Star Trek Into Darkness: A Trekkie’s Review

by
hr_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_1
I will say first and for the record that this review doesn’t contain spoilers per se but I do allude to elements that might have been intended to be surprises. But since the Internet had already ruined that because it was released in Europe and Mexico before the US (Mexico?!), I have no trouble talking it about it now.
When it was announced that JJ Abrams and his Bad Robot team would be going to work to make a sequel to their 2009 take on Star Trek, fans immediately speculated, even begged, that the next movie would feature their favorite villain, Khan. But writers Robert Orzi, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof argued that their intention of creating a “new” Trek franchise (that takes place in an altered version of what’s been seen on TV but with the same beloved characters) was to be able to tell brand new interesting stories. Then again, when asked if the new movie was going to be a 3D spectacle, JJ Abrams said that he wouldn’t make a 3D movie just because it has become the popular format for big-budget blockbusters.
So here it is; Star Trek Into Darkness filmed in IMAX 3D and… well…
The story revolves around the capture of a terrorist named “John Harrison,” a 300 year old genetically enhanced man with great intelligence, strength and agility who was being used by a secret government organization. While hunting him down, James T. Kirk, still wet-behind-the-ears as a starship captain, must learn to balance his duty to ship and crew with his gung-ho attitude. Spock must balance his by-the-book, logical Vulcan side with his emotional human side and eventually, together, become to cohesive whole Trekkies have come to know and love from TV. But try as they might not everything goes according to plan. It is after all “Harrison” who has caused this chain of events and he’s not who Kirk thinks he is. Despite what some may know from the original story the events that transpire here aren’t exactly as fans remember. But then a certain scene comes along that makes you realize all too soon you’ve seen it before… complete with parts of the same dialog… and it fails to produce the desired emotional response. With multiple climactic endings (and yes it could have ended several times) you don’t know how its going to end. But this is Star Trek after all so you know how it’s going to end.
Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Spock) and the rest of the actors playing the Enterprise return to give us that sense of brotherhood of the original characters but they are really only playing the personalities that have become iconic for Star Trek. It’s really only Pine and Quinto who have a chance to do any real acting here and both do very well. Benedict Cumberbatch plays “John Harrison” and is only half as effective as say… a certain Latin actor who played the same character years ago. And although Doctor Carol “Wallace” Marcus is thrown in as a mere plot device, Alice Eve is very watchable and makes this new crew member as interesting as possible.
As a trekkie I’d like to give this movie a higher score just because it’s Star Trek but I can’t get past the fact that this story has been told before. Yes, its an “alternate” reality and the events have been changed overall. But I suppose this is no different than any number of comic book movies who retell the origin myth of a superhero and use a popular storyline only to make changes to it for the big screen. I also saw this movie with a mix of people; some of them vaguely remember the original story and some had very little information about Star Trek to begin with and it seems that overall they enjoyed it. Therefore I have to take into account that this is a Star Trek for the general masses and it really does work overall. On a scale of 1-10, I give Star Trek Into Darkness… a 7.
 Comment 

Jurassic Park: Book vs. Film

by

http://childpsychiatryassociates.com//semalt.com  With the release this weekend (May 9th) of Jurassic Park in 3D I thought it was time as “the book guy” to compare the original book byMichael Chrichton to the 1993 film. I chose to re-watch the original since I argue the need to see movies done for 3D effect. Movies are meant for escapism and since I already see the world in 3D I don’t need to escape into those same dimensions.

JP3D

   Now we all know you can’t capture every element of a book when that book is made into a movie. There’s not only time constraints to consider but changes get made in the narration to better move the story along, and occasionally there are changes in character development. In the case of Jurassic Park the movie is better served from those changes.

 

 

   There are subtle differences in some characterization that really don’t need to be mentioned  but the exist. And there are a few recognizable pieces of dialog in the book that end up being said by different people and at different points in the movie. Two of the most glaring differences in character are: 1) Dr Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum in the movie) is a bigger ass in the book as he drones on for pages over-explaining chaos theory until it becomes pages of “I-told-you-so” speeches. And 2) even though the ages of the grandkids are reverse and Lex (played in the movie by Ariana Richards) is a younger girl, she does little more than whine and complain. I ended up rooting for a dinosaur, any dinosaur, even the herbivores, to kill them off and have done with it.

     As a book Jurassic Park reads as one-half science report on how one might go about bringing back the dinosaurs and one-half adventure novel. The two mingle together so awkwardly it makes me want slap Michael Chrichton with a copy of the book (were he still alive). I know that he was a doctor and a scientist but he was also a screen writer and movie director. So you’d think that he would understand the idea of pacing and not want break up the book with pages of written DNA codes, graphs, charts and lines of computer coding. Did he think he needed to prove how smart he was? Or did he just feel it was acceptable to let his readers’ eyes glaze over in boredom as mine did?

   As a movie however (with which he shares a writing credit with David Koepp), the audience is given just enough of the scientific background to make you understand how the creation of the theme park came about. It also allowed us to “visit” the park along with the characters and wonder at the sights; a feeling you don’t get from the book. There’s also a larger sense of immediacy and danger once the dinosaurs get loose than there is in the novel. I have no doubt that this has more to do with Steven Speilberg’s ability to tell a story than Crichton’s.

   I’ll admit, this was my first time reading the book and I know people will argue my opinion is biased because I saw the movie first, I really don’t think it made a difference. Some of the book is still fun to read, if only the get caught up in the idea that someone thought recreating dinosaurs was possible. But because of the mere structure of the novel this is a case when the movie far exceeds the book. Still… remembering how bad Jurassic Park II was i’m confident that I’ll never want to read The Lost World.

Keith O

Newman

 Comment 

AMC’s The Walking Dead: Seasons 1-3 (a different take)

by

The-Walking-Dead-Season-1-11WARNING: The following are the opinions of a man (with pubes and everything) who has NOT read any of the Walking Dead comics (or graphic novels if you prefer). I would venture a guess that all my esteemed colleagues have read some, if not the entire series. Those of you who have read them can debate which incarnation is “better” than the other. Usually that honor goes to the version we’re exposed to first and since I have no such point of reference, here goes…

 

In case you’ve been exploring the depths of Uranus (or your anus if that’s what you’re into), for the last two and a half years, you know AMC’s The Walking Dead is based on the comic/graphic novel series created by Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore which chronicles the exploits of Sheriff Rick Grimes and his rag-tag group in their struggle to survive the non-stop party known as the zombie apocalypse.

Episode one premiered on October 31, 2010 and I can admit to you (on account of how we’re such good pals), I’ve been hooked ever since. Rick (played by Andrew Lincoln) wakes from a coma and discovers things aren’t quite the same as he remembers them. The trek to the CDC in Atlanta is the main storyline of the season, with requisite twists and turns along the way; the Rick-Lori-Shane triangle being the most prevalent of these. The finale takes place at the CDC facility. The sole survivor there, Dr. Jenner (Noah Emmerich) whispers something in Rick’s ear just before the group makes its escape.

WHAT COULD IT BE???

↓ Read the rest of this entry…

 Comment