It's My Football Season (May-August 2013)

I'm not proud of myself that I can already think of the porn title version of this movie.

Plot:  Aliens vs. Monsters

Cast:  Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day

Writers:  Travis Beachem, Guillermo Del Toro

Director: Guillermo Del Toro

Perez Expectation Scale: 6 (Del Toro has never been great for me and the previews made it look stupid) 

                Gigantic lumbering beasts rise from the sea and attack Hong Kong in Guillero Del Toro's brilliant new science fiction film, Pacific Rim.   In the future a portal to another dimension opens in the Pacific ocean and unleashes the Kaiju, a cross between a dinosaur and a giant shark.  They attack cities across the world and humans have to figure out a way to fight back.  If you're thinking that sounds like the plot to Godzilla you would be right but replace a man in a cheap rubber suit with stunning state-of-the-art visual effects and add in me giving a sh**.  For the first time in a monster movie that didn't involve dinosaurs I actually was scared of the monsters.  The sheer size of one is awe inspiring but then they have a terrifying Hammer Head Shark-like head full of razor sharp teeth and spit fluorescent acid.  That's a creature lifted right from my nightmares.  

                And much of the time I was watching Pacific Rim it was like a dream, in that I couldn't believe what was happening.  Del Toro has always had a brilliant visual style but seems so engrossed in the big picture versus the details that the scenery tends to overtake the main action.  In Pacific Rim he is incredibly focused and stages magnificent battles between the giant Kaiju and man-made giant robots called Jaegers, our main weapon against their devastation.  They're piloted by 2 humans who control the right and left hemisphere respectively by neural linking with the Jaeger and with each other.  That's pretty cool and incredibly original which is refreshing.  Also refreshing:  this isn't a film about humans building the robots and defeating the newly invading Kaiju.  This is about what happens after when the Jaegers and their pilots become media sensations and the humans get cocky.  We underestimate the threat which we really don't understand and when the Kaiju adapt, we're pretty much fu***d.   By telling the latter story versus the former, Del Toro avoids Pacific Rim becoming Independence Day in water which allows him to surprise us a little more. 

                Another issue I've had with Del Toro is that his scripts are scattershot and themes are underdeveloped.  Clearly he spends more time on what is on the screen than on paper.  That's what made Hellboy and its sequel to frustrating.  There was great action and scenery but the story was only eh.  Here the script is leaner and efficent.  Part of why is that this move is basically "monsters vs. robots" so it doesn't lend itself to deep philosophical debate.  But wisely Del Toro knows this and puts in enough character development to make us care about what's going on without taking away from the action.  That's where the real fun is.  Del Toro succeeds where the Godzilla remake and all of the Transformers films failed:  he makes compelling colossal action sequences between giant beings where you can actually comprehend what's going on onscreen. It's commendable that he doesn't resort to shaking the camera and quick cuts every few seconds and the results are fantastic.

                The movie isn't perfect because there isn't much of an attempt to go past the surface of the characters.  Yet it surprised me with more depth than I anticipated.  Opportunistic media conglomerates,  idiot bureaucracy, socioeconomic class divisions, and the devastation of war are all touched upon, if not explored.  Still, that's pretty good for a movie that could have been about nothing more than punching and kicking.  I was considering going to see it again before I reviewed it and I still will but I won't wait to post my thoughts.  The effect Pacific Rim had was me with my jaw on the floor for two hours completely transfixed by what was happening on screen. I'm not second guessing that and going with my gut. 

FINAL GRADE: A-

The subtitle of the movie looks like it belongs in an "Anchorman" prequal

                Because I had nothing out to do 2 years ago I went to go see Kevin Hart's first stand up feature film "Laugh At My Pain."   It wasn't perfect but I laughed my a** off.  Hart's stand up is not that of Seinfeld-esque observation but of storytelling.  Like Chris Rock before him, his laughs come from his real life situations exaggerated and filtered through his comedic brain.  Much of his life is not happy but he mines his personal tragedies and disappointments (even about himself) for comedic gold. 

                 Now comes "Let me Explain" which starts off with him trying to address misconceptions about who people believe he is as a person. Much of that has to do with his skyrocketing popularity in the last two years putting him under the microscope of fame that tends to reveal and focus on flaws.  The comedy special features a hilarious collection of stories about his relationships, him newly divorced and trying to find companionship as well as navigate a life where he's a divorced father.  My face hurt from laughing yet I feels Hart holds back.  For a comedian who gets his laugh from talking about his life, he doesn't really dig deep in the new comedy special.   He mentions a lot but doesn't 'explain' much of anything.  He breezes past his cheating and his DUI, actual choices he should explain.  This lack of introspection holds him back from greatness and makes this stand up special less, well, special.   It's a step back in a sense from his previous film where he freely talked about his personal pain and invited the audience to laugh with/at him.  Hart is a funny man, no question, and his star is rightfully on the rise in TV and scripted movies.  But he'll really have mastered stand-up comedy when he does explain himself to his audience and finds hilarity even in his failings. That's what make makes the best stand-up comedians brave and great.  Hart is well on his way, but not there quite yet.

FINAL GRADE: B+

I wonder who's taller: the minion or Mike?

                Over the past few weeks 2 Animated films, Monsters University and Despicable Me 2, were released that take very different approaches to creating a memorable movie.  Both succeed in different ways but there is one winner.

                Monsters University is from Pixar who has hit a bit of slump with two turkeys in a row: Cars 2 and Brave.  Cars 2 was the definition of lazy, taking the characters from the first underwhelming film and putting them in an spy movie just because they could.  Brave was a, ahem, braver attempt because it told an original tale.  It was ultimately too weird and simplistic for Pixar with a story that made you go "really? Bears? That's what all the fuss was about?" 

                I was worried walking into Monsters University because it's a prequel to the immensely popular 2001 film Monsters Inc.  Monsters Inc. isn't one of my favorite Pixar films but it is a charming, funny, highly original movie that I happened to just "like" versus love.  I thought by doing a prequel Pixar was playing it safe and would fall into the same trap that they did with Cars 2.  I'm glad to report I was wrong.  The film has a very different story to tell which makes it a lovely companion piece to the original and actually surpasses it.

                The focus this time is on Billy Crystal's Mike Wazowski. He's a wise-cracking but hard working one-eyed monster who dreams of nothing more than majoring in "Scaring" at Monsters University.

 The problem is as book smart as he is, he's just not scary himself.  John Goodman's Sully has the opposite problem because he is a big lumbering beast that's naturally scary but not so smart. Sully plans to coast along his time at Monsters U and when he meets up with the studious Mike they don't exactly get along.  If you've seen Monsters Inc. you know this unlikely pair is destined to become best friends and leads in the Scaring Industry but in this film they're college age schmucks who think they know a lot more than they do about life.

                 The secret behind the charm of Monsters University is that it deals with the universal theme of trying to find yourself and sets the story in a make believe college that resembles real college life just enough for everyone to relate to it.  Depending on your age those college times may be quite far away but you'll immediately recognize the hazing, the dumb late-night shenanigans, the rivalries, and most of all the wanting to fit in that occurs during this important part of your life.  If you've never been to college you'll recognize Monsters University as a homage to movies about college and can relate to it that way.  It's brilliant.

.

                As with the best Pixar movies the writing takes center stage.  Monsters University is a well written movie that deals with difficult themes in a fun way.  The road to Monsters Inc. is not a purely happy one.  There's a lot of real introspection and self discovery that occurs.  Mike has to ask himself if he's good enough to be what all his life he set out to be.  It's a tough question for anyone to ask himself especially if the answer is "no."  It begs the question: then what am I supposed to do?  It's heady stuff but the complexity of the themes is Pixar at its best.  

                I do feel the film is long by about 15 minutes and at times tries to play off the memory of Monsters Inc. a bit too much.  That's the issue with prequels in general.  They are bound by the confines of the story since we know how it ends (or at least how it ends-ish).  Perhaps if I watched this first THEN Monsters Inc. it would be a different experience but the way it is now there's always going to be a ceiling to how much I enjoy a movie where I know what is going to happen to the characters. 

                Despicable Me 2 is not a prequel but a sequel to the 2010 film. I didn't like that movie. I thought it wasn't all that original and certainly not funny.  It dragged and I didn't leave with the feeling that this was a world I wanted to see on screen again.

                I'm happy to be wrong because Despicable Me 2 is an incredible movie.  It's  far superior to the original in every way.  It's funny, heartwarming and imaginative.  

It succeeds in a big but very different way than Monsters University.  What I liked best about Monsters U is what I like best about Pixar films in general.  They play with profound themes that don't always lead to the neatest of stories.  That allows them to dig deep and get to a level of emotion most films (and animated films in general) don't even attempt to reach.  When it works you get  a masterpiece (see Finding Nemo and Toy Story 3).   Despicable Me 2 doesn't try to go that deep.  I could never describe it as a masterpiece because it's so shallow.  But it plays on the surface so brilliantly that I actually enjoyed it more than Monsters University. 

                I know Despicable Me 2 relies on stupid sidekicks and simplistic story telling but I don't care.  The minions in this movie made me laugh out loud a dozen times or so, an impressive feat since we can't understand what they're saying.  They basically do silent comedy relying on pratfalls and big loud expressions on their face to sell the joke but I laughed my ass off.

  I also knew exactly how the movie was going to end in the first 5 minutes but I still enjoyed myself along the way.  Despicable Me is pure unapologetic simple in your face comedy lacking much of any substance. Yet I was transfixed by everything and left ready for another one.  It reminded me that there is something to be said for pure entertainment that aims to make you smile rather than think. 

                The themes in Monsters University are richer and it's a deeper film than Despicable Me 2.  But I laughed more in the latter than the former.  There's nothing wrong with the approach either film takes but this go around, the more simple film wins. 

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY B+

DESPICABLE ME 2: A-

In the movie The President of The United States is wearing Jordan's. Seriously.

Plot:  Terroists attack the white house. Pretty Much the same plot as "Olymus Has Fallen"

Cast:  Channing Tatum, Jaime Foxx

Writer:  James Vanderbilt

Director: Ronald Emmerich

Perez Expectation Scale: 3 

                Channing Tatum is the next Brad Pitt.  Yes, I'm being factious but not entirely.  He's a pretty boy with a loyal fan base.  They'll pay to see him go undercover as a high schooler, strip in an "art house" film, and nurse a amnesiac woman back to health with just his smile and big bulky arms.

He'll get plenty of chances to work on his acting (which just isn't that hard no matter what movie stars in Hollywood will have you believe).  I've already seen him be slightly less awful (or 'better' if you're optimistic).  So I was hoping his new movie, White House Down, would be a fun and diverting.  Unfortunately, Tatum does some of the worst acting in his career which is saying something because this an action movie so he doesn't exactly have to be DeNiro. 

                 Tatum plays a divorced father who gets an interview at the White House for a secret service position after flirting with a press secretary because, you know, that's fair.  Then terroists attack and he has to spring into action.  Tatum can't pull off the portrayal of a parent.  He comes off more like the wise cracking older brother to a bratty teenager than a loving father. Not only does he not seem like a real dad he doesn't seem like a real person either.  He springs in to Die-Hard mode a little too quickly complete with wife beater and wisecracks.  It's all an imitation, however, as Tatum fails to create a compelling character we want to cheer for.

                   What's left is to cheer for America which is all well and good except that America is represented by Jaime Foxx's Commander-In-Chief.  Tatum should thank Foxx for taking the heat off of him because Foxx is absolutely terrible. He's as Presidential as Dave Chappelle was in those "Black Bush" President sketches. 

You never buy that he's the leader of the free world which draws attention to how ludicrous everything going around him is.  As far as what is going around him: The action is passable but mostly boring which is a shame since the director is Ronald Emmerich who created such memorable DC-set destruction in Independence Day and 2012.  A waste all around but I predict this won't hurt Tatum in the least. He's still good looking enough to star in another action movie not too far off in the future and he'll have had more time to practice by then.

FINAL GRADE: C-

Take out the title and this poster looks like it could be for Jenga: The Movie. Don't laugh. Remember, they already made Battleship.

Plot:  Brad Pitt tries to save us all from the Zombie Apocalypse

Cast:  Brad Pitt

Writers:  Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, Damon Lindelof

Director: Marc Foster

Perez Expectation Scale: 8 (loved the book but I wasn't all the way sold since I heard it was terrible).

            I often respond when asked why I don't read Game of Thrones, "I don't want it to ruin the tv show."  I'm not being flip, it's really the way I feel. I tried to read some of the books once. Between Season One and Two I picked up the second book and didn't finish.  I kept imagining scenes in my head, now using the actors from the tv series to match the characters, and I knew that whatever I imagined could never match up to what I would eventually scrutinize on TV.  So I put it down.   When Season Two began I saw that it followed very closely to what I read of the book.  Watching those first two episodes I was disappointed by what I imagined versus what I saw. I realized I made the right choice.

                Now three years after I first read World War Z and fell in love with its rich characters and the horrific dystopian world it created, the film adaptation is released.  I watched the movie twice because the first time I found that I was comparing it to what I read and it didn't match up.  The movie, which follows the story of U.N. investigator Gerry Allen (Brad Pitt) attempting to find the origin of the zombie outbreak, is nothing like the book. The structure is completely different, the film following one man's story, and the book being told as an oral history by dozens of characters.  The zombies are also fast whereas in the book they were Romero slow.   These changes took me a viewing to get used and I was only able to get used to it by taking a step back from it.  World War Z isn't like Game of Thrones where the source material is mimicked. The film is attempting to show it's own version of the Zombie Apocalpse.  With that in mind I was able to judge the film on its own merits, as a movie that's trying to accomplish something different. 

                World War Z is a is riveting film with fantastically staged scenes of global chaos and societal breakdown that will stick with you long after you leave the theatre.  It belongs in its category as "action horror" because it emphasizes heart pounding action sequences over blood and guts. The film doesn't let up until it does during it's more muted ending but that's not a bad thing.  The last 30 minutes of the film plays up intimate tension over public destruction. It works and that must be a relief to producer Pitt who shot a much different ending until he realized it was terrible and spent 20 million more dollars to fix it.

                The film isn't great however and part of it is that it doesn't accomplish a whole lot of character development during its two hours. Gerry Allen is too busy being chased by zombies and the other characters we only spend time with briefly.  I would have preferred different character's perspectives on the end of the world but that would have been very difficult to squeeze into two hours.  Ultimately I think World War Z's story (or stories) belong more on TV where there is time to develop a range of character.  As it stands now, we only get one story and one character. Although entertaining, it's not exactly memorable and the effect of the film really only works once.  Even upon my one repeated viewing I found that I was less engaged to what was happening on screen.

                As a work of art, World War Z the movie is not as good as the book.  But because I don't want to damn the former for the sake of the latter, I judge the film only as a film.  Unlike Game of Thrones, which is following the book as a blue print, the movie wants to succeed as something else.  I respect that.  As a film, it's entertaining but doesn't reach the level of "great."   

FINAL GRADE: B

In our world it stands for "loud and ridiculous." In a good way.

Plot:  An alien from another world escapes a dying planet and crash lands on Earth. He's raised as a human but he has special abilities which he uses to save people.

Cast:  Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane

Director: Zach Snyder

Perez Expectation Scale: 6 (it looked okay but I've been fooled before plus I thought it I was going to see the same origin story again).

                Superman returns in Man of Steel, an enjoyable enough action movie that tries very hard to wipe away the memory of the previous time Superman returned in Superman Returns.  Enough said?

No.  Just get to the review.

                   Okay.  Man of Steel has a lot of things working against it.  Number one is the previous film which didn't make you believe a Man could fly but rather cry.   Bryan Singer's film featured a super Emo Superman who whined about being an alien for over two hours.  Not what you expect from a summer action movie.

                    The next thing is that it's an origin story with General Zod as the main villain.  If that sounds familiar it's because that's what happened in Superman 1 & 2 and Smallville and in countless other iterations of the character.  I wasn't sure I wanted to see the same story told again. Then there's the age old complaint that Superman is too boring and too vanilla.  These days we like our heroes more complex:  darker with acerbic wit.  Iron Man 3 just made over a billion dollars and many of those tickets were sold just because people like to see Robert Downey Jr. act like a smug as*hole and make fun of people.

                     Lastly there's pressure on Man of Steel to not just launch the Superman franchise but to be the start of the shared universe DC desperately wants.  I guess they got tired of watching Marvel print money. 

So how does it do against those obstacles? 

                    It succeeds overall but better in some areas than others. 

                    1) It completely demolishes the awful memory you have of being bored for 2 and half hours 7 years go in  Superman Returns.  That movie wasn't bad so much as slow and lacking any real action. Man of Steel has a dozen action sequences with barely room to breathe in between them.  Don't drink a large soda because there's no time to go to the bathroom here.  Something is always happening.

                     But the film doesn't just rely on the novelty of watching Superman fly.  These days a lot of our Superheroes fly so the film plays up Superman's indestructibility.   He doesn't outsmart the bad guys and fly away just in time to miss getting hit by a bus that's thrown at him.  The bus hits him and he's violently thrown back (many times through product-placement approved shopping malls and convenience stores.  Did anybody else feel like stopping at 7-11 before shopping at Sears afterwards?).  He doesn't get knocked on his back, he gets thrown at and through buildings and they crumble and fall around him.  It was amazing to watch. In fact, this is the first Superman that delivers in the action department.  Much of this is due to technology which is finally at the point that it can show the more spectacular sequences you'd expect from Superman, but credit is also due to director Zach Snyder.  He can direct the hell out of an action sequence.  One of concerns I had when I heard Christopher Nolan was producing is that his style of directing would take over.   While he can create compelling worlds and characters, he can't direct action.  Seriously, go back and watch The Dark Knight and then watch any action sequence in The Avengers.  Nolan is clueless to staging and editing people punching and kicking each other. Fortunately for us. Snyder's directing style rules here and he holds nothing back.  You don't leave wishing you saw Superman do this or that.  He does it all (or it's done to him).  I particularly liked the fights between the Kryptonians and Superman.   It showed how fast and brutal 2 indestructible people fighting each other would be and the devastation that would occur around them.

                      2)  This is NOT the same old story.  Superman's origin, his parents, Krypton, General Zod, all of it, are presented in radically different ways then you've ever seen them.  There are many examples but the biggest would be that Kryptonians are depicted as products of genetic engineering (Kal-el being the exception), which fits in nicely with the movie's theme of Superman choosing the man he wants to be.  Most everything that happens happens differently than I've ever seen it which is refreshing.  Another change I liked?  Lois Lane knows Superman's identity right away which finally does away with the ridiculous notion that a Pulitzer Prizing winning report would be fooled by a pair of glasses and couldn't see that Clark Kent is Superman.

                      3) Here they whiff.  They actually make Superman more indestructible because Kryptonite is nowhere to be found in this film.  The movie plays the angle that he's suffering an identity crises so that's his pain but that borders on "wah" and they can only use it once.  If the next movie has him in pain because he doesn't know who he is, I'm call bulls***t.   This  film also makes the commendable choice to give Lois Lane and the U.S. military something to do  besides call for Superman's help.  That may not solve the "Superman is too strong problem," but at least it won't make everyone else seem so helpless. 

                    4) I see no reason why Nolan's Bruce Wayne could not exist in this reality besides the fact that Christopher Nolan doesn't want him to.  The world the Man of Steel presents isn't that far off from that in The Dark Knight but I'll let that go.  As a launching pad for other films, the movie doesn't commit as much as it could.  Why not have Batman / Wonder Woman/ Green Lantern or something in their universe make a more noticeable cameo in this movie?  The fact that they don't shows a lack of faith in the shared universe concept.  Come on, DC.  The only way it works is if you go, well, I believe the technical term is "balls out."  

What else was good / bad?

                     The casting is great. Henry Cavill is very good as Superman. He's got the look and the voice and isn't trying to do an impression like Brandon Routh did of Christopher Reeve.  If he isn't as compelling as he should be it's because the script doesn't give him much to work with.  There's barely a moment that goes by without sh*t blowing up.  That's entertaining but that also leaves character development lacking.  We don't get much more than what's on the surface from any of the characters.  I didn't mind it but lack of character development puts an upper limit on the quality of a film.   

                       Kal-El's two fathers: Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner are perfect.  They bring their authoritativeness and earnestness respectively to portray two very different men who are each responsible for the man their son will choose to be.  I'll also admit I teared up during an interaction between a teenage Clark Kent and Costner.  When his father reveals that he's an alien who is the answer to the question of whether we're alone in the universe, the Clark says he doesn't want to be.  He asks Pa Kent whether he can "just keep pretending to be your son?"  His father looks back and responds "you ARE my son."  It's a great moment and a testament to Kevin Costner's spot on perfromance.

                       Amy Adams makes a great Lois Lane: smart, tough, and beautiful.   Michael Shannon is menacing as Zod but he doesn't play it campy which adds some gravity to the proceedings 

Anything else?

                        Let's talk about the ending.  **SPOILER ALERT*** It's controversial because a central tenant of the DC Universe is that Superman is pure.  He does everything for the great good and never goes out of his way to hurt even his enemies.  At the end of this movie however, he kills Zod by snapping his neck.

                         Many people are freaking out about it but I liked it. It shows just how different this interpretation of Superman is.  It adds a nice twist which will come into play in the sequel.  Superman was not the last son of Krypton like in the previous versions of the origin story. Here, he has the ability to rebuild Krypton and save his race from extinction. But he chooses to protect earth and by doing so makes himself the last son of Krypton.  Wow.  He's going to need some therapy for that one.

                          Superman killing Zod also brings up morale questions a certain Masked Vigilante with an affinity for bats will undoubtedly have a field day with. Superman makes the decision to kill because he feels he has no choice.  Zod is threatening a family and beyond that, he tells Superman he will never stop.  Superman weighs the cost of human life not just of the people he's going to kill right then, but of all the people Zod will kill in the future and makes a decision.  Zod must die for the good of Earth.  He chooses to cross that line into murder.  When Batman makes his inevitable appearance and starts making simliar judgment calls, Superman is going to have exactly zero credibility. 

 How he can he lecture Batman about say, killing the Joker's henchman instead of just knocking them, when he's already killed his enemy? What makes Superman the moral authority who can judge everyone?  It's an interesting question and I can't wait for someone to ask it and call Superman out on his hypocrisy.

Jerry Springer Final Thoughts?

                       Man of Steel is loud and ridiculous and because of that it solves many of the problems of the previous Superman films.  It re-launches the franchise in fine form and leaves the possibility open for a larger shared universe when D.C. actually pulls the trigger on it.  Yet, by being so loud and ridiculous and obsessed with action, it also creates problems of its own.  With so much going on, character development is sacraficed.  By the end of the film we've only just gotten to kind of know Superman/Clark Kent.  A film that doesn't dig deep into it's main characters can be good, but never great.  I'm in for the sequel but I hope for some quieter moments (literally and figuratively).  Just don't make him emo again.  He's Superman not Spiderman.

FINAL GRADE: B

I can hear the negotiations now: "You can show Vin is shorter than The Rock but he has to be able to show his biceps in a sleeveless shirt."

Plot:  The Fast and The Furious crew returns for...does it really matter?

Cast:  Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Luke Evans

Director: Justin Lin

Perez Expectation Scale: 7 (#5 as the best of the series so I was excited).

                  Who can forget the most homoerotic scene of the last 10 years? You know the one I'm talking about: Vin Diesel's Dominic Toretto and The Rock's Agent Hobbs have a drag out (but not knock out) fight where they go through glass, furniture and walls without showing signs of slowing. It ends in a draw, of course, because The Rock and Vin are equally as bad ass. Then, for reasons I'm sure you don't remember, they decide to team up and fight the bad guy together.  "Who will ride with me?" Vin asks with his one of a kind low deep voice which somehow also contains a lisp?  "I'll ride with you" The Rock responds and then their hands clasp just as the camera shows a close-up of their veiny sweaty biceps.

                 It's in that extremely gay moment, one that a friend argued is only rivaled by The Carl Weather-Arnold team up in Predator,  that I knew that The Fast And The Furious franchise was reborn.  Now 2 years later comes Furious 6 and fear not, the reluctant but epic bromance between Diesel and The Rock is alive and well as they both deliver just-what-you-expect-performances in a thoroughly entertaining action film. 

Yet the movie is not without its faults as the series goes through some growing pains.

                Furious 6 finds the crew from #5, including Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker),  enjoying their million dollar score from the previous film.  Brian is a proud new father enjoying domestic bliss with Mia (Jordana Brewster) and even Dom has a serious girlfriend and a new outlook.  He's resolved to leave that "old life" behind, (that life consisting of several felonies and jail time), and to enjoy his peaceful new reality.  It takes about 3 minutes for Agent Hobbs to re-enter the scene and up-end that when he tells Dom that Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), his old girlfriend and original member of The Fast and The Furious, is alive.  In order to find her, Dom goes undercover to help Hobbs stop a criminal syndicate run by a man named Shaw (Luke Evans).  He agrees but is reluctant to pull anyone else back into his old life.  His crew being family however, he calls and they come.  Soon they're all in it to get Letty back into the family fold and also for full pardons.

                The structure of Furious 6 is that of a traditional cop movie, where the Fast and Furious crew this time acting as the good guys who have endless resources but are still always one step behind the bad guy.  This is a 180 from the previous Furious movie and because our crew is now on the offensive, it creates all new problems for the story. With any cops-and-robbers film, the cops have to chase down clues that keep the story going and put them close to the bad guys without every actually catching them.  How you dress up the exposition separates really great cop movies from mediocre ones and on this note, Furious 6 stumbles a bit.  The first hour of the movie where the team splits up to chase down said clues is slow.  It also feels odd because we're not used to our Fast and Furious crew sitting and waiting on a lookout or hacking computers (which always looks really fuc***g boring on screen).  We're used to seeing them next to girls in skimpy outfits then racing around running from cops.   It's just not as sexy to be the good guy.

                To make the fact-finding part of movie a bit more enjoyable, the film fleshes out the side characters.  Those of you who don't remember Roman (Tyrese Gibson) saying much of anything in between crashing cars, will be surprised to learn that he's cheap and a bit of a complainer.  We always knew Tej (Ludacris) was a mechanic buthe's also now a techie.  Han is still the strong silent type but he has a new relationship with Gisele (Gal Gadot) that he's slowly realizing feels different than the others.  All these new details add a bit of depth to the characters but it's a leap to take these new personality traits seriously because they come from necessity rather than development.  For example, how else would the crew get all the access it needs if it isn't a great coincidence that Tej is a master hacker?  And the stakeout would be even more boring if Han and Roman couldn't talk about something that the audience is interested in. 

                To be fair there were hints of all of this in the previous films where these characters appeared but it always in the background.  As much time as we spent with them, we never really got to know them.  They were the sidekicks who would drive the cars Dom and Brian couldn't. in this film we're expected to relate to them.  But this isn't the Star Trek crew you think of as close friends and have fun watching interact.  It all feels a bit unnatural.  This is especially true for Roman and Tej's new found odd couple dynamic.  In the end I got on board with it only because I know it's setting up groundwork for future films where it won't feel quite as forced.

                The main story of the movie revolves around Dom and Letty and him trying to bring her back into the fold.  Letty can't remember anything so he has to find a way to get through to her without relying on her memories.  I liked the interplay between Diesel and Rodriguez and to my surprise, I was rooting for them to reconnect.   That's a job well done for the writer and the two actors.

                 But since they are the "main" part of the story, the film runs into their next big problem. The size of the cast has swelled to close to 10, leaving very little for Brian and Hobbs to do.  They do try, however, with Hobbs in the background taking care of some of the plot where he needs police cooperation, and Brian given a nice little back story having to do with his guilt in getting Letty almost-killed in #4.  I wasn't bored by either of their character's stories but it all feels besides the point. Everything Hobbs does just gets us to the next action sequence and that could have been accomplished other ways.  Brian's literal guilt trip only serves to add closure to something I didn't feel needed it  and in no way affects the plot.  In the end, the film suffers from the same issue X-Men 3 had: too many main characters, not enough for them to do. 

                For all the film's struggle to grow up from the franchise's stupid car racing roots, it delivers on the action front. The second hour of the film goes from one solid set piece to another.  Many of them involve Hobbs and Dom individually but in the end they gloriously fight side-by-side.   They even kill one bad guy together. It's a metaphorical hand-clasp.   

                The last 2 car chases are especially preposterous, over-the-top and magnificent. I won't spoil anything for you but if you've seen the previews which show Dom purposely crashing his car to be tossed across a bridge and save Letty from falling mid-air, then you know what kind of show you bought a ticket for. 

I applaud director Justin Lin for his  ingenuity and execution on the action front and for mercifully saving us from Michael-Bay disease: where the quick cuts and shaky camera works are so, ahem Fast and Furious, that you can't tell what's going on.  It's confident direction when you don't try to over-edit your way into creating excitement and tension.

                I really liked this film but it isn't as great as Fast and The Furious 5.  The reason is that as much as the last film changed the franchise, this is the first full movie which tries to be something different.  That takes time to fine tune (see what I did there?).   The growing pains I saw in Furious 6 were expected but I'm in for another one.   I'm confident the franchise will get to that next level.  Because if there's anyone who can get it there it's (SPOILER ALERT) The Transporter.  How long till #7?

FINAL GRADE: B

They maintain these expressions pretty much throughout the entire movie.

Plot:  1000 years after the evacuation of earth, a father and son crash land and have to figure out how to survive.

Cast:  Jaden Smith, Will Smith, Isabelle, Zoe Isabella Kravitz

Director: M . Knight Shyamalan

Perez Expectation Scale: 4 (I predicted this to be the first big flop of the summer).

                After Earth is the kind of movie that's frustrating because so much of it is solid yet it fails to entertain.  There's a good film struggling to break free from the shell of an awkwardly written silly science fiction movie.   Yet it's not so inept it deserves derision, although I may be in the minority on that.

                Fair warning: The first 30 minutes of After Earth are absolutely terrible.  There's clumsily inserted exposition about  events that occurred 1000 years  before the beginning of the film.  We're told Earth was  invaded by aliens (off screen) and we had to leave the planet under the leadership of the elite space rangers who unite humans and blah blah blah.  It's not that anything described is by itself boring but the way the exposition is presented is a giant information dump.  It's an unspiried way to start the film.

                We then met Kitai Raige (Jaden Smith) who is training to be become a ranger.  He doesn't pass because, according to the official-looking guy in charge, he tests well but doesn't meet the requirements on in the field.  What that means is up to your interpretation because not once do we see him in the field unless you count running.  I guessed that he was impulsive and didn't listen to direction because I've seen the preview quite a few times and that information was there.  Pity it wasn't in the movie.

                Cypher Raige (Will Smith) appears soon after.  He's a famous General who has led the humans in fighting the unseen alien's main weapon: The Ursa, genetically engineered Cloverfield-like monstrosities that hunt by smelling pheromones.  The pheromones it zeros in onare the those humans secrete when they feel fear.  Smith enters his first scene with two things he will wear throughout the film: His uniform and his scowl.  Apparently he's so serious because he feels no fear which makes him invisible to The Ursa (referred to as "Ghosting")  This is supposed to be an important character trait but it handicaps the movie badly because Smith never gets to emote which takes away most of his opportunity to develop his character. And he doesn't look fearless so much as perpetually crabby. 

That may have been director M.Night Shyamalan's intention because this is not a Will Smith film.  It's a Jaden Smith film that Will Smith co-stars in.  But by making the character Cypher so one-note, the film comes close to making him an actual cypher.  As a result, Shyamalan squanders his greatest asset.  I've seen Smith carry much worse movies with just his charisma.  Here, he isn't given the chance.

                Perhaps in an effort to highlight the differences between Kitai and his father, the younger Smith overly emotes.  He's supposed to be training to be a tough ranger but he's a crier and most of the film Jaden cries crocodile tears.  For fans of TV's Lost, Jaden is the Jack of the movie; just one stiff wind away from completely breaking down emotionally.

                There is lots of good stuff in this film but you need to get past the crap to get to it.  First off, Jaden Smith isn't a bad actor. He may lay the "wah!" on a little thick but when time comes that the tears are more understandable, his performance is effective.  The film also has much to say about Fear and not letting it debilitate you which is a solid theme it carries  successfully through  until the end.  The ecosystem of Earth the film presents, given 1000 years to evolve without humans, is also fascinating. There are animals and plants and even climates that look familiar but with an added twist. The look and behavior of the animals especially "feel" real because the subtle changes to them look plausible.  I found myself  waiting in anticipation for Kitai confronting the next beast because I wanted to see what it looked like and how it moved.

The technology in the film is presented in a similar way. It's certainly fantastic because this is a science fiction film after all, but it all seems pragmatic and you can imagine how it evolved from what we have today.  And finally the ending of the film brings everything full circle. By the end you've completed the classic hero's journey and it feels like you've been through an adventure even with the simplistic plot.

                There's a lot to hate in After Earth. Most of it is contained in the first 30 minutes but other touches, including hokey dialogue and uninspired directing, plague the movie throughout. Yet I found enough good stuff buried within the mess to be engaged and not hate it.  This movie won't win any awards, and probably won't make money, but it's certainly not going to be the worse film you'll see this summer.

FINAL GRADE: C+

I think someone needs to look up the word "epic" in the dictionary.

Plot:  The Wolfpack get involved in more shenanigans in the "epic finale to the hangover trilogy."

Cast:  Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zack Galifanakis, Ken Jeong, Justin Bartha, John Goodman

Director: Todd Phillips

Writers: Todd Phillips, Craig Mazin

Perez Expectation Scale: 5 (I had very little faith).

                You know a franchise is in trouble when the best thing you have to say about its latest entry is "at least it was better than the last one."  Enter The Hangover series, three comedies about men behaving badly that began with 2009's original surprise hit.  Back then the comedy genre needed something to energize it and a throwback to the R-rated comedies of the 80's hit just the right mark.  It was outrageous and funny with a simple premise that many of us who have had "that kind of night" can relate to.  Unfortunately, it was followed in 2011 by The Hangover 2 which was a carbon copy of the original except set in Thailand. It had its moments but for the most part it proved disappointing and, for me, infuriating.  It cynically profited off the memory of the original without putting in any effort to be different as if to say to the audience, "if you liked that crap, here it is again. You'll take it and like it." 

                Now comes the Hangover Part III which surprisingly does NOT have the 3 leads Stu (Ed Helms) , Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Alan (Zack Galifanakis) drugged and wake up the next day not remembering the night before.  This time director/writer Todd Phillips embraces the idea that sequels can have stories that are different. 

                  The Wolfpack (plus Doug) hold an intervention for Alan.  For what is unclear because I don't think interventions are made for 42 year old grown men who still live at home with their parents but whatever, at least they're not at a bachelor party again.  Alan reluctantly agrees to be driven to a facility in Arizona if Phil accompanies him.  Stu and Doug also go along.  They never get there because they're kidnapped by Marshall (John Goodman).  Apparently the boys' memorable night from the original Hangover 4 years before caused him to lose a lot of money and he's pissed.  Somehow Mr. Chow (a game Ken Jeong  who has fun with the material even when it's not particularly funny) stole 18 million dollars worth of gold bars from him.   Since the only person he's talked to recently is Alan, Marshall wants him to get his money back from Chow.   As insurance he takes White Doug (Justin Bartha) hostage in a throwback to the original that unnecessarily pulls Doug away from the action for the third movie in a row.

                I actually like the set up.  It increases the stakes and ties everything back to the original.  The first 30 minutes after they start their mission are fun with the boys conspiring to drug and kidnap Chow.  But the film peaks about 45 minutes in and then after it's all very "blah."  I kept waiting for something more to happen but the film never reaches that next level.  The energy from the first (and even the second for that matter) isn't present.  A large part of this is due to the quality of the performances.  Galifianakis is likeable but is given entirely too much screen time.  He's best in small doses but here he's the star and that's a mistake. Too much of his eccentricity wears on you and becomes unfunny.  Ed Helms has always been the straight man which he plays here once again, but he's very subdued and not given much to do. Worst is Cooper who looks practically comatose.  He's obviously bored by the material and I can't really blame him but if you're going to take the paycheck guy, at least look a little into it.  Pretend. You know, act.

                The Hangover III isn't terrible and it doesn't reek of laziness like the previous sequel but it's a very non descript way to end a series that was so popular precisely because it was  distinctive.  "The epic finale to the Hangover trilogy" never materializes and I was left with a feeling of "is that all?"  But as the person I overheard said as we left the theatre, "at least it was better than the second one," which is about the best thing I can say about this movie.

FINAL GRADE: C+

How bad ass is the film? It does away with the colon in the title.

Plot:  The Crew of the Starship Enterprise chase down terrorist John Harrison and have to face a much larger threat in the process.

Cast:  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg

Director: J.J Abrams

Writers: Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof

PEREZ EXPECTATION SCALE: 7 (I enjoyed there first film but am not a fanatic and the previews weren't stellar)

              Part of what made 2009's Star Trek so exciting was the fun of unknown.  After years of mediocre movies and television series which seemed more concerned with preserving the "facts" of the Star trek Universe like the exact specifications of a Photon Torpedo XL30 and adhering to correct Klingon pronunciation, the franchise was in a rut.

J.J. Abrams, an admitted non-fan, decided to do away with it all the techno babble and extraneous material and reset Star Trek.  To avoid fan outrage (and I'm sure to keep the conventions lucrative) the "history" from the original Star Trek and it's various incarnations were preserved.  We were told the adventures of our Generation-Y Star Trek crew occur in an alternate timeline.  This meant for the first time 50 years, the  film (and Star Trek Universe) wasn't bound but what came before it but could forge a new path.  Maybe it wouldn't go where no one had gone before but it was full of the promise to take us at least where no Star Trek had gone before.  In this new timeline Planet Vulcan is destroyed.  This leaves the nascent Federation of Planets to be led by the one race the Vulcans considered rash, unreasonable and governed entirely too much by emotion: humans.    Star Trek Into Darkness picks up there, in this new unknown. Athough the film is very much enjoyable, it disappointingly revisits familiar territory and some of the fun of the unknown is lost in process.

                First off I should say this now: SPOILERS AHEAD.   At the start of the film we see Captain Kirk violate the Prime Directive.  Geek cliffnotes: this is a rule that says you aren't allowed to interfere with indigenous life forms.  He does this to save Spock who in turn proceeds to chastise Kirk for breaking the rules instead of thanking him for saving his life.  Kirk doesn't understand why Spock isn't appreciative and is shocked when he details Kirk's violation in the mission's official report.

Kirk is subsequently demoted by Admiral Pike (a terrific Bruce Greenwood).  His reasoning is that Kirk is too cocky and reckless because he has not suffered any losses;  he's relying on blind luck and that luck will eventually run out.  Kirk suffers his first loss not too much later and his lesson in humility begins.  

                I like the set up because it challenges Kirk's ego and discusses something that irked from the first film.  Kirk was promoted entirely too quickly and the film questions whether he's actually ready for the challenge. When we first saw Kirk he was directionless and alone.  Now he has a purpose and is at the place where he needs to be with the people he needs to be with, but he's not necessarily the person he needs to be. Yet.

                 Spock's journey, however, is slightly more frustrating.  At the end of the earlier film his older self (Leonard Nimoy) counsels the younger Spock to embrace his half-human side and  feel.  This is something Spock clearly fails to do because in the beginning of this film he's confused about why Kirk is upset with him.  That's a step backwards from the emotion we saw the end of the last film.  I understand why writers Damien Linelof and co. felt they needed to do this and Spock himself gives a well written speech about why he basically ignored his older self's advice, but it all feels a bit repetitive.

                As the film kicks into high gear, the crew chases down fugitive John Harrison on the Klingon home world (the klingons by the way don't look like the klingons we remember for no good reason).  He's played by Benedict Cumberbatch and he's outstanding.  Cumberbatch has an icy coldness to him that is threatening even when he's not talking. 

When he does talk he does it with such confident deliberateness that you feel as if he's had this conversation before, already knowing what you're going to say before you say or even think it.  Unfortunately as great as Cumberbatch is, when he starts talking the problems increase.  He reveals himself as Khan.  As in Khan from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.   How can that be?  hH explains it in explicit detail.  Cumberbatch's presence on screen is limited and half of it is spent on explaning this meaningless exposition.  But he needs to explain to Kirk (and the audience) what's going on because someone has to.  This isn't a mystery where that the clues are there for us to figure it out.  It doesn't really make any sense, not really.  It reads more like fan fiction where a favorite bad guy is wedged into the story because hey, wouldn't that be cool? In order to make that happen, the plot bends, twists and turns and it's all too much.

                I'm not going to get into the Star Trek history because honestly I don't know it. I'm not an old school Trekkie and I don't hold Star Trek II in such high regard that is affecting my judgment. But Star Trek Into Darkness just tries too hard to make Khan the bad guy.   This hurts the film.  For instance, if you just go by what we see in the film, Khan comes off sympathetic.   In another testament to his performance, Cumberbatch's 5 minute long speech is delivered with such emotion and intensity that I found myself understanding why he commits acts of terrorism.  In his circumstance, I might have done something similiar.  It's only at the end that there is a throwaway line referring to Khan's ultimate plans and how evil they are that remind us that this is a bad guy.  But that feels forced.  The only reason the film wants to make him so clearly evil is that he's Khan from Star Trek II and Khan is evil.   If this were an original character he would be more complex.  As the film nears its climax we see Khan commit some evil actions and then turn on the crew but if you go by what's on screen he's only been evil for like 10 minutes so his switch to full on psycho feels rushed.  The only reason it has to happen that way?  He's Khan from Star Trek II.

                The most exciting parts of the film happen when the filmmakers venture away from original Trek lore.  To give them credit, they do it in a significant way.  The future is not the Star Trek future that existed in the original timeline.  The destruction of Vulcan has scared some of the Federation's now-dominant human leaders enough to push for a more aggressive Federation.  In fact the whole plot is put in motion (as Khan tells us) because a high ranking Starfleet official' attempts to militarize Federation.  This is the "darkness" that the title refers.  The original ideals of the old Star Trek Universe were peaceful exploration and sharing of information for the betterment of the universe.  The unknown was embraced as the path to acquire and develop knowledge.  In the new timeline the unknown is feared and this threatens to make the Federation that emerges more cynical, meaner, and yes, darker.  I loved this part of the film and I think thematically the film is top notch, a testament to the writing. 

                As the film heads towards its dénouement the journeys of Spock and  Kirk converge and eventually parallel each other.  The last 25 minutes has many elements of the end of Star Trek II with a twist.  I admit this is clever but the way I use clever I mean that it's kind of cool but not intelligent. This is the filmmakers retreating to what is familiar. It would have been more interesting and exciting to see something new.

                But I really really like this film.   Remember (or perhaps I'm reminding myself since I can be nit picky) that this is also an action movie and on that front it delivers.  The action sequences are well staged and exciting and, especially at the end, pack an emotional wallop.  The performances are also perfect and I don't use that word lightly.  There is not a single miscast role in the whole movie and that is pretty incredible. The villains are appropriately villainous without becoming cartoony and the main cast has a natural-feeling comradery.  You feel as if they've been through many adventures with these people. Everyone is also given something to do which gives screen time to some of the fan favorites, my favorite of which is Scotty (a very funny Simon Pegg).

                 This is a highly entertaining movie with great performances and rich themes.  It's weakest when the filmmakers  run towards the familiar of the Star Trek mythos instead of trying something new and unknown.  When they do this it makes me less interested in future sequels. I don't want the greatest hits remixed,  I want new songs. 

                  But maybe this is where they'll stop cherry picking from the past.  Maybe the world of Star Trek is now so different (they've entered the "darkness") that future movies will be nothing like the other sequels.  Then they'll be forced to think of something completely new because Star Trek III is about searching for Spock (who's not lost by the time the credits roll) and Star Trek IV is about saving whales and I don't see that working twice.

FINAL GRADE: B+ 

Ironically, tuxedos are timeless.

Plot:  Bondsalesman and writer Nick Carraway moves next door to the mysterious Jay Gatsby.  After befriending him, he gets involved in his complicated love story and learns the secrets of who Gatsby really is.

Cast:  Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton

Director: Baz Luhmann

Writers: Baz Luhman and Craig Pearce

PEREZ EXPECTATION SCALE: 5
(I as intersted in seeing DiCaprio but I didn't feel optimisitc about the story). 

              I can picture director Baz Luhmeran years ago thumbing through J Scot Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby" with ideas swirling in his head; Ideas about how to shoot lavish party scenes seemingly tailor-made for his unique directional style of audible and visual loudness.  He probably pictured Leonardo Dicaprio as the title character because there's not many people who could make an impression on an audience without being seen and not disappoint when finally revealed.  Undoubtedly he was drawn to the theme of love interrupted, something he relishes exploring in all of his films. I understand why he thought the story would make a perfect film for him.  Unfortunately he forgot that the source material (1925's F. Scott Fitzgerald novel) is boring and outdated.

                I'm sure I've offended all English majors and anyone who wants to appear "intellectual" but that's just the truth.  The story, for those of you lucky enough to be assigned Ender's Game in 8th grade English instead, is about a rich man named Gatsby.  He is a business man who throws decadent parties in his house on Long Island.   He has the whole city enthralled in the mystery of who he is and why he never reveals himself.  Since he's not on the page (and the screen) for a good bit, the narrator is Nick Carraway, a Yale university graduate now bonds sales man who moves into an unassuming house next to Jay Gatsby.  He observes the comings and goings and relays the legend surrounding him to the audience.  That's where the first problem is with the story.  Nick is a cipher.  To say he's mild mannered is a major understatement and a nice way to say he's incredibly dull. 

                The movie is told in flashback from his psychiatrist office.  Presumably he's getting over a major trauma. However, we never care about that because we don't relate to Nick.  In the book and in the film he's an observer; a man who has a keen eye for other people's motivations and character deficiencies while ignoring his own.  He's made to NOT be interesting as to not overshadow the real story, which we come to find out is about his cousin Daisy and Gatsby who were in love long ago.  Because he's telling the story, we unfortunately spend a lot of time with someone who is merely a watcher of dynamic people, not one himself.

                Still it might work with the right story but in the book, and now the film, there isn't much of one and what little there is feels dated.  After Nick meets Gatsby, he reveals who he is and how he knows his cousin Daisy.  They were sweethearts during the war and have not seen each other since. Gatsby still longs for her even those she's married and wants to know if Daisy feels the same way.  Nick is then drawn into their drama.  Why?  Because Gatsby needs Nick to invite Daisy over his house and not mention he will be there too.  Some of this is because he's nervous but the main reason is because it's against etiquette for a single man in his social class to invite a married woman in that same social class over to his own home alone.   So Nick, accommodating as ever, obliges. He invites Daisy over to his house. For Tea. In the Middle of the Day.  To make a formal introduction in a socially acceptable way.   Not only is that antiquated but the feelings behind it are as well.  While many of us could relate to getting a friend to help set you up with someone you like, the concern about social class is beyond comprehension in today's world.  Such feelings belong in long ago history like Medieval Europe or in fantasy.  I looked at the whole idea that Gatsby would need Nick to talk to his so called love who lives just across the river as a plot device better suited for an episode of Game of Thrones, that's how foreign it was to me.

                Then there's Gatsby's object of affection, Daisy.  She is so unrelateable that she becomes unlikeable.  The fact that we don't like her greatly diminishes the impact the central love story is supposed to have.   After odd scenes of Nick chaperoning Gatsby and Daisy as they date in secret, Gatsby finally reveals his plan for them to live a life together in public.  All Daisy has to do is to say he never loved his husband and leave him.  Why?  Because it's the "proper" and "respectable" way to do it and start their life together in society.  What? Can anyone alive even relate to that? I think most of us watching this would say "just divorce him."  Why all the pomp and circumstance?  It just doesn't make sense for today's viewer.

                What makes it worse is that Daisy can't do it.  She can't say she never loved her husband because there was a time she did.  People can relate to not wanting to be deceptive so that I don't have an issue with.  But then Daisy decides because she can't say she never loved him, she won't leave him.  He cheats on her and hits her and generally disrespects her but at one time she loved him so she has to stay.  What? I think most of us watching would say "don't be such a wimp and just go."  Not only can she not go, she seems paralyzed by the revelation.  She becomes like the hysterical woman in a 1920's talkie a guy slaps to get to her to come to her senses.  I'm sure many a feminist was not too thrilled with this portrayal of a weak willed old-timey woman.

             Daisy's indecision ruins Gatsby's plan.  He pleads for her to reconsider and just say that she never loved her husband so they can be together.  It's supposed to be emotional but it's datedness pulls today's viewer out of the drama that is supposed to enthrall us.  The premise they can't be together we don't believe because there's no reason they can't be together.  When the solution to their problem is so clearly in front of them and they don't take it it doesn't come across as tragic, it comes across as stupid.

                That "dilemma" in the above paragraph covers almost the entire last 3rd of the movie and what comes before and a after isn't very interesting either.  Uninteresting unrelatable things being told by an uninteresting unrelatable narrator does not make a good movie.  Baz tries his hardest with his usual frenetic energy on screen.  As pretty as things are to look at, without anything we care about happening we get bored looking at it.  My belief is that the source material is the main issue.     

                If I was there years ago when Baz Luhmeran was thumbing through the novel and getting inspiration about how he would turn it into a grand spectacle of a film, I would have taken it from his hands.  In my mind we would have had the same interaction Nick and Gatsby have in the film when Gatsby lays out his grand plans to be with Daisy.  I would have reminded him that the book is dated and that today's audiences won't respond to it.  "You can't repeat the past" I would have told him. He probably would have responded as Gatsby does: "of course you can."  He would have been wrong just like Gatsby.  

FINAL GRADE: C-

I was hoping this poster would be made into a cardboard cut out so I can replace Iron Man's head with my own.

Plot:  Tony Stark is still recovering from the events of The Avengers as he returns as Iron man to stop the evil terrorist The Mandarin.

Cast:  Robert Downey Jr. Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Ben Kingsley 

Director: Shane Black

Writers: Drew Pearce and Shane Black

Iron Man 3?  Wait a minute, I need credentials. Where do you stand on previous Iron Man movies? And would they be called "Iron Men?"

                No that's ridiculous...But on to the other question: I liked Iron Man 1 and loved Robert Downey Jr. in it  but the villain was weak.  I am going against popular opinion to say that Iron Man 2 was better than the first.  Whiplash was a much better baddie than a bald Jeff Bridges and it opened up Tony Stark's world and by extension the Marvel Universe.  I know people thought it was all a distraction with too much "Avengers" Pre promotion but I didn't mind. It was far from perfect however and I could tell a lot of the script was made up on the fly. 

What were your expectations going into this new installment?

                I'm introducing a new component in my review of the summer movies (which by the way is like my football season; every week there's a new exciting entry).  I'm calling it The Perez Expectations Scale.  Since expectations for a movie can affect your perception of the movie, good and bad, I thought it fair to disclose it.  This scale is from 1 to 10:  1 is something I'm dreading watching like Tyler Perry in Alex Cross (which should have been on my top 10 worst but I didn't watch it until after)

10 is something I can't wait for like The Avengers.  I give Iron Man 3 a 9.   I very much liked the previous movies but I wouldn't call Iron Man my favorite character.  But the waft from the awesomeness of The Avengers was still in the air so I was eager to re enter the Marvel Universe.  I'm not a comic fan however, so I didn't know anything about the Mandarin or have expectations about what that should be.

Anything else?

                Sigh.  I'm an idiot and read a major spoiler about Iron Man 3.  If you've seen it it's the twist about halfway into the movie that changes how you see the villain. I was kicking myself after I read it but  couldn't blame anyone but myself. I was afraid it was going to ruin the movie for me.

Enough jibber jabber: review!

                In one sentence:  Iron Man 3 is the smartest, funniest and altogether best Iron Man movie to date, 

How about in MORE sentences?

                The film has so many great things. The first is the return of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark.  As good as he is in the first and the second (and The Avengers), he absolutely kills it in this film. When we first meet him he's suffering anxiety attacks following the events of The Avengers.  This gives Downey emotions to play beyond arrogant and sarcastic and a satisfying character arc, both missing from the previous installments. With more to work with, Downey excels and creates a terrific performance where he manages to be funny and cocky yet vulnerable at the same time.  We get emotion because Tony is hurting but we don't jump into emo territory like Peter Parker in Spider Man 3, 

                Another plus is the plot. The film has more in common with The Dark Knight than it does with the previous Iron Man installments.  The film touchs upon socioeconomic and political themes which feel very much relevant to today. The Mandarin is a terrorist; the Iron Patriot is a military tool of the United States; technology is perverted by the rich to help themselves get more powerful at the expense of everyone else.  The effect is that as fantastical as the men-in-flying-armor movie becomes, it feels very much grounded.  This accomplishment is even more impressive if you think that when we last saw Stark he was fighting aliens from outer space and falling through a wormhole.  He came crashing back to earth and in Iron Man 3 the franchise does as well.  I'm so happy director Shane Black and company know this has to happen. Iron Man isn't The Avengers and shouldn't be it. It needs to exist, live and breathe in its own "realer"  world.

                But being realer wouldn't matter if it were boring and I'm glad to say this isn't All The President's Men;  Iron Man 3 is an action movie through and through which means talk about terrorism is frequently interrupted by fantastic action sequences which rival even those seen in The Avengers.  I counted 4 excellent ones I can name offhand:  The Destruction of Tony's House, Stark Fighting With one Arm and One Leg, The Air Force One Attack, and The House Party.  When you see this move you'll know immediately what I'm talking  about, that's how memorable and well done they are. 

Is that all?

                Goodness, no. Praise must be given to Shane Black, the director and co-writer handpicked by Marvel and Downey.  He brings his sharp and biting wit to craft dialogue that Downey clearly has a ball saying.  His jokes are also hilarious which is crucial because if you think back to Iron Man 2, a lot of jokes didn't land.  When that happens Tony Stark can come off as annoying as****e. Iron Man 3 has a much better hit ratio and Stark comes off an entertaining as****e which is a big difference.

                The supporting cast is amazing. Gwyenth Paltrow returns as Pepper Potts and is given more to do. She's Tony moral compass and much needed ego-deflator who can go toe to toe with Stark's sarcasm and come out the victor.  There is a bit of damsel-in-distress action in the film but it's fairly limited and Paltrow is given a couple of great sequences where she shows how formidable she is, with or without Tony's help. 

 

Don Cheadle has an expanded role as Iron Patriot and this time his repertoire with Stark feels more natural. One of my biggest complaints in 2 was that him and Downey didn't really seem like friends.  Here they do and much credit goes to the script.  Ben Kingsly is highly entertaining in a surprsing way as The Mandarian and Guy Pierce gives a strong performance as Aldrich Killian that is better every time I watch it.

Is there anything that doesn't work?

                I giveth and taketh away:  I'm going to complain about the script. For the bulk of the movie it works amazingly.  Tony is troubled and we see real pain that he can't just make disappear with a sardonic quip.  We know that he has to confront what's really bothering him in order to move past it and get better and we start to see that happen.  But then about an hour or so in, he "snaps" out of it.  This great for the plot because he's back to building stuff and killing people but it's also unfortunate because it cuts his character arc  short.  Tony doesn't really do anything to rid himself of his anxiety attacks, he just barrels through them and distracts himself by concentrating on The Mandarin.  This allows him to build things and fix things and avoid reflecting on anything.  This would have been okay if the film acknowledged Tony was implementing  a quick fix and has a lot of real work to do in the future, but as the film ends even Tony admits everything is wrapped up in a neat bow tie.  The last minutes feel rushed, forced, and ultimately unsatisfying with Tony pretty much saying in voiceover "Yup, I'm good."  He's absolutely not. I think the only reason they did this is to add finality to the trilogy because Downey may not come back for a 4th.  I would preferred they had left it more open ended rather than the forced closure.

Hmm...interesting. You mentioned a spoiler? Did it ruin the movie for you?

                Actually I think it helped. I won't reveal the spoiler here but I will say if you don't go with it, you're not going to like the rest of the movie.  I've seen a lot of fanboys moping about it online already.  Because I knew what was going to happen I was able to watch the movie a bit more disconnected to some of the false plot development which ultimately helped.  The proof is that my cousin and friend both admitted upon our second viewings (just 2 days after the first because we are awesome like that) that they liked it better after knowing the twist. 

Where does this stand in The Marvel Universe?

                Right below The Avengers and the more I watch it (i've seen it 3 times), the less the gap between them becomes.  The movie is extremely re watchable with great action and likeable actors and characters. It's not perfect but no movie is and it has the unenviable task of coming right after The Avengers which a monumental cinematic accomplishment.  But I really really liked Iron Man 3 and left with a smile on my face.  I can't ask much more than that?

Anything else?

                Just an open plea to Marvel and Robert Downey Jr.: I know you tried to make it seem like this was the last Iron Man but it ultimately doesn't succeed as an ending.  It whets the appetite for more adventures which I think is a new beginning and I would like Downey to be involved in.  Please get on that like ASAP, pronto, and immediately. 

 FINAL GRADE: B+