Toothpick TV: Fringe

A lot of great shows never even come close to getting the respect that they deserve before they are taken off the air because of lack of viewers. Firefly, Tru Calling, Dollhouse, Arrested Development, Deadwood, The Shield, The 4400, and of course The Wire are just a few of the many great shows that seem to slip through the cracks amongst a sea of much higher rated shows such as… ugh… Whitney, Will and Grace, and Jersey Shore. This week’s TV pick not only happens to be a phenomenal show struggling with the ratings problem, but a contender for my favorite show currently on TV.

Fringe is a science fiction/mystery drama that revolves around the supernatural cases investigated by the specialized “Fringe Division” of the FBI. It’s the third television brainchild of the always interesting JJ Abrams (Lost, Alias, Cloverfield, MI: III, Super 8) and right off the bat this series got a lot of attention because it sounded and looked like a beefed up, better version of the X-files. Instead of simply following two agents however, this show revolves more around the division itself, including a strong lead by relative newcomer Anna Torv as protagonist Special Agent Olivia Dunham, a talented Joshua Jackson as consultant and liaison Peter Bishop, the perpetually outstanding Lance Reddick as Agent Phillip Broyles, and John Noble as the eccentric and slightly schizotypal scientific researcher Walter Bishop in a role so brilliantly interpreted and portrayed that it astounds me he has not yet won an Emmy, let alone been nominated.  In many ways though, Fringe far exceeds even the best strengths of the X-files, with a much deeper main story arc, more interesting and likeable characters, and a more intriguing and mysterious antagonists.

Like X-Files, Fringe’s weekly stories revolve around the “Monster of the Week” storyline structure, which means that every week the division must investigate a new case of supernatural origin, but where most X-file monsters were usually isolated episodic events that typically had no connection with the occasional “Smoking Man” episodes sprinkled in, Fringe episodes go out of the way to have the story advanced every week, even if it is just a little. At first these episodes deal with an emerging series of strange events referred to as “The Pattern”, but as the mystery of these incidents slowly unfolds and the story advances the heroes begin to discover that there is a much more sinister and deeper conspiracy underlying these strange occurrences.

As I mentioned before, the creator and producer of this show is JJ Abrams, who gained a lot of fame (and notoriety) by becoming the master of conspiracy with his almost torturous creation of mysteries made famous in Lost. Throughout the entire series of Lost many questions were left unanswered, and every time one of them was explained the show would create two more for the viewer to pull their hair out over. This trend eventually created a storyline that was so tangled and contradictory that by the end of the show, even with a final season dedicated to explaining every mystery they STILL didn’t have answers to all of the questions brought up throughout the series. This created quite a backlash of anger from the viewers after the series finale, with many people calling it everything from “The Worst Season of Lost Ever” to “The Worst Season of Television Ever”, and eventually JJ Abrams himself issued a statement which was basically an apology for how the show fell apart after he left.

JJ Abrams seems to have learned from his mistakes however, and where Lost utterly failed with its’ handling of mysteries, Fringe excels. Questions brought up in the beginning of each season are more or less explained and dealt with by the end, and fresh mysteries never have a chance to grow stagnant and forgotten as seasons pass. The audience’s continued watching and dedication to the show is rewarded with rich, compelling storytelling that perpetually moves the story forward, and as mysteries are solved fresh questions are brought up to replace them in a sort of ever expanding web of mystery. There is, however, one critical question in the show that has yet to answer, an important mystery that was introduced in the first season, but this mystery is vital to the advancement of the story and it is handled with respect and deliberate pacing. When the time comes to finally answer it the answer won’t take an entire season to explain like Lost, so I don’t have much of an issue with it remaining a mystery.

At its’ heart Fringe is an excellent and well written mystery, but each episode brings with it powerful and interesting twists in the overall story. The direction is taut and exciting, creating a sense of tension when necessary interfused with moments of well written comic relief (usually courtesy of Walter). The show also deals with very important world issues on a more subliminal base, issues such as morality, segregation, fear (both of the unknown and in general), ethical science and research, and a truly believable and interesting love story arc between two of the main characters. The camerawork is excellent, so much so that you can often find yourself forgetting that this is simply a TV show and not a big budget movie. It’s not flashy or distracting like one of the many CSIs or NCIS, but it’s well worked, well framed, and uses the occasional camera trick to create a sense of supernatural undertone that goes a long way towards establishing the perfect atmosphere for a show like this.

One of the things sets Fringe on a higher plane of likeability that all the other shows on TV is the little touches and nods to other established works that it goes out of the way to acknowledge. Tiny details and storylines often help excel this show past the competition, everything from a small camera trick here, to a little homage here. A good example would be an episode that explores the work of Dr. Bishop before his eventual downfall. Now obviously the entire episode takes place in the eighties, but instead of simply using the same introductory theme the creators of the show put together this brilliant homage to eighties TV logos.

Here is the original…



And here is the eighties version…



All in all this is one of the most compelling television shows I have seen in quite a while, and one of the reasons why I am beginning to like TV more than film due to its’ expert storytelling over meaningless effects. The first and second seasons are sublime, and include episodes that are nothing short of the best television I have ever seen, chock full of incredible moments like the twists at the end of the first episode, the introduction of “The Observers”, and Olivia’s freakishly strange car accident in the season premiere of Season 2. Everything about this show is handled with the respect and appropriate pacing one would expect to see from a ratings powerhouse, despite the fact that this show has been perpetually struggling for viewers.

Which brings me to my final point, missing this show would be a crime, which is why I am so saddened to see it constantly fighting the ax as it tries to bring new viewers into its’ interesting story. I myself was a latecomer, and I didn’t start getting into this show until I downloaded the first season from my companies shared drive in Iraq, but as soon as I got home I watched every episode of it on Netflix, bought season 3 when it came out, and forced my wife and her family to watch it from the beginning (all of them are now caught up and addicted). One weakness this show has that the X-files doesn’t however is a weakness that it shares with Arrested Development, in that it is very hard for the average viewer to simply “jump in” to the show halfway through its’ fourth season. It is best enjoyed when begun from episode one, but many people’s schedules are flat out too hectic to start a new series from scratch just to catch up with where it is now.

This is also a good point however, as that first season is so exciting and so interesting that I am honestly envious of everyone who gets to watch it without knowing what they are getting into. Whether you’re a fan of mysteries, dramas, sci-fi, shows that are a bit different from everything else out there, or just have some down time to catch up on one of the best kept secrets on TV, this show has something that everyone can enjoy.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America: The First Avenger is the final new Marvel property to be given the cinema treatment before The Avengers comes out next summer. The film was a crucial element to this franchise, as fans of Marvel will know that Cap is actually the leader of the Avengers in the comic, so naturally this film’s success was going to be very important for the setup of the Avengers film. Now I loved both of the Iron Man films, I greatly enjoyed Thor, and I even kind of dug the majority of The Incredible Hulk, but while I was watching these films I couldn’t help but remember that they were all equally important to the franchise. So how does Captain America stack up to these box office powerhouses? Not the worst, but far from the best.

Really quick though, I’d like to get something out in the open. A lot of people who know me know that I love Red Letter Media, to the point where I have been recommending them to all of my friends, but now I’m starting to get sick of watching their reviews. My frustration has nothing to do with the quality of their material, which is always ingenious, but as I watched their review of Captain America I was (once again) completely overwhelmed by how they brought up every single problem I planned on addressing with the movie, to the point where I almost don’t want to write this review because I’m afraid it will look like a rip-off of everything they said. But… I’m gonna do it anyways as I have been thinking of what to write for the better part of the weekend, and I’ll try my best to bring out some new stuff as well.

First of all, we’ll talk about what works with the film, and happily I actually have a lot of stuff to write about with this field. The first half to two-thirds of the film feels like a very cool, very original take on a period piece put together with a comic book origin story. The look and feel of the film shares the classic Joe Johnston period feeling that was in with The Rocketeer, and all the characters of the film are played well by the respective leads. Chris Evans plays two sides of the coin with perfection, and it’s easy to see why he’s quickly becoming one of Hollywood’s leading men because of the sad, downtrodden performance he turns in while he plays “original” skinny Steve Rogers, a patriot and true hero stuck in a weakling’s body. We feel the depression and sadness that Steve feels when he is rejected time and time again for service, and as we see the good guy and true patriot lurking beneath his unimpressive frame we can’t wait to see the transformation we know is coming.

The rest of the cast is rounded out well, as Tommy Lee Jones is classically grumpy and bitter, Hugo Weaving is fantastically sinister, and newcomer Hayley Atwell is charming and likeable in her performance of Peggy Carter. The real star of the show however, is the always outstanding Stanley Tucci as Dr. Abraham Erskine. Tucci’s subtle and brilliant application of a gentle kindness and soul turns what could have been a thankless role into a powerhouse of a father-like figure. I would honestly see a back story about his background in the Third Reich and his dealing with Red Skull. Dominic Cooper does a good job as well playing Tony Stark’s father Howard, but sadly Neal McDonough’s perfect portrayal of Dun-Dun Dugan is reduced to a “blink and you miss it” role, as is Sebastian Stan’s Bucky.

The first half of the film does a great job setting the stage for Cap, and creates an amazing recreation of America in the throes of WWII. After Steve finally gets the procedure to turn him into Captain America a thrilling chase sequence creates a sense of our hero unaware of his own power that I have never seen done so well in any comic book movie before. As he chases an enemy agent he overshoots streets, crashing through windows due to legs that are much stronger and faster than he is used to. As much as I loved the original Spiderman the biggest complaint I had with it was how Peter magically knew how to swing through the city the first time he tries it. That’s not the case here, as most of the film revolves around Steve unsure of his new position, both in strength and in fame. We see that Erskine chose well, as even after receiving his new gifts we see that the only thing Steve wants is to go to the front lines and fight in the war.

Following his transformation Steve is stuck doing a series of War Bond propaganda performances, and we are treated to a classic WWII montage of his performances as he does his best to help his country in the only way he is allowed. It isn’t long however until he finally gets his moment to take his skills to war, and he finally sees an opportunity to go to battle when he realizes his best friend has been taken hostage. So we gear up, get ready, and finally make our way into action movie territory.

Sadly, this is where things begin to fall apart in the film, and at a surprisingly quick pace. As the action revs up and we see Cap go to war the pace of the film quickens to that of a rocket ship… with us holding on to the tail fins desperately trying to keep up with the story. Entire chunks of important information are disseminated in mere moments, nearly as bad as they were handled in Transformers 3. One moment Cap is at odds with his love interest over a momentary lapse of judgment, and then mere minutes later they are apparently in love while we weren’t shown any significant progression on how they arrived at that point. I feel like the quick pace of the second half of this film seriously tarnished what could have been a great entry into the comic book franchise and the upcoming Avengers film. Even worse is the fact that I honestly didn’t know that we were at the final showdown of the film until we see the Red Skull taking off in a plane we recognize from the beginning, the end of the film was just so rushed. If the film had been given an additional thirty minutes or so of expository dialogue I think this movie could have been one of the better superhero movie entries to come out in quite a while.

Now Captain America is not the first adaptation film to suffer from this problem, as it is normally something associated with all films involving the origin of a character. This problem is known as “Origin Story Syndrome”, and while many comic book films suffer from it this is probably one of the worst cases I have seen in a while of the “rushed second half” problem. Spiderman suffered from this problem, but they were able to more or less overcome it by packing the origin story into the first forty minutes or so of the film while creating a villain for us in the same timeframe. This timeframe allowed for both character developments to happen evenly and early on, and then left the us with another hour and twenty minutes left of film, plenty of time to set-up the conflict between Spidey and Goblin as opposed to Captain America’s roughly forty-five minutes.

Another example of a movie that was able to overcome “Origin Story Syndrome” was Batman Begins, and they solved this problem in a very unique way, they turned the entire film into an origin story. Sure, you can argue that Bruce Wayne only trained for the first half of the film, but throughout all of the second half we see the character of the Batman himself still evolving throughout the film. The first time Bruce Wayne pays a visit to Gordon he’s only wearing his body armor and a ski mask, and his inexperience and lack of equipment nearly gets his retarded ass killed when he almost plummets to his doom. Later on he nearly gets gassed to death and set on fire because he hadn’t learned to mind his surroundings. After that he finally begins to master the art of fear, and at roughly the four-fifths mark we finally see him humbled once he sees how not yet overcoming his arrogant impulsiveness costs him his family’s mansion. The final step in Batman’s training at the end of the film mirrors the final act he was supposed to commit during his training with the League of Shadows where he refused to execute a murderer, and while he still refuses to kill the evil Rhas-al Ghul himself he makes the decision to let him die at his own hands, creating a linchpin choice in the creation of Batman. These films show how with a little creative thinking and good film making a well-made superhero movie can overcome Origin Story Syndrome.

Something else that bugged me was the ham-fisted use of CG during the war scenes. Early use of CG to show Chris Evans as a weakling was done so perfectly and seamlessly that I couldn’t stop raving about how amazing it looked. I wish I had the same life problems that Chris Evans apparently has in the beginning of the film, where they need to use state of the art CG to make him look like I normally do. Once the war begins though the direction and cinematography seems to forget that practical, real effects can be super effective in a WWII period piece like in Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. If they had stuck with using practical effects like this augmented slightly with a touch of CG here and there the movie would have been much more impressive looking. Instead we get entire backgrounds that are reminiscent of the lazy CG background paintings of the Star Wars prequels, almost cartoonish looking scenes mapped against crazy action sequences that actually jolt the audience out of the period.

Now you may be thinking that a suspension of belief is always required with these films, but I’m talking about lazy film making and a lack of detail that creates a scene that makes no sense. A good example is an action scene where Cap and friends zip-line onto a superfast bullet train that is carrying a key scientist for HYDRA. Right off the bat the background looks silly and painted, but it’s acceptable as a CG scene because obviously they couldn’t do this trick onto a real speeding train going this fast. Where the film fails to create a proper illusion though is that once the guys are on the top of the train they seem to forget that this thing looks like it’s going about 140 mph because Cap and his soldiers are walking on top of it without any wind, cold, or any elements of the scene directly opposing them. It wouldn’t have been hard to have them struggling against the whipping wind, walking slowly, leaning into it while maybe a stage hand has a super strong wind machine blowing in their face, but in the movie I don’t even think I saw their clothes fluttering. In fact I could be mistaken, but I think the black soldier was wearing a cap that never got blown off the whole time they were on this speeding locomotive.

CG scenes like this detract from the atmosphere that this film could have had going for it as one of its greatest strengths, and it’s a shame to see it this way because movies have had great train action scenes since the beginning of film. In fact the train robbery in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was made with a fraction of this film’s budget and came out looking a thousand times better due to the realistic camerawork and stunt work involved. It wasn’t just one scene either, as there were a number of potentially outstanding action pieces that seemed to be ruined by sloppy camerawork and rushed storylines. It just feels like a real shame that the second half of the film was such a letdown compared to the first half.

This apparent shortfall is just one small part of the problem I had with the film, as one of my more major concerns was the symbolism of the period, or rather, the lack of any. This film could have been an amazing look at an alternate timeline in life when a superhero fought the Nazis in WWII, classic symbolism like an American Flag vs. the Swastika could have created an emotional powerhouse and connected with the audience in a great way. Instead, the legion of oh-so-wise producers overseeing the film decided to do away with almost every piece of WWII symbolism in a pathetic effort to make this film appeal to audiences worldwide. The only semblance of an American flag is Cap’s shield, I don’t even think I saw a swastika, and the producers even tried their best to have “America” taken out of the film’s title and simply have it called The First Avenger.

How pathetic and cowardly has Hollywood become to go so far out of their way to not want to offend the overseas market? One of the biggest things I hear about this film is that Joe Johnston was picked to direct it because of his prior film The Rocketeer, but did the producers forget that a majority of this film revolved around American patriotism? I am seriously getting sick and tired of this PC bulls**t trying to neuter every single possible implication that someone in a film might actually be proud of the country they were born and raised in, such as the did in the new Superman film when he said he fought for “Truth, justice, and peace” as opposed to his original ideals of “Truth, justice, and the American way”, and if you listen very closely to the dialogue of Captain America you never really hear a lot of people talking about how they are fighting “for their country” like they should be saying. Genuine, great, real scenes involving anything even resembling pride in their country have become a thing of the past, even in a film about the greatest patriot in the history of comics, and this continuing fad of fading out any sort of national pride is flat out insulting to filmgoers.

Say what you will about The Rocketeer, but I would rather watch that film any day over the drivel that is being produced by Hollywood these days, and anyone who has seen the film can attest to the feel-good patriotism that is apparent in most of the film. In fact, one of my favorite scenes revolved around mob boss Eddie Valentine (a thinly veiled copy of Al Capone) telling his employer, the villainous Sinclair, to go screw himself once he realized that Sinclair was a Nazi secret agent. How cool is the idea that a self proclaimed monster such as Valentine finds the idea of betraying his country utterly loathsome? It just makes you feel kinda giddy that even a truly despicable person draws the line at treason.

But even though this is the same director making a film that should have promoted MORE patriotism, I have a mental picture of a snooty Hollywood producer shaking his head every time Johnston snuck in an American flag. Look, I don’t blame Johnston for this decision, and I know Hollywood is full of liberal, bed-wetting pussies, but you seriously have to draw the line at rewriting history and renaming a freaking FRANCHISE for the sake of your ticket sales. And by the way, despite the fact that Johnston refused to change the name to The First Avenger the film performed outstanding outside the US, so once again the producers are made to look like idiots for  trying to change the name.

The last major issue I had with the film can be partially blamed for the rushed second half, but I bring it up anyways because I see it happening more and more in summer action films. This story has pretty much NO resolution, and even though it has a brief attempt to transition into a commercial for the upcoming Avengers film it ends almost immediately after the climax. I’ve noticed this incredibly frustrating trend in more and more Hollywood blockbusters such as Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the Star Wars prequels, any Resident Evil movie, and (you guessed it) every Transformers film. In fact almost all of the Transformer films end immediately after the final confrontation, although I’m guessing this is because Michael Bay probably panicked and sped through the end as fast as he could when he realized that it’s pretty much impossible to create a resolution without explosions.

The point is that this crap shouldn’t be happening in Hollywood films AT ALL, let alone happening at an increasingly more common pace. This is basic storytelling 101 people, and how these high profile directors can’t nail a simple concept like this is baffling to me. There are many different ways to structure a basic three act story, but in a nutshell it can all be broken down into five parts of a story arc that looks something like this.



This is often referred to as “The Dramatic Structure” or a “Story Arc”. I guarantee that this basic rule can be found in any of your favorite films (as long as they are good), and I’ll even apply it to one of my favorite top five films, The Empire Strikes Back, even though it can be found in all five:

Part 1: Exposition/Introduction-The exposition provides the background information needed to properly understand the story, such as the problem in the beginning of the story.

Example-Luke, Han, Leia, and friends are introduced, and we learn they are establishing a new secret base. Vader is introduced as he attempts to hunt down Luke for purposes not yet known.

Part 2: Rising Action-During Rising Action, the basic internal conflict is complicated by the introduction of related secondary conflicts, obstacles, and possibly secondary adversaries that may work with the main antagonist or separately for themselves or actions unknown.

Example-The rebellion loses control of the Hoth base and is forced to evacuate. Hand and Leia go on the run while Luke searches out Yoda to train him as a Jedi. Boba Fett and the bounty hunters are introduced to hunt down the heroes. Han and Leia are eventually betrayed and captured and Luke decides to rescue them against the wishes of Yoda and Obi-Wan

Part 3: Climax-Also known as the “Turning Point” marks a change, for better or worse, in the protagonist’s struggle. If the story is a comedy, things that have gone badly for the character will begin to go well. If the story is a tragedy, the opposite will occur. In a nutshell, this is the most dramatic and important part of the story.

Example-Han is frozen in carbonite and taken by Boba Fett. Leia, Chewie and Lando shoot their way out of Bespin and are pursued by the Empire’s TIE fighters. Luke is defeated in battle with Vader, learns that Vader is his father, and sacrifices himself rather than join the dark side.

Part 4: Falling Action-During the falling action which is the moment of reversal after the climax, the conflict between the protagonist and the antagonist unravels, with the protagonist winning or losing against the antagonist. The falling action might contain a moment of final suspense, during which the final outcome of the conflict is in doubt as we head into the conclusion.

Example-Luke is rescued by Leia and Lando, who are still being pursued by the Imperial Fleet in a frantic pursuit as Vader unsuccessfully continues to try to convert Luke. The Millenium Falcon goes into hyperspace moments before being captured.

Part 5: Denouement/Resolution-All conflicts are resolved. A release of tension and anxiety is achieved for the characters and the audience.

Example-Luke and Leia are shown safe with the Rebellion Fleet. Lando and Chewie leave to rescue Han. George Lucas strokes his beard in sadistic envy at how Irvin Kirshner was able to utterly outdo him in every way.

When you look at this example you can see how a film with great pacing and storytelling like Empire and pretty much any other great film follows this basic simple structure, so it’s confusing to me how these writers and directors who land the biggest jobs in Hollywood could screw something like a resolution up so badly. When you can’t handle something as simple as a resolution then it’s time to move on from movies, and don’t tell me there wasn’t time for a proper resolution because you can do one quite well with a limited time window if you’re creative. The Prestige had a brilliant final dialogue that wrapped up all the loose ends, relaxed the tension of the film, and answered the question that compelled the entire conflict of the story, all in the span of less than five minutes. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly dealt with Falling Action and Resolution brilliantly as well by following the climactic Mexican standoff with less than ten minutes of screen time. In that ten minutes we had falling action with digging up the gold and hanging Tuco, resolution with Blondie shooting him down, and even a final iconic shot of Blondie riding off into the sunset.

New directors and big budget films seem to be happily skipping all of these massive bookmarks in storytelling. Mr and Mrs Smith had the climactic final gun battle in a department store, skips over Falling Action all together, and then gives a half assed thirty second final therapy session with the two characters where NOTHING is resolved or tied up. Captain America has the climactic showdown on the airplane, barely addresses Falling Action as he crash lands the plane, and then includes a few minutes of Peggy looking over Cap’s files and Cap waking up in modern day New York as a hardly satisfactory resolution. And of course… Transformers 3 ends with the obligatory “Optimus fighting Big Bad Guy” climax, a few clips of the main characters standing around aimlessly that resolves nothing, and Optimus spouting useless words of wisdom before a sudden and jarring edit to “DIRECTED BY MICHAEL BAY”. Yup, ol’ Mike skips over Falling action and Resolution altogether.

All in all though at the end of the day I can overlook these problems and recommend Captain America as an enjoyable mindless action romp. My biggest regret about it however is just seeing such a promising first half followed by so many easily correctable mistakes peppering the second half.

7 out of 10

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

I'm sorry if this review seems rushed, but I wrote it in about (literally) 2 and a half hours.

I want to tell you right off the bat, I had high hopes for Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Sure the first film was mediocre, but it was also kind of enjoyable, and even though the second film was an absolute train wreck from beginning to end hell, nobody is perfect. So when I heard this film was coming out to somewhat positive reviews my ears began to prick up a little bit. People began to say that this film was the best of the three films, and that Bay had toned down his use of the shaky-cam enough to where you could watch the film and NOT feel like you were having a seizure. So I let my hopes kind of rise a bit, I mean I loved Transformers as a kid, and the idea that this was going to be a big budget action movie with a cool story and flushed out autobots for a change made me a little excited. So I rented the movie, made a tub of popcorn, and sat down with the wife to watch the movie.

Oh……………

I didn’t know this film was supposed to be a satire. I didn’t know this film was supposed to be a mirror to reflect everything an action movie SHOULDN’T be, but man did I have that coming. Where do I begin?

The biggest problem I had with the film was the story, or rather, the epileptic construct of a “mock” story. Nothing in the film made ANY sense, it was just a series of clean, crisp, colorful images put together by a first year film student to piece together long and intense action sequences. Critical plot points are glazed over in the span of seconds, and that is NOT an exaggeration. Remember when I did my Twilight review last week and I said the only thing the film had going for it was that at least the scenes were constructed to explain what was going on in the film? Well this film with it’s $400 million dollar production budget (I didn’t make that up) and it’s nearly three hour run time failed to accomplish even THAT simple objective.

Getting back to the biggest problem though, is its utter confusion at how to properly handle important plot points. Here’s an example that stood out in my mind. So Sam and John Turturro find out the most important thing ever, they find out the Decepticons have collected these doomsday devices and they’re gonna use them to kill us all. Basically, how the good guys plan to manage this information would require a series of short scenes explaining the game plan to the audience and going something like this in a normal story driven film:

1.       Explanative dialogue discussing the implications of this discovery (1:30)

2.       Scene of Sam and John discussing a battle plan of what to do with this crucial piece of knowledge, allowing the audience to understand the game plan. (1:00)

3.       Scene of Sam talking to CPT Lennox over the phone about an idea. (0:30)

4.       Lennox relays information to autobots, one will likely volunteer to meet Sam (1:30)

5.       Sam meets up with the volunteer and they head to destination (1:00)

That’s just five and half minutes to set up a coherent scene that explains the motivations and actions of the characters and shows how they arrived at a destination. Instead, here’s how the film does it:

1.       Quick gloss over of moon pictures by Russians (0:05)

2.       Sam is on the phone saying “We picked up Sentinal and we’re moving out (0:03)

3.       Arrival at destination (0:02)

The film crammed all that important discussion into ten seconds, leading to a disjointed, confusing scene where the audience is wondering what in God’s name they’re doing. Now you may say “Well if they took that long then the film would be WAY too long”, to which I reply “They didn’t have to waste as much time as they did on pointless parts of the film”. Here are some examples of wasted film, and I am NOT lying about the times:

1.       Nine minutes are spent on slow motion close ups of girlfriend #2 and her grotesquely over-inflated lips.

2.       Two additional minutes are spent on an initial close up of said girl’s ass.

3.       Nearly fifteen minutes are spent in useless dialogue with Sam’s parents (there was one good joke however)

4.       Nineteen minutes are spent on a side-plot involving an autobot spaceship that ends up going nowhere.

5.       Eleven minutes are spent focusing on girl #2 and Sam’s s**tty relationship

6.       The last eighty minutes of the film focus on the climax.

EIGHTY MINUTES! This film wasted eighty minutes on one action scene, and while yes, this is an action movie and this is the most important part of the movie you didn’t need to drag it on for eighty god damn minutes and create a scene that became boring around the twenty minute mark. The point is…

SPOILER ALERT!

 the doomsday device is destroyed, bad guys lose, and Optimus beats Sentinal. You could have gotten all of that in around twenty minutes, like the first film did.

END SPOILERS

Dragging this scene out for that long detracts from the crucial time you could have spent developing the story into something more than a disjointed, confusing mess. At one point during the film my wife turned to me and asked if I understood what the f**k was going on, and she pointed out that it felt like huge chunks of story were lobotomized from the film to make way for bigger ‘splosions. As a result of this strange compressing and expanding of the wrong film elements we are left with important scenes that are squeezed way too small and action scenes that are stretched way too long. What’s even worse is that some elements of the story were actually really cool, it felt like this film might have had a decent writer pen out a real story at one point, but when he went to see his movie in the big screen with his family he was tearing out his hair in fury at what Bay had done to his script. If you had met in the middle with these two elements you could have had a breathtaking action film with a great plot, good action, and interesting characters.

Speaking of characters, what the hell is wrong with them? Sam is supposed to be the strong male lead in the film, but instead he comes across as a childish brat. At one point in the film he pulls up to a secret military base, and when they tell him he can’t go in he screams like a girl and starts flailing his arms like a child throwing a tantrum. I am not s**tting you, that actually happened in the film, and I expected him to start screaming “I WANT IT I WANT IT!” during this scene. He is utterly unlikeable in every sense due to rushed time constraints, and two people in the movie who are supposed to be “dicks” actually appealed to me more than the protagonist.

One of them was John Malkovich, utterly wasted and underused in this film, who explains that Sam “Wants the job ahead of the job he’s getting without actually putting in his time at the job”, which is unwittingly a perfect analogy for this entire flick. It wants to be this great summer blockbuster film about character and story without putting any effort into developing either, it’s like a spoiled rich kid who wants something without putting in the work for it. The other “dick” I agree with is Frances McDormand, also utterly wasted in this film, who is supposed to be a serious jerk because she gets angry that they a two twenty-something year old civilian and his girlfriend into the most secure, top-secret military base and doesn’t want someone who isn’t in the military to be part of military operations. Why is that a bad idea? How is she a jerk for insisting on that?

Luckily, Turturro returned (thank GOD) to his role as a former Sector 6 agent, and he’s joined by the always brilliant Alan Tudyk as his flamboyant assistant. I love me some Alan Tudyk, and the dude can do no wrong in whatever role he plays, but while he makes the most out of his limited screen time and turns in a genuinely great performance (I STILL wonder to this day how things would have played out if he ended up playing the Joker like he was supposed to) it isn’t long before the shitty script has this civilian commanding an operations center. How is this guy at all qualified to run a critical battle? The script does have a brilliant one line excuse for his existence though, and it’s “he’s a whiz with electronics”. Oh, so anyone who has a penchant for C++ can command entire armies in a battle that will decide our continued existence?

Worst of all though, is what they’ve done with the usually well rounded Optimus Prime. Normally he was a moral compass for the group, and took the moral high ground when faced with a tough decision, but in this movie it seems like he just stopped giving a s**t. At one point a turncoat for his side realizes the error of his ways and begs for forgiveness, and Optimus shoots the remorseful and unarmed person in the face. While I myself may not be opposed to capital punishment, Optimus always was in the show and previous movies, and with this simple act (and soooo many more in the movie) we see how the character has fallen from grace.

When all is said and done and the credits roll it just seems like this film is a weak excuse for a summer action film. It feels like a generic, by the numbers, production line assembly film. There’s no emotion to it, no feeling, all it comes down to seems to be Michael Bay ripping off countless other better movies shot for shot, then piecing them together into his cosmic joke. I saw a lot of scenes stolen from a lot of movies in this film, and I don’t mean scenes that are similar to other scenes, but shot for shot remakes of identical scenes. There’s a lot of stunning action in the movie, but one of my favorite shots involving a group of spec ops guys jumping out of a plane was a shot for shot copy from a video game called Metal Gear Solid 3. It doesn’t end there either, I saw scenes ripped off shot for shot from movies including (but not limited to) Back to the Future: Part 2, Inception, Uncharted 2, Cowboy Bebop, The Rock, Apollo 13, The French Connection, Swordfish, and Children of Men. And don’t say that these scenes are supposed to be a homage because they aren’t. If you want to see what an homage looks like watch Paul, because these scenes are a director ripping off ideas and scenes and claiming them as his own, trust me, he’s done this before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts:_The_Clonus_Horror).

Even the music is a rip-off! While I was watching this film I really dug the main theme of the movie, it reminded me of a score I would hear in a much more emotion driven, better written action film. About half way through the movie though I realized that it was FROM a much more emotion driven, better written action film, the score was a total rip-off of the score from Inception! I don’t mean they borrowed the same music, I mean they wrote an entirely new score meant to emulate the dark tone and powerful crescendos of the Zach Hensey’s classic score, complete with the infamous “BWAAAAAAWM” that was mocked so much in the movie. Don’t believe me? Check this out, it will blow your mind.

This is the main over-arcing theme from Transformers, move the slider so the music will start at the 1:06 mark when you hit play, then keep it paused.

This is the main over-arcing theme from Inception, move the slider so the music will start at the 1:00 mark when you hit play, then keep it paused.

Now listen to the Inception piece from 1:00 to 1:50, then immediately start the Transformers piece and listen from 1:06 to 1:56. Yeah, the whole of the two songs are identical too, but that part made me laugh. It seems like all these decisions like butchering the script, bloating the action scenes, ripping off other movies, castrating talented actors, they all come from one man, Mr. Bay.

Now it’s hard for me to pick on Michael Bay, I have friends who have met him and say he’s a super nice guy. He’s patriotic (as is apparent in his movies), loves what he does, loves the military, and can direct some good action sequences. I also think that if he were to change gears he would be one of the best cinematographers or producers Hollywood has ever seen, plus it seems like all I ever do is pick on him. On the other hand, he keeps making it sooooo damn easy to make fun of him! It seems like every single moment that it’s time to have normal character dialogue, plot development, or anything not explosion related, he panics and rushes through it as fast as he can so that he can get back to more action scenes. It’s just lazy direction, and his perpetual making of empty, hollow, meaningless action scenes reminds me of one thing.

It reminds me of a dumb hick sitting at a gas station, complaining about the economy and saying over and over that we can fix this problem by printing more paper money. He doesn’t understand the idea that you need something (emotional connection) to back up the currency (action scenes), and people will try to tell them that this won’t work without a gold currency to back this cash up, but he waves them away with his hand and insists that his stupid theory is right. Well guess what, the dumb hick is starting to prove he was right after all. His plans to direct three stupid Transformer films have now grossed so much money that the studios are now begging him to do a 4 and 5, and WE are to blame. By making these jokes of films box office gold WE have made the decision to keep encouraging studios to abandon brilliant independent projects in favor of this crap, and over time WE will pay the price. Whether you saw this film in theaters or at home is besides the point, all that matters is that there are two people reading this review, people who understand what I’m trying to say (not even agree, but understand), and people who insist that we can fix the economy by printing more paper money.


By the way, let's take a look at that list I made a few months back before I made this review.


1. Sam screams "OPTIMUUUUUUUS!" a lot-Check
2. Extended close-ups of the girl-Check
3. Doomsday machine that's going to kill us all revving up during climax-Check
4. A traitor emerges and tries to screw over the good guys-Double Check
5. Sam runs around in the finale trying to save his girlfriend-Check
6. Lennox jumps in with super special forces to save the day-Check
7. Optimus has to fight new, more powerful villain-Check
8. Optimus has to team up with Megatron to fight new villain-Check
9. Optimus and Megatron fight... AGAIN... Actually no! I missed one, even though he did kill Megatron

I don’t like the fact that I hate these movies, and I know I come off as a hater when I write these reviews, but I refuse to acknowledge that these films are OK action films when there are so many good, interesting, well made action movies out there with a soul to them. You watch a film like Transformers 3 and it feels like the soul of the movie has been removed, like there is nothing to the film other than an insecure and incompetent director just trying to make action scenes, and then you watch movies like The French Connection, Inception, The Dark Knight, and District 9 and you see how simple it is to create an emotional connection with the audience, a connection that makes your action so much more enjoyable and watchable. I remember seeing Transformers 2 in theaters and seeing tons of kids texting during the biggest action scenes in the film, not giving a crap about these dazzling action sequences unfolding in front of them. Shortly after that I saw District 9 in the theaters, and for the entire last half hour of the film I didn’t see a single phone, hear a single purse being shuffled through, or see a single person leave the theater even to use the bathroom, they were so engaged in the film. At the end of the day, it’s all about the emotion, and my emotion is resigned.

4 out of 10

Twilight Saga: New Moon

Well… we all knew this review was coming. When a film franchise makes a crap ton of money and generates as much hype as the Twilight series it’s only a matter of time before I’m pretty much forced to see what all the hullabaloo is about. I tried to put it off, I tried to pretend it was just a fad, but it didn’t end so well this way. It was like seeing all the signs you had cancer, but putting off going to a doctor out of fear of what he would tell you. You knew putting it off was only going to make things worse, but you just didn’t care, you didn’t want to face the truth. Well, I finally went to the doctor, and I’m actually glad I did, because now I can comment on one of the biggest film franchises of this generation... I'm here to break the news to you about your cancer. 

And for the record, this review is going to be honest, in depth, and sincere, I’ll point out anything in the film I actually liked, and I’ll back up things I didn’t like with actual reasons why I felt that way, not just “sparkling vampires are GAY!”. A lot of you will say I’m a sparkle-hater, and while the idea that this film franchise pretty much obliterated the mythos of the vampire for an entire generation doesn’t exactly sit well with me, it’s something I can deal with under the right circumstances and I won't even bring it up in the review. After all, this is the guy who defended the idea of the “running zombie” in 28 Days Later. An original take on a classic creature is acceptable, as long as the idea is treated sincerely, seriously, and creatively. Was this spin handled that way in Twilight: New Moon? Well… let’s get started on the review shall we?

The first (and biggest) problem I had with the film was the characters, namely the protagonist Bella Swan. For a character who was supposed to be portrayed as a strong, independent female lead, Bella sure fails to have any sort of likeability in this film. Instead, she’s a petulant, selfish, self-destructive, shallow, manipulative brat, often leading guys in the film on for the sole purpose of crushing them later just because she suffered a little high school break up. The opening scene of the film revolves around her nightmare of growing old while her immortal boyfriend Edward stays young, instantly portraying her as a shallow, beauty obsessed emotional train wreck who is more concerned with her looks than the true meaning of love. If a film like Highlander can have a well done, powerful message about love spanning lifetimes and beyond amidst its large number of swordfights, then surely a film like this with NO ACTION can squeeze something like that into its two + hours running time.

Now this is where “twi-hards” will instantly defend the film by saying “Well it was written that way in the book!”, but that’s sort of the entire point isn’t it? This franchise has effectively created an emotionally damaged, anti-social, apathetic stereotype of what a strong woman should behave like when facing a break up, made even worse by the horrific writing and dialogue saturated throughout the movie. Sigourney Weaver couldn’t even make this character likeable, and Kristin Stewart is no Sigourney Weaver. Her emotionless delivery of the lines and horrific wooden acting turn the protagonist into a joke. She may as well be made of cardboard, and her portrayal of the character completely destroys decades of progress made with well written, strong female leads. How are you supposed to like a character like Bella Swan when she gives you every reason to hate her?

When writing an independent, strong female character there are so many simple ways to do so that I could make a list. In fact, let’s do that right now shall we? Pretty much all likeable and strong female fall into three main categories they are:

1.       The Tough, Strong Willed Charmer (i.e. Marion Ravenwood)-This is your basic, go-to archetype when trying to create a female character. These characters typically make up for their lack of physical strength with an independent, emotional strength. Take Marion Ravenwood from Raiders of the Lost Ark for example. Marion is a tough, no-nonsense woman who can out drink any man on Earth and loves a good scrap, but also has a soft side to counterbalance her sharp tongue. Her dialogue is written to appeal to both male and female audiences by making her an independent role model for females, and a funny, sarcastic, firecracker of a love interest for guys. Her character is so likeable in fact that an entire generation of men fell in love with a female lead that managed to look like Kristy Allen.

Seriously… her

As strong and likeable as she was though, her strength never laid in her physical abilities. Yeah, she punches Indy, but he brushes it off like someone who just sneezed really hard. We never see Marion kung fu fight a Nazi because we know the Nazi would win unless Marion had an unfair advantage, or took him by surprise. No, Marion’s appeal lied in her inner strength instead of her musculature, and by doing this Marion became a woman who the audience knew could handle herself in a tough situation. She showed the world that you didn’t need to kick-ass to be a kick-ass heroine, and with Marion Spielberg created a female lead that was universally praised as the epitome of what a strong, female lead should be in a film. Unfortunately, he completely undid all his hard work with his next portrayal of a female lead.

Seriously… her

2.       The Strong Minded Moral Compass (i.e. Donna Noble)-Having a female character who can fight her way out of a tough situation is classic, but how about a character who can talk a person into taking the harder, morally higher ground? Enter Donna Noble, one of the funniest characters ever written and hands down my favorite Doctor Who companion. Donna Noble was the Doctor’s companion for the fourth series of Doctor Who, and while the Doctor had already been well travelled with Rose Tyler and Martha Jones, Donna was the first of his new companions whose sole purpose on the show wasn’t to make googly eyes at him while he did all the work.

The REAL Noble Squad, Halo: Reach can eat its’ heart out

You see, The Doctor is a strange exception to the action hero image. He’s the hero in an action/sci-fi television show, but he never really engages in any sort of physical violence during his travels. Instead, the Doctor relies on his wits and intelligence to defuse a hostile situation, and in this respect he's a great role model for adolescents and kids to look up to. He loves non-violence, and he’s always at his happiest when both sides can walk away from the conflict unscathed. He’s a peace lover first and a soldier second, and during his travels his companions always relied on him to get them out of a bad situation, often becoming the very essence of the “damsel in distress”. His repeated and repeated habit of bailing them out led to him growing an inflated ego, sometimes even becoming conceited and making travels to simply sate his ego… until Donna entered the picture.

Where Rose and Martha were seen by the Doctor as something akin to kids who needed his help, Donna took on the persona of his big sister. She would talk him out of ideas that were flat out stupid, she would perform dangerous tasks if it meant getting him out of hot water, and on more than one occasion she would put him back in his place after his ego grew out of control. It was never castrating, in fact the Doctor seemed to revel in having a companion who had the guts to reel him back whenever his aspirations exceeded his reach, and despite the constant sharp banter between them they absolutely loved each other and knew they were perfect together. The Doctor was heartbroken when he had to let her go, and despite their lack of any physical attraction to each other Donna held him in the highest regards, often volunteering to follow him into hell itself.

Donna was a female heroine who, like the doctor, relied on her sharp wit and intelligence to become a strong, independent moral compass that the doctor truly needed in his journeys. She wasn’t afraid to get her hands dirty, but her physical prowess was never over-exerted to the point of being unbelievable. I’m not trying to be misogynistic, it’s just simple physics and logic that a small woman isn’t going to be an action star. Playing this card is always a tough journey, but if you really, seriously, ABSOLUTELY need to go this route for a film, then you had better…

3.       Have a Damn Good Reason For it (i.e. River Tam)-There are few things in a movie theater more uncomfortable than having a skinny, underweight Hollywood actress accomplishing flat out ridiculous feats of physical strength.

Seriously… her

Yes, that is from the 2001 film Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, and yes, that is a 110 pound Angelina Jolie punching a fifteen foot tall, two ton murder-bot to death with her bare hands. To make matters worse, just twenty seconds prior to this picture Jolie held its robotic claws from crushing her face with nothing more than a strained face and her fragile human wrists. For a period in the early 2000s scenes like this were becoming more and more common as the “girl power” craze gained a lot of momentum in Hollywood. Before we knew it we were being bombarded with countless films starring Michelle Rodriguez and Angelina Jolie as ass kicking female leads who kung fu fought hordes of men twice their size.

This may be well and good for the directors who are making these films as a simple cash grab, but for the audience it’s a big difference. I remember seeing these films, and feeling, actually FEELING the uneasy squirms from both men and women alike as these heroines managed to shatter our suspensions of belief, hearing chuckles and groans as Rodriguez punched out a guy standing over two feet taller than her and uttered a cheesy one-liner. Having a tough woman who is a crack shot with a gun, or good with a sword is one thing, but making them able to overwhelm muscular adversaries in sheer strength is flat out silly to watch, no matter how much kung fu is involved. Luckily, there are a lot of ass kicking heroines out there who are believable in their roles as powerhouses, but it isn’t because they can simply make a sour face and spout expository dialogue.

Enter the plot device, a simple idea that can transform a ninety pound Milla Jovovich into the supernatural supreme being “Leelu” in Fifth Element. With a simple explanation of how these apparently small women are superior to their counterparts we the audience can once again get behind the idea of them  performing these incredible feats, and I didn’t hear any groans or snickers while Leelu was fighting off waves of Manglors in Fifth Element, just entertained silence. Combine these explanations with even half decent acting and a lack of cheesy one liners and you have a believable, strong, ass-kicking broad on your hands. While these explanations can be seen as weak attempts to drive the plot forward, a respectfully and carefully handled explanation can make a world of difference. Leelu was the supreme being of legend, a sort of demi-god created to protect Earth, and they went into detail about how she is genetically superior in countless ways to a regular human. Alice from Resident Evil was the result of cybernetic augmentation, and River from Firefly/Serenity, was an experimental subject of genetic alterations and virtual flash training.

Now again, I can’t stress enough that these devices aren’t nearly as complex and difficult to write as a genuine, strong, female heroine, but if handled correctly they can re-integrate a feeling of believability into a character. Leelu was shown kicking a lot of ass, but shortly after the fight the film made a point of showing just how vulnerable she really was. Serenity took a different approach and gave us the best of both worlds, a strong, independent sharpshooter and tactician with Zoe, and a plot device driven super soldier with River. Each one filled their role perfectly, as we saw plenty of instances of Zoe masterfully driving behind the wheel of a vehicle, making good command choices, and shooting the s**t out on anything in front of her, but the second she tries to take on a Reaper she nearly gets ripped to shreds in less than a second. River on the other hand is an unstable wreck due to years of experiments and brain tampering, but in her moments of lucidity she’s shown believably fighting off swarms of Reapers with weapons, grace, and her enhanced humanity, something a normal woman like Zoe could never do.

Oh come on, you know it’s true! And before you say I’m going all misogynistic again remember that this rule works for men too. Not to compare him to a ninety pound girl, but do you really think Luke Skywalker, a hundred and sixty pound or so farmboy from Tatooine could take on a seven foot tall, four hundred pound cyborg with years of combat experience on him in the real world? Hells no, Luke would get squashed like a bug, but Luke has the greatest playing field leveler of all time, he has the Force as his ally, and a powerful ally it is. This transforms Luke from a regular person into a sort of super soldier, and because of this never once does the audience think the lightsaber fights between him and Vader are far-fetched.

Now while Bella is clearly never supposed to be an action hero in these films, she IS supposed to be a representation of the female sex, and apparently (according to the author) the logical thing for the female sex to do when a guy breaks up with her is to manipulate any guy who likes you, become an emotional train wreck, and then jump off a cliff. Even more insulting is the fact that this idea, however ridiculous it is, actually works! After her sad little attempt for attention falls short and she is rescued, Edward finally decides to try and get in touch with her again. Does anyone else find this premise insulting? Marketing this idea to a group of impressionable tweens still trying to figure out what to do with their life is flat out stupid, if not incredibly dangerous.

I wish I could say that she was the only weak point of the film, but it’s only the beginning. Pretty much every character is a weak stereotype coated in sticky bad dialogue and dipped in horrendous acting flakes. The only two people in the film who seemed to be doing ANY sort of acting were Billy Burke as Bella’s dad Charlie and Michael Sheen as a member of the Valtari named Aro. This film seems to drain any ability of anyone involved in its’ making, the exceptionally competent Anna Kendrick has become a caricature of buffoonery, the always entertaining Graham Greene is now a boring wheelchair bound waste of time, and the immensely talented Dakota Fanning is now nothing more than a creepy, obnoxious tween queen.

The direction, cinematography, and sound direction reeked of MTV tainted awfulness, and after seeing the brand new trailer I’m a little surprised they aren’t calling the upcoming installment Twilight Saga: Teen (Vampire) Mom. Weak camera tricks (usually involving flat angle shots shot in slow motion) are mixed with teenage angst music with hilarious results. The lines of dialogue and metaphorical allusions are so horrifically written that I don’t even think subtlety is in the directors’ mind. We all get that becoming a werewolf is a metaphor for male puberty, but I remember falling down laughing at a line Jacob says when Bella confronts him about being a werewolf, something along the lines of “I didn’t choose to be like this, I was born this way”. Gee, I wonder what he could be talking about…

Where do I begin with the writing? The lines of this film are so bad that they sound like they come out of a South Park satire of the franchise, and one line (I s**t you NOT) was straight out of Austin Powers. When a film has to use dialogue from Austin God Damn Powers, you know you are in some serious trouble. Some lines that really got me laughing, even months later, include:

“Who let the wolf out?”

“We won’t bite… hard.”

“Hundred and three degrees over here!”

“Oh my Jacob, you’re burning up!”

“So… you’re a werewolf?”

“The only thing that can hurt you is me.”

“Marry me.”

“They’re like hall monitors gone bad.”

As awful as the writing was though, it did have one redeeming factor. Unlike most Hollywood movies these days it had a beginning, a middle, and an end, and each part of the film more or less led to the next part. I had no idea who that red headed chick and the dreadlocked guy were, but I’ll forgive them because I think it was explained in the first film, and the important thing is that every action usually (I said USUALLY) had a purpose behind it. Most summer films jump from scene to scene with no transition, people are one place, and suddenly they are the next, but luckily here that is not the case. I also liked how Edward’s intentions were kept secret until the end, since most movies would show him having THAT conversation so the audience doesn’t see him as a jerk. You know the scene I’m talking about, a scene after he leaves her where he explains away all his bad decisions, and it would go something like this.

Vampire: But why Edward? Why did you leave her?

Edward: Because I love her so much I don’t want to hurt her… trust me, it’s for the best.

Now I’m not going to pass judgment on the books or the rest of the films because of this one bad experience I had, but it certainly tarnished my future expectations of the film. When a character is as unlikeable and disgusting as Bella Swan was in this film, I have trouble ever believing that any amount of film or wood pulp can ever redeem her. Add poor direction, bad acting, awful cinematography, and flat out hilarious portrayals, and you have a recipe for what tween audiences now have as a benchmark for what they expect from movies.

3.5 out of 10

Super

Independent films aren’t really my thing. For the most part these types of movies tend to be either:

a.      Preachy, overdramatic movies trying to convey a very obvious message,

b.      B-grade bad horror film garbage poorly directed by Wes Craven wannabes, or

c.      Shameless rip-offs trying desperately to cash in on a popular movie franchise.



Yup... all 3 describe this blog as well

Once in a while though a talented director will choose to remain in the genre because they appreciate the freedom they are given over the project and the lack of Hollywood interference, leading to outstanding examples of expert storytelling. One of these champions of film integrity is a little known director named James Gunn, a low key director best known for his work in Troma films such as Tromeo and Juliet and Slither. His newest project Super is his most ambitious yet, and his zeal for the film is apparent in its execution and direction.

The story revolves around social pariah Frank D’arbo (Rainn Wilson from The Office), who discovers that his wife Sarah (Liv Tyler) has been tricked into becoming a hooker for local pimp/drug dealer Jacques (Kevin Bacon). After his pleas for help to the police are met with indifference, Frank has a supernatural experience that leads him to believe he has been touched by the finger of God and therefore chosen to become a superhero to get his wife back. He adopts the persona of “The Crimson Bolt” by night, fighting crime across the city in an attempt to find a way to “rescue” his wife. Along the way he is assisted by comic book fan Libby (Ellen Page), who takes on the persona of “Bolty” in an attempt to live out her comic book fantasies and become a sidekick.

First of all, we need to address how the marketing campaign of this film is guilty of one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to the industry, false advertising. What do I mean by that? Well, see for yourself…

The trailers, posters, and TV spots go out of their way to portray this film as a lighthearted, campy ride of one pathetic man trying desperately to be Batman. When films really try to push themselves onto audiences by lying to them about what they can bring to the table it never really ends well. Audiences go see the film expecting something that the film can’t deliver, and even though the flick may be a very good example of another genre, the audience almost always leaves feeling cheated, which in turn leads to negative feelings towards the film and bad word of mouth. Watchmen did this by marketing itself as a more mature version of The Incredibles, and audiences left the theater pissed off despite the fact that the movie was a damn well executed social commentary, a near perfect adaptation of the graphic novel, and a dark, well made exploration of the human condition. Parents took their kids to see Rango expecting a film akin to Shrek set in the Wild West, and they left the theaters angry because instead they got a violent, but brilliantly made satire of the “spaghetti western”.

Super is guilty of the same heinous crime, and the first thing you need to know is that this is not the same film portrayed in the trailer (for the most part). This is NOT a film about Dwight from The Office running around, being silly and smacking people in the face with a pipe wrench. It’s more of a dark comedy, with the funnier parts of the film stemming from the glib desperation of Frank trying to overcome his own isolation as he tries to rescue his wife. One of my favorite scenes revolves around Frank praying to God and asking if this was what he really wanted, then asking God to send him a sign if he wants him to continue doing it. I found it funny because this is a situation I have actually been guilty of, and there’s nothing stranger than seeing something and wondering if it is indeed a sign or not.

In a way this film is a true comic book movie, a film of self-discovery and overcoming the odds, and for that it’s a pretty darn good one. The protagonist is awkward, but well-meaning and likeable, his sidekick is hilariously insane and adorable, the villain (Kevin Bacon, again awesome) is cartoonishly vile, and the supporting cast funny and enjoyable to watch, especially a criminally underused and hysterical Nathan Fillion as “The Holy Avenger”.  The characters in the film are deeply flawed, but utterly likeable, and as a result the limited conflict scenes are made that much more enticing and exciting to watch. I know I’ve pounded this point to death, especially with my first article, but even mundane action scenes are made that much more exciting if you really care about what happens to the characters in them.

Hey, you remember that M. Night Shyamalan film Unbreakable? You know, the last film he made before he slowly started slipping into making absolute crap for films? Yeah, believe it or not this dude used to make some of the best films in Hollywood, and Unbreakable is a shining example of it. It’s hands down my favorite Shyamalan film, and despite all the comic book films being released I can honestly say that if it isn’t my favorite comic film it is easily in my top three. Now some of you may be saying “Hey, Unbreakable wasn’t a comic book film, it was just about a guy who discovered he may or may not have powers”, to which I respond that even though it may not have been a comic adaptation film, that doesn’t mean it’s not a comic book film.

What it is however, is a film about self-discovery and responsibility, about one man’s quest to discover what he is and learn the responsibility of his gifts… gee… sounds an awful lot like something doesn’t it? The point is that David Dunn is such a deep and well written character that it was guaranteed the audience would sympathize and relate to him almost immediately. Willis’ haunted, subtle, and brilliant performance along with Jackson’s aggressive, investigative story further solidified Dunn’s character as a conflicted, but well meaning man who was desperately trying to find the answer to the biggest question for both of these men, “Why are they who they are?” Now think about this for a second, try to pick your favorite fight out of the following climactic comic movie fights:

1.      Fantastic Four-The final showdown on the streets of New York

2.      Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer-Final showdown with Dr. Doom and Galactus

3.      X-men: The Last Stand-Massive showdown on Alcatraz

4.      Spiderman 3-Showdown between Venom, Sandman, Green Goblin 2, and Spidey

5.      Wolverine-Final showdown between Sabretooth, Deadpool, and Wolverine

In each of these cases millions of dollars were spent on creating the giant ass epic showdown, creating big scale, explosion-rific action sequences that dazzle the eye. There are cities being blown up, planets being destroyed, armies being decimated, buildings collapsing, superpowers clashing, special effects on overload, the Golden Gate Bridge being obliterated, and Ian Mckellan. What’s the final, climactic showdown in Unbreakable? Bruce Willis jumps on a guys’ back and flails around until the guy falls down. Sure it may sound lame, but which is the most effective and powerful climax of these six examples? Unbreakable, hands down. Thanks to a character connection with the audience, a well shot sequence, and a haunting score, this one scene has a thousand times the impact as all the Mr. Fantastics Fox can throw at us.

I know I keep pushing this point in pretty much every action movie review I do, but it’s a VERY important point to hammer home, especially to me. Creating genuine, likeable, relatable characters should always be priority one, and gigantic, city-busting finales should be an afterthought to filmmakers. If you can do that then even the most unimpressive, cheaply made, and unexceptional finales will have significantly more of an influence on the audience than boring, generic, uninteresting heroes. Now obviously the best option would be a combination of the two factors such as Spiderman 2 (deep character development + outstanding subway action sequence = breathless audience), but if you have to choose between the two then you shouldn’t be a filmmaker in the first place Brett Ratner.

Now I know I just went off on another angry fit, but there was a purpose to it, and the purpose is to illustrate that despite being a dark comedy, Super actually had one of the best climactic finales out of all the comic book movies out there these days. It was simple yes, but by creating emotional attachments between the audience and the characters we now care what happens to Frank, Libby, and Sarah in the final showdown. The surprisingly dark turn the film takes effectively sets up how the stakes are now real for these characters, and the lightheartedness of the film leading up to this point must be abandoned following one critical moment of the sequence. It’s an abrupt transition, but it’s done that way because it’s necessary and as a result the audience can get inside Frank’s head to feel the rage and need to see the job through. A lot of critics misinterpreted this scene to the point where they said the film didn’t know what it wanted to be, but I think the transition was necessary to show the real dangers of the situation Frank found himself in.

This happens late in the film though, and everything leading up to it is a really good time. It’s still dark, but it’s lighthearted and funny to watch Libby and Frank sort of developing their crime-fighting styles. What’s really fun to watch however is Frank more or less mentoring Libby, and seeing how this weird, sort of out of touch guy is actually the more calm and precise member of the crew. Some of the funnier parts of the movie actually stem from Libby hurting people really bad, and I mean REALLY bad, and then erupting into fits of giggles and laughter as these poor people are writhing and crying in pain at what just happened to them. It takes Frank to teach Libby that even though he doesn’t know what he’s doing, he does know that he must always serve a greater good.

As usual Gunn’s talents as a filmmaker are apparent, and with his usual flair he can create a scene to properly reflect both the audiences’ and the characters’ emotions in that moment. Whether it’s creating a lighthearted, cartoony tone during the funnier times of the film, or creating a dark, foreboding atmosphere during the more depressing moments, his filmmaking style is effective and enjoyable. Strong writing helps his film along, and in doing so we can understand these apparently simple characters even better, especially when we begin to see them evolve and understand their deeper motivations in the film. It’s just a really enjoyable ride throughout, and it’s almost like a really effective commentary on the comic book film conglomerate as a whole.

Now of course there are some problems with the film, most notably that anyone who has seen it already knows that it is not a movie for everyone. The last twenty or so minutes of the film are INCREDIBLY dark, and some other parts of the film will take you by surprise if you don’t know what to expect. It’s also very gory, which you wouldn’t even begin to expect from watching the trailer and seeing the poster. This film is very R rated for a reason, and despite its’ funny atmosphere it actually comes off more like a niche film for weirdoes like me than your typical comedy. One last problem I had with the film was Nathan Fillion being underused, and even though I mentioned that earlier I had to bring it up again because I thought the funniest parts of the film revolved around his Bibleman knock off Christian television show (Don’t watch the clips below if you don’t want the awesomeness ruined for you).

Told you

Super is a film that may not appeal to everyone, but if you can get behind its’ wacky blend of dark comedy and superhero satire you may find the experience rewarding.

7 out of 10