Transformers: Age Of Extinction (2014) Review

Several years have passed since a grandiose and destructive battle between the alien races known as the Autobots and the Decepticons ravaged the city of Chicago. Despite the constant defense of humanity, the surviving Autobot units are now being tracked down and destroyed by the Central Intelligence Agency, aided by a new, mysterious transformer named Lockdown. In a small Texas town, a frustrated inventor discovers a rusty and beaten up semi, and takes it in to his barn, hoping that he can disassemble the vehicle and sell the parts in order to help put his daughter through college. The vehicle soon reveals itself to be fabled Autobot leader Optimus Prime, who soon teams with the humble Texans in order to discover the truth behind these huntings, and what involvement the government has.


Oh Transformers, I've had such a strange history with you. I never grew up on your original run in the 1980s, and have still never finished your famed animated motion picture starring the voices of Eric Idle, Orson Welles, and many other respected actors and actresses who were most likely ashamed of having a film about warring giant robots on their acting resumes. Still, given my childhood obsession with all things Dinosaur-related, I loved and adored the concept of the Dinobots, and this lead to one of my favorite animated series and toy lines of the 1990s: Beast Wars, a show that I will still defend to this day, even if its animation is noticeably outdated. In recent memory, I've barely given a pass to your 2007 Michael Bay-helmed relaunch of the same name, though I can not feign enthusiasm for the sequel that you unleashed upon this world. While I skipped your third entry (the rather amusingly titled Dark of the Moon), I figured that a free ticket (thanks to a mixup with the 3D screening of Maleficent) and some available time could be an amusingly dumb way to pass the time, especially since your trailers and television spots highlighted the introduction of said Dinobots…..Alright, enough of this way of speaking.


As eloquent and nostalgic as I may sound above, there are no words that in exist in the human vocabulary to describe what Transformers: Age of Extinction truly is. Off the top of my head, I can think of a small handful within one minute or less: craptacular, shitty, vile, stupid, obnoxious, moronic, and excruciating. You can feel free to tell me more later if you choose to. If it is comparable to an inanimate object, I'd liken it to a birthday cake made entirely out of diarrhea. If you're wondering if the series could sink any lower than the reprehensible, juvenile, and racist Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, it is difficult to debate. I have been struggling to hold my composure and not type "FUCK THIS MOVIE" repeatedly until I lose consciousness. Alas, I have to try and type something coherent for the small amount of you who read my blog, even if this "movie" is anything but.


Starting off, as far as the non-robotic side of the film goes, I won't spend too much of my valuable minutes talking about the wastes of time and failed creations that they attempt to call "human beings." In recent years, Mark Wahlberg has proved that he can actually step up to the plate when given the right project, but when he's spouting off one-liners and sentences that would make Schwarzenegger cringe, you wouldn't know it. His acting is on par with his now-legendary job in M. Night Shymalan's The Happening, and Shymalan may be relieved to know that he is now free of the dishonor of having concocted and directing Wahlberg's worst performance. Nicola Peltz might be relatively easy on the eyes, but with how quickly she decides to age, her resume declines steadily, and going from The Last Airbender (hey, that's TWO M. Night movie references!) to this is shockingly a downgrade. I also found it slightly creepy that her character is stated to be a mere seventeen years old, and yet the cameras are fixated on as many slow motion sequences and closeup shots as possible, with a stronger emphasis on placing her in rather skimpy jean shorts in the latter half. Director Michael Bay and the three individuals in charge of casting have lifted heavily from the dreaded and lambasted "Big Book of Character Stereotypes." There's the boyfriend with a heart of gold, the tough, older father figure who spends nearly half of the picture arguing with said boyfriend about him dating his daughter (Wahlberg playing Peltz's dad is just plain laughable), the evil scientist with a semblance of a conscience (poor, poor Stanley Tucci), the evil government officials, the smart British scientists, the military douchebag, the sassy, loud black woman, and many more that I couldn't even count on several surrounding hands. It certainly hurts the movie when every surrounding person has to chat and deal exchanges that will only appeal to the lowest common denominator. Its most blatantly offensive depiction comes in the form of the Chinese, who may just attack us after all when T4 opens overseas after this jingoistic piece comes to all areas of the globe. If you're into this type of thinking and find something relatable in these characters, then good for you. Anyone else with no tolerance for this form of laziness will hope that the aforementioned folks are beaten to death with barbed wire baseball bats.


One of my biggest complaints about the Bay-formers pictures lies in the fact that once out of vehicle mode, you can barely tell most of the Autobots and Decepticons apart from one another, since they all just look like giant, metallic messes with the occasional different color scheme (this is especially true for the second film in this franchise). True, if they had used a majority of the designs from the original series, it would have looked even sillier, but it's bothersome nonetheless. In this entry, Michael Bay and his team of helper monkeys with thinking caps have done a fairly commendable job of making most of the Autobots look distinctive, but it comes with a small price. For once we meet his merry group of mechanical minions, they are either painful stereotypes or irritating eyesores. There's the Japanese samurai (who they were kind enough to give squinty, slanty eyes), the gruff army commander (sadly voiced by John Goodman), the rogue, English bad ass who won't say no to a fight, Brains, a miniature robot who can transform into a Notebook when not imitating an older, jive African American, and Bumblebee. Yes, I forgot that he had such a prominent role since the first film and onward, and that for some reason, they decided to re-scramble his voice box after it was fixed at the end of the original Transformers (which leads to a scene with M.C. Hammer's "Can't Touch This" that almost made me walk out of the theater). And before you say anything, yes, I did touch on stereotyping in my previously-written paragraph not even two minutes ago. While I applaud your decision to pay attention, Michael Bay doesn't give a damn about what you think. He has to ruin all of which is involved with Age of Extinction, especially with what you paid to see. The action sequences, despite being flashy and relentless, lack a certain amount of soul to them, especially after the bar has been set so high within the first six months of this year. Even more depressing is the manner in which he portrays the MacGuffinbots, who seem to have suddenly taken over the bodies of my beloved Dinbots. Admittedly, I do admire the redesigns that they went with (until they transform out of their beast modes), but every single one of them serves absolutely no purpose in this picture and could have been replaced with literally any other character, be it Transformer or human. I wouldn't be shocked if they decide to shoehorn characters from Beast Wars or the rather massive being known as Unicron into the fifth motion picture solely for the hell of it.


Speaking of shoehorning, I haven't seen this much blatant product placement in a movie since….well, ever. I'm not oblivious to the fact that you have to make your money back somehow and promote this latest entry to those outside of your general Trapt and Avenged Sevenfold-listening crowds, but was there really a need to have multiple, BLATANT shots. mentions, and advertisements for Bud Light, Beats Electronics, My Little Pony, and Red Bull? It doesn't take a genius or anyone with even the slightest bit of legitimacy in the movie reviewing business to see that this is shameless on the part of the director and Paramount Pictures. Age Of Extinction clocks in at nearly three hours long, and given it's meandering and attempt at character development (notice that I said "attempt"), this length feels more like a chore to sit through, and it will cause several patrons to check their watches or cellular phones to see when the whole experience will finally be over. Whether this is due to prior obligations or just plain boredom I'm not quite sure, but either are acceptable answers. Bay also has the audacity to lift and steal from superior projects released in the last decade, including The Matrix (the mercenary Lockdown is poor man's cross between Agent Smith and Elysium's Kruger), The Avengers, and both of director Neill Blomkamp's full-length science fiction epics. Initially, I didn't want to jump to conclusions and call the man a hack, but he leaps into this category with gusto and not a care in the world, further establishing himself as the Maxim Magazine of Hollywood blockbusters.


Transformers: Age of Extinction holds the (now) distinct honor of making me question everything that I'm doing with this hobby. Mind you, it isn't in some sort of philosophical or existential kind of way, but more in a "stop spending your money, be it free, earned, or stolen on utter garbage" kind of way. If I see a motion picture worse than what I just suffered through any time this year, I may have to duct tape a shotgun to my head and blow my brains out. If this leads to an influx of more toy lines being adapted to film, or worse, a pentalogy (Extinction ends on a cliffhanger coupled with dialogue that makes some of the writing for WWE resemble the work of William Shakespeare), then I'll strap a bomb to my chest, board a flight to California, take acid, and run into the nearest movie studio that I can find. In fact, for those of you taking the time to read this: if you encounter any living person who says that they genuinely and/or enthusiastically enjoyed Transformers: Age of Extinction more than any other recent releases, please hit them in the head with a large rock and throw them into a river. The human race will be better off without these mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers around.




Or just stab them repeatedly. Either way works fine.

Maleficent (2014) Review

In an enchanted world populated by magical and powerful fairies and assorted creatures, a young fairy named Maleficent lives peacefully and joyously among her brethren. After a chance encounter, she begins to develop feelings for a human named Stefan, who comes from the fairy's bordering neighbors, and eventual enemies, the human kingdom. Over the years, Stefan's lust for power and leadership of his kingdom leads him to commit a terrible act towards the fairy, hoping it will culminate in speeding up his ascension towards the throne. Enraged and saddened, Maleficent begins a long and arduous path towards evil, which will culminate in a dark gift for the newly-crowned king's firstborn, Princess Aurora.


Despite what some of my friends or frequent visitors of Into The Hive may think, I'm always welcome to a new interpretation of a classic story, especially in the realm of classic fairy tale lore. Perhaps Bill Willingham's acclaimed graphic novel series Fables is partly to blame, or it may be my own maturity and attitude towards films of all variety which has helped. When I first caught a glance of Angelina Jolie and Elle Fanning as noted and famous Disney stalwarts Maleficent and Aurora, I was somewhat intrigued, but my apathy towards anything Disney-related that ISN'T animated wasn't leading me towards a ticket purchase. The first round of teasers and full-length trailers did little to bring about any enthusiasm, and discovering that this was in the hands of a first time director made me skeptical, even though this has worked for a multitude of films in recent memory. But for every Evil Dead or District 9, there is always an Aliens vs Predator: Requiem. So, where does this one lie in the pantheon of risk takers?


Though she has her number of naysayers, Angelina Jolie was born to play this role. She brings layers to a character that had never particularly captured my own affection. Admittedly, I was always more of an Ursula or Cruella de Vil fan, and even though she's guilty of chewing the scenery on a handful of occasions, Jolie manages to make you sympathize with the titular tragic villain whose heart may not be as dark as the original story from The Brothers Grimm would have you believe. This version of Maleficent has the right to be furious at the human race, and it can be argued that she is a stronger female role model than most modern day heroines (she's inarguably better than someone like Twilight's Bella Swan). Disney also must have listened to the masses' feedback about Sharlto Copley's villainous turn in last year's Elysium as well, since he plays the twisted and paranoid king whose slow descent into madness doesn't exactly inspire empathy from the public, be it in the theater or from his own servants. He may be difficult to understand for younger audiences though, but being from South Africa and attempting a Scottish/Irish/Brad Pitt-from-Snatch accent will do that to you. As for the supporting cast, Sam Riley, best known for playing Joy Division's Ian Curtis in Control, portrays Maleficent's right hand….erm, crow, and he's fine for what he is (he could be a dead ringer for Dominic Cooper or Orlando Bloom). The trio of the good fairies are all entertaining and more lively than I expected them to be (being led by the usually brilliant Imelda Staunton certainly helps), but goodness gracious, did all of their humorous bickering and banter have to feel like throwaway gags and routines from The Three Stooges? At least they weren't making Groucho Marx-style puns, otherwise I would have groaned rather audibly in the cinema hall…..actually, now that I've mentioned that, puns such as those would have been pretty awesome, if not incredibly out of place.


A large chunk of Maleficent's visual effects are pretty gorgeous to look at, if not flat out enchanting (makeup is provided by the extraordinarily talented Rick Baker). I went into the film initially having paid for a 3D experience, but the 2D reel was mistakenly played instead. While it didn't upset me in the slightest (I was given a refund for any future screening of my choice. Too bad this didn't happen with Rob Zombie's Halloween), I imagine that a three dimensional screening would have actually looked very impressive, post-conversion or not. From an all around visual standpoint, Maleficent looks pretty damn good and the cinematography is adequate. Great detail has gone into the wings of Jolie's character, and especially with her very elegant, if not slightly ghostly appearance, which is all the more fitting given that she has remained a mystery or myth to many simple-minded humansx. Part of me wonders how much of it actually comes from Angelina Jolie's natural beauty and how much came from computer generated imagery, and in this case, the perplexing nature of this works to the film's advantage.


While it seems like I'm fellating nearly everything related to this picture from that which surrounds Angelina Jolie, this does bring me to two rather vocal complaints that I have. First off, I get that your picture is called Maleficent, so naturally, you want her to be the main focus and be the most well-rounded and developed character. This is understandable. That being said, would it have been so hard to do this as well with your supporting cast? Aurora's presence doesn't feel nearly as important as it should, and even after the introduction of Prince Phillip (the man who would break the "Sleeping Beauty" curse in the source material), we don't get a good sense of who he is and why he cares for her. Yes yes, I know it's just storybook love, but I guess I just expected a bit more from this particular subplot, and I feel it detracts from all of the potential praise it could receive from critics and moviegoers alike.


The second criticism, and perhaps the oddest thing about Maleficent overall (well, odd by a fantasy movie's standards at least) is its criminally short running time. If I remember correctly, Disney has been hyping this particular re-imagining for close to, if not more than two years. With a case such as this, why make the final project a mere ninety seven minutes long? That is just absurd, and I felt a tad bit bamboozled when it seemed to just suddenly end. Something as grandiose as this deserves to at least cross the two hour mark. I do know that this particular motion picture went through several reshoots, so perhaps they're saving what was left on the cutting room floor for the presumably stacked Blu-Ray release to come.


Still, in terms of recent retellings of classic fairy tales and Disney lore, Maleficent stands above the competition (it is infinitely better than Tim Burton's messy 2010 version of Alice in Wonderland), if not a bit awkwardly. They've also accomplished the impossible by piquing my interest as to what the upcoming Kenneth Branagh-directed Cinderella will end up looking like.





Then again, I doubt it will have fire-breathing dragons, so it'll probably be less than stellar.

A Million Ways To Die In The West (2014) Review

Sheep farmer Albert Stark detests living in the mostly barren frontier of Old Stump, Arizona. In addition to nearly everything around you having the capability to end your life within seconds, he has also been dumped by his girlfriend Louise, most likely due to his recent withdrawal from a duel, which many, including her, perceive as an act of cowardice. Soon, Stark draws the ire of notorious gunfighter Clinch Leatherwood, and through unexpected and initially unrevealed sources, he will find the courage and skills needed in order to face this infamous outlaw, lest he be thought of as a meager quitter for the rest of his life.


I just don't know what to make of Seth MacFarlane these days. I initially thought the man was a genius (or at the very least, a very underrated writer and voiceover performer) who came across as rather intelligent and knowledgable, if not a bit smug. I was surprised by his humility and legitimate happiness over hearing of the revival of his animated (then) cult television program Family Guy, and was just as ecstatic as him when I heard of its resurrection. Hell, I even enjoyed his first writing and directing foray into live-action filmmaking with 2012's Ted. And yet, the man has been disappointing me immensely for the past decade or so in ways that you can't imagine. The aforementioned Family Guy has arguably been out of gas for its past few seasons (a now infamous lambasting from South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone didn't help matters either), his other cartoon projects have been notoriously hit or miss, and the recently cancelled Seth Green vehicle Dads could go down as one of the absolute worst shows I've seen in my twenty eight years of existence. All of that hoopla aside, a large part of me was secretly interested in checking out MacFarlane's parody of the old western genre, the cleverly titled A Million Ways To Die In The West.


Regrettably, I think AMWTDITW (I am far too lazy to type this title multiple times, so you'll have to deal with this acronym) suffers from the same problem with the creator's more recent ventures, and that's just lazy, run-it-up-the-flagpole-style writing. And while I could normally nitpick and point out several large, glaring problems with films that I'm not too fond of or am immensely disappointed by, this really is the only major drawback, although it is a large one in the case of a comedy-based writer like MacFarlane. Nobody is phoning their performances in, and in fact, it seems that most of the cast are having a ball with one another (Charlize Theron and Sarah Silverman shine brightest). When a large chunk of your material, however, just isn't particularly strong, there is only so much that you can salvage in order to make it memorable for the general audiences who have paid to have good, boisterous laughs, and usually en masse. The mostly serious third act also does a near 180 for the film, and though it eventually leads to a relatively fun sequence involving psychedelic drug use with Native Americans, it feels klutzy in terms of transitioning and you can hear a pin drop in the theater in the build up to it.


AMWTDITW's heavy reliance on feces, urine, and fart jokes tends to wear thin after about the third time you're exposed to it. One wonders if perhaps they just couldn't come up with anything more clever in time (or were afraid of using the now-maligned "flashback" gag from Family Guy) and just figured that the average moviegoer can always find humor in anything coming out of the two holes below your belt. It's the type of lazy jokes that you expect from someone as lowbrow or idiotic as Marlon Wayans or Jason Friedberg & Aaron Seltzer, not the same man who was asked to host the Academy Awards one year ago. On the plus side, what isn't lowbrow is a pretty darn entertaining musical number led by Neil Patrick Harris (who seems to revel in playing a villain) and Stephen Foster that serves as an homage to the art of certain facial hair, and about how glorious it is. There are also a copious amount of cameos from who I can assume are some of MacFarlane's best friends from the liberal world of Hollywood, including one in the aforementioned drug sequence that gave me the biggest laugh overall. Sadly, a lot of the film's best gags were run into the ground by the overexposure of television spots and trailers for the picture, and most gags or antics elicit mere chuckles instead of guffaws.


You know what? After much debate, and even perusing through my own writing, Seth MacFarlane might be a genius after all. The man somehow managed to convince studio executives to make what essentially amounts to an uneven, two hour long episode of Family Guy with a forty million dollar budget. There is absolutely no reason that this couldn't have been of one of Seth's television shows. And before you say "he could have used this as an excuse to work with this famous actor or actress," I have to ask: why couldn't they have been recruited to do voiceover work instead? You're technically still in the same area or studio as them, and while you may not be able to do anything as memorable as physically kiss Charlize Theron or stick a flower up Liam Neeson's rectum (don't ask), you can still have the credentials on your resume if it is something sought after that much. At the end of the day, A Million Ways To Die In The West just makes you want to pat Seth MacFarlane on the back and say "well, you still have your other works. Better luck next time. Now it's time to go watch Blazing Saddles or Lust In The Dust and forget this whole thing ever happened."