Movie Review: Star Trek Beyond

Star Trek Beyond/Paramount Pictures/Dir. by Justin Lin/120 min./Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence

In terms of how to do a reboot of a beloved franchise right, I believe there's Nolan's Dark Knight films and J.J. Abrams' Star Trek films (also known as the Kelvin timeline to fans).  Both series took what was great about the properties, made them their own, focused on character as well as spectacle, were impeccably cast, and allowed their actors to shine.  Both series have films that are universally revered among fans and films that are highly divisive among fans, in spite of the fact that all entries were heralded by critics.

2009's Star Trek was revelatory.  Rather than do dry impersonations of the classic Star Trek actors, the new cast simply inhabited the roles with such confidence that trivialities, like the fact that they really don't look like the original cast looked at that age, became completely moot.  They simply were the crew of the Enterprise.  In addition, thanks to Abrams' sure-handed direction, the film felt more purely cinematic than any previous Star Trek movie.  Space was 3-dimensional, meaning that ships in space didn't always look like they were on a horizontal plane.  Battles packed a huge punch and stakes were immediately through the roof.  (I mean, they blew up Vulcan in the first hour for heavens' sake!)

For many, Star Trek Into Darkness was a huge misstep.  I am not among those people.  While I can understand people being disappointed that the second film mirrored the second film in the original film series, but I found it to be a thoughtful and intelligent look at the ideas of fate and change in destiny based on the new timeline.  This Kirk would make these choices.  This Spock would scream "Khaaaaaan!" and then hunt the madman down.  I loved it.

However, for those who wish that Into Darkness would have just gone exploring into space, your wish is granted with Star Trek Beyond.  No Federation hearings, no flirting with alien women at the Academy, no villain who turns out to be the classic series villain that you suspected it was from the beginning.  The "Beyond" in the title is telling the truth.

The Enterprise is in year three of its five year mission.  The crew has slipped into a malaise of routine and diplomatic negotiations, and the senior crew is going through several personal existential crisis. The ship docks at the Yorktown, a deep space station/city and Captain Kirk hopes that the respite will invigorate the crew, but is also secretly considering giving up his chair for a desk job at the station. Fortunately, that decision will have to wait because a mysterious alien arrives asking for help in recovering her missing crew.

The ensuing journey ends up separating the crew of the Enterprise and stranding them on a planet with no apparent means of escape and encounter a new ally named Jaylah (beautifully played by Sofia Boutella), a strong-willed alien who informs the crew about the evil Krall (Idris Elba), who is the reason they are in their current predicament.  They must organize a plan to save crew members who were captured and stop Krall from his evil plans.

Star Trek Beyond contains all of the elements that make this franchise fantastic, including great performances, viscerally exciting action sequences, stunning visuals (particularly the amazingly conceived Yorktown space station), and another wonderful Michael Giacchino score.  However, it separates itself in plot and in the fact that it definitely has a more old-school Star Trek vibe.  In some ways, it feels like a lost installment of the original film series.  In fact, in theme and design, it reminded me most specifically of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, which happens to be one of my very favorite of the original cast films.

One of the most pleasant surprises of the movie is the terrific direction from Justin Lin, whose hiring as director was quite controversial when first announced.  After all, when I think cerebral sci-fi, my first thought isn't the dude from the Fast and Furious movies.  However, he does a wonderful job balancing character and action with a truly engaging visual flair.  

All in all, Star Trek Beyond is a fun and entertaining movie.  It does feel a bit like a place holder film, but it's so enjoyable that you won't care and it is a more than worthy entry in the Abrams-era films.

Grade: A-

Movie Review: Ghostbusters

Ghostbusters/Columbia Pictures/116 min./Dir. by Paul Feig/Rated PG-13 for supernatural action and some crude humor

Summer 1984, Blackfoot, Idaho, Plaza Twin Theater, screen #2.  What was a fun movie experience for many became really a pivotal moment in my personal development.  You see, as a kid, my highly active imagination was a double-edged sword.  On one hand I was able to lose myself in hours of joyful flights of fancy.  On the other, everything scared me because my imagination would add about a thousand more points of horror to any already terrifying thing.  Be it a story or a news report on nuclear war or a snake in the garden, everything was exaggerated in my mind.  A commercial for a scary movie could keep me up all night, yet I was oddly obsessed with scary things too.  I wouldn't watch scary movies, but I would make people tell me about every frame, which I would then magnify in my mind to horrors not achievable by a mere movie.

Then came 1984, my 13th birthday, and Ghostbusters.   I wanted to see it because all of my friends had and, since it was a comedy, I thought I could handle it.  Of course, the original Ghostbusters had some pretty effective scares.  Ghost librarians screaming and turning into skeletal specters, giant four-legged demons, horrific possessions....this movie had some legitimate jumps accompanying the laughs.  However, I was doing OK.  Then at the end of the film, when the demi-god Gozer, she of the gelled-hair, skin-tight Solid Gold dancer outfit, and glowing red-eyes, arrived to release the Destructor on New York City and Ray Stantz accidentally thought of a form in which the Destructor would appear, I was getting scared.  The music was tense and there was some terrifying visage moving in between skyscrapers.  Then Dan Aykroyd uttered the words, "It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man" and that giant, smiling anthropomorphized tower of sugar rounded an intersection, and I laughed.  I laughed harder than I had ever laughed in my entire life.  I laughed for at least ten minutes straight and I remember laughing still as my family walked, somewhat embarrassedly, out of the theater.  That day, I didn't just watch a movie that I would love for decades to come, I learned that my fears had less power than my joy.  Much like a real-life riddikulus spell from Harry Potter, I learned that laughing at my fears robbed them of their power.  This was also around the time that I began to lucid dream, giving me control of the terrors in my subconscious as well.

After having seen the remake of Ghostbusters, I could easily see this film serving a similar function in a similarly minded youth of today.  Is it a classic?  No, but the main thing that makes the original a classic is nostalgia.  While this incarnation isn't quite as good, it's very close, and it's a very fun time at the movies.

Of course, this movie has been surrounded by controversy ever since it was announced.  Some of the outcry against it was clearly a misguided, misogynistic reaction to the announcement that the new team would be comprised of very funny women instead of very funny men, but mostly people didn't like the idea of a remake of Ghostbusters.  They wanted a straight-up sequel, and at the time, I felt the same way, or at least some kind of a reboot that didn't erase what came before, much like the new Star Trek movies had done.  However, now I'm delighted by the change.  Seeing this group come together, find their purpose, and build their own different, but equally funny chemistry is a joy and I hope we get to see them do it in more stories to come.

Scientists and friends Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) and Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) have been estranged for years after co-writing a book on the paranormal (the hilariously titled "Ghosts From Our Past (both literally and figuratively)") which widely discredited them as quacks.  Erin distanced herself from the book (claiming to have burned "both copies") while Abby embraced their work and moved forward with their research.  However, a haunting at a historic mansion in N.Y.C. brings them together, along with Abby's live-wire colleague, Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) and sets them on their new career path in paranormal investigation and elimination.  After a brief flirtation with a familiar firehouse (turns out such a large piece of real estate is a bit pricey in current day New York), they end up setting stakes in a space above a Chinese restaurant, hire a new secretary (Chris Hemsworth, whose take on the antiquated blonde, bimbo secretary archetype steals the show), and bring on a new partner (Leslie Jones, whose presence and performance is much stronger than they appeared to be in the trailers).  Things start to get heated when the group discover machines scattered throughout the city that magnify paranormal activity, the end result of which leads to a fantasmagorical Times Square battle in which buildings, billboards, and advancing spooks emerge through the mists of varying time periods to confront the jump-suited soldiers of science and paranormal metaphysics.  

The key ingredients for a good Ghostbusters movie are humor, cast chemistry, and convincing special effects/scares.  This is a good Ghostbusters movie.  Not all of the jokes land, but the ratio is strong.  It's the most I've laughed during a movie in a very long time and it's not simply because of the quality of the jokes themselves, but because of the strength of the performances and the characterizations.  The cast feels like they're having the time of their lives throughout.  While McKinnon and Jones get more of the conventional jokes, Wiig and McCarthy still get their fair share of the funny and, as I mentioned, Hemsworth steals every scene with an quirky combination of ineptitude, naivite, misplaced-cockiness, and utter obliviousness.  In fact, many of Wiig's funniest moments involve him, and her take on the 50's stereotype of the boss making inappropriate advances on the ditzy secretary.

The scares are there, but they're not quite as potent as the first film (however, pretty much everything here is an improvement on the second Ghostbusters film, especially considering the weakly written finale of Ghostbusters II), and the special effects are very effective.  The 3D version is quite well made, using a changing film ratio to allow spectral vapors and spraying ectoplasm to seemingly spill beyond the limits of the screen.

Another fun addition is the proliferation of new ghostbusting tools.  Whereas the original film was just about capturing the ghosts, this team has an arsenal of weapons that can not only capture the malevolent phantoms, but can shred, gooify, and sock them on their paranormal kisser.  McKinnon gets an especially memorable butt-kicking glory moment using all of the new toys.

There are many elements that were in the trailers and tv spots that were handled far better in the film than the advertising presented them.   Yes, Mr. Stay-Puft shows up, but in a way that pays tribute to the original film without ripping it off.  Yes, the ghost from the famous logo shows up, but the narrative makes his appearance not merely palatable, but seemingly inevitable.  Yes, Slimer shows up, but his glorified cameo (and the baffling appearance of a Ms. Slimer) actually lead to a pivotal plot point.

Director Paul Feig clearly has a respect and affinity for the original film, in fact, sometimes maybe a little too much so.  Most of the original cast shows up in cameos (except for Rick Moranis, who passed) and those cameos are varying levels of successful (Bill Murray's was the most delightful for me).  The original Ray Parker Jr. theme song shows up performed by no fewer than three artists and multiple orchestral cues in Theodore Shapiro's score (which was otherwise more dramatic and tense than Elmer Bernstein's jaunty work in the first film).  Hopefully, if the film is successful enough to warrant a sequel, Feig, or whoever is at the reins, will feel more a sense of moving forward than looking back.

So, in summation, rest assured.  This film will rob no one of their childhood.  It is neither a travesty nor an abomination.  What it IS is a fun, breezy summer popcorn movie that pays tribute to the past while creating a world and an energy all its own.  Plus, it proves the same thing that the original did to me all those 32 years ago: it's more difficult to be afraid when you're laughing with pure abandon.

Grade: B+

P.S.  Stay through the credits.  Not only is there a fun song and dance bit throughout, but after the final credit rolls, there's a juicy hint as to where the series could go from here that will be especially meaningful to fans of the first movie.

Movie Review: The Secret Life of Pets

The Secret Life of Pets/Universal-Illumination/90 min./Dir. by Yarrow Cheney and Chris Renaud/Rated PG for action and some rude humor

I have always loved animals, but I never really understood the passion of pet owners until I became one.  His name is Pippin, he's a terrier/chihuahua mix (far more terrier than chihuahua in look and personality), and he's the cutest, best behaved, move lovable dog ever.  Of course, all pet owners feel that way about our pets and therein is the key to understanding our mindset.....our pets are part of the family.  Calling them our "kids", a tendency that seemed silly to me five years ago, is merely an expression of how profoundly they've cuddled their way into our hearts and changed our lives.  Pippin and Mali (our very own "soft kitty") have comforted through times of pain, romped through times of joy, and shown us how very much we have to learn from them.

Therefore, when the first trailer for The Secret Life of Pets premiered last year in front of Minions, I was thrilled.  Sure, there have been countless animated films inhabited by animals, but this was the first one that looked like it was going to address the idiosyncrasies and personalities of actual pets.   Then further trailers revealed more about the story and my excitement level began to lessen.  It began to look like another by the numbers zany animated film, with a street-talking rabbit and plenty of lowest-common-denominator toilet humor.

Now after having seen it, I'm delighted to say that, while it's not the perfect ode to housepets that I hoped it would be, it's not the mindless, generic laugh generator that last year's Minions was.

If you're familiar with that first teaser trailer, the one that shows what the different pets get up to when their masters leave, then you've pretty much seen the first three minutes of the movie.  Our hero is a terrier named Max (Louis C.K.) who is living the perfect life with his master Katie (Ellie Kemper).  They play, the cuddle, they stare wide-eyed at the New York City skyline...the only hiccup to their life is that, for reasons Max can't fathom, Katie leaves every morning.  In fact, he misses her so much that he just sits by the door waiting for her until she comes home.  However, one day, she doesn't come home alone, having adopted a giant mutt named Duke (Eric Stonestreet).  Duke is big and messy and determined to take over as alpha dog, something that Max can't abide.

This rivalry erupts while the dogs are being walked by a not particularly attentive dog walker and the two end up collar-less and left to fend for themselves on the mean streets of New York, streets ruled by an adorable looking, but psychotic buck-tooth bunny named Snowball (Kevin Hart) who is leading an anti-human movement populated by the "Flushed Pets" (i.e. any pets who were abandoned).

The mid-section of Pets is where things get a little more frantic, but fortunately, it's got some surprisingly bizarre humor to keep things interesting, including an unnecessary, but hilarious, side-trip to a sausage factory.

The Secret Life of Pets absolutely works best when it's interpreting common behaviors of animals, making these widely-known idiosyncrasies character traits and allowing a strong and immediate connection to this ragtag group of animals.  The voice-work is uniformly excellent, including Hart, who, based on the trailers, I had some concerns about.  Louis C.K. especially gives Max a warmth and a heart that is vitally necessary for this character.

The screenplay, by the team responsible for the Despicable Me movies, is zippy, funny, and heart-felt, the latter element being something that was painfully missing from Illumination's last effort, Minions. 

Overall, The Secret Life of Pets is not perfect and not quite as engaging as the adventures of Gru, but it's fast-paced, filled with humor, and ends on a tender note guaranteed to put a little bit of a lump in the throat of any of us who consider ourselves pet lovers.  Bring the kids and have a great time.  It might even teach the kids to love their four-legged friends even more.

Grade: B+

Movie Review: The BFG

The BFG/Dir. by Steven Spielberg/Walt Disney Pictures/117 min./Rated PG for action/peril, some scary moments and brief rude humor

The BFG is a film of firsts.  It's the first film Steven Spielberg has ever directed for Walt Disney Pictures.  It's also Spielberg's first live-action children's book adaptation.  It's the first Walt Disney film scored by legendary composer John Williams.  However, what makes it special and bittersweet is that it is also a notable last.  It is the last film with a screenplay by Melissa Mathison, the celebrated writer of E.T. and The Black Stallion.  Her heart, intelligence, and sense of wonder is in every frame, which, when combined with the original story by Roald Dahl and the visual brilliance of Spielberg, makes for a special, if somewhat uneven, film-going experience.

Sophie (terrifically played by Ruby Barnhill in her film debut) is an inquisitive, intelligent, and unusually brave and responsible little girl who is also an orphan that suffers from chronic insomnia.  This combination of personality traits all contribute her being abducted by a mysterious giant (Mark Rylance) who is ultimately revealed to be big and friendly.  Worried that she would reveal the existence of giants to the general populace after seeing him, the big, friendly giant (henceforth known as The BFG) takes Sophie to the land of the giants.  Unfortunately for Sophie, the BFG is the only giant to which the "friendly" moniker could be applied, especially considering their fondness for the taste of human "beans."

The BFG is short on story, but big on charm, largely because of the great performances by the two leads and the instant connection they share.  Yes, BFG is entirely motion capture CGI, but there is absolutely no question that Mark Rylance is at the heart of the character, creating perhaps the most engaging CGI character in a live-action movie since Andy Serkis searched for "the precious,"  and his relationship with "brave Sophie" quickly becomes an enchanting delight.

There are moments of pure magic in The BFG, particularly a visit to the land of dreams, which one would expect from the makers of E.T.  Interestingly, the most "Dahl-esque" elements of the movie, the gruesome and repellent non-friendly giants, are so effectively icky that the magic of the rest of the movie drains whenever they appear.  Thankfully, while they play an important role in the story, but they're spoken of more than they are scene.

As usual with a Spielberg movie, the technical elements are top note, with top-tier work from his usual suspects, cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, editor Michael Kahn, and another insta-classic musical score from John Williams.

Unfortunately, I predict that The BFG will be a pretty big flop at the box office for a few reasons.  First, it's simple and sweet...no smart-talking donkeys, no hyper-active minions, no pop-culture references.  There is one running bathroom-humor gag, but even it is innocent and fantastical.  Secondly, it's an expensive fantasy movie based on a three decade-old novel that is certainly not as popular now as it was when I was a kid.  In addition, the marketing assumed that the title and the name Roald Dahl were enough, downplaying the outstanding talent making the film.  Lastly, Disney released it two weeks after they released their own Finding Dory, which was clearly going to be a mega-blockbuster.

However, if you're looking for a sweet, simple, old-fashioned family film, something not perfect, but warm and enchanting, then The BFG would fit the bill quite nicely.

Grade: B