Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - Film Review

I imagine Warner Bros (WB) studio execs, along with countless Harry Potter fans around the globe, practically wet themselves with excitement when J.K. Rowling agreed to pen a spinoff series. For fans, this marked a more-than-welcome excuse to return to Rowling’s universe. For WB, this was an opportunity to rake in the dough and help them compete with Disney’s flourishing Marvel and Star Wars franchises. As for me, I couldn’t have cared less.

Let me set the record straight: Yes, I’m a Harry Potter fan. In fact, I absolutely adore the series. I love the books, the films – I even spent my honeymoon in Orlando at Universal’s Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Despite all this, I wasn’t the least bit interested in this spinoff series. 'Why,' you ask? First of all, Rowling had already told her story and she’d done so beautifully; and under the expert tutelage of producer David Heyman, the film adaptations followed suit. The Potter series had concluded in glorious, satisfying fashion on both page and screen - so, why would I want more? 

But while I was skeptical, I trusted in Rowling. Her involvement lent the new spinoff an aura of credibility and I hoped that this new story would not only enrich the legacy she had created, but would give me ample reason to hop on-board for future entries in the new franchise. Besides, when has the creator of a series going back to do a prequel series ever gone wrong?

…

…oh no…

Sadly, Fantastic Beats and Where to Find Them contains all the negative connotations the term 'prequel' evokes. It is a plodding, tonally inconsistent mess. Its story and characters are uninvolving and it lacks the compelling, emotional core that made the Potter franchise such a joy. It was bad enough that we were going to get a trilogy of these films, but now we’re getting FIVE of them?! I solemnly swear Rowling and WB are up to no good.

For the most part, Fantastic Beasts follows the exploits of Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), an awkwardly eccentric wizard with a penchant for bizarre magical creatures. He travels to America from England on a personal trip and during a stopover in New York City, all manner of chaos ensues when the creatures in his trunk get lose and begin wreaking all kinds of havoc on the city. Along with muggle/No-Maj Jacob Kawalski (Dan Fogler), an aspiring baker with ambitions of opening a shop in the city, and Tina (Katherine Waterston) a recently-demoted auror looking to regain her position, Newt scampers about, attempting to recollect his creatures before the less thoughtful authorities do.

Intercut with this relatively lighthearted affair, is a dark and gloomy plot involving an orphanage and an abusive mother who runs an anti-witch/wizard cult out of it. Her adopted son Credence (Ezra Miller) is secretly working with the U.S. Magical Congress and having regular meetings with Auror Percival Graves (Colin Farrell) to help Graves uncover information about a mysterious and destructive force that has appeared in the city. These scenes are shot in the most melancholy way: dark lighting, grey colors, and are totally at odds with the brighter, more colorful scenes involving Newt.

But wait! There's more! Undercutting all of this nonsense is some major teasing of the evil wizard Gellert Grindlewald, who Potter fans will remember as something of a precursor to Voldemort. While Grindlewald doesn’t play much of a part here, it's clear his role will be greatly expanded in the inevitable sequels. This means we have to deal with the whole ‘tune in next time!’ vibe that so many franchises use and abuse these days.

Needless to say, Fantastic Beasts suffers from something of an identity crisis. Is it a lighthearted, magical romp through 1920s New York? Is it a dark, depressing glimpse at prejudice and discrimination? Is it a teaser for future films in this new franchise? It tries to be all of the above and fails in every respect. 

Rowling, who has in the past proved quite adept at balancing multiple plots and characters, demonstrates none of her usual talents here. The opposing tones are a jumbled mishmash and feel entirely at odds with one another. Despite her best attempts, the two main storylines: Newt’s attempts to recover his creatures and Graves’ investigations of an evil monster, feel detached and never coalesce into a satisfying whole. The mood swings treacherously back and forth between scenes of wonder and delight to moments that are utterly depressing and feel incredibly out-of-place.

Even worse, the film is overflowing with plotholes and nonsensical occurrences. Typically, Rowling does an expert job of crafting a tightly-wound story with explanations for each magical occurrence and plot point. Here though, nothing makes sense and so many instances are left unexplained or unjustified.  

While many of Fantastic Beasts’ faults are due to Rowling’s mediocre script, director David Yates’ inconsistent abilities do nothing to help alleviate those shortcomings. Yates, as you may recall, directed the final four Harry Potter movies. While his debut, Order of the Phoenix, demonstrated his lack of experience with big-budget filmmaking, he came into his own as the series went on, finishing strong with the masterful Deathly Hallows. Here, Yates seems to have abandoned whatever lessons he learned from his work on Potter. His direction is uninspired and workmanlike. Additionally, the film's editing is atrocious. Editor Mark Day, who worked with Yates on the latter four Potter films demonstrates a complete lack of understanding regarding how to put scenes together in a coherent manner. There are so many points where we leap from one occurrence to another without explanation or justification. It would take far more fingers than two hands can account for to tally up the number of moments I muttered, “What the hell is happening??” in a state of utter confusion

To make matters worse, the special effects carry that awful, artificial CGI sheen. Everything looks fake, even the city. In the Potter films, CGI work and practical effects merged beautifully to create a living, breathing world. This New York looks more at home in Peter Jackson's King Kong remake. The creature design is relatively uninspired as well. There's nothing here that you haven't seen in a dozen far better movies, Harry Potter included. 

Perhaps Fantastic Beasts’ greatest flaw is in its lack of interesting or memorable characters, another area Rowling usually excels in. Here, they serve hardly any function and feel as under-developed and dull as Rowling’s lackluster plotting. Newt’s character is the primary example. He spends the majority of the film stumbling around, refusing to connect to any of his human companions. He doesn’t seem very interested or invested in anything going on around him, aside from his computer-generated magical creatures. When your main character doesn’t care about anything or anyone, it makes it very difficult for the audience to get involved, and Redmayne’s awkward demeanor isn’t charming enough to hold interest or garner empathy. He’s just a weird dude who can’t connect to the people around him and it makes it very difficult to connect to him on any level, emotional or otherwise.

Truthfully, it’s difficult to connect to any of these characters. They’re about as simple-minded and surface-leveled as can be, and none of them play much of a role in the unfolding plot events – not even Newt, who’s supposedly our main character. As aspiring baker Jacob Kowalski, Dan Fogler does a quality job pulling off the whole ‘everyman’ vibe, but his comic timing lacks finesse. He spends most of the time stumbling around and making silly noises to fill in the awkward silences, but aside from being a comic foil, he's never fully fleshed out. 

The same goes for Waterston’s Tina and her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol). As Queenie, Sudol becomes the embodiment of every NYC flapper girl cliché; her put-on accent is atrocious. Waterston fares better, but her character is about as boring as can be and she can only do so much with the underwhelming material. Not even Colin Farrell or Ezra Miller, typically fine actors, can rise above the shortcomings of Rowling’s script. Honestly, they're so detached from everything that happens, I keep forgetting they were even in this movie, hence their last-minute inclusion in this paragraph.

Fantastic Beasts ends with the promise of more to come, which, come to think of it, feels more like a threat than anything else. It is a disappointing effort in every respect, recalling the worst elements of both George Lucas’s Star Wars Prequels and Peter Jackson’s Hobbit Trilogy. I can only hope Rowling decides to jettison this lame cast of characters in favor of a more interesting one next time around. And while there’s great potential to Grindlewald’s story and his relationship with Albus Dumbledore, this mess of a movie shows no indication of it. Warner Bros may be satisfied with the piles of money this is sure to bring in, but if they want to keep fans invested, they're going to have to work just a tad bit harder to keep them coming back for more.

Until then, I'll always have Orlando...

FINAL RATING: 2/5

Doctor Strange - Film Review

Doctor Strange is yet another efficient cog in the Marvel Movie Machine. It successfully entertains and moderately thrills, but it never fully engages or enthralls. Much of its successes are in large part due to its stunning and inspired visuals as well as yet another excellent cast led by Benedict Cumberbatch. Its drawbacks are much the same as the other middle-of-the-run Marvel films: standard plotting, simplistic villain and an all-too-familiar story structure.

Doctor Steven Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is one of the most prestigious neurosurgeons in New York City – probably the entire world. He takes pride in his steady hands as well as his unparalleled music trivia knowledge.

He’s also a pompous jackass.

And I’ll pause here for a moment to give Marvel Studios props for giving us a protagonist who is relatively unlikable for a good chunk of the film’s runtime. It’s a bold move and their willingness to mess with their tried and true formula is exactly why the studio has been so successful over the past decade. Dr. Strange regularly belittles his colleagues, takes for granted his one, true friend: fellow surgeon and ex-lover Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams) and behaves in a generally selfish manner. His life is upended when a horrible car accident takes away the use of his hands. When modern medicine fails him, he delves into the world of the mystical and discovers possibilities and powers far beyond anything he could have imagined.

Doctor Strange works best when it focuses on its characters and its action sequences, the latter of which are some of the most bonkers Marvel Studios has pulled off to date. Buildings fold and bend, floors expand and contort, universes are passed through on a whim and energy is focused and honed to create magical weaponry. Director Scott Derrickson (The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Sinister) has a strong handle on the other-worldly material and the flashy visuals, but to his credit, he never forgets to pause every so often in order to give the characters some room to breathe.

As I’ve already said, Cumberbatch is excellent as Strange, lending a relatability and likability to a character who, for the most part, behaves rather deplorably. His character arc from selfish, entitled neurosurgeon to selfless, badass superhero feels earned and it’s largely due to Cumberbatch’s talents as a performer that we’re willing to stick with Strange through thick and thin. The supporting cast, featuring the likes of Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, Rachel McAdams, and Mads Mikkelsen, is strong, but none of their characters are as well-drawn as that of Strange’s. Thankfully, their talents overcome this drawback and they manage to charm regardless. The chemistry between them provides the film with some of its finest moments and biggest laughs.

The plotting is what really holds the film back from greatness. This was an excellent opportunity for Marvel to get a little weird and push the boundaries of their storytelling method. They opt instead to play it safe, perhaps to normalize the otherworldly visual onslaught for general audiences, or perhaps because they don’t want to mess with a solid formula. Probably both. Whatever the reason, it’s a shame they didn’t take more of a risk here, especially considering the absurd possibilities of the source material. (If you haven’t already, I highly recommend checking out Jason Aaron’s current run on the series. It’s spectacular) In an odd change of pace from Marvel’s standard formula, Doctor Strange’s climax ends up being one of its more inspired moments. I won’t spoil it for you here, but it was refreshing and creative in a way I was hoping the entire film would be.

While I couldn’t help wishing the storytelling had been as bold and awe-inspiring as the trippy effects, Doctor Strange is still a highly entertaining work from a studio that, even when it doesn’t hit one out of the park, manages a solid base hit. I’d rank it below Marvel Studios’ best cinematic outings (Iron Man, The Avengers, the latter two Captain America films), but it falls right in line with Captain America: The First Avenger, Iron Man 3, Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. More importantly, it introduces another excellent character into Marvel’s Cinematic Universe and holds the promise of more exciting things to come. I can’t wait to see how Doctor Strange fits in with the rest of the gang.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

Sausage Party - Film Review

Sausage Party’s vulgar nature is clearly designed to offend those with a more conservative mentality, but the most offensive thing about the film is that it’s not particularly funny. It’s a mediocre comedic exercise. Its sense of humor calls to mind a 5th grader who’s just discovered curse words and wants to see how far he can push the grown-ups around him before they snap.  If you’ve desired nothing more in life than to see cartoon sausages, buns, mustard cans, etc. saying the words ‘fuck’ and ‘shit’ over and over again, then Sausage Party will function as nothing less than a transcendent experience. The directors, Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon, and the writers Kyle Hunter, Ariel Shaffir, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, have set the film up to rely exclusively on the shock value of watching cartoons say dirty things and make ceaseless sexual innuendos. They neglected, however, to provide any actual jokes.

The film follows the exploits of a sausage named Frank who lives in a grocery store and, along with the other sausages in his package, desires nothing more than to be picked by the ‘gods’ (humans) and taken to the Great Beyond where eternal bliss awaits. He’s hopelessly in love with Brenda, a hot dog bun whose package sits right next to his. They’re both picked by a 'god' but a horrible accident results in their being separated from the group. As they journey to find their display stand, they uncover a terrible truth: the ‘gods’ are vicious, cruel beings that kill food instead of providing salvation. Frank takes it upon himself to warn the rest of the rest of the food in the market before it’s too late.

Sausage Party contains a few great one-liners and some inspired visual gags, but there are too few of them. For the most part, the film is deadly dull, the humor obvious and lazy. For example: at the end of a villainous speech, the antagonist asks the hero, “How do you like them apples?” Nearby, a batch of apples says, “Who – US??”

This, ladies and gentlemen, is as clever as Sausage Party gets.

All it has going for it is its raunch and it devotes its entire being to emphasizing it. The plot and characters play second fiddle. To the filmmakers, nothing seems to be funnier than foul language and visual innuendos. (The sausages want to get inside the buns. The buns look like vaginas. Get it??) It’s about as juvenile as can be. Screenwriters Rogen and Goldberg have, in their more successful efforts, elevated raunch to an artform (Superbad, This is the End). Here, their attempts fall painfully flat. The mediocre punchlines were met with long stretches of silence from the audience I saw the film with. Not even the talented voice cast, which includes the likes of Rogen, Kristen Wiig, Michael Cera, Salma Hayek, Jonah Hill and Edward Norton, can make the material work.

Running throughout the film is a subtext which condemns the notion of belief systems entirely. The film preaches that no one should follow a belief system and be free to do what they want, seemingly ignoring the irony that this notion in and of itself is a belief system. Instead of feeling fresh or thoughtful, it comes across as heavy-handed, obnoxious and half-baked. Sausage Party’s ‘moral-of-the-story’ ends up feeling just as explicit and annoying as the religions it condemns, fitting right in with the hit-you-over-the-head theology in one of those dreadful Christian products, i.e. God’s Not Dead.

To sum it up, Sausage Party is a rotten experience. It’s not smart enough to convey its message in a meaningful way and not nearly funny enough to justify its viewing experience. Its over-reliance on shock value (and schlock value) over worthwhile characters or an involving plot hold it back from greatness. It’s not even remotely close to greatness. In fact, it stands out as one of the worst films I’ve seen this year. How do you like THEM apples?

FINAL RATING: 1.5/5

Suicide Squad - Film Review

In the wake of Superman’s death, the world is vulnerable to attack. Who will defend us when the evil, superpowered monsters come calling? Intelligence operative Amanda Waller has the solution: assemble a task force comprised of ruthless murderers and psychopathic supervillains to protect the people of earth should the need arise.

…wait, what? You want to protect humanity from supervillains by assembling a team of…supervillains…? Does this make sense to anyone?

This is the central premise of Suicide Squad, the 3rd Horseman of the Apocalypse…er, I mean…the 3rd film of DC’s Cinematic Universe. With the latest entry in their canon, Warner Bros/DC further prove they’re hellbent on differentiating themselves from Marvel Studios in one distinct way: By producing films of the exact opposite quality.

The good news is that Suicide Squad is better than their last effort, the abysmal Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Warner Bros clearly took the harsh criticism of BvS’s suffocatingly dark and joyless tone to heart. Their biggest note to Suicide Squad’s writer/director David Ayer seems to have been, “MAKE IT FUN!” And yes, that note was probably written in all caps. The bad news is the film’s still not very good. It’s a loud, unruly disaster, haphazardly edited and written as if five or more screenplays were copied and pasted together at random. The stink of studio interference hangs over the entire product. (Reportedly they brought in the editors of the film’s popular trailer to recut the entire movie.) At the very least, the film has this manic energy which propels its scattershot plot forward with such enthusiasm you could almost call it entertaining.

Almost.

I'm not sure why Warner Bros saddled Ayer with this material, as he's given no opportunity to showcase his strengths as a writer or a director. Whatever talent Ayer displayed in his low-budget efforts (End of Watch, Fury) is buried beneath the requirements for a modern-day summer blockbuster. Any hope for meaning or purpose is drowned out by an explosion-filled, effects-laden climax, which pummels the audience into headache-inducing submission. In interviews, Ayer has insisted the final product is his own. If that’s the case, he might want to take a step back and rethink his life. Right from the get-go, he seems determined to baffle the audience with what is perhaps one of the most jumbled, ADD-riddled openings I have ever seen in a motion picture. We’re introduced to one or two characters before the film jumps into a completely unrelated scene, then jumps into a montage in which we’re introduced to the sprawling ensemble. This montage includes a RE-introduction of the same characters we’ve already met in the prior scene. I can only assume this was done out of a concern that the audience would be bored by coherent, straightforward storytelling.

All this madness plays out with wall-to-wall classic rock tunes, as if a WB studio exec saw Guardians of the Galaxy and declared, “That’s what we’ve been missing! POP SONGS!!” The song choices range from obvious (Rolling Stones’ ‘Sympathy for the Devil,’ The White Stripes’ ‘Seven Nation Army’) to baffling (‘Black Skinheads’ by Kanye West…?), and they're inserted at every possible opportunity. Oftentimes, the music will clash with the dialogue, which to be perfectly honest, isn’t worth hearing anyway. So I guess you could call that a positive?

The cast still manages to do a decent job, despite the material. Well, no, that’s not necessarily true. Really, it’s only a select few members of the cast who try to keep the thing afloat: Will Smith, Margot Robbie and Viola Davis. Smith's Deadshot serves as Suicide Squad’s emotional anchor. He’s burdened with a hackneyed “I just want to see my daughter” motivation that evokes more laughter than genuine emotion, but for the most part he manages to successfully convey the character’s struggle. Robbie, who I was expecting to hate, is surprisingly entertaining as Harley Quinn, the Joker’s ladyfriend. Her obnoxious, put-on New York accent and zany antics can get annoying, but hey, at least she’s trying. Viola Davis is Pissed the Eff Off. Her Amanda Waller is a force to be reckoned with. I can’t tell if Davis is just acting or if she’s really that unhappy to be involved in such a stupid movie. Either way, she’s great. And terrifying.

The remaining cast members are all over the place. Jai Courtney is unhinged and absurd as Captain Boomerang, whose power is, you guessed it, throwing around metal boomerangs. (Not sure how that’s supposed to help defend the people of Earth from superpowered threats, but, you know, whatever.) Jay Hernandez is unintentionally hilarious as the fire-blasting El Diablo, who just wants to go hide in the corner and be left alone when the monsters come a-calling. Joel Kinnaman is predictably bland as Rick Flag, the Suicide Squad’s leader, Adewale Aknnuoye-Agbaje as Killer Croc is saddled with the worst one-liners you could possibly imagine and Cara Delevingne is remarkably unthreatening as the film’s primary villain Enchantress.

And then, of course, there’s Jared Leto as the Joker. He’s…interesting, to say the least. His performance is neither frightening nor compelling. It’s unhinged, sure, but Leto comes across more as a hyperactive punk kid, acting out for attention than a genuine threat. Considering all the hoopla surrounding his controversial acting methods, you’d think his take might have amounted to more than 10 minutes of screen time. It’s perhaps the least interesting live-action portrayal of the Joker I’ve ever seen.

So, yes, if it isn't already clear, Suicide Squad is pretty bad. It's a messy, mean-spirited piece of work that seeks to insult and assault every one of your senses in exchange for your hard-earned $12.50. Its only saving grace over BvS is that it's got a semblance of a pulse. While I’ll admit watching Warner Bros rush out one miserable effort after another is a fascinating experience, there's something really, truly depressing about just how awful their movies continue to be. One thing's for certain: The DC Cinematic Universe is in dire need of a course correction, ASAP. Maybe it's time to just re-reboot the whole thing?

FINAL RATING: 1.5/5

Jason Bourne - Film Review

Jason Bourne is the 5th entry in the Bourne franchise, the 4th to star Matt Damon and the 3rd to be directed by Paul Greengrass. It's also the 1st one to bore me to tears. At one point in the film, a miscellaneous government agent states, “We’re still trying to come up with a narrative to explain what happened.” Yeah, that’s putting it lightly. I never saw the much-maligned The Bourne Legacy starring Jeremy Renner, but I can’t imagine it’s much worse.

It’s strange. All the familiar ingredients we’ve come to know and love are there: Damon, the shaky-cam, the hand-to-hand combat, the computer screen surveillance sequences. It just all feels so routine. So dull. There’s no spirit or excitement to be found. Everyone is just going through the motions. At this point in his career, Greengrass can make this kind of movie in his sleep and it appears that’s exactly what he’s done.

So, what’s at stake this time around? What could have possibly pulled Bourne from a near-decade long retirement? Oh, you know, just another evil government agency scheming behind the scenes. Same old, same old. Some modern buzz words like ‘social media’ and ‘Snowden’ are thrown around in a desperate attempt to make the film seem relevant, but somehow it only makes it feel more outdated.

*SPOILER ALERT*



There’s also a random subplot which suggests that Bourne’s father played an active role in Bourne’s being recruited as a spy in the first place. It is so bafflingly stupid, nonsensical and out of place that I wanted to stand up and scream, “Just wipe MY memory and be done with it already!”



*END SPOILERS*



New cast members Alicia Vikander and Tommy Lee Jones contribute nothing to spice up the proceedings. They blend right into the background with all the fluorescent screens and non-descript government workers. Unlike Joan Allen’s Pam Landry character in the latter two films of The Bourne Trilogy, none of the supporting characters seems to have any depth or motivation beyond “MUST FIND BOURNE AND TAKE OVER WORLD.” Vikander is poised to be the series’ Landry replacement, but her portrayal doesn’t hold a candle to Allen’s compelling turn.

Even the action scenes seem to carry the weight of a heavy, apathetic sigh. What was once a defining staple of the series has become boring and by-the-numbers. The fight scenes are lackluster and even the car chase at the film’s climax can’t inspire any genuine thrills, no matter how many vehicles are tossed into the air.

I thought the return of Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass would mark a return to form for the series. Sadly, they were probably better off staying away from the franchise altogether; they’ve done it no favors here.

Jason Bourne? More like Jason Bourde.

FINAL RATING: 2/5

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