Avatar (2009)

D: James Cameron
W: James Cameron
C: Sam Worthington, Zoë Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel Moore, etc.

James Cameron returns to sci-fi after 18 years, a script brought to life that was penned 14 years ago, a film with an estimated budget of $280 million. The man who brought us the record holder Titanic 12 years ago (set to have a 3D relaunch in 2011), has broken his documentary combo of three films and returns as a technical innovator. Lot of big numbers, big names and therefore, massive expectations. 3D is the new craze, perhaps bringing us to a new era of cinema, although it's too early to tell if 3D is here to stay and weed out 2D films entirely. One thing's for sure, Cameron proves there's potential here and money to be made. Without a doubt, 3D remakes will be the new cash cow for movie studios, a contingency plan of sorts.

The general consensus has been that Avatar has got a weak story and sloppy dialogue. These fears came true to a degree, but Avatar is more about James Cameron playing it safe inside a really expensive tech demo. I don't refer to it as a tech demo in a derogatory way, definitely not, but this is what it essentially is. This is proof that 3D has got massive potential, not limited to cutesy animations, concert movies and documentaries. The list of live-action full 3D movies is a very short one: The Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Night of the Living Dead, The Adventures of Sharkboy & Lavagirl and Spy Kids 3D: Game Over (should be all). Avatar steps boldly into the uncanny valley, but not having an eerie effect as the last three films by Robert Zemeckis. Simply because, in this case, we aren't dealing with humans. The Na'vi are humanoid, but their slender, blue bodies look almost regal and certainly not off-putting. Cameron has created a believable world and showing impressive detail at that, all interwoven into a disappointingly straightforward storyline. The biggest problem Avatar has, from a story aspect, is that there's nothing here that will take you by surprise.

This being my very first 3D cinema experience, putting on glasses to watch a film, is weird to say the least. The glasses were surprisingly light, not weighing down on my nose to annoy me, but the immersion was easy to break when I had to adjust my glasses, quite a few times actually. I'm sure they have better glasses out there though. Whether it's a cost or a comfort issue, seeing the frames of the glasses is something they ought to avoid in future designs as well. After seeing Enter The Void by Gaspar Noé in the cinema (where it's meant to be viewed), which is more or less the same in length, the visuals actually gave me a headache. Hearing people getting headaches from watching Avatar in 3D wasn't reassuring, but those fears didn't come true, thankfully. Both films are a trip like no other, the latter one is just easier on the eyes, provided you keep your focus, literally. It'll take some time getting used to yellow subtitles dragging along with the focus though. Overall, 3D in Avatar pulls you in and after awhile you already take it for granted. If you haven't seen it yet, 3D is the only way to go.

After the initial amazement at the visuals had passed, the viewers expedition and discovery of Pandora concluded, the story almost came to a complete halt. Sloppy dialogue was an indication that this boat would run out of steam at one point and the only way it could pick up again, was through a glorious war sequence supported by an epic score and short-lived dramatic scenes. The story takes it's natural, predictable, logical and straight path to it's conclusion. A lot was riding on this, so it's not surprising that Cameron plays it more on the safe side. Perhaps Battle Angel is where he'll spread his wings a little more. How much the script changed during those 14 years, I have no idea, but what's left is a straightforward story with predictable plot twists. On the other hand, lot of work went into creating the Na'vi culture. The beautiful, not too outlandish language, the design of all creatures on Pandora, the social undertone and subtle political message that never felt in your face or forced. It felt superficial, for sure, with such simple presentation, but overall I think it's commendable what Cameron has done here. With that said, when it comes to more satisfying sci-fi in 2009, both District 9 and Moon stand ahead of Avatar, when it comes to the message.

I can not help and make comparisons to both The Emerald Forest and Dances With Wolves. It's more or less the same plot, with themes of imperialism and biodiversity. All is connected and those not in tune with nature, will work against it. The charm and essence of the entire Na'vi race is unfortunately carried mostly by Neytiri's character. Zoë Saldaña gives the best performance from the lot and pretty much saves the whole movie from any further embarrassments. Sam Worthington is at close second and it's good to hear that Worthington has improved his American English, with no signs of his Australian accent left, unlike in Terminator Salvation. It's a shame that most of these characters are unable to get under your skin and stay in your thoughts long after you're done with the film. Neytiri and Jake Sully are the only ones worth mentioning, but I can't help feeling that Sam Worthington is holding himself back or not able to push his character more than what the script "allows". There's more to this Aussie.

The visual appeal of Avatar is obviously the main attraction here, that goes without saying, but I didn't expect it to look and feel that good. The depth of field, the CGI and the amount of detail that is presented here is a feat unmatched by anyone. Avatar will be taking home most of the technical Oscars coming March 2010. Even though the Na'vi look CGI, the scene where Jake jumps off the cliff, into the waterfall and followed by the most realistic looking wet clothes I've ever had the privilege to see in CGI, I was sold from that point forward. It's not on the same level throughout the entire film, but a few moments like that really make up for it. In my case, the appeal lies more in their design than anywhere else. The 3D effect is obviously a massive bonus, taking the gorgeous visuals to mesmerizing lengths.

James Horner's score for Avatar really shines in some parts, but most of it is either too subtle to notice or too cheesy, epic to enjoy. Once again, this is where Avatar doesn't take necessary risks in order to stand out and stay with you after it's over. When it comes to casting, Sigourney Weaver (very) slowly grows on you as Dr. Grace Augustine, but she never really arrives, so to speak. Stephen Lang as Colonel Miles Quaritch is pretty badass overall, for his appearance alone, but once again, what comes out of the mouth of a character (as with most of them), is not as impressive. Most of the cast underperforms due to the script, with Zoë Saldaña managing to carry most of the drama on her own, with the assistance of Sam Worthington of course. No matter how well it does financially, this was a venture worth pursuing. Avatar, along with Star Trek, District 9 and Moon, is one of the more successful attempts at sci-fi this year, even though all four have their pros and cons. Without a shadow of a doubt, Cameron's return to sci-fi has been a glorious one, but with more emphasis on the aesthetic value and technical achievements than storytelling.

8/10

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

Terminator Salvation (2009)

D: Joseph McGinty Nichol
C: Sam Worthington, Christian Bale, Moon Bloodgood, Anton Yelchin, Bryce Dallas Howard, Helena Bonham Carter, Common, Jadagrace, etc.

I was planning on finishing a review for Woodstock (1970) before this, but I hit a wall with that one, so here's a review for the latest Terminator film instead. Before you read any further, keep in mind that I'm a big fan of the franchise, despite not having no interest in The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Terminator Salvation gets off to a slow start. You never really make a connection to John Connor in this film, which is not good since he's the main character. The one who fills in the emotional gaps is the character of Marcus Wright and the familiar themes he brings with him. Sam Worthington doesn't necessarily steal the show here, but he definitely stands out and is way ahead of Christian Bale. His character trades places with the good Terminator played by Arnold in the previous two movies. The Austrian body builder (Roland Kickinger) used for this movie, in attempt to give the fan a few measly seconds of nostalgia, doesn't do much difference in the end. I'm sure the CGI sequence was a treat to many, but it felt more of an easter egg than something meaningful. Terminator Salvation tries really hard to make a significant connection to the previous films, when it actually shouldn't, since the game plan has changed. Like with Rise of the Machines, Salvation is helmed by a mediocre director who's only accomplishment is We Are Marshall, as far as I'm concerned. Surprisingly the guys who penned the first draft of the script of Salvation, are back from Rise of the Machines. This move was not a good idea, since T3 also failed to make any meaningful connection to Cameron's Terminator movies and the only thing it really had going for it was obviously Arnold himself. After John Brancato and Michael Ferris wrote the first draft, it went through extensive rewrites by Paul Haggis, Shawn Ryan, Jonathan Nolan and Anthony E. Zuiker. This made me somewhat hopeful, but the groundwork had done it's dirty deed. Despite receiving full credit, the Brancato/Ferris script should've been scrapped completely and rewritten by people who wouldn't further taint the Cameron legacy. This is what gives the new trilogy a real bad taste of milking the cow, since the studio and producers are not committed to finding the right people to handle this properly. In the end this is about money, despite the desperate attempt to give fans something in terms of nostalgia. Terminator Salvation is a stand-alone film and the same goes for any future Terminator installments. There are two key components missing here: James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Without these two, your only hope is for a spin-off or a cash-in sequel in the vein of Spider-Man 3 or Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Thankfully, Terminator Salvation isn't a complete mess like the aforementioned, but it doesn't actually have a lot going for it either. Neither is it a successful reboot like Casino Royale, Batman Begins or the recent Star Trek, so it falls somewhere in the middle.

The movie picks up at the gas station scene and keeps a pretty good pace after that. There's no question about what is emphasized in this film, which are the visual effects of course. The thing that puts me off though, is the color palette. It's completely unimaginative, sort of a poor man's post-apocalyptic image of the future. The dominant colors are brown, black or gray, whether it's daytime or nighttime. I thought the sort of sterile blue look of Judgement Day was fucking gorgeous and the daytime scenes were in focus, not overdone like most action movies that are heavy on CGI. This is the other reason I'm not too fond of advancements in technology, because the film gets manipulated in so many ways that there isn't much real stuff left in there. As another example, I'm more likelier to be frightened by a tangible prosthetic creature than something created with CGI, unless the sound department and the effects really excel in their work. What I'm saying is that the film looks uninteresting. Massive explosions and cool robots don't salvage much if the film is not visually compelling. The sound work was pretty good though, but the Transformer sequel is likely to give the Terminator a run for it's money in that regard and also in the visual department, judging by the first Transformers. The soundtrack of Terminator Salvation was also forgettable, although some themes were used that are familiar to us from the previous films. I expected a bit more than a recycled Terminator theme though. Danny Elfman was not the right choice for this project and it's surprising, because he's done way better stuff previously.

Christian Bale seems to have trouble shaking off his Batman character, this growl is getting ridiculous now that it's transcending into other franchises and it doesn't suit this particular film very well. On top of that, Bale didn't stand out with anything in Salvation, both his character and performance felt like a filler. I think he had trouble finding a middle ground for John Connor, because he's been portrayed as a rebellious teen from a broken home, then a junkie and then as a leader of a resistance in a few brief scenes in T2 and T3. Depending on how you look at it, he didn't have much to go by, since this character has gone through so many changes. Since Bale is a great actor and proven that on many occasions, I would wholeheartedly blame the writers for this. John Connor in Salvation is incredibly one-dimensional, lacking any true sense of history behind him, besides what the fans already know. Just a lot of wasted potential and especially when the character of Kyle Reese comes into play. Most notably, I had high hopes for the character interaction between Connor and Marcus Wright, that ultimately came off more sloppy than dynamic. But I guess that was the trade-off with Marcus Wright and Kyle Reese. Sam Worthington was the lead of this film, as far as I'm concerned and probably the only surprising subplot was between Marcus Wright and Blair Williams. That aspect of the film was the most interesting one for me personally, since it created some extra drama within the resistance. The drama with General Ashdown, played by Michael Ironside, is as cliche as in any other film. Lot of plot points are underdeveloped, the same goes for many of the characters and the movie explains itself where it shouldn't and doesn't where it's needed. Overall it's just poorly written, so the groundwork is not strong enough to build on. McG's only expertise is music videos and a couple of Charlie's Angels movies, so he wasn't exactly the best choice for this. Even though I was hopeful, since he showed some promise with We Are Marshall.

Now on to the people that were underutilized or misused. Since Linda Hamilton lent her voice for this film, she should've been used to tell an introduction to Terminator Salvation, like she wrapped up the film in T2. The tape recording was a nice touch, but it felt completely wasted, especially when I think about the slow and lackluster beginning of the film. Since they got the permission to use Arnold's likeness in CGI form, they ought to have used it a little more than that, since they already were pushing the nostalgia buttons. Common, now I'm usually against rappers-turned-actors, but he's proven to have some acting skills and when he should've been Connor's right hand man, he ultimately had only a few lines, basically a very underdeveloped character. I'd rather have well developed side characters in a resistance type of scenario, thank you very much. Jadagrace Berry, who played Star, had no lines and had a complete opposite effect, for comparison. Sam Worthington did a good job overall, even though his Australian accent broke through a few times. I'm still looking forward to seeing more of him in Avatar. I had higher hopes for Anton Yelchin and as I feared, this wasn't the type of role for him. Helena Bonham Carter was a great addition to the cast, despite not having much screen time. Moon Bloodgood served her purpose rather well and as for Bryce Dallas Howard, well, I can just sink into those eyes. That woman is mesmerizing.

People actually used to work hard within the budget they had, but nowadays if you're making a 200 million dollar movie, the creative team is way too relaxed and the film is so visually manipulated through computers, so the essence that was once there, goes out the window. Judgement Day had a budget half the size of this one and their visual effects were groundbreaking. They still amaze me after all this time. Ultimately, the weak point of Terminator Salvation is a poor script, despite the movie arriving at a narrative closure and nailing the underlying theme, which is of course salvation. That experience is ruined by some continuity problems, plot holes and illogical plot development. To give a few examples. A nuke explosion takes down a helicopter in the beginning of the movie, when several Terminator batteries exploding simultaneously cause no harm at the end of the film. Doesn't a nuclear explosion take out all electrical equipment in the area, making the legless T-600 ineffective and the helicopter to come crashing down at the end ? Also, why didn't John offer Marcus to take the signal with him and disable all of the robots within Skynet's headquarters ? Why didn't John take the signal with him to make the rescuing of Kyle Reese and other prisoners a lot easier ? All things aside, the action was pretty solid, it had a few laughs here and there, the pacing was okay after the gas station scene and the acting was acceptable, more or less. However, the dramatic elements didn't rise to their full potential and the leading man turned out to be a side show. Dialogue was forgettable and the script overall was poorly constructed, despite numerous rewrites. Traditional movie cliches don't help it either, it lacks originality and passion. If you're a Terminator fan, then it's definitely worth a watch, but for an average cinema-goer I can only recommend it if you like to turn off your brain, eat popcorn and just enjoy the action.

6/10

Star Trek (2009)

D: J.J. Abrams
C: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Leonard Nimoy, Simon Pegg, etc.

I hadn't been to the cinema for a few months, so I decided to see Star Trek, mostly due to the positive feedback and a promising trailer. I have no emotional investment in this particular franchise, I'm pretty much a novice to all things Star Trek. Funnily enough, after seeing it I realized that I was the target audience.

When you get past the fact that there are some odd looking characters in this film, it's quite entertaining. Rachel Nichols painted green (why oh why?), various guys with pointy ears and a whole roster of oddly shaped, disproportioned creatures brought me back to when I experienced Star Wars for the first time.

Casting was surprisingly good and surprising because I wouldn't have imagined most of these actors playing these sort of roles, seeing them doing completely different type of stuff prior to Star Trek. It's not like with Star Wars, where the majority of the cast was unknown to me at the time, so I had no preconceptions of the actors involved. There were some that bothered me though. I have nothing against Eric Bana, but I don't think he was the right choice for his part. I felt he was holding himself back or perhaps it was the part that required it, but the villain was relatively uninteresting and Bana's performance rather dull.

Chris Pine was a great choice and I'm glad he landed this gig, mostly because of his performances in Blind Dating and Smokin' Aces. The guy's got talent and I hope he doesn't get trapped in mediocre projects. This was a welcomed boost for him, I'm sure. Zachary Quinto was a nice surprise, whom I'm completely unfamiliar with, mostly because he's done nothing else but TV. The part of Spock was undoubtedly the most interesting one, the film is pretty much built around this particular character. Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry were odd choices, Ryder who has yet to find a speech therapist and Perry who's just a talentless git. Anton Yelchin, however, is one talented kid, destined for a great career. A few days ago I watched Charlie Bartlett, where he did a very good job. That and Star Trek shows that he's also good with accents and the enthusiastic Pavel Chekov really stood out. That shouldn't be a surprise though, since both his parents are Russian. I have high hopes for him in the upcoming Terminator Salvation, where he plays Kyle Reese. John Cho was also a nice addition, but Simon Pegg gave me mixed feelings. I don't know who played the character originally, but Kirk, McCoy and Chekov provided enough comic relief, so Scotty or namely Pegg's performance as Scotty was excessive. He's a great comedian, but he didn't really fit in here or give any particularly funny moments compared to the rest of the cast. Nothing interesting or memorable, just bland. Leonard Nimoy was a nice touch for the fans, kinda made me feel bad for William Shatner not getting a part, but there wasn't any room for him anyway. Not with this script.

Since this was a reboot, it tries to give an overview of the franchise's universe or more of an introduction and it succeeds in doing that. The story is pretty straightforward, easy to follow and therefore perfect for mainstream acceptance. Earning $72.5 million during three days is proof enough. J.J. Abrams has found a middle ground with his films, producing one visual spectacle after another that appeals to the masses. Mission: Impossible III blew John Woo's piece of shit out of the water, Cloverfield was a $25 million dollar disaster movie, which is an achievement on it's own right and Star Trek can be placed among the list of other successful reboots such as Casino Royale and Batman Begins. That's not something you can say about Superman Returns, for example.

The score by Michael Giacchino was pretty good all around, held up surprisingly well with the sound and visual effects. They played it too safe though, the score is quite easy to forget. The use of licensed music was great though. Beastie Boys with "Sabotage" fit perfectly. I think there was also something else, but I can't remember at the moment.

The use of shaky-cam was more or less satisfying, although it wasn't necessary in some scenes. I just didn't understand how it added to some of the indoor scenes, whereas in the space battles it made more sense. It's always risky using the shaky-cam, cos you don't want to disorient your audience or even make them feel sick. In Cloverfield it was great, also in Paul Greengrass's Bourne films and Daniel Craig's Bond films, but it didn't fit that well into Star Trek, into those particular scenes. A little off balance, but great camera work despite it.

The work of the sound department and the visual effects are one of the best out there. It's a pretty nice balance between the eye candy and the story, although the story is a bit too straightforward for my taste. But it's a reboot, different rules apply and compromises are needed in many aspects. The reason it cost $150 million dollars to make and has earned over $100 million dollars globally in a matter of days, should be pretty obvious. It's solid entertainment, heavy on visuals and sound, with a nice dose of humor. A lot less cheesier what Michael Bay churns out, although the ending was the usual elevated farts and grins, and naturally scored accordingly. Wasn't so bad as many other cheesy endings, but I would've expected something more ballsy or just different. Unfortunately it follows a familiar path. Either way I'm looking forward to seeing what the sequel has in store for us.

8/10

Disaster Movie (2008)

D: Jason Friedberg, Aaron Seltzer
C: Matt Lanter, Vanessa Minnillo, G. Thang, Nicole Parker, Crista Flanagan, Kimberly Kardashian, Ike Barinholtz, etc.

I have not seen all of the Movies and by movies I'm referring to the Epic Movie, Date Movie, Extreme Movie, Superhero Movie and so on. And I never, cos after watching this Disaster all the way through I am once again reminded that the golden age of parodies is long gone. Disaster Movie is not a parody, a satire or a roast, not even remotely close to these. Referring to it as situational comedy or something that goes after cheap laughs, would not be correct either. Disaster Movie is simply an insult to the human mind. Even though there are a couple of moments where I chuckled a bit, thanks to the drug induced Enchanted Princess and The Chipmunks with rabies. The film in it's entirety is unfortunately not even close to being bearable. Contrary to what it tries to achieve, I was overwhelmed by shame and loathing. The viewers standards for being entertained would have to be at the very bottom to enjoy this. Call it low-brow, retarded or tasteless, it can only be enjoyed by children up to a certain age or by the mentally challenged. Though showing this to your child would be a crime against nature.

As the title suggests, the objects of ridicule are the numerous disaster movies that have come out in the past few years. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on this one group of films, addressing it's cliches and whatnot, it makes fun of almost everything. From movies to TV shows, to popular figures such as Amy Winehouse, Flava-Flav, Dr. Phil, Miley Cyrus, Justin Timberlake, Jessica Simpson and of course Michael Jackson. TV shows include American Gladiator, My Super Sweet 16, Girls Gone Wild, Sex and the City and WWE Divas. Hell, where's NASCAR and American Idol ? Ex-TRL host Vanessa Minnillo plays the love interest of the main character, coupled with the aforementioned and you have yourself a real piece of shit made for the MTV generation. Unfortunately, Disaster Movie was distributed worldwide for the big screen, instead of going straight to YouTube where it belongs.

I suppose addressing the storyline would be a waste of time, but it should be said that there isn't one. It's just one random moment following another, nothing cohesive or logical. It does have to make some sense, so the core of the plot is copied entirely from Cloverfield. A party at an apartment, all hell breaks loose, main character has to go find the girl and rescue her. The main problem here is that it doesn't even try, which is why it's an insult. This thing was put together with the least amount of effort possible, in hope to make a quick buck. To my knowledge, it hasn't earned back it's 25 million dollar budget and that's great, even though it shouldn't have gotten a single cent in the first place. Films like Disaster Movie need to flop, but they do have a target audience, so as long as they get even or make a small profit, this will keep on happening. In the end it's up to the audience, whether this shit keeps getting greenlit or not. Projects like these shouldn't get past the first draft of a script. Why would anyone write this stuff to begin with ? Because they are counting on the audience being dumb or simply not caring. Opening weekend gross in USA ? $6,945,535!

What I don't understand is that people rate absurd comedies like You Don't Mess with the Zohan, for example, with a 1/10, not realizing that things can be a lot lot worse. A sense of humor is of course subjective to an extent, but Zohan at least fills it's quota of laughs. On the other hand I'm pretty sure many "normal" people will find Disaster Movie amusing in some demented kind of way. Compared to Zohan, this one doesn't meet a quota of any kind. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. So if you haven't seen a movie worse than Zohan, that doesn't mean there isn't one. To close this puppy up, everyone affiliated with this project should crawl under a rock and die of shame. Anyone who has seen this once and for some reason feels compelled to buy the DVD, I hope you wake up some day from your deep deep slumber. Disaster Movie is at the bad end of exported American cinema, something that shouldn't pass any borders, instead be kept a national secret. I wouldn't even recommend watching this while being baked, because it would only be a wasted trip. Another example of political correctness, it's got tits, dwarfs, celebrity look-alike's - you name it. Perfect for the docile media brainwashed retards of our time. Anyone who were subject to ridicule in this film and feel hurt or embarrassed after watching it, must have an incredibly low self-esteem. After seeing this you start to appreciate some of the Wayans's recent flicks (like Little Man) a little more than you normally would. I'd rate it a 1/10, but I'm pretty sure someone has put together something even worse than this. It would be quite a feat though.

2/10

Greetings!