Man of Steel (Snyder, 2013)

"You will give the people an ideal to strive towards... But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders." 

Apparently, Jor-El was not referring to his son's latest film debacle. 

Zack Snyder's Man of Steel is a hollow, lackluster, and no-fun adaptation of Superman's origin story. The visual effects are second rate at best, with CGI fight scenes looking more like a video game than an actual movie. Snyder sacrifices story and character development for excruciatingly long fight sequences, and seems not to care about the poor editing as well. 

Man of Steel starts with the planet Krypton's final hours, when General Zod (Michael Shannon) launches a coup against the elitist Kryptonian government. After a massive battle, Zod and his associates are placed in a black hole to suffer for all eternity for their crimes. Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his wife send their recently born son to Earth to spare him from the destruction of their home world, and preserve the memory of their culture. 

After Krypton is destroyed, the baby lands on Earth, possessing superhuman strength and abilities due to some mumbo jumbo alien science. His childhood is told in a series of flashbacks, while the adult Clark Kent/Superman (Henry Cavill) tries to learn about his true nature from clues left by his father. Meanwhile, reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams) investigates mysterious alien appearances across the globe, while General Zod comes to Earth to conquer the planet. Superman must now choose whether or not join the only surviving members of his race, or save the planet he has come to call home. 

The casting, on paper, seems excellent. Henry Cavill plays a decent Superman, but the Clark Kent parts are extremely uninteresting and poorly executed. Michael Shannon just yells a lot as Zod, with no character depth and pointless angry speeches. Amy Adams would be a good Lois Lane if she was actually playing Lois Lane; the character in Man of Steel is so far fetched and separated from the heroine that it's hard to tell what the writers were even thinking. Lawrence Fishburne's limited screen time as editor Perry White is wasted on pointless action and hammy dialogue. Russell Crowe's Jor-El is the only truly good performance in the film, making the corny screenplay have some girth and meaning. He gets the best lines and the best scenes (if there is such a thing in Man of Steel). 

Man of Steel takes everything one step farther than it should be. While the flashback idea is nice, the audience stops caring about them by the fourth or fifth depressing childhood memory. Each battle is at least 5-10 minutes too long, and there are several fight sequences that are just completely unnecessary. Most of it is just wanton destruction. Audiences will spend the majority of the action with their face in their palms, with buildings blowing up for seemingly no apparent reason. 

With Christopher Nolan producing and Zack Snyder directing, Man of Steel should have been a sure thing. Instead, audiences get an awkwardly humorless and overly long film that takes itself way too seriously. The Man of Steel deserves so much more than this. 

One and a half out of five stars. 

The Purge (DeMonaco, 2013)

The United States of America, thanks to her New Founding Fathers, is at a time of utopian bliss. Unemployment is down to 1%, and there is virtually no crime. All of this happiness exists because of The Purge, an annual event in which all crime, including murder, is legal for a 12-hour period.

This creative premise and original idea for a film, unfortunately, is wasted on a standard horror film.

James DeMonaco directs The Purge like a routine home invasion thriller- and it deserves so much more than that. With today's standards of horror releases being one gorefest after another, The Purge had the potential to become a unique and refreshing scary movie. Instead, it's a predictable shoot-out with no meaningful depth added to the characters or story.

The Purge is told from the perspective of a wealthy family, able to afford protection because the husband (Ethan Hawke) sells the armor technology to upper class households. His wife (Lena Heady) understands all the "good" The Purge does, but the children (Max Burkholder and Adelaide Kane) are more hesitant of its inherent implications. When this year's Purge rolls around, the family locks down their house and waits out another brutal evening. But only a few hours into the mayhem, the son lets in a mysterious stranger who is being stalked by a gang of ultra violent socialites. The gang demands that the family now release the stranger- or they will kill everyone inside under the protection of the United States government.

Despite an intriguing beginning, the audience completely loses interest in the characters and their fates by the second half. The characters are just too stupid to hold any sort of connection with them. The Purge almost makes fun of itself at times, throwing in hammy dialogue with mediocre twists that makes the bloodbath seem like harmless fun. The Purge never gets as scary or violent as it promises.

There remains so much that filmmakers can do with this highly original premise; it's built for a horror movie model, but not in the way it's done in The Purge. The box office success of this film could lead Universal to produce some spin offs. Hopefully they'll do more with this potentially expansive franchise than James DeMonaco.

Two out of five stars.

Now You See Me (Leterrier, 2013)

There's way too many characters, but the story of Now You See Me is almost fun enough not to notice. 

Set in the world of magicians, the film takes audiences on an amusing ride through various locations across the globe. It is not very original, but Now You See Me still manages to offer an entertaining non-action alternative for the summer movie season. It's fast-paced, energetic, and all around fun to watch.
Now You See Me tells the tale of four street magicians of varying talents, played decently by Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, and Dave Franco. These small-time tricksters and con artists are given a rare opportunity when they are chosen to work together on a new act. One year later, these Four Horseman put on a big show in Las Vegas- and steal several million Euros from a bank vault in Paris during their final act.

The FBI, working with Interpol, investigates this seemingly magical robbery that pits reluctant agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) against a famous magic debunker (Morgan Freeman), a rich financier of the Horseman (Michael Caine), and a mysterious Interpol agent (Melanie Laurent). Rhodes now has to figure out how four once insignificant magicians have stolen millions of dollars before they strike again.

The characters in Now You See Me are nothing more than mere plot devices; audiences know little to nothing about any of the multitude of criminals and cops that come their way. The heroes and villains (though it's never clear who the audience is supposed to root for) alike are uninteresting and pale stereotypes of unfamiliar people, leading to a disconnect from the viewer.

But, Now You See Me is indeed enjoyable to watch. The mystery is intriguing and the reveals are equally dramatic. The actors all do a fair job in their performances, though they do not have much to wrok with in the script. Director Louis Leterrier clearly emphasizes style over substance in a film that that shines when it's performing magic and falls when it's attempting melodrama.

The plot twist at the end is so strange that it transcends simple liking or disliking; it's simply too out-of-the-blue for the audience to even find value in it. While there are several pitfalls about the movie, most general audiences should fin it lighthearted mindless fun. The real magic trick however, would be making people sympathize with any of these empty characters. Look closely, because the harder you look, the more you will realize that there is nothing actually there.

Three out of five stars.

Flashback Friday: Star Trek (Abrams, 2009)

No one expected the Star Trek franchise to go anywhere. CBS aired the series as yet another sci-fi program, but even after years of cancellation, fans clung on to it like nothing before. Gene Roddenberry created a grand vision of what an optimistic future would look like, with humanity at the peak of it's technological and moral standards. But after a clunky fifth television series, and the critical and commercial failure of the tenth motion picture, Star Trek seemed doomed. However, when Paramount expressed interest in rebooting the film series, J.J. Abrams joined the team to direct the new movie. His creation was unlike any reboot ever done, taking the term, and the franchise itself, to a whole new level. The success of this movie led to a sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, which was just released in cinemas everywhere. To get viewers ready for the adventure, today on Flashback Friday we're reviewing 2009's Star Trek. 

The cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation reunited for a fourth and final film adventure called Star Trek: Nemesis. The movie's director, Stuart Baird, was unfamiliar with the franchise and was thus unprepared to adequately make the film. After this cinematic disaster, and the lack of approval for the TV show Star Trek: Enterprise, Paramount decided it was time for a reboot of the Star Trek series. 

They hired J.J. Abrams, a well-known sci-fi director who created the shows Lost and Alias, as well as the film Mission: Impossible 3. He sought to make a modernized version of Star Trek, with a younger, more popular cast to appeal to a wider audience. Abrams wanted this new film to appeal to all viewers, and all generations, regardless of whether or not they were already fans of the franchise. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote the script, which toned down the amount of Star Trek lore in favor of a more accessible science fiction adventure. 

Star Trek tells the origin story of the crew of the original U.S.S. Enterprise, especially that of Captain James T. Kirk and Commander Spock. Viewers learn that Kirk was born in a shuttle that narrowly escapes it's ship's destruction, a ship that was attacked by time-traveling Romulans. Spock was bullied for his "handicap" of having a Vulcan father and human mother. Eventually, the two cross paths at Starfleet Academy, where they are rushed into action to face the Romulan threat. 

Casting-wise, Star Trek remains pure gold. Chris Pine plays Captain Kirk with the same rebelliousness and spirit of William Shatner. Zachary Quinto looks and acts like Leonard Nimoy (who also appeared in the film), yet with an added sense of vulnerability. Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, and John Cho are excellent as Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu, respectively. Eric Bana plays probably the best villain Star Trek has seen in a while, and echoes the glory days of evil, the likes of which includes Khan, General Chang, and the Borg Queen. However, whoever casted Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy remains a genius; Urban nails every line, and steals every scene he is in, from his first appearance up until the film's final moments. 

J.J. Abrams and the screenwriters took the idea of a "reboot" and brought it one step further. Most reboots just take the same characters and retell the story in a different way, ignoring all the series history that came before it. Star Trek, on the other hand, keeps over forty years of franchise history alive but away. Because the plot involves time travel, Spock postulates that the future will never be the same, and that nothing can be predicted. He states that this Star Trek exists in an alternate universe, so everything still happened in the five series and ten movies that came before it, just in another timeline. This intelligent plot device keeps fans happy and makes way for an exciting future of the series. 

Michael Giacchino provides a majestic musical soundtrack, hinting at the original series' theme without blatantly copying it. Much like Giacchino's score, Star Trek alludes to some of the franchise's most iconic moments. Fans were impressed by the way the movie includes references to Captain Archer, Kirk's childhood, Uhura's mysterious first name, and the Kobayashi Maru. 

Star Trek is the film fans have been waiting for: a well made origin story that is both entertaining and fulfilling. It became the first Star Trek film to win an Oscar, for Best Makeup. The critical and commercial success of the movie led to a sequel Star Trek Into Darkness, in theaters everywhere today. The Star Trek franchise's future looks promising, and audiences around the world are excited to jump into warp once again to watch the voyages of the U.S.S. Enterprise. 

"Space. The final frontier. These are the voyages of the U.S.S. Enterprise, her continuing mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before."  

Star Trek Into Darkness (Abrams, 2013)

The Star Trek franchise challenges viewers "to boldly go where no one has gone before". J.J. Abrams may have missed this touchstone in the Trek canon.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a worthy follow-up to 2009's Star Trek, featuring a new story while still maintaining the fun sci-fi action vibe that made the first one such a success. J.J. Abrams once again proves his talent as a visual director, and Into Darkness remains one of the director's finest science fiction achievements. The problem with this film, however, is it's lack of originality.

While Star Trek touchingly alluded to some of the franchise's most memorable moments and characters, Into Darkness blatantly copies the successful components of both it's predecessor and the series they each are based on. The new movie does nothing to further the Trek franchise, and instead relies heavily on what has already been done. There are several scenes, plot lines, and even dialogue that are taken directly from another Star Trek work.

But, this issue is not necessarily a bad fault. The material they use clearly works, otherwise the legions of Trekkies would not still be coming back to theaters each time a new film is released. Abrams takes the best parts of both the Star Trek franchise and his own movie version to create a sentimental and entertaining journey through his own Star Trek universe.

Star Trek Into Darkness again features the adventures of the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise, led by the rebellious Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and the half-human, half-vulcan science officer Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto). This time, they are pitted against rogue Starfleet officer John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a brilliant but psychopathic terrorist who attacked a Federation archive in London. Captain Kirk must face his own insecurities while battling Harrison, and receives help from his loyal senior crew, including chief medical officer Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban), communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana), helmsman Hikaru Sulu (John Cho), and engineers Montgomery "Scotty" Scott (Simon Pegg) and Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin).

Abrams constructs a visually stunning story that combines several elements of Trek's past, and as such fans of the Star Trek franchise will see plot twists coming lightyears away. While they will enjoy the numerous references to Star Trek's various creatures, characters, and ideas, they likely will not be surprised by the twisty narrative common to an Abrams' film. Newcomers might be shocked, but non-fans (which supposedly includes J.J. himself) may also have difficulty understanding the dozens of references the cast makes.

Nevertheless, Into Darkness remains a well-crafted tale, fun to watch no matter how familiar a viewer is with the series. The movie moves much faster than Star Trek, with almost non-stop action from beginning to end. Key dialogue scenes interrupt the thrills for a few moments before kicking back up in a fight sequence. The action is well choreographed and perfect for a summer blockbuster.

Otherwise, stylistically, Into Darkness is virtually identical to Star Trek. The 3D upgrade is a nice touch, but largely unnecessary to the film. Star Trek Into Darkness itself is an upgrade, combining Abrams striking style with plot lines already used in previous Star Trek films. The cast is clearly having fun though, and as an audience member, it's hard not to have fun along with them.

The creative minds of director J.J. Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci, Alexander Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof could have created a more original story. But, what they made works, and for what it is, Star Trek Into Darkness is a success. It's a fun, action-packed, and entertaining thrill ride for fans of all ages. Set a course for the local movie theater, maximum warp.

Four out of five stars.

The Great Gatsby (Luhrmann, 2013)

When I first heard that they were making a new adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, I remember thinking three things: director Baz Luhrmann would create a beautiful Jazz Age setting, the casting was impeccable, and the film would sweep the 85th Academy Awards. I was right on one-and-a-half of these ideas.

Unfortunately, Warner Brothers Pictures decided to push the Christmas 2012 release of the film back to May 2013, making my third thought impossible. They believed that the film would do better financially in May, thereby also removing Gatsby from the Oscar competition. This made many people worried (myself included) about the quality of the picture, as their decision to delay it's release might have been because of the concern about the movie's likely critical reception.

It turns out they, like my initial thoughts, were only half right. 

Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby is a visually stunning drama, led by committed performances from the entire cast. Luhrmann's toned down version of his infamous eccentricity translates nicely in the motion picture. This proves to be both a positive and negative aspect of the film, as the viewers are subjected to what he believes the Jazz Age looked and felt like; however, we lose some of the realistic surroundings amidst the constant pomp and sparkle of Luhrmann's style.

For readers who are unfamiliar with Fitzgerald's literary masterpiece, The Great Gatsby is narrated by Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), a young bonds salesman who dreams of becoming a writer. He moves to New York City to experience the thrill and excitement of the city, and buys a run-down house on Long Island. He spends his days with his cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), her husband Tom (Joel Edgerton), and their socialite friend Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki).

At nights,  Nick attends the almost daily parties of his neighbor, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gatsby is a mysterious figure, a charming millionaire who almost never shows his face in public. However, when Nick finally encounters Gatsby himself, the once-innocent writer becomes tossed into the world of dark secrets and love, the likes of which he is not prepared to handle.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays the title character convincingly, giving the haunted figure the vulnerability and almost fake high-class touch he needs. There's never a moment in this film where we know exactly what Gatsby is thinking, which remains necessary to the story's development. Tobey Maguire was born to play the third wheel character of Nick, excellent as a writer yet flawed as a friend and lover. Carey Mulligan plays a fair Daisy, but her version lacks the emotional depth of her literary equivalent. The only weak link in the near-perfect cast is Joel Edgerton, who is flat and uninteresting as the brutish Tom Buchanan. He should be the classic antagonist, but instead comes across as a random nuisance who pops up at the worst moments.

Many consider The Great Gatsby the greatest embodiment of the 1920's world, and Baz Luhrmann creates a visually appealing Roaring Twenties. His over-the-top party sequences are filmed nicely, and the costuming is good. But for some bizarre reason, Luhrmann decided to score the movie with rapper Jay Z. The music is distracting and hinders the illusion of the Jazz Age, drastically affecting the emotion of the story and ruining the escapist setting.

No movie adaptation of a novel is perfect, and I personally believe that a film should be judged on it's own merits and not by the source material it comes from. However, many viewers disagree, so I will briefly say that Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby is probably the best adaptation of the book so far, but does obviously have it's flaws. It's most obvious drawback is the brief lapse of point-of-view. The story is narrated by Nick, yet the film shows several scenes in which Nick is absent. This is either lazy editing or creative cinematic license, so I have mixed feelings about what they did.

The Great Gatsby remains entertaining drama despite it's obvious editing problems. The beginning feels rushed, the middle is interesting, and the ending is clunky. Fans of the novel will probably be impressed, but those unfamiliar might find the film hard to understand. The movie assumes most people have read the book, so it speeds past a lot of important material in order to get the more visually interesting aspects on screen.

If viewers have read the classic novel, they should see the movie. If not, Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby is nothing more than another decent Leonardo DiCaprio movie.

Three out of five stars.

Iron Man 3 (Black, 2013)

It's become sort of a tradition to start the summer blockbuster season with a Marvel movie. Ever since the original Iron Man debuted in 2008, each year has seen a Marvel superhero production during the first weekend in May. And if that was not enough, fans were usually exposed to one additional film during either the summer or subsequent fall, ensuring that the world's mightiest heroes would never be forgotten. All of this anticipation led to The Avengers in 2012, one of cinema's most successful productions that masterfully brought together half-a-dozen superheroes on one screen.

With aliens threatening the entire human race, a group of six larger-than-life heroes must stand together to protect Earth. All of this led to a once-in-a-lifetime experience that brought gods, aliens, time travelers, and super humans into the fight. But with all this excitement, no one ever bothers to ask one important question.

What happens next?

Director Shane Black attempts to answer this problem in Iron Man 3, the dark and oftentimes exciting sequel to both Iron Man 2 and The Avengers. Black has crafted a story that focuses more on the human side to Tony Stark rather than on the iron suit that molds him. The film is bold, daring, and even surprising at times; this makes Iron Man 3 a refreshing and relevant follow-up to last year's blockbuster.

Robert Downey, Jr. returns once again to his most prolific role, tackling a story that challenges everything viewers know about the Tony Stark character. After the life-changing events of The Avengers, Tony Stark/Iron Man finds himself paranoid and bored. Nothing excites him anymore, not even his loving girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Stark thinks he has found the answer to his prayers when a terrorist named The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) proves to be an explosive global threat. However, the military wants Iron Man to take some down time, instead relying on the Iron Patriot (Don Cheadle) to catch the villain. But when The Mandarin makes the first strike, Tony Stark must deal with his own personal demons in the attempt to protect everything and everyone he has ever loved.

Iron Man 3 deals with some pretty serious topics, like terrorism, anxiety, and the ethics of technological advancement. But at the heart of this intense plot remains a fun, action-packed story that amuses even as it disturbs. Screenwriters Drew Pearce and Shane Black still maintain the appeal of Iron Man while adding a deeper layer to the character.

Most fans will be impressed by the masterful direction of the characters. Gwenyth Paltrow and Don Cheadle still give satisfying performances despite their decreased screen time. Ben Kingsley is haunting as the villain, and Guy Pearce is featured in a role that challenges Pepper Potts' loyalty. But, in the end, this is Tony Stark's movie. He has come a long way since his time in captivity, and the film addresses this change in more ways than one. Robert Downey, Jr. proves his resilience and emotional range as an actor more in this character piece than in any other appearance as the character.

Iron Man 3 proves that Tony Stark can be fascinating even without the Iron Man suit, but fans who prefer the costumes to the heroes who wear them will still find something to love about this picture. The visual effects are solid, the action scenes are stunning, and the film keeps moving even with the added focus on drama. Viewers will still find themselves laughing hysterically at times, and the climactic showdown is one of Marvel's best. And most exciting of all, Iron Man 3 will surprise viewers throughout. This is the first major blockbuster in a long time in which there are scenes and plot twists that fans will not see coming.

All in all, Iron Man 3 is a visually enthralling, fast-paced thrill ride that puts Tony Stark and the Marvel Cinematic Universe in a darker shade. It remains a vast improvement over it's predecessor Iron Man 2, and proves a worthy follow-up to The Avengers. Marvel movies are first and foremost fun to watch, and while Iron Man 3 does contain more serious fare, it never loses sight of that escapist goal.

Here's looking towards the future, when we get to see Tony Stark in action once again.

Four and a half out of five stars.