Going into the theater to see this in IMAX 3D, I couldn't tell whether this was going to be as good as the first one or as bad as the second one. It had an okay story trying to involve NASA as apart of the plot, only bad thing is that they pretty much abandon that plot line after only 20 minutes into the movie. Long story short, some old transformers crashed on the moon that were discovered by astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin that was never revealed until now and the transformers from the moon go to earth, become evil and destroy most of Washington D.C. and Chicago. If you leave the theater at any point, you wouldn't be missing much.
Of course, where does our screaming hero Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) fall into all this? Surprisingly, Ken Jeong's character Jerry Wang (who's like a crazier version of Senior Chang from the show Community) just happens to work at the same office Sam works at and just shoves all this information in his face about the autobots on the moon then literally runs off and dies. If that's a spoiler for you, sorry but I don't care for what I give away for this movie because I could tell the writer only did it for the money. Anyways, back to Sam's plot, he also has a new girlfriend named Carly Spencer (another bullshit yet somewhat clever way to blend in characters from the old TV show into the not-caring Michael Bay franchise) who seems to be a lot more likable and smarter than Megan Fox's character Mikaeyla from the previous two movies. She becomes involved with the plot as well and surprisingly not just because she's dating Sam, but because her boss has come connection with the autobots as well, but I'm not gonna go into that.
So after an hour and a half of bring back old characters or introducing new characters that don't need to be in the movie at all, that's where we have a whole hour of just non-stop action in the city. That's pretty much the only part I found mildly entertaining, not because of the action itself but because it's very laughable on how over-the-top Michael Bay went with explosions and focused more on the military guys than the autobots themselves. I find it laughable that he copied some of the same scenes shot for shot from the first movie, I mean did he even notice or is that all he can do and come up with nothing new? Also I know it's a different city they're fighting in, but why couldn't they have a completely different location instead of the same type of city. Going back to the first movie again, we saw that already! I mean if the title is called "Dark of the Moon", why not have the fights be in outer space? That would've been awesome! New location and inventive choreography could've been done with the autobots, but nope. Instead we have the same fight from the first movie, only it's longer, shows the humans a lot more than the autobots, and it's slightly more boring because you see more explosions than you do of actual fights. Oh, and you have Shia LaBeouf literally screaming every one of his lines the whole time instead of actually doing something. I still think he's a good actor, but I think his contract took over his real acting skills for this flick. It's ridiculous really.
The ending I can't even explain because it ends SO ABRUPTLY! Either way, I still found it entertaining mainly because of the 3D effects. I mean it's no Polar Express or How to Train Your Dragon, but I actually found it to be better than most flicks released in 3D today. I still wish they'd stop releasing everything in 3D but I'll consider this one to be an exception. Also, the music by Steve Jablonsky is good and some action bits are still fun to watch like the car chase in the second act, or the military skydiving. That I thought was kind of cool. Still a bad movie overall.
**
I might as well say the red band trailer for this gave me a lot more laughs than the movie itself. That would probably be because most of the gags I saw in the red band trailer were not in the actual movie. Do I still think it's a good movie overall? Here's my review.
Cameron Diaz plays a teacher named Elizabeth Halsey who has to return to her regular day job of teaching at a middle school after her plan to live off some rich guy goes wrong. The way it's setup in the beginning I can say is hilarious. She doesn't give a crap about the students; she doesn't actually teach them and just has them watch movies in class all day; and her primary goal is to find a new rich guy to live off of. That's where Justin Timberlake's character of Scott Delacorte comes in: a rich sensitive man who becomes the new sub right after getting out of a bad relationship with his ex. Halsey greets Delacorte pretending to act like the other teachers who care and befriends him quickly by getting him to show her an old cell-phone pic of his ex who apparently has a "big heart". A few scenes later, Halsey decides to save up for breast implant, which pretty much explains what will happen throughout the movie. Long story short, she looks for ways to make big bucks for herself, like the middle school car wash and the bonus given to the teacher who has the highest scoring class on standardized tests, and so forth.
As much as you think that there could be at least 50 hilarious jokes written for that main plot line alone, I only saw less than half. So who do I blame? The writers, director, actors? Or how about the MPAA? Yeah I'll go with that. Going back to the trailers I saw in the beginning that actually got me excited to see this at one point; I laughed at about half the scenes I saw in the trailer that were not put in the theatrical release. Why was that? I don't know. The scenes I laughed at were not only funny, but after seeing the theatrical cut it would've made perfect sense to not take it out of the movie because it totally followed the plot. That would also explain why the characters were so badly developed, because there wasn't anything funny or interesting about them, except for Jason Segel's character as the gym teacher. He was the only funny character throughout the whole movie that actually made the movie less bad than it should've been. It's like they kept all his scenes in and threw out over 50% of all the other supporting characters scenes which is why I never could never read into Scott Delacorte that well, or Halsey's rival teacher Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch). Yeah, I forgot to mention that. Halsey and Amy pretty much hate each other for some reason and try to sabotage each others plans. Any good jokes written into that sub-plot? Maybe a couple, though I think I still witnessed more in the trailer.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I believe the MPAA or somebody in charge of post-production besides the director threw out a lot of scenes from the original director's cut onto the cutting room floor for some reason. Whatever that reason was, it didn't work at all. When watching the theatrical cut, I could tell there was A LOT edited out. I could tell when a scene wasn't finished or even when one of the characters mentioned something, I could tell it was a reference to a previous scene that was cut out completely. This is why I plan to to rent the Unrated Version on DVD and see if it's literally 10 times funnier that was intended to be than what the MPAA considers comedy to be. I wouldn't be surprised because most directors cuts seem to make more sense, like Donnie Darko or 40 Year Old Virgin, that just add more depth to the lead or supporting character or explains more to the main plot.
I can only say I liked this movie somewhat for a good build-up, but hated it for it's crappy pay off. I can't wait to see what the unrated version can do better, which I'll review when it comes out.
**1/2
When I first heard that J.J Abrams and Steven Spielberg were working on a project together, I couldn't have been more excited. Knowing I've been a fan of the show Lost and pretty much anything my favorite producer/director Spielberg's done, I could tell that I would get at least SOMETHING entertaining. When I saw the teaser for it back in December, it said coming in June. It made me only hope that the wait would pay off and thank god, it DID.
This film is literally great from start to finish. J.J Abrams knows how to open up a film scene and not do anything remotely wrong for at least the first five minutes. He did so with this movie almost all the way through. I'd rather not say what it is because there's not much to really talk about without really spoiling the movie; or maybe I would just recommend you go into the theater without thinking about what you read on anybodys blog about what actually happens in the movie. The only thing I can say is that yes, it does involve some sort of invasion that happens in a small town while a group of well written and well acted pre-teen kids are trying to make a movie using a Super 8 camera. The main trailer should tell you that by now.
What I really can talk about is how well the film is done. The suspense is incredible, the characters are well thought out and likable, there's absoluetly no "jumping the shark" or "nuking the fridge" in this (A.K.A no ridiculous impossible stunts done in this film), and surprisingly none of the acting is bad. I mean for an action movie, I thought I would've found at least one character that I didn't like or care for, but nope. This is why I love J.J Abrams, because he knows how to make an original character that has no flaws or bullshit in any situation they're in. I can see why Spielberg attached himself to the project as the main producer. It's not just because it's sort of a tribute to all his sci-fi films of the late 1970s and early 1980s, but because he knew that Abrams was one of the most gifted original story tellers of today modern society in film. Abrams knew what films of today were missing and what he may have learned from watching Spileberg's old films. The fact that Abrams and Spielberg actually went up on stage at the MTV Movie Awards to promote this film, I can see why.
I guess the only problem that I have with this film is that it does use a few minor cliches that makes it seem like a somewhat average film. It isn't overall, but it does tend to focus a tad more on the invasion scenes than the kids themselves making their film or seeing what their situation is. It still does, but not as much as I would've wanted to.
Still overall the best film I've seen so far this year and I HIGHLY recommend that you see this film.
***1/2
Among the worst non-life threatening situations I've seen in any movie, it had to happen to Will Ferrell. How could such a funny guy go through all this drama by losing his job; having the locks changed on his house; all his possessions laying out on his front lawn and etc.? How does he handle it all? Finally, what do I think of this movie? Here's my review:
Well I can start this off by saying this is one of Will Ferrell's best roles he's played in awhile. Arguably better than his role of Harold Crick in Stranger Than Fiction. In this movie he plays Nick Halsey, an alcoholic who according to his wife, co-workers and a few next door neighbors doesn't deserve much in life because of his instability. His wife (who we never see in the movie) takes out her anger by leaving him, changing the locks and throwing all of Halsey's furniture and personal belongings out on his lawn. His boss at work fires him for not recovering from his alcohol problems. Luckily not everyone hates Halsey, knowing he befriends a woman named Samantha (Rebecca Hall) who just moved in from across the street; and Kenny: a maid's son from down the street who does nothing but rides his bike up and down the neighborhood streets.
As he makes acquaintances, he also has business to do as well. He is approached by his detective "friend", Frank Garcia (Michael Penã) who says that he can't get a key made for his new locks yet and must sell all the stuff on his lawn within five days. Why? I really have no clue, apparently that's the new law, or at least in this movie. Nick decides to have Kenny participate in helping him sell his stuff by paying him minimum wage and teaching him business tips on how to become a salesman. Samantha mostly just talks to Nick surprisingly wanting to know him more than finding out why all his belongings are out on his lawn. in my opinion great character development.
That's really how it begins, but I'll leave the middle and end up for you to watch. Still, what do I think of all three acts of the movie? Well I could see what writer/director Dan Rush was trying to do, and thankfully he pulled at least more than half of it off. From what I saw was that he was trying to make a film about events that can relate to real life more than what you would just see in a movie; which is good except I think he shoves it in your face a little too much. The movie is overall more depressing than it could've been. That doesn't mean I don't like the movie though. I'm just saying that too much depressing events happen all at once. I mean I can understand the beginning, but it sometimes goes WAY too far throughout the middle and end. I still really like the ending and think the moral to this film is done very well.
In an overall statement about this film in what I love and hate about it: I love the moral of the story, I love the actors, I love the supporting characters written in this film, and I love the direction. I think writer/director Dan Rush actually did a good job at putting together this film. What I hate about this film is mainly all the stuff that actually happens in the film. I'm not gonna name everything off, but I think the depressing events in the beginning were already enough for Nick Halsey to process that he screwed up and needs a change. As for the film itself, I would give it ***1/2, but as for my personal opinion about this film...
***
Note: I recommend watching the first movie before reading this review for this one.
First off, I wanna start off by saying that I DID like this movie and no it is not the EXACT same movie like every bashing critic said it was. Sure it does repeat some of the same elements like the last movie; but that's what I thought was funny about it because those are the elements the main characters try to avoid throughout the movie. They even mention it throughout the beginning of the movie multiple times.
So, the movie starts off with the same type of intro used in the first film. Just because I said that doesn't mean you've already come to think it's the same film as the last. Anyways, it flashes back to around a week and a half ago to show that our characters Phil, Stu and Doug are still hanging out and talk about Stu who's to be married. No it's not to Heather Graham, which is a shame because I really liked her character in the first one. Instead, Stu is marrying a Thai woman named Lauren who I will admit is a nice likable character; a lot better than Doug's wife, Tracy from the first one (who's also a bitch in this one as well). Stu then talks about going to Thailand for his wedding and wants to take Phil and Doug with him. But wait, what about Alan? Is the fourth member of the wolfpack coming along for the ride as well? Thankfully yes after Doug talks Stu into it, because how would this movie go without everyone's favorite fat Jesus? Not well, I predict.
So the gang and their wives fly out to Thailand to have a nice rehearsal dinner. The gang also befriends Lauren's little brother Teddy who decides to join the wolfpack for a nice campfire on the beach roasting marshmallows-- that is until the next day where Phil, Stu and Alan wake up in some crappy Bangkok hotel, Teddy ends up missing, and Doug is surprisingly fine back at the hotel. How did they end up in that situation? Well that's where the adventure starts for the audience.
I'm not gonna say anymore about the film except that for all the adventures they go on trying to retrace their steps and find Teddy isn't an EXACT replica of the first movie like everyone says it is. I don't know why, maybe the critics just wanted a different opening for the whole thing. The fact that it's called The Hangover Part II doesn't mean that it's gonna be a completely different movie than the first one. I mean I was expecting the same type of plot, were the critics? Well either way it's a fun movie. The way everything is answered is still clever and hilarious. There may be a few of the same jokes here and there, but they never really ruined or got in the way for me like they did for most others. There's really nothing wrong that this movie does. The only thing that I guess bothers me is that Todd Phillips went back to his more gruesome films like Road Trip and Old School by using too many grotesque images to where it got a tad more disgusting to look at than it being funny. I mean one or two is plenty, but I think Todd Phillips wanted to see how far he could take the R rating rather than put full focus on the movie itself.
Either way I still recommend the movie if you liked the first one and don't mind a few of the same jokes. It's still hilarious, but I do wish they could've had more Doug in the movie as well. That would've given the movie new jokes and a nice sub-plot.
***
My original intention was not to see this movie, but when I heard my friends were going to and got an invite to tag along with them; I said to myself "Why not."
So thirty minutes into the movie and I'm already laughing my head off saying to myself "This is 100 times funnier and more clever than the trailers for this made it look!". I'm serious, I should not trust movie trailers anymore and go with my gut instinct on what I personally think this movie could be. I will admit I'm not a huge Saturday Night Live fan, but I've always thought Kristen Wiig was clever at everything she did; and this movie shows the best of it.
The jokes are funny; the characters are well developed and likeable; pretty much everything that should be done in a film, this movie follows. The actors especially were top notch compared to most comedies you see now today. I know this may be a bit overreaching because the release date was kind of early but I could totally see Kristen Wiig getting a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress (Comedy/Musical) for this film. It's possible.
For the record, this is NOT a chick flick. After seeing this movie, it's FAR from it. This movie shows that women can be clever and funny in a crude way as well. Not every movie starring women is the next Sex and the City like film. I mean in my personal opinion, I found this to be funnier than The Hangover Part II and I laughed my ass off at that as well. If you had any thoughts about this being another chick flick, forget those and go see this movie ASAP. This is one you do not want to miss out on.
***1/2
For those that follow my blog and have been wondering why I haven't posted anything in almost exactly three months; well the best to say is a few things came up:
-The outlet to my hard drive broke so all my top 10 lists I had to redo, it's all good and well secured.
-I started college not too long ago and it took awhile to get everything prepared.
-I thought I'd start blogging sooner by just making more top 10 lists or reviews of movies from previous years, but since the summer was coming up and there were a lot of movies I wanted to see; I figured I should just take the whole month of June and early July just to see at least a few films that I'd post reviews of to get back on track and let you know what I think of of this year's summer films over all.
Films I've seen so far this Summer (in order of being posted):
-Bridesmaids
-The Hangover Part II
-Everything Must Go
-Super 8
-Bad Teacher
-Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Films that are out I have yet to see this Summer:
-The Tree of Life
-Midnight in Paris
-Larry Crowne
Films that aren't out I plan to see this Summer:
-Horrible Bosses
-Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
-Cowboys and Aliens
-Crazy, Stupid Love
-The Change-Up
-30 Minutes Or Less
Films that I plan to review when they come out on DVD:
-Pirates of the Caribbean
-Thor
-X-Men: First Class
-Kung Fu Panda 2
-Cars 2
-Green Lantern
I look forward to posting these reviews and am glad I'm back to blogging again. :)
