STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

This is the long-awaited sequel to a blockbuster science fiction franchise that has seen highs and lows over the past few decades. It is probably the best indicator of what JJ Abrams will bring to a Star Wars sequel, and I'd say things are looking very good.

After a thrilling James Bond-like opening mission, Kirk and the Enterprise return to Earth. In London, rogue agent John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) has bombed a Starfleet archive, and Kirk gets permission from Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) to hunt him down.

From the opening scenario involving primitive aliens, cliff diving, and exploding volcanoes, the film keeps a pace going that would give the original series whiplash. William Shatner's crew may have had time for philosophy and contemplation, but with Chris Pine on the bridge the philosophy must be discussed between phaser blasts. Action fans can rejoice at this. Sometimes the speed and clutter of the frame was overwhelming, but JJ has proved to be a more than capable action director with a clear hold on his audience.

A superficial improvement in the sequel is the reduction of lens flares. It doesn't bother me, but many people complain that the first film includes too many. Happy for you then that JJ is such a nice guy because he has bowed to the people's will and given you what you asked for. Giving the audience what they want, however, is exactly what causes trouble in the film. Not a lot of trouble, but enough to make this sequel not quite as good as its predecessor.

Where the first film had a streamlined plot that spiraled around it's time-travel premise, Into Darkness has an element of chaos that is both good and bad. As the plot unfolds and the villain surprises Kirk, the chaos plays to the danger and suspense that comes with such an unpredictable opponent. But in gaining mystery and suspense the film sacrifices tidy storytelling, which shuffles emotional scenes and action scenes in jarring ways. As far as criticisms go that one is pretty weak, but it's the best description I can give for the slight disappointment I felt.

The writers have picked up the alternate-timeline characters where they were left and have followed them forward with the understanding that even on a new timeline, they could encounter elements of the original series. At times, references to the original series get in the way of good storytelling. This is a problem that only Trek fans will have to deal with, however, since the film as science fiction, as action, as adventure, and as a fun ensemble is solid. Even if references to the original do get in the way, they are such good elements that it would have been a shame to lose them just because Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) messed up the timeline.

When sequels like The Dark Knight come along they are met with astonishment because good sequels have been so difficult and rare. Before Nolan returned to Gotham there was only The Godfather Part 2 and The Empire Strikes Back to cited as undeniably great successors. Though I won't place Into Darkness in their league, it is still a fantastic sequel. With JJ doing Star Wars it is unlikely we will see another Star Trek for 3-4 years unless a new director is found, but when the next film comes it will have a lot to live up to in both of its predecessors.

Please avoid spoiling things in your review, thank you very much

WARNING: This review contains complaints about the spoilers (and therefore contains spoilers) that appear in Eli Glasner's review of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. At the time of writing I have not seen the film.

I was on the CBC website, and on the sidebar was Eli Glasner's review of JJ Abrams second Star Trek film. I've had my disagreements with what Mr. Glasner has written before, but different opinions are what make talking about movies so much fun. I think he and I could get along well. However, if he is going to be the film critic for the CBC (a job I would do for free, FYI) then he needs to change his style just a little bit.

CBC's only film critic, Eli Glasner

This was written at the top:

*WARNING: Big and small spoilers ahead*

First line and first mistake. Spoiler reviews are for fan sites, places where the people reading it are more likely to be the ones who have already seen it. The CBC is not that place, and you've just turned away part of your audience. If filmmakers can make trailers without spoiling the plot, a critic can write a review with the same restraint.

For example:

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Bigger set pieces and higher stakes make this the sequel used to measure all other sequels. With the rebels on the defensive from the icy opening, Episode V relentlessly asserts the terrifying power of Darth Vader and the Emperor. 5/5

And I managed to write that without revealing that Darth Vader is Luke's (WORTHLESS PLACE FOR A SPOILER ALERT) father.

I'm comfortable in my knowledge that I didn't spoil anything in that previous sentence, by the way, since it is right up there with the meaning of "Rosebud" for movie surprises that most everyone knows. If it weren't I would have made sure to warn much earlier than the word before, which brings me to my biggest problem with Mr. Glasner's review:

"Trek fans will know him better by his other (SEMI-OBVIOUS SPOILER) name."

Maybe I am idealistic. Maybe I am foolish. But I managed to keep myself in darkness about the possibilities surrounding the new film's villain. There are so many things wrong with Mr. Glasner's word choice here that I felt I had to comment.

1. Putting (SEMI-OBVIOUS SPOILER) in bold capitals draws attention to it. I understand that is usually the point with spoiler alerts, but it is a problem when you consider...

2. Context is everything. I learned the meaning of the word "obfuscate" because it was used in a sentence regarding the concealment of facts. Context taught me a new word, which is what context always does. It is a major part of how we gain vocabulary. Delete the spoiler parenthesis and you get, "Trek fans will know him better by his other name." Oh dear, what could that be? A villain with a famous name in Star Trek history. James T. Kirk is not Batman; he doesn't have a roll call of dozens of famous villains. This is not how you hide facts.

3. Links are words too. Mr. Glasner made the word "name" into a hyperlink to the relevant clip of William Shatner. I didn't need to click on it to get the name, I only needed to roll over and have the web address pop up reveal it for me.

All of my gripes are itty bitty things that most people won't care about. And I will readily admit that the spoiler of the villain's identity was not something I found very shocking since it has been in the rumour mill since 2009. But if Mr. Glasner is going to be the only film critic for the national broadcaster of Canada, then I want him to do a better job.

Film reviews should elicit the same excitement that a movie advertisement can have, urging people to see something good when they may have otherwise skipped it. Or it should dilute the artificial excitement of a well-marketed bad movie so that bad filmmakers stop getting the wrong idea from big opening weekends. This is what Roger Ebert was so wonderful at. He poked holes in the inflated egos of bad movies, and he threw his mighty love of film behind the underdogs that deserve it. And he did this without writing spoiler warnings in bold capitals.

Top 10 "old" movies I saw for the first time this year

THE LIMEY (1999)

Terence Stamp plays a dangerous Englishman, his signature role, and Peter Fonda is the man who may be responsible for the death of Stamp’s daughter. Director Steven Soderbergh’s most-brilliant choice in the film is to use footage from Poor Cow, a 1967 film Stamp made with Ken Loach, as flashback footage for The Limey. It’s remarkable how seeing a significantly younger version of the lead actor, instead of a look-a-like, can impact the reality of the new performance.

DECONSTRUCTING HARRY (1997)

Woody Allen has made at least one film every year since 1976. I’ve been slowly making my way through them (out of order). Most critics agree that there was a “dark period” from the early 90s until Match Point in 2005 where Allen’s films were not very good. Right in the middle of all that, however, is this ensemble comedy about a writer and his creations and all of the lies that come with them. A standout section involves Robin Williams as an actor who has “lost his focus” and is literally blurry and out of focus to everyone around him.

THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992)

The 2-CD soundtrack to this film was always loaded into the household’s 6-CD changer when I was a kid. I learned to love the music even though I was too young to see the film. Somehow I only got around to watching it this year, and I’m not sure if I’m glad or not. I can appreciate its technique more because I’m older, but the film has such grandeur that I can imagine my younger self would have been even more swept up in the its romantic power.

THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (1976)

Some films are good because you see how everything works and it’s all a well-oiled narrative machine. Others are good because they force you to ask questions and wonder about the “meaning” of the story. Nicolas Roeg’s science-fiction drama is firmly in the second category alongside 2001: A Space Odyssey and Barton Fink. But one thing that is clear is David Bowie has been a capable actor from the very beginning.

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935)

When I watched Frankenstein I was disappointed with how dated it was, so I didn’t look up the sequel until I saw the film Gods and Monsters about the films’ director. I was shocked. This film restores the monster’s voice, pulling inspiration from the original novel even more than the first film. The character of the Bride is legitimately disturbing, and there are special effects shots that still stand up to scrutiny.

KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN (1985)

A major influence on the independent cinema of the 80s and 90s, this is the story of two men (Raul Julia and William Hurt) held for political reasons in a South American prison. The anonymity of the country and its politics pushes this in the direction of Kafka and Orwell. And despite being from 1985, William Hurt’s Oscar-winning performance as the effeminate gay Luis is very genuine and free of dated stereotypes.

THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962)

There is a scene in the original Manchurian Candidate where the POWs are being brainwashed, and the cartoonish, evil doctor is walking around. The scene is almost laughable until one man is ordered to shoot another and the wall is splattered with blood. It’s the sort of thing you expect from modern films, but to see it in 1960s black and white is truly shocking. Also, Angela Lansbury, that nice lady from Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Murder She Wrote, is one evil mother.

THE HILL (1965)

A military detention camp in the Libyan Desert has a lone hill of sand at its center. As the men are forced to repeatedly charge up and over with heavy packs, the camera follows them in long tracking shots, meaning their pain and exhaustion is completely authentic. This is another great anti-war film in the vein of Paths of Glory. Sean Connery stars. Sydney Lumet directs. And it’s in black and white, and not the pre-50s “everything is in black and white,” but the post-1960 “moral ambiguity looks best in monochrome” black and white.

THE THIRD MAN (1949)

Pulp Western writer Holly Martins arrives in post-war Vienna looking for an old friend who promised him a job, but on arrival he discovers that his friend was killed by a car while crossing the street. This turns out to be just the start of a twisting noir thriller with Orson Welles’ most dashing performance, and an unforgettable zither soundtrack.

THE LION IN WINTER (1968)

Modern film actors play medieval royalty. The theatrical dialogue abandons authenticity to be an unrelenting battle of wits. King Henry II (Peter O’Toole) lets Queen Eleanor (Katharine Hepburn) out of prison for Christmas. Their sons, including Anthony Hopkins as Richard the Lionhearted, round out the happy family as the King negotiates with young King Philip II of France (Timothy Dalton). Every scene crackles with so much energy that it is shocking the film is not yet available on blu-ray.