Orphan (2009)

D: Jaume Collet-Serra
W: David Johnson, Alex Mace
C: Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, Isabelle Fuhrman, CCH Pounder, Jimmy Bennett, Aryana Engineer, etc.

I'm going to try and be as calm and collected as I can while writing this, but it's not going to be easy. This is more of a rant than a review to be honest. Also, the following is loaded with spoilers, so you have been warned.

Orphan starts out as being hilarious, which is something a horror film isn't normally supposed to induce in it's viewers, unless of course it's done deliberately. Quickly it works it's way into bad territory though and it goes all the way. Just to point out, I have a general loathing towards little girls with black hair that are up to no good. Most of the horror films from the last, I don't know, 5 years, have had such a character as the villain. Whether she's a ghost, Asian, adopted or whatever, there's almost a fixation about portraying black-haired little girls as some manifestation of evil. I guess that all started with Children of the Corn and then at one point the Asians took over. And that stuff has crossed over to other mediums as well. I mean, at first you do give her the benefit of the doubt, but if you've seen the trailer or have acquainted yourself with the plot summary (while looking at the poster is enough), you know that this is Satan's daughter who will end up killing half of the main cast. What's the incentive then, to see this film, if you already know that ? There's not an ounce of originality in it. Well, in my case it was curiosity, cos I heard that they had featured Estonia in the plot somehow, which is where I'm from. It's a country. Remembering the previous times Hollywood, although this particular movie is more of a Canadian production, had mentioned Estonia in their TV shows and films, I expected it to be bad, but not this bad.

Dear people of North America, we are not cavemen (Encino Man), bald midgets (The Simpsons) or psychotic bitches with a Growth Hormone Deficiency, and we're especially not some odd creatures from the Eastern Bloc. I admit, it was cute at first (with the first two examples), but this film takes it into a whole other level. Not only is Orphan an insult to your intelligence, to me personally, it's an insult, period. Now, I know most of the screenwriters who dwell in this sort of cinema (mainstream Hollywood junk) are talentless, dollar worshipping cunts, but what exactly have we done to deserve this sort of attention ? I mean, it's not like we're Germany, who will probably never get rid of the PR stain that is Adolf Hitler. Why is Finland shown in such favoring light, for example ? Finland is always mentioned in a cool way, never in a negative context. We can't really help our history and we don't have something like Nokia, but we're good people, so fuck you Hollywood and all you douchebags who can't write shit to save your life. I wouldn't be pissed if this were a good movie, but it's not. It's the same shit I've seen over and over again, just with a new coat of paint.

The premise is there, but it's sloppy and I'm being generous here. The first 40 minutes are bearable, but the last 2/3rd's are so absurd in it's presentation, which is where the script reveals it's true face. The character of Esther loses it's mystique in a matter of seconds, when she turns on her Niko Bellic accent and later beats a nun to death with a hammer. The rest of the family behaves in such ridiculous ways it makes you feel they almost deserve to be killed. The character of Max (the sister) is written as a mute, which is a fucking cop-out, plain and simple. Esther holds the kids emotionally hostage, manipulating where needed, and wants the wife out of the picture, just so she can get in the husband's pants. Max is too young to be a considerable threat, but her brother on the other hand is important enough to end up almost getting burned to death, while Esther enjoys the sight with her sadistic little smile. Whatever happened to that crowbar though ? An unimportant detail apparently. Never mind the plot holes, if this film treats me like I'm stupid, then I'm glad the husband died, he was an idiot. And his son is a pussy, who unfortunately lived. The characters are just not believable enough and while the family has a lot of emotional baggage from their past, you'd expect a family gone through hardship to have a stronger bond and more trust for each other, not bail on you as soon as an opportunity presents itself.

I'm not a parent, nor am I a psychiatrist, but adopting is not like getting a dog alright, especially if that dog is 9 years old, articulate, artistic and a walking fashion statement. I just can't feel sympathy for these people anymore, if the setup is always the same. I'd like a believable horror film for a change, not something loaded with cliches and with a predictable story. It makes no difference if the villain ends up being The Thing, Satan or a 33-year-old little girl, if I can't enjoy the ride. That new coat of paint is useless if it's see-through, revealing the shit stained wallpaper underneath. How do they expect us to feel genuine fear or suspense while watching these films ? The reason I don't care about these victims, most of the time, is because they're either too gullible, naive, stupid or the casting sucks. In this case, it's the script and the director, cos Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard are both good enough actors. I'm disappointed in them for taking this gig and also in Leonardo DiCaprio who was one of the producers for this piece of shit. Why would you associate yourself with something that's completely void of any artistic integrity ? I would expect this from up-and-coming young actors, not from someone who's been in the business for awhile. Joel Silver being one of the producers doesn't surprise me, but it pains me seeing good actors wasting their time, paycheck or no paycheck. Studio people, take your heads out of your asses and realize that people hate shitty horror movies more than anything. When it comes to thrillers, sci-fi or horror, I have higher expectations, so stuff like this simply doesn't cut it anymore. You're wasting everyone's time and money, so the next time you're handed a script like this, just throw it in the trash, slap the fucker and move on. Giving this stuff a green light should be considered a cardinal sin. We've seen it, so save yourself the trouble.

I might be a bit too harsh here, but I'm just sick to death of these films. There are a few good moments here and there, it holds some promise at the beginning, but it quickly turns from mediocre to worse. And, all things aside, Isabelle Fuhrman does a good job playing Esther, for her age. Most of all though, I'm deeply disappointed seeing one Estonian (of the total two) speaking my native language in this horrible fucking film, it literally feels like treason. I hope they're from Canada, for their sake. Someone needs to rectify this fast, until then I'm boycotting North American horror movies, unless they're praised almost unanimously (both by critics and non-critics alike). And no, Drag Me To Hell is not my idea of a good time. Grow the fuck up already, ditch the cheap scares, the cliches and for the love of god, come up with something original or have an original take on something that's been done before, when you try to tackle this particular genre. No one's forcing me to watch these, but I'd rather see people not wasting their time making horror films if they can't handle it. I'd be content watching The Shining, The Thing and Alien reruns until the day I die.

4/10

Zombieland (2009)

D: Ruben Fleischer
W: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick
C: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin, Amber Heard, etc.

There's always a market for these sort of films and surprisingly enough, there haven't been that many humorous zombie films, at least not that many good ones. You can consider Zombieland the answer to Edgar Wright's and Simon Pegg's "Shaun of the Dead", although it doesn't try to mimic or steal from it. Actually there's not many parallels you can draw between the two, aside from both being comedies set in a zombie apocalypse. But obviously people will compare them nonetheless. Zombieland is good old fashion fun, American-style. The idea isn't original, but it does enough to set itself apart from what we've seen before. Whether those are zombie films with a humorous feel to them or straightforward comedies built around that theme. Either way, you can't really take a zombie/infected movie seriously, because of the theme alone. It becomes a problem when the movie takes itself seriously, which gave us the lovely Resident Evil franchise, helmed by a talentless waste filling out a director's chair. Paul W.S.T.D. Anderson isn't obviously the only one to fail at his job, when it comes to this particular theme. There have been successful projects, thankfully, one of them being 28 Days Later (although featuring infected, instead of zombies).

What surprised me was Zombieland's approach to this theme. To be honest, I wasn't expecting much, looking at the writers/director, but I was definitely sold on the trailer, as I'm sure most people were. Zombieland isn't a parody per se, but it does take a stab at general horror movie cliches in a very inventive kind of way. These are presented as rules that the main character has written down for himself and he isn't hesitant in sharing them through narration and dialogue. The visual queues have an aesthetic value to them, which are part of the credits theme (I'll get to that later) or possibly included to help out our generally attention-impaired generation. This brings me to the term "entertainment". How much you will enjoy this film depends on what you consider to be entertaining. If it's the desire to see zombies getting killed in many delightful ways accompanied by a slick soundtrack, slow-motion sequences and a barrel of laughs, you're certainly in luck. If it's story and character development, not so much. The latter one is pretty nonexistent, but I wasn't bothered by that very much, since that's not what I expected from Zombieland in the first place. In fact, that's the last thing I expect from a movie like this, but then again I don't want it to come off as a mindless shooting gallery either. Obviously you have to have an outline of a story and some character background, progression for it to constitute as a movie.

Zombieland's strongest point is it's presentation, which is a surprisingly polished and visually detailed package. You can definitely notice the production value here, although having a rather low budget by Hollywood standards ($23,600,000). The writing, as I said I didn't have much hope for with this particular team, is also surprisingly well done when it comes to the actual jokes and situational comedy. This is a dream project for anyone who loves situational comedy, it's literally a playground for your imagination. The director has managed to realize these moments surprisingly well, this being Ruben Fleischer's first feature film. The audience draws almost sick pleasure from seeing these poor souls being offed in various ways. In fact, a man in his 50s sitting on my right almost exclusively laughed at those parts. It's a chance to live out some of our fantasies, having a stress release kind of effect. To be fair to him, the writing is aimed more at a younger (American) crowd, although there are some older pop culture references here and there. The most notable being Ghostbusters, which was the most satisfying part in the entire film. Without a doubt, the majority of the audience will appreciate those little things about Zombieland. I haven't played Dead Rising, but this is more or less what I imagine the adaptation would've turned out like. Don't watch it with an overly critical mindset, in other words, expecting something that wasn't intended to be there in the first place.

No reason to shut off your brain either, which is also why I tend to keep away from popcorn and soda when watching a movie in the cinema, because it definitely has it's flaws. I usually just buy a Mentos, cos there's no need to take a piss and you maintain a certain level of awareness. Like I said earlier, the story and character development are pretty nonexistent. For example, this can be seen by the two gals ditching the guys not once, but twice. This is story repetition, plain and simple, makes it easier to stretch it out. I'd forgive this if it weren't for the girls and their asinine move of going to an amusement park, lighting the place up with anything still working, thus attracting every zombie in the vicinity. Yes, an amusement park is an excellent setting for a zombie shootout, but there are other ways of reaching that setting. The silliness of the whole situation was topped off by the girls driving their car into a lake and then strapping into the worst possible ride in the whole fucking park. The inconsistency lies within them being presented as clever beforehand, when they stole the first ride and pulled a con at a gas station. Taking that into account, why would these two clever girls go and do some stupid shit like that ? The film offers background information on all 4 main characters, being superficial at that, but it serves it's purpose. Zombieland is all about killing zombies and having a laugh. That's what you should expect from it and that's it.

What I didn't expect though, was one of the most inventive opening credits I've seen in years. This was a slow-motion sequence accompanied by Metallica's "For Whom The Bell Tolls", while the credits were included into the action. This also tops Old School off the throne as the best use of a Metallica song in a feature film. You can find the opening sequence on Youtube, if you need to refresh your memory. If you haven't seen the film, then don't ruin it for yourself, cos this is meant for the big screen. I love when people make use of the opening and/or end credits, some of the examples being David Fincher's "Panic Room" or "Fight Club", the end credits of "Rachel Getting Married" or the opening of the "Dawn of the Dead" remake. I love it when people use that restricted time to offer something cool or informative. It's smart to take advantage of every minute you can get, so why waste something you have to do anyway ?! Another thing that took me by surprise, was the Ghostbusters portion, but I won't go into that, otherwise I'll spoil it. The use of licensed music is pretty darn good all around. Also a couple of classical pieces can be found here and there, which are perfect for conveying mayhem or sadistic fun. Mozart and Strauss would be proud, no doubt. Now if only people used Prokofiev's "Romeo and Juliet, Op. 64, Montagues and Capulets" a little more. The cast is excellent, with the exception of Jesse Eisenberg, who plays the same fucking guy no matter what movie he's in. Not saying it doesn't fit in here, but I'm getting slightly sick of his acting to be honest. He's like the young less neurotic version of Woody Allen, although I love Woody Allen. The narration starts too suddenly at the beginning of the film, I usually prefer to settle into a film before someone throws his monologue at me, especially in a comedy, where narration is risky, but this is purely nitpicking on my part. In a nutshell, Zombieland is a lot of fun, a roller coaster ride with guns. A solid comedy, with a slim story, entertainment in the mainstream sense of the word. Don't expect to be scared or moved in any meaningful way though, unless you're a 12-year-old little girl.

7.5/10

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

D: Michael Bay
W: Ehren Kruger, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman
C: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Peter Cullen, Hugo Weaving, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Ramón Rodríguez, John Turturro, Kevin Dunn, Julie White, etc.

I didn't plan on seeing this in the cinemas at first, for a multitude of reasons, but in a spur of the moment my friend and I decided to go and see something. Transformers 2 was simply the first movie that was starting when we arrived at the multiplex. The only reason you should (or shouldn't) pay $10 to see this film, is to experience the visual effects and the work by the sound department. Other than that, I wouldn't recommend it.

It's a sick movie and certainly not in a positive kind of way. The only explanation I have, for everything that Transformers 2 does wrong, is if this was made specifically for 12-year-olds (just a random number, don't take it personally). And no disrespect for every 12-year-old across the world, cos not all of them have low standards. What I liked about the first one, was the fact that it didn't go overboard. You can easily notice the flaws in both films, but the first Transformers keeps the stupid shit relatively under control. Transformers is a solid popcorn movie with it's pros and cons, but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is as ridiculous as sequels can get. The Hollywood mentality towards sequels is that it has to offer more, but that doesn't mean you should enhance everything that was wrong about the first film. Take the good and work on that. Michael Bay doesn't get it, unfortunately. You just give him $200 million dollars and let him go crazy. And as long as people don't care, they just keep on making movies this way. Michael Bay had a special screening just for Steven Spielberg and the master approved the cut. Now that I've seen the film, I can see two possibilities: Steven Spielberg is either too nice to speak the truth or he's completely lost his mind.

The length is the biggest issue here basically. It leaves too much room for failure. A popcorn movie with not much story to keep it afloat is not supposed to be 2 and a half hours long. I don't care if you're Steven Spielberg, if I were the producer for this, there's no way in hell I would've approved the theatrical cut. There's a skeleton of a story here, a default tutorial script copy pasted from some random screenwriting software. You and me can write this script, if we felt like it. On top of that it's a complete mess and it drags a lot. The first film was only a bit shorter, but it didn't drag as decidedly, it was more fluent and simple. Transformers was an accomplishment of sorts, turning a line of toys into a successful popcorn film, just like Pirates of the Caribbean was with it's theme park ride. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was made just for the sake of doing a sequel and cashing in with the help of people who don't put much thought into deciding what they're going to see in the cinema. Revenge of the Fallen leaves a bad taste in my mouth, just like Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and Spider-Man 3. Coincidentally, or not, both of which will be getting another sequel of their own in the upcoming years.

The story connection between the two films is weak at best and this where the plot holes begin. And they never stop. I'm not going to list them here separately, but I'm sure I'll address a few along the way. The amount of plot holes is amazing and not something you can ignore here, even if you really tried. Why would they save a piece of the AllSpark ? To make a sequel. Why would a shard of the AllSpark be in Sam Witwicky's clothes ? To have that skeleton of a story. How was the government able to cover up everything that happened during the first film and that be reduced to an mere alien conspiracy in the sequel ? Why are robots that make up the Devastator also seen fighting the Army, at the same time ? Why would the robots need more personality or human-like characteristics than what we saw in the first film ? My memory is a little hazy about the first Transformers, but what is the point of the robots having teeth ? Why do they need accents ? I'm sure I'm forgetting something else, but there were numerous things that gave both Decepticons and Autobots more human-like characteristics. They are robots for fuck's sake. They come from a place far away. The only thing I would've expected more was the Decepticon language we heard a little during the first film. That gives them character, that's what makes them who they are. Why just strip them of their culture and turn them into some generic incarnation of evil. Default, kiddy-like evil. I can enjoy a movie once and awhile where I can turn my brain off and just bask in the eye candy, but this is way below my standards of consuming mindless fun. I mean the story of Beverly Hills Chihuahua was more compelling than this. Switching your brain off simply doesn't suffice here. There's an overabundance of stupidity and plot holes that it basically robs you of the chance to be immersed in any meaningful way. Don't be fooled by the good parts: the visuals, the great sound work or Megan Fox's sex appeal. This is a poor movie, plain and simple. The effects are there to distract you from a shitty, nonexistent storyline filled with ridiculous plot holes.

On a good note, I'd like to address the positive stuff for a change. I never get tired of seeing the Autobots or Decepticons transform, it's amazing to behold. The visual effects and the amount of force they carry, are astounding, as they were in the first film. This is complemented by the great work of the sound department. Both of these are worthy of an Oscar nomination. If not for the sound (which is not as impressive as in Star Trek), then certainly for the visuals. As for the actors, Shia LaBeouf is hard not to like and Megan Fox, once again, is very easy to look at. Shia as Sam Witwicky is easy to relate to and one of the few characters that come off as relatively sincere in this film. Fox's character, while being sexy, is a complete waste of potential though. This film would've been more enjoyable if the relationship between the two wasn't so bland and uninteresting. For a woman who isn't afraid to get her hands dirty, she clearly lacks character and Sam lacks balls when it comes to her relationship with Mikaela. Considering what both characters have been through, you'd imagine their relationship would be more interesting than that. Instead, the main dynamic here is Sam's friendship with Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, for better or worse. One thing I'm glad about is that Bumblebee was still unable to speak, even though he was able at the end of Transformers, which also contributed to one of the few sincere un-cheesy moments of the first film.

As for the humor, there are a couple of moments where I laughed out loud, but the majority of it was in poor taste. And that's putting it mildly. In short, the humor is aimed at children. This is presented in so many idiotic ways, that it must be some kind of a record. Though a record far behind the amount of plot holes. One moment I found genuinely funny, was when Agent Simmons and Leo Spitz were twitching on the lavatory floor. The second one was when Sam's mother got baked. There was one girl in the audience, however, that found everything to be funny. Even the slightest of things made her laugh out loud. My friend said afterward that she was probably stoned, but she was accompanied by 3 friends and they were all normal as far as I'm concerned. I doubt it though and that's what scares me. That girl had amazingly low standards for humor. You wouldn't believe the things she laughed at. I can't laugh at something when it's not funny, whether I'm sober, drunk or high. The humor in Revenge of the Fallen is childish, lowbrow and even disrespectful at parts. This is coming from a man who likes his share of Leslie Nielsen movies and stand-up comedy heavy on stereotypes. I have a very wide taste for humor, but this was too much for me. I don't need to see Turturro's character in thongs, giant robot testicles or robots farting. I also don't appreciate stereotypical humor, which implies that black people can't read. This film is mostly aimed at youngsters (remember, based on children's toy line), so it blows my mind that these 2 stereotypical characters were even in the film. Robots don't require any sort of human-like characteristics, cos they're not from Earth. And I'm sorry, but the excuse of them being able to scan and mimic the voices heard on the internet, radio or TV, simply doesn't apply here. They speak like humans (between each other), because people in English speaking nations are usually too lazy to read subtitles.

I've grown used to Michael Bay's cheesy approach to filmmaking and I'm forever grateful to him for making a perfect chick flick for guys, Armageddon. Let me remind you that he also directed The Rock, which is a load of fun to watch. With that said, the guy has not written any of his movies and when you think about that, he's either been incredibly lucky or unfortunate. He's definitely had a better career than Uwe Boll, that's for sure. Bay has also been fortunate enough to work with such producers as Jerry Bruckheimer and Steven Spielberg. The man is clearly living the American Dream, meaning that you don't necessarily need talent to succeed in Hollywood. Coming back to his cheesy approach to filmmaking, Revenge of the Fallen tops everything he's ever done. Michael Bay is the uncrowned Master of Cheese and this film blew my cheese-o-meter. The first Transformers was relatively conservative compared to this monstrosity. It's just one of the many things that are wrong with this film, that's all I have to say about that. You need strong characters and strong character interaction, otherwise you're just shooting yourself in the foot. I can't imagine how many Hollywood films I've seen that are completely ruined by it's ending alone. Unfortunately, the ending is the least of it's worries.

There's this back-story, that is supposed to give the characters some weight. The first film had a nice balance and a good balance is always hard to achieve, no matter what film you are doing. Editing, what stays and what is cut, is usually half the battle, unless your footage sucks of course. In Revenge of the Fallen, they bring on the leader of the Fallen. Such powerful names are used as Matrix of Leadership, Sun Harvester, AllSpark, Dynasty of Primes, etc. Why not work on that and flesh out a strong back-story to give the characters some weight ? The only character that has any weight to him is Optimus Prime, but even he gets stabbed with plot holes. And when you're going for a cool back-story and something cheesy, then why would you undermine that with racist, childish and tasteless humor ? These things don't go together. I just don't understand the reasoning behind that. I mean the writers team wasn't a bunch of beginners writing their first script like Beau Thorne with Max Payne. It's just a shame when you have potential for something better, even though this movie shouldn't exist in the first place, because any normal human being would've destroyed all remains of the AllSpark, you can still make a better film with those specific writers and director. When you have $200 million dollars at your disposal, I guess people just don't seem to bother anymore. It blows my mind, when film studios complain because of piracy or the risk factor in taking on certain projects and so forth, they still keep throwing money around for these ridiculous films and they succeed because they market the shit out of them. Revenge of the Fallen took $150-175 million to market and distribute worldwide. An entertaining blockbuster can also be a good movie. Casino Royale, The Dark Knight and Star Trek immediately come to mind. These are three films with a nice balance between story and action. It can be done, but Michael Bay is either not capable or uneager to bother. This is not a good film, not by any stretch of the imagination. The Island and even Pearl Harbor are better than this.

5/10