Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Whether you’re a diehard Trekkie or a regular moviegoer, everyone who has seen all of the “Star Trek” movies will tell you that the even-numbered films are good but the odd-numbered movies are not. Certain people will tell you that if you look closer that theory will be invalidated. On the one hand, everyone’s favorites “The Wrath of Khan” and “First Contact” are even, while on the other hand everyone’s least favorites “The Motion Picture” and “The Final Frontier” are odd. Brian Eggert stated in his review, “It’s not that the odd-numbered films are poor, though indeed one or two are; but rather, for some reason, they usually contain less actionized plots, and thus are less likely to serve up a blustering crowd-pleaser.” If you look at “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock,” released in 1984, which follows the movement of an Enterprises crewmember’s soul, or “katra” in the original Vulcan language. A spiritual journey is hardly a classic story for a big-budget blockbuster, which is probably why writer-producer Harve Bennett included some Klingon troubles for excitement.

Yet, the story is what Time critic Richard Schickel called, “the first space opera to deserve that term in its grandest scale.” Eggert said, “Indeed, Paramount Pictures didn't release another swashbuckler like the film’s immediate predecessor, but a weighty, sometimes cornball drama filled with themes of rebirth.” After everyone crying over Spock’s death at the end of “The Wrath of Khan,” Bennett began writing the script backward, starting with the final sequence of Spock’s rebirth and working his way back, since resurrecting Spock was the main reason Paramount signed on this sequel. Produced for $16 million, the studio kept the production cost (and even the production value) low. The devoted fan base guaranteed “The Search for Spock” would gross $76 million, giving another profitable release and setting the franchise’s future, regardless of unexcited responses.

Starting exactly where “The Wrath of Khan” ended, the film starts with Spock dead, having sacrificed himself to save the Enterprise and the crew, his body shot on a planet being created by the Genesis Device. This device creates life where there isn’t any, growing abandoned vegetation and atmosphere in wealth. With Spock’s body on the planet, he begins his rebirth. Meanwhile, the Enterprise has returned to Earth and stopped at a spaceport, the crew still mourning over the passing of their friend. Admiral Kirk has noticed that Dr. McCoy is acting somewhat strange. When Spock’s father, Sarek, played by Mark Lenard, arrives and hears of McCoy’s actions, he deduces that Spock must have transferred his “katra” into McCoy just before he sacrificed himself. Sarek tells Kirk he must recover Spock’s body and return him to Vulcan, where he will set up an ancient ceremony to return Spock’s “katra.”

Easier said than done. Back on the Genesis Planet, shameful Klingon Captain Kruge, played by Christopher Lloyd, wants to retrieve the life-bringing Genesis Device and recreate it as a weapon. On the planet, Vulcan scientist Lt. Saavik (Robin Curtis) and Kirk’s son David (Merrit Butrick), both characters introduced in “The Wrath of Khan,” find a Vulcan boy (Carl Steven, Vadia Potenza, Stephen Manley, Joe W. Davis and Steve Blalock, with Frank Welker providing the screams) aging rapidly, slowly growing into the ever famous Spock. Luckily, Kirk disobeys orders and quietly leaves with the Enterprise, with only the main crew, to stop the Klingons, recover the Genesis Device, and restore Spock’s “katra” from McCoy’s body to its newly reborn and rightful person on Vulcan.

Some awkward casting is very clear when Robin Curtis shows that she’s not Kristie Alley, who played Saavik in “The Wrath of Khan” and does not reprise her role in this movie. Alley supposedly wanted more money than was offered to reprise her first movie role from the last film. Paramount could have written her character out, but they re-casted the actress, a decision that made the film feeling erratic. Curtis’ presence is unnatural and stiff, too much even for a role to play a Vulcan. Additionally, as much as the Kruge character is needed to give some space action, his motivation is distorted, although Lloyd does great with one-dimensional roles.

Despite the late Nimoy being largely absent from the film, he appears on the poster and his name is on the director’s chair. Nimoy started his directing job for “The Search for Spock” after his positive experience on “The Wrath of Khan,” a film he originally said would be his last as Spock. Eggert said, “More than any other Star Trek film director, Nimoy renders all the characters with humanistic traits, which challenges the raw entertainment value of any photon torpedo battle. He captures how the actors and characters alike play off one another in a fixed rhythm—particularly Shatner’s Kirk and Kelley’s McCoy in this film—thus solidifying their permanent status in film and pop-culture history as genre icons. Doing this with sensitivity and consideration for the dramatic depth of the story is what makes Nimoy’s direction exceptional.”

Yet, there are creative choices that feel unusual to a movie and better fit for a two-part episode. For example, earlier in the opening credits we are treated to a recap of what happened in the previous film (Eggert said, “as though “Previously on Star Trek” should have opened the film”). Eggert goes on to say, “Such a generic intro hardly helps distinguish the film series from its television roots, but the visual splendor (save for some cheap-looking soundstage sets) and impressive effects make up for that. The aforementioned rigid acting and seemingly forced Klingon conflict also present unnecessary comparisons to the show.” Though, undeniably the studio fought for a villain, as saving Spock would not be enough to interest audiences that aren’t fans of the show – since “obviously” that would happen in this sequel. (After “The Wrath of Khan,” and even before it was released, fans wrote angry letters to Paramount against killing Spock.)

Despite all the problems, “The Search for Spock” is a nice, character-driven entertainment. Once again you would have to rethink the theory of ranking the “Star Trek” films by their numeric order, even-numbered good, odd-numbered bad. Eggert is right when he says, “Since The Search for Spock is the third film in the series, many waive-off its dramatic merits solely in support of this superstition, ignoring how the film elevates this franchise from mere adventure in the stars to a full-fledged theatrical experience, complete with a narrative that has us emotionally invested in familiar and lovable characters and their fates.” Helping the film out, audiences find out what kind of “Star Trek” viewer they are: Either they’re the type that allow themselves to get emotionally involved in the story, or they’re the everyday viewer watching only to see spaceships explode and the once in a while alien vaporized by a phaser. You can say I am in the former category.

Like I had already stated, this is the only odd-numbered “Star Trek” movie that I really recommend. It’s a good sequel, although the villain wasn’t a good follow-up to Khan. Lloyd is like a one-note villain, but a pretty good one, even with him going in a hand-to-hand fight with Kirk, like how it used to be in the original series. Kirk always had a number of physical fights with villains in the television show, as I have heard. A strong rivalry could have helped, but it’s still enjoyable, despite the fact that it can drag, since the big death scenes and strong moments will help the film feel operatic. Not as good as some of the others, but a nice sequel to follow “The Wrath of Khan,” so I give it credit for trying. Definitely check it out if you liked “The Wrath of Khan” because this film will not be a huge disappointment, even though I can understand why some people may find it boring.

Since Nimoy really hit a homerun with this movie, how do you think he will do since he returns as director for the next one? Find out this Friday for the next installment in “Star Trek Month.”

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Welcome back to “Star Trek Month,” where today we will be looking at the vast improvement over the first movie and the one that you should start the movie series out with, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” released in 1982.

At a time when the underwhelming “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” was released, the starting of the “Star Trek” movies needed an improvement, which is what “The Wrath of Khan” gave. While still having the thematic elements of the late-60s TV series and using the original and loved USS Enterprise crew, “Star Trek II” added a lot of action, adventure and suspense, putting life into a concept that had been left declining by the first movie. A lot of people like to declare this the best “Star Trek” movie and even the strongest any movie adaptation of the series that fans loved.

Unlike the first movie where the uniforms were pastel and clinical white, this one had a nicer burgundy uniform. James Berardinelli stated in his review, “The ship also seems smaller and homier than three years ago, although there's a definite warlike aspect to its comforts (witness the detail shown as the Enterprise prepares for the film's climactic battle).” The characters also appear more relaxed here, and the three-way friendship/rivalry between Admiral Kirk, Spock and McCoy heeds back to the best moments of the show. Director Nicholas Meyer, along with writers Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards, has taken quite some work to revive the humanity of “Star Trek.”

The film is a follow up to the first episode of the 22^nd season (“Space Seed”). Here, the villain Khan, played by the late Ricardo Montalban, in an enjoyable over-the-top performance, and his comrades have escaped from the barren planet where then-Captain Kirk imprisoned him fifteen-some years ago. Khan, once a brilliant, fascinating leader, has become a bitter psychopath, driven only to revenge. He blames Kirk for the death of his wife and his own life being ruined, and plans to execute revenge – in blood. After taking over a Federation starship, Khan steals Genesis, a possible doomsday weapon created by Kirk’s son, David (Merritt Butrick), and former girlfriend, Carol (Bibi Besch), and traps the Enterprise into a carefully-executed trap.

The “Star Trek” cast does what fans expect them to do. Berardinelli said this about William Shatner: “William Shatner, not generally regarded as a top-flight actor, fits comfortably into this role, mixing heroic arrogance with surprising vulnerability. Of the seven Star Trek features in which he has appeared, Shatner does his best work here.” As always, the late Nimoy plays Spock with a spark of sarcastic humor, and the late Kelley proves to be his perfect, inconsistent foil. Familiar faces James Doohan, Walter Koenig, George Takei and Nichelle Nicols have all returned, although only Koenig has more than a few empty scenes.

Along with bringing back Montalban’s enjoyable performance as Khan (Berardinelli stated, “This is a fun performance to watch, principally because it's so campy”), “Star Trek II” introduces three important new characters. The first is Saavik, played by Kristie Alley from the famous TV show “Cheers,” the half-Vulcan understudy of Spock. Then there are a couple of characters out of Kirk’s past – a son and a former girlfriend. Berardinelli said, “However, while Alley steals scenes as Saavik, both Bibi Besch and Merritt Butrick are flat and unappealing, causing the entire "Kirk's family" subplot to flounder. Fortunately, it's afforded only token screen time.”

“The Wrath of Khan” is a top-notch, fast-paced thrill ride that can be enjoyed equally by Trekkies and viewers who have never seen the show. There are several tense, well-shot battle scenes that show impressive special effects and a great score by James Horner. Berardinelli stated, “The ending, which I won't reveal (although everyone probably knows it by now) is tender and poignant -- proof that Star Trek can still touch the heart.” You might even know what I am talking about, but I won’t say. “The Wrath of Khan” shows the possible characteristic in the “Star Trek” idea as useful to the big screen. Berardinelli ended his review by saying, “It's unfortunate that none of the other films in this long-running series have come close to the level achieved by this marvelous example of entertainment.” A lot of people say that, but I beg to differ. Not to say that I hate this movie, I think this is one of the best. As the month goes on, I will reveal my personal favorite.

In the end, if you haven’t seen this movie, you shouldn’t even be reading my review. Skip the first movie and go to this one. You will be thoroughly enjoyed by it, I promise you. Not only will you like Khan and the film’s pacing, but the interactions between the characters really help this film out. Only downside are the special effects and some of the acting. Plus, Shatner and Montalban don’t have any screen time together. Their scenes had to be shot separately, so you don’t get a face-to-face encounter, but that’s fine. There's also the famous "Khan" scream that Shatner famously delivered in this movie.

Happy Independence Day once again my online readers. Wednesday I will look at the only good odd numbered movie in “Star Trek Month.”

The Patriot

Happy Independence Day to all my online readers. Today we will celebrate with another patriotic movie. Now you might be thinking that I will review the “Independence Day” sequel, but I haven’t seen that. I’m actually not wanting to go to the theater to watch it, especially since I haven’t heard good reviews of it. My review on the "Independence Day" sequel will be posted next year since I'm thinking of waiting until the DVD comes out to rent and watch it. Instead, let’s take a look at another movie. I’m thinking about the 2000 movie, “The Patriot.”

This is a story arguing the uselessness of nonviolence, set against the environment of the Revolutionary War. Roger Ebert said in his review, “It is rousing and entertaining, and you get your money's worth, but there isn't an idea in it that will stand up to thoughtful scrutiny.”

The British are seen as manly narcissus or sadistic beings, and the Americans are broken in two categories: brave or braver. Ebert said, “Those who have a serious interest in the period will find it a cartoon; those raised on summer action movies will find it more stimulating than most.”

Mel Gibson is our star, in a powerful and effective performance, as a widower named Benjamin Martin with seven children. He saw plenty of the battle in the French and Indian Wars, and was scared by what he found out about himself. He counsels a treaty with King George. He is asked about his principles by an old army friend, played by Chris Cooper, he replies, “I’m a parent. I haven’t got the luxury of principles.” However, he gets some really quickly, after the jerk British Colonel William Tavington (Jason Isaacs), arrests Martin’s eldest son Gabriel (the late Heath Ledger) and takes him away to be hanged, after first shooting another one of Martin’s sons (Gregory Smith) for no reason and burning down his house.

Ebert mentioned, “Since Martin had merely been treating the wounded of both sides in his home, this seems excessive, and in the long run turns out to be extremely unwise for the British, since Martin goes on to more or less single-handedly mastermind their defeat.” There must have been a handful British officers less of jerks – but none would have given the screenplay’s purpose, which is to show Martin filled with grief, rage and the hunger for revenge.

The following segment is the film’s most difficult to see. Martin and his sons (Trevor Morgan, Bryan Chafin and Logan Lerman) hide in the woods and trap Tavington and his soldiers. Eventually the battle turns into a hand-to-hand fight (with Martin holding a tomahawk). Gabriel is freed, and the younger boys see bloodshed for the first time (“I’m glad I killed them!” one of the children says. “I’m glad!”). The movie’s scenes of carnage have more impact than the handful of killings in a film like “Shaft,” because they are personal, not technical. Individual soldiers, scared and not prepared, are fighting for their lives, while Ebert mentions, “in the modern action movies, most of the victims are pop-up arcade targets.”

The main players in the war (George Washington, King George) are way offscreen, but we do see General Cornwallis, played by Tom Wilkinson, a British leader who, as Ebert said, “promotes a "gentlemanly'' conduct of the war and rebukes Tavington for his brutality. Still, when the Americans refuse to "fight fair'' and adopt hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against the British (who march in orderly ranks into gunfire), Cornwallis bends enough to authorize the evil colonel to take what steps are necessary to bring down Martin (by now legendary as "the Ghost'').”

The movie’s fight scenes are one of two things – disturbing and unlikely. Two fights are near the beginning of the film are conveniently fought in open fields seen from the upper windows of houses, so onlookers have clear view for the show and can give a running narration. No doubt revolutionary battles were fought right there in the grassland, but would Benjamin Martin let his children to stand in the windows, or tell them to hide in the barn? The “real” battles are difficult tests of men and horses, as soldiers ride into sarcastic fire, and the survivors take out their swords or fix their bayonets for a bloody fight in close proximity. Ebert credited, “These battles seem anarchic and pitiless, and respect the movie convention that bitter rivals will sooner or later find themselves face to face.” The scenes are well-shot by the director, Roland Emmerich, working off of a script done by Robert Rodat, the same man who wrote “Saving Private Ryan,” with its equally terrible battle scenes.

Ebert mentioned, “Hollywood movies are at pains these days to provide a role for a heroic African-American or two. A role for a black sailor was found in the segregated U.S. Navy submarine corps in "U-571'' (he was a mess orderly). Now we have a black slave who fights beside white men (even those who hate him) because Gen. Washington has promised freedom for all slaves who fight for a year. Good enough, but why not go all the way and give this character dialogue and a real role to play--instead of demeaningly using him only to count down the months and days until his freedom?” When the former slave, played by Jay Arlen Jones, finally gets two whole sentences in a row, at the end, he quotes Martin’s son: “Gabriel said if we won the war, we could build a whole new world. We could get started right there with your home.” Right. Why not get started with your own home? The movie gives light comic relief to calm the tension (Martin’s handmade chairs keep breaking beneath him), and a love story (Gabriel is in love with Anne, played by Lisa Brenner, a courageous colonial girl who sees him with a patriotic speech.) Anne’s father, played by Joey D. Vieira, is a deaf man who misunderstands things. When Gabriel asks permission to write Anne, the man at first gets offended. Then he says, “Oh…writer her! Of course you may.” What did he think Gabriel had asked? Meanwhile, there’s even female company for the hard-nosed Benjamin Martin, who asks the sister of his late wife, played by Joely Richardson, “May I sit here?” Ebert mentioned, “Her answer got laughs in the screening I attended: "It's a free country--or at least, it will be.'' These passages and others (including the Dead Man Who Is Not Really Dead) have been trucked directly into "The Patriot'' from the warehouse of timeless clichés. They betray the movie's lack of serious intentions.” This basically wanted to be a summer action movie, with a historical shine. It succeeding at being that. Ebert admitted “I enjoyed the strength and conviction of Gibson's performance, the sweep of the battle scenes, and the absurdity of the British caricatures.” None of it has much to do with the historical reality of the Revolutionary War, but with such a huge budget at risk, how could it?

In the end, I would say that this is a good movie nonetheless. I recommend this movie and say check it out. Mika Boorem and the late Skye McCole Bartusiak are playing Gibson’s daughters, with Bartusiak not speaking but gets emotional when her father leaves and saying to not go. That part is one of the saddest parts of any movie ever. Watching it will pull at your heartstrings, that I can say. Anyway, check the movie out, you’ll like it.

Check in later today when I review the second “Star Trek” movie.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

The month of July will be an exciting one because I will look at a very popular sci-fi franchise that has a huge fan base. In case you don’t know which franchise I’m referring to, it is none other than “Star Trek.” I will not do a full out “Trek-a-thon” where I review every single part of the franchise, like the shows and everything else. Instead, I will solely focus on each film entry leading up to the new one that will be released in a couple of weeks. Now let’s not waste any time, let’s dive in with the first entry, “Star Trek: The Motion Picture,” released in 1979.

“Star Trek,” the popular television series that ended 10 years prior to the release of this film is a classic, has, according to Vincent Canby, “like Lazarus, come back to haunt the skeptical and reassure all those who have kept the faith. It's called "Star Trek — the Motion Picture," rather superfluously, I think, because I doubt anyone who sees it could possibly confuse this film with those shards of an earlier, simpler, cheaper television era.”

Canby described, “Watching "Star Trek — the Motion Picture," which opens today at Loews Orpheum and other theaters, is like attending your high-school class's 10th reunion at Caesar's Palace.” Most of the characters are familiar, but the design has little familiarity to anything you’ve seen before. Among the crew are Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner), commanding officer of the Starship Enterprise, Vulcan Mr. Spock (the late Leonard Nimoy), whose emotions have been stripped after achieving “kolinahr,” the state of grace on his home planet Vulcan, Dr. McCoy (the late DeForest Kelley), the Enterprise’s general doctor, nicknamed “Bones” just like he would have been on H.M.S. Bounty, and other friends including Scotty (the late James Doohan), the engineering officer, Sulu (George Takei), the ship’s helmsman, Chekov (Walter Koenig), the navigator, and Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), the communications officer.

The newcomers are Stephen Collins (who would go on to play the father on the horrible long-running show, “7^th Heaven”), who plays Commander Decker, the Enterprise’s determined young executive officer, and Perris Khambatta, an actress from India who plays Ilia, a surprisingly beautiful young woman whose head was shaved completely clean in the fashion of her home-planet, Delta Four.

This time around the mission of the Enterprise is to interrupt a mysterious cloud, which is evidently light years in diameter and is heading toward earth for reasons that not even Mr. Spock can deduce. It’s no secret to let you know that the cloud contains what is normally called under such circumstances as “a superior intelligence,” though just what that intelligence is must be one of the film’s few surprises.

Canby stated, “I suspect that wit is not what "Star Trek" fans are looking for. Instead they want to see favorite characters who are as ageless and multidimensional as characters in a comic strip, and not at all ashamed of those origins.” The dialogue – at least what dialogue you could hear over Jerry Goldsmith’s music and the sounds of rockets being shot – is of a dullness that calms the tired mind, like, how Canby described, “Magic Fingers that work on a tired brain.” Unlike “Star Wars,” which was full of conscious reminders to other literature, “Star Trek” only refers to itself, with the possible allowance of the climactic series that borrows easily from Christian mythology.

The film’s vision of the future, which is a bit messy at the beginning, becomes increasingly fascinating as the movie goes on, or maybe it just seems that way as you might become entranced of endless patterns of light and color, made to mimic the experiences of the members of the Enterprise crew as they pass through a handful of dimensions of time and space.

“Star Trek” is yet another film that owes more to Douglas Trumbull and John Dykstra, who did the special photographic effects, and to Harold Michelson, the production designer, than it does to the director, the writers or even the producer, Gene Roddenberry, who also created and produced the television series.

Canby mentioned, “The formidable Robert Wise, who once directed a good, pacifist sci-fi film, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951), a film with very few special effects, directed "Star Trek," but I can't imagine what there was for him to do after telling the actors where to stand.” Because most of the drama in this kind of movie is created in the laboratories, the actors are limited to the trading of meaningful looks or staring closely at television monitors, usually in disbelief.

In the end, I don’t think this movie holds up at all. Instead, it’s a "Star Trek" movie that I don't recommend anyone to start the series out with. The reason why I say that is because not all the characters are developed in an interesting way, the movie drags at a surprisingly slow pace and you will be instantly bored by it. The effects look great, given the time period, but when you have to look at them for what looks like hours, you probably will be put to sleep. After seeing it (which I hope you don’t), you will realize why this is called “the slow motion picture.” If you do, by any chance, watch this movie, I advise you to keep your finger on the Fast Forward button. My brother says this is the worst "Star Trek" movie, but there's one that I think is "far" worse, which we will get to later in the month. I agree with both James Rolfe and the Nostalgia Critic where they stated that this film was copying what "2001: A Space Odyssey" did, but it failed because there can only be one "2001: A Space Odyssey." Thank goodness I'm done with this review.

In fact, you will realize that almost all the odd number “Star Trek” movies get the hate but the even numbered ones get the praise. If you want to know what I mean, keep checking in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday of this month to find out.

Speaking of which, check in on Monday for not only my yearly Independence Day movie reviews, but for the second entry in “Star Trek Month.”

X-Men: Apocalypse

Finally, I got to see one of my most anticipated movies that I wanted to watch this summer, “X-Men: Apocalypse,” which came out a month ago. Today, I will let everyone know what I thought about it.

Leonard Maltin started his review out by saying, “This screen series based on the colorful Marvel characters has proved to be both durable and flexible: having enjoyed a great run in its initial phase, it spun off two Wolverine vehicles for Hugh Jackman (with another on the way) and then rewound the timeline to create a series of prequels, beginning with the excellent X-Men: First Class.” Director and co-writer Bryan Singer, who kicked off “X-Men” in 2000 has released the latest sequel, “X-Men: Apocalypse” and gave another winner. (He even included a not-so-subtle in-joke about the first sequel he didn’t direct in the series.)

Maltin stated, “Essentially, the screenplay (credited to series veteran Simon Kinberg, from a story by him, Singer, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris) follows one major through-line: the world’s first and most powerful mutant, Apocalypse, has awoken after thousands of years.” Seeing the world how it looks in 1983, affected by war and conflict, he decides that it must be destroyed in order to be reborn – with him as its automatic leader. Although he is unrecognizable under pounds of makeup and costuming, this villainous character is played by Oscar Isaac, who, as Maltin said, “in his few short years onscreen has proved to be a rare talent—and something of a chameleon.”

Besides him, you need a notepad to keep notes on who’s who and who’s new: we have familiarized to the idea that James McAvoy is the younger Professor Charles Xavier/Professor X and Michael Fassbender is Erik Lensherr (aka Magneto), the roles made by Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen. We have also seen Jennifer Lawrence take over the role of Raven/Mystique, Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast, and Lucas Till as Alex Summers/Havok. Sophie Turner from “Game of Thrones” comes in the role of Jean Grey and Kodi Smit-McPhee is now a German-accented Kurt/Nightcrawler.

Evan Peters, as Peter Maximoff/Quicksilver, stole the show in the 2014’s “X-Men: Days of Future Past.” We met Rose Byrne as CIA Agent Moira MacTaggert five years ago in “X-Men: First Class.” However, Tye Sheridan is new to the series, taking over the role of Alex Summers’ brother Scott/Cyclops, and other newcomers include Ben Hardy as Angel, Alexandra Shipp as Ororo Munroe/Storm, Lana Condor as Jubilee, former “Daily Show” correspondent Olivia Munn as Psylocke, Wrestler “Giant” Gustav Claude Ouimet as The Blob, and Tómas Lemarquis as Caliban among others. Hugh Jackman makes an uncredited cameo as Logan/Wolverine.

Whether new or not, the characters’ motivations are completely clear and the story is told without the clutter you would expect with so many people involved. The action scenes are shot on a grand scale, appropriate to the power of the film’s god-like villain, and the visual effects are amazing. As usual, Bryan Singer’s longtime editor and collaborator John Ottman also gives the strong music score.

Maltin complained, “My only quibble with the picture is its length. When I’m caught up in a movie I become unaware of time, but if I start to feel antsy I know it’s beginning to wear out its welcome. X-Men: Apocalypse is first-rate (first class?) all the way, but I can’t help believing that it would be even better if it told its story more compactly. That’s a relatively small complaint when weighed against the movie’s many assets.”

I didn’t mind the runtime, but my only complaint is that with all these X-Men, how come everyone is not utilized? I want to see all these X-Men do something, but I don’t, which I often wonder what this series is doing wrong that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is doing right.

Spoiler alert: In the post-credits scene, men visit the Weapon X facility to get data on William Stryker's (Josh Helman) mutant research, including an X-Ray and blood sample labeled "Weapon X," for the Essex Corporation.

Overall, I would say that if you still have a theater that is playing this movie, go see it, it’s not a complete waste of time. If not, than I definitely say that this is worth the rental when it comes out on Blu-Ray and DVD. The characters are great, the action is engaging, the pacing is a little bit of a problem, and the dialogue is nice with some great comedic timing. I don’t like this as much as the first two or “Days of the Future Past,” but it’s still a good one. I would rate this with a 9-.

Thank you for joining in on all my reviews in the month of June, stay tuned next month for an exciting review of a classic series that has a huge fan-base.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows

Good news dudes: last Thursday, I went with my cousin to check out the new Ninja Turtles movie, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows,” which came out at the beginning of June. Today, I will give my review on this awesome sequel.

Eric Snider started his review out by saying, “Well, it took 26 years and six attempts, but they finally made a “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” movie that I enjoyed! Which is magnanimous of them, since I wasn’t the target audience and never expressed any interest in being part of it. But “Out of the Shadows,” the sequel to 2014’s loud, dumb reboot, at last achieves the goal the franchise has been reaching for all along: It’s made for 12-year-olds without “made for 12-year-olds” being meant as an insult.”

Snider goes on to say, “Often, that designation means a movie is shallow and lazy, or that it panders to a juvenile sense of humor, or that it’s full of plot holes and incoherence that the filmmakers assume kids won’t notice or care about. In truth, “12-year-olds” is often shorthand for “idiots.”” This film, on the other hand, is lighthearted, easy-going, and occasionally funny. Everyone has clear reasons and goals, and the fights (and energetic action scenes) make logical sense, arising out of character and not out of machine. The Turtles are shallow, but not annoyingly or mindlessly so, and they’re skillful of serious conversations about important things. Like a good comic-book sequel, the story brings back old villains, introduces new ones, and continues the established mythology. Snider credited, “It’s a better, more lucid superhero movie than “Batman v Superman” was, not that that’s saying much.”

Snider mentioned, “You notice almost immediately that the film wants to be straightforward and un-confusing, like the Saturday morning cartoon it should have been.” Right away, the four Turtles are reintroduced by name, along with their essential character traits – Leonardo (Pete Ploszek) the leader, Raphael (Alan Ritchson) the muscles, Donatello (Jeremy Howard) the brains, and Michelangelo (Noel Fisher) the comic relief. Later in the film, they introduce themselves to a new friend, corrections officer Casey Jones, played by Oliver Queen/Green Arrow from the DC show on CW, “Arrow,” Stephen Amell, successfully retelling the cast for audience members who might otherwise have difficulty telling the almost-identical Turtles apart.

Main dialogue and plot points are repeated a lot. When the Turtles find out that associates of Shredder, played by Brian Tee, the main antagonist they arrested in the last movie, are planning to help him escape from prison (among the associates is his daughter, Karai, played by Brittany Ishibashi), Donatello says, “They’re gonna break him out! He’ll be free again!” In the next scene, Donatello says the same line almost verbatim to his Master Splinter, voiced by Tony Shalhoub and motion-capture done by Peter D Badalamenti, who then says it again in a different way, with the addition of along the lines of how Shredder will be back to his old job of reigning terror. Snider said, “Most of the dialogue is declarative like that, a quality that makes me roll my eyes or sigh with boredom when it’s in an adult movie, but which is perfectly suitable for one intended for kids. (An even better movie would do this without being obvious about it, but we’re taking baby steps here.)”

The villains, as well, keep repeating their mission in laymen’s terms. (Snider said, “Like 37% of all films, this one is about an effort to collect the mystical artifacts required to open a portal to somewhere.”) Besides Shredder, there’s Krang, voiced by Robert Barone from “Everybody Loves Raymond,” Brad Garrett, an intelligent, creepy alien who, described by Snider, “looks like a cross between an octopus and a brain and who resides in the chest cavity of a powerful robot that does not always obey his instructions. Krang seems like something out of “Futurama,” which is fine with me.” When he assigns Shredder to get the artifacts so Krang can conquer Earth, Krang also gives Shredder purple ooze that can turn people into mutated animals. Shredder uses it on two unenthusiastic fellow convicts, Bebop (comedian Gary Anthony Williams from “Whose Line is it Anyway?”) and Rocksteady (WWE Wrestler Stephen “Sheamus” Farrelly), who become giant warthog and rhino, respectively – and they love it. Bebop and Rocksteady (the movie makes sure to keep saying their names together like that, “Bebop and Rocksteady”) “love” being powerful mutants who destroy things. Their passion is enjoyable.

Donatello actually hypothesizes, after a small experiment, that the purple ooze could also make the Turtles look human. As a result, they wouldn’t have to hide in the sewers and let useless cameraman Vern Fenwick, reprised by Will Arnett, take all the credit for their heroics (which does sound radical, if you think about it). The Turtles disagree among themselves based on this idea, leading to a split – a huge issue for a group that is dependent on unity and teamwork. Snider said, “When Splinter tells Leo that “it’s the different points of view that make the team strong,” I realized with astonishment that his statement makes sense because the Turtles are actually four distinct individuals this time, rather than being interchangeable.” Leonardo’s on a bit of a control freak as the team’s leader, Raphael is short-fused and narrow-minded sometimes, Donatello has a crush on April O’Neil, reprised by Megan Fox, who is overtime getting better at acting, and Michelangelo is somewhat of the sweet, carefree turtle.

All of this is at odds with the film’s messy, brainless prequel (which I thought was tubular). Dave Green is the new director, but two of the three screenwriters, Josh Appelbaun and Andre Nemec, are the same. Snider said, “Maybe we should blame the 2014 film’s badness on its third writer, Evan Daugherty, who wasn’t involved this time? Let’s see, Daugherty’s credits also include “Snow White and the Huntsman” and “Divergent.” So yeah, I’m comfortable with that.”

Snider goes on to say, “I don’t mean to suggest that “Out of the Shadows” is excellent.” The human characters are not completely interesting (although actor, producer, director, screenwriter, playwright, author, and songwriter Tyler Perry’s Baxter Stockman, clearly inspired by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, is close) and everything to do with Casey Jones and police chief Laura Linney is clichéd. (She doesn’t believe his story about the Turtles trying to stop Shredder’s escape, even though it happened during a high-speed freeway chase that must have had quite a handful of witnesses). Although Jane Wu as Jade is quite the eye-candy. It’s also another film where the climax has parts of New York City being destroyed by the Technodrome being assembled in the sky. However, it treats its silly heroes and story just seriously enough for us to get into it without getting “too” serious, which makes a huge amount of difference.

Here’s what I say: maybe the rest of you dudes learned how to tell the Ninja Turtles apart years ago, which is really righteous. Snider admitted, “Maybe the cheerful, slightly off-beat tone of the movie is how the comics or TV cartoon always were. Or maybe it’s a betrayal of those things! Maybe true TMNT fans will hate this. Don’t know, don’t care. I had fun with it.” I agree with him on this because I thought I had a cowabunga time with this.

In the end, I think this movie is an improvement over the first one, but I don’t think a lot of people will like it, although I think this is an enjoyable popcorn flick, like the first one. It's not as good as the live-action trilogy from the 90s, but I like them still, in their own way. All of the characters are enjoyable, each turtle gets used equally, the action is great, and it was nice to finally see Shredder, Krang, Bebop and Rocksteady in a movie together. The good news is that the four actors who play the turtles and Megan Fox have signed on for a third film. Tyler Perry will also be back in the third film, so we’ll see what kind of Turtle Power they are going to give us in that one.

Well, thank you for joining in on all my reviews in June. There’s one other film I want to see in theaters, which I might see this weekend, although I’m not sure. If I don’t see it before the month is over, then stay tuned next month of another great month of reviews.

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

We have now come to the third and final installment in this trilogy, “Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb,” released in 2014.

Now in its third installment, it’s stronger than ever that this trilogy is based on one joke that has been extended way beyond the breaking point, and not that smartly at that. Fortunately, this movie remembers must of the disturbed silliness that made the second movie completely enjoyable. So it’s watchable even if there aren’t a lot of new ideas, and even if filmmaker Shawn Levy is really happy to settle for unnecessary digital effects work where a small amount of character comedy would have been way more likable.

Back in his previous job as a night security man in New York, Larry is now, as Rich Cline described, “Orchestrating the museum exhibits when they come to life to provide spectacular shows for visitors who think this is all a special effect.” Even his boss, played by Ricky Gervais, doesn’t know what’s really happening. However, when a glitch in the magical Ancient Egyptian powers causes commotion, Larry figures out that he needs to fly to London so he can reunite Ahkmenrah with his father, played by Ben Kingsley, who’s on display at the British Museum. Larry’s teenage son Nick, played by Skyler Gisondo, comes with Larry, as does his exhibit friends Teddy Roosevelt, tiny soldiers Octavius and Jedediah and everyone else. However, in London, while sneaking around the Museum’s night security Tilly (comedian Rebel Wilson), Larry and his team wakes a knight statue Lancelot (Matthew Crawley from “Downton Abbey,” Dan Stevens), who joins in on their journey with rather a lot of enjoyment. Cline mentioned, “Until Lancelot turns up, everything about the film feels oddly tired, from the starry cameos to effects work that strains to be clever. Then Stevens injects a badly needed jolt of blue-eyed charisma and warped comical timing that makes the rest of the movie rather good fun.” Rebel Wilson’s side-plot is actually pretty funny, with some perfectly silly touches. Even the cameos get better, notably a part on a West End stage that’s honestly inspired silliness. Coogan and Wilson give some harsh joking to escort everything that happens, and Stiller, and Cline said, “Kind of hangs on for dear life.” However, the filmmakers don’t really care about these characters. They’re just trying to create something visually remarkable that’s also silly fun.

Cline said, “The quality of the digital trickery is certainly impressive, most notably in some freak-out moments like a room full of broken statues trying to move with missing limbs. And a sequence inside an Escher painting is eye-popping. But there's little coherence between these set-pieces, and no real momentum to the thin plot.” There’s also the problem that the filmmakers are evidently not interested in museums at all. They never make anything of the interaction with history or art (Cline said, “they don't even understand that a historical collection like the British Museum is unlikely to contain a dinosaur skeleton or an Escher painting”). Instead they’re just happy to give a bit of high-budget, middle-brow entertainment.

Unlike the previous two installments where I was there with my sister and one other cousin, this time we had some members in our extended family that came with us to see this movie. Rightfully so, this movie is dedicated to the loving memories of Mickey Rooney and Robin Williams. I applauded when Robin Williams’ name came up, as that man deserved it since he was my favorite comedian. One of my friends joined in when I applauded for him, and I can only imagine what it would have been like if we saw this on opening weekend. Possibly the whole theater would have applauded, but when we went and saw it, only I and one of my friends applauded since he is, and always will be, sorely missed from the movie and comedy world.

In the end, I definitely say to check this movie out since this movie actually comes full circle and ends on a strong note. If you loved the previous two installments, than you will get into this one just fine. Especially if you have small children, they will be fairly entertained when watching this. Check it out and see for yourself.

Now that I have finished the “Night at the Museum” trilogy, stay tuned next week to see what I finish the month of June out with.