Be Kind Rewind (Theatre) - Ashleigh

Michel Gondry’s work is certainly unique. If you have seen any of his previous work from his music videos to the four films that he has created there is a similar thread running through each piece that imbues a child like awe when viewing his work. Gondry is a wizard of the old school of film making, though he occasionally uses special effects, most of his visually stunning work is simple camera tricks exploited to their fullest extent, and Be Kind Rewind is no exception. In fact, I believe it is the purpose of this film. I can picture the meeting to get this film green lit going like so:
Gondry: I want to make classic films that everyone knows and loves using only technology that a pair of idiots can get their hands on.
Studio Head: What?
Gondry: Like if two guys simply made every classic film.
Studio Head: What?
Gondry: Like if two guys tried to make King Kong with a super 8 machine, one guy standing real close to the camera and the other guy stands far away to simulate depth. You know. The close guy is King Kong the far guy is an onlooker – depth.
Studio Head: What?
And though Gondry successfully pulls this feat off with a spectacular flourish it is lacking something very important. This was my problem with his previous work, Science of Sleep (2006), though the visually stunning pieces in both movies were eye-popping, how-did-he-do-that masterpieces, the story took a back seat. This is also why Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) succeeded where these two movies fail. With Eternal Sunshine Charlie Kaufman’s story was accented with Gondry’s visual flair, but Gondry sans Kaufman is like the Jagger-Bowie collabortaion, “Daning in the Street”: all flash, no substance.

The movie opens with a confusing biopic about a jazz piano player named Fats Waller. This biopic is played in pieces through the film and threads together the story like a loose fitting sweater draped over the idea of recreating previous films. This also plays as a theme for Gondry’s filmmaking itself, jazzy and improvisational, skirting convention with sour notes and syncopation, but it does not let him off the hook for his lazy story telling. Jerry, played by Jack Black who once again overplays the annoying sidekick he once hit perfectly in High Fidelity, and Mike, played with a little too much sap by Mos Def, are forced to recreate a slew of VHS tapes that were destroyed. They dub this sweding a film (it had something to do with Sweden and Jack Black rambling, so I lost what this meant) and then become minor celebrities as their sweded films are more popular than the original. But this story line takes far too long to get to and the film recreations, the meat and potatoes, are few and far between. Gondry hits a few sweet notes with his display of filmmaking as a community affair bringing people together to create art, which is a nice little band-aid for this post-writer’s strike Hollywood, but the overall plot seems shoehorned into the desire to recreate classic films.

6.5 out of 10: Visually melodic when it wants to be, but, like pop music, missing any real substance.

This is a mind blowing piece Gondry did a few years back.
Steriograms - Walkie Talkie Man
Director: Michel Gondry

Vantage Point (Theatre) - Jennie

I’ll have to be honest here, I thought this concept could have been good. It was possible. I have seen T.V. shows pull this kind of plot device off with fantastic results. This device goes as follows; the viewer is treated to one scene after another as seen through the eyes of only one character. Other character’s stories are advancing around them; however, we are not privy to their motivations till we see their view point. It is often very difficult to keep the full details of the plot from slipping out while advancing through the earlier character’s stories and revealing just enough to keep the viewer enticed is a key element to this plot device’s success. Confusion is also very hard to escape as some early character’s actions seem very unmotivated and haphazard. However, redundancy is the largest of hazards that can fell this device. Vantage Point fails in all of these areas and more.

Instead of artfully hiding information as to not reveal too much, they simply don’t show the action. Case in point, when Thomas Barnes, played by Dennis Quaid, saw a traitor on a television screen, they held the shot on Barnes, and we got some pathetic eye acting from Quaid. Revealing this information would have destroyed the plot, so instead they simply shot Barnes’ reaction and faded to white, and proceeded to the next character’s story.

Also, Characters motivations were seemingly left up to the viewer to interpret, leading to confusion as to why Forrest Whitaker’s character, Howard Lewis, would run after a supposed assassin when he was simply a tourist with a video camera. I guess he just had to see what happened with the assassin. We were never given a reason for him to follow the action, however his character had to be in the final shot, so he ran for no reason.

Finally, Vantage Point had no qualms with being redundant. They showed the explosion eight or nine times. They replayed character’s interaction; I guess so the viewer didn’t forget what happened. They milked every ounce they could from every car crash that happened, replaying the scenes multiple times.

The failure of the device is the cornerstone to this waste of a movie, but it was not helped by the lackluster performances of some pretty solid actors. The script was stale, with dialog like, “I’ve got you now Mr. President.” And even if these “vantage points” succeeded it would still have been a stale plot about terrorists attempting to sabotage America. It even contained the down but not out cop (secret service agent) who came back to prove he wasn’t done yet, only to end up saving the day (Harrison Ford’s role was played by Dennis Quaid this time).

I must add that Jennie liked it, though. She enjoyed the car chase scenes and that is pretty much all she told me. I prodded for more after declaring, “What a stinkbug,” as we left the theatre, but she didn’t want to placate me with more discussion.

2.5 out of 10: A waste of time, money, and brain cells. Redundant, stale, and annoying.

Jumper (Theatre) - Both

I'm not an adventurous eater, but I have a rule, I will try anything once. This certainly doesn't mean I'll like it, but I'll try it. The same can be said about works of Science Fiction for me. Jennie and I recently got into Jericho, I watched three or four episodes of Firefly this morning, I'll even watch the occasional Star Trek and enjoy it, so I warn you I enjoy Science Fiction stuff a little more than most and will try any of it once.
With that being said Jumper is mediocre at best. Jumper is half taken from a Steven Gould book from the early nineties and half taken from the Matrix. The parts it adds seem to fit quit nicely and add a villain for the protagonist which were absent from the book. Hayden Christensen the cardboard prop from the Star Wars prequels plays David Rice a young outcast, aren't they all, who discovers an ability to teleport. At first he can't really figure out why or how this works but he eventually learns the rules to jumping and uses them to runaway from his abusive dad, aren't they all, and gain wealth. Years pass and David finds that there is a police force to protect the world against Jumpers and this causes David to go underground and return to his home. The movie's multiple cliché relationships create some drama, but lack any weight for the viewer to muster up any emotion for them. His relationship with a childhood crush is the catalyst to most of the movies forward momentum. He takes her to Rome and gives her a Jumper Date allowing him to get into places normal people couldn't. This scene takes far to long and I simply lost interest here. He gets caught, she finds some reason to hate him, he finds some reason to save her, he finds some way to escape the Jumper police, it is all very action filled, and about as much fun as it sounds.
I have to admit, I like the concept. I actually think this would have made a pretty good t.v. show, all the pieces were there, but the movie was just an abridged version of an idea and because of that it lacked any real power.

5 out of 10: mundane execution, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (Dvd) - Ashleigh

Ever since Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine (2002) documentaries have had a resurgence in popularity. Super Size Me (2004), March of the Penguins (2005), An Inconvenient Truth (2006) have all ridden this wave to fame and fortune. But all of these movies, excluding March of the Penguins, have been reviled as they have been revered, with naysayers and voices of decent crying charlatan and hoax at the filmmakers and their subjects. I say this only to put you in the frame of mind I was in when starting this film. I was looking for the director, Seth Gordon, to play on my preconceived notions (of what, I’m not sure, but documentarians lie right? They show us only half the truth - don’t they? They show us only what they want us to see - right?)

Billy Mitchell, the long lost brother of Wolf from American Gladiators, is the world champion of Donkey Kong. His record of 874,200 in 1982 is the best in the world (actually this is a lie; in 2000 Tim Sczerby obtained 879,200, the current record at the making of this film.) But Billy is also a world class villain. There is no documentary trick to make this guy into any more of an ass than he is. He is simply an arrogant, egotistical – gamer? In Billy’s own words, “Well, maybe they'd like it if I lose. I gotta try losing sometime.” The documentary shows very little of his family life, it contains damning footage of him being overly aggressive in his business practices, and he is a no-show in the one chance the documentary gives him to defend himself. But, he is the villain and the documentarian shows this with a lot of help from Billy.

Steve Wiebe is our hero. He is a nice guy who is dragged into the sorted world of competitive gaming and despite the pressure and upsets he maintains his nice guy persona. Steve is often overlooked, he takes second place in everything, and was recently let go from his job when the movie starts (he becomes a teacher while filming, I can’t think of nobler profession). You can’t dream of a better guy to take on the likes of Billy “Wolf” Mitchell.

The movie sets up that Steve beats Billy score, on videotape, one night in his garage and sends it to Twin Galaxies, the retro gaming record holders and friends of Billy. Steve is given the record and a small amount of fame in his local town. But then referees from Twin Galaxies come out to Steve’s town and look at his machine and claim that the machine is tampered with and thus the score is revoked, giving Billy the record back. (Actually this is a lie; Wiebe held the high score at the moment his score was revoked, and it reverted back to Steve’s high score.) Steve then goes out to FunSpot, a Retro gaming Mecca, to beat the score live and compete against Billy face to face. Billy sends a videotape. Steve beats Billy’s score live (the now reigning live high score), but Billy’s videotape, a scrambled mess of glitches and odd time stops, shows Billy reaching over a million points and Steve’s achievement is forgotten. In this moment the movie shines showing Steve’s everyman defeat against the cogs of the Twin Galaxies and Billy’s suspect tape. Steve’s plight is tangible at this moment as he is helpless to defeat the genius of Billy’s villainy. I won’t go into any more detail here.
This documentary certainly tries its hardest to make you root for Steve and fear and hate Billy. And even when I knew I was being shown half-truths and pandering I still rooted for Steve. You can’t help it. Billy is a villain without the cameras. Steve is a good guy without Donkey Kong. While I understood Steve’s emotional, family loving character could have been a construct of the filmmaker; it’d be hard to fake. And while Billy’s character could have been selective quotes and sharp edits; it’d be hard to fake.

8 out of 10: A fantastic underdog tale that will unexpectedly draw you in.

The Brave One (Dvd) - Jennie

If someone is a bad person do they deserve to live? Can you kill a criminal without feeling guilt? Is it O.K. to murder someone who breaks our rules? Vigilantes – the romantic heroes that pervade justice and right without the hassle of jurist’s prudence can murder, but should we cheer for them? It seems there is some level of society that feels that vigilantism is fine and good, they do the policeman’s job when they legally can’t. This movie speaks to these individuals - a frightening concept in my mind, championing the murder of “bad guys”. Erica Bain’s (Jodie Foster) fiancé is beaten to death by minority stereotypes causing her to see the fear that she always overlooked in her beloved New York City. This fear envelopes her and shows her that it was always there, under the surface, she had previously ignored it. This is the impetus for murder. The movie then turns into the most unlucky series of contrived situations allowing Erica to murder without her looking like a “bad guy” herself.
A man runs into a bodega shoots his ex over a custody dispute, clearly a bad guy, so Erica murders him back. A Detective Mercer, played by Terrence Howard, is on the case. Then, while riding a subway, two minority stereotypes steal a guys iPod, call an old guy homosexual, and threaten to rape Erica with a knife, clearly bad guys, so Erica murders them. Detective Mercer is on the case. Then, while walking around central park and pimp propositions her to join is cadre and locks her in a car with another girl he has captured, clearly a bad guy, so Erica murders him. Detective Mercer is on the case.
I have many problems with this series of events that happen. As my wife pointed out, who gets into all these life threatening, bad guy revealing, situations in a life time, let alone in a span of four months or so? Also, were these bad guys worthy of murder? The subway goons only stole an iPod and threatened rape - no jury would sentence them to death. Dangerous, yes - justifiable murder, no. And Mercer would not have caught all those cases – ever (I know that it is a writer’s prerogative to suspend disbelief but – come on! Mercer starts piecing the puzzle together after the second murder. That would never happen). Logistically this movie was a mess.
The directing was marginable at best. I hate it when directors feel the only way to fully portray claustrophobia or panic is by tilting the camera this way and that in an attempt to disorient the viewer. I believe a good actor can portray this sort of emotion without rookie camera tricks, and Jodie Foster is a quality actor. Why choose this campy method? Jordan does allow Mercer and Erica to gradually realize one is on to the other in a series of beautiful scenes shot with the clarity and understanding. The two actors trade knowing glances as they reveal themselves through a mirror.
The ending could have given the movie a chance to justify itself by having Mercer turn in his now close friend as he has figured it all out. She is a murderer; admittedly, she shouldn’t get away with it. But, no, Mercer gives her a way out and lets her go since he cares for her. Wait, what? Meaning vigilantism is fine as long as there is an excuse? I guess bad guys deserve to die even without their day in court as long as they're bad guys.

4 out of 10: Allows for some interesting discussion on vigilantism/capitol punishment, but logistical nightmares and a disregard for society pollute the viewing experience.

The Invasion (Dvd) - Both

At first glance this movie is a modern Hollywood science fiction thriller. Aliens inhabit bodies; try to take over the world, things explode. And if that is what you go into this movie expecting you will be disappointed. I believe this is why this movie was panned almost universally. I came into it expecting just that and was pleasantly surprised that is was not. Yes, this does happen (and there is an explanation as to why) but not in the Will Smith July 4th blockbuster way. This movie attempts to make a very shallow message with its bodysnatching. I’m sure the original did so as well, but having not seen it I cannot vouch for its success in this area. This message, that humans are themselves a destructive force to humanity. Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman) finds that the world is being taken over by an entity that fell from space that inhabits humans like a common cold (through the blood or bodily fluids). When the humans fall asleep the alien inhabitant is given the ability to put the human into a permanent mode of R.E.M. sleep and thus control it forever, the human looks the same but acts as if they were on some pretty good medication. This method of bodysnatching gives the film a pretty good plot device that the writer exploits. Carol is given the virus pretty early in the movie, and thus has to stay awake for the remainder of the movie, lest she turns. Since the aliens can’t identify themselves she only has to act without emotion to blend in. This lends the film its most suspenseful and successful moments. Carol walks down streets with eerily vacant crowds and must remain calm. The film emits a claustrophobic feeling by just following her. Where the film falls apart is when it turns into the blockbuster it never wanted to be.
Let me give you a little history.
Around October 30, 2005 the film was finished with no green screen action and minimal visual effects by director Oliver Hirschbiegel, this version did not seem viable to the studios (interpret: needed more explosions) and thus the Wachowski brothers were enlisted to infuse it with action. After 17 days and 10 million dollars the film was finished, again.
These “infused with action” scenes are quit obvious, and slowly rip at the films message, integrity, and quality as each extra flies from each resulting explosion till we are left a Nicole-Kidman-saves-the-day moment. Sad, really. I guess studios really know what the public wants…
And this is the general quandary of this film. I believe the film did not succeed because it wasn’t a Blockbuster Alien flick, but it wasn’t a subtle suspense film either. It attempted to be both, and you cannot serve two masters. Might it have been successful without the magic touch of the Wachowski brothers, I think so.

4 out of 10: While it remains subtle, this film works, but when it strays from its origins it fails miserably.

Rocket Science (Dvd) - Ashleigh

This film falls into the categorization of such films like Thumbsucker (2005) and to a lesser extent Juno (2007), a film about high school angst through the eyes of an outcast. This film’s outcast is Hal Hefner, played by Reece Thompson, a shy 15 year old whose debilitating stutter leaves him leery of the spotlight. Thompson gives a fantastic performance that leaves me looking forward to his promise as an actor. His character is enjoyable to watch and easy to side with which is fortunate as Hal’s stutter could have been as debilitating to the movie as it is to his character. The film opens with the state championship debater Ben Wekselbaum, played by Hero’s Nicholas D'Agosto, fervently spouting his resolve while his partner Virginia Ryerson, played by Anna Kendrick, looks on with a mix of desire and respect. Wekselbaum suddenly is silenced by an unknown force and we are introduced to Hal. These three character’s involve themselves in each other’s lives in varying degrees eventually leading to Hal’s attempts at debating. Virginia’s character is erudite and purposeful in enlisting Hal as her partner for competition after Wekselbaum lost the championship for her in the opening sequence. Hal, not being used to the attention, let alone being stunned by the proposal of him stammering publically trying to speak, is drawn to Virginia and this incites purpose into Hal. This movie could have turned into a Rocky/Mighty Ducks-type film where the hero gets over his stutter to win the debate and save the day, but it doesn’t - and this saves the movie. The ending is perfect in its delivery giving Hal small victories in love and in life but not going as far as to ruin it by having an entirely fairy tale ending. The soundtrack, however, stripped scenes often being obtrusive and misplaced. The arrangements were sparse and somewhat spastic which made it feel like a trying rip-off of a Wes Anderson score. The dialog, on the other hand, was hyper articulate and surprisingly accurate for a high school movie.

8 out of 10: This movie succeeds with a fantastic performance and an ending that satisfies, despite its debilitating soundtrack.

There Will Be Blood (Theatre) - Ashleigh

I had high hopes for this film. I have enjoyed Daniel Day-Lewis’ performances in the past and he is one of the few actors I actually follow. This movie is on the top of many lists this year, and is up for eight Oscars. But to be blunt, I was not fond of the movie. Daniel Plainview played by Daniel Day-Lewis is a riveting character. The performance is as powerful as Day-Lewis’ Bill the Butcher with just a little bit of compassion thrown in. He commands the screen with the power of a father and a shrewd businessman. His antagonist, Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano was equally well constructed. I would posit that Dano may have gotten the better of Day-Lewis but for Day-Lewis’ subtle work when he is not at the height of emotion. This movie portrays two actors at the pinnacle of their craft. Yet, I was not fond of the movie. The soundtrack was beautifully constructed with careful attention to the nuanced performances and the bleak setting. The largely stringed arrangement ebbed through the starkly captured American west holding the viewer on edge in anticipation of God-only-knows. However, I was not fond of the movie. The two most powerful scenes, a mirror of each other, where to two protagonists battle each other in a desperate attempt to destroy the other left me drained. They defy each other to denounce their religions, one who’s devotion to himself is selfish at best and megalomaniacal at worst, and the other whose devotion to God is frighteningly posed. Each one falls to the other's demands and in the end are destroyed by the other. These scenes alone are some of the most powerful put to film this year. Though, I was not fond of the film.
My largest complaint is the misstep in introducing Paul, Eli’s brother. The confusion this character represents deflates Dano’s character’s motives. Is he Eli? Many critics think so, despite P.T. Anderson’s denial. If he is not and is the twin of Eli, where was he the rest of the film? I know Daniel gave a synopsis of his life to Eli in their final battle - this actually was a barb Daniel pushed into Eli to draw blood, but that fact makes the character even more confusing. P.T. Anderson’s refusal to construct a plot also hinders my admiration for this film. This is common practice for Anderson, and one of the cardinal reason why I haven’t enjoyed most of his work. I’m not saying all movies need a plot, but Anderson pretends he has constructed one, and I hate this lie.

6 out of 10: I wouldn’t recommend this film, but the acting is beyond anything I’ve seen in the last year.

27 Dresses (Theatre) - Jennie

I’m no longer into Romcoms. I feel in the early days of the genre there was substance to these movies. I could be wrong, but here we go. Think about films like When Harry Met Sally (1989) and Splash (1984). These movies were directed by the likes of Ron Howard and written by Nora Ephron. This wasn’t a throw away genre. True, young actors who were barely in their prime were staring in these projects, much like 27 Dresses’ Katherine Heigl. And yes, the plots were formulaic. Harry did literally run after Sally. But Hollywood recognized that these films were well made. Nora Ephron got nominated for an Oscar for writing When Harry Met Sally, even though there was a stale chase scene at the end of the movie.
These days this genre is as much, if not more, of a subgenre as Sci-Fi, which brings me back to the name, Romcom. Much like the Sci-Fi genre these movies are slowly becoming written for a very small subgroup of moviegoers. Women made up 75% of the population that went to see this movie. 75% (I have stats if you wish)! And let me tell you, it was made for them. The male characters were two-dimensional props stood up next to the female leads as eye candy for the female viewership. This mirrors nicely with the Sci-fi genre were the females seem to be eye candy for the largely male viewers (just watch any Sci-Fi channel original movie. I swear those ladies were plucked from the nearest porn set in the exact costumes they were in).
This movie made me cringe at multiple times. The movie opens with Jane Nichols (Katherine Heigl) attending two weddings at once where, we are to understand, she is the glue that holds the ceremony together. At the end of each wedding Jane is thanked in front of the whole crowd by the bride. I do not remember seeing the groom once in either ceremony. We are then introduced to Jane’s life where she is under appreciated and takes care of everyone, ahhhh. The venerable bridesmaid of Romcoms, Judy Greer, plays the same role she always plays as Jane’s best friend/coworker at Urban Everest where Jane is an assistant to George (Edward Burns). George is a wealthy philanthropic dogooder who is the object of Jane’s affection. He obviously hasn’t noticed this yet. This is about all we will ever know of George's character, though he is one of the leads. The second male lead, and the winner of Jane’s affections by the end of the movie is Kevin (James Marsden). He is the commitments writer for the New York Journal, but hates weddings and marriage in general. Kevin did have some pretty nice oneliners about how horribly capitalistic the wedding industry is but the writers quickly doused that fire before it could turn any of the audience members off of his character. They explain that he is cynical about weddings because, gasp, he had the perfect wedding before and his wife left him for his college roommate (when this was reveled I heard sighs from the theatre, literal sighs.) Kevin dates Jane, Jane almost falls for Kevin, Kevin betrays Jane, Jane returns to George, George realizes the truth about Jane, they kiss, nothing is felt, Jane realizes Kevin is right for her, perfect wedding, end!
I can't portray the kind of loathing that I have for poorly made movies like these. Why waste the time, the money, the film? I know these movies aren’t made for me. But, it corrupts the delusional minds of the viewers into thinking that weddings are magical egotistical days where the man is an afterthought and the perfect dress can and should cost more than 10,000 dollars. Come to think of it, much like the sci-fi genre corrupts the delusional minds of its viewers into thinking that with the right construction of rings they can travel to different dimensions. Romcoms nerds are the new Sci-Fi nerds. But I fear that while the Sci-Fi nerds know that that is fiction, the Romcom nerds do not. Here’s to hoping.

4 out of 10: watchable, but contains more cliches than you can shake a stick at.

P.S. Jennie told me to say that women could enjoy it.

Cloverfield (Theatre) - Both

The marketing for this film was, in my opinion, sheer genius. If you watched Transformers this summer you were treated to a preview that portrayed a going away party. This party seemed pretty normal till all hell broke loose and screaming, running, and general mayhem took over. The last shot saw the head of the statue of liberty fly by and land in the street, ripped from its body. The last sound was someone yelling, "I saw it, it's alive, it's huge!" Then no name, no nothing, just 1-18-08 (the release date).
Now, most people have come to know that this is a monster movie. Simple. Monster comes - attacks city - people panic, but Cloverfield has its niche. Not only does it succeed as a solid monster film, it also adds a chaotic first person view. This allows Cloverfield to succeed beyond the other alumni. The sometimes nausea inducing camera work plays to the fear accompanying the characters as they make there way through the hoops the writers make them transverse. The drawback of this device is that there always had to be a reason someone was taping everything, which in a run for your life situation, seems pretty ludicrous. The writers didn’t necessarily succeed in coming up with reasons for this, but I can forgive them this in most instances.
I have seen Cloverfield likened to The Blair Witch Project (July 1999) which I can see, but I believe that is a shallow reference. Yes, the first person view lends itself to the reference, but that is about it. Ultimately this reference simply states that this is the only other movie to have used this device so successfully. However, I would liken it to The Host (July 2006) a South Korean monster movie that, if you watch, seems to be Cloverfield's long-lost brother. I can picture J.J. Abrams sitting with his buddies watching it and saying, “We should totally make a monster flick!” The similarities are many, but the most glaring would have to be its devotion not to the monster, but to the characters. Abram’s film focused on the humans in the situation and not the monster. The monster was an afterthought, a catalyst, but defiantly not the focus. This is why both of these movies succeed and movies like Godzilla (1998 film) fail so miserably. This is not to say the writers did this that well, the dialog was vapid, the characters were thin, and their motivations were confusing, but it is always interesting to see humans react, even unsuccessfully, to sheer terror.
Spoiler Alert:
The way this movie ranks so high to me though, is that it does the one thing you expect to happen when and if a monster were to attack an island. Everyone dies. I love that. It makes everything seem that much more realistic (I know, I know). But, they die too late. The movie would have been a complete success if the Manhattan scenes ended about five minutes earlier than they did: when the helicopter crashes. End it. *Crackle* It’s still alive *Crackle* then Coney Island scene. But no, they had to have a soliloquy by the last two characters before they die. Ho Hum. The second ending, the Coney Island scene was great. And did you see the monster’s origin in that scene? Or did you miss it?

8 out of 10: Succeeded on all levels that it wanted to, at times the melodrama was too much.

Transformers Trailer: