World War Z: Decent, but not a classic...

This film has stirred up a lot of debate before its release from fan-boys and people who enjoyed the novelization so much they felt it could NEVER live up to the big screen version. Well, don't ask me for a comparison there, I didn't read the book, but I can tell you I felt this was a decent film, along with some obvious flaws I'll point out later on.

The story? Earth's suddenly been overrun by some virus/plague that has turned the human race into a bunch of relentless zombies, hellbent on getting the next person infected they come into contact with. Enter Brad Pitts main character of Gerry Lane, a former UN special envoy that is now thrust back into his former role, attempting to help uncover what caused this zombie virus to be unleashed worldwide. That's really the story in a nutshell as he moves from one location to the next trying to piece together clues of how the hell humanity will stop this insanity. He also has a family that he gets to stash aboard a Naval vessel that's under the control of his employer, the United Nations. Yes, working for the UN has perks during a zombie apocalypse! (at least in this film it does)

The first 20 minutes of this film have a lot going on, but I honestly felt with all the chaos ensuing across NYC, and New Jersey, it all felt sort of flat. I can't pinpoint why, but I just felt like the big budget visuals, and the jarring camera movements provided by director Marc Forster were a slight overkill. All it did was make me think of 28 days later, and how much more methodical the set-up of that story was, but I'll get back to that thought later. I really didn't feel anything until Gerry is flown into Israel and is being counciled by a guy named Jurgen. What sets up the action and moments of tension well in this mise-en-scene is the fact Israel was declared the only place in the world that had effectively built up enough walls to be zombie free, inside their main cities. So once you can see the zombies start using each other as a ladder up the wall, that was the moment I truly felt the most tension in the film and this was about a solid 30-40 minutes into the picture. And just as things really get cooking and Gerry finds himself on a jumbo jet en route to an area that has a W.H.O facility, I think the writers got a little egregious with the corner he (Gerry) and others on the plane get painted into. I won't spoil it, but I almost had to hold back laughter once I saw how Brad Pitt's main character managed to get out of that pickle. I realize it's a zombie film, it's fiction, but I felt like it was still a ridiculous moment where my believability was down the crapper.

Anyway, the very last act was halfway decent, and one thing I DO applaud the filmmakers was their choice in trying to use as many people in makeup as possible for the zombie attacks. It was definitely a nice change of pace from what we saw in I Am Legend with it's non-stop CGI madness. Not enough films are using classic creature effects, and allowing solid makeup to make the viewer become completely immersed in a terrifying environment. So full marks that they did what they could within this movie to old school that concept. I think my main issue lies with the ending. Everything just felt a little anti-climactic and wrapped up, yet not wrapped up too soon. Maybe that's just me, but it wasn't the homerun of an ending I was hoping for once the film started to find a good pace in the second act. You'll have to comment below and definitely let me know what you thought of the film's wrap up.

Overall, I just had this feeling the film had moments that fell pretty flat and then some that were really well done. The acting was decent, some of the action sequences were a sight to see, and the story itself was just decent. I'm willing to bet that's the product of having 3 writers tied to this screenplay. I felt like I was watching a boxing match where at one point the story and film was kicking ass and at other points it was getting its ass kicked.

In the end, it's a decent, yet flawed film and honestly made me have flashbacks to what worked so well in the lower budget, yet ultra tension filled 28 Days Later. (which for my money is a CLASSIC for the zombie film genre)

Nuff said

2 out of 4 stars

** Let's hope for the Blu-ray release the studio and director decides to attach the alternated 3rd act/ending that they completely re-shot for the theatrical release. On paper it sounded darker, edgier, and created more tension for Gerry and his family while separated from him.

American Wedding: Much better than I remembered, and then some...

I remember sitting in the desert, in the middle of Iraq and rummaging through some of the burned DVDs I brought with me before my deployment in 2004. I'd brought the entire American Pie trilogy with me and had just gotten through watching the first two entries. (Don't ask me why it took me until then to watch the original two films) Anyway, I remember feeling like the third entry, American Wedding, wasn't nearly as strong as the first two films. I felt it was just passable, and didn't surprise me being a 3rd film in the series. Let's face it, most 3rd films STINK in film franchises, with some rare exceptions. I'd thought at the time that Stifler was over-used and remember feeling like the entire film felt off because of the absence of Oz (Chris Klein) and some of the other familiar faces that were peppered into the first two films.

My how time heals wounds. After watching American Reunion last year and loving it, I noticed Netflix recently threw up American Wedding so I thought hey, why not. And in the end I think laughed a little harder and longer than I did with any of the other films. Now I'm not saying it's now my favorite of the 4 films, but it's a damn worthy entry into the series and now that I'm about ten years older, I was really able to absorb the intended laughs and flow of this film. For starters, I mentioned earlier I wasn't a fan of how much Stifler was a focal point for American Wedding when I first viewed it, but this time I couldn't get enough of it. Sean William Scott does an incredible job jacking up Stifler's antics and energy level, while still making the over the top performance just work. The ultra ADD version of Stifler works here whereas ten years ago it seemed out of place. Some things do get better with age.

And if you're not familiar with the story, Jim and Michelle are getting married. Along with that story arc, Michelle's sister comes to town (played by the then unknown January Jones, grr) to be apart of the festivities that suddenly draw her the attention of Finch, and Stifler. So as the story progresses you have Finch and Stifler doing their best to gain the admiration of Michelle's gorgeous sister, Cadence. One scene in particular that still has me gasping for air is when Stifler literally has to eat shit to save face with Cadence's mother, all the while Finch looks on in disgust (the facial expressions by Eddie Kaye Thomas in this scene were priceless) There's also a great nightclub scene, early on in the film that has quite the memorable dance off between Finch, and a new character named Bear.

Overall, I loved this film the second go around. It aged well, and I think one thing working for it is it took the series in a fresh direction by having a little more Stifler and a little less of Oz and the rest of the gang working out their problems. (something I didn't appreciate about the film upon first viewing as a young-in) I realize some criticized it for excluding Oz, as well as really watering down Kevin's screen time, but it's of no concern because Stifler carries this movie.

So if you haven't already, revisit the 3rd American Pie film, American Wedding, and feel free to leave comments below if you felt differently seeing it when it was first released as compared to right now. I know I did! In the end I can say I love all 4 of the theatrically released American Pie films, and can't necessarily pick a favorite, (although the latest one hit home due to it's late 20s/early 30s midlife crisis theme) but American Wedding is by no means lowering the bar of quality laughs in this series, not in the least.

Nuff said.

Are 4k TVs and Blu-ray players worth another investment?

There's been increasing exposure of the new 4k technology for home theater use recently. One of the first big problems I have with introducing these now is even if someone is willing to shell out the average price tag of $5,000 for one of these new 4k flat screen TVs, the technology as far as how programs are aired through cable channels has NOT caught up. TV shows are not broadcasting or being shot with 4k resolution which pretty much renders your new toy useless for the time being. Additionally, I've yet to see a wide array of Blu-ray players that can handle 4k resolution as well.

Ya see, it's not enough that you buy a TV with this new resolution standard, you're going to have to upgrade your disc based media player, and also wait for digital cable and satellite companies to follow suit with the types of cable boxes they provide, along with the actual networks and studios who shoot episodes of programs to follow suit as well. So for now, really, don't waste your money! Even if you just have money to burn for hells sake, it's still not going to get you picture quality you haven't already seen just yet.

Which leads me to my next argument against 4k tech for the home: Is it really going to be worth it once every media format, i.e. cable TV, Blu-ray players, etc, catch up? No way. Not a chance. Look, when they upgraded the digital projectors in cinemas about 4-5 years ago with 4k technology I admittedly DID see a major improvement in clarity for seeing first-run movies. I even went to see a re-release of Ghostbusters on the big screen a year ago, that was remastered with with similar resolution, and sure, even for an old movie blown up on the big screen that technology serves a thoughtful purpose. For screens that ginormous, 4k is a positive, no doubt about it. However, when you're using the same extremely clear resolution quality at home for say a 42" TV, or even below that size, are you really going to notice that much of a difference? I say absolutely not. It's just a money grab and greed is written all over this as usual.

1080p/HD resolution has only been mainstream now in homes for probably about the past 4-5 years, and the jump in clarity that made from the days of analog TV was as exponential as you're gonna get. It was a worthy leap in how one is able to watch a sporting event, TV show, or movie at home. And it took how many years to go from analog resolution for cable networks, and home-video viewing to get to 1080p clarity? Decades! Oh but now that 4k is around the corner, barely a half a decade into this renaissance of our initial phase of HD TV and we're getting 4k shoved down our throats. That's just too damn soon in my opinion, and who has the money to keep upgrading like that?

One example I can give as to how our current phase of tech with Blu-ray movies and current HD TVs is more than amazing is the latest James Bond, 50th Anniversary Blu-ray set of all the old movies. I'm telling you there are some scenes in a particular Roger Moore James Bond film where you can flat out see the man's pores and wax marks above his upper lip. So I'm supposed to believe that a 4k TV and overall set-up is going to improve my viewing experience compared to that? No thank you. That's as close and as uber-detailed as I'll ever need to see any actor's face, especially with an old movie. If you can't be content with that then what will you be content with?

I've talked to some folks who will never upgrade their DVD collection, and although I can't blame them, standard Blu-ray movies was a step I was willing to take in upgrading a lot of my all-time favorites. Even still, I see their point in some regard, I really do. But now, to get suckered into upgrading from 1080p resolition (which is really a different term for 2k) to 4k resolution is just illogical. There was even a recent double-dip Blu-ray release of Ghostbusters in which it's advertised as a 4k Blu-ray resolution, but yet if you don't have a 4k Blu-ray player or TV, that resolution just gets down-converted to the resolution you've been used to. Hence, another lousy way to make an extra buck off of people. Granted, that's arguably my favorite movie of all-time, but nope, sorry, I'll stick with the initial Blu-ray release of that to which I only spent $8.99 on. It looks just fine as is.

Time will tell if consumers really do make the complete leap from their current high-def TVs and Blu-ray media to 4k technology. And maybe it will happen, but if I'm a betting man I don't think I'll see that transpire for another 10-15 years. Sometimes people have just had enough of the constant, and incessant marketing that brainwashes us into thinking we NEED the latest gadget, and I think that time has come now. Enjoy what you have, we've got it pretty good at the moment in home-theater technology!

--Actually, before I go, I have to mention this. Even with just some double and triple dipped Blu-ray releases it blows my mind how much extra cash studios try to get people to spend. Case in point, the movie Halloween and its 35th anniversary is approaching. So with that, there's going to be a 35th anniversary Blu-ray with all sorts of "definitive" extras attached, making it the mother of all of it's past Halloween incarnations on home-video. If you even knew (I'm sure some of you do) how many freaking editions of Halloween that have been released on DVD and now Blu-ray, you'd be as disappointed as I am it's getting yet another release. It's a never ending cycle and will only get worse as 4k editions of movies are released for home use.

Nuff said.

Man of Steel: Finally, a believable Superman film......

I went into this film with slightly lower expectations thanks to the recent onslaught of rotten reviews on the site that grades films based on total reviews deemed negative or positive. But even still, I feel like I'd have walked out of it feeling the same level of positive thoughts had I went in with much higher hopes.

I'm not some comic book aficionado, but apart of me feels like I do know a genuinely well made film when I see one. And well made Man of Steel was. I knew this film wasn't doomed for suckage the moment we see the film open on the planet Krypton. Russell Crowe's acting chops, playing Jor-El, more than lure the viewer into feeling this Superman film is legitimate. (much the same way Marlon Brando gave Superman The Movie the same kind of gravitas) Add to it Michael Shannon's intensity as General Zod (all in the eyes!) the moment he confronts Jor-El and it's easy to feel sucked right into the ensuing chaos on Krypton. Let's not get into the origin story recap of how Superman is born and makes it to earth, but I will say by the time Jor-El and his wife Lara send off the blue boy before Krypton goes kablewy, you are actively rooting for them to succeed. That right there tells me this film has a pulse, and isn't just for show. I was sold from that point onward.

By the time we get to the events on earth, we see Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman as an adult already, played by Henry Cavill. Let me just say he owns the part. He oozes Superman through and through. I've read some reviews that are proclaiming he didn't have enough to say or wasn't funny enough in the film and I think those claims are completely missing the point. Superman isn't a damn comedian, and yet Henry Cavill provides just the right amount of subtle mannerisms and emotion in his eyes for him to NOT NEED to say more than what was scripted for him in the film. After all, he's playing a version of Superman that's still learning his way in the world and predominantly hiding from his real identity as we catch up with him on earth. All of the moments where we get to see a child version of Clark, and a teenager version of Clark are in the form of well done flashbacks to his life growing up in Smallville. This brings me to giving credit to Kevin Costner and Diane Lane who play Jonathan Kent and Martha Kent. They're great, and it's an example of how this movie, for my money, couldn't have been casted better (whereas the previous Superman film couldn't have been casted worse) The interactions between Costner's Jonathan Kent and a young Clark truly make you feel the father/son dynamic at work here. I can't say enough good things about how those scenes played out, catching us up with how a young Superman was raised and the moral dilemmas he faced (along with his parents) for now revealing himself to the world too soon. Oh, and don't slam the writing for having Jonathan Kent go back to save their dog during one of the films key flashback sequences. Sorry for spoiling the dog rescue, but there were some knuckleheads on various film sites slamming this plot point and all I can do is scratch my head. I'd hope that any humane person would go back for their furry friends, even if it means getting swept away by a monstrous tornado. It's still the right thing to do. That sequence just goes along with the theme of the film, i.e. doing good, having courage, and being selfless no matter how dire the circumstances are presented.

Now once the films main antagonist, General Zod, played to the perfect pitch of intensity by Michael Shannon, arrives on earth, this is when the real fun begins. Director Zack Snyder did a great job making the action scenes between Superman and Zod and co. look like we can see the comic book pages turning. I guess what I mean is as you're seeing this mass destruction unfold, it's finally the kind of action you'd normally would have needed to either watch an animated Superman film, or just read a comic book to see. That's no easy task to project that to live action and I honestly think Zack Snyder nailed that look of the every action sequence (along with the rest of the film for that matter)

I also have to mention Amy Adams, who finally brings a Lois Lane to the big screen who is not just beautiful and elegant looking, but also a very likeable version of the character we DID NOT see when Kate Bosworth played the character in Superman Returns. Regardless of comparison, Amy Adams owned this part, and also showed a feisty side to the character I would think an investigative reporter would need to have to be believable. Her boss, played by Laurence Fishburne, played Perry White with the perfect mix of firmness and compassion a character like Perry White would need to be believable as the editor and chief of a big newspaper. He even has a moment late in the film, where he stays at the side of another member of the Daily Planet, when shit is truly hitting the fan across Metropolis. That right there made me feel as if the continued theme of perfect casting for this movie was untarnished.

As far as the rampant action for the last 20 minutes of the movie that some reviewers have complained was in excess, I couldn't disagree more. This is a freaking Superman film people, it's about damn time we see him zipping across the screen, slamming the occasional bad guy into the side of a building, and all the carnage that goes with it. And even with the relentless action, I felt like I was still able to track what was going on, what the focal point was, and that was indeed a major concern I had going into this. Zack Snyder framed everything just right so you could still get the gist of what's going on. 

I don't want this to be one of those reviews that goes on and on and one when I could just wrap this up and declare this was the best incarnation of Superman I've ever seen on the big screen. I'm no comic book guru, I'm no Roger Ebert, but I just felt like everyone involved with the making of this film nailed the right aura for such a big-budget film. Even the ending, which I won't spoil, was a perfect set-up for future films (very much a similar style to how Skyfall set up James Bond for future films) It just worked dammit!  I should also mention, before I forget, that Han Zimmer's soundtrack for this film provided the exact pulse a film like this needed. Did I still miss the John Williams main theme? Yeah, but it's a credit to the work done by Zimmer that I didn't miss it too much. No easy feat.

Lastly, I left the theater wanting to see the next adventure with this Superman right away. Just imagine if they cast the right actor to play Lex Luthor in the follow-up. (Bryan Cranston anyone??!?) There's a multitude of possibilities now that we finally have a winning Superman movie. Maybe even cast a great actor to play Braniac. With special effects so advanced now we'll get the chance to see some of Superman's villains in a way we didn't get to in the 80s. Don't get me wrong, the original Christopher Reeve films served their purpose and have a certain charm we'll never see in films again, almost to the point it's really unfair to compare this new iteration with the old. Dare I say this is the best of the summer blockbusters? Indeed I do. Oh and how appropriate the timing was that as I walked back to my car after the movie ended,  I observed someone had placed an empty beer can right in front of someone else's back tire, thus inclining me to do something about it. If even for a split second, I felt "Super" for doing the right thing and removing said can. Good films will empower you sometimes....

Nuff said.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars

Ghostbusters TOO!: Retro Review

I still remember being as psyched as any child could get for the opening of a new movie. From the ages of 6-9 I'd been watching "The Real Ghostbusters" cartoon and playing with as many of the toys from the product line that was released within the same time frame. To me, Ghostbusters 2 was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, how could it not live up to the build up and hype? I got to see it opening weekend, in Cortland, NY, at one of those old school theaters that had one, maybe two screens to its name and would have to stagger all the big summer releases. This was going to be the best film of the summer of 89', right?

Well, not so much. It just didn't stay in your mind after you left the theater. Whereas a film like Batman, within the same month of release, had my father and I going back to see that roughly seven times! It just didn't have anything particularly memorable about it. It was obvious looking back the studio wanted to cater to the kid demographic over the young adults and above, and yet that completely backfired. It was watered down Ghostbusters. Hell, I remember the cartoon taking bolder risks and feeling quite spooked as a kid watching some of those episodes compared to Ghostbusters 2.0. Maybe the sequel just needed more Walter Peck? Oh right, he wasn't even in this entry! That was a big fail on the part of the producers (in my opinion), not convincing William Atherton to reprise the classic role of douche baggery he played so well in the original. I think another problem was reducing the Ghostbusters in the movie to not being appreciated by the citizens of NY within the context of the film. Five years had past since the events in the original and now all of a sudden, even after saving the city from an apocalypse, they're treated like a big joke. Perhaps that theme only served to make the viewing audience not take the characters as seriously as they did in the original. Even Pete Veinkman, played so iconically by Bill Murray in the original film, was a shell of his own shelf in the sequel. Sure, he had a couple choice one liners, like "Well, you're not gonna get a green card with that attitude pal!", but overall, he just lacked the swagger he had in the first film. Murray made that character likeable in the first film by being a funny jerk for the bulk of the film. It was almost Tony Stark/Robert Downey Jr esque. And in the second, he just wasn't the same. I'd imagine this is why Bill Murray to this day rarely talks about the experience making the sequel. He clearly wasn't having a good time and it's no wonder he didn't want to go back for thirds over the last 20 years.

Having said all that, I will say the Dr. Janosz Poha character, played so well by Peter MacNicol was one of the bright spots to the film. He played the perfect weirdo, but in a very zany, awkwardly funny kind of way. To this day my friends and I will still quote some of his lines in the film. He played a funny creep. Other than that, it was a mostly forgettable sequel that was hyped to no end directly by the cartoon that was on ABC for three years, and the insane lineup of toys and other merchandise put out during that era. I even remember some Oprah special that had the entire cast in for a big interview before its summer release. Was Ghostbusters 2 a financial success? Absolutely. It was made for under $40 million dollars and took in roughly $200 million worldwide. Normally that would warrant a third film, but it's never seen the light of day. Without Bill Murray wanting to get on board, it's kind of tough to make another Ghostbusters film without such an iconic character present. And to be honest, I'm glad Dan Akroyd and co. never forged ahead with another film without him. I remember hearing rumors about there being some Will Smith led, Ghostbusters: The next generation film back in the late 90s/early 2000s. It would have amounted to CRAP!

The second film was a forced example of trying to catch lightning in a bottle twice. It rarely happens. Has it ever dawned on anyone why Ghostbusters 2 has yet to be released on the Blu-ray format? Nuff said.


Look at this time-capsule (USA Today newspaper from 1989, week of the film's release)

Hangover 3: Not nearly as bad as you'd expect (from other reviews)

I'm going to get right to the point. The Hangover Part 3 is a decent third entry into any franchise of films. It's not horrible, it's no Battle Los Angeles, but it's also no comedy classic either. I'm perplexed as to what critics (well who cares what real critics think about comedies, they've never been kind to comedy films in the past, right?) and fans came to expect from a third Hangover film but I'm here to tell you it's really not that bad. It's certainly not as awful as current reviews suggest, and I honestly enjoyed myself for the one hour and forty minute running time I spent watching it on the big screen.

The good news is the creative team decided to take the storyline in a much different direction than the previous installments. That's right, the old formula of seeing the wolfpack wake up after a night of an absurd amount of drinking and shenanigans towards the end of the film's first act isn't happening this time. Instead, it's more of a mystery plot as Stu, Phil, and Alan (Doug's once again relegated to sideline status) try to figure out how to track down Mr. Chow and deliver him to a man named Marshall, played most excellently by John Goodman. As a matter of fact, I'll say that John Goodman owns every scene he's in and that alone prevented this film from "almost sucking" status as far third films goes. Fans may even be delighted at the return of "Black Doug" from the first Hangover film. Old friends, familiar faces are apart of the ride that is Hangover 3, which really helps dovetail everything that's happened from the first film's story arc to the conclusion of this entry. Remember people, this ain't Casablanca, this is a Hangover film, and I think some people forget to realize this isn't supposed to be an instant classic like the first one seemed to be heralded as in 2008.

This isn't to say there's not some points to be made about the film's shortcomings. I'd personally have liked to see less of the Leslie Chow character and more to do for the others involved. It's funny because the story begins with Alan having a forced intervention from his family and the rest of the Wolfpack, but the film really centers around Chow being apprehended. I also think by the third act the story becomes fairly predictable and less humorous in that portion of the film. Then again, a lot of comedies suffer the same fate in losing steam by the end. Nonetheless,  I will recommend that you stay for the end credits. The greatest irony with this movie is the real hangover for the gang doesn't take place until the absolute end of this film. I'm sure that has and will piss many people off, but again, at least the creative team attempted to go in a new direction for what I'm guessing will be the last hurrah for Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis.

Overall I give it 2 1/2 out of 4 stars. Not great, but certainly not a bad comedy by any stretch of the imagination.

Nuff said!

Star Trek Into Darkness: One hell of a rollercoaster ride....

I've waited 4 long years for the follow up to the successful rebirth of Trek in 2009, and I'm relieved to say it was indeed worth the long wait. There were times I wondered whether or not Paramount Pictures, and the creative team involved of JJ Abrams, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Bryan Burk, and Damon Lindelof were REALLY going to get around to making a sequel. Thankfully they did.

Where do I even begin with this entry? For starters, the opening scene is like getting a taste of what the original cast of Star Trek could have had for adventures if the budgets back in the late 60s and even during the 80s had allowed them to showcase the crew doing some of what you see here. I almost felt like picturing the original actors who played Dr. McCoy, Capt. Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the gang while they race to save a planet that's about to become extinct from a nearby Volcano that's about to blow. However, you don't need to, because the younger actors portraying these characters do such a believable and wonderful job from beginning to end. As Kirk and McCoy escape the natives of this dying planet on foot, in a chase scene that harkens back to Raiders of the Lost Ark, you're instantly catapulted into this adventure. Later seeing Spock inside a volcano that's about to explode was a thing of beauty for your eyes, which is something this film has going for it throughout. It has a visual aesthetic that never ceases to disappoint, even if the camerawork is a bit jarring at times. Once the natives of the planet Nibru are saved, and the mission is complete, you see the Enterprise blasting off into the sky with Michael Giacchino's memorable theme that helps open the film in the best way possible. At this point if you're not already smiling ear to ear, then perhaps you're a cylon and you don't have a pulse! It was the kind of home-run opening to a movie you need to catch the average viewer's attention, along with the die hard Trekkie as well.

Without giving away too much of the plot, it's a classic story of revenge in which the crew of the Enterprise have to deal with a new threat they've not been tested by before. The main allegory involved with this story deals with the concept of what if governments use fear to justify the means in becoming too powerful? That's at least what I came away thinking. The villain, (well there's actually two) played by Benedict Cumberbatch, is someone you may even find yourself sympathizing with as the plot moves along. He does a masterful job portraying someone with a lot of built up anger and tension. (for reasons I won't spoil in this review) I also need to mention the great job Bruce Greenwood did once again playing Admiral Pike. For the short amount of screen-time he has, he makes it worthwhile by making you believe he truly is Kirk's mentor and father figure. Tough love being the operative term here with one scene in particular showcasing Kirk getting his ass chewed in such a way you can't but help feel like you're right in the moment with him as Pike lectures him to no end. And Peter Weller, who plays the newly established character of Admiral Marcus deserves high praise for really just flat out kicking ass in this movie. Some of his one liners are delivered so on point, I find it hard to not want to recite some of this badassery while joking around with friends. It's a shame he hasn't worked in more films the past decade, because cinema has missed his acting chops and screen presence. There's no doubt about that.

Overall if you're a fan of the original series, the older Star Trek films, or just a fan of movies that can give you a rush of excitement along with the ability to even make you feel emotion within a scene, then go see this film immediately. There's something for everyone in this movie. What surprised me the most was how well a couple of the more emotional scenes were played out in this film. Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine, playing Spock and Kirk really do hit a nerve towards the end of the film and I myself was quite stunned at how many layers of emotion were projected with one scene in particular. Kleenex may be needed for some and that's a sign of brilliant acting on their part. As far as the action goes, I have to mention this, but there's one moment where Kirk and his crew realize they may be in deep deep trouble, and it's played out to where the audience realizes it's an "oh shit" moment as well. So when you witness the Enterprise getting chased down in warp speed, you just KNOW what's coming and this kind of action moment was executed so well that even just getting to see that on the big screen was well worth the price of admission.

That being said, is the film perfect? No, but it's an awfully great ride at the cinemas. I think the only areas JJ Abrams could have done differently was maybe slow down some of the camera movements. Some of the action scenes move at a neck breaking pace, and as much as that serves to thrust the audience into the chaos, I still prefer seeing action move from point A to point B in a more methodical manner. Additionally, hopefully in the next film they add in a little more screen-time for Karl Urban, who portrays Dr. McCoy so well you'd think he was Deforest Kelley's long lost son. With that in mind I really think the creative team needs to add in some more Kirk/Spock/McCoy moments and scale back slightly on the Kirk/Spock/Uhura dynamic. The former trio is what really made Trek shine the most in its heyday. Other than that, hats off to all involved. It's one of the few films you may find yourself wanting to see again and again this summer. It has the replay value Iron Man 3 didn't have, and there's plenty of things you may miss the first time out because of its relentless pace.

Nuff said.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars.