Transformers: Age of Extinction

**Warning this will be spoiler heavy because I don't give a crap about spoiling this movie, if you care, do not read the following review. Have a nice day.**

I hate Michael Bay. But the main reason I hate him is likely different from why other people hate him. I hate him, because he just does the same thing over and over again, instead of improving and being a better director, especially when I know he can be a better director. His three highest rated movies, are The Rock, Pain & Gain, and the first Transformers movie, at least according to Rottentomatoes. To some extent, I would agree with this assessment. Pain & Gain was the most fun I had with a Bay film. The Rock, in my opinion is an exceptional film (especially for Michael Bay) it comes as no surprise to me though, that Bay's only, yes, his only fresh rated film is The Rock.

I hate Bay because he refuses to be the good director I know he can be. He refuses to evolve and make what are widely considered, on a critical standpoint, to be terrible films, better. He does absolutely nothing other than repeat the same points over and over again in his films. That could not be more clear than with the Transformers series up to this point. 

Seriously, they practically sync up perfectly.

But now to get to the grit of what this is about, the actual review of the fourth movie. 

 

It would honestly be a bit more difficult to sync up number 4 to the previous three, because Bay does something different this time around. We still have an opening that takes place in the past, but there is absolutely no opening narration by Optimus Prime, which has opened the prior three films.

Another reason as to why this would not exactly sync up properly with the previous films, is because this film is essentially two movies that tries to sell you that it is one movie, while shamelessly setting up a sequel that will no doubt happen, and I'm okay with it, because I actually get enjoyment out of watching terrible movies like this and being among a small party that laugh at every stupid thing done or said in the movie.

 

Like explosions that come out of dirt instead of the actual thing that is exploding.

Also, the Dinobots can speak fucking English, granted broken English, and I don't understand why all they can do, even when transformed is make dinosaur sounds. It does make sense when you examine how they were made, but once you start to investigate that that is also how Optimus and the other Autobots/Decepticons were made, it then makes no fucking sense.

I just don't understand why you would purposely step on, and ruin something that I, and many others loved as children by not properly representing them. Granted, they are the most bad-ass aspect of the film, and hopefully they will be more prevalent than just roughly thirty minutes of screen time in the fifth movie.The most consistent character in the film was Mark Wahlberg's Cade Yaeger (yes, his last name is Yaeger, pronounced exactly like Jaeger, or Jäger. Which are the robots in Pacific Rim, a film far superior to this piece of trash), and the least consistent, again, is Optimus Prime. Prime straight up murders several characters in this film, just murders them, he even rushes into a building and orders his autobots to terrorize people. The Autobots are terrorists. As crazy as this sounds it is sadly a subplot of the film, the idea having been proposed by Kelsey Grammer's character, whom Optimus murders near the end of the film.

This has by far been my biggest running complaint of the franchise, Prime gradually over the course loses his morality that he is so famous for. Killing people that beg for mercy, ripping a defenseless Megatron's head off, promoting the murder and terrorization of humans because they did the same to his people, and straight up blowing people up that don't see it coming. This is not my Optimus, and this is not an Optimus that people should like or be cheering for. He's a psychopath with a bloodlust. Megatron/Galvatron isn't portrayed as much of an antagonist as Prime, and for that matter neither is Lockdown, Age of Extinction's primary "antagonist."

I just don't understand character morality and who is supposed to be viewed as the bad guys in this movie. Lockdown is running around killing Autobots, yes, but he's also, allegedly, been killing Decepticon's too. It turns out he's only been hunting them, because he was promised Prime, while he wanted Prime to make him a trophy, essentially, that doesn't change the fact that Galvatron, the likel antagonist for the following films has maybe ten minutes of total screen time, and there's literally nothing different about Galvatron and Megatron than appearance and voice, no longer being voice acted by Hugo Weaving, and is now voiced by Frank Welker, someone who has taken on the role of Galvatron and Megatron before. And hell, while Galvatron is clearly presented as a villain, he's presented in one straight forward way with one motive, to be reborn, and to take over the world and kill all humans/Autobots. Nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't flip flop around, changing what he considers just or injust in the matter of a 2 hour and 45 minute movie, he just wants to cause chaos.

Yep, Rainbow Dash is a man made Transformer in this movie.

Honestly, I cannot believe the padding of pointless shit that added nothing to the plot in this. Sure, some of the action shots were longer, and the action was more clear. But I still had no idea what was going on because of the fucking shaky cam. Not to mention that only eight robots are named thirteen if you count the thirty minutes worth of Dinobots. But this scene, with Rainbow Dash literally made me laugh out loud, not because it was funny. But it comes out of nowhere, is intended t be funny, but isn't. It only serves to make "bronies" mark out and confuse the hell out of people that don't know what that fucking is other than a plush pony toy. Then there's this random shot of Mark Wahlberg nodding when the dinobots came running in to save the day. it's a two second close up shot of Wahlberg fucking nodding. WHY IS THAT IN THE MOVIE? We don't need Wahlbergs approval to know that the Dinobots kicking ass is awesome, they're fucking robot dinosaurs. Why is this movie two hours and 45 minutes long, because of these pointless fucking scenes that add nothing to the plot.

Sorry.

I get upset when I think about this sort of stuff, and that causes me to use "obscenities."

Seriously though, when this movie gets applause from ten or so people. But something like Captain America: The Winter Soldier or The Lego Movie doesn't, it upsets me and it should upset you too. 

This is the epitome of bad writing and poor directing because Bay clearly has stopped caring about getting proper performances out of actors, the few standouts, Wahlberg and Tucci, only stand out, because they can actually act. Grammer does nothing in this movie to even come off as an intimidating villain. Nicola Peltz was about as good an actress here as she was in The Last Airbender. Further her character is seventeen, that is made very clear, to the point where her boyfriend has to pull out a "Romeo and Juliet" (printed out on a piece of paper he conveniently keeps in his wallet) law so that the romance isn't illegal, and yet it's perfectly okay for the camera to objectify this seventeen year old girl. I can understand the relationship being okay. But if this girl is seventeen, don't show me a five second close up of her ass while Marky Mark tells her to go put on some longer shorts. Then there's the boyfriend character played by Jack Reynor, who is the most worthless piece of shit in the series, Sam friggen Witwicky did more than him, not to mention his bland acting. Lastly, TJ Miller is underused and killed off before he can be used to his full potential, not that Bay (or the screenwriters) would even allow that to happen.

My last point will be this, aside from explosions, nothing new happens in this movie, literally nothing. Lockdown kills Ratchet, who nobody cared about to begin with. Then he kidnaps Prime, who is immediately rescued, forcing Lockdown to come back only to be killed by Prime along with Grammer's character. Megatron comes back, which happens in every movie, this time as Galvatron though, he forms an army, that then is trounced by the five Autobots and Five Dinobots, and Galvatron goes into retreat until Transformers 5. Optimus then goes out into space and the movie ends. The world is left in the same condition it was left in at the end of Transformers 3, nobody trusts the Transformers, and they have even more of a reason not to now. Nothing has happened here, that hasn't happened in the previous three movies. It's all been done before, maybe not better, but we've seen everything before.

I read an article recently that basically said Summer blockbusters need to stop being serious. There's one inherent flaw in the article. That is that summer movie typically aren't serious, and he picks out one that was trying to do the disaster movie seriously, while "not having fun with it." I seriously doubt the people behind Godzilla (2014) didn't have fun with it. It insists that because the movie takes its subplots seriously that that is the issue with the film, at least during the summer blockbuster season. This is a ridiculous point of view, because it promotes this sort of shlock, that is nothing but "having fun with it." There's nothing of substance here. It's just inane bullshit from credits to credits. 

I primarily took issue with this quote: "Godzilla wants so badly to make sense. Pacific Rim wants so badly for Ron Perlman to wear golden shoes." 

My main comment to that is, "So what?" Godzilla wants to make devastation and destruction serious, because it's a serious thing. A city is destroyed and millions of people died, and you want that to not be a serious thing? If you didn't have fun watching it, I don't know what to tell you, because I sure as hell enjoyed every second of the monster stuff. Pacific Rim does the same thing, while also joking about it. The only difference between the two is that Pacific Rim had a better writer, and more experienced director, in Guillermo Del Toro. Godzilla's flaw was poor characters, and poor plot points. Not a lack of "fun."

And then there's Transformers: Age of Extinction. All it does is this idea of "have fun with it," there's no evidence of effort put in aside from quality visual effects and waiting until sundown to do some cool shots in the country side. There's a My Little Pony reference for God's sake. My proposal is that Summer blockbusters should be allowed to be as dark or serious as they want, as long as everything in the film makes sense for it to be that way. If the writing is good enough, if the acting is good enough, if the directing is good enough - go all out for the serious, but have fun doing it too. That's what Pacific Rim did, and that's why it seems like they had more "fun with it." It all comes down to the quality of the craft. If it's done right, then do it right.

The simple idea that having fun is what makes a quality Summer blockbuster is absurd, because there is nothing of quality here.

Transformers: Age of Extinction gets a 4/10. It's better than Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), but still worse than the original Transformers (2007). Nothing compares however to the shit storm that was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009).

I'll return at some point with another movie, Tammy is of interest and comes out in the next few days, while Dawn of the Planet of the Apes won't be out until the 11th. I'll also be seeing How To Train Your Dragon 2, down on Long Island with my lovely girlfriend that weekend, likely on the 12th or 13th.

Here, have a video:

22 Jump Street

Turn down for what?

The day of sequels was cut a bit short in the movies department; I only saw one of them. I'm waiting to watch How to Train Your Dragon 2, until I an see it with the girlfriend in July. But at least I was able to see 22 Jump Street.

 

Whoever said sequels can't be better than the original needs to watch this movie. But then again, if you didn't like the first one, you are most likely not going to like this one. But I don't know many people that didn't like the first one.

I take back almost everything I said about how good A Million Ways to Die in the West was. I'd still give it a 7.5, or whatever my score was (I'm too lazy to check), but God, when a good comedy comes out like this one, you realize just how sub-par other comedies are. I will say that this was a lot more "adult" than it's predecessor, 21 Jump Street. If that means anything. There were more obscenities, more sex, and much more violence.

The plot is fairly simple to explain, and nearly identical to the first film, as exemplified (fairly on the nose) by Nick Offerman's character early in the film.

It's actually a bit of a statement about Hollywood's constant remakes and sequels. But it's directly referential to this film itself, basically stating that we will be getting, for the most part, the same movie again. But this time, in college!

 Speaking from experience, everyone in college looks like babies - myself included.

This sort of self referential humor, along with a vast quantity of pop culture references are strewn across the film, and with great effect. My favorite of which would be the "red herring" joke. As the only writer amongst my friends I was the only one that understood the joke, and I'm pretty sure I was the only one in the theater that laughed at it, which is a bit upsetting. None the less, it was my favorite of the self referential jokes.

Ice Cube's role is larger this go around, and he is directly involved in two of the funniest scene's in the film, as well as the climax. Whereas in the first one, he was in the movie for all but ten minutes. He's a very welcome addition, providing a balance between Hill's and Tatum's overly comedic characters, as well as creating tension with one of the few twists I did not see coming. Which in all honesty, I should have. 

Like the first one, the "gay couple" jokes are strong in the narrative, but they aren't off putting. At least not to me, and in all honesty, I don't know why anyone should see them as insulting or off putting. In no way does the film make fun of homosexuality, or the idea of it, if anything the film embraces it. Above all else it's just an extreme portrayal of the "bromance" archetype.

I only bring this up, because I have seen some, negative backlash about that aspect of the film's humor. Perhaps it's because I'm not homosexual that I see no issue with the jokes, or maybe it's just because I see them as jokes and don't take them seriously, but I have no issue with this movies extreme "bromance" relationship. The worst it gets is the scene in the therapist's office, and that simply was a case of the therapist confusing them for a homosexual couple. Nothing more, nothing less - but of course their wording didn't help the situation either.

 

I don't enjoy spoiling movies for people that haven't seen them before, so I try to keep my wording as vague as possible. But with comedies it's harder because you sort of have to give the exposition for a joke, to explain the joke and what is going on. Minor spoilers are not exactly avoidable with comedies. Especially when I throw .GIF's into these reviews.

All in all, the movie was fantastic. It is by far, one of the best comedies I have seen in years, I was laughing consistently throughout, a few times, too much.The pre-credits sequence was hysterical, though it leaves the potential future of the franchise in question. Also, for those who have seen the trailers, do not expect every joke in the trailer to be in the movie, because a few of them, are not there.

22 Jump Street gets a 9.5/10.

I'll be back around the 27th with a review for Transformers: Age of Extinction in which I will probably spew hatred of it for it's dirt explosions. 

 

I just get a vast amount of enjoyment from the explosion coming from the dirt behind Grimlock's head.

Hopefully the Dinobots can speak English and transform out of their dinosaur form. The toys at least suggest they can. Until then, have a video:

Something Cool.

A Million Ways to Die in the West

A bit late on this entry, I know - but forgive me, I'm working on other stuff such as getting an apartment and my license and a car, as well as furnishing said apartment. Not to mention, trying to keep up with the shows I watch in the process. So as you can imagine I've been a bit busy. Hell, I still haven't started getting into Mad Men or any of the HBO shows now on Amazon Prime that I claimed I would have been flying through by this point. Call me lazy, but I just haven't gotten around to any of them.

 

I should probably start by saying that I enjoyed this a lot, and I mean a lot, more than most. It's currently sitting at 33% on Rotten Tomatoes, with an average rating of 4.8/10. Admittedly a little less than Ted. Though only slightly. Perhaps I'm just an idiot that likes Seth McFarlane and his comedy style, I mean I do still enjoy watching Family Guy and American Dad, I never really liked The Cleveland Show, though not many really did.

The humor this go around was a lot more obscene than in Ted, or rather, just more in your face about it. I'd be lying though if I told you I could remember a single line of dialogue that wasn't in the trailer. I'd also be lying if I said, as other critics have claimed, that the best jokes are in the trailer. I was one of the people that had seen the trailer for this several times and still found me laughing at the jokes I had already heard. So perhaps, I was just the right audience for this movie.

I should probably get this out of the way now, because a lot of people seem to be claiming that this was trying to be Blazing Saddles. Like this moron. Perhaps "moron" is a strong word, because he actually has a job, but then again, so do most people. There's literally nothing in this film that resembles the mastery of self-referential comedy that is Blazing Saddles. This isn't even self referential. Sure, "Mila Kunis" is the Native American word for "fine" in the film, but that was simply a joke, and nothing more. Comparing this to Blazing Saddles is like comparing apples to oranges, and I mean that literally. They're both comedies that take place during the 1800's in the West. Just like apples and oranges are fruit. However apples are not oranges, they have a different texture, taste, and they don't need to be peeled (well oranges don't technically need to be peeled, but it's highly recommended). A Million Ways is not Blazing Saddles, it's tailor made for McFarlane's audience, and not trying to be a commentary on comedy and how films are made, Seth McFarlane is not Mel Brooks, nor do I think he is even trying to be. The only similarity between them is that they are Western Comedies, that's it, that's as close as they get to each other.

I just have to ask why so many are making this insane comparison. It's like they thought Blazing Saddles was the only western based comedy to have existed before this (1, 2, 3, 4 there's also this one comparing it to Django Unchained, which in no way was a comedy, though there is a Jamie Foxx cameo). Sure, it is likely that Blazing Saddles had some influence on the film, but what about Three Amigos, Back to the Future: Part III (There's even a friggin cameo that would suggest that had more of an influence than Blazing Saddles), Or even Maverick or My Name is Nobody. The fact of the matter is that people are seemingly refusing to see that this is simply a western comedy, and thus it will have similarities to other western comedies. Perhaps its the absurd nature of A Million Ways that links it to the extreme nature of Blazing Saddles.

I also feel the need to call out the writers of these reviews for their comments, but I won't and call it their opinion. But when I see a line like, "There’s also a runaway slave shooting gallery, which shows MacFarlane’s willingness to offend," I can't just sit back and let that slide. First of all, when has comedy not been about offending someone? When did comedy become something to where nobody should be offended? I've always lived under the impression that comedy, inherently in it's very nature, will offend someone, and that's partially where the humor comes from. I mean, arguably the best stand up comedian ever was George Carlin, and you can't get much more offensive than him.

Basically pointing out that a comedy is being offensive is pointless. If everyone went to a comedy, let a lone an r-rated comedy expecting to at some point not be offended by what they see, then I'm afraid...

 

Sure, I'll admit that Mcfarlane was perhaps not the best choice to lead this film, plenty of people would have potentially be better fit to play the role, I'll agree there, but that's as far as I'll go. It seems that more and more people take offense to jokes and somehow label that as a bad thing. Your personal inability to take a joke is nobodies fault but your own, and you are in no place to blame the movie for your being offended. You spent the money to go see it, you are entirely at fault. Now you can however blame the movie for not being funny, because if you didn't find it funny then it's just not your type of comedy. That may seem like a double standard, but it isn't, allow me to explain.

In one case you find a joke offensive, in both then, it's safe to assume that the joke would be found to be unfunny. Many people can find the joke unfunny, I found a lot of the jokes not-particularly funny while others around me were laughing or not laughing. If they also take an offense to it, that's a personal problem. You are putting your own personal feelings about what can or cannot be joked about above all else. I've said this, for what seems like a million times now, but nothing is off-hands in comedy. Anything and everything can be joked about, and if we start saying "you can't joke about that" because we don't want to offend someone, then we can't joke about anything in fear of offending the next person. That may seem like a slope that is slippery, but it isn't, it's just stating that if we start trying not to offend people, we'll end up at a point, where we won't be because jokes won't be offensive any more, or there just won't be comedians any more (that may be a bit of a stretch though, and I can conceive of that point falling into that of the slippery slope variety). 

Take for example last night's episode of Louie (a bit off topic, but it's relevant) the episode entitled "Pamela 1." Louie tries to force himself onto Pamela, in an attempt to kiss her or more. He even begins to lift her shirt up, all while she is saying "No," and trying to leave, but he is persistent. It goes no where, aside from an awkward, consented kiss. But when she gets away from him, when he stops trying, she says "This would be rape if you weren't so stupid -- you can't even rape well," while pulling her shirt back down over her stomach. You can either watch the episode for your self, or read this article about it. The writer of the article states at the end, "While Louie the character doesn't see the connections, I suspect that Louis the writer knows them all too well—and we have him to thank for producing an episode of television that manages to reflect lived realities while simultaneously challenging them, and even sneaks in a few great jokes in the process." We have something as offensive as rape, and yet, there are jokes about it. Which is not entirely surprisingly, as Louie has defended the use of rape jokes before stating, "To me, all dialogue is positive. For me, any joke about anything bad is great. Any joke about rape, the Holocaust, the Mets -- any joke about something bad is a positive thing. I've read some blogs during this thing that has enlightened me with things I don't know" (Source).

 

Then there's this from an entirely different episode (full scene).

So basically, offensive things exist in comedy. That's just the way it is, and nothing is off limits. All in all, I enjoyed my time with A Million Ways. I found it enjoyable, and wasn't bored with it, I was laughing enough to keep my interest and occasionally I was laughing uncontrollably. 

The opening cinematography and landscape shots will remind any western fan of the classic westerns that they know. Just keep in mind, this in no way is a classic western. I'm giving A Million Ways to Die in the West a 7.5 out of 10. Despite the comedy hitting strong at points, there were still a lot of jokes that fell flat, and admittedly McFarlane is a rather weak lead here, and it would have done the movie better justice to have cast someone else in the lead. Also, NPH is awesome.

 I doubt that I'll be going to the theaters this weekend for either Edge of Tomorrow or The Fault in Our Stars. I'll likely be waiting until next week and the 13th's release of both How to Train Your Dragon 2 as well as 22 Jump Street. Until next time, here's a video, enjoy:

X-Men: Days of Future Past

The summer blockbuster turn continues with my favorite X-Men movie to date, X-Men: Days of Future Past. 

 

One of the main things I feel the need to talk about is essentially what this movie accomplished, though I'm not entirely sure how in a few cases, as others like me are confused. The film served as a reboot to the x-men film franchise, or so it seemed, but I'm not sure what cast they'll be going with for the forthcoming X-Men: Apocalypse. As in, I'm not sure if they will return to the original cast, or stick with the first class cast, or again, do both somehow. The current cast list seems to suggest, as of right now (May 24, 2014), that it's just the first class cast.

I can't speak much to the storyline of the comic, as I'm not exactly familiar with how it goes, I do know the basics given that I've only read it once, but there are quite the lot of differences, but not that it matters too much. No comic book movie has been a direct adaptation, everything, so far, has fallen more along the lines of an appropriation to the stories of the comics. I don't mind the changes made, that I can recall, but being a bigger fan of pretty much every one of the X-Men, over Wolverine, it gets tiring seeing him take center stage all the time, which is perhaps why I enjoyed First Class so much, he only had one scene in the whole movie. A pointless scene, but still, only one. Don't get me wrong, I still like Wolverine, just not as much as every other X-Man.

The two most notable changes are the fact that Wolverine becomes the main character of the story, and not Kitty Pride (Ellen Page's character), and that the Sentinels are so damn small.

Here's a future Sentinel (only slightly smaller than the movie's past Sentinels) fighting Colosus.

 And here is Wolverine and Cyclops fighting three Sentinels from the comics.

That's possibly my "biggest" pet-peeve with the movie, the sentinels aren't the towering monstrosities that they once were. They are still regarded as a threat in the movie, very much so, killing off the majority of the future team, a few times. I also kind of hated the fact that the new X-Men of the future were just kind of thrown into the film, Warpath (two lines, maybe), Blink (who doesn't have a line to my recollection) and Sunspot (for that matter, neither does this guy) were just kind of there, they had no character development and no real character to speak of other than being X-Men and that they don't like the Sentinels. The audience never cares for these new characters, so when they die, a few times, no one cares. Further, (a new) Toad, Spyke and Havok are all at a military base and are rescued by mystique, but for no reason, they serve no other purpose to the narrative than Mystique wanted to rescue them and Jennifer Lawrence can have more screen time (not that I'm complaining about that).

 

More J-Law is never a bad thing.

  

She, and Peter Dinklage sort of steal the show, but the later show stealer could just be due to my personal bias and love for that man. 

 

Peter Dinklage has been stealing the show for years. He's my favorite character in Elf, and Game of Thrones, But here, he places somewhere around third place. Because J-Law and M-Fass (I feel like I should have just wrote Michael Fassbender, but there's no going back now, I'm dedicated to the M-Fass) are too amazing. Michael Fassbender is like my favorite actor right now, so he'll always be my favorite character in whatever he does, even when he's whipping slaves and just being a despicable human being.

 

Don't mind me, I'm just levitating.

 

With just a swing of my arms, explosions!

 

Piss off knaves!

It's only fitting that Magneto is the best character to come out of these X-Men movies, regardless of the movie. Whichever one it is, Magneto is the best damn character there is. Ian McKellen was the best thing going in the first three films, and Michael Fassbender is just the best thing going anywhere. Also, i didn't hate Quicksilver as much as I thought I would, and it's nice to know that Magneto is still his father, or at least it's implied to be that way, through a joke - but where the hell is Scarlet Witch? She's Quicksilver's twin sister, and is no where to be seen, the girl he was holding while watching the TV is apparently, just his younger sister. Apparently a scene alluding to her, perhaps even featuring an image of her (it's hard to tell with this guys vague wording) was cut from the film (source). So not only was a scene featuring Anna Paquin actually doing something cut, but so was Scarlet Witch, not that I care much, neither was necessary - but hell, at least mentioning her existence would have been nice.

I also thoroughly enjoyed the mixture of shaky and steady cam. Shaky cam only coming in when we take on the perspective of a 70's camera man looking through the camera. It's magnificent, because it's kind of snubbing the way action movies use shaky cam all the time, and saying you can only use it when you are taking on someone's point of view, through a camera. It was marvelous and I loved it, especially the fact that it took on the old Academy aspect ratio of 1.375:1.

I find myself stuck in another hard place as I'm now recalling how much I didn't like Godzilla's treatment of Elizabeth Olsen's character. And now that I know how the film has treated two, and potentially three female characters, I have to admit that I am not happy with this. I didn't really think much of it until now, and honestly it isn't coloring my opinion of the film, but more of my opinions of Hollywood in general. I feel as though this is the main reason I'd rather work in the independent sector, because scripts that treat women properly and don't just toss female characters aside - but I'm also getting the feeling that Hollywood is the place I need to be, so that I can have a hand in changing this. How well that will go however, is impossible to know.

The film reminded me a lot of what Joss Whedon did with The Avengers. It was filled with in jokes, and some subtle humor, though admittedly not quite to the quality that Whedon is capable of. It felt like a comic book movie, and that's all that really matters to me. I've had my misgivings about the direction that the non-marvel studios movies may be heading, but at least I know now that the X-Men films, as long as they remain with Bryan Singer, are in good hands. As it is, we don't know anything about Singer's personal life aside from the accusations, accusations are just that, accusations. They have no immediate merit in truth, and frankly should not be taken as such until they are proven to be true. Even then, I'm not sure I'd want the X-Men film franchise in the hands of anyone else, except for maybe Matthew Vaughn.

So again, I have the same basic qualms that I've had with movies for years, they just don't seem to know how to treat women as characters. Ellen Page (Kitty Pride) does not interact with Halle Berry (Storm) or Fan Bingbing (Blink). There is no female X-Man in the past for J-Law to even interact with, so there's that, on that basis alone this film fails the Bechdel test. But as I've always thought, a films failure to meet the requirements of the test never correlate to how good said film is. As is the case with this film, as so far it was my favorite movie in the X-Men franchise, and my favorite of the summer blockbuster season so far. However the 30th's A Million Ways to Die in the West. may change that, despite it's not being a "blockbuster" so to speak.

X-Men Days of Future Past gets an enthusiastic 9/10.Go see it yourself if you don't believe me.

Now we play the waiting game for X-Men: Apocalypse in 2016. That Teaser, at the very end of the credits, got me all hyped up for it. Seeing the aforementioned young Apocalypse and his four horsemen in the background. I just can't wait.

So until next time, here's a video to help you along the wait for Seth McFarlane's next picture.

Godzilla (2014)

Sorry for the brief delay in this one, I did see Godzilla on Friday, May 16, but I also graduated from college on the 17th and used the 18th to rest. So here's my return to form. The Amazing-Spider-Man 2 review got me back in practice, but this is where I step it up. Here we go, with a review of the aforementioned newest Godzilla film.

 

I loved this movie, from start to finish it was like I was reliving my childhood days of watching those old Godzilla Kaiju fighting movies, only with a bit less camp.

No, sadly, this does not happen.

The campiness came primarily through the dialogue of the film, which was easily the biggest flaw of the movie. Sure, there weren't any, "that's a lot of fish" lines, but there was the whole "let them fight" line (delivered magnificently by Ken Watanabe) which was followed immediately by the first encounter between the Muto male and Godzilla. If that isn't a campy line I don't know what is. I can't fault the actors for their lines, however cheesy and ridiculous they are, there were a lot of fun lines sprinkled throughout the film that made it all the more enjoyable to me, and the excellent deliveries from Watanabe and Cranston made some of them all the more worth it.

Perhaps the only other qualm I had with the movie was the mild constant shakiness of the camera. It seemed to be handheld throughout the film, which was a bit ridiculous, especially when the monster fights came around because the camera became no more shaky than when we were standing in the Brody's apartment. It's an odd stylistic choice that's a little confusing, but not all too noticeable or off putting to the average viewer.

Like I said, the only thing that saved the dialogue was the manner in which the actors delivered their lines, all except for Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who was given nothing, and Elizabeth Olson, who no one cared about. Don't get me wrong, nothing was wrong with these characters, just the way they were portrayed on the screen left myself, and seemingly the rest of the audience, without a care for them. And with one of them being the main character, that's kind of an issue. I like Aaron Taylor-Johnson for the most part, but he seems to need the right director to get him to perform well. Just look at Kick-Ass he's at least able to act in those. But again, he was given crap to do in those movies, and lines that weren't boring and pointless. He does one thing in the narrative that is smart, and I'm 90% sure that's why his character is "the main character." That and being Bryan Cranston's characters son.

Elizabeth Olson on the other hand, despite being extremely talented and one of the most sought after younger actresses today does literally nothing in this movie that is redeemable and just comes off as the pointless wife/love interest to Taylor-Johnson's character. She literally just camps herself in LA, while the monsters are fighting, she doesn't let her son leave the area, until the last fucking minute, and she does all of this why? Because for some reason, the screenwriter thought it would be a good idea for Ford Brody (Taylor-Johnson) to ask his wife to wait there for him, and for her to say "okay" in response.

 

Godzilla does not like your treatment of women in his movie!

All of that being said, this isn't much different from the norm in Hollywood, and I'm only really upset about it, because it's the god damn norm and I don't understand why. Not only do I not understand why it's the norm, I don't know why it doesn't bother other people. Her character could have been written out of the entire movie, along with the son, and literally nothing would have changed. Ford would have went to Japan to bail his dad out of Jail, then he would have went to Hawaii, then Vegas, Then LA for the climax because all he was doing was following the Kaiju on his way to LA. He wasn't going to LA to get to his family, he was going there because that's where the monsters were. Having his family in LA only served to add some bullshit lines about how he "has to get to LA, because his family is there." If he cared about his family's safety he would have said something like "hey, LA isn't safe babe, get out. Love you, bye." But no, he tells her to stay there and wait for him, the big strong army man to come rescue her from the monsters that are taller than every skyscraper in the city. Sure, Godzilla's a nice guy, but those Muto's certainly are not. Further, even though Godzilla is a "nice guy" he still destroys countless buildings fighting these things. How would Ford Brody have felt if his wife were in one of those hundreds of buildings that got crushed in the final climactic fight? The narrative seems to tell me he wouldn't have cared. 

I got to tell you, if this film is any indication of the chemistry between Taylor-Johnson and Olson, I have some bad news for Avengers: Age of Ultron, even though the two of them are only siblings in that movie, it still doesn't speak well. But Whedon can likely direct the two of them a lot better than the relatively unknown Gareth Edwards, whose pretty much known for this Film and one other called Monsters that he did back in 2010.

The lighting reminds me a lot of Pacific Rim, and that's a good thing. When it's dark you can still see everything going down, nothing is to obscured in shadow. The cinematographer was the director of photography for the Avengers as well, Seamus McGarvey. It kind of shows in the ease of following the conflict while still being in a big city and moving through skyscrapers. Though most of the fight can be shot from above them, as both Godzilla and the female Muto are bigger than every skyscraper in the city, the male Muto, not so much, but he can fly. 

 

Something I just remembered about the silliness of the military in this film was their inability to understand what an EMP can do. The Mutos launch EMP strikes with their Talon's and this is apparently forgotten when the military decided to send Jets after them, more than once.

Despite all of my qualms with the minor issues of the film, I couldn't help but be left in awe of the spectacle that I was watching. This wasn't the 1998 Roland Emmerich Godzilla, nor was it in any way similar to what we would have gotten if it were Michael Bay's Godzilla. It was still a well made monster movie, with a rather poor human script, but in all honesty what Godzilla movie doesn't have a rather poor human script? I can't really think of one that isn't at some point weak, aside from maybe the original 1954 Gojira. The nods to older films were nice, especially those that we haven't seen in a Godzilla film not made by a Japanese studio. It was very nice to see the tail start to light up, and the pay off of said tail lighting up, as well as the nods to the destruction of the trains, neither by Godzilla though, because he's the good guy.

All in all I enjoyed myself, more so than I did with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 a few weeks back. I'm still having trouble with this whole x/10 rating system. I'm not sure if it's because I don't like doing that whole thing any more, or if I have to see a movie more than once in order to justify a number based rating. But as of right now, Godzilla (2014) receives an 8.5/10.

And in other news, a sequel is already in development (source). Godzilla apparently dominated the box office this past weekend grossing roughly $93.2 million in just the U.S. alone as well as taking home another $103 million from the international market. The box office success has apparently persuaded Legendary pictures to promise that a sequel is in development. Personally I wouldn't buy into the other hype in the article about a Pacific Rim and Godzilla crossover. One, it wouldn't make any sense, and two I would only imagine that Godzilla would be fighting Gypsy Danger or another Jaeger only to lose because we are man and we destroy monster with mighty robot. Though I wouldn't mind seeing separate sequels for both films, especially if the main cast of Pacific Rim sticks around for the sequel. Godzilla can recast for all I care.

Here have a trailer for another one of my most anticipated movies of the Summer, coming in August:  Guardians of the Galaxy.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

So this is the start of my "new" format, that I talked all about in my previous post. From here on out the focus is on critiquing visual media. And what better time to kick that off than at the start of the Summer movie season with the sequel to one of my favorite comic book movies, The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

I went to see it last night, May 2nd, with the girlfriend for my Birthday - despite it being a few days early. We went to Outback first, then to the movie. She payed, because, in her words "I love you very, very, very, very, very, very, very much."  We also got free popcorn, so that's a plus.

 

Let's start with the basics, the plot.The film centers on the relationship between Peter and Gwen, in sort of a will they or won't they remain together. This narrative arc wraps around the development of Electro and the Green Goblin,  while also dealing albeit briefly with the mystery behind the deaths of Mary and Richard Parker, Peter's parents. Ultimately the film boils down into a simple idea, self identity. Peter and Gwen, as previously stated spend most of the film trying to figure out who they are and where they belong, this isn't particularly uncommon for comic book films, as that was the central focus of the first Iron Man and every single time the Hulk is used, that's the focus on his character. Peter knows he's Spider-Man, and damn does Garfield knock it out of the park again (but more on that later), but he doesn't know how to be both Spider-Man and Peter Parker, this is the journey he must go through, and the realization he will come to be the films end. Gwen on the other hand, is offered an interview and opening at Oxford, her decision is whether or not to take it, or remain in New York with the man she loves.

Now onto the damn good special effects. I'm normally not one to boast about how good something looks blowing up, or how nice lightning looks shooting from someone's finger tips, or how blue that guy is. But the visual effects in this film were just fantastic. They knew just when to hit the slow motion and just when to pick it back up so you weren't being bashed over the head with slow motion. If you're not sure what that's like, watch 300: Rise of an Empire, people stand still in slow motion - it's ridiculous. By the way, on a complete side note, I burnt my finger, and it hurts, that is all.

  

Zap. Zap. Zap.

 

Seriously though, Electro looks great, once he turns blue and stuff. Before that, he's just some weird guy with a comb-over. Props to Jamie Foxx though for being able to play such a convincing Spider-Man obsessed creep.  Though we are supposed to sympathize with him, he's lived his whole life as just another face in the crowd, nobody remembering his name from day to day, going so far as to make himself his own "Happy Birthday Max" card, just so someone might notice that it's his birthday. So when he's finally noticed, and put in the spotlight, only to have a heroic deed by Spider-Man take it away from him, making him yet again another overlooked face, he snaps becoming the villain and wanting Spider-Man dead.

 

I'm just going to casually flick lightning at you, no big deal.

 

I glow red when I get angry.

Electro's suit, when he gets it, is just plain awesome. Though where he gets it is totally unexplained. Does he just spontaneously make this amazing looking suit? Was there one in Ravencroft where he was being held? Did Harry make it for him? It looks nice, but it comes out of no where. Then there's Harry.

\

Sleep well, children.

Harry becomes the Green Goblin this go around as opposed to the usual Hob-Goblin, and he looks worse for the ware. Say what you will negatively about Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films, but at least the costumes there, Emo Peter Parker aside, wouldn't give children nightmares. I'm an avid Dane Dehaan fan, the kid can do no wrong in my eyes he's a brilliant actor and steals the show in literally everything he is in, this is no exception. He is the best thing about this movie, and to a lot of people (not including myself), the only good thing. So yeah, not only are the VFX top notch, that make-up department killed it with Dehaan's Goblin design.

Garfield is still the perfect Spider-Man, whether or not he's a perfect Peter Parker is another story, for another day, between people who aren't some guy and myself. He's still a better Peter than Maguire ever was, and I'll keep touting that to the grave if I have to. Perhaps it's just the better writing, and a better standard for acting in this type of film, but God, looking back the only redeemable quality of that original trilogy was Doc Ock in the second film. Many are claiming that no one can do Otto Octavius better, so I guess we'll have to wait for the Sinister Six film, or Amazing Spider-Man 3, whichever comes first. The Sinister Six, through the teaser within the credits, appear to be Rhino, Doc Ock, Green Goblin, Vulture, Kraven the Hunter, and either Mysterio, The Lizard, or Chameleon; that last one is a bit ambiguous (source).

Mini-tease confirming at least Doc Ock and Vulture.

The visuals themselves weren't all that striking. There weren't any amazing camera angles or shots that blew my mind. There weren't any crazy lighting choices or anything in the mise-en-scene that seemed peculiar or notable. Peter's scene with Gwen atop the bridge was rather beautifully shot, but it's nothing that hasn't been done before or better.

The melodrama this go around was definitely heightened, Peter's struggling with hallucinations, his relationship is on the rocks, and as stated before he suffers from an identity crisis throughout most of the film, especially in the closing ten or so minutes. I'm not going to spoil what happens for the people that actually want to see the film for themselves, but I will say that you probably already know the big spoiler from other dicks on the internet, or just by knowing the source material. 

Okay I lied, there is one sequence that was fantastic, and it was the tower sequence you can see above. The camera for the most part takes either two positions, looking up at Peter in Spider-suit, or down at Gwen. When it takes a different position, neither of them are seen in the frame. The camera, at one point focuses on Peter's web as Gwen is falling, and the end of the webbing takes on the appearance of a hand, and the camera stays on that for a decent amount of time. I just think the sequence was done masterfully.

There isn't much action in this one, and to be honest I don't think there was in the first, I can't recall just how much action there was in the first. There are three big sequences here, four if you count the last two minutes. They're spaced out quite a bit, about half an hour a piece, there's your opening sequence with Rhino, minus the suit, the first confrontation with Electro, then the battle with Electro/Green Goblin, and the final confrontation with a suited up Rhino. The action, as par for the course, was executed beautifully. The fights are choreographed well and work like a charm. And while the rest of the film for the most part is without "action" that isn't to say that nothing happens, because a lot happens in the near two and a half hours of Spidey-goodness. There just aren't that many fights.

My only real complaint of the film comes with the storyline of the parents death and research. My main issue with this stuff as it does literally nothing for the advancement of the plot, or narrative. It only serves for more melodrama and suffering on Peter's behalf. There's even a scene with Aunt May, where she tells Peter to stop caring about this stuff because it's only going to hurt your feelings and stuff. He basically tells her, "I know, but I don't care I want to know anyways." I will say, however, that the lab he finds was pretty neat, despite its being there not making much sense.

 

There was also this great scene at the start, where Peter is trying to get to his high school graduation, but he forgets to take his mask off and almost walks onto stage wearing the mask. That's about as spoilery as I plan on getting. I felt the need to mention the scene mainly because of this meme, so you can thank the meme for that little tangent there.

All in all, I'm not sure if I can say that The Amazing Spider-Man 2  was better than the first one. Rotten Tomatoes certainly doesn't think so. To be honest, I'm even having trouble deciding. There isn't much a difference in the way the two films were made for me to say one was definitely better than the other. With the other three films already telling Spider-Man's origins the first one did come off as a bit of a retelling, despite ten years separating the first films of both respective franchises (and five years separating the horrendous Spider-Man 3 from The Amazing Spider-Man). 

I'm starting to dislike giving movies a score out of ten, because the scores change over time. I could give the movie an 8/10 this week, and then after my third or fourth viewing, on Blu-Ray of course, it could be a 6,7, or 9. So where does that leave me, because I've got this whole summer season thing coming up, and everyone rates things now-a-days, how will people know that I enjoyed the film despite its minor misgivings. Maybe I should just stick with the good ol' */10 rating system and just keep my revisions to myself.

As of right now I'm going to give The Amazing Spider-Man 2 the aforementioned 8/10, which is about where I would rank it predecessor at the moment despite having initially loved the first one enough to give it a rather high ranking spot on my top ten of Summer 2012 (I believe I gave it the #1 slot actually.) To be fair I judge movies differently than I did back in 2012. Hell, I judge them differently every month, or so it seems.

So the rest of the summer holds quite a lot in store for me. I likely won't review everything that I see, but I will more than likely discuss the good stuff, or the horrendously bad if I end up seeing something that is just straight-up terrible this summer. Next week is, hopefully, Neighbors, with Godzilla following the week after. I'll see you then. Have a video.