REVIEW: Star Trek Into Darkness

By Chris Luckett

4 stars out of 5

J.J. Abrams’s 2009 Star Trek was an exhilarating breath of fresh air for a franchise that had become stale and somewhat antiquated, despite its futuristic setting. By injecting his trademark cinematic flair and knack for gripping action, the reboot soared to heights not reached on the big screen since 1982’s Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Low expectations four years ago made Abrams’s job easier; his follow-up arrives with much larger hype and much closer scrutiny.

Image property of Paramount Pictures

Star Trek Into Darkness is reflective of a new trend in recent blockbusters, where over-the-top action sequences are balanced with grey morality and disturbing characters whose actions and choices mirror the dangerous time we now live in (largely due, cinematically, to the influence of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy). Just as James Bond had to tackle new threats of terrorism and treasonous sabotage in last year’s Skyfall, James T. Kirk and crew find themselves faced with a formidable threat aiming to destroy Starfleet from within.

Image property of Paramount Pictures

That threat is John Harrison, a man with a mysterious backstory and played with complicated malevolence by Benedict Cumberbatch. After Harrison attacks Starfleet bases in London and San Francisco, Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) trek off in a mission of vengeance, setting in motion a story with more layers than an onion.

Abrams and his co-writers deftly lure you into thinking you know what will happen, even telegraphing a few twists, just to be able to pull the rug out from beneath you even more shockingly. Star Trek Into Darkness is one of those incredibly clever movies where the more sure you are about what will happen, the more likely you are to fall for the red herrings.

Image property of Paramount Pictures

The action sequences in the movie are riveting, leaving just enough time in between to allow for conversation and character development. As great as many of the scenes are, though, the film can’t help but come off a little reheated. 2009’s Star Trek felt fresh and bold; Star Trek Into Darkness, while superior in numerous ways, sometimes feels like a remix of its predecessors.

It’s a pointless quibble to complain that Star Trek Into Darkness’s themes of violence and terrorism are a far cry from the optimistic and hopeful vision of the future that creator Gene Roddenberry first imagined a half-century ago. In the end, while the movie certainly explores its titular dark themes, it is an exhilarating thrill ride that starts strong and never slows down. It’s just a shame that for a series that aims to boldly go where no one has gone before, Star Trek Into Darkness doesn’t end up doing much new.

UPDATE: After a second viewing and re-considering its weaknesses, I lowered my star rating of Star Trek Into Darkness from 4.5 stars to 4. It is still a very good movie, but not as great as it initially seemed to be. (9/7/13)

REVIEW: Jurassic Park 3D

By Chris Luckett

5 stars out of 5

When Jurassic Park first roared into theatres in 1993, it enthralled audiences, ushered in the era of CGI, and ultimately went on to become the highest-grossing movie of all time. For the 20th anniversary re-release, Universal has spared no expense in converting it to 3D.

Image property of Universal Pictures

Converting movies into 3D that were shot in 2D is one of the biggest poxes of cinema right now. The question at the heart of the decision to do it with Jurassic Park is the same one echoed by Jeff Goldblum’s character in the film: Were they so pre-occupied with whether or not they could that they never stopped to think if they should?

Gloriously, Jurassic Park 3D works. In fact, it’s one of the best 3D experiences there’s been and arguably the best post-converted 3D movie, period.

Steven Spielberg’s dinosaur masterpiece was defined in its initial release by its employment of a previously inconsistent technology (CGI) that it found a way to use perfectly. Twenty years later, the same can be said for how Jurassic Park 3D uses depth-of-field and scale to create an almost new experience, even for those who can quote every line along with the movie.

Image property of Universal Pictures

Because Jurassic Park was not shot with the intention of ever being 3D, there are few moments of the action popping out of the screen in the distracting fashion that’s become standard for 3D. Instead, the extra dimension serves to create a wholly immersive experience, making for an even more gripping movie. When the T-Rex is attacking a car with two trapped children inside, you feel like you’re trapped inside with them.

The other excellent use of Jurassic Park’s 3D is in how well depth is conveyed, with distances stretching back through the screen. In the memorable scene where a car is stuck in a tree and two characters swiftly try to climb down the branches while the car begins vertically barrelling down on them, the sheer height and distance of their descent is made more gut-wrenchingly clear than it ever seemed in 2D.

Image property of Universal Pictures

The temptation is to dismiss Jurassic Park 3D as nothing more than a cash grab. Doing so would be a critical underestimation. Watching the movie this way, especially with its clever camera angles and cinematography brought vividly to life, is a revelatory experience.

Whether you’ve watched it dozens of times on home video already or somehow haven’t seen it yet, Jurassic Park 3D is not only worth the trip back to theatres but does for post-converted 3D what Jurassic Park did for CGI two decades ago.

OPINION: Remembering Roger Ebert

By Chris Luckett

Photo credit: Just Jared

I met Roger Ebert once. It was in the fall of 2008, on the heels of the release of his book “Scorsese.” I went to a book signing of his with a friend of mine, and after a long wait in line, I found myself face-to-face with the man who’d shaped my love of movies more than any other and who ultimately inspired me to become a film critic.

It was a bittersweet experience. Meeting your idol is a blessing not everyone receives and I was thrilled at the opportunity. At the same time, when I did finally get to approach and speak to him, he seemed a shadow of the man I had grown up watching and reading.

After a strenuous bout with thyroid cancer and repeated surgeries, part of Ebert’s jaw had been removed and he had lost the ability to speak. While I had known of this – it was the reason he had left “Ebert & Roeper” two years earlier – seeing the titan I’d built up in my head looking so humbled and weak was a jarring experience I wasn’t really ready for.

Many people so close to retirement age and hit with such devastating health issues would retreat and quietly fade away. But not Roger Ebert. This was a man who won a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism.

Photo credit: The New York Times

By the 2000s, he was probably most recognized for his TV shows with fellow critics Gene Siskel and Richard Roeper, but he had remained a practicing film critic in writing, as well. While losing the confidence and health to host a TV program was unfortunate, Ebert just used that as a catalyst to pour all his passion back into the written word.

His passion was always, in my opinion, what made him such a good critic. He was at his best when he either loved a film or downright hated it. He took just as much pleasure in ripping a horrible movie to pieces as he did effusing over modern masterpieces. Even when you didn’t agree with Ebert’s opinion, he argued his case so well and with such vigour that it always made for great articles and TV segments.

I think Ebert’s enthusiasm for films was the true proof of his mettle as a critic. He wasn’t just reviewing movies for a paycheque. He wasn’t counting down the years until retirement. Pauline Kael, another titan of film criticism, retired in 1991 from writing reviews because she lost her love of the medium. But for Ebert, his love of film was exactly what kept him going.

Photo credit: Chris Luckett

I only had the pleasure of meeting Roger that one time. Looking back, I can’t believe I didn’t appreciate the true honour in getting to speak to him; I was so caught up in the disappointment of not having met him back when I could have conversed with him, I failed to realize just how lucky I was to meet him at all.

I guess I always figured I would have that chance again. In some part of my mind, I never truly could fathom a world where I couldn’t read a new Ebert review. He was synonymous with the very profession of film criticism.

There will never be another Roger Ebert, but his impact will forever be felt. Anytime someone records a movie review for TV or YouTube, anytime a person gives something “two thumbs up,” anytime someone just has a heated discussion or argument with someone about a movie they’ve just seen, his lasting legacy is present.

Roger Ebert reviewed movies purely because he loved them. And in the process, he made the world love movies just a little bit more.

REVIEW: Oz the Great and Powerful

By Chris Luckett

4 stars out of 5

Image property of Walt Disney Pictures

After the success of Return to Oz, Broadway’s “Wicked,” and television’s “Tin Man,” it shouldn’t be so surprising to see someone attempt an extension of The Wizard of Oz. Yet all most people could seem to talk about in the lead-up to Oz the Great and Powerful’s release was how it would compare to the original. Let it be said: it manages pretty well.

Set 34 years before Dorothy flew over the rainbow with Toto, Oz the Great and Powerful features a carnival magician named Oscar Diggs (James Franco), whose hot air balloon gets caught up in a twister and lands him in a world desperately in search of a wizard to save them.

Image property of Walt Disney Pictures

The Oz of 1905 is a land divided, with three witch sisters at war (Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, and Mila Kunis). When one of the witches turns truly wicked, it’s up to Oscar (or “Oz”) and the people of Oz to save the day.

As a prequel, the movie isn’t as clever as the musical “Wicked,” which set the pre-Dorothy stage far more ingeniously. (A movie adaptation of “Wicked” is currently in the works.) It can’t be denied, though, that Oz the Great and Powerful is quite an enjoyable movie.

Franco never quite fills the role comfortably, unable to convey any true sincerity when it’s actually called for. The rest of the cast, however, gives their all, from the bewitching trio of lead actresses to Zach Braff, who voices a monkey-bellhop companion of Oz’s.

Image property of Walt Disney Pictures

Oz the Great and Powerful is no The Wizard of Oz, but there was never a chance of that. As an enchanting return to a beloved world of childhood memories, though, it proves to have more brains, heart, and courage than many sceptical moviegoers will expect.