Movie Review: Frozen

"Frozen"/Walt Disney Pictures/Dir. by Chris Buck an Jennifer Lee/108 min./Rated PG (for some action and mild humor)

Many believe that Disney animation went through a catastrophic decline in quality in the early to mid 00's. While there's no arguing the fact that "Home on the Range" and "Chicken Little" were no classics, I tend to think that this period was less a creative bankruptcy and more a severe identity crisis.  For decades, Disney was the animation monopoly.  From 1939 to the early 80's, most non-animation buffs would be hard pressed to name any feature length animated film that wasn't Disney  (such films do exist, but you probably haven't heard of most of them).  In 1979, one of Disney's key animators, Don Bluth, left the company to start his own animation studio, taking a good chunk of the Disney animation staff with him.  This sudden loss of talent not only lead to the studios' biggest flop, "The Black Cauldron" (the first PG rated Disney animated film), but it also lead to the first major competition the studio had ever faced.  Bluth directed two of the biggest animated hits of the decade, "An American Tail" and "The Land Before Time."  "Tail" was especially challenging to the house of Mouse because it was a success at a style that Disney seemed to hold the trademark for.  Namely cute critters breaking out into delightful song and dance.

However, thanks to an infusion of talent, including amazing animators and terrific collaborators like Broadway's Howard Ashman and Alan Menken, Disney came out on top.  With the quadruple threat of "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", and "The Lion King", Disney claimed their rightful place on top of the pack.

Then Pixar happened.  In 1995, with the release of "Toy Story", the world's first full-length computer animated film, audiences were treated to a style of animation that not only had the joy and fun of traditional animation, but the visual wow factor of major special effects films.  Plus, Pixar did it without a single character singing about their feelings.

Then Disney animation head, Jeffrey Katzenberg, left to co-start DreamWorks, which made an empire out of amazing computer generated images and more hip and ever-so-slightly naughty humor.  Pixar and DreamWorks began to flourish, while each Disney film seemed to make less and less money.

The first sign that Disney was questioning themselves came in 2000 when they released a major animated film in the middle of December (they normally opted for the high-profile months of June and November).  The film was "The Emperor's New Groove" and while it was a hit with the critics and had long legs at the box-office, it wasn't the event film on which Disney had built their reputation.  In fact, what was originally envisioned as an epic musical update on "The Prince and the Pauper" placed in South America became a non-musical (unless you count Kuzko's theme song) slapstick comedy that owed more to Bugs Bunny than to Belle and Ariel.

Disney continued to play catch up with Pixar and DreamWorks, trying adventure ("Atlantis: The Lost Empire"), sci-fi ("Treasure Planet"), and even sci-fi/comedy/Hawaiian (the delightful "Lilo and Stitch", which was the studios' biggest hit from this period), but the fact remained that they were floundering.  They fought to become like the other studios.  Fortunately, when John Lasseter, the head supah-genius at Pixar, became the new head of animation at Disney, he reminded them that they weren't like the other studios, nor should they be.  He brought back hand-drawn animation and the fairytale/musical style of story that Disney does like no one else.  First with "Princess and the Frog", then with the superior "Tangled", and now with "Frozen", which is a Disney fairytale unlike any they've done before, yet somehow distinctively, delightfully Disney.

Loosely based on the Hans Christian Anderson fairytale "The Snow Queen", "Frozen" tells the story of two sisters.  Elsa (Idina Menzel) is fiery and fun and was born with the power to create flurries of snow and ice. The younger sister, Anna (Kristen Bell) is a bundle of energy and loves spending time with her sister.  However, after an accident, Elsa avoids Anna, leaving their relationship strained and unresolved.  When the two are grown and Elsa is of age to become queen of the kingdom of Aradell, another incident occurs and Elsa flees the kingdom, unknowingly causing a constant state of winter on the kingdom.

To tell you more about the plot is to deprive you of the surprises, suffice to say that this story does a fantastic job of honoring the tradition of fairytales while subverting the cliches that are found in most of them.  There are genuine twists and turns that show that the filmmakers were committed to creating full-rounded characters that act on motivations more noble than finding someone cute to smooch.

The animation on display here is simply stunning.  There's a beautiful scene in "Tangled" when the aura of a flower sprouts out toward the screen.  "Frozen" is filled to the brim with scenes that install the same sense of wonder.  Ice and snow dance and flourish with a vitality and life I've never seen in a film before, made even more exciting by the filmmaker's exceptional use of 3D.  Most impressive is during the song "Let It Go" when Elsa creates her ice castle while fully unleashing her powers.  It's the strongest song in the film and combined with the breath-taking animation makes for a masterful center piece.  

Which leads me to the one draw back to the film.  The songs, written by the Broadway husband/wife team of Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, are simply not as consistently good as previous Disney musicals.  Yes, "Let It Go" is a stunner, but that's as much to do with Idina Menzel's acrobatic vocals as it is with the song itself.  Other highlights include "In Summer", a delightful rumination on warmth from Olaf (Josh Gad), a snowman that doesn't know what happens to snow when it gets hot, and "Do You Want to Build a Snowman", a wistful tune that follows the girls from childhood to becoming young adults.  However, both of those songs beg to be longer.  "In Summer" could've greatly benefited from a little "Be Our Guest" style expansion, especially since it takes place in the imagination of a snowman.  There was so much that should have been done.  The rest of the song score is less memorable, replacing the complex wordplay of the Howard Ashman and Stephen Schwartz with songs that are clearly more interested in simple rhymes than wowing audiences.  In fact, a couple songs could've been taken out completely and not missed one iota.

However, in the long run, "the songs aren't as memorable" is a small complaint in a film that has so much to wonder and dazzle.  It's funny, it's engaging, it's beautiful, and, even if all the songs aren't equal to the task, at least "Let It Go" stands proudly with the best songs in the Disney animation canon.   As films targeted towards family become more and more inane (my wife and I groaned a lot during the previews before the film started), "Frozen" stands head and shoulders above the lot.  It's not only the best animated film of the year, but the most complex and engaging Disney film since their heyday in the 90's.

Grade: A

Movie Review: The Wolverine

"The Wolverine"/Rated PG-13/20th Century Fox/126 min./Dir. by James Mangold

Director James Mangold is a difficult talent to get a read on.  Of course, many directors love to genre hop, but Mangold has never even repeated genre.  He's done cop drama ("Cop Land"), western ("3:10 to Yuma"), horror ("Identity"), biopic ("Walk the Line"), action comedy ("Knight and Day"), and rom-com ("Kate and Leopold").  One thing that connects all of his films, however, is focus on character.  While he often shows a unique visual flair, it is clear that he's more interested in the motivations of his characters than he is in massive special effects.  That focus continues, for the most part, with his latest film "The Wolverine".

It's been a difficult cinematic life for Logan, a.k.a. Wolverine (Hugh Jackman).  Amnesia, manipulation, mutilation, forced servitude, and the tragic deaths of loved ones have all been a part of his experience. Chronologically, the last time we saw the character was in 2006's "X-Men: The Last Stand", when he was forced to stop his beloved Jean Gray (Famke Janssen) from destroying half of San Fransisco by ending her life.  As we meet up with him again, he's separated himself from the other X-Men, living as a recluse in the woods of Northern Canada.  Constantly haunted by nightmares of his lost love, he's angry and avoiding any situations that would require him to use his powers to hurt anyone.  However, he's brought out of hiding by a young Japanesse woman named Yukio (winningly played by Rila Fukushima) who, besides showing up to bust up a bar, is there on behalf of her employer, a man whose life was saved by Logan during WWII.  She says that her employer is dying and wanting to say good-bye to his old friend.  Of course, it's Wolverine, so it's bound to be a lot more than a simple meet and greet.

At this point, "The Wolverine" becomes a pretty traditional Samurai movie, which a powerful stranger coming into a volatile situation and becoming the self-appointed protector of innocence.  The plot is very deliberate about how much information it gives as it progresses, but it does a great job of leaving interesting little tidbits of mystery throughout.  However, it is the aforementioned dedication to character that makes it an enjoyable ride.  Logan's occasional conversations with Jean give real insight into how he has dealt with the tragedy of her death and, unlike his previous outing "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", it connects with the world of X-Men without feeling like a standard X-Men film (however, make sure you stay through the first part of the credits because it sets up the next X-Men movie in a big way).

It goes without saying that Hugh Jackman is the most energetic aspect of the film, because he usually is in any film in which he appears.  I can think of few other actors that throw themselves physically and emotionally into every role the way he does.  However, most of the rest of the cast does their share of heavy lifting, especially Fukushima and Tao Okamoto as a heroine equal parts grace and power.  Unfortunately, there is one character that is ridiculously mishandled.  I don't want to get into spoilery detail, but the character starts out laughably obvious and ends up in full-blown "Batman and Robin" ridiculousness.  Plus, there's really not a single plot point in which this character proves to be vital.  I would have found the film far more enjoyable had they been written out entirely.

Mangold handles the action sequences with the same deftness that he demonstrated in "3:10 to Yuma", with many breathtaking Samurai-style fights and a stunning set-piece set atop a bullet train going over 300 mph.  The stakes in these scenes are far higher than they've ever been in a Wolverine fight for reasons brought out throughout the film, suffice it to say that there's more a sense of concern than there was in the city shattering fight climax of "Man of Steel".

"The Wolverine" may not be the complete revitalization of the franchise that the studio was hoping for, but it's an expertly directed Samurai adventure that finally gives a little resolution and solace to one of the most tragic heroes in modern cinematic history.  Also, I meant it about the credits.  Don't leave.  You'll be sorry.  Bring on "X-Men: Days of Future Past"!

Grade: B

Movie Review: Turbo

Turbo / Rated PG / DreamWorks / 96 min. / Dir. by David Soren

Sometimes crafting the plot of a movie is a result of months, even years, of thoughtful, intricate planning. Sometimes it's a matter of building something around the toys you're hoping to sell (I'm looking at you "Cars 2").  Other times, it's a matter of simple addition.  For example:  "The Incredibles" + "Harry Potter" = "Sky High"  or "Transformers" + "Top Gun" = "Battleship".  Sometimes the addition works ("Sky High") and sometimes it doesn't ("Battleship").  Sometimes, the addition can be pretty ridiculous ("Jaws" + "Twister" =......nah, no one would try that).  In the case of DreamWorks' new film "Turbo" they've done some cinematic math that isn't an obvious fit, but on execution works just fine: "Cars" (itself a combination of NASCAR and "Doc Hollywood") + "Ratatouille" + "A Bug's Life".  As you watch the film, the plot points and emotional beats that are gently used hand-me-downs from these Pixar movies are pretty obvious, but they don't feel like blatant forgery as much as creative mathematics.

"Turbo" stars a garden snail named Theo (affably voiced by Ryan Reynolds).  Theo is a forward thinker in a garden filled with stay-the-course workers.  He doesn't understand why everybody around him moves so slow, a question that infuriates his older brother, Chet (voiced by the terrific Paul Giamatti), because the answer is so obvious:  they're snails.  They move slow because moving fast is a physical impossibility.  

Theo fuels his need for speed by gulping down energy drinks while watching high-octane car racing.  His favorite racer is Guy Gagne (Bill Hader), a Frenchman who can't help but evoke "Ratatouille's" Chef Gusteau when he spouts his catchphrase, "No dream is too big, no dreamer too small".  However, after a showdown with a lawn mower, Theo begins to wonder if his dreams really are too big.  

"Turbo" definitely embraces the higher level of reality suspension afforded animated films with its central plot conceit: after a late night encounter with a tank of nitro, Theo is transformed into a car that merely looks like a snail.  He has turn signals, his eyes are headlights, and he has an inner radio that is inexplicably drawn to rock anthems and hip-hop.  Of course, for him, the highlight of this transformation is he can now zoom around up to and over 200 mph, leaving a neon blue trail in his wake.

Along his journey he ends up in Radiator Springs, er, I mean Starlight Plaza, a run down strip mall consisting of a few dying businesses including a Taco stand run by two brothers, Tito (Michael Pena) and Angelo (Luiz Guzman).  Theo, who now prefers to be called Turbo, is determined to work with Tito to use his speed to help breathe life back into the strip mall and save the day.

As I previously mentioned, "Turbo" has one of the most derivative plots I've seen in a film in ages.  One can almost see the seam lines where sections were dropped in from other movies.  However, it's so good-natured and optimistic that it's easy to chuckle off the similarities and just move forward with the story. Sure, the central theme turns out to be the overused "just be yourself"  that seems to be the theme of one out of every three modern animated films, but it uses these familiar tropes in such a pleasant and genuinely uplifting way that one doesn't mind their familiarity.  

Like most DreamWorks' animated films, it has a stellar voice cast filled with A-list talent (in addition to the stars already mentioned, it includes Samuel L. Jackson, Snoop Dogg, Michelle Rodriguez, Maya Rudolph, and Ken Jeong)  However, unlike some of their films (such as "Shark Tale"), these voices are all perfectly suited to the characters,  with the one exception possibly being Jeong playing and elderly and highly stereotyped female Asian caricature, who is, thankfully, less prevalent in the film than the commercials have implied.

Technically, "Turbo" is a knock-out with every frame.  The characters, especially the snails, as fascinating to look at and the film's color scheme and visual sensibilities are pure eye candy.  I'm reminded of a recent article that I read that pondered why computer animated films are among the only "four quadrant" films (a "four quadrant" film is a movie that is equally appealing across age and gender lines).  It's these types of splendid visuals that, I believe, explain the extreme popularity of the art form.  Animated films have all the visual flair of a big-budget special effects movie, but are also more family-friendly, making the better computer animated films entertaining across generations.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Turbo" is among the best of its genre.  As I mentioned before, it's derivative and it never engages the viewer in the way that the best of animation does, but there was never a moment that I didn't enjoy on some level.  If you're on the line about choosing this for an outing with your family, my advice would be this:  If you can, it's a fun and pleasant way to beat the heat, but if you're watching your budget, it will be just as delightful on the small screen.

If you do choose to see "Turbo" in the theater, though, let me tell you that the 3D is not necessary.  There are three or four times during the movie that the images really pop off the screen, but for the most part it doesn't add a lot to the experience.

Overall grade: B+

Movie Review: Pacific Rim

Pacific Rim/Rated PG-13/Warner Bros./132 min./Dir. Guillermo Del Toro

Guillermo Del Toro has carved a unique place out for himself in the annuls of genre film.  With films like "Pan's Labyrinth" and the "Hellboy" films, he has shown a flare for highly poetic fantasies/fairy tales that veer jarringly, yet organically from light to dark and back again.  His films have a reputation for being praised by critics, worshiped by movie geeks, and utterly ignored by the general movie going public.  His newest film, "Pacific Rim", is for better or worse the least "Del Toro" feeling film on his filmography.  That doesn't mean that it's a bad film by any means.  While it lacks the visual poetry and the quirky atmosphere of his other films, it takes one of the most juvenile of sci-fi sub-genres, the giant robot destructopalooza, and injects it with a heaping helping of humanity.  No, the biggest surprise about "Pacific Rim" isn't its groundbreaking special effects, but that it's actually about people as opposed to hardware.

In a well paced prologue, we're told about a group of skyscraper-sized aliens called the Kaiju that have been waging a war against Earth after having coming through an inter-dimensional rift in the Pacific.  When it became clear that the monsters were not going to stop, the countries of the Earth put aside their differences, pooled their resources, and created the Jaeger program, which involves giant robots that are connected to the cerebral functions of their pilots.  At first, it seemed that the humans would fairly easily win this war, but the Kaiju kept coming, kept getting bigger, and started coming more often, which depleted the world's supply of Jaegers.  Now, as the Jaeger program faces discontinuation and the human race faces extinction, the final group of brave pilots come up with a final plan to stop the end of the world.

Contrary to what one would believe from the commercials, "Pacific Rim" is not a two hour Godzilla-type battle scene.  There are a few stunning action set pieces, but Del Toro spends the bulk of the time building back stories and character-based motivations that get us to root for the pilots, not the robots.  It also helps that he has assembled strong actors even in the lesser roles.  Granted, they're not required to do any Oscar-level emoting, but they all approach the film with commitment and sincerity, which is a huge ace up the movie's sleeve.  A sci-fi film with uncommitted or untalented actors will fail to engage the audience on an emotional level, regardless of how lavish the special effects.  For an example of this, just look at the "Transformers" movies.  In those films, the abilities of the actors were uneven, with some fully believable and others simply laughable, and not in a good way.  Here, however, the cast is all on equal footing, making it easy to buy into their characters and into the more implausible aspects of the plot.

Del Toro has never directed an event film of this magnitude before, but it's clear that he's been inspired by some of the best.  The film has the grit and militaristic flair of the best of James Cameron's sci-fi efforts without the occasional horrible writing (I love "Avatar", but I can't hear the word "unobtainium" without bursting into fits of giggling).    Also, while the plot sounds like Godzilla vs. Transformers, it actually feels like a much more thoughtful version of "Independence Day", displaying a similar humor (particularly in the form of Charlie Day, who between this and his role as the scene stealing Art from "Monsters University" has made the leap to big-budget movies with great success), and hitting similar emotional beats to the 1996 blockbuster.

Visually, the film is spectacular.  In fact, it's one of the rare live-action films where I think the 3D is worth the extra-money.  Del Toro shows an understanding of how to connect the technology with the story telling in such away that the 3D technology actually feels fundamental to his overall directorial vision.  "Hugo" and "Life of Pi" also did a wonderful job with the 3D format, but an action movie hasn't used the technique with this level of success since Cameron's "Avatar", which is especially impressive when you consider how many scenes take place in the bark and in the rain, both of which are notorious for minimizing the 3D effect.

On the negative side, "Pacific Rim" is, in what is becoming the standard for big-budget tentpole films, about 20 minutes too long and it occasionally goes for the obvious joke or plot development (it won't take you long to figure out which characters will be around in the final frames), but when compared to other films with similar plots, it's thoughtfully created into something resembling art.  How many times can you say that about a giant summer special-effects extravaganza?

The last word is that "Pacific Rim" is thoughtful, fun, and exciting.  It is also a little overlong and a little predictable for its own good.  Overall, though, it's an easy recommendation and I hope that it will be financially successful if only to encourage Hollywood to give their giant sci-fi films a head and a heart as well as a love of explosive special-effects.

Grade: B+

The Blind Passion of the Fanboy

Believe it or not, it took me a while to recognize the symptoms of Fanboydom in myself.  I've collected movie posters, "Art of" and "Making of" books, toys, and soundtracks since I was in middle school, but I didn't see myself as a mega-movie geek (the term Fanboy did not exist back then).  In college, I decorated my apartment with Disney movie posters and action figures of all kinds, from "Star Wars" to "Jurassic Park" to "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (yes, I own a Quasimodo action figure).   

It was recently that I was faced with my own super-fandom in the form of setting up my office in our new home.  I decided I'd pull out all my memorabilia in a fantasmagoric explosion of coolness.   So, I start pulling out the boxes.  And more boxes.  And more boxes.  I soon realized that over the course of 40 years I had collected enough stuff to decorate an entire megaplex movie theater rather than a small-sized home office/recording studio.  So, I've had to choose which posters and toys to keep out for display.  I think it was about the time that I took this picture.....

....that I realized I was a fanboy.  Not just because I owned all of these very disparate toys, but because of the perverse glee I got at combining them.  The idea of Superman in a battle with Marvin the Martian while riding a velociraptor is just waaaay to joyful to me.  In fact, right now, this epic battle is being observed by a little yellow minion, Pluto, and Crow T. Robot and Tom Servo from MST3K.  Yes, I fully own up to my movie nerd tendencies. 

However, there is one critical area in which I tend to differ from others of my ilk....blind passion.  Not to say that I don't at all suffer from this condition, but I would like to think that I'm more aware of when this passion is effecting my objectivity.  You see, this blind passion tends to cause a difficulty in objectively judging the quality of films, specifically of genre franchise films.  If a fanboy has been anticipating a  new chapter in a favorite franchise, expectations grow and grow, often to the point where a mere movie could not possibly live up.

The most notorious example is "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace."  No, I'm not going to argue that TPM is a great movie, or even an above average one.  The dialogue is pedestrian at best and the performances feel universally held back, as if the actors were directed to not emote (I could almost picture George Lucas yelling "Natalie!  Everytime you emote, attention is taken from Jar Jar!").  

However, I am going to say that it's still a victim of F.A.S. (Fanboy Anticipation Syndrome).  A 16 year span between films had made the original trilogy, especially "Star Wars" and "Return of the Jedi", take on a reputation of perfection that was quite exaggerated.  After recently revisiting the original trilogy, it was clear that, while Uncle George was a genius at inventing new worlds and characters, he was not the best at dialogue and, being the sole screenwriter of Episode I, he was clearly going to bring this flaw to the prequels as well.  

The prequels did, however, manage to build a genuine sense of dread and they were, each and every one, triumphs of special effects, creative designs, and fantastic set pieces.  Not perfect, but not horrible either, but "not horrible" is not enough to overcome almost two decades of expectation.  There wasn't a child that grew up with the originals that didn't wonder how Darth Vader became Darth Vader.  The fact is, even if TPM had been perfect, it would still have been likely to be viewed as a disappointment.

I believe that the most maligned film to suffer from F.A.S. was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."  Sure, the CGI monkeys were awful and belief is called upon to be suspended on multiple occasions, but the same could be said of the original sequels (I don't include "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in this comparison, because it is pretty close to being a perfect film).  There were moments of weak special effects in those sequels and the character of Willie Scott from the 2nd film is 50 times more annoying than anything in KotCS.  Plus, the argument that the sci-fi elements found in the film's ending weren't faithful to the spirit of Indiana Jones doesn't hold water because Indiana Jones is inspired by the action/adventure serials of the 50's, which often incorporated similar elements in their plotlines.  If anything, it was highly faithful to the source material.

I think the problem comes down to this:  When you're passionate about something and you put it on a pedestal, any level of disappointment seems devastating, but it's important to remember that that disappointment is not as much a commentary on the quality of a film, but on the level of expectation associated with it.  These films, as well as reviled sequels such as "Spider-Man 3" (too many villains), "X-Men: The Last Stand" (too many deaths), "Shrek the Third" (too few laughs), or "Cars 2" (more disappointing when compared the whole of Pixar films rather than the original "Cars"), are remembered as being among the worst films ever made, but they weren't.  They were just disappointing.  Recently, I heard a film critic refer to "Cars 2" as the only Pixar film universally considered bad by critics.  Really?  According to Metacritic.com  (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/cars-2)  there were only four out of 38 reviews from top critics that were negative.  In fact, there were more positive reviews than there were mixed.  However, "Cars 2" is remembered as truly awful because it was the least sparkling film in Pixar's crown.  

F.A.S. can lead to misinterpretations to the positive as well.  I was recently called out by a reader for saying that last year's delightful "Brave" was a bad movie.  I never said that (here's the original review for reference ).  I said it was disappointing when one considers how great it could have been.  I gave the film a "B+" grade.  As a school teacher, I can assure you that a B+ does not indicate horrible work.  Possibly slightly below the capability of an exceptional student, and that was what "Brave" was for me: slightly below the capability of the most creatively electric film studio around.

None of the films I've mentioned actually received mostly bad reviews.  Most of them received largely mixed reviews, aside from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which actually received mostly positive reviews. 

So, it is with a sense of professional integrity that I promise I will try not to let my status as a self-proclaimed Fanboy lead me to bouts of F.A.S., neither positively or negatively.  Plus, I'll try to post picture of my new nerd lair (a.k.a. home office)  once it's done.  :)

Movie Review: White House Down

Movie Review: "White House Down"/Rated PG-13/Columbia/132 min./Dir. by Roland Emmerich

Director Roland Emmerich has made a career destroying landmarks, some of them repeatedly.  He has destroyed the Statue of Liberty twice, the U.S. Bank building twice, and twice blown up the Vatican.  In fact, if you take into consideration "2012", he has technically destroyed every single historical landmark in the world at least once.  However, there is one building that he takes a particular zealous glee in destroying over and over and over again.  The White House.

It's been wiped out by cataclysmic tsunami......

It's been blown up by aliens.....

All of those were part of global catastrophes though.  Now he's put the White House front and center in his cross-hairs of destruction with "White House Down", a big-budget, highly-predictable political thriller that, in spite of its flaws, is one of his most enjoyable films.

Channing Tatum plays John Cale, a character with qualities that could have been lifted from a action movie hero text book:  A former soldier who has been doing his best to balance a job guarding the House Majority Leader (Richard Jenkins) with getting closer with his estranged and angry teenage daughter (Joey King).  Through a series of somewhat contrived circumstances, he and his daughter happen to be visiting the White House on the exact day when militants blow up the senate and infiltrate the White House itself.  If you've seen the commercials, you know that Cale's daughter ends up a hostage and Cale ends up becoming the President's last remaining protector inside the residence.  

As I mentioned before, there are twists and turns in the plot, but none that you won't have figured out in the first 15 minutes.   Of course, you don't see an Emmerich movie for the complexity of the plot (although this one tries harder than his average fare).  No, you see an Emmerich movie for the pacing, the explosions, and the occasionally inappropriately broad bit of comedy (here in the form of a White House tour guide that is very protective of the antiques to be found there).

One of the things that sets Emmerich's films apart from those of fellow master of pyrotechnics, Michael Bay, is that Emmerich's films have a sincerity that makes you care about the characters even when they behave in unbelievable and illogical ways.  The performances throughout are uniformly enjoyable, especially Tatum and Jamie Foxx, who plays the President.  Tatum seems to recognize that he is in "Die Hard in the White House" and he does a terrific job keeping the proceedings light when they need to be, but equally able to kick anarchist butt with a fierce physicality.  For reasons based more in policy than race, it is clear that Jamie Foxx is playing a hyper-realized version of President Obama, but he makes the roll his own with humor and grace.

"White House Down" has dreams of being "Air Force One", but it's way to silly for that.  It does, however, make a welcome departure from Emmerich's disaster-of-the-millennium wheelhouse.  By keeping the action focused on a single location and by switching genres to political thriller, he seems more energized than he has on any film since "Independence Day".  It's a "turn off your brain and have fun" kind of movie with lots of fun performances, high-speed action, and suspenseful set pieces.

FINAL NOTE/WARNING:  I'd like to talk a little about the politics of the film and I can't do so without some MINOR SPOILERS.  This is NOT a bi-partisan movie.  In Emmerich's Washington D.C., all people who align politically on the left are thoughtful, altruistic, and disappointed that they have to play the political game in order to change the world for the better.  Conversely, all on the right are violent, selfish, greedy, and in bed with big business, especially weapons manufacturers (with the exception of a Glenn Beck-type talk show host who gets the opportunity to show some courageous backbone).  If you agree with this political stance, you'll root on the heroes with an increased fervor.  If you disagree, this movie will be nothing short of infuriating.  If you, like me, believe that good people and selfish people can be found throughout the political spectrum and that the political system is too corrupt for either party to lay sole claim to the angel or demon archetype, then you will recognize the propaganda, chuckle it away and enjoy the fireworks.  Again, I'm not making a political statement, but when deciding if you want to see the movie, I think you should have all the info.

Grade (as a film, not a political statement): B-

Movie Review: "The Lone Ranger"

Movie Review: "The Lone Ranger"/Rated PG-13/Walt Disney/149 min./Dir. by Gore Verbinski

In the press, much has been made of the re-pairing of Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp for "The Lone Ranger".  The two team up for the fifth time with the film, having worked together on the original "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy and the animated western, "Rango" (a film that I believe to be criminally over-rated).  What people fail to mention is that they're reunited with the "Pirates" screenwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, and it's that pairing that is the most influential on the final outcome of "The Lone Ranger".  The tone, the pacing, and the humor are clearly from the writers who brought the world the adventures of Will Turner, Elizabeth Swan, and the infamous Captain Jack Sparrow.

This incarnation of the venerable defender of justice in the wild, wild west could have been called "The Accidental Ranger", in that John Reid (Armie Hammer) doesn't start the film as a lawman, but as a lawyer.  The real lawman in the family is John's brother, Dan, played by James Badge Dale, who between this, "Iron Man 3", and "World War Z", is having quite the summer.   Not only is Dan the better lawman, but he also got the girl.  He married John's girlfriend, Rebecca (Ruth Wilson) while John was at law school.  However, circumstance (i.e., the script) force John to take a more active roll in bringing in the bad guy, no matter how awkward he is in that roll.  In fact, much of the humor of the film comes from the fact that, while originally from the west, John is a fish out of water and possibly not up the task of being a fearless lawman.  Certainly, his Native American sidekick Tonto (Johnny Depp) doesn't think he his, however, Tonto had received a vision that Reid was the spiritwalker destined to help him find justice of his own.  Fortunately for their partnership, the object of justice for both of them is the same man, the villainous Butch Cavendish (William Fitchner).

The acting in "The Lone Ranger" is solid across the board.  Of course, Johnny Depp is in full "Deppy"-mode, bringing the potentially boring sidekick to the forefront with humor, strength, and just a touch of insanity (although, it should be noted that he is more understated here than he was as Jack Sparrow).  Hammer has been given the thankless "Will Turner" roll here:  Look pretty, fight hard, step back and let Johnny Depp do what he does, although the script does give his character more physical humor than Orlando Bloom got in the "Pirates" films, and Hammer shows himself more than equal to the task.  While there's nothing particular about the rest of the cast that stands out, they all perform admirably.

The biggest problem with the movie is that it stands in need of three or four good re-writes to trim the fat a little (the story would make a fun and zippy 90-min. action movie, but clocks in at a borderline tedious 2 1/2 hours), and to sharpen the jokes, which mostly work, but are pretty bad when they don't. 

It's not until the last 15 minutes of the movie that everything works superbly.  Of course, many westerns wrap things up with a chase on board a train (heck, this one bookends the movie with train chases), but the finale has a joyous energy that was truly delightful on the big screen.  Much of the joy is that, finally, the movie stops being "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Western Plains", and it allows itself to be a full-fledged, fully realized "Lone Ranger" movie.  It's here that we're allowed to see how these classic characters can own a film that is armed with modern special effects and filming techniques.  It is also here that the screenwriters allow the title character to no longer be the good-hearted, but bumbling, comic relief, and truly become the hero of the film.  Even the music score, by the ever-talented Hans Zimmer, feels belabored and lethargic throughout the movie until this sequence.  At this point, we hear the familiar opening notes of the famous "Ranger" theme, the "William Tell Overture" by Rossini, and Zimmer fully embraces everything great, noble, and even a little cheesy about "The Lone Ranger".  He is especially successful when he takes the flourishes that end Rossini's famous overture and tweaks them with noticeably Zimmer-ian chord progressions and rhythmic intensity.

If only the other 135 minutes were this fun and energized.  There is great promise in this finale of what these actors and filmmakers could do to breathe new life into Tonto and his "Kemosabe" (a nickname that is given a different meaning here than in other versions).  If Rossio and Elliott are brought back for a sequel (which may be unlikely given the amount that the film would need to earn to re-coup it's astronomical budget), I hope that they back off on the needlessly complex and contrived plotting and just give us a full-blooded western.

Lastly, a parental note:  "The Lone Ranger" is a hard PG-13, with a few very disturbing scenes, not unlike similar scenes in the "Pirates" movies.  If your child enjoys those films, they'll be fine with this, but if those films were too intense for your little ones, this will be too.

In summary, "The Lone Ranger" is 115 minutes of an OK western action/comedy, followed by 15 minutes of pure awesome.  It's neither the sure-fire franchise starter that Disney was hoping it would be, nor the bomb it's being made out to be by the press.  If you're looking for an entertaining, if forgettable way to beat the heat and you enjoyed the first three "Pirates" movies (this is way better than the fourth one), than you should have a good time with "The Lone Ranger"

Grade: B-

Movie Review: Despicable Me 2

Despicable Me 2/Rated PG/Universal Pictures/Dir. by Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud/98 min.

Let's just get this out of the way.  This summer has had some pretty terrific movies, but I can't imagine any movie coming between now and the end of the summer months that will be more inventive, clever, hilarious, colorful, mischievous, or flat-out fun than "Despicable Me 2", that rarest of movie sequels that maintains everything that made the original work, while keeping things fresh and surprising.

When the original "Despicable Me" was released three years ago, it was a huge surprise hit, winning over critics and audiences alike with Warner Bros.-style mayhem, Burton-esque appreciation of misunderstood villains, and Pixar-ian heart.  With over half-a-billion in box-office, a sequel was inevitable, but where could you go with this newly domesticated super-villain (if you'll remember, the original ended with him adopting, saving, and becoming very paternal with three adorable orphans)?  Much of his appeal was his flippant disregard for the niceties of daily life.  Would his humorous edge be lost with fatherhood?

The delightful and surprising answer is no.  While "Despicable Me 2" certainly shows his devotion to his children, he still doesn't deal with social annoyances in the most acceptable ways (his way of handling an obnoxious neighbor who is intent on setting him up on a blind date is particularly enjoyable).  However, his efforts to turn a new leaf for the good of his daughters has drawn the attention of the Anti-Villainy League, a secret organization not unlike S.H.E.I.L.D. in the Marvel Universe.  The A.V.L. decides they could use Gru's experience as a super villain in tracking down a mysterious figure who has stolen a particularly dangerous Dr. Jekyll-like formula.  His partner on this mission will be the awkwardly charming rookie agent, Lucy Wilde (voiced with energy by Kristin Wiig).  Various suspects are investigated and some red-herrings are thrown their way, but when the culprit is discovered, Gru realizes that the plan hits closer to home than he realized.

Gru is, once again, voiced by Steve Carell, brandishing an intentionally vague Eastern European accent.  His vocal work is really among Carell's best acting, showing a complete dedication to the emotional core of the character while simultaneously owning the comic value of the accent and awkward syntax.  He and Wiig have a genuine chemistry rarely seen in animated films (something difficult to achieve considering that the actors rarely record together).

Once again, the heart of the film rests with Gru's relationship with his adopted family, including his daughters and his genetically engineered minions.  "Despicable Me 2" realizes the comic value of the minions and finds creative ways to increase their screen time that feel completely organic to the plot, unlike, say, the "Ice Age" films, in which the delightful Scrat segments feel completely disassociated from the plot until they're poorly forced together in the climax (this happens in each "Ice Age" film).  The minions are comedy gold, with smiles abundant everytime they show up.  In fact, stick around through the beginning of the credits, because there is a really fun minion segment that references next year's untitled minion movie.

The film is delightful to look at as well.  The 3D is definitely worth the extra money, as the filmmakers don't lose an opportunity to throw explosions, bubbles, confetti, jars of jelly, and even the minions themselves at the audience, however, make sure that you see it in a theater where they show 3D in the brightest format because the colors are bright, playful, and engaging.

If the film has a fault, it is in the area of character arc and development.  Where Gru's change from super-villain to super-dad was the central to the original's plot, there really isn't much of a change in any of the characters from beginning to end, and most attempts to give characters motivation are basically played for laughs, which is a shame, especially when compared to the recently released "Monsters University", which did such a terrific job in the these areas.

Yes, I have seen better movies this summer, but this is simply the funniest movie I've seen so far this year, with sharply written jokes and terrific physical gags hitting strong and often.  The audience was enthralled from beginning to end, adults and children.  Between this and "Monsters University" families have an embarrassment of riches at the box-office right now.  For that matter, so do adults who just want to have a good time.  Yes, Gru may be a little less despicable, but he's every bit as entertaining.  

P.S. - Watch out for the scene where we learn the most macho way to die.  It may be hard to hear over the audience laughter.

Grade: A-

Movie Review: Monsters University

Monsters University / Rated G / Walt Disney - Pixar Animation / 110 min. / Dir. by Don Scanlon

As many of you know, I do not approach the release of a new film from Pixar Animation with a casual attitude.  The "supah-geniuses" at the world's most acclaimed animation studio have a truly remarkable and unparalleled streak of quality and financial success.  While I have bemoaned the lowering of quality of their last two films (you can read my feelings about those here), I do stand by the statement that they have yet to make a bad movie.  At their worst (the "Cars" franchise), they make passably entertaining films, but at their best ("Ratatouille", "Finding Nemo", "The Incredibles", "Up", the "Toy Story" films), they make works of art that stand next to the absolute best Hollywood has to offer, animated or otherwise.

In 2001, they released "Monsters, Inc." and at the time many film critics, while still giving it positive notices, couldn't help but point out that Pixar had begun to get a little formulaic in their plotting.  Now we have "Monsters University", a prequel that, while still clinging to a formulaic plot structure, is the first film from the studio since 2010's "Toy Story 3" that feels breezily, blessedly, unabashadly Pixar-ian.

The film begins with a young Mike Wazowski, the most adorable eyeball with appendages ever spawned, on a field trip with his elementary school class.  He's the smallest, so he gets pushed around a bit and is often left with the teacher when students are called upon to buddy up, but he has a boundless optimism.  This life-changing field trip is to Monsters Incorporated, the factory where energy is created by collecting screams from children in the human world.  After a hapless misadventure in which Mike finds himself in the human world witnessing an expert scream extraction, he becomes convinced that it his destiny to become the greatest scarer in the world.

15 years later, Mike (again, winningly voiced by Billy Crystal) finds himself at Monsters University, ready to take the world by storm.  From this point on, if you've ever seen a college campus comedy, you know the story, so don't expect any great surprises.  There are tests, parties, rush-week shenanigans, mean frat boys, misfit frat boys, a scary Dean (given extra powers of condescension from Helen Mirren), and a frustrating, stupid jock that ends up becoming Mike's best friend.  Of course, if you've seen the first film, you know that jock to be Jimmy Sullivan (John Goodman).  Sulley is there because his entire family have been great scarers and he is seemingly destined to follow the family legacy.  Mike represents hard work, tenacity, and the power of learning.  Sulley represents raw talent.  They both need what the other has in order to succeed, but neither are willing to admit it, which leads to their animosity as well as to their eventual friendship.

The two end up, of course, as members of the loser fraternity, a tribe of misfits known as Oozma Kappa.  They're a lovable bunch, but the most lovable (at least for me) is Art (hilariously voiced by Charlie Day), an easy going hippy-type that looks like a cross between Snuffleufugus and a bicycle lock.  His asides are consistently funny and delightfully random.

As I said before, there's no need to go into plot details.  It's basically a clean "Revenge of the Nerds" with a distinctly Pixar-esque sense of humor and heart.  Are they going to be embarrassed and ridiculed?  Of course.  Are they going to be underdogs without a chance of proving themselves?  No doubt.  Are they going to demonstrate spunk and heart and show what they're really made of? Sure.  What makes "Monsters University" feel fresh isn't the surprises, because there really aren't any.  It feels fresh because of the easy and expert manner in which is entertains.  Unlike "Cars 2", which also was just a flat-out comedy, it doesn't feel coldly calculated to sell toys.  "M.U." exists not merely as a cash grab, but out of a genuine affection for and a sincere desire to revisit these characters.  In fact, the most daring thing about the whole movie is the eventual message.  I won't spoil that for you, but is quite the opposite of the messages found in about every other animated film out there and it's quite refreshing.

One thing about "M.U." that marks a return to form for Pixar is its commitment to plot and character.  There is a satisfying character arc for every lead character and a definite prioritization of staying true to character rather than selling out to cheap jokes, a tendency that had began to creep into Pixar's more recent outings.

"Monsters University" is solidly and unapologeticly mid-tier Pixar.  It's what happens when brilliant artists decide to take a break from redefining the genre (or from trying to overcome sky high expectations) and just have a little bit of fun.  It doesn't reach the same dizzying levels of art and inspiration as their best films, but it is certainly a breath of fresh air compared to some of their more recent efforts.  "M.U." won't leave you stunned, but it certainly left me with smile on a face and an appreciation for a film whose main purpose is to lighten your day.  It's a winning film and terrific way to kick off the summer with your family.

Grade: A- 

Movie Review: Man of Steel

Movie Review: Man of Steel/Rated PG-13/Warner Bros./143 min./Dir. by Zack Snyder

In the mid-00's, Warner Bros. made major strides towards resurrecting two major franchises that had been killed by time and horrible sequels.  First, came "Batman Begins", a well-reviewed reboot that was directed by Christopher Nolan, a brainy and creative director who got his start in independent dramas.  It made a little over $200 million in the U.S. and was declared an unmitigated success, with a sequel instantly put into production.  One year later came "Superman Returns", a well-reviewed reboot that was directed by Bryan Singer, a brainy and creative director who got his start in independent dramas.  It made a little over $200 million in the U.S. and was declared a major disappointment, with the reins to the franchise quickly taken away from the director.  Much of the criticism leveled at the movie was that it was overly-reverential to the Richard Donner directed film "Superman: The Movie" and its follow-up, "Superman 2".  The criticism is a fair one if you consider that tributary tone to be a negative.  However, for me, it was delightful.  I loved having the opportunity to see a film that felt like the best of the old "Superman" films, but had the advantage of modern-day special effects and filming techniques.  I still maintain that the airplane rescue sequence from "Superman Returns" is one of, if not the most thrilling action sequence from any "Superman" film.  It had beautiful moments of character development and was terrifically acted, particularly by Brandon Routh, who seemed like Christopher Reeve's twin in looks, voice, and mannerisms.  However, since the fanboys didn't love "Superman Returns" with the same zealousness with which they embraced "Batman Begins", it was deemed a failure, in spite of comparable critical reception and box-office.  

Then came, "The Dark Knight" which finally gave Warner Bros. the superhero mega-blockbuster for which they were hoping.  Christopher Nolan was the golden child and they decided to offer him the keys to the Superman franchise as well.  He turned down directing, but was willing to produce and it was decided to give the directorial responsibilities to Zack Snyder, a man who had previously directed only five films, four of which were fairly well received:  "Dawn of the Dead", "300", "Watchmen", and "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole", although all four of these were generally considered visually audacious, questionably plotted, and broodingly dark.  The fifth was "Sucker Punch", a critical and financial failure that showed the cracks in Snyder's technique:  He's great at giving events weight, but tends to skimp on character development that would give said event emotional resonance.  This was my concern about him being chosen to direct a new Superman movie.  If his being hired was in response to the backlash against "Superman Returns", then Warner Bros. was probably looking for a dark and brooding take on the character.  However, the problem is Superman ISN'T Batman, nor should he be.  Superman represents optimism, unfailing goodness, and the best that humanity can be, whereas Batman represents choosing good in spite of the constant temptation of revenge.  Metropolis is Rudy Guiliani's New York, clean, wholesome and filled to the brim with Disney Stores.  Gotham is the dirty and crime-ridden New York depicted in 70's era mob movies.

Well, for better or worse, "Man of Steel" is precisely what one would think they would get from a Superman movie directed by the man who brought us "300".  Visually stunning, conceptually derivative, and sadly lacking in character development.  It's certainly not a bad movie, but it's a surprisingly hollow and unfortunately chaotic one.

"Man of Steel" starts off well-enough.  We begin in Krypton, only this is a very different Krypton from what we've seen before.  Visually, it looks like a combination of "Avatar" and "The Matrix", with new C.G.I. wonders popping up in every corner of the screen.  Here, we meet Jor-El (Russel Crowe) who, with his wife  Lara (Ayelet Zurer) have unthinkably had a child by means of natural child birth, an act which has not happened for hundreds of years on Krypton.  Children are bred genetically with pre-programmed destiny, but Jor-El is convinced that the future of the planet will depend on children choosing their own life path.  At the same time, a military coup is being lead by the fearsome General Zod (Michael Shannon), a man who was bred to be a fierce warrior with one purpose: "Protect and preserve the people and the culture of Krypton".  He has decided that the grand council's actions are for the detriment of his people, so it is his duty to bring them down.  However, after his take-over attempt fails, he is condemned to the dimensional limbo known as "The Phantom Zone".

Much of the set up is well-known to anyone familiar with the Superman mythos, however there are enough interesting changes and thoughtfully constructed developments to make it all feel new.  Granted, there's nothing here we haven't seen in other sci-fi or war movies, but we've never seen them applied to the Superman backstory before and that alone makes them feel new.

In fact, some of the most enjoyable bits in the movie have to do with specific plot points that differ from previous versions of the movies.  Zod has far different motivations than in "Superman 2", Lois Lane is far more integral to the plot (although Amy Adams' portrayal of her does, at times, feel mannered and stilted), and Clark Kent (terrifically played by Henry Cavill) is more thoughtful.  Not brooding, as I worried he might be, Kent is simply worried that the very people he is drawn to protect would reject him if he were to reveal himself to them.  There are many neat moments which focus on Kent struggling to come to terms with his abilities that are beautifully handled and ask questions previously unbreached by other filmed versions of the story.

No, my issues with "Man of Steel" are not from plot deviations, nor the performances (which, aside from the previously mentioned issues about Adams' performance, are uniformly excellent), nor the music which is one of Hans Zimmer's more majestic efforts.  The major issues I have with the movie come with its finale, in which plot contrivances build in order to lead to battle sequences and destruction set-pieces that could have been lifted directly from a "Transformers" film.  While the ad campaign for the film (which is among the best ad campaigns ever mounted for a film) focused on the noble and inspiring moments of character interaction with a few thrilling moments of action, the final third of the film is nothing but exploding buildings, brutally violent fights, and random people running and screaming.  It's simultaneously numbing and exhausting, with the viewer feeling like they were the one that was pummeled rather than the super-powered characters and, unlike a similar finale in last summer's far superior "Avengers", there's no dramatic plot development to ground it all.  It's just scene after scene of soulless destruction which feels like it's there just to serve as summer blockbuster fodder.  It's those final action sequence which, more than anything, betray the spirit of the Superman legend.  Superman would have fought to find a way to lead the fight away from the city rather than laying waste to the city just as much as the villain in order to win.

Also missing was the humor that was integral to past incarnations.  There was one sight-gag, involving an loud mouth trucker, that was laugh-out-loud funny, but the remainder of the film was so self-serious that it is destined for the MST3K treatment from the guys over at rifftrax.com.

So, for me, overall "Man of Steel" was an exhausting and maddening experience.  Part beautiful and thrilling allegory, part mindless destruction, the good was very good, but the bad was patently unnecessary and disheartening.  Overall, I'd still say it's worth the ticket as long as you're not looking for anything more than a visually audacious destruct-o-fest.  If you're looking for a film that pays tribute to the spirit of Superman while deepening it for modern audiences, you might just have to look to the sequel for that.  Let's just hope that the sequel bucks the trend of sequels and goes smaller and quieter.  Much smaller and much quieter.

Grade: B-

Movie Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

Movie Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"/Paramount/PG-13/132 min./Dir. by J.J. Abrams

For a series originally founded on the ideals of social tolerance, intelligent discourse, and open-minded exploration of issues, "Star Trek" has a profoundly emotional fan base.  "Star Trek" fans have taken an entertainment franchise and turned it into a way of life.  I don't make this statement as an outsider either.  I have bought the movies on VHS, then DVD, then Blu-Ray.  I have the action figures and ships of each cast of each film and series, with "Enterprise" as the only exception because I just couldn't get into it.  I've never dressed as a Vulcan or learned Klingon or been to a convention, but I really do love Star Trek, so I, like many, was a little nervous about the 2009 reboot.  Much of the charm of the original film series laid with its cast, an aging, yet still highly entertaining group who had become better known as personalities than actors.

So, it was with great relief and joy that I embraced the exhilarating 2009 film.  Abrams brilliantly figured out how to create something new, but respectful of what came before.  Best of all, he took what was great about Star Trek and approached it from a fully cinematic view, which had honestly never been done before.  Even the best of the previous film installments couldn't ever get past the feel of an ultra-special episode of a t.v. show.  The 2009 reboot never felt like one.  From frame one, it was grand, cinematic, and action-packed.  The opening scene not only threw the Star Trek canon on its ear, but it was purely, beautifully, heart-breakingly character based and emotionally resonant.  You didn't have to like or even know Star Trek.  It was simply great film-making.

Much has been made of Abrams love of light flares and, yes, they are plentiful, but they are part of the overall visual language of the film, which included camera angles that emphasized the three-dimensionality of space and attention to detail that was strikingly new to the series.  While there had been great Star Trek movies before, this was the first that was just a great movie, period.

Honestly, the easiest thing for Abrams and his creative partners to do would've been to go crazy and wild with the new time line and create new aliens and adventures.  However, "Star Trek Into Darkness" does something a little more complex and a lot more risky.  It deals with characters and situations with which Trek fans are intimately aware and looks at them through a different lens, subtly tweaking them so they meant different things and held a different significance.  

While Kirk (Chris Pine) has remained in the captains chair since the last outing, he hasn't grown much, remaining a bit cocky and holding himself above rules and regulations.  Of course, as is true with any military organization, such flagrant disregard for authority isn't met with well and Kirk must face the consequences  (Curse that nasty old Prime Directive anyway).  However, the internal politics of Starfleet are sharply and harshly put on hold after a terrorist attack on a Starfleet base in London.  After investigating and dealing with the aftermath of further attacks, Kirk is on the path of vengeance against the perpetrator, a mysterious ex-Starfleet officer named John Harrison (fantastically played by Benedict Cumberbatch, although his casting does perpetuate the image of smart and powerful British people being villainous).

I don't want to get to in depth into the plot on the off chance you haven't heard about the twists (unfortunately, I heard about the main twist over a year ago).  Suffice to say that the events lead to several breath-taking action set pieces that feel more like the best of Spielberg than Star Trek.  Through the events, the different lead characters who are so well known that they have been part of our national consciousness for decades, are given situations that change their personal motivations in subtle, but highly enjoyable ways.  There are several times during the film that we see that, while some events seem destined to repeat themselves regardless of the time line, the timing of those events in the characters lives force character arc in a different way than seen before.  Most satisfying is seeing the development of Spock.  Because of the events of the last film and this one, this Spock is forced to confront his half-human side far earlier in his own life than Spock Prime and his choices are, at times, startling.  Quinto's performance is a stand-out at every turn.  He brings the conflict between intellect and emotion a palpable intensity that is a joy to watch.

Michael Giacchino continues to make the musical world of Star Trek his own, although I do wish that he would've delved into new themes a little more.  Had he taken the same route that John Williams did with "The Empire Strikes Back", he could've kept the old musical themes, but created more melodic themes to add to the pantheon.  I know he's capable of it, so I wish he would've added a little more new thematic meat to his Star Trek auditory meal.

However, that's a small complaint.  "Star Trek Into Darkness" is exciting, fast-paced, and visually stunning while remaining true to the spirit and themes of the original series.  I know that J.J. Abrams will have his hands full with Star Wars for the foreseeable future, but I sure hope he comes back to the world of Trek.  After all, a lot of exciting things could happen on a five-year mission of exploration.

Grade: A

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3/Paramount/Rated PG-13/130 min./Dir. by Shane Black

In 2008, when the cinematic world was first introduced to Tony Stark in Jon Favreau's "Iron Man", he was a revelation, especially as performed by Robert Downey Jr.  Unlike almost every other superhero Stark was deeply, deeply flawed.  Brilliant, but profoundly arrogant, Stark could've been almost impossible for an audience to relate to, but Downey Jr. gave him such a sly and surprisingly self-depreciating sense of humor that he was not only easy to root for, but surprisingly easy to relate to.  While few of us are genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropists, we are all flawed and most of us try to do the right thing even when it's difficult and so did Stark.

However, in "Iron Man 3", we find Tony Stark a changed man.  After the events in "The Avengers" he's anxious and suffering from insomnia.  Like many brilliant people, he channels his sleeplessness into his work and, as a result, has made more Iron Man suits.  More and more Iron Man suits.  42 to be exact (of course, he only owns up to about 14 in order to downplay his loosening grip on reality).

Unfortunately, he is unable to address his problems directly because of a new threat on the country, a mysterious and publicly flamboyant terrorist known simply as The Mandarin (brilliantly played by Ben Kingsley).  With a disregard for human life and a talent for hijacking the countries airwaves, The Mandarin begins a campaign or destruction that looks to have an end game targeted on the President himself.

Also in the mix are a couple scientists from Stark's past, an idea man named Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) and a brilliant biological engineer (don't call her a botanist), Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall).  Conveniently, Killian also has a past with Stark's main squeeze Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), which makes for some romantic tensions throughout the film.

To get too much more involved in plot description would rob the story of some of it's surprises and there are a few.  Suffice it to say that much of the plot involves standard comic book topics (villainous manipulation of DNA, the man behind the mask exploration of a superhero, the "save the innocent or save the girl" dilemma), however "Iron Man 3" approaches these well-known tropes with a fresh sense of humor and a firm sense of character

One of the most impressive things about the way Marvel has approached its "Avengers" films is that it recognizes that each of these characters actually belong to different genres and, therefore, should have directors and writers with a talent and passion for those genres, but grounded in character.  "Iron Man" was a modern action-comedy about a billionaire playboy, so they brought in Jon Favreau, the man behind the male-centric bromance "Swingers".  "Thor" needed a sense of old-school grandeur, so they brought in the modern-master of Shakespeare, Kenneth Brannagh.  "Captain America" was a WWII action epic with a tinge of sci-fi, so they brought in Joe Johnston, the man that directed the WWII action epic with a tinge of sci-fi  "The Rocketeer".  Now with "Iron Man 3", they have a story that feels like an 80's-style action movie, so who better to bring in than Shane Black, the man who wrote "Lethal Weapon" and re-juvenated Robert Downey Jr.'s career with the indy-comedy "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang".  Black shines here, both as director, and as co-writer.  The dialogue has all of the machismo humor you could hope for, with many of the lines sounding like they would be equally at home coming from Mel Gibson's Martin Riggs character from "Lethal Weapon".

"Iron Man 3" also has a couple of the best set pieces yet from a Marvel movie.  The rescue attempt on Air Force One is dizzying and easily the best use of 3D in the movie and the attack on Stark's Malibu mansion (some of which is spotlighted in the trailers) is quite impressive.

There have been rumors that this may be Iron Man's final stand-alone film (although Downey Jr. is a confirmed part of the cast for 2015's "The Avengers 2"), and that would be a bit of a shame.  Not that I would want too much of a good thing, but I'm very curious to see where Tony Stark's character goes from here.  "Iron Man 3" leaves him a much more evolved character and I would very much enjoy seeing his character in another adventure with his new sense of purpose and character.  For now though, it's a trip seeing him get there.

In regards to the 3D, if you enjoy 3D movies, you'll enjoy this, but it's certainly not necessary in the way it was for "Avatar" or "Life of Pi".  If you see it in 2D, you won't miss anything.

Grade: A-

Summer Movie Preview

The summer movie season is upon us.  The season of special effects, rapid-cut car chases, and adorably animated animals.  Whereas some women become football widows come fall, my wife kindly accepts the fact that many Fridays during the summer we will find ourselves hunkered down in an air-conditioned theater with our popcorn and Junior Mints waiting to see the latest "biggest movie of all-time".

This year, there aren't too many movies that look exceptional, but the ones that do have my little fanboy heart  all a flutter.  Six months ago, this summer merely meant that we FINALLY get a follow-up to J.J. Abrams "Star Trek."  However, that changed for me about two weeks ago with this.....

I sincerely think that I have never seen a more masterful use of music, dialogue, and visual in a trailer before. "Man of Steel" has officially gone from "Oh, interesting.  Another 'Superman' movie" to "Holy cow, I need to see that NOW!".   I'm relieved to see that Zack Snyder, who is best known for much darker films, has kept the optimism inherent in the comic books.  Also, Hans Zimmer's score sounds like a worthy successor to John Williams' iconic music from the 1978 Richard Donner film. "Man of Steel" opens nationwide on Friday, June 14th.

Now, back to "Star Trek".  In 2009, J.J. Abrams did something pretty extraordinary.  He made "Star Trek" relevant to non-Trekkers.  He made a film that felt instinctively, inherently faithful to Roddenberry, but also original and gorgeously cinematic.  You didn't leave thinking you'd seen a good "Star Trek" movie.  You left thinking you'd seen one of the best sci-fi films of the last 30 years.

That's a pretty huge act to follow, but it certainly looks like he did a great job with "Star Trek Into Darkness".  He's shown the same deft skill at casting as he demonstrated when re-casting the iconic "Star Trek" characters in 2009 by bringing Benedict Cumberbatch  as the mysterious baddie John Harrison and it looks to have the same visual energy that made the first movie so visceral.  This still remains atop my summer must-see list.  "Star Trek Into Darkness" opens nationwide on Friday, May 17th.

Then, of course, there's next week's epic landing of "Iron Man 3", a film that seems to be not merely a third installment in the story of Tony Stark, but an in-spirit sequel to last summer's behemoth "The Avengers".  Early word from international audiences (where it was released last week) is extremely positive with many saying it's the best of the "Iron Man" films and particular praise for its direction and screenplay from Lethal Weapon scribe Shane Black.  Also, Ben Kingsley is being singled out for his performance as The Mandarin, an international terrorist with his sights set on America's most flawed genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist.  In addition, the most recent commercials look to give Gwyneth Paltrow a little more to do than banter and almost get killed by bad guys.  "Iron Man 3" opens this Friday, May 3rd.  (Note:  The below trailer is from the U.K., hence the different release date)

For me, it wouldn't be summer without a new Pixar movie to devour.  It's been three years since I had a wholly satisfying experience with Pixar (with "Toy Story 3"), but I still have extraordinary faith in the studio.  Even with the occasional "Cars 2", they have the best track record around, and while I do get annoyed by the new propensity towards the sequelification (yes, I just invented that word) of every Pixar film (except for "The Incredibles", the one that is actually set up for a sequel), this summer's "Monsters University" looks for be old-school Pixar fun.  With each new bit of footage I see, it looks to maintain the play-time zippy fun of the original.  Plus, they've added some pretty terrific voices to the Monster world, including those of Helen Mirren, Nathan Fillion, John Krasinski, Aubrey Plaza, and Alfred Molina.  In addition, I just think a Pixarian take on a college movie could be a great amount of fun.  "Monsters University" opens nationwide on Friday, June 21st.

Here's a calendar of the noteworthy movies headed to your neighborhood theater this summer:

May 3rd:

"Iron Man 3" - (see above)

May 10th: 

 "The Great Gatsby" - This updated take on the famous story looks to have the same colorful, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink take on drama that Baz Luhrmann demonstrated in his last film, 2001's "Moulin Rouge", with a terrific cast that includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, and Tobey Maguire.

May 17th:

"Star Trek Into Darkness" - (see above)

May 24th:

"Epic" -Blue Sky studio's attempt to hit it big with something not starring a nut-obsessed prehistoric squirrel/rat, "Epic" looks visually stunning, but narratively extremely derivative.  Still, some of those creature designs look like they could be worth the price of admission on their own.

"Fast & Furious 6" - Who would have thought they would make six of these?  Not me, but something funny happened two years ago.  "Fast Five" was actually a pretty good movie, with one of the most electrifying action sequences of the past decade.  While I can't say I'm looking forward to a sixth outing, I'm still hopeful for something that may entertain beyond camp value.

"The Hangover Part III" - A follow-up to one of the most financially successful, but critically reviled comedy sequels of all-time.  Please don't see this, or they might be tempted to make another.

May 31st:

"After Earth" - ...or "Will M. Night Shaymalan Ever Make Another Good Movie".  Hiring Will Smith is always a smart move.  I'll keep my fingers crossed.

"Now You See Me" - A heist movie with a stage magic twist.  The commercials definitely give a "potential sleeper hit" vibe.

June 12th:

"This Is the End" - Yet another apocalyptic-themed comedy (when did that become a thing?!?), this brings the Apatow gang together playing themselves as pampered Hollywood stars trying to survive the end of times.  I'm a huge fan of the series "Freaks & Geeks" which introduced many of these actors to the world, so I just get disappointed when I see yet another film for them to indulge their distinctive brand of toilet humor when they're capable of the most poignant type of comedy.  Sigh.

June 14th:

"Man of Steel" - (see above)

June 21st:

"Monsters University" - (see above)

"World War Z" - Brad Pitt vs. horrible CGI......oh wait, I mean zombies.

June 28th:

"White House Down" - The director of "Independence Day" destroys the White House yet again, but this time it's Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx versus terrorists.  Well, at least Roland Emmerich (who also directed "Godzilla", "The Day After Tomorrow", and "2012") knows how to make stuff blow up real good.

July 3rd:

"Despicable Me 2" - The follow-up to one of the most effortlessly witty and charming animated films in recent memory.  Should be a fun time.

"The Lone Ranger" - "Pirate of the Caribbean" director Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp re-team for this update on the radio serial hero.  Hopefully they can create something special once again.

July 12th:

"Grown-Ups 2" - Was anybody demanding a sequel to this movie?  I didn't think so.

"Pacific Rim" - Guillermo Del Toro gets to play with mammoth monsters and robots.  Heck, even if it was just him in his backyard with some toys I might pay money to see it.

July 19th:

"R.I.P.D." - Starring Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges, this is, in essence, "Men In Black" with demons instead of aliens.  If Reynolds and Bridges can nail the buddy cop chemistry, it could be fun.

"Red 2" - More "The older the spy the better"-type fun.  The first one was a happy surprise.  Who wouldn't want to see this cast (Bruce Willis, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Mary-Louise Parker, Catherine Zeta-Jones, John Malkovich) in an action comedy?

"Turbo" - It's a Ryan Reynolds weekend as he provides the voice of a snail with dreams of being a racer in this summer animation entry from DreamWorks.  The trailers look cute.  Not particularly special, but a perfectly pleasant way for a family to beat the heat.

July 26th:

"The Wolverine" - The second attempt at a stand-alone film for the iconic "X-Men" character, here's hoping that director James Mangold ("Walk the Line", "3:10 From Yuma") can deliver a better movie than the first one, which failed in spite of the efforts of one of the most innately likable actors in the world working his hardest in his signature role.

August 2nd:

"300: Rise of An Empire"  and "The Smurfs 2" - I'm lumping these two together because my reaction to both of them is the same.  Unnecessary retreads of movies that didn't warrant sequels.  

August 7th:

"Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters" - Another sequel that seems somewhat unwarranted, however, if they're more faithful to the source material than the first movie, this could genuinely be something special.  Also, adding Nathan Fillion to your cast is always a good idea.

August 9th:

"Elysium" - Neill Blomkamp showed himself capable of smart and creative sci-fi with the anti-prejudice actioner "District 9".  "Elysium" looks to continue with his trend of using sci-fi to comment on current societal issues, specifically the struggles among the classes.  Starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, you just know it'll at least have some terrific acting.

"Planes" - The last time a direct-to-video follow-up to a Pixar film was deemed worthy for a theatrical release we got "Toy Story 2", one of the best animated films of all-time.  While I doubt this Disney take on the Pixar "Cars" universe will be anywhere close to that league, Disney isn't known for taking chances, so they must think they have a hit on their hands.

Finally, here are my predictions on the summer box-office champs.  We'll only know if I'm right on Labor Day.

1.  Man of Steel

2.  Iron Man 3

3.  Star Trek Into Darkness

4.  Monsters University

5.  Despicable Me 2

6.  The Hangover III

7.  Fast and Furious 6

8.  The Lone Ranger

9.  The Wolverine

10. Pacific Rim

Happy summering!  Now I need to finish writing a play and get ready for a terrific PSC concert!