5 of My Favorites and 1 I Wish Hadn't Happened

It's the end of the year, and I've put together a list of five of my favorite movies from 2013. This doesn't mean I consider these the best of the year, but these are the ones that have stayed with me. Narrowing down the list was a little tricky, and there are some on the cutting room floor that deserve a little more (sorry, Pacific Rim). But what can you do? Also included at the bottom is my single biggest regret of the year, cinematically speaking. The favorite list is ordered chronologically.

1. Oblivion

The one ray of light at the beginning of the year was this piece of sci-fi from April. This is a movie that I liked then, and has grown on me since. The whole thing feels cohesive, that it is all a part of its own world. The design, the story, the music, all work together to produce a couple of hours of entertaining getaway. It has a peculiar beauty and emotional current running through it that resonated with me. I know there were haters then, and you've probably forgotten about it now, but I'd say to give it a shot one night.

2. Kings of Summer

This one is I think less divisive, but also less circulated. It was a hit at Sundance, but I don't know that much of our local theatre-going public saw much of it. It is on DVD now, so there isn't any excuse. This movie really freshened up the coming-of-age genre for me. It is hilarious and touching and exciting, and it has a distinctive flavor. It is one of those that is as enjoyable watching the second time around as the first, because there is so much to experience. It isn't overwhelmingly dense, but each frame is loaded with summer and adolescence and things to be relived. It is sure to have something that you thought only you and your teenage friends ever did.

3. Blue Jasmine

My favorite character movies of the year came from one of my most idolized directors, Woody Allen. I feel that this is among his strongest movies to date, and much of that is because of Cate Blanchett. She is wonderful. There are so many layers to her character that many actresses might overlook or overexpose, but her precise, delicate touch is at once thrilling and tragic to watch. It is a tragedy for the 21st century. For all its drama and weight there is still some dark humor, but do not look for any comic neuroticism here. Allen writes best when he writes like this, and it is a treat.

4. Gravity

Of the movies I've seen this year, Gravity was the most unexpected and surprising. I do not remember such an engrossing, pervasive experience at a theatre. Fun-killers will say that its science is dubious, but since when are we watching a documentary? The elements that make it such a great movie are all sterling: the visual effects, the story being told, its sheer experiential quality. It is movies like this, not flashy action hoedowns and gaudy studio look-at-me's, that make going to the movies the special event it can be, and I'm glad that can still happen in our skeptical age.

5. 12 Years a Slave

I'm the first to be wary when people call a movie "important". It's a movie, not a movement. It is first a piece of art; anything else comes later and is often fleeting. I think the title "important" can only be bestowed decades later, when history has given it a more objective scrutinization. But, 12 Years a Slave is a movie that feels momentous once it is over. Its narrative is vital, and its delivery is flawless. It is respectful, but truthful, and will eventually become a part of our canon of art and literature devoted to the story of slavery. It is still playing, and I urge you to go.

.....

We have come to the real reason you are reading this, to discover what I was hating on enough to decry it in writing. There were disappointments this year, as there are every year. After Earth and Man of Steel come to mind. The one has suffered its anonymous death already, but the other has spawned offspring bred to combat Marvel's unstoppable box-office force. However the movie I speak of here was one that perhaps promised more, and has greater expectations trailing it. And that movie is Star Trek Into Darkness.

To be brief, I will say that its sins are many and grievous, but the chiefest of these is the central conceit itself. The character of Khan and his consequences for our heroes mean nothing more to uninitiated fans, and ruin the greatest entry of the franchise for everybody else. I am not worried about the rest of the Star Trek franchise, because nothing worse can be done to it, but I am most concerned about a certain other intergalactic property to which JJ Abrams is attached. I know not all of a film's problems can be pinned to the director (I look now at writer Damon Lindelof, who almost ruined the Alien world with his Prometheus meddlings in addition to killing Star Trek) but he most certainly signed off on their being given life. Star Wars: Episode VII has a LOT of convincing to do.

Those are my year-end thoughts, so what about yours? What were your favorite discoveries and hurtful let-downs?   

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Here we are again, back in Middle Earth for the second chapter of the rip-roaringest dwarf-filledest adventure ever filmed! Last week the only thing on anybody's mind was The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and of course this writer was there with the rest of you to partake in the spectacle. Although I was a titch skeptical going in, I feel that these movies have found an appropriate place within the canon, and it was enjoyable besides.

We pick up here where we left off before, following our intrepid dwarf band to the Lonely Mountain. They of course have some jolly adventures along the way (LEGOLAS!), culminating in their confrontation with the titular dragon.

I said I had reservations going in, and they were these: that there would be enough story for three full movies, and that the lighter tone would become cartoony. Concerning both of these I had an epiphany in Lake Town. This trilogy is a prequel series in a kind of legendary sense. In incorporating extra material into The Hobbit, Peter Jackson and company have crafted a sort of mythological backstory to The Lord of the Rings. Hence, its lighter tone and exaggerated action are appropriate, because that is what you do with legends. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is more "realistic" and grounded, and deals with much deeper themes. The Hobbit trilogy is Bilbo's account of things that influence those later events, but they are fairly distant by the time he records them. In the world of Middle Earth, The Lord of the Rings can therefore be considered more of a "true" record, and The Hobbit more of a fictionalized account of things that few living people remember.

Obviously it is a little silly to talk about two equally-fantastical stories in such journalistic terms. I know neither story is real, in case you were worried.

To shift gears, I thought the confrontation with Smaug was fairly-nearly worth the wait. Benedict Cumberbatch is an excellent casting choice, and he relishes every line. Many have spoken about the addition of Tauriel, so I will only add that I do not think it is necessarily heretical since she adds an emotional element to the story previously absent, but also signals a new concern brewing in me. That is, is this story still Tolkien's story? Many adaptations are substantial departures from the source, but Jackson's gang has done so well remaining true to Tolkien's work that to move away from it at this point could be a foolish thing. Also, the location tag at the beginning and especially the barrel-mounted camera took me out of the world pretty jarringly.

So overall, I will say that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was fun, exciting, and a perfect way to escape into everybody's favorite fantasy world. I have concerns going into the finale next year, but I am also confident now in the trilogy's role.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug features Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian McKellen, Benedict Cumberbatch, Orlando Bloom, and Evangeline Lilly, and is rated PG-13 for the creative dispatch of many many orcs.

Director: Peter Jackson

Writers: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro

12 Years a Slave

I hope all of my loyal readers have enjoyed the cinematic climate these past few weeks, because I have been busy not feeling bad about not participating in franchises I don't have any attachment to. Not that there is anything wrong with Thor or Hunger Games or what have you. It's just, when you live in a town like Cedar town, those are the only things that make it to the screen, which I think is a little unfair.  So over the holiday I took some time out of family bonding to support my local independent theater and see 12 Years a Slave. I heartily encourage you to go out and see it too.

The movie, directed by Steve McQueen, is based on the memoir by Solomon Northup. He is a free man living in the north and is kidnapped and sold into slavery in 1841. 

Much, I think, has already been said about this movie, and a great deal of it is accurate. People are saying that not only is it a good movie, but that it is an important one. I agree. In many ways, it is in line with films like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. Like those, it shows history through an unfiltered movie lens, giving a powerful and frank depiction. It is not an easy movie to watch, but it is immensely rewarding and incredibly potent. It tells a story that needs telling to all of us who have at best a mediocre grasp of that chapter of our history.

But, of course, this is a movie we are talking about, not a documentary. This is why I think it is so powerful. The same kind of material in a documentary would be powerful, too, but we often draw a thick line between the present and the documented past. In a movie such as this we dive in, removing our insulation, and it has a special kind of emotional immediacy.

The film itself, aside from subject matter, is also impressive. McQueen is less artistically conservative than someone like Spielberg, and his movie has a distinct flavor. There are agonizingly long shots, intricately choreographed segments, and moments of intense simplicity. The film shows us a different side of slavery. Masters are not all brutal racists, and the enslaved are not all bristling for a chance at freedom. There is a complex morality in this world, among the slaves themselves and also between them and their masters. The film's ultimate goal is something of a portrayal for understanding, not necessarily a call to action. It is not a political movie; it is a movie about humanity and its resilience.

12 Years a Slave is justifiably one of the best movies of the year. The story is important, the craft is excellent, and there are several powerhouse performances to carry it through. Even if you are uneasy about violent or graphic movies, I think you should watch this.

12 Years a Slave features Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong'o, Benedict Cumber-batch, Paul Giamatti, and Paul Dano, and is rated R for its depiction of life in slavery.

Director: Steve McQueen

Writer: John Ridley

Carrie

Autumn is my favorite time of year. One of the many things that makes it great is getting your fill of scary movies. I do love a good chill every now and then. The trouble is (and this is common to many of my fellow scaremongers out there) there aren't really that many good scary movies. You kind of have to forget your normal movie standards for the sake of cheap thrills. But there are really excellent ones, every once in a while, that make the rest worth the time.

So I went to see Carrie. To be honest from the get go, it wasn't great. But it wasn't not worth it, either. The good parts and the faulty parts kind of balance each other out in the spirit of the season and it was entertaining enough for a weeknight I might have otherwise spent reading for my British Lit class.

Carrie asks what happens if that one person you don't know how to get along with and therefore avoid and ridicule develops telekinetic powers. It was originally the book that put Stephen King on the map, and is pretty iconic on its own. So I think the group of filmmakers who decided to adapt it again had their work cut out for them. In that sense I pity them, and even wonder "Was there no other project to do?"

The movie's one big problem from which every other disappointing thing stems is the writing. The performances (considering what the actors are given) are fair and even good, and the technical aspects of it are strong. It just wasn't sketched out well beforehand. The dialog is weak and sometimes tacky. The characters feel like they've been reduced to their basic elements and left that way. They are often only caricatures drawn with wide lines and colored crudely. The lapse in writing also effects the film's overall structure, not leaving enough time for it to rise and only letting it partially cook. 

On the other hand, it does try to offer a fair thematic update. We commonly deal with things like cyberbullying and there are more and more people we can't fit into a mold and therefore don't know how to deal with. If every emotional outburst from one who feels mistreated resulted in telekinetic destruction, maybe we'd treat them a little more seriously.

In the end, I will say that it might be more worth it to rent it next year at Halloween, as part two of your double feature with Hocus Pocus or something. But what is your favorite scary movie? What says Halloween to you?

Carrie features Chloë Grace Moretz, Julianne Moore, and Judy Greer, and is rated R because, well, it's Carrie. What did you expect?

Captain Phillips

It seems the season is upon us now where movies really want to be awarded things. Sometimes this means we get really great stuff, like Gravity. Other times it means we get good-but-not-spectacular-and-therefore-kinda-deceiving stuff like Captain Phillips. As a story it is one of the great maritime episodes of recent history. As a movie, it is competent but not really special, combining a solid performance by Tom Hanks with an all right rest of it overall.

Captain Phillips' titular character is played by Hanks. He is a commercial freighter captain shipping cargo around the African horn. This of course goes wrong when a band of Somali pirates boards their ship.

The movie has two main problems that are sort of the same problem: this is a story that we know the ending of specifically, and a genre we are overly familiar with generally. Therefore, most of the work put into making it suspenseful is kind of wasted. Director Paul Greengrass is good at this (he gave us two Bourne movies) but it doesn't have the effect here. But even if you don't know the specifics of the story, you are acquainted with the rescue movie genre and its conventions. The movie goes willingly along with all of them, and results in a lot of ill-spent energy.

There is an attempt to get around all this, to a certain extent, but I don't think it quite makes it. We get to know the four pirates pretty well, and they seem to be our outlet into something a little different. Their leader especially has an interesting relationship with Phillips, and there is an attempt to make something of this. They are both captains, but they differ radically with how they act in relation to their crew. This is kind of neat, but ultimately doesn't pan out to much. 

The movie, notwithstanding my comments above, is pretty watchable. There are even some tense moments even though we pretty much know the outcome, so chalk that up to Greengrass' skill. The movie's best part by a long stretch is its last fifteen minutes or so. As it wraps up there are some interesting little threads of moral ambiguity--nothing inflammatory but enough to remind that there are multiple sides to every story. There are also some powerful moments showing the trauma experienced by some characters that really bring the movie down to the level of real-life, rejecting any action-movie similarities there might have been.

So I say that Captain Phillips is good but not necessarily noteworthy. In other terms, it is more worthwhile as a weekend rental than as a show with paid admission. As always let me know what you thought about it.

Captain Phillips features Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Barkhad Abdirahman, and Faysal Ahmed, and is rated PG-13 for some violence.

Writer: Billy Ray

Director: Paul Greengrass

Gravity

I have a new favorite movie this year, and it is called Gravity. The word "favorite" implies that the other movies I liked are inferior to it, or that I don't like them any more. That isn't true, really. Movies like The Kings of Summer and Pacific Rim still stand out, but Gravity is on a different plane. It is overwhelming and beautiful, terrifying and intimate, a consummately fine film.

The movie is about Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), a scientist in space for the first time working to install an experimental device on a satellite. With her is Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), who is on his last mission. Together they survive a terrible accident that leaves them floating in space, hundreds of miles above the earth.

Part of what I love about the movie is the entirely realized vision of director Alfonso Cuarón. It makes no concessions in its portrayal of the story, and results in an entirely unique viewing experience. The movie opens with a seemingly continual shot that lasts for minutes, immediately immersing us in his world. His distinctive use of the camera throughout enforces the illusion of being in space with the characters, making it one of the most beautiful pieces of cinematography I've experienced. This adds a certain level of both intimacy and terror, since in large part we are on stage with the actors. The movie feels like it is encircling the audience. Perhaps a better analogy is that the audience is the roaming camera, finding action as it happens. It is really one-of-a-kind.

The visual effects are also a key element to the movie's success, and are actually more essential to the "camerawork" than the actual camera. The sound design is also incredible. All of the technical aspects working seamlessly together allow the artistic and thematic elements to really shine. That is the other part of what I loved about it: it isn't simply the disaster/survival movie it easily could have been. It certainly has those elements, but it adds up to more. It almost seems like a combination of Castaway and 2001: A Space Odyssey. The movie is consciously philosophical, even spiritual. It deals powerfully with concepts of mortality and rebirth, of guilt and forgiveness. Indeed, it is almost a grand parable for the entire cycle of life, ironically told where life cannot possibly exist on its own.

This all plays out with essentially two characters. This may be one of the film's biggest risks, but it is certainly one of its greatest payoffs. Sandra Bullock especially carries the emotional weight of the movie, and she does so quite well. This was pleasing to me, since she has always been inexplicably irritating to me in movies. She was my only qualm going in, but proved me wrong as soon as it got going. She brings a down-to-earth (excuse the pun) sensibility to it that brings all of us non-astronauts along for the experience. Her part is as crucial to the film as anything else.

And so I say without reservation that Gravity is worth it, all the way. It is certainly tense enough to merit watching merely for thrills, but its soulful depiction of humanity and life makes it special. I saw it in regular old 2D, but I think its 3D treatment would be worthwhile as well.

Gravity features Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, and is rated PG-13 for some scary things and understandable swears.

Writers: Alfonso Cuarón & Jonás Cuarón
Director: Alfonso Cuarón

Prisoners

This is typically the time of year when studios are all out of big-budget blockbusters to parade around, but aren't quite ready to cast out their award bait either. The result is a cinematically sterile autumn every year, which is a little sad since this is my favorite time of year. To my surprise, Prisoners proved a welcome break from the nothing interesting going on.

The movie is about two families whose daughters mysteriously disappear. Time goes by and the police investigation looks increasingly unpromising, so one father (Jackman) decides to take matters into his own hands and track down the person he feels is responsible.

This movie is a nice little chiller put on a slow burn. Everything is carefully measured and restrained. This, I think, is its biggest strength. Without it, the movie would have been merely a variation on Taken, only without the fun of having no shame. The movie is relentlessly rainy, and I think cinematographer Roger Deakins goes to town with it. The whole thing looks beautiful (but really, like rainy shots in autumn ever don't) and immediately has a constant mood. This has everything to do with the power of the images created, and is commendable.

The plot, for the most part, matches the control exhibited in the movie's craft. It is all intentional, from its formulaic setup to its almost immediate turnaround. It keeps twisting and descending into this macabre little maze you want to find your way out of. It is certainly enveloping and immersive.

That said, I think the major weakness of the movie was the characters. The acting is good, even at times commendable, but the material the actors were given wasn't completely realized. It feels like writer Aaron Guzikowski got started on a lot of cool things but didn't finish them in time. For as well as everything comes off, having characters as depthless as these was a little disappointing.

By the end, though, it turns out to be pretty satisfying. There is enough thematic material and plot turns going on to outweigh the underbaked character or two. At any rate it beats the pants off of anything else you will find out there this week. Its subtlety of storytelling is something that is hard to find these days, and makes it at least a pretty unique, if not a special, movie experience.

Prisoners features Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Terrence Howard, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Paul Dano and Melissa Leo, and is rated R for swears but not as much violence as you might expect.

Writer: Aaron Guzikowski

Director: Denis Villeneuve

"The Spectacular Now" & "The Way, Way Back"

For the sake of something different, I'll be including two movies together in the same post. This isn't necessarily because they are similar; it has more to do with how little time has passed between my seeing them. They are The Spectacular Now and The Way, Way Back. Both are fine movies, and good ways to start off the new school year.

First is The Spectacular Now. It is the story of Sutter, an hard-living high school senior recovering from a brutal breakup. He meets Aimee, a quiet girl he falls for in spite of himself. Their complicated relationship and differing perspectives on life end up teaching them both some important lessons.

Of the two, I think this is the better movie. Despite this synopsis, the movie doesn't really adhere to all of the hallowed tenets of the coming-of-age genre you might think it to. For starters, it is considerably more adult than the typical offering, leading me to think that it isn't necessarily about teenagers. It is about their families as well, and the world they end up coming into. Director James Ponsoldt has a very delicate touch throughout--he balances teenage romance with darker themes in a beautifully intimate palette.

The whole movie, in fact, feels like an intimate close-up. The writing and its interpretation is incredibly realistic (almost to the point of irritation, I must confess), and much of it happens in these wonderfully long takes. We aren't watching a movie, we are watching a relationship of people we know, and it is beautifully executed. By the end, everybody is not the same person as at the beginning, but it is no concrete resolution. Like any change of perspective, it is raw and untested, but full of hope.

The more general audience-friendly of the two is The Way, Way Back, which tells of The Most Awkward Summer Ever. Duncan is spending the summer with his mom and would-be step dad Trent (Steve Carell) at an out-of-the-way resort town. He doesn't get along with Trent, other growups, girls, and is trying to make his way around in a world full of dysfunction and confusion.

The Way, Way Back feels very familiar in a lot of ways. And, if left in the hands of lesser filmmakers would be nothing more than a Disney Channel Friday night movie. But it makes its mark in two ways. First, the adult characters are very well-realized. They are not the caricatures that so often plague movies like this; they are emotive and confused and as emotionally bruised as much as anybody else. Of note are the two men in Duncan's life, Trent and Owen (Sam Rockwell). Theirs are the strongest performances, and the most meaningful to the movie.

The movie is certainly enjoyable, and lighter fare than Spectacular. It is consistently funny, though it is also empowering and honest as well. That is its other strength: where convention demands that everything wrap up with misunderstandings now understood and everything happening for the best, The Way, Way Back offers something a little more true. Love is only accomplished when understanding is not a pre-requisite, and you need to choose to go there.

The Spectacular Now features Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley, and is rated R for swears and teenagers doing lots of things they shouldn't.

The Way, Way Back features Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Sam Rockwell, Maya Rudolph, and Liam James, and is rated PG-13 for some swears.

Special #9: You Can't Take It With You

1938 saw Frank Capra win his second Best Picture in four years with the screwball comedy You Can't Take It With You. It is a light-hearted venture certainly well-suited for Depression-weary America, but it doesn't carry over as well as some of his other work.

The movie is about two families: the rich, stuck-up Kirby's, and the humble and eccentric Sycamore's. Tony, the Kirby heir, (Stewart) falls in love with young Alice Sycamore (Arthur), which results in a culture clash between the two families.

The film fits well in Capra's brand. It is very strongly family-centric, and appeals to that class of 20th Century American eager to live out the clean, moral, American dream. Organizations like big business are criminalized, while activities such as making fireworks in your basement are seen as quaint. Those things certainly would have appealed to a country still looking for a way out of the Great Depression. Most of the film's humor comes from exploiting the "otherness" of the wealthy -- they are comically detached from humanity and out-of-touch with real life. Capra takes up this theme again in It's A Wonderful Life, but for dramatic rather than comedic purposes.

Despite this, I felt that the movie didn't translate very strongly compared with some of his other movies. There are lots of Capra-esque cultural embellishments (a group of rag-tag kids teaches Tony and Jane a new dance in the park, for example) that add to the stylized vision of America he adopts, but that also take away somewhat from the overall film experience. I felt like I had to try harder to be a part of it than other movies, even poor ones, from this time period.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy it. Stewart and Arthur are particularly enjoyable together. The movie's best moments are with them, when it at its ease and isn't trying to moralize. But overall I feel that this is a case of enormous-but-waning popularity defining a movie, rather than its inherent quality.

You Can't Take It With You features Jimmy Stuart, Jean Arthur, Lionel Barrymore, and Edward Arnold, and is not rated.

Lee Daniels' The Butler

Sometimes there are movies you hope will be really good, because to say anything against them would be nearly the same as disparaging their message. The Butler (ahem, excuse me) Lee Daniels' The Butler is one of those. Unfortunately, it is not really good. It tries to be about family struggles and race relations, but in lacking one focus ends up being about neither. It is essentially a well-intentioned cameo reel.

The movie is about Cecil (Whitaker), a man who has elevated himself from cotton farmer to hotel butler. He lands the gig of a lifetime being one of a handful of butlers at the White House, which gives him an inside perspective to the political turmoil around civil rights and changing times.

As I said, the movie is well-intentioned, but ultimately directionless. Cecil is a deliberately non-political man, so any foray into civil rights is shown through his son, Louis, who leaves college to be a freedom rider. This is certainly noble on his part, but for us is no different than any other movie about civil rights ever. It also has the added burden of being a story of which everybody knows the end: after tribulation, they triumph and win equal rights. It adds nothing to the incredible human drama of the civil rights movement, which is almost shameful in a movie purporting to be about just that.

On the other hand, there is the story we don't know about Cecil's complicated family life. He all but disowns his son for being a freedom rider. His wife is an alcoholic and their marriage isn't exactly a model of happiness. But all of this feels depthless. Of course they overcome their problems, and it is about as simple as that. What could have been a compelling family drama with a backdrop of civil struggle is not much of either.

On the other other hand, there is Cecil's experience serving seven US Presidents. This, of all the rest, could have been the most unique part of the movie, but felt the most haphazard. Most of them are miscast, ranging from a Robin Williams who looks like he's just finished chemo playing Eisenhower to Professor Snape with a haircut as Ronald Reagan. None has more than a few minutes or is any deeper than a caricature touched by Cecil's plight as the father of an activist. This is somehow shown to be the tipping of the scales for Kennedy to speak out, for Johnson to sign the Civil Rights Act, and for Ronny to intervene in South Africa.

It is not a poorly-made or even a poorly-acted movie, only poorly conceived. What could be a lasting testament to the civil rights struggle or an honest personal portrait of a regular man with an uncommon story only ends up being a maudlin attempt to tug our heartstrings. 

Lee Daniels' The Butler features Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey, 500 cameos, and is rated PG-13 for thematic material and racial language.

Blue Jasmine

Summer is now ended, and with it the season of escapist blockbusters we all love. And, truly, it was a more-than-bearable season this year. One of the harbingers of late summer (in Salt Lake, anyway) is the arrival of Woody Allen's annual picture show at the Broadway. This year, it was Blue Jasmine, and a fine way to end summer it was.

Blue Jasmine concerns itself with a woman, Jasmine, played by Cate Blanchett. She has recently divorced her mogul husband (Baldwin) in New York and arrives in San Francisco to live with her less well-to-do sister in an attempt to rebuild her life.

The movie is more than anything else an intense and often poignant psychological portrait. It has as much forward-moving plot as any of Allen's movies ever have, instead taking its time to show us Jasmine as she was and how she has become. And in this, Blanchett shines. She transitions effortlessly from beautiful and carefree to despondent to feigning carelessness to melancholy and fifty others in between. She gives life to Allen's words in a remarkable way.

And his words themselves are spectacular. As much as I love Allen's comedies, I think his writing talent comes through many times better in settings like this. It of course is alive with his trademark wit, but this is tampered with darker emotions and tense drama. His characters here are much deeper, and justly so, because his subject matter is much deeper. A common theme brilliantly satirized in his comedies is this psychosis caused by wealth and isolation from normal society (see especially Sleeper, but also the California parts of Annie Hall and any present-day American other than Gil in Midnight in Paris). Here it is given a different kind of treatment. Jasmine's problems arise essentially from her inability to accept any unpleasant reality. What makes for hilarious moments in other settings translates to sad and ultimately revealing scenes here.

But this isn't just Jasmine's problem. Everyone else seems to be in a situation they'd rather not be in, and is, in one way or another, in some stage of denial. Ultimately none of us are who we pretend to be on the outside. We create an elaborate façade to convince ourselves that everything is how we want it to be, but in looking in the mirror it peels away, and we are left with no more than our unsatisfactory selves.

Blue Jasmine features Cate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, Sally Hawkins, Bobby Cannavale, Peter Sarsgaard and Louis CK, and is rated PG-13 for thematic stuff and some swears.

Elysium

I feel like there has been a sort of renaissance of science fiction of late. It started slowly with independent pictures like Moon, growing until last year's Prometheus was a big deal. After that we had things like Looper and Oblivion, continuing the trend. One of the fathers of this new sci-fi movement is South African Neill Blomkamp, who blew us away with 2009's District 9. Now he is back with a new effort called Elysium. It is a chilling vision of the future that refuses to be only an escape from the dog days of summer.

Elysium takes place in 2154, by which time Earth has become insufferable to live on. The solution? An off-planet refuge free of disease and poverty. The trouble? It is accessible only to the rich and powerful. Our hero, an ex-criminal named Max (Damon) becomes ill from radiation exposure and decides to do whatever possible to get up to Elysium in order to save his life.

The thing with Blomkamp's work (so far) is that it is tremendously socially conscious and to me, most of Elysium is not about one man's struggle for survival and justice, as I've just synopsed. It is a disturbing an oddly realistic portrayal of capitalism taken to its psychopathic consummation, and of intolerance leading to national borders being made along monetary, rather than political or cultural lines. It is a story of solvable problems left alone to fester and grow. His version of L.A. doesn't have any of the seedily-romanticized underground culture it might have in, say, Blade Runner or even Terminator. It looks more like a slum in Mexico City or a favela in Rio de Janeiro. And how many of us are comfortable with that? 

It seems to echo a little bit of Ray Bradbury, who was so good at showing us the darker side of ourselves through seemingly innocent or even "benevolent" acts. In an attempt to make life better, the designers and inhabitants of Elysium create a polarized social situation between classes and monopolize things like health care and employment. These aren't problems we create for ourselves on purpose, but we create them for ourselves nonetheless.

Another thing I enjoyed was the international element in the movie, a movie not necessarily intended for an international audience. The first lines are given in Spanish. The actors come from places like South Africa, Mexico and Brazil. Foster's character is a French woman. This in itself is a portrayal of the growing internationality of the world, something the world of Elysium can't quite cope with.

I'm glad that there is another thoughtful and though-provoking science fiction movie for us to chew on. It isn't necessarily a perfect movie, but I don't think a movie needs to be perfect to be enjoyable. At any rate it is a genre that has been spread a little thin until recently, and I'm pleased at its apparent comeback.

Elysium is rated R for swears and violence, and features Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Diego Luna, Wagner Moura, Sharlto Copley and Alice Braga.

RED 2

In the interest of full disclosure, I march in the very front of the sequel-denouncing parade. Entertaining, original cinema is getting harder to come by because of audience-proven properties being squeezed for more money (come to mind Despicable Me 2, Grown Ups 2, Iron Man 3, all from this summer). I also think simply adding the number of its sequence to a title is the laziest thing a filmmaker can do to distinguish original from sequel. I suppose we have endless Rockys and Rambos to thank for that being acceptable.

However, I understand why sequels are so popular. If a movie (like a woman) takes your fancy, maybe you want to see more than what you got the first time. That is what I wanted with RED 2. The first one (out in 2010) was a fun, enjoyable little flic: great cast, great jokes, a great movie to unwind to. I thought another dose of that might do me good in these dog days of summer. Thankfully, it did what I wanted it to.

RED stands for Retired Extremely Dangerous, and the movie is about these retired CIA operatives who find themselves on the wrong side of the assassin's gun. As an action movie it would be pretty stupid, but as the comedy it is it works really well. It doesn't pretend to be anything important or special, it just provides welcome relief from things that do. That isn't to say that it isn't legitimately funny, either, or that it is just a paycheck movie for tired actors. There is no smack of adolescent crudeness or extremeness for the sake of extremeness like you might find in the Iron Mans of the world. But what right have I to say that, he's only the most lucrative movie franchise around. I guess everybody has their pet sequel, and I guess this one is mine.

RED 2 features Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Mary-Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, Anthony Hopkins and Catherine Zeta-Jones, and is rated PG-13 for old people swearing and shooting bad guys.

The Kings of Summer

With The Kings of Summer, director Jordan Vogt-Roberts has crafted an original and moving development in the coming-of-age genre. The movie is entertaining from beginning to end, hilarious and poignant, and I think even gives an important commentary on the struggle of self-discovery.

The movie is about three teenage boys who show their independence by building a house in the woods and living there through the summer. It has lots of the hallmarks of a coming-of-age flic, but are freshly interpreted and portrayed. It is not quite the update of Stand By Me you might think it is.

First, it is consistently hilarious throughout, and this is helped especially by the supporting cast. Moises Arias is possibly the greatest gem as their Italian friend, Biaggio. But the adult characters who the boys rebel against are fun to watch, too. They are not simply oppressive Disney Channel caricatures. Nick Offerman plays a single father trying to keep his family together, and he maintains a dry hilarity over his deep-seeded personal sadness. Everybody is complex and vulnerable, and their misunderstanding of each other is mutual.

A cast full of great characters is hard to find, but rarer still is a film with its own distinct voice, and this is that movie. The writing is confident and the visual element is pristine. It is a teenage comedy written with the control of the Coens and shot something like a toned-down Wes Anderson might have. It would still be brilliant if only listened to, and if watched muted it would still carry a heavy emotional weight. This is applaudable.

Beyond the fine characters and distinct-while-understated style, I loved this movie because it felt true. While I certainly never would have, I could easily have had a group of friends who ran off to prove their manhood in the wilderness. Every boy has. And, I think, every boy does something like that. Our society doesn't require rites of passage into manhood anymore, but a boy feels that there should be when he begins to question his place in the world and his standing before his elders. How does he know he is no longer a boy when he feels he is something more? Where is the line? It doesn't seem that there is one. Boys and men are not necessarily two creatures that never meet; the one has shades of the other always in him, and becoming a man is not a full forsaking of the boy.

The Kings of Summer features Nick Robinson, Gabriel Basso, Moises Arias, Nick Offerman and Megan Mullally, and is rated R for being kind of languagy throughout.

Special #8: The Life of Emile Zola

Well, it's time to talk about another movie you've never heard of. In my Oscar history quest I have come to 1937's The Life of Emile Zola, the story of the 19th century French writer (played by Paul Muni), infamous for his radical leftist views, unsavoury literature, and accusing the army of covering up its own injustices for the sake of keeping its image clean. To some he was a muckraker, to others a champion of truth. Guess which side the movie takes?

It is what we call a biopic, but really only in the loosest sense of the word. A lengthy disclaimer at the beginning tells us that while some of the events are true, it is mostly fictionalized, the better to immortalize Mr Zola as the French counterpart of Upton Sinclair. Most of the movie is about the end of his life, when he apparently decided to take up the cause of a Jewish army officer wrongfully accused and convicted of treason. He is brought to trial for his accusations, on charges of slander and other things.

The movie itself isn't terribly impressive. I guess we don't really watch it because it hasn't stood the test of time. Today we couldn't name who Zola was. Its legacy is not in the subject matter, but in the delivery, especially in the writing. Until then, lots of film dialog was purely functional, either humorous or dramatic. The arts of playwriting and screenwriting didn't seem to have much overlap. Here, though, the writing is inspired. It is never toned down for the sake of the audience, and retains what must have been the fire and passion of Zola's own work. The best of these occurs in Zola's trial. Muni gives a spectacular monologue, something that would be captivating on stage but becomes arresting on the screen. Throughout the dialog has wit and sparkle, but its greatest achievement is in these few moments.

That said, I wouldn't consider this an essential classic film experience. It is charming, but not touching, and verges on preaching and moralizing a little too often. So now you know.

The Life of Emile Zola features Paul Muni, Joseph Schilkraut, Gloria Holden, and Gale Sondergaard, and is not rated.

Pacific Rim

Monsters! Robots! Yes! Guillermo del Toro's smashemup has all the cool things about monsters and robots and stuff without smelling like Battleship or anything done by Michael Bay. If you are going to do an over-the-top summer movie, you might as well do it extremely, right?

Pacific Rim is set in the near future and shows us what happens when giant people-hating monsters start attacking from an inter-dimensional portal deep in the Pacific. Mankind makes giant robots called jaegers to combat the beasts, and it is all pretty awesome, whether or not you consider yourself an action movie fanboy or not.

To be clear, I didn't go into this thinking it would be the Movie of My Life. But I was pretty excited. Del Toro is one of my favorite directors (if you haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth go do so now, reading this post can wait), and he has a special knack for monsters and things like of that sort. Combine that with giant robots fighting them, and one wonders why he didn't make this movie sooner. The result is (using my fanboy vernacular) pretty sweet.

That doesn't mean I usually go in for stuff like this. I have already expressed my distaste for movies in this exact same genre, like Transformers and the like. These movies get lost in themselves and turn into hours and hours of mindless destruction because it looks cool. And, I think, in anybody else's hands Pacific Rim would have gone down that same unforgivable path. But del Toro is an artist who respects his audience and the aesthetic he is taking part in. He realizes he is dealing in spectacle rather than in high drama, and doesn't pretend to anything else. Lots of going to movies has always been to see things that you just don't find in the real world. Del Toro glories in this to some extent, but he has a palpable reverence for it. The film is dedicated to some of the pioneerss of film special effects, and there are moments nodding to their genius and influence throughout. In that sense it is almost a fervent love letter to the work of del Toro's soul brothers and godfathers, Harryhausen and Honda.

The movie is by no means the Best Movie Ever. It really comes down to being a monster movie, with any attempt at "going deeper" really only resulting in interesting plot points. If there is such a thing as an "important" monster movie, this may be one. It upped the level of effective visual effects and has gone bigger than things we've seen so far. Then again, that could be the start of an uncomfortable trend, with poser fanboys taking the reins of the next extreme thing instead of artists. Oh well. At any rate, I liked it, and I feel that maybe Ray and Ishirô would have too.

Pacific Rim is rated PG-13 for hardcore robot-monster take-downs and combat-induced swearing, and features Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, and Ron Perlman.

Special #7: The Great Ziegfeld

I love it when movies impress me. I love it when I catch myself leaning in closer to a screen or making comments alone in the dark. In the digital age, though, this hardly ever happens. It's not real, and I know it. Incredible images or sequences of film are only the product of talented nerds working at a computer. So often it is in the movies of decades gone that I find astonishment.

The Great Ziegfeld is not really a great movie. But it has incredible parts that make it worth seeing. It is a loving and flamboyant tribute to one of America's greatest stage producers to ever live, done with a brilliant combination of stage craft and screen spectacle.

The movie is about the life and career of Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr, best known for his "Follies", spectacular shows meant to glorify the beauty of the American woman. As a biographical movie it is okay, but we are only ever given one date, and it often jumps periods of years without making mention of it. I'm not even sure if it takes much trouble in dwelling on fact, but that isn't really what the movie is about. It is about his legend as known to the American people of the thirties. 

What stands out are the extravagant stage productions inserted into the film. The crown jewel of these is "A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody", seen in the picture above. Its ten minutes or so won the film a Dance Direction Oscar (too bad they don't give that out anymore) and it is entirely deserved. That thing they are standing on (that the picture only shows about half of) rotates, and there is a shot that essentially walks up the stairs and then floats out to see the entire monolith. That was my "wow" moment: not because I found a quaint little thing, now done easily but crudely pioneered here, but because the technical and the artistic were so effectively blended. This is why we go to movies, why we see images printed on film and projected onto the silver screen. There is nothing, not advanced digital imaging techniques or cheap 3D thrills, that can replace this kind of artistry. But I am afraid this may be a thing of the past.

So, it isn't a great movie, but it does great things. It's too long and its narrative arc doesn't make much sense. But it is a fine example of a craft I don't think we have any more, and reminds us why we watch movies at all.

The Great Ziegfeld features William Powell, Luise Rainer, Myrna Loy, and the guy who plays Oz, and is not rated.

Monsters University

Out last week was Pixar's latest foray, Monsters University. It is the prequel to their hit Monsters, Inc., and is no less fun or entertaining. In fact, it helps you forget that you are a fun-hating adult and relax with the scores of children in the theatre with you.

The movie is about our beloved Mike Wazowski's (Crystal) freshman year of college, and his attempts to become the best scarer on campus. He becomes involved in an inter-fraternity competition where he has to work with rival Sully (Goodman).

This movie, technically speaking, is astonishing. The Pixar wizards have achieved near-photorealism in the sets they create. I mean, look at the picture. The short beforehand, The Blue Umbrella, (which I thought was cute) does an even better job at this. Elements like hair and eyes are the same way. But it never feels like a Mary Poppins live action/animation clash: everything works together perfectly, and I think animators have virtually any tool at their creative disposal now.

Cool technical stuff aside, this movie is just fun. It isn't necessarily surprising or life-changing or anything. It's just a fun ride. Sitting in a room full of kids who laugh at everything makes it even better. It brings back being a kid and being a college freshman at the same time. Each, I think, have their own measure of possibility without doubt mingled in, and that is what Monsters University leaves you with. So go out and see this one, and take a child with you if you can.

Monsters University is rated G for having nothing offensive at all, and features Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi and Helen Mirren.

Special #6: Mutiny on the Bounty

Next on our trip through time is 1935's Mutiny on the Bounty. It is one of the great maritime films, a swashbuckling adventure in its own right (even though there are no pirates). It has Clark Gable in his second Best Picture in a row, and features one of the greatest villain performances ever.

The movie tells the true story of the mutiny led by Fletcher Christian in 1787 that eventually led to reform throughout the British Navy. The film has been remade twice, once featuring Marlon Brando and Richard Harris, and again with Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins, but the original is the clear standout.

What is immediately noticeable is the amount of time this movie spends outside. There is no fake boat with the camera moving around to simulate the sea here. Of course the actors aren't actually sailing a ship, either, but it is extraordinarily realistic for a 30s adventure movie made at the height of the Great Depression. It is an epic movie, taking us to exotic locales through perils thick and thin, even including actual islanders instead of actors in brown paint. It is in that sense one of the more realistic pictures of the prewar era.

What stands out even more is Charles Laughton's performance as the ruthless Captain Bligh. His bent presence overshadows even Clark Gable. He is unrelenting and callous, yet intriguing. He is by no means sympathetic, something we seem to look for in our villains today, but he generates something akin to it. After the mutiny, he and his loyal men are cast adrift, and through his incredible seamanship he keeps them alive for weeks until they find safe harbor. He is no inept tyrant, though his monstrous ego interferes with his judgement at times. He is only the immoveable rock placed in front of the unstoppable force of change, and that is what makes his character so enduring.

The movie is worth it for his performance alone, although it did garner two other acting nominations for Gable and Franchot Tone, the only film to have three actors nominated for the same award. Beyond that, it is one of the great epics, an excellent example of classic cinema.

Special #5: It Happened One Night

1934's Best Picture winner, Frank Capra's It Happened One Night, is one of the best movies you haven't seen. For as old as it is, it really doesn't seem like it has aged all that much. It is one of the great romantic comedies, both hilarious and oddly touching, and it captures the thirties like few films I've seen have.

The movie is about a out-of-work reporter (Gable) who meets a runaway daddy's girl (Colbert) on a night bus to New York. She is trying to avoid detectives sent out by her father, and is helpless in the world of common people. He agrees to help her so long as he gets the exclusive story after she meets up with the lover she is determined to marry.

It is the classic story of the mismatched couple that every romantic comedy has tried to tell. The thing is, this one tells it right. Gable and Colbert have uncommon chemistry on the screen, and Capra's everyman touch makes it seem like this might actually happen somewhere, even if it is the idyllic American past. It is filled with all these great Capra moments, like a bus full of strangers all singing "The Man on the Flying Trapeze" together like they do it all the time. It is just as entertaining an escapist flick now as it was for Depression-era Americans 80 years ago.

One might think that, compared with the epics that had won Best Picture before it, It Happened One Night might seem an unlikely choice. The story certainly isn't very "deep", nor is its action particularly seat-riveting. What makes it stick out is its technique. Capra was one of the revolutionaries of pre-war Hollywood, one of the first to be more concerned with the lives of two characters than the events that keep them apart. With that, the actors have so much room to move around in and to explore. Gable's character even went on to influence Bugs Bunny's smart alecky carrot addiction. In that sense it feels quite modern, something quite ahead of its time.

So if you and your girlfriend are looking for something to watch that isn't from the Nicholas Sparks universe or something, try It Happened One Night and get some culture.

The movie features Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert, and is not rated.

Man of Steel

Superhero movies have taken on an interesting dynamic in the past few years. Before that, superheros just had to be heros. They were intentionally larger-than-life and not held by realistic bounds. But I think after we survived Y2K we woke up to reality like only a near-death experience can make us do. Our heros suffered this same attack of realism, from The Incredible family to the Dark Knight.

There isn't anything wrong with this, necessarily. I think it helped a cynical Millennial generation stomach escapist cinema without killing off our heritage of heros. But I also think it threw us into a corner. Now, if a hero can't stand up in our skeptical world he can't make it. That is why I'm glad that Man of Steel came along. It has all the great things about classic superhero movies while maintaining enough realism to have a shot in the new cinematic landscape.

The movie chronicles Clark Kent's (Cavill) road to becoming "Superman", and his clash with zealous former Krypton military leader General Zod (Shannon). I guess you could typecast it as an "origin story", but I really hate that term. And it doesn't play out like the typical first offering in a hopeful new franchise. The movie follows a more emotional story arc than a chronological one, and is essentially self-contained.

What struck me was the near-perfect marriage of David S. Goyer's (who helped write the Dark Knight movies) script with director Zach Snyder's visual prowess (he's done stuff like Watchmen and 300). It is very strong and cohesive throughout. Snyder is known for the visual brilliance of his movies, but he is also known for getting away from himself by the end. Happily, this movie is both incredible to look at and is backed up with sufficient story muscles to carry it's nearly 3-hour-long self through the finish. There are all kinds of "wow" moments that remind us why we go to a theatre to see a movie instead of squinting at it on a cell phone screen. This movie needs to be seen big.

Some of the story meat included some surprisingly Christian motifs: surprising not in that no one has ever compared the two before, but that the filmmakers sought to do it today. Whether or not you are religious, it adds important depth to the story that couldn't have been found in another way. The movie is also surprisingly funny, which I appreciated. I'm glad we have a hero who can make a joke or two. It reminds us that we aren't watching a biography, that we are escaping into movieland on a hot afternoon on purpose. 

Notwithstanding all the visual greatness, I did feel that by the time the climax rolled around we had seen just about all the destruction of Metropolis that we needed to, so it didn't feel quite as powerful as it could have. I guess a case of going big for show instead of taking a gutsier road the end, but what are you going to do? Also, I will here register an official complaint: I'm tired of Hans Zimmer. His horns are simply overwhelming the ENTIRE TIME. What happened to melodic film scores? Try humming the theme from this Superman and you'll see what I mean.

Score complaints notwithstanding I think that Man of Steel is really a strong showing for blockbuster summer fare. While serious enough to merit our attention, it reminds us that superheros have license to be super, and that sometimes we need that. 

Man of Steel stars Henry Cavill, Michael Shannon, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane and Russel Crowe, and is rated PG-13 for Kryptonians fighting each other and the mayhem caused in their wake.

Mud

I love summer movies, when summer movies are good. And with Mud we have just that. This is an enjoyable movie through and through, fun but with a little more weight than it looks like from the outside.

Mud is about Ellis and Neckbone, two kids from rural Arkansas who cross paths with a rambling stranger (Matthew McConaughey), and what happens when they decide to help him. It is a coming-of-age story about dealing with love and finding your place and stuff, but it comes off way better than that. It is written and directed by Jeff Nichols, the guy who surprised us all with Take Shelter last year, and can probably be responsible for Michael Shannon being in Man of Steel.

What impressed me about this movie is its absolute insistence on avoiding genre conventions. It is set in the south, featuring two friends and their adventures involving a vagrant (Twain, anybody?) but that never even crosses your mind. Ellis' family situation is falling apart, and he is crushing on an older girl from the city, but instead of taking the well-established path of everybody getting what they want as the credits roll to upbeat pop, we are taken for an unpredictable and satisfying ride. 

We have here a summer movie with (don't say it!) some kind of message. It seems that we don't really know how to deal with love and its effects in any form. But I don't think it is that simple. The great thing is it is a multi-toned message; each strand is compatible with the others but they don't really add up to a cohesive whole. Instead we end up with a kind of collage against the human backdrop of the deep south. The other thing is it doesn't get caught up in trying to teach us anything: it is primarily a story, told to entertain, but told well, like your grandmother might have told one, leaving you to think about it as you drift away to sleep.

Mud is rated PG-13 for some moderately naughty words and some violence.

Talking of Mr Shannon, that movie is out this week, and of course we'll all be there.

After Earth

Growing up, my first "favorite director" was M. Night Shyamalan. Signs was one of the first "grown up" movies I saw in a theater, and it blew my mind. I loved his other earlier films, too. But his career trajectory has always made me a little uncomfortable. He started out as the One with original ideas in supernatural movies, but eventually became entrenched in baffling passion projects. Now he has completed his transformation from a creative genius to an unremarkable used-to-be.

After Earth is just that--unremarkable. I guess to me that is the biggest disappointment. It has some of the hallmarks of a Shyamalan movie, but they are thrown at us like globs of paint. Gone is the thematic finesse we used to expect. It all wraps up in a neat little formulaic package.

The movie is about Kitai and his father Cypher (played by father-and-son Will and Jaden Smith). Cypher is a leader in post-Earth civilization, and brings Kitai along on a trip in order to do some bonding. But the two are stranded after their space ship crashes and Kitai must save them both.

It is the classic story of a kid trying to prove himself to the world, and especially to his successful father. And it doesn't get any deeper than that. He has appropriately-escalating adventures as he seeks to save himself and his father, while trying to master his own fear. The movie tries to insert this thing about fear, about how it is a choice and all. This is the ham-fisted attempt at thematic complexity, and it doesn't come off well. On the surface it sounds like a perfect Shyamalan theme, but it ends up only being moving to fans of the Hallmark Channel.

The movie sticks to established formulas carefully. This is another disappointing thing from a filmmaker whose previous work (even some of the bad stuff) was about at least trying to avoid a formula. It feels like any movie, and notwithstanding its far-future setting doesn't distinguish itself. There is also the weird kind-of accent they speak and the unexplained use of bladed weapons instead of guns that bothered me. But those are just little things.

Overall, I don't think you should go out of your way to see After Earth. Nobody does anything special, and it completes M. Night Shyamalan's journey from visionary to unremarkable in a sad way. Tell me what you think about it, though, especially if we are on different pages. 

Star Trek Into Darkness

After my boycott of Iron Man 3, I will officially start my summer season with a look at JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness. I think, as far as summer sequels go, that this one is pretty entertaining, with a great villainous turn by Benedict Cumberbatch.

In the movie, Cumberbatch's John Harrison is a Starfleet agent who goes rogue and stages several acts of terrorism against the fleet. The Enterprise is dispatched to bring him in so he can face justice. I don't want to discuss more for those who haven't seen it. Actually, if you haven't seen it, stop reading. Know that if you aren't hip to Star Trek you will really enjoy this movie, and if you are, the jury is out.

SPOILERS FOLLOWING

I think there is a fine line between delving into a mythology to tell a story, and simply retelling the myth. Into Darkness doesn't make that distinction, and as a consequence merely retells everybody's favorite Star Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan. It really feels like an okay cover of a great song. But it doesn't start out that way. Actually, it hums along quite nicely until they capture John Harrison-Khan. Then it feels like a re-write. All key plot points remain essentially the same, with minor alterations to go along with the alternate reality thing established in the 2009 film. That in itself is kind of a Star Trek-y idea, but it doesn't resonate.

I guess it bugged me for two reasons. One, the source material was great as it stands, and not in need of tampering. Two, what was done with it was not nearly as cool as it originally was. In Wrath, the scene in the reactor where Spock is dying and puts his hand on the glass is one of the best the whole franchise has to offer: yes, indeed, he has "humanity", and he doesn't need to stop being Spock. Here, with the role reversal, there is no real emotional connection because Kirk is only a sacrifice to bring about Spock's rage. Instead of appealing to our greater human nature, it only appeals to our inner animal.

I also think it missed on the key thematic material, opting to spell it out to us in a eulogy/christening speech by Kirk. It feels like an afterthought because we have to see Spock go postal on Khan, when really Star Trek has never been about the action so much as the questions our explorations make us confront.

All of that said, it wasn't a bad movie, especially if you aren't familiar with other installments. I think the one improvement is Cumberbatch as Khan. He provides a depth to the character that is uncommon to see in a villain. He is also very convincing through the second act: I thought the twist would be that he really is going to help them, that the only reason for his hatred in Wrath was from his previous contact with Kirk. His is the standout performance of the movie.

Overall, I was disappointed with Into Darkness. I felt it sort of missed the thematic mark it was aiming for while digging up and retelling a story that didn't need it. But what about you? Why is it wrong of a casual night-and-weekend Trekkie such as myself to be ragging so hard on an entertaining summer flic? Let me know.