Movie review: ‘Star Trek: Into Darkness’ an adrenalin rush and a love letter to fans

Although the special effects are now somewhat dated, the “Star Trek” original series has always occupied a special place in my geeky heart. What the show may have lacked in budget, it more than made up for with great characters and good storytelling. Captain Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Dr. McCoy, Scotty and the rest of the original Enterprise crew have become some of science fiction’s most beloved characters. Though we never got to see the end of their five-year mission, they’ve never completely faded from pop culture.

However, back in early 2009, the “Star Trek” franchise as a whole wasn’t faring too well. The most recent film “Star Trek: Nemesis” wasn’t a huge hit, and the most recent TV show “Star Trek: Enterprise” was canceled in 2005 due to low ratings. The franchise was in need of a shot of adrenalin — and it received a major one, thanks to J.J. Abrams’ explosive and exciting 2009 reboot, titled simply “Star Trek.” The film brought back the characters from the original series and presented a fresh perspective without dishonoring the material that had come before it. And even though I’ve always been a die-hard “Star Wars” fan, that Trek reboot has become one of my favorite movies.

We’ve waited four years for the sequel, “Into Darkness,” which finally arrived in theaters this week. Like its predecessor, it’s both a cinematic adrenalin rush and a love letter to fans of the original series, dropping references to everything from Tribbles to Klingons.

As the film starts, it immediately lands the audience in the center of the action. Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Co. have landed on a primitive planet called Nibiru and are trying to prevent a volcano from erupting and destroying the planet’s inhabitants. In order to save Spock (Zachary Quinto), Kirk violates Starfleet regulations about protecting primitive species from technology they aren’t ready for, and his actions lead to Starfleet stripping him of his command.

However, Starfleet is about to face bigger problems, in the form of a mysterious terrorist named John Harrison (played by Benedict Cumberbatch, who also plays Sherlock Holmes on the current BBC series). When Harrison blows up a Starfleet facility, Kirk is sent back into action to track him down and bring him to justice. The mission doesn’t go well, and someone is called to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the Enterprise and her crew.

The special effects in “Into Darkness” are even more impressive than the first time around, and the film makes good use of its IMAX format. Yet the real heart of this film is the characters. Without exception, the young actors cast to play the iconic characters fit their roles perfectly, paying homage to the original actors without being copycats. Spock and Kirk are friends now, rather than enemies, but they’re still frequently at odds. Pine and Quinto play well off each other, and this film gives them an opportunity to show off a deeper emotional range. Another standout for me was Cumberbatch, who makes the transition to big-budget blockbusters quite smoothly.

My goal was to try to write a review without any spoilers, but like “Iron Man 3,” it’s difficult to talk about the film without revealing the major plot twist. Prior to the film’s release, there was much speculation about who Cumberbatch was really playing. Was he really just John Harrison, or was he actually a famous villain from classic Trek lore, such as Gary Mitchell or even Khan, arguably the most iconic Trek villain?

*(To avoid spoilers, skip the next two paragraphs.)*

I will say that when Abrams finally reveals that Cumberbatch really is playing Khan, my first thought was one of curiosity: Will Abrams actually be able to pull this off? Fans have already started debating that question, but I think that yes, Abrams does. Initially, the very British Cumberbatch seems like an odd choice to play Khan; he has a very different persona from actor Ricardo Montalban, who originally played the character. However, I think if you’re going to reboot Khan, it’s better to try to take the character in a radically different direction. Abrams doesn’t just borrow from “The Wrath of Khan”; he uses the character in a whole new way. He both indulges and subverts our expectations. Cumberbatch brings an icy menace to the character, and his intelligent, calculating version of Khan is like a superhuman version of Sherlock Holmes gone horribly wrong. He manages to be dignified and ruthless. And, as I thought about it, rebooting Khan really isn’t even the most shocking thing Abrams has done with his Trek films, considering in the first movie he blew up the planet Vulcan and started a Spock/Uhura romance.

Introducing Khan also allows Abrams to revisit another classic Trek moment: the end of “The Wrath of Khan,” where Spock sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise crew. It’s a powerful scene in the original film, but Abrams gives us a new twist on it: this time, it’s Kirk on the other side of the glass. Both Kirk and Spock finally let themselves be vulnerable; the always brashly-confident Kirk admits he’s afraid, and the stoic Spock admits he can feel.

“Into Darkness” doesn’t knock Abrams’ 2009 Trek film off the No. 2 spot on my list of all-time favorite movies (the No. 1 spot is occupied by “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back,” of course). However, it’s a more than worthy sequel. It’s probably Abrams’ final Trek film, since he’s tackling the “Star Wars” universe next. I think my favorite franchise is in good hands.

Movie review: ‘Iron Man 3′ a fun start to the summer movie season

“Big man in a suit of armor — take that off, what are you?”

That’s a question Captain America asks Tony Stark/Iron Man during “The Avengers” movie. Of course Stark fires back one of his trademark snarky replies — “Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist” — but he’s not forced to seriously consider that question until “Iron Man 3.” The first two “Iron Man” films were all about Tony creating the suit and coming to grips with his new identity, but the third is about his search for the answer to Captain America’s question — without the suit, is he still a hero?

“Iron Man 3″ (released in theaters May 3) takes place after the events in “The Avengers.” Tony helped the band of misfit superheroes save the world, but he’s having trouble dealing with the aftermath. He’s haunted by panic attacks, and he’s struggling to cope with how much his world has changed. When a terrorist known simply as “The Mandarin” begins launching a series of attacks against the United States, Tony decides he’s had enough. In his typically cocky manner, he releases his home address to the media and dares the Mandarin to come and confront him. Unfortunately, the Mandarin takes him up on that offer, and the battle leaves Tony’s posh house in ruins.

Without his workshop and with a barely functioning suit, Tony is forced to face the threat of the Mandarin without many of the gadgets and resources he’s come to rely on. He has to discover who he really is without the suit and without the “Avengers” to back him up. Can he rise to the challenge?

“Iron Man 3″ is currently scoring about 77 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, which is enough to certify it as “fresh” and is higher than the first sequel, “Iron Man 2.” I personally found this to be a fun, action-packed film, and it’s great way to kick off the summer blockbuster season.

Iron Man is my favorite film superhero, and I think the primary reason for that is Robert Downey Jr.’s performance. Iron Man is fascinating because he isn’t like most other superheroes. While most superheroes agonize over what would happen if their secret identities were revealed, Tony throws a press conference and tells the whole world he’s Iron Man with the same casual flippancy he’d use to announce he’s buying a new jet. He spouts off one-liners almost faster than viewers can keep up with, and he’s always trying to push himself and others to the limit.

Yet beneath all that devil-may-care cockiness, Tony does have his vulnerabilities. He’s arrogant and narcissistic, but he’s also capable of throwing himself recklessly into danger to save the people he cares about. I think it was a good idea for the film makers to require Tony to spend much of the movie without his suit, and I’m also glad the film addressed his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Tony Stark is never going to be altruistic or humble, but I thought his character did grow in this film, and he’s becoming a better person.

There are some nice action set pieces scattered throughout the film, my favorite being the attack on Tony’s house. I did like the next evolution of Tony’s suit, and the fact he can now summon the suit to him using technology (that technology is also used for some comic relief when it malfunctions). Director Shane Black doesn’t veer too far from the tone set up in the previous two films by Jon Favreau, but he does enough to keep “Iron Man 3″ feeling fresh. Robert Downey Jr.’s rapid-fire wit is used well here once again, and the film is packed with plenty of humor.

“Iron Man 3″ has proven to be somewhat polarizing, and much of the discussion on the blogs I’ve read has centered on a certain major “twist” that occurs toward the end of the film. I was genuinely caught off guard by this twist, and I do have to give the director credit for pulling off the surprise and for being willing to take such a big, unexpected risk in a comic book superhero movie. I haven’t quite decided what I ultimately thought of the twist — and if you haven’t seen the movie yet and want to be surprised, go ahead and skip to the next paragraph. My initial reaction was that the twist was funny and brought up an interesting point about the nature of evil and how powerful a symbol can be, even if that symbol is just an illusion. Still, I respect the fact the Mandarin is an important part of Iron Man lore for comic book fans, and the twist was perhaps a little too flippant. Perhaps a good compromise would have been to make the twist a “double blind” instead of a “bait and switch”: Tony shows up to confront the Mandarin, finds he’s really just a bumbling actor playing a character, writes off the Mandarin, then later on learns the Mandarin was just bluffing and truly is a dangerous threat.

There are places in the film I could be picky. It would have been nice to see more screen time for Aldrich Killian and Maya Hansen, Guy Pearce and Rebecca Hall’s characters, and I wouldn’t have minded seeing more of Don Cheadle’s War Machine. I also missed Samuel L. Jackson’s signature Nick Fury cameo. However, for me, watching “Iron Man 3″ was so much fun none of the flaws really mattered. I like the fact the film was willing to take risks and do something different (after all, what other comic book superhero movie throws in a “Downton Abbey” joke?) “Iron Man 3″ accomplishes exactly what it set out to do: it’s just a fun summer popcorn movie, and it made me even more excited for the upcoming Thor and Captain America sequels.

So, what did you think? Did you enjoy the new “Iron Man” film? Did you like the surprise “twist”?

 

Beyond ‘The Avengers’: Marvel prepares for ‘Phase 2′ of superhero franchise

Before 2008, many people weren’t familiar with the Marvel comic book superhero Iron Man. DC Comics characters Superman and Batman had long been the two most famous superheroes, and no one was expecting a movie based on Tony Stark — a snarky narcissist in a metal suit — to be a mega-hit.

However, Robert Downey Jr.’s great performance not only rebooted the actor’s own career, it also helped launch an impressive theatrical run for a line-up of Marvel superheroes, culminating in last summer’s epic mash-up “The Avengers.” Earning more than $1.5 billion worldwide, “The Avengers” established Marvel’s dominance in the cinematic superhero universe, and now DC Comics is the one struggling to catch up.

Still, Marvel is hoping this is just the beginning. “The Avengers” completed the first stage of the film franchise, and now Marvel is preparing to launch what the company is calling “Phase 2,” which features new movies about Iron Man, Thor and Captain America; an Avengers sequel; and a science fiction film about an Avengers-style team called “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Personally, I’m very much looking forward to Marvel’s new line-up of films, though I do have a few possible concerns.

Marvel currently finds itself in a very interesting position. All their work leading up to “The Avengers” was one of the most expertly-executed marketing campaigns in Hollywood history, and though some of their individual superhero films were more successful than others, none of them were true flops, and all contributed to the mounting excitement about “The Avengers” film.

The key for Marvel going forward will be to continue building on that excitement and to not fall into the trap of relying too much on past successes. Marvel has put together a formula that has worked quite well — a blend of humor, action and heart; however, Marvel now has to find a way to maintain that same tone but also create sequels that feel fresh, and help the audience to connect to the characters in new ways.

Iron Man is arguably the most popular member of “The Avengers,” and judging by the amount of buzz “Iron Man 3″ is generating, I think the movie (which comes out in U.S. theaters Friday) is an all but guaranteed blockbuster. If the movie is good — and early reviews are indicating that it is — it will be a solid kick-off for Marvel’s Phase 2, and the excitement generated likely will carry into “Thor: The Dark World” this fall.

“Thor: The Dark World” (Nov. 8, 2013) and the upcoming Captain America sequel, “The Winter Soldier,” (April 4, 2014) should both do fairly well at the box office, though I don’t think they’ll beat the new Iron Man film. Audiences responded well to the first films featuring Thor and Captain America, and I think people are curious to see what happens to these characters post-Avengers.

I’m glad to see that Tom Hiddleston is back as Loki in the “Thor” sequel; his performance was part of what made “The Avengers” movie so much fun. I’m also hoping the sequel will feature more action on Asgard, the fantasy realm Thor originally hails from.

I’ve haven’t heard much yet about what the plot of “Captain America: The Winter Solider” will be. Marvel has an interesting opportunity with this film to explore what it’s like for Captain America to adjust to life in a modern era. I’m also intrigued by the fact that Scarlett Johansson — who plays Black Widow in “The Avengers” — has joined the cast for the film. Will she have more of a cameo role, like Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury) in the “The Avengers” lead-in films, or will her character be working closely with Captain America on a mission? I think these two characters are an interesting pairing, though I’m still holding out hope for a Black Widow/Hawkeye team-up movie someday — perhaps in Marvel’s “Phase 3″?

As long as “Iron Man 3,” “Thor: The Dark World” and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” perform well, I think “The Avengers 2″ (slated for release in 2015) will also be a hit. Marvel was smart to ask director Joss Whedon to return for the sequel (and really, they would have been crazy not to). The challenge will be to find some way to top the first “Avengers” film, which is admittedly a tough act to follow. Additionally, “The Avengers 2″ will have to battle the hype surrounding the new “Star Wars” movie, which is also slated for release in 2015.

Still, the only real risk I see in Marvel’s Phase 2 line-up is “Guardians of the Galaxy” (Aug. 1, 2014). Not as well known as the Avengers team, the Guardians of the Galaxy includes an interplanetary policeman known as the Star-Lord and Gamora, the adopted daughter of Marvel villain Thanos (who is rumored to appear in the second Avengers film). The Guardians of the Galaxy team also includes some more unusual members, such as Groot, a sentient tree-like creature, and a raccoon who is an expert marksman (the Internet Movie Database does not indicate these last two roles have been cast yet, or whether the characters will even be in the film).

“Guardians of the Galaxy” will be a true test of Marvel’s brand and whether its name alone is enough to draw people to the theater. DC Comics’ sci-fi superhero film “Green Lantern” did not perform well in 2011, and was overshadowed by Marvel’s more traditional superhero films that year, “Thor” and “Captain America: The First Avenger.” Still, “Guardians of the Galaxy” does have a promising cast so far, including Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana, and Marvel could launch another franchise with this film. And the Marvel film universe will certainly survive even if “Guardians of the Galaxy” is a flop, though it could damage their bullet-proof reputation and put more pressure on future releases.

So, what do you think of Marvel’s plans for “Phase 2″? What films are you looking forward to? Do you think they will all be box office successes, or do you anticipate a few flops?

Movie review: ‘Oblivion’

At first glance, Jack Harper doesn’t seem very different from other average, everyday Americans. Each morning, he wakes up, travels to work, comes home, eats dinner, goes to bed, and then wakes up and does it all over again.

Yet there is something that separates Harper, and that’s the fact he happens to be the ONLY person on the planet Earth who is still following this routine. “Oblivion” is set in the year 2077, and Harper (Tom Cruise) and communications officer Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are the last two humans left on the now-desolate planet Earth. Sixty years ago, Earth was attacked by mysterious aliens known as “Scavengers,” and though the humans won the war, the planet was so damaged by the battles that it can no longer support life. Most of the humans have abandoned the planet and set up a colony on the moon of Titan, and Harper and Victoria were assigned to remain behind to collect the planet’s remaining resources for Titan’s use.

Harper and Victoria’s knowledge of the past is somewhat hazy due a memory wipe for the sake of “security,” and they’ve been informed they will soon be allowed to finally leave Earth and join the other colonists on Titan. Although Victoria is eagerly looking forward to rejoining what’s left of Earth’s population, Harper is more hesitant to leave the planet. He can’t escape a feeling that Earth is still “home” and that something isn’t quite right about this situation. He’s haunted by dreams of a woman he’s never seen before but somehow feels that he knows. When a spaceship crashes on the planet and Jack rescues a woman from the wreckage who looks just like the woman in his dreams, this sets off a chain of events that forces Jack to re-think everything he’s been told about his mission, the invasion, Victoria and even himself.

“Oblivion” was released in theaters Friday and is the second film from Joseph Kosinski, who also directed 2010′s “Tron: Legacy.” Although reviewers praised “Tron: Legacy’s” impressive visual effects, Kosinski was criticized for neglecting character development and plot. How does “Oblivion” compare?

From a purely visual standpoint, “Oblivion” is one of the most gorgeous science fiction films I’ve ever seen. The movie was shot primarily in Iceland, which seems to be the go-to site for sci-fi films lately (last summer’s “Prometheus” was also filmed there). The country’s vast, lonely landscapes manage to be stark, beautiful and harsh, all at the same time. The bleak, futuristic tone is furthered enhanced by the film’s color palette — composed mostly of whites, grays and blacks — and the sleek, clean lines of the ships and buildings. The computer-generated effects are integrated so seamlessly into the film I couldn’t tell what was real and what had been digitally created. The film has an excellent soundtrack composed by French electronic band M83, reminiscent of the score composed by Daft Punk for “Tron: Legacy.”

“Oblivion” is currently scoring in the high 50s on Rotten Tomatoes, which is not quite enough to certify it as “fresh” but still indicates that more than half of the critics enjoyed it. It’s a higher rating than “Tron,” and I think Kosinski has taken a step forward here. While giving “Oblivion” more heart and deeper characters may have heightened the emotional impact, Kosinski is helped by performances from the always-charismatic Cruise and the quietly tragic Riseborough.

Some critics have also accused the film of being too derivative of other sci-fi classics, but I will say this personally didn’t bother me while watching the movie. After I watched it, I could think of parts that did remind me of other sci-fi films I’d seen, yet I still enjoyed it. I also liked the fact “Oblivion” dared to do something different — the film isn’t packed with non-stop action. Although I love action-filled, big-budget blockbusters like “The Avengers,” sometimes it is nice to take a slow burn approach. There are some good action set pieces in “Oblivion,” but the movie takes its time revealing the mystery.

The final product may not be flawless, but I had fun watching “Oblivion” in the theater. It’s an early kick-off to the summer movie season, and it’s a visual work of art that will appeal most to sci-fi fans.

2013 summer movie preview

As a self-professed film addict and lover of all things fantasy and science fiction, summer tends to be my favorite time of the year at the box office. This is when Hollywood tends to roll out the best of its big-budget films, and this summer, we have quite a selection: from superheroes, to giant fighting robots to the return of the USS Enterprise. Although the reception to the 2013 films released so far has been a bit lukewarm, quite a few hotly-anticipated films will come out in the next few months. Here are some of the most buzzed-about movies this summer:

Iron Man 3 (May 3)

“Iron Man 3″ is the first individual Marvel superhero film to be released after the success of last summer’s mash-up “The Avengers,” and I’m curious to see where Marvel plans to take the franchise. With a goal of building anticipation back up for the second Avengers film in 2015, Marvel’s challenge will be to maintain the tone that has worked in the past for these films — a blend of humor, heart and action — but also prevent that formula from becoming stale.

That’s why I’m excited for “Iron Man 3.” Arguably the most popular member of “The Avengers” cinematic universe, Tony Stark is known for his trademark snarky wit and devil-may-care attitude, and the belief that he can handle anything that’s thrown at him. However, this new film seems to challenge the character and expose his vulnerabilities in ways we haven’t seen before. While I hope the film makers haven’t cut out too much of Stark’s humor, I think it’s a smart strategy to take the story in a new and slightly darker direction.

Trailers aren’t always a perfect indicator of how good a film will actually be, but the trailers released so far for “Iron Man 3″ look pretty epic. It wouldn’t surprise me if this film turned out to be the biggest money-maker of the summer.

The Great Gatsby (May 10)

I finally read “The Great Gatsby” for the first time last fall, and after I finished it, I was left with two thoughts: first, that I loved the book, and second, that it might be difficult to adapt the book for film.

Taking place in the Roaring Twenties, “The Great Gatsby” is the story of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a wealthy man who throws lavish parties and buys anything he wants, yet has an empty existence. He’s haunted by his love for the capricious Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), and their doomed romance ends up destroying more lives that just their own.

The plot itself is fairly simple, but the real power of the novel lies in author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s rich descriptions and the beautiful way he strings words together: “In his blue gardens men and girls came and went like moths among the whisperings and the champagne and the stars.” Unfortunately, prose doesn’t transfer to a visual medium (you don’t want too many voice-overs with a character describing what’s going on), so I’m curious to see how the film makers will capture the spirit of Fitzgerald’s novel.

The world depicted in the trailers is colorful and stylized, and presenting it in 3D is an interesting choice. The film was originally slated for release in December last year, which perhaps seemed like a better fit than summertime. It will be interesting to see how well this film does at the box office, especially since it’s sandwiched between two of the summer’s most buzzed-about blockbusters: “Iron Man 3″ and “Star Trek: Into Darkness.”

Star Trek: Into Darkness (May 17)

Out of all the films slated for release in 2013, this is the one I’m most looking forward to, and I’m both excited and nervous about it. I loved J.J. Abrams’ first “Star Trek” film, which was a surprise hit and successfully rebooted a previously struggling franchise. Because of Abrams’ earlier success, there’s perhaps even more pressure this time around.

True to form, Abrams hasn’t let many details slip about the film’s plot. We know Benedict Cumberbatch is playing a vengeful terrorist named “John Harrison,” who may or may not actually be a famous villain from classic “Star Trek” lore (theories about Cumberbatch actually playing Khan or Gary Mitchell have been floating around). As the newly minted captain of the Enterprise, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is forced to confront Cumberbatch’s villain and prove that he’s worthy of his post.

Since Abrams will be directing the upcoming “Star Wars” film set for release in 2015, this will probably be the last “Trek” film we see from him. I’m hoping he leaves us with a cinematic thrill ride that will be as fun and exhilarating as his first.

After Earth (June 7)

Once one of Hollywood’s most promising new directors, M. Night Shyalaman has had a rough ride at the box office lately, with several high-profile flops on his résumé (including 2010′s “The Last Airbender,” which is, I must admit, one of the worst fantasy movies I’ve ever seen). However, “After Earth” could be his comeback.

Set (apparently) in the future, after the planet Earth has become an untamed, uninhabitable wasteland, the film follows an interplanetary ranger (Will Smith) and his son (played by his real-life son Jaden Smith) who crash-land on Earth and are forced to fight for their survival in the wild and dangerous environment.

The trailer for the movie didn’t pique my interest quite as much as I was hoping it would, but I’m a fan of Will Smith, and I’m intrigued by the film’s premise. Hollywood has actually been releasing quite a few science fiction films lately, which is a trend I’m definitely excited about. I hope these films end up doing well at the box office, so we’ll be likely to see more of these types of films in the future.

Man of Steel (June 14)

Although Superman is arguably the best-known American superhero, he hasn’t been as popular of late. In an age of flawed, conflicted superheroes (see Robert Downey Jr.’s sarcastic Iron Man, Christian Bale’s brooding Batman, etc.), Superman almost seems too “perfect.” He can fly, he has x-ray vision, and aside from “Kryptonite,” he doesn’t really have many vulnerabilities. He seems too distant, too aloof, and audiences have had trouble relating to him.

Director Zack Snyder is hoping to change that. His “Man of Steel” film seeks to find a new way to tell Superman’s story, and — even though the character isn’t from this planet — to make him seem more “human.”

“Man of Steel” is probably the riskiest film this summer. If DC Comics wants to pursue a “Justice League” film, then they really need this new Superman film to be a success. So far, the trailers seem promising, and Superman actor Henry Cavill certainly looks the part. The fact Batman director Christopher Nolan is producing the film also is a good sign, though I hope “Man of Steel” will be able to find its own voice and won’t seem too much like the Superman version of “Batman Begins.”

World War Z (June 21)

Zombies seems to be everywhere in the media these days. AMC’s zombie drama “The Walking Dead” is one of the most popular TV shows currently on air, and the zombie romantic comedy “Warm Bodies” was a surprise hit earlier this year. Brad Pitt is bringing zombies to the big screen again this summer with “World War Z.”

Pitt stars as a U.N. specialist who is tasked with traveling around the world to find the origins of a deadly virus that is turning people into zombies. While most people think of zombies as slow-moving stumblers, the zombies in this film move with an eerie amount of speed and pile on top of each other to reach a target.

I’m curious to see what the reviews will say and what the audience response to this film will be. Although zombies are a poplar subject for films and TV shows right now, there’s always a risk of audience fatigue if there are too many zombie stories in too short of a time period. “World War Z” will need to demonstrate it can bring something new to the genre.

The Lone Ranger (July 3)

“The Lone Ranger,” a popular TV show in the 1950s, is getting a big-screen update this summer. The action/adventure western stars Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp as the masked hero and his friend Tonto, and is directed by Gore Verbinski, the director of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” films.

With a budget that’s reportedly north of $200 million, there’s a lot of pressure for this film to do well. I think it will be one of those “go big or go home” movies — it will either be a runaway hit, or a major flop. There probably won’t be a lot of middle ground.

I’m hoping this is a fun, quirky action/adventure comedy in the same spirit as Verbinski’s “Pirates” films. Johnny Depp is a master at creating eccentric, memorable characters, and he and Hammer have a chance of playing well off each other here. Though I wasn’t a fan of last year’s Snow White film “Mirror Mirror,” which Hammer also starred in, I thought Hammer’s character was still likable and funny and a stand-out amongst the cast in an otherwise “so-so” film.

Pacific Rim (July 12)

Robots, monsters and aliens — honestly, it doesn’t get much cooler than this. “Pacific Rim” is director Guillermo del Toro’s first major venture into Hollywood’s summer tentpole season, and it looks like it’s going to be a lot of fun. With a solid cast that includes Idris Elba (BBC’s “Luther”) and Charlie Hunnam (“Sons of Anarchy”), the sci-fi movie is about humanity’s last efforts to fend off an alien invasion.

I’m hoping “Pacific Rim” will fulfill the hopes I originally had for the “Transformers” franchise. If the trailer is any indication, the movie will have plenty of over-the-top action sequences with giant fighting robots. However, I’m hoping del Toro will be able to balance all these special effects with a carefully-crafted story and interesting characters (and he’s proven he’s very capable of this in the past).

“Pacific Rim” could be a break-out hit this summer, and it’s one of the films I’m most looking forward to this year.

The Wolverine (July 26)

Wolverine is the most popular character to come out of the “X-Men” films, and he’s getting his second stand-alone movie this summer. This time around, he’s heading to Japan, where he’ll battle both ninjas and personal demons.

I have to admit, I do have mixed feelings about this one. I love Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of the character, and I believe he was the absolute perfect choice for the role. However, while I did enjoy the previous Wolverine spin-off in 2009, titled “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” it didn’t have the same energy as 2011′s excellent prequel “First Class,” which featured a young Magneto and Professor Charles Xavier. I’m very excited about the “First Class” sequel in 2014 but haven’t sensed as much buzz about the new Wolverine film.

Still, I think the idea of setting this movie in Japan was a good choice and could bring a much-needed fresh perspective to the spin-off franchise.

Elysium (Aug. 9)

Directed by Neill Blomkamp (“District 9″), “Elysium” is a dystopian sci-fi drama that takes place in 2159, when the world has been divided into two distinct classes: the wealthy, who live in a lavish orbital space station, and the poor, who have been abandoned on the planet’s dying surface. Matt Damon plays a lower-class character named Max who is exposed to radiation at his factory job and has to break into the space station to find treatment.

Of all the science fiction films scheduled for release this summer, “Elysium” is likely to be the grittiest and perhaps the most thought-provoking. Blomkamp filmed part of the movie in a garbage dump in Mexico City and isn’t presenting a white-washed version of our future.

I’m excited about this film, and again, it’s great to see so many sci-fi projects in theaters this summer. Matt Damon has proven himself to be a versatile actor — equally at home in smaller dramas and big-budget action franchises — and I’m looking forward to seeing what he does with this role.

So, what films are you most looking forward to this summer? Which ones do you think will be hits? Which ones could be flops?

Movie review: ‘Jurassic Park 3D’ a worthy upgrade

I’ll never forget the first time I watched “Jurassic Park.” It’s an intense, harrowing experience — and one that continues to make me jump, no matter how many times I’ve watched it since then. From the moment the characters first land on the ill-fated island where dinosaurs have been brought back to life, to the end where the survivors barely manage to escape with their lives, director Steven Spielberg doesn’t give viewers much of a chance to stop and catch their breath. If the T. rex isn’t terrorizing the characters and trying to rip apart their SUV, then the vicious velociraptors are on the prowl, and by the time you realize you’re being tracked, it’s already too late.

Based on a novel by the late Michael Crichton, a master of the scientific thriller, the “Jurassic Park” movie was the ultimate big-budget blockbuster. Although it was released 20 years ago, it made such an impression on audiences that it has become a permanent part of pop culture (and probably made more than a few visitors at natural history museums peer nervously at the T. rex statue in the dinosaur exhibit).

With the recent trend in Hollywood of re-releasing popular films in 3D, it was only a matter of time before “Jurassic Park” received its own upgrade. While I’m still not sure if I’m a fan of the big push towards 3D in general, “Jurassic Park” is well worth watching again on the big screen.

“Jurassic Park” examines what might happen if people were able to find dinosaur DNA and use it to bring the prehistoric creatures back to life. Although the premise is an exciting one — reviving a now extinct species — there are plenty of dangers inherent in that plan, which some of the characters fail to see.

In the film, Sam Neill and Laura Dern play paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant and paleobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler, who are called in as consultants for an amusement park run by entrepreneur John Hammond (Richard Attenborough). Hammond’s scientists have found a way to recreate dinosaurs such as the T. rex by extracting DNA from dinosaur blood inside ancient mosquitoes encased in amber. Although Hammond is excited about the possibilities of a theme park filled with dinosaurs, Grant and Sattler have their misgivings, as does eccentric chaos theorist Dr. Ian Malcolm (a perfectly-cast Jeff Goldblum).

When a tropical storm hits Jurassic Park and the power fails, Grant and Sattler’s worst fears are brought to life. The dinosaurs escape their pens, and Grant is trapped — unprotected — with Hammond’s two young grandchildren out in the park. To say the situation descends into a nightmare is certainly an understatement.

Although it has been two decades since the film was first released, and the special effects industry has evolved dramatically since then, “Jurassic Park” has aged very well. The film’s signature dinosaurs are a mix of animatronic models and CGI creations, and still come across as lifelike. Steven Spielberg has a talent for creating films that are both crowd pleasers and critically well-received, and this is one of his best. Also worth noting is John Williams’ soaring score, which is the perfect compliment to Spielberg’s film.

As I mentioned before, I’m not convinced of the need for 3D upgrades. To me, 3D has always seemed a bit superfluous — after about five or 10 minutes, I usually forget I’m even watching the movie in 3D, unless something obviously jumps out from the screen. However, I thought the 3D upgrade was well done here. Many times, 3D has one of two problems: it either appears too gimmicky, with too many objects flying out from the screen, or it doesn’t stand out enough and just gives the illusion of a little extra depth. Yet with this upgrade, the 3D has been carefully rendered and makes audiences feel almost as though they are a part of the film, like you really could get up from your chair and step onto the island. I was aware of the 3D throughout the film, but it wasn’t distracting.

Even if you aren’t a fan of 3D, the real fun is simply watching “Jurassic Park” on the big screen, especially if you didn’t see it in theaters originally. After watching it previously on my TV at home, it was exhilarating to see the movie in IMAX. It’s truly an immersive experience and is absolutely worth the price of a ticket, whether you’re wanting to relive a memory or experience the film for the first time on the big screen.

Movie review: G.I. Joes return to the big screen with “Retaliation”

All film fans have their guilty pleasures: movies we know fall short of cinematic greatness, but for whatever reason, we still love them anyway. Maybe it’s the over-the-top alien invasion movie “Independence Day” with its endless explosions, or maybe it’s “Armageddon,” featuring Bruce Willis and Co.’s quest to destroy a giant asteroid headed for Earth. For me, one of my favorite film guilty pleasures is 2009′s “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.”

“G.I. Joe” wasn’t fondly received by critics. With only a 30 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a modest $150 million at the box office, it certainly wasn’t the biggest or the most respected film of 2009. But I must confess that I quite thoroughly enjoyed it. I was a fan of the original 1980s cartoon — which was cheesy and campy but never failed to be fun — and for me, the G.I. Joe movie captured that same spirit. I can’t defend it as a great film, but I had a good time watching it in the theater, and I hoped its sequel would be just as much fun.

“G.I. Joe: Retaliation,” released March 28, serves as both a sequel to the original film and a reboot of the franchise. When a mission goes bad, the “G.I. Joes” (a nickname for an elite force of U.S. soldiers) are blamed for the disaster and labeled as traitors. Three “Joes” — Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki) and Flint (D.J. Cotrona) — go into hiding and search for a way to clear their names. They figure out the Joes were actually framed for the botched mission by their arch-nemesis, Cobra Commander. They cook up a plan to defeat Cobra Commander’s ultimate plot, which is to convince various international leaders to destroy their cache of nuclear weapons, so it will be easier for him to take control of the world.

I haven’t found many reviewers defending the film, and I do have to admit that most of the reviewers’ criticisms of the film’s plot, dialogue and characterizations are valid. Yet I still enjoyed it (don’t judge me!), and if you were a fan of the first film, there’s still some fun to be had here.

There isn’t a lot of “down time” in the film, and the movie clips along at a fairly rapid pace. The quality of the special effects has improved since the first film, and there are some nice action set pieces, my favorite being a ninja battle on the side of a snow-capped mountain. It may not be realistic, but it’s impressive and well shot. The best stunt work in the film is done by what are arguably the film’s two coolest characters, the silent G.I. Joe ninja “Snake Eyes” and his villainous counterpart, “Storm Shadow.” The film has some great martial arts style fight scenes between these two characters.

Even though I did enjoy the film, I did have a few issues. By now, most have probably heard the rumor one of the reasons the film was pushed back from its original release date last summer was that the studio wanted to film more scenes with Channing Tatum’s character Duke. Duke was a main character in the first G.I. Joe film but was rumored to have died early on in the original version of the sequel. While I won’t spoil what the film makers may or may not have changed in “Retaliation,” I will say Tatum’s character is still absent for much of the film, and I think this was a mistake. I’m not sure why the studio wanted to get rid of his character originally, especially since Tatum’s Duke and Johnson’s Roadblock play so well off each other. I would have liked Cobra Commander to have appeared more in the film, as well; this time around, he was more of a background character.

I also wish film makers had kept Bruce Willis’ role in the film (he plays one of the original G.I. Joes) more of a secret. His unexpected appearance in the film’s trailer was a fun surprise, but I almost would have preferred if the film makers had waited to reveal that surprise until the actual film. It might have made a better “Wow, what just happened?” moment.

If the first “G.I. Joe” movie wasn’t quite your cup of tea, you probably won’t enjoy the sequel, either. But if you can get past the fact professional soldiers have names like “Roadblock” and “Firefly” and you don’t take the film too seriously, this is a mission you might want to sign up for.

The myth of the blockbuster: How marketing impacts the films we see — and the ones we don’t

The Rotten Tomatoes movie review site gave it only a 20 percent rating, classifying it as “rotten.” Critics weren’t kind in their assessment of it and made comments such as, “It’s confusing and excessive and it just missed the mark completely”; “a painful blend of overproduced action”; and “(a) violent, crude, pointless sequel.”

While this may sound like the recipe for a flop, the film went on to make an impressive $402 million at the box office, earning even more than its higher-rated predecessor. That movie is “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” part of a franchise that continues to be one of Hollywood’s biggest moneymakers, despite frequent criticism from reviewers.

Although the “Transformers” movies aren’t my personal favorites, I have nothing against those who enjoy them, and the special effects are genuinely impressive. I just find it interesting how much money the franchise has made over time, even though it has received quite a bit of flak for neglecting character development. In 2009, the year “Revenge of the Fallen” was released, it even beat out fellow sci-fi title “Star Trek” at the box office, even though the Trek film boasted a much higher rating from Rotten Tomatoes (95 percent).

Negative reviews don’t always sink a movie at the box office, and positive reviews don’t always guarantee there will be smooth sailing (for example, last year’s “Killing Them Softly” had a 76 percent Rotten Tomatoes rating but flopped with only $15 million at the box office). I think studios’ marketing activities (ad campaigns, trailers, building “buzz” online, etc.) are having an increasingly important impact on what films become hits, and — right or wrong — ensuring a movie’s target audience finds the film is perhaps even more vital than achieving critical acclaim.

Marketing can be a tricky profession, because most people don’t like ads. They take up extra space in the magazines we read, interrupt the programs we’re trying to watch on TV, and cut into the airtime that radio stations have to play music. However, whether we like them or not, ads do work. Every time I drive by Subway, I think of the tagline “Eat fresh.” When I hear the name GEICO, I think of a little green gecko. The best ads are the ones that work their way into the public consciousness so thoroughly (and so sneakily) they just become a part of the culture.

Movie studios spend a lot of time working on one of their most effective ads — trailers. They only have a minute or two to grab our attention and make a big enough impression that we’ll remember to go see that movie when it’s released a few months later. The goal is to build enough buzz about the film that seemingly everyone is talking about it, and it becomes more than just a movie — it’s an event. If a studio can create a high level of excitement, negative reviews from critics may not even matter.

A good example of a successful Hollywood ad campaign — and frankly, perhaps one of the best ad campaigns in movie history — is Marvel’s “The Avengers.” Marvel literally spent years building up to this film, patiently releasing individual superhero movies with teasers about S.H.I.E.L.D.’s Avengers program. By the time “The Avengers” finally arrived in 2012, it was the most buzzed about movie of the summer blockbuster season, generating even more excitement than Christopher Nolan’s final “Batman” film.

Although “The Avengers” is a fun, exhilarating film, and I believe its success was very much deserved, it probably would not have earned $1.5 billion at the worldwide box office if Marvel had released it before any of its other superhero films and hadn’t spent so much time carefully promoting it.

Conversely, a badly marketed film can perform poorly at the box office, perhaps even more poorly than it deserves. A recent example of this is Disney’s $250 million sci-fi epic “John Carter.” It received middle-of-the-road ratings from critics, (51 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning about half gave it a positive review). However, Disney’s poorly-executed marketing campaign led to a weak opening weekend (only $30 million) and the film became a rather expensive flop. Another, more recent example, is “Jack the Giant Slayer,” which struggled to find its voice. It received similar ratings but the advertising for the film gave off mixed messages: was this a dark, gritty fairy tale à la “Snow White and the Huntsman,” or was it meant to be a light-hearted, humorous children’s film? I don’t think audiences knew, and the film also flopped on its opening weekend.

We live in an increasingly media-saturated world, and studios have to work harder to get their movies noticed than they used to. The films generating the loudest buzz and the best marketing campaigns more often top the box office. Films that can’t keep up may get buried amongst the entertainment clutter, and this sadly means that good films may slip under the radar. It can be tough for smaller films to compete with multi-million advertising budgets. I think this is why we’ve been seeing more sequels, prequels and remakes lately — it’s a lot safer to make a film that already has an audience and name recognition. Half of the job of marketing is already done.

Another consequence of this shift is that it’s tougher now for film critics from traditional media outlets, such as newspapers and magazines. They too are forced to compete to get their opinions heard. People share their opinions more and more through social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and “word of mouth” has become a powerful marketing force, perhaps more powerful than a “thumb’s up” or a “thumb’s down” from a major movie critic. Is this a good shift or not? It’s an interesting question.

So, what do you think? Is marketing a major force in determining what movies become blockbusters? If so, is this a positive or a negative change?

Movie review: ‘Oz the Great and Powerful’ worth another trip down the yellow brick road?

It’s been more than 70 years since Hollywood first took us on a journey down the yellow brick road into the magical land of Oz. In the 1939 musical classic “The Wizard of Oz,” a girl named Dorothy dons a pair of sparkling red slippers and sets off on a quest to end the reign of a wicked witch and find her way back home to Kansas.

“The Wizard of Oz” continues to be one of Hollywood’s most beloved films, and it’s one of my favorite musicals. It’s always risky to try to return to such a well-loved classic, and director Sam Raimi wisely chose to pursue a prequel, rather than a reboot. Yet is his film “Oz the Great and Powerful” (released March 8) worth another trip down the yellow brick road?

“Oz the Great and Powerful” begins at a traveling circus in Kansas, where we meet Oscar Diggs (James Franco), a magician who’s more interested in conning people out of their money than in delighting them with magic tricks. He’s forced to flee the circus when he angers one of the other performers, and he escapes in a hot air balloon. However, this seemingly lucky escape quickly turns into a nightmare as the hot air balloon is sucked into a tornado, and Oscar vows he’ll try to become a better man if he’s spared from death.

The storm subsides, and Oscar gets his chance to redeem himself — though not in the way he was expecting. He discovers he’s been transported to the enchanted land of “Oz,” a magical world populated by exotic plants and creatures. He meets a young witch named Theodora (Mila Kunis), who informs him that he’s “the great and powerful wizard” the people of Oz have been waiting for to save them from an evil witch. Oscar doesn’t believe in the prophecy, but he’s lured in by the promise of power and wealth, and so he pretends to be the great wizard.

As he meets two more witches, one of whom may not be quite what she seems, he discovers he’s signed on for much more than he bargained for. He begins to feel guilty about his con artist past, and when he realizes that he truly may be Oz’s only hope of defeating the wicked witch, he must decide whether or not he’s ready to be a hero.

From a purely visual standpoint, Raimi’s film is breathtakingly gorgeous. I loved how the film began in black and white, similar to “The Wizard of Oz,” and was projected in a square format. Then, as Oscar’s hot air balloon drifts into Oz, the film gradually comes alive with color and expands into a widescreen format, filling up the screen in the theater. Almost immediately, the camera shoots down a towering waterfall and plunges Oscar (and the audience) into a magical paradise. Vibrant colors literally explode off the screen, and giant flowers blossom as Oscar sails past them. Each region of Oz is a new visual treat, from the art deco design of Emerald City to Glinda the good witch’s whimsical palace. I saw the film in 2D, but I imagine this might have been a good film to splurge on and buy a 3D ticket.

Although I did enjoy “Oz the Great and Powerful,” it does have a few weaknesses, and one of those is some of the casting. While Franco has his detractors as an actor, I am a fan of his. However, I’m not sure he was quite the right fit for this film. Robert Downey Jr. was Raimi’s first choice to play the wizard, and I do wonder what the film would have been like if he had accepted the role. His trademark snarky, confident charm may have strengthened the film. I will say that Franco is, I think, a better fit than Raimi’s second choice, Johnny Depp, would have been, and maybe a little more coaxing from Raimi could have drawn out a deeper performance from Franco. I also thought Mila Kunis maybe wasn’t right for her role as the innocent, gullible Theodora, and I didn’t quite buy her eventual transformation.

Michelle Williams does fill Glinda’s shoes well, bringing a warmth and innocence to the role, and I thought Rachel Weisz turned in a good performance as the third witch, Evanora. I wish Raimi had given her even more screen time and had allowed her to really cut loose, as Charlize Theron did as an evil sorceress in last year’s “Snow White and the Huntsman.” I wanted to know more about her character and see more interactions between her and the wizard.

Even though Raimi’s “Oz” film may fall a little short of greatness, it’s still a fun family film and likely will become the first blockbuster of 2013. I liked all the nods to the original Oz film, but I also appreciated the fact Raimi’s movie found its own tone and brought a unique vision of Oz to the big screen. Raimi works enough magic to transport us, once again, to that land “somewhere over the rainbow.”

DVD review: ‘Wreck-It Ralph’ a fun, nostalgic adventure with plenty of pixelated charm

For 30 years, Wreck-It Ralph has played the villain inside an arcade video game. Each time a child puts a quarter into the machine, he starts smashing a high-rise apartment building. As the residents begin to panic, out pops “Fix-It Felix” with his magic hammer to repair the damage Wreck-It Ralph has done. At the end of the game, Ralph is banished, while Felix is showered with praise and given a bright, shiny medal.

The only problem is, when the arcade closes and all the characters inside the games come to life, similar to “Toy Story,” Ralph still is ostracized, and he’s beginning to grow tired of feeling so lonely. He wants to escape from the “bad guy” label, and he longs to have friends and be accepted like Felix. So, Ralph decides to break the rules and venture outside his own video game and into “Hero’s Duty,” a modern first-person shooter game, where he hopes to win a medal of his own. However, things don’t go quite as well as he planned, and his actions threaten not just his own game, but all of the other games in the arcade.

Disney’s Oscar-nominated animated movie “Wreck-It Ralph” was released on DVD this week, and it’s a clever, charming film that appeals to both younger viewers and adult gamers who remember going to arcades when they were kids. If you didn’t get a chance to catch it in theaters, it’s well worth renting.

Ralph’s journey takes him inside several different video games in the arcade, including “Hero’s Duty” and a candy and dessert themed racing game called “Sugar Rush.” Inside “Sugar Rush,” Ralph meets a character named Vanellope von Schweetz, a “glitch” who isn’t allowed to race in the game. Though Vanellope drives him crazy at first, their eventual friendship causes Ralph to rethink his purpose inside his own game and to make peace with Fix-It Felix.

My favorite part of “Wreck-It Ralph” was, without question, the visual effects. The animation is colorful and eye-catching, and I loved how the film makers created a unique environment for each video game. Wreck-It Ralph’s own game reminds viewers of some of the early video games with simple graphics, such as “Pac-Man,” and “Hero’s Duty” represents today’s slickly-designed, high-resolution games. The soundtrack of the film also is fun, very reminiscent of classic video game music.

While there are plenty of great cameos from famous video game characters — Pac-Man, Sonic the Hedgehog and Q*bert are just a few — “Wreck-It Ralph” introduces some memorable new characters, as well. Wreck-It Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) really isn’t a villainous “bad guy,” and while he may have a temper, he also has a lot of heart. Jane Lynch voices a tough, take-no-prisoners soldier named Sergeant Calhoun from “Hero’s Duty” who shoots off commands and insults as fast as she fires bullets, and Jack McBrayer is humorous as the dedicated and occasionally a bit too earnest Fix-It Felix, who develops a crush on Calhoun.

One concept I wish the film makers had explored a little more is the impact of the shift from simpler games like Pac-Man to today’s complex first-person shooters, and how home gaming systems have drawn customers away from arcades. With intense, fast-paced modern video games, we’ve perhaps lost some of the innocence and fun of those early games. This idea is touched on a few times during the film but never really fleshed out.

While “Wreck-It Ralph” doesn’t pack quite the same emotional punch as Pixar’s “Toy Story” films, I still very much enjoyed it. “Wreck-It Ralph” is a creative and fun film, and a treat for anymore who loves classic video games.