By Brett Blake 2016 marks the 50th anniversary of STAR TREK, so it’s only appropriate that we have STAR TREK BEYOND, the 13th feature film in the series, playing in cinemas this year. Following 2013’s STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - a good sci-fi action movie, but a terrible TREK movie - the question walking into BEYOND was this: can we get a movie that satisfies both as an adventure and also as something identifiable as STAR TREK? The answer in BEYOND’s case is a resounding yes, for director Justin Lin and writers Simon Pegg and Doug Jung have crafted a massively entertaining ride, one which thrills with its action, engages with its characters, and has a positive, optimistic underlying message. The movie opens with the starship Enterprise deep into its five year mission to explore uncharted space. After a brief stopover at the impressive Starbase Yorktown, the Enterprise investigates a report of a wrecked ship on a planet in a nearby nebula; the Enterprise is then ambushed by a deadly swarm of alien ships, which cripple the Enterprise and force the crew to abandon ship on the nearby planet. With many of the crew taken hostage by a sinister alien force led by the mysterious Krall (Idris Elba), Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) must find a way to reunite his officers and rescue the stranded crew from an increasingly hostile environment before Krall’s nefarious plans take effect. Luckily, an alien named Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), who has also been stranded on the planet by Krall, has the means to potentially help the Enterprise crew avert total disaster. What writers Pegg (who, of course, also plays Scotty in the film) and Jung have done here is to create a storyline that is relatively more contained than the last couple TREK films have been. In a certain sense, the stakes are smaller here than in those movies, but that’s actually okay, because the focus is squarely on the characters this time out, even as the action is still present in full-force and often properly thrilling (the big attack on the Enterprise in the story’s fist act is an incredible - and lengthy - setpiece, one that is tense and frenetic, and right up there with the best sequences of sustained action in the entire franchise). Others have said that the movie feels like an episode of The Original Series, and it’s easy to see why; this is a standalone story, disconnected from any major ongoing plot threads, and it involves the crew on a strange, new world. The cinematic scope may be far greater than anything achieved by The Original Series, but that spirit is very much present, and in a very good way. More than any STAR TREK film since 1991’s THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, STAR TREK BEYOND gets the characters right. Incredibly right. It nails the dynamics, the friendships, the camaraderie. You believe these people enjoy being together, you believe they care both about their mission aboard the Enterprise and about each other. There are literally dozens of fantastic characters beats scattered throughout this tale, moments of interaction that are completely charming and which also serve to underline the story’s major themes. The screenplay also has some fun in the ways it splinters the main cast into smaller groups - we have Kirk and Chekov (the late Anton Yelchin) together for much of the running time, just as Bones (Karl Urban, in the performance of the film) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) find themselves constantly linked throughout the narrative, which allows their bickering-laden friendship to really get its due. Sulu (John Cho) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) spend much of the story at the villainous Krall’s command center, and they are our window into what Krall’s increasingly-unsettling scheme entails. And Scotty (Simon Pegg), for his part, finds himself in the company of Jaylah, and the course of his relationship with this new character is surprisingly effective. All of these characters are just fun to be around, and that goes a long, long way towards making the movie as consistently entertaining as it is. As with the great episodes of The Original Series, BEYOND also has a message, though not one that is beaten over the heads of the audience, but which rather comes organically from the arcs of both Kirk and Krall - the importance of unity and community. We find Kirk in this film undergoing a real change, and dealing with mature and fundamentally human emotions, as he questions whether he wants to continue to be the captain of a starship. Ultimately, the movie posits that disparate people coming together to surmount difficult challenges is an important and admirable thing, and it’s a nice message in our increasingly fractured and divisive times. This element is particularly effective when filtered through the backstory of Krall, the villain of the tale. While his (surprisingly sympathetic) backstory is one I can’t divulge here, it does spring from an understandable place, and one which dovetails very nicely into the primary theme of the story. Elba is buried under significant makeup for the role, but when the time comes for him to sell the character’s inner turmoil and motivation, he’s more than up to the challenge, and he makes Krall an imposing - but also understandable - figure. Returning from the previous two installments is composer Michael Giacchino, and he contributes his best score yet for the series, one that has a somewhat lighter touch than his darker (but also very good) work for the last two movies. He implements a couple of major new themes, but also puts his main STAR TREK theme through its paces, breaking it into fragmentary motifs with which he has some fun. His action writing this time out is extremely strong, and lends the sequences a propulsive - yet still fundamentally melodic - underpinning. It’s one of 2016’s best scores. I don’t know if I’ve done an adequate job of conveying just how enjoyable a time STAR TREK BEYOND is, but it really is. This is bright and colorful sci-fi action with characters that are constantly captivating, and with action that will satisfy those looking for a little bit of mayhem. Most importantly, though, the movie hasn’t had to sacrifice the classic STAR TREK flavor in order to accomplish those things, and the end result is the best TREK film since 1991, and one of the best blockbusters of 2016.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake I have to be honest right up front: I am a huge fan of 1984’s GHOSTBUSTERS. It’s my favorite comedy of all time. It means a lot to me. As such, any new version was going to have some quite large shoes to fill. Does 2016’s GHOSTBUSTERS fill them adequately? Not really, no. This is not a bad movie, or some kind of personal affront to fans of the original. But it isn’t great, and your enjoyment of it will likely hinge on how willing you are to just accept it for what it is: a middle-of-the-road comedy. Narratively, the movie cribs from the original in some big ways, as we follow a trio of scientists - Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig), Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy), and Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) - who band together with a blue-collar subway worker, Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), to form a group dedicated to paranormal research and elimination... the Ghostbusters. When a massive supernatural threat to New York City materializes, it’s up to the Ghostbusters to stop it. Fundamentally, this movie was flawed from its very inception because of a single decision the filmmakers made. Not the decision to cast four (talented and funny) women in the lead roles, no, but the decision to make this GHOSTBUSTERS a reboot, one that abandons the continuity of the first two GHOSTBUSTERS films in order to allow a new “origin” story to be possible. As such, we are treated to another “going into business” story, where the backstories of each bit of classic GHOSTBUSTERS iconography - the proton packs, the jumpsuits, the "No Ghost" logo, the Ecto-1, the firehouse headquarters - are painstakingly detailed at length, chewing up precious screentime in a film that already feels a little overlong at nearly two hours. In a similar vein, we have the issue of the cameos and callbacks. It’s no secret that pretty much all of the living performers from the original GHOSTBUSTERS movie have cameo appearances in this one, though not as their original characters. It’s easy to see why the filmmakers might have thought this was a good idea, as it ties this new incarnation to the previous, but the reality is that the cameo moments really only serve to wink at the audience, as if to say “Hey, remember the original GHOSTBUSTERS movie you loved? Here are some of the actors!” The moments are forced, and end up feeling out of place because they undermine the efforts of this movie’s storytellers to differentiate this new version from the old. If you’re going to stop the movie every 20 minutes to showcase one of the classic actors and remind me of the classic film, then why bother to go to the trouble of making this movie a reboot? Clearly you want to coast on the goodwill from the original cast, so the disconnect there is bothersome. Furthermore, the film also openly references elements from the original film, including lines of dialogue, ghost designs, and other visual gags, which again only serve to invite unfavorable comparisons. One element that is almost totally lacking in the movie is the sense that the filmmakers have any real interest in the paranormal. The original film has a level of quirk surrounding its usage of supernatural elements, so much so that the genuine affection for the subject matter from the creators (Dan Aykroyd, chiefly) is absolutely apparent. There’s a degree of weirdness to the jargon and the ideas that is lost this time around. You got the sense that Aykroyd loved the strange, arcane world of paranormal occurrences, and that spilled over into movie; there’s very little of that here, nor is there an interesting or evocative mythology tied into our new villain (you’ll notice I haven’t mentioned him much - that's deliberate). That said, the new ghosts and specters introduced in this film are - at times - eerie, and have designs that are just over-the-top enough to be actually a lot fun, and the most properly GHOSTBUSTERS-y stuff in the movie. Is this movie actually funny? The answer is, “In fits and starts.” The humor of the original GHOSTBUSTERS is beautifully dry, with a sense of semi-ironic detachment; it may be the most quotable movie of all time, with incredible lines and reactions literally thrown away and underplayed in ways that are absolutely delightful. Many bits of dialogue have become literally iconic. The humor of this new GHOSTBUSTERS is far more silly and wacky, and it even borders on slapstick at times. Lots of in-your-face, goofy stuff that’s funny, certainly, but doesn’t feel a whole lot like GHOSTBUSTERS. It plays to the cheap seats a bit too much, and there are no lines in here that will ever transcend the film and enter the pop culture consciousness of society. Is that an unfair standard? When you’re calling your film GHOSTBUSTERS, no, it’s not unfair. Despite the colorful ghosts and the supernatural trappings, the movie, for the most part, feels like a fairly generic comedy, albeit not one totally devoid of laughs. The four lead actresses have solid chemistry, and Kate McKinnon, in particular, brings a degree of oddness (even bizarreness) that is a ton of fun to watch. In a strong supporting turn, Chris Hemsworth (as Kevin, the Ghostbusters’ dim bulb secretary) proves to have an adept gift for comic timing. In short, the interactions of the characters are often very good, they’re just not even close to any kind of all-time-classic status. Another unequivocally good element of this movie, though, is Theodore Shapiro’s musical score. It’s big - at times operatic, at times adventurous, and at times like something straight out of a horror movie. My fear was that we would get a nondescript, silly comedy score, but Shapiro plays things fairly straight, and the results work well, both within the film and on the album. His usage of Ray Parker Jr.’s classic theme song is especially nice, as he gives it a full orchestral treatment which is often a lot of fun. Here’s the really important thing: the movie’s failings are in no way a result of the gender of its lead actors. The movie would be improved in no demonstrable way if it starred four men instead of four women. The shortcomings of the film stem purely from the screenplay, not the casting. As it stands, no fan of the series should find this film offensive, and if you can accept that this is decidedly lesser GHOSTBUSTERS material, there are some things to enjoy in here, especially the rapport between the cast members. This new GHOSTBUSTERS is fine, it’s okay... but it also surely could have been a lot better. THE BFG - By Brett Blake I did not love THE BFG... but I did, however, enjoy it very much. It falls firmly into the “lesser” Steven Spielberg tier, but even those have great things to offer, and THE BFG is no exception. It’s a delicate, often lovely story that’s fundamentally about the growing kinship between two unlikely friends. Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) is an orphan who, one night, spies the BFG (Mark Rylance) skulking about the moody streets of London. Having been seen, the BFG spirits Sophie away to Giant Country, where the two lonely souls begin to bond and have a few comical and charming adventures together. That’s pretty much it! Yes, the plot eventually does expand in scope, but for the most part the film is a kind of fantastical character study detailing the relationship that develops between Sophie and the BFG, and on that level, the movie works. Mark Rylance is absolutely delightful as the title character, and the marriage of performance with digital effects has resulted in a kind of amazing creation; the BFG has so much warmth and humanity that any brief moments of dodgy effects work (of which there are very few) are instantly forgivable. Newcomer Ruby Barnhill makes for a sweet and intelligent leading lady, and her connection with Rylance’s BFG is remarkably effective. The most curious thing about THE BFG is just how much it doesn’t really feel like a Steven Spielberg film. For a story about magical realms and creatures, there’s a shocking amount of reserve on display; this is the Spielberg of LINCOLN bringing us this tale, not the Spielberg of E.T. or RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. What that means is that this is Spielberg exercising restraint, something which worked beautifully for the reverence of LINCOLN but results in a film here which feels somewhat slight and lightweight, particularly for a fantasy yarn. There isn't too much in THE BFG that marks it as a quintessentially Spielbergian movie; there are several moments of delicate emotion which echo the more naked emotionality and sentimentality of some of Spielberg’s earlier work, but the overall flavor of THE BFG is substantially more underplayed, which isn't so much a criticism as it is an observation. There are a pair of sequences, though, that are properly Spielbergian in the best way, the first being the opening - detailing the first appearance of the giant and subsequent journey to Giant Country - which is gloriously atmospheric and has an air of whimsical mystery. The second is undoubtedly the movie’s highlight, and it is the sequence taking place in Dream Country, where the BFG travels to collect dreams (which he then gives to people as they sleep). The whole scene is jaw-droppingly beautiful, full of color and mood and delicate humor. It’s a standout setpiece that takes its place among some of the best individual moments in any Spielberg movie from this century. The film as a whole could have used a bit more of this sort of visual splendor, but what we do get is pretty wonderful. Director Spielberg’s restraint with respect to the material somewhat transfers over to John Williams’ work on the score. One might think that the subject matter of this film would naturally lend itself to Williams returning to his HOOK or HARRY POTTER playbook (grand and soaring melodies), but one would be wrong! Just as we get a slightly reserved Spielberg in the director’s chair, we get a reserved Williams holding the baton. The orchestration of the score is gorgeously lush (the flute and harp writing are particularly wonderful), but that’s in service of some fairly standard themes (one of which is cannibalized from Williams’ own LINCOLN score from a few years back), and there are key moments in the movie where you’d expect the music to really soar and kick things up to another level, but it never truly happens, or at least in as big a way as I would have liked. It’s a pleasant score, easily one of the best of the year by 2016’s standards, but nothing terribly impressive by John Williams’ standards. Overall, the film is a solid and entertaining effort. The strength of the leading performances, the creation of the BFG himself, and the amazing Dream Country sequence are all more than enough to warrant giving THE BFG a chance. It’s not one of Steven Spielberg’s great works, but it still has the level of quality and polish that you’re guaranteed to get from one of his movies. THE LEGEND OF TARZAN - By Brett Blake Every summer, there’s usually at least one movie that comes along and pleasantly surprises. This year, THE LEGEND OF TARZAN is that movie. I walked in with basically no expectations (certainly no high ones), and walked out rather charmed by the winning chemistry of its stars, some striking photography, and a delightfully old fashioned sense of adventure. Taking place in the late 1880s, the film finds Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård) now civilized, having claimed his birthright as John Clayton, Lord of Greystoke, firmly ensconced both as a member of British aristocracy, and a worldwide celebrity. While his wife, Jane (Margot Robbie), longs for a return to Africa, he does all he can to move on from his time there. That changes when George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), an envoy from the United States, asks for Tarzan’s help in foiling what is potentially a burgeoning slave trade in the Congo, one being orchestrated by the nefarious Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) on behalf of the king of Belgium. That basic setup is the hook which allows various exciting hijinks to take place, and what hijinks they are. If you were to make a list of things one might want to see in an Africa-set adventure tale, likely most everything on that list can be found in THE LEGEND OF TARZAN. Stampedes through grassy plains! Fisticuffs in dense jungles! Fisticuffs aboard moving trains! Diamonds! Hippo attacks! Deaths by crocodile! A villain in white with a murderous gimmick! Vine swinging! It’s all here, and none of it is presented in a campy or overtly silly way. It’s pretty great stuff, and the movie takes it seriously enough that real stakes are generated. The whole movie has a kind of throwback vibe to it, not just because it throws in anything you’d ever want from this kind of flick, but because it is earnest. There’s no winking at the audience. Director David Yates (of the last several HARRY POTTER installments) creates a sense of genuine fun while fully embracing the classic, “boys adventure story” spirit of the original Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan tales (even as some of the more problematic ideas and elements have been sensibly updated for modern audiences). From a filmmaking perspective, Yates does a very fine job, in conjunction with his cinematographer - this is one of the best looking movies of the summer, with sweeping vistas and locales that are richly captured - and production designer. The principal actors each do terrific work with what they’re given. Skarsgård plays Tarzan with a degree of sensitivity that was unexpected, and though he’s certainly extremely credible in portraying the character’s physicality, it’s the contemplative side of his interpretation that sets this Tarzan apart. The chemistry he shares with Robbie is palpable, and generates real heat, to the extent that you fully buy their relationship. Waltz brings a couple new wrinkles to his villainous bag of tricks (Rom’s a character under a great amount of pressure to deliver results for his superiors), but let’s be honest - as entertaining as he is in it (and he is), he could play this part in his sleep. The real highlight of the movie, though, is Jackson, whose contributions really underline the pulpy, adventure-serial flavor the story has. He and Skarsgård are paired together for much of the movie, and they make for a great (and contrast-y) double act. Narratively, the movie is not perfect; there’s a subplot involving a revenge scheme against Tarzan that doesn’t pay off like it should, for example, even though we spend a decent amount of time on it. Also, the script never truly gives Margot Robbie’s Jane much of a function beyond motivating Tarzan’s character, even as Robbie herself injects a huge amount spunky personality (by 1880s standards) into the role. Some of Jane’s placement in the story is necessary to move the plot forward, so to a degree it’s forgivable, but one gets the sense the movie would have been even stronger had the writers found a way to get her more directly involved in the action. The more I think about it, the more I like THE LEGEND OF TARZAN. I’m kind of disappointed by the lukewarm reception to it, critically, as I really don’t think it would be possible - in 2016 - to make a more adventurous or more visually-appealing incarnation of the Tarzan character on film. It has action that’s fun, appealing performances from all concerned, and enough old fashioned “gee whiz” vitality to win over almost any curmudgeon in the audience. That’s what it feels like to me, at least. While acknowledging that it doesn’t reinvent the wheel so much as polish up a really old wheel to spiffy effect, I had a great time with THE LEGEND OF TARZAN. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|