Mission: Impossible III

Dir: J.J. Abrams

2006

**

Ten years had passed since the original Mission: Impossible reboot and the tone still wasn't quite right. The first film had a lot going for it but overdid the action somewhat. The second film outdid the first and turned itself into a ridiculous action film with Tom Cruise becoming a short and skinny version of Bruce Willis - in a wig. The espionage, the heart of what Mission: Impossible was all about, was absent without leave. The gaps between the films suggests that no one was really sure what tone the films should have or what direction the franchise should go toward. Directors David Fincher and Joe Carnahan were both attached to the third film and both walked after differences over 'tone' and 'direction'. Carnahan gave 15 months of his life to the project and years later Fincher pondered on his time attached to the project and said "I think the problem with third movies is the people who are financing them are experts on how they should be made and what they should be. At that point, when you own a franchise like that, you want to get rid of any extraneous opinions." Actors Kenneth Branagh, Carrie-Anne Moss and Scarlett Johansson were at one point attached but later walked after delays. Thandie Newton was asked to reprise her role from the previous film but declined, she had seen success in 2004's overrated drama Crash but I'm not sure it was the sort of thing she could afford to pass over, she made Norbit instead which kind of says it all. I'm surprised the film even got made, if it weren't for the money they made in the last two films it wouldn't but they really had to pull something out of the bag. In my opinion, they didn't but it was an improvement on the last. J.J. Abrams was approached by Cruise after he had spent a weekend binge-watching the entire series of Alias. It was a risk hiring him considering he hadn't directed a feature before but the film certainly looked better than the previous films. The story however is still not in keeping with the Mission: Impossible style. The action was toned down and there was more espionage but the whole retired-spy-rejoins-the-team-to-rescue-his-new-wife-from-evil-genius was a bit naff by 2006, making it feel like a completely different entity, a rejected Bond script at best. The film boasts an impressive cast of acting talent including Philip Seymour Hoffman, Billy Crudup, Michelle Monaghan, Eddie Marsan and Laurence Fishburne but the lack of decent script or good direction from Abrams leaves the movie with no great performance. However, Simon Pegg returned and character's chemistry with Cruise's Ethan Hunt was a highlight and certainly planted a seed that I believe saved the franchise.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Dir: J.J. Abrams

2015

***

Although there have been three Star Wars films since 1983's The Return of the Jedi, this is the one that the fans had been waiting for. I didn't like the prequels much. The Phantom Menace was too cartoon like, Attack of the Clones wasted too many opportunities and Revenge of the Sith was a little too much too late. I appreciate them now far more than I did before viewing The Force Awakens. J.J. Abrams' idea of giving the people what they want is of course giving them something they've already had, like it not, it works and makes lots of money. Personally, I don't like it and I wish he'd step away from the franchises. He added very little to the Mission Impossible films, Lost was a TV show with a great beginning but a complete lack of direction, Super 8 (his best film thus far) was a sickly sweet love letter to Steven Spielberg and he made it abundantly clear that he wasn't a fan nor was he really interested in the Star Trek universe. Star Trek was the work of a director so lazy that he was happy to throw nearly fifty years worth of history out the window because he had no time for continuity. The sequel, Star Trek into Darkness was such a misstep that the fans voted it thirteenth out of the twelve Trek movies made at that point. Abrams stands on the shoulders of giants and mistakenly thinks he is one of them. The Force Awakens needed to have the right balance of new and old, I believe this was achieved but the new was far, far better than the old. A new Star Wars without the classic line up would have been a hard sell, they had to return and so they did. Good. However, what they have become and what happened since the last time we saw them left me disappointed. They should have added magic to the film, instead they held it back somewhat. I've often daydreamed about what it would be like to see my Grandparents again. Wouldn't it be wonderful, to talk to them and see them one last time? Sitting down to watch a new Star Wars film felt a bit like that, however, the fact of the matter was that instead of a pleasant conversation and a catch up it was actually more like sitting in a room with a couple of corpses who really didn't want to be there. I've met Carrie Fisher in real life, she gave me a big hug. I adore her. She is wasted in this film. I'm certainly not saying that the original actors are too old, far from it. I do feel they were treated that way though, each deserved a better entrance than the one they got and each character had their own personal anti-climactic introduction. The missed opportunities are countless, for once I think they should have milked the brief appearances of original cast for all they could. The first time we see C3PO he introduces himself and states that he is probably unrecognizable due to having a new red arm. His red arm is never explained, maybe it will be in the future but I saw this as being one of two things. Firstly, the Toy manufactures have a new Toy. Collectors now have to get an all Gold doll and the one with the red arm. Toy manufactures shouldn't have a say in a film's plot. Secondly, I saw it as a swipe at the nerds and the fanboys. We love a bit of speculation and some inane discussions can go too far, this we acknowledge, it's all part of the fun. However, here it feels like we've been thrown a tidbit or a red herring. We're being mocked. If we're not being mocked then it's just stupid writing, either way, it's not good.

Okay, it's not all bad. Far from it in fact. I absolutely loved the first half of the film. Some of the cinematography is stunning. The long shot desert scene with the long since crashed Star Destroyer in the background is beautiful. I loved the fact that Rey (played by the impressive Daisy Ridley) lives in the foot of an old AT-AT. These little echos of the old films were brilliant and should have remained along these subtle lines. John Boyega's performance was fantastic, it should certainly silence all those who have been derogatory about him before now. Both Boyega and Ridley capture the essence of Star Wars. Oscar Isaac's role is short but sweet and I very much look forward to seeing more from his character. Along with the adorable BB8 (easily the best thing about the new film), you have the perfect team of successors. Over on the dark side, Adam Driver delivers a complex and intriguing villain and Domhnall Gleeson gives the usual throw away role of General a bit more of a bite. Both are excellent. The Jury is well and truly out with regards to Andy Serkis' Supreme Leader Snoke but first impressions aren't great and I'm pretty sure Serkis has already played this character, albeit a little bit smaller. Never the less, the first half is great, really great, it really does feel like Star Wars. It's only when the old cast come in does it not. It's like when you're cooking or doing a bit of DIY at home and your Dad comes in and takes over to 'show you how it's done properly'. He takes far longer than you to do it and the end result actually isn't as good as your initial efforts. You just have to stand there awkwardly and watch him do it anyway.

In conclusion, it starts off great and then turns into a half-hearted remake of A New Hope. Having similarities is fine but this is too close to the original. Say what you will about the prequels (and even Star Wars Holiday Special) but at least they were original. Maybe it's a big ploy in order to make the next episode greater and to pull off a 'Sequel better than the first' trick like they did with Empire Strikes Back but that's probably giving JJ a little too much credit. It really puzzles me how he let the film go from 'stunning' to 'cheap looking made for TV' in just a matter of minutes. He really needs to sort out the humour levels too as very few of the jokes worked. In fact it might just be easier to hand the whole thing over to someone else, quick, before we get Star Wars into Darkness. I will of course revisit and I dare say rewrite this review in Dec 2019 when the trilogy is complete. I've heard a few people comment that they left the cinema with big grins on their faces. I'm afraid I just felt bummed out. There was a great Star Wars film out this year though, it's wasn't this one but a documentary called Elstree 1976 that really captured the essence and magic of the originals. The Force Awakens has a bit of essence and magic but not enough to make a cake out of. Break it down and it's just another JJ remake.

Super 8
Dir: J.J. Abrams
2011
***
J.J. Abrams is the new king of post-production, he knows how to sell his films and to be fair he also knows how to start a story and get the audience hooked. It's just a shame he's not so good at ending them. Super 8 works as a tribute to the child-friendly sci-fi 80's films of directors such as Steven Spielberg and Joe Dante, but it has very little of that 'Summer blockbuster' magic. Super 8 is fun, there really isn't anything wrong with it, but it does not live up to the hype, in fact the ending is just so disappointing, I felt stupid in getting so excited by it in the first place. I thought the original concept was that the whole thing was caught on camera by a group of kids on their Super 8 camera? In the end, the Super 8 film they were making was so unimportant that you wonder why it got its name. In my opinion, they should have got a director such as Frank Darabont in for a re-write and given him directional duties, then I believe it could have been great instead of just okay. J.J. Abrams comes across to me as a great pretender.

Star Trek Into Darkness
Dir: J.J. Abrams
2013
*
I gave the first film a 2 star rating. I'm a Trekkie and I didn't think they respected the original idea or found what made it special. I liked it for its special effects and not much else. So, here we are at the sequel. The trailers looked good so I thought why not. I'll put the fact I thought they short-changed the fans to one side, I'll overlook that J.J. Abrams was quoted as saying that he wasn't a fan of the original and that he changed the time-line purely so he wouldn't have to bother with any continuity and I will try to forget the fact that it is all nothing but an uncreative exercise in making money from an old and much loved series that was a revolutionary idea that changed opinions and television forever (Star Trek was the first and only TV program to have an Asian, a Black and a Russian as main characters, and it had all three - and this was at the height of race riots and the cold war). Anyway, like I said, I'll put that to one side, you can't take away the original, let's just see what they do with the story/characters. Guess what. I didn't like it. Firstly, there was so much hype and speculation that Benedict Cumberbatch was going to play fan favourite Khan. Sacrilege to the fans but this was rebuked by Abrams, Cumberbatch and producers. Phew! So imagine my surprise then halfway through the film when Cumberbatch declares "My name is Khan". Okay Mr, Abrams, which is it, a new and fresh take on the story and characters or just a rehash/remake of the original films? Stick your internet hype up yer bum. You can't say one thing and do another and not expect people, especially the fans, to be just that little bit upset. You do not mess with The Wrath of Khan! That is probably the worst thing you could do. Surely he wouldn't try to recreate that scene would he? Yup, you bet he would! Utter sacrilege. Trekkie or not, that scene at the end of Wrath of Khan is a beautiful moment, it works because Shatner's Kirk and Nimoy's Spock had history, real history, they had put the hard work in and they earn't people's love and respect, you can't just copy them and expect the same love and admiration in return. There is plenty you could do though, new stories and ideas to explore but they don't. A tribble scene is not enough to satisfy the hardcore. What about the Klingons? Their reintroduction into the franchise could have been brilliant but it was rubbish. Characters are used for a bit, thrown to one side and used again just before you forget they're still around. How about writing an original story? Any story! People running around in circles is not the same as having a story. The original TV shows and films explored new ideas and pushed the boundaries of the human imagination. Here we just have a bunch of people in Star Trek fancy dress running around a bit and occasionally falling over. Rubbish. The SFX were good but that again is about all I enjoyed. Why does Scotty have that stupid small alien thing with him anyway? Is Deep Roy going to be the new R2-D2 by any chance? Good luck Star Wars, you're going to need it. I honestly think 1998's Lost in Space has more credibility. This is the worst kind of remake, pretending to be something original when it clearly isn't and sadly the way things are now. I look at it and think, 100 really good films could have been made for the money it cost to make this crap and that makes me sad.

Star Trek
Dir: J.J. Abrams
2009
**
I'm a bit of a Trekkie, not an obsessive, I just like a bit of Star Trek action from time to time. I watched the original series and The Next Generation and have seen every film version in the cinema starting with Star Trek 3: The search for Spock. So I was always going to see this film. I really didn't think it was going to be any more than just a bit of fun and that was fine with me and...it was fun! The special effects were fantastic. For the first quarter I was really entertained, things were looking really good and I'd convinced myself that I'd be been giving this a 4 star rating, but as you can see from my rating, things took a turn for the worst!
It breaks down like this; Firstly, it's not all bad. There are some really nice touches here. The inclusion of the Kobyashi Maru test, the guy in the 'red shirt' getting it in the neck on the first away mission, Karl Urban as 'Bones', all fantastic ideas but that's as far as it goes. Pine and Quinto do a good job as the two leads but their hands were tied by a crap script and it ended up tarnishing their performances. Spock was far too emotional and Kirk was far too arrogant. The same problem goes for the rest of the cast too; Anton Yelchin sounded Russian and John Cho is Asian, that's as close as they got to Chekov and Sulu. Simon Pegg is an actor I'm very much going off, so I won't get started with that one. Eric Bana was wasted too but he didn't help himself with what is a dull performance that puts him level pegging with Tom Hardy (Star Trek: Nemesis) as the worst bad guy in a Star Trek film. Oh, and since when was Uhura such a slut?
Anyway, I could go on all day. The main thing I'm pissed off about is the lazy Director/producers/writers (I'm looking at you JJ Abrams and Roberto Orci). They know that the fans would 'nit pick' so they came up with a simple solution. Create an alternative universe so that continuity doesn't matter and they only have to do very little research. If you can't better the story, just go ahead and rewrite it. A huge slap in the face for the fans, the people who made it a hit in the first place! LAZY FILM MAKING!!! This could have been great but it's not, it's just another Hollywood money spinner and we all fell for it again. Apart from the kids that is, who I'm afraid seem past saving and are so used to being spoon fed this crap they made it the big hit that it is! I'm only giving it 2 stars for Karl Urban and because the effects were so good (apart from the bloody lens flare that is).