Search
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Don't Turn Around (PERSEF0NE, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Where there's walking, there's bound to be running. Ironically enough, it wasn't too long ago that I read a <a title="View Sophia's review of The Queen's Choice" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-queens-choice-by-cayla-kluver/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">book mainly focused on walking</a>.
Michelle Gagnon's first young adult thriller goes straight into the action as soon as the book starts Noa wakes up to find herself on a table in a warehouse with an IV in her arm and no clue of how she got to that table in the first place. Noa manages to get away from the warehouse and eventually teams up with fellow hacker Peter to find out more about a company called AMRF (who starts threatening Peter's life randomly for reasons of the unknown and attacks the hacktivist group he founded called ALLIANCE).
<i>Don't Turn Around</i> is basically about two hackers on the run not necessarily together and being chased by or threatened by an armed group of men. Running and being chased isn't typically my favorite book to read, but walking around and not being chased is much more boring to go through. In this particular case, an exception might have to be made Gagnon reveals more information about the two hackers as they're on the run and trying to find out the reasons why they're being attacked or got swooped up from somewhere and experimented on in an abandoned area.
Noa is also an interesting character and has officially landed in as my favorite characters of 2015 even though she didn't have a great childhood, it's amazingly admirable how she manages to remain a cucumber as everything around her falls apart. Noa actually reminds of <a title="View Sophia's ARC review of Tabula Rasa" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-tabula-rasa-by-kristen-lippert-martin/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">that one character (Sarah?) from <i>Tabula Rasa</i></a> a fearless female character. What's different between Noa and Sarah, however, is how Noa admits she's scared but doesn't appear to be scared even after she is eventually caught by the bad guys originally going after her and Peter from the beginning of the story.
Similar to the likes of Alex Rider and James Bond, <i>Don't Turn Around</i> is a slow (though fast-paced) yet sure beginning to a series Gagnon seems to be setting us up for better things to come in the future of the series, and I'm hoping it won't fail when the end finally comes.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-dont-turn-around-by-michelle-gagnon/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Michelle Gagnon's first young adult thriller goes straight into the action as soon as the book starts Noa wakes up to find herself on a table in a warehouse with an IV in her arm and no clue of how she got to that table in the first place. Noa manages to get away from the warehouse and eventually teams up with fellow hacker Peter to find out more about a company called AMRF (who starts threatening Peter's life randomly for reasons of the unknown and attacks the hacktivist group he founded called ALLIANCE).
<i>Don't Turn Around</i> is basically about two hackers on the run not necessarily together and being chased by or threatened by an armed group of men. Running and being chased isn't typically my favorite book to read, but walking around and not being chased is much more boring to go through. In this particular case, an exception might have to be made Gagnon reveals more information about the two hackers as they're on the run and trying to find out the reasons why they're being attacked or got swooped up from somewhere and experimented on in an abandoned area.
Noa is also an interesting character and has officially landed in as my favorite characters of 2015 even though she didn't have a great childhood, it's amazingly admirable how she manages to remain a cucumber as everything around her falls apart. Noa actually reminds of <a title="View Sophia's ARC review of Tabula Rasa" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-tabula-rasa-by-kristen-lippert-martin/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">that one character (Sarah?) from <i>Tabula Rasa</i></a> a fearless female character. What's different between Noa and Sarah, however, is how Noa admits she's scared but doesn't appear to be scared even after she is eventually caught by the bad guys originally going after her and Peter from the beginning of the story.
Similar to the likes of Alex Rider and James Bond, <i>Don't Turn Around</i> is a slow (though fast-paced) yet sure beginning to a series Gagnon seems to be setting us up for better things to come in the future of the series, and I'm hoping it won't fail when the end finally comes.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-dont-turn-around-by-michelle-gagnon/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
1st to Die (Women's Murder Club, #1)
7.9
Rate It
Book
James Patterson, bestselling author of the Alex Cross novels Along Came a Spider, Kiss the Girls,...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Moonlight (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Waxing or Waning?
Seldom do I go to see a movie where I know so little about the plot as this one. I knew it was a “coming of age” drama about a young man growing up in a black neighbourhood in Miami. Period. That ignorance was bliss (so that’s the way this review will stay: I will avoid my usual high-level summary here). For there are twists in this story that you don’t see coming, and moments of such dramatic force that they are cinematically searing.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With declining attendance at conventions and a dwindling audience for recent films and the last Star Trek series, Enterprise, Paramount was desperate to find a way to breathe new life into their franchise. So they pinned their hopes on director J.J. Abrams. Even with a string of hit movies and television series under his belt, some believed that Abrams was facing an uphill battle in trying to resuscitate Star Trek, with its legions of rabid fans obsessively protective of the series’ 40-plus years of established history.
While many fans were thrilled with the choice of Abrams, some of the casting choices of its beloved characters were met with doubt and skepticism. Thankfully, the man behind such motion picture hits as “Cloverfield”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and television series LOST, Alias and Fringe, was more than up to the task and has crafted a visually spectacular action film that combines the best of Trek with groundbreaking effects and creative vitality.
Using a script by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the new film focuses on the early days of the crew, and how young James. T. Kirk (Chris Pine) went from being a joy-riding, bar-fighting hothead into captain of the Enterprise. Kirk is challenged by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to live up to the legacy of his father and make something of his life in Starfleet. Despite his cocky attitude, the young man is able to thrive at the academy despite his arrogant behavior and his womanizing ways.
At the same time, a threat has arisen in the form of a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana), who seeks to cause massive death and destruction in his quest for vengeance. With danger looming, Kirk and his fellow classmates are pressed into action, and thanks to some skillful work from his friend Leonard Mc Coy (Karl Urban), Kirk finds himself onboard the new Federation flagship Enterprise.
En route to their destination, Kirk realizes they are heading into a trap and warns Captain Pike of his concerns. Naturally this does not sit well with some of the seasoned officers, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), who sees the emotional Kirk as an unwanted reminder of his human half, which he tries to hide at all costs.
Eventually the Enterprise is confronted by Nero and in an impressive sequence of events Kirk and Sulu (John Cho), lead an orbital skydive mission to thwart Nero’s plot. Spock finds himself commanding the ship and he and Kirk, two polar opposites, disagree over a course of action. Citing insurbordination and dereliction, Spock expels Kirk from the ship onto a frigid and dangerous planet. What follows is an amazing and thrilling adventure that culminates in an impressive finale, that proves that Trek has got plenty of life left in it.
While I loved the film, I found that I had to detach myself from my love of classic Trek to fully enjoy it. The film covers changes in established cannon by setting events in an alternate timeline. Despite the different eras of the previous series and films, there was always a certain continuity to the ships, planets, and characters that always seemed to fit, which I found myself missing in this new incarnation.
In Abram’s version, the Enterprise engine room is awash in catwalks, pipes, and valves that seemed out of place on a ship set in the 23rd century. I also found myself asking why such strategically valuable planets such as Earth and Vulcan would not have massive defense fleets in orbit, and would task only a handful of ships for their defense. There was a suggestion, that the ships of the fleet were amassed elsewhere on another matter of importance, but that does not explain what would leave the planets relatively unguarded. Defense codes aside, I found it hard to believe that automated defenses would be all that was left behind, and that reinforcements were not available.
I also had an issue with what Nero was supposedly doing for 25 years and how he kept such a low profile while he plotted his revenge. The final issue I had was with product placement as I found it hard to believe that Nokia and its familiar ringtone and Budweiser would be around as Trek lore is based on the planet narrowly surviving a nuclear war in the past that nearly destroyed everything. While this may seem like minor criticism, from the perspective of a long time Star Trek fan, it contradicts much of what had been established.
Thankfully, Abrams and crew take the series in a new direction without totally losing sight of where it came from. There are many nods to the series and Abrams clearly respects the original material enough to let fans know that their beloved Trek is still there in the original timeline, with its history intact. By cleverly establishing a different timeline, Abrams has creative freedom to go in any direction he desires.
The cast is strong, with Chris Pine’s Kirk as cocky and entertaining as his predecessor. I loved Anton Yelchin as Chekov and his struggles with the English language, Simon Pegg’s quick quips as Scotty, and the sassy attitude Zoe Saldana’s injects into her Uhura. The amazing visuals and designs of the film are breathtaking and it was clear that the Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) crew pushed themselves to bring everything they had to the film. In the end, Star Trek is a remarkable film that, despite some issues, has a solid new lease on life. Abrams boldly, and triumphantly, goes where fans, old and new, will gladly follow.
While many fans were thrilled with the choice of Abrams, some of the casting choices of its beloved characters were met with doubt and skepticism. Thankfully, the man behind such motion picture hits as “Cloverfield”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and television series LOST, Alias and Fringe, was more than up to the task and has crafted a visually spectacular action film that combines the best of Trek with groundbreaking effects and creative vitality.
Using a script by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the new film focuses on the early days of the crew, and how young James. T. Kirk (Chris Pine) went from being a joy-riding, bar-fighting hothead into captain of the Enterprise. Kirk is challenged by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to live up to the legacy of his father and make something of his life in Starfleet. Despite his cocky attitude, the young man is able to thrive at the academy despite his arrogant behavior and his womanizing ways.
At the same time, a threat has arisen in the form of a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana), who seeks to cause massive death and destruction in his quest for vengeance. With danger looming, Kirk and his fellow classmates are pressed into action, and thanks to some skillful work from his friend Leonard Mc Coy (Karl Urban), Kirk finds himself onboard the new Federation flagship Enterprise.
En route to their destination, Kirk realizes they are heading into a trap and warns Captain Pike of his concerns. Naturally this does not sit well with some of the seasoned officers, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), who sees the emotional Kirk as an unwanted reminder of his human half, which he tries to hide at all costs.
Eventually the Enterprise is confronted by Nero and in an impressive sequence of events Kirk and Sulu (John Cho), lead an orbital skydive mission to thwart Nero’s plot. Spock finds himself commanding the ship and he and Kirk, two polar opposites, disagree over a course of action. Citing insurbordination and dereliction, Spock expels Kirk from the ship onto a frigid and dangerous planet. What follows is an amazing and thrilling adventure that culminates in an impressive finale, that proves that Trek has got plenty of life left in it.
While I loved the film, I found that I had to detach myself from my love of classic Trek to fully enjoy it. The film covers changes in established cannon by setting events in an alternate timeline. Despite the different eras of the previous series and films, there was always a certain continuity to the ships, planets, and characters that always seemed to fit, which I found myself missing in this new incarnation.
In Abram’s version, the Enterprise engine room is awash in catwalks, pipes, and valves that seemed out of place on a ship set in the 23rd century. I also found myself asking why such strategically valuable planets such as Earth and Vulcan would not have massive defense fleets in orbit, and would task only a handful of ships for their defense. There was a suggestion, that the ships of the fleet were amassed elsewhere on another matter of importance, but that does not explain what would leave the planets relatively unguarded. Defense codes aside, I found it hard to believe that automated defenses would be all that was left behind, and that reinforcements were not available.
I also had an issue with what Nero was supposedly doing for 25 years and how he kept such a low profile while he plotted his revenge. The final issue I had was with product placement as I found it hard to believe that Nokia and its familiar ringtone and Budweiser would be around as Trek lore is based on the planet narrowly surviving a nuclear war in the past that nearly destroyed everything. While this may seem like minor criticism, from the perspective of a long time Star Trek fan, it contradicts much of what had been established.
Thankfully, Abrams and crew take the series in a new direction without totally losing sight of where it came from. There are many nods to the series and Abrams clearly respects the original material enough to let fans know that their beloved Trek is still there in the original timeline, with its history intact. By cleverly establishing a different timeline, Abrams has creative freedom to go in any direction he desires.
The cast is strong, with Chris Pine’s Kirk as cocky and entertaining as his predecessor. I loved Anton Yelchin as Chekov and his struggles with the English language, Simon Pegg’s quick quips as Scotty, and the sassy attitude Zoe Saldana’s injects into her Uhura. The amazing visuals and designs of the film are breathtaking and it was clear that the Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) crew pushed themselves to bring everything they had to the film. In the end, Star Trek is a remarkable film that, despite some issues, has a solid new lease on life. Abrams boldly, and triumphantly, goes where fans, old and new, will gladly follow.