Sunday, July 8, 2007

Robots and Robots(?????)

I went to see Transformers yesterday, and I must say it was an almost complete movie. It had the guy, the girl, the good guys, the bag guys, and-let us not forget-the cube. Everytime I saw those transformers transform I got goosepimples, but it couldn't disguise one very important flaw: acting.
Shia LeBeouf was really pretty good with his impatient humor and would have made quite the believeable outcast-if he weren't just so darn handsome! So, looks aside, Shia was great.
However, he isn't the one at fault here. I can't help but find my self a little cheated by Megan Fox's performance as the juvenile delinquent/sarcastic teen/strong leading lady. Maybe it was the midriff exposing shirt. Maybe it was the barely-big-enough skirt. Maybe it was just that the expression on her face never seemed to change. At one point she asked the leading guy, "You think I'm shallow, don't you?" My immediate reply would have been, "YES. Yes, I do."
Another of those who have offended my delicate taste on the acting menu was Anthony Anderson acting Glenn-the hacker. As far as I was concerned, for someone supposed to be so smart he certainly seemed more fit for the short bus. For a few minutes he could have passed off more geek than frat boy, but only while he wore ridiculously outdated bottle bottom glasses-and he only wore those once or twice.
Shi LeBeouf, in fact, may have been the only believable actor int he whole film, really. Everyone else was very cartoony. John Toturro as the leader of Sector Seven's special opps team was very much a chihuahua-all bark and no bite. I didn't feel him as any kind of threat when he should have been. John Voight was pretty nice and laid back for a high ranking official and didn't seem to care much for letting anyone feel the stress he was under. He was just an actor playing the part-he wasn't about to be fired from his highpaying job (though part of me wishes he had been)
The acting in Transformers left a lot to be desired. The situations were serious, dangerous, and all around important but I just didn't get that from the screen. They said things that were supposed to convey the feelings of pressure, but they said them so nonchalantely I couldn't tell if I should be worried. Maybe they all should've slept off their Xanax.
Bad acting aside, Transformers was a pretty complete movie. It had action, it had
humor, it had transmorgiphying robots! The special effects were top notch; each gear, bolt, car door, and random doohickey were kept track of and moved in accordance with whatever the robots were transforming into. However, I sort of missed out on any real attachment to the robots accepting Optimus Prime and BumbleBee. When certain other robots were harmed I didn't feel the same pang as when I watched Megatron smack around Optimus or when Bumblebee actually needed to be towed. Poor Bumblebee-he was the little brother of the group and it was difficult not to feel sorry anytime he got the short end of the stick. (which was a lot)
Despite the performance of some actors, Transformers was a good movie experience. Anyone who watched the show many years ago would ooh and awe at the transformations and I was right along with them. I feel, however, that the movie relied a little too much on the awe factor and the action to pick up the slack on the acting. Perhaps some of that attention to detail so meticulously displayed through the robots could have been a standard equally held up to the actors? Just a thought.

In other, semi-related mentionings, there was also a strange trailer that has the cyberworld up in a tizzy that played just before the Transformers movie. Some random city being attacked by some kind of giant something hidden in a cloud of fire and only alarming the townsfolk with metallic sounding roars and rubble. The most astonishing of the rubble bits was the head of the Statue of Liberty herself... or was it? I've googled, wikied, and youtubed this thing to death and the only things so far that are certain about it are that it's being produced by Bad Robot for Paramount Pictures and is also worked on by J.J. Abrams-who has also worked on Lost, Buffy and various other TV shows in the past mostly dealing with the occult. I've heard the name 'Cloverfield' thrown around a bit, but I (nor anyone else, for that matter) don't know if it's the title of the movie or the working title. I'm guessing it's a working title for now until I (or the rest of the world) get confirmation about it's actual title. Also, I'm sort of against the theory that it's set in New York City for a few reasons. First off, if you've ever been to New York City you know that the buildings aren't nearly as far apart as they are depicted in the trailer. Also, if you've ever been to the Statue of Liberty, you know the statue's head isn't that small. My guess is that it's in Las Vegas, where the buildings are further apart and there is a smaller than life duplicate of Lady Liberty. I'm also gonna speculate about the creature (because the one opinionated thing the internet agrees on is that it is some sore of creature film) I'm guessing by the raw, metallic roar the creature emits that it is either a robot or something metal that is being controlled. (such as a smaller than life duplicate of the Statue of Liberty) Aside from the roar, there are also the astonished outcries from fleeing cityfolk of "It's alive!!" Now, why would they be so surprised unless it's not SUPPOSED to be alive. For some reason I doubt they'd be surprised that Godzilla was alive-would you cry, "It's alive!" all astonished like at giant animal of some sort? No. Because it's common sense that it's alive-how else would it be rampaging? DUH. So! Those are my two cents on THAT subject. I hope someone found it informative.

So, until opening night, I'm out.