Green Room.

Review #2460: Green Roon.

Cast: 

Anton Yelchin (Pat), Imogen Poots (Amber), Alia Shawkat (Sam), Joe Cole (Reece), Callum Turner (Tiger), Patrick Stewart (Darcy Banker), Mark Webber (Daniel), Eric Edelstein (Big Justin), Macon Blair (Gabe), Kai Lennox (Clark), David W. Thompson (Tad), Brent Werzner (Werm), and Taylor Tunes (Emily) Written and Directed by Jeremy Saulnier.

Review: 

"In Green Room, the gasps are real. People are sort of white-knuckled watching this movie. That’s what I love. The involuntary response their bodies create. It’s pretty hard to do, to make people actually terrified. It’s about making the characters relatable. It’s about breaking a few rules, not just to break them, but to keep things off-balance. Let people know that they’re not going where they’re supposed to go. You go where the characters take you, which is terrifying because these people have no fucking idea what they’re doing. As for the violence, because there’s so much brutality in Green Room, and there’s some full-frontal gore, it can be perceived as sensational. But the way I treat it, if you look and scrutinize every moment, it’s very reverent."

Sure, let's go with a vicious little thriller to feature for once. This was the third film of Jeremy Saulnier, who started making films in his early twenties. The Virginia native became a feature filmmaker with the horror-comedy Murder Party (2007), which he wrote and shot himself. His next film was the Kickstarter-funded Blue Ruin (2013), which he also wrote and shot with the idea that it could've easily been his last movie with the time required to raise his family. The impetus for making this film was his desire to make a movie with a green room, with his experiences at concert venues as a person who used to be in a punk band shaping a short film that he made in 2007 staying in his mind for when he could make a film the way he wanted. You may or may not be surprised that punk had a bit of the skinheads in there, particularly ones that liked to wear uniforms (and conversely there also existed Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice). What Saulnier had the most fun was in realizing what he wanted to do for years and yet not have a clue just where he wanted to take it before figuring out where both sides of the door would go in their choices without playing into too many genre tropes; he specifically stated that there was nothing sadistic in the film but instead "brutal difference and self-preservation" and one choice act of unmotivated violence that leads to the clash. Premiering at the Cannes Film Festival in 2015 but not getting a release in theaters until spring 2016 (first limited before wide), the movie was not a big success at the time, but Saulnier has continued to make films with Hold the Dark (2018) and Rebel Ridge (2024).

Sure, you could call it a punk rendition of Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). But it has its own type of relentless dread and brutality that make for a resounding success in unsettling the viewer with how fast things can go down in the pit of bleakness and keep going. The horror is the fact that everything that could go wrong for these folks in the film can in fact can be much worse to actually see play out. The parts you see within the land of skinheads and their type of organization (right down to the dog-training) are probably most unsettling because it seems so natural in a way that it hits all the marks required to strike bone. Yelchin (who tragically passed away in 2016) manages to sell the quick-rising fear that comes in going from having one's trouble evolve from where to maybe siphon gas to most definitely seeing someone with a knife in their head. Granted the group of rockers do have a bit of time to show the toil of punk rocking in a world that doesn't really seem to hear the notes for a few chuckles (note that they play at a Mexican restaurant early on). Poots and her weary expression to pair with Yelchin for a good chunk of the film makes for a fascinating one to see, one with a cracked sense of self that seems authentic in the all of the strange sad ways possible. Technically speaking, Stewart is not in the film too much, coming in and out of the darkening situation (figuratively and literally, if you consider one of the last lines of the film) but he makes the most of it with a unsettling sense of calm that reminds you that there are people like him somewhere in the world that are content with who and what they believe in without needing to turn to unnecessary bombast. Others who make an impression include Blair and his shaky presence at the powder keg of ugliness or the small moments that show the strange place that we are having to look upon (at one point you've got a guy willingly getting into a stabbing incident to help distract a cop). The movie earns its stripes of making you care about the violence and how it could easily happen to any of us who find ourselves in a bad spot and can't rely on people adhering to cliches and tricks, with the climax allowing for only the slightest of relief of the stark nature we just saw for 95 minutes. As a whole, Green Room manages to show the terror of places you couldn't imagine exist and shows that one can have their stomach churn in its simple brutality and solid execution.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Star Trek Beyond.

Review #1721: Star Trek Beyond.

Cast: 

Chris Pine (Captain James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Commander Spock), Karl Urban (Lieutenant Commander Leonard McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Lieutenant Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Lieutenant Commander Montgomery Scott), John Cho (Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Ensign Pavel Chekov), Idris Elba (Captain Balthazar Edison / Krall), Sofia Boutella (Jaylah), Joe Taslim (Anderson Le / Manas), Lydia Wilson (Jessica Wolff / Kalara), Deep Roy (Keenser), Melissa Roxburgh (Ensign Syl), and Shohreh Aghdashloo (Commodore Paris) Directed by Justin Lin.

Review:

I'm sure you remember the interest generated from a new version of Star Trek. J. J. Abrams directed the first of what is generally known as the "Kelvin timeline" features, doing so in 2009 that was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (who had gotten their start in television with Hercules: The Legendary Journeys). They managed to bring the series back to the silver screen with a reboot that tried to honor established continuity in the original 1966 series while staying fresh with current perspective. In that sense, I think it did a fine job. Four years later, a sequel followed with the same collaborators (albeit with Damon Lindelof as co-writer). The funny thing about that movie is that it is the most profitable of all the Star Trek movies, and yet it reeks of something that would be made purely to squeeze as many hack ideas as possible for such an average movie, complete with trying to pawn ideas from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan but with no sense of actual stakes. Three years later, the idea was to have Orci as director (his planned first feature), since Abrams was now slated to direct for another certain space feature, but somehow it went awry, leading to a different direction. Justin Lin started as a director while attending UCLA Film School with Shopping for Fangs (1997), although his most notable contributions are to The Fast and the Furious film series, as he has directed five of the films in the series. At any rate, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung (a duo in which each wrote mostly for television) were tasked to write the script. 

Technically speaking, it is a worthy successor to the last two films. Of course, it is also as of this year the last one to be made, because somehow making a big-budget movie doesn't always result in a certain amount of money bags (of course, paying the actors is tough, too), and it is only now that plans are starting to move for a film in 2023. Perhaps it is a coincidence that Star Trek only returned to television after the release of this film (albeit in streaming form, the most pathetic of broadcasting methods). It continues the trend of trying to aim Star Trek for a crowd that is interested in special effects and action with a sliver of plot, which I suppose makes it essentially a shinier version of when filmmakers did so with Star Trek: First Contact (1996), just with certain choices of music included. I suppose every incarnation of the series in film form also has to show the Enterprise take a beating just so one can build it all up again, so there is that. Of course, the important part is that one has a good time with the adventure, and I believe there is an interesting one to see here, despite the fact that it is the main cast that really shines more so than the villain (again though, how many times is that not the case?). This is a movie that seems quite a bit familiar with its themes of finding one's meaning in continued exploration (i.e. instead of a mid-life crisis about being old, it is now a young-life crisis about seeing the stars again and again). As such, the movie feels the best way to do that is to split the crew into their own little pairs (i.e. Pine with Yelchin, Quinto with McCoy, Cho with Saldana, and Pegg with Boutella). In that sense, some of those pairs work out better than others, depending on how much effects are present. In that sense, Pine is easily the most effective, having molded fully into the role with confidence (without as much of the hammy "curiosity" from William Shatner, if you will) that maneuvers well with resourceful charm that has evolved well from seven years prior. Urban was always quite interesting as McCoy, and he generates a few interesting moments when paired with Quinto in terms of snappy banter that isn't just a familiar re-hash. Quinto might not have as much to really do, but his little scenes involving reckoning his fate as now being the one living Spock is interesting at least. Saldana suffers the most from the split, in that being paired with a bunch of scenes involving the villain doing vague dealings about his motivations isn't really that interesting for the former and barely interesting for the latter (again, the familiarity with these characters go to a certain point when compared to when the movie tries plot for a few minutes). Elba gets to be caked in a whole bunch of makeup while having an okay motivation that honestly could do with better material beyond a twist that could probably be seen coming with a reasoned guess-maker at the hand watching. Maybe he was meant to be a second side of the whole "I have nothing better to do with my time in space" coin with Kirk, I guess. Boutella is okay in terms of curiosity within accompanying makeup and action shots, but since this film already scrounged up introducing an interesting secondary character to play off one of the castmates for more than one film (i.e. Alice Eve not being in this one), why bother? 

Honestly, the movie almost plays itself too corny with certain sequences near the end without having as many stakes as it could have - do I really need to have "Sabotage" in the background for an action shot? Its testing about the villain isnt even that clever, really, since the last one also had a Starfleet adversary that liked things better when it was militarized. As a whole, it definitely keeps interest on a moderate level when it comes to action (credit to hiring a car chase director for this, huh?) and most of its acting chemistry, since these folks have done well with capturing a majority of the charm from the old cast. However, it begs for more to explore than just cursory stakes, and I just cant see myself giving generous praise for being just fine. It needs something more than a few pretty sequences to really soar farther than just average, particularly when this is the 13th of these features; being in the top half of that list is fine, but when it is because it is the middle of quality, one could certainly make improvement. 

On that note, the anniversary of Star Trek is upon us again. Live long and prosper. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Trek (2009).

Redux Review #009: Star Trek.

Cast: 
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Leonard Nimoy (Spock Prime), Eric Bana (Captain Nero), Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike), Karl Urban (Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy), Zoe Saldaña (Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Montgomery "Scotty" Scott), John Cho (Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Pavel Chekov), Ben Cross (Sarek), Winona Ryder (Amanda Grayson), Clifton Collins, Jr. (Ayel), Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk), and Jennifer Morrison (Winona Kirk) Directed by J. J. Abrams.

Review: 
On December 20, 2010, I covered Star Trek (2009). As is the case with any of the reviews from Season One, while I do feel the rating is probably still accurate to what I feel now as opposed to then, it does feel appropriate to revisit this film, since it has been ten years since its release on May 8, 2009. Hope you folks enjoy - live long and prosper.

It goes without saying that Star Trek is a cultural phenomenon. It has endured for over a half-century in part because of how entertaining it has proven itself to be with a balance of adventure and intelligence throughout its several incarnations. While the original series was cancelled after just three seasons in 1969, it proved to be a hit in syndication, leading to an eventual feature film and a subsequent film franchise. From 1979 to 2002, ten films were released into theaters, six covering the original cast and four with the cast of the third Star Trek show, Star Trek: The Next Generation, which began in 1987. From that year onto 2005, there was at least one Star Trek series on television, with four series coming and going before the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise. That, alongside the previous failure of Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) led to a pursuit for a different direction of the franchise, with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (writers of Mission: Impossible III alongside J. J. Abrams) brought in to help write a new film, with Abrams initially being brought in as producer. However, he subsequently accepted Paramount Pictures' offer to serve as director, owing to how he felt about the duo's script, describing it in an interview as "...so emotional and so relatable". It is evident to see that Abrams has a passion for entertainment, even if he described himself as someone who was not a particularly a big fan of the original show. He wanted to make a movie that any sort of fan can be interested in without becoming a shell of itself or becoming too absorbed in references. The idea of making a prequel wasn't new to Star Trek, since plans for an Academy Years film was thought up after the failure of the fifth film in 1989, although it was soon scrapped, and the aforementioned Enterprise show was set a century prior to the original. This film tries to have a balance with its time travel aspects and its usage of Nimoy to bridge the past into making a new, somewhat familiar future, which works itself out more often than not.

Undeniably, the film hinges on the dynamic of Pine and Quinto and their characters, with the film building itself up towards them being in the film together. I found myself more interested in the sequence with a young Spock and Sarek than the part with young Kirk, since it felt more impactful to the nature of the plot dynamic, seeing how the former is one of two worlds where the other has had better moments. By the time the plot kicks in, one does get a hold for most of these characters without too many objections (whether fan or not). Pine, trying to not find himself playing a shadow of the original Kirk played by William Shatner, comes off as fairly charming to be around with, fitting right in with the adventure and delivering some of the heroic qualities one would expect, as brash and confident as one can be. Quinto, who has the interesting proposition of trying to fit themselves in as a character while being passed the torch by the previous actor, proves quite capable. He delivers a measured performance, as calm and logical as per the standard while maintaining both human and alien nature that plays off well when with others like Pine, where the seeds of a friendship get well cultivated by the film. When Nimoy appears (feeling as a mix of fan-service and a way to deliver exposition), it does sure feel nice to see him back again, seeming just as in-step with his calm exterior and logic as ever when he is on screen. Bana makes for an okay villain, but he feels underscored when compared to the things around him. His ultimate plan never really seems to come into focus as much as it should. It is clear to see that they want to make a villain just as threatening as Khan from the second film, but they can't quite make someone worth being around. Greenwood carries his weight for the first half quite nicely, encouraging and reliable at once. Urban does well with recreating the abrasive yet amusing nature of his role without too much trouble, feeling right at home for his time on screen. Saldana proves to be a fine match to go alongside the others, as is the case with Pegg, Cho, and Yelchin, who each get their little moments into shine without seeming lost in the background. Instead of a 1960s take on how the 23rd century would be with regard to space travel, now it is a 2009 take, with plenty of lighting choices to go around alongside other things. It certainly is an interesting movie to look at, having plenty of interesting effects (and enough lens flare to point out and likely stair or make fun of) that makes this a well-done spectacle while having enough of a grip with a capable if not flawed plot (in the age of the Internet one could have a bit of day with its usage of black holes); it manages to have a strong foundation while lingering forward in its middle and closing out strongly enough to make a winner. It sets out to please both fans of the original and curious newcomers and does well with its intentions, finding a middle ground that inspires some joy, a little bit of laughs (mostly intentional), but also a pursuit to see where it could go from there, maintaining the spirit of curiosity and wonder from before without being lost in spectacle or technobabble. It works as a recommendation for newcomers and fans looking for a new frontier to set their eyes on.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Review #665: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Cast
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Benedict Cumberbatch (Khan), Simon Pegg (Scotty), Karl Urban (McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Peter Weller (Alexander Marcus), Alice Eve (Dr. Carol Marcus), John Cho (Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Chekov), and Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike) Directed by J.J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek and #149 - Super 8)

Review
Eh, it's been a while (10 months, 22 days to be exact) since I've done a Star Trek film (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture), so why not do the most recent film. The first film (of the reboot series) wasn't bad, though it's not like it was a great piece of work, and you find that out during this film. It's not that this film is bad, it just feels like one step forward but one-and-a-half steps back. The effects are at least good, though those lens flares really get in the way on occasion, which almost gets in the way of actors trying to convey their scenes. The acting is fine, though I really didn't buy that Eve's character being Weller's daughter, maybe it's the lack of time they have together, but at least Weller is stellar despite limited time. Cumberbatch is pretty good, but it's the character I have an issue with. By making him play Khan, the film limits his motives in a sense. The original Khan had a motive of revenge and was great at portraying it. This Khan has more a touch of generic than revenge. Even when Cumberbatch cries it feels forced. It's not a bad performance, it's just flawed writing. The story is at least somewhat decent...until it rehashes Wrath of Khan's last half hour. Well, almost. Just because you have the villain from Wrath of Khan doesn't mean you have to emulate it, it's unnecessary and just makes the movie seem unsure of itself, like it wasn't confident with itself. At least the movie has its moments, any scene with Simon Pegg is brilliant, he brightens the movie, if only briefly. Your opinion on the movie will probably rest on what you think of Abrams as a director and/or Khan. It's a toss-up, basically.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Terminator Salvation.

Review #090: Terminator Salvation.

Cast
Christian Bale (John Connor), Sam Worthington (Marcus Wright), Anton Yelchin (Kyle Reese), Moon Bloodgood (Blair Williams), Bryce Dallas Howard (Kate Connor), Common (Barnes), Helena Bonham Carter (Dr. Serena Kogan/Skynet), and Michael Ironside (General Ashdown). Directed by McG.

Review
So. We have seen how the films have evolved in a sense. From a good sci-fi film, to a great sequel, to Arnold saying "Talk to the hand", to...this. The only reason that the casting credits is different from others is because this cast has done other, better films then this. This is the fourth film in this series, and it is the worst. The film feels like a prequel, as we already know who lives since the film is set years before Resse is sent back to 1984. We already know what happens, so what's the point of the film? I...don't know. It's supposed to jump start the series again, to get the action rolling. Well, you get the action, but not much else. The name of the film "Salvation" is the exact opposite of what happens. The shades in the film are brown, black, and...not much else. One of the terminator reminds me of Transformers, which doesn't make me feel better... The acting is just standard, but with no memorable actors to help, such as Arn- (He's in for one scene, with CGI. It looks really impressive for the most part) The film is standard stale, with a non-memorable plot that differs from the first 3 and has little else, actors that do standard jobs, and dull colors to make you just forget it. It makes you wonder why would anyone want a Terminator 5, considering that you really can't do much with the series anymore. Now then. Let's get to a better reality. Where are those two I asked for? Countdown stars now. 10...This ends Part V of Robot Week.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.