Film Review: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

"The light — It's always been there. It'll guide you." - Lupita Nyong'o
--------------------
It's easy to become burned out over Star Wars. 38 years ago, the original film whetted audiences appetites for escapist adventure and fantasy, with spectacles the likes of which had never seen before. The original magic and charm became buried beneath the vitriol and controversy surrounding the sequels, prequels, revisions, spin-offs, and more. With George Lucas selling his company to Disney in 2012, the floodgates suddenly opened for a wave of new talent - writers, directors, actors, and more - to pick up the legacy of this troubled series and take into the next generation.

The Force Awakens is certainly the experience Star Wars fans crave. It has spectacular action - it starts off hard and fast with stormtroopers razing a village and fighters clashing in the skies. The most spectacular sequences include a breakneck chase scene over deserts and through the heart of a crashed spaceship. The last act is an all-out battle that shows X-Wings battling TIE fighters while the characters duke it out with blasters and lightsabers. It's all fast and it's some of the biggest scenes in the series.

Fortunately, it's not all that exhausting either - the film finds a decent balance between the spectacle, humor, and rolling the story forward. Most reviewers have generalized this as a remake of A New Hope. Undeniably, the film banks quite a bit on nostalgia, and it does repeat the broad story beats of the original films. Despite the notable similarities, I never once felt that I was being beaten over the head by nostalgia. It's merely a knuckle in the overall fist that smashes the face of Star Wars apathy. Even with familiar faces returning, the film's focus is firmly set on new characters, and they are truly a lovable bunch. Finn and Rey are heroes who elicit great empathy in their struggles, and show a lot of personality and character through their various nuances (which is especially phenomenal given the short amount of time they actually have to develop in the midst of so much action). Kylo Ren may come off as a whiny emo kid, but he is far more volatile than any before him, and he's clearly a conflicted soul with depth to him that's begging to be explored. Once the motivations are clear for these characters, one can't help but to wonder what directions they will go next.

Unfortunately, that leads me to wonder what else is left unsaid in the film. Many questions won't be answered until the next episode. Others can only be speculated in the gap between this and Return of the Jedi (I personally wish more was said about the New Republic, the New Order, Snoke, and other odd things). Characters like General Hux and Captain Phasma are great to behold, but are the shallowest characters of the lot and receive very little screen time.

Despite the even flow and attention to characters, the plot itself is fast and loose (come to think of it, all of JJ Abrams' films are like that). There are a few gaps and plot holes that can either be shrugged off, or may become points of contention for fans.  Parts of it seem to be rushed.  The film's biggest issue is that, like a Marvel movie, it is built to bridge a franchise, rather than to craft an original story. It requires knowledge of what happened before, and it sets up what will happen next. The film does its job admirably to revitalize the series with new faces, an expanded universe, and the old-fashioned sense of adventure. With recycled scenes and archetypes, however, some audiences won't be so easily swayed.

Of all the Star Wars films, this may be one of the best-looking ones of the lot. Filmmakers took great care to craft a plethora of authentic new creatures, sets, props, weapons, vehicles, costumes, and more. The film is packed with real-looking places and things, lending it the same sense of realism that made the original so jarring. What computer-generated effects the film has are spectacular and take nothing away from the experience. An even more pleasant surprise is in the acting and the script. Dialogue is often sharp, witty, and provides enough depth to make the story feel more relevant (even if it is a retread). Daisy Ridley brings Rey to life beautifully, with a commanding presence and emotional range. John Boyega's performance is superb and fun to watch. Oscar Isaac is surprisingly playful as Poe Dameron. Adam Driver portrays rage and tragedy very well in his part. Despite his age, Harrison Ford inhabits the body of Han Solo like wearing an old jacket, and he's surprisingly endearing that way. Carrie Fischer still plays it tough as Leia. Lupita Nyong'o plays an alien, and it's interesting. With so many players going all at once, what matters the most is that all of them pull their weight so that every little face, gesture, and word contributes to their respective characterization, giving much more depth to them through the art of showing more than telling. John Williams' music score is notably different, but I believe it lends the movie its own unique style and feeling.

Some might call this an unoriginal sellout, lacking in the boldness that the other films presented. However, it is a well-crafted crowd-pleaser. It entertains not only through its action, but also captivates with its characters. What I like about it the most is that, like many of my other favorites (including the original Star Wars), its nuances show more than tell, to capture and let our own imaginations fill in the gaps. With my own imagination filling with the possibilities of what could happen next, my appetite is now whetted for the next episode, and any Star Wars fatigue I had is gone.

4.5/5

Book Review: Logan's Run (William F Nolan and George Clayton Johnson)

The Logan's Run film has been a seminal staple of sci-fi cinema my whole life. It's a film that presents its unique premise with plenty of flair and adventure. It seemed essential that I had to read the original book to see where this marvelous movie came from, and how it compared.

The book is as short, breezy, and pulpy as they come. It wastes no time in establishing the funky world Logan 5 lives in, and the madcap quest he embarks on. It's a sprawling adventure that goes all over the place, from one perilous situation to another. There are definitely unique ideas and vivid settings to behold, and it is quite a wonderful sci-fi adventure at times.

Unfortunately, I did find some things to be rather wonky. Strange as it may seem, I thought the plot of the movie adaptation was handled better - it made more sense to me that Logan would be put on a mission, rather than how it is in the book, where on his very last day of living he decides to try and find Sanctuary on his own initiative. Mort importantly, the events of the book are so tightly-packed, it's almost dizzying. Logan goes from one city to another, through canyons and glaciers, confronting Sandmen and killer robots and a crazy nursery and everything. Little time is spent in between the peril to settle down and get to know the characters and their world (world-building is effectively shown, but it still feels like a lot condensed into a very small space). In the end, the actual plot and sequence of events is very random.  It's exciting at times, but not always compelling.

As far as characters go, surprisingly little is said about them. Despite all his strength and determination, I didn't think Logan's motivation was that strong, and there wasn't much for the reader to relate to. Other characters are quite flat.

Ideas and the world-building are immense, but once again, I felt the movie handled them better. The book details multiple cities worldwide, rather than just one. I can't say I can comprehend how the world as a whole could condone and conform to the system that's described, but the whole idea of controlling population by limiting age is a naturally compelling one (even if limiting it to 21 seems rather young).

The prose is pretty trim, tight, and easy to read. It might even come off as rather brusque in style. Descriptions are minimal, and most details about the world and the premise behind it are more shown rather than told. Action is always moving, dialogue is not bad, and the book overall gets the job done fine and dandy.

It is a fairly enjoyable piece of pulp sci-fi, but I personally value the movie more - its plotting is hammered out better, and its pacing much more even, whereas the book is tight and nonstop. I feel it's a little too fast and loose, and it doesn't quite capitalize on characters, concepts, and plotting as well as the movie does. It's worthwhile for sci-fi fans, but this is one rare case where I believe the movie is better.

3.5/5

 

Film Review: Moonraker (007)

James Bond has been to just about every country on the Earth. Now, his struggles take him above and beyond...into outer space

In the aftermath of the blockbuster supergiants, Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, sci-fi was becoming huge in the late 70s. For better or for worse, producers decided to rocket this Bond picture into space and capitalize off of the craze. What results is easily the most stupidly excessive film of the lot. This is one long film that includes Bond skydiving, Bond trying out astronaut training machines, Bond going hunting, Bond going to Rio, Bond going to Venice for a big boat chase scene, Bond going to the Amazon jungle for an even bigger boat chase scene, and then after all that, Bond finally reaches space. The space scenes are probably the biggest highlight, as we watch a fleet of space shuttles departing Earth, Bond confronting the bad guy in a massive space station, and inevitably, there's an all-out laser-beam battle everywhere. Those lasers sure are cool. Just about every scene looks larger than life, thanks to all the grand views and exotic locations that serve as a background to the elaborate onslaught of peril and action. They pretty much throw everything at you - the sum of all the parts will seem messy, but if you take it scene-by-scene, it is a genuinely fun and fulfilling experience.

The plot pretty much goes through the motions of every other Bond adventure, simply swapping out secret lairs for a space station. All the usual elements are there - gadgets galore, ladies, class. It's nothing original or deep. It has practically nothing to do with Ian Fleming's original novel (which is actually a decent spy thriller). You just have to watch it for what it is: escapism at its most extreme.

This film uses excellent photography and editing. Roger Moore plays the same old Bond we all know and love (or hate) by now. Lois Chiles plays a rather flat character. Michael Lonsdale is okay to watch as the villain, but his performance is rather robotic in nature. Richard Kiel is awesome. Writing is not too terrible, especially given the material. This production spares no expense on the lavish locations, sets, props, costumes, and special effects. John Barry's music score is not bad, but I am not a fan of Shirley Bassey's theme song.

Moonraker represents the absolute height of excess in a James Bond film - it's so ridiculous, it has to be seen to be believed. I personally value the film the most for just being a nonstop chain of fun scenes, all the way to its far-out climax.

3.5/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: The Spy Who Loved Me (007)

The Spy Who Loved Me was a Bond movie that was just bound to happen. Not only because it's yet another Ian Fleming book that had yet to be adapted, but because this is the one where James Bond has to ally with a Soviet to get stuff done. It's like the 007 variant to The Man from UNCLE. And in the Roger Moore age, it's bound to be larger than life and ridiculous as hell.

This film is probably most memorable for being the one with all the submarines, including a tanker that eats other submarines. It's an elaborate plot by some villain in a secret underwater lair to cause the world powers to blow each other up in nuclear war (yep, this plotline was bound to happen). Bond travels from Egypt to the depths of the sea to investigate. He confronts a huge man with metal teeth - an awesomely invincible henchman named Jaws. There are fights. There are car chases. Inevitably, his adventure requires the use of a car that turns into a submarine (seriously, WTF?). It gradually culminates into a huge, all-out battle in the middle of a supertanker, and a showdown in the secret underwater lair.

Bond adventures don't get more over-the-top than this, although it's not always that thrilling of a picture. The first half of the movie always felt rather dry, long, and stuffy to me. Even with Roger Moore's wit and charms, pacing seems to drag at times. When the big finale hits, it can be rather thrilling, especially with the stakes elevated to such a massive degree. What makes this film more interesting will be the characters. With Bond being paired with his Soviet equivalent - a woman just as skilled and confident as he is - the dynamics become fairly more interesting than normal. Unfortunately, I always felt that Stromburg is the least interesting villain of the series, so the whole thing comes off as dry and forgettable.

Oh yeah, this is also nothing like the original book. Then again, I wasn't a fan of the book. Read Dr. No instead.

This film uses pretty good photography and solid editing. Roger Moore continues to exude charm and wit as James Bond. Barbara Bach is lovely in her role and she plays the part pretty well. Curt Jürgens strikes me as extremely flat and stereotypical as the villain. Richard Kiel is awesome. Writing in this movie is so-so. This production uses good-looking locales. Sets, props, and costumes range from being okay to being rather fake-looking. Marvin Hamlisch's music score features some more disco-type of stuff, which I find gaudy. I am not a fan of Carly Simon's theme song, but most people love it.

The joy of The Spy Who Loved Me is partly in its unique (albeit inevitable) premise and partly in just how over-the-top it is. It's exactly the same kind of stuff that would inspire Austin Powers twenty years later. I don't think it's always that fun of a picture, but it's good fun for all Bond fans.

3.5/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: The Man With the Golden Gun (007)

James Bond has faced a plethora of iconic villains at this point - Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Auric Goldfinger, Dr. No, Emilio Largo, and more. All of them have matched Bond with their charisma, wits, and ruthlessness. The Man With the Golden Gun does so as well, in addition to matching Bond in skill.

The second film featuring Roger Moore will likely come off as just more of the same to most people - it's another outlandish adventure in which Bond travels abroad, gets chased, faces the bad guy, and gets the girl in the end, as always. I always felt this was one of Moore's funner pictures though - the levity is present, for better or for worse, but the pacing hardly ever drags. There is a great car chase scene in the middle of the movie, with a magnificent stunt in which a car jumps over a river and does an inverted twist in midair (just, ignore the slide whistle they stupidly added in). There are great scenes where Bond confronts leads and outwits his enemies throughout Hong Kong and Thailand. There's a kung-fu fight in the mix, just for the hell of it. It all builds up to a showdown with the titular villain on his own island, which is set up as a deadly funhouse. The whole movie exudes the classic blend of Bond escapism that we all know and love, even if it does seem really light and fluffy.

The plot is probably too convoluted for its own good - it's an elaborate plot in which Bond gets a bullet with his name on it, but it turned out to be a ruse to get him to kill the bad guy, and so on. A senseless subplot involving an outlandish device - the solar agitator - makes it even more senseless. Despite all these contrivances, there is at least one thing that I think makes this film the most redeemable: the villain. Francisco Scaramanga is the perfect foil character to James Bond - both are gentlemen with charm, taste, and charisma. They both womanize and share the same vices. Unlike Bond, however, Scaramanga takes pleasure out of killing, and it molded him into a shadowy reflection of what Bond's own dark side must look like. On these merits, I find the showdown between Bond and Scaramanga to be an epic moment for the series.

This film boasts pretty good photography and editing. Roger Moore continues to keep his tongue in his cheek as James Bond. Christopher Lee is chillingly perfect as Scaramanga, and quite possibly steals the show. Hervé Villechaize plays one of the more memorable henchmen in the series (and it's a part that doesn't seem too far off from his eventual role in Fantasy Island). Maud Adams and Britt Ekland are both lovely and charming to watch as the Bond ladies, although the latter can be a rather irritating twit at times. Cliffton James returns as the buffoonish sheriff from Louisiana - we all wish he didn't. Writing is okay, it gets the job done. This production uses plenty of exquisite, foreign locales. Sets, props, and costumes are pretty lavish and good. John Barry's music score is decent. I don't think Lulu's music score has aged that well, but it sure is catchy.

Most folks have been dismissive of The Man With the Golden Gun, but I love the sense of adventure it has. More importantly, I love the characters - especially the villain, who stands out among the other goons that Roger Moore's Bond has to face. I see it as a decent balance of escapism, action, and levity, and it comes out as my favorite film from Roger Moore's repertoire as Bond.

4/5 (Experience: Very Good | Story: Okay | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Live and Let Die (007)

In James Bond's eighth cinematic adventure, Roger Moore steps in the well-worn shoes of the famous British spy. He goes on an adventure that involves drug trafficking, and oddly enough, voodoo.

The film definitely has action to spare - there are a few car chases, a major boat chase, and a chase scene with a plane on a tarmac. In between these setpieces, Bond faces various sorts of peril, including a pretty cool scene at a crocodile farm. The tone is light, but there is some edge to it as Bond traverses through the streets of Harlem, the bayou of Louisiana, and the superstitious realms of the Caribbean. And, of course, it all ends at a secret lair of some kind... With Roger Moore in the lead this time, Bond becomes a lot less about kicking butt and taking names, and a lot more about the tongue-in-cheek wit and charm - it's not quite as overbearing in this film as it is in others, but it's quite the departure from the 60s era of Bond.

This plot has always been a little hard to grasp to me - the film shows you all the different aspects of the villain's sprawling plot, but does little to tie them together. Bond seems to go from one end of it to the other based on the whims of the script. There's nothing much to the characters - they're as one-dimensional as they can be. The film carries over some aspects of blaxploitation, which was big at the time, but it's hard to tell if it's really a good fit for Bond or not.

This film has good, but hardly great, photography. Editing seemed a little screwy to me at times. Acting is a bizarre thing to judge - you'll either love or hate Roger Moore's version of Bond, but in this first film, there are times when he tries to act good and tough. I enjoyed watching Yaphet Kotto and Julius Harris as the villains. Jane Seymour looks great and plays her part well. Gloria Hendry does the same. Cliffton James plays a cartoonish buffoon of a sheriff, and it's so goofy it's embarrassing. Writing is so-so. This production uses pretty real-looking locales, but the sets, props, and costumes are a bit on the fake side. The music score's okay. Paul McCartney's theme song is one of the classics - unfortunately, I feel it's been played to death after all these years.

There are fun moments in Live and Let Die, but the plot and all the things in it makes for a rather strange brew. Still worth a look for Bond fans.

3.5/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Diamonds Are Forever (007)

For the seventh James Bond adventure - and the last EON production featuring Sean Connery - the famous spy goes on one of his wildest and weirdest adventures.

The film starts off briskly, for in the immediate aftermath of OHMSS, we watch Bond mercilessly hunt down his arch-nemesis and take revenge. Presumably. The events of the last film are never explicitly acknowledged, but it firmly re-establishes Bond as an unstoppable man of action. From there on, however, the film remains light and campy in its tone. There is action to be had, including a few car chases and a big gun battle on an oil rig. It seems like Bond is thrust in and out of peril repeatedly. But there's also a lot of goofiness to it - Bond commandeers a moon vehicle in one scene, he fights a pair of acrobats named Bambi and Thumper just for the hell of it, and there's a pair of hitmen who act fruity. There's jokes that aren't that funny, and much like the actual casinos Bond moseys through, the film feels quite tacky and cheap.

The story's not too terrible, but it does venture into outlandish territory. Bond's investigation has a lot of ups and downs, with some deception games involved, but once everything clears up it becomes a race to stop the villain's evil plan. The film is pretty evenly silly throughout, and it doesn't leave that much of an impact in the end.

This film is made with good, but rarely great, photography. Editing is okay. Acting is swell - Sean Connery is still apt as James Bond, even with more tongue-in-cheek humor involved. Jill St. John is quite the looker in this film, but I found her character borderline unlikable. I loved Charles Gray's performance as Blofeld - the sheer villainy and class he exudes is phenomenal, just as it should be. Writing is pretty dumb. Most of this film is set in Vegas, so naturally, a lot of it looks tacky. But all things considering, the locales, sets, props, and costumes get the job done well. Special effects towards the end are terrible. John Barry's music score is really good, and Shirley Bassey's theme song is great.

Diamonds Are Forever is as silly as a Bond film can get (at least until Moonraker came along). Even then, there are things to like and enjoy about it, and it's still good-natured fun for Bond fans.

3.5/5 (Experience: Goofy | Story: Average | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: You Only Live Twice (007)

After so many plots unraveled across four classic films, James Bond would finally reach the top and confront the head man of SPECTRE, in You Only Live Twice.

This time, Bond's mission takes him to Japan. It starts off hard and fast, as he fakes his death, and then struggles to escape death in a constant string of confrontations and encounters on foreign soil. When Bond has to infiltrate a secret volcanic lair, he resorts to the ultimate cover: marrying a Japanese girl, while learning ninjutsu and getting facial surgery. It all adds up to a big, explosive battle in the middle of the volcano. As always, there's gadgets (the biggest thing being a small DIY helicopter with loads of weapons) there's ladies, and there's danger galore.

The story follows the original novel just a little bit, but the book will always have the edge because it has one important dramatic angle that the movie misses out on: the theme of revenge. The book was a pretty intense struggle, because it follows immediately after On Her Majesty's Secret Service. If you know what happens in that story, then you know how driven Bond becomes to finding Blofeld and making him pay. Also, Bond actually became a ninja and infiltrated a castle to get his vengeance - how cool is that?

The movie misses out on many of these opportunities, and instead keeps the tone light and fluffy. It takes some pretty ridiculous turns, including a useless subplot involving a rocket that steals other rockets in space. The only thing that makes this feel special is that he fakes death and assume a disguise, but it never reaches a level of significance that affects the plot much. For Bond, it's just business as usual.

This film is made with decent photography. One thing I think it weird though is that most shots, especially during the fight scenes, are taken from really really far away. Editing is okay. Acting is fine for what it is: Sean Connery seems to give a more tongue-in-cheek portrayal of Bond, but his presence is still welcome. Donald Pleasence plays the villain pretty dryly, but his mere presence and look is iconic. I have no complaints with Akiko Wakabayashi's, Mie Hama's, or Tetsuro Tamba's performances. Writing is okay, but most of the jokes fall horribly flat. This production has good-looking locales. Some of the props, costumes, and special effects appear cheap. I was never a fan of Nancy Sinatra's theme song, but the music score is alright.

You Only Live Twice is enjoyable, but also lightweight, silly, and rather shallow. The book is quite a bit better, but even by the standards of the film series, there are better Bond adventures.

3/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Average)

Film Review: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (007)

Of all the classic Bond films, this one represents the most drastic deviation. It's a darker, more serious adventure that takes the character to more profound levels of peril and tragedy.

Right from the start, the film differentiates itself with its dreary imagery and a hard-hitting fight scene on a beach. Then there's a long, winding series of fights, deception, and intrigue. A good chunk of the film is devoted to a lengthy chase across Switzerland, which includes a ton of skiing, a huge avalanche, and a car chase. It eventually builds up to an all-out battle in the mountains. Then there's the ending, which is the one thing that pushes this whole film above and beyond the normal levels of a Bond adventure. It is a dramatic and profound turn for the character, and it has to be seen to be understood.

The story's generally more of the same: Bond has a mission to find a bad guy, reveal the evil plot, then take him out. He spends most of the time undercover, so the thrills and intrigue are much more grounded. The actual plot that's revealed is as outlandish and weird as they come. What matters the most are the characters: Bond is still the man, but the love interest provides a touching flourish that gives the story more weight.

Most of this film features good photography, but some shots are a bit hectic. Editing is very punchy, to the point where shots become compressed to mere seconds, and it almost appears agitating (though not nearly as bad as most modern movies, like the Bourne series, or Quantum of Solace). For a film from the 60s, it's pretty wild. Acting is quite the mixed bag. I was never a fan of George Lazenby, but the more I watch the film, the more forgiving I am of him - he embodies the voice and swagger of the character well enough. I'm still not a fan of Telly Savalas, whose portrayal of Blofeld feels very odd and foreign to me. I do love Diana Rigg in this film. Writing is okay. This production has good-looking locales. Some of the sets, props, and costumes are a bit gaudy and weird, and most special effects look kinda bad. John Barry's music score is superb - his main theme is so dramatic, it's chilling. Unfortunately, I am not a fan of Louis Armstrong's love theme.

Even though there are odd things to hate about OHMSS, it is a bold film that offers an intriguing direction for Bond, and offers a little more substance to its story that gives the ending a proper punch. For that alone, all Bond fans need to see the film at least once.

4/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Thunderball (007)

After seeing James Bond in action in three big, iconic missions, Thunderball blasts to the scene with the promise of more action, more gadgets, more ladies, bigger stakes, more exotic locations, and so much more!

At this point, the Bond formula had been established firmly enough so that Thunderball only has to follow a template full of established tropes and cliches. Many folks will say that it makes this one of the duller movies. I personally always thought it was a blast though. Among the highlights, this film follows Bond on a colorful journey to Nassau, where he has to constantly out-think and outwit the opposition. There's a lot of deceptive mindgames at work, followed by some chasing and some fighting, before a massive all-out battle underwater. It's a long film, but it is consistently thrilling and it has a satisfying payoff. Best of all, the film remains iconic thanks to the classic elements at play: Bond's classic charm, a classic villain we love to hate, and an overall sense of class.

The premise is pretty simple, generally not much different than a lot of modern action movies revolving around stolen nuclear weapons (like Broken Arrow, The Rock, Mission Impossible, you name it). It follows Ian Flemming's novel practically word for word (which is unsurprising, since it was based on a screenplay to begin with). What makes it so fun is that it's twisty and complex, but not impossible to follow. Each new scene offers something that's either thrilling or alluring. The characters are as endearing as ever.

Caught in epic widescreen photography, this film boasts plenty of bright and colorful scenery. Most of it looks great, especially with some steady and well-choreographed underwater photography. Some scenes, especially during the parade scene, are a bit rough around the edges. Editing can be nutty, as some dialogue has been cut, dubbed, and recut for various versions. Scenes usually transit well regardless. Acting is great: Sean Connery is still the man, and I always enjoyed the performances of Adolfo Celi, the lovely Claudine Auger, and the lovely Licuana Paluzzi. Writing is okay - the plot unravels well, and the dialogue is usually good, but some of the jokes can be a little goofy. This production uses great-looking locales, and lots of fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. John Barry's music score is as good as ever, and Tom Jones' theme song is hip.

To me, Thunderball is one of the most perfect Bond adventures. It has all the right signature elements we know and love, but with tons of thrills and action. It is a long adventure that might strain the patience of many viewers, but I think it's classy, sexy, exciting stuff.

4.5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

Book Review: Insurgent (Veronica Roth)

In Divergent, we were introduced to a unique semi-post-apocalyptic world where society was split up into five groups, and Tris Prior was thrown in the middle of an evil faction plot that led to war.  This follow-up takes off in a thrilling new direction, seeing Tris and her accomplices on the run, hunted, and targeted for some experiment that may change the future.

There is plenty to enjoy out of Insurgent.  At the very least, it is as breezy as its predecessor, with simple language that flows well and has enough color to keep things enjoyable.  It's a fast and enjoyable read, with action, thrills, some levity, and some interesting twists and turns.

However, the experience is hampered a little by the exact same issues that makes other YA stories (like The Hunger Games or Twilight) drag.  As the story of Insurgent goes on, Tris develops a tendency to mope and fixate on things, always questioning feelings and loyalties, to the point where it can stall the story's progress and make her character a little less likable.  The issue is further compounded by a few other character twists and subplots; one important character becomes a traitor, in a twist that makes me want to punch the wall in frustration.  One other character suddenly becomes good, but is still not nearly likable.  The romantic element becomes challenged and strained, and other things happen that makes the story overall feel less likable and endearing.

The story itself is interesting, and it is refreshing to see that it doesn't rehash the first novel.  There is one huge plot twist at the end that is really intriguing and clever.  Sadly, I felt the actual plotting could have been better.  It feels like the characters wander to and from different factions so much, including the enemy faction.  The mystery behind the factions' motives causes the events to fold out in ways that might seem confusing, but really I feel the film adaptation handled it all much better.  The film takes the same plot and condenses it, while making it clear what the enemy's motivations are and keeping things simple.  In the film, it's easy and understanble to follow Tris' journey, because she remains in one setting for most of it.  In the book, it feels like one too many steps to the endgame.

Like before, the book is written with simple, easy-to-read language.  It doesn't get heavy with details and descriptions, but it does have decent dialogue and characterization.  It's just plain good writing all around.

I can't say I find the characters or plot of Insurgent nearly as likable as the first novel, but it is a fun read.  However, I do think the film adaptation fixes a few of the issues present in the book, and straightens the story out a little better.

3.5/5 (Experience:  Good | Story:  Okay | Book:  Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

In Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, there was a brief mention of a new mission, before Ethan disappears into a cloud of steam. In his fifth adventure, Ethan would go face-to-face with the "Rogue Nation," a Syndicate so threatening that it threatens the world powers and forces Ethan and the team to face their toughest challenge yet.

This mission has its share of incredible peril. Once again, the entire IMF is rendered useless (this time out of political squabbling among the Intelligence Community), forcing the heroes to go off on their own off the grid to find the threat and use their limited resources to stop it. In their struggles, the characters have to infiltrate an impossibly secure facility, which involves Ethan swimming through a water-filled computer core. Given the physical threat and the physical feats involved, this scene is genuinely gripping. There is a pretty cool motorcycle chase in the middle of the movie. There are shootouts and fights. It all amounts to a complex cat-and-mouse chase, in the same vein as Skyfall, but with a bigger emphasis on deception. The push and pull and mindgames may need some suspension of disbelief - it seems as though Ethan can somehow plan for the most incredible of plot twists in advance and always come out with an even more elaborate plan - but it is fun to watch it all play out.

The story has its worthy moments. The premise is naturally thrilling, as the IMF team confronts great stakes once again. Ethan and the others have become a familiar family by now, and they remain endearing characters. What makes them stand out more now will be the themes of trust, especially with everyone questioning William Brandt's loyalty and what Ilsa Faust's motives are. Faust is a lovely new character caught in the middle of a tricky spy game, and her situation elicits decent empathy. Behind it all is a fairly menacing villain, who comes out as Ethan's direct foil; a mastermind terrorist who becomes obsessed with outwitting the IMF and becoming a true rogue nation.

Despite all the twists, the story does suffer a little. For a movie about a "rogue nation," I expected something bigger, like an actual nation of rogues or something. I expected the villains to have a grander level of influence and infrastructure, but they turned out to be a limited number of well-armed and well-funded men out for petty vengeance. The film ultimately doesn't reach the same level of stakes, personal or political, that were represented in MI:III or MI: GP. On top of that, the film seems to drop everything regarding Ethan's wife, obliterating any character arc that had developed. There are a few scenes that seem a little too incredible, especially in how convoluted the mindgames become. The opening sequence is too short for my liking (I actually wish the plane stunt was somewhere in the middle of the movie, so it would give us all something incredible to look forward to). Regardless, this film is a fine spy thriller, but not the all-out MI extravaganza I would have expected.

This film boasts good, but rarely exceptional, photography. Editing tends to be rather fast. Tom Cruise is still apt as Ethan Hunt. Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, and Ving Rhames are fun to watch. I thought Rebecca Ferguson was perfectly lovely in her role. Sean Harris is a pretty decent villain. Alec Baldwin plays a pretty grumpy dude in his role (and coming from a man who once played Jack Ryan, I find his character a bit too unreasonable and unlikable). Writing is okay. This production uses pretty good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are okay. Stunts are good. Locales are pretty good, but they don't really stand out as much as in other movies. The music score seemed really bombastic, for better or for worse.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is far from my favorite of the series. I personally wish the plot wasn't quite as implausible. I wish the nature of the "rogue nation" was different. I wish that a bunch of other little things could be altered. Despite my petty complaints, it is entertaining and worth a look.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

"The President has initiated Ghost Protocol. The entire IMF has been disavowed." - Tom Wilkinson
--------------------
Mission: Impossible III may be a tough act to follow, given its superb balance between action and storytelling. Who would have thought that there would be even bigger and more daring missions to come?

Ghost Protocol takes the IMF team and plunges it into immediate danger, cut off from their parent agency and disavowed. On their own, without backup and support, they rely on what scant leads, tech, and resources they can to stop a bunch of villains from kick-starting nuclear war. In this mission, Ethan Hunt busts out of a Russian gulag, infiltrates the Kremlin (in the coolest way imaginable), and chases bad guys in cars and on foot. One of the biggest and most iconic scenes shows the man scaling the side of the Burj Khalifa Tower, hundreds of stories high, filmed in stunning detail with IMAX cameras. With so many stunts, so much deception, and such high stakes, the mission has never been more exciting and incredible.

This story doesn't have the same emotional heft as its predecessor, largely because Ethan's wife is out of the picture (and there is a nice subplot that explains what's going on there), and because the story's villain just doesn't have that much presence or motivation. What this film does have, thankfully, is a superb cast of heroes we love and can root for. Ethan had teams in all the other movies, but they feel like more of a team in Ghost Protocol, largely because they are all forced to work together without outside help. The conflict and banter between them allows these characters to develop their own personalities, which makes them all people we can relate to and root for. The actual plot retreads the tired old territory of "we got to stop nuclear war!!" but it does an apt job of stringing together the setpieces in a logical way, crafting a well-rounded adventure.

This film boasts superb photography and editing. Just about every shot is cool, without too much camera shake (like Abrams' film) and without any superfluous style choices (looking at you, John Woo). Tom Cruise is still quite the action hero, but is still well-grounded in this. I loved watching Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton, and Léa Seydoux. Even though his character wasn't that well-developed, Michael Nyqvist was a convincing villain. Writing is pretty good. This production uses plenty of good-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. Special effects can be a hit or a miss. Music is good.

Even though MI: III offers the best characterization and story, I favor MI: GP the most for its fabulous setpieces, while still retaining a lovable core cast and presenting a thrilling plot to bring it all together. I think it's a total blast, and one of the best spy movies in general.

4/5 (Experience: Very Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Very Good)

Film Review: Mission Impossible III

For years, a third Mission Impossible movie seemed unlikely, until JJ Abrams accepted the mission to make it happen. As Abrams' debut picture, Mission Impossible III is a rip-roaring thrill ride full of color and energy.

From its first scene onwards - half of a torture scene that is ultimately revisited later in the picture - the movie sets itself apart from its predecessors. It is grittier and more violent, showing agents skirting death and disaster in the hands of dangerous villains. There are really neat scenes of infiltration and deception, including a daring operation in the Vatican and a building in Shanghai. There's also a lot of loud and frenetic action, to include a thrilling helicopter chase scene through a windfarm, a drone attacking cars on a bridge, and plenty of gunfighting.

There is plenty of action and energy to keep the film rolling at full steam ahead, without being overblown. As welcoming as the pace is, one thing keeps it from being perfect: the cameramanship. Photography is good a lot of the time, but there are a lot of scenes where the camera shake becomes erratic, and it often hinders the action more than it helps. It's not quite as awful as The Bourne Supremacy or anything, but I would have liked MI: III a grade more if the camera would settle down a bit more.

What makes this film work, thankfully, is the storytelling. It's a pretty simple and straightforward affair. The plot ultimately revolves around people fighting over "The Rabbit's Foot," the full details of which are never disclosed (although it's not too hard to figure out what it could be in the end). It's ultimately not the focus of the story; it's just a device to showcase the true conflict, which is between the hero and the villain. At this point in the series, Ethan Hunt has become a more reluctant hero, having found a woman to settle down with. When he's dragged back into action, he spurs the villain, Owen Damien, to hit back where it hurts the most. Characterization is at its best in this film; Ethan is finally given something for the audience to latch onto emotionally, and when it becomes threatened, it reveals Owen Damien to be one of the most chilling and heartless villains committed to the big screen. This simple focus on characters makes the story and action flow much better than everything that happened in the previous movies, representing a huge step-up in quality storytelling.

This film is captured with very striking photography; colors are very vivid, details are sharp, and the film looks very slick overall. Camera shake does rear its ugly head in many scenes, but for every shakey scene there's also a very good-looking scene, so it balances out. Editing is pretty sharp and concise. Tom Cruise seems to play Ethan with more maturity than before, ditching most of the cockiness and adding in a decent amount of emotional heft. Phillip Seymour Hoffman excels as the villain in a chillingly perfect performance. Michelle Monaghan is lovely in all respects, and it's great to see Simon Pegg and Maggie Q in the mix. Other actors aren't bad. Writing is pretty straightforward and good. This production uses good-looking sets, props, costumes, special effects, and some real-looking locales. Music is pretty good.

The first mission had great scenes, but came off as being rather dry. The second mission was just crazy. The third time is the charm, thanks to the focus on an actual story with actual characters worth seeing. This mission comes highly recommended, even if you haven't seen the others.

4/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Good)

Book Review: Eyes of the Dragon (Stephen King)

Stephen King may be best known for his plethora of quality horror writing, but with his early novel The Eyes of the Dragon, the man attempted to deviate into the realms of high fantasy.  The book takes place in a kingdom of King's own making, complete with legends of dragons and magic.  Some things remain dark and wicked, but it's hardly scary; this is fantasy of the purest sort.

Most of the book is breezy and easy to digest, thanks mostly to King's own ethos.  He tells the story quite literally in a storyteller-type of voice, leading the reader headlong into the lore and details of the world of Delain.  I wouldn't say it's a perfect experience though; as common with King's stories, he sometimes spends pages and pages describing minute details, and it can be a bit tiresome in some scenes.  Fortunately, it's not quite as laborious as other books I've read of his, and it is perfectly-readable all the same.

The story is a simple one:  it focuses on two princes, whose father is slain under diabolical circumstances, which causes one prince to become wrongfully imprisoned and the other to become an inept king against his will.  With this setup, the book has plenty of thrilling parts, as Peter is forced to stage a daring escape from prison, and other characters gather to confront the story's villain.  There are a few things I could nitpick about; the story goes through a pretty long and random introduction, and thanks to King's narration, he tends to spoil the plot twists well in advance.  You'll always know who the villain is and you'll always know that King Roland dies eventually, and I believe it kills some potential suspense.  However, King does lay out this story with a lot of nuance and attention to thematic detail, going so far as giving significant meaning to a lot of different elements (including napkins, of all things).

As I mentioned repeatedly, King uses a pretty blatant storyteller's voice in this book, and I believe it's a hit-and-a-miss.  The wording is often good, but I find it weird how he occasionally breaks the fourth wall by referencing himself as the storyteller (in our world nonetheless, causing him to draw parallels between modern things and fantasy things, which I found a bit distracting), and by addressing the reader directly (which I'm not necessarily a fan of).  However, I can't deny that the prose does lend the book a level of authenticity that befits the story, and it is elegant most of the time.  Quality illustrations add to the experience pretty well.

The Eyes of the Dragon is a simple story, but it is elegant and told in an interesting way.  It's clear to me that it's an experimental work, featuring some elements (and even characters) that would influence other works (such as my favorite, The Stand, and The Dark Tower series).  For such an experiment, I think King handled the fantasy storytelling pretty well, and fantasy fans should find this rewarding.

4/5 (Experience:  Good | Story:  Good | Book:  Pretty Good)

Film Review: Jurassic World

"You didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth."- BD Wong
--------------------
Dinosaurs were resurrected with the miracle of genetic manipulation on Jurassic Park, but all attempts to control them ended in chaos and bloodshed. The pattern persisted through two more movies, and now it persists through another. This time, in the fourth film of the series, the park is finally open. Tourists flock to Isla Nublar to see living, breathing dinosaurs on exhibit. Something's bound to go wrong...

True to the formula of the series, the film starts off slow, establishing a few key characters (including kids for the narrative to anchor onto, again) before things start to go wrong. From the halfway point onwards, the film unleashes all kinds of hell when the dinosaurs inevitably break free and start wreaking havoc across the park. There are plenty of spectacular scenes in which dinosaurs stomp their way through entire crowds of hapless humans. It eventually builds up to a huge showdown between the classic dinosaurs we all know and love, and the menacing Indominous Rex.

Other things that make the film interesting will be its revamped setting - a fully working amusement park - and a few cool ideas, including the possibility of using Velociraptors in combat. You know what you're getting with the plot; it follows in the same pattern as the first film, complete with the recurring theme of chaos theory and humanity's inability to control nature. It reaches a pretty bizarre climax where the films seems to emphasize the dinosaurs in a heroic light, and it becomes a bit cheesy.  What makes the film lovable will be its characters, who aren't terribly deep, but are often colorful and charming most of the time. Some of them make some pretty dumb moves, but for this series, it's to be expected.  There are a couple of kids in the mix, to give us the familiar family-esque dynamic.  Watching the leads comes together proves to be charming and enjoyable, thanks to their personalities.

This film is made with good photography and editing. The cast is a pretty colorful bunch: I enjoyed watching Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, and the kid characters. Other players are not bad. Writing is pretty lightweight, but it gets the job done. This production uses good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects offer plenty of incredible sequences, and are fun to watch. The music score brings back some of the classic themes, and is pretty good.

Of the Jurassic Park movies, I value Jurassic World for finally pushing the series into interesting new territory, rather than rehashing territory already explored in the other two sequels. It doesn't quite surpass the first film by any measure, but I find its characters and action more likable than the other sequels, and the film is worthwhile for any series fan.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: Jurassic Park III

"On this island there is no such thing as safe." - Sam Neill
--------------------
For a third time, dinosaurs terrorize people. This time, the people stumble across Site B (from the second movie), finding it a derelict place overrun by prehistoric wildlife, including bigger, badder, and smarter creatures.

There are a few good thrills to be had with Jurassic Park III. At this point, the special effects have been refined to look sharper and smoother, and there are still some huge animatronics being employed. Thus, you get a lot of good-looking dinosaurs running loose chasing people all over the island. This includes the epic Spinosaurous, which makes its introduction by fighting and defeating a T-Rex in mortal combat. There are also raptors everywhere, which use more cunning than before to hunt down their prey. On top of that, there's also some Pteranodons in a giant "bird cage" (from a scene that was in the original novel but never used before). The dinosaur action is modestly satisfying and pretty fun.

Unfortunately, the story leaves much to be desired. It is great to see Dr. Grant returning as the protagonist (and Dr. Sattler in a smaller role), but he winds up being surrounded by a bunch of the dumbest dorks imaginable. The whole plot revolves around an estranged and dippy couple that lost their son; they go so far as tricking and manipulating Grant and his protégé to the island. Once they all finally get there, it's just one dumb move after another, followed by lost of running and screaming. The film becomes a bit more endearing with the chase scenes, and the characters' human sides become apparent, but there are still some dumb things that happen that ruin all creditability (including watching a smartphone travel through a dinosaur's digestive system and somehow work underwater to relay an unintelligible message that somehow prompts the military to show up in the end...yeah right). Of all the faults with this film, however, the one thing that's always bothered me the most is that there's nothing new involved; it's just another island adventure with little connection to previous events, and nowhere else to go. The movie doesn't advance the arc of the series at all (though I haven't seen Jurassic World just yet, I have a feeling you can skip this one no problem), so it comes off as a mere throwaway adventure.

This film has good-looking photography, including some decent POV shots. Editing is solid. Sam Neill is as fun to watch as ever. Laura Dern is barely in the movie; what little screentime she has is fine and dandy. William H. Macey and Téa Leoni are excellent at playing the dippiest characters imaginable; Trevor Morgan does a fine job in his role; all the mercenary characters are fun to watch, and everybody else is just peachy. Writing is pretty weak, and there's hardly any dialogue that stands out. This production uses decent-looking sets, props, costumes, locales, and special effects. Music rehashes all the old themes.

This film has its share of cool action, and it often tries to recapture the same sense of wonder and whimsey that made the first film endearing. However, the plot doesn't hold much water, the characters are frustrating, and the whole movie doesn't leave as much of a lasting impact as the last two.

3/5 (Experience: Average | Story: Marginal | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: The Lost World: Jurassic Park

"What you study, you change." - Jeff Goldblum
--------------------
In the events of Jurassic Park, an entrepreneur's dream of a living biological attraction ended with bloodshed and terror. Despite the threat of dinosaurs rampaging out of control, businessmen would still vie to reap the benefits of genetically-engineered beasts from "Site B."

This follow-up to the hit 1993 film aims to provide more of the same - wit, color, and action - but on a bigger scale. There are more dinosaurs to behold. People deploy more cool vehicles and weapons to hunt and capture them. More people get eaten, more are chased across the jungle, and it all leads up to a crazy finale where a T-Rex runs amok in San Diego. There are a lot of fun setpieces to behold.

There are a few things that mar the experience a little. Characters aren't quite as likable as in the first film; everyone's favorite chaotician returns and delivers plenty of sarcasm, but the family dynamic that's built around him doesn't congeal quite as well as it did with Dr. Grant and the kids in the first film. A lot of the characters in this film seem to make even dumber mistakes than in the first film, and many are unlikable. Some scenes are rather daft. Despite these issues, the plot takes off in interesting directions, showing how far a corporation will go to exploit nature. These events bring the threat of the dinosaur breakout to the civilized world in the end; the T-Rex's downtown carnage tends to be rather silly, but it does expand on the original theme that life cannot be controlled or tamed.

This film sports pretty good-looking photography and editing. It is a much more drab and darker film, with a lot of nighttime photography. Acting is okay for what it is: Jeff Goldblum returns with his signature wit, but his character isn't always likable as he's always yelling at others trying to get them to listen to reason. Julianne Moore is playful in her role, but her character makes a few dumb decisions. Peter Postlethwaite is cool, Arliss Howard plays a dork we love to hate, Peter Stormare is the same, and everybody else I could take or leave. Writing is okay; there are amusing lines, but the dialogue is not as effortlessly colorful and fun as the first film. This production uses top-notch sets, props, costumes, and special effects. John Williams' music score takes the original theme and transforms it into a wonderfully adventurous tune; I almost like it better than the first movie's theme.

The Lost World has plenty of thrills and fun, some of which is bigger and bolder than in Jurassic Park. It's only hampered a bit by a few characters making a few dumb decisions, and a few silly scenes here and there. I always felt it was a fun follow-up, and if you enjoyed the first film, this should be worth seeing once.

3.5/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Okay | Film: Good)

Film Review: Jurassic Park

"Life, uh... finds a way." - Jeff Goldblum
--------------------
Genetics can unlock the secrets of creating and growing biological life; we've already used these secrets to clone a sheep, to alter our crops, and it may allow us to repopulate endangered species. In his novel, Michael Crichton explored the unique and harrowing possibility that genetics could bring the dinosaurs back. When entrepreneurs try to turn the miracle of dinosaur cloning into a theme park attraction, chaos theory kicks in, proving that nature can't be tamed that easily.

Stephen Spielberg's adaptation of Crichton's novel takes the original premise, complete with its cautionary warnings, and delivers it as a fast-moving adventure film full of color, wit, and thrills. There are moments where the film emphasizes the whimsy and wonder of creation, but when the deadliest of predators are unleashed, there are a fair amount of harrowing, suspenseful chases that follow. One of the most chilling scenes shows the dreaded Tyrannosaurus Rex breaking loose from its paddock and laying waste to a pair of jeeps, threatening to crush and eat everybody trapped inside. Velociraptors rush through the jungles and buildings, threatening to devour human prey. What starts off as a wondrous "what if" scenario eventually devolves into a struggle for survival and escape; occasional bursts of comedy keeps the film lightweight, but with groundbreaking special effects, carefully-staged action, and characters worth caring about, the film offers a grand spectacle and a perfectly-entertaining blockbuster experience.

Much of the story is altered from the original book, but it's hardly an issue. On its own merits, the film tells the story it wants to and it does it well. It flips a few of the characters around so that there's a family dynamic at work. Most of the characters are likable, and the film sets them up so that we can understand and care for them when they're in danger.  Some of them make very bad decisions, but even the dumbest characters are endearing, because the film shows them as being very human and prone to mistakes; these faults ultimately contribute to the plot's progression.  The plot unfolds spectacularly, continuously building in tension and action. Throughout the picture, the characters speculate and dig up fascinating themes about playing God with genetics; the film's events prove that all human attempts to control nature and force a structure will never work, and life will always find a way to break free and thrive on its own. These themes carry both wonder and terror, and the film emphasizes both aspects aptly.

This film is made with really good photography. Editing can be a little weak at times, but it is often punchy and good. Acting is pretty over-the-top, but it produces expressions and emotions that fit in perfectly with the film's tone. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are perfectly likable in their roles. Jeff Goldblum steals the show repeatedly with his character's wit and wisdom. Richard Attenborough has a great presence and personality as John Hammond. The kid characters put their best into it, and they do have some endearing moments that gives the film a more emotional punch. Bob Peck is cool, Martin Ferraro is a dude we love to hate, Wayne Knight is an even bigger dude we love to hate, Samuel L Jackson keeps it real, and everybody else is decent. This script is full of great lines, but some dialogue can be rather random, and it's all really low-key. Despite one or two shortcuts, this production uses good-looking sets, props, costumes, and creature effects. Special effects were fantastic for its time, and most of them still hold up to this day. John Williams' music score is catchy and emotional.

Jurassic Park is easily one of the best blockbusters, not only because of all its visual effects and thrills, but also because it has heart, and it has themes worth thinking about. It's a must-see.

4.5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Good | Film: Good)