In 3 words: Energize? Very Yes.
Thank you, J.J. Abrams.
Thank you for making a film which is nothing short of excellent, despite all of the potential problems of reinventing a classic story.
Thank you for showing us action and humor and nail-biting suspense and gorgeous special effects, without making anything seem cheesy or unnecessary, along the way.
Thank you for proving me right, that it is possible to make a film that is fun and cool and intelligent, at the same time.
...and when someone makes that film, it is nearly perfect. Star Trek does everything right, from the graphics and the cinematography, casting and acting, and especially the writing and directing.
A detailed list could be drawn of the successes of this film, but it suffices to say that every aspect is excellent.
If the Transformers films were this well-done, I would not be mourning my childhood.
Grade: A+
12.28.2009
Films That I Finally Saw: G.I. Joe - the Rise of Cobra
In 3 words: Hmm. Hmm? Meh.
Unlike Transformers, G.I. Joe is a franchise which only has a few sources from which writes Beattie and Elliot and director Stephen Sommers could draw. Taking only from the Marvel comic books and from one cartoon series, the Rise of Cobra provides an interesting premise for a prequel to the original books and cartoons, with an excellent selection of characters. ...despite the absence of Roadblock, which is understandable--they would either have to write his dialogue in rhyme, or remove that most-identifiable trait from his character, and either choice is wrong.
Thus, the question remains with me: why did I eventually want every character to die, just to end the film?
The Rise of Cobra does well what most big-budget films do well, which is to make things explode in various ways. That is perhaps a given, and doesn't deserve a lot of attention.
What this film does not do well is provide characters with any depth, to the point where I would care about any of them. To wit, Shana 'Scarlett' O'Hara:
"Attraction is an emotion. Emotions are not based on science. And if you can't quantify or prove that something exists, well, then in my mind, it doesn't."
Of course, she learns her lesson, at the end of the film. Duh. Nevermind the fact that "science" can provide empirical and quantifiable evidence of the existence of emotions based on vitals and brainwaves, even aside from statistical connection to behaviors. The philosophical mind-body connection is the only missing piece.
...which brings me to the technology involved in this film. When writing a story which involves "nanomites" that make metal simply disappear, did it occur to any of the writers that the law of conservation of matter prevents this? This is 7th grade science, and there are a number of easy solutions which involve simply disassembling the structures, or transforming the chemical compounds into other chemical compounds. The writers apparently did not realize this is a problem, however, just as they apparently do not understand the meaning of the word "weaponize", or what a particle collider does and what one looks like.
Clearly, none of the makers of this film cared to spend any time making the characters or technologies involved any more intelligent than they are. This is a travesty, when the film's budget can easily handle a small consulting fee.
In my standard, that it is possible for films to be fun, action-packed, and smart, the Rise of Cobra fails on the smart, on a grand scale. On the handful of occasions when it tries to sound smart, it whiffs.
Preventing this movie from earning an 'F' is Ray Park, cast as Snake Eyes.
Grade: D
Unlike Transformers, G.I. Joe is a franchise which only has a few sources from which writes Beattie and Elliot and director Stephen Sommers could draw. Taking only from the Marvel comic books and from one cartoon series, the Rise of Cobra provides an interesting premise for a prequel to the original books and cartoons, with an excellent selection of characters. ...despite the absence of Roadblock, which is understandable--they would either have to write his dialogue in rhyme, or remove that most-identifiable trait from his character, and either choice is wrong.
Thus, the question remains with me: why did I eventually want every character to die, just to end the film?
The Rise of Cobra does well what most big-budget films do well, which is to make things explode in various ways. That is perhaps a given, and doesn't deserve a lot of attention.
What this film does not do well is provide characters with any depth, to the point where I would care about any of them. To wit, Shana 'Scarlett' O'Hara:
"Attraction is an emotion. Emotions are not based on science. And if you can't quantify or prove that something exists, well, then in my mind, it doesn't."
Of course, she learns her lesson, at the end of the film. Duh. Nevermind the fact that "science" can provide empirical and quantifiable evidence of the existence of emotions based on vitals and brainwaves, even aside from statistical connection to behaviors. The philosophical mind-body connection is the only missing piece.
...which brings me to the technology involved in this film. When writing a story which involves "nanomites" that make metal simply disappear, did it occur to any of the writers that the law of conservation of matter prevents this? This is 7th grade science, and there are a number of easy solutions which involve simply disassembling the structures, or transforming the chemical compounds into other chemical compounds. The writers apparently did not realize this is a problem, however, just as they apparently do not understand the meaning of the word "weaponize", or what a particle collider does and what one looks like.
Clearly, none of the makers of this film cared to spend any time making the characters or technologies involved any more intelligent than they are. This is a travesty, when the film's budget can easily handle a small consulting fee.
In my standard, that it is possible for films to be fun, action-packed, and smart, the Rise of Cobra fails on the smart, on a grand scale. On the handful of occasions when it tries to sound smart, it whiffs.
Preventing this movie from earning an 'F' is Ray Park, cast as Snake Eyes.
Grade: D
12.27.2009
Films That I Finally Saw: X-Men Origins - Wolverine
In 3 words: Snikt! Ooh, Shiny
Shiny, indeed.
Amidst a recent rash of bad comic book films, Wolverine is a breath of fresh air. Magnificently devoid of any gold-toothed, ghetto-talking robots, this is a film that succeeds on a base of excellent storytelling.
There are many pitfalls in telling a story so packed with characters and plot elements, and Wolverine does suffer a few of them. The film feels either too long and winding, or not long enough, for example.
However, the pros greatly outweigh the cons, as compelling characters abound and swim in justice done. This film manages to pull off the tricky trick of paying attention to many characters, without trying too hard. With many films also falling into the trap of adding humor or edgy content in the form of throw-away characters(Transformers 2) or lines(X-Men I, II), Wolverine instead weaves those elements into characters which are complete and well-rounded, with each serving a distinct purpose in the story. Said characters are also cast well, with no deficit in performance, to boot.
The seamless effects and sneaky-good cinematography only ice the cake, here, in what ends up as an excellent package, overall.
While Wolverine has an issue with time, it is much less a fatal flaw than a reality check, to remind us that few films can be even this good.
Grade: A-
Shiny, indeed.
Amidst a recent rash of bad comic book films, Wolverine is a breath of fresh air. Magnificently devoid of any gold-toothed, ghetto-talking robots, this is a film that succeeds on a base of excellent storytelling.
There are many pitfalls in telling a story so packed with characters and plot elements, and Wolverine does suffer a few of them. The film feels either too long and winding, or not long enough, for example.
However, the pros greatly outweigh the cons, as compelling characters abound and swim in justice done. This film manages to pull off the tricky trick of paying attention to many characters, without trying too hard. With many films also falling into the trap of adding humor or edgy content in the form of throw-away characters(Transformers 2) or lines(X-Men I, II), Wolverine instead weaves those elements into characters which are complete and well-rounded, with each serving a distinct purpose in the story. Said characters are also cast well, with no deficit in performance, to boot.
The seamless effects and sneaky-good cinematography only ice the cake, here, in what ends up as an excellent package, overall.
While Wolverine has an issue with time, it is much less a fatal flaw than a reality check, to remind us that few films can be even this good.
Grade: A-
12.26.2009
Films That I Finally Saw: Transformers 2
In 3 words: Childhood Memories Violated
In the constant cycle of recycling old material, the Transformers (now) franchise stands as a perfect example of the tension between update and homage. While it is important to recognize that it is impossible to mention detail of a 30-year-old comic book or a 1500-page novel, some projects have managed to make old stories look and feel new, at the same time as they preserve important character and story elements, and present a well-told, well-written tale (see: X-Men I, Spiderman I).
Director Michael Bay does make Transformers look good, through tedious attention not only to exquisite graphics, but especially to the mechanics involved in turning vehicles and household electronics into robots. However, aside from that, there are few bright spots, including Shia Lebeouf's performance, and Peter Cullen's casting for Optimus Prime's voicework.
What does not work?
Much of those vaunted graphics involve fights between indistinguishable robots, which only serve to confuse. Even our heroes, the Autobots, are difficult to recognize when not being directly identified in the dialogue.
Though Transformers 2 continues to feature robot characters which are or were originally captivating, it nullifies their weight by neglecting them (Arcee, Sideswipe) or by twisting and reducing their characters to the point of novelty (Devastator, Jetfire, Sideswipe again).
...and then, there is the issue of the Twins, Skids and Mudflap. They make little sense as members of a special force of robot hunters, and they are offensive to both intelligence and culture as comic relief. Overall, they do little for the film, aside from to make it more dumb and crude. Comparisons to Jar-Jar Binks, and even Scrappy Doo, are completely appropriate.
Overall, Michael Bay has taken a decent storyline, with good core characters, and has clouded any quality with too much emphasis on novelty. Crude throw-away jokes and bad choices in featured characters distract from the quality that is there.
My $1 spent on renting this film: better spent on a snack wrap.
Grade: D
In the constant cycle of recycling old material, the Transformers (now) franchise stands as a perfect example of the tension between update and homage. While it is important to recognize that it is impossible to mention detail of a 30-year-old comic book or a 1500-page novel, some projects have managed to make old stories look and feel new, at the same time as they preserve important character and story elements, and present a well-told, well-written tale (see: X-Men I, Spiderman I).
Director Michael Bay does make Transformers look good, through tedious attention not only to exquisite graphics, but especially to the mechanics involved in turning vehicles and household electronics into robots. However, aside from that, there are few bright spots, including Shia Lebeouf's performance, and Peter Cullen's casting for Optimus Prime's voicework.
What does not work?
Much of those vaunted graphics involve fights between indistinguishable robots, which only serve to confuse. Even our heroes, the Autobots, are difficult to recognize when not being directly identified in the dialogue.
Though Transformers 2 continues to feature robot characters which are or were originally captivating, it nullifies their weight by neglecting them (Arcee, Sideswipe) or by twisting and reducing their characters to the point of novelty (Devastator, Jetfire, Sideswipe again).
...and then, there is the issue of the Twins, Skids and Mudflap. They make little sense as members of a special force of robot hunters, and they are offensive to both intelligence and culture as comic relief. Overall, they do little for the film, aside from to make it more dumb and crude. Comparisons to Jar-Jar Binks, and even Scrappy Doo, are completely appropriate.
Overall, Michael Bay has taken a decent storyline, with good core characters, and has clouded any quality with too much emphasis on novelty. Crude throw-away jokes and bad choices in featured characters distract from the quality that is there.
My $1 spent on renting this film: better spent on a snack wrap.
Grade: D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
