Iron Man 3 vs Star Trek: Into Darkness

      So I've been busy over the past couple of weeks watching new movies. I spent money, some of which I do regret, those large buckets of popcorn are a doosie.

       But I have seen two blockbusters, and I have to say, one was much better then the other. Last week I saw Iron Man 3, and let me tell you, it was awesome! The visuals, the script, the acting, the Mandarin, holy cow! It was one wild ride! In this Iron Man, Tony Stark is still reeling from what happened to him in The Avengers; what with Aliens, and SHEILD, and gods and stuff, I don't know, I haven't seen it yet (and this is important... I'll get back to that) But he's not the same confident and cocky Tony from the first or second Iron Man, he's plagued by anxiety attacks and something akin to PTSD, which he tries to deal with the entire movie, that's just one of the reasons why I liked it so much. Tony isn't the cocky SOB that we have seen in the past, he has problems, and because of them, he tries to hide behind his Iron Man armor. If you can make a super hero flawed like this, and make it work, you've got yourself a movie, and a damn good one too. Not to mention the twists, which were not at all predictable. Usually the third movie of anything isn't as good as the first, but this one was just as good maybe better.

      Now, Star Trek: Into Darkness. I was unimpressed. The visuals were cool, the plot was cool, the rest of it could have used some work. I felt lost through-out the entire movie. I didn't really understand what was going on in the first few minutes of it, because it felt like the writers were assuming that you'd seen the first movie, which I had not seen. So while everybody in the theater was laughing at stuff, I was sitting there like a wierdo with a dumb look on my face. Second, you could see a lot of the twists in the movie coming a mile away, and it just didn't feel the same or have me at the edge of my seat like Iron Man 3 did the entire time.

      So as I mentioned before, I hadn't seen either the Avengers movie or the first Star Trek, and I think that this is also important. In Iron Man 3, the movie stood alone from the Avengers movie, and the first two Iron Man movies too. You could walk in there, not know a thing about the previous movies, and still enjoy yourself. However, I felt lost in Star Trek, which didn't help, because I couldn't enjoy myself. I didn't understand why certain things were happening and why people were laughing when they were. It didn't stand alone from the first movie, which I think was kind of a bummer. It wasn't really original, and it wasn't all that great of a movie. I think it's also important to mention that on the drive home from Star Trek, my dad, my brother and I weren't talking about how great Star Trek was, but how cool Iron Man 3 was, a movie we had seen a week previous. Star Trek just didn't stick with me like Iron Man did, and good movies stick with you.

      All in all, Iron Man 3 was a trip and Star Trek was just another movie I saw. If you had to choose between one or the other, go see Iron Man, Star Trek can wait.

In Time

  Definitely not the "Best of REM" album. I saw this movie this summer with some friends of mine. I went into it thinking "okay, don't expect much from this." and came out of it thinking "Thank god time isn't money, because I would be really pissed."

  The movie is about a future dystopia where time literally is money. After the age of 25 you have a year to get more time or else the little clock on your arm goes down to zero and you croak. Will Salas (Timberlake) is a guy from the wrong side of the tracks who gets lucky when a guy from the right side of the tracks decides to be a saint and give Salas almost 100 years (which would be worth... well I don't know because they never really elaborate on that) Anyway. The timekeepers (the police) think that Salas killed that good Samaritan and go on a man hunt for Salas. Salas decides to take a ride to the right side of the tracks, he meets the beautiful Sylvia Weis (Seyfried) who for some reason decides that the good life sucks, ditches her dad and all his riches and goes rouge with Salas. All the while the timekeepers are chasing after them and trying to set everything back to the way it was. Meanwhile, the two then play modern day Robin Hood and Little John and spread the wealth all over the place like hot butter on bread.

   Well, I'll tell you this, the cast wasn't necessarily the problem. Sure there was some laughable acting done by Timberlake, but that's because he has done only one really dramatic role in his acting career in the movie The Social Network. What I'm trying to get at though is that the acting wasn't necessarily the problem, it was the script, the whole damn thing. The writers tried to hit on so many themes that it was hard to follow the  actual theme of the movie. The couldn't decide between whether or not it was "Should people live forever" or "This is what our world is coming too". I know that I was supposed to feel connected to Salas and Weis most of all, but I felt more sympathy for the Timekeeper, Raymond Leon, that was chasing them throughout the whole movie. Call me crazy, but it just seemed that he had the most to loose in this whole affair and I felt that at times the movie was a little one sided. It seemed that they tried to hit on so many philosophical and obvious political themes, that it took away from the main theme of the story... whatever that was, it got lost towards the end.

   Sci-fi movies can really be hit or miss. This one was a real miss. I would love to see it again though, if Mystery Science Theater 3000 did it. All in all a 5/10. Only see this movie if you have the time and/or money to waste.