Upcoming Movie Roundup -- July

Here we are... the first in what will be -- if all goes according to plan -- a monthly summary post on my thoughts, opinions and predictions about upcoming movie releases. Obviously, I can't touch on every movie coming out in a month; I'll probably mostly include movies I'm interested in seeing... or movies I definitely don't want to see... or ones I haven't decided on yet. But I guess we'll see.

Despicable Me 2
Releasing July 3rd
Starring Steve Carell as Gru, the previously reformed bad guy, who is now being recruited by the good guys to help them stop more bad guys.



I'll be honest; I only wanted to see the original because of that "it's so fluffy I'm gonna die!" line. And the movie didn't turn out bad, but it wasn't great, just, mildly funny. The sequel is, well first of all, it's a sequel, and that doesn't usually mean good things. Then, if the trailer is anything to go by, I can guess who everyone's favorite characters are -- the minions! And they only mean less plot and more kiddie-humor. So maybe I'll see it in a couple years when it comes on tv... if I'm really bored.

The Lone Ranger
July 3rd
Starring Armie Hammer and the man in the mask, and Johnny Depp and his wierder-than-I-remember Indian sidekick.



"The Lone Ranger" aka, "The Johnny Depp Show" and don't bother denying it... Nevertheless, I still want to see it eventually. I don't hate Depp or anything, and it looks fun... stupid, but fun. Plus, you gotta see the film reboots of old tv shows! There's no way this is a really good movie, but if my high hopes come through it'll be a briefly exciting summer blockbuster, and that'll be good enough for me.

The Way, Way Back
July 5th
Starring Liam James ("little Shawn" from Psych, anyone?) as Duncan, who's having something of a hard time while on vacation with his mom (Toni Collette) and her annoying boyfriend (Steve Carell). Also starring the ever amazing Sam Rockwell.



This film wins "most interesting July release." Sam Rockwell and Dramadies is one of the best combinations ever, and reviews so far say he steals the show. I'm already sold. Plus the trailer makes it look like such a funny, endearing coming-of-ager.

Red 2
July 19th
Starring Bruce Willis as a retired CIA operative, who is still getting into trouble.



When I heard they were making a sequel to Red, one of the most cheesily awesome action movies I've ever seen, I was temporarily very excited, until I found out that Karl Urban wasn't going to be in it! Things went downhill from there, and now I'm not sure I want to see it at all. There's lots of explosions and ridiculous stunts, but it mostly looks like a step-down-from-the-original rehash, and it'll have to get some pretty good reviews to really convince me otherwise.

The Wolverine
July 26th
Starring, of course, Hugh Jackman as the Wolverine.



What do you do when you have an un-killable superhero on your hands? Create a way to kill him, of course! Otherwise this movie would just be a carbon copy of that X-Men Origins movie... ugh. The Wolverine is a very highly anticipated movie, but for some reason all that stylish action and drama and what-the-heck moments in that trailer isn't too terribly exciting to me. But I want to want to see it, so in a couple weeks I probably will. I mean, it is Hugh Jackman after all.

The Prestige

Are you watching closely?

"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called 'The Pledge'. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird, or a man."

"He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't."

The magician is Christopher Nolan, visionary director of many mind-bending movies and everyone’s favorite superhero. The stage is 1890’s London; dark, smoky and bustling. Stage performances is the way to be entertained, and magicians and illusionists scramble along with the other performers trying to discover a trick no one’s ever seen before, and place themselves above the competition. But the business is a fickle one, and a dangerous one. The ordinary object is two men -- two magicians -- Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman). And of course they are anything but ordinary. Borden is a talented magician; his tricks are unique and hard to spot, but he doesn’t know presentation like Angier; he can present the simplest trick with a dramatic flair that makes it seem amazing.

Filling in the background for support are many more talented actors including, Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall, Andy Serkis and David Bowie.

"The second act is called ‘The Turn.’ The magician takes the ordinary something, and makes it do something extraordinary."

This may be a very short review. As interesting and complex as this movie is, almost everything want to say about it could be a spoiler. An incident causes these two magicians to wage war on each other throughout the film, and their rivalry is blown into enormous proportions.

The performance is immaculate. Filming sets the dark, suspenseful tone with a deep, rich, 1800’s beauty. The script is polished, and filled with mystery; every word conceals important clues. Nolan, as usual gets everything he needs out of his actors. Bale and Jackman stand out as exceptional of course, -- and I especially enjoy Jackman -- but no one stands out as giving any less than they should.

Every element of skillful movie-making falls into place with ease, and the result is a gritty, thoughtful, complex tale of magical revenge... and a little mind-blowing.

“Now you’re looking for the secret, but you won’t find it because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be… fooled.”

I could nit-pick a few things that don't quite make sense if you really think about it, and the movie is very dark and sad; if you're all about sweet happy movies where you never have to worry if the ending is going to be a "good" one, this might not be the best movie for you... but still I would encourage you to give it a try.

This movie goes deep and dark, presenting its twists and turns masterfully, in a way that explains everything, yet lets you think you figured it all out yourself. It appears to be extremely complicated, but you always understand exactly as much as you should in the moment. Its thoughtful sobriety is the kind that usually makes a film a one-time deal -- except if you like downer movies as long as they're good -- but unless you absolutely loathed your first viewing, a second is all but required. The first time you understand it; the second time you get it.

Now I don't mean to say in any way that this is not an enjoyable film. It is dark yes, and sometimes melancholy, but it is also energetic, engrossing and sometimes astonishingly magnificent. The messages may not be the most uplifting, and they certainly don't teach through example, but they are honest and true. And there is plenty of excitement to be had -- if there's one thing Christopher Nolan is good at, it's making serious, seriously thrilling movies.

"But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call 'The Prestige.'"

Eleven.

Stardust

Sometimes it seems that the best, most original premises for stories can be summarized in a single question. For instance, the question, "what if we aren't alone in the universe?" has sparked countless alien movies, and then "what if aliens aren't evil?" sparked countless more. The more simple and unique the question, the more interesting and unique the story could be.

So take this one; "what if the stars gaze back?" Simple and unique to be sure, and also a bit quirky -- it would be right if its story was quirky too, It's imaginative, so a fantasy, with magic and sword-fighting, and flying pirates and witches. It might be a bit cheesy, but it would also be funny, exciting and sweet.

Stardust is all these things and more. Stars do gaze back, and what more, sometimes they accidentally fall. (Shooting stars!) One star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) is unceremoniously knocked from the sky by a large gemstone set in a necklace when the dying king of the realm of Stormhold sends it flying into the night, telling his three sons that one must retrieve it to claim the throne. As the star falls, three sister witches see it, and one goes out to find it, so they can consume the heart and be young again.

"A toast! To the new king of Stormhold... whichever of you fine fellows it may be."

In 1800's England, in a small village called Wall (so named for a mysterious wall on its border), a boy named Tristan (Charlie Cox) is trying to win the hand of his beloved, the beauty of the town, Victoria (Sienna Miller). They see the star falling, and make an agreement; if Tristan can bring the star back to Victoria by her birthday in one week, she will marry him; if not, she'll marry that pompous rich fellow Humphrey (Henry Cavill, and almost totally, hilariously, unrecognizable). Tristan is determined to succeed, but no one ever crosses The Wall. Once that little hurdle is jumped there's an unexpected problem; Tristan had no idea the star would be... a woman. And she's not too keen a being a birthday gift.

Obviously, she needs some convincing. Maybe bribery.

If there is one movie that just screams "high-flying, full-throttle, incredibly fun fantasy adventure" it would be this movie. The story, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, is wonderfully complex for a lighthearted fantasy, with basically three plot lines running simultaneously, and intersecting every now and then. Tristan and Yvaine, on a time limit, hurrying towards the wall, the witch Lamia, Michelle Pfeiffer, growing older and uglier the more magic she uses, in pursuit of the stars heart, and the youngest prince, Septimus, Mark Strong, a likable bad guy if there ever was one, in pursuit of her necklace. There's also a pirate with a fearsome reputation, Robert De Niro being unpredictable, a kidnapped princess, ghosts for comic relief, and what fairy tale would be complete without a unicorn?

Oh no! Not... unicorns!! Just kidding, everyone knows unicorns are nice!

Acting wise there's nothing special, in spite of the all-star cast, which lesser-known Charlie Cox as the unlikely, awkward hero holds up against very well. Claire Danes' sarcastic heavenly being is a little strange at first, but she grows on you. The two together don't click as well as they should, which is slightly disappointing, especially when I realized that a sweet moment between girl and mouse was just as romantic as a sweet moment between girl and boy. Still, I hardly noticed that enough to care; there's so much more to occupy your thoughts.

A star learns to waltz...

The quirky plot unfolds briskly and smoothly from beginning to end. Aided by active, sweeping cinematography moving from place to place and scene to scene seamlessly, tying everything together with style. It also showcases some beautiful, middle-earth-like locations, and some epic, magical sets. The humor is hit and miss, and as the rating says, some of it is mildly rude, but it is usually at least mildly amusing, and sometimes it hits and is downright funny. The cheesy-ness is sometimes laughable as well, but in a purposeful way. (Self-deprecating humor makes everyone like you!) The action is swashbuckling at times and magic-y at times, and is good and exciting all the time.

Yikes.

Stardust is the practically the definition of it genre. Yet I consider it to be extremely original. It succeeds in telling a fun adventure story and in making it funny, romantic and fantastic. It's very light fare -- never going deeper than about, oh, two inches, but it lightheartedness also makes it endearing... and cheesy. Still it has its "serious" moments and its fantasy action and violence. It may go overboard, but it does it whole-heartedly, making you want to join in on the craziness, the fun, the giddy enthusiasm. And with a unique, memorable story is told this well, I have nothing else to say except jump on in.

Number ten!

Jack the Giant Slayer

Not to be confused with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, or Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. Those are nothing like this movie; they have colons in their titles!

Okay, there is one pretty big difference I suppose... Jack the Giant Slayer, with a cheesy PG-13 rating, is more of a kid's movie. But does that really set it apart?

Fee fi fo fum. Ask not whence the thunder comes. For... giants-- giants make the thunder... yeah.

Jack starts out just farm boy, not a giant killer -- he doesn't even know that giants exist! When he was little, his father used to read him stories at night about the giants, but now his father is dead, and Jack lives with his uncle. One day Jack's uncle sends him to the market to sell a horse and cart, but Jack is distracted by the local beautiful princess making an appearance, and the cart is stolen. Then he sells the horse for a tiny bag of beans. Okay, so the horse was basically stolen too.

Later that night the free-spirited princess Isabelle -- whose now dead mother also used to tell her bedtime stories of giants -- runs away from the castle and her father, who wants her to marry his right-hand man Roderick. In the storm, she finds her way to Jack's house, where a few minutes later one of those beans gets wet, grows very large very fast and very high, taking the house and Isabelle with it. Jack, well... falls out. After he explains what happened to the king (and they have to believe him because there's a huge beanstalk towering right behind him) he volunteers to go with the search party assembled to find her, led by Elmont, who is the head knight, or personal guard to Isabelle, or, something important. Roderick and his henchman also come for devious reasons of their own, and the adventure begins!

Hero shot of heroes heroically climbing bean stalk!

So take an old fairy tale, take away anything "uninteresting", add epic elements, a dash of comedy, a smattering of romance, then smother in digital effects and blend thoroughly, and you have yourself a nice modern take on a classic tale that everyone will love. Guaranteed. Or so it seems every filmmaker is thinking now. Fairy tales have never been out of style of course, but the modern fixation on making them... epic -- at the expense of other things -- only seems to degrade them. Some worse than others; the two I mentioned at the top I wouldn't waste time on, but Mirror Mirror was cute, and I laughed my way through Snow White and the Huntsman. I'm even looking forward to Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella. But how does Jack do? Well there are good things, and there are bad things.

("The good thing don't always soften the bad things, but vice-versa, the bad things don't necessarily spoil the good things, and make them unimportant.")

Good things: The acting, and characters, definitely. Nicholas Hoult as Jack was a good hero, very sweet and brave, but his real acting skills were mostly underused I think. My "oh yeah, I have seen him before" moment: He kissed Jenifer Lawrence in X-Men: First Class, was killed by Medusa in Clash of the Titans, and (my personal favorite) was totally creepy in a Kenneth Branagh Wallander episode. I'm looking forward to getting around to watching him in Warm Bodies sometime, and hopefully in many movies to come.

Everything I think of to say here gives away the fact that I think this is a very cute photo... so I'll just admit it.

Ewan McGregor was the picture of charisma as Elmont, with his spiky hair, his charming smile, and his twirl-able mustache. His true talent was also not really used, but I really enjoyed his character, being heroic at every turn, and keeping the energy high. Without him, Jack (the person and the film) might have easily ended in dismal failure. He's the true hero of this tale.

You know that's right!

Then there's Isabelle, played by Eleanor Tomlinson, and I can't say if she was used to her full potential or not; I've only seen her before as a young version of Jessica Biel in The Illusionist. But she did impress me by not being a completely generic princess. She was, however, a completely generic damsel in distress, not the fighting princess who can take care of herself. I thought that was strange, but I'm definitely not complaining.

Jack and Isabelle take a breather for a "moment."

Stanley Tucci as the traitor baddie Roderick wasn't as good as I was hoping he'd be, but I guess my expectations were just too high. He was very good, just, again, underused. Lastly I'd like to mention Bill Nighy in the role of the two-headed leader of the giants. He was pretty much the only enjoyable thing about the giants. As my brothers said, "he sounds like... like, Davey Jones." Yep, and it's a good sound for him. He made the bad guy actually memorable.

Roderick and his... minion.

And that leads me perfectly into... the bad things. Deep breath. It seemed like the digital effects were the whole point of the movie, but they were no good. The opening sequence looked seriously like a video game. Lazy, I suppose? Everything looked cheap, and the giants were barely animated better than they appeared to be in the trailer (which was horribly). There was also too many gross-out moments with them -- too childish -- but, on the violent side, there was too much as well. Was this supposed to be a kid movie, or a teen movie? I don't think anyone decided; some ridiculous stunts and stupid "humor" didn't match the more mature PG-13 violence level.

Story/script wise, it was pretty mixed. There were some unique plot devices and details, but overall it was pretty lifeless, despite some valiant efforts from the cast. Interestingly, I thought it got better as it went along, unlike most movies that just give up about halfway through. And the ending actually surprised me very pleasantly. Even though it was immature and cheap at times, I enjoyed it thoroughly in its good moments, and there were plenty of them. Not to be taken seriously by any means, but it was a fun ride.

Number nine!

War Horse

War Horse. Steven Spielberg. Good movie. Tom Hiddleston. Benedict Cumberbatch.
The end.

Okay, okay, that's my short version. I'll see if I can come up with something a little longer...

War Horse. Steven Spielberg's WWI epic based on a novel and a play about a remarkable horse named Joey and his journey through the war. Young and unbroken, Joey is bought by Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan) who was supposed to buy a plow horse. Ted's wife Rosie (Emily Watson) is obviously none too happy with him when he brings back the useless beauty as they need a plow horse to make the money they need to keep their farm.

The Narracott's have a nice family argument about Ted's latest foolish purchase.

Their son Albert, who has been watching Joey grow up, is already enamored, and convinces them to let him keep and train Joey -- which he does -- and the two become as inseparable as a boy and his horse can be. Albert even gets Joey to plow the field, which is nothing short of a miracle, and things are looking up... until a huge storm washes away the crop and the Narracott's are right back where they started. When Britain goes to war Ted takes the opportunity to sell Joey for much needed money. Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston) buys Joey, but promises to return him to Albert... if he can.

Promises, promises!

This is definitely a Spielberg movie. There is one dead give-away to that fact; no matter how you look at it, the leading character is a horse. No human characters get enough screen time for it to be anything else. But Joey is a good lead -- I could even praise the many horses that played him as good actors if I felt like it -- even though he never speaks we come to understand him and pull for him as he witnesses the horror of war, and finds the silver lining.

Best buds Joey and Albert.

If "main character" requirements include being human though, the title would fall to Albert, played by the then-newcomer Jeremy Irvine. Since he's starred in a couple more movies, including a version of Great Expectations that I'm almost dying to see, and see if Irvine isn't just a one-hit-wonder. In spite of being a newbie in a big Spielberg film, Irvine does a great job, and puts in a pleasing, solid performance, and holds his own against some pretty big names.

Benedict Cumberbatch, don't-know-don't-care, and Tom Hiddleston.

These guys are my favorite. I mean, really, how awesome is it that Loki and Khan were in this movie together before anyone even recognized that they were talented enough to play those iconic characters so amazingly? I find it to be... epic. And though they have small roles, they really stand out in them, and bring so much to the movie. It's amazing how quickly I became attached to those two characters. And as for "don't-know-don't-care" I feel that I should apologize... but I still don't care.

That's better. :)

It's a very large cast after all; I can't keep track of everyone. Besides the Narracott's and my favorite villains being good guys, that remarkable horse Joey crosses paths with, and makes an impact on many, many people, each very different and memorable and important in their own way. A real ensemble cast, and everyone's performances blends together ideally.

Emilie, a young French girl played by Celine Buckens.

Now, Spielberg sometimes tells his stories at the expense of reality and logic, and this film is certainly no exception, faulty logic and plot holes make appearances, and if they bother you, well, they bother you... but the beauty of his movies never really lies in the realm of realism, does it? Spielberg makes movies magical, and again, I find no exception here. It that magic that I love, and in my book, it easily overshadows some silly plot holes.

And speaking of classic Spielberg, the cinematography! Oh my goodness... there's no way I could do it justice by description, but even pictures can only show so much. (For the full effect, you know what to do!)

He might as well have left his signature on it.

My favorite thing about Spielberg is his use of imagery to create the feelings he wants convey, and the story of War Horse is completely equal and complementary to this style. The best moments in this movie are either silent, or subtext, and they're enhanced beautifully by camera work that borders on surrealism it's so perfect. Through this unique sentimental style War Horse becomes memorable a tale of courage, honor, love, and sacrifice, told episodically and sometimes with extra sap, but beautifully, artistically, and boldly. Not perfect, but if you allow it, it can sweep you away along with its many brief characters, and its brave four-legged hero, on a journey that I say is certainly worth taking.

Review number eight!

The Great Gatsby (2013)

Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby starts out exactly as F. Scott Fitzgerld's stupendous, classic book -- "In my younger and more vulnerable years..." Nick Carraway, who is now apparently depressed and alcoholic stares dramatically out the snowy window, and relays his story to his doctor. The story of how he moved to West Egg, just outside NYC, into a tiny cottage squeezed between two huge mansions, one of which was always alive with wild parties and belonged to a man called Gatsby, and what happened there that summer of 1922.

Spoilers ahead, sweetie. If you haven't read the book, you shouldn't be watching this movie. Or reading this review!

The movie, also like the book is (almost) always in Nick's perspective. His doctor encourages him to write everything down, and he narrates as he does throughout the whole film. Often, ruining a moment he should be only witnessing by jumping in and whacking us over the head with the subtlety that we would apparently never understand without his helpful insight. If you beat someone to death with subtlety, is it still subtle? Tobey Maguire plays Nick, and reminded me very little of his Peter Parker, and when he wasn't smashing his "insights" over our heads, or (over) dramatically quoting the book word for word, I liked him. Still, he was too involved in the story, not a simple observer who reserves judgment. Somehow he was inserted too much into the story, but simultaneously removed, as his entire relationship with Jordan was completely cut.

Nick trying to work. He didn't spend ALL summer observing other people's drama.

Gatsby is the main guy here, obviously. Rich, mysterious, personable Jay Gatsby. Hopeful to a fault. And Leonardo DiCaprio is just as good as he should be in the role. Let me just go ahead and point out that everything in this movie is overdone, most obviously the acting, and if I can, I blame the director, not the actors. That being said, there are some very good things about DiCaprio's Gatsby, and some not-so-good things. The way he said his catchphrase, "old sport" for instance, feels unnatural. It's either because that's how the director wanted it, to emphasize that Gatsby wasn't naturally that way, or, DiCaprio just couldn't pull it off. You guessed it; I've decided to lean towards the former. In general, DiCaprio's performance is very good; he does especially well with Gatsby's mysteriousness, and the desperate way he pursues his dream. His Gatsby is also obviously a man who has worked hard to make himself appear to be someone he naturally isn't.

The mysterious Gatsby.

Now Daisy Buchanan, that beautiful, conflicted girl whose voice is probably the most perfectly described in history. I knew from the moment I saw who was playing her that if anyone could do her justice, it was her; Carey Mulligan. Not only does she fit the part physically, but her voice seems to naturally be exactly what Fitzgerald heard as he wrote those lines about murmuring, music and money. One thing I didn't consider though was the character, and after the movie was over, I realized that Mulligan's Daisy was too likable. I shouldn't be surprised, it's very hard to make Carey Mulligan dislikable, and I doubt that Luhrmann wanted to make her so -- who'd want to watch a romance between two dislikable people? At times she sounded like she was trying too hard to get the voice right, and she didn't murmur enough for me, but otherwise she was exquisite, and I still maintain that she is the perfect choice for Daisy. Luhrmann just didn't know how to use her correctly.

Beautiful Daisy.

Her husband Tom Buchanan is the main character I have the least complaints about. He is undeniably a dislikable character, and played wonderfully well by Joel Edgerton. He lends a kind of tenderness to the character that I saw in the book, and was very pleased when it not only showed in the movie, but wasn't overdone -- I credit it solely to the actor. And of course his violent, racist, and other dislikable traits were there, and done very well. The only thing concerning his character that I missed was when Nick runs into him on the street at the end and shakes his hand. I thought it was an important scene that helps give the story its conclusion, and completes the character arc of both Tom and Daisy. But hey, what do I know, right?

Tom. "One of those men who reach such an acute limited excellence at twenty-one that everything afterward savors of anti-climax."

At first I thought Tom's mistress Myrtle Wilson was strangely cast as the young, cute, sweetly voiced Isla Fisher, but she impressed when she got the chance, which was basically just her introductory scene, but still. She may not have been like I imagined her, but she got the job done admirably. Same goes for her husband George Wilson played by Jason Clarke, except his appearance was considerably more like I imagined him. I would have been happy to see both of the characters get more development, and I think it would have been good for the movie.

Myrtle makes her grand entrance as her men have a chat.

Newcomer Elizabeth Debicki plays Jordan Baker the elegant golf star and fellow observer with Nick. I thought she was a good choice for the role and really enjoyed her part, but her character seems to be the one that ended up mostly on the cutting room floor. She's really only used when needed to develop the story, or is there when she's supposed to be because the novel dictated it. And as I mentioned her and Nick's relationship was almost totally missing; it only progressed as far as it needed to, to develop Gatsby's plot, then was left hanging there uselessly, disappointingly.

Lovely. If only she could have played her part to it's potential.

Now I'm probably going to shock you, and say that I thought that Jay-Z's rap score was a very bold and surprisingly fitting move. I liked the way the cool, upbeat modern music blended with the cool, upbeat music of the twenties, it was very sharp. And speaking of sharp, the costumes! I love twenties costumes, and these, mixed with high fashion, "vintage" tends of today were particularly suave, bold and zesty. I fell in love with Jordan's lavender hat, and Gastby's wardrobe was spot-on and immaculate. Neither the score nor the costumes were truly authentic, but they fit in the style of the picture, making it more relevant to modern times, and really helped amplify the spectacle.

And what a spectacle it was. Nick never describes Gatsby's parties in the movie, (though he describes plenty of other obvious things) for one very good reason; he really doesn't need to. The parties are alive with bright colors, music, noise and people, nearly overwhelming the senses... and I didn't even see it in 3D. The problem occurs when the party is over, and a particular sequence is supposed to be mellower, but attempts to make it more upbeat and dazzling only annoy. The party in Tom and Myrtle's apartment got that treatment and was made way wilder than the book's description implied. During that scene I sat wondering what in the world was going on, hoping the rest of the movie wasn't going to be changed like it, and missing Fitzgerald's description of no one being able find each other in the thick cigarette smoke.

People party at Gatsby's place!

During other sequences, the "glitz-y treatment" results in some weird, distracting computer effects, like flash-backs appearing in the clouds, or Nick speaking lines as they appear in the falling snowflakes. It really snaps you out of the experience. So while they're putting text on the screen, they might as well have put some in flashing red that proclaims "THIS PART IS STRAIGHT FROM THE BOOK" because someone was obviously very proud of the fact, (whenever it was a fact) and it's already being screamed out as loudly as subtext can be -- just go the extra step, and it'll even be ironic!

This Gatsby is soaring in glamorous fashion and overflowing with unique style, but the only way it's like the book is that it's literally (word for word) like the book! Practically everything happens, yet almost nothing is right. Where are the intricacies and subtleties, the real life, the laid back humor, and the wonder? Gatsby and Daisy's over-the-top romance take precedence over everything that really resonates and makes you think when it's all over. Just before Gatsby dies, and falls slow-mo into his pool, he whispers, "Daisy" and words appear on the screen one last time -- "You can start crying now." (Okay, not that last part) Gatsby was obsessed with Daisy, but if we know better, we then begin to miss everything that was brushed aside for some pointless tragic romance. And in that last glimpse of his handsome face floating under digital water, there is no realism; no grim epiphany that Gatsby wasted his life chasing that dream that was already behind him, and died carelessly, alone and friendless; nothing more than a briefly dazzling carnival attraction. That's what this movie is too -- a two-hour showcase of digital beauty, fireworks and parties, and romance. A dazzling, hollow shell.

It's hard to live up to such standards as Fiztgerald set, and this movie does get it half exceptionally right, with its near-flawless cast, and breath-taking sets. I also give them the credit of at least attempting to capture the complexities of the novel, but I've come to the conclusion that The Great Gatsby is just an un-filmable book. What would the book be anyway, without "Carraway's" thoughts and observations, and our unlimited access to his mind? But including them in the movies is next to impossible. Nothing has worked yet, but so far Luhrmann has put in the best attempt. When it wasn't bothering me, I enjoyed it, and if the title wasn't The Great Gatsby, I would dismiss it satisfied, as an incredibly dazzling, slightly depressing film.

Number 7!

Star Trek Into Darkness

Ah, space. The final frontier. Four years after the original reboot, J.J. Abrams and co. are back continuing to boldly breathe new life into the beloved franchise. Not exactly going where no one has gone before, but certainly presenting it like we've never seen it before.

So I don't give away anything that might be taken for spoilers, I'll not try and sum up the plot, but just say this: the stakes are high, as are the emotions, and Kirk and his crew set out to make everything right, pitted against the stupendous Benedict Cumberbatch as the terrorist John Harrison. Epic, action-adventure stuff ensues. Big time.

Kirk, Uhura and Spock loose the colored shirts and go full-fledged-leather-and-guns-action-hero-y on us.

The cast, if you can believe it, has actually improved from last time. Not just in additions, like the fore mentioned stupendous Cumberbatch and other newcomer Alice Eve as science officer Carol Marcus, but the returning cast shows improvements as well, and considering how impressive they were at first, that's really something. The actors found their footing in the loved characters very quickly and gave solid, wonderfully nostalgic performances in Star Trek; now, they've really settled in. Now, they own their characters, and have slightly re-molded them to fit perfectly, so the character complements the actor, who in turn complements the character, with heightened results.

I was especially impressed with Spock (Zachary Quinto) in this case. Spock's struggle with emotions is pretty much the only struggle he ever has, and therefore it can easily be overdone and I imagine could get annoying very easily. I have to imagine, because Spock's character this time around is one of those improvements I was talking about. I have never liked him more than I did in this movie, and Quinto's performance was at times, breath-taking.

"Epic Spock" is in a volcano.

The only performance more powerful than his, was that of Benedict Cumberbatch in the role of the villain. He continues to blow me away everywhere I see him. You would think I would get used to it, but no, he gets me every time. Even scene after scene he only gets more and more impressive. And I can't even begin to describe my excitement at seeing and hearing him being casually mentioned almost everywhere. I feel like a total hipster -- "I was a fan of the Cumberbatch before he landed starring roles..."

"You being all mysterious with your... cheekbones. And turning your coat collar up so you look cool." "I don't do that." "Yes you do." Oh Watson, you have no idea.

Chris Pine has found the right balance between Kirk's heroic, leading side and his more skirt-chasing, rule-breaking side. Kirk will never be a perfect, Captain America type hero, but seriously, who would like him if he was? Pine's Kirk is a great flawed hero, and a great leader for his crew and the franchise, and is another name to my list of great performances in this film. He is also undeniably amazing at getting beat up, and hanging over very long, deadly falls.

See? I love this pic. Also, this whole sequence.

Scotty (Simon Pegg) made up for not being introduced until halfway through the first movie by having a rather big role this time, and adding some seriousness to the character as well... not too much though -- he still gets the funniest bit of the movie, just as he should.

Zoe Saldana's Uhura is now officially one of the boys, er, as close as she can get. Uhura is quite the action star now, and by my reckoning has moved up a couple notches in terms of character importance. I don't want to seem like I'm complaining, because I like her, and she adds wonderfully to the film in every way -- action, humor, emotion...

But, I really wish Bones (Karl Urban) had a big a role as Uhura this time around. When there are so many characters, and only about two hours of film to put them in, it's hard for anyone (except Joss Whedon) to give everyone the time and development they deserve. Unfortunately, Karl Urban and Bones didn't get as much as I thought they deserved. His character was overshadowed by Harrison, Uhura and even Scotty a little, and was limited too much to punch lines for my taste, but maybe I'm a bit too biased; he is my favorite character currently. Still, whenever he was there, he was as good as he could be, and I was happy.

What's he doing here? Being awesome of course.

Chekov (Anton Yelchin) got the same treatment, though I suppose I really shouldn't have expected his character to get any more important. He had his moments, fleeting as they were, and I relished them. The same mostly goes John Cho and Sulu too, though I don't care as much for the character, so I didn't mind as much. He got his moment too, and boy, was it a good one.

I'm actually really surprised I found a nice promo photo of just him!

Well. That's a lot about the characters. In the end, they are absolutely my favorite feature in this movie, even though my two favorite characters never got all the screen time I was hoping they'd receive. Still, I should probably touch on a few more topics before I wrap up.

What would a Star Trek movie be, after all, without some knockout visuals? If you saw the '09 Star Trek you know what to expect, but you'll still probably get blown away by some really stunning moments. Some, they show in the trailer, but they can't show them all early; there's way too many. I was a little afraid going in that it's self-proclaimed "non-stop action" would be too relentless, but it's well-paced at one step below "overwhelmingly fast" with tons of energy distributed evenly throughout, even into the slower moments, just under the surface.

Bones: "I hate this!" Kirk: "I know you do!" Yeah, but we love it.

I may have a complaint now, or at least something that comes close to the category; this movie is a near exact replica of it predecessor. Of course it's not if you look at the details, and of course the plot is way different, but in a broad sense, many things needlessly reflect the last movie, like the opening format, the closing format, and at least one all but re-used moment. Nevertheless, it was a great opening, the ending made me smile, and before I noticed that re-used moment was re-used, it took my breath away. So really, how could I complain? It's the principle of the thing that slightly bothers me, and I can't help but enjoy the product simultaneously.

So I guess you could say J.J. Abrams has done it again (Literally). It took four years, but the wait was absolutely worth it. Star Trek Into Darkness has "summer blockbuster" written all over it; it's thrilling and stunning and smart, laugh-out-loud funny, powerful and moving, all wrapped up together in an explosive package. A dazzling contribution to what will hopefully continue along this path to be a very long-running reboot/parallel universe of a really great franchise.