Star Trek Into Darkness review

JJ Abrams’ daring take on the “Star Trek” franchise won over millions back in 2009. The alternate reality established by his half sequel half reboot injected much needed life into a franchise that was slowly but surely growing significantly stagnant.

With the possibilities numerous, Abrams chooses to tackle classic “Star Trek” themes and iconography with his own spin in a film that satisfies but doesn't quite live up to everything that it could have been.

Captain James Kirk (Chris Pine) and the crew of the Enterprise return as a part of a response team to take out a rogue Starfleet agent that has launched a one man campaign against Starfleet, the most recent attack of which resulting in the death of Kirk’s close friend and mentor, Christopher Pike (reprised by Bruce Greenwood).

Embarking on a mission to stop the renegade agent John Harrison completely under the radar from Starfleet, Kirk and his crew will be tested in ways that will rock the very foundation of the way that Starfleet operates.

From the very moment that the film starts, its frenetic pace is established and only continues to build momentum the second the opening titles leave the screen. “Star Trek Into Darkness” is fast, flashy, and does not slow down for anyone. Such a tactic would sound like it would make for a fairly shallow or cluttered movie but the result is quite the opposite. “Into Darkness” is quick but ultimately witty, emotional, and more substantive than what we typically get during the summer blockbuster season.

Character chemistry is in full effect. With the groundwork of “Star Trek” laid out, the cast is fully established and completely unchained. The tight chemistry of the cast adds certain unpredictability to each interaction and despite the moderate size of the ensemble; every character manages to serve a definitive purpose without feeling underutilized.

Pine continues to carve out his own interpretation of a younger and brasher Kirk, tempered only by his love for his crew. Despite starting out rather bratty, he undeniably comes into his own in all of the right areas.

 While Pine’s performance remains solid, Zachary Quinto’s Spock truly steals the show with a performance that I question even the great Leonard Nimoy’s ability to pull off. Spock’s nature of being constantly caught between acting logically and allowing himself to be human is portrayed with a delicate level of subtlety that puts the rest of the cast’s highly impressive performances to shame.

To say nothing of Benedict Cumberbatch’s incredible performance as the film’s antagonist would be an absolute crime. Despite my reluctance to accept a certain twist taken with his character, I cannot deny his ability to sell it better than the scrip itself.

“Into Darkness’” post 9-11 feel brought upon by Abrams’ interpretation leads the charge, allowing the film to approach classical “Star Trek” concepts with a more contemporary eye. The militarization of Starfleet into a defensive and offensive navy from an organization of armed but peace welcoming explorers, the merits of emotion driven thinking, and action within perceived no win scenarios are all given a fresh and unique perspective with a level of poignancy the likes of which could have never have existed at any other time in our history.

The themes compliment Abrams’ incredible eye for action well, striking a fine balance between thought provoking and entertaining. “Into Darkness’” direction has provided for several of the most breathtaking action sequences that I have seen all year. If this is what he can do with “Star Trek,” the “Star Wars” franchise is in good hands.

From a general standpoint “Star Trek Into Darkness” is a fully well balanced package, a fun summer blockbuster, and undoubtedly one of the best films of 2013 so far, however what holds me back from loving it as much as I desperately want to is its unfortunate tendency to play it safe at the worst possible moments.

The alternate reality established by “Star Trek” was created to explore new territory and tell stories free from the constraints of continuity while leaving the stories of the past to be explored or developed upon in the prime reality at a later date. Although many of the story inspirations for “Star Trek Into Darkness” come from one famous source of “Star Trek” lore, it takes numerous chances and twists well established formulas in such a way to give it its own stamp. So it baffles me why, after tinkering with so many fascinating ideas, the film ultimately decides to play itself out so straight that I’m left questioning what was actually accomplished.

The tightly balanced and ambitious first two thirds of the film are resolved by a third act that, although still satisfying as pure entertainment, ultimately cops out on almost every single idea that gave the film its own sense of identity.

The exploration of shifting political tensions and enemy alignments brought about by the destruction of Vulcan at the end of the previous film, discussing the merits and the cons of cultivating an organization of peaceful exploration into a combat read navy, and a certain shift in the command structure of the Enterprise provided boundless materials that could have given “Star Trek Into Darkness” a true legacy within the franchise but are sadly discarded in the name of playing it safe and conforming to status quo.

Despite failing to live up to all of its potential however, “Star Trek Into Darkness” is far from a bad film. It’s action packed, heartfelt, and even smart at the end of the day. It is an overall package that every film should strive toward. I only hope that its success grants the franchise the courage it needs to follow through on its more bold concepts in the future. 

8 Out of 10

The Great Gatsby review

F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1925 novel about the decadence of society and the unhealthiness of chasing the past has made its 2013 big screen debut after a brief delay brought on by a busy holiday movie season. Bahz Luhrmann’s take on “The Great Gatsby” undoubtedly provides a lot of food for thought but how much of that is attributed to actual quality storytelling is something that I struggle to ascertain despite being adapted from a novel heralded as an American classic.

Tobey Maguire portrays protagonist Nick Caraway who, in a framing device through which the story is being narrated, seeks therapy for depression, regaling his doctor with the story of his summer in New York of the year 1922 and eventually writing about it as therapy. His story covers the meeting of his good friend Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) and how their friendship has enlightened him on the darker and more tragic elements of the human condition.

Luhrman’s sensibilities are applied both full force and yet with a surprising amount of restraint counterproductive to his stylization. This weird sense of direction may sound like a contradiction but in practice, his techniques serve to give the film a unique flavor where his bombastic style can fit, while allowing the story to breathe and develop organically after pulling back on the bells and whistles to focus on the movie’s themes of human nature’s abuse of upper-class status.

“The Great Gatsby” has a lot of unique ideas going for it. The framing device which effectively makes Caraway a cipher for the late Fitzgerald puts a unique spin on the original story and even allows Maguire to stretch himself a bit more in terms of his range, going back and forth between the courteous, young, wide eyed, and idealistic protagonist of the story that he is perfectly casted for and a slightly older, damaged, and more cynical Nick that asks him to a little bit more than his career has typically asked of him.

DiCaprio continues to impress as with almost every role across his career, with a charismatic yet complex and multilayered performance, which at this point, isn’t even news anymore.

Additionally, Luhrmann’s affinity for modern pop music treats the film better than one would think. Occasionally, a background scene occurs that can distract if you focus in on it but the actual scenes in which they exist serve to generally benefit the story’s build up of lavish and decadent lifestyles in such a way that can connect the film to modern audiences. This works to varying extents but the experimentation is commendable nonetheless.

While the novel focused more on the detriment of decadence to society, this film spins it into a different direction. Luhrmann’s take on the material is ultimately about the hollowness of lavish lifestyle; a study of the idea that at any given time, the carelessly living upper-class is caught between the pursuit of greed and self gratification at the cost of others, or using their assets selfishly for what may have once been good intentions.

“The Great Gatsby’s” backbone, namely its fascinating study and execution of its source material’s themes and history, is solid and thought provoking enough to cover up the fact that there’s a general sense of hollowness about the film that’s rather difficult to place my finger on.

Despite the film’s use of effects, beautiful camera work, large sets and locales, and general sense of style, the world feels oddly empty and devoid of life. This goes beyond a feeling of low population which is not necessarily the case; Carrie Mulligan’s performance as Daisy, Gatsby’s object of affection and obsession feels so bland and phoned in that she overshoots the characters intentional shallowness.

The layers of complexity seem to have been ultimately saved up for Maguire and DiCaprio exclusively, who have a solid chemistry together and collaboratively distract from the fact that the remainder of the cast performances are merely of workman quality.

“The Great Gatsby’s” sense of style becomes something of a double edged sword in this regard, as the first half of the film, ignoring the quirks of the source material’s interpretation, quickly succumbs to the issue of style over substance, despite how impressive said style is, which creates a massive sense of whiplash when the film slows down towards its final act, which does bring the story full circle but still feels oddly disconnected from the bombastic first half.

The greatest enemy of “The Great Gatsby,” contrary to what one may believe, is not its contemporary stylization but ultimately its unevenness. I definitely give it a full recommendation and undeniably enjoyed it but I’m still struggling to determine whether or not that is because of its own legitimate quality. Baz Luhrmann’s “The Great Gatsby” is an admirable effort but due to its makeup, may be more of a fascinating film than a good one.


7 Out of 10

Iron Man 3 review

Marvel has come a long way in their cinematic ventures since “Iron Man” hit way back in 2008. In the 5 years that have followed, we’ve seen pulp action super soldiers, biologically engineered monsters, interdimensional beings duking it out with aliens and all of which have culminated in the world’s first major crossover superhero film.

In “Iron Man 2,” the adventures of billionaire playboy, philanthropist, and generally charismatic jackass Tony Stark took a hit in favor of being a 2 hour advertisement for the then upcoming “The Avengers.” Fortunately with less of a burden placed upon and a better balance struck between world building and story focus, “Iron Man 3” manages to fair much better than its predecessor despite its flaws

Robert Downey Jr. returns to the screen as Tony Stark, battling post traumatic stress after his brush with death in “The Avengers” a year ago. After having his trusted bodyguard Happy Hogan (reprised by Jon Favreau) hospitalized after an attack perpetrated by a terrorist making a name for himself known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) using technology provided to him by the head of the think tank, AIM, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), Stark sets out on a mission to destroy The Mandarin.

Unfortunately he must do it with his own wits and a new malfunctioning suit prototype after The Mandarin orders an aerial strike on Stark’s Mansion and effectively destroying his equipment and his home base.

Director Shane Black’s sensibilities lend themselves well to the concept, which captures the feel of the source material even better than Jon Favreau’s already impressive take on the franchise had. Tony Stark and his entire supporting cast interactions are chock full of witty dialogue and banter with more pop than ever. It’s humorous, unpredictable and unlike “Iron Man 2,” doesn’t detract from the actual charm of the characters themselves.

“Iron Man 3’s” humor serves to diffuse the high stakes and tension of the film’s plot, which establishes a more grounded and cerebral tone akin to the first film and attempts to maintain throughout. Make no mistake, this is the original “Iron Man’s” true sequel; No awkward hamfisted Avengers plugs or SHIELD hijacking, this show is all about Tony Stark and his fragile world and this time, despite outshining his fellow cast members, Robert Downey Jr. doesn’t carry the show all on his shoulders.

Gwyneth Paltrow’s chemistry with Downey as his former secretary now Stark Industries CEO and girlfriend Pepper Potts, has returned in full force and Don Cheadle is finally allowed to shine in his role as War Machine, serving as a replacement for Terrence Howard that is not necessarily better but is at least acceptable. Even Happy Hogan gets in a handful of great moments. For the first time in the franchise, the supporting cast exists to do more than simply kiss Tony Stark’s ass and stroke his ego.

As strong as the supporting cast is, the story is focused squarely on Tony and his ability to cope with being swept up into a world of action, conspiracy, and death defiance, greater than himself. Separated from the friends and equipment that he has taken for granted, Stark is left to survive on almost nothing but his own wits and whatever materials he can manage to scrounge together, overcoming the challenge ahead of him to face demons that he has created in his arrogance.

The strength of the writing in addition to Black’s fantastic camerawork and action choreography with enough flash to make Joss Whedon eat his heart out, right down to a climax that is easily one of the best final throw downs of superhero film history, are more than enough to make this film an instantly worthy watch and quite possibly one of the boldest superhero films ever made.

Unfortunately, “Iron Man 3’s” major draws also prove to be the source of its biggest and most frustrating problems.

Black’s comedic content and writing are top notch, which is a good thing because his timing leaves a lot to be desired. The snappy dialogue never ceases to entertain in and of itself but it does have a really bad tendency to detract from the tension and dramatic atmosphere built up, which can render details of the plot significantly ineffective. Downey sells his PTSD stupendously but the actual movie unfortunately forgets to take it seriously by regularly making it the butt of a joke whenever it comes up past the first act.

Additionally, suspension of disbelief behind Stark’s ability to make witty banter as a defense mechanism for the horrors that he is experiencing becomes stretched to its absolute thinnest. Between grappling with his own stress and personal losses in the midst of a battle to protect everything that he holds dear, his aloofness in certain situations just doesn’t click with the rest of the film, despite his own self obsession and narcissism.

The comedic timing as a whole just isn’t as great as it needs to be and the struggle to tread the line in order to maintain a tone ultimately manifests itself in the form of a second act twist involving The Mandarin that is sure to rub several people the wrong way. It took me two viewings and a week and a half of contemplation before I understood what they were going for and it’s sure to be divisive but although I personally enjoy it, I cannot within reason fault those that will have a problem with it.

“Iron Man 3” is undoubtedly the most uneven film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe made thus far and I would dare say that it will beat out “Thor” as the most contested movie of the franchise as a whole. Do not however, let that scare you off. For all of its massive problems, “Iron Man 3” is very quickly becoming a film that I find more endearing as time passes and at its heights is one of the finest specimens of its genre.

Its flaws may distract from that but they do not change that status in the slightest, even if it’s promise ultimately outweighs its execution.

8 Out of 10