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.