Up to the Atmosphere, Up where the Robots Resolve their Age-Old Battle

I like to go to the movies. Yes, I enjoy "good" movies, and a plot is usually a plus, as well as good acting, realistic visuals, and a soundtrack that does not detract from the story. However, I'll generally go to a movie if it looks like fun or if my friends want to see it--generally my major criterion is the escape from reality.

That may be why I laughed through all of "Wanted", "Transformers II" and "Year One", as bad as they were. My friends had fun, and I enjoyed the silly antics of people who should either be capable of far better work, or people who are probably just running with the momentum that lets them play pretend for a living. Hell, if I were given a chance to be in any of those movies, I'd take the opportunity, and I wouldn't be even remotely ashamed for it. Why not have fun? Why not accept that people like loud noises and skimpy clothing and document it on film so someone can escape their dull or stressful lives? So it's dumb and not even remotely realistic--does that make it wrong? Does that make it inferior? My thought is: only if we believe in it.

My friends and I recently went to see the new Transformer's movie, and for the most part came to the consensus that it was utter crap. However, one pal saw it as fantastic, and I can't say that I blame him. It delivered all that it promised--explosions, Megan Fox, robots from space, Megan Fox running, epic-type battles, and Megan Fox running amidst explosions. ...

So it was inane, poorly acted, and frivolous. Well, I saw "Public Enemies" this week as well, and that lacked any sort of plot that people saw anyway (although I happen to believe that when it's history, it doesn't need any more of a plot than what actually happened). I enjoyed watching Depp and Bale together, and Depp was great with Cotillard, who convinced me that I have to see "La Vie en Rose". However, the cinematography in "Transformers" far outperformed that of "Public Enemies". The acting in "Transformers" was a little nauseating, but the camera work in "Public Enemies" actually almost made me sick. The shaky vision deal had its place and time, just like Dillinger and Purvis had theirs--it was not the same. The new trick made the old dogs seem less relevent somehow, reverting a fascinating tale to some sort of art school project that had the right parts but the wrong person putting them together.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like doing this. I hate to admit that "Transformers" was better than two of my favorite actors in a historical drama. It's a damn good genre when done correctly, and the movie had the potential to be amazing. I think, though, that it crumbled under its ambitions and instead turned into that proverbial road to hell. No, the film wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that good either, and the disappointment hurt. At least I didn't expect anything from "Transformers".

For that matter, I'll bring this to another movie that did something interesting. I saw "Up," a movie that turned out to be as spectacular as the hype had implied. It was beautiful, both visually and emotionally. It was stunning in its ability to elicit whatever feeling it wanted, and I felt myself laughing through tears, so sharp were the turns and bizarre little twists. The art was impressive, the music sweet and charming, and the characters were all engaging. However, when I left the movie, I was still crying. The themes in "Up" were all real, painful things that tend to stick with me when they crop up. Every time I thought back to a specific scene, my eyes watered and I felt my stomach do that flipping thing that people talk about in books. I mean, yeah, it was a cartoon, and the conclusion was crowd-pleasing enough. But the basic idea never ceased to be a reality that hangs around until the day we die.

When I left "Up", I felt sad and empty, like I'd been to a funeral. Despite the joy and humor in the film, it seemed that I'd lost something. The concepts of mortality, failure, unfulfilled dreams and loneliness are not enjoyable, and no matter how lovely the story tellers and sets are, the raw honesty of the themes cannot be erased. Leaving "Transformers" was sort of like leaving the house of that friend of a friend who likes to eat erasers and firecrackers. Maybe I felt a little dumber, and maybe I could have been doing something better with my time. But I'd laughed a lot, not thought about anything really troubling me, and I'd been with friends. Sure, it didn't teach me anything, and it didn't stun me with its prescience, but it was the definition of entertainment.

So, what am I saying here? Was "Transformers" a great movie? No, that I'll never say. Do I think "Year One" deserves any Oscars? No, not even for costumes. Was "Wanted" done justice by the movie world? Nope. No. Nuh-uh. But movies are often meant for entertainment, so they did their jobs. Art does not have to pretend to be something it's not. I think of movies like "Transformers" as comic strips. They're often cheap, glib, and trite, but they make me chuckle, and they distract from things I can't change in real life. "Public Enemies" had its good points, and "Up" really was brilliant in its way, and I'm glad I saw both of them. But I guess I'm saying not to trash the trashy films, because they, like Modern Art and Pop Music, have their place in the world. "Copper still makes a coin when gold is too heavy."

P.S. for genuinely good trashy fun, watch "Beowulf" or "Role Models". You won't learn anything from them, but they make for a marvelous time.