JJ Abrams' Star Trek is a reboot of the long running Movie/TV Series. When you do a reboot, you have to look at it with fresh eyes. Forget the original, make sure it satisfies on every level regardless of the established rules. This was not going to be Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek (actually, that died years ago anyway). It was JJ Abrams' Star Trek. Of course, that doesn't mean it lacks the feel of the what we know.
Actually, it fits into the canon as much as Enterprise, the Animated Series or other shows where it fits in if you decide to make a wedge. There is a scene where the crew of the Enterprise discusses alternate timelines and tangent universes to give us plenty of ways to fit this in with the rest. But I'm going to digress. That's fan talk right now, and I am being an impartial reviewer.
So, an Alien from the future has a deadly weapon that can create black holes inside of planets. He goes back in time to destroy the planet Vulcan because he blames Spock for the destruction of his homeworld. It's up to a qualified but sort of rag-tag gang of fresh faced officers to save the universe. So, in other words, it's what you think when you hear the word "Sci Fi".
It's a movie full of amazing adventures, great feats of heroism and bravery, beautiful new worlds and exotic locations (and exotic women), and it even manages to appeal to our best nature. In short, it's pretty much everything you want out of a summer action film.
Still, the story falls short. The villain is actually a very weak character. Unstable mentally, unnecessarily (and hilariously) violent, and is nothing more than somebody who seems to have been greatly misinformed. Perhaps if he had waited to read the newspaper the next day, he would have realized he was mistaken, and the movie would have never happened.
At times, I wondered what the writers were trying to say. A sci fi movie without some sort of statement about society? A grand epic, but nothing more than a vehicle for effects? The movie had enough action, sex, and humor to satisfy everyone else. Can we have just one thing to take home with us?
*** out of ****
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Drag Me To Hell
Sam Raimi is no master of terror. Or at least, I never thought of him as such. I'm going to admit that I'm a fan of his, but the movies that made him famous (Evil Dead, and Evil Dead 2) were stylish, high energy films that lacked the grueling terror they promised us in the taglines. Sam Raimi is, however, a master of spectacle. So, if you want the great spectacle that he gave us in the Spider-Man series, in the Evil Dead Series, or any of his films, you will be entertained. And if you want to grueling terror he promised us so many years ago, you are in for a treat.
If you want an original story, or even an old tale with a few new twists and turns, look elsewhere. Sam Raimi cannot defeat his old archnemesis: Convention. The plot is, well, taken from any number of ghost stories. A good person does something he or she shouldn't, and has a strange gypsy put a curse on them. Remember the book "Thinner" ? This is essentially the same movie, but watchable and likable. A young girl is given a choice: Give an old woman an extension on a loan (who lived on a fixed income when she became sick, so it's not her fault) and do the right thing, or she could deny the loan and impress her boss. What does she do? Well, she makes the choice most likely to piss off the strange old Gypsy woman.
A few action beats later, the young lady (or, if you must know her name, Christine) is seeing her entire life falling apart. Hilarious nosebleeds and hallucinations mixed in with some genuinely frightening scenes make this movie a pretty unrelenting spectacle. It's actually very scary. What is worst of all, you care about this woman. You want are with her every step of the way. She is given several different options to try to life the curse, and she ends up doing shocking, unspeakable things, yet you are with her every step of the way.
Unfortunately, this is where the movie ends. The story wraps up with a cop out ending. You see, they couldn't think of an exciting way to end the movie. They decided that horror movies usually end with on last big scare, and why should this one be any different? Hell, who cares about all the build up anyway? Who cares about the struggle? The credits rolled down the screen, and my I clenched my fist in rage. How dare they get us so involved in a story just to end in the typical horror movie fashion? I cannot explain just why this ending made a great film so terrible without a large spoiler, but you know what? It's in the previews, it's in the commercials, and it's on the goddamn posters.
So what was the point of all that? Several plot points are not followed up on (the precredit sequence is strangely unimportant to the rest of the movie, despite it featuring a spiritualist vowing to destroy the same soul eating creature that's after Christine), and the old Gypsy makes several statements that ended up being nothing but words to creep out the audience, when they were things that should have come up in the third act. Why do we even bother with a movie that doesn't even keeping it's plot points together? Why should we watch a movie that is all build up, but no release? The movie could have still been a great film, had it ended just ten seconds earlier. Now don't get me wrong, I'd still have some of the same complaints. But I would have still recommended this film.
Why can't we have a movie as visually dynamic as this, as terrifying as this, and as funny as this, and have it be at least somewhat original?
** 1/2 out of ****
If you want an original story, or even an old tale with a few new twists and turns, look elsewhere. Sam Raimi cannot defeat his old archnemesis: Convention. The plot is, well, taken from any number of ghost stories. A good person does something he or she shouldn't, and has a strange gypsy put a curse on them. Remember the book "Thinner" ? This is essentially the same movie, but watchable and likable. A young girl is given a choice: Give an old woman an extension on a loan (who lived on a fixed income when she became sick, so it's not her fault) and do the right thing, or she could deny the loan and impress her boss. What does she do? Well, she makes the choice most likely to piss off the strange old Gypsy woman.
A few action beats later, the young lady (or, if you must know her name, Christine) is seeing her entire life falling apart. Hilarious nosebleeds and hallucinations mixed in with some genuinely frightening scenes make this movie a pretty unrelenting spectacle. It's actually very scary. What is worst of all, you care about this woman. You want are with her every step of the way. She is given several different options to try to life the curse, and she ends up doing shocking, unspeakable things, yet you are with her every step of the way.
Unfortunately, this is where the movie ends. The story wraps up with a cop out ending. You see, they couldn't think of an exciting way to end the movie. They decided that horror movies usually end with on last big scare, and why should this one be any different? Hell, who cares about all the build up anyway? Who cares about the struggle? The credits rolled down the screen, and my I clenched my fist in rage. How dare they get us so involved in a story just to end in the typical horror movie fashion? I cannot explain just why this ending made a great film so terrible without a large spoiler, but you know what? It's in the previews, it's in the commercials, and it's on the goddamn posters.
So what was the point of all that? Several plot points are not followed up on (the precredit sequence is strangely unimportant to the rest of the movie, despite it featuring a spiritualist vowing to destroy the same soul eating creature that's after Christine), and the old Gypsy makes several statements that ended up being nothing but words to creep out the audience, when they were things that should have come up in the third act. Why do we even bother with a movie that doesn't even keeping it's plot points together? Why should we watch a movie that is all build up, but no release? The movie could have still been a great film, had it ended just ten seconds earlier. Now don't get me wrong, I'd still have some of the same complaints. But I would have still recommended this film.
Why can't we have a movie as visually dynamic as this, as terrifying as this, and as funny as this, and have it be at least somewhat original?
** 1/2 out of ****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)