Star Trek Into Darkness Movie Review

Back in 2009, J. J. Abrams took on the tricky task of not only appeasing a notoriously judgmental fan base but of winning over a new generation of movie goers with a relaunch of the 1960's cult classic TV series, Star Trek. Four years later we get a much anticipated sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), and it's quite a ride!

The USS Enterprise and her crew have been sent to a distant planet to observe a primitive civilization. Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) violates the Prime Directive when the life of First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) is jeopardized, exposing the Enterprise to the planet's civilization during the rescue. Called back to Earth, Kirk is demoted to First Officer of the Enterprise with his mentor Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) resuming command. The two attend an emergency meeting at Starfeet Command to discuss the bombing of the secret Section 31 installation in London, perpetrated by former Starfleet agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). The meeting is attacked by Harrison who flees to the Klingon home world, Kronos, leaving Pike dead. Kirk is reinstated as the Enterprise Captain, and is given special permission from Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to hunt down and kill Harrison with 72 long-range prototype photon torpedoes. This violates several of Starfleet's usual codes of ethics. With some trepidation, Spock, Uhura (Zoe Saldana), "Bones" (Karl Urban), "Scotty" (Simon Pegg), Sulu (John Cho), and Checkov (Anton Yelchin) follow Kirk as he leads the way to seek out Harrison, the one-man-weapon-of-mass-destruction.

Into Darkness picks up where Star Trek left off. In the previous film, the character driven plot revolves around Kirk and Spock being at odds with one another. Now the two have found a means of working together. They still have polar opposite personalities, but now they have an understanding that Kirk is the captain and Spock is the first officer and should have Kirk's back at all times. Spock does have Kirk's back but "Vulcans don't lie" and sometimes when Kirk breaks the rules, Spock is obligated to address that. It's a logical progression of the two characters' development and we get to see how this interesting dynamic brings the two of them closer together as friends. This relationship is the heart and soul of Star Trek; the ambiguous compound of rivalry, warmth, and interspecies misunderstanding. There are plenty of other characters who are well developed and make significant contributions to the story; it doesn't exclusively revolve around Kirk and Spock. The whole Enterprise crew gets multiple moments to shine.

The visual effects are brilliant. There are massive explosions, outstanding chases, beautiful scenery created through CGI, and the sets for the interior of the Enterprise look amazing. I loved seeing the Enterprise go into warp, buildings collapse, and space ships crash. Everything was shown in glorious detail. There were no shaky cameras to obscure details, and we got plenty of wide shots to show the magnitude of the damage. Into Darkness spares no expense on its stunning visuals nor it's riveting action.

There's an interesting theme that lends itself to a cautionary tale of real world politics. Yes, Harrison is a great villain, but I think the real "enemy" is the prospect of war, or rather how to best handle the onset of war. Kirk and Spock represent the two arguments about war; what is expedient and what is right. They have specific orders that are not in harmony with Starfleet's values, and would probably start a war with the fearsome Klingons. Spock readily puts forth the counter-argument to the crew's mission to destroy the fugitive Harrison; aren't they morally obligated to capture the suspect and bring him to trial instead? Our heroes are often set upon by the dilemma of choosing between moral ideals and making hasty retaliations. We aren't necessarily given a specific answer to the question, but it should make the viewer think about their country's stance in the face of contemporary international conflicts.

I think Into Darkness has a few more Star Trek references from the old TV show and movies than the first movie did. If you're a hardcore Trekkie, you'll notice lots throwback references throughout the movie. There's even some classic Star Trek lines delivered in new and unexpected ways, which was a very creative implementation. But even if you lived under a rock and never watched Star Trek before, you won't become lost watching Into Darkness. I watched Into Darkness with a couple of non-Trekkie friends and the only thing they were confused about is what a tribble was, and that is at best a detail of miniscule importance.

Star Trek Into Darkness was incredibly fun. I didn't think it was quite as good as its predecessor, but it was a good solid movie. J. J. Abrams knows how to construct a good blockbuster with a perfect blend of incredible action and meaningful characters. We are shown an excellent script which brought us some good dialogue. The visual effects are gorgeous and detailed, the action is exciting and well presented, and the classic Star Trek references are delightful. This will keep old school Trekkies and noobz captivated and enthralled.  Star Trek Into Darkness is worth catching on the big screen, and is worthy of a blu-ray purchase once it becomes available.

There are plenty of Star Trek movies out. Star Trek Into Darkness is the 12th. Do you have a favorite? Comment below and let me know!

The Pirates! Band of Misfits Movie Review

Stop-motion animation seems to be a dying art. It used to be featured much more frequently; not all of them were targeted towards young audiences. Now we get family friendly films once a blue moon, but even then it seems like the medium is perpetuated primarily by Tim Burton. Nevertheless, we still received a great stop-motion animated film with The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012).

After years of humiliation and failed attempts to win the coveted Pirate of the Year Award, Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) and his oddball crew take on the most renowned pirates in the world in a race to pillage the most booty. In their efforts, they cross paths with the lovelorn scientist Charles Darwin (The Doctor David Tennant), who persuades the Captain that the crew’s prized “parrot,” Polly, could be the answer to the untold riches they are searching for. Their adventure takes them to Victorian London where they meet the notorious pirate-hating Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton). It soon unfolds that Darwin’s motives for helping the crew are not what they seem, and that the Queen has an evil hidden agenda of her own. The Pirate Captain must choose between basking in the glory of being crowned Pirate of the Year, or staying faithful to his trusted crew.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits has an all-star cast. In addition to the names mentioned above, there is also Martin Freeman, Anton Yelchin, Jeremy Pivin, Salma Hayek, Brian Blessed, and Brendan Gleeson. You couldn’t ask for a more diverse array of comical UK actors for this slapstick zany adventure.

The Pirates! was animated by the same stop-motion animation crew that did Chicken Run (2000) and the Wallace and Gromit movie The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005). The animation is phenomenal to say the least. The movement is smooth, seamless, and full of intricate subtleties and detail. Similar to Gromit in the Were-Rabbit film, there is also a character with no actual dialogue. Darwin’s “Man-Panzee” is so expressive that you can still tell what is going through the character’s mind without having the character verbalizing it. That just goes to show how well this movie was animated.

Something I thought was annoying in both Chicken Run and Were-Rabbit was the blatant vegetarian and animal rights themes in them. Vegetarianism and animal rights aren’t bad, but those films got rather preachy and beat you over the head with the concepts. The Pirates did not do that, thank goodness. In fact, the pirate crew regularly had “ham night” for dinner. It was not bashing vegetarianism, I’m just glad I wasn’t having a bunch of animal-rights-thumping pirates trying to convince me to eat tofu. That would have been incredibly stupid.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits is full of zany and joyfully silly gags. There are times it feels like an old Loony Tunes cartoon with some distinctive British wit. People are hit with frying pans, causing the frying pan to take on the shape of the person’s face. The face on a painting becomes goofy and distorted after being hit by a cannonball. Skidding tire sounds are made when the pirate ship makes sharp turns. There’s also more trap door gags than you can shake a stick at. I’d hazard a guess that adults who grew up with Loony Tunes will get a bigger kick out of this movie than kids will.

The story is pretty simple and doesn’t stand out as a stellar piece of writing. It feels pretty childish, but I think that’s what makes it so fun. It’s got a Saturday morning cartoon quality to it, but it has lots of gags that will fly over kids’ head and keep adults laughing. It also has simple enough plot for young viewers to understand and enough slapstick to keep them involved. This movie might appeal most to adult viewers who are fans of Monty Python or The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Just take it as it is; a silly, slapstick comedy that the whole family will enjoy.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits was certainly a fun movie. I enjoyed it and it kept me laughing throughout. This is a perfect movie for a family movie night. Kids will love it and adults will enjoy it, too. The number of animated characters moving about on the screen at one time was impressive enough; that is very complicated and difficult to achieve in stop-motion animation. But the detail beyond that is incredible to watch. I didn’t quite love it enough to want to buy a copy of it, but I imagine most families with young kids will want a copy of their own.

What is your favorite stop-motion animated film? Comment below and tell me why!

Fright Night

After feeling betrayed by Hollywood with their recent array of rubbish vampire movies, I wasn’t excited to see Fright Night (2011), a remake of a 1985 vampire horror movie by the same name. That is until I heard The Doctor David Tennant was in it. It instantly became a much higher priority. I don’t typically care for horror movies, but this one was actually really good!

High School senior Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) finally has it all; he’s running with the popular crowd and dating the hottest girl in school, Amy (Imogen Poots). He’s become so cool he’s begun avoiding his old friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). Trouble arrives when an intriguing character named Jerry (Collin Farrell) moves in next door to Charlie. Jerry seems like a great guy at first, but there’s something not quite right about him, and only Ed and Charlie seem to notice. After witnessing some very strange activity, Charlie comes to an unmistakable conclusion: Jerry is a vampire preying on the neighborhood. Unable to convince anyone of the truth, Charlie has to find a way to get rid of the monster himself, even if that means enlisting the aid of a truly bizarre Las Vegas occult magician Peter Vincent (David Tennant).

One of the early scenes in Fright Night had a very paranoid Ed trying to convince Charlie that Jerry is a vampire. Charlie accuses Ed of reading too much Twilight. Reasonably so, Ed is offended by this, and argues that Twilight vampires are make-believe and really stupid. Not only was this hilarious, but it was communicating to the audience that the vampire in this film is not going to be the pansy, sparkly variety who knows what you’re feeling and wants to take you to the prom. THIS vampire is the way vampires are supposed to be: undead, demonic monsters from hell, bent of draining the life force of the innocent to sustain their existence as one of the damned. With all the romanticized and sexualized vampire movies, TV shows, and literature that has emerged in recent years, having a truly frightening monster out for blood was oddly quite refreshing! Besides, anything that makes fun of Twilight is good in my book.

I also have to give credit to a film that causes me to withdraw previous statements. I’ve said that horror and comedy are thematically at odds with each other and don’t fit well in the same movie together. Fright Night was a comedy horror movie, and it was a hoot! They argue that “Jerry” is a terrible name for a vampire, they complain about the quality of vampire hunting gear won on eBay, and Charlie’s mother (Toni Collette) makes references to the 1960’s TV show Dark Shadows.

Fight Night does horror really well, too. Since movies like Saw came out, the horror genre has degenerated from stories that induce feelings of horror and terror to stories that simply gross out the audience. There’s a big difference; getting a buzz saw blade lodged in your face is gross, holding your breath to try and remain undetected by a monster in its own lair is scary. There are scenes in Fright Night that filled me with dread while other scenes had me laughing.

Teens are the target audience for this movie. Most teen horror flicks feature characters that are intent on having sex, partying, experimenting with drugs, and underage drinking and the like. Fright Night was curiously much more conservative. The story focuses more on Charley’s changing relationship with Ed, rather than on Charley’s sexual interest in his girlfriend. On top of that, Charlie is trying to protect his single mother from making bad choices with bad boy next door. Charlie even becomes less interested in sex the more time he spends hunting down Jerry. The movie isn’t about sexual conquests of the adolescent male; it’s about Charlie making conscious choices to protect the women in his life from the “bad boys” out there. I don’t see this kind of thing in movies aimed at teens very often, it was a pleasant change of pace.

Fright Night is fairly clean for a horror movie. Since it’s a vampire movie, we get to see an abundance of blood splatter, but we don’t see much disembowelment and such. There’s some immodesty, but no full on nudity. There’s quite a bit of profanity, though, especially after the comically bitter and sarcastic Peter Vincent shows up. I didn’t care for that, but it fit into the character well, so I can’t really fault the movie for it.

Fright Night was a really fun comedy-horror movie, and the best contemporary vampire movie I’ve seen in years. It was fun, it had some good writing and directing, excellent actors, it was funny and scary, and had some great special effects and cinematography. Best of all, there are actual vampires in this vampire movie; it shows us, in a fresh and interesting way, the traditional vampires that people with any taste will know and love. Fright Night is worth seeing. I don’t even like horror movies that much and I enjoyed it enough to want a copy on Blu-Ray. Some content (such as the profanity) won’t settle well with some viewers, so be conscientious of that before seeing it.

What is your favorite Comedy-Horror movie? Why did you like it so much? Comment below and tell me all about it!