The Signal is a bit of a surprise. In previews it looks like a run of the mill summer sci-fi film. What it is instead, is a bit of a throw back to old school sci-fi horror of years past.  It is even a bit of a mystery film.

There is very little reliance on special effects in the movie and it keeps a certain amount of suspense throughout (first you think one thing is going on, then another and then back to the first). Yet it is well written and the end result isn't from left field--the clues are throughout.

The film sports a real "up and coming" cast; Brenton Thwaites (also in Maleficent), Olivia Cooke (Bates Motel) and Beau Knapp (Super 8). All of them take the roles given and run with them.  The film has a lot of set up before you get to the sci-fi. In some movies this is a recipe for disaster but here it works and most of the reason it works is the three young actors.

The group is traveling cross country and, incidentally, being taunted by a computer hacker. Do they go to chase down the hacker? Or leave it be? Pretty easy to guess that in any film.

This is a "small" film. I use that term a great deal and sometimes it isn't clear what I mean. Usually I mean it is a film that is small in scope, often with a limited budget and focusing on a more personal sort of story. The Signal isn't about the world being blown up. It is the story of three people. And what makes it good Sci-Fi is that WHO these people are is explored in some depth before anything really happens to them.

You know who they are and sort of care about them. If the movie has tons of action and lots of explosions? Knowing about and caring about doesn't matter nearly as much (just ask Tom Cruise). When the movie is slower paced and more of a mystery? Caring and knowing, on some level, matter.

Is the movie perfect? No. It has some warts but it has its own universe, its own consistent logic and it is evenly paced.  Some may not like the set up taking so long? But without that the rest of the film would suffer. Be ready for a deliberately paced film? And you will enjoy The Signal.

Edge of Tomorrow doesn't suck. Generally speaking these days that is pretty high praise for a Tom Cruise vehicle (especially a Sci-Fi film starring Cruise and not directed by Steven Speilberg).  There are lots of awful Cruise films and a slew of mediocre ones over the past decade and half.  But this film really, genuinely, isn't bad.

In fact, for the first 3/4 of the film it is actually pretty engaging. It takes the tired premise of "you must relive the same day over and over until you get it right" premise and adds some new twists, some humor and keeps the action moving along. It handles the necessary repetition well. In the first hour or so of the film they never really give you a chance to think. This isn't a film where thinking helps. That sounds damning but it isn'; good action films take you out or reality and turn off your brain for the ride. That is a compliment for an action film and Edge of tomorrow manages it, for awhile.

There is  a point in the film where something changes in Cruise's character (being vague here to avoid spoilers) and the film slows after that. It even seems a little slapdash. The denouement is also about as Hollywood as you can get. It might be best to leave ten minutes before the film ends. But anyone who walks into this film expecting a "non-Hollywood" ending probably doesn't go to the movies often and, therefore, won't notice. It mostly works and for big budget sci-fi that is a rarity.

One minor note--if you have an English actor who cannot do an American accent? Don't make them try. Even in a small character it is distracting.

Most of the actors in the film, however, handle it all professionally. No one wows you. No one is really given a chance--not even co-star, Emily Blunt. Blunt is fine but there doesn't seem to be much chemistry here. Who is responsible for missing chemistry? Actors? Directors? Casting? It could be all of the above and others as well but who is responsible doesn't much matter to an audience.

One of the problems Cruise faces as an actor is that he isn't versatile. Lots of decent actors are not versatile but when they become big stars? You see THEM and not their character. It isn't their fault necessarily. Some actors who have never been accused of being fine thespians have overcome this (Clint Eastwood springs to mind). Other, better actors, have lazily fallen into this trap (Johnny Depp springs to mind). Cruise can't really help it. He has a limited range and he is a big star. You see "Tom Cruise" on the screen and it is a tough thing for him to overcome. 

And while this is true here? Cruise manages better than usual. He CAN do it--War of the Worlds showed he could be a sort of frightened "everyman." Maybe it isn't all on the actor but on his directors? I have often wondered if Cruise is better with directors who are "bigger" than him in Hollywood.

But psychoanalyzing Cruise for the purpose of damning or praising him isn't terribly productive. Maybe he and his agent just pick weak scripts. Which is why a film like Edge of Tomorrow may scare off audiences. They remember Oblivion and other failures (and even some near misses) and just don't head out to the theater.

Here he has managed a decent performance in a decent, if not terribly memorable film. If his co-stars had more opportunities it might have improved the movie but it is worth a look if your expectations are not too high.

Under the Skin is a creepy film from beginning to end. Part of the reason for this is that, as a heterosexual male, it is easy to imagine yourself going pretty much anywhere with Scarlett Johansson. In this film you learn that it really is what's under the skin that counts.

In one way this film is heir to to the "they are among us" films of the 1950s. At some points I thought "Jodorowsky."  But mostly I just wondered where the film was going. Ultimately it becomes a movie about someone pretending to be something they are not--and coming to identify with that something. She is an alien who starts to "go native."

Johansson drives around, picking up men--some wary, some eager, and taking them with her in her van.  But over the span of the film she also seems to develop empathy with humans--an even more so with her own human form.

Director Jonathan Glazer was at the wheel for the excellent, Sexy Beast. He also worked extensively with English bands Massive Attack and Radiohead. Remember the video for Karma Police? He did it.

He hasn't done a ton of feature films (this is his third). It is to be hoped he will be at the helm again--and soon. This is a unique and thoughtful film and it there are so few like it that make it to theaters. The special effects are minimal and effective showing you need not break the bank in Sci-Fi.

In fact, some of the "special effects" sequences in the film are what really bring home the creepiness of the movie. We barely meet the men and yet we can feel for them because of these parts of the film (trying very hard not to give too much away here).

The Jodorowsky reference relates to a couple of these segments but as soon as these end you are snapped back to a rather mundane reality--something almost neo-realist. The non-alien segments of the film could be something about working people of Scotland.

Another interesting thing about the movie is that the men lured into the van were allegedly not actors but were shot on hidden cameras and only told they were in a film afterward.  It seems a risky way to make a movie--and reinforces the creepiness. Can you imagine if a director did this with the genders reversed?

These sort of creative takes on filmmaking are welcome even in films that do not succeed. Experimentation in how to make movies and what are movies are essential to move the art of filmmaking along. This film does it and succeeds in making a good and provocative film. Again, let's see more from Glazer, and soon.

The World's End is a funny movie. No doubt about it. Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright and Nick Frost all involved in a movie seems to be a pretty solid recipe for actual laughter. Is it as funny and original as Shaun of the Dead? Probably not but it is probably a hair better than the also amusing Hot Fuzz.

There is one problem with the movie and it isn't actually WITH the movie but a broader problem that Hollywood needs to deal with right NOW; they need to stop telling us so much in previews.

I would have been much happier if I hadn't KNOWN this film was about robots? As an avid movie goer I should, at least, have the opportunity to not know. If I want to have a movie spoiled there are tons of reviewers willing to do that for me. I didn't need to go see the Harrison Ford/Gary Oldman movie, Paranoia, because the previews pretty much told me what was going to happen in the film. Even more egregious are the previews for the remake of Carrie, the new Vin Diesel film, Captain Phillips...hell pretty much every single preview I've seen for months.

Hollywood thinks we are stupid and won't understand if they don't spell it out for us. Please, stop! It actually stops me from going to certain movies and I am sure I am not alone in this.

But let's get back to The World's End.

How many of you recall high school as the pinnacle of your life? It is to be hoped very few. Even so it is a certainty that you know someone who feels this way. They have never gotten past their "glory years" which were usually far less glorious than they recall. That is the starting point for this film.

Pegg plays Gary King, the vaguely goth high school superstar who decides (at a little too much length) to get his old friends together to relive their youth via a particular quest. He wants them to return to their hometown to go on a pub crawl--having a pint at each of a dozen pubs, culminating at The World's End.

Frost is decidely NOT Ed from Shaun of the Dead in this movie, instead being cast in the sober, responsible role. He and Gary's other friends are all gainfully employed, fairly successful and only moderately nostalgic for days gone by. But with clever lies and manipulation Gary gets them all on board for the trek.

All along the way gags ensue. Much like Hot Fuzz before it this movie will improve upon second viewing. Some of the early jokes are put into context by what happens later. That is one of the beauty of the "Cornetto Trilogy" all the films stand up well to repeated viewings.

There are some lessons in this one but these are never used as a bludgeon. And also the ending sort of leaves it open for interpretation what, precisely, these lessons are. Maybe it is ok, under some circumstances, to live in the past? Perhaps when the present is miserable?

But life lessons are not really the point here in any case--humor is and The World's End gets that part right. It does it in a way that induces more chuckles than uncontrollable laughter but that is by design. It is to be hoped that this isn't the final curtain for this group working together.

Elysium isn’t the worst Sci-Fi film in recent memory. It isn’t unwatchable. It is, however, an enormous letdown from director Neill Blomkamp whose first film, District 9, was a truly great science fiction film. That film was such a surprise being so outside the normal Hollywood summer blockbuster fare. It was more than just a great sci-fi film but a great film. Elysium is bland and safe and well within the parameters of the Hollywood formula. It is, however, professionally made and solid enough to keep you involved, at least in places. But there is no real connection, no real excitement and nothing about it is particularly memorable.

So what, basically, is wrong with the film?

It drags.  The film is fairly short but it takes awhile to get going. The establishment of who Max is and what Elysium is takes far too much of the running time. Pacing is a huge part of the problem with this movie. The overall plot is fairly thin too. Is it a comment on immigration? Egalitarianism? Healthcare? Even the final resolution is a little head scratching in its lack of sophistication.

The characters are not particularly well-drawn (except perhaps Matt Damon's Max). There is very little surprising about the movie at all. The villains do what villains do; they sneer, they snarl but are otherwise uncomplicated. The acting is hard to figure. Jodie Foster seems wooden, which is hard to imagine for an actress of her caliber. Sharlto Copley, who acquitted himself so well, as Wikus Van De Merwe in District 9, is pretty close to a Saturday morning cartoon as a psychotic mercenary. Damon manages to give his character some depth but he also has much more screen time to do it.

It isn't that these actors, or others in the film such as Alice Braga (that you may recall from Predators), are bad, they are simply not given very much to do or time to do it in. There are too many characters as well be they friend or henchman. If you want to have a lot of characters to be blown to bits? That is fine. But why add people whose deaths are supposed to move the audience when there isn’t enough time to make the audience care.

Some of the action sequences are decent but mostly they are nothing special, sort of formulaic. There are a few “they blowed up real good” moments but these are too few.  This isn’t to say that plot should be secondary to explosions and mayhem but this movie could have done with a good deal more mayhem.

What is good about the movie? Damon puts in a fairly solid performance—making his futuristic felon trying to get his life back on track believable and sympathetic. It looks good. The scenes on earth have a similar feel to large parts of District 9. It never lets special effects take over which is what most thinly plotted sci-fi films do.

While its pace is uneven it isn’t so bad that the audience will completely lose interest either. There are worse movies that come out every year in the genre and part of the problem here may also be the high expectations for Blomkamp as a director. District 9 was that good and Elysium is just mediocre.

Everyone has seen Star Trek Into Darkness by now. But it seems a movie that, even well after the fact, is worth a brief note. This is how you reboot a franchise. If you haven't seen the first or the second? Then I do not feel bad about a spoiler from 2009's Star Trek.

They change the time line.

The villain travels back through time and does things that alter the Star Trek universe. Director J.J. Abrams is given a clean slate to work from. Even better he is given a clean slate with a variety of characters to revisit and re-imagine in a new way. So far Abrams is doing it right.

This film is superior to the first one, in part, because it requires a limited amount of set up. We know the universe has been changed. We know the Vulcan home world has been destroyed. The cast we know from years of Star Trek geekdom but it is great fun watching the new interpretations of these characters--especially by Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg (although not necessarily in that order).  Quinto's Spock and Pegg's Scotty are the real standouts. In defence of Pine, however, both Spock and Scotty have more to work with for an actor than the heroic leading man that is Captain Kirk.

Even now, after you should have seen the movie, I won't give away any twists or secrets. That is just wrong. It might even be wrong to let you know that there ARE twists and secrets but by this point you know at least that.

This movie is one to see on a big screen and in 3D. It looks great and the 3D, while not intrusive, is done well enough to add something and not just give you a headache.

One of the reasons this new version of Star Trek works is why other reboots of the series worked--the new movie embraces changed and is not over-worried with upsetting the fanatics. It worked with most of the other Star Trek series as well. The new captains were different from Kirk. In this new version Kirk himself is different because the circumstances of his life has changed. In fact, Star Trek fans have never seen Kirk this young before. We've traveled back before the advent of the series.

It is to be hoped that Star Trek doesn't fall into the trap of each movie requiring larger and larger roles for the bit players in the film, that they do not succumb to the fear of killing off characters in the movies and that they use the universe Gene Roddenberry to its fullest.

So far it is all good. Maybe Abrams can even pull the Star Wars universe out of the trash can George Lucas' last three films dumped it into.