A Brunch Review: Star Trek: Into Darkness

Star Trek: Into Darkness

Directed by JJ Abrams

Starring 

Chris Pine...Kirk

Zoe Zaldana...Uhura

Zachary Quinto...Spock

Karl Urban...Bones

Simon Pegg.... Scotty

John Cho...Sulu

Benedict Cumberbacht...Khan

Only the second installment in JJ Abrams' Star Trek reboot and this cast and crew already feel a bit like home. The actors seem relaxed in their roles, the pressure of filling shoes now completely off. Abrams has brought together a group with a lot of chemistry, that can convey a great deal of character at a break-neck (almost Marvel-esque) story telling pace. 

Beyond that, I am not sure what more I can say about the film. Abrams' Trek films are not overly deep. As fast paced as they are, that would be difficult. They are beautiful to look at (I like the lens flare).  They are fun.  They are filled with utterly likable, even  interesting characters (even the villains are people you want more of) engaged in daring do. There are fast ships, running from danger, running into danger,  fascinating (looking) alien worlds. Things blow up. Oh and did I mention that those ships are gorgeous? The story, thin though it is, sufficiently supports the attendant action and implied espionage. There will be some people who demand more than a popcorn movie of their Trek films.  Not me. I don't mind a popcorn film. 

I suppose I could say that Abrams brings an ensemble approach to Trek that I feel has been particularly lacking in other big screen Trek outings. A TV series has time to flesh out its cast, to explore different characters, strange new worlds you could say, that movies often don't have.  Abrams tries to give his cast a lot more to do. Uhura is no longer just relegated to repeating the stuff we just read in the sub-titles to the Captain and Spock.  Scotty and Sulu save the day more than once. That isn't to say that the holy trinity of Kirk, Spock and Bones is diminished. It isn't.  Abrams and his writers just have more for the other characters to do. 

If I have complaints, and I suppose I do, they are these.

1. Khan probably isn't sufficiently explored.  Benedict Cumberbacht, the actor, is easily a match for the suave Ricardo Montalban (though perhaps not in the pecs department-see below).  He is more athletic  to be sure. But his Khan definitely feels a bit more hollow. Sure he has the better fight scenes and the bigger budget but its hard to really feel his anger and resentment. Montalban just oozed rage. Controlled to be sure, hemmed in by a fiery intellect, but, clearly, the man had issues. It seems like Abrams and his screenwriters might have found some of Khan's history fertile narrative ground and given a great actor more to do than spout heavy sounding one-liners. Alas, no. Khan is a cerebral guy, he shouldn't just chew through the scenery. Minus one point.

2. [Spoilers] There is a silly, stupid argument between Uhura, Spock and Kirk the subject of which is the relationship woes of Spock and Uhura. Uhura is annoyed because of Spock's seeming willingness to sacrifice himself for rules and ideals with an almost mathematical coldness, as if the people he will leave behind aren't even a variable in his emotional calculus. She may have a good point. Its not that this scene didn't have a place in the movie, its just that these characters are all too bright, and professional to have that argument at the absolute worst possible moment in the history of ever. Seriously.  Minus one point.

If you like Star Trek go see this movie. 8/10 (or, if you prefer, a fairly enthusiastic thumbs up).

A Brunch Movie Review: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Parts 1 and 2.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
A very brief history

Just marvel at that cover for a moment if you will.
The year was 1984. Frank Miller had not gone crazy (though to be honest, there were probably hints even back then) and he was at the height of his powers.  Every book he touched, Klaus Janson's precise inks brought the Millers pencils depth. DC execs asked Miller if he would like to do a Batman story.  He could do what ever he wanted.  That is the short version.  It probably doesn't matter.  What does matter is that Frank Miller produced an industry changing four issue mini-series that was not only one of the best Batman stories ever told but, as Stephen King said, "one of the finest pieces of art ever published in a popular format."

The original work itself probably deserves a considered review of its own here at Brunch.  Until then though, what you need to know about what Miller did with The Dark Knight Returns was cause comic books to grow up. It was a process that had been happening in fits and starts all over the industry (probably beginning with Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the crew at Marvel 30 years earlier). Miller demonstrated, in a profound way, that comic books, even comic books about larger than life super-heroes could be made compelling, that they could say things important about human nature, about politics, and just about the heroes themselves. He helped to make comic books hard to ignore as a creative force.  I don't want to overstate the matter, but after The Dark Knight Returns, and perhaps Alan Moore's Watchmen, comic books became literature. Comic books became the best kind of mythology. In The Dark Knight Returns, Frank Miller creates the end of the Batman myth, while at the same time explaining the character in a visceral way. He gave us a Batman in old age, who cannot resist his, costly, obsessions. Miller also gave us the coolest Robin ever.

It was only a matter of time before the ambitious DC Animated Studios tried to tackle The Dark Knight Returns. They have hinted at it ever since Batman: The Animated Series. One has to admire them for trying to adapt Miller's material. Not difficult because the material is excessively hard to adapt, Miller more than most comic book writers of his era wrote and structured his panels as if he was producing storyboards. He was ever the most cinematic of comic book writers. The difficulty lies in the length, and its iconic status.  Adapting long and beloved works to the big or small screen is a difficult task judging by the low success rate of the endeavor.  Did DC Animated succeed? Told in two parts, they tried, they really tried.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 (clicking the title there will take you to the IMDB page for cast details etc)

Synopsis
Obsession is a Cruel Master

Without including spoilers, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part One, introduces us to a Bruce Wayne much different than what we are used to.  To start, he is much older.  In many ways he has become the playboy he only pretended to be as a young man.  No longer does he spend his nights beating criminals, preventing/solving crimes, and hunting for justice. He has retired.  And he isn't alone.  It seems like all the heroes have hung up their spandex and kevlar. Batman hasn't been seen in Gotham in ten years.  Sociologists, talking heads, pundits debate the morality of his actions on TV on the anniversary of his last sighting. Some people doubt that he even existed.

Crime in Gotham is at an all time high. There is a new gang, calling themselves the Mutants, terrorizing the city.  Also, Harvey Dent,  apparently healed (inside and out), by humanitarian psychiatrists and plastic surgeons is released from Arkham Asylum. It is into this turbulent mix that Bruce Wayne finds he can no longer stave off his internal demons, and almost as if he has no choice in the matter, The Batman returns to Gotham.

Choosing the right material to adapt is only the first part of the battle.  The Dark Knight Returns is the right material.  But after that comes the task of actually adapting (creating a script), casting and producing it.

Starting with the last point first, production is typically sharp.  DC Animated is an established company, with an army of animators, methods and infrastructure. The movie looks crisp.  The action is amazing, and well choreographed. Even though Batman operates at night, the movie manages to make the action set pieces and the fights, logical (within the closed frame of reference that is the superhero movie). Only a very good animated movie can make you wince. Batman the fighter should certainly make you wince.  Part One brings the fright and the crunch to Batman that is necessary to establish why he is so intimidating to the Gotham underworld.  Even at fifty, the Batman is a force with which to be reckoned. This is to be expected, after all he is a ninja, built like a linebacker with gadgets that would make James Bond jealous. Also to be expected is the production excellence.

But the awesomeness of any movie isn't built on fisticuffs alone, unless that movie is Ong Bak 2. Nor is it built on production value. The quality of the storytelling is also crucial.  The Dark Knight Returns falters a little to a lot here.  The editing is uneven, and the pace, often, too slow.

For me, a person who has read the source material dozens of times over the years, the worst problem was the adaptation.  This came as a shock, because the team at DC Animated has actually done a splendid job of adapting material elsewhere.  Their work on Justice League: New Frontier was brilliant. So to, was their work on Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, Superman: Doomsday, and Superman/Batman: Apocalypse to name just a few.  On this outing though they have produced maybe their worst adaptation of a previously published work to date. Its probably true this will only rankle if the viewer is sufficiently acquainted with Miller's masterwork. If the viewer isn't that familiar with the source material, this version of the sstory will probably seem quite good.  However, the adaptive work just seems lazy to me. The writers, just ignored, or didn't properly know what to do with, too much of Miller's Dark Knight. The team at DC Animated, ignored almost completely Miller's text boxes, and by ignoring these, the film loses much of the depth of the original work. Text boxes in comic book can serve many narrative purposes. Miller used them as a way to explore the events of the story from the point of view of each into each of the key characters in The Dark Knight Returns. In Miller's hands these text boxes allow us to view the events of the story from the perspectives of all the key players in the story.  We are also privy to a series of unspoken conversations between key characters (notably between Clark and Bruce, and as well as the Joker and The Batman).  I would imagine, though I haven't measured them, that these text boxes wouldn't take up a printed page, but neglecting them bleeds away much of the character, conflict and drama. It was through these narrative devices that we learn what the characters think of each other.  They are shrewd observers, and while they may not understand themselves perfectly, they do understand each other.  It would have been nice to have used this content more effectively.

For reasons I don't understand the writers opted to change key dialogue, or omit certain conversations all together.  Again, this will probably only rankle people well acquainted with Miller's work. Still, it sheds depth, and spares viewers some pointed questions we might ask of our hero.

The voice acting, especially in the lead, Peter Weller voices the Bat,  is often very, very flat throughout.  Peter Weller, on paper anyway, seemed like an ideal choice.  His voice has a deep quality that, in another actor, might have lent gravitas to the aged Batman. Generally though he seems like he is just reading the lines and maybe a little bored. Rarely does he inflect, or emote,  change tone, or any of the things you might expect a human being to do while speaking in a wide array of fraught circumstances. As you watch, it becomes clear why Weller's best performance remains that of a cyborg. In Part One, Weller is largely the only person guilty of playing it monotone.  This doesn't hurt the Part One nearly as much as it hurts Part Two, but it does hurt. The rest of the cast takes their work more seriously.  To be fair, Weller may also take it seriously, he may just be incapable of playing any role differently. 

Overall Batman: The Dark Knight Returns: Part One works as a film.  I can't recommend it as highly as I can some of the other DC Animated films mentioned above but I can certainly recommend it.  The animation is very good, and imitates the book well enough.  The action is well plotted and the fights make sense.  8/10 Stars

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part Two 

Synopsis
Triumph defeats the Batman

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part Two is story told in two parts.  The first describes another long delayed return to Gotham. The second half is the denouement of the Batman.  With the return of Batman, Gotham's twenty four hour news cycle is abuzz with tales about the Dark Knight. An assortment of talking heads weigh the pros and cons of a brutal vigilante dispensing justice without due process. Opinions, as you might imagine, vary. Gotham's pundits and anchormen and women were some of Miller's most brilliant and trenchant creations, and it is good to see that they are preserved and faithfully rendered on the small screen. From the famed Arkham Asylum the Joker, upon seeing the news of Batman's return, emerges from several years in a docile catatonic state. He hasn't returned to turn over a new leaf. The first half of the film deals with the terror of Joker's return, and the Batman's pursuit, and attempt to end the threat of the Joker once and for all. Wending its way through this half of the The Dark Knight Returns is a second tale.  The Batman is simply too big an entity to escape political fallout. He is in violation of a murky agreement with the US government and superheroes to hang it up.  Retire. Something, the President of the United States confides to Clark Kent, will have to be done.  And that something will have to be done by Superman (the only superhero who is permitted to work by the US government).

Strangely, there is an obvious legal, and moral case to be made against the Batman in The Dark Knight Returns. The Batman is a vigilante, operating outside the law, with no chain of command, no due process.  If he were just a detective, a consultant, ala Sherlock Holmes, this probably wouldn't be a problem. But he isn't, he is at war, and while he doesn't kill people, he isn't above crippling people for life, or brutally beating them to acquire information, or simply to inflict fear. This is not the rationale used in The Dark Knight Returns (either in the movie version or in the comic book).  Miller was trying to make a political and moral point himself.  That however was a point for the 1980s, and a very specific cultural milieu.  The film fails to make Miller's point about apathy and cowardice, and fails to insert the rationalization above. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Every problem from the first half of The Dark Knight Returns is magnified in Part Two. The adaptation of Miller's last two issues seems lazier. The screen writers have left out more material from the comic book.  They have also altered several key scenes for reasons quite beyond me (largely by altering dialogue and/or excluding dialogue).  The writers didn't save time by cutting a scene, they simply altered the scene. Opting for a shallower approach to the story.  Of course these changes meant later character development would have to be scrapped. Though not in any way that would reduce running time. This meant that Miller's elucidation of the dark psychologies at work in the in Gotham would never make it to the screen. That is something of a minor tragedy.  The genius of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, for me anyway, wasn't in the dystopian Gotham (Gotham has always been a place where the social contract is radically broken).  Rather what makes Miller's work stand out from much of the dark themed Batman comics that would follow in his wake, was the deep and plausible insight he had into the mind of not just Batman, but everyone in Batman's universe. These insights into the characters are priceless and serve to make these larger than life characters seem like people we could almost understand. All this psychological depth is lost, leaving only the skeleton of the story, and the film reduces to an exercise in punching and kicking and action.  In another film, there would be nothing wrong with that.

The flatness of the voice acting is much worse in Part Two. Peter Weller continues to eschew emotion, or changing the volume his voice. As bad as Weller is voicing the Batman, Michael Emerson's turn in the Joker will have you crying out for Cesar Romero. It is one of the worst voice acting jobs I've ever heard. Flat, soft, lacking the joy of an amoral anarchist. Emerson gives the Joker a timid voice. The Joker may be many things, but timid isn't one of them. Mark Valley's Superman? Flat, flat, flat, flat. His Clark was pretty nice actually. But no actor in the movie seems to understand that the tone of a human voice changes over the course of the day, and in response to various stimuli. Part Two almost seems like everyone is talking over a picnic table about nothing interesting at all.

There is a lot more I could say about these films but I think you get the point.  They have deeply disappointed me. Part Two more than Part One.  How could it not though.  They started with a flawed script and the hired actors apparently didn''t care. 6/10 Stars.

Addendum: 
(Potential spoilers lie in wait below)

I feel like I should give an example of how Miller's unspoken conversations between characters, through text boxes and other comic book story telling devices to add depth and insight into the characters. I would like to juxtapose this with the way the film chose to ignore this potential avenue.

Early in issue 3, Batman and Robin are nearly killed in an explosion (a trap laid by the ever resourceful Joker). While the dynamic duo may have escaped the apartment building unharmed, the same cannot be said for many of its tenants.
Panel: Batman and Robin diving away from a firey explosion, a swirl of yellow and black capes.
Text box: I'll send Robin home
Text box: I'll help the emergency teams as best I can.
Panel: Close up: Batman and Carrie (her Robin mask gone) faces red from the light of the flames observe the carnage. Carrie is horrified, eyes wide with shock.
Text box: I'll count the dead, one by one.
Text box: I'll add them to the list, Joker.
Text box: ...the list of all the people I've murdered--
Panel: close up, batman's right eye
Text box: --by letting you live.

Shortly after this, Joker's therapist, impressed with both his own "success" with the Joker, and the Joker's need to have his side of the story told, arranges an appearance for them both on a talk show. While Dr Bartholomew Wolper may not see it, this is one episode of "The Dave Endocrine Show" (clearly David Letterman) that cannot possibly end well.

Like the real David Letterman, David Endocrine is capable of asking a pointed question or two.
"You're said to have killed about six hundred people Joker. Now don't take this the wrong way, but I think you've been holding out on us."

The Joker's therapist is immediately hurled into paroxysms. The Joker is not bothered, and almost seems to welcome the question.
"I don't keep count." He blows out smoke from a cigarette, and continues, "I'm going to kill everyone in this room."

"Now that's darn rude." Dave was ever a fan of understatement.

The Joker tolerates a brief, and goofy conversation between his doctor and Dave's other guest Dr. Ruth Westheimer before doing exactly what he says he was going to do.

Cut to the close of the issue:
Panel: Joker and his henchman passing out cotton candy to a troop of cub scouts at the Gotham Fair
Text Box: The could put me in a helicopter and fly me up into the air and line the bodies head to toe on the ground in delightful geometric patterns like and endless June Taylor dancers routine
Text box:....and it would never be enough.
Text box: No, I don't keep count
Text box: --but you do.
Text box: And I love you for it.

This kind of thing would not, I don't think, have been too terribly difficult to have added to DC Animated's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.  The film has almost all these scenes, but almost none of the dialogue from the text boxes at all. On top of this the screen writers crafted fairly weak dialogue to fill the same space. Why the trade? I'm not sure.

A Brunch Movie Review: Batman: Year One Plus a bonus review

Batman: Year One
A film by DC Animated Studios

Starring
Bryan Cranston....Jim Gordon
Ben McKenzie.....Bruce Wayne/Batman
Eliza Dushku.....Selina Kyle/Catwoman
Complete Cast list here

A synopsis:
Batman: Year One tells the story of two men who collide with Gotham, and each other. One of them stands outside the law, one of them is an officer of that law. In the city, and its people they both find purpose, and through them the people of the city find their courage to stand up. There is also a cat-burglar. I see you nodding out there, but trust me, you don't really know the story, you only think you do....

It would not be hyperbole to say that DC Animated Studios film, Batman: Year One is a perfect adaptation of a perfect Batman story written by the once great Frank Miller. Miller penned perhaps the two greatest Batman stories every told (debate rages to this day).  The story of Miller and Batman would take us too far a field, but after penning the omega of the Batman character arc in the ground breaking, industry changing The Dark Knight Returns, Miller was offered a chance to write a Batman origin story, an update on themes and events that hadn't really been tackled since Bob Kane imagined them three quarters of a century ago.  Miller along with the gifted David Muzzacchelli, and inker Richmond Lewis, redefined the core figures that lie at the heart of the Batman mythos (with the exception of the Joker). That it did this this in four issues of economic, taut, noir story telling is a testament to the efforts of that team of artists and the writing an undeniable example of how great Miller really was. For good or for ill, every Batman writer, including Christopher Nolan, lives in the shadow the Miller of 1986 (TDKR) and 1987 (BYO).

In adapting this work, DC Animated set for themselves a tall order.  Bringing, perhaps, the most beloved Batman story every told, and arguably the best, to the screen in a way satisfying to both fans of the original work, and people with no experience of the original must have seemed daunting for an animated feature.  Its a complex story and animation is hard work, and cutting corners, simplifying character designs, and effects are all ways in which animators cut cost, reduce labor and turn out products on time. Luckily the folks at DC are serious about their feature length animated projects and opted not to use any of the tricks of the weekly animated trade.

While all animation must, in some ways, simplify the design of any character, or place (the nature of having to have numerous illustrators draw the same characters, with some speed) the look and feel of Batman: Year One very closely matches quite closely the art and designs, lighting and color of Muzzacchelli and Lewis. Gotham is the color of Tammany Hall, and its architecture the texture of old crime shows from the late 1960s and early 1970s. Gotham is not a clean city, the social contract is completely broken.  It is city of survivors, and victims, of the powerful and the powerless. It is a place of almost, but not quite, brazen corrumption.  DC Animated really captures the scope of Gotham as imagined by Miller. Without this context its hard to imagine that twin stories that unfold could be believable. This is Batman as believable as it gets, Batman by way of realism.

More than Marvel Animation Studios (also a great house by the way) DC Animated tries to get A or B list vocal talent for their features.  Batman: Year One may be their most successful marriage of vocal talent to date.  Bryan Cranston's vision of the young disillusioned Lt Jim Gordon is nothing short of brilliant. What is Gordon to do in a department where corruption is the norm than the anomaly?  He is a good cop, but also a cop who works too much and never sees his pregnant wife. Being a cop with integrity is dangerous in a city like Gotham. It is especially dangerous for the loved ones of such a person. Cranston manages to bring every bit of that confusion, of those temptations to his performance of James Gordon. The greatness of Batman: Year One lies, in no small part, to this exploration of Gordon and his humanity.  He isn't just a guy who picks up a red phone and calls the Batman.  He is a flesh and blood human being who hates the thought of shooting someone.

What of Bruce Wayne? He is a man in search of a method. He has all the tools, the education and the resources. He has no idea how to apply them.  Batman: Year One explores how Bruce did it and explains how he came to use his fears to scare his enemies. It is the story of how he came to know the city of Gotham.  He might have been from Gotham, but it didn't raise him. During this year, he meets the key figures that will come to define his future, his failures (Harvey Dent) his love (Selina Kyle) and of course, his partner in reformation, Jim Gordon. As the tag line from the first issue said of Wayne's journey toward becoming the greatest detective, "It won't be easy."

Having a great voice cast is more or less useless if you haven't got the script to utilize that talent well.  The writers have managed to pull so much from the source material that the film seems vastly deeper than the typical DC animated film.  They managed to import so much of the inner monologues of Gordon and Wayne (described by Miller's text boxes-these are not thought balloons, or dialogue balloons, but rectangles in a portion of a comic book panel where narration of some kind occurs).  These elements of character narration are crucial to both of Miller's great Batman stories. Including as much of them as possible in this film was integral to preserving the depth of Miller's characters. Without them, the film would have fallen incredibly flat. Like the muscular prose of Dashiell Hammett, part of the punch and the pace of noir/hard-boiled literature is the dialogue, but it is also the first person narration.

In all the crucial ways, and even some of the none crucial ways, the team at DC Animated have captured the look, feel and depth of the source material. If you like Batman see it. If you liked Miller's book, give it a shot.  If you like hard boiled fiction give it a shot.  Give it a shot even if you aren't that into animated films (and definitely read the original work).

The Brunch Verdict: 10/10  (that is high praise by the way)

Bonus review: Catwoman an animated short film

This was a bonus feature on the Batman: Year One disc.
1. It is glorious to look at. Excellent animation.  Fluid. Just freakin' gorgeous.
2. Catwoman is very hot.  Too hot, I mean on a stripper pole hot.  DC animated, breasts cannot stay in an outfit like that when you add all that activity.  Maybe that is her unknown super power, magical no nip-slip. Before you pull that DC animated, put a parental warning on it.  It was a bit odd to watch with my daughter.
3. Come on DC animated, Catwoman has no powers. She can't do much of what you had her do. Dopes. Do you know what happens when she falls off of a car moving 50 or 60 miles per hour? The same thing that happens to me, best characterized by the phrase, "HOLY FUCKING SHIT, I'M ALL DEAD."
The Brunch Verdict:
10/10 Animation
22/10 Crazy cleavage
-1/10 Boob physics
3/10 Catwoman story, understanding of character, general physics

A Brunch Film Review: The Grey

The Grey (Click on the title of this blog to see the trailer)

Starring Liam Neeson
Directed by Joe Carnahan

Liam Neeson plays a man named Ottway, who, we learn very early on, is both sad and hard. The Grey only dimly reveals who Ottway actually is, and is content to divulge, in its own time, the source of Ottway's deep sadness. What we know early is enough. We gather he was once a sniper, who now defends oil workers from the potential hazards of Alaskan wildlife.

It seems like revealing too much here would be a mistake. If you have seen the preview you know enough. Ottway and a small crew of oil workers attempt to leave for much needed R & R and their plane experiences a catastrophic failure and crashes some where in the Alaskan wilderness at some elevation.

One could make the case that the people who died in the crash, were the lucky ones. Winter in the Alaskan range, with few supplies, miles (who can know how many) from any help does not make for an inviting prospect. Alaska is is also haunted by the last remnants of the North America's megafauna, wolves, three species of bear, and in southern Alaska, puma can be found. For the survivors of the crash, though, it is wolves that form the hammer to winter's anvil. The survivors will have to survive both dangers if they are to live.

Ottway is not a survivor specialist. He knows more than the oil workers, and his confidence is such that the others follow him toward the tree line, away from the open wind, and the open hunting ground. It will be up to the viewer to decide if the men made the right choice. Ottway does his best, as do the men who follow them. Let the synopsis stand there, and I will leave the unfolding story to the viewer. There are surprises to be sure, and the questions the film poses are better discovered than revealed by a reviewer who wants to tell you their own clever answers.

The Grey works because directer Joe Carnahan isn't interested in tickling the viewers expectations. To watch the trailer is to expect an adventure similar to David Mammett's delightful movie The Edge. Carnahan gives the viewer real people, with real ideas, who find themselves confronted with the likelihood of their imminent and unpleasant demise. Death isn't somewhere off in the distance for Ottway and the oil workers who follow him. It is literally around every tree and may come in the night. The Grey gets those men, operating at the very edge of their capabilities, full of hopes and dreams (most of them) absolutely right, and it makes film's inexorable journey feel like an honest exercise in fiction.

Does the film correctly describe wolf biology? It is hard to say. Wolves are apex predators. Hungry, or feeling intruded upon any animal can be dangerous, even ones that generally aren't known for aggression towards humans.

The Grey 10/10

The Rite: A Brunch Film Review

Lets begin by saying that anything useful, original, intriguing or scary that could be said in that weird genre of horror that is Christian, specifically Catholic, horror was said or done in either The Exorcist, or The Omen (the latter of which is available "instantly" on Netflix for those interested in such things). Director Mikael Håfström has offered nothing new with The Rite. In fact he has borrowed rather extensively from the two films mentioned above (even borrowing a scene in a boxing gym from The Exorcist so blatantly that one is almost tempted to call the scene a plagarism). At its best, The Rite merely provides a vehicle for the very capable Anthony Hopkins to show off his skills. It is only when Hopkins inhabits a scene that the film even comes close to being effective. At its worst the film wastes our time with creaky dialogue, shallow characters and rather sillier than usual theology.

The film, breathlessly claiming to be inspired by true events, follows the adventures of a seminary student, Michael Kovak (played more or less like a block of wood by Colin O'Doneghue) of less than stellar faith who has enrolled simply to score a free four year degree from an accredited institution. Michael's plans, not exactly saintly, are to bail on the priesthood and enjoy his ill gotten degree. A kindly priest, Father Matthew (played by Toby Jones) sees the light of Jesus in the boy, and attempts twice, to get the wayward, faithless block of wood to give the priesthood more time. Without giving too much away, the nice Father Matthew behaves in the unethical fashion we have come to expect from such men and coerces the conflicted Kovak into a course on exorcism in Italy. Apparently demonic possession is on the rise and more and more priests are being called on by their charges to perform this unique and vanishing skill set in villages, towns and big cities whereever the demonically afflicted are found.

"You will be in Florence for three months, what's the worst that can happen?" Asks Father Matthew after he has forced Michael into the cource. Its a useless bit of foreshadowing dialogue, because the viewer already knows that Michael Kovac, closet atheist, and all around priestly failure is in for a rather unpleasant tour of Florence's possessed underbelly.

I will be surprising no one by telling you that Kovack's faith is restored before the end of the film. The script fails rather spectacularly at describing a person who may once have had some faith, perhaps a very serious faith, who has after some considerable reflection found they can no longer believe. This probably isn't the point. The crisis of faith is almost a sub-genre of this kind of film, and the arguments that led to the initial crumbling of that edifice aren't nearly as important as the contrived (and often utterly heartless) coincidences that restore the faith of the hero. It is also rather obvious that Father Michael Kovac is something of a moron. There are some rather obvious, and hard to explain away indiciations that something that could be plausibly described as supernatural is occurring, but his character manages to not even reflect on these incidents, not even momentarily, after they have happened. He maybe offers a quizzical look, or a horrified one and then it is simply forgotten. This seems hardly the stance of someone profoundly concerned with the truth of propositions. And his incurious nature is somewhat at odds with a statement he makes in the film. Early in Kovac's interactions with Father Trevant (Hopkins)he makes a crucial observation, about the problem with holding a position that rules out evidence in making an assessment about the veracity of the position. The conversation becomes pointless when the lack of evidence for the devil is actually proof of the devil (or God one must suppose). Strangely enough Mother Teresa would have understood exactly what Father Kovac was saying, or rather she would have seen Father Trevant's argument coming. For at least forty years or so Mother Teresa was in exactly the same place (up until the time of her demise I think). Yet her Church handlers told her that the fact that she saw no evidence for God, and no she no longer felt his presense actually constituted evidence for God. So while you may spit your massive movie soda out when Father Trevant offers this logic chopping gem up, know that it was, and is used among Catholics at least, even Catholics of very high rank.

So on the one hand we are left with no evidence being a potent form of evidence for Gods and Devils. But also in the film we are shown signs that demons are about, and they are spectacularly banal (through out much of the film). When ordinary bugs, roaches say, or centipedes, crickets, cats (of course poor felines will be impugned)or the occasional frog are a sign that a demon is afoot then anything can be a sign. One can probably already see problems inherent in such a system. Though a quick quibble. The toad that seems to be a sign for demonic possession this movie could not be more harmless. Common in the pet trade, the innocuous, and largely docile Fire-bellied Toad is apparently a fairly sure sign that demons (or at least one particular demon) are about their business in your abode. Or your body. Or your something. Strangely this is a common enough frog in central and eastern Europe, according to the Encyclopedia of Life, so is maybe not an uncommon sight in Florence. Whether are not they are a natural occurence in fair, fair Florence, this humble anuran enjoys a more or less world wide distribution thanks to its popularity as a pet.
What would Fathers Trevant and Kovac make of that? Given their standards of evidence, they probably think they have a lot of exorcizing to do.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra: Reboot or straight to video from here on out.

Here is the thing. I grew up on G.I. Joe. I was one of the Marvel comic book fans that only tolerated the atrocious cartoon. The comic book while clearly action adventure, and resembling real counter-terrorism teams like Indiana Jones represents real archeology at least tried to keep most of the problems real world. There were martial arts masters too, but not as many lasers, and implausible sci-fi weapons. The characters were provided interesting backstories, and shockingly the characters developed. The cartoon was another matter. It was an attempt to capitalize on the huge popularity of the toys, and comic while ignoring the fact that it was about military operations. It, the cartoon, was bloodless and boring while also being a craven attempt to sell new toys. There were no bullets in the cartoon, just infinate lasers, coupled with shocking inaccuracy on the part of the allegedly highly trained Joes, and their Cobra counter parts (I am sure both teams have shooting ranges and kill houses in which might train a little?). It was a bloodless, hollow shell of the comics that ignored the fascinating dynamics of the comic books.

And that note brings me to the new movie, which has decided to follow the tradition of its 80's cartoon predecessor. Like the cartoon it ignores the depth of the comic book source material. If there is anything that comic book movies can teach us about adaptation it is this. When directors and producers think they can do better than the comic book source material a bad movie is in the offing. As such the Joe show has no where to go but directly down. In flames, joined by the sound of twisting metal and screams. If you were fan of the comic book, hell if you just liked the bio-files on the back of your 3 3/4 inch action figures, you are going to think one thing. And that one thing is this.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is a terrible movie.

Even if you aren't a fan you may think the above though. Because this is a terrible fackin' movie. And here is why.

1. The entire premise. This is a movie that was put together in a board room full of dis-interested people looking at the toys. An arms deal whose family has been double dealing since the mid-1600s, wants to topple world leadership with his new and completely implausible, super-weapon, so the world will turn to the most powerful man left standing. "Why will any accept you as their leader?" Shouts a Joe offended by such a preposterous scheme. "Not me." He says. Uh...okay.

Both Joes and Cobra are a little too well kitted out with super duper advanced gear for the film to work as even remotely plausible viewing. In fact it is so far over the top as to get in the way. But more on that later.

2. Marlon Wayons. For a guy who comes from a fairly progressive family of comedians the man perpetuates black stereotypes almost as well as a white actor in black-face would. We see glimpses of a good actor underneath his autopilot performance but only enough to be disappointed in him.

3. The lack of early Joes. The starting line up I grew up with consisted of Snake-eyes, Scarlett, Stalker, Rock-n-Roll, Zap, Breaker, Flash, Grunt, Short-fuze, Hawk, Steeler, Clutch and Grand Slam. The Cobras consisted of nameless, Cobra grunts, Cobra officers, and of course, ole hissy voice himself, Cobra Commander. Of that line up, it is an absolute necessacity that you have Snake-eyes, Scarlett, Stalker and Hawk. The cobras definately need filling out, so Destro, and Baroness are a given. As is Storm-Shadow and maybe Zartan. The comics spent most of their time on those characters and the amount of source material for them was astoundingly good. But even if they went with my line up, it probably wouldn't have mattered because they chose to ignore the source material anyway, and instead offer up this failure explosion.

4. The god-damn exosuits. Amid all the the goofy techo-nonsense, two of the Joes (why only two, and the newest most inexperienced two at that) get issued battle suits that enable them to run after cars, leap through and over buses, launch missles from their arms, move cars and generally just annoy me with all their can do. What I find shocking is that even equipped with these super suits borrowed from Heinlen's Starship Troopers they cannot keep up with or match Snake-eyes, who seems to be able to do every thing that a person in one of these Exosuits can do, and then some. Perhaps a commitment to cost effectiveness is in order? Instead of any more suits which accomplish nothing but lots of collateral damage, the Joes should hire from Clan Arashikage. It would be vastly cheaper than the suits, and more effective to boot.


5. Snake-eyes costume. Okay I do understand this a film based on a comic book and a cartoon that was based on a toy, but...I mean..come on, a foam rubber suit with fake looking muscles? And instead of a balaclava, he wears a foam rubber face complete with foam lips? Foam lips? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot as they might have said in a better movie. What the hell does he need his foam lips for while on a mission? When I saw the lips, I thought to myself, This movie is soooo going to suck. And as usual I was right.

6. Storm-Shadow. A husk of the character in the comic book. He is even a shell of his 80s cartoon instantiation. Terrible origin story. Okay acting.

7. Snake-eyes. Character: Oh yeah, he has none. He exists to swing a sword around, pose heroically with said sword and do martial arts and acrobatic things.

8. Stalker, oh right that character wasn't in the movie.

9. Paper thin characters. I've singled Snake eyes and Storm-shadow out, but the paper thin quality of all the characters completely took me out of the film (Scarlett's science stereotype is something I could have singled out for its utter stupidity as well, but there is only so much time in a day). I probably could have taken the new spin on the mythologies, but they didn't even want to work for it. The whole effort assumes that G.I. Joe fans are more abundant than they really are, and that we will overlook any short comings simply because there are live action Joes on the big screen. And they assume that the non-fan will look past the general crappyness of the film. They may be correct. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is still at theaters and it did well.
However...They will have to do better to get any more of my money.

Addendum
I had fogotten about the following important points.

10. The three tier climax, huge underwater battle, small group of heroes carrying out specific missions, and huge jedi, I mean ninja battle, is a complete Star Wars rip. And not terribly well done. The battle between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow, the live action treatment of which I have been waiting for since about 1984, was absolutely...what is the word...boring. Style and flash when it should have been From Russia with Love. And by that I mean vastly more realistic, mean and rough, not the choreographed grace of a kung fu movie. The Golden Eye Fight isn't bad to think about either.

11. During the big underwater battle, also under a massive ice sheet, between the rebels and the empir....I mean between the Joes and Cobra, involves a massively stupid thing. SPOILER Cobra orders the ice sheet destroyed, a kind of round about self destruct sequence to destroy the, also massive, underwater Cobra base.
"The ice is falling, we've got to get out of here before it destroys the base." Duke yells at the Baronness. The Baronness nods in agreement.

"Uh..daddy, ice floats." My daughter said to me immediately after the brain dead dialogue. She remembered, as did I that they were in fact deep underwater.
"Yes, Ani, yes it does."

And so for the rest of the climax, ice from the ice sheet above the massive, and massively improbable, Cobra base falls down from above through the water. That is to say it sinks.