What I loved most: The sex scene at the racetrack has to be seen to be believed.

What I really hated: Honestly, nothing, if you have the right sense of humor.

I thought Crank was pretty crazy, and a helluva lot of fun, but this sequel (amazingly) blows it out of the water. It's incredibly racist, misogynistic, ridiculous and silly, but goes so far out there that the most offensive stuff become moments of absolute hilarity. It's a batshit insane live-action video game/cartoon, where all rules are thrown out the window and everyone takes twisted delight in the nonstop mayhem. It's an absolute blast. (The breakdown of the ratings is absolutely meaningless in this case)

What I loved most: The acting

What I really hated: Overlong and overstuffed

The individual scenes are well-crafted, and the various plotlines are handled nicely, even sweetly and tenderly at times (except when they sink into occasional easy cliches). My problem is that there are a surfeit of nice moments, and the whole movie is overstuffed. "Love" is too broad a theme, and the result of trying to touch on every aspect of it is a movie that lacks crucial focus. Too bad, for the leads deliver good performances, vets and newbies alike.

What I loved most: The Rise of Friend to God-status

What I really hated: Disjointed and hurried at times

Having lost a few major characters in the first movie, the number of cast members shrinks in this one, which makes it a lot easier to follow (except for the flashback bits). Some questions get answered, and others are raised. Particularly interesting is the chronicling of the ascent of Friend to deity status, a good commentary on the nature of religion. While still somewhat disjointed and even hurried at times, it all remains as intriguing as ever, and hopefully, the ending of the trilogy will have satisfying answers.

What I loved most: Radcliffe on ecstacy (well, liquid luck, anyway)

What I really hated: Disjointed plotlines

The romantic plotline is well-handled and the young cast deliver wonderful, nuanced performances. The mystery plotline is still exciting and atmospheric nonetheless, but unfortunately falls into the background. The bad thing is that the plotlines, while well-made, feel like they below in two separate movies, and never really gel together into a cohesive whole. Radcliffe proves he has comedic chops as well, and is surprisingly hilarious.

What I loved most: The effects

What I really hated: Being sexist, racist, ageist and misogynistic

1/2 star for the amazing effects, 1/2 star for the cool factor of giant robots beating the shit out of each other, and 1 star out of generosity because I was still suffering from a pretentious "art" film the day before. Basically, Michael Bay takes out his giant robot penis and smacks the audience in the face with it. It's sexist (gratuitous Megan Fox striptease), racist (the minstrel Autobot Twins), ageist (the geriatic jokes cracked at the expense of Jetfire) and misogynistic (women are either sex objects, evil robots, or dumb slapstick fodder). Therefore, it's perfect for it's target audience: 12 year-old boys and older man-boys of that mental age. My brain struggled with the gaping plot holes the size of Cybertron, but it shut down from all the explosions an hour in, and thankfully, that allowed me to actually derive some pleasure from the overblown climax.

What I loved most: Sound design

What I really hated: Nonexistent script

We love Wong Kar-Wai's movies, but he is not without his excesses, like shooting a movie without a script and treating his actors like props, as he formulates the different possible permutations in his mind. The worst thing is when a newbie filmmaker, desperate to emulate his idol, thinks he can do what Wong does, which more often than not, results in pretentious garbage that neither narratively sound nor aesthetically pleasing. This is one of them. It's damning praise when the best thing about a film is the sound design, but honestly, that's the one bright spark that stands out in a non-movie that's a pretentious critic's wet dream. No narrative, check. Ugly shots, check. Pseudo-intellectual artistic statements, check. Theme that's actually quite easy to grasp, but entirely not worth the effort of grasping, check. OK, there's one good sequence, which is fake archival footage ostensibly shot in the mental hospital. Too bad even that is cribbed from actual archival footage shot in the US in the 1940s - the actors emulate almost the exact same movements, and in many instances, the camera position chosen is exactly the same. Do a search online for the "Prelinger Archives" and look for the documentary short "Symptoms of Schizophrenia", and you'll see what I mean. This sort of pretentious garbage is apparently what gets you film grants and gets foreign critics all excited. This state of affairs is an insult to those who work at their craft. You might have a right to make "art" for "art's sake" (though I'd argue that bad art shouldn't be considered art), but you have no right to con me out of the hard-earned money I paid for my ticket. If I could give it zero stars, I would.