I LOVED IT!
I didn’t see much about it beforehand
because I didn’t want to ruin it, and the previews made it look like just
another summer blockbuster in a summer filled with summer blockbusters. In this respect, it didn’t look too different
from Iron Man 3. Having thoroughly enjoyed the first J.J.
Abrams reboot, I guess I wasn’t expecting all that much from this new Star Trek
film. My first thought was “Another J.J.
Abrams Star Trek blockbuster to pull in people who don’t usually like Star
Trek, thereby making a few more fans, while those with Trekphobia would still
avoid this like the plague because, well, they just have an irrational fear of all
things Trek!”
I
was soooooo wrong! This is for
fans. This is also for non-fans. This is for anyone who wants to have a good
time at the movies, and doesn’t mind a little bang for their buck! (Those that do mind can go see the latest
Nicolas Sparks weepy romantic tragedy instead, and you know who you are, if you
even bother to read this “blob”). There
is enough action and strong character moments to keep non-Trek fans occupied,
and perhaps convert a few and make them think “You know, this Star Trek isn’t
all that bad, really”, and enough tips of the hat to Star Trek past to keep the
tried and true Trekkers not just happy, but elated. True Star Trek fans might appreciate
references to the Eugenics wars, Section 31, a shuttlecraft spotted in the
background labeled “TAKAI”, and a possible tryst between James Kirk and
Christine Chapel that is mentioned in the dialogue, plus a little of that classic
Bones/Spock sparing, more screen time for Scotty and Uhura, a few great moments
for both Sulu and Chekov, and heavy references to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn in particular. Benedict Cumberbatch (of BBC Sherlock fame) and Alice Eve make
welcome additions to the cast, as a young Khan and Carol Marcus, and Peter
Weller was appropriately villainous as Carol’s very corrupt father. This was at least as good as, if not better
than, the first J.J. Abrams Star Trek
film, and I absolutely loved that one too!
There’s
still life in that there Star Trek
yet!
Lincoln was a great film, and Daniel Day
Lewis gave a great performance as President Abraham Lincoln. I also quite enjoyed Sally Field as Mary Todd
Lincoln, the very emotional and domineering wife of the president, and there
were many scenes in this movie that resonated.
Watching it, you once again marvel at the task that befell this great
President, and the noble person that Abraham Lincoln really was. It doesn’t white wash the events surrounding
his attempt to pass the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, and some
of the political machinations, though hard to follow for a non-history buff who
has only a rudimentary knowledge of everything taking place back then, was
still fascinating to watch. In the end,
perhaps to its credit in a sea of more splashy, flashy, kinetic movies, we
found it’s subdued pace to be a bit too overlong and languid. Perhaps this is a fault of modern movies and
modern movie audiences. A steady diet of
frenetic, splashy visuals and a rapid-moving plot makes us all suffer ADHD, and
then it’s harder for us to really appreciate a slower film, even one about
arguably the greatest President America ever had, faced with the toughest time
America has ever endured, with the possible exception of its founding.
This thing has flash and pizzazz to
spare, and you knew it would, since Baz Lurhmann was the man in the director’s
chair. At one point, a woman is killed
in a hit and run accident, and the thought that occurred to me was “This is the
most glorious car accident I’ve ever seen!”
Her body is in the air in slow motion, beads from her jewelry catching
the light against a pitch black background, all in stunning, vibrant
cinematography. The question is, was
there more here than just the stylish, colorful visuals, and either way, is the
long running time still noticeable? The
answers are “Yes” and “Yes”: There IS more here than just vapid style, and I STILL
noticed the length of the film. A slow,
languid film like Lincoln was
difficult to sit through for 2 ½ hours, but so was the splashy and vivid The Great Gatsby, which also managed
thought provoking literary roots along with some memorable performances. With this film, I guess the 2 ½ hour running
time shows that there can still sometimes be TOO MUCH of a good thing,
even if it’s visually stunning, entertaining, and thought provoking. Two hours, perhaps, would have been just fine.
Caught this on FX, since I hadn't seen it yet. You can certainly tell it’s a Quentin
Tarantino movie!
I liked it. Almost every scene was memorable, from the
opening where Jew hunter Col. Hans Landa, chillingly played by Christoph Waltz,
questions a French dairy farmer about whether he is hiding Jews under his
floorboards, which he is, to the closing in which Brad Pitt’s Lt. Aldo Rain and
B.J. Novak’s Pfc. Smithson Utivich make sure a traitorous Nazi will always be
identified as a Nazi, whether or not he wears that uniform. I liked the way Pitt’s character called them “Nat-sees”, and all the intrigue and double crosses, especially those involving
Mélanie Laurent as escaped Jew Shosanna and Diane Kruger as famed German
actress Bridget von Hammersmark, who is actually on the side of the
Americans. When Shosanna’s French movie
theater is picked as the place where some notorious German officers, including
Adolph Hitler himself, are going to view a new movie full of Nazi propaganda,
Shosanna, Bridget, and Lt. Rain and his “Nat-see” killing team all have
separate ideas about how to take out the Nazi’s in one fell swoop, but a few
people wind up getting in the way, particularly Lt. Landa and the star of the
German film, Fredrick Zoller, played by Daniel Brühl, a young Nazi war hero who
is smitten with Shosanna.
One bad thing: I
didn’t know the film was going to be at least 75% in German, French, and
(hilariously) Italian, and I certainly didn’t appreciate the way the cable
channel FX put advertisements for many of their upcoming programs and movies
right over the subtitles, making me miss large chunks of dialogue! They should not do that with a film like Inglorious Basterds, which is just about
as close to a foreign film as an American film can get!
No comments:
Post a Comment