December | 2015 | Asian and Entertained

SPOILERS: About that “Star Wars” thing

Posted on December 29, 2015 by babemoby

Now that “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” has been out for a while, it seems like a good time to start talking about it. If you haven’t seen it yet, what are you waiting for? If you have seen it or don’t fear spoilers, then feel free to read on…

**************SPOILERS********************

If you’re still here, congratulations!

The writers of the new “Star Wars” weren’t kidding that “The Force Awakens,” as it truly feels like a new dawn for the franchise. The prequels left an empty feeling each time, especially as that iconic closing credits theme blared at the end of Episode III as the series shambled to a finish. Many “Star Wars” fans probably thought it would be the end of the once vaunted, now belabored series, and most people probably didn’t want to see any more of it anyway.

But the new movie leaves moviegoers with that same bubbly, hungry-for-more, adventurous spirit the first two movies in the original trilogy left for those who had discovered their new love in life. Especially with the disappointment of the prequels still in the rearview mirror, “Star Wars” fans deserve to be giddy, and movie fans in general should find an entertaining and memorable experience that isn’t as rare as it used to be, but still a nice find when one happens upon it.

Some credit has to be given to director JJ Abrams for bringing “Star Wars” back in a big way, but the best move Disney and Co. made is probably in bringing back original trilogy writer Lawrence Kasdan, whose pen has been sorely missed since 1983. The result is a great mix of new and old, which is basically what the movie is all about.

It’s wonderful to see older actors Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill return for another adventure, but even better is getting to witness newcomers Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Adam Driver, and others carry “Star Wars” into this new era alongside them. Ford’s Han Solo and Fisher’s ~~Princess~~ General Leia get to have some new adventures while new heroes Rey, Finn, and Poe get to begin their own as villain Kylo Ren takes over where Darth Vader left off trying to control the galaxy.

Taken from the best scene the three actors share in the movie.

Abrams’ greatest strength has always been his ability to develop characters, and that’s where the new movie shines the most. He doesn’t exactly reinvent the “Star Wars” wheel here. Actually, it would be more accurate to say, he took it in the garage and gave it a few tweaks. It’s not as if the galaxy had never seen anything like Rey, for instance, but she’s different enough from her predecessors that there are a lot of exciting possibilities for the direction the character could be taking.

Obviously, she evokes both Anakin and Luke Skywalker in her mastery of the Force, as well as her knack for tinkering with mechanical things. But Rey is taking the mastery thing a step further than those Jedi from long ago. Though Luke is responsible for bringing that whole Jedi thing back in style (hooded robes were in in the ’70s), and Anakin could harness the Force enough to win pod races in his blond, bowl-cut youth, Rey has learned to use that mysteriously floaty source of power all on her own, without instruction from anyone. But whereas Anakin had to study under Master Obi-Wan before he started throwing Mace Windu out a window, and Luke needed the same Master Obi-Wan to tell him the Force was in him, just like it was in his father before he could start swinging his lightsaber around, Rey has seemingly picked it up on her own. Thus, the question is raised: Could she possibly be the strongest Force-user the universe has ever seen?

But then, it’s not totally clear whether she is the lead protagonist in this new story, or could it be former stormtrooper Finn? As far as anyone knows, he’s the first to free himself of the white helmet and create his own path for his life. According to Finn, he was taken from his family when he was young and forced to fight for the First Order. His immediate tendency is not toward heroism, but rather his concern is to be free. Boyega shows off his excellent comedic chops, as”I-Am-With-the-Resistance” Finn provides much of the comedy in the film, as he tries to impress the much more game Rey, despite his own reluctance to be involved in the galactic struggle. It’s hard to blame him for wanting to flee his former masters, but his interest in Rey keeps him involved in the fight.

Finn prepares for a lightsaber duel.

It’s fun to see Rey and Finn get equal treatment as the center of the story. The original “Star Wars” gave Luke and Han comparable treatment, and there was Leia too, but the subsequent movies focused mainly on Luke and Vader, and the rest of the characters became merely players in the big war. It’s hard to say whether the story is centered more on Rey or Finn at this point, and considering the fact that they share significant screen time and development, it’s easy to be enthusiastic about both characters. They’re both interesting characters, and it will be interesting to see how they develop over the next two movies.

It’s good to see Han and Chewie back, and in as fine of form as they were in nearly 40 years ago. Han’s reunion with Leia is something special and touching, especially for longtime “Star Wars” fans. It’s fun to see Han finding new ways to get into and struggle to get out of trouble, and that Leia is now a general. Though neither is really the focus anymore, the two get more character development in the little bit of time they get to spend together than they did in the original trilogy, and the couple is more truly romantic than they’ve ever been.

The great thing about having Abrams aboard is that, as with “Star Trek,” he’s very efficient at developing characters, especially in a world someone else created. He’s good at taking stereotypical characters and subverting them, as he did in “Super 8.” Both of those skills came in handy here. The characters of “Star Wars” have never had the complexity they have now, after spending a mere two hours with them. “Star Wars” is at its best when it’s about its characters, so that can only be a good thing.

And since a new villain has to be developed since Vader is gone, he’s going to need work.

Kylo Ren is about to harm an innocent alien creature.

Abrams and company must have surmised that it would be difficult to create a new villain that’s something more than just a wannabe Darth Vader, they decided to make Kylo Ren literally a wannabe Darth Vader. It works very well, considering the characters and events of the original “Star Wars” trilogy are myths and legends to the young new characters. Kylo Ren struggles with being evil enough. Whereas Vader coldly dispatched his inept underlings with a terrifying calm, Ren is prone to violent outbursts in a desperate attempt to demonstrate his power and control. It’s been a while since there’s been a villain who is unlikeable because he’s so impotent and uncool, and that’s a good trend. Whereas Vader has become such a beloved character because he was a badass and sympathetic because of his desire for a relationship with his son, Ren should be reviled for being so insecure and unlikable. He even wears a helmet, not because he needs it like Grandpa Vader did, but because he thinks it will make him more like Vader. It’s not because he’s a poorly developed character. On the contrary, Driver makes Ren’s motivations and emotions pretty plainly obvious. It isn’t that he’s just so evil and cold and disturbing. He’s weak, but he wants to be strong. He has existential struggles about giving into the light side. He’s afraid he won’t be to the First Order what Vader was to the Empire. That makes him more prone to doing things that are stupid, selfish, and dangerous to those around him. He’s less rational and more emotional. That leaves many interesting possibilities for the character in the future.

The First Order, being assumedly among the last remnants of the dying Empire, is not well-defined, though neither was the Empire on the other hand. Nor is the Resistance, which apparently has evolved from the Rebel Alliance. There are still two warring sides, and the story is mostly about those fighting the war on the frontlines rather than the ideology of the struggle. It might have been interesting to explore the galactic war more thoroughly, but then again, Lucas tried that with the prequels and they didn’t turn out so well. “Empire Strikes Back” hinted at the possibility that the Jedi weren’t the ultimate force of good in the universe but never really explored it further. Ambiguous morality isn’t really what “Star Wars” is about, and though that could make for interesting stories, the franchise isn’t there yet, and maybe it never will be.

It has to be said that it’s awesome to see a woman and a black man leading one of Hollywood’s most famous properties, and that they have a Latino pal. There haven’t been many of either at the head of any major blockbusters, and it’s good to see diversity. It was funny if not terrifying to see the Twitter campaign from racists to boycott “Star Wars” for its “anti-white” agenda because Boyega would be appearing in the film. It’s not as if there is anything in the universe that can slow, let alone halt the Disney marketing machine, and the resistance ended up being a marketing win, as Disney could tout its supposed progressiveness as a marketing ploy rather than a hinderance, which Abrams and company did do. But it’s a sign of progress, even if a small one, when those sorts of people get that angry about something.

And the cool thing is that these actors are so young and just starting their careers. Isaac has been getting more parts and is killing it constantly, and Driver has been around a while himself. But Boyega’s only other film of note is “Attack the Block,” and aside from a handful of appearances on British TV shows, Ridley hasn’t done anything else. It will be fun to watch these actors grow up through “Star Wars” and whatever other work they find to do. Luckily for them, it seems they’ll have better material to work with than the actors in the prequels because bad films with this much visibility can make or break careers. Natalie Portman was a promising young actor who was able to overcome her part in the prequels and have a very good career. It didn’t go as well for Hayden Christensen, whose career hasn’t recovered, which is a shame because it might not have been his fault. And then there’s Jake Lloyd, whose life was completely ruined because he had the misfortune to be young Anakin. But hopefully things will be better for the new crop of Future Stars.

Poe speaks to the Imperial Senate.

Maybe next time, there can be an Asian character, who gets more than a couple lines. Maybe not everyone can get true representation in a single feature film, but Hollywood needs more Asian stars. The Rock counts, but that’s about all there is. Yeah, several Asian countries have their own movie industries, but never anything with the kind of budget Hollywood blockbusters, and especially “Star Wars” have. Asian “Star Wars,” get crackin’ on it, Disney!

One of the most interesting aspects of the new film, which is also one of its biggest flaws, is that it raises a lot of interesting questions for the future. Besides the obvious question of the cliffhanger the movie left audiences with of “what’s up with Rey and Luke?”, the movie hints that Rey has the same anger inside of her as Vader did, and there’s the possibility that she could be the next dark lord of the galaxy, easily stepping over Kylo Ren. There’s the question of what Rey’s and Finn’s relationship will be going forward. Is Han Solo really dead, because Ford is by all reports signed on for the next movie? What the hell is a Snoke?

Speaking of flaws, what the hell was that? Snoke is definitely the weakest part of the movie. Hopefully, it was supposed to be akin to “The Wizard of Oz,” where there is a real man behind the curtain. It’s OK if he’s not human, but it would be silly if it turns out he’s an actual giant. The CGI for him looked dreadful, so here’s hoping all of his scenes were meant to be some kind of red herring, because all of that needs to go away.

Snoke!

But it is a problem in a way that this film is relying so heavily on the next one for context. It is an excellent film as it is, but if Episode VIII is a bad one, it could completely undo all of the good this movie did. The main players had complete arcs for the most part, but it was obviously also setting up for the next movie because anyone can Google Disney’s “Star Wars” release schedule. After Episode VIII comes out and if it sucks, then people could still enjoy VII, but it will lose some of its luster and be yet another reminder of how much potential the series holds but rarely lives up to it.

Thankfully, the promising Rian Johnson is at the helm, and if he can produce something along the lines of “Looper,” then it could be pretty spectacular. And it will be good to see him take over for Abrams, as Abrams is at his best when he’s working with material others have created a la his “Star Trek” movies as opposed to “Super 8,” which started with some promise and completely fell apart at the end. Then again, if it’s anything like Disney’s Marvel movies, the director doesn’t seem to have enough creative control to have much influence on the direction the stories take, so it might not make any real difference.

Of course, it’s a legitimate criticism that the film is very similar to the original “Star Wars,” and in many ways it is a more modern, refined, and improved version of that movie. But if you look at the series as a chronicle of the world that it created, that could also be seen as a commentary on the cyclical nature of history, which would be a realistic view of the world and humanity. It could also be seen as lazy and pandering to the fan base. It’s pretty much a matter of your point of view. Again, the film is relying heavily on the next one, which means there’s no way to judge this now. If the next movie fails to make significant changes, then the entire venture might feel like a waste of time. On the other hand, if the next movie turns out to be a work of off-the-charts brilliance, then VII will be seen as a much-needed righting of the ship (which is an analogy that doesn’t work in space because there’s no gravity).

But for a franchise to have had as many installments as it has had is a sign of its staying power, especially having survived after the prequels. Think about it, nine movies, (ten if you count “The Clone Wars” though that was really just a lead in for the TV series) by the time it’s finished (or 12 if you count the spinoffs). No other franchise has lasted that long, at that level of quality, even if the prequels are merely mediocre. “Rocky” has seven now, but only the first few are respectable.”Die Hard” is up to 5, but again, only the first couple are really worth watching. “Aliens” will be close in quantity, but there’s no quality after the second movie. Same thing for “The Terminator.” There are a lot of long-lasting horror franchises, but later installments belong at the bottom of the rack at rental stores (and no one goes to rental stores anymore!). So “Star Wars” mostly having a relatively high level of quality though its run is a real achievement.

“The Force Awakens” was a very good movie. It’s the most fun you’ll have at the theatre all year, which you don’t have to feel guilty about because it also has some well-developed and complex characters to sink your movie fangs into. It’s the revival of a franchise that could have stayed dead as far as almost everyone was concerned, but it also sets up for what could be a great future. It has plenty of wit and charm to spare, that recalls the fondest memories of the original films and washes the taste of Jar Jar off the palate completely. It’s probably not going to win any converts, and “Mad Max: Fury Road” is still most likely the best movie of the year. But moviegoers in general who don’t feel forced to see the movie should find an enjoyable action-adventure film that is among the all-time greats.

The Millennium Falcon soars through space once again.

The Force truly is strong with this one.

Declaration of (Star) War(s)

Posted on December 18, 2015 by babemoby

I will be seeing “The Force Awakens” on Saturday, so I’ll be one of the last people I know who’s going to make it to the theater for the film. I’ve pretty much run out of time on my JJ Abrams thing, because I’m terrible at sticking to my own script. But before I see the movie, there are some things that need to be said about the franchise and about its future.

I first saw the original trilogy when I was 8 or 10, it doesn’t really matter, sometime around 1992 and ’94 or so. But, of course, being a kid and getting to see ships fly through space with guys fighting with laserswords and things like that, I was a “Star Wars” fan. I went through the period where there hadn’t been new “Star Wars” in nearly twenty years. So, all the new material there was to satisfy that itch was your expanded universe material, which was essentially fan fiction with no governing “Star Wars” body or anything. Essentially it was a free-for-all, with varying quality. Then, the excitement returned with their re-release in the theaters and then again in 1999 with “The Phantom Menace” (I was still a teenager, so I didn’t really know any better).

Anyway, being an adult now, I’m still a “Star Wars” fan, but more importantly, I’m a movie fan. I like “Star Wars” and “Empire Strikes Back” because they’re still good movies. The rest of the movies in the official franchise are something between mediocre and terrible. There are interesting things about some parts, but for the most part, the magic George Lucas somehow managed to capture with those first two movies is pretty much gone. I’m still a “Star Wars” fan because I can still say those first two movies were pretty good (except when I went through a phase where I was a Serious Movie Person and I paid more attention to what movies were doing wrong than what they were doing right), though they both have their flaws like everything does.

But since I managed to get myself labeled a “Star Wars” geek where I work because I mentioned that I preordered my ticket, it made me stop and think about this “new” direction for the franchise. “Star Wars” isn’t good because it’s “Star Wars,” it’s good because those two movies are good.

The point is, the world needs more good movies, it doesn’t need more “Star Wars” movies. If “Star Wars” happens to be good, then it’s good for everyone, but otherwise, the franchise is just taking up space (so to speak).

There are reasons to feel cautious, even with the glowing reviews the movie has received.

The most common and heaviest complaint about the film seems to be that it relies too heavily on the original film and is more nostalgia than anything new and good. For “Star Wars” geeks, it would be acceptable for there to just be new adventures with Han, Luke, and Leia (but mostly Han and Luke), some references to Darth Vader, maybe a Boba Fett cameo somehow if they’re lucky. As long as it’s a decent story that would be acceptable. Hell, something halfway decent would be a better experience than the garbage piles the prequels were.

Nostalgia is fine for one movie, but after this one, Disney’s going to be churning out another one every year for the next five years. If we’re still doing nostalgia at that point or if there’s nothing unique and special about each individual release, then it’s just another area of film that’s been commodified, like so much of the big-budget box office already has been.

Worries about a Disneyfied “Star Wars” are legit until proven otherwise.

For instance, look at the Marvel Studios movies. It’s an apt comparison, considering it’s under the same roof as Lucasfilm now. Since “Iron Man” was released in 2008, Marvel Studios has released a new movie every year except 2009. In 2013, Marvel Studios started pumping out two movies a year, which is going to continue for the foreseeable future. Of all those, only a couple really stand out. “Iron Man” was good, but it set the template, which all the rest of those movies follow. “Guardians of the Galaxy” stood out, only because the director and the cast managed to be more clever than the Marvel movie formula. All the rest of them are pretty much cookie cutters. None of them are bad, and they’re all alright, but you know what you’re getting for those two hours you’ll set down to watch them because they’re all the same.

Each hero gets his (because women don’t get their own movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe) origin story in the first one, where all the character development happens. But it’s basically there’s a baddy who’s threatening to destroy the world and it’s up to the hero to stop him. That’s all there is to it. The second movie in a franchise doesn’t develop the character any further, it’s just a new bad guy to beat.

The Netflix series have been much better, so that’s a positive. “Daredevil” had more depth and political commentary than any of the movies, but the top-notch “Jessica Jones” is taking the quality of Marvel video properties to another level. The shows are popular, but they’re not nearly as ubiquitous as the movies.

Storm in the X-Men comics kicked so much ass. The people in her village believed she was a goddess. In the movies, she was merely present. No offense to Halle Berry though. She didn’t write that crap after all.

I recently started reading Marvel Comics, because Marvel Unlimited is frickin’ awesome, and it’s amazing the numerous and diverse types of stories those writers are able to tell. Even being jaded about Marvel as I was after watching the movies, those stories have been special enough to grab my attention. So many series are written at such a high level, and it’s been that way since Stan Lee started with Spider-Man back in the ’60s. It’s impressive the way they are able to take stories that all seem like they should be cookie cutters, but they are written as different genres, and different original types of stories that are interesting long-term. Marvel has also been very diverse for a relatively long time, including heroes that were women and black (and black women!) and Asian and whomever else. Until recently, there were a lot of problems with stereotypes with many of their non-white male heroes, and as well as a lot of exploitation. There was a lot of racism and sexism shown with those characters. But no other well-known medium was making those types of characters their leads. Marvel continues to write diverse and interesting stories now, but with much less problematic elements. It’s strange how none of that ever seems to translate to the movies.

“Star Wars” under Disney has the potential to become a sprawling web of stories and characters similar to Marvel, especially since there are going to be more movies, involving stories deviating from the main one, comics, and probably a Netflix series, the way things are going. It is what it is. Whether it’s good or bad will depend on the level of care that’s put into all of it.

The thing is, I have confidence Abrams will set “Star Wars” on a better trajectory than Lucas was taking it. But I only have confidence that the new movie will be decent rather than something uniquely special that will last. In “Star Trek,” he came up with a pretty good movie with some problems, some of which he fixed in the sequel with a better plot and a better antagonist. But he didn’t do anything to elevate the minority members of the cast, and he added that pointless “sexy” shot of Alice Eve in her underwear. That fact is in spite of his call in interviews for trying to make “Star Wars” more diverse. He hasn’t written a strong woman character yet, the closest he’s come is Alice in “Super 8,” and she’s a good character, but still has to be rescued by a boy. And he’s had a female character die in most of his movies to provide character development for a male. “Star Wars” is a series that has always been about white men, and the few women and minority characters get very little attention. The cast for “The Force Awakens” is inspiring, sure, but Abrams doesn’t have a strong track record in this area.

A diverse, talented cast is a good sign.

The fact that Abrams is done directing after this one, handing over the reins to another director with a lot of potential, Rian Johnson, who made the fantastic “Looper” is a good sign, as it could help the series from becoming too singular-minded. Gareth Edwards who made the snoozer “Godzilla” is a less inspiring choice for “Rogue One,” though at least Felicity Jones was cast in the lead role for that one.

But on the other hand, look at the list of directors and the casts for Marvel’s movies. They look pretty inspired too. There are so many talented people that make their way into the Marvel Universe, but still, all of the movies have that feeling of sameness despite the differing styles of the directors they enlist. Granted, if “Star Wars” is relying too much on the past, it’s quite a different thing that it’s recalling a movie released more than 30 years ago rather than one released six months ago. But if the next movie or two is the same ol’ story, then it’ll be the same ol’ story Marvel’s been selling since 2008.

And if that happened to “Star Wars” ~~again~~, it would be pretty disappointing. The name “Star Wars” at one time stood for quality filmmaking, until Lucas released “Episode I,” and the name has been tarnished ever since. Abrams and Disney have a chance to restore that image. This might all be nit picking, as merely decent “Star Wars” movies wouldn’t be terrible, but it would seem like such a wasted opportunity where there’s room for something fresh and different and better.

At the same time, if you want to look at science fiction, the movie industry is in incredibly good shape. This year alone brought us the final “Hunger Games” movie in an impressive series, the surprisingly profound “Ex Machina,” and what many are calling the movie of the year, “Mad Max: Fury Road.” “Fury Road,” especially would outshine any of the “Star Wars” movies, except that the filmmaking owes a lot to Lucas’ influence. In recent years, there have been “District 9,” “Wall-E,” “Her,” “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” “Moon,” and a host of other great sci-fi flicks. So, there’s no lack of great sci-fi if this round of “Star Wars” doesn’t live up to its potential. “Star Wars” is good for the bottom line, but for quality movies, there’s nothing missing without it.

Regardless of “Star Wars'” quality, there’s no lack of good sci-fi movies these days.

So, I’m writing this for posterity regardless of what my opinion will be once I get to see the movie, and no one really knows how all of this will go at least until the next one probably. As a fan of “Star Wars” and “Empire Strikes Back,” I’m hopeful the new direction for the franchise will lead to something special and meaningful. But at the end of the day, it’s all just hype for now.

May the Force be with us all.

Master L’lennz Phlair’e: “Star Trek”

Posted on December 12, 2015 by babemoby

The next franchise on the slate for J.J. Abrams to revive was one with a long and varied history on TV, which had finally hit a dry patch after more than 40 years of being on the air. The most recent installments in the series, “Star Trek: Voyager” and “Star Trek: Enterprise” didn’t have quite the followings of the original series “Star Trek” or “The Next Generation.” Once “Enterprise” went off the air in 2005, it was the first time in 17 years that there was no current “Star Trek” series on TV at all, which was quite a disruptive change for fans, considering for half of the ’90s, there were two series running concurrently. But entertainment fans in general didn’t feel like they were missing anything with the drop in quality of the shows. So, a break was probably a good thing.

Set for release four years after the last “Trek” ended its journey, Abrams decided his “Star Trek” would be a revival in every sense of the word, as he would not only revisit the original series, but start with the origins of the iconic starship Enterprise and the beloved Captain James Kirk and Mr. Spock. But through some time travel, these characters would be treading some ground where they specifically hadn’t gone before. Due to events that happened because of a rift in the space-time continuum, Kirk would turn out to be a young, fatherless rebel, who would be the rightful heir to his father’s captain’s chair, except for his hard-drinking rebellious ways. And in a break from the original story, he and Spock wouldn’t get along very well.

Abrams’ “Star Trek” is a near-perfect action movie, as Abrams develops with care these characters whom longtime fans would be familiar with, but newcomers would get to know quickly. Abrams has a slick way of introducing the characters through quick-moving childhood histories and then demonstrating who they are through their actions to show the audience their personality instead of telling us about their personalities through time-consuming bland narration or long monologues, like less-skilled directors often do. The audience can see Kirk is brash and always thinking before he leaps, as he hits on woman in the bar and then takes on four big, burly Starfleet officers knowing he’s going to get his ass kicked (which he then proceeds to do). The audience can see Spock, as a logic-loving Vulcan, has been raised to behave based on logic, but because he is half-human, is prone to wearing his emotions on his sleeve, more than his fellow Vulcans do. It’s not only fun to watch, it informs the audience of the characters’ personalities and motives. Abrams is able to keep the action moving because everything that happens has a purpose, always building on the characters and advancing the plot. Like a fireworks show, he saves his biggest and brightest explosions for the grand finale, not just blasting away randomly.

How can two guys who look like they’re ready to kiss be so angry at each other?

And good characters need good actors to bring them to life. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were excellent choices for Kirk and Spock, respectively. Quinto was just breaking into the movie scene, as he’d had some TV roles previously, but nothing major. He imbues Spock with the generally calm demeanor Leonard Nimoy provided for him in the TV series, but also shows the character to be smug, petty, and egocentric with a quiet inner rage that’s always boiling beneath the surface, which periodically explodes as he lashes out at those around him, which is usually Kirk. With Kirk, William Shatner was always prone to overacting, which admittedly gave the character a certain charm, but it also comes off as a bit bizarre, which is saying something for a series about traveling through space and having weird encounters with alien life. But Pine is a revelation in that same role. This was the cinematic world’s introduction to Pine, as he was almost completely unknown prior to “Trek.” He charts his own course for the character of Kirk, with all the charisma Shatner had, but with enough restraint that he is greatly entertaining but still realistic.

As mentioned earlier, the main story revolves around a time travel plot, which is rarely a good route to take, because time travel always makes for sketchy narratives. In this case, Nero (played by Eric Bana), a Romulan from the future who has stumbled through a wormhole with his ship and crew wants to destroy Starfleet and all of its friendly worlds because his own planet was (will be) destroyed due to a Starfleet-related accident. Nero is not a particularly interesting antagonist. Generally in “Star Trek’s” history, though the characters of the Enterprise have always been the protagonists, there rarely is a character or an alien race that is in complete opposition to them, as morality is usually seen in shades of grey. Abrams just went with a straight villain for Nero, and left the shades of grey portion to the ideological battle between Kirk and Spock. The plot might the weakest element of the film, which is OK because it serves its purpose as something for Kirk and Spock to do while they learn to work with each other.

All Asians are equal, but that doesn’t mean they’re all the same. Sulu was originally played by George Takei, who is Japanese, but in the 2009 “Star Trek,” the character is played by John Cho, who is Korean. Though Cho is a welcome addition to the cast, Abrams and other Western directors need to learn that Asians of different nationalities should not be treated as the same.

But that’s OK, because along with two fine leads, the supporting cast is excellent as well, which is nice because they are going to be around for more “Star Trek” movies. Zoe Saldana give Uhura new life, which is important because the character has a much more involved role than she did in the original seires, though it’s disappointing that she’s mainly a love interest for Spock. Karl Urban seems like he was born for the role of Bones McCoy. He’s almost a caricature of DeForest Kelley’s original always-on-edge character, but he still finds his place among the rest of the crew. John Cho and Anton Yelchin make for fun versions of Sulu and Chekov. It’s good to see Cho get more work so that he can further distance himself from “Harold and Kumar,” but a Korean playing a Japanese character is kinda racist and lazy casting. Simon Pegg fits in the role of Scotty, being a good comedic actor, but something also feels wrong about a British actor playing a Scotsman, considering how much at odds Scotland and the greater U.K. have been over the years. Bruce Greenwood as Pike is a nice nod to the original series’ pilot episode, which featured Captain Pike as the commander of the Enterprise before he was replaced by Kirk. Though it’s obviously not possible to give every character full attention, Abrams does a good job of making sure everyone gets his or her moment to shine and isn’t neglected

Abrams turns out the best kind of big, loud adventure film with “Star Trek,” which is off-putting to many “Trek” fans because though everyone loves a fun adventure, the “Star Trek” series has always been more about exploration and intellectual and political commentary rather than action. It’s a reasonable criticism that a film called “Star Trek” might stray a bit too far from the source material. But the movie does explore new scientific territory for the franchise, in considering the many-worlds theory. With Nimoy’s appearance as an older, space-time farer, this could be a look at a universe parallel to that of the original series, or one that has changed because of Nero’s interruption from beyond the timestream. There are really quite a few possibilities to consider.

C’mon old and young dudes, we can all get along. What’s good for one is good for all right?

And, besides, if there are going to be new actors playing already established characters, then it makes more sense for them to not do all the same things their predecessors did. This is a new spin on old characters, and it’s interesting to see what Kirk and Spock would have been like if they’d been at odds with each other rather than just immediately being good friends. And what better way to get youngsters these days interested in the original series than through new entry points?

Psychology commonly defines logic and emotion as opposites, when both are necessary parts of human existence. Spock and Kirk are the embodiment of the relationship between rational thought and gut instinct. Whereas the no-win situation test Spock sets up to teach students at Starfleet Academy that there will be times when there is no right answer, Kirk finds a way to break the test and then beat it, which Spock argues is missing the point. Kirk flouts rational thought throughout the movie, and finds a solution to every problem so that no one needs to make a costly sacrifice. Rational thinking alone can break down and lead to a deterministic view on situations, even though it might be correct. Kirk’s eternal optimism shows that sometimes in seemingly hopeless situations, good can still prevail. In the movie, Kirk’s spirit makes him the best leader for his crew, even though Spock’s wisdom is also vital to its survival. But it’s something that should inspire hope in viewers, rather than being held down by the weight of the inevitable.

Abrams said recently that he wants to give viewers of “The Force Awakens” something that has meaning. As many have viewed “Star Trek” as something of a warmup for “Star Wars,” both franchises appear to be in good hands. That’s an important thing because both properties hit their rough patch. Abrams brought new life to “Star Trek,” with the third movie in the series set to be released set to be released next year, and a meaningful first installment. This movie should make “Star Wars” fans, as well as movie fans in general, excited for the future, as Abrams seems to really know what he’s doing when it comes to making movies. Even when George Lucas’ prequels were still in the works, each one was still a major event, even as enthusiasm for the franchise waned with each new release. How much more enthusiasm should there be with Abrams at the helm, and with the stellar cast he has lined up for it? It could end up being a bust, but if “Star Trek” is any indication, everyone’s in for an epic treat.

Master L’lennz Phlair’e: “Mission: Impossible III”

Posted on December 7, 2015 by babemoby

As the “Star Wars” prequels are generally panned or at least considered disappointing (though not to discount the fans of those movies), I figured I would switch gears and instead explore the movies of the lens flare master himself, J.J. Abrams, as he will be the one charting the new direction for the series. Though he gained notoriety through his TV series, I won’t have time to watch all six seasons of “Lost” and all five seasons of “Alias” (though those might be an interesting project for the future). I’ll be looking at his four feature films only.

—————————–

Oddly, “Mission: Impossible III” actually makes for a rather apt example of what J.J. Abrams will bring to the table for “The Force Awakens.” For being an “M:I” movie, it’s similar in many ways to George Lucas’ original “Star Wars” trilogy, as well as his own “Star Trek” films, which many have seen as a warm-up for the new “Star Wars.”

In 2006, the “M:I” franchise was in a much similar position as “Star Wars” is now. Both series are revivals of classic media: “M:I” had its original TV show; “Star Wars,” the original trilogy. Both had suffered disappointing entries: “M:I-2” and the “Star Wars” prequels. And of course, they are both being helmed by Abrams.

For “M:I III,” Abrams was tasked with working on a franchise that was in need of image recovery. The original 1996 film was your average action-espionage movie, which could be seen as an American version of James Bond, which was experiencing its own growing pains in its Pierce Brosnan era. The second, released in 2000, had a dip in quality, getting a 58% from Rotten Tomatoes. The third movie didn’t have a lot of buzz coming into it, being a new entry into a 10-year-old franchise that wasn’t greatly popular. Studios were beginning to invest more money in blockbusters, and “M:I” was in danger of being overlooked by moviegoers, especially compared to some of the other big-budget properties. There were new releases in “Pirates of the Caribbean” (which ended up winning that year); “X-Men”; James Bond with new star Daniel Craig; the return of Superman; “Rocky”; Fast/Furious; a Pixar film, and your other blockbusters and children’s movies. In other words, it was your typical crowded summer. The “Bourne” series was also starting to take off around the same time, along with “Ocean’s Eleven” bringing back a host of heist movies, which often involved similar diversion-creating tactics and smoother, suaver protagonists. There wasn’t expected to be a huge market for a disappointing espionage franchise or anything involving Tom Cruise, with the news he was engaged to Katie Holmes and the media circus surrounding their upcoming wedding.

It would be a daunting task, but it did give a young director an opportunity to make a name for himself, as making a successful movie given the conditions might be an impossible mission all its own.

Abrams decided to begin his movie career with a bang. The high-tension opening featuring Cruise’s special agent Ethan Hunt strapped to a chair with Philip Seymour Hoffman threatening to shoot his woman is pretty much as hot as an opener can be. Abrams knew he needed to deliver, and this was his way of showing he was ready to go all out to grab the audience’s attention. Unfortunately, a twist to come later would undo its intended purpose, but at the time it was a good start.

The breaking down of one of the movie’s key plots is cause for concerned “Star Wars” fans to be slightly trepidatious about their new director. Plot twists that are substantial, clever, and sound can be great because they can signify a major shift in direction for a work. The reveal that Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker’s father, for instance, was mind-blowing, especially as it was positioned at the end of the second movie in the series. It changed the meaning of everything the audience had seen up to that point and made any outcome seem possible for the finale (though it wound up failing to rise to its potential).

The big twist (no spoilers here) in “M:I III” had the opposite effect. It cheapened the event the audience had previously witnessed, it had little effect on the story, and it was a needless diversion, considering the movie could have used a little more emotional “oomph” to make it memorable.

mission-impossible-3-tom-cruise-michelle-monaghan

It’s a typical white suburban romance. Why wouldn’t that get globe-hopping mega superspy Ethan Hunt’s engine revved up?

It was a questionable move in the third “M:I” movie to give Ethan a wife. On the one hand, it did give the otherwise cold and unrelatable action hero a grounding and an emotional element and a new motivation, as well as a moral quandary. There was no getting around the fact that he was a damn-good spy, and that was what he was born to be, but how does that fit with becoming a suburban husband with responsibilities to a new spouse and potential children? It was an added dimension that Bond doesn’t have, as he beds multiple women in every movie, and usually they don’t survive past a single film. On the other hand, it’s kind of like the problem Superman runs into as a character. How can you create suspense for a character who has almost no weaknesses? Give him someone he cares about who is completely dependent on him for protection. Michelle Monaghan’s Julia really isn’t given much to do to make her stand out as a hero’s significant other and kind of ends up being a diversion from the heroic action Ethan can take part in. The relationship isn’t anything special cinematically, and it feels like an excuse to make the hot opening rather than a substantial piece of the film.

The movie is at its best in its daring action scenes, as expected. The stunts are big and loud and though the audience knows all of Ethan’s plans will probably work, Abrams does a good job of setting them up to make the audience wonder how Ethan will pull them off. The giant swing from one skyscraper to another in China is particularly well-executed, as the tension continually escalates for the duration of the scene, with Ethan landing on a slanted glass roof and no way to stop gravity’s pull. But he, of course, manages to subvert all danger, survive, and achieve his goal. One thing Abrams has a handle on that he displays in all of his films: the man knows how to craft an action scene and go big with it.

The action is explosive, no question about that.

The action even has a “Star Wars” feel to it. The danger and the tension are there, but there’s also a great feeling of adventure, like in the afore-mentioned scene with the giant swing. Pulling off an unlikely plan where the hero even has to breathe a sigh of relief once he’s executed said plan, is the stuff “Star Wars” are made of.

There’s also a side conspiracy plot within Ethan’s own IMF group, that’s become typical in these espionage movies, which is poorly explained and executed and seems extraneous.

It’s a coup for a movie like “M:I III” to get a master actor like Hoffman to be the villain, as it opens up so many possibilities for director and actor alike to play around with. So, it’s unfortunate that Hoffman’s presence as the sadistic Owen Davian feels shortchanged. Hoffman’s quiet intensity is great for the opening scene opposite the wildly animated Cruise, but though he appears in a few other scenes, this is really the only time in movie where he gets to show off his skills. Putting this scene first allows the character’s terrifying nature to linger over the rest of the movie, but as the one terrible act he commits turns out to be a disappointing ruse, that defuses the effect. Though you don’t want the villain to overstay his welcome, committing cliche random acts of terror without them being substantial, if the audience is supposed to take him seriously as a villain, rather than just a bad guy-of-the-week for Ethan to beat, shouldn’t he have a stronger presence throughout the film?

There is a supporting cast, but they aren’t offered much opportunity to support.

“M:I III” has a talented cast any director would dream of, even though many of its members have much more renown now than they were a decade ago (it’s funny to see a young Aaron Paul’s brief appearance as Ethan’s brother). Lawrence Fishburne and Billy Crudup work well as Ethan’s bosses with questionable agendas. Fishburne gets in some great quips like, “It’s unacceptable that chocolate makes you fat, but I’ve eaten my share and guess what?” Keri Russell is enjoyable as Ethan’s protege agent. Ving Rhames, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and Maggie Q round out Ethan’s field crew. Simon Pegg is fun when he appears, and one of his monologues appears as though it was improvised. But it would have been fun to see more of him, and the same is true of most of the cast. In a way, it’s nice that Abrams has streamlined his movie, so no time is wasted giving each shallow character a quirk that their entire personality is based around, and the audience can accept that they’re necessary cogs in the machine. But even Ethan’s wife doesn’t really have any character of her own, and that makes it hard to see why Ethan would be so attached to her. It’s nice that the cast has diversity, but they’re all essentially pieces on a chessboard. You know their role in the game, but that’s all there is to them. It’s efficient filmmaking, but it’s kind of missing a personality that could have made it something more than a big collection of cool stunts.

“M:I III” finished at No. 14 in the 2006 box office, but the reviews got an uptick from the second installment. And the subsequent films pushed the “M:I” back up among the top blockbuster franchises in terms of popularity and anticipation. Certainly, Abrams’ involvement must have helped that. For “Star Wars” fans, there are some aspects of the movie that should make them excited, but there are others that might make them feel a bit nervous. Abrams is an excellent action director, which all of his movies can attest to. He’s willing to take chances, like with the opening scene of “M:I III.” But he falls into the trap many modern directors do, with twist-driven plotting. The twists in this movie make it feel like Abrams is trying to be too clever, and they cause the plot to unravel. “Star Wars” has always been a juggling act with lots of characters, and the original movies mostly focused on Luke and Vader, but also gave many of the secondary characters enough to do to give them their own personality and make them interesting. “The Force Awakens” will be reintroducing already existing characters and integrating them into a story about new ones, and that could prove a challenge. Even though “M:I III” fails on this front, Abrams’ subsequent movies would be a great success at this.

The potential was there for a fun movie with a lot of personality to go with the action, but although it is entertaining, it ultimately feels a bit hollow. From all the information that’s come out about “The Force Awakens,” it doesn’t seem like the case will be the same for that movie. But even if “Episode VII” does resemble “M:I III” more than “The Empire Strikes Back,” it will still offer moviegoers something closer to being worthy of the “Star Wars” name, much more than the prequels did.