Fast Flashback Part 5: Fast Five

After all the hype two years ago over Fast Five, I decided I should catch up on the Fast and Furious franchise (trying saying that three times fast), having only seen the original. Like many things, I procrastinated as long as I could, and now that Furious 6 is upon us, I have binge watched the first five films. Here is the final part of my look back!

Let's get this out of the way: Fast Five is the Avengers of this franchise. It seems to exist solely for the purpose of bringing together characters from the previous four films. This is the centerpiece of Justin Lin's four directorial turns with the franchise, and it may just be the crown jewel.

It picks up right where the previous installment left off, with Brian (Paul Walker) and Mia (Jordana Brewster) breaking Dom (Vin Diesel) out of prison. They cross paths with a criminal warlord in Rio de Janeiro, and assemble a team to take him down. Besides our central cast, they bring back Tyrese and Ludacris from 2 Fast, and Sung Kang from Tokyo Drift. It also brings in Dwayne Johnson, which honestly, is never a bad idea.

At its core, this is a joyous film. The entire cast seems to be having a blast, and there is enough of a MacGuffin to feel like we are accomplishing something. The action is also at a series high so far, throwing physics out the window to relish in the face of excess and adrenaline. This allows Fast Five to embrace the kind of stunts seen in the video games the franchise has influenced over the years.

Fast Five does have weak points, however. At over two hours, it can feel a little long, and the dialogue is functional, if not simplistic. None of this mattered to me when watching the film, because broadening the ensemble beyond Walker and Diesel helps the exposition and comedy land much better than previous installments.

Fast Five is the best film in the series to date, with the infectious energy and comic book team-up transcending any faults.

Best (worst) lines:

Roman (Tyrese): Guess they did, considering your ass is here. When are you gonna give Martin Luther King his car back?
Tej (Ludacris): As soon as you give Rick James his jacket back.

----

Roman (Tyrese): You say what? This shit just went from Mission:Impossible to mission: in-frickin'-sanity! Whatever man.

Some final thoughts on the series:

I was actually dreading this project, but watching all five of these films in a weekend was actually quite a fun experience. Individually, Tokyo Drift and Fast Five are probably the only films I would come back to again, but watching the other films in the franchise really does enhance the return on investment in Fast Five. Never has a franchise built so much out of so little.  

My official ranking is as follows:

1. Fast Five (The fifth film)

2. The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (The third film)

3. Furious 6 (The sixth film)

4. Fast & Furious (The fourth film)

5. The Fast and the Furious (The first film)

6. 2 Fast 2 Furious (The second film)

These titles are ridiculous, confusing, and inconsistant.

Which film and title are your favorite!? 

Fast Flashback Part 4: Fast & Furious

After all the hype two years ago over Fast Five, I decided I should catch up on the Fast and Furious franchise (trying saying that three times fast), having only seen the original. Like many things, I procrastinated as long as I could, and now that Furious 6 is upon us, I have binge watched the first five films. Here is part 4 of my look back.

The creatively titled Fast & Furious has the burden of setting up Justin Lin's trilogy, and is a little worse off for it. It retains the fun spirit of Lin's Tokyo Drift, but there's too much plot weighing the film down.

On the plus side, the opening gambit, featuring the hijacking of tractor trailers while in motion, is nothing short of spectacular. Well, until the very end, when the limits of 2009 CGI on an $85 million budget become all too apparent. The action setpieces on the whole are good, but the plot is too incoherent for them to hold much meaning.

For fans of the franchise, the reuniting of Vin Diesel and Paul Walker is probably a huge part of why they love this film, but it doesn't do too much for me, since neither are the best actors. It's probably the first real sequel to the original film, with all of the key players back in the game. That's nice, but the full impact of having the complete gang is much better represented in the next film.

Overall, Fast & Furious may be necessary viewing for understanding the next two films, but it is an otherwise mediocre installment that never rises above that opening action sequence.

Best (worst) lines: 

Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker): This is where my jurisdiction ends.
Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel): And this is where mine begins.

----

Dominic Toretto: I'm a boy who appreciates a good body, regardless of the make.

Review: The Great Gatsby

I wish I could remember more of F. Scott Fitzgerald's seminal work The Great Gatsby, but like all the other American classics forced upon me during high school its influence on my life (and memory) is minimal. But that shouldn't matter, because really, in an ideal adaptation, the movie should rely on only the overarching themes of the source material and use them to paint a picture of modern society.

Baz Luhrmann's take on Gatsby is close enough to the source material to properly evoke Fitzgerald's book, but with such contemporary flare as to make it timeless. Combined with his signature use of special effects and incongruous music, the film makes you realize that Jay-Z belongs as much in the 1920s as he does today. 

I was surprised to find much of the original prose so prominently featured in the film, dancing smokelike across the screen (similar to Moulin Rouge). I haven't read the book in a decade, and I still remembered the optical billboard of Dr. Eckleburg, and the green light that haunts Gatsby's every waking moment. The characters also walk right off the page, especially Mulligan's Daisy, a character I loathed so much in the book for her childish naivete, my initial desire was to punch her through the screen. 

The entire ensemble cast does an exemplary job, though it would be easy to overlook Leonardo DiCaprio's take on Gatsby until you realize it is a performance of a performance. Carey Mulligan embodies Daisy perfectly as the flighty, frusterating flower she is, while Joel Edgarton does a fine job making Tom Buchanan less daft and more sympathetic than I remember. It's Tobey Maguire's Nick Carraway I am still undecided on, because I can't resolve in my mind whether I want him to be more or less of an active protagonist. Despite Nick's narration, this film is more about Gatsby than Gatsby's effect on Nick. I thought Maguire handled what little introspection he was afforded very well, but his story definitely played second fiddle to Gatsby. Some may find that the performances overall are over the top, but I found that they blended well into the heightened reality of Luhrmann's lavish production. This film takes place on a stage that matches the fluidity and verbosity of Fitzgerald's novel.  

Luhrmann brings the spectacle of course, and the lushly realized frantic party scenes at Gatsby's mansion are themselves worth the price of admission. One part high society, and one part warehouse party circus, they have to be seen to be believed. Despite how you feel about Luhrmann's style, he is a craftsman when it comes to using anachronism to comment on modern society.

With Romeo & Juliet, Moulin Rouge, and The Great Gatsby,  Baz Luhrmann succeeds in reimagining very familiar worlds by staying loyal to source material and revealing the story's timelessness through aggressive visual representations. It's an adaptation style that may be too literal for the screen, but it doesn't fail to remind us just how vital the material is to return to time and again. 

Fast Flashback Part 3: Tokyo Drift

After all the hype two years ago over Fast Five, I decided I should catch up on the Fast and Furious franchise (try saying that three times fast), having only seen the original. Like many things, I procrastinated as long as I could, and now that Furious 6 is upon us, I have binge watched the first five films. Here is part 3 of my look back. Check back each day this week!

So we’ve come to this: The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. Way back in 2006, when this film was released, it felt like a last ditch attempt to make the Fast/Furious franchise a reality. All new cast, new location, this time they race…with turns! And yet, this film is excellent. Director Justin Lin takes over the franchise, and finally makes me care about some characters! I never cared at all about Paul Walker’s Brian, but Sean (Lucas Black) is much more charismatic and likeable as the lead of this film.

The film basically opens with a signature race (against Home Improvement’s Zachary Ty Bryan!) before high schooler Sean gets sent to Tokyo to live with his dad. Of course, Japan has its own kind of racing culture, and this American needs to relearn how to drive. We meet Twinkie (Bow Wow) and Han (Sung Kang), and soon we are remaking the formula of the first two films. Han is the literal Mr. Miyagi for Sean (the Karate Kid is directly referenced at least once), and teaches him how to drift.

We get some great mountain races, and this is the first time the franchise is able to make racing look as fun and cool as it does on Top Gear. Lin has an eye for it, and the neon-adorned setting perfectly fits the video game vibe the entire film is fueled with. Tokyo Dift is nowhere as introspective as Lost in Translation when it comes to an American in Japan, but the fact that the connection even comes to mind shows just how good this movie is. Japan isn’t just window dressing, but there are specific culture shocks at play here that give a depth I was surprised to find in a FF film.

Tokyo Dift ends on the first “OMG moment” with the appearance of Vin Diesel's Dom, a little surprise that seems to be a signature of Justin Lin’s time with the franchise. It’s a fun nod, even if there was no plan to make additional films in this franchise. Also, this is where the continuity of the series gets interesting, but I’ll save discussing it for a later installment.

Tokyo Drift is the film that revitalized this franchise; a hidden success well worth checking out even if you dislike the other films. It's also the only FF film so far that I would consider adding to my collection.

Best (worst) lines:
Drift King (Brian Tee): Do you know who I am, boy?
Shawn (Lucas Black): You're like the Justin Timberlake of Japan.

----

Han (Sung Kang): What'd you expect? You didn't just play with fire, you soaked the matches in gasoline.

----

Han (Sung Kang): I don't care if you're sick as a dog or in bed with Beyoncé. I call, you show.

Star Trek Into Darkness: "Fan Take"

Warning: Spoilers for Star Trek Into Darkness follow.

There hasn't been a film that has left me more conflicted than Star Trek Into Darkness in a while. Part of me unabashedly loves this movie. Watching it is an absolutely blissful experience. Director J.J. Abrams's eye for action has yet to disappoint, and seeing this wonderful cast back together is sure to be one of the great joys of this summer blockbuster season. However, the film has a lot of problems, most of which exist only for fans of the series, and I haven't quite reconciled how I feel about it.*

Firstly, I love this cast. As individuals they aren't my favorite actors, but together they have a magical charisma. I was praying after the 2009 film that they would somehow get that cast to agree to do a TV series just so they would be in my living room weekly, but alas. In this second film, their relationships are well-defined, and seeing them all together and interacting makes me smile like a geeky idiot.

So the spectacle is great, the actors are great, what's the problem?

And here's where being a fan and feeling conflicted comes into play.

I like the 'destiny versus butterfly effect' idea they tease, that Kirk and Khan might be destined to be archenemies, that the timeline is 'correcting itself' or accelerating, but the film doesn’t really explore that at all. Instead it tries to “flip the script” and transfer much of that juxtaposition to Spock. Sadly, because we don’t have 79 episodes of backstory, these relationships still feel new and raw. This Kirk and Spock aren't the best friends that served many years together. They are just now facing a turning point, where begrudging respect turns into friendship. So the “death” scene in this film doesn’t hold any narrative weight. There’s shorthand at play here, and those of us who love these almost 50 year old characters are patterning our emotions onto these new versions. Which of course doesn't work for the target audience of non-Trekkers.

Additionally, the film might be too much of a repeat of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan/"Space Seed" (the original series episode where Khan first appears). While I love Benedict Cumberbatch's performance in the film, it would be great no matter what the villain's name is. But there are just a few too many moments here evoking the classic film. I like the ideas they played with: the Federation/Starfleet scared after having to battle the Narada (and it's technology from 100 years in the future) and being desperate to bulk up their offensive capabilities. Makes sense to me. I love trying to follow the implications of what people from the future will do to the Federation.

So what, if anything, did the filmmakers gain by making the character Khan? This is a film made for people who will (sadly) probably never watch The Wrath of Khan. They will surely recognize the major beats that have clogged the Internet pipes for years, but they don’t know the details of why Khan was worth screaming over. They just know that Kirk is to Khan as Batman is to Joker. I recognize that this is the kind of thing that comic book readers complain about whenever a new superhero movie comes out, and I kind of don’t want to hold it against the film. It’s not the filmmakers' fault that they recognized the cultural weight the name Khan carries beyond the context of the film itself. I mean Wrath of Khan is on Netflix instant right now, but most of the people who saw Into Darkness this past weekend won't care enough to seek it out.

I guess the root of my conflicted feelings is the sadness of retreading familiar ground from a series that pledges “to boldly go where no one has gone before.”

That said, I can't wait to see it again. 

*A lot of the ideas in the post were brought to light by my close friends, all Trek fans, during a post-viewing round of beers.

Fast Flashback Part 2: 2 Fast 2 Furious

After all the hype two years ago over Fast Five, I decided I should catch up on the Fast and Furious franchise (try saying that three times fast), having only seen the original. Like many things, I procrastinated as long as I could, and now that Furious 6 is upon us, I have binge watched the first five films. Here is part 2 of my look back. Check back each day this week! 

Based simply on the preposterous title, my expectations for 2 Fast 2 Furious were basically rock bottom. Doubly so after realizing Vin Diesel wasn't present for this installment. I have rarely been so glad to be so very wrong.

2 Fast 2 Furious takes a sharp turn toward the self-consciously ridiculous, starting on the road the series has been going down ever since. The action this time is in Miami, where an on-the-run Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker) gets recruited by US Customs and the FBI to work with Monica Fuentes (Eva Mendes) in taking down a drug lord (Cole Hauser). He also brings in childhood friend Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson) as his partner.

The lighthearted tone and neon atmosphere of Miami make this a much improved movie from the first installment, and the climactic set-piece featuring a hundred or more cars is fun in its excess. The plot itself is needlessly complicated and involves having to drive from North Beach to the Keys in 15 minutes. Finally, this franchise lives up to its title.

Best (worst) lines:

Tej (Ludacris): Damn, Suki, uh... When you gonna pop my clutch, huh?
Suki (Devon Aoki): As soon as you get the right set of tools.
Tej: Yeah, a'ight.

----

Roman (Tyrese Gibson): Man, it's a ho-asis in here, brah

Also every instance of bro/brah/cos in the entire movie:

Tomorrow, see you in Tokyo!

Fast Flashback Part 1: The Fast and The Furious

After all the hype two years ago over Fast Five, I decided I should catch up on the Fast and Furious franchise (try saying that three times fast). I have only seen the original, and like many things, I procrastinated as long as I could watching the other films. Now that Furious 6 is upon us, I binge watched the first five films to prepare. Check back every day this week for the next installment!

The Fast and the Furious sets the tone for the franchise: brightly colored cars, rap stars, and the wooden acting of Paul Walker. This first installment came out the summer after my freshman year of high school, and it was the 14th highest box office grosser that year. I remember this film feeling fresh, modern, and exciting.

I was an idiot 12 years ago. Or maybe I just hadn't seen Point Break yet. This film tries to pass off as the most grounded, but to be honest, I was consistently bored anytime the characters were outside their cars. And when they were racing, I was laughing a lot at how bad the special effects were. There are zero shots during the racing sequences when the actor in the car looks like they are moving in a real space.

Not that there isn't a lot to enjoy about the film. The semi truck hijack at the beginning of the film is the most exciting set-piece, and is the only thing that wasn't completely cliché for car movies. Vin Diesel and Michelle Rodriguez were able to build careers off of this film because they do a great job conveying their character's personalities largely through body language.

I just hope for my sake and the sake of this post series, these movies get better.

Best (worst) lines:

Dom (Vin Diesel): I live my life a quarter mile at a time. Nothing else matters: not the mortgage, not the store, not my team and all their bullshit. For those ten seconds or less, I'm free.

----

Brian (Paul Walker): I just need some more time.
FBI Officer: If you want time, buy the magazine!

----

Dom: You can have any brew you want... as long as it's a Corona.

Review: Venus and Serena

There have been so few female athletic superstars in recent memory, that the existence of Venus and Serena Williams is an extra dose of incredible. I don’t follow tennis, but in some form or another I have been subconsciously aware of their careers, which seem to extend infinitely, along with their mark on the sport.

Venus and Serena is a documentary that follows the sisters (though mainly Serena) during the 2011 tournament season and Serena’s struggle with injury and illness. However, the film also spends a lot of time splicing archival footage from the duo’s early beginnings in Compton, their father’s “creative” coaching methods, and their subsequent rise to the top of the international rankings. I would argue that the documentary lacks a fundamental focus, and instead opts to show a superficial overview of both women’s careers. The story is balanced, as we see Serena and Venus at their best and at their worst both on and off the court, but it’s nothing we haven’t already seen debated in the tabloids and on TV. Even the talking heads seem superfluous, as no one in the Williams’ clan is up to the challenge of talking too off script.

The most interesting aspect of this film is Serena’s recent battles with her own body, and the brutal advanced aging that plagues many athletes after years and years of being the best. The film ends with quick glimpses of uncharacteristic losses in 2011 but then jumps to 2012 when Serena claimed another Wimbleton title and both sisters picked up gold medals at the London Olympics. Had more time been spent on the emotional toll of the physical setbacks, and its overall impact on the relationship these women have with each other both as rivals and teammates, the more insight we may have garnered about the sport they love.

For a documentary about agruably the best female tennis players in history, I feel Venus and Serena misses the mark slightly by not exploring enough about how they changed the face of the sport for women, and more importantly, minority women. Their influence is stated more as a passing fact, than a remarkable achievement worthy of deeper exploration. Venus and Serena is a light documentary that may educate tennis neophytes, and will certainly entertain, but not quite inform, tennis fans.

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

Trying something a little different with our look at Star Trek Into Darkness. We’re going to have two posts, this spoiler-free review for all of the non-Trek fans out there who just want to know if the film is worth checking out, and Ryan's “fan” perspective will be posted Monday, dissecting all of the nuance, ramifications of the first film, and other geekery.

Over the course of a near-50 year history, Star Trek has proven to be a fairly malleable franchise. The distance between the current incarnation and the original TV show may not be as drastic as the Batman of the 60's and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, but the relentless action of the J.J. Abrams era is far from what most people think about old Star Trek. Picking up roughly where the previous film left off, Star Trek Into Darkness has our crew serving aboard the Enterprise until Captain James Kirk (Chris Pine) breaks the rules and his first officer, Spock (Zachary Quinto) reports him. A terrorist attack in London reprioritizes Starfleet into manhunt mode.

Spock was definitely the focus of the previous film (and rightly so given Quinto’s performance) but the sequel is all about forcing Kirk to grow up while facing a chilling villain in John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Harrison is a terrorist, branded a traitor to Starfleet, and it is up to Kirk and crew to hunt him down. What ensues is a thrilling cat-and-mouse chase across the galaxy, with our heroes seemingly outmatched at every turn.

As a non-fan, my only hope for a film like this is simply that it is fun and entertaining. Part of my inability to embrace the Star Trek TV series (so far) is being thoroughly bored by each "gateway" episode I'm forced to watch: "I think you'll like this one, it's really fun, and representative of what you can expect from the series." Seconds later I'm fast asleep or daydreaming about another show I'd rather be watching. But you get my drift, every non-fan of something has had an uber-fan of something try and sway their opinion. Ironically, it was seeing the first Star Trek film in theaters that made me wish I could get into the TV series.

So far, not so good on that front, but I am pleased to report that Abrams delivers again with Star Trek Into Darkness. It's a stylish action film with the kind of space battles only top-notch CGI can deliver, and I hate to say it, but I do rely on action set pieces to give my mind a boost from the more tiresome aspects of the Star Trek universe I lack interest in. There is definitely more action in this film, and while some of the sequences are hard to follow, I believe it to be a side effect of our proximity to the IMAX screen when we saw it; a little too close for comfort. If you are seeing it in IMAX opening weekend (and I recommend you do!) get there early or risk a massive headache!

I also enjoy the banter between the characters, particularly between Spock and nearly everyone else on the crew. I know his trademark stoicism is a staple on the TV series as well, but it only seems to yield a reaction from me on the big screen. I think Quinto's performance is a major factor as well, bringing a nice balance of pathos to that stoicism. Talk about embodying a character while still managing to make it your own! Karl Urban's take on Bones is also a favorite of mine. 

Similar to seeing Marvel films with a theater full of uber-fans, seeing Star Trek Into Darkness with a room full of Trekkies will only enhance your viewing enjoyment. It's a different vibe from trying to watch a TV show, and one that is markedly more contagious. The feeling may not last, but you are guaranteed one great night at the movies curtesy of Abrams and the crew of the Enterprise. 

Review: Iron Man 3

Starting this review by talking about another movie, but bear with me for a moment. After reading/thinking a lot about Michael Bay last week for Pain & Gain, I was lamenting the lack of solid action films in the past decade plus. Hollywood summer blockbusters used to be all action, with tentpoles like Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout, and True Lies. These are films powered by adrenaline and star power.

Over the past fifteen years, that has changed, and now the closest thing we have is maybe the Fast and Furious franchise. Our stars don't seem to matter quite as much, since all of our summer movies are from comic books, toylines, theme park rides, or are sequels. And yet, this is one very special thing that Iron Man 3 has done: successfully combined these beloved films of the 80s and 90s with the biggest genre of the last two decades.

Looking at the film's credentials, it should come as no surprise, given director (and co-writer) Shane Black at the helm. Black is responsible for some of those beloved action comedies, and he has found a way to update the genre. Rather than letting them tire in the past, Black has brought them forward into the present day, and there is no better vehicle than Robert Downey, Jr.'s Tony Stark. Downey is just so effortless in this role, brandishing quips and sideways looks the same way he takes in air. And Downey is a star. Rumor is that he received a $50 million dollar payday for The Avengers, and Iron Man 3's overseas opening shows that his starpower is huge.

The other brilliant thing that Black (and co-writer Drew Pearce) have done is make Tony Stark, not Iron Man the central figure of this film. The Marvel Cinematic Universe doesn't dwell on the classic superhero/alter ego dynamic much (sidebar: Do any of the Avengers even have secret identities?), and until now there was never much of a line between Tony Stark and Iron Man. But since the events of last year's The Avengers, that has changed. All of the defense mechanisms Tony has built up over the course of his life are breaking down, and seeing him pushed to the brink of losing everything (again), serves as a nice emotional callback to the cave in Afghanistan. While Marvel Studios calls Iron Man 3 the first movie of "Phase Two," this film definitely feels like the culminating piece in this chapter of Tony Stark's life. Across four films, Stark has experienced a ton of character development, more than most franchise stars get, where the status quo reigns supreme (just like comics!).

And yet, when I walked out of the theater, I felt like the true stars of this movie were Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), Colonel James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), and JARVIS (voiced by Paul Bettany). Iron Man 3 is the best the supporting cast has been in the franchise, primarily because they are finally given something to do (even Happy Hogan (former series director Jon Favreau) does things other than drive and box). It's not to say that I didn't like the supporting cast in the previous films, but freed from the burden of an origin story or being side staged by S.H.I.E.L.D., they are able to flourish.

Paltrow is the unsung hero of the franchise, and she continues to ground the series, serving here as the emotional core. She never falls completely into being the "damsel in distress," and has some fantastic moments of badassery. For the first time, Cheadle is finally able to give Rhodey a detectable personality, and a character other than "military dude." He is able to hold his own in several scenes with Downey, and makes me appreciate his casting for the first time. No one denies that Cheadle has chops, but it's great to see him use them. Previously a device so that Stark doesn't have to talk to himself, Paul Bettany does a lot of heavy lifting in voicing JARVIS, expanding on his role in the first two films and adding even more dry wit to his repertoire.

Aiding in the excellent characterization across the board, Iron Man 3 finally gives the franchise an interesting plot, a mystery that twists and turns in genuinely unexpected ways. Downey gets to do more interesting things than wait for his suits to show up, and Tony Stark as an improv engineer a la MacGuyver is joyous. The villains also benefit, with Aldrich Killian being brought to life with Guy Pearce's cold slickness, and Ben Kingsley pulling off a stunning performance as The Mandarin. While perhaps not as outright menacing as Red Skull or Loki, these are certainly more defined villains than the previous two Iron Man films.

This is the most character-driven Marvel film thus far, and it also has the "darkest" storyline. While Black keeps the audience moving from one snappy quip to the next, some of the stuff just under the surface of this film is horrific, because it feels so true to the real world. The morals of scientific research, how to cope with terrorism, celebrity, and other "big ideas" percolate throughout the film, not quite breaking into the foreground, but developed enough to be counted. This has been a hallmark of Marvel Comics since the days of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, and it's great to see this present onscreen.

While the spectacle doesn't quite reach the scale of The Avengers, IM3 does show where some of that money went. This is a shiny, expensive looking film, certainly the second flashiest Marvel production. The sequence with Air Force One (glimpsed prominently in the trailer) is absolutely breathtaking, and exactly the kind of visual feast one seeks in summer blockbusters.

What makes Iron Man 3 so much fun is the charisma and charm of the cast being pulled through the clever, witty script. It shows the genre (and this universe) are still ripe for expansion, and can tap into any of our other favorite genres along the way.