Friday, September 29, 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen, I proudly present to you the actor who will be playing Iron Man*

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Well, he certainly knows a thing or two about substance abuse.

I can honestly say I am not disappointed by this choice. Anyone who has seen Downey outside of the teen comedies he did in the 80's knows the dude can act. Some fanboys may gripe about his age or even his physique, but most of his fighting takes place in-suit, I don't think that will be a concern. If nothing else, this casting idea makes me feel neutral. I don't hate it, nor do I love it. And without negative or positive buzz to get in the way, the success of Downey's performance will rest solely on his shoulders.

(* according to Aint It Cool News)

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Flyboys - A Thrill-Ride by Numbers!

There are few things in life that can be done to a human being which are more insidious than poisoning his or her Entertainment with Academia. I hate nothing more than to reach the halfway point in a film only to be assaulted by a History Lesson. Or a Lesson on Ethics/Philosophy/Politics/Whatever.

If I wanted to learn I would read a Magazine article about Learning. Education and Entertainment do not mix. PBS should have taught us that lesson long ago. However, Hollywood continuously churns out film after film based on History. These films purport to be action-based but actually cram our heads with useless knowledge as a way of setting up the next battle sequence.

With Flyboys, Hollywood seems to have learned its lesson. There are no pesky historical contexts to confuse the story which follows a group of Americans who travel to France to become fighter pilots in the early years before America’s official involvement in World War Part One. There are vague allusions to battle lines and missions but mostly the film is about Good Guys getting into aerial dogfights with Bad Guys who are easy to recognize because they are German and therefore completely lacking in humanity. Between these dogfights there are passing references to bombers and a munitions factory. I’m not sure how that plays into the larger conflict or why four bombers holding about ten small bombs each is so important for the war effort, but I like not knowing. I also don’t mind not knowing why the Death Star, or Zeppelin as they call it in this film, is unfazed by hundreds of high caliber bullets but explodes into a fiery ball when hit by a wood-framed biplane. Oops. *Spoiler Alert*

There was also no pesky moralizing or so-called ‘Complicated Characters.’ James Franco is the Loner Turned Leader. Jean Reno is the Stiff Commanding Officer Whose Heart is Thawed by Motley Crew of Soldiers. Also showing up are War Wearied Mentor, Spoiled and Intolerant Rich Boy, PostAdolescent Who Becomes First Casualty of Main Villain, Beautiful Love Interest Who Must Be Rescued and so on and so forth. I could describe each of these characters further but I would succeed only in rephrasing their character types.

In this modern day world of nigh-universal Wi-Fi access to the Internet and televisions with hundreds of channels there is nothing that movies need to teach us. If movies can teach us nothing, then the only thing better than Flyboys is irony, which never ever ever gets old. Ever.

RE: HP 5 Pics

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

We have a major HP 6 & 7-related story for the show tonight, but I just wanted to share this pic I found on the internet. If you've read Order of the Pheonix, then you know this shot comes from a pivotal moment when Harry & Co. are no longer mere children, but worriors in a battle for the fate of our planet. My spine shivered. Literally. I wasn't to big on the idea of hiring a no name director whose previous credits are TV shows for the BBC, but this actually looks like a good movie so far.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix hits theaters July 15th!

Follow this link to see this picture and more all in glorious Hi-Res!

RE: Consider me VERY interested.

Behold, what may very well be one of the greatest films ever...

There are two reasons why I think this film will be awesome:

1.)It’s by Park Chan-wook, the director of Oldboy and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance (AKA Lady Vengeance).

2.)It’s title is I’m a Cyborg But That’s OK.

Allow me to repeat myself in all caps and bold - IT’S TITLE IS I’M A CYBORG, BUT THAT’S OK!!!!

This nut house romantic comedy features a woman, who fancies herself a combat cyborg, as she falls in love with a man who feels he has the power to remove human souls (!).

To view the trailer, click the poster above or right Here!

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Amateur boxer, pseudo-filmmaker - 4, critics - 0

I think it's safe to say that if you're name isn't Rocky Balboa and you're wearing old glory as boxing trunks, you're going to get torn apart in the ring. As reported earlier on the Movie Show (and commented on several hundred times since then) Uwe Boll challenged movie critics under 190 lbs to a boxing match (it would probably also help if you didn't have a background in boxing too I'd guess, but I'm just splitting hairs). Well, the boxing match finally took place and the challengers, Jeff Sneider of Ain't Cool News, Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka from Something Awful, Chris Alexander, and Nelson Chance Minter, all went down fighting in the name of good taste.

I'm curious, is anyone at all surprised by the outcome here? I mean, Boll obviously doesn't have the talent to shut up his critics by making a good film (actually he's incapable of making an even half way decent film), so his solution to it is to beat them up, as long as their in the right weight class. I guess if you make fun of them now, the terrible filmmakers of the world will rise up and physically pound the critics. I guess we all have to watch what we say from now on and look forward to Seed, Postal, In the Name of the King, and Far Cry with a smile.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Thursday's Show

Saturday, September 23, 2006

This week in Trailers

I wanted to comment on Jackass Number 2 before I get down to the trailers I watched during the week. If you were a fan of the show and of the first movie this should be right up your alley (of course that's proven to be not the case I suppose). If you're a bit of a sadist and like to watch people needlessly harm themselves and their friends for your amusement, then this movie is also for you. Seriously, you should know exactly what you're getting into when you see this movie (i.e. dumb stunts that border on creativity at times, why no plot would be a criticism is beyond me). The main problem I saw with the film was that it's a bunch of guys who let go of this a few years ago and for whatever reason decided it was a good idea retread the same territory. There's nothing new about what they're doing whereas when Jackass first started, there really wasn't anything like it on television. Now, while there are still laughs to be had, it all seems a little tired. While most of the stunts were either funny or wince inducing, nothing about it was new, it all seemed exhausted. This is ever evident during the film with Bam, who you can tell in certain areas of the film really didn't want to be there. Most of these guys moved on from Jackass and honestly I think it might be time for the viewing public to do the same.

Now on with the trailers.
The first trailer I have for you is one I've been seeing the promo poster for in the Grande for several weeks now and no clue what it was about and that's Eragon.

To me it seems like this movie is a few years behind when it should've come out. I'm not all that familiar with the Eragon, or the Inheritence Triology but I'm not sure how well this is going to do. It seems to be a little better handled than Dungeons and Dragons (which also starred Jeremy Irons), but at the same time it feels like Dragonheart. The effects look good enough, so maybe my reservations are misplaced, it does have John Malkovich, so the movie does have some pedigree (of course Malkovich was also in Thunderbirds, so what do I know).

Next in our cavalcade of trailers is one that I'm real excited about and that's Renaissance.

I saw this trailer about a month ago and was absolutely floored by the animation. It's the kind of stylized computer animatoin I've been waiting for since the first time I saw Toy Story all those years ago. It stars man who lays claim to the 007 title, Daniel Craig, Ian Holm, and a bunch of other people I've never heard.

Onward we proceed to a movie that I really wish wasn't being made Employee of the Month.

Joe's probably going to kill me for putting this up, but I just wanted to state I'm getting tired of these movies being given to flavors of the month like Dane Cook, who doesn't have an original bone in his body yet has caught on with College students across the country due to the fact that he's a spaz (I'm sick of him obviously). Dax Shepard, Harland Williams, Andy Dick, and the guy who played Pedro (does anyone really care what his name is?) also star in this comedy with scenery being provided by Jessica Simpson.

The final trailer for this week (mainly because I think this is running a little long) is loudQUIETloud: a Film about the Pixies.

This, as the title suggests, is the story of the Pixies reunion. The Pixies are a band that I hold in very high regard as the fourth best band of the 80s (I'll give someone $5 if they can guess two of the three bands above them), but honestly I really don't like Black Francis or whatever he's calling himself this week and I'm of the mind that comebacks or any kind are usually unmitigated disasters. I don't like it when bands get back together, because it always reaks of insincerity. The Pixies broke up because they couldn't get along with each other and Frank Black was a controlling douche bag and why anyone thinks this is going different is probably fooling themselves. Regardless, the documentary looks intriguing.

Well, that's it for the this week. Hopefully I'll be back next week. Remember to show to the movie on time so you can catch the magic that is trailers and know what the studios want you to see in the coming months.


RE: Joe Scott's feeling like a Jackass for watching depraved sequel.

The Motion Picture Association of America needs to have itself checked out. Seriously.
This organization has the power to give movies an R rating, thus allowing children to see them so long as they are with a guardian or really cool uncle, or an NC-17 rating, which means no children are allowed regardless of how cool their uncles might be. The MPAA has used this power a lot - usually on indie fare which probes the more complex issues of human sexuality in a frank manner. But now that I have seen Paramount Pictures' big-budgeted comedy-porno Jackass Number Two, I seriously have to call shenanigans.
And lets make no mistake, folks, Jackass Number Two is a porno, albeit in the worst sort of way. Take a wrong turn on the internet or simply click on the link of a deceitful spam e-mail, and you will find pay-sites where people promise to engage in similar acts depicted in this film for sexual gratification. What does this say for America when the film decency board of our country castigates films which depict passionate acts between consenting adults while giving the okay to the depravity shown in Jackass Number Two?
Normally, this is the part of the review wherein I would find a creative way to segue into a bit of plot synopsis. Unfortunately, I am unable to do so not only because this film doesn't have a plot (it's a porno, remember?), but also because a description of what happens in this film would trigger the internet filters in most people's office or home computers. Let's just say that the only thing the Jackass crew loves more than hurting one another is hurting themselves. The most telling scene arrives when cast member Steve-O attempts to ram a fishing hook through his cheek in order to serve himself up as bait to a school of sharks. Try as he might, Steve-O is unable to complete the act simply because it hurts too much and nearly passes out. A strange thing happens next when partner in crime Chris Pontius puts his arm around Steve-O's neck. Pontius actually seems concerned for a moment. He says, "I got you buddy," in a comforting tone, only to finish jabbing the hook through Steve-O's cheek with his other hand and push him in the water with the deadly creatures of the sea.
There were moments in this film where I did laugh. For instance, there is a hilarious prank wherein acclaimed director Spike Jonze wears a lot of make up to disguise himself as an old lady who has no problem exposing herself in public. The mortified reactions of the people standing around Jonze would have been worth the price of admission if the bulk of the film wasn't so crude or vile.
When the first Jackass movie came out in 2002, I laughed until my face hurt. That intense laugher turned into mild chuckles interrupted with bouts of gagging and wincing for its sequel. I should have realized nearly four years ago, that those were the days. Those were the days when humans only had to launch bottle rockets from their rectums and drink pee-flavored snow cones for the laughter of the crowds.
Those days are obviously gone now, and the boys of Jackass now have to up the ante to life-threatening degrees for popularity. And sadly, they all seem a little more cynical, a little more worse for the wear because of it. I predict that by the time Jackass 3 is released in theaters, one of its founding cast members will be in prison. Or worse, dead.

Note: On last week's show, I reported that the real life jackasses who work for the MPAA decided to slap the trailer for 'Deliver Us From Evil' with a red band, preventing it from being shown in most theaters on TV. Below is the offending trailer. Check it out, and let me know if this is more offensive than a man drinking a male horse's sex fluids

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

In this hand a perfectly ordinary film...

There is a point in any magic act when the magician produces an ordinary object: a card or a coin or maybe a handkerchief. The prestidigitator asks an audience member to examine the object and declare whether or not the coin is in fact merely a coin. When the viewer declares the object to be ordinary the magician then causes the object to do something fantastic: the coin disappears, the card changes faces, the handkerchief turns into a rose.

The Illusionist stars Edward Norton as Eisenheim, a peasant-boy who falls in love with the beautiful Duchess Sophie, played by Jessica Biel, in turn-of-the-century Vienna. When the young lovers are forced apart by their respective social standings Eisenheim the peasant departs from Vienna only to return many years later as Eisenheim the great illusionist. In his absence Duchess Sophie has become engaged to the vicious Prince Leopold, a truly dangerous villain played like a ticking time-bomb by Rufus Sewell. As Eisenheim attempts to bridge the social gap between himself and the object of his affection, Prince Leopold unleashes Chief Inspector Uhl, played by Paul Giamatti, on the magician. Eisenheim pits his sleight-of-hand against Leopold’s corruption and the fate of the Duchess lies in the hands of the winner.

A good film works a lot like a magic act. A filmmaker produces a setting or a scenario familiar to the viewer at least in quality if not in kind. The filmmaker then causes the familiar scenario to be transformed into something fantastic. The viewer is able to look at a love-triangle, for instance, in a way that he or she has been unable to before. The Illusionist adopts elements of the magic act in its representation of the young Viennese love triangle: trickery and obfuscation leave the viewer wondering where the metaphorical coin has vanished to before causing it to magically appear again.

However, as a magic act The Illusionist falls flat. Rather than causing something ordinary to become fantastic, The Illusionist begins with a fantastic premise and molds it into a thoroughly ordinary film. Class issues are brought up-with the disparity in social standing between the lovers as well as with the larger disparity between the monarchy and the commoners- however issues of class are abandoned halfway through the film and never mentioned again.

With the exception of Rufus Sewell’s prince, the best thing to be said about the acting is that everyone showed up. Giamatti seems to be holding the same Get Out Of Jail Free card that Kevin Spacey enjoyed in the late nineties. Edward Norton’s Eisenheim also seems to coast on the steam of other great Norton characters. Jessica Biel’s Duchess Sophie seems content to wait for the men to decide who gets to have her. All the characters make decisions which seem to be rooted less in character development and more in plot requirements.

As the magic act that is The Illusionist winds down, the viewer is left wondering why the characters have done what they have done A great magic act, as well as a great movie, should leave a viewer with a question in his mind. However, this question should be “How?” not “Why?”

Monday, September 11, 2006

About that Lord of the Rings prequel we mentioned on last week's show....

On last Thursday's show, we promised you that we would get to the bottom of this.

Quint, from Aint-it-Cool-News ran a quick blurb from Peter Jackson on the rumored Hobbit film that was nearing production in the coming months ahead. According to Quint, news of the upcoming production was news to P.J., despite the announcement in Variety saying that the award winning director was already on board. Quint also mentioned that Jackson's schedule gets "more crowded every passing week." Considering that he is now producing like a million different movies for Universal, I see what he means.

interestingly enough, the rights of the Hobbit film are still tied up between New Line and MGM. Apparently while New Like owns the rights to actually make the film, the roaring lion has the rights to distribute it. If a movie is to be made, New Line will either have to fork over a lot of cash to MGM to buy them out (something that is highly unlikely - when your biggest hit of the year so far is The Pink Panther remake, a studio like MGM needs a movie like this to boost their non-existent bottom line), or the two of them will have to work together.

I said this on the show, and I am going to say it again. I really think a theatrical film based on the Hobbit is a terrible idea. The book is too silly to either be done accurately or in a way that will live up to the previous trilogy's hordes of fans. There are no epic battles, and the story is just as goofy as the Hobbiton scenes from the original film. New Line could essentially sidestep MGM's distribution rights and release the film as a mini-series on HBO (a la Band of Brothers), make a shit ton of money on DVD sales, and call it a day without creating the mass disappointment or inaccuracy that will be a Hobbit live-action film. I now leave you with two fan-made trailers for the Hobbit. One is great while the other is not so much. I will let you guess which is which for yourself.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Joe Scott finds mixed terrain in Hollywoodland.

What if the conclusion of Oliver Stone's JFK depicted the lawyer Kevin Costner played giving up after a relentless legal battle for the truth, and saying, "All right, all right, so the Warren Report was the most accurate account of the Kennedy assassination!"

I would be kinda frustrated to say the least, and that's exactly how I felt after watching Hollywoodland, a film that suggests the tragic suicide of former Superman actor George Reeves (no relation to Christopher) may have been a murder instead. The only problem is that, in the end, the movie agrees with the LAPD's version of events. Unfortunately, screenwriter Paul Bernbaum tried to turn the film into an investigation anyway.

Adrien Brody plays private eye Lois Simo, who searches for the answers about Reeve's death in the most by the numbers detective plot in recent movie history. Simo is everything the movies tell us a great investigator should be: he's liar, a heavy drinker, and a terrible husband and father. And while most movie detectives with crummy lives are redeemed by witty wordplay and tough guy dialogue, Brody finds no such luck.

There's a scene where Simo confronts seedy MGM head Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins), and says, "We got people in common with each other."

Mannix fires back, "We got nothing in common." And that's it. There's no comeback from Simo, no putdown, and most importantly, no cool.

There is also the scene where Simo comes enters a darkened living room and tries in vain to turn on the lights. I told my friend sitting next to me this is the part where the detective gets threatened and beat up by goons. Too bad I wasn't wrong.

So why does the movie try - and fail - to engagingly investigate something that it doesn't believe is a mystery? Well, the entire mystery plot of the film is nothing more than a framing device for the biography of George Reeves. I only wish that the mystery portions had been better, because the scenes dedicated to Reeves's life were good.

Aside from physical similarities, Affleck was the most obvious choice to play Reeves. Both actors played superheroes (Affleck played Daredevil); both were featured in dramas that centered around Pearl Harbor - Reeves in the award winning From Here to Eternity and Affleck in the money squandering Pearl Harbor; both had drinking problems; and both had waning careers.

It was odd in a way. There were scenes in the film where Reeves works hard to maintain his waning smile in lieu of a failing career, and since a string of flops has put Affleck in the same situation, I felt at times like I was watching a documentary.

Diane Lane portrays Mannix's wife, who is depicted here using Reeves like a sexual fountain of youth in exchange for lavish gifts. She buys Reeves a house and assures him that her powerful husband won't mind their liaison since he has a mistress of his own as well. This all leads to the most inventive part in the movie when Reeves joins Mr. and Mrs. Mannix as well as Mannix's mistress for dinner at a restaurant. Both Reeves and the mistress are regarded by the elder couple as children, and when Reeves tries to small talk the mistress. "She doesn't speak English!" Scolds Mannix as if he were Reeve's father.

There were other highlights to this part of the film, but the dramatic tension was interrupted again and again by the needless mystery. The tragic life and death of George Reeves is interesting enough. So why did the film makers take so much talent and money only to shoot themselves in the foot with an added strolling that wasn't even necessary? Now that's the mystery I would like for Adrien Brody to solve.

Rotten Green Tomatoes

Rotten Green Tomatoes is a new feature that I am going to try out on the website that will appeal mostly to our Greensboro readers. It will be much like Rotten Tomatoes, a website that gathers the opinions of the world's film critics, only it will focus on Greensboro (Rotten Green Tomatoes - Get it?).

There are currently three print film critics working in Greensboro - Yes Weekly's Glenn Baity, The Carolinian's Roger Priddy, and, when he is not using his column to review the rest of the known universe, The Rhino Times' Orson Scott Card. I intend to add a link to each of their reviews each week in order to give exposure to other film opinions in the Triad. Mind you, this is something I am going to try out for a while. If it doesn't work, I'll stop:

This week, Orson Scott Card says he really dug How to Eat Fried Worms:

"If this movie was going to make anybody chuck the bunny, it would have been [my daughter]. And it didn't. So it probably won't nauseate you either."
Click here for more!

Roger Priddy says Little Miss Sunshine is the best movie of the year so far:

"But Little Miss Sunshine finds that magical mesh. It's real, while at the same time being funny. It's funny, while at the same time being real. Heaven."
Click here for more!

And lastly (but definitely not least-ly) Glen Baity finds Neil LaBute's Wicker Man remake to be a mediocre waste of a great cast's collective talents:

"[Neil Labute] heads down a whole new path with The Wicker Man, which is every bit as unintentionally hilarious as Snakes on a Plane was supposed to be. The film's lone saving grace - and this is arguable - is that it might be extraordinary in its mediocrity, making it that rare picture so thoroughly impervious to its own flaws that it demands repeat viewing. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen, but the film surely misses its intended mark. ."

Click here for more!

The new Bond trailer, plus an open letter to the people who hate Daniel Craig.

Dear Misguided Fans,

I simply cannot understand why you do not like Daniel Craig. First, he was cool as hell in Matthew Vaughn's Layer Cake. Second, he played a bad-assed spy in Steven Spielberg's Munich . Do you seriously think that it is beyond his capabilities to play a cool as hell, bad-assed spy? If you haven't seen either of these films, please do so or shut your under-qualified mouths until the release of Casino Royale.

The oddest complaint that I have read from your camp is that Craig would make a terrible Bond because he is quote "odd-looking", or "ugly". If only most of us could be as unattractive as Craig. I honestly feel that what you interpret as ugliness is in fact rugged manliness. So what if Daniel Craig has no place on a runway. I could honestly say the same for Sean Connery, but neither of the two actors are CHUD's (i.e. fugly), and you know it.

If anything, Pierce Brosnan looked too pretty for the role. Brosnan's looks were too polished, too tanned, and too impeccable for a man with an occupation in danger, and the only time I really gave a crap for the Bond he played was when he looked tormented in the opening of the horrible Die Another Day.

Lastly, I have heard enough from the people who wish Clive Owen had played the next Bond. The dude turned down the part because he didn't like the risk of being typecasted. That's exactly what happened to Brosnan, who will be forced to play a variation of his Bond character until the day he dies. Perhaps this is why he demanded the alleged $ 35 million paycheck that caused him to be fired to begin with.

Craig has the potential to be a great Bond, and this trailer displays this truth in full effect. The film focuses on Bond's transition to becoming a killer at the beginning of his career, and Craig seems to handle this challenging scenario with stone-cold grace. I like that, rather than channeling Connery's legendary performance, Craig is trying something new, which was the entire point behind this production in the first place

Joe Scott

P.S. If there was a just reason to not like the newest Bond film - it would be because it is not the Quentin Tarrantino directed period film that EON pictures and the Broccoli family were to foolish to greenlight two years ago. Tarrantino wanted to explore Bond's character and give the franchise a sense of genuine dramatic tension - something Pierce himself said the limping franchise desperately needed.
Thursday's show.

Can't say I am especially proud of this one. While Mike and Steve were definitely on top of their game, I have been feeling exhausted. I have had this new job for two weeks, a job that requires me to speak to various companies on the phone all day. Speaking on the phone to various companies is, in many ways, like being in the radio, so by the time I am finished with work, I am all broadcasted out before I come to the station. I plan to remedy the situation this week by shifting my work and task schedules so that I will be more rested when I show up to the station.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Transformers that can't possibly Transform?

While the original Transformers cartoon featured toy robots that were quote, ((makes cheesy robot voice) "more than meets the eye," the upcoming film based on the same cartoon may feature robots that are more than what could possibly be transformed - in toy form that is.

Aint-it-cool-news released a full on photo spread of Optimus Prime this week:

Look at all of this detail - waisted on my ass 'fer chrissakes!

The head is fine.

While I have no problem with the design of Prime's face, the rest of his body is simply over-articulated. Seriously, did someone hand all of the cartoons and toys to the art direction team and say, 'Here, go pig-shit on this wild baby!'

Aint-it-cool writer Merrick raises another legitimate gripe.
He writes:

Also, I’m having a bit of trouble understanding how toys with such awkward skeletal frameworks will actually be able to transform. I mean, a kid could sever fingers trying to shove all of these protrusions back under the hood of a semi. ‘Twould be a strange irony indeed if a movie based on toys called “Transformers” was supported by a toy line that didn’t transform."

Great point. And before someone goes off saying, "Well, there's obviously no way the design of the cartoon and toy series could work in an actual live action film," I want to cut him or her off by saying, WRONG! Several indie filmmakers have already made faithful - yet fairly decent - live action Transformer sequences with little to no money:

This dancing robot clip was made by Neil Blomkamp, who will be directing the upcoming Halo movie. (Maybe they should have hired him to direct Transformers)

Here is a fake trailer some fanboys made that already looks like a decent film in its own right. I really dug the evil copy machine from Japan. (A special kudos is due for the use of the Transformers animated movie theme by defunct hair metal band Lion)

This one features a robot very similar to Optimus Prime. While made by amateurs, it looks less retarded than the one we are going to get in theaters.

Here's a preview someone made for the Sci-Fi Channel.

So as you can see, making the live-action Transformers loyal to its toy and animated roots would not only be easy for Michael Bay to do, but it's already been done by countless other people for way less money than Bay will be getting for his film. So why is Bay supporting all these changes?

In an online interview, Bay said he wanted to humanize these robotic characters so that they could emote. When I read this line, I remember thinking to myself, 'Uh, I thought you were Michael Bay?' Seriously, this guy can't even humanize humans - he's too distracted by cars, airplanes, and big explosions. This is why I thought he would have been perfect for the project from the get-go. I believed Michael Bay's entire career up to this has been leading up to a point where he could push his human characters (or lack thereof) aside in lieu of talking cars and machines. I guess I could be wrong....