Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Film: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Dir: Michael Bay
Rating: *1/2 out of 5 stars



I was never a fan of the first film - it was a narrative mess, completely boring, and the visual effects were disappointing. Sure enough, the sequel is bigger, louder, and dumber than its predecessor. It even manages to be offensive this time around. Kudos, Mr. Bay, for digging yourself deeper and deeper into a position of ridicule.

Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is moving away to college now, and has put all that Transformers business behind him (except for the living Camaro in his garage). While going through old clothing, he unwittingly finds a shard of the Allspark, which in turn fills his head with Cybertronian symbols that evidently hint toward the location of a weapon that can destroy worlds. An exiled Decepticon known simply as "The Fallen" plots to find Sam, activate the weapon, and have his revenge upon Earth. The Autobots, led by Optimus Prime, are back again to defend humankind, while the now-resurrected Megatron is hunting Sam.

Despite what you may think, I dig Transformers mythology. Cars turning into giant robots and fighting each other is fucking badass, there is no denying that. And Peter Cullen's voice still gives me chills. So when an adaptation like this leaves me numb, I am twice as pissed off. The human characters are worthless and uninteresting. John Turturro is back to humiliate himself again, unfortunately. Like in the first film, Optimus and Bumblebee are the only worthwhile bots, as the others are barely seen, poorly done, or - in the case of Mudflap and Skids - completely racist and irritating.

The script is yet another jumble of crap involving Egypt, aliens, the military, and blah blah blah. While the FX are slightly better this time around, I still found it difficult to make out what was going on in most of the action sequences. And the final showdown between Optimus and The Fallen lasts all of ten seconds and is complete bullshit. Epic fail.

I was so bored with Revenge of the Fallen that within the first five minutes, I started timing the length of Michael Bay's shots just for fun. I don't think a single shot exceeded five seconds in the opening sequence. He also managed to work in that 360-degree pan he loves so much - during a kissing scene, no less. Sigh. Oh, Michael, you continue to out-shame yourself. Can you just go back to slapping American history in the face (ala Pearl Harbor) and stop raping our childhoods. Please?

Read More

My Most Anticipated Horror Movies

I wrote an article on up-and-coming horror films I'm excited about for JohnnyVengeance.com - be sure to check it out :)

http://johnnyvengeance.net/2009/06/heather-shares-her-most-anticipated-horror-films/

And be sure to check out the rest of his site - it's a great source for movie news and more!

Read More

Bronson

Film: Bronson (2009)
Dir: Nicolas Winding Refn
Rating: ****1/2 out of 5 stars

If you don't recognize the name Nicolas Winding Refn, you better sign into Netflix right now and add some of his movies to your queue. Especially the Pusher trilogy. Go ahead, I'll wait.....

...................

.............

........

....

..

Okay? Good. Refn's latest film Bronson is based on real-life criminal Charles Bronson (born Michael Gordon Peterson), who became known as the "most violent prisoner in Britain." The film is a slightly fictionalized account of his life in and out of the slammer. It is narrated by the titular character, whose sanity is questionable. The result is a brutal but darkly funny prison drama.

Peterson was raised by a respectable family with a pretty normal childhood. He decided at a young age that he needed to make a name for himself, and since he couldn't act or sing, he turned to crime. He became notorious for attacking prison guards and taking hostages, and consequently spending most of his days in solitary confinement. He is passed from prison to asylum to prison again, making him also one of Britain's most expensive inmates - a title he relishes. Even when he is released and takes up a career in bare-knuckle boxing (where he gets the nickname Charles Bronson), he still is drawn back to prison and his violent reputation.

Tom Hardy is a freaking BEAST in this movie. I still can't believe I'm watching the same guy who played Handsome Bob in Rocknrolla. It blows my mind. His transformation is easily as impressive as Eric Bana's in Chopper. And both characters are delightfully crazy, violent, and hysterical. Hardy is perfect in this film, and nobody could have played the role better.

Refn's filmmaking style is engaging as always, with bits of self-referentialism that provide the film with humor and intrigue. The script is great too, broaching the subject of violence being inherent - think A Clockwork Orange. In fact, Bronson has a lot of Kubrick influence, including unique depictions of violence, eccentric characters, and prevalent use of classical music. Charles is as much Alex DeLarge as he is Mark Read.

This is a brilliant little movie that should not be missed. Refn is killing me making me wait for his next entry, Valhalla Rising. If you don't share that sentiment, you are missing out.

Read More

Who Can Kill A Child?

Film: Who Can Kill A Child? -aka- Quién puede matar a un niño? (1976)
Dir: Narciso Ibáñez Serrador
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



The idea of children as villains is hardly new to me, after films like Children of the Corn, Village of the Damned, The Omen, Eden Lake, and a certain French film that I won't name to spare the twist. But Who Can Kill A Child? has got to be one of the best ones I've ever seen. It moves a little slow and is sprinkled with 70s cheese, but at its core it is twisted and unique.

English couple Tom and Evelyn take a vacation to a remote Spanish island in search of peace and quiet. When they arrive, the town seems deserted and only children are seen. While looking for assistance, they witness a little girl beat an old man to death. Before long, they realize something is very wrong with this island and its young inhabitants. They try to flee, but the kids won't let them. If they are to survive, Tom and Evelyn must do the unthinkable - well, you know.

The concept is a great one and full of moral conflict. I imagine it was pretty ground-breaking at the time, too. Especially since these children are not aliens, or monsters, or possessed - they are simply evil little fuckers. They seem to kill without reason or remorse. They kill their own parents, who were powerless to stop them because, afterall, who can kill a child? Let alone your own child? Personally, I think I'd have no problem mowing a kid down if he was trying to kill me. But I can certainly appreciate the ethical conflict, especially for Evelyn, who not only has two children back home but is carrying a baby inside her.

Some scenes in this are downright shocking - even 30 years later - but it did not feel cheap or sensationalized. I LOVE the piñata scene and the tiny, adorable child with a handgun, smiling as he points it at Evelyn's head. This is sick shit but it feels totally real and totally relevant. It makes you question your own morals.

I feared the ending would let me down, but it delivers. It manages to be fucked-up without being a total downer (I'm looking at you, Eden Lake!). The only downside to Who Can Kill a Child? is its slow pacing, especially the beginning. There is at least 30-40 minutes before anything tense happens. And the opening credits are a bit unnecessary, showing 8 minutes of real war footage, particularly dead children. I see where the filmmakers were going with it, but it was overkill (no pun intended).

The whole movie reminded me a lot of the original Wicker Man, both thematically and visually. Both are must-sees, especially if you like a film that is scary and unsettling but also well-told and emotionally satisfying.

Read More

Man Bites Dog

Film: Man Bites Dog - aka - C'est arrivé près de chez vous (1992)
Dir: Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel, Benoît Poelvoorde
Rating: ** out of 5 stars



Man Bites Dog has a certain reputation. If the cover art of a man shooting a baby point-blank in the face wasn't indication enough, the movie is known for being fucked up. And while that scene on the cover never actually occurs, the film is indeed pretty disturbing. Needless to say, I was drawn to it for that reason. Unfortunately, most of the movie is boring and without substance. I like the general concept and how it is executed so realistically, but in the end, it all felt pointless.

The film is a fake documentary following a serial killer named Benoît (Ben, for short). He shows the film crew how he attacks random mailmen, kills and robs old ladies, and other horrific acts. It is obvious he enjoys his "work" - he jokes throughout and will go out for drinks after a murder. He takes pride in killing victims in unique ways and encourages the film crew to partake. Eventually, they do get very involved and start to really enjoy it, as well.

If you didn't know better, you might not know this documentary is fake because it is shot so realistically. Even the lead "actors" are the real directors and use their actual names in the film. The murder scenes are also pretty realistic. Man Bites Dog touches on a very interesting topic - society's fascination with voyeurism and violence. However, it never seemed to reach an actual point and instead comes across like cheap shock schlock.

One scene in particular is very disturbing, where a woman is raped (and ultimately killed) while her husband watches at gunpoint. For me, this scene felt completely unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a weak stomach. One of my favorite films of all time is A Clockwork Orange, so I can handle violent rape scenes. The difference between that film and Man Bites Dog is the former had a moral pay-off. Kubrick made me watch these horrific scenes of violence, but it had a purpose and I felt like I got something in return emotionally. In this film, however, the rape is superfluous and does nothing for the story. So I just feel angry for having been made to watch it.

Another one of the film's biggest flaws is its lead subject - Ben. The story would have been more effective if he was a genuinely likable character. The filmmakers were clearly trying to make him charismatic so that the viewer would feel ethically conflicted for liking him. But in reality, Ben is a racist, vulgar, insulting, thieving, raping asshole. These traits makes the killing part less shocking and I never felt that moral ambiguity. Furthermore, his dickish behavior makes it less believable that the film crew would get so swept up in "the fun" of his antics.

This movie has often been called a black comedy, but it is only occasionally funny. I was largely bored by the slow pacing and redundant kill after kill after boring kill. It felt 60 minutes too long, and thus probably would've made for a decent short film. I can appreciate what the filmmakers were going for, but unfortunately they did not quite achieve it.

Read More