Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

In 1998, director Shekhar Kapur released Elizabeth, a depiction of the early years of England's Queen Elizabeth I.  The film was a critical darling, was nominated for seven Oscars, and made a star out of Cate Blanchett.  With so much good historical material at their disposal, I'm not sure why it took so long to make a sequel, but finally in 2007, Elizabeth: The Golden Age was released. 

Unfortunately, this time around, it's a bit of a whiff.  Oh, the movie isn't all bad.  It looks terrific, with superb costume and set design.  And once again, Kapur assembles a stellar cast of pros, including returning stars Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush, and newcomers Clive Owen (The International), Abbie Cornish (Sucker Punch), Rhys Ifans (The Replacements), Eddie Redmayne (Les Miserables), and Samantha Morton (Minority Report).  But the biggest plus is that source material/storyline is even more compelling than in the first movie.  We're dealing with the increasingly deteriorating relations with Spain, which will lead to war and the battle with the Spanish Armada, one of the most famous sea battles in history.  Meawhile, Elizabeth, who should be preparing herself for war, is distracted by the weight of being a Queen and the loneliness that entails, and the temptation brought to court by dashing explorer, Sir Walter Raleigh (Owen). 

But the whole thing never really gels together.  The depiction of political intrigue is interesting enough, but nowhere near as cool as it could have been.  And they really missed the ball with Elizabeth's personal problems, despite Blanchett's best efforts.  Her mood swings are just crazy - and instead of acting as an example of a strong monarch buckling under the pressure of being Queen (as was intended), they make her seem like she is schizophrenic.  So that doesn't work so well. 

The much touted battle with the Spanish Armada is also a big disappointment, with much of the battle happening off screen.  I understand they had budget constraints, but you can't tell me that they couldn't have done more with their funds.  Just look at what Game of Thrones did with a limited budget in the Battle of Blackwater episode - definitely the HBO show's Spanish Armada moment that was way cooler and more epic than anything we get in Elizabeth: The Golden Age.  I was also disappointed by the historical revisions in the battle.  I don't need a movie to be 100% historically accurate.  I don't mind changes if they service the story (such as the relationship between Raleigh and Bess, which in real life happened much later).  But the changes to the battle irked me. The English are close to panic and keep referencing English ships being destroyed when in reality, they lost not one ship.  Not one.  The movie makes it seem as if luck or divine intervention alone destroyed the Spanish fleet (and yes, I recognize that the convenient arrival of the storm in real life was a huge stroke of good fortune), but this ignores the fact that the British ships were faster, more agile, and manned by professional crews with more experience in the choppy waters of the English Channel.  English skill did play a big part in the victory, but Elizabeth: the Golden Age mostly ignores that.  Maybe I shouldn't make a big deal of that, but it annoyed me.  And if I were English, I would probably be insulted.

Anyways, just to sum up, Elizabeth: The Golden Age isn't terrible.  With a movie this good looking and a cast this solid, it would be difficult for the film to be truly horrible.  But it is definitely a disappointment and represents a huge missed opportunity.

BEST LINE:

John Dee: The forces that shape the world are greater than all of us, Majesty.  How can I promise that they will conspire in your favor even though you're the Queen?  This much I know.  When the storm breaks, some are dumb with terror and some spread their wings like eagles and soar.

TRIVIA:

To save money, the crew only build one period ship.  One half of the ship was built to resemble a Spanish galleon, the other side was designed to resemble Sir Walter Raleigh's English vessel.  Whenever they needed a wider shot in the scene, the crew used smoke machines to obscure the other half of the ship.

MVP:
This one is easy.  I'm going with the composer Craig Armstrong.  The score was co-written by Armstrong and AR Rahman, who won the Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire.  Overall, the score is a terrific work of art, full of passion and beauty.  The one strike against the composers is their music for the climactic battle with the Spanish Armada.  They seem to have forgotten that fast music doesn't necessarily equal exciting music, and overall it just sounds uninspired and even a bit lazy.  But other than that one disappointing track, the score is the highlight of Elizabeth: The Golden Age.  A track I particularly like is the "Divinity Theme," written by AR Rahman.  This theme is supposed to represent Elizabeth as Queen, and it captures all the power, glory and loneliness that the royal role entails.  So why am I picking Armstrong and not Rahman as my MVP?  Because of "The Storm," the epic track that accompanies the burning of the Spanish Armada.  Armstrong doesn't break out the full power of the choir often, but when he does, such as in Plunkett and MacLeane or Romeo and Juliet, it truly is something special.  "The Storm" lives up to that reputation.  This is one massive, epic track - one that rises above the so so movie that it was written for, and a track that (to follow my line of the movie) truly spreads it winds and soars.  

But maybe its just me...I'm biased when it comes to big choral pieces...

Hey, I found the track on YouTube!  Here it is if you want to listen to it.  You might also recognize this from the official Man of Steel trailer...

Man of Steel

Man of Steel

Poor Warner Brothers.  They had the Batman franchise, but their other super heroes just weren't catching on with the public.  Their attempt to revive Superman in 2006 with Bryan Singer was considered a failure (because it made only $400 million!  Yeesh, how greedy can you get!).  Their attempts at jumpstarting franchises with their other big guns like 2011's Green Lantern fared even worse.  Meanwhile, Marvel was destroying box office records with their second stringers, guys like Thor and Iron Man.  And when The Avengers became one of the biggest blockbusters of all time, DC looked on greedily.  But what were they to do?  Batman had run its course, so they couldn't go to that well again.  Not yet.  No, the choice was clear.  It was time to return to the man who stood for truth, justice and the American way.  It was time to go back to Superman.

I watched on the sidelines as Warners Brothers assembled one of the more eclectic film crews.  First of all, they turned the franchise over to the men who had revitalized Batman, Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, who then in turn brought on Zack Snyder (300) to direct.  The cast included a group of actors I never would have associated with a comic book movie: Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, and Kevin Costner.  As each new cast member was announced, I grew more intrigued.  And I was very happy when Henry Cavill got the nod to play the Man of Steel himself.  He's an actor I have liked for a long time (despite the atrocity on mankind that was Immortals).

So I was tentatively excited, but I was also worried.  I kept hearing that this was a "new" take on the legendary hero, re-invented to be in the world we live in today.  Being dark and gritty might work for Batman, but not Superman.  Superman is heroic, he's bold, he's big.  He is not darkness.  He is the light.  That's the whole point.  So I was really worried when I saw the dark palate of the film, the grim tones, the darker suit.  I was willing to give the movie a chance, though.

So how did they do?  Not bad, actually.  My worst fears were not realized.  First of all, the re-invented, more "realistic" approach is actually pretty well done.  While they do change some elements from the origin story, they don't go off the reservation.  They stay true to the most important plot points - the planet Krypton explodes, but not before brilliant scientist Jor-El launches his infant son into space...the ship eventually crash lands on Earth and is raised by an All-American family in Kansas, the Kents.  This is where the story diverges a bit.  Nolan and Goyer want to know what it would really be like for an all-powerful alien to grow up in today's America.  In many ways, he would be an outcast.  He doesn't know who he is.  He can't reveal what he can do.  His senses - heat and x-ray vision, super hearing, massive strength - these are all overpowering and he can't control them.  Instead of encouraging him to use his powers someday for good, his adoptive parents actually try to get him to hide his abilities because they think people wouldn't understand.  They would be afraid.  And they're probably right.  So young Superman grows up, wandering around, hiding his powers, trying to find his place in the world.  Lucky for us, he finds it right before the evil Kryptonian General Zod, who also survived the planet's destruction, arrives on Earth, ready to raise some hell!

I have to say that despite some problems, I was enjoying the first half of the film.  Sure, the opening battle sequence is completely unnecessary, and I was really annoyed by the overuse of shaky cam (why do we need shaky cam in dialogue scenes?!?!).  But for the most part, I was rolling with the movie.  A few folks have complained that the Krypton scenes focused too much on science fiction, but that didn't bother me.  In fact, I felt that some of the science fiction elements actually brought the movie more in line with the comics.  I was generally pleased that Zach Snyder avoided his normal stylistic tricks, but kept with a more simple filmmaking approach (despite the shaky cam).  And the movie's biggest asset is its risky but brilliant casting.  Along the board, I was really impressed.  Cavill is a really solid Superman, Shannon is having a ball chewing the scenery as the villain, Lane and Fishburne are great in the limited screen time they have, and Adams fits into Lois Lane's shoes perfectly, and makes her much more intelligent than some of the other Lois Lanes we've known.  And Costner and Crowe are pitch perfect as the fathers: Costner perfectly embodies the American spirit while Crowe manages to gracefully settle into a more Obi wan Kenobi type role.

So I was starting to enjoy the movie...and then the punching began.  And it didn't stop for what seemed like 7 hours.  The climactic battle of the film is one of the most over-the-top, destructive, ridiculous, and monotonous battle sequences I have ever seen.  The effects all look terrific, but when they feature nothing but someone punching someone else through a building over and over and over again, it gets really old.  Look, I appreciate that modern special effects finally give us a chance to see super heroes wail on each other...but when they are actually unable to hurt each other, it gets old.  And by the time I saw the 783rd building collapse, I checked my watch and just thought, please let this battle be over soon.  Please!  But it didn't stop.  It just kept on going on and on.  And with each punch, I cared less and less.

It's kind of a shame because the first battle with the evil Kryptonians in Kansas is actually pretty inventive, with the combatants using their various powers in different ways.  Superman tries to fight off two warriors, clearly better trained than he is, though not as powerful, while simultaneously trying to protect the U.S. military (who are actually attacking all three of them).  It's a fun sequence, and certainly massive enough in scale to be a worthy climax in any other movie.  But we still have an hour to go!

I just wanted someone to stop punching and say a line of dialogue.  Just any line of dialogue would do.

Clearly, as the movie went on, I liked it less and less.  It wasn't just the fighting.  The storyline kind of goes a bit flaky, with weird plotting, and just blah dialogue. It's almost as if the writers got to the halfway point of the movie and said, "whew, we got this far.  The CGI guys can take it from here."

MINOR SPOILERS HERE BELOW.  I also don't like how the battle ends.  I don't want to ruin anything so I will try to be vague, but I don't like the way Superman wins the battle.  The filmmakers go out of their way to justify the move and it makes sense in the context of the film, I suppose, but it also goes against over 80 years of Superman history.  He just wouldn't do that.  And that bothered me.

But what annoyed me most about the ending is that we have a cute little scene at the Daily Planet, with Clark Kent, Perry White, and Lois Lane all going to work and smiling, as if nothing had happened, as if the whole damn city had not just been torn to smithereens.  There was such wanton destructiveness, with over-zealous special effects guys demolishing massive amounts of the city with explosions that easily would have killed tens of thousands of people, and it's as if nothing had happened.  Nothing at all.  Everyone is all smiles.  The movie has zero consequences.  And I actually found that to be irresponsible.  And it pissed me off.  Nolan and Goyer are better than that.

SPOILERS OVER.

Last thing I hated is the complete misguided score by Hans Zimmer.  Though it isn't thematically strong, I enjoyed his Batman scores and understood how his music fit the mood of Nolan's Gotham.  But he is completely out of his element here.  He has a nice, ascending motif which sounds heroic enough but it builds to nothing.  The rest of the score is cheap sounding synth tracks with some dated guitar overlays from the 1990s.  Even if this movie is more grounded and realistic, Superman is still Superman.  And that still requires music that is big and bold.  And I don't want to hear the excuse that no one writes music like that any more.  There are composers who do it well.  Listen to what Giacchino did with Star Trek and John Carter.  Heck, listen to the superb score John Ottman gave Superman Returns.  Zimmer mentioned in interviews that he initially didn't think he was the right man for the job. He should have listened to his own instincts.

Anyways, enough rambling.  So where does this leave me?  Did I like Man of Steel?  Sort of.  There is a lot to like here.  Goyer and Nolan's take on the character is interesting, the casting is superb, and Snyder's direction is confident.  But there is so much that bothers me.  It's really a mixed bag.  And while the movie has been a huge hit, and the studio is already cooking up a sequel, Warner Brothers had better do better the next go-around.  Because if they make another movie as mixed as this one, they will never reach the heights that Marvel has ascended to.

BEST LINE:

Superman: My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they would reject me out of fear.  He was convinced that the world wasn't ready.  What do you think?

MVP:
Of all the stars in the film, I definitely liked Coster and Crowe the best.  But I'm not picking either of them for my MVP.  Rather, my MVP is going to the one non-star in the bunch, the up-and-coming German actress, Antje Traue, who plays General Zod's second-in-command, Faora-Ul.  She is one tough cookie, full of malevolence without resorting to scenery chewing.  But what impressed me is that she made this much of an impression when she is such an underwritten character.  There is nothing on paper that really sets her apart.  But the fact that the character is so memorable is a testament to Traue's acting.  The second she walks onto the screen, her presence just draws your attention - and that's impressive when she is mostly sharing the screen with seasoned pros like Crowe and Shannon.  She's my clear MVP.  It doesn't hurt that her big fight with Superman in Kansas is easily the highlight battle of the film.


TRIVIA:
Henry Cavill has the worst luck.  He was always directors' second choice.  He was the frontrunner in an earlier Superman reboot, but that project fell through and the studio went with Bryan Singer's Superman Returns instead, with Brandon Routh as the title character.  He was the second choice for James Bond before Eon went with Daniel Craig.  He was the second choice for Twilight's Edward Cullen before the studio chose Robert Pattinson.  And he was also runner-up behind Christian Bale for Batman.  I'm glad a franchise finally came through for him!  

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.