Transformers: Revenge of the slo-mo

So I've been meaning to write this review for some time (it's been a week since I've seen the film), but am just getting round to it in my own good time. Mostly because, well, I was pretty disappointed.

Now if you've seen the film, or read any other real reviews, then you'll know why. It's just..."meh". There is no other way to describe it. It's not BAD but it's just not GREAT either. There was so much hype surrounding the film, and as amazing as the first film was, this one just doesn't even come close.

In my opinion, there's just too much in this film. Too much of everything. The first Transformers film was great, because it didn't really TRY too hard, and didn't take itself too seriously, so the jokes and the action seemed to intertwine almost seamlessly. However, Revenge of the Fallen fails at this on so many levels. The script at times was absolutely shocking, and certain scenes and characters were completely unnecessary. Obviously being a sequel means that you have to step it up, as people rarely want to see a carbon copy of the original (although in this case, maybe that would have been better?). Looking at past examples such as Spiderman 2, Terminator 2 and Toy Story 2 (yes that's right bitches, MOTHER-LOVING TOY STORY), these were all successful films that managed to continue the success of the franchise to no end. Transformers 2 however, seems to have gone the route of Spiderman 3, in just having way too much to it. Its far too meaty for what it is, and has too many large plot holes in order to stretch the film out (SPOILER: Why the hell didn't they just use the all-spark fragment to revive Optimus instead of that old English wanker who kept spunking fluids all over the places?) - at times it reminded me of that bit in Thank You For Smoking when Rob Lowe's character says "Thank God we invented the...you know, whatever device".

On the other hand, the action sequences were pretty great, and who doesn't want to see Megan Fox running around in slo-mo with a skimpy top on? If only Michael Bay could have cut all the crap from the script, maybe there could have been a decent film in there somewhere, but alas, it wasn't to be. Lets hope Ironman 2 doesn't go the same way when it comes out next year (Or Toy Story 3, but come on, that could never ever ever fail *crosses fingers*).

I'm not even going to talk about Skids and Mudflap, they fail all on their own merit.

~ Lazy

New 2012 trailer!

First we were given


This was long ago. Intrigued, I searched 2012 on the googlebox and then decided I was very excited for this film. Vexcited.

Now finally we've been given


and I was reminded that John Cusack is in it. This pleases me greatly.
2012 will be out in November and you can bet I'll actually fork out the money to see it as soon as it comes out, rather than hanging around waiting for the Prince Charles to show it.

In other news, I saw Drag Me To Hell a week or so ago and it is hilarious and great. See it! Also, I only found out after watching it that Sam Raimi is making the Evil Dead series a tetralogy! BIG news. But that baby isn't out 'til 2011 so we can forget about that for now and avoid stressing over whether it will disappoint or not.

Apologies to Lazy for repeatedly ruining our pleasant dynamic by insisting on crossing the board to talk about films! Music update soon I promise.

-Tubs

Lazy: It's fine, I don't mind, especially when it's as epic as this film. John Cusack you sly dog! I'd write some stuff about music, but we all know that I'm tone deaf, so my opinion really doesn't matter :)

She's come a long way since The Princess Diaries

So today I watched a film called Havoc, which was released back in 2005 as a straight-to-DVD film. As soon as I hear the words "straight-to-DVD" I assume the worst, as this right is usually reserved to less-than-par sequels and basic garbage that the studio couldn't really afford to have shown in cinemas. And to be frank, this one was pretty much the proof in the pudding.

I had seen a movie poster for the film a couple of weeks ago, but hadn't really considering checking it out, as the 2 names mentioned are "Anne Hathaway" (The Princess Diaries) and "Bijou Philips" (I'll be honest, I had to look her up. Apparently she's been in Almost Famous and Hostel Part 2. Oh and in GTA San Andreas as a character called "Helena Wankstein"). Not exactly entirely enticing, but if I tell you now that you see Hathaway's boobsicles at least twice, will you change your mind? Probably not, the Internet is littered with these things people call 'breasts'.

The reason I finally got round to watching it tho? Well honestly, in "researching" my last post, I looked on the wikipedia page for the new G.I. Joe movie, and was surprised to learn that Joseph Gordon-Levitt (3rd Rock from the Sun) was in it. Now I've been a fan of his for quite some time, probably spreading back to when he was on 3rd Rock, but since then he's done some pretty stellar low-key indie flicks such as Mysterious Skin, Brick, and The Lookout, all of which showcased his tremendous skills as an actor. Having seen he was in Havoc, I figured that he'd at least add some serious weight to the cast (which also includes Channing Tatum of Step Up fame), but alas, it was not to be.

Levitt's role is fairly small, and frankly, not that great, which didn't exactly give me hope for the rest of the film. The film itself depicts the life of so-called rich 'Wiggers' and the rebellious nature of upper-class teens becoming mixed up in a world unknown to them (which apparently is alllll the way from Beverly Hills down to East L.A.). Now the premise for the film is actually fairly intriguing, and could have potentially made something of itself. However, one can't exactly get over the fact that Anne Hathaway is playing the lead, who to me doesn't exactly strike me as someone who could really portray the angst that should have been felt by her character. To me, she seemed TOO Beverly Hills, and I couldn't connect with her representation of a character who is trying to fit in with an East L.A. Mexican gang.

If you're like me and you have nothing better to do (or are intrigued by the afforementioned Hathaway boobathon), then give it a watch and see what you think. Just don't go into it expecting miracles. What you should watch out for though is Levitt's upcoming movie 500 Days of Summer, which alongside Zooey Deschanel (You may have seen her in Yes Man or Elf , but I much prefer her roles in The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, The Go-Getter, an excellent cameo in Weeds) is looking like a great film from the trailer. I like the fact it's being released on Fox Searchlight Pictures, which specialises in great Indie films, and according to wikipedia has brought us I ♥ Huckabees, Super Troopers, Thank You For Smoking, Garden State, Little Miss Sunshine, The Darjeeling Ltd, Juno, and is set to bring us the Arrested Development movie. There's no bias there, but I'm pretty certain thats one of the greatest collections of films I've ever seen :)

~Lazy

What's this I hear?

A re-make of the classic 80s TV show 'The A-Team'?

That's right folks, you heard me, another classic about to be completely butchered. Now when any franchise is 're-booted' persay, there comes issues. Firstly you get your die-hard fans (which i'm thinking with the A-Team is probably about 6 people?), who are absolutely opposed to any new changes and send death-threats and severed heads to whomever may be directing.

However, sometimes re-boots works. Just look at the new Star Trek. With JJ Abrams at the helm and a multi-million dollar budget, things went well. Not that I've seen it, but I heard it's kinda like Star Wars (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892).

But what's really difficult in attempting to re-make a classic is the casting choices. The reason shows and old movies become classics is because of the people that portray them. They become the face (THATS RIGHT I SAID FACE, LIKE FROM OFF OF THE A-TEAM...) of the series and often become synonymous with that franchise.

Now from what I've gathered thus far, although this hasn't been confirmed, but Bradley Cooper (Wedding Crashers, The Hangover) is a potential to play the Faceman, and Liam Neeson (Taken) is in talks to play Hannibal. Now that's all very well and good, and I'm sure they'll do a tremendous job. But the real question is, who will get to play B.A. Baracus?! Obviously, you've got 2 options: 1. Have Mr. T reprise his role, knowing full well that people will go see the film just to see him say "I ain't gettin on no plane" with a glass of milk in his hand, or 2. Cast someone else, and have everyone sigh and say "Should have been Mr. T". The choice is obvious, right?! NO. IDIOT. As much as I'm sure everyone would love to see Mr. T back in the helm that made him famous, by bringing him back this film would become as much of a farce as the upcoming G.I. Joe reboot. That'd be admitting that the only real weight behind The A-Team is on the strength of a man who legally changed his name to include a full stop.

In other news, Breaking Bad is awesome. But I'm sure you're all aware of this, so there's probably no need to delve any further into this. ALSO, there was a show on the American network Starz called 'Party Down' which was really awesome and funny and I'll probably write a whole review, but for now I probably need to get dressed as I'm meant to leave the flat in about...3 minutes.

~Lazy

Relevant!

I love the Amateur Transplants. You should buy their CD! Today I put up this song because it is currently the situation. Hooray. Thanks, guys.
Okay now I have to GET A BUS to see a house like a COMMON ANIMAL.

-Tubs