Many rumors have wondered if the fourth installment of Michael Bay’s “Transformers” series is good or bad. But according to filmmakers…ninety-percent of the stunts done by Mark Wahlberg were done by him. Wahlberg’s character Cade Yeager, is a man with many debts and is trying to build amazing electronics. All of a sudden, his truck (which is a transformer) gets angry and he finds himself in a battle between auto bots and the government. Didn’t Mark Wahlberg deliver a stellar performance in “Lone Survivor?” He did, and he is fit for this role.

I see it is the new actors in this “Transformers” movie that has led it to be one of the best action films of the summer in my books. The premise is fresh and captivating. The opening narrations of the robots takes place, we realize the city of Chicago is not in a good place in its futuristic setting, Kelsey Grammer (who plays Harold Attinger) is the big boss for what may be the threats of the world, and there is Wahlberg in the center of it all.

The excitement begins as soon as Optimus Prime comes out of his shell on Yeager’s farm and brings the action and visual effects to a whole different level. “Transformers: Age of Extinction” does not have Shia Labeouf in the picture whatsoever; it is obvious that “Transformers: Age of Extinction” was the time for a different approach in the series. While viewers are in the process understanding the new plot line and the dazzling action with a generous amount of CGI, it seems as if the first three films are way in the past. A new era, a new structure, it is an unforgettable thrill ride.

“Transformers: Age of Extinction” gets edgy when Cade’s daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz) has her boyfriend Shane (Jack Reynor) meet her father. She has never mentioned him to her father at all; he is a risk-taker with driving dangerously; and between Cade and Shane they still have tons of acquainting to do. Instead of respecting boundaries, Shane consistently mentions the small, romantic activities that Tessa and him do in private. This leads to agitation for everyone, but at the same time there is no choice but to tread through the disasters of the world of robots.

Overall, this series is above all one of the best action films of the summer. The action is amazing but has its tendencies to drag, but it is worth it in IMAX and 3D to be honest. 2D is ok, but I just find that the 3D in this film adds to the excitement of the explosions and clashing robots all together. If anyone is planning to go in IMAX, better go now before another Hollywood film takes over the IMAX theatres.

Zach Braff brings a heartfelt drama with “Garden State.” We are introduced to his character’s life, but he finds a friendship that will change who he is as a person.

Andrew Largeman (Zach Braff) is a TV actor that plays a retarded quarterback. His mother (not in the film) is in a wheelchair and his psychiatrist father Gideon Largeman (Ian Holm) sees that it is Andrew’s fault. His father had him medicated on drugs for years seeing to believe it may help Andrew socially.

Andrew has been away from his family for a decade and returns home for his mother’s funeral. He meets a rambunctious girl named Sam (Natalie Portman); a girl he loves and someone who has problems of her own. Once he builds a relationship with Sam, he lays off his medications, sees what life itself is, and has more positivity in his life.

“Garden State” was a brilliant art-house film with its setting and cinematography. Braff made “Garden State” to be briefly based on his own childhood in New Jersey, along with his days as a struggling actor in Los Angeles before the success of the sitcom, “Scrubs.” When he did scenes with Natalie Portman he had brief romantic moments instead of a full love scene. He wanted sweet to be implied instead of visual.

Despite the film’s low-budget concept, “Garden-State” is captivating, lovely, and mesmerizing–and worth the one hour and forty-two minutes.

“Jersey Boys” is an adaptation of the hit Broadway musical. Director Clint Eastwood makes a musical that actually has seriousness in it, compared to most musical films that’s primary entertainment is just the singing and dancing. Eastwood’s directing consists of great music, accurate make-up, and dazzling cinematography to make his audience feel they are in the time period of the setting of his movies. (The film had an issue of dragging in moments of enviousness between the singers.) “Jersey Boys” was done well technically and audibly; the reason why it lacks a bit is because it’s a film that is obviously made for Hollywood.

 

If “Jersey Boys” was intended to be a film for the holidays compared to the summer time, I see that there would have probably been more hype for this film. What musical adaptation opened on Christmas 2012 and made the big bucks? That movie was “Les Miserable.” What theatre productions sell-out crazy during the holiday seasons? Broadway musicals are the answer. “Jersey Boys” has been talked about being adapted into an adaptation but is not what viewers are expecting; the summer time is where musical films are not focused on all that much, compared to Marvel movies, romantic movies, and all of that other big-buck studio movies.

 

Eastwood takes big-name actors out of the picture and chooses actors that have actually been staged on the show Broadway version of “Jersey Boys.” Paul Dano, Dominic Cooper, and James Badge Dale were set to star in “Jersey Boys” but were rejected when Eastwood was directing. Originally, Jon Favreau was suppose to direct, but changed his mind and let Eastwood direct the movie.

 

The plot of “Jersey Boys” is the story of four young men: Tommy DeVito (Vincent Piazza), Frankie Valli (John Lloyd Young), Nick Massi (Michael Lomenda), and Bob Gaudio (Erich Bergen). All of these young men come from the small town of New Jersey, start singing together, and form the rock Group “Four Seasons.”

 

With musical talent these actors have, they got other issues ahead of them. They fall into disasters with gambling debts, mafia threats, and gambling situations that lead to disasters.

 

I do not love this movie, and I do not hate this movie, I just find it captivating, but at the same time having trouble to understand if the concept of the film is the music or the characters’ friendship. The writing for the film seems to be going all over the place. Marshall Brickman (the screenwriter) wrote the screenplay for the 1977 Woody Allen classic, “Annie Hall.” That screenplay had moments jumping back and forth throughout all of “Annie Hall.” However, in “Annie Hall,” the moments in non-chronological order had a purpose. For “Jersey Boys” it was just pure confusing.

 

I may watch this film for a second time. If I do though, it will not be to enjoy it, it will be to try and find portions of the screenplay that was hard to understand. Since I was having fun with some moments, and dozing off in others, I felt just the make-up was more attention grabbing than what is going on in the movie. It is an adaptation that is a mess with perfect technical elements, but the technical elements do not enhance it.