The 'Demons' of Mediocrity

by Brett Parker

Angels & Demons isn’t as entertaining or compelling as its predecessor, The Da Vinci Code, and since I didn’t find the earlier film to be too entertaining or compelling, that should hint at how underwhelmed I was by this sequel. To be sure, the new film holds more confidence and urgency than the last one, but I essentially have the same problems this time as I had the last time: the adventure feels too flat and unremarkable while the filmmakers and cast do very little to make this religious-shaker matter that much.

The film opens with a series of troubling matters for the Vatican in Rome. The Pope has just died and the conclave is called upon to elect a successor. Four of the preferitti (primary choices for replacement) have been kidnapped and threatened to be murdered in a short time frame. A dangerous, scientific anti-matter has been stolen and is threatened to be used in a plot to annihilate the Vatican right off the map. It appears that these nightmarish threats are being carried out by the Illuminati, a secret society that holds a deep hatred towards the Catholic Church for its persecution of science throughout history.

Desperate for help, the Vatican calls upon Harvard Symbolist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to assist in solving this dangerous mystery. He teams up with a beautiful scientist (Vittoria Vetra) to solve a series of clues set up around Rome that reveals the inner-workings of the seemingly hostile Illuminati and their deadly plot. These clues are hidden within Vatican documents, ancient symbols, statues, maps, and even red-hot pokers. Langdon begins to suspect that the Illuminati has infiltrated the Vatican and grows suspicious of a Swiss Captain (Stellan Skarsgard) and an elder Cardinal (Armin Mueller-Stahl). With the assistance of a Camerlengo (Ewan McGregor), Langdon races against the clock to save the Vatican from devastating hostility.

Don’t get me wrong, this is interesting stuff. I find it clever how a suspenseful adventure story can mold with penetrating ideas about the foundations of the Catholic religion. So rich with ideas is this premise that the highest compliment I can pay the material is that you honestly don’t know where it will lead you. I just don’t feel that this is the best evocation of exciting ideas this plot can generate. I don’t find myself caring much for these adventures. I suspect the source of my problems is the fact that I don’t find Dan Brown, the author of the original Langdon novels, to be much of a writer. His writing is rather lazy and unsophisticated, which is curious considering the amount of research and knowledge that goes into creating such a clever premise. Lord knows he creates fascinating plots, but he lacks the grace and vividness of great writing. He seems more interested in crafting a quick potboiler than a meditative classic.

But this isn’t a book review, it’s a movie one. Brown’s shortcomings could easily have been finessed into visually-arresting filmmaking, but director Ron Howard also pounds things out in a limp manner. Both of his Langdon films have been visually unremarkable despite the fact that there are considerable visual delights to behold. The camera takes its atmosphere for granted; we never feel the grand awe of the holy, exotic settings nor do we feel the menace of the mysterious and sinister clues. It’s too straight-forward and by-the-numbers. Howard lacks his usual skills for visual creativity (Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind) and heightened dramatic discipline (Cinderella Man, Frost/Nixon).

There’s also little excitement to be found in the film’s leading man. Tom Hanks can be an actor of great nerve and color, yet for the second film in a row, he appears to be phoning-in his Langdon performance. He plays Langdon as a stone-faced drone who recites ancient facts without any feeling in his heart. Remember the zest and glee that was in Harrison Ford’s eyes and smile when his Indiana Jones took on a new adventure? If only Hanks had taken a cue from that. He brings a scarce amount of humor and color to the table. He has little fun with the role and we pretty much have none. The rest of the cast seems to have taken a cue from Hanks’ blandness. Here we see a cast of seasoned pros who’ve been fiery and fascinating in other films reduced to poker-faced talking heads this time out.

Throughout this snooze-fest, the film does hold some thrilling moments. The Illuminati are a rather compelling bunch and their elaborate plan to reveal themselves is as clever as it is wicked. I liked a moment where Langdon tries to rescue a bound-up man from a fountain trap. Plus the film’s climax has a sensational special effects shot that would be at home in a supernatural disaster flick. Other than that, this movie is sinfully sanitized. The Da Vinci Code had most of the same problems, but that film was saved by the utter fascination of its truth-about-Jesus conspiracy plot. By comparison, radicals trying to blow up the Vatican doesn’t entertain as much. Brown’s novels have millions of devoted fans who will find a bottom-line competence within the film that will probably satisfy them. The rest of us will probably be falling asleep. Its movies like this that demonstrate why we should cherish the energetic silliness of the Indiana Jones movies.

A 'Trek' Worth Taking

by Brett Parker

The new Star Trek is possibly the best-looking, best-acted, most compelling, and coolest film in the entire series. It is essentially like watching an episode from the very original 60’s series (the best of the TV incarnations) done to visual perfection. If you want a slam-bam sci-fi action ride, you’ll certainly get your money’s worth. Yet if you’re looking for an emotional experience on par with the original Star Wars, you’ll probably feel shortchanged like I did. The film flies at such warp speed through its plot that it never slows down to develop the peculiar quirks and relationships of the Starship Enterprise Crew. Considering how great the actors are here, and the fascinating depths they suggest, this is considerably disappointing.

The film follows the original crew of the Starship Enterprise from their youthful years at the Starfleet Academy to their maiden voyage in space exploration. We meet the young Jim Kirk (Chris Pine), a cocky hothead who decides to follow in his deceased father’s footsteps by joining the Starfleet. We also meet the young Spock (Zachary Quinto), a Vulcan scientist who struggles with the human emotions inherent in him from his Earthling mother (Winona Ryder). These two mythic figures meet and clash heads at the Academy, for Kirk is off-put by Spock’s logical self-righteousness while Spock dislikes his compulsive arrogance. When the Enterprise is called into action to investigate an intergalactic stress call, Spock uses his influence to ban Kirk from setting foot on the ship. With the help of some sneaky tricks pulled by his neurotic buddy Bones McCoy (Karl Urban), Kirk is able to sneak onto the ship and join in the action.

As the Enterprise crew takes off on their first mission, they encounter Nero (Eric Bana), a pirate-like Romulan who is seeking revenge for the destruction of his home planet. Nero commands a grand and menacing ship that can dig holes into a planet’s core and implode it with a black hole. The crew of the Enterprise summon all of their talents to battle Nero, which includes the swordsmanship of Sulu (John Cho), the resourceful instincts of Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and the technical genius of Scotty (Simon Pegg). Things grow tense and interesting as Kirk and Spock clash over how to battle Nero while an elder version of Spock (Leonard Nimoy) travels back in time to warn Kirk of an altered future.

What is first and foremost impressive about Star Trek, even more so than the special effects, is how wonderfully the cast embodies their mythic roles. Almost every member in the cast stated in pre-release interviews that they wished to honor the original essence of their characters all while adding their own unique touches. They’ve accomplished that mission with excellence. Everything we’ve come to love about Bones, Scotty, and Sulu can be found here wrapped in fresh, likeable performances that make us care greatly about this crew and their adventures. I liked how these supporting characters aren’t merely throwaways decorated around Kirk and Spock but represent a team learning to respect and look out for each other. Almost everyone on the Enterprise gets to do something greatly heroic and we delight in seeing these young space warriors finding their identities.

Eddie Murphy once remarked in Boomerang that Captain Kirk is “the coolest white man ever.” With Chris Pine’s performance here, I can truly believe that. With his cocksure swagger and volcanic intensity, Pine reinvents the legendary space hero on his own terms, making for a character that is cool and charismatic beyond belief. A scene where he flips out on the deck of the Enterprise is so post-modern Shatner that it excites the hell out of us. A true movie star is born here. Also impressive is Zachary Quinto in a thoughtful and unexpected revision of the Spock character. He makes Spock seem more conflicted and emotional than we’ve ever seen him before, making this familiar character unexpectedly unpredictable. Just wait until you see him lose his Vulcan mind on a taunting Kirk. It’s a testament to Quinto that he can stare down Leonard Nimoy playing the same character and still hold his own effectively.

Director J.J. Abrams has constructed Star Trek with the same method he applied to Mission: Impossible 3: take a familiar franchise and pump it up with vibrant action scenes of the highest technical caliber and unexpected character flourishes. The action scenes are indeed awesome, including a free-fall attack on a Romulan space drill and a phaser shoot-out on an enemy spaceship, made especially effective by a post-Bourne shaky-cam style. My only qualm with the film is that the character drama should’ve been given a lot more room to breathe. Abrams stated in interviews that he was never much of a Star Trek fan and wanted to model the new version in a more Star Wars-like vain. Yet his film lacks the patience and character attention George Lucas’ epic demonstrated so well. This is certainly no fault of the cast; so resourceful are their performances that we can feel their inner-depths trying to burst out. If only they had a director who wasn’t afraid to focus intensively on them. Abrams made his name in the television world (with Alias and Lost) and he still has that television creator’s drive to pound out emotions and adventure in a zippy and tight package. He needs to trust the film medium more and not be afraid to develop things more deeply.

Take, for example, the relationship between Kirk and Spock. They start off as bitter rivals, yet we know by film’s end that they will start to become friends. What the film lacks is the dialogue and transition scenes necessary to establish the weight of this shifting relationship. It would’ve been exciting to have Kirk and Spock hold more conversations highlighting their tensions and things they may have in common. Pine and Quinto have effective chemistry, yet their shaky partnership is never challenging or touching in a substantial way. In a small moment where Kirk lets his guard down and surprises Spock with a brotherly pat on the back, we can feel the lost potential between this duo. The villainous Nero also suffers as a result of the film’s pacing. Instead of fleshing out his boiling anguish and rage, the film reduces him to the level of a comic book villain. Eric Bana is as focused and sinister as he can be, yet this underwritten role diminishes Nero’s chances of becoming a tragic new age Darth Vader. And call me crazy, but don’t you think some great relationship humor could’ve emerged from Kirk’s sexual rendezvous with the ultra-sexy Orion, Gaila (Rachel Nichols)?

The film also suppresses a great emotional impact with a time travel subplot. The elder Spock finds himself warped back in time and having to dictate the destiny and future of the main characters to a marooned Kirk. I think this subplot could’ve really elevated the material from skilled pop to surprising human drama. If an older version of your best friend traveled back in time to tell you that you’d one day be a great man who will have great adventures, what big emotions would that evoke in you? The filmmakers could’ve used this idea to give the characters a grand sense of destiny and the mythic figures they will one day become. This story holds the potential to be a meditation on the anxiety and wonderment young people face as they ponder their futures and struggle to do great things with their lives. But our hearts begin to sink as we realize that the time travel plot is simply a neat gimmick for the screenwriters to mess around with the Star Trek mythology to suit their own needs. Indeed, Nimoy’s presence, while delightful and fascinating, feels like a conservative Trekkie is making sure these hot new hipsters honor this traditional sci-fi universe and know how to properly handle themselves in a Star Trek movie. While Abrams promised his film would appeal to both Trekkies and non-Trekkies, we feel this film is titled more towards the former.

I saw this film at a late night screening with my older brother and he loved it. He simply stated, “You know a movie is awesome when you can’t stop thinking about it the next day.” Star Trek had the same effect on me and that is perhaps the highest compliment I could pay the new film. At a time when most sci-fi vehicles feel cheesy and mundane, this franchise reboot really does feel like something special. The production design seduces you with its bright lights and beautiful colors and it’s ultra-hard to resist the charms of the ensemble cast. While it’s not the most dramatic update we could’ve hoped for, it’s still an exciting pop ride that delivers the kind of blockbuster thrills summer movies are all about. As the film’s final scene shows the Enterprise crew preparing the ship for a new voyage, we realize that we’ll boldly go with these kids to where no man has gone before.

'Wolverine': You Wanted the Animal...You Got It!

by Brett Parker

Watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine really made me yearn for the subtle and effective things Bryan Singer did with this franchise. As director of the first two X-Men movies, Singer seemed more focused on character development and the plot’s social implications than the action. The action scenes, to be sure, were truly awesome, but Singer showed a graceful affection for the material that made us care about the mutants in unexpected ways. Singer’s dramatic angles made for exceptional pop art.

Wolverine has strayed far from Singer’s patient and complex vision for the franchise and seems more concerned with being edible action pop. The film doesn’t attempt the epic emotional adventure of the earlier films but seems content with being a slam-bang popcorn ride that action junkies will eat up. There’s an uneasy feeling that the filmmakers care more about pleasing fanboys than a general crowd of smart moviegoers. If it weren’t for some fun action scenes, super-cool mutants, and Hugh Jackman’s movie star presence, this would truly be cinematic junk food.

Jackman once again steps into the popular role of Logan/Wolverine, the Marvel Comics hero who is the bad-ass warrior of the X-Men crew. Wolverine is an indestructible mutant who can’t be killed, thanks to his regenerative healing powers and his steel skeleton. His most noticeable trait is the steel claws that spring out from his knuckles and can cut through damn near anything. Like a true wolf, Wolverine has a dangerous allure strengthened by his gruff manner and hostile temper. Despite his seemingly-sinister traits, Wolverine has a great deal of good in him, sticking to his own code of right and wrong and protecting both mutants and humans from harm’s way.

The film plunges into Wolverine’s past to answer every question you may have ever had about the mutant and how he came to be. He came into existence somewhere in Canada during the 1800s and has a mutant half-brother named Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber) who also has mean claws and animal-like abilities. Since both of these mutants can’t be killed, they decide to become American soldiers and end up fighting in pretty much every single American war (I wonder if they ran into Lt. Dan’s relatives along the way). Noticing their unique abilities, a Government agent named Stryker (Danny Huston) recruits them for a special mutant force in which their superpowers can be used for top secret missions. Eventually, Wolverine grows tired of killing for the government and decides to walk away and retire.

Years pass and Wolverine has taken up the life of a lumberjack in the great American wilderness while shacking up with a sweet-natured schoolteacher (Lynn Collins). Life is simple and happy for our hero, until the day Sabretooth tracks him down and murders his woman out of spite for Wolverine’s abandonment. This gets Logan fired up and thirsty for revenge. Stryker reappears and informs him that Sabretooth may be murdering other mutants and must be stopped. He offers Wolverine a chance to become the ultimate weapon by casing his skeleton in a rare form of metal and becoming unstoppable in his quest to stop Sabretooth. He agrees to go through with this and as he transforms into an indestructible warrior of rage, the plot only gets more complicated from there.

Wolverine is certainly attentive to the elaborate events that have become popular lore within the X-Men comics, yet the film has a hard time ridding the absurdist quality that rides on most comic book concepts. Most comic tales have an absurdity about them, yet great comic book films know how to scan their material for deeper human depths that make these stories feel like they truly matter. Iron Man, for example, wasn’t just an eye-popping action ride centered on a high-tech robot, but also a surprisingly funny and dramatic story of an irresponsible war profiteer who begins to discover a conscience, along with a bruised heart. Wolverine never really ascends to significant heights but seems stalled at the level of lightweight filler. This is curious considering that the director is Gavin Hood, the helmer of brooding and complex dramas such as Tsotsi and Rendition. The evidence on screen makes one wonder how much control Hood actually had over this commercial entertainment. Did the studio and the producers curb him from fully sinking his visionary hooks into this franchise or is this fluff really what Hood wanted to serve up for us? While most talented directors want comic book movies to transcend their pop cheesiness, it’s discomforting to think that a director like Hood wants to revel in it.

It’s disappointing to find Wolverine on a lightweight level, but on that level it works as disposable action fun. Even though the action sequences are heavy in CGI, there’s still some fun thrills to be had. I enjoyed a scene where Wolverine leaps from a motorcycle to slice up a helicopter in flight. There’s a nice early encounter with Cyclops (Tim Pocock) that shows why you should never mess with his sunglasses. Plus most of the action scenes are served by the fact that they contain some of the coolest mutants to ever grace the X-Men universe. Ryan Reynolds uses his trademark wit to make Deadpool a compelling character and it’s wonderful to finally see the awesome Gambit (Taylor Kitsch) find his way to the big screen. With his thick Cajun accent and his deadly manipulation of Poker cards, it’s not hard to see why this roguish charmer is a fan favorite. Kitsch does considerable justice to the character; the only disappointment fans should find with him is that he doesn’t get the amount of screen time he truly deserves.

It’s Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of Wolverine that’s the best thing in this film. Like Christopher Reeve as Superman, Jackman couldn’t embody his superhero’s image more perfectly. I’ve always been impressed by the fact that such a high-spirited Australian gentleman can play this disgruntled Wolf Man so wonderfully. I’ve always thought Jackman would be great as a new age Clint Eastwood; he’s got the squint, the height, and the gruffness down cold. His Wolverine performance this time around only strengthens that conviction. I also found surprising joy in his tough-guy dialogue, which seems to have been written by John Rambo (My favorite line: “You wanted the Animal…you got it!”)

Even though there are countless superheroes more interesting than Wolverine, he rivals Spider-Man as the most popular and legendary character in the Marvel universe. Through the character we can see the typical outsider archetype, that popular Americana kind in which an outlaw figure displays a roguish attitude yet sticks to a strict hero’s code on their own terms. Because we can all feel anger and repression at times, perhaps we find Wolverine most appealing in his ability to turn such rage into an effective way of overcoming his obstacles. By witnessing his releases of rage used for good, perhaps we too find a release for our own anger. We like heroes who know how to take matters into their own hands, even ones who do it with a vengeance.

So does Wolverine do an effective job of illuminating the character’s appeal? For the most part. Is this the best movie that could’ve been made about his origin? Not really. Most importantly, is it worth your money? Let me put it this way, there’s two types of people: those who were furious over X-Men: The Last Stand and those who weren’t. If you find yourself in the latter, you’ll probably enjoy Wolverine.