Transformers: The Last Knight

June 23, 2017 by  
Filed under Jerrod, Reviews

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Anthony Hopkins, Laura Haddock Directed by: Michael Bay (“Transformers: Age of Extinction”) Written by: Art Marcum (“Iron Man”) & Matt Holloway (“Iron Man”) & Ken Nolan (“Black Hawk Down”) Every now and then, I take stock of all the entertainment properties I enjoyed as a child—or still enjoy screen-printed on a t-shirt—that are being made into well-meaning, if not always good, major motion pictures. All the Marvel stuff, some of the DC Comics stuff, Star Wars…it’s a fine time at the movies to be a fan of the geekier stuff. But then there’s Transformers. It just…it breaks my heart. We have well-made, coherent films where utterly ridiculous characters like Ant-Man and Rocket Raccoon are treated with respect and written as real characters. Meanwhile, five films into Michael Bay’s “Transformers” series, every other fucking robot is either a racist stereotype, spends half their screen time robo-farting or some other bullshit. They even got original cartoon voice actor Peter Cullen to voice Optimus Prime, and seemingly half of his lines in the latest film, “Transformers: The Last Knight” are “I am Optimus Prime!” And I love Optimus Prime. “The Last Knight” opens in the days of King Arthur, where a drunken Merlin (Stanley Tucci!) begs a Transformer (they’ve been here the whole time!) for help in defeating a horde of invaders. He’s given a staff, which calls upon a metal dragon. Flash forward 1,600 years and, in accordance with the rest of this series, the movie picks and chooses which plot points from the previous four films to either embrace or outright ignore. Anyway, this time Chicago stays destroyed after the events of “Age of Extinction,” and the ruins are patrolled by the Transformers Response Force, since Transformers are now illegal. A young girl (Isabella Moner) is saved by Cade Yaeger (Mark Wahlberg) after a drone strike kills her Autobot pal. She stows away with him back to his junkyard in South Dakota, where a bunch of annoying Autobots, including Bumblebee and Grimlock, hang out. Meanwhile Optimus Prime continues his journey into deep space to confront his maker, Quintessa, to tell her to leave Earth alone. Like a chump, he immediately fucks that up and is brainwashed into becoming Nemesis Prime, now assisting Quintessa in her plan to bring Cybertron to Earth, which is actually Unicron (see the animated “Transformers: The Movie” from 1986) in order to revive Cybertron. The only thing that can stop this plan is the staff of Merlin, which can only be wielded by his last living ancestor, Vivian Wembley (Laura Haddock), and she’s being sought by Sir Emund Burton (Anthony Hopkins) and his psychotic robot butler Cogman, the last guard of the Witwiccans (UGH), a brotherhood of humans who have worked alongside Transformers for centuries—you know, because they were here all along. And that’s not even half of the junk shoved into this movie, which is bursting at the seams with so much utter bullshit you won’t even have time to catch your breath—dinosaur Transformers barfing up cars, horns emerging from the earth, a manservant droid shooting himself out of a torpedo tube to catch some fish for a pair of humans on a submarine OH MY GOD WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING? If there are some redeeming factors in this garbage fire is that “The Last Knight” is not quite as blatantly racist and sexist as the previous entries, and it’s not quite as punishingly long. Otherwise…I just can’t deal with these anymore.

Hitchcock

December 7, 2012 by  
Filed under Reviews

Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson
Directed by: Sasha Gervasi (“Anvil! The Story of Anvil”)
Written by: John  J. McLaughlin (“Black Swan”)

It would be a tough assignment for any director to capture someone as influential a filmmaker as Alfred Hitchcock much less try to understand what all the moving parts inside his head are doing. Director Julian Jarrold (“Brideshead Revisited”) and HBO attempted to do it this year with “The Girl,” an unmoving, made-for-TV movie about Hitchock’s obsession with actress Tippi Hedren during the shooting of “The Birds.”

In “Hitchcock,” director Sasha Gervasi (“Anvil! The Story of Anvil”) and screenwriter John  J. McLaughlin (“Black Swan”) choose another of Hitchcock’s classic films, “Psycho,” and try to pull back the curtain to reveal some of the behind the scene issues Hitch confronted while making a film inspired by serial killer Ed Gein. Unable to earn financing from his studio (although he had just made “North by Northwest” and “Vertigo,” which are now considered by many as two of the best films ever made), Hitch (played here glibly by Oscar winner Anthony Hopkins) decides he will finance the movie himself. His wife Alma (Oscar winner Helen Mirren) stands by him as always for support.

Living with one of the greatest filmmakers of the era, however, is no easy task. “Hitchock,” while it does give us a interesting glimpse of the moviemaking process, is more a movie about Hitch and Alma and how they are able to work through their marital issues while in the spotlight. Unlike “The Girl” there is really no mention of Hitch’s sexual advances toward his leading ladies. In “Hitchcock,” Scarlett Johansson portrays Janet Leigh, whose relationship with the larger-than-life title character is played as professional. Sure, it’s not very hard to make Hitch seem like the creepy old man making the pretty blonds in the room uncomfortable as he ogles over them for far too long (there is a scene where he peeks at an undressing Vera Miles through hole in the wall), but “Hitchock” is less about his perverseness and more about the motivation behind the man making the movies. Still, it comes up short in that aspect.

While Hopkins and Mirren are wonderfully cast in their roles and do everything they can to create this loving albeit strained relationship, what goes wrong with “Hitchcock” comes from the odd changes in tone and stagnant script. A few scenes are written with Hitch having imagined conversations with serial killer Ed Gein. McLaughlin might’ve thought this would give insight to the dark places Hitch had to be to make a movie like “Psycho,” but each of these talks feels like an unnecessary interruption.

Acting aside, “Hitchcock” is a disappointment. Instead of making a film with Hitchcockian flare, Gervasi should’ve concentrated on making a film about the man – a cultural icon of the 20th century who deserved more than getting showering over with plenty of narrative inelegance.