"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles [2014]" - Review (By Travis S.)

What You're In For:

The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are back on the big screen, in their first live action film in over 20 years. After a series of crimes attempted by the "Foot Clan" are prevented by an unknown vigilante, reporter April O'Neil follows her intuition, and tracks the assailant. She soon stumble upon a evil kingpin who plans to take over New York, and a group of teenage mutant ninja turtles who are up to the challenge to take him down.


Who's Involved:

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles [2014]" is a production of Paramount Pictures, Nickelodeon Movies, and Platinum Dunes, Written by Josh Appelbaum, Andre Nemec, and Evan Daugherty, Directed by Jonathan Liebesman, and Starring: Megan Fox, Will Arnett, William Fichtner, Noel Fisher, Pete Ploszek, Johnny Knoxville, Jeremy Howad, Tony Shalhoub, and Whoopi Goldberg.

Travis’s Take:

“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles [2014]” isn’t quite the disaster many were expecting, but it certainly doesn’t revive the franchise with much charisma either. We’re treated here to your typical big-budget summer film, filled with large CGI characters, and littered with uneasy comic relief. We even get a special cameo by Whoopi Goldberg, oh joy. Narrative-wise, the movie brings nothing new to the table, drowning beneath the weight of its flashy visuals and loud action scenes. The villains are underdeveloped, the story is bland, and our central human protagonists have no chemistry with their animated reptilian counterparts. With all the negatives mentioned above, there are a few redeeming factors that drive the film. I’m happy to report that personalities of the turtles are relatively intact, and even down right nostalgically so, bringing a little charm to the production. Speaking of the Turtles themselves, the character designs have received quite a bit of ridicule throughout the production, but there’s no denying that the visual execution of them is practically flawless, creating very realistic creatures to draw our focus on. Another saving grace is the climactic action piece of the film, which is quite ludicrous, but surprisingly well structured and even pretty darn fun at times; making up for some of the sour feelings left by terrible exposition and cheesy dialogue throughout the bulk of the movie. It’s hard to call the film a total let-down, as fan expectations weren’t exactly through the roof for the reboot; but there is a general sadness in knowing that this half-attempt is mascaraing around as a fun and enjoyable entry in the series. When you get right down to it, this movie is fashioned for a new generation, which forces the studio to presume we’re all brain-dead audience members who enjoy a butchered re-hash of our favorite heroes in a half-shell.

Filmmaking Report Card:

Directing Score: 5/10

Editing Score: 5/10

Cinematography: 5.5/10

Acting: 5/10

Screenplay: 3.5/10

Over-All Experience: 5/10




The Final Say:

"TMNT [2014]" isn't quite the mess most fans of the franchise were expecting. It's great to see the heroes in the half shell back on the big screen, but sadly they are handled with little care or creativity. This is a harmless summer blockbuster, but a disappointment nonetheless.

Final Score: 5/10

"Lucy" - Dual Review

What You're In For:

After being coerced into delivering a mysterious package to a crime syndicate, Lucy is forced to take part in their smuggling rink in order to earn her freedom. Waking from an altercation with her captors, she discovers that a pouch of synthetic drugs have been surgically implanted into her abdomen. In route to her rondevouz, Lucy is attacked, causing the drug pouch to rupture and leak into her body. Immediately after, Lucy's brain power begins to steadily increase, allowing her to do tremendous things. As her powers grow stronger, she begins to restructure the science of our world, and become something beyond our imagination. 

Who's Involved:

"Lucy" is a production of EuropaCorp, TF1 Films Production, and Canal+, Written & Directed By Luc Besson, and Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Morgan Freeman, Min-sik Choi, Amr Waked, Julian Rhind-Tutt, and Analeigh Tipton.


Travis’s Take:

"Lucy" is a film that fails to deliver on every level, stumbling through a laundry list of filmmaking flaws along the way, and ultimately offering up a messy 89 minutes of complete dreck. As if the science (fiction) wasn't hard enough to swallow on its own, the filmmakers have decided that there is simply no sense in pairing logic to Lucy's abilities. We're treated to mere morsels of exposition to support these anomalies, and the film runs on the assumption that the resulting action sequences are enough to sustain the plots fluidity. There is no narrative structure here, but rather a downhill dive into obscurity. The film movies along at a quick pace, building momentum parallel to Lucy's rise in cerebral capacity, but falters as each outlandish concept is hurled towards the audience. The only characters we can truly buy in to and relate with are throwaway plot pawns, and the films primary hero is an unrelatable and unreadable character with a non-existant character arc. Ironically, the only thing the film executes successfully is its runtime, allowing us to escape the theater quickly with a few of our brain cells still intact.
 

Austin's Take:

 I'll be honest and up front, "Lucy" was a colossal failure. It's been quite a long time since I've seen such chaos and garbage on screen. Lucy tells the story of a 20 something year old named Lucy (Scarlett Johansson), who is tricked into delivering a package that unbeknownst to her, carries a potent new drug called CPH4. The deadly deal goes down and the next thing Lucy knows, she's waking up with a bag of the drug surgically stowed away inside of her. Through a series of events, the bag breaks open releasing the drugs throughout her body. Instantly the side effects of the narcotic takes hold giving her the ability to access full brain capacity. Also included in the effects are psychic abilities, teleportation, telekinesis, envision things others can't, see the roots of trees growing, and the desire to stare quizzically off into space. None of which is more over the top than the idea itself. The story is based around the notion that we humans only have access to 10% of our brains capacity. If the percentage were to increase, so would our ability to do wondrous things, such as control matter and see cell phone signals floating in the air (so cool). What's funny is that at almost every turn the film discredits itself. A professor named Samuel Norman (Morgan Freeman) explains that since humans have never experienced a larger capacity with the mind that we in fact don't know what could really happen. So if we do not know what would happen then that must mean we have no idea what WOULDN'T happen either. This in turn opens the door to all the bizarre sequences of events that takes place in "Lucy." Writer and director Luc Besson, leaves every ounce of explanation from this film and tries to ride the story out on the assumption that what you see is just the way it is. Through the terribly paced, silly, and downright ludicrous moments, "Lucy" becomes a full contradiction. Lucy is not supposed to feel fear, but she does. She is unable to experience desire, but she does. Physically, she should not be able teleport through space and time (all while sitting on a chair in the middle of a gun battle), but and I'm sure you guessed it, she does. Filled with obvious flaws from top to bottom, "Lucy" would be a good lesson on how not to make a movie. The film wasn't lost to begin with, and when I say begin, I mean in theory. It just so happened to fall off course through its writing, directing, editing, acting, CGI, and above all the concept. We may never know what could happen if we were to achieve a higher level of brain capacity, but I do know one thing, stay away from "Lucy."

Filmmaking Report-Card:

Screenplay: 2/10

Directing: 3/10
 

Editing: 1.5/10

Cinematography: 4.5/10

Acting: 4/10

 

Over-All Experience: 3/10

The Final Say:

Above everything, "Lucy" is on aggravating film to watch. It simply ignores detail, plot structure, character force, and any explanation of what's going on. An angry "yah right" can be said for everything about the story and what happens throughout. With such a short run time, this picture will leave you feeling as if it may never end. Save your money, no need to waste your time, and keep your distance from this disaster.

Final Score: 3/10 

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" - Dual Review

What You're In For:

10 years after the Simian Flu spread throughout the world, and wiped out most of mankind; we find the Apes living in a comfortable and structured society, governed by the great Caesar. Our story stars when a small band of surviving humans stumble upon this great civilization, and disturb their peace. As a feud develops between the colony of humans, and the thriving apes society, both apes and man make delicate mistakes, leading them on the path to war.

Who's Involved:

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is a production of 20th Century Fox & Chernin Entertainment, Written by Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, and Mark Bomback, Directed by Matt Reeves, and Starring: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, Kodi Smit-McPhee, and Toby Kebbell.

Travis’s Take:

Matt Reeves has done something truly remarkable here, not only has he made a phenomenal blockbuster film, but he has crafted an intelligent and captivating drama within it. Showing an immense level of control as a filmmaker, Reeves paints a delicate masterpiece with the camera, drawing the audience in to each sequence. The skill required to balance the story's necessary whit, charm, and devastation, seems to be second nature to the filmmaker, who channels a complete understanding of the art. Matching the skill behind the camera, is Andy Serkis' unequaled motion-capture performance as Caesar; delivering more heart and soul to the screen than perhaps any other animated character before him. Serkis is supported by a great ensemble of motion-capture performers, and live action actors, bringing great weight to the story and its themes. Balancing the performances perfectly, is Michael Giacchino's mesmerizing score, enriching the cinematography with wonderful nuances, and even clever nods to the sound of the original franchise.The script is also quite an achievement, building strong characters, and creating a vast world for our conflict to arise in. The level of and talent across the entire production, is a true testament to what filmmaking is all about, and what summer movies can be, when crafted with such careful precision and unwavering devotion. It seems blasphemous to say, but I'm afraid "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" may have even out-done the original classic.

Austin's Take:

However stunning “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” looks, and by all means it is visually remarkable, the depth it takes within its story and central characters is what truly should be remembered. This film is the perfect blend of motion capture CGI and a well thought out script that pays as much detail to the individual hairs on the monkeys back as to what they feel on the inside. Directed by the underrated Matt Reeves (Let Me In), “Dawn” is set in a world where its population, recently devastated by a global virus, is on the decline and a new alpha species of apes is poised to take control. They are a new society that has learned to structure itself similar to their human counterpart. They interact with each other, speak to one another, and have learned to love and hate. In these emotions is where the story is grounded. The screenplay written by a team of writers, Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, and Mark Bomback, is more of a character exploration disguised as a summer blockbuster. Surprisingly, the evolution of individual emotions is shown not only through humans but more so in the apes. The apes are given a choice, whether to hate or forgive, and it’s in those moments that each ape is defined. Though none of this could have been possible without the magic that Andy Serkis brings to the screen via motion capture. Rarely do we see his face actually in a film yet he has starred as some of the most memorable characters (Gollum, King Kong) in recent history. And his work with the lead ape Caesar is no different. Overall, “Dawn” is a prime example that there can be a higher level in a summer film when the attention to emotional detail and in depth character development is the focus. Not only the story, but the CGI/motion capture is brought to a new level of its own, leaving the previous installments a thing of the past. I can’t wait to see how the franchise, just like the apes, will continue to evolve.

Filmmaking Report Card:

Directing Score: 10/10

Editing Score: 8.75/10

Cinematography: 9.5/10

Acting: 9/10

Screenplay: 8/10

Over-All Experience: 9/10

The Final Say:

Blockbusters and franchise films don't get much better than this. From the expert execution of a well balanced script, to the spectacular visuals, Matt Reeves shows a high level of control; handling the daunting effects driven performances, and intimate character moments with great ease. This is a powerhouse film that breaks through the cliche barriers of the summer movie market, and delivers us something fresh and invigorating. 

Final Score: 9/10  

"Snowpiercer" - Dual Review

What You're In For:

In the height of global warming, our brightest scientists attempted to correct the planet's climate problems; but instead, thrusted the world into a modern ice age. 18 years after these events, we find the earth's remaining survivors fighting for control of an impervious train, the "Snowpiercer". As the years go by, the train's lower class feels burdened by the weight of social structure, and an uprising begins.

Who's Involved:

"Snowpiercer" is a production of CJ Entertainment, Opus Pictures, Moho Film, & Stillking Films. Written by Joon-Ho Bong & Kelly Masterson, Directed by Joon-Ho Bong, and Starring: Chirs Evans, Kang-Ho Song, Tilda Swinton, Jamie Bell, Octavia Spencer, Ah-Sung Ko, Ewen Bremner, Alison Pill, John Hurt, and Ed Harris

Travis’s Take:

Director Joon-Ho Bong makes his English-language film debut, with this masterfully crafted and heavy-weighted beast of a thriller. “Snowpiercer” breaks out of the confines of low-budget filmmaking, delivering a claustrophobic dystopian tale about the fundamentals of human nature, and the order that keeps us at bay. Buried beneath the layers of snow and science fiction, exists an absorbing character drama that studies our unrelenting will to survive; and with it, our imminent demise. In the wake of a man made ice age, our characters boarded their one-and-only hope, an enormous train, outfitted with a fully sustainable ecosystem; doomed to an eternity of cycling the barren earth, one year at a time. Amongst the backdrop of this hopeless world, is a society of people struggling with the balance of a social structure that plagued their lives long before the world, as we know it, ended. This is an exquisitely ugly film, drenched in a palpable filth; with production design and cinematography that construct a truly tangible setting for our characters to populate. The camera enjoyed a great balance of intimate character moments and stylized action shots; thriving greatly when placed in the heat of physical conflicts. Joon-Ho Bong is never afraid to heighten the intensity, often leaving much of the violence hidden behind objects, or even right off screen. This approach draws the audience into the film’s most brutal sequences, without drenching the screen in unnecessary gore. Selling a film of this nature takes true talent, and we are given exactly that. The brilliant cast is in top form, supporting the material with great intensity and an authentic believability. This credibility can also be attributed to great writing, which allows the characters to deliver exposition comfortably, without overloading the audience. All-in-all, we’re treated to a daring and unique movie, supported by talented filmmaking. This is one train you’ll want to board.

Austin's Take:

This movie feels just as cold as the ice that covers the earth, in the sci-fi action thriller "Snowpiercer."  Directed by Bong Joon-ho, a self sustained never ending train filled with the worlds last survivors, speeds around the barren snow covered earth. They are destined to never stop circling the globe in the hopes that humanity will continue on. Gritty, unique, and quite chilling to watch, Snowpiercer will easily get under your skin. It all starts with the passengers and the class system in which they live under. Segregated by each car of the train, the rich inhabit the lavish front and the poor reside in the back. For the folks stuck in the rear life is wretched, dirty, and horrendous. They want nothing more than to get to the front of the train. If you take away the story and the well designed set pieces, the train is quite the analogy between itself and how much of society functions. There are the rich and sadly there are the poor. For the lower class it's about the struggle of being on the bottom, or in the "back," and the constant feeling of unfairness. There is a never ending desire to rise to the top and have an equal share of what the elitists hoard for themselves. This is the central theme of Snowpiercer. That and of course the action. As the built up tensions between the two classes of people boils over, gritty violence ensues sending the blood flying. The stylized action is what makes this film great. Not necessarily the look but in the camera work. With a train serving as the only physical set, Joon-ho and his cinematographer Hong Kyung-pyo positioned the camera in a way that helps the viewer understand who's fighting who all within the tight constraints of a train. The way the camera moves through the individual fight scenes puts the gruesome violence in your face, with nowhere for the characters to run to (even in the dark). I'm sure a lot of talk will be given to Tilda Swinton (Minister Mason), and her outrageous over bight, as she brought a level of dark humor to the film. Surprisingly, her performance overshadowed the remaining cast who all seemed a bit generic within their characters. Not to say their onscreen exploits were terrible, but more often than not it felt that the well timed action was there to bail them out. However, with a concept like Snowpiercer, it's hard to do any wrong. Capitalizing on that is Bong Joon-ho, who has made quite a remarkable English debut film. If he continues to progress his style, the world of film looks bright. Brighter than it did for the passengers of Snowpiercer. 

Filmmaking Report-Card:

Directing: 8/10

Editing: 6.75/10

Cinematography: 8.5/10

Acting: 7.75/10

Screenplay: 7/10

Over-All Experience: 7.5/10

The Final Say:

Plowing into the summer movie season is the unique and low budget thriller, Snowpiercer. It brought a nice change of pace, but was ultimately a far cry from the film it could have been. While the movie struggled to find an identity, the overall tone and style allowed for an engaging experience. The film jumped headfirst into a grizzly and violent world filled with great concepts and themes, all of which support the films overall tone. Pacing and narrative flaws do hold the film back a bit from achieving greatness, but this is a well crafted sci-fi outing, that allows the audience to truly connect with the material.

Final Score: 7.5/10  

"The Fault In Our Stars" - Single Review (By: Austin M.)

What You're in For:

Two cancer stricken teenagers meet and fall in love. They share similar interests, ways of thinking, and unfortunately sickness. The disease of cancer has plagued their normal lives for years and the possibility of succumbing to the disease looms closer each and every day. As their relationship deepens and grows so does the inevitable result of cancer. In the face of mortality their love, courage, and views of life will be tested to the max.


Who's Involved:

"The Fault in Our Stars" is a production of Temple Hill Entertainment, Written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, Directed by Josh Boone, and Starring: Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort, Nat Wolff, Laura Dern, and Willem Dafoe.


Austin's Take:

"That's the thing about pain, it demands to be felt." - Augustus, "The Fault In Our Stars" 

  

The Fault In Our Stars is about pain, the misery of cancer, and the devastating effect it can have on our view of life. "Fault" begins with Hazel (Shailene Woodley) who is an on going survivor of type 4 thyroid cancer. The cancer causes fluids to drain into her lungs and therefore she's dependent on an oxygen tank to breathe. While the thought of looking pretty and being attractive has slowly vacated her mind, she slowly settles into a cycle of living with the cancer, essentially waiting to die. One day she bumps into another cancer survivor named Augustus (Ansel Elgort). Augustus is the polar opposite of her. He's witty, boisterous, and has the ability to find the humorous side of life. He's immediately attracted to Hazel and without blinking they begin a friendship that slowly deepens into a strong romantic bond. Amidst the hardships for both of them, everything begins to look up, except for the cancer.  Cancer has a way of interjecting itself into life suddenly and without warning. We can fight cancer, take precautions to limit the risk of the disease, and even manage some of the symptoms. Yet we still don't fully understand it and have been unable to create a cure thus far. For years people have questioned, why does the universe allow this to happen? If there is a God, why does he enable cancer to form? Why does it happen to people, especially to those we love? The idea of the film is about the characters asking the same questions, each in their own way. Some question the reasons for having to deal with the disease, others try to ignore it, and some have simply accepted  the fact that cancer may inevitably lay them to rest. All these questions point to the obvious fact of how this movie is going to end. The content is excruciatingly sad and will wrench your heart out, yet the story seems unoriginal, lacking any vigor of it's own. The characters of Hazel and Augustus were strong and brought a unique approach to this type of script. Unfortunately they seemed more solid than the choppy story and their wonderful personalities could not save it alone. Also, mixed in are several out of place plot twists including a trip to Amsterdam in search of the author Peter Van Houten (Willem Dafoe). Van Houten is an indignant writer who is still reeling from the death of his own daughter to cancer. His purpose to the film is rather confusing, making little sense to the concept, and throwing the pacing off completely. Not in any way do I want to undermine cancer or those who have or are experiencing it. "Faults" brightest moments came when it boldly dealt head on with the heavy material the characters faced, including a marginal amount of focus given to the treatments and the realism of the disease. Shailene Woodley was magnificent in personifying a skeptical cancer patient and Ansel Elgort's charm easily matched her on screen. So why doesn't this picture fully work? The issue of cancer as a main center point for a love story has been done in a very limited way (see "A Walk To Remember"). Here is where the film could have explored more into the disease and the effects it has on an individual. It started as such but slowly "Fault" slipped into the procession of a normal romantic movie, written from the lovers perspective of past films. It did give another shot at exploring the emotions through the confusing Van Houten segment but could not redeem the story and only set itself up for a shaky ending. Not much directing seemed to be involved either, as director Josh Boone apparently took a hands off approach to everything but acting. If your looking to let the tears flow or sink a little deeper into the emotion of pain, "The Fault In Our Stars" will fit your taste. Sadly the story itself lays somewhat barren on the idea that if these feelings are pulled from you, it's completed the job. Setting itself apart was there for the taking, but in the end, this film continuously teetered on being destructive, just like the disease. 

Filmmaking Report-Card:

Directing: 5/10

Editing: 6/10

Cinematography: 5/10

Acting: 7.5/10

Screenplay: 6/10

Over-All Experience: 6/10

The Final Say:

The Fault In Our Stars is quite the saddening experience. Between the misguided script and directorial mishaps, the story serves as a cold reminder of the reality of cancer and the devastation it has caused for millions of lives. The only fault being is which one depresses more. The characters will captivate your heart as you journey along with them through their pain but ultimately the story falls complacent to unoriginality. 

Final Score: 6/10  

"Transformers: Age of Extinction" - Dual Review

What You're In For:

Following the massive destruction of Chicago in "Transformers: Dark of the Moon", the U.S. government disavows their support of the Autobots, and forces them into hiding. After the dust settles, a bounty-hunter transformer begins flushing them out and imprisons them one-by-one; but he may not be working alone.

Who's Involved:

"Transformers: Age of Extinction" is a production of Paramount Pictures & Hasbro, Written by Ehren Kruger & Directed by Michael Bay, Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Nicola Peltz, Jack Reynor, Stanley Tucci, Kelsey Grammer, Titus Welliver, and T. J. Miller.

Travis’s Take:

Michael Bay is at it again. In his famous franchise of CGI Carnage, his quest to blow up everything on-screen continues. To start, if you’re already planning on seeing “Transformers: Age of Extinction”, you should already know what you’re getting yourself into. Those aware of the franchise’s problems will want to know if this entry into the Transformers saga offers us anything new, or improves on the issues that littered the previous installments. Perhaps the boldest change the filmmaking team made was distancing this story from the characters we struggled to connect with in the first 3 films. Sadly, we now get an entire new cast of characters we hardly care about. Mark Wahlberg takes center stage, in what might be the most over-the-top entry yet. If not for such a charismatic leading man, the film might’ve been an even weaker attempt. For all the gravitas and fun Wahlberg brings to the screen, the supporting characters seem to counterbalance his efforts and reduce the film to a mere toy commercial. Weak character developments aside, let’s get down to the point. We all need our fix of obnoxious CGI Robots violently hashing it out on screen, and Michael Bay knows it. His Transformers films have built a foundation of success specifically due to this fact. In regards to the Transformers, the effects that bring them to life look fantastic, but they seem to be excluded from using traditional physics during the animation process (and yes, I’m aware that this is a giant robot movie). The only other factor that sets this Transformers film apart, is the live-action debut of the DinoBots, and when they finally hit the screen, we’re treated to a smorgasbord of chaos and destruction that feels all too familiar. The film's tagline says “The Rules Have Changed”; sadly, it seems that only the cast members and locations have.

Austin's Take:

Since the first Transformers film debuted over seven years ago, I have been patiently waiting to proclaim another Transformers film on par with the hype surrounding it. Sadly, the fourth installment in the franchise, “Transformers: Age Of Extinction,” is another complete bomb. This is what we have come to expect: an over-hyped, big budget film, that prides itself solely on CGI.  From the clink clank of transforming robots to the nonstop explosions, the visuals are the main draw. Yet, it’s clear that all the graphics have been recycled and look the same as before. This is not the only downgrade. In an attempt to upgrade itself, the previous cast has been entirely replaced, leaving no familiar faces to associate with, yet they deliver the same acting we have come to expect. This time around, Mark Whalberg teams up with Michael Bay to fight robot aliens and save mankind. By now, this franchise has clearly become just a sole money maker, and who better to cash in on it than Michael Bay himself.  We wouldn't expect anyone else to take on this type of project and, quite frankly, there is no one else who could take the story as seriously as Bay.  Alas, the new story attempts to evolve.  Mark Whalberg stars as Cade Yeager, a failing inventor and father who will do everything for his daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz), except what is best for her.  Then out of blind luck, he discovers a dormant Transformer, Optimus Prime, who is in hiding to avoid extermination by humans. The story pits our lead characters against heartless Black Ops, Transformer Assassins, and the extinction of all Autobots. Throughout the chaos, Cade's courage is tested to the max as he tries to reconnect with his daughter. Unfortunately, this is a "been-there, seen-that" movie with an unstructured plot and flashy repetitive graphics, which seem all too familiar; just like the Transformers franchise, which is all too familiar with letting us down.

Filmmaking Report-Card:

Directing: 4.5/10

Editing: 5/10

Cinematography: 5.5/10

Acting: 3/10

Screenplay: 4.5/10

Over-All Experience: 4.5/10

The Conversation:

("The Conversation" is meant to be an intellectual debate used to discuss the film's overall quality, which is referenced in the films "Report-Card". The letter "T" will be used to identify comments made by "Travis", & The letter "A" for "Austin").

T: Wow, what a mess. Deep down inside, I thought Michael Bay had matured (Especially after "Pain & Gain"). He must have laughed his way to the bank after churning out this installment. It was a fun ride, and the new cast did a little better, but the script was weak. Just another average blockbuster.

A: It couldn't possibly have surprised us that this movie was going to be awful. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if Bay is completely to blame. Sure he sticks to his flashy style where every other shot is from the ground up, or the same, and edits his movies to the point you can't remember one cut to the next. But the acting to me completely lagged. Maybe it comes with the territory or maybe the script? I mean they did kill off the best character midway...

T: I'd say the script had a heavy hand in this disaster. I even feel that the casting of Nicola Peltz and Jack Reynor was all wrong. The last thing a production like this should want is an unlikable character to appear on screen, and we had that in overdrive with those two. I'm not praising the casting for the previous sequels, but damn, they had a chance to really start over here. Oh well, such a missed opportunity. Ehren Kruger is the true culprit here, though. He showed some creativity with the core story, but all of the ridiculous sub-plots clutter the heck out of his films.

A: I would agree that Jack Reynor was awful and in my opinion the weak link. His character only served the story and was an obvious pawn. You would think that Ehren Kruger, given his past history, could have come up with at least more rounded characters who were not so one dimensional. Would you say this type of writing is a style on it's own? Summers always call for the cheesy money makers and people keep paying to see them. Or is it more of a visual draw (which is what Transformers is all about)?

T: Both, no doubt. It's certainly a Hollywood tradition these days to fill these films with cheesy jokes and on-liners. The CGI is another cop-out; Studios know people want to see this madness smother the screen, and as long as it's marginally coherent, they know we'll recover just enough for another "assembly-line" sequel. Bay isn't completely innocent though. Sure, he handles the production well, but he's definitely in cruise control now. Showing up for work due to contractual obligations, using this lucrative franchise to fund his passion projects. He may have a great eye for visuals, but that doesn't cut it. The only positive outcome to this issue, is that he saves his range for the films that matter to him ("Pain & Gain", for instance).

A: We could watch any and all types of music videos if we wanted to see great visuals. Obviously his filmmaking background is derived from that. Yet when it's translated to a feature film, everything seems to fall apart from act to act. It would be nice if the pace of the editing could slow down for just a bit so we could truly get into the actors heads and feel something emotional (that isn't brought on by the latest pop song). We know he can harness it (Pain & Gain) but these big budget flicks will always kill it.

T: Big budgets are Bay's kryptonite; and with the path he's on, he'll always be a blockbuster director. With all the Bay-hate these days, people forget that he used to be the best at what he does. His '90s action films were actually immensely entertaining, and even the writers cared about how the action complimented the story. The first Transformers film towers over its sequels, and is even a decent film by all accounts. I'm blaming the script, casting, and lazy directing. Every problem I find roots from these issues.

A: "The Rock," by all accounts his best feature film, seems like such a distant memory. Time has progressed with all things visual and yet, the creative stories have been left behind. Without a true script and structure the Transformers become mere puppets and the actors appear on screen only to recite lines. I would agree that the script, casting, and directing are all to blame for this jumble of a film. Let us not forget the studios as well,who fund such projects, and keep the 3 hour waste of time alive.

T: That truly sums up the problem, the studios will always think of movies as a business endeavor first and foremost. Film is a form of art and expression in story telling, but it's obviously lost in this day and age. It's almost relieving that there are less quality films to keep track of, otherwise we'd be overwhelmed by ticket prices and not excessive uses of CGI. Looks like we can add "Transformers: Age of Extinction" to the list of empty entertainment, and focus on something with higher quality filmmaking behind it.

The Final Say:

We seem to be in agreement, "Transformers: Age of Extinction" is a sad mess of  blockbuster. Offering nothing fresh - other than a new cast, and some fun CGI action sequences. Be prepared to witness another cluttered, quick-cutting, wasted opportunity by Michael Bay. 

Final Score: 5/10  

"The Signal [2014]" - Review: (By Travis S.)

What You're in For:

Three college students on a road trip are lured to an abandoned building in search of a hacker's signal. After encountering an unexplained force, they wake in a strange facility, and begin to realize that they're not quite themselves anymore.

Who's Involved:

"The Signal [2014]" is a production of Focus Features. Written by Carlyle Eubank, William Eubank, and David Frigerio, Directed by William Eubank, and Starring: Brenton Thwaites, Olivia Cooke, Beau Knapp, and Lawrence Fishburne.

My Take:

If there’s one thing I can confidently say about “The Signal’, it’s that it feels both familiar and foreign. The film opens with a slow and character-driven first act, which sets a very numbing tone. As the drama begins to thicken, we lower our guard; just then, things suddenly get interesting. As the story starts to take a turn for the strange, we are pulled deep into a world of mystery and intrigue. It’s a tough film to evaluate, and even harder to explain, as the films does well shrouded in secrecy. This is a very rudimentary, conspiracy-driven piece, and the powerful first half of the film keeps us guessing and clamoring for more. The moment I felt the film distance itself from the viewer, was when it began to take risks, which overwhelmed the story and damaged the pacing. This doesn't ruin the film, but does change the tone; and with it, our interest level. Once the film embraced its Science Fiction narrative, it seemed to borrow too much from tired ideas, occasionally filling in the gaps with sparks of creativity. The actors do very well with what they're given, and what little effects are used to sell the moment, do look great considering the budget. This is a harmless, decent spin into psychological obscurity: one that doesn't require much contemplation and isn't afraid to take chances or break boundaries.

Filmmaking Report-Card:

Directing: 6/10

Editing: 6/10

Cinematography: 7/10

Acting: 6/10

Screenplay: 6/10

Over-All Experience:
6 /10

The Final Say: "The Signal [2014]" is a brave little sci-fi film, taking risks and delivering an average experience. The feel of the film, and the delivery of it's ideas are wavering, but the overall result is fresh and welcome.

Overall Score: 6/10

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" Dual Review - Coming Soon

Look for our Theatrical "Dual Review" for 

"DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES" 

Coming soon!

"GODZILLA [2014]" - Dual Review

What You're In For:

The classic beast is back to the big screen with a big enough budget to stomp out the '98 massacre and wreak havoc for a new generation of fans. Our prehistoric champion defends mankind in the wake of a new enemy, in what promises to be this summer's biggest on screen spectacle.

Who's Involved:

"Godzilla [2014]" is a production of Legendary Pictures, Written by Max Borenstein & Directed by Gareth Edwards, Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, and Sally Hawkins.

Travis's Take:

The King of the Monsters is back, and this time he’s in the caring (and loving) hands of Director Gareth Edwards. Best known for his break-out independent Sci-Fi flick, Monsters (2010); Edwards, a fan of the original franchise, takes a realistic and careful (slow-burn) approach to this origins story. A bulk of the film is dedicated to setting up a (decently) believable human storyline, while interweaving the monstrous elements in a credible manner. Edwards has also been very meticulous in how and when he reveals his beasts to the audience, teasing us for the better part of 30 minutes before a pay-off occurs. Big-G himself is slowly revealed to us throughout the first and second act; making his grand entrance into the “Arena”, a truly epic moment. Fans of the franchise will be glad to know that Edwards has kept a large amount of GODZILLA lore intact. From the main-event fight against an opposing beast, to GODZILLA’s signature Atomic-Breath and Thunderous Roar; take comfort in knowing that the character’s legacy is cared for and cleverly referenced throughout the film. Sadly, with all the fun the film delivers, it does get weighed down by its flaws. Surprisingly, most of the character moments and dialogue are delivered in a somewhat believable manner. Bryan Cranston (The Film’s Standout) definitely carries the first act and helps build a worthy emotional foundation, but is sadly underused. The film’s lead, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, does feel a bit wooden and has no real character ark for the audience to follow; causing the film to struggle with its human connection. Luckily, most other supporting roles are handled just fine (albeit blandly), and kept the story moving towards its glorious finale. Overall, it’s a blast, and an honorable way to reinvigorate a franchise that is pushing 30 installments total.

Austin's Take:

Godzilla is a movie that very well could have been about Godzilla. It's titled that way and advertised as such yet the classic monster is hardly ever seen. The latest installment in the Godzilla franchise was excitedly taken from Roland Emmerich's hands (Godzilla, 1998) and passed on to newcomer Gareth Edwards. Although he is not a complete stranger to the world of film (Monsters), he is indeed way out of his league. The film progresses terribly as Godzilla is nowhere to be found through the first quarter of the film. What time is wasted not showing the monster, is wasted on sub-par character development and the building of story that clichés itself to any other ordinary monster flick. In fact, the new arch nemesis of Godzilla, MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism), is given more attention; such that, for a moment I thought a different alien film was being shown. Then, up from the depths, pops Godzilla (all but briefly) to battle the MUTO and wage havoc on the world’s cities in a territorial battle. As the cityscapes are destroyed, so is the appeal of the movie.

Filmmaking Report-Card:

Directing: 5.5/10

Editing: 6/10

Cinematography: 5.5/10

Acting: 4/10

Screenplay: 6/10

Over-All Experience: 5.5/10

The Conversation:

("The Conversation" is meant to be an intellectual debate used to discuss the film's overall quality, which is referenced in the films "Report-Card". The letter "T" will be used to identify comments made by "Travis", & The letter "A" for "Austin").

T: So, if it isn't obvious already.. I really enjoyed Godzilla's return, way more then you did. I felt like the overall experience was a blast. There were certainly a lot of problems, but for me, they didn't ruin the experience. 

A: Being a fan of Godzilla and coming off of the Roland version, I was excited for the movie going into it. Unfortunately the problems outweighed every possible potential this movie had. I feel Gareth Edwards was completely out of his league.

T: Perhaps, yes. Out of his league with this size of production, but he is certainly no stranger to the giant-monster genre. With how surprising "Monsters" was, we know he can handle the source material; the real question should be, was there something else about the production that caused his demise?

A: Unfortunately the productions on these summer blockbuster films means focusing on the CGI almost solely. What happens is, that most of the important details such as acting and the direction get lost. Edwards did handle the visuals almost flawlessly; even if he did leave out the main character, Godzilla. Yet, did it feel that the acting was really dragging the movie down?

T: In part, yes. Cranston sold the film for me in the first act, but the supporting characters felt serviced too conveniently by the plot. Can we blame the issue solely on the actors? The screenplay was far superior to the average blockbuster, but it was no doubt riddled with cliches. 

A: It's a shame that Cranston's part was limited so much. You're right that the actors were everywhere the script needed them to be, especially main man, Aaron Taylor Johnson (who came across completely stale), but the screenplay at least took some risks (albeit ineffective risks) in not showing Godzilla for such a long time. Yet what an exciting entrance he made. 

T: Once he made his grand entrance, we were in for a true classic-Godzilla experience. The fight didn't feel forced, and made the movie for me. The 2-act lead up may not have been structured or delivered perfectly, but the final act was that of a strong action piece. That was where I really felt that the film's look, and tone, truly paid off. So, I guess one might say the film had several problems, but I would venture to say they mainly fall on most of the cast, and how in-over-his-head that Gareth Edwards was?

A: Godzilla's entrance was rather remarkable and his iconic roar was quite deafening. However, he always seemed to be in slow motion in his fights with the MUTO which seemed to drag on for sometime. If you can get past that, the visuals and look of the film were decent enough to ooh and ahh over. I just felt the movie focused too much on areas that didn't need a lot of attention and in turn took away from it's most vital pieces. And that really does fall onto Gareth Edwards.

The Final Say:

So, was Godzilla's return worth your price of admission? We're divided. Travis found the film to be a move in the right direction, balanced by a scope and tone that complimented the big guy well. However, Austin felt that the lack of complete direction in all areas of the movie wasted the potential Godzilla had. With such alternating opinions, we'd recommend you proceed with caution; but don't let us scare you away from a fun time at the movies. 

Final Score: 6/10