Overall rating from 1 to 100: 83
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 28, 2007
The best thing I can tell you is probably exactly what you wanted to hear: “The Simpsons Movie” is like a really funny, 87-minute episode on the big screen. If you’re a fan of “The Simpsons,” then you’ll have an unconditional love for this movie.
Springfield Lake has become excessively polluted. Lisa Simpson (Yeardley Smith) is gravely concerned; and through her incessant activism, she persuades the mayor to outlaw any further pollutants and “idiot-proof” the lake with barricades.
Naturally, Homer (Dan Castellaneta) manages to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back by disposing of his “pig crap silo.” The entire city becomes a biohazard, so the U.S. government seals all of Springfield and its inhabitants inside of a gigantic, see-through dome. This development spells doom for Springfield, and it’s residents target the Simpson family accordingly.
That’s the premise of the movie, but you know how the cartoon is ... the plot doesn’t really matter. It’s all about the jokes. Naturally, there are several stabs at modern-day pop culture and politics. And of course, many other movie references, too.
Let me just tell you these three final things before you leave your computer to go see the movie: Each of the main characters seems to be in his or her prime, all at the same time. Even Bart Simpson (Nancy Cartwright) is cool again, just as he once was long ago when I was 13.
I feared that since this movie was going to be in the theater (and not on TV), that the writers would really push the limits. And they do, but it’s a very mild PG-13. If you permitted your family to watch “The Simpsons” at home on TV, then this movie isn’t that much farther of a stretch.
Lastly, this is one of the movies with encores at the end, during and after the credits. There are three, to be exact. The first two encores are worth sticking around to see.
Directed by David Silverman
Dan Castellaneta / Julie Kavner / Nancy Cartwright
87 min. Animation / Comedy
MPAA: PG-13 (for irreverent humor throughout)
Copyright 2007.
JP0160 : 325
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Hairspray (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 68
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 28, 2007
There are three things that you should know about “Hairspray”: It’s a musical; John Travolta dresses in drag; and believe it or not, it’s surprisingly good.
“Hairspray” is a significant movie. Why? Its leading lady isn’t Hollywood’s typical, pencil-thin actress. Newcomer Nikki Blonsky plays Tracy Turnblad, and she has just as much onscreen charisma as Jessica Biel ... well, almost as much.
Unfortunately, “Hairspray” disappointingly resorts to plenty of fat jokes but still (not-so-disappointingly) includes Michelle Pfeiffer, just in case.
It’s 1962 in Baltimore and the Civil Rights Movement is well underway. Even so, segregation prevails over integration, especially on television.
“The Corny Collins Show,” a local, teenage, dance TV program, is all the rage for after-school audiences. The show’s dance cast is all white — except when it’s “Negro Day,” and the host and dancers are all black.
Tracy (Nikki Blonsky) is one of the show’s biggest fans. One day, when the program’s dance team has an opening, Tracy decides to audition. We follow her adventures as she attempts to dance her way onto the program and integrate black and white dancers on television.
“Hairspray” is truly funny, energetic and entertaining. Above all, it’s a happy, feel-good movie. As characters in musicals typically do, this cast breaks into song for 15 catchy show tunes.
There are two downsides to being a movie critic: bad movies and having to knowingly subject one’s self to bad movies. I mistakenly thought “Hairspray” would qualify to afflict me with both, but I can warmly recommend this movie.
Besides, how many flicks have John Travolta and Christopher Walken dancing around onscreen together like they’re in love? But then, I guess “I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” (which is also in theaters) has Adam Sandler and Kevin James doing the same thing.
Things sure have changed since 1962.
Directed by Adam Shankman
Nikki Blonsky / John Travolta / Michelle Pfeiffer
117 min. Musical
MPAA: PG (for language, some suggestive content and momentary teen smoking)
Copyright 2007.
JP0157 : 303
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
X Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 28, 2007
There are three things that you should know about “Hairspray”: It’s a musical; John Travolta dresses in drag; and believe it or not, it’s surprisingly good.
“Hairspray” is a significant movie. Why? Its leading lady isn’t Hollywood’s typical, pencil-thin actress. Newcomer Nikki Blonsky plays Tracy Turnblad, and she has just as much onscreen charisma as Jessica Biel ... well, almost as much.
Unfortunately, “Hairspray” disappointingly resorts to plenty of fat jokes but still (not-so-disappointingly) includes Michelle Pfeiffer, just in case.
It’s 1962 in Baltimore and the Civil Rights Movement is well underway. Even so, segregation prevails over integration, especially on television.
“The Corny Collins Show,” a local, teenage, dance TV program, is all the rage for after-school audiences. The show’s dance cast is all white — except when it’s “Negro Day,” and the host and dancers are all black.
Tracy (Nikki Blonsky) is one of the show’s biggest fans. One day, when the program’s dance team has an opening, Tracy decides to audition. We follow her adventures as she attempts to dance her way onto the program and integrate black and white dancers on television.
“Hairspray” is truly funny, energetic and entertaining. Above all, it’s a happy, feel-good movie. As characters in musicals typically do, this cast breaks into song for 15 catchy show tunes.
There are two downsides to being a movie critic: bad movies and having to knowingly subject one’s self to bad movies. I mistakenly thought “Hairspray” would qualify to afflict me with both, but I can warmly recommend this movie.
Besides, how many flicks have John Travolta and Christopher Walken dancing around onscreen together like they’re in love? But then, I guess “I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” (which is also in theaters) has Adam Sandler and Kevin James doing the same thing.
Things sure have changed since 1962.
Directed by Adam Shankman
Nikki Blonsky / John Travolta / Michelle Pfeiffer
117 min. Musical
MPAA: PG (for language, some suggestive content and momentary teen smoking)
Copyright 2007.
JP0157 : 303
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 54
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 12, 2007
I admit that I have not read any of the “Harry Potter” books. But before you die-hard Harry Potter fans decide to ignore this review, you should at least read my next two paragraphs.
Here’s the biggest problem with the “Harry Potter” movies: Remember in the original “Star Wars” trilogy, episodes IV, V and VI, when we see Luke Skywalker learn how to become a Jedi? In “A New Hope” he was merely a novice, but in “Return of the Jedi,” we see him wield various Jedi abilities. Then, in Episodes I, II and III, we see even more Jedi powers from the old-school knights. That was cool, right?
Then why oh why, are we watching the 5th “Harry Potter” movie and still primarily seeing paltry magic displays from Harry, such as glowing wand tips, “Releasio Prestario” and a beam knocks kids over, and so forth? What good is a movie full of wizards, warlocks, witches and magical beings if their hocus pocus is rarely the focus? Locusts. Crocus. Imagination has disappeared.
Of the five movies, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is second only to “Prisoner of Azkaban” (2004). Even so, “Order of the Phoenix” is heavy on plot and dialogue, light on magic, insomuch that we get the feeling that the filmmakers are trying to cram as much of the book as possible into the screenplay, as not to offend complaining readers. And the popular accusation about the series becoming too dark still resonates here.
This is the nutshell premise, in layman’s terms, for those (like me) who haven’t read the book: Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is ridiculed for claiming that the evil Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is back. Voldemort is raising an evil army. Hogwarts is infiltrated, overrun and left impotent by the Ministry of Magic (the governmental-like powers that be who officiate over the school). The Ministry sends Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton, you’ll remember her from “Freedom Writers”). She steals the show and reminds us of the scariest teacher we’ve ever had.
Umbridge basically strangles the school with her strict rules and disables the school’s magical training. So Harry Potter takes the helm with his little wand, training his classmates to be an army against Voldemort. Of course, there’s much more to this overly complicated plot, but this is the bare-bones gist.
Naturally, the movie looks great and has very good moments, such as an impressive battle of wizardry (for once) near the end of the movie. Cinematographer Slawomir Idziak gives us some fabulous, sweeping shots that make us feel like we’re on a carnival ride. Oh, and the movie does have some moments that would likely be scary to younger kids.
Speaking of wizards and such, I know a magician named Seth Cutrell who would always say, “Once a magic trick; twice a magic lesson, and I don’t give magic lessons.” I think Seth could tear Harry up in a magic fight ... and Seth doesn’t even carry a little, glowing wand.
Directed by David Yates
Daniel Radcliffe / Ralph Fiennes / Imelda Staunton
138 min. Fantasy
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images)
Copyright 2007.
JP0148 : 499
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
X Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 12, 2007
I admit that I have not read any of the “Harry Potter” books. But before you die-hard Harry Potter fans decide to ignore this review, you should at least read my next two paragraphs.
Here’s the biggest problem with the “Harry Potter” movies: Remember in the original “Star Wars” trilogy, episodes IV, V and VI, when we see Luke Skywalker learn how to become a Jedi? In “A New Hope” he was merely a novice, but in “Return of the Jedi,” we see him wield various Jedi abilities. Then, in Episodes I, II and III, we see even more Jedi powers from the old-school knights. That was cool, right?
Then why oh why, are we watching the 5th “Harry Potter” movie and still primarily seeing paltry magic displays from Harry, such as glowing wand tips, “Releasio Prestario” and a beam knocks kids over, and so forth? What good is a movie full of wizards, warlocks, witches and magical beings if their hocus pocus is rarely the focus? Locusts. Crocus. Imagination has disappeared.
Of the five movies, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is second only to “Prisoner of Azkaban” (2004). Even so, “Order of the Phoenix” is heavy on plot and dialogue, light on magic, insomuch that we get the feeling that the filmmakers are trying to cram as much of the book as possible into the screenplay, as not to offend complaining readers. And the popular accusation about the series becoming too dark still resonates here.
This is the nutshell premise, in layman’s terms, for those (like me) who haven’t read the book: Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is ridiculed for claiming that the evil Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is back. Voldemort is raising an evil army. Hogwarts is infiltrated, overrun and left impotent by the Ministry of Magic (the governmental-like powers that be who officiate over the school). The Ministry sends Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton, you’ll remember her from “Freedom Writers”). She steals the show and reminds us of the scariest teacher we’ve ever had.
Umbridge basically strangles the school with her strict rules and disables the school’s magical training. So Harry Potter takes the helm with his little wand, training his classmates to be an army against Voldemort. Of course, there’s much more to this overly complicated plot, but this is the bare-bones gist.
Naturally, the movie looks great and has very good moments, such as an impressive battle of wizardry (for once) near the end of the movie. Cinematographer Slawomir Idziak gives us some fabulous, sweeping shots that make us feel like we’re on a carnival ride. Oh, and the movie does have some moments that would likely be scary to younger kids.
Speaking of wizards and such, I know a magician named Seth Cutrell who would always say, “Once a magic trick; twice a magic lesson, and I don’t give magic lessons.” I think Seth could tear Harry up in a magic fight ... and Seth doesn’t even carry a little, glowing wand.
Directed by David Yates
Daniel Radcliffe / Ralph Fiennes / Imelda Staunton
138 min. Fantasy
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images)
Copyright 2007.
JP0148 : 499
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Ratatouille (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 7, 2007
There’s a climactic moment in “Ratatouille” that defines its excellence when the most important, most brutal food critic in Paris, Anton Ego (Peter O’Toole), samples an aspiring chef’s dish. This taste test is the “Rocky vs. Apollo Creed moment” of the movie.
I dare not describe the sequence further, because you should really experience it for yourself. It is meant to be funny — and it is — but I was the only one in the theater who laughed (perhaps because I’m older than seven). Watch for it, savor the gourmet humor and consider this: How original could you be when depicting a person’s reaction to tasting something?
Because of little moments like the one I’ve mentioned, Disney Pixar’s “Ratatouille” could very well win the Academy Award for this year’s Animated Feature Film. Even though it isn’t as funny as “Surf’s Up,” which is another contender, “Ratatouille” is filled with joys and wonder.
Remy (Patton Oswalt) is an unknown chef in France. Remy is also a rat. His family of rats does not understand his gifts. They are content to eat anything, even inedible garbage. But Remy’s keen sense of smell and appreciation for delectable food combinations lead him out of the trash cans to a gourmet restaurant in Paris.
Through misfortune or good fortune, Remy meets Linguini (Lou Romano), the restaurant’s newly hired garbage boy who cannot cook but quickly needs to be able to. The rat can cook like Dom DeLuise but is not welcomed in the kitchen. (But then, neither is Dom DeLuise.) So the misfits use each other’s resources (in a most unlikely way) to improve their respective, disrespectable predicaments.
As I’ve suggested, this film isn’t as humorous as other Pixar creations, but it’s just as entertaining and beautifully made. Oh, and the cloaked innuendo is minimal (virtually nonexistent) and will be unperceivable to even the most observant little person.
“Ratatouille” is one of those movies that to describe its pleasures is to deflate them for your initial viewing. So, without spoiling anything, I’ll merely point out some nice touches.
As animated animals do, the rats speak English to one another. The humans speak English (with a French accent) to one another and also to the rats. But when humans hear the rats speaking amongst themselves, the humans only hear squeaks.
“Ratatouille” has a couple themes: “do what you love” (which is my personal motto), and some might perceive a theme that’s also found in a subplot from “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” (1964): Remember Hermey, the misfit elf who’d rather be a dentist? That has been interpreted (by many) to be a metaphor for homosexuality. Whether it is or not, one cannot argue that the names “Remy” and “Hermey” are similar. In any case, the issue of acceptance is a prominent theme in “Ratatouille.”
As is the true Pixar fashion, this feature film is preceded by a Pixar short film called “Lifted” (2006), which is a five-minute gem that shows us how alien abductions can be difficult. (“Lifted” was a nominee for the best Animated Short Film at the Academy Awards for 2006.)
In short, “Ratatouille” is wonderful, and I recommend it. I thoroughly enjoyed it; your kids will enjoy it, and I bet you will, too.
Directed by Brad Bird
Patton Oswalt / Lou Romano / Peter O’Toole
110 min. Animation / Comedy
MPAA: G
Copyright 2007.
JP0147 : 539
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 7, 2007
There’s a climactic moment in “Ratatouille” that defines its excellence when the most important, most brutal food critic in Paris, Anton Ego (Peter O’Toole), samples an aspiring chef’s dish. This taste test is the “Rocky vs. Apollo Creed moment” of the movie.
I dare not describe the sequence further, because you should really experience it for yourself. It is meant to be funny — and it is — but I was the only one in the theater who laughed (perhaps because I’m older than seven). Watch for it, savor the gourmet humor and consider this: How original could you be when depicting a person’s reaction to tasting something?
Because of little moments like the one I’ve mentioned, Disney Pixar’s “Ratatouille” could very well win the Academy Award for this year’s Animated Feature Film. Even though it isn’t as funny as “Surf’s Up,” which is another contender, “Ratatouille” is filled with joys and wonder.
Remy (Patton Oswalt) is an unknown chef in France. Remy is also a rat. His family of rats does not understand his gifts. They are content to eat anything, even inedible garbage. But Remy’s keen sense of smell and appreciation for delectable food combinations lead him out of the trash cans to a gourmet restaurant in Paris.
Through misfortune or good fortune, Remy meets Linguini (Lou Romano), the restaurant’s newly hired garbage boy who cannot cook but quickly needs to be able to. The rat can cook like Dom DeLuise but is not welcomed in the kitchen. (But then, neither is Dom DeLuise.) So the misfits use each other’s resources (in a most unlikely way) to improve their respective, disrespectable predicaments.
As I’ve suggested, this film isn’t as humorous as other Pixar creations, but it’s just as entertaining and beautifully made. Oh, and the cloaked innuendo is minimal (virtually nonexistent) and will be unperceivable to even the most observant little person.
“Ratatouille” is one of those movies that to describe its pleasures is to deflate them for your initial viewing. So, without spoiling anything, I’ll merely point out some nice touches.
As animated animals do, the rats speak English to one another. The humans speak English (with a French accent) to one another and also to the rats. But when humans hear the rats speaking amongst themselves, the humans only hear squeaks.
“Ratatouille” has a couple themes: “do what you love” (which is my personal motto), and some might perceive a theme that’s also found in a subplot from “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” (1964): Remember Hermey, the misfit elf who’d rather be a dentist? That has been interpreted (by many) to be a metaphor for homosexuality. Whether it is or not, one cannot argue that the names “Remy” and “Hermey” are similar. In any case, the issue of acceptance is a prominent theme in “Ratatouille.”
As is the true Pixar fashion, this feature film is preceded by a Pixar short film called “Lifted” (2006), which is a five-minute gem that shows us how alien abductions can be difficult. (“Lifted” was a nominee for the best Animated Short Film at the Academy Awards for 2006.)
In short, “Ratatouille” is wonderful, and I recommend it. I thoroughly enjoyed it; your kids will enjoy it, and I bet you will, too.
Directed by Brad Bird
Patton Oswalt / Lou Romano / Peter O’Toole
110 min. Animation / Comedy
MPAA: G
Copyright 2007.
JP0147 : 539
License to Wed (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 47
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 7, 2007
Poor, poor John Krasinski.
I’ll tell you how “License to Wed” could be fixed: Omit Robin Williams’ Reverend Frank character and his little toady, played by Josh Flitter. Every time either of them comes on the screen, the sun goes behind the clouds again. The screenplay would have worked without them.
“License to Wed” is a formulaic romantic comedy, which is a redundancy. Sadie Jones (Mandy Moore) and Ben Murphy (John Krasinski) are your average American couple in love. Theirs seems to be a convincing chemistry, with surprising authenticity. (I credit their credibility to the actors themselves, not the material they had to work with.)
Rev. Frank (Robin Williams) begins by telling us, “Good marriages are my business.” He proceeds to describe the awkward beginnings of courtship (while demonstrating by showing us Ben and Sadie’s dating history), through the proposal to the marriage.
When Ben pops the question, he learns that his future bride wishes to marry at St. Augustine’s, which is where Rev. Frank leads his flock. Next Ben learns that in order to receive the reverend’s services, he and his fiancée must complete Frank’s marriage preparation course. The course cannot be dropped, and the reverend has to feel that the couple is prepared.
Basically, this is a setup for the following concept: an otherwise normal couple without significant problems is afflicted by a crazy man’s even crazier marriage prep. class. And naturally, Sadie is idiotically oblivious to the madness, while Ben is essentially tortured by Rev. Frank.
Robin Williams is not funny in this movie. Mandy Moore is somewhat endearing, and John Krasinski carries the movie on his back. We enjoy his attempts and little else. For fans of Krasinski’s Jim from “The Office,” you will enjoy a little more talkative, less collected version of the same character here. And for fans like me who will only attend this movie to see Krasinski, you may be happy to see cameos from several other cast members from “The Office.” Wow.
Here are some other problems: Robin Williams’ Rev. Frank does not seem like a man of the cloth. He is vulgar and irreverent, particularly toward deity. There is also a scene that involves violent abuse of robotic babies that is nothing less than immoral and irresponsible.
“License to Wed” had enough magic with Ben and Sadie (and her quirky family) to be a delightful romantic comedy. Instead, it was overrun by Robin Williams, sex jokes and predictability. Watching reruns of “The Office” is a superior alternative.
Poor, poor John Krasinski.
Directed by Ken Kwapis
Robin Williams / Mandy Moore / John Krasinski
90 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual humor and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0146 : 421
O Masterpiece (95-100)
O Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
X Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 7, 2007
Poor, poor John Krasinski.
I’ll tell you how “License to Wed” could be fixed: Omit Robin Williams’ Reverend Frank character and his little toady, played by Josh Flitter. Every time either of them comes on the screen, the sun goes behind the clouds again. The screenplay would have worked without them.
“License to Wed” is a formulaic romantic comedy, which is a redundancy. Sadie Jones (Mandy Moore) and Ben Murphy (John Krasinski) are your average American couple in love. Theirs seems to be a convincing chemistry, with surprising authenticity. (I credit their credibility to the actors themselves, not the material they had to work with.)
Rev. Frank (Robin Williams) begins by telling us, “Good marriages are my business.” He proceeds to describe the awkward beginnings of courtship (while demonstrating by showing us Ben and Sadie’s dating history), through the proposal to the marriage.
When Ben pops the question, he learns that his future bride wishes to marry at St. Augustine’s, which is where Rev. Frank leads his flock. Next Ben learns that in order to receive the reverend’s services, he and his fiancée must complete Frank’s marriage preparation course. The course cannot be dropped, and the reverend has to feel that the couple is prepared.
Basically, this is a setup for the following concept: an otherwise normal couple without significant problems is afflicted by a crazy man’s even crazier marriage prep. class. And naturally, Sadie is idiotically oblivious to the madness, while Ben is essentially tortured by Rev. Frank.
Robin Williams is not funny in this movie. Mandy Moore is somewhat endearing, and John Krasinski carries the movie on his back. We enjoy his attempts and little else. For fans of Krasinski’s Jim from “The Office,” you will enjoy a little more talkative, less collected version of the same character here. And for fans like me who will only attend this movie to see Krasinski, you may be happy to see cameos from several other cast members from “The Office.” Wow.
Here are some other problems: Robin Williams’ Rev. Frank does not seem like a man of the cloth. He is vulgar and irreverent, particularly toward deity. There is also a scene that involves violent abuse of robotic babies that is nothing less than immoral and irresponsible.
“License to Wed” had enough magic with Ben and Sadie (and her quirky family) to be a delightful romantic comedy. Instead, it was overrun by Robin Williams, sex jokes and predictability. Watching reruns of “The Office” is a superior alternative.
Poor, poor John Krasinski.
Directed by Ken Kwapis
Robin Williams / Mandy Moore / John Krasinski
90 min. Comedy / Romance
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual humor and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0146 : 421
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Transformers (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 3, 2007
As I was leaving my film class yesterday, my professor and I were ridiculing the way people clap and cheer during and after movies here in Utah theaters. But I must confess that last night, while watching Michael Bay’s live-action “Transformers,” I clapped and cheered and squealed like it was my birthday. (Coincidentally, it actually was my birthday.)
I haven’t been this dazzled by a movie since “King Kong” (2005), which brought me to tears, not from the sad storyline but from experiencing sheer delight from modern cinema. And like “King Kong,” much to my chagrin, “Transformers” will have its fierce critics. But to me, this blockbuster is just shy of being a masterpiece. (Even Roger Ebert gave it three stars, and he noted that it would have been four if the big battle sequence didn’t rage on so long.) I personally have no complaints about seeing Autobots and Decepticons warring ferociously on the big screen.
But let’s get some things straight: “Transformers” is a summer popcorn movie. It’s also based on line of robot toys from the ‘80s made by Hasbro. It is an action-packed, special effects, sci-fi fantasy. OK? So, don’t confuse my zeal with a claim that this is a life-changing movie. That being said, “Transformers” is an in-the-theater must-see and clearly, the movie of the summer.
No spoilers will follow, just a bare-bones premise summary: An alien “race” of two feuding robotic clans from a planet called Cybertron seeks a powerful cube (not Rubik’s) that has come to Earth. I know it doesn’t sound like much, but believe me, it’s enough.
The robot beings are gigantic in relation to humans, and they have the ability to shape-shift and disguise themselves as everyday machinery, such as cars, planes, choppers, etc. The benevolent Autobots are compassionate toward humans, and the malevolent Decepticons are ruthlessly vicious with earthlings.
Of course, the movie is replete with CGI shots, and even in close-ups, the Transformers look real. This isn’t “Pete’s Dragon” (1977) mind you; it looks like these actors are truly having a close encounter with towering robots.
The secret weapon to “Transformers” is its humor: There was dialogue that I missed because of the audience’s laughing. This movie is hilarious to the point that it’s almost a comedy. But I’m not talking about stupid comedy, like in “Independence Day” (1996), when the drunken pilot flies his jet into the opening in the bottom of the alien ship and yells, “Up Yours!” Nor am I speaking of bodily function joke after bodily function joke. I’m talking about clever, witty banter with tons of in-jokes for the fanboys (and gals) and dialogue that tickles the modern young person’s funny bone.
And I love Shia LaBeouf like a brother. He is absolutely on fire this year! I have enjoyed everything I’ve seen (or heard) him in: “Disturbia,” “Surf’s Up” and now “Transformers.” He returns with his same, cool, fast-talkin’, smart-alec disposition that he has in “Disturbia.” LaBeouf delivers 90 percent of the hilariousness of this movie. I used to lament his casting in next summer’s “Indiana Jones” movie, but now, his presence in that movie is almost as important to me as Harrison Ford’s.
Rest assured though, the plentiful humor doesn’t detract from the movie; it only enhances it. Because of the underlying silliness, those occasional groaner lines or cheesy action-movie peculiarities are OK with us. And this isn’t like “Spider-Man 3,” either, where we get the feeling that the filmmakers are just goofing off and slaphappy.
Basically, “Transformers” is excellent, and I highly recommend it. I rarely have time (or the desire) to see movies more than once, but I will probably return to the theater again for this one and own the DVD. Delights abound, especially if you were a male child of the late ‘70s and ‘80s.
Every year, on my birthday, I treat myself to what I call “my birthday movie.” Well, happy birthday to me, because “Transformers” was my best birthday movie ever.
Directed by Michael Bay
Shia LaBeouf / Jon Voight / John Turturro
144 min. Action / Sci-fi
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0145 : 665
O Masterpiece (95-100)
X Excellent (75-94)
O Good video rental (60-74)
O Merely OK (50-59)
O Pure mediocrity (30-49)
O Medusa: don't watch (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / July 3, 2007
As I was leaving my film class yesterday, my professor and I were ridiculing the way people clap and cheer during and after movies here in Utah theaters. But I must confess that last night, while watching Michael Bay’s live-action “Transformers,” I clapped and cheered and squealed like it was my birthday. (Coincidentally, it actually was my birthday.)
I haven’t been this dazzled by a movie since “King Kong” (2005), which brought me to tears, not from the sad storyline but from experiencing sheer delight from modern cinema. And like “King Kong,” much to my chagrin, “Transformers” will have its fierce critics. But to me, this blockbuster is just shy of being a masterpiece. (Even Roger Ebert gave it three stars, and he noted that it would have been four if the big battle sequence didn’t rage on so long.) I personally have no complaints about seeing Autobots and Decepticons warring ferociously on the big screen.
But let’s get some things straight: “Transformers” is a summer popcorn movie. It’s also based on line of robot toys from the ‘80s made by Hasbro. It is an action-packed, special effects, sci-fi fantasy. OK? So, don’t confuse my zeal with a claim that this is a life-changing movie. That being said, “Transformers” is an in-the-theater must-see and clearly, the movie of the summer.
No spoilers will follow, just a bare-bones premise summary: An alien “race” of two feuding robotic clans from a planet called Cybertron seeks a powerful cube (not Rubik’s) that has come to Earth. I know it doesn’t sound like much, but believe me, it’s enough.
The robot beings are gigantic in relation to humans, and they have the ability to shape-shift and disguise themselves as everyday machinery, such as cars, planes, choppers, etc. The benevolent Autobots are compassionate toward humans, and the malevolent Decepticons are ruthlessly vicious with earthlings.
Of course, the movie is replete with CGI shots, and even in close-ups, the Transformers look real. This isn’t “Pete’s Dragon” (1977) mind you; it looks like these actors are truly having a close encounter with towering robots.
The secret weapon to “Transformers” is its humor: There was dialogue that I missed because of the audience’s laughing. This movie is hilarious to the point that it’s almost a comedy. But I’m not talking about stupid comedy, like in “Independence Day” (1996), when the drunken pilot flies his jet into the opening in the bottom of the alien ship and yells, “Up Yours!” Nor am I speaking of bodily function joke after bodily function joke. I’m talking about clever, witty banter with tons of in-jokes for the fanboys (and gals) and dialogue that tickles the modern young person’s funny bone.
And I love Shia LaBeouf like a brother. He is absolutely on fire this year! I have enjoyed everything I’ve seen (or heard) him in: “Disturbia,” “Surf’s Up” and now “Transformers.” He returns with his same, cool, fast-talkin’, smart-alec disposition that he has in “Disturbia.” LaBeouf delivers 90 percent of the hilariousness of this movie. I used to lament his casting in next summer’s “Indiana Jones” movie, but now, his presence in that movie is almost as important to me as Harrison Ford’s.
Rest assured though, the plentiful humor doesn’t detract from the movie; it only enhances it. Because of the underlying silliness, those occasional groaner lines or cheesy action-movie peculiarities are OK with us. And this isn’t like “Spider-Man 3,” either, where we get the feeling that the filmmakers are just goofing off and slaphappy.
Basically, “Transformers” is excellent, and I highly recommend it. I rarely have time (or the desire) to see movies more than once, but I will probably return to the theater again for this one and own the DVD. Delights abound, especially if you were a male child of the late ‘70s and ‘80s.
Every year, on my birthday, I treat myself to what I call “my birthday movie.” Well, happy birthday to me, because “Transformers” was my best birthday movie ever.
Directed by Michael Bay
Shia LaBeouf / Jon Voight / John Turturro
144 min. Action / Sci-fi
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language)
Copyright 2007.
JP0145 : 665
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
