10 Upcoming Remakes That Will Probably Suck

Despite what people may tell you (or what's implied by my reviews), I don't think of myself as a negative person. While I'm sure there are more than a few critics that like to comb through every film they see on the lookout for flaws... that's not really me, or at least, that's not who I try to be. I didn't start this blog for the purpose of tearing apart bad movies, I started it because I have a genuine love for the art of filmmaking and I want to see the industry continue to move forward. Unfortunately, given the industry's tendencies to focus on brand-names, spin-offs, reboots, remakes, and re-whatevers, it's been getting harder to remain positive. Even though this summer has actually been a bit better on the originality front than previous years (at least we got Pacific Rim, The Conjuring, Elysium, and a few others), it seems like we're still getting bombarded with remake after remake. So... yeah, today I'm going to be more cynical than usual and gripe about 10 upcoming remakes that will almost definitely suck. Now... I could be wrong about these films, and I'm hoping I am, but I'm not holding my breath. So without further, here are ten films that will (probably) end up sucking.

Honorable Mention: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
- I'm not including this one on the list because it's less of a remake and more of a reboot and because I haven't really cared much for TMNT since I was like 8 years old. That said, every time I hear news about this film's production, it's sounding more and more like it's going to be a massive train wreck. I mean, come on... Megan Fox as April O'Neil, making Shredder a white guy, and supposedly turning the Turtles into aliens... this film is just going to suck so bad.

10. Godzilla
- I put this one low on the list because despite my reservations, some of the early details about the film have actually looked somewhat promising. Unfortunately, I'm still very much on the fence for two reasons. First off, we already received an American remake of Japan's famous movie monster in 1998... and it was more horrendous than anyone could have imagined. Secondly, the film is being directed by Gareth Edwards, and his debut film, Monsters, was a huge letdown. Yes I know the film was low-budget and tried to tell a good story, but I'm sorry! Monsters was an incredibly overrated effort, that despite it's good intentions, suffered from unlikable leads, dull pacing, on-the-nose symbolism, and a huge letdown of an ending. Plus, the original Godzilla is one of my favorite sci-fi films of all time, and I know that I'm not alone on that... so let's hope for the best.


9. Poltergeist
- It's somewhat re-assuring that Sam Raimi is the one producing the film, but I'm still not sold on remaking Poltergeist. The original 1982 horror flick still holds up as an incredibly spooky haunted house film featuring strong performances, a tight story, and memorable scares. It's two sequels, however, didn't quite cut it. Besides, we've actually gotten a number of original haunted house movies the last few years, and a lot were quite good. So, because of that, remaking Poltergeist just seems like a step backwards. Also... isn't this series cursed? All the more reasons to let this series be.



8. Dirty Dancing
- The original Dirty Dancing may not be high art, but it's an enjoyable love story that's still remembered by a strong and vocal fanbase. I'll even admit, that it's one I personally enjoy. In the long run, I just can't think of any logical reason to update this one for reasons other than to draw people in for the title's name recognition. In that case, it might actually make a little profit at the box office, but I can't imagine the studio will see this one as anything more than a quick cash-grab. If you had the time of your life with the 1982 film... I wouldn't count on that happening with the remake.



7. A Star is Born
- Eeesh... how many times can you remake a movie??? The original was made in 1937, was followed by a remake in 1954 (which was actually superior), and was remade again in 1976. It was originally reported than this remake would star Tom Cruise and Beyoncé Knowles, but apparently they both withdrew. So, maybe plans for this remake will fall through, but who knows. Personally, I just think making a film four times is overkill. Just watch the original(s) instead, we don't need four versions of the same movie.




6. Point Break
- I'm not saying that the original Point Break isn't an enjoyable flick, but honestly, I'm just having a hard time figuring out why someone decided it deserved the remake treatment. I mean, when you get right down to it, Point Break is a fun but incredibly cheesy action movie best remembered primarily by a steadily declining fanbase. The 90s appeal is there, and it's incredibly well shot, but aside from it's corny fun factor, there's nothing about this that screams "remake-able." I don't deny it's enjoyabilty or it's cult following, but I just don't see how they can improve this one without dramatically changing around the story to a point where it only somewhat resembles the original... in which case, why bother remaking it at all? Let this one be and make something else.

5. Scarface
- Like A Star Is Born, Scarface is on this list simply because of the redundancy of remaking a film that's already been remade. Both the 1932 film and Brian De Palma's 1983 remake are considered classics of the gangster genre thanks to well-written stories, enjoyable actors, and shocking violence (well, the 1932 film was fairly shocking for it's time). Once again, this one will apparently update the time period to the modern day. That, in itself, doesn't bother me much, but I'm still not convinced that it could work again. I mean, lightning rarely strikes twice for these kinds of things... three times is pushing it.



4. American Psycho
- Ummmmm.... no. Apparently another film adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' satirical novel is in the works... with a modern setting and a grittier style. Yeah... this is not a good idea. For starters, the last film came out in 2000, which really isn't that long ago when you get right down to it. Also, by updating the setting from the 80s to the present makes me think they're going to totally botch the book's (and the previous film's) poignant themes and dark satire. Whether you see the 2000 film as a bloody horror/thriller, an incredibly bleak dark comedy, or an intelligent analysis of male vanity and greed... it's pretty damn awesome. I just don't see that happening with a remake.


3. Videodrome
- No! No! No! There is NO reason why anyone should make Videodrome. Okay... yes, the original is a bit dated, but in my opinion, any of it's 80s vibes that don't jive as well today are totally forgiven thanks to it's clever story, bleak tone, over-the-top gore, and incredible special effects. David Cronenberg is master of body horror, and I can't think of anyone that could recapture that same vibe. It's only made worse by the fact that the film's currently attached screenwriter was one of the writers for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen... yeah, this one is going to really suck! I imagine they'll update this one and replace killer videotapes and cable stations with downloads and computer viruses. Yeah, that's not nearly as fun. All I can say is, "Death to the Videodrome!"

2. Carrie
- Well, maybe this one won't be so bad. I mean, Chloe Grace Moretz is a good actress, some of the teenage characters actually look more teenagers this time, and most of the actors have done good work before, so mayb-... DAMMIT NO!!! WHY DID THEY HAVE TO REMAKE CARRIE!!! The original is so good! I don't care if it's 70's tone seems a bit out of place, the MESSAGE HOLDS UP!!! Also, the original was already followed with a belated sequel, a made-for-TV remake, and even a Broadway Musical... AND THEY ALL SUCKED!!! STOP BEATING THIS DEAD HORSE!!! Carrie was never something that was meant to be a series or franchise. It stands on it's own... LET IT BE!!! Like I said, some of the actors in this upcoming remake are pretty good, but the lackluster trailers are doing very little to boost my confidence. I'm hoping and praying this movie won't suck as much it's looking like it will... but I'm not holding out hope.

1. Robocop
- How do you remake one of the Sci-Fi genre's most thrilling, funny, smartest and flat-out best entries? Well... not by making it a watered down PG-13 retelling with Robocop in black Batman-like armor. I admit that details are still scarce, so maybe it's a little early to freak out, but so far everything that has happened with this film has made me nervous. They have said that the film will honor the same kind of themes and satire from the original... but I've heard that song and dance before, and it generally means shit. The film has already had a pretty rocky production, going through different actors and directors just barely after it got off the ground. Fingers crossed that this one won't suck... but boy this one I just can't see how it could work.

I hate to judge anything before I see it, or at something like a trailer or clip. Still, sometimes it's just unavoidable. Hopefully I'm wrong about these films... but don't count on it.

Pacific Rim - Review

Boy I really got spend more time working on this blog. This film came out what seems like forever ago, so this review is seriously overdue. Oh well. There's no two ways around this folks, Guillermo Del Toro is one hell of a filmmaker. While I'm not quite willing to call him a master director yet, I will say that there are few directors working today whose films are as consistently effective and entertaining. His obvious affinity for genre films and cult classics shines in his works, and even though he's only had one or two films that could be honestly considered near-masterpieces, nearly every one of his movies demonstrates the guy's vast array of talents. Whether we're talking a slow-brooding horror film, a subtle fantasy, or a big scale sci-fi/action epic like Pacific Rim, it's obvious that he has a broad range of skills and knowledge of film-lore. His newest film, Pacific Rim, isn't going to be considered a masterpiece by anyone, but it's nonetheless a well-made film that's so far arguably the best flat-out "pure fun" summer blockbuster of the season.

Sometime in the near future, a cross-dimensional portal at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean is opened, releasing a dozens of giant alien monsters known as Kaiju that wreck havoc all over the world. Humanity, facing the possibility of total destruction, develops giant humanoid war machines known as Jaegers to combat the Kaiju. The program succeeds at first, as the formidable Jaegers are able to easily take out the attacking Kaiju. Once the Kaiju are able to adapt to the Jaeger's fighting style and attack methods, the Jaeger's start dropping like flies. Once again faced with planetary destruction, humanity turns to an underground league of Kaiju fighters, primarily disgraced Jaeger pilot Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) and the untested rookie Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi)... both of whom are haunted by past events. With a seemingly unending number of Kaiju popping up all over the world, Mako and Raleigh must overcome their demons in order to save the world from a Kaiju takeover.

Pacific Rim has been called many different things, and has been compared to a number of films. Films and shows ranging from Godzilla, Independence Day, Power Rangers, Voltron, Professional Wrestling, Transformers, the works of Ray Harryhausen, and others have all been points of comparison. Now I'm not 100% on exactly where Del Toro drew his inspiration, but it seems like the Kaiju designs are essentially digitized versions of classic "guy-in-rubber-suit" monsters featured in the Godzilla series and other classic Japanese monster flicks. There's definitely a bit of Ray Harryhausen influence in there as well. All of that is set against a story structure that, probably not coincidentally, is greatly reminiscent of Independence Day... or at least contains the fun factor of that film. Only this time, the characters are a bit more creative, better developed, and more interesting. I'm sure there are other movie buffs that could pick out other references, shout-outs, or tributes to various shows, movies, comics, and other sources, but that's most of what I was able to find. At the very least, Pacific Rim is one of those films that's a celebration of pretty much all things nerd, and for that, I freakin' love it!

This film isn't any kind of movie that's going to change your life or offer anything particularly challenging, but it's nonetheless an example of a more-or-less mindless blockbuster done right. Take this for instance... the plot isn't particularly intelligent but it doesn't make you feel stupider after watching it (like say the Transformers movies for instance), the characters aren't particularly deep but they're not one-dimensional either, and while the story itself isn't exactly profound, it's at least a generally engaging flick that's well paced and constantly entertaining. Some of the characters don't exactly steer away from the usual sci-fi archetypes, but there's generally enough going on to make them work. The ending doesn't have any huge shocks, but there are enough little twists and developments to keep you invested. To no surprise, none of the actors are especially Oscar-worthy or anything like that, but they get the job done. Overall, there isn't much of Pacific Rim that's going to change one's perception of story or film narrative, but the movie at least doesn't feel the need to half-ass it's script and at least does provide some decent storytelling. Take that as you will.

Now with all that said, if there's one thing a movie like Pacific Rim needs to deliver, it's kick ass action. If that's what you're looking for, Pacific Rim has plenty for ya! In terms of straight-forward sci-fi/action blockbusters, Pacific Rim is hands down the best of the summer. For starters, the cgi is some of the best I've seen in a while. The Kaiju creatures all have creative and interesting designs with top notch cgi to boot. The Jaeger look pretty awesome too, with well detailed robotic designs and movements, they do their job well. In terms of action... there's pretty much everything you could want and more. Big ass monster fights, huge explosions, and mass building destruction... yeah there's a bit of everything. Out of all the films I've seen this summer, Pacific Rim's action has got to be the best. Add in some top notch sound design and camerawork, and you've got yourself a winner. For all the action junkies, this one pretty much has it all.

So that's Pacific Rim for you. While by no means a perfect film, it's got pretty much everything you could want in a straightforward summer blockbuster. Great effects, great action, and an enjoyable concept... that's Pacific Rim. I know I waited a long time to post this review, but if you haven't seen it and it's still playing, check it out! If not, it'll definitely make a good Blu-Ray watch down the line.

The Lone Ranger - Review

Every once in a while, a film comes along with such inconceivably stupid, offensive, and horrendous ideas, that you ask yourself... is this a joke? The Lone Ranger is one of those films. I'm not saying that Disney's ill-advised reboot of the classic franchise was inherently a bad thing. Actually, I can think of many ways you could re-imagine The Lone Ranger for modern audiences. A movie about a former Texas Ranger who allies with a local Native, both of whom fight crime and evil while following a strict code of non-killing and using violence ONLY as an absolute last option could work. Plus, in an era of gritty and dark anti-heroes, borderline villains, and psychopaths, a movie with some uplifting qualities could have actually brightened up such a dour and depressing movie season. Now, after following the film's production plus seeing the trailers, I knew this movie wasn't going to be any good, but I'm genuinely shocked by just how terrible it turned out. How bad you ask? Let me tell you...

The starts off with John Reid (Armie Hammer), an idealistic lawyer who moves to Colby, Texas. After reuniting with his brother Dan, a Texas Ranger, John is recruited to join his brother and his band of Rangers to help take down the vicious criminal, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner). Despite John's strict non-violence and non-killing policies, he nonetheless joins the band because of his equally strong dedication to justice. After an ambush leaves all the Texas Rangers dead, with John on the brink of death, he is saved by an eccentric Native named Tonto (Johnny Depp), who claims that Reid is a spirit walker who cannot be killed in battle. Because his enemies believe him to be dead, Reid takes on the alias of "The Lone Ranger" and starts wearing a mask to conceal his identity. Reid and Tonto then agree to join forces to take down Butch and his band of outlaws. What follows is adventure of betrayal, deception, and thrills as both Reid and Tonto make a number of startling discoveries.

Okay, let's address the most glaring issue present in this turd of a film... Johnny Depp as Tonto. I honestly don't even know where to start with this. I mean... WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING JOHNNY!!! Better yet, what the Hell was Disney thinking? Surely, there must have been some point during the production of this film that someone must have said something along the lines of, "Geez, this might be a little... or rather, REALLY offensive." Simply the fact that a white actor is playing a Native character in the year 2013 is egregious enough (I know Johnny Depp claims to be something like 1/16 Native, but I'm sorry that's not enough), but it's made all the more shocking by just how this character has been re-imagined. Tonto here is portrayed an eccentric outcast who wears a dead crow on his head and claims to have some sort of mystical connection to spirits (it's later revealed that he might just be crazy... never was explained very well). Here's the thing about Tonto, he was never a very PC character to begin with. When actor Jay Silverheels played the character in the 1950s, he drew some criticism for being something of an insensitive stereotype. Tonto's stilted speech patterns (which by the way is still present in Depp's version) plus his clear role being second fiddle to the Ranger and less of an equal partner would definitely raise a few eyebrows today. That said, the fact that they had Jay Silverheels, a legitimate First Nations actor, playing such a prominent role in an era in which minorities rarely received such opportunities, was a step in the right direction. Johnny Depp's portrayal doesn't move the character forward, but rather takes a few steps back. Over the course of Depp's career, he has made a living taking chances with risky, innovative, and daring characters, most of which have payed off. Whatever Depp was trying to do here has clearly backfired, and is likely to be a stain on his otherwise mostly solid filmography. I can only hope the backlash surrounding this unfortunate casting decision will lead Hollywood producers to stop whitewashing minority characters.

I really wish I could say that the Tonto issue was the film's only problem... unfortunately that isn't the case. Gore Verbinski is a good director, let's get that out of the way. Yeah, his Pirates sequels didn't really live up to the original, but Verbinski has enough stylish flair and eye for action to make films like the first Pirates of the Caribbean, Rango, or The Ring average out to be pretty good. His attempts to give The Lone Ranger that same dynamic look and energy as his previous hits was commendable, but sadly his efforts were in vain. The horrendous script did Verbinski (and everyone else for that matter) absolutely no favors. For starters, it pretty much spits on the legacy of The Lone Ranger, by trying to distance itself as much as it can from the previous shows. While I'm not necessarily against the way it re-imagined the property in such dark fashion (though I'm not on board with it either), it pretty much abandons the themes and ideas that defined the character in the first place. The Ranger here is less of a moral crusader for good, and rather re-imagined as a clumsy goof who gets by on dumb luck more than anything. Yeah, he still refuses to kill, but through a number of badly set up slapstick gags, he ends up doing just that anyways. The film actually centers more around Tonto than the Ranger as well. In theory that could have been an interesting idea, but because of Tonto's aforementioned character flaws, that didn't work either. The rest just doesn't work... the villains bare a striking resemblance to Barbossa's crew from the Pirates movies, the film never finds a consistent tone, and it's full of plot holes and inconsistencies that continue to add up. In short... kind of a disaster.

Acting wise... actually I don't have much to say on that front. When you're working with a script this bad, it's almost impossible to expect the actors (whether good or bad) to give a decent performance. Armie Hammer is probably the cast's most unfortunate victim as The Lone Ranger. While he's already got a few solid roles under his belt, the guy hasn't quite gotten out of his "up-and-coming" status, and missteps like this might really hurt his career. There were times I felt like he was trying, but more often than not, he looked incredibly embarrassed and uneasy in the role. Both he and Depp barely had any kind of chemistry as well, something that could have really helped elevate the film. William Fichtner was trying, I could tell, but with such a sloppy character, his strong efforts just weren't enough. It's too bad, because that guy is actually a pretty good actor, but his choice in roles really need some work. Helena Bonham Carter gives an enjoyable performance as the one-legged brothel madam who assists Reid and Tonto, but her character is so underdeveloped and pushed aside that I kept forgetting she was in the damn thing. The rest... well, there's not much else to say. None of the actors are particularly terrible (Depp excluded) but none are good enough to help this film in any way.

This is the point where I'm supposed to say something along the lines of, "At least the action was good." To that I say... yeah, it's okay. Gore Verbinski is good enough of a director to at least provide the film with a handful of passable action sequences. There was nothing that particularly stood out, but I can't say it looked that bad either. The opening scene had a half decent fight/chase that started the film with something of a bang. Unfortunately, after that, most of the movie is just Reid and Tonto bickering with one another. By the time the finale rolled around, that was the first time the film actually picked up a bit. It finally embraced some of the fun factor of it's source material, ending in an admittedly exciting action sequence. Unfortunately, by that point, the damage was done and I had totally stop caring. Those are really the only major action scenes over the course of the film's 2.5 hour runtime (by the way, the film is WAY too damn long), and even if they were incredible, I'd still be hard-pressed to give this film a passable score. If you're looking for your blockbuster action fix for the summer... find something else.

So that's The Lone Ranger... so far the biggest dud of the summer. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this piece of crap ended up becoming the worst film of 2013. I know it's been out for a while, and odds are it's not playing in your theater anymore, but if the opportunity to see it does happen to present itself... just keep on skipping it.

My Score: 1.5 out of 5!

Man of Steel - Review

Considering the state of cinema in this day and age, it's always important to keep one's expectations somewhat in line. That's not to say that, considering the rising prices of movie tickets, one shouldn't expect a quality flick whenever they go out to the movies... that's perfectly reasonable. That said, if you expect that every film you pay to see to be some kind of a masterpiece... well, you're most likely setting yourself up for disappointment.  I mention all of this because the hype surrounding Man of Steel has been pretty immense. I certainly don't envy the pressure Zack Snyder must have felt in bringing back Superman to cinematic world. I mean, this isn't some offbeat or semi-famous superhero... this is Superman we're talking here. He's arguably the most well-known, influential, and flat-out important character to ever grace the medium of comic books. That's not even the half of it though. For starters, there hasn't been a truly worthy Superman film to hit theaters since 1980's Superman II. Not to mention, DC Comics hasn't exactly been on fire with it's movie adaptations outside of Nolan's Batman films. The only other DC movie to recently grace the silver screen was 2011's Green Lantern... AND IT SUCKED! To top it all off... this movie also shoulders the responsibility for a jumping off point for a in-continuity DC movie universe AND a Justice League movie! That's a lot of responsibility to bare, and most filmmakers probably wouldn't be up to the task. So yeah... the hype on this film has been quite substantial, to say the least. I'm going to do my best to review the film strictly on it's own merits, but I'd be lying if I told you that my affinity for comics, appreciation for the Superman legacy, and the state of DC's movie division didn't, in some way, affect my opinion for this movie. With all that said, how does Man of Steel fare?

Man of Steel is a complete reboot of the Superman film series, with absolutely no continuity within the previous Christopher Reeve/Brandon Routh timeline. The film opens up on the planet Krypton, a distant world on the verge of total apocalypse after the depletion of it's natural resources. Knowing of the planet's imminent destruction, the high ranking scientist, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his wife Lara (Ayelet Zurer), send their newborn son, Kal-El, to planet Earth, to ensure his survival. Amidst all the chaos on Krypton is a conflict started by General Zod (Michael Shannon), a military leader who is bent on taking control of Krypton and preserving it's name, even by violent means. After murdering Jor-El, General Zod and his small band of soldiers, are banished to the Phantom Zone and sent into the depths of space. After Kal-El's ship leaves Krypton, he lands on Earth in the town of Smallville, Kansas. Here, he is taken in by Jonathan & Martha Kent (Kevin Costner & Diane Lane), local farmers who name him Clark and raise him as their son. As Clark grows older, he develops incredible powers including incredible strength, speed, and senses. Knowing that he is not of this world, Clark spends most of his youth as an outcast, discouraged by his parents from using his powers until the time is right. When Clark reaches adulthood (played by Henry Cavill) he becomes a drifter, travelling from town to town working random jobs, helping people when he can, but keeping a low profile. This all changes when he meets an ambitious reporter from the city of Metropolis named Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who earnestly seeks information about this mysterious man with incredible strength and a penchant for saving the day. Soon after meeting Lois, Clark learns of his origins and takes on the mantle of Superman, fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Superman's destiny suddenly becomes more real, as General Zod and his army make their way to Earth with their sights set on planetary destruction...

I'm going to do something here that I don't normally do. Even though I mentioned that I was aiming to give this film a strictly objective review without any bias from previous Superman films/shows/comics/etc, I feel it's best to at least mention where I'm coming from, at least on the film end. The 1978 film, Superman: The Motion Picture directed by Richard Donner, was the first comic book film to receive a big budget studio treatment. While comic book movies had existed beforehand, this was the first property to receive such a lavish treatment, from it's large budget, recognizable cast, and groundbreaking special effects. Newcomer Christopher Reeve played the Man of Steel, and became synonymous with the role. Even today, he is generally considered by many (myself included) as the best actor to take up the cape. The film itself is, even to this day, by all accounts excellent, and still one of the best superhero films of all time. 1980's Superman II was a worthy follow-up, adding Kryptonian enemies into the mix along with some memorable action scenes. While some of the special effects haven't aged well and a few parts drag a bit, it's still a pretty great film on it's own right. 1983's Superman III took a more comedic direction, adding comedian Richard Pryor to the cast, while providing Superman with a new set of foes. The film was... pretty bad actually. While it had a few decent scenes, it never was as engaging as it's predecessors, plus the film's attempt at comedy completely backfired when it turned out the jokes were painfully unfunny (an unfortunate mark on Richard Pryor's near-flawless comedic record). As for Superman IV: The Quest for Peace... the less said about that disaster the better. After the abysmal failure of the fourth entry, the series remained in development hell for nearly 20 years, with filmmaker after filmmaker trying (and failing) to resurrect the franchise. Names ranging from Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, McG, JJ Abrams, and others all tried (whether as a director, writer, producer, or whatever) in to bring Superman back to the screen. It wasn't until 2006 when Superman made his return in... Superman Returns, a pseudo-sequel to the Richard Donner flicks directed by Bryan Singer. The film was... okay overall. It benefited from some strong direction, good special effects, and an enjoyable supporting cast. Unfortunately, it suffered from questionable story-choices, a miscast Lois & Clark, and too many similarities to it's predecessors. So yeah... despite a strong start, Superman has had kind of a bumpy ride on the screen the last few years.

So after all that, how's Man of Steel? Overall, it's pretty good... not perfect, but a damn good effort and, for the most part, a worthy entry to the iconic series. Is it the best in the series? No, not even close. The first two still loom pretty high, but this entry is miles better than parts III & IV (granted, that's not saying much), and does improve on some of the flaws from Superman Returns (that said, there were some things in that film that were done better than this). Still, while it's fairly unavoidable, it's unfair to judge a film based on how it compares to it's predecessors and/or source material. Judged strictly on it's own merits, it's well-made from a technical standpoint yet kind of flawed, though ambitious, from a narrative perspective. What works and what doesn't wasn't totally obvious right away, and I had to sit on this film for a bit to give a fair review. After a week of contemplating, I think I've got it.

I've mentioned before that, as much as I like Nolan's Batman films, I'm not exactly on board with the influence they've had on films today. It seems like pretty much every genre film these days has to be dark, drab, and edgy... and Man of Steel is no exception. Listen, I'm not saying that all Superman films have to be lighthearted and campy, or that there haven't been darker themed stories in previous Superman comics... it's just that it seemed like whoever was responsible for this film (whether it be Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan, David Goyer, or whoever) tried to combine darker Batman-like themes while still trying to incorporate Superman's uplifting themes of hope, justice, patriotism, etc. The end result is... kind of messy and unfocused. Most of the film is so somber, drab, and melancholy, that it's attempt to portray tones of heroism and hope often fail to connect. That's not to say that there aren't certain elements of the story or individual scenes that don't work. The flashback scenes of Clark's upbringing in Smallville are pretty good, even if they do contain a few cliche'd or overdone tropes. I also really dug the opening set on Krypton, which arguably contained the film's most memorable scenes. At times, the story works, but as an overall narrative... it's kind of disappointing.

For all of the film's flaws, the strong cast helps to elevate it. Henry Cavill makes a strong impression as the new Superman, showing some promising dramatic ability and holding his own in the action scenes. Because of the film's somber tone, he spends most of the movie in a depressed or angry state, and doesn't really give him the chance to truly explore his character's personality. Michael Shannon pretty much owns his scenes as General Zod in a memorable scenery-chewing performance. Shannon has always been an underrated character actor, and I'm hoping his role as Zod will lead to bigger and better parts. Russell Crowe turned out to be a good choice as Jor-El, giving an enjoyable portrayal of Kal-El's Kryptonian father, and helping to forget his bland performance in Les Miserables. Two of the stand-outs were Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Martha & Jonathan Kent (Clark's Adoptive Parents), making the best of their relatively small parts with some of the film's standout scenes. The only actor who comes up a little short would have to be Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Now don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Amy Adams, and she generally does a good job here as Lane, but her character is one of the film's most underdeveloped, and as a result Adams has a hard time making any real impression. Plus, the chemistry between her and Cavill is pretty much non-existent.  Any of their on screen "romance" (and I use that term loosely) is forced, rushed, and thrown in basically as an afterthought. The rest of the cast is across the board good, no real complaints acting-wise.

Director Zack Snyder has received... let's say "mixed" reactions toward some of his previous film efforts. He was mainly showered with praise for his surprisingly decent remake of Dawn of the Dead and the good-but-not great adaptation of Frank Miller's 300. His adaptation of the "un-filmable" graphic novel Watchmen polarized audiences, but I'm in the camp of people who pretty much loved what he did with the film. His most recent film, Sucker Punch, while ambitious and well-intentioned, didn't quite strike the chord I think he was going for and is generally seen as a failure. Still, while he hasn't quite made a masterpiece yet, there's a lot about his directorial style that I've liked. In an industry plagued by remakes, imitations, and lack of originality, Snyder has always attempted big, audacious, and risky projects bringing his unique visual style to the final product. While Man of Steel's story was hit and miss, Snyder's direction did a lot to bring something interesting to the film. For starters, the guy has an incredible eye for visuals. While the film did include a little more shaky cam than I would have appreciated, it was still full of beautifully composed shots, incredible effects, and a general artistic style that honored it's source material and tried something new. For once, I didn't feel like the film was simply trying to capture the feel of the 1978 and instead tried changing it up... that's commendable. The scenes on Krypton were probably my favorite, in how they designed a planet that was reminiscent of the classic look but also felt unique. I was a little disappointed by the new Fortress of Solitude though, mainly how they changed it from a cool-looking alien-ice castle into a fairly generic spaceship, albeit with a few nifty Kryptonian influences. As for the action... it's pretty much incredible. It runs a bit long at times, namely in the finale, but between some great cgi, expertly paced fights, and big explosions, there's more than enough to satisfy any action junkies looking for their fix. From a strictly visual perspective, the film is not quite perfect, but pretty close.

So is Man of Steel the Superman film we've all been waiting for??? No, but we're getting there. The script had it's issues, both in narrative and tone, but there were some good ideas and promising set-ups. That said, the cast was solid, the action was exciting, and the visuals were pretty spectacular. To no surprise, the film ended with strong hints toward a sequel, and while I don't think this film was perfect, there's a lot to work with and much potential for another. If you haven't seen Man of Steel yet though... I'd say check it out.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

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!