Showing posts with label j.j. abrams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label j.j. abrams. Show all posts

10 June 2011

Super 8*



I saw the teaser once, then I went into ostrich-mode on this one. J.J. Abrams has a good track record so far (even Cloverfield is kind of a gem in that over-done genre), and teaming up with Spielberg for an homage/return to '80s-Spielberg -- that was enough for me. It already had my money. The less I knew about it the better.

Basically, it doesn't disappoint. It's got some DNA from E.T. and Close Encounters, and a lot of The Goonies, and although if you stop and think about it I'm not sure the story makes very much sense, it smartly sticks to the kids, and their story makes sense. It's fun, it's emotionally rewarding, it's smart, it's exciting, and it's legitimately scary. It's a little hamfisted more than once, but it's an 80s movie -- it really is more of a "return" than an "homage," because almost never does it tip its hat or modernize sensibilities; it feels like someone uncovered a film from about 1985 that has impossibly good effects for the time (and passingly good for now, though a little heavy on the CG) -- so hamfisted goes with the territory, and anyway the not-quite-subtle moments at least feel earned. Overall I enjoyed the hell out of this.

My biggest criticism of Abrams films is that he doesn't have the eye for iconic images and design that Spielberg has. I'm thinking of the Abrams-produced Cloverfield (which I have read Super 8 is supposedly not a prequel to, but I remain skeptical and unconvinced) and Star Trek, mostly, and now this. Compare those to any Spielberg film -- then or now, but especially then. Spielberg embeds his films with characters, costumes, ships, framing of shots that stick with you decades later. The look of E.T., the red hoodie, the fly-past-the-moon, the dinosaur in the rearview, virtually every frame of Raiders of the Lost Ark (the perfect storm of Lucas and Spielberg). Abrams doesn't really have those moments. [SPOILERISH] His characters are great -- nuanced takes on the archetypes of their genre -- and his stories move along at just the right pace, and are full of exciting, brilliant scenes, but his sense of iconic imagery feels lacking. The alien in Cloverfield, Big Red from Star Trek, and the monster here, all vaguely Lovecraftian tentacle-things, but almost the opposite of iconic or memorable. Messy, alien things. In a sense it's neat, and definitely consistent, but it's also a tiny bit disappointing. It lacks the "cinematicness" of Spielberg's design without adding any level of "realism" or "verisimilitude" in its place. And sometimes it comes off as functional without formal beauty. The same is true with his ship designs and character looks, I think. Nothing stands out, begs to be remembered. Very few shots leap off the screen and scream "this could be your poster, but even if it's not, you'll remember me forever."

I only even think of this because of the odd consistency in the alien design (also reminiscent of The Mist and Monsters... clearly a trend), and because this is "Abrams doing Spielberg," which begs that sort of comparison. Still, a lack of iconicness (iconicism?) doesn't detract from the film's enjoyment. And this one was fun.

If you're reading this and you haven't seen it yet, stay for the credits. It's not a spoiler/twist kind of thing. It's just fun.

Seen at Regal Lloyd Center Cinema.

07 July 2010

Star Trek



I've just been through two days of dental torture procedures and so I may be light on commentary for whatever I watch; so it goes. Star Trek is maybe the best series reboot I can think of (second place, as far as I can think of, is Battlestar Galactica). This film is so smart and sharp and fast-paced. Everything comes from the characters, and the story does such a credit to respecting a group of characters with an awful lot of history. Surprisingly, then, as I am reminded each time I watch this, it does such a discredit to Nero, Eric Bana's interesting tragic villain. I actually think Bana does a great job, but the script shortcuts all the scenes where we could sympathize or see layers to his obsession, and his crew of henchmen come off even flatter still, as they are given no agency or personality of their own. The idea of the non-miltary working-class men (answering communications with a charmingly awkward "Hello") being in control of the most technologically advanced machinery in (that part of?) the galaxy and using it for obsessive Ahabesque genocide is a really interesting set-up that deserved more attention. Sure, the story's got tons going on already and manages to eke out a sensical and dramatically satisfying time travel story while putting everybody together and giving them stuff to fight that never feels hackneyed, shoehorned, or artificial, but I would have liked to see Nero get a little more due. Star Trek movies are notoriously soft on villain characterization (exceptions: Khan and VI's General Chang; I feel like I've made this same point before). So it goes. I'd say it's not as good as the original in some pretty major ways, but it's still one hell of a good reboot/remake, and an exciting and moving film, even after I've seen it half a dozen times or more.

24 February 2010

Star Trek



I thought they were cheating the ol' act structure paradigm by tacking on that twelve minute prologue (10-minute mark: Kirk is born, an interesting "inciting incident"), and we don't even meet our hero Young James Kirk until minute 17 -- but Orci and Kurtzman bring it around lickety-split, and smooth as butter we're entering Act Two right on time, between minutes 25 and 28. Nice work, fellas! I'm struggling to get a lot less info into my first act, and I am suddenly shamed.

Now, here's where I get geeky:

I've been a fan of Star Trek forever, and now they've gone and done this whole "rebooting" thing. But here's what they've done: they've made a whizbang show-stopping summer-movie door-opener. They've done the miraculous, they've respected a long and convoluted history (even an unnecessary nod to Star Trek: Quantum Leap Enterprise; classy) and at the same time they've thrown open the doors to newcomers. I would argue that the initial Star Trek series wasn't anything until Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Before that, it was just a series and a movie. After, with a trilogy of tightly-connected movies and the launch of The Next Generation on its heels (TNG and Voyage Home both came out the same year), it was a franchise. Likewise, I will argue that right now, the franchise hasn't been rebooted. Right now, it's a franchise and one outlier new movie.

Whatever they do next, it's all riding on Star Trek 2. Only then will the franchise have been rebooted and set in motion fresh and new. There is, in my opinion, way more pressure on 2 than there ever was on this one, and this one had a lot of pressure. Curious to see what happens next.

29 January 2010

Lost (seasons 1 - 5)



Okay, it's TV and not a movie, but I've watched every single episode, 103 in total (five seasons so far), over the last 35 days. I guess that means I averaged 2.94 episodes a day. I had several epiphanies -- most notably understanding the thematic place Jack has in the show, and subsequently finding a rationale for his every action, at least on a thematic level (having a character who only makes sense as a symbol, and having him be part of the "heart" of your show... well, nobody said the show wasn't flawed). Now that I've caught up in time for the upcoming new season, I can say: one of my favorite things is that we've spent over a hundred hours of story with complicated, interweaving layers of adversaries, and we still really don't know who the "good guys" are. I don't know another show that's ever even tried that, let alone pulled it off.

A recent conversation(/debate) with my friend Dutch led me to realize I have a hierarchy in what I look for in drama: 1. Character, 2. Theme, and 3. Plot -- and in that order. Lost as a show strikes a gripping and nonstop back-and-forth between all three. I have so many hunches about what comes next, in the last 18 episodes of the show, although I know better than to make concrete guesses as to how it's going to turn out. No matter how it does, one thing is for sure: I've enjoyed the ride.

(This is a longer-than-average post, but it was a longer-than-average amount of story I watched to get here.)