Star Trek Into Darkness

Abrams is back, prior to his Star Wars Disney Reboot, with the second of his Star Trek movies.

Yup, he's back to the other space based franchise he successfully booted up four years ago with one of the most fun and rewatchable movies of that decade. In the first of this series, time is rewritten as to allow Spock (Zachary Quinto, Heroes), Kirk (Chris Pine, This Means War) and the rest of the crew aboard the Enterprise to engage in novel and increasingly energetic adventures. Into Darkness follows the team as they fight against the evil genius of John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock) who has declared war on his former employers, Star Fleet.

How does this latest outing compare to it's predecessor? Well, the acting is terrible, the science is off, the ridiculous plots and melodrama are cranked up to eleven and the dialogue is laughable. Basically, all I could have hoped for. I should preface this review with a warning that I am not a fan of the Nimoy and Shatner films, nor the original series - mainly due to never having watched them. What follows will only refer to the previous Abrams film, and nothing that precedes it.

That being said, what I do love about the current reboot of the franchise is the sense of fun that has made repeat viewings of the first film possible and pleasurable. Its silliness and the campness allowed for total immersion in the whole new world that the directer created. If, like me, this was your experience of the 2009 film, then I believe you shouldn't be disappointed with the latest offerings.

Having now seen Into Darkness twice - with a possible third viewing on the near horizon - I think that the over-the-top-action-romp-ness of the film will carry it at least as far as the audience who enjoyed the first. These are films very much centred around punching, shooting, blowing things up and screaming over the sounds of explosions (in space. Yeah, don't ask.) There are, if you wish to find such things, some broad questions raised in the areas of politics, race relations and such issues, but really if that were the point of a movie like Star Trek Into Darkness, it would have failed miserably to achieve it's prime directive.

I believe the only true problem in the film is the acting. It is terrible. It's easily over come by loud bangs and gun fights, but I mention it only in passing as it provided, for me, the highest level of comedy the film reached - even with amusing wit and repartee written into the script. But if you fancy a good, hearty laugh, look out for the hammed up performances of Pine, Urban, Pegg, Yelchin, Cumberbatch and Eve.

The most fitting comment I think I could make regarding Star Trek Into Darkness was one made by those who designed the advertisements played before the movie. Before Star Trek started, the audience was treated to the action-packed first scene of the new Fast and Furious (6) film. Need I say more.

Rewrite and Restructure

It's been a while. Too long, in fact.

I'm finding the fact that I've written very little for this blog a horrible perpetual motion machine of annoyance. As much as I've love writing here, University deadlines, exams and a drying up of funds has lead to less cinema trips (and more DVD watching). Even more unfortunate is the fact that this all has resulted in an apathy for review writing because the blog looks so bare!

In solution to this suck-y state of affairs, I'm gonna change the mission statement of the blog. Where, originally, my intent was to give reviews of what was on at the cinema, what I'd recommend people see and what to stay away from, I think an all purpose cinema blog would be far easier to run.

The plan now is to have three different types of posts; to continue the "what's on at the cinema" section; to begin a "what I've been watching"  review section; and to have a space where I can voice general thoughts, opinions and ideas about movie related happenings going on around me. I hope there are still people interested enough to keep up looking through the posts and keeping up to date with everything new coming along. In an ideal world, this new system (and the five month holiday I find myself at the beginning of) will lead to a minimum of one review/update a week. If that works out well, and there are still people showing interesting, I'll endeavor to keep it on a more regular schedule when I return to Uni in September. 

Also, it has been pointed out to me, I'm not running the greatest looking site on the internet. Although, I am not the most artful person in the world, I'd love to have someone who knows how themes and blogs work to help me out if they have the time, and make the blog look better! Throw me and e-mail, or get me on Facebook if you wish to be my kind-hearted savior.

Thank you for your patience those who have come back to the blog to read this!

A Trilogy

Today I went back to the cinema, and since I was there with a friend who doesn't make it there a lot, we went to see the new Danny Boyle (Trainspotting) movie Trance. I'd seen this for the first time around a month ago, and thoroughly enjoyed myself letting this silly, slightly sleazy and slick film wash over me. The second time through, I enjoyed it even more, but what struck me about the movie was just how it reminded me of two other films I had watched recently, how fun I'd found all three, and how the three might just be one of the best selections to put together for a movie marathon night in.

The other two films that Trance put me in mind of were Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky's 2010 Oscar winning movie) and Side Effects (Steven Soderbergh's, supposed final film). Trance is the story of Simon (James McAvoy, X-Men: First Class), an amnesia-suffering, inside man in an art theft who is taken to a hypnotherapist (Rosario Dawson, Sin City) in an attempt to find where he had hidden a stolen painting. Black Swan tells the story of a ballerina (Natalie Portman, V for Vendetta) driven to insanity by her quest for perfection in the role of Swan Queen, while being constantly advised by her choreographer (Vincent Cassel, Trance) to learn to lose herself in the role. Finally, Side Effects is the description-defying story of Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo), the depression she suffered, the relationship between her and her therapist (Jude Law, Sherlock Holmes), and how her recovery unraveled. 

There seems to be a long list of things connecting these films, as is apparent, no doubt, by their summaries. What is true of their style, is that all three films look good. Danny Boyle's stylized view goes into hyperdrive as this movie descends further into McAvoy's mind, while Aronofsky manages to get inside the dancing sequences of Swan Lake fantastically and Soderbergh's slow and unassuming camera led to genuine shock as the plot twists rolled into this "medical" drama.

The other areas which these films share common ground, are those that all similar genre pieces do - but in these films they are about as good as it gets. The three all dive head first into the minds of their protagonists, they manage to shock and excite in equally shocking and exciting ways, and maybe most importantly (although their sexual politics all occasionally waver in ways which are all too common in the movie business,) they all contain interesting, well developed and brilliantly acted female characters. Natalie Portman's Swan Queen was exceptionally well done and was the performance for which she won an Oscar. Rosario Dawson's therapeutic tones guided you through the movie beautifully, but in a subtle way could lead you astray from what was behind each character you encounter. Rooney Mara's performance as Emily Taylor was, again understated, at times sinister and even elegant in the most appropriate ways.

 As a trilogy they deliver all of these things, and more. Add to this that they all, without exception, have had a profoundly strange effect on me, at least. I have a habit of attempting to guess where a film is going story-wise, especially with films such as these, but in each case I had a different experience. Whenever a revelation was made concerning plot or character (and believe me, between these three, you aren't short on them), instead of thinking "as I thought" or "I'd have never guessed that," my brain said to me, "How the hell did you not see that coming?" After I thought this through a while I realized that this was the greatest strength of the movies. These are films that you are engaged in to such an extent that no amount of explicit foreshadowing will render them silly, instead the films wash over you in the most enjoyable way possible and not a thought is given to what is coming next because what is on right now enthralls you greatly.

These three films, despite my enthusiastic praise, are not the high water mark of cinema, and they are in no way the best movies ever made. What they are however, are fantastically fun, and thematically linked films which are easy to laugh, cringe and engage with. Anyway, this is probably just my way of telling you that I'll no doubt be having a movie marathon when the three of these come out on DVD, and I'd recommend anyone with a love of horror-inflected, "psychological," M. Night-style movies do the same, and see them all.

Hitchcock

The legendary director Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs) and his wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren, The Queen) are shunned by Hitch's production company and so they move into self-financing following the success of North by Northwest in an attempt to bring the audience a "nasty piece of work." That nasty piece of work is the iconic and insurmountably influential Psycho.

From this film I really took one positive and one not so. The great thing about it, for me and for which I've seen it, in other places criticized was the mentioning, but not dwelling on, the areas of the story that everyone knows so well. There's about thirty seconds at the beginning where Hitch sits about wondering what to do before Robert Bloch's manuscript shows up. The discussion of when to kill off Mrs Janet Leigh (Scarlett Johannson, Avengers Assemble) was prompt, well managed and over some scrumptious toast.

This left range for something else to go on, which in itself was probably a good thing, but didn't totally work for the movie. While all the preparation and production of Psycho was going in the background, the story we were really getting was that of a breaking relationship between the genius behind so many great pieces of cinema, and her husband who takes all the credit. The negative aspect to was in the way it reminded me of The Iron Lady. It seemed like the story of Alma and Hitch could have been told, and be interesting without being those two particular characters. All-in-all, it just about pulled it off.

The truly unappealing quality to this film was the performances. With the cast it contained, this film promised some loving and well-crafted portrayals and delivered caricatured silliness. I wasn't as impressed by Sir Anthony as everyone else, and that's a problem in a film about such a big character. I'd far rather have seen Toby Jones (The Girl).

If you were excited about it coming out, or you showed some general interest in it, I'd recommend you go and tell me if I'm wrong or not.

A Good Day to Die Hard

Die Hard - one of the most iconic action movies of all time.
Die Hard with a Vengeance - oh, so good and so fun.
Live Free or Die Hard - all the fun, not quite as well made, but still pretty damn good.
A Good Day to Die Hard - well, coming after what has passed, it's really no good.

The more I think about it, the less I like this film.

Mr. John McLean (Bruce "Yippee Ki Yay Melon-Farmer" Willis, Die Hard) is back, is old and is the father of super spy John "Jack" McLean Jr. (Jai Courtney, Jack Reacher). This father and son go on a civilian massacring, (oh yeah, and some bad guys too) family bonding session in Russia. In the finale we see side-by-side slaughter in the remains of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

It's a brief, if comprehensive plot summary, 'cause this has none of the style, smarts or story of its predecessors. Really, Live Free or Die Hard is pretty damn vacuous to begin with. It makes up with it by being great fun to watch; the same cannot, in anyway, be said for A Good Day. I didn't totally hate it while I watched it, but like a Flag Hippo it was only when I let my head hit the pillow that the thought hit me, "What the fuck did I just watch?"

Other than that, the film has no time for nuance, for fore or after thought, it seemed a very Smash and Grab affair. With lots of Smash, Bang, Whollop and a great big grab of whatever you pay to get in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, despite the fact it may be my favourite tag-line ever, "Yippee Ki Yay Mother Russia" the line isn't contained in the film! Boo to 12A.

Les Miserables

I've spoken to those greatly interested and informed on musicals and have been given an implicit warning - if you don't know what your talking about, don't pretend. So, I'll do my best to review this film constantly with that in the back of my mind, and encourage anyone to tell me when I'm just being ignorant in relation to the art.

Les Miserables is a bit of everything. We have a constant chase, a character study, a love story, a story of triumph, of an uprising and a revolution. It's a story about class, and comedy, morality, legality, death and song. We follow Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman, The Prestige) from his stand off with the jailer Jarvet  (Russell Crowe, A Beautiful Mind) on ending his imprisonment through to forming another identity and trying to live his life with his new found faith in God. His story intersects with that of Fantine (Anne Hathaway, The Dark Knight Rises), a woman desperately attempting to feed her child anyway possible now the child's father has left them. Oh yeah, and this all happens around the 1832 Paris uprising.

Let's start with the cast, as far as I'm concerned, it was perfect. Hugh Jackman belongs on a stage, he should always be singing and dancing. Anne Hathaway, with her rendition of "I Dreamed A Dream" had me welling up - and not many songs or films for that matter can do that. It was heart-wrenching and seemed honestly distraught and defeated. Russell Crowe has been slated for his performance, but I see no problem their at all. He was reserved, but riling when he needed to be. Amanda Seyfried, Samantha Barks, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Eddie Redmayne also put in fantastic performances. Helena Bonham Carter is also not half as annoying as usual! Hats off to the casting department, is all I can say.

Now, the singing and the direction of the musical pieces. Wonderfully Tom Hooper's (The King's Speech) choice to use on-set singing paid off. You could hear in each note that the actor's weren't just mimed, but were felt and made in the moment. The ability of the camera to get into the faces of each character just added to this, notably on the bearded and broken Valjean. The scene where he is troubled by his calling to God, and is pacing in front of a church's alter just allows every nuance of his face to be realized in a way even the greatest stage presence could not portray. Subtlety is key.

I don't know if the build up and the praise rather showed my hand, in that there is a huge "But..." coming. I want to use this, otherwise fantastic, film of the year quality film to make a point. Can we stop using CGI for entire sets and backdrops, please? Why does anyone think this is a good idea? It looks tacky, and it looks silly. It pretty much ruined this movie, just making it seem cheap, modern and silly. The scenes on the barricades looked iconic, and looked beautiful in parts; it just makes you wonder why it couldn't all look that way. If it can be done on a stage, it does not need these tremendously terrible, computer generated, scenic shots. Just Stop It.

Over all, I really enjoyed the film, even when it was being silly, and even when it didn't make sense, well that didn't matter. I can imagine such a better film, and all it needed was for some cost cutting on CGI. It doesn't seem much, but really it is a major problem in this film, and in general.

Go and see it. Make your mind up for yourself, but I must say I'll be watching it again. And again. And again.

Jack Reacher

There's something about Tom Cruise!
I have no idea what it is but every time I see that self-satisfied looking grin I get shivers down my spine. I think this is mainly because it's not really smug, or arrogant, or anything. It's a fake smile. Just look at the hollow eye. The man has no joy. Ever.
Basically, he's perfect for this part.

Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise, Top Gun) is an ex-army cop who discovers how easy it is to just disappear into America, and becomes addicted to no one knowing where he is (Okay, Dead-Behind-The-Eyes Cruise is perfect for this). Then two years after the last trace he left, he turns up apparently to the aid of cut-and-dry mass murdering sniper who opened fire on 5 random people on the street. Along the way, Reacher has to deal with the fantastical The Zec (Werner Herzog, Grizzly Man) - that means "The Prisoner", by the way.

Problems?
Bad story, badly told. Had nothing interesting to say, no real connection to the characters, not much fun either. Really, it wasn't the worst movie ever, but it was no where near good. It also wasn't nasty or cynical, so there's no need to scream about it. It's just adding to the increasing decline in cinema..........

Due to this film's incredibly below average story line, however there are several scenes I think must have been picked out of an entirely different movie. To begin with, the first section of the movie is pretty horrible. The sniping sequence in an other movie would receive horrified applause from critics. Along with that, there were lots of fight scenes, and every one was hard, slow and sore. No background music and no over the top sound effects. Not good enough to move the film above a four out of ten, but somethings I like to see when I go to cinema.

Not a recommendation Not at all. But, then again, not all bad.