Spider-Man: No Way Home (a movie review post)

I'm not going to say that this is the best Spider-Man movie ever, but I can understand why people are saying it. If you're Spider-Man fan, No Way Home has it all. And it does it extremely well, pulling all these threads together and making a cohesive movie out of it. Well, that's a bit of an understatement. It was more than cohesive. It's a very excellent movie, and I would love to go see it again.

However, as an aside, I will probably not go back and see it again the theater. I'm still not really comfortable with movie theaters, especially with omicron out there doing its thing, and probably wouldn't actually have gone to see this except for my daughter is in town for Christmas and she really wanted to go to opening night. Spider-Man was actually pretty packed, much more so than Eternals.

It's really amazing to me that Marvel/Sony were able to get all of these actors back to reprise their roles from the earlier movies. And they seem to have stepped back into them so seamlessly. Even so, Alfred Molina really stood out to me in this one. He was perfectly sympathetic while still being completely villainous. And Willem Dafoe still crazy creepy/scary as the Green Goblin. And I'm not going to say more than that, at this point, because I don't want to be spoilery. I'll be spoilery when I get back to this movie on my MCU re-watch project.

More generally, it's even more clear that Doctor Strange and the multiverse are going to be big parts of what's coming up in the next big build up to... what? The next Avengers movie? The Avengers must be coming back as a team, but I haven't been hearing or seeing anything about a new Avengers movie. Maybe there won't be one this go around. What I have seen coming up (though very secretly) is Fantastic Four movie, and the multiverse has always been much more the playground of Reed Richards than it has been for the Avengers. I don't know... none of this has anything specifically to do with No Way Home other than the shenanigans of Doctor Strange. Speaking of whom, Cumberbatch was excellent. I become more and more impressed with him as an actor as time goes on. He's much more versatile than he seems that he would be, especially after his turn as Sherlock Holmes.

Okay, still trying to avoid being spoilery, but one of the things about Spider-Man in the comic books is that he has always been, pretty much, a solo act. Sure, he's participated in team things and done team-ups, but he's really a one-spider show. In the MCU, he was really brought in as part of the Avengers. I feel like the goal of this movie was extricate Spidey from his Avengers ties and return him to being just Spider-Man. There is a melancholy about the ending that also seems very appropriate for the character.

I suppose the thing that I can say most clearly about the movie is that there are no bad moments. There are no bumps. No "but why?s" Even for newcomers who may have little to no background in the MCU, I think this movie sets everything up well enough to be understandable. Sure, having a broader background is nice, but it's really unnecessary. Actually, almost no knowledge of the MCU is necessary other than that it might feel more comfortable to know who Doctor Strange is, but they cover that part pretty well in the movie, too.

Having said that, if you're Spider-Man fan and are familiar with all of the other Spider-Man movies (the non-MCU ones), the movie is so much richer. It was really a lot of fun. A lot. So, then, is it the best Spider-Man movie ever? I'm still going to go with Spider-Man. That's still one of the best origin stories for a super hero ever done, and it has a certain quality to it that I don't know can be replicated. Maybe one day. I mean, the Captain America movies did get better as they went despite having one of the other top origin stories ever. And maybe I'll change my mind. I haven't seen the original Raimi Spider-Man in ages; maybe I should go back and watch that again and see what I think of it now. But, for the moment, I'm going to say that No Way Home is... you got it, amazing but not the best. It is right up there, though.

Doctor Strange (a movie review post)

 MCU #14

As a point of interest, it was Doctor Strange that inspired this whole MCU re-watch thing. After Shang-chi came out, I decided it would probably be a good idea to refresh Strange in my memory since he seems to be central to what is coming up in the next phase of the MCU. Upon re-watching it, I realized how much, exactly, I'd forgotten, so it was that the decision was made to re-watch everything. I'm really glad, too, because they are so worth it, and I needed the memory freshener. (Which is nothing like one of those air fresheners for your car. Those are gross.)

Also, there's Spider-Man (the new one and which I should be watching when this post goes live), which is going to be a lot of Strange.

It's not that I haven't said this before, but Marvel's casting is uncanny (shut up! I know that's X-Men. It's my blog I can do what I want). Benedict Cumberbatch was the perfect choice for Strange. There's a moment (I don't remember which one) where there is this fairly close up view of Cumberbatch's face and, I swear, it was like they took a panel from the comic book and turned it into a living person. He really captures Strange in a way that I think no other actor could have. Not one that I've seen, at any rate.

I think I've come to like MCU Dr. Strange better than the comic book version. I mentioned this in my previous review (which I'm not linking), but Strange is played off too much as a super hero in the comic book. Oh, yes, but he is a super hero, I hear you saying. Sure, that's true. Sort of. But, in the comic, it was always that he had this limited selection of "moves" which made it feel like special mutant powers or something. There was rarely any actual sorcery. That is, pulling out the books and casting some big spell. Not much "magic," in other words.
 
Which, you know, is fine. I get it. That kind of thing is much more difficult to do. What is magic, anyway?

I feel like Marvel dealt with that more upfront in the MCU. The Ancient One, basically, explains the MCU concept of magic to Strange right at the beginning. I should probably pull that quote but, hey, I'm about to leave for Spider-Man and trying to wrap this up. Magic has been addresses again in WandaVision and in Eternals. It's more of the science you don't yet understand kind of thing. And I like that. Plus there are lots and lots of books, and we've even seem them in use. To some extent, at least.

They also did a good job with their use of the Astral Plane. The fight in the hospital was really excellent in the way it disrupted the physical world.

And I would be lying if I said that the Cloak of Levitation isn't one of my favorite characters.

The character arc of Mordo is extremely well done. Somewhat parallel to Kaecilius in that it is a perceived deception on the part of The Ancient One that causes their breaks, but each stems from a separate place. Kaecilius, one of envy: I want that, too; Mordo, one of... injustice? I don't know the word I want to use. Mordo responds from a misplaced feeling of injustice, and his journey is and will be more interesting than Kaecilius. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a great actor and able to pull it off more than believably. Not that we haven't seen him do this kind of character before (in Serenity, in case you've forgotten).

So, yeah, I think I've come to like appreciate Dr. Strange more in the years since its release. Not that I didn't like it when it came out; I did. But I like it more now. Which takes us to the rankings...

Let's get ranked!

1. Captain America: Civil War

2. The Avengers
3. Captain America: The First Avenger
4. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
5. Iron Man

6. Doctor Strange

7. Ant-Man
8. Thor: The Dark World
9. Thor

10. Guardians of the Galaxy

11. Avengers: Age of Ultron
12. Iron Man 3
13. Iron Man 2
14. Incredible Hulk (Sorry, Norton, not even the Eye of Agamotto can save you from your place at the bottom. Maybe don't suck so much.)

Doctor Strange (a movie review post)

Doctor Strange has always been one of those characters who has worked better in concept than in execution. I mean, he's a sorcerer, but he's also a super hero. No, no, he's a super hero who has magic as his super power. In the comics, his powers are actually very limited. He has just these few things that he does and a few tools that he uses, and they are always the same. Very clearly defined, like Captain America and his shield. It's more about using those things in clever ways than it is about actually using magic to cast spells to accomplish different goals.

But, then, Marvel is a universe where magic is really science, everything having to do with multiple dimensions and other planes of existence. And, really, I'm fine with that even if, with the comic, I always wanted Dr. Strange to be more... I don't know... complex. To actually be more mystical for one who is called Master of the Mystic Arts.

All of that to say that I was hoping for a little more magic in the movie, especially with the whole thing in the trailer about how the Avengers protect from physical threats while the sorcerers protect the world from mystical threats. And I suppose that's true, though it's all in where you draw the lines in the definitions, and the "mystical" threats were not all that far removed from what we've seen in Thor and the Avengers.

But I can't complain, because, really, it was an excellent adaptation of the comic, capturing all of the essential elements. Capturing them and blending them seamlessly with what Marvel has already set in motion leading towards the next two Avengers films. It only left out things that didn't ever exist within the comic to begin with, and I can't fault it for that because, then, it would have been a bad adaptation, not something that Marvel is known for up to this point (unlike some other comic book company).

I'm going to get all spoilery now, so, if you haven't seen it but plan to, you should just know that I really liked it and quit reading right now.

Things I loved about the movie:

Benedict Cumberbatch: As Marvel has done so well, the casting here was perfect. There's not anyone else who can play an arrogant genius bastard quite like Cumberbatch. It was such a good job that well before the car crash my son was squirming in his seat and muttering about what a jerk Strange was. It was rather like, "This is the guy who's the hero?" And, well, yes, that was the point in the comic, too, and they did a great job of breaking the character down and rebuilding him as someone better and not so self-obsessed.

Tilda Swinton: Despite her controversial casting in the role of the Ancient One, I thought she was great. In fact, I think she rose above the role they wrote for her, the role they wrote for her being that of a woman. She chose to bring an androgynous quality to the part that fit it well. The way she played it, she was rather like a prototype human, sexless and ageless. I think the film would have been even stronger if they had severed the ties to the idea that she was a woman and left the character more... ambiguous. Either way, she was great in the role.

the Eye of Agamotto: Yes, I think it's great that the Eye has been included in the movie, but there was kind of no doubt that it would be considering it has been a part of the Strange mythos since Strange's first appearance. What I love about it is that they have made it one of the infinity stones.

the Cloak of Levitation: 'Nuff said.

Chiwetel Ejiofor: Okay, this is more about the character than the actor, although I think Ejiofor is quite good. However, what I enjoyed was what they have done with the character. While not being quite true to the origins of the character in the comics, I like that they have begun the journey of Mordo as a brother-in-arms to Strange. It should make what comes later more interesting.

Benedict Wong: Benedict Wong is great, and I love that they have fleshed out what was basically a stereotype Asian servant from the comic. And maybe they've fleshed out the character in the comic at this point, too, but, back in when I was still reading comics, Wong was your basic manservant to Strange, so I like that they have made the character something more than that, and Benedict is very good in the role.

Things I didn't love in the movie:

The sling rings: I'm not crazy about the idea of needing the rings to open portals. Maybe if they had stated they were a good tool to speed up the process or to help students learn to open the portals or something like that, but, making them a required tool, raises too many questions and turns them into nothing more than a plot device by the writers to trap people at will by having them lose their rings.

The eye makeup of the zealots: Sure, from a distance, the eyes of the zealots looked cool and like their faces were cracking apart. However, when they did closeups, the green and the purple was shiny or glittery, which made them look more like rock 'n' roll musicians from the late 70s. It took all the menace away.

Actually, there are many more things I loved in the movie that I didn't mention, things like the death scene of the Ancient One and the astral fight that Strange had while he was being operated on, but I could go on for a while if I tried to list all of the things. Needless to say, I think Doctor Strange is a great addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and I am very much looking forward to the character appearing in the next Thor movie and the Avengers movies as well as the next Strange movie. And Wong, too.

I Am Not My Own Demographic

My wife and I went to an Oscars event at a local theater not because we wanted to actually see the Oscars, this year -- both of us were rather underwhelmed with the nominations -- but because we (especially my wife) wanted to see Neil Patrick Harris host the Oscars. In that, we were not disappointed. He made it worth it to me with his opening line, "We are here to honor the best and the whitest..." That followed by his opening number made the expense of going to see the Oscars at a special venue completely worth it even if it was all downhill from there, though I was gratified that Birdman got best picture and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu got best director for it. Oh! The performance of "Glory" from Selma was also amazing.

However, Eddie Redmayne as best actor? Give me a break. All he did was sit in a chair and drool. John Travolta (who is not an actor I enjoy at all), did a better job of presenting than Redmayne did as Hawking. But I digress...

Yes, it was required that my wife and I go out to see the Oscars, because we don't have "TV." We could have followed the results online, but we couldn't actually watch the show without going out... somewhere... to do that. But it was a charity event, so that was kind of cool.

But here's the thing: It was full of people that are of the demographic I should belong to... but really don't. My wife and I were among the youngest people there. Well, maybe there were some people in their late 30s but, mostly, it was white people in the 40s and up. This is the group of people that I should theoretically belong to. And, I suppose, the fact that I was there at all means that I must overlap a some points other than relative age and race, but it certainly didn't feel that way.

For one thing, my wife and I reacted to a lot more of the political talk than pretty much anyone else there in terms of agreeing with it. We laughed at more of the jokes and, I think, appreciated more of what was going on. Especially when it had to with inequities within the Academy itself. [Just to point out, the Academy is more than 90% white and nearly 80% men. Rich, old white guys with OWDS.]

But it was the ongoing disdain from the host and the crowd against super heroes and comic books that really allowed me to see how I just don't fit in with "my" crowd. There were multiple comments about how glad we should all be that no super heroes were nominated for... anything. I just want to point out that super heroes have never been nominated. For anything. However, Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were better than at least half of the nominees. Seriously, Whiplash? What a piece of crap. The Theory of Everything, too. Both worthless movies.

Benedict Cumberbatch, though, shined the brightest light on the issue. The host, a little Susan Sarandon number (seriously, if she had said, "Hey, I'm Susan," I might have actually believed her), had a serious thing for Benedict. During the commercial breaks, she was asking trivia questions (for prizes), and she got to this one:

What Marvel character is Benedict Cumberbatch signed on to play in an upcoming movie?

And there was... silence. Which was quite a contrast to all of the other questions which had had people immediately yelling answers. After enough of a pause that it was obvious that no one was going to say anything (and I think she was about to tell the answer), I shouted, "Dr. Strange!" And, see, she was surprised that I knew that. She had not expected an answer. Then, she said, "I don't even know what comic book that is," (or something like that), and I said, "Dr. Strange!" And she was surprised again. Seriously.

There were a couple of hundred people there, and no one else knew that. That's as basic as water to me. Or air. But it's not that I have a specialized knowledge set that that group of people didn't have; it was the reaction to my specialized knowledge set that was the issue. The host was both disdainful and dismissive of it, and she was fairly representative of the class of people that were there. It made me feel as if I was an anthropomorphized raccoon sitting there in the theater.

Okay, so not really.

Because I really am an anthropomorphized raccoon.

Okay, fine! I'm not.

I am Groot.

>sigh<
Fine!

Anyway, the point is that I don't really fit into this group of people I'm supposed to fit into, and I probably do a lot better job of it here in California than I ever would have done in the South. I'm sure that's why I don't live there anymore. According to my wife, anyway. It might help if I wanted to fit in with the group of "white dudes" or "rich, old white dudes" or whatever. Not that I wouldn't take "rich," I suppose, at least up to a point. But, my gosh, when the only recognition a movie like Selma gets is for the song, then something is wrong. Granted, it's a great song. Again, I'm just going to say, at least Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu got acknowledged for Birdman.

The Imitation Game (a movie review post)

I'm going to start by saying that The Imitation Game is a great movie; however, it takes a lot of liberties with the subject matter. The broad sweeps are okay, but the details were, shall we say, exaggerated, no, actually, twisted to make the movie "better." It's a little unfortunate, because I'm sure the movie could have been just as good if they had kept to the straight facts (and, yes, I realize the irony there) rather than the dramatic "truth."

That said, Benedict Cumberbatch was incredible. He is really setting himself up as the go-to guy for any anti-social genius type of character. It would be unfortunate if he ends up being typecast as that guy and never gets any other kind of role, though, as good as he is at it. I think I may be becoming convinced he's more than just that.

It's actually very interesting what Cumberbatch did with the part. He started out with a kind of Sherlock level of human interaction and descended into a kind of Frankenstein's monster thing like he did in the National Theatre Live presentation of Frankenstein. It's too bad Alan Turing wasn't actually like that. Eccentric, yes, but he wasn't unfriendly and without the ability to operate in a social setting as the movie showed him to be.

Keira Knightley was also quite good. Well, she was mostly what you'd expect of Keira Knightley, but it was good. She was a good foil to Cumberbatch's portrayal of Turing, which is to say that her character was not quite accurate, either. Joan Clarke was probably quite a bit more socially awkward than she was in the movie but, then, in the movie, it's Joan who mediates between Turing and his team and enables him to work with them, so she had to be socially savvy for that work.

The other actors I really liked were Mark Strong and Matthew Goode. Strong played Stewart Menzies, a person that Turing probably never actually had any contact with, but he was a great movie character and added a bit of a spy edge to everything. Goode played Hugh Alexander, a chess champion who was on Turing's team. Even while I was watching the movie I didn't buy that Alexander was really as charismatic and charming as Goode played him to be, but he was fun to watch in the role.

Of course, the most interesting thing about the movie to me is not the movie at all; it's that the British government kept all of this secret, everything that Turing did during WWII, stuff which helped to end the war, for 50 years. 50 years! And, then, what they allowed to happen to him after the war was just... horrendous. And he was only posthumously pardoned in 2013. It's kind of unbelievable.

The main thing is, though, if you like those little electronic gadgets that you carry around everywhere and use all the time, you have Turing to thank for them. It was what he did during the war that lead to computers. Thinking machines were his thing. In fact, computers were originally called Turing machines.

Basically, I'd say to see the movie; it's worth it for Cumberbatch's performance alone, accurate or not. He might even deserve the best actor Oscar for it, though I haven't decided that for sure, yet. However, once you've seen it, check up on your Turing facts. It's all really quite fascinating.

Benedict Cumberbatch as Frankenstein

Back in 2011, Britain's National Theater put together a production of Frankenstein directed by Danny Boyle (who also directed Trainspotting, 28 Days Later..., and Slumdog Millionaire) with a new script written by Nick Dear. There were two things that set this production apart from previous iterations of Frankenstein:
1. The focus was on the creation, something that I'm not sure has been done since Mary Shelley wrote the book.
2. The production would feature two actors (Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller, both of whom currently play Sherlock Holmes in separate television series) in the roles of the doctor and his creation who would switch off playing the two roles from performance to performance.

Fortunately, the National Theater has National Theater Live who film the performances for worldwide showings. Also, fortunately, one of the local theaters here (one that tends toward independent films) did special screenings of the production. Unfortunately, though, I was only able to see one of the variations, the one with Cumberbatch as the monster.

There were some clips before the "movie" started about the making of the production, and Cumberbatch talked about his method for learning how to move as the monster. He studied the movements of people who are in physical therapy to re-learn how to use their bodies after a stroke or accident. He was pretty impressive. He had this jerky, twitchy way of moving around, even after he "learned" how to move, that made it clear he wasn't quite in control of his body. Or, well, anything.

Overall, it was an excellent production; however, there were a few things I had issues with.

The play opens with the creature being "born." There's a long sequence of him learning to move his body around which culminates in the doctor coming in and freaking out to find his creation alive. He abandons the creature to the world. Then there's a long sequence of the monster discovering grass and the sun and rain and... people. People who persecute him for his ugliness. All of this is fascinating, especially Cumberbatch's depiction of the monster, BUT... It just went on for too long. The floundering around on the stage learning how to stand and walk took something like 15-20 minutes then another 15 to 20 minutes of the creature doing things like eating grass until he's finally chased away by a mob. So, while Cumberbatch's performance was impressive during this section, it was too much. His performance of the monster was impressive throughout the play and, once the play got into the story, it was good, too.

However, I was a bit underwhelmed by Jonny Lee Miller. He didn't really seem a "mad genius" or like someone playing God or anything at all like how I would think of Victor Frankenstein. Actually, he seemed much more like a kid throwing rocks through the windows of an abandoned house or pulling the legs off of a spider, doing it because he could but without much interest. I've heard that he was better as the creation, but that's just what I've heard; I can't verify that, because I didn't see that version.

I was also not impressed by the performance of George Harris (Shacklebolt in Harry Potter), who played Victor's father. He came off as rather flat to me, no real emotion in what he was acting. The people I saw it with agreed with me, but they saw the other variation of the play, also, and said he was much better as Victor's father when Cumberbatch was playing Victor. So, maybe, he was having an off night or, maybe, the synergy between Harris and Cumberbatch was better than it was with Miller.

As I said, overall it was an excellent production, and I would really like to see it from the other perspective with Cumberbatch as Victor. It looks like it might get a DVD release, so, hopefully, I will get the chance. If there happens to be a showing of this near you, I would highly recommend it, if nothing else, just for the chance to see the "live" performance.

12 Years a Slave

I grew up in Louisiana. The best thing I've ever had to say about that is that I was not born there. Fortunately, though, in having to grow up in Louisiana, I did at least grow up in the best part of the state. Well, the least Louisiana-ish part of the state. And I went to the best high school in the state (which is still the best high school in the state the last time I checked). At the time I went there, at a time when Louisiana was ranked around 47 in education, my high school was one of the top ranked high schools in the nation. That's an aberration that no longer exists.

All of that to say that my educational experience was in no way typical of the area in which I lived and, actually, not typical to most of the nation as a whole. At least not at that time.

And all of that to say that the evils of slavery were strongly impressed upon us, and I picked up a firm belief that all men should be treated equally. At the time, I thought these things were normal for all people; it wasn't until later (only a couple or few years, actually) that I realized that a belief in equality is not a universal belief. In fact, it's a minority belief.

With all of that in mind, it was somewhat difficult to sit through 12 Years a Slave, which is set in Louisiana.

And not just set in Louisiana; being a true story, that's where it actually happened. And with that comes the acknowledgement that a lot of the beliefs displayed in the movie are still very much prevalent. That makes me sad. I mean, I grew up around people that routinely referred to unemployed African Americans as "porch monkeys" or "porch niggers" and knew plenty of people that believed "blacks" would be better off if they were still slaves.

Let me state explicitly at this point that I grew up in what was probably the least racist part of Louisiana and Louisiana is probably not the most racist state in the south, although Louisiana did do a good job of trying to elect a KKK dude as governor in the early 90s. That still horrifies me, especially so considering that David Duke got the majority of the white vote, something he claimed as a victory.

12 Years a Slave is possibly the most brutal movie about slavery I've ever seen. It's unflinching in its portrayal of the inhumanity involved in selling slaves and the attitude of them being nothing more than just, basically, livestock. This is summed up no better than a line delivered by Mistress Ford to a female slave just separated from her children, "You'll forget about your children soon enough," as if she was a dog being separated from her pups. Of course, Eliza did not forget about her children.

However, as brutal as the film is, it is very much detached from the emotion of the things that are happening in most circumstances. You see the horror, but you don't really feel it. In that, it's almost like watching a documentary. It's more clinical than visceral, a drawback for a movie like this, and I'm not sure what causes the disconnect. It's not a lack in the quality of the acting.

Chiwetel Ejiofor does a great job of bewilderment after he's kidnapped at the beginning of the movie. He make us believe in the unreality of his situation. At least, it's unreal from his perspective. Solomon Northup was, after all, born a free man and the idea that he's been taken into slavery is a bit beyond his conception. The problem, I think, with the movie overall is that Ejiofor never really seems to believe in the situation he's in. It's as if every moment he's waiting to wake up, and that may have been what made me feel removed from the action of the movie. I'm not sure that's all of it, but I know that's some of it.

Michael Fassbender, on the other hand, is completely "within" his character, Edwin Epps. Fassbender is not someone I've thought much of as an actor thus far. Not that I've thought he was bad, he's just been someone I've mostly shrugged off as, "eh, what's the big deal?" But he did a great job as Epps. He was completely believable as cruel and erratic. And Sarah Paulson, who played his wife, was wonderful(ly horrible) as his cold, bitter wife.

Many of the other actors were also quite good in their smaller roles. Giamatti, Cumberbatch, and Pitt were more than adequate, but their roles didn't require anything more of them than to be the kind of characters they frequently are. Pitt, in particular, seems to have chosen hos role specifically (he did produce it) to deliver the message he wanted to deliver, and he fit well in that part. Paul Dano was also quite good. Actually, Dano is good enough that I always have a hard time remembering who he is when I see him on screen. He seems to gravitate toward parts that are kind of slimy, but he fits so well into them, that he mostly disappears.

The most unsatisfactory part of the movie, though (and this is kind of spoilery, but, if you have any grasp of racial history in the United States, it shouldn't be anything unexpected or surprising), is the bad guys go unpunished. Of course, this is because the bad guys went unpunished, so it's more that it's an unsatisfactory part of history; no fault of the movie. It does, however, stir up feelings over the injustice of how Northup was treated. That's actually a positive aspect of the movie, because you should feel that Northup was treated unjustly. He was treated unjustly.

It was a good movie but not one that I felt was great. There's almost no way it won't get a best picture nomination, but I don't think it's going to win. I don't think it ought to win. From a movie standpoint, it was just missing... something. Something ineffable, I guess. That doesn't make it a movie you shouldn't see, though. Evidently, the message that all men should be treated equally is still a message that needs to be delivered.

Into Whatness?

As I mentioned in my last post, I had a very busy weekend. On the tail end of everything that had been going on, Sunday night we went to see Star Trek Into Darkness. That was a drama in-and-of-itself. Initially, we'd planned to go see it on Friday night, but something came up on Friday night that I "needed" to do (there will be a post on that later), so we were going to do it Saturday. Of course, that was the plan before we pushed my daughter's sleepover party to this past weekend rather than the prior weekend, so Saturday got knocked off. That left Sunday, and my wife didn't want to do Sunday after the weekend we were having. She just didn't want to add that to the end of everything.

The suggestion, then, was that I take my oldest son to go see it and that would be that. My younger son has an ingrained opposition to Trek because of his love of Star Wars, so he had stated that he didn't want to go. My daughter wanted to go only because it was "going;" she had no real desire to see the movie. "Going" is always better than "staying" in her book. So the idea was that I would take the oldest to the afternoon matinee.

BUT there were complications. To start, he had gone off to spend the night with someone to avoid my daughter's sleepover, and he neglected to arrange for a ride home. There are two things to that: 1. We told him due to all of the stuff on during the weekend, we would not be available to transport him, so he had to arrange his own transportation. 2. My wife let him know very explicitly that she didn't want him gone all day because of his lack of planning. She wanted him home at a reasonably early hour on Sunday. Well, he failed to take care of that stuff. He called around 2:00 p.m. to let us know that he still had no ride home, a call I had been anticipating. At that point, I told him that we (he and I) were going to Star Trek... unless he didn't make it home, in which case, he would miss out. I figured that would put a fire under his butt. [It did. he dragged himself in the door somewhere around 3:30 (although, technically, he's missed the showtime I'd planned on).] The other complication was that I was just dead tired after all of the girls left and had needed a nap (which I barely got), so I hadn't been ready, yet, for the 3ish showtime, anyway.

Here's where it gets interesting:
So my oldest son walked in the door just as I was getting ready to leave to pick up my younger son from the work party he was at for the musical he's in at school (see why we weren't available to drive the oldest anywhere? Besides, if he wanted to, he could take some steps in getting his driver's license, but he's balking at that). My wife said to me as I was walking out that door, "You should see if he wants to go with y'all."
My response: "But he said he does not want to go."
"Just ask him anyway."
So I did. His response (once I picked him up (covered in paint (including a hand print on the leg of his pants from a girl (which would embarrass him to no end if he knew I was printing this))): "Sure, I have nothing better to do."

Okay, so, now, it was just us guys going to the movie. When it was just the older boy and me, my daughter had decided to stay home because she was have a water balloon fight in the park (this after all the water activities at the end-of-season league party); however, when she found out, upon coming in to refill the water pump, that both boys were going, she immediately changed her mind about the movie. Now, this was a problem. Not that she wanted to go but because now everyone was going but my wife who is the only one in our household that really identifies as a Trek fan. So I had to talk her into it, which wasn't as hard as all that after all; I just said, "Look, everyone else is going, but you're the one that really wants to see this, so you should just come, too." So she did. And she was glad of it.

As for the movie... well, let's start at the title.

What's the deal with meaningless titles? They annoy me. The title has no more to do with the movie than it could have to many movies. Like The Empire Strikes Back could have been called Into Darkness, and it would have held more meaning to the actual movie than this one. I get that it sounds cool, but, seriously, the title (of anything) ought to relate to the thing that's being titled in more than some vague way.

Past that, though, the movie was pretty awesome. Abrams  knows how to bring the action and keep you tense and on the edge of your seat. And, hey, there was no red matter, this time, so double plus good. Without giving anything away, I loved best the role reversal of Spock and Kirk. That was pretty awesome.

I have only two negatives (other than the title) at this point:
1. I do not want to see "old Spock" pop up in every movie as their tiny "god in a box." I get that the fans love seeing Nimoy (I do; I get it), but, from a story perspective, it's gonna get old if they always contact him when they're in trouble.
2. As much as I love Simon Pegg and love Simon Pegg as Scotty, he is the one character that doesn't quite feel right. he has moments where he feels like Scotty but, most of the time, the character seems off target. I don't blame this on Pegg, as he has no control over the writers having him do things that are not "Scottyish."

Speaking of the characters, I still love Karl Urban the most. Man, he could be DeForest Kelley. I swear, I can't tell the difference; he's just like watching the original Bones at work. And they gave him the line! Well, not the line but a the line: "I'm a doctor not a..." It was awesome.

Zachary Quinto comes in a close second to Urban on pulling off the channeling of the original character. Of course, he has had the privilege of actually working with Nimoy, so he wouldn't have an excuse to not be able to pull it off.

And, well, then there's Benedict Cumberbatch who was a perfect match to the rest of the cast. Mostly, it's the voice. But he seems to be able to play any kind of role he wants to play (see War Horse and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy to understand what I mean by that).

And that's really about all I can say about the movie without giving stuff away, and I don't want to do that. As someone who is not really a Star Trek fan, I loved the movie. I do know that there are Trek fans out there that don't like what Abrams is doing, but, really, I'm not quite sure I get that, because he's really captured the heart of the original series with how closely they've managed to get the characters to their originals. It's actually enough that it makes me want to go back and watch those old episodes, and how much more successful can you be than that?

Tribble!