Iron Man 3 and Star Trek

With only 3 weeks left in the college term, numerous students asked when i would get my own "film course" since i quote or reference or show numerous movies to make points from anything ranging from what writing is really about, to what grammar reminds all of us of: The matrix itself. Anyway, i realized it has been some time since i have done some movie reviews...well, here goes the two biggest films of the year... all while they are still "new" to most movie-goers. I begin with Iron Man 3 and Downey Jr. returning as Tony Stark as Iron Man. First, i'm giving this film 6/10 because frankly, while the themes are better, as is the "bad guy" (Guy Pearce), it is lacking in several major areas. To begin, Tony Stark is still doing well and loves his job as Iron Man, except, not really. He loves Pepper Potts too much that he now struggles with anxiety and with his ability to keep her safe. While Tony continues to work on projects and what not, he just seems to have lost his confidence. Since most know i am fond of quoting other movies, if this were Austin Powers, Tony Stark has clearly lost his "mojo, baby." Before i reveal or say more, SPOILER ALERT... Sadly, this movie just lacks it when it comes to story, as the whole movie, and trailers leading up to the film don't give us the legitimate bad guy comic lovers adore. Ben Kingsley as the "Man-darin" (not the orange), is not the villain. He is merely a pet stooge from Guy Pearce and his experiments. While this idea of a fake bad guy is good in theory, it just doesn't flow or move very well in this movie. It isn't that there is too much to say, but how the story tries to say it that just leaves the film lacking. This leads to the two biggest issues with the film: the chemistry of the stars to the story. What made Downey Jr. so amazing and exciting to watch in IM1-2 and Avengers was his charisma and ability to basically be brillant but a total self absorbed fun loving jerk. His romance with Pepper was amazing and fun to watch. You totally bought into this weird couple and even, that the actors generally liked the movie they were in. Same goes for Stark and his friendship with Col. Rhodes, aka War Machine, or make that American Patriot. Anyway, this movie loses all of its chemistry with these actors towards each other and the parts they play. I mean, Col. Rhodes is a side project in this film and Potts just doesn't click with Stark at all. Some will argue, "That's because the threat was bigger or more urgent." I just don't see that, as Stark always had fun in the first two films and especially in Avengers. I get that there is a "mid life crisis" vibe in this film, but it still doesn't fit with the overall story or chemistry. There should be more silent parts with just the camera and Stark. But instead, there is the typical action with some new twists and a lot more iron man suits. It's interesting that in all of the Avengers, Stark doesn't lose one suit despite fighting aliens, yet he loses at least 6 suites fighting Guy Pearce. I digress... Hey, the film is still solid, has some good scenes and ultimately is not an insult to the comic, as Daredevil or Green Lantern was. Enjoy it in good health. STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS The movie that you need to see is now here. This is a film that Abrams directs with confidence and a deft hand at building upon the chemistry that made the remake in 2009 so much fun. I must admit that i've never been a huge Trekkie for the simple fact that i agree with Ebert: it's a genre or show that takes place in a big "square type box where people constantly quote cliches." I'm sorry, but this occurs in the newest Trek, but how could these situations not lead to cliches when the warp drive is constantly breaking down and "shields are down to 6%." These types of scenarios are typical of Trek films and they shall continue. But, to the actual film: It is quite good. Go for the simple fact that you get to see a rising film star: Benedict Cumberbatch. This guy can act. Most know him from the great TV show Sherlock Holmes. I'm grateful my sister got me hooked on this show, as this guy can act and the stories of the TV show are great. But, when it comes to being a villain in Star Trek, Cumberbatch is head and shoulders above many. I'll keep it a surprise as to who this bad guy is, but his performance is amazing. The chemistry he shares with Kirk and the scenes they grow through are quite good and give audiences a nice amount of suspense. I still have chills from Cumberbatch saying, "You think you are safe...you are not." Combine this intensity with lighter, funny moments from Scotty and the solid performance from Mr. Spock (Zac Quinto) and you end up with a film that surpasses Iron Man in most areas. Go boldly to the theatres to see this great film. Here's to hoping Abrams continues his ascent as a film director, as he is on quite a roll. Django Unchained And now to DVD and one of my favorite films of all time: Django Unchained. My class is sick of hearing it, or watching clips from it, but it is simply amazing. Here is a film that comes from the great/weird/bizarre mind of Tarantino. In this film, Foxx is a slave that is set free by a bounty hunter. The bounty hunter is played by the great Germen actor Christoph Waltz, who played in Inglorious Bastards by Tarantino. Waltz needs to find the Brittle brothers to collect a huge bounty and Foxx knows where they are. After finding and killing these men, Waltz teaches Foxx how to shoot and be a bounty hunter. These men then team up to go after Django's wife, who just happens to be "the property of Calvin Candy" a devilish demon played with all the gusto one can ever mustard Leonardo Dicaprio...yes, the same Dicaprio that gave us Titanic. Well, since he worked out the kinks in Titanic and the Beach, Leonardo has yet to do a bad film or performance, and he again nails it in full force as the negro slave owner Candy. From Blood Diamond, Body of Lies, Great Gatsby, to Django. This man is on fire. And let's not forget the fully original Inception. While this film is "fun" as only Tarantino can give it, it is graphic and full of language, as any film on the south, slaves and owning people would be. However, while many find the film to be having fun with all this gratituoius scenes, i found it somewhat accurate. Accurate in the sense that we know blacks were treated horribly and abused by all sorts. Whites would rather kill them then give them respect or authority. This film portrays that, with a touch of vengeance from Django. The reason this film surpasses the complaints of some is for the simple fact of the performances themselves. You have Foxx as a believable husband looking for his wife, Dicaprio as a brillant and scary villain. When he yells, "I can do what i want with my property," i had no doubt that every slave owner fully believed and embraced that hatred/passion for what they owned. Samuel Jackson is of course great, because you know, he's again in a Tarantino film. Not only are the performances by the main actors excellent, but it is the subtle touches Tarantino puts into the film that make it great. Consider, for example, a scene where the KKK will rise with their masks on. Instead of watching in horror as white men kill others for the sheer fact that they can, we laugh as they gripe about the size of their eye hole on their bags. As the group is near melt down and about to leave, the main slave owner has to bring focus back to the ungrateful group, all while a special cameo is made by a certain comedian. This is just one of several scenes that makes us laugh, when really, we should be in disbelief at what we know is certain to come. Anyway, watch the film with a discreet eye, but also a grateful one. We don't know how much longer Tarantino will be able to produce or direct films that are as special, unique and truly a gift to the world of film. Oh, and everyone, the D is silent. :)