By Dan Cohen, Santa Monica Reporter

I’m not sure why there’s been such negative buzz on the second “Transformers,” but then I didn’t see the first one, so what do I know? Inspired by a line of toys made by Hasbro the film is hardly Shakespearean, but it’s harmless fun.

The first five minutes or so, a noisy attack on Shanghai by a cadre of hard edged robots, struck me as noisy and difficult to follow. But going forward, it found a light, humorous tone that played well against the onslaught of effects and explosions. Better yet the dialogue was break neck and funny. Credit that to a fleet script spiked with a raft of sex jokes, lively performances, and Michael Bay’s agile direction.

In the current film culture it’s something just short of apostasy to wax positive on Bay, but the man juggles the elements in this summer funhouse with the kind of glee that says he loves his work. “Transformers” may run a little long at 150 minutes, but compares well with the better entries in the Indiana Jones series.

The writers, Ehren Kruger, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtman, apparently realized they needed fresh settings and loquacious characters to hold our attention, and produced them. Several early scenes; in a suburban home, in a college dorm, in a classroom; crackle with comic energy.  The protracted finale, in the Egyptian desert, with a goofy cosmology, keeps us amused even when the dialogue takes a back seat to the expected hardware war.

There’s not much to gain by recounting the plot, but for the record, Shia LeBeouf, Megan Fox, and the US military somehow intrude on an interplanetary grudge between good “Transformers” and bad ones. The good Transformers, aliens that shape shift from trucks to vaguely human form, appear to have the best interests of Earth in mind, and speak in voices ranging from the stentorian to inner city, which shows their appreciation for the scope of our culture. The bad ones all sound like progeny of Darth Vader.

As for the humans; LeBeouf is a real movie star who has no trouble making fun of himself. Fox, his deliciously sexy girlfriend, delivers her lines smartly, and without the self consciousness of her less talented peers. She may be the next Jennifer Connelly. (Having worked with actors, I don’t believe any of this is as easy they make it look.)

The two leads are well supported by a host of elders, especially the bewildered parents, played by Kevin Dunn and Julie White, who keep reminding us they’re in a silly movie without subtracting from that movie. Midway, when he’s least expected, John Tuturro arrives in a satisfying comic turn that keeps the story percolating through various complications. Saving Earth, once again, calls for more resources than anyone imagines.

There’s another element, and a problem, associated with not just “Transformers,” but all these big movies, that rely heavily on CGI, from “Benjamin Button,” through the Pixar projects, like “Up.” The latest crop have achieved a level of expertise that humbles the tradition of visual effects pioneered by Willis O’Brien, (the original “King Kong“) and Ray Harryhausen, who, in a career spanning 40 years, built inspired creatures in everything from “Earth Versus the Flying Saucers,” to “7^th Voyage of Sinbad,” to “Jason and the Argonauts.”

The jerky but charming movement we associated with the old school brought a smile to our faces because it drew attention to its contrivances. The creatures were witty for their obviously stylized origins.. But ever since, say, “Jurassic Park,” (which almost seems like antiquity) we have come to expect a seamless blending of the real and unreal. This is placing increasing pressure on writers and directors to come up with better stories, character and dialogue. We simply expect better. In the case of “Benjamin Button,” we got it, and a lot more. Guillermo Del Toro’s “Hellboy” and “Pan’s Labyrinth,” are two other good examples where the effects were subservient to good writing. But remakes of “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” and “The Posiedon Adventure,” to name just two with mediocre scripts, utterly failed in spite of world class visuals.

In the case of “Transformers,” the creative team came through. Teenagers and those still amused by Hollywood’s love of inspired excess will walk out grinning.

Cheri

Twenty years ago Stephen Frears, (the daring director of “My Beautiful Laundrette,” and “Prick Up Your Ears,”) playwright Christopher Hampton, a classic novel, and a cast including Michelle Pfeiffer, Glen Close and John Malkovich, collaborated on “Dangerous Liasons” The movie, a scrappy visit to the French aristocracy in the 1700s, pulsed with venomous energy. It riveted audiences worldwide.

Frears, reuniting with Hampton and Pfeiffer, and working this time from two novels by Colette, has now delivered “Cheri,” which premiered at the Berlin Film Festival. The drama this time is set during France’s Belle Epoque, shortly before World War I. Despite its pedigree and impeccable period detail, however, the results are less than satisfying.

Pfeiffer plays a mature courtesan, who takes up with a feckless young playboy, (Rupert Friend,) the son of another, older courtesan, (Kathy Bates.) Their dalliance blossoms into a long term affair, which is later subverted by a marriage arranged by his jealous and possessive mother. The two long term lovers separate, but questions about their relationship persist as each goes about the task of trying to forget the other.

What should have been heated and barbed is tepid and windy. The sex is mild and unconvincing, lacking the sort of fire that would have given us a feeling for their supposedly passionate connection. The story is further burdened by obtrusive narration.

At heart the script is lukewarm. Its bitchy, synthetic squabbles render the relationships bloodless. Frears direction is picturesque but lacking the kind of intimacy that could have brought it to life, like his earlier “The Snapper,” (an overlooked drama worth a look on DVD.)

Pfeiffer, a nuanced actress with a complicated face, is saddled with too much mediocre dialogue. Rupert Friend, in the title role of Cheri, has little to do other than look good. Both are muzzled by a lack of momentum. The story may be faithful to its original material, but it hasn’t been transformed into something more vital. What was called for was the sort of daring Frears has shown in so many other films. (For another example go out and rent “Dirty Pretty Things.”)

Here’s the real irony, Shia LeBouef and Megan Fox have way more chemistry in the completely manufactured “Transformers,” than Michele Peiffer and Rupert Friend in an organic but stillborn adaptation of Colette. Can you believe it?