Friday, November 17, 2017

In Theaters: November 17, 2017

There are three wide releases this weekend.

Justice League


Possibly the least creative poster design I've ever seen for a movie of this size.

Do you remember when Star Wars: Episode III was coming up, and everyone knew it was going to be about Anakin turning to the dark side?  Everybody expected the teaser poster to be a headshot of Hayden Christensen that was half Anakin and half Vader.  That's what all the fake posters were.  But in my heart I knew they would come up with something better.  This was Star Wars, after all.  And they did.


Is that not the greatest teaser poster of all time?  That's inventive.  A billowing cape that takes the shape of Vader's mask.  The shape of the mask, the cape itself, and the red lightsaber all point toward what we know is coming in this movie.

And on the other hand we have...



"Just get all our heroes in there.  Make sure we can see their faces.  Okay, good, now come up with the most simplistic superhero team up tagline you can."

"This tagline has a 'W' in it.  Wonder Woman's logo also has a 'W' in it.  Oh my gosh!  We can put her logo in the tagline!"

"Good thinking, Debbie.  Make that happen.  Throw the rest of them in too.  Yep.  That'll do."

What happened with the poster seems pretty representative of what happened with the whole movie.  It's all just "that'll do".  If the entire DCEU had a tagline, it would be "that'll do".

It's just very sad.  This is their answer to Marvel?  Really?  Five years ago, the MCU brought us The Avengers and it literally blew everyone's minds like a nuke through butter.  And the first studio in line to try to copy that was Warner Brothers, because they have the DC film rights.

Unfortunately for Warner Bros, they hadn't been developing the brand new "shared universe" concept as Marvel had been, and their Nolan Batman cash cow came to an end that same summer.  And they've been playing catch up ever since, tripping over themselves endlessly while doing so.

And the fruit of their labor is here.  Justice League.  The future of Batfleck is in question, three of the five main characters have had almost no prior introduction, and for some reason Superman is dead.  It just doesn't seem like anyone really cared.  That's the feeling I get.

But I'm DEFINITELY still gonna go see it!

Justice League is rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi violence and action.

The Star


It's the nativity story told from the perspective of the animals involved.

The voice cast is loaded.  But, just being honest, it looks very second rate.  I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it put a smile on your face every now and then.

The Star is rated PG for some thematic elements.

Wonder


"You can't blend in when you were born to stand out."

Wonder is the fictional memoir of a child with a deformed face.  Hence the helmet.  He wears it sometimes because it's weird - but not as weird as his face.

His name is Auggie for some reason, and he's just starting fifth grade at a public school.  So it's inspirational and all that rot.

It actually looks pretty solid.  Like, I would see it if someone invited me to go with them.  But I probably wouldn't be all like, "Hey, everybody, let's go see Wonder!"

Wonder is rated PG for thematic elements including bullying, and some mild language.


      Big Shot Critic

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Star Trek: Discovery VS The Orville

DISCLAIMER: Each of these shows had only seven episodes released at time of writing.  Any episodes after beyond that number have not been considered here.

The word "critic" is in the name of this blog, so I do, occasionally, actually critique things!  Today I must break the silence.  I am compelled to write on an issue that has gripped a nation.  Trek Nation, that is.  The issue at hand?  Star Trek: Discovery, the divisive new entry into the Star Trek franchise.  And one can hardly discuss fan reaction to Discovery without discussing Fox's alternative, The Orville.  Get ready for some serious in-depth nerdiness.

First up . . .

Star Trek: Discovery




Anticipation

A new Star Trek show was announced almost two years ago, and that was music to my pointed prosthetic ears*.  Music that ended on a sour note: in an era where the highest-rated television dramas are all doom and gloom, zombies and bullets, meth labs and chemists, dragons and thrones . . . can CBS resist the temptation to drag Star Trek there too?  Star Trek is fundamentally optimistic.  What would Star Trek look like in the modern TV world?  Would it be anything I wanted to see?

Then there is the question of serialization.  It's not a concept Star Trek fans take to without hesitation.  Serialization would deny the flexibility of story that made previous Star Trek shows such a joy to watch.  One episode could be a procedural, then a romance, followed by a comedy and then an action episode or a family drama.  Those shows could go wherever the characters needed them to go, and allowed ample room for very lighthearted dabbles here and there.  Would this freedom be retained?  Could they rework it into a mix of both?

Bryan Fuller was announced as showrunner.  On the one hand, his career started with Star Trek in the 90's.  On the other hand, his career really kicked off when he ran other more modern serialized shows.  See the above two paragraphs.

They announced it would be set in the Prime Timeline (the one that includes literally everything except the three recent Abrams-produced films), but it would take place ten years before Kirk.  Okay.  There have been five main Star Trek shows before, and only one of them is widely considered a failure.  That would be Enterprise.  It also happens to be the only one that went backwards in time and was set before all the rest.  Right out of the gate, the only thing we knew about this new show was that it shares a significant commonality with the one Star Trek show that isn't well loved.  #worried

Then they announced the title.  Star Trek: Discovery.  That sounded like they were going in the right direction with the tone.  Exploration is a hallmark of Star Trek, and a Starfleet ship called the Discovery sounds like a great fit.  But then you have the abbreviation issue.  Trekkie shorthand includes TOS for the original series, TAS for Star Trek: The Animated Series, TNG for Star Trek: The Next Generation, DS9 for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, VOY for Star Trek Voyager, and finally ENT for Star Trek: Enterprise.  And that brings us to . . . STD for Star Trek: Discovery.  With time though, I'm sure DIS will be the official shorthand.

From there all the announcements amounted to an array of big question marks.  Not the good kind of question marks, like fans desperate to get a look at what's coming.  Bad question marks, like why was he let go?  Why were those other two fired?  Why has it been delayed?  Twice?  Why does the ship look so stupid?  Why do the klingons look so stupid?  Why does the main character, who is a woman, have a man's name?  And most importantly, what is up with all these nutty stories I've heard about things going on behind the scenes?  There was not a single behind the scenes story or official announcement that inspired confidence.  Not one.  #extraworried

I almost forgot the biggest bit of information that made fans ill at ease.  Star Trek: Discovery was to premiere on network television and then make the transition to a CBS All Access exclusive.  So you can watch the first one free, but then you have to cough up $6/month minimum to watch the rest.  And that plan comes with limited commercials.  Also, the general opinion is that all other CBS All Access content does nothing to tempt the potential subscriber.  #seriouslyconcerned

At point of release, many fans were not asking the question, "Will it fail?", but rather, "When it fails, who will be blamed?"  The concern was that the cash-grab decision of requiring a subscription to a show that was already unappealing to fans would doom the show to a swift cancellation, and that the franchise itself would be blamed for the failure, rather than the business model or this particular version of Star Trek.  In short, we were afraid Trek Nation would be left high and dry with a cancelled reboot and no hope of another chance.

Execution

Allow me to bottom line this for you.  The pilot sucked.  Big time.  Weak story, poor performances, dreadful characters, and some truly terrible writing.  And these are general complaints.  To go into Star-Trek-specific complaints would take too long.

I can trudge through bad acting and lame stories for a pilot.  I can get over klingons that are all wrong.  What I can't forgive is characters as bland, boring, and hopelessly stupid as these.  I don't mean two-dimensional, I'm talking one-dimensional here.  In the pilot episode the main character of the show does something so colossally and bafflingly senseless that it may have destroyed the whole series for me.  This may sound like an overreaction, but much of the premise of the entire show indeed rests on this decision and an equally troubling one in the second episode.

I guess I have to get into some nerdy specifics here for a couple additional grievances.  The main character is a human raised by vulcans.  Fine.  She's Spock's adopted sister (who has never been mentioned before by Spock or either of his parents).  A little tougher to swallow, but okay.  She went straight from failing entrance into the Vulcan Expeditionary Group to immediately becoming the first officer of a Starfleet ship - without any Starfleet training whatsoever.  I'm sorry . . . WHAT!!??  No.  That makes no sense at all.  And then there's the small matter of her being completely ruled by her emotions throughout the first two episodes.  I remind you that this is the character who was raised by vulcans.  This is a race noted for its absolute control over emotion.

It's like this for all of the first five episodes.  In each one there's one or two giant lapses in judgment that a real person just would not make, or a decision that in no way fits with what we already know about Star Trek.  In one episode a Starfleet captain willfully leaves a Federation citizen behind in a POW situation.  Unbelievable.  Even if the character was a liar and even a turncoat of sorts, he's still a Federation citizen who that captain left to die!  For those of you who don't know, that goes against every oath a Starfleet officer must swear to begin service.  And while we're on the subject, we actually know this turncoat character from earlier shows, and he is definitely a liar, cheat, swindler, and scoundrel, but he was ultimately a nuisance at worst.  To make him into a traitor and - in a later episode - a savage murderer is one heck of a stretch to say the least.

Those are just a few of literally dozens of examples of bad writing in the seven episodes I've seen.

Verdict

I watched seven episodes of Star Trek: Discovery because of the Star Trek name, and because I could do so for free with a trial version of CBS All Access.  On the bright side, Jason Isaac's performance has definitely been a highlight, some story elements were very compelling, and the last three episodes have brought on the very likable character (almost the only likable character in the show) of Ash Tyler.  Also, the last two episodes in particular were very nearly recognizable as Star Trek, with the latest episode even successfully demonstrating lightheartedness and humor - something Star Trek: Discovery is gasping for.  But on the not-so-bright side: everything else.  Story concepts are still weak or borrowed.  The show's premise and setting show limited potential.  And the main character took six episodes to even show signs of likability.  That's a weak start.  And I'm not paying six dollars a month to count the weeks until they make Star Trek great again.  #MSTGA


And in this corner . . .

The Orville


Anticipation

May 16th was the day before the first look trailer debuted for Star Trek: Discovery.  Many Star Trek fans were eagerly awaiting that trailer, and some were hoping it would soothe their concerns and fears for the upcoming series.  In this unsure atmosphere among Trekkies, Fox released its first look trailer for The Orville.  The day before the Discovery trailer.  Coincidence?  I think not.

And that was it!  Before release, The Orville got maybe one one hundredth of the press that Discovery got.  But you better believe that trailer got the attention of Trek Nation, just like Fox hoped it would.  It was an invitation.  It tantalized us with its well-lit sets and bright colors (just like old Star Trek!).  Trek fans immediately began in earnest to produce YouTube video essays and debates, blog posts and online conversations, all about comparing and predicting the differences and successes of Discovery and The Orville.  If you search "discovery vs orville" on youtube you will never run out of videos comparing the two.

Execution

I'll bottom line it for you again.  The pilot was very okay.  It had a few belly laughs and a decent story - but with promising characters.  The second episode was better and much more character oriented.  The third episode is where the revolution began.  The third episode was truly Star Trek reincarnate.  It was thinly-veiled social commentary of the highest order.  Since then The Orville has consistently proved itself worthy of Trek Nation attention.  A spiritual reboot, if you will.  The true modern torchbearer of Gene Roddenberry's vision.

While advertised as a spoof of Star Trek, The Orville has revealed itself to be something else entirely.  This is not a spoof.  It's a full-fledged drama with some jokes on the side.  Furthermore, the love for classic Star Trek is dripping from the screen from start to finish.  Seth MacFarlane loves Star Trek.

All the sense of adventure, the brightness and hope, the faith in humanity, and the commentary on today's world - all of what Star Trek was, The Orville is.  In seven episodes, The Orville has tackled issues like the cycle of violence, social media and mob justice, transgenderism, and isolationism.  In the same number of episodes, Star Trek: Discovery has taken on issues of . . . violent klingons . . . dimly lit spaceships . . . uh . . . save the space whales?

Verdict

In the end, the world of The Orville is a place I would want to visit.  That was Gene Roddenberry's vision.  A happy future.  All but two of the eight main characters are very fleshed out and quite interesting, with the remaining two being reliably real and comedic at the very least.  With a surprising ability to make you think, and the added bonus of serious laughs** every now and then, The Orville is an unmitigated hit.


      Big Shot Critic

*let the record show that I don't actually own any false Vulcan ears
**oxymoron of the year

P.S. Want a good laugh?  Look up the Rotten Tomatoes pages for both of these shows and look at the disparity between critic and audience ratings.  #Gamergate is coming for you, film and television critics.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

In Theaters: November 10, 2017

There are two new wide releases this weekend.

Daddy's Home 2


It looks like a solid yet disposable comedy.

In the first Daddy's Home, Will Ferrell plays the step-dad to some kids and their birth father (Wahlberg) gets out of prison or something and the two clash.  I never saw it.  But I think it's still on Amazon Prime and I might give it a look.

By the end of the first they learn to get along, but they have a combined Christmas with both paternal grandfathers coming to visit, cast hilariously in Mel Gibson and John Lithgow.  I gotta admit the premise is great and the casting is even better.

Daddy's Home 2 is rated PG-13 for suggestive material and some language.

That's a softer PG-13 than I would have expected, honestly.

Murder on the Orient Express


As you can see the cast includes many names.

Kenneth Branagh, whose last name I still have not learned to pronounce, returns to the director/leading man combo in an adaptation of Agatha Christie's most famous Poirot novel.  Incidentally, I have learned to pronounce the fictional character he portrays, Hercule Poirot.  (~Her-Kyool Pwar-Oh)  Try not to cringe at my pronunciation guide if you actually speak French.

Hercule Poirot is one of histories fine fictional detectives, along the lines of the much more famous Sherlock Holmes.  Really the main difference is that Poirot is Belgian and has a famous moustache.

Peter Ustinov as Poirot

Albert Finney as Poirot

David Suchet as Poirot

The moustache is an important feature.  It is described in the books as "very stiff and military".  So does the new Poirot have a moustache?  Does he ever!

Kenneth Branagh as Poirot's moustach - I mean, as Poirot

Did the moustache need to be that big?  I don't know.  Moving on.

One interesting cast member to note is Daisy Ridley.  You know her as Rey from The Force Awakens and the soon-upon-us The Last Jedi.  After TFA she was a real hot commodity, and she lined up a whole bunch of roles.  It took two years to get the first one out the gate, but here it is!

Murder on the Orient Express is rated PG-13 for violence and thematic elements.



      Big Shot Critic

Thursday, November 2, 2017

In Theaters: November 3, 2017

There are only two new wide releases this weekend.

LBJ


Oscar bait.

Lyndon B. Johnson was Vice President under John F. Kennedy.  Of course, Big Shot Critic readers know that already, because my audience is sophisticated.

LBJ became President of the USA when JFK was KIA.  This was covered by NBC, CBS, the BBC, and ABC.  FYI, the FBI, CIA, and NSA all claim it was LHO, but he was also KIA, and the real shooter is MIA IMO. DYF?

Anyway, what is Lyndon Johnson known for?  Why is there a movie about him?  He's known for becoming President via the death of another, and there's a movie about him because all the more dramatic presidents have movies already.

LBJ is rated R for language.

Thor: Ragnarok


The conclusion to the trilogies of Marvel's phase one heroes (Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor).

It's hard to see what Marvel is going for with Thor: Ragnarok besides a plain old rip-roarin' good time.  And that worries me.  I'm worried this movie will be really good once, and then eventually just okay with repeat viewings, because you know all the jokes.  There are worse fates for a movie, and I might be wrong anyway.  It certainly looks worth seeing once.

In this installment of Thor, we don't have Jane Foster.  Also, the tone is wildly different (with emphasis on "wild").  The first two Thor movies were the runts of Marvel's movie litter, so they decided to go another direction with this one.  Thor will still be battling forces of evil, but count on him to be having a lot more fun doing it this time.

Thor: Ragnarok is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and brief suggestive material.


      Big Shot Critic