Vroom, Vroom! Sequel! Sequel!

Disney and Pixar have united again to bring to us what is supposed to be cinematic gold, but it will take at least two more times seeing the film before I can verify if that's true or not.

Let me attempt to recap the plot of "Cars 2" as best as I can.

Rather than Lighting McQueen (Owen Wilson) being the star of the movie, "Cars 2" focused almost exclusively on Mater the tow truck (Larry the Cable Guy).

Mater and the rest of the gang from Radiator Springs are asked to be the pit crew for McQueen's latest excursion: the race to see who is the fastest car in the world.

While at this international hullabaloo, Mater meets a sexy pink car named Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) and her pal Finn McMissile (Michael Caine).

There was even a short homage to Paul Newman, who voiced Doc Hudson in the original.

And then it becomes a spy movie. And a mystery movie. And an action flick. And yes, there's even a torture scene where a spy car gets blown up. I can only hope the reason for this more adult take on the very cute and classic original is because the audience is about five-six years older than they were when the first "Cars" came out.

But even with all the cast members and plot points in place, I found it extremely hard to figure out what was going on.

The first comprehension blockade came in the form of children—hoards and hoards of screaming children. There was a child who sat right behind me and screamed "Oh no!" after anything that happened on screen. McQueen speeds across a finish line? "Oh no!" Mater thinks wasabi is ice cream and eats it? "Oh no!" A car goes into the women's bathroom instead of the men's by accident? "Oh no!" And this kid had some serious pipes, too.

The sheer amount of screaming children literally ruined the movie for me. I am going to have to see it again because, frankly, I really do love Pixar's films. I think they're smart, funny and well-animated. I'm always impressed with how funny they can be and how they can simultaneously tug at your emotions.

But I didn't get any of that due to the scores of people's offspring who infested the darkened theater like so many popcorn munching, Capri Sun slurping, drop-of-the-hat crying cockroaches.

But seriously, I love kids. Just not other people's kids.

The other reason I found it hard to understand the movie was the theater itself. In addition to keeping the air conditioning off for half the film (despite the hellish temperatures from the multitudes of toddlers and their steaming diapers) the sound of "Cars 2" was seriously displaced.

Our local theater company has a problem with attempting to make dialogue sound as if it's coming straight from the characters.

This means the voices are turned up in the front of the theater, and the background music and sound effects are amped up in the rear. Since this movie is full of James Bond-esque scores and plenty of explosions, then it was next to impossible to hear what any of the characters were saying.

There is a sweet spot in the theater where the sounds all balance out, but it only covers about 10 seats in the middle three rows. If you are stuck in the very back then don't expect to hear or understand any dialogue. Just be prepared to get very familiar with the score.

"Cars 2," I'm deciding whether or not to add you to my friends list. You really look great but I need to get to know you a little better. Let's set up a date and discuss it, but let's get a babysitter first. 

I'm glad they're letting special education kids write scripts. Transform!

Matty is not amused

Well, it certainly was something, but I can't really say what that something was.

I'm not sure why Paramount executives decided to release the third "Transformers" film during the middle of the week. It gets on my nerves a little to try and fit a film into a weekly schedule—especially when said film ends up being like "Dark of the Moon."

I am thoroughly convinced 3-D is ruining movies. It feels like any sort of plot is being sacrificed for special effects when it comes to some of these big summer blockbusters.

This film takes us back to the space race of the ‘60s. Come to find out, America wasn't trying to get to the moon just for giggles. No, we knew something had crashed on the moon, and we had to get to it before the Russians.

And yes, the device that crashed into the moon was a Cybertron spaceship, complete with a super soldier Autobot named Sentinel Prime, voiced by none other than Leonard Nimoy.

Also on the ship were devices capable of transporting things across space. So naturally, the Decepticons want this technology. Luckily though, our Autobot hero from films past, Optimus Prime, was the only one who could revive Sentinel, who in turn was the only being able to control the transportation technology.

If it feels a little convoluted, just know I had to sit through the whole thing thinking exactly that.

Every cast member returned for the movie with the exception of Megan Fox, who I think actually made a good career choice by getting kicked off the cast list.

There were even a few additional characters added in the forms of John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Patrick Dempsey and Ken Jeong.

In the end the movie relied on its special effects to win the day. I wish I could report that the plot and dialogue were winners as well, but I can't, in good conscience, do that. Yes, the effects were awesome. But that was it.

There were many feeble attempts at humor. And yes, there was a line that went: "This is code pink! As in ‘Floyd!'"

Since it was Jeong who said the line, I'm almost willing to give it a pass. But since it wasn't in his "Hangover's" Leslie Chang voice, I just couldn't accept it as humorous.

Sorry Michael Bay, but you're denied a Facebook friendship for this movie. We can still be friends for your first one, though.

Richard has nothing but love

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon" brought conspiracy theories to the next level with a James Bond-caliber plot and a coverup around 45 years in the making.

Shia LaBeouf returns as Sam Witwicky, the quirky teenager turned American hero. We've followed Sam since he was a geeky high school kid in the first "Transformers" movie, and now he's a college graduate trying to find a job. We see from Sam's first scene that he feels lost, even though his new girlfriend, Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), does what she can to make Sam feel better, including helping Sam get a job. If you're wondering what happened to Megan Fox, it's explained in the first scene between Sam and Carly.

Just like in the first two movies, the Decepticons manage to reel Sam into the Transformer War, but the problem is much bigger this time. Megatron's plan to take over Earth comes to its full outset. Everything that happened in the first two movies was merely a setup for what Megatron really had in mind.

Everything that characters fear in alien invasion movies happens in "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." The plot was very "Independence Day" meets "007" with a hint of "Die Hard." Instead of James Bond and John McClain we have Optimus Prime.

The only problem I had with the movie was in the final battle. I don't want to say too much because I may give something away, but I felt Michael Bay tarnished a certain Decepticon's legacy by having him killed by a certain human. Again, I feel as though I've said too much, but you'll know who I'm talking about once you see the film.

Bay is known for having tons of explosions and special effects in his movies, and there's no shortage of that in "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." The amount of explosions and special effects in any other movie would have been too much, but this is "Transformers." There are supposed to be huge explosions and epic robot fight scenes.

If you judged the movie on Bay's special effects alone, then it's a five-star movie. He erased the choppiness of the robot fights from the first movie and made the fights last longer than they did in the second movie, including Optimus Prime's final showdown—the Autobot we paid $8 to see in the first place.

I wish I had multiple Facebook accounts because "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" deserves more than one friend request from me. This was the best movie in the "Transformers" trilogy. 

Go, Glitter! Go!

Quick! Grab the most effective tool in our gay arsenal and use it to its full extent! Glitter powers, activate!

I hope that wasn't the line that convinced the army of gay activists to start flinging glitter at Republican presidential candidates. Because frankly, nothing pushes a cause backward like furthering a campy gay stereotype that conjures up images of fairies.

The growing trend among gay activists seeking equal treatment is to ambush proponents of anti-gay legislation and chuck glitter in their faces. Yeah. That will totally work.

Those of you who throw tiny pieces of plastic into the eyes of anyone else are rated six out of seven days bathing in glitter instead of soap and water. This poses a problem because glitter tends to stick to oily parts. On the plus side, though, you'll be a walking disco ball (albeit a smelly one)!

Now I wasn't present at the Fantastically Absolute Benevolent Uber Leaders Of Underappreciated Same-sex'rs meeting, but I am a card-carrying member. I think my absence from this year's FABULOUS summit might have ruptured the sane way in which we protest.

Had I been present, I would have objected to this throwing of twinkles, and not just because of the hazard of glitter being next to impossible to shampoo out of hair. No, I'm against it because if small-minded right-wingers who believe gay people shouldn't be afforded the same rights as everyone else don't take us seriously already, then pitching a handful of pixie bits into their faces sure isn't going to get them to start now!

You can tell my level of exasperation increases by the length of my sentences.

Let's recap this little trend which I will be dubbing "Glitter Lobbing Among Masses."

The first GLAM incident occurred on May 17, when Newt Gingrich and his wife-for-now, Callista, were at a book signing in Minneapolis. You can bet your ruby slippers that when the sparkles were chucked, everyone in the room knew exactly why. Because what says "gay rights" better than fairy dust?

I'm sure Gingrich immediately thought to himself: "Oh my goodness! Glitter! I must now be pro-gay rights!"

I really hope sarcasm translates through print. I really do.

The second GLAMcident was on June 16, when glitter was literally dumped on Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. This little excursion was executed by Code Pink, the female anti-militant militants who are infamous for their stance against war. But apparently this was a protest in favor of gay rights.

These anti-war gals should take a page from PETA's book: Keep working toward your goal, and don't get sidetracked by shiny things! You don't see PETA stopping their crusades against animal rights to protest the mosque in New York City.

Apparently Code Pink got too bored with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and decided to add gay rights to their repertoire. Perhaps the group should change their name to Code Pink Triangle. Just a thought.

And the most recent GLAM, GLAM, thank you ma'am came on June 18, when Minnesota congresswoman Michelle Bachmann was accosted sparkleodiously after a conservative speech.

I guess one good thing will come from at least two of these glitterific attacks. Minnesota is going to be a very sparkly state.

But I have some sad and sorry news for the pixie dust-throwing Tinkerbelles. You're not doing us any favors. Seriously. Put the glitter away. You're going to deplete the rations needed for the Peter Pan float in next year's pride parade.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you prance around showering people with rainbow pieces? How does that prove to the right-wingers that your rights as a human being are just as important as theirs? Trust me on this one. You're being annoying. You're not furthering your cause.

If a Republican came up to your door and slapped you across the face with a Bible, would you look at him or her and say: "You're right! I completely agree with you now!"

We need to kill them with kindness, and most importantly, facts. If you want to express your displeasure with marriage laws, start writing letters and organizing real protests to prove how many voters are with you.

If you want show how many children in foster care could be saved by loving parents if laws were changed to allow same-sex couples to adopt, then start doing a little research and present your findings to the politicians who can do something about it.

Show the public that you are not a prancing fairy whose only weapon is a bag full of Rainbow Bright stars. Show them you have knowledge and fortitude. Save your sparkle showers for recreational events.

And do you know what the most important and potent weapon is? Your vote. Tell those elected officials you disagree with that you are a person with a family and many friends who listen to you. You pay taxes and you vote. And if something isn't done to further your rights as a human being, then you will do everything in your power to vote that official out of office.

Tell that public representative that you will write letters, blog, knock on doors, and educate everyone around you. Let that representative know that your goal is to change as many votes as you can in order to get him or her out of that public position.

Just lay off the glitter, please. You might as well be dressed as Dorothy when you perform GLAM in public places. Don't turn us all into one huge stereotype. Save it for Pride.

The Green Lantern: Meh.

I am so conflicted as to whether “The Green Lantern” was a huge disappointment because of the writing and acting, or because I just never cared for the character.

Unfortunately for DC Comics, “The Green Lantern” was sort of a swing and a miss, especially since it's last hope at successful comic-to-movie adaptations, “Batman," is coming to a close next year. All this while Marvel Comics is boiling over with success.

I felt as if DC is trying to play catch-up to Marvel and its “Avengers” hype. Are they planning on making a “Justice League” movie? If so, will there be subsequent “Wonder Woman,” “Green Arrow” and “Flash” films?

These are all questions that were floating through my head while I watched “The Green Lantern.”

Ryan Reynolds stars as Hal Jordan, a very cliché ne’er-do-well fighter pilot who plays by his own rules. All of this is made even more formulaic because he is trying to be like his pilot father, who died in a flight test when Jordan was 12.

Despite Jordan’s inability to commit to, well, anything, a cosmic green ring chooses him as protector of Earth and the thousands of galaxies surrounding it. Yes, that’s totally a thing in this universe.

Jordan joins thousands of other “Sector Protectors” as a Green Lantern. And all of them fight for intergalactic peace. All of this is disrupted when an evil force long imprisoned on a forgotten planet is suddenly unleashed. And yes, it’s headed toward Earth.

I never really liked Green Lantern in the comic books because his power was pretty cheesy. Every once in a while he would pop up in some vintage book I’d purchase, and I’d see images of giant green boxing gloves and huge glowing green padlocks smattered across the pages. That seemed like a bit of a stretch to me, even for the pages of a comic book.

So I never followed the character and never became familiar with the concept and plot. The villains and allies in the movie were about as recognizable to me as my face is to Ryan Reynolds.

And in addition to all this apathy toward the character, I was forced to swallow a script that was full of bad lines. But hey, maybe if I see it again I’ll change my mind.

All I know is there were lots of girls in the audience who weren’t there to see a comic book action film. Reynolds is pretty much naked the whole movie (only his skin is colored in with CGI black and green). So if that’s your thing, then you’ll probably like this flick.

When it comes to the DC universe, I’ll get excited over “Batman,” even when an actress I despise is playing Catwoman. But I can’t get hyped up about a hero I never cared about to begin with. Despite the mega-effects, 3-D images and perfectly sculpted bodies, this movie just didn’t cut it for me.

Sorry “Green Lantern,” but I’m denying you a Facebook friendship. We may have lots of friends in common, but I just don’t see us working out.

Private Political Parts

The world is rife with Weiner jokes, but this week’s column isn’t going to go there—no matter how easily the puns may come.

Former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner may not have considered his name when he started posting lewd pictures of himself online, but the fact is he did. After serious pressure from Americans and the president himself, Weiner has resigned.

I’m no proponent of posting pictures of yourself online if those pictures don’t include some amount of clothing. I would especially advise against it if your particular career doesn’t include getting naked for money.

I know that seems a little contradictory. “Elected officials” and “naked” seem to go hand-in-hand. But I don’t think it’s an official job description for the position.

Despite Weiner’s life decisions, we will never see if he could have become a great leader. The people of New York have spoken and now a man’s career, and possibly his constituents' lives, are changed forever.

Who knows what’s to become of Weiner now. Perhaps a book deal is in the works, or perhaps an even more lucrative video deal is being mulled over. Whichever it is, there’s no guarantee he won’t have the same amount of power or influence as he did as a legislator.

And really, when you look at Weiner’s voting record, he seems like the perfect representative for New York Democrats!

According to the official vote counting website, govtrack.us, Weiner voted to keep our troops out of the unstable Libya conflict, to limit the amount of power Homeland Security wields, and to help our Veterans through legislation. If that doesn’t bleed donkey blue, I don’t know what does.

But New York voters decided none of that mattered. Despite his liberal voting record, the people chose to judge him on his private parts.

Although I’m arguing against Weiner stepping down because of a sexting scandal, I’m not going to allow him to get through this column unscathed. I’m not a Republican, and I’m certainly not a Democrat, so I’m always finding things I don’t agree with. I see many of Weiner’s votes that I think are just ridiculous.

For voting “Yea” on H.R. 1954, an implementation on a national higher debt ceiling, I must rate Weiner with four out of five years having a new first name: Richard. You finish that joke in your head because like I stated before: I’m not going there.

If the people are going to demand an official step down from office, it should be for reasons of voting and political action, not for reasons of private affairs.

I’ve had this mode of thinking for as long as I can remember.

I was 16 years old when the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal was going down, and I remember thinking: “Isn’t this guy a good president? Why is everyone so hung up on his personal life? Shouldn’t we be more concerned with how he’s running the country?”

We can debate Clinton until we’re blue. The truth is he was a good president, but citizens and congress thought this act of marriage defiance was reason enough to impeach him.

I know, I know. He lied under oath. But if he hadn’t done that, the Republicans would have found another way to use the scandal against him.

It hasn’t been until the last few decades that politicians were scrutinized for their private lives. I would like to think Americans would rather see an elected official impeached for something horrible and totally relevant to that person’s job.

For example: Richard Nixon’s little fiasco. Now there was a reason to get a guy out of office!

For that whole mess, Nixon gets the review of being reprinted in the history books as Richard Weiner.

It should be for those reasons, and those reasons alone, that men and women get kicked out of office. A president breaking into an opponent’s headquarters: bad. A man trying to get lucky on the Internet: not relevant.

Just imagine if we as a country were this judgmental historically. I don’t even need to explain what would have become of John F. Kennedy. Today he is regarded as one of the nation’s most influential leaders. But what if Americans judged him on his private actions? Go ahead and mull over that rhetorical question for a minute.

There’s dozens of names that could be dragged through the political mud pit, including Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wife, Eleanor, for signs of lesbianism; Andrew Jackson, America’s seventh president, for partying too hard; and even the drafter of our Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, for having affairs with his slaves.

But F.D.R. helped America through the Great Depression and WWII, Andrew Jackson was the only president to pay off the national debt and leave the country in the black, and Thomas Jefferson, well, was a founding father!

Who knows how America might have been affected had any of these leaders been ousted because of their private lives.

We definitely wouldn’t have those two familiar faces on the $20 bill, the nickel and the ever-popular $2 bill.  And the musical “Annie” would be drastically altered.

Should we examine each political official’s public actions with a microscope? Yes. But should we spend our time peering through that microscope at each official’s private lives? No. We’re wasting our time if we do. We need to be scrutinizing politicians for how their actions affect our lives—not how their actions affect their lives.

The Book Of Mormon, Baby.

Oh Broadway, you seem to be more prevalent than ever these days, and if you can't sell us tickets with fabulous songs, then at least you can cash in on pure bad taste.

Not that bad taste is a horrible thing, mind you. I'm not in the business of bashing art that many would deem inappropriate. I say if it's smart and funny, then let it be. Heck, I'm even a proponent of trash that isn't that smart. Filmmaker John Waters is on my top five list of most fabulous directors of all time! (See "Pink Flamingos" very last if you've never seen a Waters film—it truly is offensive.)

I want to give a small review to Waters.

I award him 10 out of 10 overweight drag queens and a month-long stint locked inside an aging movie theater watching only Joan Crawford's worst films. "Straight Jacket" and "Berserk" come to mind. This may sound like a negative review to you, but I'm almost positive it would be akin Christmas morning for Waters.

But I digress because I'm not focusing on film today. No, I'm talking about the oldest profession in the world: acting (performing for money; you know—prostitution).

The latest hit in the Big Apple is the musical "The Book of Mormon." If you haven't heard of this Tony award-winning phenomenon, then you must live electricity-free in the Ozarks and make a living selling moonshine.

"The Book of Mormon" was nominated for 14 Tonys and won nine of them. It beat out "The Producers" for most Tony nominations by two nods. Something tells me this show is pretty good.

I'm too poor to actually fly to New York City and see "The Book of Mormon" live, but I promptly purchased the soundtrack to this theatrical masterpiece the second it was available on iTunes.

The script and music were a collaboration between "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and "Avenue Q" lyricist Robert Lopez. Needless to say, the music and lyrics are purely offensive—especially when taken out of context. Oh, and there's the whole making fun of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints thing.

I played a song for my significant other that sounds like it jumped right out of "The Lion King." However, the lyrics detailed the horrors of African life: poverty, war, infant raping and AIDS (all very real issues in many parts of Africa). But the tune is a bouncing ditty similar to "Hakuna Matata."

Only instead of "no worries," the African people in Uganda (where the two star Mormon missionaries are sent) are singing "F-word you God."

They sing this song because their lives suck more than anything we could possibly imagine. Warlords and female circumcision are not an average American issue. But to Africans, those issues are dealt with every day.

My spouse was very, very not amused.

And so are a lot of Mormons, I've noticed!

I've heard LDS people on the news call the show "blasphemy." Well, I hate to be the one to point this out, but I think that's what the show's creators were going for. And in their attempt at shock value, they've effectively become the nation's biggest current Broadway show!

The cast of "Wicked" must be throwing a witch fit right now.

If we LDS people haven't figured out a way to have a sense of humor about ourselves now, then there's just no hope left.

If anything, Mormons should be flattered!

Only in my wildest dreams would there ever be a satirical masterpiece written about me. It would prove to the world I'm important enough to make fun of, but also nice enough to allow the satire in the first place. I'd hate to see the backlash if there was ever a Broadway musical titled "The Quran" (although, I don't see that really being a comedy, either).

The religion portrayed in the musical itself, while grossly inaccurate, shows LDS members as being ridiculously kind to all people, no matter who they are. Seeing the lead character portrayed on the stage at this year's Tonys made me see how others possibly perceive the LDS folk.

The Tony performance summed up the Mormons pretty well, I thought.

Elder Price, who is brought to life by actor Andrew Rannells, belted "I Believe!" at the top of his lungs to a group of African militants and a warlord while they pointed their guns at him. In the face of certain death he grabbed the warlord's hand and tried (unsuccessfully) to dance with him.

How could any person of the Mormon faith say that isn't the essence of LDS values? Love one another. Even if the other is armed and dangerous.

Mormons who live their lives just like Elder Price get six out of seven days to construct their own perfect planet. Take that seventh day and rest. You deserve it.

Unfortunately the world is full of holier than thou types of people. It doesn't matter what you say or who you say it to, someone is going to be offended. Looking over the annals of The Skewed Review certainly proves that.

I'm waiting with baited breath for the Mormon picket lines.

I would like to say to those easily offended LDS peeps, and to everyone else who gets offended as well: Get a sense of humor, gosh darn it! If God didn't want us to make fun of each other, he wouldn't have programmed sarcasm and a sense of irony into our very souls.

I believe—that is, I hope—that God will judge us on our senses of humor. Those who can dish it and laugh at themselves just as much will get a instant front row seat to the Broadway production of "Eternity in Heaven: An Angel's Hilarious Story."

Do you have to agree with everything about "The Book of Mormon?" No. And this goes for both the musical and the actual publication. But can we all agree that both of them are great in different ways? I think so.

One will make you laugh out loud, and the other is a Tony-award winning musical.

If you didn't laugh at that, I'm sorry, but you don't get front row seats.

Since this debate is sure to continue as time goes by, The Skewed Review will keep updating with tidbits of snarkolepsy (you know, that thing where I write stuff without realizing what I'm writing).

Follow on Twitter @SkewedReview and "like" The Skewed Review on Facebook to get in on the conversation!

Super 8 Skewed Review Update!