“It’s bringing love! Don’t let it get away!”
“Break its legs!”
(Source: swarovskicrystalmeth, via dividirlasovejas)
The first Star Trek film kind of took everyone by surprise - including myself - by how much fun it was. It was an action packed summer blockbuster with a thrill a minute. I’ve never been a Trekkie but most people who were fans of Trek said that it basically bastardized what the franchise is about, which is space exploration and diplomacy between species, but what’s the alternative? Star Trek stays dead, so really which is worse?
My opinion of J.J. Abrams’s first Star Trek movie is that it’s great blockbuster entertainment but on a popcorn level. It was a movie that satisfied on a basic level of entertainment but rarely - if ever - got cerebral. I feel that Star Trek Into Darkness is very similar except amped up another notch. Bigger set pieces, more action, more laughs, basically if you liked the first one you will probably enjoy the second.
The biggest flaw of this film is that it feels like you can pick apart the actions and the logic of the characters to death if you wanted to, very similar to Iron Man 3’s logic at times. If you just come in to be purely entertained and not think about the themes or what it all means then you will be better off for it.
While I’ve never been a Trekkie, being a nerd in general means that I am familiar with some Star Trek lore. This film does feel like it’s playing to the nostalgia of fans and relying on it in order to succeed. I can’t say any more without spoiling the movie but if you are familiar with Star Trek canon then you will immediately notice it when you see it.
The main selling point of this film is the action and it is stunning. It feels like there’s always something going on in this film every 5-10 minutes. It never lets up and the pacing feels just right even though the film is over 2 hours long. The space jumping sequence was so damn beautifully executed, Abrams’s once again shows that he knows how to build up the tension in the scene with little details that make you anxious for the character’s safety.
I’ve got to give it up to the main trio of performers: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Benedict Cumberbatch. There were a few emotional scenes where my immediate thought was “this is cheap, they haven’t earned this” but then the performances just completely sold me that I was into it by the end of the scene. Cumberbatch is fantastic as usual and a total bad ass. Simon Pegg also has a lot more to do in this film and gets a lot of laughs. I will lament that Alice Eve once again has absolutely nothing to do in this film - which was similar to her role in Men in Black 3 last year - and is an extremely convenient plot point that is negated almost immediately. No idea why she was even in this film to be honest and I think she’s a promising young actor (watch Starter for 10, which also has Benedict Cumberbatch! Haha).
Star Trek Into Darkness is about as much as you can ask for from a summer blockbuster. It has great action set pieces, it’s beautifully shot, has good performances, and a lot of laughs. Movies like these are the reason we go out to the movie theater in the first place, to be transported into a world we’ve never seen and taken on a ride. Don’t miss this one in theaters.
Once Upon a Time in the West
(1968) PG-13 - 2hr 45m
This Sergio Leone classic, a tribute to Hollywood Westerns, stars Henry Fonda as Frank, a deft gunslinger hired by the powerful owner of a railroad conglomerate to kill anyone who derails the project. But Frank contends with the wrong person when he murders Brett (Frank Wolff), a landowner, prompting Brett’s wife (Claudia Cardinale) to hire two renegades (Charles Bronson and Jason Robards) to go after Frank.
8.7/10 - IMDB
View Trailer || Add/Watch on Netflix
I honestly can’t decide whether I prefer this or The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly as far as the best western ever. If you haven’t seen this masterpiece of a film, add it to your Netflix queues!
Saw Star Trek Into Darkness tonight and I’d highly recommend it! Great summer blockbuster popcorn flick. Solid start to the summer movie season with this and Iron Man 3 so far.
It pains me to see the people I care about hurt. I wish I knew what to say or how to fix things, but I’m just a 24 year old who’s barely experienced life myself. I wish I had the answers and I could solve everyone’s problems, but that’s not what life is about I suppose. We all have to find our own way and make our own mistakes, the most we can do is just try to be there to support our friends in times of need or when they’re feeling down. That’s the most anyone can truly ask.
Hi everyone! I have no idea what I’m doing but add me on Instagram! LOL @inezco
Some of my USF friends want to see The Great Gatsby this weekend and I know a few of them aren’t fond of 3D, but I’m not sure if I want to see it without the 3D because while I am looking forward to it I’m most likely not going to see this film twice in theaters. My reasoning to them was “What’s the point of seeing this visual spectacle on the big screen if we’re only going to let director Baz Luhrmann put the tip in?” lol. I’m a big fan of 3D when it’s done right and not a postconverted job. Like I saw Iron Man 3 in 2D because I knew they postconverted it and probably wouldn’t be worth the surcharge. I did make an effort to see a movie like ParaNorman and Life of Pi in 3D because they were made for 3D and the reviews praised the usage. If this was with my best friends I wouldn’t have to explain because they’re all movie people and they know the ins and outs of it, but it’s hard to tell a general movie goer who doesn’t really know/care about the difference between shooting in native 3D and postconverted 3D to go see a movie in 3D. I will concede that some people avoid 3D because it gives them a headache and I totally understand if that’s the reason you do avoid it. However, I wish more moviegoers were knowledgeable about this particular technological aspect of movies and even if I have to be “that guy” I still try to explain the differences.
Do you ever shove your iPod through your dress so you don’t have to take your headphones out while getting dressed? No? Okay.
^ I don’t wear dresses lol, but I do put my iPod through my shirt! *HIGH FIVE*!
To read about my thoughts on the movie before actually seeing it, check out this super long complicated post I wrote right here. I saw this film in theaters but I just never got around to finishing my review, what better time to finish than now when the DVD/Blu-ray release is next week?
Russ Fischer of /Film.com described this film as the paranoia of Contagion mixed with the duplicity of The Informant! and I think he’s spot on. The movie feels cold and clinical like Contagion and much like The Informant! I had no idea where the story was going at first. It’s a bit difficult to get into the movie without spoiling it, but I’m going to try my best not to reveal anything.
This is a small character driven film that does posit bigger ethical questions about the pharmaceutical business and where the responsibility lies between doctors and patients as far as medication goes. It shows how easily the system can be taken advantage of and looks into the grey areas of medication.
The four main actors are all in top form. Can I just say that I think Steven Soderbergh revived Channing Tatum’s career? Haha, at least acting-wise because his recent output has been so great and I think his collaborations with Soderbergh started that trend with Haywire, Magic Mike, and now Side Effects. Rooney Mara is continuing to show that she is a versatile acting threat and has a bright future. I can’t remember the last time I loved Catherine Zeta-Jones in a movie, but she pulled it off here. Jude Law has some really great moments as he tries to figure out what is going on in this film.
I love the way the movie changes in tone/genre. At first it’s a more of a character piece and you’re watching the Rooney Mara character try to work out her depression. By the second half it turns into more of a procedural thriller as you try to unwind the mysteries. There are a couple of moments that literally took me - and my audience - by surprise. It wasn’t like there were a couple gasps (I’ll never forget that screening of The Ides of March where some lady gasped at the most obvious reveal ever lol), numerous times throughout the film there were audible gasps from a majority of viewers in the audience.
If I have a knock on the film it’s that the second half feels a lot more standard whereas the first half was content to just do its own thing and leave the audience wondering. I suppose at some point you do have to unravel the mystery box, but there was nothing that new or innovative brought to that process.
This is a complete nonsequitur so I put it at the end of my review, but I got an added thrill at being able to keep up with most of the medical terminology as well as the protocols one follows for psychiatric disorders. At the same time the movie scared the shit out of me because I thought to myself “Oh dear God! What if I get put into that kind of situation???” lol.
Side Effects is a great thriller and one that I can’t wait to revisit again. The performances are great and the story has a multitude of twists and turns. I hope this isn’t Steven Soderbergh’s last film because he’s one of my favorite filmmakers. If this is truly his swan song then make sure you do not miss Side Effects in theaters.