M (1931) Review

1931’s M, directed by Fritz Lang, was certainly a film ahead of its time.  Released just four years after the groundbreaking American “talkie”, The Jazz Singer, M has enough complexity within its visual, audio, and story design to be compared with the best of modern cinema.  What could’ve easily been a relatively simple tale about a city’s joint quest in hunting down a child murderer turns out to be a harrowing parable that dares to pose many difficult questions about justice, vigilantism, mob mentality, and humanity.  Even today, with all of our confidence in how the legal system works, this German film shines as an eye-opening experience not to be ignored or missed.

The film starts out grimly by showing the serial killer, hidden from frame except for his shadow, meeting his newest victim, a little girl, on the streets of Berlin.  We hear that the death of this girl is just one of the many that have come from the hands of this murderer, who seems to specifically target child for some reason.  This most recent death, however, instigates an intense manhunt from all sides of the law.  The police, led by Inspector Lohmann (played by Otto Wernicke) and under the pressure from the paranoid public, conduct state of the art methods for catching this killer, like handwriting analysis and fingerprinting.  They also frequently raid seedy establishments and check all the patrons for previous criminal activity.  The citizens themselves, caught up in the hysteria of this murder spree, begin to persecute individuals on the streets for merely talking to children that they don’t know.  Even the crime lords of the city get involved; they begin to hire beggars on the streets to keep an eye out for the killer, since the police raids have prevented people from visiting their establishments.

There is a common theme within the film between these groups of people; even though they are all looking for the same guy, they are doing it for completely different reasons.  The police get involved because it is their duty and they want to maintain the respect from the citizens.  The people of Berlin volunteer because they seek retribution for the fear and paranoia that they have suffered through with this man’s existence.  The criminals get involved simply for business reasons.  While their collective goal is a noble one, they are all motivated by their own desires, not necessarily for the safety of others.  This brings up interesting questions about morality and public justice; is everybody involved doing the right thing, or are they only escalating the hysteria and danger?  How can justice be properly served by a large group of people, each with their own interpretation of how the assailant should be punished?

I find that questions like these are very relevant to a currently trending news topic:  the Casey Anthony trial.  Now I never really followed the trial myself, but apparently it has caught the attention of many Americans as it was covered ferociously by the news media.  All I know about Casey Anthony is that she was a young mother who was arrested for killing her 2-year-old daughter and was later acquitted from this conviction, since the jury had reasonable doubt about the evidence used against her.  This verdict sent many people into an outrage, since they thought that she was clearly guilty for the crimes.  Anthony’s life was even thought to be in danger after the verdict, as numerous death threats were sent to her and her family (http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-verdict-anthony-family-death-threats-wake/story?id=14004306).

Now you may have your own opinions about whether Anthony was guilty or not, that’s fine.  But I do believe that the verdict should be respected.  The jurors obviously deliberated thoughtfully about the evidence and the testimony, and they unanimously determined that there was no sufficient proof that Anthony committed the murder.  Even though the verdict was not exactly a popular one, it still had gone through the correct legal process.  We should not be allowed to act on our own emotional judgments in this matter, as it trivializes that rights for a fair trial given to us by the Constitution.  We wouldn’t want these rights to be taken away from us, so why should we be allowed to take them away from others?

That’s why all this talk about death threats makes me sick.  These people who are sending the threats have no personal connection to Anthony or the rest of her family; they are merely observers who received all of their information about the trial from news organizations.  They didn’t see her do it, they don’t have any proof that she did it, and yet they are ready to deliver their own form of judgment against her.  I believe that UCLA forensic psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman says it best:  “The main reason that people are reacting so strongly is that the media convicted Casey before the jury decided on the verdict…The public has been whipped up into this frenzy wanting revenge for this poor little adorable child. And because of the desire for revenge, they've been whipped up into a lynch mob.” (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/casey-anthony-verdict-outrage-spills-online/story?id=14002257)

I apologize for my little soapbox rant there, but it ties in very well with this discussion about the movie.  Let’s compare Anthony to the serial killer in M, Hans Beckert, played brilliantly by Peter Lorre.  Unlike Anthony, there is no doubt that Beckert is a murdering monster.  We see him numerous times committing these acts and, later in the movie, he even admits to a large crowd that he has done these things, though subconsciously.  But like the real-life trial, there seems to be a great schism as to how Beckert should receive the justice due to him.  Should he be flat-out killed by the angry mob who have collected him, or should he be handed over to the police and be given a fair trial, under the possibility that he might receive a lighter sentence?

The climax of the movie (SPOILERS, by the way) is the kangaroo trial that the gangsters have set up for Beckert after they finally catch him.  Beckert pleads to the people of the “court” that there is something mentally wrong with him and that he wants psychological help.  This goes over poorly with the crowd gathered, who believe that the safest action to take is to kill him.  They get even more outraged when the guy that they chose to defend Beckert ACTUALLY defends him, saying that he should be tried fairly by the court of law.

It seems to me that the crowd has completely forgotten the meaning of justice.  They think that the purpose of justice is to punish, not to set an example for other potential offenders or to correct a societal or individual disorder.  Instead of taking this man to the authorities so that they can study him and maybe try to help him, they demand the instant self-satisfaction of execution.  That is a true problem with society; we seem to always demand revenge against a wrongdoer without even thinking about what it does to our own humanity.  We believe that making this person pay for his crimes will somehow make everything better.  But when Beckert finally has his fair trial, we hear the mother of one of his victims say that no matter what the verdict is, the damage has already been done.  No matter how Beckert is punished, her child will never come back.  So how should Beckert be treated, both as a criminal AND a human?

These themes of justice and vigilantism are punctuated very nicely with cinematography that rivals that of Citizen Kane, which was surprisingly made 10 years after M.  We see close ups of the evidence against Beckert through an impersonal fixed camera shot.  We see seamless transitions between the meetings of the police officers and the meetings of the gangsters, symbolizing that they are acting as one and the same.  We see a mind-boggling long-take that crawls across tables, travels through windows, and twists all around, capturing the gangster’s organization of the neighborhood watch of beggars.  We also see clever use of shadows, as the killer and the gangsters all visibly shroud the walls with their dark souls.  This film truly belongs in the same class as the best constructed movies of all time.

And since this is one of the early “talkies”, I also have to mention the innovative sound design.  Occasionally, we hear Beckert whistling “In the Hall of the Mountain King” as he walks around the city.  This serves as Beckert’s leitmotif, a recurring musical technique commonly used in opera that distinguishes a particular character.  I’ve read that this film is the first time a leitmotif has been used in motion pictures, and considering how much leitmotifs are used in pictures today, that is quite a landmark.

M is a masterful piece of art.  Mind-blowing cinematography, innovative sound design, great, emotional acting, and a compelling, controversial story all make this film a true treat to watch.  That is why I am proud to make this film my first 5-Star review.  I’ve came close to giving a couple movies 5-Stars in the past, but ultimately chose not to because I felt that those films might not appeal to everybody.  M, however, I believe that it can be appreciated by anybody, despite the fact that it is older, rather talky, and in a foreign language.  It has an excellent story that could create some great discussions with the people you watch it with.  Please, all of you, do yourselves a favor and check out M.  That is all I ask of you.

Rating:  5 Stars

Distributed by Vereinigte Star-Film

            Running time:  117 minutes

Proof (2005): A Mathematical Review

Time for another Mathematical Review!  Today’s featured movie is the 2005 film version of Proof, directed by John Madden.  Proof was originally a play written by David Auburn in 2000, about the daughter of a famous mathematician who, after her father’s death, is forced to come to grips with the genius, as well as the possible madness, that she might have inherited from him.  The play received many awards, including “Best Play” at the 2001 Tony Awards, and it also gave Mary-Louise Parker a Tony for her lead role as Catherine.

Proof is one of my all-time favorite plays, mostly because of its “math-iness”.  Out of all the fictional stories about mathematicians, I felt that Proof was the most accurate and the most respectful towards the profession.  It speaks reverently about the aesthetic appeal of professional mathematics, and at the same time addresses many of the fears that prospective mathematicians, like myself, secretly share, like the fear of becoming irrelevant in research.  But aside from the math, Proof was an interesting, original drama that explored many complex themes in a rather simple narrative.  So when I found out that there was a movie adapted from the play, I was at the same time excited and nervous.  Could this film adaptation be as good and as successful as the play?  And, more importantly, will it retain its treasured “math-iness”?  (Yes, I am trying to make this a word)

I will say this right off the bat; compared to the last mathematical movie I reviewed, Good Will Hunting, Proof does a much better job at depicting mathematicians and their work.  Proof doesn’t actually show much of the written mathematics, and I think that goes towards the film’s benefit.  Instead, the mathematics is mostly found within the characters’ dialogue, and the terminology that is used is congruent with what real mathematicians would talk about.  The math is still techno-babble here, but I can’t really see it being used as anything else.  At least David Auburn and the makers of this movie wrote the mathematical dialogue in a way that wasn’t insulting towards mathematicians.  In general, I was very impressed by how correctly the terminology was used in this film.

So the main mathematician in Proof is Robert Llewelyn, played by Anthony Hopkins.  Robert was a fictional professor from the University of Chicago who was universally known as one of the greatest mathematical minds ever.  It is pretty clear that Robert is modeled after John Forbes Nash, and anyone who has seen A Beautiful Mind can tell you how.  Robert was a genius, but he was inflicted with a mental illness (possibly schizophrenia, like Nash) that prevented him from working in his later years.  Though the dialogue, it is also revealed that his research interests were in algebraic geometry, game theory, and nonlinear operator theory, which were similar topics in Nash’s research.

There are actually many references to other mathematicians within this film.  For example, Catherine and Hal (played by Gwyneth Paltrow and Jake Gyllenhaal, respectively) share a discussion about female mathematician Sophie Germain.  Robert and Catherine talk about an interesting mathematical tidbit that was taken from an anecdote about Srinivasa Ramanujan (click here for more information).  Also, the proof that initiates the main conflict of this film is clearly based off of Sir Andrew Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem.

The specifics of this proof, by the way, are never revealed to the audience, but we are given a few scant details about it through dialogue.  We know that it is an important proof, as it gets young mathematician Hal all giddy inside when he discovers it.  We are also told that the proof is about prime numbers.  My first guess as to what the proof could have been about was the twin prime conjecture, but really, it could’ve been anything.

Overall, I’m glad that the field of math that they chose to focus on in this movie is number theory, which contains many interesting facts that can be easily explained to a non-mathematical audience.  Therefore, instead of the math just being used as techno-babble for the characters, it also helps with the entertainment value of the movie.  Also, it helps out the plot by working nicely with the research interests of Robert, making it reasonable for Hal and Claire (Catherine’s sister) to believe that he wrote the mysterious proof (algebraic geometry has many close connections with number theory).

In one scene of the movie, Catherine and Robert (or her vision of Robert, I’m not sure) talk about some aspect of this proof.  They mention Siegel zeros, which leads me to believe that the proof has something to do the Riemann zeta function, a function that definitely DOES have something to do with prime numbers.  Anyway, later in the movie, Hal talks about the modern techniques used in the proof.  In the original play, Hal mentions elliptic curves and modular forms, which were techniques used to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem.  For some reason, the movie changes Hal’s lines to instead mention noncommutative geometry and random matrices.  I could easily see how noncommutative geometry could have been used, since it is a subfield of algebraic geometry that, as I said before, has ties with number theory.  However, I was a little confused at first by the use of random matrices.  How could matrices, let alone random matrices, help at all with a theorem about prime numbers?  However, after a little research, I was pleasantly surprised when I found out that random matrices actually HAVE been used in work involving the Riemann zeta function, so that checks out as well (click here for more information).  You see, it’s these little touches within the movie that prove to me that the producers and writers really wanted to get the mathematics right, so kudos to them!

The one thing, though, that disappoints me about this movie, as well as the play, is the portrayal of mathematicians.  We are told that mathematicians only do their best work after the age of 26 or so, which is completely untrue (Wiles was over 40 years old when he submitted his proof for Fermat’s Last Theorem).  We are also told that mathematicians are party animals who have sex all the time and take amphetamines.  While I appreciate the movie trying to dispel some of the stereotypes about mathematicians being antisocial nerds, I feel that they have gone too far with this.  Finally, we see the old “crazy genius” stereotype in Robert (and possibly in Catherine), which I’ve seen in almost any fictional piece about mathematicians.  I personally do not have a huge problem with this particular stereotype, but I thought I’d mention it since some other people might.  Besides all that, though, it does not get much more mathematically accurate than Proof when it comes to fictional work.  Auburn, as well as the makers of the film adaptation, put so much work into making every mathematical detail accurate, reasonable, and interesting, even though they do not have much mathematical experience themselves.  It really does make the math nerd inside of me smile.

As for the movie, I thought it was only alright.  I really wanted this movie to become one of my favorites, since I really liked the play, but I had many problems with the movie despite its great story.  I thought Paltrow and Gyllenhaal were gravely miscast in this film, as they both gave rather bland performances here (Hopkins, of course, was amazing as Robert).  Plus, the tone of the film lost much of the subtle humor that was in the script.  It had some funny moments, but it also had some missed opportunities.  Overall, the movie was just so bland, and it could have been much better than it was.  I would still recommend it, though, because it does have enough decent moments in it to keep you invested in the plot.  Just don’t be expected to be blown away by it.

Despite my mediocre impressions of the film itself, I still think that the makers of the film should be commended for the effort they put into the mathematical content of the story.  It only really appeases a small fraction of its potential audience, but it is worth it.  It’s positive, intriguing works like this that can get ordinary people interested in mathematics, and I see that as a great thing!  I hope that mathematical movies from now on will take Proof’s lead and tell stories that would make a mathematician proud.

By the way, here is another mathematical review of the movie, written by Daniel Ullman.

Rating of the movie:  3 Stars

Rating of the math:  5 Stars

Distributed by Miramax Films

            Running Time:  100 minutes

Larry Crowne (2011) Review

Tom Hanks has definitely proven that he is not merely an actor.  He can also direct, write, and produce, as seen in movies such as That Thing You Do! and The Polar Express, as well as in mini-series like Band of Brothers.  So it was understandably expected that his newest directorial feature, Larry Crowne, would be as successful as his previous works.  Sadly, however, I have to report that this is not the case.

I don’t really blame Hanks a whole lot, though.  I mostly blame his writing partner for this film, Nia Vardalos.  Vardalos is mostly known as the writer and leading actress of the big 2002 hit, My Big Fat Greek Wedding.  Since then, however, she never really wrote anything decent.  She wrote screenplays for Connie and Carlo and I Hate Valentine’s Day, both of which bombed in the box-office, and she also wrote for My Big Fat Greek Life, a T.V. show based on the before-mentioned movie that was cancelled after 7 episodes.  Vardalos’ writing track record was not so hot coming into Larry Crowne, and she is the one that I blame for the film’s corny script.

Larry Crowne is about a guy, played by Tom Hanks himself, who has worked as a manager for a big-box store for a long time, regularly receiving Employee-of-the-Month awards and making friends with all of his colleagues.  Larry is then shocked to find out that he is being fired due to his lack of college education.  You see, Larry went into the Navy after high school and never had time to go to college.  Since he does not have this experience, he cannot be promoted to a higher position, so the higher-ups decide that the best option is to just let him go.

The opening to Crowne actually looked very promising.  The idea of Larry losing his job solely because of his lack of education was pretty intriguing and topical.  In today’s society, it is nearly impossible for anyone to hold onto a decent job without having some sort of degree.  We are currently in the transition period of this change, where the long-time faithful workers, who rose to the position they are in without any special education, are now being replaced by degree-holders.  In order to compete again in the job market, these people must go back to school again, as Larry does in this film.  With the right direction and the right script, this story could have been a very poignant journey of a man trying to reclaim his pride and sense of self-worth.  As it stands, though, the story is a clichéd, aimless mess.

So why doesn’t this story work?  Because it meanders all over the place, like a drunk guy lost in a grocery store.  In the beginning, it is established that Larry is going to community college so that he can become more hirable for the job market.  After about 30 minutes into the plot, though, this motivation gets completely dropped, and the film focuses primarily on Larry’s wacky adventures with his new community college friends.  Sure, we see Larry get a job as a chef for a diner, but it is only a part-time job to help pay for school and expenses.  We never see Larry get a decent job with his new education, and he doesn’t seem interested in finding another job either, making us wonder what the point of all of this was.

So you would think that the plot would mostly cover Larry’s difficulty in adjusting to the academic life, right?  Or the budding romance between Larry and his speech professor Mercedes Tainot, played by Julia Roberts?  But no, both of those plot elements take a backseat to the true focus of the film:  a scooter club of free-spirited young adults that take in Larry as a member, because he has a scooter or something.  They ride around town, do stuff together, and for no real reason, decide to do extraordinarily nice things for Larry, like redecorate his house and buy him new clothing.  While the scenes with the scooter club are kind of fun, they don’t really contribute anything to, well, anything.  It just seems like these scenes take away time that could have been used to show how the college classes have helped Larry as a person or to establish the relationship between him and Mrs. Tainot or in another way the could have made this film more meaningful.

But what pains me the most in this movie is the “comedy”.  Oh dear God, the comedy!  Although some moments did elicit a light chuckle out of me (especially anything involving the great George Takei!), most of the jokes were extremely hokey and cliché-ridden.  If you have ever seen a romantic comedy in your entire life (which, I hate to admit, I’ve seen my fair share), you will have your face squarely inside your palm throughout the whole movie because of how derivative these jokes are.  I wish I could give you an example, but these jokes are so forgettable I cannot recall a single one.  Just corny, desperate, unoriginal humor all throughout.

Let’s talk about the acting now, which was sort of a mixed bag.  There were some standouts here, though.  Like I hinted at before, Takei completely stole the show as the pompous Economics professor who takes Larry’s phone away from him each time he uses it in class.  I just wished that my Economics professors in college had his creamy baritone!  Cedric the Entertainer was pretty, well, entertaining as Larry’s next-door neighbor who runs a non-stop garage sale.  And finally, I enjoyed Wilmer Valderrama as the leader of the scooter gang, as he keeps becoming jealous of his girlfriend’s over-friendliness towards Larry.  I thought these were all decent comedic roles.

The actors that I didn’t really care for were, well, the two leads, Hanks and Roberts.  Hanks’ Larry Crowne just comes across as extraordinarily dorky, and he is almost an empty shell of a character with no personality to speak of.  Julia Roberts plays, well, Julia Roberts, as she has done in every other film she’s been in.  Together, they try to make this movie into a romantic comedy, but it just falls flat because they hardly share the same screen together.  When they finally share their first kiss, Larry’s hokey reaction to it just baffled me, since I didn’t see any indication that he had any feelings toward her.  Plus, the love story wasn’t interesting enough.  There weren’t any major conflicts or anything like that; they just merely fell in love for some reason.  The romance, which I guess was supposed to be important to the plot, just did not seem believable to me at all.

I will say this, though.  The audience that I saw this with had a median age of about 70, and it sounded like they enjoyed this flick.  They were rolling with laughter at the jokes that I found insultingly lazy.  So, I guess if you are a 70-year-old and Larry Crowne looks appealing to you, I would recommend that you just ignore everything that I just pointed out and go see it.  For the rest of us, though, who wanted this film to be the time capsule movie that perfectly reflected the plight of the average worker in today’s meager economy, you will be sorely disappointed.  It is hokey, clichéd, unfunny, directionless, and it doesn’t really try to speak to anyone.  This concept could have been a great movie, and Tom Hanks just completely misses the mark.  If you want to see a good movie about the current economy, I would recommend The Company Men over Larry Crowne.

Rating:  2 Stars

Distributed by Universal Pictures

Studio: Vendome Pictures / Playtone

            Running time:  99 minutes

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) Review

6 Good Things About Transformers: Dark of the Moon

1.         This may stun you, but Dark of the Moon is light-years, and I mean light-years, better than Revenge of the Fallen in almost every single way.  The action scenes are better shot, the comic relief is much less intrusive, and the plot has much more emotional weight.  I actually cared about whether the Autobots would make it out okay or not.  In many ways, Michael Bay actually addressed the complaints of the past movies and tried to make an improved sequel this time around (this doesn’t mean that DofM is a good movie, but I’ll go into detail on that in a little bit).

2.         Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (there is no way I’m going to remember that name later) plays a much better love interest than Megan Fox in the past Transformers movies.  She is more sophisticated, more talented, and (dare I say it) more attractive than Fox.  Plus, her character, Carly, plays a much more important role in this story than Mikaela had in the past movies.

3.         They got rid of Skids and Mudflap.  Not sure if this movie deserves a gold star for making the easiest choice in the world, but it’s worth mentioning nonetheless.  (However, they do have replacements…that’s for later)

4.         Michael Bay must have spent millions of dollars on sociological and psychological research in order figure out how to make Optimus Prime as badass as possible, because he is a cold-blooded mofo in DotM.  He easily slices through hordes of Decepticons with his fire blades as if they were melted butter, all while delivering epic one-liners that would make Arnold Swartzenegger jealous.

5.         The Autobots actually made weapons for the humans!  About goddamn time!

6.            SPOILER ALERT!!!  The Decepticons do get handedly demolished at the end of this flick, and you know what that means!  NO MORE SEQUELS!!!!!!!!!  HOPEFULLY!!!!!!!!!  (Bay stepping away from a surefire cash cow like Transformers?  Not bloody likely.)

25 Horrible Things About Transformers: Dark of the Moon That Almost Make Me Want to Hunt Down the Fans of this Series with My .12 Gauge

1.         This movie almost made me throw up.  I’m dead serious.  Never in my life have I seen a movie that made me sick to my stomach like this.  During the climatic Chicago scene, we had to follow flying-squirrel military soldiers zipping around the downtown area, the main characters struggling to climb up inside of a tipping skyscraper, hundreds upon thousands upon billions of twisting metal robots and cogs, and many other disorienting things, all with super-fast edits.  I didn’t get to see this movie in 3D, and I’m so glad I didn’t, because if I did I would have hurled for sure.

2.         This movie is looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong!  My God, how it is long!  At 2 hours and 35 minutes, this is the longest Transformers movie yet, and it feels long.  I was looking at my watch in the theater, wondering if the movie was going to wind down pretty soon, only to realize that I still had another hour and a half to go.  This could have been a great movie if they had chopped off an hour or so of material.  As it stands, this movie is excruciating to watch.  Just plain excruciating.

3.         Shia “Squirrel-Monkey” LeBouf.  I know, I am a broken record about him, but I do hate him in these movies.  His character, Sam, is so damn whiny in DotM.  He complains all the time about how he cannot find a job and how under-appreciated he is, even though he has a brand-new supermodel girlfriend, a surprisingly spacious apartment (so that Bumblebee can go inside of it in a later scene, of course), and a medal from President Barrack freakin’ Obama.  Moreover, during the entire film he talks and acts like a cocaine addict.  I’m serious, if the film had a shot of Sam snorting up a line, I wouldn’t have been surprised at all.  Screw Sam, screw LeBouf, screw his acting, next topic.

4.         Sam’s parents.  They are back in this movie.  I don’t care how little they appear in this movie, they still piss me off!  They kill every scene that they are in.  They shouldn’t be in this movie at all.  They are annoying, unfunny, and unimportant to anything relating to the plot whatsoever.

5.            Shameless product placement.  Everywhere.  Lenovo.  Bud Light.  Impala.  Gillette.  FedEx.  These are just the few brand names that I can remember, out of the thousands that I noticed.  You will lose count of the number of times a product name is spread out across the big screen, and each time it is distracting and blatant.

6.         There are so many annoying Star Trek references in this film, and do you know why that is?  Because Leonard Nemoy is in this movie.  Whoopee-friggin’-do.  We see Star Trek playing on Sam’s TV, as well as an awkward mention of the Starship Enterprise during dialogue.  The Sentinel Prime, the Transformer that Nemoy voices, even says a famous line from one of the Star Trek movies, although it makes absolutely no sense in its context here.  I’m surprised the Sentinel Prime didn’t give the Vulcan salute just for the hell of it.  If Bay is trying to reach out to the Star Trek fans, he is failing here (for the record, I’m not a Trekkie; I just happen to know enough about the franchise to have a respect for it)

7.            Wheelie, the foul-mouthed Italian-stereotype robot from RotF, is back in DotM, but he really isn’t much of a problem.  What is a problem, however, is his new sidekick, Brains.  This creature is like a mixture of Beavis from Beavis & Butthead, George Clinton, and (you guessed it) Skids and Mudflap.  I don’t think he is as offensive as Skids and Mudflap, but he looks equally as stupid with his fiber-optic hair and his slanted slack jaw.  Why a super intelligent robot species would choose to look or sound like either Brains or Wheelie is a complete mystery to me, but all I know is that they deliver some unneeded, ill-timed comic relief during the otherwise dramatic Chicago battle.

8.         A tickle ray.  REALLY?!  A TICKLE RAY??!!!  Bumblebee has a tickle ray.  Why?!  Why the hell would he ever need it?!  Are the Transformers even ticklish at all?  A TICKLE RAY?!!  ARE YOU SERIOUS??!!  A tickle ray!

9.         Jerry “Deep” Wang, played by Ken Jeong.  I knew that Jeong would play a horrible comic relief character in this movie, but I had no idea it would be this bad.  I don’t even remember what the point of his character even was, but apparently he had top-secret information about the moon mission to explore the Ark, and he’s more than happy to keep the secret papers hidden right next to his crotch.  Anyways, his character, Deep Wang, as he liked to call himself (le sigh), practically molests Sam in his office bathroom and shoves those papers right into Sam’s face.  Classy.  Overall, this character is obnoxious, unfunny, and unnecessary.  Come to think of it, though, he makes an excellent addition to the Transformers saga!  Welcome aboard!

10.            Another obnoxious comic relief is Dutch, played by Alan Tudyk from Firefly.  He is Seymour Simmons’ assistant or something (yes, he’s back in this movie again, but he’s not a problem either), but you’ll remember him as the completely effeminate tool who first appears wearing a sports jacket with huge flowers printed all over it.  You know, so you can tell that he’s gay.  He does have some funny moments, but this gay caricature is still pretty offensive.  Years from now, people are going to look back at this character as an insensitive stereotype much like Mammy from Gone with the Wind.

11.       Let’s do another stupid comic relief for good measure:  Hardcore Eddie.  He is one of the soldiers that attack the Decepticons in the Chicago battle, and all he ever does is talk about how scared he is of the Decepticons and how he would rather be doing other things than fighting them.  He is pretty much the same scaredy-pants comic relief as Leo in the last movie and Anthony Anderson’s character in the movie before.  Are Bay and the rest of his story development crew so bankrupt of ideas that they resort to reusing the same tired comic relief archetypes?

12.       In case you didn’t think the last two movies had any neo-conservative overtones, this movie practically shoves them right down your throat.  You see, Megatron hates freedom, and he also hates humans, especially Americans.  In fact, he destroys the statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial and then sits in his marble throne.  Megatron and the Decepticons also indiscriminately shoot military men in Chicago.  Add some 9/11 imagery, and you’ve got binding proof that Bay is a right-wing nut.  Still don’t believe me?  Bill O’Reilly has a cameo as himself here.  I rest my case.

13.       So, why are the Decepticons destroying Chicago?  I mean, it’s bad, no doubt, but why can’t they attack Washington, D.C. or New York City or some other city that is more vital to America?  Wouldn’t that make more sense?

14.            Furthermore, why would the Decepticons want to warp Cybertron right next to planet Earth?  Wouldn’t they crash into each other and destroy both planets?  What’s wrong with warping only the citizens to Cybertron?

15.       And while we’re at it, if the Decepticons want to keep the humans as slaves (not sure how helpful they could be to the Decepticons, but whatever), why then are they taking a “leave no prisoner” attack strategy and killing everyone they see?  Didn’t anyone check for these glaring plot holes??!!

16.       I absolutely love this one.  About midway through the film, the Decepticons announce that they will leave Earth alone as long as the U.S. government deports the Autobots in a space shuttle, somewhere in space.  And the U.S. government agrees.  That’s very trusting of us, shipping out our only lines of defense against an unstoppable robotic army, just because these evil robots promised they wouldn’t do the smart thing and take advantage of this situation later.  What’s the name of the evil robots again?  Oh yeah, the DEEEEEEEEEEEEECEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPTICONS!!!  DECEPTICONS!!!  AS IN THEY USE DECEPTION!!!  My God, how this stupid government deserves to be destroyed!

17.       As is tradition with the Transformers movies, the comic relief is terrible.  It is much more funny than in RotF, but it is still pretty inefficient.  They should call it “comic derailment instead”, because these “funny” moments really destroy any sort of dramatic tone this film is shooting for.  The entire section of Sam trying to find a job should have been cut out; it’s pointless and only wastes screen time.  This movie could have been an enjoyable hour-and-a-half action flick, but because of the lame jokes thrown about everywhere, it sits at a nauseating 2 ½ hours.

18.       I mean, really?!  A tickle ray?!

19.       Like in the last film, DotM is not really for the kiddies.  I mean, come on, a film that sells action figure toys based on characters in the franchise shouldn’t feature red liquid spraying off the decapitated heads of the villains like its Kill Bill or something.  There are also a bunch of citizens who are brutally (yet bloodlessly) killed by the Decepticons in the final scene.  You can’t have it both ways, Michael Bay; either make Transformers a colorful action movie for the kids or a mature-themed movie for the adults.

20.       Some of the Transformers look bad, and I mean cartoonishly bad.  I already mentioned Brains, but what about the bald Autobot with the weird spectacles?  What about the facial hair on the Sentinel Prime?  How does a robot grow facial hair?!  And don’t get me started on the stupid-looking green, Igor-ish Decepticon robot that is actually named Igor.  That thing stupefied me every single time it showed up on screen.

21.       Michael Bay is still a self-promoting jerk.  I didn’t notice any shameless plugs for his previous films, but there were some other shameless moments in here.  For example, when Wheelie talks about how mean Mikaela was, you can tell that this line came directly from Bay as a sort of revenge against Megan Fox for calling him Hitler.  Oh, and during the end credits, Bay’s name is the only one that shimmered.  Burn in hell, Michael Bay.

22.       Sam should have died.  At least 20 times during this film.  We’ve seen him flung around so much during this film, and each time there just so happened to be an Autobot to catch him.  In one scene, Sam shoots a grappling hook at Starscream’s eye, and this causes Starscream to freak out and swing Sam around all over the place.  Realistically, one hit against the parking ramp or even against Starscream’s body and Sam’s brain would have been crushed.  But no, Sam makes it out with hardly a scratch on him.

23.       And the award for most obsessively clean person in the world goes to…Carly!  For making it through the whole Chicago battle, while crashing through office building windows and running through the whole damn city, without leaving a single smudge on her lovely pure white jacket.  Congratulations, Carly!  (Special thanks to my dad for pointing this one out to me)

24.       This movie largely uses and wastes an amazing cast here.  You have John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, and John Turturro, a perfect Coen Brothers film cast, and they only have idiotic bit parts in this film.  They are all respectable actors, and now they each have a Transformers film on their resumes that will never be removed.  Shame on you, Bay!

25.            Seriously, how would a tickle ray work?!  Does it only tickle humans?  We only see it tickle Malkovich’s character.  What’s the point of that?  Come on, people, a tickle ray??!!!

Conclusion:            This movie sucks.  It sucks hard.  It could suck a golf ball through a garden hose, it sucks so hard.  It’s not as bad as RotF, but it was nowhere near as good as the hype would like you to believe.  I thought that the action sequence would be so good, and it’s not even as good as the first film’s ending battle.  So I urge you to skip this one, and avoid it at all costs.  If you must watch a Michael Bay Transformers, make it the first one.  At least it is shorter and less nauseating than this piece of crap.

            More than meets the eye?  Bullshit.

            Rating:  2 Stars

            Distributed by Paramount Pictures

            Studio:  DreamWorks Pictures

            Running time:  155 minutes