Maybe I am growing out of my animated film loving stage. I'm finding myself bored with the environments created and feel that the originality in these films are lacking big time. Hell, even Pixar is rehashing old ideas in hopes that they can still be as magical as before. But maybe it's not just me, and maybe, just maybe, these animated movies just really fucking suck.
Take EPIC for example. Our main character M.K. (Amanda Seyfried) has daddy problems and is forced to move in with him after her mother dies. It's not like her dad beats or anything like that. No, the biggest problem with her dad (Jason Sudekis) is that people thinks he is crazy because he is a scientist that studies the Leafmen race.
We have officially ran out of ideas when we start calling a race "Leafmen."
But there are apparently such thing as Leafmen, and their goal is simple - protect the forest from Boggons, an evil race of creatures that shoot deadly arrows. The Leafmen army are all about teamwork, which is why one soldier, Nod (Josh Hutcherson) quits. This quite pisses off the Leafmen leader Ronin (Colin Farrell), who happens to be banging the queen of the forest, Queen Tara (Beyonce).
(SIDE NOTE: I wonder if Beyonce being queen has anything to do with some sort of Illuminati presence in the forest. Maybe the sequel.)
Queen Tara is about to choose the heir to her throne. The leaf pod she chooses will be her heir. This made no sense to me, but then again, the first thirty minutes is a lot to take in. However, the Boggins, led by SS-Colonel Hans Lan-I mean, Mandrake (Christoph Waltz) and his son Dagda (Blake Anderson) attack Queen Tara and the other Leafman. Tara dies, and magically falls on top of M.K., who's running away from home at the same time. M.K. finds this pod as well, and finds herself to have shrunk to Leafmen-size.
The hero's journey, as one might say, is supposed to be an epic-styled film, but nothing feels epic about EPIC. There are too many characters that add nothing to the story. Chris O'Dowd and Aziz Ansari play a snail and a slug that are the unfunniest characters in any animated film. Steven Tyler plays a glow-worm that keeps scrolls of things that happen. Pitbull plays a bullfrog, so I guess when he is trying to keep a party going, animated movies pay for his electric.
But how can a movie called EPIC feel epic when I'm not even sure the characters know that they only take up a small area of the forest? The script is so idiotic and boring that nothing even makes sense. I finally figured out the story a half-hour in, so I don't know how the hell a child is supposed to figure it out.
The characters in the film don't do anything to root for them. They're all know-it-all little fucking brats. There isn't even a funny joke in the script. I was surrounded by little children and they laughed so little that they actually left at the trailer for THE SMURFS 2 a lot more.
But EPIC's biggest problem is that, at times, it becomes a remake of AVATAR. The final fight scene looks like the Navi riding dragons. And to make matters worse? You barely see any of the fight scene. The film takes its weakest link, M.K., and tries to make her intro some kind of hero. There's even a scene when she kisses a Leafman.
Yeah, we might have ran out of originality, but I'd be the first in line to buy human-on-Leafman porn.
It confuses the hell out of me when someone says that something is a bad movie when they are able to put their full attention to the film and never be bored. Why is it bad? Because you don't like the characters, their intentions, or the people that they are? Or do you just not like the film because it's stupid? Or do you just not like the film because it isn't the way that you want it to be?
COMPLIANCE can easily fall under any of these three categories. Where I can easily say that this 90 minute movie doesn't really slack at all, it is quite hard to watch. At the end of the movie, my girlfriend turned to me and said that it was the worst movie that she has ever seen. I asked her why, due to how her eyes never left the screen the whole movie.
Look, you are not always going to like the characters and decisions they make. It's just life. When it is the filmmaker's intention for you to not like a character, like a movie villain or just an asshole who runs your favorite character off the road, you're not supposed to like them, so get over it. COMPLIANCE is full of unlikable characters, and even though it is a very hard movie to watch, it's an important movie and a reminder of just how stupid the world is.
COMPLIANCE tells the story of a fast-food joint that happens to get an unexpected phone call. The manager, Sandra (Ann Dowd), is already in a bad mood before this phone call because the employees aren't listening to her and someone left the fridge open the night before, destroying over $1000 dollars in food and products. But somebody is on the phone for Sandra - a police officer, as a matter of fact.
The police officer, who goes by the name of Officer Daniels (Pat Healy), is really just a prank caller who gets the whole fast-food joint in a bother when he says that an employee named Becky (Dreama Walker) stole money from a customer's purse. Due to Sandra's willingness to cooperate this official, she takes Becky into the back of the fast food restaurant and interrogates her by doing what the cop tells her to do over the phone - by going through her purse, taking her cell-phone, and eventually, stripping her of her clothes.
Now Sandra's character just happens to be a test subject for what seems to be the Milgram Experiment, where people would shock subjects who got a question wrong when asked. But instead of Sandra stepping back and thinking about how absurd this situation is, she just gives into every last thing the cop tells her to do. She even calls her fiancee (Bill Camp) to come in and watch her. When the cop tells him to smack her ass and force her to perform oral sex, of course, nobody thinks twice about it.
I can fully get behind what the director Craig Zobel was doing, or at least trying to do. For an hour and fifteen minutes, COMPLIANCE works as one of the most disturbing films that you will ever watch. It's hard to watch - and I'm guessing that is what Zobel was trying to do. However, I'm still trying to understand what Zobel means by the last fifteen minutes.
This isn't a complete spoiler, since it was based on a case from 2004. At the end of the film, the girl apparently admitted of going through with everything not because she was afraid, but because she felt like she had to. The fiancee doesn't talk to Sandra after that night because he knew he fucked up. And Sandra, who is a really well-thought out character up until this point, doesn't admit to her mistakes and makes us feel like we should pity her.
Sandra's character was always about obediance - obediance at the work place through her employees and obediance with the law. Yet, whenever she put someone in charge with the situation, such as her fiancee or another employee, every time they would mention how stupid it is, and every time she would snap at them and tell them to obey the law. Not that Sandra's character is completely likable, but probably the most humane - she is just as much of a victim as Becky is.
However, Sandra admits to an interviewer (Jeffery Grover) that she don't feel like she should be in trouble with this situation, due to her being victimized and lied to. I'm not sure what Zobel is really trying to say - should we pity this poor woman, or should we laugh at her at how stupid she is? At any time she could have called the fast-food's supervisor, or the real police, or just hang up the phone. Because honestly, what cop calls on the phone?
And like the film reminds us with the title card at the end of the movie, stories like the one in COMPLIANCE happen all the time and there have been over 70 of these cases reported. So should we feel bad for everybody involved? Or should we just fucking laugh at these fools?
In the way, the thesis statement to COMPLIANCE feels like that Zobel is just trying to tell us that he thinks people are really fucking stupid, and maybe that's true. But then shouldn't COMPLIANCE be a metaphor as to what people really think about this film?
I'm sure as hell not going to be watching COMPLIANCE again, not because I didn't like it, but because I don't need to. One viewing is enough for me. It's not going to end up on any top ten list and Zobel isn't going to be the Jesus Christ of cinema. However, if COMPLIANCE serves that purpose as to a one-watch wonder, I can dig that. Like all of the REQUIEM FOR A DREAMs, the CLOCKWORK ORANGEs, and UN CHIEN ANDALOUs, COMPLIANCE just fits in there, but we really don't need to think about it anymore than what we just did.
It should be no surprise to anybody reading this blog that I love movies, but some people might not know that I'm trying to make movies as well. It's just one of those things that I have always wanted to do, but it's just a pain in the ass. Something tells me that to put in the work needed to succeed in my plan may become impossible, but I got faith in our lord and savior Steven Soderbergh.
Oh wait, Steven Soderbergh retired? So who am I going to look for inspiration now?
Yes, due to Steven Soderbergh's new career as a painter, there is one less filmmaker making movies. This, as sad as it sounds, can be a good thing. It paves room for more talent. Not saying that I will be that new talent, but I can sure as hell try, right? But here are a few things that are going to make me a better movie lover, a better filmmaker, and a better person in general.
1. Watch more movies - This one should be obvious. I love movies and I don't want to ever stop loving movies. I watch a lot of movies as it is, but I never talk about them enough. I want to watch great movies. I want to be able to form a Top 500 list in my head without having to dig deep on what movies I'm in love with.
2. Watch more bad movies - Even the bad ones need love. What I'm proposing as to watching bad movies are not movies starring Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson working at Google, but movies that are so bad that they deserve their own special list. Every movie-watcher knows bad movies, but not every movie-watcher loves bad movies.
3. Analyze different directing techniques and trademarks - For film, a director's techniques and trademarks mean everything. I want to know every director's techniques. I don't want to be known as a hack filmmaker - I want to be a filmmaker who pays love to the movies he loves.
4. Watch more TV - This is kind of important, because TV shows are really movies that have a long narrative that are broken up into half-hour or hour segments that have to stay interesting. If you can't stay interesting for an hour and a half film, what makes you think you will be interesting for a 24-hour long episode season?
So here is what I propose - EyeGolb, while still writing reviews for brand new theatrical films, will be a place for my directorial an analysis. I composed a list of over 200 directors (no exaggeration) that I hope to be watching all of their films. I got a netflix account now so things make it a lot easier. I'll be watching every film that the directors put out, taking one director at a time (NOTE: Sometimes this may be difficult, due to availability of a certain film, so there may be two or three different directors spotlighted at one time.) and realizing what makes them great.
And while I'm at it, I'll be reviewing more films that I've seen, but I'm going to make a special point to review some bad films. This will probably start on Monday, and make a feature out of it. B-Movie Monday, I like the sound of it. And even more while I'm at it, I'll be watching more TV - except I probably won't be reviewing any of it, unless if I find something that I really have to write about.
If there are any director requests, just send me a list. Lord knows I probably have them on my list, but the more the marrier. I put together a list of directors that I will be doing so far for my first ten. That list goes as follows.
1. Coen Brothers
2. Nolan
3. Soderbergh
4. Coscarelli
5. Von Trier
6. Jaramusch
7. Del Toro
8. Carpenter
9. D. Lynch
10. Spielberg
And yes, I will be reviewing Soderbergh's BEHIND THE CANDELABRA, but not for a while. But if you need any assurance, it is one of the best films of the year. Watch it.
The first Coen Brothers review will be published on either Saturday or Sunday (probably Sunday) - that being, BLOOD SIMPLE. The first B-Movie Monday review will be on Monday (of course) and the movie will be... wait for it... THE ROOM.
And you are going to get more reviews too. Look out for COMPLIANCE in the next few hours.
I am pissed off.
Since the turn of the 20th century, film has become the way of life. We watch movies not because it's the only thing to do, but because they provide an escape. We watch movies because we want to be entertained. During the Great Depression, we watched movies because they were cheap and a getaway. During the 50s, we watched movies because we were shown things we never saw before. During the 70s, we watched movies because suddenly there were things that were once frowned upon that suddenly became okay. During the 90s, we watched movies because of greats like Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, and later on, Paul Thomas Anderson.
But I don't know why we even watch movies anymore. 120+ years since the invention of cinema and we are finding old ideas to recycle and make them brand new. It's getting to the point where we just don't care. Filmmaking has become film business. When one of the great auteurs of cinema, Steven Soderbergh, is about to retire because it is getting too film business-y, you know there just isn't anything left in this god forsaken art-form.
I'll give THE HANGOVER props. The original film was something truly different. We were given three characters and watched them trace their steps to finding their best friend. Even though I don't find the movie that good, there are still moments of pure bliss that still keeps people talking to this day. And I don't think there have been closing credits that entertaining since.
THE HANGOVER PART II came out two years later and people hated it. Critics called it unoriginal. Suddenly the characters were unlikable, though I find it mind-blowing that people think they were unlikable all of the sudden. In the first one, didn't Bradley Cooper's character steal from little children, Ed Helm's character cheat on his fiancee, and Zach Galifianakis drug his best friends?
But guess what guys? The director, Todd Phillips, made bank off the first one. He asked for a share in the movie's profits instead of a director salary. The movie became an unexpected hit, but no one knew what he was doing except for Todd Phillips himself - he was ripping you off. We should be ashamed that we let it get to this point, because two movies later, he really proves he doesn't give a fuck about these characters and their situations - he just gets his paycheck.
And this installment of THE HANGOVER PART III is just as bad as PART II. Our characters are faced in a situation that is just as ridiculous as the other two, yet everything is lazier. The characters haven't changed. They're still unlikable. They still do stupid stuff. And guess what?
NOBODY IS HUNGOVER.
How about that for marketing? THE HANGOVER PART III is false advertising. The title promises you that you are going to get to see something similar to the first film, which was the reason why you are seeing PART III in the first place, right? It just so happens that aside from a casual scene drinking beer at a Tijuana Bar, nobody even drinks in this fucking movie.
Imagine that - a HANGOVER movie that barely has any drinking. It sounds like a, what's that? Quick cash-grab?
I'd go on about the plot, but basically, suddenly Alan's (Zach Galifianakis) family members are getting worried about their son being a 42 year old retard. When Alan's dad dies (Jeffery Tambor), their family is faced with many questions - did he leave because he had to film the next season of ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT, or did he just stay so he can get his paycheck?
And suddenly, there is this idea that Alan needs to go to this place to make him better. There is no idea what this place is - it's just a happy place where people go to feel happy. I'm calling bullshit because there is nothing different in this movie that Alan doesn't do in this movie. But then again, I'm not the one writing it. But if you guys even think about considering to criticize the STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS script and give this one a free pass, you guys should hand in your film-lovers card.
So the Wolf-Pack (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha, who is also collecting a paycheck) go to take Alan to this happy place and are ran off the road by a bunch of people in masks. Their leader (John Goodman, who neither hurts nor helps the film) and Black Doug (HOLY SHIT IT'S BLACK DOUG! Mike Epps) are looking for Chow (Ken Jeong), who just recently escaped from prison. Goodman takes Doug as collateral until the Wolf-Gang can find Chow and return him to Goodman and the gang.
Aside from the stupid plot, there is almost nothing the film does to add any kind of enjoyment. There are really stupid jokes that Galifianakis still tries to make and Bradley Cooper trying to be Bradley Cooper. Mike Epps and Heather Graham return to their old roles from the first one and it's so good to have them back - for a paycheck, I mean. And there is a scene that is so goddamn stupid in a police station that I can't even figure out the point of it.
The only huge difference from this one is that Galifianakis is given a love interest with Melissa McCarthy, and since McCarthy hasn't done anything good since BRIDESMAIDS, I'll just come out and say that she is here for the paycheck too. Her introduction is probably one of the worst scenes in the movie, yet who am I to judge? I'm not getting paid to write the script nor the review.
And Ken Jeong, who I do like, really lets me down. I'm not sure how much is scripted and how much is improvised, but Jeong is really just on the screen to try and come off as stupid and crazy as Galifianakis's character. Yet everything he says is just a bunch of shit. And for some reason, whoever handled the music with this idea thought it was a good idea for him to rape Johnny Cash's cover of Nine Inch Nails's HURT.
The product placement in this movie is insane. It's like one big ad for everything cool. Alan listens to music with his Beats by Dre headphones as his father dies of a heart attack. The World's Most Interesting Man is getting a hulky paycheck as well with all of the Dos Equis bottles that are drank in the film. And Chow really makes cocaine look cool, but of course, we didn't need product placement to tell us that.
Even at the end of the movie, when the characters are walking and all of the sudden we get flashbacks to when the Wolf Pack was first formed to the present day, it feels like the writers don't care about it anymore. They're not likable. None of them have changed. They're still the same characters. It is completely offensive to film fans. We invested time and money into seeing these characters grow, but I watched my hair grow faster than these assholes do.
Would I call Todd Phillips a genius? Not in a million years. Let's not forget he didn't write THE HANGOVER (part 1). He took over the writing for the second and third and was able to make everything so much more lazy. To explain how much he owes to his characters, he made fifty million off of the first movie alone. And he even stated in an interview how much he don't care about the bad reviews.
This is the film business guys. They don't call it business for nothing. There is money to be made, and it is all of our faults. It's my fault. It's your fault. It is Hot Topic's fault for selling HANGOVER shirts. We have ruined good comedy, funny comedy, and good cinema all together. We threw it all away, all for a film that makes bad Jewish jokes and kills animals.
THE HANGOVER PART III is going to blow the house down, while MUD just sits in a movie theater waiting for your attention.
Do you remember the days when it used to be cool to hate on THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS movies? If you liked the series, people frowned at you. I liked the first two films - and not too many other people do. Then the third one apparently changed everybody else's minds - including mine, because that was the first one I didn't really like. I didn't bother with the fourth one - even to this day, I still haven't seen it.
But FAST FIVE kind of impressed everyone, even myself. It wasn't just a movie about fast cars and criminals - it was fucking fun. The cast looked like they were having the time of their lives. FAST FIVE was so good that I even consider it as being one of the best films of 2011. But FAST AND FURIOUS 6, or FURIOUS 6 as it is called in the credits, blows FAST FIVE out of the water.
FURIOUS 6 is the definition of a true summer blockbuster. There are likable characters, exciting action pieces, and a really fast pace. The two hour movie didn't feel like it at all. FURIOUS 6 is kind of that puppy that you want to adopt and nuture it - it really loves you. It doesn't want you to stop petting it. Justin Lin, even though he didn't blow me away before, has put together two great films that stand on their own.
The film begins with Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Brian (Paul Walker) racing to get to their hideaway as Brian's girlfriend Mia (Jordana Brewster) is about to have her child. Before Brian walks in the door, Toretto reminds Brian that he is bringing another member into the family. If you need any reminders, these movies are all about the family. Unlike THE HANGOVER III where everybody hates each other, these characters just saying the word 'family' makes us love them so much more.
Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) has been investigating a group of criminals who have been stirring trouble around the world, led by a former Special Agents officer Owen Shaw (Luke Evans). Hobbs comes to Toretto asking if he can help Hobbs put together a team (or "family") that can help bring him behind bars. The kicker to all of this? Shaw's henchman happens to be Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), Toretto's old girlfriend who was thought to have been killed in the fourth movie. Hobbs promises the team that if they can capture the crew, he can get them all pardons and allow them to live their lives in freedom.
So as you can tell, there is little actual plot to this one. What we are watching are action pieces set around character development. All of these characters throughout this movie mature just a little bit. Brian begins to realize the meaning of family. Han (Sung Kang) finds love in Gisele (Gal Gadot). Roman and Tej (Tyrese and Ludacris, respectively) are still doing their thing and living large - but do big things with their money. And these are all characters are a lot of fun to be around.
None are more fun than the action sequences however. There aren't any cop-outs in this film. We get an awesome action sequence that takes place through the streets of England, a girl-fight between Michelle Rodriguez and Gina Carano (yes, that one), and a really awesome scene that takes place on a highway. There is even a scene where Han and Roman have to fight Joe Taslim, who if you don't remember kicked some serious ass in THE RAID.
I mean they got Joe Taslim to star in this movie. This movie has such a kickass action cast that only Sylvester Stallone can get a better gang together.
Unlike FAST FIVE, you should probably go into this movie with good knowledge of the other ones. The movie brings back a lot of stuff from the third and the fourth one, but even the montage at the beginning of the movie tries to catch you up. And even if you are a FAST AND FURIOUS apologist, it feels good to watch that. These are characters that should stay close to our hearts, and a montage containing all of their finest moments is just soothing.
It is almost impossible to review FURIOUS SIX. It's a lot of fun, but what else can you say about it? It's just characters you love to be around. Sure, they all have faults. But it's like being with your best friends. It's like Justin Lin watched MIAMI CONNECTION fifty times and discovered the meaning of friendship. And I'm in full approval.
In the history of horror films, I don't think there has been a franchise raped like the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE franchise. The original film was made back in 1974, followed by a sequel twelve years later. Then there was a third and a fourth that no one really cares about, but only the true horror fans remember that the fourth one starred Renee Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey. Never forget.
I'm not the hugest fan of the franchise, but I can respect it. And when it was remade back in 2003 with Jessica Biel and the chick from BLAIR WITCH 2, I thought it was a decent remake. There's a lot wrong with it, but I can dig it as a horror flick. Then the "prequel" to the remake came out in 2006, and this film was released just this year. I'm a little bit late to the parade, but you guys will understand that it isn't necessarily a bad thing to be late to this one.
TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D has a really misconstrued timeline. The opening scene takes place right after the original 1974 film ends, then jumps ahead 20 years in time where suddenly everybody has iPhones. It completely abandons what happened in TCM 2, 3, and 4, but they consider this part of the remake's series. I think. I don't know. They really raped this franchise.
But the timeline is the least of the problems. TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D is a poor excuse for a sequel. The script is truly terrible, the editing is awful, and the cast is extremely horrendous. Not only that, but the kills are so fucking uninspired. Everything about this movie is uninspired. If you can take anything from TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D, anybody can make a movie, no matter how bad it is.
Like I said, TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D begins with flashback scenes of Gunnar Hansen trying to kill people from the original film. Sadly, this is as scary as this film gets. But Hansen gets his paycheck anyway, because he plays Boss Sawyer. The opening scene takes place right after the 1974 film ends, and Sheriff Hooper (Thom Barry) is trying to tell the Sawyers to release Leatherface (Dan Yeager) to the police. A few hoodlums, led by the mayor Burt Hartman (Paul Rae) burns down the house with everybody inside.
Then one of the townspeople (David Born) find one of the Sawyers outside holding a young baby. He takes the baby and murders her mother, and raises the baby. In this time, nobody notices that all of the sudden he has a baby. But in twenty years time, Heather Miller (Alexandra Daddario) has gone from being a redneck sack-of-shit defenseless baby to a sexy chick.
Heather gets a letter in the mail saying that her grandmother has died and left her a huge fortune that she has to travel to Texas to retrieve. She gets into a hissy fit with her parents over never telling her that she was adopted. Her parents apologize, blaming a destroyed uterus. No seriously, they do. And that's only one of the bits of screenwriting that is terrible.
Anyway, Heather, her boyfriend Ryan (Trey Songz), her friends Carl (Scott Eastwood) and Nikki (Tani Raymonde), and this hitchhiker they accidentally hit with their car named Darryl (Shaun Sipos) go to get this fortune, which ends up being a huge mansion with a grave yard, a pool table, and a letter that gets ignored. When everybody goes out into the town to get steaks, Darryl decides to ransack the house of candles and silverware. The clan comes back, and Darryl's not there. They don't realize he is in the basement getting chopped up by Leatherface, who occupies the bottom floor.
And everybody else succumbs to the wrath of Leatherface. So when Heather escapes finally into a carnival, Leatherface ignores everybody running past him and just keeps his eyes on her. The police are able to get him away, yet Heather is soon to realize that the Mayor gets word of this situation and puts together a crew to execute Leatherface and the rest of his family. The rest of his family = Heather, who is revealed to be Leatherface's long lost cousin.
To be frank, there really isn't a moment in TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D that is interesting. The characters are really unlikable and dumb. All of the movie could have really been avoided if the letter was read, but I guess a horror movie wouldn't be a horror movie without dumb choices. TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D then dives into some poor subplots, including one where Ryan is cheating on Heather with her best friend Nikki. It never gets resolved and is kind of useless.
Then there is the change of the plot, which is completely ridiculous. All of the sudden, Heather has to make a choice between siding with the police and the Mayor or helping out her blood relative, who killed all of her friends and her cheating boyfriend, but that's not important at all. The aforementioned carnival scene too is probably the WORST scene ever in a TEXAS CHAINSAW movie. This is including the one in which Matthew McConaughey screams, "Welcome to my world!"
I watched the film in 2D, so I can't really compliment or hate on the 3D. But from what I could tell just from watching the 2D film is that a lot of the scenes were shot using the 3D gimmick. The shots include the obligatory chainsaw coming through the screen and things being thrown. If you're a fan of ducking at a chainsaw coming at you, get the 3D version.
The cast is a bunch of untalented actors, and that is putting it nicely. The lead actress Alexandra Daddario is beautiful, but is a terrible actress. Unfortunately, the filmmakers have lowered their standards on trying to show her titties. Scott Eastwood doesn't die soon enough and Tania Raymonde, who played Alex Rousseau in LOST, features a similar fate that her character did in the television show. And Trey Songz is as good as an actor as he is an artist. Hint: He is a terrible artist.
By the way, the soundtrack is pretty uninspired as well. Trey Songz plays pool to a Trey Songz song. I can't make this shit up.
The TEXAS CHAINSAW franchise is a place now where horror movie ideas go to die. TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D is no exception. I could live the rest of my life never watching a sequel to these films ever again, but there will be more made. In a few more years, I expect to see the sequel to this film, and I can only hope that TEXAS CHAINSAW 3D 2 features Chris Brown getting slashed.
STAR TREK (2009) was one of the most pleasant surprises of that year. J.J. Abrams brought together an amazing cast that had great chemistry with one another and was able to make a great science-fiction movie. There are a few problems with it - the time travel stuff is a bit confusing and the script is a little dumb at times, but it is fucking tons of fun. It was nominated for Best Picture that year for a reason, you know?
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is a different story.
Let's get this out of the way. I really enjoyed STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. It is a lot of fun for what it's worth, and like the original, the cast really does an awesome job with what they are given. There are tons of great moments in the film and the 3D is actually very good (especially in the first scene). That being said...
I feel bad for J.J. Abrams. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, with its terrible title and all of that bad stuff, could have been a much better movie, film-wise. J.J. Abrams does a better job with each film he directs. He brought the lens flare down a little bit, constructed a few better action beats, and still made it as fun as what a science fiction film should be.
But there are tons of faults with STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, and every single fault is attributed to the terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE script. The film, written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, has so many problems with it that I'm not sure where to begin. It's fun, but I really wish there was a better film behind it.
STOP RIGHT HERE! If you do not want to be spoiled, don't go any further than this until you see the movie. Or, if you were like every other person online and knew a certain reveal, then continue on.
The movie opens up with the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise trying to save a planet in the galaxy. Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) has to rescue Spock (Zachary Quinto) before he dies in a volcano, revealing their cover. This scene is one of the highlights of the film, and looks fucking stunning in 3D. I am not sure what is a better opening scene - this one or the opening of the previous film.
Anyway, Captain Kirk gets demoted to first officer for breaking protocal and Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) assumes the Captain's chair again. Spock is transferred to a different crew as well, but it is quickly forgotten about after a suicide bombing takes place in England. When an emergency meeting takes place, Kirk realizes that the man behind this attack - John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a former Starfleet officer gone rogue - is about to attack at the meeting. But it's too late - he shoots the place up and gets away, but not before killing Pike. Kirk swears his revenge against Harrison, and word is that he is on the unoccupied Klingon planet Qo'nos.
This is at the point where the film goes from great to just good.
Before I go ahead and discuss any more of the plot, I should mention a few things that most people should know if they haven't been hiding under a rock. The writers of the film have worked on many projects before this movie. Roberto Orci, when he isn't screaming "False Flag" on Twitter, wrote the first two TRANSFORMERS movies, along with Alex Kurtzman, who directed PEOPLE LIKE US last year. I never bothered seeing it because it looked like I would just be wasting my time.
Damon Lindelof, however, is an even bigger name. Outside of being credited as the one to ruin PROMETHEUS (which, on a side note, was ruined to begin with), most people attribute him as to completely destroying the sixth season of LOST. He wrote the final episode of that show and the episode that is known to EVERYBODY as the worst episode of LOST ever, titled ACROSS THE SEA.
Lindelof has explained through interviews and interviews on why he had to write ACROSS THE SEA into the television show. In the third-to-last episode of the show's run, we get backstory into two characters that mean something to the TV show, but then we get backstory into this glowing cave that was never shown on the TV show before. And in the final episode of LOST, our main character, played by Matthew Fox, has to arrive at this glowing cave and save the island.
Remember all of this...
Back to STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, the crew gets aboard on the U.S.S. Enterprise to go to Qo'nos (which is spelled wrong in the film, as Kronos). It is all of the same crew as the first time, with the exception being Carol (Alice Eve), the daughter of Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller). Oh, and Scotty (Simon Pegg), who is the only sensible one on the ship who realizes that the 72 torpedoes they brought onto their ship to bomb the shit out of Qo'nos with can possibly take down their ship as well. He quits when Kirk doesn't listen to him.
The villain John Harrison, after they pick him up at Qo'nos, happens to reveal himself as Khan. Someone thinks that revealing Khan as a villain is spoiler territory, and it really isn't. One, if you have gone on the internet in the last year and a half, you would have realized it. Two, it happens not even halfway through the movie. It's not a plot twist - it's a character. And the character has back-story. He goes into it, but all of his back-story is ignored later in the movie.
I am choosing not to go into the back-story because it is unnecessary. But I am nitpicking not just this scene, but maybe four or five scenes. There are quite a few moments where characters need to explain their actions in words. Khan explains his backstory. Admiral Marcus has an explanation for the crew that shows that he is just as much of a bad guy as Khan is. Spock calls Old Spock and asks him how he defeated Khan back in the old days. Seriously that happened. And people clapped.
This is probably all of Damon Lindelof's doing. Laziness, pure laziness. I call it the ACROSS THE SEA-equation. And I know that there are some ways that you just can't get by explanations, but at least limit it down to 1 or 2.
I'm not going to spoil any more of the film except there is a scene that Kirk has to save the spaceship by going out of his way and doing something without anyone else knowing about it and being able to stop him. This almost entirely mimics what Matthew Fox did in the final episode of LOST, which, as you remember what I just told you, was written by Lindelof. Lindelof precisely plagarized himself.
There are few other nitpicks here, but I do have a feeling that Paramount and Bad Robot really rushed this film. It has been four years since the last one, which don't seem like it should have been rushed. I know that they probably wanted to make the best TREK film they could, but ultimately, it is just a fun popcorn flick, nothing more.
And from the way I keep on talking about STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, you would think that I really dislike it. However, I do like it. Plausibility and script is terrible, but I actually think there are some very solid moments in this film. The opening scene is quite brilliant as mentioned. There is a scene where Khan and Kirk work together and invade a different ship by flying through outer-space using some sort of jet-packs or something like it that is really fun to watch. And to see Spock take command of the ship in a couple of scenes is tons of fun.
I have a feeling that a lot of what happens in this film is going to make a lot of Trekkies mad. It's a shame because there is still a lot going for it, especially when it comes to the cast. The cast probably understood how bad of a script it was, but they really do stand out in this film. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto work really well together chemistry-wise, just about as good as Shatner and Nemoy did together. Karl Urban is a lot of fun to watch again, and I'm wondering why Simon Pegg doesn't have a role in every film ever made.
Because of different stakes, a lot of characters don't see the screen as much. Zoe Saldana's Uhara has one moment when she is able to shine, but doesn't get as much playing time as she did in the last one. The same goes for John Cho and Anton Yelchin, and unfortunately, they could have been used in a couple of scenes that would have made the film more enjoyable.
But let's discuss Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays Khan/John Harrison/Spoiler. He has quite the potential for playing a truly evil villain, but given what we have seen of him in this movie (probably due to the script), he isn't given the chance on truly getting his moment to shine as a bad guy. I know that Cumberbatch has a following through BBC's SHERLOCK, but it's a shame that people are going to look at him as just another STAR TREK villain and not KHAN.
However, as much as I kill it, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is fun to watch. It isn't as dark as the terrible title suggests, but it is an enjoyable film. Trekkies might hate it, and science-fiction geeks may disagree with a lot of this, but for a summer movie, it's not terrible. It could be a lot worst, but sadly, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS could be a lot better.
Maybe I am growing out of my animated film loving stage. I'm finding myself bored with the environments created and feel that the originality in these films are lacking big time. Hell, even Pixar is rehashing old ideas in hopes that they can still be as magical as before. But maybe it's not just me, and maybe, just maybe, these animated movies just really fucking suck.
The hero's journey, as one might say, is supposed to be an epic-styled film, but nothing feels epic about EPIC. There are too many characters that add nothing to the story. Chris O'Dowd and Aziz Ansari play a snail and a slug that are the unfunniest characters in any animated film. Steven Tyler plays a glow-worm that keeps scrolls of things that happen. Pitbull plays a bullfrog, so I guess when he is trying to keep a party going, animated movies pay for his electric.
