Star Wars: The Force Awakens - Review

Star Wars! Nothing but Star Wars! Gimme the Star Wars! Don't let them end!

Star Trek - Review

I'm going a little out of order with my Star Trek reviews here. Originally I was planning on going in order of release, so instead of doing the 2009 reboot now, I would have reviewed the four TNG films before getting to this one. I changed my mind, however, after watching Star Trek Into Darkness yesterday (as I have a lot to say about that one) and decided to review both of JJ Abrams films while they were both still fresh on people's minds. The 2009 reboot of Star Trek got a fair of hype. After the critical and commercial disappointment of 2002's Star Trek: Nemesis and the early cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise, many seemed to think that Star Trek was pretty much dead. It still had it's loyal fanbase, but the lack of support outside of the typical Trekkie audience and the general declining quality of the material (with some exceptions), Star Trek was looking a bit long in the teeth. It wouldn't be until 2009 when Trek would get a long-awaited revival... brought to us by none other than JJ Abrams, producer of hit shows including Felicity, Alias, and Lost. The film would be an in-continuity reboot with younger versions of the original crew, though still technically connected to the previous series' via means of time travel (it's a bit complicated). Rumors of a more "mainstream" and action-heavy interpretation of Star Trek persisted, with many fans and non-fans alike genuinely curious, intrigued, or concerned about the film. Finally the film was released in 2009 to generally critical and commercial acclaim... though there were a few naysayers. How does it hold up four years later? Let's boldly go where ten other movies have gone before...

The film opens, appropriately enough, in the depths of space, where the Starfleet vessel, the USS Kelvin, is called to investigate a lightening storm, of which an unusual Romulan ship, known as the Narada, has appeared. The Narada swiftly attacks the Narada, killing it's captain and a number of individuals on board. Many are saved thanks to the efforts of George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth), who sacrifices himself so that they, including his pregnant wife, may escape and therefore live. Years later, George's son, who is none other than James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), grows up to be a reckless and angry troublemaker. Despite Kirk's unpredictable behavior, Starfleet Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) sees potential in him, and encourages Kirk to enlist in Starfleet. Kirk accepts Pike's offer and enlists, in the process meeting his good pal Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban), the motivated upstart Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and frenemy Spock (Zachary Quinto). After three years of training, Kirk and the others step aboard the newly-Christened USS Enterprise to investigate an electrical storm not unlike the one that claimed Kirk's father. With a dangerous enemy lurking in the depths of space, the Enterprise crew must act swiftly to discover his secrets and eliminate him before he does further damage to the galaxy.

This film was quite a big deal when it was first released. It was generally praised by most critics, and audiences (both Trekkie and non-Trekkie) generally reacted positively. The studio's big experiment in bringing more "mainstream" appeal to the Star Trek series seemed to work. I'll even admit that when it came out, I was right there with those showering it with praise. I even remember putting it on Top 10 films of 2009 list, in fourth place! All that said, looking back, I think I might have been too nice to the film. After repeat viewings of this film plus repeat viewings of the other Trek films, the numerous flaws of this reboot became way more apparent. Despite the critical praise, the film did receive some criticism (even from those who liked the movie) for a shallow or dumbed down narrative that favored big action over intellectualism. While that's by no means uncommon for most summer blockbusters, generally Star Trek was better than that. Even in the films or episodes that weren't very good, they generally had interesting or thought-provoking ideas, while the good Trek films balanced both smart storytelling with stellar Sci-Fi action. While I still honestly like the movie, I'm inclined to agree. There are some things about it that are either lame, derivative, or just plain stupid, but there are some things about it that work as well.

Looking at Star Trek strictly from a narrative perspective... it's very hit and miss. The film's two writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, have been JJ Abrams' two primary writing sources for his various projects, but when you actually look at their film credits, they're kind of hit and miss. They've both had some successful work on TV, but with films like Transformers (1 & 2) and The Island among your credits... yeah that's not so good. Star Trek's script isn't particularly terrible as much as it's kind of dull and uninspired. As I already mentioned, the story is lacking in terms of substance and anything particularly challenging or interesting. It doesn't have much of a central theme, topic, or even anything to really take away, but that's not the main issue. No, the real issue at hand is that it "borrows" if not rips off one too many elements of it's story from other material, both Star Trek and otherwise. It takes bits of pieces from Wrath of Khan, but it's main offense, oddly enough, taking most of it's material from Top Gun. Namely, by turning Kirk into a reckless troublemaker with Daddy issues, he more often resembles Tom Cruise's Maverick than James T. Kirk. The film does have a few decent dramatic moments, and the characters still endearing. For the most part, they got the trademark figures' personalities right, and had a few decent shout-outs or homages to classic Trek lore. The rest is basically your standard blockbuster action fodder. Nothing about it is overly terrible or offensive to your intelligence like other summer moneymakers (Tranformers for instance), but the script just feels oddly lazy and kind of uninspired. Guess you got to take what you can get.

The cast helps elevate the film from just a routine effects driven blockbuster to something quite enjoyable. Chris Pine approaches Kirk with a far more different interpretation of the character compared to William Shatner. He brings a similar devil-may-care cavalier similar to Shatner, but approaches it in a far less hammy or memorable way. While his efforts are commendable and he generally handles himself with a decent charisma, he doesn't quite have the necessary range or presence to make a real impression. He's certainly not bad though, so I'll give him a pass. The stand-outs are Karl Urban as Bones and Simon Pegg as Scotty, both of whom own every single scene in which they're featured. Zachary Quinto does the emotionless Vulcan shtick quite well too, and takes a few of the film's stand-out scenes. Zoe Saldana and John Cho both show a strong presence as Uhura and Sulu respectively, but they they're characters are fairly underutilized and don't have enough of a role to befit the actors. Eric Bana plays Nero, the evil Romulan bent on revenge. Bana's a decent enough actor, but he's barely given a character to work with here. The fact that Nero is little more than a blank slate lets down Bana, and since any of the character's semi-memorable traits are shamelessly borrowed from Khan, he's one of Star Trek's least memorable baddies. The rest are pretty solid across the board, can't think of too many failures as far as acting goes. I will say one more thing, Leonard Nimoy has a small role as an older version of Spock, and that's always a welcome addition.

In terms of visuals and production value, the film scores across the board. It's kind of ironic when you think about it, namely how Star Trek has generally contained cheesy production values made up for by strong storytelling, while this film does a total 180 with less than stellar writing but strong visuals. The cgi is pretty damn awesome, with a neat redesign of the USS Enterprise and some cool space battles and explosions. The Oscar winning makeup is impressive as well, namely in how they recreated many of Trek's iconic aliens and creatures but with it's own unique style as well. These all compliment some great action scenes that are some of the series' better efforts, whether they be space battles, hand to hand fights, or shoot-outs. Though I will say, the scene with the young Kirk driving his step-dad/guardian's car off a cliff rocking out to the Beastie Boys is embarrassingly stupid and one of the lamest things to be included in a Trek film (it's a nitpick, but it's there). Aside from that, the rest are exciting and enjoyable to watch. Also impressive is the musical score by Michael Giacchino, who combines familiar Trek riffs with new compositions that compliments the film nicely. At the very least, Star Trek is a nice looking and typically entertaining film that is never boring.

So the 2009 Star Trek reboot... a bit overrated but still entertaining. It's definitely unfair that this film is often labelled as a masterpiece while the past films are considered boring by so many, but on it's own merits, Star Trek is at least an enjoyable effects-driven blockbuster. Is it perfect? No, not at all, but it is entertaining.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Super 8 - Review

Super 8 is one of those movies that I can't help but chuckle at. It's not a bad movie, it's just that it tries so incredibly hard to strike at the nostalgia of those who grew up in the 80s and early 90s that it comes off as less of a movie and more of a laughably over passionate love letter to my generation's childhood. While one could make a reasonable argument that originality is overrated, or that the current generation probably wouldn't recognize most of Super 8's movie references, there is definitely something to say about why a credible filmmaker like J.J. Abrams would feel compelled to rip off nearly every Spielbergian trick and cliche in the book. Yeah, I know this was produced by Spielberg, but nonetheless I stand by my opinion. Still, I guess if you had to rip off a filmmaker, there are worse choices than Spielberg. Is the movie a new summer classic or a forgettable dud?

Super 8 centers around a group of kids living in a small Ohio town in 1979. One summer night, they sneak out to film a short movie by an old train station. In the midst of the filming, they witness a catastrophic train accident when a car drives onto the railroad tracks and causes it to derail. Soon afterward, they realize that the train belonged to the US Air Force and was carrying a creature unlike anything they've ever seen. Now, with a giant alien wrecking havoc around town, the kids are forced to take action and stop it.

Like I was saying, Super 8 tries... boy does it try hard. To me, it comes off as this movie that feels if it includes references to every Spielberg movie it can, that it will go on to be this timeless summer classic. To be fair though, many great movies are mainly homages. Star Wars, for instance, was basically a salute to sci-fi serials of the 50s. Then there's Indiana Jones... an homage to adventure serials of the 30s. Ridley Scott's Alien was essentially a big budget B-Movie from the 50s. The list goes on. The main difference between classics like that and Super 8 is this... Super 8 intentionally targets your nostalgia and goes out of it's way to remind you of the classics. Sure the other films mentioned may have been nostalgic, but they had their own unique touch to separate them from their inspirations. Super 8 has scenes that wholeheartedly rip off nearly every movie directed or produced by Spielberg. There are scenes taken from Jaws, War of the Worlds, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Gremlins, The Goonies, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, even Schindler's List. Not mention there are small tributes to non-Spielberg filmmakers like John Carpenter and George Romero. Though hands down the most prevalent tribute is ET, going out of it's way to include a plot with an alien and even scenes that were almost completely remade from the classic. As a result, Super 8 comes off simply as a nostalgic piece with little originality and practically no lasting value.

Despite those criticisms, Super 8 does a lot of thing right. The first of which is the acting. Super 8 boasts one of the better child casts I've seen in quite a while. In fact, it's one of the rare occasions where the kids outshine the adults. Not so much because the adults are bad actors, but simply that the kids are more engaging characters. They have diverse personalities, fun characteristics, and some memorable comedic moments. I won't critique all of them, but I will say that Super 8 will likely be remembered as the star-making vehicle for actors' Elle Fanning and Joel Courtney.

Probably the most frustrating thing about Super 8, though, is the fact that the story doesn't take advantage of it's child characters as well as it could have. As I mentioned before, Super 8 has a promising script with an intriguing concept and fun characters, but unfortunately it also has a boatload of problems. It switches every so often between the main plot with the kids, and two subplots - one of which involves a government conspiracy involving the alien (a la ET) and another involving Joe's (the main character) neglectful father coming to grips with his recently deceased wife (a la... too many Spielberg movies to name).

The story has a great first act... with a solid setup, promising exposition, and one of the best train derailment scenes I've ever seen. The second act is when the movie starts feeling cluttered and overstuffed, struggling to balance it's multiple stories. By the time the third act rolls around, not much has changed. The finale is appropriately exciting, but it's also predictable as hell. Plus, when the alien's appearance is finally revealed... it's pretty ho-hum. Not awful but a minor letdown after the great buildup. Though I do have to mention the hilarious post-credit scene. That alone makes Super 8 worth seeing.

From a technical side, Super 8 works. The special effects are appropriately adequate, the cinematography is decent, and it had enough visual flair to keep me interested. As I mentioned, the train derailment scene is very cool, arguably the best train accident ever depicted on screen. You've also got some suspenseful and exciting scenes with the alien reigning chaos on the town. While the camerawork was overall decent, many of the shots had multiple lens flares that got really distracting. Plus, there's the less-than-stellar appearance of the alien, as I mentioned before. Overall, it works but aside from the train scene, I can't think of much that will be especially memorable.

What's frustrating about Super 8 is that it makes as many wrong choices as it does right choices. It's just when it work... it really works, but when it doesn't... it falls pretty hard. In the end, I think the pros outweigh the cons enough to see it once in theatres, but with all of the film's positive qualities, it should have been much better. It's too bad... this could have been a new classic. Still worth a watch though.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!