Angels and Demons

It's become cliche over the past couple years to refer to Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code by using some variation of the following: "Every time the characters went anywhere, they would pause to give you a history lesson." While mostly true, this statement belies the fact that The Da Vinci Code was actually rather entertaining. Yes, it was rooted in Dan Brown's brand of fictionalized history, but it balanced speeches with car chases and, more importantly, offered a character arc for Hanks' Robert Langdon that was arguably as important as the controversial subject matter for which he was searching.

Where Angels & Demons fails, though, is exactly where the book triumphs over it's counterpart: the breakneck pace that works so well on the page falls flat when you actually grab a camera and start to film the events taking place. This leaves Angels & Demons with much to be desired, and sentences it to the film world's worst nightmare: being a boring movie covered in weak sauce.

Angels & Demons

Director: Ron Howard

Starring: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer

It doesn't help that this movie was adapted for the big screen by two of the most incompetent writers in Hollywood right now. Akiva "Batman and Robin" Goldsman and David "Indy 4" Koepp have taken all the fun and excitement out of Robert Langdon. In The Da Vinci Code (which in the book world took place before the events of A&D, but in the film world is a sequel to it), Langdon was a wild-eyed professor thrown into the field for the first time, excited to be a part of a legendary quest that had been going on for centuries. This time around, he's not as energized.

Could this be considered the writers' attempt at character growth, making Langdon more of a man hardened by his past experience than a newbie out for the glory? Possibly, but that would imply a level of depth that I doubt these particular writers possess. Even Indiana Jones had passion in his fourth go-around: Langdon has none here, in his second outing (with at least one more in the pipeline, since Dan Brown's new book finally drops in September). It seems the only thing he truly cares about is selfishly finishing the second volume of his book, which seems strange with the lessons he seemed to have learned by the end of his last adventure. Langdon is a pure academic, through and through. Even when he meets a beautiful scientist (who seems to mirror his intelligence in other fields), she's not enough to attract little more than a glance from the asexual professor.

It's kind of embarrassing how desperate Howard and Co. are to trick the audience into believing something interesting is happening. The camera is always moving, panning, sweeping, implying motion and big things when nothing really takes place. Sure the characters move from location to location, but when they do it's in the most boring manner possible. (Hanks gets in a car, camera cuts to headlight as it peels out. Cut to car arriving.) In the "talky" scenes, the camera circles the actors, trying to lure us into believing the pace is a lot faster than it really is. Why can't Ron and his crew realize that this type of film really isn't that much different from his recent Frost/Nixon? There's not much action in that, either - but the difference is that he knows what kind of film that is and doesn't try to dupe the audience. He relishes in the long takes, the slow camera movements, the close ups, the static shots. If only he could have employed some of those tactics here, A&D might have been a movie that I would consider watching again.

Another way in which The Da Vinci Code shows its superiority is through the acting of the secondary characters. Audrey Tatou was enchanting as usual in the role of Sophie Neveu, Jean Reno was great as Captain Bezu Fache, and Ian McKellen added a nice touch of flair as the flamboyant Leigh Teabing. Angels & Demons gives no help to Langdon (this time when he desperately needs it), instead giving him only Ewan McGregor to contend with and even that only lasted one scene. That scene stood out as being particularly strange to me. If I recall, at the end of The Da Vinci Code, Langdon seems to have come to grips with a higher power existing. But when Camerlengo McKenna (McGregor) asks him if he believes in God in Angels & Demons, Langdon gives him a vague excuse and doesn't commit to anything. Maybe my memory is shaky, but I found that to be a little bizarre.

Spoilers ahead.

One other huge thing that I wanted to mention was the way this film handles confrontation differently than its predecessor. The Da Vinci Code dealt mainly with visceral realities - the slice of Silas' whip as he tore his own skin, the constant presence of guns, the imminent threat of violence, the impact of a car chase. Angels & Demons chooses to go with a much more detached view of the world. The main threat comes in video form; a feed depicting a ticking countdown of a bomb poised to destroy Vatican City. Interestingly enough, the church decides that technology (aka science, their mortal enemy!) is the way to solve this problem, opting to shut down the city's power grids one by one until they can determine the location of the bomb. Robert Langdon discovers the true villain through a video capture system in a computer, and turns the Camerlengo in to the authorities by revealing the footage. He never gets in a fist fight with the culprit, never matches wits in the climax, never shoots or stages an elaborate trap. He finds a video and turns it in.

Even the bomb itself is detonated above the clouds outside of the onlookers' view (ie: detached, keeping with the theme), forming a beautiful but ridiculous shock of color across the sky, as if heaven's doors had opened on the audience in St. Peter's Square. Howard is making a statement: he understands the YouTube world in which we live, and realizes the effect that it's having on us as a society. I can't imagine that he approves. [Small aside: that helicopter sequence was RIDIC. And the setup for it was painful to watch. "I used to fly rescue helicopters..." Give me a break.]

End of Spoilers.


If you couldn't infer as much by what I've said so far, I'll spell it out for you: skip this one. It's one of the few movies that I've considered walking out of - not because it was bad, but just because we could have found something better to do with our time. As for the third film being developed? I'm not paying to see it. I'll read the book, and I might see it on DVD/Blu-Ray, but I'm not paying to see it in theaters. I've given enough money to this franchise and they haven't sufficiently rewarded me, so I'm taking a stand. I suggest you do the same - not just with this movie, but with all franchises that you feel have slighted you in some way. Hitting them in their wallets is the only way to get any changes made in Hollywood, so take the power you have as a consumer and exercise it! Until next time...

Star Trek

J.J. Abrams has accomplished his goal with Star Trek, providing an entertaining spectacle that should satisfy die hard Trek fans and newcomers alike. I'm going to preface this review with a reminder that one of my staff writers and I reviewed the first seven films here and here back in 2008 (I recommend you watch all those films and read the reviews if you've got a boring summer ahead), and say in summary that I really enjoyed the original crew of the Starship Enterprise. The fact that I respect almost all of J.J. Abrams' work, combined with my affection for Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, lead to my inevitable appreciation and admiration for his vision realized in Star Trek.

Star Trek
Director: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Zoe Saldana


I don't want to build your expectations too high for this movie, but it was definitely my favorite of the summer so far. [To be fair, the only other "summer" movies I've seen as of this posting have been Fast and Furious and Crank 2: High Voltage.] The best part about this film is that even if you have no idea what the heck Star Trek is about, you can appreciate it nearly as much as the Trek-initiated. Sure, there are some built in crowd pleasers for the Trekkies (Kobayashi Maru, etc), but writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (quickly approaching levels of celebrity not unequal to Abrams himself) have done their best to craft a popcorn summer action flick out of material considered sacred by its most intense fans and geeky by the casual observer. They largely succeed - I would say this is one of the best written projects the two have embarked on in recent years (beating out the rather weakly-written Eagle Eye and Transformers). Some film critics will undoubtedly rag on these guys, telling you that they write nothing but mindless crap and feed the corporate studio system by pumping out blockbuster content. While the latter has certainly been true in the past, the duo have proven themselves capable producers, writers, and television show creators ("Fringe" is their brain child, along with co-creator Abrams). And say what you will about their past work, but I really dug Mission Impossible: III and The Island even though those are not popular films to like in the movie reviewing world. The pacing in Star Trek was perfect for this type of movie - a great blend of character work for Kirk and Spock and wild space battles for those of you with ADD.


Speaking of Mission Impossible: III, that was the only feature film J.J. Abrams had to his name before this project hit theaters this past Thursday. That film, which had the highest budget of any film by a first-time director, was a movie that allowed Abrams to translate his visual skills cultivated in TV's "Alias" to the big screen. Star Trek, therefore, is the next logical step (pun intended) in his path to Hollywood domination. Given a substantial budget and a clean slate for Star Trek history thanks to a clever writing gimmick involving time travel and alternate realities, Abrams took the material and turned into a viable property again. The use of lens flares (bright shines of light directly into the camera lens) has been called excessive by some, but after reading his explanation of why he included so many, I wasn't distracted by them in a negative way during my experience watching the movie. The camera work was outstanding, with Abrams and Co. equally adept at filming huge space action and close-up oriented character moments. Many of the space shots, by the way, feature the snap zoom that was the call sign for Joss Whedon's Firefly (and subsequent Serenity).

As great as the CG was (and it was phenomenal at points), the acting was what really set the film apart for me. It reminded me of Iron Man in that regard, featuring some exceptional special effects but still relying heavily on character to carry us through the film so that we cared about what was happening on screen. Abrams and his casting team tried to replicate their success on Cloverfield by hiring relative unknowns for the crew of the Enterprise, and I think this was a great idea. That was a huge part of Cloverfield's success for me; we didn't recognize these actors and therefore could attach them directly to the characters they were supposed to be portraying. The cast of Star Trek wasn't quite as unknown as that of Cloverfield, but I found the tactic just as effective for most of the cast. It was hard to watch John Cho and not think of his cult role as Harold in the Harold and Kumar films, but he wasn't on screen enough for it to become a real problem for me. The only cast member I had a real problem with was Anton Yelchin (who I thought was great in Charlie Bartlett) - that kid did a horrible Walter Koenig impression (the original Chekov) that deserves a Razzie nomination for Worst Acting. Let's hope he doesn't come near that level of suckage as Kyle Reese in the next big blockbuster of Summer '09, Terminator Salvation.


Chris Pine, where the heck did you come from? After wallowing in Lindsay Lohan movies and TV shows over the past few years, this is without a doubt his breakout role and one that will shoot him to the top of casting directors' piles for the next few years. Look, taking on William Shatner's most iconic role is no easy task. Shatner's performances, while campy and cheesy at times, possessed both a bad ass brashness and a cool charm that is impossible to mimic. Luckily for Pine, he doesn't even try. He embodies James Tiberius Kirk with the cockiness, charm, intelligence, and wit that are necessary elements for my favorite types of film characters [see: Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone]. It's obvious the writers favored Kirk's character, giving Pine the best lines in the movie ("You are fine without it," "Go get more guys and then it'll be a fair fight.") But he deserves those lines, and as much as this film keeps up the pretense that it's about the ensemble cast, Kirk, as always, shines above the rest. Zachary Quinto, apparently from Heroes on NBC (of which I've only seen one episode), is a solid pick for young Spock, filling in adequately for Nimoy even when acting opposite the legend himself (yep, thanks to that alternate reality thing I mentioned).


The supporting cast (aside from Cho and Yelchin) was nicely chosen also, especially the sexy-but-not-sex-object-because-she's-smart-and-qualified communications officer Uhura, played by Zoe Saldana. (Side note: She's going to be in Cameron's Avatar coming out in December - I'm guessing her phone's about to blow up.) Simon Pegg, from Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead, was funny and entertaining as Montgomery "Scotty" Scott, but I'm glad we weren't subjected to any more of his character than we were; I think he would have become annoying rather quickly in the confines of the story being told here (next time, Scotty). The other complaint I have is that there wasn't enough of Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, played very capably by Karl Urban. In the other Trek films, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy form a triumvirate - all parts are nearly equal to each other, and the characters form the central bond around which the Star Trek universe is based. In this incarnation, however, it seemed that Kirk and Spock had the forefront and all the other characters were relegated to the sidelines. Like I said - I'm thankful this is the case for some characters, but I thought Bones deserved a little more time in the spotlight. It was great seeing Bones and Jim hanging out briefly in Starfleet Academy, though. Urban delivered his lines with deadpan humor that surely would have pleased DeForest Kelley (RIP). The seeds were planted for the triumvirate - Bones and Spock had a little verbal sparring along the way - so I'm hoping we see those relationships develop quickly in the sequel(s).


Bruce Greenwood was a quality addition to the cast as Captain Christopher Pike, and gives a performance that I can't imagine coming from anyone else. His powerful presence added a commanding seriousness to the film that sorely needed a legitimate authority figure (even though he does basically turn into Captain Amazing from Mystery Men by the end). The depth of the cast kept getting more shocking as the film progressed. Was that Winona Ryder? Been awhile, ma'am. Tyler Perry? Is this a joke? No? All right, fine. And kudos to Eric Bana's makeup person, who managed to turn the relatively recognizable actor into a Romulan that I wouldn't have known was him had I not possessed previous knowledge of his casting before seeing the movie.


The score, by "LOST" composer Michael Giacchino, was both hugely epic and quietly personal at appropriate times, and accentuated Abrams visual flairs throughout the movie. Great filmmaking all around. The editing was pitch perfect - no frame lingered too long, no cutaway came too soon. The lighting was fantastic, especially in the villainous Romulan ship where a green tinge barely illuminated the faces of the bitter aliens.


I'm not going to go into the plot of the film here - you'll just have to see it if you're curious - but I will highly suggest that if you have any interest in science fiction or big summer action movies, to go see this in the theater. There are few movies worth paying exorbitant prices to see on the big screen, but in my opinion this is definitely one of them. Until next time...

Editorial: Are Comic Book Movies Resurrecting Careers?

Are comic book movies becoming the catalysts in career resurrections? Consider this:

1. Most people would say that 2008 was RDJ's year; MTV went as far as to anoint him the "Actor [They] Were Most Thankful For." Although Downey had been steadily doing good work for years, Iron Man launched him to Hollywood heights he hadn't seen before

2. Ron Perlman was relegated mostly to television before his breakout performance as Hellboy in 2004. Since then, he's done a sequel, a motorcycle gang show on the FX network, and he's got at least seven movies that he's completed or is working on for 2009 and 2010. Plus, he's going to be a main character in the interesting-sounding Josh Hartnett movie Bunraku.

3. Mickey Rourke has put out at least one movie a year since 1979 (with the exception of 2007), but his career received an extra boost after his portrayal of Marv in the critically acclaimed and fan-praised Sin City. He's currently got five films in pre-production.

4. Gerard Butler was in a few big budget movies like Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, Reign of Fire, and The Phantom of the Opera but never really shined until he became a household name with his bellowing portrayal of King Leonidas in 300. He's got some more high profile projects on the way, most notably Law Abiding Citizen with Jamie Foxx.

5. The cast of Watchmen isn't exactly the most high-profile ensemble gathered for a comic book movie (that honor goes to The Dark Knight), but a few of the film's stars are already feeling the effects of their participation in the film. Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian) is joining another comic book adaptation - this one based on Andy Diggle's "The Losers." Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach) has been hired recently to star in Fox's "Human Target," also based on a comic. Plus, Haley is in serious discussions to star as Freddy Krueger in the upcoming Nightmare on Elm Street remake due (almost certainly) to his insane performance in Watchmen.

These are just five examples - not a full-fledged thesis, but I think enough to be considered a hypothesis. Something to think about, at any rate. Any other instances you can think of? Let me know in the comments section. Until next time...

Note: I've been a little busy lately with weddings and bachelor parties and such, so my production hasn't been as high as usual (although March was pretty awesome). But I'm heading to Ground Zero for movies - Los Angeles, California - for a week on Tuesday, so I'll let you guys know how that went if you're interested when I get back.

Fast & Furious

I had very low expectations for this movie going in, and perhaps that's why I enjoyed it so much - it easily surpassed my expectations and shockingly became my favorite film in the series so far. The Fast and the Furious Omnibus continues...

Fast & Furious

Director: Justin Lin

Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster

Respect must be given to Justin Lin for making a complete turnaround from the putrid third film, Tokyo Drift. Lin directed that entry as well, and somehow secured his position as director for this fourth installment (which I always thought should have been called 4 Fast 4 Furious). This is the type of project I'm sure he wanted to make with the third one, but simply couldn't due to a rancid script. This time out, Lin scales back the flash and concentrates a little more on character and action, delivering relatively convincing portrayals of both. He urges the emotion back out of his actors that this series has been missing since Rob Cohen's flick started this off back in 2001; the film definitely benefits from having the actors TRY instead of drifting through the last one (pun intended...HAH!).

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Fast & Furious is a "good" movie. Labels like that are dangerously subjective. But I will say that I liked it more than any other movie in the franchise. Yes, yes - I realize there's not much competition involved; in reality, the first film is the only one truly worth watching, and that's only if you can't get your hands on a copy of Point Break. But this film gave me the distinct feeling that everyone involved has grown up over the past few years, and the movie was better because of that development. Even Chris Morgan, who wrote this and the third film, seems to have grasped a better sense of the fun that this series needs to please its audience. And while Tokyo Drift didn't incorporate any references back to the first two movies (with the exception of that short Vin Diesel cameo), Fast & Furious does a great job of tying the series together while keeping the action at a satisfying level.

Massive Spoiler Alert Ahead

A guy named Han (Sean's "backer" in TFATF:TD) works with Dom (Diesel) and Letty (Rodriguez) in the beginning of this film before he heads out to Tokyo for the events of the third flick. This nice little send off was well-handled and gives the audience a reference point as to when these events are happening within The Fast and The Furious universe. After the fantastic opening sequence involving hijacking an oil truck in the Dominican Republic, the cops are slowly figuring out that Dom and Co. are behind these robberies. Brian O'Conner has upgraded from cop to FBI agent despite stealing a bunch of money at the end of 2 Fast 2 Furious, and he's living in Los Angeles tracking down a drug smuggler who uses street racing cars as his delivery trucks. Of course, Dom and Brian inevitably cross paths when Letty is brutally murdered by one of the drug smuggler's henchmen and they both join the smuggler's driving squad.


From here, Fast & Furious gets into some dicey territory as far as predictability goes, but that doesn't mean it isn't sufficiently entertaining. It made something like $72 million in its opening weekend, shattering the record for April releases. The online community was shocked to hear this news, and some even seem angry about it. Come on, this isn't Paul Blart: Mall Cop here. Why do you think people saw this movie? Because fans of the franchise were holding out hope that this entry might be better than the last, and with the reunion of Diesel and Walker, they were rewarded. It was a much better film than the last two installments - yes, even with its ridiculous moments. When Dom pieces together Letty's death just by finding some scratch marks on the road, it's pretty unbelievable. When the guys are driving at insane speeds through a labyrinthine tunnel system under the US/Mexico border, it doesn't make any sense. But the movie was fun again, damn it. And that's something that you just can't say about the last two.

End of Spoilers

I've been comparing this movie to its predecessors a lot, but does it stack up against other action movies of today? The answer, I think, is yes. Aside from the aforementioned tunnel sequences, I thought all the driving scenes were pretty cool. It had the requisite drug traffickers, the scantily clothed women, the love interest for Brian (Mia, Dom's sister, back in a throwaway role), and a nice revenge plot for Dom. As a no-brainer action flick, this definitely delivered.


It would seem I've written too much about this already. But trust me - even if you've only seen (and enjoyed) the first film in this series, I would highly recommend checking this out for more of the same. Is it worth seeing in a theater? I'd say yes, if only for the gorgeous opening scene. And the ending (which I guess I won't give away here) was perfect for this type of movie and definitely left the door open for the inevitable sequel The Fa5t and The Furiou5. Until next time...