Tyler's Reviews

Transformers: Age Of Extinction (2014)



Michael Bay tested my faith with the lackluster Dark Of The Moon and it pains me to say that the same problems that hindered that film also occur in Age Of Extinction: juvenile humour, logic lapses, bloated pacing and just some general stupidity all around.

However, I enjoyed this one much more than the previous Transformers film. Granted, the scriptwriters really need to work on their weak expositional dialogue and Bay really needs to re-learn how to properly pace a movie, but I was actually surprised when A) this didn't feel as incredibly overlong as I'd heard and B) it wasn't as unnecessarily convoluted as I'd also heard. It definitely did suffer from both of those, but not as extremely as I had dreaded.

The film actually benefits from some new new additions to the cast: Mark Wahlberg delivers a fine lead performance and Stanley Tucci is quite funny in a comic relief (but still pivotal to the story) role. Kelsey Grammer is unfortunately a bit of a weak presence, but that really had to do more with the lack of screentime he got moreso than his performance.

But the star of these is still Michael Bay. I am a big fan of Bay and his films, because they always provide great entertainment. Age Of Extinction, like a lot of Bay's other films, suffers from his usual self-indulgences, but also shows that, in the field of visually spectacular action sequences, he is a master and maybe an unrivalled one.

I am one of the few who always gets excited for a new Transformers movie, because I always have faith in Michael Bay and Age Of Extinction confirms to me that is still well-placed faith.

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)



Considering that this film has already been analysed to death, I can't really think of any differing theories or new points to share about this film that haven't been already said. However, I can still give the reasons I enjoy watching this film so much (and there are quite a few).

Kubrick is a master of every detail and one very special talent that he has is making every single element of his films seem as important as everything else and Eyes Wide Shut is no exception. The Italian movie Alice Harford is watching in a small 10 second scene, the "Lucky To Be Alive" front-page article of a newspaper Bill Harford pays no attention to, the slightly weird-sounding rendition of Jingle Bells that plays in the film's final scene... because this is a mysterious film, filled to the brim with intriguing characters and plot points, I tried to take in everything I could and found myself frankly unable to do so. Kubrick's attention to detail is just too immense.

Not only that, but I also find Eyes Wide Shut, out of all the Kubrick films I've seen, to be the most visually wonderful of his work. His camerawork is perfect and there is not a shot in the film that could be done differently for the better. The way he uses his camera, the lighting and the eerie soundtrack to create beautifully tense atmosphere is unbelievable. This is not the kind of film that needs that kind of atmosphere, but the way Kubrick creates and makes it fit seamlessly with the story is truly impressive.

I've heard criticism for Tom Cruise's performance here, saying that he doesn't have what it takes for this kind of role and just doesn't get the subtlety needed for the character of Bill Harford. In my opinion, he's a perfect fit for the role and I can't imagine anyone else being able to fill his shoes. There are scenes in Eyes Wide Shut where Cruise does some of his best acting ever with only his eyes and facial expressions, letting the audience in on all of his feelings of confusion and naivety. Also, and I can't believe I'm saying this about an actress I don't really care for, Nicole Kidman matches him every step of the way, delivering her career-best performance and delivering everything required for her character with aplomb.

Eyes Wide Shut is definitely a film that needs to seen more than once, as every time I watch it, I always pick up on things I hadn't noticed or had just forgotten, making it an always-intriguing and engaging journey. Currently, this stands as my favourite Kubrick film and in my opinion, a career-best moment for everyone involved.

Face/Off (1997)



When I grow up (if I grow up), I want to be a filmmaker. It's what I've always wanted to do. And like pretty much every wannabe filmmaker, the reason for that was watching too many films and being influenced by a select few that began to shape how I would want to make films in the future. Among these select few, Face/Off is one of the biggest influences.

Why? Three words: sheer creative power. A director's dream and exactly what John Woo had when making this action classic. After the success of Hard Target and Broken Arrow, the financiers of Face/Off gave Woo complete control over the project, allowing him to do pretty much whatever he wanted. And whatever he wanted turned out to be a balls-to-the-wall, ludicrous action extravaganza.

Face/Off is just not a movie that could be made in this day and age, in terms of spirit or tone. If Face/Off was made today, it would have to be completely grounded in realism and aim for a bloodless, PG-13 approach. Woo's film revels in the fact that it is complete violent insanity. This is Woo's slow-motioned, dove-filled vision and it's quite impressive how he seemed to have assembled a cast and crew that believe in that vision as much as he does.

What is most admirable to me how much Woo and the writers managed to get out of the concept of a cop and a criminal switching faces. It would be good enough to make the whole thing work, which Woo does and then some. But there's also some solid character development in which both characters try to adjust to their new identities and lives. The way it's written and acted is quite good, not award-worthy or anything, but it's just refreshing to see something deeper like this in an action movie at all and I appreciate the hell out of it.

Other than Woo and his control, I doubt this movie would have worked very well without it's two stars. Originally, it was supposed to be Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone in the two lead roles. No doubt it would have been an enjoyably macho action romp, but casting Cage and Travolta served a way better purpose. Both are very convincing in their action scenes and have no problem making the audience believe that they're up to the job as punching-shooting-killing badasses, but both are actors first and foremost, not action stars and that serves such a strong purpose for their characters. In most action films, there are clumsy and awkward emotional scenes that always seem forced because the actors acting in them can't act to save themselves. Cage and Travolta pull off these types of scenes easily in Face/Off, even forging a connection between the audience and their characters.

Beyond this purpose, Cage and Travolta deliver some of their best work here. Travolta is hilarious, relishing in his over-the-top bad guy act, while Cage makes for a strong hero and an equally strong villain in the film's first twenty minutes. Both just seem to greatly enjoy the premise and the ability to do their own thing and then just seeing what happens. And what happens is nearly orgasmic. I wish both would take on more action roles, as their presence always seems to class up these kind of films.

And Woo's action. My God. In his first two American action films, his action sequences were a bit stilted and generic, but here he just let's loose with beautifully filmed scenes of gunplay, hand-to-hand combat, Mexican standoffs, boat chases and prison escapes. With his action scenes, Woo embraces the preposterousness of the film's key idea and injects the rest of the film with the same kind of insanity. It's a sight to behold.

I'm not afraid to call this film a masterpiece and, to me, an influential one. Face/Off is a film where everything works and works unbelievably well, as the result of a director's control and vision and two actors that give it the right amount of gravitas and weight. An action classic if there ever was one.

Interview With A Vampire (1994)



I have never read the novel this is based on, so I can't judge whether this is a good adaptation or not. The only way I can and will judge Interview With The Vampire is on it's own merits as a film.

As a film, Interview With The Vampire has it's issues. Specifically, I think the theme of immortality being a curse isn't explored all that well. It's a weakly written element and it's put onto Brad Pitt's shoulders, who didn't really have what it takes to carry it. I also think that after the first hour, where the film shifts focus to the group of vampires living in the Paris underground, the film really loses some of it's pace and punch. Luckily, that only lasts for about 20-30 minutes, but it's a significant problem within the film.

However, I still give Interview With The Vampire quite a high rating. Why? Because I still love it.

For the most part, the film is stylishly directed by Neil Jordan, who creates a playful and moody atmosphere that works for the most part. There's also garish production design, beautiful costumes, a real sense of humour and a fantastic Tom Cruise. Another one of the film's flaws is that it's just never as entertaining when Cruise isn't onscreen. His energy fits the intriguing Lestat perfectly.

And Kirsten Dunst... Wow. What happened there? Everything else I've seen her in has been stunk up by some really bland acting, but here she manages to upstage Pitt throughout and even Cruise in some scenes. The rest of the cast is great, though as you may have guessed, I do think Pitt is the weakest link. He's fine and a good enough actor for the part, but unfortunately he can't match his more experienced co-stars and gets the worst-written character.

Interview With The Vampire was actually one of my favourite movies around the time I really started getting into film, which I found weird, since I didn't and still don't care for vampire movies. I don't think that highly of it now, but it is still the gloriously entertaining film I loved then; it just has a bit of a unconvincing and sour note to it now.

If you're a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, make sure you check out Punch Drunk Love.

I agree with everything you've said about Speed, especially about it containing Dennis Hopper's best performance. His performance in Blue Velvet is the only one that rivals it IMO.

Extreme Measures (1996)



First off, I find it quite refreshing that Tony Gilroy, writer of Extreme Measures, decided to put some questions of moral and ethics into a film of this kind, especially since the thriller genre circa-1996 wasn't much more than disposable entertainment.

However, all credit earned by the idea is instantly stripped away by the execution, which includes heavy-handed speeches and the like. It just doesn't work with the genre and seems to be thrown into the mix in the last 30 minutes to try and give the film a point.

It already had a point, which was to entertain, and it does an admirable enough job of that. Sure, it's a suspense thriller without suspense or thrills, but Michael Apted tries to class it up with some nice shots and Hugh Grant actually turns in a decent dramatic performance that pulls the film along. The pacing is a little off, almost completely coming to a stop in the climax, but for the most part, Extreme Measures is forgettable fun.

But then there's that need to shove a message in there. It's a lazy attempt and leaves me a little more sour than I should be. But it doesn't really matter all that much. I'll get on with my life when I almost completely forget about this movie in the next five minutes.

Always good to see you posting-thanks for the review. I would've put Extreme Measures on my watchlist if you recommended it, but I'll definitely pass now.