Zachary Quinto’s Spock and Chris Pine’s Capt. Kirk are joined by new cast member Benedict Cumberbatch.

In the opening scenes of “Star Trek Into Darkness,” Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock illustrate fundamental differences in character. Amidst a noble attempt to save the destruction of an inhabited planet by volcano apocalypse, Kirk breaks the rules to save the life of his pointy-eared pal, who was willing to accept his fate and sacrifice himself for the greater good.

The rest of the film explores Kirk and Spock’s capacity for change. The long-standing “Trek” mythology, dating back to the 1960s TV show, exploited the dynamic between these two men, Kirk being ruled by gut instinct, and Spock, by intent, scrutinous logic. What makes director J.J. Abrams’ franchise reinvention – the first film, “Star Trek,” debuted in 2009 – work so well is the way he balances flashy pop filmmaking with strong character, the two elements shaking hands nicely. The initial sequence of “Into Darkness” is thrilling, fun and suspenseful, but it doesn’t exist merely to impress the audience. It establishes the film’s underlying theme. Neither side of Kirk or Spock’s argument is necessarily wrong.

Kirk and Spock continue to make moral judgments throughout the movie, informing the plot just as much as they stir up provocative complexities. Where many space operas make a clear distinction between right and wrong, Abrams’ “Star Trek” isn’t interested in simple clarity – the “Into Darkness” title suggests not a voyage into evil, but into murky areas of the mind. The “Star Wars” films drew a line in the sand, and Anakin Skywalker stepped over it to become Darth Vader; Luke Skywalker teetered on the edge, entertaining the Dark Side of the Force briefly before ultimately donning the white hat. (Ironically, Abrams’ next film will be the continuation of the “Star Wars” saga, and it’ll be interesting to see if he’ll navigate more complicated territory.)

Benedict Cumberbatch in “Star Trek Into Darkness.”Courtesy photo 

Which isn’t to say “Into Darkness” is a brainy thinkpiece. It is wildly entertaining, propulsive and involving, funny and spiked with honest emotion. Respectively reprising their roles as Kirk and Spock, Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto adeptly handle all comedic, dramatic and physical demands thrown at them. They’re a terrific pair, a strong basis for the franchise. They’re buoyed by a game and talented supporting cast, primarily Simon Pegg as Scotty, Karl Urban as Bones and Zoe Saldana as Uhura, still romantically entangled with Spock.

Three new characters are introduced, and most significantly, the one played by Benedict Cumberbatch. He is a mostly, but not all-the-way bad guy. Of course, or else the excellent screenplay by Damon Lindelof, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman might betray its own ambitions. Cumberbatch’s character is a sinister type staging terrorist-style attacks on Starfleet Academy, then escaping to Kronos, the dangerous home planet of the nasty Klingons. Peter Weller plays Marcus, the Starfleet honcho who assigns Kirk and Spock the secret mission to assassinate the guy with some unsanctioned weapons of mass destruction, and Alice Eve is his daughter, Carol, a plot device who cons her way onto the Enterprise as an additional science officer.

I’m being cagey with plot details because the story has a few clever convolutions that work best to surprise an audience. “Into Darkness” also has many humorous exchanges, one-liners and callbacks to classic “Trek” motifs, from Bones’ myriad metaphors to Spock’s Vulcan nerve pinch. Abrams does large-scale action – and there are numerous set pieces, the most exhilarating being a sequence where Kirk and the Cumberbatch character don rocket-powered space suits and dangerously speed through debris-filled space – and small-scale character extremely well, although he tends to overuse weaving, handheld camerawork and distracting lens flare. But such complaints don’t make the film any less essential. He wisely, fearlessly and amusingly twists and subverts precedent and mythology. Traditionalists who get hung up on such change should find Kirk and Spock’s progression particularly poignant.

Email: jserba@mlive.com or follow John Serba on Twitter

The classic-rock trio comprises the Midwest Rock ‘n’ Roll Express tour.

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Ted Nugent was somewhat restrained during his show at Van Andel Arena Tuesday night.

You may wonder if my brain was zapped by aliens prior to typing that sentence, but Terrible Ted, Le Masteur du Whack, the Motor City Motormouth, produced more noise with his guitar than his mouth. Headlining a classic-rock bill over REO Speedwagon and Styx, Nugent, for the most part, kept to a relative minimum the rhetoric that so often overshadows his music. The Michigan-born rocker’s most fiery statements were only vaguely provocative, and surprisingly brief.

“Does anyone (expletive) on more (expletive) than I do? If people (expletive) with my gun rights, I go Detroit-street-fight on ‘em,” he said, but immediately acknowledged that rock concerts are a form of escapism. “It’s a crazy world out there. You gotta get away from it. Just not all the way.”

Nugent then unleashed a tirade of licks from his Gibson guitar in the form of “Live It Up,” followed by classic boogie-rocker “Cat Scratch Fever.” Compared to REO and Styx’s more elaborate stage productions, Nugent’s show was stripped-down, focused on the songs and his searing lead guitar work. The set included Nuge staples “Wango Tango,” “Wang Dang Sweet Poontang,” “Stranglehold” and Free For All,” all performed raw, loud and a little screechy.

His set was a little boring, actually. An unfocused jam on “Johnny B. Goode” and “My Girl” was reminiscent of a bar band, and Nugent has toned down the stage show in recent years, dumping the flaming-arrow archery and bonfire shtick for a straight-up version of “Fred Bear.” He didn’t use the digital backdrop as much as his tourmates, who enhanced their shows with videos and animation. Now 64, his over-the-top “Gonzo” stage presence is relatively subdued, but his fretwork is as untamed as ever.

It’s refreshing that Nugent kept the focus primarily on the music and its bare-bones, blue-collar presentation. He roused the audience with support-the-troops chants, and by calling the crowd his “hunting buddies.” He did use the phrase “pure Michigan” several times, winking at his recent, vaguely controversial criticism of the state’s tourism campaign (he beefed that it doesn’t promote hunting, and dogged on Holland’s Tulip Time Festival).

“Let’s hear it for the attitude,” he said. “I spread that ‘pure Michigan’ (expletive) around the world and scare the (expletive) out of people!” He added later, “Everybody knows I moved to Texas, but I’m still a pure Michigan mother (expletive)!”

Chicago pomp-rockers Styx performed the tightest, most entertaining set of the three bands. Led by singer/guitarist Tommy Shaw and singer/keyboardist Lawrence Gowan, the group was slick and endearingly cheesy, performing ubiquitous power ballads “Lady” and “Come Sail Away” with cheerful professionalism.

Full disclosure: As someone who has A) never seen Styx live before despite their endless touring and B) not overdosed on classic-rock radio, I found the impossibly catchy “Too Much Time on My Hands” and hard-rocking “Renegade” thoroughly enjoyable, fresh and surprisingly unpretentious. The band’s entire set was bolstered by terrific vocal performances, the four-part harmonies big and lush, and some of the corniest keyboard sounds – harpsichord? Sure, why not? – ever to tinkle from a synthesizer. Styx’s hour on stage was a little dorky, but never dull.

Although REO Speedwagon played the weakest of the three sets, the Champaign, Ill. group was the most warmly received. Credit the band’s cavalcade of sing-along hits: “Don’t Let Him Go,” “Take It on the Run,” “Can’t Fight This Feeling,” “Time for Me to Fly,” “Roll with the Changes,” “Keep on Loving You.” They played ‘em all; the crowd sang ‘em all.

Lead singer Kevin Cronin’s wispy, raspy voice sounded strained on occasion, and compared to Styx’s paragon of musicality and Nugent’s rough-hewn rock, REO came off a bit watery. REO rocked hardest on its last number, “Riding the Storm Out,” but it didn’t quite make up for the sonic mush that preceded it.

Email: jserba@mlive.com or follow John Serba on Twitter

The Nuge plays Grand Rapids’ Van Andel Arena May 14.

Many music fans prefer it when Ted Nugent unleashes his big hollow-body Gibson instead of his political opinions.

The classic-rocker, dubbed the Motor City Madman for his eastern-Michigan origins, returns to Van Andel Arena this week, headlining the Midwest Rock ‘n’ Roll Express tour with Styx and REO Speedwagon. He will certainly play some of his many enduring songs. Almost as certainly, he won’t be able to resist sharing his not-so-endearing (to some) views on guns and government.

Speaking for lovers of great guitar work, here’s hoping Uncle Ted/The Nuge/Gonzo/Terrible Ted/The Whackmaster will unleash more scorching licks than firebrand commentary (and in the interest of being fair to both sides of the spectrum, I’d wager most of us would also rather hear Bono sing on stage than pontificate about saving the world). The unfortunate side effect of Nugent’s status as an outspoken political commentator is, many forget what a great guitarist he is – in a recent interview, Styx singer Lawrence Gowan said that element is “always underplayed.”

So in the interest of focusing on the music instead of the rhetoric, I present the six greatest guitar riffs The Nuge ever wrote:

6. “Dog Eat Dog” – A fuzzy blast of boogie-woogie swagger tightens up for the chorus, which chunks on an E-pedal and ends with a squeal. It’s almost heavy metal.

5. “Wang Dang Sweet Poontang” – The runaway-train riff is a Nuge staple, an overdriven and electrified take on Chuck Berry. See also: “Wango Tango,” “Yank Me Crank Me” and other Whackmaster tracks boasting obnoxious sexual innuendo.

4. “Great White Buffalo” – This nimble, uptempo riff is both intricate and rocking, backed by smeary slide guitar and a clopping woodblock rhythm.

3. “Free For All” – Two of the biggest, dumbest, most enjoyable chords The Nuge ever played, backed by a propulsive king-of-the-highway Rob Grange bassline. Nugent keeps it simple, stupid. You gotta dig the scorching licks during the lead breaks, too.

2. “Cat Scratch Fever” – Of course, this is one of the most recognizable riffs in rock, right up there with “Iron Man” and “Smoke on the Water.” It’s searing hot, all midrange and high-end, and carves out a monster mid-tempo groove. Everyone knows it and can hum it like Beavis and Butthead and drink cheap beer to it at the county fair, and it’s irrepressible. But it’s not Terrible Ted’s best.

1. “Stranglehold” – This is Uncle Ted’s lustiest composition, the intro a great momentum-building chug, the main riff loping like a gigolo on the prowl, the chords hanging and droning during the verses. The song’s an excuse for Nugent to showboat his fretboard skills, his solos showing a wide display of tones and textures. It’s got sex and swagger and muscle like no other cut in his catalog.

Email: jserba@mlive.com or follow John Serba on Twitter

The film assembles Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan and Tobey Maguire to adapt F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel.

Baz Luhrmann isn’t exactly the posterboy for moderation. On paper, his gonzo approach to filmmaking is a perfect fit for “The Great Gatsby,” which is set in the opulent mansions of the mega-rich during the Roaring Twenties.

In Luhrmann’s hands, the extravagant parties of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) make Disney World look like a garbage dump. He crams as many flappers, fountains and fireworks into the frame as he possibly can, editing the sequences like fast-tempo bebop. The champagne-soaked revelers dance to era-spanning mashups of classic jazz and modern pop, booty-bouncing bass backing scatting trumpets. Everything gleams with gold and pearl, the camera always in motion, whirling, swooping, gliding.

Those familiar with Luhrmann’s “Moulin Rouge!” and “Romeo + Juliet” certainly expected a candy-coated, quasi-controversial interpretation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel. For a while, the director’s approach jibes reasonably well with the author’s criticism of American excess. It’s Luhrmann’s first work of the new 3-D age (his last film was 2008’s middling “Australia”), and it fits his method of stylization nicely – sheer curtains flap in a breeze, confetti pops in an explosion of glitter, fringe spins on the waists of dancers.

But once the plot’s bitter melodrama takes over, it’s almost as if Luhrmann loses interest. The story is filtered through the perspective of Nick Carraway, a naïve Midwesterner new to New York City. He narrates in flashback, prompted by his shrink to write about his experiences, and Luhrmann animates his cursive script, which floats above the skyline, images dissolving atop each other. Nick is played by Tobey Maguire, who gee-whizzes his way through the first act, the character falling in with a financially endowed crowd, and observing the opulent decadence around him, eyes wide and mouth agape.

But once Nick acclimates to his surroundings, Luhrmann settles down – maintaining the pace he establishes early would be too much, even for him. And since Luhrmann is the star of Luhrmann’s films, this is a problem. Although Fitzgerald’s characters are rich on the page, the director renders them conduits for broad, maudlin emotion. He’s assembled a gifted cast, which does what it can within the director’s large-scale superficial construct. Once the sugar buzz of all the eye candy wears off, “Gatsby” downshifts into bleary-hangover mode.

As Gatsby, DiCaprio smolders quietly in his linen suits and castle-mansion. He’s a new-money entrepreneur, and the source of his wealth is a source of curiosity for tabloids. For five years, he has yearned for Daisy, played by Carey Mulligan, asked to do little more than willow about, shed tears from doe eyes and look luscious in period costumes. Since her dalliance with Gatsby, who left to fight in World War I, she married Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), an old-money snob. Gatsby befriends his new neighbor Nick, Daisy’s cousin, and hopes his new Old Sport can arrange a meeting. Tom is a loathsome racist creep who cheats on Daisy with a red-stockinged strumpet (Isla Fisher), so Nick sympathizes with Gatsby.

Nick is mostly a passive observer of this interpersonal tangle, a keeper of Tom and Gatsby’s secrets – in the words of Fitzgerald, he exists “both within and without.” Occasionally, the power of the author’s prose pokes through Luhrmann’s aesthetic, but the filmmaker’s purposefully overwrought tone renders it gummy and dull. For all of the impossible, succulent beauty Luhrmann shows us, the film doesn’t thoroughly cultivate the emotional foundation it needs to prop up such extravagance. Which is ironic, since one of Fitzgerald’s original intentions was to depict the empty soullessness that often accompanies great wealth.

Email: jserba@mlive.com or follow John Serba on Twitter

Do these interpretations of the film sometimes stretch plausibility? Yes.

An animated sequence from “Room 237″ re-enacts footage from “The Shining.”Courtesy photo 

There’s little doubt “The Shining” is a great film, or that Stanley Kubrick is one of cinema’s true genius directors. But is the movie his subtle acknowledgement that the Apollo moon landing film was fake? Is it about the plight of the American Indian or the horrors of the Jewish Holocaust? Does it contain “the whole course of our genetic history” or “the implications of everything that exists” codified within its dense visual scheme?

Well, maybe. Or maybe not. The documentary “Room 237” digs up five “Shining” obsessives and indulges their hypotheses, which, you may have already figured out, range wildly from insightful to ridiculous. The wondrous nature of art allows it to be interpreted through the eye of the beholder. No analysis is necessarily wrong, although some are unconvincing and implausible. And sometimes, the person who believes the Apollo film is phony says he believes the government is monitoring him because of his subversive views, and undermines his credibility, but at least it happens late in the film so you don’t write him off as a crackpot and degrade your enjoyment of his wacky assertions too soon. (To his credit, he says just the film, not necessarily the trip to the moon, is fake.)

Director Rodney Ascher doesn’t feature a single talking head in “Room 237.” One of his wise decisions was to allow his subjects to narrate via voiceover, and let the visuals illustrate their interpretations. The film is heavy with footage from “The Shining,” and cuts the five narratives together so she film gathers momentum and intensity, as if inspired by the non-fiction work of Errol Morris.

Many have called “Room 237” a depiction of obsession. Take it a step further, and the film illustrates how obsession can warp perception. “When you see things over and over again, meanings change for you,” one of the theorists says, and it’s an argument that overly intense study can yield dubious results. Does the placement of Calumet Baking Powder cans, which feature an Indian Chief logo, in the background to be thematically suggestive or simply in pursuit of realism?

Kubrick always had a tremendous eye for detail. It’s believable that nothing was arbitrary, that what appear to be continuity errors in “The Shining” were actually subtle, unsettling hints that the story setting is a place of disturbing supernatural phenomena. We cannot get into Kubrick’s mind to determine motive, nor should we, for the work is more valuable on its own, and interpretation should not be cluttered by an artist’s intent.

One commenter in “Room 237” constructed a map showing how certain elements of Kubrick’s set were physical impossibilities – the reversal of a carpet pattern from one shot to the next, the placement of a window where an interior wall should be – thus ampifying the sense of creeping horror within “The Shining.” It’s an academic deconstruction. Less so is the person who found added meaning by showing superimposed versions of the film simultaneously, one print running forward, the other backward, which reeks of silly “Wizard of Oz”/Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon”-style synchronicity. Good skeptics will dismiss that, and any invocations of numerology, for what it is – hooey.

Regardless of how you interpret the interpretations, “Room 237” is at least an intellectual exercise, and an entertaining one, especially for those who don’t want to label “The Shining” as just a ghost story. I walked away believing that Kubrick enjoyed being a provocateur, and likely filled his frames with subtleties without necessarily mapping out the subtext ahead of time. The documentary is more likely to enhance your next viewing of “The Shining” than sully it.

Email: jserba@mlive.com or follow John Serba on Twitter

Gwyneth Paltrow returns as the damsel in distress, and Ben Kingsley plays the villain The Mandarin.

Robert Downey Jr. dons the armor again for “Iron Man 3.”Courtesy photo 

The “Iron Man” films tend to riff on the common theme of Tony Stark’s vulnerability. The series has established that a vast supply of wealth, wit and women does not a soulful man make. Beneath his high-tech armor, he’s quite human.

“Iron Man 3” picks up the thread, coming chronologically after 2012’s smashing “The Avengers,” in which Iron Man teamed up with the Hulk, Captain America, Thor and others to save the world from destruction, and our movie theaters from possible bankruptcy. Stark nearly died in the intergalactic altercation, and the beginning of his third solo movie finds him practicing avoidance, throwing himself intently into his work in an attempt to stave off the horror of the experience. So intently, he’s on his 42nd incarnation of the Iron Man armor, a plot point that may come in handy later. His sleep is troubled, plagued with nightmares. In the middle of signing an autograph for a child, he has an anxiety attack, and fights to catch his breath.

But this may be the lightest, most entertaining cinematic exploration of post-traumatic stress disorder yet. Co-writer/director Shane Black keeps the tone light with the consistent application of zinger-laden dialogue and daffy plotting. In a world populated by brooding batmen and star trekkers venturing into darkness, it’s refreshing to see a superhero movie balance the bright, primary colors of classic comic books with the shadowy psychological shades of modern stories. (“Avengers” did this remarkably well.) At its heart, it’s a comedy – I find it most amusing that Stark parks his armor next to the motorcycles outside the local bar and grill – but features enough depth of character to keep it modestly meaningful, if not earth-shakingly elevating.

Robert Downey Jr. returns as Stark, retaining the rapier snark that fits both actor and character so well. His personal problems collide with the arrival of the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), a villain staging terrorist attacks around the U.S., and hacking the TV airwaves to brag about them. One bombing seriously injures Stark’s buddy Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau, who also directed the first two installments), and he vows revenge. In a rash moment, Stark tells the Mandarin to come and get it, and reveals his home address to the news media; cue the attack upon and demolition of his ultramodern pad, which crumbles and tumbles into the ocean.

In the melee, Stark’s sweetie Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is kidnapped by the bad guys. So is the President. Arriving on Stark’s doorstep are two blasts from his past, scientists Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) and Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall.), who are tied to a new technology to re-grow lost limbs. The application of the technology turns a person halfway into the Human Torch, able to melt metal with his/her hands – a way-goofy CG special effect, and a convenient plot development that A) feels lifted from the pages of a pulpy 1940s comic and B) really helps when fighting good guys wearing metal suits.

The hodgepodged and overstuffed plot also involves James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), who dons a red, white and blue version of the Iron Man suit, and once was dubbed War Machine, but now is known as Iron Patriot. There’s also an impossible moppet of a young boy (Ty Simpkins) for Stark to trade quips with. A number of pointless asides and throwaway jokes are dropped into the story, but they lighten the mood by generating consistent laughs, some of them big and gregarious.

Notably, Black is a better director of action than Favreau, whose work sometimes was belabored. He orchestrates a literally high-flying rescue sequence that’s as exhilarating as any in the “Iron Man” films yet. The noisy, cluttered climax isn’t quite as effective, but it’s impressively large-scale and complex. Wisely, Black stays true to the established tone and core of the character, and at the end, you’ll believe that Stark is a changed man – even during the now-traditional Marvel-movie post-credits cookie, which of course you’ll want to stick around to see.

Email: jserba@mlive.com or follow John Serba on Twitter

Robert Downey Jr. returns as Iron Man.

Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow in “Iron Man 3.”Courtesy photo 
With “Iron Man 3″ and “Star Trek Into Darkness” opening soon, se…

“Hangover III” and “After Earth” are also scheduled to debut.

Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man in “Iron Man 3.”Courtesy photo 

May: It hasn’t been the same since “Star Wars.”

Back in 1977, George Lucas’ trendsetting blockbuster debuted, and established the month as the official start of “summer” at movie theaters. Now, studios frontload many of their biggest movies into May, kicking off air-conditioning season with an onslaught of sequels and superheroes. It’s a precursor of more such movies to come in June, July and August.

Of course, 2013 is no different. Potential blockbusters will debut on all five Fridays in May, with a massive pileup of big-money releases ready to launch on Memorial Day weekend. Here are seven soon-to-be smash hits/box office busts debuting next month:

“Iron Man 3” (PG-13)

First things first: “Iron Man 2” sucked. It absolutely failed to live up to its potential. But “The Avengers” was phenomenal, so the pressure is on for Robert Downey Jr. and Marvel/Disney to deliver. Their first good move was to replace overrated director Jon Favreau with Shane Black, who worked with Downey on the excellent “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang,” and had a hand in the script. Their second was to construct a trailer that has a trailer-hater like me feeling goosebumps. Third, casting Ben Kingsley as bad guy The Mandarin was a wise maneuver – the story has the villain tearing apart Tony Stark’s comfy-billionaire world, forcing him to regroup and rebuild. Our hopes are high for this one.

(Opens May 3)

“The Great Gatsby” (PG-13)

Baz Luhrmann has a history of reinterpreting classic material – “Romeo and Juliet,” “Moulin Rouge” – with garish stylization. This is no different. Here, he takes F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, a staple of high-school English curricula, and transforms it into a 3-D extravaganza spiced with modern hip-hop songs by Jay-Z and will. i. am. The director reunites with his 1996 Romeo, Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays Jay Gatsby, headlining a cast including Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton and Tobey Maguire. You’ll either love it or hate it, methinks.

(May 10)

“Star Trek Into Darkness” (PG-13)

J.J. Abrams gave the franchise a good creative goosing four years ago, and returns with a sequel that promises to be, as the title states, darker. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto return as Kirk and Spock, respectively, and they’ll square off against an as-yet-unidentified villain played by Brit It Boy Benedict Cumberbatch. The box office numbers for this will hit warp speed – it’s a race to see how quickly the Enterprise or Iron Man rockets to the $350 million mark.

(May 17)

“Epic” (not yet rated)

Animated adventure stars Amanda Seyfried, voicing a teen dropped into a woodsy world where good and evil do battle for the fate of humanity, etc. From the premise to the massive celebrity voice cast – Steven Tyler, Pitbull, Beyonce Knowles, Christoph Waltz, Aziz Ansari, Colin Farrell, Josh Hutcherson – this feels generic, and a bit similar to last year’s “Brave.” It has less than a month to swipe cash from mom and dad’s wallets before “Monsters University” dominates the family-flick market in June. Note, there are characters in this film that are googly-eyed talking slugs.

(May 24)

“Fast and Furious 6” (not yet rated)

Prepare to be monosyllabed! Vin Diesel and Paul Walker’s heist-happy crew returns after “Fast Five” stole our IQ points and (a lot) of our money two years ago. This time, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s – in his fourth big-screen role this year already – detective talks the gang into helping him take down a big, bad criminal enterprise, which, according to the trailer, requires them to battle a tank and take down an airliner. Oh, and Michelle Rodriguez’s character comes back from the dead. And Jason Statham has a small role which promises to be bigger in the seventh movie of this deathless, brainless franchise. Able director Justin Lin returns, too. The only thing Universal Pictures forgot to do was name it “Fast and Furi-SIX,” right?

(May 24)

“The Hangover Part III” (R)

Shouldn’t these characters be dead or in AA by now? Seriously. But Warner Bros. is content to milk this franchise one last time, putting Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms on the road to L.A., Vegas and Tijuana for more raunchy misadventures. The first film was lightning in a bottle; the second one, not so much. As for the third one – did anyone ask for this? Isn’t it time for Galifianakis to do something else before he’s permanently typecast? After “Silver Linings Playbook” and “The Place Beyond the Pines,” shouldn’t Cooper be further exploring his considerable dramatic talent?

(May 24)

“After Earth” (not yet rated)

True story: last time I saw the trailer for this movie and the words “directed by M. Night Shyamalan” came on the screen, the audience groaned audibly. Although his cache as a filmmaker has dwindled considerably in the wake of “The Happening” (ugh) and “The Last Airbender” (double ugh), keep this in mind: “After Earth” actually found origin in the mind of star Will Smith, and the original screenplay was penned by other writers before Shyamalan came on board. Point being, the guy may be out of good ideas, but he’s still a terrific director on the technical end of things. The premise is familiar, with Smith and his boy Jaden playing father and son on screen as well, travelers stranded on Earth a millennium after apocalypse forced humanity off-planet. I’m compelled by curiosity – will Shyamalan get his mojo back? – and the promise of a good sci-fi yarn.

(May 31)

Email: jserba@mlive.com or follow John Serba on Twitter