The Greatest Trick

This blog has moved to http://thegreatesttrick.wordpress.com/. For further movie reviews from a Christian perspective from us, go there please. Reviews from before January 2009 are staying here.

Satirical website The Onion is currently running a highly amusing article entitled “Star Trek Fans Outraged New Film Is Exciting, Enjoyable”. It includes interviews with Trekkies complaining that there is no stiff acting, no heavy handed messages about tolerance and that the storyline made sense. For those like me who are of the opinion that latterly Star Trek degenerated into self-important politically correct pomposity, this is a blast of fresh air and a very tasty slice of summer blockbuster entertainment.

With Lost creator JJ Abrams at the helm, this isn’t merely another excuse to indulge in the current trend for origin stories (Casino Royale, Batman Begins and so on), but through a nifty piece of storytelling, totally rewrite the Star Trek universe. The film opens with James Kirk being born on a shuttle escaping from a gigantic Romulan starship that has come back through time to change the future. Kirk’s father then heroically saves those escaping, and gets himself killed in the process.

Thus, the entire history of Star Trek is thrown into a parallel universe. In the original, Kirk’s father lived to a ripe old age and saw his son become a starship captain. In this, having established the parallel timeline, Abrams goes on to make other major changes to Star Trek’s established chronology in a plot that is both delightfully satisfying and a bold act of defiance against stuffy fans.

To say too much more about the plot would spoil the fun, but the entire cast are a joy to watch. They all wisely avoid impersonations of the earlier cast, and instead make the characters their own. Chris Pine’s Kirk is a misguided rebellious youth who thinks nothing of taking on four men in a bar room brawl (“Get another two and it’ll be a fair fight” he taunts). Zachary Quinto (Sylar from Heroes) is an excellent young Spock not yet able to fully control his emotions. The film centres on their relationship, and how they go from hating each other to mutual respect with, ultimately, a great friendship ahead of them. In many ways, it’s a buddy pairing equal to Butch and Sundance.

The rest of the cast are all good in their supporting roles. Karl Urban’s grouchy Dr McCoy is slightly sidelined, but nevertheless enjoyable, especially in scenes where he clashes with Spock. This is of course was a vital ingredient in the original series, where Kirk has to navigate the middle ground between emotions (Dr McCoy) and logic (Spock). Elsewhere Zoe Saldana, John Cho and Anton Yelchin are all good as Uhura, Sulu and Chekhov respectively. Simon Pegg’s Scotty turns up late in the day, but provides some big laughs. Winona Ryder and Ben Cross play Spock’s mother and father respectively, and Eric Bana’s Romulan Nero provides a memorable, well motivated villain. Finally, Bruce Greenwood turns up as the original Enterprise Captain Pike (played by the excellent Jeffrey Hunter in the original TV series). Pike becomes a mentor to Kirk and although the timeline has changed, there is a good visual reference at the end to his ultimate fate that neatly ties back in with the original TV series.

Speaking of which, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci’s screenplay does not entirely ignore fans either. There are some very good in-jokes (Sulu’s fencing skills for instance), and after years of dull prime directive obsessed characters who think it best to strike their enemies with a leaflet campaign, its great to see the politically incorrect, skirt-chasing, shoot-first-ask-questions-later Captain Kirk back in charge of the Enterprise. Speaking of political correctness, the film’s one concession to this is where the words “where no man has gone before” is changed to “where no one has gone before”.

On a technical level, Abram’s direction is surprisingly stylish, Michael Giacchino’s music score is appropriately epic and the special effects and sound effects are predictably fabulous. This really needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible and in the best sound systems (especially for the wonderful sonic booms of the Enterprise going to warp speed).

To be fair, there are some nits to be picked. A subplot involving a Ceti Eel (a nasty mind controlling parasite that first appeared in The Wrath of Khan) isn’t properly resolved, a critical meeting between Kirk and a character I won’t name for fear of spoiling the plot is too much of a co-incidence, and there is a romantic subplot between Uhura and Spock which I wasn’t sure was entirely in keeping with his character. That said, these are nits, and in no way spoil the experience.

I note with interest on the BBFC website that one of the reasons Star Trek has been given a 12 certificate is that “both positively and negatively presented characters often resolve conflict situations through violence”. Of all the sanctimonious, moralistic reasons to give a film a 12 rating, this has got to be one of the worst, and proves my point about how 12 has effectively become the new PG, as this film would easily have got a PG twenty years ago. Although it’s clearly not appropriate (or understandable) for small children, ten year olds will love it as much as adults.

In fact, even if you hate Star Trek, its worth giving this one a go. I personally still prefer The Wrath of Khan, but I would imagine almost everyone will disagree. At any rate, I haven’t come out of a Star Trek film thinking it was brilliant since The Voyage Home (the one about saving the whales) in 1987. In a time when filmmakers seem increasingly obsessed with making “dark” blockbuster films, this is colourful, exciting and ultimately about one thing: great fun.

Simon Dillon, May 2009.

Hey look, I’m writing a review! Of a film! On my own film review site! (Just in case it totally dies on me, the letter ‘G’ on my keyboard is behaving very erratically, so there might be some impromptu spelling mistakes that I fail to correct. I apologise in advance)

Miles (Paul Giamatti) and Jack (Thomas Haden Church) are middle-aged, washed up wine fanatics on a trip through California’s wine region, in the week leading up to Jack’s wedding. Miles, the divorced, introspective, failing-writer-turned-teacher, just wants to taste some good wine, play some golf and enjoy the week with his friend. Jack, the bit-part actor whose best years are behind him, is determined to have some fun (read: sex) before tying the knot - and embarks on some very ill-advised romantic entanglements that his friend has to then extricate him from. The film follows them through their week, as they spend time together and apart, and evokes charm, disbelief, humour and irritation at these characters in more or less equal measure.

Giamatti and Church do an excellent job, though it really is Giamatti’s film - thankfully, as he is the more sympathetic character to follow! In fact, it’s very difficult for me to comment on anything apart from the actual characters and their story - I don’t remember the technical / directorial aspects of the film so much, as I was caught up with being annoyed with both of them! I suppose that means the director (Alexander Payne, who also wrote the screenplay) did a good job of keeping me in the story.

And here I will digress and present the reader with a spiritual quandary that I found myself in at the end of the movie; I experienced the same thing while watching Last King of Scotland, just a few nights earlier, so maybe God’s on my case… Anyway - and here I will allude heavily to the endings of both films, so look away if you don’t want them spoiled - they both presented the viewer with characters who mess up in a major way, show little to no remorse for their dumb and dangerous actions, and yet the story offers them redemption, and they take it. In LKoS, Nick Garrigan (James McAvoy), who has most definitely sinned against Idi Amin (I’ll leave the details of that out for now), is rescued from his horrific torture by a fellow doctor who dies to give him time to leave the country; in Sideways Jack’s pre-marital infidelities are flagrant and ridiculous, and get him beaten up and forced into the first act of deception in his new marriage before it’s even started. Neither of these characters show any true remorse for what they have done, but are given a way out of their mess through the sacrifices offered to them by others. Now it’s totally clear when put that way, that they could stand in for the sinner before accepting Christ - he gave himself before we had any idea of our need for salvation. And yet, something in me is annoyed and unhappy about the fact that they are redeemed (not just offered redemption) when no repentance has taken place - and sadly there is nothing in the films that tells us that from this point on they are going to be changed characters. Is this harsh on my part? Am I being legalistic and pharisaical in my lack of grace for these characters? Or is fair and true to Christian belief to expect a change in behaviour / attitude before someone is fully saved?

Comments welcome (I think!)…

To celebrate the release of the brilliant Coraline (go and see it), here are ten films aimed at a children’s and/or family audience that have well and truly pushed the envelope in terms of how dark, scary, upsetting or disturbing they are. Regular readers of my reviews know I am not one for patronising children and that I firmly believe traumatic moments in films like The Wizard of Oz or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang are important for them to experience, primarily because the courageous protagonists of these films are not cowered by evil but overcome it. That is why books by Roald Dahl and the Brothers Grimm (and their cinematic counterparts) are embraced by children whilst their parents find them horrifying.

So without any further ado, here are ten other films those who enjoy Coraline may wish to consider. All films listed either have a U or PG certificate in the UK (Gremlins – a film aimed squarely at children but slapped with a 15 certificate by spoilsport censors – is therefore ineligible):

King Kong (1933 original, PG) – Arguably the greatest monster movie of all time, and probably my four year old son’s favourite film, the original Kong packs in dinosaur after dinosaur, some of whom eat the humans (even the vegetarian ones – paleontological accuracy be damned), and some of whom fight Kong. As for Kong himself, he’s not above merrily munching on people, casually throwing them off skyscrapers, and stamping them into oblivion in graphic close ups. Yet despite all this gratuitous (but hugely entertaining) violence, (SPOILER WARNING) my son cries when Kong meets his end during the iconic Empire State Building scene where he is gunned down by aeroplanes, the mechanised monsters he could not defeat. In spite of all his savagery, my son is on Kong’s side because, in his own words, “They should have left him on his island!”

The Wizard of Oz (U) – Although children are (debatably) more desensitised these days, the Wicked Witch of the West and her evil flying monkeys still have the power to scare the daylights out of children. There is something about the terrifying simplicity of green make-up and a totally one dimensional character that makes her remain one of the greatest cinematic villains of all time. Because Dorothy simply wants to go home, her plight is all the more poignant and her accidental defeat of the witch is nevertheless a vitally empowering moment.

Bambi (U) – Generations of children have been traumatised by the death of Bambi’s mother at the hands of a human hunter. It has probably caused more grief than every other film on this list combined. At the same time, I would imagine it has provided catharsis and comfort for children who have lost parents at a young age. It was exceptionally brave of Disney to include such a scene, and for this among many other reasons, it remains one of the greatest animated films of all time.

The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (U) – For the most part, this is a fun romp with Harryhausen’s brilliant special effects bringing to life a myriad of exciting monsters. However, the Cyclops sequence is really quite vicious, especially when said Cyclops plucks one of Sinbad’s men, ties him to a stick and starts merrily roasting him over a slow flame.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (U) – The terrifying child catcher in this film has scared generations of kiddies, but these days it’s the parents who really find this aspect of the film unsettling. With the frenzy whipped up in the media about paedophiles and child abductions, it’s hardly surprising. The film itself is too long (especially in the first half) but it remains an entertaining watch.

The Empire Strikes Back (U) – The greatest of the Star Wars film is also the darkest of the Star Wars films. Darth Vader is at his most menacing and villainous here, especially in his torment of Han Solo and the casual killing of officers who fail him. Scenes such as Luke’s frightening vision of his own head beneath Darth Vader’s mask and his struggle with the dark side in general add the to uneasiness, all of which comes to a disturbing finale in the greatest plot twist of all time (I’m not going to spoil it here, in case you are one of the two people who haven’t seen it).

Time Bandits (PG) – Without question, the darkest, cruellest children’s film of all time. The ending – SPOILER WARNING – where Kevin’s parents ignore his warning not to touch the evil fragment and pay the ultimate price, is astonishingly harsh. Yet when you think about it, it is absolutely the right ending. Parents need to listen to their children. Again, this makes perfect sense to children, but is very uncomfortable viewing for adults.

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial (U) – From Christ allegories to the traumatic way divorce affects children, ET provides a treasure trove of narrative analysis. However, for the purposes of this article I shall refer to one scene only: the death of ET. When he expires and the scientists try to resuscitate him, Elliot yells “You’re killing him!” The psychology of this scene is brilliant. Even though the scientists are trying to save him, to the children the adults are intruding in their world and are actually making things worse. What follows is one of the most upsetting sequences in a children’s film in the history of cinema, second only to the death of Bambi’s mother.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (PG) – Temple of Doom is the darkest and meanest (not to mention the least good) of the Indiana Jones films even in it’s severely cut UK version. Yet ironically, in its own way it is also the most kiddie-friendly in the series, since Indy’s sidekick Short Round is a child who then goes on to free a bunch of kids trapped by the Thuggee villains. Indy has none of the darker obsessive qualities that made him such a fascinating and flawed character in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Instead, in Temple of Doom he is a straightforward hero who helps the children defeat the forces of evil. This is perhaps why the film did not bother me in the slightest as a child, but as an adult I find it horrifying (eyeball soup, human sacrifice, and so on). When an even more severely cut version appeared on Christmas Day one year, the BBC attracted several complaints, and a cartoon appeared in the Radio Times showing children watching the film whilst parents cowered behind the sofa. The caption read: “It’s terrifying for the children!”

A Series of Unfortunate Events (PG) – The most underrated children’s film of the last ten years, this is a darkly comic masterpiece designed as a fable to help children overcome the death of a loved one. The very first scene, where the children are told their parents have been killed, is brilliantly handled so the gravity of what has happened is not ignored, but at no point does it descend into mawkishness or sentimentality. Throughout all the unfortunate events (and they are many and cruel) the indomitable optimism and resourcefulness of the children shines through.

Drat! I’ve left out The Goonies…

Simon Dillon, May 2009.

As I left the cinema having watched Coraline, I overheard two children excitedly discussing the film, saying how much they loved it, whilst their parents were having an equally avid discussion about how terrifying it was. If ever there was a film that was unsuitable for parents but suitable for children, this is it. In the same way the Grimm fairytales (Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel et al) make perfect sense to children but horrify adults, Coraline follows a great cinematic tradition of dark children’s films that ruthlessly terrorise their young target audience.

Based on Neil Gaiman’s excellent (and equally terrifying) novel, the plot concerns young Coraline, an imaginative, resourceful girl who moves with her parents to a grim, dingy house where she is lonely and bored. After exploring the house she finds a doorway that leads to a parallel, idealised version of her world with an exact replica of the house and everyone she knows, including her “other mother”. However, there is one critical difference: they all have buttons for eyes. Coraline is slowly seduced by this alternative world where everything seems wonderful, until a talking cat warns her that everything is not as it seems.

The very best children’s stories do not patronise, and there is nothing patronising or unduly sentimental about Coraline. Although there are echoes of Alice in Wonderland and one or two other previous books, it is a starkly original work that can be read on a number of levels. Firstly and most obviously, it is a fable intended to encourage children to appreciate their parents, even if they often ignore them. On a second, more subversive level, it can be seen as a gentle satire of the idealised, 1950’s style gender roles fulfilled by Coraline’s parents in the parallel world. In the real world, Coraline’s parents both work and her father does the cooking, which is always disgusting. In the parallel world, Coraline’s father works hard whilst her mother stays at home cooking delicious food. It is interesting that this fantasy world is used to seduce Coraline, who clearly longs for a mother who is there for her. Yet this world is ultimately shown to be dangerous and evil. It is almost as though the filmmakers are sending a message to children that to want a mother at home in a post feminist society where most of the time both parents work out of financial necessity is as unrealistic and fantastic as the bizarre parallel world Coraline discovers.

Regardless of how one feels about such a message, it cannot be denied that Coraline is a work of visionary genius. The vocal talents, including Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French and Ian McShane, all contribute excellent performances. Director Henry Selick (who made The Nightmare Before Christmas) uses stop motion techniques to brilliant effect, and generates an extraordinary level of detail that can only be appreciated in the cinema (where it can also be seen in 3D). The screenplay expands upon Gaiman’s original in a number of interesting ways that are too good to spoil in this review, and there is a dazzling array of frightening, hilarious and often surreal moments (especially a running gag involving dogs). But it isn’t just outstanding in the big set pieces. It’s equally good in the smaller, quieter moments. For instance in one poignant scene late in the film where Coraline has escaped back to the real world to find her parents have been kidnapped by the “other mother”, a frightened, upset Coraline makes bizarre mannequins of her parents and goes to sleep between them – a simple and heartbreaking image that at the same time makes no concessions to sentimentality.

I do have one small caveat on the spiritual side of things. There is a scene where Coraline has tea leaves read, but the scene is brief and it is apparent that the character reading the leaves is perhaps a fraud. It is almost akin to the fortune reading scene in The Wizard of Oz (where the man is a fraud), although the image of the spidery hand that the tea leaves form along with the predictable pronouncement that she is in great danger does neatly foreshadow something in the finale.

To summarise, this is essentially a superb horror film for kids, and as such comes with my highest recommendation for all but very young children. Brave parents who can overcome their nervousness may wish to go too, although they might need to hide their eyes at times.

Simon Dillon, May 2009.