Love him or hate him, Oliver Stone is without a doubt one of the most unique voices in the film-making industry.  Unapologetic about his sometimes extreme political views, the acclaimed director has been responsible for some of the most celebrated political features in the last quarter century.  From his poignant anti-war statements like Platoon (1986) and Born on the Fourth of July (1989), to his hard edged political thrillers like Wall Street (1987) and JFK (1991), to his sometimes gonzo social commentaries like Natural Born Killers (1994), he is a filmmaker that has something to say and say it loud for all to hear.  But, as the filmmaker has aged and gone deeper down the rabbit hole of increasingly fringe conspiratorial beliefs, some have believed that he has lost his focus and with it, the edge that marked most of his earlier work.  His George W. Bush biopic W. (2008) was not as incendiary as some of Stone’s most ardent fans would’ve liked.  His recount of the events of 9/11 in World Trade Center (2006) were too boring and safe.  And of course, his attempt at classic Hollywood epic filmmaking turned into the notorious flop that was Alexander (2004).  Suffice to say, Oliver Stone has spent much of the last decade trying to rediscover that same spark that drove much of his early career.  It’s not that he doesn’t try; I have yet to see an Oliver Stone movie that I outright hated or found boring (yes, even Alexander).   But, Stone is a filmmaker who lives by absorbing new information and keeping up with current events, and that has not always found it’s way into his directorial style.  He is both emboldened by his politics and shackled by them as well.  What he needs now is something that appeals to his interests but also lends itself very well to his style of film-making.

So, he should feel very lucky that something like the Edward Snowden case fell into his lap.   The Snowden incident has all the hallmarks of an Oliver Stone story, with an intelligence insider discovering a huge and illegal government operation at work and finding himself caught up in the middle, leading him to risk his life and career in order to expose the truth and hold powerful people accountable for their actions.  Oliver Stone loves these kinds of underdog whistleblower stories, and the fact that this true life event was still fresh in everyone’s minds gave the filmmaker the perfect opportunity to delve back into what he is good at.  For those unfamiliar (if there are any of you), Edward Snowden is responsible for the largest and most damaging intelligence leak in U. S. history.  In the documents that he released to the press, he exposed evidence of widespread wire-tapping conducted by the government against it’s own citizens, with high-profile communication companies like Verizon, Apple, and many others compliant in the program.  It was a huge black eye for the American government, who quickly had to spin the news to make it appear that they were using the intelligence responsibly in the War against Terrorism.  Despite whether or not Snowden was heroic for his actions, he did spark a debate on the nature of privacy and government overreach with his actions and it has since become a defining moment in recent world politics.  Snowden, today, is still a fugitive from the law, living as a refugee in Russia, but he has gained a following of supporters through all of this, including Stone himself.  Now, Oliver Stone has brought Edward Snowden’s story to the big screen, and it should be a movie that fits perfectly within his wheelhouse.  But, did Oliver Stone fail to live up to the potential of this story, or did Snowden bring his style back to form in a big way.

Snowden tells it’s story much in the traditional biopic way.  We are introduced to Edward (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in his most pivotal moment, holed up in a Hong Kong hotel as he discreetly hands over the stolen documents from the CIA over to a handful of journalists.  The journalists in question are Guardian columnists Glenn Greenwald (Zachary Quinto) and Ewan MacAskill (Tom Wilkinson), along with documentarian Laura Poitras (Melissa Leo); people Snowden hand-picked to speak to based on his faith in their level of discretion and commitment.  As they wait for approval for their story to go forward, Snowden reflects back on what brought him to this point.  We then flash back to his early days as a politically conservative idealist looking for an opportunity to serve his country.  After health concerns force him out of the army, Snowden looks for a job in the CIA as an analyst.  During his training, he becomes influenced by two veteran teachers, Intelligence director Corbin O’Brian (Rhys Ifans) and Agent Hank Forrester (Nicolas Cage), both of whom see a lot of potential in the bright young man, but steer him in different directions.  O’Brien appeals to Ed’s more idealistic leanings, while Forrester appeals to his more cynical side.  Both ideals clash as Snowden falls deeper into the world of espionage and surveillance, discovering just how far the American government will go to stay one step ahead of the rest of the world.  The stress takes it’s toll on him and he becomes more and more paranoid; something that puts a strain on his relationship with his girlfriend Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley).  After several back and forth clashes between him and the agency he works for, once he learns of the full breadth of what the Intelligence community is up to, he resolves to throw everything away in order to expose the truth.

A story like this had to find it’s way to Oliver Stone eventually; if not right now, it would’ve later.  It has all the hallmarks of a traditional Stone thriller and it practically t-balls the situation for Stone to hit it out of the park.  So, is Snowden a return to form for the legendary agitprop director.  Well, yes and no; and more emphasis on the latter.  Snowden unfortunately misses a lot of opportunities to really deliver a compelling thriller, and yet at the same time, still delivers on some of the things that Stone is exceptional at.  I think it’s a movie that perfectly illustrates the unfortunate characteristic of Stone’s latter career; the disconnect between the political and the professional that defines the way that Stone directs.  Oliver Stone becomes a very different person whenever he delivers a sermon in his movies, as opposed to when he’s the storyteller.  In many ways, these are the best parts of his films; whenever he gets political.  And Snowden is no exception.  There’s a montage in the middle of the film where Edward Snowden breaks down exactly what the Intelligence community is doing with all it’s new found power and how that is shaping the political dynamics all over the world.  The montage is an expertly delivered visual essay that really helps to spell out the full picture of the world that Edward Snowden lives in and it’s by far the most intriguing part of the movie.  Unfortunately, most of the rest of the film is generic and unoriginal as a biopic.  This is where the division in Stone’s style begins to undermine the movie.  He clearly wants to deliver an intriguing political point, but it’s buried within too much conventionality to feel important.  Stone’s long history in Hollywood undermines his message here, as his more subdued direction steals the power away from a hot button subject.

But, despite the conventionality of Stone’s direction, it still is fairly competent direction.  Not once was I bored watching this movie.   I especially find it intriguing how someone so critical of the United States still manages to infuse all his movies with a strong sense of Americana.  A lot of waving flags show up in this film.  Some parts are actually quite compelling; especially those within the Hotel where Snowden makes his transfer.  I would’ve liked to have seen more emphasis put on these crucial moments in the hotel, because it’s the point of the movie where Snowden’s life hangs in the balance the most.  Much of the rest of the movie gives perhaps too much focus to his backstory, much of which gets repetitive after a while.  Seeing the interaction between journalists and a whistleblower is a story-line that could’ve been mined more and it’s surprising that Stone chooses not too.  My thinking is that Oliver Stone probably felt that his subject needed more context, considering that Snowden has come under fire and is pre-judged from pretty much everywhere; in the political world and in the press.  That’s why I think he stepped away from his own political ideals and portrayed this story from a more conventional angle.  But, even still, it’s a different approach than what he would have done with the story if it were in his heydays.  In a movie like JFK, Stone pushed aside the broader picture and conventional things like character insight and narrative flow in order to deliver the story that felt right to him, and that resulted in a film that was unconventional and historically inaccurate but cinematically engaging.  I do admire the fact that a more mature Oliver Stone seeks to delve deeper into his characters and their motivations, but it becomes a disadvantage when the film’s narrative has less drive because of it.  The Stone-esque moments that he’s become so good at are there, especially near the end; it’s just that the director is less reliant on them as he used to be.  And as a result, you have a movie with ambition behind it, but not the propulsion behind it to make the narrative as strong as it could be.

But, Oliver Stone’s still strong direction is one of the movie’s saving graces.  Unfortunately it’s undermined by a huge factor that prevents the story from ever taking hold, and that sadly is the character of Edward Snowden himself.  Snowden is fundamentally a weak character in the movie.  Despite what you think about the man, a person who has affected so much change in the political world over the last couple years should be a compelling individual when portrayed on screen, and sadly, this movie fails to make that happen.  Snowden comes across as a boring, stick-in-the-mud boy scout with an unsavory condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn’t see the world his way.  I don’t know if this is the fault of Oliver Stone trying to stay true to the character or perhaps being so reverential to his subject, that he makes him obnoxiously perfect.  Whatever the case, Snowden is not an appealing character as portrayed in this film.  It is kind of reflective of the man himself, who’s been given celebrity status as both a champion of privacy and as a criminal from justice, which he has come to embrace.  I try to avoid taking a political stance on most things but, I do see the validity of both arguments against him.  I for one am happy that his actions have sparked a debate over the ethical dilemmas associated with the government’s secret wire-tapping of it’s own citizens; something which shouldn’t go un-ignored.  But, at the same time, I’m not a fan of Snowden’s cocky self-image that he’s projected ever since then; making himself look like the supreme authority on all intelligence activities conducted by the United States and it’s allies.  He knows more than me, surely, but I think there are still plenty of other intelligence experts out there that could school him on a bunch of things too.  It’s not surprising that Snowden had involvement in this film’s making, which tells me that he wanted to put his best image forward.  But, in doing so, he makes himself appear less interesting and as a result, less sympathetic.  Some heroes are worth investing more in when you see their flaws.  Oliver Stone makes Snowden too one-dimensionally perfect to feel real.

But, despite the unsavory character at it’s center, I will say that Joseph Gordon-Levitt does deliver a solid performance as Snowden.  In particular, he nails Edward Snowden’s accent perfectly.  There’s a point late in the movie where we transition between the actor and the real life person and you see just how much work JGL put into getting the speech patterns right.  He does much better with the voice than with the physical performance, because you never quite shake the feeling that you’re watching an actor do an imitation throughout the movie, but the actor does deliver for the most part and helps carry the film as a whole.  And I’ll say this about Oliver Stone movies; they are always filled with great ensemble casts.  Here you have the likes of Zachary Quinto, Melissa Leo, Tom Wilkinson, and even Nicolas Cage all offering strong performances in the film.  Albeit, most of them get short shifted, but they do stand out as a whole.  In particular, I liked the brief appearance of Justified‘s Timothy Olyphant as a covert CIA agent who gives Snowden a darker window into the world of spy networks.  Rhys Ifans also stands out as Director O’Brien, becoming something of the film’s primary antagonist.  Despite being the story’s villain, O’Brien shows more shades of character in the movie, being both menacing and appealing at the same time, and it makes him a far more compelling character than Snowden in the overall narrative.  The film’s weakest character sadly is Shailene Woodley’s Lindsay, a character who should be the political spark in Snowden’s outlook on life, but instead just turns into a passive tag along on his inevitable road to infamy.  Still, it’s the cast that largely holds this film together, even when the characters are not written well enough to deserve the strong performances given to them.

Overall, the movie is neither the long awaited return to form for Oliver Stone that we’ve all been looking for, nor is it a huge step backwards either.  It’s just an acceptable political thriller with some minor provocative points to make.  I would’ve loved to have seen more risks taken with this material, because it’s a debate worth having and Oliver Stone is the kind of troublemaker that would’ve offered up an engaging statement on the subject.  Unfortunately, by handling his key subject with too much care, he kind of undermines the impact that this story could have had.  Snowden is still a controversial figure, and this movie wins him no sympathy points at all; with his supporters, his detractors, or with people on the fence like me.  If you want more sympathy on your side, don’t be afraid to show a little more character.  Otherwise you just look like an arrogant jerk.  That’s ultimately the failure of this film; a weak main hero.  If you want to see a more compelling account of the Snowden case, watch the Oscar winning documentary Citizenfour (2014), the making of which is dramatized in Stone’s movie.  Laura Poitras’ “you are there” documentation is immediate and compelling, and offers up a much better portrait of Edward Snowden as we witness him in his most vulnerable moment.  There are some moments in history that just come across better in a documentary, and this is one of them.  Still, fans of Oliver Stone probably won’t be too disappointed.  It’s still a competently made thriller, showing that the director hasn’t fully lost his touch.  It’s just that he’s got to take more risks and strike a better balance between his propaganda and his narrative.  It’s good to see you compelled to believe in something again Mr. Stone.  Just don’t be afraid to make it a little messy and a tad bit insane cinematically, because that was always the appeal of your movies before.

Rating: 7/10

There’s a lot to be said about the way that DC Comics is going about bringing their catalog of characters and stories from their many years of publishing to the big screen.  A lot of what defines their work up to now, unfortunately, is that of a company desperately trying to play catch up.  As of right now, DC’s long time rival Marvel is the undisputed champion at the box office, with seemingly everything they touch turning into a smash hit, which also includes sub-tier comic book characters like Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy.  DC, hoping to replicate the same success, have up to now stumbled to repeat what Marvel has accomplished.  For several years, DC was doing fine, riding the wave that was Christopher Nolan’s acclaimed Dark Knight trilogy, but with Nolan’s guidance gone, DC has had to scramble and the results are shaky at best.  Man of Steel (2013) rubbed a lot of fans and casual viewers the wrong way with it’s grim and heavy-handed retelling of Superman’s origins (although I didn’t hate the movie myself as much as other people did; read my review to see what I thought).  Despite it’s mixed reception, Man of Steel did make money, and DC took the next step of building an interconnected universe where all of their characters would interact with one another, just like what Marvel was doing with their Avengers series.  Their first attempt at this, unfortunately, turned into a convoluted misfire called Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016).  While not the worst Superhero movie ever made, it was nevertheless a movie that did a terrible job of what it was trying to accomplish, which was to build the foundations on which this cinematic universe was going to stand.  Even Man of Steel defenders like me couldn’t excuse the massive logical problems of the story and the uncharacteristic ways that these iconic superheroes were behaving.

The reason why Marvel is continuing to lead the way while DC is struggling is because DC and it’s parent studio Warner Brothers are making it so obvious that they are trying to copy what Marvel is doing.  There is so much studio meddling behind the building of the DC universe (making sure that every movie hints at future films yet to come) that it’s drawing too much attention to itself, making it feel hollow.  With Marvel, we know that much of their movies have connecting threads, but the studio makes sure that each individual movie has it’s own identity and is able to stand on it’s own outside of it’s place within the grander picture.  Batman v. Superman failed because it felt too much like it was there to set things up for later and not a complete narrative in it’s own right.  It was basically a two and a half hour prologue.  And even at that, studio inference continued to hamper what could have been an interesting action film, with an uneven edit of the movie creating enormous plot holes and conveniences that left audiences everywhere confused and dissatistified.  A lot of the fault rest on the director Zack Snyder, who has more visual sense than storytelling sense, but Warner and DC certainly hold a great deal of blame because they’ve launched this massive undertaking without ever feeling totally committed to it.  There are some things that I think works for them, especially taking a darker tone which does differentiate their universe from Marvel’s.  That’s why I think the best thing that they could do right now is to refocus their cinematic universe on a story that suits their darker character, but is able to stand on it’s own and have more fun with it’s characters.  That’s the hope behind Suicide Squad, but is it the shot of adrenaline that DC needs, or is it a further step backwards?

Suicide Squad is a unique entry in the Comic Book adaptation genre in that it doesn’t focus on a team of Superheroes, but instead focuses on some of their rogues gallery.  As the marketing for this movie has stated, most Superhero films are about Good vs. Bad.  Suicide Squad on the other hand is about Bad vs. Evil.  We are introduced to some of DC’s more grounded, human villains as they serve time in maximum security.  They include master sharpshooter assassin Deadshot (Will Smith) and maniacal Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie); both criminals incarcerated after their encounters with Batman (Ben Affleck).  Also in prison are bank robber Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), the vicious Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and the remorseful fire wielding gangster Diablo (Jay Hernandez).  They are collectively brought together under the supervision of Captain Rick Flag (Joel Kinneman), who directs them to assist in a risky mission in exchange for time off of their sentences.  The catch is that if they try to escape, or refuse, or attempt to kill Captain Flag, they will be instantly killed by explosives implanted in their necks.  Their mission, brought to them by high level security agent Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), is to extract an important contact in an area under supernatural attack.  One of Waller’s assets, the god-like supervillain Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), has gone rogue and is attempting to build a superweapon capable of destroying the planet.  The “Suicide Squad” realize quickly that their place in the mission is to purposely be the fall guys in this foolish mission, but as they find themselves deeper into the heart of darkness, they learn that there’s a definable line between the bad things they do, and the greater evils that can threaten them all.  And things get even more complicated when Harley’s devoted boyfriend, The Joker (Jared Leto) gets thrown into the mix.

So, did Suicide Squad succeed or fail at righting the ship of DC’s cinematic universe?  Well, it depends on what you want to see going into this film.  If you are looking for a serious comic book adaptation that rivals the spirit of Marvel’s movies, then you will probably come away from this film very disappointed.  This is not the huge shift in the right direction that DC needed to move away from the issues of their previous films.  Plus there are choices made with these characters and their place in the universe that may be off-putting to some die hard fans of the comics.  But, at the same time, if you are just looking for an action movie that manages to have a little fun with the character dynamics of it’s ensemble players, then you might have a good time watching Suicide Squad.  And that’s the reaction that I came away with from it.  Suicide Squad is a flawed movie to be sure, but not one that left me dissatisfied nor angered by the direction that it took.  I kind of knew going in that this movie was not going to be the “be all end all” of DC’s comic book movies, and that helped to temper my expectations a little bit.  What I wanted in the end, more than anything, was to see a movie that played off of these kinds of characters and stand on it’s own separated from it’s place in the DC universe and in that respect, it worked for me.  As an action movie, it’s got personality and purpose, which is much better executed here than in Batman v. Superman.  Even still, I will acknowledge that it still falls short of Marvel quality entertainment, even with regards to the rival’s less successful efforts (although this didn’t anger me like Iron Man 3 did, so that’s a plus).  It’s flaws don’t ruin the experience completely, but sad to say, it does prevent this movie from truly becoming the success that it wants to be.

I would say that the most obvious flaw of this movie is it’s plot, or rather the way it is handled.  There are a lot of threads that are thrown into this movie, and not all of them mesh together very well. I think that it has to do with the terrible editing job that the film suffers through, which is clearly characteristic of studio interference.  Whenever the movie does begin to pick up and find it’s rhythm, it’s undercut by a poorly handled scene transition or loss of perspective.  The movie also suffers some serious pacing issues in the second act, which meanders through some repetitive action sequences that add nothing to the overall experience.  The movie works at it’s best when it remains focused on the characters themselves and what they are going through, but even here, studio meddling messes with the chemistry.  The many attempts to connect the story with the larger world undermines the story several times, and unless you’re an expert in everything related to DC comics, you might find yourself lost in the process.  What I found particularly problematic was the lack of focus on the real threat of the narrative.  It’s kind of ironic that a movie about a collection of villains would have a problem finding a strong antagonist, but that’s the case here.  Enchantress, despite a decent performance by Cara Delevingne, is never fully developed as a character and her motives make little sense, so she kind of becomes the main villain by default.  It could be argued that Viola Davis’ Amanda Waller fills that role too, but her place in the story never quite reaches that.  Most infuriating is the way that the Joker is shoehorned into the movie.  Some people are going to hate this version of the iconic character.  I was mixed on it.  Leto’s performance is different and an interesting way to take the character, but he has no business being in this movie, and if you cut him out completely, he wouldn’t have been missed.  It’s strange additions like this that make the movie too messy at times.

At the same time, the movie doesn’t fall into the same morose pit that ultimately sank Batman v. Superman, and that’s largely thanks to it’s excellent casting.  There aren’t any wasted performances here; they are only let down by the plot in the end.  It’s to the actors credit that they manage to make us care about this ragtag group of criminals.  For one thing, the headlining star, Will Smith, is well served as the brash Deadshot.  Oh, how I have missed this charismatic version of the former Fresh Prince superstar and it’s so refreshing to see Will have some fun again as a character like this in a big budget action flick.  Better yet is Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn.  While this film let’s down the Joker in many ways, it doesn’t waste the same opportunity of making his beloved Harley a welcome presence here.  She is a fan favorite that people have long wanted to finally see on the big screen, and I truly believe the filmmakers succeeded by her.  Margot does a great job embodying the character, making her twisted and endearing all at the same time.  I especially like the fact that she nails the “puddin'” affectation that has defined the character so much in the comics and her early animated incarnations.  In many ways, Harley is the movie’s shining star, and she owns every scene she’s in. However, I would say that my favorite performance in the movie comes from Viola Davis as Amanda Waller.  Here you have a character with no special powers of her own, and yet she has to project complete authority over everyone regardless of how powerful they are, and Viola nails that perfectly in her commanding presence.  There’s a scene late in the movie where she takes some drastic measures to ensure her security that gets a remark from Deadshot, “That was straight up gangster;” and it certainly is.  It makes me anxious to see where she takes the character in future DC films, because she is definitely a highlight of their cinematic master plan so far.  The remaining cast also does a credible job of portraying their characters, and most importantly, it looks like they are having fun doing it.  Having an engaged cast of characters certainly helps to make some of the more flawed aspects of the movie feel less troublesome as a result.

I also think that director David Ayer should be credited for holding together a production that could have fallen apart with all the weight put on it.  Coming from a background of making thoughtful action films centered around character dynamics like End of Watch (2012) and Fury (2014), and writing scripts for films like Training Day (2001) and Harsh Times (2005), this was a project that was right up his alley.  And the film’s best moments, namely the character interactions and a few standout action sequences, are representative of what he’s best at as a director.  It’s only when elements of the cinematic universe start to converge into the plot that the movie loses it’s focus.  I get the feeling that in order for this movie to appease the wishes of the execs at Warner Brothers and DC, Ayer had to leave a lot of stuff he wanted out of the movie, and that’s probably the reason why the final edit of the film feels so scattershot.  I would’ve loved a lot less backstory forced into the movie, because it ultimately is irrelevant to the story.  These characters are who they are, so why don’t we just see more of them doing what they’re best at.  At the same time, I am pleased that DC is recognizing that this is a problem and significant re-shoots were made to inject more humor into the movie, and prevent this from becoming the depressing slog that Batman v. Superman was.  I believe the re-shoots helped, because the humor does work here.  There’s also a little camp value to the way this movie goes over the top at times towards the end.  Some might find it too silly, but honestly, that’s something that DC should embrace more.  What David Ayer brought was some visual pop and personality, and despite the roadblocks in his way, he managed to make an engaging film.

So, in the end, this will probably be a divisive movie for many people.  Some will embrace it’s quirkiness, and some will bemoan it as another convoluted mess by DC.  While I can’t say that I loved the movie, I at the same time still found myself entertained for most of it.  Is it a flawed film? Absolutely.  There are still many nagging issues that DC has yet to address with their cinematic universe, namely their insistence on force feeding the construction of this world on us, instead of letting it grow naturally.  This especially hurts Suicide Squad in the long run by undermining the separate identity that it wants to establish.  On the other hand, it is pleasing to see the director and cast actually having fun with these characters, and not taking itself too seriously.  In that regard, it is a step in the right direction for DC.  However, what the cinematic universe needed was a giant course correction, and I don’t think that Suicide Squad was the right movie to lay that responsibility on.  This movie probably would’ve worked better had it been made after a longer running cinematic universe had already been established.  Pushing it to the forefront asks a lot more of this movie, and it’s something that audiences just aren’t ready for yet.  I especially think that this movie does a disservice to the Joker character, considering that we know so little of his place in this universe up to this point.  I hope both him and Harley are given more development in future Batman films.  My hope is that this different flavor of film-making enables DC to try different things in their universe.  Variety is good, and already I have high hopes for a strong showing from Wonder Woman next year.  Suicide Squad may not be Marvel quality, but it tries, and it at least is way better than Batman v. Superman, which isn’t such a bad result after all.

Rating: 7.5/10

This year, the Star Trek franchise hits a milestone, as it marks it’s 50th anniversary.  What started off as an ambitious, but admittedly cheesy prime time sci-fi adventure series on televisionin the 1960’s has since blossomed into one of the most influential and recognizable brands in entertainment.  In the last 50 years, the original series has spawned a movie franchise that in total has produced 13 films, albeit with questionable continuity.  It has also led to the creation of 4 different spin-off series, with another currently in development, all of which help to expand on the mythos that Star Trek is built upon and build up it’s legacy further.  And through all this, it’s still remarkable how Star Trek has managed to remain relevant all these years later.  Sure, the devoted fan base of the Trekkie population has always kept the series in the spotlight, but we are also still seeing even the casual viewer taking interest in Star Trek today, still holding it up in high regards.  I think what has helped Star Trek to adapt over the years has been the way it’s been guided by expert filmmakers who bring a bit of their own interests into the series.  When J.J. Abrams was tasked with bringing a re-imagined Star Trek to the big screen back in 2009, he stated that he was coming at it as someone who wasn’t a passionate fan of the series.  Don’t get him wrong, he still respected the Star Trek universe, but what he wanted to do was to create a version of the series that was not geared solely to the die hard fan, but also to the uninitiated viewer who may or may not be experiencing this universe for the first time.  And it was a new direction for the long running series that really paid off in the end.

J.J. Abrams re-imagined the Star Trek universe by bringing it back to it’s roots, with all the original characters, but opened up the possibilities of different directions by injecting the concept of an alternate timeline into the mix.  It was a genius way to allow a new, more up-to-date take on the origins of the Star Trek, but also give the devoted fan base the relief that it’s not rewriting what has happened before it; keeping the original series and films respectfully a part of this on-going franchise (take note Ghostbusters).  The 2009 relaunch of Star Trek was universally praised by both Trekkies and general audiences alike, but this also put pressure on the filmmakers on how they would follow this up.  The sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), encountered a much different reaction when it was released.  While not an outright disappointment, a lot of fans of Star Trek were underwhelmed by the uneven sequel.  The plot made very little sense; some of the cast were very out of character; and the finale of the film shamelessly stole scenes wholesale right out of the beloved Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), showing clear-cut audience pandering that left many fans cold.  While I stated in my review that I still enjoyed Into Darkness overall, I do acknowledge that it had a lot of unsolvable problems that hurt it, namely in the dreary, taking itself too seriously screenplay by Alex Kurtzman, Robert Orci and Damon Lindelof.  When it was announced that another Star Trek was in the works, many people feared that the wrong direction that Into Darkness was taking the series into was going to continue, and with J.J. Abrams jumping ship to relaunch the Star Wars series with The Force Awakens (2015), it looked like Star Trek was heading for a downfall, just as it was finding it’s footing once again.  So, with Star Trek Beyond now in theaters, are we seeing the best days of the series long behind us, or will this movie take it back to it’s celestial heights?

The story finds the crew of the starship Enterprise in the middle of their five year mission into deep space, or as famously stated, the Final Frontier.  Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) begins to question his place within the Federation hierarchy as the mundane and thankless missions take their toll on him, and he seriously considers giving up his captain’s seat for a vice admiral position.  At the same time, his First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) is torn by his duty to the ship and his desire to help his Vulcan people rebuild their culture, leading him to also consider leaving his position.  Their personal struggles are put on hold when a distress call is brought to their attention, leading them to take the Enterprise out to a remote planet on the edges of the galaxy.  There, the Enterprise is attacked by an immense, swarm-like fleet of ships, which leads to the destruction of the Enterprise and the forced evacuation of it’s crew. After crash landing on the remote planet, the Enterprise crew is split apart and at the mercy of the ruthless mercenary force, led by the mysterious Krall (Idris Elba).  Kirk and Chekov (the late Anton Yelchin) search for answers as to where their lost crew might be, and what Krall is after.  Spock, wounded from his encounters with the alien force, must rely on the help of Dr. “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) to survive.  Sulu (John  Cho) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) seek to escape the clutches of Krall’s forces as they are confined with the other hostages.  And Scotty (Simon Pegg) runs across a lone wolf rebel on the same planet named Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), who may have the means necessary of helping the crew reunite and fight back against Krall.  But time is short for all of them, as Krall seeks to use a weapon in the Enterprise’s possession that could destroy millions of lives at the nearby Federation star base.

A lot of questions were raised whether or not the Star Trek franchise would manage in a post-Abrams direction, and the choice of direction given over to Justin Lin of Fast and the Furious fame seemed to make a lot of fans uneasy.  Thankfully, all of our fears were for not because Star Trek Beyond is a success all the way through; not just as a continuation of the Star Trek franchise, but as a movie in general.  From beginning to end, this is a thoroughly enjoyable film, and probably the most fun I’ve had watching a movie all summer.  The action scenes are phenomenal, and very creatively staged.  The cast is engaged and clearly having fun.  The script is also much more in tone with the basics of what this series is about.  It should be noted that a draft of this screenplay was written by Simon Pegg (who plays Scotty in the movie) and his input brings a renewed focus to the series.  Pegg is clearly a fan of Star Trek and he manages to show that in his writing by essentially crafting a two hour episode of the series.  The crew encounters a strange, new world; do battle with the hostile force; and return home after saving the day as a team; nothing more complex than that, and it works.  Pegg doesn’t have to rely on paying homage to the past or rehashing old ideas in a new context.  Here, he just let’s the story and characters go about their business like they normally would, and that makes for a much more engaging adventure in this universe.  Also, a lot of credit should go to director Lin for managing to keep the momentum going in this series after the departure of it’s high profile director.  Trekkies, rest assured, your franchise is in good hands.

Before I go into the many great things that work in this film, I also want to point out that it’s not 100% perfect either.  I think that the while I do enjoy the direction of Justin Lin in this movie, it can sometimes veer dangerously close to incomprehensibility.  Lin’s style matches the frenetic vibe of the Fast and the Furious series perfectly, but it sometimes clashes a bit with the story being told here.  The pacing for instance suffers a bit from the quick-editing that Lin is more used to, at least in the film’s opening act, where plot points are thrown our way without much time to stick properly.  But, thankfully, when the film reaches the remote planet in the second act, it begins to settle down, and allows the narrative to flow out more naturally.  Lin’s style also helps to make the action scenes more kinetic than in past films, and thankfully it’s not in a way that feels out of place here.  Those of you worried about the image of Kirk riding a motorcycle that was shown in the trailer, be rest assured; it plays out much better in context and is not a forced injection of Fast and the Furious machismo into the Star Trek universe.  The only other negative working against the film is unfortunately the central villain, Krall.  He’s something of a weak, underwritten character who’s motivations are barely explored, and even when we find out more about his past, it’s kind of shoe-horned in very awkwardly.  This is more the fault of the screenplay rather than the actor playing him, because Idris Elba does try his very best and does leave somewhat of an impression.  The character is adequate, but never grabs our attention the same way that Eric Bana’s Nero or Benedict Cumberbatch’s Khan had done before.  Even still, the character could have been much more poorly handled, and it’s to the credit of Elba’s abilities as a performer that he works fine at all in this film.

Perhaps the film’s greatest strength would be the absolute stellar cast assembled for this series.  These actors were given the unenviable task of taking over iconic characters and making them their own, and each one of them has done a superb job.  Given that one of the stars of the film also served as screenwriter, it’s no surprise that much of the movie is devoted to building the interconnected relationships with one another.  What I love best about the film is that it attempts to pair up characters that don’t normally share screen-time together in this series and allows us to see what might happen as a result.  I especially liked the pairing of Spock and Bones in this film, as it gives the movie it’s most amusing subplot.  Spock, of all people, gets some of the film’s biggest laughs, and I thought it was a welcome surprise for this series to use the character this way, yet still remain true.  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, and everyone else continue to impress as these iconic characters; embodying the roles without falling into parody.  I also liked the fact that they’re able to find new angles to explore with them.  News broke earlier that this film was going to reveal that this version of Sulu is gay (something that original Sulu and out actor George Takei objected to, despite it being a special acknowledgement to him), but I was pleased to see that it was presented in a very subtle, non-exploitative way that does not change anything about the character at all; it’s just a nice added detail.  I also liked how well the new character of Jaylah fit into the story, and the character dynamics overall.  She could have easily have been a stereotypical tough girl character, but her determination and resourcefulness really helps to add something to the film, and it makes her a more interesting character as a result.  I think she works especially well because she is paired with Scotty for most of the movie, and their distinctive personalities mesh together surprisingly well.

Star Trek Beyond’s visuals are also noteworthy of praise.  The film supposedly had a smaller budget than Into Darkness, but you wouldn’t know it.  Amazingly, this movie feels quite epic in scope.  The most impressive centerpiece of the film is the Yorktown Space Station, a massive glass enclosed satellite base that’s other-worldly and breathtaking at the same time.  It gives the viewer a sense of awe and wonder that you normally don’t find regularly in the Star Trek franchise.  The Base also provides a perfect setting for the climatic battle at the end, which is a significant upgrade from the previous film, which end in a very lackluster way.  I especially loved the way that the cityscapes of the colossal base seemed to layer on top of one another, making the climax all the more eye-catching.  The planet where most of the film is set also is beautifully realized, and feels at times like a hearken back to the classic series itself; with rock quarries and the remote California deserts and forests acting as stand-ins for an alien world (although this time, Canada served as the location shooting for this film).  Overall it’s a movie that feels big without ever trying too hard to look big.  It’s all in how the visuals ended up being used I guess.  Justin Lin takes the best of what he’s learned from Fast and the Furious and gives Star Trek a consistent, non-flashy identity, and that’s to be commended.  J.J. Abrams sometimes distracting lens flares are no where to be seen this time around, and I think that’s a positive move for the series.  There’s noting groundbreaking in this Star Trek; it’s just pure solid action in service of the story rather than a distraction from it.

So, I would highly recommend seeing Star Trek Beyond.  It may not be the greatest we’ve seen from the Star Trek universe, but it’s a worthy addition that provides great thrills nonetheless.  The characters are all still wonderfully realized, and the movie allows them to play off one another in a very fun and engaging way.  I especially like the new direction that Justin Lin brought to this series, which was in danger of growing stale after Into Darkness seemed to take a step backward.  He gives the movie an impressive sense of scale, while at the same time never overwhelming us with the action either; allowing the characters to drive the story instead.  I also love the way that Simon Pegg brought a sense of fun back to this franchise with his script.  He doesn’t try to be sanctimonious or too smart with the material, which is a good thing.  He knows what Star Trek is supposed to be, and he just let’s it play out like it normally would, making the adventure all the more engaging.  My hope is that this team continues on this road in future installments, because it came together almost perfectly here.  Sadly, they’ll be missing a crucial piece with the sudden passing of Chekov actor Anton Yelchin, who thankfully gets more of a presence in this feature and likewise delivered with a great amount of charm in his role.  The movie also pays tribute to original Spock, Leonard Nimoy, in a respectful way, and how they eulogize him within the film is an incredibly touching moment.  Overall, this was one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had watching a movie this year.  Movies like Captain America: Civil War and Finding Dory may be better overall, but Star Trek Beyond might be the most fun cinematic experience you will have at the movies this summer season.  It’s blockbuster entertainment at it’s finest, and a very worthwhile way to honor the 50th anniversary of this monumental series.

Rating: 8.5/10