STAR TREK  INTO  DARKNESS  3.0***

        “Star Trek Into Darkness” should be renamed “Star Trek In Name Only”. What has always distinguished Star Trek from other sci-fi is the thoughtful way that philosophical and sociological commentary was woven into the stories. The true Star Trek movie is not just a lot of sci-fi nonsense but a meaningful exploration of what it means to be human. In the past, Star Trek has been intelligent and character driven. Now it is all fancy CGI and snappy one-liners. Director Abram's Star Trek is an action-for-action's sake Kirk and Spock buddy flick. His preference for violence and political intrigue makes Abrams' vision more Star Wars than Star Trek.

 

 

' "Star Trek Into Darkness" bursts onto the screen, guns blazing. It's a flashy, loud, sensory barrage that never lets up. . Sometimes this  works, other times it doesn't. I kept hoping for the quieter scenes just for a break from the run-run-run of Abrams' constantly moving cameras. But then we're left to focus on the script. And the writers  might have had something new and different if they weren't so obsessed with "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan". It looms large over everything in this movie. Every redone line, every recycled plot point, they're all reminders that this movie could  been a much better Star Trek movie, instead of a  remix the of the original Khan movie.

 

It's not all bad. Although the original cast and many nostalgic and closed-minded fans might claim that no actors can equal the originals, in  my opinion, this is not true. Chris Pine's version of Kirk is much more diversified, down-to-earth and human than what I recall from the originals. Zachary Quinto's role of Spock is simply incredible and his acting is simply outstanding throughout the entire movie. Benedict Cumberbatch is an incredible, intense villain and the film is worth seeing for his performance as Khan.. Add to this a brilliant over-the-top incarnation of Scotty by Simon Pegg. Even the secondary roles were  well cast . They all did a very good job which hasn't always been the case in the past.

There's nothing wrong with the acting, music, or look of this film... just a lot wrong with the script and the tone of the whole thing. If you're not a Star Trek fan, you'll likely enjoy it... it's big, over-the-top, popcorn action movie. But if you are a Trek fan, particularly one who enjoys the quieter explorations of the human condition then you might be disappointed.

CLARK

 

3.0*** out of 4***

 

 

IRON MAN 3  .... 2.5 ***

The first Iron Man movie changed the way comic book adaptions were made. It (for better or worse) began the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" that climaxed with “The Avengers”. This is the first Marvel movie to be released after The Avengers, and in many ways it proves that the series is still going but with needs much better writing and more devotion to the original Marvel themed stories and characters..

The acting from the main cast members is great. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be the perfect Iron Man, I just can't imagine a better suited actor. His comedic timing is perfect, and he allows Tony Stark to be lovable while being a total jerk. Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle don't get a lot of screen time, however, they are wonderful when they do. Ben Kingsley, Guy Pearce, and Rebecca Hall are all good but underused. The rest of the cast is perfectly adequate, however, there seems to be a theme of casting great talents and completely under using them.

The writing  is the biggest failure of the movie. The comedy works well (partially thanks to Robert Downey Jr.) and the action scenes are good, however the plot hidden behind the popcorn fun is plain awful. I have never really liked movies that deal with "super soldiers" and "protecting the president," and this movie deals with both badly. The technology written into the series continues to become more and more ridiculous. And the plot twist manages to reduce the main villain ( Mandarin)   to nothing.  
 

The CGI is near perfect in this film, and there is a ton of it. There are scenes where Iron Man's suit magnetically attaches to Tony in separate pieces and it looks totally convincing. The explosions and impossible technology look great too.

The soundtrack in this movie is a big disappointment. Hans Zimmer has inspired many with his booming and electronic score for Inception and the Batman franchises. This concept has been replicated a hundred times since those movies, and in lesser hands it is nothing but a loud mess. This is the case with Iron Man 3. The score is loud and booming, and completely forgettable, dull and repetitive.

This movie is mindless, unimpressive, forgettable, action packed... but still enjoyable as an Iron Man action film. It is a fun summer blockbuster popcorn movie that will leave your mind as soon as you leave the theater. That being said, if you liked The Avengers and Iron Man 2, you will likely enjoy this movie as well but it fails to come close to either… it’s the worst of the 3 iron Man movies.

Clark

 

HOME RUN  2.8***

        First of all, this movie is not really a story about baseball; it is a story about a ball player's slide down into the abyss of human despair. Ultimately, through a 12-step program (the Christian-based Celebrate Recovery), his life is redeemed.

We have all seen quite a few sport-hero-types act out quite badly, due to their addictive / compulsive lifestyles. Many times, they'll apologize to let us see that they are trying to make nice. Some even have to suffer consequences. In Home Run, we catch Cory Brand playing out the same scenario. He messes up badly (includes harming a kid during a game) due to alcohol addiction  then agrees to jump through the hoops to lessen the consequences he has set in motion. If he can charm his way past the media and team he thinks he’ll  come out smelling like a rose. However. instead he gets an 8 week suspension and must agree to help coach a little league team back in his small home town.

As a result Cory  gets a chance to take a  long hard  look at his painful past and end the process that is spiraling out of control - that is, IF he will let himself. As he goes from one chaotic mess to another, Cory begins to slow down long enough to reach out for help. Although the movie portrays a Christian theme for recovery, the movie is not preachy. The stories presented during the recovery scenes were taken from real-life recovery stories; lending a bit of authenticity to the picture. The  Celebrate Recovery 12 –step program shows how real hurts, hang-ups and habits can be healed and  people can be changed for the good and have freedom from shame and our past.

Most Christian movies I have seen do not have very good production values. Story lines tend to be very predictable; and characters and dialog rather one-dimensional and not very realistic. Not so with "Home Run". I  enjoyed Scott Elrod's portrayal of the baseball player in need of repair. I thought the character was entirely believable  The young actors who played the little league team players had their moments, a couple of which were good for a chuckle.

My problem with the movie is that it’s a little too long and spends too much time repeating his continuing failures and screw-ups and not enough time with the recovery process.

Nonetheless, for an uplifting experience with a good Christian theme, I highly recommend this story. It is rated PG 13 for some mature themes involved in the story.

Clark

 

OBLIVION  3.3***

   The movie is more of an amazing, dazzling sight to see than it is a good story for an inquisitive mind. It’s  packed with so many twist and turns you find yourself in a  guessing  frenzy. But  Oblivion's wonderful scenery and action is more than enough to make you  enjoy  what is happening on the screen, than worry about what the story is trying say..  

Oblivion is based on an unpublished graphic novel of the same name by the director and producer Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy 2011). The movie is able to bring to life his idea and concept, thanks to the $120 million production backing of Universal Studios. Although I still think that the movie is a must see, it lacks in the area of its story. The story’s concept is good, but it’s the screenplay  that fails to grasp and propel the concept, and the story ends up slow and confusing. There are several great action scenes , but the time you have to wait until the movie truly picks up may  work for many viewers, and may not for others

The storyline is about what happens 60 years after the earth was attacked by aliens known as Scavs. It is the year 2070 and the movie  focuses on two of the few remaining survivors, Commander Jack Harper, and his female assistant played by Andrea Riseborough,  who live in a glass work station above the earth . Jack is a drone repairmen. The drones are used to protect several gigantic power stations still on earth that is supposed to provide power to the survivors who live on one of Saturn’s moons.. While fulfilling his duty Jack discovers a crashed spacecraft which  contains things that bring in to question everything he believes about the war and its aftermath. Later he is captured by a group led by Morgan Freeman who are still on the earth and he uncovers a truth that rocks his entire existence.

 Tom Cruise's performance may be the next best thing this movie has to offer with the best being the fantastic cinematography ( lots of CGI ) and special effects, and this alone makes it a “must see” on a big screen. ( I saw it at a genuine IMax theatre).  So if you are a fan of the Mission Impossible man, you will surely have fun with this movie. But my final take is Oblivion could have been much better.

Clark    3.3*** out of 4***