Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

What are Star Wars and Star Trek fans gonna argue about now that the franchises share the same director?  Can you just imagine how it would go?

"The last Star Trek movie had superior direction than Episode VII.  Ugh, and those lense flares on the lightsabers!  Are you kidding me?"

"Um...weren't they directed by the same guy?"

"Oh yeah..."

J.J. Abrams, uniting geeks since 2015.

It's really weirding me out that there's no colon in the title of Star Trek Into Darkness.  Shouldn't there be a colon between Star Trek and Into Darkness?  Otherwise, isn't the title saying that they are taking a trek, based in the stars, into darkness.  And what kind or darkness?  Space is dark, or do they mean darkness as in emotional tone?  I don't know why I'm hung up on that.

If you've been following my blog at all, or just look at my online name, it won't be a surprise to you that I'm not a huge Trekkie.  I didn't get into Trek until The Next Generation, which I loved.  I've also watched a fair amount of the more recent shows like Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise, but I never really got into the Original Series.  Even the films featuring the original crew I've only seen once or twice each.  I understood the characters and the relationships, but I always felt like the Original Series and crew was a little before my time.

I was one of the guys that embraced the reboot and changes made in 2009's Star Trek.  I thought it was a good way to introduce Star Trek to the mainstream and a new generation, while still showing some respect to the Original Series.  In some ways I enjoyed Into Darkness even more than the previous film.  I didn't have to spend any time accepting a new cast or wrapping my head around the fact that it's set in an alternate timeline.  I was able to just sit back and enjoy the movie for what it is, and for most of the film that worked for me.  However, many things happen in the second half that really detracted from the film, and not just from a Star Trek perspective, but from a general storytelling one.

I can't really get into the plot too much without spoilers, but I will say that if you've been following the rumors about what Into Darkness was going to be about, I can say that much of what I heard was true, to varying degrees.

Everyone is back for another adventure.  This time the crew is responsible for tracking down a terrorist that has committed several attacks against the Federation.  This terrorist is a rogue Starfleet member named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch).  He's retreated to Kronos, the Klingon homeworld.  Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) tasks Kirk (Chris Pine) and the Enterprise to hunt him down, even though this may risk full on war with the Klingons.  This manhunt, as well as travelling so close to Klingon territory isn't something that sits well with several members of the crew.

Without revealing anything, they do a twist on a familiar Trek story, but I felt that many of these elements were totally forced.  Even if you weren't aware of any internet rumors or spoilers, the film has few surprises.  This will be especially true if you're familiar with the previous Star Trek film Into Darkness mostly references.

Another thing that really bugged me about the story is that they setup a climax that's supposed to have all this emotional significance, but a previous scene in the film has already let you know that what you're watching is not going to have any real consequence.  Knowing this takes all the impact out of it, and you could feel that the audience wasn't really affected by this either.  They should have been moved by it.  Another twist in the film is spoiled simply by having Peter Weller playing the role.  This isn't Weller's fault, but he's become one of those actors that when you see him in a role, you kind of have him pegged.  I didn't find these things plot holes (there are a few though), as much as just telegraphed storytelling.  It doesn't completely ruin the movie for me, but the more I think about certain plot elements, the more they bug me.

Plus, with shoehorning these familiar Trek elements into it, it takes away from this being original.  Why go through the trouble of rebooting Star Trek and going in a different direction if you're just going to spend a good portion of your second movie doing fan-service to previous stories?  The sad part is that until we get about halfway through the film, it still felt like it was going for something original.

Even though the story was a bit of a disappointment, I wasn't disappointed at all with the look of the film or the action.  J.J. Abrams certainly knows how to make an action packed film that's filled with great effects and is never boring to look at.  There are some great sequences throughout the film and it doesn't let up for a minute.  People have joked for a while that when he made Star Trek he really just made a Star Wars film, and now it's clear that he really is ideally suited for Episode VII.  I can't wait to see what he does with it now.

Seriously, this is only a slight exaggeration this time around.

The 3D is actually good for a change.  I saw this in RPX and this is an example of where I thought it enhanced my enjoyment of the film.  I just heard that 30 minutes of this was shot in IMAX, so even though I didn't see it in IMAX, I'd recommend seeing it in that format if it's available to you.  Oh yeah, this movie's got lense flares galore.

Another strength is that it does have some very funny dialog.  The cast still has great chemistry, and that's holding these films together.  I was a little surprised by how much people say "shit" in the future though.  You'd think we would have phased that out by then.

While in the last film, I thought Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Sulu (John Cho), Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and especially Bones (Karl Urban) had their moments, I felt like this time the real standouts were Scotty (Simon Pegg) and Spock (Zachary Quinto).  Simon Pegg in particular is a total scene stealer.  I also enjoyed Benedict Cumberbatch's performance even though there were many things about his character that bugged me.  I wasn't quite sold on Chris Pine this time around though.  While I really liked him in the first film, I had a harder time buying into some of the scenes where he was trying to be intense and angry.  I think some of this comes from how the characters were written though.  The motivations of both Kirk and Harrison weren't consistent for me.

As far as summer blockbusters go, there's a lot to like about Star Trek Into Darkness.  If you're a fan of the last Star Trek or sci-fi action in general, then it delivers on exactly what you're expecting.  However, if you're a Trekkie, your mileage may vary, especially in the third act where even a non-Trekkie like myself had issues with some of the forced plot elements.  Still though, it has great effects, tons of fast-paced action and enough funny moments to please those looking for a good time at the movies.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Place Beyond the Pines (2013)

It's like Drive 2.0...

It's easy to draw parallels between The Place Beyond the Pines and Drive.  It doesn't help at all that Ryan Gosling plays another stunt driver that doesn't speak much.  It's also similar in that the trailer sets up a much different film that what you really get.  I know many people that were disappointed with Drive thinking it was going to be an action-oriented film, and from the trailer for TPBtP, you might think the same thing.  That's not to say that it's bad, in fact it's good film, just not what you might expect.

This might be a little spoilery, but I'll try not to reveal too much....

Pines is an overarching story, spanning over 15 years, and following the families of Luke Glanton (Ryan Gosling) and Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper).  We begin with Luke, a stunt motorbike rider for a state fair.  He ex Romina (Eva Mendes) visits him and Luke learns he is the father of her newborn son.  Luke decides to stick around to provide for him, but eventually needs a way to make more money.  His current employer reveals he used to rob banks, so the two of them decide to start robbing several banks in the area.  He eventually crosses paths with Cross, a local Schenectady cop, during one of the robberies.  This is pretty much the story you see in the trailer, but this is really just the first act.

The second act follows Cross after stopping Glanton.  This is has made him a hero amongst his fellow officers, but he gets mixed up with some crooked cops, led by Ray Liotta.  Cross wants to expose the corruption, and uses the opportunity to gain a higher position.

We then get to the third act of the film.  The story comes full circle, but it's also the weakest part of the larger story.  Again, I can't really get into it without spoiling things, the events that play out are just way too clean and coincidental.  You can see how it's going to play out from a mile away, and ends the film on a bad note.  It doesn't help that the two characters that are the focus of the third act, played by Emory Cohen and Dane DeHaan, are the weakest and least interesting of the film.  It's not an issue with the performances, as much as it is with the story itself.  I will say, however, that Cohen speaks with a ridiculous Long Island accent, when neither of his parents do, and it just makes his character that much more unbelievable.  Also, another thing I thought was weak about the third act was they didn't do a particularly good job of aging the characters, outside of adding a few patches of grey hair here and there.

It's a shame it ends on such a bad note, because I felt the movie had been going along pretty well until that third act.  It's close to two and a half hours though, and any of these acts could have been movies all on their own.  As much as I liked the second act, it felt like they rushed through the conclusion of it, and it was already a little cliched.  I've often criticised a film for having too many writers, and this one has three: director Derek Cianfrance, Ben Coccio, and Darius Marder.  Each act feels like they were written by different people, and then tied loosely together.  The story is a little too ambitious for a single film.  I can't help but think this would have been great as a show or miniseries on HBO, similar to The Wire.

Pines is another one of those movies where characters don't always say much, and you see a lot of meaningful staring into the distance.  This usually means the music needs to stand out, and I thought this had a really haunting score.  I had to look up who did the music only to find out it was done by Mike Patton.  Mike Patton?  Of Mr. Bungle and Faith No More?  I never would have guessed he was involved.

I also enjoyed the aged, gritty look of the film.  I don't think they ever make a point to tell you when this movie occurs, but you get the feeling it's in the recent past.  The themes of the film though could be told in any setting though.

Pines has very good performances across the board, but I didn't think anyone was really stretching out of their comfort zones.  Again, Gosling basically plays a tatted up version of the same character he played in Drive, Ray Liotta plays another crooked cop, and Dane Dehan plays another awkward, angsty teen.  Eva Mendes only pops up here and there, and Rose Byrne is pretty much forgotten about by the third act.  That's also an issue in that there's so much story, not all of the characters are well developed.

The Place Beyond the Pines is an ambitious, well-acted story, but ultimately lets the viewer down with a disappointing third act. It's length makes it something that may be a little too much for casual viewers, even I started to squirm in my seat towards the end, but it's worth a watch...on DVD.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Flight (2012) - Movie Review

You gotta love when a movie starts with an out-of-focus boob shot...

Yes, in opening moments of Flight, the latest movie from Robert Zemeckis, airline pilot Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) wakes up in bed with a hot, fully nude flight attendant (Nadine Velazquez).  The thing you learn from this scene is that Whip is a pimp.  Well, that's not all you learn, but we'll get to that.

Shortly after, on a short, routine flight from Florida to Georgia, there's a mechanical failure on the plane.  It's not a spoiler to tell you that Whip is able to miraculously crash-land the plane with a minimum of casualties.  Even though it's only a few minutes, it's another time where I wish the trailer wouldn't have shown as much as it did regarding the crash.  It's still an extremely tense scene though.  I would imagine if you fly a lot, then it's really going to play with your head.

In the aftermath of the crash, the NTSB investigates to find the cause.  This casts a light on Whip, as it was found he had drugs in his system at the time of the crash.  It's not as simple as him just having a few beers the night before or being a little hung over either.  This is a serious offense, and can mean prison time, so a lawyer, played by Don Cheadle, is sent in to help Whip get out of trouble.  That's where the movie takes a different turn from where you think it's going.  Flight is more of a character study about struggling with denial and addition.  Initially, the accident sobers him up, but once he realizes he's under investigation, the stress throws him in a downward spiral.

You get frustrated and angry watching him, and you see that he's not exactly a great guy.  There's a reason he's divorced and hasn't seen his son.  He pushes everyone away that is trying to help him, and just can't get out of his own way.  It's an example of a high-functioning alcoholic that doesn't see a problem with his behavior.  He points out that he just did this amazing thing that nobody else would have been able to do, and that his state has nothing to do with the mechanical failures of the plane.  While he has a point, there's still a certain responsibility he doesn't want to accept.

Despite all of this, Whip still manages to be sympathetic.  This is mainly due to the great performance from Denzel Washington. Is it an Oscar-worthy performance though?  You bet! Seriously though, Denzel is the type of actor where anytime he takes on a serious role he's going to get some consideration.  One thing that's great about his performance is that it's not larger-than-life or too similar to his performance in Training Day.  It's more subtle than that, and there's a sadness that comes through.  It is performance worthy of consideration, but he's going to have some stiff competition, like from John Hawkes in The Sessions.

It's isn't a perfect film though.  The story itself covers familiar territory, sometimes done better in other films.  While the movie is funnier than I expected, sometimes the humor seemed a little out of place.  Additionally, there's a character introduced at the beginning of the film, played by Kelly Reilly, that's also an addict.  As the movie starts you wonder why she's even in the film.  While it makes sense as the movie goes on, it seemed like they focused on her a little too much in the beginning for the amount of time she actually got as the story went on.  It's nothing against Kelly Reilly's performance though, as I also thought she was very good.

The supporting cast is another strength.  John Goodman has a small role and provides some comedy relief.  There's something about him lately where I simply enjoy seeing him on screen. Don Cheadle is strong as well, and it was fun to see him and Denzel square off during the film. Bruce Greenwood is also good as a friend of Whip's, who's just about the only guy left that's in his corner.  Melissa Leo even has a small role towards the end, but I was so focused on Denzel, I didn't realize it was her.  This is the Denzel show though.

Robert Zemeckis has always been a favorite director of mine, and he didn't disappoint me here after taking a long break from live-action films.  As mentioned earlier regarding the humor, the tone of the film can be a little uneven.  I did think it stopped short of being overly melodramatic though, which is a good thing.  There are a few times John Gatins' screenplay did some things that were a little frustrating to me, and could have almost ruined the film, but overall the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.  I always talk about pacing, and while Flight is almost 2 hours and 20 minutes, I felt like it was gone in a flash.  I was stunned when I checked my phone after the movie and saw what time it was.

Flight is a really good, but not perfect film.  If anything, I'm sure it will make you take a really hard look at the pilot the next time you fly somewhere, or maybe yourself the next time you take a drink.  All kidding aside, it's a tense character study that's worth seeing alone for Denzel Washington's brilliant performance (and the opening sequence).  I highly recommend it.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars