The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

The Neon Demon

"She's a diamond among a sea of glass."—Alessandro Nivola
--------------------

[Show spoiler] There is an industry for beauty, and people are commodities. Many films have explored the exploitation of young people by businesses, and they are often bleak, compelling tales. The Neon Demon goes through the same motions as Black Swan and Mulholland Drive, but it reaches a far more unpredictable conclusion.

True to the standard of other films by Nicholas Winding Refn, the film drips in exquisite style. This is one of those odd films where there's a lot of white space in between the scant pieces of dialogue. Very little is expressed or told to the audience. Instead, the whole story is shown through the meticulous unraveling of expressionistic imagery. Some scenes go by without explanation and don't really fit in the scant plotline. The film merely paints its picture and lets the audience determine what's going in in the characters' heads and what's really going on with the story.

I went into this film expecting a pretty standard tale of a young girl breaking into the fashion biz and becoming corrupted, and perhaps even broken, from it. I believe most of that still applies—the bulk of the film's conflict is an extremely subtle rivalry between Jessie and all the other established models, who recognize her potential through her beauty and see it as a threat. Just when you think you have the movie figured out, everything suddenly changes in the last act. It hits with all the subtlety of a knife thrust, before the final scenes reveal that this isn't your typical diva drama—it's a horror movie in disguise, and its has its own set of unspoken rules. Thus, the film overall is a slow-burning build to a massive sucker-punch. The ultimate point of it all is not so much the corruption or pretension of the business, as I initially predicted—this is more of a modern-day fable warning us of all the viciousness and bloodthirst that could exist in any industry. For the world of fashion, it goes hand-in-hand with the exploration of what beauty means and how far people will go to achieve its optimum peak.

The funny thing about a film harping on the threat of beauty is that the film itself is as beautiful as they come. Photography is top-notch, with purposeful staging and composition resembling a Kubrick movie. Editing is very solid, juxtaposing images in a way that allows viewers to connect the thought process without exposition. Acting is great: Elle Fanning is lovely and nuanced in her role. Most of the other characters are menacing to some degree (including Keanu Reeves, who seems to be playing the biggest jerk in the world). Writing is interesting—it offers enough so that the plot can be followed (much easier than Refn's previous film, Only God Forvies), but still leaves so much mystery open. It's a tough balance that will entice some viewers and leave others confused. This production uses fabulous sets, props, and costumes—they all give the film visually-punchy textures and patterns. Lighting is often very vivid (especially during a few scenes illuminated by strobe lighting). Music by Cliff Martinez is very evocative—modern and electronic, but with a kind of new-wave class, just like the movie itself.

I went into this film expecting a pretty standard tale of the rise and fall of some character—I came out realizing it's more of a puzzle with more aspects of a monster movie than a mere drama. One thing was certain though: I knew this would be a strange, glacial experience that requires more focus than usual. I personally found the film as thought-provoking as it is visually stunning. I expect most other viewers may be confused, upset, or unimpressed. Caution is recommended.

4/5

Nice review. I'm a fan of Drive but did not like Valhalla or OGF. Hopefully this is a favorable Refn for me.

[surfdude12]

Inherent Vice
3/5

Typically, I love PTA. There Will Be Blood, Magnolia and the Master are all in my top 20 of all-time. But this film didn't resonate with me. It felt more like a Wes Anderson film than PTA. Quirky, but more like "hippie quirky". I love quirky films (e.g. David Lynch and Brazil - see review below), but that's a whole different quirky than Wes Anderson or this film - you guys agree? I can't put my finger on why I love "David Lynch quirky" but not "hippie quirky" (Wes Anderson)? Is it a generation thing? I love love Twin Peaks which is off-the-chart quirky, but I suppose since I grew up in 90's that's why? I don't know , let me know what you guys think and if you guys like these different quirky styles and if you think it has to do with era/generation?

[surfdude12]

Brazil (blind buy)
5/5

I bought this will high expectations and it still exceeded them. Incredible film overall. Had a David Lynch type quirkiness to it, yet at the same time some Monty Python humor tossed in (love them too). Its shocking at how accurate some of the plot details are 30 years later. You read about cameras installed on every street corner. You read about NSA doing massive data collection on people, etc etc.
I saw it had 98% Rotten Tomatoes with only one rotten review - Roger Ebert! Huh? When I read his review he said "hard to follow" - say what? It was pretty simple, I thought -

[Show spoiler]a bug falls into a typewriter, causing misspelling of an arrest warrant, so the wrong guy is arrested and killed during an interrogation. Government agencies then scramble to blame each other and a guy working in one of them has dreams about meeting the woman he loves and escaping from the totalitarian regime...

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Inherent Vice
3/5

Typically, I love PTA. There Will Be Blood, Magnolia and the Master are all in my top 20 of all-time. But this film didn't resonate with me. It felt more like a Wes Anderson film than PTA. Quirky, but more like "hippie quirky". I love quirky films (e.g. David Lynch and Brazil - see review below), but that's a whole different quirky than Wes Anderson or this film - you guys agree? I can't put my finger on why I love "David Lynch quirky" but not "hippie quirky" (Wes Anderson)? Is it a generation thing? I love love Twin Peaks which is off-the-chart quirky, but I suppose since I grew up in 90's that's why? I don't know , let me know what you guys think and if you guys like these different quirky styles and if you think it has to do with era/generation?

I remember watching it in a really crap cinema the first time watching it and it really not clicking at all, but I knew it was something I should love, went back to a nicer cinema to give it a second chance and it clicked. I think it's just a case of it being a frustrating first time watch because you can't really work out the direction of the piece at all, but once you know where it is all heading, it falls more into place on repeat viewings and you can appreciate the whole journey.

That's said, I still feel it's probably his weakest since Hard Eight.

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Brazil (blind buy)
5/5

I bought this will high expectations and it still exceeded them. Incredible film overall. Had a David Lynch type quirkiness to it, yet at the same time some Monty Python humor tossed in (love them too). Its shocking at how accurate some of the plot details are 30 years later. You read about cameras installed on every street corner. You read about NSA doing massive data collection on people, etc etc.
I saw it had 98% Rotten Tomatoes with only one rotten review - Roger Ebert! Huh? When I read his review he said "hard to follow" - say what? It was pretty simple, I thought -

[Show spoiler]a bug falls into a typewriter, causing misspelling of an arrest warrant, so the wrong guy is arrested and killed during an interrogation. Government agencies then scramble to blame each other and a guy working in one of them has dreams about meeting the woman he loves and escaping from the totalitarian regime...

The production of the film was really heavily publicised at the time because 20th Century Fox and Gilliam really where at wits end with one another, and I think the theatrical release was heavily cut at the time. So at the time the film was getting praised in spite of Fox (the film was given best film of the year from some critic circles the year before it was even released), plus a lot of reviews on the site are in retrospect due to the Internet not being around back then, which is way Ebert's review is a bit of a sore thumb. That being said, he loved Synecdoche, New York, which is a far denser and more complicated than Brazil.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I remember watching it in a really crap cinema the first time watching it and it really not clicking at all, but I knew it was something I should love, went back to a nicer cinema to give it a second chance and it clicked. I think it's just a case of it being a frustrating first time watch because you can't really work out the direction of the piece at all, but once you know where it is all heading, it falls more into place on repeat viewings and you can appreciate the whole journey.

That's said, I still feel it's probably his weakest since Hard Eight.

Yes that makes completely sense. I found myself frequently rewinding and putting on subtitles to try and follow the plot 100%. Even doing that, I was only following it 70% and that was paying full attention with replays.

The production of the film was really heavily publicised at the time because 20th Century Fox and Gilliam really where at wits end with one another, and I think the theatrical release was heavily cut at the time. So at the time the film was getting praised in spite of Fox (the film was given best film of the year from some critic circles the year before it was even released), plus a lot of reviews on the site are in retrospect due to the Internet not being around back then, which is way Ebert's review is a bit of a sore thumb. That being said, he loved Synecdoche, New York, which is a far denser and more complicated than Brazil.

Oh wow, I didn't know that , thanks. Yes, that makes Ebert's review a lot more understandable (if he reviewed the cut version, which I believe he did as his review was dated '85-'86). I looked up Synecdoche - it didn't sound similar to Brazil (dystopian futuristic totalitarian?)

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I remember watching it in a really crap cinema the first time watching it and it really not clicking at all, but I knew it was something I should love, went back to a nicer cinema to give it a second chance and it clicked. I think it's just a case of it being a frustrating first time watch because you can't really work out the direction of the piece at all, but once you know where it is all heading, it falls more into place on repeat viewings and you can appreciate the whole journey.

That's said, I still feel it's probably his weakest since Hard Eight.

dude, one example where I laughed OUT LOUD AND FELL OFF MY COUCH:

Josh Grobin (cop) and Phoenix are on the phone. Grobin's 5 year old son is messing around his office.

Grobin: I Don't know where she is.

Phoenix: Ok well here's the thing...

Grobin (whispers to son): go to bed

Phoenix: I'm working, why would I go to bed???

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Oh wow, I didn't know that , thanks. Yes, that makes Ebert's review a lot more understandable (if he reviewed the cut version, which I believe he did as his review was dated '85-'86).

Yeah, the background for Brazil is pretty intense. If you have the Criterion edition of it, you can see the studio cut of the film, entitled the "Love Conquers All" version. It's awful--they must have scooped out an hour of the film (including the last shot), and the reality/fantasy segments get so mixed up it really can't be watched on its own merits. If they went through with that version, the film would have truly sucked. It's refreshing that Gilliam stuck with his guns and fought to keep his vision of it intact.

I was just talking about the film earlier today, in the context of bureaucracy getting in the way of things (IRL), and it reminded me of all the craziness the film showed, and that weird scene where

[Show spoiler]DeNiro gets devoured by paper

. There's so much sad-but-true moments to the film, it does genuinely resonate with me more and more--definitely a great and unqiue sci-fi film.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Oh wow, I didn't know that , thanks. Yes, that makes Ebert's review a lot more understandable (if he reviewed the cut version, which I believe he did as his review was dated '85-'86). I looked up Synecdoche - it didn't sound similar to Brazil (dystopian futuristic totalitarian?)

There's a few literary similarities between the two, but they're not so much alike. Synecdoche is pretty dense and confusing however, you could argue they're both different interpretations of the oridinary man trying/failing to escape their realities. You should try and give it a watch sometime, it's well worth it if you've enjoyed other films penned by Charlie Kaufman. In fact I believe Ebert was torn between including this or Tree of Life in his final Sight and Sound Top 10 poll.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Yeah, the background for Brazil is pretty intense. If you have the Criterion edition of it, you can see the studio cut of the film, entitled the "Love Conquers All" version. It's awful--they must have scooped out an hour of the film (including the last shot), and the reality/fantasy segments get so mixed up it really can't be watched on its own merits. If they went through with that version, the film would have truly sucked. It's refreshing that Gilliam stuck with his guns and fought to keep his vision of it intact.

Yes! Thanks I blind-bought the Criterion so I have it, and will check that out

I was just talking about the film earlier today, in the context of bureaucracy getting in the way of things (IRL), and it reminded me of all the craziness the film showed, and that weird scene where

[Show spoiler]DeNiro gets devoured by paper

. There's so much sad-but-true moments to the film, it does genuinely resonate with me more and more--definitely a great and unqiue sci-fi film.

OMG I know!

(a) dude driving a "smart car" 30 years before smart cars
(b) cameras following you everywhere, 30 years before NSA scandal
(c) have to fill out a form for everything!
(d) dude goes to Govt Dept A and they say "no you need it stamped by Dept B" and he goes "but I jus came from Dept B and they said I need to come to you" LOLOLOL

Dude, it actually reminded me a lot of Clockwork! Know what I mean?

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Foggy

There's a few literary similarities between the two, but they're not so much alike. Synecdoche is pretty dense and confusing however, you could argue they're both different interpretations of the oridinary man trying/failing to escape their realities. You should try and give it a watch sometime, it's well worth it if you've enjoyed other films penned by Charlie Kaufman. In fact I believe Ebert was torn between including this or Tree of Life in his final Sight and Sound Top 10 poll.

say no more!!! I'm in !!!! (srs)

[Al_The_Strange]

Star Trek: First Contact

"They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here!"—Patrick Stewart
--------------------
There has never been a more menacing species of Star Trek aliens than the Borg. Since the Next Generation crew first ran across them in Season 2 (thanks to freakin' Q), this race of cybernetic zombies relentlessly battled and pushed against the Federation, always threatening to wipe out colonies and assimilate their citizens into their own collective hive mind. No more individuality. No more free expression or liberty. No more culture. Nothing but a voice in everybody's head telling them how to live and work. Not even Captain Picard could resist them—in one of the show's most captivating episodes (a season finale nonetheless), he became Locutus of Borg.

With the Next Generation movie series kicked off, Picard is still haunted by his experience with the Borg. First Contact opens up on this note, first showing us a nightmarish view of the Borg hive, before diving into a last desperate battle to protect Earth. Within the first ten minutes, the Federations pummels a Borg cube to pieces—it might be the most incredible battle scene of all the Trek movies. Then, the Borg decide to hit Earth where it would hurt the most: in the past. It's up to the Enterprise to stop them.

First Contact is certainly one of the most entertaining Trek adventures: it sports great action scenes and plenty of colorful humor. Above all, it's crammed full of conflict. Aside from the physical threat of the Borg, the Enterprise crew also has to overcome personal troubles: Picard becomes blindly vengeful over the Borg, Data becomes seduced by them, and everybody has to put up with Zefram Cochrane. All that while trying to save the world and make sure the historic First Contact flight actually happens, keeping history intact. Stakes don't get much bigger than that.

It is a dense story, but it never feels convoluted. Each story complication reveals as a natural effect of each action, and it happens at an even pace. There are a few minor contrivances to facilitate some of the twists (seriously, what the f**k are "chronometric particles"?), but the story's direction is firm and it all builds up to a satisfying climax—maybe moreso in how character arcs are rounded off than in physical conflict. The film carries some decent themes concerning destiny and the directions people take to fulfill them. As adventurous as the film is, that's about as deep as it gets—any allegories behind the Borg (as a communist state and such) are dropped, they're pretty much just evil cyborg zombies. The lore behind them is mixed up even more with the introduction of a Borg Queen: it seems counter-intuitive to the original concept, but she is a decent villain we love to hate. On the other hand, Star Trek fans should get a kick out of seeing the actual First Contact event.

This film is notably dark, but it is very well-filmed and edited. Acting can be rather dry, especially with the comedy, but that's part of what makes it so amusing. Patrick Stewart is still great as Captain Picard, but in this film he comes across as far angrier and less rational than usual (which is warranted by the story, so I don't really consider that a problem). The rest of the cast is great, but Brent Spinner and James Cromwell are especially pleasant surprises. Alice Krige's performance as the Borg Queen is deliciously wicked. The film is pretty well-written, despite the minor plotting issues here and there. This production uses great-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects—most things in this film represents an upgraded look and style from all previous Next Generation media, and it's all pretty slick and fresh. Jerry Goldsmith's music score is decent.

Star Trek: First Contact is easily the best and funnest Next Generation film of the series. Come for the Borg. Stay for the weighty drama, dry wit, character arcs, and a story full of twists and high stakes. You know you want to. Resistance is futile.

4/5

Recommendation: Sure, why not?
--------------------
On Blu-Ray, this movie looks passable, but is marred a bit by DNR/EE. Sound quality is good.

PQ: 3/5, AQ: 4/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Star Trek: Insurrection

"If a court-martial is the only way to tell the Federation what is happening here, Admiral... I welcome it."—Patrick Stewart
--------------------
What's this? Could it be that the Enterprise and her crew are disobeying orders and rebelling against the Federation?

In Star Trek: Insurrection, we're presented with a thrilling and colorful episode in which Captain Picard butts heads with Admiral Dougherty. The issue: turns out the Federation made plans with the Son'a to relocate a bunch of Ba'ku so they can sap the youth-giving rings off of their home planet.

Yeah, okay, it's not the most epic story, especially for a film marketed to look like the Enterprise would take on the entire Federation. As an isolated, stand-alone incident, this whole movie plays out like an extended Next Generation episode, lacking in scope and significance. In fact, this exact same premise was done before in a Next Generation episode (I forget which one—the Enterprise relocated some primitive people in the holodeck to save them from some kind of disaster).

The film is not without merit though. It is easily the most colorful of Trek films, sporting some really cool special effects scenes (including an awesome battle in the middle of a nebula, a daring shuttle stunt in the atmosphere, and plenty of phaser-fights on the ground and in mountains). There's also a lot of humor in this film, to the point of silliness (seriously, Data talks about boobs...so yeah). It's all very lighthearted, and that's what makes it endearing.

Even though the story doesn't break new ground, it has its moments. A few key character arcs keep it from being a total throwaway: there's a nice romance between Picard and an alien woman, and Data gets in touch with his inner child. The main conflict carries a pretty interesting twist involving the alien races, which carries a subtle Garden-of-Eden allegory. Few minor issues make this a little daft though—one Ba'ku has some power to slow time down, no explanation given. One kid carries an alien squirrel around, no real purpose. Riker controls the Enterprise with a gaming joystick at one point. A few twists may be hard to swallow.

The film looks slick, with plenty of nice photography and solid editing. Performances are great as always: the Next Generation crew is lively and spirited. Anthony Zerbe is pretty dry, but he gets the job done. F. Murray Abraham lets loose a few pretty awful screams, but he's still good as a loathsome villain. I am quite smitten by Donna Murphy. Writing is alright. This production uses some good-looking sets, props, costumes, and spectacular special effects. Music score is alright, more of the same.

The Insurrection is hardly as badass as it sounds: it's lightweight, silly, and limited in its ambition. But it is a fun and colorful flick with a few strong points and a few cool parts. I always enjoyed it, but I'd only recommend it to the most diehard of Trek fans.

3/5*

Recommendation: Rental.
--------------------
On Blu-Ray, still have some DNR/EE, but sound quality is decent.

PQ: 3/5, AQ: 4/5

*=Score reduced from the usual 3.5/5 due to an ongoing initiative on my part to be more strict with my scoring and change thresholds. 3/5 now denotes the minimum level in which I like a movie or consider it good, whereas before it was more of a big gray area. This also means my score for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier will drop to 3/5, but all other Trek scores remain the same.

[Al_The_Strange]

Star Trek: Nemesis

"I'll show you my true nature—our nature."—Tom Hardy
--------------------
In the Next Generation's fourth (and last) film adventure, Romulans finally take the stage. Ultimately, this film is less about the Enterprise fighting Romulan warbirds as it is about Captain Picard facing his worst enemy: himself.

This is a rather convoluted story that seems more interested in stringing action scenes together. After a seemingly-random subplot involving Data's prototype, the Enterprise and her crew run across a dude named Shinzon, who not only commits a coup against the Romulan senate, but also lures the Enterprise into a trap and goes on a suicidal rampage against Earth.

There are cool things in this film: the space battles are great and they don't hold back. There's a huge dune-buggy chase on an alien planet (which I really don't think is necessary, but whatever). Plenty of phaser shoot-outs and fights. There are funny parts here and there, but it's mostly the action and drama that dominate. This may be the most action-packed Trek movie for the Next Generation crew.

What makes it all congeal, thankfully, is the core premise about duality. It appears in just about every corner of the film: the titular "nemesis" of the story is Picard's other, darker half, and their conflict is ultimately Picard fighting himself. Same goes for Riker and Data (and maybe Troi), who also have foil characters to represent their other, darker halves (and they all literally have to fight them). Even the planets mentioned in the dialogue—Romulus and Remus—represent two halves of a whole. Duality drives the conflict through the whole story, implying the theme that everybody and everything in the Trek universe could be perverted into something dark and evil if things were different (and perhaps this is no different than the whole "Mirrorverse" theme the original series had). These themes tend to become buried beneath all the action, but the resolution of Data's character arc punches the theme home that action and choice make the man more than origins and upbringing.

All that being said, some subplots remain nebulous, and for a movie featuring Romulans there are surprisingly few Romulans on-screen. I personally wish Romulans weren't shoved to the background like they are in this movie—with their senate killed off in the opening scene, there is potential for a lot more chaos and conflict, especially on a political level. This could have been as dense and tense as The Undiscovered Country. Instead, the film neglects those considerations in favor of the Picard-vs-Shinzon conflict, as if trying to one-up the classic Kirk-vs-Khan battle. The result comes off as rather shallow.

It is an okay-looking film, with okay photography and editing. I was never a fan of the all-sepia scenes on Kolarus III, but for the rest of the picture the lighting and frequent green and blue lighting paints an appropriately darker tone. Patrick Stewart and the rest of the cast reprise their roles admirably. Tom Hardy comes off as a fairly typical villain, but on close inspection he does embody a few key traits that parallel Picard in subtle ways. Ron Perlman is barely recognizable, but for decent effect. Writing is interesting, but could have been better. This production sports okay sets, props, and costumes. Some special effects are so-so, others are spectacular. Jerry Goldsmith's music score is decent.

Nemesis has its share of great scenes and ideas, but I wish there could have been more to the story to address the larger Trek universe and the implications of every character's actions. As it is though, the scope is limited to the characters, and the film is fairly interesting that way. Worth a look for Trek fans.

3/5*

Recommendation: Rental.
--------------------
On Blu-Ray, this film looks okay. Sounds good.

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5

*=Once again, score lowered from 4/5 due to changes in the way I'm scoring movies. I was always flip-flopping over this one anyway.

[Al_The_Strange]

Star Trek (2009)

"Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted, our destinies have changed."--Zachary Quinto
--------------------
You’d have to be living under a rock on Delta Vega to have never heard of the Star Trek franchise. Ever since its (tragically-cancelled) run in the 60s, this quaint sci-fi show spawned a dozen films, half-a-dozen spinoff TV shows, and a massive fan base that could constitute its own nation (complete with its own language, customs, and dress code). Slight problem with some of the original films is that they cater specifically to the Trekkies--most casual audiences might find some amusement among the even-numbered films, but the entire saga is a nerd haven more than anything.

So, in 2009, this reboot was released with the casual audience in mind. Even if you’ve never liked or heard of Star Trek before, this film will blow you away! From start to finish, there’s loads of spectacular space battles, shootouts, fistfights, and occasional bursts of witty (and rather silly) humor. The pacing is tight, and the movie overall carries an adventurous spirit that hasn’t really been invoked since Star Wars. At the same time, die-hard Trekkies should be relieved to see some familiar faces, hear some familiar lines, and witness the occasional homage to the classics.

This new saga begins on an emotionally gut-wrenching note: Jim Kirk's birth, in the middle of a starship disaster. This scene alone elicits enough awe and tears to give the film dramatic weight. The rest of Kirk's journey doesn't strive for the same level of emotion, but the character arcs are strong. Part of the film tracks Kirk's maturity from a reckless lost soul to a capable starship captain. Spock gets his own story arc, crammed full of emotional turmoil and identity conflict. Their union underscores key themes concerning destiny (which, is partly about aligning the Trek crew in all the right places, but is also relevant to Kirk and his challenge to make something of himself--it's an inspiring change). On top of that, there are subtle themes of death that emerge. Some of it is passing scenes and dialogue that illustrate the perils of space travel. Other parts analyze the way characters handle life and death situations. These ideas not only give the action weight, but also gives leverage to the sequels.

Unfortunately, the story is not without its contrivances. It does use some clever science to reset the Trek universe and open up possibilities for the new series. In doing so, the film had to link up a few key scenes with some shortcuts (such as the idea of "transwarp beaming," which in turn becomes a sudden possibility because of an unlikely ally). Though I found these shortcuts minor, they do little to mask the film's agenda of tying together nostalgia in a blockbuster package for mass consumption. Some viewers will find this distasteful. Personally, I felt the experience of the film, the strength of the characters, and the overall color and spirit made up for the shortcomings.

Coming from JJ Abrams, you can expect some jittery camerawork and lens flares--some people find these effects annoying, but I think they add realism and intensity to the film. Otherwise, much of the film sports very unusual camera movements and angles, which gives the film a lot of movement and perspective. It's more than style--it's a highly successful way of immersing the audience in outer space. Editing is snappy. Acting is superb--I initially found Chris Pine a little off as Kirk, but the man does emphasize the arrogance and impulsiveness of Kirk with some degree of accuracy. As Spock, Zachary Quinto balances nuance and emotion in a very endearing performance--he has a few moments of angst, but it befits the story. Karl Urban is perfect as McCoy. I enjoy the performances of Zoe Saldana, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin. Winona Ryder is in the mix too, and I didn't even know it was her playing Spock's mom until later. Writing is good overall--much of the dialogue is rather low-key, but the film does expertly balance signature Trek aspects, character-building, and action. Production value is decent--it’s pretty obvious that they filmed many scenes at a beer factory, but most camera tricks are incredibly convincing, and it shows magnificent prowess at using less to make more. A lot of it also serves to make things look creditable--transporter beams, warp drive, red matter, etc all appear scientifically plausible. A lot of costumes and props look sleek and futuristic, but are still classy throwbacks to the original saga. Special effects are spectacular. Music is surprisingly catchy.

The new Star Trek universe is an awesome-looking, epic-scale blockbuster adventure brimming with color and spirit. Its story twists things around in a few contrived ways, but the characters are spot-on, and the experience overall has never failed to elicit feelings of awe and adoration. For those feelings and the adventurous spirit the film embodies, this remains my favorite Trek movie of them all.

5/5
--------------------
On Blu-Ray, this film looks and sounds just about perfect.

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Star Trek: Into Darkness

"There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves."--Chris Pine
--------------------
In 2009, Star Trek was "rebooted", successfully remixing aspects of the classic Trek universe and making it all fresh, new, and exciting again. At the same time, it remained true to the classic characters and the spirit of the franchise. In the film's first sequel, Into Darkness sets forth to do the same thing most other sequels do: introduce more characters, raise the stakes, and take the audience on a (hopefully bigger and "better") thrill ride.

This film definitely retains the thrill ride aspects--like its predecessor, it still has some great action scenes, some jaw-dropping special effects, and the occasional pieces of humor. The film definitely goes big--with chases and battles across space, on alien planets, and ultimately on Earth, there are plenty of huge action scenes. The film also tries its best to blow up the emotional stakes.

Therein lies the film's most interesting and redeeming values: where the characters stand at this point. The first film introduced the Enterprise crew in a fresh new light, using Kirk's flirtation with death as a thematic pillar. In this film, the theme is expanded tremendously, pitting Kirk against death in a twisting series of events that constantly calls for him to make the hard choices. At multiple moments, everybody is called upon to question the value of human life, the value of the mission, and the morality of self-sacrifice. Oh yes, fans of the classic films will recognize these same aspects from The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock, because Into Darkness takes the same aspects and remixes them.

Unfortunately, this becomes the film's biggest problem. After going through all the trouble to reset the Trek universe, filmmakers placed their bets on the safest of creative choices: they created a story where history repeats itself. The matter is made worse in the bizarre way they wrapped this rehashed story around a Federation conspiracy (which in itself seems to be inspired by the writers' own 9/11 conspiracy theories, which I always found hard to swallow, and it's equally hard to swallow as a Trek story). Juggling so many aspects and agendas, plot holes are patched in flimsy ways. Some scenes (and characters) pass without leaving any impact. It all adds up to a brisk climax that brings the action back to Earth (thus limiting the scope of the movie to disappointing levels), and fixing things up tidily so the Enterprise crew can sail once more. The only thing that holds this story up are the character arcs (and they're good enough, thankfully).

The film continues to exhibit some jittery camerawork and plenty of lens flares, which will irk many viewers. Some of the camera movements are pretty brilliant though. Acting is the same as before: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin, John Cho, and Simon Pegg all inhabit their characters comfortably, and are a joy to watch. Bruce Greenwood is still good, Alice Eve is quite appealing, and I felt that Peter Weller's role is appropriate. The biggest draw to this film will be Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain--the man definitely establishes the proper screen presence and gives his character plenty of nuance. Writing for this film could have been better. As before, the film uses some clever camera trickery and unique settings to give the film a unique and authentic-looking edge. All the sets, props, costumes, and special effects are good. The music score offers much of the same as from the first film, but with unique new variations.

It is disappointing that Star Trek: Into Darkness doesn't boldly go where no film has gone before. What the film lacks in good plotting, it makes up for in its energy, spirit, characterization, and quality, all of which carries over from the last film superbly. It's far from perfect, but still an enjoyable thrill ride.

4/5
--------------------
On Blu-Ray, this film looks and sounds great. 3D is pretty awesome most of the time.

PQ: 5/5, AQ: 5/5, 3D: 4/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Star Trek: Beyond

"This is where it begins, Captain. This is where the frontier pushes back!"--Idris Elba
--------------------
After two successful entries of the rebooted Star Trek series, it's finally time to bring the adventures of the Enterprise to the final frontier. What will they find on the edge of space? The latest film finds the Enterprise crew in the middle of their five-year assignment--in the heart of a wicked-looking nebula, they'll come face-to-face with a menace that could wipe out the Federation for good.

Surprisingly, the film kicks off on a rather dour note--after an amusing opening scene, Kirk reflects on three years of mundane exploration. Once the set-up is out of the way, the film delivers ample amounts of action that just gets bigger and bigger. Grand space battles. Phaser-beam fights. Lots of running and gunning. In one epic finale, Kirk and the gang has to save a thriving space colony from certain destruction, overcoming swarms of ships before duking it out with the bad guy.

There are cool scenes in Star Trek: Beyond, but it's far from the end-all-be-all Trek adventure. Despite the action, the film drags between the major action swells. Part of the issue is that outside of JJ Abrams' hands, a certain something is missing. Color, spirit, and energy are dampened--Beyond is surprisingly dark in its lighting and mood, and slightly bland in its style and writing. Fortunately, the experience is funner in its second half than the first--some light comedy (thanks to McCoy, Scotty, and a lovable alien named Jaylah) and absurdity (a few unlikely stunts, and a certain scene with Beastie Boys music) makes this a fair (but not exceptional) blockbuster experience.

The story this film tells is an interesting one for the Enterprise records (and it's most welcome after the uninspired events of Into Darkness). By nature, it's a story that challenges the series' classic themes of exploration and utopic peace. In turn, these themes carry over to the character arcs, as Kirk finds his mojo again in the face of death. Characters are as strong as ever--they are familiar and mature at this point, and they feel more at home as the Enterprise crew than they did in the previous films. The villain adds an interesting dimension to things as well--I found the big twist predictable, but it is an interesting turn that keeps the action going and keeps enough brain cells firing. The film offers a few sentiments concerning certain characters and events before its closing, keeping it from being a total throwaway.

The film boasts plain photography and editing. Most scenes in the first half seem really dark and drab. However, there are some impressive standouts (including a great time-lapse shot of a spaceship being built). Acting is great: Chris Pine seems most mature as Captain Kirk, but still kicks plenty of butt and shows all the right attitude we know and love. Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin still deliver great performances. Idris Elba is a decently-menacing villain, and I was fairly smitten by Sofia Boutellas' character. Writing is not bad--it's nowhere near as low-key as the last two movies, which I think makes the film more creditable as a Trek movie, but it also comes off as a little dry (even with the humor). This production uses decent-looking sets, props, and costumes--a lot of things match up with the Trek universe well, and Yorktown might be the most imaginative space station I've seen. Most special effects are great. The music score is lovely.

Star Trek: Beyond doesn't have the same punch as its predecessors, but it is an enjoyable film with an original, fairly thoughtful story. While the film won't leave as big of an impact, it has its fair share of fun.

3.5/5
--------------------
Notes:

• RIP Anton Yelchin. His performance in this film was very good.
• The spiel with Sulu amounts to him and another dude hugging for all of two seconds. Any controversy around that is quite unwarranted, imo.
• Jaylah may be one of my new favorite side characters.
• I loved how the USS Franklin looked pretty close to the NX-01 from the Star Trek: Enterprise series.
• Overall, I think I expected more color (both in actual color and in the characters/writing/action), but I do think it got funner as it went on. I'd probably rank this on the same level as Search for Spock. Better than Insurrection, Nemesis, Generations, and The Final Frontier.
• A couple of weeks ago, I probably would have graded this a soft 4/5, but I've recently decided to readjust the way I score movies. 3.5/5 for this means I enjoyed it and will probably want to see it again and again, but I don't see it having more resonance than the last two Trek movies.
• Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: no lens flares.

[Diesel]

Rewatched Bourne Identity in preparation for Jason Bourne this weekend.

I have seen all of the Bourne films but could not remember a darn thing about the original 3, so I decided to run back through them.

What I remembered was that I find these movies incredibly BORING. They are just so dull.

I will not be revisiting the 2nd and 3rd because now that I watched Identity again I remember that I actually never even finished watching Ultimatum.

I'll still be watching Jason Bourne this weekend because the trailer makes it look quite good....but now I have my expectations set pretty low.

[Diesel]

Great reviews for the new Trek films Al.

I rewatched them in the last few weeks to get ready for Beyond as well. As with you, I have adjusted my scoring in the last several months to a year (I forget how long its been ) to stop giving so many things a 4/5 and up. I used to give the original a 5/5 when it first came out, but that was adjusted down to a reasonable (for me) level a while back to a 4.5/5. It is still the strongest of the new films to me.

As someone who has never and will never see the old Trek films, I did not have the problems with the similarities to Wrath of Khan that most of the internet had with Into Darkness and quite enjoyed the film with a fantastic performance from Cumberbatch. It is a solid 4/5 on my current scale.


I thought the new film was entertaining and a fun ride with great humor...but nothing more. I never felt that the crew were in any real danger or that the villain had any hope of succeeding like I did with Bana and Cumberbatch's villainous turns; which is a real shame considering how awesome Idris Elba is. I'm undecided on if I will purchase this film or not; but if I do, it definitely will not be until it hits the $9.99 price point, which is actually where I wait for almost all of my purchases to hit these days with the exception of Disney who hates reducing the price on anything. I give the film a 3.5/5.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Rewatched Bourne Identity in preparation for Jason Bourne this weekend.

I have seen all of the Bourne films but could not remember a darn thing about the original 3, so I decided to run back through them.

What I remembered was that I find these movies incredibly BORING. They are just so dull.

I will not be revisiting the 2nd and 3rd because now that I watched Identity again I remember that I actually never even finished watching Ultimatum.

I'll still be watching Jason Bourne this weekend because the trailer makes it look quite good....but now I have my expectations set pretty low.

Yeah, I hear ya. I remember renting Identity back in 2002 and finding it very dull. Didn't follow up with the sequels until over ten years later. Funnily enough, I remember liking Ultimatum better than the others--maybe because I thought that would be the end of it all, and it seemed like an okay finale.

I may be able to get a free ticket for Jason Bourne (thanks to the Jaws sequels finally coming to Blu-Ray--one had a Fandango code ). If it wasn't for that, I probably wouldn't bother.

[Diesel]

I received a $2 off voucher from Fandango in an e-mail, so for $3.51 I can give it a shot based on the trailer.

Hopefully we at least get a good Tommy Lee Jones as Tommy Lee Jones performance