Passengers (2016)

3.5 Stars (out of four)

This movie, from the trailers, seems to be a simple story. Two people wake up from suspended animation on a long journey, fall in love and need to help each other with a disaster at the end. And while that is the general gist, it is actually a little more complicated and deeper than that, thankfully.

After a freak in-flight accident, engineer/mechanic Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) is awaken from suspended animation on a space flight from Earth to a new world Homestead II. The spaceship is a gargantuan vessel carrying over 5000 passengers. The accident caused a system malfunction and he finds he has been awakened 90 years too early on his journey. What he doesn't know is that the accident set into motion a cascading series of events that will come into play later. He awakes to find himself all alone on the ship, his only company an android bartender named Arthur (Michael Sheen). Jim spends over a year trying to fix his problem and filling his time until he comes to the brink of loneliness and despair and almost commits suicide. He then sees writer Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence) in another pod. He falls into an instant longing for her and learns everything about her. He wrestles with the idea of waking her up to allay his selfish, but ultimately necessary desire for human contact. He deliberately wakes her up, despite knowing he is dooming her to his fate, to die on the ship. When she wakes, he lets her believe she, like him, was awoken by accident. Gradually, they fall in love with each other until it is revealed his deliberate act. From then on, it gets interesting...

What impressed me so much was the dynamics of how their relationship changes throughout the story. We have all seen stories like this before, but Pratt and Lawrence are such riveting actors that they totally sell the premise. This movie is essentially an acting exercise around the question of horrible betrayal and can forgiveness happen. I heard one reviewer say that it's hard to buy into it since the movie has two of Hollywood's most beautiful stars in it. One should have been a lot less attractive and that would have made the story much more interesting. While that may be the case, this is a business and you have to get butts in the seat. But in the end, I found it to be a wonderful and satisfying story that most people will like. This is definitely a good date movie, so check it out.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

4 Stars (out of four)

As good as The Force Awakens was, Rogue One is really the Star Wars we have all been waiting for. Despite the bad press regarding major reshoots because Disney executives thought the tone of the film was too dark, to everybody's irrational fear that Disney would ruin Star Wars, to just the plain old naysayers who said that Rogue One was a redundant and unnecessary film because, as we all know, we already know the end. Boy, were all those people wrong and their fears totally groundless. This was a make or break film for Disney with their new franchise, and unlike The Force Awakens, Rogue One does something extraordinary. It takes us in new directions and unlocks the vast potential this franchise of franchises possese to tell amazing stories.

"It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet."

With those 55 words, myself and countless other excited moviegoers were glued to our theater seats in 1977 for the film that would ultimately change most of our lives, and definitely the summer blockbuster, forever. These are the first words in the opening crawl of Star Wars, and yes, at that time it was simply Star Wars, not this Episode IV: A New Hope nonsense. It also describes exactly what we will see in this new movie. But to get a little more specific without spoilers, Rogue One is a movie about Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), the now-outlaw daughter of Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen), the man who ultimately designed the power system for the Death Star. Jyn is freed from prison by a rebel, Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and his reprogrammed imperial robot K-2SO (Alan Tudyk, who, like his character Wash in Firefly/Serenity, provides some much-needed, but not out-of-place sarcastic humor). They are given a mission by the fledgling and divided Rebellion to reach out to Saw Gerrera (Forrest Whittaker), a dangerous extremist who received an urgent message from Jyn's father regarding a new weapon being built by the Galactic Empire. This sets into motion the events that are described in the opening crawl quoted above.

So, why is this movie so great and not just a redundant and cynical cash-grab from Disney? Despite the fact we know the story, we don't know the context behind that first battle. To be fair, this is NOT required viewing for a new Star Wars fan, but it is a rewarding and satisfying chapter that explores the context behind what is to come in Episode IV. This is truly the first Star Wars movie with adults in mind first and foremost. It is long on action AND story, a key failure of the prequels, and is not simply a retread of Episode IV, a key weakness of The Force Awakens. Rather, it is a new story entirely based on an outcome we already know. This does not detract from the plot, but rather enriches what comes after the events of the movie. It establishes the stakes even more by giving crucial context to the events of A New Hope.

Chief among those elements of context are the natures of both the Rebellion and the Empire. For those of you who do not read the books, the Rebellion is far from a united organization based on a common goal and the Empire is not a monolithic entity all steering in the same direction, either. We see the Rebellion, far from being united or totally good for that matter, is fractured and divided. The events of Rogue One are a key component that forces the Rebellion to come together and act for the first time in a unified manner to defeat an existential threat to them and the universe. The Empire as well is not a hive-mind of evil devoted to one goal, but rather a collection of competing interests and ambitions which the Emperor uses to keep everyone in check under him. This makes the universe immediately more complex, diverse, and yes, "real" than the simplistic archetypes of the rest of the Star Wars series. Star Wars, at its core, is made for children. Rogue One, for the first time, dares to try to move that bar into more mature territory. It works just fine on a simple level for kids with its great action pieces. But it also works on a much deeper level, as a more nuanced, larger story, with complex characters who actually feel.

In the final analysis, this complexity is what makes Rogue One superior to every other movie in the series. It is why The Empire Strikes Back is the only other movie that actually matters. There is complex emotion and evolution in the characters and story. We see Jyn evolve from a loner criminal to determined rebel. We see Cassian change from rebel drone to free-thinking individual. Each character in this cast (and there are many), all have their evolutionary journeys that are completely realized, a not-easy feat to do in our jump-cut, action-oriented thought processes of today. This movie actually has some real meat to it in the characters and organizations that may cause you to look at each a little different when you leave. Rogue One adds real nuance to everything in the Star Wars universe, and thus changes our perception of it. For me, this was a game-changer and restored my faith in the power of moviemaking. The movie is just familiar enough to ground us in the reality, but different enough to change our perception about it in a positive and meaningful way. Screenwriters Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy may not win an Oscar for this, but they should.

Finally, I can't leave this review without a little criticism. As much as I love it, it's not perfect. It's as close as you can get, but still falls a little short of the mark. We are given just enough information to put us in the action, but there is a lot of unmined territory that could maybe be produced in books. The territory is primarily the backstories of all the characters. Each one of them is interesting. Part of Jyn's backstory is in Catalyst, but each of the supporting characters are fascinating in their own right, particularly Saw Gerrera. There is enough to tantalize, but I would like to know more. Other than that, this movie is superb in both story and acting, and deserves a place as one of, if not the best Star Wars movie of them all.

The Seven Samurai (1954) vs The Magnificent Seven (1960) vs The Magnificent Seven (2016)

This The Seven Samurai 3 Stars (out of four)

The Magnificent Seven (1960) 3 Stars (out of four)

The Magnificent Seven (2016) 3 Stars (out of four)

So the remakes continue. The Magnificent Seven, itself a remake of Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai is now being remade again in 2016, this time with a politically correct racially diverse cast. However, I like the idea of this new cast as all actually would have had a reason to be in the Old West. With today's tendency toward historical revisionism, this new version promised to be a fun and interesting remake.

The story is pretty much the same. All take off from the same general outline of The Seven Samurai, only the details change. A small, rural farming village is being robbed by a large group of approximately 40 bandits. The village elder tells some of the men to go into town to hire men experienced in fighting and weapons to train and help the villagers defend themselves. The villagers cannot afford to pay the Samurai what they would get for such services, but they promise their defenders all the food they can eat and a pittance. We have a montage of the older warrior who recruits six other men, all with different strengths. One is an old brother-in-arms, another is a killer of the greatest skill, and another is a young man who dreams of becoming a warrior. We find out this young man was a farmer as well and personally identifies with their struggles and hardships. Once the group reaches the village, all the women are missing as the villagers think the warriors will rape them. When those fears are allayed, we get more montages of training and getting ready for the big battle. In the middle of all this, the young warrior falls in love with one of the local girls, much to the dismay of her conservative father. The movie ends with the warriors fighting alongside the villagers in a battle to kill the bandits.

THE SEVEN SAMURAI (1954)

Before American audiences were watching foreign films regularly, Akira Kurosawa was one of Hollywood's go-to directors to rip off. Some of his movies that have been appropriated include this one, of course, Star Wars uses elements from both The Hidden Fortress and Throne of Blood. His film Yojimbo has been remade at least twice (Last Man Standing and A Fistful of Dollars). All three films are based on Dashiell Hammett's noir novel Red Dust. Even Kurosawa himself was not above stealing as his movie Ran is a remake of Shakespeare's King Lear, only set in feudal Japan. I guess it goes to show that if you're going to steal from somebody, steal from the best.

That said, The Seven Samurai is a wonderful movie, if just a tad overlong. I'm not one with a short attention span, but at close to 3.5 hours, this movie becomes a butt-buster. Even so, it takes its time so that we can get to know and appreciate each character. We know backstories on each Samurai and the villagers who hire them. Different motivations come into play, particularly with longtime Kurosawa-collaborator Toshiro Mifune's character. In this movie, we are introduced to him playing a character that is almost buffoonish in his broad comedic performance. He careens wildly from annoying comic relief to sullen, worldly cynic that is abrasive to all around him except the old Samurai. As we and the other characters get to know him, we see a damaged character underneath that uses bluster to hide his very deep pain at the world. He keeps people at arm's length so they will not hurt him anymore than he has been already. His arc from cynical buffoon to real hero is very satisfying because of this deliberate evolution.

The movie's (very long) climax when the samurai and the townspeople is quite exciting and entertaining. The denouement where four of the Samurai die is quite poignant as we have come to know and like each one of them. The Seven Samurai is one of those movies that just seems right to serve as the archetype of things to come. It is a work of stunning originality on the part of Kurosawa and all his collaborators behind and in front of the camera. Kurosawa is one of those legendary directors because he made great movies time and time again. This is only one of at least six of his movies that are considered classics of the film genre and he is one of the most revered and copied filmmakers of all time. Like Chaplin, Welles, Scorsese, Spielberg, Ford or Hitchcock, he is one of the templates that all aspiring filmmakers should study.

THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960)

After Kurosawa saw The Magnificent Seven for the first time, he said, "It's a wonderful movie, but it's my movie," and shortly after began legal proceedings because no one had secured the rights for remaking his picture. Once it was released, The Magnificent Seven became a classic of western action. If there was ever a movie that benefited from trimming the run time, this is definitely it. At just over two hours, this movie steams along at a great pace and never really slows down. Even at the slower points, and there are a couple, the movie is brisk with very little filler. The movie is similar in its plot, except this time it takes place in Mexico and a local ground of bandidos is terrorizing and robbing a small farming village.

My two biggest complaints of the movie are fairly minor. The biggest one was the casting of Yul Brynner. Although he is great in just about everything he ever did, the choice to cast him in the lead role is a bit off for this film. When I was younger, I hated it, but as I got to appreciate Brynner's presence, I warmed up to it. But it still rings wrong in this cast and I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe I don't buy him as the lone outlaw with the Clint Eastwood attitude. My second complaint is a pet peeve of mine. The western genre at this time tended to be the springboard for a lot of young actors to make their mark, and producers wanted to showcase them, sometimes at the expense of the real talent we were coming to see. The most egregious example is Rio Bravo. As good as the movie is, we came to see John Wayne. Dean Martin is badly miscast and bringing in Ricky Nelson was a disaster. They even shoehorn in a song so Martin and Nelson can sing together. The offending character in The Magnificent Seven is Horst Buchholtz who plays Chico, the young man with the background of being from a similar village, a combination of two characters from The Seven Samurai. This is the critical part of the movie, but again, it feels as if they wanted to make Buchholtz the star (instead of the other soon-to-be-superstars in the stellar cast including Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, Eli Wallach, Robert Vaughn and James Coburn). I am not saying this is Buchholtz's fault, his performance is fine. It's just a little too pronounced in an otherwise stellar, soon to be immortal cast of Hollywood action heroes for the next two decades.

In the end, The Magnificent Seven is a fine movie with a great ending, but in my opinion, falls just short of greatness. But a movie I would heartily recommend to anyone for a wild ride of rip roaring fun.

THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (2016)

I have held that movies are definitely a reflection of the times they are made. A movie like this one or King Arthur, Robin Hood, or Ben Hur, a story told over and over again in different generations gives a fascinating glance into how people perceive reality and their biases toward each other and their environments. Movies, being a product of popular culture, have to conform to these cultural norms in order to be embraced. For instance, D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation is roundly and rightly considered a cinematic classic in that it set up the modern method of cinematic storytelling structure, but it is also incredibly racist in its attitudes toward black people in general with its favorable portrayal of the KKK as the saviors of the post-Civil War Reconstruction South. The movie was embraced as a blockbuster, but is roundly reviled today in its attitudes. Westerns from the 30s through the early 60s portrayed a boyhood fantasy of what the Old West was like with bloodless gunfights and virtuous whores. Clint Eastwood's Man-With-No-Name spaghetti Westerns with Sergio Leone signified the end of the innocent Western of John Wayne and a more nihilistic Old West as a cruel, dehumanizing landscape that culminated in Eastwood's visionary anti-Western, Unforgiven. A movie that in one brilliant turn shreded every cherished trope and legend of the Old West. It could only have been done by Eastwood or Wayne, the two men most directly responsible for establishing these legends to begin with.

So why am I bringing all of this up? First to show that stories are continually adapted to meet cultural sensitivities. Also to illustrate that in a post-Unforgiven cultural landscape, we are left with a more jaundiced eye toward the portrayal of our past. In the case of the upcoming Guy Pierce's version of the King Arthur story, you have a man not born into nobility as Arthur was, but rather a street kid who ascends to the throne, a very modern type of hero. In the case of Westerns, there is a dual track of striving for historical authenticity combined with modern inclusion of as many new characters as possible, not matter how shoehorned they appear to be. Movies like Posse and The Quick and the Dead are the most egregious examples. This new version of The Magnificent Seven strikes a good compromise between the two. In a modern all-racial-inclusive cast, this movie works on all levels. No one out of place here. All the cast members have compelling reasons to be in the story, but the overall themes of justice and redemption are still in place.

In this case, the action takes place in the Wyoming territory, where an unscrupulous land baron is now trying to take the land from settlers to make way for a railroad line to his mines. He is the thoroughly modern Occupy Wall Street/Mr. Robot villain, a totally amoral rich guy that will take everything from poor people unless there is a revolution of the proletariat of sorts. No matter, the movie is great and all performances are fun to watch. I particularly like Chris Pratt, who is fast becoming the next superstar movie actor. He is very affable and comes across as a very sympathetic character, and one actor I am excited to see what he will do next. The finale is very kinetic and fun, and propels this film into a better than average action flick. A fun recommendation when you just want to turn your brain off and go with the flow.

Westworld (1973)

3.5 Stars (out of four)

In anticipation for HBO's new sci-fi show of the same name, I decided to rewatch the original Westworld from 1973 to see if it holds up after time.  And I'm happy to say that it really does.

The plot is pretty simple.  There is a company called Talos that offers theme parks to the super rich to indulge all their fantasies and pleasures.  The three parks are Romanworld, Medievalworld and Westernworld, the final of which our two heroes (Richard Benjamin and James Brolin) have come attend.  The idea is simple:  the parks are time-based themed areas (Roman, Medieval and the Wild West) that are as real as possible, staffed by ultra-intelligent robots.  The robots can't hurt the guests, so the guests can indulge every dark passion.  This movie was one of author/director Michael Crichton's (Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain) first movies.  It follows the Crichton template that what initially seems to be one of the coolest things imaginable will inevitably break down with disastrous results.  In this case, the park engineers are noticing the robots are all malfunctioning.  At first the issues are annoying, robots falling down, acting erratically and such.  But their erratic behavior gradually grows in intensity, such as a snake actually biting somebody or a robot refusing amorous advances from a guest. These glitches, growing in number and intensity, appear to be spreading like a disease (A...virus?  This was 1973, after all, and malicious code wasn't really a thing yet).  Eventually, the robots start killing the guests and park employees until our heroes end up running for their lives chased by a particularly psychotic gunslinger, played by Yul Brynner.

The only reason this movie doesn't get a four-star rating from me is that, in the end, the plot is a tad clunky and heavy-handed.  This was one of the few, but great, sci-fi movies films that came out between 1969's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which moved sci-fi out of the campy 1950's, until Star Wars in 1977, when sci-fi's game was upped forever into the stratosphere.  In that 8-year time frame, sci-fi was finding a new respectability as storytelling goes because of its metaphorical capacity to comment on society and trends, much as the original Star Trek did in the mid-1960's.  The 1970's are full of great sci-fi: some amazing (A Clockwork Orange, Sleeper, Logan's Run, The Omega Man, Rollerball, Soylent Green), some campy but still relevant (Death Race 2000, Damnation Alley, any of The Planet of the Apes sequels) and some just downright "what the hell were they thinking" types (Zardoz).  But the best thing thing about 1970's sci-fi is that it usually had something to say.  Star Wars, as wonderful as it is, signaled the end of thinking sci-fi and ushered in an age of movie spectacle that we are now in, very flashy with little substance.  With that said, the plot of Westworld is fairly by-the-numbers and clunky, but this was one of the movies that set the template for technology going amok and turning against us.  A little clunkiness can be forgiven when you are the original.

But there is a lot to like about this film as well.  The story is interesting and showed that Michael Crichton was not a fluke with his first effort, The Andromeda Strain.  Westworld is thought-provoking and genuinely entertaining.  Another thing I absolutely loved was that Yul Brynner essentially reprised his iconic western role from The Magnificent Seven from seven years before, down to the exact same costume.  I don't know if it as meant to be or not, but it is a sly undermining of the western myth, nineteen years before Clint Eastwood would masterfully skewer his own persona in Unforgiven.  And while I think Yul Brynner was miscast in The Magnificent Seven, he's perfect in this role.  He is so unforgettable in his intensity and relentlessness at the end of the flick, that he would be mirrored by none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger eleven years later in The Terminator, almost shot-for-shot. The other thing that makes this movie so great is its obvious impact on future designs of movies from Blade Runner, to The Terminator, to Total Recall and Robocop, to Ex Machina and HBO's new show of the same name.  We have now come full circle, back to where we began, and it promises to be a fun ride.

Don't Beathe

2 Stars (out of four)

I was actually looking forward to this.  It looked like a promising remake of sorts from Audrey Hepburn's Wait Until Dark it had my antenna up.  Unfortunately, the fact that the movie is advertising that it was made by the makers of The Evil Dead (not a bad movie, mind you), should have been my first clue was that all was not what it would seem.

The movie takes place in Detroit, and we are introduced to our main three characters, (two men, one woman) in the process of breaking into, and stealing valuables from some rich person's house.  The movie then makes a point to show that one is a true jerk, and the other two thieves are good, conscionable people merely thrown into their life of crime by economic circumstances and they are trying to get out.  The avenue out comes in the form of a blind veteran who recently won a settlement after his only daughter was hit and killed in a drunk driving accident.  He is in an economically depressed neighborhood that is literally devoid of any life besides him.  They decide to rob him and leave for California.  But it turns out that once the robbery starts and he awakens, things go south for out merry bunch of thieves as it turns out they drastically underestimated him.

This, from the premise, looked like it was going to be a great cat-and-mouse story where the thieves realized they bit off more than they could chew.  I thought it would be similar to Wait Until Dark where Audrie Hepburn plays a blind woman who is in a similar situation with some home invaders.  Alas, it was not meant to be.  In an effort to be edgy or proletarian-sympathetic, we are asked to empathize with the thieves and not the victim, sort of a reverse on Dirty Harry or Death Wish.  The movie goes out of its way to give the woman a backstory of a horrible, abusive in all aspects childhood and a being single mother herself, doing only what she has to for her beautiful little daughter; saving her from poverty and the vaguely insidious peccadilloes of her deadbeat, white-trash family.  One of the men is in unrequited love with her and works in an alarm company.  He is the trio's way in to enter the houses by stealing their security codes . He is tortured over the robberies, and is curiously well-informed of the letter of the law (our captain exposition for later).  The third, the woman's lover, is just an amoral bastard through and through, who treats her bad and belittles the other man.  Of course, he gets killed right away.  But in a frankly sickening twist, the blind man must be made even more morally reprehensible than the home-invading thieves.  I won't be a plot spoiler and reveal the secret, but the movie veers wildly away from an interesting thriller to become straight-up exploitation.  Those of you unfamiliar with the exploitation genre and what that entails, think of movies like Hostel, The Human Centipede, I Spit On Your Grave, Last House On The Left, Cannibal Holocaust, and A Serbian Film to name a few.

Since I wasn't expecting an exploitation film, this really turned my stomach.  Exploitation films have their place, but you have to warn people first.  Don't Beathe started out with an interesting premise and looked to be pretty good.  And for the first half of the film, it is fairly well realized. There is some great suspense.  The issue I had was that we are to feel sorry for criminals who break into people's houses to rob them.  When I was watching the first half, I was waiting to see if they would get their just desserts, and when the filmmakers make the blind man a twisted creature worse than the thieves, I found myself wishing the whole house would just burn down around all of them.  I think I'm supposed to root for the thieves because of their situation, but I can't.  And then the movie throws you the exploitation curve, in effect punishing you for rooting for the blind robbery victim by making him into a monster.  The movie's moral relativism ruined what would otherwise have been a pretty good hoot.  It is not, strictly speaking, a bad movie.  It sets up some very familiar tropes of a good thriller and pulls them off successfully.  You will not see anything new that you haven't seen before, but it is mildly entertaining.

Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ (1925) vs Ben-Hur (1959) vs Ben-Hur (2016)

Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ (1925) 3.5 Stars (out of four)

Ben-Hur (1959) 4 Stars (out of four)

Ben-Hur (2016) 3 Stars (out of four)

For the last couple years, Hollywood has been on a binge of remakes, reboots and sequels, and if the public is to be believed, they hate it.  I think it shows the creative bankruptcy of a bloated system creaking under its own weight, churning out vanilla, non-controversial fare of familiar greats that hopefully, the entire family can get behind.  The industry is in a place that is close to pure self-immolation.  Movies have become so expensive to produce and distribute that nobody wants to take a chance anymore on anything remotely unique.  Combine that with the lessons of some costly flops in the 1970s (Heaven's Gate being the most prominent), the studios are not willing to let the inmates run the asylum, either, by ceding total creative control to the artist.  Thus, why would a studio spend mega-bucks to attempt to recreate one of the greatest epics of all time, and certainly most honored (along with Titanic and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, each movie has garnered 11 Oscar wins)?  It seems tantamount to career and budgetary suicide.  But as we look at each of these films, we will see there are some striking differences outside of the main story.  

To begin with, the most interesting fact is that the famous 1959 version that everyone loves is, in itself, a remake as well, from not just one, but two film versions.  In fact, Ben-Hur may be one of the most remade properties ever, with at least four movies: 1907-a 15-minute one-reeler, 1925-a 2.5 hour silent film, 1959-a 3.5 hour epic of epics, and 2016-a middling 2 hour romp.  There are also two animated versions for younger audiences (1988 and 2003-where Carlton Heston reprised his role), a 2010 3-hour British mini-series, and an awful 2016 ripoff sequel that has nothing to do with the original story.  In true Hollywood send-ups of great movies, it even has a 1995 porno parody ridiculously titled Dun Hur.  (Don't worry, that one will not be reviewed here.)  So, as you can see, Ben-Hur has been a go-to project since it debuted to raves on Broadway in 1899.  This essay is going to concern itself with the 3 big-screen adaptations from 1925, 1959 and 2016.

A quick synopsis of the plot for those of you who have lived under a rock for the last 130 years. Ben-Hur was a fictional novel written by ex-Civil War Union General Lew Wallace in 1880.  After a train ride with a friend, he realized he didn't know much about his Christian faith and set upon a course to learn as much as he could to eventually write a historically accurate account of the life of Christ.  Add in his love of romantic novels like Ivanhoe and The Count of Monte Cristo, he began writing a serialization of the Tale of the Three Magi.  After much alteration and a realization that he didn't want to write a story with Christ as the main hero, he instead penned the story of a fictional Judean prince, Judah Ben-Hur in Jerusalem.  He is betrayed by Messala, a childhood Roman friend, to a life as a galley slave.  During a battle, he saves a Roman Tribune's life.  The tribune adopts him and Ben-Hur quickly becomes a champion charioteer in Rome.  He eventually departs back in Jerusalem where Messala is the local tribune and chariot-racing champion.  Ben-Hur vows revenge inside the arena against Messala and outside the arena against Rome by joining the Jewish Zealots.  After triumphing and mortally wounding Messala in a chariot race, he sees Christ's crucifixion and becomes a Christian.  Once this conversion happens, he forgives Messala and the Romans and is able to find inner peace in his life.

A quick note on the 1907 version.  It was made without the consent of the Wallace estate, who sued for copyright violation, in a precedent-setting case decided in the Supreme Court in favor of the estate which was awarded damages.  Every artist seeking restitution for copyright-infringement has Ben-Hur to thank for being able to collect on their intellectual property.  While the overall outline of the story remains the same across each version, each version differs from the others in its own way and reflects the mood and circumstances of its times.  But what is common among all three is that they were arguably the most expensive films of their times, and at least two saved their studios from bankruptcy.  It remains to be seen whether the 2016 version will be a similar cash cow or an albatross.  All reports point to it being one of the priciest flops of all time.

BEN-HUR: A TALE OF CHRIST (1925)

Francis X. Bushman and Ramon Novarro (left to right) as Messala and Judah Ben-Hur (1925)

The 1925 version is much harsher in its portrayal of Judah and Messala.  While they did grow up together, Messala is much more racist, more Romanized than he is in the other versions. He treats Judah from the start as an inferior, with little of the brotherly affection that characterizes the other two.  So, his eventual betrayal is much less surprising according to his established character in the story.  However, this version is probably much more historically accurate considering Roman attitudes toward their subjects.  Thus, the betrayal is less dramatic, in my opinion.  Judah, on the other hand, is much more radicalized in this version, also probably more historically accurate.  He is pretty much in the zealots' camp from the start, and is extremely suspicious of Rome.  So again, his boyhood closeness stretches my credibility of the character, but makes his eventual conversion to Christianity and forgiveness of Messala in particular and the Romans in general much more dramatic.  The special effects were amazing for their time, and the chariot race is awe-inspiring. Its composition was so good that the 1959 version lifted many sequences shot-for-shot.

A couple comparisons of composition between the 1925 and 1959 versions.

For me, though, the most interesting technical element was its use of the early Technicolor process.  Silent films had been hand-painted before, or even color tinted.  Indeed, this version also has some color tinting in parts.  But what is really neat is the use of true color through the Technicolor process, which was hideously expensive and quite experimental at the time.  This was an earlier version of Technicolor that rendered three-color palettes, but had a lot of grain in it.  It was used to showcase particularly dramatic scenes, such as anything dealing with Christ or important scenes.  These color scenes were thought lost to disintegration until a copy showed up in the Czech Republic film archives in the mid-2000's with these segments intact.  Up to this point, the color segments were replaced with black-and-white segments.  Once the color segments were discovered, they were restored by Turner Archives and reinserted into their former glory.  (See below)

Mary, portrayed by Betty Bronson

Arrius' (Frank Currier) Triumphal March Into Rome

Judah Saying Goodbye To Arrius To Return To Jerusalem

Three other interesting side notes unique to the 1925 version.  It was made in the pre-Hays Code era.  The Hays Code was a self-censorship board that was established as a result of intense pressure from Congressional and the Catholic Decency League.  They held Hollywood was subverting good moral values.  Hollywood set up the board to prevent official government and religious censorship of their art.  It included prohibitions on: sex, clothing, drug use, marriage/divorce issues and law enforcement issues.  The Hays Vode lasted from the mid-1930's until the mid-1960's when the beginnings of the current MPAA code began to take effect.  But until this point, the sky was the limit.  During the 1910-20's, sword-and-sandal movies were particularly popular because they could show actors and actresses in nothing or next to nothing (See below).  By presenting them in the context of a biblical story, it was considered educational and not obscene, thus proving Hollywood was tittilating viewers from the very beginning.  There is nothing new under the sun.

Examples of pre-Code films-- clockwise from top left:  Johnny Weissmuller & Maureen O'Sullivan-Tarzan & His Mate (1934); The Sign of the Cross (1932); Theda Bara-Cleopatra (1917); Norma Shearer-A Free Soul (1931); Jeanette MacDonald & Genevieve Tobin-One Hour With You (1932); Johnny Weissmuller promo shot for Tarzan.

This version has at least two scenes of nudity, male rear ends in the gallies and topless females in the triumphal parade.  (See above).  Second, the chariot race scene featured cameos of almost every major silent film star including: Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks Sr, Lionel Barrymore, John Barrymore, Myrna Loy, Clark Gable, Harold Lloyd, Joan Crawford and Gary Cooper just to name a few. Third, a young assistant director on this film was one William Wyler.  This same William Wyler would go on to win the 1960 Academy Award for Best Director for another Ben-Hur starring Charlton Heston.

BEN-HUR (1959)

Stephen Boyd as Messala and Charlton Heston as Judah Ben-Hur (1959)

By the time the next iteration of Ben-Hur came about, TV was killing the movies.  More and more families had a TV, and studios were facing some very hard times.  The studios realized they had to improve their game if they were to survive, so they decided to make an experience that TV couldn't replicate. At this point, all TV screens are small and black-and-white.  Movies went in the opposite direction with bigger and brighter and more colorful stories, and thus the movie epic is born.  Cecil B. DeMille kicked it off in 1956 with a remake (there it is again) of his 1926 biblical epic The Ten Commandments to huge box office receipts and positive critical reception, as well as becoming a huge financial shot in the arm for Paramount Studios.  The struggling MGM Studios decided to replicate the idea with an even bigger film and gambled everything on its success.  From the start, Ben-Hur was going to be big.  With screenwriter Gore Vidal and director William Wyler, the studio set out, like it did in 1925, to make the biggest spectacle the world ever saw.  Both movies, in their times, were the most expensive films ever made, and both saved the studio.

The 1959 version is hard to criticize.  It is almost the perfect movie.  While the acting can be a little hammy at times, particularly Charlton Heston's performance, that is not necessarily a bad thing.  Everything about this film is huge, from its theme to its aspect ratio, one of the largest ever at 2:76:1.  A little over-the-top acting by a star who was larger-than-life himself, seems to fit this story.  Judah's relationship with Messala also changed.  Gore Vidal wrote the characters to be much closer at the beginning and made subtle hints that there was a deep, emotional bond between the two men, possibly even a homosexual one.  He wrote Messala's character to reflect this, as a man trying to restart an old flame from the past which Judah rejects out if turn.  Messala's reaction, that of a spurned lover as well as naked ambition, becomes much more nuanced.  Wyler and Vidal conferred with Stephen Boyd, who played Messala, about this.  Nobody told the conservative Heston, and the tension does come through.  Being that this was 1959, and a biblical epic to boot, albeit a fictional one, this had to be done extremely subtly.  Wyler would go on record later denying the homosexual subtext, but Vidal insists this was a strategy agreed to early on.  In any case, whether true or not, the friendship is much more believable.  It is also so much more tragic with Messala's ultimate betrayal and eventual death.  Judah's conversion and forgiveness is also more believable as his arc brings him full circle.  He is essentially a non-violent man trying to get along with the Romans, becomes an out-and-out rebel until his conversion to Christianity at the end, where he renounces the destructive path which would have led him to ruin.  Great, heady material for an incredible story.

Finally, one cannot leave a discussion of the 1959 movie without discussing the two major set pieces: the naval battle and chariot race.  Like the 1925 movie, these are both the centerpieces of each film.  The naval battle in 1925 actually had featured two full-size gallies that caught on fire, almost killing star Ramon Novarro in the process.  The battle in 1959 features some of the most amazing miniature work, and a surprisingly explicit brand of violence during the actual battle.  But if that was something to see, the climatic chariot race was nothing short of extraordinary.  There are not enough superlatives to properly describe that race.  In my opinion, it is the best action scene ever filmed, and set the bar for future great sequences as the car chase in Bullitt, the scenes from the Indiana Jones movies, the freeway chase in The Matrix: Reloaded, to its most obvious progeny, the pod race scene in Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace.  It was bigger and more spectacular than anything before or since, and contrary to rumor, no one was killed or seriously injured in the filming of the sequence.

Toby Kebbell as Messala Severus and Jack Huston as Judah Ben-Hur (2016)

BEN-HUR (2016)

Finally, the 2016 version differs a lot from the other two versions with some significant story changes. First, the running time is much shorter at just over two hours.  In this version, Judah is almost a pacifist, wanting absolutely nothing to do with the zealots. The biggest change of all is that the entire Quintus Arias story is totally cut.  On top of that, the naval battle scene is drastically truncated.  We see the entire sequence from the point of view of the galley slaves and see very little of the actual battle.  Whether this was done to save time or money, we'll never know.  But it is a shame these action and dramatic scenes are gone. The action is exciting and the time with Arias gives Judah a chance to grow and advance in his character arc.  It also makes the reunion with Messala much more believable if he thinks that Judah is a Roman dignitary.  The reveal is much more dramatic and interesting.  The relationship between Judah and Messala is also dramatically different.  In this case, they grew up in the same household as brothers, Messala having been adopted by the Hur family.  

The most grevious change is the actual ending of the film.  WARNING!!!  SPOILERS AHEAD!!!  In both the previous films, Messala dies without Judah's forgiveness, miserable and alone.  With Judah's conversion, both previous versions show that when Judah lets go of his hate, he can live with an internal peace, happily ever after, in a way.  But this version is a total betrayal of this complicated dynamic by giving into the temptation of a typical Hollywoid happy ending.  Judah sees Messala, broken and dying.  After a few terse words and Judah's forgiveness, Messala breaks down into a blubbering mess and begs forgiveness.  He then immediately renounces his Roman-ness and ends up leaving with the Hur family, bringing their relationship full circle.  Messala's total change of heart is totally out of character and makes no logical sense whatsoever.  The movie was actually pretty good up until the end. The end totally spoils the film for me.

So, in conclusion, all the films are good in their own way.  They reflect the popular attitudes of their respective times.  This is most evident in Judah's character and the nature of Judah and Messala's relationship.  This is what ultimately separates each film and determines its quality. On that measure, the 1959 film stands out as the best as pure entertainment, but the 2016 version is the most realistic in the world that is created.  The 2016 version is good and worth watching.  But sadly, it does not live up to the bar set by the previous two.  This is too bad, because this was a lost opportunity to make a wonderful film.  As it is, it is merely good.  It could have been great.  It isn't larger than life, but rather a simple little story with large events around it.

Sausage Party

2 Stars (out of four)

So, a (very) adult animated film cleverly disguised as a family-friendly kid movie to any idiot adult who does not think to do the slightest amount of research into what their child sees?  Yes, that is essentially the premise, or at least the huckster call, to get people inside the tent.  One would think the R-rating would be a tipoff to these parents, but an unbelievable amount have unsuspectingly accompanied their kids into this raunch-fest, and were probably more traumatized than the kids who probably didn't get even half the jokes.  So, parents, fair warning:  THIS IS NOT A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!

So, the movie's premise is actually very simple.  It tells the story of our food at the supermarket a la Toy Story.  They are cute hot dogs, buns and everything else in between.  Their fondest wish is to go to the Great Beyond, that is, for one of us to buy them for our food.  What they don't know is the horrible fate that awaits them as we skin, gut, boil, bake and eat them.  Only when one gets returned is the horrible truth revealed, but nobody believes him except for one hot dog (Seth Rogen), who eventually whips the food into a frenzy and they stage a revolution against their future slayers (us)...

...and have a big orgy to celebrate.

Yes, you read that correctly.  The ending is a food orgy where literally every perversion and perverse stereotype come out.  Now don't misunderstand.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  The movie is quite funny in parts.  There are some very laugh-out-loud jokes that gave me some genuine mirth.  But this movie wallows way past the depths of Blazing Saddles.  Many have said that Mel Brooks movie would never have been able to be made in today's politically-correct, let's-not-violate-others'-safe-spaces atmosphere.  But Rogen and company, rather than be dissuaded, seem to have taken that on as a challenge to see just how offensive they can possibly be.  The movie is filled with every double-entendre (and not so double) regarding sex: oral, anal, lesbian, gay, interracial, inter-religion, straight; any sex you can possibly think of.  Everything, and I do mean everything, gets at least a shout-out.  But add into the mix that each food type is matched with the crudest racial and religious stereotype you can imagine.  A bagel is a nebbish Jew, a loaf of lavash is an Arab (who ends up in a gay relationship with the bagel while waxing poetic about the 77 bottles of extra Virginia olive oil that wait for him), the sauerkraut is a Nazi dedicated to exterminating the aisle of "juice" (har, har-get it?), there is a Native American bottle of firewater, an Irish potato who sings Danny Boy, a female Mexican lesbian taco, the list goes on and on.  

The big question is-Is the film racist? Well, in a word, yes.  Stereotypes by their very nature are racist, sexist, etc.  They appeal to the basest of our prejudices about each other.  Does ithey make a movie horrible or evil?  Not necessarily.  Comedy can be cutting and cruel and sometimes a thicket of hurt feelings.  I'm not taking up the cause of bland, non-controversial humor.  But at the same time, like a lot of comedy in this generation, the bar is set so low that one has to crude as possible to make a dent anymore.  It is crudeness for its own sake, like Blazing Saddles.  But unlike Blazing Saddles, there is not wit, no cleverness.  Just the writers waving their hands in your face and yelling, "Look at us!  We're being funny!"  And while I have come to expect that from Rogen & co., this just took it to that next level.  Rogen has written and starred in some sublime comedies (The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Zack and Miri Make A Porno, Knocked Up, The Interview, This Is The End) and some duds.  And while this is not a dud, it isn't great, either.  I guess I would use this litmus test: Would you do the same kind of movie and jokes with live actors?  If you wouldn't, you probably shouldn't go there.  That is the line of satire versus truly offensive.

Now, I know some of you are looking at me and saying, "Lighten up.  It's only a cartoon and not supposed to be taken seriously."  And don't get me wrong, there are some very funny things in this movie (my personal favorite was the douche that sounds exactly like the brain-dead idiots from The Jersy Shore and the take-off on Saving Private Ryan).  My issue is, however, what are the writers trying to get at here?  At least in Blazing Saddles, it is a crude indictment on racism.  Sausage Party, on the other hand, celebrates our racist prejudices by bringing them all to the fore in ridiculous extremes with no real satire at all-just racist, sexist humor for its own sake.  I don't usually like to judge art this way, but there are not too many redeeming features in this movie at all.  Is it funny?  Yes.  But we're all going to Hell for laughing at it.

And one more time if anyone missed it:  THIS IS NOT A MOVIE FOR CHILDREN IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!!!

War Dogs and Lord of War

War Dogs - 3.5 Stars (out of four)

Lord Of War - 4 Stars (out of four)

This was one I was looking forward to.  It promised an interesting story on an interesting subject (gray market arms trading) with interesting actors (Miles Teller and Jonah Hill), and it delivered in spades.  It is ostensibly based on two real 20-something stoners from the Miami Beach area who won a $300 million defense contract to supply arms to US forces by gaming the system.  They made a lot of money and then it came crashing down.

Now, for those of you who have seen the superior Nicolas Cage movie Lord Of War, it's basically the same story.  An amoral guy who finds cracks in the system and exploits the legal gray areas of a pretty disgusting industry for his personal gain.  The Cage movie is better because it's not trying to be funny or edgy.  It just is.  It has a cynical streak that pervades the whole story, enough to kill a hippie in his tracks.  But the sad fact is, the guy exists and fills a need normally done by governments.  War Dogs, while it is a drama (and a good one), is trying for a more hip feel.  It was directed by Todd Phillips (of The Hangover fame) and it shows.  It has the same tone, the same chaotic feel The Hangover had.  Add in a very healthy dose of some of the blackest of black humor and another Oscar-worthy performance from Jonah Hill (whose character is a pure sociopath) and you have one of those off-kilter, quirky stories that I love.  (I would count Pain And Gain, Pulp Fiction, and Deadpool in this vein). It is not a story for everyone, even though in War Dogs, our (anti)heroes get their comeuppance which makes it more friendly for American audiences.  Despite everything, we are very pollyannaish in our attitudes.  Evil must be punished or we are left a little empty.  Lord of War, on the other hand, does not take the easy way out.  In fact, the amoral center gets reinforced as men will continue to kill, and there will always be someone their to fill that compunction, especially when nation states cannot, for whatever reason.

So, War Dogs is ultimately crowd pleasing, but it is the black cynicism of Lord of War that hits me harder.  In the end, the characters in War Dogs are punished.  They are off the street and rules are tightened as we learn from our mistakes.  But, life and fireign policy never wrap up that neatly, and Lord of War ends on that unresolved note.  To me, it feels more real.  I was massively entertained by both, but I give the edge to reality.  The other thing I didn't like about War Dogs is that it continues a disturbing trend I have seen in moviemaking lately, of a creeping moral relativism.  In Lord of War, Cage's character is totally amoral, and it makes no attempt to show him as anything other than what he is, a merchant of death.  In War Dogs, the movie goes out of its way to portray Teller's character as just a good guy who got caught up in his friend's Svengali charm, which made him rich.  Hill's character, as he described on Howard Stern is part of his "Jewish scumbag trilogy" (referring to his Wolf of Wall Street, not sure of the other one).  The movie seems to feel it needs to apologize regarding Teller because he was a good kid caught up in a bad situation and goes to great pains to paint him sympatheticly, while I think it is much more honest with Hill, that he was an opportunistic scumbag who didn't care anything about what he does to his friends or his customers.  I found the moral handwringing regarding a guy who is essentially profiting handsomely off other people's deaths slightly distasteful.  That said, I loved the movie for what it was, but I have to give the edge to the superior Lord of War.

Florence Foster Jenkins

3 Stars (out of four)

This looked like an enjoyable and uplifting tale about a woman who can't sing and yet brings joy to people because of her pure and unbridled enthusiasm for music.  That enthusiasm just makes you want to stand up and cheer.  But unfortunately, this is real life and the movie delivers on that instead.

The movie is about the titular heroine Florence Foster Jenkins (played with her usual aplomb by Meryl Streep), a VERY rich New York socialite who has had a lifetime love for music and loves to sing.  There is only one problem, she has absolutely no talent and a tin ear.  Her actor husband (Hugh Grant), who loves her deeply, has kept her surrounded by sycophants and pays off people to praise her performances.  And while he does love her, he has a girlfriend on the side that Florence doesn't know about.  One day, Florence makes a private recording for her friends that somehow gets on the radio.  It instantly becomes a big hit, especially with soldiers returning home from WWII.  What she doesn't know is they are all laughing at her.  She decides to put on a free concert at Carnegie Hall for them which starts disastrously until everyone begins to appreciate that she is singing her heart out.  And while everybody is still snickering, the concert ends with thunderous applause.

So, the movie advertises itself that it is uplifting, that despite this poor woman's obvious lack of talent, people will still love her.  However, like real life, this is not meant to be.  But what makes this movie incredible is the beauty and intimacy of those small moments we share with our family and friends.  That despite everything else that happens to us in our lives, it is in those small moments of humanity, of kindness shared, that make life worth living.  Despite Hugh Grant's character being somewhat of a heel, he truly does care and love Florence, and does everything he can to make her dreams of singing come true.  Some would say that it's cruel, playing an elaborate hoax on her, but she goes along with it, as well as all of her friends.  Her circle of friends know how much she loves what she does, and they wholeheartedly support her, even though they know she is terrible.  We can all identify when we have to tell the little white lie to someone to make them feel better.  This movie shows just how important those bits of humanity are.  My only real complaint with the movie is that the tone is very confusing. At first, they set the movie up as if it is a comedy, to laugh at Florence's ineptitude.  But then it switches tone to where we become complicit in the lie everyone tells her.  Because we know just how much she loves what she does, we end up rooting for her and feel proud of her when she finally sings at Carnegie Hall.  Perhaps there is a deeper message here.  Always pursue your dream, or whatever makes you happy, and damn anyone who tries to take that joy from you.

Hell or High Water

3 Stars (out of four)

I was a little sad about this one.  I thought it would be a rousing, sorta modern upgrade to 1967's Bonnie and Clyde.  They have similar themes born out of similar circumstances, bank robbers who rob banks in the name of social justice (sorta).  Both impart a dissatisfaction with the age in which they were filmed.  Bonnie and Clyde signaled the end of the old Hollywood Studio system and ushered in a new, arguably better age of dramatic storytelling that would resonate with younger viewers in a time of turbulent social change.  It very much mirrored the social tides of the Civil Rights Movement.  Hell or High Water sells itself on a similar theme, one more in tune with the Bernie Sanders and "Occupy" movements of late; movements extremely suspicious of corporate and government institutions.  This is the Bonnie and Clyde for the Millenial movement, young people dissatisfied with their place in life who need a convenient scapegoat, in this case, corporate America.  It has some great performances and takes its time telling a slow-burning story, but unfortunately leaves you oddly unfulfilled at the end.

Hell or High Water is the story of two Texan brothers:  a divorced father (Chris Pine) and his older, ex-con brother (Ben Foster), who rob banks to save their family ranch.  They only rob bank branches that hold the deed on their ranch, with the intent to buy it back with the money they stole, essentially paying the bank back with its own money.  Hot on their heels is a retiring Texas Ranger (Jeff Bridges in a standout performance) who is convinced (correctly) that the robberies are related.

I have no real complaints about the story itself; in fact, I loved it.  The biggest problem with the movie is the brothers' relationship.  As they are the main characters, and this is very much a character-driven story, you would think there would be a lot devoted to them and their motivations.  And while the movie does touch on some of that, it is curiously haphazard.  You come out wanting to know more, especially Ben Foster's character, who is an unpredictable hellion.  Yes, they love each other and yes, they are doing these crimes for a greater purpose, but in the end, I didn't feel like I knew them very well.  You learn a lot about each one of them individually, but not the relationship that binds them together on this highway to disaster.  All we get are tired tropes: abusive father, distant mother, but since we meet neither of them, we can't judge anything for ourselves.  Ditto with Chris Pine's character trying to reconcile amicably with his ex-wife and kids.  We see the result of his character arc, how he has changed.  It would have been much more interesting to see how he got there.  That's what I mean by feeling unfulfilled with the story.  We only see the results of life-changing experiences, not the events that precipitated them.  Those events, in my opinion, are the more interesting story.  The bank robberies are merely the culmination of those events.

The Jeff Bridges character and his interactions with his half-Mexican, half-Native American partner are much more interesting and funny, if you think an older white guy throwing constant racial epithets at his partner are funny.  But there is a greater dynamic going on here, that is how rough men bond.  Many movies try to show this, Jaws being probably the best example of male bonding that I have seen.  Despite the racial slurs, both men have a real respect for each other that goes beyond surface insults, that ironically, allow these men to express their feelings for each other.  It's an odd dynamic, but it is there.  

So the movie, by those who have short attention spans, will seem slow and boring.  But it is in those moments of reflection where this movie shines.  It gives the movie deeper resonance, a time you can reflect, as the characters do, on events that transpired and what's ahead.  This helps because the movie is very ham-fisted in ramming the point home that the economy sucks and our characters are victims of something far beyond their control.  All in all, the movie is very good and worth a watch for those who can abide by a deliberate storytelling pace.

Star Trek Beyond

3 Stars (out of four)

I have to hand it to Paramount.  After thoroughly and irreparably blowing Star Trek: The Next Generation's chance to have a movie franchise in, they wisely chose to go back to the well of what made Star Trek so great in the first place, the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise on her five-year-mission.  However, if they aren't careful, it's still possible to totally blow this chance to keep a good franchise going.

So, we pick up with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and the U.S.S. Enterprise beginning her five-year-mission of exploration.  Actually, we're in the middle of that exploratory mission, when the Enterprise gets sent on a rescue to help a crashed vessel in a nebula.  Of course, in true Star Trek fashion, they seem to be the only ship in the quadrant (Really?  Quadrant implies four.  Are we to believe the Federation has no more than four vessels?) that can handle the crisis.  They go in, and are immediately attacked by a really bad guy which causes Kirk to crash the ship (Yes, again.  For those of you keeping score, this is now the third time the Enterprise has been destroyed.  But since the other two crashes happened in a parallel future which has been wiped out of existence, technically, they never happened.  Are you with me so far?) on a remote planet.  Then there is a whole plot about a lost Federation starship captained by a man who now hates...oh, does it really matter? It's Star Trek!

The Star Trek new (old?) cast is finally coming into its own.  This movie has finally allowed the new cast to truly take the reins from Shatner & company and spread their wings on their own.  The first movie had to introduce us to the new cast.  The second had to finally kill the necessary nods to nostalgia so this third movie can finally be truly owned and inhabited by the new cast.  Truth be told, the criticism of this being an excellent TV episode and a not-so-great movie is absolutely on the money, but that really doesn't matter.  The writers have hit upon why the original crew made such good movies and The Next Gen cast didn't.  It has nothing to do with one cast being better than the other, but rather story structure.  The original Trek is really about Kirk, Spock and McCoy and their evolving relationship with each other.  Everybody else is secondary, no matter what Takei, Nichols, Doohan or Koenig think, Shatner is correct that the big three are the stars.  This is an ideal amount of deep characterization for movies as you only get 2+ hours every 3-4 years to see these characters.  A cast as diverse as The Next Gen was always better suited for TV.  Seven principle characters over seven years gives you ample opportunity to explore and get to know each character in detail.  Now that we completely know and love them, each character not given adequate screen time will be cheated.

Star Trek Beyond has finally began exploring the big trio's new, evolving relationship, and I loved it.  We are beginning to see the forging of what will be a lifetime friendship.  Frankly, I don't care about Uhura's love story or capability, Sulu's gayness or Scotty's emotional depth.  While the movie does a fairly good job of addressing everyone, it becomes perilously close to losing its focus.  This time, the story worked well.  A lesser writer could still botch it up in the future.  If the series is going to remain viable and not be a convoluted mess like The Next Gen movies were, it needs to stick to the Kirk/Spock/McCoy formula.  The only Next Gen movie that actually worked, (First Contact) worked precisely because they stuck to this formula.  In fact, it only focused on Picard and Data.  Everyone  else was given good, but supporting performances in service to the larger story.

So, all in all, it was a fun, but rather limited story.  The final reveal of the bad guy and his intentions gets a little convoluted.  But in the end, this is a very satisfying romp and makes me want to see more.

Suicide Squad

I'm 3 Stars (out of four)

So, considering the near-unanimous savaging this film has been getting from critics, I went in expecting a hot mess.  "But were they right?" you may ask, and my answer would be...

Sorta.

I will say, however, I was entertained by this film and did not feel ripped off.  But could it have been better?  Did it fall short of its promises?  Yes, it kind of did.  It falls short on every level, actually, but still manages to be entertaining.  So, don't listen to the critics.  That's why you have me to tell you what's good and what isn't.  It seems mainstream critics think every film should be belle arté, but I think it's fine to have artistic candy for the brain sometimes, and Suicide Squad definitely fits that category.

So, the movie is about the US government putting together a team of super villains, almost all of whom are killers and psychos, to battle even bigger threats out there.  The premise being: what if Superman tore off the roof of the White House and took the President?  How would we fight that threat?  There is a major side plot as well where the Joker (well played by Jared Leto) is trying to save his co-dependent, psychotic girlfriend (played by über-hot Margot Robbie in hooker-chic short shorts) and break her out of prison.  The movie has a lot of other bad guys, too, but do they really matter?  Not particularly.

This movie has been hyped for almost three years and been delayed at least once for extensive reshoots.  The word is that Warner execs were panicking when they saw how dark the original cut was, and they wanted to lighten the tone for a more family-friendly, PG-13 crowd.  (Just as a side note.  Does anyone remember when PG-13 was NOT family-friendly, but warning parents this may be a bit extreme?  Now PG-13 is essentially a pussified R so they can get more butts in the seats.). Now, I'm not suggesting that Suicide Squad or any superhero film should be R-rated, particularly in a post-Deadpool world, but the studios keep wanting to make very edgy films for what is essentially a children's medium.  This is the first fundamental problem.  All film studios should follow Marvel Studio's lead and put this more adult-oriented stuff on pay-TV and concentrate on a good story rather than attitude.  DC has made two fundamental errors with their properties.  The first was making each film in isolation from all the others.  Marvel has carefully planned their multi-year strategy introducing characters and a continuing story-arc gradually, and it has reaped large dividends because of that planning.  DC is beginning to rectify this problem with Dawn of Justice, but it is too little, too late, and they are scrambling now.  The second error was going for the gritty, brooding atmosphere of Batman in everything they do.  It works for Batman, but not necessarily Superman, so now they are painted into a corner where everything is dark and joyless.

So enough of the macro issues, what about Suicide Squad?  Its biggest issue is its tone.  They're reaching for dark and gritty, especially since each of these "heroes" are villains.  There was obviously a lot of post-production tinkering, because you see glimpses of real menace underneath everything, particularly the Joker/Harley relationship.  There are hints of extreme mental and physical cruelty they inflict on each other and other people.  Frankly, I would rather see an R-rated film about these two.  That would be fascinating, but quite impossible to do.  But this malefic undertone is glossed over and diluted, so you get a confusing/irritating cognitive dissonance that falls short of being either standard superhero fare or a more gruesome psychological study.  It's almost as if the movie is just there, unwilling to commit to any tone other than banality.  The movie tries to make up for this with antihero-cool attitude, but again falls laughably short.

Other fundamental issues are that the DC rogues gallery is much more interesting than its heroes, who are pretty bland in comparison.  Add to that the fact that, outside of the Joker, we have never met any of these characters before.  So, the movie must waste time explaining everybody and what they do before the action can start.  To be fair, the movie actually did a great job doing this.  The first act, where we meet all of them and how they got caught and what drives them is actually pretty good.  It is a great Exhibit A on how to save a deeply flawed script by quick introductions to the characters in an ingenious sleight-of-hand to distract you from the other story problems.  But now we come to another fundamental issue: why should we care about any of these people?  They are killers, after all.  "Cool" does not make up for the fact they are all killers and deserve everything that's coming to them.  This movie revolves on an axis of adolescent boy-fantasy regarding how the world works.  If I'm cool or tough enough, it doesn't matter what I do or what a bastard I am.

Finally, the story has technical problems.  They are trying to use the Tarantino-esque method of non-linear storytelling (the story is not told in sequence but rather a combination of flashbacks and present action), and the timeline gets muddy because of it.  There is also inconsistent pacing.  This becomes particularly egregious when we finish the second act.  A big battle has just been won and the final battle is imminent.  Suddenly, for no particular reason, they all decide to have a drink in a conveniently open bar in a war-torn city and discuss their feelings.  After which, they make the pact of "all-for-one-one-for-all" and go on the "slo-mo" badass walk.  (See Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill Vol. 1)  This movie is cliché-ridden, not particularly funny (although it thinks it is), and really is a pointless place-holder until the good DC movies come out.  (Wonder-Woman, Justice League, Flash, Aquaman)  Dawn of Justice is at least setting up the next movie.  Suicide Squad does that only in the last two minutes.  Otherwise, it stands on its own, again in isolation, in kind of a pointless exercise of expanding the DC universe.

After all that, you're probably saying to yourself, "Gee, that's a lot of negative stuff you just said, and yet you still thought it was entertaining?"  Yes, I do.  Despite its many flaws, in the end, it is pure escapist entertainment.  It has the mentality of a not-so-mature 12-year-old boy, but it is still a fun little fantasy, A road that I didn't mind traveling down, despite everything wrong with it.  Sometimes the journey can be fun.

Jason Bourne

2 Stars (out of four)

In what is rapidly becoming the summer of missed blockbuster opportunities, Jason Bourne now adds its name to the heap of overly-hyped, low-performing tentpole thrillers.  It's becoming sad and repetitious this summer, with so many possibilities and so many failures.  I was really hoping this one would be different with the return of Matt Damon playing our titular hero.

The movie is about Matt Damon returning to the role of the hero that has redefined the spy thriller actioneer.  Do you really need to know anything else?  You do?  Well, he is again trying to live a life in peace, but the bad guys/good guys of the CIA can't let him be.  When more information from his past shows up, this supposedly patriotic hero (they make a point to mention this many times throughout) does everything in his power possible to dismantle the organization that protects us all.  When a traitorous coward like Snowden is praised for his patriotism (there's a movie coming out about him, too, from, you guessed it, that other patriotic paragon Oliver Stone), it's no wonder this is what is considered laudible and worthy of emulation.

So, back to the story in a moment.  First, I am very disappointed with director Paul Greengrass.  He has done the equivalent of an actor phoning in a performance.  Considering he has already directed two other fairly good Bourne movies (Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum), and basically rewrote the visual lexicon of action movies in the process, he falls back to tired and lazy directorial techniques that are beneath his abilities.  He makes extensive use of hand-held cameras (or the vomit-cam as I call it with its ability to make one nauseous).  Combining MTV-style frenetic editing with the use of the vomit-cam to get as close to the action as possible, all we are sure of is that there is something kinetic and exciting happening on-screen.  It would probably be pretty cool if we could actually see it, but all that is really visible is a blur of action.  I realize newer directors make extensive use of hand-held cameras because they think it's cool and edgy (it isn't), and that it's cheaper (it is).  But for a seasoned professional like Greengrass, who knows how to frame, choreograph, pace and shoot action quite competently, it just looks lazy and sloppy.  The Bourne movies changed the spy movie aesthetic so completely that the James Bond franchise is copying its template, much to the detriment of the last four Bond flicks.

Bourne doesn't particularly need a good performance, but Damon delivers his usual better-than-average style here.  He is the one bright spot of the movie, or rather, Bourne being in a Bourne movie is.  But the story is hackneyed and cliché-ridden through and through.  The movie is basically a simple revenge flick packaged as a chase film.  No new ground is covered, and now Bourne is in danger of picking up the tired Bond formula.  An event forces him to action, he meets a contact/lover who becomes the sacrificial lamb, he cries, then gets mad, and then spends the rest of the movie on a kill-crazy rampage until all the other guys are dead.  And while the Bond franchise has suffered trying to be Bourne, the inverse is true as well.  They are fundamentally different stories and heroes.  Yet despite studios knowing this, they are repackaging the same vanilla, crowd-pleasing over and over again to satisfy the beast.  I would rather see Bourne go back to its roots of a man out of place, or find another original hero.  If this is the best we can expect from Bourne, it is breathing its last.  Instead of a vibrant and exciting new take on the spy, it sinks into the morass of cookie-cutter sameness that has been plaguing franchises.