“The Hangover” 

Two years after the Bangkok incident, the wolfpack (Cooper, Helms, & Bartha) has muddled down, all except Alan (Galifianakis), who’s been off his meds for months. In the aftermath of the death of Alan’s father (Jeffrey Tambor), the gang decide to take Alan to get treated for his mental issues. But, things start to go wrong on the way to the hospital as the wolfpack is assaulted by a very angry crime lord named Marshall (John Goodman). Marshall is pissed, the wolfpack has infected Marshall’s life with a virus known simply as…Chow (Ken Jeong). Chow has stolen a lot of money from Marshall and he believes that the boys who met him the night of the first bachelor party in Vegas have the best chance of finding him. Doug is kidnapped and is being held as collateral until Marshall gets his money and Chow. And so the journey for Chow begins, as the boys race against the clock to find him and the money.

By the plot I’ve given you, it’s quite apparent that this movie is 110% different in almost every way than the last two movies. Which can be a double edged sword in a lot of ways. On the one hand, it’s nice for things to be changed up, throwing the Wolfpack in a scarier scenario than the previous two does up the ante narratively. The plot was decent, it’s basically a road trip heist film now, which doesn’t bother me. Problem, there isn’t any real DANGEROUS HUMOR the previous films had. With all the issues “Part II” had, at least it was ballsy in it’s comedy choices. Here, it almost feels a bit generic, with the exception of a few cruel animal jokes that will surly piss PETA off this Memorial Day weekend.

The movie however, belongs to Galifianakis this time around, this film is his show, and rightfully so. He’s the one who really does deserve a perfect closing character arc and how things end for Alan are pretty nice. John Goodman makes a great bad guy, I’m just gonna put that on the table, so if there’s one major reason I’d recommend this movie, see it for Goodman’s role in the film. It’s nothing really new, but is interactions with the gang is amusing to a “T”. Ken Jeong’s Mr. Chow borderlines brilliance and annoying, dangerously may I add. He’s a character that you know you should hate, but at the same time, you can’t help but continue watching his madness unfold.

While the movie itself isn’t a masterpiece comedy, it’s a fun, entertaining romp that will please fans of the first film and for those who liked “Part II” a lot. It’s different, but it’s far from bold, but I feel like it’ll be one of those guilty pleasures you’ll find yourself watching on a rainy day. ALSO, in a world of post-credit or in this case mid-credit secret endings, stay for this films secret ending, it’s a fantastic homage to the first film in just about every way you could’ve hoped for.

GRADE: B

It’s probably a good thing that I’ve waited  about a week to write my review for J.J. Abrams’ “Star Trek Into Darkness, I needed time to fully invest the movie into my minds eye. I respect J.J. Abrams take on the franchise and where he’s decided to go. Some may feel he’s making “Star Trek” more “Star Wars”, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, I dare you right now to pop in “A New Hope”, then watch the Abrams 2009 “Star Trek”.

“Into Darkness” takes the new ‘Trek-Nero’ timeline to different places, farther than the original films and tv series years ago. To recap from the previous film, the mad Romulan baddie, Nero (Eric Bana), has warped the timeline of the original Trek, after time traveling through a black hole, along with old Spock (Leonard Nimoy). Now that everything is different, and yet somewhat original, with the same Enterprise team at bay (under different circumstance), Kirk (Chris Pine) & Spock (Zachary Qunito) have acclimated to everything that is Starfleet, including the Prime Directive.

When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home after vigorous adventure, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, leaving our world in a state of crisis. The man responsible goes by the name of John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a Starfleet officer. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to the war-zone ridden world of Kronos, the Klingon home wold, to capture Harrison, who we’ve come to learn is nothing more than a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

So, let us discuss what’s at play here, firstly I’ve seen the movie twice already (I may go for a third), the first viewing I felt that the movie was simply “Wrath of Khan 2.0″, and for a lot of reasons. [INCOMING SPOILER] The revelation about Harrison’s identity, he is none other than the infamous Khan Noonien Singh, the genetically altered human weapon of 300 yrs ago, who was frozen, along with his 72 crew members aboard their ship known to Trekkie’s as the Botany Bay. If you watch the original “Star Trek” episode, “Space Seed” (on Netflix instant), you’ll get a full in-depth look at the character and his complete backstory. Introducing Khan, the character of Carol Marcus (Alice Eve), and the warp core death scene (now switched around), all of these elements scream “Wrath of Khan”, for a while that’s all I really thought the movie was…but then I saw it again.

“Into Darkness” new timeline takes place roughly around the same time Khan was discovered in “Space Seed”. However, do to Nero’s interactions with the universe, certain chain of events have been set into motion changing Khan’s motives and personal vendetta’s. Instead of Kirk discovering Khan, Starfleet’s Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) finds Khan. For the sake of not spoiling anymore, let’s just say, Khan is being played like a flute by Marcus…for now. His rage and anger is no longer focused on Kirk, like in “WoK”. But, the attitude, the reason why Khan was frozen in the first place, that he’s a power hungry tyrant, hellbent on killing anyone who doesn’t match his superiority, remains, which I feel “WoK” didn’t fully explore. Khan’s development as a person is far more enticing and interesting, not to mention down right scarier than Ricardo Montalban’s Khan.

Now, for some, myself included, thought the infamous death scene in the radiation room felt like lazy writing. You might say, ‘Hey, they already did that in “WoK”, why do it again, you’re just doing the same thing, only now it’s switched. Boo!’ But, you see, that’s the brilliance about that scene in this movie, it’s narratively NOTHING like the original film. What this scene signifies, and may I dare to say, better than “WoK” was that you can’t just do this scene as a basic ‘tribute’ and then make it for no reason, no, it has to have a actual context. In “WoK” the death of Spock was a punctuation and acknowledgement of a friendship that has been strengthen through decades of their journey together as friend.

In “Into Darkness” however, Kirk & Spock up to this point haven’t known each other that long, they’ve only been working together for rough a couple of years, so in this movie, that moment, when Kirk gives his last breath for Spock and the entire crew, it’s a sudden revelation for Spock; that Kirk is his friend. Old Spock even said it at the end of the first film that they were destined to build a legendary relationship, a friendship that would define them both in ways they could not yet realize. That moment, Kirk’s death was that realization.

When it comes down to it, “Star Trek Into Darkness” is probably without question the best film in the entire canon. It’s pure Trek in a lot of ways, it honors the franchise in a respectful manner, and it doesn’t take the time to bullshit with mindless exposition and bone headed moves by it’s villain or heroes for that matter. It takes something familiar and reformats it into something new all over again.

Many feared that when it was announced that a sequel would happen after the ’09 film, most fans prayed that the filmmakers wouldn’t choose Khan, just because he was out there still and he’s the easiest villain to do. But, I feel that particular fear has disappeared. It’s not what the fans were anticipating and I think for argument’s sake that what we got in the end was something far better than any Trekkie or movie fan could have ever asked for. Mr. Abrams, I salute you, live long and prosper good sir…

…now we got “Star Wars”. Oh boy.

3D GRADE: B

MOVIE GRADE: A

GRADE: A-

In case you didn’t go to sophomore English class, let me give you the basic plot about this troublesome F. Scott Fitzgerald tale. The story follows Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), a Fitzgerald wanna be writer, who’s lured into the lavish world of his neighbor, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Soon enough, however, Carraway will see through the cracks of Gatsby’s nouveau riche existence, where obsession, madness, and tragedy await all of them.

Look, this is the fourth adaptation of F. Scott’s great American novel, the story isn’t progressing nor is it ever going to change, hell at this point, I’d welcome a modern day twist of the book, but what’s that going to prove? The only real good cinematic version of “The Great Gatsby” would have to be the Robert Redford one, and even that wasn’t all that enticing.

Are there any props to give this film? Well I commend the movie for trying to be different, by exploiting the lush extravagance of the rich. You seriously cannot exploit 1920′s rich people than this film, that’s for damn sure. But the problem this movie has suffered is that it’s just to damn noisy. It’s all over the place, it’s chaotic, it’s trying to play out as some rap music video that’s gone all 20′s-style because it’s trying to be hip. Baz’s film lacks any authenticity that the original source material was trying to say. If you’re caught up in all the visual bullshit, you lose sight on the substance of the story. Let me make this clear for all you 15 year old girls out there; VISUALS DON’T MEAN SHIT, UNLESS IT’S POWERED BY A GOOD STORY WITH DEEMING SUBSTANCE!

This movie, as you may have guessed, has infuriated me. It’s times like these where I’ve stop questioning why Hollywood won’t give original auteur’s the chance to embrace something ‘new’ and innovative, no, now I’ve come to terms with it and accepted the fact that Hollywood will never change. It’ll take a classic book and rip the pages out and turn it into a 3D ocular-fuck-fest! AND I DON’T EVEN REALLY LIKE THE ORIGINAL BOOK! How messed up is that? Get ready for the next brilliant adaptation from Baz Lurhmann, when he does a 3D version of “Moby Dick”, but the white whale is a giant puppet and everything else is abstract.

Stiff acting, wrong musical choice, and a lengthy runtime also don’t pull any favors for this stupid bore of a movie. But, hey, it’s making some money, and people are dumb enough to buy into this crap, so who am I to say it’s bad, RIGHT!?!? Yeah, yeah, whatever.

GRADE: D-

I’ve never lived in the 60′s so I can’t really feel the total connection to the characters, especially Redford’s, but I can try to empathize. The movie does bounce back and forth tonal between Redford & Shia LaBeouf’s characters, but “The Company You Keep” is not a misshapen production that some critics have made it out to be.

After years in hiding, ex-Weather Underground militant, Nick Sloan aka Jim Grant (Redford), learns about his old compatriot’s (Susan Sarandon) arrest for a bank robbery turned deadly in the 1970s, which he is wanted as an accomplice. This puts the ambitious young local reporter, Ben Shepard (LaBeouf), on the scent of a story that exposes Nick as well. As such, Nick goes on the run while taking his daughter to safety. With that accomplished, Nick stays one step ahead of the FBI while pursuing a faint hope to clear his name. Meanwhile, Shepard digs deeper into the case himself as he discovers the true complexities of another times’ determined ideals even Nick face their consequences with another.

The story unfolds quite well, it’s not a complete high tension, thriller, but there are a few interesting twists and turns you won’t see coming. What I liked was that the film is that the affect and course of time in change that follows these radical believers during a time when war was everything, and it was all for the right/wrong reasons. Nick/Jim was someone who truly believed in what he was preaching and for many who disagreed with the war in Vietnam his words were just. But, when you decide to take your ideas further to a more dangerous, and more than likely hypocritical stand point, the line between right and wrong becomes grey.

Lies, falseness, they all play a major role in each main characters storyline. Ben is a reporter that will pull every subtle dirty move to get the answers he needs which leads to a direct affect into Jim’s life. Be that as it may, the one thing I did find a hard time believing about the Ben character is how he was able to discover and reveal Jim’s true identity when the US. Government was unable to do so for the past 30+ years. I guess the moral here is that if you have a lap top and know a few dirty people, you can be the worlds greatest detective. I feel that Ben needed to be fleshed out more so than Jim.

But, the movie’s got strong suits, and that definitely goes to the fine casting selection Redford miraculously  concocted. Probably one of the best supporting characters in the film go to Nick Nolte and Stanley Tucci. Everyone else had fine performances, some more so underused than others, the revelation between Redford’s & Julie Christie’s characters came off as a bit of a lackluster, but all in all everything comes together nicely, thanks to the brilliant cast.

GRADE: B

The internet has come very far from the past decade and a half, I don’t think many of us expected to be in the state of relying on it so heavily to get by in our lives. But, where it positives can benefit us, there comes with a negative price at times, this movie shows us those negative aspects, and yes we’ve seen these kinds of things show up in the news, but to give us an in-depth character study about the actual victims, is quite eye opening in a lot of ways. That’s what I took away from this movie the most.

A hard-working lawyer (Jason Bateman), attached to his cell phone, can’t find the time to communicate with his family. A couple (Alexander Skarsgård & Paula Patton) is drawn into a dangerous situation when their secrets are exposed online. A widowed ex-cop (Frank Grillo) struggles to raise a mischievous son (Colin Ford) who cyber-bullies a classmate (Jonah Bobo). An ambitious journalist (Andrea Riseborough) sees a career-making story in a teen (Max Thieriot) that performs on an adult-only site.

All these people strangers, neighbors and colleagues and their stories collide about ordinary people struggling to connect in today’s wired modern world.Perhaps a few of the stories in this film are near preposterous  the journalists’ & identity theft ones, but the others are quite grounded and quite provocative. The cyber-bulling story element is perhaps the one story I think many viewers are going to identify with the most. Bullying is a topic that continues to this very day, and cyber-bullying is a new form of an old thing that never seems to go away, unless we can make a statement. I’m not saying this movie will change bullying forever, but it does bring up the harshest realities to it and should be a wake up call to bullies and the bullied.

Performances all around are phenomenal, a large dynamic cast that finds it’s footing in every corner of the films multi-layered story. Bateman and Grillo are the two in this film I find that really shine, the two play fathers with conflicted issues that meet back around by the end of their stories timeline. It was strong, not to mention palpable, leading to a lot of audiences members wondering what is going to happen next. Thats what I love in a heavily character driven film.

“Disconnect”‘s strong cast helps make the film a timely, effective exploration of modern society’s technological overload obsession. My only hope is that more people will get to see this film and take something away from it, perhaps even feel something.

GRADE: A-

Two teenage boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) & Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) live down on the banks of a river in Arkansas. One day the boys sneak out early and set out to an island on the Mississippi River, where Neckbone has discovered an unusual sight-a boat, suspended high in the trees, a remnant of an extreme flood some time in the past. They climb the tree and into the boat only to find fresh bread and recently made footprints. Realizing that they are not the only ones who have discovered the treehouse boat, they decide to leave. When they reach the shore, they find the same footprint in their boat. And that’s when they meet Mud (Matthew McConaughey). Mud is a gritty, superstitious character; his clothes are dirty, his tooth is cracked, and he needs help.

Mud tells the boys he will give them the treehouse boat, his current hideout, in exchange for food. Neckbone is reluctant, but Ellis brings food to Mud, and they develop a tentative friendship. Ellis learns that Mud has killed a man in Texas. The police and bounty hunters are out looking for him, but Mud is more concerned about reuniting with his longtime love, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). Ellis, who has recently developed his own crush, agrees to help Mud escape with Juniper. Ellis and Neckbone carry out bold schemes in an effort to protect Mud and relay messages to Juniper, who is holed up in a scummy motel, under constant surveillance by Carver (Paul Sparks), a Texas bounty hunter. Carver and his gang are intent on capturing Mud, on orders from the cold-blooded boss, ‘King’ (Joe Don Baker). As the boys risk everything to reunite these seeming mythical lovers, Ellis’s own ideas about love and romance are challenged by the strains in the relationships closest to him. Through it all, Ellis struggles to look for an example of love that he can believe in, learning about the unspoken rules and risks of love and the reality of heartbreak.

The strong dynamic between Mud and Ellis is really what makes the movie work on a level I don’t think many audiences were anticipating. When it comes down to it, these two are cut from the same cloth and resemble a lot of same ideologies about love and the will to fight for it. Mud’s own actions regarding Juniper have led him down a dark road, which dumped him off in the predicament that he’s found himself in. Ellis’ relationship with a high school senior is clearly a tamer parallel two Mud’s love for Juniper. Ellis & Mud quick think to irrational conclusions about their loves, which could lead to violent tendencies. Mud has killed for Juniper because the thought of any other many having her, not mention treating her in the worst physical and emotional statement of mind, is a trigger for Mud. Ellis’ relationship is too quick and rushed, but not for the wrong reason’s narratively. Ellis is cocky, and feels that if he can get a senior as a girlfriend, he’s made it. Hell, Ellis had beaten up a senior boy just to prove his point in front of the girl.

So, where does this leave Ellis and Mud at the end? While not getting into deep spoiler territory, I believe that these two found ways to justify there means in a spiritual sense, but at the same time found a way to come to terms with it in a realistic notion. Ellis ends up living with his mother in town, instead of living near the water, and we see him eye another girl in the community he lives in, has he learned his lesson, or was this girl a sort of sign for his own future? It’s a little bit of both, the audience wants to feel just as coy as Ellis did early in the film, that maybe he hasn’t learned his lesson, because in actuality he’s just a kid and he will always be one, till the day where manhood overshadows childhood, and there in lies Mud. It’s a funny thing where his ‘old man’, the father figure so to speak, tells Ellis that Mud has always been a child when it came to love. If you ask me that’s a heavy use of foreshadowing on our young Ellis. Will he become like Mud?

The movie may suffer just a tad when it comes to pacing, but overall I really loved this movie. I can’t imagine the Academy not recognizing Tye Sheridan & Matthew McConaughey. “Mud” is bolstered by a strong performance from it’s lead, it offers an engaging Southern drama that manages to stay sweet and heartwarming without being sappy and/or campy. Much like Nichols previous film “Take Shelter” it manages to his every emotional note on the dot.

GRADE: A-

—

13. “We Need to Talk About Kevin” – A movie about that focuses on the kinship between mother and son…even if the mother gives birth to a child that is pure black hearted EVIL. “We Need to Talk About Kevin” focuses on the choices a parent makes and how they may affect their children, or…they do everything right and they just gave birth to metaphorical spawn of Satan. Depends on how you look at it. Brilliant direction and a brooding performance by the films leads; Tilda Swinton & Ezra Miller.

12. “Little Children” - Mother’s in this film make so many weird choices in this film, the common theme of lying to protect other’s reoccurs in this film, but what makes “Little Children” so powerful is that there is a common understanding why these woman make the choices they end up making.

11. “The Secret of NIMH” - In my opinion, Mrs. Brisby is one of the quint-essential powerhouse mother’s in cinema, even if she’s a tiny mouse. She over comes power/dark odds for her children. Not to mention this the greatest Don Bluth animated feature of his career (that’s one mans opinion).

10. “Driving Miss. Daisy” - An old Jewish woman and her African-American chauffeur in the American South have a relationship that grows and improves over the years one could only imagine to be a great mother son dynamic than her actual mother son dynamic with her own flesh and blood (Dan Aykroyd). Jessica Tandy walked away with the mother of all Oscars, Best Actress.

9. “Erin Brockovich” - Another Oscar winning mother performance which many have considered to be Julia Roberts pinnacle performance as an actress. Personally nothing I’ve seen after this role has even come close to such iconic and memorable stature.

8. “Terms of Endearment” - James L. Brooks directs this classic dramedy about a mother and daughter (Aurora & Emma) who march to different beats. Beginning with Emma’s marriage, Aurora shows how difficult and loving she can be. The movie covers several years of their lives as each finds different reasons to go on living and find joy.

7. “Coraline” - Mother’s can be scary… especially if you enter a warped alternate dimension where they can be your main antagonist, yet some how their image reflects on your moral conflict from the real world, dealing with the problems you’re having as a kid, but that’s just silly! Or is it?

6. “Mother“ - Mother’s will do anything for their children. In Joon-ho Bong’s masterful crime/thriller, Hye-ja Kim plays a mother desperately searching for the killer that framed her son for a girl’s horrific murder. Kim’s hypnotic performance is one of the best reasons to watch this film.

5. “Panic Room” - Mom has a panic room in her fancy New York home, that…is…very…smart! Especially when creepy burglars break into the house refusing to leave until the last bit of torture is complete. David Fincher directs this Hitchcockian thriller, for me, I find this to be one of his most underrated and under-appreciated thrillers.

4. “Terminator 2: Judgement Day” - Mother protects her son from futuristic robots, who come to destroy him. Sure Arnie’s T-800 is regarded as the lead hero in this James Cameron masterpiece, but it’s Sarah Conner who goes down in the cinema history books as the greatest mother hero ever! She takes liquid metal knife to the chest for her boy! C’MON!

3. “Aliens” - But of course, James Cameron’s sequel to Ridley Scott’s “Alien”, “Aliens”, features duel mother-like characters. I’m talking Ellen Ripely and the Queen Alien. Two badass bitches who won’t go down easy, but one of which has a stronger will to live and fight.

2. “Psycho” - Never forget, “A boys best friend is his mother”. Even if that boy likes to dress like his psychotic momma.

1. “Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2″ - The Bride, pregnant with child, killed by a group of assassin pals, and her ex-boss/lover, seeks pure bloody vengeance in this beloved cult Tarantino double feature epic. Tarantino proves that he still has a few surprises in store for both movies.

“Iron Man” was a gamble by Marvel Studios, after officially becoming it’s own entity and saving most of the best, they risked it all with “Iron Man”, which many superhero film lovers aren’t too familiar with, which is a shame, because Iron Man has some fantastic comic stories, but I digress. Casting, Robert Downey Jr. was the second biggest risk, many felt that making a past drug addict (SOBER) was a bit a of silly choice, but when it all comes down to it, that’s the PERFECT reason to cast RDJ. There are haunting similarities between the actor and the comic book hero in a lot of ways, “Demon in a Bottle” much? Robert has made a stamp on the character that most would dare not try to improve on. He IS Iron Man!

Jon Favreau directed by “Iron Man 1 & 2″, his vision was exactly what the character needed to reach a mass audience; funny, dark, gritty, and all around fun. Now, of course the biggest problems the first two films had was the script issues. Most of the productions neither film had a completed script to work with, Favreau clearly stated in a past interview that the films relied on a lot of improv, and for better or worse it shows, especially in “2″, which many considered to be the lackluster of the MCU canon, but again, I digress. During the production of the first “Iron Man”, Shane Black was brought on, unofficially, for a little story help with the script, in fact, it was his idea for Tony to say those magical words at the end, ‘I Am Iron Man’.

Shane Black directed and wrote one of the best dark comedy noir films, “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”, starring RDJ in the lead. By combining those two dynamics for a ‘final’ Iron Man movie, the mixture couldn’t be more exciting. And, the end result, we get a fantastic movie! As promised, “Iron Man 3″ delivers on many levels, but the biggest thing I took away from it, is that it borrows those classic “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” elements that made that movie such a cult hit. The corky/snappy dialogue, the humorous partnerships, the playful RDJ narration, and of course, it’s not a Shane Black movie if it wasn’t set, as always, during Christmas time. However, be that as it may, the movie does suffer in one particular category, that the other two films had trouble with…it’s villain. I promise, NO SPOILERS!

It’s been nearly a year since the incident in NYC happened, and our hero hasn’t been the same since. Brash-but-brilliant industrialist, Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) is pitted against an enemy whose reach knows no bounds. When Stark finds his personal world destroyed at his enemy’s hands, he embarks on a harrowing quest to find those responsible. The Mandarin (Sir Ben Kinglsey) has become the ‘face’ of the new global terror threat, he preaches slippery/sly phrase that give his radical followers all the more reason to cheer his attacks. A new technological power has come to the Mandarin, known as Extremis, a super soldier virus that turns normal people into, borrowing a cheesy phrase from the movie, a hot mess. Tony, won’t stand for it. This journey, at every turn, will test Stark’s mettle. With his back against the wall, Stark is left to survive by his own devices, relying on his ingenuity and instincts to protect those closest to him. As he fights his way back, Stark discovers the answer to the question that has secretly haunted him: does the man make the suit or does the suit make the man?

Influenced by the ever popular Warren Ellis Extremis story arc, this film takes an interesting turn than the last two films. Though Extremis may be confusing for some noobs, for me, it adapted the bare basics to a point where it worked right for a full fledged film adaptation. “Extremis” characters, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) and Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) make their debut here, and fit in quite nicely to the pantheon of this cinematic arc, going so far as to tie in a specific scene from the first Iron Man, referenced by the character Yensen (Shaun Toub).

One of the greatest aspects about this movie was the partnerships, which is something Black is well known for (“Lethal Weapon” anybody). Tony partner’s with a 12 year old boy (Ty Simpkins) in the middle of the film, and without giving too much away, some of the best dialogue and character development comes from these two characters. But, Tony has friends his own age, in comes Rhodey (Don Cheadle)! I’ve always loved Don as Rhodey far more than Terrence Howard’s. Shane gave us a special treat pairing Tony & Rhodey, one could say their chemistry rings back to those classic Riggs & Murtaugh days.

It’s hard to explain the Mandarin without giving away spoilers, though I’m sure some of you have already snooped online about the ‘Mandarin twist’. Let me just say this, in the movie’s defense, it was a BOLD choice, and I give them major props for it. But, damnit, you’re toying with the heart and souls of high strung Marvel geeks. If you’re not expecting a major revolt, think again buddy! Because you’ve started something. But, I’ll digress with this issue too, mostly because, the movies tone. They’ve wanted to keep the real-life grounded tech world separate from the fantastical magic of Thor or even Dr. Strange territory. So, by doing the Mandarin in this world, your limitations will get the better of you. No Magic Rings, No Super-Duper Mandarin Powers, He’s Not Even Asian (but that’s beyond the point). What we get instead is something different, something, and again, not many Marvel fans are gonna dig, but the political and idealogical idea behind the Mandarin in this movie is…smart, when you really look at it from the base. It may not be something we were hoping to get, but the cinematic idea behind it is something I can appreciate. Thank goodness the rest of the movie makes up for this fan crushing hiccup. Fans, just go in with an open mind, it’ll be hard to accept, but in time I think it may grow on you. The Mandarin will always be THE MANDARIN in the comics, and thank goodness for that.

Strong supporting performances, tight visuals, interesting story ideas, new methods, and of course ROBERT DOWNEY JR! This movie could have the worst storyline EVER, with pissy visual effects, but all of it could certainly be made up for the fact that it’s lead by that man. Robert Downy Jr has created a character that has affected adults and children a like, he’s created the next level of Marvel fandom thanks to his performance. Look at the recent issues of Iron Man today, a lot of the character in those pages are inspired by Downey’s portrayal of the character. The movie ends in a way where he doesn’t have to come back as Iron Man if he doesn’t want to, but you know he will, no matter what he says, whether it’s about his families artistic integrity, or his future endeavors, Robert Downey Jr loves this role, he loves Tony, but most of all, he IS Iron Man.

3D GRADE: B+

MOVIE GRADE: A-

FINAL GRADE: A-

Based on the unbelievable true story about weightlifting, steroid taking, work trainer Danny Lugo (Mark Wahlberg). A Miami beef head who has one thing on his mind, well two, money & success. That’s the key to happiness according to Danny. He doesn’t want to wear sweat pants to work for the rest of his life. Danny’s new client, is a pure greedy scumbag who doesn’t deserve all the money & success he’s been given. Victor Kershaw (Tony Shaloub) is the human embodiment of scum. Danny enlists his muscle bound bros, Paul (Dwayne Johnson) & Adrian (Anthony Mackie), to pull off what he considers the perfect crime; kidnap Kershaw and force him to sign over his monies over to Danny and his pals. What’s the worst that could happen?

Let me first say this, this movie is sloppy. Sloppy placed together, some of the casting is sloppily thrown together, and it’s structure was very sloppy. Having said that, Michael Bay’s classic action movie “Transformers”-hard on approach to a dramatic story is somewhat affective. The sloppiness, to a certain extent plays to the films absurd storyline. There are moments, crazy moments in the film, moments where it becomes truly disturbing, the movie literally reminds the audience: ‘This is STILL a TRUE STORY”. I did a little research about this case, and for most part, a lot of the crap that goes on with these three knuckleheads is quite factual, which is scary, because it makes you ask the ultimate question: How can ANYBODY be this stupid?

The trio, Mark, Rock, and Mackie play off each others riffs to a T. The Rock seriously steals the entire movie as his Jesus loving character Paul. His scenes with Tony Shaloub’s Kershaw crack me up to tears, I swear it does. After I saw 2011′s “The Other Guys”, I said, ‘Man, Marky Mark needs to do more comedies’. Mark Wahlberg is a fantastic drama actor turn comic, and this role is the ultimate comedic role for, it goes as far as scaring the audience at times.

But, lets not forget people, this is a Michael Bay movie, so everything you could expect from a Bay film is pretty much amped up here. It’s 2+ hour Victoria’s Secret stylized crime film, his intense camera work is nauseating, I mean, why was there any need to use GoPro cameras the way they were utilized in this film, I just don’t understand how you can mix 35mm film shot, digital RED Epic shot, and 1080p GoPro shot footage, blend it together, and think you can get away with it looking…nice.

Michael Bay is the football jock of film directors, essentially, he thinks he’s the big man on campus, he tries way to hard to be flash, which makes him look like a pretentious show off. Yet, like the football jock, people are attracted at what he does, he can even convince the haters at rare occasion to like what he’s doing. I’m not saying “Pain & Gain” is by no means genius work, but it’s damn good entertainment and very very funny.

GRADE: B

60 years before the movie current time setting, Earth was destroyed, no body remains, life barely sustains.  The surface has been devastated after decades of war with an alien race known as Scavs. One of the few remaining drone repairmen assigned to Earth, Jack (Cruise), discovers a crashed spacecraft with contents that bring into question everything he believed about the war, and may even put the fate of mankind in his hands.

I’ll start by giving the movie some credit; it has astounding visuals, boy oh boy are the visuals astounding, if you’re going to see this movie, see it in IMAX. Second, Tom Cruise is in top form here, it’s nothing by any means iconic, but he does this role exceptionally well, with what is given to him, he works with it quite well. Lastly, I liked the concept of the film…

…until the third act arrives. The movie all around falls apart by the BIG reveal and it bothers me for a lot of reasons, but the biggest one is it reminds me too much of a certain Duncan Jones film. The movie has one thing over that film, it was based on a graphic novel, written by the director in the mid 2000s. Thing is this, Duncan’ film did it better.

With the exception of Cruise, the performances from the principal cast is extremely underwhelming, especially Morgan Freeman’s character. If you’re going to have Morgan Freeman co-star in a sci-fi epic, don’t NOT barely use him! That just seems like a waste. Andrea Riseborough was a bland side kick to Cruises Jack, and past Bond girl, Olga Kurylenko, has nothing to offer here.

Like I said, the movie isn’t terrible, nor is it messy, but by the tail end of the film the movie is just simply underwhelming. Even the final moments of the lead characters glory felt sort of, meh. I liked the first hour and ten minutes to put it best, but besides that, it’s passable at best, but nothing really to brag about (except for the VFX).

GRADE: B-