October Movie #2: Gravity (in 3D)

Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Runt Time: 1 hour 30 minutes

Directed By: Alfonso Cuarón

Gravity is about how two astronauts cope with getting back to earth after an accident leaves their space shuttle unusable. 

First of all, this is absolutely a beautiful movie. There were moments where I thought to myself, "Wow! To be able to see that (the Earth) in person must be amazing!" I think what magnifies that beauty is fear - the fear of space, of being a grain of sand floating in the universe, the realization of just how tiny man is in comparison. And frail. 

I heard several people complain about this movie, that they couldn't see the movie because there were too many technical inaccuracies. Unless you're an aeronautics expert, I highly doubt you'll notice the inaccuracies. I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. Of course, this is coming from someone who thinks a bus really can jump a 50 foot gap in the road... And if you do start to notice those things, just remind yourself: This is a movie. 

This movie is an hour and a half, a short one. Unfortunately, it didn't feel short. That's rarely a good thing. In this movie's case, I think it's because soooo many things happen to poor Stone (played by Bullock) that you just hope it's all going to end soon. But it doesn't. Just when you think there couldn't possibly be another bad thing happen, another one does. And then another one. It just doesn't end! 

This movie is very stressful. You really start to feel as though you're the one bouncing around a space shuttle that's being bombarded by space trash. There are several scenes that are emotionally draining. I did cry at one point during a tragic scene. So sad. And there was a lump in my throat during the scene where Stone thought all hope was lost. 

My one criticism of the movie: It seems as though they ripped a scene straight from WALL-E (and perhaps a more serious movie about space shouldn't take their cues from a cartoon). I'm talking about the fire extinguisher scene. Pretty sure that only propels robots through space. But, like I said, it is just a movie. 

That being said, this is a good movie. Not great. Don't need to see it again. But I loved the visuals. I loved the idea of the freedom and horror of space all combined into one feeling. It's a quiet movie, which gives you moments of tranquility. Enjoy those because you will be jostled about many, many times. Well acted. (Although Clooney was just being Clooney putzing through the air telling funny stories and being all charming, calm, and heroic all in one breath). Good story. Good visuals. An emotional roller coaster. You'll like it (as long as you don't work for NASA or think you do/should). 

October Movie #1: Don Jon

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Scarlet Johansson, Tony Danza, Julianne Moore

Run Time: 1 hour 30 minutes

Directed By: Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Don Jon is about a ladies man from New Jersey (a play on Don Juan but with a New Jersey accent) who, although can - and does -  land the ladies, prefers porn to the real thing. 

I went to this a few weeks after it opened. There were only a few people in the audience... and I was the only female. (Of course, I am often the only female in a lot of audiences because I do tend to enjoy action and sci-fi over the chick flick.) Perhaps the subject scared people off or perhaps it was a little too obscure (and not well marketed). Minutes into the movie, I realized people were probably scared off by the subject. I started to giggle as porn images flashed across the screen. Wow. Was not expecting that. Definitely not one for the kiddos. 

For the most part, this movie's images are fairly benign. It's not the frequency in which the porn appears but the duration. It seems the porn scenes lasted longer than what I was comfortable with. Don't get me wrong. It didn't really bother me... but it was a little much. 

As long as the story was flowing (and not some in your face images), it was a rather enjoyable movie. This is Joseph Gordon-Levitt's foray into full-length feature directing (he's directed some shorts before) and I thought he did rather well. He also wrote the screenplay. I am always amazed at how chameleon-like his acting his. He completely transforms himself into his characters. With each new movie, he is completely different. He had the walk, the talk, and the muscles of his self-absorbed character. He's come a long way from the kid on Third Rock from the Sun. 

I enjoyed the scenes more when Scarlet Johansson's gum-smacking, princess-y, controlling character (with a sledge hammer into over acting) wasn't on the screen. Just sayin'. 

The movie really gets interesting when Julianne Moore's character finally wanders onto the screen. Perhaps the clunkiest character introduction in the movie, but the one with an air of mystery. Who is she? What affect will she have on Jon's life? 

There are two gems within this movie. First, is the scene where Jon (played by Gordon-Levitt) cuts loose and sings Good Vibrations by Marky Mark (from the 90s). I was giggling hysterically. He's a macho, image conscious man singing a ridiculous song (in falsetto). Absolutely wonderful. And the second gem: Jon's sister. Jon's sister says absolutely nothing throughout the movie. She tunes out her family's dysfunction by throwing herself into her phone (typical youngster, right?). But she has an absolutely brilliant point of impact at the end. I, internally, cheered. It was a brilliant moment. Well done. 

Anyway, if you can stomach the flashes of porn every once in awhile, then you should watch this movie. It's well acted. It's different. It has heart. It has brilliant acting (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). I liked it. I didn't like the usher making a point of asking me, "So... how did you like the movie?" as I was exiting. Um, yeah. It has a script. It ain't porn. It's just about a guy and his porn. Grow up. 

 

 

September Movie #2: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 (in 3D)

Starring the voices of: Bill Hader, Anna Faris, James Caan, Will Forte, Andy Samberg, Benjamin Bratt
Run time: 1 hour 35 minutes
Directed by: Cody Cameron, Kris Pearn

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 picks up where the first movie left off. Flint's (voiced by Hader) invention has been contained, the island is overrun with giant food. A clean-up agency sweeps in and orders everyone off the island. The clean-up agency is headed by tech guru Chester V (voiced by Forte), who Flint idolizes. Chester V offers Flint a job as an inventor.

I saw this movie with my old college roommate Dubby. She was worried that since she didn't see the original, she wouldn't be able to follow the story. I told her it's about giant food. 'Nuff said. She was relieved afterwards to find out that the movie did an excellent job catching her up to speed. You get a nice little summary of the first movie when the second one opens and then it quickly launches into the new story.

I really liked this movie. I even liked it better than the first one, if you can believe that. I actually do not own the first one. I thought that one was just okay. I will own the second one and it will probably become part of my "at home sick" rotation (which currently has Wreck-It Ralph and Hotel Transylvania and Horton Hears a Who and Chicken Little). This second installment was cute, had a great plot, had some mystery, a lot of action and suspense, and a lot of heart.

September Movie #1: Riddick

Starring: Vin Diesel, Katie Sackoff, Matt Nable
Runt Time: 1 hour 59 minutes
Directed By: David Twohy

Although it doesn't seem like it, it has been several years since the last installment. There are no characters, save a cameo by Vakko, from either the first or second movies other than the main character Riddick (but the title of the movie clued you in to that, right?). This one has a completely different tone and story... until close to the end, where it then develops a wonder flavor of the original. It's almost an homage.

The movie opens up with the familiar voiceover setting the scene. It then proceeds to be about 20-30 minutes of Riddick being mean to animals/animal-like creatures. I was not a fan. And I quickly figured out one plot point and again, I wasn't a fan.

Overall, I liked this movie. The original was obviously the best. I even liked the second one but this installment was definitely better than that second one. It had heart. It had great action. Some of the plot points were a little weak but overall the story was good and interesting. Some of the script was a little lacking. There were a lot of bad lines. The true fan boys in the audience laughed so the movie makers got what they were seeking. I rolled my eyes.

Some nit-picking: Katie Sackoff's character's name was Dahl. I kept thinking they were calling her "Doll." Perhaps that was intentional, to give an air of sexism even though there wasn't any. A group of guys, one woman. Of course there are going to be some sexist remarks. I did think she was mis-used as an actress. She had some kick-butt moments and a completely gratuitous nude scene that was akin to slasher flicks where some chick decides to take a shower even though there are a ton of bloody bodies popping up. Katie's boob shot was strictly for the sci-fi nerds but nothing else. That disappointed me. The sci-fi creatures were a little too unrealistic to me. The dog-like creatures just seemed to lack imagination. They were an exaggeration of real dogs with added color. And one of the twists had me scratching my head. I let it go but wasn't quite certain why they chose that route over a more realistic connection between two characters.

In sum, I really liked this movie. It really had a lot of heart, most of which you see at the end. The flavors of the original came through (and yet wasn't mimicking or copying). It's fairly well acted. Yes, it's a bit predictable but it was an enjoyable ride even though I knew where it was going.

August Movie #2: Planes

Starring the Voices of: Dane Cook, Teri Hatcher, Stacey Keech, Brad Garrett
Run Time: 1 hour 31 minutes
Directed By: Klay Hall

Planes is kind of like Cars, in that the vehicles have names, faces, thoughts, and act just like a person would. I think the next installments will be Boats, which is about a little tug boat who wants to be a cruise liner and see the world until he realizes that he performs a valuable service, and Trains, about a caboose who's tired of always being last. Just kidding.

Planes is about Dusty Crophopper (voiced by Cook) who is tired of flying in straight lines every day. Although he has flown thousands of miles, he's never left the state. His dream is to race, to compete with the jets. Chug (voiced by Garrett) is a refueling truck who eggs on Dusty's ambitions. Dottie (voiced by Hatcher) is a mechanic-type-car thingie who is the voice of reason, trying to gently deflate Dusty's wild dreams. Skipper (voiced by Keech) is an old military fighter that Dusty enlists to help him train to be a racing plane. They all come together in support when Dusty wins a spot in a race around the globe.

Eh. That's my summary: Eh. I wasn't a fan of Cars (I didn't hate it but I didn't love it) so I guess it stands to reason that I wouldn't be a fan of Planes. This movie was cute. It made me laugh. There were several bits (like Dusty having his sprayer removed) that they carried through to the end very well. They did a good job anthropomorphizing the vehicles. They moved like humans. They did very human-like things. All of the different planes from different countries was well done (although I was wondering if some of the designs/depictions of the planes wasn't a tad racist). The movie just didn't have that something extra that pushes into greatness. It was sweet. It did no harm. It was slightly funny. It was an enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half. And yet I didn't love it.

The story itself was sweet - dreaming of being something you're not and then putting it to reality. On one hand, the message that you can be anything you want to be (particularly if you have support from loved ones and good training) is a worthy message. However, in execution, it's a little starry-eyed, overly optimistic, and certainly naive. There is a difference between a crop duster and a jet. And that's okay. I wish the movie had made that point.

I spent a lot of the movie trying to figure out who was voicing Dusty. It had a lot of Owen Wilson (who is the voice of Lightning McQueen from Cars) overtones. I wonder if they cast with that in mind. I can almost hear the discussion around voice casting, "Hey, Owen's voice worked well as a car. Wouldn't it work well as a plane? Go get someone who sounds like him. But not him." I was also not a fan of Teri Hatcher's Dottie. Her voice quickly became grating.

So.... definitely one the kids will like. Not sure if even they will love it (unless they love planes). It held my attention. It's not one I'm going to buy (I don't own Cars either). It was cute. It had a good story. The message was a little naive but the undertones of the message were nice. A little predictable. Good movie. Not great. Good. Cute. Sweet.

August Movie #1: Red 2

Starring: Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Mary Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, Anthony Hopkins, and Byung Hun Lee
Run Time: 1 hour 56 minutes
Directed By: Dean Parisot

The sequel picks up a short time (perhaps a year) after the first one ended. Frank (played by Willis) and Sarah (played by Parker) are still together. While the retired CIA operative Frank is embracing his quiet, suburban lifestyle, Sarah is finding that it's too quiet. After details about a 1979 mission are leaked on-line, Marvin (played by Malkovich) suddenly dies and the CIA nabs Frank for questioning about the leak. It soon becomes clear that in order to bring closure to the leak, Frank, Sarah, and Marvin (who faked his own death) must come out of retirement. Frank is worried about putting Sarah in danger; Sarah is thrilled about the possibility of danger.

I liked this one a bit more than I liked the first one. From the previews, the first one looked hilarious but the actually movie fell quite short of unrestrained laughter. I didn't go into the sequel thinking that it would be side splitting (it wasn't) but rather to watch some quirky, sweet, fun characters again. Al of the characters were complex, quirky, good hearted, and fun. Helen Mirren's tough yet incredibly elegant assassin character is just fun to watch. She has great comedic timing and is absolutely kick-ass fierce. I loved Mary Louise Parker's quirky, sweet, simple, and yet tough character. Byung Hun Lee was absolutely wonderful as ruthless - and yet not so ruthless assassin Han (for those who recognize him yet can't place him, he's Storm Shadow from G.I. Joe). I loved, loved, loved the scene with Victoria (played by Mirren) and Han in the blue sports car. Helen Mirren's a cool, tough broad!

It did not seem as though this movie was almost two hours long. Fast paced. Lots of little twists. Good plot. Fun characters. A lot of good action. A lot of funny action. And no gore. There was an amazing amount of conscience in these agents.

To sum up this movie: fun, good-hearted, and just plain enjoyable.

June Movie #5: This is the End

Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, Danny McBride
Run Time: 1 hour 47 minutes
Directed By: Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen

This is the End is about, well, the end of the world. The Apocalypse. The Rapture. This movie tries to break the barrier between reality and fiction. Everyone in this movie is playing "themselves" and yet they're really not. And all the 30something comedians are in this movie, even if it's just a bit part. Jason Segel, Michael Cera, Mindy Kaling, Kevin Hart,  Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Aziz Ansari, Paul Rudd (okay, so he's not 30something). Pretty much anyone who's ever worked with Seth Rogen... or anyone who's worked with someone who's worked with Seth Rogen. And then there's Emma Watson and Rhianna.

So.... with all these funny people in one movie I would have thought I would have laughed the entire time. I didn't. It was actually quite a long time into the movie before I even had a small, soft, "Ha!" Most of the humor was crude, which I'm fine with but isn't necessarily knee slapping funny. I did have to look away from several scenes (Satan with Jonah Hill made me squeamish).

This movie plays against the fourth wall, blending reality with Hollywood movies. It blurred the line... and I'm not sure I liked that. I think I spent far too much time wondering if these people really interact with each other as depicted in the movie or if it was just a story... using the names of real people. (Don't get me wrong, I totally get that the apocalypse was made up; I'm simply wondering if Jay and Seth hang out and if Jonah really acts that way around Jay, etc). It made me a little uneasy. Do these things (aside from the apocalypse) actually happen with this gang?

I must point out that it's been a few weeks since I've seen the movie so my thoughts aren't as clear as they should be. I will say these things about the movie: Not as funny as I thought it would be, a little longer than it needed to be, concept was amazing but the execution was faulty; loved Emma Watson, hated Rhianna. Died laughing at the end in Heaven with the Backstreet Boys. Good movie for a rainy, stormy day when you're bored and want a mindless diversion. Not a good movie for any other moments of your life. Eh.

June Movie #4: Now You See Me

Starring: Mark Ruffalo, Morgan Freeman, Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, and Michael Cane
Run Time: 1 hour 55 minutes
Directed By: Louis Leterrier

Now You See Me is about four magicians who use their magic to commit crimes. The FBI and Interpol work together with an ex-magician to figure out how the magicians are committing these crimes, as well as to try to stop them.

One thing about magic in movies is that you know it's fake, you know there's a trick. They have the luxury of stopping the camera to make someone disappear or editing to remove images they don't want you to see. I always take these things with a grain of salt. But I'm also the same girl who believes that a bus can jump 50 feet. I can quite easily suspend belief and let myself enjoy a movie without questioning too much (well, most of the time). So, while there was a voice in the back of my head grumbling about there's always a trick to magic in movies, the movie lover in me wondered with wide eye amazement, "Gosh, how did they pull off that trick?" And that's exactly the attitude you need to have in order to enjoy the movie. Forget movie magic. Marvel at the tricks as if they were real.

That being said, there was far less magic than I expected and far more FBI chase scenes (and beating their heads against the wall while looking dumb) than I ever could have imagined. THAT disappointed me. The Four Horsemen (Harrelson, Eisenberg, Fisher, and Franco) seemed to have such a rapport that it drew me in. The razzle dazzle seemed fun. They seemed like they were having fun. And their magical Robin Hood style of taking from the rick and giving to the poor was refreshing.

In addition to trying to figure out how the tricks were pulled off, I was also spotting the twists. There were several and I got most of them, save the biggest one. I am always frustrated and disappointed - and yet very happy - when I realize that I figured out the plot twists before they were revealed (and my elation is multiplied by the number of minutes before the reveal that I uncovered the twist). Since I figured out several of the twists from pretty much the beginning of the movie, I am quite disappointed with the movie (and yet very proud of myself). It is because of this that I cannot bring myself to like this movie. It disappointed me on so many levels. First is the ease of uncovering the twists, second is the main storyline - the FBI. I want magic, darnit! I've seen enough FBI/CIA whodunit chase movies. I was drawn to the magic and I didn't get any, whether it be actual or whimsy.

For the most part, this is a decent movie. Well acted. A lot of suspense. What comes next? How will they solve it? When? But the numerous plot letdowns prevent me from even liking this movie. It tried but failed.

June Movie #3: What Maisie Knew

Starring: Julianne Moore, Steve Coogan, Alexander Skarsgard, Onata Aprile
Run Time: 1 hour 39 minutes
Directed By: Scott McGehee, David Siegel

What Maisie Knew is a modern adaptation of the Henry James novel. It's about a divorcing couple so wrapped up in their own lives and problems that they neglect their daughter Maisie.

When I first read the description of the movie, I thought, "What Henry James novel?" and "How much of an adaptation?" I Googled it. Turns out, the book and movie are the same title and the movie is pretty much the same as the novel. I was shocked. Henry James wrote in the late 19th century. I couldn't believe he'd write about divorce, let alone about a problem that is so prevalent today. The ending is slightly different in the movie (it cuts off before Maisie gets older). I liked the movie's ending better. It was sweeter, more uplifting.

In this modern adaptation, Maisie's mother is an aging rock star (played by Moore) and her father is an English businessman (played by Coogan), constantly on the phone and travelling internationally. Her father marries Maisie's nanny, who has always had a crush on him and thinks it's true love. In a desperate attempt to not be outdone by her ex-husband, Maisie's mother marries a much younger bartender named Lincoln (played by Skarsgard), who she's only known for a few weeks. Wrapped up in their own lives, each parent forgets when it's their turn to take Maisie (played by Aprile). And when they remember, they each have their new spouse take care of Maisie. Both parents claim that they can't live without Maisie but as soon as Maisie enters, they completely ignore her... until the new spouse begins bonding with Maisie and then jealousy ensues.  Eventually, the two new spouses bond over their love of Maisie and their unsettling feeling that they're being used.

This movie is sad and frustrating. It's incredibly well acted and well done. A bit slow. At times I was not impressed with Aprile's acting. Sometimes, it seemed as though they built the scene around what she'd say and do but other times she seemed to make it seem so effortless and sharp (like the scene when Lincoln made her dinner and she replied that she couldn't eat it because it was too pretty).

I liked this movie but I didn't love it. At times, it was quite slow and a little boring. I had to focus my attention on the cute little Maisie or the wonderfully subtly Skarsgard acting (which can be so light and obscure that you might miss his beautiful performance of a guy thrown into a battle that's not his own and understanding what needs to be done).

June Movie #2: The Hangover III

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifanakis, Ken Jeong, Justin Bartha, John Goodman
Run Time: 1 hour 40 minutes
Directed By: Todd Phillips 

The Hangover III is not like the previous two installments. The Wolf Pack's memory of the previous night's shenanigans is not impaired. But like the first two installments, poor Doug (played by Bartha) does not have much screen time. This movie begins with the death of Alan (played by Galifanakis)'s father (played by Jeffrey Tambor). The Pack later finds out that Alan is not dealing well with the death of his father and has gone off his meds. The Pack teams up to take Alan to a rehab center. Road trip! On their way, they run into gangster Marshall (played by Goodman) who kidnaps Doug as a way of encouraging the Pack to help find the man Marshall's really after - Leslie Chow (played by Jeong). It seems Chow stole from Marshall and has recently escaped from prison. Alan is friends with Chow, a fact that Marshall is exploiting in order to get back the gold that was stolen from him. 

First, let me interject - poor Doug. 

My initial assessment of this movie - A lot of dead animals. I wasn't a fan of the number or how they died. Dead animals ain't funny.  

For the most part, I liked the plot of this movie. I truly liked how they diverted from the first two movies' paths. I found that originality (for at least this franchise) to be refreshing. The new plot was very well done. It had a lot of action. A lot of suspense. A lot of subterfuge. It was funny. It was intriguing. Most of the truly funny moments were shown in the previews. There were still some surprises and some good lines. I did laugh many times. Not as much as the first one but I suppose that's to be expected with sequels.

Although I'm sure many people won't appreciate the final scene, I for one, did. I had heard repeatedly that this installment was the final. And yet the ending certainly leaves it open for another. Or perhaps it was paying homage to the original. The ending was great. I'll just say that. 

I think if you look at this movie as a separate movie (not as a sequel), you may like it for itself. It has a slightly different vibe. It's still a little zany. It's still funny (just not super funny). And it had heart. I liked it. I didn't love it but it was decent. I appreciated the effort. It was a nice diversion. I just wish there weren't as many dead animals. 

June Movie #1: Star Trek Into Darkness

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Benedict Cumberbatch
Run Time: 2 hours 12 minutes
Directed By: JJ Abrams

I will preface my review by saying I'm not a Trekkie. I think I can count on one hand the number of Star Trek episodes I've seen in their entirety. I know of the characters, a bit of the premise. I like sci-fi but I'm just not as devoted as some people.

This is the first movie of the year (and it's June!) that I saw not only with another person but with Jeff (translation: This is Jeff's first movie of 2013). Jeff did not like this movie as much as I did. He thought it went against the nature of Star Trek too much (all the fighting and warring) since the Enterprise's mission was peace. My two counterpoints: 1). The TV series takes place years into the future of the movies. Their premise may have changed. and 2). There was an awful lot of battles with aliens in the TV series. So, for those of you who side with Jeff, this may just not be the movie for you. There's a lot of fighting going on.

I rather marvel at the fact that the new, young characters completely embody their famous characters. They blend with the original actors and yet have their own new take, new style, new approach to the characters to make them their own.

Unfortunately, it's been well over a month since I watched this movie so my memory of precise feelings and plot points is diminished. I wasn't bothered by the Khan casting as some people were. I didn't understand some of the things surrounding his storyline, though. Why did it have to be his blood to revive Kirk when they had 27 others to choose from. Why did they use Khan to build weapons when they were clearly capable of making pretty cool technology themselves, particularly if they knew his background/origin? Why didn't they put Khan on ice faster? Where was the Khan shower scene that was supposed to rival Carol's clothes changing scene (I thought I saw a snippet of it on-line... but perhaps that was an internet invention).

This movie raised a lot of questions and frustrations from the moment it began. Perhaps these questions and frustrations stem from my lack of Star Trek knowledge but you shouldn't have to be a Trekkie in order to appreciate - and understand - the movie (so if that's the case, this diminishes my fondness for this movie). One of my major frustrations was the numerous false endings - places in the movie that seem to be the ending point and yet another scene comes after it. It just wouldn't end! And perhaps another great frustration with this movie was one pivotal emotional scene that was not at all emotional if you even have a remote idea of what the future holds for this crew. It bothered me that it was supposed to be so damaging, so painful, and I couldn't even muster an "Eh." It wasn't sad. And yet the filmmakers were treating it as the saddest thing in the world.

I'm not a fan of aliens for the sake of aliens (I absolutely hated the Earth scenes with aliens walking around - the future is 200 years from now. Pretty sure if we haven't made contact with an alien now, they won't be living amongst us so freely 200 years from now). And you know things are in the future when you see something floating that shouldn't be floating. Again, not impressed.

This movie has heart. I'll give it that much. I'll put aside my questions and frustrations and annoyances about unrealistic depictions of the future and actually say that I liked this movie. It was funny. It moved... most of the time (there were a lot of slow scenes, particularly when you're waiting for the Enterprise crew to get back into space). But Jeff, who is a little more of a Trekkie than I, did not like it. Non-Trekkie kinda liked it; sorta-Trekkie did not.

May Movie #4: Fast and the Furious 6

Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Luke Evans, Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris, Jordana Brewster
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Directed By: Justin Lin

This movie picks up just months after the last one left off. The crew is living the life, however they decide to live it, enjoying the millions they each made from the job in Brazil. Hobs (played by Johnson) enlists the help of Dom (played by Diesel) and crew in order to capture criminal mastermind Shaw (played by Evans), who just so happens to also have a pension for fast car heists. The lure? One of the members of Shaw's team is Letty (played by Rodriguez), who is reportedly back from the dead. The reward for Dom and crew? Full pardons (and they get to find out if Letty is actually alive). Plus they get to drive fast cars.

How is it possible that these Fast and the Furious movies just keep getting better and better? Seriously! Okay, so these movies won't win any Academy Awards and they certainly won't save the world but they're such a fun 2 hour diversion. Action. Drama. Humor. Beautiful locations. Beautiful people. I loved pretty much every minute of it.

With that said, you do have to be a mindless, action movie fan to enjoy this movie. You do have to suspend logic for several of the action sequences. People cannot jump from a car that they themselves are driving at 80mph, leap across the highway, and catch (or rather, collide mid-air with) someone who is being jettisoned from a tank going 80mph (can a tank even go that fast?), and land safely without so much as a bruise. I don't care if they landed on top of another car, thus "breaking their fall." And I'm also pretty sure that a car, no matter how strong the cable is, can't keep a C-17 transport aircraft on the ground. I mean, if that aircraft can carry five cars, I'm pretty sure it can laugh off one car attached to it.

Aside from suspending belief, this movie is wonderful because it has heart (and fun action sequences that involve high speeds, people leaping into the air, and cool cars). They poke fun at themselves; they don't take things too seriously. The plot is actually interesting. The acting is fairly decent. The action is absolutely amazing. You feel the intensity of the chase scenes. In short, it's just a good, fun ride.

I'm starting to get a little leery of  movies that shoot action sequences in the dark. It certainly heightens the intensity of the action... because you can't see anything. I'd like to say that the end chase/fight scene is absolutely amazing... but I didn't see that much of it because it was dark.

BTW, I spotted the plot twist minutes into the movie. This is not to say I wasn't shocked (and felt a little betrayed) by the twist when it was revealed. It's a good twist. Makes the fight scene that comes after the twist a little more interesting (good vs. evil).

I cannot stress this enough - stay in your seats after the movie cuts to credits. There's an epilogue. And it's a good one. My jaw dropped. I was not expecting what happens in that final, final scene. I'm so excited for Fast and the Furious 7!

Will this movie change the world? No, but it's not intended to. It's fun. It's fast. It's enjoyable. It has heart. I loved it.

May Movie #3: The Great Gatsby (in 3D)

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton, Carey Mulligan
Run Time: 2 hours 22 minutes
Directed By: Baz Luhrmann

The Great Gatsby is based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel by the same name. Set in the 20s, this is a tale of life in the fast lane and the destruction that occurs as a result. Sex, alcohol (at the time of Prohibition), and gangsters explode into this fast lane privileged lifestyle.  Fledgling writer Nick Carraway (played by Maguire) moves next door to millionaire Jay Gatsby (played by DiCaprio). He's drawn in by the mystique that surrounds Gatsby and his lifestyle. He finds himself pulled into Gatsby's world because of Nick's cousin Daisy (played by Mulligan), who just happens to live across the lake.

As a teenager, I hated this book. Not because I didn't like the story but because I hated dissecting it. Everything was symbolic. Everything. It was drilled into me. The green light at the end of the dock symbolizes greed and envy in the beginning of the book; the green light at the end of the dock symbolizing a fresh beginning at the end of the book. The optometrist's billboard symbolized the eyes of God, watching down, seeing everything that happens. Cars. Cars symbolize a form of escape.  Every time a character hops into a car, the character is hoping to escape from life. Lavish parties. Gatsby's (and the Buchanans') lavish parties symbolize corruption and the decline of morals.

The previews for this movie drew me in. They were bright, colorful, with a lot of happy people dancing about. The 20s is an era of romance (to probably only those who didn't have to live through it). Speakeasies. Flapper dresses. Jazz music. The Charleston. And don't get me started on the beautiful cars! Of course, it's only romantic if you can afford it. But the previews made it seem like a party and who doesn't want to go to a party? I couldn't wait to see the movie.

And then I saw the movie. I didn't like it as much as I thought I would. It actually quite disappointed me. Sure, it was pretty. But it was flat. I think too much effort went into the visual that the movie makers forgot about what makes a movie - the characters. These are very well known characters. And the actors who played them are excellent actors. And yet... the characters and acting lacked charm. They lacked dimension... which is really odd because it was in 3D. Darn, stupid 3D. Everything has to be in 3D these days. And really, there was no point for Gatsby to be in 3D. It did make the flapper dancer scenes quite fun and brought a certain charm to the cottage but most the time, it was absolutely needless.

But back to the characters. It pains me to say it but Leo was not Gatsby. I love Leo. He's a wonderful actor. But his Gatsby was not charming. Really. Leo was not charming as Gatsby. There was no allure. He lacked the suaveness of Gatsby.  And I didn't feel that underlying, overwhelming sadness to Gatsby. Daisy was not effervescent. She was not captivating. She was not irresistible. She was not infectious. She was sweet but that's all there was to Mulligan's Daisy. Tom Buchanan wasn't a villian. Yes, he did bad things but he didn't ooze that bitter, out-of-control jackass that he should have been.

Interestingly enough, I know there's been a lot of talk about how Jay-Z's music would work in a movie set in the 20s. I gotta say, it worked surprisingly well.

There was something off about the whole movie. It just didn't gel. Visually it was absolutely stunning. Bright, vibrant colors. However, colors don't sell a movie (well, not since they converted from black and white). There were parts that absolutely dragged and there were parts that felt rushed, like I was missing the heart of the moment.

Beautiful houses, vivid colors, good music, glamorous clothes. Those are the highlights of the movie. Flat characters and an awkward pacing make the movie less than enjoyable. See it if you loved the book. Don't see if it you still have 9th grade English class nightmares.

May Movie #2: Iron Man 3 (in 3D)

Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Guy Pearce, Don Cheadle, Rebecca Hall, Ben Kingsley, Jon Favreau
Run Time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Directed By: Shane Black

Iron Man 3 begins another Iron Man saga where The Avengers left off. Tony Stark (played by Downey Jr) is battling inner demons over the desire to protect Pepper (played by Paltrow) while also battling a real life demon named the Mandarin (played by Kingsley), who is blowing up parts of the world, including Tony's mansion.

Since I've already invested the time in Iron Man and Iron Man 2 and The Avengers, I sucked it up and saw Iron Man 3. Wasn't looking forward to it. And you know what? I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it. Didn't think I would but I did.

There were a lot of questions and some frustrations with this movie. First and foremost is the frustration that all movies, regardless of need and use, are now in 3D. I saw it in 3D and I certainly didn't need for it to be in 3D. Nothing was enhanced by the 3D, in fact, 3D hindered it. There were several scenes that were smokey or dark that were almost impossible to see the action due to the extra dimension. Nothing came at ya, save some snowflakes and a bit of rubble.

I had so many questions about the over heating bad guys. I'm not sure I understand why some of the inner heat guys even signed up for the program. I get that some were missing limbs and the heat regenerated those limbs but what was in it for the rest? Also not quite certain why the one guy blew up - what was in the case that made him blow up? Why were the AIM people in Tennessee? Was it a coincidence or planned that they were there the same time Tony was?

I wander between liking and being annoyed by Gwyneth Paltrow and her character Pepper. I loved Robert Downey Jr and the charm he gives Tony Stark, even though at times I felt as though he were phoning it in. I absolutely loved the concept of a flawed superhero. True, Tony Stark has always had an ego (which can be a flaw) and is incredibly self-centered and narcissistic, but to add a deeper flaw was riveting.  A superhero with anxiety issues/ mental issues that can cripple his mission. Finally, I loved the little kid and Tony's interaction with him. He was sweet without being syrupy and funny and smart. He had heart.

Good movie. Lot of action. Interesting backstory. I think Tony Stark should build a time machine and go back in time to right all the wrongs he made. I think this is the second time where the villain was someone he had slighted/ shunned/wronged in the past...

May Movie #1: Disconnect

Starring: Jason Bateman, Alexander Skarsgard, Max Thieriot, Hope Davis, Paula Patton
Run Time: Henry Alex Rubin
Directed By: 1 hour 55 minutes

This movie is, essentially, a horror movie. Well, it's not actually a horror movie but its depiction of the dangers of the cyber age is quite frightening. This movie consists of four vignettes with a slight overlap for each. In one, a mourning couple become victims of identity theft. In another, a family gets torn apart when their teenage son becomes a victim of cyber-bullying. In a third, on the other end of the spectrum is the teenage boy inflicting the cyber-bullying. And finally, a journalist seeking her big, breaking story befriends a teenage boy who performs on an adult-only site.

The summary for this movie reads, "A drama centered on a group of people searching for human connections in today's wired world." I don't think that's what this movie is about at all. A high level description is "beware technology." Essentially, what makes your life easier and more enjoyable can also make your life harder and painful.

After the movie, I left the theater with an uneasy feeling. This movie definitely made me think. The cyber bullying doesn't apply to me (neither does the porn ring) but I could see how technology rules my current life as well as how it could be a potential pitfall. I'd like to think I'd never be so stupid as to fall for some of the ploys these people did to become an identity theft victim, but you never know. Criminals are getting more tech savvy as I fall increasingly behind the times.

For me, the movie fell flat for two reasons. One, there is no redemption among any of the characters. No one reaches that "a-ha" moment. No one turns their situation around. The movie leaves off with the characters still battling turmoil. Two, three vignettes somehow intersect, even with the smallest of overlaps. The fourth does not. None of the characters or the storyline has anything to do with any of the other storylines. It just dangled out there, like it was an after thought or tacked on. That bothered me.

This movie is decent. It's well told and well acted. I was disappointed with how each story turned out (or the lack of resolution). It did definitely make me think more about my interactions with the internet and how much technology has consumed my life (and now with apps for cats, my cats' lives!). It's a little boring. It's quiet. It's sad. It's scary. Not one I'd watch again but it was an enjoyable 2 hour diversion.