Office by Alex Penny
Description
Victo Ngai (via Mystery and Science Fiction)
Gorgeous use of negative space.
(Source: soulfulsock, via feministpizza)
(via diamondgirl06)
We see a lot of movies and have a lot of thoughts, but beware the spoilers beneath for “Iron Man 3,” “The Dark Knight Rises,” and “Star Trek: Into Darkness.”
Star Trek 12: Guns blazin’, cameras flarin’.
After all the hoopla of Star Wars being bought by Disney, J.J. Abrams emerged at the helm of the iconic science fiction series. However, before Abrams tackles this legendary franchise, he must grapple with the one he had already redefined: Star Trek. His first installment created a new canon and was one of the better reboots made in recent memory, but the only thing more difficult than executing a fresh reboot is to surpass it in it’s sequel. Abrams fails in that regard, but to call Star Trek: Into Darkness a disappointment would be far from the truth.
The crew of the Enterprise returns only to see that Starfleet is under attack by the cold and calculating John Harrison (Benedict Cumerbatch, Sherlock, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy). In order to hunt down the terrorist, Kirk and company must risk galactic war by traveling into the Klingon Empire.
While Abrams’ first film dazzled with a sleek sexiness, Into Darkness digs into grittier territory. Abrams still manages his visually taut and precise visuals (lens flare and all) but juxtaposes it with a far darker ambiance. This tonal shift allows us to recommit to the characters as well as materialize the stakes of their world. A somber fragility stalks the film; creating an eeriness absent from the first film.
The writing did well to not oversaturate villains as many other sequels do (lookin’ at you Iron Man 2 and Spiderman 3); the plot was simple and concise, creating a whizz-bang tempo that made the 2 hours fly by. This brisk cadence was also enhanced by the chemistry and rapport of the stellar ensemble. While the addition of Carol Marcus (Alice Eve, She’s Out of My League, Men in Black 3) was rather trivial (that underwear scene, really?), the rest of the cast brought a synergistic energy laced with wit and sass. Even with the a heavier tone, Abrams keeps the film crisp with a devilish sense of humor.
The darker tone called for an increased exploration in depth of the characters, but it was clear that the caliber of acting and writing could not meet such lofty demands. In scenes requiring elite acting chops and decisive writing the results were rather underwhelming. Nothing particularly egregious, but the film never had the sublime moment it needed to strike with potency and induce a visceral reaction.
Even with the flaws, Star Trek Into Darkness is a completely satisfying and respectable entry in Abrams freshly forged canon. Enough parallels and threads are tied to it’s predecessor, while still managing to be a fully realized film of it’s own. The night is dark and full of terrors, but Into Darkness is full of flash and festivity.
Pulp Diction note: Neither of us are experts in the Star Trek canon, although one of us was raised mildly on TNG reruns and “The Trouble with Tribbles.” We sincerely wish we could comment a little better on the fact that J.J. Abrams remains (seemingly) unabashedly reengineering the Star Trek franchise into a new universe that doesn’t need to appeal to Trekkies, but we feel out of our depth in that respect. But to all our favorite Trekkie friends, sorry Abrams is so steadfast in his exclusive recreation. Live long and prosper!
westeros’s celebs read mean tweets (ps: all tweets are real)
The smart teen movie can be one of the most difficult genres to take on. There is a constant risk of pandering with cheesy sentimentality or boisterous sophomoric humour. Both takes are rather uninspired and reductive to a complex intersection in a person’s life. Adam Leon’s debut film teen chronicle, Gimme the Loot, does not fall prey to such mundane tendencies.
Gimme the Loot paints the narrative of best friends and aspiring graffiti artists Malcolm (Ty Hickson) and Sophia (Tashiana Washington). They set their eyes on tagging Citi Field’s Home Run Apple which would ensure their legitimacy as taggers and respect in the graffiti community. However, to achieve immortality, they must come up with $500 to get snuck into the stadium after hours.
Presented by Jonathan Demme (Rachel Getting Married, The Silence of the Lambs), Leon takes page out of his mentor’s book and grounds his film realism. There is no flash and sparkle to this movie; only a honest modesty which translates into a heartfelt portrait of adolescence. Even as a rookie, Leon demonstrates the adroit hand of a seasoned veteran. Thanks to shoestring budget, Gimme the Loot is still very raw, but Leon still pulls off a precise and economical piece. Every shot is necessary in creating an immersive cinematic experience; transporting us to the hazy streets of New York, brimming with the spirit and energy of jovial youth.
The real strength of the film lies in the undeniable chemistry between the film’s leads Hickson and Washington. The exchanges between the two is where the movie truly shines and each interaction is packed with wit, attitude, and chutzpah. However, behind all the rapid-fire dialogue and sassy body-language, there is an unshakable bond grown from understanding and platonic devotion. The pair’s committed performances easily convinces us at the incredible depth of friendship between Malcolm and Sophia.
Even facing themes of class, race, and gentrification, Gimme the Loot manages to respect those themes and celebrate the freedom of youth. Its warmth and soul makes it the most huggable film of the year. This little firecracker of a film deserves every bit of notoriety it has received from film festivals and will certainly leave any viewer with a warm heart and wide smile. All it needs now is for you to give it the loot.
Birds do it, bees do it, even Kenneth Branagh did it back in 1993. And now, coming off of the action-blockbuster bonanza that was “The Avengers,” Joss Whedon has modestly adapted the Shakespeare comedy “Much Ado About Nothing” for the screen.
For those who aren’t familiar: “Much Ado About Nothing” is a classic Shakespeare comedy filled with hijinks and deception. Benedick (Alexis Denisof) and Beatrice (Amy Acker) have a complicated relationship, in which they renounce the concept of love and engage in a “merry war” of witty banter.
While awaiting the nuptials of Beatrice’s cousin, young Hero (Jillian Morgese) to Benedick’s friend Claudio (Fran Kranz), their friends mischievously decide to get Beatrice and Benedick to admit their feelings for each other. But there’s trouble brewing underneath all the merriment, and soon the group finds themselves on quite the emotional roller coaster.
However timeless the work may be, “Much Ado About Nothing” hinges on a lot of aged Shakespearean elements. Between the unfamiliar language and values, it would be easy for modern audiences to feel too alienated by the text, no matter how quick the banter. Whedon’s work is often grounded in his own linguistic style, but by opting to stay true to the original Shakespearean dialogue, he still manages a stylish and uncluttered update that makes an archaic story more palatable to film-goers.
Whedon creates a more sultry interpretation, rife with humor, nuances, and a jazzy soundtrack, adding in a few elements of his own to make the laughs land and lovers’ pride real. Shot in black and white, the film has a modest but elegant tone, enhancing the modern scene-setting but still allowing the dialogue to shine on its own.
And shine it does, thanks to the delightful cast of Whedon veterans. Acker and Denisof are impeccable in their stubborn banter, injecting real sensuality into the bard’s tale. Nathan Fillion is brilliant as the bumbling but assured Dogberry, reimagined as a tough-minded but buffoonish detective.
The performances aren’t perfect, however — these aren’t seasoned Shakespearean actors — although they come close. The film was shot in only 12 days entirely in Whedon’s house, and the simplicity shows. It doesn’t reinvent the text, but it wears its oddly appropriate time shift respectably.
“Much Ado About Nothing” feels a lot like seeing an intimate Shakespeare in the Park performance with some Whedon favorites. Audiences are more up close and personal than they might usually be (an aspect of film Whedon plays to his advantage to portray the couple’s intimacy), and the film is accessible to Shakespearean scholars and laypeople alike.
More than anything else, the movie is fun. It’s clear that Whedon and his cast think highly of the bard and his work, and their energy is what brings the movie to life. As a film, “Much Ado About Nothing” might not bring much to the table. But as an adaptation, Whedon’s take on the bard is brimming with enough comedic and clever chemistry to make sure audiences care a lot about nothing.
The verdict: It might not be thought of as the definitive “Much Ado” adaptation, but it brings life and a modern twist to the classic tale.
