Arrested Development's first 3 seasons are three of the most magical and hilarious seasons in television history. The show has made many top 10 lists for best show ever created, despite the fact that it only had less than 60 total episodes. I will never forget first witnessing Tobias' as a never nude, Buster's hook hand meltdowns, or Gob alienating his employees with "COME ON!!!" Only Seinfeld, The Simpsons, and the first 4 or 5 seasons of The Office have provided me with equal amounts of laugh out loud moments. But where AD really shone was in its rewatchability. Even watching an episode for the 4th or 5th time would peel back more comedic layers. This might account for the fact that the show never took off in the ratings, and it was abruptly cancelled after a short third season. After more viewers got a chance to watch the show on streaming sites and DVD, the clamor for a movie or the show's return ramped up substantially. For years a movie was rumored, until the bombshell finally came that the show was returning with new episodes, to be premeired on Netflix. I was naturally ecstatic for the beloved Bluth's to return. But history has taught us that just because our favorite characters are returning, it doesn't mean that the show we love is coming back in full force.
There have been more examples of a cancelled show being revived, but the two I have experience with are Futurama and Family Guy. I discovered these two shows like most people did, as a part of the nightly Adult Swim block on Cartoon Network. It basically became a ritual for me to watch these two every night in high school. Both were incredibly hilarious shows that seemed to have been cruelly cut down in their prime. Fox decided to revive Family Guy at some point during my senior year, and Comedy Central brought back Futurama a few years later, both to shouts for joy from fanboys. But while both had successful runs, I just felt like the magic was gone. Family Guy decided that it was going for in your face shock value, and Futurama just felt... off.
With this background, I was excited but wary for the return of AD. And after reading about the convoluted scheduling problems that forced creator Mitchell Hurwitz to get creative and focus on one character per episode, I was even more nervous. What results is a mixed bag that has some laughs, way too much convoluted story, and character changes that don't really make much sense.
(Some Season 4 spoilers ahead)
Michael was always the straight man in the original run. And while he was just as often doing stupid things and being just as narcissitic as the rest of his family, he generally kept his head above water. Season 4 plays Michael as a clueless loser, something that I just didn't buy. George Sr. is equally bone-headed, going totally against his character. While George wasn't exactly a genius, he was always a smart businessman that was ruthless and selfish. In Season 4, he makes one idiotic move after another, a role that I didn't like him in. However, Gob, Maeby, and George Michael were all back to their former selves, and their episodes especially worked. Tony Wonder's voice mail message that Gob listens to might be my favorite bit of the entire season.
The nature of the episodes focusing mainly on one character per episode really worked against the new season. With such a big ensemble, AD's greatest strength was having all of these characters play off of each other. In Season 4, characters like Tobais and Lucille get tons of screen time all to themselves. I absolutely love those two characters, but 10 straight minutes of Tobias alone just can't sustain my attention. And with the show returning on Netflix commercial free, the producers lengthened each episode by almost a full 10 minutes, which hurt its flow. 22 minutes is almost a perfect run time for a sit com like AD, and most Season 4 episodes are 30-35 minutes long.
The last few episodes were much stronger than those in the middle, with Lindsay and George Sr.'s installments being particularly boring. Hurwitz's insistence on making the story arc being as clever as possible made me feel like there was less room to be funny. There were certainly many funny moments in this season, don't get me wrong. The "To Catch a Predator" gag with Tobais was hysterical, as was the Simon and Garfunkel cutaways that would always close in on Gob. And hearing Tobias exclaim "Ninja please!!" is probably a line that could become as quotable as "I've made a huge mistake." The episode structure most certainly lends itself to the "binge watching" model that Netflix teases by releasing all 15 at the same time. It took me about a month to watch them, and I wonder if I would have been more impressed by watching them in a shorter time span.
Season 4 ends abruptly and awkwardly, and leaves many loose ends for future episodes. I would love to see the Bluth's come back for season 5, with only one request: return to the original format. Focusing on one character at a time draws away from the shows strengths, and a true ensemble performance is what would return the show back to its glory days. A phrase I've heard tossed around is that a bad season of Arrested Development is better than anything else on TV. I don't think that is entirely true, but Arrested Development is still a good show, and definitely still worth a watch. I'm just not sure it's worth endless re-watches like the first three seasons were.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
World War Z
AMC's The Walking Dead, for whatever reason, has been an extremely successful show. Actually it's been enormous, putting up network television type ratings and dominating the cable landscape. Such a depressing, violent, and gory show doesn't really seem like it would become such a hit, but the show's high quality and intriguing story of human survival has caught on with America. So predictably, just as Twilight spawned countless vampire/werewolf properties, zombies are back in vogue. World War Z is a zombie apocalypse film starring Brad Pitt, that takes a newer and slightly less depressing view on the genre.
Gerry Lane (Pitt), has retired from his job abroad with the U.N. in order to spend more time with his wife (Mireille Enos) and two daughters. While stuck in traffic on the way to school, the Lane family is swept up in a panic, as an outbreak of zombies is terrorizing the city. Now Gerry has been tasked by his old colleague Thierry (Fana Mokoene) to help pin down the source of the virus, and stop the outbreak.
WWZ starts out at breakneck speed with an impressive "main characters find out the zombie apocalypse is happening" scene that starts every zombie movie. After the first 30 minutes the Lane family gets to relative safety, and the movie somewhat halts. Many of the dialogue scenes feel like they were rushed, or that there was more exposition there that got left on the cutting room floor. It all leads up to a tense and scary, albeit underwhelming, finale that sets up WWZ2. Props to WWZ for actually saying the world "zombie", as most zombie movies don't acknowledge that there has been fiction portarying them for the last 60 years. The most impressive scenes involve giant hordes of zombies going crazy and creating a panic, even if the CGI'd undead are somewhat suspect looking.
Besides focusing on the survival of those left unaffected by the virus, which most zombie movies/shows/books do, WWZ gives viewers more hope that there is actually a cure out there. Pitt's quest doesn't seem like a wild goose chase, offering a less depressing landscape that felt refreshing. Frankly, I don't want every single zombie movie to end with the obligatory "there's no cure but we will still keep fighting" ending. The fact that Gerry might be able to stop things, a la Will Smith's character in I Am Legend, makes the action much more interesting.
This is somewhat of a puzzling role for Pitt. Besides the Ocean's films (of which he was part of a large ensemble), Pitt usually stays away from the action blockbuster pic. His most noteworthy roles (Tyler Durden in Fight Club, Benjamin Button, 12 Monkeys), haven't exactly been action hero money maker roles, and Gerry in WWZ is not exactly an action hero, but the movie certainly has the feel of a large scale action film. Maybe Pitt is doing what Depp did with Pirates of the Caribbean, and getting a giant pay day for a crowd pleasing role. He's good as Gerry, but his character has a lot of missed opportunities, and we don't really get to see that eclectic and charismatic Pitt performance we're used to.
Lastly I will note that the movie was very clearly trying to garner a PG-13 rating. The intense gore that is present in most zombie movies is non-existent. It was a nice break from the in your face gore that the genre normally brings, but the lack of it is somewhat jarring for the events that are depicted.
WWZ ends up telling a different story than most zombie movies, which is a good thing. The bad thing is that it feels a bit rushed, and there is little investment in anyone besides Gerry. I'd like to see more WWZ films, hopefully realized to its full potential.
3/5
Gerry Lane (Pitt), has retired from his job abroad with the U.N. in order to spend more time with his wife (Mireille Enos) and two daughters. While stuck in traffic on the way to school, the Lane family is swept up in a panic, as an outbreak of zombies is terrorizing the city. Now Gerry has been tasked by his old colleague Thierry (Fana Mokoene) to help pin down the source of the virus, and stop the outbreak.
WWZ starts out at breakneck speed with an impressive "main characters find out the zombie apocalypse is happening" scene that starts every zombie movie. After the first 30 minutes the Lane family gets to relative safety, and the movie somewhat halts. Many of the dialogue scenes feel like they were rushed, or that there was more exposition there that got left on the cutting room floor. It all leads up to a tense and scary, albeit underwhelming, finale that sets up WWZ2. Props to WWZ for actually saying the world "zombie", as most zombie movies don't acknowledge that there has been fiction portarying them for the last 60 years. The most impressive scenes involve giant hordes of zombies going crazy and creating a panic, even if the CGI'd undead are somewhat suspect looking.
Besides focusing on the survival of those left unaffected by the virus, which most zombie movies/shows/books do, WWZ gives viewers more hope that there is actually a cure out there. Pitt's quest doesn't seem like a wild goose chase, offering a less depressing landscape that felt refreshing. Frankly, I don't want every single zombie movie to end with the obligatory "there's no cure but we will still keep fighting" ending. The fact that Gerry might be able to stop things, a la Will Smith's character in I Am Legend, makes the action much more interesting.
This is somewhat of a puzzling role for Pitt. Besides the Ocean's films (of which he was part of a large ensemble), Pitt usually stays away from the action blockbuster pic. His most noteworthy roles (Tyler Durden in Fight Club, Benjamin Button, 12 Monkeys), haven't exactly been action hero money maker roles, and Gerry in WWZ is not exactly an action hero, but the movie certainly has the feel of a large scale action film. Maybe Pitt is doing what Depp did with Pirates of the Caribbean, and getting a giant pay day for a crowd pleasing role. He's good as Gerry, but his character has a lot of missed opportunities, and we don't really get to see that eclectic and charismatic Pitt performance we're used to.
Lastly I will note that the movie was very clearly trying to garner a PG-13 rating. The intense gore that is present in most zombie movies is non-existent. It was a nice break from the in your face gore that the genre normally brings, but the lack of it is somewhat jarring for the events that are depicted.
WWZ ends up telling a different story than most zombie movies, which is a good thing. The bad thing is that it feels a bit rushed, and there is little investment in anyone besides Gerry. I'd like to see more WWZ films, hopefully realized to its full potential.
3/5
Monday, June 24, 2013
Man of Steel
Superman has always seemed boring to me. What kind of character has every super power and one weakness? Batman was always my favorite because he is a normal human that becomes super because of what he believes in. Other super heroes can be great because of limitations in their powers that create interesting confrontations. But Superman seems like this bland guy with no personality and a lack of real competition. Man of Steel gives as much life to the character as it can, but his inert boring-ness is too much to overcome.
The film opens with Superman's father (Russell Crowe) trying to save his son from being destroyed by the impending doom of his planet, Krypton. Supposed freedom fighter Zod (Michael Shannon) desperately wants to capture Kal-El (or Clark Kent as he's known on earth, played by Henry Cavill), as his DNA contains the genetic information to rebuild the entire race of Krypton. Zod swears that he will catch up to Kal-El and restore Krypton. After landing in Kansas, Kal-El is raised by two Kansas farmers (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), knowing that he will one day be destined for greatness. Going by the name Clark Kent, he eventually is confronted by Zod, all the while being pursued by intrigued journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams).
I wasn't planning on seeing Man of Steel, but my brothers wanted to go and I decided to go with them while on vacation at the beach. About a month ago I expressed that I was tired of the super hero film, but I honestly tried to go into Man of Steel with as much of an open mind as possible. After all, it does have some good pedigree, being directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen), and produced by Batman guru Christopher Nolan. There are some impressive special effects and the acting is good for the most part, but true to Superman form, it's just kind of a boring affair. Henry Cavill is merely a muscled out good looking warm body, not offering much more than physical prowess to the character of Superman. The flashback scenes of Clark's childhood are nice, but once we move into the middle part of the film, it begins to drag. The final battle (spoilers ahead!) does an insane amount of damage to Metropolis, and it all seems very by the numbers. Shannon is a decent villain, and Adams is a big bright spot as the ambitious and strangely everywhere Lois Lane.
I tried my best to like Man of Steel, and to an extent I did, but there really isn't much more to it than some good action. My bias towards the character of Superman probably didn't help, but I wasn't really too keen on an Iron Man movie either, and the first one of that series is a classic. Man of Steel raked it in at the box office, so this is not the last of Clark Kent, but hopefully the sequels will have a little more life than this re-re-boot of the franchise.
2.5/5
The film opens with Superman's father (Russell Crowe) trying to save his son from being destroyed by the impending doom of his planet, Krypton. Supposed freedom fighter Zod (Michael Shannon) desperately wants to capture Kal-El (or Clark Kent as he's known on earth, played by Henry Cavill), as his DNA contains the genetic information to rebuild the entire race of Krypton. Zod swears that he will catch up to Kal-El and restore Krypton. After landing in Kansas, Kal-El is raised by two Kansas farmers (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), knowing that he will one day be destined for greatness. Going by the name Clark Kent, he eventually is confronted by Zod, all the while being pursued by intrigued journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams).
I wasn't planning on seeing Man of Steel, but my brothers wanted to go and I decided to go with them while on vacation at the beach. About a month ago I expressed that I was tired of the super hero film, but I honestly tried to go into Man of Steel with as much of an open mind as possible. After all, it does have some good pedigree, being directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen), and produced by Batman guru Christopher Nolan. There are some impressive special effects and the acting is good for the most part, but true to Superman form, it's just kind of a boring affair. Henry Cavill is merely a muscled out good looking warm body, not offering much more than physical prowess to the character of Superman. The flashback scenes of Clark's childhood are nice, but once we move into the middle part of the film, it begins to drag. The final battle (spoilers ahead!) does an insane amount of damage to Metropolis, and it all seems very by the numbers. Shannon is a decent villain, and Adams is a big bright spot as the ambitious and strangely everywhere Lois Lane.
I tried my best to like Man of Steel, and to an extent I did, but there really isn't much more to it than some good action. My bias towards the character of Superman probably didn't help, but I wasn't really too keen on an Iron Man movie either, and the first one of that series is a classic. Man of Steel raked it in at the box office, so this is not the last of Clark Kent, but hopefully the sequels will have a little more life than this re-re-boot of the franchise.
2.5/5
Monsters University
Pixar Animation Studios is one of the most talented and consistent production companies in Hollywood. Commerically and critically almost all of their films are extremely successful. They practically changed face of animation in film with Toy Story in 1995, using a computerized style that was drastically different from the hand drawn Disney films of old. Cars 2, a sequel that no one wanted, was a major drop off in quality and box office gross. Brave, while successful at the box office, didn't really get the rave reviews that most of their films have received. Personally these two didn't really seem interesting to me, so I skipped them both. As a fan of basically everything else Pixar does, I was excited for Monsters University. Monsters Inc., released in 2001, is one of Pixar's most beloved films. University is a prequel to Inc., and is a worth follow up, and another fantastic Pixar entry. Once again, Pixar provides a perfect mix of social commentary, heart, and comedy to attract children and adults.
Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has always dreamed of attending the famed Monsters University. This is where "scarers" are trained to hone their craft and eventually land a job at Monsters Inc. scaring children and providing energy. Mike is the hardest working and most ambitious student there, with only one problem: he's not scary. James "Sully" Sullivan (John Goodman) is the antithesis of Mike; naturally talented, without an ounce of hard work and drive. But after a run in with the dean of the school (Helen Mirren), these two have no choice but to team up in order to fulfill their dreams as scarers.
First and foremost, University is funny. Kids and adults will be pleased with the mix of jokes and physical comedy. Pixar has created an alternate monster universe that is charming despite the fact that it is filled with horrible monsters. Mike and Sully have real personalities that are identifiable, especially the ambitious Mike. The film opens with Mike as a small child, depicting where his scaring dreams come from, and it is about as cute as it gets. Sully is still likable despite the fact that he is brash and arrogant, a difficult feat. Monsters Inc. has shown us that these two are best friends, and it is great to see how it came to be.
Leave it to Pixar to produce a children's film that is layered with subtext. This is nothing new, as their prior films contain certain messages as well. Wall-E might be the biggest example, with its anti-consumerist and environmentalist messages practically spelled out. Toy Story 3 is all about growing up and letting go. The Incredibles might be the most interesting commentary; the message essentially comes down to the fact that some people are more gifted than others, contrary to the "everyone is special" message that most movies offer. University somewhat follows The Incredibles. Mike is the hardest working monster in school, yet he can't seem to fully succeed. He is just not talented enough to be a scarer, although he eventually realizes what he is good at. This is a realistic and important message for children. Just because it is your dream to be an NBA basketball player doesn't mean you should sell out to attain it if you are 5'4" and can't jump. Finding what you are good at and the gifts that God gave you, whether glamorous or not, is an important step in growth and maturity. Monsters praises hard work on realistic goals, something I appreciated.
Towards the end of the film (spoilers ahead!), another important and culturally counter message is offered. Eventually Mike and Sully get kicked out of school. And after their biggest efforts, they don't get back in. Instead of trying to keep going to college, the pair are shown via photos working their way up at Monsters Inc., and realizing their dream job by starting in the mail room. Our culture today basically screams to kids that in order to be successful, you MUST attend a four year college. Anyone who just goes straight to work after high school is seen as less bright, and on a path to a crummy life. I think that college education is important (I received a bachelor's degree from a 4 year university, and am a year away from a law degree), but college is not the necessary path for everyone. Mike and Sully turn out just fine working their way up in the company. Some people just aren't wired for more education, and I don't think we as a society should force it upon anyone. Not being "college material" doesn't have to be a detriment, it just means that your talents lie elsewhere. I am impressed that Pixar chose to take this culturally opposite view, one that frankly needs to be voice more often.
Pixar has returned to form with Monsters University, which is delightful for the young and old. The voice acting and animation are as top notch as ever, and the new characters introduced in this second entry are as vibrant as the first. Monsters has been my favorite movie of the summer, and I will be shocked if Pixar doesn't rack up another Oscar for their work on it!
4/5
Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has always dreamed of attending the famed Monsters University. This is where "scarers" are trained to hone their craft and eventually land a job at Monsters Inc. scaring children and providing energy. Mike is the hardest working and most ambitious student there, with only one problem: he's not scary. James "Sully" Sullivan (John Goodman) is the antithesis of Mike; naturally talented, without an ounce of hard work and drive. But after a run in with the dean of the school (Helen Mirren), these two have no choice but to team up in order to fulfill their dreams as scarers.
First and foremost, University is funny. Kids and adults will be pleased with the mix of jokes and physical comedy. Pixar has created an alternate monster universe that is charming despite the fact that it is filled with horrible monsters. Mike and Sully have real personalities that are identifiable, especially the ambitious Mike. The film opens with Mike as a small child, depicting where his scaring dreams come from, and it is about as cute as it gets. Sully is still likable despite the fact that he is brash and arrogant, a difficult feat. Monsters Inc. has shown us that these two are best friends, and it is great to see how it came to be.
Leave it to Pixar to produce a children's film that is layered with subtext. This is nothing new, as their prior films contain certain messages as well. Wall-E might be the biggest example, with its anti-consumerist and environmentalist messages practically spelled out. Toy Story 3 is all about growing up and letting go. The Incredibles might be the most interesting commentary; the message essentially comes down to the fact that some people are more gifted than others, contrary to the "everyone is special" message that most movies offer. University somewhat follows The Incredibles. Mike is the hardest working monster in school, yet he can't seem to fully succeed. He is just not talented enough to be a scarer, although he eventually realizes what he is good at. This is a realistic and important message for children. Just because it is your dream to be an NBA basketball player doesn't mean you should sell out to attain it if you are 5'4" and can't jump. Finding what you are good at and the gifts that God gave you, whether glamorous or not, is an important step in growth and maturity. Monsters praises hard work on realistic goals, something I appreciated.
Towards the end of the film (spoilers ahead!), another important and culturally counter message is offered. Eventually Mike and Sully get kicked out of school. And after their biggest efforts, they don't get back in. Instead of trying to keep going to college, the pair are shown via photos working their way up at Monsters Inc., and realizing their dream job by starting in the mail room. Our culture today basically screams to kids that in order to be successful, you MUST attend a four year college. Anyone who just goes straight to work after high school is seen as less bright, and on a path to a crummy life. I think that college education is important (I received a bachelor's degree from a 4 year university, and am a year away from a law degree), but college is not the necessary path for everyone. Mike and Sully turn out just fine working their way up in the company. Some people just aren't wired for more education, and I don't think we as a society should force it upon anyone. Not being "college material" doesn't have to be a detriment, it just means that your talents lie elsewhere. I am impressed that Pixar chose to take this culturally opposite view, one that frankly needs to be voice more often.
Pixar has returned to form with Monsters University, which is delightful for the young and old. The voice acting and animation are as top notch as ever, and the new characters introduced in this second entry are as vibrant as the first. Monsters has been my favorite movie of the summer, and I will be shocked if Pixar doesn't rack up another Oscar for their work on it!
4/5
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness
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
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
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)