2009's Star Trek signaled a great divide for the science fiction franchise. J.J. Abrams rebooted the property and brought a film that had much more action, and much less philosophical themes that defined the previous films and shows. Into Darkness continues with this new hyper-Star Trek and delivers another well acted, tightly edited and directed sci-fi action movie. Those who pine for the morality plays that defined the originals will be disappointed, but if you liked the reboot, Into Darkness comes through. All of the original cast is back, and so is Abrams' frenetic style, making this new Trek a worthy summer film.
James Kirk (Chris Pine), now captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise, is relieved of his command for violating the prime directive of Star Fleet (holla Star Trek fans) in order to save his first officer and friend, Spock (Zachary Quinto). When Star Fleet is attacked by a mysterious defector named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), Kirk goes on a personal vendetta to bring the assailant to justice. But the mission is not as simple as it seems, and Kirk's loyalties to his crew and his command will be tested in order to bring justice.
Growing up I watched a lot of the shows and films of the Star Trek: The Next Generation crew. In fact, Star Trek: Generations played a part in me coming to know Jesus, so these movies and shows hold a special place in my heart. I don't have much experience with the shows or films of the original crew, but TNG was all about exploring difficult questions and themes. One of, if not my favorite, episode of TNG was about Captain Picard regretting a stupid decision he made during his youth, but coming to realize that it shaped who he became when he is shown what his life would be like had he not made it. The android character Data was always in the middle of questioning what actually made someone human. The production values of the show were pretty low, and looking back now they seem incredibly cheesy, but they weren't about the action or special effects. And from what I've gathered, the old series with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy is the same way.
Die hard fans of the old series were disappointed by Star Trek (2009), and they once again will be disappointed by Into Darkness. James Berardinelli, one of my favorite movie reviewers, does a great job explaining the generational differences between Trek fans. The new films have brought many new fans to the franchise, and I like them for what they are, not what they should or could be. Into Darkness is strongest when it is exploring the friendship between Kirk and Spock. The first one made a big deal about these two becoming unlikely friends, and Into Darkness gets to develop this relationship. Even though Spock is dating Uhura (Zoe Saldana), she mostly takes a back seat to Kirk and Spock. I cared much more about that relationship than the one between Spock and Uhura. There are several emotionally satisfying scenes, and the play between these to characters is what elevates the action.
True to Abrams' style, the action is fast, intense, and prolonged. Star Trek is not historically an action franchise, but these two new movies are chock full of it. The action is best when it involves the villain, Harrison. Cumberbatch does a great job of creating a compelling bad guy. I really liked the twists with his character, and he was way better than the generic side villain that comes in about halfway through the film. His "twist" is seeing coming from miles away, and I thought this story was the weakest part of the movie (I don't want to be specific so as to not give anything away, but as soon as this guy comes on screen you'll pretty much know how his story plays out).
Kirk is given somewhat of a love interest played by Alice Eve, but she's mostly just there as eye candy (including a ridiculously unnecessary and gratuitous scene with her in her underwear). The rest of the cast plays their part well, and Simon Pegg's Scotty is just as funny as he was in the first. I love Karl Urban as 'Bones' McCoy, and I'd like to see him given more screen time in possible future installments.
While there are definite attempts by Abrams' to throwback to the original Trek, Into Darkness, as well as its predecessor, should not be compared to the older films. As it stands on its own, Into Darkness is a worthy sci-fi action movie, that is elevated by the relationship between its two leads.
3.5/5
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Monday, May 13, 2013
Iron Man 3 and The Super-Hero Saturation Point
I saw Iron Man 3 last week, and just like you've heard, it's great. The action scenes are amazing, Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark with his trademark snark, and there are even a few surprises that make this film worth your while. Yet at about the halfway point in the film, I had a somewhat surprising and discouraging revelation: I'm over this. I'm over the super hero film. A few days after seeing Iron Man 3, I was thinking about just how many super hero movies have come out in the last 10 years. With the help of a few friends, we named thirty movies, just off the top of our heads. Previous to 2002, the super hero genre pretty much looked like this: the Superman movies starring Christopher Reeve, some Batman movies ranging from decent to awful, Blade, and one X-Men movie. That was it. Each of these enjoyed some success, until one film changed all that: Spider-Man. It made an absolute boatload of money, lured casual fans to reading comic books, and the race to pump out as many super hero films as possible was on.
After Spider-Man in 2002, there have been at least 35 identifiable super hero films released, which doesn't even include movies like Underdog or The Incredibles, which are not based off of a comic book. Pre-2002, as far as I can tell, there were less than 15. Spider-Man was such a crowd pleasing blockbuster, that Marvel, DC Comics, and others realized that with advances in special effects, these characters stories could be faithfully portrayed on film. And even more than that, for whatever reason, America was ready to eat up these movies like they never had before. Spider-Man is not a very good film, but it did a great job capturing what is interesting about super heroes. Peter Parker is just an ordinary kid that becomes super human, and seeing the potential of his powers that now could be faithfully rendered through modern effects was pretty astounding the first time seeing it. I remember seeing Spider-Man in theaters and thinking, "I've never seen anything like this." Watch it again today and you will see how badly it has aged (and yes, that IS early 2000's one hit wonder Macy Gray making a cameo), especially considering all the others like it that came out later. But Spider-Man was the tipping point, the film that proved to the studios that the genre had serious box office potential. And as with any craze, there comes a point of saturation, where no matter how great the next iteration is, it gets old. I have reached that point with the super hero movie.
Save for the recent Batman movies (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises), almost every single super hero movie avoids risks like the plague. Almost all have a single-minded villain, incredible special effects, a love interest, and the origin of the hero is explored (obviously omitted in sequels, but not reboots, as The Amazing Spider-Man proved). Some are different than others; 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man was largely a romantic comedy, and X-Men: First Class is a period film set in the 1960's. But on the whole, the producers stick to this mold. And why not? Most of them end up being good, and more importantly for movie studios, make giant amounts of money at the box office. Iron Man was probably a cut above, and The Avengers was too, but other than that they're all about the same. Pretty good. And until last week, I was content to pay 9$ and lap all of them up. Yet as with anything, formulas and conventions become stale. These things can't go on forever. Even if Robert Downey Jr. were willing, I can't fathom that the Iron Man franchise would go on to 7 or 8 installments. It's inevitable that a fad will decline and fade away. As far as my interest goes, I'm over the super hero fad; we will have to wait and see as to when everyone else agrees.
I make an exception for the Christopher Nolan helmed Batman trilogy because of how different they truly are. These films play out more like intriguing crime dramas that happen to have a super hero in them. Almost all of the others are totally dependent upon the super hero itself. I realize this is a difficult "what if", but if the movies were not about Batman, and just about a detective who fights crime or something, they wouldn't lose any of their punch. When The Dark Knight premiered in 2008, many were comparing it to Michael Mann's Heat, widely considered to be a modern crime drama classic. In fact, it's these Batman films that are the only super hero movies to ever be compared to any other movie besides another super hero film. I've gushed over these films before, and I think that most would agree they stand out. They have subtext, layered villains, and emotional stakes that no other super hero film even comes close to equaling.
Another possible explanation for my revelation was the existence of The Avengers. I surely didn't think about this when it came out, but The Avengers might have ruined every other super hero movie that comes after it, especially ones in the Marvel universe. Marvel has done a careful job of making sure that the audience understands that all of these movie super heroes exist in the same universe; while Tony Stark is throwing parties in California, at the same time Thor is somewhere up in the heavens ruling the galaxy or something. Spider-Man and X-Men don't explicitly portray that they exist alongside the other heroes, but it's not a stretch to think that they do. So in The Avengers, when the most powerful super-humans in the universe, along their puny human friends Black Widow and Hawkeye, team up to fight alien beings, it seems kind of silly to think that there would ever be any danger again. If earth is in trouble, just call The Avengers. Case closed, right? Iron Man 3 makes a half-hearted attempt to explain why The Avengers don't team up again (that their problems with the bad guy are specifically American and that it should be kept "in house"), but I wasn't really buying that. The Avengers blew it out so big that a single super hero story seems tame; that is, ones that stick to the formula. And as good as Iron Man 3 is, it most certainly sticks to the formula.
Further watering down the super hero films impact is how desensitized American movie goers are becoming towards spectacle (or maybe it's just me when looking at box office receipts). In the days of Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, and the like, there were only a few movies that had truly great special effects. Innovators like George Lucas and James Cameron were able to harness technology in new ways to make movies seem much more real on the big screen. These movies were so spectacular because you might get one like that per summer. Great special effects were not near as common as they are today. Now, just about every single movie that is released has spectacular special effects. Movies with a halfway decent budget have grandiose set pieces and gigantic battle effects sequences that are as eye popping as the next. Iron Man 3 certainly has its fair share of great battle sequences, but after seeing so many over the past 10 years, I didn't seem to care. There can still be movies that make strides in special effects in a time where CGI is so prevalent. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King set the new standard for battle sequences with it's sheer scope, something that hasn't really been equaled. Despite its pedestrian and semi-offensive story, Avatar was a magnificent achievement in 3-D film making and special effects. The Matrix, released the same year as the incredibly effects laden Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, was able to create new concepts and ideas in the world of effects, and has been ripped off ever since. The point behind these examples is that special effects can still have that "wow" factor, it's just rare. The standard "really good" effects and action sequences that are in all of these super hero films are starting to tire.
In 2013, there will still be another Thor, a new X-Men story, and a reboot of the reboot of Superman. 2014 will bring a sequel to the Spider-Man reboot, another Captain America, and yet another X-Men movie. Clearly the studios are not ready to stop giving us healthy doses of the super hero. And if Iron Man 3's box office returns are any indication, movie goers will gladly indulge. As for me, I've hit my saturation point. Not one of those I listed excites me. I'll probably end up seeing them at some point, but with the expectation of seeing the same ol' mindless and entertaining movies once again. Maybe I'm being too harsh on a genre that is mostly fun escapism. But at some point, I will choose to go elsewhere for my escape. And I think that America will too. It just isn't today.
After Spider-Man in 2002, there have been at least 35 identifiable super hero films released, which doesn't even include movies like Underdog or The Incredibles, which are not based off of a comic book. Pre-2002, as far as I can tell, there were less than 15. Spider-Man was such a crowd pleasing blockbuster, that Marvel, DC Comics, and others realized that with advances in special effects, these characters stories could be faithfully portrayed on film. And even more than that, for whatever reason, America was ready to eat up these movies like they never had before. Spider-Man is not a very good film, but it did a great job capturing what is interesting about super heroes. Peter Parker is just an ordinary kid that becomes super human, and seeing the potential of his powers that now could be faithfully rendered through modern effects was pretty astounding the first time seeing it. I remember seeing Spider-Man in theaters and thinking, "I've never seen anything like this." Watch it again today and you will see how badly it has aged (and yes, that IS early 2000's one hit wonder Macy Gray making a cameo), especially considering all the others like it that came out later. But Spider-Man was the tipping point, the film that proved to the studios that the genre had serious box office potential. And as with any craze, there comes a point of saturation, where no matter how great the next iteration is, it gets old. I have reached that point with the super hero movie.
Save for the recent Batman movies (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises), almost every single super hero movie avoids risks like the plague. Almost all have a single-minded villain, incredible special effects, a love interest, and the origin of the hero is explored (obviously omitted in sequels, but not reboots, as The Amazing Spider-Man proved). Some are different than others; 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man was largely a romantic comedy, and X-Men: First Class is a period film set in the 1960's. But on the whole, the producers stick to this mold. And why not? Most of them end up being good, and more importantly for movie studios, make giant amounts of money at the box office. Iron Man was probably a cut above, and The Avengers was too, but other than that they're all about the same. Pretty good. And until last week, I was content to pay 9$ and lap all of them up. Yet as with anything, formulas and conventions become stale. These things can't go on forever. Even if Robert Downey Jr. were willing, I can't fathom that the Iron Man franchise would go on to 7 or 8 installments. It's inevitable that a fad will decline and fade away. As far as my interest goes, I'm over the super hero fad; we will have to wait and see as to when everyone else agrees.
I make an exception for the Christopher Nolan helmed Batman trilogy because of how different they truly are. These films play out more like intriguing crime dramas that happen to have a super hero in them. Almost all of the others are totally dependent upon the super hero itself. I realize this is a difficult "what if", but if the movies were not about Batman, and just about a detective who fights crime or something, they wouldn't lose any of their punch. When The Dark Knight premiered in 2008, many were comparing it to Michael Mann's Heat, widely considered to be a modern crime drama classic. In fact, it's these Batman films that are the only super hero movies to ever be compared to any other movie besides another super hero film. I've gushed over these films before, and I think that most would agree they stand out. They have subtext, layered villains, and emotional stakes that no other super hero film even comes close to equaling.
Another possible explanation for my revelation was the existence of The Avengers. I surely didn't think about this when it came out, but The Avengers might have ruined every other super hero movie that comes after it, especially ones in the Marvel universe. Marvel has done a careful job of making sure that the audience understands that all of these movie super heroes exist in the same universe; while Tony Stark is throwing parties in California, at the same time Thor is somewhere up in the heavens ruling the galaxy or something. Spider-Man and X-Men don't explicitly portray that they exist alongside the other heroes, but it's not a stretch to think that they do. So in The Avengers, when the most powerful super-humans in the universe, along their puny human friends Black Widow and Hawkeye, team up to fight alien beings, it seems kind of silly to think that there would ever be any danger again. If earth is in trouble, just call The Avengers. Case closed, right? Iron Man 3 makes a half-hearted attempt to explain why The Avengers don't team up again (that their problems with the bad guy are specifically American and that it should be kept "in house"), but I wasn't really buying that. The Avengers blew it out so big that a single super hero story seems tame; that is, ones that stick to the formula. And as good as Iron Man 3 is, it most certainly sticks to the formula.
Further watering down the super hero films impact is how desensitized American movie goers are becoming towards spectacle (or maybe it's just me when looking at box office receipts). In the days of Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, and the like, there were only a few movies that had truly great special effects. Innovators like George Lucas and James Cameron were able to harness technology in new ways to make movies seem much more real on the big screen. These movies were so spectacular because you might get one like that per summer. Great special effects were not near as common as they are today. Now, just about every single movie that is released has spectacular special effects. Movies with a halfway decent budget have grandiose set pieces and gigantic battle effects sequences that are as eye popping as the next. Iron Man 3 certainly has its fair share of great battle sequences, but after seeing so many over the past 10 years, I didn't seem to care. There can still be movies that make strides in special effects in a time where CGI is so prevalent. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King set the new standard for battle sequences with it's sheer scope, something that hasn't really been equaled. Despite its pedestrian and semi-offensive story, Avatar was a magnificent achievement in 3-D film making and special effects. The Matrix, released the same year as the incredibly effects laden Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, was able to create new concepts and ideas in the world of effects, and has been ripped off ever since. The point behind these examples is that special effects can still have that "wow" factor, it's just rare. The standard "really good" effects and action sequences that are in all of these super hero films are starting to tire.
In 2013, there will still be another Thor, a new X-Men story, and a reboot of the reboot of Superman. 2014 will bring a sequel to the Spider-Man reboot, another Captain America, and yet another X-Men movie. Clearly the studios are not ready to stop giving us healthy doses of the super hero. And if Iron Man 3's box office returns are any indication, movie goers will gladly indulge. As for me, I've hit my saturation point. Not one of those I listed excites me. I'll probably end up seeing them at some point, but with the expectation of seeing the same ol' mindless and entertaining movies once again. Maybe I'm being too harsh on a genre that is mostly fun escapism. But at some point, I will choose to go elsewhere for my escape. And I think that America will too. It just isn't today.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Oblivion
Oblivion is kind of like the Los Angeles Angels right now. All the talent and tools are in place, there is just a lack of execution. A team with Mike Trout, Josh Hamilton, Albert Pujols, Jered Weaver, C.J. Wilson, and Mike Scioscia managing should be dominating baseball. But despite the talent, the Angels are struggling. Same can be said for Oblivion. There are great actors involved; Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, and Olga Kurylenko. The premise is intriguing, set in a futuristic earth that is beautifully rendered by impressive special effects. Yet Oblivion stumbles over itself one too many times, has a sloppy ending, and misses some great opportunities to be something more than just a middling science fiction film.
Jack (Tom Cruise, in his third role playing a guy named "Jack", and the second in a row) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) have been assigned to an outpost in 2077 earth to protect its final resources. Aliens attacked and the humans won the war, but earth was destroyed. The survivors now live in an off planet space station, and Jack and Victoria have to protect earth from its enemies that remain in combat. But Jack continues to dream of a mysterious woman (Olga Kurylenko), and doesn't quite accept the supposed truths of the world around him.
As I've written about before, Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors that is in a ridiculous amount of good movies. He has a charisma and presence on screen that is matched by only a few. And Cruise is definitely on his game in Oblivion. Yet the script does not do him many favors, save for a monologue about a past Super Bowl that he's only read about, and he's not given much to do. Same for Morgan Freeman, who barely makes a cameo and doesn't say one thing of interest. The producers probably saw a free weekend in his schedule and decided to cast him so the poster would have more star power. Which I guess works, because the trailers and promotional material heavily promoted his involvement in the film.
The setting was visually captivating, especially the outpost where Victoria and Jack live. The futuristic motif is rendered in a way that consistently draws the viewer into a world of technology that everyone has imagined at some point. I'm always a sucker for sleek science fiction technology in movies, and Oblivion comes through in spades. It kind of reminds me of a live action version of Wall-E, another end of the world animated film. But where Wall-E used the theme to back an emotional story between Wall-E and Eve, the characters in Oblivion come off as flat. Cruise's character has some places to go that would have been intriguing, yet the writing is muddled and rushed so that his back story is not fleshed out properly. He and Kurylenko could have had a relationship that had some weight, but again the opportunity was missed.
Here's my recommendation for Oblivion: just see Moon instead. They're basically the same movie, but Moon was executed much better, and Sam Rockwell's one man show is much more lively than any of the characters in Oblivion. I had high hopes for this film, they just never were achieved. The special effects are striking, but what film doesn't have good special effects these days? That alone can't save Oblivion from crippling mediocrity.
2.5/5
Jack (Tom Cruise, in his third role playing a guy named "Jack", and the second in a row) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) have been assigned to an outpost in 2077 earth to protect its final resources. Aliens attacked and the humans won the war, but earth was destroyed. The survivors now live in an off planet space station, and Jack and Victoria have to protect earth from its enemies that remain in combat. But Jack continues to dream of a mysterious woman (Olga Kurylenko), and doesn't quite accept the supposed truths of the world around him.
As I've written about before, Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors that is in a ridiculous amount of good movies. He has a charisma and presence on screen that is matched by only a few. And Cruise is definitely on his game in Oblivion. Yet the script does not do him many favors, save for a monologue about a past Super Bowl that he's only read about, and he's not given much to do. Same for Morgan Freeman, who barely makes a cameo and doesn't say one thing of interest. The producers probably saw a free weekend in his schedule and decided to cast him so the poster would have more star power. Which I guess works, because the trailers and promotional material heavily promoted his involvement in the film.
The setting was visually captivating, especially the outpost where Victoria and Jack live. The futuristic motif is rendered in a way that consistently draws the viewer into a world of technology that everyone has imagined at some point. I'm always a sucker for sleek science fiction technology in movies, and Oblivion comes through in spades. It kind of reminds me of a live action version of Wall-E, another end of the world animated film. But where Wall-E used the theme to back an emotional story between Wall-E and Eve, the characters in Oblivion come off as flat. Cruise's character has some places to go that would have been intriguing, yet the writing is muddled and rushed so that his back story is not fleshed out properly. He and Kurylenko could have had a relationship that had some weight, but again the opportunity was missed.
Here's my recommendation for Oblivion: just see Moon instead. They're basically the same movie, but Moon was executed much better, and Sam Rockwell's one man show is much more lively than any of the characters in Oblivion. I had high hopes for this film, they just never were achieved. The special effects are striking, but what film doesn't have good special effects these days? That alone can't save Oblivion from crippling mediocrity.
2.5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)