The Final Destination

Earlier this year I was watching The 400 Blows again with a friend who just didn't get the appeal of the film. I tried to explain to him the artistry on display, but to no avail. I realized that perhaps my taste had gotten inexorably out of touch with the mainstream. At the time I toyed with the idea of writing an article about my biggest guilty pleasures, to show that I could enjoy Truffaut while also enjoying Freddy Got Fingered (I do). I ultimately abandoned the idea, although I may yet return to it. I will say that the number one guilty pleasure would have been the Final Destination franchise. I love it. It's pretty dumb, repetitive, and very silly. Yet I've always enjoyed it in spite of those facts (or probably because of them). The first is a legitimately thrilling film. The second takes the concept and cranks it to the logical extreme - the car crash at the beginning is one of the most memorable scenes I've ever seen. The third was a step down, but still fun. So here comes the fourth one, in 3D no less! Does it live up to the standards of the previous films? Well, not really.

I'll try to come at this as a fan of the series and not as a film critic or a movie buff. To put it succinctly, they aren't trying anymore. There is no set up and very little payoffs. Where once the characters had some level of intelligence and personality, here they are almost all fodder for death. Many of them don't even have names, credited instead as "MILF" or "Racist" or "girl on top." That's how little this film cares about characters. On top of that, where once we would watch the characters come to grips with their situation and try to comprehend it, here they understand it immediately and just rush from one death scene to the next with nothing in between. There's no discussion of death's design or what it means. And where is Tony Todd? Even the last movie found the time to give him a voice cameo. Perhaps they were afraid he would overshadow these horribly bland actors. I always felt he should have become more central to these films as they progressed, but instead he became less.

The one actor/character that actually is worth anything is Mykelti Williamson as George. His conflicted security guard is perhaps the most interesting and complex character in the franchise (that isn't too difficult, but still worth mentioning). It made me wonder why the film couldn't have been about him and not the forgettable lead character. Here's a guy that accidentally killed his family years ago while driving drunk, and he is now ready to face his ultimate judgement. Instead he is a supporting player that doesn't factor into the film's endgame (make of that what you will). A better movie would have been letting George and Racist be the only two left standing, forced to work together to cheat death.

Really, the whole film feels like missed opportunities. There are two preteen boys who survive the opening disaster, yet they are totally forgotten about. Surely the film could have had some fun with dispatching them (not to mention, not killing them is a plot hole). Also, the death scenes are fairly bland by this franchise's standards. While it is funny to see a character talk about deja vu, only to be killed in the same way as the first film's most famous scene, it lacks the originality a lot of fans will desire. The kills are often totally unsurprising and devoid of suspense. You know exactly how and when people will die in almost every instance. And when it does try to surprise you, it's never shocking or unique, just a tweak on your expectations.

The Final Destination concept is one ripe with potential, yet the films keep repeating the same formula. What about a film in which an older character has been cheating death for their entire life, and what pulling that off repeatedly for so long can do to you (insanity? A God complex)? Or one in which the person who has the premonition dies first, leaving the others in total confusion? Or one in which the Tony Todd character is the one to have to cheat death, opening up to us just what it is he knows about this phenomena? Or, how about end the series in an epic fashion? Have a character thwart a major cataclysmic event (asteroid/nuclear explosion/etc), only to have death come for hundreds of thousands of people at once. It's the kind of epic concept that could reinvigorate this series. I'm sure in three years we will get another film, I'm sure it will be the same exact thing, and I'm sure I will be even further removed from mainstream cinema. But I'd bet good money I'll still see it anyway. They have a hold on me, hopefully you are a bit more discerning.

Inglourious Basterds

In the 5 years I've been doing this, there are few major working filmmakers left that I have yet to really talk about. While I reviewed Grindhouse, I didn't really discuss Quentin Tarantino. Well, that changes here. After breaking out with Pulp Fiction, and following it up with Jackie Brown (a film slowly gaining the esteem it deserves), I feel Tarantino has been off his game. The Kill Bills didn't quite work for me - although I am in the minority of preferring Vol. 2 - and Death Proof was his career low point. And yet, much like Scorsese, even a bad Tarantino film is a film worth watching and discussing. So where does that leave us with Inglourious Basterds, his decade in the making WWII project? Well, I am of the opinion that he is back on the top of his game. Here is a film second only to Pulp Fiction in his canon, and it is a film filled to the brim with ideas, characters, and pure entertainment of the kind only Tarantino seems able to deliver.

Basterds is a film about a lot of things, and while I know Tarantino would like people to simply enjoy his films first and foremost, I feel that at the heart of the film there are two issues worth examining. Namely, the influence of cinema on the world, and the power of language. The second item first: this is not an action film, but a dialog-action film. The most tense beats don't come from shootouts, but rather from the words that lead to the shootouts. The man who uses words most to his advantage is Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Nicknamed "The Jew Hunter," Landa sees himself more as a detective, and he uses words to find what he wants. Take the opening - perhaps best - scene, in which Landa interrogates a farmer about the whereabouts of his Jewish neighbors. Landa chooses his words oh so carefully, using them to gain the upper hand in the conversation. He seems to derive pleasure from being the most informed person in the room, and he likes to doll out what he knows slowly, as to let it dawn on his prey just what he knows. He could easily come into a room shouting and blasting, but instead he takes the most pleasure from methodically telling the farmer what he knows. This is something he does throughout the movie and it never ceases to be thrilling. We are never sure what to make of Landa because he seems to pick and choose what should be said when. When he finally lays everything out, you may be surprised where his true allegiences lie (or perhaps not).

And in a film where the words are so important, it is interesting to note how multilingual the film is. English is spoken only sparingly, and there is French, German, Italian, and maybe other languages used throughout. At one point, Landa asks to switch from French to English, and we think it's simply a silly way for Tarrantino to make it easier on the audience. Not at all. It is a very deliberate tactic used by Landa, and the realization of that fact is one of the film's many powerful moments. The power of language clearly has a hierarchy in the film, as evidenced by the titular Basterds not knowing any other languages. When it comes time for them to enact a plan that could end the war, it is reliant on them knowing another language. Most of them speak only English, and a few can speak broken Italian. This puts them at a major disadvantage in the film's climax. It is refreshing to see a film examine the ways power can play out in a multilingual world.

The other point of interest is the cinema itself. Tarantino loves to reference other films in his work, and here is no exception. From the famous open door shot in The Searchers, to the use of classic Ennio Morricone scores, this is as much a Western at heart as it is a war film. And yet, that is not enough for Tarantino. Here he actually uses his film as a way to comment on the power of film as a medium. Much of the film takes place in a French cinema house during a world premiere. The film in question, a Nazi propaganda film, is used to demonstrate the way film can be used to form opinions. Much like language, Tarantino is saying that cinema itself can be a powerful tool in how power is delegated. And on the flip side, film can be the ultimate catharsis. Young Shosanna Dreyfus, whose family was killed by Landa, creates her own film to splice into the propaganda film during the premiere. Forcing the Nazis in attendance to watch it gives her a moment of power over those who have tried to take power away from her. More than any other thing he has done, Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino's love letter to cinema.

But is the film itself entertaining? On an intellectual level, clearly. But for the average audience, I it might be too much to take. It's a two and a half hour movie with very little English dialog. It was sold as a Brad Pitt action film, when in reality his Basterds are a small part of a bigger picture. The film is at least 90% people talking to each other. And yet, there seems like a lot here that people can enjoy as well. The dialog is often excruciatingly tense, the violence - when it's there - is visceral, and the ending is an amazing and unexpected payoff. People around me seemed dumbfounded by something Tarantino does at the end, and when they began to grasp that he had indeed gone there, surprised laughter started erupting around the theater. The payoff is well worth it, it just depends on how willing you are to go along with the film in order to get there. For me, it's probably the most interesting and exciting picture of the year so far, and one I hope to revist again soon.

The Marc Pease Experience

Everyone is an expert at something: some people are experts in medicine, others are experts in auto mechanics. I am an expert on The Marc Pease Experience. Outside of those involved directly with the film, I have probably seen it more times than anyone else. Back in 2007 I saw it in its earliest stages. Last year I saw it again in a more finished form. And now, here it is, finally being released in 2009. Judging by the release it's getting, though, I will probably remain the preeminent expert on the film for a long time to come. You'd be forgiven if you have no idea what film I am talking about, as there has been no promotion for it at all. And not in the "they should have promoted it more" sense. No, they literally never cut a trailer or made a poster (what you see to the right is an old announcement poster from when this was still in production). You might be surprised to know it stars Jason Schwartzman, Ben Stiller, and one of the women of Twilight. How does a movie like this get no push at all? Well, it could be because it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

The film is about a young man named Marc Pease (Schwartzman), who was a big musical theater star in high school, but choked during the big performance. Since then, he's been mentally stuck in his high school days, unable to move on. He is dating a high school girl, is in an A Capella band, and constantly pesters his high school drama teacher Mr. Gribble (Stiller) about getting him and his band a record deal. When Marc learns that Gribble will be putting on a production of The Wiz, the very same show he choked so many years ago, his life goes into a tailspin. Fairly simple stuff, and it very much plays as a family friendly comedy, save for one detail: it's filled with pedophilia.

That's right, Marc Pease is basically a pedophile. He is dating (and we can assume doing more with) a young high school girl (even if she is 18, it's implied they've been together longer than that). But it doesn't end there. Gribble is also striving for the affection of said girl. In fact, we see him kissing her early on. And the weirdest thing is, this aspect of the film is never mentioned or dealt with. It is accepted as a natural, matter-of-fact part of life that grown men will seduce underage women. This aspect of the film could have been used in a very darkly funny way, but instead the rest of the film aims for Nickelodeon level humor. As it stands, this whole element of the film is very jarring and does not fit into the film. And yet, without it the already unusually short film would be no more than an hour long. The film uses the fact that both men love the same girl as a point of conflict in the story. If it weren't for this aspect, there would be no drama at all. So basically the movie screwed itself by making the least likable aspect of the film a major part of the story while also not using it in any meaningful way. It's extraneous and yet can't be purged.

I'm not sure on the actual length of the film, but I would guess it is in the 70 minute range. And even then, the film is greatly padded. As mentioned before, Gribble is putting on The Wiz. At least a fourth of the film is people we have never seen before and who have no relevance to the plot performing scenes from The Wiz. The only character that we know that's in the play is the love interest, and her part is that of a glorified extra. With no context for the scenes we are shown from the play, and with no one in it worth caring about, this entire fourth of the film is utterly a waste. You get the sense that writer/director Todd Louiso is a big fan of high school theater and really wanted to share that love with the rest of the world. Well, congrats Todd, you got your chance!

The acting is across the board career low points. Schwartzman seems befuddled half the time, whiny the rest. He does the character of Marc no service by making him such a tool and a loser. And Stiller seems bored out of his mind. He is clearly not trying in the least bit, and you get the sense that the screenplay was thin and asked of him to improvise, and he simply refused. It's like they left spots for him to crack jokes and he just quietly stood there in defiance. At one point they even give him a musical number where he sits on a piano and sings a song for no reason! The weirdest part of the Pease/Gribble dynamic is that we are supposed to side with Marc in the battle between the two, and yet I found myself feeling more for Gribble. Here is a man who is being harassed daily by a guy in an A Capella group that isn't any good, being asked to get this sorry sack a record deal. On top of that, this pathetic manchild ruined his original staging of The Wiz eight years ago, and has now returned to do it once again. Because Stiller puts in no effort, Gribble lacks any emotion, and thus, any menace. He just seems like a sad, regular drama teacher. How can we possibly hate him and side with Marc? The only bad thing he does is making out with a teenager, but we already know Marc does the same thing so its moot (in the world of the film, of course).

Ultimately, we are supposed to route for Marc to grow up, overcome his childhood traumas, and move on. And sure enough, he does! He confronts Gribble, breaks up with his underage girlfriend, saves the play he already ruined once, and quits his ridiculous A Capella band. Marc Pease, you are now a man! So what does this newly minted adult do next? Why, he becomes a very bad lounge singer. Music swells, curtains fall, applause. But wait! Is this really a happy ending? Marc is still pursuing the same dream as before, one he is obviously no good at. He just moved from one horrible genre to another. Are we really supposed to think everything will be all better for a man who is emotionally stunted, has no realistic life skills, and a predilection towards underage women? The only real job he could possibly get is being a drama teacher in a high school, but we all know he would last about two weeks before a storm of lawsuits rain down upon him from angry parents and children with shattered lives.

The Marc Pease Experience is one of the more inept movies I have ever seen. It didn't make me angry, like Transformers did earlier this year, but it did make me sad. The only person involved that seems to have cared is Todd Louiso, but he was fighting against an Ed Wood level script, actors with no interest, and a studio hellbent on destroying his film. I really wish this had gotten some sort of real release so that I could read other opinions on the film. I am curious to see how fresh eyes would view this disaster. But instead, the film gets dumped into ten theaters ("with potential to expand if the market demands it" according to a press release). So I remain the lone expert on this debacle. Perhaps that is for the best.

Funny People

There are few film going pleasures more delightful than to see an actor that no one expects much from giving an amazing performance. Everyone expects great things from Jack Nicholson or Meryl Streep, so it's not as satisfying when they do knock it out of the park. But when someone like Adam Sandler comes along and gives us - for my money - the performance of the year, it's something to really savor. Sandler has been great before in Punch-Drunk Love, so I knew he had this in him, but he buries his great work under piles of dumb comedies and bland melodramas. Yet even in films like Anger Management, you could tell there were layers to his performance that the film itself did not complement. Freed from all shackles, he is finally able to deliver the most fully formed character of his career.

Adam Sandler became popular at the exact moment that his brand of humor would have most appealed to me. I still consider Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison to be among the best comedies of the 90's.That said, after Little Nicky my interest in his comedy waned; I grew up and Sandler didn't. Yet he played such an important part in my early film going experience that it was hard to let that go. I still try and catch his movies from time to time, and I secretly hope he one day is able to leave behind his comedies and become a more respected actor. So my bias was certainly there to want a great performance out of him. In Funny People, he plays George Simmons, an Adam Sandler-like comedian who has reached the zenith of his career but has let fame get to him. With no real friends and no family, he is forced to deal with his diagnosis of Leukemia alone. He goes out to a comedy club to perform (his jokes consist of such winners as "what will you all do when I am gone, who will amuse you?") and quickly bombs. He is followed by Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), who rips into Simmons. Simmons decides to hire the young comic as his assistant/friend/confidant. It is from their relationship that the plot - and the humor - flows.

What struck me most about Sandler's performance was how completely unlikable he was willing to be. A real sticking point for me with a lot of big name actors is their unwillingness to be unlikable on screen. They always make the most unsavory characters redeemable, lovable even. Not Sandler. He embraces the inherent misanthropy in Simmons, making him a bitter, angry, vile person with no real sense of how to treat other people. He's like a funnier Daniel Plainview. And yet he earns our sympathy through the tricks of director Judd Apatow. Apatow fills the film with a sense of a lost past for Simmons. Sandler has had probably half his life recorded for audiences at this point, so the film uses much of that footage to gives us a history of Simmons. Perhaps the best use of such footage is from when Apatow and Sandler were roommates back before either was famous. The two would make prank phone calls and have a fun time together. This footage opens the film, and while very funny, it gives us such a strong sense of that human connection that Simmons has lost over the years. Where he once could enjoy life with his friends, fame and money have stripped that from him.

The film also wouldn't work without Rogen to balance it. He is at the opposite side of the career spectrum of Simmons, and we get the sense that he and his friends are living a similar like to Simmons and his friends pre-fame. We are asked to wonder whether they will be able to overcome that which destroyed Simmons, or whether they will follow in his footsteps. We can already see seeds of a similar life path and jadedness in the character played by Jason Schwartzman, but Rogen seems like a levelheaded enough person to avoid it. It is these wonderful character dynamics that make the whole piece really shine.

For me, Funny People was a perfect confection of humor, drama, acting, characters, story, themes - everything I could want from a motion picture - for the first hour and a half. Really just perfect. But it's a two and a half hour movie, and as a result, it starts to lose its power with the final hour. Apatow has always been a self indulgent filmmaker, and it has worked in his favor before. Here he goes too far, unfortunately, and it honestly could ruin the whole experience for a lot of people. As he did in Knocked Up, he casts his wife and two children in the film. Here, however, they become the central focus of the film for the final hour, taking the focus off of Simmons and his relationship with Ira. This segment was vital to sending home the message of Simmons being doomed to stay the unhappy person he is, but it could have been done in about twenty minutes or so. When Leslie Mann breaks out a home video of her and Apatow's daughter in a school performance of Cats, it's clear that Apatow has gone far off into his own head.

And yet, I love that a filmmaker would make a movie for himself first and foremost. Apatow's passion for these characters and their world shines through in spite of (or perhaps because of) that final hour. It's not a film for everybody, and especially not a film for those expecting the usual Sandler comedy, but it was the perfect film for me. It's a real shame that Sandler won't be remembered come Oscar season, because I really feel that he rises above other comedians turned dramatic actors of late (Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell) and delivers a brilliant performance. The real heart breaker, though, is that this film won't make as much money as his usual fare, and he will go back to starring in low rent David Spade or Kevin James comedies. I hope that the great actor hiding within Sandler doesn't stay hidden again for long, but when movies about man-babies and mermen make more money than thoughtful comedy-dramas, I guess it's only inevitable.

Public Enemies

Dear Michael Mann,

For thirty years you've been doing your own thing, quietly carving out your owe niche in cinema history. I would like to say that I am a fan of that niche, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to be certain. I've seen all your film work, except for The Keep (and from what I can tell, it is a very atypical film for you), and I can still only count on one hand the films of yours that I love. Yet when you do knock it out of the park, you create some of the best films of the decade (Heat, The Insider). When you miss, though, it can be unbearably dull. I can't say that Public Enemies is a failure, not by a long-shot, but it sure isn't one of your best achievements, either.

When you were making this film, I wonder, were you concerned about the similarities to Heat? Two men, opposite sides of the law, both doing what they do best, leading to an inevitably violent showdown. Yet where that film had a spark of life, a sense of grandeur, here there is only coldness and simplicity. It stands as a pale imitator by comparison. Where is the depth of characters? I had such a hard time connecting to either Dillinger or Purvis, I got no sense of who these men were or why they did what they did. And where was the story? Dillinger robs banks, Purvis tries to stop him, throw in a little romance, and viola! There's your movie. Well, that doesn't quite cut it, not when you made such complex character studies like The Insider or even Collateral.

I have to say, I deeply respect you for not turning this into a Dillinger biopic. This could easily have been about the life and times of America's original public enemy number 1. You could have started with him as a boy, faced with some sort of trauma. That trauma would have thrown a shadow over his whole life, serving as an artificial explanation for everything he does later in life. In short, it could have been simply awful and generic. Instead, you focus just on who he was at that moment in time when his life was coming to an end. Outside of a throwaway reference to a bad father, you offer no explanations or justifications for what Dillinger does or who he became. Still, that doesn't mean all character development must be thrown by the wayside. I felt like neither you nor Johnny Depp really got who Dillinger was, so you didn't try to make him into an interesting guy. There was one moment, however, that spoke volumes: Dillinger, walking into the Bureau building and poking around the office that was investigating him. The way he tests to see if anyone would recognize him, the curiosity on his face - that was a standout moment, but it should not have been the only one.

Where you never fail to impress me is the technical aspects. I know that digital bothers a lot of people, yet you stick with it. I tend to agree that digital takes people out of the experience, but that hasn't been the case with your films. You know how to use it in such a beautiful, sometimes haunting way. The film is a sight to behold, from cinematography to art direction to costumes, but it is the sound design that stands out the most. What a complex, nuanced arrangement of sounds you have. You always know when to ramp up the sound and when to let the silences speak for themselves. Whatever my problems with your characters, there's no denying that you fully drew me into this time and place through your impeccable craft.

I guess I just wish you could marry your technical majesty with a great script. You've done it before, and I know you can do it again. It just seems like you've been in a creative funk this decade. Collateral aside, nothing you've done has spoken to me the way your films in the 90's did. Public Enemies is certainly a step in the right direction after Miami Vice, but it's still a far way off of what you and I both know you are capable of. Still, I thank you for you willingness to put something a little unconventional out there in the midst of summer, knowing full well this isn't what people normally flock to in July. Whatever its flaws, at least this isn't a mindless summer blockbuster. I don't see myself jumping off the Mann bandwagon yet, but please take the sparks of originality in this film and run with it next time. You're still capable of something extraordinary, and I patiently await that film.

Sincerely,
Ken

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

When Transformers came out in 2007, I said it was one of the great summer blockbuster spectacles, a statement I stand by. The epic sense of awe and wonderment, coupled with eye-popping special effects and breathless combat scenes made for some grand entertainment. Yes, it was dumb as dirt, and yes it had some moments I found to be racially insensitive, but overall I was very entertained. The one thing I hoped for from a sequel was more screen time for my favorite OG Transformer, Starscream. So two years later, as I sat through the sequel - Revenge of the Fallen - I was dumbstruck. The things that didn't work in the first film were amplified to the extreme, while the things that I found to be so great were completely abandoned. Flabbergasted, all I could do was repeat to myself "At least they gave Starscream something to do."

It's hard to know where to begin when something goes this wrong. Perhaps I should mention first the most surprising thing: the action is terrible. If memory serves correct, there are three big set pieces: one at the start of the film, one about an hour in, and another at the end. None are very well done, and none top the final battle in the first film. What makes these kinds of battles work is adding a human scale to it. Robots fighting robots in the desert gives you no sense of scale or feeling of impending danger. A lot of people are complaining that you can't tell the robots apart, so there is no investment in them when they fight. I disagree. There is no investment because 90% of the robots fighting are ones we've never seen before, they never speak, and they are never given a name. Who are they? I have no clue. I wanted to care, I really did, but Michael Bay had no investment in these characters, so it became impossible for me to. But at least they gave Starscream something to do.

The characters in the first film weren't great, but they were serviceable. Here they have all been reduced to comedic sidekicks. No exaggeration - all of them. We have the wacky roommate (1), the wacky parents (2,3), the wacky washed up federal agent (4), the wacky pet robot that humps peoples' legs (5), the wacky college professor (6), and the wacky illiterate twin robots (7,8). What a breath of fresh air it was then to have Tyrese show up and not not be wacky at all, but instead wisecracking. Michael Bay knows a film's limits: 8 wacky characters is great, but 9? That might have been pushing it. I honestly couldn't tell you why Sam's roommate stays in the film for as long as he does. About halfway into the film I found myself saying "we have other sources of comedic relief, why are you still here?" Shia LaBeouf, who was really pretty charming in the first one, is absurdly bad here as Sam. Granted, he has to act like he is losing his mind, and that is rarely a graceful thing to perform, but he is especially bad at it. Megan Fox, by virtue of the fact that she can't act, comes off the best in this film. Megan Fox should never, ever be the best actor in a film. But at least they gave Starscream something to do.

Let's jump back to those illiterate twins for a moment, shall we? If you go back to my Transformers review in July 2007, I called that film out for some potentially racist moments. This film blows that one out of the water. Mudflaps and Skids are two illiterate, slang spewing, rambunctious robots with droopy faces and big ears (one even has a gold tooth). Much humor is derived from their ignorant pratfalls. Hey, they don't know any better, how funny! If you hear one thing about this movie, it will certainly be about these two. It is an unfortunate fact that something so regressive could exist in a film that will surely be so huge. Some of those involved with the film have made the argument that the Transformers learn our language through the internet, movies, and TV, and that these two could be seen as a reflection of our own society. So maybe Mudflaps and Skids have just been watching too many Michael Bay movies! But at least they gave Starscream something to do.

I think the thing I hate the most about the majority of sequels is this assumption of familiarity. In the first film there is a sense of discovery as we learn about the characters, what the implications of the story are, and what kind of world they live in. Sequels, like this one, assume that we don't care about that sense of discovery anymore and just throw us into the film. Sometimes it works (The Bourne movies), but usually it doesn't. The plot here is absolutely ridiculous, and really, it wasn't the plot in the first one I liked, either. It was fun to see how people reacted to giant robots, as well as how the robots reacted to us. It was exciting to see the Transformers actually transform from time to time. Here they just remain in robot form the entire time, unless they are moving from one location to another. Remember that great scene in the first where Starscream blends in with the other jets, then suddenly transforms, shoots a few, then turns back into a jet so no one can tell which one is him? Yeah, none of that here. It's just wall to wall mindless noises, bad jokes, and an incoherent plot for two and a half hours. But at least they gave Starscream something to do.

And since we're on the subject, how about Starscream, my one hope for salvation in the film? Well, for starters, he is nothing like the Starscream I love. Gone is his nefarious machinations to overthrow Megatron and rule the Decepticons. Instead, he has been turned into a beaten dog, always abused by Megatron for no good reason. He has no personality, except to grovel at appropriate times. When Bay needs a Decepticon to do something for the plot, it is usually Starscream who does it. That's nice in theory, but often it amounts to no more than following Sam or firing upon enemies. Sure, he's physically in the film a lot more and has actual lines, but he's really not doing anything of interest or consequence. But at least they gave Starscream... well, no I guess they kind of didn't even do that.

Moon

Moon is the perfect example of how to take a simple idea and explore all of its implications. If there were an energy source on the moon that could sustain Earth, how would we go about harvesting it? Sam Rockwell stars as Sam Bell, a man sent to the moon to mine for that energy source and send it back home. Why is one man doing this job alone? Why, indeed! That is part of the fun of Moon - things you think are plot holes initially are really just ideas for first time director Duncan Jones to riff on. When all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, it's a film that makes almost too much sense. If it sounds like I am being coy on what exactly this film is about, you win the big prize. To really say anything about this film's plot would be to give away too much (indeed, the trailer itself already gives away more than I think you should know). Instead, all I can offer is an analysis of its pieces and hope that when you see the film, this review will make sense.

Like I said, Sam Rockwell takes center stage, and he is amazing. There are no other actors in Moon for him to interact with, which makes his performance all the more impressive. Sure, he has a robot companion voiced by Kevin Spacey, but that's just a special effect. No, this is Rockwell from start to finish, and he is never dull. His performance explores many different facets of the character, and by film's end you really feel like you've gotten to know Sam Bell from the day he arrived on the moon until his departure three years later. Kevin Spacey as the robot companion complements this performance perfectly, as I quickly forgot it was Spacey and just accepted it as another character in the film.

The ideas this film presents are what make it work so wonderfully. It's fun for a film to plant an idea in your head and then let you as an audience member interact with that idea on your own. Director Jones never tells you how to feel about the events in the film, nor does he give you a definite reason for why things are happening exactly, but investing a bit of your own interpretation into it makes it all the more satisfying. The film is never really confusing or overwhelming - a problem a lot of hard science fiction films can have - but it has just the right level of thoughtfulness to keep you constantly engaged. It's a film that wraps everything up while still leaving you with things to discuss afterwards.

I really enjoyed what this film had to offer, and I hope it expands to a wider audience in the coming weeks. In some ways it recalls Danny Boyle's Sunshine from 2007. That was another hard science fiction film that really tried to grapple with some ideas while balancing a level of fun. But where Sunshine lost confidence in its ideas in the final act by dissolving into a horror film, Moon embraces its core concept to the end. For those who like hard science fiction films, it's probably the best to come along in a few years.