Reviews

Note: I didn't read the books and saw this as a stand-alone movie. I also may be the only non-shill who actually liked this film.

If you check your left brain at the door and view this as a dystopian fairy tale, then you should enjoy this movie pretty well. It features simply fantastic cinematography, a trite but believable premise, a heroine you find yourself rooting for, and good acting from the primary cast.

If you check your right brain at the door and ignore the fantasy aspect of the movie, then you will see some extremely exaggerated plot elements, some bizarre inconsistencies, and a lot of rip-offs from other movies and literary stories, and generally will find yourself giggling a lot.

I chose to see the movie from a right-brained perspective and, hence, found it quite enjoyable, maybe even something I'd watch again or consider buying on DVD. The acting of lead actress Jennifer Lawrence was pure gold to watch. She was able to believably convey a great range of emotions and fully immersed in the character, giving a excellent performance.

Dwayne Boyd, as the uncreatively named "Peacekeeper #1" was also extremely believable, as was the performance of the characters' acerbic and wayward 'mentor', Woody Harelson. The supporting cast did OK, but I kept having the feeling I was watching a WB Network teenie-bopper-demographic type show whenever they were showcased. Anyone familiar with the shows "One Tree HIll" or "Gilmore Girls" (or even the extremely-ridiculous "Secret Life of The American Teenager") will dig what I am saying here.

From a critical standpoint, the film does tend to rip off a lot of concepts from other sources such as: William Golding's 'Lord of the Flies', Shirley Jackson's 'The Lottery', the character of 'The Architect' (eg. Donald Sutherland's character) from the 'Matrix Reloaded', 'The Truman Show', the story of Joan of Arc, and others. While this practice is not very original, it works well in the movie. The costumes of the 'city people' are a bit over-the-top, and look like they were stolen from the props storage of 'The 5th Element'; the city sets also have a very '5th Element' feel to them.

With the exception of the wasp scene, most of the violence in the film is handled in a relatively non-graphic but believable way, and the hand-held camera shots lended a gritty realistic aspect to certain pursuit scenes. Pretty much everyone else seems to think this sucked, but I completely disagree.

I did think it was hilarious & bizarre that, while having all this amazing technology, the city people only thought to arm their guards with knives and sticks. Surely they could do better than that. I'm tempted to think that might have been a deliberate move to lend a Biblical feel to the film, but honestly I think it was just a dumb oversight.

Also, it's unclear who the Robert-Smith-looking-freak-woman is who hosts the "Reaping" and what exactly her role is in the film. An investor? A district governor? Who knows?

From a story perspective, when you get to the end, nothing was actually solved and it's a wee-bit anti-climatic. Also, the very last scene in the film should have been cut because it adds absolutely nothing and left me laughing out loud saying, "That's the end....??!" It was a really dumb way to end this film.

I also found it hard to believe that simply *everybody* in the cities condoned the games and that there was no opposition and/or protest of it. From a fairy tale perspective it works (in the same way we believe the 'Wicked Witch of the West' from Wizard of Oz is evil), but from a realism perspective, it's oversimplification at it's most extreme.

The 'point' the movie is trying to make seems to be a Kmer Rouge propaganda statement: City people are evil & decadent, but the common folks are A-OK. Or, perhaps more generally, the implied moral advice to avoid excess and hedonism for the sake of hedonism.

Finally, it's good to see a strong, believable female lead in a tween movie. Despite all the nay-sayers, I think this movie could definitely be empowering to young females. Overall, the film was enjoyable (if just a tad bit silly) and something I would watch again.

One definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results.

Therefore, I must be insane because I keep thinking American-made espionage movies are going to have a consistent, believable plot instead just a bunch of hyped-up, glossy BS.

I have learned my lesson this time.

Safehouse kept me and the rest of the audience laughing incredulously at the sheer absurdity that unfolded again and again in this tremendously silly film. Allow me to diagram the plot for you:

01. A hit squad - hired by the CIA - knows where their rogue agent is and converges on him to kill him.

02. Rogue agent escapes, only to turn himself in to US government.

03. Bumbling CIA team tries to make him talk, only to be ambushed by original CIA team.

04. Rogue CIA agent is saved by silly patriotic CIA agent.

05. Bumbling CIA leaders argue.

06. Silly patriotic CIA agent tries to turn in rogue agent only to be attacked by original CIA team.

07. Rogue agent escapes and is later recaptured by silly agent.

08. Silly agent is attacked by another CIA agent.

09. Silly agent learns CIA is corrupt.

10. Rogue agent dies and silly agent goes rogue.

So, in other words, the CIA attacks the CIA to try to prevent the CIA from learning that the CIA has dirt of the CIA. Yeah, that makes sense!

In addition to all this garbage, the CIA strike team kills a boatload of innocent civilians, does millions of dollars of property damage, gets two of their top people killed, and then just lets the guy with the damaging intel just walk away at the end. So what was the point of the whole movie?

Also, if the CIA knew where rogue agent Denzel Washington was at the beginning of the movie, why didn't they just kill him up front and be done with it?

Duh!

The only saving grace this movie has is Denzel Washington who, as always, is a fine actor who conveys depth, empathy, and strong acting. Ryan Reynolds' acting, however, is pretty awful. Throughout the whole movie, he looks constipated and is entirely unbelievable.

The sub-plot, if you want to call it that, with his girlfriend is completely pointless and adds nothing to the film.

This film had a $85 M budget. That money could have been better used teaching bullfrogs how to play the ukulele.

Bottom line: Terrible script. Terrible CGI. Terrible acting. Terrible production design. Frequently unintentionally funny. And add master thespian Mickey Rourke to the mix and you've got one of the worst films ever made. Seriously, this movie disappoints on all levels.

This movie is basically a failed rip-off of '300' and the original 'Conan the Barbarian'.

To begin, there is a bunch of pointless exposition in the first half which really slows the film down in a big way. The back-story, if you want to call it that, reads like it was written by a couple 13-year old boys for English class assignment.

The plot doesn't make much sense and you'll frequently find yourself asking, "WTF?". For example, when King Hyperion is searching for the Oracle, she and her group stroll right into one of his camps. Why did they go there and why don't the guards seem to care at all? -- This seen in particular is senseless.

Coming from writers Charley & Vlas Parlapanides who are both Greek themselves, you'd think that maybe they'd get one or two things accurate about the Greeks and the Greek myths, but you'd be completely wrong. I don't know if these two bozos, the pathetic director, or the production designer is to blame, but just about everything in this movie is inaccurate: The weapons are wrong. The armor is wrong. The costumes are wrong. The buildings are wrong. The relationship between the gods is wrong, and the relationship between the gods and mortals is wrong too. A $15/hour fact-checker was apparently not approved by the line producer.

The Parlapanides duo try to jam in every Greek reference they can find (eg. the Bronze Bull of Perilus, the Labyrinth of Crete, etc) but it comes off as forced and ridiculous, particularly when they mix things together.

Here's a few questions: 1) How did Stavros and Phaedra miss noticing the guy with the giant barbed-wire bull's head entering the labyrinth? Were they downloading the latest Iphone app?

2) Phaedra is all about being the Oracle but she's too weak to resist banging Theseus just because he's shirtless? Really?

3) When Theseus finally gets the bow, he loses it in five minutes because he deliberately walks into an ambush that he *knows* is there. Why?

4) How did the dog know to take the bow to King Hyperion? Did he hire Cesar Millan to spend weeks training it to fetch compound bows?

5) The Bronze Bull of Perilus is supposed to be red-hot but somehow Theseus and the Monk manage to push it over with their bare hands. And for that matter, where did it come from? Does Hyperion haul it around with him everywhere he goes? If so, how (since Hyperion's army apparently doesn't have any horses)?

6) Is there some reason the gods are wearing such hilarious hats? Poseideon, in particular, looks like he stole his from the grand marshal of a Pride parade. Ares' hat defies description.

7) What are the Titans so puny and small? Do the writers/director have any conception of what the word "titan" means, both figuratively and literally?

8) There were originally 16 Titans. The gods killed at least 20. Then they battled hundreds of them at the end. How is this possible? And there's so much more - all of it bad.

The big, big battle that the movie hints at in the previews only happens for a very brief time and then the movie ends. What a let-down.

The film is "PG-13", but we get to see Athena topless (front shot) and we get to see Phaedra completely naked (from behind and side), including a fairly graphic scene of her getting humped. Sign of the times I guess.

What the difference in the movie and a bucket of dung? -- The bucket.

Hot girl who kicks everyone's ass goes on secret mission against incredible odds. Sound familiar? This movie is basically a carbon copy of "Ultraviolet" only with a Cold War theme.

I found it eerily like watching the 1960's version of Batman: Pow! Crash! Bang! Get him! Ooof! Crash! Pow! Slam! Only this time, it's a tiny woman slamming big, muscular men into the walls - without using martial arts. Yep, this tiny gal cleans everyone's clock by brawling like some drunk after getting cut off at the bar. At first, it's silly, but after a few scenes it becomes so ridiculous that you don't even laugh any more and just watch in embarrassment.

I'm thinking about buying the plot and selling it to people who have poor ventilation in their homes; all those holes would let in plenty of fresh air.

The spider venom thing was some of the most obvious foreshadowing I've seen in quite a while. It practically handed the movie's conclusion to the viewer on a platter. The questionable back-story didn't hold any water either. And then, suddenly, it turns into this nonsense about saving the world. Four words: Give Me A Break! It's almost as if the writer said, "Let's cram every cliché'd device into this film!" I got the impression I was watching a very high-budget student film made by a 13-year-old boy. Pathetic.

The flashbacks were particularly annoying. Apparently they were meant to give the Salt character emotional depth, but in actuality they seemed terribly contrived and very GI Joe cartoonish. Add to that Jolie's zombie-like, deadpan expression both pre- and post- flashback and you've got extreme ridiculousness. All they lacked was Celine Dion singing in the background.

If you enjoy mindless comic-book style entertainment, Salt will make your 'little General' stand up and salute. Otherwise, save your money and avoid this drek.

When you see a movie like this, it makes you wonder: "I've got about $10,000. Maybe I should shoot 'Lunar Nazi Overlords Invade Cheerleader Camp'. Why not??"

Anything by Rodger Corman is automatically questionable and 'Galaxy of Terror' is no different. However, despite the film's obvious rip-off of the 'Alien' concept, there are a number of things the film brings which makes it borderline "art" from a certain perspective:

1) The Cast

The Cast features Ray Walston, Erin Moran, Zalman King, Sig Haig (!!!), and Robert Englund. A more unlikely set of actors has rarely been grouped together in the same feature. Each brings their own quirks to the production and the payoff is far beyond what one would expect for a craptacular movie of this genre.

2) Creative Plot Devices

Aside from the infamous scene where Taafee O'Connel gets her love tunnel plowed by a giant, mutated worm, there are many other highly creative scenes in the movie which are often overlooked. The scene in the room of pillars with the monsters that completely blend into the background was very well crafted and the bit with Sid Haig's crystal throwing stars, while exotic, was cleverly done. Also then ending was completely unexpected and while, anti-climatic, was decent.

3) Production Design

Simple, yet beautifully alien sets and backgrounds throughout. Nothing trite or obvious. Even the monsters of the movie were presented in a largely subtle way.

Sure the movie has high camp quality but it's far from one of the worst sci-fi films out there. For originality it beats the pants off of similar low-budget features.

A lot of the shows on the former WB network were suitable for use by the CIA as a means of torturing enemy combatants.

Gilmore Girls was NOT one of these.

Gilmore Girls was a intelligent romantic comedy that offered slice-of-life Americana mixed with intuitive, high-caliber writing that never lost the human element.

Judging by the writing and the commercials, the target audience of Gilmore Girls was females, age 12-25. However, as a male in my early 30's (at the time), I was fortunate enough to discovery this extremely well-crafted show and watch it from its genesis to its exodus. I was not disappointed and have even purchased the *ENTIRE* series on DVD. Gilmore Girls is, undoubtedly, one of the absolute best serials I have ever watched in my life.

Amy Sherman and the other script-writers never failed, never succumbed to mediocrity, never were predictable, never failed to deliver top quality product. There are few shows in the history of television that can make such claims.

Given the phenomenal writing, it's hard to imagine how the show could fail with the incredible talent at it's disposal: - Lauren Graham, while often seeming nervous or high on interviews, displayed none of this in her role as Lorelai Gilmore. On the set, she was focused, driven, and brilliant. She had a knack for delivering amazing facial expressions that were so real-to-life that she BECAME here character with uncanny ability.

• Alexis Bledel was spectacular: one moment being the shy, naive schoolgirl; the next moment owning her voice with a passion that few young actresses possess. She never made a scene rote or predictable. Her expressions always seemed genuine, and she delivered her lines with real feeling.

• Kelly Bishop, to be quite honest, nearly stole the show. Her portrayal of 'Emily Gilmore' was so cunning, so brilliant, and so realistic that she constantly deserved a standing ovation. I saw shades of my own parental figures in her. Her portrayal of malevolence and benevolence are unmatched by few actresses; Elizabeth Taylor and Kate Blachette are her peers.

• Scott Patterson, as 'Luke Danes' was simply masterful. Never, ever have I seen an actor be so believable in role. It could be said that Mr. Patterson was 'born' to pay this role. 'Compelling' is too weak a word to describe his performance.

• Liza Weil, as 'Paris Geller', was a close second as a show-stealer. Her portrayal of this character was so complete, so amazing, that it is still hard for me to look at images of Ms. Weil and not think about her as 'Paris'. She did a simply amazing job. This woman can act; she was born to it.

• Melissa McCarthy carried her role with such dignity that it was impossible not to love her. She was simultaneously a tragic figure, a genuine wit, a humble speaker of wisdom, and possessed of a great heart. Only a actress of incredible range could've portrayed the character of "Sookie St. James" with the genius that Ms. McCarthy demonstrated.

• There are so many others actresses and actors who rocked on this show that I could exhaust even the data storage capacity of Google if I listed them all. Suffice to say, EVERY person who played a role on Gilmore Girls was of the highest caliber.

The thing that set Gilmore Girls apart from the vast majority of other such shows was its layered, extremely intelligent writing. None of the character, including the supporting cast, were flat, banal, or pedantic. Ms. Sherman and the other writers treated each character as a rare gem, a chance to enhance the show - this was a welcome respite from so many shows where supporting characters were treated as little more than hood ornaments.

The humor was genuinely funny and intelligent. Only those who are educated and (dare I use this ambiguous Hollyweird term?) "edgy" would get the full range of humor that the show generously bestowed on the watcher. In addition, a great deal of the jokes were aimed at people who had / have been in complex relationships. No average sit-com / romance here: no, this was a well-crafted show aimed at complex intellectuals. While the targeted demographic was primarily women age 12-25, let's not discount the complexity of women of that age, nor the scope of their experiences.

The romance of Lorelei and Luke was completely realistic: the turmoils and tribulations of modern life, emotions / fears of real people, and just enough ego of the characters to keep things grounded.

Likewise, the relationship of Lorelei and her parents was so naturalistic that it could've been a home move for a lot of Americans shot on Super-8mm Kodachrome.

If you're looking for an educated, complex, and richly-wrought plot, characters that spark with real life, and enough laughter & tears to please the Buddha, Gilmore Girls is the real McCoy.

The Secret Life of The American Teenager is a good concept in theory. However, the final product is a bit half-baked.

The Good) Let's not kid ourselves: sex education in public schools (and in private homes) always has and still does take a back seat to more 'important' activities such as sports, honor society, being popular, and all kinds of other BS that has nothing to do with real life. Kudos to Secret Life for finally addressing the elephant in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge. Most kids learn about birth control on the Net or from friends, but rarely from parents or educators. While the show gives virtually no beneficial information about birth control, at least it slams the issue right in front of parents' eyes so they have the option of discussing it with their kids if they're brave enough to do so.

Acting-wise, Mark Derwin (George), Francia Raisa (Adrian), India Eisley (Ashley), Megan Park (Grace), Luke Zimmerman (Tom), and Amy Rider (Alice) all do an excellent job portraying multifaceted characters despite the limitations of the script. They have realistic emotions & give a zing to their dialog that the other cast members lack.

The Bad) Realism, where art thou??? -- Not on the set on 'Secret Life', that's for sure. I would not send *my* kids to "Ulysses S. Grant High School" because, apparently, anybody who wants to can just stroll onto the grounds and enter the school at will. In fact, they can even take up residence in an official school office and nobody seems to notice. It's a good thing that Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold didn't go here... The school counselor would've been fired, if not tarred and feathered, a million years ago if he even said one quarter of the highly unprofessional things we are to believe he got away with. Speaking of which, kids don't converse in real life the way they do on the show, nor do they react to situations the way the show portrays. It's so absurd that it's a complete farce. Listening to the dialog, I am reminded of *every* training video from every job ever where the actors react in a completely silly way.

Everyone is sleeping around with everyone else and nobody has gotten an STD? Yeah, that's realistic! And this point, in particular, really demonstrates the half-assed way the show is put together. On one hand, the show wants to be socially responsible, while on the other hand, the show leaves out all kinds of relevant issues. The show is an accurate portrayal of most American families: complete lack of respect for each others' boundaries, little if any emotional intimacy, isolated kids and non-communicative parents. But so what? "Square Pegs" and "My So-Called Life" pioneered this technique back in the 80's and it's nothing new. If series creator Brenda Hampton wants this to truly be a family show that is a vehicle for positive social change, she should write more episodes where the family tries to heal itself rather than just maintain the status quo.

The Ugly) Throwing around all the just-add-water "I Love You's" between Ben and Amy is disturbing to say the least. But even more disturbing is the tacit approval of this behavior from all the parents. Earth calling Brenda: these are 15-year-olds; they don't know what "love" is and any remotely competent parent would certainly not endorse this by taking it seriously. Also, nobody ever gets punished for *anything*. The kids run around doing all manner of outrageous things and all they get is a slap on the wrist. Using fake ID's to get married? Call me crazy but I suspect that most parents with an IQ higher than that of a dyslexic trout would come down on their kids like Eliot Ness on Al Capone.

Also many of the characters are flat, contradictory, or absurd. For example, the characters Amy Juergens, Ben Boykewich, Jack Pappas, Kathleen Bowman, Madison & Lauren, Henry Miller, and several others have no depth whatsoever. After watching the first season, I was tempted to make a call to Disneyland and tell them some of their Animatronic's escaped from Pirates of the Caribean. I don't blame the cast for this; they try their best to do a good job with the hollow, wooden roles they've been handed. No, the fault here lies with the crappy writing.

The characters Ricky and Amy, arguably the main stars of the show, have less personality than Scooby Doo. Enough said.

Some other characters that, to use the youth's vernacular, "suck the big one": are Anne Juergens and Leo Boykewich. Molly Ringwald is a very accomplished and talented actress whose ability is being wasted in this role. Her character is weak, puny, and flighty. Her portrayal of Claire Standish in "The Breakfast Club" was much stronger and she was only 18 at the time! Once again, the blame lies with Brenda "Quaaludes" Hampton for crappy writing. Likewise, Steve Schirripa is a extremely talented actor who is being wasted here as little more than a caveman in a tux. If I was his agent, I would catch up with Ms. Hampton in the parking lot and kick her in the box.

The Secret Life of The American Teenager has a lot of potential and could be a excellent vehicle for family discussion and growth. However, in its current incarnation it is little more than a flaccid, predictable teen drama with all the excitement of C-Span.

Good film for it's genre: a action-movie primarily for the kids.

Hard-core GI Joe fans (which is a questionable identification in its own right, up there with Furies and Real Doll enthusiasts) should not bother to watch the film because it is not being marketed to them; it's being marketed to kids.

As a movie for kids, it does a great job in many ways:

A) Low graphic violence level - Sure a couple of people get skewered with samurai swords, but there's no blood and guts getting sprayed in your face as in Pulp Fiction. When something gets blown up, severed heads don't go flying into the audience.

B) Low explicit sexuality level - Unlike Transformers 2: Revenge of Michael Bey's Adolescent Libido, there are no gratuitous rump or breast shots; there are no shots of women running around like the Wild Man of Borneo in heat. There is no humping or sexual innuendos. There was also very little profanity.

C) The plot was easily followable by a young audience (which was, of course, the target demographic) - Certain critics, I've noticed, moaned that script was not stellar and the plot was cheesy. These people should perhaps refrain from the insertion of quick-dry cement into their behinds; it appears to be affecting the circulation of blood to their brain. GI Joe has never been a 'hard-science' venture from the beginning. Anybody who ever saw the 80's cartoon can testify to that. I remember one episode where a GI Joe member put a fish-bowl on his head, then held his breath and jumped out a airlock into space - so he could get to a Cobra space station. In another episode, a Cobra member took down a F-16 by throwing a fishing net in front of it. Is *this* the "missing realism" that GI Joe fans are looking for?

D) Some back-story was added to many of the characters. - Kids (and adults too)want to know this stuff. How *did* Snake Eyes become who he is? How did Cobra Commander become Cobra Commander? Exactly why is The Baroness called "The Baroness"? Finally, we have some back-story explaining these people. I expect we'll hear about Scarlet and others in up-coming movies. I thought this was infinitely preferable to just handing us a bunch of quirky characters like some 70's ninja movie would do.

E) The action / non-action sequences were well-paced. Any fool can throw together stupendous action sequences that go on and on and overwhelm you. This film carefully measures the distance between action and non-action so that younger viewers (need I mention that this is the target demographic?) do not get too much or too little. The film keeps a perfect pace between exposition and action.

F) The comedy in the story is light and not malicious. -- These days, it seems like humor in movies is cynical, harsh, or sarcastic. Or sexual. Instead, the use of comedy is of a good nature (Boy tries to get Girl; Girl teasingly says no; *not* Boy tries to get Girl; Girl tells him he has a Oedipus Complex then suggests rehab).

G) There are no homophobic, sexist, or racist overtones, portrayals, or dialog. Kids aren't going to walk away from it feeling alienated.

If you're looking for a movie for, say, the kids demographic, that is relatively clean, fun, and easy on the eyes, GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is the real McCoy.

If you are white and went to junior-high or highschool during the 80's, this movie is for you.

The reason I mention being "white" is that the 80's were different for people of color (which I am not, and therefore, cannot identify with the challenges). But to the average white American, The Breakfast Club was truly a coming-of-age movie.

The late John Hughes served up a masterpiece film about what it was like to be in junior-high and high school during the 80's in a way that nearly everyone could identify with.

At my school there were the "Freaks", the "Soshes", the "Jocks", the "Losers", and the "Nerds". Each of Hughes' characters represent one of the group at my school: Esteves ("Andrew Clark") for the Jocks. Ringwald ("Claire Standish") for the Soches. Sheddy ("Alison Reynolds") for the Freaks. Nelson ("John Bender") for the Losers. Hall ("Brian Johnson") for the Nerds.

I saw the movie in the theater when it came out, and later on VHS at several social functions with my peers. Each time, the result was the same: some people embarrassed by being exposed as the frauds they were, some people lionized by vindication, some people weeping by acknowledging the unpopular roles they played.

The Breakfast Club is a perfect representation of the microcosm of 80's students, the utter BS of 80's school administrators, and the very real issues of saving face within social class distinction.

The issues presented in The Breakfast Club are as relevant today as they were in the 80's.

I may lack the deep comprehension that others take for granted because it was unclear to me what the purpose was of having a shot of John Turturro's skinny white bum in a thong.

I wonder what kind of strange drug cocktail Michael Bay was taking when he shot this colossal turd of a movie. I'm going guess a mix of weed, shrooms, and meth - all at the same time.

Weed would explain all the horrible inconsistencies. Shrooms would explain the multitude of flat-out weird scenes. Meth would explain the completely spasmodic use of music and shooting sequences.

I can honestly say that Transformers II: Revenge of the fallen is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. This bombastic cornball of a movie violates every single rule of effective film-making that ever was.

Director Michael Bay is to film-making what George W. Bush is to gangsta rap.

This movie should be renamed: Revenge of the Continuity Errors. Jesus Christ, there are endless continuity errors! Whenever Bey wants a prop in a scene, it just *magically* appears with no plausible explanation as to why it is there.

For example, Shia magically has a knife in the Smithsonian scene. Shia's hand magically appears in a full-cast even through they're in the middle of the desert when he injures it. Megan magically appears in new clothing several times. The military guys magically get a shiny clean Ford Ram out of nowhere. Shia and Megan magically have flashlights when they go to explore the matrix temple.

Further, the movie abruptly jumps from scene to scene like some crazed stoner running around a Safeway looking for the ice cream.

Speaking of "matrix", there are several complete rip-offs from "The Matrix" movies, especially the one where Shia "dies" and Megan says she loves him to bring him back from the dead. It's shot and worded almost *exactly* like it is in the first of the Matrix movies. - Lame.

Wait! Listen! What's that noise?

Oh, it must be John Turturro rattling off some pointless exposition for the upteenth time!

The two clearly Black robots in the movie can't read and one of them has a gold tooth. They both talk & act ghetto. The message I got is that black people are funny and have funny mannerisms.

Don't ask me about Asians, though, because there's not a single one in the entire movie. I guess they don't exist.

There are *so* many graphic sexual innuendos that it's a wonder this film isn't rated R. The first scene with the professor is off the scale. Also lots of humping. We see the dogs humping several times and even a Decepticon humping Megan's leg.

Every girl at the College that Shia goes to is a babe and dresses like a slut. That's realistic.

Nearly every scene with Shia and Megan is presented in melodramatic 90210 / One Tree Hill style complete with a montage and music. You almost expect Kelly to walk up and confess her love for Dylan.

Bay also makes up "facts" whenever he feels like it, has action music at completely inappropriate times, recycles both footage and dialog from the previous movie, has lots of pointless slo-mo shots, and lots of scenes that do nothing to advance the film in any way.

Congratulations, Michael Bay, you are the worst director in the entire universe.

You've even managed to beat out M. Night Shamalamadingdong and Rob Schneider. That's saying something.