The Worst Sin a Movie Can Commit

. . . has been committed by Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well, it's August, which is often the dumping ground for releases trying for a their own ray of summer sunshine before Labor Day brings in more prestige pictures and we move into the serious Oscar fare. (Not exclusively, of course - Dumb & Dumber Too is a November release and Hot Tub Time Machine 2 [to answer all those nagging questions from the first one, no doubt] is a Christmas Day release). Anyway, back to the ninja reptiles.

The Turtles have been around since the mid 1980s. Beginning in comic book form, the snappy patter and mad martial arts skillz of the mutated terrapins were intended to parody some of the most popular comics of that time, including Marvel's Daredevil, Dave Sim's Cerebus, and Frank Miller's Ronin. Very quickly, the parody outstripped the source material in terms of popularity, no doubt aided by the first cartoon incarnation and unending tie-in merchandise. TMNT movies have appeared before so the Powers That Be (including producer Michael Bay; well, at least he didn't direct) must've felt that the time was right for another tale of the turtles.

Maybe.  But not this one. Look - here's my issue with this movie. It's dull. 

Oh, sure, I could point out that the reliance on hand-held camera work to cheat what's being shown is nausea-inducing, or that plot holes are gigantic (if you're using a rocket filled with deadly toxins to poison an entire city, maybe it's not a good marketing decision to put your company's logo on the rocket!) or that there's exposition well into what should be the third act (seriously - the villainous scientist [played by the always reliable William Fichtner] takes the time to Explain the Plan to his captive victims - mwa-ha-ha!), but whatever. The biggest problem here isn't Megan Fox (who's actually okay in this picture. Maybe she figured out that it's a joke and she decided to be in on it). No, the biggest problem is that the film is just meh. The CGI isn't very good, especially for a movie with an estimated $125 million budget. I was even willing to give that a pass - maybe director Jonathan Liebesman (Battle Los Angeles) wanted to go for a more cartoon-y feel - but the story is just not captivating, which is a shame in a picture with three (count 'em - three!) "daddy issue" storylines.

I acknowledge that the audience in the theater when I saw this seemed to very much enjoy the whiz-bang-boom! aspects, but I think part of that had to do with (1) dads who enjoyed the original Turtles wanting to share that with their kids and (2) realizing how much they'd paid to see this movie, they were grimly determined to enjoy it. Oh, and think about the level of violence before you take the young fry - it's rated PG-13 for a reason and there were far too many six-year-olds in that theater for my taste.

If you want to share the Turtles with your kids, use the cartoons.  Click here to start!

More Than Meets the Eye?

I carried my popcorn bucket to two new films this holiday weekend - Michael Bay's latest installment of the Transformers franchise and Scott Derrickson's exorcism-in-New-York Deliver Us from Evil. Let's start with the one that's going to make bargeloads of money, an outcome that only encourages more of this sort of dreck - Transformers: Age of Extinction.

Disclaimer - nope, I haven't seen any of the other Transformers movies. I wasn't too worried that I wouldn't be able to follow the complex plotline, however. Look, I could snark my way through this, but let me boil it down. The first line of this swollen, bloated spectacle (2 hours, 45 minutes running time) is "Oh, shit" and that is indeed an accurate assessment. I was hoping for a loud, mindless, colorful summer movie - this is simply bad. And as a PG-13 rating for a movie based on kids' toys, children are going to go see this in droves. Let me explain, with just a small example, why I have a problem with that.

"Tessa" (played by the young and nubile Nicola Peltz, who showcases all the usual attributes sought after by actresses in a Michael Bay movie - click here for details!) is 17, the daughter of an overprotective father who comments on her revealing clothing, but never gets her to change into something more practical than tall wedges and shorts so short the pockets are longer than the hem. Tessa is involved with "Shane Dyson" (a character who thereby combines the names of an iconic Western hero and a vacuum cleaner. He is played by Jack Reynor, an actor of legitimate Irish descent who nevertheless has an Irish accent that slips and slides embarrassingly), who is established as being 20. When Dad (Mark Wahlberg) objects, since Tessa is a minor, Shane not only quotes the specific law that okays such a relationship in Texas - he pulls out a laminated card he apparently carries with him for just such an occasion! So how many teen girls does this guy mess around with? Tessa is a lamp, not a human - she exists to run around, get in trouble and need rescuing, and yell, "Dad!" a lot. The men don't really see her as anything else, either. As Shane puts it once, "I'm not here to help you rescue your daughter. You're here to help me rescue my girlfriend." Nice.

Oddly enough, another one of my anger moments triggered by this Kurosawa-length-but-nothing-else-like-that-master-of-film extra-large helping of garbage was the fawning treatment of China. Look, I know perfectly well that the Chinese market is HUGE in Hollywood financing and box office success. China wants 3D and IMAX movies, so that's what we produce. But this - gah! The American government is shown to be shadowy, corrupt, and willing to kill children while the Chinese government is benevolent and capable of dealing with all sorts of threats in an honorable and upright way. Right - tell that to the students who occupied Tiananmen Square.

Michael Bay elaborately doesn't care. He had a $100 million opening weekend, and he'll keep making this crap. Sigh. At least don't go see it.  Even the big "boomy" parts just weren't that good. Skip it.

As far as Deliver Us from Evil goes, it's a solid exorcism picture. It's not groundbreaking - you've seen all of this before - but the director, Scott Derrickson (who likes these sorts of films), has paid attention to the genre. You get some jump-worthy moments, some questions about the nature of evil and violence (and Latin!), and some reminders that some toys you just shouldn't give your kids (chief among them half-working jack-in-the-boxes, rolling plushie animal heads that go "ha ha hoo" and [number one and unchallenged champion] those creepy monkeys with cymbals). The marketing explains that the events of the film are "inspired by" the actual experiences of NYPD cop Ralph Sarchie, but not really. Well, let that one go. Enjoy the dangerous Bronx, where it rains all night, every night and Doors lyrics really DO have a sinister side. Also, the use of the bug carousel at the Bronx Zoo is just masterful. If you like exorcism horror pictures, you'll probably come out of Deliver Us perfectly happy.

You'll be happier than if you wasted three hours of your life in Bay's celebration of the smash cut, I can tell you that much.