TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON REVIEW

Micheal Bay is an interesting type of director. While constantly panned as a director with nothing but flair and spectacle, his Transformers films is him in his prime form. Great looking cars, sexy-looking women, and killer explosions caused by large robots!...and maybe a few humans caught in the crossfire. With Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009), audiences and critics both were caught in a crossfire of borderline offensive cinema. Has Bay Learned from his mistakes with the last film? Has he brought back the fun in Transformers?

Bay and Crew have delivered a film that does away with all the flaws present in the last film and delivers what could be arguably his best film in the franchise to date. The film follows Sam (Shia LaBouf) as he bands with the military and the AutoBots to combat a horde of new robots that crash-landed on the Moon in the 60's. Sam and the rest of humanity must band together with the AutoBots to combat old and new unexpected foes for a fight for Earth. The plot reaches convoluted ends. This is the type of film if you don't think too hard about the plot and all it's holes, it's a ton of fun to be had at the cinema. The acting is typical for summer blockbuster. The story is a bit more thicker than the other films. While Dark of the Moon doesn't aspire to be more than a summer film, it does reach moments of darkness that elevate the stakes. Thereby, Bay and crew have delivered their more serious effort with Dark of the Moon. That said, the film is still a popcorn film at it's core. It's a ton of fun to be had. The action scenes are bigger in scale than the last two films combined and they are more better than ever! From the Freeway chase, to the final hour with the destruction of downtown Chicago, the action set-pieces raise the stakes higher for the franchise. That said, they are all loud, impressive, but dumb (and not in a bad way.) This film is a crowd pleaser to the Transformers fans, but something to be had for the mainstream.


The way to experience this film is definitely in IMAX 3D. The film was shot specifically for 3D and it's deserves to have a few more of your hard earned dollars to prove to studios that shooting in 3D from get-go is the way to go. This will help do away with all of the rage with Post-Conversions to milk more money. There are many sequences to be had in this film where Bay shows that what he is best at is visual composition and the 3D helps elevates that aspect to a level that must be seen to be believed. The Base Jumping scene alone steals the show in terms of the 3D aspect. The 3D impresses, but with IMAX 3D, the scenes are jaw dropping at best.

The flaws of the film steam from the script. The film suffers from a pacing problem. When it's fast, it's fast. When the film is slow, it's painfully slow. The film could have used a second go in the editing bay for time and pacing. The film also suffers from an uncertainty of tone. At points, really funny, then it gets really grim with it's last act. It's a nitpick at best. The story problems are there, but the spectacle of the picture saves whatever problems the story might have. It's an enjoyable piece of summer entertainment.


Is the film perfect? Of Course not, but it is a fun one that delivers a great summer blockbuster. With the 3D technology, and Bay's cinematic eye for action; He delivers a summer film with the best use of 3D since James Cameron's Avatar. If you see it, spend the extra dollars for IMAX 3D, totally worth it! Dark of the Moon is what it is; loud explosions, battle-bots, and destorying as much of the city as humanly possible. It's everything we want from a summer film, except it could have used a better narrative and more likable characters. It's everything we love and hate about Bay, but more love to be had than the last outing.

7 of 10

Movies You Missed: Timecrimes (2007)

While time-travel films have gotten a particularly negative rep over the past couple of years (The Butterfly Effect (2003) for it's disjointed time-travel logic; and Primer (2004) for it's non-audience friendly time-travel narrative), Spanish Director Nacho Vigalondo delivers a film that not only has fun with the genre, but reinvents it.

Without giving too much away, the story follows Hector (Karra Elejalde) as he is accidentally caught in a time machine, and travels back only an hour in time. Hector realizes that this initial accident has set in motion a series of events with potentially dangerous, paradoxical ramifications to the time-line. While the plot of the film may already seem like it's overreaching, the film's time-travel elements are complex, but easy enough to follow, so that you won't spend nearly as much time trying to keep up with the film as you think you might. Hector, along with the audience, tries to discover the mystery of the time-travel device's consequences. It becomes a puzzle that the audience can't help but want to keep trying to solve.


In keeping with the Spanish filmmaker spike of the past couple of years, Director Vigalondo's screenplay and direction on the film is above par. The story blends elements of great speculative science fiction with horror elements that work to tell a fascinating time-travel story. His story draws you in, holds the audience, and works to an ending that not only leaves the audience feeling rewarded for solving the mystery, but nails a foreboding ending that leaves one to question the implications of time-travel unlike most films of this genre. Truly a fantastic film. Highly recommended!

9 out of 10

TIMECRIMES is now available on DVD through Magnet Pictures
Click HERE to purchase the DVD via AMAZON.COM

Did Abrams capture Magic or Cliche' with SUPER 8?

J. J Abrams is one of Hollywood’s most talented filmmakers. After helping reboot the STAR TREK film series with the 2009 hit film, Abrams is given complete creative license to tell whatever story he desires. Here is where “Super 8” comes into the picture. Abrams played most of his cards pretty close to the chest by showing vague trailers and the mass marketing push of his and Steven Spielberg’s name on the posters. The question that stands now: “Did Abrams and crew deliver another winner?”

For the most part, yes. That said the film isn’t entirely devoid of flaws. The story is about a group of childhood friends making a small home movie in 1979. While filming, they happen upon a train accident that slowly unravels to a county-wide crisis that threatens the small town and the “something” that was being transported on that train. The story of the kids was a tried and true formula of kids happening upon something bigger than the both of them. The science fiction element of the picture is a location for a boy’s coming of age tale, and this is the mistake that Abrams plays with the audience. Anybody expecting a creature feature will be disappointed, but will be pleasantly surprised by the coming-of-age story. The kids are, front and center, the stars of the picture and why the film works very well. The story with the kids play on those nostalgic moments when you made home movies. The film is a love song to all film geeks about how much fun it was to make movies and get caught up in the dream of the movies.

What ultimately doesn’t work about the film is the few beats that it decides to take in act two. What story choices Abrams made in that middle section seem a bit out of place with the combination of the character’s choices and the whole military aspect to the film. It seems that Abrams was drawing a bit too much from his inspirations and the films he clearly is trying to emulate. It’s a blow that picks back up by the third act, and recovers from. This storypoint is my only complaint with the film.

This is clearly just Abrams’ picture. The problem with the picture comes with how it’s being pushed as a monster film to the mainstream. It’s not the film audiences are expecting, but it’s also not going to be the one they want to walk out with on their minds. That said, for what it is, it’s a great send-up of the 80’s film from yesteryear. The cast works amazingly well and the group is clearly what they film needed to center on more. Audiences will be left with a film that is that perfect middle ground where children will like it, but adults will be able to relate to it. This isn’t a science fiction film, this is a boy’s coming of age tale that happens to have a creature in it. Not a perfect film, but a deep and ambitious film at that.

7 of 10

GREEN LANTERN can't block Mediocore's light

With Comic Book films aspiring to be something more than just men in tights, i.e. 2008's "The Dark Knight", there does come the occasional film that is there for the dumb summer blockbuster slot, i.e. 2009's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", Green Lantern falls into the later category. While not aspiring to be a deep introspective comic film, It does turn into an ambitious and fun one at that.

The story revolves around Test Pilot,Hal Jordon (Ryan Reyonolds), being bequeathed a mystical ring that transforms him into an intergalactic police officer, a Green Lantern. While Jordon trains under the Lanterns, an unprecedented danger looms at home and across space that threatens the very existence of the Green Lantern Corps and the universe. The story is tired, but it's visually interesting to watch at the least. The Story seems a bit convoluted and overstuffed. Characters are given the rush job in terms of their arcs. Even Hal Jordon's motivating factor and the way he overcomes his character dilemma, if you can call it that, is very rushed and unclear. The story at best is serviceable, but forgettable.

The acting was all over the place. Reynold's Hal Jordon was a bit overstated as an "asshole", but Reynold's natural charm makes that hard believe as his character change in the first act is unbelievable to fully buy that. Peter Sarsgaard as Dr. Hammond is hallow as a villain. Just a bit generic and turns evil when the script calls for him to do so. Sarsgaard "Hams" it up so much that it becomes a comic book villain.

The film's effects were a lot better than expected, but still a bit hallow at points. The action scenes were good, but you'll forget them the moment you walk out the theater. The 3D post-conversion on the film was actually decent, but you won't miss out if you decide to see the film in traditional 2D. It seemed as if the story on Oa was were the Lantern movie was really at, they just didn't go into the story of what it was to be part of a galactic space police. All of the scenes on Earth all seemed to come a different film altogether.

With comic book films like "Thor" and the significantly better "X-Men: First Class" in theaters still, it's hard to recommend Green Lantern. It's not a bad film by any means. It's quite an ambitious film with a CGI world it only scratches the surface of. It's a Green Lantern movie for the summer, but it's not the comic book film we have come to expect. Comic fans will like the film, but it's likely we won't see a sequel. Marvel still owns the Comic Book film market. Green Lantern proves DC Comics still has some learning to do.

Duke Nukem Forever fails to "Hail to the King"

Duke Nukem is an icon in the video game culture. The latest title from GearBox Software and Tryptic games, "Duke Nukem Forever", is a title that has been on the backburner and switching developers for 12 years. The big question is: "Were those 12 years worth waiting for?" Sadly, the answer is no.

With the game being on the back burner for so long, Forever feels like a game that is 12 years too late on it's release. Everything from it's sense of humor, tone, gameplay, and it's protagonist’s one-liners; all come from the 90's, back when it was cool to be self referential. This game is nothing, but self referential. Instead of saying something entertaining with the meta-humor, it just revels in it to the point where it gets tedious. By this point in time, Duke Nukem feels like that cool older kid you idolized when you were a child, only to grow up 12 years later and just realize how kinda full of crap he was.

On the positive side: Duke Nukem is a funny game at points. The humor is something that works, but only in small doses, problem is: it’s constant! The humor works to an extent. It’s hard to not chuckle at Duke’s remarks to the “Halo” franchise as he tries to stand out on his own. The game is challenging, not just because of it’s gameplay mechanics, but because at points the game becomes a bit glitchy. An interesting aspect to the game is the Ego-boosting. Your health is regained by interacting with your environment. Writing on chalk boards, signing autographs, doing weight curls, literally; even throwing turds at enemies will gain health. It’s an interesting mechanic that definitely gives the humor and tone of the game a bit more of that manly badassness that we expect from Duke.

On the negative side, the game is a bit glitchy. The game chops up quite a bit during boss battles and when a lot of particle effects happen. The graphics are passable at best. There are far too many turret sequences in the game. The worst sequences in the game come from the driving sequences. The driving sequences just don’t work. The controls are painfully unresponsive. The player will find himself crashing more than driving in these horribly executed sequences.

The game does have it’s moments, but that doesn’t mean it’s a lot of fun to play through these moments. For a game that has a variety of weapons, ego boosting, and fighting aliens, it does feel a bit hallow and boring. The game could have used more time to rethink itself conceptually. In a world where “Halo”, “Call of Duty”, and even “Borderlands” have helped to redefine the first person shooter genre, “Duke Nukem Forever” awkwardly tries to place itself in the AAA league of games it used to be in all those years ago. Sure, the game will be fun to a select few and the hardcore Duke Nukem fans, but it’s fun moments are fleeting.

Sorry Duke, but you’re late to the party.

"Inception" Review

The past decade has been a drought for truly creative and speculative science-fiction. Hollywood has become over-blown with explosions and one action scene after another to move a plot with an interesting idea, and let go of what that story had that was so fascinating to begin with. Hollywood has forgotten that the most beloved and time-testing sci-fi stories don’t deal with action, but deal with fascinating and heartfelt ideas. Director Christopher Nolan has not forgotten this notion. Nolan works with his amazing cast to tell a story that not only amazes and thrills you, but renews faith in the fact that there are still amazing untapped ideas to be had in the magic that is cinema.
Dom Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, and his team work in extracting ideas and thoughts from the mind during the dream-state. Cobb and his team find themselving faced with performing the impossible. The task is to not steal an idea, but to plant one while facing the many dangers in not just the mind of the mark, but the dangers from Cobb’s own mind.
The cast for this film is top notch. Dicapro is fantastic as our hero Cobb. The supporting cast has a great chemistry and nobody is trying to steal the show. Everyone has potential to be your favorite character. Fantastic cast and performances all-around.
The screenplay to this film is ingenious. While the film’s structure is simple enough, Nolan delivers a film that leaves an audience with an infinite number of possibilities, but everyone will have their own interpretation. When a film can leave an audience with numerous thoughts on the ending, the film has truly achieved something new and inventive in its narrative. Without giving away spoilers, the film’s idea is intriguing in dealing with the notion of dreams and how they can grow to make or break a human mind. The screenplay while not emotionally driven, is driven by just the originality on how the film is presented. This science fiction film is structured as a heist film. A heist film that takes place in a world of the dream where all the characters are stationary and asleep.
In terms of where this film breaks new ground, apart from the screenplay, this film breaks new ground in the editing and the shooting of the picture. The picture was mostly shot with the notion of not using CGI as a quick answer to a technical problem. Everything in the movie feels real and feels as if everything is presented in a new and fresh way in terms of the world of the dream. The shooting of the picture puts all the amazing visuals, the elevator or the zero-gravity sequences, on-screen practicially to where you feel you haven’t seen a film like this before.
In the editing realm of the picture, Nolan breaks new ground in cross-cutting action spreading across three different worlds. Seeing how an action in one dream world interacts with the other worlds is cut in a way that is thrilling, intense, and has you gripping to your chair. By the end of the picture, you feel as if you had just been put through an intellectual ringer. While the film maybe emotionally-lacking at points for most of the characters, Nolan gives you a fantastic action film that is jam-packed with ideas, like most long lived speculative science-fiction.
In essence, Nolan gives us a dream world that must be seen to be experienced. You have not seen a film like this before. Everything in the film is presented in a fresh new and thrilling way. Nolan has delivered perhaps his most personal and well-crafted film with “Inception.” Everyone will have a different interpetation of the ending as it floors you and leaves you with a question. Nolan’s film feels like it is more interested in the journey and the idea, rather than the ending, and that’s what has sorely been lacking in storytelling lately. This is a speculative science-fiction that is akin to the minds of Kurt Vonnegut or Phillip K. Dick. This is the best and most original science fiction epic since 1999s groundbreaking "The Matrix." Nolan has delivered a masterwork that reminds the audience, as Emes (Tom Hardy) says in the picture, “You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.”

"127 Hours" Review

“I can do everything on my own.” says Aaron Ralston, played brilliantly by James Franco. The underlying reality behind this moving story is that despite this man being a perfect human specimen, he is undone by his selfishness and pays the ultimate price for his forced solitude in getting into the situation that pins him. Ralston’s The combined directorial efforts of Danny Boyle and the above-par acting talent of James Franco, both guaranteed to draw attention come Oscar time, work together to craft an emotionally driven film that inspires and leaves you with a renewed love for life and the belief that nothing is stronger than the human will to overcome any and all obstacles.
The film’s story the real-life events following a selfish and isolated man, Aaron Ralston, who on a canyon-land hike whose arm gets trapped in a canyon by a huge bolder and the film tells his struggle to stay alive for 127 Hours in a canyon with little to no resources. The film works mostly as a one-man show by Franco. Franco delivers the performance of his career as he turns a fairly unlikable character and adds layers of depth to his character. As the audience spends more time with Ralston, Franco gives the character enough empathy with each moment that passes, that by the end the films works up to an emotional crescendo that floors you. Franco’s performance is fantastic as he gives you a portrait of a person who is breaking down the longer he is trapped in that canyon, but in his breakdowns he realizes what he faults are as a human being. Watching these epiphanies unfold on-screen charges up the audience’s connection to Raltson to an extent that when that ending finally does come, the audience, along with Ralston, are feeling that intense and agonizing pain. Franco’s performance is emotionally connected and deep in all the right ways that it’s tough to not think about his portrayal as fantastic in looking back at the film.
The other star of this film is Boyle. Boyle’s job is an impossibly difficult one in that he is narratively confined telling a story about a man stuck in a small space of a canyon. Boyle has to pull every trick he knows as a director to make this film compelling and exhilarating. The editing style is amazing as Boyle figures out a way to convey the wants, needs, and the suffering a character. Never has one wanted to grab a drink more than when walking out of this film. An amazing shot comes in the film when Franco’s character has been stuck for a prolonged amount of time only to realize he has a bottle of unopened Gatorade lying and condensating with beads of water in his car. The shot that follows gets across that thirsty feeling that you just want that bottle more than Franco does, and you aren’t even stuck in the canyon. Boyle does a fantastic job with the direction and he plays to the strengths to the challenges the film throws at him.
Overall, Boyle and Franco put together a film that at best renews your faith in others and what life has to offer. The film presents the notion that a life of solitude is although efficient, it’s not a human way to live your life to the fullest. We all need someone in our lives. Be it all those relationships, friendships, and family, we are all connected and we deserve more than living the empty life that Ralston used to live before the ordeal. “This rock has been following me my whole life.” says Ralston as he comes to realize what his life as amounted to before...well you already know the ending.