Movies I Can't Wait to See: Star Trek Beyond

The first Star Trek reboot rocked. The second, Star Trek Into Darkness wasn't bad, in fact it was quite enjoyable. But it had its head-scratching moments, and made me wonder, did they just reboot this so that they could remake old plots? It was an odd direction to take. I'm hoping the third will set us back on course to a place no man has gone before (not even Kha-a-a-a-a-n!!!).
 

Star Trek and I share a birthday. We'll both be 50 next year (so will the Super Bowl, but Super Bowl I was actually in 1967, so it just stands as a harbinger of how old I will be that year). So, I'm both excited and glad that they elected to put a movie out to commemorate it.

Star Trek Into Darkness, a Mini Movie Review

Image from Wikipedia

On Friday, we did a rare thing. The Other Half and I not only went to a movie theater, we kept a prearranged "date" with a couple of friends to do so. This almost never happens. Particularly the cinema thing. As much as I love superhero, horror and sci-fi movies, I seem to always procrastinate until the Blu-ray comes out. I mean, even the entire phase one of Marvel Comics' massive movie blitz were all seen on our DLP TV, rather than at the movies. The "always wins" exception to that is any version of Superman, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th (yes, really) and Star Trek.

I've labeled this as a "mini" review for a reason. I've just read the Zaki's Corner review of Star Trek Into Darkness, and his writing simply puts mine to shame. Though I disagree with his C+ grade, I can't deny that he's the superior blogger. So, as Bart Simpson says, "can't win, don't even try." So, I'll just give you a little more surfacy review, and give you Zaki's link at the end.

I'll start with an observation that the commercials and other miscellany that precedes a film these days are a crashing bore. I still love the movie previews, but I'm astonished that the theater chains actually brand these "pre-shows," and act as if they've done you a favor by making you sit through them. But once the Paramount logo whooshes on the screen, and the surprisingly already familiar Star Trek (2009) theme played, I felt a little sense of glee. Also a sense of why did we have to wait FOUR YEARS for a sequel? But I digress.

Into Darkness stars with a pre-credits sequence that puts you right into the action. It's removed from the main storyline, but sets it up well. Chris Pine really evokes William Shatner to me (though maybe not as much as Zachary Quinto's Spock captures Leonard Nimoy), and his ice blue eyes really pop on that big screen. We didn't go to the 3D version, partly due to cost, and partly due to the fact that I have great difficulty seeing 3D movies. But this movie is stunning, even in 2D. We saw it on a digital DLP screen, which maybe helps.

They certainly look the part. Image from USAToday.

I can't get into the storyline much without spoilers. Suffice it to say that there is more than one villain, and their motives are a matter of perspective. If you're a longtime Star Trek fan, you'll pick up on some clues early on, and you may deduce who the main villain "really" is. There are several allusions to past Treks, one in particular. Whether these nods tickle you--or irritate you--will depend upon how meta you like your pop culture. I appreciated it to a point, and then I actually said to my self, "No. Don't say it." And then the character did. Ugh.

But I found that to be one of the only moments I didn't like. The movie is relentless in its pacing, actually making me feel a bit exhausted. In a good way. I remember years ago, the first time I saw Rutger Hauer's The Hitcher. That movie wore me the hell out, and Into Darkness did that, but with a whole lot more whiz-bang. One thing I liked about this movie was its scale. Everything is big. The starship bays. The engineering section of the ship. The cityscape of San Francisco in the 23rd century, which features in a smashing ending. Where Star Trek: The Original Series could feel claustrophobic, and even its planet-scapes felt small, this movie just feels big.

There are several plot complications, and our heroes are in lethal situations many, many times. There are perhaps a few too many familiar tropes they could have left out (especially the trite "dangling by one hand" near-death experience). And though our heroes ultimately prevail--as you knew they would--this Trek has an unusually high body count. Then again, in the previous film, the entire planet of Vulcan was wiped out, so maybe not.

The ending of this film is interesting. I don't think I'm spoiling much to say that at the end, it feels like the crew of the Enterprise is about to actually start their careers, as though it ends at the beginning of a hypothetical new Star Trek series. But, at two movies in to the new adventures, it actually feels kind of weird. Particularly since that's kind of where the previous film left us. So, if you're like Zaki, and found this to be a middling installment, you can actually ignore it, and go into Star Trek III (actually XIII) as though it followed the 2009 film!

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a spoiler alert or not. . .

Some people lament the J.J. Abrams era of Star Trek, decrying its action and flash (and lens flares!) at the expense of character development, and Roddenberry-esque themes. I don't. I still have my hundreds of hours of classic Trek. They didn't go anywhere. I find these new films to be a great addition to what came before, and they've surely breathed new life into a moribund franchise. Now, can they bring us another one before Quinto and Pine are in their forties?

My review: Highly Recommended (B+)

And here is Zaki's Corner's Review

Movies I Can't Wait to See: Star Trek Into Darkness

Movie Review: Carriers

Image from Wikipedia

I've continued on my obscure movie quest, watching one or two a week on the Cox On Demand. This week, I picked Carriers, because it starred Chris Pine (Capt. Kirk of the new Star Trek), and the whole end-of-the-world genre has always been a favorite. It also co-stars Emily VanCamp, one of the stars of Brothers & Sisters, and Lou Taylor Pucci (from no other project I've ever heard of).

The film starts after a world-wide epidemic has already claimed most of its victims, and centers upon four survivors, Pine and Pucci (as brothers), Piper Perabo as Pine's girlfriend, and VanCamp as fellow traveller whose origins aren't explained.  The setup is not original, having been used for countless genre stories, most notably Stephen King's The Stand. Since we've been spared the actual horror of the plague--save for a few flashbacks--this is basically a road picture, with a vague destination in mind.

The brothers have memories of their favorite childhood vacation spot on the beach, and decide that's where they should go. Along the way, they reluctantly pick up a man (Chris Meloni of Law & Order: SVU) and his daughter, which waylays them a bit. There are of course also stops for gas, presumably food and water, and run-ins with other survivors.  The picture is basically a suspense/thriller, with hints of horror and just a touch of gore.

Image from BSCReview

I enjoyed it. Van Camp and Pucci are both quite good, with a jaded innocence about them, and obvious emotional pain mixed with practical ruthlessness.  Pine is quite frankly good in everything I've seen him in.  So the acting brings the quality of the movie up a couple of notches.  Story wise, there are a couple of areas where the movie started to feel like The Happening (and if you click that link, you'll find my review of the worst mainstream movie of all time), but never falls all the way into the ridiculousness of that film.

Ultimately, the ending is bound to blow.  A happy ending is almost out of the question, because it would feel forced and phony.  As in George Romero's Dawn of the Dead (and its sequels and prequel) or 28 Days Later (and sequel), you're pretty much guaranteed to have an ambiguous, open ending.  As with any road picture, the story is really about getting there, and once you're there, where do you go?  Because of this, I can't give the movie my full endorsement.  It's well done, and if you are a fan of any of the actors or sibling writing/directing teams (in this case Àlex Pastor and David Pastor), by all means, check it out.  As a lazy Sunday time waster, it isn't bad either. But in the scheme of things, I can only say it's only slightly. . .


Recommended

Star Trek My (Late) Mini Review

We don't go to see movies in the theater much anymore. There's a huge list of reasons, from the $8 matinee tickets, to the $20 popcorn bucket. Plus, with the Blu-ray player and the 55" HDTV, the six-month wait for the video is easy to justify. But sometimes, you've just got to see an event movie at the cinema, right?

I've been excited to see Star Trek, the re-boot of the venerable science fiction franchise, since I heard they were making it. They'd been talking about doing a Starfleet Academy movie forever, and this one comes pretty close to that idea. Instead, they elected to give us some backstory on the original series characters, along with a time-warp idea that links the existing Star Trek universe with a new one.

First off, let me say that the movie was a heck of a lot of fun. The Other Half even enjoyed it, and he isn't a fan of any version of Trek (except for The Next Generation). The casting was impressive, with Chris Pine completely believable as a young Capt. James T. Kirk. One can only assume that some space disease will cause Kirk to develop his. . .halting. . .speech patterns. . .at a. . .later date. Zachary Quinto (Sylar from Heroes) was just about perfect as the young Mr. Spock, though it takes a while to forget that it is Sylar!

Simon Pegg as Montgomery "Scotty" Scott is a case of good actor, not his role. He's fine (and I'm a fan), but he absolutely does not bring to mind James Doohan. The actors playing Lt. Uhura, Mr. Sulu (John Cho of Harold and Kumar) and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy do a good job too, though are not perfect matches like Kirk and Spock.

The story is spectacular, and the movie never bores you or takes you out of your suspension of disbelief. Even the creation of a new Star Trek universe doesn't bug, at least while you're watching the film. But afterward, if you're a Trek fan like me, it will start to bother you a bit.

Star Trek has always had a (mostly) consistent mythology. Each series and film (and comic book, and novel) is interconnected, part of a larger grand epic. A story event from Deep Space Nine might resonate later in Voyager. Legions of fanboys have made near careers out of keeping the timelines straight. And now, all of the different versions are effectively wiped out, as if they never happened. Except, ironically, the least fan-favorite of all, Star Trek: Enterprise, which took place before the events of the new movie.

I'm not sure how I feel about it, though I should by now be used to it. After all, DC Comics (and presumably Marvel) has ret-conned its entire history many times. The Terminator movies and TV Show have cancelled each other out a couple of times. And movie franchises like Friday the 13th and James Bond have never kept anything resembling a coherant continuity. Somehow, I've still found a way to enjoy them. And it doesn't hurt that the new Star Trek is a fantastic, popcorn munching good time.

My review: Highly Recommended