TRANSFORMERS: Dark of the Moon

SEXY.

EXPLOSIVE.

JAW-DROPPING.

HEART-STOPPING.

Michael Bay did not lie when he said Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the ultimate summer movie. Like many fans of the franchise did, I did not grow up with Transformers. I didn't have the robots, or read the comic books. I am purely just a fan of the films. However, for those that did grow up with Transformers, many found summer 2009's second installment of the film to be disappointing. The script was kind of all over the place. The overall plot and motivations of the robots were just unclear. Much of this was due to the writing of the script being caught in the middle of the writer's strike. However, Bay said that with the third part of the franchise, he did things differently. He wanted to make a film that he would be proud of.

In Dark of the Moon, the cast is hotter than ever before. With the return of cast members, Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, and Tyrese Gibson, and with the new additions of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley and Patrick Dempsey, this fact was unavoidable. The robots are bigger, faster, and more badass than ever. The movie is action packed from beginning to end. But unlike most action flicks, especially ones that revolve around robots, it has raw emotion. There is passion, love, deceit, and betrayal. The script is funny. It has genuine comedic merit. You know where the plot is going from start to finish. Michael Bay takes the audience on a joy ride for the entire two and a half hours. I laughed. I screamed. I cried. There were parts where I actually sat on the edge of my seat, and held my breath in anticipation.

As you know, the movie was released in 3-D. I saw the 2-D version because I am not a fan of what studios have been doing with 3-D technology in the last few years, and Michael Bay seems to agree with me. He made this movie for 3-D and he is sure that this will change the way 3-D is done. He didn't mis-use the technology just for the sake of making a 3-Diminsional film. He utilized it for experience purposes. The 3-Dimensional movie is supposed to add to the viewing experience. These days, many of the films look cheap, as if the way the 3-D would actually play into the viewer experience was not taken into consideration. Michael Bay wants to assure the audience that he has done quite the opposite. With the level of action in this film, I can only imagine how tremendous my experience would have been in 3-D. Needless to say, I'm seeing this one a second time, and this time, in 3-Dimensions. Go see it. You will be making the biggest mistake of your 2011 summer if you don't. I promise.

Tron:Legacy

I am indeed a little late seeing this one but I am going to write about it anyway. My overall rating of the film is just...okay. I am surprised because there was a great amount of anticipation behind it and I had heard from numerous other people that it was a "good movie." When people give this movie a high rating, I think they are rating the flash and highly stylized special effects. It is visually stimulating and in certain points, action packed. However, to be frank, I found even the action and special effects to be less than stellar.

There was nothing in this movie that you have not seen in other movies. The dialogue was incredibly predictable and I truly detest that in action/sci-fi films. I hate the corny one liners and unfortunately, this movie was filled with them. It was not the worst action/science-fiction film I have ever seen, but it was certainly not the best. At certain points, it was dull. Boring, even. The movie dragged. There were certain parts of the film that were pleasing, at least aesthetically, but often, I just found myself checking the time to see when the next overly, but poorly-done fight scene was going to occur or when the film would finally come to its anti-climactic end. On a high note, I would give the music in the film an A-. It was upbeat, and well-fitted to the plot of the film and kept the film moving along...or perhaps it just kept me awake. No matter what the reason, I did enjoy the musical scoring.

I feel the reason others regarded the film with such acclaim is because it's a "cool" film. Ninety-five percent of the film is special effects. There are lots of gadgets, toys, fight scenes, flashy music, and attractive people. As for the overall substance of the film, it is without. Go to the theater if you wish, but I think this one can wait for Redbox rental.

TAKERS

SEXY.

SEXY.

SEXY.

SEXY.

SEXY.

I could just leave it at that, but for my male readers, I will go on. The movie is comprised of an all male cast of Hollywood's leading actors right now. Because you do not think of a lot of these actors as gangster-types, or types that would play in heist-movies, you root for them the entire film. You want them to succeed. Hayden Christiansen has a boy-like quality about him onscreen, and even though he's a criminal, he has this innocence about him and you want him to succeed. The same goes for all of these actors. Paul Walker is not exactly new to playing somewhat of a badass in films (Fast & the Furious films) and to be honest, his character in this one is not far from his character in those movies. However, once again, as an audience member, you still find yourself rooting for him.

The films is based around this group of men that commit major heists once a year. They do it once a year, because when they do it, they do it big. Period. In one robbery, they may steal multiple millions of dollars. Because they only do it once a year, this is also how they never get caught. Their heist's are highly stylized, and incredibly strategic. Idris Elba is as beautiful as ever and is very much the "father figure" of the film. T.I.'s character is the one that stirs everything up. I find his acting to honestly be annoying. Overall, the character he plays is himself. He's a criminal fresh out of jail, and immediately is into more illegal mischief, sure to have him end up right back in the "Big House." I found his acting to be over done and like I said, pretending it was just a reality show of his life would have gone over much better.

Saying much more will give away too much of the film's plot. I will just say this. The film is not the next Goodfellas. It's not The Departed. However, it is an action-packed film, with an A-list cast of actors that are NOT at all bad to look at. Overall, the acting is fine. The plot is fast-paced and fun. It's a good time. You felt for these characters. In some sick way you might even want to be them. The film is entertaining and sometimes that's all the cinema is supposed to be.

Case 39

I do not know about all of you, but there's nothing more horrifying than children in horror movies. Remember 1984's Children of The Corn? How about The Omen-the 1976 original and the 2006 remake? And let's be real, The Exorcist is a film that has frightened generations and will continue to do so.

Would I put this film amongst the same ranks as that of The Exorcist? No. It's not that scary, and it's not quite that good. It has its moments, however. You will jump. You will scream, and you do not see right away the turn the film is going to take until about midway through. Renee Zellweger does a good job at playing the hardworking, "truly caring," frumpy, social worker. Bradley Cooper is honestly not in the film as long as I would have liked. It's not his best work, but this is not exactly a film that showcases true acting ability. Let's be real-the man is hot, and it's never disappointing to see him in a film, even if just for a short while.

My overall conclusion: Is it going to go down in horror film classic records? No it's not. It's a horror flick with a moderately over-done plot, and just decently scary. However, If you're in the mood for a good scream, I do recommend it.

For Colored Girls

Well...To maintain a sense of diplomacy with my feelings on this film, I will talk about the good in it first. First off, I genuinely wanted to like this film. I am a Tyler Perry fan. I respect his work and his tremendous brilliance in terms of his entrepeneurship in the industry. When I heard he was doing For Colored Girls, I was excited that he had this opportunity. I knew of the "heavy" nature of the material presented in the play, and I knew that Tyler Perry would certainly be majorly stepping out of his own genre with such a film. I felt that him directing this film would truly expose his ability to get gritty, to get real. That is what I was hoping to see from him with this one.

The turn out ended up being quite the contrary. The film featured a cast of African-American, A-list actresses, but unfortunately, not even they could save this cinematic debacle. As I mentioned above, the film deals with a lot of raw, difficult material. There is rape, there is abortion, there is trauma from years of forced incest masked through promiscuity, there is poverty, murder, and life-changing deceit. Every issue that the film deals with are issues that regular women face on a day-to-day basis. All women, not just those of color face these problems. That is the beauty within the storyline. This is also where Tyler Perry fails in his direction of the work. The film revolves around these issues but he never quite lets you come to terms with them. In the film, you see the murder of two children, but then immediately are cut away from it. It's shocking and appalling, but let me be shocked and appalled! Let me absorb what happened before you cut away to the next scene of the film before I can even come to grasp the horror that has just taken place on the screen. There is rape, and during the rape, the disgust of the act taking place in front of you is masked by interjected cuts to a different scene with an overlay of opera music. There is something just off about this. I know what Tyler Perry was trying to accomplish with such cuts, but he failed. When making a movie that is very real, and very raw, in order for the film to have the necessary effect on its audience, these disturbing scenes cannot be masked with attempted, but failed cinematic style choices. We need to see it. That's it. We need to see the acts and we need to see the reactions these acts have on the characters
.

Because Tyler Perry is so caught up in this filmmaking style where everything has a happy ending and nothing is really that bad if we have faith, etc, etc, he never makes films that are real enough. In life, sometimes things are not okay. Some situations do not have happy endings. Life for some, does not always have a silver lining. Perry is doing the cinema a disservice by not showing the truth that lies in everyday life. Cinema is great in that things can be fantastical and can take us out of our everyday lives into a new world that is completely made up. However, when brought with a script like that of For Colored Girls, where the storyline revolves around the honesty, by not bringing out that nakedness within the script, you have brought cinematic detriment upon yourself as a director and your viewers.

Perry tends to make jokes at interviews and in his blogs about the fact that he will never win an Oscar for this reason or for that one. The fact is, he will never win an Oscar because he does cookie-cutter cinema. Give me something raw. Give me something real. For Colored Girls was his opportunity for that and he failed. He let what could have been one of the best, most talked about and acclaimed films of the year fall through his finger tips. I'm disappointed.

Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps

So it's no secret that I think Shia LaBeouf is beyond sexy. Buttt before you call me biased in how fantastic I think this movie is based on Shia's sex appeal, I also think he's incredibly talented with incredible potential as an actor. Shia is at the top of the Hollywood A-list these days, and certainly for good reason, but this movie has much more (film) street-cred than just LaBeouf as the leading man. Oliver Stone directed the film, following up his initial classic, 1987's Wall Street starring Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglass. For those of you who are not quite familiar with Stone's work, this is the same man who directed the 1986 Vietnam War classic, Platoon, Any Given Sunday, and writer of Scarface. That's right, he wrote Scarface.

Oliver Stone is a true visionary. This fact is no less apparent in Money Never Sleeps. For those interested in film aesthetics and cinematography, it truly is pleasing to look at. He utilizes a great amount of cinematic and technological effects in conjunction with the wall street/business/economic world. It's artistic. He makes use of the split screen technique throughout the film, which is something I have not seen in a very long time. There are numerous phone conversations throughout the film, most often with a broker and a client. Stone is showing the Wall Street world and how it intertwines with the lives of all parties involved, even outside of the office or "working" daytime hours. He is displaying greed and it's disease-like nature. Once you have succumb to it, there is no coming back from it.

Outside of film aesthetics and logistics, there is an intriguing storyline. This is another one of those films for me where I feel as though there is something in it for everyone. If you're in the mood for a chick flick or a good romance, the chemistry between Shia LaBeouf and leading lady, Carey Mulligan is phenomenal. She is a brilliant young actress. It is no surprise at all that she has made her way from indie film work like that in last years, An Education to the mainstream screen. She's a natural, and she and Shia are natural together in this movie. It is no surprise that they are now together in real life. If you're in the mood for a high speed action flick, there's some of that to! There is a racing scene between Labeouf and Josh Brolin on Ducati motorcycles. It's fast and it's sexy. It's a film for intellectuals: econ buffs, business moguls. It forces you to pay attention to the subject matter. I definitely learned a lot about the stock market world and in order to follow the movie and the progression of the plot, you have to pay attention. It forces you to pay attention in a non-forceful way. Saying that, I mean that the movie is entrancing. You want to pay attention. You are intrigued by the characters. You want them to fail. You want them to succeed. You want them to be happy. You want them to be together. You want them to make that multi-million dollar deal. In some twisted way, you want to be them!

The movie does not come without it's faults and weaknesses. The ending is less than satisfying. It was kind of cheesy, kind of corny and it just did not need to go that direction. I won't go into anymore detail because you need to see it yourself. But really, who the hell am I to critique the man who wrote Scarface? Just sayin. Either way, Wall Street 2 is definitely a must-see.

The Social Network

The movie is everything the previews said it would be. FANTASTIC. Plus, with a director like David Fincher, the man behind the madness and the genius that is Fight Club, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, how can you really go wrong?

One of the best things about the movie is the fact that the two main characters are Hollywood unknowns. You do not go into the film with expectations in terms of performance because you have no idea who these two kids really are. The film was more exciting that way. It was not a great flick because it starred Brad Pitt or Shia LaBeouf. It was not even great because Justin Timberlake was featured in it. It was great because it was true. It was great because the cinematography was innovative, eye-catching, and authentic. It was great because it was absurdly well-scripted, quick-witted, fast-paced, and honest. It was great because it was REAL! It's about a world that literally everyone knows about and/or uses! I have a Facebook. You have Facebook. Your parents have Facebook. Your professors have Facebook. Your boss has Facebook. Your Grandma MiMi has a Facebook! It's insane.

The movie tracks the creation and evolution of the biggest social networking business the world has ever seen. The coolest part about it? The guy started it when he was my age, and he was my age, only six years ago. At 26, he is now the youngest billionaire in the world. It blows my mind. Watching the movie is a surreal experience. In the theater, I updated my Facebook status to, "Seeing The Social Network!" How weird is it that I Facebook'd about a movie made about Facebook? What did I do when I was finished seeing The Social Network? I checked my Facebook to read all of my comments on my status about the movie I was seeing about the site I was currently visiting....yeah... Think about it.

The point I am trying to make is that the film is so thrilling to see because it is about a culture we are completely immersed in. I check my Facebook countless times a day. It's on my phone. It's on my laptop. It's on my iPod. I monitor who I am interested or not interested in by someone's Facebook pictures, relationship status, interests, activities and the wittiness of their status updates. The cultural phenomenon Facebook has become is kind of sick. All in all, Facebook and new technology has both helped and hindered our human-to-human interaction.

David Fincher takes all of this and puts it into narrative form about the guys who started this unparalleled website that has literally shaped a generation. CEO Mark Zuckerberg started this site as a 20 year old at Harvard. Why? Not for money but to make a name for himself. To lose the geek image and to get some recognition. For friends. For the girl. Wait, did you just ask why? Why the hell not?! If had the means to change the entire world, I sure as hell would.