willgross Reviews

Star Trek: Picard (2020–2023)

Boldly going... Somewhere?

[5/10 · 9 June 2020]

Where do I even start with this show? How do I even begin to organize my wildly varying thoughts and feelings about it? When I think of its best moments, rating it a 5 seems overly harsh. When I think of its worst, that 5 seems overly generous. So more than anything I'm saying the show is deeply and crazily uneven. Your mileage will vary.

If you're looking to recapture that feeling you got watching syndicated TNG reruns as a 12-year old after completing your homework, you're not going to find that here... Oh, except for those rare moments where there's a high likelihood you will.

If you're disenchanted with the more action oriented direction the Star Trek franchise has taken, you're likely to remain disappointed... Except when you're not.

More than anything, Picard's first season feels like a disparate grab bag of ideas and references (virtually every prior iteration of Star Trek is referenced in some capacity here, even the 2009 reboot) awkwardly and not entirely convincingly stitched together. With that in mind, individual moments occasionally shine through, the cast is uniformly fine, and Jeff Russo's score is terrific. The story reaches for--and occasionally achieves--emotional resonance, but it's undermined by a lack of internal logic. Some plot threads go nowhere. Others appear out of nowhere, seemingly at random, serving no larger narrative purpose.

Overall I'm forced to admit that I think the show represents a swing and a miss. But I do appreciate the fact it at least took the swing.

Leave No Trace (2018)

Where's mom?

[6/10 · 17 July 2018]

What exactly happened to Will in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why does his PTSD only seem to lead to him wanting to live in the woods? He seems mostly functional aside from that, being a loving and supportive father. How long have they been living in the woods?

Maybe my reaction says more about me than it does about the movie. I went to see it with family members having never heard of it. I saw it had a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and I was sold. The score shouldn't be misinterpreted: it is a percentage of reviews that were more positive than negative, it is NOT saying the movie is X percentage good. Instead, it's the likelihood you will like something more than you dislike it. Since I gave the movie a 6/10, I suppose the RT score didn't let me down. If forced into a thumbs up/down binary choice, I would have to point mine up...

But just barely. I found the movie too slow, and the subject matter handled with an ambiguity that undermined its thematic intentions. Will bore no resemblance to any vets with PTSD that I've ever met (and I've met a few). His condition seems simultaneously exaggerated and downplayed, the way it effects him just didn't ring true for me. I do appreciate seeing a movie attempting to tackle the subject, however.

No fault on the part of the two leads, both of whom are terrific, and mining the most out of underwritten characters. Or the unobtrusive, simple, but lovely cinematography, which brilliantly captures Portland and its surrounding environs.

My weeping family members would probably be aghast that I was so Ho-hum on this one, and I don't expect this review to be popular, but since it is being so well received I felt the need to make a case for its genial mediocrity.

The Orville (2017–2022)

Unfunny comedy, tired themes, rehashed stories, and plagiarism

[3/10 · 1 October 2017]

It's not like plagiarism is anything new for the man who created 'Family Guy'. It's hard for me to think of another person in Hollywood who's been that derivative of other people's work, yet that successful. He must just be a very nice guy. Or, more likely, very good at knowing what some niche audiences will want, and giving it to them without a hint of imagination or creativity.

Others have said this, and I'll say it again: this is not a parody of 'Star Trek'. This is an utterly shameless ripoff of 'Star Trek' (specifically, 'Star Trek: The Next Generation') interspersed with unfunny jokes. Paramount/Viacom would probably have grounds to sue here (the level of mimicry goes all the way to the specific location of windows and bookshelves), although I'm sure the segment of Trekkies who've embraced the series would riot.

To be fair to the fans of 'The Orville', I have no doubt they sincerely enjoy it. Maybe nostalgia appeals more to them than it does to me. Maybe they just find jokes about using a replicator to make pot brownies and ice cream funnier than I do.

And to be fair to the show itself, despite all its derivativeness and unfunniness, it's cast is doing the best it possibly can with weak material (with the exception of MacFarlane himself, who's face is curiously light on expressions). Maybe that'll help the show out in the long run. The third episode, about an all male alien race forcing gender reassignment, might've worked without all that unfunny comedy getting in the way. It came closest to being interesting, amongst the episodes I watched. One episode later and I'm seeing a story that's already been done to death on multiple 'Star Trek' series going back to the original.

Maybe someday the show will hit its stride and carve out its own identity, much as 'Family Guy' did over time.

For now though, I can't join the chorus of 'Star Trek' fans who've embraced this. Yes, it's very 'Star Trek'-y. But it isn't very good.

Death Note (I) (2017)

A review from someone who isn't familiar with the source material

[5/10 · 26 August 2017]

The following review is spoiler free.

This movie—and the reaction to it—makes me contemplate how much one's response to a much anticipated sequel, reboot, or adaptation can vary depending on how familiar with or emotionally attached you are to the source material.

Full disclosure: I watched this film with zero knowledge of the property on which it is based. With that in mind, I can't bandwagon on any fan based criticisms about what the movie "got wrong" about the details of the mythology or characters.

What I will say—as a member of the uninitiated, writing this with other unknowing but curious potential viewers in mind—is that the film has some slick cinematography, a pretty good score, and a cast doing their best with dialogue that is often stupid, but never laughably so. I didn't hate the movie and wouldn't call it terrible.

Having said that, I can't really call it good either. It's probably been said too many times already by now, but watching this film is less like watching a movie and more like watching a 100-minute long trailer for one. This is owed to a script that seemingly packs an entire TV season's worth of plot into a single film. Niceties like character development and tension building are pretty much absent here. The movie simply doesn't have time as it rushes from one plot point to the next.

To be effective, generally a film should spend more time fleshing things out. Plot points flew at me so fast, at times I felt like I had whiplash. The movie is overstuffed and convoluted. Any interesting themes suggested by its premise are entirely absent. Substance, you will not find here. I may not be familiar with the Japanese original, but the film seems like a waste of an intriguing premise, too bogged down in unconvincing world building to say anything impactful, or make you feel much.

Again, the cast (with the possible exception of Willem Dafoe, who hams it the F up with a character more than a little reminiscent of the Green Goblin) is fine. They are doing a fine job with the material they are given. The cinematography and lightning are great looking. The score has a very retro 80s synth vibe to it. And I do find the premise interesting, even if I found the execution rushed and overstuffed. If you are interested in those things and don't care if the movie is completely lacking in scares, subtext, or much emotional impact, feel free to give it a watch. Otherwise, stay away.

Get Out (I) (2017)

Solidly crafted satirical horror film

[8/10 · 25 February 2017]

Jordan Peele, one half of the comedy sketch series "Key And Peele" turns out to be a maestro horror movie director. Who knew?

The film is not without it's laughs. They're all the bigger for their pitch perfect timing amidst the equally strong sense of unease and dread. The combination proves to be really potent, and the film blends it's humor, jump scares, atmosphere, and social satire seamlessly.

The cast is essentially perfect. The film is relatively small in scope. It lurches maybe a little too hard into genre thrills in the third act, and I suppose I think the final reveal could've been eased into a little more gracefully.

But on the whole, this is a very tense, funny movie with terrific performances and interesting ideas about the ubiquity of racism in society. Well worth checking out.

Star Trek (2009)

The best movie based on "Star Trek"

[10/10 · 22 July 2016]

I see you there! You, wearing the red shirt, pointing the phaser at me, accusing me of heresy.

But I didn't say "most faithful to the source material" or "Most scientifically accurate", I said best. J.J. Abrams 2009 reboot remains one of my favorite films of the past fifteen years, a summer blockbuster that moves at a relentless, almost heart-attack inducing pace. It tells the thrilling and moving story of a grief-stricken young man who attempts to drown his sorrows in a sea of booze and loose women. However, the reappearance of the man who killed his father gives him the chance to grow up and prove he can be a true leader.

I still see you pointing that phaser at me: No, that has nothing to do with Star Trek. What makes this film such a great one is how it broadens a 43-year old franchise to a wider audience. It serves as a sequel, prequel, and reboot to the previous films, and is not only equally satisfying in all three categories, it is emotional and exciting and accessible enough to be enjoyed by someone who either didn't know Star Trek or didn't even like it. And I know you want to kill or stun me—and I don't want to push you over the edge—but time travel and alternate realities aren't new in Star Trek. Your classic Trek tropes are alive and well in this movie. This movie doesn't do anything except inject the franchise with a much needed dose of humor, excitement, heart, and visual grandeur that had been far too lacking in this franchise, for far too long. It is, in the truest sense of the term, a crowd pleaser. 4 (out of 4)

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Going amicably enough where we've all gone before

[6/10 · 22 July 2016]

"Star Trek: Insurrection" is a mildly enjoyable entry for the film franchise. Much like "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier", ILM was left out of the effects work on this one and it shows. It shows big time. Unlike that film, this one is competent in other ways, despite shoddy effects work. Jonathan Frakes continued to prove he deserved to make it big as a director, and he continues the gentle good humor, quick pacing, and eye to detail he showed in the last installment. So to this day I am saddened he didn't make it as a big studio director, since he so clearly shows the talent for it.

The cast is fine, the story is bland but just engaging enough, and the movie generally achieves what it sets out to do. It might be one of the entries that is less accessible for the uninitiated, however. 3 (out of 4)

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Franchise Killer

[4/10 · 22 July 2016]

This is the movie that killed "Star Trek" in it's cinematic form for seven years. Unlike the crew of the original series, who gently sailed off to the second star on the right, straight on till morning, the next generation was awkwardly bludgeoned to death by this dull, redundant, ineffectual action film.

I'd like to keep my review short, and a good way to do that is to focus on what's good in this movie. There's a pre-stardom Tom Hardy playing Patrick Stewart's younger, eviler clone. Not that he's good in this (he's not), but it gives you a chance to see him before he became a real actor, so the movie holds interest for that reason.

And for all its failings the movie is full of good ideas that weren't explored properly. It's not a mess, just a slog. 1.5 (out of 4)

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Things are starting to feel a little... Episodic

[7/10 · 22 July 2016]

WARNING: Possible, minor Spoilers

There is probably nothing I could write about this film that hasn't already been written. So I'll just dispense with writing a full review and give you the cliff notes on what works and what doesn't in this film:

Pros• -Continued great performances from a great cast -More screen time for supporting characters in said cast -Great buddy duo in Spock and Dr. McCoy -Touching tributes to the late Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin. -Starbase Yorktown is the coolest space station since the Death Star -Climactic action scene -Funny opening scene -Sofia Boutella's character -A story structured like an episode of the original series

Cons (Khans?)• -A story structured like an episode of the original series. Yes, this new film is Star Trekkier than the last two films, but it also feels smaller -4th Star Trek film in a row with a villain who wants revenge against the Federation for muddled, somewhat incomprehensible reasons -Idris Elba's villain character isn't fleshed out enough -McGuffin -Action scenes are muddled and difficult to follow. They are shot with a lot of hand-held, shaky camera-work, dimly lit, and quickly edited. -Lacks Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek, i.e. No more philosophical or political or scientific than the last two films. -The early scene where the enterprise is destroyed goes on for far, far too long.

Well, that's what I thought, anyways. See it, it's good enough that your time will not go wasted. Or, don't see it, it's mediocre enough to pass on. 2.5 (out of 4)

Jurassic World (2015)

Nostalgic cash grab

[5/10 · 4 July 2016]

"Jurassic World" is the third sequel (or possibly second first sequel? I'll get to that later) to Jurassic Park, my favorite film from childhood. As a dinosaur obsessed six year old, I begged and begged my parents to take me to see that movie, until, despite media reports that the film was perhaps too frightening for its target audience (i.e., me) my parents relented and took me to see it shortly before it's VHS release.

Oh what wonders! My parents fears turned out to be unfounded, because I had come as close as I ever would to seeing what my six year old self wanted to see: dinosaurs in the flesh. How could I be frightened when I was this close to seeing my hearts desire? Admittedly, it is not that difficult to impress a six year old boy.

I probably watched Jurassic Park 300,000 times between the ages of six and thirteen. It was undoubtedly my favorite film from childhood. I absolutely loved that film.

In 2011, many years after I had last seen Jurassic Park, a local theater had a "classic movie night". This is also several years before Jurassic Park was converted into 3D for an official rerelease. Rewatching it, I was shocked at how well it held up, particularly the visual effects. Although my dinosaur obsession died before I reached adulthood (you could say went extinct, har har) my love of movies carried on, and Jurassic Park is truly a great movie. It has astonishing visual effects, tense and terrifying action sequences, likable and interesting characters, great performances from the cast, a far fetched but imaginative and intriguing plot, and has (almost inarguably) not been matched in terms of quality by any "summer blockbuster" made by Steven Spielberg since then.

But I'm supposed to be writing a review of Jurassic World, which has none of those things. A not-quite-remake, not-quite-sequel to Jurassic Park, Jurassic World (as of my writing this) quickly became the third highest grossing film of all time (and quickly dropped to fourth after the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens). Obviously, I wasn't the only person anticipating this one. Despite eye rolling trailers and a general sense of "been there, ate that", I was going to see this movie no matter what.

I am going to keep this review spoiler free, although I must say that the movie's plot makes very little sense in the context of the first two sequels to Jurassic Park. Indeed, while the first movie is referenced frequently both directly and indirectly, the sequels are treated as if they never happened. Whether this means that this is a "selective sequel" (striking The Lost World and Jurassic Park 3 from continuity), or simply that Jurassic World is lazy with its continuity, is almost besides the point. 2&3: hate em. Let's forget about them.

I'd be more okay with this tact if what was made was better. Jurassic World seems to have two somewhat contradictory goals: remaking Jurassic Park, and making a sequel to it. And in the sequel department, the writers have come up with a plot that seems to throw sh!t at the wall and see what sticks.

Problem is, a lot of it doesn't. The plot is loose and all over the place. The tone is wobbly. The characters wooden, the performances uneven, and the visual effects no more spectacular than anything else released in 2015. Action scenes tend to carry little emotional weight.

Which isn't to say that the movie is terrible, or even outright bad. It's not. Individual scenes, moments, and plot threads work just fine. They just don't congeal into a satisfying whole.

Unlike Jurassic Park, which I made the mistake of rewatching immediately after this movie, for the first time since 2011. I was amazed at how well it held up, and how much better it is than this film is. This is an unnecessary remake. It is an unnecessary sequel.

But we all wanted to see it. Hence: 4th highest grossing film of all time.