TRANSFORMERS 2: Obnoxious and juvenile, 3/10

Michael Bay is one of the few directors who actually regresses as a filmmaker. 1996 marked the arrival of The Rock, which remains his best movie. Not a classic action film, but well-made, memorable and thoroughly enjoyable. Jump forward to 2009 and we find Bay behind the biggest hit of the summer, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. One would expect Bay to naturally hone his craft after more than a decade of making action movies. Yet somehow, the competence and excitement found in the The Rock is non-existant in Mr. Bay’s contribution to the weak 2009 summer season.

Admittedly, I walked out of the first Transformers unimpressed was not looking forward to another installment. Still, I tried my best to enter the theater with an open mind. 0 for 2. I realize these movies are based on toys and I’m not expecting a groundbreaking film like The Godfather. Yet the execution of ideas in Transformers 2 is just mind-numbingly frustrating. Why does a Transformers movie need to have a run-time of 2 1/2 hours? I think it’s safe to say that audiences flock to these movies to see giant robots beat the crap out of each other. Despite some shaky cam and poor direction, the robot action is delivered with top-notch CGI. But why do the filmmakers feel the need to toss in the pointless and annoying human subplots? If Bay and his writers removed most of the humans and trimmed the story down to its bare minimum, we could have a 90 minute light, fun summer flick. Instead, the result is a film akin to a three year old explaining how to fit an elephant in a refrigerator, going off on various tangents and not following any logical direction.

Any positives? Shia LaBeouf plays his part well and continues to be a likable protagonist. He also had one line that made me laugh out loud for quite a while. Wow, I guess you can tell I’m grasping for straws.

Just like its predecessor, as some Linkin Park song began playing from the theater speakers, I realized that these criticisms mean nothing. Audiences apparently love the movie and nothing can stop us from getting Transformers 3 in a couple of years. Stlil, I can’t help but feel sad inside after being subjected to such a loud and obnoxious theme park ride.

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER: Not a love story. A story about love, 9/10

People inevitably bring their personal baggage to every movie they see. In it’s simplest form, film is entertainment. Pure escapism. And more often than not, our experiences remain separate from what we’re watching as we sit in the theater. Yet once in a while, a film breaks from the pack that makes you want to ask the filmmakers, “Did you make that movie for me?” Enter (500) Days of Summer.

I’ve never seen a film so finely reflect some of my own personal experiences as (500) Days of Summer. As I strolled out of the theater, I couldn’t help but replay scenes from the film and compare them to experiences I’ve had. Amidst the stale material often churned out by Hollywood, it must be a struggle to successfully craft an honest tale of romance. Yet somehow, the filmmakers behind (500) Days of Summer have done just that. Perhaps the unseen narrator explains it best near the start of the film, “This is not a love story. This is a story about love.”

(500) Days of Summer lives and triumphs in large part to it’s two leads, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel. As “Tom” and “Summer” respectively, the two share chemistry that is atypical of traditional movie love, but much more akin to the real world. I believed them as a couple. Even though the film is told exclusively from Tom’s point of view, Deschanel is still able to create a real, fleshed out character. Actually, she is really playing Tom’s idealized view of Summer, which may be more difficult than playing the real thing.

First-time director Marc Webb does a fantastic job supplying the honest and real screenplay with some brilliant visuals. One sequence featuring a split-screen comparison between Tom’s “expectations” and “reality” is among the most realistic and sincere moments I’ve seen in recent movie memory. In addition, the non-linear structure worked especially well to capture the sometimes schizophrenic nature of relationships.

One of the most arresting aspects of (500) Days of Summer is its setting. The story is set in LA, yet everything about it felt east coast. The filmmakers went out of their way to avoid the cliches associated with “Hollywood” and made Los Angeles into the beautiful and fascinating city I sometimes wish it could be.

As wonderful as the film was, there were minor flaws. The tone sometimes reached too far for the cliched odd-ball indie feel. Specifically, the little sister of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character seemed like a forced effort to be quirky. Also, there were brief moments during the second act of the film where I felt less connected to the characters. However, this thankfully changed as the story unfolded.

My opinion of (500) Days of Summer is uncontrollably biased. Prior to the screening, I was looking forward to the movie, but had no idea how emotionally invested and relatable I would find the characters and their story. During much of the film, I WAS Tom. I was caught off guard, as the film forced me to revisit and relive emotions that I had put away for some time. Obviously, I had a personal response to (500) Days of Summer that is unique to me. I wouldn’t be surprised if other people didn’t share my enthusiasm for the film, but that’s understandable. But combining how I connected with the film along with it’s awesome cast, writing, and directing, I have no doubt that this will be high on my end of the year list. Summer may deny her belief of love in the beginning of the film, but I have no problem exclaiming that I loved this movie.

FUNNY PEOPLE: Apatow, Sandler, Rogen, Bana, and ...drama? 8.5/10

Honestly, movies this summer haven’t been too hot. Of course, there have been a few gems (Up, Star Trek). But overall, it’s been a flood of mediocrity or worse since May (I’m looking @ you Michael Mann). Despite this, I had really high hopes for Judd Apatow’s third directorial effort, Funny People. Considering how much I loved The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, I had little reason to doubt that Apatow would pull off the hat-trick.

First things first: The film’s somewhat misleading marketing campaign. Universal is priming people for a balls-out comedy ala Superbad while Apatow has delivered something that delves further into drama than any of his previous works. But don’t be scared away! The film still delivers the zingers and one-liners that will have you rolling with laughter. It’s a testament to Apatow’s abilities that he’s able to effectively juggle these opposing tones. I’m a little perplexed reading other reviews that complain about it’s overly serious tone. I personally thought the film succeeded as much as a comedy as it did as a drama.

Like Apatow’s two previous films, the film has heart. The characters are fleshed out and feel like real people, flaws and all. The cast is solid all-around. Adam Sandler has been getting positive critical notices for portraying a bizarro version of himself, but I was more impressed w/ Seth Rogen. While he usually aces the slacker/comedic part, Rogen here is very much the straight man and comes across as very warm and likable. He and Sandler share excellent chemistry which proves to be the backbone of the film’s first 2/3. We may be getting into nepotism territory w/ Leslie Mann, but she does a good enough job. However, she was much stronger in Knocked Up. Another bright spot is Eric Bana, who finally gets to use his real Australian accent and have some fun, instead of brooding all the time. I was dying to see Bana on screen and when he finally showed up, I relished every one of his lines.

A lot of people have reacted negatively to the film’s last 45 minutes. While I agree that it doesn’t live up to the first 2/3, I didn’t have a major problem with it. True, I would have rather stuck with Sandler/Rogen’s relationship, but what we got was interesting in it’s own right. One thing I did appreciate about the film is how it rejected the traditional three act structure. It seems more of an amalgam of two stories joined relatively well. I applaud Apatow for taking things in a different direction, but it may not have been executed as perfectly as he planned. Another complaint is the long running time of 146 minutes. No doubt, this long for a dramedy, and Apatow should have shown more restraint by cutting 20 or so minutes. But funnily enough, despite the long run-time, the ending still seemed too abrupt and rushed for my liking.

Despite some flaws, Funny People is ultimately a very strong film that exemplifies the evolution of Judd Apatow as a filmmaker. Not only is the film technically well-made (the cinematography by Spielberg’s DP Janusz Kaminski elevates the look of this one above Apatow’s previous), but it is definitely Apatow’s most personal and mature work to date. While currently have it below Virgin and Knocked Up because it’s more problematic, I have a feeling that future repeat viewings will improve my opinion of the film even more. In the end, I appreciate the fact that Apatow didn’t play it safe and make the same movie again. In a time where awful movies like Transformers 2 makes an obscene amount of undeserving money, films like Funny People help cheer me up by showcasing smart writing and real characters worth watching. Definitely one of the better movies of this summer.