Star Trek Into Darkness

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is Star Trek Into Darkness.

Directed by J. J. Abrams.

Written by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci & Damon Lindelof.

Based on the TV show "Star Trek" created by Gene Roddenberry.

Review #213

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.

Run Time: 132 min

Cast

Chris Pine...Kirk

Zachary Quinto...Spock

Zoe Saldana...Uhura

Karl Urban...Bones

Simon Pegg...Scotty

John Cho...Sulu

Benedict Cumberbatch...Khan

Anton Yelchin...Chekov

Bruce Greenwood...Pike

Peter Weller...Marcus

Alice Eve...Carol

First and foremost.

This review is dedicated to the greatest Trekkie I have EVER known.

My father. Fernando Rodriguez.

I miss you pop. This one's for you!

In 2009, J. J. Abrams did something that many thought was impossible. He made the Star Trek franchise relevant again. He did it by making a major roll of the dice by starting over and giving fans new and old a fresh take on the series. He rebooted the franchise and gave it's beloved characters a bit of a facelift by introducing origins and backgrounds for each member. A gutsy move that could have had disastrous consequences.

It didn't.

What happened was a loving embrace of what Abrams and company were trying to do with the beleaguered franchise. I'm sure all of the goodwill Abrams acquired creating Lost didn't hurt his case when he was tapped to direct the 2009 reboot, but the fact remains to this day that Abrams is one kick ass storyteller. His ability to make hard core fans forget everything they loved about the original Star Trek show or films and focus their full attention to his retelling of the sci fi classic is nothing more than pure talent and genius.

So it would be safe to say that with practically the same team returning for the inevitable sequel that we would have another hit on our hands right?

The answer is Yes and unfortunately No.

Plot

After the crew of the Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. 

Before I get into this review I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I enjoyed this film very much. There is a ton to like about Star Trek Into Darkness. A lot of feedback from my review of Mud gave the impression that I didn't like it when in fact I very much enjoyed that film. I did bash the negatives a lot more than stressing the positives so I can see the slanted view. I'm preparing you for the same thing here because even though I liked this film a lot I intend to DESTROY some aspects of the film that I absolutely HATED with every fiber of my being.

Consider yourself warned.

I'll kick things off with the good. The film doesn't waste any time getting into the action and suspense. The opening scene sets the stage for a knock down drag out spectacle of stunts and things that go boom. It was very impressive and a lot of fun overall. Secondly, although this movie has a few script flaws that I will get into very soon. The film as a whole was very well crafted and presented. There really weren't any abstract scenes that broke continuity or dragged it down. From start to finish the film was smartly constructed. It was clear that Abrams and his team realized what was needed to move the franchise forward and got things off to a great start. The next thing he did was focus the film on the franchises most popular characters.

Kirk and Spock.

Just like the first film established their relationship. This one expands on it on a very personal and emotional level. The 2009 entry introduced an humanity in Spock that wasn't present in the show or the previous films. Being half Human, half Vulcan, Spock contained an imbalance that was fresh and fun. He may still have thought and acted with logic as his prime directive but there were flashes of his human side and it's magnified here on several occasions. With Kirk, he's the same cowboy gunslinger from the first film. Only this time he's in charge. A very dangerous combination but as well all know. Kirk is no fun any other way. This is addressed in a very predictable yet entertaining way which sets the stage for what's coming our way later.

The film isn't just the Spock and Kirk show. Abrams once again does a good job giving the rest of the crew ample screen time and more importantly, things to do. They are not just background. They each play a role in the story and lend a specific talent or skill to create the perfect blend. Abrams like Joss Whedon is a good ensemble director. He knows how to juggle a large cast and gives each member both the respect and attention they deserve. Considering there are so many Star Trek fans who all have a love for every character, it's really a skill to make sure none of the fans favorites are cheated. The man knows how to drive characters with his stories. He writes/directs them to make them as compelling as humanly possible without sacrificing the integrity of the whole project. He also creates compelling villains. Segueing nicely to a great addition to the franchise.

A man named....Khan Noonien Singh.

The introduction of this classic character was no pun intended the logical direction to go with this sequel. Khan is arguably the greatest villain of the previous films. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is also arguably the best film of the series. So it was a no brainer. And it's here boys and girls where Star Trek Into Darkness succeeds and fails. Benedict Cumberbatch was simply a bad ass and superb as Khan. His monotone, gruff voice bellowed through the Enterprise like the voice of God. It was a chilling take on the classic character that was previously portrayed by the stoicism and sophistication of Ricardo Montalban. Cumberbatch played Khan in a very similar way as Montalban. He was ruthless but calculating and cunning. The perfect kind of villain. Nothing beats a bad guy who uses the strongest weapon the human body possesses. The brain. The Enterprise and it's crew were no match for Khan and because of this undeniable fact, the writers did the worst possible thing they could have done to stop him.

They cheated.

Here is where the bashing will commence.

For a good hour plus. Star Trek Into Darkness had reeled me in. I was on board with everything they had done. Until I realized what they had done and where they were going. This could be a spoiler so I will bold and italicize the text. In a nutshell they remade Wrath of Khan. With some subtle and not so subtle differences.

OK. You can continue reading. This wasn't so bad but then they went ahead and did something that I absolutely HATED! I won't reveal what it was but if you were paying attention, the film foreshadows both the moment I'm speaking of and how it gets resolved. It was total call back to Wrath of Khan and completely unnecessary. The film had done such a great job of making it it's own despite the inclusion of a classic character as it's villain.Then they went a step further and revisited a character from the first film. It shouldn't be hard to figure out who I'm talking about. I was HORRIFIED they went this route for two reasons. First, just like the Wrath of Khan call back it was unnecessary. Secondly, it was such a major cheat that showed the crew's, particularly Spock's inability to solve problems on their own. To put the cherry on top. The solution Spock comes up with to defeat Khan was something he could have come up with on his own. There was no need to seek help from his "friend." This was lazy writing and an excuse to bring someone back from the first film.

Self serving. Ridiculous and STUPID!

This disappointed me to no end and sadly distorted my feelings about this film as a whole. It's impossible to figure out who is responsible for this but I hope they are satisfied with what they did because I for one AM NOT! What's even more upsetting is that Star Trek Into Darkness is a really good film that takes a fall which was easily preventable. It's a good addition to the franchise and with Abrams laying the groundwork, the future looks bright for the crew of the Starship Enterprise.

It's unclear if he will be back for the next installment. He's gonna be a bit busy with another little film called Star Wars Episode VII. The geek community is in a tizzy with the news that a new set of Star Wars films are being made. Then when Abrams was announced as the director for the first film. The geek world collectively passed out. He's the perfect choice to take this on. If he can come anywhere close to Star Wars with what he did with Star Trek then look out boys and girls.

But this still is a Star Trek review so I leave you with this final thought.

Would my pop have liked this film?

I think he would have but the things that I hated about this film would have sent him into a Hulk like FRENZY! That's a fact. It's really a shame because this film was good but was afraid to be great.

On the 5 star scale. Star Trek Into Darkness gets 2.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is After Earth. 

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Mud

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is Mud.

Written & Directed by Jeff Nichols.

Review #212

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some violence, sexual references, language, thematic elements and smoking.

Run Time: 130 min

Cast

Matthew McConaughey ...Mud

Reese Witherspoon ...Juniper

Tye Sheridan ...Ellis

Jacob Lofland ...Neckbone

Sarah Paulson ...Mary Lee

Ray McKinnon ...Senior

Sam Shepard ...Tom Blankenship

Michael Shannon ...Galen

Every once in a while. You go to a movie and expectations are high due to word of mouth or a great trailer or critic acclaim. This was the case with me and this movie. I had seen the trailer for this one and I was very intrigued. Then it was suggested to me by one of my fans that I should definitely see this movie. I trust this fan's opinion so I made it a necessity to check it out.

Was it great? Not even close. Was it good? Yes. Am I glad I saw it? Absolutely!

Plot

Two teenage boys encounter a fugitive and form a pact to help him evade the bounty hunters on his trail and to reunite him with his true love. 

The first thing that caught my attention about this film was the attention and hype surrounding Matthew McConaughey's performance. It was billed as his best performance ever and the trailers were promoting it as a career defining role. I'm very happy to say that Mud does have that career defining performance. It just wasn't McConaughey's.

Not by a long shot.

He may have been the name to attach to the project and he does turn in a terrific performance as the titular character. However, the real star of this show is Tye Sheridan. This kid doesn't steal the movie. He takes complete ownership of it. In the interest of full disclosure. It must be pointed out that although Mud is the title and McConaughey is playing the character. The actual lead is Sheridan as Ellis. The film revolves around him and his experiences with Mud, his family, best friend and puberty.

I was trying to remember where I had seen Sheridan before and then it hit me. He played one of the sons in Terrence Malick's abomination The Tree of Life. His filmography only consists of two other films (including Mud) but his agent should be expecting some calls because He was AMAZING in this film. The film is set in a small Arkansas town and Ellis lives on the river so as he puts it, he's not a town kid. You can feel the country bumpkin in him but he's not stupid. Sheridan portrays Ellis with the right amount of attitude, passion and naivety that any teenager his age would have. It comes across perfectly which plays a significant role in the growth and maturity of his character as the film progresses.

The rest of the film is full of fine performances but Sheridan stands out as he should.

Simply brilliant.

You'd think a film with such a remarkable performance from a young talent, matched up with a Hollywood heavyweight who equally does a great job would be a thrill to watch right?

WRONG!

Mud is a flawed film. And it's those flaws that prevent it from being good to great. The first flaw being the run time. At 2 hours and 10 minutes, Mud is too long. It drags at a snails pace between acts 2 and 3. I get what Nichols was trying to do but the pacing was way off and too much lag really sets the movie back. You could easily have trimmed this down by 20-30 minutes and the film would have been tighter while maintaining the strength of the narrative.

This segues nicely to the next hiccup.

Mud carries a very powerful message and it's that message that makes this film a treat. The problem is Nichols tends to beat you over the head with what the film is about. There are several scenes from different characters point of view that expose the film's underlying thought. Similar to the run time, there were too many of these instances. It wasn't necessary in my opinion to go overboard with the different points of view. Again I understand and applaud Nichols attempt but I felt that some restraint was needed here. This is common when a director writes and edits their film. They tend to have separation anxiety. They can't bare the thought of losing a scene or two for the sake of the rest of the film.

That isn't the case here. He had an editor for this film. Her name is Julie Monroe and I think she should have stepped in and suggested cutting the film down. It's tough to tell because some film makers never relinquish their power in the edit room and some collaborate nicely. I have had experienced both sides and it's not easy to voice your opinion when the creator is not interested in compromise. I've also worked with people who not only valued my opinions but preferred them and trusted in the fact that I knew what I was doing. The surprising thing about this topic is that Nichols wrote and directed a film called Take Shelter which is a must see if you haven't. That film is 10 minutes shorter than Mud and doesn't nearly have the pacing problems.

The last thing I didn't like about the film was the ending. The last scene in particular. I can't say what it is but if you see this film and felt the same way I did watching it then you will agree with me. I went to see this movie with one of my closest friends and she and I both felt where the logical place for the film to end was. What was funny about our conversation was we both had different opinions about the meaning of that scene. She saw it one way and I saw it another. The best part about it was that neither of us were right or wrong.

That boys and girls is what Mud does to you. Despite it's dragging pace and overcomplicated subplots, the film is thought provoking. Which is in large part due to the overall arc of the story and the message it carry's. That is why even though the bulk of this review sounds like I'm condemning this movie. I'm ending with the reality that I enjoyed Mud immensely. There is a LOT to like about this film.

There was just too much of the film. Way too much. If you catch my drift.

On the 5 star scale. Mud gets 3 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Iron Man 3

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is Iron Man 3.

Directed by Shane Black.

Written by Drew Pearce & Shane Black.

Based on the Comic Book "Iron Man" created by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Don Heck & Larry Lieber.

Review #211

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief suggestive content.

Run Time: 130 min

Cast

Robert Downey Jr. ... Tony Stark  

Gwyneth Paltrow ... Pepper Potts  

Don Cheadle ... Colonel James Rhodes

Guy Pearce ... Aldrich Killian  

Rebecca Hall ... Maya Hansen  

Jon Favreau ... Happy Hogan  

Ben Kingsley ... The Mandarin  

James Badge Dale ... Savin  

Stephanie Szostak ... Brandt  

Paul Bettany ... Jarvis (voice)  

William Sadler ... President Ellis  

Ty Simpkins ... Harley Keener

Miguel Ferrer ... Vice President Rodriguez 

If you recall the review I did for The Dark Knight Rises. I began with a commentary on how trilogies scared me to death. Especially in today's cinema world.So going into this film I was wondering if this in fact was a trilogy or just a part 3 to a series of Iron Man films that will continue the newly formed Marvel universe continuity.

Well I got my answer and man am I PISSED!

Plot

When Tony Stark's world is torn apart by a formidable terrorist called the Mandarin, he starts an odyssey of rebuilding and retribution.

Oh Boy! Where do I begin? I'll start with the biggest complaint by me and many other fans of both the comic and the series.

The Mandarin.

The announcement of The Mandarin as the new villain for this installment brought many questions and intrigue. Mainly due to the fact that Marvel wanted him to be in the first film but Favreau shot that down. One of his reasons was not knowing how to bring that character into the fold when Iron Man is mostly a grounded in reality type superhero. In the comics, The Mandarin is more of a supernatural character and Favreau didn't want to incorporate a "magical" villain in the first round. It's a pretty lame excuse considering how The Mandarin is portrayed in this film but that's what Favreau wanted and there you have it.

So right at the jump, The Mandarin is on the screen looking badass and intimidating. One of the VERY FEW things Shane Black gets right is establishing The Mandarin as not just the villain but a villain that will not be trifled with. He possessed a satanic and calculating quality that I ate up. You just knew that this man was tactical and displayed an intelligence akin to The Joker in The Dark Knight. 

Then it happened.

I really want to say what happened. I really really REALLY DO! But I have to maintain both my restraint and overall philosophy of not spoiling major plot points. Let's say the "change" in The Mandarin's character sent a wave of rage through my veins that I almost walked out of the theater. After seeing what they had done, I had checked out of this film. Up until that point I was still on board. Which included having to endure the scenes with my next beef.

The Kid.

We all know as action movies go there are a few golden rules to follow. One of the bigger ones is you don't give a partner to a character that has always been a loner. This film not only does that but goes all the way and makes it a kid. There are so many things wrong with this that I won't bother to go through them all. Instead I'll break down the biggest flaw with the introduction to this character and how he relates to Stark. If you've seen the previous Iron Man film and The Avengers and I'm assuming you have. Then you already know that Tony Stark is and always has been a loner.

The man marches to the beat of his own drum and never needed to be guided by anyone to solve a problem. Yes at times someone from the outside would be there in a pinch but it would historically be someone from the Marvel Universe. Here they bring in this kid who's only purpose is to provide a break in the action while we all recover from the scene when The Mandarin attacked Tony's house. This kid is supposed to give us some comedic back and forth with Tony and while some of the jokes were funny, the only thing this kid accomplished was drag this film down.

WAY DOWN!

Now on to beef number three.

This will sort of feel like I'm bringing up The Mandarin again but bear with me. Looking back at the last two Iron Man films the biggest issue I had with both of them is the villain's were exactly the same. In Iron Man we had Obadiah Stane running Stark Enterprises and selling Stark weapons to terrorists. Then when Tony invents the suit he wants it. So he creates one of his own and they fight. In Iron Man 2, replacing Stane is Justin Hammer. Head of a rival weapons company that unsuccessfully replicates the Iron Man suit. He then employs Ivan Vanko A.K.A Whiplash to build Iron Man drones. Then Vanko builds his own suit and they fight.

Notice a trend?

Iron Man 3 does the same thing. Only this time instead of a weapons manufacturer we get AIM. Advanced Idea Mechanics looking to partner up with Stark Enterprises on a project called Extremis. Led by a man named Aldrich Killian. C'mon man! With a name like Killian you already know this dude is up to no good. Once again, another villain who's source of power or wealth comes from corporate means.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

This is why what happened to The Mandarin sucked SOOOOOO MUCH! He was the break in the chain. He was the villain that was less glitz and glamor and more grit and gore. He was the change of pace that we desperately needed and instead we got this.

Which leads me to my final beef that pretty much encompasses all of the problems this film has.

The script.

This script is in a word a MESS! There is so much crap thrown in here that it was impossible to make this film coherent unless it was 3 plus hours. Iron Man 3 suffers from what I call DLS or Damon Linelof Syndrome. They came up with all of these ideas. Some good. some not so good, some outright horrid, and instead of weeding out what worked and what didn't.

They put it all in.

Lazy writing at it's finest. Drew Pearce and Shane Black tried to humanize Tony Stark coming off the events in The Avengers by giving him insomnia. OK. I'll go with that. It's actually a pretty good idea. The man who walks around like he's god's gift to the world has been traumatized enough to literally fall apart at the mention of what happened in Manhattan. I liked that a lot. They did a similar thing in Iron Man 2 and just like in that film the execution and resolution was PISS POOR! 

Actually I can't say resolution for this film because THERE WASN'T ONE! Hence the DLS. Just like Lindelof, a great idea for a character was given to us but then when the guys can't come up with a solution to the problem they mask their failure of execution with a big action scene or a secondary character like the kid. Or even worse hope we forget about it.

Unacceptable.

That was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to the script problems in this film. There are so many subplots and character arcs here that will make your head spin. Shane Black does a terrible job balancing the plots he's juggling here. What's even more painful is that he was partly responsible because he was a co writer. I read an article about how Marvel Studios conducts their business and aside from being notoriously cheap with their talent. They make every director/writer pitch their concepts before signing on. This is common in the movie biz so this failure of a film falls on them just as much if not more so. They heard the pitch, they knew every detail and yet they approved this garbage. I have two theories as to why they allowed this film to be seen by the public and neither one is good.

Apathy or Ego.

Marvel has established itself as the emperor of comic book films and after the massive success of their Phase One series, it's very difficult to recapture the mojo that made this studio what it is today. So I dare to ask. Is it possible that Marvel just doesn't care because they know we'll all see Iron Man 3 no matter what the story is? Or do they think because of their success that they feel no matter what they put out it's good? These questions terrify me and if Iron Man 3 is an indication of what's to come down the road, then the rest of you should be as worried as I am.

I'm holding out hope and trust that Captain America: Winter Soldier and Thor: The Dark World will  help rebound Phase 2. They better because it's gotten off to a real bad start.

On the 5 star scale. Iron Man 3 gets the goose egg. 0 stars with a "Save The Loot!" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Mud.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Oblivion

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is Oblivion.

Directed by Joseph Kosinski.

Written by Karl Gadjusek & Michael Arndt.

Based on the Graphic Novel "Oblivion" created by Joseph Kosinski.

Review #210

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence, brief strong language, and some sensuality/nudity.

Run Time: 124 min

Cast

Tom Cruise...Jack

Morgan Freeman...Beech

Olga Kurylenko...Julia

Andrea Riseborough...Victoria

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau...Sykes

Melissa Leo...Sally

Zoe Bell...Kara

Sci Fi is at times a real tough nut to crack for Tinseltown. Originality is hard enough for the film industry today. It's even harder for Sci Fi. I can't give an exact reason why but my theory is because successful films of the genre featured stories that included one or some of these elements.

1) Space exploration or travel.

2) Extraterrestrials.

3) The future.

4) Time travel.

5) Cloning.

When your options are limited, it's much more difficult to bring a fresh perspective to old ideas.

Recently there have been a couple of pretty good sci fi films that were conceptually brilliant. In Time and Looper. Very simple premises yet filled with intrigue and suspense. In Time however drops the ball a bit on it's execution. Part of it was casting but there seemed to be a flaw in the storytelling. The film goes a different way between acts 2 and 3 that bog things down. Looper on the other hand was a terrific film that treated time travel with respect and intelligence. It's by now means a prefect film but one of the better genre pics to come out in recent memory.

So how does Hollywood keep up the momentum that these latest sci fi entries has created? By going back to the classics. Star Trek and Star Wars. The sequel to 2009's Star Trek hits theaters soon and a new Star Wars film is headed to our screens in a couple of years. I'm excited for both to say the least. However, before we visit space....the final frontier or a galaxy far far away there's a little sci fi film called Oblivion that in my opinion has earned it's place as one of the better sci fi films of the last few years.

Plot

A veteran assigned to extract Earth's remaining resources begins to question what he knows about his mission and himself. 

The first thing to understand about this film is that like it's predecessors, there is NOTHING original about this story. Normally that would be a bad thing. Not here, because the filmmakers knew what they were doing and told us a story. I wasn't beaten over the head with overbearing action or sensory overloading CGI. I was treated to a been there done that plot that had a different feel to it. There was a freshness and a vitality to the story that put a smile on my face. Then the film does something that I thought for sure was a deal breaker.

They start to slowly pull back the curtain and give you a glimpse of who the enemy is. Then as the film goes further along you see a bit more of the "bad guys" and if you're paying enough attention you'll realize that you have been baited and switched. However, Oblivion regains the trust you gave it early on by giving you more moments of Jack's memory flashes. These were critical in service of the story and overall direction of the film. They keep you reeled in because it's obvious that there is a mystery surrounding these images and flashes and no clues have been given to figure it out.

Oblivion doesn't make it easy on you. There are quite a few twists and turns before you reach the finale but your patience is rewarded because the film ends with a wonderful sequence of scenes that wraps everything up in a nicely tied bow. Then when you rewind the tape in your mind and go back to a scene that felt incomplete. The feeling of clarity comes through and gives you a much better appreciation for what just took place with these characters.

This is thanks to Joseph Kosinski who not only directed the film but created the graphic novel that it's based on. This is a prime example of what happens when you adapt a comic book and place that adaptation in the hands of it's original creator. I have been begging for this as long as I can remember begging for anything. In my opinion only good things can happen when a filmmaker is also the creative force behind the project they are adapting. Full disclosure, I have not read the graphic novel but I'll tell you this.

My package from Amazon is on the way.

Kosinski may not sound like a household name but he directed the very entertaining Tron: Legacy. More importantly he established a visual style that was both stunning and practical. He employs those same tactics with Oblivion. The world he created for this movie was GORGEOUS. He finds a way to make the Empire State Building buried under ground look amazing. The detail that was paid to all of the surrounding environments was just superb. Kosinski does what all good film makers do. He uses his visual effects both computer and not to enhance his story. Not dominate it. He understands that visual effects like an action scene or song in a musical is a tool to serve the greater good of the project as a whole. Because of this, the scope of the world Kosinski created at times overshadows the cast.

Which was a good thing in this case.

Oblivion did not need break the bank performances from any of it's cast. Though there were some heavyweights in the film highlighted by Cruise and Freeman. The overall presentation and flow of the narrative gave Oblivion enough life that the actors didn't stand out. What they did which was much more important was blend themselves into the project, making them another piece to the puzzle.

Oblivion is not perfect.

It's not a masterpiece.

It's not original.

What it is is a DAMN GOOD MOVIE!

On the 5 star scale. Oblivion gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Iron Man 3.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Trance

Welcome to another episode of Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is Trance.

Directed by Danny Boyle.

Written by  Joe Ahearne & Jon Hodge

Review #209

MPAA Rating: Rated R for sexual content, graphic nudity, violence, some grisly images, and language.

Run Time: 101 min

Cast

James McAvoy...Simon

Vincent Cassel...Franck

Rosario Dawson...Elizabeth

Danny Sapani...Nate

Matt Cross...Dominic

Wahab Sheikh...Riz

There are many that would say Danny Boyle's finest achievement in film making is Slumdog Millionaire. I am going on the record saying I STRONGLY DISAGREE with that opinion.  Why I disagree however might not be what you would be thinking. To label Slumdog Millionaire as Boyle's finest work dismisses the rest of his filmography which is both extensive and brilliant.

His films are so good that there isn't one that stands out. Even his lesser known/popular films like The Beach and Sunshine have many elements that were amazingly entertaining. We may have our own personal favorites but to single out a film that has garnered the most acclaim as his best is truly not appreciating his work. So after taking some time off from 127 Hours. We get the latest Boyle installment. Does this add to his impressive library.

Two words F#@K YEAH!

Plot

An art auctioneer who has become mixed up with a group of criminals partners with a hypnotherapist in order to recover a lost painting. 

This review will be rather short due to the nature of plot details that I can't expose. The trailers give you a better idea of what you're going to see but this film does to you what it does to it's main character Simon. Which is mess with your head. What I can say is if this plot were in the hands of a lesser skilled director, Trance could have been a catastrophic disaster. This films tackles several genres with the main two being Mystery and Drama. It also presents a transparency that gives the film a predictable path.

Then poof!

Trance flips upside down and goes an entire new direction that would have been seen as a ridiculous cheat. Most of the time that would have been the case but here it somehow works. This is in my opinion thanks to both Boyle and his stellar cast. He gets the most out of this been there done that story by giving his cast the life they need to rejuvenate this stale tale. I wish I could say more. I really want to say more but too much happens that would ruin the experience. All I can say is that I was pleasantly surprised and entertained by the film's ability to take a washed up plot combined with a rather weak twist and make it seem original.

That's all Boyle baby!

On the 5 star scale. Trance gets 3.5 stars with a "Go See It!" Recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Oblivion.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"