The title alone got my attention because of how odd it was. While I wasn't expecting anything good I was hoping for some goofy fun. Needless to say I didn't that with the title being the most amusing thing about the movie.

Nice Girls Don't Explode is about a woman who starts fires as she becomes aroused. That's a thin premise and even thinner in execution. It's reliance on a single joke wears out quickly and in a 80 minute movie it makes the whole ordeal feel longer than it actually is. It's a bizarre comedy that has no concept of comedy. A guy who gets his leg shaved in the Hospital is consider a joke. With jokes like that you'll remain silent. The worst offense is a twist on the story. Instead of being a story of woman causing fire when aroused it turns into a story about an overprotective mother. It's an odd direction to take the story in and becomes it biggest downfall. It's so excessive in the bad way. Its takes allot just to buy the premise alone and it expects you to be okay with the mother weak (and lack of) explanation for her actions. The characters are all annoying, the plot while goofy fails to a strike a balance with the more tender moments, and finally it is not funny.

It doesn't help matter when the acting is plain awful. It's a chore trying to see these clueless actors trying to bring comedy into a scene that doesn't need it. The actors try bad line delivery, cheesy to hamming acting, slapstick, emoting over the top reaction, but nothing works in the actor favors coming off as annoying. Nice Girls Don't Explode title is the only amusement you'll get. For a comedy it is unguided and unsure in everything it does without a single actor who can do comedy. You won't find a fun B-movie here let alone one that'll garner a single laugh.

Starlet is about an unlikely friendship forming between 21 year-old Jane and the elderly Sadie after Jane discovers a hidden stash of money inside an object at Sadie's yard sale. I ended up liking this much more than I expected. Much like "Future Weather", Starlet tells a simple story containing more depth than what's on the surface. The unique relationship between two different generation of women interacting with one another is fascinating to witness. These two women have different ideals, personalities, and well rounded relationship that changes both output on life. Not only does it show that porn actors can have a heart, but also the darker side of the industry effecting personal lives. It's solely a film driven by the characters which most are highly developed. I didn't mind spending time with the central characters even if the activities they underwent were ordinary and at times just lingered around without a director. Except one flaw comes from the character of Mikey who's the boyfriend of our protagonist roommate is decidedly one note. Another problem are the supporting characters are simply in service to move to the plot. The film does not focus a huge amount of time on Jane's job only rarely seeing her do any actual work. So for those wanting an in depth look of how a porn actor is affected by their profession look elsewhere. In the end Starlet plot is naturalistic, simple to follow and one requiring a lot of thought the events we witness that what's on the surface.

The major upside of this film comes its incredibly talented cast. Dree Hemingway excels in portraying the root of her character. I could imagine other actresses going for a full dramatic take, but would have not been as effective as what Dree Hemingway did. Dree Hemingway is energetic playing a cheerful slacker while handling the duality of her playfulness and lack of maturity when she needs to swift. Besedka Johnson in her first (and last) role will amazed. Johnson has a steady relationship with Hemingway and it very sympathetic without revealing too much in her actions. At first when we see Johnson she's appears as nothing special, but grows on you. The supporting cast is decent and in terms of visuals there is some nice scenery, but nothing to get excited about.

Starlet is simplicity in nature, but filled with more depth in execution. Well rounded character portrayed by leads both giving standout performances make the viewing even more engaging. Starlet might not be for everyone due to it simplistic story, but those who see will be rewarded with a deep story under the surface and fine performances.

Maniac is about the owner of a mannequin shop developing a dangerous obsession with a young artist. The plot sounds unusual and remains that way. We're constantly in the head of our "Maniac" (not being me) seeing things from his perspectives at all times. A good thing for the plot since expanding on the vague character development early makes us keen to follow. It has a nice contrast to the killer coming off as charming, pathetic, and distasteful. A more thought provoking take for how we should feel for the central character we follow unlike the usual slasher film killer. Though it's very clear when we meet new characters to tell who's just going to end up on the body count. It works as a horror and character study which unlike many recent horror flicks can't even juggle being one thing.

Entirely told in POV photography is unconventional in cinema in general. This POV perspectives works and fails in some respects. It works since we see from up close the gruesome killings made all the harder to stomach thanks to some fantastic particle effects. Giving us a dynamic look on how our central character does things mentally and physically. The performances are visible from the supporting cast who sell their part including the obvious victims. The negative being it's entirely in POV. We only Elijah Wood when any glass reflective object is around therefore making it difficult to take Wood serious as an actor. As a viewer we vocally hear how he feels but never see. It adds to the mystery of the character, but takes away the opportunity to see Wood in an unprecedented role. Then is the case we do see Wood driving, going to a store, stalking, running, and mundane activity. Immersible no less though it could also be seen as filler to expand the runtime to be more than an hour.

Maniac in the end is an unconventional slasher film that is smart and gruesome. While the whole first person perspective doesn't always work it gives the film a unique look of its own. Visually striking and being to see everything unfolding as the character does makes an authentic journey in the mind of killer.

Whether or not you agree with my views on the Iron Man series there is no denying Iron Man 3 is one of the most important films for Marvel studio. Not only does it have to serve as a sequel, but also a bridge for the preceding events of the pseudo-sequel The Avengers. Walking a thin line in balancing two different series both effecting the protagonist into one story is no easy task. For the better part Iron Man 3 positives outweighs the negatives accomplishing what it need to do moving it cinematic universe forward.

Iron Man 3 follows Tony Stark as his world is torn apart by a formidable terrorist called the Mandarin beginning an odyssey of rebuilding and retribution. The plot is easily the best exploration of Tony Stark. Stark is a shadow of his former self fighting three battles one with himself, one with his suits, and the the villains of the film. Seeing Tony Stark evolution both physically and mentally is consistently rewarding. For the first time ever in a Marvel film we see a hero who has to learn to balance between self-sacrifice and being human. This gives the film a thematic feel that often are missing from these kind of films even tackling real world issues such as terrorism and national security. As for the film twists they provide interesting themes and ideas that goes against the typical concept of good vs. evil. The dialogue while not as memorable or masterful as the original have their highlights when striking gold. The humor is overused at times, but tunes a balance between drama and comedy for tonally enjoyable and not misguided experience. When it comes to self referral humor Shane Black does it good.

As for my dislike of the film there's many things that this threequel failed to avoid. Particularly these plot points I'm about to criticize have been used so frequently in many sequels containing superhero they have become tropes of the genre. The hero will risk losing his love ones, that loss will be brought by revenge/corruption, there will be two villain tidy and one with a funny voice, the hero will wit their humbling low point right after something explodes, and a huge battle is going to break out. Sounds familiar? It should since these plot points have been used in Spider Man 3, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, and X-Men The Last Stand. One of the characters has the no so subtle name Killian. With that kind of name you're practically giving away a major plot point. Maya Hansen and Pepper Pots are wasted. They have pivotal moments in the story but fall entirely weak. The climax while huge and explosive creates a major plot hole.

Robert Downey Jr. portrayal of Stark is his best to date. Instead of simply repeating what he did before in his three previous takes on the role he's more multi-layered and thoughtful. Likely his more dramatic take on the character won't appeal to everyone, but found it complementing not only the actor, but the character transformation through the series. Ben Kinsgley is marvelous in his role, stealing the majority of the scenes that he is in and clearly having a blast playing this larger-than-life character. Don Cheadle role reduced and appears less, but leaves a good impression. Special mention should also go to Guy Pearce, who is just about believable as the unfortunate Killian in the film's early scenes, and then absolutely spellbinding as the character becomes more refined and ambiguous later on in proceedings.

The women here are not just underused, but poorly executed in terms of plot. Rebecca Hall character is rather weak and since the material doesn't give much to work with her scenes come of the weakest. It's hinted her character might go somewhere good, but does not follow through. Gwyneth Paltrow role is severely reduced compared to Don Cheadle. Though unlike Scarlett Johansson in Iron Man 2, Gwyneth Paltrow doesn't entirely serve to be eye candy. Sure her character only usage is to be a plot point, but is more put into use and needed her in order for the plot to work or move forward.

The action sequences are the best so far in any Marvel film. Solely because here we have a hero who can't always rely on his gadgets therefore being more thoughtful. With the exception of the climax that is simply an all out attack. The action scenes are creative, elaborate, and huge in scale resulting in fun spectacles. They are very inspired and grandiose to witness.

Iron Man 3 is smart, simple, filled with depth, and marvelously mischievous fun combining both drama and humor. While it's not on the same level as the original or does away with the flaws of the second entry. Iron Man 3 more than serves it job bridging two series coherently with an entire universe , but also makes a great standalone character film.

Iron Man 2 best represent sequels that always try to go bigger, but never managed to match the original. It has too much going on and the filmmakers here tackle more than they could handle.

In Iron Man 2 Tony Stark has declared himself Iron Man and installed world peace... or so he thinks. He soon realizes that not only is there a mad man out to kill him with his own technology, but there's something more: he is dying. The plot is overstuffed and introduces new characters that feel wasted. Antagonist Ivan Vanko has an interesting motive for his actions, but is left unexplored. Also for someone who the film clearly states is equally intelligent as Tony Stark he can't seem to make drones that know anything on flying, recognizing Iron Man, and even basic combat techniques. Another new character introduced is Natalie Rushman who doesn't do anything significant. The narrative is still focused on Tony Stark a miracle seeing how much goes on in the film. Seeing Stark living in a world after revealing his identity and becoming a wreck are an interesting dynamic of the character. He's the driving force of the plot and is developed furthered. Being given a higher stake of life or death much adds to the investment towards Stark. Other characters are basically plot points serving either to move the plot forward or inserting too much comedy. In the end the scale is bigger being cumbersome without a clear focus.

Robert Downey Jr. once again reprises his role as Tony Stark. He aces the role again, but the material doesn't really offer anything new for him to do. So expect a repeat of his performance. Mickey Rourke despite playing the antagonist is in a small role. He's not given enough time to leave much of an impression. Gwyneth Paltrow much like Robert Downey Jr. does the same here. Seeing Paltrow and Downey on screen together provide some good even if goofy moments. Don Cheadle replaces and surpasses Terrence Howard. Cheadle suffer the same fate as Rourke in lacking development, but does bring something enjoyable to the role. His scenes with Robert Downey Jr. being some of the funnest. Scarlett Johansson is simply here to be eye candy. I wouldn't mind that if she served a purpose at all, but is pointless making her inclusion in the film inferiority. Sam Jackson plays himself in his typical manner. The action scenes while a step up in terms of scope do not have the same energy. The plot doesn't build up to anything properly so when a action scene they become a letdown. One in particular in Stark mansion comes off as unintentionally hilarious. The climax on the other hand delivers some bombastic fun.

Iron Man 2 is too big for it owns good. Granted the acting and the action sequences remain good are not a major step up. The plot is a downgrade that poorly utilizes its many character and failure to expand on it themes. Iron Man 2 is still a good fun film while not at the level of the original.