Movie Review: Star Trek- Into Darkness

For the record, I was never raised a Trekkie. My parents were both familiar with the original "Star Trek," but my siblings and I were far more familiar with "Star Wars." So I admit my opinion about "Star Trek" is somewhat narrow and prejudiced because I was not raised on it compared to other people's. I greatly enjoyed J.J. Abrams' 2009 reboot as a good, entertaining movie and still consider it my favorite out of what I have seen in the "Star Trek" universe (which, again, is limited). Last night, I went and saw J.J. Abrams' latest "Star Trek" movie.


WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD




"Into Darkness" opens up with the Enterprise on a planet that has a budding civilization on it. Defying orders to save lives, Kirk is removed from his post and becomes a first officer. After a tragedy in the form of mysterious Starfleet officer John Harrison strikes, Kirk goes off to capture/ kill him. However, he discovers that things are not what they seem, and he and his crew must fight for the lives of many.

The story itself was not overly complex. You have a conspiracy in the movie, but it makes sense and fits in with what you were given. The movie is filled with action, and it keeps you engaged the entire time. The only thing about the ending is that towards the end I kept expecting the end to come, but it seemed a bit dragged out. Another issue I had was roughly the last 1/4 of the film. I understand that Abrams has basically rebooted the series through the use of the black hole/alternate reality, but the last part of the movie was a bit too similar to "Wrath of Khan"; one could argue that the events of this story will replace the original, but I would have preferred them to be more different. Oh, and be prepared to laugh at this movie. There is plenty of humor throughout the film, and most of it comes from character interactions.

The characters were pretty good. The returning crew of the Enterprise seemed to have settled into their roles very nicely, and their interactions were great and felt real. Benedict Cumberbatch did excellent in his role as John Harrison/Khan, and it is making me excited for his role as Smaug in the upcoming "Hobbit" film. Alice Eve as Carol Marcus was only an ok character, and I personally thought she felt more like a tribute back to the original "Wrath of Khan" and not like she really added anything to the story.

The movie's effects were cool and memorable. I liked the little tributes to "Star Wars," "Inception," and "Raiders of the Lost Ark." I also liked the fact that we saw more of the extended Star Trek universe in a visit to the Klingon home world (with some of their language thrown in) and of a budding alien culture.

In the end, even though the plot may have not been totally original, I found "Into Darkness" to be a fun and enjoyable film. It's making me look forward to what Abrams will do with the next Star Wars movie.

I give it four and a half out of five stars.

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

Ever since I saw "The Avengers" for my birthday last year, I have been excited about the upcoming "Phase 2" films, which include "Iron Man 3," "Thor: The Dark World," "Captain America: The Winter Soldier," and "The Avengers 2." I saw the first film of Phase 2 last weekend.


WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD


"Iron Man 3" takes place some time after the events of "The Avengers" have happened, and Tony is mentally recovering from the stress of battling Loki's Chitauri army in New York City. Pepper is asked by Aldrich Killian, a competitor in the science and technology research field, to aid him in something called Extremis, which would enable anything to repair itself; but Extremis is not perfect and has glitches that need to be dealt with. After Happy gets caught in the blast radius of a mysterious bomb in Los Angeles, Tony begins trying to track down a terrorist known as the Mandarin, who is behind several bombings across the world, and he discovers that there might be a connection between Killian and the Mandarin.

The story's plot is a bit puzzling, and I think I need a second viewing to understand it better; the biggest part that confused me was Killian's motivation for creating the Mandarin. A few parts of the film seemed like a cop-out and not particularly strong writing, such as Tony's Iron Man army and the ending. The movie's ending reminded me a bit of "The Dark Knight Rises," though this one seemed less well-thought out and felt like it had more or less been thrown into the film. Also, in comparison to Phase 1 of the Marvel movies, "Iron Man 3" felt like an extreme standalone, which had very little to do with the extended universe, save for mentions of what happened in "The Avengers" and of S.H.I.E.L.D. This is quite a contrast to previous films, which helped in the big build-up to the end of Phase 1; even the first "Iron Man" introduced S.H.I.E.L.D., which is a big part of the story, and "Iron Man 2" introduced even more. So, to me, it felt like a let-down not to have anything to broaden the Marvel universe for future movies. Another thing that bothered me was that the writers dropped Tony's PTSD about halfway through the movie and never brought it up again. The trailers that I watched made it look like his mental state would be a fairly big part of the film, but it wasn't and was mostly used for humor in certain scenes. The writers also, in my opinion, did not do as good a job with the humor like it was in previous "Iron Man" films. The humor was poorly placed and, at times, seemed almost inappropriate, especially when it was used in a tense action scene; it made the humor feel unbalanced throughout the film (which I couldn't help but compare it to how well-done it was used in "Iron Man" and "The Avengers").

A final note about the film's plot. There is, as with all previous Marvel films, a little thing after the credits. In previous Marvel films, the blurb is usually used to get the moviegoers all excited for the next film in the Marvel series; like in "Thor," you had the revelation that Loki is alive, which sets up the events of "The Avengers." However, this blurb was pointless and added nothing to the film or to upcoming Phase 2.

The movie had several old characters and a couple of new ones. Robert Downey Jr. did good as Iron Man though his sarcastic humor, which was strong in previous films, seemed not as good in this one. Pepper Potts had what seemed like a smaller role, and I didn't think the chemistry between her and Tony was as strong as it had been in previous films. Guy Pearce is a good actor and played a good Killian, but again the confusion of Killian's motives threw me off a bit. Ben Kingsley is also a good actor, but it seemed like a letdown to build him up as the big baddie of the film, only to discover that he's a drug-addicted actor working for Killian.

The effects were cool, but for some reason the whole Extremis effects reminded me of a cross between a Terminator and Wolverine, which in the end felt a little silly. To me, the effects and stunts didn't feel like anything new or anything mind-blowing.

I have heard other reviewers describe this film as being better than "Iron Man 2." I thought "Iron Man 2" was only an ok film compared to the first "Iron Man" (which I still enjoy watching and which is still one of my favorite Marvel films), but I personally liked this one less than "Iron Man 2" though not too much because of the off-humor and the only-ok writing. Watching the movie has made me a little more nervous about the rest of Phase 2, and I hope that the new Thor, Captain America, and Avengers turn out better than this one. Needless to say, I was disappointed in this film and hope this isn't a sign of things to come in Marvel movies.

I give it three out of five stars.

Movie Review: The Hobbit- An Unexpected Journey

Last night, I saw this movie with my family. I also recently read the entire novel, so I will add some comparisons between the movie and Tolkien's work.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

This movie is the start of a trilogy that is loosely based off of Tolkien's child novel "The Hobbit," a prequel to the entire "Lord of the Rings" novels. Bilbo Baggins is living in Bag End, content to live a simple life filled with comfort and security. However, the wizard Gandalf has other plans. He ropes Bilbo into going on "an adventure" with thirteen dwarves, led by Thorn Oakenshield, who want to regain their homeland Erebor from the dragon Smaug. Along the way, Bilbo will face trolls, goblins, wizards, wargs, and even Gollum, who possesses a magical ring that makes Bilbo invisible when he puts it on, and he will need plenty of courage to go onwards.

The movie's plot is about the first six chapters of "The Hobbit," but Jackson has added more to the story, like the White Council's doings and the rise of the Necromancer in Mirkwood (which were briefly mentioned in "The Hobbit" but were given in more detail in appendices of "Lord of the Rings"). Not only that, but Jackson has added extra things not in the books at all, such as the grudge between Azog and Thorin (which would have never happened because in the book Azog was dead long before the company set out for Erebor; but that's beside the point). Even though I thought the White Council sub-plot was a good addition to the story, the other additions like the Azog/ Thorin grudge did not fit in well because it was not in the original works. Other parts of the plot were deviations from the original that I was not overly fond of, like Bilbo being the one who keeps the trolls arguing until daylight, Bilbo's encounter with Gollum happening concurrently with the dwarves facing the Goblin King instead of at separate times, or even certain twistings of Middle Earth's history, like the whole thing with the Necromancer resurrecting the Witch-King of Angmar; however, I do admit I am a stickler for details when it comes to book/ movie adaptations, so some people might not care about that.

The movie is a rather long one, being far longer than any of the "Lord of the Rings" movies, and it can get tiring after a while. By the time the White Council was finishing up their meeting, I was beginning to feel restless in the theater, and I've heard other people saying the same thing. It did not help that certain scenes were either added or drawn out. For example, I thought the whole chase scene with Radagast, the company, and the goblins was unnecessary, and I thought the affair with the goblins and the Goblin King seemed too long in comparison to the shorter confrontation in the book. I'm still wondering how on earth Jackson is going to release extended version of already long movie, but I suspect it is more of a moneymaking opportunity than anything else.

One final thing about the movie's general plot. I've read complaints from other reviewers about the amount of humor in "The Hobbit" and how it seems unbalanced compared to some of the darker aspects of the story, like the Necromancer and Dol Guldur. I did enjoy the dwarves being comic at times because that was pretty much the tone of the original book. Even though I understand that "The Hobbit" is a much lighter-hearted story than "Lord of the Rings," the movie is still darker than the original. Because of this, there were a few scenes that, to me, seemed almost silly, a little too light-hearted even for the book, like the scenes with the Goblin King and Bilbo's encounter with Gollum.

In general, the characters were pretty good. Martin Freeman did a very good Bilbo; he just looks like he could be a hobbit who loves his comfortable life in his comfortable hole. I had previously seen Richard Armitage in "North and South" (not counting his brief role in "Captain America: The First Avenger"), and originally I was a bit hesitant at the news that "Mr. Thornton is playing Thorin." However, Armitage did a very good job at capturing Thorin's prideful, stubborn self. I also liked the characters of Balin, Fili, and Kili, and the other dwarves were well-picked. Radagast was an interesting character, and I admit I'm not fully sure what I think of his addition to the movie. There are also old characters like older Bilbo, Frodo, Elrond, Gandalf, Saruman, and Galadriel who show up in the movie, and you can tell that a few of them have definitely aged/ grown up ever since the Trilogy was released.

To this day, the "Lord of the Rings" soundtrack remains one of my favorite soundtracks to listen to and be inspired by. However, I was a bit disappointed in the soundtrack for "The Hobbit." There are some of the old familiar themes, but there are a couple of new ones that I'm still getting used to. One thing I was very disappointed in was the use of the "Nazgul theme" when Thorin challenged Azog; it completely did not fit, and I've heard complaints about that from other people, especially since Howard Shore did such a good job with the themes on the Trilogy's soundtrack. I wasn't impressed either by the song that was played over the credits. However, for a pro, I did enjoy the songs from the book that were added into the movie, like the dwarves singing when they throw Bilbo's dishes around or in their other song about Erebor (that song sends shivers up my spine every time I hear it).

As for special effects, I'm not sure. I'm not sure if it was because of the way the movie was filmed or if it was because it was on a large screen, but the effects looked a little fake, especially in comparison to the Trilogy's. I did like, however, the brief glances into Erebor at the height of its glory and the town of Dale before Smaug's arrival; it was nice to see both the cultures of dwarves and elves, especially since we didn't get to see much of either in the original Trilogy, and I was impressed with the sets for those.

It is hard to put "The Hobbit" on the same level as "Lord of the Rings" because the two stories are so different in their tone and content, and so I admit that I probably should not compare the two. However, to me, there is a difference between two related stories who are of equal quality; it sort of reminds of me of the comparison between "Alien" and "Aliens," which are different but both are still enjoyable for their own separate reasons. For me, "The Hobbit" was a step below the quality of original Trilogy (which had its own issues), and so was not as memorable. I was glad I saw it, and there were parts that I did enjoy, but overall it was only an ok movie to me.

I give it three out of five stars.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

I saw this movie back when it was first released, but I opted not to do a review of it until I had seen the movie a few more times and understood it better.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

The movie is Christopher Nolan's final film in his "Batman" trilogy that he has worked on for the past seven or so years. This movie takes place eight years after the events of "The Dark Knight" and, although it references a few events like Harvey Dent's corruption and Rachel's death, it actually has more in common and more references to "Batman Begins." Bruce Wayne has become a recluse inside Wayne Manor while Gotham is at peace, but things quickly change when the masked former League of Shadows member Bane shows up on the scene with his plan to restore justice to Gotham. Bruce must come out of hiding and use manipulative jewel thief and young cop John Blake (who admires Batman) to bring Bane down.

The movie's plot is a bit twisted, and it takes several viewings to understand it fully and to catch all the little details. However, there were some parts that were weak, left unexplained, or did not make a lot of sense. One thing, for example, was why Bruce became a recluse for eight years; it could have been because of the events of "The Dark Knight," but it was never explained and so seemed a little odd. Another was Bane's connection to Talia al Ghul and how their exact partnership worked. The movie's ending was also a bit unsatisfactory, with the rather uneventful deaths of both Bane and Talia and with the discovery that Bruce is alive; to me, it was a bit of a letdown, especially knowing Nolan's talent for storytelling. I did like the whole "Robin" revelation at the end; it ties up things very nicely and would enable for the story to continue (if put into the right hands). Despite the movie's length, it does not seem that long.

The movie had some pretty good characters. It had the usual old ones of Bruce, Alfred (who actually plays a much smaller role than in previous films), Gordon, and Fox, but there are new ones too. Tom Hardy plays an excellent Bane, physically being a big beast of a guy but also being highly intelligent; the only thing that I wished they changed was that it is difficult to understand him because of the mask. Anne Hathaway also did a good job as Selina Kyle/ Catwoman, though I wish that there had been more of a chance to develop her character; and I think they should have developed her relationship with Batman a little more because them getting together at the end seemed a little rushed. Marion Cotillard plays Miranda Tate, a woman with her own agenda who becomes Bruce's girlfriend, and I think they could have emphasized her more manipulative, villainous nature better. Joseph Gordon- Levitt did a good job as well as John Blake, and I wonder if he will have any involvement in future Batman movies.

The movie had good effects and stunts (I'm still scratching my head over Catwoman's acrobatic movements in heels), and I really like Batman's bike. Hans Zimmer did an excellent job, as usual, on the soundtrack, using both themes from previous Batman films and, and I recommend his song "Aurora," which he composed in honor of the victims of the Aurora, Colorado shooting.

This movie, to me, is not the best out of the trilogy ("Batman Begins" is still my favorite out of the three), but it was a good conclusion to the trilogy. Despite its various plot holes and weak spots, I still think it is an enjoyable film.

I give it four out of five stars.

Movie Review: The Bourne Legacy

I apologize for the lack of posts on here, but I have either not had enough time to post or known what to post about. So, I will give a review of the latest addition to the Jason Bourne series: "The Bourne Legacy."

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

The movie is a further continuation of the popular "Bourne" movie series. While the events of "Bourne Ultimatium" are happening, more government conspiracy involving other spy programs is going on. Ezra Kramer, fearing that Jason Bourne will expose the government's secret operation, goes to Colonel Eric Byer (portrayed by Edward Norton) for help. Byer and his team decide to destroy Operation Outcome, a project that uses pills to increase the physical and mental abilities of its subjects. This means them also killing the operative Aaron Cross, portrayed by Jeremy Renner. Cross manages to evade Byer and meets up with Dr. Marta Shearing (portrayed by Rachel Weisz), who has just survived a shoot-out at her work that was ordered by Byer because of her work's connections to Operation Outcome. Cross and Shearing then make their way to the Philippines to get access to a virus that will help Cross maintain his mental abilities.

When I heard of the movie being made, I was optimistic because, even though the director was different, Tony Gilroy, who wrote the other movies, was directing, which made me enthusiastic that the movie's quality would be as good or maybe even better than the other films. Unfortunately, I found this film to be the weakest of the Bourne films and my least favorite.

One of the major problems with the film was the plot. It was weak, and there were several aspects that did not make sense or were not explained well- enough, such as Byer's connection to the shoot-out at Mara Shearing's work. While the previous films focused on Jason Bourne trying to remember his past and bringing down the government conspiracies, this one focuses on a government operative successfully fleeing for his life and trying to find a virus that will enable him to keep his mental abilities because the pills have increased his IQ and he does not want to lose his newfound intelligence. The whole introduction of the manipulation of genes and the pills that can improve people was a bit strange, especially when you consider the content of the previous films, and I did not find it as intriguing of a plot as the other films. Another issue with the plot was that the movie did not end very well; the audience finds out that Pam Landy's attempt to reveal the government's secret operations fails, which I think is realistic, but the movie felt like a letdown because the bad guys are still working and nothing has truly been solved or dealt with.

Another problem was the characters. Jason Bourne was difficult to sympathize with because he was more machine than human in his personality, but Aaron Cross is different, as he knows how to talk and interact with people. However, I did not like Cross as much because, to me, it seemed like his goal of maintaining his IQ was a selfish one because he had no intentions of revealing and putting an end to the corrupt politicians who used him for murder and other crimes. Rachel Weisz did a good job, but ultimately her character was not overly memorable. Edward Norton is a good actor, but I don't really recall anything special about his character Byer.

The stunts for this movie were only ok, which was a disappointment. To me, the stunts got better with each film with spectacular chase scenes and fight scenes, but this film did not ultimately have any memorable action scenes. The final chase in Manila seemed to be too similar to the chase in Tangiers in the 3rd Bourne movie, which made it a let-down and, in my opinion, not very good.

I had high expectations for this movie, but I found it to be a letdown. It was not very memorable and was a few steps down from the quality that I have found in the rest of the trilogy.

I give it two and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-man

Last night, I went out to see the new movie reboot of the "Spider-man" franchise.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

The movie is basically a reboot of the series that Sam Raimi did only a few years ago. Peter Parker is an orphan, whose parents handed him over to his aunt and uncle when he was a child before they disappeared. After he finds a secret briefcase that used to belong to his father, Peter works with his father's former co-worker Dr. Curt Connors to make a serum that can enable humans to heal themselves. He is bitten by a spider and decides to use his abilities to hunt down the man who killed his uncle while at the same time he must manage his new relationship with classmate Gwen Stacy and Dr. Connors becoming an aggressive, giant lizard.

It is hard not to compare this reboot with Raimi's original series, but I came out of the theater liking Raimi's version better (generally, that is... there were certain things about his movies that I wasn't overly fond of, and I do not like "Spider-man 3"). One major problem is that the reboot came way too soon. Unfortunately, Hollywood is all the rave about superhero/ comic adaptations nowadays, which includes rebooting stuff that may or may not have been a failure in the first place. Hence, the movie, to me, felt like a comic book cash cow.

One of the major things that I did not like in this version were the characters. I had heard good things about Andrew Garfield's version of Peter Parker, but I personally was not very impressed. Garfield's version, to me, looked more like an emo, angsty teenager who walks around wearing a hoodie most of the time with occasional moments of his geek-ness and genius coming out. It didn't help that his character also was inconsistent; in his teenage form, he was quiet and generally not memorable but in his spider-man suit he turns cocky and sarcastic, which seem out-of-character for him. I was not overly fond of the new versions of Uncle Ben and Aunt May; neither of them had good chemistry with each other or with Garfield, and neither of them came across as being particularly encouraging to Peter or giving him good advice. This meant that I personally had little sympathy for them, especially during Uncle Ben's death scene. Gwen Stacy was not an overly memorable character either. I found her less annoying than Mary Jane from Raimi's adaptations, but she had no substance to her or anything that was particularly memorable. Dr. Curt Connors was not a very interesting villain either; in a rather bizarre twist with no explanation for it, he starts off as a guy that you like, someone who wants to help the human race, and then, after injecting himself with the serum, he becomes a madman who wants to turn everyone into giant lizards.

Another problem with the film was the plot. The movie was unevenly paced, and it took a while for the plot to get going; Peter didn't turn spider-man for a while, and Dr. Connors also got a late start in becoming the villain. The plot also was not organized very well in that it seemed to keep changing and that certain aspects were dropped. Peter dons his spider-man persona for the sole purpose of tracking down the man who shot his uncle, but he abruptly drops that to focus on dealing with Dr. Connors; instead of being a general crime-fighter, his focus is too narrow, and thus it doesn't make sense when certain city members decide to help Spider-man save the city because he honestly has not done much to help them in the first place. The whole villainous scheme for Connors to turn everyone into lizards I thought was a rather dumb idea and did not fit in with his character either. The romance between Peter and Gwen did not have much chemistry either, and it came across as being more of a teenage crush than anything else.

The effects and stunts were ok, though the effects definitely showed how much technology has changed in the last decade; they allowed for a grittier, darker feel in certain scenes. The stunts were very similar to what had been done in Raimi's versions, and so they were not overly spectacular or mind-blowing. Some of the stunts that Peter does while testing out his flexibility and new-found abilities were interesting. On a related note, I did like how Peter's transformation was done and how he struggled to get used to using his new abilities, which felt realistic and added some humor to the movie.

All in all, the movie was only ok. The characters were not memorable, and the plot was not very gripping. It could have been better, but instead it came across as a weak attempt at a reboot.

I give it two and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review: Underworld: Awakening

A little while back, I watched this film with my family after a recommendation from a friend.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

This fourth installment of the popular vampire/ werewolf series "Underworld" starts off after the events of the second movie: "Underworld: Evolution." Humans have now discovered the existence of vampires and lycans and have begun waging an exterminating war against them. Selene wakes up twelve years later, having been cryogenically frozen, and escapes from the medical corporation Antigen that holds her. She makes contact with a young girl named Eve and, with the help of a vampire called David and a human detective called Sebastian, must rescue Eve from Antigen and uncover the sinister motives of Dr. Lane.

I was not overly optimistic about seeing the movie, given my feelings towards the third film and that the trailers did not look interesting to me. Unfortunately, the movie was indeed nothing special or worth remembering. Compared to the other three movies in the series, this one had a completely different feel to it. As my dad pointed out to me in a conversation after we watched the movie, there is no mythology or history attached to this movie; instead, you have more science and less of the mythology. The whole back stories with early vampires and early lycans have been told, leaving an uninteresting story that doesn't fit with the series.

A major problem with the movie was the entire plot. The whole idea of lycans trying to become immune to silver and growing to ginormous proportions was rather dumb; one would think that humans are the major villains of the story, especially given the first five minutes of the film or so. The reasoning for Eve's importance, how her DNA is important for making the lycan serum, didn't make sense either. Eve's origins were also left unexplained: was Selene pregnant when she was captured (which doesn't make sense because she was frozen for twelve years and wouldn't have been able to give birth) or was the girl born out of a test tube? Either way, it was not explained and thus didn't make much sense in the movie. Some aspects of the plot also seemed repetitive; for example, Selene bringing Eve to the vampire coven reminded me of her bringing Michael Corvin to the manor in the first "Underworld" movie.

The characters in the movie were not overly interesting either. It didn't help that Selene was the only familiar character and that Michael had a brief minute of screen time in the entire film. The new characters were dull and nothing interesting; at least the characters in the first film, despite not having much personality and being predictable, were at least interesting to watch, especially Lucian.

In the end, I wasn't expecting much from "Underworld: Awakening," and I didn't get much. The first two movies were good popcorn entertainment, but this one was not. I hope they either stop making more movies to milk the cash cow or that they get some better writers in there.

I give it one out of five stars.