"District 9" The Summer Flick You Haven't Heard Of

Truthfully, I'm not sure what to think of "District 6," except I know the advertising has been poor. Everyone I mention it to tends to tilt their head and raise an eyebrow.

From an innovative standpoint it reminds me of "Cloverfield." But it's clearly more formal than that. The trailer tricks you in to thinking its a documentary on illegal immigrating, or supplying for third world comfort. The uncanny awe that it's actually aliens startled me. When I try to explain the intriguing premise to others, it's no wonder I get a chuckle. It's hard to explain the idea while giving what you've seen justice. Thus, I'm going to let the trailer do all the work for me.

"District 9," hits theaters August 14.

REVIEW - "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" (2009)

I want to begin this review with a perfectly understandable sense of acknowledgment. I know these movies are just supposed to be fun and light entertainment. There are actually very good movies that fit that bill and I wholly enjoy many of them. “Shoot’em Up,” “Versus,” “Live Free or Die Hard", and even Michael Bay’s very own “The Rock” are some great examples. So in an attempt to not sound like a film snob who can’t enjoy raw action blockbusters, let it be known, I understand what the point of “Transformers: The Revenge of the Fallen” is. I really do. Michael Bay himself is clearly not trying to hide what it is. It just doesn’t work.

In this sequel, Sam (Shia LeBeouf) returns to help the Autobots stop the newly revived Megatron and Decepticon warlord, The Fallen. When the Decepticons plan to wipe out Earth’s sun, Sam travels with Bumblebee and crew to find the Matrix of Leadership, save Optimus and run through sixty explosions in slow motion every ten minutes.

The story doesn’t expand much beyond my condescending synopsis. It makes you wonder why the movie was two and a half hours long. I’m still trying to figure that out because I’ve never sat through a movie and been able to list off all the pieces that could have, or should have, been cut. Bay’s self-indulgent insistence on including scenes of dogs humping, Sam’s mother getting high and his roommate freaking out are only a few small examples of footage that should have been left on the cutting room floor.

Even with such adjustments the movie would still be over bloated. Whole characters could have been chopped from the movie without any noticeable difference to the film’s plot. The African-American stereotyped twin robots tie with Jar-Jar Binks as the absolute worst CGI characters to prance on to the silver screen. Whether or not these characters are racist is an argument that gives this movie too much credit. Like much of the comedic elements they’re simply unbearable. I’m convinced Bay’s sense of humor resides in the head of a lobotomized eight-year-old boy.

As if the gratuitously terrible humor wasn’t enough to endure, LeBeouf’s character reaches a new romantic low with Megan Fox’s dolled up visage, dressed appropriate for shots that include her breasts bouncing in slow motion. Written more like a Spanish soap opera than a romantic squabble, the two mumble their lines at high speeds, perhaps trying to end the awkward interaction as soon as possible.

But lets break before I continue—Am I complaining about character development in a movie that has no desire to progress its characters? Indeed. Is pointing out a minor of many flaws involved with this movie an exercise in futility because the audience cares more about robots and explosions? Perhaps, but bear with me. The first movie moved swift and convincingly in transition from humans to transformers. In this film watching Sam and his human team of misfits feels like waiting for Christmas in January.

I’ve made it no secret that I can’t stand the overtly busy designs of these transformers. I’ll leave it at that, but it’s nice to know Bay at least traded his editing taste for some half-decent cinematography. For the first time I’m able to comprehend the action and appendages that are flowing from fist to blow between robots. Pity it’s too little to save any of the flash worth watching. Every explosion, every slow motion shot and every battle is ruined by the fact that there’s just too much of it. Bay has lost any comprehension of dramatic build up, allowing every explosive sequence to run together without any power. It is the singular driving force that drags “Revenge of the Fallen” down until you’re so tired of the action sequences it makes waiting for them even worse: Que the painfully boring scenes with Sam and his pack of idiots! (This is why characters matter.)

Can “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” be entertaining? Oh, sure! I certainly enjoyed the scenes with Optimus Prime flipping out of an airplane and kicking ass. And I should at least mention the forest battle as a highlight. But the problem is you would have to fast forward through a great deal of trite to view anything worth watching. “Revenge of the Fallen” is simply too big for its own good; high on the idea that more is better and delivering it unapologetically. Aspiring to be a fun ride is fine. Aspiring to have no substance at all is dangerous.

½ out of ****

REVIEW - "Terminator Salvation" (2009)

When James Cameron finished “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” I don’t think he envisioned two sequels and a television series to follow. However, he can blame no one but himself for leaving it wide open with the films’ final shot of an open road. While “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” disappointed fans by ignoring all the wonderful themes from the previous movie, “The Sarah Connor Chronicles” actually expanded on those themes in ways James Cameron could not have done in a two hour film. Now, director McG, under the stern eyes of Terminator fans everywhere, walks up to bat. What is his solution? What is his take? The final cut isn’t a classic, but it certainly feels fresh.

The year is 2018. Judgment day has come and gone. Now a lone wanderer awakes in the midst of a futuristic war. Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) only remembers being a death row inmate. His meeting with a young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) pits him before the stern and paranoid John Connor (Christian Bale). Their meeting ignites a journey to the truth of Marcus’s existence and John’s rise to leadership.

There is no doubt that “Terminator Salvation” is a more action heavy flick than any of the previous films, and easily more explosive (literally) than the budget restricted “Sarah Connor Chronicles.” What it lacks is an innate attention to characters. Luckily, the majority of the film focuses on the one character that does develop: Sam Worthington’s performance as Marcus Wright is quite possibly the single most astounding thing about “Salvation.” Despite a wealth of spoilers in trailer ads, Marcus is still captivating. Furthermore, the ambiguity of his past makes him more immediately interesting—Adding tension between him and the many characters he meets.

While the young Kyle Reese and John Connor don’t see the same amount of progress, they are, nonetheless, intriguing to see in new roles. The warrior John Connor is seen for the first time by audiences, but he’s still more man than legend. That young brat in “Terminator 2” has grown quite distrusting and angry. Bale makes the character worth watching as audiences realize this is not the John Connor we’re used to. Yelchin, struggling as another iconic character in “Star Trek,” is very comfortable in Reese’s boots. Channeling the best parts of Michael Bein, Yelchin doesn’t go as far to imitate the original Kyle Reese, but perfectly embodies his evolution from boy to soldier.

The next “big” addition is Moon Bloodgood as Blaire Williams. It’s clear McG wanted a strong female presence in his film, but “Salvations’” resident bad-girl has more in common with Alice from “Resident Evil” than Sarah Connor. After her by-the-numbers roll as a useful plot device, she sinks in to the background left for audiences to forget she was even in the film.

Beyond watching Worthington and familiar characters, “Salvation” doesn’t offer a whole lot beyond its action sequences. This isn’t to say the explosions and chase scenes weren’t fantastic—Every action piece is far more memorable and jaw-dropping than another, rather over-bloated robot flick this summer. It is entirely fair to say that McG has created the action feast of the summer. 2009 won’t see another movie with this much well framed grit and grind. It carries the film well enough, but at the expense of what made the first two Terminator films so great.

While characters take a backseat to the bang-n-booms, so does common sense. Toward the films’ climax, Skynet claims to have created the perfect infiltrator from the dead. It makes me wonder why it doesn’t do this more often as there’s plenty of dead bodies lying around. Wouldn’t about a hundred of those models be more efficient than putting the T-800 in production? Plot holes like this scathe the movie like an infant on a stove. Another mild example is after Skynet identifies Kyle he is simply held apart from the rest of the prisoners. Theoretically, if Kyle dies John can’t exist. So lets skip the strange idea that Skynet somehow knows why Kyle is important and scratch our heads as to why he wasn’t executed immediately.

Despite these obvious shortcomings I have to applaud McG for trying to recover James Cameron’s themes left for dead in “Terminator 3.” Though it might seem silly to quote, “There is no fate but what we make for ourselves,” in a world long since destroyed, it echoes the essence of hope left from the first sequel. Still, while “Salvation” struggles to relight the Terminator franchise, it’s primarily for those looking for an exceptional action romp. Otherwise, if you need more to chew on, stick to “The Sarah Connor Chronicles.”

**½ out of ****

Poll - What Is Your Favorite Star Trek Film?

It's clear the half dozen people who visit my blog every month don't know much about Star Trek. With the best and worst Star Trek movies running for a tie, I scratch my head and wonder: "Are people really dumb enough to like 'Star Trek V'?" On the other hand, I suppose many just haven't seen these movies and thought it would be funny to vote for 'V.' Shame on them I suppose, but what are you going to do?

The results:

The Motion Picture - 0 Votes (0%)

The Wrath of Khan - 2 Votes (28%)

The Search for Spock - 0 Votes (0%)

The Voyage Home - 1 Vote (14%)

The Final Frontier - 2 Votes (28%)

The Undiscovered Country - 1 Vote (14%)

Generations - 0 Votes (0%)

First Contact - 1 Vote (14%)

Insurrection - 0 Votes (0%)

Nemesis - 0 Votes (0%)

REVIEW - "Star Trek" (2009)

Waited long enough? I have as well-- Maybe to long, but long enough to think. There’s always anxiety when preparing for the reboot or alternate adaptation of previously envisioned franchises. I suppose this is because I know there’s only two real options after the fact: If I hate it, I know exactly what’s wrong and I’m able to reel it out like a five year old’s Christmas wish list. If I like it, I’m at a loss of what to say. How do you constructively review something you enjoy so much? The answer is simply “time.” What sits well with you? What flaws eventually rear their ugly head? If first impressions are lasting, then growth is revealing. Regardless of any qualms had with Abrams’ “Star Trek,” time has exposed one certainty: It is one damn good movie.

James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) cross paths in a glorious space opera that pits them in front of an enemy from the future, Nero (Eric Bana). After altering the destinies of the future crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise, Nero seeks vengeance against the Federation. Young, daring, but ready, the legendary crew of the Enterprise embark on their first mission, boldly going where they have never gone before.

Star Trek seems to have become the staple franchise to define the modern nerd: Thirty-year-old male warthogs, living in the basement of their mother’s house, enjoying cheese puffs and arguing online about whether or not Diana Troy had more cleavage in “TNG” episode 23, season 4, or episode 12, season 6. (NOTE: There is never a father involved. It is always the “mother’s basement.”) Along with this farce, Trek has also been under scrutiny for some poor latter films and a weak, fifth television series. With the franchise declared dead rebooting the original concept seemed like the only relevant choice.

Gone is the Trek techno-babble that had put the latter entries under fire. Instead of wasting celluloid explaining how the warp engines work, or how a black hole can create a portal to an alternate universe, “Star Trek” treats the science fiction elements as simple plot devices. The audience can suspend themselves to believe these characters can travel through space. They don’t need a fictional, onscreen textbook to explain how.

Instead, Abrams reignites the fire of “Bones”, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov and Scotty, giving each character their time in the sun. But the film owes its heart to Kirk and Spock. Not since “Wrath of Khan” has Jim Kirk been so interesting. Instead of waiting for that midlife crisis to kick in (“Star Trek II”), Abrams delivers a fresh Kirk with an arrogant, adolescent swagger lifted from his days without a proper father. Early in the film we see a young Kirk throw a 1960s corvette off a cliff. I still believe this to be an important scene due to its insistence that this is not the 1960s “Trek.” We don’t live there anymore. This is a new era and Trek needs to be relevant again. So watching the main character throw the embodiment of the 1960s in to a canyon felt ever so appropriate.

Spock, brilliantly portrayed by Zachary Quinto, is reborn to audiences as a character fighting to keep control of his human side. We’ve never seen Spock endure so much for being part human. The idea that he’s lived a life of people constantly getting a rise out of him becomes a wonderful staple for why he joins Starfleet. Though some feel Spock was too emotional, I feel it perfectly embodied this younger incarnation and his struggle to control both himself and his career.

As Kirk and Spock find themselves butting heads and learning from each others’ personalities, the journey of these two characters brings us to some exciting places. Creating an alternate universe for these icons frees them from the suffocating stronghold of the beloved (and endured) Star Trek cannon. While following “cannon” is important to many fans, it’s also the source of Trek’s recent failure. Hitting the restart button and giving audiences a universe where anything could happen has unleashed the franchise to unlimited possibilities and a heightened sense of drama. Anything could happen. Anyone could potentially… die!

So with the summer’s strongest characters, incredible special effects, and cinematography that should make the directors of Trek past ever so jealous, is there a downfall? Nothing immediate, but certainly worth noting, “Star Trek” continues the streak of weak villains with Nero’s bombastically brief explanation for vengeance. While Eric Bana makes more out of the villain than he’s worth, the character side steps any common sense. Coming from a universe where Romulus is destroyed and harboring the technology to save it from said, future destruction, Nero decides to wipe out the Federation instead. Why not save the planet first? What happened to villains like Khan? The last three Trek films just haven’t cut it in terms of great villainy.

And while each actor delivers with the utmost gusto, sometimes I wonder if the movie is border lining self-parody. For example, Karl Urban gives one of his best performances as Dr. McCoy, but Anton Yelchin, throwing down Chekov’s accent dead on, feels more like a clown in his introductory scene. His accent’s shortcomings worked in “Star Trek IV,” but I’m torn by whether or not it works here. So where’s the line? What is Urban doing right that Yelchin could learn from? Perhaps its simply experience as Urban was one of the more confident looking actors on screen. You can’t simply do impersonations; you have become that iconic character to make it work.

But stop me before I nitpick too much. Writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have finally written a script worth being proud of. While it isn’t an iron-clad screenplay it fell in J.J. Abrams’ fine-tuned hands and the result was staggering. In the first ten minutes of the movie, George Kirk hears the wail of his son over an intercom while ramming his starship into Nero’s behemoth. What could have been a by-the-numbers opening by Orci and Kurtzman, ended as one of the most emotionally, gut wrenching sequences in the film. What Abrams’ has done is create a fun joyride while maintaining a stern attention to characters. The summer probably won’t get much better than this. Abrams’ can keep his day job. The Enterprise flies again.

***½ out of ****

REVIEW - "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (2009)

In 2000, director Bryan Singer helped ignite the comic book superhero explosion in Hollywood with “X-Men.” In 2003 he raised the bar for these movies with the exceptional “X2: X-Men United.” By the time 2006 rolled around Singer had moved on and fans endured the terrible “X-Men: The Last Stand” as a final bout. By then I was only hopeful that someone might give the franchise a proper ending with a fourth film; but Fox opted to continue the series through the cheaper route of solo-prequels and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was born. The prospect of these origin tales is actually quite intriguing, but finding someone to tell them properly may be a problem. If the future X-Men Origin films are anything like “Wolverine” we may be in for a long, bumpy continuation of the franchise.

In 1845 a young James (aka, Logan, aka soon-to-be Wolverine) discovers the identity of his true father and, upon killing him for the murder of his adopted father, runs away with his brother Victor. (aka, soon-to-be Sabertooth) We get a montage of these two fighting various wars throughout history and then taken by Col. William Stryker who heads a team of mutants for special ops. James, who later goes by his last name Logan, decides the job is too bloody for him and leaves the team for a quiet life with his girlfriend Kayla. Of course her death forces him to rejoin Stryker and transform him in to the character we all know and love in the X-Men.

By all means the origin of Wolverine should be the most interesting part of his character, but by the end of the film I can’t help but think he was more fascinating in “X-Men” and “X2.” The film seems to fast-forward through the more interesting segments of his life. What makes Logan a more ethically empowered person than Victor? What’s happened all these years to make these men the characters they are? Furthermore, what was the impact of Logan’s real father suppose to impose? Other than setting Victor and Logan up as brothers it added no substance to their tortured background and is never mentioned again.

The fact is the movie didn’t want to spend time developing the characters. Instead of acting like two men that have seen over a century of battles we start with the action hero cliché of two men “tickled” by death. The movie is more interested in an extravaganza with mutants that didn’t make it in the first three X-Men movies. There is no regard for Logan’s 100+ years of life.

Meanwhile, his relationship with Kayla seems superfluous compared to everything he’s been through. Why does her death set him on fire? I find it hard to believe he hasn’t lost other love interests after being alive for over a century. Did he act this way over them? Did he even consider the consequences of getting in a relationship with someone that will age while he doesn’t? No, because in the end, Wolverine’s character is reduced to nothing but the world’s greatest excuse for absurd action sequences. He can’t die. He heals immediately. His bones are indestructible. Since when did creating a character impervious to everything become interesting? Isn’t that what we’ve been trying to change with Superman?

Even with the more interesting and vital segments of Logan’s back-story, the movie seems to fall short of delivering the drama. Wolverine’s flashback to his “Weapon X” experience in the early X-Men movies are far more traumatic than what “Origins” reveals. And the reason behind his memory loss is rather disappointing. I’m still trying to figure out how that makes sense. (If his brain heals, wouldn’t it only heal around the object? Wouldn’t it still be in his head? Why didn’t the CT scan in “X-Men” reveal anything?)

Can it get worse? Well I’ll put it this way: Add Sabertooth’s character reinvention (which doesn’t fit Tyler Mane’s previous portrayal in the slightest) and the hideous Deadpool-in-name-only, and you can almost forgive the poor CGI claws and terrible green screen work.

On the bright side the movie features some nice and admittedly surprising cameos that should put a smile on any X-Men fan. The action, while absurd, is pretty fun if you just sit back and turn your brain off. And, as always, Hugh Jackman's presence could make "Troll 2" watchable, so he has no trouble looking great onscreen. I suppose for the weak story it tells the movie can be pretty fun, but the X-Men franchise used to be more than just fun. I remember it used to be quite good. Alas, Wolverine is just more interesting with his memory gone—It’s just as well. I wish my memory were wiped clean of these events too.

*½ out of ****

TRAILER - Halloween 2

I should have titled this as "Rob Zombie's Textbook Raping of Mike Myers." A sequel I can deal with, but what's with emo-mother Myers in the funny white dress giving Mike orders? The horror-cliched trailer might have been effective had I not started laughing when Mike's mother, from the previous movie, returns as some cheesy apparition. Yes, yes. I know. A trailer shows things out of context and the cheesiest of lines and images can end up being very compelling. But given the ho-hum, uneven direction of Zombie's first "Halloween," I can't see it being too intriguing.

So Mike's been killing everyone because he thinks his mommy is telling him too. Why relate this all back to his mother? Didn't we do this in "Psycho?" Fair attempt Zombie. Fair attempt.

Enjoy!

Predator Reboot, "Predators"

It was inevitable. The Predator franchise is getting a fat reboot from 20th Century Fox. I know. Fox. That's already a huge strike against it. However, there's hope; Robert Rodriguez is producing the film which is possibly [loosely] based on a treatment he wrote for a Predator sequel over a decade ago.

Looks like the project will mostly be headed by Rodriguez's Troublemaker Studios instead of being grounded at Fox. So that's a plus, right?

Rodriguez isn't directing, but with him overseeing the project you have to wonder what it will be like. I'm getting more and more comfortable with franchise reboots because they don't always mean "remake," and this doesn't feel like a full blown remake either. Afterall, "Batman Begins," and "Casino Royale" gave fresh slates to their respective franchises. "Terminator Salvation" and "Star Trek" look great as well-- But then there's the flip side: Rob Zombie's "Halloween," for example.

So will this be a good thing or not? One thing is for sure, Fox hasn't been on the ball lately and to attempt a reboot with their current track record is a bit of risk. However, Rodriguez on board does bode well.

July 7th of next year: "Predators." (Yikes... sooner than you thought, huh?) Rodriguez and Fox better find a director and writer fast!

Arnold... Are You In "Terminator Salvation" or Not?

This struck me as both amusing and curious. Director McG and crew have been bombarded by different media fronts with questions regarding the Governator's cameo in the new movie. Apparently he agreed to be in the movie as long as he didn't have to perform.

No. There's no typo in the sentence above. This is true. As rumored awhile back the idea for the original Terminator's cameo is to digitally graph Arnold Schwarzenegger's face over another actor who is portraying the T-800 sent back in time to kill his mother.

“I made it very clear that I don’t have the time to do the movie… I said that I would be willing to be in the movie if they get the technology together, and so they are working on that right now.” Says Schwarzenegger.

According to McG, the crew is still having a hard time getting it to look right. After all, it needs to look pretty seamless to buy. I remember Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's CGI cameo in "The Mummy Returns" quite vividly and that was a terrible attempt at recreating a person. I hope the technology is there because, while I'm sure the movie would be fine without an appearance from Schwarzenegger, the Terminator movies have a legacy of pushing the envelop of special effects. (At least T1 and T2 did.) I feel it would be kind of a shame if "Terminator Salvation" didn't go the full stride to show how weak "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" really was.

In the meantime we have the fantastic episodes from "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" to tied us over. Yes, I know season 2, and maybe even the entire series, is over, but Hulu is an amazing thing. Am I right?

I'm looking forward to "Terminator Salvation." I just hope what we've seen and heard thus far isn't too good to be true.

Changing a Few Things

A brief note concerning the content my blog will contain from here on out. As you may have noticed I've grown weary of simply reporting news about different movies. There's plenty of sites where you can get that from. Oh I'll still report new things that strike my fancy, but from here on it'll mostly be a reflection on film and current film bytes. Don't worry, before I dive head first in to rants and commentaries I'll get you up to speed.

When I first started this blog I intended to use it to keep friends and family up to date about things in the world of cinema. I believe that attempt has failed in some form and I've decided to take my blog in a new direction. I promise it won't seem like a drastic change, but it will be a little different.

Until the next post-- See you at the theaters.