Star Trek Into Darkness Review

The latest instalment in the long-running 'Star Trek' franchise has arrived. And much like its predecessor it's a disarming and solid sci-fi adventure. The polar opposite of 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture'. Director JJ Abrams once again uses the charms of his cast to great effect. This, mixed with great special effects, fast-paced action and a dazzling score make 'Star Trek Into Darkness' another winner for the new crew.

The first film chronicled the devastation caused by a time traveling villain. His actions led to the death of Kirk's father and the destruction of Spock's home planet. In this sequel we realize that these events have changed the nature of the 'Star Trek' universe. Gone is the optimistic urge to explore new galaxies. The change has brought Kirk and Spock's world closer to our own. Dominated by the fear of the unknown threats that lurk in the darkest corners of space.

It's all the more ironic that the villain of 'Into Darkness' comes from Earth. John Harrison is an enemy from within. A Starfleet agent turned terrorist. He bombs the heart of London and kills many high ranking officers in an attack on Starfleet HQ. Among the dead is Kirk's surrogate father Admiral Pike. Like any warmblooded human Kirk seeks revenge. With the blessing of Admiral Marcus (Peter ''RoboCop'' Weller) the young captain embarks on a manhunt.

The crew of the starship Enterprise is divided by the idea of killing a man without a trial. The issue is compounded by the arrival of 72 high tech torpedoes on board the ship, weapons developed by the fugitive himself. The game is set for a climactic confrontation with Harrison. But as you may have guessed, not all is what it seems. In their attempt to bring Harrison to justice the crew of the Enterprise is tested. Made to doubt their believes and the nature of their mission.

As anyone can see, the story reflects the world we live in today. A world in which fear still has a huge role. The way 'Into Darkness' explores the consequences of the previous film feels genuine and real. Fortunately, the movie doesn't dwell on these issues. It never forgets to have fun. The interactions between the main cast members are lighthearted but sincere. The use of warmth and humour makes some of the emotional blows all the more real.

For the first film Abrams assembled a great cast to play these iconic characters. Chris Pine plays up the arrogance without losing even an inch of likeability. Zachary Quinto seems more comfortable as the emotionless Spock than in the previous film. Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Anton Yelchin and Simon Pegg are wonderful even though they have limited screentime. But the real revelation is Benedict Cumberbatch as Harrison. Underneath his calm and intelligent demeanor hides an exceptionally brutal villain.

There's one thing that will have many Trekkies foaming at the mouth. It's the way 'Into Darkness' mirrors the first 'Star Trek' sequel 'The Wrath of Khan'. Personally, I'm okay with it. Mainly because this movie is just so damn entertaining. Had the rest of the film not been so good I might have felt offended. However the way Abrams uses these borrowed elements makes some sense. They never stick out or feel ingenuous. However 'Into Darkness' is not as emotionally powerful as 'Wrath of Khan'.

Even though it is a straight out popcorn flick 'Into Darkness' manages to adhere to the tradition of the best 'Star Trek' films. There's still some intelligent ideas scattered throughout all the explosions, space battles and gun fights. Also, the interactions between the cast are a delight. All of them are slowly growing into their roles. This is a bunch of people you like to spend time with. That's why I already found myself anxiously awaiting the sequel from the moment I stepped out of the theatre. That's always a good sign. 

Jurassic Park 3D Review

It's been twenty years since Steven Spielberg released his dinosaurs upon the world. 'Jurassic Park' went on to become one of the greatest smash hits of all time. Audiences marvelled at prehistoric giants, resurrected by the latest filmmaking innovations. Now, the dinosaurs have returned to theatres all over the world. And Spielberg shows, once again, what a real blockbuster looks like.

Unlike the films I normally review, this is one that's been out there for a while. It is one of those movies I grew up with. 'Jurassic Park' has been in my life for so long that I can't even remember my first time watching it. And while nothing is as exciting as seeing a great movie for the first time, there's something grand in returning to a film you're intimately familiar with. 

That's exactly why I'm a huge supporter of re-releases like this one. Yes, they've added 3D and no, it doesn't really add anything. But as much as I loathe the 3D medium I'll never pass up on seeing a great film on the big screen. Unfortunately, it's a tradition that's far more prevalent in the United States than in Europe, or at least the part of Europe I reside in. What's wonderful about these re-releases is that it gives us a chance to share in our love for a film years after it's initial run. It's truly a celebration.

'Jurassic Park' started life as a best-selling novel by Michael Crichton. The writer drew upon speculation within the scientific community. The idea was that it would be possible to extract dinosaur DNA from musketoes trapped in amber. It's pretty much impossible of course, but it's as good an explanation as any. In a fine example of self-plagiarism Crichton placed the dinosaurs in a theme park; a setting similar to his own film 'West World'. 

The novel is noticeably darker than the film. Focusing more on the inherent dangers of wielding genetic power than the wonder of resurrecting an extinct species. This is why I prefer the film to the novel. While both are perfectly good stories, Spielberg's film releases itself from the cynisism of the source material. This change is most apparent in the character of John Hammond, played in the movie by Richard Attenborough. Crichton's Hammond only wants to get rich, while Spielberg's version comes off like Walt Disney's slightly disturbed brother. 

This optimistic approach means that we're allowed to experience the wonder of Hammond's creation. The moment we see our first dinosaur (a Brachiosaurus that's almost too big for the screen) is simply magical. It's a moment of cinematic beauty made possible through Spielberg's use of all his tools. There's the human element, the actors, and the visual effects and the wonderful musical score by John Williams. The combination of these elements creates a genuine moment of wonder. 

What's even more commendable is how the film switches from wonder to fear. 'Jurassic Park' isn't afraid to get scary. (Hell, it's not even afraid to get funny. Wayne Knight's run in with a Dilophosaurus never fails to make me chuckle.) The first T-Rex attack sequence is a revelation for someone who is used to seeing the film on a small screen. And it's not just the images. The cheap cinema seats were literally trembling at the sound of his roar. Even the shrieks of the frightfully intelligent Velociraptors seemed to cut right through you.

After twenty years the film hasn't lost much of its impact. You'd expect that the special-effects, which were revolutionary at the time of release, would look dated. Strangely enough, that's not the case. The computer generated creatures are still stunning. Which might be due to Spielberg's sparse use of CGI and the combination with Stan Winston's animatronics. Many modern filmmakers could learn a thing or two from 'Jurassic Park' and its use of computer generated imagery.

When you get right down to it 'Jurassic Park' is a perfect blockbuster. An entertainment machine. It's an example of a skilful director using all his tools to create wonder and excitement out of thin air. The film is one of the hallmarks of Steven Spielberg's career. It might not be as brutally effective as 'Jaws' or as transporting as 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'. But it is still one of the most memorable movies in this director's long and diverse filmography.

Iron Man 3 Review

'Iron Man 3' is the latest addition to Marvel's movie universe. An admirable undertaking which up until now has produced a mixed bag of movies culminating in 'The Avengers'. Robert Downey, Jr. was perfectly cast as the heroic millionaire Tony Stark. But even with all his charm, he couldn't save the first two 'Iron Man' films from being decidedly lackluster. 

For the third film Jon Favreau handed over his directorial duties to Shane Black. This veteran screenwriter turned director provides a fresh take on the characters, injecting the humanity and urgency that was absent from Favreau's attempts. The majority of the film feels not only like the best 'Iron Man' but also like the best of the Marvel movies. Were it not for one fatal mistake.   

'Iron Man 3' starts off strong. After the events of 'The Avengers' Tony Stark suffers from anxiety attacks. In his troubled state he turns to his talents for relief. To protect himself and his love Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) he constructs countless new Iron Man suits. Tony's gradual descend into madness is interrupted when his friend Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) is wounded in an explosion. 

The explosion turns out to be an attack perpetrated by The Manderin, a media savvy terrorist played to perfection by Ben Kingsley. Shaken by the near loss of his friend, Stark vows to have his revenge. Words that by the end of the movie he'll be sorry for. At the same time a fellow businessman named Killian (Guy Pearce) is found to have shady connections to the mad terrorist.  

So far, so good. The film has great energy and Downey, Jr. has some great moments as he is pummeled into submission. There's a lot of humanity in his performance and for the first time he spends more time outside his suit. But just when you're sure this movie is going to pull it all off there's an amazingly regrettable twist. A choice that undermines the entire movie. I'd suggest all those who have yet to see the film to skip the next paragraph.

In a mind-boggling, but no less funny, scene The Mandarin is revealed to be a hoax. The terrorist is really a Shakespearian actor hired to strike fear in the hearts of the West. Shane Black throws away a wonderful antagonist and replaces him with the boring secondary villain Killian. Who's now a genetically enhanced superman. There's intelligence behind this reveal, but it's just so dissapointing. If Kingsley's character had been  handled differently his Mandarin would have been iconic. 

The rest of the film suffers from this turn of events. After the fateful reveal it never truly attains the level of entertainment present in the film's first half. I guess Shane Black thought his bad guy switcheroo was inspired but instead the audience is cheated out of a better film. It's especially painful since the rest of 'Iron Man 3' is so incredibly good. It reminds me of Roger Ebert's famous statement: ''Each film is only as good as its villain.''

Oblivion Review

Young director Joseph Kosinski based his latest film on a graphic novel he co-wrote with Arvid Nelson. He didn't expect the story to be adapted to the silver screen until Tom Cruise showed his interest. Typically, the production proved to be a lot easier to get off the ground with a major star attached. 

'Oblivion' is stuffed with ideas. Many of which would've made great movies on their own. It's characteristic of many storytellers making their start. The apparent inability to restrain themselves. They try to cram as much of their ideas into a single story as they can. This isn't always a bad thing but in the case of 'Oblivion' it does pose a challenge to the viewer. For every scene in the latter half of the film features at least one plot twist.

'Oblivion' starts off slow. It's 2077 and Cruise's character reveals the specifics of Earth's fate. Sixty years earlier Earth was attacked by an alien race known as the Scavengers, Scavs for short. Humanity fought back with its nuclear arsenal. It won the war but the world was left uninhabitable. The remaining humans decided to colonize Titan and harvest their home planet's natural resources. 

A team of technicians, Jack Harper and Victoria Olsen, are stationed on Earth to protect these operations from the remaining Scavs. Aiding them are a group of drones, overgrown flying iPhone's with guns. Anyone who's seen '2001: A Space Oddysey' will know that these red-eyed robots are up to no good. Everything appears to be going smoothly for Jack and Victoria until a spaceship crashes to the surface. The female survivor is of significant importance to Jack, who remembers her from his recurring dreams. 

To say more would spoil one of film's most enjoyable traits. For 'Oblivion' is a most unpredictable movie. Some twists are downright ridiculous and far fetched but curse me if they aren't entertaining. Another highlight is the look of the future technology. The vehicles and robots are fantastic in their design. The surface of our planet, once green and alive, is turned into a barren wasteland. Here and there we catch a glimpse of the past in the ruins of skyscrapers, football stadiums and libraries. 

Tom Cruise is credible as the level-headed technician Jack Harper. He's confident in his role as mankind's protector but at the same time he sees that not all is as it seems on planet Earth. Andrea Riseborough does a good job as Harper's partner and lover, willfully ignorant of the truth. The character of Olga Kurylenko isn't as well-developed. She drops into the second act of the film and doesn't seem to be much more than a plot device to get the story going. The ever enjoyable Morgan Freeman brings nobility to the leader of a bunch of cave-dwelling rebels. 

Your enjoyment of 'Oblivion' will depend on your tolerance for far fetched sci-fi ideas. Every few minutes a new idea is thrown at the audience without leaving much time for them to digest the implications. However if you don't mind the twists and like to see some top notch special-effects you'll have a good time with 'Oblivion'. It won't be remembered as a great science-fiction film but it's still a good one. 

Oz the Great and Powerful Review

Before entering the theater to see 'Oz the Great and Powerful' I came upon a note stuck to the doors of the place. The note informed the audience of a curious fact. The first twenty minutes of 'Oz' are presented without colour and in a different screen format. To film fans the allusion is obvious, and quite charming, but apparently cinemas feel the need warn casual filmgoers of this dramatic deviation.

''Only black-and-white in the first act of the movie? That's unheard of!'' The theater owners might have thought. Well actually, there was a little film which employed this trick way back in 1939, it was called 'The Wizard of Oz'. 'Oz the Great and Powerful' serves as a prequel to that film. It chronicles the arrival of the charming con artist Oscar Diggs to the magical Land of Oz. Upon his arrival Theodora the Witch of the West mistakes him for the Wizard whose coming was foretold in a prophecy.

Like Neo, Anakin, Aragorn and Harry before him, Oscar goes forth to fulfill his destiny. There's just one problem, Oscar's a fake. He's a cheap magician who delights in fooling those gullible enough to believe him. During his quest he falls in with a comical flying monkey, a girl made of china and two more witches. He joyfully poses as The Wizard until he hears what is expected of him. According to the prophecy he's destined to kill the Wicked Witch. By now Oscar realizes he's in over his head. His first instinct is to escape Oz, but thanks to his interactions with its inhabitants he finds he might just have it in him to be The Wizard.

'Oz the Great and Powerful' is directed by Sam Raimi. Who's better known for his nasty horror films and the first trilogy of 'Spider-Man' movies. His franticly comedic style is a nice fit for the Land of Oz. One of the most interesting things is the colourful way the world is created for this film. Some of it is deliciously old-fashioned. I believe I even spotted a matte painting of the Emerald City in there! The visuals aren't as messy as in Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland'. The film itself is also far more involving and fun than Burton's efforts.

The story itself is promising but half way through it becomes deriative. Why does every fantasy movie require a great final battle? It might have something to do with 'The Lord of the Rings'? Those movies built up to a spectular confrontation with an ultimate evil. However, such a conflict feels awkward in a good-natured world like Oz. I had the same problem with 'Alice in Wonderland', which also jammed a war into its final act. It's a shame they took this well-worn path yet again for 'Oz the Great and Powerful'.

Fortunately the film features a good protagonist. James Franco shines brightly as Oscar, an endearing schmuck of a man. Here, the actor displays a previously undiscovered sense of wit and slimy charm. Mila Kunis is less convincing as Theodora, a good witch with a broken heart. Kunis looks like she belongs on a catwalk instead of in Oz. Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams are fine as the Wicked Witch and the Good Witch, respectively.  

'Oz the Great and Powerful' is perfect for those looking for a fun bit of fantasy entertainment. It's better than recent re-imaginings like 'Snow White and the Huntsman', 'Hansel & Gretel' and 'Alice in Wonderland'. It also makes good use of the otherwise loathsome 3D format. Sam Raimi has delivered an adequate fantasy adventure with some nice nods to the classic 'Wizard of Oz'.  

Lincoln Review

Steven Spielberg has been busy on his Abraham Lincoln project for quite a few years. Initially he had Liam Neeson in mind for the role of the 16th President of the United States of America. But when Neeson claimed to be too old for the part, the role went to Daniel Day-Lewis. After seeing 'Lincoln' it's hard to imagine any other actor portraying this historical figure.

'Lincoln' is an important film. It's not just a history lesson, it's also an impressive dramatical achievement. A movie about the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment could've been boring as a rock. Fortunately, Spielberg and his screenwriter Tony Kushner find real suspense in the final months of Lincoln's life. It's not just the immense importance of abolishing slavery that captures our interest, nor is it the conclusion of the American Civil War, it's the story of a steadfast group of individuals. People who used, and sometimes abused, the political system to do the right thing. 

At the center of this group is Abraham Lincoln, who, by now, is regarded as an icon of democracy. In 'Lincoln' we see him with his family and we see him struggle with the death of his second son, Willie. These scenes, accompanied by John Williams' solemn score, are at the heart of the film. It's as if, for the first time, we are able to see past his historical  importance, and experience that Abraham Lincoln was very much a man like any other. There's a gentleness to this film that seems to be directly inspired by Lincoln's character. 

'Lincoln' will be remembered as one of the finest collections of performances in film history. Daniel Day-Lewis transforms into Abe Lincoln. From the moment he appears on screen his presence dominates the picture. He captures an intellectual, who is no stranger to suffering, nevertheless he has a fine sense of wit, demonstrated by the handful of shaggy dog stories he tells during the film. Sally Field is remarkable as Lincoln's grieving wife Mary Todd. Her confrontation with Tommy Lee Jones is one of the movie's highpoints.

All performances in 'Lincoln' are rock solid. Some of Hollywood's most prominent actors bring their best, and the dialogues, of which there are many, are impressive and suspenseful. But of all supporting actors Tommy Lee Jones stands out as the Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, a lifelong abolitionist. Surprisingly, the most  heartwarming moment in 'Lincoln' belongs to this tireless grouch. 

Spielberg's film will not appeal every viewer. Many scenes consist entirely out of political debates and conversations. The issues are no less important, but if you're not interested in history you won't find much to enjoy in 'Lincoln'. Aside from that, the film runs a bit too long. There's a moment, about ten minutes before the actual ending, which would've been a perfect conclusion. Instead, Spielberg choses to include the night of Lincoln's assassination. It doesn't ruin the film per se, but I do feel it's a missed opportunity to end the film  in a most touching manner. 

Django Unchained Review

Sergio Leone's famous spaghetti western 'For A Few Dollars More' begins with the words: ''Where life had no value, death, sometimes, had its price. That is why the bounty killers appeared.'' These words do not feature in 'Django Unchained' but they would've fit in quite nicely in Quentin Tarantino's latest. Jamie Foxx stars as a freed slave who sets out to rescue his wife with the help of a German bounty hunter.

Like all of Tarantino's movies 'Django Unchained' is heavily influenced by the cheap exploitation films of the 60s and 70s. There's a lot of off-beat music and old fashioned camera movements and editing. The result is a eclectic film with many fantasticly executed scenes. However, 'Django' suffers from the same flaws as Tarantino's previous film 'Inglourious Basterds', more on that later. 

The acting is amazing, Tarantino knows how to the get the best out of his actors. Christoph Waltz excells as Dr. King Schultz, a man who switched jobs from dentist to bounty hunter. The German actor has a flair for eccentric but dangerous individuals. Foxx, on the other hand, is a more coolheaded. This might be due to fact that Django himself is the least interesting character in the movie. 

The main villains are Leonardo DiCaprio's devious plantation owner Calvin Candie and his most loyal slave Stephen, played by Samuel L. Jackson. Surprisingly, Stephen shares his master's convictions about the inferiority of African-Americans, even though he is a black man himself. Django and Schultz might not be the most honourable heroes ever to grace the silver screen, but Candie and Stephen are so twisted it's hard not to root for them. 

The duo devise an elaborate plan to free Django's wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from Candyland and live happily ever after. Of course, much like in 'Inglourious Basterds', things don't go as planned, resulting in a graphic, but terrific, shootout. I haven't seen gun battles as bloody as these since Paul Verhoeven stopped making movies in the US of A. 

Tarantino's filmmaking prowess allows for some great moments but he's hampered by an inability to rein himself in. Much like in 'Basterds' his dialogues, smart as they are, go on for far too long. It's too bad because, had 'Django Unchained' been shorter and more focused, it would've been a great film. On the other hand, the problems are less prominent than in 'Inglourious Basterds'.    

One thing must be said, Quentin Tarantino has balls. Once again he has dared to make a subject as potentially offensive as slavery into a revisionist take on history. Much like in 'Basterds' the bad guys get what is coming to them. We get to see what punishment the Calvin Candies of the world deserve. 

Still, the severity of their punishment will make most viewers feel uncomfortable and, in a way, it lessens the heroisms of our protagonists. That's the funny thing about stories of revenge, they might be enjoyable, but in reality they are not quite moral. Tarantino appears to say that creating a fictional payback might be one of the best and most harmless ways to settle the score with all of history's wrongs.