Galaxy Quest Review

I grew up watching the various Star Trek series. I absolutely loved Star Trek, its characters, and the stories. A number of years later a brilliantly written movie was released called Galaxy Quest (1999). It's a fantastic bit of comedy satire that parodied the original Star Trek series beautifully; both the TV show itself and the actors in the show. It's a fantastic comedy film, and it's even funnier if you're a Star Trek fan.

The sci-fi adventure television series "Galaxy Quest" took place aboard the intergalactic spaceship NSEA Protector. Eighteen years after their series was canceled, actors Jason Nesmith (Tim Allen), Gwen DeMarco (Sigourney Weaver), Sir Alexander Dane (Alan Rickman), Tommy Webber (Daryl Mitchell) and Fred Kwan (Tony Shalhoub) are making appearances at sci-fi conventions and shopping mall openings in costume and character. They are wallowing in despair and at each other's throats until aliens known as Thermians arrive and, having mistaken the series for fact and consequently modeling their entire culture around this, the Thermians take the cast of actors into space to save them from the genocidal General Sarris (Robin Sachs) and his armada.

The characters here are great. Tim Allen is playing a fictional character variation of William Shatner who had played Captain Kirk. Jason is arrogant and cocky, and has a passion for and possibly dependence upon the Galaxy Quest series. He loves the enthusiasm of his fans and the revenue it tends to bring him, small as it may be. Jason is also a notorious ham and subpar actor; a lot like Shatner. The late and great Alan Rickman is depicting a hilarious fictional version of Leonard Nimoy; who for many years couldn't seem to separate himself from the Spock character. Alexander in Galaxy Quest was an accomplished Shakespearian actor who took the television role for the income, but was never able to shake himself free from the role afterwards. He loathes the Galaxy Quest series with all his soul and refuses to deliver his character's line to please fans. He hates that even when delivering quality material for the series, he was constantly upstaged by Jason's hammy melodrama. Sigourney Weaver's character is loosely based on Nichelle Nichols' Lieutenant Uhura character on Star Trek. Gwen's character was the communication's officer and didn't do much other than repeat what the ship's computer says. Gwen didn't like her role in Galaxy Quest because she was little more than a token female character who was present just to look attractive, which was more or less what Uhura did in Star Trek. These characters are so well written and satirize the characters and actors they parody with perfection.

There are so many nods to the Star Trek series and the culture that surrounds it. Sci-Fi conventions are about the only place these fictional actors get any recognition anymore. The fans at these conventions have a very loose grasp on reality, not unlike existing stereotypes of convention attendees. There is a group of kids, lead by a very young Justin Long, who have memorized schematics of the ship on the Galaxy Quest series and essentially know how to operate everything on the ship and the science behind it. The socially awkward fans beg Alexander for autographs which he begrudgingly grants them with disdain while they repeat his character's line "By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged." It's meant to remind us of Spock's iconic line "Live long and prosper."

During fight scenes with aliens, Jason manages to lose his shirt just like the character of Star Trek's Captain Kirk notoriously did on a regular basis. There's an extra from the Galaxy Quest series who tags along with the actors into space. He's terrified on an away team mission to a planet surface because no one knows who he actually is and he expects to be an extra who dies on the mission, just like the red shirt ensign who always dies on the original Star Trek series. The other actors assure him that's ridiculous and won't happen. This extra asks them, "Did you guys ever WATCH the show!?" Gwen's character on Galaxy Quest was present to look attractive. Her job was basically to repeat everything the ship's computer said to the captain. Since the ship the actors are taken to was modeled after the Galaxy Quest series, the ship's computer doesn't respond to anyone other than her, thus forcing her to do the same thing she did on the series. Tommy Webber (who himself is a play on Wil Wheaton's Wesley Crusher), tells Gwen how annoying it is that she repeats everything that is said to her. "Look!" Gwen shouts in response. "I have one job on this lousy ship, it's STUPID, but I'm gonna do it! Okay!?" The actors constantly have to rely on their memories of the TV show they were in to save their lives and fight against alien threats. It's just hysterical all the little jabs and jokes at the Star Trek series and culture make their way into the movie.

The Galaxy Quest movie came out seventeen years ago, as of this writing, and it holds up quite well. The CGI effects are slightly dated, but still look pretty darn good. I think Galaxy Quest was a B movie of sorts. That. or the camera work and visuals were intentionally designed to resemble something campy and cheesy. But it works really well in this context. The makeup and costume designs looked ridiculous and fake when it needed to, and well made and believable when it needed to. I think the movie has aged quite well.

Galaxy Quest is such a good movie. It's funny, has fantastic satire, has a great cast who clearly gets the jokes and references they are spoofing, and is a great piece of cinema writing. It's aged well in the past seventeen years, and remains a good, solid movie. It makes fun of Star Trek without being insulting to it. Galaxy Quest is a good movie on its own, but you'll easily get a lot more out of it if you're a long time fan of Star Trek. This is worth seeing, and owning a copy. As of this writing, it is streaming on Netflix. This is not something you should miss.

Avatar Review

It doesn't seem so long ago that James Cameron's last film, Avatar (2009), was still a pop culture topic that everyone was talking about. From how amazing the visual effects were, to "Post Avatar Depression," to its world-wide box office records, to assertions that it rips off other popular movies in terms of story, everyone was talking about Avatar. It seems to have had less of a lasting cultural impact than what some were guessing, I still maintain that Avatar is a work of cinematic art that should be seen.

On the lush alien world of Pandora live the Na'vi, beings who appear primitive but are highly evolved. When his twin brother is killed in a robbery, paraplegic Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) decides to take his place in a mission on this  distant world of Pandora. There he learns of greedy corporate figurehead Parker Selfridge's (Giovanni Ribisi) intentions of driving off the native humanoid "Na'vi" in order to mine for the precious material scattered throughout their rich woodland. Because the planet's environment is poisonous, human/Na'vi hybrids, called Avatars, must link to human minds to allow for free movement on Pandora. Under the direction of Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), an exobiologist and head of the Avatar Program, Jake becomes mobile again while inhabiting one such "Avatar" body. In exchange for the spinal surgery that will fix his legs, Jake gathers intel for the cooperating military unit spearheaded by gung-ho Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang), while simultaneously attempting to infiltrate the Na'vi people with the his Avatar body. While Jake begins to bond with the native tribe and quickly falls in love with the beautiful alien Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), the restless Colonel moves forward with his ruthless extermination tactics, forcing the soldier to take a stand - and fight back in an epic battle for the fate of Pandora.

Enough cannot be said about how completely mind blowing these visual effects are. The detail in the ecosystem of Pandora is simply incredible. Every plant, creature, and Na'vi character is created with highly detailed computer-generated photorealism. From the texture of Na'vi character's skin, to the lush, verdant foliage, to the bioluminescence inherent to many creatures on Pandora, everything looks positively gorgeous. It's such a visual feast for the eyes that you can't take it all in fast enough. Everything was so beautiful that some audience members reportedly felt some mild form of depression after seeing the artistic beauty in Avatar and then contrasting that with their real lives. That seems a bit silly to me, but with how picturesque and gorgeous Pandora is made to look, I can't say it's without basis.

The Na'vi characters, themselves, are computer generated. They are about 10 feet tall humanoids, have blue striped skin, pointed mobile ears, tails, and large catlike noses and teeth. While taller than humans, they have narrower proportions in body frame. Cameron created these computer generated characters with new motion capture animation technologies that he had been developing for fourteen months leading up to when the  filming started. Improved methods of capturing facial expressions enabled a full performance capture, so every little twitch and eye movement you see in the Na'vi, was actual movement captured from the actor playing that character. It made these digitally generated character believable and engaging.

The story of Avatar can't be said to be weak, it's fairly complex with interwoven storylines and subplots, and an interesting array of characters. However, Avatar got a lot of flak for being a rip-off of other well established stories and themes. In that regard, if you haven't actually seen Avatar, you can probably already say you've seen Avatar. It has a strong resemblance to movies like Dances with Wolves, Disney's Pocahontas, and FernGully: The Last Rainforest. The theme has been explored in other movies, too;  Hayao Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke comes to mind. Is it really so bad that the story is similar to other movies? If that's the worst thing that can be said about Avatar, I'd have to argue that it's still a good movie. In terms of story, audiences shouldn't expect too much that is unique and new, but that isn't to say it's boring or even identical to the other stories out there.

I found the themes to be engaging. Avatar is an action-adventure journey of self-discovery in the context of imperialism and deep ecology. There's an overt message of environmentalism in Avatar, and the highly common trope of greedy corporate types plotting to destroy landmarks or natural environments in order to gain profits. That's not so new. There's some interesting subtle comparisons in the term "avatar" about which Cameron said, "It's an incarnation of one of the Hindu gods taking a flesh form. In this film what that means is that the human technology in the future is capable of injecting a human's intelligence into a remotely located body, a biological body." The blue skin of the Na'vi was an intentional connection to Hindu deities, further drawing on that definition of "avatar." All of the humans in the movie have their own "Avatar" of sorts, kind of an alternate body that depicts who they are inside. Jake and Grace have their Na'vi avatars representing their connection to, and interest in, the native people of Pandora. Quaritch has this mechanical battle suit armed to the gills with missiles and guns, representing his lust for war and violence. There's a friendly pilot who helps our protagonists who is useful by herself but is truly in her element in the cockpit; she was born to fly. Parker's "avatar" is more subtle; he spends most of his time in the corporate office and command center. This is his avatar, and it's not until we see him outside of his element there that we see what a weak individual he is.

Avatar broke several box office records and became the highest-grossing film of all time, surpassing Cameron's previous movie, Titanic, which had held those record for twelve years prior. Star Wars: The Force Awakens has now become the highest-grossing movie in North America; it hasn't yet been released worldwide as of writing this review. Avatar and Titanic still hold the top two spots for highest grossing films worldwide. Avatar was nominated for no less than nine Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. It ended up winning three, for Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Visual Effects. The achievements that Avatar earned for itself is an indicator of how good the movie was. I still maintain it's a work of art that should be seen.

Avatar might be more impressive on a technical level than as a piece of storytelling, but it reaffirms James Cameron's singular gift for imaginative, absorbing film making.  Avatar showed us something that we have never seen before and reminded us of what movies can do, what they are capable of, and what an experience movies can be. It would be a full-fledged masterpiece if judged solely on its technical merits. While it wasn't the most original narrative, it serves the film well, even if it was merely a template for Cameron to show us this gorgeous world and its landscapes. Avatar didn't have the lasting cultural impact that I assumed it would; I haven't heard of Na'vi-themed weddings the way I've heard about Klingon-themed weddings. But for awhile, Avatar was a hot topic of discussion everywhere you went. If you haven't seen Avatar you're missing out on an incredible cinema experience of technical and visual splendor. Just don't get your hopes up too high about a unique story. I recommend seeing this movie; it's also worth owning a copy of to bask in its beautiful artistic expression every now and again.

Ever since Avatar came out, there has been talk about three additional movies. Where do you think these movies could go in terms of story? Would we explore more biomes on Pandora? Fight off invading human corporations wanting to mine for resources? What would you like to see happen? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Exodus: Gods and Kings Review

In 2014 we had not one, but two Bible epics hit theaters. I never did get around to seeing Noah. I was interested in seen an updated version of the Moses story in Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) because the movie technology is such that elaborate, complex depictions of the ancient world can be shown to audiences in a way that couldn't have been done years ago. In the hands of director Ridley Scott, it has great potential. This movie does have the epic quality of old Bible epics back in the day, but it seemed to be lacking something to make a lasting effect on you.

Raised as brothers by Pharaoh Seti (John Tutrurro), Moses (Christian Bale) and Ramesses (Joel Edgerton) have a mutual respect and love for one another and have fought side by side defending their home country of Egypt. After Ramesses succeeds his father as Pharaoh, rumor of Moses being of Hebrew parents comes to Ramesses. Rather than give into the demands of Queen Tuya (Sigourney Weaver) to kill Moses, Ramesses exiles Moses from Egypt. Moses creates a new life in Midian where he meets Zipporah and eventually marries Zipporah (María Valverde). Years later Moses comes face to face with a burning bush and a boy called Malak (Issac Andrews), who tells Moses that he must free the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt. Reluctantly, Moses returns to Egypt and uses his military skills to try to free his people. But when Ramesses refuses to comply, God sends deadly plagues to the people of Egypt. Moses tries to keep the Hebrews out of the crossfire, but the conflict escalates pitting the two brothers against each other.

Now, the story of Moses has been around since roughly 1300 BCE. Even if you aren't affiliated with a Muslim or Judeo-Christian religion, you've had plenty of time to have heard this story before and I'm not going to avoid spoilers in a story that is well over three thousand years old.

It truly should go without saying that when a movie based on religious texts is made, creative liberties are taken. Were creative liberties not taken, there would be nearly no character development, no meaningful dialogue other than the most basic and direct communications, and likely no defining theme drawing the story together coherently. In Exodus: Gods and Kings some characters aren't what I have been told they are. Ramesses not so much a stubborn and prideful ruler who thought himself superior to God, he was more of a spoiled privileged brat who lacked the competence and foresight to lead a country. Moses wasn't a mighty man of faith but a military general who may be somewhat off his rocker, we see him grow in faith but it's not really there when he starts out. I was disappointed that we didn't see the two characters butting heads more often. Moses didn't go talk to Ramesses between each plague saying, "Let my people go!" They were at odds with one another, but we didn't see enough of them opposing each other specifically to get a feel for what becomes their broken relationship as brothers.

The way that God was depicted was particularly interesting. It was a small kid whom only Moses could see after sustaining a head injury. I don't think this was supposed to literally be God, but rather a abstract messenger through which God communicated to Moses. The kid's name is "Malak" which is the Semitic word for "angel." God in the Old Testament is often depicted as a god of vengeance and punishment; taking that into consideration, I could see why this messenger speaking for God would be depicted as a willful, angry, and petulant child. This may be a deal breaker for some viewers of faith; Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike see this story as foundational and might find this portrayal of God to be incompatible with scripture and deeply held beliefs. I didn't find it offensive. I thought it was an odd way to depict deity, but it was unique and creative and still kind of fits with this interpretation of the story. Yet there is a scene when Malak and Moses are talking and the things the boy says, though powerful and exquisitely delivered by the child actor, made me think, "Yeah, that's not the same God from The Bible. We went overboard here, Ridley."

While I often hear the way some of the plagues were depicted was inaccurate, I thought it was fascinating. The first plague was water turning to blood. This was illustrated not by Moses striking the river with his staff causing the water to turn into blood, but rather having crocodiles in the Nile go on a killing spree, killing nearly anything that moved in the water, causing the water to turn red from all the blood. This caused the plague of frogs which were escaping from the bloody water, which in turn let the insects multiply unhindered by their natural predators. It goes on like this, and I thought it was neat. It removes the divine intervention which is what was supposed to have caused the plagues. Even the parting of the Red Sea seemed to be caused by some kind of tsunami sea withdrawal that coincided with the escaping Hebrews with impeccable timing. It's another discrepancy that I appreciated the creativity of, but didn't see as something that would challenge someone's faith outright.

This was visually an incredible movie to watch. Egypt was as elaborate and detailed as I had hoped; it was shown to be a vast country with many inhabitants of all walks of life. The costumes of the Egyptians as well as the Hebrew slaves looked fantastic. The plagues were really interesting to see and the meticulous details that went into them made me grateful I wasn't watching the swarming locusts in 3-D. The free-flowing visual splendor is so gorgeous to behold that you feel transported into these ancient days watching this movie.

Exodus: Gods and Kings isn't one of Ridley Scott's greatest movies. It has its ups and downs, but lacks something to give it enough oomph to make it a truly memorable movie. It will likely fade from our collective consciousness before too long, much like Ridley Scott's Robin Hood did. The visuals were simply incredible and really sold the historical setting. The plagues and such were also amazing. Given how many faith-based movies are content to tell their audiences what to think or feel, it's satisfying to see one whose images alone are enough to compel an awestruck belief. The story is spiritually watered down. It doesn't preach to the audience, it doesn't tell us how to interpret things, and it even removes some of the divine influence these events are said to have. However, all the characters and symbols are present; we are left to interpret the story as a faith building story about God's influence, or simply as a tale that we have passed down for thousands of years. Overall I liked Exodus: Gods and Kings. It may not settle so well with some viewers, but it didn't go as far out in left field as I understand Noah did. I say this is worth watching even if you are not religiously inclined. Even if you are religiously inclined, I still say watch it but take it with a grain of salt. Understand that this is not scripture, but a film director's take on a very old story.

Are there other Bible stories or ancient texts you think would make a good movie? Comment below and let me know!

The Village Movie Review

In most cases, directors go from bad or mediocre films to good films as they progress in their career. M. Night Shyamalan seems to have managed to do the opposite. He gained renown with The Sixth Sense (1999), but his movies started to fizzle out with Signs (2002). He really began to lose credibility with audiences after The Happening (2008). When The Village (2004) was released, we still had high expectations, but it was with The Village that he really started to disappoint.

There is a small village of about 60 puritans in rural Pennsylvania. For the most part these puritan settlers live a quiet and peaceful life, but fear the terrible creatures that lurk just outside the borders of the village. The villagers have reached an agreement with these beasts in which each side allowed to go about their business as long as neither one crosses the village’s boundaries.  This delicate balance is upset when a young man, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Pheonix), ventures into the forest to see what lies beyond the borders. Animal carcasses, stripped of their fur, being to appear around the village, causing the council of elders to fear for the safety of the village, the agreement with the creatures, and more. After Lucius gets injured, the village patriarch, Edward Walker (William Hurt), sends his daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) through the woods to retrieve medicine from the outside towns. Ivy is blind and cannot tell where she is going or where the prowling creatures might be.

All the characters in this movie are pretty flat and uninteresting. They don’t develop, they aren’t deep, and they are remarkably reserved. It’s almost as if the puritan qualities of simplicity and humility are over insinuated upon the characters to the point that they are scarcely even one-dimensional. Everyone gets along with such ease that they end up feeling unrealistic. The characters (and the tone of the movie itself) are so somber that they almost seem afraid to make the audience aware of their presence.

The best part of The Village is when we are focused on Ivy. About halfway through the movie, Ivy becomes the central figure; she gets to learn about some of the village secrets and she stumbles around in the woods, completely blind. To put the viewer on the same level as Ivy, we see her hand stretched forth to the edge of the screen as she tries to feel her way around. When she comes across something, she feels it with her hand and then it comes into full view on the screen only after Ivy figures out what it is. We are shown shots of the front of Ivy’s feet as she walks through the unfamiliar forest; we (like Ivy) cannot see where she is going or what obstacles may be in her way. Not only is this a brilliant way to visually depict the world through Ivy’s perspective, it also intensifies the sense of being completely lost in the woods and amps up the suspense.

M. Night Shyamalan is known for his twist endings. Generally, a good twist ending blows your mind as you realize all the subtle little things previously in the movie all add up to a big surprise at the end. The twist in The Village was completely out of the blue. There was no logical build up to it, no hints leading up to it, and no subtle clues to take into account. It’s established that there are secrets in the village, but when we see the big secret it’s just too out of place with the story, and even the setting, such that that it’s impossible to swallow.

The Village was the movie that caused M. Night Shyamalan’s credibility as a director and writer to take a significant downswing. The story is pretty forgettable. In fact the only thing that seems to stick out in people’s minds even years after seeing it is how unjustified the ending was and how disconcerted it made them feel. The only redeeming value is the creative camera work while the blind girl stumbles around in the woods. If you haven’t seen The Village, you’re only really missing out on a disappointing product of a formerly good writer and director. If you did see The Village years ago, you probably only remember how non-sequitur the conclusion was. This movie is “okay” at best, but isn’t really worth going out of your way to see.

What did you think of The Village? Did it have some endearing qualities? Did you think the twist ending was acceptable? Comment below and tell me why!

Ghostbusters Movie Review

We’ve all seen monster movies. We’ve all seen comedies. Monster movies rely on suspense to move the story forward, leaving little room for comic relief. Comedies have the flow disrupted if there is much tension. It’s rare to see a movie that combines these two elements; I can’t think of another example of a fusion of monster mayhem and humor as accomplished as the iconic movie Ghostbusters (1984).

Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), and Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are parapsychologists at Columbia University who research paranormal activities and ghost appearances. After gathering their first useful hard data from a specter at a library, they return to Columbia University to find their funding and tenure cut off. Now jobless with useful scientific data on ghosts, they create their own paranormal exterminator service called “The Ghostbusters” using ghost catching technology invented by Egon. They catch their first ghost at the Sedgewick Hotel, and become hugely successful. Business booms and they have to hire Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) to help meet the demand. The Ghostbusters are summoned by Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) to investigate a demonic spirit that she finds in her refrigerator. Peter takes interest in Dana and begins competing with her neighbor Louis Tully (Rick Moranis) for her affection. Ray discovers that the Dana and Louis’s apartment was built by a cult leader and that the design of the building acts as a conductor to summon Gozer, a demon god of destruction, from another dimension. The Ghostbusters are summoned by the city to handle the massive ghost outbreak, and save them from impending annihilation.

Where to start on this classic?

One of the more endearing features of Ghostbusters is the combination of genres. It’s sort of a suspense/action/comedy movie. Usually high production special effects and comedy don’t blend well. Comedy requires spontaneity while special effects require meaningful planning ahead of time. High end special effects detract from spontaneity, and thus from good comedy. Ghostbusters somehow managed to pull it off, though. Most of the scenes featuring improvisation comedy sketch masters Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis were in fact, improvised. This is amazing because every line of dialogue, even the improvised ones, develops the plot and characters. Yet the spontaneity doesn’t detract from the special effects; there was a natural progression of the plot and characters to cause Gozor to take the form of the cute food mascot, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. The ordinarily contrasting film elements merged beautifully to make a great movie.

The art design in the movie was fantastic as well. Remember that this movie was made long before computer special effects were available. The models and puppets for the ghost creatures were made transparent and well designed. They looked monstrous and creepy, yet weightless and ghostlike.

The wardrobe was fantastic, too.  The characters all looked really believable within their context.  The Ghostbusters team looked perfect in their field gear.  The jumpsuits and proton packs (used for catching the ghosts) were so well designed that they are now iconic symbols of the Ghostbusters film.  The Ghostbuster’s car, Ecto-1, is a 1959 Cadillac ambulance/hearse combination which is, itself, so iconic that it is almost its own character. It was beautifully designed with lots of detail.  A good indication of great movie design is seeing ordinary people try to replicate it.  You’ll see Ecto-1 and Ghostbusters uniforms replicas at sci-fi conventions and even some car shows decades after the movie was released.  Everything about this movie exudes personality and classic cinematic artwork. 

With great special effects, some suspenseful scenes, hysterical humor, and one of the catchiest movie theme songs in cinema history, Ghostbusters has withstood the tests of time. It is required viewing even if you have only the vaguest of recollection of the film.  If you have seen this movie before, go see it again! If you’re a bit too young to have seen it back in the day you must watch it at your earliest convenience so that you will know who you’re gonna call.