Markus Robinson
Markus' Collection
Markus' collection is private.
Markus' Activity
Markus reviewed...
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
While J.J. Abrams' direction is as flashy as expected, his constant… More
While J.J. Abrams' direction is as flashy as expected, his constant need to explore every off-the-wall camera angle possible doesn't really do anything to propel the movie into warp speed (see what I did there?). What does work, is the reprisal of Zachary Quinto's magnificently dry depiction of Spock, who, along with a lively supporting cast which includes, Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu, Karl Urban as Bones, Anton Yelchin as Chekov, Zoe Saldana as Uhura and a surprisingly ultra-comedic script, are the only reasons as to why "Star Trek Into Darkness" is entertaining at all.
Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan: I am a huge Cumberbatch fan (just to get that out of the way) but his performance here honestly left me of cold. Let me rephrase that. The way Cumberbatch was utilized within the confines of this storyline was what left me cold. "Star Trek Into Darkness" contains one of the most underutilized villains in any science fiction film to date. During the first half of this movie, Khan is seen and described to be a superhuman-like being, who is touted to be nearly indestructible. But when Cumberbatch finally gets some heavy screen time, all Khan does is spend a few scenes speaking with a stern inflection and then a few more scenes punching people and getting punched, and then it's over. What a letdown.
Even though the comedic moments in "Star Trek Into Darkness" move this two hour plus movie forward, sadly this "action film" contains only a few action sequences (and by that, I mean two) which were memorable or made me lean forward in my seat. And therein lies the main issue at hand. I don't want to say that anything visually about this film was poorly constructed, because it wasn't. This is also not a Michael Bay movie which contains an annoying overload of explosions. All of the action sequences here have their respective place. There are even moments (during the last hour) when Abrams creates an atmosphere of suspense, which promises potential, but (even with its highly eventful score) soon recedes into another bland or simply shrug inducing action sequence. I guess what I'm trying to say is, not much in "Star Trek Into Darkness" was all that impressive. And I am including the final battle sequence in that discussion.
Final Thought: "Star Trek Into Darkness" is the type of movie which lives and dies on its audience's expectations. While "Into Darkness" is big budget, looks nice and is all and all a fine movie, the fact that it never became as engaging as I (along with a room full of men wearing Spock ears) expected it to be, is a problem. So, even though this is not a sci-fi film which will be scoffed at during upcoming episodes of "The Big Bang Theory", if you aren't a Star Trek fan, "Star Trek Into Darkness" isn't the movie that will convert you. In fact, for you the weighted melodrama within this film, may become far too irritating to stand after a while. And if you are a Trekkie, then chances are you've stopped reading a while back, upon noticing that this wasn't a five star review. In short, if you're a fan of Star Trek, then you're going to see "Star Trek Into Darkness" regardless of what I have to say.
Written by Markus Robinson, Edited by Nicole I. Ashland
Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus
4 days ago via Rotten Tomatoes
Markus reviewed...
Mud (2013)
Although better than "Take Shelter", "Mud" is still not as good, as… More
Although better than "Take Shelter", "Mud" is still not as good, as deep or as entertaining as writer/director Jeff Nichols thinks that it is. Starring Matthew McConaughey in supposedly the best performance to come out of the McCona-sance, Nichols' slightly misogynistic plot tells the story of two boys who decide to explore an island on the Mississippi River, after one claims to have discovered a mysterious boat suspended in the trees. Once on the island they run into a man who goes by the name of Mud; a filthy, starving and very mysterious fugitive, who seems to be living on the boat. Mud elicits the boys help, in exchange for the aforementioned boat. Now, while that sounds like an interesting story, after a while the true themes of "Mud" emerge, when the film begins to play out more so as a multi-generational tale of men who fall in love with women, who prove to be their downfall.
There is a ton of sub-textual "stuff" going on here, dealing with boats as a metaphor for a man's self worth and multiple parallels concerning father and son relationships. And though sub-textual "stuff" is essentially what allows for the best films, due to Nichols' script, "Mud" comes off as more ambiguously underdeveloped than anything. And thus, its own emotional themes concerning coming of age and father and son relationships become muddled, getting lost in the lack of an intriguing story which becomes sadly less and less powerful as it progresses. And therein lies the problem with "Mud". Its foundation was constructed by a writer/director who has a nasty habit of being far too cryptic of a filmmaker for his own good.
That said, Nichols does display a slathering of beautifully constructed visuals and a few inspired lines of dialogue (mostly muttered by the profoundly underutilized Michael Shannon). And there are definitely bits and pieces of this movie, in conjunction with standout performances from both McConaughey and Tye Sheridan, who played the main child protagonist here (and reminded me of River Phoenix in "Stand by Me") that will have audiences sitting forward and taking notice.
Side Note: Reese Witherspoon is also in this movie, but doesn't really do much of anything. So, she's really not worth talking about.
Final Thought: If there is one positive thing I could say about Nichols as an up and coming writer/director, it would be that he does tend to bring out stellar performances from his stable of actors. And "Mud" is the type of film which moves forward on the backs of performances, not necessarily on plot. So, despite the predictable narrative, there is enough good here (especially in the final act) to slightly recommend this film. In fact, I think I would be hard pressed to find anybody who could outright hate "Mud". But I am still shocked at the hordes of critics who tout this as a "must see" or even award worthy.
Written by Markus Robinson, Edited by Nicole I. Ashland
Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus
13 days ago via Rotten Tomatoes
Markus reviewed...
Iron Man 3 (2013)
On the plus side, director Shane Black essentially does with "Iron Man… More
On the plus side, director Shane Black essentially does with "Iron Man 3" what Sam Mendes did for the Bond franchise with "Skyfall". He put it back on track (at least creatively anyway). It's not like "Iron Man 2" was a bad superhero movie (especially next to "Captain America: The First Avenger") but coming off of the initial blockbuster that was "Iron Man", director John Favreau had much to live up to. Thus, for a lot of people "Iron Man 2" was a minor disappointment, of which Black has been sent in to correct. Now, does Black accomplish something profound here? Something Favreau wasn't able to do with the previous Iron Man's? Well, the answer is no, not really. Though the material is funnier, much of the visuals are explosion-centric and there is a startling amount of Gwyenth Paltrow abs, the direction isn't as different as many are claiming (which is a good thing). In the end, "Iron Man 3" is more of Robert Downey Jr.'s charismatic sensibility, and that's basically all that matters when talking about this franchise.
Synopsis: When Tony Stark/Iron Man begins suffering from panic attacks on the wake of terrorist attacks by the Bin Laden-esque evil doer, The Mandarin, he begins to reevaluate what being Iron Man actually means to his livelihood and sanity. So, while that storyline sounds dark (or Nolan-esque) "Iron Man 3" sadly contains a more prominent and quite generic storyline, having to do with an alternate villain. A villain who has been cleverly left out of the trailers, but after an experiment gone wrong, plans to take over the world (don't they always?).When these two storylines combine, the plot itself isn't as strong as I expected. In fact, at times it becomes a bit overcomplicated. But again, the Iron Man franchise has always been more about the performances and the snappy dialogue than the plot.
Supporting Cast: Ty Simpkins (or mini-Robert Downey Jr. as I like to call him) the little boy who plays Harley Keener, steals the show for the relatively small amount of time he is on screen. Actually it is the chemistry between him and Downey Jr. during their scenes together, which are unequivocally the funniest moments of the film. As for Paltrow, who returns in her role as Pepper Potts, she is pretty blah. But not enough to be a distraction, so...moving on.
Side Note: Undeniably, the most questionable aspect of "Iron Man 3" has to be the (dare I say) innovative way Black chooses to play out the role of The Mandarin (played by Ben Kingsley) whose character takes a comically unexpected, but spoiler-ridden turn half way through the movie. That said, when the villain in a superhero movie is delivering an abundance of funny lines, one could make the argument that at times the dialogue and scenarios have become a bit too Joss Whedon for their own good. And before you say it, I realize that Whedon wasn't a part of the writing team of "Iron Man 3". But maybe my issue with this overly comedic tone used for The Mandarin character goes back to the fundamental flaw with trying to compare the future of Disney's Marvel world with the future of DC comic films. On the wings of Christopher Nolan, DC has gone down the path of heavy drama, creating characters who are more flawed, more disturbed and more realistic. Now, Marvel seems to be going the other way with it, keeping an old fashioned sense of comic book levity, with film after film constructed on comedic foundations; i.e. "Iron Man" or "The Avengers". Meaning, even though there is superhero action throughout, in Marvel films there are not only many comic relief characters, but also protagonists and antagonist who are quirky and quick with a funny one liner. So with that logic, the fact that "Iron Man 3" must be labeled as a superhero action/comedy, should not be held against it by fans of The Dark Knight franchise (like myself). In other words, from this point forward, if you are going to see a Marvel film, be expected to laugh. On the other hand, everything I've just stated may end up being toilet fodder with the upcoming release of Marvel's "The Wolverine".
Final Thought: Don't bother waiting around to see what clip is shown after the credits of this film. Trust me. The movie is long enough and the post credits clip is definitely not worth holding in a bladder full of urine for.
Written by Markus Robinson, Edited by Nicole I. Ashland
Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus
13 days ago via Rotten Tomatoes
