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 Monuments Men

by Trevor Kirkendall

★½

George Clooney leads the Monuments Men

“The Monuments Men” tells the story of a little know episode in world history. During the Nazi occupation of many Western European countries, Hitler had ordered private collections of renowned artwork to be taken and delivered to Germany. His goal was to assemble a vast collection of art in his own museum (the Fuhrer Museum, as it was to be called). Art historian Frank Stokes (George Clooney) wants to make sure this does not happen. He proposes an idea to President Roosevelt to go into Europe and retrieve these works of art from the Nazis and return then to their rightful homes. Roosevelt agrees, but doesn’t think they’ll be able to spare any of their troops to do this, so he tells Stokes to assemble a team and do the mission himself.

Stokes gathers some men together, which he calls the Monuments Men. He takes James Granger (Matt Damon), a renowned museum curator, Richard Campbell (Bill Murray), an architect, Walter Garfield (John Goodman), a sculptor, Preston Savitz (Bob Balaban), an art collector, and two Europeans – Brit Donald Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville) and Frenchman Jean Claude Clermont (Jean Dujardin). They arrive in Normandy about a month after the Allied invasion and get to work finding the stolen art.

Granger heads to the recently liberated Paris to find a contact he knows about. He’s then directed to Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett) who worked in the museums during the Nazi occupation. She wants to have the stolen art recovered, but doesn’t trust Granger or the Americans to hand the art back over to the French people. The Russians have assembled a similar group to recover stolen art as well; only they’re not giving it back. Simone thinks this will be what the Americans end up doing.

As for the rest of the team, everyone splits up and goes to various cities and towns around France and neighboring countries looking for stolen art. Two pieces they have a particularly high interest in recovering are the Ghent Altarpiece and the Madonna of Bruges sculpture by Michelangelo. With the war’s end in sight, Hitler has ordered everything stolen by his Nazi party to be destroyed in the event of Germany’s fall or his death. It’s a race against time for the Monuments Men to find where the Nazis have hidden all these works of art before everything is destroyed.

“The Monuments Men” is a compelling story, one that most history books seem to omit. However, the film’s telling of the story is a giant mess that completely falls flat on itself. It doesn’t know whether it wants to be a lighthearted affair or if wants to be some kind of well meaning historical drama. It’s confusing, not because of the plot, but because you never really know what kind of movie you’re watching. Should you laugh or be moved to tears? There’s nothing wrong with sprinkling a little bit of humor to break up the seriousness, but this film isn’t like that.

What's so funny, gentlemen?

The only person who can be held accountable for this is writer-director George Clooney. He had a chance to take a very little know episode from history and make a poignant and memorable film. Instead, the tone of the film feels like it reflects Clooney’s mood on any given day when they were filming. If he woke up happy, the film takes on the lighthearted feel. If he woke up on the wrong side of the bed, there’s a definite somber tone to the scenes. It’s that kind schizophrenic and the mood shifts that quickly. And Clooney’s cho ?ice of music helps to emphasize this even further. Alexandre Desplat’s score goes from melancholy string arrangements to upbeat “F Troop” style military marches. Happy or sad? The music certainly doesn’t help with the tone.

Clooney’s screenplay, co-written with his usual producing partner Grant Heslov, lacks focus and depth. There’s no primary plot line running through here, only subplots. And each subplot shares the same ultimate goal: find the art. These guys all split up when they get to Europe and the screenplay dedicates equal amounts of time following them around. There’s very little opportunity for anyone to become invested in these characters. When tragedy strikes, the group is understandably upset. But not the audience. Why should we care? We know they’re professionals in the study of art, but outside of that they’re nothing more than famous faces reciting lines and moving about the set. I had to keep reminding myself that Clooney and Heslov – the men who wrote and produced this film – are the same guys who gave us “Good Night and Good Luck” and “Argo”. It’s a pretty spectacular failure.

The only good moments in the entire film are when Cate
Blanchett is on camera.

A cast of such talented stars can’t even save the script. Clooney once again strolls through the set of his film looking like Dr. Ross with a moustache and a military coat. He still can’t seem to get rid of that little head bobble he does in practically every role. Damon looks lost in every scene, maybe because Blanchett, with whom he shares many scenes, intimidates him with her acting abilities. Blanchett is the one bright spot in the entire film. Goodman and Murray look unsure of themselves. Should they be funny or not? Both play drama very well, but they don’t seem to know which direction to take. And Murray walking around with a weapon over his shoulder accompanied by Desplat’s comedic military marches feels more like a 30-plus-year follow up to “Stripes” than a serious drama set in WWII. And Dujardin flashes his million dollar smile looking like George Valentin from his Oscar-winning turn in “The Artist”. It almost looks like Clooney gathered his friends in one big room, handed them a script and turned them loose without giving them any type of direction.

Yes, “The Monuments Men” had all the makings of a good film, but it falls completely flat. This looks more like an inexperienced filmmaker’s first feature, not a seasoned Oscar winner’s fifth. The story is solid and Clooney was right to try and bring this to the public’s attention. As a student of history at one point in my life, I was completely unaware that this ever happened. It seems like a lot of filmmakers want to tell the true tales of little known moments in history. But the problem is they try to do too much in these films and everything seems to be overwhelming. In the end, the logline of this film is really the only story you need to know.

I was a little surprised to see the studio pull this film from its original Christmas 2013 release. I thought that they were intimidated by such a crowded awards field that they would have a better chance taking home Oscars in 2014. But then they scheduled it to open in February, which is not a very great month to open movies, especially if you’re looking for awards. Now I know the move wasn’t to contend for awards. The movie is not all that great and didn’t deserve the prestige spotlight they had originally set aside for it. The first four paragraphs of this review are really all you need to know about this story. And forget the awards. The only thing Clooney has to worry about is redeeming himself on his next film to prove he really is a competent and that his work on “Good Night and Good Luck” wasn’t beginners luck. It really is starting to look like that now.

Review: Inside Llewyn Davis

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

The latest from Joel and Ethan Coen is “Inside Llewyn Davis”, a look at the folk music scene in New York City in 1961, right before a certain young man began singing about how the answers, my friend, are blowin’ in the wind. The Coens film is a visually striking film, complete with memorable songs from industry legend T Bone Burnett and Mumford and Sons frontman Marcus Mumford. It also showcases the Brothers on the top of their game.

Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) is a folk singer. He called Greenwich Village his home, even though he just lives on other people’s couches on a rotating basis. And if you ask his friend Jean (Carey Mulligan), Llewyn Davis is an asshole. That’s because she’s pregnant and it might be his. Of course, it might be Jim’s (Justin Timberlake), her boyfriend and musical collaborator (they’re a singing duo themselves, and quite popular). She wants Jim’s baby but not Llewyn’s. So she needs to terminate it just in case it isn’t Llewyn’s. Which is why he’s an asshole.

Llewyn’s songs are good. He has representation with a very small manager, Mel (Jerry Grayson), but doesn’t earn enough money from him. Llewyn was in a folk duo earlier in his career, but his counterpart committed suicide, leaving Llewyn alone to continue on as a solo artist. Llewyn has asked Mel to send his new solo record to a manager in Chicago named Bud Grossman (F. Murray Abraham) who also runs his own club. He’s sure Bud will love his music and agree to manage him. He’s already set up Jim and Jean’s dorky friend Troy Nelson (Stark Sands) so how could he not like Llewyn?

After a recording session for an awful yet insanely catchy song that Jim wrote with Al Cody (Adam Driver), Llewyn decides to forgo the royalties and just take a lump sum check for the session right now. He ends up using the money to help pay for gas to ride along with one of Al’s friends, jazz musician Roland Turner (John Goodman) and his valet Johnny Five (Garrett Hedlund) to Chicago. There, he hopes to catch the attention of Bud Grossman and become the biggest thing in folk music.

This is vintage Coen Brothers material, from the story to its structure to the well-crafted handling of the filmmaking itself. And it’s as close to a musical as we’ve seen from them, so of course the music is phenomenal as well. The Brothers have made a career making films about gritty people that don’t just despise one another, but they hate themselves too. Llewyn Davis is this kind of character. “Inside Llewyn Davis” closely remebles the tone of their earlier film “A Serious Man”. One centralized character that isn’t very likeable. You would think that formula would make for a chaotic film, and left to any other filmmaker, it probably would be. But the Coen Brothers are right at home with this type of subject.

Are you supposed to love him or hate him? The Brothers don’t really give us anything to love about him, except maybe his music. He’s rude to just about everyone he meets. He doesn’t really care about the feelings of Jean, who he may or may not have put in a troubling situation. Although he feels she’s partially to blame, but who says that in this situation? According to Jean, an asshole would. Which is what Llewyn is.

The Brothers take another snapshot of life with this story. Only this time, they focus entirely on one individual. Isaac is on screen for every scene of this film, and he’s only missing from a select few frames. He performs all the music as well. Isaac succeeds in brilliant fashion by playing a character no one likes, yet is still trying to gain some of your emotion in process. There are a few moments when I found myself empathizing with him only to be slapped back into reality by a brash comment in the following scene.

The rest of the cast is filled out with people who attempt to balance out Llewyn, but to little success. Mulligan is fantastic in her role as Jean, a woman with a sweet folky singing voice and a smile to make men’s hearts melt when she’s on stage singing. Off state, she’s an angry woman cursing like a sailor whenever she’s around Llewyn. Timberlake as Jim is also wonderful in the role (which is becoming somewhat of a consistent critique of Timberlake; the man can act). He’s nice and loveable like Jean is on stage, but off stage he carries the same mannerisms. He’s hopefully and optimistic about life in general, something not usually seen in characters from films about 1960s America.

Some of the best moments in the film come during Llewyn’s drive from New York to Chicago with Goodman and Hedlund. Goodman is a Coen staple appearing in well over a handful of their films. He’s just as loud and boisterous as ever. It’s almost as if the Coens write these roles specifically for him (which they probably do). He’s as memorable as his previous Coen characters like Gale Snoats, Charlie Meadows, Walter Sobchak and Big Dan Teague. Only this time, he clocks very little screen time. I wish he would have had a larger presence in this film, but it’s not his movie. This is all about Llewyn and how he interacts with the people who enter in and out of his life. Roland Turner is just another blip on the overall life of Llewyn Davis.

“Inside Llewyn Davis” might not be the Coen Brothers masterpiece, but it is certainly a fascinating looks at the folk music scene of the early 1960s and the people involved in it right before it became a hugely popular genre of music. To me, the story is meant to be a reflective look on everyone in the audience to see how you may or may stack up next to the ambitions of Llewyn Davis.

He’s not a nice guy, but he’s got a dream. He wants to make that dream come true. He’ll use people, abuse people and step on anyone who gets in his way. Every one of us has a dream. Llewyn’s just chasing after his. What’s so wrong with that? The issue is not what your dream is, but how you go about attaining it. Many people get to where they’re going without being rude. Llewyn doesn’t understand that. In the end, he gets exactly what he deserves: an actual and at the same time metaphorical kick in the gut. This is the appropriate and perfect ending for Llewyn, and the Coens give it to him in a very smart way.

Review: Monsters University

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★★

When Hollywood runs out of ideas, they tend to go with one of three things: remake something, reboot a franchise or make a sequel and/or prequel. Seeing as the vast majority of films coming out these days fall into one of those categories, Hollywood is surely coming up short on new ideas. I tend to roll my eyes at things like that, especially the remakes and reboots. Sequels and prequels I can understand a little bit. Most aren’t as good because they try to surpass the original in everyway. That’s not a good way to approach a sequel. If anyone knows how to second film in a series properly, its Pixar. “Monsters University” is a perfect example of a prequel gone right.

In “Monsters University” – as it was in “Monsters Inc.” – screams from children power the city. Monsters are employed by the power company, Monsters Inc., to sneak into the bedrooms of kids in order to scare the daylights out of them. The monsters responsible for doing this are called scarers. Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has dreamt all his like to be a scarer. The day has finally arrived for him to start fulfilling his dream. Its his first day as a college student at Monsters University.

His roommate is a creepy chameleon-like monster named Randall Boggs (Steve Buscemi), who we all know was the primary antagonist from the original film. Here, he’s just as nervous as Mike and trying desperately to fit in and be one of the cool kids.

On the first day of class, Mike encounters James P. Sullivan (John Goodman), a laid back student who thinks the success he’s going to achieve has already been handed to him thanks to his family name. He’s here for show and to party. His name even gets him into the coolest fraternity on campus, Roar Omega Roar, led by Johnny Worthington (Nathan Fillion).

Mike and Sulley end up competing against each other for the whole semester and their antics ultimately cost them passing grades on the final exam of the semester, kicking them out of the program by the chilling Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren). Determined to still be a scarer, Mike joins a second rate fraternity – Oozma Kappa – in order to compete in the Scare Games. Sulley joins too, much to Mike’s disapproval. Hardscrabble agrees to let them back into the program if they win the Scare Games.

That’s quite a bit of plot for the first twenty minutes of the film, but its incredibly engaging. You never feel lost, confused or – worst of all – bored at any moment during the movie. Pixar’s story department has always been able to cram a lot of layers into their films without seeming like its too forced. They also know what type of film they’re making. Their films are not just meant for kids. They have many elements that the kids like, but the story is also deep enough that it can be identifiable with an older audience.

What “Monsters University” does well to keep its older audience’s attention is to put small homages everywhere that will remind of some of the great college films out there. While there might not be a direct reference to something like “Animal House”, there are elements that sort of remind us of films like that. There might also be a few things here and there that might remind you of your time in college, too. So many little things, even in the background of the scene, can help conjure up those memories. You need to be on the lookout because they’re everywhere.

Pixar has mastered the ability to create a very strong supporting cast of characters. First there was “Toy Story” with two main characters and a whole room full of secondary characters. The film would have been nothing without each and every toy in the child’s bedroom. Then there was “Finding Nemo” with the crazy fish trapped in the fish tank. Each character helped make that feel like a “One Flew Over the Cukoo’s Nest” style metal hospital.

The secondary characters that make up the Oozma Kappa fraternity help bring “Monsters University” to that classic Pixar level of characters. Middle-aged founder Don (Joel Murray), two headed monsters Terri (Sean Hayes) and Terry (Dave Foley), loveable geek Squishy (Peter Sohn) and the crazy Art (Charlie Day) make up the fraternity characters. They’re so well written that it gives the film the additional humor to go along with the natural humor that derived from the screenplay. And they’ll probably remind you of someone you might have known at that time of your life.

“Monsters University” is entertaining enough for everyone to enjoy. I don’t think it’s quite as good as “Monsters Inc.” but that was going to be a tough film to follow. The idea for making it a prequel was a smart idea. Mike and Sully were fun to watch in the original, but it had a definitive ending. The only way to show us more of these two was to go back to their youth.

Pixar won’t be breaking any new ground with this film like the did with masterpieces such as “Up” or even “Toy Story 3.” Its not designed to work on that same emotional level. But what it does provide is an enormously entertaining way to spend a couple hours. Pixar continues to prove that they are the standard bearer for animated filmmaking these days. They are one of the very few production companies out there today that understands good storytelling. If they’re not the best, they’re certainly up there.

On a side not, the Pixar animated short film the precedes “Monsters University” is called “The Blue Umbrella” and it is magnificent. Its only six minutes long, but every frame is beautifully told. What caught my eye was how very realistic the cityscape was animated. There were moments when it didn’t even look like a cartoon. It should definitely generate some interest in what Pixar has in the pipeline. Particularly their June 2015 release “Inside Out” which is set inside a girl’s mind (that’s all they’ve said about it) and their June 2016 release which will be about Dia de los Muertos. Of course, there’s also the fan favorite: the November 2015 release of “Finding Dory”, the long awaited and highly anticipated sequel to “Finding Nemo”. 

Review: The Hangover Part III

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

In 2009, a little movie called “The Hangover” opened and made a pretty big splash with audiences and critics alike. I was kind of skeptical of the film judging from the trailer. It looked like just another raunchy comedy with no plot that would be satisfying only to the college crowd. What we got was something so much more that that. It was smart, something you don’t see in a typical comedy. And it wasn’t all that raunchy either. But then they had to follow it up with “The Hangover Part II,” a carbon copy of the first film. Only this time, the setting was different and the jokes were raunchier. Even the main characters didn’t act the same as they did previously. It was absolutely awful. So what does the inevitable “Part III” going to bring to the series? Fortunately, it is a vast improvement.

“The Hangover Part III” opens with the death of Sid (Jeffery Tambor), who is the father to Alan (Zach Galifianakis). The family, including Alan’s brother in law Doug (Justin Bartha), decides it’s best that Alan enter into a rehabilitation center to try and figure out what’s wrong with him. Fans of the other films will know there is quite a bit wrong with Alan. He agrees to go to the rehab center and is accompanied by Doug and his best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms).

They never quite make it there, and its not because they got drunk and wake up in a strange place with no knowledge of the previous night. They’re ambushed on the highway and taken captive by none other than the man who sold Alan the drugs in the first film, Black Doug (Mike Epps). He’s working for his drug dealer boss Marshall (John Goodman) who has a bone to pick with The Wolfpack.

He wants them to find Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) who has just broken out of a Bangkok prison and his headed to the west coast. Mr. Chow has stolen millions of dollars worth of gold bricks from Marshall and he wants them back. He holds Doug hostage until they bring Chow and the gold bricks back to him.

Unlike the second installment to the trilogy, “Part III” does not rehash the plot of the original once again. “Part II” was an absolute abomination for its choice to copy Jon Lucas and Scott Moore’s brilliant screenplay almost scene-for-scene changing only the location of the events. If you missed the second film, you missed nothing. Just watch the original twice and you’ll be good.

Writer and director Todd Phillips, working once again with his “Part II” co-writer Craig Mazin, have completely redeemed themselves from that garbage of a script they called “Part II.” There are no plot points from the first two that repeat themselves. This is a completely original idea, which is a very refreshing way to close off this series. There is an appearance from Stu’s stripper girlfriend (Heather Graham) he married briefly in the original, and her kid (who Alan calls Carlos).

The Wolfpack only drink a very small amount of alcohol together. They are completely sober for their entire adventure. It brings a different kind of perspective to the film. We’ve already seen these guys run around drunk and confused for two whole movies. This time we see a more mature and determined Wolfpack (well, okay, a much more mature and determined Stu and Phil; Alan is still Alan).

What’s made these movies so successful is the chemistry between Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis. In the original film, these were three different guys on three very different career paths. If you didn’t know who they were prior to 2009, you know who they are now. And they were paired together so perfectly, something you don’t see too often. In “Part II” they worked well together, but you could tell that even they knew the movie was terrible. But with a much better screenplay to work from, they really work well together in “Part III.”

The plot is, for the most part, pretty well put together. It definitely has a different feel to it than its predecessors. “Part III” is a bit more gritty. Since plot and story seems to be of greater focus for Phillips and Mazin this time around, the jokes do suffer some. It’s not as funny as one might expect. The trailers don’t give all the jokes away so there are some surprises in there. But overall, the film has a more suspenseful element at times, rather than just one crude toilet joke after another (which was “Part II’s” downfall). If the raunchy jokes are what you came for, then you’ll want to wait for just a moment when the credits roll at the end. There is an additional scene just for you.

“Part III” is a pretty satisfying way to close off this series. I’m not sure they’ll surprise us with a fourth installment somewhere down the line, so this is it for the Wolfpack. It’s not on par with the original, but how many sequels ever are? It is a satisfying was to close out this trilogy. Just don’t expect your stomach muscles to be sore after its over.