J. & C.'s Movie Reviews

Our Notes on Movies Made Public

Archive for August, 2008

Who are the DeBolts?

Posted by J on August 29, 2008

We once encountered a female who openly celebrated the fact that she was having no more than two kids.  She was normal, middle-class, friendly-looking, and happy to announce to complete strangers that she would no longer reproduce.  Her car even featured the vanity license plate, 2ISENUF.

She would’ve fainted had she seen this short documentary.  The DeBolts have nineteen children.  Many of them are physically handicapped.  Yet for the DeBolts, nineteen is not enough.

Who are the DeBolts? was a TV documentary that aired in 1977, and it subsequently won the Academy Award for Best Documentary that year.  By today’s standards, it is not a great documentary.  There is neither a narrative arc nor a single charismatic personality we are supposed to attach ourselves to.  It is much closer in style to a high school educational film than it is to a Michael Moore project.  Modern viewers could get bored.

At the same time, it does positively depict the daily life of a huge family.  Mostly, it celebrates the DeBolts.  The family seems to have one water balloon fight after another, right after they run and laugh in a park.  No family can operate so well, it appears.  But the movie’s point is simply that a huge family can be normal and fun, too, to counter the prejudices of the kinds of people we mentioned in our first paragraph.

It does help that the DeBolts, from all appearances, are rich.  But they obviously foster in their children a can-do attitude.  Many of the DeBolts are adopted from other countries, some of them can’t use their legs, one of them has no legs and arms, and a few received their injuries during the Vietnam War.  All of these children seem to flourish once they enter the DeBolt household, and so we watch scenes of the handicapped children perform chores and happily interact.

There is no sign of Christian faith or any religious practice in the DeBolt household, but it is still a wonder why this documentary is not promoted to death by Christian adoption agencies and pro-family groups.  It might have the power to change perceptions about what is possible in child-raising, especially for those with special needs children.  It certainly makes the 2ISENUF license plate look extremely foolish and selfish.


Posted in Documentary, Poignant but Boring | 1 Comment »


Posted by J on August 29, 2008

You may find a good review of this documentary here. In case the link disappears one day, we’ll preserve the text below.  The reviewer’s comments point out a sharp flaw in the narrative logic of modern documentaries.  A hero is needed; in the case of IOUSA, it’s comptroller general David Walker.  In the case of other documentaries, it is the documentarian himself, ala Michael Moore.

The problem with this is that the hero ought to be a prophet, speaking fundamental truth to the problem raised in the documentary.  However, prophets are always hated in the age in which they appear, so we are not likely to find them as stars of a movie or in a panel of experts on television (especially when they are funded by billionaires on the Council of Foreign Relations).

Walker may be a nice man, but when we have seen him he never strikes at the root of the problem, which is a prophet’s job.  The trouble is not necessarily government debt itself.  The government has always been in debt because it has a monopoly on force, which guarantees the coerced payments of all taxes so as to generate guaranteed yearly revenue.  The more fundamental problem is that the government has a monopoly on money, which it controls through legal tender laws and the Federal Reserve system.  It therefore has another option for dealing with debt: inflating the money supply by creating new money.  In this case the value of money is simply diluted, which makes its debt worth less than it once was. This of course is theft by any definition, but very few today are willing to call it for the eighth commandment violation it is.  So it will probably happen.

This is not even close to the whole story, but it is a few sentences of more useful information than you’re likely to find in I.O.U.S.A.  The reviewer had a good recommendation.  The last chapter of Empire of Debt is a better, more informative introduction to the problem of United States’ government debt.


From the link above:

Writes Stephen Fairfax: “The film was billed as inspired by Empire of Debt, but it is an extraordinarily poor and biased rendering of a very good book. While Bonner and Wiggins provided a thoughtful and entertaining exposition of the entire problem of excessive debt and credit, the movie focused entirely on government debt. Watching it, one would not know the private sector exists at all. The only significant examples were an American scrapyard contrasted with a new Chinese compact fluorescent lamp factory.

“Before the movie started, a debt clock marked the ever-increasing $55 trillion debt figure calculated by Mr. Walker. But the first 3/4 of the movie focused almost exclusively on the on-budget federal debt and the ratio of national debt to GDP. Why a ratio of two politically rigged and entirely suspect numbers is a useful indication of anything was never discussed. There was some heavy-handed posturing about Clinton and the ‘surplus.’

“I checked the index of the book; gold was cited 23 times, government debt 19, David Walker only once. The movie offered a hagiography of Mr. Walker, complete fixation on government debt, and no meaningful mention of gold. The highlight was a brief snippet of Jon Stewart using a few deft questions and his keen insight to force Alan Greenspan to admit that his policy of low interest rates favored Wall Street and hurt savers. Even that was largely muted by the decision to show Mr. Greenspan denying that Fed decisions can influence markets, placed several minutes later where the lie was considerably less obvious.

“The book offered several options for dealing with the debt; the movie had only one: more government. The post-movie ‘town hall’ was as silly and even worse than I feared. It took only a few minutes before new taxes were proposed under the guise of “forced savings.” More than once, the worthies on the stage opined that if several of them were to huddle, they could solve this problem. Of course, their solutions invariably included taking more money from one or another out of favor group. Once again, even so much as the possibility of market solutions was never acknowledged, let alone discussed.

“The notion that government is the source of this problem and unlikely to be the solution was never raised. The book made this point clear, the movie carefully ignored it. The movie focussed exclusively on the problems of paying this government debt; the book explored other, more realistic options, such as repudiation and inflation. The book explored the enormous malinvestments, misallocation of resources, folly, and harm caused by the same policies that allow such a monstrous pyramid of debt and credit to be created in the first place. The movie studiously ignored any mention of the harm these policies have caused to civil society.”

Posted in Documentary, They Spent Millions on This? | Leave a Comment »

College (1927)

Posted by J on August 29, 2008

Buster Keaton’s The General is now widely considered one of the greatest movies ever made, but it flopped so badly at the box office that Keaton had to put out this rather lame feature as his next film venture.  College is filled with a lot of fish-out-of-water gags, but only the last five minutes are satisfying in any meaningful way.  Keaton plays a college scholar who wants to be an athlete.  The jokes all revolve around his attempts to become one, but these get old once you realize that Keaton is going to pretend to screw up at every track and field event.

Despite its silliness, College does prove that contemporary comedies do not do much better.  Same setup, same plot development, same random humor.  It is also nice to know that the nerd/jock dichtomy was flourishing in the 1920s as it does today.

The other shorts on this DVD are throwaways.  The Electric House has promise, but it ends up being too repetitive.  The print for Hard Luck is terrible because it was lost for sixty years.

If you haven’t seen a Keaton movie yet, start with The General (the DVD of which also has the fantastic short Cops) or Sherlock Jr.

Posted in Comedy, Okay, But We Won't Watch It Again | Leave a Comment »

The Secret of Roan Inish

Posted by J on August 27, 2008

The Secret of Roan Inish is about storytelling, particularly the Irish way, or at least the way we think the Irish should tell stories.  This mode of storytelling is at once mythmaking and truth-telling.  The stories are melancholic, but they are not to be taken as mere fairy tales.  No, these are family legends, very serious matters for young Fiona Keneally and the relatives who tell her about her family’s past.

Fiona, in fact, has just lost her mother.  Her younger brother once disappeared at sea in a bizarre accident.  Her father has sent her to her grandparents to live, while he pursues work in the city, a tough task since World War II just ended and the local economy is slow.  All this loss, but still Fiona is not alone.  Her extended family is tight-knit, and she hears the stories about her ancestral past with wonder.

The movie pursues the possibility that Fiona’s lost brother may not actually be dead.  If he’s not, he’s drifting around in his cradle, out there around the isle of Roan Inish.  The Keneallys used to live on Roan Inish, but they moved eastward, maybe because — as Fiona’s grandmother says — the way east is toward the future.  Going west, back to Roan Inish, is to head in the opposite direction.

The subtext of the movie is globalization.  Fiona’s father is absent because of market forces.  Midway through the movie, the Keneallys are told they must leave their home and move inland.  Certain rich people from America want a summer home on the Irish coast.  Fiona’s grandfather is grieved, because his way is the sea.  Perhaps, as Fiona looks at the situation, the way home is westward.

The movie is socially conservative in the sense that it favors ancient family tradition to adoption of the individualistic lifeways offered by the global marketplace.  It is similar to Whale Rider, another movie about a young Maori girl separated from her father, who learns the ways of the ancients while living with her grandparents.  Some viewers may not appreciate the privileging of quasi-pagan myths and the cinematic blending of those myths with reality.  To some extent, we agree with that negative sentiment, but the movie’s other themes and its cinematography make The Secret of Roan Inish a worthwhile view. Oh, and the storytelling.  This movie knows how to tell them.

Entertainment: 7

Intelligence: 6

Morality: 8

Posted in Modern Drama, Pretty Good, Reality-Fantasy | Leave a Comment »

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Posted by J on August 23, 2008

Should we ever be banished to a desert island and be offered the choice of an Indiana Jones movie to take, we might take this one.  Granted, it’s a great conundrum. We could anguish over this choice for ages.  Much like we’d anguish over which toilet bowl cleaner to bring along.

When stories are based on forgotten pulp fiction, they’re likely to become pulp fiction.  This Indiana Jones has dance numbers, poison, tommy guns, plane crashes, falls off a cliff, whips, bugs, snakes, hidden passages, booby traps, evil cults, assassins, scimitars, blood-drinking rituals, mine cart chases, unstable bridges over deep chasms, alligators, and cackling villains.  This is a high-class B-movie — somewhere just below the cookie-cutter dime Westerns from the 1800s we’ve read.  But since pop culture is so elevated right now, it and the rest of this Jones series are “movie classics” from the 1980s.

Temple of Doom is credited with catalyzing the institution of the PG-13 rating.  Why?  A man’s heart gets ripped out of his chest.  People remember that.  They forget that the first half of the movie is deliberately, frenetically comical.  Then it shifts drastically.  Jones and his cohorts find the Thuggee cult, and here the movie goes on and on for twenty minutes on the ritual practices of this cult.  You won’t find what they do in many anthropology books, nor will you find a potion of blood that temporarily hypnotizes its victims, the hypnotic trance being broken only by jabbing the victim with a torch.  The Thuggees even use a voodoo doll, which they apparently picked up on a leisure trip to the Caribbean.  As we said, B-movie.

Even what little content this movie has is idiotic.  Jones does free the slaves and conquer evil in the end, but it is only to return the sacred stone back to an Indian village that worships the goddess Shiva.  The people get to keep their idols, at least the good ones.  From slavery to slavery.  Meanwhile, the reowned American professor of archaeology gets to bare his chiseled chest and wins the buxom blonde.  These are the kinds of fantasies everyone appreciates in a post-Christian age.

Entertainment: 7

Intelligence: 0

Morality: 0

Posted in Big-Budget Eye Candy, They Spent Millions on This? | Leave a Comment »

Arsenic and Old Lace

Posted by J on August 21, 2008

Arsenic and Old Lace is a fine example of artists trying to make humorous something inherently disturbing. The results, in this case, are several funny jokes and a weird tone throughout.  An alien from outerspace, seeing this movie without cultural context, would have to admit that whatever mass audience enjoyed Arsenic obviously had very serious problems they weren’t admitting.

That’s because the content is very dark, even though it is played lightly.  Mortimer Brewer has just gotten married.  He is a drama critic who is publicly known for vilifying marriage, particularly in a book called “Marriage: A Fraud and a Failure.”  On Brewer’s wedding day, as he prepares to leave for his honeymoon, he discovers that his two sweet old aunts are practicing euthanasia on old men and burying them in their basement.  Shocked, Mortimer decides to place the blame for these murders on his insane cousin, who thinks that he’s Teddy Roosevelt.  The plot is further complicated by the return of Brewer’s estranged brother, who looks like Boris Karloff and, we learn, is eager to extend his murdering ways to other people.  The police should help with this mess, but they are too self-absorbed to notice crimes.  In the end, Brewer is proud to learn that he is not related to his insane and criminal relatives.  In the stage version he proclaims, “I’m not a Brewer! I’m a bastard!” though this line is modified in the movie.

The core of this movie is therefore the fact that two women in their sixties are euthanizing men.  No matter how lighthearted this is made to appear — and Cary Grant tries his hardest to do so — the wide divide between style and content makes for a bizarre tone.  The movie even spoofs depictions of the macabre, while at the same time being macabre, while at the same time incorporating slapstick.   Sometimes this made us laugh, but most of the time it just made us wonder why murder is even considered funny.

Weird Factor: 10

Posted in Comedy | Leave a Comment »

Jesus Camp

Posted by J on August 19, 2008

A reader emails:

“Dear J&C.  I wanted to get your thoughts on the fascinating documentary Jesus Camp.  You don’t seem as stupid as the people in this movie, but do Christians really want to take over America?  It seemed like everyone was a walking contradiction.  What these people are trying to do is frightening.”

Dear reader,

As the Joker in The Dark Knight says, “Why so serious?”  You are frightened because a bunch of kids got hyperemotional during a glorified pep rally in the boondocks?  You are scared of the kid with the rattail haircut and the kitsch shirt that says “Jesus” in place of the Reese’s Cups logo?  You are quaking about a religious movement led by women, children, and men in Hawaiian shirts?  We know delicate women who have more self-control in the presence of rodents.

This documentary that you think is “fascinating” tells you nothing more than what you can hear in thirty seconds on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.  You have now witnessed an hour of Pentecostal zaniness, but you have mistaken that for what the movie tags as a broader evangelical “culture war.”  FYI, evangelicals are not necessarily Pentecostals.  James Dobson is not a Pentecostal.  Neither was D. James Kennedy.  Some evangelicals are goofier than others, but very few are as emotionally and intellectually goofy as what you see in this documentary.   Remember, most of the people in this movie are children.

And did it seem as stupid to you as it did to us that this movie’s anointed voice of reason for the “liberal” position was an AM talkshow host?  Soundbytes from a talkshow were in dialectic with kids preaching at a Pentecostal service?  Good grief, we have not felt this braindead since our peers in high school made us suffer through Jim Carrey’s schlock.  You could’ve called this movie “Dumb and Dumber,” though we’re not sure if the kids or the liberal Christian talkshow host deserve the dishonor of the latter adjective.

Yes, the obese, Pentecostal preacher lady seemed to contradict herself when she complained about Christians being unwilling to give up food for God.  That’s people.  They are walking contradictions, usually.  The acclaimed scientist and finite being with limited knowledge, Richard Dawkins, regularly asserts his certain knowledge that an infinite, omniscient being does not exist.  You should ask Richard the finite being how he can know this for sure, since, after all, he is neither infinite nor omniscient.  But Dawkins speaks and the crowd goes wild.  Lots of people join his fan club, and NPR longs for him to breathe into its microphones.  This deserves explanation, too, we think.

You asked if Christians want to take over America.  Actually, every church proclaims an idea like that every week, usually in the form of the Apostles’ Creed, where it says that Christ reigns at the right hand of the Father and will come to judge the living and the dead.  This is not news; this creed, you might have heard, is quite old.  But if you think the Christian takeover has progressed in any way lately, you must admit that it’s a weird sort of takeover.  Notice in the movie the massive “Adult Superstore” sign right outside the bowling alley the kids were at?  Even liberal progressives fifty years ago would’ve been raging to get rid of that store.  But today most everybody tolerates it.  Go into any grocery store and look at the magazine rack near the checkout counter for further proof.

As for the love the people in the movie show George W. Bush, you really should pity them.  After some limited influence in the 1980s, evangelicals have been Republican party lackeys ever since.  You realize the Republicans controlled all three branches of government recently but didn’t enact the theocratic revolution you’re quaking in your boots about?  In fact, just the opposite happened. Those in control are far more concerned with the preservation of global capital markets and the perpetuation of democratic revolution throughout the world than with bringing Christian theocracy — whatever that is — to this country.

Even Bush himself has publicly denied the central doctrine of the people in Jesus Camp (if they have doctrines at all).  He has said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.  Yet evangelicals believe the words of Jesus: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except by Me.”  You must admit that the people in this movie are so terribly ignorant about the pronouncements and actions of the President they love that, really, they have no clue about politics.  As the younger people we know would say, they have no freaking clue about anything to do with politics.  Those are people you are scared of?

We presume that you believe in democracy.  Is it wrong for these evangelicals to have the right to vote?

Answer wisely, because you should be scared of one thing.  Demography tends to be destiny.  In the end, people who have kids, especially lots of kids, beat the people who have no kids.  It’s the biological principle of fitness.  Follows from the theory of natural selection.  And yes, Christians and Muslims and people who probably aren’t like you are having lots and lots of kids.  One day, they will be voters.

So eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow will indeed be scary.



Entertainment: 2

Intelligence: 0

Morality: —

Posted in Documentary, They Spent Millions on This? | Leave a Comment »

Return of the Jedi

Posted by J on August 18, 2008

In honor of the release of the spectacularly bad Clone Wars, let’s revisit the point at which George Lucas lost his creative powers, if he ever had any.  Return of the Jedi is a two-hour, thirty-minute denouement.  There is nothing in this movie that was not in the two previous installments, and it is missing much that was in those previous two.  The only new plot development is a soap-opera style moment in which Luke tells Leia that she is his sister.  Like the three prequels released after it, this movie believes that more stuff is better: more space shootouts, more monsters, more swordfights.  This is the narrative theory of the blockbuster: the audience is filled with morons with money to burn, so please them with as much spectacle as the budget allows.

This one tries to please using primitive teddy bears.  Lots of people have hated the Ewoks over the years, but they have their place.  The point is that even primitives can beat empires, hands down, with willpower and persistence.  It is complete nonsense — one use of a high-tech weapon could destroy everything the Ewoks have built for a thousand years — but it captures the general feeling these days that upscale political powers are too wimpy to go back to colonial-style rule. Return of the Jedi shows teddy bears throwing rocks at billion-dollar war machines, blowing them up, and winning independence.  We the audience are obviously supposed to cheer along.

A few Christians have gotten uptight about people believing in Lucas’ ripoff of Oriental mysticism. It’s true that you wouldn’t want your kids to believe in Star Wars‘ religious claptrap, but then, as good Americans, you probably do want them to hold dear its anti-tyranny political values, made clear by the victory of a ragtag band with American accents beating an empire of oppressors with English accents.  So, calmly discuss with little Johnny and Susie how stupid this business about the “Force” is.  Explain that “force” is a physics concept.  Tell them that telekinesis is not.  If necessary, demonstrate that you cannot lift rocks and green puppets named Yoda with your brain.  Finally, tell them that the balance of good and evil in the universe is very bad theology.  They should already know that long before they are capable of watching this movie.  It’s then up to you if they should watch it, but remember that everyone else in the world has, and so Johnny and Susie will be tempted to watch this and a lot of other things once they exit the house.  If you have properly equipped them for that moment, they will probably not convert to Buddhism or take up the ways of the Jedi.

Entertainment: 9 (but just a 7 for Lucas’ updated version)

Intelligence: 1

Morality: 5

Posted in Big-Budget Eye Candy, Pretty Good | Leave a Comment »

John Adams

Posted by J on August 16, 2008

Note: This review only covers parts 1 and 2, for reasons explained below.

Remember the way the Joker’s lair looked in the old Batman TV show from the 1960s?  It was always tilted at an angle, as if the level on the camera were somehow broken.  Someone forgot to check the level on the camera that filmed this John Adams series.  The debates at Independence Hall look like the Joker’s lair, angled for no apparent reason, so that you can almost see the Penguin and the Riddler sitting with the Virginia state delegates, cackling wildly while they and George Washington plot to take over Gotham.

That’s not the only directorial problem in a series that suffers from weird shot after weird shot.  There are scenes where there’s an unfocused object in the extreme foreground, for no apparent reason.  There are even plenty of shaky, handheld-type camera movements for those who think eighteenth-century parliamentary procedure needs to look like The Bourne Supremacy.

Maybe the reason for this is to spice up the subject matter, namely John Adams, which is pretty dull at times.  Even Adams tells everyone how bored he is at the meetings of the Continental Congress.  They’d introduce a motion that two plus three equals five, he says, and then debate it for two days before motioning to approve it.  But then, in Episode 2, we see meeting after meeting of the kind of debate and discussion that Adams says he’s weary of.  It’s the cinematic equivalent of watching some Congressional committee go at it on C-SPAN, which no one these days has the patience to watch for two minutes.

So yes, John Adams suffers from being dull.  It’s not as if Adams himself was boring — take a look at his resume sometime — but the way he’s portrayed here should make any viewer wonder why we are watching a series about him.  Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson all come across as much more intriguing characters than Adams here.  The drama of the early Revolutionary War is barely seen, but when it is we are much more interested in it.  Even the Adams’ family’s daily life — Abigail Adams’ floor-scrubbing techniques, the family’s bout with smallpox — are more interesting than Adams’ many speeches about liberty.  At least HBO has created something that will make a better substitute in public high school history classrooms for the next two decades.

Episode 1, “Join or Die,” begins with the Boston Massacre.  Adams famously defended the British soldiers accused of murdering a bunch of Bostonians, so the episode is dedicated mostly to the trial, which comes off as just another episode of Law and Order except that the lawyers wear wigs and use big, Latinate words like “desanguination.”  The main point of this episode is to show that the American colonists were rabble-rousers who tended to use mob tactics.  They form a mob that leads to the Boston massacre, they scream for British blood throughout the trial, and then they tar and feather a British ship captain afterwards.   Above it all is Adams, who looks on the tar-and-feathering scene with disgust and says that most men are weak and need “strong government.”  It isn’t more than a few minutes later, however, that Adams is denouncing British tyranny in a church after just being elected to represent Massachusetts at a meeting of the Continental Congress.  All men have their contradictions, but this Adams doesn’t know what kind of story he is in, or else he’d be screaming for a more coherent representation of himself and his fellow colonists.

Episode 2, “Independence,” is the C-SPAN-like episode we mentioned above.  There are interesting moments, however.  Maybe the best is when Franklin and Adams are reading Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence.  Franklin, who is portrayed excellently in this series as a shifty character prone to ironic humor, starts to edit the document.  Jefferson complains that every word was precisely chosen, but Franklin insists that “sacred and undeniable” is pulpit language, and that “we hold these truths to be self-evident” is a much more palatable and pragmatic choice.  You get the feeling throughout these two episodes that church doctrine mattered less to these guys —  it is totally absent, after all — than eighteenth-century philosophical abstractions.

Scenes like this demonstrate that the series should’ve been reconceived as Founding Fathers or From Colony to Nation or something broader like that.  The mix of personalities we’ve known since grade school, portrayed here with a good degree of accuracy, is quite dynamic at times, so that focusing on Adams seems merely opportunistic, coming on the heels of David McCullough’s best-selling, pop biography of Adams as it does.  We couldn’t make it to Episode 3.  Adams’ was a life of debate, negotiation, and politics, and so it seems likely that the rest of the series will have the same problems as the first parts of it.  Let us know if this isn’t true.

FYI: There’s a brief shot of unexpected full-frontal nudity when the British captain is being tarred and feathered in Episode 1.  The series is rated “TV-14,” probably just for that.

Posted in Period Drama, Poignant but Boring, TV Series | Leave a Comment »


Posted by J on August 14, 2008

Fifteen minutes into Transformers, it seems clear that this is a teenage male’s fantasy.  The protagonist is a late teen, he’s about to become the hero of the world, highly involved in a mission where cool cars turn into fighting robots, and there’s a cute girl who’s a great candidate to become his love interest.  Someone in Hollywood knew who they were marketing to.

But, in fact, Transformers speaks to a wider audience than this.  It is also meant for a slightly older generation, those males between 25 and 35 who can remember the original Transformers cartoon series.  These boys, fed on a diet of pro sports and video games, have never quite grown up.  They too will find an attraction to a movie where cool cars turn into fighting robots and the protagonist saves the world and gets a cute girl.  This generation will watch with their sons, ages 5-10, who will learn that these are the kind of fantasies to relish for the rest of their lives.  And thus they, too, will never grow up.  And so on.

Transformers does not stop here, however.  It is also meant for those who desire a decisive victory in the battle for the universal secular values, freedom and goodness, part of the ongoing, revolutionary struggle to win the War on Something (whether it be Drugs, Poverty, Homelessness, Terror, Pollution, Cigarettes, or the Fat that Burgers are Boiled in).  These values — the movie tells us — are embodied in America’s fighting spirit, from the soldiers stationed in the Middle East, who must valiantly fight a robot in the shape of scorpion, to Optimus Prime, the red-white-and-blue leader of the Autobots who tells us again and again that he is ready to give his life to save humanity.

But we have not reached the limits of Transformers‘ audience yet.  For those who love to utilize barf bags during movies will thoroughly enjoy the violently shaking camera, whereby none of the action for five-minutes stretches can even be comprehended.

But finally, for those who firmly believe in the goodness of man, Transformers is for you.  Optimus Prime, your hero, has come to this planet to rescue you from giant robot terrorists.  He believes that, while humanity has had problems in its infancy, it is destined for great things because it exhibits goodness.

Optimus, as it turns out, is a prophet.  For in the end, the protagonist exhibits goodness, saves the world, and gets the girl.   Thus, everyone’s unfulfilled fantasies are unfulfilled no longer.  Now back to the Xbox for more, all of you.

Entertainment: 5

Intelligence: 0

Morality: 0

Posted in Big-Budget Eye Candy, They Spent Millions on This? | 1 Comment »