Fear Itself

posted by Tygrrius @ 12:30 PM

Fear Itself
Airs Thursdays at 10 PM Eastern, NBC

I've lately been checking out NBC's summer series Fear Itself. As a longtime Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents fan, I'm always drawn to anthology series with a mysterious or supernatural edge. As the title suggests, Fear Itself is a horror series. So far, episodes have run the gamut between psychological horror and more commonplace blood & guts fare.

Brandon Routh (Clark Kent/Superman in Superman Returns) appeared on last week's installment, "Community." This thriller was about a homeowners' association gone wild, controlling every aspect of those who live within its gates. As someone who feels homeowners' associations are slowly taking away the freedom of American homeowners, this episode played on one of my personal fears.

Routh did a great job in his role as a husband trying to combat the association. Given Routh's undeniable resemblance to Christopher Reeve, however, I found the episode's final moment to be chilling and perhaps even unintentionally distasteful. Despite Routh's great work, this won't be an episode I'll watch again.

Though Fear Itself has been uneven so far, I think it's a great premise for a series and I hope NBC will keep this one around. Rating: 7 (out of 10).

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

posted by Tygrrius @ 7:17 AM

Assignment: Trek
A Film Frontier special presentation

For our first Assignment: Trek journey, we set our Omni to December 7, 1979. This web site has gone back into time. . . .

REVIEW: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Other than a short-lived cartoon series, Star Trek fans endured a ten-year drought between the airing of the final episode, "Turnabout Intruder," on June 3, 1969, and the release of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to theaters.

When a deadly probe of unknown origins threatens Earth, James Kirk (William Shatner) returns to command the newly refurbished Enterprise. While the movie indeed reunites the entire original cast, it unfortunately presents Star Trek as a lifeless shell of the original.

All of the adventure, excitement, and fun are gone. Instead, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a sterile bore that feels more like a poor copy of 2001: A Space Odyssey than Star Trek.

The film's one bright spot is the refit design of the Enterprise. She is beautiful and glorious. As much as I love her, though, an over four-minute, dialogue-less tour of the Enterprise's exterior set against composer Jerry Goldsmith's sleepy score is too much even for me. Apparently intended as a set piece, the scene drags on mercilessly, much like the rest of this movie.

Though Vulcans are known for concealing their emotions, it is the humans of this film that seem to lack any feeling. Except for brief sparks, none of the characters ever seem alive. The crew spends most of their time gaping in near zombie-like fashion at the main viewer on the bridge.

Meanwhile, the audience is subjected to never-ending visual effects as the Enterprise slowly makes its way through the interior of the massive probe. The characters become incidental to the effects and whatever plot there is seems only an after thought.

While things finally begin to pick up a bit in the final act, where there are actually slight glimmers of the real Star Trek, it is not enough to save this disaster of a movie served up by producer Gene Roddenberry and director Robert Wise. This is bad Star Trek and horrible science fiction.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture ultimately fails on almost every level. Lacking the emotional heart of the television series, the movie is simply not entertaining. However, besides the debut of the refit Enterprise, the movie has one other redemption: the promise of more adventures to come.

Story: 1 (out of 10)
Performances: 2
Visual Style: 1
Effects: 7
Music: 2
Overall: 2

The Dark Knight

posted by Tygrrius @ 5:32 PM

The last Batman movie I saw in the theater was 1995's Batman Forever, starring Val Kilmer. That was actually the first Batman movie I ever enjoyed (helped, no doubt, by the Superman-style opening credits, the mention of Metropolis, and Nicole Kidman, who has never looked better than she did as Dr. Chase Meridian).

I hated Michael Keaton's two turns as the character, in 1989's Batman and 1992's Batman Returns. While I found Kilmer convincing as the Caped Crusader, I wasn't thrilled with the casting of George Clooney in the role, so I skipped out on 1997's Batman & Robin (apparently a lot of other people skipped that one, too).

When a new Batman movie hit theaters in 2005, with then-unknown Christian Bale in the title role, I was only barely aware of it. A reboot with a younger guy playing Batman, where they tell his origins yet again? Boring, I thought, so I didn't bother to see Batman Begins in the theater.

Yes, I'm an idiot. I have admitted that many times in this space. I finally saw Batman Begins in 2006 on DVD, sometime after seeing Superman Returns in the theater. I needed a DC superhero fix and Superman Returns had not yet hit DVD.

Batman Begins blew me away. Finally, a Batman movie I could really get behind! I watched Batman Forever again after that, but my former favorite didn't hold a candle to Batman Begins. (Kidman still looked pretty good, though.)

Though Batman Begins and Superman Returns earned about the same figures at the box office, director Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins is often regarded as a "surprise hit" while some continue to call director Bryan Singer's Superman Returns a "box office disappointment."

For Nolan, this meant that he was able to proceed relatively quickly with a sequel, The Dark Knight, keeping most of his cast intact. I consider three years the perfect interval between entries in movie series, and The Dark Knight hits this advantage perfectly. The Superman Returns sequel, sadly, is still in development hell.

Conventional wisdom for superhero movies has it that the first sequel is always better than the original. Most think that 1980's Superman II is better than 1978's Superman. Many believe that 2004's Spider-Man 2 is better than 2002's Spider-man. (I actually disagree on both counts, but we're not talking about me here. My wisdom is anything but conventional.)

At the beginning of this year, I was definitely psyched to see The Dark Knight - especially after watching its early preview trailers. I must admit, though, that the death of Heath Ledger, who plays the Joker in the film, dampened a lot of my enthusiasm. It's hard to get excited about a movie that features the final completed performance of a talented actor who died before his time.

Besides, Batman Begins is a tough act to follow. Could The Dark Knight even match its predecessor in quality, much less improve upon it? Walking into The Dark Knight this morning, I realized that I was two for two in summer movies so far. Both Indiana Jones and Get Smart failed to let me down. Let's just say I was due for a disappointment.

In The Dark Knight, Batman continues his loose alliance with Gotham police Lieutenant Gordan (Gary Oldman). The duo also brings Gotham district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) into the fold. As the trio seeks to rid Gotham of crime, the Joker similarly teams up with the city's organized crime bosses, ostensibly to rid Gotham of Batman.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Seriously, Gyllenhaal's channeling of Holmes, who declined to reprise her Batman Begins role for the sequel, is uncanny. In fact, the transition is even more seamless than Dick Sargent taking over Dick York's role of Darrin Stephens on Bewitched. If Holmes were not a former star, I would never have noticed the change.

So, how does The Dark Knight stack up against Batman Begins? Somehow, it's even better. Like Star Wars (1977), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), and The Empire Strikes Back (1980), The Dark Knight is one of those extremely rare movies where every single piece falls together just right.

The story is intricate and captivating, without being too convoluted. Nolan establishes a dark mood, yet makes room for occasional humor to keep audiences from falling too far into the dreariness. Editing is tight and extremely well-paced. There are no "slow" parts that should have been left on the cutting room floor. Every actor gives a convincing, top-notch performance. Ledger takes the Joker farther into insanity than any previous performer, yet manages not to seem over the top.

All of the visual effects are impeccable. There are no effect guffaws to pull you out of the movie. While I'm sure they made extensive use of CGI, there are none of those "Why did they use CGI here?" or "That looks really fake" moments that plague so many movies these days. Composers Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard are right up there with John Williams and James Horner in my book, and their score here is as perfect as the rest of the movie.

The only fault I can find with the entire movie is that Batman's voice occasionally sounds like that of McGruff the Crime Dog. In at least two scenes, I thought for sure Batman was going to say, "Help me take a bite out of crime." This is an admittedly minor quibble. He also had a McGruff scene in Batman Begins, so at least he's consistent.

The best thing about both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight is that the two films are so grounded in reality. They do not repeat the critical mistakes of many comic book movies, that is making the entire world so unlike our own that we cannot relate. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the best Superman movies all work because they place our heroes and villains within an otherwise "normal" world.

I need to see The Dark Knight a few more times to see how it holds up on repeat viewings. Superman remains my favorite superhero, but at this point I'm leaning towards The Dark Knight as the best superhero movie of all time - edging out Richard Donner's Superman (1978). Maybe a superhero movie this incredible can only come along once every thirty years. I'm glad I was there both times.

Story: 10 (out of 10)
Performances: 10
Visual Style: 10
Effects: 10
Music: 10
Overall: 10

"The Cloud Minders" (Star Trek: Remastered edition)

posted by Tygrrius @ 7:37 PM

Star Trek (Remastered): "The Cloud Minders"
Remastered Episode #76 (7/12/2008)
Original Episode #74 (2/28/1969)

Though it didn't quite make my must-see list of Star Trek episodes, "The Cloud Minders" is one of the gems of the third season. Unfortunately, I don't have time to fully review this episode tonight. As I used to do when Star Trek: Remastered first hit the air back in 2006, I'm going to focus this short review only on the effects upgrades rather than the episode itself.

With a plot focused around a city in the clouds, "The Cloud Minders" is an episode I've looked forward to seeing since the original announcement of the Remastered series. The original 1969 version of the Stratos cloud city was actually fairly effective for the time. Stratos offers the chance for CBS Digital to showcase their fine work in a way that most other planet episodes do not.

For whatever reason, however, CBS Digital dropped the ball on this episode. Seen from a distance, as when Kirk and Spock are on the planet below, Stratos in the 2008 remastered version looks only slightly more convincing than the vintage version.

While close-up shots of the city details themselves look great, there were wasted opportunities here to really open the shots up, include some movement, and make Stratos seem like more than just a pretty matte painting. In the end, the whole affair comes off looking like another rush job.

I already found the 1969 effects satisfying, so I can't imagine ever watching the Star Trek: Remastered version of "The Cloud Minders" again.

Dramatic Content: 7 (out of 10)
Effects Upgrades: 5

The Film Frontier's Related Articles