Review: "Now You See Me"

The belief in magic is, I imagine, looked down upon by many. If you're a child, the tricks performed by illusionists are puzzling, intriguing and entertaining. To be completely fooled as a kid is ok. Once you reach a certain age, it's assumed that you've matured a bit. You understand the truth about Santa, accept that Pro Wrestling is a show, and hopefully, appreciate magic on the showmanship level only.

In Now You See Me, a magician actually points out the foolishness of charging him with a particular crime. To do so would be admitting that magic is "real". Another character accepts that what she sees are just tricks, but enjoys the feeling she gets from them. She speaks of having a little faith in the unbelievable, and being a more tolerable person because of it. A professional trickster that calls you stupid for thinking what he does is real and an adult woman who just goes along with the tricks despite knowing that they're just tricks. What was it that Obi Wan Kenobi said about fools?

The crime I mentioned above was part of a Las Vegas stage performance. Calling themselves The Four Horsemen, these four (of course) showmen play out a trick where they transport a man to a European bank, and have him rob a safe. The FBI and Interpol investigate, but are always just a few steps behind this crew. Are they modern day Robin Hoods, or is there something more to their act?

Well, that something more is the trick (or twist) the movie has up its sleeve. A very short sleeve. I don't mean that the finale is easy and cheap but that the whole story is. The way the tricks unfold are implausible and kinda dumb for a popular magic act to achieve. They go to lengths like hypnotizing a man days in advance, switching out real money with flash paper and guessing that an entire audience were victims of an insurance company. Sure, I get it that the performances are just a cover for what they're "really" doing, but what they're "really" doing is "really" not clever. 

Jesse Eisenberg plays one of the Four Horsemen, in what I would call the best acting of the movie (the neurotic tendencies I would expect from him are swapped for confidence and flash). He regularly says that the closer you look, the easier it is to trick you. When a character is seemingly trapped in a car chase on a bridge, we see how the crew pulled off his escape. And it's something straight out of the Fast & Furious mentality. What worked in a movie that could care less about smarts, doesn't work in a movie that depends on you believing it's smart.

This must be similar to the problems people have with the new Star Trek movies. Every personality and theme from the original shows and films are heightened to almost extreme lengths. Whatever subtlety there used to be is gone. Nothing is subtle about Now You See Me, which would be ok (it IS a movie about flashy stage performers pulling off heists) if the tricks played out in and by the story hadn't been delivered in a Happy Meal. 

Now I remember; "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?" Fun razzle dazzle is fine and all, but only if you don't ask questions. When I was a kid, I hardly ever accepted something without being a little inquisitive. And you know what? I grew up to like movies ranging from the thoughtful to the silly. You CAN have fun while being mature. No need to be a Toys R Us kid forever.

2/5 *s

Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

I like to think that, when compared to other critics, I'm pretty easy to please. Silly plot holes, odd dialogue, unfinished effects, etc. can be forgiven, as long as I leave the theater thinking and excited. I'm not asking for much; treat me like a mature human being, and I'll treat your movie with respect. A simple request that can be easily met, I believe.

Sometimes one moment - just one - can nearly ruin an experience for me. The movie as a whole might be superb, but this one sequence can stick in my mind and tarnish the good feeling I was having. It's like having a pounding headache with no pain reliever in sight. It. Just. Hurts.

Can such a headache be excused in time?

After watching Star Trek Into Darkness, I'm certain that such a bad feeling can be soothed. Left alone, I rather enjoyed most of what I saw. Kirk and his team get caught up in a manhunt for a former member of Star Fleet turned terrorist, only to uncover a plot to start a war. What unfolds is not exactly the "chess game" that was suggested in the marketing, but a conflict that finds them defending the very core of the franchise. When assigned to a kill mission, the crew of the Enterprise mostly object. Scotty even quits, stating that Star Fleet is not supposed to be militaristic. It's clear that Mr. Scott would not agree with simply assassinating Osama bin Laden. We're better than that, he might say.

A "war time" Admiral creates a highly weaponized ship, meant specifically for a battle with Klingons, with the help of the agent turned terrorist. Comparisons to Donald Rumsfeld / Dick Cheney and the War on Terror are obvious, but in this story (unlike in the real world), the violence monger is actually going against the grain of the society he lives in - trying to force a peace minded world to go along with his one man war. Through this, Kirk and Spock confront their own violent tendencies, and thankfully learn to make the right decisions despite their emotions. In our world, they would probably be reprimanded for going against official orders. But, Star Trek shows us a future interested in the betterment of life. A possible future, I would hope. This is a  classic Trek tale, without being too traditional.

Many have been worried that this new Star Trek would just be about shooting lasers and not the discovery of new worlds and ideas. Into Darkness features action, yes, but what it does is pit a crew that wants to do exploration (traditional Trekkies) against a crew that just wants to fight (Hollywood). The series doesn't "boldly go" yet, but they do "engage" that topic. And, in the end, they will "make it so".

So, what's the problem?

Well, I can't really get into it without spoiling the movie. What I will say is that, at the climax, we get something that I really didn't expect: a near verbatim recreation of a famous scene from a previous Star Trek movie. I actually threw my hands in the air out of frustration and embarrassment. How could they do this? Who thought that was a good idea? It's lazy fan service and a non creative reference, I thought. Such a shame. Into Darkness was going great, being a fun, well told, sci space adventure. What problems the first movie had regarding that Trek feel, this one fixed. It even confirmed for me that J.J. Abrams was a very good choice for Star Wars Episode 7.

WHY DID THEY INCLUDE THAT ONE SCENE!?

I once suffered a week long headache, that was eventually cured with a medication I didn't even know I had all along. This week, my headache was short, and medicated rather easily. A twitter conversation helped me understand that A) Star Trek has always referenced itself, in one way or another B) The scene made sense in context, and was actually integral to the movie and C) One perceived hiccup shouldn't damper an overall fun event.

Remember how in From Paris with Love, John Travolta made a horrible reference to Pulp Fiction by mentioning the Royale w/ Cheese? Or when in Be Cool, Travolta danced with Uma Thurman? These are the scenes that cause major migraines. These are the call backs that make me mad. When you've made a genuinely good movie, and decided to do a twist on a famous moment from the same franchise in that movie, that's acceptable. Especially for Star Trek.

WHY DID I GET WORKED UP OVER ONE SCENE!?

Indeed, time heals all wounds, sometimes faster than expected. And that only one wound was described ought to be a compliment by itself. J.J. Abrams may not have been a Star Trek fan growing up, but he finally understands that old Trek feel. That is the medication to any one scene that might ail you. Request met, I say.

3/5 - 4/5 *s, depending on how I'm feeling at a given time.   

He Didn't Care for "Superman Returns"

Just the other day, Roger Ebert announced the formation of Ebert Digital, a new venture “devoted to the creation of new digital products that build on the lifelong work of the world’s preeminent film critic.” This was planned to include a newly formatted RogerEbert.com, where the man himself would serve as editor, nurturing a handpicked slew of reviewers.

Since that announcement, the contact information for this project has been displayed in a tab on my browser. It’s there, waiting for me to use it.

I’m in a constant state of hesitation; would I get a response? If so, from who? And what will they say? I’d like to think that my writing is good enough... A couple of deep breaths are needed here. It’s just an email. Sure, it’s a big deal, asking to take part in a website run by the king of your craft, but it’s not the end of the world if nothing comes of it.

After all, this is the guy that didn’t like Superman Returns.

When I watched the Bryan Singer Superman film at my local theater’s midnight showing, I was over the moon with pure joy. Getting to see a character I had long related to finish an arc that had been started with two movies from decades ago, sent chills down my spine. I wrote a review where I said that “Superman represents the best in all of us, and all we can become” or something to that effect. I sent it in an email to the editor of a local paper, hoping to land a gig out of the blue. A lot of effort was put into that review, and I don’t believe I heard back.

This was a depressing time in my life; out of school, unemployed, crushed by a crush, etc. Luckily, I had on DVD the complete box set for The Critic to get me through. As a kid, I looked up to Jay Sherman (the cartoon critic), and thought that doing what he did would be a dream. In one episode, I was introduced to Siskel and Ebert. At first, I thought they were just characters, but I soon realized they were as real as that moustached afro guy from The Today Show (Gene Shalit).

This can be a real career? Seriously? I had kicked around many fantasies for work throughout the years (from Astronaut to Superman himself), but I always kept coming back to film criticism. It’s hard to describe, but it just fit with my sarcastic, observational and analytical nature. My cousins would even refer to me as Siskel simply because I would comment on the details of a movie we’d be watching. Maybe I should make a go of this...

...but what did Mr. Ebert think of Superman Returns? 2/4 *s.

He wrote “This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating” and “when the hero, his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?”

Whoa, I thought. How could this be? This is the man that enjoyed 1 and 2 as much as I did - HE SHOULD HAVE LIKED THIS MOVIE TOO! I spent a good amount of time, sitting at my desk, thinking hard on this.

I read through my review, feeling like I got my point across. Then, I reread his, this time with a clearer mind. And I realized something; my view wasn’t as fully realized as his was. What I wrote was, more or less, just gushing about a character in general, no matter the movie surrounding him. What Ebert wrote was a descriptive and well elaborated expression of what he felt about the movie as a whole. He used examples from previous versions of the story. He provided observations that were spot on. And he didn’t let his fanboy-ness take over.

No wonder the editor of that local paper didn’t get back to me.

So, I spent the next couple of years going from dead end job to dead end job, reading as many reviews by as many critics as possible. How were other people writing about movies, and what could I do to better myself? After much prodding from my mom, friends and eventually myself, I started up this blog.

And here I am. My browser still has a tab open with Ebert Digital contact information. My gmail inbox is open, waiting on me to compose a message. If I had written something just a little earlier, I would’ve thanked Mr. Ebert for giving me the motivation to be a critic. For helping me understand how I could come up with a style that was effective and very much mine. And, like how Superman made us believe a man could fly, that he made me believe a pale, OCD kid could turn his wide eyed love of watching and talking about movies into a career.

I’d like to imagine at least an auto response would’ve appeared after hitting refresh.

“Oh, my...” - Captain James T. Kirk, Star Trek: Generations