Punch Out: Iron Man 3 Versus Man Of Steel

[Reviewed on August 6th 2013]

In This Corner: in the gold and red trunks, hailing from Malibu California ... Iron Man 3

Main Takeaway:  Lethal Weapon scribe writes and directs the third installment of Iron Man.  Combining a 80s buddy-cop vibe with modern drone army overtones, you keep expecting Tony Stark to shake his head and mutter to himself, "I'm getting too old for this shit".  Verdict:  Matinee.  3D not necessary.

Pros:  

• Tony Stark in typical Tony *Snark*-mode, but at the same time, full of doubts due to the events that occurred in Avengers
• Great rescue scene in the middle act, which puntuates the minor reveal about his Iron Man armor
• Ben Kingsley's Mandarin character is awesome
• Makes reference to Downton Abbey

Cons:

• Gwynthe Paltrow doesn't look so hot in this movie.  Maybe her health cleanse took away some of her star luster?
• At one moment in the movie, Tony Stark channels Martin Riggs when sneaking into a home.  I swear, I thought I was watching Lethal Weapon 5, only without Murtaugh, My Cousin Vinnie and Thor's mom
• Guy Pearce doesn't do much in the movie, which is a shame
• People who explode can get messy
• The ending, while well executed, didn't do much for me.

Summary

I don't know.  While better than Iron Man 2, 3 didn't really show off the kind of harrowing escape or the fun of creating the Iron Man suit that we saw in the first Iron Man.  Nor did it show the manic genius/leader qualities of the Avengers.  Tony Stark is still a brilliantly realized character, thanks to Robert Downing Jr's acting:  he's being flippant one moment, and then rat-tat-tat details oriented another moment.  I wouldn't say that he was slumming it in this third film but really, after seeing him in four films already (1, 2, the Avengers and now 3), I think we the audience might start thinking that this shit is getting old.

In This Corner:  in the red and blue trunks, hailing from Smallville, USA by way of Krypton ... Man of Steel

Main Takeaway:  the guys who wrote Batman Begins and the Dark Knight meet up with the guy who directed 300 and The Watchmen and decide to make Superman into an alien ... just like Thor!  Only Supes is raised as a wholesome as baseball and apple pie American while Thor is raised as a DB.  Man, parenting is SO important.  Oh, Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are Superman's parents.  And minor spoiler:  Kevin Costner's streak may have come to an end.  Verdict:  Matinee.  3D not necessary. 

Pros:

• The alien angle is a bold move.  It's inferred but not explicitly mentioned in the Richard Donner films.  
• The loner aspect of moving from one place to another is also well fleshed out in the movie
• Amy Adams ... mmmmmm.
• I have to say that Kevin Costner gives off this Field of Dreams vibe that works in this movie
• When Supes sets up his Fortress of Solitude and tries out that whole "leap tall buildings in a single bound" thing and watching him smile, you kind of get the same feel-good feeling when watching Tobey Maguire realizing his potential as Spiderman.  Sorry ... this is the second time I referenced a Marvel comic character.  I won't do that again.
• Russel Crowe doesn't sing in this movie.  Seriously, I half expected him to start belting out a song (monotone, of course) about Jean Valjean.

Cons:

• I think they went full alien when they should have gone half alien.  Everyone knows you never go full alien.  I mean, look at Thor, that stuck up, half witted, scruffy looking Asgardian.
• All of the scenes on Krypton felt like something out of Avatar.  Weird.
• Flashbacks seem really out of place.  There were flashbacks in Batman Begins that flowed well with the story but not so much here
• Terraforming.  Really?  Now you know that the movie went full alien on you.
• The ending, while well executed, didn't do much for me.  And it felt so contrived.
• Amy Adams doesn't sing in this movie

Summary

As an origins film, it hits all of the bullet points you would expect, almost following the Richard Donner template for Superman The Movie (Krypton, Smallvile, Metropolis).  Unfortunately, the narrative is so scattershot that it doesn't really flow that well ... which is a shame because this movie had so much potential.  This film had the opportunity to give people hope in the world but somewhat squandered it on showing a moody, more introspective Superman, shackled to the thought that he is more alien than human.  In the trailer, there is a scene where young Clark asks his father, "Can't I just keeping pretending to be your son" when realizing that he's not of earth.  And Kevin Costner says "You ARE my son".  And yet, for the rest of the movie, we don't see the human quality that Clark is striving for, of being part of earth, being part of Americana.

Judges Score

Iron Man 3

• Pros:  4
• Cons:  5
• Summary:  3
• Swing:  2
• Total:  3

Man of Steel

• Pros:  6
• Cons:  6
• Summary:  3
• Swing:  4
• Total:  5

Analysis

There was an NBC News article about how a pure and straightforward character like Superman must compete in a world dominated by snarky Iron Man.  Where Tony Stark is glib and arrogant, Clark Kent is mild mannered and considerate.  He doesn't want to harm others while Tony Stark doesn't mind getting in harm's way.  Does that make Man of Steel a less interesting film or the character less interesting?  Not at all.  From an entertainment perspective, despite it's flaws, I liked Man of Steel more than Iron Man 3 just because I'm a sucker for origins films (Star Trek reboot, 007 reboot, first Iron Man) and wanted to see how they would change a movie icon so ingrained in so many people, thanks to the Donner films.  I think it worked to a certain degree but I don't think it successfully updated Superman the character to fit the modern times.  It's certainly darker with a sense of foreboding (similar to Batman) compared to the light and breezy nature of Iron Man but that not enough to make Superman modern.  It would be interesting to see in which direction the producers/directors/writers go with Man of Steel 2 with the Batman crossover.

Pacific Rim

[reviewed on August 5th 2013]

Is Pacific Rim just another Transformers wannabee (short answer:  no) or is the mecha versus kaiju movie everything geeks, nerds and otakus are looking for (short answer:  oh hell yeah).

Main Takeaway

Combine one part 70's robot cartoons (Gundam, Mazinger Z), half part 80's Voltron with a dash of Robotech, mix two parts Godzilla and add a healthy dollop of Independence Day and you get Pacific Rim.  Verdict:  oh hell yeah, in 3D.

Pros

• lots of Robots versus Monsters scenes, especially in the middle act that culminates into a big fight scene that had the audience cheering.  The only times I've heard the audience that I was with cheer at a movie was the Death Star run in Star Wars and recently, the Hulk doing his thing in The Avengers.
• a good number of robots, each with their own unique design and personality
• Elbow Rocket!  FTW!
• interesting set up, where it takes two people to control a single robot
• interesting backstory regarding Kikuchi Rinko's character
• Idris Elba (dude that says "today, we are canceling the apocalypse" in the trailer) is pretty much the heart that drives the movie forward
• Charlie Day playing JJ Abrams.  I swear ... I thought JJ Abrams was acting in this movie
• Ron Perlman, Vincent from CBS's Beauty and the Beast and Guillermo Del Toro regular (he's Hellboy!), in a scene chewing role only he can play

Cons

• paper thin story
• rice paper thin characters
• a good number of monsters that all kind of look the same (big, creepy, with wafer thin personality)
• Tokyo doesn't get destroyed.  Hong Kong does.  You would think a movie that pays homage to the old Toho Godzilla movies would at least have the decency to destroy Tokyo landmarks like SkyTree.  Maybe Tokyo will get destroyed in the sequel that will hopefully have a better than wafer thin storyline
• rah-rah, unite together to save humanity, reminiscent of the last act of another movie full of paper thin characters (Independence Day)
• ending somewhat reminiscent of the last act of another movie with a paper thing story (Independence Day)

Summary

For anyone who has ever watched the robot cartoon shows from the late 70's or caught a late night showing of Godzilla versus Mothra on TV, Pacific Rim is pretty much a love letter to the heyday of those Japanese driven animation and man-in-suit monster movies.  The special effects are top notch.  Transformers, while also top notch in its special effects, drops the ball with its asinine characters.  Sure, with Pacific Rim, you have your stock characters (your father figure character, man-boy character trying to redeem himself from past unspeakable deeds, daughter figure character trying to prove herself in a man + robot world, douche-bag character with chip on shoulder (wouldn't be a DB without a chip on his shoulder) and yeah, the acting is all over the place but hey, it's way better than watching Shia LeBeouf trying to be cool while arguing with a car.  If there was a fault with this movie, it would be it's near carbon copy of the third act from ID4.


Starring:  Idris Elba, Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Ron Perlman
Written By:  Travis Cheacam, Guillermo Del Toro
Directed By:  Guillermo Del Toro
Genre:  Action/Science Fiction
Rated PG-13

Hawksworth

My brother was attending a conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and since it was just a short drive up from Seattle, I thought I would visit and hang out with him for a couple of days.  We both love Vancouver; there is something extremely cosmopolitan about the city without being too tourist-y.  I will admit, however, that there is one glaring problem with Vancouver:  there are just too many good restaurants to choose from.  Both my brother and I scanned through a countless number of Yelp and TripAdvisor reviews of restaurants in the Vancouver area, covering the whole gamut of culinary goodness:  French, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Northwest seafood.  You name it, there's a good restaurant for it.

So, upcoming arriving in Vancouver and meeting up with my brother, we must have spent at least a good 20 minutes on trying to decide on where to eat.  When we couldn't decide on a restaurant, I blurted out "Hawksworth", based on a strong recommendation from one of my co-workers (thanks JCOS!).  So, we looked at the reviews on Yelp and yup, they were mostly positive.  We then looked at the website and wow!  Those pictures on their site looks scrumptious.  So, it was decided right then and there:  we were off to Hawksworth.

Located in the Rosewood Hotel off of Georgia St. in the middle of bustling downtown Vancouver, you walk into the darkened entry and are greeted by a couple of elegantly dressed receptionists.  Very classy.  We were led through a comfy looking lounge into the main dining area, where our table was situated next to a wall.  It was about 5:30pm so it wasn't crowded.  A French gentlemen, who mentioned that he was from the south of France but whose name for the life of me I cannot remember, was our waiter and he reminded me much of Bronson Pinchot (Balki from Perfect Strangers (or better yet, Serge from Beverly Hills Cop)).  I half expected him to ask me if I wanted an espresso with a little lemon twist.

We opened up the menu.  There were so many enticing entree choices.  My original choice was getting the caramelized alberta striploin with shishito peppers but my brother saw the For Sharing menu item and decided that we should both get it.  What is the For Sharing menu item?  30 oz heritage angus bone in ribeye with potato gnocchi, summer vegetables, crispy marrow with a red wine jus and butter hollandaise sauce.  All for the low down price of $125CAD.  So, it was decided right then and there:  For Sharing, medium rare.  Pro:  red meat!  Somewhat of a con:  30 minute wait for it to be cooked to perfection.

My brother wanted an appetizer and ordered the English Pea Soup, which had lobster and prosciutto with a black pepper creme fraichi.  I passed on an appetizer because I wanted to save room for dessert.  After a few minutes, my brother's soup arrived ... in style and made me realize that I should have gotten an appetizer as well.  Missed opportunity!

English Pea Soup

The soup bowl contained lobster bits and prosciutto while the pea soup came in its own container.  The waiter (who still hadn't asked me if I wanted an espresso with a little lemon twist) then poured the hot pea soup into the soup bowl, mixing with the lobster bits, creating a very hot and fresh take on soup presentation.  I took a sip and it was divine.  Very creamy and flavorful.

After a 30 minute wait, the ribeye arrived ... also in grand fashion.

30 oz Heritage Angus Bone In Rib Eye with Crispy Bone Marrow ... pure awesome

Mmmm ... potato gnocchi with summer vegetable bourquetiere.

Two great tastes that tastes great together

Crispy Marrow.  Bite-size explosions of flavor 

The presentation itself was marvelous.  My initial reaction in seeing a large bone with a slab of meat attached to it as dinner was something to the effect of watching Fred Flintstone eating dinner.  It was barbaric and there was something of a caveman vibe to it.  But we were hungry so we dove in, caveman style.

The meat had the right amount of pink; not bloody but certainly not the toughness you would find in a medium cooked steak.  Biting into it was heaven:  tender but not chewy, flavorful without the need of any sauce.  The outside of the steak was slightly seasoned which complimented the earthy taste of raw beef.  Add that to the summer vegetables and the potato gnocchi and you have yourself a splendid meal.  There were two sauces that accompanied the steak:  the Chimichurri red wine jus and the butter hollandaise.  The red wine jus had a slightly sweet taste of sweetened soy sauce but without the salty aftertaste.  The butter hollandaise was very creamy with a slight tang of yogurt which was a nice contrast with the red wine jus.  I preferred the red wine jus but in all honesty, I ate most of the rib eye without any sauce at all.  Overall, the ribeye was a winner.

I should mention about two things:  the potato gnocchi and the crispy marrow.  At first glance, the puffy/crispy bits of marrow on the ribeye looks like simple garnishments but it's part of the meal.  I took a bite into one, half expecting to bite into something like an onion ring.  Instead, to my surprise, it was very tasty:  crisp like an onion ring but packed full of rich flavor.  For the gnocchi, I wasn't sure if these were baked or pan fried but there was a slight fried texture to the potato gnocchi that gave it a slightly tarter-tot meets pasta taste.  Both added so much to the main dish and vegetables.

It took my brother and I some time to go through the meal but we weren't in a hurry and we somehow managed to eat the whole thing.  Here's the proof:

Yabba dabba done

How do you top of a meal as grand as a 30oz angus rib eye?  With extravagent dessert, of course.  I was full but there is always room for dessert (thanks to my second stomach dedicated to desserts, sweets and the occasional appetizer as dessert).  My brother got the passionfruit, coconut and white chocolate while I went for the chèvre cheesecake.

Passionfruit, Coconut and White Chocolate

Not your ordinary cheesecake:  chèvre cheesecake with green apple sorbet and walnuts

I didn't get to try the passionfruit, coconut, white chocolate triple threat that my brother had but it looked very inviting.  Presentation, for both desserts, were great.  When I think cheesecake, I typically think of the thick New York style cheesecakes with the graham cracker crust.  This cheesecake was much different but just as delicious:  the cheesecake itself, which was shaped like a tube, was very light and fluffy, almost like whipped cream.  Next to it was a walnut cookie with a dollop of green apple sorbet.  I think they should rename the dessert as Green Apple Sorbet with chèvre cheesecake because the spotlight was definitely the sorbet:  lightly sweet with a tangy green apple taste that went well with the crispy texture of the walnut cookie.  The yuzu marinated apple cubes and the caramelized walnuts raised the dessert to the new level of dessert deliciousness.  However, the kicker was the brown butter sauce droplets.  They dot the the dessert plate and one taste simply blasts you with so much rich, cinnamon-y flavor.  Highly recommended.

In fact, if you're going to be treating yourself to a fine meal with excellent service, I highly recommend going to Hawksworth.  From beginning to end, each portion of the meal was delicious.  Upon leaving, we were presented with one last bit of dessert:  fruit jelly candy and marshmallows.  

Delicious to the end, a great dining experience at Hawkworth

Hawksworth Restaurant

801 West Georgia Street

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

604-673-7000 extension 1

Located in the Rosewood Hotel Georgia, corner of Howe & Georgia

Star Trek Into Darkness

[Reviewed on June 4th, 2013]

I saw this last weekend and it was pretty good.  I tried to keep this review as spoiler free as possible.  Hope that you all get a chance to see it so that, similar to Black Swan, it would be interesting to hear your take on the spoiler areas.  In any case, my short movie review:

Main Takeaway

It's like Star Trek awkwardly asking Star Wars out to Back To The Future 2's Enchantment Under the Sea dance but getting rejected because Star Wars is going out with Brokeback Mountain and thinks Star Trek has bad breath.  Recommended, definitely in IMAX if you have the chance

Likes

• Lots of starship porn (you know, lots of hero shots of the Enterprise, not actual porn)
• Lots of lens flare (but disappointingly not as much as the 2009 version)
• Nice throwbacks/homages to the original series movies
• Nice male bonding between Kirk and Spock (like I said, no actual porn!)
• Space battles!  Pew pew pew!
• Scotty has some of the best scenes
• Benedict Cumberbatch is a badass villain; better than Nero, Sherlock definitely has this steely stare that would send shivers down V'Ger's core

Dislikes

• A good number of contrived moments that almost breaks your suspension of disbelief.  Sure all of the movies have them (I mean seriously ... whales?) but there are some in the movie that were a bit too convenient
• Where Star Trek (2009) had a bright and hopeful vibe, Into Darkness definitely is heavy (there's that word again.  Is there something wrong with Earth's gravitational pull?)

Summary

There is an episode in Lost where one of the characters (Desmond) realizes that he can travel through time.  However, while he has the power to alter things, there are some things that, no matter what you do, cannot escape their unalterable fate.  You get the feeling when watching the 2009 Star Trek and this movie:  the events from the first movie (alternative timeline) carry over to this movie, where echos from events in past movies (the canon timeline) reverberate in Into Darkness.  Things might have changed but it doesn't alter their fate (Kirk captaining the Enterprise to what happens at the end of Into Darkness).  Similar to the alternate 1985 in Back to the Future II, where everything was all weirdly dark and scary looking (Biff's casino, Lea Thompson in old age makeup), this Star Trek alternate universe is everything that you know about Star Trek but a strangely corrupted and almost menacing version.  Unlike the first movie, which was a Spock-centric, "I miss Winona as my mom" story, this is more of a Kirk-driven, "Revenge is a dish best served cold" storyline and to be honest, I like it since you really buy into each character's motive that often lead to some kind of breathlessly crazy action sequence ...  even with the glaringly contrived moments (Dislike #1).

Starring:  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Benedict Cumberbatch
Written By:  Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof
Directed By:  J.J. Abrams
Genre:  Action/Science Fiction
Rated PG-13

Mini Movie Reviews - April 2013 Edition

[Published as email on April 14th 2013]

I've been watching movies but haven't had time to write formal reviews.  For the record, the movies I've seen lately are:

• Jurassic Park 3D - I saw this the first time when I was teaching in Japan and saw it at a small rinky dink closet of a movie theater.  I wasn't too overwhelmed at the time and even after countless viewings on VHS and DVD, I thought of the movie as unremarkable.  But now, seeing it in 3D, it's actually a pretty good film and the 3D effects are exploited for full impact.  As a side note, another older movie, Top Gun, also came out in 3D but do I really want to see a bunch of guys with their shirts off playing volleyball in 3D?  Verdict:  Matinee but make sure to see it in 3D.
• Olympus Has Fallen - solid action movie.  It's pretty much Die Hard in the White House.  You know the scene in Die Hard when the Hans character is threatening the Takagi character with a gun pointed at his head and when he blows his brains out, you see the splatter effect on the door?  I remember seeing that when Die Hard first came out and thought "holy shit ... that's brutal".  Well, Olympus Has Fallen must have at least 10 splatter effect scenes and while effective in showing the viciousness of the enemy, it doesn't really carry the same "holy shit" feeling that Die Hard did.  Verdict:  Matinee.

The following I saw on Blu-ray:

• Zero Dark Thirty - this was a good film but shifts into high gear when they raid Bin Laden's compound.  Verdict:  see it for the last 40 minutes
• Argo - it's like the Players meets Zero Dark Thirty.  Verdict:  I liked it.  I would definitely see it, especially for the last 40 minutes
• Skyfall - in this Daniel Craig era of Bond, this was better than Quantum of Solace but not as good as Casino Royale.  Verdict:  I liked it, but the last 40 minutes was a bit tiresome
• Life Of Pi - my expectations for this movie was really low but turned out to be pretty awesome.  Verdict:  I really like it, especially the last 40 minutes
• The Hobbit - I saw this in HFR (high framerate) + IMAX 3D when it came out December of last year.  It had the same LOTR vibe to it but not the same momentum that Fellowship had.  I know the Peter Jackson decided to break the book into three films instead of two and while I applaud his effort, the extra filler makes it feel bloated (kind of like the last handful of scenes in Return of the King).  Verdict:  I still liked it but it takes Bilbo 40 minutes to get out of the Shire.
• Les Miserables - I never read the book or watched the play.  I liked it but I guess I was expecting a Disney-esque type of musical, where characters suddenly burst into song at the most in-opportunistic times.  Verdict: there was more than 40 minutes worth of singing.

The Hunger Games

[Reviewed April 11th, 2012]

My team's morale has been in the pits lately since all of us having been working long hours on getting our work out the door.  To boost morale (and to get out of the office), we decided to watch "The Hunger Games" at the Pacific Science Center, which houses a real IMAX movie theater, unlike those converted-to-pseudo-IMAX screens that you'll find at your local multiplex.  Reviews for the movie have been pretty good and having enjoyed reading all three of the books, this was a movie that I was looking forward to seeing.  So, how was the movie?  Here's my short movie review.

Main Takeaway

A capable book-to-movie translation that delivers on most of the key scenes but doesn't deliver on making it an engaging experience.  Verdict:  matinee, if you're interested; otherwise Rental; not worth seeing it in IMAX.

Pros

• Very faithful to the book … almost to a fault
• Beautiful location shooting in western North Carolina
• Some scenes that you've imagined when reading the book looked better on film (train ride to the Capitol, training sequence)
• I like popcorn

Cons

• Tons of needless, fidgety shaky-cam scenes.  Makes a Michael Bay film look downright sedate.  Watching it in IMAX didn't help since we sat close to an awesomely large screen.
• Key action scenes were edited in a hyper-Michael Bay style of whiplash quick-editing, which masks the violence but makes you wish barf bags were provided
• Some scenes that you've imagined when reading the book looked much worse on film (Cornucopia, Capitol citizens)
• The actors did a good job in the film but their performances were really wooden.  Not Phantom Menace bad but not as lively as you would have expected.  Not sure if this is the fault of the actors, director or the film producers but I didn't feel a lot of chemistry between each of the characters.  I will say, however, that there was one brief moment of brilliance when the MC (Stanley Tucci) is interviewing Peeta and the interplay between them works well.
• For a book that kept me wanting to read what would happen in the next chapter, I didn't get the same sense of suspense and anticipation with the movie.
• I ate all of the popcorn

Summary

Whether it's Harry Potter or the Twilight series or even the Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan films, part of the fun of watching these types of movies is seeing how well (or not so well) the producers were able to translate the book to a feature film.  The introduction to Diagon Alley and when Harry gets his wand where two early scenes from the series that made me realize that I was in for a treat when I watched the first Harry Potter film.  For Hunger Games, I didn't get the same vibe.  I think the producers, actors and directors all had the best intentions of making the book into a badass movie but it came off more as a made-for-television movie.  This might have been intentional since I heard that the director wanted to keep the movie on or under budget and didn't want to make it into an over-the-top movie with violence/gore, explosions and such.  The book has Katniss processing a lot of stuff in her mind but the movie has the more difficult challenge of making those inner thoughts into outer actions or words for other to hear and react.  Unfortunately, we don't get that and it's unfortunate since the producers had a great opportunity to really make the movie stand apart from the source material.  Instead, we're left with blank stares and listless actions that makes it difficult to really empathize with the characters.  Maybe they'll do a better job with Catching Fire.

Notes

There's been a number of discussions online (both movie reviews or reviews of the books) about how Hungry Games is very similar to the Japanese novel/movie Battle Royale.  I've never read the book or watched the movie but it would be interesting to see it if it they are very similar.  Personally, I thought Hunger Games was similar to the Arnold Schwarzenegger film, The Running Man.

Starring:  Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth

Written By:  Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins (based on her novel)

Directed By:  Gary Ross

Genre:  Adventure/Science Fiction

Rated PG-13

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

[Reviewed on December 18th 2011]

I saw this over the weekend, just after seeing Brian's Twitter feed that he saw Mission Impossible over the weekend as well and mentioned that Tom Cruise does a lot of running in the movie.  Agreed, the man knows how to run gracefully onscreen.  But the big question is:  did you like it so much that you felt compelled to climb up on Oprah's sofa and start jumping up and down while proclaiming your love for the movie?  In any case, here is my short movie review.

Main Takeaway

Big summer movie in December.  Verdict:  Recommended, definitely in IMAX if you have the chance.

Pros

• Lots of gadgets
• 2nd act (that takes place in Dubai) worked really well
• Tom Cruise doing his thing, talking in short, controlled bursts of verbage when he isn't doing some crazy ass stunt
• Brad Bird (director of the Incredibles and Ratatouille) makes a fun, action packed movie.  Disciple of JJ Abrams, without the lens flare
• There were a good number of quiet moments mixed in with big, bombastic actions scenes
• Sawyer from Lost is in it
• The Dark Knight Rises trailer played before the movie

Cons/Nits

• Long running time
• Could easily have been mistaken for a James Bond movie
• While it didn't make me want to go out and buy a BMW, all of the BMW and Canon branding was somewhat in your face.  Not as blatant as The Island or Transformers 2 but still there.

Summary

Out of all of the Mission Impossible movies, this is the best but that's not really saying much.  The first one (directed by Brian DePalma) tripped over its own plot twists but had some memorable action scenes.  The second one (directed by John Woo) didn't really have any great action scenes and didn't have much of a plot. I felt for John Woo (Hollywood version) who was trying his best to imitate John Woo (Hong Kong version) and failing miserably.  The third one (directed by JJ Abrams) was good since it focused more on the team players instead of just on Tom Cruise.  Oh ... and there were several good action scenes.  The fourth one works on the strengths of the third one and raises it up a notch.  Not all the way up to eleven but more like 9.  All of the action scenes involving the Burj Khalifa (the worlds tallest building in the world) in IMAX were vertigo-inducing cool.  If anything, it serves as a reminder as to why people pay an extra $3 to watch a movie in IMAX.  

Did You Notice

A number of iPhones were used by IMF personnel and would self destruct after a mission is assigned.  Does that reflect the quality of the product?  Of course, Brad Bird used to work for PIXAR who has close ties with Apple so you wonder if there was a little bit of product placement nepotism involved.  Having said that, there is one scene, right after Kremlin scene, where Ethan steals someone's phone to call IMF.  Right after using it, he throws it into the gutter.  Note that it wasn't an iPhone :-).

Starring:  Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton

Written By:  Josh Appelbaum, Andre Nemec

Directed By:  Brad Bird

Genre:  Action/Thriller

Rated:  PG-13