Open Letters Monthly: Star Trek Into Darkness

It's been four years, millions of dollars and trillions of 3D applications, but we're finally getting our new Star Trek. Star Trek Into Darkness is the continuing story of J.J. Abrams' reboot of the Gene Rodenberry 1960's television show, replacing legends William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. It shouldn't have worked, but thankfully 2009 saw tons of respect thrown towards Trekkies of all ages, and Abrams' vision proved amenable to moviegoers everywhere. Now he's back with BBC's 'Sherlock' as a villain, and the result is everything you would want from the director before he runs off and directs the new Star Wars sequel.

After a mission in which Captain Kirk betrays the sacred Prime Directive to save his friend, he finds himself stripped of his rank, his friendship, and his command of the starship Enterprise. But a second chance makes itself known when the terrorist known as John Harrison attacks Starfleet, igniting an epic manhunt when he flees deep into Klingon territory. Now it's up to Kirk and the Enterprise to capture one man and make him pay for the lives he has taken. But everything is not as it seems, and Kirk may learn that his brash actions have consequences affecting everybody under his command.

Star Trek Into Darkness is directed by J.J. Abrams and stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Benedict Cumberbatch, Karl Urban, Alice Eve, Peter Weller, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, John Cho and Anton Yelchin.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

No Depp, No Pirates

The animated film has really come into its own in recent years. Once an industry dominated by Disney and littered with the refuse of lesser-appealing projects, today the medium looks... remarkably less dominated by Disney. Actually, between DreamWorks Animation, Pixar (okay, it’s owned by Disney, but whatever), Sony Pictures Animation, Studio Gibli and Illumination Entertainment, among others, the world of first-rate film animation is getting much more populated, a boon for the industry. But of all the animation studios out there, only one piques my interest so much to the point that when a new film is released, I make a point of going to see it. Aardman Animation was founded in 1972 as a low-budget animation studio, but most fans know it best for its trilogy of stop-motion films featuring Wallace & Gromit, the absent-minded inventor and his silent canine companion that were released between 1989 and 1995. The series won two Oscars for Best Short Film, and 2005 sequel The Curse of the Were Rabbit was the studio’s first to win the Best Animated Film award at the 78’th Academy Awards. I still have fond memories of seeing The Wrong Trousers on PBS as a child and laughing at the antics of those two characters. Suffice it to say, I’ve generally liked Aardman’s contributions to the medium, whether it be 2000’s Chicken Run or 2011’s Arthur Christmas. The company has managed to combine a solid mix of physical humor with a dry wit, and with the film’s signature animated style, I was more than ready to take in their latest effort, whatever that may be.

You might not be able to afford a better crew... but hope springs eternal.

As it turns out, that film is The Pirates: Band of Misfits. Hugh Grant makes his animated film debut as simply-named Pirate Captain, leader of a band of amateur pirates trying to prove their worth. To that end, the Pirate Captain enters the Pirate of the Year contest, which he has failed to win in over twenty years of competing. The fact is that he is not much of a plunderer, and his repeated failures have caused weariness to settle in. When his crew captures research ship The Beagle, with a young Charles Darwin (David Tennant) aboard, a startling discovery sends the crew to England, and untold riches may turn the race for Pirate of the Year in the Captain‘s favor. Still, he and his crew must avoid the eye of the dread Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) and her sheer hatred of pirates; but if all goes well, the crew will be back in the Caribbean, celebrating their victory before anyone knows any better.

Yup, I'm just going to hang out with David Tennant now. Don't wait up.

Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to love Band of Misfits, I can’t help but be disappointed for two reasons. The first was the humor. Sure, the occasional witty line of dialogue is rapier sharp. Sure, the characters are largely designed to be fun to watch in action. So why isn’t this thing funnier? Well, the film really skimps on the physical humor that usually is a trademark of Aardman releases. Many of the potentially hilarious bits are hampered by the fact that they are thrown into an opening montage that doesn’t flow as well as the filmmakers thought it would. Directors Peter Lord (who hasn’t directed a film since 2000’s Chicken Run) and Jeff Newitt were obviously unsure as to what they were prepared to do, as many of their smarter ideas ended up not meaning much. For instance, Ashley Jensen plays a woman who poses as a man to serve as a pirate, complete with ridiculously fake beard. What do they do with that? Nothing. Nothing matters but the main story, and even that wasn’t as well played as the directors intended.

Don't make Queen Victoria angry... you wouldn't like her when she's angry...

Secondly, why do I get the impression that most of the film’s best ideas were stolen from similarly pirate-themed entertainment? While obviously parts were inspired by the extremely popular Pirates of the Caribbean series, I can’t help but see comparisons between Band of Misfits and the Monkey Island video game series. As I’ve expressed here in 2010 and in my Open Letters piece on the subject, I absolutely love the bawdy humor, clever storytelling, and compelling characters of the classic Lucasarts game series. So when I see a clear copycat trying to do many of the same things (and using many of the same ideas), I can’t help but feel as though I’ve been cheated somehow. Granted, this film does have some unique concepts all its own (the Pirate of the Year Award is an excellent idea, making one wonder why Ron Gilbert didn’t think of it), and pirate lore don’t exactly have a whole lot of different tales going for it. Still, I can’t be told that there’s a comically inept pirate convinced of his own superiority in popular entertainment and not think first and immediately of Guybrush Threepwood.

Occasionally there are other characters. RARELY occasionally.

The voice acting at least does its job well, though few of the actors present really do anything to distinguish themselves. Grant, who hasn’t really been relevant since the early 2000’s, proves there is still a career at 52 years of age, and his charming personality is narrowed only by the character’s limitations, and not his own. Tennant is also great, though I bet you likely wouldn’t have recognized him unless I’d told you it was him beforehand. Imelda Staunton is underused, but uses her short time wisely and to great effect. You might recognize some of the others, but Jensen, Anton Yelchin, Martin Freeman and Brendan Gleeson are sadly underutilized as the Pirate Captain’s crew, while Jeremy Piven and Salma Hayek make the most of what they can as his rivals.

Hoping there's a bottle of rum on the other side!

Though a silent monkey does end up providing most of the film’s best moments (and naturally not appearing until the film’s halfway mark), there was simply not enough to like about The Pirates: Band of Misfits. Sometimes when a foreign film fails in America, it’s because they present too much for the normal American film-goer to take in, or is too far removed from the average viewer’s comfort zone. Pirates has the opposite problem, and while it’s still a decent film that you can watch with your kids, it’s certainly not up to the high standards that Aardman has set over the years. There’s still a new Nick Park film on the horizon (Park created Wallace & Gromit), so there’s still hope for the future. As it is, Pirates won’t tickle your funny bone, and for that reason alone you can simply walk away.

Drive Me Crazy

With really nothing else in theaters to really capture my interest at the moment (at least until The Muppets comes out this week), I decided to take the time to see a small critically-acclaimed title that had been on many "must-see" lists earlier this Fall. However, there were a couple of reasons I wasn't entirely convinced that Like Crazy would be worth my time or money. For one, star Anton Yelchin hadn't proved to me that he could carry a major motion picture. Sure, he was fine in his limited role on the Star Trek reboot, but he was very weak compared to his co-stars in Terminator: Salvation and a leading role in this year's remake of Fright Night was almost enough to discredit his whole career to that point (I believe my damning words called him "a poor man's Shia Lebeouf"). The other reason I wasn't wholly into seeing this title was, well, I really didn't know if I wanted to see a depressing film about love and relationships. If this had been some blockbuster Hollywood release, you know that the two lovebirds would have had only minimal conflict between one another on the way to a guaranteed happy ending. Like Crazy however is an indie romance, almost certainly portending that the relationship between them will be the most excruciating hour and a half spent in the movies this year. It wasn't a situation I relished throwing myself into, and only a complete lack of alternatives (not to mention strong word of mouth) led me to begrudgingly enter the theater and take this release in before future films could shove it to the wayside.

Please, let there not be a crappy "sand" love speech coming on...

Like Crazy tells the story of the romantic relationship between Jacob (Yelchin), a design student, and Anna (Felicity Jones), a British exchange student, as they meet and fall in love in college in Jacob's home town of Los Angeles. Unable to be apart after graduating school, Anna decides to ignore the expiration of her student visa to spend the summer with Jacob, which eventually leads to her being deported to her native United Kingdom. Finding themselves in a difficult long distance relationship, the two can only see one another occasionally and when they do, their increasingly separate lives (which includes trying to see other people) make them feel as if the hundreds of miles of distance is between them even when they stand mere inches apart.

She won't be happy much longer

Not content to tell a simple story, Like Crazy tells the entirety of Jacob and Anna's relationship from beginning to end, and then beginning to end ad infinatum. This is no monochromatic love tale, as several levels of emotion are delved into, with love itself being just the most common. Jealousy, regret, fear and frustration all rear their ugly heads, and rarely is there a happy moment once the two are initially torn apart. It's in the conveyance of these feelings where Like Crazy really does shine, as the highs and lows between these lovers are intricately felt by the audience thanks to the fact that they are rendered in so realistic a manner. We really feel for Jacob and Anna as they move from conflict to conflict, whether it be with each other or the ban keeping them apart.

Wearing the guy's shirt... does that really happen? Ever?

If the film suffers from any real problems, it's the narrative flow of the story, which often makes great leaps between scenes, as obviously a great amount of time has passed without any explanation given as to what has transpired in the meantime. For instance, when Jacob is shown to having developed a new relationship with his co-worker Samantha (Jennifer Lawrence), it isn't readily apparent that Anna even knows that this is happening. This storytelling method creates a few conflicting scenarios where we feel angry at a character's apparent actions, only to discover that we had read the situation incorrectly in the first place. This could have been corrected by young director Drake Doremus, but since the young filmmaker was apparently too busy creating a realistic romantic setting, he can be forgiven for not immediately telling us every single detail. In fact, a lot of what is so charming about this film is what is left out, many scenes hiding what is said between Jacob and Anna like so many whispers from Bob Harris to be heard only by Charlotte. By not making us absorb every little detail, we can focus on the major themes set forth.

Well, maybe she can be a LITTLE happy...

The acting is of a higher caliber than I originally imagined, as well. Playing completely normal people, Yelchin and Jones are both endearing and admirable, with Jones especially mastering that inner turmoil that comes with her particularly darker moments. She plays happy too, and there doesn't seem to be anything that she can't do well. This comes as somewhat of a shock after I was sure she had bombed out from appearing in Julie Taymor's miserable 2010 version of The Tempest. Apparently she's learned to emote after all, and the result is one of the strongest performances by a woman I've seen in 2011. Yelchin is still a little dry, but he also puts his best foot forward, playing well opposite both Jones and Lawrence. I'm sure working with such talent helped him immensely, and I was happy to see him churn out a good performance for a change. Lawrence actually excels in a small role, no small feat after putting up what I thought was a substandard act in one of this year's better titles, X-Men First Class. Playing the "other woman", seeing Samantha caught in the middle of Jacob and Anna's unrequited affections is quite painful, made stronger by Lawrence's disarmingly subtle performance.

No, I said cue sadness, dammit!

I wasn't expecting it, but in one fell (and relatively short) swoop, I became witness to one of the great romances of 2011. Granted, it WAS depressing as all hell, and by the end we're not sure where the relationship between Jacob and Anna will go. Still, I was pleasantly surprised to NOT be a twitching pile of neuroses when the whole thing was well and done, and I can easily recommend this to any who would love to take in a modern romance that isn't ineptly put together by cliches anonymous. It may not be in the year's Top 10, but it's still a great film that young couples can hold as their own and older audiences can nostalgically admire from afar.

Twilight, Meet Fright Night

Wow, I can't believe how much is out that I need to catch up on. Okay, NEED is a strong word. This past weekend marked the release of two titles that may play major roles in setting up the 2011 award season, the old-school biological scare film Contagion and the Fighter-meets-Rocky-meets-Mixed Martial Arts slow burn Warrior. Two other titles, Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star and Creature, were also released, but will only be seen by me ironically if at all. That being said I've yet to watch any of them. These last few weeks have had me see fewer movies than usual, and as such I'm still catching up on films released in the past few weeks. It's getting to the point where Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, Apollo 18 and Shark Night might end up as eventual DVD releases after I'd expected to see them in theaters. But while newer titles beckon, I've still got time for a little catching up, and Fright Night was the best (or at least best timed) option on the table. A remake of the 1985 vampire film starring William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowall, Fright Night looked to perhaps be the weakest of 2011's wide-release horror titles. Looking too campy, too silly, and too repetitive to live (not to mention pointlessly made in 3D), I didn't expect much from this title except for perhaps strong acting performances from the renowned Colin Farrell, David "Dr. Who" Tenant and Toni Collette.

Hey, look! Mr. Anderson is paying attention to us!

When people start disappearing from the insular neighborhoods outside Las Vegas, most people don't pay any attention. After all, nobody stays in Vegas, with the exception of Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) and his mother, real estate agent Jane (Collette). Charley's life is going pretty well these days. A former geek, Charley has grown into one of the :"cool kids", having abandoned his old life and entered into a new one, including a relationship with formerly untouchable hottie Amy (Imogen Poots). Soon, Charley is approached by his old friend "Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and told to his disbelief that his new neighbor Jerry (Farrell) is in fact a vampire, feeding on the people coming and going from the neighborhood. While Charley doesn't at first believe this (and seriously, would you?), events occur which shake his resolve and force him to believe the unbelievable. And when Jerry's reign of terror hits home, Charley finds himself battling a creature with centuries of experience in survival on his side.

Jerry? What an AWFUL name for a vampire!

Let's get this out of the way right now: 3D is the most overrated technology introduced to film in the past decade. I know I must sound like a broken record by this point, but seriously? Every film seems to want to be in 3D, thinking that it's what people want. It's not. It never was. People wanted more films like Avatar to be in 3D, sure. With the outstanding visuals presented in that 2009 Oscar contender, that makes sense. There have even been a few films that have successfully used 3D as a vehicle for improving the overall quality of their product. Those films have been very few, however, as most titles simply do not need 3D to be "better". Horror is possibly the last genre that can use the technology, and for Fright Night, that is no exception. While some horror films can use 3D to at least some effect (Final Destination 5, for example), in Fright Night it is completely without use, as even the film's few action scenes don't make great use of the imagery. Only the occasional rays of sunlight are remotely impressive, and while that is likely intentional, it's not worth the added cost of admission.

Awkward moment will end with much blood

But once you get past the silliness of parading this title in 3D, Fright Night actually surprises with a clever story, interesting characters, and dark humor that raises the occasional smile. The biggest reasons are among those that brought me to the theater in the first place, Colin Farrell and David Tenant. Farrell's suburban vampire is effectively both scary and amusing. It's as if Farrell took inspiration from Ghostbusters's demon-infested Louis Tully and made him the straight man, as Jerry appears at times torn between his human-like and animalistic sides. Tenant, meanwhile, is at first unrecognizable as a Chris Angel-like "vampire expert", who is really a television performer who specializes in the undead. Tenant is at times hilarious and never worse than plain funny, stealing each and every scene. I know a young couple for whom Tenant is the only reason to see this title, and I can safely say that they will not be disappointed. Unfortunately, the final piece of my talent trifecta, Collette, is underused and unappreciated. I know that as Charley's mom she's just a secondary character, but since I know she has the talent to be better than that I still feel she was not given enough to work with.

The best part of Fright Night, hands down

As for the younger actors, they have their moments, but pale in comparison to the adults, which is a shame since they turn out to have more to do with the story. Imogen Poots is the best of the bunch, hands down. I loved her small role in last year's Centurion, and while the girlfriend/victim role she plays isn't quite as satisfying here, she is good enough to overcome the character's limited range. The same cannot be said for Yelchin, who seems to prove himself more a poor man's Shia LaBeouf with each successive films appearance. And since LaBeouf is already a poor man's Charlie Sheen, that's not much credit given. I'm still hopeful for his upcoming Like Crazy, but only because it's supposed to be amazing and not because he's in it. Christopher Mintz-Plasse has only a minor part, but he like Tenant has the ability to steal multiple scenes, not bad for a young man nobody heard of five years ago.

...Aaaand the cross is on fire. Good going there, Van Helsing

The film covers more than a few vampire retreads, but for a completely unoriginal film Fright Night is a lot better than it has any right being. Sure, the ending is a bit sudden, but between the good acting and decent pacing, there's an enjoyable film in there. I might not recommend it for the theater, but it'll be a must-see on DVD, which thankfully will have the option to turn off the groan-inducing 3D for your home viewing pleasure. Certainly not a bad film from director Craig Gillespie, whose previous effort Lars and the Real Girl probably stands much higher (I never saw it), but it's obvious he's still in his formative years creatively, as the future shows us the film adaptation of teen horror parody Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, but no potential Oscar favorites. Still, we can still be entertained by Fright Night, and put it on our sleeper lists for a fun night out this month.