"When Captain America throws his mighty shield..."

"...all those who chose to oppose his shield must yield ♪ ♫"

He lost his headwings

Today Captain America: The First Avenger is supposed to start Principal Photography. Or that's what they were saying a month ago, June 28th. Just thought you'd like to know.

I'm still confused about the Marvel movie universe logic wherein Johnny Storm, "The Human Torch" is also Steve Rogers, "Captain America". Perhaps Chris Evans is like Sybil, Eve or (The United States of) Tara and he has multiple (heroic) personalities within? Maybe he should star in The Crowded Room next? That movie feels like it's never going to get made. Development hell for, what, 8-10 years now?

But... superheroes. Remember when they used to have to pad the superhero costumes so the actors looked cartoonishly fit/muscular? Now they just cast people like Evans and Ryan Reynolds. No special effects required.

On the less bulky front, over the weekend the finalist list for the new Spider-Man was talked up. Exactly how many times are we going to hear that there's a final -- this time they mean it! -- finalist list before someone is cast? This is, what, the third time? On that list we encounter the same Chris Evans multiple personality problem.

A type emerges...

I am apparently the only person alive still bothered by an actor starring in multiple similar franchises. They're considering Chekov/Kyle Reese, Percy Jackson and Kick Ass to play the webslinger here. When I go to the movie theater to see Spider-Man I don't wanna be thinking about Star Trek, Terminator or Kick-Ass. I wanna be thinking about Spider-Man! Why is this a difficult concept? It'd be like if Sarah Michelle Gellar was asked to star in a werewolf hunting role. No, no, no. She kills vampires, see? I'm fully willing to enjoy her as another character besides Buffy but not another powerful woman in some supernatural setting, you know?

This is why, as previously stated, I can't stand seeing Samuel L Jackson anymore despite once enjoying him. He's starred in so many actual or would be f/x action franchises now (10+ by my last count) that he takes me right out of whatever movie I'm watching, even non-franchise movies. He's a factory worker and all genre movies coming down the conveyor belt must be fitted with some Jules Winnfield before they are shipped out to the public. It makes everything generic/interchangeable.

So I'm rooting for Jamie Bell or Andrew Garfield as the new Spidey because they don't have much baggage and they only really make me think of Jamie Bell and Andrew Garfield and those aren't unpleasant reference points at all. Though if they wanna hand us Michael Angarano (who we were just watching) or Ehrenreich I suppose that'd be okay, too.

Review: Star Trek (XI)

"Star Trek" the franchise is 43 years old. If it was experiencing a midlife crisis for the past seven quiet years after Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) it has now emerged with a flashy new vehicle and facelift to restore an impression of vigorous youth. The flashy new vehicle in question is driven by JJ Abrams, the television wunderkind behind Lost, and the youthful sheen comes from new actors all of whom, save John Cho (as Lieutenant Sulu), are younger than the actors who originated the same characters were in 1966.


Since Star Trek is so long in the tooth, we bring a lot of personal history into the theater with us. For my part, I grew up with it in heavy rotation. My entire family and several of my friends loved it. I did not. Unless the Lieutenants, Uhura and Sulu, were prominently featured in an episode I despaired that I couldn't watch something else. Maybe it's hard for anyone under, hmmm 28 (?), to contemplate but it's true: in the 70s and for most of the 80s there were not 100s of channels, DVRs, plentiful home computers, internet television ... there really wasn't a way to not watch what everyone else wanted to watch. Unless you went without TV... GOD FORBID! So I grew up resenting Star Trek and I bailed as soon as I could. I've only seen a few episodes of Next Generation, never seen an episode of Voyager or Deep Space Nine. My knowledge of ends 'round about the mid to late 80s... and if the new film makes any reference to movies Star TrekVI-X, I wouldn't know. I can only assume it does. One could even title the new movie Star Trek XI: Deep Space Punchine because it's very interested in poking fun at its own history.

Which is not to say that Star Trek (2009) is an winking self parody. It finds the right balance between action, drama and comedy. Since we didn't need another Star Trek movie, we should be very grateful that this one isn't heavy with portent. So many gazillion dollar spectacles are. It has fun with the concept of this particular universe rebooting, quite literally at that, given the time warp plotting.

The rebooting happens by way of a prologue in which the evil Romulan Nero (an unrecognizable Eric Bana) emerges in the past (our future) from the future (even more futurey!) and kills Captain Tiberius Kirk, Kirk's father. Nero seems miffed at which Stardate he's returned to and we find out a little later that he was a bit earlier than expected. Sound confusing? That's time travel for you! See he wasn't out to kill Kirk's father (like some Terminator on a Sarah Connor mission) but to wreak elaborate revenge on Admiral Spock (Zachary Quinto). This murderous kickoff is dramatic, action packed and if it's a touch over the top (Kirk Jr's birth has to be shoehorned in to up the dramatic ante) it's still an effective opener.

Cut to: Key shorthand bits from Spock and Kirk's childhoods (a bit extraneous given our familiarity with the characters) and then we're on to several scenes which reintroduce us to the half dozen characters we presumably know and love detailing how they came to know each other and join Starfleet. This is a lot for a movie to juggle before it's even approached it's major plot conflict but Abrams and his screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman keep the pacing zippy and the introductions wisely spaced out and interwoven with the larger narrative of Kirk and Spock's journey towards the bridge of the Enterprise.

For instance, Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana) is slipped into our first true chance to study Chris Pine's Kirk but we don't get Scotty (Simon Pegg) for a good long while. There are too many origin stories in genre fare (as if audiences hate using their imagination for back story) but this time it doesn't feel like a burden, partially because it's broadly sketched but also because the actors are encouraged to have fun with these familiar and, let's face it, limited personae. Star Trek is often clever and though some jokes are obvious or purely nostalgia based ("Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a..."), the movie doesn't stop to admire any of this fancy storytelling footwork. It's too busy leaping and running through the scenes.

The production design is also wisely calibrated. This world is light and airy, immediately setting it apart from all the heavy handed and darkly hued genre fare we've been seeing for several years. It's shiny and modern enough to feel jangly and fresh but bright and colorful enough to feel a bit retro. Again, they've achieved a crucial balance.

But back to the storytelling. By the time the Enterprise crew is in pursuit and then direct combat with Nero the movie has clearly formed its identity as an action film first, a nostalgic dramedy second. The pacing in the second half is a bit more questionable with two action sequences (an alien monster chase and a comic piece with an endangered Scotty) that could have been discarded without a single effect to the narrative -- which probably means they should have been. The one "break" from the action, the entrance of old Spock (Leonard Nimoy), is that rare "exposition" scene that doesn't overstay its welcome and also fuses the action plot with the character journey in a particularly pleasing way. More action films should make sure these two elements work in tandem.


There are a few hints that they were really read to rethink the franchise -- I loved the early (red herring) suggestion that the USS Enterprise would have a different heirarchy of power -- but the movie mostly works as revival rather than as a reimagining. I'm not sure how much staying power the new Star Trek installment will have (though it will definitely power future installments making the question moot) but it's a breezy and entertaining two hour blockbuster. And remember, I don't even really like "Star Trek." Buy lots of popcorn. B+
*

Christian Bale Losing Resolution. Too Many Copies!

When I announced I was seeing Terminator Salvation yesterday, I got a note from Rob, a longtime reader, which said

Let us know if the cinematography comes across as especially intrusive to the thespian process.

Heh. I am happy to report that unless Christian Bale's eyes are particularly sensitive to bleached colors and shadowy sets, Shane Hurlbut's lensing didn't intrude on his thespian process at all. But Bale intruded on Bale's thespian process.


I liked Salvation a lot more than this next statement will imply (here's the video review) but... John Connor was a dud. [editor's note: Isn't he always?] Christian Bale bored me silly. He used to be a thrilling and unpredictable actor. Now I feel like I'm seeing the same performance over and over again. It's like he's lipsynching to his own Arias of Intensity.

Since Bale has given at least one undisputably genius performance ("Patrick Bateman", American Psycho) I'd like to cut him some slack and blame Hollywood and movie audiences. Why is it that we need the same thing over and over again? Why do we need orphaned crime-fighting Batman to also be orphaned robot-fighting John Connor? Why do we need 4th and 11th versions of stories we've already heard? Why do we need a reboot of the Star Trek story which we've been hearing for over 40 years? For Christ's sake, why do we need a 8th season of American Idol? It's the same show every year.

Will we ever love something new?

I was thinking about this whilst perusing the internet yesterday and reading numerous gripe posts about X-Men Origins: Wolverine followed (in the same posts!) by anticipation of X-Men Origins: Deadpool or whatever they might call it. It's like we're goldfish or we're collectively stuck in a OCD moment, repeating the same cycle over and over again.


Instead of locking and unlocking our doors, we're swallowing hype whole, choking on it and then opening wide again "Give it to me!" It's basically Hollywood's ideal cattle herding loop. Even if we don't like a movie, we'll still go to its sequel.

But I'm spiralling off topic. In the case of Bale, I'm more concerned currently with Hollywood's (and by extension our) lack of imagination about who should play whom in franchises. I'm sitting there watching Anton Yelchin, who plays Kyle Reese as a teenager, and thinking 'Chekov from Starfleet impregnated Sarah Connor to stop Skynet?!?'

Shouldn't I be thinking "ooh, the young Kyle Reese!"?


Why did Chris Pine, suddenly get talked up for Green Lantern just as soon as people starting noticing he might not bomb as Captain Kirk? Should Captain Kirk really remind us of Green Lantern and vice versa? And then there's the problem of Samuel L Jackson. I've complained about this before but the Nick Fury casting really upset me last summer. It seems, scanning credits, like Marvel wants Nick Fury to be the connective tissue for all of their superhero movies. That would be a fun idea if it were a lesser or unknown actor but now all of these Marvel superhero movies will not only remind us of each other but of the following franchises or intended franchises (some didn't pan out): The Spirit, Star Wars, Shaft, Jumper, Afro Samurai, xXx, The Incredibles, S.W.A.T, Jurassic Park and even The Exorcist. I don't begrudge any strong actor a successful career but I really think there out to be a cap on how many big franchises one actor is allowed to appear in. Seeing the same faces over and over again (Jackson's) or hearing the same affected voice over and over again (Bale's) just makes all these movies seem more generic and copied and alike than they already are.

The internet was abuzz yesterday with the rumor that Bradley Cooper might play Hal Jordan / Green Lantern (the IMDB lists Chris Pine in the role but that's still only a rumor). I've mocked it up for you to the right. I forgot the mask but that's all Bradley there. Actors don't need padded muscle suits anymore. They have personal trainers and dieticians.

I like Cooper but I haven't even begun to ponder whether or not he'd be a good Hal Jordan. Still, better him than Chris Pine. That way I won't have to get used to Captain Kirk belonging to both Federation Starfleet and the Green Lantern Corps. Does Starfleet even allow dual citizenship?

Have you read the Terminator Retro Special?
PART ONE: Tech•Noir (The Terminator)
PART TWO: Model Citizen (Judgment Day)
PART THREE: Terminator Salvation Discussion (passed on rewatching Rise of the Machines after all)