J.J. Abrams Double Feature

    From the very moment the finale of the Lost pilot episode finished, I found myself hooked. Its sheer magnitude and quality blew me away: how could a television show look so much like a film? The answer was not just money (the episode costing over 11 million dollars), but also the genius behind the camera. Director J.J. Abrams proved himself that day I watched Lost, and it was not until 2006 that I realized just how genius this man truly is. Mission Impossible III looked promising in trailers, and despite the troubles Cruise was having with my comrades, I ventured to the theaters to watch what I quickly realized it was a masterpiece. 

     The quick cutting was not new. The spy tools weren't new. What was new was the non-stop action, the beautifully crafted story, and the sheer beauty of the film. To anyone unfamiliar with the IMF concept, it's a fun, engaging and entirely engrossing film, and to anyone who knows IMF like the back of their hands, the film is fun, engaging and engrossing, while feeling fresh: Ethan Hunt pumped with adrenaline and revitalized. 

     Now in retirement, Ethan Hunt, IMF (Impossible Mission(s) Force) agent, is engaged to a beautiful, loving women. When he is called to perform one more mission to save one of his trainees, he finds himself entangled in a web of lies and deciet that lead him to Rome, Berlin, Tokyo and Shanghai in search of "the rabbits foot." 

     The film is J.J. Abrams' first feature film, one that no one can deny is edgy and exciting. The use of color to set the mood is used so well that you could watch the raw footage without sound and get the right emotion. The use of exposure and lighting only enhances the color, and makes the appropriate things pop on screen. Music, provided by Michael Giacchino (and based on Lalo Shifrin's original theme from the tv show) builds on the emotion even further. And finally, the editing brings it all together.

     Even further, the direction given the actors and the acting itself is superb. Tom Cruise may play the only character he knows how to, but it Abrams makes it fit, makes it work as part of the story, the drama. The co-stars keep up with Cruise's ego with their own impeccable acting, and it all comes together to make the best Mission impossible (and one of the best Cruise) films yet.

     Three years later, Abrams' Star Trek is released in theaters. It is his second film, and an attempt by studios to revitalize the Star Trek franchise. Like the six year period between Mission Impossible II and Mission Impossible III, the seven year break Star Trek took from producing another film was a well-needed one. Although the series had made the switch from the first Generation to the Next Generation, the films quickly lost value, and Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) earned a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics.
     Like M:i:III, Star Trek (2009) brought new life to the series. Something fresh, bold and exciting. Although many Trekkers might say that the film isn't a true Star Trek film, since the storyline and characters don't follow the original plot. Even though this is true, the story maintains that everything that has happened since the beginning of Star Trek remains true, we've simply traveled back in time to create an "alternate reality."
     This reality is fun, fast and action-packed. There's really a non-stop flow of action and adrenaline pumping through the film at all times. It's all at once new and familiar, with enough suspense to hold your breath and attention through the entire film.
     Abrams' use of color is still present, each planet popping, every deck on the Enterprise blindingly colorful. The lighting has that familiar play with exposure, with something new added: Lens flares. Some might get sick with all the light flashing in their eyes, but it makes the entire world of Star Trek seem more brilliant and bright. Of course Giacchino's score expounds upon the film's brilliance again, pulling the film together after it's beautiful editing cut it apart.

    Abrams has continually wowed me both at the theater (as director and producer) and on the TV (Lost, Fringe), and I don't doubt that I'll once again be amazed with his upcoming feature Super 8 due to be released in 2011.

Them (2006)

            It is at least a trifle ridiculous that online forums argue about character development between this French film and the 2008 American remake, The Strangers.  Neither film relies on character development, not even in part.  The closest we get to understanding the protagonist victims is through the repetition of poor decisions that leave them subject to further torture.

            The film here remains superior to the glossier English version.  The opening sequence could itself function as a taut if unmotivated horror short with no explanation and no qualms about being that way. In fact, it bears only minor connection to the tortured stars of the rest of the film, a simple intro to the savagery to come.  This is certainly where both films are on par and is thematically, the source of any and all horror.

            The unmotivated and casual terror employed by the strangers demands an explanation and remains unnerving in its absence.  We can explain very easily the vampire and werewolf and countless other monsters, supernatural or not.  We can explain serial killers and demented minds whose stories develop their abnormality as the point of fear.  And, of course, we can explain the ingenious ability of the human mind to perpetuate

A Book: The Way Hollywood Tells It.

David Bordwell has amassed an impressive amount of film writings and his knowledge of the subject is never more evident than it is here. In two parts, composed modestly of four chapters each, Bordwell traces the changes in how films are made by evaluated their stories and styles. He theorizes that the way films are made now are not in fact that much different than older films. With ample references to hundreds of film examples he traces similarities and differences between the films of yesterday and today.

Bordwell’s thoughtful and impressive ideas are worth more than one view and are articulately supported by the reels of film history. It’s puzzling how he has so much time to watch as many films as he does but still write about them. The book was published in 2006 and includes an excellent and informative appendix giving a Hollywood timeline from the year 1960 until 2004. I have encountered a few other Bordwell books thus far in my education and always find them thorough, somewhat daunting, and incontrovertibly helpful.