Pacific Rim (2013)

Overall: 11
Here is a confession that will likely cause some of you to disregard every movie rating of mine that you have ever agreed with: I still love cartoons. Why? Because they often draw clear lines between the good guys and the bad guys. With cartoons you generally know who you want to win and why. The good guys are often honorable, respectful, fair, self sacrificing, brave, and true. Think Optimus Prime, Superman, Spiderman, Rapunzel, Professor Xavier, GI Joe, Phineas, Mulan, Aang, etc. When one of the good guys makes a mistake--and it is often not the primary protagonist who does that because he/she is just too dang good--he/she usually learns a lesson about being good along the way. Sure cartoons are usually silly, and often not as complex as the adult mind. But, that is intentional, and part of the reason why they are fun.

What does this have to do with Pacific Rim? This is a movie that is intentionally silly (think The Mummy silly), cartoonish in style, and straight-forward as to who the good guys and bad guys are. I think this is why I ended up enjoying myself, despite being pretty sure I would think it too goofy before I sat down to watch. This movie is definitely not for everyone. However, if you like cartoons, this movie may be a good fit for you.

Entertainment: 4
Pacific Rim will not be a like (4) for everyone, but I enjoyed myself. It is Power Rangers meets Godzilla for...not children, but it is intentionally silly and does NOT take itself too seriously.

Writing: 3
Here is the thing about the writing: it gets a lot of things right. The movie is plot light, but actually has a story rather than being a series of city-demolishing fight scenes. It is quite predictable in some ways, but manages to tie up the A and B plots nicely. If it were not for a couple of noticeable plot holes, I would have given this a 4.

Presentation: 4
No doubt about it, the movie looks good. It blends Godzilla (not the new one), Transformers, and Hellboy into one. However, for some reason it never had any moment where those visuals left me feeling blown away. The acting was quite good across the board. Again, really campy, but good clean fun.
 

Despicable Me 2 (2013)

Entertainment: 4
This is a quirky and uplifting kids show that almost gets a 5 on the entertainment scale, but just misses that rating because it lacks depth. My kids loved it and I truly enjoyed watching it with them, but this is not the kind of show where I feel like I want the experience again for additional insight, meaning, or entertainment.

Writing: 5
The obvious question here is, "How can the writing get a 5 (Strongly Like) if the show lacks depth?" Now I get to talk about what the show did right (no pun intended). The plot builds off the first movie without being a repeat, and has a clear, uplifting theme well suited for a kids/family show. The love story avoids various ridiculously overdone tropes, like having characters first loath, then love each other. Though weird, the world is consistent and well thought out.

Some of the shortcomings to the script--that truthfully kept this movie from being something more--include a weak and somewhat poorly defined motive for the villain, a bit too much reliance on potty humor for laugh lines, and--as stated previously--the lack of deeper meaning that helps build a deeper connection for the viewer.

Presentation: 4
Visually the movie was decent, but nothing that caught my attention in any significant way. The voice acting was decent, and just tips this category into the like range.

Overall: 13
If you have kids, this is a show that is decently presented, well themed, and has a couple of good laughs for both kids and adults. If you don't have kids, those of you who don't love Steve Carell can probably skip this one.
 

World War Z (2013)

Entertainment: 4
This movie has some problems, and is barely in the like range for entertainment. If you want some suspense and tense moments, this movie delivers. Unfortunately, that is all it delivers.

Writing: 2
This problem with this movie stems from the script, which is unoriginal and lacking in depth. The characters have no growth throughout a nearly two hour show. Gerry (Brad Pitt), the main character, is the same man at the end as he was in the beginning. Also, this is a plot light movie with no big reveals and an anticlimactic ending. I have not read the book, but I understand the movie does not follow it closely.

Presentation: 3
The visuals were fine, but nothing that really captured me. They were effective enough to create some intense moments, but nothing else. Brad Pitt is a fantastic actor, but this was not one of his award winning performances in my mind. I feel very neutral about all the presentation aspects of this show.

Overall: 9 out of 21
At a total of nine points, this averages out to a neutral showing for me. I would only recommend watching this movie if you really love zombie flicks, or if you are in the mood to watch something tense that does not require much attention.
 

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

Entertainment: 6
As with the 2009 reboot of Star Trek, you don't have to be a fan of the William Shatner shows and movies to enjoy this sequel. It is a fast paced and fun movie that fully captures the magic of the Star Trek universe as entertainment. You will notice I said as "entertainment." In other words, this review is probably more targeted for those of us who are not Trekkies or Trekkers.

Writing: 5
This is a great script that does not take itself too seriously, but also, for the most part, does not get too campy. It has a few tie-ins to the old shows, but they mostly manage to write them into the script in a way that makes them relevant rather than simple homages to the past.

Presentation: 6
Fantastic visuals, with the feel of the 60s rolled beautifully forward. The acting is well delivered, and left me feeling like the this was an original presentation rather than a copy of the past.

Overall Score: 17 out of 21
While not a deep thinking film, this movie does what it does extremely well. It is well worth watching.