The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Is Tolkien Rolling Over in His Grave?

Like just about every movie I write a review on, I saw “The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug” (just “Smaug” after this) twice.  The second time, I saw it with my family.  Afterward my mom and I were discussing it, and we came to the easy conclusion that there wasn’t a lot of the story that was straight from the original book.  There were quite a few embellishments.  I didn’t think that was a bad thing.  My mom, though, is sure that J. R. R. Tolkien is rolling over in his grave.

The first installation of this Hobbit movie trilogy, “An Unexpected Journey” (“Journey” hereafter), had many extras as well.  I’ve read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings several times.  I also read The Silmarillion once, though I really struggled to get through it.  I haven’t tried reading other Middle-earth history, so I don’t know how many of the additions in the movies are cannon and how many are inventions of Peter Jackson and company.  One thing that’s sure, however, is that nothing from the novel has been left out!  Beorn; the spiders and the Elves of Mirkwood; the escape from the Elves; Lake-town and Bard; and the dragon Smaug were all intact (with some enhancement in several cases).

As for additions (without spoiling too much), Legolas was featured in “Smaug” along with another elf that didn’t exist in any Tolkien works, as far as I am aware (Evangeline Lilly did a great job in that role).  Gandalf’s solo adventures were also featured.  Some of the Dwarves were fleshed out in ways that they never were in the book.  That, to me, is a very welcome elaboration because I don’t remember any of them, except maybe Thorin, having much of a personality in their original format.

My feeling about the additions to the story is that either they are meant to make “The Hobbit” more of a prequel to “The Lord of the Rings” than the book really was or to make the story more exciting and approachable for modern audiences.  I don’t think either of those purposes is bad.

 A year ago, I really enjoyed “Journey”.  I liked the hair and costuming of the Dwarves.  I liked the relatively light-hearted feel of the movie (in comparison to the tone of “The Lord of the Rings”).  I enjoyed Radagast the Brown.  The special effects were well done (ugly trolls, creepy goblins, and scary orcs!).  But one of my favorite things about “Journey” was Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins.

All of that is still true for “Smaug”. 

I remember having The Hobbit read to me as a kid.  I also vaguely remember a cartoon version of the book.  From those two sources, my vision of Bilbo was a chubby little guy.  That description doesn’t necessarily fit Martin Freeman (though movie magic makes him hobbit sized).  Freeman is a good deal skinnier than the Bilbo I pictured from my memories as a child.  But that doesn’t seem to matter.  He does such a great job of bringing the character to life that the nay-saying voice in me is hushed and I just sit back and enjoy what’s on the screen.

One of the gripes that I’ve heard about “Journey” was that it dragged in places.  Personally, I didn’t think it did.  But if “Journey” was a little slow on occasion, “Smaug” picked up the pace.  There was a lot more action and peril in this latest installment, but it still managed to feel lighter than the “Lord of the Rings” movies.  Martin Freeman’s Bilbo was a big part of that lightness.

Smaug himself was amazing!  The level of detail in his animation was mind-blowing to me.  (Of course, we might look back in a couple years and wonder why we thought it was so well done.)  Benedict Cumberbatch is a perfect choice for his voice.  He really does a great villain!  (As an aside, that might actually be why he’s so good as Sherlock Holmes in “Sherlock”.)

In summary, many of the additions to the story of The Hobbit may not be part of the cannon of Tolkien’s Middle-earth, but I think they fit well with the original work.  If Tolkien is rolling in his grave, I hope it’s with delight and not with disappointment!

Thor: The Dark World - Illogical Villains, Heavy-handed Heroes, and Funny Science

WARNING:  SPOILERS AHEAD

I’ve been avoiding this post, and I think I finally figured out why.  Hopefully the reason will become clear as I write.

I saw Thor: The Dark World (hereafter TTDW) on opening day, like I do most of the movies I go to see.  Ever since then I’ve been debating with myself whether I liked it or not.  I eventually had to see it a second time to decide.

There are a lot of things in its favor.  It was visually pleasing (always a plus for me).  There were elements of humor reminiscent of the first move, but they weren’t overwhelming (another good thing).  One of my favorite characters from the first one, Heimdall, had more of a part (he’s a favorite because I really like Idris Elba and the character design is really cool).  Finally, Tom Hiddelston as Loki has so much fun with his character that you can’t help but like him even though he is undeniably a bad guy.

The cause of my consternation was two-fold.  First, the villains don’t make sense to me.  Second, elements of the story seemed like thinly veiled references to semi-current events having to do with the United States and terrorism.

The bad guys in TTDW were a race of people called dark elves.  They existed before light, so before the universe.  Their intent was to destroy everything so that they could go back to their previous existence.  Perhaps it’s my failure of imagination, but I can’t get my head around how existing before light would work.  For one thing, I don’t understand why they have eyes if they came about before the advent of light.  Also, why would their ships emit light if they’re that against it?  I know it’s a lot to ask, but I like my bad guys to have some logic behind them.

There were things about the dark elves that I really liked.  Their design was very appealing to me.  And, in spite of my above gripe, I really liked how their ships moved.  Also, one of their more devastating weapons actually made sense for them.  It was sort of a mini black hole grenade.  It made me think that whoever came up with the design of it was actually thinking about what kind of weapons a race that hates light might develop.

The other thing that bugged me was what I perceived as parallels between Asgard and the United States and between the dark elves and terrorists.  I don’t pretend to be up on current events.  Most of what I get is tidbits on the news that makes it through my protective wall of escapist entertainment and portrayals I see within said escapist entertainment (NCIS and NCIS: LA).  So here’s my admittedly frail (and over-simplified) perception of how the US and terrorists are seen:  the United States is a heavy-handed, self-appointed peace keeping nation and organizations such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda use tactics like suicide bombers and such.

The beginning of the TTDW showed a war between Asgard and the dark elves.  The dark elves created a devastating weapon that had the potential of wiping out the universe.  The Asgardians managed to take it away, hiding it in a place that was nearly impossible to get to and effectively neutralizing the threat.  In a last ditch effort, the dark elves crashed their ships into the Asgardian forces, sacrificing themselves in an attempt to destroy their enemies.  The Asgardians were portrayed as heavy-handed peace keepers.  The dark elves were portrayed, essentially, as suicide bombers with the dark elf leaders making their escape to hide until the time was right.

That beginning somehow made the heroes (Asgard) less likable to me.  And because of what I saw as parallels to the United States, it felt like an attack on my love of country.  And instead of being able to root for the entire nation of “good guys”, I had to mentally back a small group of “traitors”: Thor and his friends.  (As an aside, one of his friends uses a rapier-like weapon.  Against heavily armored foes, that weapon makes absolutely no sense!)

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t mind some tarnish on my good guys.  It makes them more believable and, when done right, more likable.  But in this case, the tarnish was too much, and that was another attack on my love of country.  I know that the United States is not perfect.  But I believe that the world would be worse off if we hadn’t acted in many situations.

This post is ending up a whole lot more political than I’m comfortable with.  I think I need to switch gears.

Another minor gripe that I have is about the funny science.  The movie didn’t explain it well, which could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.  Good thing in that it wasn’t botched worse than it was.  Bad in that I couldn’t follow what was explained.  But it was a comic book movie, and I tend to give those more leeway on funny science.  So while it was a negative, it was one I could live with.

In conclusion, if I could figure out a way to turn off my brain, I think I would have liked TTDW a lot more than I did.  Like I said at the top, it was visually very appealing.  The character designs were really cool.  And Idris Elba and Tom Hiddelston were great!  (What does it say when your two favorites are a minor character and a bad guy?)  And, in spite of the illogic of the dark elves, the  attack on my love of country, and the poorly done science, it was a watchable movie.  The first one was better, though.

Ender's Game - Book vs. Movie

It has to be a difficult task to make a movie based on a widely-read book.  Sometimes it turns out well, but often, it doesn’t.  Peter Jackson did a great job with “The Lord of the Rings”, and I really enjoyed the first installment of “The Hobbit”.  The translation of the Harry Potter series from written word to live action was well done, too.  “The Twilight Saga” (while not exceptional in either form) was a true and faithful adaptation of the books, though some of the casting left a lot to be desired.  And, with the exception of a few changed plot points, “The Hunger Games” was probably one of the best movies based on a book that I’ve read.

Then there are the ones that don’t turn out so well.  (I’m having a hard time coming up with examples, because I don’t have any in my movie collection…)  But, in my opinion, one of them was “Ender’s Game.”

There are several challenges to making a movie based on a book that I can think of.  First, people who have read the book have their own ideas about how the setting and the characters look.  Another is deciding what to keep in and what to leave out.  Sometimes a decision has to be made about plot points that need to be added or completely changed to make the transition from the page to the screen work.  With ever decision and every change, there’s a risk that fans of the original form of the story will be upset.  There has to be a balance between the familiar and the different.  There’s a threshold at which people who know the book become too disappointed with the film.

As a medium, live action film has a lot of limitations.  For example, the viewer is chained to the vision of (essentially) one person—and that person isn’t likely to be the viewer.  Also, the way to get into a character’s head is mostly restricted to emoting and dialogue.  Then there’s the time constraint.  In general, a book has to be stuffed into a 2-3 hour time slot.  Finally, there’s the acting ability of the cast.

In my opinion, “Ender’s Game” failed in all but one of those categories.

The good:  The set designs were amazing; the adults in the film were really well cast; and a lot of the important plot points were preserved.

The look of the movie was magnificent.  I loved the design of the ships, the planets, and other sets I can’t mention without spoiling things.  I liked that there was at least some attempt to think 3-dimensionally in zero-G.  I also liked how the technology worked—typing out letters, manipulating screen views, etc.  It seems like it was taking where our technology is now and progressing it farther into the future in a logical and believable way.

The younger cast was somewhat of a disappointment to me, but I thought that the adult cast was very good.  Harrison Ford, Viola Davis, and Ben Kingsley were fabulous.  Their portrayals of their characters were spot on.  I have no complaints on that front.

Sacrifices always have to be made when making a book into a movie.  That’s understandable.  And, even though I thought more could be left in, I think that the essential parts of the story were there.  That doesn’t mean that I think that they were well presented (as I’ll get to later), but I’m glad that the major parts of the story survived intact.

The bad:  The portrayal of the main character was VERY different from how I imagine him to be; most of the book is the main character’s internal observations and musings, and not many of those made it into the film; and the movie moved way too fast.

I understand that you really can’t have a six-year-old (the age he is at the start of the book) in the role of Ender Wiggin for a movie.  Six-year-olds just don’t have the acting ability needed.  It would also be really hard to get a six-year-old actor age five years (the time span of the book) from the start of the movie to the end of it.  So I’m mostly okay with a young teenager or a tween in the role.  My gripe is that the actor cast for the role of Ender was way too tall.  He was too much arm and leg.  And his portrayal of the character was not at all how the Ender in my imagination was.  He wasn’t strong enough.  And I don’t mean physical strength.  I’m talking about strength of personality.

In an interview at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, Orson Scott Card, the book’s author, was quoted as saying, “Ender’s Game is an ‘unfilmable’ book, not because it’s too much violence but because everything takes place in Ender’s head.”  (Melissa Young, “Orson Scott Card Talks About ‘Ender’s Game’ Book and Movie”, Neon Tommy, April 20, 2013.)  Some attempt was made to take us into Ender’s head with body language and dialogue, but it didn’t feel quite the same.  I suppose the filmmakers did the best they could with their chosen medium and style, but it didn’t do the book or the character justice, in my opinion.

Finally, I thought that the pacing was way too fast.  Elements of Ender’s progression were there, but he moved from one thing to the next with superhuman speed.  It didn’t seem like he had enough time to really learn.  So many of the events of the book were left out.  I understand that, as packed as the book is, things had to be left out.  But these days, a 2 ½ or 3 hour movie isn’t unheard of.  I think more of Ender’s story could have been told, and I was left dissatisfied with the amount that wasn’t.

So while there was some good in the movie, I thought the bad outweighed it.  I think the best thing about this movie is that it is likely inspiring more people to read the book—which is excellent!

Monsters University - Pixar Flix Aren't Just for Kids

Pixar is magic.  Over and over again they come up with characters and stories that are fun for audiences of hugely varying ages.  The worlds they create are beautiful and imaginative.  Their characters are original and relatable.  Out of fourteen films, there has only been one dud (Cars 2).  A batting average of 0.929 isn’t too shabby!  In my opinion, Pixar is the standard when it comes to animated movies.

I think that part of the appeal is that they are accessible and enjoyable to a wide variety of audiences.  They are bright, colorful, fun, and funny to little kids.  They are cool enough for teenagers.  And they’re clever enough to keep adults interested and entertained.  They truly are family movies.

Monsters University was no different.

Here’s why this movie appealed to me as a more “mature” viewer:

1.       It gave me credit for having seen Monsters, Inc.  It rewarded me with plenty of in-jokes that would only be truly appreciated by someone who was familiar with the first movie.  Yet it was still inviting to people for whom Monsters U was their first foray into the Monster’s world.  There was enough reminder of (or introduction to) the concept of the Monsters without being too much.

2.       It took character stereotypes and made them funny.  This isn’t too much of a spoiler (I hope), since the title of the movies is “Monsters University”, but the setting is largely on a college campus, with all that entails: professors, various types of students, roommates, and fraternities and sororities.  The concept of the jock, the frat boy, the nerd, etc. aren’t new or original, but they were so well done in this movie that they worked!  And there were some other characters that weren’t quite as typical, too, to balance it out.

3.       The attention to detail and the set and character designs were gorgeous!  As I’ve said before, part of the pleasure of watching animated movies for me is the look of the film.  CGI movies have come a long way since Toy Story was released in 1995.  Pixar has always been on the forefront of the industry in terms of animation quality.  Watching Monsters, Inc. on an HD TV last night, I saw that the characters and the sets didn’t mesh as well as they did on older, less advanced screens.  That wasn’t the case with Monsters U.  From the lighting to the backgrounds, the textures and the colors, this was eye candy from start to finish.

4.       One of my pet peeves with a lot of “kids” movies is that the message of the story is heavy handed, immature, or even faddish.  With the exception of WALL-E’s overt environmentalist slant, Pixar has avoided that.  That trend continued in Monsters U.  The themes were relatable and well integrated with the story.

There were other things that I really liked about the movie, but some fall into the realm of spoilers, which, despite the title of this blog, I’m trying to avoid.  Hopefully it’s already understood that this is a prequel, and so it takes place before Monsters, Inc.  Related to that, it was fun to see the development of the relationship between Mike and Sully, the two main characters.  I was also pleased with the subtle changes to their appearances to make them look younger.  The voice acting was great!  The cast did an amazing job.  Helen Mirren brought her character to life in a way that, even though the character is an antagonist, made her one of my favorites.

Monsters University was well worth the price of admission.  It is worthy of the Pixar label.  And it is another of summer 2013’s great sequels.

Despicable Me 2 - Something's Missing

This summer (and probably most summers to come) has been and will continue to be full of sequels:  Iron Man 3, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Monsters University, Red 2, The Wolverine, and Despicable Me 2 are all movies that I’ve seen or will be seeing this summer that involve returning characters and universes.  I’ve already written about Iron Man 3 and Star Trek: Into Darkness, both of which were really good sequels (yes, time and distance have made me fonder of IM3.)  I haven’t written about it yet, but I also thought that Monsters University was done very well.

That brings me to Despicable Me 2 (hereafter referred to as “DM2”).  Over all, I thought it was a cute story with a decent (not too overt) message.  The character designs were fun to look at.  The voice acting was well done.  The minions were hilarious!  But some of the elements that I enjoyed about the first movie were missing from this one.

First off, there was a distinct lack of inventing and building in DM2.  Gru still had gadgets, but they didn’t seem very original, and anything that was new seemed rather basic.

Second, he wasn’t really competing with anyone.  This is probably a major reason for the dearth of new machines and plots on Gru’s part.

Third, while the girls definitely had a role in this movie, they didn’t seem like they were as big a part of it as they were in the first one.

DM2 was definitely a sequel in that it didn’t spend much time re-introducing characters.  It was a stand-alone story, not depending on the first movie for anything except the characters themselves.  In that regard, I would suggest watching (or re-watching) the first movie before going to see DM2.  On the other hand, I’d only seen Despicable Me once, but I had no trouble stepping back into the world of Gru and company.

For me, a lot of what makes an animated movie enjoyable is the look of it.  I’m not all that fond of the designs in DreamWorks movies because all of the characters look the same to me.  Pixar does it right, though, with a seemingly endless variety of shapes, sizes, colors, and textures.  DM and DM2 were done by a company called Illumination Entertainment (part of Universal Studios), and they have taken a page from Pixar’s book.  I am especially impressed with the minions.  I mean, really, how many ways can you make yellow cylinders with arms, legs, eyes, a few hairs each, and mouths different?  And they all dress the same (for the most part), too!  And yet, if you pay attention, each minion is unique.  That’s impressive to me.

So while I didn’t enjoy DM2 quite as much as the original, it was still worth a watch.

(I’m starting to wonder if the length of my reviews reflects how strongly I feel about a movie…)

Man of Steel - Washed Out, not Up

DC and Marvel have a bit of a rivalry.  They’re the two biggest comic book companies.  DC’s been at it since 1934, with titles like “Action Comics” (where Superman started) and “Detective Comics” (the title that introduced Batman).  Aside from WWII era heroes like Captain America, Marvel’s most well-known characters didn’t come around until Stan Lee and a couple of collaborators started creating the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk, and more in the 1960s.  These two companies publish all except four of the American comics I buy on a regular basis.  Right now, I think DC is doing a better job of giving its universe a clear direction and overall story.  And, for the most part, I’m enjoying DC titles more than Marvel titles.

But this blog is about movies, right?  And in the movie department, I think that Marvel is doing a better job of giving its universe a clear direction and overall story.  Marvel obviously has a plan with Iron Man, Thor, Spider-Man, Captain America, and the Avengers.  And the movies have been really fun!  Last year’s Avenger’s movie was absolutely amazing, and one of my favorite movies of the whole year.

I’ve already written about my thoughts on Iron Man 3.  And even though it upset me in a big way, it was still really well done.  And even though Thor has never been one of my favorite characters (I’ve never bought a Thor comic book), I’m looking forward to Thor 2 in November.  (As an aside, the X-Men and Wolverine movies seem to be unconnected to the Avengers movies… at least so far.  But I have a feeling that Spider-Man will be meeting up with the team eventually.)

Lately I’ve been thinking about why I like the Marvel movies so much.  What I’ve come up with so far is that they still feel like comics, even though they’re live action on a big screen.  The heroes and the villains are colorful and larger than life.  The plots involve grand, evil schemes that need to be foiled by the good guys for the world to keep spinning in a nearly-normal fashion.  And even if there’s some darkness, there’s also light—literally and figuratively.  The big battle in the Avengers happened in bright daylight.  There’s plenty of humor to lighten the mood.  And the heroes, while they have to face difficult moral decisions at times, are able to keep themselves relatively unsullied.

Don’t get me wrong.  I loved the most recent Batman trilogy.  It was dark and brooding, and it really fit the character.  It seemed like there was some effort to make the characters and technology more realistic than they are in the comics:  the Batmobile was a small tank; Ra’s al Ghul wasn’t immortal; the Joker wasn’t quite as colorful, but he was definitely evil; and Bane, while a really big guy, was just a really big guy.

Superman is almost a polar opposite to Batman.  He’s solar powered.  He thrives in the light.  There’s nothing dark or brooding about him.  He works to inspire hope, not fear.  I believe that he only keeps his Clark Kent persona as a secret identity so that he can have normal interactions and relationships with people.    Besides that one (admittedly large) secret, he’s completely open and honest.  He doesn’t even hide his face.

While dark and brooding works well for Batman, it’s a bit out of character for Superman.

Not that “Man of Steel” was really dark or really brooding.  There were parts of it that were very light—literally (a big daylight battle) and figuratively (Clark’s smile, for one).  But the colors were washed out,  not as bright as previous Superman movies.  Superman’s costume was muted in tone.  The villains uniformly wore black.  And, strange as it sounds for a movie about an alien with superhuman powers, it had the same “realistic” feel to it that the Batman trilogy had.  Maybe that’s going to be the signature of DC superhero movies.

I want to be clear that I really liked the movie.  I thought that, with one exception that I’ll go into shortly, it was very well cast.  It had superb special effects.  The design of the Kryptonian technology, costumes, and ships was really cool!  There are a lot of movies where sci-fi armor looks cheap, plastic and cartoonish.  That wasn’t the case with “Man of Steel”.  The whole thing felt grounded (another funny thing to say about a movie with a main character that flies), and that isn’t a bad thing.  It just didn’t blow me away like the Avengers’ movie did.  I loved it, but I didn’t LOVE it.

I have to say that, until “Man of Steel”, Christopher Reeve was the best Superman portrayer in my opinion.  But Henry Cavill was spot on.  To echo the words of one of the female characters, he’s kind of hot!  Michael Shannon, who I think I’ve only seen once before, was a great Zod.  Some actors are just made to play bad guys.  He’s one of them.  Superman’s two fathers, Jor-El played by Russell Crowe, and Jonathan Kent played by Kevin Costner, were very well cast.  Even though it was a smallish part, I thought Costner’s Jonathan Kent was one of the best performances I’ve seen from him.  Perry White was played by Lawrence Fishbourne, and there’s nothing I can find wrong with that casting.  The only cast member I had a problem with was Amy Adams as Lois Lane.

Lois Lane is nearly as well known as Superman.  In every portrayal of her that I’ve seen—in movies, TV, or comic books—she’s assertive, no nonsense, confident, and fiery.  She’s got steel in her.  Amy Adams had probably three-and-a-half out of those five characteristics.  She was no nonsense and confident, somewhat assertive, and she definitely had steel, but she just wasn’t fiery.  She was too gentle and quiet.  She was more like water than fire (if that makes any sense).  I think it’s generally a good thing for actors to make a character their own.  But in this case, Amy Adams wasn’t a good fit for me.

In the last decade or so, the action in action movies has become faster, more frenetic.  Sometimes it’s difficult to tell the combatants apart because they’re moving so fast.  To some extent, that was the case in “Man of Steel”.  But I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.  Fights between superpowered individuals should be fast.  They should be messy.  The makers of “Man of Steel” did a good job of helping out the audience, though.  Even muted, Superman’s costume had enough color to it to see who had the upper hand and who was taking the hits.

I liked the story of the movie.  I liked that it showed how Clark Kent became the man that he is.  I liked the initial attitudes of people toward Superman, and then seeing how they changed.  I liked that Zod had a reason for what he did that was beyond vengeance.  There was some funny science, but I can usually forgive that in a comic book movie.  Also, the movie makers seem to have forgotten that bullets ricochet.  I kept wondering why people kept shooting, even when the ammunition seemed to have no effect at all.

So, to sum up, “Man of Steel” was no “Marvel’s Avengers”, but it was still a very good movie.  Henry Cavill was a great Superman, but Amy Adams was a mediocre Lois Lane.  The action was spectacular, and the design of the Kryptonians was really cool.  I’m looking forward to a sequel!

Star Trek - Sequels Are Never as Good as the Original, Right?

Sequels are never as good as the first installment.  It seems like the filmmakers identify what worked best in the original and try to do more of it, but it ends up feeling forced.  For example, I loved “Cars.”  It was well done all the way around.  There were great characters.  It was clever.  The story was fun and had a point without being too heavy handed.  “Cars 2”, on the other hand, wasn’t nearly as good.  Mater, who was a great foil for Lightning McQueen in the first movie, was overdone in the second.  The subtle touches of “Cars” that made it clever weren’t nearly as subtle in “Cars 2”.  And the story was more silly than fun.

But the rule of disappointing sequels doesn’t always hold.  Here’s a list of “2’s” and “3’s” (or beyond) that, in my opinion, were as good as or better than their “1’s”:

“Spider-Man 2” (the Tobey Maguire era)

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”

“The Dark Knight”

“Toy Story 2” and “Toy Story 3”

“Hellboy 2”

“Men in Black 3”

“Shrek 2”

“Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn”

“Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home”

“Star Trek First Contact”

“Star Trek Into Darkness”

(Is there a pattern there?)

Yes, I thought “Star Trek Into Darkness” was as good or better than J. J. Abrams’ first foray into the world of “Star Trek”.

Two of the things that I loved about the first movie were the portrayals of familiar characters by new faces and the way the series was rebooted.  All of those elements were present again in “Into Darkness”, all with the same feel as “Star Trek”, and all in the proper proportions.

True Trekkies would probably call me a heretic, but I like Chris Pine’s Kirk much better than I like William Shatner’s.  Pine has a much less annoying speaking cadence.  He has appropriate swagger and confidence.  And he’s not bad on the eyes, either.

Zachary Quinto as Spock is spot on.  He and Chris Pine play off each other very well.  I also enjoy the dynamic between Spock and Uhura.  It is a relationship new to the rebooted series, and it brings a new depth to both characters.  They are polar opposites, with Spock being cold and logical and Uhura being warm and passionate.  The blue uniform he wears and the red uniform she wears are almost symbolic that way.  And speaking of Uhura, I am excited that she has more of a part in the new movies.  Zoe Saldana has a lot of presence, more than I remember Nichelle Nichols having.

The rest of the Enterprise crew is just as well cast as Kirk, Spock, and Uhura.  Karl Urban’s Dr. McCoy is almost a clone of DeForest Kelley’s.  McCoy’s pessimism is fun, as are the continual metaphors and “I’m a doctor, not a [fill in the blank]” lines.  Simon Pegg as Scotty is hilarious.  It’s nice to see Sulu’s competence and ambition as portrayed by John Cho.  He handled his time in the Captain’s chair very well in “Into Darkness.”  (Oops, that was a spoiler.  But not too much of one…).  Anton Yelchin plays a very different Chekov than Walter Koenig did.  This new Chekov is a bit more high-strung than the original.  He seems to have more of a personality.

The two J. J. Abram’s “Star Trek” movies have a great cast.  The actors didn’t try to outdo themselves in “Into Darkness”.  They just seemed to continue on from where they left off in “Star Trek.”

And I can’t leave the topic of actors/characters without talking about Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison/Khan.  (Gah!  Another spoiler.)  I haven’t seen him in anything other than “Sherlock” (if you don’t count his silhouette in “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”).  He’s great in “Sherlock”.  And he’s amazing in “Into Darkness.”  His Khan has a subtle menace at times and a not so subtle rage at other times.  He’s just as scary as Ricardo Montalban’s Khan.

I read a couple of reviews of “Into Darkness” that didn’t appreciate the reuse of the Khan story.  They thought it was lazy.  But it worked for me.  I enjoyed the parallels as well as the differences.

First of all, the last movie introduced an alternate timeline that came about because of a group of Romulans that traveled into the past and changed it.  However, everything that happened in the Star Trek universe until that change stayed the same.  That includes Khan.  His origin is still the same.  It isn’t a stretch to think that he’d surface in the new timeline.

Second, just because Khan reappeared doesn’t mean that the story is the same as it was before.  In the original series, he was rescued and revived by the Enterprise crew.  Without giving spoilers, that is not what happened in “Into Darkness”.  In the original series he tried to take over the Enterprise as a first step toward his goal of the domination of the human race.  His goal in “Into Darkness” was much more destructive and far less grandiose.

Finally, elements of “The Wrath of Khan” did appear in “Into Darkness”.  But even those elements were changed.  Doers of certain deeds were changed.  There were heroics all the way around by the Enterprise crew, but in different ways than were previously seen.  So even though Khan was brought back by J. J. Abrams and company, there were plenty of things that made it different from the original.  And, to my point at the beginning of this, it didn’t feel overdone or forced.  It seemed like a natural progression of the new story.

That’s not to say that the movie didn’t have its flaws.  The science was a bit iffy here and there.  At the beginning there was a volcano on a planet that would have destroyed said planet if it had erupted.  But I’d think that whatever pressure is causing the eruption in the first place would still have to be relieved in another way so that the planet and its inhabitants would remain in danger.  (By the way, the planet’s name was Nibiru.  Wasn’t that the name of the planet that was supposed to destroy Earth on Dec 20, 2012?)  Also, the logic of putting the meeting room of Star Fleet’s big wigs relatively unprotected spot doesn’t make a ton of sense.  Then again, the bridges of all the Star Fleet ships are right at the top and relatively unprotected—though every enemy shot seems to miss them.

To sum up, this is one of those not-so-rare sequels that is as good as or better than the original.  The characters were great, and the story was a lot of fun.  I liked how elements from the original series were added back into the new timeline.  But looking ahead, I’m a bit nervous about the future.  This was most likely J. J. Abram’s last time at the helm of a Star Trek movie.  I hope whoever gets the captain’s chair next continues the trend of making sequels that are even better than the previous installment.

After Earth - Everybody Hates M.

“After Earth” got horrible critic reviews.  And, according to Flixter as of 12:40pm on June 1, 61% of movie watchers liked it.  I do agree that it isn’t the best movie that I’ve ever seen, but it wasn’t as horribly unwatchable as some of the reviews I saw made it out to be.

So I have to wonder, is part of the reason that critics panned the movie that M. Night Shyamalan directed it?

I really enjoyed Shyamalan’s first three movies, “The Sixth Sense”, “Unbreakable”, and “Signs”.  I thought “The Village” was creepy and scary, but I didn’t hate it.  I really liked the twist at the end.  “Lady in the Water” was bizarre, but I didn’t hate it either.  I haven’t seen “The Happening”, so I can’t comment on that one.  “The Last Air Bender” was highly criticized for its casting.  The acting wasn’t the best, and the special effects and costuming were kind of cheap.  But it was fairly faithful to the animated series that the story was taken from.  Again, I didn’t hate it.  As entertainment, M. Night Shyamalan’s movies do just fine for me.

Admittedly, my standards are probably not as high as others.  Especially movie critics’ standards.  I learned a long time ago that I don’t always agree with them.  But a lot of people do pay attention to what they say when deciding if they’ll go see a movie or not. 

I’m not going to say that “After Earth” was amazing.  In my opinion, it had too much Jaden Smith and not enough Will.  But I think that was the plan—Will and Jaden in a movie together where Jaden would be the main character.  So that wasn’t Shyamalan’s fault.

The story had a ton of holes in it.  As co-writer of the movie, that could definitely be blamed on Shyamalan.   But you could also blame the other writer, Gary Whitta.

Jaden Smith looks worried/terrified through most of the movie.  But he had the same expression for a good portion of “The Karate Kid” (or as I like to call it, “The Kung Fu Kid”), so that might just be his natural mode.  As the director of the movie, Shyamalan was responsible for the acting—but the ability of the actor comes into play as well.

Yes, there were plenty of things wrong with the movie.  But there were things I did enjoy.  I liked the cinematography (even the computer generated bits).  I liked the design of the sets.  It was a very pretty movie to watch.  I liked the symbolic journey of Jaden’s character, going from a frightened, guilt-ridden kid to a confident young man at peace.  I also liked the change in Will Smith’s character from an absentee father to one with pride in his son.  And I was able to get around the holes in the story (with a little bit of eye rolling) to enjoy the whole of it.

Don’t pre-judge this movie just because M. Night Shyamalan was involved in it.  If you like sci-fi flicks, this isn’t the worst one you could see.  Out of the movies I’ve seen this year, this one isn’t at the bottom of my list (that spot goes to “G. I. Joe Retaliation”).  It isn’t the best (so far, that spot goes to “Star Trek Into Darkness”).  But it was just fine for a Friday after work.  And I’ll probably buy it when it’s available on Blu-ray.

Iron Man 3 - Two Out of Three Is Okay

CAUTION:  This post is full of spoilers.  Read at your own risk if you haven't seen the movie.
 
I saw “Iron Man 3” on opening day.  I went in looking forward to seeing Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin.  I went in looking forward to Robert Downey, Jr. making his fourth (fifth, if you count his cameo in “The Incredible Hulk”) appearance as Tony Stark/Iron Man.  I went in looking forward to great special effectsa and amazing action.  Since seeing it, there have been three things on my mind:  the question of whether Tony Stark is Iron Man because of the suit, or if the suit is Iron Man because of Tony Stark; how the Extremis story compares with its origin in the comic book; and how disappointed I was by the major change made to one of the characters.

Superheroes without superpowers are fundamentally different from those with super powers in an obvious way.  For superpowered heroes, a fairly common theme in comic books is to take a hero’s superpowers away and then to put them in a potentially life-threatening situation.  For example, in “The Flash” #19, Flash lost his powers just as he was he was trying to retrieve police-confiscated supervillain weapons before other supervillains could get to them.  After he got his powers back, he had a greater appreciation for heroes like Batman and Green Arrow.

On the other hand, a superhero without superpowers like Batman is still Batman even when he’s in his Bruce Wayne persona.  He still has the same skills, even if he isn’t wearing his costume.  He’s trained himself so well that even without his gadgets he can get out of just about any situation relatively unscathed and without revealing himself.

Tony Stark is a little bit different.  He is extremely intelligent and a very talented engineer.  He started out as a weapon’s designer.  He created the Iron Man to survive and escape captivity.  But he doesn’t really have any combat training other than the experience he’s had fighting in the Iron Man armor. In “Iron Man 2” he described the Iron Man as an advanced prosthesis.

One of the themes of this movie was Tony’s struggle to define himself.  The movie starts our with Tony Stark suffering anxiety attacks and sleeplessness due to the events of “Marvel’s Avengers”, when he almost died.  He took refuge in what he knew: tinkering with his suits—upgrading them and designing new ones.  During his panic attacks he retreated into his suit, hiding from his friends.  He was relying more and more on the armor to get through daily life.

When Tony found himself without his suit in “Iron Man 3”, he had nowhere to retreat to.  He went back to his roots.  In a scene that is reminiscent of the original movie, Tony Stark built several weapons using supplies purchased at a local hardware store.  He was able to infiltrate the enemy stronghold with only his homemade gear.  And when he finally did get access to his suits again, he treated them as disposable.  The final line of the movie is “I am Iron Man.”  And that is after he apparently destroyed all of his suits.  He came through this adventure with more real confidence in himself (versus the affected bravado he sometimes displays) and his identity.

Point one in favor of “Iron Man 3”.

One of the major plot lines regards a substance known as Extremis.  This was something that was introduced in the Iron Man comic book in 2005 and 2006.  In the comic book, scientists Aldrich Killian and Maya Hansen were developing it for medical purposes—though, since they had military funding, it was also being developed as a new super soldier serum as well.  A dose of Extremis was stolen and administered to a domestic militia man named Mallen.  He went through a painful 2-day transformation and emerged changed in several ways.  He became relatively indestructible (able to withstand small and medium arms fire), very strong and fast, and able to breathe fire.  At one point, Mallen walked into an FBI office in Houston, TX and killed at least fifty people barehanded.

Maya Hansen was one of Tony Stark’s ex-lovers.  She contacted him after the theft of the Extremis and they met up.  They heard about Mallen’s rampage in Houston, and Tony, as Iron Man intercepted him.  Iron Man was severely injured in the fight, and went back to Maya for help.  He made some changes to Extremis to make it safer and to tailor it to his needs.  Maya administered it to him.  It healed him and enabled him to have a better, faster, stronger interface with the Iron Man armor.  In the end it was revealed that Maya Hansen had a hand in the theft of Extremis, and she was sent to prison.

Many elements from this arc remain intact in the movie, with a few key changes.  It was still developed by Aldrich Killian and Maya Hansen.  Instead of a single dose of Extremis, several doses were administered to injured vets.  They did not act independently, but were part of a private army.  They were sent after Tony Stark, all but destroying his life in the process.  One significant change is that Pepper Potts was given the Extremis.  She survives the process and saves Tony’s life.

On the whole, I think these changes work very well.  The overall nature of Extremis is preserved.  Tony did not receive Extremis, but at the beginning of the movie he was implanting subcutaneous interfaces into his body, serving somewhat the same purpose with respect to the Iron Man armor.

Point two in favor of “Iron Man 3”.

I understand that not everything from a comic book translates well to a live-action movie.  For one thing, a comic book audience is relatively small.  A movie is targeted for a much larger crowd.  Changes are made to further a story, or to tailor the parts to the cast, or to make the film more approachable by more people.  For example, Justin Hammer of “Iron Man 2” was based on a character from the Iron Man comic book called Justine Hammer.  Colorful characters from the comics are often toned down in movies, such as the Wolverine’s bright blue and yellow spandex being exchanged for black leather or Joker’s bright green hair dulled to a bad dye job.

Usually these changes don’t bother me too much.  They’re mostly cosmetic.  And even if they’re a bit deeper than that (in the comics, Bucky was several years younger than Captain America, and they never knew each other before WWII), I can get past them and go with the flow of the story.  However, there are instances when the changes really get to me.  I had to see “The Fellowship of the Ring” a second time to get past the changes that were made in translating that story to the screen.  And ultimately, those changes were also mostly cosmetic.

The changes made to one key character in “Iron Man 3” are far from cosmetic.  They are also much more drastic than giving Captain America and Bucky a backstory that didn’t exist in the comic book.

In an article by Joal Ryan of Movie Talk, he says, “Imagine if, in a Batman movie, the Joker wasn’t really the Joker.”  That is a very good comparison.  Joker is Batman’s archenemy.  More than any other character in Batman’s rogue gallery, Joker is the villain you think of when you think of Batman.  What would happen if the writers decided that Joker was just a front?  What if Harley Quinn was the real bad guy and Joker was just someone she found on the street and dressed up?

That scenario is similar to what the writers of “Iron Man 3” did to the Mandarin.  In the comic book version, he lays long plans to wreak havoc on the Marvel universe in general and Tony Stark in particular.  He is a skilled martial artist and an accomplished scientist.  He has ten rings of alien origin that also give him various powers, including control over matter, minds, light, and time.  In one story arc, he took control of Tony and forced him to build a mechanical army with the goal of world domination.  In short, he’s a very dangerous man.

In the movie he is a drunken actor named Trevor Slattery, cast to play a part and to be the face of a terrorist organization that does not exist.  To me, that is a much bigger distraction than Arwen rescuing the group of hobbits rather than Glorfindel.

I can accept the casting of Ben Kingsley as a character called the Mandarin.  (Maybe the name was more about the image and methods than actual ethnicity.)  I could accept the lack of alien power rings.  (They are a bit over-the-top and hard to explain to people whose only experience with Iron Man is the movies.)  What I can’t accept is the change to the essential nature of the character.

Yes, Aldrich Killian eventually stated that he was the true Mandarin.  But that doesn’t make up for the shock of the original revelation.  Slattery’s Mandarin persona was truly cold, sinister, and frightening.  Killian, while strong and angry, just didn’t have the same malice.

Maybe I saw “Iron Man 3” a second time, just like I had to see “The Fellowship of the Ring” a second time.  The revelation wasn’t nearly as upsetting or distracting.  I definitely enjoyed the movie more on the second viewing.    Tony’s struggle with his identity and the introduction of Extremis were well done, but I still have to say that the Mandarin is one major point against “Iron Man 3”.

(By the way, I know that what upset and distracted me probably won’t have the same effect on others who aren’t as familiar with the comic book as I am.  The twist regarding the Mandarin was really well done, and I didn’t see it coming.  So if all you know about Iron Man comes from the movies, maybe the title of this post should be “Three Out of Three Is Awesome!”)

References:

1.       “The Flash” #19, Brian Buccellato, Francis Manapul, Marcio Takara, DC Comics, April 2013

2.       “Iron Man”, Vol. 4, #1-6, Warren Ellis, Adi Granov, Marvel Comics, January 2005 – April 2006

3.       “’Iron Man 3’: Mandarin Blowback?”, Joal Ryan, Movie Talk, May 6, 2013.

Intro

I love movies.  Well, not all movies.  I’m a fan of action, sci-fi, Pixar, the very occasional comedy, romantic comedy, romantic drama, or drama.  As a rule I don’t see horror movies.  For kid’s movies, it depends on the studio.  And I won’t watch R rated flicks, at least not in the theater where I can’t skip scenes.  So yes, I love movies, but there are a lot of qualifiers in there, too.

I also enjoy writing.  I’m really out of practice, though.  It’s been a few years since I did any “serious” writing, and even longer than that since I did any on a regular basis.  But I want to start in on writing again.  I want to write something that I enjoy, but something that’s also somewhat regular, but not really long.

A few weeks ago my brother issued me an “assignment.”  He told me to write an essay about “Iron Man 3.”  I needed an introduction, a thesis, a body with at least one credible (non Wikipedia) reference, and a conclusion.  According to him, there were others (at least two more) who had received this same assignment.  He declined to tell me who they were, but we would be competing against each other.  There was a prize as well as a “freelance” writing position for the winner.  I won, but I still don’t believe that I was really competing against anyone.  My brother fibs on occasion.

Writing that essay was really enjoyable for me.  And it got me thinking, why not start a movie review blog?  So I’m going to attempt to do that.

A couple of warnings.  This is probably going to be a seasonal thing.  The movies I tend to like come out May through June and November and December.  I’m also not going to make much effort to leave out spoilers.  Maybe if I get better at doing this I’ll make more effort, but at least at the start, there will be spoilers.  So if you’re sensitive to that, I’ve given you fair notice.

Also, I’m not a real movie critic.  There are a lot of times when I don’t agree with the critics.  I don’t go to movies as my job.  I don’t analyze the acting, the directing, and sometimes even the story (unless there are huge gaping holes, or there’s really bad science and the movie is taking itself seriously, etc.)  I have a pretty high suspension of disbelief threshold.  I can be reeled in with spectacular special effects.  I can also be reeled in by Robert Downey, Jr., Will Smith, Hugh Jackman, and Tom Cruise, along with a few up-and-comers.  And I’m a sucker for comic book movies—super heroes especially.

So if, after this introduction, you’re still interested, I you are welcome to read this blog.  You’re welcome to disagree with my reviews, but my skin isn’t all that thick—so don’t tell me if you hate them!  ;)