REVIEW: “Star Trek Into Darkness”

by

36

STAR TREK POSTER

One of the most talked about films of the 2013 summer movie season is undoubtedly the J.J. Abrams blockbuster-to-be “Star Trek Into Darkness”. It’s the sequel to the wildly popular 2009 semi-reboot of the beloved sci-fi franchise which won over casual movie fans and Star Trek faithfuls alike. It’s definitely no surprise that we get a sequel. The first film of this new series insured that by raking in just under $400 million. Paramount pictures is certainly expecting to exceed that with this new installment.

I’ve had a pretty rocky relationship with the first film from Abrams. After seeing it for the first time, I left the theater with a lukewarm reaction. A second viewing confirmed some key problems I had with the movie and my overall opinion of it dropped. But in preparation for “Into Darkness” I gave the first film a third and fourth viewing. The issues I had were still there, but my overall experience was more enjoyable and I found myself more and more excited for the sequel. But that excitement came with caution. Would Abrams tone down on the popcorn movie modernizations and give us something that feels like a Star Trek movie? Also, could “Into Darkness” avoid the common sequel traps that we’ve seen over the years? Those were my biggest questions.

Star Trek 3

One of the best things about the first movie was the amazing opening. It was pretty basic tablesetting but it was done so incredibly well and it instantly pulled the audience in. I can’t say the “Into Darkness” opening offers that same pizazz. The movie begins on an the Class M planet of Nibiru. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban) are being pursued by indigenous undeveloped natives while Spock (Zachary Quinto) is lowered into an active volcano whose eruption threatens to destroy the planet. It’s a loud and bombastic sequence which comes across as a little clunky. It wasn’t terrible but it didn’t feel like a Star Trek scene and the visuals went from jaw-dropping to glaringly obvious CGI. I instantly began to worry.

Yet while I found the opening a little sluggish, as the movie progressed I noticed the important little nuggets nestled in those opening scenes which ended up playing big parts in the plot. It’s also here where we see that Kirk is still cocky and careless as evident by his numerous rule violations during the Nibiru mission. After breaking the Prime Directive and attempting to lie about it, Kirk loses his captain’s chair on the Enterprise. We also witness a series of violent terroristic events centered around a mysterious member of Starfleet known as John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Kirk finds himself desperate to get in the fight as Starfleet Admiral Marcus ( Peter Weller) begins the hunt to bring Harrison to justice.

“Into Darkness” still has some of the same problems as the first film. The Spock and Uhuru (Zoe Saldana) romance still feels bland and tacked on. Some of the big fight sequences feel like anything but Star Trek. And Abrams again tries to modernize things with some gags that land with a thud and a smattering of pointless profanity. But here’s the big part I’ve been anxious to get to. While these issues are there, the movie really gets its legs after the first act and the story takes off in what I found to be a brilliant direction. Fears relieved, worries extinguished!

STAR TREK 1

Abrams gets back to what makes Star Trek such a beloved property. It’s the characters, their relationships, and their interactions. It’s the Enterprise, not just as a ship but as a vital character to the story. It’s the strategizing and trial-and-error planning. Abrams gives us doses of enthralling drama without the need of big action sequences, something Star Trek is famous for. But don’t worry, there’s still plenty of action and it’s truly spectacular especially during the last 20 minutes. There was a head-scratching question or two during the finale and it was a bit jarring to see one character act a certain way, but I was able to backburner that due to the tension-soaked high stakes and the stunning special effects. I was on the edge of my seat and the whole time I was thinking “This is the kind of Star Trek I can latch onto”.

It also helps when you have Cumberbatch playing such an interesting villain. Or is he a villain? He’s such an enigma and we’re trying to figure him out right along with Kirk and his crew. Cumberbatch is fantastic with his surprising physicality and deep, menacing voice. I have to admit, I wasn’t that familiar with his body of work but he certainly grabbed my attention here. I also think Chris Pine gives a better performance this time around. He seems to have a stronger grasp of his character and he’s spared some of the nonsense he had to do in the first film. Quinto is still the embodiment of Spock. Abrams knows the relationship between Kirk and Spock is principal and he gives them plenty of screen time together. It’s smart because the two provide us with some of the movie’s best scenes.

I also enjoyed seeing Karl Urban’s role expanded. He’s still there for comic relief but his character is actually treated with more respect this time. I also thought John Cho was given better material here and he nailed it. And I enjoyed seeing Bruce Greenwood return as Christopher Pike. Simon Pegg’s Scotty was also given a bigger role but for me it was a ‘take it or leave it’ performance. Alice Eve is another newcomer whose character is mainly there to serve a key plot point and to allow Abrams to show a woman in her underwear. Other than that she was pretty disposable.

STAR TREK 2

“Into Darkness” is an improvement over the first film and it sets a very interesting landscape for the films to come. There are clever and pleasing little tips of the hat to the old series scattered all through the movie. Whether it’s a specific sound only Trek fans would recognize or a particular fluffy little creature that we briefly see, I caught myself smiling at all the cool stuff I recognized. But there’s a lot more here than just nostalgia. Unlike so many sequels, this movie goes in a sharply original direction while at the same time tinkering with certain classic story arcs. This not only makes for a convincing alternate reality within the film, but it provides some top-notch science fiction entertainment.

“Into Darkness” is ‘Star Trek for the masses’ and it still hasn’t completely cured all its ailments, but it was a huge step forward in my book. I’ve talked about the solid performances, the amazing special effects, and the classic Star Trek flavor. But I could go further. I could talk about the strong score, the brilliant cinematography, the tighter script, and the near perfect editing. This film gets it right on so many levels. 15 minutes into this movie I was thinking I was in for a long, grinding ride. 15 minutes after the movie I was dying to see it again. I just love it when a movie catches me by surprise and then blows me away. Such was the case here.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Great Gatsby” (2013)

by

45

GATSBY POSTER

One of my more eagerly anticipated films of 2013 is “The Great Gatsby”. Originally set for a late 2012 release, the movie was eventually pushed back to an early summer opening date. It’s one of several film adaptations of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel which was published in 1925. I’m a huge fan of Fitzgerald’s masterpiece and recently reread it in preparation for this film. My love for the novel evoked two different reactions leading up to my viewing the movie. First was excitement at the possibilities of a truly great cinematic telling of Fitzgerald’s work. The second was concern over whether director Baz Luhrmann could capture that unique and graceful vibrancy that permeates every page of the novel.

Luhrmann, a 50-year old Sidney, Australia native, is best known for his modern retelling “Romeo + Juliet”, the Oscar nominated “Moulin Rouge!”, and the sprawling epic “Australia”. Each of these films embrace parts of Luhrmann’s distinct style of filmmaking, yet none of these lean as heavily on style as does “The Great Gatsby”. In fact, ‘style’ is a word that seems to find its way in nearly every review I’ve read. Many have viewed the film’s style as its strongest asset while others claim it stresses style over story and the movie suffers for it. To be fair, it’s impossible to talk about “The Great Gatsby” without mentioning its vivid, stylistic presentation. But does its visual grandeur and panache drown out the heart of Fitzgerald’s magnum opus?

GATSBY 3

Tobey Maguire & Elizabeth Debicki at Gatsby’s Mansion

Well let me get the style thing out of the way first. Luhrmann’s vision of “The Great Gatsby” is dripping with flamboyance and spectacle. It’s impossible not to notice it starting with the incredibly cool opening credits. But some people have taken issue with the style saying it subverts any heart and feeling the movie may be going for. Let me say I disagree. “The Great Gatsby” is about several things, among those is the decadence and excess of the Roaring Twenties. Much of the movie’s style is spent indulging us into the excesses of the time. It isn’t just style for the sake of style. From the lavish party sequences to the lively speakeasies, the style is used to visually impress but also to draw us into the loose and raucous period. I found it to be very effective.

But for me the best visuals weren’t found in the wild parties with the gyrating dancers and showers of confetti. The movie certainly looked good there. But it looked even better when it was showing off the bustling city. The bright lights, the busy sidewalks, the tall buildings – it’s all beautifully realized through Luhrmann’s camera. We see it as midwesterner Nick Carraway sees it – as a surreal and exotic new world brimming with life. The visuals also shine in two different sequences where Gatsby takes his gorgeous yellow custom car “into town”. There’s clearly plenty of CGI trickery at work, but I felt these scenes were as wild and fast-paced as the lives these characters were living. This film also features one of the more interesting uses of 3D. It’s flashy when it needs to be but often times it’s subtle in its implementation. I wouldn’t say it was completely necessary, but unlike most uses of 3D, here it added to my experience.

GATSBY 1

DiCaprio, Maguire, & Bachchan in “The Great Gatsby”

But enough about style and visuals. What about the story? As I said, “The Great Gatsby” is about several things. As I mentioned, it touches on the decadence and self-indulgence of the filthy rich. It exposes the shallow nature of the upper class. It looks at the elation and heartbreak that accompanies true love. It examines the futility of trying to recreate the past. Like the novel, there are so many themes interwoven throughout this story and I think it works here for the most part. This is in large part due to Luhrmann’s faithfulness to Fitzgerald’s work. I can’t say it’s as engaging or as enthralling as the novel, but so much is pulled from the pages that it left me quite happy.

The story revolves around the mysterious Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gatsby is an extremely wealthy man who lives in an extravagant mansion and is known citywide for his wild parties. No one knows who Gatsby is but everyone has an opinion. Everyone includes Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), Gatsby’s innocent and wide-eyed neighbor who also serves as our narrator. Along the way we also meet Nick’s lovely cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan), her boisterous husband Tom (Joel Edgerton), and Daisy’s beautiful best friend Jordan (Elizabeth Debicki). Through Nick these characters are opened up and the mystery surrounding Gatsby is peeled back one layer at a time. But there’s a red herring neatly tucked away in all of this and the story ends up about something much more satisfying. To look at this story simply as a tale of a mysterious rich guy is to miss the greater point.

la_ca_0104_THE_GREAT_GATSBY

Mulligan & DiCaprio in “The Great Gatsby”

Luhrmann’s directing is a key part of the movie but the film would never work without its great performances. The tone of each performance is unique in that it not only captures the characters of 1922 but also an older style of acting. DiCaprio is perfectly cast as Gatsby whether he’s being the handsome, wealthy, but secretive party host or tackling some deeper emotions later in the film. Carey Mulligan is also good as Daisy and Tobey Maguire, an actor I’ve never been excited about, really surprised me. I loved Joel Edgerton as Tom. It’s said Ben Affleck was initially sought after for this role but I think Edgerton knocks it out of the park. But it’s newcomer Elizabeth Debicki who’s a real scene stealer. I gravitated to her each time she was on screen and I kept wishing she had more screen time.

Many people have had numerous problems with the movie and I would love to say they were wrong. But while I like the film more than many, it does have a few shortcomings. While I did feel the movie had heart, I don’t deny that there is a coldness throughout the picture particularly in a key relationship. This leads to a brief lull halfway through. I also felt the movie would be better if they had decided to include the romantic tension between Jordan and Nick that we get in the novel. It would give the movie more warmth and provide both characters with more to do, especially Jordan. I also felt the soundtrack was all over the place. When it’s playing the jazzy music of the time or a variation of it things are great. But then we’ll get sudden injections of Jay-Z rap tunes which feel terribly out of place. I’m not sure what the thinking was behind that but I found it odd and distracting.

Baz Luhrmann may be trying to capture the vivacity of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel through his visual style, but I think the story itself retains plenty of that for my taste. In fact I had a lot of fun with “The Great Gatsby”. It respects its inspiration by sticking to the story and some really strong performances help ensure that this isn’t strictly a visual spectacle. This may not be a perfect movie but it’s certainly a very good one and I found myself wrapped up in it. It’ll never supplant Fitzgerald’s novel as the greatest telling of this mesmerizing story, but as far as adaptations go, this one really succeeds.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Star Trek: First Contact”

by

31

STAR TREK POSTERStar Trek is all the buzz right now and with the newest film about to hit U.S. theaters, I thought it would be fun to talk about one of my favorite Star Trek movies. For clarity, I wasn’t a huge fan of the original series. It wasn’t until “The Next Generation” that I became really interested in the Star Trek universe. The TNG cast would appear in four feature films that connected to their 7 season series. I think the best of those movies was “Star Trek: First Contact”. Even more, I think a good case could be made that it’s the best Star Trek movie period. We’ll save that debate for another time.

“First Contact” is directly connected to a popular storyline from the television series and it doesn’t take long to see that. I’m not going to say you would be totally lost unless you’re familiar with the story, but it certainly adds a lot to the movie if you know the story it’s tied into. The film begins with Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) dreaming about his past experience with the mysterious and menacing Borg. The Borg are a group of cybernetic organisms made up of various species who have been “assimilated” into their collective. The Borg capture and brutally assimilate others through a painful implant procedure which eventually connects them to the one domineering “hive mind”. The Borg themselves are half-living / half-machine drones and the collective’s ultimate goal is perfection as they see it.

Star Trek 3

The USS Enterprise – E

Picard is jarred from his troubling dream to find out that a lone Borg cube has launched an attack on Earth. It’s funny how out-of-the-blue this occurs in the film with seemingly no buildup whatsoever. The film expects the audience to hop onboard and go with it. Picard is ready to enter the fight but he and his Enterprise crew are ordered to stay away in fear that Picard’s past assimilation by the Borg could become a liability. Picard disobeys orders and enters the fray where he learns that the Borg plan to travel back in time to prevent what’s known on Earth as the day of First Contact. It’s when a lushy visionary named Zefram Cochrane (James Cromwell) introduces warp travel which leads to our first contact with alien life. By keeping this from happening, the Borg will keep their biggest threat, the Federation, from interfering with their plans.

The Enterprise follows the Borg back in time where the movie splinters into two storylines. An away team is sent down to Earth to ensure Cochrane follows through with his test flight while others stay aboard the Enterprise to fight off the Borg who are attempting to take the ship. Jonathan Frakes, who also plays first officer Will Riker, handles the directing after big names like Ridley Scott and John McTiernan turned the movie down. This turned out to be a good decision. Frakes’ knowledge of the material after years on the TV series pays off.

Star Trek 2

James Cromwell, Jonathan Frakes, Marina Sirtis

Frakes weaves the stories together nicely and he’s able to keep the vital Star Trek tone and feel even though the movie features a much bigger budget and heavier dose of special effects. This is something the newer Star Trek reboot, a film I’ve grown to have some appreciation for, was never able to do. Writers Ronald Moore and Brannon Braga deserve a lot of credit for that as well. The two begin the first draft of the script shortly after the release of “Star Trek: Generations”, a film they also wrote. Their familiarity with the characters and the history of the franchise is certainly realized on screen. The story is smart and carries with it the typical Star Trek tendencies of dialogue over action although we do get more action than we’re used to seeing.

The cast is another reason the movie works so well. The main cast has already put so much of themselves into these characters that they know them by heart. Patrick Stewart is still the best Star Trek captain in my book. He’s rock solid yet again as Captain Picard. It’s also great to see Frakes, Brent Spiner, Michael Dorn, Gates McFadden, LeVar Burton, and Marina Sirtis reprising their roles as Picard’s crew. I also enjoyed Cromwell’s performance which is sometimes a bit hokey but still entertaining. It’s said Tom Hanks was offered the role but turned it down due to scheduling conflicts. And I have to mention Alice Krige as the disturbing yet seductive Borg Queen. Not only does the character offer some of the film’s slicker visual moments but she gives us a Star Trek villain unlike any we’ve seen.

STAR TREK 1

Michael Dorn, Patrick Stewart, Neal McDonough

One complaint than could be hurled at “Star Trek: First Contact” is that even with its bigger budget it sometimes feels like a longer television episode. That’s not a big deal with me because there are a couple of beautifully done effects sequences that clearly make the movie stand out, but there are many other moments that give the argument some validity. There are also a few questions that are never addressed at all. For example Geordi La Forge (Burton) no longer has his air filter visor. Now he has some type of ocular implants but its never even hinted at. And as I mentioned earlier, the film offers no real setup to the Borg attack at all.

These issues may have bothered some more than they did me because they never seriously hindered my enjoyment of the film. This is the first Star Trek movie to feature the TNG cast exclusively and the result was fantastic. Those looking for a standard Hollywood sci-fi flick may not leave “First Contact” completely satisfied. But Star Trek fans will find that same style and unique form of storytelling that they’ve come to expect from the franchise. Personally, I love it.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “V for Vendetta”

by

32

V POSTER BABY

“Remember, remember the 5th of November”. These are the first words mentioned in the 2005 thriller “V for Vendetta”. It’s a phrase referencing the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. This failed attempt to blow up The House of Lords has oddly become a celebrated event and it serves as the inspiration for this movie’s masked vigilante known as V. This is a film based on a comic book written by Alan Moore which was distributed by Vertigo, a brand of DC comics. The screenplay was written by the then Wachowski brothers which instantly caused concern for me. I’ve had a hard time latching on to their other work but I entered this with an open mind hoping they would avoid the traps they normally fall into.

The movie starts off on a good note introducing us to its fascist dystopian near-future world. It also introduces us to V, an underground resistance fighter sporting a cool Guy Fawkes mask and a belt full of blades. He’s played eloquently by the fluid-tongued Hugo Weaving. He rescues a young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) from three alley thugs and then goes on to reveal to her his plans to spark a revolution. His methods (which could understandably be called terrorism) disturbs Evey but she also finds herself mesmerized by the words and reason of the mysterious V.

V poster

Hugo Weaving as V

At first the oppressive and tyrannical world we are thrown into is fascinating. The government has gained supreme power and High Chancellor Adam Sutler (John Hurt) is pulling all the strings. The government controls the flow of information and Sutler ultimately decides what’s acceptable in every facet of the people’s lives. The citizenry sit in front of their TVs in an almost hypnotic state while the government filters and alters the “news” and “entertainment”. The totalitarian rule is realized in a variety of alarming ways which makes V’s passion and cause more sympathetic.

But as with most of the Wachowski’s other work they don’t know when to stop. After drawing us into this disturbing yet entrancing world they created, they don’t focus on unwrapping the story within it. Instead they bombard us with contrived and heavy-handed political sermonettes and pop shots. They throw out a crazy amount of soapbox issues and irrational comparisons which they have every right to do. The problem is they become so obviously forced and they do nothing to help the greater story. The social issues, the Bush bashing, the ‘blame America’ nonsense, the selective religious critique, rendition, blah, blah, blah. The second half of the film is filled with these injections that make it feel like a left-wing political propaganda piece, something the movie is supposedly speaking against.

These things mixed with the sometimes bloated dialogue ultimately made “V for Venetta” an almost laborious experience. That’s a shame because there are things the movie does well particularly in the first half. I mentioned the fantastic early impressions of the world and Weaving’s brilliant performance even during some of the Wachowski’s more blabber-heavy scenes. But the excess crap eventually weighs the thing down and at over 130 minutes it was a tad tough to endure. Director James McTeigue does the movie no favors either. There are all kinds of pacing issues and his dull camera tempered the film which seemed to be screaming for a bit of style. And he never develops enough tension and intrigue past the first act – a problem we also get in his most recent film “The Raven”. Visually the movie underwhelms and, aside from a couple of impressive explosions, it resembles a TV production. All these things left me wanting more.

V movie

Natalie Portman

The most frustrating thing about “V for Vendetta” was that it had me during the first half. Despite its technical shortcomings I was wrapped up in the story and I found myself anxious for Hugo Weaving’s next scene. But when things come unglued I was just anxious for the ending. The Wachowskis don’t seem to understand when they’ve created a good thing. Here they take the great message built around an oppressive government and squash it with their own preachy hard-left politics. There’s nothing wrong with that in the hands of more capable writers and filmmakers, but here the latter politics don’t propel the movie. Instead they feel far more self-serving.

I know this movie has its share of followers but for me it’s a case of squandering a good thing. It goes off the rails and leaves nothing of any substance. There is a good message hidden somewhere under the clunky and peremptory politics but I lost my grasp of it halfway through. That’s unfortunate because I really wanted to like this movie. But in the end I can see why Alan Moore disassociated himself from it even if his overall problems with it were a little different than mine.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

5 Phenomenal Ray Harryhausen Creations

by

33

movie_theatre - Phenom 5

The film industry and movie fans lost a legend this past week with the passing of Ray Harryhausen. This early special-effects master and perfector of the stop-motion animation technique died at age 92 but his undeniable mark lives on through the incredible motion picture creations he has left us with. To honor him I thought it would be good to focus this week’s Phenomenal 5 on some of his greatest creations. I grew up watching Ray Harryhausen’s creatures and they played a big part in nurturing my love for cinema. And after seeing and appreciating so much of his body of work, it would be nuts to call this the definitive list. But I can confidently say that these 5 Ray Harryhausen creations are absolutely phenomenal.

#5 – MEDUSA (“Clash of the Titans”)

MEDUSA

Medusa – “Clash of the Titans”

“Clash of the Titans” from 1981 was Ray Harryhausen’s final full-length film and a true fantasy classic. In it Harryhausen delivered some incredible effects sequences and some of his most memorable creatures. My personal favorite from the film is the slithering Medusa residing on a remote island at the edge of the Underworld. Perseus (Harry Hamlin) and company make their way to the island to capture the head of the half woman/half serpent. Her headful of slithering snakes and her mangled face represented some of Harryhausen’s best work. With Medusa he was able to add more expression than in most of his past monsters but he still delivered a creation that creeped me out as a kid.

#4 – TALOS – (“Jason and the Argonauts”)

TALOS

Talos – “Jason and the Argonauts”

It’s hard to pinpoint one film featuring the work of Ray Harryhausen that I would call my favorite but it just might be “Jason and the Argonauts” from 1963. The mythological fantasy film about Jason (Todd Armstrong) and his quest to obtain the Golden Fleece may contain Harryhausen greatest collection of creations ever confined to a single picture. One my favorites is Talos, a giant bronze titan which comes to life after some forbidden treasure is stolen. Talos is amazing and its huge scale was a first for Harryhausen. To this day I still get giddy with excitement when I see Talos stand above the mountains and sink the Argo. Pure stop-motion greatness!

#3 – THE YMIR (“20 Million Miles to Earth”)

YMIR

Ymir – “20 Million Miles from Earth”

One of Harryhausen’s greatest creatures can be found in the 1957 science fiction film “20 Million Miles to Earth. The late 50′s were a great time for sci-fi and I think this film deserves to be mentioned with the best of them mainly because of Harryhausen’s fabulous special effects work. A mysterious unhatched egg originating on Venus is found by a young Sicilian boy in the wreckage of a downed spacecraft. The egg eventually hatches and rapidly grows into a creature that terrorizes Rome. Harryhausen’s stop-motion work is stunning as he takes the creature through several different stages of size. He fights a huge elephant, climbs atop the Coliseum, and causes all sorts of mayhem. And it all works thanks to Harryhausen’s brilliance.

#2 – KALI – (“The Golden Voyage of Sinbad”)

KALI

Kali – “The Golden Voyage of Sinbad”

Some of my earliest movie memories center around watching Ray Harryhausen’s creatures in the Sinbad movies as a young boy. I still adore these films which are filled with a delightful assortment of creaturely concoctions. One of the most memorable Sinbad creations for me was Kali in “The Golden Voyage of Sinbad” from 1974. The wicked magician Koura brings to life the six-armed Kali idol to stop Sinbad and his crew. Kali arms itself with six swords and a cool battle begins. Harryhausen’s stop-motion technique blends in perfectly with the live actors and real world setting and I still remember being blown away when I first saw it. Classic Harryhausen.

#1 – THE SKELETON WARRIORS (“Jason and the Argonauts”)

Skeletons

Skeleton Warriors – “Jason and the Argonauts”

Harryhausen has designed some amazing creations through the years and his skills at stop-motion were sometimes mind-boggling. But even with so many incredible monsters, statues, and alien creatures there is still a clear favorite for me. The battle with the skeleton warriors in “Jason and the Argonauts” is a scene that I will never grow tired of and what Harryhausen was able to accomplish is amazing. Raised from the buried teeth of the Hydra, the skeleton warriors give Jason and his two men quite a battle. The three live actors seamlessly battle Harryhausen’s stop-motion skeletons in a sequence that took him months to finish. And after all these years it still blows me away.

So there are 5 phenomenal Ray Harryhausen creations. Obviously there are so many others that could have made the list: the giant squid from “It Came from Beneath the Sea”, the beast from “The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms”, the giant primate from “Mighty Joe Young”, the cyclops from “The 7th Voyage of Sinbad”, The Kraken and Bubo the owl from “Clash of the Titans”. I could go on and on about the amazing work of this special effects genius. How about you? What are some of your favorite Ray Harryhausen creations?

Film Fans, Let’s Introduce Ourselves…

by

165

HANDSHAKE

During the 15 months that I’ve been doing this crazy blogging thing I’ve met an amazing assortment of people from all over the world. While I love writing about movies and sharing my thoughts with others, perhaps my favorite thing about blogging has been the fellow movieoholics I’ve met. But I got to thinking, even though I’ve learned a lot of things about a lot of people, there’s still some cool stuff that would be fun to know.

So consider this a chance for a more proper introduction and not just for me but for all of the other movie fans that choose to share. Here’s the way it works, I’m tossing out 5 easy questions. I’ll answer them to let you know a little about me and then you do the same in the comments section below. Simple stuff but it’ll also be great for us all to know a little more about each other and share our blog sites (for those who have the).

Here we go. Here are the 5 easy questions followed by my answers:

1. WHAT’S YOUR NAME & WHERE ARE YOU FROM?: Keith (Never would have guessed that, huh?) from South Central Arkansas, USA

2. WHAT’S YOUR BLOG’S NAME & LINK (if you blog): Keith & the Movies -
http://keithandthemovies.com (That’s more obvious than the first question, right?)

3. WHAT ARE 3 OF YOUR FAVORITE FILMS (Not necessarily your top three, just three of your favorites)? : “Casablanca”, “Night of the Living Dead”, “The Empire Strikes Back”

4. WHAT ARE 3 OF YOUR NON-MOVIE RELATED INTERESTS? : Major League Baseball (Go Rangers!), Anything about Paris, theology

5. WHAT IS ONE FUNNY OR INTERESTING MOVIE-RELATED FACT ABOUT YOU? : I’m a Humphrey Bogart nut. I have almost all of his movies (even the smaller forgotten ones) either on DVD or VHS. I have a life-sized Bogart cardboard cutout standing in our bedroom next to my side of our bed (what a great wife I have). Heck I even have a certified copy of Bogart’s death certificate. Idiotic? Yes I know.

Now you know a little about me. It’s your turn. I hope you’ll jump in and leave your answers in the comments section below. Let’s all get to know each other a little better!

THE END

REVIEW: “Star Trek” (2009)

by

42

Star Trek PosterThe summer movie season is off and running and one of the year’s most talked about releases is due out in a few days. I’m talking about “Star Trek Into Darkness”, the J.J. Abrams sequel to his 2009 reboot of the franchise. With so much hype and anticipation swirling around the new movie I thought it would be a good time to go back and revisit the first installment, a much loved film that I had pretty mixed feelings about. Would a second viewing give me a better appreciation for what Abrams and company were able to accomplish or would it simply reaffirm my initial frustrations with the movie?

First off, attempting to relaunch or reboot the Star Trek franchise is a pretty hefty and gutsy task. Perhaps only Star Wars’ fan base eclipses the passion and devotion of the group affectionately known as “Trekkies”. Tinkering with and altering the beloved universe first created by the late great Gene Roddenberry would be the equivalent to playing with fire and one would assume this was high on the list of the filmmakers’ considerations. Well I’m no Trekkie and I’m not as well versed in Star Trek lore as many, but I have say I’m surprised that more diehard fans didn’t have issues with the liberties and modernizations we see here. More on that later.

“Star Trek” is constructed as a completely new franchise launcher. It creates its own world beginning with the origin stories of the popular Star Trek characters Captain Kirk and Spock and telling how they and the crew came together through Starfleet. The film actually begins with a bang. A flashback shows the federation starship USS Kelvin investigating a lightning storm anomaly when it encounters a huge Romulan mining vessel converted to a warship. A battle breaks out forcing the Kelvin’s first officer (Chris Hemsworth) to evacuate everyone from the ship including his pregnant wife. He then manually flies the Kelvin into the mammoth enemy vessel causing a distraction so the escape pods can get away. This hero’s name was George Samuel Kirk.

Star Trek2

The USS Enterprise

The movie then fast-forwards and puts the spotlight on his son James T. Kirk (Chris Pine). He’s grown up to be a rebellious and rambunctious sort who is challenged to enter Starfleet by Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), the Captain of the USS Enterprise who served with his father. While at the academy he befriends Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban), flirts with Uhuru (Zoe Saldana), and gets off on the wrong foot with Spock (Zachary Quinto). But in a familiar story turn that we’ve seen in everything from “Top Gun” to “Starship Troopers”, the cadets are forced into action when a distress call is made from Spock’s home planet of Vulcan. Through this we’re introduced to other familiar characters including Sulu (John Cho), Scotty (Simon Pegg), and Chekov (Anton Yelchin).

Eric Bana plays the rogue Romulan Nero who we see in the opening and who pops up later to serve as the main antagonist. He has a serious bone to pick with Spock and his revenge-fueled presence poses a major threat. Aside from the normal franchise origin stuff, this tiff between Nero and Spock is a big part of the story. There’s also the story of Jim’s evolution from an immature, self-centered hothead into a responsible, heroic member of Starfleet. All of these strands are woven together pretty nicely and the film moves through them with better pacing than I originally remembered. There are also some fantastic special effects and a cool new Enterprise with an impressive modernized bridge that I thought looked great.

STAR TREK1

The USS Enterprise crew

But there were some issues I originally had with “Star Trek” that unfortunately didn’t go away with a fresh viewing. First, I know this is a relaunching of the Star Trek franchise and some of it is aimed at the action-starved audiences of today. But to me there were times where this didn’t feel anything like a Star Trek movie. There were certain scenes that felt so jarringly out of place yet perfectly in tune with the film industries affection for ‘Hollywoodizing’ their big movies. Again, I understand that Abrams and company are showing their new vision but I wish they would have trusted or cared more for the Star Trek formula. But honestly, while it’s still an issue, it didn’t seem to bother me as much during this viewing.

Another issue I still have is with the handling and redefining of some of the characters. I don’t know if it’s just an attempt to force in a fairly underwhelming romance or if it’s simply political correctness, but I wasn’t crazy about Uhuru as a bigger character while McCoy, an important character in the original series, is reserved for comic relief. Maybe it’s because the romance between Uhuru and a certain crew member feels shallow and tacked on. There’s nothing wrong with Saldana’s performance but her role is pretty flimsy. Karl Urban does some great work channelling his best DeForrest Kelley. Even though ‘Bones’ is written almost exclusively for humor, Urban is fantastic and it’s a shame he was given something meatier to work with.

STAR TREK3

Eric Bana is Nero

My revisit also verified one thing and clarified another. Zachary Quinto as Spock is by far the best bit of casting in the movie while Chris Pine left a better impression this time around than before. Quinto nicely sells Spock through his tone, mannerisms, and pitch-perfect deliveries. Pine ends much better than he begins. In the first half of the film he’s pretty hard to digest but as his material gets better so does his performance. In fact, overall I found him to be better than I remembered. I can’t really say the same for Pegg’s Scotty or Yelchin’s Chekov, but both of their issues dealt more closely with how their characters were written.

So now the big question. Did my time away from “Star Trek” change my perception of the film? Did this fresh look at the movie provide a better experience? I would have to say yes but only slightly. “Star Trek” is still a film with a handful of flaws. At times it tries to be too hip, too cute, and too modern at the expense of those proven elements that make “Star Trek” great. On the flip side, I did find myself enjoying and embracing more of what Abrams and company were doing. This was a better experience and my anticipation for the next movie has grown. I just hope for a more focused script with less corn and a little better handling of its characters. If that happens “Star Trek Into Darkness” could be a real treat.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS