For the past however-many months, there were two movies on many people’s radar as being all but guaranteed “horrible.”
The first, which I’ve gone into ad-nauseum, is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. You name it, people had problems with it. Among the many sins the film was guilty of in the eyes of many (pre-release) the biggest was that Zach Snyder was the movie’s director and, in the eyes of many, he had already revealed himself via previous films as a “talentless hack”.
When the movie came out, two camps were quickly formed: Those that loathed the film (it met every one of their darkest predictions) and those who saw it and…liked it.
This was not a small group.
While the film would go on to make a ton of money, the detractors found cause for snipping in that as well. “Had the film been good, its $872 million plus take would have been a billion!” they said, ignoring the fact that the film’s take makes it one of the five most successful films released this year.
And when the “Ultimate Cut” of the film was released digitally and people like me got to see it, it proved both that the theatrical cut of the film was -let’s put it kindly- haphazard at best and further proved that Mr. Snyder had delivered a much more coherent story (even I, as a fan of the film. would admit the theatrical cut is, in light of the Ultimate Cut, something to be ignored completely), it still didn’t matter.
The hatred was already baked in and nothing could change opinions.
Fine.
The other film to receive fan scorn near the Batman v Superman levels has to be the Paul Fieg directed, Melissa McCarthy/Kristen Wiig/Kate McKinnon/Leslie Jones Ghostbusters.
The scorn heaped upon the film following its admittedly not-great first trailer was something to behold. It turned into something of a runaway train and the trailer received the highest negatives ratings of ANY video on YouTube to that moment, quite the feat for something that was at worst, IMHO, “only” an OK trailer.
As the film was nearing release, those who were determined to hate the product were already posting comments along the lines of “how bad will the critics hate it?” to “those critics who like it are clearly in Sony’s pocket”.
And when the critics were finally allowed to post their reviews, something most curiously happened: Most of them…liked the film.
Currently, Ghostbusters stands at a high 74% positive among critics but among audiences has a far worse 44% approval, almost the direct opposite reaction critics/audiences had to Batman v Superman, which was loathed by critics yet found a much higher positive rating among your average movie-goers. I suspect it was the positive reaction by audiences which allowed Batman v Superman to make the box office it did. I further suspect if the audience ratings remain as they are for Ghostbusters, this movie may do only mediocre box office before leaving theaters.
I point all this only because it intrigues me and shows the power of the internet and group thinking within it.
This won’t be the first (two) times internet pre-reactions to upcoming movies sows the seeds of love…or hate…with a particular work.
Had this one on my list of films to catch whenever I could, thinking I hadn’t seen it but realizing, as the film reached its final act, that I’d seen at least that part of it. Check that: Either I saw the film’s closing act or the movie’s resolution was so predictable it just seemed like I had seen it before.
While it may sound like a big knock against the film, trust me when I say I don’t intend it to be as this film entertained me through to that (at least to me) predictable ending.
Cast A Deadly Spell biggest draw is in the fact that it presents a Raymond Chandler-esq “noir” L.A. of 1948 merged with the dark magics of H. P. Lovecraft’s literature.
The story features a very game and engaging Fred Ward who plays private detective Harry Phillip Lovecraft (yes, H. P. Lovecraft). He lives in this “noir” L.A. and shuns any form of magic…even though it is a commonality in this world. You see, everyone has some kind of relationship with the dark arts. In this world, bloody rain can fall one overcast day and police stations bring in vampire and werewolf suspects for questioning.
In the film’s opening minutes Lovecraft finishes a case. This serves to establish both his character -he’s very much a noble knight in the Phillip Marlowe tradition- and the peculiar world he lives in. Following the opening, viewers are side-routed to some goings on involving a book and the shadowy people trying to get their hands on it. It is during this sequence we see Julliane Moore in one of her earlier large roles. Her character, Connie Stone, will play a role in the story to follow.
It is also during this interlude that one of the film’s “surprises” is presented, a character who doesn’t seem to be who they are, but viewers should detect a particular blonde’s secret right away. At the risk of again sounding very down on the film, this was one of those plot twists that if you didn’t pick up on it right away, you truly need to get your eyes checked.
Afterwards we return to Lovecraft. He’s directed to the Amos Hackshaw (David Warner) estate and, while driving in, sees a unicorn and a woman on horseback and carrying a bow and arrow hunting the creature. The woman will turn out to be Olivia Hackshaw (Alexandra Powers), Amos’ 16 year old “innocent” daughter.
Amos, it turns out, lost his copy of the (in) famous Necronomicon (the book we saw in the interlude presented beforehand) and he needs to get it back in two days for, he states, a conference he needs to attend. Amos tells Lovecraft he suspects his recently fired chauffeur, a man who he says had his eyes on the youthful Olivia, stole the book when he was sent away.
I won’t get into too many more details beyond what I’ve laid out above but, apart from the ending you see coming and the non-surprise regarding one of the characters, Cast A Deadly Spell is an entertaining film that pleasantly mixes the noir and dark magic genres in an effective way. While the mystery at its heart may not be quite as clever as those found in the best works of Raymond Chandler and the horror elements may not be quite as horrifying as those found in the best works of H. P. Lovecraft, the film nonetheless hits its marks and entertains which is, after all, what any good film should do.
So, while the film may feature a couple of “surprises” that aren’t all that surprising, Cast A Deadly Spell is a pleasant, entertaining feature that presents a unique melding of genres, a pleasant cast, and an engaging story.
Recommended.
Here’s the movie’s trailer. Sorry for the poor quality…
A Random Thought: Hollywood really loves remaking films they shouldn’t yet here’s a case of a good film that might make a really great remake. Should be considered!
This, my friends, is but an example, IMHO, of why the Republican party is in as much trouble as it is. The amendment, offered by Mary Forrester, a delegate from North Carolina, makes the mistake of conflating child pornography with pornography, as if the two were somehow completely and totally interlocked. The former is clearly illegal and anyone involved in such activities deserves, other than the innocent underage victims, deserves to get jail. The later is an activity conducted by consenting adults. I’m not saying everyone who has ever been involved in the porn business comes out of it “fine”, but there are many in the business who enjoy what they do and have few regrets.
As far as child pornography, it is indeed illegal and I’ve read more stories than I care to about people -some who present society with a respectable face- being caught in stings thinking they were about to hook up with an underage individual or were caught with child pornography in their computers.
Again, child pornography is insidious and ILLEGAL and it should be. But child pornography does not define pornography in general, and if one has to explain that to people, well, jeeze.
But perhaps the worst part of this story is its timing. Here you have the Republican party platform announcing pornography is a “public health crisis” and a “menace” and yet, given the frightful news of the past weekend…where does this party stand on the issue of guns?
You know, those items too many crazed individuals -actual menaces– have used to barbaric effect to kill people? To, you know, create a “public health crisis”?
If pornography, to the Republican Party, is a “public health crisis” and a “menace”, then what about all these weapons?
Of late it would appear critics (and some audiences) and I don’t see eye to eye.
I thought 10 Cloverfield Lane was a bust while over at Rottentomatoes.com its earning an incredibly high 90% approval among critics and an equally impressive 80% approval from audiences. Then there’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. I really liked the film, even moreso in its “ultimate edition”, yet critics flayed the film alive. It currently stands at a woeful 27% positive among critics and a not-too-bad-but-not-great 66% among audiences.
I had some free time yesterday and, after looking around at the latest films in theaters, decided to go see Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates. Here’s the film’s redband trailer. Beware some NSFW language…
I could make this review really short and sweet and say: If you found the above trailer funny, then see this film. The trailer does a very good job of telling you what you’re in for so if the above didn’t make you laugh, steer clear. Otherwise, give the movie a try.
Now, to get back to those pesky critics. Over at Rottentomatoes, the film has a poor 41% positive among critics though a much brighter 70% positive among audiences. In this case, I go with the audiences.
Look, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (let’s abbreviate it to MDNWD from here on) is not The Godfather. It’s not Citizen Kane. It most certainly does not intend to be.
What it is is what you see in the trailer above: A foul mouthed romantic comedy. The movie features some dodgy acting here and there (come on, the characters are caricatures…even Robert DeNiro in his prime would have a hard time making these cartoons lifelike), some dodgy direction here and there (especially in the movie’s opening act, where the characters and situations are established), and a plot which, though foul-mouthed, ultimately goes for the sweet romantic movie ending…something you can see coming a mile away.
And yet when all the pieces are in place and the central characters, the goofy Stangle brothers (Zac Efron and Adam Devine) are fooled by (its in the trailer, folks) and invite the equally rude and crude Tatiana (Aubrey Plaza) and Alice (Anna Kendrick) to be their “respectable” wedding dates for their dear young sister (a fearless turn by Sugar Lyn Beard), the pieces fall together and there are plenty of laughs to be had.
Again, we’re not talking high levels of cinema art here, and it tickles me to read some of the critics’ negative comments (one noted how Anna Kendrick’s wigs -for some reason she wears one in the film- aren’t even the same color from scene to scene. To which I say: Come on, you noticed this?!? And it was among the things that ruined the film for you!??! Seriously?!?).
Let’s make this real simple: If a film advertises itself as a “comedy” and it makes me laugh a good deal throughout its runtime, it has accomplished its goal.
In the end, I laughed plenty during the film. While I already mentioned the fearless turn by Sugar Lyn Beard, props also have to be given to Adam Devine. His manic turn is another highlight.
Based on the above trailer (and the outtakes shown at the film’s end), there appears to be a ton of material that didn’t make it into MDNWD’s final cut. If you’re like me and you liked this film, you may be curious to see it when it gets released to home video. Perhaps a ruder/cruder director’s cut is out there? At the very least there are probably quite a few cut scenes.
Either way, if you liked the above trailer and it made you laugh, you’ll like MDNWD.
Don’t let the “professional” critics drag you down. This one is recommended.
I’ve mentioned it before but I’ll mention it again: There was a time I was a fierce critic of movies. Back then almost nothing was perfect and the imperfections I noted gnawed at me and made me hate films that I might otherwise enjoy.
Then came the change.
I suspect a part of the reason for the change was that I started writing and in doing so realized that when you’re creating a work rather than simply watching/reading it, you come to realize just how hard -indeed near impossible- it is to create something “perfect”.
So I went the other way and started giving movies and books and songs and artwork the benefit of the doubt, especially when a film was a low budget affair and it appeared (at least to my eyes), that the people making it were genuinely trying to create something good.
That’s not to say my “giving the benefit of the doubt” extends to liking bad movies. Well intentioned as it was, I couldn’t watch the low budget yet ambitious Synchronicity to its end, though I could admire the fact that at least the makers of the film tried -but in my eyes failed- to create a thoughtful sci-fi work.
As mellow as I may have become, expectations work the other way as well. When I see a big budgeted film produced by a very big Hollywood name and reviews for the film are for the most part great, I can’t help but go into the film expecting good things. And when those “good things” don’t appear, it is possible my negative reactions are magnified.
I mentioned before how I bought Guardians of the Galaxy on BluRay and popped it into my player and expected good things. Audiences and critics gobbled up the movie and it made a ton of money. There are many who feel this is the best Marvel Comics film ever made.
Yet I hated, hated, hated the damn film.
After watching it I felt I was the victim in an old Allen Funt Candid Camera routine. The routine I’m referring to involves a group of pranksters, one of whom tells a joke to all the others while the single “victim” listens in with the rest of the group. At the conclusion of the wildly unfunny joke the pranksters uproariously laugh and we watch the “victim” of the prank as s/he frowns and wonders just what the hell was so funny about that horrid joke. Sometimes, the “victim” actually laughs along with the group even though we know s/he’s doing so only to fit in with the rest of the group. The joke sucked, after all. And sometimes the victim doesn’t laugh and asks the others just what the hell was so funny about that.
In a long winded way that brings me to 10 Cloverfield Lane, the J. J. Abrams produced, small-cast-in-a-claustrophobic-setting suspense/terror film.
Filmed in secrecy before being suddenly released, 10 Cloverfield Lane (10CL from now on) brought a high level of interest among fans of 2008’s Cloverfield, a “found footage” monster movie also produced by J. J. Adrams. Was the film a direct sequel? Was it something else?
By now the cat’s out of the bag: If the film is a sequel to Cloverfield, its at best a “sideways” sequel even as the bulk of the movie may not suggest this be the case.
In fact, the first 3/4ths of the film could accurately be described as a mashup of the opening act of Psycho as well as the entirety of Misery. The opening ten minutes or so of the film in particular tries (too hard, in my opinion) to evoke the tension of Janet Leigh’s character in Psycho as she runs away with stolen money. Alas, by using the stolen money there was good reason to feel the tension. In 10CL we have our lead, Michelle (well played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead) leaving her fiance after a fight. Hardly the thing of great tension.
Yet to the creator’s credit, they do evoke a certain amount of tension as she travels a dark road at night and winds up in a terrific accident. When she awakens, she finds herself chained to a wall in a small concrete bunker. She soon finds she’s inside a larger underground bunker. There are two other people there with her, the odd and tempermental Howard (John Goodman, also pretty damn great in the film), who claims to have found Michelle’s crashed car and brought her to his underground bunker just as an “attack” happened, and the good-natured Emmett (John Gallagher Jr., also quite good), who nurses an injured arm and agrees that an attack has happened and that leaving the bunker is a death sentence.
The early parts of the film, despite the clear Hitchcock emulations, are pretty good and the dynamics between Michelle, Emmett, and Howard make for some great scenes.
Unfortunately, as the film plays out, my patience started to wear thin. The characters, while interesting at first, lost me as time went along. Frankly, I cared less and less for them and their situation and found them artifacts rather than “real” people. By somewhere around the half-way point of the film I considered shutting it off.
But I kept at it, and was “rewarded” with a beyond silly -to me- conclusion that didn’t feel like it belonged in the film at all.
What’s most frustrating is that as in reading about the film’s original script, it was apparently not meant to tie into the Cloverfield “universe” at all and, I’m guessing here, may well have been more of a psychological drama. I see that at the edges of this movie and can’t help but wonder if certain things were done instead of others, we might not have had a very tense and thoughtful horror film instead of one that ultimately squandered its decent setup.
While the critics generally loved 10CL, I can’t help but feel this movie was a wiff. It could, indeed should have been far better than it was and that’s the greatest shame of it all.
More thoughts, and SPOILERS, after the trailer…
Still there?
Beware…
SPOILERS!!!!
As I said above, the movie is at its best when exploiting the tension between the characters in this relatively small bunker. But that’s also where the film commits its bigger errors.
For example, given how small the bunker is, how do Michelle and Emmett manage to do as much as they do (I know I said I’d get into spoilers, but it doesn’t mean I’ll spoil everything) without Howard knowing? How do they talk in secret without him hearing them?
Also, making it clear Emmett is a good guy came a little too quickly. Wouldn’t it have been more intriguing if his nature had been kept more nebulous and Michelle couldn’t tell whether Emmett was better than Howard or vice versa?
There are also a good number of story contrivances that bothered me as well. For example, Michelle seeing Howard’s truck and making a startling realization about it. Did Howard have to park it the way he did and in such plain sight? Wouldn’t he have parked it closer to the bunker’s entrance when he was last outside and had to carry Michelle in?
Also mighty coincidental, for the story, that when fairly early in the film Michelle makes a break and is just one door away from escaping the bunker but just happens to do so when facing evidence that things are not right outside. Up to that point, she thought she was being held by two crazy people but upon seeing this evidence, realized they might be right. However, what are the odds that she would try to escape exactly at the moment she could see this evidence?
Afterwards, you have Howard show (and tell) Michelle about freezing stuff and making metal brittle, which of course comes in mighty handy later in the film, as well as the fact that the air unit filter happens to malfunction (only a few days into their being in the bunker!) and that allows Michelle to see evidence of Howard’s possible dark side while also coincidentally finding a way out where she can escape without Howard following her. And what about the fact that Michelle just happens to have a desire to design clothing and just happens to have to stitch Howard up which allows her to find a needle to use in making said special clothing…
Too much stuff is laid out and then becomes important later in the story. These story contrivances effectively make Michelle the one “perfect” character to escape this situation. Thank goodness she could sew, remembered freezing metal made it brittle, and was skinny enough to fit into a vent.
Otherwise, game over.
But there’s one other thing that, depending on your disposition, may break the movie down even further: The climactic last act.
To put it bluntly, that whole part just didn’t work for me. Worse, given what came before it just felt…silly. Hell, it was silly. People lambast the movie Signs because the alien invaders -surprise surprise- were defeated by water. In 10CL, we see the nasty alien invaders and Michelle manages to take out one of their mighty ships (or is it a big alien?)…with a single molotov cocktail?!?!
I mean…really?
The ship/alien (it is hard to tell) is that weak?
Mind you, I’m not even going to get into how awkward the change from bunker to outside world was handled. We went from a Hitchcock Psycho/Misery-type movie into War of the Worlds…all in one cut!
Despite good acting and good direction, 10CL falls because of its silly and contrived story. I really wish I could say it worked better for me, but despite some good stuff buried within, I cannot recommend it.
On the one hand you have a few police officers who clearly should not have had the job caught on camera committing the most heinous of actions against black citizens. It sounds incredibly stupid to say, yet there you have it: You should not lose your life for a broken tail light.
On the other hand you have a deranged few take advantage of the raw nerves and anger and, at a peaceful protest, target police officers…as if these deranged fews’ violent, criminal acts will accomplish…what exactly?
When I was much younger, I was completely enchanted by the At The Movies show. You had the late Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert reviewing a series of films that were either released or about to be released that week and the chemistry between them was incredible even as it was clear they sometimes were going after each others’ throat. Yet their conversation was always illuminating and, even if the film was a full on turd, they had wonderful ways of pointing this out.
Back then I thought: What a great way to make a living! I mean, what could be better than spending your time watching films and then hanging out and conversing with someone about the merits -or lack thereof- of what you just saw?
With the passage of time, I realized that as much as I loved seeing films, the sheer number of films released each week (more seemingly every week), the reality is that being a movie critic is a very harsh job. For every great film you sit through, there are dozens of mediocre ones and an equal number of absolutely terrible ones that you essentially have to sit through. As a non-professional, if I don’t want to see the latest Transformers film, I ignore it. Film critics often don’t have that luxury of choice.
Worse, as you are a “professional” critic, in theory you should go to the latest Adam Sandler film with the same dispassionate neutrality you should carry when going into the latest Steven Spielberg film.
Yet for just about everyone there must come a breaking point, where you’re watching a film so godawfully bad that you cannot stomach watching even one more second and walk out.
Again, as an ordinary individual, you have every right to leave a film half (or less) watched. But what of professional critics? For them to have a “legitimate” review of a film, must they see it all the way through?
On the one hand, one might argue they’re being paid to review the film and therefore they should review the whole thing. There is always the theoretical possibility that the absolutely terrible film you’ve seen for the past thirty to forty-five minutes might redeem itself in the last half.
But, realistically, what are the odds? Isn’t it far more likely that horrible/dreadful/no-good first half of the film will be followed by at best much of the same?
And that being the case and the reviewer states up front they couldn’t take the film and had to leave it after x-minutes of watching it, doesn’t that also provide an honest opinion of the critic’s views of said film?
Years ago my then girlfriend (who eventually became my wife) and I went to (*gasp*) Blockbuster and rented the film Class Action. Originally released in 1991, I suspect we rented it as a “new” release at around that time and in the (*gasp*) VHS format. Here’s the movie’s trailer…
So we popped the film into the VHS player and watched the first twenty or so minutes of it and…we just couldn’t do it. Despite a good cast and decent direction by Michael Apted (a very active director who was responsible for diverse films such as Agatha, Gorillas in the Mist,Thunderheart, and The World Is Not Enough), this film simply didn’t do anything for us. We were bored to the point we had to shut the damn thing off.
And yet over at Rotten Tomatoes the film scores a very high 75% positive among critics and a dead mediocre 50% among audiences.
Is it possible I was too impatient and the film built up steam as it went along? I suppose, though I seriously doubt I’ll go back and verify.
Many, many years later and two days ago I had an eerie sense of deja vu.
I popped the Netflix DVD copy of the 2015 movie Synchronicity into my player and my ex-girlfriend-now-wife settled in to see it. I was more excited about seeing the film than she was because I’m a sucker for time travel stories and this one, at least as described, sounded interesting. Here’s the movie’s trailer:
While I admired the visual look of the film -even though the movie’s makers were clearly aping the style of Blade Runner– after approximately thirty minutes I looked at my wife and said: “That’s enough of that.”
To which she said: “Yes, please.”
The film, which concerns scientists attempting (and I guess succeeding) in creating a time travel machine that they had to prove worked by later sending a flower back to themselves (or something) was a muddled, uninteresting watch with characters and situations that were poorly sketched out and at times very confusing.
When we got to that 30 or so minute point, I knew things weren’t going to get much better and shut the film off, just as I had done with Class Action all those years before..
Again, I’m not a professional movie critic though I (obviously) love to write my reviews of films. I love to see what makes a film or, for that matter, a book or a song, etc. etc. work. I also find it fascinating to see when things don’t work, to see why it is they don’t work.
In the case of Class Action and Synchronicity, there was little need to stick with the works. In the minutes I saw of each film I already had a grasp of why they weren’t working and it felt counterproductive to continue seeing something that I knew wouldn’t get better…for me.
I suppose the bottom line is this: Professional (ie paid) critics are human beings just like all of us and on rare occasions they too reach the proverbial end of their rope. If they choose to write a review of a film they couldn’t see through to its end, I believe that’s not a sin, provided they offer a succinct, clear statement about why they felt said film wasn’t worth watching to its end.
Today, as a reader, you have the option of finding hundreds of other reviews of such material throughout the internet and among those you will surely find other reviews from critics who did see the particular film you’re interested in to its end.
Either way, I cannot fault anyone from reaching a level of annoyance with a film that makes them take the extraordinary step of leaving a film before it ends.
When the original “new” Star Trek movie arrived in 2009, I was both hopeful and, paradoxically, doubtful it could successfully reboot the original Star Trek series/movies.
You see, the original Star Trek series hold a very special place in my heart. While Steven Spielberg’s Duel was the first movie I recall seeing start to end and understanding as a story told in full, the original Star Trek was the first TV series I recall gravitating to and loving, along with Get Smart, back in my very early years (both series were in reruns by the time I watched them, so I was a second generation fan of both).
I recall my elation at learning of, then my disappointment with the release, of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. On the one hand, it was there was an undeniable thrill in seeing the original cast and crew I loved so much back together again…yet on the other hand the movie’s story was muddy even as the effects were for the most part great and the cast seemed constrained by the focus on the boring “newcomers” presented in the movie. It was later revealed the movie was released in an incredible rush and, with the advent and money to be made on special edition DVDs, director Robert Wise was allowed to return to the film and “fix” it to the way he originally wanted it. The director’s cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a far better experience, IMHO, than the theatrical or “expanded” edition and its too bad the new effects were made before the advent of HD and, thus, we have no HD version of the director’s cut…for now.
And then along came Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.
While critics -and many fans- weren’t all that enamored of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the film nonetheless made a lot of money. Enough to justify the studios green lighting a sequel film, later re-titled Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
To put it kindly, this film single-handedly gave the entire Star Trek universe new lease on life. Thanks to its critical and box-office success, we were treated (and sometimes punished!) with a string of Star Trek movies and new series, including Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Star Trek Voyager, and Enterprise.
With that much material, it isn’t too surprising the quality eventually started to vary considerably. I hated the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation and, in general, didn’t like the series quite as much as so many others…yet I’d be lying if there weren’t episodes here and there -many to be sure- that floored me. So much so that early on into the production and release of this series and when I heard they were looking for new writers, I sent out not one but TWO complete scripts for their consideration…the first script, which came back to me after a very long time and looked very well read and even had food particles (!) stuck within its pages, I suspect had a strong impression on the folks at STTNG. Not strong enough to buy the script mind you, yet I suspect (and its nothing more than a suspicion) someone liked it enough to appropriate some of its material in the plot of one of the show’s episodes…but that’s a story for another time.
After a few years, however, the wheels of the series/movies were slowly grinding to a halt. The original series cast got too old to continue starring in these “action” type films and, with the passing of DeForest Kelley, it was obvious there would not be another Star Trek feature with the originals.
So the original cast movies gave way to the Next Generation cast as that TV series ended its run. But with the exception of the very first movie solely featuring that NG cast, First Contact (Generations featured both original and NG characters together), the movies that followed were, IMHO, quite dreadful.
Soon the movies stopped and so too did the various TV series and suddenly there was a Star Trek vacuum.
As much of a fan of the original series as I was, I was fine with this. Sometimes, too much is…too much.
So fast forward to 2009 and J. J. Abrams’ reboots Star Trek with a new, young cast though he does -wisely, IMHO- include Leonard Nimoy in the proceedings.
I didn’t like the film all that much as I felt it tried a little too hard to crib other well worn Star Trek story ideas (that movie’s villain, in particular, felt like a pale re-working of Khan, which Mr. Abrams’ would do again, this time more directly, in the next film), but I did like the new cast and thought there was potential.
When Star Trek: Into Darkness appeared, I enjoyed the film when I was watching it in the theater but, afterwards, it proved to be one of those films that curdled the more you thought about it. I haven’t rewatched it since first seeing it and I fear if I do, my opinion will be considerably more negative.
Which, in a very long winded way, brings us to Star Trek Beyond, the third feature in this “new” Star Trek universe and the first in which Mr. Abrams is not the director. The first trailer for the film was nearly universally panned. The next was a little better and here we have some more stuff…
Have to admit, after a turbulent first trailer, this material is a far better selling point for this new film, though I’m not a terribly big Rhianna fan and therefore her mini-interview does little to pull me for or against what’s here.
So, I’m game to see this.
I truly hope this movie wows me more than the previous two “new” ST films and takes me back to a time when ST was THE best sci-fi around.
A few days back I mused on the topic of ending a story (you can read about this here), especially a prolonged story, one which may be comprised of several books or which features recurring protagonist(s), not unlike my Corrosive Knights series.
I brought up the topic because I’m rapidly approaching the end of the Corrosive Knights series. Book #6, the one I’m currently working on, will be followed by (natch) #7, which will conclude the main storyline. Book #8 will provide an epilogue of sorts. This very last book, believe it or not, already has a complete first draft while book #7 is still being outlined.
As I reach the end of this series and the end of many years of at times very hard and frustrating work (don’t get me wrong, there was also an incredible amount of joy in finishing up each and every book along with the joy of people reacting so positively to the works), I can’t help but look over at how others have ended their prolonged stories.
Raymond Chandler’s last Phillip Marlowe story, Playback, was an oddity and, to many fans of Mr. Chandler’s books, easily the weakest of the bunch. Agatha Christie wrote the final Hercule Poirot book, Curtain, during World War II and while worried England might be overrun by the Nazi’s. She wanted to leave behind a final Poirot book for posterity should she die in the war and, having survived it, wound up keeping the novel under lock and key for several decades until she neared her own death. It was then that she released the book. It too was an oddity, a work that reflected both a fear of death -understandable considering the times in which it was written- along with what was perhaps the ultimate variation of her “the murderer is the person you least suspect” plot concept.
On TV, M.A.S.H., the very popular comedy set during the Korean War, ended its run on a ratings high. Though the show was in its 11th season, people loved the bow the actors (figuratively) took in this episode, which had the cast finding out the Korean War was over.
Similarly, the Newhart tv show’s finale made clever reference to The Bob Newhart Show which preceded it. Both shows, of course, featured Bob Newhart in the lead role.
A couple of weeks ago Person of Interest (POI from here on) had its series finale and, as a fan of the show, I have to say I’m conflicted by what I saw. While I think its great the show’s makers knew going into their fifth season that it would be the final one and therefore were able to plan out the ending, I can’t help but feel ultimately they dropped the ball.
How? Well, I’m glad you asked…
BEWARE…THERE BE SPOILERS BELOW!
You’ve been warned!
Let’s start with the obvious: The show’s body count. POI was always a violent show, with characters who killed and maimed their adversaries and an enemy, especially in the show’s final act, that did so routinely.
With heroic tales involving violence and death, it is not unusual to find one or more of the protagonists meeting their end at the end. In the case of POI, one of the show’s regulars, the quirky Root (Amy Acker), was apparently killed a few episodes before the series finale. I say “apparently” because, bizarrely, in that series finale there is a hint given that her character’s grave was dug up. This odd bit of information presented in the series finale leads exactly no where and, worse, isn’t mentioned again, yet I couldn’t help but wonder if this might have been a storyline that was cancelled/changed when the episode was assembled.
So my question: Was Root still alive?
Considering she re-appeared before Harold Finch (Michael Emerson) for a good portion of that episode -as a ghostly incarnation of the machine Harold created to help humanity and which was now fighting its doppleganger, Samaritan, one last time- I can’t help but wonder if maybe her appearances were originally designed to be more…real…than they were presented within the episode.
Let me put it out there: Had the show’s finale originally considered using Root’s reanimated-by-the-machine body? I mean, it makes a certain sense given what we saw in her grave. If that’s the case, perhaps the show’s producers realized this might be a little too out there and decided to rework things so her appearances are simply the vivid imagination of Harold while he thinks he’s dying.
Still, why keep that graveyard sequence intact? Why not cut the bit with the evidence her body was dug up?
Then there’s the end of the episode itself. Harold and Reese (Jim Caviezel in the role of his lifetime) bluff their way into a high security vault by Harold pretending he has a thermonuclear bomb in a suitcase (a quick problem with that…how did they get out when clearly the entire military might of the United States would surround the living hell out of that building after that bluff). In reality, the suitcase Harold carries has a duplicate of his machine and the virus he intends to unleash on the last remnants of Samaritan, which is locked away in that security vault.
After Harold and Reese get to the vault, soldiers for Samaritan appear and there’s a shootout. Harold is shot before the soldiers are subdued. Afterwards, he manages to get the virus to infect the last remnants of Samaritan, but Samaritan manages to send out compressed versions of himself at the last second. All but one of them are infected and the duo realize the only way to infect and neutralize that last remnant of Samaritan is by going to the top of a building which has the satellite array ready to receive this Samaritan copy and infect it as it arrives. But Samaritan has also taken over a warship and will send a cruise missile to hit that building moments after it downloads itself and, therefore, whoever uploads the virus while Samaritan is being downloaded will die saving humanity.
Harold is determined to do this and locks Reese in the vault. He makes his way to the building and is in a daze, bleeding out from his wound and hallucinating visions of Root (which, again, maybe at one time weren’t hallucinations?!). He then realizes the satellite dishes on the building he’s on are incapable of receiving Samaritan. Reese appears on the building beside Harold’s and it turns out Reese chose to sacrifice himself to save the world and let Harold live and the machine agreed to do this.
Reese, it turns out, has the suitcase with the computer and virus in it, while Harold has been carrying around an empty suitcase.
This leads to Reese holding off Samaritan’s guards while uploading the virus. At his dying moments, shot up and bleeding, we see the virus was successfully uploaded and then the cruise missile takes the building out.
This is all good and well….
….BUT….
While in the vault Harold is shown with the open suitcase loading the virus. He finishes with what he’s doing on his computer within the suitcase, closes it, walks out of the vault with suitcase in hand, AND THEN locks Reese up. At what point exactly did Reese switch suitcases on Harold? Further, at what point did Reese have an identical suitcase to switch?
Worse, when Harold is made aware of the suitcase change later on and while on the roof of the wrong building, he opens his suitcase and finds it completely empty. Even though he was shot and not in the best of mental states, wouldn’t he have noticed the significant difference in weight of his suitcase?
Just…strange.
So the show ends with Fusco (Kevin Chapman) and Sameen (Sarah Shahi) meeting up one last time and Sameen getting the dog (you’ll understand if you saw the show). Then we see that Harold reunites with the love of his life, the woman he had to leave because of his work with the machine.
Then, in the show’s closing minutes, we return to Sameen on the streets of New York with her dog and as she walks the streets. A pay phone near her rings. She picks the phone up and, after listening to the call, notes a camera observing her. While all this happens we cut to shots of a computer re-activating itself. Presumably the Machine is coming back to life. After Sameen hangs the phone up she smiles.
It appears the story isn’t quite over after all.
So there you have it.
I still like POI and I’m not unhappy about the years I spent watching it. In many ways this show was a high tech version of Batman, with Reese being Batman and Harold being a combination Alfred/Oracle (or, perhaps more accurately, the intellectual part of Batman). You had villains who were not all that far removed from some of Batman’s Rogue gallery, including Root who at first was presented as someone akin to the Joker before becoming one of the good guys.
While the series finale left me thinking the producers didn’t quite stick the landing, I’m glad they were able to finish it off. It might not have been perfect, but few things in life ever are.
I don’t mean to sound cold, especially with regard to the individual who lost their life in this accident, but the statistics regarding car accidents and deaths are these: In an average year there are 30,000+ fatalities in auto accidents and another 2.2 million injured.
The fact that we’re several years into “self-driving” vehicle experimentation (I use this term because though the Tesla cars can engage in autonomous driving, there are clear warnings to do so only as an aid and to keep one’s hands on the wheel and attention on the road), this is the very first fatality to occur while a car was in a self-driving mode.
Here’s the description of the accident, as reported in the article linked to above:
“What we know is that the vehicle was on a divided highway with Autopilot engaged when a tractor trailer drove across the highway perpendicular to the Model S,” Tesla wrote. “Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied.”
Again, its tragic that anyone should lose their life in a car accident, regardless of the why or how. Based on the description above, it would appear this accident might have occurred even if the driver was at the wheel and the self-driving mechanism was not engaged.
I suspect “real world” cases like this, tragic though they are, will only lead to improvements in the self-driving systems.
