The Final Destination (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 28, 2009

There is a rap song that begins, “Six million ways to die — choose one.” In the “Final Destination” movies, there are about six trillion ways to expire, none of them pleasant.

This horror franchise specializes in portraying elaborate, freak-accident deaths, usually befalling young men and women.

“The Final Destination,” which is supposedly the last installment of the series, continues to wring out its bone-dry, bankrupt gimmick. Though the first film was sufficient, here we are with a fourth rehashing where several friends are once again enjoying themselves, until one of them has a premonition depicting an imminent catastrophe.

“The Final Destination” opens at a race track. The visionary leading character, Nick — who’s played by Wheeling-born actor Bobby Campo — foresees a horrendous car crash that will kill him and his friends. After warning his skeptical cohorts and surrounding spectators, they flee the scene whereupon the crash occurs as he had envisioned, except the majority of those who listened to his warning cheat death.

But only for a time.

In these movies death itself is personified as an invisible stalker, preying upon those who should have died. And just like the three previous films, the characters realize what’s happening and try to prevent their fatalities.

When I discussed Campo’s new film with him, he said, “Our object was to see how gruesome and how intricate we could make these deaths.” While it’s true that “The Final Destination” delivers some chain-reaction executions, it spends more time trying to defy audience expectations than it does creating complicated and ghoulish kill scenarios. (The problem with faking out viewers every time is the deception is no longer a surprise.)

“The Final Destination” does deliver one stroke of genius pertaining to its 3-D format: Typically, the fun of 3-D is the alarming perception that something is flying out of the screen toward your face. This movie cleverly exploits this anxiety with a 3-D movie scene within the 3-D movie you’re watching.

But otherwise, most of the blurry 3-D sequences are difficult for your eyes to bring into focus and look artificial — like cartoonish, transparent holograms.

Campo has a charismatic screen presence, and he does fine with this role of looking worried, making ominous predictions and trying to evade death. He told me, “It’s weird to act in a horror movie, because you can’t exactly draw from anything you’ve ever experienced.”

Let’s hope.

Directed by David R. Ellis

Bobby Campo / Shantel VanSanten / Haley Webb

Horror 82 min.

MPAA: R (for strong violent/gruesome accidents, language and a scene of sexuality)

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 21, 2009

The brazen title of writer-director Quentin Tarantino’s new film, “Inglourious Basterds,” refers to a team of Jewish-American soldiers whose specialty and sole objective is killing Nazis — or as their comedic leader, Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) says it, “killin’ ‘Nat-sees.’”

Running 153 minutes, “Inglourious Basterds” unfolds in episodic chapters, some of which play like self-contained short films. In fact, the opening chapter is incredible; its scenario is simple: In 1941 in Nazi-occupied France, German Col. Hans Landa, a so-called “Jew hunter,” visits a dairy farmer who is suspected of harboring Jews.

This first vignette and another later chapter set in a basement tavern are exceptional in the way they build suspense. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace in modern cinema to use quick editing and loud, dissonant music for jarring the audience into feeling tension. But Tarantino has trusted that his spectators will be patient enough to enjoy longer scenes that slowly build genuine suspense.

The trailer gives the impression we’ll be seeing a wall-to-wall war film bathed in blood, but “Inglourious Basterds” is a dialogue-driven drama punctuated only occasionally by explicit violence. Even so, Tarantino fans will be pleased with disturbingly real depictions of strangling, shooting, scalping and a baseball-bat scene that makes the one in “The Untouchables” (1987) seem mild.

“Inglourious Basterds” is an excellent film that is cleverly conceived, smartly written and well executed. It has the all-around craftsmanship of an Academy Award Best Picture contender, though I’m not sure its mid-year release date will afford it the nomination it deserves.

Certain aspects of the film are inspired by actual events and people, but nitpicking historians can take the day off, because much of the movie is fiction.

Those who have an aversion to subtitles should know that you’ll be reading 50 to 60 percent of the dialogue, unless you’re fluent in German, French and Italian.

Understandably, some people have incorrectly assumed that Tarantino’s film is a remake of the 1978 Italian flick called “The Inglorious Bastards,” but this new movie is hardly a retread, despite its nearly identical title. The older film is also set amid World War II, has rogue American soldiers — in France — and some Nazis, but Tarantino’s story is altogether different, not to mention superior.

With “Inglourious Basterds,” Tarantino delivers another memorable film that’s an odd blend of ferocious, realistic violence and offbeat humor.

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Brad Pitt / Christoph Waltz / Diane Kruger

Drama 153 min.

MPAA: R (for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality)

District 9 (2009)

O Masterpiece

X Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocre

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 14, 2009

For those who insist that “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” are good movies, I suggest contrasting them with “District 9,” Peter Jackson’s sci-fi action-drama that not only has spectacular special effects, it also has an intriguing story line that’s enhanced by the subtext of its themes. In other words, it’s a blockbuster that’s entertaining visually and intellectually.

“District 9” is presented as a documentary that examines an alien invasion. Starting with archival footage from 1982, the film shows how a gigantic alien aircraft arrives over Johannesburg, South Africa, and looms ominously in mid-air. After three months of silence from the visitors, an organization called Multi-National United (MNU) flies up to the alien ship and cuts its way inside, where it finds bug-like extraterrestrials, struggling and malnourished.

On the ground below the ship, MNU establishes a holding camp called District 9, a slum that becomes home to 1.8 million aliens for the next 20 years after their arrival, during which time, tensions and intolerance between humans and aliens result in escalating unrest.

The costly inconvenience of hosting the invaders has made them a despised nuisance. Humans want the aliens to leave just as much as they want to return home, but their ship is inoperable. Violent and unsettling mayhem ensues.

“District 9” has a bizarre, almost comedic beginning with a pseudo-documentary style similar to a Christopher Guest film, like “Waiting for Guffman.” Then the tone suddenly grows more dire, with footage resembling “Cloverfield” or “Quarantine” — minus the motion sickness.

The aliens themselves are unsightly creatures, seemingly inept delinquents that chew on tires and love cat food more than E.T. loves Reese’s Pieces. Their language is reminiscent of Greedo’s, from “Star Wars,” which means their dialogue is necessarily subtitled.

“District 9” does an excellent job at shaping our initial opinion of the visitors, provoking our contempt and an “us” versus “them” attitude. Then it pulls the rug from beneath us, stirring our compassion and sympathy for the aliens, reversing the target of our disgust to humans.

“District 9” is a blatant, metaphorical commentary on illegal “aliens” and refugee camps, and the moral questions of humanitarianism associated with them. It also addresses sacrificing life in the name of scientific or militaristic progress.

“District 9” is the best film of the summer and perhaps the best film so far this year.

Directed by Neill Blomkamp

Sharlto Copley / Vanessa Haywood / Nathalie Boltt

Sci-Fi 112 min.

MPAA: R (for bloody violence and pervasive language)

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

X Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / August 7, 2009

The 3- and 3/4-inch G.I. Joe action figures that this movie is based on had a tendency to break in certain places. If “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” were a toy instead of a movie, it would have a broken rubber band, two missing thumbs and no groin.

Apologists will dismiss any criticism of a movie based on a toy line, but after seeing the first “Transformers” brought to the screen with some degree of competence, we know it can be done.

“The Rise of Cobra” is set in the “not-too-distant future” when a weapons manufacturer has developed “nanomites” — fearsome weaponry that can “eat all materials,” including tanks and entire cities.

Naturally, such destructive technology must not fall into the wrong hands, like, say, a budding terrorist organization bent on world conquest. And when that unthinkable scenario occurs, another group of “real American heroes” must counter its attack.

“The Rise of Cobra” gives us some of our favorite characters, such as Storm Shadow, Zartan, a sultry Baroness, and of course, Snake Eyes, whose appearances are quite good. Snake Eyes is played by Ray Park, the incredibly gifted martial artist who also played Darth Maul in “The Phantom Menace” and Toad in “X-Men.”

But unfortunately, many of Park’s combat sequences against Storm Shadow are filmed up close, so we can’t tell what’s happening. That’s how they make older guys like Liam Neeson look fast, but Park doesn’t need close-ups.

As its title suggests, “The Rise of Cobra” is a multi-faceted origins story. We get to learn the origins of Destro, Cobra Commander and the reasons for the bad blood between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow. Despite its futuristic, Battle Force 2000 appearance, “The Rise of Cobra” mostly features the earlier characters, which is to say, there is no Serpentor, Crimson Twins, Emesis Enforcer or any other Cobra-La kooks.

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is frequently boring and seldom entertaining. It is little more than a colorful strobe light masquerading as a motion picture. In other words, if you’re not a G.I. Joe fan — circa 1982 to 1986 — don’t even bother with this movie, unless you’re the kind of person who’s easily entertained by blinking Christmas lights.

Note: Readers feeling nostalgic for their Hasbro treasures should visit the invaluable YoJoe.com, and click on the “Toy Archive” link.

Directed by Stephen Sommers

Channing Tatum / Sienna Miller / Marlon Wayans

Action 118 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout)

Funny People (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 31, 2009

Movie previews seem to either reveal too much, or they mislead our expectations. The trailer for “Funny People” does the latter because it suggests a hilarious film fueled by stand-up routines of proven comedians, like Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill.

“Funny People” is disappointing, as it is only occasionally humorous — never side-splitting — and overall, just OK.

Now, I realize my lukewarm verdict will amount to blasphemy for some fans, since we’re talking about a film by Judd Apatow, whose cinematic batting average is nearly as consistent as Pixar’s, in terms of viewer appeal. You’ll remember Apatow’s comedic handiwork from “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up.”

“Funny People” sporadically sprinkles mediocre clips of stand-up acts, like we’ve seen on “Seinfeld,” but the film doesn’t revolve around comedy club performers or their scene. In fact, rather than amusement, the predominant tone of “Funny People” is unhappiness.

And why wouldn’t the mood be dismal, since the movie begins with George Simmons (Adam Sandler) getting devastating news that he has a form of leukemia and a grim prognosis. Simmons is a successful comedian-movie star who has earned his clout by paying his dues, trudging up through the ranks of the comedy club circuit.

Sandler’s Simmons character is unmistakably parallel to Sandler himself. Like Sandler, Simmons has starred in a host of moronic movies, where he plays idiotic characters with idiotic voices. (Because “Funny People” features a successful star in an unflattering, autobiographical role, I was reminded of “JCVD,” an uncomfortable film where Jean-Claude Van Damme plays a half-real, compromising version of himself.)

Counterpoint to the Sandler character we have Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), a young and ambitious comedian who, along with his pals, is trying to break into show business. Simmons’ celebrity status requires him to play various publicity events, but he doesn’t feel as funny after learning of his illness, so he hires Wright as his assistant and joke-writer.

The first half of “Funny People” involves the relationship of the two contrasting comedians; the second half seems like a new film altogether, as Simmons tries to right his wrongs and win back his lost love.

Although “Funny People” was written and directed by Apatow, its plot gives the impression that Sandler is symbolically “handing over the reins” to the likes of Rogen, Hill and Apatow. For the past 20 years or so — particularly in the ‘90s — we’ve had Saturday Night Live character movies and Happy Madison productions. Now Sandler and his cronies are passing the torch to a new generation of funny people.

Directed by Judd Apatow

Adam Sandler / Seth Rogen / Jonah Hill

Comedy / Drama 146 min.

MPAA: R (for language and crude sexual humor throughout, and some sexuality)

Orphan (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 24, 2009

In the movies, horror often happens to families that deserve it least. From earlier this year, “The Haunting in Connecticut” depicts a family whose primary haunting victim also suffers from cancer.

“Orphan,” which is also set in Connecticut, afflicts a family already afflicted by the loss of their baby. The characters’ vulnerability evokes our pity for them. Our concern heightens the suspense of watching their peril.

“Orphan” is another “evil child flick,” akin to “The Good Son” (1993), “Godsend” (2004) or “Children of the Corn” (1984). John and Kate Coleman (Peter Sarsgaard and Vera Farmiga) have two children, but after their third child is stillborn, they decide to “give their love to another child who needs it.”

At St. Mariana Home for Girls they find Esther, a 9-year-old orphan from Russia who is well-mannered, intelligent and uncommonly insightful. After quickly deciding that Esther should be a part of their family, the couple adopt her.

But “something is wrong with Esther.” Among other things, she seems to be an evil seed, a cunning master manipulator whose propensity for violence is reminiscent of a Joe Pesci wise guy.

Isabelle Fuhrman plays Esther. In preparation for her role, the young actress learned some sign language and studied Russian to develop an accent, which isn’t always consistent, but it’s an admirable performance for a 12-year-old. Fuhrman’s creepy character demonstrates the power of lighting and makeup: Note the contrast in Esther’s appearance from her introductory scene with her final scene.

This film reminded me of how masterful Alfred Hitchcock was at conjuring terror in broad daylight. It’s genuinely scary when nightmares erupt from typically benign situations or people — such as a child. “Orphan” is disturbing because we wouldn’t expect a child who needs a home to try to destroy it.

Technically, “Orphan” is a thriller and a drama, with moments of horror violence. This film escalates from uneasy to unlikely, to unseemly to unsettling. One of the movie’s greatest strengths is the way it doesn’t rely on supernatural phenomena for its nightmares; instead, it has many cringe-eliciting moments where we think, “Oh no, surely they (the filmmakers) won’t do that” — and sometimes they do.

A note to the sensitive and the squeamish, “Orphan” has several upsetting elements, such as violence involving children, both perpetrated by — and against — children. The stillborn baby subplot could be upsetting for some, as well as a couple of brutal, semi-graphic murders.

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra

Isabelle Fuhrman / Vera Farmiga / Peter Sarsgaard

Thriller / Horror 123 min.

MPAA: R (for disturbing violent content, some sexuality and language)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 16, 2009

Few visions are more entertaining than seeing an old wizard going berserk and unleashing some angry wizardry. “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” delivers one such display.

In fact, each filmic adaptation of author J.K. Rowling’s series has provided numerous imaginative images, giving double meaning to the phrase “movie magic.” “Half-Blood Prince” represents the series well, with intriguing concepts like memory-filled vials, “liquid luck,” unbreakable vows, and of course, the revelation of the half-blood prince’s identity.

Not all the “Harry Potter” movies are equal, but I’m happy to report that “Half-Blood Prince” is one of the better films (along with “Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Order of the Phoenix”).

In “Half-Blood Prince,” Dumbledore seeks to convince Horace Slughorn, a professor of potions, to return to Hogwarts because his memory contains a valuable secret that could finally end Harry Potter’s conflict with Voldemort. This new movie also has the creepy Tom Riddle (Voldemort as a young pupil) played by Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, the nephew of actor Ralph Fiennes, who plays the adult Voldemort.

The “Harry Potter” movies hit the big screen in 2001, and the “Half-Blood Prince” is the sixth installment of the saga. The remaining two films (which both will be adapted from the seventh and final book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”) are slated for release in November 2010 and July 2011.

Looking over the eight-year span of the currently released movies, it’s interesting to see how the three principal actors — Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) — have grown up before our eyes.

This cinematic, age-archiving phenomenon reminds me a little of Michael Apted’s incredible “Up” documentaries, which have revisited several individuals every seven years for the past 42 years (so far) to see how closely their lives have unfolded, relative to their plans.

Assigning a one-word verdict to summarize a movie is as inadequate as trying to label a person using the same method. I’m often asked why I rate movies like the “Half-Blood Prince” as merely “good,” instead of “excellent.” Simple. There has to be room for distinguishing even better films — excellent ones like “Fargo,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Unforgiven” and “Monster.”

And rarer still, the controversial “masterpiece” rating is only given to truly extraordinary films like “Goodfellas,” “Hoop Dreams,” “Life Is Beautiful” and the “Up” documentaries mentioned above.

Directed by David Yates

Daniel Radcliffe / Michael Gambon / Alan Rickman

Fantasy 153 min.

MPAA: PG (for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality)

Bruno (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 10, 2009

Not everyone knows what Sacha Baron Cohen’s films are like. Let’s just say they’re challenging to describe — even in general terms — in a family newspaper.

Those who appreciated his 2006 film, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” will probably love “Bruno” even more. For those who haven’t experienced Cohen’s work before, read on before buying your movie ticket.

The word “obscene” has never seemed so feeble. Cohen makes Judd Apatow’s raunchy productions seem timid. “Bruno” is comparable to Tom Green’s disgusting “Freddy Got Fingered” (2001).

Cohen plays Bruno, a 19-year-old homosexual man from Austria whose flamboyance both earned and lost him a job as the host of a fashion show called Funkyzeit. After getting ousted from Fashion Week in Milan, Italy, Bruno moves to Los Angeles to become an “uber-famous celebrity,” a quest that fills the balance of the 83-minute film with his sordid attempts at notoriety.

Cohen must be admired for his unflinching commitment to his comedic art. An unfortunately unforgettable wrestling match during his “Borat” film situated his face in an unthinkable place. But gross-out humor is only part of Cohen’s gig: He is a master instigator and equal-opportunity offender who obviously aims to shock, antagonize and provoke as many viewers as possible.

Cohen’s filmmaking has made him no stranger to litigation. Much like the methods of the TV shows “Candid Camera,” and more recently, “Punk’d,” Cohen’s gimmick is to use his bizarre characters to elicit reactions from unsuspecting “victims.” Under such unusual circumstances, these regular, everyday non-actors respond to the comedian in surprising ways that land them in his films’ final cut — hence the humor and the lawsuits.

For both “Borat” and “Bruno,” some of the scenes are scripted with actors. The latter has cameos from surprisingly “big” celebrities who chose to participate willingly, as well as some who vehemently did not.

Though Cohen succeeds in amusing, shocking, disgusting and offending, I can’t recommend “Bruno” — even a little bit — despite its having several laugh-out-loud moments. This film is vile and somehow, paradoxically, shameful and shameless. “Bruno” is rated R for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language. (Its original rating was NC-17, which it still deserves.)

Less than 30 minutes into the screening I attended, three 20-something guys vocally refused to watch any more and left the theater. Cohen no doubt would be pleased.

Directed by Larry Charles

Sacha Baron Cohen / Gustaf Hammarsten / Clifford Banagale

Comedy 83 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language)

Public Enemies (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 2, 2009

According to The Encyclopedia of American Crime, by Carl Sifakis, the term “public enemies” was coined by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and was meant to identify armed “stickup men” of the 1930s. The notorious John Dillinger was dubbed “Public Enemy No. 1.,” which Sifakis noted, was a status he attained with a criminal career that spanned only 11 months in 1933 and 1934.

Apparently Dillinger was a somewhat chivalrous bank robber and incredible prison-escape artist whose loyalty to his cohorts even promoted some honor among thieves. Despite his designation as a public enemy, Dillinger was actually widely admired during the Great Depression era as a kind of Robin Hood for insisting that bank patrons keep their money, while assuring them that he only wanted to steal from the bank.

These and many other tidbits from Dillinger’s life are portrayed in Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies,” a convincing period film that features Johnny Depp as Dillinger, Christian Bale playing his pursuer, and Marion Cotillard as his love interest. Mann’s movie is authentically set in many of the historical locations where Dillinger briefly dwelled, including the Biograph Theater in Chicago.

The subtle master stroke of “Public Enemies” is when we see Dillinger watching the film “Manhattan Melodrama” in the theater mentioned above. Mann pulls a clever trick whereby he places us, the viewers, in the same theater with Dillinger, as the images on the movie screen he’s watching eventually fill the screen we’re watching. It’s been done before, but not this well.

For better or for worse, the film’s episodic plot is merely a cycle of bank robberies, gun battles, arrests and jailbreaks — over and over again. Though it is refreshing to see Depp step out of his typically bizarre, macabre roles to play a relatively normal person, overall, “Public Enemies” isn’t overly intriguing. Gangster film fans will know what I mean when I say this movie is more a “Road to Perdition” than a “Goodfellas.”

Certainly Dillinger couldn’t have been worse a menace to society than Albert Fish, one of his criminal contemporaries who was executed in 1936. Fish was a convicted child killer and cannibal who thrilled at the prospect of getting to experience the electric chair. (I bet he was shocked by his disappointment.)

Movies have the peculiar effect of glamorizing war and crime. So does the media. Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” (1994) demonstrates both glamorizers in action by satirizing the way the media tends to sensationalize criminals, which of course, is depicted cinematically with stylistic flair. In the 1930s, Dillinger also captivated the media, and therefore, the nation. Indeed, here we are 75 years after his death, and Dillinger’s name is still appearing in newsprint.

Directed by Michael Mann

Johnny Depp / Christian Bale / Marion Cotillard

Crime 140 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for gangster violence and some language)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / June 24, 2009

Director Michael Bay’s first “Transformers” movie from 2007 is excellent, as far as shameless action entertainment goes. In fact — though it didn’t win — “Transformers” was nominated for three Academy Awards for visual effects, sound editing and sound mixing.

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” still provides stunning sound and visual effects (hence my “OK” rating), but its atrocious story is utterly ridiculous, even for Michael Bay — and that’s really saying something. Remember “Armageddon?”

Bay is one of those directors whose movies you enjoy, but you’re a little embarrassed to admit it. In planning “Revenge of the Fallen,” it’s as if the three screenwriters jotted down all their ideas during a brainstorming session and Bay decided to use them all.

The first “Transformers” is about an alien race of two feuding robotic clans that seek to obtain a mysterious cube in order to protect or exploit its power, depending on their heroic or villainous dispositions. A fast-talking teenager named Sam Witwicky gets caught in the middle of the transformers’ battle, thanks to one of his ancestors. Sam is played by the hilarious Shia LaBeouf, whose character in “Holes” (2003) also has forbears whose misadventures implicate him.

As for this sequel, “Revenge of the Fallen” begins two years after the first movie, when the malevolent Decepticons want revenge by attempting to destroy the benevolent Autobots, as well as the human inhabitants of the Earth — oh, and also the sun. Yes, this movie is so dire, the villains aren’t satisfied with merely conquering the Earth, they want to destroy the sun, too. The Decepticons’ destructive objectives are all designed to ensure their posterity and redeem “The Fallen.”

It’s no surprise that “Revenge of the Fallen” is nothing more than a summer-blockbuster-popcorn movie aimed at 14-year-old boys, which is fine — especially if you’re a 14-year-old boy. If you’re looking for plenty of pyrotechnics and Megan Fox wearing cut-off jean shorts, a la Catherine Bach, then this your movie. But if you’re looking for a coherent story, you’ll have better luck with “Armageddon.” Again, that’s saying something.

Variety’s film critic Joe Leydon wrote a book called “Guide to Essential Movies You Must See,” in which he suggests that filmmaking pioneer Edwin S. Porter demonstrated how “spectacle is not enough; movies also have to tell compelling stories.” Indeed. Somebody needs to tell Michael Bay that.

Directed by Michael Bay

Shia LaBeouf / Megan Fox / John Turturro

Sci-fi / Action 150 min.

MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material)