Star Trek: Into Darkness

Ben’s Review of Star Trek: Into Darkness

4 years ago JJ Abrahams did me a big favor.  You see I have always been a Star Trek fan and have seen all of them, including the Next Generation movies.  My wife did not share my passion. She’s more of a Sweet Home Alabama person.  It took me two weeks to convince my wife to go see Star Trek but she wife finally agreed to go and I was very worried.  If this movie stunk, I would never hear the end of it and, worse yet, would not be able to choose movies to see for a long time.  The Star Trek franchise had too many movies, too many shows, and with movies. These next generation movies tried very hard to create their own villains and story lines that they lost several fans who simply did not want to get to know someone new.  So enter JJ Abrahams who waited seven years after the last Generations movie and was supposedly going to do a prequel that was following in the footsteps of Star Wars and the Batman Reboot.  Instead, JJ presented an origins story of the characters of Star Trek that was a sequel to the previous movies.  The beauty of Star Trek is it did not require that the viewer know anything about the previous movies or television shows, while at the same time rewarding those diehard fans who were steeped in Trek lore.  The best part of 2009’s Star Trek was that it was cool. The technology was cool, the characters were cool, but most importantly, the story was cool.  Not geeky, not goofy, not severely complicated but cool.    My wife was in and I was able to choose movies going forward.  So, after pulling off this creative and worthwhile reboot of the Star Trek franchise, what would Hollywood want?  A sequel to the sequel of course.

This sequel did not come immediately.  The usual formula is that a sequel comes within two or, at the latest, three years after the original movie.  Also, ever since Star Wars, everything has to be a trilogy. This creates a problem because, like Pirates of the Caribbean or the Matrix movies, the second movie is just one very long and complicated set up for the third movie.  Like Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Rises, JJ waited four years to write the sequel. The result was Star Trek: Into Darkness.  But are there new ideas to be had?  Would the Abrahams formula sputter out?  Could the sequel possibly compare to the original… well… sequel?  Is the almost $16 IMAX 3D ticket price worth it?

Into Darkness, finds Captain Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Checkov, and Sulu doing what they do best which is trying to pull off an impossible mission under impossible circumstances.  The assignment is to stop a Volcano from killing a planet without letting the indigenous people know what was happening.  The crew of the enterprise stops the volcano but not before revealing the Enterprise to the indigenous people during the process of saving Spock’s life.  Spock, claiming he cannot lie because of his Vulcan heritage, submits a report detailing the event and as a result Kirk is demoted to first mate and Spock is reassigned to another ship.  Meanwhile a mysterious figure helps a member of Star fleet cure his child’s sickness but in return this Star Fleet member commits an act of terrorism against the federation.  Kirk is given back commission of the Enterprise with the sole mission of chasing the down the mysterious figure onto the volatile Klingon planet of Kronos and killing this person without the Klingons finding out. When arriving at the Klingon planet not everything is what it seems and the mysterious figure holds a secret that may completely change the face of the federation.  So what was this mission successful or a waste of $33 at the movies?

Go see this movie now!!!  JJ Abrahams’ background is not in Sci Fi movies.  He was most famous for writing and directing the television show Felicity and the Harrison Ford sob fest Regarding Henry.  He ventured into the action genre with television shows like Alias and his take and Mission Impossible III.  What this gives the viewer is a person who is much more interested in the characters and the story then whether the phasers have the right triggers or Enterprise deck has the correct scanners.  This movie, once again, is smartly written, well performed, and only requires that the viewer has seen the previously film.  Oh, and if you are a lifelong fan, you are once again rewarding by recalls to previous Trek references but in a very believable presentation.  This movie is over two hours but it moves along at a lightning quick pace and is full enough action, comedy, scifi, decent acting and PLOT to make this work.  This movie stands on its own and is not one big set up for a third movie, although a third, fourth, or fifth would be welcomed. All movies should have this level of care put into them.  Go see this movie in an IMAX 3D theatre.  Well worth it.

I give this movie 5 Tribbles out of 5.   

Elisa’s Review of “Star Trek Into Darkness”

Until the release of the 2009 reboot of the Star Trek movie franchise, I hated everything Star Trek: the endless TV shows, the movies, the ships, Khan, Klingons, Deep Space, everything about the Star Trek franchise just seemed too complicated for me. Mostly, I hated Star Trek because it was not Star Wars. I understood how “Star Wars” worked, but “Star Trek” was just a weird show without Harrison Ford or Muppets.  Even though so much of Star Trek is a huge part of pop culture, I was intimated.  After a huge protesting fit to the Husband’s request to watch the new 2009 Star Trek movie, I was turned.  While not a Trekkie, I was sucked into the madness.

We watched the movie on a Saturday afternoon, hoping to avoid the sugared-up children and obnoxious teenagers that liter comic book movies.  We paid the premium to watch the movie in IMAX 3D. It was totally worth the $16 per person ticket: no one pays $16 a ticket to hear their child scream during the movie, and the special effects “were totally awesome.” The movie was action-packed and had a great story line that will show well in regular theaters and flat-screen 60-inch televisions, but the experience of watching the incredible graphics, and feeling the sound, is what a theater-movie-experience is all about.  The opening scenes may have been made just to convince the audience the ticket price was money well-spent.

Apart from cosmic explosions and panicked-teleporting, the writing of the movie captures the essence of the beloved characters and their reincarnation through Chris Pines (Captain Kirk), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), and Zachary Quinn as Spock keep the hard-core Trekkies happy while hooking a new generation of fans. I am holding back from writing a play-by-play of the plot, for a few reasons. First, I really do not know enough about traveling into Space, beaming-up, and physics to adequately describe what happened during the film. Second, there is a big reveal during the movie that is a pretty big deal, and I do not want to blow it in this review. While I do not feel ‘Tekkie’ enough to properly discuss the plot in Sci-Fi terms, ultimately, the movie is about the relationships of these characters that are more than 30 years old, their interactions, nuances and dedication to their peaceful “mission to explore strange new worlds.” Whether you know enough to laugh with Doctor/Bones McCoy when exclaims “Dammit I’m a doctor,” or you have no idea what that means, but you recognize the trumpet fanfare introduction of the theme song, as Captain Kirk gives the purpose of the USS Enterprise, you will find something to connect to the Star Trek contribution to Americana.

Pitch Perfect

Elisa’s Pitch Perfect Review

The girl-powered Glee-fueled ensemble cast of Pitch Perfect seemed like the ultimate payback after a summer of superheroes and action flicks.  I was skeptical the “funnier than Bridesmaids” hype would fall flat and that once again, the best lines were in the previews.  However, I had no idea how funny  watching  a seemingly hot blonde projectile-vomiting could be until Pitch Perfect.

 Anna Kendrick (known to many in her role as Jessica in the Twilight franchise, and to those of us who are not vampire believers, as "that girl"in the George Clooney film Up in the Air) stars as brooding and unhappy college student Beca at the fictional Barden University.  Forced to attend college for free (her father is a professor at Barden) instead of following her dream to be a Club DJ in Los Angeles.  Beca is less-than-happy to be a college student instead of spinning with Samantha Ronson.  Her father bargains with her to stay in college, join some clubs and make an effort.  If Beca still hates school, he will finance the move to LA.

 In a “Porkies”-esque dorm shower scene, Beca "runs into" Chloe, co-captain of The Bellas, an all-ladies a capella group at Barden. Chloe is convinced Beca's shower singing is talent enough to help the faltering Bellas. Thinking this will appease her father and get her a ticket to LA, Beca accepts the invitation.

 Turns out, Beca enjoys singing and using her DJ mash-up skills to transform The Bellas'  uptight “Ace of Base” style into a happy Breakfast Club sing-a-long. For The Breakfast Club purists, there is quit a bit of the Saturday School favorite referenced in the movie, not in a complete rip-off of the classic in the style of the films Easy A, or Perfect Score, but more of a tribute to the overly-praised John Hughes film.      Side Note—Was I the last person on Earth to know the “Breakfast Club” de facto theme song, “Don’t you (Forget About Me)” was originally offered to Billy Idol? Actually, it was first offered to The Fixx, then Bryan Ferry, and then Billy Idol. All declined, and the song was a huge hit for the Scottish punks Simple Minds.

 While there are many obvious comparisons to “Glee” this is not a college cast rip-off of the Fox show. Thankfully, the singing was kept to scenes for a cappella rehearsal, except for one tragic bus scene, and not to move the plot along. Rebel Wilson, known as the lazy wonky British roommate in Bridesmaids ups the raunchy factor as “Fat Amy”and saves the movie from being another Hollywood formula. She kept the husband laughing, and he seemed pretty interested in the shower scene. There was no eye-rolling, or loud sighs. Ladies, this is a movie your husband will like, and you can leverage

 for your next movie choice--i.e. "Honey, you liked Pitch Perfect, remember? You will love Les Miserables."

Ben's Review of Pitch Perfect

So after a summer of forcing my wife to sit through flicks about superheroes, aliens, coke sniffing teddy bears, and scary fairy tales, I was informed it was pay back time in the form of Pitch Perfect.  Pitch Perfect, looking to capitalize on the success of shows like “Glee” and the NBC powerhouse “Smash” presents the trials and tribulations of Glee competitions at the college level and what is required to compete.  Having to watch this movie looked suspiciously like all kinds of come upance for forcing my wife to wait in line for tickets to the Avengers or watch 14 hours of college football last Saturday.  But would I run out screaming half way through or possibly want to go camping with one of my best friends in the mountains without our wives…. not that there is anything wrong with that! 

Back to Pitch Perfect.  The movie opens with the finals of the collegiate a cappella competition where the Barden Bellas of Barden University are set to take the stage and attempt to out sing their rival Barden University group from Barden the Treblemakers.  Just when it looked like the Barden Bellas might finally win, a very unfortunate accident occurs and the Bellas will have to wait another year to try to win the national a cappella competition.  Fast forward to the next year where the Bellas are attempting to recruit new members during freshman orientation. Recruiting however, is more difficult the in previous years because of the manner in which the Bellas lost during the a cappella competition and the way the Bella’s  previously treated several people who wanted to join their group.  This forces the Bellas to abandon trying to find pretty girls who can sing and start looking for anyone who can possibly carry a tune.  Enter Beca, played by Anna Kendrick, an aspiring DJ who has been forced by her professor father to go to Barden University instead of pursuing her dreams of being a DJ in LA because she can attend Barden for free.  Beca is a wiz at mashing up tracks but never really had an interest in singing.  However, Bella member Chloe, played by everyone’s favorite wall flower Brittany Snow, thinks that Beca has the ability to sing and bring a new look to the Bellas.  The Bellas also recruit a group of less than aesthetically perfect singers to round out the group, including Tasmanian transfer student Fat Amy, played by Bridesmaids scene stealer Rebel Wilson, to try and win the a cappella national champion.  But will this rag group be able to come together and pull off the seemingly impossible? Can the Bellas scoff in the face of tradition and bring a new feel to a cappella singing?  Can a movie about a singing competition really take an hour of fifty-two minutes to play out?  Tom Selleck is an attractive man….

Guys, has your girlfriend and/or wife left the room?  Really? Good.  This is the perfect movie to fake out your wife with to make up for any sort of hunting expo, monster truck rally, or fantasy football draft party that you forced her to go in the past year.  First, this movie is not a musical.  Let me repeat this for you, Pitch Perfect is not a musical.  Second, this movie has a very good sense of humor about itself in that all of the characters realize that a cappella competitions are not cool and are in fact pretty ridiculous.  Think of this movie as Major League meets Best in Show.  Third, this movie has actresses that are legitimately hilarious.  Most movies rely on smartass component to get their female characters over by having some woman who has runway model looks making snarky sarcastic comments instead of truly being funny.  Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson, and scene stealing Hana Mae Lee as the soft spoken Lilly are self deprecating and laugh out loud funny.  Great, albeit brief appearance by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins really move this movie along.  The idea for Pitch Perfect is not new but Pitch Perfect does a great job presenting the underdog movie in a way that has not been done before and definitely worth the $10.

I give Pitch Perfect 3.8 pitch pipes out of 5.

*Hang in there guys, new Bond, Diehard, Thor, Lone Ranger, and Captain America are all on the way.

Looper

Ben's "Looper" Review Could you kill yourself if that you you were killing was you 30 years from now if you were able to live like a king until 30 years from now? This is the simple question that the movie "Looper" asks the audiences. In "Looper" the issue of time travel and all the butterfly effect issues that can result are presented front and center. "Looper" also examines the idea of if I knew then what I know now. However, unlike previous attempts at this issue, there is no Delorian, no Terminator, and no Ashton Kutcher(for those of you who do not remember, he was overlooked for his Oscar worthy performance as a person who can travel through time by reading a sprial notebook). Instead "Looper" assembles rising star Joseph Gordon Levitt, Emily Blunt, and Bruce Willis who has previously tackled this issue in the surreal "Twelve Monkeys." Directing this feature is Rian Johnson who previously worked with Levitt in the 2005 noire cult hit "Brick", btw if you have not seen Brick take Friday night and do so because it is excellent. But does Johnson present a different idea of time travel then what has been done before? Will Bruce Willis run away from an explosion yelling? Will Emily Blunt find a way to work John Krasinski into the movie? "Looper" is set in the not too distant future during the year 2044. At this time criminal bosses have recruited a group of low level assassins known as Loopers. While time travel has not been invented yet, it will be later. In the future, criminal bosses send back victims to the past where they are killed and disposed of by the Loopers. Loopers are well compensated and treated like rock stars, even though the whole endeavor is illegal. The catch is that eventually, typically 20 to 30 years in the future, the Looper is sent back to be killed by his or herself, sealing the loop hence the name Loopers. The Loopers all know of this eventuality but most of them do not care because prior to their eventual death they receive copious amounts of drugs and money. Joseph Gordon Levitt plays one of these Loopers, Joe, who goes about his daily routine of killing for hire and all seems well. However, a disturbing pattern begins to emerge when an unusually large number of Loopers start being sent back for assassination. Paul Dano makes a short appearance as Seth, a Looper who is confronted with the having to kill himself and decides not to. This is a major no no and there are severe consequences for not completing the loop that, in some cases, are probably worse than death. Seth's future self tells him that there is person in the future known as the Rainmaker who is trying to wipe out all of the Loopers. Seth comes to Joe for help but is quickly caught and dealt with by the mob. The next assassination that Joe is required to do is himself. Joe's future self, played by Bruce Willis, is ready for this assassination and when he is sent back, stops his own execution and runs away. Future Joe is able to clean his life up and start over but not before his future wife is killed by the Rainmaker and Willis is sent back to the past for assassination. Future Joe comes back to find the Rainmaker as a child and kill him or her. The rest of "Looper" deals with the trying to unravel who is the Rainmaker and whether the future can be changed for the better. The idea of the effects of time travel and trying to change the past to prevent the future is nothing new. There are two categories of bad time travel movies: 1) Movies that are goofy and nonsensical, hence the Kutcher attempt at this; and 2) Movies with plots that are overly complicated and boring like "The Sound of Thunder" (you did not see this movie which starred Ed Burns and Ben Kingsley who must have been married several times or made some bad property investments because he also was in the "Guru"). "Looper" does not fall into these categories and presents time travel in a way that is new and interesting. The actual process of time travel and how it is done is not specifically addressed and it is not the whole focus of the movie. "Looper" presents the idea of trying to change your past and how complicated this task actually is when dealing with real people who do not know the future. "Looper" also focuses on the actual characters and how empty their lives are until they find a focus beyond the money and drugs of being a "Looper." Levitt provides a performance, along with the aid of prosthetics, that make you truly believe he is a young Bruce Willis. The idea of setting this movie in the near future aids greatly in the believability of the plot. Finally, there is enough sci-fi to keep the geek crowd happy but not too much as to put off everyone else. There are also strong and not overly done acting by all, including Jeff Daniels, Emily Blunt, and the aforementioned Paul Dano to keep the rest of the audience engaged through the movie. Overall, I give "Looper" 3.75 flex capacitators out of 5 and recommend seeing it. Something Extra: In sequel, news Bruce Willis is set to become John McClean again in "A Good Day to Die Hard" and Joseph Gordon Levitt is in talks with Warner Bros about reprising a super hero role in the next four years hmmmmmmm. Elisa's Review of "Looper" If there is a genre of movies wives and girlfriends hate more than comic book movies and westerns, it would be anything science-fiction related. I give a pass to "Star Wars" since Harrison Ford and Muppets are always fun to watch. So, it was with a loud sigh and flashbacks to the suffering I endured while reading "A Wrinkle in Time" in the Fourth grade as I walked into the theater to watch "Looper." Looper stars Joseph Gordon Levitt (young hottie) and Bruce Willis (just hot) as the same character. JGL as the younger, wild, carefree and drug-abuser character to Bruce Willis' sexy brooding future self. The idea behind the movie is not so much that they time travel, but that thugs send guys back in time for their character to "take care of." Things are going great for Joseph Gordon Levitt as he kills a bunch of thugs from the future. He parties, uses drugs and goes to the clubs. Until, his future self (Bruce Willis) arrives as the next guy that he is to take out. His present self, taking out his older, wiser, calmer, mature, future self. With a current self, and his future self, Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis are living in a paradox universe. Very similar to "Back to the Future II and III" when there are multiple Marty McFly's in Pine Valley. Except, "Looper" is not as funny as a car full of manure, and is not as exciting. The plot is thin, the "twist" is pretty obvious from the get-go of the reveal, and the ending is a bummer. Ladies, if you must go, Joseph Gordon Levitt is amazing as the younger Bruce Willis. His eyebrows and smug smile are fantastic. Emily Blunt is still cute and British. My claim to fame: One of the members of the Loopers is my high school history's teacher's brother, Garret Dillahunt. And that is pretty cool.

"The Avengers"

Ben's Avengers Review After five movies, two casting changes, and a whole lot of speculation, the Avengers is finally here in 2D and 3D. That’s right the very ambitious culmination of the Iron Man, the Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America has hit theatres. But how could such an endeavor ever be pulled off and is the Avengers worth the $13 bucks? The Avengers begins where Thor and Captain America left off. Thor’s jealous sibling Loki (played brilliantly once again by Tom Hiddleton), has disguised himself and returned to Earth to steal the _____, an energy producing cube that has the power to enslave the world. Loki steals the cube from Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and SHIELD and is trying to use it to enslave Earth with an army from an unknown neatherelm. Fury, knowing he is outgunned against Loki, decides he must enact the coincidentally titled “Avenger Initiative”. This results in the bringing together of Earth’s mightiest heros: Captain America, Ironman, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, and Hawkeye. Some of these heros are ready and willing to step up to the plate i.e. Captain America (Chris Evans), Blackwidow (Scarlet Johasson) , and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). Some of them need some convincing such as Tony Stark aka Ironman (reprise by Robert Downey), Thor (beefcaked by Chris Hemsworth), and the Bruce Banner, aka Incredible Hulk (taken over by Mark Ruffalo). Stark, still upset that he was originally thought to be too self centered to actually be on the Avengers, reluctantly agrees to help. Bruce Banner, always trying to avoid stressful situations, wants to help but only in a clinical role. Thor simply wants to take Loki back to Asgard. Of course Loki is not going to sit around and let the Avengers simply capture him. This coupled with Avengers’ problems working together make for quite a bit of Comic book drama. Will Loki prevail? Will the Avengers learn to get along? Would characters receive screen time and development or would the whole movie implode into something that resembles Mystery Men or Leonard Part Six? Was Joss Whedon of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly fame up for the task of directing such a feature? Would my wife divorce me after I made her stand in line on opening night and wear 3D glasses in room full dateless adult men and poorly supervised children? Well…. Yes. For those of us who sat through the other five movies and even those who did not, this movie was pretty darn good. This movie did a lot of things well. First, this script gives all major players ample screen time without appearing to do so. The story line is well developed and can be followed. Mark Ruffalo may have been the best Bruce Banner yet, and all of the characters play very well off of one another. The other thing that is appealing about the Avengers is that it has a sense of humor without being goofy. Where movies like Kick Ass came off too dark and Green Latern too comic bookie, the Avengers is serious enough to make want to follow the story but lighthearted enough to make you laugh. Beware, if you want to really enjoy this movie, you may want to review Thor and Captain America just so some of the technical jargon is not lost on you. Otherwise this was worth the money and a very good time at the movie theatre. Just a side note, make sure and stay for the whole movie, end credits and all. I give this movie 4.25 Mjolnir out five. *Something Extra- Iron Man 3 is set for next summer, Thor 2 is out next Thanksgiving, and Captain America 2 is set for 2014, just in case you were worried that there would not be more of these movies. Thanks Disney. Elisa's Avenger Review Well, it happened. I went to another comic-book- movie, “The Avengers.” In 3D. My husband reminded me every day for two weeks it was being released and to be ready. By ready, the husband meant that I would get tickets during lunch, and we would stand in line no later than one hour prior to the start of the movie to make certain we would have good seats. “The Avengers” is the ultimate in comic-book movie coolness. Marvel Comics Heros: The Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, and Thor join forces to fight the Norse god Loki. Much of the plot is based off the “Thor” movie released last Summer. You may recognize Loki as Thor’s brother, or from the Target commercial promoting superhero wares. Upset that he was banned from his Norse home, Loki has teamed up with some alien-type creature to take his revenge on Earth and his god-of-Thunder-brother Thor. In order to exact his revenge, Loki plots to take back the Tesseract. The Tesseract is a shiny crystal box with magical powers, specifically, it allows travel from space to Earth. Loki and the aliens take the shiny box from a super-secret military location causing death in destruction in the process. The only way to stop a Norse god and aliens is with superheroes. Nick Furry, acted by Samuel Jackson calls to action The Avengers to stop the total destruction of Earth. Tony Stark—Iron Man, is approached first at his recently constructed and self-titled Stark Tower. Scarlett Johansson’s spy/superhero character is sent off to bring in Bruce Banner—The Hulk. Captain America’s sense of patriotism is called upon and the group of superheroes is sent into action. The next few scenes of the movie are every comic nerd’s dream come true: A fight scene between Thor against Captain America and Iron Man in a Bavarian Forrest. Thor versus Loki all over Earth and Space. The Hulk and everybody, everywhere. The movie is really cool. It was pretty fun to watch The Hulk in action and hear the roar of nerds and little kids laughter. I was not a comic book reading Tomboy. I was a Barbie loving girly girl—and I have to admit the movie was fun, and gasp—the special effects, “were really cool.” The movie was filmed in 3D, not converted after the fact. We paid the premium price of $13 per person for the 3D and it was really fun. In fact, the whole movie is just really cool and really fun. Movies I Watch with My Husband....: "The Avengers"

50/50

Ben’s Review of 50/50
Once and a while you have to be willing to look outside of the box to find new and different ways of presenting a subject or type of movie. To do this a studio has to take a gamble on actors, directors, and even writers that are not the usually Hollywood fare. Enter Seth Rogen and his infamous writing partner Evan Goldberg, as well as a former writing partner Will Reiser, all three which met while writing for Sasha Baren Cohen on the Ali G show. Thus far Seth and Evan have brought us the teenage quest for alcohol epic, Super Bad, and the stoner-on-the-run buddy flick Pineapple Express. Both movies were met with mixed reviews and both have gone on to become cult classics. This time around, Rogen and company decided to take on subject matter that is a little less light hearted, cancer. This movie is loosely based on the real life events surrounding Will’s own battle with cancer. But can the Ali G gang take on a very serious subject matter in a manner that is light hearted but respectful of the subject matter?
50/50’s main character is Adam Lerner, played by Joseph Gordon Levitt. Adam resides in Seattle and lives with his aspiring artist girlfriend, played by Bryce Dallas Howard. Adam along with his slacker buddy Kyle, played by Seth Rogen, work for Seattle Public Radio. One day while jogging, Adam notices he has lower back pain. Worried about the lower back pain, Adam goes to his doctor for a check-up where he is told that he has a rare form of cancer. Adam is extremely puzzled by this because, up to this point, he has lived a very clean and vice free lifestyle to the point that he does not drive because of the danger that activity imposes. Adam’s girlfriend somewhat reluctantly states that she is there for him. Kyle also tells Adam that he will be fine and tries to help Adam, and himself, use the diagnosis to pick up women. Adam also has to tell his mother, played by Anjelica Houston, who immediately wants to move in with Adam but is talked out of doing so by Adam with assurance that his girlfriend will care for him. Adam begins meeting with a therapist, played by Anna Kendrick, who is currently working on her doctorate and Adam discovers he is only her third patient. Along the way Adam meets other chemotherapy recipients who he becomes friendly with as they show him the tricks of how to deal with cancer. The story follows Adam as he endures the trauma of Chemotherapy and learns who his friends are really and who cannot deal with his situation. So, was this foray into the serious a worthwhile gamble for Rogen and company?
Movies like 50/50 need to be view by everyone. Anyone who has dealt with cancer, either as a patient or someone who has known someone with cancer, can relate. 50/50 treats this serious subject matter in a fresh, respectful, humorous, and not overly dramatic matter. This movie is real and does not feel the need to be gratuitously sappy or gruesome, as so many other movies dealing with cancer have been in the past. This movie feels real because you not only see how Adam deals with this situation but also how his friends and family personalize Adam’s cancer. The acting flows and the script is extremely smart because it is not filled with heavy dialogue but instead contains natural speak. All the characters fit very well including the rare Matt Frewer sighting (Mr. Frewer is a renowned comedy writer and also the creator and start of Max Headroom). If the academy really wants to prove that it is in touch and is looking at being more than Hollywood throw back dramafest, then it needs to give a movie this well done consideration.
I give 50/50 4.75 macaroons out of 5.
*Something Extra- Joseph Gordon Levitt was not the original star of this movie. James Mcavoy actually began this movie and then had to leave because of “family” issues. Levitt stepped in with only one days notice.



Elisa’s Review of 50/50
After a Summer with what seemed to be an impossible amount of comic-book movies and an unfortunate turn of events with the best-named movie ever—“Cowboys and Aliens,” it is nice to get back into a thinking and feeling movie. Even if that movie has a 50/50 chance you will cry before the film finishes.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars alongside Seth Rogen in this true-life story of a 27-year-old battling cancer, a horrible girlfriend, fear of driving and a crazy mother, played by Anjelica Houston. Filmed in Seattle, those familiar with the Emerald City will enjoy spotting some favorite neighborhoods and hangouts throughout the film.
Adam, played by Levitt, and Rogen’s Character Kyle work for Seattle Public Radio. Adam, is the responsible employee, conscious about being on time to work, recycles, and in the opening scene waits on an abandoned street for a crosswalk sign to change before jogging to the next block. Kyle is the best friend who picks him up from work, and is the loud jackass at work. Adam’s wanna-be artist girlfriend Rachel, is played by Dallas Bryce-Howard. From the minute she speaks, the audience gets the feel that something is not right about her, and no love for her character is ever formed—rightfully so.
A healthy 27-year-old, Leavitt goes to the doctor for a remedy to recent back pain, he attributes to jogging. Instead, he is coldly told he has a large tumor growing along his spinal column. With no driver’s license, or wife, Leavitt rides the bus home to tell the news to Rachel. Next, he reports to Kyle, and then his mother. Played perfectly by Angelica Houston, you wonder why isn’t she is more current films? Evidently, unlike Steve Martin, she saved her money from the 80’s.
Adam is not mad at the world, and takes on the business of chemotherapy and cancer survival. When his very cold Oncologist only speaks into a dictation machine and uses Latin terms, he suggests Adam visit with a psychologist. Adam meets Katherine, played by Anna Kendrick—or that chick from “Up in the Air” (the George Clooney movie about the recession and people losing jobs). Adam discovers he is Katherine’s third patient. Ever. Kind of-- She is finishing her doctorate thesis and ultimately, he will be part of her research piece.
The cancer tormenting Adam is not the villain in this movie. Instead, Rachel, the artist/girlfriend becomes the person everyone hates. She is three-hours late picking Adam up from Chemo. She stays in bed asleep as he runs to the toilet to throw-up. She is out late at gallery openings, as he waits for her, bald and asleep on the sofa.
Kyle, who hated Rachel before the audience did, catches her making out with another artist type. He races to Adam’s home, and waits for Rachel to come home. Then he pounces on her with the IPhone evidence of her cheating heart. It may be one of the funniest “you are cheating on your boyfriend who has cancer” moments of all-time.
While Adam’s cancer certainly is the reason for the film: The film is not about cancer. The film is about the relationships, old and new surrounding Adam. His over-bearing mother wants to move in; Kyle wanting to use the cancer as a way for him and Adam to meet ladies and get lucky. The friendship formed with two other guys at Chemo over Marijuana-laced-Macaroons. His frustration with the cancer and his developing realization that everything may not be okay.
I do not want to give away the ending. There are gasp-for-air moments when you think you know how it is going to end. Several times during the movies, whether it is watching Adam wait in the rain for the bus after a Chemo treatment, or you watch his Alzheimer father not recognize Adam as he sits in the hospital, the movie does make you realize that life is not fair.
Whether you ball your eyes out has nothing to do with whether Adam lives or dies. The most touching male-on-male friendship scene since Jonah Hill carries Michael Cera as they runaway from the police in Super Bad happens in Kyle’s bathroom as Adam finds a book about dealing with cancer. The pages are dog-eared and portions underlined. You realize Kyle is the great friend, who does more than provide Adam with medical grade marijuana.
On a political side, it is interesting the movie so easily discussed the use and delivery of medical marijuana, as if controversy on the topic did not exist. In comparison, the word insurance was never mentioned in the film. We have no idea whether Adam was provided covered after taking a leave of absence from Seattle Public Radio, if he was receiving medical coupons, or if his cancer treatment would leave him bankrupt.

Super 8

Ben’s Review of Super 8
JJ Abrams may very well be his generation’s Steven Speilberg. He was able to provide a fresh take on the Monster movie in Cloverfield and reboot the Star Trek franchise in a way that even non-Trekkie fans could enjoy. So obviously the next step would be to collaborate with Steven Spielberg to give his take on an alien movie. This is not only a good move for Abrams but, judging from the last Indian Jones movie, a great move for Spielberg. With quite a bit of mystery, Abrams backed by Spielberg, brings Super 8 to try and go 3 for 3 on the sci-fi front. But can Abrams pay homage to Spielberg without outright copying him?
Set in 1979 Ohio, Super 8 opens with a funeral for the main character, Joe (played by newcomer Joel Courtney), mother. Joe takes solace with his friends who are filming a zombie movie for the Cleveland amateur movie festival on a Super 8 film camera. Charles, Joe’s friend and director of the Zombie film (played by another newcomer Riley Griffith), reads that movies need more plot to stand out in film festivals. Charles decides to bring in a girl, Alice placed by Dakota Fanning sister Ella, to play the love interest for the zombie hunting lead character. Even though she is not old enough to drive, Alice takes her father’s car sneaks out at midnight with Charles, Joe and the rest of the gang to film a climatic good bye scene at a train station when an actual train comes by. Eager to catch the footage of the train, the kids set up and start filming when a pickup truck drives head first into the train causing a derailment. The kids narrowly escape the train derailment and agree not to speak out the incident. However, strange incidents start happening around town including people disappearing and all the dogs in town running away. Soon the military comes in to investigate and contain the train wreck. Joes father Jackson, played by Friday Night Lights Kyle Chandler, is a deputy police officer who is left in charge when the police chief goes missing. The military is not telling Jackson anything and more and more people go missing. Things really take a strange turn when kids develop the film from the train derailment and catch a glimpse of something very alarming. What is causing the disappearance? Do the dogs comeback? Does the mystery get solved and is worth the wait?
As you may have already heard, this movie has been billed as the new E.T. This movie is much more of homage to Close Encounters of the Third Kind, down to the setting and the time of the movie. This movie is set up for disaster because it revolves around mystery and not letting the public know much of anything before they see it. Additionally, the movie relies heavily on the acting ability of children which, if you have seen anything made by Disney in the past 40 years, you know sarcastic overacting scene stealing children can destroy a film. Fortunately, J.J. Abrams knows what he is doing. The movie is believable because the story is the focus. It has quite a bit of heart without beating you to death sappy scenes. The mystery is very cool and pays off. Additionally, the kids in this movie are funny, quirky, and, most importantly, do not over do it. They swear, goof on each other, and act like kids. The special effects and the actors move this story along. While this movie may not quite rise to the same level of Close Encounters, it is good and a lot of fun to watch.
This movie gets three and a half reeses peeces out of five.
* Something Extra- The next Star Trek script is done and filming is set to begin shooting later this year with J.J. Abrams at the helm.


Elisa’s Review of Super 8
Well, another science fiction movie has come and gone, and I am just thankful it was a movie that was not based on a comic book. JJ Abrams of Alias fame and the ability to make Star Trek tolerable collaborated with Steven Speilberg as director to produce a sci-fi version of “Stand by Me.”
The film is rotten with special effects: huge train derailment scene and about 10 monster-people chases too many. Sans the green screen, the heart of the movie centers around a group of guys who are just trying to get through the late 70’s in middle America. Joe, whose mother just died in a warehouse mis-hap is looking for structure and love from his Police Officer Father. He spends a lot of time at the “Leave-it-to-Beaver” home of his friend Charlie, who is fascinated with producing/directing/writing a Super 8 movie for the Super 8 festival.
Super 8 refers to a type of movie camera used at some point before camcorders arrived. Joe, Charlie and their buddies set about making a zombie movie with a love story. Needing a girl to play a love interest, they seek out Alice, played by Elle Dakota, sister to Dakota. Alice is somewhat of a loaner, drives her father’s car, even though she does not have a license, and has acting ability beyond basic zombie attack skills.
Setting up to film a scene at an abandoned train stop just out of town, the group is filming when an approaching train is derailed by a wild-driving truck racing down the tracks. Train cars go flying, explosions abound, track comes flying off, in the most unrealistic, crazy use of special effects I have ever, I have watched in the last two weeks.
After the train derailment, the Army moves into town and tries to quietly detain whatever was in the train. The audience knows it is something bad, because the Army guys do not smile and are not friendly to Joe, Charlie and his buddies. Curfews are imposed, buildings are locked down, and people are removed from their homes. Similar to the United States Government evacuation of White Bluffs in Eastern Washington during World War II, the town is decimated before the end.
Super 8 is a great date-night movie Monsters and special effects for him, and well-written story of friendship, love and growing up for her. Did I need to see this movie in a theater? Probably not. The special effects seemed over-kill and unnecessary to the actual story line. Although, it is refreshing to sit through a move with a story line. Could I have lived my life without watching this movie? Maybe. The themes of friendship, laughs, teenage angst, and child versus adult reminded me of so many movies I loved growing up, “Goonies,” “Stand by Me,” “Emperor of the Sun” and “E.T.” that I must think “Super 8” is a movie that will hold its own against green screen effects over time.

Hangover II

Ben’s Review of Hangover II
If the first movie is good then why not try duplicating it again. If you bring back the exact same cast, director, and writer then you simply cannot lose. This was most likely the thinking behind the Hangover II. And why wouldn’t a movie studio think this? The original Hangover is the highest grossing rated R comedy of all time and the best selling comedy DVD of all time. This movie also jump started the movie careers of Bradley Cooper, Zack Galifinakis, and Ed Helms into hyper drive. With all of these accolades and a beloved cast, a sequel was merely academic. So a hilarious sequel is guaranteed right? Well….
The Hangover II begins with the revelation that everyone’s favorite Hooker marrying Dentist, Stu once again played by Ed Helms, is getting married in Thailand. Coincidentally, all of his friends from the Wolf Pac are invited, except for Alan, reprised by Zack Galifiinakis. Through some very tough convincing, Stu relents and invites Alan to the nuptials. So the gang goes to Thailand to marry off Stu. Stu, aware of the problems that can be caused by a bachelor party, refuses to partake in any pre-wedding festivities except for a beer with the guys on the beach and, of course, this is when everything goes wrong. The wolf pack wakes up in Bangkok with no recollection as to how they arrived there and must once again piece together the previous night’s activities and find the missing party member, this time Stu’s future brother in law. The three musketeers of debauchery once again have to check their pockets and rely on locals figure to learn the whereabouts of Stu’s brother-in-law. So is the Wolf Pac in Thailand a can’t miss premise?
(CAUTION SPOILERS FOLLOW) The original Hangover was a very original and well put together movie. It was truly hilarious because it had surprise after surprise which kept the audience riveted to their seats to see what would happen next. The problem is that the Hangover II does not offer anything new. It is literally the exact same premise and plot in everyway. Not only were almost all the gags the same but they occurred in the same order as the first movie. There were no real surprises just more of everything. The loan bright spot was a whole lot more Mr. Chow played by Ken Jeong The only real difference between the two movies is that the disturbing events that happen to the characters are truly disturbing to the point where they almost lose the humor.
I truly wanted to like this move but it came across as uninspired and just plain lazy. I give it two roofies out of five.

Elisa's Review of the Hangover II

"The Citizen Cane" of bachelor party movies touted "Rollingstone" magazine, in its review of the original "Hangover." When I meet people who have never watched the movie, I become so jealous that soon they are going to watch and experience each scene and laugh that full-body wet-their-pants laugh that only a first-time viewing provides. I can watch the same scenes, over and over on HBO--Is there anyone who doesn't want to experience Alan asking the clerk at Ceasar's "is there a phone bank in the hotel" for the first time again?
It was this built-up adoration for the antics Ed Helms, Zach Galifan...whatever, and Cooper Bradley, that provided the excitement for the sequel. Could these guys be as funny again? Could Sin City be replaced with Zen-City Bangkok? The answer, I am sad to report, is a solid, and loud, "NO."
It wasn't funny. I laughed in one part out of sheer exhaustion from holding in my cheer for 45 minutes. And, I am pretty sure what I laughed at was a complex penis joke, or a gay sex joke. It was a stretch. It was..not funny.
The studio, actors and writers cannot be blamed. Clearly, large wads of money were thrown at them to make this piece of cinema garbage. It is important to know two of the original writers, out of a team of three, did not participate in the sequel. Evidently, they were the clever and smart duo of the oringal threesome. They should receive an Oscar for "Best Decision Ever made."
The movie is so stagnant and boring, it seems as though the writers went scene-by-scene from the original outlining the movie. Or, it is possible they pulled up the original screen play and did a "Find/Replace" search finding "Las Vegas" and replacing it with "Bangkok." Finding "Tiger" and replacing with "monkey." Replacing "stripper" with "tranvestite hooker."
While the movie feels stagnant and boring, the plot is simultaneously rushed. There is no development as to when/where/how/why the boys are in Bangkok. There is no blury wake-up. It is a fast panic. Face Tatoo? Not that funny. They needed Liam Neason.
The story is canned and the laughs are cheap. Wait to rent it, HBO it, or watch the edited-for-TV version and save your tears. Hopefully, "The Hangover" franchise will not follow the four-peat sequels of another hilarious sleeper hit "Meatballs." There does not need to be a Zach Galifanik..whatever scene with Joan Rivers.