Baz Luhrmann is a creative and talented filmmaker so I was looking forward to this one. It has a strong start, with whimsical fun that plays with the 3D film medium. As the film goes on though, the story's material becomes more serious and I'm left to wonder where the whimsy went, but more importantly if this film even merits being 3D in the first place? At the end of the day this is just a competent adaptation of a classic novel that runs 20 minutes too long and has not much going for it after the first 35 minutes. The story is good but I'm guessing that may have more to do with F. Scott Fitzgerald than the Luhrmann.

2.5 Stars (out of 5)

Was happy to see a new director breathe some life into the series and I appreciate all the call-backs to the other Marvel films, most notably The Avengers. Marvel has figured out how to make movies that act more like real comic books. The days of a stand-alone superhero franchise that doesn't tie together with other properties from the same universe may be coming to a close now that the Dark Knight series has ended. Look how Green Lantern ended up without other franchises to prop it up. When all the films connect and form a larger storyline it gives the audience more incentive to see the ones they might not otherwise care about (Captain America, Ant-Man, etc.).

Iron Man 3 has the best villain of all three, and trust me I was going into this expecting the opposite. The film had some pleasant surprises and the action sequences were fast-moving and clever with overly intricate set-ups just for fun's sake. It reminded me of scenes from the old Indiana Jones films where everything goes wrong with one thing after another in a row. Tony Stark escapes capture by summoning his new self-attaching suit that can come to him from miles away (I wonder if he got the idea after seeing Thor's hammer) and then he throws various parts of it to defeat bad-guys while flying around the room and the pieces come back to him like a boomerang. It's strange enough to hold your attention as opposed to mindless punching or shooting "action" in other films.

And at no point did he suddenly discover a new element in this film, which is good.

Looked great in 3D and the extra depth was helpful in making sense of the complex set-piece at the end of the film. You never know with some 3D movies if it's going to be crystal clear or a blurry mess. Never thought I'd say this but I'm looking forward to Thor: The Dark World more than Man of Steel now. Which do you prefer, colorful comic book type movies or dark and gritty graphic novel style films?

3.5 Stars (out of 5)

I remember enjoying it while I was watching it, but the more time that passes the more I'm forgetting why exactly. It's nice that there's a mystery element to the story but once you've seen the film once there's not much else to merit a second viewing. The acting was fine, the directing and especially the use of music was interesting, but the script and the cinematography felt sub-par. I kept asking myself why does this feel like a no-budget indie film? I enjoyed it the once. It goes by at a nice pace and there are some interesting moments interspersed. Could've used a little more action and less of the cheesy, messy, and repetitive talking scenes saying the same things over and over and over again.

3.0 Stars (out of 5)

Jurassic Park was the first film I saw multiple times in theaters. It's the movie that made me want to make movies. And it is undoubtedly the film I've watched the most times in my life. (I destroyed my first VHS version through daily viewings in only 6 months.) Seeing it again was exciting but not for the new 3D conversion, the big IMAX screen size, or the blaringly loud sound you can't possibly get at home. No, the best thing was seeing it with a room full of people again; hearing people laugh at lines they may not have caught before, jumping out of their seat when a raptor leaps on screen, and clapping at the end. Once again the studios are going to assume the success here is due to the 3D gimmick, but clearly the real draw is good old-fashioned filmmaking.

5.0 Stars (out of 5)

I'm a fan of Sam Raimi and as far as Raimi films go this one was pretty darn good, or at least more watchable than Spiderman 3. I was hesitant to give this film a chance but within the first few minutes I was hooked. It's not without its flaws, but overall I was entertained and even pleasantly surprised a few times. The black and white intro, with elements escaping the full screen square, was without a doubt my favorite part and I wouldn't mind watching an entire film shot that way. I was a little sad to see it go when the film widened and turned to color.

3.0 Stars (out of 5)

I'm always a fan of Steven Soderbergh's movies but this was a real treat. Thankfully it was more fun than the very serious and realistic Contagion. With all of its twists and turns, Side Effects feels like a Hitchcockian suspense thriller, except a little more realistic and with a subtle build. Great performances by Rooney Mara and especially Jude Law who plays a total badass you do not want to mess with. This might be the most I've enjoyed him in a movie since The Talented Mr. Ripley, or maybe A.I.. There's enough cleverness and detail in this film that I'll probably watch it again, maybe even with audio commentary.

4 Stars (out of 5)

I liked it. It was cute but also a little scary. For a hipster comedic zombie love story, it wasn't half bad. To be honest my favorite thing about it was Rob Cordry's hilariously dry performance and funny one-liners. Aside from the shameless Romeo and Juliet allusions I enjoyed the story, characters, and dialog more than I have for most actual zombie movies. It might not be as funny as Shaun of the Dead or as scary as 28 Days Later, but it's kind of nice to see a film that strives to be somewhere in between. It could have easily all fell flat but the filmmakers did a really good job with the material.

3.5 Stars (out of 5)

It seems a little soon to be telling this story, but if it is going to be told I'm glad it was in the capable hands of Kathryn Bigelow. I thought the film handled the torture issue pretty well. The scenes where they actually got information were when treating the inmates with respect and never during the torture scenes. So technically we never got info that led to Bin Laden's location through torture, but we did in fact torture. That's true to life and fits within the official narrative. -- Of course the third act was riveting, as you would expect. And the last 30 seconds pretty much sums up the whole situation for me and many Americans.

3.0 Stars (out of 5)

Sometimes the best romantic comedies are the gritty ones. The intricate performances, unpredictable story, and crazy camera push-ins made for an enjoyable viewing experience for me. There were many memorable lines, some reminiscent of As Good As It Gets. And as in that movie these characters make each other "want to be a better man". It has a feel-good vibe, even though it's so soul-crushingly real at times.

Pat: You have poor social skills. You have a problem.
Tiffany: I have a problem? You say more inappropriate things than appropriate things.

4 Stars (out of 5)

I did not enjoy this as much as Inglourious Basterds but it was still a great film by one of my favorite filmmakers. The style and design of the film are extravagant, sometimes over the top, but mostly fun. I only wish the second half of the story was as rich and witty as the first. All is worth it for Christoph Waltz. I should expect to see him in a lead role for all Tarantino's films from now on. He should be what Depp is to Burton, at least for a little while.

3.5 Stars (out of 5)