Tag: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Page 3 of 3)

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” mini-box office preview

While I personally seem utterly immune to the charms of Michael Bay’s battlebots or anything remotely relating to them, I am, alas, a lousy barometer of mass taste. Indeed, Gregg Killday of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety‘s Pamela McClintock are speaking in terms of past super-hit franchise films, including “Spider-Man 2” and “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” as all signs seem to be pointing to a pretty huge five-day period for the loud epic.

All signs, except reviews, that is. Our own Dave Medsker‘s split decision is, if anything, towards the more positive side of the spectrum of reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has the sequel at a not so good 27%, down 30 points from the more acceptable 57% score the first film received. Indeed, the probably unsurprising amount of critical vituperation exhibited against the 2.5 hour flick is worth noting. The Guardian‘s Peter Bradshaw mirrors my reaction to the first film (the part I made it through, anyway) with his comparison to “watching paint dry while getting hit over the head with a frying pan.” Roger Ebert might be a gentler soul, but he is little kinder and offers the kind of observations that make his negative reviews such fun to read:

The human actors are in a witless sitcom part of the time, and lot of the rest of their time is spent running in slo-mo away from explosions, although–hello!–you can’t outrun an explosion. They also make speeches like this one by John Turturro: “Oh, no! The machine is buried in the pyramid! If they turn it on, it will destroy the sun! Not on my watch!” The humans, including lots of U.S. troops, shoot at the Transformers a lot, although never in the history of science fiction has an alien been harmed by gunfire.

Transformers: Revenge of the FallenOthers, like Luke Y. Thompson — an interesting guy I just had the pleasure of chatting with less than 48 hours back — defend the film as silly fun that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Cinematical’s Todd Gilchrist, though, goes to an entirely different place:

Michael Bay, condensing the cumulative total of the spectacle from all of his seven previous films into one unwieldy, gargantuan opus, has exceeded even the possibilities of sequel-driven “moreness,” combining his own muscular, high-gloss sensibility with the conventions of blockbusters past, present, and probably future to create a monolithic action masterpiece that feels destined to be the biggest movie of all time.

I’m not sure all the words mean exactly what he thinks they mean — I’m still getting my head around “monolithic action masterpiece” (“monolithic”?????) — but I guess the gist is people will be watching. Choose your poison.

“Branson” and the world outside LAFF

There’s an idea out there that documentary filmmakers require more good luck to make a successful project, and though Brent Meeske took some three and half years to complete his work after another film died aborning, he clearly made some remarkable luck for himself with “Branson.” It starts out somewhat slowly, but what emerges is a compelling chronicle of the ups-and-downs of several talented but far from famous performers trying to make a life in the small city in Missouri that could best be described as Las Vegas, but with a vastly lower budget and constructed to Ned Flanders specifications.

At times, the hugely corny but enthusiastic performances may make us feel we’re in Christopher Guest/”Waiting for Guffman” territory. The post screening discussion revealed that at least one of the performers chronicled, evangelical Christian and New York transplant Geoffrey Hastings Haberer, was more than aware of the Guffmanesque aspects of Branson performances. Still, though its connection with Jack Black might worry some, this is not a film that in any way condescends to its subjects. At the same time, I’m not sure I’d be writing so favorably about it were it not for the far more troubled, yet also incredibly talented, performer who walks away with the film, Johnny Cash impersonator Jackson Cash. His Olympian personal struggles and powerhouse performances have moved even relatives of the late legend of American music to marvel at the similarity.

As he proved in a remarkable live performance following the film, Jackson Cash is really not impersonating Johnny Cash at all in any normal sense of the world. He simply performs Cash’s material with such clarity, honesty, and with such a remarkably similar voice (the result, Cash says, of damage to his larynx delivered by an angry drug dealer), that the differences between this man in black and the earlier one dissolve.

He wowed the film festival audience at a post screening concerted, which included at least one clearly enthralled well-known director, so things may be looking up for this remarkable performer, whose personal demons (drugs, possible bipolar issues, etc.)  make up a significant portion of the more dramatic material in “Branson.” I hope real success and stability are in the offing for Cash, as a brief conversation with the man indicated that he is very much as advertised: the real deal.

***

A few brief items from more or less outside the world of the L.A. Film Festival:

* Den of Geek passes along a Reuters report of director Michael Bay critiquing the marketing of the “Transformers” sequel about to hit theaters. (Hint, he apparently doesn’t think it’s a sequel at all, but an “event.”)

* Nathaniel R. has sixty ways to celebrate Meryl Streep’s birthday. (Guess how old she is.)

* Box Office Mojo has the “actuals” from last weekend. No big surprises, but they report that “Star Trek” is now officially the most successful “Star Trek” film of all time, adjusted for inflation. For once, I agree with the masses. I might quarrel at times with the hyperactive visual style of the film and I wouldn’t make any particular claims to greatness for it, but nor would I for “The Wrath of Khan.” All in all, it couldn’t happen to a nicer little space opera.

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and stuff

I don’t care about the upcoming “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” which comes out one week from today. I’m a bit too old to have watched the original cartoons as a kid or played with the toys. I literally walked out of the 2007 movie, which I had used a hard earned frequent movie-watcher free ticket too see.

Nevertheless, I know a lot of you liked “Transformers” and are looking forward to “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” So, instead of raining on your parade, I’ll keep my personal critic hat mostly off and simply report that some of the early reviews are out already. Variety’s Jordan Mintzer has a fairly positive review up and, the word is, if you dug the first one, you’ll probably dig this one. THR’s Ray Bennett says somewhat the same thing, but on the negative side (and sounds a lot like what I said after I saw the first one). IGN UK’s Orlando Parfitt confesses to Michael Bay love, but thinks it may all just be a bit too much of a good thing. And so it goes at Rotten Tomatoes.

Also, in the spirit of yesterday’s post on celebrity oddness, via Anne Thompson comes that Parade interview with “Transformers” star Shia LaBeouf you might have seen excerpted. Assuming he actually said everything he’s supposed to have said, this wasn’t a profile but a cry for help, which begs the question: If Steven Spielberg and company can’t find the right shrinks/clinics to get a talented young actor’s head on straight, who can? I suppose it’s like the old joke asking about how many psychologists it takes to change a light bulb. (Only one, but the light bulb really has to want to change.)

It’s a little weird considering he’s pretty much the hottest young actor in Hollywood, etc., but I actually feel sorry for the kid. That is not like me.

But forget all that, here’s a “Transformers” trailer. Stuff blows up good — but for some reason, not the Eiffel Tower.

Newer posts »

© 2023 Premium Hollywood

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑