More like Star Trek Into Disappointment

Posted in Movies, Reviews with tags , , , , , on May 20, 2013 by Sarah

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS – Don’t get mad, I warned you, SPOILERS

star-trek-2-into-darkness-posterHaving never been a Trekkie, no one was more surprised than me when I loved the 2009 franchise reboot from JJ Abrams. I kind of love it a lot. I own it and watch it sometimes and enjoy it immensely every time. Abrams made Star Trek accessible, trading in the Deep Thoughts with Kirk and Spock for fast-paced action grounded by very humane character moments. I know a lot the Trek fandom was annoyed at Abrams’ tone and just, everything really, but Star Trek had for so long been the tiniest kid given the biggest wedgie and stuffed in the grossest locker, and Abrams made it cool again. He made it okay to like Star Trek.

And then he promptly forgot everything that made his 2009 reboot great and produced a draggy, kind of boring and heartless piece of space popcorn that abandoned its early, interesting premise of Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) getting demoted and having to learn some humility in favor of a to-militarize-or-not-to-militarize-space debate that never actually gets fleshed out. There were fits and starts of several equally plausible and vastly more engaging films in Star Trek Into Darkness but none of them ever movies-star-trek-into-darkness-4actually arrive and deliver a movie that would stick in your mind the way the 2009 one did. That movie benefitted from Kirk and Spock (Zachary Quinto) coming of age and meeting, disagreeing, and then finding common ground. Their friendship was the anchor and their development the point and the film worked as a coming of age story. Darkness never really works as anything because it doesn’t have any purpose.

Don’t get me wrong—Darkness is fun in stretches. It never quite hangs together, but individual scenes are exciting, and there are a couple righteous brawls to tide over the action-hungry audience members. But in between those points it’s slow and uneven, with a huge amount of narrative going unscoped in favor of leaping into more action (could have done without the space drop sequence as it was very similar to the base jumping scene in the first film). Still, there are enough up beats to keep the film going. The effect of the ships going into warp drive was lovely every time it was used and Kirk finding out Spock and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) were fighting and exclaiming, “What is that even like?” drew a big laugh. It’s not a bad movie, it’s just not any kind of continuation of or improvement on the first film.

fightWhat didn’t work about Darkness is its narrative function. It’s never telling us a cohesive story but instead starts three different narratives and proceeds to abandon all three. The first narrative begins when Kirk violates the “Prime Directive”, which states that no primitive civilization can be exposed to advanced technology, in order to save Spock, and Spock thanks him by getting Kirk demoted. The demotion scene is one of the strongest in the film and Pine and Quinto, plus Bruce Greenwood playing Kirk’s de facto daddy figure, Christopher Pike, carry it beautifully. I would have been very interested to see a movie about Kirk and Spock falling out and going their separate ways and the journey that brings them back together a friends and fellow officers. But that plot ends about five minutes after it begins and Kirk has no problem getting reinstated as a captain. It was supremely annoying how no consequences were applied to Kirk in the long run for breaking what was built up as Star Fleet’s Mega Rule You Do Not Break.

star-trek-into-darkness-still-image-8The second narrative came halfway through the movie when it was revealed that an admiral in Star Fleet was secretly building a militarized fleet in order to respond to the kind of threat posed by Nero in the first film. The characters all react to this idea with horror, but…why? I was more shocked by the notion that Star Fleet wasn’t already a semi-military organization. I just couldn’t quite figure out why the idea of having defensive capabilities was a bad idea, given that a single ship of angry people was able to BLOW UP AN ENTIRE PLANET in the first film, and this film introduced the vague threat of the Klingons. It kind of seemed like Star Fleet needed to get their shit together. The characters were all, “War ships? Fuck no!” while the audience was like, “That’s probably not the worst idea ever.”

But by far the most interesting and most underserved narrative was that of the villain, John Harrison, aka Khan. Played by Benedict Cumberbatch in his mainstream debut, Khan was barely fleshed out and relied too heavily on the audience glass case of emotionbeing familiar with previous Star Trek properties. What was great about the 2009 Star Trek was that you didn’t have to know anything about Star Trek to roll with it, but Darkness supposed that everyone would get why Khan was a big badass without really justifying it in the present. Cumberbatch proved more than up to the task of being the big bad in a major blockbuster, bringing a silky kind of menace to Khan and a surprisingly capable and bulked-up physicality to the role.

Unfortunately, the part is underwritten and we’re told a lot about Khan without ever getting to see any of it. The two righteous brawls belong to him, so we know he can kick some ass, but we don’t get much opportunity to see him be really evil. He’s a dick, yes, but he’s a motivated dick. The fact that Khan is as much a victim as he is a perpetrator is never directly addressed—is, at points, stubbornly ignored—and the film is weaker for it. Not unlike Loki in the Marvel movies, as Khan is fucking shit up for everyone and everything, you can’t help think, “This is not appropriate behavior but maybe his anger is justified.”

khanBut where Marvel works to toe the line between Loki’s hurt and his rage, Abrams makes no effort to give Khan a similar arc. I can’t help but think Star Trek Into Darkness would have been better off if it earned that title and the movie was about John Harrison falling in with Kirk and Spock and the slow reveal of his true identity as Khan was saved for the very end, when he committed some atrocity and took off into open space, leaving the door open for future conflict. It would have given Cumberbatch more to do, given the film a much-needed emotional core, and earned every bit of that “into darkness” line.

The Great Gatsby is as beautiful and hollow as Jay Gatsby’s world

Posted in Movies, Reviews with tags , , , , , , on May 13, 2013 by Sarah

Great-Gatsby-posterTake this review with a grain of salt: I am not a huge F. Scott Fitzgerald fan. He’s arguably the most overrated author in the American canon. That said, his seminal work, The Great Gatsby, is definitely one of his best efforts (Bernice Bobs Her Hair is his best work, period). And before you start yelling at me, I know that’s an unpopular opinion but I do base mine on having read every single thing Fitzgerald has written, all hundred-and-whatever stories, and ending up underwhelmed by the sum total of his output. Still. Gatsby is good.

And it’s ripe for a new cinematic interpretation, especially as Gatsby’s themes of excess, longing for the more perfect past, magical thinking and the shades of pending doom (free thesis topic for students: Do we read collapse and nihilism in Gatsby’s story because we know what ultimately happens to his world, come October 1929, or did Fitzgerald actually have some sense of pending disaster, did his position of inside-from-the-outside, not unlike Nick Carraway, give him the ability to see the rot at the core of the economy, just as Carraway saw Gatsby riding for a hard fall?) resonate in our post-economic-collapse world. Gatsby is eighty-eight years old and yet feels amazingly modern. Of course it’d make a great movie.

Baz Luhrmann, he of the neon-lit and hyperactive adaptations Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge, is the perfect guy to bring us a new retelling of Gatsby, as his detailed and lush visual style and romantic LIBRARY IMAGE OF THE GREAT GATSBYheart suit the material perfectly. Unfortunately for us, the Luhrmann that showed up to make The Great Gatsby was less Moulin Rouge and more Australia. Like that awful, over-long, bloated, self-indulgent movie, Luhrmann’s Gatsby is so over-the-top as to be migraine inducing, a loud, violently bright film that assaults your eyeballs repeatedly with more glitter and Day-Glo than your retinas can handle. And in 3D, nonetheless.

To be fair, Gatsby is not as bad Australia. The cast has actual chemistry, for one, and where Luhrmann’s style was at odds with the spare and unsparing Outback, in West Egg, he’s right at home with grandiose sets, lavish parties, and elaborate, truly gorgeous costumes. (Luhrmann’s partner, Catherine Martin, is responsible for the production and costume design and she knocked both out of the park. Hit mute and turn on some Debussy and you might be onto something.) Unfortunately, though, Luhrmann goes right past “spectacle”, which is where R+J and Moulin Rouge so campily landed, and into straight up excess. It’s just too much of everything. If every scene could be reduced by 33%–33% less loud, less bright, less people, less ACTORS ARE ACTING HERE—Gatsby might have been the combination homage/update Luhrmann intended.

the-great-gatsby-2012-official-movie-trailer-2-0Perfect example of Gatsby’s too-muchness: the narrative excess. At points in the film action is happening on the screen as Nick Carraway (played by a totally wasted and wet blanket Tobey Maguire) narrates, and just to make sure that we are.not.missing.the.point, text of the narration flies at our faces in 3 Goddamn D. It reminded me of Pain & Gain with its blunt-instrument style of storytelling. And that’s the problem here. As beautiful and lush as The Great Gatsby is, there is no grace or nuance to it. It’s shallow and vapid storytelling wielded with the precision of a Neanderthal’s club.

As for the actors, individually, they range from solid but uninspiring (Maguire) to pretty damn swell (Joel Edgerton as Tom Buchanan), but most fall into the category of “doing everything Iap-film-the-great-gatsby_001-4_3_r536_c534 can to make Baz happy but fuck if this wouldn’t be better if he’d back up and let me work”. Carey Mulligan and Leonardo DiCaprio are two actors who have natural, easy screen presences and who can do a great deal with very little. Mulligan glows in Luhrmann’s lurid fantasy-land, but her acting is stiff and a beat slow, like she’s filtering through her own instincts to meet Luhrmann’s intent. It’s a shame, because on the surface, she’s a great Daisy. Ditto for DiCaprio, who labors mightily under Luhrmann’s direction and acts SO HARD he looks like he’s about to bust a vein in several scenes. This is why DiCaprio/Scorsese has been such a productive partnership—Scorsese knows when to get out of DiCaprio’s way. Luhrmann did well by diCaprio when he was a young man, but nearly 20 years later, he’s lost the knack.

callum-mcauliffeI’ll tell you this, though. I wasn’t impressed with much in Gatsby, but that kid that played the younger iteration of Jay Gatsby, he was something. Brief part, but memorable. Callan McAuliffe—worth remembering.

Iron Man 3 just ate the box office

Posted in Movies with tags , , , , , on May 7, 2013 by Sarah

iron-man-3-03First, right off the top, what did you think about Iron Man 3? Did it live up to the hype? How much did you love RDJ punking off that little kid? How much did you want to own Pepper Potts’ wardrobe? Were you actually kind of sad when DUM-E and Butterfingers fell into the ocean? Or any time the Mark 42 got dinged up in combat? I have always been impressed with the filmmakers’ ability to anthropomorphize the suits and Tony’s robot pals, and it paid off in that hella amazing sequence of Tony’s house plummeting into the ocean (so long, coolest movie house of all time), and the quick shot of the two robot friends trying to hold onto one another as they fell. There’s an ongoing conversation about whether or not Iron Man 3 is better than Iron Man, but I put them on the same level. Iron Man is stronger narratively and has a much better ending, but Iron Man 3 took bigger risks and had a more distinctive aesthetic thanks to director Shane Black (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang).

And of course, Iron Man 3 is destroying previous entries into the franchise, netting $174.1 million over its opening weekend, making it the second biggest opening weekend of all time, house partybehind its big cousin, The Avengers. Presently IM3 has over $680 million in worldwide box office and is on pace to make AT LEAST $800 million cumulative, though I think it’s going to push closer to a billion. What does this mean? It means The Avengers was not a fluke.

Yes, Iron Man is the most popular of the—sub-franchises?—in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and yes, audiences have an extreme degree of affection for Tony Stark and Robert Downey, Jr., so IM3 gets an extra bump because it is and always has been the cornerstone of this project. But the real story of IM3’s success is not “people really love RDJ/Tony Stark”, though they do; the real story is that The Avengers worked so well the entire web of Avenger-related franchises is now standing on a higher platform. Exactly how much higher will be determined by Thor: The Dark World come November—with RDJ component removed that will be a better gauge for the long-range impact of The Avengers.

iron-man-3-tony-stark-robert-downey-jr

But it’s looking good. Even though Thor 2 is a bit of a mess at present, the early forecasters for box office predictions are strong, and they’ve gotten stronger in the wake of IM3. It’s way, way early, but looking at the benchmarks industry analysts use to make predictions, Thor 2 could be looking at a $700-800 million total take, nearly double what Thor 1 did. And that’s the post-Avengers reality: the base audience for these movies has been doubled. It’s going to be fascinating to see what happens with Guardians of the Galaxy, the first brand-new franchise entry to follow The Avengers. When Marvel announced their intent to make Iron Man starring the recently-rehabbed RDJ, the industry collectively rolled their eyes. Seven years later, the joke’s on them.

Summer Movie Preview: May 2013

Posted in Movies, Previews with tags , , , , on May 3, 2013 by Sarah

Let’s pretend like I didn’t forget to do this for April and almost May, too. Good? Good!

May 3

Generation Um

I suppose this is one of those “Generation X grew up to be so annoying, am I right?” movies. It’s about three different people spread across Manhattan on a single day, and one of those people is Keanu Reeves. It looks spectacularly uninteresting.

Limited

Read more »

Tony Stark finds new ways to surprise on his third time out

Posted in Movies, Reviews with tags , , , , on May 1, 2013 by Sarah

iron_man_3_poster_finalIron Man 3 is the fourth time—fifth if you count this—that we’ve seen Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark. At this point, there is no avoiding the touch of franchise fatigue that haunts the latest in Marvel’s “Cinematic Universe”, Iron Man 3. But, amazingly, for all that Tony and his world feel well-worn and lived in, Iron Man 3 manages to surprise and delight in turns, bringing an unexpected freshness to the official start of Marvel’s Phase Two. It’s a bit like a pair of old jeans you’d forgotten fit, only to put them on one day and realize—hey, these jeans make my ass look great! Iron Man 3 makes Tony Stark’s ass look great. Read more »

Pain & Gain is so Michael Bay it hurts

Posted in Movies, Reviews with tags , , , , , on April 29, 2013 by Sarah

Pain_&_Gain_Teaser_PosterIf you think you know Michael Bay, let me tell you, you don’t know Michael Bay until you’ve seen Pain & Gain. You haven’t even begun to tap into the Michael Bayness of the world until you’ve stewed in two hours-plus of pure, unadulterated Michael Bay.

Pain & Gain sucks. It takes sucking to new, previously unexplored heights. It sucks so hard that the only logical explanation for its unmitigated suckitude is that Michael Bay must, in fact, be the son of Mega-Maid. Because he only has two settings: Suck and blow. And once Pain & Gain has sucked so much that its eyeballs implode from the internal pressure, it switches gears and blows. It blows hard, and long, and with the unrelenting precision of projectile vomit. Read more »

iSteve: The uninformed biopic experiment

Posted in Movies, Reviews with tags , , , , , , on April 22, 2013 by Sarah

iSteve posterIf someone walked up to me today and said, “Make a biopic of Mother Theresa but don’t do any research and you only have ten thousand bucks and two months to make it,” the result would look something like iSteve, the first feature film—though at a lean 78 minutes we’re pushing that line—produced by internet comedy site Funny or Die. I know Mother Theresa was a nun, and she helped poor people, but that’s all I’ve got. If I had to flesh out a three-act story with no research, there would be a lot of made up shit and an over reliance on the tropes of bildungsroman. Which is how iSteve played out. Written and directed by FoD regular contributor Ryan Perez and starring Justin Long as Steve Jobs, iSteve is a multi-part experiment that works, for the most part, and even hits on a few truly inspired comedic moments. Read more »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 187 other followers