Hiss if you must, but I never watched any of the older Star Trek TV shows or films. In fact, my first experience with the franchise was with 2009's reboot directed by JJ Abrams. And boy was it great! I was actually reminded of its greatness when I watched it just before the new sequel as part of a double feature that the Crystal River Regal Cinemas offered. After the first film finished, I had an hour until midnight, when I would see JJ Abram's second Trek film "Star Trek Into Darkness. In that hour I was thinking to myself (with the first film fresh in my mind), "Wow there is no way the second will could be better than that." But did Abrams prove me wrong?
Before I tell you, let's go over a quick preview of the plot. We are taken back to the Starship Enterprise on another adventure to some distant planet. Unfortunately for Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) his actions on this mission result in him being stripped of his position as Captain and his ship is given back to Commander Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Well obviously this can't last for long, because a dangerous new threat presents itself when a man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) makes deadly strikes against Starfleet. Kirk is quickly reinstated so that he, Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise can go after this terrorist and bring him to justice, dead or alive.
One of the great things that has always existed for Star Trek is what you hear in the iconic monologue that includes these words, "To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." This is one of my favorite parts about watching these movies. The set design and costume design is always incredible. JJ Abrams and his team of writers never fail to create beautiful and intriguing environments for these characters to explore and the creativity behind these worlds is exciting.
And of course it is all done with top notch visual effects. Today, with films like "Transformers" and "Avatar" it is difficult to really stand out in the visual effects game. But "Into Darkness" succeeds in doing so. And not just with the different planets and alien creatures. The shots of space, the big battles between ships, everything looks spectacular.
But now onto the heart of the film--the characters. One of the great things about 2009's Star Trek was that it did a wonderful job of introducing all of the classic characters, with their one-liners and all. It was such a big part of the film and was key in its success. Here, in this sequel, there is no need to introduce any of the characters so many of them, such as Uhura, Bones, Scotty, and Chekov take a backseat and are not seen or developed nearly as much as they were in the first film.
That being said, the dynamic relationship between Kirk and Spock is as entertaining and interesting as it always is. Even after years and years of the franchise's existence, it seems that writers continue to develop these characters in ways that never fail to hold an audience's attention. Of course this is helped by the two great performances by the leading actors...which brings me to my next point.
Two words: Benedict...Cumberbatch! Words can barely describe how talented this man is. I mean, can he please play every villain for the rest of time? I am convinced that just the sound of his powerful voice could send Darth Vader running. And while I could probably write a whole other review just about his portrayal of John Harrison, a villain with a mysterious past (which some of you may have guessed from previous speculation) I think you get the point. His acting was incredible, perhaps the biggest and best reason to see this film.
In my opinion, the sci-fi genre is the best out there. The story telling is usually top-notch, the characters are exciting, and the action is entertaining to say the least. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is no exception. It has everything a Trek fan could want and more, and you certainly don't have to be a fan to enjoy this great piece of sci-fi storytelling. And while it may not be as fresh and original as its predecessor, it is still well worth your time. I give it four stars out of four.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" has a running time of 132 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Iron Man 3
Marvel Studios hit the jackpot back in 2008. Thanks to the supremely well-casted Robert Downey Jr., the first "Iron Man" became a blockbuster hit and kicked off Marvel's long road that ended (kinda) with last year's "The Avengers" which now holds the record for most money made in the opening weekend (over 200 million). Now Marvel is entering what they call Phase 2, the period between The Avengers and The Avengers 2 which opens in 2015. The first film in Phase 2 is the third installment of much loved Iron Man series. But with a director change and high expectations from The Avengers, can Iron Man 3 succeed?
Well as I just said, the events of The Avengers have impacted the world big time, and the billionaire hero Tony Stark (Downey) isn't coping very well. Instead the events, which included him nearly dying by flying through a wormhole into space, have caused Tony to have some serious problems with post-dramatic stress and nervous breakdowns. And as unfortunate timing would have it, there is a terrorist who calls himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who has begun to attack the US and other countries with vicious bombings. Plus, he might be in leagues with a scorned business rival of Tony's, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) whose nanotechnology has the power to create super powered individuals. It's a nasty combination, and when Tony is stripped of all his armor he must go back to his inventive and cunning roots to help him remember that, suit or no suit, he is Iron Man.
Now let me say first to not expect to see any of Tony's teammates from the Avengers present in this film...this is all Tony Stark's story. And that is a good thing. Marvel needs to prove that they can make films about just one of their characters that can be just as interesting as when all the heroes are together, and I believe that they accomplished that with "Iron Man 3." This film is without a doubt one of the most characters driven comic-book movies in years. It's not focused on the action or CGI set pieces, but the character of Tony Stark, and it's wonderful how much his character was able to be developed in his fourth appearnce in a movie.
Yet, there is a little problem for me, and that problem is this: Tony Stark is a different character. After the Avengers he has really changed. He is no longer the fun-loving, care free playboy that we met in the first Iron Man. Now he is more serious and in the end, it's harder to enjoy the character because of it. The way they handled his feelings post-Avengers was smart with his post dramatic stress, etc. but the Tony Stark in the first two Iron Mans and The Avengers is who we fell in love with...not this Tony Stark.
But for all of those action junkies out there who are reading this wondering if there is any action...there is. In fact there is more action than in the other two, which is impressive seeing that there was also a lot of character development (of course the film was about 30 minutes longer than the others as well). Indeed there are a few exciting action sequences including an explosive finale that far outdoes the finales of the previous two.
And Robert Downey Jr. does shine once again as the leading man. His quick, witty dialogue and more seriousness than before continued to bring life into the Iron Avenger. Beside him are two very well casted villains, Kingsley and Pearce. Kingsley gave it his all (as usual) in the role as the mysterious Mandarin and Pearce brings a memorable and sinister persona to his character.
Here to my biggest issue with the film. And it's hard to really explain myself in my point because to really explain it would spoil a few surprises, and one big surprise, that is in store for the viewers. So I will just say this: when you have over fifty years of comic book history to draw from...DON'T take a popular character and totally butcher them with new ideas and DON'T make up new characters when you have perfectly good ones from very successful comic book lore. Iron Man 3 did this in several different cases...and I didn't like it.
At first it was hard to come up with a clear answer to what I thought of Iron Man 3 because it is so radically different from the first two films. It has what may seem to some like a different Tony Stark, a few unneeded plot twists, and absolutely no AC/DC. But the positives began to go through my head. The film boasts great performances by all, a surprising amount of character development, and satisfying action. Perhaps Marvel is seeking to make their sequels in Phase 2 more unique than the traditional super hero film. Iron Man 3 certainly was...and I can appreciate that (but please Joss Whedon bring the original Tony back for The Avengers 2). I give it three stars out of four.
Iron Man 3 has a running time of 130 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi action and violence throughout and brief suggestive content.
Well as I just said, the events of The Avengers have impacted the world big time, and the billionaire hero Tony Stark (Downey) isn't coping very well. Instead the events, which included him nearly dying by flying through a wormhole into space, have caused Tony to have some serious problems with post-dramatic stress and nervous breakdowns. And as unfortunate timing would have it, there is a terrorist who calls himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who has begun to attack the US and other countries with vicious bombings. Plus, he might be in leagues with a scorned business rival of Tony's, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) whose nanotechnology has the power to create super powered individuals. It's a nasty combination, and when Tony is stripped of all his armor he must go back to his inventive and cunning roots to help him remember that, suit or no suit, he is Iron Man.
Now let me say first to not expect to see any of Tony's teammates from the Avengers present in this film...this is all Tony Stark's story. And that is a good thing. Marvel needs to prove that they can make films about just one of their characters that can be just as interesting as when all the heroes are together, and I believe that they accomplished that with "Iron Man 3." This film is without a doubt one of the most characters driven comic-book movies in years. It's not focused on the action or CGI set pieces, but the character of Tony Stark, and it's wonderful how much his character was able to be developed in his fourth appearnce in a movie.
Yet, there is a little problem for me, and that problem is this: Tony Stark is a different character. After the Avengers he has really changed. He is no longer the fun-loving, care free playboy that we met in the first Iron Man. Now he is more serious and in the end, it's harder to enjoy the character because of it. The way they handled his feelings post-Avengers was smart with his post dramatic stress, etc. but the Tony Stark in the first two Iron Mans and The Avengers is who we fell in love with...not this Tony Stark.
But for all of those action junkies out there who are reading this wondering if there is any action...there is. In fact there is more action than in the other two, which is impressive seeing that there was also a lot of character development (of course the film was about 30 minutes longer than the others as well). Indeed there are a few exciting action sequences including an explosive finale that far outdoes the finales of the previous two.
And Robert Downey Jr. does shine once again as the leading man. His quick, witty dialogue and more seriousness than before continued to bring life into the Iron Avenger. Beside him are two very well casted villains, Kingsley and Pearce. Kingsley gave it his all (as usual) in the role as the mysterious Mandarin and Pearce brings a memorable and sinister persona to his character.
Here to my biggest issue with the film. And it's hard to really explain myself in my point because to really explain it would spoil a few surprises, and one big surprise, that is in store for the viewers. So I will just say this: when you have over fifty years of comic book history to draw from...DON'T take a popular character and totally butcher them with new ideas and DON'T make up new characters when you have perfectly good ones from very successful comic book lore. Iron Man 3 did this in several different cases...and I didn't like it.
At first it was hard to come up with a clear answer to what I thought of Iron Man 3 because it is so radically different from the first two films. It has what may seem to some like a different Tony Stark, a few unneeded plot twists, and absolutely no AC/DC. But the positives began to go through my head. The film boasts great performances by all, a surprising amount of character development, and satisfying action. Perhaps Marvel is seeking to make their sequels in Phase 2 more unique than the traditional super hero film. Iron Man 3 certainly was...and I can appreciate that (but please Joss Whedon bring the original Tony back for The Avengers 2). I give it three stars out of four.
Iron Man 3 has a running time of 130 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi action and violence throughout and brief suggestive content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)