Like millions of others, I was saddened to learn Friday that “Star Trek” star Leonard Nimoy died at 83. Nimoy, who of course, embodied Mr. Spock in the “Star Trek” TV series and many of the subsequent “Star Trek” movies, truly deserved his label as an icon, given the amount of impact he had on popular culture here and the world over for nearly five decades.
I had the opportunity to interview Nimoy one time over the years, and it couldn’t have been for a better project: J.J. Abrams’ reboot of the “Star Trek” movie franchise. A fascinating and charming gentleman, Nimoy shared with me in an interview for Internet Broadcasting his thoughts on passing Spock’s torch to Zachary Quinto, and how he played the future Spock (aka, Spock Prime) in the film felt in a way like a bookend to the role.
“I think that Spock and I have really merged. I’m totally comfortable with where I am and so is Spock,” Nimoy said. “Zachary is playing a character that still has to find himself, and he comes to a point at the end of this movie, which I think is just wonderful, where he takes the final step to becoming the Spock I played in the original series.”
Nimoy also shared with me his hopes of his longtime friend and co-star, William Shatner, somehow returning to the franchise.
“Bill Shatner and I are very close friends and we see each other quite regularly, and we get together with our wives have dinner quite frequently,” said Nimoy, who was 78 at the time of the interview. “I’m sorry he’s not in this film. I hope that it’s pretty clear that it would have been difficult to include him because of the backstory on Kirk. They did offer him a role in this movie, but I guess he didn’t believe it was appropriate for him to be doing what they offered … I had no idea what the role was. Bill and I have not talked about it. It’s just understood that this is a movie that he’s not in.”
It’s not a full recovery, but Will Smith is definitely looking sharp again following his sci-fi disaster “After Earth” with “Focus,” a con-game thriller that’s fuzzy around the edges but overall comes out a winner.
Smith plays Nicky, the head of a pick-pocket ring who recruits Jess (Margot Robbie) to become a part of his crew after she unsuccessfully tries to pull a con on him at a hotel. A quick study, Jess also falls for Nicky at the same time, and the expert and protégé soon become lovers.
After using her in an elaborate con that takes a wealthy gambler for a ride through the power of suggestion, Nicky unceremoniously dumps Jess, only to cross paths with her three years later as he launches a plan for the biggest swindle of his life. The problem is, Nicky seems to still have feelings for his old love, which only complicates his scheme – and naturally, things can turn deadly if everything doesn’t go off just right.
Co-writers and directors Glenn Ficcara and John Requa have the wheels constantly turning in “Focus,” which not surprisingly as a con-artist movie has plot twists bubbling under the surface the entire time. And while the payoff takes a bit of time to unfold, it’s still fun trying to figure out exactly what kind of con is going to be pulled off and who exactly is going to execute it, even if it’s done in a cold and calculated manner.
While the ultimate con is fully explained by the end of “Focus,” the big mystery that remains for audiences is how Nicky and Jess in reality could possibly even like one other, considering the mean-spirited stunts each of them will employ to get and stay ahead in the game. But as a movie couple, Smith and Robbie (Leonardo DiCaprio’s wife in “The Wolf of Wall Street”) definitely work well together, which ultimately makes us suckers because we want to root for them despite their major flaws. In a way, the con in “Focus” is much more on the audience than it is the people marked for swindle in the film.
Click book cover for info on how to buy!
“The Lazarus Effect” (PG-13) 2 1/2 stars (out of four)
Stupid human characters aside — almost a prerequisite for horror movies — the new back-from-the-dead thriller “The Lazarus Effect” is good for what it is. An amalgam of several different scary movies and mind-bending thrillers, “Lazarus” gets it life from a good cast and examination of concepts not often found in your average horror movie.
Olivia Wilde and Mark Duplass star as Zoe and Frank, who along with fellow scientists Niko (Donald Glover) and Clay (“American Horror Story” standout Evan Peters) are working on a serum that is meant sustain brain function in clinically dead patients while they are being revived.
While experimenting on a dead dog, the team discovers that the substance – dubbed the “Lazarus Serum” – not only sustains brain function but enhances it, gives the animal powers that can’t fully be explained. Despite the obvious risks, Frank uses the serum on Zoe after she is electrocuted in a follow-up experiment, spawning frightening, unintended consequences that not only endanger Zoe, but her fellow scientists.
“The Lazarus Effect” seems to borrow its inspiration from several different movies, from “Flatliners,” “Pet Sematary” and “The Shining,” to any number of Freddy Krueger’s “Nightmare on Elm Street” movies and “X-Men: The Last Stand” — as Zoe’s behavior tends to mimic Dark Phoenix during her fits of uncontrollable fury.
More than anything, though, “The Lazarus Effect” examines, like in the Scarlett Johansson summer blockbuster “Lucy,” the potential of the brain’s power if used beyond 10 percent of its capacity.
The result is much less outlandish than the lengths we see in “Lucy,” as Zoe not only can move items and read other people’s thoughts, but manage to possess people’s minds to the extent that they’re placed in the nightmare that’s been haunting her since she was a child. The notion the film examines is that hell after death is essentially the person’s worst nightmare suffered during their life — and Zoe is trapped in it because the Lazarus Serum prevented her from dying and passing through the gateway to the other side.
Aside from a big twist and the mind-bending aspects of the narrative, “The Lazarus Effect” on the whole is fairly predictable. There are plenty of jump-out-at-you moments (some you will see coming, others will take you off-guard), and the naturally, the door is left open for a sequel. Despite its faults, horror fans will still likely get a charge of “The Lazarus Effect,” which is mostly void of blood and gore because of its PG-13 rating. Ultimately, “The Lazarus Effect” is sort of a thinking person’s horror movie, even though its characters do the dumbest things imaginable in the name of science.
Tim Lammers is a veteran entertainment reporter and a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, and annually votes on the Critics Choice Movie Awards. Locally, he reviews films for “KARE 11 News at 11” and various Minnesota radio stations.
The 87th annual Oscars are Sunday night, bringing to an end another controversial awards season. At this point with all the guild awards decided, it’s pretty clear who and what film will win the big prize, although I personally hope for some big upsets just to keep the perennial overlong night interesting.
As usual, my predictions aren’t a reflection of who and what I hope will win, but educated guesses based on voting trends throughout the awards season. Of course, no one — no one — is a sure thing (remember Juliette Binoche upsetting Lauren Bacall?), so included in the picks is a wild card in each major category.
Best Supporting Actress nominees: Patricia Arquette, “Boyhood”; Laura Dern, “Wild”; Keira Knightley, “The Imitation Game”; Emma Stone, “Birdman”; Meryl Streep, “Into the Woods.”
Analysis: This category will likely signal the overrated “Boyhood’s” only big win for the night, but if any categories have upsets, it’s the supporting acting ones. Perennial nominee Streep generally bulldozes everyone she’s up against, and this year is no different. Arquette’s performance is the best of all those in “Boyhood,” but all the awards love for the movie is still mystifying.
Count Arquette’s win as the Academy’s tip of the cap to the year’s most gimmicky movie. A Dern win would be a salute to not one, but three Hollywood acting stalwarts: Dern and her parents Bruce Dern (who should have won for “Nebraska” last year) and Diane Ladd, but don’t hold your breath.
Will Win: Arquette.
Should Win: Streep.
Potential Upset: Dern.
Best Supporting Actor nominees: Robert Duvall, “The Judge”; Ethan Hawke, “Boyhood”; Edward Norton, “Birdman”; Mark Ruffalo, “Foxcatcher”; J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash.”
Analysis: Not only has Simmons proven to be a great actor who has consistently delivered in his roles over the years, his turn as the vitriolic jazz conservatory conductor in “Whiplash” is hands-down the best nominated performance across all of the categories.
“Birdman” is shaping up to be this year’s awards juggernaut, and Norton — who is brilliant in the movie — could be a benefactor of that. Duvall, who is terrific as usual in “The Judge,” would be a shoo-in as a sentimental winner, but he already has an Oscar thanks to “Tender Mercies.”
Will Win: Simmons
Should Win: Simmons.
Potential Upset: Norton.
Click book cover for info on how to buy!
Best Actress nominees: Marion Cotillard, “Two Days, One Night”; Felicity Jones, “The Theory of Everything”; Julianne Moore, “Still Alice”; Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl”; Reese Witherspoon, “Wild.”
Analysis: With five Oscar nominations (including this year) to her credit, Moore is long-overdue. But this award isn’t being earned by Moore for sentimental purposes: Her turn as an early-onset Alzheimer’s disease patient is heartbreaking and emotionally exhausting, and one that stays with you long after the credits roll.
Cotillard (who previously upset Julie Christie, oddly enough, in Christie’s Alzheimer’s-themed movie “Away From Her”) and Witherspoon don’t have a chance because they’re won in the category before and it’s hard to repeat, and Jones, while great, is simply over-matched in the category. An upset for Pike’s ultimate ice queen role in “Gone Girl” would be a way to rectify the Academy huge oversights in several categories — including Best Picture and Best Director (for David Fincher) — in what is easily one of the best films of the year.
Will Win: Moore.
Should Win: Moore.
Potential Upset: Pike.
Best Actor nominees: Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher”; Bradley Cooper, “American Sniper”; Benedict Cumberbatch, “The Imitation Game”; Michael Keaton, “Birdman”; Eddie Redmayne, “The Theory of Everything.”
Analysis: Keaton’s career performance in “Birdman” has dominated most of this year’s awards season, and since he’s sidestepped personal controversy (i.e., he’s said all the right things in his acceptance speeches and has been genuinely gracious) the award has been his to lose. Keaton is brilliant in the role with a fine mix of comedy and drama, but Cooper took the biggest risk with his moving, understated turn as late Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle.
It’s not a flashy role, but yet somehow you can sense the inner-turmoil of Kyle as deals with the stress of the battlefield and suppressing his emotions on the home front. It’s an amazingly subtle role and a gutsy move for an Cooper since it flies in the face of Hollywood’s political ideas.
As much as Cooper deserves to win, the only possible person capable of upsetting Keaton is Redmayne, who gives a “My Left Foot” Daniel Day-Lewis-caliber performance as Stephen Hawking in “The Theory of Everything.” His unlikely Screen Actors Guild upset opened the door for a possible upset at the Oscars, but don’t bet on it. Carell’s and Cumberbatch’s nominations are well deserved, so don’t be surprised to see future noms, especially for the latter.
Will Win: Keaton.
Should Win: Cooper.
Potential Upset: Redmayne.
Best Picture nominees: “American Sniper”; “Birdman”; “Boyhood”; “The Grand Budapest Hotel”; “The Imitation Game”; “Selma”; “The Theory of Everything”; “Whiplash.”
Analysis: The race all along this awards season has appeared to be an even match between “Birdman” and “Boyhood,” but then a surprising surge with “American Sniper” (and a $300 million North American box office) with a strong showing in the nominations suddenly made the race that much more interesting.
Conventional thinking at the moment points to a big night for “Birdman,” since it has taken top honors with the Producers Guild of America, the Directors Guild of America (for Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu – who will also win the Best Director Oscar) and the Screen Actors Guild Best Ensemble Award (the equivalent for a Best Picture prize) — so don’t be shocked when it when it wins the Best Picture Oscar.
As refreshing and inventive as “Birdman” is, remember 2015 as the year the chickens come home to roost on Hollywood. The Academy will appear completely out of touch with Middle America for not naming “American Sniper” its Best Picture; even more so if it goes the upset route and names the low-budget, gimmicky “Boyhood” as “the best.”
A film that rightfully puts the focus squarely on the American soldier and his or her families (and avoids the politics of war), “American Sniper” has had a profound emotional experience on viewers, and it will no doubt enrage them when it is passed over (watch out, Twitter!). Ultimately, if one film is going to make Hollywood stand up and listen to its audiences, this is the one, but they’re too afraid to honor a movie with ties to the right wing by default.
“Fifty Shades of Grey” (R) 1 1/2 stars (out of four)
For those skeptical of the hype surrounding the film version of “Fifty Shades of Grey,” you may be disappointed to find out that it isn’t laughably bad. That’s not to say it isn’t bad – it very much is – but just bad in a boring, overwrought soap opera-eqsue sort of way.
There are some laughs, to be sure – some intentional, some not – and without them, “Grey” would have been completely without color. Inspired by “Twilight” fan fiction, “Fifty Shades of Grey” – based on the first book in author E.L. James’ international best-selling erotic trilogy – fares far better than the promising-but-eventually-dreadful vampire novel-turned-movie series, especially in the lead actress category and the perpetually mopey Kristen Stewart.
For the uninitiated, “Fifty Shades of Grey” follows the “unusual behavior” (as the MPAA describes in its ratings block) of Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan), a steely billionaire businessman who takes a curious interest in Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson), an English literature student who fills in for her sick roommate to do an interview with Grey.
Challenging the control freak Grey’s answers, Anastasia suddenly becomes the intense focus of the 28-year-old magnate, and a bizarre courtship begins. Even though Christian is reserved, devoid of emotion and proclaims he “doesn’t do romance,” Anastasia becomes mesmerized with him, only to learn that he wants her to become a “submissive” to his “dominant” in his secret, lurid practice of BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism), which he acts out in his swanky apartment’s “playroom.” Intensely pursuing Anastasia, Christian – who is clearly damaged goods from previous BDSM and childhood traumas – imposes a literal contract on the woman, which, if she signs, will effectively bind her to fulfill his every desire at any time, no questions asked.
“Fifty Shades of Grey” had the odds stacked against it going in, considering that director Sam Taylor-Johnson was given the daunting task of delivering an R-rated interpretation of a novel deemed by many to be pornographic. Instead, Taylor-Johnson reportedly tried to make “Fifty Shades” a love story; a baffling interpretation in that it involves sickening behavior that includes beatings (albeit consensual) with a belt, among other bizarre, sexually-infused, control-driven practices.
It’s that behavior during the movie’s 20 minutes of combined sex scenes that’s clearly the most disturbing thing to come out of “Fifty Shades.” Thankfully, there’s at least one laughable moment in one of the “playroom” scenes, where Christian strokes Anastasia with a peacock feather before lashing her (in a ridiculous slow-motion sequence) with what appears to be a softer version of a cat o’ nine tails.
Of course, it becomes clear that Anastasia’s quest is to cure Christian of his deviance and heal his pain, which apparently will play out as the film saga progresses. Right now, though, as a standalone film, Christian essentially comes off as a sexual predator who won’t stop stalking the innocent Anastasia until he gets exactly what he wants.
As for the film’s sex scenes, while there’s a fair amount of skin shown, there’s no full-frontal nudity involved. In addition, there’s really no intensity there, and quite frankly, the scenes are quite boring.
The big surprise of “Fifty Shades of Grey” is that Dakota Johnson – daughter of acting stalwarts Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith – is actually pretty good as Anastasia. She certainly wasn’t the first choice of readers to play the virginal, dowdy character (Alexis Bledel topped a lot of fan polls), but Johnson clearly captures the innocence and vulnerability required of the character, although her reactions to experiencing sensuality are a bit overdone.
The person likely to emerge most damaged by “Fifty Shades of Grey” is Dornan. While he has killer looks, he just doesn’t have the sort of charisma to command the audience’s attention. True, Christian is not supposed to be the most emotional person in the world, but as performed by Dornan, the character is pretty much robotic. Fans who hoped for the casting of Matt Bomer in the title role will leave the theater lamenting “what might have been,” had the “White Collar” and “Magic Mike” actor been cast in the role.
Not surprisingly, “Fifty Shades of Grey” abruptly ends with a cliffhanger, hoping to create some sort of feeling of anticipation for the first sequel “Fifty Shades Darker,” which reportedly has already been given the greenlight. Instead, it left this writer, anyway, with a confused feeling of, “What is the fuss all about”? Despite that, the movie did keep me questioning what could possibly lead a person down such a sick path, and what could lead another person to almost blindly follow them. With any luck, those questions will be answered in installments two and three. For the time being, my understanding of what “Fifty Shades” is about is just as grey as ever.
Click book cover for info on how to buy!
“Kingsman: The Secret Service” (R) 3 1/2 stars (out of four)
“Kick-Ass” director Matthew Vaughn kicks ass again, this time with “Kingsman: The Secret Service” – a dizzying action comedy homage to James Bond and other British super-spy stalwarts like “The Avengers” with a comic movie book twist.
Based on Dave Gibbons’ and Mark Millar’s “The Secret Service” graphic novel series, “Kingsman” stars the always great Colin Firth as Harry Hart, a veteran agent watching his underground British spy organization dwindle in numbers. After the death of one of his closest colleagues, Harry recruits Eggsy (an impressive Taron Egerton) – the streetwise son of a late spy who saved his life during a spy mission 17 years earlier – to compete for a spot within the Kingsman despite being a social misfit amongst a group of privileged recruits.
Harry his boss, Arthur (Michael Caine), and ace Kingsman trainer Merlin (Mark Strong) must act fast, though, because Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson), a megalomaniacal American billionaire tech genius, is concocting a shrewd marketing ploy to weed out the world’s population via an invention that involves millions of his unsuspecting customers.
While its first mission is to entertain with over-the-top action, “Kingsman” is also smart and daring – as co-writers Vaughn and Jane Goldman take satirical aim at the far left and the far right extremes of American society, and sparing no one in the name of political correctness. One target, who won’t be revealed here, is particularly shocking – and while the person isn’t identified by name, you’ll know exactly who he is when you see him.
Blazing through its two-hour and nine-minute run time, “Kingsman” has all cultural sophistication and gadgets and weaponry associated with the Bond films, combined with the hyper-kinetic action and comedy that punctuated the insanely entertaining “Kick-Ass.” Vaughn clearly has an eye for casting great actors, too (the winning cast includes an amusing turn by Mark Hamill); and like he did with “X-Men: First Class,” the filmmaker strikes a perfect balance between the narrative, the movie’s dazzling fight choreography and wondrous visual effects. Get locked and loaded for one of the craziest spy movies you’ll ever see: “Kingsman” is a real blast.
Tim Lammers is a veteran entertainment reporter and a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, and annually votes on the Critics Choice Movie Awards. Locally, he reviews films for “KARE 11 News at 11” and various Minnesota radio stations.
Click photo to learn how to buy!
Original Interviews, Reviews & More By Tim Lammers
