes up after they die. She too was once stuck in a time loop similar to Cage. She thinks she knows why Cage is stuck in it now, and has a plan to use that to their advantage to beat back the alien forces for good.

The one thing “Edge of Tomorrow” kept reminding me of as I watched it was playing a video game. The more and more a person dies in a video game, the better they become the next time. The same happens with Cruise’s character here. That’s part of what makes video games fun and that’s what makes “Edge of Tomorrow” an enormously fun movie going experience.

Director Doug Liman –who hasn’t done much high concept action work since he directed “The Bourne Identity” or “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” – takes control of the complicated storyline and turns it into a movie that is never too difficult to follow. And that’s a really good thing considering the screenplay comes from frequent Cruise collaborator Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”) who is known for wrapping his stories up so tight that they usually require a second viewing. “Edge of Tomorrow” never feels like it’s moving too fast for anyone to keep up.

Cruise carries the film and proves he’s still a viable action star for Hollywood movies. In a time where people still are distracted by the actions of his personal life, he’s still able to turn out the types of movies people used to expect from him on a yearly basis. The script and the film don’t really give a whole lot of character development for Cruise to work with, but he is such a solid actor that he’s still able to earn your empathy. The same goes for Blunt. Like, she’s not given much to work with in terms of character but we still end up finding rooting interest.

Ultimately, this lack of character development in the script helps “Edge of Tomorrow” become a better film. There are no slow points in this movie whatsoever. Once the action picks up, it doesn’t let go. The film holds your interest for its entire duration never feeling like it’s trying to cram in unnecessary subplots to stretch it out to two hours. This is a very engaging and captivating movie that will surely go down as one of the summer’s best blockbusters.

Review: Chef

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

After several years of directing big budget pictures – most notably the first two “Iron Man” films for Marvel – Jon Favreau returns to directing the small independent types of films that gave him his first big break. To me, “Chef” seems like it could be somewhat autobiographical as well. I’ve always wondered what the real reason Favreau had for dropping out of directing “Iron Man 3.” Could it be Marvel got too powerful and wanted to take away the creative control from the director? Maybe, maybe not, but Favreau never did direct the film so you can draw your own conclusion.

I think “Chef” may very well contain some parallels to Favreau’s real life as a filmmaker. He plays Carl Casper, a renowned chef in Los Angeles who runs the kitchen at a restaurant owned by Riva (Dustin Hoffman). He loves his work to the point where he almost always neglects his son Percy (Emjay Anthony). He does, however, have time to hit up the farmers market each day, and for his new girlfriend Molly (Scarlett Johansson), the head hostess of the restaurant.

Today, a well-known food critic, Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt), will be reviewing the restaurant. Carl begins to put together a world-class menu for the review, but Riva insists that he cooks the usual menu because that’s the reason people come. Sure enough, Ramsey writes a scathing review of the food. This prompts Carl to call out Ramsey on Twitter, which ultimately costs Carl his job. But that also boosts his online following.

At the insistence of Carl’s ex-wife Inez (Sofia Vergara), Carl accompanies her and Percy to Miami. There, he meets with Inez’s first ex-husband Marvin (Robert Downey, Jr.) about acquiring a food truck. His former assistant in LA, Martin (John Leguizamo), is so excited about Carl’s new food truck that he flies to Miami right away to help him get it started. Together with Tony and Percy, Carl takes his new food truck back home serving up delicious Cubanos along the way.

“Chef” is a much smaller concept film than anything Favreau’s done in a long time, and it’s also the best film of his career. Everything about this movie is immensely engaging and rather charming too. And the food that Chef Carl cooks throughout the movie looks so delicious. It’s like watching Food Network with a delightful storyline between cooking scenes. You’ll want to being chowing down on a Cubano rather than that big bucket of popcorn.

It seems to me that Favreau needed to make this movie to keep his creative levels high after spending the last decade working with Marvel. Not that Marvel saps the creativity from its filmmakers, but they do have their own vision that may not necessarily line up with the individual film’s director. Perhaps Favreau had a different idea about how “Iron Man 3” was supposed to play out than what Marvel had envisioned. Conflict ensued, resulting in Favreau to leave the project. That might not be what happened, but it’s a thought. One that would make sense given the plotline of this film.

Favreau’s screenplay is exceptionally polished proving that he’s not lost his touch. The main plotline and all the intersecting subplots never feel out of place. Each subplot supports the others. The humor and wit is on par with Favreau’s earlier work of “Swingers” and “Made.” I would take this film over “Swingers” any day of the week.

He’s top notch in the role of Carl as well. He delivers this character with many different levels of emotion. Even if you’re not an employee of a restaurant, you’ll still find many different ways to identify with this character. The real star of this film, however, is young Emjay Anthony. He shares almost every scene with Favreau and steals just about all of them.

“Chef” is one of my absolute favorite movies of the year. I can’t say it’s going to be a highly decorated award winning film by year’s end, and it might not even end up on my Best Ten, but it is enormously gratifying and pleasant to watch. It’s a nice break from the big budget franchise pictures Favreau’s been making recently. He’ll go back to those some day soon I’m sure, but this just proves he can still tell a great story on his own when he wants.