There are happy endings to film and there are sad endings. These endings can be done well or be done poorly. A poorly done happy ending can be one where all the loose pieces are tied up really quickly through convenient plot contrivances that can sometimes be illogical (e.g. Signs where [...]]]>

There are happy endings to film and there are sad endings. These endings can be done well or be done poorly. A poorly done happy ending can be one where all the loose pieces are tied up really quickly through convenient plot contrivances that can sometimes be illogical (e.g. Signs where it turns out that the invading aliens are anaphylactic to water), or where everything seems happy in the end but you are left with a nagging doubt for all the characters wellbeing (e.g. that movie Jack where you know Robin Williams is going to die from old age at 20). Poorly done sad endings usually resemble the former happy ending with plot contrivances inserted to make everything go horribly wrong at the last moment.  I mentioned this in my earlier post on 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days. There are those melodramatic European films where sh*& is thrown at the protagonist for 120 minutes and then they kill themselves or they just die horribly.

Here’s a quick list of movies that make me and my sister palm our foreheads and say: “ahh man” (spoilers):

• Garage – Mentally challenged guy shows underage kid porn and then kills himself.
• Dancer in The Dark – Bjork tries to save her son from blindness. Get’s hanged for it.
• Rat Catcher – Scottish children have incredibly bleak and poor lives. Protagonist drowns himself.

(end spoilers)

For some reason people think these movies are amazing even though they have all the poignancy of watching a bunny being drowned, but I wouldn’t argue that they are bad movies. There are some endings that are so bleak that they reach cartoonish levels of despair and you can’t take the movie seriously anymore. This is how I felt about Requiem for a Dream. Some people find the film sobering, but I thought it was ridiculous.

The movie is about a group of four people who have different drug addictions, and the consequences of their addictions. Three of the characters are heroin addicts played by Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly and Marlon Wayans. The fourth is the mother of Jared Leto’s character, played by Ellen Burstyn, and she is addicted to diet pills.

I think my opinion stems from a couple things. First, people talk about the strong performances from Wayans, Connelly, and especially Burstyn, but how about Jared Leto? He was all over the place; when he was screaming or crying he seemed like he was suffering from mild autism.

Second, a lot of people praise the visual inventiveness and the style. I will admit, at first I thought the editing was interesting. I liked how the effect of the drugs sped up time and I liked the time lapse with the score in the background. Especially since the score by Clint Mansell is so good. I also liked the quick cuts of someone preparing the drug and the pupil dilating. This gives the impression of how automatic the routine of preparing the drug is and the initial kick from the drug. The film’s climax however was a mish-mash of frenetically cut scenes, a blaring string score, and over the top imagery. What results is an overwrought collage of  lunacy. It was like the SNL version of a 50’s drug public service announcement if Massive Attack cut it up for a music video.  My feeling is that the screenwriter started with the idea of showing someone going through withdrawal, trying to convey stylishly the agony going on through the person’s head, but couldn’t stop there and through in a bunch of crazy plot twists to drive his point home. Trying to go for a really dark tone, instead what he ended up with is a cartoon. I would like to go over some of the stuff that happens at the end but I shouldn’t ruin it.

I guess I like my pathos to be much more subtle, stark even. Watching a person slowly agonize and deconstruct on screen with minimal score and zero style has a much stronger effect on me. You are forced to watch the horror completely naked, hiding behind nothing, and that’s the most difficult to watch. Compare the ending of this film to the hotel scenes in 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days, and you will get a sense of what I mean.

Ultimately, I think what undid this film for me were my lofty expectations. This movie has such an enormous reputation for being hard to watch and depressing that when I found the film less than that, I was left unimpressed.

The infamous social experiment is now at an end. All 6 original Star Trek movies are done…finally. As always, I remain a skeptic of the impact these movies really had on the movie business, while my friend Edwin Chen continues to steadfastly transform me into a Trekkie:

GREG: Well, here we are. The end. [...]]]>

The infamous social experiment is now at an end. All 6 original Star Trek movies are done…finally. As always, I remain a skeptic of the impact these movies really had on the movie business, while my friend Edwin Chen continues to steadfastly transform me into a Trekkie:

GREG: Well, here we are. The end. The finale. The final frontier. After five movies of varying quality, I’ve finally made it to the last Star Trek movie in the marathon. And after the garbage heap that was Star Trek V, I was honestly happy to end this social experiment. The only thing that allowed me to keep moving forward was the idea that there was NO WAY this movie could be as bad as the last one. Right?

ED: Yes, here we are, at the end of our Star Trek marathon. Yes, I know there have been some ups and downs, but I hope by the end of this movie, you’ll feel as I do, saddened that we must say goodbye to our beloved galactic friends. Sniff… dammit, excuse me, there must be some space dust in my room…

GREG: As the opening credits begin, a sigh of relief leaves my mouth as I notice that William Shatner is NOT directing this movie. Thank you God. And not only is the Shat not directing this movie, but Nicholas Meyer is. This is the man who directed Star Trek II, easily the best movie of the bunch thus far. With my spirits lifted, the lights turned down, and my bag of Ruffles in hand, I am ready to put this series to bed.

ED: I think a little historical context is important here. When this movie came out in 1991, I think it’s fairly safe to say that Star Trek was the most popular it had ever been, before or since (and that’s including the recent J. J. Abrams movie). The entire year was meant to be a celebration of the 25th Anniversary of Star Trek, and entire Toronto Star entertainment sections and movie magazines were wholly devoted to the franchise (I remember because I collected them!). “Star Trek: The Next Generation” was a massive hit and had followed its predecessor to become the most successful syndicated show on television. So with Star Trek VI, everyone knew this would be the last, a passing of the baton to the next generation of sorts. It was to be a monumental occasion. Indeed, prior to the release of the movie, “The Next Generation” TV series had devoted a special 2-part episode called “Unification” in which an aged Mr. Spock guest starred in the show in an attempt to forge peace between the Federation and the Romulan empire, a parallel to the attempt to forge peace with the Klingons which would underpin this movie. And then, less than 3 months before this movie was released, something else happened which rocked the Trek-verse. The father and creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, died. I remember watching the movie in a packed theatre, and when the “In memory of Gene Roddenberry” dedication appeared at the beginning of the movie, it elicited one of the two applauses of the evening. I was never prouder to be a Trekkie.

GREG: Hmmm…I did not know that. I mean, the movie definitely has a “finale vibe” throughout, but I didn’t realize it was the 25th anniversary or that The Next Generation had already started. So what is the thinly-veiled, real-world situation that the characters have been put into this time around? The story involves The Federation attempting to come to peace with the Klingon nation, in what is clearly and obviously an allegory to the end of the Cold War. Both sides want peace and probably need peace, but as always, there are those in both camps who do not desire it.

ED: What?! I thought this was an allegory about Star Trek fans versus Star Wars fans? Of course, you George Lucas-ites are the dastardly Klingons! Okay, yeah, as I’ve mentioned before, sometimes Star Trek can be rather obvious with its symbolism, right down to the Praxis equals Chernobyl bit. But to be fair, the Wall had only come down about two years prior, so the topic was indeed of its time. At least they decided to cut out the scene where Bones yells: “WOLVERINES!!!” when he sees the Klingons for the first time (I miss you Patrick Swayze!)

GREG: Don’t you ever refer to us Star Wars fans as Klingons. That’s hugely disrespectful. The movie examines the crew of the Enterprise, and even some crew members of the Klingon ship as they evaluate their own prejudices, their own misconceptions, and their own lives and what they stand for personally. And I’m telling you dear readers, it kinda works. As obvious as the story is, it plays out quite nicely, thanks in no small part to the deft work of its director. In particular, Captain Kirk must examine his own feelings towards the Klingons. We see him looking at a picture of his son early on in the picture, mourning his death, and still obviously blaming the Klingons for his death. Now, while it’s kind of stupid to return to this plotline after completely ignoring it for the last two movies, it does give the story a personal touch that is needed.

ED: “I’ve never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I’ve never been able to forgive them… for the death of my boy”. Yes, I’ll give you that the return of this plotline was merely a plot devise to give the Kirk character an excuse to hate the Klingons, but that line is so powerful, I’m willing to forgive the somewhat lazy plot development.

GREG: Side thought: what the hell ever happened to the mother of Kirk’s son, i.e. the woman he apparently loved?

ED: What in the moons of Nibia and Perdition’s Flame are you talking about, man!? You can’t tie James Tiberius Kirk – the greatest galactic man-whore of the 23rd century – down to just one woman! I’m amazed it took him until the sixth movie before he got some action!

GREG: Good point. If he had a steady girlfriend, it would’ve seriously wrecked his mojo. Well, wrecked it maybe a little less than the task the Enterprise is given in this movie: to transport a Klingon ship through space (a Klingon ship with major politicians aboard, no less!). The main question the movie seeks to answer is obvious at this point: will Kirk and the rest of the crew be able to suppress their hatred? And will they be able to possibly forgive, or even come to terms with the Klingons?

ED: “They’re dying Jim.” “LET THEM DIE!!!” Another great line, I think. I think what was nice about this movie is that instead of a lot of exposition about why Kirk and company may hate the Klingons, they showed it to us. Their prejudices. Their animosity. Their discomfort around them. For example, that dinner conversation in particular was a very nice scene, successfully showing the tension which still lingered between humans and Klingons. Although I will say, one of my pet peeves is the incorrect usage of the term “Undiscovered Country”, which was used in this movie to represent some kind of unknown future, while in Hamlet, it clearly meant death (“But that the dread of something after death/The undiscovered country from whose bourn/No traveler returns”). It just felt poorly done that something so prominent – it was the frigging title – to be so utterly wrong.

GREG: Yeah, I completely agree with that. Before the movie started, I assumed that “The Undiscovered Country” simply referred to a new planet they were going to discover, not some vague idea about an unknown future. But nevertheless, the story devolves into a mystery for a good hour, after some members of the Klingon party are murdered by some members of the Enterprise. Kirk and McCoy are blamed, given a trial, and sent to a wasteland of a prison planet. It is then up to the remaining members of the Enterprise to both solve the mystery and save Kirk and McCoy. While the prison planet scenes add basically nothing to the story (other than to allow us to ogle supermodel Iman), the mystery on the Enterprise is good, old-fashioned story telling. My money was on the newest member of the Enterprise, a vulcanized Kim Cattrall, since conventional movie rules dictated that it be her.

ED: Yes, sadly, upon my rewatch, I too found the prison scenes on Rura Penthe the slowest and least enjoyable. And it was practically stolen out of Empire Strikes Back; I half expected Kirk to gut McCoy open and climb into his belly like a ton-ton at one point. But yes, at least there was Iman.

GREG: Another side note: why not bring back Lt. Saavik for the role that Kim Cattrall occupied in this movie? What ever happened to her?

ED: Actually the plan was to get Robin Curtis back for this movie, but I seem to recall that she was pregnant at the time or something. So they recast the character. In the end, Kim Cattrall was a little too non-Vulcan for my tastes. Yeah yeah, I know I complained that Curtis was too Vulcan, but Cattrall was practically winking at the camera after delivering her one-liners. Seems like I’m a bit of a Goldilocks when it comes to my Vulcans – they need to be just right.

GREG: Well, you are picky, but we can all agree that Kim Cattrall sucks. But the movie was easily saved by a Shakespeare-spouting, eyepatch-wearing Christopher Plummer as the ultimate bad-ass Klingon. He was easily the best villain in the movie series since Khan. Why do villains who know Shakespeare always seem so much scarier? Is it because we assume that they’re “smart”?

ED: Especially if they know Shakespeare in its original Klingon! Is it weird that I also want my last words to be: “taH pagh… tahBe’” But speaking of guest stars, did you notice Christian Slater’s guest appearance in this movie? And what about Admiral Cartwright, Brock Peters, who was Tom Robinson in the great film “To Kill A Mockingbird”?

GREG: I certainly did not notice Christian Slater. Did he even speak a line? Also, who cares?

ED: Okay, first of all, Christian Slater was in “Heathers”. ‘Nuff said. But in one of the oddest cameos in movie history, he’s this ensign or yeoman or something and shows up in Sulu’s quarters to announce that they’ve arrived at the designated coordinates. Very weird.

GREG: Anyway, it turns out that there were high-ranking members of the Federation behind the plot to assassinate the Klingon delegates, since they wanted peace no more than many members of society. But all is well. The rescued Kirk, McCoy, and the rest of the Enterprise save the day, yet again.

ED: Maybe it’s hard to appreciate seeing it on the small screen, but you have to imagine how it was in the theatre for that final ship-to-ship fight. The Enterprise takes a pummeling! That photon torpedo that goes straight through the saucer section?… my God, we had never seen anything like that before. And then Captain Sulu to the rescue (although I was wondering how good a captain he was after he joins the fight and the first thing is he says is: “Alright, let’s give them something else to shoot at”. Uhhh, isn’t your job as captain to protect your crew, for which getting shot at is counterproductive to that goal?). When that Klingon bird of prey gets destroyed, that was the second cheer that erupted in that theatre twenty years ago. Oh and surely props need to be given to that epic slow clap at the end at the Khitomer peace accord, no? In my opinion, the second best (worst?) slow clap in motion picture history, behind only “Lucas” (I miss you Corey Haim!).

GREG: Ha ha ha! Yes, the slow clap was awesome. You just don’t see that in enough movies, especially when you can see it coming from a mile away. Oh, and for the record, that peace accord was damn cheesy. Thankfully, it was about the only cheesy part of this movie. Yes, some traditional and clichéd plot lines exist in this movie, but as I said before, it worked pretty well here because of the reasoning behind it; had this been a straight-forward assassination-mystery story, it would’ve been boring. But because of the over-arching story behind Federation-Klingon peace, it gave the story a much heavier feel. Plus, this movie was very clearly a send-off movie. You get the sense that everyone on screen knows that this will be their last time together, and so it layers on a feeling of melancholy (in fact, the movie’s end credits even include each member of the original cast signing their signature).

ED: Not to mention Kirk’s cosmically epic final Captain’s log: “Captain’s Log, stardate 9529.1. This is the final cruise of the Starship Enterprise under my command. This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun, and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man… where no one has gone before.” Didn’t it make you want to cry? But the reference at the end to “where no one” instead of “where no man” is yet another example of the passing of the baton to the Next Generation, in which the monologue was changed to be more gender-neutral.

GREG: Did it make me want to cry? C’mon Edwin. It’s not THAT good. However, this was easily the second best Star Trek movie in the series, right behind Star Trek II. I almost want to give them a tie, to be honest. So I will: 8/10. Done.

ED: Yes, I agree, this was the second best of the franchise. And in the end, I can finally divulge my rankings for the six Star Trek movies: 2,6,4,5,1,3. So now here’s a question for you: do you think the recent J.J. Abrams reboot of the franchise is consistent in tone with these six Star Trek movies? (and you’re not allowed to say “No, because it was actually good”!) But is my whinging a bit more understandable now?

GREG: I guess I would rank them as 2, 6, 3, 4, 1, 5 (I would put a HUGE space between 1 and 5…just to show my disdain for that movie). And to answer your question, no, I guess the J. J. Abrams movie was not consistent in tone with these original six movies. But I still don’t care – I thought it was an excellent movie, and I still do. In fact, I would rather re-watch the new Star Trek movie before I’d rewatch any of these original six movies. If you don’t like the new direction J. J. is taking the franchise, then simply feel free to opt-out. You already have your 6 movies, and you can watch them whenever you want.

ED: KHAAANNNN!!! That’s not really fair, I don’t think. That’s like me watching the prequel trilogy of Star Wars first, and then complaining that the “Empire Strikes Back” wasn’t goofy enough or that it was too sombre. I’m not saying that Abrams isn’t allowed to take the franchise into whichever direction he wants, and in the end, it’s the almighty dollar or pound that will dictate whether he’s right or wrong. But I couldn’t help but feel like I got a royal middle finger shoved in my face for his lack of respect to the existing fans.

GREG: Get over yourself. Most of these movies kinda sucked. Thus, the ultimate question: after viewing these movies, would I consider myself an official “Trekkie”? The simple answer is no, I would not. Out of the six movies, there are only two that I would ever even consider watching again. Now, that being said, I can somewhat appreciate the Star Trek universe now, and can kind of understand why people love the franchise so much. Allow me to clarify: had I watched these movies at a younger age, in the time frames that they were originally released, then I’m willing to bet that I would’ve been a lover of all things Trek. But I didn’t; I’m older, the movies are older, and there are far too many better movies (sci-fi or not) out there for me to consider these movies “classic.” However, I do appreciate Edwin pushing me to do this little experiment, and at least now I know the meaning of things such as “pon-farr”, what a Klingon is, and what the “Kobayashi Maru” scenario is all about. I highly doubt that I’ll watch the original television series, or any of the other Star Trek related series’, but it was fun while it lasted.

ED: Wait a minute, so you’re saying I got this extra Starfleet uniform for the upcoming Star Trek convention for no reason? But I spent all night making it smaller just so our bellies will protrude! Well, if you can begin to understand why some of us Trekkies love the franchise as much as we do, that’s a step in the right direction. And perhaps you’ll also better understand why I was flipping out last year when I got to do the Vulcan hand signal with the legend that is Leonard Nimoy. Either way, this was fun. And I think Chekov put it best when he opined so melancholically: “So… this is goodbye…”

GREG: I would say “I have been, and always will be, your friend”, but I’m pretty sure that after my comments about the new Star Trek movie, you’ll never lower yourself to talk to me again…

ED: Ah, it’s all good. You can’t help being such a redshirt. My hailing frequencies are open for when you want to get started on the 4 Next Generation movies! In the meantime, I have to go toast some marshmelons and duct tape some warp nacelles on the back of my bike. Peace and long life.

GREG: Live long and prosper.

We warp on with our social experiment! Will watching the original six Star Trek movies transform yours truly into a blathering Trekkie, or will I be sorely disappointed with the entire exercise? As always, my friend (and devoted Trekkie) Edwin Chen attempts to enlighten me on all the nuances of the series, while [...]]]>

We warp on with our social experiment! Will watching the original six Star Trek movies transform yours truly into a blathering Trekkie, or will I be sorely disappointed with the entire exercise? As always, my friend (and devoted Trekkie) Edwin Chen attempts to enlighten me on all the nuances of the series, while I remain pleasantly ignorant…

GREG: Four movies down, two more to go. I guess I can safely say that I’m on the home-stretch. All I can really hope is that this series goes out with a bang, and not a whimper. Especially after what I just witnessed in Star Trek IV. But, as Edwin alluded to earlier, these movies are maybe more akin to the James Bond movies. In fact, if that’s the case, I would suggest that they drop the roman numerals in the titles, because after all, “part fives” are usually reserved for cheap, crappy horror movie franchises. So, will this movie entertain me? Bore me? Or just plain make me angry? There’s only one way to find out…

ED: In the interests of full disclosure, I should probably make a few disclaimers which may impair my objectivity when evaluating “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier”. First, this was the first Star Trek movie I ever saw in the theatres. I got into Trek when the “whale one” was just leaving the cinemas, and by the time I got caught up, it had left. But since Star Trek V, I’ve never not seen any of the movies in anything less than the big screen, and once even made a trek of my own from Montreal to Toronto to watch the movie on opening night with my friends. And two, Star Trek V was also the first movie I ever went to with a girl. Technically, it wasn’t a date. At least I don’t think it was (twenty years later, I still sometimes don’t know). We both just wanted to see the movie! But back then, geek wasn’t yet cool, so Selma and I surreptitiously headed off to the Square One cinemas after school one Friday, her in her skimpy Yeoman Rand outfit and me in my pointy Vulcan ears (I already had the Vulcan slanty eyes down pat), and reveled in our first trek through the star on the big screen. In retrospect, maybe I should have held her hand when she asked me to while we walked home instead of doing the Vulcan hand salute? Oh the roads not taken…

GREG: I get the sense that this means you like this movie even if it’s complete garbage. Oh please Lord, please let this movie not suck. As the movie opens up, my first thought is that this movie looks nicer, or prettier or more modern. But then again, movie technology has been advancing quite quickly since the time the first movie came out. The opening scene, on some dustball planet, was quite magnificent, and shot in such great detail that I started raising the bar of my expectations. “Relax Greg,” I told myself, “just give it time.” And sure enough, it didn’t take long for the cheesiness to kick in. The first time we see Captain Kirk, he’s rock climbing the face of a mountain in Yosemite Park. Without harnesses. Keep in mind that this is fat, 1989 Shatner, which makes this completely unbelievable. Whatever, I can let it go – after all, we’ve seen much worse from these movies.

ED: I’m guessing you didn’t notice, for surely I expected you to go apoplectic when you saw that this movie was directed and co-written by William Shatner himself? And given his giant-sized ego, is it any wonder that he made himself out to be some kind of superhero, literally able to scale tall mountains. And either that’s the most obvious stuntman in Hollywood history or somehow, Kirk managed to gain 30 pounds after climbing up the mountain. Was there a KFC on the way or something? By the way, for a franchise which has often been prophetic in its depictions of future technology (flip phones, 3 ½” floppy disks, tablets and stylus pens and wireless earpieces bear a shocking similarity to the depictions in the Original Series), Spock’s rocket powered boots were an embarrassing blow to the solar plexus of Trekkies for its lack of creativity and its lazy use of sci-fi clichés. It was like Star Trek had devolved into a 23rd century equivalent of Condorman. You might wonder why I’m going on about these friggin’ boots. Well, in my mind, these boots were a metaphor, representing the nadir of Star Trek creativity and when they started caving in to some unknown marketing pressure in an attempt to make their product accessible to the general public by making it stupid and clichéd. Everyone expects sci-fi to have rocket packs, I guess, but it doesn’t make it less ridiculous.

GREG: No, I certainly DID notice that Shatner wrote and directed the movie, but I knew it going in, because you had mentioned it before. And those rocket boots were pretty cheap looking – they basically looked like ski boots with a tiny jetpack on the side. Lame. Anyway, moving on – who’s the villain? And what’s the plot of the movie? Well, apparently the aforementioned dustball planet has been taken over by some Vulcan dude, and all he really wants is to get a starship to arrive so that he can steal it. Why he needs a starship is beyond me. How did he get there? I mean, presumably he came on a ship, right? Regardless, Kirk and the Enterprise crew (who all somehow look significantly older, especially Uhura who now has grey hair) take a jaunt out to this planet in their barely-working ship (the fact that it’s barely working will make so many other things convenient later on in the story).

ED: Okay, I love Uhura and I can only imagine how important her character was in the climate of 1960s television, but was I the only person disturbed by her “sexy grandma dance”?

GREG: Oh God, don’t get me started about that. First of all, we don’t need a striptease from this Grandma. We can all agree that Nichelle Nichols (who plays Uhura) was once sexy, but now she’s old. That was disturbing. We’re also introduced to a side story about a Klingon ship that intercepts the transmissions and decides to also head to the planet to take out the Enterprise; however, this story is useless and basically irrelevant to the plot. Once the Enterprise arrives, we find out that this Vulcan dude is none other than Spock’s conveniently never-before-mentioned half-brother (brothers from different mothers). This is the one Vulcan who’s all emotion and no logic, apparently, and so was cast out of society. But what does he want with a spaceship? Oh, dear readers, please don’t laugh when I tell you this, but (drumroll please…) he wants to drive it to heaven.

ED: Yeah, I hear your pain, Greg, but I need my pain! Perhaps Sybok can fix us with his new age, “I-feel-your-pain”, radio psychiatrist trick? Seriously, after the greatness of Khan, this touchy-feely-hippie-let’s-all-hold-hands-and-sing-Kumbaya villain just won’t do! Besides, one of the things that annoys me the most about the characterizations in this movie is how we’re supposed to believe that the crew, this very tight-knit family we’ve all known and loved for years, suddenly betrays each other after just a few minutes listening to Sybok’s impersonation of Dr. Phil? And when Kirk finds out that Sulu and Chekov and Scotty all betrayed him, how does he feel? As it turns out, so little that they don’t even bother to mention it again for the rest of the movie. As a bit of an aside, I also particularly enjoyed Bones’ revelation that he pulled the plug on his father and they miraculously found a cure for disease just weeks later. As a child, I nodded sagely at the irony of the situation; as a scientist, my only conclusion is that Bones clearly wasn’t paying attention at those medical conferences or wasn’t keeping up to date with his reading, because I’m fairly certain science don’t work dat way!

GREG: “WTF? No seriously, wtf?” Those were the thoughts going through my head when the “mutiny” happened. Worst…mutiny…ever. Completely unbelievable, and confusing to boot – I mean, were they brainwashed? Or just convinced by Sybok to be complete idiots? This Sybok dude has also apparently worked out where heaven should be: it’s at the centre of the galaxy, “across the barrier”, where no man has boldly gone before. Now, Edwin has complained about the new J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie from last summer, saying that “it was all dumb action” whereas all of the old movies “were at least always about something.” Okay, so this movie is “about” spirituality and whether or not there’s a heaven, and blah blah blah. What it’s about is stupid. And you know why? Because they get to this place, at the centre of the galaxy, and talk to some sort of “God” figure. This is some sort of being that appears to be all-powerful, can literally shoot lasers from his eyes, can transform his image into anyone, and yet all it wants is a spaceship so that it can presumably leave. WHAT!? Really? Why didn’t this thing just steal their damn ship? And what the hell was it? And why could they kill him with simple weapons? We’re given the impression that it’s not the true “God”, but who the hell knows.

ED: I think you hit the nail on the head here Greg. The writing in this movie is sooooo lazy. There are so many holes. For example, that scene where Spock has the chance to shoot Sybok in the cargo bay. Spock’s got the phaser literally pressed on Sybok’s chest, Kirk screaming “SHOOOT HIMM!!!” – I’ve seen this scene in one incarnation or another in a hundred Hollywood movies. It’s lazy writing. And in the end, Spock does nothing? Dude, set the phaser to stun and blast away! Do the Vulcan neck pinch! Kick him in the nuts! Anything!

GREG: I know. Spock is usually pretty awesome, but in that scene (and really, in this whole movie) he was a complete pussy. Look, I understand the idea behind this movie. The questions about spirituality, heaven, and God are all fine and good, but it’s just way too obvious, heavy-handed, and hokey in this movie. I would rather that they just fight some friggin’ bad guys. One thing that the movie does get right (and they have been getting right ever since the first movie) is the playfulness and camaraderie that is evident amongst the main characters. You can sense that they are, in fact, all good friends. This movie especially studies Kirk, Spock, and Bones’ relationship, which is the lynchpin of the series. I appreciated that (though the campfire scenes are a little gay – not that there’s anything wrong with that).

ED: Ironically, while I’m the one who’s been touting the camaraderie of this group, I found that this movie didn’t do a good job of it. This is the movie where their camaraderie (as done so well in “The Voyage Home”) turned from playfulness into buffoonery. Scotty knocking himself out banging his head on the ship? Really? This is what passes for screenwriting? The only facet of the crew interaction which was passable was the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy in the woods. They really are the lynchpin of the entire series, and form a perfect triangle with Spock’s logic, McCoy’s emotion and Kirk bridging the two of them together. Up until now, the movies have mostly shown Kirk and Spock’s guy love for one another, but finally, this movie accurately depicts the necessity of McCoy in that menage-a-trois. I was reminded of an episode in the Original Series where everyone thought that Kirk had died, and Spock and McCoy are going at it pretty hard until they listen to a pre-recorded tape that Kirk had made in the event of his death, and then everything was alright again. I don’t think any of the two can survive without the third. And Brokeback Mountain imagery be damned, they can’t quit each other and I can’t quit them.

GREG: By the time the credits began to roll, I was so angry. It was a good thing I wasn’t drunk while I watched this crapfest – I would’ve broken something. This movie stunk so bad that I can still smell it. It definitely stole the crown as the worst movie in the series so far. I would say that it’s one of the worst movies I’ve seen in a long time, but I just watched the first three Friday The 13th movies, and they’re all much, much worse, so you’re lucky Star Trek V. But let me be clear: I will never, ever, ever watch this movie again. I’m giving it a 4/10 (and that might be generous).

ED: Okay, I think you should set your face to stun before reading on. But… I don’t hate this movie. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t like it. But I just don’t hate it. I know it’s awful. By every metric, it’s awful. But for some reason, I can’t hate it. I can’t disassociate myself from the 13 year old kid inside me, watching this movie in the cinemas. And back then, I enjoyed it. I just didn’t have the wherewithal to understand that the movie stunk. I liked the Kirk-Spock-McCoy scenes in the woods. I thought Scotty was funny. I thought the search for God was deep and meaningful. I was young and stupid and sharing a tub of popcorn with a cute brunette, hoping to boldly go where no man had gone before…

GREG: I can appreciate that. I certainly love some movies from my childhood that are definitely crap. But I just can’t give this one to you; sorry Edwin. But I really hope that the last movie is far better than this one.

ED: It is. I promise. In fact, I’ll bet you my autographed Leonard Nimoy photo that you’ll like it more than this train wreck. In fact, it’s my second favourite, behind only “The Wrath of Khan”. So let’s just be men about this and act like men do in all uncomfortable situations – let’s just pretend this didn’t happen, and move on. Next up will be “The Undiscovered Country.” Hope you’re up on your Klingon!

After enjoying the previous two Star Trek movies, we move on to the fourth movie in the series. As always, Edwin tries to convince me to renounce my love of Star Wars, join the Dark Side, and become a self-professed Trekkie. Will this movie be the one that pushes me over the edge? [...]]]>

After enjoying the previous two Star Trek movies, we move on to the fourth movie in the series. As always, Edwin tries to convince me to renounce my love of Star Wars, join the Dark Side, and become a self-professed Trekkie. Will this movie be the one that pushes me over the edge? Let’s find out…

ED: Poor, poor Greg. His steady stream of emails from his viewings of the first three Star Trek movies in rapid succession suddenly stopped. My immediate thought was that maybe his head was starting to feel like Chekov’s when those slimy ear-worm things started boring into his brain. But maybe I’m being too pessimistic about our chances of converting Greg into Trekkie-dom. It’s also possible that his silence was because (a) he was busy attending his first Star Trek convention, (b) he was too busy practicing his James Kirk impression, or (c) he was too busy translating his Masters thesis into Klingon. But at last, he was finally convinced to slog onto the fourth movie, the infamous whale one.

GREG: Actually, the only reason I haven’t moved forward as quickly with the last three movies is simply that I’ve had trouble finding them available for rent! But I’ve finally managed to do so. After enjoying the last two Star Trek movies, I was more than hesitant to dive into a fourth movie. The reason is obvious, I think: I cannot think of a “part 4” of any movie franchise that is any good. Usually by this point in any movie series, everything from the writing to the acting is very run-of-the-mill, uninspired, and/or just plain goofy. Seriously – name a movie that’s any good that has a “part 4” in the title!

ED: I’ll be damned if I have to hear a bad word said about Rocky IV! Not to mention the screenwriting brilliance that was Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol. Oh that Bobcat Goldwaith, he cracks me up!

GREG: Sweet baby Jesus – I hope you’re kidding about Police Academy 4. Nonetheless, I’ve heard from Edwin (and others) that the even-numbered movies are supposed to be the better movies in the series, so that gives me hope. Let’s see if I agree with the Trekkies.

ED: Star Trek has this weird thing with numbers. Did I ever mention to you the Star Trek “Rule of Three”? It’s probably my favourite of the cheesy Star Trek affectations, alongside the whole redshirt thing. The “Rule of Three” is used when a character needs to cite examples to underline his point, to which he’ll always use two that you know, and one that you don’t. For example, he might say: “Ah yes, I knew him when he did a sabbatical on Earth. One of the greatest scientists in the galaxy, in my opinion. Like Newton. And Darwin. And Kablak of Rigel VII.”

GREG: Well, now I can add another rule to my Star Trek repertoire. As the movie starts, I notice that Leonard Nimoy is again the director of the movie. Okay, I think, that’s good news, since I rather enjoyed the last movie. This has gotta be a good movie, right? Right? I’m afraid to say it, my dear readers, but I did not really enjoy this movie. Was it terrible? No. Was it great? Certainly not. The reason: the cheese factor was set at warp factor 10 for this movie. And how long did it take for the cheese to start smelling? Not long at all.

ED: Okay, first of all, cheese doesn’t smell in the vacuum of space. So double dumb-ass on you! But I think you took this movie too seriously. Perhaps it’s your unfamiliarity with some of the goofier, comedic Star Trek episodes (there was once an episode called “A Piece of the Action” where Kirk and Spock ended up on a planet where they had to be 1920’s gangsters), but Trek often lightens up considerably. And this movie was basically just one big joke.

GREG: Maybe that was part of the problem: this movie was essentially a comedy, and I was NOT expecting that. But it starts out quite serious: apparently a giant tube with a rotating ball attached to it has set its sights on planet Earth, and it beginning to blast it with some unknown form of energy, doing God-knows-what to it. Admiral Kirk and the rest of his crew quickly determine that the audio signal being given off by this entity is a humpback whale call! I’m not even going to bother trying to tell you how they figured that out, because it’s absolutely foolish and, quite honestly, makes no sense. But here’s the rub: no humpback whales exists anymore on planet Earth, because they were hunted to extinction sometime back in the 20th century. So how can they possibly find some whales and save mankind? You guessed it: time travel. Wow, that seems complicated, you might think. Wouldn’t it be easier to just find some whale recordings, since the technology in the 23rd century seems to be limitless? Apparently not. Kirk simply tells Scotty to get him the coordinates for time travel, and that’s that.

ED: Oh Greg, your way-too-in-depth analysis has me wanting to use some “colourful metaphors” and do some “LDS”. I guess you were expecting a sci-fi movie, but Trekkies kind of recognised the tone of this movie fairly early on, that this would be a campy comedy.

GREG: See, I didn’t know it was going to be a comedy. Had I known that, maybe I would’ve changed my expectations. Now, I can forgive a lot of things, especially in a sci-fi movie, but this seemed a little too easy to me. They simply whip around the sun (way too close, I might add), and end up in 1986.

ED: Now this I’ll grant you. Trekkies have been groaning for decades over the random way in which time travel is done in Star Trek movies. In Star Trek 10, after they got sucked into the past by an alien species called the Borg using technology they didn’t understand, after they saved humanity, they pretty much just did everything in reverse to get back to the future? Everyone in the theatre was like: huh?

GREG: Time travel is tricky, and no movie really does it well. But hereafter the cheese level really amps itself up. They crew simply lands their Klingon ship (the same one from the last movie), which is cloaked with invisibility, in a park in San Francisco. The very idea that one could land a spacecraft in a large city like that and assume that no one would run into it is preposterous at best. The crew then spread out throughout the city to procure certain items, such as the whales, and materials that will allow them to carry the whales in the ship. Sulu even steals a helicopter at one point, and USES it in the park, and no one seems to care.

ED: I can’t argue your points, as they’re all very valid. But in the end, kind of unimportant to the Trekkie’s enjoyment of this movie, I guess. So I’m just going to go off on tangents. Does anyone aside from me find it really cool that Marine Biologist Annie is the reverend’s wife in 7th Heaven? Meaning that both of the parents in that show have been in Star Trek movies (Stephen Collins as Decker in the first movie). I wonder if they ever talked about their experiences on the show?

GREG: The fact that you know about the show “7th Heaven” scares me. So what was the point of this movie? Obviously they bring whales back to the future, and save the world. But what was the point? Well, it would seem that the filmmakers wanted to make a not-so-subtle argument about animal/environmental sustainability. “Hunting an animal to extinction is not logical”, says Spock at one point. Agreed – it is not logical, and is quite terrible. We can all agree upon that fact. But do we need an entire Star Trek movie devoted to this idea? I mean, there was no real villain, just a giant tube that was rather stupid looking and just wanted to know why the whales stopped communicating with them. There was no real conflict that needed to be overcome either. I was far more interested in what the hell that tube-thing was, where it came from, and why the hell it cared about the whales in the first place. None of these things were remotely delved into though.

ED: To be fair, perhaps the whole ecological angle wouldn’t have been quite as heavy-handed back in the ‘80s. By the way, when I was in undergrad, I read an essay in a sci-fi magazine explaining why there is no Star Trek in the Star Trek world. Why, for example, when Jim Kirk and Spock walked the streets of San Francisco in this movie, people didn’t stop them and say; “Say, aren’t you that TV character from that Star Trek show?” It apparently had to do with some other time travel story which created a paradox in space-time, created a parallel universe which was the one we saw in the movie, in which the Star Trek show had been eradicated from existence. It’s a wonder my GPA dropped by 0.5 that year.

GREG: You lost me there. Also, why was Lt. Saavik simply left on Vulcan at the very start of the movie? Robin Curtis, who plays the character, had her name splashed up on the screen during the opening credits, making her seem like a main character, and then she delivers one line in the first 10 minutes of the movie and disappears. It seemed to me that they had been molding that character for more than that in the past 3 movies.

ED: Interesting factoid about Saavik. She had been left on Vulcan because – duh duh duhnnn!!! – she was supposed to have been pregnant with Spock’s love child. As it turns out, that plot point was never developed for the later movies. But remember in the third movie when adolescent Spock on the genesis planet went through something called pon farr? It’s something that happens every 7 years when Vulcans essentially go into heat. And remember when Saavik helped him through it? Well, let’s just say they didn’t have at their disposal at the time any… vulcanized rubber. Rim-shot!

GREG: What!? How would anyone ever know that? There was no love scene or anything in the last movie! Whatever. Okay, so I didn’t like this movie very much. But it did have some positive attributes. The camaraderie between the main characters was never more evident than it was in this movie, and I do really like the characters at this point. The early space scenes look a lot better in this movie than they have previously (but unfortunately very little of this movie actually takes place in space). Also, I’ve been the Monterey Bay aquarium (which is seen a few times in this movie), so I appreciated that. All in all, I thought this movie was a letdown of sorts. I think it’s better than the first movie, but not nearly as good as either part two or three. So I’d have to give it a 6.8/10 (these numbers are just getting random now).

ED: Haha, not 6.7 or 6.9, eh? Well, I liked this movie, although I’ll grant you it was my least favourite of the even-numbered ones. In the end, it epitomized everything I love about Star Trek. It was fun.

GREG: Yes, it was “fun”, and I guess that was supposed to be the point. Maybe I just keep expecting some sort of kick-ass action movie. Oh well. Now with 2 movies left to go, I really wonder what in the hell I’ve gotten myself into. Only time will tell.

ED: Next up: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Just think: there’s no way it can be worse than Police Academy V: Assignment Miami Beach, right?

GREG: Ugh…another Police Academy quip.

ED: Oh that Tackleberry really cracks me up…

As the Star Trek experiment rolls on, we warp forward to the third movie in the Star Trek cannon: Star Trek III: The Search For Spock. As always, my good friend Edwin Chen and I discuss the merits and pitfalls of the movie, while he continues to try to turn me into an [...]]]>

As the Star Trek experiment rolls on, we warp forward to the third movie in the Star Trek cannon: Star Trek III: The Search For Spock. As always, my good friend Edwin Chen and I discuss the merits and pitfalls of the movie, while he continues to try to turn me into an obsessed Trekkie…

GREG: Okay, so now we’re getting into dark and scary territory. A third film? And one that has to follow-up what was no doubt most Trekkies’ favourite? The third film of any movie franchise is always the most difficult to pull off, I think. The filmmakers have a greater chance of completely ruining the franchise (see “Spider-Man 3”, “Alien³”, and “Superman III”) than they do of making a movie that actually eclipses those that come before it (see “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome”). But I suppose Star Trek may be a bit of an anomaly, since it was a beloved television series first, and thus already had a large cult following that could carry it through anything.

ED: True dat. I don’t think the Star Trek movies can really be viewed as a “movie franchise”, but rather, as movies put out by the Star Trek franchise. I think the better comparison is James Bond. There may be a bigger gap between movies sometimes, they might change a few actors or there may be a re-imagining, but it wasn’t so much as whether there will be a next movie, but when.

GREG: I would say that’s a fair comparison. Anyway, as the movie starts, I get my first shock: Leonard Nimoy is the director of this film? I was not aware that his filmmaking prowess went beyond acting. I’m not sure how I feel about this, since Nimoy was clearly an actor first and is now just trying his hand at directing. But then again, he is Spock, so maybe he can do no harm.

ED: Did you know that Leonard Nimoy also directed “Three Men and a Baby”? Truth be told, I actually find that he directs with a deft touch. He places a heavy emphasis on characterization and has a good sense of comedic timing, both of which I appreciated. I think you see hints of the latter in this movie, but more so in the next one.

GREG: The movie appears to pick up right where Star Trek II left off; the USS Enterprise is still badly damaged (though somehow also repaired…how do they do that in space, anyway?), and Spock is still dead (and we didn’t see Leonard Nimoy’s name in the opening credits). The movie actually rehashes the ending of the previous film, in much the same way as the Karate Kid movies did. So my first question is quite simple: how long are we going to have to wait to have Spock return? Obviously he’s going to be resurrected in some fashion, but I just wonder if it will be sooner or later in the film.

ED: Scotty’s a miracle worker, didn’t you know? He’s like the 23rd century McGyver, except instead of a mullet, he has an ‘80s porn moustache; and instead of bubble gum and a rubber band, he had phase inducers and dilithium destabilisers. As for Spock’s resurrection, I think the writers made the correct choice by eliminating the “is Spock dead or alive?” question from the outset, and essentially making the primary focus of the movie to find him and bring him back to life. And knowing it was unlikely that they’d find his “giant-sunglasses-case” of a coffin, open it up, see his shriveled remains, shrug and head off for a pint of Romulan Ale, celebrating a job well done for their successful search for Spock, we could relax and just enjoy the story awaiting Spock’s return.

GREG: My second shock happens quite soon: why the hell is there a different actor playing Lt. Saavik? What, Kirstie Alley was too popular to return? This makes no sense. As far as I’m concerned, her character wasn’t important enough in the last film that if Kirstie couldn’t return they’d have to re-cast her role. Why not just make this new actor a completely different Vulcan? I hate it when movies (or TV shows) do that. For what it’s worth, this new actor is actually a much better actor than Kirstie Alley was anyway. So that’s a plus.

ED: I never really warmed to Robin Curtis’ Saavik, to be honest. Something just didn’t really ring true. Kirstie Alley’s Saavik was a little more like Spock, I found — she had more personality. More insecure. More inquisitive. Better sense of humour. Robin Curtis’ portrayal, while perhaps technically more Vulcan, was a bit boring for me. I do agree that it wouldn’t have been that difficult to just write in another random Vulcan – in fact, that’s exactly what happened for the sixth movie when they couldn’t get Curtis back for it. Unfortunately, this isn’t the last we see of Lt. Saavik…

GREG: As the movie opens and the plot moves forward, I found all of the characters to be a lot more relaxed and comfortable with each other. I think this is what you were saying was missing in the first movie, Edwin. And honestly, it seems much more real in this movie than in the last one too. I can actually tell that Kirk, Sulu, Bones, Scotty, and Uhura (who finally has more than one line) are actually friends. This, I think, is the movie’s biggest attribute. There appears to be some actual camaraderie.

ED: More than anything, I’m hoping that what you might glean from these movies, Greg, is an understanding of why Trekkies feel this way about Star Trek. And it’s exactly because of what you say here – these movies are essentially buddy movies in space, with the occasional pseudophilosophy and space battles. And I, for one, just enjoy being with them, and feeling like I’m one of the crew. And that’s the reason why, if asked to choose between Star Trek and Star Wars should I be marooned for all eternity in the centre of a dead and lifeless planet with only one DVD box set, I always vote Star Trek. I know that Star Wars is superior artistry and film-making, but I’d prefer to live in the Star Trek universe.

GREG: I’m gonna pretend you didn’t just say that. Seriously. Moving on. Finally, it happens: the villains are revealed! Klingons! And not just any Klingons – Klingons led by none other than Christopher Lloyd! Oh thank the Lord in heaven, I love it! I actually didn’t know that Klingons were “bad guys”, since they haven’t had any screen time other than the first 5 minutes of the first movie. I mean, they look evil, but isn’t one of the main characters on Star Trek: The Next Generation a Klingon? (I’ve seen enough commercials over the years). Regardless, the Klingons in this movie are great villains, and Christopher Lloyd was perfectly cast, if you ask me. All of his speeches are very grand (certainly not as grand as Khan’s, but nevertheless), and he just seems scary.

ED: The Next Generation actually takes place about 80 years after the classic Trek, and by then, the Klingons and the Federation have forged a tenuous peace treaty. But as of now, consider the Klingons as our mortal enemy. And yes, they really were awesome. It’s difficult without watching the Original Series how reviled they were by the Federation. You’ll actually see hints of that in the sixth movie when, much to many people’s horror, peace talks begin.

GREG: Up until the last 20 – 30 minutes of the movie, I was honestly ready to declare Star Trek III the best movie in the series yet. I found it very entertaining, very fast-paced, and the characters were more interesting than before. Plus, THEY BLEW UP THE ENTERPRISE! That scene alone was worth making the movie. I could just hear Trekkies all over the globe crying into their collective hands.

ED: If I have to reformat my hard drive, I will still whisper under my breath… “Zero… zero… zero… destruct!… zero”

GREG: But then the wheels fell off. The final act of the movie devolves into a standard punch-em-up affair, and the punches suck. The fights look far too staged, and far too slow. And then Kirk’s son dies, and no one seems to really care all that much. Sure, he just showed up in the last movie, but he’s still your son, Admiral Kirk!

ED:: “I… HAVE HAD… ENOUGH… OF YOOOOUUUUU!!!” May be the worst unintentionally funny moment in Star Trek history. Sadly, Trekkies are well used to awful fight choreography, which is often so beyond the pale bad, it’s brilliant. But that flimsy justification aside, I can’t disagree that the final act is just plain silly. As for Kirk’s son, he was essentially a glorified redshirt, and his death was treated as such. Although I will say, The Shat has a brief moment there though when he falls back into his chair when he finds out David had died, and then wails: “You Klingon bastard, you killed my son. You Klingon bastard you killed my son! You Klingon bastard!” Sniff.

GREG: And obviously, by it’s very nature, the movie suffers from the complete absence of Spock (other than in a hard-to-understand child form), up until the last 5 minutes. I’m fairly certain that this would have stuck in the craw of the hardcore fans out there. Like I said, I didn’t mind that so much until the end of the movie when everything (literally) started blowing up in the characters faces.

ED: Speaking as one of the hardcore fans, I recall my craw remaining reasonably unstuck. I tend to agree with you in that I never really minded the absence of Spock, perhaps because the idea of Spock was omnipresent throughout the whole movie, so it was kind of like he was there in a way. But perhaps more than it, it may have also been because the movie made so little sense, that it was really difficult to get into it. Of all the Trek movies, this is my least favourite. It’s totally forgettable. Totally idea-less. It’s the most nothing of a movie in the whole franchise. It’s essentially nothing more than a bridging movie, to fix the marketing error of killing Spock made in the last movie, to put things right that once went wrong, and hoping that the next leap would be… the “Voyage Home” (Eh? Eh? Props for the extra dose of geekery, no?)

GREG: Really? Your least favourite? I find that surprising. In the end, I did enjoy this movie much more than the first movie, but not as much as the second. I liked the questions it was posing with respect to science, i.e. at what point does scientific curiosity lead to disaster, as with the Genesis planet? However, the filmmakers only just scratched the surface of this topic. I would give this movie a 7/10. But now, Spock is back and all is right with the world…until Star Trek IV, anyway.

And so the social experiment continues. As you may recall from my last post, I’ve been challenged by my friend Edwin Chen to watch all six of the original Star Trek movies. His motive: to transform me into a blathering Trekkie. And so we move right along into “Star Trek II: The Wrath [...]]]>

And so the social experiment continues. As you may recall from my last post, I’ve been challenged by my friend Edwin Chen to watch all six of the original Star Trek movies. His motive: to transform me into a blathering Trekkie. And so we move right along into “Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan”…

GREG: Following the first movie, I found myself really intrigued by the name of the sequel. I mean, really, how many movies have the word “wrath” in the title? This seemed to suggest that there was going to be some sort of epic battle with a person, a people, or an entity named Khan. I was feeling both excited and cautious coming into this movie, for typical sequel reasons. Sequels always have the dubious task of having to live up to the original entry in a series, which often means that they are deliberately bigger, louder, and more expensive projects. This can be a good thing (see “The Empire Strikes Back”), or a bad thing (see “Back To The Future Part II”), so needless to say I was curious to see what category Star Trek II fell into.

ED: After Greg survived The Motionless Picture and didn’t curl up in the fetal position whimpering like some hapless Tribble, I took that as a good sign. And next up for him would be the greatest Star Trek movie of them all — “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”. I mean, hell, half the things written in my high school yearbook were taken directly from this movie! Besides, I was confident that just a mere glimpse of Ricardo Montalban’s sublime pecs would turn him into a Trekkie-for-life! And if not, I’ll have no choice but to leave him marooned for all eternity in the centre of a dead planet, buried alive… buried alive…

GREG: This movie was memorable to me for doing one thing the original did not: having a great villain. Khan, it turns out, is a superhuman of sorts. We are quickly told that Khan and his genetically engineered brethren were left to rot on some crappy planet (with a stupid name I can’t be bothered to remember) by James Kirk, most likely at some point during the television series (you Trekkies can let me know if this did, in fact, occur on the show).

ED: The planet is Ceti Alpha V! DUH! But yeah, back in the old TV series in an episode called “Space Seed”, Kirk, in a rather extreme form of corporal punishment, had indeed left him isolated there. And unfortunately, after the neighbouring planet Ceti Alpha VI blew up, it tweaked the ecosystem of Khan’s beach house locale a little, caused significant property depreciation, and so Khan became a bit miffed and swore to “chase him ’round the moons of Nibia and ’round the Antares Maelstrom and ’round Perdition’s flames!” Uh, yeah, good luck with all that.

GREG: Well, that’s certainly a motto to live by. Anyway, Ricardo Montalban, who plays Khan, is certainly a worthy villain, and easily the best actor in the movie. He and his far-too-muscular-‘80s-hair-band goons steal the show.

ED: Haha, 80s hair band goons! But I think that’s totally understating it, man. Hannibal Lector, I’m real happy for you and I’m’a let you finish, but Khan Noonien Singh may be my favourite movie villain of all time! ALL TIME! Montalban makes every single one of his lines, like, galactically epic. “Kirk, you’re still alive, my old friend… I shall avenge you… it is very cold in space… let them eat static… from Hell’s heart, I stab at thee!”

GREG: Agreed – he certainly stole every scene he was in, even if his “look” is a little outdated. This movie seemed more intent on the rivalry between Kirk and Khan, and even had a couple of action scenes! Now, they were clunky and slightly boring action scenes, but they were action scenes nonetheless. I still feel that the “outer space” scenes are too static and outdated, but the filmmakers were obviously giving it the ol’ college try.

ED: Oh guys, what are we going to do with Greg? He tasks me, he tasks me! There are two main action sequences, and they were both totally amazing! The first time the Enterprise meets up with the Reliant is one of the most perfectly orchestrated and tense action scenes I’ve ever seen. First, you have Kirk, all suspicious at seeing the Reliant quietly come at them, and then when he got caught with his britches down and he sees Khan for the first time, what a fantastic and satisfying reveal. And the whole prefix code bit was just too awesome. Perfect Star Trek geekery! As for the final action sequence, that was essentially a submarine action sequence in space. The reference to Khan’s “2-dimensional thinking” and then seeing Kirk maneuver the ship along the z-plane (i.e. down)… totally awesome. I loved that for all the scenes’ static-ness (after all, it’s mostly slow moving ships and people sitting on bridges), I still thought it felt incredibly intense.

GREG: Ed, I think you’re overselling it a bit. The whole “prefix code” part was a little too convenient, and to be perfectly honest, complete cheese. I did enjoy the subtlety of the final action sequence, but it seems weird to me that someone who commands a spacecraft can’t think 3-dimensionally. I mean, wouldn’t you have to?

ED: Give Khan a break, man. The guy’s been on a desert planet for 15 years with no one to talk to except his slimy, ear digging worm pets. Besides, I’d kill to have his chest at my age, let alone at his!

GREG: And man oh man, was William Shatner ever given more freedom to “act” in this movie than the last one! I now understand the parodies that I’ve seen over the years; the stuttered speech patterns and quick body movements have never been more evident than they were in this movie. The whole “KHAAAAAANNNNN!” scene was very reminiscent to me of the scene in “The Empire Strikes Back” where Vader tells Luke that he is his father, and Luke screams “NOOOOO!”: the acting is just terrible! But I love that scene in TESB, so I guess I have to give you this one.

ED: Every time I find out someone screwed me over at work, I still scream “KHAAAANNNN!!!” That’s also why people don’t talk to me anymore, I think. And as for The Shat’s thespian deficiencies, I don’t want to rip on him too much. For one, he’s a fellow Montrealer, and McGiller to boot (Go Redmen!) Also, sadly, he was actually relatively good in his movie (yes, that means he gets much worse). The less said about his bulging eyeballs when he was screaming, the better probably.

GREG: And no one told me that Kirstie Alley would be in this movie! That was shocking, mainly because I hate her.

ED: Oh Greg, why am I not surprised that you were a Diane man? Sigh.

GREG: And boy oh boy, does Spock ever deliver in this movie. I have to be honest: I did NOT see his death coming! The final death scene, and the words passed back-and-forth between Kirk and Spock were particularly poignant. Thank God that Leonard Nimoy exists; with the exception of Ricardo Montalban, he easily outacts everyone in this movie, and shows that even by playing a person with no emotions, it is possible to be amazing.

ED: I can’t count the number of yearbook autographs which directly plagiarized from this movie. I have been, and always shall be, your friend. Actually, if you just change the last part of that to “Facebook friend“, that’s kind of true now. In either case, this scene also had a profound effect on me. When I saw the end of this movie, my little 11 year old self wept, man. I mean, the tears gushing out, my dad questioning my heterosexuality, kind of weeping. I desperately tried to hold it in. After all, surely, Mr. Spock would have wanted me to. Such emotions are highly illogical. But I couldn’t help it. It was also the moment I fell in love with Star Trek. And then, my friend who lent me the “Wrath of Khan” VHS cassette told me that the third movie was actually called “The Search For Spock”, and I made my dad drive me to the video store the next morning to rent it! As an aside, every time our institute has a fire alarm testing and we’re all standing outside waiting to get the all clear to re-enter the building, I always try to get my coworkers to hold me back while I pretend to try to get back in, while saying: “You’ll flood the whole compartment”. And I’d then say, “But he’ll die”, to which the Scottish guy would say: “Ayyyy, he’s dead already!” I think that’s another reason my coworkers don’t talk to me.

GREG: I can’t wait to see how Spock is resurrected; I’m hoping it’s similar to how Jason Voorhees was resurrected in “Friday The 13th Part VI: Jason Lives.”

ED: Did Jason Voorhees’ resurrection involve Klingons too?

GREG: All in all, this movie succeeded in doing what it was supposed to do. I thought it was a much better movie than the original: it was more exciting, had a better antagonist, and overall had a better “feel” to it. I get the impression that had I seen this movie as a youngster that I would’ve absolutely loved it. It also gets bonus points for ending the movie with the whole “Space – the final frontier…” line. Why wasn’t that in the original? However, it does still suffer from some major movie-making no-no’s as outlined above, though I’m beginning to feel that all of the Star Trek movies undoubtedly will. That being said, I would give this movie an 8/10.

ED: 8? 8?!?! KHHAAAANNNN!!! I just finished my umpteenth viewing of this movie an hour ago, and I still love it, love it, love it! I was literally saying not just lines with the actors, but entire conversations! Trust me, man, you do not want to watch this movie with me – I’ll irritate the crap out of you! But after the very non-Star Trekky feel to the first movie, this movie finally got it right, and then some. It was a perfect Star Trek movie. It was a lot of fun, action, adventure, good dialogue, great lines, people wailing and flying around on the bridge, and the tone of the characters were all perfect (right down to the passion-logic argument between Bones and Spock, and Uhura constantly trying to contact somebody and no one answering). And around all that were the Big (with a capital ‘B’) ideas the movie deals with – life, death, aging, creation, destruction, birth and rebirth. It’s just brilliant. Of this movie, I can only say this: of all the films I have encountered in my travels, this was the most… KHAAANNNNN!!!

I was going to talk about The Hurt Locker, but I didn’t really have anything funny to say, so I am going to rant about a French movie I saw last night: Pierrot le Fou. The film was made in 1965 by director Jean-Luc Godard, which as you may know makes [...]]]>

I was going to talk about The Hurt Locker, but I didn’t really have anything funny to say, so I am going to rant about a French movie I saw last night: Pierrot le Fou. The film was made in 1965 by director Jean-Luc Godard, which as you may know makes it part of the French New Wave of cinema. I don’t know very much about the film movement, but according to Wikipedia: French New Wave filmmakers were linked by their self-conscious rejection of classical cinematic form and their spirit of youthful iconoclasm and their films are an example of European art cinema, whatever that means. Basically, they were a bunch of French proto-hipsters who were incredibly influential for future filmmakers. Most directly, their film style led to a rejuvenation of Hollywood film-making in the late 60’s and 70’s, ending the Golden Age of Hollywood and ushering in the Hollywood Renaissance. You see, I love 70’s Hollywood cinema, so I thought this would directly translate to a love of French New Wave, but I don’t know about this movie.

To give you an idea of my initial expectations: about a month ago I went to see the new Roman Polanski movie The Ghost, which stars Ewan McGregor, and Pierce Brosnan. The movie is classic suspense made by a master of the genre, and it got me interested in watching old-school thrillers. Just like romantic comedies, thrillers these days are never really good. They rely too heavily on contrived and wacky plot twists or body horror, and after a while they just get boring to watch. Back in the day, close attention was paid to the composition of each shot to build up tension subtly, and instead of assaulting you with some grotesque images, the same emotional response came indirectly through a combination of the reaction of the actors on screen, the cinematography, and the score and it would work dammit! So, I’m on a fix. I rented this movie because it was made in 60’s by a reputable director, it was available on blu-ray, and from the brief imdb description it was about a couple of criminals on the run. This was basically all I was going on, because I didn’t want to ruin the film by reading too much about it. Anyway, I got home, and popped the movie into the PS3 expecting to be on the edge of me couch for an hour and a half. It took me twenty minutes to realize that what I was watching was a nonsense art film with absolutely zero suspense, and instead a bunch of scenes featuring monologues or dialogues between goofy French people talking about God knows what. The brief description of the film above is pretty much all you need, but my impression of the film is that it’s supposed to be the daydream of the male protagonist, who is bored with his upper class French bohemian lifestyle (so basically he’s an asshole), and imagines this adventure with his friend’s niece where they are criminal lovers who have reunited after 5 years apart. Unfortunately, it turns out the guy is no Clyde Barrow, and is content with living poor in a cottage writing a super pretentious journal, and the girl get’s bored and wants to commit more crimes. If you actually want to get an idea of the film, try to imagine any movie that has a scene that makes fun of old, obtuse French cinema, and you basically have Pierrot le Fou. It makes no sense! It embodies every stereotype of bad French cinema.

First of all, they are the crappiest pair of criminals in the history of film. At one point, they capture a pair of thugs by throwing a comically large net over their car. That wouldn’t work! I fell for this before when I rented Jean-Pierre Melville’s Le Samourai, which I fully expected to be a 60’s version of Leon: the Professional, but was more like a spy movie where the dashing spy is replaced with a wussy history major who takes himself too seriously. In that film’s defence, it was one of the first of its kind before audiences started calling bull on any spy technology that they didn’t like and it the film was pretty stylish.

Another thing I really didn’t like about Pierrot le Fou was its incredibly heavy handed anti-American sentiment. At one point the two protaganists choose to raise money by putting on a street performance for American tourists, which features the guy as a John Wayne type military officer who wants to shoot everything and count his money, and the girl as a yellow faced (literally) snarling Vietnamese women holding a grenade. Real subtle Jean-Luc Gicard (It’s a really bad pun, but at least I can link to this) .) I understand that you wanted to satirize the American perception of the Vietnamese, but this is a racist Asian stereotype that reaches the level of Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. You know I think the French criticizing America’s involvement in Vietnam is interesting considering they had colonial rule of Vietnam until 1954. Maybe some of the French were getting a little tired of the surrender jokes from the rest of Europe in 1965 and picked on an easy target. Whatever the case, I’m just generally bothered by condescending social commentary.

Also, why is there still so much Asian racism in films? I mean, you can find racist east Asian stereotypes in American films as recently as Long Duk Don in Sixteen Candles. And someone please name me one Asian-American actor who has starred in their own high-budget Hollywood movie that wasn’t cast as a foreigner or a martial artist. This whole argument is a complete tangent, but by this point in the movie I was so disinterested in the plot that I was checking facebook every 5 minutes.

So in conclusion, Pierre le Fou is an important film in film history, and it’s avant-garde style is well respected by many fans of art house cinema, and has been influential to many directors in the past and present, but as a film that is accessible to an average viewer, and that has a cohesive narrative that is possible to follow, it’s total crap! Also, when trying to find a decent film to talk about, don’t leave it for the last minute.

If you really want to get some entertainment, I suggest watching the extended trailer for the 80’s action movie Deadly Prey , which soars to new heights of hilariousness.

I am not a Trekkie. And for a long time, a friend of mine, Edwin Chen, has been trying to turn me into one. I have long resisted, and have remained steadfast in my belief that it is not possible, but Edwin does not believe it to be true. So, we decided to [...]]]>

I am not a Trekkie. And for a long time, a friend of mine, Edwin Chen, has been trying to turn me into one. I have long resisted, and have remained steadfast in my belief that it is not possible, but Edwin does not believe it to be true. So, we decided to turn this into a bet of sorts: I would watch all of the original 6 Star Trek movies, and we would discuss each one in a blog format, a kind of back-and-forth discussion. Can I be converted? There’s only one way to find out. To begin, let’s return to 1979, and the movie that started it all: “Star Trek: The Motion Picture.”

ED: It’s a mere 3 months before I meet the great Bill Shatner, a.k.a. Captain James T. Kirk at the London Film and Comic Con. I struggled for a while as to how to best commemorate this occasion. And after I rejected the idea of a video of yet another Asian doing another painfully uncomfortable, sexually-laced and inappropriately crude roast of our favourite Enterprise captain, I decided to try to convert an otherwise Star Trek n00b by having them sit through the six original Star Trek movies. Oh yeah, you better believe that if there’s a religion for Jehovah’s Witnesses who bring the gospel of Gene Roddenberry to the masses instead, sign me up! Unfortunately, when I asked a few girls at work, they literally laughed in my face. And then, I realized I had the perfect n00b right in front of me! Greg, who had never seen a minute of Star Trek, took up my challenge to explore strange new worlds, to boldly go where every geekboy had gone before, by going ahead warp factor 10 into the original 6 movies. Hopefully, by the end, he won’t feel like he’s in some kind of a Kobiyashi Maru scenario (don’t worry Greg, by the end, you’ll know what all of that means). In fact, my private hope is that he’ll send me a picture of him doing the Vulcan hand signal when all this is over. So with that goal in mind, let’s go full speed ahead, and steady as she goes…

GREG: I suppose it’s about time. For the entirety of my 30-year life, I have never watched a single episode, nor a single motion picture set in the Star Trek universe. Well, that’s not entirely true – I did see the J.J. Abrams’ re-imagining, aptly named “Star Trek” last summer. But then, that movie was made for a person like me: a newbie, if you will. I absolutely loved that movie and thought it was quite impressive. So I suppose it was inevitable that I should go back and watch the original six movies, if for no other reason than to say that I’ve seen them. It may sound as though I’m not thrilled by this idea. Nothing could be further from the truth, actually. I consider myself to be quite the movie buff, but have always been reticent to enter the Star Trek world for a number of reasons. First of all, I’ve always felt like I missed the boat. By the time I was old enough to know about Star Trek, many movies had already been made, and a television series had come and gone. I was very worried that one wouldn’t even be able to watch the first movie without first going through the entire 3 seasons of the original show in order to understand the characters (and I still have no intention of ever watching the original TV series).

ED: Never say never, my friend.

GREG: Secondly, I was fairly worried that the movies would be extremely cheesy, low-budget type affairs.

ED: What are you talking about? Aren’t all rocks on alien planets made of styrofoam?

GREG: And finally, I suppose I’ve always kind of thought that the movies would be, quite frankly, dull. It seems to be a common belief that the Star Trek universe is more concerned with diplomatic affairs and heavy-handed lessons on morality than with action.

ED: Star Trek, heavy-handed? Nooo!!! Uhhh, well, maybe just a little. But Gene Roddenberry always had terrific social aspirations for this wagon ride through the stars. It’s difficult to imagine how stunning seeing something like Star Trek on television in the late ‘60s must have been. An Asian guy? A Russian? And did you know that the first interracial kiss ever on television was Kirk and Uhura’s liplock in season 2? Star Trek made history, baby!

GREG: So, with some prodding from Edwin, I finally decided to plunge into this final frontier, and watch these original movies once and for all, with my pair of virgin eyes, to see how good or bad these movies are, and how well they’ve aged over the decades.

ED: Thankfully poor Greg seems blissfully unaware of Star Trek odd-even rule. And also blissfully unaware that in order to get to the Star Trek goodness that is movies #2, 4 and 6, he must first endure the torture that is… “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”. You know, the one with the bald chick, V’ger and the minister from “7th Heaven”…

GREG: As the opening credits begin to roll on “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, and the score opens up in earnest, I have to say that I was quite moved. Now this, I thought, is how to start a space opera. I’m instantly convinced that John Williams has composed this score, only to find out that it is in fact Jerry Goldsmith who is the composer. Good for you Jerry, good for you. As the movie opens and characters are introduced, my first shock comes quite early: William Shatner is not “Captain Kirk” (as I have always heard him referred to), but is in fact “Admiral Kirk.” I suppose the idea is that he’s had a promotion in the time since the television show. It has also become apparent to me that one does not necessarily have to have seen the original television series, as time is given to introduce most characters. That being said, it is obvious that the movie is also not pretending the series did not exist: when characters encounter one another, it is clear that a past exists between them. This is never more obvious than when Spock first comes aboard the USS Enterprise. I’m happy that this is the case, and that they’re not assuming I know too much.

ED: This whole “Captain Kirk” or “Admiral Kirk” is something that doesn’t get resolved for a few more movies. But either way, he’s still a jerk. It’s interesting you note the history of the characters when they interact. Because of all the movies, the interaction between the characters in this movie is far and away the most stilted and impersonal and least Star Trek-ian. There is a very brief moment at the very end of the movie after the planet has been saved that the characters are permitted to indulge in a little banter, and that is more what we’re used to. But aside from that moment, this movie is totally bereft of any of the joy and camaraderie that is typical of Star Trek. Even Spock seems atypically stoic, even for a Vulcan. Hopefully, you’ll see what I’m talking about in the later movies.

GREG: I guess I can agree with that. I didn’t mean that the characters were impressive, just that it’s obvious that they know each other. Moving on, it becomes very obvious that the filmmakers were intending this movie to be “epic” in every sense of the word, almost as though they were told by the studio execs, “We’ve given you a lot of money, so don’t make this look like a low-budget TV show.” Sometimes this is a good thing, but far too often I find it to be a detriment to the story. For instance, the opening shot of the USS Enterprise, where Kirk is being shuttled aboard, is far…too…long. But even that is nothing compared to the end scene of the movie, when the Enterprise is coming upon V’Ger (the proposed enemy) for the first time. At one point I actually exclaimed out loud, “Okay – I get it.” These scenes were too obvious and were calling attention to themselves. Similar “epic” moments in other movies (from the same time period) were done much better, such as the opening scene of “Star Wars” or the entrance into the alien hive in “Alien.”

ED: With my re-watching, I found the same thing. It’s clear that this movie was intending to be another 2001: A Space Odyssey. The very, verrrry long scenes of simply going through weird V’ger clouds were clearly an homage (imitation) of Kubrick. Unfortunately, unlike 2001, which had a very focused narrative, the story here was chaos. The number of non-sequiturs (like the wormhole sequence, the transporter accident, and what the hell is a Deltan?) was mind-boggling, serving no purpose whatsoever. I later learned that it was likely the result of the two writers not talking to one another (how is this possible?) and ended up writing vastly differing scripts for the same screen, which drove Robert Wise, the director, totally insane. But to be fair to the scene where Kirk is shuttled aboard, that was for us fanboys. There’s something very special about the USS Enterprise, and that scene was like Star Trek porn to some extent, where we got to ogle her nacelles, main deflector dish, and her other under-regions, unashamedly.

GREG: Ha! Yes, that was total Star Trek porn. But since I had no history with the series, I didn’t really care about seeing the entire ship. More questions: what kind of crazy cameras are mounted on this spaceship? Why can they see directly into the cockpit of the Klingon ships right before they’re destroyed? And why, oh why, is everyone wearing a silver onesy as a uniform? These uniforms have the distinction of being too futuristic that they actually appear old – i.e. you can tell they were made in the ‘70s to look like they were from the future. Uhura’s hair doesn’t help either.

ED: Oh Greg, technical convenience for the sake of the plot is something you’ll get used to in Star Trek. How many times have we seen the transporter break literally the moment after they successfully beamed the captain onto the planet to fight some lizard dude, just so that no one can follow him down to help. So if they need a specific angle on the viewscreen to show you what the writer want to show you, they’ll come up with a way. As for the uniforms, those penguin suits were a bit too Buck Rogers for me. Thankfully, the uniforms improve significantly in the later movies, and though they look like lobster bibs at times, they’ll become the iconic Star Trek uniforms for the next 15 years.

GREG: Yeah, those costumes were atrocious. However, my major problem with this movie is the lack of a strong villain and a lack of any sort of action. A little more excitement could easily have been injected into the movie. I mean, I still don’t understand what V’Ger (the “villain”) is, or what it looks like! That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the twist that V’Ger, was actually the Voyager VI space probe sent into space by us humans to gather intelligence about the universe. THAT was brilliant. But to use this as the “villain” was kind of weak, and precluded any chance to have any sort of an action sequence. I give props to the filmmakers for not using a non-sensical action sequence just for the heck of it (as so often happens in movies nowadays), but I really would have liked to have seen SOMETHING exciting.

ED: In this way, this was kind of typical Star Trek. It might not necessarily make for great action movies, but I think I had mentioned in my critique of the J. J. Abrams movie before, Star Trek was always about something. It might be heavy-handed and crude in its depiction, but it was always meant to be cerebral. But that said, I agree that very VERY little happens in this movie. As someone once wrote: a better title would have been “Star Trek: The Motionless Picture”. As for the unsatisfying space creature villain come to destroy the planet Earth, well, that was soooo unsatisfying that we’ll see that again – but thankfully done better – in Star Trek IV.

GREG: Well, I guess I have something to look forward to. I can say that I enjoyed the movie enough. I certainly didn’t feel like I wasted my time, and it was better than I think I was expecting it to be. The visual effects were decent (i.e. not as good as “Star Wars” but not as bad as just about any other space-themed movie up until that point), the acting was average, the characters were slightly engaging, but the storyline was sub-par. The music, I must say, was excellent. All in all, I would have to rate this movie at a 6/10.

ED: Of the six movies, I had this as the second worst, so you were probably more generous than me (although I think after you telling me that Natalie Portman was hot in “V for Vendetta”, that you just have a thing for bald women). I gave it points for trying, something I appreciate more perhaps re-viewing it as an adult, but unfortunately, it still failed on too many counts. But hey, a bad Star Trek movie is still better than most movies, right! Don’t worry, you’ll come to agree with me by the time this is over, I’m sure! But the better news is this – if you tolerated this one, you’ll love what you have in store for you. The greatest sci-fi sequel of all time? Even better than The Empire Strikes Back? Aliens? Terminator 2? Some of you might think I’ve been in a Vulcan mind-meld too long, but I have but one word for you. KHHAAANNNN!!!!

I wanted to talk about how District 9 fails, and Avatar wins, but I think instead I will talk about a Romanian film about abortion. If you scroll down lower in the website you may come across my appeal for Cinematheque Ontario’s “Best of the Decade” film festival, which is a [...]]]>

I wanted to talk about how District 9 fails, and Avatar wins, but I think instead I will talk about a Romanian film about abortion. If you scroll down lower in the website you may come across my appeal for Cinematheque Ontario’s “Best of the Decade” film festival, which is a selection of artsy films from the last decade playing at the AGO’s Jackman Hall, presumably named after famed actor Hugh Jackman. Anyway, I went to see 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days. The film opened at the awesomely named Transilvania International Film Festival in 2007, and went on to world wide acclaim winning the Palme d’Or in the same year, and (probably) brought acknowledgement to the Romanian film industry. The film takes place in 80’s communist Romania, and follows two female college students over the course of a day as one of them attempts to get an abortion, which are illegal at the time.

The film is paced as an intense thriller as opposed to a period melodrama. I love thrillers, especially when you’re left begging the characters on the screen to just get the thing that you know they are going to do over with so that you can kindly excuse yourself to go change your pants. I think it is because I am really high strung, and I find it cathartic. As well, I was really happy that the movie avoided super depressing melodrama. That’s what seems to get critics going, a foreign movie that is a super depress fest where everyone get’s screwed in the end, but I think those movies blow. They’re like the cinematic equivalent of eating boiled eggplant: you’re told it’s enriching, but you hate enduring it. The biggest problem is that foreign melodramas can so easily become unreasonably contrived: while your heart eats itself, the film purports to be realistic. Critics use to eat that stuff up. You ever see anything by Lars Von Trier? Oh man! It’s like getting punched in the stomach. That is something I really liked about this film; it avoided over the top contrivances, making it infinitely more relatable and real, except for one part that really bugged me. With the risk of sounding offensive, how come in any movie when you have a black market dealer, they either proposition women for sex, or try to sell men something incredibly immoral and illegal (like a suitcase bomb), or proposition men for sex? Why can’t black market dealers just be all business? I mean don’t get me wrong, the whole scenario in the film was believable, but how come these women couldn’t find a Romanian Vera Drake?

Anyway, here’s a twist: the suspense didn’t have me the whole way. I was never in full crap-my-pants mode except for a couple of scenes, and I was wishing that I would be in cmp mode for the whole film. I only really got an appreciation for the movie afterwards talking to my buddy who was on edge of his seat throughout the movie. He made me realize how well made the movie was, and how strong all the characters were. The two protagonists are going through this terrifying situation, and you can tell that they didn’t know what to expect, but they are not wimps, and they show a great deal of bravery, as well as dimension. I think the suspense was lost on me, because I have the misfortune of lacking a viable uterus. I guess my friend doesn’t have a uterus either, and he really liked it. I’m trying to say the movie capably builds tension naturalistically, making you uncomfortable, and you cannot predict the outcome of any scene, but only imagine the worst. I just wasn’t as invested in the consequences as much as I was in say…No Country for Old Men or Inglourious Basterds, two films featuring manly-men like me. I think this is because maybe I don’t really relate with the protagonists, and the trials the heroines face are better suited for other women to watch. I think it is totally okay to make thrillers better suited for women because how many women watched 300 and were like “wow, its tough having all the testosterone!”  Also, I have a problem with the whole naturalistic style, which is popular these days. I will have to get into that later. You should watch this movie. I think it will be infinitely more engrossing if you are not a misogynistic cinema nerd like me. The characters are real and well acted, the story is well written, and best of all you leave the movie theatre (more like you close VLC) not feeling used by the director.

The best part of the film is that the setting makes it impossible to be remade by Hollywood. Well, that’s until Sarah Palin becomes president in 2012 and outlaws abortions. Then when her two terms are up and the Democrats take office again in 2020 the film can be remade with Dakota Fanning and Abigail Breslin, and will take place in Boston. That movie is going to win a shit-ton of Oscars. Mark my words.