Reviews

I've been trying to write a short review about this movie, but I just can't - below is simply the shortest version I could be satisfied with. There's just too much I want to say, because I honestly thought that "Star Trek Into Darkness" would be the breaking-out film that would re-ignite this new franchise after "Star Trek 2009" failed so miserably.

I vaguely recall hearing that notion from a few people who had watched it, so I figured that despite "Star Trek 2009"'s complete failure to impress me, I'd still give the series another shot. Unfortunately what I got was mostly just "Star Trek 2013" - like the first movie, a good action piece that is heavily marred by constantly trying to remind us that it is a new-and-improved Star Trek and that we should all be really impressed.

To explain what I mean, I'll repeat for this movie the same assertion that I made about "Star Trek 2009": it's a decent sci-fi action flick which has no real connection to the Star Trek franchise whatsoever, except by constantly dropping references to Star Trek memes and reusing elements from that franchise. In other words: The filmmakers could've started a new universe, made up new characters to go with their new actors and new style, and neither movie (2009 nor Into Darkness) would've suffered. In fact I argue that they both would've been improved, since there would be more run-time to invest in actually making the protagonists sympathetic, the villains interesting (I'm looking at you, Nero), and the plots both interesting and sensical.

Instead, J.J.Abrams and crew are putting gigantic amounts of effort into convincing us - today's viewers, whether Trekkie or otherwise - to believe that this films series is a part of the Star Trek franchise. They're essentially milking the remains of that (admittedly dead) franchise without embracing it - a form of cinema necromancy. Cinecromancy!

Trying to start a new franchise is risky, of course, and why would you try it if you can just transplant an entire existing, devout fanbase into your new project? It's financially sound - you get a lot of people in theatres for almost no effort - but unfortunately does not make for quality entertainment. You sit there in the theatre for two hours wondering why they keep telling you it's Star Trek. And what's worse, as these movies show, you need gigantic amounts of effort to keep up that pretense!

So yes, as an action movie and light-hearted sci-fi I believe "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a reasonably-good movie, and you can rest assured that J.J.Abrams knows his stuff when it comes to epic-looking action sequences (though, after 20 years of watching Hollywood action movies, particularly in the last decade, this stuff is starting to look pretty old to me). On the other hand, that heavy-handed attempt to cram as much "Star Trek" into this movie as possible alongside the action sequences means that everything else suffers: The plot is flimsy, simple, and expectable; The characters draw very little sympathy - and you're expected to sympathize heavily with them for most of the non-action scenes to work at all; Once again we get a villain who's reported to have some qualities which are never shown (Khan is a genius superhuman? He's certainly a combat machine, but his plan and behavior indicate nothing about any extra smarts); And once again Starfleet seems to be running on the mentality that crewing its flagship with emotionally-stunted, hormone-driven, immature young officers is the way to go - and only luck gets them out of it alive.

(Amusingly that last point is actually commented on by the movie itself, but that only serves to make it more obvious as you sit there trying to ignore it.)

The bottom line, again, is the same for this movie as it was for Star Trek 2009: If they hadn't tried to force this to be a Star Trek movie, they might've had the time and effort to make a decent film. Instead we got two decent action flicks that have little to do with Star Trek but waste energy trying to convince us that they do - giving both of them the air of shameless capitalization that I personally do not want to smell in the theatre for two hours straight.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a good reminder that the age of the spy thriller is not yet gone. In this movie, based on a fantastic book, we take a peek into early 1970s British intelligence, and come out the other side both flabbergasted and awed.

This is a decidedly cerebral movie, and as such its rating here on IMDb is perhaps a little misleading - it is certainly not a movie that just anyone can sit down and watch. It's slow, deliberate, and requires you to be concentrated pretty much all the way through if you're going to understand what the heck is going on - and to feel satisfied at the end. But aficionados, as well as anyone who isn't afraid of a film where the most "action" is probably a few punches to the gut or a man being shot in broad daylight, will not only enjoy but revel in this film.

If you're looking for an action-packed Hollywood spy story, this isn't it. It isn't Tom Clancy, it's John Le Carre, and the difference is immense. Like "Russia House", this is a movie that aims to stimulate your brain, and to give you a tiny glimpse of how dark and cold the Cold War really was for those who experienced it first-hand.

Like many others worldwide, I went to see Episode II on its pre-premier here in Israel. Remembering the burning disappointment from Episode I, I went with a pessimistic approach. This was almost a week ago, and only after much contemplation with myself and my friends, have I managed to establish an opinion on what the movie succeeded, and failed, in doing, at least for me.

The Clone Wars is quite an improvement from Episode I, which I consider a true flop and a disgrace to the Star Wars saga. But I do not intend to discuss the first movie here, only for comparison where needed.

It is clear that Lucas learned from some of his mistakes and went on to create a movie that is much more reminiscent of the old Trilogy. The movie feels a lot closer to the Trilogy we all loved, using many elements and methods that fit this forgotten style. There was great attention to detail in most plot-elements, greatly reducing the number of plot-holes seen regularly in Episode I. The world created in this movie feels true, and behaves as one would expect. However, I cannot say as much for the characters in this movie. Allow me to elaborate:

I am an actor myself, and one of the first things that I understand is taught in any acting and directing school is that actions must always be justified. Any movie- or theater-goer automatically tries to find a logical explanation for the events that take place in a movie or play, because this is our human nature. However unreasonable an action is, if the character has a good reason to do it (no matter how bizarre), then the action immediately becomes believable, or at least acceptable, by the viewer. In this way, the viewer can relate to what goes on.

I have great respect for many, if not all of the actors that participated in "The Clone Wars", and have in the past admired their great skills in other movies. Sadly, in this movie most of the actors failed to come up with any motivation for their actions, any justification, and to me they give the feeling that acting scenes were made hastily, or that little or no work was done by the actors to ensure that their characters hold a steady and logical line of thought and action throughout the film. This phenomenon appears in most acting parts of the movie, noticeably so in the romantic scenes between Anakin and Padme, which appear to have been literally FORCED on the actors. They simply show no emotion to each other, and the resulting romantic interludes appear foney and tacky. The melodramatic music and gorgeous scenery (indeed!) and sets used in these scenes can barely make up for the loss of tension between the characters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the actors have gone sour! I'm simply suggesting that there might have been a lack of time spent on understanding WHY the characters do what they do. The computer-animate characters, like Yoda and Watto displayed much more acting skill, in my opinion, than their flesh-and-blood colleagues.

George Lucas may have noticed this problem. Weather he did or did not, an awful lot of money and work was directed at the digitally-created CG scenes, which were spectacular and colossal in any scale. However, special-effects, no matter how grandiose, cannot constitute an entire movie. While watching the film, I had a strong feeling that Lucas was trying to IMPRESS me... The sheer amount of special-effects scenes was astonishing, but to me it seemed to mask the fact that very little attention was given to the problem I described above.

Again, most of the FX scenes were mind-blowing, including the hovercar chase, the Jedi-to-droid fight in the arena, and of course the Yoda-Lightsaber-Fighting scene which clearly showed how state-of-the-art computer graphics can create magic like never before. Sadly, as I've already stated, even all these scenes combined together cannot begin to compensate for the lack of a believable chain-of-events, that seem to "trigger" suddenly out of thin air without any reasonably explanation.

To sum it all up, I think that George Lucas has made a positive step forward to achieving another brilliant picture that comes close to the Trilogy, but he has to drop the notion that Special Effects are more powerful than an ensuing plot, and the magic that happens between characters. I think the film was targeted to a young audience, much like the Trilogy movies, but gave them format instead of contents. "A New Hope" won the affection of millions worldwide by telling a fantastic story, not by its toy-model animations, even if they appeared futuristic at the time. If he can come to understand this, perhaps George Lucas may turn the third film in the series into a hit that may match or surpass the greatness of the previous films.

Oh yeah, and R2D2 CAN FLY? HUH?!?

One of the first things that every actor learns at the beginning of their path, is that any physical action is a direct result of will. This somewhat vague phrase is the real basis behind Ang Lee's new film, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, sadly misunderstood and mistaken by many to be a kung-fu or action film.

The film, presented in almost lyrical form, would be hard to understand for western eyes, such as my own. I know a few people who completely misunderstood the plot, and praised the movie for its action sequences. However, as I have mentioned before, these action sequences are not to be taken as stand-alone, as sadly most action-oriented movies have been asking us to do, lately. To fully realize how wonderful this movie is, one must look at the flight of swords as a dance, brought on by the conflicting viewpoints of the two warriors, Li Mu Bai and young Jen, as the aged warrior holds a stoic taoist calmness even as his sword flickers with the speed of an arrow throughout his battles to tame the tiger.

The true wisdom of the film can be discovered only by listening to the poetic lines that Yun-Fat Chow cleverly intersperses into his conversations, pearls that must be sought after. The struggle is transformed into a song which IS the movie, constructed in the same way that chinese legends had been told for ten thousand generations. The cultural gap between the west and the orient will make this task much harder to perform, but when truly deciphered, the movie takes on a completely different form.

While the story itself is sung to the audience, the brilliantly coordinated fight-scenes weave it together to create a complete entity. Neither may be taken separately, otherwise the movie will lose its original meaning. I take my hat off for Hui-Ling Wang, Kuo Jung Tsai and James Schamus, for transforming the wonderful book into a screenplay, and for Ang Lee, that has made a two hour film about love, inner-strength, and the taoist way.

To sum these up, I recommend to anyone who liked the movie to see it again with new eyes. Hopefully, this movie will set the way for a renewed intelligence and beauty in movies in this new century.

I agree that Matrix had two very strong points, its amazing visuality, and its intricate and sophisticated plot (An idea which is original and entertaining), however the way that the plot was translated into a film disturbs me a bit. It seems like this is more of a child's version of the idea, rather than a possible sophisticated movie, which could have broken alot of barriers had it not been so simplistic. The movie seems to beckon forward to those pale-faced teenagers who've actually liked the thousands of tired conspiracy episodes on "X-Files" - It's all there, and is in fact best described as somewhat of the fantasy of the socially inactive computer-freak. This so-called computer-freak portrayed by kiano is suddenly thrust into realization that he is living inside an unreal world, a world that was designed for him and the other humans, but in fact he is the most powerful in that world, and that in his skills (which actually translate into computer skills, may I add) will help him save the world from obscure "agents" which seem to operate under no logic (They are programs, but seem disturbingly unlike programs, especially when existing in a pre-programmed world), hoping to assumingly "shut-down" these "illegal" hackers into the matrix. I'm not a psychologist, but aren't these the general guidelines of a typical pre-mature male fantasy? So what is the Matrix? In my opinion, a movie with much potential, wasted as an appeal to a certain audience, which will probably misunderstand or misinterpret the deep meaning that the original idea held within.

Perhaps I am mistaken, and it was in fact an appeal to the majority, and I simply misunderstood. Therefore I do not presume to know exactly what the majority thinks, and perhaps other comments will set me straight.

I watched Dangerous Liaison twice in the last year - once before and once after performing as Valmont in a play based on the original. As the cast of a play that had been made as a movie earlier, we agreed to watch the movie simply to help us understand the plot, and acquire the feel of the 18th century, and completely ignore the way that the actors portray their characters. However only after our opening night did I really understand that the movie was really a misuse of the original text. Indeed, it follows the Christopher Hampton play to the letter, but the cold and almost tiring way that John Malkovich and Glenn Close portray characters that were designed to be witty, lively, cunning, and hugely emotional, is a complete perversion of what Hampton, and originally Lacleux, had in mind. This is not to say that a movie should follow the book it has been based on without a single change, but somehow, after reading the play, the novel, and performing it in stage, watching the movie again I realized that it lacked a certain life However, this movie (although slightly in excess of unused potential) is still a masterpiece.

It is said that no movie may ever surpass the book it was adapted from. It's wrong. Although it is completely incorrect to say that Soul Music, the animated film (or series, depends on how you watch it. :)) is better than the book, because they are two completely different kinds of media, Soul Music managed to capture a deep essense in the book and give it life. The result - a movie filled with humor and fun, with the sort of fiction you can only bring to life with animation. If you see the movie after reading the book, unlike with other book-based movies, you will most certainly not be disappointed, because since Pratchett himself helped direct the movie, he managed to recreate the Discworld down to the tiniest detail just the same way he did in the books.

Sniper gives a true new meaning to war movies. I remember movies about Vietnam or WWII, lots of firing, everybody dies, bam bam. "Sniper" takes war to a new level or refinement. The movie certainly conveys all of the emotions it aims for - The helplessness of humans in the jungle, the hatred and eventual trust between Beckett and Miller, and the rush of the moment when they pull the trigger. A seemingly low-budget film makes up for every flaw with action, suspense, and thrill, because when it comes down to it, it's just one shot, one kill.

Well, I certainly disagree with many people when I say that resurrection is the best movie in the series. Jean Pierre Jeunet, with a record of some increadible movies, brings his talent to Hollywood, to create what is (In my opinion) the best movies in the series and (Although too many disagree) the best movie I've seen in the past 10 years. What David Fincher failed to do in Alien^3, Jeunet succeeded in Resurrection, and bigtime. This is probably the best ripley ever, and the cast is magnificent and has wonderful chemistry on the screen. This is one movie that makes you go "WOW " when it ends. I've heard more than enough bad reviews about it. Perhaps it 's just a bunch of "Aliens" fans who can't accept that it's just a better movie, and perhaps it's right. But so far, the only thing I can say is :

This is one record-breaking movie.