(3/12/08)
My favorite thing about Be Kind Rewind, and I oddly enough haven't seen this mentioned in any reviews, is how much it actually manages to feel like the type of movie you might have randomly picked up from an old video store, the way that wandering around in a well-stocked video store always made it feel like there were just an infinite number of movies out there and if you were in the right kind of mood you could just pick up some movie because it had an interesting box, and it didn't really matter if it was good or not, it was just that sort-of discovery... or something... Anyway, because video stores really only thrived like that for a certain time period, and because when I was in high school their back catalogue consisted largely of movies from the mid-eighties to the early-nineties, the type of movie that I associate with that video-store discovery is from that time period, and not exactly indie but low-profile enough that I hadn't really heard of it. Somehow, this movie was a really well-done evocation of that. From the not especially well-thought-out characters who make perfect sense within the logic of the movie but who absolutely could not exist outside of it, the one bit of "spectacular" special fx (when Jack Black is zapped by electricity from the power station), etc. Which is not to say that it's like a B-movie by any means, but still that a lot of the charm of this movie is in its sloppiness, or maybe casualness.
And of course there's the pure joy of some of the visual hijinx of Gondry, like the the perfectly camouflaged suits of Black and Mos Def when they're breaking into the power station, and the cardboard gangster cars in the homemade bio of the jazz legend guy.
Let's see... I also really enjoyed that the "villain" in this movie is nothing more than the manager of a local DVD store, who seems to have some unexplained history with the heroes, a history that isn't explored at all or even explicitly commented on in any way. Again, I guess, it was just a charming sort of sloppiness. Not the same sloppiness of a good B-flick, not the same annoying sloppiness of something like that shitty Boleyn Girl movie...
Showing posts with label Metreon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Metreon. Show all posts
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Rambo
The opening credits say "A Film by Sylvester Stallone," and I know we're not speaking the same language. This movie is brutal, far more brutal than I expected going in. The violence is kinetic, with blood and whatever else is inside of people exploding out of them visibly and with such velocity that it all disappears, a mist, into the air in seconds.
At least, that's about all I remember of this movie and it just ended about half an hour ago. There also were some slow parts when Sylvester Stallone's face kind of sat there on the screen looking like he must have suffered a stroke (did he? I don't remember hearing about that...) at some point in the past, and once he said, "Fuck the world," and I think maybe he meant it. Later it appears that Stallone has stopped trying to portray a human character at all and has instead decided to portray some kind of Tyrannosaurus, or perhaps he's upset he didn't get to play Kong and that dweeby Andy Serkis guy did so he's showing Peter Jackson where he went wrong? Of course, King Kong was a far more expressive and sympathetic character than John Rambo is.
Right after the climactic battle (I saw this band play a while ago called "Health" who basically stood around on stage and screamed and hit their instruments with as much demonstrative force as they could manage; the battle scenes in this movie were pretty much the movie equivalent of that) the blonde actress lady looks up at Rambo from among the dead bodies and cries, but not really as part of the story I don't think, like not that she was crying because she just witnessed a disgusting bloodbath after being trapped in a cage for several weeks and presumably raped a lot of times, it seemed as if she were crying along with us, the audience, as some kind of final giving up to John Rambo, as if he'd just spent ninety minutes screaming in our faces that we say "Uncle" and we finally did even though we weren't really sure why he came up to and started doing that in the first place. Obviously, this time it was because I paid the man $9.50 to do it. But still...
And what of using a real-life human rights atrocity as the stage for this movie? Is Stallone trying to raise awareness? It seemed kind of cheap to me, because ultimately the movie isn't about actually ending the genocide of the Karen people, it's just about how missionaries shouldn't go in there because they'll get killed and raped, and then a bunch of annoyed macho dudes will have to go and kill a bunch of people to save them (and in the final moments of the film apparently Rambo has come home to where his dad lives (comically, the mailbox says "R. Rambo," which I couldn't help but pronounce in my head), so any character development that happens certainly doesn't involve Rambo learning to become conscious of the world around him and of his ability to have an effect on the bad things that are happening but instead of him learning to be an ordinary American who wants to reconcile with his parents). The Karen people were pretty much just props, fodder for the games of the bad guys so we wouldn't feel at all conflicted when John Rambo tears their throats out with his bare hands or cuts open their bellies so their intestines fly out of them while they roll down hills. Sure, it's cathartic after watching the brutal shit they were doing, but Rambo and his mercenary compatriots (not friends; Rambo can't have friends) didn't stick around to try save the Karen girls who were getting gang raped. They only cared about saving the blond missionary girl and her missionary friends. Although, really, they didn't care about saving them that much either, I don't think. Rambo has this flashback where he decides that he's just a killer, so I think ultimately he's using the blond girl as a convenient excuse to kill a bunch of people, is the point. I guess you kind of have to give Stallone credit for making a mainstream Hollywood movie with this bleak of a basic view of the world, if you feel like you should give people credit for things like that.
I stuck around for most of the closing credits, just to see if Stallone actually walked all the way down that dirt road to that farm house, and he kind of did; at the end he turned away from the farm house and disappeared behind a tree. I was wondering first of all if that really was Stallone who made that walk or if they hired a guy to do it. Also, that in some way the fact that he's walking down the dirt road to his dad's house after being gone for over twenty years, twenty years of absolutely no contact, that the walk leading up to that reunion was in it's own (less violent) way just as dramatic a thing as anything else portrayed in the movie, but that we're so disinterested in any actual human part of Rambo that the actual scene of that happening is just used as the flat backdrop for the final credits to roll over. Maybe Rambo 5 will be John Rambo taking care of his father as his mind and body deteriorate but he refuses to leave his isolated farm? And they learn to love each other again or something?
Die Hard 4 was certainly much more fun than this, but I have a feeling I'm going to remember the sheer visceral feeling of being at this movie way more than I remember that one.
I remember pretending to be Rambo when I was a kid a lot, but I don't know if I actually remember ever seeing any of the Rambo movies. Say what you will about Stallone, but he's portrayed (and in the case of Rocky, actually created) two characters whose names have entered the ordinary lexicon of Americans. "Rambo" is in the fucking OED, which is more than you could say for John McClane.
***
The ending credit scene is actually kind of ambivalently poetic if you imagine that as Rambo is making the slow walk down the gravel road to the country house nestled in the country hills of rural America the names scrolling up beside him, such as "Karen Naked Girl" along with the names of all the actors who played the kids who get asploded that its like those names are an actual manifestation of Rambo's conscience or of some aspect of his consciousness, reminding him of what he left behind in Burma in order to fulfill his self-centered desire to see "what's changed" back in America.
At least, that's about all I remember of this movie and it just ended about half an hour ago. There also were some slow parts when Sylvester Stallone's face kind of sat there on the screen looking like he must have suffered a stroke (did he? I don't remember hearing about that...) at some point in the past, and once he said, "Fuck the world," and I think maybe he meant it. Later it appears that Stallone has stopped trying to portray a human character at all and has instead decided to portray some kind of Tyrannosaurus, or perhaps he's upset he didn't get to play Kong and that dweeby Andy Serkis guy did so he's showing Peter Jackson where he went wrong? Of course, King Kong was a far more expressive and sympathetic character than John Rambo is.
Right after the climactic battle (I saw this band play a while ago called "Health" who basically stood around on stage and screamed and hit their instruments with as much demonstrative force as they could manage; the battle scenes in this movie were pretty much the movie equivalent of that) the blonde actress lady looks up at Rambo from among the dead bodies and cries, but not really as part of the story I don't think, like not that she was crying because she just witnessed a disgusting bloodbath after being trapped in a cage for several weeks and presumably raped a lot of times, it seemed as if she were crying along with us, the audience, as some kind of final giving up to John Rambo, as if he'd just spent ninety minutes screaming in our faces that we say "Uncle" and we finally did even though we weren't really sure why he came up to and started doing that in the first place. Obviously, this time it was because I paid the man $9.50 to do it. But still...
And what of using a real-life human rights atrocity as the stage for this movie? Is Stallone trying to raise awareness? It seemed kind of cheap to me, because ultimately the movie isn't about actually ending the genocide of the Karen people, it's just about how missionaries shouldn't go in there because they'll get killed and raped, and then a bunch of annoyed macho dudes will have to go and kill a bunch of people to save them (and in the final moments of the film apparently Rambo has come home to where his dad lives (comically, the mailbox says "R. Rambo," which I couldn't help but pronounce in my head), so any character development that happens certainly doesn't involve Rambo learning to become conscious of the world around him and of his ability to have an effect on the bad things that are happening but instead of him learning to be an ordinary American who wants to reconcile with his parents). The Karen people were pretty much just props, fodder for the games of the bad guys so we wouldn't feel at all conflicted when John Rambo tears their throats out with his bare hands or cuts open their bellies so their intestines fly out of them while they roll down hills. Sure, it's cathartic after watching the brutal shit they were doing, but Rambo and his mercenary compatriots (not friends; Rambo can't have friends) didn't stick around to try save the Karen girls who were getting gang raped. They only cared about saving the blond missionary girl and her missionary friends. Although, really, they didn't care about saving them that much either, I don't think. Rambo has this flashback where he decides that he's just a killer, so I think ultimately he's using the blond girl as a convenient excuse to kill a bunch of people, is the point. I guess you kind of have to give Stallone credit for making a mainstream Hollywood movie with this bleak of a basic view of the world, if you feel like you should give people credit for things like that.
I stuck around for most of the closing credits, just to see if Stallone actually walked all the way down that dirt road to that farm house, and he kind of did; at the end he turned away from the farm house and disappeared behind a tree. I was wondering first of all if that really was Stallone who made that walk or if they hired a guy to do it. Also, that in some way the fact that he's walking down the dirt road to his dad's house after being gone for over twenty years, twenty years of absolutely no contact, that the walk leading up to that reunion was in it's own (less violent) way just as dramatic a thing as anything else portrayed in the movie, but that we're so disinterested in any actual human part of Rambo that the actual scene of that happening is just used as the flat backdrop for the final credits to roll over. Maybe Rambo 5 will be John Rambo taking care of his father as his mind and body deteriorate but he refuses to leave his isolated farm? And they learn to love each other again or something?
Die Hard 4 was certainly much more fun than this, but I have a feeling I'm going to remember the sheer visceral feeling of being at this movie way more than I remember that one.
I remember pretending to be Rambo when I was a kid a lot, but I don't know if I actually remember ever seeing any of the Rambo movies. Say what you will about Stallone, but he's portrayed (and in the case of Rocky, actually created) two characters whose names have entered the ordinary lexicon of Americans. "Rambo" is in the fucking OED, which is more than you could say for John McClane.
***
The ending credit scene is actually kind of ambivalently poetic if you imagine that as Rambo is making the slow walk down the gravel road to the country house nestled in the country hills of rural America the names scrolling up beside him, such as "Karen Naked Girl" along with the names of all the actors who played the kids who get asploded that its like those names are an actual manifestation of Rambo's conscience or of some aspect of his consciousness, reminding him of what he left behind in Burma in order to fulfill his self-centered desire to see "what's changed" back in America.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Southland Tales
It kind of makes me feel a little sad that most of the things I thought were so great about Southland Tales are exactly the reasons that most people will hate it. It probably goes out of its way to explain the whole "thing" behind everything than Donnie Darko did, but there's no character in the movie who's anywhere even close to as relatable-to as Donnie was--there aren't any characters who are even supposed to be as relatable-to as Donnie was. And most people need that in a movie, I guess. I don't, for whatever reason.
Wherever I read it was right: Kelly's better when his cosmology is hidden or obscured. I liked that there were many aspects of the movie that weren't explained completely, but I also imagine that Kelly has it all packed away somewhere the exact explanation for everything, and I just wouldn't really be interested in all of that. The reason is something like this:
By ignoring conventional questions of explicability and coherence, Kelly isolates the fundamental building blocks of film and lets them work together on their own without the scaffolding beneath of them of plot and character. I mean, I guess there's plenty of plot in here, but the best parts are, for instance, Timberlake lip-synching to The Killers in some kind of arcade while hot chicks in vinyl nurse outfits dance around him, and he pours beer over his head, and that scene is mentioned in virtually every review as being a part that its worth seeing the movie for, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the movie. Or: the whole thing with the Star Spangled banner being sung first in Spanish and then English over a discordant quartet (was it the Kronos Quartet?) while the Zeppelin went all shiny and new into the LA skyline and fireworks went off everywhere. These scenes are absolutely perfect and are pure film, and for whatever reason I like that they're allowed to exist in relative isolation because of the general incoherence around everything.
Also, what I think Kelly is especially good at, maybe as good as anyone aside from Lynch, is presenting to form of something, such as the climax of this movie that is only really a climax because it has the feel of a climax. I mean, it is the climax, but because the overall story has been relatively shapeless before that, it's not exactly a climax that exists because of the story. Or something.
But what bothers me ultimately about Kelly is that he does have a very clear idea some ridiculously complex sci-fi/supernatural/spiritual plot behind everything and he wants you to spend a lot of time decoding everything until you unpack it all and understand everything. Which just seems kind of lame to me: story as puzzle. So in the end, Kelly's just as stuck under the tyranny of narrative as virtually every other filmmaker in America.
Wherever I read it was right: Kelly's better when his cosmology is hidden or obscured. I liked that there were many aspects of the movie that weren't explained completely, but I also imagine that Kelly has it all packed away somewhere the exact explanation for everything, and I just wouldn't really be interested in all of that. The reason is something like this:
By ignoring conventional questions of explicability and coherence, Kelly isolates the fundamental building blocks of film and lets them work together on their own without the scaffolding beneath of them of plot and character. I mean, I guess there's plenty of plot in here, but the best parts are, for instance, Timberlake lip-synching to The Killers in some kind of arcade while hot chicks in vinyl nurse outfits dance around him, and he pours beer over his head, and that scene is mentioned in virtually every review as being a part that its worth seeing the movie for, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the movie. Or: the whole thing with the Star Spangled banner being sung first in Spanish and then English over a discordant quartet (was it the Kronos Quartet?) while the Zeppelin went all shiny and new into the LA skyline and fireworks went off everywhere. These scenes are absolutely perfect and are pure film, and for whatever reason I like that they're allowed to exist in relative isolation because of the general incoherence around everything.
Also, what I think Kelly is especially good at, maybe as good as anyone aside from Lynch, is presenting to form of something, such as the climax of this movie that is only really a climax because it has the feel of a climax. I mean, it is the climax, but because the overall story has been relatively shapeless before that, it's not exactly a climax that exists because of the story. Or something.
But what bothers me ultimately about Kelly is that he does have a very clear idea some ridiculously complex sci-fi/supernatural/spiritual plot behind everything and he wants you to spend a lot of time decoding everything until you unpack it all and understand everything. Which just seems kind of lame to me: story as puzzle. So in the end, Kelly's just as stuck under the tyranny of narrative as virtually every other filmmaker in America.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Eastern Promises
Kudos to Cronenberg for keeping me completely in the dark until the big reveal of Mortensen's characters true nature, and similarly for not treating it like this huge deal, like the way Shyamalan or even someone not quite that shitty would've. Also for not having Mortensen really give away his secret to Naomi Watt. But I really did not buy the kiss between them. It was the type of kiss that only happened because this was a movie; there's no way two people in the situation would've decided to kiss. It was just ridiculous. Did some suit make Cronenberg do it, or was that really all his decision? Or in the script I suppose...
Micah thought this could be a good set up to a series of films, and maybe it could be but I think I like it as just it's own. It's pretty obvious where Vigo's going from there, and subsequent films would just consist of arbitrary complications in order for there to be a plot. All the big work that the film wanted to do is already done, I think.
Really, really great Russian accent by Vigo. I wish I could do a Russian accent like that. I wonder if that's even an actual localized accent he had that was in some way different from the accents of the other characters?
It's almost kind of funny how obvious it is that Cronenberg wants to really show us the gore: like the shot of the frozen finger being snipped off or, especially, the kid pulling down his scarf so we can see the slit in his throat and the blood starting to come out. And, like KSM mentioned, how obvious the prosthetics are sometimes: especially the guy in the barber's chair.
In retrospect, though, it doesn't make a whole of sense for the barber guy to make the kid do it. It seemed like it was setting something up at the time, but I'm not sure that it ever paid off.
Micah thought this could be a good set up to a series of films, and maybe it could be but I think I like it as just it's own. It's pretty obvious where Vigo's going from there, and subsequent films would just consist of arbitrary complications in order for there to be a plot. All the big work that the film wanted to do is already done, I think.
Really, really great Russian accent by Vigo. I wish I could do a Russian accent like that. I wonder if that's even an actual localized accent he had that was in some way different from the accents of the other characters?
It's almost kind of funny how obvious it is that Cronenberg wants to really show us the gore: like the shot of the frozen finger being snipped off or, especially, the kid pulling down his scarf so we can see the slit in his throat and the blood starting to come out. And, like KSM mentioned, how obvious the prosthetics are sometimes: especially the guy in the barber's chair.
In retrospect, though, it doesn't make a whole of sense for the barber guy to make the kid do it. It seemed like it was setting something up at the time, but I'm not sure that it ever paid off.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Shoot 'Em Up
I'm writing this immediately after writing my note about 3:10 to Yuma, which is on Monday 17 September. In some ways this movie was a good contrast to that movie. It did not once try to be anything like a Good Movie, and has been thoroughly snubbed by critics for precisely that reason. Well, and it's just not as good of a movie as Yuma, but it's not as much worse as the Metacritic score might lead to one to believe. (Ebert, at least, sorta gets it.)
The basic problem with this movie is that it is never as clever as it wants to be. Really, the only thing that I thought worked on all of the levels it wanted to was the part in the opening sequence when Clive Owen's character shoots the umbilical chord after realizing that he doesn't have anything else to cut it with. Actually, the whole delivering a baby during a shootout thing was very awesome. But too much else in the movie just fell flat. What was up with the carrot thing? The only good (not really good, actually) thing that seemed to come out of it was the "What's up, Doc," line, which at least managed to do for "wit" what much of the rest of movie did for "plot", "action", or whatever.
If this movie had come with a text opening explaining what year it was, what had happened to America after the nuclear war, etc., absolutely everything else about the movie could have stayed the same and it would have been a perfectly believable bad scifi movie, a la Judge Dredd or Demolition Man. All that would have been missing was some obligatory explanation of some High Tech weapon some random character would've felt compelled to make. But, even with that missing, I think it would have been completely buyable as a sci-fi action movie. I'm not sure what that means, other than that Hollywood seems to think that sci-fi seems to mean B-Action movie.
It really is too bad that Monica Bellucci isn't in more movies, though.
The basic problem with this movie is that it is never as clever as it wants to be. Really, the only thing that I thought worked on all of the levels it wanted to was the part in the opening sequence when Clive Owen's character shoots the umbilical chord after realizing that he doesn't have anything else to cut it with. Actually, the whole delivering a baby during a shootout thing was very awesome. But too much else in the movie just fell flat. What was up with the carrot thing? The only good (not really good, actually) thing that seemed to come out of it was the "What's up, Doc," line, which at least managed to do for "wit" what much of the rest of movie did for "plot", "action", or whatever.
If this movie had come with a text opening explaining what year it was, what had happened to America after the nuclear war, etc., absolutely everything else about the movie could have stayed the same and it would have been a perfectly believable bad scifi movie, a la Judge Dredd or Demolition Man. All that would have been missing was some obligatory explanation of some High Tech weapon some random character would've felt compelled to make. But, even with that missing, I think it would have been completely buyable as a sci-fi action movie. I'm not sure what that means, other than that Hollywood seems to think that sci-fi seems to mean B-Action movie.
It really is too bad that Monica Bellucci isn't in more movies, though.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Stardust
I never would have watched this if Rachael hadn't wanted to go, and I'm glad she did. It was way better than any of the advertisements made it seem like it would be. It's weird when a film is so misrepresented by its advertisements... Could they really not figure out a way to market this film? It was just fun, sort of the way Shrek movies are fun, except way less annoying.
All that said, I don't remember a whole lot about the movie, which I can hardly believe I saw only a week ago. De Niro's portrayal of Captain Shakespeare was pretty funny, and I thought he played it far better than the role even needed him to.
I did have to wonder, though, why Michelle Pfeiffer's sisters were both played by young people with old person makeup on, since neither of them ever had to change into younger looking versions of themselves. It's hard enough for aging actresses to find work in the Hollywood world that it seems almost immoral to cast young actresses in the role of older characters for no reason.
All that said, I don't remember a whole lot about the movie, which I can hardly believe I saw only a week ago. De Niro's portrayal of Captain Shakespeare was pretty funny, and I thought he played it far better than the role even needed him to.
I did have to wonder, though, why Michelle Pfeiffer's sisters were both played by young people with old person makeup on, since neither of them ever had to change into younger looking versions of themselves. It's hard enough for aging actresses to find work in the Hollywood world that it seems almost immoral to cast young actresses in the role of older characters for no reason.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Bourne Ultimatum
(8/2/07, 8/8/07. alone, both times, AMC Metreon. 11:00am, 9:50pm)
1) Action fun with a serious face, that is sometimes gleeful about its own machinations but can't ever crack a smile, as opposed to Die Hard, which was like a little kid on a roller coaster, ear-to-ear grin the whole time.
2) All the quick cuts make everything seem extremely precise, even the shaky camera. I could almost believe Greengrass planned every little twitch.
3) Really liked the shot of, um... what was his name... the "source" for the British journalist, when they're meeting, how the corner made by the journalist's shoulder and neck frames the source's right eye, then he rubs his forehead and sighs and tilts his head a bit and locks his other eye right into the same position. Dunno why, just seemed really pretty.
4) The Bourne Ultimate Democrat Fantasy: people with consciences inside the gov't release to the public the secret bad stuff, and then Congress comes down on the officials competently and powerfully. Pamela Landy for President!!!
5) An all-out dis of the War on Terror by the guy who directed United 93? Is he trying to karmically pay for it, or is United 93 not the pure propaganda job I figured it for?
1) Action fun with a serious face, that is sometimes gleeful about its own machinations but can't ever crack a smile, as opposed to Die Hard, which was like a little kid on a roller coaster, ear-to-ear grin the whole time.
2) All the quick cuts make everything seem extremely precise, even the shaky camera. I could almost believe Greengrass planned every little twitch.
3) Really liked the shot of, um... what was his name... the "source" for the British journalist, when they're meeting, how the corner made by the journalist's shoulder and neck frames the source's right eye, then he rubs his forehead and sighs and tilts his head a bit and locks his other eye right into the same position. Dunno why, just seemed really pretty.
4) The Bourne Ultimate Democrat Fantasy: people with consciences inside the gov't release to the public the secret bad stuff, and then Congress comes down on the officials competently and powerfully. Pamela Landy for President!!!
5) An all-out dis of the War on Terror by the guy who directed United 93? Is he trying to karmically pay for it, or is United 93 not the pure propaganda job I figured it for?
The Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer
(6/23/07 AMC Loews in Metreon w/Ell. 7:00p)
The single biggest problem with this movie (aside from Galactus being an apparently non-sentient space-tornado) is that the Silver Surfer is able to stop Galactus single-handedly... and survive! Which means that it was within the Surfer's power to stop Galactus the whole time, and he really had no motivation NOT to stop him, but he simply sat back and watched Galactus devour all the other planets he'd devoured... How did no one on the writing staff for this movie not notice that?
The single biggest problem with this movie (aside from Galactus being an apparently non-sentient space-tornado) is that the Silver Surfer is able to stop Galactus single-handedly... and survive! Which means that it was within the Surfer's power to stop Galactus the whole time, and he really had no motivation NOT to stop him, but he simply sat back and watched Galactus devour all the other planets he'd devoured... How did no one on the writing staff for this movie not notice that?
Transformers
(7/4/07. AMC Loews in Metreon, w/Elliot & Erin. 4:00p)
1) Michael Bay, you still suck, but this movie was awesome!
2) John Turturro should be in every movie.
3) The hot girl telling John Turturro to take his clothes off after Bumblebee peed on him: creepy. The "S7" superman insignia on the front and "SIMMONS" like a jersey name on the back of his wife-beater: hilarious!
4) Witwicky and the hot chick didn't feel weird that the Transformers just kind of sat there and stared at them while they were making out? Couldn't the Autobots at least have revved their engines in conspiratorial approval of Witwicky, or something? Would that have made it more or less creepy?
5) Spontaneous applause when Megatron says, "I AM MEGATRON!!!" to the giant empty chamber he's just thawed out in. That's how you know a flick's good.
1) Michael Bay, you still suck, but this movie was awesome!
2) John Turturro should be in every movie.
3) The hot girl telling John Turturro to take his clothes off after Bumblebee peed on him: creepy. The "S7" superman insignia on the front and "SIMMONS" like a jersey name on the back of his wife-beater: hilarious!
4) Witwicky and the hot chick didn't feel weird that the Transformers just kind of sat there and stared at them while they were making out? Couldn't the Autobots at least have revved their engines in conspiratorial approval of Witwicky, or something? Would that have made it more or less creepy?
5) Spontaneous applause when Megatron says, "I AM MEGATRON!!!" to the giant empty chamber he's just thawed out in. That's how you know a flick's good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)