Star Trek Beyond - Film Review

Star Trek Beyond, the 13th entry in the Trek film series, brings the 50-year-old franchise back to its roots in splendid fashion.

And not a moment too soon.

The rebooted film series, which launched from the gate with J.J. Abrams’ spectacular Star Trek (2009), found itself in danger of alienating long-time fans with its middling 2nd entry Star Trek Into Darkness. Into Darkness was a spirited action film, but lacked that essential, optimistic Trek spirit. That and it shamelessly recycled iconic characters and scenes from earlier films, further emphasizing the filmmakers’ lack of new ideas.

This time around, Justin Lin takes the directing reigns from Abrams. A veteran of the Fast and the Furious series and a self-professed Trekker (or is it Trekkie?), Lin’s effort emphasizes all the key attributes of Trek: adventure, intriguing ideas and beloved characters. He combines these essential ingredients with his action-oriented sensibilities, and the result is an exciting, more-than-welcome return to form, even though it doesn’t have anything new to add to the table.

Beyond finds the Enterprise crew a little more than halfway into their 5-year mission. It’s Captain Kirk’s birthday and he’s a year older now than his father ever lived to be. This puts Kirk in a reflective mood. While recording his obligatory Captain’s Log, he ponders his reasoning for joining Starfleet in the first place, wondering if he’s lived up to the legacy left by his old man. He can’t help but feel the strain of spending so many days floating around the galaxy. “The farther out we go,” he relates, “the more I find myself wondering what it is we are trying to accomplish.”

Kirk’s first officer Spock is also experiencing his own existential crisis of sorts. Someone close to the half-human, half-Vulcan has passed away and Spock is considering whether or not his priorities are in the right place. Should he continue serving on board the Enterprise, or does his destiny lie elsewhere? It’s a thoughtful opening which finds Trek back in the philosophizing mode it’s so well known for. Screenwriters Simon Pegg and Doug Jung do an excellent job peppering these moments throughout Beyond, ensuring that the heart of Trek is always firmly at the core of the proceedings.

Of course, since this is a summer blockbuster, it doesn’t take too long for the action to kick off. After an all-too-brief shore leave, the Enterprise is tasked with performing a rescue mission. As they are exploring the location, the ship is attacked and destroyed, its crew jettisoned to the planet below. Once on the planet, Kirk must recover his crew and figure out the mystery as to why they were attacked. This action sequence is one of the film’s most exhilarating and overflows with great character moments. It’s to Lin’s credit that even though I’ve seen the Enterprise blown up countless times, I’ve never felt so moved by the incident. The moment is often used in Trek films as a gimmick or as the backdrop for a rousing action climax. Here it has emotional weight and the moment is surprisingly affecting.

The strong ensemble cast remains this rebooted series’ greatest asset. Chris Pine finally gets the opportunity to exhibit the intelligence and thoughtfulness that has made Captain Kirk so beloved over the years. He finally feels like a leader, as opposed to a rebellious punk kid. As Spock, Zachary Quinto continues to expertly channel the spirit of Leonard Nimoy. He and Karl Urban’s McCoy get ample opportunity to play off each other, and their squabbling and more subdued exchanges make for some of Beyond’s funniest, most heartfelt moments. The rest of the supporting cast, which includes Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho and the late Anton Yelchin, continues to shine even if they aren’t given much to do. New castmate Sofia Boutella gives a fiercely effective performance as Jaylah, an ass-kicking warrior who helps the marooned crew get back on their feet.

There are a ton of instances where we get to see the Enterprise crew interact and work together to overcome numerous obstacles and it’s in these scenes that Lin and co. really demonstrate they understand that what makes Star Trek work is the chemistry between these characters. More than any other entry in this rebooted series, Beyond feels like a big-budget episode of the Original Series, and that’s both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

On the one hand it’s refreshing to have a big-budget blockbuster that doesn’t focus on the END OF THE WORLD. At the same time, Beyond can’t help feeling slightly…well…slight. The stakes just aren’t quite as high as they were in Star Trek ’09 or even Into Darkness and the film can’t fully shake its more throwaway nature. It plays things a bit too safe.

Perhaps one of the biggest demonstrations of this major lack of risk-taking is the primary antagonist Krall. Following this summer’s trend of casting phenomenal actors in anonymous, makeup-laden villain roles, (Oscar Isaac in X-Men, anyone?) Idris Elba plays the part with terrifying zest. It’s a shame the character itself isn’t more interesting. Krall’s motivations are generic and half-baked. To be frank, he isn’t all that different from the Federation-hating baddies Kirk and co. have faced the last two times around. Elba is capable of so much more, and I wish he’d been given the opportunity to deliver.

But where Star Trek Beyond truly succeeds is in its recognition that Star Trek has always worked best when it focuses on ideas and characters, both of which were lacking in Into Darkness. Sure, the action-heavy mentality of the rebooted series is ever-present, and Lin continues to prove himself a more-than-capable action director here, but there’s a stronger emphasis on the characters and their relationships with one another that elevates this entry above the rest of the pack. Beyond might not be as memorable as other entries in the series, but it more than makes up for its shortcomings with charm and solid thrills. It serves as a thoughtful, heartfelt reminder of what has kept Star Trek enduring for the past five decades, and hopefully many decades to come.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

Ghostbusters (2016) - Film Review

Why? Just…why?

That was the prevalent question running through my head as I watched the Ghostbusters remake/reboot/retread. Why would anyone think this was a good idea? Why bother to remake a beloved comedy classic at all? Why am I sitting here watching this?

Okay, so that last one isn’t entirely true. Ghostbusters (2016) is never bad enough to make you hate yourself for watching it. It features some solid laughs and moments of genuine fun. The issue is those moments aren’t frequent enough and the majority of the film is dull and uninspired. It squanders a talented cast with jokes that rarely hit the mark and a far-too-familiar plot that leans so heavily on the original Ghostbusters, it never manages to find a life of its own.

So, what went wrong?

It all boils down to a lackluster screenplay. Paul Feig, who both co-wrote the remake with Katie Dippold and directed it, always insisted his version was supposed to stand on its own two feet. The final product, however, does nothing to back that statement up. Whether it’s the plot, the theme song, shameless cameos, familiar characters, etc., etc., Ghostbusters (2016) is slavishly devoted to reminding us of the 1984 classic. The most original thing Feig has to offer is the gender swapping of the original cast, a superficial change at best, which does little to hide this film’s lack of originality.

And what of the new cast? On their own terms, Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones can be genuinely hilarious. In the service of such a shoddy screenplay, however, they flounder.

The success of the original Ghostbusters was largely due to its lovable characters. Bill Murray’s Peter Venkman was the sarcastic, seen-it-all-before wise ass. His dry reactions made it easier for the audience to digest the film’s more fantastical elements. Dan Aykroyd was the passionate believer; Harold Ramis was the socially awkward, scientific genius; Ernie Hudson was the blue-collar everyday Joe there to get a steady paycheck.

Ghostbusters (2016) has no characters.

The actors are there to spew improvised punchlines and make funny noises. I have a feeling Feig gave them free reign to improvise and do whatever they wanted to make up for the screenplay’s shortcomings. Unfortunately, this results in characterizations that are scatterbrained and inconsistent. Wiig resorts to her awkward, stuttering brand of humor. She seems confused and baffled by everything going on and her jittery improvisational style clashes with the notion that she’s supposed to be an intelligent scientist with any level of interest in the paranormal. McCarthy’s general shtick is, thankfully, subdued, but she can’t resist jumping out of character from time to time to make some ill-fated quip. McKinnon, easily one of the funniest people on this planet and the strongest member of the current Saturday Night Live line-up, might be the worst offender. At every opportunity, she can’t resist mugging for the camera. She makes silly noises at inappropriate moments because JOKES and acts generally bizarre throughout with no motivation. Leslie Jones is the only member of the cast who manages to feel like an actual person. Her sense of humor is character-driven and she does her utmost to make it work, despite everything working against her. I genuinely loved her because I cared about her. It’s a shame the rest of the cast couldn’t keep up, though they aren’t the real problem here. If Feig had put even a modicum of effort into developing actual characters instead of joke machines, Ghostbusters (2016) would have benefited greatly.

Now, the film isn’t an entire loss. Its first half is surprisingly fun at times and managed to keep me relatively engaged. I liked watching the team come together and develop their gadgetry, and the chemistry between the cast members is strong, even if the characters themselves aren’t. But whatever goodwill is mustered by its first half gives way to a contrived second half, which devotes all its attention to a generic ‘World Domination’ plotline and a forgettable villain. All feeble attempts at characterization are hastily abandoned in favor of a flashy, effects-driven climax, which is both empty and baffling. Without any justification or build-up, the Ghostbusters are suddenly ass-kicking action heroes, flipping and blasting and making painfully unfunny quips. All the flashing lights and loud music couldn’t keep me engaged for one solitary second, and by the time this sequence has come to an end, I couldn’t help wondering what the hell was at stake in the first place.

Ghostbusters (2016) is not the disaster it could have been, but it certainly isn’t anything close to a success. Almost beat for beat, it’s the same movie you already know and love, just not nearly as funny or inspired. It’s a shame the filmmakers assembled such a talented group of gals to lead the way for a new generation of ghost-busting and saddled them with this nonsense. If Sony had devoted more time to the creative side of the process, and less to jump-starting a new franchise, Ghostbusters (2016) might have worked. As is, it’s nothing more than a shameless attempt to bank off the success of a beloved classic.

FINAL RATING: 2/5

Swiss Army Man - Film Review

If at any point during your viewing of Swiss Army Man, you find yourself thinking, “What the hell have I gotten myself into?” know this: you are not alone. The tale of a man marooned on a desert island who befriends a talking corpse with magical abilities (including powerful flatulence), was met with walk-outs at its Sundance premiere. If what you’ve seen in the trailers hasn’t piqued your interest, the final product will do little to change your mind. If, however, you approach the film with an open heart and mind, you’ll discover Swiss Army Man to be one of the most unique, funny and oddly touching efforts released this year.

Swiss Army Man is the brainchild of filmmaking duo Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, a.k.a. ‘Daniels.’ They got their start directing music videos, their most notable being ‘Turn Down For What,' which features a young man humping things into oblivion. If you’ve had the immense pleasure of seeing the video for yourself, you’re well-aware these guys have a distinct, completely off-the-wall vision and that manic mindset translates to the big screen in spectacular fashion. This is without question one of the most visually unique and beautiful films I’ve seen. There’s a transcendent, dream-like quality to everything that happens; the film seems to exist on a whole other plane of existence.

But while the Daniels certainly deserve credit for coming up with this strange and wonderful thing, it’s Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe who make Swiss Army Man truly soar. Even when the storytelling doesn’t fully gel – it meanders from time to time, and the ending in particular feels purposefully designed to polarize the audience - their heartfelt, fully devoted performances keep you riveted. And while Dano is always a delight, it’s Radcliffe in particular who deserves heaps of praise for his portrayal of a mostly immobile and expressionless corpse. He imbues Manny (the corpse) with such humanity and genuine curiosity that you instantly fall in love with the guy. A large portion of the film features Dano’s character Hank explaining the intricacies of life and love and all their complexities to help Manny remember what it means to be alive. The simple profundities of Hank’s explanations and Manny’s innocent, wide-eyed reactions and comprehension of them are both hilarious and deeply moving. In a perfect world, Dano and Radcliffe would win all the awards. For now, they’ll just have to settle for my undying love and affection, which I am happy to dish out in spades.

Another element of Swiss Army Man that stands out is its soundtrack. Composed and performed by Andy Hull and Robert McDowell of Manchester Orchestra, it sounds like something Animal Collective would have recorded after they’d spent a month alone in a forest under the influence of every drug imaginable (come to think of it, this might be how they record their music regardless). I loved the way the score was integrated with the action. At random points throughout the film, both Manny and Hank spontaneously burst into song (Dano and Radcliffe should seriously consider recording an album together). There’s a particular point where Manny breaks into a melancholic take of Cotton Eye Joe, and despite the song’s inherently ridiculous nature, this rendition is surprisingly beautiful and the way it plays in the movie nearly moved me to tears. I know that sounds insane, but you’ll understand when you see it.

Come to think of it, that’s probably the best way to describe Swiss Army Man: something that seems inherently ridiculous when explained, but when experienced, has the power to move and affect you in ways you never could have imagined. Though its plotting might be uneven, its ending somewhat unsatisfying, Swiss Army Man is undeniably effective as a visual and emotional experience. The Daniels have paved the way for a promising career and Radcliffe and Dano have further cemented themselves as my man-crushes. What more could anyone ask?

FINAL RATING: 4/5

The Secret Life of Pets - Film Review

Is it wrong for me to dislike a kids movie featuring a cast of cuddly animals? Because I really didn’t like The Secret Life of Pets, the latest animated effort from Illumination Entertainment. (Yes, that’s the studio responsible for those adorably obnoxious Minions.) I know I’m not technically the target audience for this sort of thing, but couldn’t the filmmakers have included elements to engage its older audience members? An involving plot, perhaps? Or maybe even some likable characters? If you want to see a great animated movie featuring cute animals that won’t insult your intelligence, you’re better off staying home and re-watching Zootopia.

After a promising opening – a montage showcasing a number of pets getting up to all kinds of mischief after their owners have left for the day (if you’ve seen the trailers, you’ve already seen this) – things take an immediate downward spiral. The basic plot rundown is this: Max (Louis C.K.), a loyal terrier living a happy life with his owner Katie (Ellie Kemper, star of Netflix’s Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt), gets a nasty surprise when she returns home with a new dog named Duke (Modern Family’s Eric Stonestreet). Duke is giant, hairy and intent on making Max’s life miserable, so Max schemes ways to get rid of him. During a walk in the park, the two of them get in a fight and become separated from the rest of the group. They'll have to put aside their differences and work together in order to get home safely.

Basically, it’s Toy Story minus everything that made Toy Story so great.

Pets’ biggest failing is an overall lack of cohesion. It jumps from scene to scene with hardly any connective tissue; it’s just an endless array of uninspired sight gags and potty humor. It’s rarely funny and frequently annoying. Even worse, its characters suck. Neither Max or Duke are fleshed out well enough for their selfish behavior to come across as justified. In Toy Story, Woody was jealous of Buzz because Buzz was Andy’s new favorite toy and no longer paid any attention to Woody; in The Secret Life of Pets, Duke is a complete asshole for no reason, immediately justifying Max’s dislike of him. Buzz was never a jerk. He was just oblivious to his situation. Woody behaved badly, but we understood why he was behaving badly. Over the course of the film, he realized the error of his ways and he and Buzz worked together to get back home to Andy.

Pets never justifies its main duo’s actions. It boils down to two unlikable protagonists doing mean things to each other until they become friends for some reason. There’s no actual character development; they don’t bond because they’ve overcome tremendous obstacles or because they have a moment of realization where they understand each other a little better. They bond because they stumble on a sausage factory and, after a random, bizarre sausage acid-trip sequence where they eat everything in sight, they decide they’re best friends. Compelling stuff.

There’s a whole subplot involving a bunch of Max’s friends trying to locate and rescue him that never takes off either, despite the presence of some talented folks including Lake Bell, Jenny Slate, Albert Brooks, Dana Carvey and Hannibal Buress. Kevin Hart shows up too as a fast-talking bunny, determined to take revenge on the human race after being abandoned by his owner years ago. His character seems specifically set up to sell stuffed animals and a potential spinoff series, and contributes little else.

Maybe I would have given The Secret Life of Pets a pass if it was even remotely funny, but it’s not. It’s all slapstick-focused with some poop jokes thrown in for good measure because, you know, kids love poop jokes. The most disappointing part of all is that there's a really good concept here that remains completely unrealized. Illumination has shown itself capable of delivering heartfelt efforts in the past (Despicable Me for one), but The Secret Life of Pets doesn’t come anywhere close to that level. It squanders its talented cast and made me hate the sight of cute, talking animals. For that reason alone, I will never forgive it.

FINAL RATING: 2/5

Independence Day: Resurgence - Film Review

I was 9 when I first saw Roland Emmerich’s indisputable masterpiece Independence Day. I was immediately smitten by its winning combination of groundbreaking special effects and rollicking alien action, not to mention the cast: Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, a pre-mental breakdown Randy Quaid, a sleepy Bill Pullman and Harry FREAKING Connick, Jr.?! Baby, you got a stew goin'!

My obsession with Independence Day defied all reason and logic. Its gaping plot holes and derivative nature didn’t matter to my 9-year-old brain; I was in love. I was so in love, in fact, that when I finally got the film on VHS, I would wake up at 4 a.m. so I could watch it before I had to go to school. Roland Emmerich’s spectacle-centric sensibilities had never been (and would never be again) so perfectly executed. To this day, the film holds a place in my heart, even as I acknowledge its abundant absurdities.

Now, coming at least 15 years too late, we have a sequel. Independence Day: Resurgence is the latest attempt to bank off a wildly successful product of the 90s. It is just as idiotic as I expected, containing frequently hysterical moments of baffling stupidity, but it lacks the original’s simpler pleasures. It buries itself with nonsensical plotting, a dull new cast and an overabundance of terrible CGI and green screen work. While the original Independence Day will never be lauded for its deep character development or intricate plotting, it gave us characters we could invest in and a straightforward story we could understand. The stakes felt genuine because we had a human connection to them. Resurgence has none of this. Its many plot points are jumbled and senseless; its characters are there to stare and shoot at the CGI mayhem. There isn’t a single moment of genuine excitement to be found in this mess.

20 years have passed since humanity emerged triumphant against a massive alien invasion. But the people of Earth haven’t just been sitting around on their asses over the past two decades. Utilizing the alien technology left behind in the first invasion, they’ve improved their own tenfold, developing more advanced weaponry and transportation in anticipation of future attacks. This unfamiliar setting is only one of Resurgence's many problems. Earth is practically unrecognizable, feeling just as alien as the actual aliens. When the aliens attacked in the original film, the audience had something they could recognize and latch onto. Those provocative images of 15-mile wide spaceships over national landmarks remain unforgettable and provided both scale and a genuine sense of danger. Everything about this fancy new Earth looks like it was created by a special effects team in a computer.

After a hefty chunk of boring exposition which awkwardly explains everything that's changed on Earth in the past 20 years, the aliens finally invade, sporting bigger spaceships, bigger weapons and bigger explosions. Leading the defense is Captain Steven Hiller’s stepson Dylan, played by Jessie T. Usher. Dylan has followed in his stepfather’s footsteps, becoming a combat pilot and is clearly intended to be the Will Smith stand-in. Sadly, Usher exhibits none of the charisma Smith had in spades and it only serves to make the gap left in Smith's absence all the more apparent. The other new leads, Liam Hemsworth and Maika Monroe, don’t fare much better. Hemsworth does everything he can to make his part work, strutting his leading man smile and muscles as often as he can, but he has absolutely nothing to work with; Monroe spends most of her time looking vapid and/or upset. None of them come close to meeting the level of the original cast, which isn't so much their fault as it is the fault of the dreadful screenplay, which was written by no less than FIVE writers, including Emmerich himself, his creative partner Dean Devlin and James Vanderbilt.

Speaking of the original cast, Jeff Goldblum returns with his stumbling, scatterbrained delivery which makes him impossible not to love. Bill Pullman is absolutely hysterical reprising his role as ex-president Thomas Whitmore, whose alien-induced nightmares have turned him into a crazy person with a truly fantastic beard. Other returning cast members, such as Vivica A. Fox and Judd Hirsch, function as nothing more than extended cameos. Even Brent Spiner’s wide-eyed, crazy-haired scientist Dr. Okun is back with a much expanded role. (“But, I thought he died in the first Independence Day,” you say. “Screw you,” says Roland Emmerich.) As Dr. Okun, Spiner is Resurgence’s Jar-Jar Binks, stumbling about and delivering painful one-liners at the most inappropriate times. The rest of the returning cast manages to get through the thing with some semblance of dignity still intact, but Spiner’s performance is just plain embarrassing.

So, while Independence Day: Resurgence is by no means a good film, I’ll give it props for being an unabashed display of overwhelming stupidity. It inspired in me both raucous fits of laughter and bouts of intense bafflement. But by replacing its predecessor’s unpretentious charms with an onslaught of meaningless computer-generated action and convoluted plotting, it loses that film’s sense of simple, goofy fun. You’re laughing at it this time around, not with it, and that makes all the difference.

FINAL RATING: 1.5/5