transformers 3: dark side of the moon

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399103/

if you have read my reviews of the previous transformers movies, you were probably assuming that i would not bother to see the third one.  this was a pretty safe bet up until the point at which somebody waved a free viewing of a movie about giant robots in front of my face.  i love giant robots almost as much as i love vampires.

transformers 3 is essentially another three hours of the same drek that the first two were made out of.  i heard that the destruction of chicago was something not to be missed, but i do not believe that is really true.  they showed some building getting knocked over, but much in the same way that the robots all looked the same after a while, the destruction of landmarks also took on an air of monotonousness.  i actually meant to type "anonymousness" there, but apparently auto-correct thinks that is not a word.  i decided that auto-correct's suggestion was completely fitting, so i let it stand.  why not.  adjectives all around.

i am tempted to give them points for trying to fit their plot around the space race/moon landing back in the seventies, but the resulting timeline and plot points just do not make sense.  shia laboof continues to nauseate, and megan fox replacement brought even less to the picture than megan fox did.  this is an accomplishment in and of itself.

transformers 3 gets two transformers, mostly because i am a sucker for giant robots.  here is hoping that transformers 4 has vampires in addition to giant robots.

the stranger

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1407078/

stone cold steve austin stars in another terrible movie that, like an ugly child, you can only love.  the lack of pretentiousness in this film made it impossible for me to take it seriously enough to be disappointed by the lack of positive attributes.  on the other hand, austin's fight scenes are getting better--he spends less time standing there waiting to get hit--and his one-liners are getting better.  the two main things i note as  downturns from his preceding films is the extensive use of shaky cam and flashbacks.  i guess neither of those things is something i can blame on steve austin, though.

the stranger gets two flashbacks.

jack reacher

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0790724/

i paid 23 dollars for two tickets to see jack reacher.  this was my first reminder of why i do not go to the movies much anymore.  the movie itself served as my second reminder.

jack reacher is, like mission impossible 2, a film which exists entirely to try to make tom cruise look cool.  also like mission impossible 2, it ended up being so ridiculously bad that it only succeeded in making tom cruise look like the least incompetent participant in the whole mess.

i usually like to try to point out something positive about a bad movie, if only to provide a contrast for all the bad things i want to say, but i am coming up empty on this one.  i cannot even say it was short or that i got to watch it for cheap.  the writing was bad, the plot was tired and predictable, the acting was stilted (excepting richard jenkins,) and the scenery, music, and sound were all uninspiring.  also, the villain was the absolute worst villain i have ever seen.  he was missing eight fingers and an eye, for crying out loud.  and he was old.  he did not have superpowers of any kind, just a strong will to live.  i mean, really, i am not injecting hyperbole of any kind here.

i guess that if i were going to really reach for something positive to say, i could say that the bright spot in this constellation of ookery is that they say some pretty epic things about the titular character.  namely, that he 1) is not a hero, 2) only cares about what is right, 3) is a drifter with nothing to lose, and 4) will drink your blood from a boot.  if you watched the trailer, i guess you already knew most of that.

speaking of the trailer, the trailer is basically all the best parts of this movie, boiled down and polished up and with all the awkward bits removed.  in fact, i would go so far as to say that the trailer constitutes false advertising in that it suggests this is a movie worth watching, while the actual product is a turd sandwich with your least favorite kind of mustard and extra turds on the side.  also, the bread is made out of turds.  it is a turd wrapped in turds, sitting next to a heaping mound of more turds.

jack reacher gets one turd sandwich. with mustard.  your least favorite kind.

fast five

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596343/

fast five features guns, fast cars, and THE ROCK. and vin diesel!  and gal gadot!  that is like five things.  five *fast* things.

what is the definition of an epic fight?  i submit to you that it is vin diesel versus THE ROCK, filmed in shaky cam.  ok, actually i am just caught up in the excitement here.  it was a good fight, though.

there is just nothing that i did not love about this film.  highly improbably car/bank vault chase?  lovable.  blatant ripoff of ocean's eleven?  immensely endearing.  cheesy lines?  ooh yeah.  brilliant heist plot twist?  lolwut.

fast five gets four ROCKS.

premium rush

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1547234/

premium rush was basically an excuse to do bicycle tricks for 90 minutes.  the story made no sense and the acting was terrible, as usual.  most disappointing was that the stunts were so tame.  you can find far cooler stunts on youtube, where they usually do not even have wires or CG available.  have you heard of youtube?  it is this cool new website with videos on it.  you can watch them.  some of them have bicycle tricks.  it is pretty cool.

premium rush gets one wheelie.