Star Trek Film Rankings (UPDATED FOR STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS)

‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ has been out for at least two weeks and in that time, I was working on where this film would place in my overall list that would rank all of the Star Trek films. So, here’s that updated list, which now includes the latest film. I won’t go into these films too much because I’ve already done that in my last four Star Trek posts. For my full opinions on each of the Star Trek films, here are the links to my Film Series Retrospective, my full reviews of the 2009 Star Trek film and ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’, and my Spoiler Post for the latter…

Film Series Retrospective: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/trek-week-star-trek-film-series.html

 

Star Trek 2009 Review: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/trek-week-star-trek-2009-review.html

 

Star Trek Into Darkness Review: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-2013-review.html

 

Into Darkness Spoiler Post: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-spoiler-post.html

 

‘Shall We Begin?’

12. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

 



The film that nearly killed the franchise

11. Star Trek: The Motion Picture

A dull and very boring start to the ‘Star Trek’ films

10. Star Trek Insurrection

 

Same problem as ‘Motion Picture’

9. Star Trek Generations

 

An uneven first film for ‘Next Generation’ that shoehorns in a few members of the original cast

8. Star Trek Nemesis

 

Seriously, this one’s actually not that bad

7. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

 

It’s a bit of a copout following its predecessor, but still entertaining.

6. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

 

A darker and much more satisfying conclusion to the Original Cast’s run.

5. Star Trek First Contact

 

The best Next Generation film and another well-handled darker ‘Star Trek’ film

4. Star Trek Into Darkness

 

And here’s where I put the latest Trek film. I can’t say that it’s better than the previous Trek film because while Into Darkness has a superior villain in Benedict Cumberbatch’s interpretation of Khan, there were some certain elements of the film that were kind of underdeveloped, namely a second villain with no clear motivation. As for the ending that has attracted the most controversy, I’m not so critical on it but I will admit it does feel kind of rushed. Still, ‘Into Darkness’ is a rock-solid follow-up to its predecessor.

3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

 

A well-done ‘fish out of water’ adventure for the crew of the Enterprise with great humor despite a very strange plot.

2. Star Trek (2009)

 

The film that brought the franchise back to prominence that succeeded even when taking the risky move of creating a whole new alternate reality.

1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

 

Really, what other film was going to take this spot anyway?

That should be the last ‘Star Trek’ related post I’ll do for a while, most likely until the next Trek film (unless I do a review of one of the Trek TV Series). Until then, ‘Live Long and Prosper!’

Fast and Furious 6 (2013) review

It’s truly amazing how far the ‘Fast and the Furious’ series has come ever since it was just a simple street-racing franchise back when it began in 2001. I’ll admit that for a long time, I was never really a big fan of the series, mainly because I thought it was… just that; a franchise that was more focused on the street races than actual story. Looking back, that was clearly the case with the first two films in this series. However, it feels like this series has been on a better run since director Justin Lin took over the franchise in 2006. While ‘Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift’ and 2009’s ‘Fast and Furious’ were still focused on the street races, they do benefit from better direction and the latter also benefits from the return of the original cast. Then, there came ‘Fast Five’, the first film in the series to abandon the street racing theme, with the end result being more of a heist film. So now, this series has reached its sixth installment; quite a feat for any franchise that has not done a reboot after all of this time. ‘Fast and Furious 6’ is not really a heist film like its predecessor but that doesn’t stop it from being an exhilarating action film from beginning to end.

After successfully stealing $100 million from a crime boss in Rio, professional criminal Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his team, including ex-cop Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) and Dominic’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster) have since spent their time ‘in retirement’. But, all that changes when Dom is approached by DSS Agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), the same agent who chased after them in Rio, to help him take down a group of criminals led by former British Special Forces solider Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Dom ultimately ends up helping when he learns that one of the members of Shaw’s crew is his ex-girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), who was thought to have been killed in ‘Fast and Furious’. Dom gathers up his team to help Hobbs in taking down Shaw in exchange for full pardons for the whole team. More importantly, Dom looks to get Letty back in order to make their family whole again.

Don’t go into this movie expecting some major Oscar contender, because you won’t find it here. But that’s the whole point of the movie. ‘Fast and Furious 6’ is a film that doesn’t try to be something it isn’t. It’s just a straight-forward action film that is extremely entertaining. Lin is a director that knows how to direct some impressive action sequences, as this movie once again proves. Sure, there are still some moments that completely defy all logic and physics, but when considering what has happened in this franchise before (remember the safe being dragged around the streets of Rio in the last film?), it’s not really that big of a surprise. The plot is fairly simple, and the reintroduction of Letty into the franchise is a bit of a cop-out after the events of ‘Fast and Furious’, but again, that’s not what this series is all about. It’s about the fast cars and the high-octane action sequences. It’s just that since Lin took over, the movies have gotten much better at doing just that.

But that doesn’t mean the writing is devoid of substance. For one thing, one of the key themes that have been a part of the series since the beginning, the importance of family, is still present here. This is mainly thanks in part due to the cast. Yes, these characters are supposed to be criminals but they’re there for each other (to quote Vin Diesel in the film, ‘You don’t turn your back on family, even when they do”). Here, it’s shown in contrast with Owen Shaw, who doesn’t really react much when a member of his team gets killed and in Shaw’s mind, the code of family makes Dom and his team ‘predictable’. The acting may not be ‘Oscar’ material, but in terms of action movies go, it works for this movie. The cast just works well together, leading to some really funny dialogue (namely from Tyrese Gibson as Roman Bridges). The new additions to the cast are also pretty good as well; namely Gina Carano as Riley, a member of Hobbs’ team who has some really awesome fights with Michelle Rodriguez, showing off her fighting skills from all those years in MMA.

‘Fast and Furious 6’ won’t be winning any Oscars, but really, who goes into these movies expecting a great story anyway? This film knows what it is and it doesn’t try to be something that it’s not. It succeeds at being what it wants to be; an entertaining action film with impressive action scenes, even if they do defy all logic and physics. Sure, the plot is fairly simple but after six films, that is something that you just expect to see in these movies. It’s amazing how far this series has come, and it’s mainly been thanks to Justin Lin, who has breathed new life into this franchise. The last three movies (this included) have easily stood out as the best in the series. Also, be sure to stay a while after the credits for a post-credits scene that sets up the next film. Sadly, Lin won’t be back to direct the next one but the character (more importantly, the actor playing him) that they introduce certainly has me excited for what’s to come in ‘Fast and Furious 7’.

Rating: 4/5

Star Trek Into Darkness SPOILER POST

THE FOLLOWING POST CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE FILM, DO NOT GO ON AFTER THIS FOR I WILL BE ADDRESSING THE FILM’S KEY SPOILERS. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!

For those who are not looking to learn the film’s key spoilers, here is my Spoiler-Free Review of the Film:

http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-2013-review.html



Like ‘Iron Man 3’, ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ is another movie where the major spoilers of the film prevent me from talking about the film completely in an official review. So now, let’s talk about the key spoilers of the highly anticipated sequel to 2009’s ‘Star Trek’. Of course, the biggest spoiler for the film is the identity of the main villain, Benedict Cumberbatch’s John Harrison. Ever since Cumberbatch was cast in the role, there was speculation as to who Cumberbatch was really playing with some possible identities being some classic Star Trek villains who would have been making their debuts in the new Star Trek alternate universe. Even after his ‘Harrison’ name was confirmed, some weren’t really convinced that was all there is to the character. So who is John Harrison? In order to explain it further, let’s delve into the plot for a bit. To quote Cumberbatch from the film, ‘Shall We Begin?’

So as the film begins, Harrison bombs a Starfleet archive in London and then proceeds to attack Starfleet’s Top Officers (who had gathered together in response to said attacks) at Starfleet Command in San Francisco, with Christopher Pike being one of the casualties. Captain James T. Kirk, looking to avenge Pike’s death, volunteers to go after Harrison who, following the second attack has fled to Kronos, the home-world of the Klingons. The Enterprise follows Harrison to Kronos and eventually Kirk does end up capturing him after a little skirmish with some Klingons. While in captivity, Harrison tells Kirk to examine one of the 72 photon torpedoes that were loaded onto the Enterprise at the request of Starfleet Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) to use against Harrison in case they were unable to capture him. When Bones and Dr. Carol Marcus (Alice Eve) examine them, it is revealed that there are actually cryogenic pods containing humans who have been frozen for about 300 years. When Harrison is questioned about this, he reveals his true identity, which is…

Everybody say it with me now…

KHHHAAAAANNNNN!!!

That’s right, Benedict Cumberbatch’s Harrison is actually Khan Noonien Singh, the genetically engineered superhuman who is arguably Star Trek’s most famous villain and the star of the best Star Trek film to date, ‘Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan’, where he was portrayed by the legendary Ricardo Montalban. In my review, I stated that this film pays homage to a classic Star Trek film, and ‘Wrath of Khan’ is that film. Not only is Khan the main villain, but Dr. Carol Marcus is also in the film as well, though in a relatively minor role. Also, there’s a major death near the end of the film, and yes, even the famous ‘KHAN!’ yell returns as well. The only difference here is that this time, there are changes to those last two moments. So, the big question now is whether or not this all works out in the film.

Well, overall the new take on Khan’s story does work well because while there are many similar events that happen again in this new film, it at least does do enough to be different from ‘Wrath of Khan’. I did like how at one point, Kirk even allies with Khan in an attempt to capture Admiral Marcus, who is revealed to have revived Khan (who had also been in cryogenic freeze for 300 years), forcing him to help Starfleet design weapons in order to start a war against the Klingons by holding Khan’s fellow colleagues hostage as a way to blackmail Khan into helping him. However, this leads to my major complaint of the film in that there are some certain story aspects and characters that were rather underdeveloped, and Admiral Marcus is right at the center of this dilemma.

While the writers do give Marcus a clear goal in mind (he’s looking to start a war with the Klingons), there is absolutely no clear motivation or reasoning for his actions. Khan had a clear motive; Starfleet was holding his people hostage but as for Marcus there’s nothing. There’s also no real connection between him and his daughter. For the record, Alice Eve is fine in the role of Carol Marcus. It’s just that she doesn’t play a big part in the film. Actually, I’m glad that the filmmakers did not try and make her Kirk’s primary love interest right off the bat, even when considering that, in the original Trek timeline, she was the mother of Kirk’s only son David and the co-creator of the Genesis Device (maybe that will make an appearance in the next film, perhaps?).

But aside from the ‘secondary’ villain, there are a couple other story/character elements that don’t really go anywhere. The father of a sick girl, as shown at the beginning of the IMAX preview (by the way, the two scenes in the preview are actually switched around in the final cut) last December, doesn’t really play a big part in the movie. Khan offers him a cure for his daughter’s disease, he takes it, it works, and then he helps Khan blow up the Starfleet Archives in London by setting off the explosion. Also, and while this may be just a minor nitpick, not enough Klingons. I know it’s not really that big of a deal in this film because of course the focus is on Khan, but hopefully the Klingons will play a bigger part in the next film. They’ve played a relatively minor part in this new series (in fact, there were some Klingons in the first ‘Star Trek’, but those scenes were removed from the final cut).

One final spoiler I want to talk about is the finale, which does pay homage to ‘Wrath of Khan’ quite a lot, namely a key death near the end of the film. This time, instead of Spock sacrificing himself to save the Enterprise from being destroyed, Kirk is the one who sacrifices himself to save the ship as it falls out of space down to Earth. The scene between Kirk and Spock that mirrors Spock’s final scene in ‘Wrath of Khan’ is a well-done scene that I guarantee will bring tears to Trek fans. As it ends, Spock is the one who utters the famous yell (‘KHAANN!’) as he then proceeds to chase after Khan. But don’t worry because Kirk does come back at the end. While Spock vengefully pursues Khan in San Francisco, Bones realizes that Khan’s superhuman-enhanced blood can save Kirk so Spock and Uhura eventually subdue Khan and use his blood to bring Kirk back to life. Is it a possible cop-out? Maybe, but at least it’s not the focus of a whole movie like Search for Spock was.

The consensus that I’ve been getting from people who aren’t really big on the film is that the movie is way too similar to ‘Wrath of Khan’ and I can see what they’re talking about. Aside from a few changes, this is pretty much the new alternate universe’s take on the best Trek movie to date. That being said, I stand by my original rating of 4.5/5 even after all that I’ve said in this post because while it is true that this is very reminiscent of ‘Wrath of Khan’, especially towards the end, the film is still a very exciting and entertaining sequel. Obviously, it’s not as good as the last Star Trek film, but it definitely benefits from Cumberbatch’s performance as the new universe’s interpretation on Khan. It is a vast improvement over the main villain of the last Trek film. I’m of course excited for the next Star Trek film, and I’m also interested to see who might be taking over for J.J. Abrams as he moves on to ‘Star Wars: Episode VII’. Maybe there will be a ‘Star Trek’ film directed by Brad Bird, perhaps?



Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) review

The 2009 ‘Star Trek’ reboot certainly took many people by surprise. J.J. Abrams took a franchise that had been in decline for 7 years and implemented a new sense of energy into it that it had never seen before. The end result was a sleek, exciting, and stylish new take on the Star Trek franchise. Abrams and the writers made the bold move of creating a new alternate universe but in the end, it did work out in the film’s favor. Now, four years after that film, Abrams and the main cast (or shall I say the ‘crew of the Enterprise’) return with ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’. Now that the Enterprise crew has come together, the writers now have more freedom to explore the Star Trek universe further without having to adhere to the series canon. The end result may not be as good as the previous film, but Abrams delivers an exciting new Star Trek film once again, thanks in part to a much stronger main villain.

After an incident on a Class M planet where the USS Enterprise violates the Prime Directive (Starfleet’s most important rule; there shall be no interference with the development of any alien civilization), Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) finds himself demoted for going against Starfleet orders, having done so in order to save his first officer, Spock (Zachary Quinto), from a perilous situation. However, Kirk soon finds himself back in control of the Enterprise when a former Starfleet agent named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) attacks Starfleet directly, fleeing to the Klingon home-world of Kronos. In response, Kirk is ordered to lead the manhunt to capture Harrison but as the Enterprise heads off on its mission, Kirk and his crew soon find themselves in a dangerous situation that only gets worse and worse as they attempt to capture this dangerous fugitive and bring him to justice for his crimes against Starfleet.

If there was any problem with the last Star Trek film, it was that the main villain Nero was rather weak (mainly because of his plan) but because the film was focused on the relationship between Kirk and Spock, it wasn’t that big of a problem. This film, however, belongs to Benedict Cumberbatch, who just does a fantastic job as John Harrison, and he steals the spotlight whenever he’s on screen. Like ‘Iron Man 3’, this is another film that is full of spoilers, one of them being Harrison’s true identity. This is something that may have been spoiled already for some of you (for it was debated about who Cumberbatch was really playing ever since he was cast in the role) but I won’t mention it here along with any other major spoiler. All I can say is that the film itself pays much homage to a classic Star Trek film and it is a pretty unique new take on the ‘story’ of that film, despite the fact that there are certain elements of this new film that are sort of underdeveloped; namely the inclusion of another villain aside from Cumberbatch.

Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto do a fantastic job once again as Kirk and Spock. Like the last film, the relationship between the two is the most important aspect of the film and the two work great together. If it wasn’t, then a key scene near the end of the film wouldn’t have been as tear-jerking as it was. The returning cast is great as well, including Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Karl Urban as Bones, Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu, and Anton Yelchin as Chekov. It is true that the focus is still on Kirk and Spock, but like with the last film the writers do a good enough job at giving each of them enough to do in the film. As for the new additions to the cast (aside from Cumberbatch), they do fine jobs as well, but some of them don’t really play as big of a part in the film as you may think.

All in all, ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ is a satisfying follow-up to the last film. Having listed this film as my most anticipated film of the year, I’m happy to say that, for the most part, it did not disappoint. For some, this depends on whether or not you’ll like the homages towards an older Star Trek film; most importantly, the identity of the film’s main villain. In fact, you can pretty much call this film a ‘remake’ of that other Trek film. Still, the new take on this story does work pretty well, despite the fact that there are certain elements of the film that were rather underdeveloped. As for the main villain, Benedict Cumberbatch easily steals the show; a definite improvement over the last Star Trek villain. Of course, the acting is still top-notch all-around, the relationship between Kirk and Spock is one of the many highlights of the film, and the film is entertaining from beginning to end. It may not be as good as the last ‘Star Trek’ film, but that is one heck of a film to follow.

Rating: 4.5/5

(Stay Tuned for a Spoiler Discussion Post on the film)

TREK WEEK: Star Trek (2009) review

After the critical and commercial failure of ‘Star Trek: Nemesis’, the Star Trek franchise pretty much went into decline. The latest Trek TV series at the time, ‘Enterprise’, was canceled in 2005 due to low ratings. Just like around the time before the first Trek film came out, ‘Star Trek’ just faded into the background for most of the first decade of the 21^st century. But then, in 2009, director J.J. Abrams (in only his second directorial effort, having been mainly known for his work on television at that point) brought the series back to relevance with his reboot/pseudo-prequel. It’s a pseudo-prequel in the sense that while it is the story of how the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise came together, this new Star Trek takes the bold new route of creating an alternate universe while still establishing that the original Trek universe still exists. The end result is not only one of the most exciting sci-fi films in recent years, but a film that also does a fantastic job at reimagining the Star Trek franchise.

In this new Star Trek universe, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) starts out as a reckless and brash rebel who never knew his father George (Chris Hemsworth, pre-Thor), who sacrificed his life to save hundreds of lives, including James and his mother; James being born just before his father’s death. When he is approached by Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to enlist in Starfleet, the same organization Kirk’s father was a member of, Kirk does end up joining but three years later, he comes into conflict with Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto), a Vulcan who struggles to deal with his half-human/half-Vulcan heritage. As Kirk and Spock try to work together as they become crew-members on the U.S.S. Enterprise, the new Enterprise crew must deal with a dangerous villain; an angry Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana) from the future (whose actions created the new alternate timeline) who vows revenge on Starfleet for the future destruction of his home-world of Romulus and more importantly, Spock. For it was Spock who, in the future, promised the Romulans he would protect their home world from destruction. But, as it has turned out, he did not succeed.

This new Star Trek is one of those rare films where it not only appeals to fans of the series, but it also works for those who aren’t Star Trek fans (I can certainly account for this, being in the latter group when I first saw the film). In fact, the film actually feels like it’s more suited to non-Trek fans. According to writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, they wanted to inject some of Star Wars’ ‘rock-and-roll’ style into Trek, which to them felt more like ‘Classical Music’. When watching this film, it’s clear they did what they wanted to do. In fact, a lot of shots and ideas in this film do feel like they have been lifted from Star Wars; and all of this before Abrams was even hired to direct ‘Episode VII’. This is certainly much different from what longtime Trek fans were used to, but the film is exciting, sleek, and bold. The whole idea of the filmmakers creating a whole new alternate universe is risky, but it does work in the sense that it allows them to explore new stories without having to stay confined to the original series’ canon.

Casting is pretty much perfect, with each member of the cast stepping into their shoes of their predecessors quite well. Both Pine and Quinto are excellent as the new Kirk and Spock, respectively. Pine’s version of Kirk is very much reminiscent of Han Solo, as he’s the brash rebel who soon matures into the Captain of the Enterprise. As for Quinto as Spock, the writers do a great job at focusing on this Spock’s conflict of being half-human and half-Vulcan. There’s also a nice nod to the original series with the addition of Leonard Nimoy as an older version of Spock. It works because it’s not distracting and the inclusion of Nimoy also helps in strengthening the relationship between Kirk and Spock, which is the major focus of the movie. The two start out not liking each other, but as they mature they soon become the friends that we know them to be in the future.

Aside from Pine and Quinto, the rest of the cast is also great as well, and the writers did a good job at giving each key crew-member of the Enterprise a good amount of screen-time and more importantly show why they belong on the Enterprise. Uhura (Zoe Saldana), who actually wasn’t given much to do in the original series, is now the third most important character in the film, which is partially emphasized through her relationships with both Kirk and Spock, acting rather coldly to the former at first and actually being in a relationship with the latter. Uhura’s more substantial role in the film means that McCoy (Karl Urban) doesn’t play as big of a part as ‘Bones’ has had in previous Trek films, but Urban is actually probably the closest to his predecessor, DeForest Kelley. He just nails every detail about the character perfectly, from the attitude to, of course, how Bones and Spock don’t always get along. The way the writers implement Scotty (Simon Pegg) into the crew is well-done, and Pegg does a great job in the role, which pretty much has him be the comic relief. Finally, when regarding Chekov (Anton Yelchin) and Sulu (John Cho), they’re actually probably the least important of the main Enterprise crew, but the writers still give them enough to do in the film. Sulu in particular has an awesome action scene where he gets to show off his fencing talents.

If I did have one complaint about the film, it is that the main villain Nero is admittedly a rather weak Star Trek villain. This is mainly due to how his plan plays out in the film. So, in the future where he came from, the planet of Romulus was destroyed by a star that went supernova. Nero and the future Spock get caught up in a wormhole which sends them back in time; in Nero’s case, his appearance is responsible for creating the new alternate universe. Rather than warning Romulus about the planet’s impending doom, he just waits for at least two decades for the future Spock to arrive so that he can have him suffer the same way he did (Spoilers: in this new universe, the planet of Vulcan is destroyed). Eric Bana is fine as Nero, but the character needed a stronger plan. But, this film is mainly focused on the relationship between Kirk and Spock, so while the main villain is a weak one, it’s understandable as to why it is how it is and it doesn’t really affect the movie that much.

While great reboots are sometimes hard to come by, this new Star Trek greatly exceeds expectations and stands toe to toe with some of the best Star Trek films ever. Even with the risky move of creating an alternate timeline, the writing is superb, the cast is excellent, and the movie is a bold, sleek, and stylish new take on Star Trek. Kudos to Abrams for bringing the Star Trek franchise back to prominence after it sort of faded out following ‘Star Trek Nemesis’. This is how the Star Wars prequels should have turned out. After all, this does actually kind of feel like ‘Star Wars’ in certain areas. But as the next evolution of Star Trek, it does its job of not just appealing to Trek’s longtime fans, but it’s also a great introduction for someone like me who went in not knowing a damn thing about Star Trek. Not only is it one of the best Star Trek films ever, but it has quickly become one of my favorite films of all time.

Rating: 5/5!

TREK WEEK: Star Trek Film Series Retrospective

With the upcoming release of ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ barely a week away, it’s certainly a good time to do a little retrospective on the Star Trek franchise. After all, it has had a pretty unique run over the last few decades. When it began in the 60’s, it was just a single TV series that only lasted for three seasons. But since then, it has become such an iconic part of pop culture that it would spawn a larger franchise that would also see four other TV series and a film franchise amongst other things. But to keep this post from going on for way too long, this will only be a look back at the ‘Star Trek’ films. I might consider doing a post sometime later where I review the five major ‘Star Trek’ TV series, but that will have to take a while (it certainly won’t happen during ‘Trek Week’) because at this point, I have only seen episodes from the original Star Trek series and ‘The Next Generation’. I have yet to watch anything from ‘Deep Space Nine’, ‘Voyager’, or ‘Enterprise’.

Before I begin, let me just address something about my experience with this franchise. I did not grow up with ‘Star Trek’. While I was growing up, ‘Star Trek’ really wasn’t that big, which I guess was partially due to the poor performance of its tenth film, ‘Star Trek: Nemesis’. In terms of sci-fi franchises, I was more into ‘Star Wars’ (but even then, that wasn’t a franchise I really grew up with either). My first experience with ‘Star Trek’ was the 2009 reboot and it was that film that introduced me to the ‘Star Trek’ franchise. In fact, in recent years, I’ve actually found myself preferring ‘Trek’ to ‘Wars’ because I feel that ‘Trek’ has been better written (*cough* Prequels *cough*) and has had better stories and characters because at its core, the franchise is about exploration (‘To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before’) Like any long-running film frnachise, while there have been some less than stellar ‘Trek’ films, there have certainly been some exceptional films.

STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE (1979): (2/5)

When it first came out, ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ was a really big deal. This was a decade after the original series had ended in 1969, and while there was also an animated series that aired from 1973 to 1974, there wasn’t much ‘Star Trek’ for most of the 70’s. So here comes Trek’s first motion picture… and the end result is straight up boring. That’s this film in a nutshell… nothing really happens in the film. Most of the time, the film is focused on its visuals which do look great for the time but on another hand, this film hasn’t really aged well in that regard. In fact, sometimes the visuals could give you a headache just trying to figure out what you’re looking at. To the film’s credit, it does actually do a pretty good job at staying faithful to the TV show, but as the first Star Trek movie, it’s one that I recommend skipping.

STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982): (5/5)

I don’t think I have to say much about this film because everyone’s done so already. ‘The Wrath of Khan’ is one of the best Star Trek movies ever, if not the best. It’s certainly the best of the films starring the original cast. Even though this film is the second Trek film chronologically, you do not have to sit through the boring first film just to watch this one. The only thing you would need to watch first would be ‘Space Seed’, an episode of the Original Series that introduced one of Star Trek’s greatest villains, Khan, who returns in this film as the main villain (hence the name of the movie, ‘Wrath of Khan’). Ricardo Montalban’s terrific performance as Khan is one of the many great things about this film, from the writing to the acting. Even if you’re not a Star Trek fan, this is a must-see in the sci-fi genre.

STAR TREK III: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK (1984): (3.5/5)

First off, let’s get the obvious fact out of the way; ‘Search for Spock’ is not as good as ‘Wrath of Khan’. Perhaps the biggest reason why I say this is because this film is kind of a cop-out when you think about it. ‘Wrath of Khan’ ended with the very emotional death of Spock which, on that note, was a fitting conclusion to a great Star Trek film. But then in this film, they bring him back just after one movie. It’s great to have Spock back and all but I’m not going to lie, what then was the point of killing him off in the last movie if you just bring him back one movie later? But despite that, there’s nothing really bad I can really say about the film. In the end, it’s an entertaining film but as a follow-up to ‘Wrath of Khan’, it doesn’t really hold up.

STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME (1986): (4/5)

‘The Voyage Home’ is sort of ‘the black sheep’ of the franchise mainly because it’s pretty different from any of the other Star Trek films. For one thing, the plot is rather… out there.  Basically, what happens is that the crew of the Enterprise travels back in time to 1986 San Francisco where they have to collect humpback whales to bring back to the future so that the whales can ‘talk’ with a giant log-like entity that ‘speaks’ in a language that only humpback whales can understand. Yeah, if you’re scratching your head at that plot, don’t worry… you’re not the only one. But despite the strange plot, Star Trek IV benefits from something else, and that is its great use of humor. This is thanks in part due to the film’s ‘fish out of water’ premise, which has the crew of the Enterprise navigating through San Francisco in a time that is strange to them and this leads to some very funny moments. While it isn’t really a must-see like ‘Wrath of Khan’, this is another film that works well for both Star Trek fans and general audiences.

STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER (1989): (1.5/5)

Oh boy… let’s get this one out of the way. After a rock-solid trilogy of films (yes, Star Trek II through IV was a three-part story arc), ‘Star Trek V’ hits theaters and as producer Harve Bennett put it, it nearly killed the franchise and for good reason. This is easily the worst Star Trek film to date. Where do I even begin? While ‘The Final Frontier’ does a pretty unique premise, which sees the Enterprise literally searching for God, the execution on the film is horrendous. For one thing, the humor in this film really doesn’t work unlike the last film, and the film suffers from other issues like characterization, plot holes, and MANY production goofs. There’s an interesting twist surrounding the main villain Sybok as he is actually Spock’s half-brother, but the only explanation as to why it was never brought up before is that Captain Kirk ‘never asked’. This is another Star Trek film that I recommend skipping, unless you really want to see the film that nearly killed the franchise.

STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY (1991): (4/5)

The final film to star the cast of the original Star Trek series is easily a huge improvement over its predecessor and a much more fitting final film for the cast. Thankfully, ‘Final Frontier’ didn’t kill the franchise and, more importantly, wasn’t the original cast’s final film. ‘The Undiscovered Country’ benefits from a well-written script that has a bit of ‘end of the Cold War’ influence to it, as it revolves around Starfleet and Klingons trying to work together. This film is also notably much darker in tone than its predecessors, from the lighting/settings to the overall tone of the film. The film isn’t exactly perfect, though. The age of the cast is a little distracting and the main villain of the film isn’t really that good (despite the fact that he’s played by Christopher Plummer). But at the end of the day, ‘Star Trek VI’ is a rock solid Star Trek film that ends the original cast’s run on a high note (to an extent (see next film for more on that)).

STAR TREK GENERATIONS (1994): (3/5)

So here we have the first Star Trek film to star the cast of ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’... a film that also crams in a few members of the original cast and yet the filmmakers don’t really give them anything to do. They’re just… there, and that’s all. Because of that, the film is a bit uneven in that the filmmakers didn’t just let the ‘Next Generation’ cast take over in the place of the original cast. But hey, what about the fact that this film has Captains James T. Kirk and Jean Luc Picard meeting each other? Well, that is pretty cool but Kirk plays such a minor role in the film and yes, his death at the end of the film is rather dishonorable to the legend that he is. Malcolm McDowell does a pretty good job as the main villain Soran but as a whole, this film is just ok.

STAR TREK FIRST CONTACT (1996): (5/5)

Like with ‘Wrath of Khan’, the Next Generation’s second film is easily their best. It features another great Star Trek villain; actually I should say villains because it’s not just a single character. Instead, it’s the cybernetic race known as the Borg (‘Resistance is Futile!’). Overall, ‘First Contact’ is the best written of the ‘Next Generation’ films and it also succeeds with its darker tone (this is notably the first Trek film to be rated PG-13). Admittedly though, this is probably the only ‘Next Generation’ film I really recommend because none of the other ‘Next Generation’ films were really as good as this one.

STAR TREK INSURRECTION (1998): (2.5/5)

The third ‘Next Generation’ film is on the same level of ‘The Motion Picture’ in that it is a rather dull film. Like ‘The Motion Picture’, it does stay pretty faithful to the TV show it’s based on but as a movie it just doesn’t live up to some of the franchise’s better entries. It just feels like a two-part episode of the TV series. This is another one I don’t recommend and instead I suggest you just watch one of the actual two-part episodes from ‘The Next Generation’. It’s not the worst ‘Star Trek’ film, but it’s not really that good either.

STAR TREK NEMESIS (2002): (4/5)

‘Nemesis’ is another film that you could say almost killed the Star Trek film franchise, as it fared poorly at the box office which would ultimately lead to the series getting rebooted seven years later. But, as a whole, Nemesis actually isn’t that bad. The biggest problem with the film is that it’s a bit too dark. The dark tone doesn’t really work here as it did in ‘The Undiscovered Country’ or ‘First Contact’. It seems like this film shares many similarities with ‘Wrath of Khan’, even ending with the death of a major character (in this case, Data). But while ‘Wrath of Khan’ did end on a pretty uplifting note, ‘Nemesis’ just ends on a really depressing note. To its credit, the film is entertaining and its premise is pretty good, as the film sees Picard facing off against his clone (played by none other than a young ‘Bane’ himself, Tom Hardy). ‘Nemesis’ is not as bad as some might think but as the final ‘Next Generation’ film, it could have been much better.

STAR TREK (2009)

A Full Review will be coming in the next few days…

Rankings:

11. Final Frontier

10. The Motion Picture

9. Insurrection

8. Generations

7. Nemesis

6. Search for Spock

5. The Undiscovered Country

4. First Contact

3. The Voyage Home

2. Star Trek (2009)

1. Wrath of Khan



The Great Gatsby (2013) review

There have many books over the years that have been referred to as the ‘Great American Novel’, a term used to represent a novel that is distinguished for accurately representing the mood and atmosphere of America at the time it was written. One of these novels is ‘The Great Gatsby’, author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic tale about one man’s attempts to woo the girl of his dreams during the Roaring Twenties. There have been a few film adaptations of the novel, with the most notable being a 1974 film written by Francis Ford Coppola which starred Robert Redford and Mia Farrow in the lead roles of Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan, respectively. Now, in 2013, ‘Moulin Rouge’ director Baz Luhrmann helms a new adaptation of ‘Gatsby’ with a cast led by Leonardo DiCaprio as the titular Gatsby. As common in Luhrmann’s films, this new Great Gatsby has a unique visual flair to it but even amidst all of these crazy visuals, Lurhmann does a rock-solid job at telling Fitzgerald’s classic tale.

In the summer of 1922, Yale graduate Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) moves to Long Island, New York, taking a job as a bond salesman on Wall Street. He soon becomes intrigued by his next door neighbor, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a millionaire who hosts lavish parties at his mansion despite the fact that his guests (most of whom are never even invited to his parties; they just show up) don’t know anything about him. But as Nick and Gatsby become friends, Nick learns that Gatsby has been pursuing Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), Nick’s cousin who had been Gatsby’s lover five years ago when he was once a poor boy fighting in the war. The problem now, though, is that Daisy is married to the arrogant and imposing Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Nick soon gets caught up in Gatsby’s pursuits of Daisy, which soon begins to spiral out of control.

This is definitely Baz Luhrmann’s ‘The Great Gatsby’. The film is visually exciting from beginning to end, which gives this Gatsby an edge over previous adaptations in that regard. Not only are the visuals eye-catching, but Luhrmann also utilizes a pretty unique soundtrack in this movie. 1920’s jazz is mixed with modern rap music from artists like Jay-Z, Andre 3000, and Kanye West. It does actually work pretty well in the film because it doesn’t feel distracting. But while the film is certainly visually impressive, do the visuals overshadow the writing? Well, the writing is still pretty solid, getting across some of the key themes of the novel, such as the idea of excess as represented through the character of Gatsby to the decline of the American Dream. In terms of staying faithful to the novel, the film follows the book quite accurately with the only major exception being the way that the story is told, which does actually work from a film standpoint.

Casting is pretty much perfect, as each member of the cast fits their role perfectly. DiCaprio brings his A-game to the role of the mysterious but charming Gatsby. His Gatsby is actually easy to sympathize with even after the dark secret as to how he has earned money is revealed. As Nick, Maguire does a fantastic job of serving as the ‘audience’, seeing how he’s the one who’s narrating the story. While the character of Daisy is not a very complex one, Mulligan does bring a new level of emotional depth to the character that shines more in the film than in the book. As Tom, Edgerton does a fantastic job as the guy we straight-up despise. Finally, we also have a rock-solid supporting cast, including Isla Fisher as Tom’s mistress Myrtle, Jason Clarke as Myrtle’s pathetic husband George, and two excellent Hollywood film debuts from Elizabeth Debicki as Nick’s love interest Jordan Baker and Amitabh Bachchan as Gatsby’s shady friend Meyer Wolfsheim.

If you go into this movie expecting the usual visuals that are present in Baz Luhrmann’s films, you won’t be disappointed. This new adaptation of ‘The Great Gatsby’ is certainly the most visually exciting out of all of the adaptations of Fitzgerald’s novel that have come out before. It can be argued that the visuals sort of overshadow the writing, but as a whole, the writing is still very solid. It does stay true to the novel (for the most part) and its key themes are still present. It also does help that the cast is fantastic and each actor/actress is perfectly cast in their respective roles. The bottom line is that Luhrmann’s take on ‘The Great Gatsby’ is a must-see. I’m certain that fans of the book will be pleased with what may be the best Gatsby adaptation to date because it doesn’t disappoint.

Rating: 4.5/5

(Stay tuned... This week, in preparation for 'Star Trek Into Darkness', Rhode Island Movie Corner celebrates 'Star Trek Week', which will include reviews of both of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek films as well as a film series retrospective.)

Iron Man 3 SPOILER TALK!!

THE FOLLOWING POST CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS FOR ‘IRON MAN 3’. IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE FILM AND DO NOT WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SPOILERS I WILL BE DISCUSSING, STOP READING THIS POST NOW. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

 

With the release of Marvel’s ‘Iron Man 3’, there has been one part of the film that has attracted some controversy amongst comic book fans, and this is a key twist that happens around the middle of the film that revolves around one of the main characters; none other than the ‘main villain’ himself, the Mandarin. As I stated in my review of the film, those who are fans of the character probably would not like the twist because it is a key change to who is perhaps Iron Man’s most famous (and popular) enemy. It is certainly a bold move but the big question is whether or not it actually works in the movie. Because ‘Iron Man 3’ is a film that is kind of hard to write a review for just because of this key spoiler, I couldn’t really talk about it much in my review. That is why I’m doing this post to expand on my original review. So, let’s start by detailing how this all plays out in the movie.

As the movie starts off, the Mandarin is exactly the man we think he is; the terrorist leader of the Ten Rings (the terrorist group that held Tony Stark hostage in the first ‘Iron Man’ movie) who has been attacking the U.S. by committing a series of bombings all over the country. After Tony Stark issues a threat to the Mandarin that is televised, the Mandarin responds by blowing up Tony’s house. While Tony does survive the attack, he is believed to be dead. Later, Tony heads to the Mandarin’s headquarters located in Miami, Florida to confront him. This is where the major twist happens. It is revealed that the Mandarin is actually… a British actor.

Yes, the guy who we thought was the Mandarin is actually just this unaware drunken British actor who has been posing as the Mandarin, who in reality is just a fictional character created by scientist Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), who is actually the main villain of the movie. On one hand, it is a pretty unique (and in many respects, gutsy) twist and I have to give director/writer Shane Black and co-writer Drew Pearce credit for going through with it. But of course, this is not the Mandarin that many comic book fans know. He’s not a genius scientist who is a master of martial arts who wears ten powerful rings crafted from alien technology. Instead, he’s just… this random guy… that’s it. This is probably the biggest character change in a comic book movie since Galactus became a cloud in ‘Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer’ (but the less said about that, the better).

In order to give my thoughts on this whole twist, let me explain my reactions as I watched it happen in the theater. At first, I couldn’t believe it and I was this close to saying that it was a cop out. But then after a while, I realized that, in regards to the story, this actually works very well. While this does mean that the man we thought was the main villain really wasn’t ‘The Mandarin’ after all, the main reason why it works great in this film is because while this ‘Mandarin’ is making headlines, Aldrich Killian is the real mastermind behind the terrorist attacks against the U.S. But at the end of the film, Killian proclaims that ‘he is the Mandarin’, meaning that he is the Cinematic Universe’s interpretation of the Mandarin. I can see where they’re going with that, but the way I see it, The Mandarin was just a fictional character in this Universe and it’s just a persona for Killian.

But now let’s talk about the performances of the two ‘Mandarins’. As the actual main villain, Guy Pearce does an excellent job as Aldrich Killian. I liked the set-up for his character (which begins when Tony Stark avoids meeting with him during New Year’s Eve in 1999, which soon leads to his actions later on in the film) and he’s a great match for Tony in terms of brains. As I mentioned in my review, I noted that Ben Kingsley handled the character changes to ‘The Mandarin’ very well. What I mean by that is that when he’s supposed to be the menacing Mandarin, he’s great. When’s he supposed to be the weird and drunken British actor who’s only playing the Mandarin, he’s also great. So while, in the end, there was only one true ‘Mandarin’, we had two great performances from the two men that carried the persona.

Obviously, this big change to the Mandarin has split comic book fans. If you’re one of those people who are against this change to the Mandarin, I understand why. This is certainly up there amongst the biggest changes ever done to a comic book character, especially when that character is the main villain. But as a non-comic book reader, I’m okay with it simply because it did work well in the film. If this film wasn’t well-written (which for the record, it is), then this twist would not have worked out in the end. This isn’t the Mandarin we were expecting, but it is a unique spin on the character; no doubt about that.

Iron Man 3 (2013) review

To say that ‘The Avengers’ was a success is one heck of an understatement. Grossing over 1.5 billion dollars worldwide and receiving rave reviews from critics, it was the final piece of the puzzle for Phase One of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe, effectively capping off Marvel Studios’ successful run that they have been having since 2008’s ‘Iron Man’ first set up the massive universe they had created. So now, with ‘Avengers’ out of the way, the big question now for Marvel is… what’s next? That’s where Phase Two comes in; starting off with ‘Iron Man 3’, the third entry in what is arguably the star franchise of Marvel Studios (seeing how the two Iron Man films are the highest grossing films in the Cinematic Universe, not counting the Avengers). This time around, Jon Favreau isn’t behind the camera and in his place is Shane Black, the writer of the first two Lethal Weapon films and director of the cult hit ‘Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’, a film that also happened to star Tony Stark himself, Robert Downey Jr. Can Black deliver with Marvel’s first ‘Post-Avengers’ flick?

After the events of ‘The Avengers’, Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has been dealing with anxiety attacks, nightmares, and sleep deprivation because of his experience during the Chitauri invasion of New York. But while Tony is working to get his personal life back on track, America is caught up in multiple terrorist attacks that have been committed by the terrorist leader known as the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley). After the ordeal becomes personal for him, Tony sends out a threat to the Mandarin, who responds by directly attacking him. Now on his own without the help of his suits or his technology, Tony must now rely on his ingenuity to rise from the ashes and take on the Mandarin and his army of soldiers who are enhanced with a formula known as Extremis.

‘Iron Man 3’ is similar to ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ in how it’s a character-based story. We see how Tony’s experiences in ‘The Avengers’ have changed him as a person. He’s not really the playboy billionaire that he was in the last two films. He’s realized that he is just a small part of a bigger universe. Black, co-writer Drew Pearce, and Downey Jr. convey this very well in the film, which is darker in tone than the previous films. More importantly, this film proves that the solo superhero films can still work, even after a film like ‘The Avengers’. ‘Iron Man 3’ is a Tony Stark movie; it puts him on his own where he has to use his own skills in order to survive. To quote producer Kevin Feige, ‘He can’t call Thor, Cap or Nick Fury, and he can’t look for the Helicarrier in the sky’. It would be awesome to see those guys in this movie, but if this film proves anything, it is that we can wait for ‘The Avengers 2’ in 2015.  

Let’s talk about the villain, the Mandarin. More importantly, let’s discuss the big twist in the middle of the film that revolves around him. Don’t worry, I won’t spoil anything for those of you who haven’t seen the film yet but I feel that I need to address this twist because of the controversy surrounding it. The bottom line is that if you’re a fan of the character in the comics, you’re not going to like this twist because it involves a drastic change to the character. Even as someone who is not a comic book reader, I wasn’t big on the twist at first but when you think about it, it actually works pretty well from a story perspective. However, this is undeniably a huge change that won’t please everybody and if you don’t like it, that’s understandable.

Robert Downey Jr. is once again excellent as Tony Stark, dialing back on the arrogance that was a bit too much in ‘Iron Man 2’ and coming off more charismatic like he was in the first ‘Iron Man’ and ‘The Avengers’. Gwyneth Paltrow is also great again as Pepper Potts; the chemistry between her and Downey still works great and this film also gives her more to do than in previous films. As for Don Cheadle as Colonel James Rhodes, the camaraderie between him and Downey is far more improved than it was in ‘Iron Man 2’ and as a result, he’s much better here than in the previous film. In regards to Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin, I can’t really talk about him that much considering the major character twist but I will say that Kingsley handles the character changes very well. Finally, we have solid performances from other members of the cast, including Guy Pearce and Rebecca Hall as scientists Aldrich Killian and Maya Hansen (though the latter could have been given more to do).

It’s hard to top ‘The Avengers’, but ‘Iron Man 3’ is a key example of how solo superhero films can still work compared to the multi-hero films. It’s a film that puts its focus on the one thing that it should be about; Iron Man, more importantly Tony Stark. It shows how the events of ‘The Avengers’ have changed him as a person and proves that he can still save the day even without the help of Captain America, Thor, The Hulk, and/or S.H.I.E.L.D. Granted, the way that the main villain is translated to the big screen will not go well with everybody, but it worked in terms of story. I can’t really say this gives us a clear idea of what Marvel has in store for us for Phase Two, but I certainly can’t wait to see what comes next.

Rating: 4.5/5

2013 Preview: May

The month of May is technically not part of the summer, but in the film industry, it is the first month where some of the year’s biggest summer blockbusters start to come out. Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s Year-Long Film Preview for 2013. This is Part 5 and today we’re looking at the May lineup.

*Since 2007, Marvel Studios has released the only major release for the first week of May and they will do so again this year (and for at least the next two years) with ‘Iron Man 3’, the first in Marvel’s ‘Phase Two’ project following the success of ‘The Avengers’. ‘Lethal Weapon’ writer and ‘Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’ director Shane Black takes over for Jon Favreau in this new movie which sees Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), AKA Iron Man, fighting his most dangerous enemy yet, The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley). Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle reprise their roles as Pepper Potts and James Rhodes, respectively, alongside newcomers Guy Pearce and Rebecca Hall.

*The following week will finally see the release of director Baz Luhrmann’s (1996’s ‘Romeo+Juliet, Moulin Rouge) adaptation of ‘The Great Gatsby’. This new take on author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic book was originally supposed to hit theaters in December 2012 but, like many films this year it was pushed back to a later date. In the case of this film, it was mainly due to production schedule issues. Leonardo DiCaprio stars as the titular Jay Gatsby alongside Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, and Joel Edgerton.

*Another single film hits theaters the following week of May 17^th. ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ is the sequel to director J.J. Abrams’ 2009 ‘Star Trek’ reboot which helped revitalize the franchise after it had faded out after 2002’s ‘Star Trek Nemesis’. Abrams returns as director (who is now set to direct the first in Disney’s new ‘Star Wars’ trilogy) along with the main cast of the previous film. This film sees Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) pursuing a new enemy, John Harrison (played by Benedict Cumberbatch), who is described as one of ‘Starfleet’s best agents’.

*While the first three weeks of May will only see one major release a week, three films will theaters on May 24^th.  The first is ‘Epic’, the latest film from Blue Sky Studios (the makers of the ‘Ice Age’ series and ‘Rio’). The film is based on the children’s book ‘The Leaf Men and the Brave Good Bugs’, written by William Joyce. It focuses on a young girl who comes across a group of forest warriors after she is suddenly shrunken down one day while looking for her father. The film stars an ensemble cast including Amanda Seyfried, Colin Farrell, and Christoph Waltz.

*’Fast and Furious 6’ is the latest entry in the popular ‘Fast and the Furious’ series. Director Justin Lin (who helmed the last three films in the series) returns to direct this new one, which sees professional criminal Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew team up with DSS agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), the same person who chased after them in the previous film, to take on a mercenary organization. The mission gets personal for Dom, however, when he learns that the organization’s second-in-command is his ex-girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), who supposedly died in ‘Fast and Furious’, the fourth entry in the series.

*The final release of the week is ‘The Hangover Part III’, the final entry in the successful Hangover trilogy. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis return along with director Todd Phillips in this third film. This time, the Wolfpack run into a gang while taking Alan (Galifianakis) to a mental facility. The gang leader (played by John Goodman) demands that they find their ‘friend’ Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), who had recently stolen 21 million dollars from him and takes Doug (Justin Bartha) as insurance.

*A pair of new films close out the month on May 31^st. The first film, ‘After Earth’, is directed by M. Night Shyamalan (‘The Sixth Sense’, and (ugh!) ‘The Last Airbender’) and stars Will and Jaden Smith as a father-son team who get stranded on Earth after it has been decimated by cataclysmic events.

*The final major release of the month is ‘Now You See Me’, a crime-thriller from director Louis Leterrier (‘The Incredible Hulk’). The film follows a magic group known as the Four Horsemen (Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelson, and Dave Franco) who are on the run from an FBI Special Agent (played by Mark Ruffalo) after they rob a bank during one of their magic shows. The film also stars Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine.

And that’s the lineup of films for the month of May. Stay tuned for Part 6 next month.