X-Men: Wolverine Origins. I tend to follow movies pretty linearly, so if the director is trying to make sense, I can usually keep up.
Sadly, if Gavin Hood thought he was making sense, he should give up whatever mind-altering substance that allowed him to entertain that idea.
Don’t get me wrong—criticizing the plot, the pace, and the internal coherency of the film
doesn’t mean I
didn’t like it.
I
didn’t love it, but it had enough
special effects (do they still call it that now, since every movie that
isn’t a chick flick seems to have them—why are they still special?) to satisfy the testosterone driven side of my brain.
But it
wasn’t art.
Star Trek. Unlike Wolverine, this was a good movie standing alone. The franchise had been laid pretty low by the Lawrence
Luckinbill fiasco (
Star Trek V in 1989), followed by the dead cat bounce of
ST VI.
Of course, we can’t count anything that has old baldy in it as being “true” Star Trek—that is just for the latecomers who are merely posers in the ST world.
The universe that is (was) Star Trek needed a lift, a new direction.
And with Mr. J. J. Abrams it got just that.
You might remember
JJ from his various hit TV series, specifically
Felicity (forgettable),
Alias (unforgettable), and the TV old cult and new quirk shows,
Lost and
Fringe.
He used the same team as for this movie in resurrecting the
Mission Impossible franchise (
M:I 3 in 2006) after it went into cardiac arrest following a too large dose of
Thandie Newton.
The good news is
JJ has new flicks for both series coming out in 2011. But I digress....
This movie is excellent. I say that not just as an original Star Trek fan or as a guy, but as a connoisseur of intelligent, well made movies. Intelligent? Has he lost his mind, you say? But yes, it was such a good movie, even Jane enjoyed it, and she is no SciFi buff to say the least. The movie started with a huge obstacle—prequels are tough anyway because you have to fit in so much stuff that came after, and the perceived freedom you have to “make up stuff” is bounded by the existing fans' own expectations of how it ought to be, as well as by facts and plotlines (including those irritating inconsistencies) from the original(s). Abrams and crew took a huge step sideways, and did it brilliantly. Hey, if we go back to the past and tell a story about Kirk and Spock etc., we have baggage….what if we imagine a visitor from the future who changes something so that the characters, though familiar, veer off into a slightly different story arc? So, like, some of the stuff is the same, some of it was never fleshed out anyway, but there is enough like what the original might have been (the personality development—more later on that) to keep everyone happy. (Except the die-hard Trekkies who are too brain-fried to realize that their complaints about Romulians showing up too soon in the arc have been mooted by the altered events—sheesh.) It was sheer genius. Then all they had to do was write it, cast it, shoot it, and convince everyone it wasn’t the same rehash as the other ones.
The plot is a tad hard to follow but only where the time warp thing intersects with it; temporarily suspending mental discomfort is rewarded in the end as Eric Bana—far too villainous to be a simple mining ship captain—explains it all in the end. The effects are, of course, excellent. I can’t wait to get this on BluRay on my big TV. But the strength of the movie is in the personality development (including the offhanded introduction) of the regulars in their younger versions. Chris Pine was an excellent choice for Kirk, and Spock and Scotty were also good selections (but not as good). He more than anyone, though to a great extent all the main characters, had a sense of the mannerisms, inflection, and personalities of their older alter egos. There were times I could actually see Shatner on screen as young Kirk moved or spoke. Spooky. (or is that Spocky?)
I recommend the movie highly, as you may have guessed. If I had quibbles (vs. tribbles) it would be that an old wrinkled Nimoy got way too much screen time—maybe they needed to wring out every last dollar they paid him to come back—and the relationship between young Spock and Uhuru was completely fabricated and added nothing but static to the story. But those complaints are swallowed up by the overall beauty of the film as a whole. Go, see, enjoy.
P.S. Some have questioned why Bill Shatner wasn’t included in the project, but I disagree that he would have helped; I can’t see how he would have done anything but focus the attention on himself and distract the flow. He always will be Kirk, but this was not about the old days, it was all new. Even Nimoy wasn’t (or shouldn’t have been) a major part of the story, but instead a means to move it along and flesh out the plot.
P. P. S. The similarity of one plot contrivance with one of JJ's TV series was pointed out to me (I had been only subconsciously aware of it, if at all). We should look to make sure none of the starships in the movie were named USS Rambaldi. (thank you, Andrea)
Wall-E. How did this piece of crap get so much hype? OK, Best Animation, I can give you that (though that should be a technological award, it sure didn't deserve it for story--that should go to Bolt, see below). I saw a lot of previews of Wall-E rolling around on earth, gathering and crushing stuff, but the setup for that was nonexistent. The actual movie, however, is about 20% on earth and 80% rolling around on a spaceship full of fat cartoon people. The only thing more disgusting than cartoon characters who are morbidly obese is real people who are morbidly obese. Ugh! Bad plot, uninteresting characters, and tragic overhype. But the animation was good.
RocknRolla. As a Guy Ritchie fan—I watch LSATSB and Snatch whenever I channel surf by them—I was disappointed by this one. It just wasn’t good. And it didn’t have the fully intertwined plot that GR is known for. I was hoping it would redeem him from his bizarre and mind warping previous offering of Revolver, with his old standby Jason Statham (after that one, I’m not surprised Jason wasn’t in this flick, but I hope Gerard Butler’s career can survive it).
The Reader. Ah, the Academy. They finally got one right. An excellent, though sometimes depressing, film. You
wouldn’t think movies about the Holocaust would still be made in
Hollywood (the liberals
wouldn’t want to upset our Muslim friends who obsessively contend it never happened), but this one says more about the German post-war mentality (and by extension, applies to all of us) than anything I have seen.
It
isn’t
Schindler’s List, but it
wasn’t intended to be.
Kate
Winslet was stunning and well deserved the Oscar
® for her performance.
She was undressed a lot, but it seemed natural as the movie went.
(In that respect it reminded me of
Sirens, which surprisingly shows us how a clump of beautiful naked women can become ordinary after only a short while.)
Well worth the time to watch it. Unless you're Muslim.
The Tale of Despereaux. Yawn.... I was drawn (no pun intended) to this one because of the pictures of the mouse in the promos and because Ratatouille
was pretty good (even though French). The mouse was so cute, the story sounded like a heartwarming underdog tale...in short it had all the elements for a good marketing campaign. Inane, predictable, and way too long. Not even sure kids would like it, though the artwork might hold their interest.
Sukiyaki Western Django. Wow, this one looked like it had it all--
Tarrantino,
Kung Fu with a Western theme, hot
Asian chicks...what more could you ask for? How about a clue.... It earned its way into my top 25 worst movies of all time. Rated R? That was for Run...away from this movie immediately. Should have been X, for
Xtremely awful.
Nuff said.
Bolt. A surprisingly entertaining piece of work. We rented it with young ones, and I suspect I enjoyed it as much as they did.
My expectations were low and, of course, Travolta’s voice was seriously off-putting.
Tuning that out, the movie had well developed, likable characters, an excellent plot (dog trying to get home from far away—how many times has that worked?), and the details integrated nicely.
Clever twists, witty repartee, character growth, and 2
hanky ending made it special in the vapid, sugary wasteland that is most cartoons.
I recommend it, even if you have to wait until the kids are around so no one will catch you watching it by yourself. Unless you can get
Toy Story 2, which has all of these characteristics AND the funniest ending I have ever seen for a cartoon--outtakes. What a concept.
Wanted. This one was a mixed bag.
I was really, really looking forward to it. It had Angelina (that would be enough usually) and, for you girls, James
McAvoy (
Last King of Scotland), and was about a society of assassins.
What’s not to like?
I wonder if I
wasn’t a ninja in a previous life, because I eat that stuff up.
Ah, well.
The promos for this movie were stunning...I was salivating before I could get it out of the box.
And on balance, I thought it was very good—a bit
farfetched and silly in quite a few places, but it kept moving apace—but I doubt it could ever have lived up to the expectations generated for it.
It has some violence (hey, we all know that’s simulated…not as if it’s a torture flick like
Saw) and you have to suspend disbelief pretty sternly, but it’s definitely worth watching if you like that kind of stuff.
A chick flick it
isn’t, even with Jimmy’s charm.
Burn After Reading. This is one of those movies that Grossi would have called “cute.” It was certainly silly, but that’s how the Coen Brothers must have conceived it. Brad Pitt does an excellent job portraying a dim-witted gym rat (though because it’s him, you know he’s just acting—the curse of the supercelebrity) and Frances McDormand is equally good as a loony, scheming co-worker. Malkovich and Clooney add to the insanity, though they are pretty much over-the-top most of the film (esp. George). The best of the bunch, in his typically understated way, is Richard Jenkins (the dead father of Six Feet Under). If you’re in the mood for a silly flick with some top stars having fun with each other, pop some corn and sit back.
Body of Lies. Very interesting film. I think this is the best work Leo has done since Blood Diamond. And Russell Crowe is excellent as well—I actually bought into his southern accent and sleazy persona. The two work well together so the dialogue was a treat. What is the most intriguing part of this movie is how it got made. I suspect the funding came from moderate elements in the Middle East, because it certainly cast them in a good light. The honest people who are earnestly trying to keep the lid on the crazies come out looking pretty good. The crazies aren’t demonized (as in Nighthawks, a Sly Stallone potboiler, or True Lies, an outstanding flick) but they are shown to be human, albeit hypocrites and cowards—not something the current crop of man-shaped towers of excrement inhabiting Hollywood are known for. The ending was satisfying, and Crowe’s character has a line that is in the running for best line of the year (see also, Tropic Thunder, next blog). I recommend it (you can close you eyes during the very short squeamish parts).
Appaloosa. Funny, I thought this movie had something to do with a horse. Didn't.
It was the name of the town--go figure. Still, it was a modern rendering of an oldstyle western, more authentic than either of the syrupy Wyatt Earp movies in the early 90's. It's sad that Westerns don't often live up to what they used to be; in fact, people say
Unforgiven was the last best western.
It’s a special category for sure, and one that is frequently exploited to bad ends. (See discussion of
Sukiyaki WD above.) In the 50's and 60's the Western mythos represented the last great sense of adventure and independence. We had won the Great War, muddled through a smaller one, just getting into another one, and were adrift over our place in the world, uncertain what it was all about (Alfie). All that got lost in the pre- and post-Woodstock era, and it's no coincidence that the last best Western was released in 1992, as we were careening to the left towards dependency and government control instead of independence and self-reliance. But...I digress. There are some unsatisfying parts of this film that roll around in my head, but I can't verbalize what they are. Maybe that's what it was really like after all--just life.
Ed Harris is usually pretty understated and was somewhat in this film as well.
But compared to Viggo Mortensen’s character, he was a regular Robin Williams. Jeremy Irons was also good as the villain. The plot was well crafted and the movie itself moved along nicely.
It did seem that it took a dip near the end and stretched a bit, but it muddled through.
We enjoyed it, though it’s not everyone’s teacup.
Whew, that's about it for today. I have some mediocre ones left and some real stinkers. Stay tuned... til next time.
And, what would a blog be without the Bumper Sticker of the Week...
Adjure obfuscation.
If Chris Rainey had made the first down when he had a chance--instead of dancing in the hole trying to get more yards--it's possible the Vols wouldn't have been able to drive the length of the field for that touchdown. Guess we'll never know. Chris did well otherwise, and we need to see more of him GOING WIDE!!! Send Moody up the middle and the scat the scatbacks out wide. Sheeesh!
And Demps--what a gutsy performance! Had the flu, had a fever...no problem. Here's a touchdown.
Another interception by Joe Haden to keep that nation-leading streak alive at 15. Ahmad Black got one at the end but, hey, Ahmad,....it's fourth down...knock the ball away instead of catching it 30 yards up field. We might have scored again from the 50.
