Star Trek: Into Darkness

Star Trek: Into Darkness

I have to give J.J. Abrams credit.  Star Trek was dead.  As much as I liked the Next Generation television show, the films featuring that cast were abysmal by the end.  The franchise, one I grew up with, seemed to be over.  When word of a reboot began to spark up, I wasn't too excited.  I did not want to see a young Kirk and Spock in the Academy.  I thought that was a terrible idea, made worse by the fact that I thought no one would be able to replace William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and the rest of the gang.  I happily admit that I was wrong!  Despite a few silly plotting moments and way too many lens flares, the reboot of Star Trek was a rollicking good time, and I think Abrams deserves credit for that.  But the real miracle was that cast!  He had somehow pulled off the impossible and found a group of young actors who perfectly embodied the iconic characters without resorting to simple impersonations (well, mostly).  The film was a hit, and naturally a sequel was planned.  It took a bit longer than anticipated to get here, but now we have Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Without ruining too much, I will try to describe the plot in a sentence or two.  A mysterious agent named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) stages a series of devastating attacks on Starfleet and Kirk and Company are sent out to kill him.  The planned assassination is against the law, something that irks many on the Enterprise crew, creating a divisive atmosphere on the Enterprise.  It is this morally ambiguous area that I think gives the film its subtitle.  Into Darkness does not refer to the darkness John Harrison brings, but the darkness inside Star Fleet, an organization meant to be morally pure, intellectual, peaceful, and idealist.  But thanks to the catastrophic events of the previous film, Star Fleet is changing its tune, adopting a more warlike and shadowy stance.  It's a nice direction to take the franchise in, providing some nice moral dilemmas for a young Kirk to consider as he still adjusts to command.  That said, it is hardly original, since the franchise already mined this territory superbly in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

Overall, Star Trek: Into Darkness is, well...objectively, I have to say it is not bad.  It is probably better than the previous one.  The plot is leaner and more focused, and some of the sillier slapstick instances of comedy have been replaced with more character-driven humor.  Abrams' direction is fine (though he still has too many lens flares) and Michael Giacchino's score is superb.  So why am I so disappointed with the film?  It unfortunately all comes to Benedict Cumberbatch, who is just woefully miscast as John Harrison.  I don't want to ruin anything, so I'll just leave it at that for now.  My Spoiler explanation is below.

I'm not sure what else to say.  There are some plot holes and the ending just goes too over-the-top with references to the previous films, but generally the movie is okay.  I think most people will like it.  I just couldn't get into it.  The casting just nagged me the whole film.  Full disclosure, the casting hasn't really bothered many of my friends so maybe I'm making a big deal about nothing.  But I couldn't get past it.

SPOILER ALERT HERE:

So why did Benedict Cumberbatch bother me so much?  I'll be upfront and say it has nothing to do with his performance which is committed, arrogant, and passionate.  He's a great super human.

But he ain't Khan.  In the original series, Khan was a sikh from northern India.  When I think of a Northern Indian, I do not think of a tall, thin British guy.  And yes, yes, I understand that Ricardo Montalban, the original Khan, is Mexican.  But that was how Hollywood casted projects back then, and he at least tried to evoke the character's heritage with his performance.  And I think most people agree that his Khan is one of the greatest villains in science fiction history.

Friends have told me that this is an alternate universe so maybe in this timeline Khan IS British.  But I counter that by saying that timelines are supposed to be the same until that moment when the planet Vulcan blows up.  So Khan shouldn't change.  He should still be a sikh.

So why cast Cumberbatch?  Maybe they just felt no one can play morally superior as effectively as the Brits.  Or maybe the PC police were slamming on Abrams' office door and demanding that in a movie about terrorism it would be a bad idea to have the bad guy be a foreigner.

...

Either way, Khan is not a tall British guy.  End of story.

I'm not a religious obsessee of Star Trek canon or continuity.  I'm not someone who looks for minut details and pinches a fit if they don't jive with with the continuity of some random episode of Deep Space Nine.  I don't care that much.  But for some reason, this really, really bothers me.  This franchise reboot has been an impressive and worthwhile experiment.  And given that they had already achieved the impossible by finding great replacements for Shatner, Nimoy, and Co., I am surprised they dropped the ball on this one.  For some reason, this casting just nags at me. I think what it comes down to is that they decided to create an all new character and name him "Khan" just so they could pay lip service to fans who wanted to see the infamous villain.

And I think they missed an awesome opportunity, too.  John Harrison could have been one of the other super humans in Khan's group, but not Khan himself.  Think how cool that would have been if at the end of the movie, the good guys finally win, breathe a sigh of relief and say, "wow, that guy was intense.  There is no way there is someone more dangerous and horrible than him out there."  And then we cut to the space pods, and do a slow pan over them all...and then we stop at one pod in particular and see Khan's name written on it.  That would have been a great set up for a sequel, and a great way to bring Khan back to the franchise.  As a sikh.

Anyways, this all may seem like a small detail, but it ruined the movie for me.

Oh, and one more pet peeve.  Why did they need Khan's super blood to save Kirk if they had 72 other super humans onboard the ship?  Just saying...

Anyways...


BEST LINE:

Kirk: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Spock: An Arabic proverb, attributed to a prince who was betrayed and decapitated by his own subjects.

Kirk: Still, it's a hell of a quote.

MVP:
I'm going with Michael Giacchino, who delivered a top notch score.  I think it is better than his first Trek score, which while entertaining became repetitive, relying a bit too heavily on the main theme. With Into Darkness, Giacchino takes the best parts of the first score and expands on them, and adds a whole slew of new and exciting music to the mix.  Well done!

TRIVIA:
This is a neat little bit of trivia.  Benedict Cumberbatch recorded his audition in his best friend's kitchen, using an iphone.

War Horse

War Horse

War Horse is a tough film to review.  It certainly isn't the best film in the world and yet I find myself often defending it to my friends.  Maybe I just don't agree with the reasons they don't like it...or maybe I'm just being fussy in my old age.  Either way, War Horse is definitely a mixed bag.

Joey is a special horse (as we are reminded constantly) and develops an immediate bond with young English farm boy, Albert Narracott (Jeremy Levine's debut performance).  But the farm is destitute and Mr. Narracott is forced to sell Joey to the English army on the eve of World War I.  Little Albert is shattered and swears he'll see his horse again.  What follows is the episodic adventures of Joey as he navigates his way through war torn Europe and hopefully back to Albert.

A problem with most episodic movies is that they are full of a lot of short little stories, and if some of these episodes aren't strong, it can drag down the whole movie.  I definitely think this is the case of War Horse.  Some of the stories are terrific, especially the World War I excerpts, such as when Joey serves as the cavalry mount of dashing British Captain Nichols (Thor's Tom Hiddleston channeling a killer T.E. Lawrence vibe) and when he is forced to pull literally tons of heavy artillery up a steep slope to their firing positions.  These sequences are truly superb and depict some of the best representations of World War I that I have seen.  But then we also have a story where Joey becomes the pet of a precocious little French girl (Celine Buckins), that I suppose is sort of cute, but completely drags the momentum of the movie down.

The other major complaint about the movie, and one that I agree with, is that it tends to be overly sentimental.  Spielberg has always worn his heart on his sleeve as a filmmaker and I admire the fact that he doesn't restrain his emotional side, but he goes overboard here, especially in the last act.  Everything following the superb barbed wire scene right up to the sunset finale is just thick, thick syrup - and too much for me to handle without rolling my eyes.  It's just started to be a bit too much.

But I've also heard a lot of people complaining that the movie is just unrealistic.  It bothered them that with hundreds of thousands men being slaughtered, why does everyone care so much about a horse?  It's just a horse!  I don't think that is the right way to look at the movie.  War Horse isn't realistic.  It's a fable and the horse is a metaphor, a symbol of an earlier, simpler time - when people were tied to their land, and when there was a certain nobility and chivalry in combat, before the world was violently dragged into the modern world by the horrors of mechanized warfare.  World War I was the transition to modern war and that transition is handled brilliantly by Spielberg and Company.  The characters in the film yearn for the world of yesteryear, for a happier time before barbed wire, mustard gas, and trenchfoot.  It makes sense that everyone in the film is touched by Joey.  He is a symbol of everything they have lost.

Overall, I think the movie's greatest strength is how old fashioned it is (which is ironic because I think its greatest weakness is how old fashioned its sentimentality is!).  I think this is Spielberg's John Ford film.  Truly, I think if John Ford had made War Horse in 1948, it would have been remarkably similar to what we ended up with 2011.  It's the classic style of the filmmaking, and it's the way the camera sets the characters against the landscape, tying them intrinsically to the earth.  I admired that.  There is actually a lot to admire about War Horse.  If the story had been just a bit tighter, and if the attempts to yank on our tear ducts had just been a bit more subtle...well, we would have had something terrific.

MVP:
Janusz Kaminski, Spielberg's Director of Photography, is the clear MVP here.  He's brilliant with the camera, both with his framing, and his great use of filters and lighting.  He gets the MVP for two moments in particular - the first is an insane sunset at the end of the film, a return to the English farm set against a blood red sky.  At first, I grumbled, because I thought, "why did they use CGI for that sunset??"  Except then I read that it was actually a real sunset and that the colors in that part of England are that insanely vibrant.  It's a heck of a great shot.  But my favorite shot is actually earlier in the film, when Joey makes a dash through the trenches.  We are treated to a superb tracking shot, the camera keeping just ahead of Joey as he twists and turns, men toppling to each side, explosions filling the air above him.  It's a brilliant shot and I'm not quite sure how they did it.  Kaminski is the Man!

BEST LINE:

Geordie: How are things in yonder trench?
German: Delightful.  We read.  We knit sweaters.  We train our rats to perform circus tricks.

TRIVIA:
Fourteen horses played Joey in the film.  The primary acting horse, Finder, also played Sea Biscuit.