Sports: 2013 NBA Finals

Note:  you may have noticed that I changed the title of my blog.  That was for two reasons:  to make it more accurate, and perhaps a little less polarizing.  Of course, it is certainly not a great title by any means, so if you have any suggestions, let me know.

2013 NBA Finals - Miami Heat defeats San Antonio Spurs, 4-3

I didn't follow the NBA quite as closely as usual in the regular season this year; most of what I did read revolved around the circus also known as the 2012-13 L.A. Lakers (good riddance).  All the talk about the Lakers turned out to be wasted breath, as they were promptly swept away in the first round of the playoffs.  Where the Lakers go from here is an interesting question, and could warrant a blog post by itself.  But today, I want to talk about the greatest NBA Finals that I can remember.

The regular season:
No more slow starts for Miami - the Heat took command of the Eastern Conference early in the season. And that was before they went on a 27-game winning streak in the spring, guaranteeing themselves the #1 seed and dominance in the conference.  With the Chicago Bulls hobbled (star PG Rose ended up missing the entire season), it looked like Carmelo Anthony and the rising NY Knicks were the only ones with a chance to stop LeBron and the Heat.

Over in the Western Conference, San Antonio doggedly remained near the top of the standings, even after last season's devastating defeat to the OKC Thunder in the Conference Finals.  Tony Parker had a phenomenal season, and even aging Hall-of-Famer-to-be Tim Duncan lost weight and seemed rejuvenated.  Unfortunately, Parker hurt his ankle late in the season and the Spurs stumbled to the end, losing the top seed in the West to the rival Thunder.

Playoffs:
In the first round, Miami cruised right through the poor Milwaukee Bucks, as expected.  A short-handed Chicago, however, shocked the Heat by taking game 1 of the second round on their home court.  The Heat responded by annihilating the Bulls in game 2; they pulled away at the end of a close game 3 and didn't look back, winning the series 4-1.  In the conference finals they met the Indiana Pacers, who surprised many by defeating the #2 seed Knicks.  They quickly showed that that was no fluke; they came within a defensive stop on the last play of winning game 1, then forced LeBron into mistakes at the end of game 2 to steal that one.  It was a literally back-and-forth series, with no back-to-back wins for either team.  The Pacers' Paul George and Roy Hibbert emerged as stars, nearly matching LeBron point-for-point and taking away the paint, respectively.  But Miami's experience won out in the end, and they won game 7 at home easily.

Many predicted a much tougher path for the Spurs; they had looked bad at the end of the regular season, and the Lakers were surging (plus, everyone thinks the Lakers will win anyway).  Then Kobe Bryant got hurt, and L.A. found just how much they had relied on Kobe, as San Antonio promptly swept them without breaking a sweat.  Next up were the feisty Golden State Warriors.  Led by young PG Steph Curry, the Warriors could score at will, and they challenged the Spurs well, getting to 2-2.  But the Spurs figured them out and won the last two games decisively.  That set up a West Finals against the Grizzlies, who shocked the Spurs as the #8 seed in 2011.  The Spurs throttled the Grizzlies in game one, then survived brief Memphis onslaughts in games 2 and 3 to win both in overtime.  This, understandably, seemed to demoralize the Grizzlies; add to that star Zach Randolph's miserable play and the Spurs finished the sweep in game 4.

Finals:
Before even starting, this NBA Finals matchup had huge implications.  Put simply, old champions vs. new champions.  The Duncan-era San Antonio Spurs are one of the greatest teams of all time:  during Duncan's 16-year (so far) career, the Spurs have made the playoffs every year, won their division 10 times, finished above .700 10 times, been to the NBA Finals five times, and won four of those.  Incredible.  Meanwhile, I probably don't need to say much about the Miami Heat.  Have the best player since Michael Jordan, along with two other big stars, and have now been to three consecutive Finals (winning two of them).  From here, I'll go through a brief game-by-game recap, then highlight some of the major factors and turning points in the series.

The first half of game 1 was close, with the Heat up by 3.  To me, it seemed that the Spurs were in an uphill battle: although their team play was nearly flawless, the Heat seemed to have a decisive athletic advantage.  But they answered every mini-run from Miami, then made a huge push in the 4th quarter, led by Parker, to get a shocking win.  I will certainly remember this play from Parker for a long, long time.  The stars for both teams struggled to start game 2, but Miami started to catch fire and used a 33-5 run to turn a close game into a blow-out.  The Spurs returned the favor, in even more devastating fashion, in game 3 in San Antonio, winning by thirty-six, thanks to the best 3-point shooting display I've ever seen (Green made seven, Neal made six, and other Spurs made three more).  However, during the game Parker injured his hamstring (he would still play the remainder of the series).

Facing a must-win game four, Dwayne Wade came out of his funk dramatically, controlling the game from start to finish (although LeBron ended up with more points).  The Heat's Big Three combined for 85 points in a dominating victory, and though it only tied the series 2-2, it was hard to imagine the Spurs overcoming that much firepower.  So in game 5, it was Ginobili's turn to step up after previous disappointments; put in the starting lineup, he was his old, slashing self with 24 points and 10 assists.  The Spurs clicked on all cylinders and won comfortably.  Back to Miami for game 6, with the pressure all back on the Heat.  This time, Miami seemed tentative coming off the loss, and San Antonio looked to seize their opportunity, going up by 10 to start the 4th quarter.  Then LeBron, who played badly to that point, finally caught fire and led his team all the way back.  Even then, it took a miracle three from Ray Allen to send the game to overtime, where they defeated the demoralized Spurs.  The Spurs refused to concede the title after the excruciating loss, though, and fought hard throughout game 7, even though it was clear only Kawhi Leonard had anything left in the tank.  The Heat won it, a game closer even than the seven point margin of victory.

Epic, epic, epic.  First of all, my preference was for San Antonio to win the Finals.  That said, the series was the most exciting and highest quality that I've ever seen.  The heart and resilience displayed by the Spurs in such a series makes them champions of another kind in my book, and for Miami, they finally overcame a worthy adversary for their crown.  As I pointed out earlier, it was clear that Miami had the advantage in individual talent and the ability to just dominate when everything clicked.  The Spurs had the advantage in team play and also experience and mental toughness.  So what were the deciding factors?  I'll approach it primarily from the Spurs' perspective, as I paid closer attention to them since I was rooting for them.

First, the good.  Kawhi Leonard emerged as a budding star, mostly on defense and rebounding (both of which were essential for the Spurs) but also often on offense as well.  He was the third wheel of the Spurs' Big Three more often than Ginobili, in this series.  Leonard helped keep LeBron in check for the most part, and Boris Diaw even played him surprisingly well, using his bulk and his smarts.  Next was the scoring of Danny Green (mostly on catch-and-shoot 3s) and Gary Neal (from everywhere).  Obviously, it fueled the game 3 blowout, but also kept the Spurs close in almost every game, win or lose (at least through the first five games).  And Duncan, particularly once Parker got injured, provided the steady centerpiece of both the offense and the defense.  Rarely spectacular (except the first half of game 6), he subtly kept the flow of the game in the Spurs' favor by anchoring the paint defense and scoring efficiently (later in the series, anyway).

What went wrong?  I would say the number one factor was Tony Parker's injury.  He was brilliant in game 1, not great (but helpless anyway due to the Heat's big run) in game 2, then injured in game 3.  He bravely played out the series, but he was clearly not himself.  Parker just couldn't get to the rim like he did in game 1, and I blame that considerably more on his injury than on Miami's defense.  Ginobili's struggles hurt a lot, particularly the turnovers, but his scoring was replaced pretty easily by Leonard, Green and others.  Duncan was their only effective big man; Tiago Splitter was embarrassingly bad, getting rejected by guards left and right and generally getting schooled.  The final significant factor was Green:  while he was brilliant early in the series, he murdered the Spurs in game 6 and 7.  It wasn't even so much that he stopped making the 3s; he stopped trying to make the 3s.  The Heat successfully scared him, and he tried to drive way too much; a terrible ballhandler, Green usually turned it over.  I was screaming at him "Just &%#@ing jack it up, or immediately pass it again!!!!".

To conclude, congratulations to the Miami Heat, victors in the best NBA Finals I've ever seen.  Particular props to LeBron James, who was stymied by surprisingly good defense from the Spurs in much of the series.  But in game 7, he played brilliantly; if he hadn't, they probably would have lost.  There is absolutely no shame in this defeat for the San Antonio Spurs, the greatest team since Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls.  I already can't wait for the next season!

Movies: Man of Steel

Score:  *** out of ***** (C+)

Long Story Short:  The most anticipated superhero film of the year, Man of Steel reboots the famous Superman character.  With Batman all done, DC surely hopes to have a new franchise to compete with Marvel's uber-successful Avengers.  Unfortunately, Man of Steel gets the Clark Kent origin aspects all wrong, and the superfluous addition of The Daily Planet bogs things down.  If you came for the action, though, you likely won't be disappointed.  This fledgling franchise is certainly salvageable, but it's off to a rocky start.


After a few other (disappointing) films in other genres, it's back to the good ol' summer blockbuster with Man of Steel.  When it comes to superheroes, they don't come much more famous than Superman and, like Batman, it's always interesting to see a new adaptation of such a classic character.  The first trailer was subtle but really got me excited for the movie:  Christopher Nolan, the mind behind the newest Batman trilogy, was producing, and the style seemed fresh.  I really didn't even look at the reviews for this much before going to it, since I was going to go see it anyway and I didn't want my expectations to be set.  Man of Steel was directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) and stars Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, and Michael Shannon.

On a distant planet, an advanced civilization stands at the brink of extinction.  A scientist, Jor-el (Crowe), tries to convince Krypton's leaders to preserve what they can of their species.  His plans are interrupted by a coup from General Zod (Shannon), however.  Before Zod can catch him, though, Jor-el sends his infant son into space along with a special item.  By the time Jor-el's son, Kal-el, reaches Earth, his home planet is obliterated.  The young Kal-el is taken in by a Kansas farming couple, the Kents, who raise him as a human and try to have him suppress his superhuman abilities (afforded him by the difference in atmospheric conditions from his home world).

Driven by an innate need to do good, however, Kal-el (known as Clark; Cavill) still ends up showing brief displays of his power and having to keep moving on.  Clark eventually finds another crashed Kryptonian vessel and, using a computer chip that his father sent to Earth with him, discovers his true origins.  Just in time, too, because General Zod, having escaped the destruction of Krypton and his prison, is out for revenge and.... something more.

Man of Steel has a good cast, but the performances are often hampered by the script.  Henry Cavill, a young British actor (apparently also in The Tudors TV show which I haven't seen), is the latest brawny guy to don the blue-and-red suit.  He seems to have potential but... despite being the main character, of course, we don't really get to know this new Superman.  It should be noted that for a number of scenes Clark is portrayed by other actors during flashbacks.  The most distinct characteristic that we get of Cavill's Clark is a sense of patience and restraint but there's much to be fleshed out in what I assume will be several sequels.  Michael Shannon plays the villain General Zod; he does a good job as an evil dude, but despite having what seem to be an intriguing, complex history/motivations, is fairly one-note (I'm blaming the script over the performance here).

Playing the new Lois Lane is Amy Adams, a much more recognizable name than the new Supes.  She's a good actress and has plenty of screen time (I would argue too much), but beyond a few plot points, is really unneeded in this film.  Like Cavill, I can see her doing well in sequels, but it seems she's in the movie because the filmmakers thought Lane had to be in it and worked her in somehow.  Diane Lane and Kevin Costner play the Kent parents; two big names, of course, but boy does the script let them down.  Their scenes are pretty much little variations of the exact same thing; I have to assign them a little of the blame, too, though, as they aren't able to squeeze anything out of the script, either.  Lawrence Fishbourne is fun as the new Daily Planet boss Perry, and I look forward to seeing him in sequels.  Finally, Russell Crowe is also very watchable as the noble Jor-el (although he acts much more like a knight than a scientist).

Despite being such a popular, recognizable character, Superman is not easy to make a film around.  As he is virtually invincible, it is difficult to generate a compelling threat for him.  Interestingly, Man of Steel succeeds pretty well at this task - but fails in several other ways.  Most notably, it botches the origin story.  I am not referring to the scenes on Krypton, but rather growing up as Clark Kent on Earth.  The introduction of Clark's powers happens way too soon and frequently.  While some are cool in themselves (especially the oil rig), they are so isolated and without context that there is no real meaning to them other than showing off.  Only later do we get more subtle scenes of young Clark's struggles, which by then seem insignificant compared to prior displays.  I've already mentioned the repetitive, go-nowhere nature of the Kent parents' roles (a tornado scene is especially bad).  Finally, while it can be very effective to interweave the origins through the present-day plot, it is poorly, jarringly done in this film and further hurt by the above strange choice of sequencing.

An area of more mixed result is that of action.  On the positive side:  the scene where Clark learns to fly is pretty damn cool.  Also, the first big fight really takes superhero action to a  new level of power, yet the CGI holds up and it feels reasonably plausible (for a Superman movie).  It is quite entertaining, and there is a healthy degree of suspense despite the mass destruction.  In the finale, however, we are treated to the same basic kind of action - just on a bigger scale and with little of the previous creativity.  Additionally, in the battle to save Earth a whole bunch of people are killed (you don't see them individually, but it's not hard to imagine) and this seems out of place for Superman, who is better designed to save people than wreck bad guys.  A few final notes:  the film does not often try for humor, although it has a few scant laughs (including one great scene aboard Zod's ship).  Hans Zimmer (from Nolan's Batman films) did the score; it doesn't stand out like some of his previous work, but is pretty good.

***

All in all, Man of Steel is a disappointment.  After reading more about it online and thinking back to the film itself, it seems clear that DC/Warner Brothers hoped to make kind of a combo Batman Begins (with its darker tone and origins component) and Avengers (with epic stakes and action).  The Begins half failed pretty spectacularly - despite even having the same writer as Begins, it's by far the weakest part of the film.  As I heard one fan muse, they should have left out the Daily Planet crew - including Lois Lane - entirely; perhaps they would have had more time to better develop the rest (not that the film is short; it's 2.5 hours).  It's true that you'll find this kind of spectacular action and effects in only a handful of films each year, but I think that less of it would have made a bigger impact here.  I will say, however, that the movie does at least have a good ending - in the way Superman defeats Zod, and the set up for sequels.  They have a talented core - Cavill, Adams, Fishbourne - that, with so little real development in Man of Steel, ironically gives them a lot of room to grow moving forward.  If you're craving a big action spectacle, this should satisfy you; otherwise, you might want to wait for the DVD (where you can skip to the fun parts!).

Movies: This Is the End

Score:  *** out of ***** (C+)

Long Story Short:  "Comedy of the summer" buzz is growing quickly around Seth Rogen's directing debut.  Co-starring Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, James Franco and many others, This Is the End has major star power, but, in The End, it also seems somewhat wasted.  The "unique" premise quickly wears off, and a few chuckles here and there aren't enough to prevent this film from fading from memory.


The summer movie season chugs right along, and the release schedule serves up another change of pace in genre:  my first comedy of the year.  Before the summer, I thought it more likely that I would see The Internship (with Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson).  I enjoyed that pairing in Wedding Crashers, and the premise was interesting.  However, it's been critically panned and my most recent theater experience, Now You See Me, made me want to find something better reviewed.  Enter This Is the End:  considering the type of comedy, I was quite surprised to see it get such positive scores (including an "A" from Entertainment Weekly).  I enjoy some of the comedians in it (though not my favorites), so I decided to give it a shot.  This Is the End was co-directed by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen, and stars Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel, Craig Robinson, James Franco, et. al.

Jay flies in to L.A. to hang out with his old friend, Seth Rogen.  The two have fun with drugs and video games, and then Rogen invites Baruchel to come along to a party at James Franco's house.  A little shy and just wanting to be with his friend, Jay is not happy about it but he agrees.  At Franco's place they find an assortment of Hollywood stars including Rogen's good friends Craig Robinson and Jonah Hill.  To escape the party, Jay goes to a convenience store and takes Seth with him.  That's when, quite literally, all hell breaks loose.

Returning to Franco's home for safety, the massive gathering is quickly reduced to just a few survivors: Rogen, Baruchel, Franco, Robinson, Hill - and an unexpected guest.  As the six squabble about what is going on and how to survive, the situation continues to deteriorate, causing the entitled comedians to consider whether the whole world is turning into a big joke on them.

Obviously, the cast is one of the most star-studded in recent memory, with each actor playing his/her celebrity self.  Rogen, also directing, is co-lead; due to this he plays as much of a "straight man" in this as exists, and isn't all that funny.  Baruchel is the other lead and even less funny; a better actor, perhaps, but he doesn't fit with the film's comedic style.  James Franco, I have to admit, is one of the best actors in this one; despite still being fairly unlikeable, he has some decent moments.  Jonah Hill has been falling fast in my ranks of current comedians, and continues to fall here (admittedly, he suffers from a little of Rogen's straight-man role).  Rounding out the main cast is Craig Robinson; as a supporting character in The Office, he was funny, but he has a lot of work to do to fit in bigger roles like this one.

Fortunately, there are some impressive performances from other members of the cast.  Danny McBride, whose part is smaller than those above but still substantial, is probably the funniest guy in the movie.  He seemed to be freer - by choice or command, I don't know - to do whatever the hell he wanted to, and it worked well.  Danny portrays himself as a truly terrible person here, but entertainingly so.  Michael Cera also has a brief (unfortunately) part at the beginning; he plays himself way against type, but does so so well that it's utterly believable and equally funny.  Other comedians (Jason Segel, Mindy Kaling, Kevin Hart, etc.) appear but don't really contribute any humor.

In many ways, This Is the End seems to be a whole new kind of comedy, but the essence of it is not all that original.  Yes, the comedians are all playing themselves - but they are still acting, and so the fact that their names are their own quickly becomes the only real (yet superficial) connection.  Yes, it's a comedy within a disaster/horror movie, but this doesn't strike me as being any different from the many recent parody movies like Scary Movie (none of which I've seen, granted).  But strip away all the flash and quirks:  is the movie funny?  It supplies chuckles, sometimes even a little more, throughout.  But there are no truly hilarious scenes or even jokes.  The main problem here, and I think it's true of many, many recent comedies, is that the plot structure/drama aspect of the film serves not to create and support the humor but rather to drag it down.

***

This Is the End was the opposite of Now You See Me:  I wasn't really that interested in it based on premise/commercials, but went to see it due to good reviews.  Well, both cases have let me down in consecutive weeks.  I will admit, however, that my perspective on comedies may just be out of whack at the moment; I can't remember the last time that I saw a great, new comedy film.  As disappointing as, say, The Campaign was (I gave it a "B-"), in comparison to this and other recent comedies, it looks pretty damn good.  Maybe I need to adjust my scores for comedies based on lower expectations?  Sense of humor is a fickle thing, different not only from person to person but also within one person based on context (mood, company, etc.).  I guess what I'm trying to do here is figure out why I didn't particularly enjoy This Is the End despite good reviews from most others - and why comedies in general have been letting me down lately.  As I mentioned previously, there are some chuckles to be had here, but by the end, are they worth the price of admission?  I don't think so.

Movies: Now You See Me

Score:  * out of ***** (F)

Long Story Short:  Beyond its intriguing premise, Now You See Me is an utter disaster and the worst film I have seen this year by far.  The cast includes an array of exciting personalities but the film completely wastes their talent (to be fair, some of their performances are similarly poor).  Those hoping for some cool magic tricks, heists and getaways will be very disappointed, as will those hoping for tonal consistency and plot coherence.  Avoid like the plague.


At last, I have experienced my first dud of the 2013 movie season.  Generally, I balance the premise and talent (actors/director) of a film with its score on Rotten Tomatoes; this leads me to skip some movies that look fun on paper but by all accounts seem to be dreadful, and on the other hand to try some films that otherwise I would not have.  Note:  the only trailers I watch now are those I see in the theater because A) they typically give too much away, yet also B) are usually misleading (in that really cool trailers can be made from really crappy movies and vice versa).  My "gamble" on The Great Gatsby a few weeks ago paid off; this one, not so much.  Now You See Me was directed by Louis Letterier (2008's Incredible Hulk... should have warned me!) and stars Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, and others who surely wish not to be named.

Right off the bat, Now You See Me introduces the main four magicians:  the arrogant, sarcastic sleight-of-hand expert Daniel (Eisenberg); the expert show woman (and former assistant to Daniel) Henley (Fisher); the clever, funny, and ruthless mentalist Merritt (Harrelson); and the young, eager but unpolished Jack (Franco).  All of them receive an invitation from the same mysterious host, and they find something that shocks even their experienced eyes.

Fast forward one year, and the four magicians are performing together in Las Vegas.  They have some neat tricks, but save the best for last:  they send a banker from the audience to his bank in France and rob it right in front of him, then dump the cash on the audience.  The FBI puts agent Rhodes (Ruffalo) on the case, joined by Interpol agent Vargas.  The two hunt for "The Four Horsemen" magicians, mocked and helped along the way by former magician Thaddeus (Freeman).

The cast of Now You See Me was a main attraction for me; however, not only does the script fail them terribly, they aren't able to do much at all to salvage the mess.  The lead is agent Rhodes, played by Mark Ruffalo - a mistake right off the bat, as he is probably the most boring character in the film.  Rhodes is ridiculously stupid, and constantly shouts his cliched FBI dialogue; before long, you're rooting against this "good guy."  I'm not very familiar with Ruffalo, but he was either disinterested or not a great actor anyway.  Acting legends Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman team up again as supporting characters, but their presence merely adds to the colossal waste of potential in this film.  Neither one seems to phone it in (Freeman has a much bigger role), but the script was basically written with those actors in mind and doesn't give them anything new to do.

Now for the magicians themselves, whose screen time is bafflingly brief.  Eisenberg's Daniel is sort of the leader; the script clearly tries to make him a cynical yet likable (presumably, since the magicians are portrayed as modern Robin Hoods) lead, but I found nothing likable about him at all.  Jesse is great at being cynical, but the script goes overboard and there's nothing behind it.  Harrelson as Merritt is the lone semi-bright spot in the film.  He summons a healthy dose of his charisma and manages the devious yet gentle-hearted magician balancing act that Eisenberg fails.  I know Isla Fisher can act (from Wedding Crashers and Great Gatsby) but boy, does she try to convince us otherwise in this film.  Dave Franco gives good energy and enthusiasm but to me he is incredibly off-putting and unlikable.

If I knew what kind of movie Now You See Me was trying to be, I might be able to make suggestions of how it could have been improved.  I think the most accurate genre for this film, though, is "mess."  What seemed to be the main attraction of the film - based on commercials, at least - was the magic.  However, except for the first bank robbery (which only rose to "intriguing" level), the magic elements were utterly unmagical.  To make matters worse, the shows were filmed in such a way that it felt like watching a commercial (particularly with Fisher's narrative); maybe this was the point, but if so, it was a terrible idea.  But the magic shows are only changes of pace here; most of the action is spent on the incompetent agent Rhodes and his "helper" agent Vargas (played by Melanie Laurent, who looks bored as she inevitably becomes Rhodes' love interest).  Soon after the first magic show/bank robbery, it becomes impossible to follow what the hell the magicians are up to (let alone why) or what the authorities are doing/can do about it.  Oh, and as a final note, the film tries to incorporate a sense of humor, which falls flat save for perhaps a chuckle or two.

***

Although Now You See Me is a terrible movie, one that I nearly walked out of early, the one redeeming factor is that there's a certain sadistic pleasure in reviewing such films.  Now You See Me is similar to other films (i.e.: Adjustment Bureau) in that the original idea really had some promise.  Clearly, the director and/or writer and/or producer had many of the actors in mind, too (most of whom are usually quite fun to watch).  Then it started to fall apart, very rapidly.  The first huge problem is the script.  The writer(s) basically took elements of a bunch of modern genres (primarily heist) and smashed them together, completely marooning all the characters in no-man's land.  Next, either the director was understandably confused by the script, or just not good (also quite possible).  He changes tone so many times that, even if any of them weren't utterly unoriginal, they all cancel each other out; it basically cycles from silly to darkly serious to noble-minded (the Robin Hood aspect).  Well, I could probably go on, but I think that is sufficient skewering for this review.  In case it wasn't already obvious, avoid this film at all costs (including shouting it down as an option for a group watch).  If you want to see a movie about magicians, check out the excellent The Prestige (Christopher Nolan) instead.

Movies: Star Trek Into Darkness

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  J.J. Abrams returns to the helm of his rebooted Star Trek (presumably for the last time before he takes over Star Wars) and this one is even better than the first.  Pine and Quinto (Kirk and Spock) once again lead an impressive ensemble with brilliance.  Into Darkness also shares its predecessors sense of humor, and bumps up the action a notch or two.  Unfortunately, it also suffers from a somewhat underdeveloped plot and villain, like the first.  Still, it sets a bar for 2013 summer blockbusters that will be hard to beat.


I was hoping to have seen another film - and written another review - sooner than this, but sometimes things don't go as planned.  I'm back with another post, though, and barring further setbacks should be putting out more on a consistent basis this summer.  I have been a fan of the Star Trek franchise for years, although almost exclusively the spin-off series - I've never seen the original TV show and have seen just bits and pieces of the original films.  Nevertheless, I was intrigued in 2009 when super producer J.J. Abrams was rebooting the original for a new movie and I liked the result a lot, particularly the cast.  Due to that film's success, and the great reviews coming in for this one, it was a no-brainer for me to see the newest installment.  Star Trek Into Darkness was directed by J.J. Abrams and stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch.

Into Darkness throws the audience straight into the heat (literally and figuratively) of a mission by the U.S.S. Enterprise and its crew.  Displaying his usual courage - as well as recklessness - Captain Kirk (Pine) manages to avert disaster for a strange new world in addition to saving his first officer Spock's (Quinto) life.  On returning to Earth, however, Kirk is rewarded with a demotion, losing his command of the Enterprise.  At the same time, a terrorist within Starfleet's (sort of like the U.N./NASA/U.S. military combined) own ranks makes trouble and then flees to a distant planet.

With Starfleet discombobulated, Capt. Kirk decides to take the hunt for this terrorist into his own hands; he is given back command of the Enterprise (come on, you knew this would happen, it's not a spoiler!).  The manhunt turns into something much bigger, however, and Kirk must rely on the input of his still-new but tightly-knit crew to put it all together and arrive at peace and justice.

As in 2009's Star Trek, the cast of Into Darkness is one of the strongest parts of the film.  Returning as Captain Kirk, Chris Pine is even better than before as the star of the franchise.  Having already introduced him last time, we don't get as much of his smart-ass brashness (both a good and bad thing) and Pine really settles into the role and now fully owns it.  Sometimes franchises with a significant new villain give the shaft to secondary characters, but this is not the case for Quinto's Spock, fortunately.  Really, everything I said about Pine as Kirk is true in this case as well; not only that, Quinto gets some of the most poignant scenes in this one and nails them.  Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison (no, that's not just a typo of my own name) is well-cast as a cunning, dangerous, chilling villain.  However, the script didn't fully take advantage of his character and so he is a welcome addition but a frustrating one at the same time.

With events flying at full throttle, Into Darkness incorporates the supporting crew members to an impressive degree.  Simon Pegg continues to be an inspired choice as perpetually exasperated (and hilarious) chief engineer Scotty; Zoe Saldana as Spock's partner Uhura disappears at times but really shines in one particular sequence; Karl Urban as Dr. "Bones" McCoy is a reassuring presence through most of the film; and even John Cho (Sulu) and Anton Yelchin (Chekov) get some very nice moments. Finally, there are a few new Starfleet officers who fit right in, but that's all I'll say about them.

Some have complained that J.J. Abrams' style has transformed Star Trek into a clone of its heated rival, Star Wars, thanks to heavy doses of action.  As a Trek fan myself, I can feel some sympathy for that view... but I feel more strongly that the new style is very entertaining (note: I could see Star Trek becoming something like Batman in that different creative teams - director/actors/writers - come up with their own distinct takes on the franchise).  With a few exceptions, the action in Into Darkness has a purpose and is meaningful.  And when the inspired minds of J.J. Abrams and his writers combine with the incredible CGI artists, the results are some of the most spectacular sequences in Hollywood.  Despite a darker tone - hence the title - Into Darkness retains about the same amount and quality of humor as its predecessor, Pine and Pegg being the standouts.  Finally, building on the themes of the 2009 film, Into Darkness boasts a sweeping score (by Michael Giacchino, frequent collaborator with Abrams) that resembles some of adventure film's other classics.

***

I almost gave this film a straight "A".  I really wanted to, and at some point perhaps I'll upgrade it.  The cast is great - probably the best part about it, really.  It has a great, and appropriate, sense of humor.  The pacing is very good, and the action is balanced (although at times gratuitous - a race through space and a one-man demolition by Harrison come to mind).  I think with respect to the Enterprise crew, the film is very tight.  However, as with the 2009 film, the villain and plot elements could have been significantly improved with a little more effort.  I understand that Star Trek technology is not just fake but also implausible; still, a more "authentic" feel of this made-up universe would be nice, rather than slapping Trekkie-things together haphazardly as is convenient for the plot.  The more specific plot problems also relate to the villain:  there was so much potential but the result felt kind of empty.  I kept waiting for another twist to reveal the real plans of the cunning Harrison, but it never materialized.  Again, though, the strength of characters, humor, and action (with cool music as bonus) are easily enough to make this one of the year's top films so far.  I just hope they work on the aforementioned issues - present in both films - for the next installment.  Highly recommended for all.