Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Yes, it’s all about seeing robots fight in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen…

I had a rather unhealthy morning today. For breakfast, it was biscuits and gravy, complemented with delicious bacon and sausage. It was smothered in grease, and while it may have been an awesome way to start the day, it wasn’t the healthiest breakfast in the universe. I followed that with a large root beer in my sweet Harkins Theater Loyalty Cup while I sat and watched Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Oh, an unhealthy morning indeed, both physically and psychologically.

But like most things that are bad for you that don’t involve razor blades, I’d be lying if I didn’t say I had fun. Yes, I enjoyed watching all the big, stupid things happening in front of me. I enjoyed watching the CGI crap run into other CGI crap while the thin string that represents the only semblance of the film’s plot dangled in front of me. And that is more than I can say for the first Transformers. I hated the first Transformers.

The sequel continues the story from the first film, where the Autobots® (aka the good, colorful robots with the blue eyes) have beaten back the Decepticons® (the bad, black/silver robots with the red eyes), and are now assisting the United States government in military missions to destroy the remaining evil machines. Curious thought: why is the U.S. the only country even remotely aware of bitchin’ alien robots that turn into cars? And why would the Transformers even want to help the United States over, say, the war-torn continent of Africa?

Anyway, some tiny shred of the first movie’s plot has messed with the mind of our human protagonist Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), and he is seeing symbols, which are connected to the Decepticons® plan to beat back both the Autobots® and the human race. Thus Sam is off on a mission to save the world, despite the fact that these “Transform-Wars” (I just made that up) are really cramping his plans of going to college and maintaining a long distance relationship with his super foxy g.f. Megan Fox (I don’t remember her character’s name, but everybody just knows her as Megan Fox, so why not just call her that?). Along for the ride with Sam are Fox, Sam’s annoying college roommate (Ramon Rodriguez), the crazy scientist guy from the first movie (John Turturro) and, for some reason, Sam’s parents (Kevin Dunn and Julie White).

Oh, the robots are there too. The humans run, and that gives a reason for Optimus Prime™ to box around with Megatron™, and The Fallen(™?) to work his evil plans — seemingly to blot out the sun? It is never exactly made clear, but all the ingredients are there. This is Transformers, and the joy of watching cars, jets and household appliances inexplicably turn into robots is abounding for those who are into that sort of thing.

The first installment in the adaptation of the popular Hasbro® toy line put me to sleep, simply because the plot was useless and the action was indefinable. Such was not the case in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. To my complete vexation, I actually had a pretty good time while my IQ was forced down into my stomach. However, the length eventually got to me, and by the end I was tired and bored. Comparatively, I was as bored by the end of Transformers 2 as many people were with the recent Watchmen adaptation. Some people don’t enjoy 2 ½ hours of existential superhero talk, and I can only handle crap running into other crap for so long. Such is the way of the world.

But the length wasn’t the only thing that bothered me about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. There was the uselessness of the parental figures, the racist robots (look ‘em up: Skids and Mudflap), the fact that pages of the script are made up of the words “run” and “look out,” the simple truth that the transforming of the robots makes not a lick of sense, the retarded amount of slow motion, Michael Bay’s face in the back of my mind… the list is possibly endless. There was a lot to dislike about this flick.

But the moral of the story is that despite the length, despite all the awfulness that is this film, I sort of like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. It has that same stupid charm that keeps my ass planted when I happen to find 1998’s Armageddon playing on FX. That movie is also completely stupid, but God help me, I enjoy watching it. Because sometimes something unhealthy is okay, so long as you know it’s bad for you.

3 stars (2 stars for the movie, 1 star because I liked it more than I should have)

The Proposal

Ryan Reynolds bends down to talk to a kneeling Sandra Bullock in The Proposal.

As Posted on Jackcentral.com on June 28, 2009

by Gary Sundt

I saw The Proposal because a) it was #1 in the box office last weekend, and b) my girlfriend wanted to see it. Admittedly, while I am not one of those guys who gets into “chick flicks,” I have been known to like more than a few girlie movies in my day. This means that I know the girl movie formula and what to expect. The couple will end up together, and there will be all sorts of moments where the audience goes “awwww…” It’s like watching a movie, any movie, where a kid has cancer. Girls like those movies too.

While aw-moments are abounding in The Proposal, they are not all the film has to offer. Truthfully, the movie has one of the more realistic approaches to the unlikely-couple-falls-in-love scenario that I’ve seen. Canadian immigrant Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock) is the editor-in-chief for a prominent New York book publisher who, after an unfortunate bit of law breaking, is being deported back to her home country. She finds a rather clever solution to her predicament in her assistant, Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds), who she forces to marry her to avoid ejection from the United States. When the government questions their rather questionable engagement, the odd couple takes a weekend excursion to Sitka, Alaska to visit Andrew’s family and the sell their unholy union.

Margaret is a rather hateful individual in her life in New York, but has to play nice with Andrew and his family for the weekend. But! (insert shock and awe here), she discovers a few things about Andrew on their trip, including his family being filthy rich industrialists (you know, the kind of family whose last name appears just about everywhere) and that he is actually a pretty decent guy. Will the family’s wacky antics win over the Office Witch? Probably. Will she feel guilty by the third act? Almost definitely. But when the supporting cast is made up of Betty White as the family’s wacky 89-year-old matriarch and The Office’s Oscar Nuñez as the town’s only male stripper, et al., the formula’s predictability doesn’t bother so much.

The Proposal isn’t without a certain adherence to formula, which is as hurtful to the end result as it is charming. These two vastly different individuals must end up together, because all the aw-moments in the world won’t woo the intended audience if it all doesn’t end disgustingly and unbelievably happy. And while the road to implausible bliss comes with many predictable happenings (a fish out of water experience here, a Bullock in water and unable to swim incident there), they will somehow, some way, end up happily ever after.

Bullock does a rather fine job in The Proposal, which is surprising because I usually hate most of her more recent film fare. But the character is ideal for her strengths as a performer, and she and Reynolds play off one another rather nicely. The script by first-time writer Pete Chiarelli doesn’t give the cast too much to work with, but these people are funny, and know how to read it to maximize it’s potential. The audience smiles and laughs, the credits role, and everybody leaves the theater satisfied. I found myself in the satisfied crowd for once, and so I figure the people at work here had to be doing something right.

Star Rating: 3.5 stars

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

Ben Stiller strikes a pose, and I try to remember if the cube in the background came to life in Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

As Posted on Jackcentral.com on May 28, 2009

by Gary Sundt

Nonsense in filmmaking bothers me. When I see something that just plain doesn’t make a lick of sense, I shift uncomfortably in my movie chair. I lean over to my girlfriend to make a snide remark about the stupid things happening in front of me, and she goes, “C’mon now Gary! It’s a movie! It doesn’t have to make sense.” Most movie critics and I disagree with this sentiment, and in that case, we are in the minority. This explains why I think Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is a stupid movie, and also why it will make a ridiculous amount of money regardless.

However, what it doesn’t explain is why I even remotely liked this movie. And I did, to my complete mortification.

I felt this same bit of embarrassment after the first Night at the Museum. It was a dumb movie, a film I thought was really just not very good, but it had this mindless charm that made me smile. The sequel is very similar. It is an absolute product of the Hollywood system, an idea designed to make cash. I can imagine the pitch meeting: “Let’s take a bunch of famous historical figures that everybody knows, characterize them solely by their images in popular culture, and pit them against a loveable yet cantankerous night guard.”

“How do we accomplish such a task?” asks the intrigued movie executive.

“Some random Egyptian tablet will bring ‘em all to life,” replies the writer or director or 8-year-old child who devised the concept. “Doesn’t have to be complicated.”

And it isn’t complicated. If you haven’t seen the first Night at the Museum, the tablet brings all the exhibits in the museum to life, and the night guard has to keep it all under control.

Ben Stiller plays Larry Daily, the night guard in question. I have always found Stiller to be more irritable than any other adjective that could describe affection, but the masses seem to like him. And here he his, in the sequel facing off against Egyptian Pharoah Kah Mun Rah (Hank Azaria), Ivan the Terrible (Christopher Guest), Napoleon and Young Al Capone. (Point of inanity that has carried from the first film: how do these figures know anything about themselves? They are merely plastic replicas that have been brought to life. How does a brought-to-life model of an Egyptian pharaoh know anything about himself, or everybody else in the museum? Sorry… moving on now).

Larry has to stop Kah Mun Rah from bringing forth his army from a magic portal that is related to the magic tablet… why am I even explaining this. All you need to know is the aforementioned infamous archetypal villains of world history are fighting against the night guard, who has on his side Jedediah Smith (Owen Wilson), Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Williams) and Octavius (Steve Coogan) from the first film, with the addition of General Custer (Bill Hader), Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams) and a dozen bobble-head Albert Einsteins (Eugene Levy). Many of the actors in Battle of the Smithsonian have had moments of sheer brilliance in movie history, and the audience will recognize many of them and instantly like them because of their familiarity.

Now, I know this has been a bit of a angry rant, but I would like to refer to paragraph two, where I mentioned that I liked the movie. I enjoyed Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. It’s a stupid movie that I had more than a little fun watching. Yeah, I know it’s tailor-made to rip my money from my wallet, but sometimes a movie just rubs you the right way, even when you know it’s wrong.

Star Rating: 3 stars

Angels & Demons

Tom Hanks and two police officers look shocked about something in Angels & Demons.

As Posted on Jackcentral.com on May 16, 2009

by Gary Sundt

I’m a little ashamed with myself. For the first time (and hopefully the last) in my history as movie critic, I have to preface my review by stating a disappointing and disheartening truth: I fell asleep during Angels & Demons.

I know what you’re thinking. Why am I writing a review for a movie I fell asleep in? What right do I have to even print such a critique? Well, to be fair, I was only out for about 15 minutes, and it was somewhere between the 20 – 35 minute mark. I have read the book, so I know what I missed, and it wasn’t anything especially riveting as far as the story goes. No dead people turned up while I was gone.

The point where I tapped out was the scene where Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), the uber-guru of all things Catholic and cryptic, is called upon by the church to help solve a groovy mystery. The major change from the best-selling source material by Dan Brown is that Angels & Demons is now a sequel, rather than a prequel, to 2006’s The Da Vinci Code. Fixing this is a matter of brief dialogue references, and then the adventure begins. Langdon is off to Rome to unravel the mystery of the Illuminati, an ominous group that threatens the Vatican while they are busy choosing a new pope.

The Illuminati’s beef with the Catholic Church is the unending debate of science v. religion. The reality of this dispute is remarkably complex, but Angels & Demons doesn’t really scratch the surface on that topic. Those who saw The Da Vinci Code will recall just how plotted and talky the film became with its religious goobledy-goop, and director Ron Howard wisely went with the action-thriller route this time around. For a thriller about church politics and existential quandaries, Angels & Demons is about as complex as a Happy Meal.

As such, detailing the ins and outs (and, in turn, the many inanities) of the plot beyond what I have already described seems somewhat pointless to me. Several fine actors show up here (among them Stellan Skarsard, Ewan McGregor, and the always morose-looking Armin Mueller-Stahl), but there just isn’t much for me to say that warrants detailing their characters. There are only brief breaks to actually discuss the topics at hand, and the rest of the time is running, shouting, gun shots, explosions and that hardcore church choir score that fits the source material just right. If anything, Angels & Demons is never boring.

However, that does not mean the film isn’t dull. The experience of watching Angels & Demons can be likened to viewing the film’s closing credits. Overbearing music is playing – you know, the kind that goes “na-na-na-naaaaaaa-NA-NA-NA-NAAAAAAAA!!!!” — but nothing on the screen seems to matter in the way of storytelling. Sure, the film itself has it’s fair share of whiz-bang visual effects, and Hanks runs from scene to scene shouting in that way Robert Langdon is apparently supposed to shout, but all the loud noises and nifty visuals can’t make up for the film’s sheer lack of a pulse.

To my memory, I have only fallen asleep in one other movie in the theater. That film was Transformers. Here are two movies with very distinctly different storylines that belong in very different genres, but I think they are strikingly similar. They both feature world-shattering events with tons of special effects, bombastic music and loud crashing and exploding noises. The other thing they have in common is a numbness of story, where something has been built up so much that its foundation falls out from under itself.

What is disappointing about Angels & Demons is that it was based on a wonderful novel and is directed by the Academy Award winning Howard, whereas Transformers was based on a popular toy and directed by Michael Bay. Neither film is especially boring, but they both lack soul and a pulse, which makes them a bit of a chore to sit through at times. I expect this from Transformers, but Angels & Demons should have been a better movie.

2.5 stars