Star Trek Into Darkness (Spoiler Filled Edition)

As I promised, I'm going to do a spoilery review of Star Trek Into Darkness, because most of my qualms with the film involve some spoilers. So, consider yourself warned: There be spoilers ahead.

As I said in my other review, all of the problems with this movie come from the script. The acting is nearly flawless, and the direction is marvelous. You are about to hear be complain a lot about the script, so just remember one thing: I loved this movie. Don't forget that.

Star Trek Into Darkness Review (Spoiler Free Edition)

I don't think I need to tell anyone of you how much I love Star Trek. I grew up watching TOS with my Mom and later TNG and all of the movies. I have always been more of a TOS guy, I just love the group dynamic with Kirk, Spock and McCoy (Bones has always been my favorite.) I remember back in 2009 how excited I was to see JJ Abrams take a stab at a franchise that I was so very much in love with; and I remember how perfectly he captured the essence of Trek in his first film. Because of that, I was unequivocally excited for Star Trek Into Darkness. I can't say it was phenomenal, but it definitely wasn't bad.

American Mary Review

I really don't know where to start when talking about American Mary. It is a movie by the Soska Sisters (people I had never heard of) and starring a bunch of people I don't know. I only heard about the movie because I troll around the internet every once and a while and find movies that I think sound interesting. Of those movies, I usually watch about 30% of them. And of that 30%, I usually like 10% of them. This was one of those few movies that I really liked. 

American Mary is the story of a promising young medical student, Mary Mason (Katharine Isabelle), and her decent into the world of body modification. I don't want to say much more about the plot, because I really think that anymore would be spoilers, but I think that should be enough to get you interested. 

I really think that this movie had a lot working for it. The key, in my opinion, was how well the script matched the visual style of the film. The Soska Sisters clearly knew exactly what they wanted to do with this movie while they were writing it, because it really shows. I think they also knew exactly how to cut this film to take it away from the Saw/Hostel genre of torture porn and keep it in the vein of horror thriller. For this being their third (?) feature, I was really impressed with how well they melded the scripting, filming, and editing of the film. I hope to see them do some more films in this genre, because I genuinely think they could make some game-changers. 

The acting in this movie was just...odd. I don't mean that in a bad way, per se, just that I can't quite put my finger on it. I thought that Katharine Isabelle was phenomenal as the lead, and that her transition from perfect med student to insane underground surgeon was absolutely perfect, but the rest of the cast was kind of hit or miss. I don't think it particularly matters, though, because this film really focuses on Mary, and that was the only strong performance they really needed to nail this movie. 

The writing on this movie was probably it's weakest point. That isn't to say that the script was bad, just that it wasn't as strong as the rest of the film. The story was excellent, but I think it was the dialogue that threw me off at points. Sometimes the dialogue just didn't match the scene that was taking place, or just felt disjointed. I think that this was a good effort from the Soska Sisters, but could have been a little more cohesive. 

------------------------------------------------

This movie really fit the genre of horror thriller. It really hinged on the perfect performance of Mary Mason by Katharine Isabelle. The Soska Sisters have really made a splash with this movie, and I hope to see more from them in the future (though, they may want to stop acting...) Overall, an excellent character piece with some great characters.

Writing: 6/10

Directing: 7/10

Acting: 7/10

Pacing: 6.5/10

Rewatchability: 6.5/10

Score: 6.6/10

I Give It A Year Review

I feel like I've talked a lot on this blog about how starting this blog has led to me seeing a lot of movies that I probably wouldn't have even heard of, let alone seen. This past weekend I watched two of those movies...and really liked both of them. Both of them I heard about through the website that I talked in depth about a while back. I saw a few people review the movie and give it generally positive reviews, so I gave it a chance.

I Give It A Year is a fun rom-com in the same realm as Love, Actually. It follows the story of Nat (Rose Byrne) and Josh (Rafe Spall) at the start of their marriage. The whole film revolves around the concept that the first year of marriage is insanely difficult, and this one is exacerbated by the fact that they get married after only 7 months of dating.

Like I said, the movie really feels a lot like Love, Actually. It is a story that is really about the concept of "there is someone out there for everyone." Yes, even the severe asshats out there deserve someone. I found that this point was really well shown by the various different characters that were strewn about in this film. We are introduced to so many different personality types, which really helps the film drive in its point. I think it especially helped that they made me really hate one of the main characters, but almost like him when he finally gets his shit together.

You won't believe me if I tell you that this movie was written by the same guy that helped write Borat and Bruno. This movie feels nothing like the other films that he has worked on. This movie isn't offensive, but a really interesting and insightful view on relationships and how we deal with our choices in terms of our love lives. I found the dialogue to be very witty, and the situational humor to be excellent.

I thought the acting in this film was great. It was filled with actors that I don't see often enough like Rose Byrne, Anna Faris, Stephen Merchant, and Simon Baker. And they all delivered brilliantly. The casting was really spot on where we get to have Baker playing the brilliant, handsome business man, and Faris playing the hilariously sarcastic activist. All of the characters were very written, and even more well-acted.

------------------------------------------------

The entire time I was watching this movie, I was trying to figure out why the main character was such a douche. I really hated him from the first minute, and it made the movie a little harder to enjoy. But once I understood what the movie was trying to do, it made it a little better. It was a funny, cute rom-com that I will definitely watch again. 

Writing: 7/10

Directing: 6/10

Acting: 7.5/10

Pacing: 6/10

Rewatchability: 6.5/10

Score: 6.6/10

Pain & Gain Review

I don't even know where to start when talking about Michael Bay. His directorial resume is a smattering of awesome and absolutely shit. He never really hits the middle of the pack for me. I either really love his films (Bad Boys II, The Island, and The Rock), or I want to murder him for wasting my precious time (Pearl Harbor, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon.) Bay has become synonymous with explosions and over-the-top action, and it's really becoming obnoxious how much he plays up to that ridiculous stereotype. While he isn't a terrible director, I've always thought that he needed the right project (preferably something where even he couldn't add unnecessary explosions) to really show off his directing chops. I think Pain & Gain was that opportunity.

Pain & Gain is the surprisingly true story of Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) and the crimes he commits to gain a ridiculous amount of wealth. He and his friends, Paul (Dwayne Johnson) and Adrian (Anthony Mackie), decide to kidnap and extort a millionaire (Tony Shalhoub). I won't spoil anything here, but, needless to say, shenanigans ensue. This movie is in no way a serious film. It is a pseudo-comedy that border on the dark comedy genre, but doesn't quite make it there. It is more of a farce than a dark comedy, but I digress.

I think that this movie was really written for Bay's unique direction style. It feels like a return to form (a la Bad Boys) in that he so perfectly captures the feel and tone of Florida. As always, he is using really awkward camera angles to show us...normal things. He uses his usual first person view for a total of three or four shots. And the look of the film is the same as it always is: odd. I really don't know what it is about Bay's films, maybe he uses a specific filter, or films all of his movies in the same exact place, but they all have that same weird look. I'm not saying it's bad, it's just undefinable to me. And let me not forget another great Bay trope: shitty female characters. This movie, like all it's predecessors, had no real female characters. The only two girls in this film were either: a) there for pure comedic relief and added nothing to the movie (Rebel Wilson) or b) a terrible stereotype of immigrant-turned-stripper-retard. I feel like it is a requirement for his to film a script that it have no strong female characters. Either that or he just cuts that part out whenever possible.

I think that the script for this movie was pretty decent, but was kind of irritating in some ways. I really thought that the script benefited the most from the fact that these people were real...and they were unbelievably stupid. All of the turns in the plot and character choices seem so ridiculous that you really wouldn't believe it if you didn't know it was true. It reminded me a lot of Compliance, but as a comedy instead of a messed up psychological film. These characters seem so unbelievable that I imagine writing this script was just so easy. Don't change anything...the true story is already pure gold! I must admit, though, I did find that the obscene amount of voice over to detract from the overall tone of the film. I'll admit that, at times, it was a good choice and important for plot/character development...but it was overused.

I thought the acting in this film was probably it's strongest element. In all honestly, Wahlberg might have been the weakest of the three male leads. And I think that says a lot. Dwayne Johnson and Anthony Mackie really nailed their roles in the movie. While I thought that Johnson's character was a little oddly written, and had some oddly quick character changes, I thought he was excellent. Whether it be his ridiculously religious character or his turn as a drug addict just looking for his next score, Johnson was always on. And Mackie was no different. His character so perfectly contrasted Johnson's to make it the perfect combination.

------------------------------------------------

This is a return to form for Bay, avoiding the obnoxious amounts of explosions that we have seen in his last three features and replacing them with hilarious characters and a too-good-to-be-true story. The biggest drawback of the film was the run time (129 minutes) which dragged in all of the transitional scenes (pretty much between all of the 'acts' in your traditional three act structure.) If this film had been 40 minutes shorter, it could have been one of Bay's best films. Instead, it has to settle for decent, but not great. 

Writing: 6.5/10

Directing: 6.5/10

Acting: 8/10

Pacing: 4/10

Rewatchability: 5.5/10

Score: 6.1/10

Iron Man 3 Review

I don't think I need to tell anyone how excited I was for this movie. This is the reunion of my two favorite people, Robert Downey Jr and Shane Black. Most of you probably know that their last collaboration, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, is my favorite film, so you can only imagine what I was expecting from this movie. Needless to say, I got everything I wanted...and more.

Iron Man 3 is a real throwback to the first Iron Man film. It takes Tony Start out of the suit (for the majority of the film), and, metaphorically, puts him back into the cave (this time without Ho Yinsin.) Conversely, the tone of the film is nothing like what we have seen in it's predecessors. This film carries a lot darker undertones, while also having a lot more comedic scenes. It truly is a dark comedy; one that perfectly balances the dark with the comedic mastery of RDJ.

I think a lot of the success of this film goes to Shane Black and Drew Pearce for their superb script. The witty banter that was exchanged between all of the characters was absolutely spot on. Whether it be Tony with Pepper or Tony with Harley, the wit of the dialogue never falters. That being said, this hilarity would be lost without these phenomenal actors that can do such quick banter, and deliver lines in such a way that personifies the script in the best of ways. This is the perfect melding of writing and acting that I haven't seen in quite some time, and I am always in awe whenever it happens.

This being a huge summer blockbuster, I was expecting a lot of action, but was hoping for less unnecessary action than Iron Man 2. To say I was happy with the action sequences in this film would be an understatement. I found every single fight to be perfectly choreographed, so that I was never lost and always immensely entertained. I should also give huge points to director Shane Black and his DOP John Toll for being absolutely flawless in their filming of such elaborate scenes. I think the biggest standout action scene (to me at least) was when Tony is fighting baddies with only one Iron Man gauntlet and one leg. Whoever choreographed that scene really knows how to entertain, while also not overdoing it.

I think anyone thing that earned Iron Man 3 huge brownie points for me was it's independence from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). This movie didn't try to be a stepping stone to a bigger picture, like a set-up to Guardians of the Galaxy or even Avengers 2. This was it's own film, focusing on the character of Tony Stark and investigating just how he deals with his own demons. It is a great critical analysis of exactly who Stark is, and has very little to do with the Iron Man persona that he has dawned. This is just another reason why the script was so excellent. 

The final point I want to make is slightly spoilery, so if you haven't seen the film, skip this paragraph and come back to it when you have! I have seen that a lot of people are up in arms about how the Mandarin was treated in this film. To those people, I have to concede that I was a little disappointed (upon first viewing) about how underused Ben Kingsley was, but after a second viewing, I see that it was a good choice. Yes, I would have done it differently and utilized Kingsley's talents in very different ways, but I think that the message is a lot deeper this way. The Mandarin isn't a person so much as an idea. So, yes, those who are familiar with the comics and wanted to see the Mandarin they know and loved will be disappointed. But if you can see past that and see what the filmmakers were trying to do...I think you will enjoy what is put on the screen (and especially enjoy Kingsley's hilarious performance.)

------------------------------------------------

Summing this movie up is hard, but I'll try. This movie is haunted by the ghost of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, whether it be in the dialogue, or just from certain shots bringing back old memories (Tony and Rhodey at the end felt exactly like Harry and Perry. No joke.) The writing/directing of Shane Black was perfect, and exactly what this franchise needed. And he coaxed some spot on performances out of all of his actors to accentuate just how perfect this script was.

Writing: 9/10

Directing: 8.5/10

Acting: 8/10

Pacing: 7/10

Rewatchability: 10/10

Score: 8.5/10

It's a Disaster Review

So, the few people that read this blog probably know that I like to listen to a movie podcast called Operation Kino. It is really fun to listen to the podcast for several reasons: 1) it feeds my movie addiction 2) it gives me topics to talk about on here (ie my Rant of the Week...which I haven't done in a while) and 3) it gives me movies to watch that I probably wouldn't have heard of otherwise. It's a Disaster is one of those movies.

It's a Disaster is anything but your typical disaster movie. Yes, there is a disaster, and yes, a lot of tropes come into play, but it is anything but formulaic. The film follows a group of friends who are getting together for their weekly(?) couples brunch. There are four couples that vary from third date to married. During their brunch, a catastrophic event happens outside...and hijinks ensue.

There aren't a lot of big name stars in this film. The biggest name is probably Julia Stiles, or maybe David Cross. The only other recognizable person in here is America Ferrera, but she is the complete opposite of anything else you've seen her in. The acting is really excellent in this film, accompanied by an equally excellent script.

The writing for this film was superb. It doesn't focus so much on the disaster that is going on, so much as the disasters that result from it (aka characters' varying reactions to the imminent apocalypse.) I really love how each character has a completely different reaction, and you get to see how each person copes with tragedy. The writer took every "disaster reaction" trope and threw it into one house at the same time...and it was absolutely hilarious.

------------------------------------------------

An excellent (and original!) script coupled with several great performances make this an excellent spoof-esque film that everyone should see. It is a very short (only 88 minutes) film, that is worth every minute. I highly suggest this one! 

Writing: 8/10

Directing: 6.5/10

Acting: 7.5/10

Pacing: 7/10

Rewatchability: 7/10

Score: 7.2/10