As I stated back in my ‘Worst of’ list, this was a really, really crappy year for comedies. In fact, I flat-out said it was the worst year I’ve ever seen as far as this genre was concerned. 5 ‘Comedies’ were on that list, so I’m relieved that, for Number 6, we have my pick for the Best comedy of the year.
6. THE WORLD’S END
Thank god for Edgar Wright. While most of the year’s comedies were doing everything wrong when it came to making comedies, Wright and co-writer Simon Pegg showed everyone how it’s done with ‘The World’s End’, the final film in their Cornetto trilogy. Well, let me be clear, this isn’t exactly a ‘trilogy’ like you might expect because these three films are all different genres. 2004’s ‘Shaun of the Dead’ is a zombie film while ‘Hot Fuzz’ is a buddy-cop action film. ‘The World’s End’ is a sci-fi film and considering that ‘Shaun’ and ‘Fuzz’ are two of the funniest comedies of this past decade, it’s no surprise that this one is another success for all involved. Now, I wouldn’t call this the funniest of the trilogy but at the same time, I’d argue that it’s the best written overall. It has probably the most developed lead characters of the entire ‘trilogy’ in Pegg and Nick Frost’s characters Gary and Andy respectively and as such they’re the best characters the two have ever played.
‘The one and only’ Gary King is a man consumed with his dream of finishing ‘The Golden Mile’, a fabled pub crawl in their old hometown of Newton Haven, to the point where he still sort of has the mindset of a kid. On the other side of the spectrum we have Andy who, like the rest of their friends, has grown up and is also very angry at Gary for an incident that happened to them years ago. It’s a refreshing change of pace from the last two films because usually Pegg is the straight guy while Frost is the man-child. Here, it’s changed around and it works out very well. While Pegg and Frost are their usual excellent selves, the rest of the cast is terrific as well. You really see the camaraderie amongst the five main leads, and co-stars Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, and Eddie Marsan all have their own shining moments in the film. ‘The World’s End’ may not be the funniest film in the Cornetto Trilogy, but it’s arguably the best-written… and like ‘Rush’, another one that unfortunately wasn’t a big hit here in America. Seriously, this film only earns $26 million while friggin ‘Grown Ups 2’ earns over $130 million… I’m just going to let Pegg’s expression in this still from the movie do the talking for me.
Number 5 is a film that proves that ‘a little party never killed nobody’, especially when that party is hosted by…
5. THE GREAT GATSBY
I’ll admit that I’m not exactly a big fan of director Baz Luhrmann’s work. 1996’s ‘Romeo + Juliet’ may have been a nice change in style by being a modern retelling of the story but it was still stuck with the Shakespearean dialogue of old. For the record, I haven’t seen any of his other films before ‘Gatsby’ but in the end, he was just the best choice to direct this movie. He’s a visual director, sometimes to the point of excess, and considering that author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s ‘Great American Novel’ is also a tale of excess and the flash and glamour of New York in the 1920’s, the two just fit perfectly. That’s part of the beauty of this film. Sure, Luhrmann’s visual style is most certainly on display but it doesn’t overshadow the key themes of the novel; ideas like the aforementioned ‘excess’, the shallowness of the upper class, and the decline of the American dream as shown by the titular Gatsby’s efforts to woo the girl of his dreams.
This movie also made the bold choice of having a soundtrack that combines both modern rap from artists like Jay-Z and Kanye West with 20’s style jazz. Sure, from an outside perspective, that sounds like it wouldn’t possibly work but as a whole, it did actually work out in the end. It doesn’t get that distracting hearing the modern rap being played alongside jazz in the movie because Luhrmann succeeds at blending the two together, except for one point in the film when Gatsby and Nick are driving through the city. They pass by a car that’s playing ‘Izzo (H.O.V.A.) and I have to admit, I laughed at this part. Aside from that, the soundtrack is pretty darn good with its fair share of entertaining songs, like ‘A Little Party Never Killed Nobody (All we Got)’, which is a fitting party song as it is played during the first of Gatsby’s parties, to Lana Del Rey’s ‘Young and Beautiful’, which is a really touching and somber piece to showcase the relationship between Gatsby and Daisy. I know I said earlier that Frozen’s ‘Let it Go’ is the most likely to win ‘Best Original Song’ at the Oscars, but I hope that Del Rey’s song will at least get a nomination.
The film also boasts a terrific cast, as every actor/actress is well cast in their respective roles. In the lead role of Gatsby, Leonardo DiCaprio brings his usual A-game as he’s been routinely doing in this last decade. The unique thing about Gatsby is that he can be portrayed in different ways. Here, they go with the ‘hopeless romantic’ route while briefly touching upon the character’s ‘shady practices’. I like that they went this route because when you pair this with DiCaprio’s charm, you get a Gatsby that is both sympathetic and likable. Tobey Maguire is equally great as Nick Carraway, effectively serving as the narrator for the story. The film itself is pretty faithful to the novel, except for a change in the narrative structure. Instead of Nick narrating over the whole movie, he’s shown in a mental institution where his doctor recommends that he writes his story and overall it does work better from a film perspective. As for Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton, they get the most out of the roles of Daisy and Tom Buchanan, two characters who were admittedly rather one-dimensional in the book. Daisy is still as shallow as she was in the book, but Mulligan gets a lot of prime emotions out of the character and as for Tom, Edgerton’s clearly having fun being over-the-top in the role of Daisy’s brute of a husband.
‘The Great Gatsby’ is probably my favorite book that I read in high school. I wouldn’t say that it was the best time to read it (I think it’s more fitting to read in college), but it was the main reason why I was anticipating this adaptation of the story. It’s a great modern take on the story that keeps it where it should be, set in the 20’s, but does it with a modern flair from Baz Luhrmann. His visual style is there, but it’s not overshadowing the story and characters. As I said, he was the perfect choice to direct this film and in my opinion it’s one of the best book-to-film adaptations ever, especially of the last few years. I feel that F. Scott Fitzgerald would be pleased with this one.
I have a feeling that this will be my most controversial pick for this list. This is another film that has received a really mixed reception from audiences. In fact, I’d say that this was the most polarizing film of the year that actually did get really good reviews from critics (‘Man of Steel’ holds the honor of being the most polarizing film this year overall). Even my friend Matt and I are split on this; he lists it as his biggest disappointment of this year. As you’ll see, I had a different opinion. So for all of those who did not like this film, please hear me out on this…
4. STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I know I said this was a polarizing film, but in recent months, I’ve been hearing more negative things about it than positive. How negative, you ask? Well, at a Star Trek convention in Las Vegas, fans literally rated it as the WORST Star Trek film in the series, and that is saying a lot considering some of the really bad entries in this series (like ‘Star Trek V: The Final Frontier’ or ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’). Apparently one fan even said that ‘the reboot films shouldn’t even count as films in the series’. Well then if that’s the case, then where would this franchise be if J.J. Abrams’ two films never existed? This franchise would still be dead after ‘Star Trek: Nemesis’ was a commercial flop and ‘Star Trek: Enterprise’ was cancelled. This is not the worst ‘Star Trek’ film; this whole idea has been way too overblown and I think a lot of people are being a little too overcritical.
But despite that, there are many people who still aren’t big fans of the film, especially fans of the franchise. So I know what you’re thinking… how am I, a guy who has gone on record saying that I prefer ‘Star Trek’ to ‘Star Wars’, to the point where I named this my most anticipated film of 2013 primarily based on my love of the last film, not disappointed by this film? Well, for the record, my opinion of this film changed on second viewing. I only saw the film once in theaters and at the time I gave it a pretty solid rating of 4.5/5. But after that, I started to wonder if that rating was justified because I found myself agreeing with some of the problems that people were having with the film. I didn’t see the film again until I got it on Blu-Ray the day it came out and after watching it, not only was my rating justified, but the movie got better on my opinion. I got to say, this year was kind of frustrating when it came to these big blockbusters because my initial opinion was clouded/‘corrupted’ by all of the ranting that went on towards not only this film, but ‘Iron Man 3’ and ‘Man of Steel’ as well. But back to this movie… honestly, most of the problems that people have with it don’t bother me.
For the record, I am a little disappointed that the writers did go back to an old Star Trek villain/story instead of doing something new, especially considering that they established a new alternate universe, which meant that they could do new stories without having to adhere to the franchise canon. The villain in question is arguably Star Trek’s finest/most iconic villain, Khan Noonien Singh, the star of what is still the best ‘Star Trek’ film, ‘Wrath of Khan’. However, ‘Into Darkness’ also shares plenty in common with ‘Wrath’, which is another thing that has bugged a lot of people. But in my opinion, I feel that the writers were successful at blending the old Trek with the new alternate universe. Let’s face it; the ‘09 film was more catered to those who weren’t big fans of the franchise (like me before I saw it). This one is a little more geared towards the fans of the series… and yet look how that turned out. I guess why I’m not as mad about this is because I was introduced to this franchise through the reboot. Don’t get me wrong, I still appreciate the original stuff and as I said, ‘Wrath of Khan’ is still the best Star Trek film. But as a ‘Star Trek’ fan, I’m more attached to the reboot series.
As for the film itself, it’s not like they just copied the plot of ‘Wrath’; Khan’s not looking for the Genesis Device in this. If it was, then I’d be more critical about them ‘ripping off’ ‘Wrath’. Really, the only major comparisons that this film has to ‘Wrath’, aside from the obvious, is a major death scene at the end and the infamous yelling of Khan’s name, albeit with a twist. This time, the roles are reversed; Kirk is the one who dies to save the crew from their demise and Spock is the one who yells, ‘KHAANN!!!’ in anger after Kirk dies. It may seem pointless to do these scenes again, even when they switch Kirk and Spock’s roles around, but I think they still are effective… well, more in the case of the death. I’ll openly admit that I was tearing up during this scene because of how well-developed Kirk and Spock’s relationship is (more on that later, along with another controversial aspect of Kirk’s ‘death’). The yell… okay, they could’ve gotten away without adding that, but it’s not like there’s no reason for why Spock does this. Sure, Khan did not get them into the situation that they were in, facing probable destruction after being attacked by Admiral Marcus and his ship, the USS Vengeance, but he was the one responsible for firing the shots that ultimately sent the Enterprise falling down to Earth. It probably wouldn’t have happened that way if Khan didn’t take over the Vengeance… but I’m just speculating here.
I really do like the route they went in developing this universe’s take on Khan. Because this is an alternate universe, I can accept some of the changes that they made in regards to his backstory, like how he wasn’t first discovered by the Enterprise… or heck, even the fact that here he is a white British guy. I know he’s supposed to be Indian, but folks even the great Ricardo Montalban wasn’t the right nationality when he played the character. I like that in this one Khan starts out as a pawn of Starfleet who goes rogue when he thinks that they killed the rest of his crew. That actually makes him quite sympathetic to a certain extent, mainly during the scene where he reflects upon his situation, because while obviously I don’t agree with what he’s doing, at least he has a justified reason for doing it. Starfleet took his crew, who are like family to him. After all, “Is there anything you would not do for your family?” I also like that they didn’t kill this Khan off like they did in ‘Wrath’ so that he could possibly return in another ‘Star Trek’ film (or TV series, perhaps).
Of course, you can’t deny that Benedict Cumberbatch is outstanding in the role. He’s not Ricardo Montalban, but he doesn’t have to be. This is an entirely new take on Khan and he’s just as menacing as Montalban’s Khan was. He steals the spotlight whenever he’s on screen and has a very commanding screen presence. This is one advantage that this film has over the previous film… a better villain. I’m not saying that Nero was a bad villain in the last film; he just wasn’t a ‘standout’ villain like Khan was. However, because that film was more focused on the relationship between Kirk and Spock, it’s understandable as to why this was the way it was. This film is a different story… it has one of the best Star Trek villains in the entire franchise, even if the character already appeared in another Trek film. In fact, I’d say Cumberbatch’s Khan is right behind Montalban’s Khan when ranking the best Star Trek villains, if not just a few spots behind him.
The other main reason why I like this film as much as I do is because of the relationship between Kirk and Spock. Say what you will about the writing, but the writers did a great job at developing their relationship. That relationship is in a bit of a slump in this one after Kirk violates the Prime Directive in order to save Spock from death. Spock reveals this to Starfleet, and as a result, Kirk loses command of the Enterprise for a while. Obviously, Kirk is not too happy about this and it shows how different this two are when it comes to their actions. Kirk is still kind of the brash rebel who doesn’t agree to the rules while Spock is the by-the-book Vulcan who is still struggling to control his emotions. Their relationship carries the film and Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are both fantastic as they were in the last film. It is because of their great camaraderie that made Kirk’s death scene so sad. Sure, it’s sort of the same scenario as ‘Wrath of Khan’, but the dialogue between them has different meaning to it. In ‘Wrath’, Spock reminded Kirk that ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’. Here, Spock realizes that it was because of their friendship that Kirk violated the Prime Directive in order to save him, something he hadn’t realized at first. Now about Kirk’s death…
I know what you’re all going to say. That is regarding what happens ten minutes later. After Spock and Uhura capture Khan in San Francisco, they use his blood, which is revealed to have regenerative properties, in order to bring Kirk back from death. Because of this, many view Kirk’s death as being ultimately pointless and I’m pretty sure the ending is the most controversial part of the film. I can’t deny the fact that Khan’s blood is basically a deus ex machina and the fact that this is revealed through a scene of Bones testing out the blood on a Tribble doesn’t help hide that fact. But the idea of bringing a character back to life is something that has happened before on ‘Star Trek’. Remember ‘Search for Spock’, where they brought back Spock after his death in the previous movie? Well in my opinion, I’m glad Abrams and the writers didn’t decide to make the next Star Trek film, ‘The Search for Kirk’. At least they decided to speed that process up. Yes, the ending is a little bit rushed because of that, but it’s still pretty damn awesome. I do like that this one didn’t end in a space battle; you rarely see a ‘Star Trek’ film have a finale that doesn’t take place in space and the fact that this finale takes place here on Earth is even more compelling. Heck, in this film’s ending, Spock is a real badass.
Now I don’t think this movie is perfect. Why? Well, to quote the scene where Patton Oswalt performs a filibuster by talking about his story idea for ‘Star Wars: Episode VII’ from ‘Parks and Recreation’, “the female part is a little underwritten”. I’m not referring to Uhura because I’m fine with how they’re using her right now and for her relationship with Spock, although she sort of disappears during the scene where the Enterprise is falling to Earth, only reappearing until after Spock leaves the bridge to see to Kirk. I’m more referring to the character of Carol Marcus (another established role from ‘Wrath’). Overall, I’m fine with Alice Eve’s performance in the role; I think she did a fine job. But she really did not get anything to do in this movie. Sure, she disables one torpedo, but aside from that all she does is strip down to her underwear (you can’t deny it, fan boys, that was clearly a fan-service moment). I do like that they didn’t immediately make her the love interest for Kirk, but I hope that she’s given more to do in the next film. The relationship between her and her father, Admiral Marcus, is also very non-existent. As for him, his sudden turn as a villain is a little rushed. I say that because he starts off as a good guy, but then he’s suddenly willing to kill the whole crew of the Enterprise just so that he can eliminate Khan.
In the end, I don’t consider ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ to be a masterpiece or even the best in the franchise. But as a whole, the majority of the problems that many are having with don’t bother me in the slightest. I think that the writers were successful at telling an old Star Trek story in a new way and I’m fine with this universe’s portrayal of Khan. J.J. Abrams once again delivered on another exciting sci-fi action film and I’m eagerly awaiting to see what he does for ‘Star Wars: Episode VII’. But if I were to say one thing, J.J., it is that you should stop apologizing for everything about this movie, which you have been doing for the last few months. Don’t apologize for over-using lens-flare in your movies; I think that everyone’s being way too critical about such a minor/trivial detail of these movies. It’s not that big of a deal folks. Also, don’t apologize for trying to keep Khan’s identity a secret. I can’t blame you guys for trying to do that because I knew that Cumberbatch was Khan going in and I’m pretty sure everyone else knew too. Let’s face it, if they did reveal that he was Khan, then everyone would just ask them how this Khan would be different. In short, they were going into a no-win scenario (a ‘Kobayashi Maru’, if you’ll allow me to coin a phrase).
Check back tomorrow for the final part of this year-end list for my Top 3 Favorite Films of the Year.
No comments:
Post a Comment