Transformers

When it was first announced that a ‘Transformers’ film was being made many people were skeptical, including me, regarding how good could this adaptation possibly be. The concerns were numerous, from will whoever’s making it screw it up? Will the robots look real? Will the essence of the series remain intact? Will the characters bear any resemblance to their animated counterparts? So on and so forth. I figured this movie, like so many others of this magnitude, would simply gain a little momentum and then fade away into the depths of development heck. That was until the announcement came that Steven Spielberg (director of “Jurassic Park”) would serve as Executive Producer, while action director extraordinaire, Michael Bay (“The Island” and “Armageddon”) would be the one sitting in the director’s chair on a movie that could prove to be every 80’s kids dream come to life (real actual Transformers) or simply another fond childhood memory trampled upon by Hollywood types that ruin everything (the live-action flop, “Masters of the Universe”).

“Transformers” begins when a young teenager named Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) purchases a car from a local car lot, in hopes of impressing the girl of his dreams, Mikaela (Megan Fox). Unbeknownst to Sam is that his car is not just any regular car, it is actually an Autobot named Bumblebee who was sent to Earth to find the All-Spark before the evil Decepticons can get their hands on it. However, the Decepticons, including Starscream, Barricade, and Devastator, were already on Earth, and are quickly becoming aware that Sam unknowingly holds the key to finding the All-Spark. To stop the Decepticons, Bumblebee enlists the aid of his Autobot compatriots Ironhide, Ratchet, Jazz, and their leader Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen). Now, the Autobots and Decepticons continue their war that began so long ago on Cybertron, but this time Earth will be there new battleground.

Director Michael Bay and Executive Producer Steven Spielberg have done what some thought impossible. They managed to make a live-action ‘Transformers’ movie and it was absolutely spectacular. With a fun and engaging story that featured humor, action, romance, and some of the most pulse-pounding action set pieces, “Transformers” is the epitome of what a summer blockbuster is supposed to be. This film easily bypassed all fan expectation, including my own. After I saw the initial previews I thought the movie would be good, but I had no idea it would be this much of a thrill ride.

Director Michael Bay was by far the best choice for helming such an audacious action/adventure movie. By now it is pretty clear; no one blows up stuff on screen as well as Michael Bay. What’s also impressive about what Bay has done with “Transformers” is that his budget was less than that of “Spider-Man 3” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” (separately, not combined), but truth be told, “Transformers” is a much better movie all around than either of those two wound up being. Surprisingly, even with a more restrained budget, Bay still managed to put more visually exciting sequences on the screen than either of those films (in my opinion), and he did so using a mixture of computer generated imagery, practical effects work (an actual full-size replica of Bumblebee was built for use in some scenes), and good old’ fashioned explosions that will knock your socks off. Now that’s impressive! What it all boils down to is that Bay knows what his audience wants to see, and he seems to know how to deliver virtually every time.

A movie focusing on walking and talking transforming robots would be nothing without astoundingly realistic CGI creations to adorn the screen. For this task the talented men and women of George Lucas’ acclaimed Industrial Light and Magic (ILM), produced some of the best computer generated imagery I have ever seen on display in a feature film. ILM created such realistic looking robots, even taking into account the effect of weight and gravity (watch the fight sequence between Optimus Prime and Bonecrusher on the streets of Los Angeles to see an example of how these two components are used), plus reflections, tiny cracks, and imperfections covering the robots (seen in any close-up of the Transformers), that you would swear that these robots were actually real. This movie’s visual effects work is truly a benchmark for the industry.

The actors assembled for this movie consist of a fun mixture of veterans (Jon Voight and John Turturro), rising stars (Tyrese Gibson and Shia LaBeouf), and relative newcomers (Megan Fox and Rachael Taylor). Each member of the cast did an outstanding job of keeping every aspect of the movie exciting, even when the Transformers weren’t on the screen. The onscreen chemistry between Shia and Megan was a nice addition to the movie, and made their blossoming romance much more endearing. Adding to that was the fact that Bumblebee served as Sam’s wingman was an especially sweet and funny touch to the dynamic. With the release of this movie, in conjunction with his other film in 2007 the thriller “Disturbia”, Shia LaBeouf has proven that he easily has what it takes to carry a film, and is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s most sought after talents.

Of course, all of these components together would have all been for naught without the excellent voice-over work provided for each of the Transformers. It was a great treat for the fanboy in me to have Peter Cullen reprise his iconic role as the voice of Optimus Prime (the only actor from the animated series that returned for this movie). Without his recognizable voice giving Optimus life, the character just wouldn’t have been the same. Hugo Weaving (‘The Matrix’ trilogy) was a fine choice for Megatron, although his voice is not so easily recognized due to a hefty amount of digital remixing to make him sound more mechanical, but he still did a good job as the evil leader of the Decepticons. The rest of the voice actors were not as recognizable, in terms of other work they’d done, but they were all equally solid in their performances. Together these actors made each and every one of the Transformers just as memorable as their two leaders.

As summer blockbusters go, “Transformers” is truly one of the best. It’s an excellent visual effects extravaganza that is extremely entertaining and features a great cast, a strong story that sets the stage for even bigger things in future sequels, and some of the most incredible action you will see in a movie. This is one action film that is a definite must see!

“Transformers” is rated PG-13 for violence, brief language, and mild sexual humor.

Valkyrie

Over the course of Hitler’s devastating reign of terror as the leader of Nazi Germany he commanded what appeared to be unwavering loyalty from all under his command. However, during his tyrannical tenure there were a total of seventeen assassination attempts made on Hitler’s life. This fact proved that not everyone within his grasp was onboard with the Fuhrer’s genocidal plans, and that some were even willing to risk their very lives to put an end to his evil. Out of the seventeen attempts, the final attempt codenamed Operation Walküre, remains one of the most infamous. This is true, not only for how the operation was carried out, but also for just how far reaching the disillusionment with the Nazi party and the atrocities they committed had become amongst some of the military and civilians within the country.

“Valkyrie” is based on the true story of Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise), who led a group of high-ranking officials within Nazi Germany in an incredible assassination attempt on the life of Adolf Hitler. For them to succeed would mean Germany could begin to remove the stain of Hitler’s reign, but to fail would mean that all involved would become traitors to their country and death would inevitably follow.

For “Valkyrie” to actually succeed in creating the undeniably palpable sense of tension surrounding the events on screen is truly surprising to me. Screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”) has crafted a fast-paced, albeit streamlined account, of the events leading up to and following the failed assassination attempt on Hitler during World War II. To achieve this, the screenplay focused upon the bigger moments within the assassination plot to give audiences a general understanding of what will happen should they win the day, while also repeatedly mentioning the possible repercussions that would occur should the coup d’état fail. Those two story elements, along with Singer’s quick-cuts in the film’s editing process, allowed the story to become much more exhilarating and suspenseful than what should have been possible.

The screenplay’s tightly paced, streamlined narrative definitely allowed the movie to become much more of a thriller rather than an historical drama, which was precisely how director Bryan Singer (“Superman Returns”) had envisioned the film. However, in taking this route the film ultimately suffers from being too simplistic and truncated. The plot of Operation Walküre was an intricately conceived plan that was not implemented on a whim, and it required finesse, precision, dedication, and not to mention a good amount of luck. While the film does touch on the fact that the conspirators did not take their decision lightly, it did appear that the operation was not all that hard to devise or execute. Now, I understand that certain elements of the plot and events surrounding it had to be omitted or condensed in order for the film to fit into a two hour running time; yet, in doing so, this approach made the coup seem far too easy to accomplish.

Another problem was that in some ways the story unfolded in an uneven manner. On the one hand the conspirators obviously feared the potential severity of the consequences should they fail, but at the same time the abridged approach to conveying the plot and its drawbacks made the consequences unrealistically appear as less threatening and not nearly as much of a hindrance to signing up for the cause as one might have thought. Even though Bryan Singer wanted to create a thriller surrounding this moment in history, I personally feel that he would have had far greater success with the end result had he opted for a more detailed account as one would find in a typical historical drama. In doing this, the movie could have taken much more time in laying out the various details of the operation, and also shedding even more light on the conspirators involved; therefore providing audiences with a much more fulfilling experience.

Leading the cast in this average and uneven historical thriller is the one-time Hollywood powerhouse, Tom Cruise (“Collateral”). Over the years, I have seen many of Tom Cruise’s films, and enjoyed a good majority of them along the way. However, within those plethora of films lies a myriad of performances, ranging from superb (“Collateral”) to good (“Mission: Impossible 2”) to simply phoning it in (as was the case with this film). What went wrong with Tom Cruise’s performance in this movie was his extremely flat, unenthused delivery, a general lack of charisma or captivating presence (the real Stauffenberg was known as a very charismatic man), and an obviously lacking German-esque accent.

In regards to the issue of the accent or lack thereof, I understand that many of the other members of the cast didn’t adopt German accents for their roles either. However, I know from some of their previous performances, and just their overall talents as actors, that most of them could have adopted a passable accent, if given the opportunity. Yet for this film, director Bryan Singer apparently informed the non-German actors that they were not required to convey an accent because he wasn’t concerned with making an historical drama/documentary, but merely an entertaining thriller. To me this sounds more like an excuse used to cover Cruise’s shortcomings as an actor than anything else, and an obvious ploy on Singer’s part to try to protect his lead actor from becoming embarrassment.

In my opinion, while Cruise did an adequate job in some scenes, his lack of commitment and/or skill in other scenes opposite the much more capable members of the cast made it abundantly clear that Cruise was way out of his league in this film. Thus, leading me, and many other viewers, to believe that any of the other cast members could have done a much more authentic and accurate job of portraying this historical figure, and that the movie would have benefited from this type of change in the end.

Alongside Tom Cruise was an extremely talented assemblage of actors whose performances while good, never veered towards the great or even exceptional side of the spectrum. This was no doubt a by-product of their performances being much more reserved so as to not outshine their lead actor too much in his attempted “comeback” movie. Among this group of men featuring the likes of Tom Wilkinson (“Batman Begins”), Bill Nighy (“Underworld: Rise of the Lycans”) and Terrence Stamp (“Yes Man”), I found myself disappointed by how average all of their performances tended to be. Again, none of the supporting performances were bad; I just expected more from actors of their caliber. So the movie just felt extremely wanting in this area.

Two other members of the supporting cast worth noting, although their lack of screen time makes them seem more like cameos, Kenneth Branagh (“Wild Wild West”) and comedian Eddie Izzard (TV’s “The Riches”) seemed to show the most promising performances. Yet their lack of time on camera made their historical figures’ inclusion into the story seem like afterthoughts. It felt as if the writer thought that their characters, based on the few scenes they appeared in the movie, were somewhat important to the plot (to what extent I don’t know); however, in the end it didn’t seem like they were worth mentioning all that much to him. This is surprising since Eddie Izzard’s character’s position at the Wolf’s Lair seemed very important to the conspirators’ cause. I guess these two actors’ lacking story arcs were just another example of how the trimmed down storyline caused the movie to fall way short of its potential.

“Valkyrie” could have been, and arguably should have been, another great World War II era movie that focused on an important event in history, that if successful could have changed everything from that moment on. Yet questionable decisions on the part of director Bryan Singer and writer Christopher McQuarrie, regarding making this a faster-paced thriller rather than an historical drama, resulted in a merely average film that will never be as memorable as some of the other entries surrounding this war. Not to mention a weak performance from Tom Cruise, and universally average portrayals from the remainder of the cast, in the end “Valkyrie” will go down as being unmemorable for a movie of its genre.

“Valkyrie” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Twilight

The summer of 2008 was easily dominated by movies filled with testosterone, as is most often the case for movies that are released during that lucrative time of year. So if the summer belonged to the guys (which it did), then the fall and winter easily belonged to the girls, as one of the top ten highest grossing films of the year, “Twilight”, took massive bites out of the box office for weeks on end.

“Twilight” focuses on a young woman, Bella (Kristen Stewart), who moves to a small town in Washington to live with her father (Billy Burke). Upon her arrival she quickly catches the eye of the mysterious Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), who just so happens to be a vampire living secretly among humanity. As Bella and Edward grow closer and closer together, a faction of evil vampires take notice of Bella and hunger to make her their next meal.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last six months or so, then you have undoubtedly heard of either the film “Twilight” or the book of the same name on which the movie was based. The book, which is the first of four in a series, is a bestseller that many young teenage girls and adult women have become nearly obsessed with, and the subsequent release of the film adaptation for this book added even more chaos to the frenzy. As with all film adaptations of beloved novels, the movie stands little chance of measuring up to the detail, subtle nuances, character and plot development, and overall richness of the written version. However, most film adaptations do succeed in capturing some of the items listed above in some form or another, so that the core fan base can enjoy and hopefully supply plenty of revenue in the process. Generally speaking, the screenwriters, directors, and actors giving new life to these adaptations do their level best to also ensure that those members of the audience that are perhaps unfamiliar with the story will not be lost in the shuffle or feel that the film is lacking in some way. In this respect, I feel that “Twilight” failed to impress, at least in this viewer’s opinion.

The screenplay as written by Melissa Rosenberg (“Step Up”), and based on the New York Times best-selling novel from Stephanie Meyer, appears to take the basic elements contained within the novel and adds very little effort in transferring them over to the big screen. By this I mean it felt to me (speaking as one who has not read any of the novels) like the writer assumed that certain aspects of the characters relationships, personal quirks, or plot points in general would be understood with very little exposition being given, because the audience would be predominantly made up of fans of the books. This was an ill-conceived notion in my estimation, and one that caused me several moments of confusion throughout the story where events or a character’s actions didn’t seem to really add up. Over time it began to dawn on me, plus the fact that my wife explained it to me, that whenever an aspect of the story wasn’t making as much sense to me, it made perfect sense to her because she knew of the explanation that was contained within the novel. To me if a movie is to be adapted from a book, comic book or otherwise, it needs to take the necessary amount of time to fully explain certain inexplicable actions, events, or whatever the case may be to those not in the know. But I digress.

In regards to the rest of the screenplay, barring all of the under-developed aspects, I thought the entire film was poorly written and at times borderline cringe-inducing. The love story aspect, which one person had informed me was barely evident in the film (this was not the case), was extremely heavy-handed, and lacking in any sense of subtlety. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue surrounding this aspect of the story was almost as insufferable as watching any given episode of a soap opera or any of the plethora of teenage romantic dramas one can find on the CW network. Also, if an actor’s or actress’s character’s name wasn’t Edward or Bella, then very little time if any was devoted to developing them beyond one or two personality quirks brought over from the books and a few moments of screen time. I understand that this film is all about Edward and Bella and their blossoming relationship; however, the supporting characters, whether good or bad, should be given more to do than just pop-up here and there, offering little to the overall story.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I do fully understand that this film, and the series of books on which these films are to be based, are intended for teenagers, primarily females. However, I would have thought that even then the writing would be much more refined and developed than what I found in this film. According to my wife, and several others I’ve talked to, the books are well-written, fast-moving pieces of fiction. In that case, I can only come to the conclusion that the screenwriter was to blame for the horrible nature of the story, and if that is true, I hold out very little hope for the future installments if Melissa Rosenberg remains the sole screenwriter.

As for the actors and actresses portraying these coveted characters the performances were universally underwhelming, with not a single stand-out amongst the group. In the lead roles, Kristen Stewart (“The Messengers”) and Robert Pattinson (“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”) appeared bored and wooden, respectively. For a young starlet in such a high-profile role, I would have thought that Kristen would have attempted to bring some semblance of emotional range or at least an interest in the role; however, all I ever felt when watching her portrayal was that she would rather be anywhere except in the movie. Then there is Robert Pattinson whose performance gives even the much maligned Hayden Christensen a run for the money in terms of stiffness and general lack of anything resembling an acting talent. Personally I wondered how either of the two leads in this movie managed to make it through the casting process given their end results on the screen. However, based on the box office numbers and fan hysteria surrounding the film, I would say my opinion on the matter falls somewhere in the minority.

The supporting cast members as I stated a moment ago were generally uninspiring in their performances as well. Portraying the leader of the evil vampires is actor Cam Gigandet (“Never Back Down”). Unfortunately for Cam, and the other two members of his posse in the film, with characters as thinly developed and underutilized as these, you’ll be lucky to enjoy an enduring career in a business as fickle as the movies. For these characters the fact that they are bad is established through a couple of moments of stalking, a minor altercation or two with some of the town’s folk, and just an overall creepy demeanor. Their characters served as another prime example in how this film’s screenplay lacked in any form of subtlety.

Rounding out the primary players of note (if one can consider them that) are actors Billy Burke (“Untraceable”) and Peter Facinelli (“Hollow Man 2”). Both of these actors are decent enough, and have appeared in several television shows and movies, generally in smaller roles, but they can be relied upon to deliver a solid performance nonetheless. In this film, Billy Burke’s character of Bella’s father appears sporadically throughout the story, and aside from providing the necessary plot device enabling Bella’s presence in this town, he serves no other real purpose. As for Peter Facinelli who portrays the surrogate father to all the “good” vampires living in the sleepy little town, he isn’t given much more to do than offer a few tidbits of common sense that the characters should have already known or sage advice on surviving altercations with the evil vampires.

Lastly, the direction of this film, as handled by Catherine Hardwicke (“Lords of Dogtown”), was merely average at best. The direction wasn’t without its fair share of problems though, and Catherine’s lack of experience with visual effects and more fantastical elements was very apparent. Due to her disadvantage in this area, I feel that she settled on some shots that looked horrid rather than working the problem to better improve them, especially shots involving the vampires using their strength and speed. For the majority of the time when a vampire was moving very quickly the effect employed (kind of a blurring of the actor or something similar to that) would look extremely odd, and instead of making the character appear to move faster they looked slower. Basically, the effects sequences used in the film were detrimental to the end result almost every single time. Of course, Catherine’s very straight-forward, nothing too fancy or flashy camera style didn’t benefit this movie either. With a film like this you expect more grandiose camera maneuvers or tricks; instead she shot it more like a small budget indie film. Which isn’t surprising given that independent film is the world of cinema that she hails from; however, I believe that it’s not a good fit for a movie of this size.

In the end, I found very little to praise in this film, and when one only enjoys approximately 20 minutes out of a nearly two hour running time, it’s to be expected. I know “Twilight” did excellent at the box office, and has struck a chord with many moviegoers, but for me the laughable script, stilted acting, dull sense of direction, and poorly chosen visual effects made this one movie experience that I do not want to endure again.

“Twilight” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief language.