Star Trek into Darkness

According to legend sometime in the mid-sixties, Gene Roddenberry wanted to make an intelligent science fiction series that sneakily commented on larger issues by hiding them in an action/adventure format.  The example of The Twilight Zone is always cited.  He packaged Star Trek to NBC as “Wagon Train to the stars,” implying that it was a western in space.  How much of this story is true is up for debate, but at the beginning, Roddenberry recruited top science fiction authors of the day like Theodore Sturgeon and Harlan Ellison to write provocative and fondly remembered episodes.  Of course there were also the episodes where the crew of the Enterprise would kick alien behind and a lot of those were good too. 

Since then Star Trek has been torn between these two poles.  When J.J. Abrams took over the reins of the franchise four years ago with Star Trek, he definitely operated at the slam bang action side of things.  Chris Pine played Kirk like he was the love child of Bruce Willis and James Dean and that attitude permeated the rest of Abrams’s altered timeline.

As a lifelong Star Trek fan, I saw the need for Abrams to roil the stagnant waters of the Star Trek universe four years ago and I approved of the results, perhaps not wholeheartedly but with enthusiasm.  Now comes the sequel to Star Trek and it is very much along the same lines.

Kirk’s in trouble again.  He saved Spock’s life on a mission into a live volcano on an alien world but he had to break the Prime Directive and reveal the presence of the Enterprise to the natives to do it.  When Kirk returns to Earth, to face the music, a man calling himself John Harrison, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, launches a terrorist attack, killing a good percentage of Star Fleet leadership including Kirk’s mentor, Captain Pike.  Kirk gets the permission of Admiral Marcus, played by Peter Weller, to take the Enterprise and go after him.  But all is not as it seems.

That’s really all the set up I can give you without spoiling the plot and I’ll warn you right now that if you don’t want that to happen don’t go to the movie’s IMDB page until after you’ve seen the film. 

The audacity of what Abrams did in the first film is beginning to wear off in the second.  Star Trek into Darkness is less bold.  In fact where it runs into trouble is when to pays too much respectful homage to an event that took place in the other timeline that I can’t tell you about.  It really threw me out of the film though.

All that aside, it is a serviceable action movie with fine performances from the leads, especially Pine, Quinto and Cumberbatch.  The action set pieces are unforgettable and the special effects are spectacular and seamlessly integrated into the live action.  Even the lava scenes look good.  Maybe it’s time for Peter Jackson to go back to The Return of the King and fix those lava scenes?  And I’ve noticed that they seem to be doing a better job with the 3D.  Either the technology is better or directors are learning how to use it more effectively.

With Abrams now being put in charge of the Star Wars universe as well, I am anxiously awaiting the next few moves.  I don’t think he can do both.  Maybe I’m wrong but it doesn’t seem likely.  I love action movies, but I also love intelligent plots that make you think, which is something that the Star Trek series did well.  I hope Trek is steered back toward that part of its heritage. 

Iron Man 3

The melodramatic tone that Marvel has chosen for its movies obviously works very well for them.  Operatic emotions and desperate battles conducted on a worldwide if not galactic scale echo the source material very well.  As a consequence, however, these films don’t really mirror reality as much as mine it for material. 

Take the Mandarin in Iron Man 3, played by Ben Kingsley.  He is called a terrorist, which is obviously a word very much on our minds at this point in history.  But really he is portrayed as a high tech megalomaniac who has built a large organization with a clear chain of command and endless resources and expertise.  In other words he’s a comic book villain, no more, no less.

My point is that those looking for profound insight on the state of global relations should look elsewhere.  If you are looking for two and a half hours of escapist excitement, you’re in the right place.  But you’re going to get something more.

That’s not to say that what Marvel is doing isn’t important.  I can’t think of any other examples of this kind of approach to a series.  Iron Man 3 is the first film in Marvel’s phase 2.  Phase 1 was the previous Iron Man films, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America and climaxing with The Avengers.  Phase 2 will take a similar approach with separate members of the team getting their own films in which a small part of it, usually in the form of a cameo by Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury, will advance the mega plot which will be resolved in the Avengers film that ends the phase.  It is taking a comic book approach to the movies and I’m curious to see how many phases they can get through before people lose interest.  This could change the way these kinds of movies are made, putting emphasis on continuity and the shared history of the characters.  It’s a geek’s dream come true.

When Iron Man 3 starts, Tony Stark is in a bad place mentally.  The events in The Avengers have left him with a bad case of PTSD.  He can’t sleep and he’s obsessing over how much he has to lose, most notably Pepper Potts, played by Gweneth Paltrow, his former aid and current girlfriend and CEO of Stark Industries.  The mere mention of the events in New York, gives him anxiety attacks.  When Happy Hogan, played by John Favreau, is seriously injured in a terrorist attack for which the Mandarin claims responsibility, Tony calls the terrorist out, giving out his address on national TV.  This proves to be a mistake when helicopters come and destroy his Malibu home with missiles, almost killing him, Pepper and one of Tony’s one night stands from the old days, Maya Hansen, played by Rebecca Hall who was there to advance a plot point that I can’t really talk about without spoiling the movie.  So Tony has to go on the run with only an untested prototype Iron Man suit and his brain.

For a movie that runs two hours and twenty minutes, it is amazing how tightly plotted Iron Man 3 is.  Almost nothing is wasted here.  At the beginning of the film, Tony is testing technology that sends pieces of the suit flying through the air at his summons and assembles the suit around him.  It’s a funny scene and the tech he’s testing plays a very important part later in the film.  Also the plot is very clever with twists you don’t see coming and things you’ve never seen before.

Let’s face it.  Robert Downey Jr. is a talented actor and perfect for this role.  In a genre where there are several perfect matches of actor to hero, Perlman to Hellboy, Jackman to Wolverine, Downey stands out.  And it is very good news that the notoriously tight-fisted Marvel is willing to pay to keep him in the role.  They are also letting him fully explore the character, which is a large part of this film.  Tony goes through some dark times here; his vulnerabilities are exposed to the world, and you can see more than ever that his throwaway quips are a defense mechanism and his constant inventing is his comfort zone.  It is probably Downey’s best performance in the role.

The supporting cast comes through with flying colors as well.  Gweneth Paltrow is given more to do than usual and really shines here.  Her chemistry with Downey is evolving and she really conveys how difficult it is to be involved with someone as complicated as Tony Stark.  Pepper never completely lets her emotional guard down when dealing with him.  Their relationship is probably the most realistic thing in the movie, a dynamic give and take that takes constant effort to maintain.

Don Cheadle, playing Colonel James Rhodes, is given a lot more to do as well.  He handles the action part well and has pretty good comic timing.   There are conflicts at the core of Rhody’s character.  While he is good friends with Tony and jokes around with him, he is also a military man through and through and carries himself with that demeanor.  He looks at the chaos that always seems to surround Tony and worries that one day it will destroy his friend and there won’t be much he can do about it.

I can’t say much about the villains without giving things away.  Suffice to say that Ben Kingsley and Guy Pearce are as amazing as they usually are.  This is a very well-cast film.

Iron Man 3 is by far the best Iron Man movie and it is right up there with Captain America and The Avengers as the best of the Marvel produced movies.  Plotwise it is still very much in the realm of melodrama.  But emotionally it approaches realism, which I don’t think has been tried in this genre.

Oblivion

In 2077 Jack Harper, played by Tom Cruise is an engineer in the last days of his hitch on an Earth ravaged by a war with aliens.  He lives in a posh floating house with his supervisor, Victoria, played by Andrea Riseborough, going down to the surface every day to repair the drones that guard giant automated factories draining the Earth’s oceans of hydrogen to use on colonies on Titan.  Two more weeks and they can begin their journey to the colony.

Both of them had their memories wiped when their mission started five years before in case they are captured by the remnants of the alien enemy, called “scavs.”  But for Jack a few images from his lost years are dribbling through.  One of them is of a beautiful woman on the observation deck of the Empire State Building.  When he rescues that woman from a crashed spaceship, he realizes that his assumptions about history and the nature of his world are all wrong.

None of this sounds particularly promising to old science fiction hands.  SF is a literature of ideas and film, which tends toward the visual and therefore surface elements, always lags behind when it tries to make something intellectual.  Oblivion is no exception.  The twist at the end is about as profound as an essay for an expository comp class written by a high school sophomore.  And it takes a slow meandering course to get there.  And despite lasting over two hours this film doesn’t present you with any characters that you care about.

The film is pretty.  There are bleak landscapes and impressive sets.  I want to live in that house.  Tom Cruise does his Tom Cruise thing and that’s fine.  I doubt that Morgan Freeman had to do much preparation for his role beyond learning his lines.  The other cast members are competent.

But the film’s heart is more of a puzzle than an honest emotional statement.  And it’s not a particularly hard or intriguing puzzle at that.  Oblivion is an empty shell and a waste of time.

42

The story of Jackie Robinson’s entry into the Major Leagues in 1947 is a perfect example of how history progresses, especially in the area of civil rights.  Branch Rickey couldn’t have been the only general manager to look at the talent in the Negro Leagues and wonder “What if…”  So the broad historical trend was there.  It was going to happen eventually.  And yet Mr. Rickey was the first and for a while only GM to have the courage to actually sign a black player for a major league team, knowing full well that it would mean his organization would be banned from scouting minor league teams in the south.  There’s your great man theory of history.  I suspect that usually it’s a combination of both.

Rickey was also smart in that he knew he had to wait for a player who was not only good enough to win over fans with his skill but also of a certain demeanor.  This player couldn’t rise to the racial taunts, the bean balls, and the raised spikes of the base runners.  Robinson who’d actually been acquitted in a court-marshal in the army for insubordination had learned these lessons and was perfect for the position.

He was also a hell of a ballplayer.  I think his importance as a cultural figure sometimes overshadows that.

Chadwick Boseman takes on the roll of Jackie Robinson and Harrison Ford plays Branch Rickey in Brian Helgeland’s 42.  This story has been told on the screen a couple of times before.  Robinson played himself in the 1950 film The Jackie Robinson Story and there was a TV movie called The Court Marshal of Jackie Robinson with Andre Braugher playing the role that concentrated on his early life, especially his army experience.  Neither of those efforts are particularly well remembered.

42 is respectful, probably too much so.  This is the problem with making a movie about such an icon; the filmmakers were afraid to make him human.  In 42 Jackie has the patience of a saint.  Sure there’s a scene or two where he gets frustrated and wants to fight back, but you never really doubt that he will control his temper.  Jackie’s struggle is only seen from the outside; we don’t get in his head at all. 

Another problem is the plot.  It just doesn’t build.  There’s one incident after another and there’s no real climax other than clinching the pennant.  It gives the film a sterile tone.  Everything is too compartmentalized and clean. 

Boseman does well enough in the role.  He is lithe and fit like Robinson was, more likely to hit a single and steal second and even third than to smash a home run.  He does his best, given limited opportunity, to display Robinson’s inner turmoil.

Harrison Ford’s turn as Branch Rickey is a little broad.  It’s not quite as bad as what you might assume from watching the previews but there’s very little nuance. 

Obviously race is still a tricky thing in this country.  It is hard to make a film about it, especially if it includes an icon like Jackie Robinson.  Spielberg succeeded with Lincoln and there are probably other examples.  But lessor filmmaker’s feel the need to hold back and not court controversy.  42 isn’t a bad film.  The audience I saw it with enjoyed it.  But I can’t help but think of the irony that a film about two bold and brave men should be so timid.

Roger Ebert

Every so often I get asked if I’m related to Roger Ebert.  My standard answer is “No, but it would be nice to have a rich uncle.”  I always wanted to write him and ask for permission to use the title The Other Ebert, but I never got up the nerve, which is definitely my loss since I understand from his obituaries that he encouraged movie review bloggers.

The year 1978 saw two momentous events.  That was the year that Sneak Previews, the review show that Roger did with Gene Siskel, debuted on PBS and it was also the year I entered film school.  Having always been passionate about film, I responded to Roger’s passion.  During that period in film history, the American independent movement was just picking up steam and a lot of exciting films were coming out.  Roger and Gene turned me on to many of them.  I didn’t review films back then.  That bug didn’t bite me until 25 years later, but I’ve always watched films and loved them.  Roger definitely enabled that.

To me, Roger fell into a utilitarian niche in film criticism.  He was the kind of film critic you went to when you wanted to know what film to see that night.  There were others like Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris that viewed film from a more artistic viewpoint.  They studied films, explaining them in terms of aesthetic theories like auteurism; Roger just enjoyed them.  But of course it wasn’t that simple.  Roger brought just as much intellectual rigor and knowledge of film history to criticism as Kael and Sarris (or even James Agee before them) but he was better at explaining it to non-film students.  And he wasn’t afraid to admit that he liked a film that was enjoyable even though it lacked any kind of intellectual heft.  That’s the mark of someone who truly loves movies.

Since I started this blog I’ve always approached it with the philosophy that I would certainly give my opinion but I would also give people enough of a feel for what the movie is like that they could decide for themselves if they might like it despite my opinion.  I don’t know if I’ve achieved that or not but Roger Ebert certainly did.

Also inspirational is the brave way in which he battled cancer in the last years of his life.  He never stopped reviewing films and after a hiatus, he even appeared on television again.  If I lost a jaw and with it the ability to talk and eat, I would pack it in, become a recluse and never have my picture taken.  Roger went on TV, using an electronic gizmo to talk.  That’s a powerful love of movies and frankly of life.

He was the first movie critic to win a Pulitzer Prize and was truly the most recognizable and influential movie critic in the country.  I am proud to share his last name and his love of cinema.

 

Oz the Great and Powerful

I once read The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.  Though there are many who love it, I didn’t care for it.  To me Baum’s creation lacked rigor and any sense of history.  All these crazy and unlikely beings were thrown together with no explanation other than it was magic.  Plus I don’t think his magical system had any internal logic to it.  Magic users could or could not do things whenever it was convenient to the plot.  Perhaps I would have felt differently about it if I’d read it as a child or before I read Tolkien.

Loved the movie though.  Which is strange because it suffers from many of the same faults as the book.  It is a story that depends on spectacle, and either Baum’s writing skills weren’t up to the task of describing what was in his imagination or the more formal style of writing in those days doesn’t speak to us modern readers.  And of course, I did see the movie when I was a kid just like every other member of the last three and a half generations of Americans.

So I wonder if Oz would have been the cultural touchstone that it is if the 1939 masterpiece had never been made.  Certainly the book was a bestseller, so successful that Baum wrote thirteen sequels and when he died in 1919, the publisher hired another writer to pen a sequel a year until 1942.  There were theatrical productions and even a musical, and three silent films were made from it before ’39.  But the ‘39 film is such a colossus that it’s hard to believe that it hasn’t overshadowed its source material.  There’s nothing in the book as glorious as Judy Garland singing Somewhere Over the Rainbow, or that first shot of Oz in Technicolor.  I suppose we’ll never know.

So now Disney has hired visionary director Sam Raimi to make a direct prequel to the film, not the book.  Oz the Great and Powerful is the story of Oscar Diggs, played by James Franco, an itinerant carnival magician of dubious ethics, who comes to Oz, accidentally and becomes the great wizard, ejecting the wicked sisters Theodora, played by Mila Kunis and Evanora, played by Rachel Weiss, from the Emerald City, while forging an alliance with their good sister Glinda, played by Michelle Williams.  It sets up the geo-political situation in Oz that exists when Dorothy arrives.

Raimi creates a beautiful film that takes its art direction and costuming from the 1939 movie.  It even steals the trick of filming all the Kansas scenes in black and white.  Of course this is done with state of the art special effects that technically surpass The Wizard of Oz, although the old film still holds up really well.  There are certain scenes where Raimi lingers too long over his pretty pictures, creating some pacing issues. 

He also directs his actors to act in the style popular in the 30’s and 40’s.  You get used to it, but I’m not really sure they pulled it off.  The main case in point being the lead performance.  I like James Franco and there are many things he can do well.  But he lacks the stage presence and the voice of an old time carnival magician.  When they show him performing his act, he doesn’t own the stage like a veteran performer and when he roars with indignation it comes off as petulant and not magisterial.  The role was seriously miscast.

I guess I can’t tell you which of the wicked sisters becomes the witch, but while both did fine, Margaret Hamilton was a force of nature and there was no way she was going to be topped. 

The plot was decent.  I liked the way that he used Oscar’s particular talents to win the day.  There were several points in the film where it resonated with the classic, homages that also cleverly set up the events in the earlier film.

But I’m sorry it doesn’t even come close.  The Wizard of Oz had five directors and nineteen screenwriters.  It was a troubled and for the time expensive production.  By all rights it should have been a mess.  But out of that chaos came a masterpiece.  People have tried to play in this world before but their efforts are long forgotten now like Disney’s own unofficial sequel, Return to Oz.  And soon Oz the Great and Powerful will be too.

 

Oscar Picks 2012

Thanks to the excellent Goldderby.com, I was able to make my list of films to see over a month ago and have been busily whittling it down.  Consequently when the nominations were announced I only had four films left to see.  Two were on DVD and pay per view and Zero Dark Thirty was opening that Friday.  By the end of that weekend only Amour, which opened in Durham on February 8, had escaped me.  Goldderby.com may have gotten a few the finalists in separate categories wrong; I think the Best Director nominations surprised everyone, but I didn’t have to add a single film to my list.  In fact I was able to eliminate a few.

I am very pleased.

Now on to the picks, with my annual reminder:  These are not predictions.  For help with your office pool you really must go to Goldderby.com.  They aggregate the predictions of several Oscarologists, people who report on the movie business and are familiar with the political winds.  What follows are my choices, the films and actors I would give the awards to.

 

Best Director

This is always a hard category to judge, namely because different directors work in different ways.  Depending on their reputations and resume’s they have varying levels of control over the final product and you never really know if they deserve the credit or the blame.

As a filmmaker Ang Lee takes a lot of chances.  I respect that but it does result in a career filled with experiments that just don’t work or only partially so.  Parts of Life of Pi are terrific but other parts are flat and uninspired.

I didn’t care for Beasts of the Southern Wild but I admired the way Benh Zeitlin hid the fact that he had no money in his production budget.  It’ll be interesting to see what he does in the future.

David O. Russell, I gather, knows from anger issues, which may have been what gave Silver Linings Playbook the extra boost into greatness.  I’d have no problem if he won.

I’d give the award to Steven Spielberg, not because he got a great performance out of Daniel Day Lewis (I could do that) but because he fashioned a suspenseful film around that performance and he did it primarily with scenes of white men sitting around talking.

 

Best Animated Feature

Either this category is maturing or the Oscarologists are way off because they have Pixar’s Brave mired in third place in their predictions.  We’ll find out on the night of the ceremony.

I’m sorry but The Pirates! Band of Misfits just doesn’t belong here.  They tried for that madcap Aardman humor and failed miserably.

The makers of Paranorman tried hard to make a Tim Burton film.  It’s a tall order, one that Tim Burton can’t seem to fill these days.  Paranorman is a pale imitation at best.

Frankenweenie is better but still not up with Burton’s best.

Wreck-it-Ralph is a pleasant surprise.  It is well voiced, especially by John C. Reilly and has a decent plot with characters you care about especially the title character.  I love the way they take the differing styles of the various video games and mold them together.  This is a unique and moving film.  I wouldn’t mind if it won.

Pixar is still king though and I’d give the award to Brave.  Sure it’s a little to Disney sweet but it’s also beautiful, engrossing, funny and touching.  It’s a Pixar film.

 

Supporting Actress

This is a tough category.  I would be happy with any of these ladies.

Even though she was playing one of the most interesting first ladies in history, I don’t think Sally Field was given a whole lot to do in Lincoln.  She’s always great but she really wasn’t allowed to show it here.

Helen Hunt was very good in The Sessions but she never really made me forget that she was Helen Hunt.

Jacki Weaver is making a name for herself lately in small independent films.  She turns in a terrific portrait here of a woman who’s dealing with a mentally disturbed son and a difficult husband.

Amy Adams is an amazing actress.  In The Master she plays the wife of cult leader and she treads that line between supporting her husband and conveying to the audience that she doesn’t believe a word he says.

My choice is Anne Hathaway.  She breaks through all the artifice of the musical and tugs directly on your heartstrings.  A great performance.

 

Supporting Actor

I’ve always said that I’m perfectly willing to pay ten bucks to watch Tommy Lee Jones be Tommy Lee Jones for two hours.  I’m not so sure I’m willing to give him an Oscar for it.  As many accolades as this performance is getting, I really didn’t see anybody but Tommy Lee up there.

Christoph Waltz is always fun to watch.  He was a revelation in Inglourius Basterds, in Django Unchained he’s fun but nothing else.

I wouldn’t complain if Alan Arkin won for Argo.  His portrayal of a slick movie producer with more than an ounce of integrity and patriotism is a highlight of his career.

Philip Seymour Hoffman doesn’t give us one of his immersive performances in The Master but it is a convincing one.  I wouldn’t mind if he won.

When in doubt give the Oscar to DeNiro.  He returns to form as an angry working class father in Silver Linings Playbook.

 

Best Actress

This is the weakest of the acting categories and yet there are a few worthy choices here.

Quvenzhane Wallis is a very charismatic young lady and that is what carries her through in Beasts of the Southern Wild.  It’s not acting, however.

I didn’t really feel like Jennifer Lawrence was given enough to do in Silver Linings Playbook.  She did well with what she had but the script’s focus was on the male character.

Emmanuelle Riva gives us a harrowing performance as a proud woman descending into dementia.  It’s masterful and intense but a little one note.

Jessica Chastain gives a passionate portrayal of a professional woman in a man’s field in Zero Dark Thirty. 

Naomi Watts’ harrowing descent into injury and illness gets my vote for best actress.

 

Best Actor

This is another strong category with five worthy performances.

Joaquin Phoenix gives an eccentric portrayal of an emotionally troubled man who is seeking help even though he doesn’t know it.

Denzel Washington delivers a powerhouse performance as a proud pilot who thinks he can get himself out of any situation and he’s almost right.

Bradley Cooper shocks the world by proving he’s more than a pretty face.  He gives us a nuanced view of a mentally disturbed man.

Hugh Jackman can sing, which makes him the ideal leading man for a musical.  He also can act, giving us a convincing and moving portrayal of Jean Valjean.

There are five worthy performances but one of them stands head and shoulders above the others.  Daniel Day Lewis’s Lincoln is not only the best performance of the year it is one of the greatest performances of all time.  His name has been etched on the base of the statue for months now.

 

Best Picture

Of the nine nominees this year, there are only three that are worthy of the big prize.

Beasts of the Southern Wild, Les Miserables, and Life of Pi are simply too flawed to consider.  Django Unchained is entertaining but it doesn’t sparkle with menace like other Tarantino films.  Zero Dark Thirty is eliminated because it is propaganda for the CIA.  Amour is too much of a downer.  Maybe that shouldn’t eliminate it but this is my blog and my list and I just didn’t enjoy it.

I won’t complain if Argo wins it.  It’s an enjoyable and important film.

Silver Linings Playbook is that rarest of all things, a good romantic comedy.  Its success is good for Hollywood.  Maybe they’ll make more now.  It probably doesn’t have a chance at the big prize but I wouldn’t mind seeing it win.

If you’ve read this blog long enough to read several of my Oscar pick columns you know I don’t always go for the big Hollywood Oscar bait but Lincoln is a colossus.  It deserves Best Picture.