Tag Archives: Star Trek

The day I review “Star Trek Into Darkness.”


“Into Darkness” might be the best Star Trek film ever made. That claim invites the wrath of Khan and his fans, but I will risk it. The franchise reboot already fights uphill against They Changed It, Now It Sucks.

The film opens with two vignettes. In media res, snappy dialog explores Trek themes; it’s episodic, a day-in-the-life for the Enterprise. The next scene changes gears entirely as a silent drama unfolds for new characters…episodic again.

Then Kirk’s called out for being Kirk, and the movie explodes. Simple motives become complex. Mentors clash. It’s impossible to tell who the villain is. My nitpicks vanished as the characters engaged me.

I was guessing until the very end. We’re in the hands of expert storytellers: They let us feel ‘in the know’ seconds before The Reveal.

But I was surprised (even shocked) just as often.

“Into Darkness” turns Mood Whiplash into art. There’s hardly time to digest one transformative event before the next tragedy unfolds. Armor Piercing Questions leave cast and audience deliciously clutching for purchase. You don’t know the right course any more than they do.

The characters evolve, yet remain believably iconic. That particular tightrope is why I don’t attempt fanfiction, but Abrams succeeded on the silver screen. Shatner’s Kirk was a surefooted, his reputation established. Our younger Kirk has the same  instincts, but no clout, and it matters. When success in Starfleet directly contradicts the conscience of his crew, you wonder which way he’ll leap.

True to form, Kirk Takes Third Options, but even those have consequences.

Fans of the Original Series may miss the methodical, scientific storytelling of trial and error. “Into Darkness” is more about human ethics than understanding new life. It’s not cerebral in the puzzle-solving sense, it’s cerebral the way “The West Wing” was, rapidly moving from topic to topic (quite hypnotic). The heroes are larger than life, but they also make mistakes. I have new respect for Chris Pine; Quinto and Cummerbatch were already favorites.

The action borrows as much from the superhero genre as Star Trek. Fortunately, the plot isn’t just an excuse to blow things up. People fight when they’re out of options. I would prefer advanced choreography to quick cuts and shaky cam, though. That kind of storytelling has also evolved.

The ending will be intensely personal for any Trekkie. Whatever you think of his choices, Abrams was faithful to the spirit of the franchise, and he borrows with pride from your favorite moments. Just like the characters, the plot manages to be both iconic and new.

See this one in theaters. You won’t be disappointed.

And later when you buy it, it’ll fit snugly in your collection. Right across from Wrath of Khan.

SATURDAY SPOTLIGHT: The Director who Understands Character

Each Saturday, Jason spotlights one person, product, service, or work of art he finds particularly amazing; the kinds of things that make you wonder, “Why doesn’t everyone have this?” (Read more at www. jasonrpeters.com.)

I’m not sure what they teach in film school. Judging by most of the dregs that make it screenward, not much. One wonders how an industry ripe with possibility can yield more garbage than industries which deal directly with garbage.

I suspect they teach a lot about camera angles. And integrating sound effects. And working with visual arts teams. And securing funding.

But not so much about story.

Take Science Fiction, for example. There are pillars of brilliant storytelling in the history of Science Fiction. Frank Herbert. Asimov. Heinlein. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. These individuals have created stories which form almost a canon for future storytellers, but more impressively, offer great insight into human behavior.But if you flip on the SciFi channel (or “Syfy” as it has egregiously re-branded itself), you won’t find these greats.

Instead, you will find Attack of the Giant Bees. Attack of the Mutant Spiders. Invasion of the Hot Babes From Other Planets. Oh, sure, “syfy” plays its share of Quantum Leap, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and a few blockbusters, but an annoying percentage of time is devoted to trashy monster movies with little premise and less plot.

This is not unique to Science Fiction. Turn on Oxygen or WE and you will find ten crappy romance flicks for every decent one.

The reason for this is that most directors copy the TRENDS of other directors without UNDERSTANDING what actually made a particular movie successful. What made a movie really come to life — every time — was the characters. This is why James Cameron’s Aliens was so amazing — you could feel the bond between Ripley and Newt and Hicks, and you wanted them to win. So when Dan O’Bannon and David Fincher decided to kill off everybody but the star even before the opening credits of Alien 3, fans were turned off. And non-fans never built the connection with Alien 3’s cast that they had with the prior two movies. O’Bannon tried to copy the premise of the first two films without understanding why they were so successful.

The most obvious evidence of this copy-catting can be seen in the plethora of epic fantasy titles which immediately followed Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson picked Lord of the Rings because it was a timeless story which already stood on its own. Fantasy fans exulted because of the previous dearth of good fantasy movies — poor writing or low budgets or both plagued almost everything we’ve ever seen in theaters. Lord of the Rings was the holy grail of big screen entertainment for fantasy. At long last, an epic movie we could tell our friends about!

The trilogy debuted with Fellowship to resounding success in 2001, and Return of the King hit theaters in 2003. What followed?

2002 – The Count of Monte Cristo, Reign of Fire

2003 – Pirates of the Carribean, Underworld, The Last Samurai, Timeline

2004 – Troy, King Arthur, Van Helsing, Hellboy

2005 – Kingdom of Heaven, The Brothers Grimm, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe

2006 – 300, Apocalypto, Eragon

2007 – Stardust, Beowulf,

Woah…suddenly epic fantasy is cool. How’d that happen?

Hollywood wanted to mimic the success achieved by Lord of the Rings, but flung out blindly for any big budget epic fantasy that might work. Some true artistry (thankfully) shines through, but the bulk of these are as memorable describing a fairy tale to a friend.

It seems surprisingly rare for a director to understand what brings a movie to life. Which is why today’s spotlight falls on Christopher Nolan, whom I first discovered with the movie Memento.

Memento was a film with a gimmick. Gimmicks by themselves do not work. But Nolan put the gimmick to work in a brilliant way. He developed a character for whom you felt sympathy, suffering from severe short term memory loss. To force you to relate more closely to this character, and experience each moment through his eyes, Nolan presented the film backwards. So in each scene (just like the protagonist) you don’t know what just happened. You DO know what will happen in the protagonist’s future, and this allows you to piece together the overall story.

You might know Nolan better as the writer and director of both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, both of which breathed Oscar-worthy new light into a franchise I’d never liked — but under Nolan’s guidance has become one of my favorites. These dealt directly with character motives in a way previous batman films never bothered.

Nolan’s most recent film was Inception, which I sadly have not yet seen, but is getting amazing reviews. That is to say, I have no idea what the so-called “critics” think, but wise individuals who I trust have ranked it very highly.

Thank you, Chris Nolan, for understanding that PLOT and CHARACTER as the necessary ingredients for a successful film; not big budget special effects chasing after the latest “market trends”. When you add cool ideas, now you have a film which broadens the mind long after it is done entertaining the eyes.

Even with high hopes, Star Trek does not disappoint

Star Trek 2009With the unenviable job of portraying favored iconic characters, the cast of the new Star Trek delivers with (if you’ll excuse the expression) flying colors.

It’s no mean feat to pick up the franchise that spawned no less than five television series and ten films (now eleven) in addition to countless conventions, clubs, fanfics, and pop culture references; dust it off, and re-polish the ship’s original crew to take a new look at an old idea. In addition, prequels in general aren’t easy to pull off, particularly with high expectations.

The leads were played by Chris Pine (Captain James T. Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Spock), most famed for playing villain Gabriel “Sylar” Gray of Heroes. Pine manages some of the original Kirk’s swagger with forgivable differences. Quinto plays what seems to be a slightly darker Spock, but one that’s no less believable or lovable for that.

The show is almost stolen, however, by promoted fanboy Karl Urban, the young Doctor McCoy (whose first lines identified the character immediately, even from off camera) and comedian Simon Pegg, playing an unforgettable Scotty.

The film’s overall plot mostly serves as a loose framework within which the characters are allowed to develop. The interplay between them is what sells this flick, and the fact that the actors (minus a couple of rough patches in which your mileage may vary) nailed their respective parts. The story is less about how the crew of the Enterprise can defeat the Big Bad and more about the relationship between Kirk and Spock (and to a lesser degree, everyone else).

If the larger plot took a backseat to character dynamics, it was a sacrifice worth making to see Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, and Checkov so compellingly brought back to life.

The film carries a clear continuity reboot, allowing a new franchise to develop with these actors, while remaining true to the original personalities in delicious ways. Each gets his/her own continuity nod, the delivery for which often qualified for a crowning moment of funny. It was primarily the humorous interplay between the personalities of the characters which drove home that these are, in fact, the same characters we know and love.

The movie’s more serious side allows for multiple crowning moments of heartwarming, and more importantly for the genre, crowning moments of awesome, even culminating in an awesome moment of crowning.

The largest flaw this film had was its soundtrack, by Michael Giacchino (The Lost World: Jurassic Park, The Incredibles). I found the score to be heavy-handed and obvious, lacking the deep subtlety of James Horner or the building intensity of Hans Zimmer. Giacchino hammers home the already-viewed explosions with action beats coming a bit too late, and emotional moments with huge cheesy swells that feel more like something you’d get from a video game (with apologies to Nobuo Uematsu) than a great movie.

The script is not without its flaws, most of them on the order of Space is Noisy and Sci Fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale. And some of the changes (both character and continuity) may be difficult for part of the fanbase to accept.

That said, if you approach this film with even a partially open mind, you will find it enjoyable.