Flash Forward (2009)

I decided that not blogging has made me miss it immensely, so here's the first of a bunch of blogs all at once about things I've been watching.

We'll begin with Flash Forward, which airs on ABC on Thursdays at 8pm EST.

On October 6, 2009, a mysterious global event causes everyone on the planet to silmultaneously experience, for two minutes and seventeen seconds, his or her life six months into their own supposed future: April 29, 2010 at 10pm PT (which, by the way, is the night of my 21st birthday). When it is over, many are dead in sccidents involving vehicles, aircraft, and any other device needing human control. Everyone who survived the global blackout, dubbed the "GBO" is left wondering if what he or she saw will actually happen.

A team of Los Angeles FBI agents, led by Stanford Wedeck (Courtney B. Vance) and spearheaded by Mark Benford (Joseph Fiennes) and his partner Demetri Noh (John Cho), begin the process of determining what happened, why, and whether it will happen again. Benford sort of turns into Chuck with the investigation, which the FBI dubs "Mosaic", and uses the images he saw in his flash forward to piece things together.

The team investigates a number of events related to the flashforward, including "Suspect Zero" who did not lose consciousness during the event, "D. Gibbons", and a similar mass loss of consciousness in Somalia in 1991. Meanwhile, personal revelations contained within the flash forwards occupy the personal lives of the principal characters. Mark Benford sees his alcoholism relapsing, his wife sees herself with another man, and other characters grapple with similarly unexpexted or surprising revelations in their flashforwards.

Okay, after the first two episodes, I was hooked. This show is like crack for me, no lie. That being said, I do hope that the ratings in the US hold up well and this doesn't get cancelled like so many others *cough*PushingDaisies*cough*. Every episode has left me saying "WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!" Every. Time. It's 24, mixed with a little Fringe, with a dash of Lost. Okay, maybe a few gallons of Lost. Anyway, any piece of information I give in this could quite spoil everything for someone who hasn't seen it. I HIGHLY recommend watching at least 3 episodes. It will change your life.

All in all, I give this a WIN+ for sheer WTF factor.

Merlin (2008; BBC)

So I figured I'd change things up a little and blog a bit about some TV. First one I'm gonna talk about is Merlin from BBC One and NBC. To my knowledge, this is the first BBC show to be picked up by a major American network, which is pretty awesome in itself.

The show stars Colin Morgan as the title character Merlin, Bradley James as Prince Arthur, Katie McGrath as Lady Morgana, Angel Coulby as Guinevere, Richard Wilson as Gaius, Anthony Head as King Uther, and John Hurt as the Voice of the Great Dragon.

Basically, the plot is sort of like Footloose, except with magic instead of dancing, but with dragons and knights and castles. Merlin is sent to Camelot to be taught and looked after by Gaius, one of the few people who knows about Merlin's gift of magic. Meanwhile, crazy King Uther has outlawed magic and has imprisoned the last dragon, so Merlin has to keep his magic a secret from everyone. It is Merlin's destiny to look after Arthur so that he may grow to rule a great kingdom.

Although there are significant plot/canon/timeline inconsistencies, It really didn't make that much of a diffrence to me (who's read pretty much EVERY Arthur legend on the planet). It's one of those shows that you really can just sit and watch and become completely immersed in. Great acting talent, AMAZING sets, AMAZING wardrobe, and honestly, just a REALLY awesome show all around. The show may be a bit confusing at first, with all of the differences from the original tales, but I have a feeling it will only continue to get better from here.

It shows on Sundays at 8pm on NBC in the US and Saturdays on BBC One at various times in the UK (I believe, but don't take my word for it..I watched them all online).

All in all, I give this show a WIN for having a very promising first season, and I can't wait for more to come! Even if you don't think you'll like it, I highly suggest at least checking it out.

Repo! The Genetic Opera

What do you get when Saw and Willy Wonka have a child, meanwhile Moulin Rouge and The Island have a kid, and somehow those two kids get together and have a baby? You get Repo! The Genetic Opera.

For those who don't know it, it's set in the not-too-distant future during an epidemic of organ failures. GeneCo, headed by Rotti Largo, offers payment plans to those who can't afford transplants. But if you get behind on your payments, Rotti sends his Repo Man after you to "reposess" your transplanted organs.

The story focuses on the life of Shilo Wallace (Alexa Vega), victim of an unspecified blood disease and kept sheltered in her room by her father Nathan (Anthony Head), who has a dangerous secret life. She sneaks out at night to get a glimpse of life, and gets caught up with a Graverobber (Terrence Zdunich) who collects a surgical painkiller called Zydrate from petrified corpses and sells it on the black market. Shilo finds out that Rotti holds a cure for her condition. After being sucked into the haunting world of GeneCo, she is unable to turn back, as all of her questions will be answered at the wildly anticipated spectacular event: The Genetic Opera.

This movie first offers something that we rarely see at the movies anymore: originality. This type of movie doesn't have to make sense in the same way that a traditional film does. It simply has to take you somewhere you have never been, and hopefully throw your mind through a few loops along the way.

There is so much whimsy in this film that it almost becomes an absurdist fairytale. It skips and jumps from one homage to the next, cribbing notes from Rocky Horror in one scene before moving on to Rigoletto in the next. Genres and archetypes are thrown up against one another and mashed together with reckless abandon mixing Grand Guignol with Sondheim and Disney with Faces of Death. It cuts together the pieces of our collective pop culture consciousness the same way that the antagonists cut together new forms for their bodies.

And it's wickedly funny too.

Picking up where the ultimate consumers of Romero's shopping malls left off, Repo! makes for a brutal satire of consumer culture where human flesh is a commodity bought and sold with government approval. People have designer spines and get upgrades on their bodies when they go in for maintenance on their artificial organs. Starlets don't forget to wear panties, they forget to sew on their new faces.

Darren Lynn Bousman has made a name for himself as a go-to guy for over the top, operatic gore and he doesn't shy away from it here. Repo! is often tremendously bloody with sanguine spilling left and right, often directly on top of naked flesh. He takes what he learned making Saw II--IV and pushes in into overdrive as he uses it to skewer one satirical target after the next.

Normally I am one to shy away from sexualized violence. I find it repulsive and saddening, but here, Bousman has found that perfect mix between sexy and grotesque. Though the bloodletting is vicious, it never spills over into elaborate rape fantasy. It is a shame that he is no longer attached to the Hellraiser relaunch.

The cast, made up of a bizarre collection of geek favorites, musicians and world famous opera singers is almost weirder than the movie's central conceit. Paul Sorvino is brilliant fun as the patriarch who controls the world but finds himself unable to defeat cancer. Sorvino is fascinating to watch when he is let loose and he has a singing voice to rival any star of stage. Sarah Brightman is also quite good in a small roll that is entirely divorced from her signature turn in Phantom of the Opera. The rest of the cast is a bit of a mixed bag. Alexa Vega is strong as the cloistered daughter of the eponymous organ ripper and Anthony Stewart Head outdoes his Buffy singing, even as his role is too close to that of Giles, but he's still very good. Meanwhile Bill Mosely is obnoxious and all over the place, playing his seventh version of Chop-top while Paris Hilton is actually shockingly watchable as Amber Sweet, really just a hightened-reality version of herself. But the real standout is Nivek Ogre of Skinny Puppy. The man steals the show as a deformed lothario who has a nasty habit of killing his lovers.

But I really can't do justice explaining it here. You have to see it for yourself.

I give this a WIN for being complerely engaging and original...an instant cult classic.

Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

So much scientific FAIL in this movie, but I still loved it nonetheless...

I was expecting this to be a big disasterous FAIL when I heard about it. Dinosaurs AFTER Ice Age? WTF?

I haven't had so many laff-out-loud moments in a movie for a long time. There's about an even mix of verbal and visual gags in this 3rd installment of the Ice Age family saga, they're all fresh, and they all work. You wouldn't think a film set in the age of mammoths would be able to run a parody of the old "red wire vs. blue wire" time-bomb scenario, but they find an ingenious way to do it.

Now those among you who haven't fallen prey to creationism are well aware that mammoths are very large mammals (and hence quite recent in geological time), while the last of the dinosaurs went extinct 65,000,000 years ago. So how does the plot explain their coexistence? Well, it seems that there's this entire hidden tropical world underneath the eponymous ice, and our heroes literally fall into it. (Don't overthink it.)

Suddenly Manny the mammoth and his pregnant mate Ellie discover that they're not only not the largest creatures on Earth, as they'd thot, but actually pretty petite compared to the Mama T. Rex, who in turn has to look up to Dad. It's a classic tale of nature red in tooth and claw, except for nobody actually getting eaten. (Well, several critters are swallowed whole but subsequently disgorged, slimy with saliva but basically unhurt; family film, y'know.)

The animation is terrific. Judging from the end credits, apparently the Astor beaver trade, long thot to be extinct, has experienced a renaissance in the animated-fur factories of California. Dino babies and mammal kids are ridiculously endearing. The 3-D is likewise terrific, well used where appropriate (especially in conveying a sense of scale for the underworld) but not overdone. The one carp I have is that 3-D simply does not lend itself to dissolves between scenes; I'm guessing the filmmakers figured this out themselves, as most of the time they used cuts.

The characters, familiar now from the 2 previous films, are well acted with distinctive personalities, and the comic-relief possums have an expanded role. New to the cast is Scratte, a long-lashed female squirrel who, in a running subplot (including mini-cartoons to both start and end the flik), vies with the iconic acorn for the undying devotion of Scrat. As a devotee of the tango, I particularly appreciated their version of it. Also new is Buck, a bold, intrepid, 1-eyed buccaneer of a weasel, voiced by Simon Pegg with British accent in full flower.

Really, it's amazing to realize how much stuff they managed to cram into barely an hour and a half. Never a dull moment, never a missed step. Why, then, does it not get my top rating? Not at all because, as a comedy, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. After all, Dogma was a comedy, and it maxed out on my rating scale. But Ice Age 3 wasn't quite an entire story, more a collection of loosely related parts. Every one of those parts was well done, tho; indeed, I'd gladly take any of them over the entire 2.5 hours of the noxious Transformers; sadly, this much better film probably won't do nearly as well at the box office. Too bad.

I give this a WIN, because of the surprise I had when I saw it...totally worth seeing again.

Year One

From the same guy that directed such comedy classics Caddyshack(1980), National Lampoons Vacation(1983), and Groundhog Day(1993). Not to mention he co starred and co wrote the two Ghostbusters(1984-1989). Hard to believe that Harold Ramis would resort to the level of unfunny. He used to know what funny is. Has he forgotten, I think not. Year One for Harold Ramis is just an unfortunate misfire.

I saw this with a friend of mine, and about half an hour into it, I turned to her and said "This was a big mistake."...and she agreed.

This movie was going from bad to worse to the point where I just left before it ended. I really wanted to like this movie, but nothing was jumping off the screen, I heard very little laughs in the theater, none of the characters where the least bit interesting. Jack Black and Michael Cera are alright, but both of them can't seem to grab much appeal to make this movie entertaining. Michael Cera is always an entertaining presence, but after seeing this film, I doubt his career will go very far as it's gonna go. Same goes on the boat for Jack Black. David Cross(Mr. Show) is so amazingly unfunny in his co starring role. So was Christopher Mintz-Plasse in his role, I think after this film he should be called Mc-Douchebag.

If you're looking for a better and funnier film, then go see The Hangover instead.

All in all, I give this film a FAIL...didn't like it at all.

Karla

Paul Bernardo is probably one of the cruelest serial killers that ever existed. There is a relentless hate for this movie's portrayal of his victims. Yes, it is a greatly disturbing film, and my first comment to yuppie mothers people who are attacking this film from every angle is "Read the back of the box, morons." That being said, I would also like to say that I was completely disturbed by this film, yet I kept needing to see the rest of it. It will hook you in, believe me.

The movie initially had a lot of trouble getting produced, for obvious reasons, and it's also pretty well known that the director, Joel Bender, was a Grade A whack-job who still has a restraining order against him with the production executives at Quantum Entertainment, as well as many of the actors.
Karla is based on the real life killers Paul Bernardo (Misha Collins) and Karla Homolka (Laura Prepon). As most serial killer/rapist movies go, its alright. In most respects, this is a "modest" film, with only some very brief shots of a naked breast and no other frontal nudity. Even the major violence occurs in a rather Hitchcockian manner...recognized, but off-camera (although there are several scenes in which Karla is struck by Paul, but they are on par with a typical TV western). The majority of the story is told from the self-serving point of view of Karla herself. We are given no insight into what it must have been in their pasts that would lead them to commit such horrible acts.
I was VERY impressed by both Prepon and Collins. Now, I've only seen her as Donna in 'That 70's Show', but Prepon IS Karla Homolka, and although no Oscars were won for this film, she has undoubtedly impressed many critics who may have never suspected she had this talent within her. And I've only seen Collins in 24, Nip/Tuck, and (of course) Supernatural, but by the time the film reached the first perversion, he turns out to be a VERY good actor, although I would argue that Prepon gives a better performance.
Now, the film is narrated from real-life transcripts that Karla gave her psychiatrist, and many see that as a reason to distrust the movie. But the movie does NOT omit ANY of the evil deeds she committed. However, a LOT of the things Paul did are omitted in this brief 81 minutes movie - which is why I consider this a 'toned-down' version of the gruesome events.
I did not enjoy watching this movie because of its highly disturbing nature, but I felt drawn to keep watching each part of it to the end. And this movie will make you realize things about yourself. I realized that no matter how many times you tell yourself, there is always an evil, dark, dirty, nasty, awful person inside each and every human being. I like to consider myself a good, clean person, for the most part, but it was so disturbing and wrong that I HAD to watch more.
All in all, I think I'd give this a Mehh+ for being engaging and for great acting, but it was just too weird for me to see again.

The Hangover

Most great comedies are based on fundamental truths -- we find a deal of humour in the illumination of our own human tragedy. Office Space is funny, for example, because we've all worked that type of job, put up with that type of boss, and suffered that type of monotonous everyday boredom.
Todd Phillips' new movie, The Hangover, is as aptly titled as anything else released this year: it's about a Vegas bachelor party gone horribly awry, in which the groom inexplicably disappears, no one can remember a damned thing, and Mike Tyson wants his tiger back.
Yes, we've all had those nights, though perhaps not to such extremes (that's where the exaggeration of comedy serves us). The Hangover is funny because it takes this cultural ritual -- an American tradition; something almost all of us can relate to -- and finds genuine humour in the pain of its aftermath.
I concede that bachelor party movies are not in short supply; the genre (if it is, indeed, a genre) should have probably both begun and ended with the Tom Hanks flick almost three decades ago. But The Hangover wisely studies the day after rather than the day itself; this is funnier because the plot works backwards, without tacky flashbacks, and much of the evening in question is left to our imagination.
While it would be misleading to claim this is a brilliant film (in either regard – as comedy or character study), it's an assured picture that finds its footing immediately and achieves a surprising level of sustenance throughout its running time. And frankly, let's be honest, this is a breath of fresh air: it's one of the best R-rated comedies of the decade, and certainly the most uproarious since Superbad was released two years ago. Most R-rated comedies produced today are defiant; the R-rating has become a hindrance to film studios' sensibilities – everything is PG-13, saving the shameless Unrated schpeel for the DVD cut. The occasional theatrically-released R-rated comedy, as such, is infrequently modest; the ads stress the rating to remind us what we've been missing. For every legitimate offer, such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall, we're treated to movies like College that attempt to lure us into theaters based on the promise of raunchy decadence. The problem is that it's all so coldly calculated; these films are not funny because a majority of the time they are simply lazy and dishonest.
The simplest reason for The Hangover's success in being genuinely funny is the fact that it achieves a rare balance of character and vulgarity. We laugh at the characters' misfortunes because we like them, we empathize with them, and they are distinctly actualized. Are they stereotypical? To a certain degree, sure: we have the repressed pussy-whipped guy who obeys his girlfriend's every command (Ed Helms); the weird John Belushi-esquire figure who speaks in non sequiturs and naïve absurdities (Zach Galifianakis); and the womanizer whose confidence renders him automatic leader of the group (Bradley Cooper). It's a testament to the strengths of these actors that they make their characters endearing and believable, even in the face of total lunacy.
Helms has been an underrated highlight of the American Office for the past several years, never quite earning the praise he deserves. His character on the show is played with pitch-perfect perversity: he's not overtly creepy (like the program's other weirdo, Creed), but rather subtly unnerving. Helms invests a great deal of nuance into what is ostensibly a throwaway, supporting goofball; this movie, if nothing else, will justly reveal his talents.
Cooper uses his looks to his advantage: it's funny to watch handsome people exploit their securities. Cooper essentially turns your typical Leading Man figure into a bumbling idiot, self-absorbed and clueless. It's effective, he's got great chemistry with the other guys, and it's fun to watch such an immoral and ruthless character take center stage in a mainstream comedy.
Galifianakis, a cult comedian who I've admired for years, has been struggling quite a while. Not many people other than myself and Sean Penn saw his 2001 comedy Out Cold, probably because it wasn't all that great; but he was easily the most amusing aspect of the picture. He once described himself as being gifted by the opposite of the Midas touch, with more than a few canceled TV shows to his credit (including Comedy Central's unheralded Dog Bites Man), but it seems his persistence has finally paid off: he has discovered, at last, a movie of strong enough quality to reflect his talents. Galifianakis has a fair share of the film's funniest dialogue; as far as fat funny guys go, many of them (such as Chris Farley) made the ill-fated mistake of playing dumb in a sharp fashion: hurtful quips and silly one-liners, all self-aware. Galifianakis plays his character straight and the laughs are subsequently heartier; when he embraces his brother-in-law while nude, the act seems innocently awkward rather than deliberately awkward, and that's what makes it so funny. He's described in The Hangover, by another character, as a child with a beard. Imagine how funny it is when he names a Caucasian baby Carlos, without any shred of condescension or knowing humour.
The Hangover is surely destined to become the sleeper comedy hit of 2009, and, more likely, a cult flick in the years to come. It's more deserving of such acknowledgment than many recent successes, and while we may live in an era saturated with unnecessary sequels, I actually left The Hangover hoping to see these guys again. And that's a rare feeling these days.
All in all, I give this fim a WIN for being incredibly funny without being too dumb...very entertaining!

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian

A few moments stand out: the countdown to takeoff at Air and Space Museum(until spoilsport Larry stops it)is exciting. Oh, I wanted to see all those planes and rockets in action! The moving photos and paintings were good (if stolen from Rowling) - why were two of the Art Institute of Chicago's works (Nighthawks and American Gothic) at the 'wrong' museum? Effective when Larry and Amelia pop into one b/w 1945 photo, only to be followed by the Bad Guys. Plus - Amy Adams, cute as a bug and sassy, was PERFECT as Amelia Earhart. She is the best thing in the film! Negatives: this film was poorly written, even for a sequel. People kept whispering several times "But why/how..." only to have an on-screen character EXPLAIN x,y,or z. To me, that is lazy film-making. Whole scenes, too many really, simply NOT FUNNY. The theater was quiet for too much of the film.

Not a classic - just a money-making bit of summer fluff.

PS - I got distracted a bit with the game "How many actors from "The Office" can I spot in this film?"

All in all, I give this film a Mehh for being mildly entertaining, but not one of the best films I've seen. The first one was much better...

Up

If there's a list of great computer animation movies of all time, Pixar would dominate most of the top positions. Great story, great voice talent, great timing, great for all ages. It'd be hard to pick just one above another and perhaps another viewing of Up may be in order to figure out where I'd place it among so much stellar work.

Up is by far the most emotional human drama of any Pixar movies thus far, very heavy, so much so if you're looking for pure fun with some jaw-dropping chase and/or thematic scenes and no downer moments, Up may not be for you. It's the only time I can remember being in ANY animated movie where there was sniffles and watery eyes within the first 10 minutes of the movie. There's an undercurrent of life after losing a loved one in this movie, which I don't feel gives anything away. It's pretty heavy subject matter, Pixar handles it, like they do everything they touch, incredibly well, but it doesn't make it any less sad to have the material threaded throughout much of the movie you're reminded of it, but I suppose it's up to one's own interpretation of loss and how to place it in your life that perhaps will have an emotional effect on you.

Story is what makes a great movie great. Without story, you don't really have anything, maybe some effects, some action, maybe some cute or clever sight gags, maybe some laughs, hopefully some emotion, where Pixar shines above all others in animation and over a good 99% of the movies out there is they can intertwine it all and do it seemingly effortless, which is an incredible feat. To do this in a few movies is one thing, but Pixar has pretty much nailed this now for their entire career of making movies, that's just simply unprecedented.

Up is a great movie either way you slice it. It's nice when a movie hits on all cylinders and elicits such a range and emotional reaction people who don't know each other in a packed room all gasp, laugh, cry, and applaud together. Great movies however can do that and Up is truly a great movie.

All in all, I give this movie a WIN+ for simply being one of the best animated features I have ever seen.

Angels & Demons

Or as I like to call it: The DaVinci Code.

I had mixed feelings about this from the beginning, mostly from a screenwriting perspective. I was concerned about the screenwriters making a sucessful story completely different from The DaVinci Code, and they did. I say this because my number one problem with this department lies with Dan Brown. Angels & Demons is, in short, The DaVinci Code. Or should I rather say that The DaVinci Code is Angels & Demons? Regardless, they have the same basic elements: clues to a mystery that could potentially destroy the Catholic Church, puzzles that only Robert Langdon could possibly figure out, corrupted institutions in which people trust, and the hot girl.

I have more Dan Brown Gripes: antimatter? Really? I don't think that, even with the LHC, that we could harness antimatter like that...which physicists still say doesn't exist. In my opinion, this seems like a pretty far stretch for me. But, Dan Brown isn't a scientist, so most is forgiven.

Another thing I noticed (and I knew they were going to do this): they set the movie after The DaVinci Code, when the novel is set before. Maybe they meant for this to be the sequel to The DaVinci Code, and a prequel to Star Trek (where they still don't like to use antimatter in the 23rd Century).

And, again, they left a big chunk of the novel plot out of the film. You know, the whole part about the Camerlengo being the late Pope's son? Yeah, that wasn't here. Maybe it would have taken away from the plot, but I think it would have added a whole new dynamic to the plot. Oh, and the whole Pope voting thing, where the Camerlengo's name cheered by the Cardinals before lighting himself on fire, and the regular Pope by normal means. Oh, and the fourth Cardinal dies, btw...he doesn't become the Pope. But, you can't ask for everything.

On the other hand, the cast was great. I was happy to see Tom Hanks again. Hell, I'm always happy to see him in a movie, and he did a great job once again as Robert Langdon. Langdon isn't my favorite of Hanks' roles, but I do enjoy his performance in this movie, as well as The DaVinci Code. And I've never even heard of Ayelet Zurer, so I can't really saw much about her, but I thought she did a good job as Vittoria, although her performance was a bit flat at times. And lastly we come to Ewan McGregor as the Irish Camerlengo Patrick McKenna. Now, in the novel, the Camerlengo is Italian, but I'm pretty sure Ewan can't do an Italian accent. Heck, I thought he had trouble with the Irish accent...I caught him slipping into his native Scottish a few times. But, he was very convincing as the "good guy" until the plot fully unfolds in the end. And, I must say, he was very distracting. Even as a priest, he's obnoxiously attractive.

And I also strangely noticed that it was sort of a breath of fresh air to be within the walls of St. Peter's Basilica.

All in all, I think I'll give this fim a Mehh+ for being a good, solid, entertaining, action-packed film, but with a bunch of awkwardness for anyone who read the book.

Star Trek XI

You know, for JJ Abrams being a self-proclaimed non-fan, he did one hell of a job...

The new Star Trek film was, in short, a masterpiece. Granted, this IS coming from a Trekkie, but it was still one of the best Star Trek films I've seen, and I've seen all of them. Now, a lot of people will hail 1979's "The Motion Picture" as the best Star Trek film, and the rest seem to like 2002's "Nemesis". Personally, I like "The Wrath of Khan", and I do enjoy TNG, but my full loyalty has always been to The Original Series, and the original cast. Now I hope that I've established my feelings on Star Trek.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that when I heard they were making another Star Trek film I was like "WTF?!" and I thought it would be awful. Boy was I wrong about that. It sounds unbelievable, but they've actually managed to pull it off. They've made a Star Trek film that has pulled an audience bigger than any of the previous films, and it's still a loyal film.

I wasn't absolute on the partnership of JJ Abrams and cinematographer Dan Mindel with their deliberate lens flares and shaky cam work, but overall I found it to be consistently involving and thrilling to watch, and I also quite enjoyed the lens flares.

The plot was a bit confusing at first, seeing as canon dictates that Vulcan is sill around and Spock's mother Amanda is still alive (as seen in "Journey to Babel"), but the ingenious use of an alternate reality timeline made it easier to understand, which led me to coin the quote, "Star Trek: making use of their mistakes since 1966." Although it was no mistake, it was certainly confusing for a good 30 minutes after the film had ended. However, it's obvious that the screenwriters are avid Star Trek fans themselves, which always helps.

And as for the cast, it was for the most part spot-on. Chris Pine is absolutely terrific as Kirk. I will admit, I didn't think he'd be able to pull it off, but dammit, he did. He created his own character while still nailing several trademark quirks and behaviors of the Kirk we all know and love. And I was also a bit saddened at the fact that The Shat wasn't going to make an appearance, as he was supposed to in the original ending, but c'est la vie. Quinto's Spock is really quite terrific and much more nuanced than expected. Spock was always my favorite, and I was quite happy that there was a lot of focus on Spock's emotional story and backstory in the film, and more exploratioin of his human side with the death of his mother. Karl Urban's McCoy is the closest to an impersonation but overall just a joy and a pleasure to behold. In my opinion, he stole the show. As with the other characters, I didn't think Urban could pick up on the life and quirks that DeForest Kelley brought to the character, but Urban, being a Trekkie himself, did shit tons of research for his role, and nailed it spot-on. Pegg is fantastic as Scotty, used in the film as more comic relief. John Cho's alright as Sulu, but he really doesn't get to do much other than fight a Romulan. Though Uhura is suprisingly prominent and well-played by Zoe Saldana (although the love story between Uhura and Spock was a little weird). Eric Bana's Nero, the Romulan antagonist, was a bit flat, but a good performance overall. Anton Yelchin was the only real probmelatic casting choice for me. He really overdoes the accent and it takes you out of the film a bit, bit I did like the reference to Star Trek IV in Chekov's speech patterns. Greenwood is wonderful as Captain Christopher Pike. And, as always, in my personal favorite role, Leonard Nimoy shines yet again as Spock Prime.

I picked up on a few Star Wars influences as well: the Cantina scene in the beginning, Kirk and Spock's relationship as that of Luke and Han, a Starfleet Cadet named "Vader", and Kirk's line "Punch it, Sulu!"

And of course I thoroughly enjoyed the references to the original series and the original films: "Dammit, man, I'm a doctor, not a physicist!", "He's dead, Jim.", "I'm giving her all she's got, Captain.", and my favorite, "I have been, and always shall be, your friend." Even the small throwbacks were fun to spot: hearing a Sick Bay attendant mention Nurse Chapel, although she does not appear on screen. Hearing the late Majel Barrett's voice once again as the Enterprise computer once more before her death in December 2008. Even the ship that Spock Prime uses to go back in time: if you see the back of the chair combined with the forward viewport, the combination of these forms the Vulcan IDIC, a symbol for the Vulcan saying "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" that first appeared in the original Star Trek Series ("Is There No Truth In Beauty?").

And I absolutely started to cry out of sheer joy and happiness when I heard Nimoy's voice at the end recite the opening lines of the original series...

Although the film isn't as tight as "The Wrath of Khan" and isn't as funny as "The Voyage Home", I'd put this as the fourth best Star Trek film ever made, almost on par with "The Undiscovered Country." It's a fairly new direction, yet totally faithful to Trek where it needs to be: in spirit. In a world of dreary blockbusters and 'dark' reboots (although I will admit, I've seen some good ones so far), this Trek, though grittier in terms of design than anything before, shines, not only was a fantastic film from start to finish, but also as a great addition to Trek's long, long history.

All in all, I give this film a WIN+ for sheer win factor...I HIGHLY recommend this film, not only as an loyal Trekkie, but as an avid movie fanatic who knows a good one when she sees one.

17 Again

What do you think of when you hear the name Zac Efron? What comes to my mind is awful Disney-fied movies that corrupt the masses of children all over the world. But that might actually change now that I've seen this film.

The movie stars Zac Efron as a man who is transformed into his 17-year-old self by a sort of witch-doctor (or Spirit Guide, according to his best friend Ned, still in his 30s) in a effort for him to re-write his life. Now, when I heard that Zac Efron was in this, I was like "FML." And I'm sure most people did. But the movie was actually honestly funny, and highly entertaining, with buckets of pop culture and geekdom references, and a great cast.

Efron is actually a good actor! He sucessfully and convincingly plays the heartbroken man trying to reconnect with his kids and save his failing marriage. And the oh-so-awkward moments in his new body with his family are just too good to pass up. I actually saw this 3 times it was THAT good! Now that's saying something.

All in all, I'm going to give this movie a WIN- for overall win, but some points of dragging.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

You know those 3 other films that were made, and all those years of great comic books that focused on the X-Men? Well, this new film basically says that they never happened...at least how they were supposed to happen.

Problem #1: The first thing I had a problem with was the whole immortality thing. Now I know that Logan always had 'immortality', but his aging process is just not right. In the movie, he went from being a child to about 30 or so, and just stayed there. He doesn't even have true immortality...he just ages much slower than everyone else. But he just stayed in his 30s through 5 wars. He should gradually age through all those years.

Problem #2: The Bone Claws. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember him ever being able to do that! I thought he got the claw ability along with the adamantium.

Problem #3: Along with the Adamantium, in the comics, and all normal X-Men canon, Logan's memory is wiped immediately after the transfusion. But here, he escapes afterwards, and his memory isn't wiped until the end of the film, and it is then wiped by Stryker shooting Logan in the head with an adamantium bullet. Now, If he was an expert marksman (which I doubt), he MIGHT be able to hit the part of the brain that uses memory, but even then, his brain would regenerate the same way and he would regain his memories anyway, so that's just time wasted.

Problem #4: Logan and Victor's Relationship. Logan and Victor, to my knowledge, were never brothers! This dynamic messed me up for a while before I got used to it. Originally, Victor was supposed to be Logan's father, but supsequent writers fucked it all up.

However, I will say this: It was a good stand-on-its-own film. It was entertaining and full of action (which I like), but If you have read and/or seen the other movies, you get totally confused, as I did. And it was cool to see Deadpool at his most badass-looking...plus, Hugh Jackman and Leiv Schriber are nice to look at.

All in all, I am going to give this movie a Mehh+ for good action, but poor plot and canon.