The Even Odd Rule Actually Applies

Star Trek Into Darkness

2013

D: J.J. Abrams

**********

Pros: Villain, Effects, Action, Music

Cons: Some Logical Problems, Forced Fanservice, Rushed Ending

 

 

         Simon Pegg, being a company man, asserted that the Star Trek reboot broke the Even/Odd Rule, but a more absurd lie could hardly be told.  Not only is it untrue of the odd-numbered movies of the original run (whose reputation largely suffered from their not being crowd-pleasers), I believe this rule ironically applies to the reboot movies far more.  I seem to be in the minority, but I thought Star Trek and Star Trek Beyond were unwatchable pieces of garbage while finding Into Darkness pretty fun.

        Much of this is due to Abrams’ own interests and passions.  Abrams admitted that he was always more of a Star Wars fan, which explains his reducing Star Trek to a phoned-in attempt at a Hero’s Journey.  This also explains why The Force Awakens, as bad as it is, was at least watchable.  However, even most non-Trekkers enjoy The Wrath of Khan, which Into Darkness is inspired by.  As such, Abrams was able to muster enough interest to develop characters, even though the very idea was a reflection of his lack of imagination.  At least he mixed up the story a little bit, unlike TFA.

       Perhaps what makes such a big difference between Into Darkness and the other two reboots is the presence of a charismatic, nuanced villain whose motivations actually make sense.   In Star Trek we had a supposedly complex normal person driven mad by the destruction of his home and family, and instead of taking the opportunity of time travel to fix the problem, irrationally blames Vulcan and wants to murder everybody; he is effectively one-dimensional in the context of the movie’s conflict and plot.  In Beyond, the villain blames society for subjecting him to dangers that he consented to as a space explorer and wants to murder everybody; he is effectively one-dimensional in the context of the movie’s conflict and plot.  Both characters are played by actors usually good at playing human beings, but are too restrained by heavy makeup and bad writing to actually act.  

       In contrast John Harrison (later revealed to be Khan Noonien Singh) is played by Benedict Cumberbatch in all his glory.  His performance is stylized a bit to maximize his wonderful baritone, but his performance is still nuanced and charismatic.  In this timeline, he was awakened early by Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller), who uses him as a consultant in designing a battleship able to fight the Klingons in a war he was anticipating, using Harrison’s crew as a bargaining chip.  When Harrison escapes, he understandably projects his own savagery onto Marcus, assuming he has murdered his crew in retaliation, and begins a campaign of homicidal revenge.  While clearly villainous and acting on violence, you can feel for him when he utters an effectively simple line that our hero can relate to: “My crew is my family, Kirk (Chris Pine). Is there nothing you would not do for family?”

       This provides an effective foil for Kirk, who must face the reality of making sacrifices for the good of his crew and his ship.  He does so without resorting to the murderous methods his enemy does, his civilized morality's contrasting with the villain's barbaric and tribalistic (but still human) one.

        Unfortunately, Marcus’ reasoning makes little sense.  It’s made clear that Marcus needed Harrison’s “savagery” to design a ship like a warrior.  Why would you need a barbarian to think to put some guns on a ship?  In fact, this also goes against the a subtle theme in the franchise in which the Federation, which values creativity and innovation, ends up making more effective warships than the Klingons.  It’s the same paradox that was reflected in the Spartans vs. the Athenians and the North vs. South Koreans.  Harrison even reinforces the buffoonery by asking Spock (Zachary Quinto) how he can break bone when he cannot even break a rule, oblivious to the entire concept of justifiable violence and extenuating circumstances.  

        Strangely enough, The Wrath of Khan itself preemptively deconstructs this!  For all his intelligence, Khan's lack of experience in space tactics makes it difficult for him to think 3-dimensionally; he ultimately succumbs to Kirk's hard-earned expertise.  Then again, he might just be a match for the reboots relatively green itnerpretation of "Kirk."

        The resultant plot is fun enough.  Kirk and Harrison form an unsteady alliance against the rogue Marcus culminating in a delightfully gruesome death for the admiral.  A better way to make an alternate timeline version of this iconic rivalry is for Harrison to show mercy to Kirk and his crew, demonstrating a sense of gratitude and honor while having an interesting twist: imagine a universe in which these two characters ended up being friends of a sort.  Instead, the villain decides to murder Kirk and Co, which lacks the personal drama of the original timeline. This plays out in the far lazier twist we’ve grown to expect from Abrams: the same thing happens except with Spock and Kirk’s roles reversed.  After the villain’s ship is crashed into the water, (the opening sequence has the Enterprise's hiding in a lake for apparent reason than to cut a misleading trailer in which it seems to reemerge like a phoenix after the crash, much like the trick of showing Finn’s holding a lightsaber at times) and without the sacrifices made in Star Trek III, Kirk is revived using the villain’s blood, which is tested on a tribble, another bit of fanservice for pseudo-Trekkers.  In the end, our villain is harmlessly frozen, a moral victory for a civilization that values mercy and due process.  I like the theme and the intriguing plot, even if it is a reflection of the writer’s being a 9/11 truther.

         Another moment I liked is when Scotty (Simon Pegg) refuses to sign off on cargo that is not properly inspected, which turns out to be part of Marcus’ conspiracy.  He displays integrity by forfeiting his job, but the movie displays its characteristic ignorance of military structure by having him being replaced by an ensign (Anton Yelchin’s Chekov) as CHENG.  Spock and Uhura’s (Zoe Saldana) questionable romance continues, but there is a good line in which Spock explains to her that he purposefully shut down his emotions when he thought he was going to die because he cared so much for his loved ones and did not want to feel grief; sometimes one has to be emotionally distant to care.  

         The movie has great production value that enhances its action and makes it really fun to watch.  People don’t often talk about how important sound design and mixing are to this, and Michael Giacchino’s theme helps as well.  I like the sinister design of the Vengeance, as well as its intimidating buzz, and of course I love the design of the AU Enterprise.  The design falls flat when we see a Klingon ship; I’ve always loved the look of their craft, but this one has the “generic spiky green alien ship” look.  The Klingons themselves are flat, and Uhura tries to appease them with generic mentions of the word “honor.”  While most people complained about a bikini scene involving Carol Marcus (Alice Eve), even more egregious was how the Caitians fell victim to normie thirst. 

        Star Trek Into Darkness, despite its flaws, is a fun, well-paced movie with plenty of twists, and I was invested in the conflict.  The confrontation on Kronos, which could only be interpreted by the Klingons as an act of war, also sets the stage for the subsequent war, which we obviously could not have because that makes too much sense and would be too interesting. 

 

 

Good Friday, 2023

The Passion of the Christ

2004

D: Mel Gibson

**********

 

       Foreshadowing the increasingly anti-Christian attitudes of our society, this movie was a source of controversy for its alleged antisemitism.  While those accusations were apparently vindicated by a drunken rant from Mel Gibson, no honest viewing of the film itself could yield that interpretation unless one were to the think the New Testament itself was antisemetic.  Sadly, accusations of antisemitism are no longer a necessary pretext.  Gibson, after all, has generally done a good job hiding his views when sober, although that may have been a bit forced in one of the Lethal Weapon sequels (Passion also features a villainous Roman soldier contemptuously snarling the word “Jew.”).  In truth, the movie is a well-executed and theologically-accurate depiction of the Crucifixion. 

        To reinforce this controversy, the movie was also dismissed as fetishistic in its ultraviolence, a particularly hypocritical criticism coming from regular consumers of R-Rated movies.  In fact, the movie’s violence is pretty tame compared to that of many horror movies.  I’m usually not one to find gore tastelessly funny, but I will call out one moment I found unintentionally(?) funny: Jesus’ (Jim Caviezel) scourging ends with Abenader’s (Fabio Sator) walking in on it like, “Wtf is wrong with you idiots, you’re not supposed to kill him,” following immediately by the movie's cuting to a high angle shot of Jesus’ lying on the ground with a ridiculous amount of blood everywhere (another accidental chuckle comes from a slightly cartoonish moment in which Simon of Cyrene (Jarreth Merz) disappears over the horizon at the exact moment Mary (Maia Morgenstern) and Co. appear over it).  A nitpick is that Jesus bleeds far more blood in this scene than the human body contains.  Then again this could be possible because of His divine power, then gain people might have noticed this, then again maybe lack of modern medical science prevented them from doing so.  

        The Scourging scene also contains a good depiction of the Banality of Evil with the Roman Officer who oversees it; the only emotion he displays is annoyance when his absurdly sadistic underlings tease him with their implements of torture.  Indeed, the Romans are depicted as the evilest people in the movie, with the Sanhedrin’s displaying unease at their brutality and eventually remorse when the Temple is split.  One could accuse Gibson of overcompensation.  

        On the flip side of the ideological spectrum, many found this movie to be a spiritual experience of sorts.  As a cradle Catholic, I found this to be a strange reaction; I had always been exposed to images of the Crucifixion, and I simply thought this to be not much more than a relatively well-executed cinematic adaptation of it.  Perhaps this is an indictment of many Protestants’ views toward iconography: much of Reformed Christianity touts the experience of being “saved,” and the ban on images could serve to keep Christ’s sacrifice as an abstraction until such an epiphany happens.  Ironically to took a Catholic’s exploiting a (silly) loophole in that rule to discredit it. 

         Mel Gibson, being the skilled filmmaker he is, added some artistic flourishes to his movie, some refreshingly eccentric, not the least of which is when the intentionally androgenous Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) is holding a weird baby-man to mess with Jesus and Mary during the Scourging.  At one point Judas (Luca Lionello) and the audience are treated to a disturbing jump scare of a demon.  More substantially, he includes many moments that have special Catholic significance, and he deftly combines footage of Jesus' lifting up the Bread during the Last Supper with the lifting of the cross.  Commendably, he chose to have the film’s dialogue spoken in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin, although the Latin is ecclesiastical rather than classical (the “ch” sounds for “c” are a dead giveaway).  Fortunately he was made to allow subtitles.  

         The movie does a good job depicting the humanity of Jesus, especially His relationship with Mary.  Jim Caviezel is solid, and the acting overall is good.  Pilate’s (Hristo Shopov) struggle is decently handled, and the redeeming faith of his wife (Claudia Gerini) is fleshed out.  The movie also stars Monical Bellucci as Mary Magdalene and a score of cast members from the based country of Italy.  Cinematographer Caleb Deschanel does a great job with the nighttime scenes in the movie.

 

Down to Earth but Not Really

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

2013

D: Jon M. Chu

**********

Pros: Some improved costume design, Ray Stevenson, Walton Goggins

Cons: Anticlimactic plot, Fridge logic, Bland characters, Blander setting

 

 

       In the wake of the negative reaction to G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra, the studio decided to take the time to do damage control on the sequel.  Apparently, half the cast backed out, as well.  Four years later (partially due to a misguided attempt to adapt the movie to 3-D), G.I Joe Retaliation was released under director Jon M. Chu, who had previously been known primarily for directing two Step Up sequels and a Justin Bieber documentary.

       Retaliation begins with a rushed montage of exposition which glosses over the “Nanomite Wars” with MARS as a past event and then without further explanation introduces us to a more mundane setting.  No more sonic weapons reminiscent of COBRA’s blue lasers, no more futuristic uniforms and vehicles, no more nanomites and all the potential intrigue that comes with them: just military fatigues and firearms.  People think this is an improvement over Rise of Cobra for some reason.

       Eschewing camp and genre tropes in favor of a more “mature” mundane setting worked in many movies such as Casino Royale and the Dark Knight trilogy, but there’s the subtle trick involved in this trend in that when you do that you actually have to make the movies good.  If you eliminate all these over-the-top gonzo trappings without replacing them with smarter writing, all you did was just make the franchise less fun.  

        The movie begins optimistically nonetheless.  We establish that Duke (Channing Tatum) and Roadblock (The Rock) are the two head soldiers in charge of G.I. Joe.  After some brief action to demonstrate that they’re badass, the movie takes the time to show the two interacting in their natural environment and establish that they have an amusing natural chemistry (that’s a good thing, E-Rod).  Roadblock ends up filling the role far better than Marlon’ Wayans’ suspiciously absent Ripcord.  Okay, so it seems that we have two likable, fun protagonists to lead our fun popcorn movie to keep it entertaining. 

        Duke is unceremoniously killed during an airstrike ordered by Zartan, the remnant of the last movie’s nanomite lore, who is still disguised as the US President (Jonathan Pryce, with occasional flashes of Arnold Vosloo as Zartan’s true form).  As with the previous movie, this fails to explore the terrible social implications.  Once Zartan is revealed at the end, there is little acknowledgment of the mass paranoia caused by the idea that anyone in government can be replaced with a changeling.  As if the undeserved damage to the real president's career is not enough, Zartan actually brags to the poor guy about banging his wife.  

       The hijacked US government has replaced G.I. Joe, now branded as traitors, with a new elite force called COBRA, ignoring the slight but observable use of such branding by the villains in the previous film.  COBRA operatives sport bland uniforms only half-heartedly based on the classic ones, reflective of the movie’s overall lack of style.  

       Forced to go into hiding, Roadblock, Flint (D.J. Cotrona) and Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki) seek help from retired G.I. Joe founder Gen. Joe Colton (Bruce Willis), who for some reason has been ignored by Zartan and Co.  Aside from some slight ship-teasing, Flint and Lady Jaye are as bland as you could possibly imagine.  Unsurprisingly, Bruce Willis sleep-walks through the movie like most of the movie as he has through many such lesser works that have cast him for mere name recognition, and this results in some of the most awkward attempts at comic relief I have ever seen.  Colton’s moderate misogyny butts heads with the mild girlboss motivation that passes for character development from Lady Jaye, but he eventually grows to respect her by the end of the movie, which is adorable. 

       Meanwhile Cobra Commander (Luke Bracey, voiced by Robert Baker), Storm Shadow (Lee Byung-Hun), and Destro are being imprisoned in a secret underground bunker overseen by Warden Nigel James (Walton Goggins).  They are kept in a helpless stasis that seems cruel even for villains such as them.  They are rescued by Firefly (Ray Stevenson).  Presumbably because Christopher Eccleston declined to renew his contract, Destro is left to die in the exploding prison, which is a shame because this is a missed opportunity to atone for how awkwardly miscast he was.  Admittedly there is an interesting character moment in which Cobra Commander takes off the mirror-like mask from his stasis suit, decides he likes it, and puts it back on, inspiring the new design of his new costume. 

       Cobra Commander’s costume is one of the few improvements in the movie.  I’m not so sure about the blended version of the classic visor/helmet design, but he looks cool.  Unfortunately, his voice is a generic low pitch; if they were going to have a dub, they should have gone with Charlie Adler, who does a great Cobra Commander voice.  Snake-Eyes’ (Ray Park) costume was also an improvement, creative but faithful. 

        Unfortunately, he’s a pretty flat character, especially with his former friend Duke’s being killed off; no more personal matters.  He’s also pretty passive: all he does is get busted out of prison by his loyal subordinates and then proceeds to do nothing despite having been cool in the last movie (see also: Solomon Lane in Mission: Impossible – Fallout).  It’s too bad Joseph Gordon-Levitt didn’t reprise his role because he was actually great.  I suppose after Inception, he felt he didn’t have to be in such movies any more.  Haven’t heard much from him in a while, though.   

         Storm-Shadow is injured in the prison breakout and sent to a mountain retreat to heal, only to be captured by Snake-Eyes and Jinx (Elodie Yung).  He presented before the Blind Master (The RZA) in order to answer for his murder of the Hard Master.  Storm-Shadow quickly proves his innocence in a way that could have been done years ago.  Naturally this makes everyone present forgive him for joining a murderous terrorist organization bent on world domination, and he joins the good guys free of charge.  For this reason, I’ve never really bought him as an honorable villain, and I kind of agree with Resolute for having none of that.  

         All the good guys unite in Colson’s house.  In an amusing moment, Storm-Shadow declines a firearm while Snake-Eyes lovingly handles to submachine guns; I unironically like it when the less ambiguous hero is the gun guy.  Colson lends Roadblock a Ripsaw tank in which he gets in a token fight with H.I.S.S. tanks while President Zartan blows up London with a superweapon.  Storm-Shadow kills Zartan (who turns out to be the Hard Master’s true killer), Firefly dies tragically, and Cobra Commander escapes. 

         The movie ends with Duke’s funeral, in which Colson gifts Roadblock with a 1911 (a Boomer downgrade from the Joes’ standard issue Glock 21’s) for killing COBRA Commander.  Roadblock then fires the pistol up in the air with the 21-gun salute which, unless the gun has been temporarily modified to cycle blanks, has sent a few live rounds downrange.  

         G.I. Joe: Retaliation isn’t boring, but it’s not particularly good.  Characterization is lacking, and Roadlbock isn’t even mentioned to be a gourmet chef!.  Loathe am I to admit it, E-Rod was right that Cobra Commander is pointlessly passive while Firefly and the Warden are redeeming features.  Duke’s death is inappropriately subversive for such an unpretentious movie and renders it less entertaining.

         The movie owes more to the comic than the cartoon, which I am more nostalgic for.  The action is a mixed bag; you know the director lacks vision when the movie has both shakycam and Snyderism.  Henry Jackman’s score is a mildly atmospheric improvement.  Retaliation also stars Matt Gerald, Joseph Mazello, and James Carville as himself.    

 

Insert Shallow Pun Here

Titanic

1997

D: James Cameron

**********

Pros: Special Effects, Directing, Acting, Music

Cons: Story, Immature Romance, Hype, Inaccuracies

 

 

         Today is the 25^th anniversary of one of the most controversially popular movies ever made.  Being a red-blooded man, I count myself among those who believe it to be overrated.  Despite its overwrought praise, its emotionality and romance is shallow to the point where it inspired a great meme and one of the greatest reddit posts ever.  What’s even more frustrating is that is the movie that James Cameron got a best picture for, not Terminator or Aliens, a perfect microcosm of the Academy’s blatant genre bias.  It’s also worth-noting that 1997 had two far more deserving works: Amistad and Princess Mononoke.  The first movie was about a boat, and the second one was an actually intelligent ersatz FernGully.

        Enough ink has been spilled over why the romance in this movie is shallow (the aforementioned reddit post illustrates this beautifully), but the strange thing is that many people make Titanic out to be the new Citizen Kane, simply for its contemporary faddishness in the  critical community.  Still, it can be argued that the movie works in a barbaric, primal way that makes it somewhat like a female version of John Wick.  The idea of reflecting on a past fling and what could have come from it, even in the face of a committed real life marriage, could be justified as an immature expression of female love in the same way that murdering scores of people for taking away token reminder of one’s dead wife is such for the male.  Still, nobody pretends that John Wick is high art.  

         One thing that could sum up the movie’s problems is that, through some hackish knee-jerk, Cameron thought that movie about the Titanic needed to have villains, as illustrated by the caricature that is Billy Zane’s character.   A better movie would not need to make the rival for the heroine’s affections a bad person to illustrate that she’s wrong for her.  In fact, the movie would be more inspiring if the parties involved with the love triangle got over that and helped each other survive the disaster, even to the point of self-sacrifice.  Heck, even a much maligned cartoon about wolves has better romance in which the two characters already know/like each other and the conflict is depicted as a valid conflict of interests. 

         The worst part of the movie is its villainization of William Murdock. While real-world evidence is ambiguous, the movie describes him as being a “practical man” who might accept a bribe for lifeboat privileged.  It’s generally a pet peeve of mine for historic biopics to slander real-life heroes “for dramatic effect.”  It’s especially frustrating that these are the type of movies that win Oscars.

        Still, the movie is surprisingly watchable and well-executed to the point where I do believe that Cameron deserved his Best Director award.  The visuals are epic and the movie features great CGI for the time.  James Horner’s score is great, and I admit that I liked “My Heart Will Go On.”

        I could argue that the movie might be a great story if taken as a slight tragic comedy from the point of view of Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton).  The man dedicates so much effort to finding this historic diamond, bringing this crazy old woman (Gloria Stuart) and listening to her crazy, farcical story, only for her to dump the diamond whose location she claimed to have not known into the ocean.  I particularly like movies in which the straight man resigns to laughter experiencing nothing but madness, as Lovett does in the alternate ending after listening to some crazy old lady's rationalization her craziness.   

The Thrilling End to the Craig Trilogy

Skyfall

2012

D: Sam Mendes

**********

Pros: Characters, Dialogue, Cinematography Music, Javier Bardem

Cons: Some Logical Problems with the Plot

 

 

      Skyfall takes over after its solid predecessors, Casino Royale and the unjustly maligned Quantum of Solace, in the Craig Continuity and effectively extends this origin story.  This was a relief considering that director Sam Mendes was previously known for overrated proto-woke works like American Beauty and Revolutionary Road; turns out he’s just very good at making movies in general.  Still, the movie does seem to treat British patriotism, even at its kitschiest, with affection, while Americana seemed to have been depicted as a pathology in Mendes’ previous films.

     The movie takes a break from the Quantum arc and focuses on a villain who has a vendetta against M (Judi Dench).  This particular antagonist, Raoul Silva, is one of the best in the franchise, although a lot of that has to do with Javier Bardem’s insane levels of charisma; I’m not sure he’d be quite as good without the actor. Silva is also somewhat similar to GoldenEye’s Trevelyan: a former MI6 agent who was betrayed by the government and holds a vendetta for a one of the heroes, all while acting as a good nemesis to Bond because of his skills and background.  M’s past consequentialism resulted in her selling Silva out to the Chinese government years ago as part of a deal based on the excuse that he was acting outside his brief.  Unlike Trevelyan, Silva sees Bond as a potential ally.  Like many Bond villains, Silva is based on a real life celebrity, in this case Julian Assange.  Personally, I don’t think he deserves such a cool character based on him; I’m not that red-pilled.  He has a memorable, but subtle disfigurement that, when revealed, is enhanced by Thomas Newman's chilling score.  

       The inciting action of the plot involves the failure of Bond and his young field partner Eve (Naomie Harris) to stop a man from getting away with a disk full of contact information for all the British spies abroad. This results in a massive scandal for M, and culminates in her getting into trouble over all the spies’ being executed by national enemies.  For some reason, she recites poetry during her hearing.  

        The movie also partially deconstructs the franchise by showing Bond’s facing some consequences for his mistakes, although it possibly takes it a bit too far.  He pridefully refuses to get out of the way to make an open shot for Eve in the first scene, and that results in the plot.  He goes into hiding for a while after his presumed death and returns after seeing the ravages of Silva’s plan on the news.  For some reason, MI6 decides send into battle against Silva, fudging his requalification to give him a false pass, despite his struggling during the physical, failing his marksmanship test during which he loses his temper and advances toward the target and still misses it, and ragequitting the psych eval the second his childhood home comes up.  It seems that Bond’s importance as a protagonist is too important for MI6 to heed logic.  This gets even more absurd when this happens again in No Time to Die.  They just need to stop giving this loser breaks.  In contrast, GoldenEye doesn’t sacrifice Bond’s competence for him to face some personal consequences from his job; he inevitably makes enemies that were once friends.

        In order to further the theme of Bond’s drama as a central point in the movie, Bond spirits M off to his own childhood home in order to stage a final showdown with Silva.  He even enlists the help of Q (Ben Winshaw) and M’s assistant Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) to subtly guide Silva to the place.  One would expect him to hide her in some random place that could not be guessed, but he asserts that he’ll have the advantage.  Of course, you’d think a person as obsessive and intelligent as Silva would have preemptively scouted this area, just as another Javier Bardem character would.  

        Despite the flaws, the movie’s plot is effectively character-driven.  It marks a transition in Bond’s life in which he has to choose loyalty to country over feelings and get over his past (he symbolically demolishes his home). While M is ultimately killed in the confrontation, Bond faces a new present, in which he has fully transformed into the Bond We Know and Love; the movie ends with Eve’s being revealed to be Moneypenny, and Mallory’s becoming the new M, complete with the traditionally styled office.  

         The one problem with the Bond We Know and Love, however, is that he’s not that compelling a character, and the Craig Continuity seemed to realize this because it kept hitting the reset button on his origin story.  This worked surprisingly well for the first three movies to the point where I think Skyfall works better as the finale of a good trilogy, but unfortunately they persisted into the clumsy retcon that was Spectre and the equally flawed No Time to Die, which killed Bond off as a tragic character.  The former, now that EON had regained rights over the word “spectre,” recast Quantum, as somehow being a front from SPECTRE while rationalizing Silva as a one of its operatives, albeit a strangely unreliable one.  It makes little sense for them to hire someone with sympathies to Bond when the organizations entire motivation, outside world domination, was to screw with our hero.  The feeling of the Craig movies was slightly frustrating because you were hoping for the fun-and-games Bond to finally come into play while secretly knowing it would not be that great.  Still, the Craig continuity is the most consistently well-executed of the franchise, and even the bad ones are at least watchable. 

          The movie features a mixed bag of fanservice.  Although it was very satisfying to find out that Eve was Moneypenny, the chaste romantic tension between the two characters, which always contrasted effectively with Bond’s promiscuity, was somewhat spoiled by one sexually tense scene between them.  Also, I did not find Ben Winshaw’s Q to be particularly enjoyable, even though he improves somewhat in the next movie.  When he issues Bond a small radio and an underpowered WW2-era pistol, he indulges in a bit of fan disservice by taking a subtle dig at the use of cool gadgetry in the previous films by having Q say that we don’t do silly things like exploding pens any more. 

 

 That’s strange considering that it is useful for spies to have devices disguised as common objects to the point where they did this stuff in real life.  And yet the movie features a rather forced example of fanservice in the form of the weaponized DB5.  The movie makes it unclear whether or not this is Bond’s private car or an MI6 company car dating back to the 60’s (M is aware of the ejector seat, for one thing).  The regressive fanservice continues in Bond’s being officially issued a PPK, a practical power upgrade in the books.  It has a faddish smartgun feature to boot.   

          One moment of cringe occurred when Eve explains how the experience in the intro put her off field work and Bond reintroduces lame puns to the franchise by saying “At least you gave it your best shot.”  One of the things I was really enjoying about the Craig movies up to this point was the refreshing lack of stupid humor.  Oh well, at least it wasn’t a sexual double entendre.  Still, the dialogue is generally very witty and keeps the movie enjoyable.  

          The movie also has a lot of good style points.  In addition to solid action, it also features great cinematography by the legendary Roger Deakins.  It’s strange how such a popular long-running franchise would never sweat such a thing; in fact, up until Skyfall, the most artfully shot Bond movie was actually the 1967 Casino Royale spoof.  As usual, the music is good, but Skyfall is special in that Adele's excellent intro theme not only broke the series’ curse of Oscar snubs, it also broke the Academy’s 30+ year stretch between deserving Best Song winners.

Books

REVIEWS: NOVELS

REVIEWS: COMICS

The Dark Knight Returns   10

REVIEWS: MISC.

Literally Me

Blade Runner 2049

2017

D: Denis Villeneuve

**********

Pros: Cinematography, Plot, Acting, Score

Cons: Plot interferes with first movie’s

NOTE: I recommend watching the first Blade Runner before reading to avoid potential spoilers. 

 

           When I heard about an upcoming sequel to Blade Runner, I was skeptical as it seemed to be a bad idea: a 30-year sequel to a respected piece of cinema that stood on its own merits.  Turning a great movie into a franchise is usually a cynical cash grab that threatens diminish the work’s appeal.  However, I became more optimistic upon learning of the people making it.  Denis Villeneuve had already secured a reputation as one of our best current directors, Hans Zimmer was doing the score (mostly modifications of Vangelis’ original), and legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins was also part of the project, for which he won his long-overdue Oscar.  Another good omen came with the casting of Ryan Gosling.  While he’s very effective at playing stoic and occasionally intense characters, his primary strength is his ability to pick good movies; it’s almost always a good sign when he’s involved.  It’s a bit sad that his demeanor’s relatability to introverts has turned into a meme.

        Gosling plays K, a Nexus-9 replicant Blade Runner operating in Los Angeles 30 years after the events of the first movie.  In the interim, a massive technology blackout has occurred, justifying the lack of records on the previous movie's plot while explaining the subsequent rise of the Tyrell Corp’s replacement: the eccentric megalomaniac Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), who has been described by Leto as a “Elon Musk if he wasn’t such an underachiever” in a statement about Musk I can’t decide is an insult or irony.  At first, I was put off by Leto’s strange performance, but I later accepted it.  

       The world of this sequel maintains the style of the first movie while updating it with more advanced technology and user interface.  Deakins works with production designer Dennis Gassner to make well-lit, trendy minimalist interiors that still do justice to the cyberpunk aesthetic while giving us the dark look of futuristic Los Angeles.  The scenery refreshingly consists of mostly practical effects, and the sound design also enhances the atmosphere. There are plenty of interesting ideas abound with the setting and at least one deceptively realistic one.  I was ready to praise the movie for its depiction of a field of white warehouses’ imitating the pattern of farmlands in a cyberpunk perversion of agriculture, but it turns out it’s a real place.

       The movie’s plot begins when K tracks down a renegade Nexus-8 replicant named Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista) and finds a suspicious box buried on the property.  The contents of the box are supposedly game-changing; the remains of a female replicant (Rachel from the first movie) who had somehow given birth.  K’s superior Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) recognizes this as a risk to the current order and orders him to track down the loose ends (a possible missing child) to make sure that this does not inspire rebellion among the renegade replicants.  On the other hand, Wallace, whose company identified the specimen’s DNA, desires the ability to breed replicants as a stepping stone to a self-sustaining, but disposable, work force needed to spread his empire to the stars.  He orders his replicant enforcer Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) to recover the evidence.  

       Luv is one of my favorite parts of this movie.  She’s a great villain bolstered by Hoek’s performance.  At first, I thought that her occasional tear-shedding was an awkward attempt to add some unearned depth to a sardonic killing machine, but I later learned that that was a result of survival instinct; she’s afraid of her master, who shows no remorse toward killing his replicants for literally no reason.  It’s a possible intentional move to keep her on her toes.  

       As K searches for answers, he finds a number that reminds him of a traumatic core memory, one he’s always assumed was an implant.  He finds evidence the memory was real and consults Dr. Ana Stelline (Carla Juri), an immunocompromised scientist known for her quality memory implants.*  (It does not occur to him to have his other memories checked.)  When she informs him that this memory is one of her items taken from an actual person’s memory, K’s suspicions are cofirmed: he is not truly a replicant.  This upsets him.

       Throughout the movie, K’s private life is spent with a holographic AI girlfriend named Joi (Ana de Armas).  While there might be some ambiguity as to whether or not Joi is conscious, I would definitely prefer the negative answer as she is a very flat character, and also because K is a more effectively tragic hero if his one relationship is fake.  This is actually supported by the story; Joi is after all, designed to satisfy her owner, and most everything she does is at his convenience or to reinforce his personal thoughts.  When K “gifts” her with a portable projecter, she makes a predictable request to go out into the rain.  When K asks her if she is okay with severing her backup data to cover his tracks informing her that she would “die” if the portable is destroyed, she inanely replies, “just like a real girl.”  Contrast this with R2’s attempt to take control of Luke’s X-Wing so they wouldn’t have to go to Dagobah.  After her “death,” K looks upon a holographic ad for Joi and seems to realize his folly when the ad addresses him as “Joe,” a name that his Joi suggested when he found out about his apparent humanity (also an oversight in Wallace’s design), while emphasizing the purpose of the AI to say whatever one wants.  Of course, if K did not have this epiphany and he was simply looking at the advertisement as a way to pump himself up for revenge without a clue, it would be more tragic.  In sharp contrast, it’s a bit heartwarming when Deckard shouts the name at him during a suspenseful moment.

          K eventually follows the clues to find Deckard (Harrison Ford) hiding in a wasted Las Vegas.  Deckard is captured when they are found out by Luv and Co., and K is rescued by a cell of replicants led by Freysa (Hiam Abass), who informs him that he was not the child in question.  It is eventually revealed that the baby is actually Dr. Stelline.  The replicants’ goal seems pointless, but that may be the point.  While conceptually significant, the political significance of one replicant’s (a unique prototype) being able to (fatally) give birth to one child (with a major immune defect) is dubious; replicants are still effectively less fertile than mules.  What may be the most important thing is that K, amidst all these futile conflicts, risked his life in the end to unite a father with his child.

         Blade Runner 2049 is one of the most enjoyable movies in recent years.  Its plot is engaging enough to render a 2:40 runtime pleasant, and it’s a feast for the senses with good characters.  The supporting cast features strong, sometimes brief performances, from Mackenzie Davis, Barkhad Abdi, David Dastmalchian, Tomas Lemarquis, and Lennie James.  Sean Young assisted by lending her likeness while coaching body double Loren Peta, on whom a very convincing CGI face was composited.   

         As much as I want to credit this movie for its masterful execution, I really dislike the way in which it sullied the wonderfully mysterious and ambiguous ending of the first movie.**  I like how Rick and Rachel’s fate was left a mystery.  The only call-back we really needed was the sequel’s scene in which Gaff (Edward James Olmos) reflects on the mystery.  I can’t think of a single way in which this plot would not have worked if they had simply made it about two different characters.  Also, for some reason that might have something to do with my distaste for this aspect of the plot, Harrison Ford just doesn’t seem like Deckard in this movie.  It’s the one thing that truly brings this movie down.  Hell, I unironically prefer Soldier as a part of Blade Runner canon, despite its lack of comparable cinematic craft.  

        Another way in which Blade Runner 2049 fails to do justice is that it lacks the depth of the first movie.  The themes aren’t nearly as insightful, and it lacks subtlety (no wonder RedLetterMedia preferred it!); practically everything is outlined for the viewer, and it even indulges in twist reveal montages.  Overall, it’s a very well-made and enjoyable film, but it’s mostly above-average fanservice.    

       

 

  

  

* Stelline says most people think a quality memory is about detail, rather than emotions felt.  I find that to be a strange assumption considering how unreliable memories are known to be.  Whenever I check on a scene from a movie that frightened me as a young child, I noticed that the scene literally looks different, as if my mind has been modifying the memory to something I would be similarly frightened of today.

 

** I refer, of course, to the Director/Final Cut.