Tag Archives: Patrick Stewart

Uncategorized

A short review of “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” (2019)

Leave a comment

It’s true what they say about “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” (2019) — its script is almost completely brainless.  It’s got about as much depth as the old “G.I. Joe” cartoon (1983-1986) that played after school when we were kids.

But I’d be lying to you if I said I didn’t enjoy this.  And I’m sure you know why — the big-budget, big-MONSTER special effects.  They were spectacular — and sometimes they approached being unexpectedly beautiful.  (It’s hard to explain here, but our eyes are treated to more than skyscraper-tall brawls between “titans.”  We get a light show too — thanks to some confusing, thinly scripted, but nonetheless dazzling energy-based monster powers.  It was really damned good.)

Add to this a generally excellent cast, and you might be able to forgive the screenplay for insulting your intelligence.  I know that most people would name Ken Watanabe as the actor who truly classes up the joint.  And there’s plenty of truth to that, but I myself would name Charles Dance as the movie’s biggest standout.  The man’s craft is goddam Shakespearean, and I think he’s equal of the likes of Patrick Stewart or Ian McKellen.  And I’d like to think that his throwaway line, “Long live the King,” was at least partly a fan-service reference to what I’m guessing is his best known role — Tywin Lannister on HBO’s “Game of Thrones” (2011-2019).

Based on my own enjoyment, I’d rate this movie an 8 out of 10 — with the caveat that I’m a kid at heart when it comes to giant monsters.  If you’re the same way, then “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” might just become a guilty pleasure that you return to more than once.

 

GodzillaKingOfTheMonstersPoster

Uncategorized

A review of “Logan” (2017)

Leave a comment

I’m not sure I agree with quite all of the accolades that “Logan” (2017) has been receiving.  (It’s being compared with Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight,” for example, as well as Frank Miller’s medium-altering 1986 graphic novel, “The Dark Knight Returns.”)  It’s still a damn good movie, though, and easily among the best of Fox’s “X-Men” series.  I’d give it a 9 out of 10, and I’d firmly recommend it.

This absolutely doesn’t feel like a “comic book movie.”  It feels more like a brutally violent, sometimes introspective, road-trip drama — though all of the comic book elements are still there.  I’d caution comic book fans that “Logan” was actually much darker than I expected — and, no, it wasn’t just because of the visceral violence that could only be afforded by this movie’s unusual “R” rating.  There was a lot more that went on here that got under my skin … I just can’t say more for fear of spoilers.

There is one thing I can tell you — there is none of the escapism of past “X-Men” films.  (C’mon, for being about a supposedly oppressed group, those movies always made being a mutant look fun as hell, and even glamorous.)  This film follows an aging, ailing Wolverine, and an even worsely afflicted Professor X — subsisting in secret in the Mexico desert.  What’s more, they and their aging friend, Caliban, appear to be among the last of their kind, thanks to an unexplained, decades-long absence of new mutant births.  And what little exposition is given about the other X-Men suggests that they are dead.  If you’ve been a fan of these iconic characters for a long time, then seeing Wolverine and Professor X being so painfully not larger than life is jarring, and even sad.  No matter what is the outcome of its story, this movie’s plot setup alone can make an “X-Men” fan a little despondent.

The action is damned good.  The movie surprised me by how smart it was, too.  Its examination of violence and its consequences is unflinching.  Also, we’ve been instructed through so many “X-Men” movies that humans should not seek to contain the mutants out of fear … yet “Logan” adroitly and subtly questions such one-sided moralizing.  The acting, across the board, is extremely good — predictably from Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart, and surprisingly from 11-year-old Dafne Keen.  She’s perfect as the young, imperiled, yet ferocious Laura.

My complaints with “Logan” were minor.  One thing that irked me was my own confusion about whether it was “canon.”  Are we to assume that this takes place in the “X-Men” movies’ “main continuity?”  Or is this a parallel universe or a different timeline?  The feel of this film is so radically different that I found it difficult to imagine it following the previous films (although the post-credits sequence in 2016’s “X-Men: Apocalypse” seems to set up “Logan.”)  I thought that this was based on Marvel Comics’ “Old Man Logan” storyline … wasn’t that an alternate universe story?

Maybe adding more to my confusion, “X-Men” comic books actually exist in the universe of this film.  Laura carries a bunch of them, and they are a minor plot point.  Does this mean that the humans in this universe have finally accepted mutants, enough to create comic books about them being heroes?  How did that come about?

My second criticism of “Logan” is that the character of Laura is thinly rendered.  Saving her is the plot device for the entire film, and Keen is absolutely talented.  Shouldn’t we know more about her, and about her relationship with Logan and Charles?

All in all, this was a superb film, though — with an unexpected tone and a surprisingly sober, risk-taking approach to Jackman’s avowed last appearance as Wolverine.  If you like the “X-Men” movies at all, then you should definitely see it.

 

 

logan

Uncategorized

Lamenting “Star Trek: Nemesis” (2002)

Leave a comment

I’ve been blogging my past movie reviews from Facebook — this was my own humble pan of “Star Trek: Nemesis” (2002).

—–

It’s easy to understand why “Star Trek: Nemesis” (2002) was the lowest grossing Star Trek film of all time. I didn’t hate it quite as much as everybody else (I’d give it a 4 out of 10), but it was a pretty big misfire.

The movie was, frankly, boring for most of its first hour. At one point the film’s villains scold its antagonist, “You promised us action – and yet you delay!!” Yeah, that’s pretty much how the viewers felt. This movie has no sense of pacing at all. There’s an admittedly neat horror flourish early on, then an action sequence cheesy enough to have been lifted from “The A-Team.” Then a good portion of the film seems to revolve around … planning …and conversations. Did the filmmakers think they were writing Shakespeare?

This is also a cobbled together pastiche of plot elements we’ve seen many times before. We have a charismatic leader uniting two groups of bad guys. He’s got an astonishing secret and a link to Jean-Luc Picard. He’s got a new secret weapon and is heading to earth to destroy it. There’s another model/clone/whatever of Data. Telepath Donna Troi is mind-raped by a creepy alien (which just might be a plot device in poor taste). Only some inspired ship maneuvers and a surprise stratagem by Data manage to save the day. If this sounds familiar, you may have seen Star Trek movies or the TV show before.

Even the special effects were average. Did this movie really come out the same weekend as “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones?”

Then there are the nitpicks connected with the entire franchise. Why do seatbelts not exist in Star Trek’s universe? If any matter at all can be created out of nothing via “replicators,” why do mining colonies exist? Why are all the aliens humanoid, but with funny foreheads? WHY IS EVERY CREW MEMBER PERFECT IN EVERY WAY? Is the future inhabited solely by cheerful, hardworking honor students who are always home by curfew? Please watch Ron Moore’s “Battlestar Galactica,” people. There are reasons why Starbuck is a compelling character, and Donna Troi is not.

And even a casual viewer of the TV show could spot the … complete lack of continuity. This film really does contradict the “All Good Things” climax for the show (though, admittedly, the show’s writers really did paint future stories into a corner with that far-future epilogue). If imdb.com is correct, director Stuart Baird had no familiarity with show, and even thought that Geordi LaForge was an alien. Wow.

All of this is a little sad, because there are a few elements of a great movie here. Tom Hardy (Space Bane?) was damn fantastic as the story’s villain. I had no idea he was this good of an actor. The guy is intense, convincing and scary, and I love the way he delivers his lines. What a shame his face and mouth were obscured in “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012). The guy is incredible.

Patrick Stewart is also fantastic, as usual. He does just fine in the “X-Men” films, but he seems like a one-note character there, because he’s almost always serene and in control. Even the “Star Trek: The Next Generation” TV show gave him a better range to show. He’s great when he shows remorse, concern and apprehension. You can tell the guy’s done Shakespeare.

Finally, the movie’s climactic ship-on-ship battle was quite good.

This movie also had some damned interesting themes stemming from Hardy’s bad guy, who is a younger, angrier clone (literally) of Picard. (Maybe that’s a spoiler, but it’s okay – you really don’t need to see this film anyway.) The script presents this well – it actually isn’t as stupid as it sounds. Any sci-fi movie in which Hardy and Stewart comment on the duality of man, or nature vs. nurture, ought to be an automatic classic. And this movie did just fine when it let the two actors explore that.

Oh well. They can’t all be gold, right? It’s just a little sad that the cast of a decent TV show (and a couple of decent movies) had to embark on this as their final voyage.

Star_Trek_Nemesis_poster