Transformers 4: Will it REALLY be better?

          

          With the upcoming release of “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” I’m honestly not sure what to think about it. On one hand, the introduction of the likable Mark Whalberg to replace the unlikability of Shia Labouf’s character in the third movie is promising. I also have to admit that the dinobots (basically a race of robot dinosaurs) look pretty darn cool. On the other hand, despite the flashy advertising, this is the same franchise that pretty much died off after the first film. The second movie was a disjointed disaster of awful dialogue, abysmal character development, and unbearable toilet humor/racist jokes. The third film was barely better with some better effects, but it was still a horribly written and badly directed lemon with the same bad jokes and underdeveloped characters as the second. Still, several bloggers still feel that this fourth one will DEFINITELY be better than its predecessors. One example that I feel compelled to discuss is Karly Rayner’s recent post on moviepilot.com.

          Now, I respect that she feels that the new installment in the “Transformers” series will be an improvement. However, I feel that the reasons that she gives fail to support her opinion that “Transformers: Age of Extiction” WILL be better than its predecessors.

The first reason that Ms. Rayner gives is that the main villain, Megatron, will be resurrected as a character from the original series named Galvatron, a transformer whose head can transform into a gun. “Galvatron has also been known for carrying a lingering kernel of insanity within his heavily armored self,” says Ms. Rayner, “so there are chances for some unexpected drama from this guy.” With all due respect, just because a compelling character from the original series is being introduced does not change the fact that the character he originated from got little screen time. Between the three movies, Megatron is barely seen. Between all of the human characters’ antics, I can barely remember a single thing Megatron did besides kill the fan-favorite character, Jazz. So at this point, I really could care less that he is being resurrected at all, as I did not get enough time to appreciate his character in the past three films. Sure, a gun for a head is pretty cool but in terms of his character, his resurrection feels too little, too late.

The next thing that Ms. Rayner says made her hopeful for the new installment is director Michael Bay’s promise that the story will be more mature, or as she puts it: “An actual storyline... For adults!” Sure, Michael Bay did tell the Daily Beast, that the new installment will be darker and less childish, but just because he promised something does not mean he will properly deliver on it. In fact, in 2011, Bay made a similar promise during the third film’s production. In an interview with collider.com, Bay said of the third movie that, “What we did with this movie is I think we have a much better script, and we got back to basics. ... It's more serious.” Now, let’s take a look at what he recently told IGN.com about the fourth movie: “"This is a much more cinematic one. I focused on keeping this one slick. There won't be any goofiness in this one. We went a bit too goofy [on the last one].” I don’t know about you, but to me it feels like history is repeating itself. The “serious” elements of the third movie were overshadowed by the bad characters and juvenile humor, and I expect this movie to be the same case.

As a side note, I do side with her third reason that involves the “badass” looking dinobots. It’s not exactly a guarantee that the movie WILL be better than its predecessors, but it is an interesting element that COULD be entertaining. On the contrary, her fourth reason is another one I disagree with.

Rayner rightfully says that the leading ladies of the past two films, Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, had subpar acting abilities, but she also says that actress Nicola Peltz will be a welcome addition to the cast and that “it seems that (she) might actually be able to act as well as look amazing in a pair of hot pants.” She gives Peltz’s performance in the hit series “Bates Motel” as an example of her acting prowess but forgets to mention that she also gave a poor, Razzie-nominated performance in the infamous “The Last Airbender.” Actors that have succeeded in some roles are always prone to error, and can easily give bad performances in other roles. Just look at Will Smith: he is  fine actor, but his performance in last year’s “After Earth” was beyond terrible. Even if Peltz’s performance in the new “Transformers” film is good, it will still not be enough to elevate its quality if it is bad.

Rayner’s final reason that the new “Transformers” film WILL be good is the rumors of Unicron (a fan-favorite character from the original series) being in it. When it comes to Hollywood, it is extremely faulty to trust something that is a rumor. In the past few years, we’ve gotten rumors that Spider Man would appear after the credits to “The Avengers,” and that rapper Lil’ Wayne would star in Pixar’s “The Good Dinosaur.” Though the rumor of Unicron’s appearance does have more credibility, it is still a rumor, and a rumor does not seem like a good reason to say “Transformers: Age of Extinction” will be better than the past films.

Now, despite my lengthy post, I do not wish to come across as a cynical jerk. I am simply saying that Ms. Rayner’s examples do not constitute as proof that the new “Transformers” WILL be better. They may constitute as reasons it COULD be better, but I honestly find her article to be flawed. Who knows? Maybe “Transformers: Age of Extinction” will blow me away, and be the best film in the franchise. Maybe it will even be the best film of the Summer. On the contrary, it seems unlikely, and with respect to Ms. Rayner, her reasons do not guarantee an improvement.


Note: I appreciate the ability to respond to your article, Ms. Rayner and I hope that you respond to it. My only intent with this article is constructive criticism and I wish you the best.

Oculus (R) : Not for the Squeamish

Score: 4.5/5

“Oculus” is one of those horror films that you rarely see in recent years: a wide-release scary movie with an actual sense of dread and horror. This along with last year’s “The Conjuring” and “You’re Next” could easily signify an improvement in Hollywood horror.

Starring up incoming actors Karen Gillan (appearing this summer in Guardians of The Galaxy) and Brenton Thwaits (appearing in this summer’s “Maleficent”), "Oculus" tells the disturbing tale of two siblings going face-to-face with a supposedly haunted mirror that haunted them as children. After the brother Tim (Thwaits) is released from a mental institution, his arguably more unstable sister Kaylie (Gillan) recruits him to take part in an experiment to prove that an antique mirror is responsible for the death of their mother when they were kids.

In the wrong hands, this plot could have been handled haphazardly and poorly. However, writer/director Mike Flanagan and co-writer Jeff Howard do a fine job in crafting a genuinely unsettling but well-made experience. The structure of this film is fantastic. While other films like “Twilight: Eclipse” and “Man of Steel” poorly execute flashbacks into the main story, “Oculus” actually uses flashbacks to its advantage. Throughout the movie, the audience is shown what happened to the main characters as children. Instead of showing all of the events chronologically, the writers make the wise choice of interspersing the events of each story (the past and the present) in a parallel fashion. For example, what happens at the beginning of the past’s story is shown back-to-back with what happens at the beginning of the present’s story. The events are shown in a way that both stories reach full circle by the end.  In many ways, the structure itself is symbolized by the mirror; the past and present are reflected and shown parallel to each other.

Moreover, the sheer unpredictability of the plot makes the terror even more effective.  Considering that the characters are both mentally traumatized by the events of their childhood, it isn’t sure at the beginning whether or not the mirror is actually haunted. Before the answer to that question is revealed, the main characters constantly have disorienting hallucinations. Whether it’s suddenly finding themselves in another room or seeing people that aren’t there, the story is reminiscent to a nightmare where nothing you do can stop what’s going to happen. No matter what the characters do, there is always a sense of not knowing what really happened and what didn’t. The Grade-A editing of this film certainly helps its effectiveness too.

Something else that makes this a superior modern horror film is the lower-than-average emphasis on cheap gore. While there are some bloody, grisly scenes in “Oculus,” their sporadic appearances make them even more terrifying when they show up. The violence is mixed perfectly with the creepiness to ensure a much more terrifying experience than the average moviegoer would expect. It is perhaps the first time in quite a while where I could take gory scenes seriously. The same goes for the performances.

Karen Gillan and Brenton Thwaits elevate a fine script into a masterful film with compelling, honest performances that make the film much more raw and fear-inducing. I for one am looking forward to seeing their blockbuster debuts this Summer; with performances like these, I’m sure they will make it to the big time in no time.

Indeed this film is quite good. The only criticism I really have is that some scenes felt a tad unnecessarily. I felt that they could have been cut out without disrupting the story. On the other hand, I'm not really sure if this is an actual problem with the film, or just another element of its mind-bending plot.   

While I’m not expecting “Oculus” to do HUGE numbers at the box office, I sincerely hope a sequel is made (a theatrical-level one, not a poor direct-to-DVD one). Without spoiling the film, the plot is tied up nicely at the end. Still, a fine franchise could certainly be made of this. If you’re a fan of disturbing, creepy, competent horror films, I’d highly suggest checking this one out. Be prepared though; I can honestly say it is one of the more disquieting films I’ve seen in recent years.

Final Grade: A

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (PG-13) : One of the Best

Score: 5/5

In the past few months there have been many reasons to be excited for the sequel to 2011’s “Captain America: The First Avenger.” From Black Widow’s promised prominence in the plot to the intrigue of how Captain America himself will adjust to the modern world, the hype for this movie has been overwhelming to say the least. On top of that were the glowing early reviews, some of which saying that “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is even better than “The Avengers.” I’m sure the question on everyone’s minds is: “does this live up to the hype?” You bet.

            The sheer amount of suspense and political intrigue in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” would make it a fine sequel on its own. However, not only does this film manage to surpass the excellent first installment, but in some ways surpass “The Avengers.”

            Taking place after the events of 2012’s “The Avengers,” Captain Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans reprising his role) struggles to adapt to a world shrouded in fear and obsessed with security. Now working for the government organization S.H.I.E.L.D, Rogers faces the conflict of being ill-informed of his recruiters’ ulterior motives and hidden agendas. The retro, simplistic era of the 1940s is far behind him, and Rogers must use his skills and wits to take down a possible conspiracy inside of S.H.I.E.L.D. Coming along for the ride are Black Widow (played reliably well by Scarlett Johansson) and newcomer The Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie of “Pain and Gain”).  Together they must take down a force none of them expected to face.

            Unlike previous Marvel films like “The Avengers,” and “Thor,” the plot of this movie is much more down-to-Earth. In today’s world of NSA controversy and outright paranoia, many plot elements in this film give it a very modern and relevant feel. In many ways, this is a stark contrast to the retro, swashbuckling feel that the first “Captain America” gave off. This is a perfect way to tell the Captain’s story; Steve Rogers has been thrust into the modern day against his will, and after the fantastical events of “The Avengers,” he is just now starting to be affected by today’s mentality of security. It’s indeed very interesting plot foundation for a superhero film.

            As well as being a fine continuation of the first film’s story, the new elements that this film brings to the “Captain America” series are quite good enough for the film to stand on its own. Even those who didn’t care for the first movie could get a kick out of them. Among the new characters is The Hawk, an ex-military superhero introduced in this film. This character is immensely likable, partly because of Anthony Mackie’s fine performance, but mostly because they introduce him from the very beginning and flesh out his character.

            Also joining the cast is veteran actor Robert Redford as the sinister Alexander Pierce. Redford is the type of villain that is rather refreshing to see in a superhero film: villains unaided by superpowers or violence and who carry the story with wits and malice alone.  He doesn’t need a mech-suit or psychic abilities, but he is a fine menace for the First Avenger to go up against.

 

            In addition to the fine new characters, every action set piece in this movie is both exhilarating and an absolute thrill to watch. What makes them even better is that they are accompanies by a gripping story with plenty of shocking and even emotional twists and turns. Even after seeing aliens invade New York in “The Avengers,” this movie’s more grounded approach to storytelling gives a sense that the stakes are higher than ever in the Marvel Universe. Fear not though, this movie is far from a dark one, and there is plenty of that good ole’ Marvel humor to give some levity.  I’m pretty sure that audiences won’t be prepared for how intense the story alone is.

            It’s not very common that audiences get an April movie that’s not only great, but exceptional. “Captain America: Winter Soldier” is indeed a masterpiece, and as much of a bold statement as it seems, it is one of the best superhero movies I have ever seen. The amount of sheer quality it possesses makes it an absolute must-see.

Final Grade: A+

Grab-Bag: Top 10 Glorified Celebrity Film Cameos

*Update: I decided to change the title of this article due to the fact that Jesse Eisenberg filmed his role for "Camp Hell" in 2007 as a favor for a friend. Therefore, it was not stunt casting, but an inflated cameo.

Note:

Before I begin this list, I have to lay down a few rules to narrow my selection. First of all, I am restricting my selections to feature films. I will also only include small roles that were used to market the movie.  

Top Ten Glorified Celebrity Film Cameos

With the unanticipated release of “The Other Woman” approaching, 20^th Century Fox continues to show off Nicki Minaj’s bit role in a lot of the advertising. Some trailers on YouTube even have her name top-billed in the title, as if it stars her. Considering that she received no such top-billing on the poster or even her name listed in the trailer, her role is most likely an example of an overblown cameo. For as long as I can remember, studios have had this habit of casting well-known celebrities to give their movie more marketing credibility. Audiences are fooled into thinking that their favorite celebrities are starring in the movie, but when they actually see it, said celebrities are only on screen for a couple short scenes. This edition of “Grab Bag” will go over the most obvious examples of this in recent years.

10. Liam Neeson – “Battleship”

Sure, Universal made the “genius” decision of casting Rihanna as a naval officer, but at least she had a decent amount of scenes. Liam Neeson, however was only in the movie for about five minutes. This would be forgivable if it was a surprise cameo, but he was prominently featured in the film’s trailers. There are even reports of tour guides at Universal Studios Hollywood stating that the movie starred Liam Neeson. Unfortunately for Universal, the stinted performances of Taylor Kitsch, Rihanna, and Brooklyn Decker weren’t enough to salvage the film from flopping at the box office. Just goes to show that borderline false-advertising doesn’t always lead to more bums in the seats.

9. Fan Bingbing – “Iron Man 3”

Speaking of which, there was a considerable amount of hype about the Chinese version of “Iron Man 3.” Ever since it was announced that there would be exclusive scenes with Chinese actors included to appeal to the lucrative Chinese film market, many people wondered what those scenes would involve. When it was announced that Chinese actress/fashion icon Fan Bingbing would be appearing in the Chinese cut, I’m sure many international fans were more than ecstatic. Unfortunately, not only did her scene last the time of a hiccup, but her character wasn’t even given a name. This attempt at pandering was so obvious, not even the Chinese audience it was intended for cared for it.

8. Chris Brown – "Think Like a Man"

To be fair, Chris Brown was perfect for his role in this film. Here he plays an unlikable womanizer that ditches Megan Goode’s character after a one-night-stand.  On the other hand, besides his scene that was prominently featured in the trailer, he has two other appearances that each last about ten seconds long. Basically after his first scene, he literally quickly walks by Megan Goode in a couple of other scenes and gets her name wrong. It is sort of funny, but it is nevertheless a bloated cameo, and one that the studio implied to be a bigger role in the advertising. Unlike the next few entries on this list, at least he didn't receive top-billing. 

7. Brad Pitt – “12 Years a Slave”

Okay, before you freak out, let me say that “12 Years a Slave” was my absolute favorite film of 2013, and Brad Pitt did a fine job in his role. However, in terms of the marketing for this film, his role was bloated to the extreme. While his character does play a pivotal role, he has about one scene in the whole film that lasted less than ten minutes. What’s even worse is that in some countries like Italy, he was not only given top-billing, but his face took up most of the controversial poster (seen above). His giant floating head barely left any room for the film’s true star, Chiwetel Ejiofor. Again, Brad Pitt is a fine actor and “12 Years a Slave” is a fantastic film, but this example of a glorified cameo is quite obvious.

6. Chow Yun-Fat – “Pirates of The Caribbean: At World’s End”

While the third installment of Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” series had a bizarre cameo from Keith Richards, at least Disney had the decency to have him as a surprise appearance. It wasn’t exactly a well-kept secret, but they didn’t deliberately use his name to promote the movie. Famous Hong Kong actor Chow Yun-Fat is another story. In what I’m guessing was an attempt to appeal to the Chinese market, Disney gave Chow Yun-Fat a nice spot in the film’s marketing, top-billing his name left and right. In the actual film though, his character pops in for a couple of scenes before leaving. This likely disappointed his fans that were excited to see him add some more kung-fu-flair to a swashbuckling adventure. It doesn’t seem that Disney learned their lesson either, as they would later try to pull this off in the Chinese version of “Iron Man 3" (see number nine).

5. Lil’ Wayne- “Hurricane Season”

Originally intended for theaters, this Forrest Whittaker post-Hurricane-Katrina-sports-drama was thrown onto DVD shelves in early 2010. In addition to Lil’ Wayne’s stage name featured at the top of the DVD cover, various hip-hop websites like allhiphop.com reported on the rapper’s film debut with much enthusiasm. Not only does his total screen time amount to about two minutes, but his performance was absolutely baffling. Considering his apparent affinity for cough syrup and weed, it wouldn’t surprise me if he was high while the camera was on. Indeed it may be amusing to some, but his part just isn’t big enough to prevent this from being another brief appearance disguised as a lead role.

4. Pitbull- “Epic”

Indeed it is only a voice-only role, but the fact that he is in this movie is completely random. This character was not only featured in the trailers and the poster, but Pitbull himself received top billing on each of them. The sheer amount of screen time he had in the film’s marketing seems to be longer than the actual film. Not to mention that despite playing a toad, Pitbull essentially plays himself in this movie. His character, Bufo is a smooth-talking tough guy that loves parties. This is pretty much the basis of every one of Pitbull’s songs. Despite this character having his own poster and behind-the-scenes featurette, he is in the movie for two short scenes, never to be seen again afterwards and barely contributes to the overall story.   

3. Nicki Minaj – "Ice Age: Continental Drift"

Ah, poor Nicki. She not only inspred this list, but is on it with an entirely different role. This example is essentially the same case as Pitbull in “Epic.” Her character was featured in all of the trailers and she received top billing in both the trailer and the poster. It’s even made by the same studio, Blue Sky, which makes one wonder if they have a habit for this kind of thing. Here, Nicki Minaj plays a mammoth with a bad attitude. Strangely enough, she is a member of a gang of mischievous mammoths whose leader is played by fellow rapper, Drake. At the very least, Drake has a relatively significant role in the movie and actually has a decent amount of lines. Nicki, however, has about three lines. She had so few lines, that I could still remember “Gross! It’s that weirdo who chills with possums!”   

2. Jesse Eisenberg: “Camp Hell”

This example was so bad, that Eisenberg himself sued its distributor Lionsgate for $3 million dollars in damages. Anybody who is a regular visitor of Redbox is likely to have seen Eisenberg’s face featured prominently on the cover of the film’s DVD (seen above). In fact, despite how small his role was, his was the ONLY face featured on the DVD cover. Fresh off his fame from films like “Zombieland” and his Oscar-Nominated performance in “The Social Network,” Lionsgate took full advantage of Eisenberg’s mere cameo appearance in this low-budget horror film that nobody’s heard about. Luckily, the people who decided to mislead the consumers were too stupid to get away with this.

1. Kim Kardashian – "Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor"

After his failed attempt to defend his casting of the unlikable Kim Kardashian, Tyler Perry’s career took yet another beating with what many describe as the most desperate attempt at stunt casting in recent years. Besides this film, Kardashian has only appeared in the horrendous 2008 spoof film, “Disaster Movie.” However, her role in “Temptation” is even worse because the movie actually takes itself seriously. With all of the instances of marital issues, unfaithfulness, and domestic violence in the trailer, Tyler Perry shoots himself in the foot by having Kim Kardashian’s name appear next to a smug-looking Kardashian smiling at the audience.  Even the addition of the Eminem and Rihanna song “Love the Way You Lie” couldn’t save Kardashian’s appearance in the trailer to be laughed at by countless moviegoers. She isn’t even in the movie for that long, even if her awful delivery of Perry’s terrible dialogue makes it feel like hours. Kardashian would eventually go on to win a Razzie for Worst Supporting Actress for this role; a well-deserved ending to one of the most overblown cameos ever.

Grab-Bag: 6 Cartoons too Dumb to Exist (but they do)

Yes, another type of post. But unlike my regular reviews and my "Second Chance Reviews," this series is not a type of movie review. Rather, Grab-Bag allows me to share my random thoughts on film and television media. It is also inspired by cracked.com and their posts.

Gilligan’s Planet

            You’d think that if somebody walked into a studio and said “’Gilligan’s Island’ is cool and all, but it should be in space,” that they’d be laughed out of the office. Apparently though, CBS thought it would make the perfect Saturday morning cartoon. Apparently, in an attempt to get off the island, the Professor was able to build a spaceship. Unfortunately, the spaceship rockets too far off and the gang gets stuck on another planet that just happens to support human life. What’s even stranger about this show is the fact that they got most of the original cast members (except for Tina Louise) to reprise their roles. Not surprisingly, the show was cancelled after one season and 13 episodes. However, one still has to give it credit for making more sense than the last season of “Lost.”

Laverne and Shirley in the Army

                  On the subject of classic sitcoms, I can only imagine what the thought process was to decide that Laverne and Shirley should be enlisted in the U.S. military. Like “Gilligan’s Planet,” this show had the main cast reprise their roles. Some new cast members include a strict drill sergeant and a talking pig named Sgt. Squealy. Now, simply centering a show around two sitcom characters joining the military would be weird enough, but adding a talking animal to the mix is just pushing it. What’s next? How about a show where the cast of “Full House” is hired by a talking tiger named “Putin” to work for the KGB?

Sonic Underground

            Pretty much every kid who grew up in the early 90’s is familiar with the “Sonic the Hedgehog” games. They were music games about a dystopian society where music is banned. After finding his long-lost siblings, Sonic must fulfill a prophecy to defeat the evil dictator, Dr. Robotnik and restore peace by finding their mother: the noble Queen Aleena. To do this, players must use the power of magical musical instruments to defeat…oh wait…that’s just the bizarre premise for this show. Now, this isn’t the first cartoon based on the “Sonic the Hedgehog” video game series, but it is certainly the weirdest. Remember the “Sonic the Hedgehog” game where you played musical instruments to defeat your enemies and performed songs that would make the collaboration album of Metallica and Lou Reed sound good? I didn’t think so. Besides the inaccuracy to the games, this show makes the odd decision to not only have Jaleel White (who played Urkel on Family Matters and Sonic on previous shows) reprise his role as Sonic, but to have him play Sonic’s sister, Sonia. Now, I have nothing against his performance as Sonic, but his portrayal of his sister sounds EXACTLY like Urkel. I just can’t help picturing Urkel in a dress reading the lines.  Oh, and the songs are terrible…

Kung Fu Dino Posse

            Between “Battletoads,” “Street Sharks,” “Cowboys of Moo Mesa,” and “Cheetahmen,” the 80’s and 90’s had its fair share of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” rip-offs. However, in 2009, the Starz Network decided to air this poorly-made knockoff. Created by Peter Lenkov, the man responsible for last year’s notorious flop: “R.I.P.D.,” “Kung Fu Dino Posse” centers around four dinosaurs who are awoken from a frozen state to fight crime in modern times. Now, putting aside that this show is a knockoff of TMNT, I’m not quite sure why they chose the word “Posse” to describe them. Apparently the words “Team” and “Group” weren’t cool enough, so they had to use a word commonly associated with a duo of rapping clowns.  One would be quick to notice that the animation is so choppy, that it makes knockoff Disney animatronics look smooth. The dialogue barely even syncs up with the characters’ mouths. Moreover, the premises of the episodes range from generic road trips to a disturbingly juvenile episode involving using flatulence to power a jetpack-diaper. I felt my IQ lower by 100 points just by typing that.

Almost Naked Animals 

            Can you believe that this is for kids? Yes, it sounds like something you’d see on Comedy Central or MTV, but this Canadian catastrophe recently aired on Cartoon Network in the U.S. On a network famous for successful shows like “Adventure Time” and “Regular Show,” one would think that there would be some form of quality control. Filled with ugly character designs, poor animation, constant toilet humor and forced acting, one at least has to give this show credit for being memorably terrible. Just one frame of this show is bound to give anyone with a respect for animation a heart attack. In addition to Justin Bieber’s behavior, the mere fact that this show exists can easily leave another unfortunate stain on Canada’s reputation.        

           

Super Duper Sumos

           

            Sumo wrestling: an honorable tradition that has a significant place in Japanese culture. It is a sport where the athletes skillfully craft themselves to be immovable objects with specific diets and exercise.* Yep, sounds like the perfect setup for a slapstick kids’ show to me. Kids surely don’t need to know about the tradition of sumo wrestling. All they need to know is that sumo wrestlers look fat and have big butts, so they are therefore hilarious. This show is so reliant on fat jokes, that its theme song has the line “they’ve got guts AND BUTTS.” In fact, when I’ve first heard about this show, I couldn’t decide whether the creators wanted to make kids laugh with fat jokes or if they had some Sir-Mix-A-Lot-style obsession for large posteriors. The world may never know, but considering that there's an episode called "I'm Too Sexy for my Butt," I’m going to assume the latter. Oh, and there was a video game based on it too…the cover speaks for itself…yes, that is their version of a “high five”…God help us all.

*Note: Sumo wrestlers are actually not healthy. However, they still work hard and do not stuff their faces with junk food. 

Divergent (PG-13): Mostly Succeeds

Score: 3.5/5               

              “Divergent,” at least to me, was a perfect example of why Rotten Tomatoes shouldn’t be a be-all-end-all declaration of whether a movie is enjoyable or not. While this movie may not win over anyone who dislikes the young-adult genre, it’s still worth checking out even if you haven’t read the book. I dare even say it was quite good.

                “Divergent” stars Shailene Woodley as Tris, a young woman living in a dystopian society divided into several factions. Now, for those of you who are quick to unfavorably compare this to the “Hunger Games” series, this is pretty much where the similarities end. Instead of being forced to fight against the other factions to survive, Tris faces the dilemma of being grouped into one of the factions via a government-run aptitude test. Once she discovers that her results are inconclusive (or as the movie calls it: “Divergent”), she is put in danger. Since divergent people are a sign that the government’s control is weak, the government actively seeks to destroy them. It is up to Tris to use her wits and physical prowess to avoid persecution for the government and hide her divergent results.

               

                While its premise alone is quite fascinating, “Divergent” does a fine job of setting up its world, and gives plenty of details to the audience about how it works. The fantastic blend of real-life sets and digital imagery is a pleasure to watch, and it really gives the viewer a sense of immersion. From underground caves to city catacombs, fans and non-fans of the novel will likely be delighted seeing author Veronica Roth’s work come to life.  

                Some of my favorite scenes involved dream-like simulations where the characters’ fears were put to the test. One scene involves Tris trying to stop a dog that was friendly to her from attacking a young girl in a hall of mirrors. A lot of creativity and effort was clearly put into bringing this scene from the book to the big screen.

                Shailene Woodley is truly outstanding in her role as Tris, taking on the role with great skill. From happiness and confidence to sadness and fear, Woodley remarkably relays these emotions to make Tris an absolutely riveting character. It certainly does help that her character is is so well written.  From the very beginning to the tail-end of the movie, the audience is given plenty of time to feel for Tris. Throughout the movie, she must make difficult choices, and every one of them is shown in full detail thanks to the fine screenplay and exemplary cinematography.

One particular scene involves the moment where she must choose what faction to join despite her inconclusive test results. Her parents are both part of “Abnegation,” the faction in charge of community service. On the other hand, her dream as a child was to join “Dauntless,” a faction dedicated to law enforcement and military duties. Without the proper test results to guide her, she must choose between the two in a scene that involves plenty of close ups to build a heavy sense of tension.

I’m not going to spoil anything about the plot, but I will say that there are plenty of dark, unexpected twists. These moments of shock and surprise give the screenplay a lot more meat to it than it could have had.

The cinematography alone is another high point of this movie. Every action setpiece of this movie is finely shot, and every punch and fall is hard hitting and realistic. One scene involving a human knife-throwing target was so suspenseful, that I (and I’m sure many other audience members) flinched at the excruciatingly close impact of the knives around the person’s body.

To be fair to this film’s critics, the love story does feel a bit unnecessary. Watching Tris as she builds friendships and evades her enemies would have been a fine concept on its own. Unfortunately, she is given a rather bland character as a love interest named Four (played by Theo James). James’ performance isn’t nearly as up to par as Woodley’s, and his character just seems too flawless to really care about. Add that to the fact that he has a troubled past, and this character just came across as a gary-stu/obligatory male love interest. On the bright side, his character does help Tris throughout the story, so he isn’t completely pointless. To be honest, he didn’t really seem like that major of a character, and Tris still rightfully held the spotlight.

While it may not be a groundbreaking sci-fi film, Divergent is still a pleasure to watch. Even its weak love story takes a back seat to immerse the audience in a fascinating world. Fans of the book will most likely enjoy it, and even non-fans will get a kick out of its many plot twists and dreamlike visuals.

Second Chance Reviews: Grown Ups 2 (PG-13)

Score: 0/5

                      Grown…Ups…2…

            Now, I had no plans on seeing this when it was in theaters. In fact, I made a vow to stay as far away from it as possible. However, as much as I wanted to tear this movie apart based on the abysmal trailers and reviews, I couldn’t fairly criticize it since I hadn’t seen it. So, with the introduction of my “Second Chance Reviews” series, I thought I’d give this movie a fair criticism by watching the whole thing and writing a review. Now, before I begin my immense critical thrashing of this sequel, I want to address something: I didn’t totally hate the first “Grown Ups.”

            Of course, I’m not saying it is a good movie; there are still some moments of pointless toilet humor and a complete absence of conflict or story. On the other hand, the actors were likable and had good chemistry on screen together. It wasn’t too painful to watch, in fact, it was kind of nice to see these real-life friends interact on screen. Now…for the sequel…I’m going to try my best to be civil with this review, but let me tell you, it’s not going to be easy. That is because this pile of vomit deserves to be chucked into the nearest back alley trash can.

            All of the likability of the first “Grown Ups” is gone, and in its place is a cringe-worthy series of gross-out gags and bad puns strung together by robotic dialogue. The humor in this movie is on the level of a grade-school dropout and just to demonstrate how atrocious the jokes are, allow me to provide a few examples. WARNING: the mere description of these “jokes” can be harmful to the human brain.

            Let’s start off with the very first joke to start off the movie. Adam Sandler’s (I’m not even going to bother looking up his character’s name) daughter leaves the front door open and a deer enters his bedroom. His wife (played by Salma Hayek) wakes up and startles the deer, causing the deer to urinate all over Adam Sandler’s face and mouth. The deer proceeds to run down the hallway and urinate on Sandler’s son in the shower. Now, this joke was in the trailer, so if this was one of the funniest scenes according to the marketing team, I’d hate to see what they consider to be unfunny garbage. Though to its credit, it pretty much sums up the movie, and such a joke is the perfect way to start a horrendous abomination.

            Other jokes that Sandler seems to think are comedy gold are scenes involving a man accidently eating Cheetos that were stuffed up his nose, “burp-snarting” (which according to the movie is a burp, a sneeze and a fart in perfect sequence), and an effeminate male cheerleader licking bird feces off of a windshield. These jokes are only part of what seems like a constant barrage of audience-insulting toilet humor.

            Now please…for those of you who actually find this funny…please explain to me why such unpleasant gags are considered funny to you. If I were to meet someone who thought that licking bird droppings of a window was funny, I would think they have problems. So tell me, why on God’s green Earth do you find this repulsive, lazy disgraceful “humor” enjoyable. I’m just baffled here; can you tell me why this is worthy even of a chuckle?

            Not only is a lot of the humor disgusting, but most of it is just lazy and predictable. In one scene, a psychotic bus driver (played by Nick Swardson of the box-office-disaster: “Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star”) walks past a bathroom display in a K-mart and falls asleep in a nearby bed. When a staff member tries to get him out of the bed, he wakes up in a semi-conscious state and uses the toilet (complete with lots of “hilarious” farting sounds). The minute he walked by that toilet display, I knew that they were going to use this ridiculous joke. This joke isn’t even new; it’s been done before on an episode of “Rugrats” and in “Jackass: The Movie.”

            This movie is so lazy, that it even has to flat out explain the jokes to the audience. In one scene, Adam Sandler is at the supermarket with his daughter. A gay aerobics teacher that his wife thinks is attractive shows up and the daughter calls him “stud muffin.” This would have been a passible joke on its own, but she literally says “Mommy calls him stud muffin, so I call him stud muffin.” Do the filmmakers honestly think the audience isn’t smart enough to get the joke without bluntly explaining it? Was this film truly made for the half-witted?

            Not to mention, the dialogue is robotic and extremely forced. The way that the characters’ lines were written and delivered reminded me of “Birdemic: Shock and Terror,” but not in a funny way. It almost seems like Sandler just came up with a bunch of terrible jokes and slapped them together with a script that even the worst fanfiction authors would be ashamed of writing.

            Saying that this movie is an insult to filmmaking,” would be an understatement. I could quote Roger Ebert’s review of “Caligula” by saying that “Grown Ups 2” is “sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash. If it is not the worst film I have ever seen, that makes it all the more shameful: People with talent allowed themselves to participate in this travesty.” However, even saying something that harsh seems like honoring this rancid middle-finger of a movie.