The Sad Descent of M. Night Shyamalan

Formerly promising director M. Night Shyamalan's newest feature film, AFTER EARTH, opens in theaters nationwide on May 31st.  When his mega-hit thriller THE SIXTH SENSE was released in 1999, his became a household name, this on only his second feature, following his little-seen debut family comedy, WIDE AWAKE.  THE SIXTH SENSE was the second highest-grossing film of 1999, next only to box office juggernaut STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, grossing a massive $672.8 million worldwide to become the #1 thriller of all time, at the time, and also garnered six nominations (do you think they planned that?) at the Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Haley Joel Osment), Best Supporting Actress (Toni Colette), as well as Best Director and Best Original Screenplay nominations for Shyamalan specifically.  With subsequent films like UNBREAKABLE and SIGNS, Shyamalan's name became synonymous with the thriller genre; now it's basically synonymous with 'suck'.  Where trailers and posters used to proudly declare, "An M. Night Shyamalan Picture," or "From director M. Night Shyamalan," such bragging rights are not to be found on advertisements for AFTER EARTH.  Instead, one must read through the credits at the bottom of a theatrical poster or those that flash in the final seconds of a preview to see an ordinary, union-mandated, "Directed By M. Night Shyamalan".  To see what happened, one only needs to examine the RottenTomatoes.com "Tomatometers" (what percentage of critics reviewed the film positively) of his films from THE SIXTH SENSE since, or even, if read informatively, the box office grosses.

THE SIXTH SENSE
Year: 1999 / Rating: PG-13 / Budget: $40 million / Domestic Gross: $293.5 million / Worldwide Gross: $672.8 million
Tomatometer: 85%
Granted, it gets a little bit schlocky in spots, but it makes up for it by being way damn creepy, emotionally intense, and, in the end, emotionally satisfying.  Maybe it's because I first saw it on television, with some deleted and alternate scene cut back in, but I prefer that cut, especially the last shot of Dr. Malcolm (Bruce Willis) in the wedding video.  Ah, but I know for many that would have been too sentimental.

UNBREAKABLE
Year: 2000 / Rating: PG-13 / Budget: $75 million / Domestic Gross: $95 million / Worldwide Gross: $248.1 million
Tomatometer: 68%
Most people seem to forget about this one; an original real-world twist on superheroes, about a year and a half before the sub-genre boomed with SPIDER-MAN (2002), which starred Bruce Willis as a only moderately super-powered man, all but indestructible, who is pressured into taking on the mantle of a crime-fighting vigilante by comics art salesman (Samuel L. Jackson) with abnormally brittle bones.  There is a twist ending, but it's of a very different sort than Shyamalan's other films.  It's a solid, and very interesting movie with strong cult likability.

"More powerful than all the other passengers in a speeding locomotive..."  I guess you kind of have to have seen the movie.

SIGNS
Year: 2002 / Rating: PG-13 / Budget: $72 million / Domestic Gross: $227.9 million / Worldwide Gross: $408 million
Tomatometer: 74%
Shyamalan's writing starts to get real shaky with this movie, although he still nails atmospheric intensity and nails most of the visuals.  By the time you realize though, that this supposedly advanced race of extra-terrestrials, for whom water is like acid, are invading a planet with over two-thirds of its surface covered in the stuff, plus all that moisture hanging around in the air, it really falls apart.  Nor does it help to have those annoyingly contrived moments with Abigail Breslin pointing at stuff and being weird while Rory Culkin spouts conspiracy theories.  Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix, a couple of the oddest ducks in the business, have strong chemistry playing a pair of brothers, though.

THE VILLAGE
Year: 2004 / Rating: PG-13 / Budget: $60 million / Domestic Gross: $114 million / Worldwide Gross: $256.6 million
Tomatometer: 43%
The Shyamalan formula crumbles with his fifth film (his fourth thriller), yet another supernatural thriller about facing fears and such, with a twist ending, only this time, the twist felt a lot more like a cop-out.  The film was structurally sloppy, overly grim and unpleasant, although it really did have a very good visual aesthetic.  It was less expensive than his films since THE SIXTH SENSE and very successful, but it broke the illusion that Shyamalan's previous work had unsteadily held upright.


LADY IN THE WATER
Year: 2006 / Rating: PG-13 / Budget: $70 million / Domestic Gross: $42.2 million / Worldwide Gross: $72.7 million
Tomatometer: 24%
Right, well this is where things had clearly gone very wrong.  Everything about this movie was just so very wrong.  Reportedly, Shyamalan took the story from a bedtime story that he had made up for his kids, and honestly, that's not surprising in the least.  It's about an apartment complex's handyman who rescues a "Narf" named Story from a vicious "Scrunt" (basically a wolf made of grass).  She's magical or something and now the handyman has to help Story get back to her home in "The Blue World".  Who in the hell greenlit this for production?!  And for $70 million?!  To prove how great he is, Shyamalan plays a supporting role as a noble writer who writes a book that will change the world, while he has another character in the mix who's a snotty film critic who gets eaten by a Scrunt, just in case you weren't clear as to how Shyamalan feels about those who criticize his work.  That kind of spitefulness is can rarely be mistaken for honest talent.  Financially, the relatively-moderately budgeted (for a summer film) fantasy was a big disappointment, barely making back the production costs, to say nothing of the marketing and distribution.

THE HAPPENING
Year: 2008 / Rating: R / Budget: $48 million / Domestic Gross: $64.5 million / Worldwide Gross: $164.3 million
Tomatometer: 17%

That's a guy... getting his arms bitten off... by a lioness.

I have not seen this movie, although reading this really makes me want to: http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/awfully-good-50.  Otherwise, Shyamalan clearly took a drop in budget after the disappointing intake on LADY IN THE WATER, but this film was also much more successful financially, even with the steep drop in both audience and critic approval.  It's main advertising point was that it was the first R-rated movie from the director of THE SIXTH SENSE; not exactly a promising point to base your marketing on.

THE LAST AIRBENDER
Year: 2010 / Rating: PG / Budget: $150 million / Domestic Gross: $131.7 million / Worldwide Gross: $319.7 million
Tomatomer: 6%
Previously titled AVATAR: THE LAST AIRBENDER, but changed to avoid confusion with James Cameron's recent mega-hit, AVATAR, this action/fantasy film, based on a popular Nickelodeon anime cartoon, was the one that put the nail in the coffin which Shyamalan had been laying in since LADY IN THE WATER.  To take on his first adaptation, Paramount gave Shyamalan a summer blockbuster's budget of $150 million, but it could only manage $131.7 million in the United States.  Unfortunately, yet again, the international market sacrificed quality in exchange for a 3D gimmick (thanks a lot!), so the film was ultimately a moderate financial success.  On the other hand, it's become a punchline for bad movies, and is widely considered one of the most disappointing movies in recent years, proving that Shyamalan wasn't only washed up in the field of thrillers.

After driving his reputation into the ground, Shyamalan has taken on someone else's story for the first time, and is sharing screenwriting credit with Gary Whitta, a writer for video games.  The story is Will Smith's, the gimmick is that Will Smith is starring with his real-life son, Jaden, and their characters are named Cypher Raige and Kitai Raige, respectively.  Basically, it's about Jaden Smith trying to look cool and fighting CGI monsters, not unlike real life.

You know that really annoying stage that male child actors go through, where they don't want to be cute anymore, so they aim for "badass" but miss completely and wind up in "kinda douche-y" territory?  Yeah, that's kind of where Jaden Smith is at right now.

REVIEW: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS: SPOILER EDITION

Presuming the purpose of a film review is to act as a sort of consumer guide/advisory, what then could possibly be the point of a "spoiler" film review?  After all, you probably don't want to be reading the spoilers before you've seen the film, and if you've already seen it, then why have a guide for what to expect?  In actuality, a spoiler review is closer to an analytical essay than a review, and that can be beneficial to stirring an internal dialogue.  Anyway, if you have not seen STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS yet, I do not advise that you read this essay as plot twists and undisclosed details will be discussed at length; you have been forewarned.  If you have seen STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, hit the jump:

Kirk, Kirking off.

What I have to say will very likely rile the so-called Trekkies, or Trekkers, and even a lot of movie fans, but I think for many others, it may make my opinions more accessible.  I am not a Star Trek fan, or rather, I'm not a Trekkie, or whatever they call themselves; I've never seen a full episode of the television show, because even just ten minutes of it is so campy and so boring that it just bounces right off of me.  Of the movies, I've seen STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME, large portions of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, and bits and pieces of the "Next Generation" films.  I've enjoyed just about none of it.  I think it's telling that, for a film series that's been around since 1979, up until 2009, the highest grossing of those films had been about going back in time to save the humpback whales.  Then, in 2009, the slightly confusingly titled STAR TREK was released as a "re-boot" under the guiding hand of J.J. Abrams, and the result was astounding.  STAR TREK was a rapturous movie-watching experience; thoroughly entertaining with thrilling action, bizarre humor, interesting characters and strong emotions.
With the release of the teaser trailer last winter for STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, speculation exploded over whether Benedict Cumberbatch's villain, "John Harrison", was in fact, Khan, but the filmmakers vehemently denied this, insisting that he was an original character.  Not many fans seemed to believe them, and in the end, Cumberbatch is Khan.  Admittedly, I was doubtful, so when it was confirmed in the film, I think I was one of the few to be surprised.

Benedict Cumberbatch is...Khan?  Yes, Khan.  He's so wrathful.

 With Abrams' re-imagining of Khan, I've heard a lot of talk about THE WRATH OF KHAN having been
such a great film and Khan being a great, definitive Star Trek villain.  Honestly, I am completely oblivious to this sentiment.  I can understand the fan appreciation of the retrospection between the aging characters in WRATH OF KHAN, but that's about as far as I can go.  It's such a campy film, and Spock's sacrifice notwithstanding, barely registering in emotion.  Yeah, yeah, I know that the restraint and subtlety is admirable and all, but frankly, I tend to prefer a more emotionally direct approach in film, and that just my taste.  Nor can I take Ricardo Montalban as a serious threat.  Despite the bit of protest that's been made at having the pasty white Brit Cumberbatch as Khan, who's meant to be an Indian Sheik, Montalban offered no allusions to Indian heritage either.  His thick Mexican accent translated to camp as he spoke his threats with no menace at all.  Of course it's all subjective, and I respect that, but I think THE WRATH OF KHAN is mostly boring and a little silly.
As such, I didn't register STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS as having a legacy to live up to, at least, not beyond the expectations set by its 2009 predecessor.  Unfortunately, it doesn't quite reach that height, although it's only a few steps behind.

Zoe Saldana: Action Pose

  Interestingly, while the Khan "secret" was hardly a huge surprise, there was another villain, perhaps an even more significant villain, who was not speculated on in the least, that being Robocop himself, Peter Weller, as Admiral Marcus, a sort of W. Bush Administration allegory (as the filmmakers have specified in interviews).  Marcus is a veteran of Starfleet, but after intergalactic threats, perceived or actual, have increased, particularly with the Klingon homeworld, he has been weaponizing Starfleet for a preemptive war.
In our post-9/11 world, the popularity of terrorists as villains and skepticism of security measures in cinema has skyrocketed, most significantly with 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT, although, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS doesn't take us as far into the "darkness" as the title suggests.  I suppose it's probably a bit darker than STAR TREK was, but the typical "dark sequel" involves a major death or other such loss to the protagonists, whereas INTO DARKNESS ends on a strongly reassuring note, one that leaves its successor with minimal cleanup.  There's been some talk regarding the twist on WRATH OF KHAN's emotional climax in which Spock sacrificed himself for the crew, but in INTO DARKNESS, the roles have been switched around, with Kirk fixing the Enterprise's reactor core and, in this case, more or less dying.  Nerd quibbles aside about how Spock was able to stand the radiation long enough to fix the core because he was a physically superior Vulcan (honestly, why can't we just assume that in this case, there isn't as much radiation as in KHAN?), the decision to revive Kirk before the film's end, as opposed to WRATH OF KHAN, at the end of which, Spock remained dead, it a little questionable.  But I would say only just a little, because we all know he would be brought back in the next film, but this way it's cleaner and more contained, and I don't think it mitigates the effect of his "death".  I must admit that at first, I was a little irked by the revelation that Khan's blood would heal Kirk, before I realized that that point had already been made early in the film in Khan's first scene, but in which I hadn't realized at first that Khan had used his blood to heal a little girl.  I'd just taken it as Khan had healed her by whatever way and then put that aside.  But nah, if they have that fact set up, especially from so early on, I'd say it's reasonable.

Zachary Quinto as Spock.  I bet that smells lovely.

 In terms of the actual scene of Kirk's sacrifice, I happen to love it, and at the risk of only infuriating a large number of Star Trek fans and movie buffs, I just did not get what I assume was the desired emotional effect from the similar scene in WRATH OF KHAN.  WRATH OF KHAN, and other Trek of that era, is so coy about emotion, and the merits of emotional restraint aside, it feels like going through the motions, not in terms of writing, but of execution.  Okay, now that your minds are convulsing with fiery rage at my disrespect, I was rather moved by the variation in INTO DARKNESS.  Michael Giacchino's (one of the finest composers working in film) subtle and wrenching piano score accompanies Kirk's and Spock's moments separated by glass, as Kirk faces the unknown fearfully, and Spock crumbles helplessly.  On the part of Kirk, too often do our heroes face death with inhuman coolness and nobility, but to have Kirk tell Spock, "I'm scared," as he's dying, hits a lot closer to home, and I believe, is a much more beautiful scene.  In terms of Spock, there is some reluctance to accept his new, more sensitive aspects and his yelling, "KHAN!" but I much prefer this more human Spock.  The original Spock was a very alien sense of logic, which is fine and all, and hell, maybe it makes more sense, but it made him so foreign.  Quinto's portrayal of Spock is more like autism, with his usual lack of emotional response and his logic-driven behavior clashing with his human counterparts, whom he cares about, but has little ability to show it.  Obviously, that's my opinion, and possibly it's less sophisticated, but there you have it. 
I think STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is an excellent and highly enjoyable space adventure, formed in a series of well-conceived action set pieces and ethical conundrums, although I do believe it falls just short of STAR TREK.  I'm not sure if it's just less fresh as some have suggested; I think it's just a bit less lean, less tightly held together than it's 2009 predecessor.  So, no, it's not Abrams' EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, but his Star Wars movie doesn't come out until 2015, and EMPIRE was considered the superior Star Wars film and years after its release, so who knows where this all winds up?

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Three and a Half Stars out of Four
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Peter Weller, John Cho, Simon Pegg 
PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.

Review: EPIC

EPIC  (FAMILY/ANIMATED/ADVENTURE)
Two and a Half Stars out of Four
Directed by Chris Wedge
Featuring the voices of:  Amanda Seyfried, Colin Farrell,  Josh Hutcherson, Christoph Waltz, Steven Tyler, Aziz Ansari
PG for mild action, some scary images and brief rude language. 
Verdict:  Blue Sky Animation's newest feature is less like AVATAR (the vibe given off by much of the advertising) and more reminiscent of the animated features of the 1990s, although it doesn't rank alongside those you'd remember.  Regardless, it's entertainment value is strong for its target demographic of families with children and exceeds previous Blue Sky features, which were mediocre at best, with greater ambitions and a more serious tone.

Blue Sky Studios is best known for their lucrative ICE AGE franchise, which subjected audiences to the mind-numbingly dumb horror of ICE AGE 4: CONTINENTAL DRIFT last year.  Although family audiences will still shell out the dollars for whatever rare family film comes along, Blue Sky's films have mostly been on the mediocre end of the spectrum.  Even while their feature debut, ICE AGE, is usually well thought of, it's an unremarkable note-for-note transfer of SHREK into a prehistoric context, which it obviously can't be, given the length of production on computer animated features and that SHREK was released a mere year before, but the comparisons to a much superior movie don't help.  Outside of ICE AGE, which only went downhill with sequels (although DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS was a slight improvement), Blue Sky also made ROBOTS, which was weird and unremarkable if decent; HORTON HEARS A WHO, which, while better than live-action Seuss adaptations, was surprisingly bland and formulaic; and RIO, a cheesy musical that harkened back to some of Don Bluth's lesser works but got by on bright colors and thumping energy.
Now comes EPIC, a film which seems intent on broadening the studio's horizons, while never moving them as far as they may have hoped.
I feel like I've seen this movie before in some sense, and although the instant the first previews were released, it was accused of ripping off AVATAR, that's not at all what it felt like.  It felt very much like I was watching animated film from the 1990s, but not like the pearls that Disney was churning out during the "Disney Renaissance"; more like the animated films that Disney's competitors were churning out in an attempt to get a piece of what was clearly a strong market for animation.  Those films were generally alright fare, but mainly an unsatisfactory substitute in place of something better and then easily forgotten.  Like those films, EPIC is energetically animated, while oddly bland and ticking off boxes in a formula of cliches like clockwork.
The story involves young Mary Katherine, or M.K. (voice of Amanda Seyfried), whose mother has recently passed so she is now going to live with her estranged father, a scientist whose obsessive and eccentric work has kept him from committing to relationships.  He believes the forest, in the middle of which he lives, is inhabited by a civilization of microscopic people, and when M.K. is out in the woods, she's magically shrunk down to the size of these tiny "Leafmen" and pulled into the midst of a war between the good and noble Leafmen who bring life to the forest, and the gruesome "Boggans", led by Mandrake (voice of Christoph Waltz), who bring rot.
Clearly, director/co-writer Chris Wedge (directing his first since ROBOTS eight years ago) is much more interested in the themes and visuals of his story, and the visuals are generally on the strong side, although a lot of the forest character designs look like minimally-modified FANTASIA and ALICE IN WONDERLAND (1951) characters, and some elements seem padded, as if trying to draw the film out to a decent feature length or to provide more characters for merchandising potential (such as a gambling frog voiced by rapper Pitbull).

What joker approved this as a publicity still?

Not one of the characters approaches originality, from the Colin Farrell-voiced stoic general who doesn't smile, to the reckless young rogue voiced by Josh Hutcherson, as well as a textbook comic relief duo between Aziz Ansari and Jason Sudeikis as a slug and a snail, respectively.  Overall, the characters are the weakest aspect of the film as they are not merely unoriginal, but the filmmakers seem to take a minimum of interest in them, leaving the most of the characters bland and uninteresting.  While this would easily be the death knell for a film aimed at an older audience, it's only a major inconvenience at worst in the realm of family entertainment.  That's not to say that family films have an actually lower standard (and studios like Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks have possibly resulted in a higher standard, even), but that it's target demographic of families will be satisfied with great entertainment value for kids and tolerable (or even mildly pleasurable) for their escorts, even if most teens and adults would be uninterested otherwise.  There's plenty of eye-grabbing colors, imaginative visuals and goofy humor that children will be entertained by.
It's not epic, it's not original and it's unmemorable, but it serves the interests of its target audience and is still a lot better than much of the crap that families often must settle for.

MEMORIAL DAY MOVIES

Memorial Day is a day for honoring those whose lives were taken in the cause of defending our nation's freedom.  It's also the unofficial start of summer for most Americans; a day for breaking out the grill and having hamburger, hot dogs and corn on the cob.  People go camping, hiking, or spend a day with the family in the park.  It being the unofficial beginning of summer, Hollywood's biggest time of the year, it's also a weekend that's become big for movies, even if the summer season has since crept its way all the way to as early as the first weekend of May.  Of course, amongst all this effort to take advantage of a warm-weathered three-day weekend, many of us also try not to forget the primary purpose of this national holiday, first initiated to honor those who died fighting in the American Civil War, and since expanded to include all Americans who have fought and died throughout the history of American wars.  This selection of films, including genre-defining classics, and aggressively inane schmaltz, is an assortment of potential Memorial Day viewing across the quality spectrum.

The Endurance Runner
 THE LONGEST DAY  -Two and a Half Stars (179 minutes, Rated G in 1969, but contains strong PG-level war sequences and language.)
Directed by Ken Annakin, Andrew Martin, Bernhard Wicki; Starring: John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Richard Burton, Rod Steiger, Robert Mitchum, Sean Connery
This extensively detailed, three-hour war epic is an interesting history lesson with some incredible sequences and one of the most impressive all-star casts ever assembled, but it does too often threaten wisecracks relating to the title.  Works best in a slow but attentive mood, as it boldly reveals all the facets of the Normandy Invasion on an unparallelled scale, from the United States to Britain to Germany and France.

It takes balls to make a three hour movie called THE LONGEST DAY.

 The Psychoanalyst
APOCALYPSE NOW  -Four Stars (Highest Rating) (153 minutes, R (Redux Cut rated R for disturbing violent images, language, sexual content and some drug use.))
Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, Starring: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Laurence Fishburne
It's almost as much a horror movie as it is a war film; dark, harrowing and nihilistic; one of the boldest films Hollywood ever made.  It is probably the most psychological movie about war ever made, exploring those frighteningly dark recesses of the human mind which we pretend don't exist but bubbles up to the surface undeniably in the war zone.  While it's not the most graphic war movie, it is not for the faint of heart, and yet it is an immensely satisfying experience which challenges the viewer and is filled with many of the most incredible war scenes in the history cinema.  There's no sense in trying to be original about this; the "Flight of the Valkyries" sequence; it is as grandly cinematic, thrilling and horrifyingly visceral as they come.

Helicopters...Wagner..Awesome.  Cinematic bread.

  The Traditionalist
A BRIDGE TOO FAR  -Three Stars (1977, 175 minutes, Rated PG upon release but contains PG-13-level sequences of war violence, related images and brief strong language.)
Directed by Richard Attenborough, Starring: Sean Connery, Ryan O'Neal, James Caan, Robert Redford, Anthony Hopkins, Gene Hackman
Sir Richard Attenborough's WWII epic is a highly-impressively mounted production and reportedly accurate account of a fouled-up operation to capture several crucial bridges in Germany and features an impressive all-star cast that rivals THE LONGEST DAY.  However, it's a mostly unremarkable, if pleasant enough, war film with a very straightforward approach and a catchy main theme by John Addison.

A Bridge Too Much.

The Pacifist
BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY  -Three and a Half Stars (1989, 145 minutes, R (contains strong war violence, disturbing images, pervasive language, sexual content, graphic nudity and some drug use.))
Directed by Oliver Stone, Starring: Tom Cruise, Jerry Levine, Stephen Baldwin, Tom Berenger, Willem Dafoe
In the days of Oliver Stone's relevancy, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY won him a second Best Director Academy Award, and although he was no match for Daniel Day-Lewis' fellow wheelchair-bound Christy Brown in MY LEFT FOOT, Tom Cruise was nominated for Best Actor in his powerful performance as anti-war activist Ronny Kovic.  It's a very bold film, saying what few other would dare, and that's also its greatest weakness, as its enraged and vehemently radical messages threaten to overwhelm at times.

Tom Cruise is a dirty hippie.

 The Nostalgist
BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES  -Four Stars (Highest Rating) (1946, 172 minutes, Not Rated but is suitable for all audiences, albeit with mild thematic elements.)
Directed by William Wyler, Starring: Fredric March, Myrna Loy, Harold Russell
Released right on the heels of WWII's conclusion, this Capra-eque but not so Capra-corny drama is a beautiful snapshot right out of history, telling the stories of a trio of recently discharged veterans struggling to readjust to civilian life.  It's a little sentimental, but overwhelmingly likable, interesting and remarkably unmarred by time; like a period film made in the period.  As a strong point of interest in the context of cinematic history, Harold Russell, who plays an amputee who lost both hands in the war, was the first of only two non-professional actors to ever win an Oscar.  Because the odds of his winning were considered so unlikely, an honorary Oscar was arranged for, and with his win in the Best Supporting Actor category, he is the person to have won two Oscars for a single performance.

Harold Russell in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES.

 The Direct Source
PLATOON  -Four Stars (Highest Rating) (1986, 120 minutes, R (contains strong war violence, related images, pervasive language and some sexual content.))
Directed by Oliver Stone, Starring: Charlie Sheen, Willem Dafoe, Tom Berenger, Keith David
PLATOON has the very strong selling point of being written and directed by Oliver Stone, a man who was actually there.  It's a cynical poem of war, as a youthful and naive volunteer, played by Sheen before he became crazy, comes of age in Vietnam, pulled in opposite directions, by Berenger's sadistic Sgt. Barnes and Dafoe's Sgt. Elias, like a shoulder devil and shoulder angel out of a cartoon.  But it's no cartoon; it's a tragedy interested in the human condition when immersed in the conditions of war.

Yeah, I bet nobody knows what this is from.

 The Empty Warhead
THE GREEN BERETS -Zero Stars (Lowest Rating) (1968, 141 minutes, Rated G in 1968, but contains surprisingly strong PG-13-level war violence and gory imagery)
Directed by Ray Kellogg & John Wayne, Starring: John Wayne, David Janssen
Honest to goodness, THE GREEN BERETS is one of the worst major movies (that is, not counting shoestring-budget, independent schlock) that I have ever seen.  The politics of it amplify its bad reputation exponentially, but it's mainly a prime example of bad filmmaking.  The cliches are abundant, the acting is atrocious (John Wayne was a memorable personality, but never much of an actor) and the cloying sentimentality is of the worst sort.  Plus, the setting never convincingly resembles Vietnam, or even a tropical rainforest for that matter.  It is a propaganda piece, with no subtlety to be found, with a highly contrived pro-Vietnam War message, and in a war-mongering way that will make today's conservatives uncomfortable.

This..this..it's just so bad.

The Teen-Baiter  
PEARL HARBOR  -Half a Star out of Four  (2001, 183 minutes, PG-13 for sustained intense war sequences, images of wounded, brief sensuality and some language (Director's Cut: 184 minutes, R for strong war violence and some language.))
Directed by Michael Bay, Starring: Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, Kate Beckinsale
If you're mentally ill or something, you may have wondered what might happen if Michael "BOOM!" Bay every went for the Oscar.  Well, sickos, in 2001, we found out, and the result is the nearly unwatchable PEARL HARBOR.  Before their brains are fully developed and they're still saturated in intelligence-suppressing hormones and pubescent emotions, teenagers seem able to recognize some level of entertainment value, but the unfortunate rest of us, the dialogue is atrocious ("That's bull-shit MacCawley... but it's very, very good bull-shit."), the script is aggressively contrived and cliched, and maybe it's the script is just as guilty as the actors, but the acting is putrid.  The film is not 100% joyless (hence, "half a star"), as there is an incredible 40-minute action sequence filled with stunning imagery, but when you realize that this thrill ride action feast is portraying the attack on Pearl Harbor, the September 11th of the "Greatest Generation", it turns real awkward, real fast; impressive pyrotechnics and CG shots, though.  And all of this is wrapped thick in a tone of self-seriousness.

Watching the true life-based massacre of thousands has never been so exciting.

 The Goofball
MASH  -Three and a Half Stars (1970, 116 minutes, R (contains sexual humor and violent content))
Directed by Robert Altman, Starring: Donald Sutherland, Tom Skerritt, Elliot Gould, Sally Kellerman, Robert Duvall
MASH, or M*A*S*H, announced the arrival of the 1970s, packed with irreverent humor and searing political satire in a Korean War setting (which everyone knows was a stand-in for the then-contemporary Vietnam War), which went on to inspire the similarly iconic television series following the adventures/antics of Cpt. "Hawkeye" Pierce, Cpt. "Trapper John" McIntyre and Cpt. "Duke" Forrest.  They're a trio of skilled doctors at a U.S. Army hospital camp in Korea, who prank their way through the war and make life difficult for chief nurse Major "Hot Lips" O'Houlihan.  It's dark, subversive, cynical, dated by misogynist elements, and also really quite funny.

I don't know what it means, but I like it.

The Macho Bastard
THE DIRTY DOZEN  -Two Stars (1967, 150 minutes, Not Rated, but contains PG-13-level war action violence and some language.)
Directed by Robert Aldrich, Starring: Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson
It's a cult classic of over-the-top macho WWII escapism, but it's definitely not for everyone, and not for myself.  Lee Marvin gives a strong performance as a reckless, hard-as-nails WWII major charged with trained and leading a team of men picked from the military prison collection, but it's a cold, abrasive film, with an off-putting lack of feeling toward human life.

Lee Marvin in his spare time; coincidentally, he starred in THE DIRTY DOZEN.

 The Iconoclast
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS  -Four Stars (2009, 153 minutes, R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality.)
Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Starring: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent, Eli Roth
I'm not sure why I love this film but am turned off by THE DIRTY DOZEN, but that's the fact of it.  As lurid as are many of its aspects, it has more feeling, especially as a work of pop art.  It's good silly fun, packed to the brim with explicit violence and layered with meaty themes and an elusive heart in that trademark Tarantino style.  Even inside the WWII setting, it's as much or more a western, like most of Tarantino's films.  Waltz plays the psychotic SS officer known as the "Jew Hunter," who massacres a family of Jews in the first scene which calls back to Sergio Leone's ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST; Pitt plays U.S. Special Forces Lt. Aldo Raine, "The Apache," who leads a team of Jewish-American soldiers on a reign of terror, scalping Nazis throughout occupied France.  It's awesome, and not for those with weak stomachs.  Plus, the ending is a great as they come.

Scalpin' Nazis and carvin' swastikas in P.O.W.s.

 The Nerd/Earnest Frat Boy
CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER  -Three Stars (2011, 124 minutes, PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action.)
Directed by Joe Johnston, Starring: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci
I suppose this could have been the Iconoclast, except for the fact that it's so damned earnest.  As the penultimate entry in Marvel Studios' "Phase One," this film is largely just another stepping stone to the real story in MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS, it's also decent pulp entertainment.  Frankly, there simply aren't enough superhero period films, and while it would have been nice for the film to involve more Nazi killing and WWII themes, instead of getting bogged down with the H.Y.D.R.A. storyline, it's fun to see spangly Captain America running through 1940s Europe beating the hell out of bad guys with ray guns, while director Joe Johnston (who supervised special effects in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK) even throws in a few Indiana Jones references.

This is how the war zone should be.

 The Loud, Proud and Flamboyant
PATTON  -Four Stars (Highest Rating) (1970, 172 minutes, rated GP (now PG) in 1970, but contains PG-13-level war violence and some disturbing related images.)
Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, Starring: George C. Scott, Karl Malden
This biopic of controversial U.S Army General George Patton, from a screenplay co-written by Francis Ford Coppola, pre-GODFATHER, is a man's man war movie weaved through subtly with a New Hollywood commentary on masculinity and war heroism, but it is George C. Scott's career-defining, Oscar-winning performance as the title character that makes this movie required viewing.  Scott as Patton is one of the great American cinematic performances, accented with bombastically flamboyant scenery-chewing and layered underneath with vulnerability, sincerity, ambitions and frustrations in a violent mixture.

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" -PATTON

 The Perfect Memorial Day Movie
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN  -Four Stars (Highest Rating) (169 min., R for intense prolonged realistically graphic sequences of war violence, and for language.)
Directed by Steven Spielberg, Starring: Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns, Matt Damon
My personal pick for Memorial Day viewing, this epic about at squad of soldiers in WWII France on a controversial mission to retrieve a private for discharge after his three brothers are killed in combat utilized more than a couple of old war movie archetypes, it also added quite of its own (desaturated color, anyone?) and amplified the realism of onscreen war violence so high that some speculated that director Steven Spielberg has used his considerable influence to avoid an NC-17 rating from the MPAA.  And as graphically violent the film is, and as hellish as its world of warfare is, the main point is often misinterpreted as "war is hell".  However, that perception misses a far more interesting and prominent theme which asks, "What is the worth of a man's life?"  That is the dilemma at the heart of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN; the story of eight men's lives on the line, in order to return the last surviving of three sons to a mother.  Plus the incredible, non-storyboarded, 24-minute D-Day sequence at the film's start is one of the greatest battle scenes ever filmed; thrilling in its frenetic, chaotic peril, and harrowing in its positively unflinching images of war.

I may not have ever been to war, but the D-Day sequence in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN always gives me PTSD anyway.

Review: FAST & FURIOUS 6

FAST & FURIOUS 6  (ACTION)
Two and a Half Stars out of Four
Directed by Justin Lin
Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Luke Evans, Gina Carano
PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action and mayhem throughout, some sexuality and language. 
Verdict:  FAST& FURIOUS 6 has, for better or worse, no bothersome brain to keep it down, throwing care to the wind as it returns to the "heist film" formula that made its predecessor a success, but amplifies everything to such a ridiculously bombastic, idiotic level, that one simply cannot resist grinning and settling in with the unparalleled level of explosive roadway mayhem.

FAST & FURIOUS is quite possibly the weirdest major franchise in Hollywood; not in the sense that the individual films are the weirdest (in that competition, it might be PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN), but in the sense of how the franchise has developed and evolved.  The one that started it all, THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS (2001), was a glossy but grimy, watered-down exploitation flick about illegal street-racing in L.A.; violent, cheesy and unremarkable.  2 FAST 2 FURIOUS was a film as stupid as its title; more violent, more nasty and brimming with unintentional homo-eroticism.  The franchise bottomed-out with THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT, which was the only film in the series to gross less than $200 million worldwide, and relegated main player Vin Diesel to a cameo, and Paul Walker didn't even appear.  But TOKYO DRIFT brought with it writer Chris Morgan and director Justin Lin, the team that would eventually revitalize the franchise.  The confusingly-titled FAST & FURIOUS (2009) brought Walker and Diesel back to their starring positions, and while critics dismissed the film, it became the highest-grossing film in the series up until that time.  Then FAST FIVE came and did something very weird; it received praise from a majority of critics and grossed over $600 million worldwide.  This is a series of exploitation schlock films, watered down to a teen-friendly PG-13 level, with its most loyal demographic in junior high-aged boys and the "wrong side of town" teenage boys, while glamorizing criminality, objectifying women and insulting intelligence.  But now it was a critical success and a major blockbuster property.  How'd that happen?  FAST FIVE embraced the stupidity head on, and also finding a way to focus their storylines which previously staggered through auto-based penis comparisons whilst colliding with cops and gangsters, but was now molded into a "heist film" storyline.  FAST & FURIOUS 6 plays similar tune, but this time, as Dominic Toretto's band of thieves pursue an organization of vehicular warriors with whom Dom's old flame is working.
FAST & FURIOUS 6 is dumb as hell, and possibly more dumb than any of the other FAST AND FURIOUS films, but it's also the most fun, even if sometime you find yourself laughing derisively.  While not many films dare to be as intelligent as, say, INCEPTION, similarly, not many films dare to be as outright stupid as FAST & FURIOUS 6.  A tank speeds along the highway, flattening cars in its path while firing shells at others; a car explodes out the nose a crashing jumbo jet in a burst of flame; a woman is thrown as a vehicle on which she was standing flips at at least 90 mph and a man driving 100+ mph the other direction leaps from his car, catches her in mid-air and then lands on another car, knocking the windshield, but the two get up, unfazed.  However, when a woman falls from a plane's wing while speeding on the seemingly-endless runway, she dies.  Go figure.  Ah, but it's fun.

"Of all the vacation spots, in all the towns, in all the world, you had to walk into mine."

I'll admit that it's a little frustrating to think that a large part of this film's target audience may possibly not be in on the joke, and the objectification of women in this series is very troublesome and not at all mitigated in this addition.  You can have women drive fast and beat the hell out of each other and talk tough, and even occasionally embarrass their male counterparts, but while they continue to be second-tier characters defined by a juvenile attitude about sexuality, the case can hardly be argued that they are strong female characters.

The spirit of entire series encapsulated in one still.

It's way too violent for pre-teen boys (not that that will stop their parents from taking them, so long as they close their eyes during the sexy bits), and far too dumb for most of anyone else, or at least, it should be too dumb.  In the right kind of movie, however, while intelligence is just about always a good thing, stupidity is not so damning as it might otherwise be.  The sixth chapter in a muscle-headed franchise doesn't exactly have much to prove, except to live up to a fluke of a moderately entertaining fifth chapter, so with an I.Q. of no more than 60, FAST & FURIOUS 6 moves at a breakneck pace while its heroes leaves a trail of destruction as bad as anything the villains they're trying to stop might be guilty of.  The laws of physics are given the finger, about 70% of the jokes land with a deafening thud, and seriously, you can't quite tell if you're smiling out of derision or out of the adolescent thrill of seeing World War III on the highways of Spain.
After a false ending, the full 130-minute run time of the film becomes a little taxing, and the family of homies
treacle that tattooed, flat-brim hat-wearing young males eat right up is embarrassing, but it's part of the deal you make when you go into this kind of movie.  In the end, it's a waste of time, but not a bad waste of time.

30 Years After the Jedi Returned

When RETURN OF THE JEDI was released thirty years ago in 1983, it was warmly recieved by critics and audiences alike, with legendary film critic Roger Ebert proclaiming it "a magnificent experience" in a four star (highest rating) review and ranking as the highest-grossing film of the year, not to mention untold profits in merchandising.  It boasts an enviable rank of #80 on IMDb's top rated films of all time and was nominated for four Academy Awards.  It is the climactic chapter in one of the most popular series of all time, and yet, conflicting for many.
When STAR WARS (later re-titled STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE) was released in 1977, it became the most successful film of all time and was an unprecedented cultural phenomenon.  In 1980, the sequel, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, was financially successful, if not on the same level as the first film, but received a mixed reaction from critics and audiences.  Today, EMPIRE is widely considered the greatest of the Star Wars films, but following the breakneck-paced and upbeat original, the leisurely paced and surprisingly dark tone of the film were a bit of a sucker punch for many viewers.  So, when RETURN OF THE JEDI was released, the return to a lighter tone and a neatly resolved conclusion were welcomed.  Because high-profile film sequels were a relatively new practice at the time, many were unable to recognize each of the films as an act in a three-act story, which hindsight has now allowed us.  JEDI has evolved into a perfect example of the weak "three-quel," where a three-part series builds itself up so high in the first two parts, that the third chapter has no room to go higher, and tends to collapse under the weight of expectations.
But JEDI certainly is not a bad film, in fact, it's a very good film, even if it falls short of great; what makes that more upsetting though is there are definite glimpses of greatness in the film, promising an even higher potential.  It is the culmination of the Skywalker drama, the redemption of the father and the fulfillment of the son's transformation.  The whole thing comes full circle, which, after all, is the nature of a third act; the third act is one of reflection, where end meet beginning.  The story returns to its roots, as does the protagonist, to consider his/her origins in their cyclical transformation.  Early scripts of JEDI contained a scene which was an excellent example of this and which I would have loved to see, but was cut for more than a few reasons, not least of which were technological and economic concerns, in which Darth Vader returns to the volcanic planet (referred to as Mustafar in STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH) where the events which forced him to don the mask transpired, and where he seeks sanctuary.  Maybe some would accuse that kind of scene as too melodramatic, but I think it would have been marvelous.  Even with the exclusion of that scene though, there are plenty of moments of retrospection in JEDI, i.e. the return to the planet Tatooine, the reinterpreting of Obi-Wan Kenobi's tale of Darth Vader's betrayal/murder of Luke's father, and C-3PO's reiteration of the Battle of Yavin to the Ewoks among other things.  Another prominent example of echoes from the first part might be the Death Star II, but I actually have some minor problems with that thing, but more of that later.
The story structure in JEDI is a bit odd in that it feels almost like two films; the first 35 minutes or so are plenty entertaining but feel completely separated from the rest of the film as Luke & Co. rescue Han from his carbonite imprisonment by notorious space gangster, Jabba the Hutt, a grotesque giant slug/frog hybrid with the coolest entourage in the galaxy.  These scenes are lighter and quirkier than the remainder of film, which returns to the relatively serious tones of life cycles, redemption and the like which make up most of the Star Wars saga.  I wouldn't say the shift is jarring, because the Jabba the Hutt/Tatooine scenes tie off nicely, but it feels like you switched movies there.
While on the topic of the Tatooine scenes, fan-favorite Boba Fett's usage in this film render his cult status utterly inexplicable.  I don't give a damn about what some "Expanded Universe" books say about him, and for all I care, those books matter about as much as internet fan-fiction (Twilight fan-fic has been published in the form of novels too).  Maybe it's that he has a cool look, or maybe it's the need to assign some level of skill to the guy pursuing Han "Awesome Guy" Solo, but Boba Fett has been made out to be the Clint Eastwood of the series, when he's more along the lines of Mr. Muldoon, the game warden from JURASSIC PARK (who also was "brought back" via additional published material), except sillier.  Think about it: Boba Fett was first introduced in the infamous Star Wars Holiday Special; let that sink in.  He is the only character in the movies to have first appeared in the Star Wars Holiday Special.  Add to that the fact that he never once kills anyone onscreen (unless you count himself), he never captures Han Solo (Darth Vader & Co. do and then hand him off), a blind man (Han Solo) accidentally bumps Fett's jet pack, causing it to blast off, and then hit Jabba's barge before falling into the Sarlaac like a bitch.  Just in case that weren't enough, his ignominiously anti-climactic demise is punctuated by a belch from the Sarlaac.  You can pretend that Fett survived and is awesome in your little minds, but while you're at it, maybe re-imagine Jar Jar Binks as a badass too, because it's basically the same thing.  Come to think of it, Jar Jar probably knocked off that kid from ATTACK OF THE CLONES and became Boba Fett after the formation of the Empire.  Ya know, that would make sense, considering that Jar Jar's fate was never specified, Boba Fett is covered from head to toe to keep us from seeing his orange mottled skin, he's on good terms with Darth Vader and the clumsy way he bumps into Jabba's sail barge before dying.  Anyway, back to RETURN OF THE JEDI...
So yeah, the Ewoks are a problem.  Lucas had wanted to show a primitive race defeating the Empire and had originally considered Wookies, but decided that Chewbacca as a co-pilot proved they weren't all that primitive, so he shrunk the idea down to Ewoks.  As a child, I thought Ewoks were just creepy; they were teddy bear people, but with thick, dirty, little sausage fingers.  Yuck.  Today, my issue with them is primarily how they throw rocks and sticks at armored troopers, successfully downing them, and successfully  destroying an armored tank unit with swinging logs.  Is the Empire retarded?  Eh, but the Ewoks don't cripple the film the way some suggest they do; their just kind of stupid.
In terms of what makes the movie so awesome though, the space battle is spectacular, an epic, full-bodied battle ground in the cosmos, where plasma bolts riddle every perspective, and ship careen out of control, colliding with others.  The speeder bike scenes are excellent, utilizing an impressively effective effect of filming 5 mph steadicam shots at one frame per second, then playing the shot at the standard 24 frames per second.  The Rancor scene was originally intended to use stop-motion animation, but was changed to a puppet, due to budget concerns,but I think the scene works best as a puppet, with the fun b-movie elements of the super-imposing borders and cutting between actor and puppet shots.  Overall though, for the climactic chapter of a big-budget action-adventure, RETURN OF THE JEDI is surprisingly patient with its action and pacing, not necessarily to its detriment.
Although emotionally-charged, however, the lightsaber duel, the true trademark of the series, is disappointingly short-changed.  There are only a few brief bouts of fighting, between which Luke avoids fighting Vader, which I suppose is noble and all, but we all came to see a badass lightsaber fight, and it only gets real for a about thirty seconds.
And despite all the quibbling I can make, it's still a movie I love; it's one of those film that is highly entertaining, but you can't help but add your input, because it's personal enough that you want to construct it into the best possible vision in your mind, even if it's just for you.  And you don't have to publish some dopey fan-fic story either.  All you need to do is debate, re-watch and consider, then repeat.

STAR WARS: EPISODE VI- RETURN OF THE JEDI  (May 25, 1983)
Three and a Half Stars out of Four
Directed by Richard Marquand
Starring: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, David Prowse, Billy Dee Williams, Ian McDiarmid 
PG for sci-fi action violence.

REVIEW: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Hollywood is getting better at preserving the surprises in their movies from marketing exposure, and after IRON MAN 3, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is already the second summer blockbuster this year, only midway into May, to contain quite a few very high-profile plot twists that make it rather difficult to provide a spoiler-free discussion on the film.  As such, I will later post a "spoiler edition" review, but for now, I'll hold back.
What little can be said about the plot is that the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise, as had been introduced in 2009's STAR TREK, is re-introduced in the midst of high adventure as they explore and survey new worlds in the name of Starfleet, the Federation of Planet's peacekeeping armada dedicated to exploring the frontiers of the known galaxy.  Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) violates Starfleet regulations in order to save a primitive planet, as well as an endangered crew member, and is reprimanded and demoted as a result, while his friend and first officer, Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto), faces conflict in his relationship with Communications Officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and his friendship with Kirk due to his emotional distancing as a half-Vulcan.  When a mysterious rogue agent of Starfleet identified as John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) is found responisble for a pair of horrifying attacks on Starfleet bases on Earth, Kirk and the Enterprise crew find themselves thrust back into action in a moment of desperation for Starfleet.  As they endeavor on the emergency mission, the Enterprise crew unravel a mystery wherein things are rarely as they seem.
I actually have mixed feelings about big plot twists, not specifically for this movie, but in general.  There is a certain level of enjoyment in those "big reveals", but on the first viewing of a film, major plot twists sometimes shake myself as a viewer out of my groove.  Such films are usually more entertaining on subsequent viewings, as I can watch the course to which what I already know as it unfolds, and I'm prepared and thus allowed better focus on tones, emotions, and nuances which I generally attribute more value to.
That said, I enjoyed STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS throughout, and it held my attention in a vice-like grip.  I do plan to see it again, and I believe it be even more entertaining then.
The action sequences are quite spectacular, including a clear RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK-inspired opening sequence to the thrilling, pirate ship-esque space battles between Starfleet vessels, and an intense and emotionally-charged hand-to-hand combat showdown atop speeding Earth transports.  Even with the relentless pacing, the film is also heavy laden with philosophical and ethical conundrums familiar to the Star Trek franchise.  The film is a lot more complex than I expected, and while I enjoyed STAR TREK more for it's emotionally-driven escapism, INTO DARKNESS could be argued as a more substantial experience.
Cumberbatch, best known for BBC's excellent series, Sherlock, makes a great antagonist played with a cold sort of charisma, and is a surprisingly physical villain.  Unfortunately, he is never given the opportunity for a really menacing intellect showcase like the interrogation scenes in THE DARK KNIGHT or MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS.
As with STAR TREK, the most interesting character is again, Mr. Spock.  His Asperger's-like emotional inhibition and logic-driven personality often clashes with the full-blooded humans around him, but when he is hit with a bout of emotion, it is the most powerful.  His character's use as a consideration on human emotions toward death are particularly poignant and provide some of the film's best moments.  On the other hand, a cameo from Leonard Nimoy as "Spock Prime", the elderly Spock of the original future (as addressed in STAR TREK), in which the young Spock seeks advice from him is pretty bizarre, runs a line between meta and just plain odd.
J.J. Abrams is unlikely to return for the third chapter of this reboot, for which the cast is still contracted, because he's been tapped as director for 2015's STAR WARS EPISODE VII, which he has used for as much or more inspiration than the original series  for his interpretation of the Star Trek universe.  If this is to be a preview of what we might expect in 2015, there's nothing to worry about for Star Wars, but there never really was anyway.  While STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is technically a bit darker than STAR TREK, it's still primarily a rollicking adventure in space, with a good deal of humor, though not as broad as in the previous film, and you'll leave the theater feeling fine; this isn't quite EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, for better or worse.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS  (May 16, 2013)
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring:  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Alice Eve, Simon Pegg
PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.

Boldly Going Where No Trek Had Gone Before

2009 wasn't actually such a great year for summer movies.  After all, the year before, when most of those films were in production, there was a bitter writers' strike in Hollywood, and the writing in many of those films suffered as a result.  However, the summer of 2009 also saw three decades-old film series (43 years as a franchise, first as a television series) release its finest chapter to date, in a bold and stunning "reboot".
STAR TREK was J.J. Abrams' second film as a director, but after creating three extremely successful television series (Felicity, Alias and Lost) and a warmly-received feature film directorial debut with MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III in 2006, Abrams was a big name in Hollywood, with a reputation for high-octane, interesting and "cool" output.
But "cool" isn't (or wasn't) a characteristic of the iconic Star Trek franchise, but that was precisely the problem.  The last Star Trek film, STAR TREK: NEMESIS, had been released seven years before STAR TREK in 2002, and had received mixed reviews and crashed hard at the box office, grossing a pitiful international box office of $67 million from a $60 million production budget, not including marketing and other expenses.  For a franchise, Star Trek had become too exclusive, so only devoted fanboys had an interest in the films, and they didn't amount to nearly enough to support the series.  A "reboot", a relatively new phenomenon, was ordered with the intention of broadening appeal of the franchise to include the "uninitiated".
The concept of "re-booting" a film property is a 21st century invention, although there are loose arguments that could be applied for certain 20th century cases.  Regardless, it was 2005's BATMAN BEGINS which turned it into a mainstream concept, after 1998's BATMAN & ROBIN decimated a formerly lucrative film property and perverted it into lampoonery.  The reboot is a result of the post-STAR WARS blockbuster Hollywood, where single stand-alone films rarely carry the same promise of a big budget series based on an established character/story property.  Once a consistent interpretation of one of these franchises can no longer be sustained, no studio wants to stand by and wait, especially when the film rights to an adapted property may revert to a previous owner due to disuse.  However, you can't exactly "remake" a series either; you add on to a series for ever how long, but you don't just redo a particular chapter.  Instead, they re-approach the material as new, as a completely different interpretation, and it paid off handsomely for BATMAN BEGINS.  But rebooting had been practiced in the comic book industry for a long time by then, and it translated smoothly enough for a comic book adaptation, but Star Trek had been one sustained timeline, simply creating new characters as original characters fell out, and the storyline canon was important to the already established fanbase which Paramount hoped to maintain even as they hoped to add new fans.
To address this dilemma, the script written by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman utilizes a time travel plot device, thus providing for itself an "alternate timeline" and with it, a great deal of creative leeway.  Typically, this would be a bad thing; time travel has an ignominious reputation as a plot device in film, not including comedies like BACK TO THE FUTURE and BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE, or adaptations of H.G. Wells' The Time Machine of course, but for instance, in SUPERMAN, to reverse the death and destruction in the film's climax or in HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (albeit, blameable on the book source), to rescue a deceased character and a condemned man; both of which were cases of stories that wandered themselves into corners and then used time travel as a cheap cop out.  In the case of STAR TREK though, it does help that the presence of time travel in the series had already been established in previous chapters, but more importantly, time travel is the source of the plot conflict, instead of the solution.

"Token villains" are extremely rare for blockbusters.

The prologue sequence pulls me in as a viewer from the start and threatens to overshadow the entirety of the film to follow, but remarkably, the film manages to sustain an incredible energy throughout, with well-spaced easing points and a pre-third act conflict respite, and there is an abundance of visual splendor, riotous humor and honestly come by emotion.  The prologue depicts the arrival of the film's main antagonist, Nero, a Romulan whose grotesque space vessel emerges from black hole (the typical science fiction device of natural time travel) and mysterious origins, then unleashes a hail of deadly fire on the less-advanced, but definitely more handsome, Starfleet U.S.S. Kelvin, where Mr. Kirk is newly promoted to Captain.  We soon learn though, that this is not James Kirk; it is his father (played by Chris Hemsworth, who became a star two years later as the title character in THOR), and his mother is going in labor as she's being transferred to the an escape transport.  Yes, these coincidences could be called "contrived", but screw you, because it's awesome.  The ship is bombarded with pyrotechnic projectiles, and shown from inside, a piece of the ship is torn off, sucking a crew member into the silent vacuum of space; Michael Giacchino's excellent musical score accents terror, thrills and heartbreak; then, the autopilot fails, and to prevent Nero's ship from destroying the the evacuee transport, Cpt. Kirk must fly kamikaze into the aggressor ship while speaking a farewell to his wife and newborn son.  After this awesome frenzy and ruthless emotional bombardment, the titles appear with Giacchino's stunning rendition his main theme in soaring accompaniment.  Like I said, it's just awesome.
I'm not a Trekkie; I've seen a handful of other Star Trek films, including the two previous favorites, STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN and STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME, but I didn't care for either.  While there are obviously many for whom such things have an appeal, I've often felt that the Star Trek adventures were too distant, dry, and to get a bit nerdy about it, a bit much like their own character, Mr. Spock, full of emotionless, cold calculations.  While I love J.J. Abrams' reboot wholeheartedly though, it alienated many Trekkies, seemingly the way the previous films which they loved did for me.  Mainstream science fiction is usually narrowed down to two categories: Star Wars and Star Trek.  I do enjoy the Star Wars films, although with some reservations, and certainly moreso than I do the pre-2009 Trek films, so Abrams' preference for Star Wars probably has some connection to my preference for his interpretation of Trek.  Handing the Star Trek franchise over to a Star Wars fan bordered on blasphemy for Trekkies, thanks to a legendary rivalry, but in spite of what some had argued, I see no significant similarity between STAR TREK and the Star Wars films, at least, outside of genre and pacing.  STAR TREK is a little grittier, a lot sexier and more grounded than the Star Wars films.

Can you believe they actually got away with that?

Although many reboots have a tendency to lean gritty and contemporary in comparison to their previous interpretations, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, STAR TREK isn't actually significantly grittier than previous films in the series.  It's gritty enough, but it never strives to be particularly dark, hard-edged, cynical or even all that violent.  It's happy, sci-fi adventure pulp, self-aware and self-embracing.
The cast is fabulously assembled without notable flaws, and the film never falls into that ever-present threat to ensemble cast films of over or under using characters.  Everyone gets their moments to shine, and usually with great moments of humor, especially Simon Pegg as Scotty and Anton Yelchin as Lt. Chekov.  The main players though are Chris Pine as Cpt. James Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Commander Spock.  Pine's Kirk is a slightly more unscrupulous take on the Han Solo scoundrel, fast with a quip and brash in a fight, and Spock is the by-the-book man of logic.  Putting the two together naturally results in buddy cop film-esque conflict, though sometimes with higher tensions, but by the film's climax, they've united into something of a Butch & Sundance team (Kirk is Butch).  Spock, in particular, is evolved into a more complex, more emotional and more satisfying character in the reboot, and the story has a strong emphasis on his inner conflict based in his logic-driven Vulcan and emotionally-driven human heritages.
There is some ground to all the complaining about the "solar flares", which Abrams, as a devoted student of Steven Spielberg (who uses "beams of light"), uses as a sort of visual calling card, and Abrams acknowledges that it's ultimately excessive in the home release commentary.  I don't believe, however, that it acts as a significant hindrance to the film's quality.

THE DYNAMIC DUO: IN SPACE

The science fiction genre has become the mainstream film industry's bread-and-butter ever since STAR WARS in 1977 (which, I might point out, is more accurately categorized as "fantasy"), but SPIDER-MAN resulted in a major shift to superhero-centric sci-fi in 2002.  With the superhero film properties still performing strong, Abrams' STAR TREK is a unique presence, at least until the Abrams-directed STAR WARS EPISODE VII comes out in 2015 (see: Signs That the Universe is Imploding).  If Abrams wants to be the new Spielberg/Lucas, that's just fine, because he's pretty darn good at it.

STAR TREK (May 8, 2009)
4 out of 4 stars
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban
PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.

REVIEW: THE GREAT GATSBY

THE GREAT GATSBY  (May 10, 2012)
2.5 out of 4 stars
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Starring:  Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton, Carey Mulligan, Elizabeth Debicki, Isla Fisher, Jason Clarke
PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language.

Baz Luhrmann, the director known for glitzy, over-the-top passion and spectacle in films like ROMEO+JULIET and MOULIN ROUGE!, has released his first film in five years.  It's certainly not the longest stretch of time between films for him though, after all, THE GREAT GATSBY is only his fifth theatrically-released feature film since he appeared on the scene in 1992 with STRICTLY BALLROOM.  His last film, AUSTRALIA, came out in 2008, and despite its top-notch production values, the bloated romantic epic underwhelmed audiences with its thin script.  I'm not really much of a Luhrmann fan; his flair for loud and flashy production values tend to give me a headache or even make me nauseous, especially MOULIN ROUGE!, which was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture and is considered his masterpiece, but I loathed.  I never really cared a whole lot for F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby either, maybe because I read it for school, but I can understand why others love it and why it's considered the "Great American Novel" by so many.  It just wasn't really for my taste.  Notwithstanding, when I heard that Luhrmann was planning to direct a film adaptation of Gatsby, I couldn't think of a better match for the material.  Some people have voiced opinions suggesting some sort of eccentricity to the pairing, but I never thought so for a second.  What director could be more suited to direct the ultimate story of the Roaring Twenties, with all the excess, the moral looseness, the passions and the tragedy?  I don't want to sound like I set myself up to dislike this film because I certainly didn't; I was very interested by some of the advertising, I'm a Leo DiCaprio fan and I did like the film, albeit, mildly.

Maguire as your humble narrator, Nick Carraway

For those of you unfamiliar with the story, shame on you, and, it's told from the perspective of one Nick Carraway, here played by Tobey Maguire.  Nick is a Minnesotan who goes to New York in 1922 to become a bonds broker when postwar United States is in an economic boom state and Prohibition has made alcohol less expensive and more popular than ever.  His neighbor is a mysterious millionaire by the name of Jay Gatsby, played by Leonardo DiCaprio (who played Romeo in Luhrmann's ROMEO+JULIET), who throws extravagant parties every week which are a draw to all of New York.  Nobody knows much about Gatsby or how he made his millions, but Gatsby acquaints himself with young Nick to enlist him in wooing his cousin, Daisy, played by Carey Mulligan.  Daisy is married to a brutish former jock named Tom Buchanan, played by Joel Edgerton, who cheats on her with another married woman, Myrtle Wilson, played by Isla Fisher; Daisy is a simple-minded but sweet girl with whom Gatsby had a romance prior to serving in the war, but postponed plans to marry her so he could build his fortune.
The story is one of the dark side of the American Dream, the social and moral decay which accompanies the material excess of prosperity, the assigning of value to illusions and material and reaching desperately for a hollow ideal.

Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan, like Estella, but dumb and sweet

Luhrmann's script (co-written by Craig Pearce) is very faithful to the source material, although not the the extent which crippled the Francis Ford Coppola-penned 1974 adaptation.  In contrast, it is an addition to the novel's material which does the most harm in the script, and that is a framing story in which Nick is telling his story to a psychiatric doctor in a Minnesota sanitarium.  In this sanitarium, he his stubbled and unkempt, in treatment for "morbid alcoholism", following the events of the main story.  As the film keeps returning to this plot device, it becomes a distraction and eventually turns corny and cliche. 
The film also suffers somewhat from an uneven tone, with a first hour or so that is booming with excessive energy, not always for the better, in a style characteristic of Luhrmann's other works, but after a gradual easing on the throttle near the end of the first hour, the film becomes unfocused and sputters between soft romantic scenes and high-octane, angst-ridden scenes.

DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby, Patron Saint of the 1920s

The film has a tremendous strength though in DiCaprio's performance as Gatsby, a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination.  DiCaprio's Gatsby is sincere but confused, passionate yet suppressed, and he gets every detail perfect as the multi-layered character in pursuit of a hollow dream and hiding behind multiple masks.  I am compelled to also note that his character is given a truly magnificent entrance accompanied by chords of Rhapsody in Blue and fireworks in the background.  Although I assume there's some computer trickery involved, the youthful depictions of Gatsby played by other actors have an uncanny resemblance and a younger-looking DiCaprio is a spot-on effect too.  Edgerton is also excellent as Daisy's antagonistic husband Tom; Edgerton is far better known for conservative, nice guy performances in movies like WARRIOR, THE ODD LIFE OF TIMOTHY GREEN and ZERO DARK THIRTY, so it's fun to see him letting loose as the rough and tough "good ol' boy".

Edgerton as Tom Buchanan: racist, philandering polo player

Although mainly in that no-holds-barred first hour, there's also lots of really fun "rollercoaster" CGI shots, such as one that starts at the heights of the New York City skyline and then plunges down to the pavement below, or high speed travel shots across the bay between the East and West Egg neighborhoods.  I didn't see the film in 3D, but even much moreso than typical 3D, I would expect it to induce severe nausea.  Every shot is so perfectly choreographed, as if the filmmakers expected every frame of film to be used as a publicity still; had the film been released last Christmas as originally intended, it would have been a very strong candidate for cinematography and production design awards.

Parties are bigger and liquor is quicker

Although there are such moments, THE GREAT GATSBY is less a victim of Luhrmann's tendency for garish excess and grotesque mugging than in his other films.  There's a greater tenderness to much of this, and Luhrmann is clearly passionate about the source material.  Especially in the last fifteen minutes or so that lead up to Gatsby's imminent fate, there are some surprisingly touching and beautiful cinematic moments.  It's dreamy and full of admiration, with a pretty if not exactly outstanding musical score by Craig Armstrong, and a hit-and-miss assortment of energetic pop songs performed by artists too "in" for someone as out-of-touch with the modern music scene as me to be at all familiar with.  I don't give a hoot in hell if the movie doesn't actually "capture the spirit" of Fitzgerald's novel; it's a movie, and that's a book, and it's the same story told by different people.  Anyway, Luhrmann clearly reads the novel differently than literary scholars, but it's evident that he's passionate about the source material.  He amplifies the aspects he most connects with, that being a "doomed romance," and that's just fine; if only his execution were more even.