Into the Woods (2014)

3/5

Into the Woods is a musical fairy tale that revolves around a baker (Corden) and his wife (Blunt) who cannot seem to get pregnant. They discover that a curse of infertility has been placed on them by the witch living next door (Streep). The only way to reverse it is to bring her ingredients from other fairy tales: Rapunzel's hair, Little Red Riding Hood's little red riding hood, Jack and the Beanstalk's white cow, and Cinderella's slipper.

The film version of Into the Woods suffers from the fact that it was made by Disney. The play's raison d'être is to satirize the overly-romanticized fairy tales on which Disney prides itself, to make them darker and dig deeper into their sentimental "happily ever afters." Disney's version is no longer edgy; all the adulteries and deaths are cleaned up and hidden so that the film will be appropriate for little kids. There is one glaring exception to this general sentiment and that is the Big Bad Wolf. Johnny Depp somehow manages to turn the character of a hungry wolf into a stalker pedophile, which would be uncomfortable to watch in any film but is downright disturbing in a Disney film.

As if that wasn't enough to ruin the movie, they cut out my favorite part. In the original production, the narrator eventually becomes part of the action and gets killed in the ensuing chaos. There is no narrator in Disney's movie. (Well, there is, but he's not a character involved in the story.) The worst!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

3/5

The latest Jack Ryan movie is a reboot of the Tom Clancy franchise starring Chris Pine as the titular "shadow recruit." It's a great way to spend 100 minutes of your day for a quick fix of entertainment, but it's ultimately a pretty empty shell of a movie. The characters are generic cardboard cutouts and the acting is forgettable. There is absolutely no chemistry between Chris Pine and Keira Knightley. While the espionage is thrilling, it feels almost mechanical in the way each scene is played out, as if every component is merely following a strict set of instructions. There is nothing organic about it. And the technical aspects of the movie are perfunctory. This is a movie made with money in mind and not much else. Still, it's pretty fun.

On a side note, I accidentally rented this movie instead of The Wolf of Wall Street. I have no idea why; I just clicked on the wrong movie in Redbox. I still need to see The Wolf of Wall Street. Darn.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205537/

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

4/5

Star Trek: Into Darkness is a phenomenally thrilling summer blockbuster and not much more. This time, the intrepid crew of the USS Enterprise finds themselves thrust unwittingly into the midst of a budding intergalactic war that could end with Earth's destruction. The villain is a genetically-engineered super-human (Cumberbatch) who has nothing but vengeance on his mind. Taking place a short time after the first one, the characters have not grown or matured at all since we last saw them. They are as familiar and simplistic as they were previously, with flat personalities and predictable motivations.

But the movie is better than its predecessor thanks to a more engaging story and more exciting action. The plot is nothing to write home about, but it propels the characters forward with nigh unstoppable velocity. The cinematography is fraught with the same ubiquitous lens flares that plagued the previous film. The real surprise--for me, at least--is Cumberbatch. He is charming but devious, cunning but friendly, repulsive but inviting. He makes the movie stand out, and I can't wait to see him in more stuff (Sherlock is next on my long list of TV shows to watch).

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/

Unstoppable (2010)

3/5

Tony Scott's Unstoppable is a simple movie with a simple premise. An unmanned train is careening across Pennsylvania at 70 miles per hour with 8 cars of hazardous cargo. A veteran locomotive engineer (Washington) and a young train operator (Pine) attempt to stop it by latching their own train onto the renegade train's back and gunning it in the opposite direction. And that's about all you need to know plot-wise. The movie is a fairly generic popcorn flick, but it does what it intends to do well. It keeps you excited for its entire length, with excellent pacing and editing. The acting turned out to be much better than I expected (only because I never expect very much from these types of movies), but the script as a whole was quite lacking. The cinematography and directing were also bland, which comes as a welcome departure from what I'm used to from Tony Scott. To sum up, if you're looking for a way to kick back and watch an hour and a half of thrills without having to think, then this is the movie to do it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477080/

Star Trek (2009)

3/5

Star Trek is a very entertaining and enjoyable movie. And it was exactly what I expected, without any surprises to elevate it past the status of summer blockbuster. It's right where GI Joe, Terminator, and Transformers are gonna be when they come out. It's action-packed enough to excite the masses looking for a quick thrill ride, it's funny enough to defuse tension and keep people laughing, and it's got enough quotes from the original to appease superficial fans of the series. Now, I'm not a huge fan myself (I rated the original movie 2/5), but I can see how hardcore followers might be upset by the liberties the writers took with the series. But whatever. It's a glossy, slick reinvention of Star Trek that has the potential to bring some new fans and their wallets into theater seats. Now, to vent:

JJ Abrams uses too many lens flares. They're in pretty much every shot, even--bafflingly--dark environments. Lens flares are the worst. Also, he seems to love three-dimensional fonts, going so far as to re-use the sucky one from his less-than-stellar series Fringe. Three-dimensional fonts are the worst. Worst worst worst. Worst.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/