Secondhand Reviews

Having a blog on Blogspot for the past 4 1/2 years for reviews of new movie releases (http://joebunce.blogspot.com), I found myself in recent years (for financial reasons) seeing fewer and fewer new titles and more and more at the second run discount theatres. I've continued to get people asking me about movies I've seen second run, so why not?, I figured. Why not start another series dedicated to the second run theatres. Besides, that will give me a chance to write more negative reviews, and I love writing those. Not today, though. The first title reviewed in this series will be "Up" from Pixar and I have to say it's another Pixar winner.

As the movie opens we meet young Carl Frederickson, a young boy determined to live the life of adventure in real life that he's already living in his mind. When he meets Ellie, a young girl just as adventurous as he is, it's the start of a powerful lifelong relationship. But in an absolutely amazing and emotionally devastating montage only a few minutes long, we see how real life keeps interfering with their plans, forcing them to continue postponing the adventure until one day Ellie becomes ill, and the illness turns out to be fatal, leaving Carl alone and depressed in their massive old house.

Years later, Carl is now an old man and surrounded by land development by a corporation that wants to take his house, too. Determined to finally keep his promise to Ellie, he ties thousands of balloons to his house and mocks the developers as he floats off to the South American jungle he and Ellie always wanted to go to, not realizing that the young Scout who had been pestering him is still out on his doorstep and is now a fellow passenger on his journey.

There is definitely plenty of comedy for the kids, and they'll love little touches like the dogs that have been outfitted with collars that enable them to communicate their thoughts. But what makes the film absolute magic is that opening sequence. In just a few minutes we see a real, deeply touching lifetime relationship sketched in more realistic terms that you ever get to see in live action movies for so-called grownups. Totally dedicated to each other, you're genuinely effected by the tragedies they endure, and feel Carl's pain and loneliness when Ellie dies. It effects everything he does and says for the rest of the movie, and lends an astonishing degree of emotional weight to what could have been merely a lighthearted, silly story. GThere's got to be something seriously wrong with anybody who doesn't REALLY want to see Carl finally fulfill his & Ellie's dream of adventure.

But don't get the idea that this is a somber drama. I mean, talking dogs? A giant multi-colored bird as comic relief? For that matter, a house flying from New York to South America by means of thousand of balloons? Anyone looking for the kinds of laughs they remember from Pixar classics like "Toy Story", "Finding Nemo" or "Ratatouille" will find them here in abundance, featuring characters every bit as memorable as the ones in those films. you'll be continually shaking your head in wonder thinking you've seen it all, then seconds later see something more outlandish. I don't know how Pixar manages to continue to find creative minds with the amazing imaginations it takes to produce stories like this, but their track record continues to be perfect.

And in the tradition of Tom Hanks in "Toy Story", Albert Brooks & Ellen Degeneres in "Finding Nemo" and numerous others, they've also assembled their typically fine cast of voices to provide a bit of reality (just a bit) to those characters. Ed Asner in particular seems to have been born for Pixar animation, and lends the elder Carl a terrific combination of somber seriousness, amusingly annoyed snappishness, just plain silliness, and a surprising depth of caring and feeling (surprising especially to himself). And Christopher Plummer is so excellent as the daring explorer who inspired Carl & Ellie's dreams of adventure as children that you don't even think (well, not very much, anyhow) about the fact that when Carl actually runs into him again later in the film, the character has got to be at least ninety years old, and apparently the most fit and active ninety-something who ever lived. And of course long-time Pixar fans will have fun spotting Pixar's good luck charm, John Ratzenberger, who has been a part of every feature Pixar has ever made and does not miss out on this one, either.

If Pixar ever decides to do a dramatic film (which I'm sure would really be something to see!), this is the movie that will have already convinced the public they can do it, and will have them awaiting it eagerly. But in the meantime, what we have in "Up" is everything Pixar has shown in the past that it can do brilliantly, as well as an added emotional depth that I wouldn't have suspected was there. But I suppose I should have known better. They've shown too many times in the past that they're always capable of more than you think they are. And in "Up", they will totally amaze you once again.

 Am I a "Trekkie"? Well, I don't think so, but I'll let any readers be the judge. I was watching the original series right from the very first episode broadcast in September of 1966, and was an even bigger fan of "Next Generation". I also used to be a regular reader of all the "Trek" novels. However, as the years went by I began to be a little embarassed by the quality level of the old shows (though I still loved the characters & the new theatrical movies), was only able to watch "Deep Space Nine" and "Voyager" for the first few months each, and never watched a single episode of "Enterprise". Plus, I no longer read the novels. I don't know if any of this is the least bit significant, but when you're dealing with something that people are as fanatical about as "Star Trek", it's probably a good idea to let people know where you're coming from (at this point, I could make some wisecrack like "In my case, South Minneapolis", but we don't want this blog to become a collection of sarcastic humor like my other one, do we? No, of course not.)

In this latest saga, a Romulan named Nero, who blames Spock for the destruction of his home planet, is determined to make Spock "pay" by forcing him to watch the destruction of Vulcan. However, after (totally without planning it) going back in time through a black hole, he's forced to do this with a much younger Spock, as well as a much younger Enterprise crew as they are just barely beginning their service on board the Starfleet's premiere ship. So in addition to the action-packed adventure story, we get a whole lot of introductions to the crew in a way we've never seen them before. And, oh yeah... all this time traveling and interfering with the normal flow of time has created a different time line, so that events happen that did NOT happen in "our" Trek universe, and we can't count on things of characters being exactly the way we knew them.

It would be difficult to think of any big Hollywood blockbuster this year that has been better reviewed (even raved about) than "Star Trek", and several of my friends who proclaim themselves to have never been "Star Trek" fans have said that this is the first "Trek" movie they've liked. There have also been some fanatical Trekkies who put it down for perceived differences from the series. I find myself somewhere in the middle, but a little bit closer to the positive voices. As far as the "differences" complaint is concerned, that's addressed and explained quite clearly: this is a different time line, after all, with some characters developing in different ways. Personally, I find that to be a rather clever way of keeping things from getting too predictable... how can we find unpredictability and suspense in characters we've known so well for so many years? Well, we'll SHOW you how... and to be honest, none of the differences are all that radical. In fact, one of the most entertaining and amusing aspects of the movie is seeing how well the new actors have their characters already developing the characteristics and quirks that they became known for. McCoy, in particular, is a hoot, being dragged almost kicking and screaming onto the Enterprise as he grumbles about all the dangers of space exactly the way Deforest Kelly did for his entire career, forcing Chris Pine's Kirk to tell him "I hate to break this to you, but Starfleet DOES operate IN SPACE!" Pine as Kirk is near perfect in the role, giving us Kirk exactly as I'd always imagined him to be as a reckless, dangerous young man before the responsibilities of being a Starship captain made him a mature leader, and the wonderful Simon Pegg (of "Shaun Of The Dead") is tremendous fun as Scotty, a tiny bit more proud of himself than James Doohan but maybe even more fun for all of that. And the audience at the screening I attended clearly loved (judging by their cheers) hearing the historical first utterings of "I'm a doctor, not a physicist!" and "I'm giving her all she's got, Captain!"

There is one weak link in the chain here: Zachary Quinto as Spock. Now, I should make it clear that I'm a fan of "Heroes" and love Quinto's deliciously evil performance as Sylar on that show. But I've never had a problem separating an actor from their role and accepting a performance vastly different from what I've known an actor for, so I really don't think that's the problem here. In spite of certain minor character differences, all the other actors are still recognizably the ones we got to know on the original series, and behave as we would expect them to behave. Quinto as Spock seems to be more like a human who has a real fascination with Vulcan culture, rather than the dedicated Vulcan who's trying to supress him human side, as Spock is. Spock does have emotions, but Quinto's are always a little too close to the surface, and those few scenes when they do erupt, they're not the surprise they should be, because we've been seeing them already throughout the film. The contrast becomes particularly obvious when Leonard Nimoy himself (listed in the credits as "Spock Prime") puts in several cameo appearances, including one scene with Pine's Kirk and one with Quinto's younger Spock. THIS is the way Spock should be played. But Quinto is such a good actor (you've never seen a villain as thoroughly evil and memorable as Sylar) that I do have faith he can improve in a sequel, and I'd be very surprised if there doesn't turn out to be one (and if there is, he'd better improve, because Nimoy will probably be in that one too).

I also wasn't overwhelmed with the basic concept of the storyline. It's entertaining enough, don't get me wrong... but somehow, when you have to wait years between stories instead of a week, and the production costs many times what a one-hour TV episode would, you expect a little more, and in theatrical movies like "Wrath Of Khan", "The Voyage Home" and "The Undiscovered Country", we got it. This "Star Trek" is essentially like an above-average episode of the TV series with a bigger budget. Remember what I said earlier about being embarassed about the quality of some of those original shows... this film is definitely better made... and it's fun to watch. I do want to get that straight. But I've seen better, and I do have to wonder what movie the people who were raving about it saw.

Still, I do want to make it clear that I had a fun time watching "Star Trek". J.J. Abrams has taken the series in some interesting new areas, and I will certainly be interested in seeing the inevitable sequel. The franchise needed a clear rebooting like the one James Bond got with "Casino Royale" if it was going to continue to exist at all, and what "Trek" fan would not want it to do that? If this first installment had a few kinks in it, well, that's usually the case in the very beginning. But I don't have any doubt that these kinks will work themselves out, and this new "Trek" will become worthy of its predecessors (it's already better than "Deep Space Nine" and "Voyager"). When the call comes for the "new" Enterprise to have its next adventure, I will be there.

 Don't you just hate it when your ill-treatment of an elderly Gypsy woman results in her cursing you and calling a horde of demons from Hell to drag you down there for an eternity of torment? That kind of thing can just throw off your whole day. I know that's sure the case for me. And it also turns out to be the case for the bank loan officer played by Allison Lohman in Sam Raimi's latest film, "Drag Me To Hell" (hasn't she ever seen any movies? Doesn't she know that every single old gypsy woman has supernatural powers able to call up curses from Hell?). At least it's not one of those predicaments you see in every movie out there these days. (And if it is for you, please let me know what movies YOU'RE seeing.)

One thing I've found about seeing most movies second run is that most of the people I know wind up seeing them before me, and I hear all kinds of opinions about them before forming my own. In this case, I was constantly hearing about how "Drag Me To Hell" was classic Sam Raimi, finally returning to his low-budget horror/comedy roots after years in Hollywood directing Kevin Costner ("For The Love Of The Game") and superhero epics (the "Spider-Man" series). Absolutely up to the level of his classic "Evil Dead" movies, they said. WELL... having now seen the film, I'm trying to figure out how to account for that. The best I can figure is that a whole lot of people desperately WANTED this to be classic Raimi, so much so that they saw the movie they wanted to see, and not the movie that Raimi actually made. Personally, I wish I had also seen the movie they wanted to see.

In Raimi's "Evil Dead" series, you got the feeling that he had written & directed the films while almost lethally overdosed  on caffeine, with a cast that had done the same, and not much concern for logical plot development as long as the movies provided the shocks and laughs they were intended to give. "Drag Me To Hell" proceeds at a snail's pace for much of the film, with occasional brief moments of sudden shock. These do, indeed, have every bit of the impact of the great moments of Raimi's past... and much of the time, the same highly satisfying combination of intense horror and slapstick comedy. It certainly was great to see those moments... but moments are all they are, surrounded by nearly endless conventional plot threads and scenes of Lohman at work that add little to the story, or Lohman's relationship with boyfriend Justin Long (the "Mac" guy from those Apple TV ads and comic relief in movies like the last "Die Hard" picture). Does anyone really care whether Lohman and Long are getting along or how supportive he is? This is a Sam Raimi horror comedy!! We want to see more of those scenes that just cause you to shake your head in amazement, wondering if you could possibly have seen what you think you saw.

It might be easier to take all of those work/relationship scenes (well, SOME of them, anyhow) if Lohman and Long appeared to be at least half awake, but they seem to be in serious need of a huge dose of that caffeine Raimi used to provide... or it might be, I suppose, that they're so bored playing such boring characters. Back in the day, Bruce Campbell was one of the most hyper elements of the movies, and you sat there cheering him on as he blasted away various demonic menaces with a snappy wisecrack or two. It's hard to get very worked up about the fate of characters like Lohman and Long. Instead of being on the edge of your seat, you keep almost nodding off, with an occasional moment reminding you of Raimi's glory days suddenly waking you up, causing you to smile in hope for a brief instant before it starts to drag again.

There are also a few too many scenes concentrating of peripheral characters who really don't have anything to do with the main story (of course, ONE such scene is too many). Raimi seems to have spent so long doing movies where it really IS important to have a large number of characters with depth and backstories that he's forgotten how to do the kind of movie he used to do so well and instead of actually returning to his roots, he's giving us a rather unsatisfactory blend of the two kinds of films. Mind you, I thoroughly enjoy his Spider-Man films, and I don't for an instant wish he'd never done them. It's just a shame that they seem to have made him forget where he started.

Obviously, there are a lot of people who disagree with this assessment of "Drag Me To Hell", and they'll probably thoroughly enjoy the movie. I just wish I was one of them. As it is, I guess I'm just grateful that, as far as I know, Sam Raimi doesn't have any gypsy ancestry and therefore is not in any position to call up demons to come after me for giving his film a negative review. Hold on a second, I think I just saw something slithering under the keyboard. Let me just check it out for a second and AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!