The Hangover (2.5 out of 4)

You wouldn't think a guy who could easily pass as a creepy pedophile walking around with a baby in a papoose pouch would be funny, but it is. I wasn't sure if I'd find this movie to be funny, but I did.

There are no secrets here, all you have to do is watch the trailer, or look at the movie poster to know what's going on. It's Las Vegas, it's a group of guys, alcohol is involved. Let the hilarity ensue. It may not be original, and despite their best efforts for coming up with zany gags and outrageous situations, it's still pretty predictable, but some fresh twists help keep a somewhat tired formula from feeling entirely played.

Doug (Justin Bartha) is getting married. On the weekend before he takes the leap, his best pals, Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms), and his new brother-in-law, Alan (Zach Galifianakis) are going to take him on a road trip to Vegas for one last night of bachelorhood and debauchery. Phil is a teacher at a private school who is the James Dean of the group, while Stu is a conservative dentist who has to lie to his girlfriend in order to get permission from her to go (he tells her the guys will be in California wine country). Alan is the newest member of the group and the odd man out, though he is taken in to the brood and under the wing of Phil, whom he admires most. On the rooftop of their Las Vegas hotel the four men toast to the night they're about to have.The next thing we see are Phil, Stu (who is now missing a tooth), and Alan awaken to a trashed hotel room and a hell of a hangover, including no memory of what had transpired the night before. Before long, the three men realize Doug is missing. In the quest to find Doug, the events of the previous night are revealed mutually to our main characters and the audience. The film does drag a bit, especially toward the end of the 2nd act, but not enough to bring down the film.

None of the events of the night are fully revealed, such as through flashback, which is smart. After all, this is a film not about the night, but the morning (and day) after. The only time we see what really happened is during the credits as a montage of pictures plays through. It says both good and bad things for the film that this is one of the funniest moments.

Terminator: Salvation (2 out of 4)

Like the cyborg killing machine that is living flesh over metal exoskeleton, Terminator: Salvation is a Terminator film on the surface, but a very garden variety action film underneath.

Despite all the high intensity action, top dollar special effects and CGI, and even dry, studly action hero dialog, Terminator: Salvation doesn't live up to it's billing. The film is missing something, maybe more than one thing. If we look back at the three previous Terminator films, they each had a few commonalities; these being: Arnold Schwarzenegger (admittedly, his likeness is depicted in one scene), a single bad guy sent back from the future to kill John/Sarah Conner, and a single protector also sent from the future to protect John/Sarah Conner. That has been the formula and it has worked, for the most part, up until this point. Terminator: Salvation has deviated completely from this premise in an attempt to start something new. Well, McG, nice try. That certainly doesn't mean it couldn't have worked, it only means this movie didn't work.

Salvation starts off in the past with a death row inmate named Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) who is awaiting imminent execution. Helena Bonham Carter plays a clinically ill woman who is desperate for the inmate to donate his body, we assume, for medical research. After some persuading, Wright signs over his body to science and the execution is carried out. Fast forward to some not-too-distant future, Wright wakes up to find himself alone in a post apocalyptic wasteland. What follows is a rather dull, even if action oriented, story centered mostly around the Wright character. I'm not exactly sure this character was even necessary, let alone worthy of his own plot line (aside from eye candy for female audience members), but the filmmakers none-the-less hitched their wagon to this one trick pony.

We are, eventually, introduced to the future John Conner (Christian Bale), his father Kyle Rees (Anton Yelchin), and a myriad of other, less important characters including a particularly unnecessary resistance leader played by Michael Ironside. Bale, who is apparently still trying to shake off the Batman growl, offers a rather shallow performance. Frankly, the only interesting character was the young Kyle Rees, played by Yelchin. Very little is explored here, which is a real shame. Rees and Conner are caught up in their own time paradox and, after all, isn't that a staple of the Terminator franchise?

Fans of the Terminator series will be disappointed, even if slightly entertained. This isn't a bad action film, quite the opposite, but it certainly isn't a good Terminator film, either. Don't expect a classic, but if you're looking for a summer action movie, this is a good option that's worth a visit to the matinee.

Star Trek (3.5 out of 4)

With the exception of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, no Star Trek film has managed to capture my imagination or keep my attention. That is, until now. J. J. Abrams has taken Star Trek, the notoriously dull obsession of some virginal nerds and made it cool, sleek, fast-paced, and fun. Sorry, Trekkies, this one's for the rest of us.

Alright, that isn't necessarily true. While I'm sure some hardcore Star Trek fans will feel alienated by this sneakily hip edition of the famous space drama, most will be pleased.

All of the characters are present, even if the faces are unfamiliar. Only Leonard Nimoy returns to reprise the role of (old) Spock. All other past cast members are gone, replaced by younger actors. It may be hard at first for the die-hards to identify Captain Kirk with anyone other than William Shatner, but Chris Pine makes a convincing case for his version of the maverick space captain.

The writers have devised a clever plot for reestablishing the series and starting over with a clean slate Even if that wasn't entirely necessary, it's a good idea. From this new universe comes a lot more action and some impressive visuals. Taking full advantage of current technology, the filmmakers go more boldly into space at a faster, more exhilarating pace. The Enterprise itself looks updated without losing it's signature elements. Most everything feels very futuristic, with a retro flare.

Besides the aforementioned Pine, the other cast members revive their respective characters near flawlessly. In some cases, becoming more memorable than the original (sorry Trek fans). Convincing through many action sequences, some dramatic moments, and even some very Trekkie slap slick, the youthful cast comes through.

Overall Star Trek is an enjoyable film for most any moviegoer. You do not need to own a Klingon dictionary and pointy rubber ears to be a Star Trek fan any more. I foresee a successful series ahead.