Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

The 2009 "Star Trek" was one of the best films I saw that year. While some geeks bemoaned the alternate timeline Get Out of Jail Free Card, I thought it was a brilliant maneuver which freed it from the albatross of continuity that hangs from the neck of every film in the series before it. And under the efficient yet overly lens-flare zealous direction of newly appointed "Nerd Savior" J.J. Abrams and the amazing acting from the spooky-good cast, the 2009 "Star Trek" was to be quite honest, the best of the series since "The Wrath of Khan."

Naturally expectations were sky high for the followup. Personally I had "Star Trek Into Darkness" pegged as my second most anticipated film of the year, bested only by "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug." The mystery surrounding the plot and the enigmatic villain only served to amp up the anticipation, as Abrams as per usual wouldn't tell us anything outside of vague hints in the trailers. Like I'm guessing was the case with a lot of people, I was losing my mind over it. I needed to see this damn movie.

It must be a sadly amusing thing to watch a nerd freak out over a movie. I wouldn't know. I'd be on the inside looking out. I'd probably sympathize.

It's such a special feeling to have all those hopes and expectations you had been carrying for so long be thoroughly met and even, on occasion, exceeded. I was expecting "Star Trek Into Darkness" to be good on the mere fact that the last one was. I had no idea that is was going to be like this.

This movie blew my damn mind.

Still not sure if I like the "football jersey" uniforms, though.

Once again, as with the 2009 film, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a sleek, surprisingly humorous and tightly wound action flick that pays homage to the source material while putting its own very distinct stamp on it. There's no way you'd mistake either of these films for the Shatner or even Stewart series besides the fact that they all feature a starship with NCC-1701 stenciled on the hood. The J.J. Abrams series is more like those films if they were one of the bonus levels from "Sonic The Hedgehog 2" cranked up on 5-Hour Energy Drinks and blasting Van Halen. But at the same time the reboot has a clear love and deep respect for the source material, and constantly goes out of its way to pay homage to it and reference it whenever it can. And the best part is you don't even have to be a Trekkie to "get it."

With "Star Trek Into Darkness" however, this was like a whole new beast. This isn't a journey of exploration nor a character study nor a turn-off-your-brain explosion fest. This is a dark, violent, dangerous roller coaster ride which sends you plummeting from orbit. And it's sending you flying at such high speeds and severe turns that the G-force is enough to liquefy your skull as it sends you hurdling through the Earth's core. While you're on fire. And blasting Van Halen.

From the opening scene where Spock enters an erupting volcano, "Star Trek Into Darkness" hits the ground running and never stops. Ever. The closest it comes to down time is right after that when Kirk gets predictably reamed out by Admiral Pike for being a loose cannon who doesn't play by the rules, and Kirk reams out Spock because he can't physically not play by the rules, even when people's lives are in danger. Even in the quiet parts people are yelling. And then a building kind of explodes and that's the end of that. From then on it's non-stop intensity. Full power to the warp core, indeed.

Ah yes. The rare "Inward-Facing Double Coconut Crush" maneuver. Brian Adams would be impressed. #oldschoolwrestingjoke #sorry

The story this time involves a mysterious man named John Harrison, who is doing a very good job of blowing up a whole bunch of Starfleet stuff and killing a lot of people. A LOT of people. (The collateral damage numbers in this film are staggering) Once the situation goes beyond personal for Kirk, he sets out to find Harrison and take him out. But as we could tell by the trailer, there is far more to Harrison than meets the eye, and finding himself quickly outclassed and outgunned, Kirk finds himself in a situation where the fate of his crew and everyone he cares about is in dire straights. And the mystery of who this man is serves as one of the most thrilling reveals I've seen in a film in a long time.

I'm going to once again give every single last bit of praise that I can possibly heap onto the cast. As far as the main cast goes, they get all of it. All of my praise. There is not any among them that doesn't capture the spirit of the original actor, almost like it was the younger version of themselves on screen.

Chris Pine has the swagger and bravado and even some of the same mannerisms and facial ticks that William Shatner brought James T. Kirk to life with, but at the same time he does his own thing with it. This is particularly true with his vocal pacing and inflections, which are thankfully nowhere near the Shatnerian method of acting. But every once in a while he slips a halting, oddly intonated line in there in clear tribute. But Pine brings something that Shatner (as much as I am a fan of his) wasn't really able to do, which was to give Kirk a real sense of vulnerability. Here, Kirk is a man who has been successful mostly due to his freakishly good luck and good instincts. But that has made him reckless and overly confident - something which is about to cost him and his crew dearly.

"Oh. Hi."

This movie finds Kirk at the nadir of his lowest despair and the height of his greatest heroics, and Pine sells it with every word out of his mouth and expression on his face. I got more emotional resonance from Chris Pine in this than I ever did from Shatner, which isn't a slam on Shatner because this is a different kind of movie than he was in, but it made Kirk seem like more of a human being rather than the larger-than-life, nearly mythical figure that he was back in the original series or films. That's not to say he wasn't fully fleshed out as a character back then, but he was just as much a "real person" as Bruce Campbell is when he stars in something. You don't watch it for the subtle nuances of his acting, you watch it because it's Bruce Campbell and he's freaking awesome.

Zachary Quinto threatens to steal to show as Spock, once again capturing Nemoy's signature performance to an eerie degree. And if Kirk shows a huge range of emotions and states of mind in this film, it's Spock's journey here that is arguably even more significant, as we get deeper insight as to the nature of his Vulcan way of thinking, and how he functions as a man who has chosen to ignore fear or pain. But when it comes time for that resolve to be severely tested Quinto, like Pine, is more of a firebrand than Shatner or Nemoy portrayed, and because of that tends to convey emotion more effectively when he does fly off the handle after being annoyingly composed for so long.

Pretty much everyone else is a superstar. Karl Urban IS DeForest Kelley. There's no way around it. His version of Bones is the most accurate of all the cast, and he freaks me out. He's also given some of the best dialogue in the film, including the funniest lines and most foreboding. I was very happy to see Simon Pegg's Scotty get a more significant role in this movie than the previous one, as he is another one of my favorite actors, and likewise does a spot-on James Doohan. Zoe Saldana's Uhura is a bit too aggressively in-your-face than I'd like, as it's not much like Nichelle Nichols, but it's a fine version of that character. Meanwhile Anton Yelchin and John Cho as Chekov and Sulu are fantastic but a bit underused for my liking. But then again, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is, like all the rest, a movie about Kirk and Spock. We can't blame priorities on screen time, and everyone does get their moments to shine, short as some of theirs might unfortunately be.

What the crap is Uhura looking at?

The only person I didn't like was Alice Eve. She's a terrible actress. Just wretched. I've hated her in everything I've seen her in, and here was no different. I was pissed when I found out she was in this, and I was proven right to be mad. She's wooden, she speaks like she's reading cue cards, and can't seem to figure out if her character is a calm, cool, collected hard-ass or ready for a nap. I guess the way to portray "strong female characters" is to act bored and speak in a deadpan monotone. Even in a scene where she's pleading for her life and the lives of everyone on the Enterprise she delivers her lines about as forceful and intense as someone ordering from a Taco Bell drive-thru.

Ugh. Just go away.

But what of Benedict Cumberbatch? What of the villain? That would involve spoilers. Horrendous, unforgivable, ruinous spoilers, and I'm not going to do that to anyone, and I would advise that anyone who hasn't seen it yet to not even look up this film on IMDB or its equivalent before seeing it, because spoilers are already hard-coded into the page. Just go into it blind, as it was meant to be seen. But suffice it to say that Cumberbatch is incredible. Unbelievable. Someone needs to cast him as every villain ever after this film, because he's seriously like the next Alan Rickman, or perhaps a better analogy would be Jeremy Irons crossed with Christopher Lee and a dash of Ralph Fiennes. And you need to see him in this.

If he's not the next Bond villain, I quit life. Seriously. I'm checking out.

The only issue I take with this movie is roughly the last 3 minutes. Everything before that is golden, but at the very end it pulls the rip chord on a fight scene which is so intense and heart-pounding that I don't think I blinked for 15 minutes. Then PUNCH - cut to black - two weeks later - then one year later - some words are said - credits. Done. It's almost like the movie heard his parents coming up the stairs while he was in his room smoking so he had to stamp the cigarette out quick, sit on it, spray half a can of FeBreze and throw the ashtray out the window like "WHOOPS NOPE NOTHING TO SEE HERE. WE'RE DONE. MOVE ALONG."

Additionally I must nitpick that the traditional "Space...the final frontier" speech isn't very well handled. It's kind of crammed in there nonsensically, and the way they do it implies that it's actually the oath that Starfleet captains take when they assume command. This would also imply that every ship in Starfleet is called "Enterprise" and is on a 5-year mission to boldly split infinitives. There's also a problem with Kirk not getting any closure on dealing with the fact that he loses a LOT of people on this trip out. It's never even brought up, which wouldn't be such a huge deal except that at the beginning of the movie Kirk makes it a big point that he's never lost a single crew member. Well, that's changes, and it should have been a very emotional scene and a bit of character development which ties into the themes of hard choices and loss throughout the whole film, but since the movie just decides to slam on the breaks we never get that.

But whatever. That's the last 3 minutes. That's 2% of the run time of this movie. And while those things are annoying, everything else is - simply put - one of the best action movies I've seen since...well...2009's "Star Trek." And you need to see it. NOW.

Oh god this trailer. I have all the excitement.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I have not been this pumped up and pleased by any other film this year. It's the best action movie of 2013 so far, hands down, and it's just as good (if not in some ways better) than the 2009 film. It's in the top 3 best "Star Trek" films, and I honestly really want to see it again. Like, I wish I was watching it again instead of typing this. Guaranteed in the Top 10 of 2013, probably near the top. Unreal.

The Raven (2012)

Edgar Allen Poe was a 19th century poet and novelist credited with helping to popularize the short story format, inventing the detective story, and being the first writer to attempt making a living off of it. At the end of his life, he was also involved with a "Se7en"-esque serial killer plot that saw several people horribly murdered using methods described in his stories.

What? You didn't know about that last part?

"The Raven" is one of those movies that likes to play it fast, loose and conspiratorial with history. Much like "From Hell" or perhaps "Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies" if you want to get really out there, the story only uses history as tenuously placed support beams to try and hold up the narrative, with varying degrees of success. It's not so much that the historical evidence supports what the movie is trying to say, it's that history never came out and specifically said that President Lincoln didn't kill zombies.

"I'm just saying, if there's no record of zombies in D.C. in the 1860's, someone had to kill them..."

Not that the fact that the story is completely ludicrous is enough to make it bad. Anybody who slams this movie for not being historically accurate is being a total snob barking up several wrong categories and genus of flora. I have a sneaking suspicion that was probably the case with much of the reception that "The Raven" received when it was released earlier this year, because I just remember it getting brutally torn to absolute shreds.

I'm not quite sure what people were expecting when going into a movie that has Edgar Allen Poe chasing down a guy who is going around killing people like he's the Zodiac Killer. Perhaps reality should be checked at the door.

Does that mean I liked "The Raven?" Well, it depends. On a purely subjective level, it was just kind of "meh." It wasn't bad, but it didn't really do a whole lot for me, despite being fairly pretty to look at, and being reasonably engaging in terms of story. I did truly want to know what was going to happen next, and that's not anything to shake a pendulum at. Am I going to remember it in a few weeks time? Probably not. Much of it is already fading, which is the mark of a pretty sub-standard movie.

This is either Cusack being intense or my reaction whenever I watch Dane Cook.

However, when checked against the apocalyptic reception it got from critics and the box office, it's far better than you might expect it to be. Honestly, people, it's not that bad, despite what you may have heard. At least "The Raven" didn't offend me to my core. This isn't the "Total Recall" remake or anything. It was just trying to do something a bit different. And yeah, it didn't succeed that well, but we should be happy to see some originality in movies as opposed to bland PG-13 shlock.

The first thing about "The Raven" that I wasn't so keen on was John Cusack. I know he's got a big fanbase but I've never been a huge fan of his. I think it's because I didn't watch John Hughes-style comedies in the 80's and early 90's. Would you believe I've never seen "Pretty In Pink" or "Real Genius?" For some reason a bunch of those movies just passed me by. And for some reason many of them starred John Cusack. Now I watch movies like that and that nostalgia factor just isn't there for me. I think the Cusack Express has officially passed me by.

I will say that Cusack wasn't horrible as Edgar Allan Poe. At least once the movie got past the first act, that is. When we meet Poe, Cusack is playing him in such an over-the-top obnoxious manner that it's honestly hard to watch. An early scene in a bar where Poe starts begging for a drink by using his fame as credit quickly crosses the line from awkward to uncomfortable and kind of sad. I never thought I'd see John Cusack try to "out-Nicolas Cage" Nicolas Cage, but boy did he try. Cusack wishes he was that awesome.

Seriously, he's one step short of "AAARGH!!!! SOMEONE'S TRYIN' TA KILL ME, MAN!!!!"

As the film progresses Cusack does become more likable once he gets off the whole "half-mad egomaniac" thing. And much of the movie is really about him becoming less pathetic and coming to terms with his inner demons, which is admittedly pretty good stuff as far as character development goes. The big problem, however, is that the genesis of that is a murder mystery with a very lame villain whose motivations literally boil down to a fan being mad that Poe stopped writing.

I know that story has kind of been done before, the prime example I can think of being "Misery," but Kathy Bates wasn't constructing "Saw" level traps and torture devices. She was just a crazy lady who broke James Caan's ankles when he wrote an ending she didn't like. Crazy usually doesn't get that elaborate unless you're a Batman villain. But in "The Raven," the killer is constructing this grand scheme like John Doe from "Se7en" all because he wants more poetry. My, my Grandma, what deep motivations you have.

Also, don't bother trying to figure out who the killer is, because you won't. That's not because it's such a deep mystery. It's because when the killer is unmasked, it's a character who has had maybe two lines and 20 seconds of screen time in the entire film up to that point. They are literally a background character. There's no way to deduce or solve anything beforehand, especially since the ONE CLUE that may have been a hint isn't even shown to us until after the killer has already unmasked themselves.

And at that point you'll still be trying to figure out who the hell this character is anyways.

I would also like to call out the crap talents of one Alice Eve. She plays Poe's love interest, Emily. And well, I'm not sure how to politely say this, so I won't bother with being polite. She is an absolutely dreadful actress. Simply horrendous. She speaks like she's reading her lines off a cue card and is about as believable in her emoting as CGI Yoda. It also doesn't help that when she smiles, it looks like she's inhaled some of The Joker's Smylex Gas.

I think the final straw for me as far as her performance went was a scene were she gets buried alive. As it's happening, she starts pleading with the killer to let her out with the same kind of intensity and fear in her voice as someone bringing back a defective product to the store they bought it from would have: somewhat stern but respectfully polite. Then he tells her to shut up. She meekly says "Okay." It would have been laughable had it been a comedy.

"Oh. I'm buried alive. That's disappointing to me..."

You want to hear the best part? She's going to be in "Star Trek Into Darkness." How fun. They've cast the same waste of space that was terrible in one of the worst movies I saw this year in one of the movies I'm looking most forward to next year. Thanks for that.

So a lousy villain and some suspect acting aside, what did "The Raven" have going for it that made it not as bad as everyone was saying it was? I think what it all comes down to is that the story is interesting to watch unfold, because before the disappointing reveal makes us feel like we've wasted our time, there is pretty good tension being held in terms of the "why" question. Honestly it's a cool idea - that being using a horror writer's work to actually kill people, all while challenging them to solve riddles sprung from their own imagination. In a way it's like watching a man do battle with his dark half that somehow emerged and started killing. In fact, if that literally happened, you could make an awesome horror flick with that plot.

That sounds like a way better movie. See, this is why I should be in charge of stuff. It would all be so much better. And Nicolas Cage could be the dark half of Edgar Allan Poe!

YES.

It's all coming together.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Raven," while not great, it not the horror show train-wreck it was made out to be. Fans of Poe might get some amusement out of the constant references to his body of work and life, but they could just as easily be annoyed by it at the same time. It really depends on how seriously you're taking it. My advice: Don't do that. It also helps to have low expectations, too.

ATM (2012)

Ah. Hello, American Investor. Welcome to the third and final part of my "IFC Midnight Trilogy Weekend Thingy." For the past three days I've been watching some movies from one of my favorite film distributors, IFC Midnight, and writing down my thoughts about each one. The first film, "Kill List" was an intense, tripped out crime drama that I found to be quite good. The second one, "The Corridor" would have been more enjoyable had it made a bit more sense.

For the last film, I took a look at the thriller, "ATM." Like the other two, this one was sold to me on the premise alone. All I did was read the back of the case. Other than that I had no idea what I was in for.

Reading the description I thought that "ATM" had some promise. The concept was that three people are trapped inside a walk-in ATM in the middle of the wintery night by a masked man who won't let them out. I'm sure that very concept sounds dumb to some people out there, but keep in mind that I was one of the few people who liked "Phonebooth," so you can't blame me for being slightly optimistic.

I think the thing I like about movies like "Phonebooth" is that they really tend to humanize the characters. You really get to know someone when you're trapped in a box with them for a few hours, and as long as the actor does a good job, there's some real drama to be squeezed out of a situation like that. I mean, as long as the characters are not horrifyingly stupid. I mean, can you imagine being trapped in a small space with a bunch of absolute idiots?

Wait. That sentence sounds eerily like foreshadowing. What the hell am I in for?

Well, I guess it had to happen eventually. I had a feeling that I may finally come across an IFC Midnight film that I hated in this little experiment. And well done on that, because "ATM" was freaking terrible. I hated this goddamn movie. Hated it. Hated hated hated hated it.

I almost want to watch the film again, and from beginning to end chart down and record on a minute by minute basis everything about "ATM" that pissed me off. Trust me, that could fill a novel, but most of it would be me simply typing YOU ARE STUPID as hard as I possibly could type it without breaking my keyboard, so it would get redundant pretty quickly. That and I would have to watch "ATM" again, and screw that.

Okay, so let's get this over with, because the less I have to relive the experience of watching this turd the better. The film begins with David and Corey, our two male leads. David is played by Brian Geraghty, who you may remember from "The Hurt Locker," and he's playing your "average Joe," which means he's quite bland and has no real characteristics that make him memorable in any way. Corey is played by Josh Peck, who you may remember from nothing unless you watch Nickelodeon, and he's the comic relief, which means he's the biggest douchebag you've ever had to suffer through.

God, just looking at him makes me want to put my fist through the monitor.

Just imagine if some sick mad scientist combined Jonah Hill and Dane Cook, made him a fratboy with a New York "Ey, buddy, I'm walkin' 'ere! Fowgitabowdit" attitude, then got that abomination onto the Multiverse drunk, and put him in a stressful situation where he could not physically stop talking because of nerves.

Isn't it a special occasion when you just know the next hour and a half is going to be like reeds under your fingernails after a character has been talking for less than ten seconds? And the amazing thing is that I really do believe that "ATM" wants us to like this piece of septic runoff. The movie honestly wants me to NOT want him dead?! At this rate one of us will be dead soon either way.

Don't you dare try to stop me...

Rounding out the cast is professional Nichole Kidman clone, Alice Eve as Emily, who is meant to function as David's love interest. I say "meant to" because what she actually does is provide 110 lbs of dead weight that does nothing useful at all, and simply sits in the corner, flails about, and whines "I can't!" whenever she is asked to contribute to their escape. What I love most about that is the fact that on the interview on the DVD, Alice referred to her character as "strong." Lady, your character is as useful as Princess Peach is to Mario. Don't flatter yourself. Your character sucks and you know it.

So the three of them wind up going to the ATM in the middle of the night, and we find the first dumb thing of the movie. David seems to think that at 1:35 AM, when it is literally -3 degrees outside, it's a good idea to park about 100 feet away from the ATM. He parks halfway across the damn parking lot. Perhaps he read the script and knew that would make the killer's job way too hard if the car was closer.

"Jerry, I don't see nothin'!"

"No, jus' kip lookin' dare. Does'r'sum noice crappies right in dare."

"Oh yah, Jerry, now I sees 'em. Oh yah, dem's good eatin's."

#ijustwroteabettermovie

Then, when they are all inside the ATM, the killer just stands outside. He never says a single word. I'm serious, too. Not once in the entire film do we a) hear the killer speak or b) see his face. Hell, I can't even be 100% sure that it's a "he." At no point do you get the slightest explanation as to why he's doing what he's doing. And I know what they're going for with this: the idea is that it's really scary when there's no rhyme or reason to violence. But even the most chaotic evil villains tend to have some kind of reason for it. I mean, The Joker had a method to his various kinds of madness. And when he talked about it, that's when you realized how sick and scary he was.

Imagine if The Joker hadn't said a word in "The Dark Knight?" Do you really think that scene in the hospital where he turns Harvey would have been the same if he had just handed him a gun and pointed to Harvey's coin? No, it would have been stupid. Instead we got dialogue like "Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos? It's fair." It's at points like that when we see how twisted and warped The Joker is, and that's what makes a memorable villain.

Seriously, Team Rocket is more intimidating than this guy.

There's so much stupid going on that it really becomes difficult to list it all. The most problematic thing about "ATM" is that it asks us to believe that the killer has them completely screwed when I lost count of the number of times that they could have made a break for it without the killer ever knowing. Because here's the kicker: the killer leaves all the time. On several occasions he's snooping around out back, just doing whatever, and the three doofuses just stay there like he's right outside the door. Usually they end up having the same conversation every time consisting of David and Corey switching back and forth between wanting to stay and wanting to go (seriously it's like the script flipped names at points as far as characters state of mind goes) and Emily whining and saying "No! You can't go out there! Please don't leave me!" because there's no way she's attempting to survive this, and she has to drag everyone else down with her.

These really do become forehead slapping painful to watch, especially when it's paired with dialogue like:
David: "I can make it! I'll be halfway across the parking lot before he knows I'm gone!"
Corey: "Yeah?! And what about the other half?!"

"Me and my Tin Tin hair will run like the wind!"

Ugh. Just ugh. That's all I can say to that stupidity. I mean, what do you want me to say to a guy that doesn't realize that, assuming the killer is not indeed The Flash, David will probably be out of the parking lot by then? Does Corey really think that the killer can run more than twice as fast as David? See what I mean about the whining? It's an hour and a half of this.

And while I realize that not everyone is capable of defending themselves in a freaky situation, I really can't get behind characters who are so disinterested in surviving. For example, I counted no less than 5 objects inside the ATM that the characters could have used as weapons to defend themselves, and many of those would have probably been pretty effective, especially if they attacked the killer together.

And before you go off thinking that perhaps they didn't have it in them, guess what? They totally kill a guy they think is the killer. Yeah, that probably needs a little explaining. About halfway through the film, a guy wearing nearly the exact same outfit as the killer walks into the ATM. Corey and David immediately jump him, beat the holy hell out of him, and David ends up strangling him to death with a cord. Now, why the killer let this guy just walk into the ATM when he'd killed two other people at that point for simply being in the vicinity I have no idea. But that's not the point.

My point is that the two of them took a guy down, and they are both clearly okay with the thought of killing the person tormenting them. And yes, they are greatly upset by this intensely stupid occurrence, but the fact remains, they have it in them to take someone out. So why don't the three of you grab that steel trashcan, that bottle of liquor and that pen and open that door, tackle that parka-wearing nutjob and start swinging, smashing and stabbing until he no longer occupies this realm of existence!

What? Did you use up all your encounter and daily powers or something?! KICK HIS ASS!!!

Oh, I'm sorry, I forget. You must not want to live. And you know what? After seeing this movie, I really was rooting for the killer, because he was doing the world a favor by killing these idiots.

And there is no scene that exemplifies that more than a scene near the back end of the film where David and Emily, as the killer is pounding on the back wall of the ATM, in other words CLEARLY in no position to know where they are, and telegraphing exactly where he is, run outside to aid Corey, who was stabbed earlier during his escape attempt. After making it to Corey, they pick him up. Now, at this point I should remind you that the killer is still behind the ATM, and does not know they're gone. There is also a functioning car not 20 feet away from them. For $10,000, what do they do?

That's correct! They drag Corey back inside the ATM to die of his wounds! Because THAT makes sense!

YOU DON'T DESERVE LIFE.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "ATM" is bad. Ungodly bad. I can't remember ever seeing a group of protagonists I hated more. This is making my "Worst of 2012" list. It's not even enjoyably bad. It just hurts. Skip it, and punch anyone you see watching it in the face.

Men In Black 3 (2012)

Back in 1997, I was at the movies a lot. And while there were a fair share of awesome movies released that year, there was just as much garbage piled in the corner under a blanket in the hopes that nobody would notice it, but the fetid odor of death and decay was far too powerful and overwhelming to forget or ignore. One remembers fondly movies such as "Air Force One," "Liar Liar," the only good "Austin Powers" movies, "The Devil's Advocate" and "The Fifth Element" as among some of the best movies of 1997. But there is no forgetting or forgiving that 1997 also gave us "Speed 2: Cruise Control," "Volcano," "Dante's Peak," "Spawn," "Anaconda," "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "Alien: Resurrection."

Then of course, there's that other film that we do not speak of. That little chunk of pure, unadulterated molten evil that must have been chipped from the slimy, scaly hide of Cthulhu himself: "Batman & Robin." Yeah, that was 1997 too.

Someone needs to suffer for this...

And I went to the movies to see that piece of crap. After all, how could my 15 year old self have known what kind of horrors awaited him? I was an innocent child undeserving of such torture. Looking back, I should have called Child Protective Services on Joel Schumacher.

There was something special that happened during the screening of that film, however. About an hour into the film, I think right when Poison Ivy met Mr. Freeze for the first time, the film broke. You know when you see that effect replicated and it looks like the screen is melting? Yeah, that's totally what happened. And I have never been more relieved. Those technical issues possibly saved my life, because I was seriously contemplating eating my own tongue until the film mercifully put itself out of our misery. And as a bonus, the manager came into the theater to apologize, thank us for choosing wherever it was that we were, and gave us a free pass for another film.

Anyways, the point I'm trying to make is that "Batman & Robin" sucked so hard that it destroyed the film stock it was printed on, which allowed me to see the first "Men In Black" for free.

It was a good trade.

"Men In Black" was one of those special "out of nowhere" movies that was pretty impossible not to love. Nobody really saw this thing coming, and it's difficult to compare it to anything that came before. I think the closest thing to compare it to is "Ghostbusters," but even as funny as it was, "Ghostbusters" never approached the zaniness that "Men In Black" did. It's almost to the point where "Men In Black" is difficult to categorize. Is it a comedy or an action flick? Few films can walk the line between the two the way that "Men In Black" did.

Now, the sequel, "Men In Black II" is pretty widely regarded as a massive disappointment. I can't really comment on that because I honestly have little to no memory of it. All I remember is Patrick Warburton was in the beginning, K comes out of retirement, Linda Fiorentino is suspiciously absent, and the really cheesy line "You're not sad because it rains, baby. It rains because you're sad." That's really all I remember.

Now we come to "Men In Black III," and I have to say that while I was very excited to see it, I was not really sure of what to expect. The general impression that I got from the trailers was that A) Josh Brolin does a SCARY good Tommy Lee Jones impression, B) It's good to see Will Smith being funny again, and C) This could either be really, really good or stupendously bad. But the affection I have for the first movie raised my hopes to the point that I was anticipating something at the very least fairly decent.

I love having my expectations exceeded. "Men In Black III" was awesome.

You know, not many people can pull this look off...

It's difficult to explain exactly why this movie works, but what it really boils down to in the end is entertainment. It's just a lot of fun. It's not too overly silly, it's not too overly serious, it has dramatic moments while maintaining a light tone, and it's a great example of how to make a movie that's fun. So often a movie will fail when trying to find a balance between drama and comedy, and go too far one way, or they equate humor with being stupid, prime examples of both can be found in the "Transformers" franchise.

The characters in "Men In Black" are not stupid. They're not clowns doing pratfalls or annoying jackasses. You actually like these characters, which is something that is shockingly sparse in a lot of comedies. I mean, put Will Smith's Agent J against Shia LaBeouf in "Transformers." You can not tell me that Shia even approaches the same hemisphere in terms of likability. True, some of that may be because Will Smith actually possess talent, but looking at it from a character perspective, who would you rather follow through a series of films?

::Insert "South Park" joke here::

I don't mean to rip on "Transformers" (Ok, that's a lie. I tear apart that piece of trash at every opportunity) but I simply use it as an example of why a movie can work based on characters alone. "Men In Black III" could stand on the likability of the characters, even if it didn't have a fun, exciting story to go along with it.

I mentioned missing funny Will Smith earlier, and I was very entertained by his return to the "not serious." I think we forget sometimes how incredibly funny this guy can be to watch, and I soaked up this performance he gave like a sponge. He is so damn funny without really trying that hard, which is a big difference between him and some other comedians. With Will Ferrell, you can tell he's trying. Seth Rogan is trying and failing hard. Vince Vaughn is trying OH SO HARD but he's still just that jackass next door who won't shut the hell up.

Will Smith is so smooth that the comedy almost seems like an accident. I think that's what they call "naturalistic" in the biz.

"Ya'll are laughing. Did I say something funny? I'm like this all the time, see, so I can't really even tell anymore."

The story was the big thing that I was a little iffy on. Whenever "time travel" is brought up in a plot synopses I get a little worried, and understandably so. I mean, for every "Back To The Future" or "Star Trek: First Contact" there's a "Time Cop" and "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." I know, I know, "The Voyage Home" is considered one of the good Trek movies, but I could never get behind William Shatner breaking into Sea World.

The time travel aspect in "Men In Black III" is handled more in the tradition of "Back To The Future" than it is "The Terminator," although there are elements of both "styles" of time travel - those being of the thought that the future is either changeable or a self-fulfilling prophecy, depending on the movie. J certainly can and does change events in the past, however, on some occasions it drifts towards the "you've done this because you did it already" head-splitting conundrums of time travel more in keeping with a rigid timeline. But these are fairly rare, and it generally stays more lenient with rules.

From an acting standpoint, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are effectively the same characters they were before, and the actors grasp of the characters has not diminished in quality. The biggest difference is that Tommy Lee Jones' Agent K is given a bit more depth, so to speak. That's difficult to quantify, however, given the fact that his personality is still an impenetrable shell. What was interesting though was to see what Josh Brolin did with Agent K.

Josh Brolin, as I mentioned before, does a fantastic Tommy Lee Jones impression, catching his voice, nuances and mannerisms to the point where it's almost creepy. But this is a younger version of K, and while you can see the man he will become, he's not quite there yet. And if anything, this is a more open and reasonably accessible version of K, although that isn't saying much at all since K still answers most questions in under 5 words and small talk is an utterly foreign concept worthy only of a stern, almost irritated look. But he's not as cold as the older K is, and the reason for that is a driving force of the movie.

The entire climax of the movie has to do with the question that Agent J asks the older K several times - "What happened to make you like this, man?"

This brings us to the ending. The ending of "Men In Black III" caught me completely off guard. Not going into spoilers here, but suffice to say that there is a twist at the end of this movie that was really unexpected. It was cool, shocking, and offers a whole new way to look at the entire series up to this point.

And I still don't know if I like it or not.

When we find out what actually happened to K, while it does shed new light on character motivations and personalities, I'm not sure if it works when viewed with the other two films. Granted, I haven't seen the other two films in a very long time, but looking back, I'm not sure how well the twist ties in with everything. In fact, I would not be surprised to find more than a few occasions where it would make no sense whatsoever, especially in the first film.

Also, it seems to me that while the event that happens to K would indeed be a life changing event, I'm not really buying it as the reason he becomes very cold and prickly. If anything, I would think that it would make him more gentle, all things considered. But that's just me.

And if there were one other thing I would have changed, I would have liked to know a little bit more about the bad guy, Boris The Animal since he's basically just an anonymous killer alien and nothing much more than that. Especially since he's played by Germaine Clement! Now, he's basically unrecognizable under the costume, but still, that's pretty cool. Makes me wonder if he has any hip-hop alter-egos. Maybe Girapffe.

"You're the most beautiful alien (in the room)"

Oh, and also...don't give Will Arnett just 30 seconds of screen time. That's not cool.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Men In Black III" is a great big ball of fun. While it may not be as good as the first, it is miles ahead of the second. Filled with great performances and a lot of laugh out loud moments. If only all summer blockbusters could be this entertaining. Highly Recommended.