Star Trek Into Darkness

Our story opens on an alien planet where a figure in a gray robe flees from a temple while the natives chase him, throwing spears on the way. The figure proves to be Captain James T Kirk who had stolen – for reasons never explained – a scroll from said temple thus the ire of the natives. Gee, this almost looks like the opening scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Kirk soon joins Dr. McCoy and the pair continues to run for their lives. What was the plan here? Meanwhile, Spock, Sulu, and Uhura are in a shuttle hovering over an active volcano located next to the temple. Spock is lowered into the volcano so he can plant a device to prevent it from erupting and thus wiping out the natives. Well, things don’t work quite as planned. The shuttle engines overheat and the tether to Spock breaks. Was there a plan here? Simple, we just beam Spock to the ship. Where’s the Enterprise? Oh, it is underwater! Kirk and Bones jump off a cliff and swim down to the submerged SPACE ship. Though Scotty was able to beam Sulu and Uhura to safely before the shuttle crashed, he can’t lock onto Spock except by line of sight. The ship’s current position is a real problem, seeing as there is ocean and continent in the way. What genius decided to park the ship in an ocean? Well, since we are in this really stupid position, the only way to save Spock is to break the Prime Directive (note that was the Prime directive, not the secondary or tertiary directive). The ship surfaces to the natives’ astonishment and as it flies over the volcano, Spock is beamed aboard. And there you have the introduction to J. J. Abrams latest travesty in the Star Trek universe.

Knowing that the objective was to prevent the volcano from erupting and wiping out the primitive natives, what might have been a better plan? Maybe setting the anti-volcano device on a several second delay and transporting it from orbit? Oh, but look at all the awesome action we’d miss! As for Kirk stealing the holy scroll, I am still baffled. Why? My best guess is that he was trying to lure the natives away from the impending detonation. Even so, I have no idea why Bones would be there. Is he particularly suited to running from natives? The sad thing is that it gets worse.

Lacking any original ideas, the writers bring back Khan (i.e. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) as a villain. Khan has magic blood that appears to be a cure for death. Yep, Dr. McCoy synthesizes a serum that revives a dead tribble and maybe a major character that dies in a scene stolen from… Wrath of Khan. I was really annoyed when the last film had Kirk and Scotty beam aboard the Enterprise while it was light years away and traveling at warp speed. This time, we have a personal transportation device that allows the villain to transport himself from Earth to the Klingon home world! Really? Such technology is going to make starships obsolete. Such a technology would massively revolutionize space travel and is far beyond what was possible in Star Trek The Next Generation. As for the starships, warp speed has really gotten impressive. The ship is a short distance from the Klingon home world – which the Klingons seem not to notice – and warps back toward Earth. They have hardly hit warp speed when an enemy ship catches them and blasts the Enterprise. So, where are we? Oh, pretty much in Earth orbit. So the distance from Earth to the Klingon home world is a few minutes at warp speed? Two starships are essentially in Earth orbit and one fires at the other. Earth responds by doing nothing. One of the starships is on a collision course with San Francisco and the response is… nothing. We have all of Earth and the only people who can do anything are the crew of the Enterprise.

Benedict Cumberbatch seems nothing like Khan. First, it is a bit annoying that we have a pasty white fellow playing Khan. But Khan had a combination of charm and menace, a man who would smile warmly while he twisted the knife. Cumberbatch is all menace and brooding.

Scotty goes scouting coordinates that Kirk gave him. He finds a space station there. Amazingly, the space station doesn’t seem to notice him. In a miracle of timing, some ships arrive and enter the space station – Scotty just joins the group and enters unseen. Seriously? This is a military space station and it neither noticed the approach of a shuttle or that the shuttle came aboard. Well, such incompetence probably explains later parts of the film.

So, Scotty is off the ship and Kirk needs a new chief engineer. Let’s see, I have all these engineers down in engineering, one of whom is probably second only to Scotty. So, let’s pick Chekov. Yes, I understand you don’t want to introduce new characters but this still grated.

Spock and Uhura are involved and their relationship is repeatedly brought to the foreground, often with Uhura nagging Spock for his logic and lack of feelings. Umm, you know he’s a Vulcan, right? But, just to prove he’s got feelings, a tear runs down his cheek when a major character dies. Oh, and Kirk cries too when a different character dies. I don’t think William Shatner’s Kirk ever cried, even when those Klingon bastards killed his son. The Spock – Uhura relationship was ill-conceived.

Chris Pine’s Kirk is disappointing. It’s not that I think he should emulate Shatner, but it would be nice if he kept to the character. His Kirk is frantic rather than deliberate, foolhardy rather than brave, and reckless rather than daring. At one point, we see him in bed with two alien women. Really? He has to be convinced not to do something rash on more than one occasion. At another point in the movie, he is faced with the Kobyashi Maru moment where he’s going to lose his ship and crew and his response is… “I’m sorry.” In Wrath of Khan, Kirk repeatedly outmaneuvered Khan but here it is the other way around. Kirk captures him only because he chose to surrender. Kirk survives a spacewalk only because Khan guides him, and Kirk survives secondary villains only because of Khan. Khan plays Kirk the entire time but Kirk blusters as if he is the one in control. Sigh.

The plot is just an opportunity to string together unlikely action sequences. There is an amazing amount of running! It’s all very exciting mindless fun. And that is the biggest problem. Star Trek was never mindless. If anything, the Kirk era of Star Trek was preachy with a morality tale in virtually every episode. Kirk often explained the moral at the end. If there is any moral here, it is that the enemy is us. Yeah. Again with the self-loathing and we made Khan what he is and those chickens have come home to roost. Lovely.

With what J. J. Abrams has done to Star Trek, I am concerned what he plans to do with the other great sci-fi classic, Star Wars. Well, he probably can’t do any worse than Lucas did in Phantom Menace.

Wolf of Wall Street

An actual victim of Jordan Belfort complains that the movie glorifies the wolf's crimes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10581947/The-real-life-Wolf-of-Wall-Street-behind-the-Scorsese-film.html

This is such a common theme for Scorsese and a big reason why I don't like his films.

The Overrated Martin Scorsese

Yet again, Martin Scorsese has released a ridiculously long film (3 hours) about a miserable human being and it is an Oscar contender, highly rated by the critics, and cleaning up at the box office. I am generally baffled. I have seen many of his films and don’t understand the appeal. I have come to the conclusion that Scorsese’s signature as director is similar to Picasso’s signature on a painting; even complete crap is instantly valuable.

Taxi Driver (1976): I saw this a few years ago and was less than impressed. Our hero is a deranged taxi driver who is baffled that a pretty girl doesn’t want to go to a porno movie with him and thinks he can turn his life around by killing an aspiring politician. That plan falls through but he still wants to shoot somebody so he kills a pimp and his goons. Voila! He really is a hero who saved a young girl from prostitution. There were no characters to like in this film. But see, after he killed a bunch of people, he is a changed man. Look how calm and collected he is now.

Raging Bull (1980): This was the first Scorsese film I saw. It was in the theaters as a double feature with The Elephant Man (sheesh, two black and white films!). I was 13 and didn’t like either film. Jake LaMotta was a real jerk and I couldn’t figure why his wife endured him. This from a 13 year old kid!

The King of Comedy (1982): Here is yet another movie with De Niro as the star, this time with the unlikely name of Rupert Pupkin. Rupert thinks he’s a comic genius and has it in his head that he should get a shot on famous late night show (hosted by Jerry Lewis). To pull it off, he kidnaps Jerry. Yes, another mentally deranged character. Though supposedly a comedy, I didn’t laugh. I’ve never liked Jerry Lewis and yet he is the brightest point in this travesty.

The Color of Money (1986): I saw this when it was in theaters and have almost no recollection of it. About the only thing that I recall was Forest Whitaker hustling Paul Newman toward the end. Of course, it is a movie about pool sharks, not exactly folks of high moral character; in other words, right up Scorsese’s alley. He has a habit of glamorizing morally bankrupt people (more on that later).

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988): How did I see this movie? I must have rented it from Blockbuster back in the day when I’d rent 4 movies a week. Well, here is a telling of Christ in which Judas Iscariot proves to be a hero and Jesus skips out on the crucifixion in order to marry Mary and grow old. I like Willem Dafoe but, at this time, he was almost always a villain so casting him as Jesus was impolitic. And, despite being about Jesus, there are no likable characters. How can that be?

Goodfellas (1990): I somehow suffered through this two and a half hour glorification of really bad people. You know, I felt nothing when Pesci got whacked. He was a bad guy. Sure, he could be funny but he’s still murdering scum. Ditto for our other main characters. Am I supposed to identify with one of these thugs? Scorsese sure wants to impress me with their lifestyle. That tracking shot of getting a front table at the posh club was nothing if not impressive. See the special consideration these mobsters got? Isn’t that cool? Stuck in witness protection, Henry Hill misses the excitement of his old life. What, am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

Cape Fear (1991): Here is one I saw in the theaters as an adult, making it the first of his films that I chose to see. I thought the filming was interesting, especially when Nolte was shaving in the foreground and Lange was in the background yet both were in focus. That was cool and the first I had seen of that sort of thing. However, as usual, I didn’t like any of the characters. This was Juliette Lewis’s big break and I was not at all impressed. How is it she had a long career?

The Age of Innocence (1993): Oh, the tedium! Every setting has to be lovingly explained by narration, pointing out the table settings and the tablecloth and the who’s who stuff. It is like lives of the rich and famous in the late 19th century. Worse, our characters are all so staid and proper that seldom does emotion actually leak through the façade. The characters are so stolid and the setting so sterile that it is near impossible to feel anything for any of these characters.

Bringing out the Dead (1999): Dreary and bleak, this movie was hard to watch. Nick Cage plays a depressed emergency medical tech who goes from one disaster to the next, hallucinating on the way. Gee, why am I watching this? Grim and unrewarding. Oh, but he does manage to fall asleep at the end.

Gangs of New York (2002): OMG, it’s still going! When the movie started, I was interested. And when it came to the big finale where DiCaprio is going to knife Day-Lewis, I was still there. And then he failed. And Day-Lewis let him live. And the movie just kept going. And going. Come on, already! At 167 minutes, the movie is just too long. And yet again, all the characters are thugs and villains. Should I root for the bad guy or the bad guy? Roger Ebert once said a good movie can never be too long and a bad one can never be short enough. Most directors try handing in a final film that is near three hours and the studio will demand huge cuts. Not Scorsese. And it doesn’t benefit the narrative for the films to be so damned long.

The Aviator (2004): This film was so enthralling that I never finished it. I watched about half of it then lost interest. Cate Blanchet made a good Kathryn Hepburn. As far as Hughes, I tired of him and changed channels. Here is one of the great achievers of the 20th Century, a man who broke airspeed records, who designed aircraft, who made blockbuster films, who was a successful businessman, a philanthropist, and yet the biopic bored me. Also, as usual, I didn’t like anyone. Why is it I don’t like any characters in a Scorsese film? How does he pull that off, film after film?

Shutter Island (2010): Though I didn’t have a heads up or read any spoilers, I knew the twist to this film in the first five minutes. In fact, I knew he was the man he was looking for when he looked in the mirror with his freshly washed face. I was sitting in the theater trying to figure out if Teddy Daniels could be rearranged to spell Andrew Laeddis. Of course, it didn’t work because his name is Edward Daniels; used Teddy to throw me. Again, the film is way too long, the setting is filled with paranoia (it is a mental hospital), and everyone is under suspicion. When the big secret is revealed, I was nonplussed. Oh, look, another nutbag for our main character. Gee, you’ve never tried that before. Sigh.

Hugo (2011): This was generally interesting and entertaining though overly slow and, in the end, infuriating. We follow young Hugo, an orphan who finds himself winding clocks in a Parisian train station and trying to avoid the comically bumbling policeman and his dog. During this, he attempts to unwrap a riddle with a little mechanical toy his father left him. Slowly we discover that a humble shopkeeper in the train station is Georges Melies, an early pioneer in film. Suddenly, the film becomes a paean to Georges Melies! Huh? I first learned of Georges Melies in From the Earth to the Moon (HBO Series) and was truly impressed by his achievement. Clearly, Scorsese shares my feelings. However, why not just make a film about Georges Melies rather than this meandering mess that concludes with a thumbnail sketch of the great filmmaker? I suppose this is one of his least bad movies since I liked Hugo well enough.

The average length of a Scorsese film is 133 minutes, he often tells stories about the mentally deranged or criminals, and doesn’t do an effective job of creating empathy for them. Clearly, I am in a minority on this. What amazes me about Scorsese is that I don’t like any of his films. I generally dislike Jim Jarmsch films (Limits of Control was tedious and Dead Man was unwatchable) but I really like Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai. The same goes for several other directors but not Scorsese. Somehow, I dislike all his movies, at least the ones I’ve seen.

What do you think? Am I totally wrong? If so, please explain.

Dredd vs. Judge Dredd

Dredd

Judge Dredd made his return to film and I finally got around to seeing it. A massive improvement over the Stallone version (1995). Whereas Judge Dredd sought to tell an epic tale that glimpsed wide swaths of the Judge Dredd universe, it failed to stay true to the characters or the setting. Dredd tackles a day in the life of a Megacity Judge

The particular day follows Dredd as he takes a rookie recruit on her assessment. Depending how she does, she will either washout or become a judge. As it happens, they find themselves stuck in a mega skyscraper (200 stories and 75,000 residents) with every armed thug out for their blood. The standard judge sidearm, the Lawgiver, gets great play through the movie. Dredd himself proves to be a humorless hard ass who talks like Dirty Harry (FYI: Judge Dredd was modeled on Dirty Harry in a futuristic setting). Of most note, Dredd never removes his helmet.

The recruit, Judge Anderson, is a significant character in the comic and is part of the Psi-Division. Here, she is painted as a mutant with beneficial mutations; there is no Psi-Division. This is really her story since she is the one with the character arc. Dredd is law and the law doesn’t need a character arc.

The newer movie lacks the technology of the comic or the Stallone movie. The comic had advanced robotics, flying cars, interplanetary travel, laser rifles, and more. Dredd feels almost modern; much of the missing high-tech is probably for budgetary reasons. One thing that struck me as odd was the ending. Dredd comes upon Mama and she has the building wired to explode if her heart stops. Dredd has already pronounced a death sentence on her. So, stand off? Well, Dredd comes up with a solution that struck me as needlessly risky. I would have just arrested her, had the explosives disarmed while she was carted off to jail. The death sentence can wait a couple of days, can’t it? Mama seems to be of the impression that Dredd must execute her on the spot or walk away and leave her alone. Dredd seems to be of the same impression.

Judge Dredd

The Sylvester Stallone epic was much more ambitious than Dredd, including a vast number of characters and plotlines from the long running comic. His disgraced and imprisoned clone, Rico, plays the main villain though his return is entirely unlike what was in the comic. The robot wars are referenced and a warrior robot shows up as a goon for Rico. Fergee is included as a sidekick though he is entirely unlike the character in the comic. The Angel Gang of the Cursed Earth is tossed into the mix as well.

The technology is more in keeping with the comic, though it does seem interplanetary travel has been nixed; Rico was imprisoned on the moon of Titan, not a penal facility in Aspen, Colorado. The costume was more in line with the comic, with the ludicrous shiny shoulder pads. Dredd had toned down the armor which was probably the better move; what works in a comic is often silly in a movie – I give you The Phantom (1996) in his purple jumpsuit.

The movie has many failings. First, there is the needless inclusion of a comic sidekick, especially since it was played by Rob Schneider. He is rarely funny. Once they get back to Megacity, I have no idea why he sticks with Dredd. Certainly not because they did some great bonding in the Cursed Earth. There is also the fact that Stallone is very unlike the character he is playing. The constant “I knew you’d say that” is meant to be funny but is just silly. He can’t wait to get his helmet off and it stays off through much of the movie. Dredd is the most successful judge in his time and this is repeatedly demonstrated in the comic but Stallone’s Dredd is great because he is said to be great. Another issue is that Rico and Dredd are clones but played by different actors; shouldn’t they both be played by the same actor?

The movie is generally fun but drifts far from the source material. Dredd is a more modest film but does a much better job of staying true to the character and the setting.

Welcome to the Ice Age

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi

It is summer in the southern hemisphere.  Shouldn't the ice have melted?  It is entertaining that a ship out to talk about global warming should get stuck in ice.  Poetic justice.  It reminds me of the Global Warming hearing that was canceled last March because of a snow storm.  If this sort of thing persists for a few more years, the climate change lobby will start saying we are headed for a man-made ice age and only new government regulations and taxes can save us.

 

Then there is this:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/12/31/record-cold-temperatures/4264237/

 

Records only go back to the 1880s and this is only the first time in 20 years that lows outnumbered highs but it is an interesting point on the graph.  The climate is on a cycle measured in centuries or even millennia, not decades.