In 1986, the Star Trek movie franchise took a diversion from the drama to situation based comedy. The film, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was funny, and smart. It was also a risk that worked as it was well received by the critics, general audience and fans. Avengers: Endgame takes a risk also. It is the sequel to last year's Avengers: Infinity War, an extremely fast and kinetic superhero movie. Endgame decides to focus much on the characters and has quite a bit of humor.
Endgame takes place after Thanos (Josh Brolin) has snapped away half of life in the universe with the Infinity Gauntlet in Infinity War. And if you're lost at this moment, I'm not going to go over all twenty one films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. (MCU) Did I get all of them? I think I've seen almost all of them with the exception of The Incredible Hulk. (2008) As a kid, I was never a fan of the jolly er... angry green giant. Just accept the fact that earth's mightiest heroes have lost.
Anyway, the surviving Avengers find out which planet that Thanos has his retirement home on. They decide to go and pay him and see if they can borrow the Gauntlet and snap every one back into existence. I mean not really "borrow." Unfortunately, Thanos has destroyed the Infinity Stones that power the gauntlet. Stop looking at me that way. I know it's geeky. Well, Avengers lose again.
Flash five years forward. Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is living a happy life because he has a family with a daughter. Steve Rogers aka Captain America (Chris Evans) is leading group therapy sessions with Bob Newhart just kidding about Bob Newart. You remember his show? Too old. Okay. Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is leading what's left of the Avengers but there ain't that much too do since half of the universe ceases to exist. Look, let's face box office reality here. You don't think half of Marvel's heroes are going to stay dead, do you? I'm pretty sure Disney is going to fix this in the script since Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) was a gigantic box office movie. And Sony is going to want Spider-Man (Tom Holland) back, especially since he's got a movie out this summer!
Well, Scott Lang aka Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) reappears from the movie wrecking end credits scene in last year's Ant-Man and the Wasp. You see he's been in the Quantum Realm but hasn't aged. He has an idea. Go back in time and steal the Infinity Stones.. Bring them back to the future and voila. Snap everybody back into existence.
Okay, anytime you have time travel in a movie, some in the audience are going to sit there and think about the "grandfather paradox." I do. But as the movie correctly points out in a couple of places, this ain't Back to the Future or Star Trek, the original series' episode "The City on the Edge of Forever." Going back into time does not change the present. It may create parallel universes or an alternate reality. But our heroes have that figured out. They will also return the stones back to where they found them. I'll save the problems in this plot for another post. At this point, stop thinking about this, okay?
Well, if you've been watching any of the MCU films, you know the Infinity Stones are in many of them. And Endgame takes our heroes back to visit some of the scenes. . This creates a wonderful valentine to the fans to see the Avengers visit the great movies of years past. It also creates hilarious opportunities for the heroes as they see themselves in the past timeline. There are also touching moments as well.
Congratulations to screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely for creating a script that takes an adventurous, original route into more character than action. It's warm and funny. And yes, you will weep along with the laughing. But this is a superhero movie and there's going to beepic heroic action. It all works beautifully.
Composer Alan Silvestri sticks to classical, swing and jazz. A great choice in music not because those are some of my favorite genres. This film is meant to be classic. So use music that fits and stands the test of time. The score is just lovely and worth listening as you watch the credits because there's no end credit scene.
As for the cast, there are no false moments with their performances. Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Paul Rudd, Josh Brolin, Brie Larson and Karen Gillan all are more than adequate. But let me praise everybody for their comic timing more than anything.
Directors Joe and Anthony Russo are back from Infinity War.. They are actually better at directing the quiet, touching and funny scenes than action. While their action direction is too frenetic to be able to see clearly. I wish they would slow down and use more bodies in action than fast cutting. Still, they absolutely know how to stage a great moment. When Captain America says, "Avengers assemble" you'll want to join the fight. (That's Captain America's line from the comic books.)
If you've loved the MCU movies, go see Avengers: Endgame. If you love cinema, go see Avengers: Endgame. It's exciting, inspiring, touching and funny. The grade is A.
Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Trek. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Sunday, November 25, 2018
First Man review
Are new cinematic takes on particular subjects already covered advisable? Or should it be that a different look at a subject or genre will work? Because that's what director Damen Chazelle's First Man is. It's a different, unusual take on America's space program, this time it's the story of the first man on the moon, Neil Armstorng.
Based on the biography, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong by James Hansen, the film starts out with test pilot Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) struggling to fly and land the NASA test spacecraft X-15. It's harrowing and one of the constant reminders that astronauts would face death at every turn. The movie then shows Armstrong's other struggle. His child daughter Karen is suffering from cancer. She succumbs to it and her memory haunts Armstrong for the rest of his life. At the same time, his wife Janet (Claire Foy) cares for Armstrong's two sons. After the X-15 test flights, Armstrong applies for astronaut and makes the cut. He is befriended by astronaut Ed White. (Jason Clarke) The rest of the film is the story of Armstrong's participation in NASA's Gemini and Apollo space programs. The last which leads to Apollo 11 and the moon landing.
Armstrong was quiet. He was an enigma. Gosling plays a man who maintains an even strain while suppressing his emotions. He's even more Spock than Spock. Janet (Claire Foy) struggles with raising a family and dealing with the idea that her husband may not come back from work.
Director Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer have decided to make this movie an indie like take on an legendary story. Whereas, the predictable way of doing this movie would be similar to another film on the space program, The Right Stuff. (1983) That movie had an epic feel. Chazelle's approach is a swing and miss. First Man feels small compared to the titanic subject matter.
This small approach to an epic leads to a dull film. First, Chazelle keeps the lighting dim, diffuse and strained. The Armstrong home looks like a set in an indie movie.. Second, many times he films the astronauts from a first person view or from within the spaceship. Yeah, it gives the movie a claustrophobic vibe but the audience doesn't get what is happening because you don't see the ships from the outside. For example, during a Gemini mission, Armstrong's ship starts to spin out of control. But because the focus is on Armstrong, we don't really have a good feel of what is happening with the ship. That's drama draining.
Then there is the music score. Composer Justin Hurwitz's melodic talents which were vividly demonstrated in La La Land (2016) are set aside. This movie demands the fanfare of The Right Stuff's Bill Conti. Hurtwitz decides to go Philip Glass. Any emotional boost is non-existent. His score is musical wallpaper.
The saving grace of this movie is that it is competently made. I can admire the craft but not it's emotional impact If you're looking for a dramatic telling of the Apollo project, you should try to find the HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon. (1998) First Man can be as barren as the moon. The grade is C Plus.
. . .
Based on the biography, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong by James Hansen, the film starts out with test pilot Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) struggling to fly and land the NASA test spacecraft X-15. It's harrowing and one of the constant reminders that astronauts would face death at every turn. The movie then shows Armstrong's other struggle. His child daughter Karen is suffering from cancer. She succumbs to it and her memory haunts Armstrong for the rest of his life. At the same time, his wife Janet (Claire Foy) cares for Armstrong's two sons. After the X-15 test flights, Armstrong applies for astronaut and makes the cut. He is befriended by astronaut Ed White. (Jason Clarke) The rest of the film is the story of Armstrong's participation in NASA's Gemini and Apollo space programs. The last which leads to Apollo 11 and the moon landing.
Armstrong was quiet. He was an enigma. Gosling plays a man who maintains an even strain while suppressing his emotions. He's even more Spock than Spock. Janet (Claire Foy) struggles with raising a family and dealing with the idea that her husband may not come back from work.
Director Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer have decided to make this movie an indie like take on an legendary story. Whereas, the predictable way of doing this movie would be similar to another film on the space program, The Right Stuff. (1983) That movie had an epic feel. Chazelle's approach is a swing and miss. First Man feels small compared to the titanic subject matter.
This small approach to an epic leads to a dull film. First, Chazelle keeps the lighting dim, diffuse and strained. The Armstrong home looks like a set in an indie movie.. Second, many times he films the astronauts from a first person view or from within the spaceship. Yeah, it gives the movie a claustrophobic vibe but the audience doesn't get what is happening because you don't see the ships from the outside. For example, during a Gemini mission, Armstrong's ship starts to spin out of control. But because the focus is on Armstrong, we don't really have a good feel of what is happening with the ship. That's drama draining.
Then there is the music score. Composer Justin Hurwitz's melodic talents which were vividly demonstrated in La La Land (2016) are set aside. This movie demands the fanfare of The Right Stuff's Bill Conti. Hurtwitz decides to go Philip Glass. Any emotional boost is non-existent. His score is musical wallpaper.
The saving grace of this movie is that it is competently made. I can admire the craft but not it's emotional impact If you're looking for a dramatic telling of the Apollo project, you should try to find the HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon. (1998) First Man can be as barren as the moon. The grade is C Plus.
. . .
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Where's the radical feminist outrage for Thor: Ragnarok?
In a scene from Thor: Ragnarok, there is a shirtless Chris Hemsworth as Thor. He's really cut as they pointed out in the first Thor movie. Beefcake for the ladies and gay guys. You remember the brouhaha for Star Trek Into Darkness's Alice Eve underwear scene? I got in a big fight with a radical feminist and political correct types who accused me of being evil for defending Star Trek's playful sexuality. And I'm a liberal. Well, radical feminists where's your outrage over the shirtless Hemsworth? Isn't that objectification? Yep, the silence is is deafening.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Columbus review
Columbus, Indiana is a small town that is the birthplace of Vice President Mike Pence. And I'm guessing that most Americans didn't know this. It is also a place where the late J. Irwin Miller of the Cummins Company led a private-public effort to construct buildings of modern architecture and art. The film Columbus uses this fascinating city as a backdrop.
Jin (Star Trek's John Cho) is a Korean-American who must stop in Columbus, Indiana after his professor father becomes ill and falls into a coma. Cho's performance has empathy and sadness as he is confronting the mortality of his father. Casey (Haley Lu Richardson) is a young woman who is taking care of her addict-mother, Maria played by Michelle Forbes. (Star Trek: The Next Generation) She gives an honest performance as a working class single mother. Unfortunately, Casey is putting her dreams of going to Yale in order to stay with her. Richardson turns in a realistic performance of a woman who is dedicated to her sacrifice but also has a yearning for something more. The two meet and develop a friendship among the art and architecture.
Writer and director Kogonada obviously has a love for this city of art. He uses it as a plot device while also getting Casey to talk about all the buildings and sculptures. It might be contrived except that Kogonada weaves his characters with the art, which obviously includes the architecture. They interact with it.
The look of this film is itself a work of art. Kogonada carefully frames each shot the way Kurosawa did with his movies. It's twenty first century Hopper. Hallways, buildings, furniture, rooms, sculptures even a chain link fence are shot in creative ways. He uses shadow to cover some characters. There are scenes shot with natural light. A mirror is used to reflect an intimate conversation. And in these photographic paintings are moving characters, people.
But among all of this art, this need for perfection are the imperfect lives of people. Jin is also estranged from his father. His dilemma is how long does he stay with him. Casey's dreams may disappear. These are two lonely people with paths that intersect like a work of modern architecture. My only problem with this film is that Kogonada could have used some subtle music as background for the conversations between Jin and Casey. It was a little too quiet.
Columbus is a film that conveys many things. Loneliness. Sadness. Warmth. Love. Beauty. It deserves multiple viewings. The grade is A Minus.
Jin (Star Trek's John Cho) is a Korean-American who must stop in Columbus, Indiana after his professor father becomes ill and falls into a coma. Cho's performance has empathy and sadness as he is confronting the mortality of his father. Casey (Haley Lu Richardson) is a young woman who is taking care of her addict-mother, Maria played by Michelle Forbes. (Star Trek: The Next Generation) She gives an honest performance as a working class single mother. Unfortunately, Casey is putting her dreams of going to Yale in order to stay with her. Richardson turns in a realistic performance of a woman who is dedicated to her sacrifice but also has a yearning for something more. The two meet and develop a friendship among the art and architecture.
Writer and director Kogonada obviously has a love for this city of art. He uses it as a plot device while also getting Casey to talk about all the buildings and sculptures. It might be contrived except that Kogonada weaves his characters with the art, which obviously includes the architecture. They interact with it.
The look of this film is itself a work of art. Kogonada carefully frames each shot the way Kurosawa did with his movies. It's twenty first century Hopper. Hallways, buildings, furniture, rooms, sculptures even a chain link fence are shot in creative ways. He uses shadow to cover some characters. There are scenes shot with natural light. A mirror is used to reflect an intimate conversation. And in these photographic paintings are moving characters, people.
But among all of this art, this need for perfection are the imperfect lives of people. Jin is also estranged from his father. His dilemma is how long does he stay with him. Casey's dreams may disappear. These are two lonely people with paths that intersect like a work of modern architecture. My only problem with this film is that Kogonada could have used some subtle music as background for the conversations between Jin and Casey. It was a little too quiet.
Columbus is a film that conveys many things. Loneliness. Sadness. Warmth. Love. Beauty. It deserves multiple viewings. The grade is A Minus.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Stephen Miller should have learned diversity from Star Trek
Back on August 2, White House adviser Stephen Miller defended conservative President Trump's new policy to select English speaking people for legal immigration. CNN's Jim Acosta challenged the policy by raising the poem on the Statue of Liberty about the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and arguing that the administration favors immigrants from Great Britain, Australia, i.e. white English speaking countries. Miller then stated that the poem was added later to the statue and implied that it doesn't mean anything as it relates the the monument. He then accused Acosta of having a cosmopolitan bias. Which means Acosta believes in a kind of America that is a melting pot of races and ideas. Politico article.
While researching whether Miller is a racist, I found he is a Star Trek fan. Vanity Fair. I would suggest Miller follow the ideas of Star Trek. Its creator, Gene Roddenberry, intentionally made a crew of multiple races to push diversity. (Video below.) So it's right for Star Trek, it's right for America. We are a melting pot. And diversity is our strength. Just look at the Women's Olympic Gymnastics team of 1996 and 2016 which won team Gold Medals.
Gene Roddenberry interview ABC Good Morning America, 1986; at 30 seconds made diversity of the crew a priority
While researching whether Miller is a racist, I found he is a Star Trek fan. Vanity Fair. I would suggest Miller follow the ideas of Star Trek. Its creator, Gene Roddenberry, intentionally made a crew of multiple races to push diversity. (Video below.) So it's right for Star Trek, it's right for America. We are a melting pot. And diversity is our strength. Just look at the Women's Olympic Gymnastics team of 1996 and 2016 which won team Gold Medals.
Gene Roddenberry interview ABC Good Morning America, 1986; at 30 seconds made diversity of the crew a priority
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets review
There are movies when I watch them that make me ask myself, "Am I high?" Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is such a film. So many scenes were hallucinatory. While watching this movie, I wondered if it would be more enjoyable smoking a joint. Okay, I'm joking about the marijuana stuff. But wow, when you see this film, you will be asking 'What the hell is going on?"
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets takes place in the 28th century. Mankind has sent a gigantic space station into space and it being prime real estate attracts thousands of aliens to build upon it and live there. Then Vladimir Putin uses some of the buildings to launder stolen cash. Okay, the last part about Putin is not right.
An androgynous species lives in harmony with nature on the planet called "Mu", or was it "Mule?" They cultivate energy pearls. These pearls are created by space hamsters which sh%t them out. I am not kidding about the space hamsters. All right, maybe the space hamsters aren't sh%tting out the pearls but it seems that way or else they're really constipated. Anyway, a huge space ship crashes and destroys the planet.
Flash forward? Major Valerian (Dane DeHaan) and Laureline (Cara Delevingne) are agents of a human police force. They are given a mission by the defense minister (jazz pianist Herbie Hancock?!) to secure one of those space hamsters at a multi-dimensional market. Anyway, it seems other aliens want that space hamster because he's just so cute and he sh%ts energy pearls. All right maybe the cuteness isn't a factor.
Director and writer Luc Besson (The Fifth Element) has taken a French comic and with today's CGI created visually stunning science fiction universe. These are strange new worlds with new life and civilizations. Besson boldly goes where no director has gone before... um, sorry about that. But really, Star Trek could use a little of Valerian in the new life and worlds part. Anyway, Besson milks every bit or should I say byte of the computers of the special effects teams to create dozens of alien species, ships and future technologies.
But it's Besson's "particular set of skills" as a filmmaker that blind him. Yeah, he can create beautiful worlds, exciting action and even write some good jokes. However, he forgets to make a coherent movie. Confusion occurs often due to a lack of exposition and indulgence. During one part of the movie Laureline is forced to wear a dress by hostile aliens. Why? Don't know. Was it necessary to have a market in another dimension so that you had to wear special gear to shop in it? Let me explain this confusing concept further. Valerian is walking around in one reality while his projection or avatar is actually in another.
Besson also likes space divas in his movies. Remember the blue singer in The Fifth Element? This time he has a shapeshifter named Bubble. She's played by Rihanna. Yep, she sings here. What next? Are you going to tell be that fomer model Cara Delevingne is a singer also?
Oy.
After seeing Rihanna's bad acting and ridiculous character in Battleship, there should be a cinematic rule. No Rihanna. For the most part, Besson does a good job writing Bubble and controlling Rihanna's performance. But then there is Bubble's death scene. I know that may be a mild spoiler but Besson kind of wrote himself in a corner because the movie is about Valerian and Laureline. This ain't the Three Musketeers. Anyway, it's never explained how she received her fatal blow. Did a space sword pop her bubble? Don't know. We just see an emotional Valerian comfort her as Rihanna badly acts her way out of the movie.
So, what is the grade? Hold on. In the cast is the goddess Elizabeth Debicki. The grade is going up... must refrain from giving this crazy mess a high grade. Must remember space hamsters pooping pearls . Movie could be a future Mystery Science Theater 3000 project. But the stunning visuals and humor make it a guilty pleasure. The grade for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is B minus.
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets takes place in the 28th century. Mankind has sent a gigantic space station into space and it being prime real estate attracts thousands of aliens to build upon it and live there. Then Vladimir Putin uses some of the buildings to launder stolen cash. Okay, the last part about Putin is not right.
An androgynous species lives in harmony with nature on the planet called "Mu", or was it "Mule?" They cultivate energy pearls. These pearls are created by space hamsters which sh%t them out. I am not kidding about the space hamsters. All right, maybe the space hamsters aren't sh%tting out the pearls but it seems that way or else they're really constipated. Anyway, a huge space ship crashes and destroys the planet.
Flash forward? Major Valerian (Dane DeHaan) and Laureline (Cara Delevingne) are agents of a human police force. They are given a mission by the defense minister (jazz pianist Herbie Hancock?!) to secure one of those space hamsters at a multi-dimensional market. Anyway, it seems other aliens want that space hamster because he's just so cute and he sh%ts energy pearls. All right maybe the cuteness isn't a factor.
Director and writer Luc Besson (The Fifth Element) has taken a French comic and with today's CGI created visually stunning science fiction universe. These are strange new worlds with new life and civilizations. Besson boldly goes where no director has gone before... um, sorry about that. But really, Star Trek could use a little of Valerian in the new life and worlds part. Anyway, Besson milks every bit or should I say byte of the computers of the special effects teams to create dozens of alien species, ships and future technologies.
But it's Besson's "particular set of skills" as a filmmaker that blind him. Yeah, he can create beautiful worlds, exciting action and even write some good jokes. However, he forgets to make a coherent movie. Confusion occurs often due to a lack of exposition and indulgence. During one part of the movie Laureline is forced to wear a dress by hostile aliens. Why? Don't know. Was it necessary to have a market in another dimension so that you had to wear special gear to shop in it? Let me explain this confusing concept further. Valerian is walking around in one reality while his projection or avatar is actually in another.
Besson also likes space divas in his movies. Remember the blue singer in The Fifth Element? This time he has a shapeshifter named Bubble. She's played by Rihanna. Yep, she sings here. What next? Are you going to tell be that fomer model Cara Delevingne is a singer also?
Oy.
After seeing Rihanna's bad acting and ridiculous character in Battleship, there should be a cinematic rule. No Rihanna. For the most part, Besson does a good job writing Bubble and controlling Rihanna's performance. But then there is Bubble's death scene. I know that may be a mild spoiler but Besson kind of wrote himself in a corner because the movie is about Valerian and Laureline. This ain't the Three Musketeers. Anyway, it's never explained how she received her fatal blow. Did a space sword pop her bubble? Don't know. We just see an emotional Valerian comfort her as Rihanna badly acts her way out of the movie.
So, what is the grade? Hold on. In the cast is the goddess Elizabeth Debicki. The grade is going up... must refrain from giving this crazy mess a high grade. Must remember space hamsters pooping pearls . Movie could be a future Mystery Science Theater 3000 project. But the stunning visuals and humor make it a guilty pleasure. The grade for Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is B minus.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Dunkirk IMAX review
There's an expression, "live to fight another day." Throughout history, armies have retreated or "strategically redeployed" and survived to fight another day. It is a viable tactic. Look at our American history. George Washington at New York. Now comes a British tale of retreat. It is director and writer Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk.
It's 1940, World War II. Nazi Germany has routed the British and French. What's left of their troops are now surrounded in a French seaside town called Dunkirk. If the British army is destroyed, it's over for the allies and Nazi Germany dominates Europe and perhaps wins the war. The United States at that time has not entered the war. The allies must escape across the English Channel or be destroyed.
Nolan's film follows three arenas of the battle of Dunkirk. First, we meet an English private named Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) who is seen literally running for his life through streets to the beach. Then there is Dawson. (Mark Rylance) He's an English civilian with a motorized yacht. With his son and a teenage friend, they take off for Dunkirk to help rescue soldiers trapped on the beach. The third part of the battle followed is in the air. A squadron of RAF Spitfires is deployed to protect the evacuation of troops. One of the pilots is Farrier. (Tom Hardy) Other actors Kenneth Branagh and James D'Arcy play British officers and provide exposition.
The movie tells the tale of the three in a non-linear fashion, i.e. the story threads intertwine. It also makes the conscious decision to keep its characters somewhat nameless. You won't hear a lot of other soldiers calling each other by their names. Perhaps, that's to demonstrate that the battle was a group effort of the British to prevail.
Performances are all excellent. Fionn Whitehead's Tommy is a scared soldier trying to survive as he's constantly bombed or fired upon. Mark Rylance shows us what the "stiff upper lip" of the English is all about. He's all about his mission to rescue soldiers in the face of trauma of war. I'm a fan of Tom Hardy. (Star Trek: Nemesis). His performance is handicapped by the fact that he must wear a flight mask during most of the movie. Hardy's brilliance is to show his emotions of desperation and determination without seeing three quarters of his face. You get it from his eyes, forehead, and body movement. And listen carefully. There's Michael Caine as one of the pilots. It's honoring Caine's appearance in The Battle of Britain. (1969)
Christopher Nolan has made a taut and riveting film about survival. Dunkirk is more about the individual stories than about big armies facing off with each other. You won't get huge shots of CGI ships and troops. What Nolan does show is that death comes from a faceless Nazi army. He accurately depicts German Stuka dive bombers with their shrill air sirens. When you see and hear them coming at the English soldiers, even being a filmgoer in the theater one is terrified. And that's the point of a Stuka's siren. Not only does it announce the coming of death, it also terrorizes and demoralizes surviving troops. While watching this movie, I never assumed that a character in the movie will live.
Dunkirk is a movie that looks gorgeous and epic on the screen. Fist, Nolan loves shooting on film versus digital video. I am not a disciple of either but film does have more warmth perhaps due to the imperfections whereas video tends to capture more detail. Anyway, Dunkirk radiates that warmth. And by not cramming the screen with thousands of CGI troops and ships, Nolan gives the picture wide open spaces.
There are minor flaws in Dunkirk. For the most part, Nolan stays away from sappy sentimentality, he does engage in a moment of Hollywood hype. I'm talking about a scene where a RAF pilot attacks a Stuka while gliding. Another thing is the overlapping story threads tend to interrupt each other.
Nolan tasks Hans Zimmer to compose the score. Zimmer who has worked on Nolan films (Inception, Interstellar etc.) before. He has a style that emphasizes atmosphere over melody. For the most part, Zimmer's dissonant score for Dunkirk works. This is a reflection of twentieth century conflict versus nineteenth century romanticism. But then he overdoes it with strange instrument combinations such as using electric stings, pulsating rhythms, dissonance and turning up the volume to disturbing levels. It can be overkill.
As far as seeing this movie in regular IMAX, let me point out that Nolan shot Dunkirk with 65 mm IMAX film. (Video belwo.) It was released in regular IMAX or what I call for my viewing digital IMAX. Nolan's preferred viewing is 70 mm film and IMAX film. (Variety)
Good luck finding a theater with a 70 mm projector. According to the article only about 125 exist nationwide. You see movie theaters have moved away from using projectors that use film to ones that use digital hard drives. So you are more than likely going to see Dunkirk on a digital print or regular IMAX, i.e. not IMAX Film. I do recommend IMAX regardless of version. IMAX always gives you better resolution. Add to that the gigantic screen. What you get with Dunkirk is a feeling as if you are there. You are present in a living painting. This is especially prevalent with the first person flying scenes.
Dunkirk is a stunning epic. Scary and thrilling. I can only hope that Christopher Nolan follows it up with a Battle of Britain movie. The grade is A.
It's 1940, World War II. Nazi Germany has routed the British and French. What's left of their troops are now surrounded in a French seaside town called Dunkirk. If the British army is destroyed, it's over for the allies and Nazi Germany dominates Europe and perhaps wins the war. The United States at that time has not entered the war. The allies must escape across the English Channel or be destroyed.
Nolan's film follows three arenas of the battle of Dunkirk. First, we meet an English private named Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) who is seen literally running for his life through streets to the beach. Then there is Dawson. (Mark Rylance) He's an English civilian with a motorized yacht. With his son and a teenage friend, they take off for Dunkirk to help rescue soldiers trapped on the beach. The third part of the battle followed is in the air. A squadron of RAF Spitfires is deployed to protect the evacuation of troops. One of the pilots is Farrier. (Tom Hardy) Other actors Kenneth Branagh and James D'Arcy play British officers and provide exposition.
The movie tells the tale of the three in a non-linear fashion, i.e. the story threads intertwine. It also makes the conscious decision to keep its characters somewhat nameless. You won't hear a lot of other soldiers calling each other by their names. Perhaps, that's to demonstrate that the battle was a group effort of the British to prevail.
Performances are all excellent. Fionn Whitehead's Tommy is a scared soldier trying to survive as he's constantly bombed or fired upon. Mark Rylance shows us what the "stiff upper lip" of the English is all about. He's all about his mission to rescue soldiers in the face of trauma of war. I'm a fan of Tom Hardy. (Star Trek: Nemesis). His performance is handicapped by the fact that he must wear a flight mask during most of the movie. Hardy's brilliance is to show his emotions of desperation and determination without seeing three quarters of his face. You get it from his eyes, forehead, and body movement. And listen carefully. There's Michael Caine as one of the pilots. It's honoring Caine's appearance in The Battle of Britain. (1969)
Christopher Nolan has made a taut and riveting film about survival. Dunkirk is more about the individual stories than about big armies facing off with each other. You won't get huge shots of CGI ships and troops. What Nolan does show is that death comes from a faceless Nazi army. He accurately depicts German Stuka dive bombers with their shrill air sirens. When you see and hear them coming at the English soldiers, even being a filmgoer in the theater one is terrified. And that's the point of a Stuka's siren. Not only does it announce the coming of death, it also terrorizes and demoralizes surviving troops. While watching this movie, I never assumed that a character in the movie will live.
Dunkirk is a movie that looks gorgeous and epic on the screen. Fist, Nolan loves shooting on film versus digital video. I am not a disciple of either but film does have more warmth perhaps due to the imperfections whereas video tends to capture more detail. Anyway, Dunkirk radiates that warmth. And by not cramming the screen with thousands of CGI troops and ships, Nolan gives the picture wide open spaces.
There are minor flaws in Dunkirk. For the most part, Nolan stays away from sappy sentimentality, he does engage in a moment of Hollywood hype. I'm talking about a scene where a RAF pilot attacks a Stuka while gliding. Another thing is the overlapping story threads tend to interrupt each other.
Nolan tasks Hans Zimmer to compose the score. Zimmer who has worked on Nolan films (Inception, Interstellar etc.) before. He has a style that emphasizes atmosphere over melody. For the most part, Zimmer's dissonant score for Dunkirk works. This is a reflection of twentieth century conflict versus nineteenth century romanticism. But then he overdoes it with strange instrument combinations such as using electric stings, pulsating rhythms, dissonance and turning up the volume to disturbing levels. It can be overkill.
As far as seeing this movie in regular IMAX, let me point out that Nolan shot Dunkirk with 65 mm IMAX film. (Video belwo.) It was released in regular IMAX or what I call for my viewing digital IMAX. Nolan's preferred viewing is 70 mm film and IMAX film. (Variety)
Good luck finding a theater with a 70 mm projector. According to the article only about 125 exist nationwide. You see movie theaters have moved away from using projectors that use film to ones that use digital hard drives. So you are more than likely going to see Dunkirk on a digital print or regular IMAX, i.e. not IMAX Film. I do recommend IMAX regardless of version. IMAX always gives you better resolution. Add to that the gigantic screen. What you get with Dunkirk is a feeling as if you are there. You are present in a living painting. This is especially prevalent with the first person flying scenes.
Dunkirk is a stunning epic. Scary and thrilling. I can only hope that Christopher Nolan follows it up with a Battle of Britain movie. The grade is A.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Star Trek: Discovery trailer
Here's the Star Trek: Discovery TV show trailer. Star Trek belongs on TV. Let's hope it's true to Gene Roddenberry's vision. I love Alexander Courage's Trek fanfare at the end.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
The Mummy review
Before The Mummy was released this month, I can imagine this conversation at Universal headquarters. Executive One says, "Just saw The Avengers box office profits for Disney. What movie franchise characters do we have? That guy that looks like a bat?" Battyman." Executive Two replies, "Batman. He belongs to Warner." "Damn." "The Funky Four?" "The Fantastic Four. Fox has that until their license runs out." "Frak." "Sir, we do have E.T." "Does E.T. have superpowers and can cause things to explode?" "No. But he's cute with big eyes and long fingers. He's really good with plants." "Never mind. Get me our monsters. The Mummy, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, Dracula and Frankenstein. And let's put Frankenstein and Dracula in one movie." "Um, sir. We did that in 2004. Van Helsing starring Hugh Jackman." "How did it do?" "Got killed by the critics. But made a nice profit." "Well, we need to trick the kids that our monsters are like Marvel and Batman. Hmm. Marvel Cinematic Universe. Dark Knight. I got it. Our franchise of movies will be called "Dark Universe". Don't just stand there. Get me Ted Cruz." "The right-wing nut from Texas?" "No. The one in that crazy cult that jumped on Oprah's couch." "Tom Cruise." "Right. Now, move. Time to make a billion bucks."
The Mummy stars out in modern England where ancient artifacts of the crusaders and some Egyptian hieroglyphics are found. The scene moves to Iraq where two soldiers Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) are trying to loot a village for the antiquities. They are stopped by Jenny halsey played by the lovely Annabelle Wallis. They stumble upon the tomb of and evil Egyptian royalty, Princess Ahmanet played by the sultry Sofia Boutella. (Star Trek: Beyond) They transport tomb and mummy of Ahmanet aboard a plane to Great Britain. Unfortunately, the Mummy comes alive and causes the plane to crash in England where the Mummy will rise and wreck havoc. The protagonists will need the help of the mysterious Dr. Henry Jekyll. (Russell Crowe) Yeah, the one of Jekyll and Hyde fame.
One reason I wanted to see this movie was the team of excellent writers. Here's is the list of people who were responsible for the screenplay, David Koepp (Mission Impossible) , Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects). Dylan Kussman,and the story, Jon Spaihts (Doctor Strange) , Director Alex Kurtzman (Star Trek) , and Jenny Lumet. (RRachel Getting Married) Now in writing a comedy, you might want a bunch of writers to bounce jokes off each other since getting laughs is subjective. Unfortunately, this movie has all the signs of too many cooks in the kitchen.
The Mummy can't decide what kind of movie it is. Is it a comedy buddy movie? Nick and Chris start out this way. Maybe it's Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy. I mean Chris is turned into an undead like the poor saps bitten by a werewolf in An American Werewolf in London. He shows up to kind of help Nick and offer some comic relief. But it's not enough. Is this movie a zombie flick? There are zombies, but they are mere minions. Superhero adventure? Yeah, Universal wishes. Without giving anything away, there's not enough heroic feats shown for that class of movie. You would think due to its horror lineage that the movie would be a good horror film. But it is not scary enough for the horror genre. In this day and age, The Mummy could have been a lot more gory. But I suspect the need to keep it at PG-13 for the teens made the filmmakers from giving us some really icky effects.
Director Kurtzman doesn't help things. He's hampered by the script but he's also a writer. For example, he had to see that there is no chemistry between Tom Cruise and Annabelle Wallis. Their characters were supposed to have a relationship. They don't even kiss in the film. So by the time, Cruise is supposed to care about her in the third act, you as the moviegoer won't. Kurtzman also mishandles the action scenes. The dual sins of fast cutting and badly lit scenes lead to confusion. The movie also commits the biggest sin in the monster movie genre. Must show the monster. I'm not going to spoil it for you. But this movie ends with a large hint that there's going to be a sequel. There's a monster created at the end but we don't see what "it" looks like.
The Mummy suffers because it's all commerce with very little art. It's more product and not all that entertaining. The grade is C Plus.
The Mummy stars out in modern England where ancient artifacts of the crusaders and some Egyptian hieroglyphics are found. The scene moves to Iraq where two soldiers Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) are trying to loot a village for the antiquities. They are stopped by Jenny halsey played by the lovely Annabelle Wallis. They stumble upon the tomb of and evil Egyptian royalty, Princess Ahmanet played by the sultry Sofia Boutella. (Star Trek: Beyond) They transport tomb and mummy of Ahmanet aboard a plane to Great Britain. Unfortunately, the Mummy comes alive and causes the plane to crash in England where the Mummy will rise and wreck havoc. The protagonists will need the help of the mysterious Dr. Henry Jekyll. (Russell Crowe) Yeah, the one of Jekyll and Hyde fame.
One reason I wanted to see this movie was the team of excellent writers. Here's is the list of people who were responsible for the screenplay, David Koepp (Mission Impossible) , Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects). Dylan Kussman,and the story, Jon Spaihts (Doctor Strange) , Director Alex Kurtzman (Star Trek) , and Jenny Lumet. (RRachel Getting Married) Now in writing a comedy, you might want a bunch of writers to bounce jokes off each other since getting laughs is subjective. Unfortunately, this movie has all the signs of too many cooks in the kitchen.
The Mummy can't decide what kind of movie it is. Is it a comedy buddy movie? Nick and Chris start out this way. Maybe it's Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy. I mean Chris is turned into an undead like the poor saps bitten by a werewolf in An American Werewolf in London. He shows up to kind of help Nick and offer some comic relief. But it's not enough. Is this movie a zombie flick? There are zombies, but they are mere minions. Superhero adventure? Yeah, Universal wishes. Without giving anything away, there's not enough heroic feats shown for that class of movie. You would think due to its horror lineage that the movie would be a good horror film. But it is not scary enough for the horror genre. In this day and age, The Mummy could have been a lot more gory. But I suspect the need to keep it at PG-13 for the teens made the filmmakers from giving us some really icky effects.
Director Kurtzman doesn't help things. He's hampered by the script but he's also a writer. For example, he had to see that there is no chemistry between Tom Cruise and Annabelle Wallis. Their characters were supposed to have a relationship. They don't even kiss in the film. So by the time, Cruise is supposed to care about her in the third act, you as the moviegoer won't. Kurtzman also mishandles the action scenes. The dual sins of fast cutting and badly lit scenes lead to confusion. The movie also commits the biggest sin in the monster movie genre. Must show the monster. I'm not going to spoil it for you. But this movie ends with a large hint that there's going to be a sequel. There's a monster created at the end but we don't see what "it" looks like.
The Mummy suffers because it's all commerce with very little art. It's more product and not all that entertaining. The grade is C Plus.
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Alien: Covenant review
Damon Lindelof (Lost) is off the hook. You see he wrote Prometheus (2012), the prequel to Alien: Covenant (Covenant) and was a major force behind Lost's seasons five and six. And his reputation for both was to leave a bunch of questions in the drama open. For Prometheus, he basically let the movie end on a cliff hanger as heroine Shaw (Naoomi Rapace) climbs into a ship with her robot friend, David (Michael Fassbender) going off to where the creators of the alien monsters live. Okay, some of Prometheus' mysteries also belong to director Ridley Scott, who directed the original Alien (1979), Prometheus and Covenant. Well, in Covenant, some of the questions raised are answered. Still, mad at Lost, seasons five and six. Damn you Damon!
Alien: Covenant begins with a flashback. We see Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) of the Weyland Corporation bring to life his robot, David. (Michael Fassbender) There's a brief discussion about creativity, and mortality. It's an important scene as it sets up a theme in the movie.
We then flash forward to the colony ship, Covenant. On board are 2000 souls and human embryos on their way to a planet that they plan to colonize. The humans are in cryogenic sleep for the journey. Hold on. This is the plot to Mass Effect: Andromeda. Luckily the movie does not have that video game's gltichy and crazy animation. Taking care of the crew as they sleep is another robot friend, Walter (Michael Fassbender) who is another version of the android David.
A neutrino burst hits the ship. The main computer, Mother wakes up the flight crew. Unfortunately, the ship's captain and husband of scientist Daniels Branson (Katherine Waterston) is killed. Executive officer Oram (Billy Crudup) is forced to take over. While repairing the ship, the crew discovers a human signal from a near world. Oram orders them to explore the planet of the signal's origin. This being an Alien movie, you can pretty much figure out that they don't find paradise with hulu dancing girls. Yeah, there be monsters. It's a horror movie okay?
The cast is all very good. But most of them are there just to be slaughtered. Michael Fassbender is always excellent. He improves any film he is in. I bought into his android who begins to question his existence. Billy Crudup shows a guilt ridden and uncertain captain. While the casting of Katherine Waterston as Daniels was pitch perfect. She's resourceful, smart and has the look of someone you would believe as a scientist on a mission to colonize strange new worlds.
Veteran writer John Logan (Star Trek: Nemesis) along with Dante Harper have penned a thought provoking screenplay from a story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green. Unlike Prometheus, the humans do very little stupid people things. Okay, I did scratch my head when the away team went on the planet without spacesuits. I mean there's a reason why we quarantine astronauts coming back from the moon. Or maybe one needs to read Michael Crichton's The Andromeda Strain. There could be nasty space viruses. And you guessed it. A couple of our meat bags er... crew members get it. Okay, I understand the movie has to infect the humans someway but maybe there could be a line about the biofilter will decontaminate them when they return.
Another thing. Will people please stop looking into the alien egg's orifice? Yeah, look in the opening with the pulsating raw chicken. At least, the characters should think about the Jack in the Box effect. Regardless of this minor stuff, the story does a pretty good job of portraying human emotions and motivations. Heck, even the film's sex scene could be explained in a deeper context to the themes.
This being a Ridley Scott movie, the visuals are gorgeous. And Scott mixes in more action than the original Alien movie. Though this movie does have more in common with Alien than Prometheus. In fact, there are musical nods such as the use of the original Alien theme by Jerry Goldsmith. But unlike the original movie's claustrophobic scares, much of the exciting action pieces takes place in open spaces. Thus, Scott creates a new and original setting for all of the carnage.
Yet, what really drives Covenant is the mystery. As much as there are answers given, more questions are raised. And there is those overall themes of existence and creation. This time I will assume more answers will be in the next Alien movie. See this movie knowing that this is a smart, horror film and part 2 of perhaps a trilogy. Hey, there might be a whole bunch more. Just remember in the movie theater, everybody can hear you scream. The grade is A.
This trailer has a cut scene. It's Daniels' speech.
Alien: Covenant begins with a flashback. We see Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) of the Weyland Corporation bring to life his robot, David. (Michael Fassbender) There's a brief discussion about creativity, and mortality. It's an important scene as it sets up a theme in the movie.
We then flash forward to the colony ship, Covenant. On board are 2000 souls and human embryos on their way to a planet that they plan to colonize. The humans are in cryogenic sleep for the journey. Hold on. This is the plot to Mass Effect: Andromeda. Luckily the movie does not have that video game's gltichy and crazy animation. Taking care of the crew as they sleep is another robot friend, Walter (Michael Fassbender) who is another version of the android David.
A neutrino burst hits the ship. The main computer, Mother wakes up the flight crew. Unfortunately, the ship's captain and husband of scientist Daniels Branson (Katherine Waterston) is killed. Executive officer Oram (Billy Crudup) is forced to take over. While repairing the ship, the crew discovers a human signal from a near world. Oram orders them to explore the planet of the signal's origin. This being an Alien movie, you can pretty much figure out that they don't find paradise with hulu dancing girls. Yeah, there be monsters. It's a horror movie okay?
The cast is all very good. But most of them are there just to be slaughtered. Michael Fassbender is always excellent. He improves any film he is in. I bought into his android who begins to question his existence. Billy Crudup shows a guilt ridden and uncertain captain. While the casting of Katherine Waterston as Daniels was pitch perfect. She's resourceful, smart and has the look of someone you would believe as a scientist on a mission to colonize strange new worlds.
Veteran writer John Logan (Star Trek: Nemesis) along with Dante Harper have penned a thought provoking screenplay from a story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green. Unlike Prometheus, the humans do very little stupid people things. Okay, I did scratch my head when the away team went on the planet without spacesuits. I mean there's a reason why we quarantine astronauts coming back from the moon. Or maybe one needs to read Michael Crichton's The Andromeda Strain. There could be nasty space viruses. And you guessed it. A couple of our meat bags er... crew members get it. Okay, I understand the movie has to infect the humans someway but maybe there could be a line about the biofilter will decontaminate them when they return.
Another thing. Will people please stop looking into the alien egg's orifice? Yeah, look in the opening with the pulsating raw chicken. At least, the characters should think about the Jack in the Box effect. Regardless of this minor stuff, the story does a pretty good job of portraying human emotions and motivations. Heck, even the film's sex scene could be explained in a deeper context to the themes.
This being a Ridley Scott movie, the visuals are gorgeous. And Scott mixes in more action than the original Alien movie. Though this movie does have more in common with Alien than Prometheus. In fact, there are musical nods such as the use of the original Alien theme by Jerry Goldsmith. But unlike the original movie's claustrophobic scares, much of the exciting action pieces takes place in open spaces. Thus, Scott creates a new and original setting for all of the carnage.
Yet, what really drives Covenant is the mystery. As much as there are answers given, more questions are raised. And there is those overall themes of existence and creation. This time I will assume more answers will be in the next Alien movie. See this movie knowing that this is a smart, horror film and part 2 of perhaps a trilogy. Hey, there might be a whole bunch more. Just remember in the movie theater, everybody can hear you scream. The grade is A.
This trailer has a cut scene. It's Daniels' speech.
Monday, August 1, 2016
Star Trek Beyond's new title
Mild spoiler alert.
If you've seen Star Trek Beyond, the motivation of the villain Krall might seem familiar. His problem? He was abandoned on a planet by the Federation. And for that he seeks revenge. Check out the trailer below which spoils the movie. Does this sound like any other Star Trek movies? Yep. It's the revenge motive again.
Check out the revenge plots of the following Star Trek movies. Warning, spoilers below:
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Khan is mad at Kirk for abandoning him on a planet and not checking up on him. Khan now wants revenge.
2. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
Ru'afo seeks revenge against Ba'Ku for banning him from his home planet.
3. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Shinzon is mad at the Romulan Empire for abandoning him. He seeks revenge at the Romulans and the Federation.
4. Star Trek (2009)
Nero is mad that the Romulan and Federation let his planet, Romulus be destroyed. He seeks revenge against the Federation.
5. Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Khan is mad that Admiral Marcus used him to create warships while not reviving his frozen crew. He seeks revenge.
So how about a new title for Star Trek Beyond? Let's try, STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KRALL.
If you've seen Star Trek Beyond, the motivation of the villain Krall might seem familiar. His problem? He was abandoned on a planet by the Federation. And for that he seeks revenge. Check out the trailer below which spoils the movie. Does this sound like any other Star Trek movies? Yep. It's the revenge motive again.
Check out the revenge plots of the following Star Trek movies. Warning, spoilers below:
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Khan is mad at Kirk for abandoning him on a planet and not checking up on him. Khan now wants revenge.
2. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
Ru'afo seeks revenge against Ba'Ku for banning him from his home planet.
3. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Shinzon is mad at the Romulan Empire for abandoning him. He seeks revenge at the Romulans and the Federation.
4. Star Trek (2009)
Nero is mad that the Romulan and Federation let his planet, Romulus be destroyed. He seeks revenge against the Federation.
5. Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Khan is mad that Admiral Marcus used him to create warships while not reviving his frozen crew. He seeks revenge.
So how about a new title for Star Trek Beyond? Let's try, STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KRALL.
Friday, July 29, 2016
Star Trek Beyond 3D review
If you've read other reviews of Star Trek Beyond, you would get the feeling that it is a big budget movie version of the original TV series. (TOS) (Check out Trekmovie's review here.) And you would be right if Star Trek was a science fiction franchise that was about shallow action. But in this fiftieth anniversary of this great pop culture icon, we should remember what the creator of the TV series, Gene Roddenberry, wanted. He made a science fiction show that had substance and meaning. (See letter of Gene Roddenberry defending the pilot, "The Cage.")
Star Trek Beyond starts with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) on a diplomatic mission. Things go bad and he's forced to flee. The Enterprise returns to the huge or in Donald Trump's parlance "huuuuuuge" starbase Yorktown. While there, a Federation escape pod containing Kalara (Lydia Wilson) is recovered. She tells Starfleet that her ship is wrecked on a planet in a nearby nebula. The Enterprise is the only ship with advanced sensors to locate Kalara's ship and it's sent to rescue the surviving crew. When the Enterprise is in orbit around the planet, it is attacked by Krall's (Idris Elba) swarm ships.
First, let me start with the cast. The crew of the Enterpirse all return to reprise their roles from J.J. Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie. And they're all good. Chris Pine is excellent as an older and more weary Captain Kirk. Anton Yelchin, in one of his final films, gives his Chekov the youthful energy of a person excited to be in Starfleet. Zoe Saldana as Uhura doesn't get much in dialogue and neither does John Cho as Sulu. Look there's only so much to go around. Simon Pegg as Scotty uses his comic talents well when delivering some of his jokes. But it's Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy and Zachary Quinto as Spock that are the best performances. Perhaps this relationship is the most similar to the TV series. It's the funny banter and affection between the two gives this movie its warmth. Hopefully, there will be no fear in showing more of this friendship in future movies. Unfortunately, Idris Elba is a one note performance as the villain Krall. More on this later. And one more performance we should take note of. Sofia Boutella (The Kingsmen: The Secret Service) gives a spunky performance as the survivor Jaylah.
Star Trek Beyond at first feels like that big budget movie version of the TV series. The idea of the Enterprise entering a strange nebula and investigating a strange new world is something, we Trekkers loved about the original series. Heck, that's why I get goosebumps whenever I hear the opening monologue to the theme. (Video below.) And Star Trek Beyond's initial premise is exciting. Go through a nebula. Investigate an unknown planet. Things are "fascinating" as Spock would say, for the first two acts.
But it's the third act of this movie that has the stamp of corporate approval all over it. Simon Pegg and Doug Jung's script devolves into a simple action movie where it is all about good versus evil. Anything that might be nuanced is watered down by all of visual pyrotechnics. I mean is this movie designed to appeal to a larger Chinese audience? After, all one of the production companies is Alibaba Pictures, a Chinese company. Regardless, try figuring out how the crew takes down the bad guy without much in exposition. At one point, Uhura cuts off Spock's technobable with a silly catchphrase. You will wish that he got to complete the sentence. You try to put together the plot before you give up and just watch the explosions. And what about Krall's motivations? If you've seen Star Trek movies from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan to the last one, you will say to yourself, "That old motive, again?"
Director Justin Lin (The Fast and Furious 3-6) is competent in the way he sets up the action. But perhaps he was a mistake to helm this movie. Yes, it is problem of fast cut editing in this movie. Star Trek is not The Fast and Furious. As stated before, Star Trek is supposed to be more thoughtful. Big action set pieces have so many fast cuts that it's difficult to tell what is happening. You'll ask yourselves after events, a question like this, "How did Kirk, Spock and McCoy escape?"
As for the 3D version of Star Trek Beyond, save your money. It's a conversion from 2D and that shows. There's no pop, i.e. pushing out from the screen and there is is almost no depth. The only time I really noticed the 3D was the end credits with all of those CGI planets.
Star Trek Beyond is a good action movie. It is not thoughtful Star Trek. The grade is B.
Star Trek Beyond starts with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) on a diplomatic mission. Things go bad and he's forced to flee. The Enterprise returns to the huge or in Donald Trump's parlance "huuuuuuge" starbase Yorktown. While there, a Federation escape pod containing Kalara (Lydia Wilson) is recovered. She tells Starfleet that her ship is wrecked on a planet in a nearby nebula. The Enterprise is the only ship with advanced sensors to locate Kalara's ship and it's sent to rescue the surviving crew. When the Enterprise is in orbit around the planet, it is attacked by Krall's (Idris Elba) swarm ships.
First, let me start with the cast. The crew of the Enterpirse all return to reprise their roles from J.J. Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie. And they're all good. Chris Pine is excellent as an older and more weary Captain Kirk. Anton Yelchin, in one of his final films, gives his Chekov the youthful energy of a person excited to be in Starfleet. Zoe Saldana as Uhura doesn't get much in dialogue and neither does John Cho as Sulu. Look there's only so much to go around. Simon Pegg as Scotty uses his comic talents well when delivering some of his jokes. But it's Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy and Zachary Quinto as Spock that are the best performances. Perhaps this relationship is the most similar to the TV series. It's the funny banter and affection between the two gives this movie its warmth. Hopefully, there will be no fear in showing more of this friendship in future movies. Unfortunately, Idris Elba is a one note performance as the villain Krall. More on this later. And one more performance we should take note of. Sofia Boutella (The Kingsmen: The Secret Service) gives a spunky performance as the survivor Jaylah.
Star Trek Beyond at first feels like that big budget movie version of the TV series. The idea of the Enterprise entering a strange nebula and investigating a strange new world is something, we Trekkers loved about the original series. Heck, that's why I get goosebumps whenever I hear the opening monologue to the theme. (Video below.) And Star Trek Beyond's initial premise is exciting. Go through a nebula. Investigate an unknown planet. Things are "fascinating" as Spock would say, for the first two acts.
But it's the third act of this movie that has the stamp of corporate approval all over it. Simon Pegg and Doug Jung's script devolves into a simple action movie where it is all about good versus evil. Anything that might be nuanced is watered down by all of visual pyrotechnics. I mean is this movie designed to appeal to a larger Chinese audience? After, all one of the production companies is Alibaba Pictures, a Chinese company. Regardless, try figuring out how the crew takes down the bad guy without much in exposition. At one point, Uhura cuts off Spock's technobable with a silly catchphrase. You will wish that he got to complete the sentence. You try to put together the plot before you give up and just watch the explosions. And what about Krall's motivations? If you've seen Star Trek movies from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan to the last one, you will say to yourself, "That old motive, again?"
Director Justin Lin (The Fast and Furious 3-6) is competent in the way he sets up the action. But perhaps he was a mistake to helm this movie. Yes, it is problem of fast cut editing in this movie. Star Trek is not The Fast and Furious. As stated before, Star Trek is supposed to be more thoughtful. Big action set pieces have so many fast cuts that it's difficult to tell what is happening. You'll ask yourselves after events, a question like this, "How did Kirk, Spock and McCoy escape?"
As for the 3D version of Star Trek Beyond, save your money. It's a conversion from 2D and that shows. There's no pop, i.e. pushing out from the screen and there is is almost no depth. The only time I really noticed the 3D was the end credits with all of those CGI planets.
Star Trek Beyond is a good action movie. It is not thoughtful Star Trek. The grade is B.
Monday, January 18, 2016
The Oscars are not racist
I'm a liberal and love film. But I'm not a totally pc person. I am also not white. So, I find it disturbing that some African American film artists are protesting this year's Oscar nominees as being so white. It's as if they're saying there was racism in the nomination process. African American actress Jada Pinkett Smith and directer Spike Lee are going to boycott the Oscar ceremony.
My problem is that some African Americans seem to be mandating a quota. Art should be color blind. That means talent is judged by quality not race. If the Academy members that have viewed the movies nominated those that they felt were best of the year and not on the basis of race then there is no racism. Simply saying there are no black nominations does not mean that decisions were based on race.
The irony of all this is that Hollywood is the last place for racism. In the sixties, Hollywood was in the forefront of pushing African Americans into the mainstream. In the sixties, there were black leads in TV. Nichelle Nichols as Uhura in Star Trek. Diahann Carroll in Julia. Today, there are TV shows with black leads. And on and on. And it's not as if people of color do not win Oscars. See African American actress Halle Berry. See Director Ang Lee. Update: I forgot one big example. 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture and also won Oscars for black actress Lupita Nyong'o and best adapted screenplay for African American John Ridley IV. And that just occurred in 2013.
The best in film should not be effected by how many African Americans are nominated. The Oscars should be awarded to those who excel in film regardless of race.
My problem is that some African Americans seem to be mandating a quota. Art should be color blind. That means talent is judged by quality not race. If the Academy members that have viewed the movies nominated those that they felt were best of the year and not on the basis of race then there is no racism. Simply saying there are no black nominations does not mean that decisions were based on race.
The irony of all this is that Hollywood is the last place for racism. In the sixties, Hollywood was in the forefront of pushing African Americans into the mainstream. In the sixties, there were black leads in TV. Nichelle Nichols as Uhura in Star Trek. Diahann Carroll in Julia. Today, there are TV shows with black leads. And on and on. And it's not as if people of color do not win Oscars. See African American actress Halle Berry. See Director Ang Lee. Update: I forgot one big example. 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture and also won Oscars for black actress Lupita Nyong'o and best adapted screenplay for African American John Ridley IV. And that just occurred in 2013.
The best in film should not be effected by how many African Americans are nominated. The Oscars should be awarded to those who excel in film regardless of race.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Spectre review
I have often complained that the last three James Bond films were kind of glum. They looked to be pushed to a harsh realism by the Bourne spy movies. Don't get me wrong. Daniel Craig is a great Bond and his 007 films are all good. What was missing is the fun of the Bond franchise particularly the Connery Bond movies. Yeah, it would be a mistake to go to the campy goofiness of the sixties' Bond but could we have some fun here? So with the 24th Bond movie, Spectre, I was pleasantly surprised. From the classic gun barrel prologue to the end of the movie my concern was answered with a resounding "yes."
Could we start all Bond movies with this?
Spectre opens up with an epic tracking shot following James Bond (Daniel Craig) and a date going up to their hotel room during the Mexican festival, "Day of the Dead." It's the type of shot reminiscent of Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" (1958) and would kill a director like Michael Bay. (Armageddon) But this movie's director, Sam Mendes, is confident in his artistry and the story to keep the audience engaged rather than resorting to the fast cutting of modern cinema. Okay, there is some slick editing later but it's all logical.
Anyway, Bond is there to kill an assassin who's about ready to make a deal to bomb a stadium. As he he is about to snipe the participants, he overhears a reference to a Mr. White. After he kills all the bad guys, he's called back to London to answer for what we learn is an unsanctioned hit. Meanwhile, Bond is informed by M (Ralph Fiennes) that MI6 is about to be disbanded and absorbed by a worldwide intelligence network led by Moriarty... er... "C". (Andrew Scott) I watch a little too much "Sherlock." C argues that the "00" program is no longer relevant and obsolete in the age of digital intelligence gathering.
Bond goes rogue to follow up the Mr. White lead. He enlists Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) to help. While in Italy, Bond gets a recipe for chicken marsala from Lucia Sciarra. (Monica Belluci) Okay the chicken marsala recipe didn't happen. She happens to be the widow of the assassin that Bond killed and just happens not to love her dead husband. Nice plot detail since that makes it easier for Bond to um.. persuade her to give him some leads. She talks of a meeting of a mysterious group called "Spectre" that is going to meet in Rome.
Bond infiltrates the meeting and finds out there is a plan to kill Mr. White. But before Bond escapes, he finds out who is the leader of Spectre. It's Franz Oberhauser. (Christoph Waltz) Well, Bond sets out to question White who turns out to be Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) from Casino Royale. He also gets to do some more "persuasion" with White's daughter, Dr. Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydeux) and gets to have his hair permed by his gay stylist, Mr. Hinx. (Dave Bautista) Okay, the hair permed part and gay stylist stuff is not in the movie. With a name like "Mr. Hinx", take a guess what he does. Yeah, he's Hinx the Henchman. Anyway, Bond must find out what Soectre is up to before the third act or else the movie is going be three hours long.
All the performances are excellent. Cheers to Bond's supporting cast. Ralph Fiennes makes a great M, every bit as good as Judi Dench was. He's old school, professional and a man of action. Naomie Harris as Moneypenny is not a glorified secretary but the loyal assistant of M and MI6. And in a welcome turn, Ben Whishow as Q is given some time in the field and thankfully more of the humor he had in the past. Both Monica Belluci and Lea Seydoux are beautiful and sexy Bond girls. Seydoux in her blue evening gown rocks the movie. And Kudos to the producers for casting fifty year old Belluci. Yep, she's still got it. Hear that Donald Trump? Daniel Craig is still good as Bond. He's still cold but suave. Perhaps next time he'll be given a witticism to utter. As for Christoph Waltz, you knew he would get a part like this. And he knows it. He plays this villain with a glint of mischief in his eye. Did I say villain? Okay, if you can't figure out who Oberhauser is while watching Spectre than you have not seen any Bond movies particularly the ones from the sixties and one I won't name since it would give it away. Oh, all right, I'll tell you. Waltz plays Khan. Just kidding Star Trek fans.
As you can tell it took me a while to summarize the plot. That's because the screenplay is bloated with too many ideas. I do appreciate the theme of the evils of "Big Brother" snooping on us. Its just that the multiple endings of this movie should have been condensed. What happens is that the film leaves out details which causes plot holes. Buildings explode without reason. Bond finds a miraculous escape a collapsing building. But these weaknesses don't wreck the movie.
The screenplay by John Logan (Gladiator, Star Trek: Nemesis), Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth has some wonderful humor and dedicates much to the Bond of the past. There are gorgeous women. Exciting action set pieces. A huge menacing henchman. There's even a freaking villain's lair! Okay, it's not a hollowed out volcano but it is a base of operations and a place to entertain Bond before the villain attempts to kill him. While this seems derivative, it all meshes harmoniously. And get this? Q's great gadgets make a roaring comeback. If you recall the last Bond movie, Skyfall (2012) had almost no gadgets. There's even a line from Q to Bond regarding gadgets, "We don't really go into that anymore." (Video below.) Thank you Q for changing your tune in Spectre or should I give thanks to director Sam Mendes? Regardless, the gadgets in this movie are a blast and they do save Bond on more than one occasion. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You were saying Q?
Spectre is a fun, entertaining Bond movie. It's unafraid of the past while acknowledging the present. I left the theater with a big smile on my face. The grade is A.
Could we start all Bond movies with this?
Spectre opens up with an epic tracking shot following James Bond (Daniel Craig) and a date going up to their hotel room during the Mexican festival, "Day of the Dead." It's the type of shot reminiscent of Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" (1958) and would kill a director like Michael Bay. (Armageddon) But this movie's director, Sam Mendes, is confident in his artistry and the story to keep the audience engaged rather than resorting to the fast cutting of modern cinema. Okay, there is some slick editing later but it's all logical.
Anyway, Bond is there to kill an assassin who's about ready to make a deal to bomb a stadium. As he he is about to snipe the participants, he overhears a reference to a Mr. White. After he kills all the bad guys, he's called back to London to answer for what we learn is an unsanctioned hit. Meanwhile, Bond is informed by M (Ralph Fiennes) that MI6 is about to be disbanded and absorbed by a worldwide intelligence network led by Moriarty... er... "C". (Andrew Scott) I watch a little too much "Sherlock." C argues that the "00" program is no longer relevant and obsolete in the age of digital intelligence gathering.
Bond goes rogue to follow up the Mr. White lead. He enlists Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) to help. While in Italy, Bond gets a recipe for chicken marsala from Lucia Sciarra. (Monica Belluci) Okay the chicken marsala recipe didn't happen. She happens to be the widow of the assassin that Bond killed and just happens not to love her dead husband. Nice plot detail since that makes it easier for Bond to um.. persuade her to give him some leads. She talks of a meeting of a mysterious group called "Spectre" that is going to meet in Rome.
Bond infiltrates the meeting and finds out there is a plan to kill Mr. White. But before Bond escapes, he finds out who is the leader of Spectre. It's Franz Oberhauser. (Christoph Waltz) Well, Bond sets out to question White who turns out to be Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) from Casino Royale. He also gets to do some more "persuasion" with White's daughter, Dr. Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydeux) and gets to have his hair permed by his gay stylist, Mr. Hinx. (Dave Bautista) Okay, the hair permed part and gay stylist stuff is not in the movie. With a name like "Mr. Hinx", take a guess what he does. Yeah, he's Hinx the Henchman. Anyway, Bond must find out what Soectre is up to before the third act or else the movie is going be three hours long.
All the performances are excellent. Cheers to Bond's supporting cast. Ralph Fiennes makes a great M, every bit as good as Judi Dench was. He's old school, professional and a man of action. Naomie Harris as Moneypenny is not a glorified secretary but the loyal assistant of M and MI6. And in a welcome turn, Ben Whishow as Q is given some time in the field and thankfully more of the humor he had in the past. Both Monica Belluci and Lea Seydoux are beautiful and sexy Bond girls. Seydoux in her blue evening gown rocks the movie. And Kudos to the producers for casting fifty year old Belluci. Yep, she's still got it. Hear that Donald Trump? Daniel Craig is still good as Bond. He's still cold but suave. Perhaps next time he'll be given a witticism to utter. As for Christoph Waltz, you knew he would get a part like this. And he knows it. He plays this villain with a glint of mischief in his eye. Did I say villain? Okay, if you can't figure out who Oberhauser is while watching Spectre than you have not seen any Bond movies particularly the ones from the sixties and one I won't name since it would give it away. Oh, all right, I'll tell you. Waltz plays Khan. Just kidding Star Trek fans.
As you can tell it took me a while to summarize the plot. That's because the screenplay is bloated with too many ideas. I do appreciate the theme of the evils of "Big Brother" snooping on us. Its just that the multiple endings of this movie should have been condensed. What happens is that the film leaves out details which causes plot holes. Buildings explode without reason. Bond finds a miraculous escape a collapsing building. But these weaknesses don't wreck the movie.
The screenplay by John Logan (Gladiator, Star Trek: Nemesis), Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Jez Butterworth has some wonderful humor and dedicates much to the Bond of the past. There are gorgeous women. Exciting action set pieces. A huge menacing henchman. There's even a freaking villain's lair! Okay, it's not a hollowed out volcano but it is a base of operations and a place to entertain Bond before the villain attempts to kill him. While this seems derivative, it all meshes harmoniously. And get this? Q's great gadgets make a roaring comeback. If you recall the last Bond movie, Skyfall (2012) had almost no gadgets. There's even a line from Q to Bond regarding gadgets, "We don't really go into that anymore." (Video below.) Thank you Q for changing your tune in Spectre or should I give thanks to director Sam Mendes? Regardless, the gadgets in this movie are a blast and they do save Bond on more than one occasion. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You were saying Q?
Spectre is a fun, entertaining Bond movie. It's unafraid of the past while acknowledging the present. I left the theater with a big smile on my face. The grade is A.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Star Trek returns to TV
In what must be marked as good news, Star Trek returns to TV. CBS has announced that Star Trek will return in 2017 with an initial network broadcast then the rest of the series will be available on CBS All Access.
As a Trekker, I'm very happy. 2016 is the fiftieth anniversary of the show. The science fiction franchise has been around that long. And we've been waiting for a TV series since Enterprise left the air in 2005. I am concerned about the pay per view concept. I would like it to be available to everyone and that includes those who are poor who can only watch TV over the air. The show belongs to everyone because of its optimistic view of humanity. Star Trek is a rich franchise that is entertaining and also smart. Perhaps, CBS could syndicate the show like it did before then have the complete series available on its streaming site free of commercials. Regardless, Star Trek belongs on TV where more complex, in depth, smart stories can be told. That was creator Gene Roddenberry's vision.
Here's the news from the official Star Trek website.
Boldly going again...
As a Trekker, I'm very happy. 2016 is the fiftieth anniversary of the show. The science fiction franchise has been around that long. And we've been waiting for a TV series since Enterprise left the air in 2005. I am concerned about the pay per view concept. I would like it to be available to everyone and that includes those who are poor who can only watch TV over the air. The show belongs to everyone because of its optimistic view of humanity. Star Trek is a rich franchise that is entertaining and also smart. Perhaps, CBS could syndicate the show like it did before then have the complete series available on its streaming site free of commercials. Regardless, Star Trek belongs on TV where more complex, in depth, smart stories can be told. That was creator Gene Roddenberry's vision.
Here's the news from the official Star Trek website.
Boldly going again...
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Star Trek 3: Bob Orci has not been confirmed as dirctor
Collider.com is reporting that Paramount has not greenlit Star Trek 3 and that writer-producer Bob Orci has not been confirmed as director. In fact, Paramount doesn't have the script yet. Regardless, warp speed Bob. We know you love Star Trek.
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Edge of Tomorrow 3D review
I think I'm been here before when writing this review of Edge of Tomorrow If you're going to see this film, you'll have to accept its time travel rules. Hold on. I have written that line before. I said the same thing about last month's X-Men: Days Future Past.
It's the near future. Aliens known as Mimics have invaded earth. They're winning due to advanced technology. Mankind has created exoskeletons that give the wearer super human strength. These exoskeletons can turn any man into a super soldier. Soldier Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) leads the United Defense Force, mankind's military to defeat the aliens, to victory at Verdun. The UDF has planned a major invasion to oust the aliens in France ala D-Day in World War II. They plan to send Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) to document the events for public relations reasons. He's a coward and tries to blackmail the commanding general. He's arrested and placed in a squad of misfits to lead the attack. This squad is basically going to be cannon fodder.
During the landing, members of Cage's squad are killed. He meets Vrataski who is killed by an explosion. In a fight for survival, Cage kills a Mimic known as an Alpha. It bleeds on him as he dies. Cage awakens to find he has been sent back into time right before his deployment into battle. Cage continues to relive the battle in different iterations. Each time he dies but is sent back to the same place in time. During one such time journey, Vrataski tells Cage to find her when he wakes up. He does in one time loop and she explains how the Mimics are winning the war. They can manipulate time so they can anticipate what the humans can do. The aliens blood has given Cage the power to relive the invasion over and over again. She knows this because she had the power but lost it due to a blood transfusion.
Edge of Tomorrow is Groundhog Day (1993) in a science fiction setting. Cage is stuck in a time loop. But unlike Groundhog Day, science fiction demands some type of science otherwise we're dealing with fantasy. You can forget that. Because like the aforementioned X-Men: Days of Future Past, you've got to accept the movie's time travel rules. That's because once again, we're confronted with the grandfather paradox. If the Mimics can reset time, then the future must exist. They can't erase a human victory on the battlefield and then travel back to the past. You see a human victory had to exist for them to reset.
The problem with this movie is that the screenwriters Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth don't care about any logical inconsistencies in the movie. In fact they don't care much who the Mimics are. During a scene with Cage, he overhears a London conversation in a bar where the patrons discuss the why the Mimics are here. Cage interrupts them and says it doesn't matter. Yep, the writers have just told you to not to think. Maybe they should just have Basil Exposition, address the audience as he did in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999) and say "I suggest you don't worry about this sort of thing and just enjoy yourself. That goes for you all too." Hold on. I've just posted the same Austin Powers video over again.
Anyway, the writers do have some fun with the time loop plot device. They milk it for some nice comic moments.
Doug Liman's (The Bourne Identity)direction is solid. He knows how to stage the action and there's little wasted time in the movie. Maybe, he's too concerned with the time loop gimmick as we are given only fleeting glimpses of the lives of Vrataski and Cage. My gripes are the overuse of fast cutting and frenetic use of the camera. It can be confusing visually and takes away from the drama.
As expected, if he writers are going to take away from the "science' details of the movie, they also hand the actors with very little to say to define their characters. But I have to commend Tom Cruise as Cage and Emily Blunt as Vrataski for making the most out of their characters. We see Cage grow from cowarice, to confusion, despair and finally to courage. Emily Blunt is more magnetic than Cruise, if that is possible. She's lovely but not in a supermodel way. She's sexy. And she is smart and kicks ass. She makes it easy for Cruise's character to fall in love with her.
If you see this movie, skip the 3D version. First, it's a conversion from 2D. That means no pop, and very little depth. It's also too dark. After comparing the trailer screen shots with the 3D version, I can tell you that you're going to miss a lot of the light in a scene if you watch this in 3D. Plus there's nothing special about this movie in 3D. Save your money.
If you want to see a time loop story handled well, watch Star Trek: The Next Generation's episode Cause and Effect. Yeah, there's some technobable but at least they try to explain things in a scientific way. And it's still entertaining. The Edge of Tomorrow is an enjoyable science fiction movie that asks you not to think too much. The grade is B.
It's the near future. Aliens known as Mimics have invaded earth. They're winning due to advanced technology. Mankind has created exoskeletons that give the wearer super human strength. These exoskeletons can turn any man into a super soldier. Soldier Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) leads the United Defense Force, mankind's military to defeat the aliens, to victory at Verdun. The UDF has planned a major invasion to oust the aliens in France ala D-Day in World War II. They plan to send Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) to document the events for public relations reasons. He's a coward and tries to blackmail the commanding general. He's arrested and placed in a squad of misfits to lead the attack. This squad is basically going to be cannon fodder.
During the landing, members of Cage's squad are killed. He meets Vrataski who is killed by an explosion. In a fight for survival, Cage kills a Mimic known as an Alpha. It bleeds on him as he dies. Cage awakens to find he has been sent back into time right before his deployment into battle. Cage continues to relive the battle in different iterations. Each time he dies but is sent back to the same place in time. During one such time journey, Vrataski tells Cage to find her when he wakes up. He does in one time loop and she explains how the Mimics are winning the war. They can manipulate time so they can anticipate what the humans can do. The aliens blood has given Cage the power to relive the invasion over and over again. She knows this because she had the power but lost it due to a blood transfusion.
Edge of Tomorrow is Groundhog Day (1993) in a science fiction setting. Cage is stuck in a time loop. But unlike Groundhog Day, science fiction demands some type of science otherwise we're dealing with fantasy. You can forget that. Because like the aforementioned X-Men: Days of Future Past, you've got to accept the movie's time travel rules. That's because once again, we're confronted with the grandfather paradox. If the Mimics can reset time, then the future must exist. They can't erase a human victory on the battlefield and then travel back to the past. You see a human victory had to exist for them to reset.
The problem with this movie is that the screenwriters Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth don't care about any logical inconsistencies in the movie. In fact they don't care much who the Mimics are. During a scene with Cage, he overhears a London conversation in a bar where the patrons discuss the why the Mimics are here. Cage interrupts them and says it doesn't matter. Yep, the writers have just told you to not to think. Maybe they should just have Basil Exposition, address the audience as he did in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999) and say "I suggest you don't worry about this sort of thing and just enjoy yourself. That goes for you all too." Hold on. I've just posted the same Austin Powers video over again.
Anyway, the writers do have some fun with the time loop plot device. They milk it for some nice comic moments.
Doug Liman's (The Bourne Identity)direction is solid. He knows how to stage the action and there's little wasted time in the movie. Maybe, he's too concerned with the time loop gimmick as we are given only fleeting glimpses of the lives of Vrataski and Cage. My gripes are the overuse of fast cutting and frenetic use of the camera. It can be confusing visually and takes away from the drama.
As expected, if he writers are going to take away from the "science' details of the movie, they also hand the actors with very little to say to define their characters. But I have to commend Tom Cruise as Cage and Emily Blunt as Vrataski for making the most out of their characters. We see Cage grow from cowarice, to confusion, despair and finally to courage. Emily Blunt is more magnetic than Cruise, if that is possible. She's lovely but not in a supermodel way. She's sexy. And she is smart and kicks ass. She makes it easy for Cruise's character to fall in love with her.
If you see this movie, skip the 3D version. First, it's a conversion from 2D. That means no pop, and very little depth. It's also too dark. After comparing the trailer screen shots with the 3D version, I can tell you that you're going to miss a lot of the light in a scene if you watch this in 3D. Plus there's nothing special about this movie in 3D. Save your money.
If you want to see a time loop story handled well, watch Star Trek: The Next Generation's episode Cause and Effect. Yeah, there's some technobable but at least they try to explain things in a scientific way. And it's still entertaining. The Edge of Tomorrow is an enjoyable science fiction movie that asks you not to think too much. The grade is B.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
X-Men: Days of Future Past 3D review
If you're going to see X-Men: Days of Future Past then you are going to have to accept the movie's rules regarding time travel and one big plot hole. The movie also owes its plot to the original series Star Trek episode, "The City on the Edge of Forever" and other Star Trek productions. It's reminiscent to Star Trek: First Contact. (1996) But it's more like Star Trek Voyager's series finale, "Endgame." I'm glad that director Bryan Singer threw in a clip from the original series Star Trek on time travel.
In X-Men: Days of Future Past, in future, it's not "a wonderful life" for people living on earth. Giant super robots called Sentinels now control mankind. The irony is that they were created by man to eliminate mutant human beings, the super humans who were featured the first X-Men movies but now the Sentinels subdue all of humanity. The X-Men live that are still free, live a life on the run. They are able to survive because mutant Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) can project a mutant's consciousness into the past to warn of attacks.
What caused the rise of the Sentinels is an event. During the 1973 Paris Peace talks between Viet Nam and the United States, Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), a mutant who can shape shift, kills scientist Bolivar Trask. (Peer Dinklage) You see Trask had experimented on mutants to create the Sentinels. He believes that the mutants are a threat to the human species known as homo sapiens. However, Mystique is captured and her abilities are used to make the Sentinels that can now utilize mutant powers. The murder of Trask leads to the creation of the Sentinels.
In the future, Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellen) hatch a plan to change their timeline. They will send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back to 1973 to stop Mystique. To do so, he must also convince younger versions of Xavier (Jim McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) to work together in order to find Mystique.
Based on a story by Matthew Vaughn, Simon Kinberg and Jane Goldman which in turn is based on a comic book by Chris Claremont and John Byrne; Simon Kinberg has created a rich screenplay. The dialogue sounds real. The conflicts are not contrived. Yeah, it does stretch believability with one plot point regarding President John F. Kennedy. Villains like Trask have real motivation and one can understand their logic thugh it's one based on fear. There are also welcome moments of humor. And I appreciate the metaphor that the X-Men movies present regarding human prejudice. One of the few flaws is an anticlimatic final act.
But as I said before there is one big plot hole in this movie and you're going to have to accept the movie's rules regarding time travel. If you've seen X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) then you know that Professor Xavier is killed by being disintegrated by Jean Grey.(Famke Janssen) And yes, there's an end credit scene where it seems he was able to put his consciousness into another human's body, we hope it's a brain dead body. But how does the body of the old Xavier in the form of Patrick Stewart exist in the future? Remember it was disintegrated. Oh and there is another plot hole. In the seventies, Wolverine enlists the help of Peter Maximoff aka Quicksilver (Evan Peters) to break out Magneto from prison. He's so fast that you can't see him. After he does his job, he leaves the movie. Hold on. Wouldn't it be prudent to use him to complete the mission? But of course that would end the movie in a few minutes.
And what about the time travel plot line? Any time you have a time travel movie where somebody travels back to the past, you will likely get the "grandfather paradox." It's an idea where you travel back into time and kill your grandfather thus eliminating your own existence. But the paradox is that you could not travel back into time if you didn't exist. X-Men: Days of Future Past has the same problem. The idea to send Wolverine to the past to change timeline can't happen since the dystopian future must exist to send Wolverine to the past. Yes, Star Trek's "The City on the Edge of Forever" handled it much better since the time Guardian was the device to send Kirk back into time to correct the timeline. By the way, Patrick Stewart is quite experienced in timeline change stories as Captain Picard. See Star Trek: The Next Generation's episodes, "Tapestry", "All Good Things..." and the movie Star Trek: First Contact. (1996) Maybe we should take the advice of Basil Exposition from Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999) when confronted with the time paradox in that movie. "I suggest you dont worry about this sort of thing. And just enjoy yourself." Clip below.
The acting performances are just "marvel"ous. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen display two men who have grown wiser with time. The same goes for Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. He's less angry because he's older. Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique is driven with rage and the will to survive. Peter Dinlage's Trask is a man who's also concerned with survival but it's tinted by fear of mutants. James McAvoy as the younger Xavier is a man who's lost his way. The always excellent Micahel Fassbinder's Magneto also is driven by fear. Fear that normal humans will kill all the mutuants and he's also got a power complex believing that mutants are the future. They should rule. And kudos to Evan Peters as the teenage Quicksilver. He's a delight as a young adult full of good humored mischief.
Director Bryan Singer not only commands the material but he shows a respect and affection for it. The battle sequences between the mutants and the Sentinels are exciting. That's because you feel the desparation with the mutants who are fighting for their lives. The scenes involving Cerebro and Quicksilver's ability to make time stop at least to him, are stunning visual achievements. And of course, he gets all the emotions needed for this movie from hs actors.
X-Men: Days of Future Past was filmed in 3D and it shows it. There's pop and depth. The 3D cameras capture all the real life objects and is able to display them to you in 3D. This allows them to be integrated with CGI effects. The result? Stunning 3D images. Check out the afforementioned use of Cerebro and Quicksilver's actions when confronted with armed guards. The latter scene is worth the price of the premium you pay to see this movie in 3D. Recommendation. See X-Men: Days of Future Past in 3D.
X-Men: Days of Future Past is a compelling piece of comic book science fiction. If one can get past the plot holes and paradoxes, you will be in for some fine entertainent. The grade is A.
In X-Men: Days of Future Past, in future, it's not "a wonderful life" for people living on earth. Giant super robots called Sentinels now control mankind. The irony is that they were created by man to eliminate mutant human beings, the super humans who were featured the first X-Men movies but now the Sentinels subdue all of humanity. The X-Men live that are still free, live a life on the run. They are able to survive because mutant Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) can project a mutant's consciousness into the past to warn of attacks.
What caused the rise of the Sentinels is an event. During the 1973 Paris Peace talks between Viet Nam and the United States, Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), a mutant who can shape shift, kills scientist Bolivar Trask. (Peer Dinklage) You see Trask had experimented on mutants to create the Sentinels. He believes that the mutants are a threat to the human species known as homo sapiens. However, Mystique is captured and her abilities are used to make the Sentinels that can now utilize mutant powers. The murder of Trask leads to the creation of the Sentinels.
In the future, Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellen) hatch a plan to change their timeline. They will send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back to 1973 to stop Mystique. To do so, he must also convince younger versions of Xavier (Jim McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) to work together in order to find Mystique.
Based on a story by Matthew Vaughn, Simon Kinberg and Jane Goldman which in turn is based on a comic book by Chris Claremont and John Byrne; Simon Kinberg has created a rich screenplay. The dialogue sounds real. The conflicts are not contrived. Yeah, it does stretch believability with one plot point regarding President John F. Kennedy. Villains like Trask have real motivation and one can understand their logic thugh it's one based on fear. There are also welcome moments of humor. And I appreciate the metaphor that the X-Men movies present regarding human prejudice. One of the few flaws is an anticlimatic final act.
But as I said before there is one big plot hole in this movie and you're going to have to accept the movie's rules regarding time travel. If you've seen X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) then you know that Professor Xavier is killed by being disintegrated by Jean Grey.(Famke Janssen) And yes, there's an end credit scene where it seems he was able to put his consciousness into another human's body, we hope it's a brain dead body. But how does the body of the old Xavier in the form of Patrick Stewart exist in the future? Remember it was disintegrated. Oh and there is another plot hole. In the seventies, Wolverine enlists the help of Peter Maximoff aka Quicksilver (Evan Peters) to break out Magneto from prison. He's so fast that you can't see him. After he does his job, he leaves the movie. Hold on. Wouldn't it be prudent to use him to complete the mission? But of course that would end the movie in a few minutes.
And what about the time travel plot line? Any time you have a time travel movie where somebody travels back to the past, you will likely get the "grandfather paradox." It's an idea where you travel back into time and kill your grandfather thus eliminating your own existence. But the paradox is that you could not travel back into time if you didn't exist. X-Men: Days of Future Past has the same problem. The idea to send Wolverine to the past to change timeline can't happen since the dystopian future must exist to send Wolverine to the past. Yes, Star Trek's "The City on the Edge of Forever" handled it much better since the time Guardian was the device to send Kirk back into time to correct the timeline. By the way, Patrick Stewart is quite experienced in timeline change stories as Captain Picard. See Star Trek: The Next Generation's episodes, "Tapestry", "All Good Things..." and the movie Star Trek: First Contact. (1996) Maybe we should take the advice of Basil Exposition from Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999) when confronted with the time paradox in that movie. "I suggest you dont worry about this sort of thing. And just enjoy yourself." Clip below.
The acting performances are just "marvel"ous. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen display two men who have grown wiser with time. The same goes for Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. He's less angry because he's older. Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique is driven with rage and the will to survive. Peter Dinlage's Trask is a man who's also concerned with survival but it's tinted by fear of mutants. James McAvoy as the younger Xavier is a man who's lost his way. The always excellent Micahel Fassbinder's Magneto also is driven by fear. Fear that normal humans will kill all the mutuants and he's also got a power complex believing that mutants are the future. They should rule. And kudos to Evan Peters as the teenage Quicksilver. He's a delight as a young adult full of good humored mischief.
Director Bryan Singer not only commands the material but he shows a respect and affection for it. The battle sequences between the mutants and the Sentinels are exciting. That's because you feel the desparation with the mutants who are fighting for their lives. The scenes involving Cerebro and Quicksilver's ability to make time stop at least to him, are stunning visual achievements. And of course, he gets all the emotions needed for this movie from hs actors.
X-Men: Days of Future Past was filmed in 3D and it shows it. There's pop and depth. The 3D cameras capture all the real life objects and is able to display them to you in 3D. This allows them to be integrated with CGI effects. The result? Stunning 3D images. Check out the afforementioned use of Cerebro and Quicksilver's actions when confronted with armed guards. The latter scene is worth the price of the premium you pay to see this movie in 3D. Recommendation. See X-Men: Days of Future Past in 3D.
X-Men: Days of Future Past is a compelling piece of comic book science fiction. If one can get past the plot holes and paradoxes, you will be in for some fine entertainent. The grade is A.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Stephen Colbert's funny interview with Patrick Stewart
Stephen Colbert is a Star Trek fan. I mean check out all the Trek references in his show. So, it's cool that he interviews Patrick Stewart aka Captain Jean Luc Picard. Funny stuff with Sir Patrick.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Congratulations Roberto Orci on getting Star Trek 3
Congratulations to Star Trek Into Darkness writer, Roberto Orci, for getting the gig of directing Star Trek 3. Variety report. Bob is a big fan of Star Trek. And he's helped write some of the biggest recent blockbusters. Transformers, Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness, The Amazing Spider-Man. The Star Trek franchise is in good hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
