Star Trek Into the Darkenss

‘Star Trek: Into the Darkness’ is a worthy sequel to the reboot started by J.J. Abrams in 2009.  It lives up to it’s promise: “This is not your father’s Star Trek”.   Given that I consider myself a purist when it comes to Star Trek, I am surprised I enjoy this reboot as much as I do.  In fact, in some ways, it veers away from what Star Trek is supposed to be all about.  Growing up, there were two groups of people.  Star Wars fans or Star Trek fans.  Both are impressive views of the future and of science fiction story telling, but they approached it in very different ways.  Star Wars is all about the swashbuckling.  Basic stories of good and evil told in a classic fashion albeit in the wondrous worlds of science fiction.  Star Trek was more subtle. The voyages of the Starship Enterprise were about exploration and the discovery.  It explored the philosophical and human conditions through science fiction metaphor.  We saw our own political and moral crisises illustrated and exaggerated through the stories of observing other races and planets.  Star Trek was much more of an intellectual exercise of what was possible for humans to aspire to.  Star Wars was all Saturday matinee swashbuckling adventure.

The director J.J.Abrams takes the Star Trek concept in a decidingly more action based direction.  In this day and age of summer block busters one has to compete with the explosions and super human exploits of almost every big budget film out there.  Abrams does this unapologetically and I must confess that I thoroughly enjoy his vision.  This isn’t to say that Abrams doesn’t explore the characters or the inner demons they wrestle with, but the star of these movies is the visceral. 

J.J.Abrams has found a way to skirt the Star Trek purist’s devotion to sequence and timeline in the Star Trek universe by deftly creating an ‘alternate universe’.  This allows him more freedom to create a vision where we are not exactly sure what will happen.  SPOILER ALERT: This film borrows loosely from the events that took place in the classic “Star Trek :The Wrath of Kahn”, the 2nd installment in the original movie series and by many accounts, the best of the Star Trek series.  It’s difficult to go into too much detail without revealing too many of the surprises in this film.  In my humble opinion Ricardo Montalban (who was almost considered a kitsche actor at that time) deserved to be nominated for an Academy Award for his Milton inspired performance of Khan Noonien Singh.  To this day, he is arguably the best Start Trek villain ever.  With that being said, I was pleasantly amazed by Benedict Cumberbatch’s rebooted portrayal of this great villain.  He is receiving universal praise for his performance and I predict this will be a breakout role for him.

The story itself takes place just prior to the 5 year mission made legendary by the TV series.  When a series of terrorist attacks rock Star Fleet to it’s core, The impulsive and brash (and still untested) Captain James T. Kirk talks Star Fleet Command into letting the Enterprise go after the suspected culprit.  Unfortunately, the rogue villain (called Ben Harrison at this point) has taken refuge on the Klingon home world and any attempt to bring him to justice could ignite an interstellar war.  While the original series celebrated Kirk’s brashness and cowboy ways, this version explores the consequences of action without prudence.  Ego coming before decisions of llfe and death is not always a good thing (or even mostly). 

The relationship between Kirk and Spock was always one of polar opposites.  Kirk leaps before he looks and prefers action to prudence where Spock was a study of dispassionate logic and analysis.  Each viewpoint ineffective and dangerous  taken to the extreme, but the two balance each other out and somehow the two form a close bond because of it.  This film does a great job exploring the budding ‘bromance’ between Kirk and Spock.  One where, despite the tension and frustration,  grows stronger than any other relationship they have known.  

This film provides the action and adventure that the current money spending theatre crowd demands, but provides plenty of inside jokes and tributes to the old series to quell the agitated über nerds who obsess on how this film doesn’t fit into the Star Trek universe. Cumberbatch is the true star of this film even though I thought much of his performance borrowed liberally from Tom Hiddelson’s Loki portrayal in last year’s ‘The Avengers’.  Cumberbatch is the visceral force of this film and you are mesmerized during each solioqy (actually , they aren’t soliloquies, but you barely notice anyone else in the room when he goes off on a rant).  Cumberbatch’s excruciating pronunciation and emphasis of every syllable that comes out of his mouth  oozes evil and menace.  The slower he talks the more intently we listen.  Just a great performance.  

I give this film high marks and is a worthy successor not only as a sequel to the last Star Trek, but to J.J. Abram’s status as an A-list Hollywood director.  It’s going to be interesting to see how he transfers this mojo as he heads the new Star Wars trilogy coming out in 2015.

I give this film **** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1207936793/

The Great Gatsby

I pride myself in liking all types of movies.  In my mind, I hold very few biases in regard to artistic vision as I admire the act of creation.  So i am surprising myself as i call the latest interpretation of F Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby a complete pile of garbage.  This is one of the worst movies that I have seen in recent memory.  I have no great love for the original  work of F Scott Fitzgerald, so I have no purist’s bias when I watched this film.  While I respect The Great Gatsby for the great American novel that it is, i went into this film with a relatively open mind.  I will admit that I find the director Baz Luhrmann underwhelming in the extreme, but I was excited by the talent in the movie and looked forward to a modern and artistic interpretation of the film.

This film is what I hate most in artistic vision; style over substance.  This entire film is an exercise in self gratification.  It’s gaudy, loud, and tries to be edgy just for the sake of being edgy. Baz Luhrmann creates a vision that seeks to impress through the fabulousness of his visual canvas as opposed to trying to tell a decent story. The characters are there only to have something to hang the visual party he is trying to throw.  I find it all the more frustrating as I felt several of the actors gave some pretty impressive performances.

Leonardo takes on the title role of Gatsby with the dash and charm required.  He faltered a bit in 1920’s mannerisms and his overuse of the term ‘Old Sport’ when addressing anyone. Carey Mulligan was flawless as the pure yet conflicted Daisy Buchanan.  I didn’t even mind the miscast Tobey McGuire as the narrator Nick Carraway.  What I did mind were these great performances taking a back seat to a Director’s need to impress himself with empty stylism.

Fitzgerald’s story of The Great Gatsby is an American success story whose warnings still hold true and relevant today.  It’s a worthy story for film adaption, even a modern adaption.  Gatsby’s story of a self made man who goes from rags to riches is quintessentially american.  A man whose same passions and drives ultimately prove his undoing is also a quintessential american cautionary tale. Throughout this entire movie I found myself trying to wade through the glitz and wipe away the excessive glamour in order to see this story.  Unfortunately, like aVolkswagon Beetle’s windshield wipers trying to compete with a torrential rain, it was a futile effort.  There was just too much distraction to appreciate any type of story that was trying to be conveyed.

I’m not going to recap the story as most anyone who took High School literature is familiar with it.  I’ll just say that this is not a respectable attempt to retell an American classic.  I want to know how Baz Luhrmann keeps getting work in film.  His level of artistic vision are better suited to a Calvin Klein commercial than a full length feature film.  I would implore everyone to stop buying tickets to his films because this man needs to be stopped.  

http://www.fandango.com/thegreatgatsby2013_149090/movieoverview

I give this film * star

Iron Man 3

I’m going to start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.  That being said, I did not get caught up in all the hype (as much as I wanted to).  I found this to be a worthy sequel that was vastly superior to the 2nd Iron Man, but fell short to the mojo that the first installment of this franchise produced.  It was a slick piece of action film making that ultimately falls victim to it’s own grandiosity.

So the first question: Is this a sequel to Iron Man 2 or to the Avengers?  I know most fans, myself included, just want to forget Iron Man 2 ever happened.  It’s actually a sequel to both, but let’s just say that it’s The Avengers direct sequel as much of the movie is Tony Stark dealing with the emotional aftermath of the events in that movie. Iron Man 3 marks the first salvo in Marvel Studio’s ‘Phase 2’ plan.  The first phase culminated in the glorious  Avengers movie and now the second phase will continue until Avengers 2 (nice how that works out).  This movie is a great start and prepares us for the Thor, Captain America, and Guardians of the Galaxy movies that will be coming in the next year.

Iron Man 3 is big and brash and fun.  No doubt about it.  The story starts in the aftermath of the Avengers movie with Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Robert Downey JR) dealing with the emotional problems caused by his experiences from the alien attack on Earth. He can’t sleep and has frequent anxiety attacks.  Despite all of this, RDJ’s trademark sardonic quips and one liners are in play and often, IMHO, overshadow the story itself.  I felt the story itself was weak and most of the movie rested on special effects and waiting to see RDJ go off on humorous rants.  Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy great special effects and always respect RDJ’s razor wit and this was a great showcase for them, but it could have been a much greater film if it balanced the style with a little more substance.

The introduction of the Mandarin as an Osama Bin Laden type villain starts off promisingly enough, but soon fizzles out albeit in an amusing fashion.  The Mandarin was never a great comic book villain, but there was a lot of unrealized potential here.  Even the seemingly secondary villain of Aldrich Killian seemed a little ‘cartoonish’ for my taste.  The organization he represented; A.I.M., was not fully developed as it could have been given that in the comic story they are the evil nemesis of S.H.E.I.L.D.  These may seem like petty complaints, but all of the conflict situations felt forced and artificial to me, especially Tony’s anxiety attacks which just seemed to come out of nowhere and with no real resolutions.

Again, I’m complaining a lot here, but that is more out of love for the character and a distaste of manufactured big budget special effect movies.  This was a fun ride and a lot of super hero fun that captures why so many of us loved superheroes when we were younger.  Iron Man the movies have been far more impressive than the character or the comic books were in the Marvel universe, so hats off for not only making Iron Man the flagship of these movies, but improving on the character.  Marvel has done an exceptional job at bringing their characters to the big screen.  Each one makes me look forward to the next.  So despite my critique, I have a lot of respect for this movie.  It’s hard to imagine that the original director, Jon Favreau, had to fight to get RDJ cast as Iron man.  I can’t imagine anyone else in this role (although RDJ hinted that someone will eventually have to take over the character from him).

A very fun time at the movies.  However, go expecting a roller coaster ride of fun over substance.

I give this film *** stars 

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1265935385/

Oblivion

        Let me start off by saying that I’m am going to have a lot of criticism of this film in my review, so i want to start off on a high note.  ‘Oblivion’ is a respectable and possibly impressive piece of science fiction.  It doesn’t rely on special effects or action sequences to propel the story, even though it has both in spades.  It is an intelligent story line with just the right amount of paradigm shifting twists and turns to make a satisfying science fiction story.  That being said, after all the spectacle of  this big budget star driven film, I walked away saying ‘meh’.

The film is beautifully made and slick, but it lacks a certain x-factor that would make this a film to remember.  In fact, most of the film felt borrowed from other films.  There were traces from classic films like 2001:A Space Odyssey and the Matrix.  In fact, I had some fun identifying themes borrowed from other films throughout the movie.  Despite the film’s intelligence, it felt cookie cutter and almost plastic in the skill it took to put it together.

It’s hard to give a synopsis of ‘Oblivion’ as most of the film involves challenging our understanding of the plot.  The premise as the movie opens involves life on Earth after a major war with an alien race.  Earth eventually won, but the planet was so damaged that the rest of the population was forced to migrate to Titan, a moon near Saturn.  Several clean up crews, consisting of a male-female couple, remain behind on Earth in a sky habitat to help with clean up and to kill stray ‘Scavs’ that still roam the earth.  Jack and his partner Victoria are one of those crews and they spend most of their days monitoring and maintaining power plants and the drones that guard them.

Despite the war scavenged world around them, Jack (Tom Cruise) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) live an almost idyllic life in the clouds.  Their relationship is functional and even intimate, but one senses that something is slightly off, especially when Jack’s dreams are haunted by life before the war and people he can’t remember.  Their world is turned upside down when a capsule containing humans crash lands in the wastelands.  Jack is only able to save one of them, but that person is the woman who has been haunting Jack’s dreams.  When the woman, who has supposedly been in suspended animation for almost 70 years, recognizes Jack, Victoria and Jack begin to question their understanding of what they understood to be their existence.

Like I said, I can’t really elaborate or comment on the storyline beyond that.  I don’t dislike this film, but it reminds me of a highly detailed paint-by-numbers painting.  It’s impressive to look at, but will not leave a lasting impression, nor be considered a classic.  Good Saturday afternoon matinee for Sci-Fi fans.  It is nice to see an intelligent action film, but Tom Cruise has been losing his star power mojo over his last several films.  Hopefully he will regain it, but I think he is losing the ability to credibly lead action films.  He might need to start looking for different types of films to showcase his talents.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2391713561/

I give this film **stars

Trance

       ‘Trance’ is the latest effort by one of my favorite Directors, Danny Boyle.  Time and again, Danny is able to push the envelope with incredible film making.  Great plot lines enhanced by unique film techniques and intense, offbeat soundtracks all combine to make each of his films a unique artistic event.  I can’t say that this was one of his better films, but I must confess I was riveted from start to finish.  It's a fun, hip, retro heist movie.

James McAvoy plays Simon, a troubled London art dealer who falls in with a group of criminals led by Franck (played with european evil by Vincent Cassel).  Without giving away too much of the plot, Simon becomes involved in an art theft led by Franck’s gang.  During the heist, Simon suffers a blow to the head causing him to lose memory of what he did with the painting.  When neither torture nor intimidation succeed in affecting Simon’s ability to recall the painting’s location, Franck decides to enlist the aid of a hypnotist to help draw out the memory.

Enter Elizabeth (played by an enchanting Rosario Dawson).  Despite Simon’s reticence, Elizabeth discovers he is highly susceptible to being hypnotized and she immediately starts to suspect the depth of Simon’s problems.  She becomes involved with the gang in a way that seemed highly improbable at first, but as the story unfolds, you understand how perfectly she fits into the group. Rosario Dawson was the highlight of this film for me.  I’ve never been a big fan of her as an artist, but here, not only was her beauty startling, but her ability to keep us guessing on how she fit into the whole scheme of this film was impressive.

The highest compliment I can pay this film is that it is stylish and hip.  Danny Boyle never fails to draw the audience into his vision.  The film jumps back and forth chronologically and even in between fantasy and reality.  Just when one believes they understand what is going on, another twist is thrown in that completely alters the paradigm of the film.  The final sequence pulls all the parts together in a fluid if not satisfying way.

Say what you want about the film, Danny Boyle continues to impress with his ability to create unique visions and stories.  I will see any film he makes even if I don’t think each one is a masterpiece.  They are each a unique creation of art and I continue to be impressed.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3196102169/

Oscar Predictions 2013

I TANKED IT!!!!!  I only hit 3 out of 6.  I am humbled.

I was right on Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actress.

The ones I missed:



Best Actress:  I picked Emmanuelle Riva, but I didn't really expect to win that one. Still Jennifer Lawrence for "The Silver Linings Playbook"???? C'mon, it wasn't that good.  Her performance in the "Hunger Games" was far better.

Best Supporting Actor:  I picked Phillip Seymour Hoffman and it was Christoph Waltz.  Actually, I couldn't be happier about this one.  I'm glad that he won.  Well deserved.

Best Director:  This was the surprise of the night.  All the money was on Spielberg.  I think that "Life of Pi "was a good choice as, from a craftsman point of view, Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was far superior.  I'm just suprised the Academy recognized it.

           Okay family and friends, once again I shall make my Oscar predictions.  I have had fairly consistent results over the years, usually hitting at least 5 out of the 6 categories that I predict.  Let's hope I don't break the streak.

This year is difficult as there are few stand outs to me, but as always, The Oscars are not about what is truly the best performance, rather the politics of Hollywood.  I will qualify my predictions that i choose what I think will win and not always the one I find most impressive

Best Picture: The mojo is all behind “Argo”.  

“Lincoln” has the only chance of upsetting Argo, but I feel it won’t happen.

• "Amour"
• "Argo"
• "Beasts Of The Southern Wild"
• "Django Unchained"
• "Les Misérables"
• "Life Of Pi"
• "Lincoln"
• "Silver Linings Playbook"
• "Zero Dark Thirty"

Actor In A Leading Role Here the mojo is with “Lincoln”.  I predict Daniel Day Lewis will win, although Denzel Washington gave an incredible performance. Joaquin Phoenix is a long shot, but I feel he has fallen out of favor with the Academy.

• Bradley Cooper, "Silver Linings Playbook"
• Daniel Day-Lewis, "Lincoln"
• Hugh Jackman, "Les Misérables"
• Joaquin Phoenix, "The Master"
• Denzel Washington, "Flight"

Actress In A Leading Role Everyone is thinking Jessica Chastain or Jennifer Lawrence.  I am going out on a limb and ignore my own advice.  My conscience will not let me choose anyone other than Emmanuelle Riva for “Amour”.  Truly the superior performance out of everyone and I don’t care if I’m wrong.  She deserves it.

• Jessica Chastain, "Zero Dark Thirty"
• Jennifer Lawrence, "Silver Linings Playbook"
• Emmanuelle Riva, "Amour"
• Quvenzhané Wallis, "Beasts Of The Southern Wild"
• Naomi Watts, "The Impossible"

Actor In A Supporting Role This is a tough one.  I think it is between Christoph Waltz again or Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  I want Christoph Waltz, but my gut tells me Phillip Seymour Hoffman

• Alan Arkin, "Argo"
• Robert De Niro, "Silver Linings Playbook"
• Philip Seymour Hoffman, "The Master
• Tommy Lee Jones, "Lincoln"
• Christoph Waltz, "Django Unchained"

Actress In A Supporting Role Anne Hathaway, no doubt in my mind.  A truly great actress. I will be embarrassed if i miss this one.

• Amy Adams, "The Master
• Sally Field, "Lincoln"
• Anne Hathaway, "Les Misérables"
• Helen Hunt, "The Sessions"
• Jacki Weaver, "Silver Linings Playbook"

Directing This one is between Steven Spielberg and Ang Lee.  “Life of Pi” didn’t make a big enough buzz when it came out.  I have to go with Steven Spielberg

• Michael Haneke, "Amour"
• Benh Zeitlin, "Beasts Of The Southern Wild"
• Ang Lee, "Life Of Pi"
• Steven Spielberg, "Lincoln"
• David O. Russell, "Silver Linings Playbook"

A Good Day to Die Hard

     ‘A Good Day to Die Hard’ is one of those films that actually made me angry after I finished watching it (and during for that matter).   The fifth installment of the Die Hard action film franchise that made Bruce Willis a movie Star in the 1980s, this film captures none of the magic, thrills, or wittiness that made the original film a classic.  It didn’t even capture a nostalgic tone that made films like Rocky Balboa watchable.  In fact, Bruce Willis’s character John McClain was so irrelevant to this story that he wouldn’t have been missed if they had left him out of the movie.  

      This time around John McClain’s adventures take him to Moscow.  The premise is that his estranged son has gotten involved in a sticky situation in Russia where he faces life imprison.  McClain goes over there to attend his trial.  McClain’s son, also named John (or Jack for distinguishing purposes), is played by Jai Courtney.  It comes as a shock to John when he learns that his delinquent son is actually a CIA operative.  He is in the middle of a war between a Russian billionaire and a high ranking Russian politician.  This is where the movie initially loses me.  Every good action film needs an epic villain.  Throughout the film, I was never sure who the bad guy was or why they were doing what they were doing.  Even when they did reveal the mysterious ‘file’ that everyone seemed to be after, it left more questions than it answered.  I can’t explain further than that without giving away plot points, but it was a very garbled and tangled story line that made no sense after it was unraveled.

So lets be honest, we go to the Die Hard films for the action and not the plots.  We want to see John McClain wade into a situation like a cowboy and blow everything up whilst smirking and delivering ironic quips.  As he does this he endlessly frustrates  sophisticated European villains with his blue collar American ways of thwarting ingenious plans.  This film tries to do that, but it just comes off flat.  McClain’s catch phrase in this movie; ‘I’m supposed to be on vacation’ (which technically isn’t true because he’s there for his son’s trial) is uttered so many times and inappropriately that it becomes tedious.  His police instincts kick in randomly and at odd times.  And the film is so determined to top the action scenes from previous Die Hards (which strained credulity to begin with) that it became eye rolling cartoonish as opposed to holding your breath exciting.  What gave the first Die Hard it’s level of greatness was it’s ability to have us suspend our disbelief during the mass chaos moments.

As I stated earlier, Bruce Willis was almost superfluous to this movie.  It felt like he was trying to insert himself into the storyline.  His trademark quips fell flat and seemed out of place.  The chemistry between McClain and his son is nonexistent.  Not sure what casting director thought they would be a good pairing. The true story was so obsessed with having one plot twist after another that it became lost in it’s own complexity and at the end, we did not understand the motivations of anyone.  Good guys included.  This was an awful film made 25 yrs after the original.  It should have never been made and it just felt like Bruce Willis collecting a paycheck.  

I give this film * star and that’s being generous.

  I’m a little angry at having wasted two hours of my life.