Star Trek Into Darkness - Review

After Star Trek was rebooted in 2009 by director JJ Abrams, the franchise suddenly found a renewed interest with both fans and non-Trekkies alike. While the film was criticized by some for a substandard screenplay that favored flashy effects over depth, the film nonetheless was considered a pretty huge success. So, to no surprise, expectations for it's sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, have been running high. Now the film is finally in theaters, and critical reaction has been quite positive for the most part. While I personally had some mixed feelings toward the 2009 reboot, I was overall pleased with the final result and was genuinely interested in seeing where the series would end up going. Now that I've finally seen the film, what are my thoughts? Honestly... despite a few good moments and scenes... Star Trek Into Darkness kind of sucks. I know that's going against the majority here, but the more I think about it, the more I think just how lazy, flat, and uninspired this movie turned out.

The film picks up sometime (a year maybe, not really disclosed) after the events of the previous flick. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is still Captain of the USS Enterprise. His loyal friends and crew return as well, including First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto), Medical Officer Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban), Communications Officer Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Lt. Sulu (John Cho), Ensign Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and Chief Engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott (Simon Pegg). Kirk leads the Enterprise with a cavalier attitude, which has lead to many near-disaster occasions and landed him in hot water with his Starfleet superiors. Fortunately for Kirk, his friend and mentor, Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), reluctantly continues to bail him out trouble. That all changes however, when a rogue Starfleet officer named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) carries out a number of terrorist attacks against various Starfleet locations... one of which takes the life of Admiral Pike. Kirk, determined to take down Harrison, volunteers the Enterprise for the assignment. Starfleet Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller), approves the assignment, and sends Kirk and crew on their way. Shortly after the mission commences, Kirk begins to realize that not all is as it seems and that Harrison may have more than one trick up his sleeve.

First of all, I'm going to preface this review with a disclaimer... I will eventually have to spoil many parts of this flick. I generally try to avoid spoilers as much as I can, but this time I really don't have much of a choice, since so many of my thoughts and critiques center around un-revealed plot details and twists. Honestly, I think most Trekkies have long since figured out (or at least suspected) many of the "big surprises" (sarcasm) so it's probably not a big deal... but since they're technically spoilers, when I get around to revealing them, I will put up a spoiler warning.

So without spoiling anything... what works in this film? Once again, it's a strong technical achievement. The special effects are just as impressive, if not more impressive, than the effects in the 2009 film. They've lost some of their novelty since 2009, but I won't deny that they still look pretty great. There are some really impressive action scenes that keep the film moving at a good pace and continuously entertaining. You have your expected space battles, a few hand-to-hand combat scenes, a chase scene or two, and also a pretty creative sequence involving Kirk flying through space in a space-suit and jetpack-like device. The makeup effects are just as great as always and the cgi is utilized well. JJ Abrams fetish for barraging the audience with lens flares and shining lights can be a bit annoying, but you get used to it reasonably quickly. Once again I also have to commend composer Michael Giacchino for his work on a stellar musical score. There are a few repeat tracks, but the use of original music combined with shout-outs to classic Trek material is always fine in my book. Overall, it's a nice looking and typically exciting movie with some great action and impressive effects. That prevents the film from tanking completely, which counts for something.

Most of the actors from the previous film return, and for the most part, they're all pretty solid. Chris Pine is a bit better this time around as Kirk, giving way to a few bits of dramatic range while still approaching the role with the same intensity and charisma as last time. I won't say he's always perfect, and he still doesn't have that same memorable presence as Shatner, but he does his job. The standout for me once again was Simon Pegg, who brings both some drama but mainly comic relief to the role of Scotty and generally represents Kirk's voice of reason in the flick (a role usually reserved for Bones or Spock. Speaking of Bones, I once again really got a kick out of Karl Urban's portrayal of McCoy. It would be hard for anyone to replace DeForest Kelley but I think Urban's carried the torch. By the way, he does eventually get to say one of Bones' trademark, "I'm a doctor not a _____" lines, that's always nice. Zoe Saldana gets a little more to do this time around but still gets kind of lost in the shadows of the rest of the cast, who are better developed. That's too bad because she's a damn good actor who desperately needs a good role to show off her talent. Zachary Quinto also makes some huge strides, running off with a good portion of the movie as Spock, and is honestly probably one the best choices to replace Leonard Nimoy. On that note, Leonard Nimoy stops by for a brief cameo as Spock Prime... which is good for me. As for Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison... well, he's clearly a very talented actor and has a few standout scenes. Unfortunately, he's very much held back by some major issues with the script. In order to discuss them, this is where I have to go into spoiler territory. So yeah, skip the last paragraph if you want nothing spoiled...

MAJOR SPOILER TERRITORY HERE!!! SKIP TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH IF YOU WANT NOTHING SPOILED!!! DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!!!

Okay... so the big twist the studio was so closely guarding, avoiding, and flat out lying about is hands-down the most predictable, annoying, and obvious twist that EVERYONE, either a hardcore Trekkie or casual fan, saw coming... BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH IS KHAN!!! Yes, the worst-kept secret for the 2013 blockbuster film season is the most underwhelming plot twist in years. This annoys me for a couple different reasons. First of all, why bother keeping such a thing secret? This is Khan Noonien Singh we're talking about, Star Trek's most well-known, infamous, and arguably flat-out best villain in the entire franchise. Wouldn't announcing that Khan is going to be in your movie just generate hype and excitement??? That's fairly negligible though, there are bigger problems at stake. For starters, Khan never has a very well-defined character. At times he's simply a pawn for a corrupt Starfleet officer (I won't spoil it, but you'll probably figure it out as soon as he appears on screen), at times a misunderstood anti-hero, and at times a threatening villain. I guess this was supposed to keep you guessing, but honestly, his character beats are one predictable cliche after the other, so he just comes off more as a sloppily-written character than anything else. Worse yet, it really robs Cumberbatch the chance of a great performance, since he's clearly a talented actor, but because his character is so inconsistent, he gets cheated as well. Also... why is a white guy playing Khan? I know Ricardo Montalban wasn't Indian as the name implied, but having a brown skinned actor in a major role in the 1960s was a big deal. What's up with the whitewashing? Very unfortunate! The rest of the characters are let down here as well, since any of the notable character arcs or bits of development are just retreads of the last film. Everything from Kirk's daddy issues to Spock's dual personalities are just revisited as opposed to further explored.

I really wish lame plot twists and underdeveloped villains were the film's only problems, but unfortunately, there's so much more. Responding to the complains that the last film was more style over substance, Into Darkness tries to incorporate some themes and undertones to it's plot. This time, it tries to examine the nature of terrorism, and the role the government may or may not play in such an event. Sadly, it's themes come off as more underdeveloped and/or on the nose than anything, namely because it's characters are so underdeveloped and cliche. My biggest gripe with this movie though... the damn thing is just plain lazy and derivative. How so... THE FUCKING MOVIE RIPS OFF WRATH OF KHAN EVERY CHANCE IT GETS!!! It's annoying that the last three Star Trek films have felt the need to "borrow" certain elements here and there from Star Trek II, but this film is hands down the worst offender. Almost the whole third act (and parts of the first and second for that matter) are shamelessly ripped off straight from Wrath of Khan. It really becomes shameless when the films reenacts the Wrath of Khan's ending pretty much note-for-note (only with a little twist this time). Honestly, how fucking lazy are these writers to just outright steal material? It's just embarrasing when you even consider that they can't even rip off material correctly, as they totally botch Wrath of Khan's emotional themes by attaching an ending with a stupid deus ex machina with a HUGE plot hole that raises way too many question. What a letdown!

SPOILERS END HERE!

So that's Star Trek Into Darkness... not awful but still pretty bad. It has the effects and action you would expect out of a summer blockbuster, but it's let down by a tedious, one-the-nose, and derivative script. Honestly, if you must see this one... I'd say wait for a rental.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Star Trek - Review

I'm going a little out of order with my Star Trek reviews here. Originally I was planning on going in order of release, so instead of doing the 2009 reboot now, I would have reviewed the four TNG films before getting to this one. I changed my mind, however, after watching Star Trek Into Darkness yesterday (as I have a lot to say about that one) and decided to review both of JJ Abrams films while they were both still fresh on people's minds. The 2009 reboot of Star Trek got a fair of hype. After the critical and commercial disappointment of 2002's Star Trek: Nemesis and the early cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise, many seemed to think that Star Trek was pretty much dead. It still had it's loyal fanbase, but the lack of support outside of the typical Trekkie audience and the general declining quality of the material (with some exceptions), Star Trek was looking a bit long in the teeth. It wouldn't be until 2009 when Trek would get a long-awaited revival... brought to us by none other than JJ Abrams, producer of hit shows including Felicity, Alias, and Lost. The film would be an in-continuity reboot with younger versions of the original crew, though still technically connected to the previous series' via means of time travel (it's a bit complicated). Rumors of a more "mainstream" and action-heavy interpretation of Star Trek persisted, with many fans and non-fans alike genuinely curious, intrigued, or concerned about the film. Finally the film was released in 2009 to generally critical and commercial acclaim... though there were a few naysayers. How does it hold up four years later? Let's boldly go where ten other movies have gone before...

The film opens, appropriately enough, in the depths of space, where the Starfleet vessel, the USS Kelvin, is called to investigate a lightening storm, of which an unusual Romulan ship, known as the Narada, has appeared. The Narada swiftly attacks the Narada, killing it's captain and a number of individuals on board. Many are saved thanks to the efforts of George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth), who sacrifices himself so that they, including his pregnant wife, may escape and therefore live. Years later, George's son, who is none other than James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), grows up to be a reckless and angry troublemaker. Despite Kirk's unpredictable behavior, Starfleet Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) sees potential in him, and encourages Kirk to enlist in Starfleet. Kirk accepts Pike's offer and enlists, in the process meeting his good pal Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban), the motivated upstart Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and frenemy Spock (Zachary Quinto). After three years of training, Kirk and the others step aboard the newly-Christened USS Enterprise to investigate an electrical storm not unlike the one that claimed Kirk's father. With a dangerous enemy lurking in the depths of space, the Enterprise crew must act swiftly to discover his secrets and eliminate him before he does further damage to the galaxy.

This film was quite a big deal when it was first released. It was generally praised by most critics, and audiences (both Trekkie and non-Trekkie) generally reacted positively. The studio's big experiment in bringing more "mainstream" appeal to the Star Trek series seemed to work. I'll even admit that when it came out, I was right there with those showering it with praise. I even remember putting it on Top 10 films of 2009 list, in fourth place! All that said, looking back, I think I might have been too nice to the film. After repeat viewings of this film plus repeat viewings of the other Trek films, the numerous flaws of this reboot became way more apparent. Despite the critical praise, the film did receive some criticism (even from those who liked the movie) for a shallow or dumbed down narrative that favored big action over intellectualism. While that's by no means uncommon for most summer blockbusters, generally Star Trek was better than that. Even in the films or episodes that weren't very good, they generally had interesting or thought-provoking ideas, while the good Trek films balanced both smart storytelling with stellar Sci-Fi action. While I still honestly like the movie, I'm inclined to agree. There are some things about it that are either lame, derivative, or just plain stupid, but there are some things about it that work as well.

Looking at Star Trek strictly from a narrative perspective... it's very hit and miss. The film's two writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, have been JJ Abrams' two primary writing sources for his various projects, but when you actually look at their film credits, they're kind of hit and miss. They've both had some successful work on TV, but with films like Transformers (1 & 2) and The Island among your credits... yeah that's not so good. Star Trek's script isn't particularly terrible as much as it's kind of dull and uninspired. As I already mentioned, the story is lacking in terms of substance and anything particularly challenging or interesting. It doesn't have much of a central theme, topic, or even anything to really take away, but that's not the main issue. No, the real issue at hand is that it "borrows" if not rips off one too many elements of it's story from other material, both Star Trek and otherwise. It takes bits of pieces from Wrath of Khan, but it's main offense, oddly enough, taking most of it's material from Top Gun. Namely, by turning Kirk into a reckless troublemaker with Daddy issues, he more often resembles Tom Cruise's Maverick than James T. Kirk. The film does have a few decent dramatic moments, and the characters still endearing. For the most part, they got the trademark figures' personalities right, and had a few decent shout-outs or homages to classic Trek lore. The rest is basically your standard blockbuster action fodder. Nothing about it is overly terrible or offensive to your intelligence like other summer moneymakers (Tranformers for instance), but the script just feels oddly lazy and kind of uninspired. Guess you got to take what you can get.

The cast helps elevate the film from just a routine effects driven blockbuster to something quite enjoyable. Chris Pine approaches Kirk with a far more different interpretation of the character compared to William Shatner. He brings a similar devil-may-care cavalier similar to Shatner, but approaches it in a far less hammy or memorable way. While his efforts are commendable and he generally handles himself with a decent charisma, he doesn't quite have the necessary range or presence to make a real impression. He's certainly not bad though, so I'll give him a pass. The stand-outs are Karl Urban as Bones and Simon Pegg as Scotty, both of whom own every single scene in which they're featured. Zachary Quinto does the emotionless Vulcan shtick quite well too, and takes a few of the film's stand-out scenes. Zoe Saldana and John Cho both show a strong presence as Uhura and Sulu respectively, but they they're characters are fairly underutilized and don't have enough of a role to befit the actors. Eric Bana plays Nero, the evil Romulan bent on revenge. Bana's a decent enough actor, but he's barely given a character to work with here. The fact that Nero is little more than a blank slate lets down Bana, and since any of the character's semi-memorable traits are shamelessly borrowed from Khan, he's one of Star Trek's least memorable baddies. The rest are pretty solid across the board, can't think of too many failures as far as acting goes. I will say one more thing, Leonard Nimoy has a small role as an older version of Spock, and that's always a welcome addition.

In terms of visuals and production value, the film scores across the board. It's kind of ironic when you think about it, namely how Star Trek has generally contained cheesy production values made up for by strong storytelling, while this film does a total 180 with less than stellar writing but strong visuals. The cgi is pretty damn awesome, with a neat redesign of the USS Enterprise and some cool space battles and explosions. The Oscar winning makeup is impressive as well, namely in how they recreated many of Trek's iconic aliens and creatures but with it's own unique style as well. These all compliment some great action scenes that are some of the series' better efforts, whether they be space battles, hand to hand fights, or shoot-outs. Though I will say, the scene with the young Kirk driving his step-dad/guardian's car off a cliff rocking out to the Beastie Boys is embarrassingly stupid and one of the lamest things to be included in a Trek film (it's a nitpick, but it's there). Aside from that, the rest are exciting and enjoyable to watch. Also impressive is the musical score by Michael Giacchino, who combines familiar Trek riffs with new compositions that compliments the film nicely. At the very least, Star Trek is a nice looking and typically entertaining film that is never boring.

So the 2009 Star Trek reboot... a bit overrated but still entertaining. It's definitely unfair that this film is often labelled as a masterpiece while the past films are considered boring by so many, but on it's own merits, Star Trek is at least an enjoyable effects-driven blockbuster. Is it perfect? No, not at all, but it is entertaining.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - Review

The negative reception of Star Trek V once again left the fate of Gene Roddenberry's long running franchise up in the air (or lost in space... sorry, bad pun). While the film did make some box office money, it was well below the expected take, plus the unfavorable feedback from critics and fans was no encouragement. Star Trek, however, was by no means dead, as the sequel TV series, Star Trek: The Next Generation, was enjoying a successful run on the small screen. After some consideration, it was decided that the cast and characters of the Original Series would be sent off with one more feature film, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. This would be the final film to feature the entire cast of the original crew, as the next four films to come would follow the cast of The Next Generation. It would also mark the return of Nicholas Meyer in the director's chair, who had been absent from the series since Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. So while the hype surrounding Star Trek VI wasn't as intense as previous entries, there was still some speculation and interest in seeing how the original crew would be sent off. How did it turn out? Let's take a look.

The film opens with the USS Excelsior, the Starfleet vessel helmed by Captain Hikaru Sulu (George Takei), former lieutenant of the USS Enterprise. The ship is called to investigate the explosion of Praxis, a Klingon moon who destruction not only claimed the lives of many Klingon, but also put a strain on their Empire. As they lost their key energy and layers of their ozone, the Klingon Empire reaches out to their former enemy, The United Federation of Planets, for a peace truce. To avoid further casualties, the Federation accepts their offer, and in the process sends the Enterprise to meet with Klingon Chancellor Gorkon (David Warner) to negotiate terms en route to Earth. Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) objects to proposed alliance, as he holds to a strong distrust of the Klingons after his son died at the hands of one. He reluctantly agrees to his orders, but things take a distressing turn when the Enterprise (without orders) seemingly fires at the Klingon ship and takes the life of Chancellor Gorkon. Despite the efforts of Kirk and Bones (DeForrest Kelley) to save the Chancellor's life, Gorkon dies and Klingons hold Kirk and Bones responsible. With his friends' lives on the line, Spock (Leonard Nimoy) attempts to solve the mystery to not only save Kirk and Bones, but also to avoid further conflict with the Klingons.

Star Trek VI may not be the most ambitious of the Trek films, but it incorporated a lot of elements from various genres into it's story. In addition to being a Sci-Fi film, it's also a cold war thriller and a whodunit mystery. It has it's moments of comic relief, but it mostly does away with the comedic tone from the previous two films and instead takes a slightly darker direction. One thing I have to applaud the original six Trek films for doing is giving each movie it's own identity and style. Whether they're good or bad, each film tackled a different idea, had it's own unique style, and generally contributed to the overall mythos of Star Trek. I won't say that all of the concepts and ideas in The Undiscovered Country work perfectly, but the film overall amounts an entertaining experience and one of the better entries in the Star Trek film series. It's certainly no Wrath of Khan nor is it quite up to par with The Voyage Home, but it's miles better than The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier, so that has to count for something.

The script has it's ups and downs, but as I mentioned, it ultimately works. While the previous films analyzed topics ranging from science, discovery, environmentalism, communication, or religion... this one makes an effort to examine politics from a Sci-Fi perspective. The cold war themes weren't uncommon on the original, especially when the Klingons were concerned, as the original ran in the midst of the increasing conflict. This film, was released right around the end of the cold war, so it only seems appropriate. The whole cold war allegory is... okay I guess. It doesn't really have a lot to say about the conflict other than that it happened and then ended. Whatever, I suppose it adds some decent conflict to the story that reasonably tied in with some important events happening at the time of it's release. The whodunit mystery isn't very interesting either, or at least it's resolution is kind of uninspired. When the mystery is set in motion, it keeps you engaged, but the resolution is about as predictable as you can get. These were all some interesting and worthy ideas to explore, and while I can't say they work as well as they should, I can't fault the film too much for them either.

Can't really complain too much about the rest, story wise at least. For starters, the pacing is great, with few dead moments or boring scenes. The dialogue is some of the series' best as well, especially when you consider that this is a franchise known for corny lines and odd techno-babble. The conflict, politics and mysteries aside, overall works too. It's not as suspenseful as some of the better Trek films, but seeing Kirk and Bones working together in order to escape from their current predicament keeps the movie going. There are no huge surprise twists or reveals that I didn't already see coming, but the way everything develops and reveals itself is engaging and generally works. The visuals are better this time around, with a bigger budget at their disposal leading to some interesting effects, decent action, and neat space battles. That said, if you're only impressed by today's cg-heavy blockbusters, you probably won't be too impressed. Most of the primary characters get at least one big or memorable moment, the new characters generally work, and the script never let's is symbolism overshadow the main plot at hand or the enjoyability factor. It was also kind of interesting to see Kirk mention David Marcus, his decesased son, namely because the character was rarely mentioned in the films following The Search For Spock. I also have to say how cool was is to see Sulu become Captain of his own ship... too bad he never got a spin off or TV miniseries... that would have been awesome!

Acting wise, it's once again something of a mixed bag. The returning cast members know their characters so well, they probably don't have to put much effort into their roles. Kim Cattrall (as in Sex in the City Kim Cattrall) plays Lt. Valeris, a Vulcan protege of Spock serving aboard the Enterprise. Cattrall tries hard, I can tell, and while she's not awful, it's not a particularly memorable performance. Christpher Plummer, on the other hand, has some enjoyable moments as the Shakespeare-quoting Klingon Chang. You can't go wrong with Christopher Plummer, just saying. As for the rest... there's not too much to say. Some do well, some are a bit shaky, but the acting overall is decent enough. Nobody is great but nobody is terrible either, take that as you will. One more thing, be on the lookout for a completely random cameo from Christian Slater (his mother was the film's casting director). Slater doesn't really add much to the film as he's only on screen for a minute, it's just kind of neat.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country isn't a perfect movie, but it's still a pretty damn good one and a great send-off for the original cast. Between a good story, some solid action, and some neat visuals, it's overall an enjoyable experience. Check it out if you haven't seen it.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - Review

After the 1-2-3 knock-outs of The Wrath of Khan, The Search For Spock, and The Voyage Home (typically dubbed the "Star Trek Trilogy"), the Star Trek series seemed to be on fire. Studios loved the box-office revenue, Trekkies were never happier, and the franchise was even starting find an audience outside of the typical nerd demographic. Since hiring Leonard Nimoy as director worked so successfully for parts III & IV, Captain Kirk himself, William Shatner, was chosen to take the directorial duties for the fifth film. So to no surprise, expectations ran high for a fifth entry. In 1989, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was released in theaters... and the disappointment began.

Star Trek IV ended with a trial for Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) for breaking a number of Starfleet laws, despite saving Earth from an alien probe and an angry Klingon. As "punishment" for his actions, he was demoted to the rank of Captain and was assigned once again to the newly reconstructed USS Enterprise-A with his familiar crew. Kirk could not have been happier, as he never enjoyed his rank as Admiral but rather found true happiness as Captain of his beloved ship. The film opens with Kirk, McCoy (DeForest Kelley), and Spock (Leonard Nimoy) enjoying a relaxing shore leave in Yosemite. Their vacation is cut short, however, when Starfleet orders them to answer a rescue call on Planet Nimbus III, where three dignitaries (a Klingon, Romulan, and Human) are being held hostage by a renegade Vulcan named Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill). As they rush to complete their mission, they learn more about this mysterious Sybok, such as that he has the ability to take away one's emotional pain, has obtained a large number of devoted followers, and may even know the location of God himself. With time as a factor and a potentially dangerous radical leader, the Enterprise crew must act fast before something truly terrible happens.

I'm really conflicted when it comes to Star Trek V, because once again I feel like there was some effort put into the film... unfortunately, little of it works. This entry is often deemed the worst film in the whole franchise... and I mostly have to agree. It tries to tell a legitimate story, isn't nearly as tediously paced as the first film, and has a few moments of decent character interaction. Unfortunately it has a very lackluster script with go nowhere scenes, uninteresting characters, under-developed ideas, and abysmal humor. Yeah, you know how the lighthearted comedy in the fourth film worked so well, that's not the case here. It tries to be a very action packed entry as well, but Shatner's ability to direct action (plus the actors and camerawork) just falls flat. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what went wrong here, because honestly there's a lot that doesn't work.

As I mentioned, the story has some interesting moments and ideas that, if fleshed out better, could have been lead to something interesting. The first film analyzed scientific discovery, the second looked at death and human nature, the third was about the value of life, and the fourth examined societal communication. This film tackled a subject that could have easily figured into the Star Trek universe... religion. Now, I'm going to get into what my religious beliefs may or may not be. I'm not ashamed or afraid to disclose such things, but I don't want to start a flame war or give the impression that I'm coming down on this film because it may or may not conflict with some of my beliefs. Ultimately, I'm a pretty open minded person to all forms of faith (or lack thereof). There have been compelling arguments made on all sides, and when it all comes down, I don't care what a story or film may be trying to get across... as long as it makes an important and thought-provoking statement backed up by intelligent, thought-out, and developed opinions. If a film just proselytizes or condemns something based simply on a narrow-minded thought process... that annoys me. Star Trek V, without spoiling anything, has two or three interesting scenes but ultimately comes down on religion without backing up it's themes particularly well. Nothing about it was offensive or anything like that, just more disappointing because it ultimately states that those who follow religion are blind and that religion itself is bad. If these ideas could have fleshed out a bit better, that might have been interesting, but ultimately they're a letdown.

Religious allegories aside, the script is just kind of a mess. As mentioned, the film was directed (and co-written for that matter) by Shatner, so the film heavily revolves around Kirk. He generally takes center stage in most of the action scenes, gets the most prevalent character development, and generally makes this film a big celebration for all things Shatner. Without spoiling anything, there's even this big reveal pertaining to Spock and Sybok that, in theory, should have been huge Earth-shattering conflict that mainly just gets mentioned and set aside... interesting choice there William. It tries to throw in a few decent jokes here and there, but most just fall flat. Some of the jokes just make their characters look like buffoons while others are just plain stupid or unfunny. There are long stretches of scenes that go absolutely nowhere, the worst of which is a campfire sing-a-long that just seems out of place and adds unnecessary minutes to the runtime. I also have to mention finale, which was being hyped up as this big epic face-off but in reality just becomes an underwhelming mesh of uninteresting special effects and dull action. Yeah, on that note, the action isn't anything special to behold. Shatner makes a reasonable effort to hold himself in the fight scenes, especially considering that he was no spring chicken, but it comes across as kind of awkward. It doesn't help that the effects are a barrage of lame visuals and obvious mechanics, complete with wires showing and machines casting revealing shadows. It's either slow, boring, just plain stupid... and that's never a good combination.

Since the last two films overcame some of their flaws by the solid performances of it's familiar cast, you would hope the same could be said here. Sadly, even these actors weren't game this time around. It was long rumored that there was some tension between the actors and Shatner since the beginning of the series run, and maybe that figured in here. I don't know the exact reasons, but everyone was a bit off this time and looked like they were just going through the motions without putting in much effort this time. Laurence Luckinbill is probably the main offender, as he was pretty over-the-top and got pretty grating after a while. There were only a couple of decent scenes that managed to elevate the film, even if only a bit. I liked some of the character interactions between the three main characters, as that was typical the primary dramatic thrust of these stories. The one true standout moment is a scene between Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Sybok, when the latter offers to take take away their pain and have them join his movement. That's the only standout scene where we get some real introspective into the characters, as we see their into the psyche, troubles, and what drives them. Kirk, the only who refuses, ultimately states that it's our pain that makes us human and that without it, we are nothing. That is a very strong and potent statement, that if developed more, could have made for a compelling and dramatic film. Too bad it wasn't.

It's easy to see why Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is typically called the worst Star Trek movie. It might be a bit more "watch-able" than the first film, mainly since the pacing isn't as tedious, but there's very little recommend here. It's not totally without any merit, but it's a letdown and low-point for the series. Fortunately, the original cast would get one more chance for a send-off, and at the very least, we can be thankful that this wasn't the true final frontier.

My Score: 1.5 out of 5!

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - Review

Since it's release in 1986, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home has been generally lumped into the "good" even-numbered Trek movies... ie, most people like it. The movie was praised by most critics, scored at the box office, was embraced by the general Trekkie community, and even found a following among non-Trekkie film goers. By all accounts, the movie was, and still is, a pretty big success. That said, every so often I come across someone (often a Trekkie) who swears that this movie is terrible and the worst in the series. The reasons as to why often vary, some criticizing the lighter tone, some the environmental themes, or some just called it plain cheesy. I personally loved this one as a kid, and was curious to see how it held up as an adult. How does Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home pan out 26 years later and from an adult perspective? Let's find out...

Star Trek IV picks up a few months after the events of it's Star Trek III. Spock (Leonard Nimoy) lives once again, and has since regained both his intelligence and motor skills, but lacks his understanding of basic human emotions and struggles to remember his past. Nonetheless, he agrees to once again rejoin his friends and crew in returning to Earth... where Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) awaits trial for his actions in the previous film, which led to the destruction of the USS Enterprise. Upon departing, Starfleet comes across an unknown alien probe floating through space and destroying everything in it's path. Nobody can stop or communicate with it because the probe is sending out an unintelligible message that can only be understood by a Humpback whale... only problem is that the Humpback whale has been extinct for centuries. When Kirk hears of this development, he commandeers the late Commander Kruge's Bird of Prey, assembles his usual crew, and travels back in time to 20th century San Francisco to find a humpback whale, bring it back to their time, and save the world from certain doom.

So when looking at that premise, it's fairly easy to see why there are some people that like to dismiss this movie. I'll even admit, there are times I wonder why it works as well as it does... and believe me, I do truly think this movie works. Still, it's kind of interesting why a film that broke so far from the styles of it's predecessors is so entertaining. Considering how the previous movies had such dark and dramatic themes, the shift to lighthearted comedy was pretty drastic. Also, for a series that was centered around space travel and discovering odd or unknown planets, setting the film in 1986 San Francisco was an odd choice. Plus, the "Save the Whales" inspired plot can, at times, come off as a bit preachy and cheesy. Still, there's just no denying that the film is straight-up entertaining. Sure, it wasn't as risky or daring as Wrath of Khan, but people often forget that the original series, more often than not, had a light-hearted sense of humor, with some episodes more comedy-orientated than others. Plus, the story itself has some interesting subtext that fits in nicely with the series' trademark creative writing. Ultimately, the main theme is of communication, how it can both separate and unite humanity. When the alien probe approaches Earth, everyone assumes that it's message was meant for them as a death threat... when in reality, it was the opposite. Any deaths or damages it caused wasn't a result of malice, but simply a misunderstanding. This plot hasn't exactly set the Sci-Fi world on fire, but there's definitely some profundity hiding within the script that often goes overlooked. Even if that's not your cup of tea, the film still falls back on some great character interactions and some really funny jokes. The interactions between the crew are as great as always, plus the jokes are never at the expense of the classic characters. In other words, you're never laughing at them, but rather with them. It's got it's cheesy moments, but it just plain works.

The cast once again pretty much hits it out of the park. While the previous two films showcased some of the actors ability to demonstrate their capacity for drama, this film gives them the opportunity to let loose and do some comedy. Most of the jokes come from the fish-out-of-water scenario with the Enterprise crew in the 20th century. William Shatner (whether intentionally or not), has generally shown that he has some great comedic ability, and this film puts them to good use. Leonard Nimoy also gets a couple good chuckles, since as a Vulcan, he's probably the most out of place in the crew. One of the show's main source of humor, DeForrest Kelley, gets some of the better jokes too, namely his rants on 20th century medicine (was there subtext in that... maybe, not sure). Walter Koenig as Chekov gets one of the more memorable lines in the film too as he walks around San Fran asking it's residents how to find the "Nuclear Wessels." Overall, the actors have probably never been better than in this film, as they all looked relaxed and like they were having a fun times making this movie. Once again, Leonard Nimoy scores as a director thanks to the solid performances.

As for what doesn't work... well, there are a couple of things. Since most of the film is set in the present day, it's not exactly a huge effects extravaganza, and that might turn some off. The scenes set in space look fine, but none of the visuals are amazing by any means. There aren't as many sets or alien worlds too, most of the filming took place on-location, which is a double edged sword for some. The visuals and production design aren't as creative or imaginative but if you're not a fan of obvious sets (which have sometimes plagued this series) you'll be happy... depends which one you prefer. While most of the humor works, there are one or two scenes where the jokes just fall flat, but that's pretty rare. How you'll respond to this film ultimately comes down to how you prefer your Star Trek. It's not as suspenseful, there's no major villain, and there's little actual "Star Trekking" but if you can accept that it tried something new and different... you'll be surprised how well it works.

There's not much more I have to say about Star Trek IV, other than it's kind of awesome. Yeah, it's not the most action packed, and some of the environmental themes can be a bit heavy-handed, but the natural performances, an interesting premise, and the humorous tone make it work. Sometimes, change can be good, as this is a perfect example. This is probably the most purely enjoyable of all the Trek films, so if you haven't seen it yet, I'd definitely say give it a watch.

My Score: 4 out 5!

Star Trek III: The Search For Spock - Review

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan reignited the fledgling Star Trek series in ways nobody, even the most hardcore Trekkies, could have predicted. Even today, most Trek fans consider it the best thing to even happen in the expansive Trek series and universe (I know the 2009 struck a serious chord with audiences too, but I have my doubts that Abrams' movie will be as endearing years from now. Time will tell, and I'll address that more when I review the 2009 film). Anyways, Wrath of Khan was such a success, that audiences had high hopes for the third entry. There was a lot of speculation too, since the end of Part II (Wrath of Khan Spoilers ahead) left Spock dead, Kirk with an previously unknown son, and a device that turned a rotting planet into a lush life-filled world. While Leonard Nimoy originally made it pretty clear that he wanted out of the series, he was apparently lured back, not only as an actor, but also as the director. Star Trek III: The Search For Spock was helmed by Nimoy himself and found Spock as the main thrust of the narrative. With the hype long since subsided and time long since past, let's see if this entry has lived long and prospered!

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock picks up immediately after the events of Wrath of Khan. The Starship Enterprise returns to Earth with a less-than-excited crew. After the devastating battle with Khan took the life of their friend and ally, Captain Spock (Leonard Nimoy), the ship's crew was noticeably hurt. Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) in particular was affected by this, as Spock was one of his closest friends. Upon returning, the Enterprise crew receives more bad news when it was announced that their beloved ship would be decommissioned. In addition to all this madness, Kirk's other close friend, Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (DeForest Kelley), begins to act strangely. It is soon revealed by Spock's father, Sarek (Mark Lenard), that his son may not actually be deceased. Prior to his death, Spock transferred his Katra (a Vulcan "living spirit") into McCoy, and if Spock's Katra is reunited with his dead body, then Spock may live again. Upon learning this, Kirk and crew, illegally commandeer their soon-to-be-dismantled ship and fly to Genesis (the former dead planet rejuvenated with life) where Spock's body lies. Their off-the-grid mission, however, is interrupted by a Klingon Bird of Prey ship, helmed by Commander Kruge (Christopher Lloyd), with a desire to steal and weaponize Starfleet's Genesis project.

The nerd community, and film fans in general, don't always agree on which Star Trek films are the best, but it seems like there's a reasonably accepted assessment that the even numbered Trek movies are better while the odd number films are of lesser quality. Personally, I think there's some reasonable truth in that, as the even-numbered films do, on average, tend to fare a bit better. Still, I think there are some exceptions to that rule, and Star Trek III is one of them. If you're curious, I'll tell you straight up that The Search for Spock isn't nearly the masterpiece that Wrath of Khan is, but there's a lot I like about this one too. It continues the story, features some big epic scenes, and has an interesting hook. Unfortunately, it lacks most of the compelling character drama, hero/villain dynamic, and freshness of it's predecessor. It's worst offense, in my opinion, however is that it retconned most of the second film's most dramatic and powerful scenes. To reveal what gets a do-over would have to contain spoilers, so later on I'll discuss those more in a spoiler-filled paragraph and go into more detail. All that said, there are some things about this movie that I really do like, and still keep the movie entertaining.

What mainly elevates this movie from being simply average or decent to actually pretty good are the performances of it's familiar cast. Pretty much everyone is back again (I won't list them all, if you're reading this you probably know them better than I do anyways), and their natural chemistry has never been more endearing or spot-on. Each cast member brings a natural comfort and believably to their respective roles and have arguably never been better. Maybe since they were being directed by their previous co-star, that probably had something to do with it. They basically hit all the right notes, they can be funny, dramatic, and ready for action whenever the film calls for it. I also have to give a special shout-out to Christopher Lloyd as the villainous Klingon Commander Kruge. Lloyd has always been an underrated actor, and while than flawless Hero/Villain rivalry between Kirk and Khan is sorely missed this time around, you can't hold that against Lloyd. His character never ends up being anything more than one-note, but Lloyd's natural theatricality and presence makes him one hell of an entertaining Klingon, and in the hands of a lesser actor would have probably crashed and burned. None of the performances quite blew me away, but everyone brought their A-Game and made the film entertaining. That's good enough for me!

When it comes to the visuals and action, it's a bit of a mixed bag but overall works. The effects this time around are more-or-less on par with Wrath of Khan. None were incredible, but once again it was less about the effects themselves and more about how they were presented. They still managed to utilize some creative camera angles and editing to make them work, and the huge finale had a few stand out visuals. There were a few scenes that had some dodgy effects shots, but given the time and budget, they're decent enough. The action keeps the movie entertaining, with a good confrontation between Kirk and Kruge plus a decent space battle and some other reasonably suspenseful scenes. The pacing isn't as perfect this around though, as there are some points where it drags a bit, but that said it's not even close to the bore-fest of the first film. It's adequately paced, well-shot, and entertaining enough to hold your attention, and I can honestly say that I was rarely bored by it. The action and effects probably won't win over any Trek-haters or the uninitiated but for Sci-Fi and film fans like myself, it does what it needs to.

SPOILERS LIE AHEAD!!!

Okay, I put up the spoiler warning... so if you don't want anything revealed, skip ahead to the next paragraph. The story this time around is... okay. It's not a particularly ambitious screenplay nor is it as character-driven as it's predecessor. That said, it begins with a good hook that gets you interested and has a certain mystery that keeps you invested. As I mentioned, my main problem is the way it undoes many of the choices made by it's predecessor. Kirk's son, David Marcus is killed by the Klingon enemy while on the planet Genesis. Speaking of which, that planet Genesis... yeah it blows up. Spock's emotional death is completely done over, as by the end of the movie, the character is revived. Yeah, Spock is awesome, and it was cool to have him back, but for all the chances that Wrath of Khan took and the way it tried to progress the story, that's a huge letdown. Clearly audiences or the producers preferred the status quo instead of daring new story-threads so they just went back to what they new worked. That's kind of a drag. Still, there are some really strong and powerful scenes, even somewhat operatic, scattered throughout the film, so it at least has some emotional impact. If Wrath of Khan was about death, Search for Spock was about life, and that has to count for something. For that, I give it some credit.

SPOILERS END!!!

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock isn't great, especially standing next to it's predecessor, but it is good. The film has some really strong moments, some cool action, and an endearing cast. There are some people who lump this film among the worst of the Trek films, and while it does have it's flaws, I think it's negative reputation is fairly undeserved. If you're not a fan, you might want to give it another try, you might be surprised to find it's pretty good. For everyone else, it's worth a watch.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - Review

1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture was seen as something of a disappointment. While not totally without merit, the film was criticized for it's tedious pacing, reliance on effects, and for doing away with most of the traits that made the TV series so endearing. While it made some money at the box office, it's numbers weren't what the studio had hoped, and as a result, they were reluctant about making a sequel. After series creator Gene Roddenberry was booted off the project (as he was generally blamed for the problems with the first film) and a significantly lower budget was provided, the sequel was green-lit and went into production. The movie, titled Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, while technically a canonical sequel to the 1979 film, generally ignored the previous film's events, and instead was more of a follow-up to Space Seed, a first season episode of the TV series. The film once again managed to recruit the series' primary cast members, but wasn't able to recruit the same prestigious behind-the-camera crew of the first, instead hiring the relatively unknown director Nicholas Meyer. Despite the cut budget, a lack of interest from the studio, a less prolific director, and the still bitter reception of the first film, the film was released to theaters in 1982... and Star Trek has never been better!

Taking place in the 23rd century, years after the USS Enterprise completed it's "five year mission," some of the ship's original crew have gone their separate ways. The Enterprise itself has become a Starfleet training ship, with Spock (Leonard Nimoy), the ship's former Commander, now serving as the Captain and primary instructor to his Commander-In-Training, Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley). The aging Admiral James T. Kirk, former Captain of the Enterprise, boards the ship one last time to oversee a routine training mission before he settles down from space missions. After reuniting with most of his original team, including Spock, McCoy (DeForest Kelley), and others, the mission becomes anything but routine when Kirk faces off against a former enemy. Khan Noonien Singh (Ricardo Montalban), a genetically altered "superman" once defeated by Kirk, returns seeking vengeance and universal domination. With time as a factor, Kirk and crew must hurry to defeat one of Starfleet's deadliest enemies.

Many fans (and non-fans for that matter) generally consider Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan to be the best entry in the Star Trek movie series... and honestly, I'm right there with them. Not only is Wrath of Khan the best Trek movie, but it's arguably the best "thing" in the whole Star Trek franchise... dare I even say, even one of the best Sci-Fi movies ever made! I know that might seem like a bit generous, but every time I watch this movie, my admiration for it continues to grow. The plot is solid, the themes are interesting, the characters are well developed, the villain is unforgettable, the pacing is near-perfect, and the action is memorable. It took all of the best elements from the TV series while taking advantage of it's expanded movie run-time and budget to further explore some interesting themes and dynamics. After the mixed reception of it's predecessor, some thought that the Star Trek franchise was dead, but this film proved that it still had plenty of life left in it and rejuvenated the series... and after watching the movie, it's easy to why.

When all is said and done, Wrath of Khan mainly succeeds on the strength of it's story. Most of the film is centered around Admiral Kirk, as he deals with age, regret, and overcoming his past. Despite the fact that this movie is 30 years old, I still won't spoil anything, but I will say that the way his past life is explored is legitimately moving and interesting. The past rivalry between Kirk and Khan fits in perfectly with such themes, adds a great hero/villain dynamic, and never comes off as overly dramatic or schmaltzy. The filmmakers took some real chances here too, adding some legitimately moving dramatic moments that sometimes moves people to tears... again won't spoil anything, but I really have to get them credit for trying something so risky. There are also some great interactions between Kirk, Spock, and Bones (something that was often neglected in the first film) that gives the film some much needed levity and explanation. As mentioned, the Hero Vs Villain face-off scenes are near perfect, with Kirk and Khan having some suspenseful and nail-biting interactions. Oddly enough, neither Kirk or Khan are ever in the same room with one another, instead limiting most of their communication with each other via communicator or screen. It would have been cool to see them face-off in person, but whatever, what works just works!

The effects this time around are notably of a lesser quality compared to the grandiose visuals from it's predecessor, but they still work. Honestly though, the lavish visuals from the first probably did more harm than good, and if that film was evidence that visuals don't make up for a lacking story, this film is solid proof that the opposite is true. A visually dynamic but narratively empty film can only get you so far, but if a film has a solid script, characters, and pacing, some sketchy visuals are easy to look past. Still, that's not to say that movie looks bad, in fact I think it has a pretty good visual aesthetic. The production design, namely the look of the ship interiors, is memorable and detailed. The models used to render the ships still do their job as well. Ultimately, the filmmakers just knew how to put their lower budget to good use. The effects certainly don't have the first film's "epic" feel per se, but they're shot from well-chosen angles, the editing is swift and fluent, and none of the effects are overblown or overused. The first space battle between the Enterprise and the Reliant is an awesomely suspenseful and exciting bit of action and one of my favorite scenes in all Sci-Fi movies. It's one of the more action packed films in the Trek series, and hits pretty much all the requisite action beats it needs to. The film also featured one of the first instances of CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) that, while more than a bit dated, is still pretty cool to look at. Compared to today's cg-laden blockbusters and effects driven monstrosities, it's unlikely that these effects will blow anyone away, but like I said, that doesn't really matter. The effects work when they need to, and even when they don't, you can always fall back on the film's important strengths (of which there are plenty).

The only weakness the film truly has is the quality of some of the acting. Once again, the producers managed to recruit many of the series' original actors, and they are all of different calibers. Many of the returning actors are so set in the respective roles that they're able to reprise them with ease. William Shatner (mostly) once again reigns in some of his typical scenery-chewing tendencies and gives a relatively restrained performance. He's not always perfect but he shows strong emotional range during some of the movie's more dramatic scenes. Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley are solid once again as their renown characters, no complaints there. In a surprise casting choice, Kirstie Alley plays the Vulcan, Lt. Saavik. It's odd to see a comedic performer like herself in a Star Trek movie, but she does the whole emotionless Vulcan schtick fairly well, no real complaints. With all that said, there is one stand-out performer, and that is Ricardo Montalban, who absolutely owns every single scene as Khan. His intense and brooding performance just sells every ounce of hatred and rage lying within the character, and contributes a great deal of the film's most memorable moments. His role has become so iconic, that he's not only often considered the series' greatest villain, but one of Sci-Fi's greatest villains period. The rest of the cast is hit and miss, but even when the acting isn't totally up to par, there was never a point I was totally taken out of the movie.

So Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan... it kicks ass! Even with a few dated effects and a handful of flawed performances, the film scores huge thanks to a strong story, great character development, memorable action, and an iconic villain. There are tons of fans and audiences that will forever consider this the best film in the Star Trek series, and while it's always possible one might come along and take it's place, the film has got it's work cut out for it. If you haven't seen this one, do so!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Star Trek: The Motion Picture - Review

I haven't done a series review in a while (not since last summer when I reviewed the last seven Batman flicks), so now seems like a good time to do another. Since another Star Trek movie is on it's way, now seems like a good enough time to review all the Trek movies. Personally, I've never been a hardcore Trekkie (usually been more of a Star Wars guy myself), but I've enjoyed the Trek series. I guess I'm what's typically called a "Casual Trekkie." In addition to seeing all of the movies, I'm reasonably familiar with TNG, TOS, and Voyager in the sense that I know most of the major story-lines, can recognize the main characters, and have generally been a fan. That said, don't ask me anything about DS9 or Enterprise (not very well-versed in those series). But even though I've never been a massive Trek fan, I've still always had an appreciation for Gene Roddenberry's (the creator of Star Trek) series and always admired what he accomplished with it. So, for the next 12 days, I will be reviewing every Star Trek movie from 1979's Star Trek: The Motion Picture to this year's Star Trek Into Darkness. Without further ado, here is Trek's first foray into the cinematic universe...

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the first film based on the legendary Sci-Fi series to hit theaters, arriving ten years after the end of the classic show. The film itself takes place three years after the USS Enterprise's original five year mission... this time called to investigate an unknown object clouded in a mysterious fog that destroys everything in it's path. The Enterprise's original Star Fleet Captain, James T. Kirk (William Shatner), now promoted to Admiral, returns to take command of the newly redesigned ship and lead the investigation. Former Enterprise crew members, and Kirk's personal friends, Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and Leonard "Bones" McCoy (DeForest Kelley), return as Science Officer and Medical Officer respectively to aid in the mission. With tension between Kirk and the ship's previous Captain, William Decker (Stephen Collins), the Enterprise crew works quickly to discover the secret of the alien object and stop it before it causes anymore damage.

There was a lot of hype surrounding this film in 1979, in addition to the series typical fan-base Sci-Fi found a renewed popularity after the success of Star Wars in 1977. In addition to the already mentioned actors, most of the series' original cast returned, including James Doohan as Montgomery "Scotty" Scott, Walter Koenig as Pavel Chekov, Nichelle Nichols as Uhura, and George Takei as Hikaru Sulu. Series creator Gene Roddenberry produced the film, legendary sci-fi author Issac Asimov served as a scientific advisor, and Oscar winning filmmaker, Robert Wise (whose resume included films like The Day the Earth Stood Still, Sound of Music, and The Andromeda Strain), served as the film's director. With all of the talent on display both in front and behind the camera, plus a bigger-than-usual budget given to the film, you would think this film would be a Sci-Fi classic for the ages... if only that were the case. Even after 30 years, this movie is seen as something of a letdown. While a select few do offer this film some strong support, audiences and critics (both Trekkie and non-Trekkie alike) agree that the movie was not a success. Personally, I'm overall not a fan of this one... but there have been a few things about it I do admire.

Once thing I've always admired about Star Trek was it's ability to tell creative and challenging stories, even if lacking in money and resources. The Original Series, despite having an incredibly low budget and campy tone, made up for it's lack of production value with it's creative writing, endearing characters, and challenging-but-accessible scripts that tackled interesting ideas. This movie tried to be something special, I can definitely tell, and any of it's failures are not due to lack of passion or interest. In fact, I would say the main problem with this movie is exactly the opposite. It tries to do WAY too much, and while the film's script has some admirable and even provocative ideas, it's brought down by lack of development and abysmal pacing. Oh yeah, that last part is the film's biggest downfall... THE PACING IS UNBEARABLE! This movie just draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaags until it puts you to sleep. There's no two ways around this folks, the movie is just plain BORING! It clearly some inspiration from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but while that flick had a slow pace too, it works due to fully realized concepts, brilliant direction, game-changing effects, and an incredibly nit-picky attention to detail. The ideas Star Trek attempts to tackle here, ranging from philosophy, evolution, and religious themes are all commendable, but none are fully explored or developed. Even the actors, including the typically over-the-top William Shatner giving a more subdued performance, do little to liven up anything. When you're working with a script that provides little to it's characters, what do you expect? I guess they were trying to make Star Trek more of an experience than just a piece of entertainment, and while that was commendable, it clearly backfired. It's too bad, there was a lot of potential with it.

On the bright side the film looks pretty damn good, unfortunately it does little to add much to the overall experience. Working with a pretty high budget for the time, the filmmakers assembled some impressive models, sets, and effects... most of which hold up surprisingly well. The Enterprise received a makeover, but still retains the classic Star Fleet look made famous by the the show. You also get some neat trippy visuals and cool psychedelic moments. Sadly, this movie is a perfect example of why a film can't rely strictly on the strength of it's effects. As mentioned, the pacing is so slow, that being constantly subjected to ridiculously long takes with few cuts, that they loose their luster pretty quickly. They are impressive, but a movie can't survive strictly on it's visual effects, and this movie is proof of that concept. I will say that I did enjoy some of composer Jerry Goldsmith's musical score, namely the film's primary theme song that would eventually go onto be the theme for The Next Generation series. Unfortunately, even that doesn't add enough to make the film a success. It's too bad, despite the intense efforts of all involved, most of it just falls flat.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was an ambitious and commendable effort that just doesn't work very well. I admire this movie more than I like it, since I do truly and honestly believe that movies like this can and have worked before. Unfortunately, whether it was a troubled production, too many conflicting ideas, or just it's own ambition, it will probably forever be seen as a disappointment. If you're a sci-fi nut, you might actually might something to like in the flick, but for everyone else, it's a pretty tough watch. Fortunately, this wouldn't be the last we would hear of the franchise, and what would come next would be something else entirely...

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Iron Man 3 - Review

You know who I'd hate to be right now? I'd hate to be Shane Black... well, sort of. Don't get me wrong, I'd give my right eye to have just a piece of the guy's talent, not to mention being the creative force of an established super hero movie would be awesome, but the responsibility to deliver a satisfying follow-up to the two Iron Man movies AND the awesomeness that was The Avengers has got to be unbearable. I can't speak for Mr. Black, but if it were me, I probably would have crumbled under the pressure. The first two Iron Man flicks were directed by Jon Favreau, an actor/filmmaker primarily known for comedies but proved that he had the capacity to helm an action movie as well. Plus, the film's had two other things going for it. One, the film starred Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man, the super talented actor who was in the midst of a major career comeback after hitting a few rough patches. Secondly, both the first but especially the second films were the jumping off points for the ambitious and exciting prospect of The Avengers, not only carrying it's own franchise but also teasing bits and pieces of the other Marvel films and the proposed team-up. So now that we know that Iron Man is an awesome character, that comic book continuity works in a film universe, and that The Avengers kicked ass... where do you go from there? Well... to be frank, you make a film like Iron Man 3.

Iron Man 3 takes place shortly after The Avengers. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is back living in Miami in a committed relationship with his family company's CEO, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). After stopping the alien invasion of New York alongside his fellow Avengers, Stark has been having difficulty coping with his life. After fighting alongside Gods, Monsters, and Super Soldiers (not to mention having a near death experience), Stark can't help but feel like just a man with a machine, and therefore suffers from insecurity and PTSD. As a result, Stark often alienates himself from his friends and Pepper and instead spends most of his time in his lab building new Iron Man suits. His world is shaken, however, when a terrorist known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) and sets his sights on Stark. Faced against insurmountable odds, Stark must use his skills, intellect, and technology to save himself and his allies against this mysterious foe.

I'm going to preface this review by quickly addressing the recent commotion this film has started. In short, Iron Man 3 has a big twist about halfway through the film that has been causing some fanboys to lose their shit. As I've mentioned in previous reviews, I always try to avoid spoilers... especially for high profile new releases. I promise that I won't reveal or outright spoil any major plot twists or details, but I might slightly allude to them. Take that as you will.

I have to admit that I'm a tab surprised that the Iron Man films managed to strike such a chord with such a massive audience. The Iron Man was a reasonably popular comic and with a loyal fanbase, but aside for the usual comic nerds, Iron Man rarely had much of a following with the general audience. Plus, the movies themselves have never been that great... don't get me wrong, I personally love these movies, but I admit they have flaws. Cool concepts, great action, neat special effects, and some solid character moments have all been present, but the scrips have never been much more than good at best or average at worst. The screenplay here... is something of a mixed bag. Once again, the set-up is pretty solid, Stark being haunted by his near-death experience with the Avengers has promise. The idea of finally seeing The Mandarin in a live action movie also got me hyped, him being Stark's primary nemesis in the comics after all. The overall results, however... were kind of hit-and-miss. To reveal all of what works and what doesn't would be spoiling some major plot points, so I won't do that, but I will discuss a bit more when I get to critiquing the actors. I will say that the film had some strong character-based moments, the pacing is solid, and that it was cool to see Pepper Potts play a bit more of an active role, but there were a few plot-holes and dumb scenes that held back what could have been an excellent movie instead of just a good one.

Ultimately, what has elevated the flicks from simply good to straight-up awesomeness was the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. Around the time of the first Iron Man (back in 2008), Downey was in the midst of a huge comeback after a few setbacks with hit films like Iron Man, Tropic Thunder, and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (also directed by Shane Black). Make no mistake, if there was ever an man born to play the role of Tony Stark... it's Downey. He's such a versatile actor, that for four movies, he's managed to pull off every subtle trait of Stark, from the humorous fun-loving personality, his troubled past and bad habits, and his inherent heart of gold. Between the drama, comedy, and action... I really can't think of anyone who could have been better cast in this role. Gwyneth Paltrow gets what's arguably her meatiest role so far in the series, resulting in what's arguably her best performance as Pepper Potts. She gets in on the action a few times and shows some solid dramatic range in some of the heavier moments. I've always liked her character and was genuinely pleased with how she's stuck with the character the last few years... I still stand by that. The other returning cast members are across the board solid. Don Cheadle returns as Colonel James Rhodes aka War Machine (now Re-Christened as The Iron Patriot) and provides another solid interpretation of the character. The series' original director, Jon Favreau, once again returns as Happy Hogan, now promoted to Head of Security, and has some solid moments of comic relief... no complaints there. Overall, the returning cast members are pretty damn awesome, after playing these characters in 2, 3, or 4 movies, they're just straight up good... which is always good for me.

Now we come to the villains... and this is where it gets tough to critique. Like I said, I won't spoil any major details, but in order to give a reasonable review, I might allude to a few of them, which might in turn hint toward the reveals. If you don't want anything spoiled, skip to the next paragraph. One of the things that had really kept the first two Iron Man films from achieving greatness was the lack of a truly great villain. Jeff Bridges as Iron Monger, Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, and Mickey Rourke as Whiplash were typically enjoyable characters played by good actors... but lacked the depth to be anything more than one-note. The Mandarin, here played by Ben Kingsley, wasn't exactly an extraordinary character in the comics, but an interesting one. Here the decision to re-imagine him as an international terrorist leader, with traits from a variety of cultures, while avoiding the previous Fu Manchu stereotype, was promising... and I was genuinely interested in seeing what the filmmakers would do with him. What ultimately becomes of him... well, that's what I can't reveal. It was an interesting idea, but ultimately something of a letdown. I won't spoil it, but I think you'll know what I mean. The other villain Aldrich Killian, played by Guy Pearce, is basically on par with the previous villains. He has some interesting moments, is played by a good actor, and is set-up well enough, but he's just too one-dimensional and not very memorable. It might have been due to raised expectations, but the villains, while not terrible, were a bit of let-down once again... too bad.

Fortunately, the film's faults are easier to take in thanks to some kick-ass action and special effects! Shane Black, with only two directorial efforts, has proved himself as one of the industry's most prolific figures in the action genre. The cgi has never looked better and the Iron Man have continually improved over the last few years (honestly, who wouldn't want one). Each action scene is one exciting thrill-ride after another, all culminating to a finale that sets the bar pretty high for the summer's upcoming blockbusters. Granted, I couldn't help but feel like the ending was a little too much of a toy commercial... but whatever, in this industry, it's part of the deal. It was also cool to see Stark get creative in how he battles the villains here, as there are a couple scenes where he is forced to fight outside of his suit. It just shows how much of a genius Stark truly is, and adds a nice little change of pace here and there. If all you're looking for in a Iron Man movie are great action scenes and special effects... I can all but guarantee that you'll be happy.

So that's Iron Man 3... not perfect but still pretty damn good. While the movie provides some conclusion to the story-arch, I have no doubt that we'll see Iron Man again in some form (Avengers 2 no doubt), but if it were to end here... it would be a satisfying send-off. As the first official blockbuster of the summer season... I'd say the season is off to a good start. See it!

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!