Three "Star Trek" Clips

The world premeire of "Star Trek" has recently birthed high acclaim for Abrams' new movie. With it we have three new clips of the film showcasing a "Star Trek" that we have never seen before:

James T. Kirk hits on Uhura with some regrettable results:

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

Spock meets Scotty after he and Kirk beam on to the Enterprise:



And my favorite. I must have laughed at this 30 times. Why? Because I must have watched it 30 times. This is the introduction of Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy. This is the most impressive clip to me. Karl Urban has nailed the character. The way he talks, his facial expressions. I love how Urban, like DeForest Kelley, gives just a tiny hint of a southern accent to add to his paranoia. This clip is truly astounding to me:



"Star Trek" hits theaters next month. Let me know if a link goes dead.

REVIEW - "Fanboys" (2009)

It’s really scary how big the Star Wars universe has expanded. It’s gone from a trilogy of three movies to an epic six followed by a fountain of youth in merchandising, two television shows, video games and the proposed, upcoming live action television series. By now the world is starting to get sick of Star Wars and I’m in front of the line with that sentiment. So why is a movie about people who love Star Wars so attractive? “Fanboys,” in all its mayhem, manages to get people to remember why we love Star Wars—Even if you’re more of a Trek guy. Like me!

Placed six months before the release of “Star Wars – Episode 1,” a group of hardcore Star Wars fans embark on a journey to steal a rough copy of “Episode 1” before their friend dies of cancer. The trek (ha!) leads them into a fist fight with Ain’t it Cool News’s Harry Knowles, a Star Trek convention with William Shatner, a hospital run by Carrie Fisher and a courthouse ruled by Billy Dee Williams. Lets not forget the van they're traveling in has an interior dressed as the Millennium Falcon cockpit.

The plot, I’ve decided, is a work of comic genius. For those even sick of Star Wars, you can’t help but laugh at all the nuances that define nerdom. This is not only a movie made for Star Wars fans, but a love note for sci-fi nerds across the world. For everyone who has memorized the cast of Star Wars, suffered through Ain’t it Cool News’s overexcited reports, loved a plethora of genre films and spent a large amount of their lifespan on the internet… Welcome to your comedy paradise. It is both a pleasure and a sad thing that I can laugh at almost every joke and gimmick spewed on the screen without shame. At least not too much shame…

The cameos, however brief they are, are reeled out like moments lined up for the crowd to cheer. In any other movie this would be unacceptable. But because this film is about a group’s journey through total geekdom I found the brief moments with Kevin Smith and Billy Dee Williams to hysterical. Listen closely at Carrie Fishers’ cameo. Fans will love her exchange of dialogue with one of the fanboys.

While the journey is more exciting than the lead cast, the characters aren’t as stale and one-dimensional as one might think an internet surfing, Star Wars humping nerd would be. (At least not all of them.) I was actually surprised at the underdeveloped, yet appropriately effective love story subplot. And although I wasn’t fully convinced of the emotional story arc involving a dying friend seeing a Star Wars movie, I enjoyed the way it closed. The final monologue of the character I’m referring too is understandable and relatively moving. However, I’m afraid it might be the point of unintentional laughter for those outside the target audience. This leads me to the film’s ultimate downfall.

The movie is targeted at the geeks, the nerds and the “fanboys” of today. Granted, that’s a large community, but one that doesn’t exactly scream “majority.” As a love letter to fans, this movie may not be what everyone is expecting. Say, for example, I’d like to show this movie to my girlfriend. Well, she’d get a few things, I’m sure, but she wouldn’t quite grasp what makes the movie work for others. Knowing the reality of the world, taking the somber moments seriously becomes a problem. Or maybe I’m just too cynical?

Regardless of my feelings toward the film’s more serious moments, it delivers in spades with comedy. No its not for the whole world, its for the fanboys. And they—We, will no doubt hold this movie in high regard. It’s nice to remember why we love Star Wars again. And yet it’s equally hysterical that the reality of the franchise comes tumbling down on us with the movie's final line. At least we can laugh at it now... Right? Right?

*** out of ****

REVIEW - "Burn After Reading" (2008)

I love how the Oscar winning directors of the previous year’s best picture winner decided to follow up with something far less serious, but knowingly absurd. In some ways this attitude makes “Burn After Reading” funnier than it really is. Sure, we’ve all seen the Coen’s sense of humor go in better directions, (“The Big Lebowski” for example) but the spy genre has probably not experienced this much hysterical over-paranoia. For that alone I have to give the Coen Brothers credit.

When former CIA agent’s (John Malkovich) memoirs are found and misinterpreted by two over zealous gym employees, (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) they attempt to blackmail the government in to paying for liposuction surgeries. A married womanizer (George Clooney) becomes inadvertently involved with them and starts to believe he is being spied on. With everyone assuming one conspiracy or another, the CIA, meanwhile, has no clue what’s going on.

If you finish this film wondering what it was suppose to be about, don’t worry, you’re not alone. The best I can figure is the Coen Brothers wanted to twist the paranoia aspect connected to intelligence agencies to its fullest. By the end we understand that there was no intelligence behind any of it. In a sense it’s as if “Burn After Reading” is a long joke with a single punch line. If you can watch it with this in mind it can be a very rewarding experience. If not, you’ll be disappointed to know that “Burn After Reading” isn’t a continuous laugh-out-loud experience through and through.

To join us through the journey of the joke is John Malkovich at his best—His best being angry, loud and loaded with cursing. Equally as impressive is George Clooney’s perverse character. Clooney plays a man with such short moral standards that he has to cheat on his wife with multiple people before going insane with paranoia. His gimmicky wit and short bursts of overacting give the film some of its better moments. Ah, but what of Brad Pitt? Certainly assured, it’s a supporting role, but it was powerful enough to nearly steal the show. I don’t think Brad Pitt has gone this overboard since “12 Monkeys.” For those who want to see Brad Pitt unleashed, this is your chance.

The big question is, after the film ends its purposefully convoluted plot, does the proposed “punch line” deliver? For me, anything ending with J.K. Simmons is a fine way to go out, but truthfully, when all is said and done, there’s not too much to discuss. So the Coens spoofed the spy genre, furthermore, it was a much more respectable spoof than, say, “I Spy.” But I can’t help wondering if the Coens were trying to say more throughout the film. If so, it’s lost in its spider-web structure as an afterthought-- A recurring problem I’ve seen in other Coen Brother scripts.

It’s fun to at least note the prospect of deeper thought in this movie. Even if it doesn’t shine, the pieces make for a mildly entertaining comedy. Repeated viewings will be sparse with this one, but “Burn After Reading” is nothing to completely burn after watching. Like many CIA files I’m sure it’ll just collect a lot of dust.

**½ out of ****

New 'Trek' Posters Rock

"Star Trek" continues to boldly go where excitement lies, releasing some very charming posters that, while still utilize the floating head fad, also show us a bit more.



Of these two, the one with the Enterprise being thrashed by the Narada is my favorite. It's just too cool. Now for some more creative posters:




The poster of the Narada's drilling weapon firing in to San Fransisco Bay has become a fan favorite and its easy to see why. It really brings the movie 'down to earth' featuring a 'doom-and-gloom' image that's very rare with Star Trek. The final one is my personal favorite. A silhouetted Enterprise at warp gives the vague idea of just how scarce space can be, let alone how dangerous it is. I'm very captivated by that blurred image of the Enterprise. Way too cool. I simply can't wait for this flick.

Poll - How Did You Like The Watchmen?

While I thoroughly enjoyed "Watchmen," I couldn't quite call it the "Citizen Kane of superhero flicks" it had been hyped to be. I couldn't figure out why, exactly, it was a little muddled and I even stumble over that explanation in my own review. Simply put, I suppose, Zack Snyder could make the material look great, but he couldn't juggle it perfectly. This is either because the source material is too dense or Snyder simply not that "visionary director" some claim he is. (He's not.)

It appears that, according to the poll, some people seem to share my sentiments:

Masterpiece - 2 (22%)

Good movie, Not Great - 5 (55%)

Average - 2 (22%)

Terrible Film - 0 (0%)

As Far Away From The Novel And Good Filmmaking Can Get! - 0 (0%)

REVIEW - "Watchmen" (2009)

Who watches the Watchmen, and why should you? There’s been a lot of hype building toward this feature beginning with the controversial teaser from last year. Does it live up to it? Is it the perfect adaptation of the novel everyone has been talking about? Can people who haven’t read the book still enjoy the film? Yes and no, but it's still largely enjoyable.

“Watchmen” begins with the expected death of Edward Blake, a man who was known to the public as The Comedian. Outlawed vigilante Rorschach investigates and believes a “mask-killer” is picking off the now retired, and illegal, super heroes of the past. As the Watchmen dive deeper in to the mystery they unfold a conspiracy that shakes the foundation of everything they stood for.

The first thing to understand about “Watchmen” is it’s not your typical comic book, superhero flick. It’s not that action heavy and it explores the people behind the masks more than the masks themselves. Furthermore, it’s a movie made for the fans of the graphic novel. Zack Snyder should be commended for creating a film so close to the source material that even the simplest shots look like they were lifted from the page. That said, it’s almost as if “Watchmen” is a better companion piece to the book, than a standalone flick. Because of this I hope it encourages audiences to go out and grab the original material whether they liked the film or not.

As far as changes go, most were fine and largely needed to keep the film at a decent pace. The condensing of scenes such as Rorschach’s psychiatric analysis and Dan’s tour of his basement were fine if slightly uneven. The costumes that were altered were of no beef to me either. I actually prefer the Nite-Owl costume in the movie. (The Silk Spectre’s alterations are easy to live with considering how absurd she’s supposed to look anyway.)

The casting of this film was just about dead on. Patrick Wilson plays the perfect “everyman” that is Dan Dreiberg/Nite-Owl and Billy Crudup’s Dr. Manhattan is probably the best digital character brought to the screen. Sorry Gollum fans. The “Watchmen’s” big blue simply looks and feels more real than anything Jackson or Lucas has come up with.

The real show-stealer goes to the man with no face: Jackie Earle Haley’s Rorschach goes beyond expectations for his character. The casting could not have been more perfect. With a performance that borderlines “Oscar winner,” Rorschach comes to life as the most interesting, strangely lovable and thematically unstoppable force in the movie. Haley’s growl-like voice actually works better than Bale’s Batman and strikes a chord with, arguably, the most emotional scene in the film. (A massive spoiler toward the end I won’t give away to the less familiar.)

The few problems I had with the movie concern more trivial and technical aspects than overall enjoyment. For example, the only characters to kill anyone, or at least mentioned killing anyone in the book, were the Comedian and Rorschach. Seeing Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Jupiter take the lives of a few street thugs was strange. It seemed out of character for these ex-heroes. The same goes for Dr. Manhattan, although the flashback of him during the war is more excusable. And with all the amazing effects used to bring Manhattan to life, I found the make-up prosthetics for President Nixon absolutely laughable. It was terrible! He looked less like Nixon and more like a clown. Where’s Frank Langella when you need him?

Rolling back to Laurie Jupiter, Malin Akerman’s Silk Spectre II, (Laurie, for the less knowledgeable) she seems to be the film’s weakest link. With a script as decent as “Watchmen” it’s hard to really muck up the dialogue, but bravo Akerman! Her “Do it for me” line is just as poor as the trailer suggests, with Billy Crudup doing everything his digitalized face can do to save the scene. I'm still not sure if he did.

But in the end the only true detractor for the film is the loss of context from novel to movie. If writer Alan Moore meant that every aspect of “Watchmen’s” message being brought to the screen is impossible, then he’s right. Maybe it isn’t entirely "filmable." On the other hand what Snyder has brought to the table has proven otherwise. It is a movie, right? No, it doesn’t capture every grain of thought and majesty that makes the novel so captivating, but to this I ask, what adaptation does? Is "Jurassic Park" ridiculed for having almost nothing to do with the novel of the same name?

The movie isn’t a masterpiece by any stretch and it’s not the sure-to-be-classic “The Dark Knight” is destine to become, but it’s a fun companion piece and worth analyzing. It can be slightly confusing for those less familiar with the source material, and some of the potent ideas that were omitted from the film make it less significant than the novel. Not that I believe it was “dumbed down,” but Zack Snyder did the absolute best job anyone could to stay true to the source while appeasing outsiders. I can’t imagine there being a much better adaptation since the film has taken accuracy to a new level. “Watchmen” is a worthwhile movie, even if it seems to be daunted by the shadow of the novel.

*** out of ****

(Late) REVIEW - "Tropic Thunder" (2008)

Ben Stiller has never exactly been a favorite of mine. Everything he’s been in from “Zoolander” to “Night at the Museum” has been less than stellar… but certainly Stiller! See? That’s the kind of joke that this man evokes. A bad one. Who knew all it took was giving him a director’s chair and a script chronicling the behind-the-scenes banter of filmmaking we audiences are unaware of?

In an attempt to create a groundbreaking war movie based on the book of war vet, a washed up action star, Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), a drug savvy comedian, Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) and nine time Oscar winning playboy, Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) embark on a journey through the Vietnamese jungle that’s a little more real than they expect. When Tugg gets kidnapped the cast of Tropic Thunder must rescue him, while a foul mouth, money obsessed producer (Tom Cruise) breathes down the production of the film.

Truthfully, the plot sounds like a recipe for disaster. The movie could have easily been terrible. In fact, by all accounts it should have been terrible. Yet Stiller is able to parody the negative aspects of back-lot/on-location life with a bunch of brat actors so well, it’s hard not to love the film.

Very little is spared from this movie: Racism, mental retardation and homosexuality is added to the absurd mix of impossible Hollywood actors in a fashion “Family Guy” could never get away with. And, you know what? For once it’s funny. “Tropic Thunder” does not apologize for being as politically incorrect and unfriendly to these situations as possible. Nor should it. If you’re too sensitive to laugh about the flaws and obscurities in the world, don’t watch it.

Outside of the somewhat controversial comedy in the film, “Tropic Thunder” takes a hint from the amazing “Hott Fuzz” and shows just how ridiculous summer action flicks are. The difference here is the movie is full of actors, playing actors that are acting out sequences that define their careers. While these sequences are commonplace to them, the film actually makes the audience wonder if the stars have always looked this absurd in action.

As much as Ben Stiller wants to be the star of this film he makes a better director than actor. Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of an Austrailian actor, playing a black military hero from the 1960s is the film’s selling point. I’m not entirely sure how he got away with so much praise, but I’m glad he did. If he were any less stereotypical I might argue that he didn’t go far enough… Just saying….

However, I have to commend the audible, and physical return of Tom Cruise. His unbilled performance as a big-shot, short, hairy, bald, money loving, immoral and dancing movie producer is one of the most shocking performances I had seen all year. It nearly got to the point where I wanted to see more of him and less of the Tropic Thunder cast lurking in the jungle. Whenever Cruise was onscreen laughter and alarm attacked my soul. “How could this be Tom Cruise?” I still ask this question, but find it best to accept what’s on screen and move on.

The film’s finale offers exactly what the audience wants it too. Explosions, gun fire, the most gratuitous “character developing” dialogue I’ve ever heard and more Tom Cruise dancing. Well, okay, maybe that last one isn’t what everyone wants, but its there. I won’t say “Tropic Thunder” is comedic genius, but it’s certainly the funniest movie I’ve seen since “Hot Fuzz.” (A hard task to live up too.) In a time where comedies aren’t very funny, especially ones from Ben Stiller, “Tropic Thunder” is able to fly by everything that should have tanked it and become delightfully absurd. Don’t miss the “trailers” at the beginning.

*** out of ****

TRAILER - Star Trek (Trailer 3)

I'm not sure what to say. I'm speechless. We've seen that "Star Trek" will be quite the action flick in past trailers, but this is different. It reveals more story and gives off a new feel of grandeur. I can already feel geekbumps mounting on mine and others arms as Kirk sits in the captains chair for the first time.

Absolutely beautiful trailer. Very different from the last few and, ultimately, quite breathtaking.



Trek has become my number one movie to see this year; May 8th can't come fast enough.

TRAILER - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Trailer 4)

Harry Potter 6 strikes again. The new trailer doesn't exactly show much new, but it's exciting none-the-less. I prefer the previous trailer myself though.

TRAILER - X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Trailer 3)

I have to admit, the trailer does look cool... So how come I have such cold feet about this? It seems like the trailers are trying too hard now. What we're all hoping will be a good movie is still coming from Fox, a studio that decided to slice down the director's cut of this film way below two hours. A studio with a CEO that saw fit to "lighten" the movie's appearance and get in the way of the director's vision. A studio that... well has only made one or two decent flicks in the last few years.

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" looks fun. But it's sad that it only looks fun considering we've seen the X-Men franchise do better. (The third movie tore that image down.) Take a look. What do you think?