The initial reviews for this movie aren't very positive. It's an old series being brought back for a modern audience and it's done by the same people that did Pirates of the Caribbean. Truly, there is something to be said for that criticism. If you didn't like Pirates of the Caribbean, you aren't going to like this one. If you aren't a fan of cowboy movies, you aren't going to enjoy this. If you aren't nostalgic for the old Lone Ranger show, you might not know anything about these characters and might not enjoy watching the movie. But for people like me that enjoy the campiness, this is an enjoyable movie.
I'd say the biggest problem I had with the movie was that it swings wildly in tone. In the beginning we are having fun with your standard train robbery on horseback and the William Tell Overture. But then we see our villain killing and then eating the heart of The Lone Ranger's brother right in front of him. But then we are back to a prostitute with an ivory leg/gun, and then we learn she lost her leg to the bad guy who presumably ate it. Swing back to the white horse jumping through fire and riding off into the night, and then it's demonic cannibal rabbits. It never felt like this movie built the foundation to the movie. It wanted to have it's cake and eat it too. It just couldn't decide if it wanted to be a serious action/drama or a campy family fun romp. When it was campy, it was a lot of fun. When it tried to be serious, it was uncomfortable and many times painfully predictable.
For the Lone Ranger fans out there, it does have some quick fan service which I think was appreciated. It had the "High oh Silver! Away!" line. It had the music. It had Tonto calling The Lone Ranger "kemosabe" a lot. It had a running gag about the mask that got old pretty quick.
By far the best part of the movie is the climax. It's a great action scene that I felt embodied The Lone Ranger and what I would expect from an old western TV series from the 1950s and an old radio drama from the 1930s. A lot of crazy stunts, a damsel in distress, and just a lot of fun.
Overall I think the movie works, but it really could've used some re-writes. It hit upon the same problem I had with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter in that it was destined to be a cheesy fun romp but instead found ways to take itself too seriously and it spoiled the mood for the rest of the film. Now, it feels like a chore going through the unwelcome darkness and drama just to get to the cowboys and Indians fun. I recommend seeing it, but there's no harm waiting for DVD.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Man of Steel Review: It's a Bird... It's a plane...
Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird... It's a plane... It's... Batman?
And that's my whole review in a nutshell. This isn't a Superman movie. It's a Batman movie with Superman in it.
I can't be the only one that sees this. Between Zod doing the infamous television scene from The Dark Knight, to playing up the more tragic aspects of Clark Kent's life, to Clark becoming a drifter trying to find meaning to his life, to the eventual blunt force trauma of a moral to the story... everything looked and felt like I was watching The Dark Knight. So, was I surprised to learn Christopher Nolan and David Goyer wrote this? Absolutely not.
But let's be fair. How was the movie? It was okay. Nothing great, but not bad either. It had some great ideas and I would say more often than not they worked. The biggest problem I have though is that I'm starting to wonder if Christopher Nolan is a one-trick pony. He did such a masterful job of re-imagining Batman. He took a character that had been raked over the coals and worked magic. He recaptured the gothic feel and grittiness that Batman needs to be a great movie. Batman belongs in the shadows.
However, Superman is the exact opposite. Superman belongs in the limelight. He is a symbol of the best and greatest of humanity. He is the Olympian ideal of what a superhero is supposed to be. How can Clark Kent embrace the best of humanity if all we see of his childhood is persecution? Where are the happy times? Instead we get his best friend being a bully to him, we have the parents of the other children look on him as some kind of demon because he... saved their children's lives? I don't get that.
It really starts to speak to what kind of person Christopher Nolan is. Here is my question: Does he like humanity? Everyone in the Batman movies and in Man of Steel are so quick to anger. They are so quick to respond out of fear. Is this Nolan's critique of humanity? Are we all knee-jerk, primitive, child-like cowards in his eyes?
It's why I say he doesn't understand Superman. Superman is a symbol of hope. He is supposed to see the beauty of humanity and fights to save it. He is a boy scout and proud of it. He wasn't sheltered from humanity, he grew up in it. Superman isn't a tragic figure. He's an orphan from a dead planet who was raised with love all around him, not just from his parents. He dated, he played football, he had childhood friends... Superman is NOT Batman.
Let's talk about the movie a little. The movie itself is exhausting. It's about 2 1/2 hours long and it feels that long. The climax is just like in The Dark Knight Rises in that it just keeps going. It goes on forever. The shaky camera mixed with the animated fight scenes is just so tiresome. Everything moves too fast, it's almost impossible to take anything in. If the directors were going for that war-like atmosphere, they nailed it. But the problem is that the scene is so long that at least for me, it became a chore to watch. The camera never stood still and I can't begin to tell you how much I hated that. I've said it in so many reviews now. It's time to fire the epileptic holding the camera.
As for the story, it's fairly solid. Other than the things I mentioned already about how the writers don't understand Superman, the idea of including Zod into the movie was pretty good. And never let it be said I don't give a movie props when they deserve it. The way they wrote Zod was masterful. I understood his motivations and he actually becomes a very interesting character. He's not just some megalomaniac like he is in Superman II, but actually has a tragic story. He's a lot like Magneto from X-Men: First Class. You don't agree with the things he does or the way he does them, but at the very least you can understand why. The character is identifiable and not just some villain for the sake of being a villain.
In the end I just can't recommend this movie. I felt like I needed a nap after watching it. I couldn't enjoy it because the second half of the movie is just relentless. Some might enjoy that, I didn't.
And that's my whole review in a nutshell. This isn't a Superman movie. It's a Batman movie with Superman in it.
I can't be the only one that sees this. Between Zod doing the infamous television scene from The Dark Knight, to playing up the more tragic aspects of Clark Kent's life, to Clark becoming a drifter trying to find meaning to his life, to the eventual blunt force trauma of a moral to the story... everything looked and felt like I was watching The Dark Knight. So, was I surprised to learn Christopher Nolan and David Goyer wrote this? Absolutely not.
But let's be fair. How was the movie? It was okay. Nothing great, but not bad either. It had some great ideas and I would say more often than not they worked. The biggest problem I have though is that I'm starting to wonder if Christopher Nolan is a one-trick pony. He did such a masterful job of re-imagining Batman. He took a character that had been raked over the coals and worked magic. He recaptured the gothic feel and grittiness that Batman needs to be a great movie. Batman belongs in the shadows.
However, Superman is the exact opposite. Superman belongs in the limelight. He is a symbol of the best and greatest of humanity. He is the Olympian ideal of what a superhero is supposed to be. How can Clark Kent embrace the best of humanity if all we see of his childhood is persecution? Where are the happy times? Instead we get his best friend being a bully to him, we have the parents of the other children look on him as some kind of demon because he... saved their children's lives? I don't get that.
It really starts to speak to what kind of person Christopher Nolan is. Here is my question: Does he like humanity? Everyone in the Batman movies and in Man of Steel are so quick to anger. They are so quick to respond out of fear. Is this Nolan's critique of humanity? Are we all knee-jerk, primitive, child-like cowards in his eyes?
It's why I say he doesn't understand Superman. Superman is a symbol of hope. He is supposed to see the beauty of humanity and fights to save it. He is a boy scout and proud of it. He wasn't sheltered from humanity, he grew up in it. Superman isn't a tragic figure. He's an orphan from a dead planet who was raised with love all around him, not just from his parents. He dated, he played football, he had childhood friends... Superman is NOT Batman.
Let's talk about the movie a little. The movie itself is exhausting. It's about 2 1/2 hours long and it feels that long. The climax is just like in The Dark Knight Rises in that it just keeps going. It goes on forever. The shaky camera mixed with the animated fight scenes is just so tiresome. Everything moves too fast, it's almost impossible to take anything in. If the directors were going for that war-like atmosphere, they nailed it. But the problem is that the scene is so long that at least for me, it became a chore to watch. The camera never stood still and I can't begin to tell you how much I hated that. I've said it in so many reviews now. It's time to fire the epileptic holding the camera.
As for the story, it's fairly solid. Other than the things I mentioned already about how the writers don't understand Superman, the idea of including Zod into the movie was pretty good. And never let it be said I don't give a movie props when they deserve it. The way they wrote Zod was masterful. I understood his motivations and he actually becomes a very interesting character. He's not just some megalomaniac like he is in Superman II, but actually has a tragic story. He's a lot like Magneto from X-Men: First Class. You don't agree with the things he does or the way he does them, but at the very least you can understand why. The character is identifiable and not just some villain for the sake of being a villain.
In the end I just can't recommend this movie. I felt like I needed a nap after watching it. I couldn't enjoy it because the second half of the movie is just relentless. Some might enjoy that, I didn't.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Star Trek - Into Darkness Review: There's Klingons surrounding Uranus
I hated this movie. There were times I got visibly angry. There was more than one time I wanted to stand up and let off more than a few colorful remarks about what I just saw. Oh yeah. This is going to be a spoiler-filled, foaming at the mouth angry review. Here's the takeaway: if you liked Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Into Darkness is the same movie only done far worse and stripped of any kind of story or meaning. It's non-stop pretty looking action scenes devoid of creativity or attention to detail.
And before anyone starts with me, yes it's an "alternate timeline" movie. So, things are going to be different from established from all the previous movies and TV shows. And to that I say, "so what?" If in the TV shows Kirk had never in his life seen a Tribble before he started his '5 year mission', but all of a sudden Bones is doing experiments on a Tribble before they ever go on said mission, I have a problem with it. Because what you are saying to me is because a guy from the future killed Kirk's father and blew up Vulcan, Tribbles are more prevalent. That's a minor continuity error and yes there's a Tribble on the Enterprise done purely for fan service, but just know there's far more to come.
Here's the spoilers......Here's the spoilers..... If you haven't seen the movie yet and don't want spoilers...... don't read further.....
Right from the beginning of the movie, nothing makes any sense. The movie starts on this alien planet where Kirk and Bones are being chased by spear-chucking albinos. I have no idea why. Why are they there? Next thing I see is Spock inside an active volcano trying to blow it up. Because a cold fusion device will stop a volcano from exploding. Okay. We need to explain to the writer what 'cold fusion' means. Cold fusion doesn't mean it's an ice bomb. Cold fusion refers to a process where there is a fusion reaction of molecules without having to be millions of degrees in temperature. Basically it would be room temperature. Spock threw the equivalent of a gigaton nuclear bomb into a volcano and hoped that it would stop an active volcano from destroying a planet. Why would a planet be in jeopardy because one volcano was blowing up? I don't know.
Anyway, Spock was stranded in the volcano and it looks like he is going to die.... and then he had to give the "needs of the many..." speech. And now I'm really annoyed. What are the "needs of the many" he is referring to? You know. The ones that out weigh the needs of the few? Or the one? Namely him? I can tell you what it is from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan! The good movie they stole the line from. Spock used it at the time of his death after he valiantly sacrificed his life to save everyone on the Enterprise. All his friends and comrades he knew and loved over decades. He literally laid down his life for his oldest and dearest friends. Here he is laying doing his life to protect a bunch of primitive people who have barely discovered the wheel from learning that there are such things as star ships and magic volcano stopping bombs. The "prime directive" was violated by even going on to that planet in the first place! And don't give me that "Kirk and Bones" were in disguise nonsense. They had a gray coat on! They didn't look anything like the spear chucking white albinos. That's not a disguise. That's a coat. Just because I put on a leather jacket doesn't make me Neo.
So yes Kirk once again comes to the rescue and Spock is fine. Even when they killed off the crew in Star Trek II, it was a computer simulation. Look up Kobayashi Maru. The infamous "no-win" scenario. They did it in the first movie. (That's a whole different rant I will bypass)
So what happens next? Kirk falsifies his report to Starfleet! Where do I begin? There's a difference between being an arrogant, pig-headed, cock-sure jackass and being someone who avoids responsibility, lies, and shows a complete lack of respect for others. Kirk was a lot of things, but when he felt he was right he didn't run from responsibility. This is completely contrary to the character they even developed in the last Star Trek movie! Kirk welcomed the fight! He wanted to get in trouble! He wanted to do things his way because it was following his own moral compass! He'd tell Starfleet exactly what he did and carry it as a badge of honor! But no. We need something completely forced for no reason. You see, Spock filed a report on what happened and he told the truth. So, Kirk was stripped of his command.
That is until a few minutes and an action scene later. He gets his command back. I remember a time when actions had consequences. Okay. You can make an argument that it's a special circumstance because a lot of captains just got killed and ships need new captains. To that I ask, why the Enterprise? The Enterprise is the FLAGSHIP!!!! As in the best ship in the fleet. And Starfleet just gave command of the best ship in the fleet to someone who watched his captain and friend murdered by an unknown terrorist, someone who you believed to be mentally unbalanced before he was given a personal agenda, and even in terrible times like this you give him command of the Enterprise again? Someone you wanted back in the academy not five minutes earlier? Oh but this is possibly explained because of Admiral Marcus' actions later. Oh I'm getting to that guy. Just you wait.
Do you see what I have already written? All of this is just the first act of the movie. And what exactly happened here? Why did they include that opening scene? What purpose did it have? To show us that Kirk is needlessly reckless and doesn't follow orders? Here's an idea: if a major sub-plot of this movie involves the Klingons, how about having Kirk in a space battle with a Klingon ship? More on the Klingons. I have a lot to say about that. Was this scene included just to have Spock in danger so we can start two other sub-plots? Basically because Spock almost died and then 'stabbed Kirk in the back' with his truthful report to his superiors (*ugh*) this puts a strain on Spock and Kirk's friendship. Also, because Spock is a Vulcan and doesn't feel emotion (or shouldn't. Another rant coming it's way) this strains his romance with Uhura. Again, if that was the goal, put it in a space battle with the Klingons and you can do the exact same thing. And you don't need to include the magic ice bomb nuclear device. Was the purpose to get Kirk out of his captain's chair? If it was, that sub-plot was settled really quickly and totally unnecessary. He was still in the room when "Harrison" (*ugh*) flew his runabout up to the window of Starfleet and shot it all to hell! Does it make a difference if Kirk is a captain or a first officer if he's still in the room?
And that gets me to another sub-plot. The sick little girl. See. John Harrison is a bad guy. But he helped a desperate father save the life of his sick daughter. In exchange he agrees to help Harrison by going on a suicide bombing. No I didn't make this up. There's love of one's daughter and then there's agreeing to high treason. But this magic health cure is a major factor in the movie. And we might as well address it now. If for no other reason I'm sick of calling this guy John Harrison. It's Khan Singh. And because Khan is a super human, his blood has healing properties. Uhm... no. It doesn't. At no time does Khan have Wolverine's mutant healing factor. Khan is super strong and super intelligent. He doesn't have a healing factor! And don't give me that alternate timeline excuse. At this time Khan is 300 years old. He was frozen. The events of the first movie would have no effect on Khan. Khan should be the same as he was. If you really want to argue with me that blowing up Vulcan would give someone completely unrelated to the incident superpowers, I'd love to hear it.
THIS IS ALL JUST THE FIRST HALF HOUR OF THE MOVIE!!!!!
Oh God the Klingons. Khan escaped his attack on Starfleet headquarters by transporting himself to Qo'noS. (That they spelled Kronos!!!) And that's just a whole different continuity error. I lost track of how many times the transporters didn't work. Either they were too close to a photon torpedo, or they were moving too fast, or some other excuse as to why they weren't working just so they could extend the action scene just a little bit longer. But this one Khan had can not only do site to site transports, something that hadn't been invented yet, (site to site transports were never used until Scotty dreamed it up in Star Trek IV) site to site transports take more energy because there's no transporter pad, and Khan is able to transport MILLIONS OF MILES AWAY!!! That is just IMPOSSIBLE!!! So Kirk convinces Admiral Marcus to let him take the Enterprise on a mission of revenge. No I didn't make this up. Nor am I embellishing. This is what Kirk flat out tells his superior as a rational reason to not only give him back his command, but let him go on a mission that would most likely start a shooting war with a volatile enemy. So naturally he agrees! He not only agrees, but he gives the Enterprise 72 special photon torpedoes to use to kill Khan from orbit. And nobody finds this suspicious.
We might as well fast forward... The movie did. Because it only took a day for the Enterprise to travel from Earth all the way to Qo'noS. Did I say that was impossible. BECAUSE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!! Oh yeah Admiral Marcus' daughter is on board. Just felt like throwing that in there. I only mention it because Carol Marcus and James Kirk in the original storyline had A CHILD TOGETHER!!! But that's not important. It was only the basis of Kirk's undying hatred of Klingons because a Klingon murdered his son in Star Trek III. This is an alternate timeline. (*ugh*) And on the way the warp drive crashes under mysterious circumstances. Do we ever learn why? No. Not really. Kirk, Spock and Uhura travel together to Qo'noS and on the way settle their sub-plot with a nice warm-hearted talk... by Spock... the Vulcan... the species that suppresses emotion as their main character trait. (my head hurts) Once the talk is over, it's action time. Time to run away from the Imperial Shuttle Ship... I mean Klingon ship with flapping wings. Eventually they get caught and Uhura goes out to talk to the Klingons. The Klingons are wearing helmets. Something Klingons have never worn before. And then one of them takes his helmet off. And it's hilarious! This Klingon has piercings in his ridges! He looks like he belongs at a Motorhead concert! I'll save the rant on the fact that these Klingons have ridges in the first place. They should look more human at this point. And no you can't argue alternate timeline because what made them look more human took place long before the timeline skewed into this tangent. They shouldn't have ridges. This scene quickly goes nowhere as Khan jumps out and ninjafies all the Klingons and then surrenders when Kirk tells him there are 72 photon torpedoes when Khan cryptically asked how many there were. Again nobody finds this suspicious.
Long, boring, and confusing story short... Khan's crew are all in the torpedoes. Khan put them in there and no I don't know why. But Admiral Marcus shows up because he is going to destroy the Enterprise in his super ship, The Dreadnaught. Just because he wanted Khan dead and Kirk didn't kill him and start the war with the Klingons he wanted. So, he was going to blame everything on Kirk going rogue with the Enterprise. He's evil. I guess I have to explain this. The problem is I don't know why Marcus did it. Oh yeah more inconsistent transporter usage here when he beams his daughter on board his ship through heavy shielding. (*ugh*) Here it is: Marcus believes the Federation is already at war with the Klingons. And after the incident with the destruction of Vulcan he wanted a whole new fleet of ships and weapons ready to go. To get them, he finds Khan and unthaws him even though he's well aware they were in stasis because they were war criminals guilty of many acts of genocide. But *shock* *gasp* he can't control Khan! So, let's summarize this: Marcus believed the genetic superhuman could make better weapons so he unthaws him and now Khan is free and murdering hundreds of people trying to get his crew back. And Marcus is trying to cover it all up. Let me just throw out a suggestion. Sure it doesn't include trusting genocidal madmen, but I think the margin for success is slightly higher... PUT SOME RESOURCES INTO WEAPONS RESEARCH!!!!! STAR FLEET HAS SOME OF THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST MINDS IN THE GALAXY AND MANY OF THEM DO NOTHING EXCEPT DEVELOP BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER, AND TOUGHER SHIPS AND WEAPONS!!!!! There's no need to be a damn Bond villain about this! You're an ADMIRAL! The highest ranking Admiral in Starfleet! Just make weapons a priority and tell Starfleet scientists to make weapons stronger! Then you have Khan going off of how Marcus wanted Khan's aggressiveness. Are you telling me in the twenty-third century humans have forgotten how to kill people? We need Khan to teach Starfleet officers how to kill people? I find this hard to swallow.
Because Admiral Marcus is a douchebag, Kirk teams up with Khan to fight him. I hate this movie so much. I've been stalling a bit. Because you know this movie isn't done ripping off Star Trek II. Yes. They did the death scene. But they did it with a little twist. It isn't Spock that dies. It's Kirk! But then he gets better. That sound you might be hearing right now is me hitting my head on my desk.
This is where I just couldn't stand anymore. This really just ruined the whole movie for me. They did the death scene almost word for word. And then Spock did the epic "Khan!!!" scream. And that just summed up everything I came to fear about these alternate reality movies. Abrams just doesn't get it. He took something so memorable from Star Trek II, not because it was loud or sounds fun for a meme. But because it was impactful. The death of Spock had emotion behind it because Spock and Kirk had been friends for many decades. That was the entire point of Star Trek II! The progression of time and finding a way to age gracefully. Kirk trying to adjust to the reality that he is no longer captain of the Enterprise. He's an old man now. Maybe his best years were behind him and in all his years, he had always cheated death. He never had to face it on it's own terms. But that's something we are all going to do. He had a son he never knew. Star Trek II was all about life and death. The "Khan!!!" scream followed one of the most chilling moments I have ever seen. In just a short speech we feel all the hatred Khan has for Kirk. It's no coincidence that Khan spent years only with books like Moby Dick. Khan had bested Kirk in that moment. Khan had his revenge and Kirk knew it. All he could do is scream out his name. In this movie it's so much different. These guys were friends, sure. But they weren't lifelong friends. They are at the beginning of their friendship. I doubt they've known each other a year yet. It makes a difference. When Spock yelled out "Khan!!!" he didn't even know if Khan was alive or not! Even if you think I'm being unfair. Here's something to consider: if he didn't know Khan was alive and he just saw his best friend die in front of him, wouldn't it make more sense to yell out "No!!!"? Or if you don't want to go the cliché route and want something more personal in such a personal moment, how about screaming "Jim!!!" instead?
They use Khan's blood to bring back Kirk from the dead. I will repeat that. They use Khan's blood to bring Kirk back from the dead. They've brought characters back from the dead before. It was the whole purpose of Star Trek III. The way they did it was Spock's soul was transferred into Bones and his body was accidentally revived because of the Genesis device. If you don't know what the Genesis device is, it's a terraforming device that creates life on a planet in a matter of hours. It was a major plot element from Star Trek II and III. They did a mind meld between the resurrected Spock body and Bones and put Spock's soul in the new body. The way they did it was cheesy yes. But it adds an element to Star Trek that hasn't really been there before. The idea of a soul and a life beyond death. Star Trek had never gone there before. Sometimes it's obvious why. The point I'm trying to make here is that when they brought Spock back from the dead, they did something special to justify it. When Kirk died, they just threw a phoenix down on him!
That's how the movie ends. Kirk died, he got better. Khan was defeated. He is put back in stasis. He and all his buddies we never saw are kept in stasis and locked in the same unmarked warehouse right next to the Arc of the Covenant. Then Kirk and crew begin their five year mission in deep space. Roll credits.
It's clear J.J. Abrams researched but he didn't understand. This movie looked more like a re-write of Star Trek II more than anything new and fresh. I found a lot of elements of Star Wars that I took as a subtle hint that Abrams had his foot out the door and looking to do something else. There were aliens on the Enterprise and just hanging around that had no discernible identity. They looked like the scenery aliens from Star Wars.
Even if you liked this movie, you have to agree that at best this is a generic action film. The action was pretty good and the secondary characters had some good one-liners, but I'm of the opinion that Star Trek should be more than a generic action movie. It never felt like a Star Trek movie to me. This felt like a soulless rehashing of Star Trek II. And I hate it.
And before anyone starts with me, yes it's an "alternate timeline" movie. So, things are going to be different from established from all the previous movies and TV shows. And to that I say, "so what?" If in the TV shows Kirk had never in his life seen a Tribble before he started his '5 year mission', but all of a sudden Bones is doing experiments on a Tribble before they ever go on said mission, I have a problem with it. Because what you are saying to me is because a guy from the future killed Kirk's father and blew up Vulcan, Tribbles are more prevalent. That's a minor continuity error and yes there's a Tribble on the Enterprise done purely for fan service, but just know there's far more to come.
Here's the spoilers......Here's the spoilers..... If you haven't seen the movie yet and don't want spoilers...... don't read further.....
Right from the beginning of the movie, nothing makes any sense. The movie starts on this alien planet where Kirk and Bones are being chased by spear-chucking albinos. I have no idea why. Why are they there? Next thing I see is Spock inside an active volcano trying to blow it up. Because a cold fusion device will stop a volcano from exploding. Okay. We need to explain to the writer what 'cold fusion' means. Cold fusion doesn't mean it's an ice bomb. Cold fusion refers to a process where there is a fusion reaction of molecules without having to be millions of degrees in temperature. Basically it would be room temperature. Spock threw the equivalent of a gigaton nuclear bomb into a volcano and hoped that it would stop an active volcano from destroying a planet. Why would a planet be in jeopardy because one volcano was blowing up? I don't know.
Anyway, Spock was stranded in the volcano and it looks like he is going to die.... and then he had to give the "needs of the many..." speech. And now I'm really annoyed. What are the "needs of the many" he is referring to? You know. The ones that out weigh the needs of the few? Or the one? Namely him? I can tell you what it is from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan! The good movie they stole the line from. Spock used it at the time of his death after he valiantly sacrificed his life to save everyone on the Enterprise. All his friends and comrades he knew and loved over decades. He literally laid down his life for his oldest and dearest friends. Here he is laying doing his life to protect a bunch of primitive people who have barely discovered the wheel from learning that there are such things as star ships and magic volcano stopping bombs. The "prime directive" was violated by even going on to that planet in the first place! And don't give me that "Kirk and Bones" were in disguise nonsense. They had a gray coat on! They didn't look anything like the spear chucking white albinos. That's not a disguise. That's a coat. Just because I put on a leather jacket doesn't make me Neo.
So yes Kirk once again comes to the rescue and Spock is fine. Even when they killed off the crew in Star Trek II, it was a computer simulation. Look up Kobayashi Maru. The infamous "no-win" scenario. They did it in the first movie. (That's a whole different rant I will bypass)
So what happens next? Kirk falsifies his report to Starfleet! Where do I begin? There's a difference between being an arrogant, pig-headed, cock-sure jackass and being someone who avoids responsibility, lies, and shows a complete lack of respect for others. Kirk was a lot of things, but when he felt he was right he didn't run from responsibility. This is completely contrary to the character they even developed in the last Star Trek movie! Kirk welcomed the fight! He wanted to get in trouble! He wanted to do things his way because it was following his own moral compass! He'd tell Starfleet exactly what he did and carry it as a badge of honor! But no. We need something completely forced for no reason. You see, Spock filed a report on what happened and he told the truth. So, Kirk was stripped of his command.
That is until a few minutes and an action scene later. He gets his command back. I remember a time when actions had consequences. Okay. You can make an argument that it's a special circumstance because a lot of captains just got killed and ships need new captains. To that I ask, why the Enterprise? The Enterprise is the FLAGSHIP!!!! As in the best ship in the fleet. And Starfleet just gave command of the best ship in the fleet to someone who watched his captain and friend murdered by an unknown terrorist, someone who you believed to be mentally unbalanced before he was given a personal agenda, and even in terrible times like this you give him command of the Enterprise again? Someone you wanted back in the academy not five minutes earlier? Oh but this is possibly explained because of Admiral Marcus' actions later. Oh I'm getting to that guy. Just you wait.
Do you see what I have already written? All of this is just the first act of the movie. And what exactly happened here? Why did they include that opening scene? What purpose did it have? To show us that Kirk is needlessly reckless and doesn't follow orders? Here's an idea: if a major sub-plot of this movie involves the Klingons, how about having Kirk in a space battle with a Klingon ship? More on the Klingons. I have a lot to say about that. Was this scene included just to have Spock in danger so we can start two other sub-plots? Basically because Spock almost died and then 'stabbed Kirk in the back' with his truthful report to his superiors (*ugh*) this puts a strain on Spock and Kirk's friendship. Also, because Spock is a Vulcan and doesn't feel emotion (or shouldn't. Another rant coming it's way) this strains his romance with Uhura. Again, if that was the goal, put it in a space battle with the Klingons and you can do the exact same thing. And you don't need to include the magic ice bomb nuclear device. Was the purpose to get Kirk out of his captain's chair? If it was, that sub-plot was settled really quickly and totally unnecessary. He was still in the room when "Harrison" (*ugh*) flew his runabout up to the window of Starfleet and shot it all to hell! Does it make a difference if Kirk is a captain or a first officer if he's still in the room?
And that gets me to another sub-plot. The sick little girl. See. John Harrison is a bad guy. But he helped a desperate father save the life of his sick daughter. In exchange he agrees to help Harrison by going on a suicide bombing. No I didn't make this up. There's love of one's daughter and then there's agreeing to high treason. But this magic health cure is a major factor in the movie. And we might as well address it now. If for no other reason I'm sick of calling this guy John Harrison. It's Khan Singh. And because Khan is a super human, his blood has healing properties. Uhm... no. It doesn't. At no time does Khan have Wolverine's mutant healing factor. Khan is super strong and super intelligent. He doesn't have a healing factor! And don't give me that alternate timeline excuse. At this time Khan is 300 years old. He was frozen. The events of the first movie would have no effect on Khan. Khan should be the same as he was. If you really want to argue with me that blowing up Vulcan would give someone completely unrelated to the incident superpowers, I'd love to hear it.
THIS IS ALL JUST THE FIRST HALF HOUR OF THE MOVIE!!!!!
Oh God the Klingons. Khan escaped his attack on Starfleet headquarters by transporting himself to Qo'noS. (That they spelled Kronos!!!) And that's just a whole different continuity error. I lost track of how many times the transporters didn't work. Either they were too close to a photon torpedo, or they were moving too fast, or some other excuse as to why they weren't working just so they could extend the action scene just a little bit longer. But this one Khan had can not only do site to site transports, something that hadn't been invented yet, (site to site transports were never used until Scotty dreamed it up in Star Trek IV) site to site transports take more energy because there's no transporter pad, and Khan is able to transport MILLIONS OF MILES AWAY!!! That is just IMPOSSIBLE!!! So Kirk convinces Admiral Marcus to let him take the Enterprise on a mission of revenge. No I didn't make this up. Nor am I embellishing. This is what Kirk flat out tells his superior as a rational reason to not only give him back his command, but let him go on a mission that would most likely start a shooting war with a volatile enemy. So naturally he agrees! He not only agrees, but he gives the Enterprise 72 special photon torpedoes to use to kill Khan from orbit. And nobody finds this suspicious.
We might as well fast forward... The movie did. Because it only took a day for the Enterprise to travel from Earth all the way to Qo'noS. Did I say that was impossible. BECAUSE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!! Oh yeah Admiral Marcus' daughter is on board. Just felt like throwing that in there. I only mention it because Carol Marcus and James Kirk in the original storyline had A CHILD TOGETHER!!! But that's not important. It was only the basis of Kirk's undying hatred of Klingons because a Klingon murdered his son in Star Trek III. This is an alternate timeline. (*ugh*) And on the way the warp drive crashes under mysterious circumstances. Do we ever learn why? No. Not really. Kirk, Spock and Uhura travel together to Qo'noS and on the way settle their sub-plot with a nice warm-hearted talk... by Spock... the Vulcan... the species that suppresses emotion as their main character trait. (my head hurts) Once the talk is over, it's action time. Time to run away from the Imperial Shuttle Ship... I mean Klingon ship with flapping wings. Eventually they get caught and Uhura goes out to talk to the Klingons. The Klingons are wearing helmets. Something Klingons have never worn before. And then one of them takes his helmet off. And it's hilarious! This Klingon has piercings in his ridges! He looks like he belongs at a Motorhead concert! I'll save the rant on the fact that these Klingons have ridges in the first place. They should look more human at this point. And no you can't argue alternate timeline because what made them look more human took place long before the timeline skewed into this tangent. They shouldn't have ridges. This scene quickly goes nowhere as Khan jumps out and ninjafies all the Klingons and then surrenders when Kirk tells him there are 72 photon torpedoes when Khan cryptically asked how many there were. Again nobody finds this suspicious.
Long, boring, and confusing story short... Khan's crew are all in the torpedoes. Khan put them in there and no I don't know why. But Admiral Marcus shows up because he is going to destroy the Enterprise in his super ship, The Dreadnaught. Just because he wanted Khan dead and Kirk didn't kill him and start the war with the Klingons he wanted. So, he was going to blame everything on Kirk going rogue with the Enterprise. He's evil. I guess I have to explain this. The problem is I don't know why Marcus did it. Oh yeah more inconsistent transporter usage here when he beams his daughter on board his ship through heavy shielding. (*ugh*) Here it is: Marcus believes the Federation is already at war with the Klingons. And after the incident with the destruction of Vulcan he wanted a whole new fleet of ships and weapons ready to go. To get them, he finds Khan and unthaws him even though he's well aware they were in stasis because they were war criminals guilty of many acts of genocide. But *shock* *gasp* he can't control Khan! So, let's summarize this: Marcus believed the genetic superhuman could make better weapons so he unthaws him and now Khan is free and murdering hundreds of people trying to get his crew back. And Marcus is trying to cover it all up. Let me just throw out a suggestion. Sure it doesn't include trusting genocidal madmen, but I think the margin for success is slightly higher... PUT SOME RESOURCES INTO WEAPONS RESEARCH!!!!! STAR FLEET HAS SOME OF THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST MINDS IN THE GALAXY AND MANY OF THEM DO NOTHING EXCEPT DEVELOP BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER, AND TOUGHER SHIPS AND WEAPONS!!!!! There's no need to be a damn Bond villain about this! You're an ADMIRAL! The highest ranking Admiral in Starfleet! Just make weapons a priority and tell Starfleet scientists to make weapons stronger! Then you have Khan going off of how Marcus wanted Khan's aggressiveness. Are you telling me in the twenty-third century humans have forgotten how to kill people? We need Khan to teach Starfleet officers how to kill people? I find this hard to swallow.
Because Admiral Marcus is a douchebag, Kirk teams up with Khan to fight him. I hate this movie so much. I've been stalling a bit. Because you know this movie isn't done ripping off Star Trek II. Yes. They did the death scene. But they did it with a little twist. It isn't Spock that dies. It's Kirk! But then he gets better. That sound you might be hearing right now is me hitting my head on my desk.
This is where I just couldn't stand anymore. This really just ruined the whole movie for me. They did the death scene almost word for word. And then Spock did the epic "Khan!!!" scream. And that just summed up everything I came to fear about these alternate reality movies. Abrams just doesn't get it. He took something so memorable from Star Trek II, not because it was loud or sounds fun for a meme. But because it was impactful. The death of Spock had emotion behind it because Spock and Kirk had been friends for many decades. That was the entire point of Star Trek II! The progression of time and finding a way to age gracefully. Kirk trying to adjust to the reality that he is no longer captain of the Enterprise. He's an old man now. Maybe his best years were behind him and in all his years, he had always cheated death. He never had to face it on it's own terms. But that's something we are all going to do. He had a son he never knew. Star Trek II was all about life and death. The "Khan!!!" scream followed one of the most chilling moments I have ever seen. In just a short speech we feel all the hatred Khan has for Kirk. It's no coincidence that Khan spent years only with books like Moby Dick. Khan had bested Kirk in that moment. Khan had his revenge and Kirk knew it. All he could do is scream out his name. In this movie it's so much different. These guys were friends, sure. But they weren't lifelong friends. They are at the beginning of their friendship. I doubt they've known each other a year yet. It makes a difference. When Spock yelled out "Khan!!!" he didn't even know if Khan was alive or not! Even if you think I'm being unfair. Here's something to consider: if he didn't know Khan was alive and he just saw his best friend die in front of him, wouldn't it make more sense to yell out "No!!!"? Or if you don't want to go the cliché route and want something more personal in such a personal moment, how about screaming "Jim!!!" instead?
They use Khan's blood to bring back Kirk from the dead. I will repeat that. They use Khan's blood to bring Kirk back from the dead. They've brought characters back from the dead before. It was the whole purpose of Star Trek III. The way they did it was Spock's soul was transferred into Bones and his body was accidentally revived because of the Genesis device. If you don't know what the Genesis device is, it's a terraforming device that creates life on a planet in a matter of hours. It was a major plot element from Star Trek II and III. They did a mind meld between the resurrected Spock body and Bones and put Spock's soul in the new body. The way they did it was cheesy yes. But it adds an element to Star Trek that hasn't really been there before. The idea of a soul and a life beyond death. Star Trek had never gone there before. Sometimes it's obvious why. The point I'm trying to make here is that when they brought Spock back from the dead, they did something special to justify it. When Kirk died, they just threw a phoenix down on him!
That's how the movie ends. Kirk died, he got better. Khan was defeated. He is put back in stasis. He and all his buddies we never saw are kept in stasis and locked in the same unmarked warehouse right next to the Arc of the Covenant. Then Kirk and crew begin their five year mission in deep space. Roll credits.
It's clear J.J. Abrams researched but he didn't understand. This movie looked more like a re-write of Star Trek II more than anything new and fresh. I found a lot of elements of Star Wars that I took as a subtle hint that Abrams had his foot out the door and looking to do something else. There were aliens on the Enterprise and just hanging around that had no discernible identity. They looked like the scenery aliens from Star Wars.
Even if you liked this movie, you have to agree that at best this is a generic action film. The action was pretty good and the secondary characters had some good one-liners, but I'm of the opinion that Star Trek should be more than a generic action movie. It never felt like a Star Trek movie to me. This felt like a soulless rehashing of Star Trek II. And I hate it.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Coming Soon: 5/17/13
I didn't go to the theater last week. Instead I stayed home and watched some awesome movies. I also bought Fists of Fury and Gojira at my local discount book store. Now that's what I call a good weekend. So what's coming out this week?
1) STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS: The crew of the Enterprise must face an internal threat to the Federation.
The Good: Watch the trailer. Action. Glorious action.
The Bad: It's still this "alternate reality" Star Trek.
Final Thoughts: I could go on forever about why I think this "alternate reality" is a bad idea. I know why they did it; to attract a new base of fans. Generally speaking, I want to see the Star Trek universe expand and grow; not necessarily start from the beginning except radically different. I think this is going to be a very good movie. But I'm afraid I'm just going to be one of those guys that just can't enjoy it as much as I would like; not because of anything particularly wrong with the movie itself, but just what it isn't the Star Trek I grew up watching. It's completely unfair. I acknowledge that. It's just how I feel.
2) ERASED: An ex-CIA agent and his daughter are targeted for termination and they must fight to stay alive.
The Good: I don't know. How much did you like Taken?
The Bad: It's about as formulaic a story as it gets.
Final Thoughts: It's not worth your time.
See you at the movies
1) STAR TREK - INTO DARKNESS: The crew of the Enterprise must face an internal threat to the Federation.
The Good: Watch the trailer. Action. Glorious action.
The Bad: It's still this "alternate reality" Star Trek.
Final Thoughts: I could go on forever about why I think this "alternate reality" is a bad idea. I know why they did it; to attract a new base of fans. Generally speaking, I want to see the Star Trek universe expand and grow; not necessarily start from the beginning except radically different. I think this is going to be a very good movie. But I'm afraid I'm just going to be one of those guys that just can't enjoy it as much as I would like; not because of anything particularly wrong with the movie itself, but just what it isn't the Star Trek I grew up watching. It's completely unfair. I acknowledge that. It's just how I feel.
2) ERASED: An ex-CIA agent and his daughter are targeted for termination and they must fight to stay alive.
The Good: I don't know. How much did you like Taken?
The Bad: It's about as formulaic a story as it gets.
Final Thoughts: It's not worth your time.
See you at the movies
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Coming Soon: 5/10/13
Last week was the debut of Iron Man 3. I actually saw it. I really liked it. I've heard a lot of negatives about it as well, but it's always qualified by "but it's fun." And yes some of the stuff Tony Stark does isn't what I would call intelligent. And I heard someone say that if they were writing this movie, the villain would be the old girlfriend. I don't want to go too deep into it here but it's something I'm thinking of tackling in one of my way past due editorials. In the meantime, here's what is coming out this week.
1) THE GREAT GATSBY: The classic story of the lives of the super rich and high tragedy.
The Good: Leo DiCaprio is the kind of actor who can make any movie better.
The Bad: Baz Luhrmann. Nothing else needs to be said.
Final Thoughts: Baz Luhrmann is the kind of director that is the epitome of style over substance. If you don't believe me, watch Moulin Rouge. I can only imagine how he screws up a classic story like this. Oh wait. I don't have to. I just have to remember how big an egg he laid with Romeo + Juliet.
2) PEEPLES: A "regular guy" asks the patriarch of a preppy east coast family for his daughter's hand in marriage. And hilarity ensues.
The Good: Craig Robinson is a hilarious guy.
The Bad: Every thing else.
Final Thoughts: The story is cliché, the actors are B list at best, and... screw it with being nice... it's Meet The Parents. This is just Meet The Parents but without Ben Stiller and Bobby De Niro or any of the charm. And that movie SUCKED!
See you at the movies
1) THE GREAT GATSBY: The classic story of the lives of the super rich and high tragedy.
The Good: Leo DiCaprio is the kind of actor who can make any movie better.
The Bad: Baz Luhrmann. Nothing else needs to be said.
Final Thoughts: Baz Luhrmann is the kind of director that is the epitome of style over substance. If you don't believe me, watch Moulin Rouge. I can only imagine how he screws up a classic story like this. Oh wait. I don't have to. I just have to remember how big an egg he laid with Romeo + Juliet.
2) PEEPLES: A "regular guy" asks the patriarch of a preppy east coast family for his daughter's hand in marriage. And hilarity ensues.
The Good: Craig Robinson is a hilarious guy.
The Bad: Every thing else.
Final Thoughts: The story is cliché, the actors are B list at best, and... screw it with being nice... it's Meet The Parents. This is just Meet The Parents but without Ben Stiller and Bobby De Niro or any of the charm. And that movie SUCKED!
See you at the movies
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Iron Man 3 Review: To The Extremis!
Great movie. Awesome movie. Add your own superlative here. I really liked it. My biggest fear going in to this movie was that they were going to try to do too much at once. Luckily the writing was wonderful and they managed to make it all fit in a satisfying way. I can't go too in depth with this review because, believe it or not, there are things to spoil. With a movie including AIM, The Mandarin, The Iron Legion, Extremis, and a hint of Rescue; it's a testament to great writing that there are surprises.
For the comic fans out there like me, yes they do change things from the comic books. Extremis isn't exactly like it is in the comics. The Mandarin isn't exactly like in the comics. Iron Patriot isn't like he is in the comic. But to that I ask that you give it a chance. There are some wonderful fight scenes that are well worth the price of admission. There are some touching scenes, betrayals, revelations, comedy... it's a very enjoyable experience.
As far as things I didn't like, there weren't very many. At least nothing I can talk about without getting into spoilers. I will say this... from the summary I read online, it talked about the idea of "does the suit make the man, or does the man make the suit." That isn't an idea that factored into this movie too much. It never really was about the inner workings of Tony Stark's mind. Instead it's about Stark's past coming back to haunt him. That isn't much of a spoiler since they say that is what the movie is about at the very beginning of the movie.
Iron Man 3 is a great way to kick off the blockbuster movie season. Go see it.
For the comic fans out there like me, yes they do change things from the comic books. Extremis isn't exactly like it is in the comics. The Mandarin isn't exactly like in the comics. Iron Patriot isn't like he is in the comic. But to that I ask that you give it a chance. There are some wonderful fight scenes that are well worth the price of admission. There are some touching scenes, betrayals, revelations, comedy... it's a very enjoyable experience.
As far as things I didn't like, there weren't very many. At least nothing I can talk about without getting into spoilers. I will say this... from the summary I read online, it talked about the idea of "does the suit make the man, or does the man make the suit." That isn't an idea that factored into this movie too much. It never really was about the inner workings of Tony Stark's mind. Instead it's about Stark's past coming back to haunt him. That isn't much of a spoiler since they say that is what the movie is about at the very beginning of the movie.
Iron Man 3 is a great way to kick off the blockbuster movie season. Go see it.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Coming Soon: 5/3/13
Hey there friends. It's been a busy week. Lots happening. And now to take a look at movies coming out this week.
1) IRON MAN 3: Iron Man faces his greatest villain: The Mandarin.
The Good: This movie is so full of surprises I don't know how it can be contained in 2 hours.
The Bad: I can definitely see how they packed too much into this one movie.
Final Thoughts: I can't wait. I'm really psyched to see it.
2) THE ICEMAN: Based on the true story of a contract killer.
The Good: Richard Kuklinski is a very interesting and complex person.
The Bad: It's a bit cliché to have a story about a loving family man/contract killer these days. Even if it is "based on a true story".
Final Thoughts: It might be a good watch. Give it a try.
See you at the movies.
1) IRON MAN 3: Iron Man faces his greatest villain: The Mandarin.
The Good: This movie is so full of surprises I don't know how it can be contained in 2 hours.
The Bad: I can definitely see how they packed too much into this one movie.
Final Thoughts: I can't wait. I'm really psyched to see it.
2) THE ICEMAN: Based on the true story of a contract killer.
The Good: Richard Kuklinski is a very interesting and complex person.
The Bad: It's a bit cliché to have a story about a loving family man/contract killer these days. Even if it is "based on a true story".
Final Thoughts: It might be a good watch. Give it a try.
See you at the movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)