I guess I should mention Woody Allen, who is my favorite director. He would have two or three great films in a row, but has a few duds sprinkled in. I can’t consider Interiors a great film, and while I like Zelig it pales to the rest of his comedies, so his best four-film run is:

Broadway Danny Rose
Purple Rose of Cairo
Hannah and Her Sisters
Radio Days

Kurosawa made the following consecutively:

Rashomon
The Idiot
Ikiru
Seven Samurai
The Lower Depths
Throne of Blood
The Hidden Fortress
The Bad Sleep Well
Yojimbo
Sanjuro
High and Low
Red Beard

I haven’t seen a few of those, but as far as I know even the less famous ones are all very well regarded. I think his career stands up alongside Kubrick’s – and anyone else for that matter – and I love Kubrick, too.

It’s a better movie than The Birds, at any rate, and probably North by Northwest, too.

I liked Burn After Reading a great deal, but I wouldn’t go that far.

Nick
Star Trek 77 million +2
1. Pain and Gain +0.5
2. 42

Filmman
Star Trek: 80 million
1. Pain and Gain +0.5
2. 42

Joe Webb
Star Trek – $81m
1. P&G +0.5
2. 42

Rob
STAR TREKKIN 2 : $84.5 million
1) Pain ‘n’ Gain +0.5
2) Forty Two

James
Trek: 75 +4
1) Pain and Gain +0.5
2) Oblivion

Juan
Star Trek: Wrath of Khan Redux – $82 million
1) Pain and Gain +0.5
2) 42

Jackrabbit Slim
Star Trek: 87 mil
1. 42
2. The Croods +0.5

I guess that streak depends a lot on how you feel about Burn After Reading, but all four of those to me look like movies that people will still be seeking out in 30 years. It’s a better movie than The Birds, at any rate, and probably North by Northwest, too.

Stanley Kubrick’ s entire career, at least from Paths of Glory to Full Metal Jacket, could be considered a 9 film streak, depending on what you think of Lolita. Even without that, he has Dr. Strangelove/2001/Clockworld Orange/Barry Lyndon/The Shining/Full Metal Jacket, which I think is an amazing run. (though I still haven’t seen Barry Lyndon

I also checked Billy Wilder, but he was too prolific and had so-so movies in between his classics. His best run was three films: Witness for the Prosecution/Some Like It Hot/The Apartment, which is pretty damn good.

It’s tough to know what to make of his character. I feel like I’ve known guys like him, who are doggedly committed to a girl who doesn’t return that committment, but they never give off the alpha-dog vibe that McConaughey naturally does. They’re always more defential, more submissive, less self-confident. More marginal, I guess. McConaughey just doesn’t project that kind of guy, and his fake-looking crooked teeth felt like an acknowledgment of that problem and a half-hearted gesture to remedy it.

It’s probably not fair to say, but the role really seemed made for Michael Shannon. I don’t know the circumstances as to how he got the small, glorified cameo of a role instead of the lead. But I liked a lot of it, and especially the kids were great. There are a lot of elements for a great film here, but it’s hard for a movie to come together when the lead character just doesn’t feel quite right.

Anyway, guess I have no valid reason to feel this.
Thought your review was spot-on, Rob.

My biggest problem with it is the same I had with the original with it – namely that it really is a poor representation of the ethos that made Star Trek and its subsequent versions so popular in the first place – the sophistication, the battle of intellect and philosophies. As with the first film, none of that is present here. The film really just aims for being disposable entertainment that you forget once you’re out of the cinema.

Having said that, on the standard of disposable entertainment, this I found pretty top-notch. For the most highly entertaining, fluidly and stylishly directed with excellent visuals that make it really beneficial watching it on the big screen. Whatever his weaknesses, Abrams knows how to put a good action film together.

I’m not crazy about Pine but I liked him a bit more than I did in the first film, although he doesn’t really convince that Kirk is the brilliant mind that the film tries to portray him as; he seems to get by on a series of lucky random hunches. Quinto was great as Spock, and most of the other crew had their moments (especially liked the bit with Sulu being in the captain’s chair). However, Alice Eve was uninteresting, not helped by her perfunctory and needless character (only existing for some very contrived plot points).

As good as the entertainment and action was, it probably overdid it with the final confrontation which felt like one action climax too many.

Overall a good enjoyable popcorn movie but nothing more than that. And I could understand why ‘Trekkies’ would hate it.

Rating: B-

And yeah, I shouldn’t have said “trend” based solely on the last two blockbuster reviews.

But I don’t care about dutch angles either!

I don’t understand the praise at all. What’s in this movie that sets it apart from any other generic Hollywood franchise? Robert Downey’s smart-ass quips, which we’re seeing in exactly the same iteration for the fourth time now? Surely we should expect a little more than that at this point?

And I won’t be seeing Fast and Furious. I saw the first one, hated it (I’m not into cars) and haven’t seen any of them since.

And yes, I realize that’s just as questionable as giving a pass to the other two. (Here’s my STAR TREK 2 review: http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/review-star-trek-into-darkness.php)

And “best of all the Star Trek movies, no matter the cast?” Looking forward to that review…

However, it’s the four year gap between installments that killed them. They lost all the momentum they gained from the 2009 film’s success.

IF there’s a third film, they need it out by 2015.

Rob, have you seen Blood Ties yet? I mean, a movie written by Guillaume Canet and James Gray and directed by Canet? Holy shit, that’s awesome.

True. However, a lot of it was filmed in Germany.

Most older directors can’t do it because they directed so many films. One possibility is Charlie Chaplin, who arguably had five classics in a row: The Gold Rush/The Circus/City Lights/Modern Times/The Great Dictator. Certainly the first four are solid.

I mean, Spielberg had his run, of Jaws, Encounters, Raiders, and ET, but 1941 was also in there.
Scorsese had Raging Bull, King of Comedy, After Hours and Color of Money. Still, not quite the same.
If Welles hadn’t been such a firebrand and tried to push so many buttons, I’m sure he’d be there (and with his adaptation of Hearts of Darkness, with his ‘I Camera’).
Huh. Great question.

I wrote about this s little bit ago. Absolutely terrifying movie. The slow burn up to the ‘boat scene’, when that first bird swoops in, makes that shocking moment so, so powerful. I can’t remember if Brian and I disagreed on this film, or if he was in agreeance.