Short Review: Anything that can possibility offend Trekkies and get them hyperventilating through their retainers is okay by me.


A production like this isn't new. Yet another Corporation continuing to recycle pop cultural baubles of previous generations, repackage it, and then sell it to quite possibly the dumbest generation to draw breath. This may be the case with this film. It may be a soulless McMovie rehash, but its a well made soulless McMovie rehash.

What is surprising is that it manages to achieve the balance of acknowledging its source material while still striking out on its own and finding its own voice. By the end of the film it is clear a new, individual franchise has been born. This is remarkable given that Star Trek is one of the most identifiable, dearly loved series in history. Producers have been trying to reboot the series for decades. After the surprise cult following in reruns, they began to pump out the popular films - oh but they were seriously awful . Honestly, they travel to San Francisco in the 1980's to save whales and we're expected believe Sulu doesn't go AWOL and stay behind?

As the actors aged, and the egos inflated and the internal conflicts boiled, the natural inclination to replicate the series took its course. Since the late 1980's there has been a continual string of syndicated television series attempting reignite the original series. The first outing, Star Trek: The Next Generation was good but not great. The remainder were stumbling affairs that never quite got over their derivative existences.

When JJ Abrams took over the franchise he smartly choose to break away from the failing model of retooling the Star Trek universe with new characters and instead chose the bigger risk of recasting the original characters. This isn't a small task.

It is easy to dismiss Star Trek given William Shatner's goofiness and the social abominations known as Trekkies, but this is one of the main myths of our civilization. Messing with Kirk and Spock is no different than recasting Darth Vadar, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and trying to make them your own. Thousands of people flock to stupid conventions over this crap. They made up a ridiculous fake Klingon language for Pete's sake. In our pop culture based society, Star Trek is a sacred cow. Abrams took a huge gamble, he could have had a humiliating disaster on his hands. When the original trailer hit, I thought he had taken the simple road. I wasn't the only one.


The film, thankfully, isn't the hollow teen dreamy junk pile that the trailer made it look like.

Abrams delivers a carefully executed origin story for the series that, thanks to a overly convenient time travel plot, explains away the old series and makes way for the new. While fun and light, the film is also technically marvelous. The story is impressively tight and direct. Abrams and company had the challenge of reintroducing us to characters many of us knew inside and out. These characters are a part of our lives even if we've never seen a single episode of the show. Their catch phrases alone litter our culture possibly more than any other series in history.

Given the large cast, these introductions threatened to slow the story down every time someone new appeared on screen. Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman do a masterful job of weaving these introductions seamlessly into the story. On top of these introductions, they also managed to rewrite the characters in a way that enhances our memory of them. This is particularly true of Spock.

Leonard Nimoy's Spock is a cultural landmark. In this production, we are shown the young Spock, first as a promising professor and then as an officer on the Enterprise. Zachary Quinto, who appears to have been born to play the role, tackles the task of portraying this iconic figure. Quinto has to balance between marking the role as his own while also paying homage to Nimoy's classic portrayal. The script's conceits allow to present Spock as we know him while still giving him amble room to infuse his own details. His Spock is written not a mimicry of the earlier version of Spock but instead as a new angle on the old character.

The duality between the old and new is the approached used for the whole franchise. This is not an attempt to replace the old version, simply a new generation putting their own mark on things. This franchise isn't going to be the cultural standard that the original version has become. It's not that good, nor important. It is entertaining however and will provide some relaxing cinematic eye candy.

The downside of the film are a few poor choices that seriously break the narrative flow. If you've seen the trailer you have already have witnessed the amazingly stupid young Kirk stealing an antique car and driving it over a cliff. In this sequence, he is being chased down a dirt road by a cop. Young Kirk then turns on the radio and LISTENS TO THE BEASTIE BOYS. What? No one listens to them now, except musically illiterate morons, and we're expected to believe this is something a kid would turn to a few hundred years in the future? The entire sequence should have been cut. It is as poorly conceived as the jazz sequence in Spider-Man 3.

There are other choices that cut into the story as well, like having Scotty being transported into the water pipes, having Kirk illogically being sent down to an Arctic locale on a planet, and other items that act as sidesteps to the main thrust of the story. All of these diversions steal time away from the main story which does need some help.

The main villain Nero, a revenge obsessed Romulan, is pushed to the back burner for most of the film and only appears when its convenient to establish character for Kirk, Pike or Spock. Nero is the least developed character in the entire film and is given the least amount of attention. His whole reason for revenge is not given enough depth to have any real meaning so his actions are without context and therefore meaningless. This deficiency would kill most other stories, this production survives because it gets the audience so wrapped up in the interpersonal drama on the Enterprise that this exterior force is more of an annoying procedure rather than life threatening conflict.

This is a solid movie that succeeds well beyond expectation. This is easily the most fun I've had seeing a McMovie since Iron Man last year. This is fluff but it is very good, very entertaining fluff.




Related Reviews:
Star Trek movies
Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn (1982)
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Happy Catholic
Need Coffee

Labels: Chris Pine, Eric Bana, film, JJ Abrams, Karl Urban, Leonard Nimoy, movie review, Star Trek, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana

Short Review: Anything that can possibility offend Trekkies and get them hyperventilating through their retainers is okay by me.


Sure its a soulless McMovie rehash, but its a well made soulless McMovie rehash.

The best word to describe this film is "fun". No matter your opinion on if it wise to allow corporations to continue recycle pop cultural baubles of previous generations, repackage it, and then sell it to quite possibly the dumbest generation to draw breath, this is still fun. This is a huge chunk of cinematic chocolate cake.

What is surprising is that it manages to achieve the balance of acknowledging its source material while still striking out on its own and finding its own voice. By the end of the film it is clear a new, individual franchise has been born. This is remarkable given that Star Trek is one of the most identifiable, dearly loved series in history. Producers have been trying to reboot the series for decades. After the surprise cult following in reruns, they began to pump out the popular films - oh but they were seriously awful . Honestly, they travel to San Francisco in the 1980's to save whales and we're expected believe Sulu doesn't go AWOL and stay behind? As the actors aged, and the egos inflated and the internal conflicts boiled, the natural inclination to replicate the series took its course. Since the late 1980's there has been a continual string of syndicated television series attempting reignite the original series. The first outing, Star Trek: The Next Generation was good but not great. The remainder were stumbling affairs that never quite got over their derivative existences. When JJ Abrams took over the franchise he smartly choose to break away from the failing model of retooling the Star Trek universe with new characters and instead chose the bigger risk of recasting the original characters. This isn't a small task. It is easy to dismiss Star Trek given William Shatner's goofiness and the social abominations known as Trekkies, but it is one of the main myths of our civilization. Messing with Kirk and Spock is no different than recasting Darth Vadar, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and trying to make them your own. Thousands of people flock to stupid conventions over this crap. They made up a ridiculous fake Klingon language for Pete's sake. In our pop culture based society, Star Trek is a sacred cow of sorts. Abrams took a huge gamble, he could have had a humiliating disaster on his hands. When the original trailer hit, I thought he had taken the simple road. I wasn't the only one.


The film, thankfully, isn't the hollow teen dreamy junk pile that the trailer made it look like.

Abrams delivers a carefully executed origin story for the series that, thanks to a overly convenient time travel plot, explains away the old series and makes way for the new. While fun and light, the film is also technically marvelous. The story is impressively tight and direct. Abrams and company had the challenge of reintroducing us to characters many of us knew inside and out. These characters are a part of our lives even if we've never seen a single episode of the show. Their catch phrases alone litter our culture possibly more than any other series in history. Given the large cast, these introductions threatened to slow the story down every time someone new appeared on screen. Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman do a masterful job of weaving these introductions seamlessly into the story. On top of these introductions, they also managed to rewrite the characters in a way that enhances our memory of them. This is particularly true of Spock. Leonard Nimoy's Spock is a cultural landmark. In this production, we are shown the young Spock, first as a promising professor and then as an officer on the Enterprise. Zachary Quinto, who appears to have been born to play the role, tackles the task of portraying this iconic figure. Quinto has to balance between marking the role as his own while also paying homage to Nimoy's classic portrayal. The script's conceits allow to present Spock as we know him while still giving him amble room to infuse his own details. His Spock is written not a mimicry of the earlier version of Spock but instead as a new angle on the old character. This duality between the old and new is the approached used for the whole franchise. I never got the feeling they were attempting to replace the old version but were just putting their own mark on things. This franchise isn't going to be the cultural standard that the original version has become. It's not that good, nor important. It is entertaining however and will provide some relaxing cinematic eye candy.

The downside of the film are a few poor choices that seriously break the narrative flow. If you've seen the trailer you have already have witnessed the amazingly stupid young Kirk stealing an antique car and driving it over a cliff. In this sequence, he is being chased down a dirt road by a cop. Young Kirk then turns on the radio and LISTENS TO THE BEASTIE BOYS. What? No one listens to them now, except musically illiterate morons, and we're expected to believe this is something a kid would turn to a few hundred years in the future? The entire sequence should have been cut. It is as poorly conceived as the jazz sequence in Spider-Man 3. There are other choices that cut into the story as well, like having Scotty being transported into the water pipes, having Kirk illogically being sent down to an Arctic locale on a planet, and other items that act as sidesteps to the main thrust of the story. All of these diversions steal time away from the main story which does need some help. The main villain Nero, a revenge obsessed Romulan, is pushed to the back burner for most of the film and only appears when its convenient to establish character for Kirk, Pike or Spock. Nero is the least developed character in the entire film and is given the least amount of attention. His whole reason for revenge is not given enough depth to have any real meaning so his actions are without context and therefore meaningless. This deficiency would kill most other stories, this production survives because it gets the audience so wrapped up in the interpersonal drama on the Enterprise that this exterior force is more of an annoying procedure rather than life threatening conflict.

This is a solid movie that succeeds well beyond expectation. This is easily the most fun I've had seeing a McMovie since Iron Man last year. This is fluff but it is very good, very entertaining fluff.




Related Reviews:
Star Trek movies
Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn (1982)
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)



Other Critic's Reviews:
Happy Catholic
Need Coffee

Labels: Chris Pine, Eric Bana, film, JJ Abrams, Karl Urban, Leonard Nimoy, movie review, Star Trek, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana

Screenwriters: Roberto Orci (Mission Impossible III) and Alex Kurtzman (Transformers)
Director: JJ Abrams (Mission Impossible III)
Actors: Chris Pine (Smokin' Aces), Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana (Troy), Simon Pegg (Hot Fuzz), Zoe Saldana (Vantage Point), John Cho (Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay) and Karl Urban (Doom)

Labels: Chris Pine, Eric Bana, film, JJ Abrams, John Cho, Karl Urban, movie trailer, Simon Pegg, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana

Screenwriters: Roberto Orci (Mission Impossible III) and Alex Kurtzman (Transformers)
Director: JJ Abrams (Mission Impossible III)
Actors: Chris Pine (Smokin' Aces), Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana (Troy), Simon Pegg (Hot Fuzz), Zoe Saldana (Vantage Point), John Cho (Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay) and Karl Urban (Doom)

Labels: Chris Pine, Eric Bana, film, JJ Abrams, John Cho, Karl Urban, movie trailer, Simon Pegg, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana

Short Review: MTV makes a monster movie.


The whole movie is held hostage by its own novelty. The hook for the flick is that a giant monster attacks New York City and the whole thing is caught on tape by civilians on the ground. This may seem like a great premise for a film until you learn that this means you'll spend ninety minutes with a gaggle of vacuous snot nosed twentysomethings who can't hold a camera still. If you're even remotely prone to seasickness or enjoy films that involve character arcs and plot, you want to steer clear of this pointless mess.

The story is cobbled together to keep the novelty alive. Since the characters need to keep filming for there to be a movie, screenwriter Drew Goddard is forced to have them make foolish choices or be the victim of ridiculous coincidences. Honestly, the monster seems drawn to recognizable land marks and only seems compelled to destroy them once the heroes get within range to shoot the carnage. Goddard's plot is frustrated by having to keep his story alive under the conditions of the gimmick. Since the characters would logically try to avoid the lumbering giant monster Goddard has to invent a way for them to remain in peril even when hiding. His answer? The giant monster sheds evil spiders that impregnate people and makes them explode. This stupid concept may have been cool on paper but in reality all we get is the characters being assaulted twice in quick scenes that are all filmed with a shaking camera. There's no reason given for any of these monsters, but then again, there's no real reason to provide one. This isn't supposed to be Shakespeare. Too bad its not even good enough to claim to be Stephen King. You can forget this mindless drivel and go rent Godzilla - at least he didn't poop spiders.


Cautions: There's some gore, although it is brief. Swearing abounds and there's a ton of death. This isn't for small children obviously...then again, with how stupid this is, it's not for adults either.


Worldview: There has been some fleeting comments pointing out the tenuous connections between this movie and 9-11. Fair enough, let's look at it. The opening of the film, when the monster strikes it breaks up an oil rig, and then comes to New York and beheads the Statue of Liberty. Following this, it knocks down some prominent skyscrapers choking the streets with huge billows of dust and smoke. The citizens huddle in small shops as the devastation passes by. One can easily look at all of this and see linkages to the images of 9-11.

Even though they appear to be mindless and without meaning, horror movies are loaded with symbolism and messages, usually these are intentional. One of the staples is what i call "the death of God" at the beginning of a movie. When a monster first attacks it is normal for it to kill a priest, destroy a church, or defile another religious symbol. What is the first thing blown up in Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds? A Church. Where does Jim, from 28 Days Later, discover the zombies? A Church - and the first person he sees in zombie form? A priest. Even Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit has the first victim of the beast be the town Reverend. The next time you watch a horror movie watch for this image. What is happening here is the evil is transplanting itself in place of God. Without God there is no hope. In this film, this usual religious movement is altered and it is the Statue of Liberty - the world's biggest symbol of freedom - that is toppled. This is how I can make a connection between this film and terrorism. Now that I explain all of this, I should add that the film, being a senseless pile of crud, doesn't do anything with this symbolism. Following these striking images, the movie falls into a tedious first-person yarn that can seem to decide how its going to resolve itself.

Before I go, I just want to add that it is just bad film making to have a disaster film set in New York City and have crowds of people running and there's no children in any of the shots. Heck, there's barely any minorities or old people. According to this movie Manhattan is populated by handsome whites between the ages of 18-26 and their hot black girlfriends. Cheap film making.


Related Reviews:
Another monster movie
King Kong (1933)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Cinema de Merde

Labels: film, first-person, JJ Abrams, monster, movie review