The Order of the Phoenix

During the spring of 2000, I emerged from the haze that was my dissertation to find that there was a hubbub surrounding a series of books about someone named Harry Potter. As I was always seeking things to read, I perused the first few pages of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” at my local Barnes and Noble. I was hooked. That evening, I ordered the 3 available books in the series from Amazon, but only the first book and the third book arrived. At the time, I was living with my buddy Aaron and his wife Julie in Baltimore. I left the books on the kitchen table, figuring that the second book would arrive soon enough and then I could read all three in order. The next day, Aaron exclaimed how he started flipping through the first book the night before and ended up reading both book 1 and book 3 because they were so entertaining. He started after me to let him read book 2 as soon as I got it, but in my infinite cruelty, I made him wait until I had read the first 2 (but it was not a long wait, as I, like Aaron, am a fast reader). With that experience behind me, I became a huge Harry Potter fan. I did not care that the books were touted as “children’s literature.” They were fun to read and intricate in their references that wove tapestries between and among the books in the series. I remember Hagrid delivering Harry to the Dursleys the first night, claiming that he borrowed young Sirius Black’s motorcycle for the task. I did not know at the time that Black would play such an important role (more fully explained in “Azkaban”). I loved the series, and I pre-ordered “Goblet of Fire,” staying up all night to read it. The first of the films was released in the fall of 2001, and I was amazed at how the magic and the places in the book had been so wonderfully translated to fit the large screen. Of course, there were some problems with the earlier films. Chris Columbus is a cookie cutter director, one who is better at coloring in the canvas rather than creating a sketch from scratch. It was not until the cinematic adaptation of “Azkaban” that the Potter film series really took flight. With each successive film, the directors have been more and more willing to discard the less vital elements of each story in a manner that still allows for some of these things to have been going on in the background but just not on screen. The success of the films has really peaked with the latest film in the series, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.”

Having watched “Azkaban” at the IMAX theater 3 years ago upon its release, I was already excited over the fact that this newest film would similarly be released in the IMAX format. When word was leaked that the last 20 minutes of the film (with story that entailed the exciting climax) was to be in IMAX 3-D, I knew that seeing the film in IMAX (or experiencing it, as it were) was a must. I organized a viewing party of 16 people and purchased tickets the day that they were released-3 weeks before the film came out! The nice thing about Navy Pier’s IMAX theater is that all seating is reserved. I was careful to choose excellent seats at the time of purchase (middle of the rows, but not too close to the screen) for the viewing party. Including in the party were Daisy, Jeff, Kate, Mike, Elese and more than a few other friends. The film began without any previews or warning of any sort, and the audience was at once in the world of Harry Potter. We follow Harry, alone in his thoughts, as he is interrupted by Dudley and his band of bullies. The Dementor attack soon follows, and we are whisked away to Sirius Black’s home in a thrilling broomstick ride through London at night. This is what IMAX was made for! Writer Michael Goldenberg and director David Yeates wisely streamlined the story to maintain the focus on Harry and his efforts to train his friends and companions in the Defense Against the Dark Arts. The result is a tight film that is the shortest of the films, all the more remarkable when one realizes that the book was the longest of all the Potter films. The three principle actors, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson, have really grown into their roles. I, for one, envision these actors as I read the Potter books. More importantly, the interaction among the three seems less forced and more natural, as if the audience is looking in on a gathering of real friends rather than watching actors falter through some forced humor. A key example of this is the Gryffindor common room sequence where Harry, Ron, and Hermione have gathered in front of the fireplace as Harry recounts his first kiss. The audience is treated to a wonderful scene of friendship, complete with gentle ribbing and laughing.

What else worked in the film? The following scenes illustrate why this film was able to supersede the wonders of the magical world with some well directed character moments: 1) the arrival of the kids at Hogwarts and Ginny’s expression upon seeing Harry’s interest in Cho, 2) scenes where Harry is angry at Ron and Hermione for not understanding his pain over what he has endured and Ron and Hermione’s angst at not being able to understand, 3) Harry’s scene with Luna where she explains that Voldemort would most likely want Harry to be separated from his friends as it would make Harry an easier target, 4) the quick flashback to Snape’s time as a student and as an object of ridicule at the hands of James Potter, 5) Neville’s recounting to Harry of the death of his parents and Harry’s words of comfort, 6) Fred and George comforting a young member of the DA crying from Umbridge’s tortuous punishment, 7) changes to the betrayal of the DA by one of their own, 8) Trelawney’s firing and Dumbledore’s response, 9) the final battle sequence, including Harry and Sirius fighting side-by-side and the showdown between Dumbledore and Voldemort. There were very few ill-conceived moments in the film. I suppose the only weakness might have been the shoddy CGI of Grawp (Hagrid’s brother), but the stunningly rendered centaurs more than made up for it. I was also struck with the busy-ness of the battle in the Hall of Mysteries, as the audience is witnessing a full on battle among good and evil wizards and witches.

In the end, the film surprised me because I usually find film adaptations of literary works to be incomplete at best and incomprehensible translations at worst. This film, however, transcends the normal shortcomings of cinematic adaptations, and this transcendence resulted in my failure to realize what, exactly, was missing. In the end, I decided that nothing was missing. This was the perfect film to whet my appetite for the final Potter novel, and I am pleased that Yeates will be back to direct the next film in the series.

Suresh’s rating: Wonderfully Entertaining and the best of the Potter films

The Return of John McClane...and Not a Moment Too Soon!

The 1980s were an interesting time for action films. The feel-good artificial superiority of the American way of life espoused by Reagan’s America was best reflected at the time by the action heroes on the big screen. I remember the 80s as being the time of Rocky and Rambo, of looking at the screen and seeing grotesque (maybe not to Daisy, who was crawling at this time, but definitely grotesque to me) images of Governor Schwarzenegger (then an up-and-coming action star) as he wreaked mayhem on bad guys with films such as “Commando,” “Raw Deal”, and “Red Heat.” The steroided denizens of the action movie universe almost made one feel sorry for the villains…almost. Most of the villains in these single note action extravaganzas could barely understand their own machinations, much less be a proper foil for the action star of the day. Furthermore, as a young, impressionable male of the era, I knew that I could never hope to emulate these steroid poster boys in any way, shape or form. The stories were interchangeable, the action was over the top, the villains were laughable, and the dialogue (if you could call it that) was utterly forgettable. This was the status of the action film circa 1988. This was before John McClane.

John McClane was everyman. He was balding, did not have a chiseled physique, did not have a happy marriage, and was cynical in every way. McClane was someone that everyone could relate to. We all knew guys like McClane…at least on the outside. The difference between McClane and other guys rested with the intangibles. As a man perennially caught in the wrong place at the wrong time with the odds stacked hopelessly against him, what chance did McClane have armed with a single automatic pistol and his spirit? The answer, it turned out, was more than the better armed and prepared villains. “Die Hard” exploded (I know…a clichéd phrase, but apropos) onto screens and into the cultural zeitgeist on July 15, 1988 (wow, has it really been almost 20 years?). The film has excellent pacing. We meet officer McClane as he is flying to California to meet up with his estranged wife and children. He figures that he will meet his wife at her place of work (the Nakatomi skyscraper) and the two of them may or may not be able to reconcile. While there, Officer McClane falls into the middle of a heist masterminded by Hans Gruber (portrayed in a tour de force performance by Alan Rickman). I liken everything up until the take over to a roller coaster being pulled up the first giant hill. Once Gruber’s minions seize control of the building, the audience is hurtled over the top into a wild ride where what we have learned in Action Films 101 does not matter. We see McClane gradually get beaten and bloody throughout the film, but he never quits. He is the only one who is trying to stop the bad guys, and his sole motivation is to save his wife. There are several memorable (even classic) scenes in this film: 1) the explosion that takes out an entire floor of the skyscraper, 2) the banter between Al (Reginald VelJohnson (better known as Carl from “Family Matters”)) and McClane, 3) ANY of Gruber’s dialogue in the film, 4) the helicopter/rooftop action sequence- “Oh God, please don’t let me die”, 4) the final showdown between Karl (Alexander Godunov) and McClane, 6) “shoot the glass”, 7) “Yipee-ki-yay, M-F’er”, and 8) the fate of Hans Gruber.

Sadly, this film was followed by the immediately forgettable “Die Hard 2.” The third film in the series, “Die Hard With a Vengeance,” was released in 1995 and worked as an action film. There was no motivation, however, for John McClane doing what he was doing. There was a loose connection with the villain (Jeremy Irons) and Hans Gruber, but the motivation for John McClane was not the same as it was in earlier films. The writers, however, crafted a film where McClane was merely a guy doing the things he does because no one else can. Quite wisely, they kept his family out of this and made John a failure in life. John’s character is one that rises to the occasion in times of great threats, but he cannot cope with the mundaneness of a normal life. With repeated viewings, I grew to enjoy this film as a good film in its own right.

Now we reach 2007. The action film landscape has changed considerably. With the advent of CGI and the decline in actual live stunts, the movie going audience is much more sophisticated when it comes to the action films that they enjoy. If you do not believe me, try sitting through a mid-80s action film now. The films are just not watchable (save for “Die Hard”) on any meaningful level. In an effort to recapture some of the taste of the 80s, Stallone and Willis have both returned to the scenes of their greatest successes. Stallone was first with his release of “Rocky Balboa,” a fitting bookend to the “Rocky” saga. Stallone is currently working on the similarly titled “John Rambo,” starring the granddaddy (literally at this point) of 80s action stars. It seemed only fitting that Bruce Willis would resurrect John McClane, and thankfully, he made sure that audiences would recognize the character when he agreed to star in “Live Free or Die Hard.” In this film, McClane is older. His daughter Lucy (seen briefly as a child in the original “Die Hard,” hates her father so much that she goes by her mother’s surname. John is still a loner when he is called on to do something that should be quite ordinary-escort a “person of interest” to FBI headquarters in Washington DC over the Fourth of July. Instead, John is drawn into the center of a master criminal’s plan to cripple the US infrastructure through the shutdown of the computer networks while the criminal attempts to upload files from a secure location in Maryland. McClane is “an analog guy in a digital world,” but as he soon shows, in a battle between a sledgehammer and a computer, the sledgehammer will usually win. This film, like “Transformers” before it, is definitely a “check your brain at the door” action film, but it succeeds in its mission to entertain. It was refreshing to see classic action filmmaking even in the midst of a few instances of CGI in the film. Favorite moments from this film included (for me) sequences in one of the DC tunnels, the action sequence at the power grid location in West Virginia, and the final desperate action sequence featuring McClane against a fighter jet and thousands of tons of falling highway. The villain was not especially strong, but as no one could top Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber from the first one, I could forgive this. John’s personal stake in this film was the safety of his daughter; therefore, it was easy to understand why he did not choose to walk away from it when he did not have to go after the bad guys. Even without the bad guys, however, McClane does a great job of explaining why he still tries-because no one else will do it.

The film is, of course, filled with ludicrous stunts and lots of dead bad guys, but gone are the horrible puns associated with the action genre of the 1980s. In the 2000s, death is not something to make light of, and the fact that the audience did not respond negatively to a fake shot of the U.S. Capitol blowing up told me that we have healed a bit since 9/11. The patriotism from the film came not from a partisan stance on either side but from McClane himself. The script is not the best in the series, but the action stunts and Bruce Willis’s now-iconic portrayal of the true “last action hero” allowed the film to rise above mediocrity into a level higher than that of most of this summer’s films.

Check your brain at the door and spend some time with John McClane. Welcome back, old friend.

Artful's scale: better than Die Hard 2, but not as good as Die Hard or Die Hard With a Vengeance.

Ratatouille...almost great

Computer animation is all the rage now. It has almost succeeded in completely supplanting traditional hand-drawn animation to the point where even everyday cartoons are done by computers. This is not to say that the writing was on the wall early on in the evolution of computer animation. When “Tron” was released in 1982, it represented a quantum leap forward in animation technique in a film that was ahead of its time. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, I suggest that you check it out. Disney was not the only one experimenting with computerized film making. Universal Studios and Lorimar film entertainment exclusively utilized Cray supercomputers to generate the special effects for the 1984 film “The Last Starfighter.” The marriage of computer effects and cinematic special effects to this point, however, were merged with the video game subculture, as both of the aforementioned films dealt heavily with videogames as something other than side diversions. It would not be until Disney’s animation renaissance with “The Little Mermaid” in 1989 that the power of computers for animation would fully be appreciated. Although much of “The Little Mermaid” was of the traditional, hand drawn variety, some of the key action-intensive sequences, such as the final battle with Ursula, utilized the Pixar program developed at Disney and in collaboration with Lucasfilm. Computers were also at play in “Beauty and the Beast” during the show-stopping romantic climax where Belle and the Beast dance below a beautifully (computer) animated chandelier while Angela Lansbury sang the title song. Note that if you ever see a purported animation “cel” of this sequence, it is most likely a fake. Unlike traditional animation, there are no cels in computer animation. A cel is a clear plastic piece of cellulose upon which animators would draw their photos. Some of the classic cels are worth many thousands of dollars. Be careful….

But I digress. During the animation renaissance at Disney, Eisner had an opportunity to purchase the Pixar program from Lucas, but he did not. Instead, John Lasseter (then a Disney animator) left when the program was purchased by Steve Jobs, and the Pixar Studio was formed. For the rest of the 1990s, Disney ruled animation, with the zenith of the format’s popularity present in 1994’s “The Lion King.” Sadly, shortly thereafter, Animation Head Jeffrey Katzenberg left the studio, and Disney’s animation fortune rapidly deteriorated into films of diminished returns, including “Pocahontas,” “Hercules”, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” “Atlantis”, and “Treasure Planet.” Of course, there were a few hits among the misses (“Mulan,” “Lilo and Stitch,” “Tarzan,” and one of my favorites, “The Emperor’s New Groove”), but for the most part, Disney animation had reached a nadir. “Home on the Range” was the last nail in the coffin.

Meanwhile, Pixar patiently developed their technology. The animation became more and more three dimensional, and the animators worked on perfecting nuances that were not easily accomplished using traditional hand drawn techniques. It was during the early 1990s that Lasseter started work on “Toy Story,” the film that changed all of the rules. The story became the thing, however. Usually, a typical Disney animated film seemed to rise or fall on the number of stuffed animals it was able to sell or the number of hit songs on the Broadway-like soundtracks. With “Toy Story,” however, Pixar crafted a film that succeeded on multiple levels. No more were characters relegated to parts in animated Broadway musicals. The story was the thing. The animation, as beautiful as it was, was in service to the story versus the other way around. Pixar immediately followed up its success with “A Bug’s Life,” “Toy Story 2”, “Monsters, Inc.”, “Finding Nemo”, “The Incredibles”, and “Cars.” Pixar has never experienced a flop, and this is with good reason. They always have great stories.

The creative teams at Pixar really know how to make films. Brad Bird is no exception. One of my favorite films (animated or otherwise) is “The Iron Giant.” It is a traditional animated film based upon a children’s book that is far and away better than anything Disney has put out in the last 15 years. Warner Brothers, the releasing studio at the time, could not figure out how to sell the film, and they ended up dumping it into theaters at the end of August the year of its release. It is truly an amazing film and I heartily recommend this hidden treasure. The director on this amazing film? Brad Bird. Although the film tanked at the box office, the powers-that-be at Pixar knew that the director shared the same sort of vision as they: creating the perfect story and then using animation as the medium. They handed the reins to Brad Bird to create a Pixar film, and Bird succeeded beyond all expectations with “The Incredibles.” The marriage of 60s spy noir with the superhero films of today was a worldwide success, but the success of the film, once again, rose and fell on the dialogue, the relationships, and the storyline. “The Incredibles” is one of my favorite films because it transcends the standard superhero fare. My favorite part of the film is not one of the numerous (albeit amazing) action set pieces; it is the moment near the end when Mr. Incredible tells Helen that he can’t go through the thought of losing his family again. Great stuff.

Why was there this long lead up? Well, I was bringing everyone up to speed to the point of the release of the newest Brad Bird-Pixar collaboration. I have a feeling that Pixar gave Bird even more creative control over this film (for better or for worse), and I have read the usual laudatory praises concerning this latest “Pixar masterpiece.” “Ratatouille” imagines the story of a Food Network devotee who happens to be a rat in Paris. No, that actually is not the story, but I daresay that my fellow devotees of the Food Network will appreciate the film a lot more than those individuals who are not self-described “foodies.” Remy the Rat (kinda like Mickey the Mouse, huh?) is the underappreciated member of his rat’s nest (if that sounds disgusting, let this be fair warning that there are a lot of “yuck, rats!” moments in the film). He finds his way to Paris and becomes the savior of the restaurant and heir left behind by his idol Gasteau, the author of the tome “Anyone Can Cook.”

What works about the film? The animation is incredible. As most of you know, I was a scientist in a previous life. I have observed actual live rats, and the animation on these cinematic versions is astonishing. There is a wonderful scene (in the trailers, actually) where Remy is trapped in a bottle, and the animation is detailed enough that one can see his heart rapidly beating beneath his fur just as one would see the same thing in a live rat. The story really resonated with me, and I admired how Bird made Remy and his human friend Linguini both have foibles that tested the bounds of their friendship. The dialogue was wonderful, and the development of the characters was also perfect.

What did not work for me? Well, as much as I love Brad Bird and as much as I love Pixar, this film has the weakest ending of all of the Pixar films to date. Earlier in this entry, I mentioned how Pixar appeared to have given Bird more creative freedom to do what he wanted, but I think that this was a bad thing. The ending of the film is a muddled mess, with dropped plot points, a sudden switch to first person narration after a sparing use earlier, and a framing device that had one end of a bookend but not the other. SPOILER ALERT: I was most troubled by the fact that the audience never received closure concerning the fate of the head chef who was trying to steal Linguini’s birthright. I mean, this was a major character in the film, yet it seemed that Bird did not know how to address his fate. The appearance of the health inspector was also superfluous. When the “bad guy” reported Gasteau’s to the inspector and the inspector said “3 months,” that should have been the end of it. There was no need for the assault on the health inspector by the rats. I also think that the rest of the crew should have shown more faith in Linguini rather than walking out. The entire film set up Linguini as the savior of the restaurant and of the kitchen staff. They were all behind him when they were kicking out the head chef; why the sudden abandonment of faith? It just did not ring true to me. I felt that the film rapidly wound down without coming to a satisfying conclusion and was completely inapposite to what had gone on before.

In spite of this, I would still recommend the film. The animation and story for the first 2/3 are strong enough to overcome my dislike of the film’s ending. I must also report that my filmgoing companions (including my movie going buddy Daisy) loved the film, so perhaps I am being a bit more cynical. I think that, fairly or unfairly, I am holding Pixar to a higher standard. Although this is head and tails above “Cars,” it does not quite rank with the best the studio has to offer. Perhaps this was a side effect of Disney’s acquisition of Pixar. Maybe John Lasseter does not have the time to review the films as he used to do. Nevertheless, this film does rank as one of the better films of the summer. I wonder if this is due more to the fact that so many other films have disappointed…

More than Meets the Eye Indeed: My Review of "Transformers."

I am a true child of the 80s. Although I was born in the 70s, all of my formative years (from 4^th grade until high school graduation) were spent in the 1980s. As part of that generation, my childhood was spent with the products of Hasbro toys, the G.I. Joe and Transformers series. Now, my parents never purchased GI Joes for me due to their understandable aversion to tiny figures being underfoot on the carpet. The Transformers, however, were a different story. I still remember getting my first Transformer. My parents took me to Best Products Company, a now-defunct retail chain that had an outlet in Norfolk, Virginia. Early on in their run, Transformers were difficult to find (much like Nintendo’s Wii today). Imagine my surprise one day when, during an average trip to Best, I found myself face to face with every single toy from the first series of Transformers figures. Even though it was not a special occasion, my parents allowed me to choose one figure. I chose Sideswipe, a Lamborghini Countach that looked awesome in both robot and vehicle form. I remember, even at my young age, being impressed with the fact that ½ of the figure was made of die-cast metal. I was excited to get the packed-in catalogue that showed the remaining figures in the assortment. I loved watching the animated show and seeing my figure on TV. This was my introduction into the world of figure collecting. Over the ensuing years, I continued to collect the Transformers. I had all of the jets from the first series (Skywarp. Starscream and Thundercracker), Soundwave (to this day, my favorite figure ever), Optimus Prime, Megatron, Blaster, Trypticon, Omega Supreme, Ultra Magnus, Metroplex, Dirge, Kup. Wheeljack, Devastator, Superion, Hot Rod, Perceptor, Astrotrain, and more. I watched the cartoon, I saw the movie in the theaters and I played with my toys. Most of all, I loved watching Optimus Prime. Optimus was the leader of the Autobots, the “good” robots who waged their “battle to destroy the evil forces of the Decepticons.” The Transformers were (and are) a happy..even cherished…memory from my childhood. I still have most of those Transformers to this day.

When I first heard of Tom DeSanto’s (the person responsible for bringing X-Men to the big screen) efforts to make a “Transformers” live action movie, I was excited. One of the things that I always wanted to see was a “Transformers” film, but the technology of 1980s filmmaking was so limited as to make such a film impossible. The technological leaps of films such as “Jurassic Park,” the second “Star Wars Trilogy”, and “the Lord of the Rings” made me believe that such a film was possible. All the film needed was a filmmaker who understood the mythology of the previous series, a filmmaker who could please both fanboys and the general public. Suddenly, a light appeared. Steven Spielberg had agreed to produce the film. Maybe he would direct as well? That would have been great! Spielberg, however, decided to chose a filmmaker whose resume was, umm, a bit suspect to say the least.

Michael Bay.

Now, I have nothing personal against Bay; it is just that he is a “movie maker”, not a filmmaker. Bay’s films are loud, full of quick edits, headache inducing, melodramatic, maudlin, sappy, bombastic, senses-assaulting popcorn entertainment. Let us now look at his filmography.

1. Bad Boys: the film that put Will Smith on the map as a bona fide action star. Would Smith have been given projects such as “Independence Day”, “I, Robot,” or “I Am Legend” without this? Probably not. The film was not subtle in ANY way, and the plotline was laughable. Still, it was a noble first effort.

2. The Rock: Sean Connery and Nick Cage’s action extravaganza set in Alcatraz with ludicrous plot points galore. Boy did this film give me a headache!

3. Armageddon: Ugh. ‘Nuff said (except that Bay would mimic the melodrama in many of his later films).

4. Pearl Harbor: Great trailer, AWFUL FILM. What was Bay thinking?

5. Bad Boys II: a truly awful film, but a guilty pleasure for no other reason than the action set pieces. The freeway chase with the boats and the Ferrari is still fun to watch.

6. The Island: Skipped it (as did most of America).

This was the man who was to give life to “Transformers”? Had Spielberg lost his instincts? This looked to be a slap in the face to fans everywhere. Word started coming out from the set that Bay was changing the “Transformers” that we fanboys had grown up with. He made Bumblebee, the robot everyman, a Camaro instead of a Beetle and took away his voice. He put FLAMES on Optimus Prime! All of the Autobots were now products of GM. What the heck was Bay thinking?

And then…other things started to leak out of the production. Peter Cullen, the actor who voiced Optimus Prime (the bastion of good and leader of the Autobots) for the animated series was back as the voice of Optimus Prime. Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith and Elrond!!!!) was to be the voice of the villainous Megatron. The battle scenes were supposedly off the hook. Gradually, the tidings of dismay started to turn into hope. What was I hoping for? Well, I knew that there would be changes, but so long as I still recognized my Transformers, I would have no problems with the film. Truth be told, the original series and the original animated film were not all that great to begin with. Their sole purpose was to sell the newest models of Transformers. If the film paid homage to the original series, that would be enough.

So on July 3^rd, my friends Jeff, Mike and I made our way to the River East 21 in Chicago. We made our way to Theater 10 and witnessed the latest Bay “movie.” Would Bay deliver? Would it be a fun popcorn film ideal for the summer? The answer is a resounding YES! First of all, let me discuss the bad. Bay cannot for the life of him stay away from EVERY SINGLE movie cliché there is (the soldier with the wife and baby back home, the bad girl, the nerdy guy who gets the girl, the clueless parents, the slo-mo for action scenes, the forced patriotism, Jon Turturro, sappy pop songs to sell soundtracks, and a lack of basic storytelling techniques). Now, although that may seem like quite the list, the film was still awesome. Why did I enjoy myself? By all accounts, this film should have left me feeling like I had watched a marathon of “Spider-Man III” interspersed with moments of “Shrek the Third.” Why did I enjoy it? Quite simply, it’s because I have never watched a film like this before. The premise of the film is quite simple: giant robots beat up on each other and cause mass destruction in some awesome action sequences. This is the prototypical “check your brain at the door” summer movie, and it does its job exceedingly well. Optimus Prime was great, and the battles among the Transformers were awe inspiring. The entire audience was quiet during the battles –not because of confusion or boredom with the CGI (as Roger Ebert would have us believe) but because of bated breath waiting to see what would happen next. Just when I thought the action in the final battle could not be any cooler, enter Starscream against a squadron of F-22 Raptors. I will not describe the scene any further other than to say that this one 2 minute sequence alone was worth the price of admission.

The biggest surprise (for me), was the believable performance of Shia LaBeouf as Sam Witwicky. LaBeouf, rumored to be playing Indiana Jones’ son in the next Indy film, succeeded where so many better actors before him had failed. We as the audience believe it when he is talking to the Autobots because LaBeouf knows how to act in front of a blue screen. I maintain that the best actors are those who can convincingly act in front of a blue screen because, at that point in production, everything is in their imagination. With a lesser actor (Hayden Christiansen in the last 2 “Star Wars” films, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow in Gerry Conran’s “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow”), the audience ends up getting pulled out of the film because the actors do not believably convey that they are interacting with the fantasy world. This was not the case here. I forgot all about CGI (even with the knowledge that some scenes utilized full scale robot models) because of LaBeouf’s work. If he is careful with his script choices, I hope to see him develop into quite an actor. This is a wonderful step in the right direction.

If you are looking for a “film,” this is not the movie for you. If you want to see the best of the summer spectacles thus far, I recommend this film. It is pure, unadulterated fun that just may succeed in rekindling your memories of childhood (whatever they may be).

Suresh’s scale: guilty pleasure action film that is better than “Point Break”, but not as good as “Lethal Weapon.”