'Star Trek Into Darkness' Provides Familiar But Satisfying Entertainment

In the first film Kirk and Spock met and became chums. Here, they

become absolute besties.

It’s been over two months since I’ve seen J.J. Abram’s Star Trek Into Darkness, but I’ve been dragging my feet on writing a review. To be clear, that’s not a reflection of the film itself, which I actually found to be great escapist entertainment.

For fans of Star Trek, the 2009 relaunch of the series, much of Star Trek Into Darkness will feel extremely similar. Once again, the crew of the Enterprise is tasked with dealing with a self righteous, revenge-seeking villain who, early in the film, kills a Kirk (Chris Pine) father figure. And, once again, the major focus is on the developing bromance between Kirk and Spock (Zachary Quinto).

Some could argue that makes this outing derivative, especially when you throw in lifted story beats from an earlier Star Trek film (more on that in a bit), but considering how well they’ve pulled everything off here, I see little reason to complain.

(Ummm…. spoiler warning).

The villain here is first introduced as Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a rogue Starfleet Commander who apparently has curative blood and a major vendetta against his employers. Kirk and his team are tasked with hunting him down, and when they do, they discover he also possess superhuman strength and unparalleled intellect. Oh, and they come to learn that he is actually Khan, an extremely iconic Trek character who, as even non-fans like myself know, killed Spock in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

He may not have the ridiculously large chest, but Benedict

Cumberbatch offers up an imposingly memorable take on Khan.

Despite universal praise for Cumberbatch’s magnetically forceful performance, a great deal of criticism has been launched at using Khan for this story, particularly related to the thematic bastardization of the Spock death, which has been twisted here to result in the death of Kirk. A good example of this backlash can be found here.

I actually quite liked this aspect of the film. Although the concept of keeping Khan’s identify a secret from the audience was silly, I think making him the bad guy worked well, especially in the way it played off of the previous history with the character. When Spock seeks the counsel of Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy), it’s a nice little nod to the original series, but also a story beat that makes sense.

Furthermore, while I understand there was great thematic heft to having Spock be the one that died in Wrath of Khan, I really like that they flipped the script. Instead of building on Kirk’s inability to accept death, this new interpretation (which you can watch here) represents a thematic highpoint in the developing friendship between Kirk and Spock, both of whom are learning from one another and changing as a result.

Some might argue Kirk’s quick revival ruins the impact of his death. I disagree with that, because regardless of his status at the end of the film, the death is still a real and tangible moment for the characters. It still meant something to them and still elevated the relationship to another level. In the first film, Spock Prime told Spock his relationship with Kirk would be “a friendship that will define you both in ways you cannot yet realize.” Here, the filmmakers continue to develop that idea.

Alice Eve doubles the sexy woman total on the Enterprise, taking some

of the weight off of Zoe Saldana's back.

That being said, there are some incredibly silly things in this film. Obviously, the Khan blood stuff is hokey, and that isn’t helped by the way McCoy discovers it. And, while I mostly like the way Khan is used, the climatic showdown between him and Spock just doesn’t make sense. I mean, seriously, why would a super human run from one mere Vulcan?

There’s not much more to say. As with its predecessor, all the technical aspects are top notch, and the hurling momentum of the thing is huge plus, but the greatest strength of the film is in the character dynamics. While the film predictably focuses on Kirk and Spock, nearly every character is nicely sketched, well portrayed and feels like a vital part of the team. They may not all interact with each other and some recede to the background, but they all seem to have a very specific relationship with Kirk, a subtle touch that I think plays very well, especially considering so much of Kirk’s development has to do with his standing as a leader. Meanwhile, Kahn isn’t the only famous character to be reintroduced – Dr. Carol Connors (Alice Eve), who in the previous Trek timeline bore Kirk a son, also plays an integral role.

Overall, Star Trek Into Darkness is not quite up to the level of its predecessor, but it’s pretty damn close. It’s one of the better sequels you’re likely to see, because it commendably deepens and expands the themes of the first film, making the combo seem far more apiece than the typical series. B+

‘Monsters University’ Proves a Worthwhile Return to a Beloved Pixar Property

Mike and Sully end up in a fraternity with a slew of other cast-offs,

who, surprise surprise, show there's more to them than there seems.

In reflecting on Monsters University, the recently released sequel to Monsters Inc., I can’t help being a bit amused by how meta a film Pixar has crafted.

Over the last few years, the Pixar brand has lost a bit of its luster. Three of the studio’s last four films have been sequels, while the one original work – last year’s Brave – was largely viewed as a slight effort, despite walking away with last year’s Oscar for Best Animated Film.

In reviewing Brave earlier this year, I agreed it was lower-tier Pixar, but suggested there was nothing wrong with being merely good. The folks at Pixar might agree, because the major lesson of Monsters University seems to be it’s okay to be okay.

The film shows how Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman) meet as students at Monsters University, and the duo are immediately set up as adversaries, with Mike being a well-studied but unscary student, and Sully being an arrogant kid who believes he can coast on his innate ability and famous last name. After an argument between the two gets them kicked out of the “scarer program,” the two are forced to join Oozma Kappa (OK – get it?), the lamest fraternity on campus, for a chance to compete in the “Scare Games,” a Greek competition that, if won, will get them back into the scarer program.

Pixar made little Mike Wazowski ridiculously cute.

However, boiled down to its essence, this is a film about a boy with a dream, who, despite trying harder than everyone else and working nonstop to achieve said dream, ultimately fails because he just doesn’t have what it takes. Early in the film, the intimidating Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) says scariness is the measure of a monster, and so, if you’re not scary, what worth can you have?

Even though the film indicates there’s value in failure, that’s still a pretty ballsy core to structure an animated kids’ movie around, especially since it is so at odds with the typical “you can do anything you set your mind to” spiel.

The timing of this film is worth noting since the children who first fell in love with these characters when Monsters Inc. was released in 2001 are now college-aged themselves. Some will achieve their dreams, but many more will not, and I expect this film will speak to many of them, not to mention the rest of us who will relate to Mike’s existential crisis. 

Unfortunately, as potent as the emotional throughline of the story is, the rest of the film is incredibly formulaic. This is Pixar’s take on the college underdog comedy typified by the likes of Revenge of the Nerds, and it moves along exactly as you’d expect, up to and including the triumphant moment when our seemingly hopeless ragtag team of misfits prevails over the douchey popular kids.

Making matters worse, almost no character beyond Mike and Sully is given more than a modicum of development, including their four fellow fraternity brothers. We’re meant to be emotionally invested in these guys, but they aren’t even afforded the development of the extra girls in piffle like The House Bunny. The crazy one voiced by Charlie Day brings some welcome zaniness to the table, but middle-aged monster and monster with mom are both underserved, while two-headed monster is almost pointless. Their names don’t matter; these descriptors are how most will remember them.

This picture was too funny not to include here.

To be fair, right when a normal college comedy would be ending, Monsters University takes a hard left turn into fertile thematic territory. Up until then, the film is mostly an amiable diversion, but the final 15 minutes really deepen the story and elevate the whole thing quite a bit.

Furthermore, while I generally feel prequels are pointless endeavors, I’ve got to give Pixar credit for crafting a story that stands on its own while simultaneously enhancing the original. The film has plenty of clever nods to Monsters Inc., including a well-handled subplot involving future nemesis Randall (Steve Buscemi), but, more than that, it deepens the connection between Mike and Sully, a partnership that did feel a bit one-sided in favor of scare-master Sully in the first outing. Here, they balance that out quite a bit.

Overall, this is middle-of-the-pack Pixar, more impressive than the likes of Cars, Brave, and A Bug’s Life, but not quite up to the level of the rest of the studio’s oeuvre. But at this point, it’s silly and unfair to keep measuring Pixar’s output against the likes of Toy Story, Wall-E and Ratatouille.

By the end of Monsters University, big dreamer Mike realizes it’s okay to be okay, but even that undersells what Pixar has accomplished here. As far as this film goes, it’s better to say it’s good to be good. B+

Half-Baked 'Man of Steel' is Both Awesome and Annoying

If half the battle is not looking silly in the suit, Henry Cavill
was pretty set from the get go.

Thus far, Man of Steel has sharply divided audiences. It currently rates rotten on Rotten Tomatoes, and yet it garnered an A- CinemaScore. Some, like HitFix’s Drew McWeeny, have passionately argued its merits, while others like Ryan Silberstein, our friend over at Filmhash, have criticized the film for having a lack of substance.

That diversity of opinion seems appropriate to me, since I somehow found the film to be simultaneously infuriating and delightful. The reason for that is simple – nearly every major story impulse by the creative team (including director Zack Snyder, producer Christopher Nolan, and screenwriter David Goyer) comes across as a bold and laudable choice that somehow got mucked up in the execution. 

Take, for instance, the film’s main thematic drive, which basically concerns two things – the ability to choose your destiny and the question of what the world will make of Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman (Henry Cavill) once he is revealed. 

On Krypton, where citizens are engineered for very specific purposes, Kal-El’s father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) predicts his son will choose his own destiny and that the people of Earth will embrace him as a guiding god and symbol of hope. On Earth, adoptive father Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) also believes Clark will choose what type of man he will become and that, whatever that decision is, it will change the world. However, unlike Jor-El, he is afraid about how the world will respond to a super-powered alien being.

So I get that Lois Lane is assisting the army and all, but why do 

they give her a jumpsuit?

Much of this framework is laid very carefully, but then laziness sets in and the story begins to lose its grip. A devastating tragedy results from Jonathan Kent’s insistence that Clark keep his powers hidden, and Costner plays the hell out of it, but the whole situation leading up to that moment is such inorganic horseshit, that it undercuts the importance of what should be a pivotal moment for our hero. 

Ultimately, Clark is forced to out himself to the public because of the ultimatum proposed by chief villain General Zod (Michal Shannon), a Kryptonian he knows to have killed his birth father, which sort of defangs the whole choice thing. To be fair, he does get to choose how he responds, opting for the Jesus-like choice to put his faith in human kind, and the captive sequence that follows is one of the best (and most charming) parts of the movie.

Unfortunately, the film then quickly becomes an endless barrage of action, and it never truly explores the question of if this super-powered god will be accepted by Earth’s inhabitants, which is odd given just how much time is spent setting it up. Having seen the finished product, it seems the movie may have been better served by further leaning into the whole Christ analogy it pushes. I’m not saying this film needed its own version of the crucifixion and resurrection, but simply a little time showing humanity’s response to Superman and what to do with/about him. Sacrificing ten minutes of action to do so would’ve made for a better movie.

Having said that, the action is the most noteworthy thing about the picture, and what’s on display here is some of the best spectacle you’re likely to see on film. The sheer scale is mindboggling and the ambition is commendable. Man of Steel opens with a visually imaginative (and surprisingly substantive) sequence in Krypton and it ends with a 40-minute throw-down action sequence that is awe-inspiring in its depiction of collateral damage, which a consulting firm recently estimated would result in $700 billion in physical damages, one million injured victims and over 100,000 deaths.

There's a good drinking game to be made based around
product placement in this movie.

The film has been criticized for featuring a Superman that allows such destruction, but, while I thought the action was a bit overlong, I found it to be a refreshingly “realistic” depiction of how a fight between super aliens would play out. That said, the film definitely would’ve worked better if the filmmakers had shown Superman’s sense of horror at what was happening around him. If they had, the climactic moment in the train station would’ve carried a lot more heft. Instead it’s almost a joke.*

*For those counting, that makes two extremely important and emotional moments for the lead character that are totally undermined by the immediate lead up to them.

Then, of course, there’s the way the film has revised the whole approach to Lois Lane. Here, it’s actually believable that Lois (Amy Adams) is a crack investigative journalist, because she’s not depicted as a dummy who doesn’t realize she’s working side-by-side a fellow reporter who looks just like the superhero she spends so much time with. Instead she’s a smart, driven reporter who, after getting her life saved by a super-powered mystery man, begins to methodically trace his tracks and discover the truth.

Once she does, Lois gets three solid scenes with Clark –one where he explains why he doesn’t want her to expose him to the world, one where she interviews him as army officials watch on, and one where she comforts him in a moment of total anguish after the train station climax. They’re all strong moments, but because of how much little interaction they have besides that, the romance angle that gets grafted onto the story seems a giant miscalculation. The film does a good job of showing how she could fall for him, but not vice versa, and so the kiss moment rings false. More restraint would’ve been wise, as the three aforementioned scenes would’ve made strong foundation pieces for romance exploration in a sequel where she (and we) will assumedly learn more about the Clark Kent side of Kal-El.

The film offers what are arguably definitive takes on
Superman, Lois Lane and Jor-El. Zod? Not so much.

There are so many more pluses and minuses in this film that I could go on and on. I understand it’s something necessary with a big film like this, but the record-breaking product placement was a little much for my taste. However, one thing I’ll give the filmmakers – they got the casting right. Cavill brings a physicality to Superman that no other actor has before, while also offering a tremendous amount of confidence and benevolent warmth. It’s a star-making performance, and, although he’s been around for a while, after his work here, I expect a lot of doors will open for him.

Adams, Crowe, Costner, and Christopher Meloni (as a Detective Stabler-like army guy) all provide great work, with Costner being best in show. In fact, given the amount of time spent exploring the motivations of Crowe’s Jor-El, more time with Costner’s Jonathan probably would’ve been welcome for balance sake.  Meanwhile, Zod has a refreshingly complex and relatable motivation for what he’s doing, and they’ve cast a great actor in the role, but the whole thing is brought down a peg by some convoluted business concerning a genetic codex and Shannon’s decision to dial everything up to 11. Like Crowe, Shannon is saddled with a lot of expository dialogue, but unfortunately, he doesn’t come across nearly as well.

Overall, I’m more positive on the film than negative, but I feel like I can’t really judge the thing until the inevitable sequel arrives. If that sequel builds on what’s here and further explorers the notions of how Earth is responding to this guy, the film may seem better in hindsight. But right now Man of Steel seems a collection of good ideas and standout moments enveloped in a half-baked film. B

Changing Up the Formula Proves Problematic for 'The Hangover Part III'

The Hangover Part III misguidedly turns Chow into a lead and becomes a
heist movie.

In the lead up to The Hangover Part III, director Todd Phillips defended the preceding entry in the series to Empire, saying "Yes we do a wake-up and a blackout, but every joke in Hangover II is completely different. My feeling is that it's better [than the first movie]. I think it's human nature that any time people want to try something for a second time, people go to a negative. I think in five or ten year's time, people will come to realize how brilliant Hangover II is." 

Before commenting on the specifics of such a comment, I should mention that I concur with Forbes contributor Scott Mendelson’s assessment that it is refreshing to see a filmmaker stand by his film, as opposed to shitting on it as a way to sell the next one as an improvement.

Having said that, I do believe most of what Phillips says is nonsense. The second movie is not better than the first, and a majority of the jokes are pointedly the same (as shown in this Vulture piece). For that reason, Phillips was lambasted for making a lazy carbon copy of the original, instead of trying to evolve the story and do something different.

The Hangover Part III seems to be a direct answer to that criticism.  Although Doug (Justin Bartha) is left to the side once again, the movie attempts to switch up the formula. The lead trio is not drugged and they do not spend the movie trying to piece together what happened the night before (despite the title, there is no hangover). Instead, the minor role of Chow (Ken Jeong) is beefed up and action and heist elements are grafted onto the story.


Melissa McCarthy lends the film some much needed humor in her few scenes.

All of this proves a massive misstep. As Community has already proven, Jeong is best used in small doses, and yet here, he’s arguably co-lead with Zach Galifianakis. In fact, the first five minutes of the movie are spent with him, and he is the catalyst for the entire plot, which finds our heroes caught in the middle of his feud with a gangster (John Goodman) over $42 million in gold bars.

Making matters worse, the film is rarely funny, occasionally saccharine and often infuriating. Watching Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms) attempt to discover what happened during a crazy night with Alan (Galifianakis) as an oddball tagalong is a good time. Watching them constantly being outsmarted by a crazy psychopath like Chow, only to feel sympathy for him even though they know he’s a double-crossing murderer? Not so much.

Having seen Part III, I find myself appreciating the second film more than I originally did. While I wouldn’t go so far as to call it brilliant, it is a funny film, and there is something to be said for the way it unashamedly mimics the first one, while simultaneously escalating the events and self destruction to gonzo, nightmarish heights. It’s a sequel that almost plays like a remake, albeit one with more money and more freedom to go full hog. In that way, it’s sort of like Evil Dead 2.

Meanwhile, outside of a few random bits of awkward inanity from Galifianakis, Part III is a just a limp exercise. It’s telling that the biggest laughs come courtesy of a 90-second credit sequence that offers an intentionally derivative glimpse of a morning after hangover following another night of revelry. Hangover films work better with a hangover. Go figure. D+

"Iron Man 3" Proves a Solid Entry to the Increasingly Popular Iron Man Series

Tony Stark spends a large portion of Iron Man 3 out of the Iron Man suit.

I saw Iron Man 3 a few weeks back and thought it was pretty good. It’s definitely better than the lackluster second entry, but not quite on the level of the original. I’d say it’s about on par with The Avengers, even if it doesn’t have the same inherent scope and nerd value.

My overriding takeaway is that it’s amazing how far the character of Iron Man has come in such a short time. Little more than five years ago, he was a second-rate super hero. Now, he’s headed up four films that have amassed more than $1.5 billion at the domestic box office alone and well over double that number internationally. That draw puts him in pretty elite company, shared only by the likes of Harry Potter, James Bond, Batman, and Darth Vader.

Impressively, it seems Iron Man is only getting more popular, as Iron Man 3 has already netted over a billion dollars worldwide* and is on track to make more money than the first two solo outings combined. At this point, it seems pretty clear that Iron Man resides alongside Batman at the tippy top of the super hero food chain. I guess people prefer their super heroes to be eccentric billionaires with no real discernible powers.

* An interesting addendum to the international success of the film revolves around a modified version for the Chinese market. The tailored cut contains four minutes of extra footage, including a subplot with popular Chinese actors and bizarre product placement for Chinese milk. This article does an extremely thorough job of exploring the gimmick.

Other than that, my thoughts on the film are all over the map and sort of hard to pin down in a traditional review. As such, I thought I’d post a point-counterpoint article on things I liked and disliked about the movie.

(Oh, and, ummm, spoiler warning).

The film successfully deploys a kid sidekick in the middle of the film.

Positive #1: The General Vibe

Shane Black has a very particular cinematic voice, and every minute of this movie projects his Shane Blackiness. Christmas setting, meta-voice over narration, witty wisecracks and repartee – all his staples are here. Black seems to have used this opportunity as a way to send up a number of action movie clichés (the precocious kid side kick and the righteous terrorist, in particular), and it’s just a whole lot of fun watching him do it. 

Also, I definitely got a welcome James Bond vibe from much of the film’s middle section, something that’s further evoked by the familiar beats in the score and the line at the end of the credits – “Iron Man Will Return.” I’m not sure if this was overtly intentional, but Marvel president Kevin Feige is talking up his plan to turn Iron Man into the next James Bond in terms of franchise longevity and the ability to keep passing the mantle to new actors.

Negative #1: Lackluster tie in to the Avenger Initiative

The movie very clearly positions itself as a sequel to The Avengers, as a great deal of Tony Stark’s personal journey revolves around what happened in that film. The man can’t sleep, is experiencing panic attacks, and is feverishly working to create an army of suits because of the possibility of intergalactic threat.

And yet, in no other way does the film even acknowledge how the events of that film have affected the world itself. I know the movie should be judged on its own merits, but when you open up the story like this, it’s hard not to be confused when the film treats Iron Patriot (formerly War Machine) as America’s only defense of terrorism. No mention of Captain America or any agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., despite the fact that a lunatic terrorist is killing people left and right, and the leader of the free world is kidnapped.

I’m not saying other Marvel heroes should’ve been in the movie, because I understand they would take away from more intimate story. I’m just saying a throwaway line or two explaining the absences would’ve gone a long way toward silencing the bullshit alarm.


Despite the inanity of this right here, Gwyneth Paltrow continues to add a

great deal of heart and wit to the Iron Man series.

Positive #2: Concentration on Tony Stark

This series has always been at its most interesting when focusing on Tony Stark, due in large part to the iconic performance of Robert Downey Jr., but here, an extra concentrated effort seems to have been put on echoing the final line from the first film – “I am Iron Man.” Unlike Batman in Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, Iron Man is not a symbol or a role that any man can take on. Tony Stark is Iron Man, and as a testament to this Tony spends a large portion of the film out of his suit, using ingenuity and intelligence to act the hero.

Of course, this exposure also highlights his humanity and vulnerability, an ongoing development that has been well handled as this series has played out. Not only is he in a mature loving relationship with Pepper Potts (something that makes him less immune to the threats around him), but he also is experiencing panic attacks related to traveling through the wormhole at the end of The Avengers.  It’s a nice beat for the character that can often seem a bit too unbeatable (he’s smarter, cooler, and just flat-out better than everybody else).

Negative #2: Convenient Plot Points

Throughout the film’s first half, a great deal of focus is given to Tony’s panic attacks, but once the film starts hurtling toward its conclusion, the whole thing is dropped, which seems like a missed opportunity. I’m thinking something like the moment when Pepper falls to her apparent doom (even though she was obviously going to be as indestructible as all these other Extremis folk), would’ve had more heft if it had been due to another attack.

There’s also the issue of why, if Tony has all of these great suits underneath his mansion, he doesn’t utilize them earlier. I suppose one could argue that until close to the film’s conclusion, they are trapped under the wreckage, but that doesn’t explain why he wouldn’t request their assistance during the assault on his home. But you know what does? Plot requirements. And that kind of sucks.

Iron Man 3 finally brings great action to an Iron Man solo outing.

Positive #3: Awesome Action Scenes

The first two Iron Man movies were largely devoid of great action scenes. Other than the decent raceway assault by Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2, there’s not much memorable action in the first two films, probably because so much of the sequences just involved men in iron suits blowing things up or unimaginatively hitting each other.

That’s not the case here. Despite keeping Tony Stark out of his armor for most of the film, Iron Man 3 still manages three distinctly awesome action set pieces – the assault on Stark mansion, the skydiving rescue sequence and the climactic battle.

I know many corners of the Web have been unkind to this last one, but to be honest, I thought it was pretty solid. I didn’t like the silliness of blowing up all the remaining suits (this whole scenario showed how beneficial they can be, so, umm, WTF), and would’ve preferred Aldrich Killian’s death to be of the result of Stark’s very clever (and very well set up) method of throwing his suit on him and self destructing it to the silly and telegraphed Pepper Potts smack down. However, I loved that the sequence played down the importance of the hardware and made it very clear that Stark is the super hero by making each suit so dispensable.

Negative #3: Overreaching Continuity Angle with Rushed Epilogue

Third films often attempt to tie a great deal of elements back into the first movie as a way of indicating “See, you should be impressed, this was all one interconnected story.” This can be successful (The Dark Knight Rises), so-so (Die Hard with a Vengeance), or awful (Spider-Man 3). Hell, it can even be meta (Scream 3).

In all of those examples, the screenwriters tied the main villains from the first movie with those in the threequel. Iron Man 3 doesn’t really do that, but it does attempt to graft that type of thinking onto the film by giving our hero a previous connection with these bad guys, a connection that conveniently took place the same night Tony Stark happened to briefly encounter Yinsen, the man who would go on to help him forge the original Iron Man suit while hostage in a Middle Eastern cave.

Furthermore, it tries to put a nice little bow on the series via a rushed epilogue that explains Tony decided to have surgery to remove the shrapnel from his chest. This last point comes out of nowhere, makes Stark less interesting and renders pointless a great deal of the narrative from parts 1 and 2, both of which strongly indicated this was a medical impossibility. Nevertheless, the film rushes through this plot point as a way to thematically close the series, which isn’t really necessary and sort of works against the story overall.

Ben Kingsley's Mandarin offers a surprising element to the film.

Positive #4: Bad Guys

The greatest stroke of genius in Iron Man 3 is what it opts to do with the Mandarin character. When Ben Kingsley was first cast in the role, many wondered how Marvel would incorporate the character, a genius scientist and martial arts expert with 10 magic rings infused with various powers, into the mostly reality-based world they had created with these Iron Man films. The suggestion was that since Iron Man had now been linked to the more fantastical Thor, the door had been opened to continue down the rabbit hole.

In some ways, that would’ve made sense, as it would’ve built on The Avengers, thus addressing some gripes expressed in negative #1. Despite that, I thought what Black did was fun and fresh, even if it did piss off a number of hard core fans.

I also was quite pleased that the true villains of the piece were not just Iron Man knock offs. Instead, the Extremis villains seemed to evoke Spider Man’s the Lizard. Not entirely original, but at least it’s better than more of the same.

Negative #4: Bad Guys

I know, it seems odd to list the bad guys as a positive and a negative, but that’s just how it is. While, I really enjoyed the Mandarin bit, and was happy to be freed from the formula of iron baddies, Iron Man 3 continues the series’ trend of under whelming villains.

Outside of his excruciatingly over the top performance in the flashback sequences, Guy Pierce does a solid job with Killian, but his efforts don’t hide the fact that he’s just a mediocre compilation of former Iron Man foes. He’s a rich business rival (like Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer) with a cold-blooded thirst for power (like Jeff Bridges’ Obadiah Stane) and a personal vendetta against Tony (like Mickey Rourke’s Vanko).

All of these bad guys were well cast, but none were all that memorable, which is something that does leave a glaring hole in the Iron Man series thus far.  A quick glance at Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy highlights just how much a commanding and memorable bad guy can add to a film, but, excluding The Avengers (where he tussled with Thor’s baddie), Iron Man has dealt with boring, uninteresting adversaries. B+

DiCaprio Impresses in Baz Luhrmann’s Polarizing “The Great Gatsby”

Baz Luhrmann brings his patented style to The Great Gatsby.

Long ago christened the great American novel, The Great Gatbsy has, to some degree, suffered from such a lofty designation. Perhaps due to high expectations, many have walked away unimpressed by the slight nature of the story and unsold on the big ideas placed upon it, often indicating the acclaim seems a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I get this sentiment. There is so much fervor for the text amongst a great deal of scholars that it has become as much a legendary false idol as Jay Gatsby himself. This has led the uninitiated to roll their eyes, which is a shame, because such a chain reaction ultimately dims the beauty of the story’s moving tragedy and elegant prose.

I mention this, because it colors my thoughts on Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, a somewhat problematic and bloated adaptation that overcomes its shortcomings by nailing the plight of the titular character, a man whose overreaching claim to Greatness conceals his true value.

Called a “nothing man from nowhere” by his chief romantic rival, Gatsby is a newly rich man of humble beginnings.  His persona, like his wealth and parties, is extravagant and inauthentic, a sham product conjured from imagination and subterfuge. 

However, underneath the hubbub, Gatsby, like the book that bears his name, is far more than nothing. He is a man of immense passion, resolve and hope on a romantic quest to live out a dream scenario with his lost love. The problem, to paraphrase Fitzgerald, lies in the fact that the idealized fairytale stored up in his heart is just another overdone exaggeration, a self-deluding illusion of colossal vitality. 

Leonardo DiCaprio plays all of this perfectly. Like the books in Gatsby’s library, he’s real, but with uncut pages. The bravado and posh accent increasingly prove themselves to be affectations, and the actor does an excellent job of cutting thorough the mystery and false confidence to show a sad and desperate man who’s achingly real. 

Leonardo DiCaprio owns the role of Jay Gatsby.

Given DiCaprio’s deft work in Shutter Island and Inception, two movies that saw him playing men with their own falsely idealized romances, perhaps his success here shouldn’t be surprising. Ultimately, he offers up the definitive portrait of literature’s most famous dreamer.

As successful as DiCaprio’s performance is, most of the talk surrounding the movie concerns Luhrmann’s stylistic flourishes. When I first heard Luhrmann was hired to tackle this adaptation, I applauded the decision. Although it certainly allowed for the potential of a massive misfire, I thought it could also be a shrewd match of material and director. Given his work on Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge, Luhrmann seemed well equipped to handle the roaring 20s excess and even better prepared to tackle the tragic romance. Besides, at the very least, we were going to get something uniquely different from previous attempts to translate the Fitzgerald classic.

Having seen the results of Luhrmann’s effort, I’m very much understanding of what Nick Carraway meant when he said he was “within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled.” At times, what appears onscreen is enthralling. The production design, mis-en-scene and costuming are highlights, and, certain moments from the book are adapted unbelievably well, particularly the New York apartment party scene in which Nick ponders the inexhaustible variety of life.

However, there are other moments, particularly during the first half hour, that just don’t work. For instance, Nick’s whole first trip to the Buchannan home is fraught with overcooked style. Although it’s pulled straight from the books, the depiction of the whipping curtains is silly, as is the synchronized movements of the wait staff and the overzealous and disorienting editing of the dinner sequence. 

The shot composition in this film is pretty rad.

And while I think the 3D is solid and am not bothered by the multitude of anachronisms (most notably the hip hop soundtrack), I dislike the framing device that reveals Nick is in a sanitarium telling this story to a psychologist and later writing it as a sort of therapy. These scenes add up to quite a bit of screen time spent on an unnecessary and hollow subplot, time that would’ve been better utilized in other ways (like adequately translating the relationship between Jordan Baker and Nick).

Outside of DiCaprio, the cast, which includes Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan and Isla Fisher, acquits themselves well enough. Elizabeth Debicki left me with the best impression, but unfortunately her Jordan is totally underutilized in the second half of the film. Meanwhile, Joel Edgerton brings the right amount of hulking pompousness to the role of Tom, and he kills it in his confrontation scene with DiCaprio.

 The Great Gatsby is destined to be a polarizing film, but while I have a few issues with it, I’m inclined to throw my support behind it. Like Gatsby himself, the film is sometimes flashy to a distancing degree, but underneath the pomp there’s a substance to it that makes for an entirely immersive experience.B+

Messy and Even Silly At Times, “Trance” Still Mesmerizes

Vincent Cassel is unsurprisingly good in Trance, and I won't hold the
weird spelling of his character name against him.

After going all prestige with Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours, director Danny Boyle returns to his genre roots with Trance, a kinetic mind-bender that initially seems like a riff on heist films but ultimately establishes itself as a sexual thriller about hypnotherapy, memory suppression and female empowerment.

The film evokes Inception in its exploration of the subconscious and plays like a spiritual cousin of Side Effects (for my review, click here), this year’s other B-movie detour by an Oscar-winning director in which nothing is as it appears to be. However, despite loads of technical audacity, ace acting and undeniable watachability, Trance is mostly a mess of convoluted twists and silliness.

The action kicks off with a crackling monologue about art thievery from Simon (James McAvoy), a seemingly vanilla mid-level security handler at an auction house who orchestrates a daring heist at the behest of a gang headed up by the ruthless Franck (Vincent Cassel). Despite being in cahoots, Simon attempts to thwart Franck, resulting in a blow to the head that leaves him with memory loss, which proves a problem for Franck and his men once they realize Simon had somehow lifted and hidden the painting.

Enter Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), a hypnotherapist who says she can delve into the recesses of Simon’s mind and find the painting, provided Franck cuts her in on the ensuing payday. From there, things get increasingly disorienting as the movie becomes a bonkers fever dream.

To say much more would give away too much of the plot, but I will say that there’s more to Simon than he thinks and more to Elizabeth than she says. Meanwhile, Franck’s in the middle, piecing it all together, while realizing there may be more to him as well (not in the secret agenda/hidden twist kind of way, but rather the “I’m more than what I’ve done” kind of way).  

A fancy looking visual doubles as some character foreshadowing.

That's crafty.

Once all the twists and turns are revealed, some of the seeming plot holes make more sense, while others open up. The most problematic ones revolve around Franck, who conveniently decides to turn to hypnotherapy because the plot needs him too, and does not grow suspicious of Elizabeth until far too late in the game.

Held up to scrutiny, the film is somewhat frustrating, and the climax involves quite a lot of explanation to make sense of it all. Making matters worse are the laughably silly moments interspersed throughout, particularly those revolving around Simon’s predilection for shaved genitalia and a silly denouement built around a video message on a tablet.

Despite these issues, there’s plenty here to like. The three principles are all at the top of their game, which is pretty impressive given just how tricky these roles are. McAvoy stretches in unexpected ways, and Cassel brings just the right amount of danger and vulnerability to his part as he continues to prove he’s one of the more complicated “bad guys” in cinema today.

Meanwhile, Dawson shows what she can do given a meaty role after being relegated to nothing roles for most of her career. Much has been written about how brave her performance is given the amount of skin she bares, but to focus on that would undercut her hypnotic performance, which is simultaneously confident, vulnerable, intelligent, shifty, and smoldering.

It’s also worth reemphasizing that the movie is a complete gas, and Boyle’s direction deserves a great deal of the credit for that. This movie is far from perfect, but Boyle elevates it through a sheer force of talent. Man’s got style to burn, the way he shoots and cuts this thing makes for a mesmerizing, off-kilter experience. B