J.J. Abrams took the fan world (and the general public) by storm with his re-imagining of Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek" in 2009. Abrams admitted he had never been much of a Star Trek fan, preferring the more action oriented Star Wars series of films. In fact, his goal was to bring the action sensibilities of Star Wars into his new vision for Star Trek. Needless to say it made for a hugely successful movie. Abrams brings those same sensibilities and adds a moderate helping of edgy darkness to the sequel, appropriately titled, "Star Trek: Into Darkness". The Federation has become the victim of terrorist attacks originating from one of their own. And when the damage hits close to home, Kirk is out for revenge. Soon he and the crew of the Enterprise are hunting down the man responsible for these attacks, determined to bring him in for trial, or execute him on the spot. Two outcomes Kirk struggles to choose between. Tensions run high among the

After a phenomenal first movie, a less fantastic but still great second movie and being heavily featured in the amazing film experience that was The Avengers, it could have been anyone's guess how Iron M an would do in his third movie. Third movies in trilogies are notoriously bad or at least fall significantly short of the film before them. Blade: Trinity, Spider-man 3, X:Men 3, Batman Forever, and dare I say... The Dark Knight Rises. (Leave Superman 3 alone people. Apples and oranges to the first two movies, but still a great flick!) The trailers looked dark and thematically heavy. Just my cup of tea. But with a series so known for its humor, would this hurt the experience? Would the story fall victim to "power creep" as compelling writing is replaced by artificially increased intensity? (AKA, more explosions, villains and CGI) Iron Man picks up not long after The Avengers movie. The frightening scope of the alien invasion and what Tony Stark experie